News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[quadraphonics]

I think when you bring 6,700 nuclear warheads to the table you are guaranteed a seat at the game.

For the time being, yes. But a serious case can be made that the era of MAD is nearing its end:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Note that this power differential is driven by precisely spending power. I.e., any attempt by Russia to close the (growing) gap in nuclear capabilities can be easily outstripped by NATO.

as above

So... the fact that Russia has a few thousand warheads means they can take inexpensive measures (what, exactly?) that require exorbitant countermeasures (such as..?). Okay... what's to stop the United States, which also has thousands of warheads, from taking similar inexpensive measures that will require Russia to pursue exorbitant countermeasures?

What a sad and rather silly perception. Britain and France fought for hundreds of years but now work together as equal partners and there is absolutely no reason why Russia could not do the same with it's former foes.

I note that Britain and France only stopped fighting and got along once a larger common threat arose (first Germany, then the USSR). I see no such unifying pressure pushing Europe and Russia together.

The cold war was a battle of ideologies. The Russian held ideology is gone, finished, kaput and so there is no longer any need for any enmity between Russia and the West as the causa bella is gone.

The Cold War was a battle of interests, heightened by differences in ideology. While the one ideology has disappeared, it does not follow that the other ideology took its place and, in any case, the divergent interests remain. Russia views the independence of its neighboring states as a threat to itself; this conception is irreconcilable with peaceful relations.

But, yes, it is within Russia's power to pursue a different, more benign, more productive approach, and it is within the power of the Russian people to bring this about. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yes, France and Britain reached an accord in 1904 (The Entente Cordiale) whereby they agreed not to threaten each other or interfere in each other's spheres of influence. Russia was then included in this accord in 1907.

It sounds very like what Russia is looking for now.

The difference being, of couse, that Russia's "sphere of influence" includes several sovereign countries in Europe, and not just some distant colonies full of unwashed heathens as was the case with the Entente Cordial (and a unified Germany was breathing down both their necks, not to mention a surging America across the pond). "Noninterference is Russia's sphere of influence" means exactly the consignment of the Baltic, Ukraine and Caucusus to a status of Russian vassal states. I say if they want their empire back, they can damned well fight for it. Crushing the freedom and sovereignty of the millions who inhabit those states in the hopes of appeasing Russia's appetite for domination is the worst idea I've heard in ages.

By the way, it absolutely astounds me to hear someone use the phrase "sphere of interest" with a straight face in this context. Usually the only people who would be caught using that turn of phrase are self-avowed "hard-nosed realists" that openly support the use of force to achieve geopolitical aims. Not really the sort of people that I imagine you want to be cribbing notes from.

 

[meopemuk]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate! Previously, such a luxury was allowed only to the United States (perhaps, also Israel?). Now there is Russia too. Deal with it.

 

[WmLambert]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate! Previously, such a luxury was allowed only to the United States (perhaps, also Israel?). Now there is Russia too. Deal with it.

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking. The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

 

[quadraphonics]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate!

Right, like in Chechnya, where Russia killed tens of thousands of Russian citizens. It's hard to have much sympathy for Russian actions considering that the "citizens" in question were endangered exactly by a crisis that Russia deliberately created. Especially considering that the designation of these people as "citizens" was one of things done to deliberately provoke a crisis in the first place.

I put "citizens" in quotes because it's not clear to me that these people actually carried the responsibilities and privileges that are associated with citizens. Were they able to vote in Russian elections? Did they pay Russian taxes? Serve in Russian juries? It's not even clear that they enjoyed freedom of travel inside Russia itself. The whole thing seems like little more than a pretext for invasion of Georgia. That so many people seem to fall for it is sad.

 

[baywax]

The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

Did they use Shock and Awe?

 

[meopemuk]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

I respectfully disagree, the people we are talking about refused Georgian citizenship, because they were brutalized by the Georgian government in the early 1990's. So they turned to Russia for protection. When a country grants you its citizenship it (among other things) promises to protect you wherever you are to the best of its abilities. This idea was invoked by the U.S. on many occasions in order to overthrow non-conforming regimes, even though no U.S. citizens were actually killed. The examples of Grenada in 1983 (no US citizens were killed prior to the invasion, as far as I know) and Panama in 1989 (1 U.S. marine was killed) come to mind.

But even if we assume that no Russian citizens were harmed during the Georgian invasion, Russia had an internationally recognized peacekeeping agreement with Georgia and South Ossetia. So, legally it was responsible for the lives of people living in S.O. and had the right to interfere.

 

[Art]

The difference being, of couse, that Russia's "sphere of influence" includes several sovereign countries in Europe, and not just some distant colonies full of unwashed heathens as was the case with the Entente Cordial (and a unified Germany was breathing down both their necks, not to mention a surging America across the pond). "Noninterference is Russia's sphere of influence" means exactly the consignment of the Baltic, Ukraine and Caucusus to a status of Russian vassal states. I say if they want their empire back, they can damned well fight for it. Crushing the freedom and sovereignty of the millions who inhabit those states in the hopes of appeasing Russia's appetite for domination is the worst idea I've heard in ages.

By the way, it absolutely astounds me to hear someone use the phrase "sphere of interest" with a straight face in this context. Usually the only people who would be caught using that turn of phrase are self-avowed "hard-nosed realists" that openly support the use of force to achieve geopolitical aims. Not really the sort of people that I imagine you want to be cribbing notes from.

I suggest you research the difference between a 'sphere of influence' and a 'sphere of interest' then get back to me

 

[quadraphonics]

I suggest you research the difference between a 'sphere of influence' and a 'sphere of interest' then get back to me

There is no substantiative difference between the two terms, which is why I used them interchangeably. I suggest that you develop a more graceful, less condescending way of retreating from poorly-considered positions.

 

[Art]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking. The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

You do know after Britain's withdrawal all citizens of the former British Empire were eligible for British citizenship don't you? An exception being Hong Kong because they feared they might have trouble accommodating 10 million or so immigrants in England so they only issued Hong Kong millionaires with British passports

So to clarify, are you saying all these people from former members of the British Empire have acted illegally in taking British citizenship and their adopted citizenship is invalid under international law?

Care to cite a source to support your assertion??

 

[Art]

There is no substantiative difference between the two terms, which is why I used them interchangeably. I suggest that you develop a more graceful, less condescending way of retreating from poorly-considered positions.

A sphere of influence is a stronger tie where the dominant power exerts a strong indirect control over the economy, culture, military etc of countries within the sphere. The old USSR being a good example.

A sphere of interest is a weaker tie whereby a major power expresses a special interest in states (normally neighbouring states) which they believe could threaten their own security and so resist the encroachment of other major powers into that territory. The US and Cuba for example, or Russia and Georgia if you like.

At the moment in Georgia we are seeing America's ever expanding sphere of influence (NATO being the vehicle) clashing with Russia's sphere of interest.

 

[quadraphonics]

A sphere of influence is a stronger tie where the dominant power exerts a strong indirect control over the economy, culture etc of countries within the sphere. The old USSR being a good example.

A sphere of interest is a weaker tie whereby a major power expresses a special interest in states which they believe could threaten their own security and so resist the encroachment of other major powers into that territory. The US and Cuba for example, or Russia and Georgia if you like.

Am I to understand that you do not consider the US to exert strong indirect control over the economy and culture of Cuba, or Russia on those of Georgia? In the real world, strong countries (i.e., the types that have "spheres" outside their own borders in the first place) tend to make a point of extending their influence to be coterminous with their interests. How else are you supposed to resist the encroachment of other major powers into said territories? Which is why the two terms are used interchangeably.

Anyway, this is a diversion. The exact same criticism applies to your rosy depiction of the Entente Cordial, and Russia's current geopolitical aims, regardless of which term of art is employed. Any way you cut it, you're talking about a deal between big powers to divide up the smaller states among them, with no consideration of the rights of said smaller states.

 

[Minich]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law.

Russia recognizes international law, if international law doesn't contradict Russian law )

Does USA recognize international law, if international law contradicts USA law?

Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

If USA gives somebody a paper, that he is now the citizen of USA, is it wrong, that he is the sitizen of USA?

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking.

Is it the old Strategic Defence Initiative and Chirchil old Fulton's paranoia speaking ?.

The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

Why does NATO circle around Russia's borders with military bases? Does NATO afraid of Russia?

And finally. Is Saakashvily the CIA agent? Why does he bevave as provocator and does everything to involve NATO countries to military conflict with Russan nuclear power?

Is he mad?

Don't You know, that in Caribbian crisis USSR and USA agreed:
USSR withdraw missiles from Cuba. USA withdraw missiles from Turkey.
Now USA missiles will go to Poland, do You want russian missiles in Cuba again or in Venezuela?

Does USA want to balance with nuclear power?!
Mad politicians are going to power!

Where was the international law, when USA's military planes regularly flight over USSR territory until 1961 when U-2 plane was fighted down with our missile near Ekaterinburg? Ekaterinburg is in the MIDDLE of USSR territory! Why to flight over Kiev and even Moscow in 1961 was lawfull?

Does USA have the right to teach others? If racism oficially existed recently. What Kennedy was killed for?
Was Dallas racist free then? What Marthin Luter King was killed for?

Why georgian young boys and russian young boys must kill each other?

If Gamsahurdia (1st president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins, if Shevardnadse (2nd president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins and abhasians, If Saakashvily (3d president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins, using USA money, USA technics, USA military advisors WHERE do ossetins go then?

If West Germany and East Germany is now united, why is South Ossetia can't unite with North Ossetia?

They always lived together except after USSR Greate Criminal Revolution of 1991 when extreme nationalists came to power in USSR fragments and began ethnic clashes.

 

[quadraphonics]

So to clarify, are you saying all these people from former members of the British Empire have acted illegally in taking British citizenship and their adopted citizenship is invalid under international law?

The kicker here is not the validity of the citizenships per se, but the validity of subsequent actions based on citizenship status. As you say, England didn't issue passports to everyone in Hong Kong because it couldn't resettle that many people in England. But this brings up the crucial point: by accepting British citizenship, and refusing Chinese citizenship, those people would have been giving up their right to live in China, and so it would have been perfectly legal for the Chinese government to arrest, imprison and deport them, and Britain would have had to accept them as residents. It would not have been legitimate for Britain to issue all those passports, and then invade China when Beijing rightfully, lawfully began rounding up all those non-citizens, and then annex Hong Kong. It also would not have been legitimate for said British citizens to resist Chinese efforts to expel them.

Applying this to Georgia, we see that if we consider South Ossetians to be Russian citizens, then they have given up their right to live in Georgia, and the Georgian government is not obliged to respect their desire to reside within its borders. It would have been perfectly legal for Georgia to round them all up and dump them at the Russian border. Indeed, the only thing that prevented them from doing so was armed resistance from Ossetians, with backing from Russia. Granting people citizenship is fine as long as you actually treat them like citizens. But that is not what happened here. Indeed, Russia claims to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, which would imply that those people are *not* now Russian citizens.

 

[Art]

For the time being, yes. But a serious case can be made that the era of MAD is nearing its end:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Note that this power differential is driven by precisely spending power. I.e., any attempt by Russia to close the (growing) gap in nuclear capabilities can be easily outstripped by NATO.

So the advantage of being able to wipe out all life on the planet 10 times over whilst your adversary can only do it 3 times over is what exactly??

So... the fact that Russia has a few thousand warheads means they can take inexpensive measures (what, exactly?) that require exorbitant countermeasures (such as..?). Okay... what's to stop the United States, which also has thousands of warheads, from taking similar inexpensive measures that will require Russia to pursue exorbitant countermeasures?

America can't launch a ground offensive into Russia whereas the Russians can launch a ground offensive into the countries of America's European allies. See Georgia for a recent example. Which btw will cost the American taxpayer $2.3 billion if the US gov't accedes to Georgia's request for monetary aid.

I note that Britain and France only stopped fighting and got along once a larger common threat arose (first Germany, then the USSR). I see no such unifying pressure pushing Europe and Russia together.

It may surprise you but a lot of Europeans feel they have a lot more in common with Russia than they do with the US. Which might explain why the US appears to be so keen to drive a wedge between them. A unified Europe which included Russia would be a serious challenge to American hegemony.

The Cold War was a battle of interests, heightened by differences in ideology.

The cold war was totally about different ideologies or every politician who breathed during that time lied. Not impossible but unlikely

While the one ideology has disappeared, it does not follow that the other ideology took its place and, in any case, the divergent interests remain. Russia views the independence of its neighboring states as a threat to itself; this conception is irreconcilable with peaceful relations.

I don't believe Russia has any problem whatsoever with former members of the USSR being independent, as I understand it the problem arises when these states abrogate their independence to the USA through NATO.

But, yes, it is within Russia's power to pursue a different, more benign, more productive approach, and it is within the power of the Russian people to bring this about. I'm not holding my breath, though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IMO Russia has shown great restraint under great provocation for some years now.

 

[Art]

The kicker here is not the validity of the citizenships per se, but the validity of subsequent actions based on citizenship status. As you say, England didn't issue passports to everyone in Hong Kong because it couldn't resettle that many people in England. But this brings up the crucial point: by accepting British citizenship, and refusing Chinese citizenship, those people would have been giving up their right to live in China, and so it would have been perfectly legal for the Chinese government to arrest, imprison and deport them, and Britain would have had to accept them as residents. It would not have been legitimate for Britain to issue all those passports, and then invade China when Beijing rightfully, lawfully began rounding up all those non-citizens, and then annex Hong Kong. It also would not have been legitimate for said British citizens to resist Chinese efforts to expel them.

Applying this to Georgia, we see that if we consider South Ossetians to be Russian citizens, then they have given up their right to live in Georgia, and the Georgian government is not obliged to respect their desire to reside within its borders. It would have been perfectly legal for Georgia to round them all up and dump them at the Russian border. Indeed, the only thing that prevented them from doing so was armed resistance from Ossetians, with backing from Russia. Granting people citizenship is fine as long as you actually treat them like citizens. But that is not what happened here. Indeed, Russia claims to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, which would imply that those people are *not* now Russian citizens.

That's exactly what Idi Amin said when he kicked out 50,000 British citizens from Uganda. You are in good company it seems, though unfortunately, for your argument, the rest of the world did not see it that way.

 

[mheslep]

...They always lived together except after USSR Greate Criminal Revolution of 1991 when extreme nationalists came to power in USSR fragments and began ethnic clashes.

Makes one want to burst out in http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20070929kldcg/anthem-sovietunion-1977-redarmy.mp3" .

Unbreakable union of freeborn republics
Great Russia has welded forever to stand!
Created in struggle by will of the people
United and mighty, our Soviet land!

CHORUS:
Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,
Bulwark of people, in brotherhood strong!
Oh! Party of Lenin! The strength of the people.
To Communism's triumph lead us on!

I thought they were just kidding about the 'unbreakable union ... forever' part, just a catchy verse and all that. Silly me.

 

[quadraphonics]

So the advantage of being able to wipe out all life on the planet 10 times over whilst your adversary can only do it 3 times over is what exactly??

Nothing. But if you'd read the article, you'd understand that there's a great advantage to being able to wipe out your adversary's nuclear arsenal before he has time to use it against you. The measure of a nuclear arsenal is not so much the scale of its destructive power (pretty much all sizeable nuclear arsenals are sufficiently terrible), but its stealth, survivability and speed. That Russia might have a mountain of warheads sitting around does them no good if their ICBMs, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile subs have already been destroyed. They are at that point at the total mercy of a hostile power with the ability to demolish their cities and infrastructure with total impunity.

America can't launch a ground offensive into Russia whereas the Russians can launch a ground offensive into the countries of America's European allies. See Georgia for a recent example.

And what are the exorbitant costs to America of this action? A few shiploads of ammo and guns for Georgia? The embarassment of having to admit that, indeed, we are presently tied down in Iraq? The costs to Russia don't seem particularly insignificant to me either.

A unified Europe which included Russia would be a serious challenge to American hegemony.

It's no secret that it has long been a basic plank of US foreign policy that the domination of either Europe or Asia by a single power is unacceptable. But in this instance, America isn't having to work terribly hard to push Europe and Russia apart: the whole blitzkrieg on Georgia pretty much accomplished that.

The cold war was totally about different ideologies or every politician who breathed during that time lied. Not impossible but unlikely

Please produce a single example of a politician that doesn't lie constantly. Viewing conflicts in ideological terms is great for mobilizing public opinion, and maintaining solidarity. But there is no war without conflicting interests. There still would have been a Cold War if the USSR wasn't communist; it's just the America might not have won.

I don't believe Russia has any problem whatsoever with former members of the USSR being independent, as I understand it the problem arises when these states abrogate their independence to the USA through NATO.

It is the prerogative of independent states to freely sign whatever type of treaty they wish, with whomever they wish. The difference Russia cares about is not independence, but vulnerability to Russian aggression.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IMO Russia has shown great restraint under great provocation for some years now.

I must not have noticed the restraint between the rape of Chechnya, the assassinations of dissidents in foreign countries, the energy blackmail and the invasion of neighboring states.

 

[quadraphonics]

That's exactly what Idi Amin said when he kicked out 50,000 British citizens from Uganda.

Comparing people to Idi Amin is something Hitler would do.

 

[Art]

Comparing people to Idi Amin is something Hitler would do.

Tut tut ... I said your argument was the same one Idi Amin used when he expelled his Asian population; that is simply a fact, and it is also a fact the rest of the world did not agree with his policy of forced repatriation.

The US ambassador at the time, Thomas Patrick Melady, described Amin's regime as "racist, erratic and unpredictable, brutal, inept, bellicose, irrational, ridiculous, and militaristic", so that's what he thought of your argument.

 

[Minich]

Right, like in Chechnya, where Russia killed tens of thousands of Russian citizens. It's hard to have much sympathy for Russian actions considering that the "citizens" in question were endangered exactly by a crisis that Russia deliberately created. Especially considering that the designation of these people as "citizens" was one of things done to deliberately provoke a crisis in the first place.

In Ossetia and in Chechnia russian army defended russian citizens. Do You know that the capital of Chechnia was founded by Russian? Do You know that in Chechnia mafia came to power those days? Slave's trade, extreme islamic laws, death casualties according to islamic law, public murdering,...
Did You heard of head cutting with knives (even british citizens)?...
300 000 refugees (russian and CHECHEN!).

Do You know that our army in Ossetia was headed by 2 chechnia rifle companies "Vostok"?

I put "citizens" in quotes because it's not clear to me that these people actually carried the responsibilities and privileges that are associated with citizens. Were they able to vote in Russian elections? Did they pay Russian taxes? Serve in Russian juries? It's not even clear that they enjoyed freedom of travel inside Russia itself. The whole thing seems like little more than a pretext for invasion of Georgia. That so many people seem to fall for it is sad.

I answer your question:
Yes, they can vote as russian citizens.
Yes they pay taxes as russian citizens, rouble is accepted everywhere in Ossetia.
We only have several cases of juries in ALL Russia.
They have ALL rights as russian citizens!
Why is it sad that ossetins want to live with North ossetins as a united small nation?

 

[meopemuk]

Applying this to Georgia, we see that if we consider South Ossetians to be Russian citizens, then they have given up their right to live in Georgia, and the Georgian government is not obliged to respect their desire to reside within its borders. It would have been perfectly legal for Georgia to round them all up and dump them at the Russian border. Indeed, the only thing that prevented them from doing so was armed resistance from Ossetians, with backing from Russia. Granting people citizenship is fine as long as you actually treat them like citizens. But that is not what happened here. Indeed, Russia claims to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, which would imply that those people are *not* now Russian citizens.

If we perform this legalistic exercise, why don't we start with 1991 when USSR was dissolved? Under the Soviet Constitution (whether you like it or not it was the only legal document applicable at that time) a Soviet republic (Georgia in this case) had the right to leave the Union. However in that case autonomous regions within that republic (i.e., Adjaria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia in our case) had the right to decide (by referendum) whether they want to stay within the republic or be independent. There were referenda held in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where people decided to be independent from Georgia. So, if we want to stay within international law, the Georgian government of Gamsakhurdia should have let them go. But he arranged military assaults on these breakaway regions. At this point all legalistic considerations go down the toilet. Georgians were first to break the international law and to create this legal conundrum.

Then in the absence of firm legal ground for the existence of the two breakaway regions, some new legal framework was created with the sponsorship of Russia. This framework included internationally recognized agreements between the parties, with peacekeepers etc.
Russia also recognized the territorial integrity of Georgia all the way. So far so good, some kind of legal order (good or bad) was being established. One could build upon this order and solve all disputes by negotiations as civilized people. But again Georgians decided to break this order and invade South Ossetia. So, who is violating the law here?

 

[quadraphonics]

Tut tut ... I said your argument was the same one Idi Amin used when he expelled his Asian population; that is simply a fact, and it is also a fact the rest of the world did not agree with his policy of forced repatriation.

It is quite impossible to separate the reactions of other countries to a particular Ugandan policy from their overall stance towards the regime, which was tied up with various Cold War and post-Colonial concerns, as well as other policies, or from the details of how the policy was implemented (deporting non-citizens is one thing; brutalizing and dispossessing them is quite another). Suffice it to say that I have a hard time viewing the disapproval as anything other than heavily politicized; it is very far from a dispassionate legal position on the right of a sovereign government to expel non-citizens. And let me also add that I don't think that such forced repatriations were a good idea either, nor would it have been a good idea for Georgia to force the South Ossetians into North Ossetia. But the question of whether it is a good idea, or a nice thing to do, is very much separate from the question of whether a government is within its right to expel non-citizens. Which, of course, it is. Everyone agrees with this, and the fact that you can find an instance in which it was internationally unpopular to do so does not change that. Indeed, it is little more than a childish tactic to associate me with Idi Amin, a tyrant I rightly despise.

For that matter, I have yet to hear you actually disagree with the assertion in question.

The US ambassador at the time, Thomas Patrick Melady, described Amin's regime as "racist, erratic and unpredictable, brutal, inept, bellicose, irrational, ridiculous, and militaristic", so that's what he thought of your argument.

No, that's what he thought he should be heard to say about Amin's regime. Please desist in these silly games.

 

[quadraphonics]

If we perform this legalistic exercise, why don't we start with 1991 when USSR was dissolved? Under the Soviet Constitution (whether you like it or not it was the only legal document applicable at that time)

By definition, the dissolution of the USSR means that the Soviet Constitution was no longer applicable.

a Soviet republic (Georgia in this case) had the right to leave the Union.

Of course, in practice, any attempt to exercise supposed rights to determine one's own relationship with the USSR resulted immediately in Soviet tanks rampaging into your cities. Not much have changed in that regard.

Russia also recognized the territorial integrity of Georgia all the way.

All the way up to issuing Russian passports to people that lived in Georgia's territory, and sponsoring and arming violent separatist movements.

One could build upon this order and solve all disputes by negotiations as civilized people.

No, this "order" was designed by Russia to force Georgia to either cede territory to Russia, or face war. It is a legalistic exercise in creating a pretext for violent aggression.

But again Georgians decided to break this order and invade South Ossetia. So, who is violating the law here?

The Ossetians who provoked the Georgian response, and the Russian sponsors who told them to do so. Not that being powerful enough to craft a "law" that allows you to achieve your (violent, aggressive) aims counts for much in the first place.

 

[meopemuk]

By definition, the dissolution of the USSR means that the Soviet Constitution was no longer applicable.

Well, contrary to your extreme views, Gorbachev, El'tsyn, and other leaders tried to arrange the inevitable split of the USSR by adhering to the existing laws as much as possible (recognized Soviet borders between republics, etc.). If they haven't done that and permitted anarchic free-for-all, we would have had such a blood-bath that Yugoslavian tragedy would look like a Sunday picnic in comparison.

 

[WmLambert]

One Russian report, is an interview of the leader of the South Ossetian Separatists saying what happened in the Georgian enclaves. The interview needs to be run through a translator, but after doing so, and getting other Russian-speakers to tweak it for comprehension (Russian does not translate word-for-word easily): this is the gist:

...they killed everyone who was there, "but there were no civilians, only Georgian troops, because they had been transported out of the area by Georgians before the attacks, ... but in the place there were some civilians they let them out". They also have no intention to let Georgian civilians back in their villages in S.O.

(The translator explained: "This is an interesting way to say that they killed everyone ... but did not killed civilians, isn't it?"

...Russia began giving the Ossetins - separatists (not ethnic Russians !) Russian Passports.

From what I know, those people can not actually live in Russia, not even buy a real estate there.

The reason for this is that in addition to the citizenship, there is still so called "propiska" in Russia, which is something like a citizenship of a particular city, or a permit to live in a certain place.

In particular, you might have heard that the police in Moscow have been checking the passports of anyone who does not look like Russian for the "propiska" and they are basically considered a kind of "illegal immigrants" to Moscow.

These checks especially especially concerns people who look like those born in Caucasian republics (dark headed people with dark eyes).

(Of course, the police also forces other "illegal workers" to give them bribes, like Ukrainians trying to make some bucks, but the people from the mountain republics looks much more different and easier to recognize).

From what I can see in the current Russian movies and can read in the Russian discussion boards, the current "propiska" works exactly as it did during the USSR.

BTW, as long as S.O. is considered under Russian protection, those people won't even be considered as refugees and therefore wont' get an emergency right to move in Russia.

 

[meopemuk]

One Russian report, is an interview of the leader of the South Ossetian Separatists saying what happened in the Georgian enclaves.

Here is my translation:

Kommersant (Russian newspaper) 08.15.2008

Eduadr Kokoity: we have leveled almost everything there.

The president of the non-recognized republic South Ossetia arrived in Moscow yesterday together with the Abkhazian leader Sergey Bagapsh. Kokoity told our correspondent
Alexander Gabuev about the fate expecting Georgian villages in the conflict zone.

-- How the defense of Tshinvali was organized? Why several weeks before the operation Georgians took almost without resistance some key heights such as Sarabuki?

E.K. I wouldn't say so. These heights have been taken by Georgians in the course of operation that they conducted. Priss heights remained in the hands of
Ossetians until the last moment, until the arrival of Russian troops. When street fights erupted in Tshinvali, our guys regrouped.
We had our plan for the defense of the city. According to this plan we annihilated the aggressor.

-- But Russian troops didn't come very soon?

E.K. I am proud of the Tshinvali's defenders, soldiers and officers of the South Ossetian Ministry of Defense who held the advance [of Georgians] and haven't surrendered the
capitol to the enemy.

-- After the liberation of Tshinvali and Ossetian villages the military actions were transferred to Georgian enclaves. What is there now?

E.K. Nothing. We practically leveled everything. Established the border of South Ossetia.

-- There were reports of maraudering in Georgian villages...

E.K. Yes, there were marauders, but these are consequences of any aggression, any war. We reacted harshly to all these facts.

-- I understand that you "cleaned up" everybody over there?

E.K. Yes. I mean peaceful residents were evacuated from there, nobody was there except Georgian troops. What regards civilians in those places, we, in contrast
to Georgian troops, left for them
a corridor and gave them an opportunity to get out. I want to assure you one more time, that factually there was nobody in the enclaves. They [Georgians] moved everybody out
before the events - we had interceptions [of conversations]. The Georgian side has been seriously preparing for the aggression. They moved out people from there, they also
evacuated their so-called alternative government (pro-Georgian temporary administration of South Ossetia headed by Dmitry Sanakoev.)

-- Does it mean that Georgian anclaves are practically annihilated?

E.K. What? Should we allowed them to shoot at us from there? Shoot again at our backs and scoff our people?

-- Will you allow Georgian civilians to return back there?

E.K. We are not going to let anybody in. More than 18000 Ossetian refugees from Georgia are now in North Ossetia. We must return them to South Ossetia.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Nicaragua first country other than Russia to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Nicaragua has become the first country outside Russia to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Central American state’s President, Daniel Ortega, said he backs Russia in its efforts to end tension in the Caucasus.
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29888"

Other countries that are likely to recognize theses Caucasus countries are Venezuela and Belarus. I also believe Ecuador might recognize them (Rafael Correa is very close to Chavez, if Venezuela recognizes other latin american countries will follow). Russia says it expects like 10 countries (No doubt Russia can pull some strings to get at least 5 countries to recognize) to do the recognition.

 

[WmLambert]

Reports of unrest against Saakashvilii appear to be more disinformation.

1 Million Georgians Rally Against Moscow
02 September 2008
TBILISI, Georgia -- More than 1 million people across Georgia protested Russian military action and the Kremlin's backing for the country's two separatist regions.

Many waving the red-and-white Georgian flag, protesters linked arms in the capital, Tbilisi, in a human chain that snaked through the city under cloudy skies.

Flags flew from balconies and protesters chanted "Long Live Georgia!" and "Stop Russia!"

Countrywide, police said more than 1 million people took part in what authorities said was a show of unity after Russia last month crushed a Georgian bid to retake breakaway South Ossetia from pro-Moscow separatists.

The figure, which could not be independently confirmed, would account for more than one-fifth of the country's 4.5 million population.

"Today we can say Georgia is not alone because the whole world is standing beside us," President Mikheil Saakashvili told the crowd on Tbilisi's Freedom Square.

Moscow poured tanks and troops across its southern border to repel the Georgian assault ordered by Saakashvili, and last week recognized South Ossetia and a second breakaway region, Abkhazia, as independent states.

"This brutal power decided that the revival of Russian imperialism would start in Georgia, but I would like to tell [Russia] that this revival will be buried for good in Georgia," Saakashvili said.

He said Monday's protest marked the largest gathering in Georgia since the country of split from the Soviet Union in 1991.

"It's a day of unity," said artist Natela Zarandia. "We want to show the entire world that Georgians are not afraid of anything, and I hope the world will hear our message."

 

[baywax]

Nicaragua first country other than Russia to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia.



Other countries that are likely to recognize theses Caucasus countries are Venezuela and Belarus. I also believe Ecuador might recognize them (Rafael Correa is very close to Chavez, if Venezuela recognizes other latin american countries will follow). Russia says it expects like 10 countries (No doubt Russia can pull some strings to get at least 5 countries to recognize) to do the recognition.

Let's not confuse a "country" with its "administration". The actual citizens of Nicaragua, Venezuela etcetra could probably give a flying **** what the administrations of Russia and outer Mongolia are up to.

 

[meopemuk]

Have you seen this video?

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29914/video

The voice that you hear on the background is Georgian not Russian.

 

[mjolnir80]

IMO russia's only intention was to create a bad name for georgia so investors think twice about investing in the country and therefore dealing a heavy blow to its economy and making sure that georgia doesn't become too big of a adversary
an overall good play by russia

 

[meopemuk]

There are two new sources of information about civilian casualties in South Ossetia:


"The non-governmental commitee for investigation of war crimes in South Ossetia and assistance to suffered civilian population" published a preliminary list of names of 311 citizens of South Ossetia killed during the Georgian aggression of 7-12 August. The list also includes the age, the description of where and how the person was killed and where the body is buried.

http://www.osetinfo.ru/main/25

The Attorney General of South Ossetia tells that within the criminal investigation of the genocide in South Ossetia 276 bodies were exhumed. Additionally, 168 fresh graves are found in Tshinvali and surrounding villages. They cannot be touched without participation of the relatives. Moreover, at least 35 bodies were moved out of S.O. and buried on the territory of North Ossetia and Southern Russia.

He said that the current count of dead and missed is 1692. This number may go down as new facts come out. For example, 41 people previously counted as dead were actually taken as hostages to the territory of Georgia.

http://www.ossetia.ru/events/276-pogibshix

Russian authorities carry out their own independent criminal investigation.

 

[Minich]

One Russian report, is an interview of the leader of the South Ossetian Separatists saying what happened in the Georgian enclaves. The interview needs to be run through a translator, but after doing so, and getting other Russian-speakers to tweak it for comprehension (Russian does not translate word-for-word easily): this is the gist:

(The translator explained: "This is an interesting way to say that they killed everyone ... but did not killed civilians, isn't it?"

1. I recommend use http://beta.online-translator.com/" . I guess it is the best in the world automatic translator not only from/to russian, but 22 other direction/language.

2. About civilian/soldiers:
Georgian and ossetin villages are hashed (mixed? my poor english :((( ). As a rule georgians and ossetins don't live in the same village. Except when married mixed couple.
Tshinvali is surrounded by mountains. Mountains are convenient for artillery and sniper fires and watching. 75% of villages around Tshinvali are Georgian. Georgian villages back as a rule georgian (army, police, peacekeaper). Ossetin villages back as a rule ossetin (army, police, peacekeaper).

Plus: 4 georgian villages are on the main road from Tshinvali to Russia. You must go through this villages if you (refugee) want to go to Russia or another part of South Ossetia (big village Java for example).

When preparing for attack (before the attack on 23.30 of 7 aug) Georgian army came into strategic georgian villages around Tshinvali and on the road to Russia and Roki tunnel. We can imagine that civillian population of those villages (georgians) were aware of the planning of the attack. As having the experience of the war in 1993 year they didn't want to be the object of war actions.

So i think women, children and elders escaped to Georgia, mens stayed to protect their homes from bandits and marauder of all armies (georgian, ossetin,russian,..). I think civilian georgian mens were ready to escape if things go bad.

So the president of Ossetia talked about georgian army.

The situation can be understood if You read the "ordinary" stories of ordinary people:
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/6/page/2
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/8/page/2
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/23/page/1
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/15/page/1
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/16/page/1
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/17/page/1
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/22/page/1
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/21/page/1
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/14/page/2
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/11/page/2
http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/2/page/2

In ahttp://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/spisok" "1957 of the river" == year of birth 1957
"it" == he or she
was lost==died or was shot dead
coart yard==territory around home (building)
Maldzigov Sevasty Stepanovich == he is a man
Kozaeva Maria, 76 years.==she is a woman

In http://beta.online-translator.com/url/translation.aspx?direction=re&template=General&autotranslate=on&transliterate=&showvariants=&sourceURL=http://osetinfo.ru/person/6/page/2"how he was wounded and survived you must know that almost all ossetins and georgians know the russian language so the talks are in russian.

When correspondent sais to georgian soldier that he is correspondent and soldier replies "I am a killer" it is not a joke.
finish==to shot dead.
The mayor, who saved lives of correspondents, died and he was honored the highest award in Russia "Hero of Russia".

 

[mheslep]

The Economist comments on European backbone with regards to current or future Russian aggression. The cover says it all:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20080906/20080906issuecovUS400.jpg

 

[Art]

The Economist comments on European backbone with regards to current or future Russian aggression. The cover says it all:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20080906/20080906issuecovUS400.jpg

Let's hope if the US decides to have a shooting war with Russia they do it on American soil. Europe has seen quite enough devastation already.

Perhaps if the US had had it's cities flattened and it's civilians massacred during the last world war there wouldn't be quite so many gung ho war enthusiasts out there who at this time must be very disappointed that contrary to their opinions Russia did not invade Tbilisi and did not destroy the pipeline; in fact Russia didn't do any more than they publicly stated they would do and so fears of a Russian takeover of Eastern Europe were grossly exaggerated.

Still, never let facts stand in the way of a good theory when there's the possibility of an exciting war to be had, especially if fought in someone else's house.

 

[mheslep]

Let's hope if the US decides to have a shooting war with Russia they do it on American soil. Europe has seen quite enough devastation already.

Perhaps if the US had had it's cities flattened ...

It has. My home town was shelled, burned, and largely destroyed, as were many others. 618,000 killed on both sides.
http://z.about.com/d/712educators/1/0/t/8/city24.jpg

Yes perhaps the next time someone attempts a totalitarian takeover of Europe the US will to decide to stay out of it; the US has seen quire enough devastation already.

 

[TVP45]

It has. My home town was shelled, burned, and largely destroyed, as were many others. 618,000 killed on both sides.
http://z.about.com/d/712educators/1/0/t/8/city24.jpg

Yes perhaps the next time someone attempts a totalitarian takeover of Europe the US will to decide to stay out of it; the US has seen quire enough devastation already.

Everybody knows you guys staged that burned photo so you could get FEMA money to build the Nickel Bridge.

 

[Borek]

It has. My home town was shelled, burned, and largely destroyed, as were many others. 618,000 killed on both sides.

Don't compare incomparable.

 

[meopemuk]

http://www.ossetia-war.com/

 

[Art]

It has. My home town was shelled, burned, and largely destroyed, as were many others. 618,000 killed on both sides.
http://z.about.com/d/712educators/1/0/t/8/city24.jpg

Yes perhaps the next time someone attempts a totalitarian takeover of Europe the US will to decide to stay out of it; the US has seen quire enough devastation already.

Truncating my comment at that point to remove my direct reference to WW2 so you could introduce the American civil war into the discussion is a little childish.

Why not just truncate it after the word perhaps? Then you could respond in any way you liked to any question you choose to pose

It is of note the US hasn't had any more civil wars since the destruction wrought by the last one. Perhaps that was when they decided fighting their wars through European puppets and proxies was a better option. This has evolved into the well known mantra of 'we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here'.

In respect to your second comment. The US DID stay out of it until 2 weeks after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and only joined in the war in Europe then because Germany and Italy declared war on the USA which didn't exactly leave them with any choice. The problem with the revisionist histories created by Hollywood is that many people believe the crap they churn out and think it portrays historical facts when they portray the US forces as helping the allied forces in Europe through the goodness of their hearts.

Your current president's grandfather US senator Prescott Bush was one of those quite happy to trade with Nazi Germany right up until his employer's company's US assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

 

[WmLambert]

The latest twist is the Georgian release of the border guards' phone calls reporting the Russian forces pouring through the Roki tunnel BEFORE Georgia allegedly opened up against the separatists.

Report here.

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) - Intercepted mobile phone calls show that Russian tanks and troops invaded before Georgia unleashed its offensive against South Ossetia, the Georgian government said Tuesday, pressing its claim that Russia was the aggressor in the war last month.

...the recordings are phone calls between two South Ossetian border guards which prove that Russian tanks and troops entered South Ossetia many hours before the Georgian offensive began late Aug. 7.

...at 3:41 a.m. local time on Aug. 7, the South Ossetian guard at the tunnel says "they have moved armored personnel carriers out and the tunnel is full."

In the next call, about 10 minutes later, the guard says "armor and people" had emerged from the tunnel. Asked whether there was a lot of armor, the guard says, "Well, tanks, BMPs and those things."

BMPs are armored personnel carriers.

U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker said: "...the swift movement of a large Russian force into Georgia pointed to "advance planning. No matter how we end up parsing out those few hours in the early morning of Aug. 7, Georgia was responding to a long period of Russian pressure, including violence that was going on, with shelling from South Ossetians, (Georgia) made the decision to go into Tskhinvali, which was the trigger the Russians were looking for to launch this pre-planned invasion."

The New York Times and Associated Press have this story, and all, including the U.S. government, are in the process of verifying its authenticity.

 

[meopemuk]

The latest twist is the Georgian release of the border guards' phone calls reporting the Russian forces pouring through the Roki tunnel BEFORE Georgia allegedly opened up against the separatists.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_re_eu/eu_georgia_russia;_ylt=AhfMS9cceeaShUSqPYiIcjes0NUE

"Asked why Georgia had not released the purported intercepts earlier, he [Saakashvili] said they were initially believed to have been lost "during the heat of the war" but were later found."

Can you believe that?

 

[Borek]

Not more than statements of the other side.

 

[mheslep]

Truncating my comment at that point to remove my direct reference to WW2 so you could introduce the American civil war into the discussion is a little childish...

WW2 was of course not the point; aversion to any future war because it was visited on home and hearth in the past is the point. Arbitrarily tying the point to Europe and WWII is parochial.

 

[Art]

WW2 was of course not the point; aversion to any future war because it was visited on home and hearth in the past is the point. Arbitrarily tying the point to Europe and WWII is parochial.

Okay if you want to make a point do so. I just prefer it if you refrained from twisting my comments to support your point.

Regardless, you simply reinforce my contention that to avoid destruction at home America prefers to fight it's wars on other people's turf. Not such a bad idea if you can get away with it and I'm sure everybody would do the same if they could but don't expect the people whose land you want to fight on to be quite so enthusiastic about it. The danger of such a strategy is of course the threshold for starting wars is likely to be a lot lower than would otherwise be the case.

 

[mheslep]

Okay if you want to make a point do so. I just prefer it if you refrained from twisting my comments to support your point.

That's your game, on a great many of your posts, not mine.

Regardless, you simply reinforce my contention that to avoid destruction at home America prefers to fight it's wars on other people's turf. Not such a bad idea if you can get away with it and I'm sure everybody would do the same if they could but don't expect the people whose land you want to fight on to be quite so enthusiastic about it. The danger of such a strategy is of course the threshold for starting wars is likely to be a lot lower than would otherwise be the case.

Case in point.

 

[Minich]

This evening Ruslan Yamadaev, the elder brother (ex-deputy of Russia parliament) of the former commander of company "Vostok" (chechen company), participating in the S. Ossetia war with Georgia Sulim Yamadaev was shot dead by a killer in Moscow.

 

[Art]

It seems some folk are rethinking their initial unqualified support for Georgia as more information emerges.

Georgia accused of targeting civilians

By Tim Whewell
BBC File On 4

The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August.

Eyewitnesses have described how its tanks fired directly into an apartment block, and how civilians were shot at as they tried to escape the fighting.

Research by the international investigative organisation Human Rights Watch also points to indiscriminate use of force by the Georgian military, and the possible deliberate targeting of civilians.

Indiscriminate use of force is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and serious violations are considered to be war crimes.

The allegations are now raising concerns among Georgia's supporters in the West.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has told the BBC the attack on South Ossetia was "reckless".

He said he had raised the issue of possible Georgian war crimes with the government in Tbilisi.

The evidence was gathered by the BBC on the first unrestricted visit to South Ossetia by a foreign news organisation since the conflict.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm

Georgia Used Cluster Bombs That Hit Civilians, Group Says

Georgia used cluster bombs that malfunctioned and fell into towns and villages, killing several of Georgia's own civilians during its summer war with Russia, according to new research by Human Rights Watch, a New York-based humanitarian organization. Georgia called that conclusion "impossible."
snip
Human Rights Watch will present its findings Wednesday to a United Nations conference on cluster bombs in Geneva. The group's contentions may raise new concerns about one of the world's most controversial weapons. In May, more than 100 countries agreed to outlaw cluster bombs, but the biggest producers and users -- Russia, China, the U.S., India and Israel -- have said they won't abide by the treaty. Georgia also declined to sign it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575792818995257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[WmLambert]

The end of that article is interesting and bears scrutiny:

"It's important that the Russian narrative cannot start with Georgian actions; it has to start with the attacks on the Georgians from the South Ossetians and that is the tit-for-tat that got out of control," he said.

The BBC saw evidence of the cycle of revenge since the war, with the demolition of most houses in the former ethnic Georgian villages on the northern outskirts of Tskhinvali

The houses, whose occupants fled during the war to other parts of Georgia, were burnt by Ossetians immediately after the fighting.

They are now expected to be replaced by a brand-new housing complex with a cinema and sports facilities to be financed by the city of Moscow.

Zaur Gagloyev, a 20-year-old former law student, now unemployed, claimed he was one of those responsible for the burning.

"There were so many provocations in these villages by Georgians," he said.

"For example, they were taking Ossetians as hostages and that's why I feel so angry."

Mr Gagloyev added: "If you want an advice on how to burn a house, just set light to a curtain and the whole house will catch fire."

Asked if he was guilty of ethnic cleansing, he replied, "No, it wasn't ethnic cleansing.

"No-one was killed there. We just let them go from our land. I don't know whether they will return or not," he added.

"But I did everything I could for them not to return. Never. You can call it ethnic cleaning, but I think I just did it to prevent a future war," he said.

Since the South Ossetians civilians had reportedly all been forcibly removed by the South Ossetians before the shooting started, who were those people shooting at the Georgians?

I don't know that the people shooting didn't just drop their weapons after the Georgians started shooting back and claimed the status of civilians. What is worse is that stupid instigators may well have kept families around them as shields. It is common parctice.

I hope investigations do get a handle on any purposeful atrocities, but I have my doubts that anything conclusive will show up.