Print Page | Close Window

Russia's attack disproportionate

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25115
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 09:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Russia's attack disproportionate
Posted By: Kevin
Subject: Russia's attack disproportionate
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 02:07

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia's use of strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia's civilians outside of the South Ossetian conflict is "far disproportionate" to Georgia's alleged attack on Russian peacekeepers, a senior U.S. official said Saturday.

Russian%20military%20vehicles%20line%20the%20road%20to%20the%20South%20Ossetia%20area%20of%20Georgia.

Russian military vehicles line the road to the South Ossetia area of Georgia.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.reax/index.html#">Click%20to%20view%20previous%20image
1 of 2
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.reax/index.html#">Click%20to%20view%20next%20image
var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.reax/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',1,1); //CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');

The official was not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitive nature of the diplomacy.

Russia's use of its potent air weaponry signals a "severe" and "dangerous escalation in the crisis," the official said.

"For the life of me, I can't image that being a proportionate response to the charge that Georgia has attacked Russian peacekeepers," the official said. "It's hard for us to understand what Russia's plan is here."

The official said Russia is probably trying to destabilize Georgia politically to kill its chances of joining NATO.

Georgia wants to join http://topics.cnn.com/topics/NATO - NATO , but Russia opposes the move, concerned that the alliance's eastward march will erode its influence. NATO rejected Georgia's membership bid in April despite strong lobbying from U.S. President Bush, though the alliance promised that Georgia could join at a later date. Video http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.reax/index.html#cnnSTCVideo - Watch President Bush comment on conflict »

Still, http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Republic_of_Georgia - Georgia bears some of the blame for the fighting over http://topics.cnn.com/topics/South_Ossetia - South Ossetia , the official said. Recently, the United States has had "very blunt exchanges with" Georgia, telling its leaders that they have no chance of winning a war with Russia and that they should stick to a path of diplomacy. Video http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.reax/index.html#cnnSTCVideo - Watch injured Georgian soldier being treated »

The official said European allies have told the United States that http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Russia - Russia has "crossed a line of unacceptable behavior" and should "expect international condemnation."

"I do sense an emerging unified view among our key allies," he said.

The United Sates, Britain and NATO on Friday called for a cease-fire. And on Saturday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed an immediate cease-fire as part of a three-step plan to end fighting.

Sarkozy's proposal calls for the return of Russian and Georgian troops to their former positions and requires Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected. A statement from Sarkozy's office did not provide further details on the plan.

The official also said the State Department has authorized only the voluntary departure of dependents of U.S. embassy employees from the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. The official said he did not know how many dependents would choose to leave.

Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council held a private meeting on Georgia on Saturday, though it seemed unlikely that there would be any immediate agreement on a statement on the conflict.

The U.S., European Union and international security organizations on Friday called for an end to the fighting

Bush and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday discussed the conflict in Beijing, where they attended the opening of the Summer Olympics.


The EU and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe were sending envoys to Georgia to secure a cease-fire, but a senior U.S. State Department official said the United States would send only a representative after a cease-fire is in place.

The European Union said it was working with other parties "towards a ceasefire in order to prevent further escalation of this conflict." EU spokeswoman Christina Gallach told CNN: "We think it is not acceptable to see these scenes of bloodshed and destruction."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.reax/index.html


Replies:
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 04:21
Originally posted by Kevin

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia's use of strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia's civilians outside of the South Ossetian conflict is "far disproportionate" to Georgia's alleged attack on Russian peacekeepers, a senior U.S. official said Saturday.


this joins the many other laughable quotes from Washington, who are they to judge what is proportional? They are the kings of 'shock and awe'. They bombed Serbia into submission and took over Iraq for a lie. The less they say the better and take this Russian serve as a 'we can do the same'. No need to seek a moral position when your elbow deep in the same behavior.

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 04:24
CNN...  the only reason the West's knickers are in a twist is the vulnerability of the BTC pipeline.

Georgia claims to have "liberated" South Ossetia.  Thousands of Ossetian refugees are pouring across the border into Russia.  Hardly consistent with a "liberation".  Russia should flatten Georgia for its instigation of a brutal war against a nation it claims yet has no valid or historical rights to.  The people of Ossetia want nothing to do with Georgia.

Ossetians and Abkhazians are not Georgians.

Georgia is attempting to ethnically cleanse the region in like of its attempts in the 90s.
http://www.euronews.net/en/article/09/08/2008/russia-ferries-s-ossetian-refugees-to-safe-haven/




-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 04:59
on a side note; The PKK shut it down this week.




Firemen struggle to extinguish a blaze at the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline near the eastern Turkish city of Erzincan on Thursday. World oil prices rose as a result of the fire and on the expectation that the pipeline could be closed for up to two weeks.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_world_1_09/08/2008_99379 - http://www.ekathimerini.com

Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 12:10
If there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that Russia couldn't care less about what Washington says. Or the rest of us.

What I say is, you get the odd soundbite from Washington trying to exert some form of reassurance to the masses that they're the ones in charge, they make the right decisions, and no one else can do anything without a watchful eye leering over them. It's all about getting into people's heads I think, covering over double standards and attempting to look authoritarion at the same time. bs.


-------------

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 12:33
Apparently Russia has also targeted the BTC.

Originally posted by Leonidas

Originally posted by Kevin

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia's use of strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia's civilians outside of the South Ossetian conflict is "far disproportionate" to Georgia's alleged attack on Russian peacekeepers, a senior U.S. official said Saturday.


this joins the many other laughable quotes from Washington, who are they to judge what is proportional? They are the kings of 'shock and awe'. They bombed Serbia into submission and took over Iraq for a lie. The less they say the better and take this Russian serve as a 'we can do the same'. No need to seek a moral position when your elbow deep in the same behavior.



On top of that, didn't NATO deliberately target civilian targets?  There is one instance on video which I remember where a passenger train was struck as it crossed over a bridge.  The pilot could have waited for it to cross... That is surely a war crime.

The attack on Serbia was atrocious, they bombed everything deep within the country, including hospitals which they claimed were being used for military purposes.  Their blood lust was such that they even bombed the Chinese Embassy.

And they have the gall to make such statements against Russia?




-------------

Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 12:36
Originally posted by Zagros

CNN...  the only reason the West's knickers are in a twist is the vulnerability of the BTC pipeline.

Thats the same reason for Russia too.


Georgia claims to have "liberated" South Ossetia.  Thousands of Ossetian refugees are pouring across the border into Russia.  Hardly consistent with a "liberation".  Russia should flatten Georgia for its instigation of a brutal war against a nation it claims yet has no valid or historical rights to.  The people of Ossetia want nothing to do with Georgia.

Interestingly what did Russia do to help Ossetinians while pro-russian Shevarnadze was in rule in Georgia.


Ossetians and Abkhazians are not Georgians.

Neither of them or Russians too. While of course Russia gave everyone in Abhazia and S.Ossetia Russian passports for free. I don't see them giving the same passports to every Tajik, Uzbek, Azeri who migrated to Russia for better living conditions. Only ethic Russians from Baltics or minorities in Georgia seem to get Russian passports without any problems if they want them.

Truth is the first victim in war.

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 12:48

Thats the same reason for Russia too.


No it's not.  I think Georgia selling itself wholesale to Russia's enemies is the reason.  According to a Georgian friend of mine, 70% of Georgian assets (including buildings) are owned by western companies; 20% by the Georgian political and economic elite and 10% by private citizens.  Georgia is very much a strategic threat to Russia given its status as a western client state.

Interestingly what did Russia do to help Ossetinians while pro-russian Shevarnadze was in rule in Georgia.


They had proper peace-keepers and there was no major conflict until now.  Shevernadze didn't make an election campaign pledge to reintegrate Ossetia with Georgia by whatever means.

Neither of them or Russians too. While of course Russia gave everyone in Abhazia and S.Ossetia Russian passports for free. I don't see them giving the same passports to every Tajik, Uzbek, Azeri who migrated to Russia for better living conditions. Only ethic Russians from Baltics or minorities in Georgia seem to get Russian passports without any problems if they want them.


But they want to be a part of the Russian Federation, or independent with Russian support, which is their right.

As far as I am aware, Tajiks, Azeris et al passports are internationally recognised. These republics are not recognised internationally so the only way their citizens can travel is by using Russian passports.  

And there is nothing wrong with giving passports to your diaspora, all countries do it.


-------------

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 12:56
But they want to be a part of the Russian Federation, or independent with Russian support, which is their right.
 
Russia is absolutely not one who have right to talk about this(independence or right issues, after how they treated their minorities). Anyway, You can follow your countries politic about some issues(Like me.), but no need to play ethical games.
 
By the way, If azeri at iran want to join azerbaycan, what would you support? It looks like you fully support azeris, arent you?
 
It was georgian soil and russia has not any right to interfere others soil.

Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 12:59
Originally posted by Mortaza

It was georgian soil and russia has not any right to interfere others soil.


Is your position the same regarding Turkey/Cyprus?

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 13:11
Originally posted by Mortaza

But they want to be a part of the Russian Federation, or independent with Russian support, which is their right.
 
Russia is absolutely not one who have right to talk about this(independence or right issues, after how they treated their minorities). Anyway, You can follow your countries politic about some issues(Like me.), but no need to play ethical games.
 
By the way, If azeri at iran want to join azerbaycan, what would you support? It looks like you fully support azeris, arent you?
 
It was georgian soil and russia has not any right to interfere others soil.


Until the disintegration of the USSR, Georgia had not existed as an independent entity since the Safavids conquered it.  What made Georgia think it could claim those territories? Other nations exist there who want to be independent.  When the USSR broke into pieces the Abkhazians and Ossetians immediately went to war to liberate their lands from Georgia's claim. They had their chance at the same time as Georgia, but Georgia tried to conquer them and they successfully resisted. 

On this basis the Ossetian and Abkhazian claim for independence is every bit as valid as that of Georgia.  The only reason they have not been recognised is because the UN works mostly in the West's interest.

Off topic: but as for the Azaries, if they want independence they should have it... but they don't.  In fact the reverse is happening, since the Shah's time - every year thousands of Azarbaijan citizens move to Iran because of the terrible economic conditions.  That is why there are so many people with family on both sides of the border


-------------

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 14:05
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by Mortaza

It was georgian soil and russia has not any right to interfere others soil.


Is your position the same regarding Turkey/Cyprus?
 
Haha absolutely not. It was a little different issue(And a little more complicated). Still, I do not believe Turkey did everything right or Turkey did what they did only because of humanatarian reason.
 
I am not against russian indirect support to ossetia, I am against the direct attack. This is a little expansionist. Still, My main objection is because of Turkey and Your main support becomes because of russia.
 
But rights has no relation with this.
 
In Turkey, Newspapers say, Russia attacked abkhazia too. isnt all issue related to protect ossetia?  So is Russia protecting ossetia or attacking georgia?
 
 
On this basis the Ossetian and Abkhazian claim for independence is every bit as valid as that of Georgia.  The only reason they have not been recognised is because the UN works mostly in the West's interest.
 
So what. I did not say, Abkhazia or ossetia has no right to independence. I said, Russia does not have right to attack georgia because of something related with georgian inner conflicts.
 
 

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 14:09
It does.  Do you know why? 

Because when the Abkhazians and Ossetians defeated the Georgians first time around, the Russians sent peace keepers to maintain the truce.  On pushing the Georgians out of their country in the 90s, the Ossetians earned their independence but the UN will not recognise them... why? 

When Georgia attacked Ossetia on Thursday it killed scores of Russians and attacked Russian personnel.

Additionally, Russia does not recognise Ossetia and Abkhazia as part a of Georgia and recognises their independence, so in Russian eyes it is not a national Georgian issue but an international one in which Russians were killed.


-------------

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 14:12

Than? I did not see china attacked israel for such reason.. Infact, I never heard, killing  peace keeper soldiers reasoned a war.(Maybe, I remember wrong.)

By the way, This peace keepers, It think georgia does not see them as peace keepers but occupier?  

 
 
Additionally, Russia does not recognise Ossetia and Abkhazia as part a of Georgia and recognises their independence, so in Russian eyes it is not a national Georgian issue but an international one in which Russians were killed.
 
I think not. Russia did not recognize ossetia or abkhazia independence.(Like our russian friends say.)
 
 
On pushing the Georgians out of their country in the 90s, the Ossetians earned their independence but the UN will not recognise them... why? 

Unrelated. UN did not recognize independence of Turkish cyprus or Kosova too. why? By the way, isnt Russia also member of UN?

You cannot question UN motives everytime, If It does not apply your wishes..It is a structure built over power.
 
 

 

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 14:20
The Chinese UN personnel were in an observation outpost - the Israelis claimed their attack was an accident.  Israel did not attack the Chinese army.  Israel and Lebanon are not beside China and China and Lebanon are not allies. 

By the way, This peace keepers, It think georgia does not see them as peace keepers but occupier? 


Georgia has no right to claim Ossetia, Ossetia has never been a part of Georgia.  Georgia is the aggressor.  Ossetia is entitled to seek help from its allies.  Georgia claims Ossetia and has unsuccessfully tried to control it. 




-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 15:04
Originally posted by Zagros

Apparently Russia has also targeted the BTC.

Originally posted by Leonidas

Originally posted by Kevin

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia's use of strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia's civilians outside of the South Ossetian conflict is "far disproportionate" to Georgia's alleged attack on Russian peacekeepers, a senior U.S. official said Saturday.


this joins the many other laughable quotes from Washington, who are they to judge what is proportional? They are the kings of 'shock and awe'. They bombed Serbia into submission and took over Iraq for a lie. The less they say the better and take this Russian serve as a 'we can do the same'. No need to seek a moral position when your elbow deep in the same behavior.



On top of that, didn't NATO deliberately target civilian targets?  There is one instance on video which I remember where a passenger train was struck as it crossed over a bridge.  The pilot could have waited for it to cross... That is surely a war crime.

The attack on Serbia was atrocious, they bombed everything deep within the country, including hospitals which they claimed were being used for military purposes.  Their blood lust was such that they even bombed the Chinese Embassy.

And they have the gall to make such statements against Russia?




 I was waiting for someone to remember that incident. while we focus on the few but growing georgian civilian deaths in our media (Ossets who?) we seemed to have glossed over Serbian and Albanian dead when Nato extensivley bombed that country.

here is a list on the BBC of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/340966.stm - - Wiki on the Grdelica train bombing (14 dead) later http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm -

They mark a dangerous escalation in the crisis.

The violence is endangering civilian peace.

Civilian lives have been lost and others are endangered.

This situation can be resolved peacefully.

We've been in contact with leaders both in Georgia and in Russia and all levels of government.

Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.

We have urged an immediate halt to the violence and a stand down by all troops, the call for an end to the Russian bombings and a return by the parties to the status quo of August 6th.

The United States is working with our European partners to launch international mediation with the parties to restart their dialogue.

Russia needs to support these efforts so that peace can be restored as quickly as possible.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/World/Bush-The-US-takes-this-matter-very-seriously/1218301839.html - link




do as i say not as i doThumbs%20Down

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 15:16
Originally posted by Roberts


Interestingly what did Russia do to help Ossetinians while pro-russian Shevarnadze was in rule in Georgia.

They are Russian proxies, they have little choice. They occupy some Ingush land so not popular on that side (think Beslan) and have Georgians to their south. Their Russian citizenship is their protection.

Once upon a time the KLA was a terrorist organisation in the eyes of washington then it was a liberation force. No one here is gullible in thinking Russia is some savoiur, the Chechens-Inguish also have a right to indepedance.

But the Georgians are bullies to their minorties, so if you belong to a group that is being bulllied by them , then good riddance a bigger bully comes in and sorts them out. Who cares if its all about promoting themselves, not like NATO is any different. Its all about which power helps you out more in your locality.

Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 15:41
Originally posted by Leonidas

Originally posted by Roberts


Interestingly what did Russia do to help Ossetinians while pro-russian Shevarnadze was in rule in Georgia.

They are Russian proxies, they have little choice. They occupy some Ingush land so not popular on that side (think Beslan) and have Georgians to their south. Their Russian citizenship is their protection.

Once upon a time the KLA was a terrorist organisation in the eyes of washington then it was a liberation force. No one here is gullible in thinking Russia is some savoiur, the Chechens-Inguish also have a right to indepedance.

But the Georgians are bullies to their minorties, so if you belong to a group that is being bulllied by them , then good riddance a bigger bully comes in and sorts them out. Who cares if its all about promoting themselves, not like NATO is any different. Its all about which power helps you out more in your locality.


I agree, but I am watching Russian TV on this war. Man, they really put CNN and Fox new on shame. Goebels would be impressed.Big%20smile

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 16:12
Originally posted by Mortaza

Russia is absolutely not one who have right to talk about this(independence or right issues, after how they treated their minorities). Anyway, You can follow your countries politic about some issues(Like me.), but no need to play ethical games.
 
Actually every particular minority in Russia has its own schools in own languages, minor languages are recognized as local second state languages, they have own administration in some cases like in Tatarstan one cannot be a president if he does not know Tatar language. Moreover, huge finds are spend on preservation of local cultures and languages. This by the way is absent in many new EU members who are now complaining about brutal Russian imperialism.


-------------
.

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 16:30
Originally posted by Roberts

I agree, but I am watching Russian TV on this war. Man, they really put CNN and Fox new on shame. Goebels would be impressed.Big%20smile
 
Which means that Russian propaganda is still 50 years below. Look at BBC. Their propaganda is far more superior. No anti-Russian histeria, no lies, nothing! Yet, one picture of a Georgian crying over a dead body of another Georgian and no mention on thousands of similar cases in Tsinvali and voila! -- society knows who started the conflict and who is responsible for that! This, Roberts, is a real, modern, fine tuned propaganda machinery.


-------------
.

Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 16:37
Originally posted by Anton

Actually every particular minority in Russia has its own schools in own languages, minor languages are recognized as local second state languages, they have own administration in some cases like in Tatarstan one cannot be a president if he does not know Tatar language. Moreover, huge finds are spend on preservation of local cultures and languages. This by the way is absent in many new EU members who are now complaining about brutal Russian imperialism.

You could call names, why didn't you do that? Wink If we are such monsters we wouldn't be accepted in EU.

Btw due to recent Russian law that all languages of Russia must be written in Cyrillic. This was specially aimed at Tatars who wanted to adopt Latin Alphabet just like many Turkic nations.

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 16:43
Georgia has no right to claim Ossetia, Ossetia has never been a part of Georgia.  Georgia is the aggressor.  Ossetia is entitled to seek help from its allies.  Georgia claims Ossetia and has unsuccessfully tried to control it. 
 
 
Acording to you. In reality,Ossetia is a part of georgia now. Past is not such an important topic. At past georgia is ruled by iran, russia or ottomans so what? All of these countries still has no right over georgians.
 
And now, Ossetia is georgian soil..
 
I do no see any political or law related informence about independence of ossetia except ossetian claim.

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 16:53
In REALITY it is NOT, on PAPER it is and what is on PAPER is NOT always REALITY.  The existence of an independent Ossetian nation with its own language and its own culture, its own government, its own president, its own army and without Georgian interference and control begs to differ with you and what's on PAPER.


-------------

Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 17:00
Originally posted by Anton

 
Which means that Russian propaganda is still 50 years below. Look at BBC. Their propaganda is far more superior. No anti-Russian histeria, no lies, nothing! Yet, one picture of a Georgian crying over a dead body of another Georgian and no mention on thousands of similar cases in Tsinvali and voila! -- society knows who started the conflict and who is responsible for that! This, Roberts, is a real, modern, fine tuned propaganda machinery.

Of course I agree, but I don't think that BBC propaganda is superior to Russian one.

From Russiatoday.ru
http://russiatoday.com/news/news/28765 - http://russiatoday.com/news/news/28765

The president of South Ossetia claims mercenaries took part in Georgia’s offensive against the breakaway republic, according to Russia’s RIA news agency. Eduard Kokoity says Ukrainians, people from the Baltics as well as nationals from other countries were involved.

Yes, thats right the evil axis of Former Soviet Union send their mercenaries. Cool  This reminds of old Russian tales about female Baltic snipers in Chechniya, afaik they even made movie about it.

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 17:04
Originally posted by Zagros

In REALITY it is NOT, on PAPER it is and what is on PAPER is NOT always REALITY.  The existence of an independent Ossetian nation with its own language and its own culture, its own government, its own president, its own army and without Georgian interference and control begs to differ with you and what's on PAPER.
 
To much opportunism? If georgia just destroy all ossetia, no problem? In reality, There would be no ossetia. will you support such realism too?
 
Yes. This is real politics. No ethic. So just do not say, russia is right. Just say, Russia is more powerful...

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 17:10
You said that Russia has no right (inferring morality) to interfere in "internal" Georgian affairs, which makes you a hypocrite in preaching what you just did.

-------------

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 17:13

You mean? I am talking about rights not realities. You are the one who is talking about realities.

 

 

Posted By: King Kang of Mu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 17:25
Originally posted by Roberts

Originally posted by Anton

 
Which means that Russian propaganda is still 50 years below. Look at BBC. Their propaganda is far more superior. No anti-Russian histeria, no lies, nothing! Yet, one picture of a Georgian crying over a dead body of another Georgian and no mention on thousands of similar cases in Tsinvali and voila! -- society knows who started the conflict and who is responsible for that! This, Roberts, is a real, modern, fine tuned propaganda machinery.

Of course I agree, but I don't think that BBC propaganda is superior to Russian one.

 
Isn't the whole point of propaganda is to make people think that it is not a propaganda.  So if we start out with that they are all propagandas then the most successful one is the one appears to have the least amount of propaganda?  In that case the western media is the superior one.  They give you the better illusion of the objectivity.


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 17:35
Originally posted by Mortaza

You mean? I am talking about rights not realities. You are the one who is talking about realities.

Are you?  did you forget what you just said yourself?

Originally posted by Mortaza


 
Acording to you. In reality,Ossetia is a part of georgia now. Past is not such an important topic. At past georgia is ruled by iran, russia or ottomans so what? All of these countries still has no right over georgians.
 
And now, Ossetia is georgian soil..
 
I do no see any political or law related informence about independence of ossetia except ossetian claim.


-------------

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 17:42

What I mean about in reality is , acording to law. Not acording to power(Your reality)

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 17:59
Who's law?  The Russians don't recognise Georgia's dominion over Ossetia and their laws matter more to them than yours.

-------------

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 18:25
Originally posted by Roberts


You could call names, why didn't you do that? Wink If we are such monsters we wouldn't be accepted in EU.
 
Oh no, you are not monsters at all. But if you compare Swedes in Finland and Russians in Baltic countries, they enjoy completely different treatment.
As for Latin alphabet, I am sorry but Latin is not something very historical for Turkic languages. It was some kind of violation of human rights of Tatars if you wish but I am pretty sure not many of them complained.


-------------
.

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 18:29
Who's law?  The Russians don't recognise Georgia's dominion over Ossetia and their laws matter more to them than yours.
 
Than russia can attack anyone with their own law.

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 18:34
Originally posted by Mortaza

Who's law?  The Russians don't recognise Georgia's dominion over Ossetia and their laws matter more to them than yours.
 
Than russia can attack anyone with their own law.



Technically they can but they will use their common sense and act in their own interest, what would be the point in invading China for example?  Turkey used its own law to invade cyprus and enter sovereign Iraq.  America does the same.  International law is a formality and is only applied selectively to weaker nations.  So law is relative, reality is truth.


-------------

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 18:38
Originally posted by Mortaza

Than russia can attack anyone with their own law.
Yes, it can if you jam Russian citizens with tanks and beat them do deaths with rifless butts. The things which Ossetian refugees are reporting about the Georgian atrocities.
 
It's not only Russia who protects its interests abroad. Turkey for example crossed the border to the foreign country many times to protect its citizens...


-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 18:43
Technically they can but they will use their common sense and act in their own interest, what would be the point in invading China for example?  Turkey used its own law to invade cyprus and enter sovereign Iraq.  America does the same.  International law is a formality and is only applied selectively to weaker nations.  So law is relative, reality is truth.
 
Than we are talking about not "right-wrong" issue but real politics.
 
It's not only Russia who protects its interests abroad. Turkey for example crossed the border to the foreign country many times to protect its citizens...
 
Unrelated. Turkey crossed border to attack terrorists and to protect their own people at Turkey. Otherwise, This would but totally absurd.
 
Turkey cannot enter germany because PKK killed Turkish people at germany.
 
Russia entered georgia for real politics and georgia entered ossetia for real politics. Noone of them is right but Personally I prefer weaker devil:)

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 18:50
Originally posted by Mortaza

 
Unrelated. Turkey crossed border to attack terrorists and to protect their own people at Turkey. Otherwise, This would but totally absurd.
 
 
How would you call militants who kill women and childred in hundreds and blow up hospitals, churches and mosques?
 
They exactly are terrorists. In two days they already killed much more Ossetian civilians than PKK in many years.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 19:06
I am not sure about that knowledge. (That knowledge is true, specially hospital, churches and mosques part, I agree with you. It is a war crime to aim these buildings.)
 
Anyway, My point is, You cannot make citizen of another country as your own citizen and than try to protect them..
 
 
 

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 19:12
Than we are talking about not "right-wrong" issue but real politics.


Make up your mind.  As far as I am concerned we have talked about both because you keep changing it.

Ossetians with Russian passports are Russian citizens and Russia is obliged to protect them.  Georgians have killed thousands of civilians in their indiscriminate attacks on the Ossetian capital.  Russian attacks are not indiscriminate and they are attacking military targets only.  60 georgian civilians killed vs 2000 Ossetians dead and who knows how many injured.


-------------

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 19:24
Originally posted by Mortaza

I am not sure about that knowledge. (That knowledge is true, specially hospital, churches and mosques part, I agree with you. It is a war crime to aim these buildings.)  
 
Well. They show the images on the Russian TV. For some reasons CNN doesn't broadcast this.
 
Originally posted by Mortaza

Anyway, My point is, You cannot make citizen of another country as your own citizen and than try to protect them..
 
 
It's a very complicated question. Since Ossetians actually were not Georgian citizens when they accepted Russian citizenship. They held the old Soviet citizenship. Then the war broke up because the Georgian nationalistic government wanted to kick them up from Georgia. From the legal perspective they never were complitely within the jursidiction of the Georgian goverment and didn't accept its authority.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 11:44

Make up your mind.  As far as I am concerned we have talked about both because you keep changing it.

No, I am not. Infact, problem is you cannot differentiate them. Firstly you say, Russia is right about this issue, Than you support this with real politics arguements.(Like ossetia have power ext.) You cannot have both. If you say, Russia is "right", You should support it with ethical arguments.

Ossetians with Russian passports are Russian citizens and Russia is obliged to protect them.  Georgians have killed thousands of civilians in their indiscriminate attacks on the Ossetian capital.  Russian attacks are not indiscriminate and they are attacking military targets only.  60 georgian civilians killed vs 2000 Ossetians dead and who knows how many injured.
It's a very complicated question. Since Ossetians actually were not Georgian citizens when they accepted Russian citizenship. They held the old Soviet citizenship. Then the war broke up because the Georgian nationalistic government wanted to kick them up from Georgia. From the legal perspective they never were complitely within the jursidiction of the Georgian goverment and didn't accept its authority.
 
Do not missunderstood me but even I am not genious, I am not also stupid too. I just dismiss this argument.
 
 If They are russian citizen, They should go russia. why are they trying to build a goverment at georgia? (By the way, So what If some turks become russian citizen? I should afraid from russian attack. I am not sure, If history ever show such weird justification for an attack.)
 
You are realy taking people too low.
 
And that, civilian deaths. In reality, We have not much informence about it. So spare me with bloody georgians and friendly russian  bullshit. We both have not much idea at what is happening there.. Russian or georgian newspapers or televisions are the last one I can trust. Lets see what is reality. It will take some time.
 
 
 

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 11:59
Originally posted by Zagros

Ossetians with Russian passports are Russian citizens and Russia is obliged to protect them.  Georgians have killed thousands of civilians in their indiscriminate attacks on the Ossetian capital.  Russian attacks are not indiscriminate and they are attacking military targets only.  60 georgian civilians killed vs 2000 Ossetians dead and who knows how many injured.

The Russians have been handing out passport to the left and right with the intention of getting a hold in and of the provinces.  Even though they use it as an excuse to invade a foreign country, they do not have the right to do so. What's next? Russia invades Belarussia, the Balkan states, Finland etc, just because some Russian was killed there? This tactic is not new: the Germans used it when invading and annexing Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia back in the 30s. Russia bullying its smaller neighbours isn't exactly a new phenomenon either.

I seriously doubt the the 2000 civilian casualties by the way. Too much bullshit from both sides to trust any numbers whatsoever. Hopefully it will be clearer after the war, but right now you can't really trust such reports.

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 13:01
Originally posted by Roberts

Originally posted by Leonidas

Originally posted by Roberts


Interestingly what did Russia do to help Ossetinians while pro-russian Shevarnadze was in rule in Georgia.

They are Russian proxies, they have little choice. They occupy some Ingush land so not popular on that side (think Beslan) and have Georgians to their south. Their Russian citizenship is their protection.

Once upon a time the KLA was a terrorist organisation in the eyes of washington then it was a liberation force. No one here is gullible in thinking Russia is some savoiur, the Chechens-Inguish also have a right to indepedance.

But the Georgians are bullies to their minorties, so if you belong to a group that is being bulllied by them , then good riddance a bigger bully comes in and sorts them out. Who cares if its all about promoting themselves, not like NATO is any different. Its all about which power helps you out more in your locality.


I agree, but I am watching Russian TV on this war. Man, they really put CNN and Fox new on shame. Goebels would be impressed.Big%20smile

Try to impress me... Big%20smile



-------------

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 13:04
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Mortaza

Than russia can attack anyone with their own law.
Yes, it can if you jam Russian citizens with tanks and beat them do deaths with rifless butts. The things which Ossetian refugees are reporting about the Georgian atrocities.
 
It's not only Russia who protects its interests abroad. Turkey for example crossed the border to the foreign country many times to protect its citizens...

Yes. We will all believe Ossetian fugitives who've likely been given a good standing in Russia to get a anti-georgian statement. 



-------------

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 13:05
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Mortaza

I am not sure about that knowledge. (That knowledge is true, specially hospital, churches and mosques part, I agree with you. It is a war crime to aim these buildings.)  
 
Well. They show the images on the Russian TV. For some reasons CNN doesn't broadcast this.
 
Originally posted by Mortaza

Anyway, My point is, You cannot make citizen of another country as your own citizen and than try to protect them..
 
 
It's a very complicated question. Since Ossetians actually were not Georgian citizens when they accepted Russian citizenship. They held the old Soviet citizenship. Then the war broke up because the Georgian nationalistic government wanted to kick them up from Georgia. From the legal perspective they never were complitely within the jursidiction of the Georgian goverment and didn't accept its authority.

The soviet citizenship can't last for 17 years. Plus, if the Soviet Union was disbanded, so should it's citizenship for it's of no worth. As well as I remember, I don't know that Russia claimed to be the official successor of USSR. 



-------------

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 13:54
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by Zagros

Ossetians with Russian passports are Russian citizens and Russia is obliged to protect them.  Georgians have killed thousands of civilians in their indiscriminate attacks on the Ossetian capital.  Russian attacks are not indiscriminate and they are attacking military targets only.  60 georgian civilians killed vs 2000 Ossetians dead and who knows how many injured.

The Russians have been handing out passport to the left and right with the intention of getting a hold in and of the provinces.  Even though they use it as an excuse to invade a foreign country, they do not have the right to do so. What's next? Russia invades Belarussia, the Balkan states, Finland etc, just because some Russian was killed there? This tactic is not new: the Germans used it when invading and annexing Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia back in the 30s. Russia bullying its smaller neighbours isn't exactly a new phenomenon either.

I seriously doubt the the 2000 civilian casualties by the way. Too much bullshit from both sides to trust any numbers whatsoever. Hopefully it will be clearer after the war, but right now you can't really trust such reports.


The 30,000 refugees into Russia has been verified.  So I wouldn't be surprised. 

And it wasn't a simple case of Russians being killed, it is the matter of the Georgian Army killing Russians at the behest of the Georgian government, a slightly different situation.   They stormed Russian checkpoints and killed Russian soldiers.  So Russia should do nothing so that it is not accused of being a bully?   What sort of a message does that send?  You can kill our citizens and attack our forces and you can b certain that we care about our image in the west so much that we won't do anything?


-------------

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 13:56
Originally posted by rider

Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Mortaza

I am not sure about that knowledge. (That knowledge is true, specially hospital, churches and mosques part, I agree with you. It is a war crime to aim these buildings.)  
 
Well. They show the images on the Russian TV. For some reasons CNN doesn't broadcast this.
 
Originally posted by Mortaza

Anyway, My point is, You cannot make citizen of another country as your own citizen and than try to protect them..
 
 
It's a very complicated question. Since Ossetians actually were not Georgian citizens when they accepted Russian citizenship. They held the old Soviet citizenship. Then the war broke up because the Georgian nationalistic government wanted to kick them up from Georgia. From the legal perspective they never were complitely within the jursidiction of the Georgian goverment and didn't accept its authority.

The soviet citizenship can't last for 17 years. Plus, if the Soviet Union was disbanded, so should it's citizenship for it's of no worth. As well as I remember, I don't know that Russia claimed to be the official successor of USSR. 



Russia IS the official successor of the USSR it is still bound by treaties signed in the USSR era so it is unequivocally the successor of the USSR.


-------------

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 17:53
Originally posted by Mortaza

Do not missunderstood me but even I am not genious, I am not also stupid too. I just dismiss this argument.

 If They are russian citizen, They should go russia. why are they trying to build a goverment at georgia? (By the way, So what If some turks become russian citizen? I should afraid from russian attack. I am not sure, If history ever show such weird justification for an attack.)
 
You fail to understand that they were never Georgian citizens. They were declared independence from Georgia at the same time and using the same arguments as used by Georgians for declaration of their independence on Russia. Which for them menas that they create their state in South Ossetia not in Georgia. This is one thing. Second, the difference from Russian citizens in Turkey is that not 90% of Turks got this hypothetical Russian citizenship and intention to unite with Russia. Guess what will happen if 90% of Turkis would like to united with Russia? They will be united with Russia.
 
 
 
 
And that, civilian deaths. In reality, We have not much informence about it. So spare me with bloody georgians and friendly russian  bullshit. We both have not much idea at what is happening there.. Russian or georgian newspapers or televisions are the last one I can trust. Lets see what is reality. It will take some time.
Deaths of several Russian peace-keepers before her actual envolvement is legal enough reason for attacking Georgia in South-Ossetia. 1600 number might be signifficantly overestimated but as Sarmat mentioned "Grad" system is not something precise and it is impossible that it didn't lead to civilian deaths. Who are as it was many times mentioned before, Russian citizens. This is enough reason ti invade Georgia. Look, some others are using much less signifficant reason to invade countries:
 

http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/A0850869 - Vietnam War (1961–1973) In 1955, communist North Vietnam invaded non-communist South Vietnam in an attempt to unify the country and impose communist rule. The United States joined the war on the side of South Vietnam in 1961, but withdrew combat troops in 1973. In 1975 North Vietnam succeeded in taking control of South Vietnam.

Dominican Republic (1965) President Lyndon Johnson sent marines and troops to quash a leftist uprising in the Dominican Republic, fearing the island nation would follow in the footsteps of Cuba and turn communist.

Grenada (1983) President Reagan invaded the Caribbean nation of Grenada to overthrow its socialist government, which had close ties with Cuba.

Panama (1989) President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama and overthrew Panamanian dictator and drug-smuggler Manuel Noriega.

Somalia (1993) A U.S.-led multinational force attempted to restore order to war-torn Somalia so that food could be delivered and distributed within the famine-stricken country.

 
So, hypothetical possibility, that there is some danger for a particular state is already a reason to invade another country. Smile Following that logic Russia should have invaded Georgia after their first declaration of their wish to join NATO.  


-------------
.

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 18:04
Originally posted by rider

The soviet citizenship can't last for 17 years. Plus, if the Soviet Union was disbanded, so should it's citizenship for it's of no worth. As well as I remember, I don't know that Russia claimed to be the official successor of USSR. 

 
Russia is the official successor of the USSR which was officially agreed with all the former USSR republics. In international law that was called "the principle of continuity."
 
This however, doesn't have any relation to the question discussed here, since the residents of Ossetia hadn't had Georgian citizenship and then they accepted Russian citizenship.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 18:05
Originally posted by rider

The soviet citizenship can't last for 17 years. Plus, if the Soviet Union was disbanded, so should it's citizenship for it's of no worth. As well as I remember, I don't know that Russia claimed to be the official successor of USSR. 

 
First of all, Russia is indeed official successor of USSR. She pays all USSR debts for instance. But let us look on it from another point of view. If I understand correctly your logic, Ossetians should have automatically became Georgian citizen, right? Following your logic, such people as "nepilsoni" or "aliens" in some modern EU states should be nonsence. How come they still exist? "I smell double standarts here" (C)


-------------
.

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 18:15
Originally posted by Mortaza

Do not missunderstood me but even I am not genious, I am not also stupid too. I just dismiss this argument.
 
 If They are russian citizen, They should go russia. why are they trying to build a goverment at georgia? (By the way, So what If some turks become russian citizen? I should afraid from russian attack. I am not sure, If history ever show such weird justification for an attack.)
 
You are realy taking people too low.
 
Besides killing Ossetians, they also killed Russian peacekeepers who were complitely legally in the region in accordance with all the international agreements. You know, according to international law it simply can be called the act of agression. Besides, according to those agreements in case one party violates the agreement and starts the agression, the party not involved in the fighting should support the victim of the aggression. Russian army had all the legal rights to intervene.
 
 
Originally posted by Mortaza

And that, civilian deaths. In reality, We have not much informence about it. So spare me with bloody georgians and friendly russian  bullshit. We both have not much idea at what is happening there.. Russian or georgian newspapers or televisions are the last one I can trust. Lets see what is reality. It will take some time.
 
Recently, high level of civilian casualties was confirmed by the Georgian minister of "reintegration" that warned Abkhazia about starting hostilities saying that "in recent fighting in Ossetia civilian casualties are too high which is a direct threat to the very existence of the small ethnicities (meaning Ossetians)."
 
 
 



-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 18:58
My fault in that case; I remember reading from some place that Russia didn't declare herself the official successor. If she had, then the citizenship would be transferred. But doesn't citizenship come along with a passport? They are given only for a certain timeframe, the ESSR was for either 8 or 10 years, perhaps less, don't know exactly. Anyways, the timeframe isn't 17 years. So they should either have taken a Russian citizenship or a dual citizenship since they can't have renewed the USSR one in the years between. 

-------------

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 19:05
Dear rider, having the Soviet citizenship wasn't an automatic prerequisite for gaining Russian citizenship.
 
Basically, after the SU collapsed people who hold only Soviet citizenship were actually people without citizenship or Apatrids.
 
Most of the Ossetians didn't actually have any citizenship (except the old Soviet one which became meaningless), including the Georgian one due to the war and hostile relations with Georgia. There was a Russian law (I think it's not effective anymore now) which allowed former Soviet citizens to apply for Russian citizenship via some facilitated procedures. So, Ossetians did that because they didn't want to take Georgian citizenship and didn't want to remain people without any citizenship at all.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 19:08
Actually, what puzzles me most, is that my radio reported that unlike Abkhazia, the Ossetians do not form the majority of the people in South Osseta. That there were more Georgians than Ossetians. Is this true? 

-------------

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 19:12
I think you actually confused it. It was Georgian majority in Abkhazia (about 60%) not in Ossetia. After the war the Georgians were expelled from there

-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 19:30
How were they expeled by the minority? Or it happened after Russia took part in the conflict?

-------------
.

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 19:40
Yes, despite being the minority Abkhazians expelled Georgian population. Russia didn't involve directly but it obviously facilitated the move to Abkhazia of numerous North Caucasus volunteers including many Chechens.
Shamil Basaev started his "career" in Abkhazia he even married an Abkhazian women there.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 00:14
Western media is so full of crap on this.  Many outlets present one side's claim as though it is fact.  For example, From watching the news you'd think that the Russian flag was flying in Gori.  But Russia has stated that its ground forces have not left S. Ossetia and US military sources have said there is no evidence that the Russians have advanced on Gori.

Furthermore - some deception is being spun out of Tblisi with regard to this proposed ceasefire.  They make it sound as though they are suing for peace and meeting a cold Russian shoulder.  The Russian deputy prime minister stated on C4 news that they had received no official approach to sign a ceasefire from Tblisi and in addition Abkhazia and S. Ossetia as recognised combatants in the conflict were to be the ones to sign it.  The Russian DPM made things a little clearer.


-------------

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 00:30
Associated Press correspondents confirm that Georgian military forces continued to shell Tskhinvalli after the baphoon had "declared ceasefire."

-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 00:32
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Associated Press correspondents confirm that Georgian military forces continued to shell Tskhinvalli after the baphoon had "declared ceasefire."

The same which Russians declined.

Anyway who do you think rules Russia - Putin or Medvedev?


-------------

Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 00:35
How the hell is it even possible that OS separatist are still armed (even with heavy artillery pieces) after so many years with Russian "peacekeepers" in the region.

The Russian peacekeepers have done a really poor job in my opinion.

-------------

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 00:36
At the moment Putin, of course.

-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 00:50
Two very interesting articles in my opinion about this whole conflict and future geopolitical implications. Both in Russian though, sorry (just checked, imo google translator is quite good)

The first one is from Russia, interesting to note that there are people who think differently there, not so emotional.
http://www.ej.ru/?a=note&id=8288 - http://www.ej.ru/?a=note&id=8288

Second one from Ukraine and focuses on geopolitics.
http://politics.in.ua/index.php?go=News&in=view&id=10428 - http://politics.in.ua/index.php?go=News&in=view&id=10428


-------------

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 01:11
Originally posted by Roberts

How the hell is it even possible that OS separatist are still armed (even with heavy artillery pieces) after so many years with Russian "peacekeepers" in the region.

The Russian peacekeepers have done a really poor job in my opinion.
 
OS separatists weapons are much inferior to those the Georgian army has. The recent fighting proved it.
 
The peacekeepers' job isn't disarming the conflicting parties.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 01:12

Can someone give us the cliff note version of what the links say?



-------------

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 01:37
Originally posted by Roberts


The first one is from Russia, interesting to note that there are people who think differently there, not so emotional.
http://www.ej.ru/?a=note&id=8288 - http://www.ej.ru/?a=note&id=8288
Actually this "krovavoe gebyo" type of attitude is quite emotional.
 
 

Second one from Ukraine and focuses on geopolitics.
http://politics.in.ua/index.php?go=News&in=view&id=10428 - http://politics.in.ua/index.php?go=News&in=view&id=10428
This review is apparently very balanced. Although I think that this idea that all this story was orchestrated from Washington questionable. I would say USA is not in good position either. Basically author claim that Washington is interested Russia to go as deep into this coflict as possible as this will mimick problems of USA in Afganistan and Iraq. I think that if Russia stops in the border of SO or around and keep status quo but wih recognintion of SO and Abhazia she will get much more dividents than USA. I don't either think that similar situation can happen in Ukraine and even more unlikely in Baltic countries as those states declearly behave in a more civilized way. Instead, Russia will use here economical ways of influence.  Finally, territorial integrity of Ukraine is not questioned by any thinking person in Russia. But obviously Russia will do its best to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.


-------------
.

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 04:11
A probable explanation for the indiscriminate attacks on Ossetian civilians: Israeli warfare tactics.

Israel 'has a hand in S. Ossetia war'

August 10 2008 at 6:23 PM
 
Israel has provided Georgia with military assistance amid an ongoing armed conflict in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66203&sectionid=351020202



-------------

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 11:33
Originally posted by Roberts

How the hell is it even possible that OS separatist are still armed (even with heavy artillery pieces) after so many years with Russian "peacekeepers" in the region.

The Russian peacekeepers have done a really poor job in my opinion.

The Russians weren't there to keep the peace, but setting up the trap the Georgians walked straight into. Had the Russians cared about the civilians they would have stopped the rebel Ossetian attacks on civilian Georgians a long time ago, who at least until recently were still the majority in South Ossetia. On the contrary, the Russians have been arming the separatists in South Ossetia as well as in Abkhazia (which you all know were ethnically cleansed from Georgians). All the Russians care about is to make an example and strengthen their hold on the Caspian oil. As it were, the Georgians became tired of rebel attacks and Russian meddling in their internal affairs. I only hope NATO won't bother with this, and sacrifice the Georgians in favour of not escalating the mess. And then place troops in Balticum to prevent the Russians to play the same game with Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania.

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 12:04
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

 
I only hope NATO won't bother with this, and sacrifice the Georgians in favour of not escalating the mess. And then place troops in Balticum to prevent the Russians to play the same game with Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania.
 
What I hope, is that Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania will not kill Russian citizens by hundreds as Georgians did, which according to your logic is possible. If I were you I would think better about your neighbours and EU partners.


-------------
.

Posted By: Antioxos
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 12:12

 
a map from th area and a very good analysis from New York Times
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/world/europe/11ticktock.html?pagewanted=1&fta=y - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/world/europe/11ticktock.html?pagewanted=1&fta=y


-------------

By http://profile.imageshack.us/user/antioxos - antioxos at 2007-08-20

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 12:18
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

 
I only hope NATO won't bother with this, and sacrifice the Georgians in favour of not escalating the mess. And then place troops in Balticum to prevent the Russians to play the same game with Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania.
 
What I hope, is that Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania will not kill Russian citizens by hundreds as Georgians did, which according to your logic is possible. If I were you I would think better about your neighbours and EU partners.

Complete misinterpretation on your part, if that's what you think I wrote. The Abkhazians ethnically cleansed Abkhazia from Georgians, with Russian approval. Ossetian separatists, armed by Russia, has been attacking Georgian targets. If this starts to happen in Estonia etc, the Ests have all the right in the world to kick out the Russians. The Georgians are the ones who have been targets for ethnic cleansing, not the other way around. About the alleged massacres of Ossetian civilians, I will say nothing until the smoke clears. I don't trust the media of either side during the conflict.

Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 12:26
I don't think anyone is ethnically cleansing anyone.
Both Georgia and Russia are multi-ethnic multi-cultural states neither of whom have the historical precedent. This is the caucuses, not the balkans.


-------------

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 12:32
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

I don't think anyone is ethnically cleansing anyone.
Both Georgia and Russia are multi-ethnic multi-cultural states neither of whom have the historical precedent. This is the caucuses, not the balkans.


Nonetheless, that's exactly what the Abkhazians did in the 90s, when they killed 20,000 and expelled another 200,000 Georgians. There weren't any historical precedents of cleansings prior to the 20th century in Yugoslavia either, and that didn't stop them.

Edit: link: http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/georgia/georgia953.pdf - http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/georgia/georgia953.pdf

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 12:40
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

The Georgians are the ones who have been targets for ethnic cleansing, not the other way around.
 
No actually, the Georgians were ones to not recognize the independence of Abhazia and Osetia which were declared on the same reason as declaration of independence of Georgia itself. Ethnic cleansing was bipolar, Georgians were for sure not angels in those wars and only internal georgian civil war actually prevented them to cleanse those two republics 15 years ago. So, you completely misinterpret avzailable data yourself, which is obviously because of the bias toward Russia. This bias is not something surprising, given that brainwashing during Col-War happened not only in Eastern Block.  
 
About the alleged massacres of Ossetian civilians, I will say nothing until the smoke clears. I don't trust the media of either side during the conflict.
This was shown in English ITV1 yesterday for example.


-------------
.

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 12:55
Originally posted by Anton

 
No actually, the Georgians were ones to not recognize the independence of Abhazia and Osetia which were declared on the same reason as declaration of independence of Georgia itself. Ethnic cleansing was bipolar, Georgians were for sure not angels in those wars and only internal georgian civil war actually prevented them to cleanse those two republics 15 years ago. So, you completely misinterpret avzailable data yourself, which is obviously because of the bias toward Russia. This bias is not something surprising, given that brainwashing during Col-War happened not only in Eastern Block. 

Why would they recognize their independence? The majority of the population of those provinces were Georgian. If I have a bias against Russia it's because of their constant tendency to invade small, neighbouring countries. I'm not "anti-Russian" or somesuch, if that's what you believe.

This was shown in English ITV1 yesterday for example.


I have yet to see anything convincing, though I'm not saying it's impossible.

Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 13:00
Anton, do you agree that Russia used Osetines and Abhazians all this time like as a tools to influence state of Georgia?

For example, if there was pro-Russian dictator in Georgia like Aleksandr Lukashenko in Belarus, who would come with an offer to Russia like "I will give you full control of pipeline, but all you have to do is stay neutral, I have some rebellious minorities to suppress." What kind of answer will Russia give?


-------------

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 13:38
Yes I do agree with that. This however is not unique for Russia. USA behaves in a similar manner. But at least untill recently, Russia behaved more consistantly than Western countries, supporting both Serbian and Georgian territorial integrities.

-------------
.

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 13:42
Originally posted by Anton

Yes I do agree with that. This however is not unique for Russia. USA behaves in a similar manner. But at least untill recently, Russia behaved more consistantly than Western countries, supporting both Serbian and Georgian territorial integrities.


Just to clarify to my post above: I do think the Georgians broke the cease fire and started the hostilities. However the Russians are overreacting, and it's pretty obvious that they are not fighting because of altruistic reasons. And yes, the West is bloody hypocrites, eg when it comes to Serbia.

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 13:44
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Why would they recognize their independence? The majority of the population of those provinces were Georgian. If I have a bias against Russia it's because of their constant tendency to invade small, neighbouring countries. I'm not "anti-Russian" or somesuch, if that's what you believe.
 
How would it be a majority if majority voted for independence? That does not make any sence. I do not believe that you are anti-Russian but you are biased as a consequence of cold war. Russia (not SU) so far didn't invade any which cannot be said for NATO block.
 


-------------
.

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 13:54
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Why would they recognize their independence? The majority of the population of those provinces were Georgian. If I have a bias against Russia it's because of their constant tendency to invade small, neighbouring countries. I'm not "anti-Russian" or somesuch, if that's what you believe.
 
How would it be a majority if majority voted for independence? That does not make any sence. I do not believe that you are anti-Russian but you are biased as a consequence of cold war. Russia (not SU) so far didn't invade any which cannot be said for NATO block.
 

Which referendum are you refereing to? The one about preservation of the Soviet Union in which the resident Georgians didn't even take part in?

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:02
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Just to clarify to my post above: I do think the Georgians broke the cease fire and started the hostilities. However the Russians are overreacting, and it's pretty obvious that they are not fighting because of altruistic reasons. And yes, the West is bloody hypocrites, eg when it comes to Serbia.
 
Then after recognizing all this why don't you  look at what are Russian interests in the region, when you try to predict Russian behaviour? This would be much more constructive than usual demagogy about number of deaths, brutality and so on.  Tell me what would be the geopolitical interest of Russia to invade Estonia? Do you see any reason? I don't. The same is applied to other Baltic countries and Ukraine. To Georgia as well, actually, as we now see that Russia stoped fightings on the border of South Osetia as soon as all Georgian troops left SO. Obviously she will now benefit from all this in form of preventing Georgia (and possibly Ukraine) entering EU and ganing more controll in Caucassus but this is entirely a fault of Georgia and her partners. This was geopolitical mistake. As I expressed before, would they freeze the cituation and concentrate on economical development by supporting and having good access to the markets of both EU and Russia the outcome in some 15-20 years might be different. Now it is too late. Happening exactly as it was in Bulgaria during Second Balkan War.


-------------
.

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:06
Originally posted by Zagros

Western media is so full of crap on this.  Many outlets present one side's claim as though it is fact.  For example, From watching the news you'd think that the Russian flag was flying in Gori.  But Russia has stated that its ground forces have not left S. Ossetia and US military sources have said there is no evidence that the Russians have advanced on Gori.

Furthermore - some deception is being spun out of Tblisi with regard to this proposed ceasefire.  They make it sound as though they are suing for peace and meeting a cold Russian shoulder.  The Russian deputy prime minister stated on C4 news that they had received no official approach to sign a ceasefire from Tblisi and in addition Abkhazia and S. Ossetia as recognised combatants in the conflict were to be the ones to sign it.  The Russian DPM made things a little clearer.

As I understood it, the French Foreign Minister himself presented the peace to Medjedjev and he was turned down. 



-------------

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:07
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Which referendum are you refereing to? The one about preservation of the Soviet Union in which the resident Georgians didn't even take part in?
 
Exactly. The one Georgians didn't particiapte because they would not manage to win it there.


-------------
.

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:09
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

The Georgians are the ones who have been targets for ethnic cleansing, not the other way around.
 
No actually, the Georgians were ones to not recognize the independence of Abhazia and Osetia which were declared on the same reason as declaration of independence of Georgia itself. Ethnic cleansing was bipolar, Georgians were for sure not angels in those wars and only internal georgian civil war actually prevented them to cleanse those two republics 15 years ago. So, you completely misinterpret avzailable data yourself, which is obviously because of the bias toward Russia. This bias is not something surprising, given that brainwashing during Col-War happened not only in Eastern Block.  
 
About the alleged massacres of Ossetian civilians, I will say nothing until the smoke clears. I don't trust the media of either side during the conflict.
This was shown in English ITV1 yesterday for example.

I'm quite certain that the most of people are biased against Russia and not for it... 



-------------

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:10
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Which referendum are you refereing to? The one about preservation of the Soviet Union in which the resident Georgians didn't even take part in?
 
Exactly. The one Georgians didn't particiapte because they would not manage to win it there.

If they were given the chance of fair vote, they would win, for they had been independent before. 



-------------

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:11
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Just to clarify to my post above: I do think the Georgians broke the cease fire and started the hostilities. However the Russians are overreacting, and it's pretty obvious that they are not fighting because of altruistic reasons. And yes, the West is bloody hypocrites, eg when it comes to Serbia.
 
Then after recognizing all this why don't you  look at what are Russian interests in the region, when you try to predict Russian behaviour? This would be much more constructive than usual demagogy about number of deaths, brutality and so on.  Tell me what would be the geopolitical interest of Russia to invade Estonia? Do you see any reason? I don't. The same is applied to other Baltic countries and Ukraine. To Georgia as well, actually, as we now see that Russia stoped fightings on the border of South Osetia as soon as all Georgian troops left SO. Obviously she will now benefit from all this in form of preventing Georgia (and possibly Ukraine) entering EU and ganing more controll in Caucassus but this is entirely a fault of Georgia and her partners. This was geopolitical mistake. As I expressed before, would they freeze the cituation and concentrate on economical development by supporting and having good access to the markets of both EU and Russia the outcome in some 15-20 years might be different. Now it is too late. Happening exactly as it was in Bulgaria during Second Balkan War.


Well, it does show that Russia won't hesitate to break international law and invade other countries - which in itself is no surprise - if it will benefit them. I don't think Russia is going to pick a fight with the EU. Several European states, most importantly Germany, are dependent on Russian oil, but the Russians are on the other hand quite dependent on the German money they receive for said oil. My direct worries is about all the fuss Russia made just because the Estonians moved a statue. I might not see the direct geopolitical targets, but the situation was quite the same when USSR steamrolled the Balticum in the 30s(and no, I do not agree with a direct distinction between USSR and Russia - USSR largely was Russia with satellites, not an equal-for-all union). Then we have the pipeline the Russians want to put in the Baltic - including a "security" station within Swedish waters. I'm not really enthustiastic to that.

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:18
The georgians where ethnically cleansed by the abkhaz as the loser in that war, same would of happened in reverse if the abkhaz lost. No one is an angel in that part of the world.

anyway in this thread i would rather post the more ethical, historical and POV type information as the title is subjective in itself.

Is it disproportionate?

Mikhail Gorbachev has now had his say, and it isnt nice to either the US or the current Georgian governmnat, and this guy is no hard core russian nationalist


A Path to Peace in the Caucasus


By Mikhail Gorbachev
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; Page A13

MOSCOW -- The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.

The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.

Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.

Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.

The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.

What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.

Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia.

In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.

Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims -- the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend -- and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus -- a region that should be approached with the greatest care.

When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.

Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.

Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.

The region's political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.

Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.

The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too -- but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.

The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank. A version of this article, in Russian, will be published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper tomorrow.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081101372.html?hpid=topnews - http://www.washingtonpost.com

my bolding

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:23
Originally posted by rider

As I understood it, the French Foreign Minister himself presented the peace to Medjedjev and he was turned down. 
How well received was Russian diplomacy over Kosovo?  the west is getting a text book copy of what they just did. They preferred strategic gain over international law and dimplomatic agreement, they can now expect the same response.

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:38
i try to only post the 'good' ones so keeping the S&P spam to a minimum. I thought the one below and Gorbachev deserve the honor.

This opinion piece I agree with the most, its long but well worth it. Otherwise my bolding has the points i really wanted to raise-repeat

Sarmat and anton my like it - the USSR-Rusphobes may not
Wink

Plucky little Georgia? No, the cold war reading won't wash

It is crudely simplistic to cast Russia as the sole villain in the clashes over South Ossetia. The west would be wise to stay out

For many people the sight of Russian tanks streaming across a border in August has uncanny echoes of Prague 1968. That cold war reflex is natural enough, but after two decades of Russian retreat from those bastions it is misleading. Not every development in the former Soviet Union is a replay of Soviet history.

The clash between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia, which escalated dramatically yesterday, in truth has more in common with the Falklands war of 1982 than it does with a cold war crisis. When the Argentine junta was basking in public approval for its bloodless recovery of Las Malvinas, Henry Kissinger anticipated Britain's widely unexpected military response with the comment: "No great power retreats for ever." Maybe today Russia has stopped the long retreat to Moscow which started under Gorbachev.

Back in the late 1980s, as the USSR waned, the red army withdrew from countries in eastern Europe which plainly resented its presence as the guarantor of unpopular communist regimes. That theme continued throughout the new republics of the deceased Soviet Union, and on into the premiership of Putin, under whom Russian forces were evacuated even from the country's bases in Georgia.

To many Russians this vast geopolitical retreat from places which were part of Russia long before the dawn of communist rule brought no bonus in relations with the west. The more Russia drew in its horns, the more Washington and its allies denounced the Kremlin for its imperial ambitions.

Unlike in eastern Europe, for instance, today in breakaway states such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia, Russian troops are popular. Vladimir Putin's picture is more widely displayed than that of the South Ossetian president, the former Soviet wrestling champion Eduard Kokoity. The Russians are seen as protectors against a repeat of ethnic cleansing by Georgians.

In 1992, the west backed Eduard Shevardnadze's attempts to reassert Georgia's control over these regions. The then Georgian president's war was a disaster for his nation. It left 300,000 or more refugees "cleansed" by the rebel regions, but for Ossetians and Abkhazians the brutal plundering of the Georgian troops is the most indelible memory.

Georgians have nursed their humiliation ever since. Although Mikheil Saakashvili has done little for the refugees since he came to power early in 2004 - apart from move them out of their hostels in central Tbilisi to make way for property development - he has spent 70% of the Georgian budget on his military. At the start of the week he decided to flex his muscles.

Devoted to achieving Nato entry for Georgia, Saakashvili has sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan - and so clearly felt he had American backing. The streets of the Georgian capital are plastered with posters of George W Bush alongside his Georgian protege. George W Bush avenue leads to Tbilisi airport. But he has ignored Kissinger's dictum: "Great powers don't commit suicide for their allies." Perhaps his neoconservative allies in Washington have forgotten it, too. Let's hope not.

Like Galtieri in 1982, Saakashvili faces a domestic economic crisis and public disillusionment. In the years since the so-called Rose revolution, the cronyism and poverty that characterised the Shevardnadze era have not gone away. Allegations of corruption and favouritism towards his mother's clan, together with claims of election fraud, led to mass demonstrations against Saakashvili last November. His ruthless security forces - trained, equipped and subsidised by the west - thrashed the protesters. Lashing out at the Georgians' common enemy in South Ossetia would certainly rally them around the president, at least in the short term.

Last September, President Saakashvili suddenly turned on his closest ally in the Rose revolution, defence minister Irakli Okruashvili. Each man accused his former blood brother of mafia links and profiting from contraband. Whatever the truth, the fact that the men seen by the west as the heroes of a post-Shevardnadze clean-up accused each other of vile crimes should warn us against picking a local hero in Caucasian politics.

Western geopolitical commentators stick to cold war simplicities about Russia bullying plucky little Georgia. However, anyone familiar with the Caucasus knows that the state bleating about its victim status at the hands of a bigger neighbour can be just as nasty to its smaller subjects. Small nationalisms are rarely sweet-natured.

Worse still, western backing for "equip and train" programmes in Russia's backyard don't contribute to peace and stability if bombastic local leaders such as Saakashvili see them as a guarantee of support even in a crisis provoked by his own actions. He seems to have thought that the valuable oil pipeline passing through his territory, together with the Nato advisers intermingled with his troops, would prevent Russia reacting militarily to an incursion into South Ossetia. That calculation has proved disastrously wrong.

The question now is whether the conflict can be contained, or whether the west will be drawn in, raising the stakes to desperate levels. To date the west has operated radically different approaches to secession in the Balkans, where pro-western microstates get embassies, and the Caucasus, where the Caucasian boundaries drawn up by Stalin, are deemed sacrosanct.

In the Balkans, the west promoted the disintegration of multiethnic Yugoslavia, climaxing with their recognition of Kosovo's independence in February. If a mafia-dominated microstate like Montenegro can get western recognition, why shouldn't flawed, pro-Russian, unrecognised states aspire to independence, too?

Given its extraordinary ethnic complexity, Georgia is a post-Soviet Union in miniature. If westerners readily conceded non-Russian republics' right to secede from the USSR in 1991, what is the logic of insisting that non-Georgians must remain inside a microempire which happens to be pro-western?

Other people's nationalisms are like other people's love affairs, or, indeed, like dog fights. These are things wise people don't get involved in. A war in the Caucasus is never a straightforward moral crusade - but then, how many wars are?

· Mark Almond is a history lecturer at Oriel College, Oxford



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/09/georgia.russia1 - www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/09/georgia.russia1

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:52
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Well, it does show that Russia won't hesitate to break international law and invade other countries - which in itself is no surprise - if it will benefit them. I don't think Russia is going to pick a fight with the EU. Several European states, most importantly Germany, are dependent on Russian oil, but the Russians are on the other hand quite dependent on the German money they receive for said oil. My direct worries is about all the fuss Russia made just because the Estonians moved a statue. I might not see the direct geopolitical targets, but the situation was quite the same when USSR steamrolled the Balticum in the 30s(and no, I do not agree with a direct distinction between USSR and Russia - USSR largely was Russia with satellites, not an equal-for-all union). Then we have the pipeline the Russians want to put in the Baltic - including a "security" station within Swedish waters. I'm not really enthustiastic to that.
 
No it does not. Because Russia will not benefit from it. Violating international law as we hopefully agreed is done not only by Russia but by others as well. Including EU. So don't bring it here. Besides, following this logic, Russia has much more to worry about as those countries who are much more advance in this violation started to create a military ring around Russian borders which entirely contradicts to that they claim.
 
Now regarding Swedish waters -- first of all it is still discussible  issue. Second, Sweden will surely use all possible tools to influence the situation and finally will be involved in it as a partner, I almost have no doubt about it. Next, you obviously recognize, that all fuss created by Poland and others is due to money they loose. Had they use less anti-Russian histeria and be more balanced this would never happen. BTW this histeria is also shamelessly used by all sorts of politicians in Eastern Europe for internal political reasons. Finally, I think it might be considered as a proven fact that Ukrania cannot be considered as a stable state on which EU should depend. Germany, for instance, perfectly recognizes this otherwise she wouldn't support/participate in those projects. And this is entirely their problem that they will loose money.


-------------
.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:53
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Just to clarify to my post above: I do think the Georgians broke the cease fire and started the hostilities. However the Russians are overreacting, and it's pretty obvious that they are not fighting because of altruistic reasons. And yes, the West is bloody hypocrites, eg when it comes to Serbia.
 
Then after recognizing all this why don't you  look at what are Russian interests in the region, when you try to predict Russian behaviour? This would be much more constructive than usual demagogy about number of deaths, brutality and so on.  Tell me what would be the geopolitical interest of Russia to invade Estonia? Do you see any reason? I don't. The same is applied to other Baltic countries and Ukraine. To Georgia as well, actually, as we now see that Russia stoped fightings on the border of South Osetia as soon as all Georgian troops left SO. Obviously she will now benefit from all this in form of preventing Georgia (and possibly Ukraine) entering EU and ganing more controll in Caucassus but this is entirely a fault of Georgia and her partners. This was geopolitical mistake. As I expressed before, would they freeze the cituation and concentrate on economical development by supporting and having good access to the markets of both EU and Russia the outcome in some 15-20 years might be different. Now it is too late. Happening exactly as it was in Bulgaria during Second Balkan War.


Well, it does show that Russia won't hesitate to break international law and invade other countries - which in itself is no surprise - if it will benefit them. I don't think Russia is going to pick a fight with the EU. Several European states, most importantly Germany, are dependent on Russian oil, but the Russians are on the other hand quite dependent on the German money they receive for said oil. My direct worries is about all the fuss Russia made just because the Estonians moved a statue. I might not see the direct geopolitical targets, but the situation was quite the same when USSR steamrolled the Balticum in the 30s(and no, I do not agree with a direct distinction between USSR and Russia - USSR largely was Russia with satellites, not an equal-for-all union). Then we have the pipeline the Russians want to put in the Baltic - including a "security" station within Swedish waters. I'm not really enthustiastic to that.
Fundamental flaw there and causes the reader to lose perspectiev. Stalin was......................Georgian! As was Beria (the founder of what would become KGB), Brezehav was Ukranian. The commander of Chechan forces, was in a previous incarnation chief of Staff of Soviet forces in Germany. Russian nationalism was considered a threat by Soveit leaders, indeed its rise was one of the causes of the demise of the Soviet Union. Stalin being Georgian is something many Russians have not forgotten, no matter how much he is admired. In fact Gori was his hometown and the Russians bombed his statue there.
 
 


-------------

Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 15:22


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 15:25
LOL

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 15:40
Originally posted by xi_tujue

 
Clap Brilliant !!!
 
LOLLOLLOL


-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 19:42
Originally posted by Sparten

Fundamental flaw there and causes the reader to lose perspectiev. Stalin was......................Georgian!


so what? Stalin was not the Soviet Union and Hitler was Austrian and Ernesto Guevara was originally from Argentine, it is completely meaningless were those people were born. even the 3. Reich had high-ranking generals from half europe that doesn't make the 3. Reich a multicultural empire.

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 20:47
Fantastic articles Leonidas.  The root of this conflict is very clearly Georgian chauvinism.

-------------

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 21:45
Here's another one:



-------------

Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 23:17
Originally posted by Zagros

Fantastic articles Leonidas.  The root of this conflict is very clearly Georgian chauvinism.
The Guardian apparently tries to make a balanced position. So does The Times as well.


-------------
.

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 23:22
That depends on the author actually in the case of those publications. I have seen some atrocious articles there in the past.


-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 03:21
i thought I may interupt this thread for a humorous quote break
 
"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st Century. The Russian government must reverse the course it appears to be on and accept this peace agreement as a first step toward solving this conflict"
US President George W Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7556857.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7556857.stm


Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com