Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia [Archive]

View Full Version : Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 00:42

Video (http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28629/video)

Article (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7546639.stm)

Thoughts? It's a bit of a complicated situation right now, but will all-out war result?

Tribesman

08-08-2008, 08:59

Brenus

08-08-2008, 10:14

What NATO is waiting for to bomb this evil Regime wich attack honest separatists?

Herkus

08-08-2008, 10:22

Some South Ossetinians want to be with Georgia, but shaika with Moscow support holds its business ( would be regarded as criminal in many countries) deeply connected Russia.

There is no ethic strife. It is all about the money and inner Ossetinian clan infighting (Some clans get support from Georgians, some from Russians). The same was happening even during USSR times, though we didnt know about it.

The same type of conflict was in Ajaria too (South West Georgia). Check internet for information how it was resolved.

It is all connected with realpolitic, The Caucasus is strategic region because of Caspian Sea oil. Many large countries have different interests there and through mass media they will accordingly focus their population about this conflict.

So far it looks like that Georgians specially want to provoke Russia to invade. And I expect that they will back off immediately. But either way it will be Georgian PR victory over Russia in the eve of Olympic Games.

HoreTore

08-08-2008, 13:27

150 russian tanks have entered, 2 russian planes shot down.

According to "experts" in the papers here, this might escalate... What does people here think about that?

Conradus

08-08-2008, 14:04

They're actually fighting a war over 70.000 people? That's one or two communities here, hardly worth the effort and bloodshed. Couldt Georgia try to negotiate some more?

I hope it doesn't escalate.

King Jan III Sobieski

08-08-2008, 14:20

Interesting , Israel has told Russia that it is only selling defensive weapons to Georgia and doesn't want to escalate the situation or alter the balance of regional power .
Russia responds by saying it is only selling defensive weapons to Iran and doesn't want to escalate the situation or alter the balance of regional power .
Funny stuff eh .

America defends Israel. American troops were training with Georgian troops. Russia defends Iran.

World War 3, anyone?

How about:

Side 1
Georgia
USA
UK
Eastern European
Nations
etc. etc.

Side 2
Russia
Iran
Syria
etc. etc.

It spreads to the Middle East, and we all get screwed. :embarassed::help::embarassed:

Seamus Fermanagh

08-08-2008, 14:22

My guess?

Some escalation, but not an all-out conflict.

Russia has played this game along with the locals for some time now. Probably some sense of need by Putin to show the iron fist a bit -- gotta keep the former "colonials" in their place, but unlikely he'd want loads of scrutiny or a large scale semi-guerilla conflict ongoing as he continues to consolidate power.

Dâriûsh

08-08-2008, 14:25

From Aljaz (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/20088885055793605.html)

Martin McCauley, a London-based Russia analyst, told Al Jazeera: "You can argue that the president of South Ossetia, who wants independence from Georgia, is deliberately provoking Tbilisi and is trying to suck Russia in."

Georgia's national security council warned that Moscow and Tbilisi would be in "a state of war" if the reports of a Russian military convoy entering South Ossetia proved true.

Saakashvili said: "A full-scale aggression has been launched against Georgia [by Russia]. Georgia will not yield its territory or renounce its freedom," he said.

He also announced a full military mobilisation with reservists being called into action.

Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, promised on Friday to defend Russian citizens in South Ossetia.

"We cannot allow the deaths of our countrymen to go unpunished. The guilty parties will receive the punishment they deserve," he said in televised remarks.

For his part, Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, spoke of retaliation and pledged to protect Russian citizens.

Pompous bombasts, the lot of them. :skull:

KukriKhan

08-08-2008, 14:37

Viking

08-08-2008, 14:41

TinCow

08-08-2008, 14:44

America defends Israel. American troops were training with Georgian troops. Russia defends Iran.

World War 3, anyone?

Not a chance. The US is in no situation to oppose Russia militarily. Unless Georgia somehow pulls out a victory in this war on its own (or survives for long enough for there to be a negotiated ceasefire) this will result in Russia giving the US a major black eye. Assuming they can achieve military victory, this is a good political move by Putin as it would greatly strengthen Russian influence in the region.

CrossLOPER

08-08-2008, 14:51

This is all the result of a lot of broken promises and and truly bad diplomacy over the years. Hopefully the change of administration in the US can help fix this, but I don't think that escalation will wait until then.

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 14:53

Our troops have been training for 8 years in a multi-regional, moderate-low, real combat situation. That's better than not having fought a real campaign for 33 years and having something go down. I think we should butt out for the time being. In the next few days, will NATO enter Georgia do you think?

I'd rather have WW3 happen now than in 10-20 years. Anybody else?

Marshal Murat

08-08-2008, 15:14

Russian Armored Forces Roll. (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL768040420080808?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

Russian news agencies quoted witnesses saying a Russian armored column had rolled across the border.

MOBILISATION

Saakashvili told reporters: "This is a clear intrusion on another country's territory. We have Russian tanks on our territory, jets on our territory in broad daylight." He ordered a full-scale mobilization of military reservists.

This is really terrible, and I think that someone should try to mediate this. I can only hope that Georgia takes to heart the lessons of all small countries.

Strike fast, strike hard. Inflict as many casualties as possible. Maybe we should create a polygot mercenary force to help them. :shrug:

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 15:15

Russian Armored Forces Roll. (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL768040420080808?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

This is really terrible, and I think that someone should try to mediate this. I can only hope that Georgia takes to heart the lessons of all small countries.

Strike fast, strike hard. Inflict as many casualties as possible. Maybe we should create a polygot mercenary force to help them. :shrug:

You mean like NATO?

rvg

08-08-2008, 15:32

Well, now we know for sure which country is the first one to be absorbed into Comrade Putin's new Soviet Union.

TinCow

08-08-2008, 15:38

You mean like NATO?

Their reaction will be very interesting. In April, NATO promised Georgia that they would be invited to join in the near future. On one hand, a promised invitation is not membership, so NATO is not bound to defend Georgia. On the other hand, it's also a guarantee of future membership, and thus allowing Russia to invade Georgia would be a direct challenge to NATO itself. Not a good situation to be in.

:juggle2:

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 15:38

Areas around Georgia's capital seem to have been bombed by Russian forces. Georgia is removing its 2000 strong fighting force from Iraq.

This action seems to be in response to knowledge by Russia that Georgia will be part of NATO as of next year. If they had been part of NATO now this would have never happened, but if it had we would be at war with the Russian Federation.

I guess we know where Medvedev is coming from now, eh? I hope Putin is enjoying himself in Beijing.

Also there seems to be a trend in calling violent occupational forces "peace keepers". 10 Russian "peace keepers" seem to have been killed earlier this morning as other "peace keepers" bombed bases near Tbilisi...

Georgia put 2000 of its dudes on the line in Iraq and is being promised NATO membership discussion. To let them fry would be despicable.

Geoffrey S

08-08-2008, 15:47

Georgia put 2000 of its dudes on the line in Iraq and is being promised NATO membership discussion. To let them fry would be despicable.
It would be, wouldn't it? :beam:

Husar

08-08-2008, 15:49

Yes, the best thing to do is to start a huge war with Russia now, a nuclear war if possible, only because Georgia had to shell some 70,000 breakaway nutters in nooneknowswhere. :dizzy2:

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 15:55

Yes, the best thing to do is to start a huge war with Russia now, a nuclear war if possible, only because Georgia had to shell some 70,000 breakaway nutters in nooneknowswhere. :dizzy2:

Not a huge war. Just an idy-bity one.

We could send in NATO Peacekeepers like we did in Serbia before things got way too hot. That was a good move that worked out well. Russia wouldn't attack NATO right now. Unless they are insane - in which case a massive war is rather unavoidable anyway, eh?

I just don't understand why they are bombing around Tbilisi. Get a map and see how absurd that is.

rvg

08-08-2008, 15:57

Yes, the best thing to do is to start a huge war with Russia now, a nuclear war if possible, only because Georgia had to shell some 70,000 breakaway nutters in nooneknowswhere. :dizzy2:

Not quite as radical, but it won't hurt to show some spine and at the very least issue a condemnation of Russian invasion, followed by some financial and logistical assistance to Georgia.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

08-08-2008, 16:23

I think Full Blown War will happen. Russia is just mad that they aren't as big as they were 40 years ago..

Tribesman

08-08-2008, 16:32

Oh well onto more interesting subjects .
Did anyone see the opening ceromony of the Olympics ?
I did , they put it on in the pub just after arrived after I had taken he kids for their morning dip in the Atlantic .
It was quite good , it certainly give the Macnas parade a run for its money , but then again I don't think the Macnas parade gets quite the level of money that the Olympics get and the performers don't end up in labour camps if they screw up .
But anyway after a while the racing started so the opening ceremony got switched off as I don't think there is a bookie that is taking bets on how many flags are waved or what sort of patterns the performers can make in the sand .

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 16:42

When China recieved the Olympics I thought it was a good idea because of the positive geopolitical effects. Those effects were not forthcoming, so I'm not going to watch a man dance around in his skivies on ice. Unless he is doing it in South Ossetia.

Olympics shmolympics. This is a Total-War forum, not a Total-Olympics forum.

Update - the dancing hot chinese girl band was good. Olympics are as boring as hell. I'd rather watch the World Cup.

yesdachi

08-08-2008, 17:02

NATO dragged their feet too long, let Russia have Georgia.

Innocentius

08-08-2008, 17:21

I've been hoping for a Russian war since the day I understood there was a huge country with massive resources and a rather bad-ass military history next door, so any conflict involving Russia in any way is interesting to me. Shame they don't use the good old Red Army tactics anymore where they'd attack en masse, just that only half of them would actually have guns.

Tribesman

08-08-2008, 17:45

Olympics shmolympics. This is a Total-War forum, not a Total-Olympics forum.

Update - the dancing hot chinese girl band was good. Olympics are as boring as hell. I'd rather watch the World Cup.

Oh come on Tuff , it was very good .
one fella on seeing the puppeteers actualy suggested that the puppets were really small chinese people as they were so lifelike , entertainment like that is priceless .
Well not the puppeteers but the comment by the idiot in the pub .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 17:51

Oh come on Tuff , it was very good .
one fella on seeing the puppeteers actualy suggested that the puppets were really small chinese people as they were so lifelike , entertainment like that is priceless .
Well not the puppeteers but the comment by the idiot in the pub .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Haha. They could easily be construed as puppets.

Dâriûsh

08-08-2008, 18:09

Georgia put 2000 of its dudes on the line in Iraq and is being promised NATO membership discussion. To let them fry would be despicable. So, should the Georgian army be allowed to complete the ethnic cleansing of South Ossetia they began in 1991?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 18:40

Link with video (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7548715.stm) (though lots of it appears to be self-propelled artillery like the 2S3 Akatsiya instead of tanks as advertised)

Interesting , Israel has told Russia that it is only selling defensive weapons to Georgia and doesn't want to escalate the situation or alter the balance of regional power .
Russia responds by saying it is only selling defensive weapons to Iran and doesn't want to escalate the situation or alter the balance of regional power .
Funny stuff eh .

Business as usual. Everyone knows they're lying, and everyone knows what they're actually doing. But if they said what they're actually doing, they would have an international outcry.

Strike fast, strike hard. Inflict as many casualties as possible. Maybe we should create a polygot mercenary force to help them. :shrug:

Why? We have two breakaway countries. As it seems right now, Georgia has just attacked one of these countries, and the other country and Russia came to the aid of that country.

Decker

08-08-2008, 18:49

Wow!...This happened really fast. In my personal opinion(and I'm no expert in the Russian world of Politics), but I'd say let them go at it. If it means no war with Russia or a World War Three in general. Then good. There is no point in escalating into a conventional war with a nuclear power over a little meaningless province. Yes, it's horrible that civilians, soldiers are probably being killed as we speak, but if it mean thousands or millions more are spared from being drawn into this conflict then so be it. Lets hope that they keep it to South Ossetia and not spread the fighting to the rest of Georgia, though, if Georgia mobilizes and calls up more troops, then that might happen.

Russia "suppressed" Georgia fire in South Ossetia

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian soldiers now in the South Ossetian capital say their artillery has begun firing at Georgian forces - the first confirmed engagement between the two countries' troops, Russian agencies reported.

"Georgian troop positions firing on Tskhinvali and peacekeepers were suppressed by artillery fire and tank units of the 58th Army, which are outside the capital of South Ossetia," Russian army Colonel Igor Konashenkov, television channel Vesti-24 quoted him as saying.

Russians engaging Georgians (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2008-08-08T162849Z_01_L737912_RTRUKOC_0_UK-GEORGIA-OSSETIA.xml)

Marshal Murat

08-08-2008, 20:37

IrishArmenian, where are you when we need Caucasian politics explained???

EMFM: The opening picture is of T-80s with reactive armor, followed by a rolling clip of the self-propelled artillery and what look like BMDs (or a similar model).

Why? We have two breakaway countries. As it seems right now, Georgia has just attacked one of these countries, and the other country and Russia came to the aid of that country.

The two 'countries' mentioned, Abkanaz (or something similar) and Southern Ossetia are regions that are under Georgian control. One region, specifically Southern Ossetia, agreed to a ceasefire, but then attacked Georgian forces. Now Russian 'peacekeepers' are rolling in with the heavy stuff, protecting 'Russian' civilians, attacking Georgian troops, and supporting an insurrectionist movement. Abkanaz rebels have been moving in to assist, but to my knowledge, Georgia still remains in control.

As such, Georgia can either
1. Play dead and let Ossetia be overrun by Russian peacekeepers, who will probably stay for some time.
2. Fight back hard and fast, driving back Rebel and Russian forces, fighting them off until outside intervention.
3. Forget about the two provinces, and let bygones be bygones.

Georgia now is at a turning point. They can either continue the battles against Russia, or they can stop. It's going to be interesting to see if the Russians can get to Atlanta.

Sarmatian

08-08-2008, 20:44

I'd rather have WW3 happen now than in 10-20 years. Anybody else?

Have you ever visited the planet Earth?

Kralizec

08-08-2008, 20:44

I'm pretty ignorant on the entire Caucasus, but I'd pick option #3 outlined in Marshall Murat's post. Clinging on to regions that don't want you is:
A) immoral
B) usually not worth it, anyway
Plus it seems rather far fetched to assume a country like Georgia could take and keep a region that wants to be part of Russia and wich Russia is willing to defend if necessary.

Does anyone know how the south Ossetians came to being Russian citizens?

Conradus

08-08-2008, 20:47

Does anyone know how the south Ossetians came to being Russian citizens?

As far as I know, Russia basically gave those Ossetians who wanted it a Russian pasport. Makes for an excellent casus belli now.

Marshal Murat

08-08-2008, 20:50

Like people in East Karelia were Russian Citizens in 1938 (roll eyes).

I think it's Russian citizens living in Georgia (KGB plants???) who work there, and some have been killed (perhaps justly, maybe injustly, who knows?). SO Russia has responded like the Americans did in Latin America, Brits in India and Africa.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 20:52

Russian forces exchange heavy fire with Georgians. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550354.stm)

EMFM: The opening picture is of T-80s with reactive armor, followed by a rolling clip of the self-propelled artillery and what look like BMDs (or a similar model).

Yes, I know, it's just a small gripe I have with the news service..."Video of Russian tanks rolling in to South Ossetia"...well, partially, but the video is mostly 2S3 Akatsiyas, BMDs, and BMPs. Anyways, moving on. ~;)

The two 'countries' mentioned, Abkanaz (or something similar) and Southern Ossetia are regions that are under Georgian control. One region, specifically Southern Ossetia, agreed to a ceasefire, but then attacked Georgian forces.

That's actually not true. Firstly, South Ossetia is partly under Georgian control. Secondly, Georgia did break the ceasefire, as outlined in the article. They admit having done so.

The head of Georgian peacekeepers in South Ossetia said the operation was intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region.

The Georgians launched an operation after a ceasefire had been agreed to.

2. Fight back hard and fast, driving back Rebel and Russian forces, fighting them off until outside intervention.

If anyone intervenes, they will be a fool to do so.

Does anyone know how the south Ossetians came to being Russian citizens?

Not sure, though I suspect the North Ossetians and the close relations the South Ossetians have to Russia must have something to do with it. Besides, it's handy to have a good passport that lets you travel if you're rebelling against the country that issues your other one...

Mailman653

08-08-2008, 20:58

When we mettion Russian peacekeepers, are we talking about UN backed peacekeepers or Russian backed troops keeping the peace.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 21:01

When we mettion Russian peacekeepers, are we talking about UN backed peacekeepers or Russian backed troops keeping the peace.

Russian-backed troops keeping Georgians away from a Russian-backed seperatist region.

Marshal Murat

08-08-2008, 21:05

fighting them off until outside intervention.

When I said 'outside intervention' I can understand how it could be taken as "military intervention". However, I meant intervention by outside groups to prevent further escalation and killing, which might include military intervention, or it could be diplomatic intervention.

Otherwise, thank you for correcting my mistake.

Xiahou

08-08-2008, 21:16

Does anyone know how the south Ossetians came to being Russian citizens?I'm guessing it was probably done so that Russia would have casus belli against Georgia when the Georgians inevitably tried to retake the region. :yes:

PanzerJaeger

08-08-2008, 21:51

Link with video (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7548715.stm) (though lots of it appears to be self-propelled artillery like the 2S3 Akatsiya instead of tanks as advertised)

Thanks! With a few notable exceptions, Russian armor is very awkward looking. I always enjoy seeing it in action, though. Looks like they had those '90's fully decked out for low intensity urban combat.

Geoffrey S

08-08-2008, 22:02

Ideally, Georgia takes its hits and moves on. Who's right and who's wrong here is damned murky - suffice to say that those suffering are South Ossetian civilians, be they Russian or Georgian. If Georgia does decide to put up a serious fight it'll be shown just how toothless NATO is against Russia for all to see - they can't and won't intervene. So I hope it doesn't come to that.

Marshal Murat

08-08-2008, 22:07

So is this a case of appeasement by allowing Russia to absorb two areas? Is it a case of simple peace-keeping?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 22:09

So is this a case of appeasement by allowing Russia to absorb two areas?

It's more like the Anchluss than the annexation of Czechoslovakia, if you want to compare. To my knowledge, if two countries want to join, it is not our right to stop them. That is up to the people of those nations. If they didn't want to join and Russia forced them, that would be something else altogether.

Devastatin Dave

08-08-2008, 22:24

America defends Israel. American troops were training with Georgian troops. Russia defends Iran.

World War 3, anyone?

How about:

Side 1
Georgia
USA
UK
Eastern European
Nations
etc. etc.

Side 2
Russia
Iran
Syria
etc. etc.

It spreads to the Middle East, and we all get screwed. :embarassed::help::embarassed:

The assasination Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was all it took for WW1. This is gonna be bad...

GeneralHankerchief

08-08-2008, 22:26

It's more like the Anchluss than the annexation of Czechoslovakia, if you want to compare. To my knowledge, if two countries want to join, it is not our right to stop them. That is up to the people of those nations. If they didn't want to join and Russia forced them, that would be something else altogether.

Does Georgia still claim ownership over South Ossetia?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 22:28

Does Georgia still claim ownership over South Ossetia?

Indeed it does. Does South Ossetia want to be part of Georgia or part of Russia?

GeneralHankerchief

08-08-2008, 22:33

Indeed it does. Does South Ossetia want to be part of Georgia or part of Russia?

It wants to be part of Russia, I believe, but that's not the issue. When you get down to it, it's essentially Russia absorbing a chunk of land at Georgia's expense. It would be more of the Anschluss if South Ossetia was an independent nation and they had agreed to Russian hegemony at the expense of the Allies (in this case, Georgia). This smacks more of the Sudentenland to me.

Praxil

08-08-2008, 22:33

Also there seems to be a trend in calling violent occupational forces "peace keepers". 10 Russian "peace keepers" seem to have been killed earlier this morning as other "peace keepers" bombed bases near Tbilisi...

I just don't understand why they are bombing around Tbilisi. Get a map and see how absurd that is.

Eh? Are you aware of the fact that it's Georgia attacking in South Ossetia?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 22:36

This smacks more of the Sudentenland to me.

Well, South Ossetia maintains more independance than the Sudetenland, so I think somewhere in between is about right. But it's really too bad for Georgia. They can't win by force, and the people in the region they want are rejecting them.

CrossLOPER

08-08-2008, 22:39

Have you ever visited the planet Earth?
I wonder sometimes about the people here.

GeneralHankerchief

08-08-2008, 22:40

Well, South Ossetia maintains more independance than the Sudetenland, so I think somewhere in between is about right. But it's really too bad for Georgia. They can't win by force, and the people in the region they want are rejecting them.

Indeed.

Let's hope this is the only WWII comparison that needs to be made.

KrooK

08-08-2008, 22:41

I don't care who started but I would rather support theory that it was Russian side.
Some months ago Georgia , Azerbeijan and Turkey signed treaty about international gas pipe beetwen Azerbeijan and Turkey - it could break Russian position into Europe.
But if we have war into Georgia.....

But I think we all have to agree on one thing : Georgians have eggs - they are not afraid and fight.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 22:46

Let's hope this is the only WWII comparison that needs to be made.

Let's hope. But Georgia started this current conflict, and if Russia wants to finish it, let them.

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 23:35

Georgia did not start this. South Ossetia is Georgian territory in rebellion. Russia should understand this as they would flip out if another nation sent troops into Chechnya after giving Chechen civilians free passports and declaring them citizens of the other country.

The U.S. would have been pissed if the U.K. declared the Confederacy an off-shoot of the British Empire.

Russia does not respect Georgian sovereignty and is attempting to get the ball rolling before Georgia enters NATO. This is also one of the many actions they have been taking to spit in the face of the U.S. and E.U. over missile defense. Russia is rapidly entering the fray as a big bad guy in world affairs - Iranian Uranium Program support, enabling of the Sudanese in Darfur, Russian arms supply to Venezuela, resumption of nuclear flights between Russia and Cuba, and now the invasion and annexation of land in a sovereign country.

They may need to have their noses bloodied very soon. Hopefully Georgia can do that for us.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-08-2008, 23:40

Georgia did not start this. South Ossetia is Georgian territory in rebellion.

Georgia began an operation against South Ossetia after they agreed to a second ceasefire. Georgia started this round.

Viking

08-08-2008, 23:52

They may need to have their noses bloodied very soon. Hopefully Georgia can do that for us.

Russian population: ~142 mill.
Georgian population: 4-5 mill.

Wish them good luck.

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 23:54

Georgia began an operation against South Ossetia after they agreed to a second ceasefire. Georgia started this round.

Georgia broke a ceasefire and admit that, but they did not ignite the conflict here. South Ossetians seem to have done this and inflamed the conflict by destroying a Georgian APC. This is what the U.S. maintains as well. This is Russian opportunism and i'm suprised that this is not your interpretation of it, EMFM. They will use this opportunity to sever Abhkazia and South Ossetia from Georgia once and for all. Former Soviet satellites should understand how ridiculous this is.

ICantSpellDawg

08-08-2008, 23:59

Russian population: ~142 mill.
Georgian population: 4-5 mill.

Wish them good luck.

Unless Russia is planning on going to war with Georgia as a whole they could potentially be bloodied.

KrooK

08-09-2008, 00:01

Osetia is part of Georgia practically under Russian ocupation....
Russia started it all.

Marshal Murat

08-09-2008, 00:03

Howza 'bout we blame the Mongols for pushing the Ossetians into Georgia?
Novogrod for forming the basis for the Russian Empire, which spread to the Caucaus Mountain region?

Megalos

08-09-2008, 00:18

This is very serious indeed.

I just hope that monkey, that the Americans call Bush, see's through Georgia's manipulation of America and NATO and doesn't back them in the slightest. Afterall, the Georgians had no need to go back into the region after so many years.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 00:27

Georgia broke a ceasefire and admit that, but they did not ignite the conflict here.

Well, by breaking the ceasefire they started the present conflict.

This is Russian opportunism and i'm suprised that this is not your interpretation of it, EMFM.

Certainly they are taking advantage of the situtation. Any country would do the same. Georgia attempted to take advantage by attacking South Ossetia, and they failed when the big kid on the block stepped in to take advantage. The little kid (Ossetia) seems to prefer the big kid to the medium kid.

They will use this opportunity to sever Abhkazia and South Ossetia from Georgia once and for all.

Why is that a problem if that is what Abkhazia and South Ossetia want? Because it is the Russians doing it?

My point is that this is a local conflict and no threat whatsoever to the Western world. I don't consider Georgia particularily useful, and I've lost all sympathy I may have had for them when they attacked Ossetia after agreeing to a ceasefire hours before.

Marshal Murat

08-09-2008, 00:48

My point is that this is a local conflict and no threat whatsoever to the Western world.

Even the smallest grain of rice can tip the scales - Mulan

It's a matter of principle for me. It has raised an interesting philosophical question.

Why would I support Kosovo and Tibet independence and decry Ossetian and Abhakazian independence? I would say that it's because Tibet and Kosovo wish to be free and independent nations. Ossetia and Abhakazia (sp?) wish to be a part of Russia. It's a dangerous precedent. Were there a significant majority of illegal Mexican immigrants to move into Southern Texas, and then settle there? They might ask to leave this Union, and join the nation of Mexico! It would be absurd for me to allow the Mexican immigrants any right to rejoin Mexico. The same, to me, applies to Ossetia and Abhakazia.

Seeing Georgia break a ceasefire is disgraceful, but considering the swift (surprising swift) Russian response, not only in Ossetia but across the nation of Georgia? Were Russia to march in only to Ossetia and attempt to prevent further Georgian advances, and then attempt to argue for mediation, that I would understand. However, continued Russian aggression is disconcerting. Georgia is a small nation and the seemingly large Russian response makes me feel bad for Georgia. Call it the "David vs. Goliath" mentality of Americans.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 01:00

Even the smallest grain of rice can tip the scales - Mulan

Only if you let it.

Seeing Georgia break a ceasefire is disgraceful, but considering the swift (surprising swift) Russian response, not only in Ossetia but across the nation of Georgia?

It's not really surprisingly swift. Russia already had forces there, and when the order comes, they can move quickly. That is the whole point of keeping a prepared military - to respond swiftly.

Georgia is a small nation and the seemingly large Russian response makes me feel bad for Georgia. Call it the "David vs. Goliath" mentality of Americans.

I also see it as a David vs. Goliath battle, only I see South Ossetia as David, Georgia as Goliath, and something much larger coming to help South Ossetia when it requires it.

Rhyfelwyr

08-09-2008, 01:31

Russian peacekeeper troops in South Ossetia obvioualy failed in their duty to keep the peace since the Georgian APC was destroyed. South Ossetia is Georgia's territory, they have every right to defend themselves within it.

South Ossetia is just an excuse for Russia to invade or at least impose its influence over Georgia.

Caius

08-09-2008, 02:08

Well, now we know for sure which country is the first one to be absorbed into Comrade Putin's new Soviet Union.
I'm laughing at you right now Comrade. Come on, its absurd! I mean, you can't judge the book by the portade. Communism is something more than the party. You don't need just the party, but you also need a lot of conditions to make it work. Well, I think its my opinion.

Crazed Rabbit

08-09-2008, 04:24

I've got to agree with TuffStuff; I see this as Russian action to prevent Georgia from joining NATO. I don't think they give one care in the world for the Ossetians (sp?).

Georgia helped us in Iraq and were looking to join NATO. I think we need to support them morally and to show Russia it can't bully everyone around anymore.

CR

Ice

08-09-2008, 04:24

I'm laughing at you right now Comrade. Come on, its absurd! I mean, you can't judge the book by the portade. Communism is something more than the party. You don't need just the party, but you also need a lot of conditions to make it work. Well, I think its my opinion.

He isn't saying Russia is communist. "Putin's Soviet Union" wouldn't be communist.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 04:36

I've got to agree with TuffStuff; I see this as Russian action to prevent Georgia from joining NATO. I don't think they give one care in the world for the Ossetians (sp?).

I doubt the Russians care much for the Ossetians either. But the Ossetians within South Ossetia want the Russians, and the Ossetians within Russia want the Ossetians outside of Russia. Russia has good relations with Ossetia, and it is natural from them to aid Ossetia in its hour of need.

I think we need to support them morally and to show Russia it can't bully everyone around anymore.

I think that some people are missing the point. Georgia attacked South Ossetia and broke the peacekeeping deal they had with the Russians and the Ossetians. Russia did not cross the border until this was done.

Marshal Murat

08-09-2008, 04:38

EMFM, why do you hate freedom? :inquisitive:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 04:42

EMFM, why do you hate freedom? :inquisitive:

I don't, I love it. Which is why I am supporting Abkhazia and South Ossetia, who want to be free of Georgia.

Alexander the Pretty Good

08-09-2008, 05:18

It's a shame all three parties can't lose.

Marshal Murat

08-09-2008, 05:21

Alexander, I have no idea how serious you are, but just wait until the EU gets involved.
It might just get worse.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 05:32

If everyone is smart, we will let this regional conflict die away. This isn't worth a larger war. But then again, less has sparked much more.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 06:00

Devastatin Dave

08-09-2008, 06:11

It's getting worse. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550804.stm) Though I suspect incidents like those mentioned in the article have been going on for several hours at least, a full military conflict between Georgia and Russia will ensue unless the UN gets something together quickly. I've already said that I believe South Ossetia is in the right in this conflict, but I'm still hoping it doesn't escalate.

The UN? Hahahahahaha!!!:laugh4:
Riiight, the UN is going to "swiftly" move in on this one!!! Man, no offense to you Mr Martian but there is a better possibility of Boy George going straight than the UN doing anything but talk in this one.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 06:17

The UN? Hahahahahaha!!!:laugh4:
Riiight, the UN is going to "swiftly" move in on this one!!! Man, no offense to you Mr Martian but there is a better possibility of Boy George going straight than the UN doing anything but talk in this one.

Did I say I thought they were going to do anything? If I don't trust the EU, what makes you think I'll trust the UN? Allow me to clarify my original post. A full military conflict between Russia and Georgia will ensue, barring a miracle. We're screwed.

Alexander the Pretty Good

08-09-2008, 06:32

Alexander, I have no idea how serious you are, but just wait until the EU gets involved.
It might just get worse.
I was pretty serious. The Russians are hypocrites at best, imperialists at worse. The Georgians and Ossetians are probably equally guilty of slaughter, though the Ossetians come off better because they were losing until the Russians got involved. If intervention turns military, that can only end in (more) tears.

nokhor

08-09-2008, 07:53

PBI

08-09-2008, 08:25

If everyone is smart, we will let this regional conflict die away. This isn't worth a larger war. But then again, less has sparked much more.

Pretty much my thoughts. I certainly don't think this conflict is necessarily as black and white as some are making out, and I certainly see no reason to pick sides. Seems to me the best we can hope for is for the conflict to be over quickly, with relatively little bloodshed.

Decker

08-09-2008, 08:56

i've read that there's basically only one real road between russia and georgia and that is closed during the winter. the border is basically one huge mountain range so that should heavily favor the defensive. georgia obviously timed the escalation to coiincide with most of the world's leaders being in beijing, giving putin and world leaders less time to be able to respond immediately to the crisis. and it doesn't matter which side actually broke the ceasefire, the fact that georgian troops were able to converge on the south ossetian capital within hours of the ceasefire being broken, to me proves that that wasn't just by accident. operational plans like that don't get created on the fly.

so my interpretation is that georgia is looking for a lightning quick conquest of s. ossetia before winter. by the time russia actually mobilizes and is able to launch a real attack in the spring, georgia will be so fortified that it would make chechnya look like a walk in the park. it is very difficult for russia logistically to get to georgia with troops numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and only forces of that magnitude would be enough to pacify georgia itself. not to mention, since georgia borders chechnya, they could threaten to destabilize that whole ball of wax again.

but i think saakashvilli (sp?) is playing with fire. let's say this whole thing has been engineered by russia, so what? the ossetians are not ethnically georgians, it only has one sizeable city, the population, resources and size of the region is miniscule, is this worth the price that georgia will have to pay in lives and millions of dollars to try and keep this place with very little guarantee of success? but nationalism can make people do irrational things sometimes.

Ahh see but you're missing the fact that Russia has also threatened military action against Georgia over S. Ossetia before the cease-fire and so they had their military pretty much ready to go. And when the ceasefire was confirmed the day before the "invasion," Georgian military forces were already prepared to invade as it was. So from what has happened, Georgia commenced a very quick strike against S. Ossetia's capital as they probably were preparing to do so before the "ceasefire," and probably hoped to be in position to adequately fend off any serious Russian advance.

And as for the road leading in, I've read that there are two roads, one being a tunnel, and from the pictures and video, it appears the Russians used the road rather than a bottleneck tunnel which could turn into a disaster for the Russians if defended well.

And it does matter who broke the cease-fire. You have the Georgian pres. doing his "best" to accuse Russia of starting the festivities while it is clear to everyone else that they, the Georgians, ignited the fighting by "blitzkrieging" into S. Ossetia's capital. And it is obvious that this is a bit of a land-grab by both countries, but with Georgia starting the fighting, it's hard to say if they'll get any support short of political pressure put on Russia to back off from crushing Georgia and from Georgia from invading S. Ossetia again. In the end, if fighting DOES stop, then we might see a type of Kosovo evolve there if nothing else works as I don't see anyone wanting to ignite some sort of...world war threeish scenario.

Banquo's Ghost

08-09-2008, 09:20

It should be noted that Russia officially recognises Georgia's current borders and territorial integrity. The referenda in Abkhazia and South Ossetia that emboldened them to declare unilateral independence have not been recognised internationally. There is no legal framework for Russia's actions.

The high number of ethnic Russians in these regions is a mere fig leaf for imperialism. The Russians have thrown that one around to intimidate the Baltic States and Ukraine for years. Would we understand so readily if they had invaded Estonia over that incident with the war memorials? Are we keen to allow Kurdistan to win, through terrorism, her separation from Turkey and Iraq? Russian citizenship has been distributed like candy to ensure a nominal majority, and "peacekeepers" (oh joy, another euphemism for terrorists makes it into the dictionary) amply supplied with weaponry and resource.

These threats have been long standing, and occasionally emphasised with fly-overs and incursions. Georgia - a democratic nation, western facing - has lost patience. I'm not so sure they have made a mistake - the Russian military may be big, but it is largely demotivated conscripts with poor training and leadership. The last imperial expedition in Chechnya (also facilitated by some fancy provocation and theatrical "terror" attacks) still bleeds Russian youth dry and returns them drunk and violent to the streets of Petersburg and Moscow.

Imperialism should be opposed by the West, and I am pleased to see the reasonably stern responses so far. Russia is a dangerous beast fuelled by nationalism, and wars are the fodder for such creatures. The comparison with the Sudetenland is not much of a stretch.

And one should not forget that Krook has the essence of it - this is mainly about the pipeline, and its threat to Russian hegemony over supply to Europe.

Sarmatian

08-09-2008, 11:07

Pipeline doesn't threaten Russia that much. Two large markets for Russian natural gas and oil exist and a pipeline isn't such a big deal. The big deal is that Georgia wants to join NATO.

But funny how Russia, by virtue of name, becomes the bad guy in any situation. Anything else is irrelevant. If Russia is involved, no one will look up what's happening, who broke the ceasefire who attacked the peacekeeping force and so on.

Do a little word game and change the words Georgia, Ossetia and Russia with Serbia, Kosovo and NATO.

What would we get then - Serbia broke the ceasefire, attacked it's breakaway province of Kosovo and NATO peacekeepers. NATO would respond in that situation surely. Just wondering if the majority of people here would be so quick to say how imperialistic evil NATO attacks poor, little Serbia. Ah, well, can't be helped, can't be helped. Some people want to believe their own little myths and live in a world where good and bad depends solely on which side they are...

King Henry V

08-09-2008, 11:27

To my mind the point of Southern Ossetia wanting to excersise its right to self-determination is at this point in time irrelevant. There are many small ethnic groups and wannabe countries around the world; another one doesn't really matter. However, what does matter is the growing power of the Russian bear, and its wish to become a dominant power once more in the world. The western powers should not concern themselves with the fact (and it probably is a fact) that one ethnic group is being oppressed by another in a corner of the world. What they should concern themselves with is the fact that Russia is flexing its muscles, taking small steps to show how far it can reach. This time it is in a rather insignificant (apart from the pipeline, another reason for Western interest) corner of the world. But next time, who knows? It might be a bit closer to home, and ever closer, unless Russia is stopped and its neo-imperialist policies nipped in the bud.

The solution? Well in my opinion the only thing that can and must be done is complete and unequivocal support of Georgia on the part of NATO. Despatch a fleet to the Black Sea (Turkey should be able to provide the bulk of the ships), send a NATO delegation to Tiblisi, heck, even emergency and immediate entrance of Georgia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Whatever the methods, Russia must be stopped.

Rhyfelwyr

08-09-2008, 12:15

I don't, I love it. Which is why I am supporting Abkhazia and South Ossetia, who want to be free of Georgia.

It seems this isn't just a case of a poor little oppresed people seeking independance. The problem in South Ossetia is riddled with fighting between clans, with no real Russian or Georgian identities. Russia has taken advantage of this to gain influence in the region by buying the support of many Ossetian clans through supplying them with arms, thus fuelling the disorder within Georgian territory.

Having gained the loyalty of clan leaders, Russia then sends in 'peacekeeper' troops to the region, claiming to defend 'Russian' people. So when Georgia attempts to establish control over its own territory, crippled by disorder, Georgia appears as the aggressor, despite the fact that this land is officially recognised by Russia as Georgian territory.

And after the fighting begins it soon becomes clear that Russia is not on a peackeeping mission, as can be seen from the bombings by the Russia jets.

Since historical comparisons with Germany are fun, it sounds like a similar situation to Prussia and Austria over Schleswig and Hostein. Austria (Georgia) wanted to send troops to protect its northern territory, but had to cross Prussian (Russian) occupied lands to do this. This made Austria appear as the aggressor, giving Prussia the chance to mobilise its own troops in 'self defence'. And in the end, the big guy won (what's the modern equivalent of needle guns? - they always remind me of Needlers from Halo). Unless a bigger guy now comes to the rescue...

Tribesman

08-09-2008, 12:21

Whatever the methods, Russia must be stopped.

Yeah , and as soon as someone in Europe says Putin is being a naughty boy Putin cuts the gas and asks them to rephrase their statement .

FactionHeir

08-09-2008, 12:26

Henry V: I think you might as well replace "Russia" with "USA" or "China" in your write up. Is the difference only that they aren't "Western" and therefore "not to be trusted"?

King Henry V

08-09-2008, 12:48

Yes, you're probably right. However, I don't really believe in principles, or which country is right and which country is wrong. What I do believe in, though, is the continuation of Western hegemony in the world.

Yeah , and as soon as someone in Europe says Putin is being a naughty boy Putin cuts the gas and asks them to rephrase their statement .

Which is why the continued construction of the pipeline through the Caucusus is of vital importance, though I suppose is fortunate it isn't built yet, as it would be a tempting target. "What, you mean that long metal thing our planes blew up was the pipeline? We thought it was an extra-long machine gun!"

That and the importance of developing fossil-fuel alternatives so that we don't have to worry about every aspiring Evil Dictator of the World.

Conradus

08-09-2008, 13:13

Pipeline doesn't threaten Russia that much. Two large markets for Russian natural gas and oil exist and a pipeline isn't such a big deal. The big deal is that Georgia wants to join NATO.

But funny how Russia, by virtue of name, becomes the bad guy in any situation. Anything else is irrelevant. If Russia is involved, no one will look up what's happening, who broke the ceasefire who attacked the peacekeeping force and so on.

Doesn't NATO operate under UN-mandate in Kosovo now?
Whatever bad that Georgia did (breaking the ceasefire), there still is an unneccesary act of agression from Russia (those 'peacekeepers' had no right to be there in the first place and then entering Georgian soil -which they have recognized it to be- is an act of war. The exception of humanitarian action is non valid here.

Ignoramus

08-09-2008, 13:52

KukriKhan

08-09-2008, 14:05

So, a year from now, South Ossetia will either be a province of Russia, or a province of Georgia; the UN will have to admit it is no more than a money-sucking debate society vs a place where nations can peacefully sort out their differences, and the other former-soviet nations will rush to be covered by the umbrella of membership in NATO, lest they also be absored back into Moscow's grasp - unless, of course they prefer that. Rather than WW3, maybe we see the beginning of ColdWar2.

Meanwhile... I saw footage yesterday on the telly of Bush & Putin embracing in Peking. I wonder what our own (US) Russia-expert, Condo Rice, is doing right about now?

Sarmatian

08-09-2008, 14:46

Doesn't NATO operate under UN-mandate in Kosovo now?
Whatever bad that Georgia did (breaking the ceasefire), there still is an unneccesary act of agression from Russia (those 'peacekeepers' had no right to be there in the first place and then entering Georgian soil -which they have recognized it to be- is an act of war. The exception of humanitarian action is non valid here.

Yes, they're there because the resolution 1244 of the UN. Now that very same resolution explicitly states that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. So, because of the very mandate that put them there, they should have stopped Kosovo unilateral declaration of independence.

We can nitpick and try to find differences but in general situation is the same. NATO itself gave Russia an example to follow and now they're "surprised" when Russia in fact followed up on that example. With Kosovo Pandora's box was opened and no one should be surprised that something like this is happening.

Rhyfelwyr

08-09-2008, 14:56

I'm really concerned about the growing monster which is Russia. They're quickly becoming dangerously nationalistic, which leads to imperialism.

Anyone who believes that the Russians are concerned about the freedom of the Ossetians has their head stuck in the sand. Russia cares about Russia, and not a fig about anyone else.

Having studied Russian politics this year, I've come to the same conclusion.

And this ties in with my 'Nationalism makes peace' thread. Russia has systematically supported violence between Ossetian clans in order to launch an expansionist invasion, using 'peacekeeping' troops originally to make Georgia appear as the aggressor.

Nationalism alongside authoritarian right-wing governments is always a scary combination...

Conradus

08-09-2008, 14:57

Yes, they're there because the resolution 1244 of the UN. Now that very same resolution explicitly states that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. So, because of the very mandate that put them there, they should have stopped Kosovo unilateral declaration of independence.

We can nitpick and try to find differences but in general situation is the same. NATO itself gave Russia an example to follow and now they're "surprised" when Russia in fact followed up on that example. With Kosovo Pandora's box was opened and no one should be surprised that something like this is happening.

I find the legality of a UN authorisation a little more than nitpicking. And again the difference should be made between allowing a group of people their independence and they being annexed into another country, when said country recognizes them as being part of another country.

Georgia's clearly in the wrong by breaking the cease-fire, but Russia's doesn't have a nice record either by declaring war on it's neighbour and already having troops there illegally.

Rhyfelwyr

08-09-2008, 15:00

Well a Georgian APC was destroyed and that is what triggered things.

Russian troops have no right to be there in the first place if they recognise the area as Georgian territory. So they were 'peacekeeping' by fuelling clan violence through supplying arms?

Marshal Murat

08-09-2008, 15:06

Telegraph with war footage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2525400/Georgia-Russia-enters-into-war-in-South-Ossetia.html)

A clip of rocket firing, and a fair summation of events thus far.

Sarmatian

08-09-2008, 15:14

I find the legality of a UN authorisation a little more than nitpicking. And again the difference should be made between allowing a group of people their independence and they being annexed into another country, when said country recognizes them as being part of another country.

Georgia's clearly in the wrong by breaking the cease-fire, but Russia's doesn't have a nice record either by declaring war on it's neighbour and already having troops there illegally.

First of all, every UN mission in general has to respect UN Charter. NATO troops there were stationed to keep the peace and to enforce resolution 1244. They broke it when they didn't stop Kosovo authorities from declaring independence. So - no, they aren't there legally anymore. Legally, Serbia has absolute right to reassert its control of Kosovo since those who were initially charged with enforcing resolution 1244 and keeping the peace failed to do so.

In case of Georgia, Russia moved in to protect its citizens and peacekeepers, not to annex to Georgia, and I seriously doubt that's gonna happen. If Georgia continues to attack Ossetians and Russian soldiers it may temporarily take control of Georgia but it won't annex Georgia. They've learned from the Soviet Union days that that is a waste of resources and manpower. US model for that sort of things is much more efficient.

CrossLOPER

08-09-2008, 15:22

NATO is not seen as the only problem. If Ossetia is taken by Georgia, there are fears of genocide, or at least general instability. If this occurs, the entire area might go the way of Chechnya and cause total chaos. That is the primary concern of the Russian Government in the region.

Saakashvili, who won his election along with the promise that he will "win back" breakaway regions, started this mess, on the day the Olympics start no less, because he feels the West will back him through any move he makes, despite the fact he has a controlling government that sends riot police after anti-government protesters, who on occasion end up in hospitals. Put yourself in one of those breakaway republics for a moment. Would you want to join a guy who bombs you into oblivion and will probably try to finish the job afterward, or a much more stable country that at present has tried to protect you and whose country pays the average worker four times as much?

I can't say with a straight face that Russia is 100% in the wrong here.

Oleander Ardens

08-09-2008, 16:01

First of all the situation is very murky. Hard to say who started this little war, Southossetian seperatists with or without Russian backing to provocate Georgia or Georgia who wanted to take what is legally theirs. The overall strategies are however much clearer.

Russia wants to keep the remaining ex-soviet brotherstates under tight control and has been openly supporting the seperatists ever more heavily for years now, using them as stawmen to threaten the democratic Georgia. His pro-european president is seen as a thorn in their side. Both regions supported by Russia had been offered a large autonomy, but the refused it thanks to Russia. The big difference between Kosovo and SOssetia is that Georgia didn't start an ethnic cleansing while Serbia did so. So Georgia is both morally and legally entitled to take what is theirs, even with military force if necessary.

As a matter of fact Russia is now an open and clear agressor with an imperalistic agenda, a bit similar to the USA and the UdSSR in various phases of their history.

Marshal Murat

08-09-2008, 16:05

Even the charge of ethnic cleaning is very hazy in this situation. While Russia has accused Georgia of ethnic cleansing of the Ossetian populace, the actuality and veracity of those claims cannot be established in this current situation.

Russian Bombers strike pipeline (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L9618164.htm)
Georgia Proposes Ceasefire (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080809/D92EPSC80.html)

Incongruous

08-09-2008, 16:18

Yeah , and as soon as someone in Europe says Putin is being a naughty boy Putin cuts the gas and asks them to rephrase their statement .

Pretty much...
We could of coarse bring out the candles and horses!

This will undoubtedly be viewed a major defeat for the West I reckon. We can do bugger all to send that ex-commie git back to his hole..
Putin! Russians!

Adrian II

08-09-2008, 17:01

This will undoubtedly be viewed a major defeat for the West I reckon. We can do bugger all to send that ex-commie git back to his hole.. That about sums it up. Which means that someone in power willl have to do something extraordinary over the coming days and weeks: come up with a solution.

As The Guardian says in its background piece today: "The root of the problem is that the world community cannot agree on rules for the independence of small regions." So this particular someone will actually have to use his brains and get a grip on the issue, without being able to hide behind slogans and declarations of principle. That's a hard one. Who has the brains and guts it takes?

Viking

08-09-2008, 17:02

ICantSpellDawg

08-09-2008, 17:08

Adrian II

08-09-2008, 17:22

NATO troops should be on Georgia's Black Sea shores by now. Russia is attacking Georgian pipelines, Georgian civilian cities, Military bases around the capital, all of which should alert everyone as to their true motivations.Yes, it's called surgical bombing, shock and awe, infrastructure deterioration, etcetera - you probably know the concept.

Countries do that to each other from time to time. It's called war. No need to go hysterical and turn it into a world war.

Russia will want de facto control over some of the break-away regions and I think they should have it. As far as I can tell Georgia unleashed the military phase of the crisis and it will have to eat some dust before it accepts the changed reality. Russia will also want to increase its control over the Caucasus because it is an energy transport hub. The Georgians should have thought of that before.

Of course we all wish for a different gentleman to rule the Kremlin, but for the time being let's leave that issue to the Russians, shall we?

Sarmatian

08-09-2008, 17:42

The big difference between Kosovo and SOssetia is that Georgia didn't start an ethnic cleansing while Serbia did so.

No. Prior to bombing campaign, there was around 2000 casualties after two years of conflict between the police and KLA. Those 2000 includes KLA, Serbian police officers, and both Albanian and Serbian civilians and last two groupes make the smaller part of those 2000 casualties.

So, either those hundreds of thousands Albanian civilians that were mass executed on football stadiums came back to life or there were no ethnic cleansing.

Conqueror

08-09-2008, 18:01

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 18:24

Anyone who believes that the Russians are concerned about the freedom of the Ossetians has their head stuck in the sand. Russia cares about Russia, and not a fig about anyone else.

Of course Russia has interests in the region, but the important part is that the Ossetians want Russia, the Ossetians are interested in Russia. They had a choice between Georgia or Russia, and they wanted Russia. That being said, there are also North Ossetians within Russia who may or may not have a voice on this issue in Russian politics.

King Henry V

08-09-2008, 18:26

Rhyfelwyr

08-09-2008, 18:46

Of course Russia has interests in the region, but the important part is that the Ossetians want Russia, the Ossetians are interested in Russia. They had a choice between Georgia or Russia, and they wanted Russia.

I think its more of a case of the warring Ossetian clan leaders having a choice between buying weapons at home or from Russia, and Russia made sure that it was the first choice for most of them.

Kralizec

08-09-2008, 19:25

Of course Russia has interests in the region, but the important part is that the Ossetians want Russia, the Ossetians are interested in Russia. They had a choice between Georgia or Russia, and they wanted Russia. That being said, there are also North Ossetians within Russia who may or may not have a voice on this issue in Russian politics.

Do you apply the same belief in self-determination to Tibet, Chechnya, the Kurds and [insert various seperatists across the globe here]?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 19:29

Do you apply the same belief in self-determination to Tibet, Chechnya, the Kurds and [insert various seperatists across the globe here]?

It depends on the individual nation and the nation wanting independance. I also have a touch of the "to the strongest" syndrome. ~;)

Kralizec

08-09-2008, 19:38

Can you name any other seperatist group that you support, but wich hasn't succeeded yet?

CrossLOPER

08-09-2008, 19:47

Russian motivations here seem obvious enough, but I fail to understand the Georgian government's decisions. Why would they want this war? Even if they'd somehow manage to annex South Ossetia they'd be fighting not only the ruskies but also local guerilla resistance, in a mountaineous land with a hostile population. And with slim chances of actual direct intervention by NATO. It seems like an enormous gamble to me.

What could they possibly hope to gain, even in best case scenario? A little stretch of land added to their's on the world map? Some extra length on the national penis? It boggles the mind :thumbsdown:

Saakashvili won the Nationalist ticket by stating that he will take back breakaway regions. He is utterly convinced that the West will back him no matter his motivations. He is unable to improve the conditions in his country, so he decided to play "military tough guy". The problem is is that no one in the Caucasus likes Georgia and would much rather side with Russia, or anyone who isn't connected to Georgia. This includes Chechens.

As for the ceasefire, well... It's kind of hard to trust someone calling for a ceasefire while they are shelling you.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 20:04

Can you name any other seperatist group that you support, but wich hasn't succeeded yet?

I'm apathetic to most seperatist groups. I support Abkhazia and South Ossetia to a certain extent, mainly because of Georgia's current techniques in trying to suppress them, as well as supporting the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I support the seperation of Kosovo, albiet with caution. I would probably support Tuvan seperatism as well as the Don and Kuban Hosts. Naturally, I support any nation wanting to get out of (gain independance from) the European Union.

I also support Alsatian independance from France.

The only seperatist movements I would consider myself actively opposed to are the Bavarian and Quebec seperatist movements, of which the Quebec movement is considerably more serious.

KarlXII

08-09-2008, 21:52

Why not Quebec or Bavaria? Aren't they entitled to independance as much as the Alsatians or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 22:06

Why not Quebec or Bavaria? Aren't they entitled to independance as much as the Alsatians or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic?

I'd only support Alsatian independance because it means Germany can annex it more easily. ~;)

I have different reasoning on Quebec and Bavaria. I'm a quarter Bavarian, and I feel Bavaria has gained much from being a part of Germany, Germany gains much from Bavaria, and Bavarian culture is in no way threatened. I feel the same way about Quebec, even though I'm not Quebecois.

KarlXII

08-09-2008, 22:22

I'd only support Alsatian independance because it means Germany can annex it more easily. ~;)

I have different reasoning on Quebec and Bavaria. I'm a quarter Bavarian, and I feel Bavaria has gained much from being a part of Germany, Germany gains much from Bavaria, and Bavarian culture is in no way threatened. I feel the same way about Quebec, even though I'm not Quebecois.

Abkhazia ethnically cleansed Georgians during their war, so much for being repressed. I do not view the Georgia conflicts as Georgia "suppressing" the "nations", I view it as a legitimate country fighting an internal rebellion, I do not support the independance movements.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 22:25

Abkhazia ethnically cleansed Georgians during their war, so much for being repressed. I do not view the Georgia conflicts as Georgia "suppressing" the "nations", I view it as a legitimate country fighting an internal rebellion, I do not support the independance movements.

In South Ossetia, Georgia is suppressing them. In Abkhazia, the situation is a little different.

KarlXII

08-09-2008, 22:34

In South Ossetia, Georgia is suppressing them. In Abkhazia, the situation is a little different.

Then why support Abkhazian independance on the basis of "suppression"?

I still view the South Ossetian conflict as an internal rebellion that Georgia should be able to respond to militarily. The fact that Russia is getting involved will not help the situation.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 22:47

Then why support Abkhazian independance on the basis of "suppression"?

I don't. I support them because they're helping Ossetia, and I disapprove of Georgia's actions towards the Ossetians.

The fact that Russia is getting involved will not help the situation.

Russia had an agreement with Georgia in the region. Georgia broke it. Russia has a casus belli.

KarlXII

08-09-2008, 22:49

Russia had an agreement with Georgia in the region. Georgia broke it. Russia has a casus belli.

So Russia is in the right? :dizzy2:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-09-2008, 22:52

So Russia is in the right? :dizzy2:

South Ossetia is in the right, in my opinion. If Russia fights on the South Ossetian side...

Kralizec

08-09-2008, 22:57

Russia is the self-described mediator in this conflict, but you'd have to be stupid not to recognise that they're a party in this conflict. I don't know if it really was intended as a surprise attack or if Georgia was provoked, but either way Russia is operating on a pretext that's unconvincing to anyone who's being honest with himself.

As to the south Ossetians, I'm undecided. That there's armed resistance against the Georgians doesn't necessarily mean that the majority of people truly want to be part of Russia, too. Regardless I think that Georgia should just take its losses and see to it that they're admitted into NATO as fast as possible.

Adrian II

08-09-2008, 22:58

Now that we have all established what side we are on, does anyone have an idea about a solution? I guess since Russia will never accept international arbitration or even mediation, and Georgia will accept nothing else but that, the Georgians will have to get a really bloody nose before they get wise. That may take another week of bombing and skirmishes, after which someone in the White House will have to make that phone call to Moscow and turn on some screws, telling the Russians they can have Ossetia but should stay out of Georgia proper.

Does Dubya know the country code for Russia?

KarlXII

08-09-2008, 23:19

South Ossetia is in the right, in my opinion. If Russia fights on the South Ossetian side...

Glad to know who you're siding with. Rebels and belligerents.

Rhyfelwyr

08-09-2008, 23:25

I'm concerned that the western world is just standing by while this goes on. I'm not sure allowing Russia to storm into South Ossetia is an ideal compromise, since they'll still have a monopoly thanks to the loss of this new pipeline.

Also I do not think that the average South Ossetian is particularly pro-Russia/Georgia, it seems Russia bought the support of clan leaders and fuelled their in-fighting in the process, within Georgian territory.

A better compromise would be for South Ossetia to remain Georgian territory, either devolving it some power, or allowing Russian influence to remain in some form. If the South Ossetians could be satisfied by an agreement with Georgia, this would swipe the high ground from under Russia's feet.

Mailman653

08-09-2008, 23:41

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=919578&postcount=104
Swedish statement on conflict.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=919582&postcount=105
Joint statement by Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on conflict.

Adrian II

08-09-2008, 23:46

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=919578&postcount=104
Swedish statement on conflict.Ok, so the Godwin award goes to Stockholm.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 00:06

Glad to know who you're siding with. Rebels and belligerents.

Georgia is, if not the, at least a main belligerent in the current War in Ossetia (2008).

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 00:15

Georgia is, if not the, at least a main belligerent in the current War in Ossetia (2008).

You mean Russia went into the country, bombed areas, inserted forces, and engaged Georgian forces, yet the Georgian nation is at fault? They're the belligerents?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 00:18

You mean Russia went into the country, bombed areas, inserted forces, and engaged Georgian forces, yet the Georgian nation is at fault? They're the belligerents?

Well, yes. Did you miss the part where Georgia attacked South Ossetia after they agreed to a ceasefire, where Russian peacekeeping forces (who were also there in agreement with the Georgians) were? Russia responded with justified force to a military operation directed against Russia's interests in the region. Georgia broke the ceasefire and the peacekeeping agreement (which was between South Ossetia, Georgia, and Russia), not Russia. Even Georgia acknowledges that Russian forces moved in after Georgian forces attacked.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 00:28

Well, yes. Did you miss the part where Georgia attacked South Ossetia after they agreed to a ceasefire, where Russian peacekeeping forces (who were also there in agreement with the Georgians) were? Russia responded with justified force to a military operation directed against Russia's interests in the region. Georgia broke the ceasefire and the peacekeeping agreement (which was between South Ossetia, Georgia, and Russia), not Russia. Even Georgia acknowledges that Russian forces moved in after Georgian forces attacked.

So Russia now has all right to get involved in an internal affair?

CrossLOPER

08-10-2008, 00:34

I'm concerned that the western world is just standing by while this goes on. I'm not sure allowing Russia to storm into South Ossetia is an ideal compromise, since they'll still have a monopoly thanks to the loss of this new pipeline.
The Russians didn't "storm" into Ossetia. By agreement, it is Russia's responsibility to protect South Ossetia. The Georgian military attempted to wipe it off the face of the Earth. Russia responded by reinforcing South Ossetia... and by trying to wipe the Georgian military installations off the face of the Earth.

A better compromise would be for South Ossetia to remain Georgian territory, either devolving it some power, or allowing Russian influence to remain in some form. If the South Ossetians could be satisfied by an agreement with Georgia, this would swipe the high ground from under Russia's feet.
There was an agreement to allow the Russian Federation to absorb the regions in question. It was going along quite well until the Rose Revolution, where a much saner and reasonable president was ousted and replaced with a staunch nationalist.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 00:36

So Russia now has all right to get involved in an internal affair?

Breakup of Yugoslavia

Anyhow, yes, Russia has the right to get involved when 70% of the affected are Russian citizens, the target is a breakaway republic that potentially wants to become a part of Russia, and the Georgians violated an agreement they had with the said breakaway republic and Russia.

EDIT: And this post is a good answer to that question:

The Russians didn't "storm" into Ossetia. By agreement, it is Russia's responsibility to protect South Ossetia. The Georgian military attempted to wipe it off the face of the Earth. Russia responded by reinforcing South Ossetia... and by trying to wipe the Georgian military installations off the face of the Earth.

Mailman653

08-10-2008, 00:56

To my understanding S.O has no international recognition as a sovereign and independent country so really it's still part of Georgia. And second, perhaps 70% of population has Russian passports, but that does not give it right to enter another nations territory even if its disputed.

Thats like Mexico entering Texas and California because they feel they must defend their citizens living in the US from US aggression in which ever form they feel is violating their citizens rights.

Didn't Hitler use the same kind of logic not too long ago in order to step foot into other countries with the idea of protecting its German citizens (even if it was just a minority) living in that country from whatever aggression they perceived to be going on?

My two cents.:book:

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 01:46

Breakup of Yugoslavia

Anyhow, yes, Russia has the right to get involved when 70% of the affected are Russian citizens, the target is a breakaway republic that potentially wants to become a part of Russia, and the Georgians violated an agreement they had with the said breakaway republic and Russia.

EDIT: And this post is a good answer to that question:

As said by Mailman

And second, perhaps 70% of population has Russian passports, but that does not give it right to enter another nations territory even if its disputed.

Potentially, I could be President, but I am not. South Ossetia has no international recognition, and is still a part of Georgia, therefore, the conflict is internal with Russian intervention.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 01:50

Potentially, I could be President, but I am not. South Ossetia has no international recognition, and is still a part of Georgia, therefore, the conflict is internal with Russian intervention.

South Ossetia does not consider itself part of Georgia, and Georgia and Russia have de facto recognized at least some South Ossetian authority by signing agreements with the South Ossetian government. If Russia's citizens are threatened, Russia intervenes. I believe it is constitutionally obligated to do so.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 01:54

South Ossetia does not consider itself part of Georgia, and Georgia and Russia have de facto recognized at least some South Ossetian authority by signing agreements with the South Ossetian government. If Russia's citizens are threatened, Russia intervenes. I believe it is constitutionally obligated to do so.

You mean the provincial administration that still holds no international recognition and probably has less power than a US State? So instead of evacuating the Russian citizens, they decide to bomb Georgia?

Marshal Murat

08-10-2008, 01:59

If the Ossetians wish to have a nation so bad, I wouldn't mind them joining with Northern Ossetia and forming an independent republic, free and unfettered by Russian or Georgian allegiance.

It was going along quite well until the Rose Revolution, where a much saner and reasonable president was ousted and replaced with a staunch nationalist.
Whose fault is that? The Georgians have the right to elect whichever president they feel best represents their interests. Clearly the 'sane and reasonable' president wasn't acting in the best interests of the nation, or he would still be in office. If Georgia doesn't wish for the regions in question to secede, then I believe they have the full right to enforce their authority in aforementioned province. Considering the unusual nature of the province, I would hope that talks and discussions could create a situation where the Ossetians could withdraw, or accept a 'gray-area' state of affairs.

I think that were the Ossetians really wishing for a safe, secure nation for themselves, they would work hard in the national legislative group. Instead they have created a situation that has resulted in Georgia moving against them, to ostensibly preserve their nation from Russian annexation. While the effort on the Russian part is no doubt to preserve a reasonable situation in the region, it smacks more of an attempt to put Georgia in it's place, to discourage them from becoming an upstart Western Republic.

To solve the situation, I would hope that Georgia and Russia can come to an agreement where the Ossetians can create their own national state, move the Ossetians out of their homes (like that'll happen ~:dizzy: ), or where Ossetians understand their own unique place in the Georgian nation, and accept the boundaries as they are and work into the Georgian nation and give up this 'homeland' notion. However, convinced that it's their own 'special ethnic location' and inspired (suddenly?) to join the Russian nation, just to rejoin their own 'compatriots' without asking for a separate nation for themselves?
Something is fishy.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 02:12

You mean the provincial administration that still holds no international recognition and probably has less power than a US State? So instead of evacuating the Russian citizens, they decide to bomb Georgia?

As far as I know, US states have the right to secede. I'm not sure if Georgian autonomous republics (which is what Abkhazia and South Ossetia are, if you choose to ignore that they are de facto independant states) have the right to do so, but since the people in the regions want to secede, I'm not sure what right Georgia has to stop them.

Marshal Murat

08-10-2008, 02:19

US States have the ability to secede, but it was a little messy last time they tried.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 02:20

As far as I know, US states have the right to secede. I'm not sure if Georgian autonomous republics (which is what Abkhazia and South Ossetia are, if you choose to ignore that they are de facto independant states) have the right to do so, but since the people in the regions want to secede, I'm not sure what right Georgia has to stop them.

Actually, state secession is unconstitutional in the US.

You also seem to ignore that these de facto republics are 1. Not actual nations and 2. Have recieved no international recognition as anything other than part of Georgia.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 02:21

You also seem to ignore that these de facto republics are 1. Not actual nations and 2. Have recieved no international recognition as anything other than part of Georgia.

I also fail to see why this matters.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 02:31

I also fail to see why this matters.

Then they are not real republics or nations, therefore, Georgia has all right to deal with internal affairs without having the Moscow Bear involved.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 02:36

Then they are not real republics or nations, therefore, Georgia has all right to deal with internal affairs without having the Moscow Bear involved.

The problem, however, is that it's not really an internal affair, and it hasn't been for a long time.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 03:07

The problem, however, is that it's not really an internal affair, and it hasn't been for a long time.

And Russia's involvement sure as hell isn't helping.

Caius

08-10-2008, 03:15

He isn't saying Russia is communist. "Putin's Soviet Union" wouldn't be communist.
If its Soviet it aint capitalist, y'know.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 03:41

And Russia's involvement sure as hell isn't helping.

It's helping the South Ossetians.

Incongruous

08-10-2008, 03:47

South Ossetia is in the right, in my opinion. If Russia fights on the South Ossetian side...

Digging yourself a hole?
Or do you actually perceive the Russians and that commie-git as the "good"?

Russia has been nothing but a monster to Europe.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 03:59

Digging yourself a hole?

I'm sticking to my position unless some monstrous Russian atrocities come to light.

Or do you actually perceive the Russians and that commie-git as the "good"?

I certainly don't perceive the Georgian nationalist potential electoral fraudster as "good" either. I said Russia, at least so far, appears to have the right, not the good.

Russia has been nothing but a monster to Europe.

I don't need anyone to remind me of that, thank you very much.

Incongruous

08-10-2008, 04:06

Right and good, as a supporter of to the strongest, where does that leave the two? Roughly the same place...

You don't need anyone to remind you?
Had family members tortured by them have you? How can you ever perceive the Russians as in the right, when all their scheming is to the ends of domination of former Soviet States? When perhaps, your own family has been on the receiving end of so called Russian interventions?

CrossLOPER

08-10-2008, 04:19

Russia does not need former Soviet states. It needs former Soviet states to behave like normal nations that don't blame every single problem they have on Russia.

Russia's primary goal is to gain security in order to prosper. Being surrounded by nationalist...."gits"... who choose to win favor by behaving like barbarians does not bring security.

Marshal Murat

08-10-2008, 04:23

behave like normal nations that don't blame every single problem they have on Russia.

The Russians reap what they sow.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 04:29

Had family members tortured by them have you?

Grandmother tortured in Lubyanka. Grandfather imprisoned. Probably around six or more dead. My aunt's father shot in front of her eyes. No, I don't need anyone to remind me.

Oh, and about half of these deaths were ordered by a Georgian, so you don't need to remind me of that either.

How can you ever perceive the Russians as in the right, when all their scheming is to the ends of domination of former Soviet States?

Because I'm judging everything case by case.

When perhaps, your own family has been on the receiving end of so called Russian interventions?

See, my family has always been a place where we haven't wanted a Russian intervention. On the other hand, South Ossetia wants a Russian intervention. That's the difference.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 05:00

It's helping the South Ossetians.

And weakening a sovereign nation's hold over it's own country....

Russia occupied Georgian territory and has attacked numerous areas outside Ossetia and you are still in belief that the Russians are right in their attack.

Husar

08-10-2008, 05:03

So what do we have here?
A bunch of breakaway nutters or were they subject to ethnical cleansing from Georgian authorities?
A bunch of peace treaty breakers or are they the victims of a big evil conspiracy?
A bunch of imperialist invaders or were they just coming to help those who asked for it?

I cannot seriously answer any of these questions and it seems most people answer them according to which country they always hated the most or they believe to be full of evil imperialists so that doesn't help me either (coming from that evil, untrustworthy nazi country I refuse to look at other countries in the same way).

Basically that leads me to believe they can just kill eachother over there and solve their own damn complicated issues, maybe if they get a really bad bloodbath they will get tired of behaving like stupids and join the UN for some healthy talk. And if not, they can just continue banging one another's heads in but I will do my best to keep my own head out of it.

As long as it takes a big ego to be successful in this world, one shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people get shafted because someone doesn't want to back down. :dizzy2:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 05:04

And weakening a sovereign nation's hold over it's own country....

Russia occupied Georgian territory and has attacked numerous areas outside Ossetia and you are still in belief that the Russians are right in their attack.

Sure. Georgia broke a ceasefire, and now they're getting a hard lesson in what happens when you mess with areas which have stated Russian protection. The Georgians were not being sensible, and the Russians responded in force. Big surprise.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 05:05

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA423150.htm

Look at the Georgian aggression! How dare a country actually attempt to govern rebellious areas? Russia is obviously acting noble, freeing oppressed peoples :no: :wall:

Marshal Murat

08-10-2008, 05:06

you are still in belief that the Russians are right in their attack.

I understand EMFM position, since he clearly stands in the view that South Ossetia has the full right to withdraw from Georgia, and join Russia. Russia is only protecting a future investment, and it's people, from Georgian aggression. I would think that Russian forces are justified, in the sense that they are protecting 'citizens'. The attacks outside of South Ossetia are to only prevent Georgia from bringing more forces to bear, illegally.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 05:06

Sure. Georgia broke a ceasefire, and now they're getting a hard lesson in what happens when you mess with areas which have stated Russian protection. The Georgians were not being sensible, and the Russians responded in force. Big surprise.

Yes, yes, Georgia has no right to it's own country, Russia is responding nobely, :dizzy2:

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 05:10

I understand EMFM position, since he clearly stands in the view that South Ossetia has the full right to withdraw from Georgia, and join Russia. Russia is only protecting a future investment, and it's people, from Georgian aggression. I would think that Russian forces are justified, in the sense that they are protecting 'citizens'. The attacks outside of South Ossetia are to only prevent Georgia from bringing more forces to bear, illegally.

So Georgia cannot defend it's own territory?

There is a fine line between enforing a cease-fire, and full blown occupation. This is the latter.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 05:10

Look at the Georgian aggression! How dare a country actually attempt to govern rebellious areas? Russia is obviously acting noble, freeing oppressed peoples

Russia is massing troops? Big surprise, considering Georgians have been attacking Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers for at least a day now. :rolleyes:

Yes, yes, Georgia has no right to it's own country, Russia is responding nobely, :dizzy2:

The region in question is not under Georgian control, but under Ossetian control. The Ossetian people are largely Russian citizens and for the most part want to join Russia. Russia has every right both to protect it's citizens and to honour previous agreements in the region - something Georgia has not done.

There is a fine line between enforing a cease-fire, and full blown occupation. This is the latter.

Russia is driving Georgian forces out of Ossetia, and the first attack by Georgia was an act of war.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 05:14

Russia is massing troops? Big surprise, considering Georgians have been attacking Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers for at least a day now. :rolleyes:

The region in question is not under Georgian control, but under Ossetian control. The Ossetian people are largely Russian citizens and for the most part want to join Russia. Russia has every right both to protect it's citizens and to honour previous agreements in the region - something Georgia has not done.

You protect your citizens by having them evacuated, getting them out of the danger. You do not bomb the country, nor amass "peacekeepers" on such a scale.

I'm not surprised Russia is amassing troops, in fact, it'll help in the suppresing of the "Evil Georgian State" and the liberation of others :laugh4:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 05:21

You protect your citizens by having them evacuated, getting them out of the danger.

Kind of tough when it's 70% of the population, and that's the main part of the population being targeted in an area that isn't, de facto, part of Georgia.

You do not bomb the country

No, you bomb a country when that country breaks a peacekeeping deal to attack your forces and the government you are protecting.

[QUOTE]nor amass "peacekeepers" on such a scale.

:rolleyes:

They are peacekeepers - and recognized by the Georgians as such - in the agreement the Georgians just broke.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 05:21

I can imagine it now:

(Scene opens on playground, large tough kid is talking to smaller kid)

Russia (Large kid): I'm gonna go pummel that Georgia, here's 10 bucks, tell the teacher I'm doing it for you.
Ossetia: You're the best!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 05:24

An update, and this is the Georgian Interior Minister:

He told the BBC that Russian troops had not entered Georgia from South Ossetia, but added that fighting was continuing.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 05:25

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

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPLDNxutvt7M

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 05:29

Tcha, stick with the BBC, it's being much more neutral.

At any rate, Georgia is also massing forces to support what it currently has in South Ossetia. Can't blame them for that any more than you can blame the Russians. It's what you do in war, you know.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 05:55

Russia is trying to deter NATO peace keepers with those ships. We should have already deployed them to Georgia through the Black Sea. Now when we inevitably deploy them we will have to go over mountain ranges or risk the impending Russian Embargo.

Georgia has requested NATO peacekeepers. We should give them what they ask for and build up in non-breakaway Georgia for the time being. This may deter any further Russian incursions into Georgia.

If Abkhazia and South Ossetia eventually do break off from Georgia and Russia annexes them - problem solved for Georgian NATO membership. This may actually speed up the process in Ukraine and Georgia for NATO membership as that would help guarantee against further territorial breaches.

We should probably do something. We won't be able to just ignore Georgia after this and I'm sure that our alliance will be weaker having done nothing.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 05:59

Tcha, stick with the BBC, it's being much more neutral.

Also, BBC hasn't reported the blockade from what I've seen. You aren't suggesting that we pay attention to only one News source, are you? I suggest that we all look for as many sources as possible. "Neutrality" doesn't really help us understand situation - only the attempt of the news sources not to inflame sensibilities.

Also, if 30,000 Ossetians have fled into North Ossetia, wouldn't that mean that the Ossetian population is equal to the Georgian population in South Ossetia for the time being? Interesting.

Marshal Murat

08-10-2008, 07:19

Telegraph "Russian Bear" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1043185/The-Pipeline-War-Russian-bear-goes-Wests-jugular.html)

The Pipeline War: Russian bear goes for West's jugular

Mailman653

08-10-2008, 07:47

Well, since we are talking about the BBC....

Georgia 'pulls out of S Ossetia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7552012.stm)
War over then right?:book:

And here are another two sources while we are talking about that as well....

Al Jazeera English
Russia 'bombs Georgian capital' (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/200881012239836481.html)
Xinhua News Agency
Medvedev: withdrawal of Georgian troops only way to settle South Ossetia crisis (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/10/content_9110880.htm#top)

Rhyfelwyr

08-10-2008, 12:05

Maybe Georgia would not have been forced to retaliate against the South Ossetians if Russia had not supplied their clan leaders with weapons to continue with their feuds.

JR-

08-10-2008, 12:23

Adrian II

08-10-2008, 12:52

two stupid decisions led to this war:
1) the recognition of kosovo - forces Georgia into desperate measures to defend its territorial integrity, and gives Russia a pretext to support rebel regions and respond in the event of violence
2) no NATO for Georgia - told Russia that NATO didn't have the balls to defend Georgia, and Georgia that NATO wasn't seriously interested in supporting it in Georgia's strategic problems.

and low and behold Russia uses its opportunity to take a few pot-shots at the Baku-Tblisi pipeline..........Yes, it seems that the western recognition of Kosovo really clinched this one. Saakashvili then overplayed his hand, but the root cause is that just like each country has its own terrorists of choice, each country can also have its own separatists of choice.

Mind you, the Russians appear to have a better case about Georgian 'genocide' in South Ossetia than Nato had about 'genocide' in Kosovo. Both cases are severely deficient, of course, but against the background of present-day inflated discourse on 'genocide' the Russian claim has some merit.

FactionHeir

08-10-2008, 12:59

TIME (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1831073,00.html) has a very decent and more or less balanced article on the current situation and what led to its occurence.

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 14:22

Maybe Georgia would not have been forced to retaliate against the South Ossetians if Russia had not supplied their clan leaders with weapons to continue with their feuds.

Funny how that works.....:juggle2:

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 14:27

Got to love the fact that Russia refused a Georgian proposed cease-fire, allowing the fighting to continue. If Russia were concerned about South Ossetia and it's citizens safety, wouldn't it want to stop the fighting?

CrossLOPER

08-10-2008, 14:39

The Russians reap what they sow.
What? How is Georgia's terrible economic situation and ultra-nationalist government Russia's fault?

I can imagine it now:

(Scene opens on playground, large tough kid is talking to smaller kid)

Russia (Large kid): I'm gonna go pummel that Georgia, here's 10 bucks, tell the teacher I'm doing it for you.
Ossetia: You're the best!
Georgia SHELLED South Ossetia. They nearly wiped a town off the map.

There was a really, really messy civil war in that area. If you think that the break away republics had any wish to remain with Georgia, you're wrong.

Also, I'm not sure why people in this thread think that shelling a civilian population is a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with rebels.

FactionHeir

08-10-2008, 14:56

Also, I'm not sure why people in this thread think that shelling a civilian population is a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with rebels.
As long as they are a Western ally, anything they do is fine, no? Who cares if a few civilians die as long as they like us and are not communist or threatening us in any way :wink:

Caius

08-10-2008, 15:15

Bah. Let the war develop itself. Then we will know all the answers.

Adrian II

08-10-2008, 15:17

Bah. Let the war develop itself. Then we will know all the answers.It appears that the Georgians got the message and are redeploying their troops in 'defensive positions' outisde of South Ossetia. This might be the beginning of a cease-fire - unless Abkhazia sees prolonged fighting, in which case it may take a whole week as I envisaged.

rory_20_uk

08-10-2008, 16:19

The Russians for some reason want these pockets of land. Their value might be more evident to others.

That the people want to join with Russia makes it extremely likely they will do so.

Europe needs the oil and gas. We'll do nothing to help in the slightest.

~:smoking:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-10-2008, 16:29

Funny how that works.....:juggle2:

Yes, strange how Russia helps out its interests while Western interests help out Georgia. Face it, both sides are guilty of that.

Got to love the fact that Russia refused a Georgian proposed cease-fire, allowing the fighting to continue. If Russia were concerned about South Ossetia and it's citizens safety, wouldn't it want to stop the fighting?

For one thing, that was because Russia drove back Georgian ground forces. Secondly, according to Russian sources, Georgians are still firing, though I don't think Russians are advancing beyond the border. Whether the ceasefire is an accurate offer or not, or whether the Russians would take it, is an interesting topic.

Firstly, we're not sure if it's real. Georgian troops already said they'd pulled out of South Ossetia, at the same time they were massing more troops to put in. Secondly, Georgia has broken one ceasefire already. Thirdly, if it is real, Russia may want to teach Georgia a lesson in what happens when you mess with a country Russia is protecting, making Georgia less likely to attack again.

Caius

08-10-2008, 16:31

Well, I heard that someone else proposed the ceasefire. I'm not sure who.

Marshal Murat

08-10-2008, 16:33

What? How is Georgia's terrible economic situation and ultra-nationalist government Russia's fault?

Had the Soviet Union reinvested in the region, when they had a chance, rather than funding terrorist organizations across Africa and Latin America, or had the Soviet Union adopted a better economic policy, many of the split-away republics would be in a better position to care for itself. Considering where the republics started off, few were really prepared to deal with the economic situation in the world at large. They simply sought independence from a ultra-nationalistic communist nation whose repressions against human rights is astounding, and are facing the results. They aren't the wealthiest nation, Georgia. They don't have the best services because they are essentially starting 10 years behind the rest of the world. It's not like people in former Soviet republics decided that eating grass and herding sheep was the best thing, ever. They've been trying to improve their economies, but it's not easy starting with a handicap.

The unfortunately economic situation only serves to breed ultra-nationalistic governments. Many nations, in the throes of economic downturn, often turn to nationalistic governments. Russia in 1916, Germany 1930s, Japan 1930s. All uniting the nation and changing the economy under the direction of nationalistic leaders.

Unfortunate economic times also causes people to isolate themselves culturally, socially, etc. This often leads to greater conflict between groups, clans, whatever. If Yugoslavia moved into a prospering nation following Titos death, then what impetus would any of the republics there-in have to split away and form their own nation?

Had Russia reinvested in the republics before they broke away, not abused them for cultural reasons, had a different economic policy, or abused ethnic groups with deportation and genocide, then yeah I think we would have a different situation.

Well, I heard that someone else proposed the ceasefire. I'm not sure who.
It might be those pesky westerners...

KukriKhan

08-10-2008, 16:59

As The Guardian says in its background piece today: "The root of the problem is that the world community cannot agree on rules for the independence of small regions." So this particular someone will actually have to use his brains and get a grip on the issue, without being able to hide behind slogans and declarations of principle. That's a hard one. Who has the brains and guts it takes?

https://jimcee.homestead.com/ban_ki-moon.jpg

Dunno about the 'brains and guts' thingee though. Isn't that exactly what his job (and his organization's job) is?

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 17:25

Ukraine Tells Russia To Find A New Black Sea Port (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/ukraine_russia_georgia;_ylt=AjlAlWvpJoJUWWSOWTUrIJB0bBAF)

This is going to be another big angle in the current conflict. Russia has kept a number of its Soviet-Era Crimean sea-bases. In using those bases in the Georgian blockade deployment, Ukraine has said enough is enough. Russian ships may not be allowed back to Crimea. If Ukraine keeps its word, this could turn much more intense.

It would also be a great excuse to finally get Russians the hell out of Crimea before 2017 (which will probably never happen if they don't act now). If Russia justs deals with it that would be great, but I'd bet that Ukraine will either fold or Russia will attack them. Again, yet another reason for a strong NATO Naval presence on the Black Sea - for the security of Ukraine and the eventual deployment of peace keepers into Georgia.

I believe that, it may sound crazy - but the former Soviet nations need NATO for their territorial stability in the face of an increasingly reckless, totalitarian and nationalistic Russia. Russia would have never pulled this stunt if the nations were part of the alliance. We should announce a timetable for immediate emergency inclusion into NATO for both Georgia and Ukraine. This would allow a small window for Russia pull out and work more sensibly for the annexation or emancipation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It would also pressure Georgia to not use its military to solve a territorial dispute as it will soon feel more secure. I believe that this may actually help the situation.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 18:34

Here is an eminently reasonable article with candy for all ideological sides in this travesty. It also pretty closely coincides with my interpretation, to my irrepressible chagrin.
Link (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andrew-wilson-georgia-and-russia-can-still-step-back-from-the-brink-889636.html)

Andrew Wilson: Georgia and Russia can still step back from the brink

Sunday, 10 August 2008

The hostilities in Georgia are more than a war in Europe's backyard. It is a war in Europe itself, with brings potentially dire consequences.

The Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, elected in a landslide in 2004 on a manifest destiny platform of restoring national unity, has miscalculated and may have stepped into a Russian trap. Vladimir Putin came to see Georgia as Russia's Cuba – an outpost of a foreign power in his backyard – and trouble has been brewing for months.

The South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali is surprisingly close to Tbilisi. But a quick campaign made no sense from Saakashvili's position of weakness. He may have built up his armed forces with American help since 2004, but his most important assets are moral, although his image as the leader of a beleaguered democracy was already tarnished by his suppression of anti-government demonstrations in Tbilisi last November.

Saakashvili may have thought the Olympics Games would give him cover, especially as Putin was in Beijing and Russia hosts the next Winter Games just over the border in Sochi in 2014. But this only made him look duplicitous, especially as he announced a ceasefire just before launching the invasion.

The Georgian may therefore already be losing the all-important propaganda war. The Russians always thought Saakashvili would be easy to provoke and have been prodding and jabbing since the spring. A minority of Nato states may argue that the conflict increases the case for Georgian membership, but in others, scepticism is more likely to grow.

A second set of lessons should be learned by Europe. It's not that European governments failed to notice the problems ahead. The Lithuanians have been agitating; Javier Solana visited Georgia in June; the Germans have been trying to broker a diplomatic solution. But EU states did not stand solid enough behind the Germans. Too many had their heads in the sand, and the wrong signals were sent to both sides. The Georgians felt isolated. We created a vacuum where Saakashvili thought he had to act on his own, and the Russians thought they could act with impunity. The lesson: even if we think an issue is peripheral, we should get involved early on, when conflict prevention is still possible.

Finally, there are some hard facts for Russia. Russian troops are on sovereign Georgian territory. There are credible reports of attacks on "Georgia proper", although the very use of the term undermines the nation's territorial integrity. It is Russia that has escalated the conflict by hitting towns such as Kutaisi, Poti and Gori, and the likely consequences will destabilise the region as a whole.

Even if Russia withdraws, Georgia will be chastened and lessons will learned by neighbouring states. The prospects for a deal between Moldova and the "Transnistrian Republic" will diminish, despite the elections due next March. Russia will feel its Black Sea fleet can stay in Ukraine's Crimea beyond the current agreed date of 2017.

If Georgia is more seriously damaged, Russia may feel it has established a veto on who joins Nato in the future. But it is not too late for the West to get properly involved. Both sides risk serious collateral damage: the Georgians to their Nato and EU ambitions, the Russians to President Medvedev's proposals for a new security treaty in Europe and to their relations with the incoming US president.

We should recognise that the Russian "peacekeepers" are not peacekeepers any more, and press for a Lebanon-style force with an international mandate that could perhaps be agreed by the nascent US-EU-Nato-OSCE mission. Both sides have miscalculated, but, for all the talk of "genocide", both have incentives to step back from the brink.

Andrew Wilson is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations

UPDATE: C'mon, comment on my ideas! Is everyone already bored with this awe inspiring situation?

Adrian II

08-10-2008, 19:09

UPDATE: C'mon, comment on my ideas! Is everyone already bored with this awe inspiring situation?Relax. You are much too alarmist, you are mistaking diplomacy for war and your military proposals are surreal. Georgia is paying the price for the fact that the West has stupidly pried Kosovo loose from Belgrade. No need to cover up that stupidity with a new haphazard intervention and risking world peace over Mr Saakashvili's ambitions.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 19:25

Relax. You are much too alarmist, you are mistaking diplomacy for war and your military proposals are surreal. Georgia is paying the price for the fact that the West has stupidly pried Kosovo loose from Belgrade. No need to cover up that stupidity with a new haphazard intervention and risking world peace over Mr Saakashvili's ambitions.

So your remedy is what? To do nothing? It has always been an alternative and it seems to be the one playing out now.

I'm not talking about war - I'm talking about a cessation of conflict and a brokered deal that does the inevitable (a final decision regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia coupled with the entrance of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO) without much conflict. Do you believe that Russia would engage NATO forces? Maybe, but I doubt that they would if there was a real deal brokered.

We are talking about Russia annexing land that is not theirs with a sizable Georgian population through the use of military force. To do nothing would be the most foolish decision. I believe that they will seize Georgian land that is not in dispute as some sort of "de-militarized. Russian controlled zone". By the end of this debacle Georgia will be half the size that it is today if we take no action.

KukriKhan

08-10-2008, 19:32

UPDATE: C'mon, comment on my ideas!

Neither NATO nor the US have a dog in this fight. An interest, yes, but no dog. IMHO.

Let the UN handle it.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 19:35

Neither NATO nor the US have a dog in this fight. An interest, yes, but no dog. IMHO.

Let the UN handle it.

The UN cannot handle situations in which any prime vetoing powers are deeply invested. All reasonable actions will be vetoed. You saw the result in Kosovo and NATO mediation was the only viable option.

The U.N. is simply an agglomeration of embassies and serves an interesting but terribly limited international role. To treat it as anything close to a functional voting body is deeply naive.

FactionHeir

08-10-2008, 19:38

I think the idea of veto in the UN is silly anyway. That results in it not being able to get anything done.

Hosakawa Tito

08-10-2008, 19:40

Neither NATO nor the US have a dog in this fight. An interest, yes, but no dog. IMHO.

Let the UN handle it.

Yes, I agree. However, except for token military contributions and handing out blue helmets, who does the UN look to for the bulk of it's martial needs?

Praxil

08-10-2008, 19:42

UPDATE: C'mon, comment on my ideas! Is everyone already bored with this awe inspiring situation?

Man, you've been writing stuff in this thread, almost as good as Tom Clancy's novels. Fo real"!"

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 19:43

We've discussed our perceptions of the conflict and now we can try to speculate on solutions.

Adrian II

08-10-2008, 19:50

We've discussed our perceptions of the conflict and now we can try to speculate on solutions.I believe the Russinas want to occupy Abkhazia, too, and they will before the week is over. That's when the real negotiations can start. And once Georgia has a different President and the separatist issues have been sorted out, Nato membership can be envisaged for Tbilisi.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 19:58

I believe the Russinas want to occupy Abkhazia, too, and they will before the week is over. That's when the real negotiations can start. And once Georgia has a different President and the separatist issues have been sorted out, Nato membership can be envisaged for Tbilisi.

Abkhazia has received 4000 Russian troops already.

Do you support Russia in its occupation of these Georgian territories? It would be one thing if Russia was fighting for their independence, but they are fighting for new Russian land. This is very different from NATO actions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Coalition actions in Iraq.

South Ossetia has about 1/3rd of its population that is Georgian and the land is part of the nation of Georgia. The percentage that are Russian is negligible. We must ask ourselves why Russia has anything to do with this situation; Simply because they were giving out free dual citizenship?

I view Russia's actions there as similar to a hypothetical situation where Iran (or Turkey) violently annexes Northern Iraq because it has a majority Kurdish population. Absurd.

KukriKhan

08-10-2008, 20:13

The UN cannot handle situations in which any prime vetoing powers are deeply invested. All reasonable actions will be vetoed. You saw the result in Kosovo and NATO mediation was the only viable option.

The U.N. is simply an agglomeration of embassies and serves an interesting but terribly limited international role. To treat it as anything close to a functional voting body is deeply naive.

You call for, nay beg for, reaction to your war-mongering solution to a regional conflict, and toss out any reliance on the body whose raison d'être is the working out of regional conflicts lest they blow up into WWIII, as "deeply naive".

As a veteren of a couple of shooting conflicts, I reject this assessment. If the UN is not resorted to, or stands mute, then it is, as you say "...an agglomeration of embassies and serves an interesting but terribly limited international role... ", and should be disbanded immediately.

But it needs to step up. And now. Screw the vetoes, play it out diplomatically.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 20:22

You call for, nay beg for, reaction to your war-mongering solution to a regional conflict, and toss out any reliance on the body whose raison d'être is the working out of regional conflicts lest they blow up into WWIII, as "deeply naive".

As a veteren of a couple of shooting conflicts, I reject this assessment. If the UN is not resorted to, or stands mute, then it is, as you say "...an agglomeration of embassies and serves an interesting but terribly limited international role... ", and should be disbanded immediately.

But it needs to step up. And now. Screw the vetoes, play it out diplomatically.

I don't see why a group of National embassies who are always ready to meet in whole is a bad idea. I believe that beyond that and some humanitarian action it is a waste of money and is pointless to rely on in a violent dispute when it involves vetoing powers.

I'm listening to your opinion and I'm not dismissing you, but I fail to see what the U.N. will do for this situation beyond providing an avenue of dialogue between the interested parties.

Also - I'm not talking about an invasion of any Russian or even Ossetian rebel territory, rather a NATO build up to deter further violence within Georgia. There is always a risk of war - doing nothing and talking forever during violent annexations had more to do with the origins of WW2 than concrete early action by the Allies would have. NATO troops within Georgia wouldn't guarantee any support for Georgia in the event of an all-out war, but it would provide and immediate deterrent for Russia based on the possibility of action.

rory_20_uk

08-10-2008, 20:32

The UN will fail. No one has the balls to stand up to Russia - indeed so many countries have similar designs on their fellows they'd rather not set a trend.

I think that admitting the Ukraine would be a step in the right direction. Russia might not want to mess with a member of NATO in the same way it can with non-members.

The humanitarian part of the UN needs splitting off from the politics talking shop. Then when people decide to get rid of it the useful bits are kept.

~:smoking:

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 21:07

Full-scale invasion of Georgia (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/world/europe/11georgia.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Russian artillery and tanks have advanced on Gori in Georgia proper as Russia increases its presence in Abkhazia to 6,000 troops. Russian and Abkhazian troops have amassed on the Abkhazian-Georgian border and are about to begin an invasion of Georgia on a western front. Russia continues not to take calls by Georgia for a ceasefire.

Caius

08-10-2008, 21:16

By the way, Putin said "The war has begun" in other words, it means that he is not willing to stop that easy. And if he is winning battles, why would he stop attacking?

Adrian II

08-10-2008, 21:31

By the way, Putin said "The war has begun" in other words, it means that he is not willing to stop that easy. And if he is winning battles, why would he stop attacking?Well, the State Department has made it clear yesterday that there is no chance the United States is going to intervene militarily. The U.S. needs Russia too much with regard to issues like North Korea, Iran and China/Taiwan. And since Nato can't do much without American leadership or participation, the Russians can easily continue their advance. They will occupy Gori, cutting off Georgian supplies to Abkhazia, at least until they haev taken that province as well, after which they will be in a perfect position to negotiate. Gori and other Georgian towns may become bargaining chips.

There is, however, little chance that the Russians will proceed to conquer most or all of Georgia proper; it would turn Georgia into a second Chechnya and we know how that played out.

My guess is a vetoed Security Council resolution on Tuesday, and a start of serious negotiations on Thursday.

Sarmatian

08-10-2008, 21:33

What will happen now depends largely on Georgia. Message from Moscow is clear - straighten up, don't try to join NATO or you will be dismembered in several micro states.

Anyway, I don't know how big of an idiot you need to be to try to join NATO in Georgia's position. Russia was already pissed off because of the Baltic states joining NATO, but that was tolerable. Georgia joining is not, however. If Ukraine decides to join, even bigger hell is going to break loose. The country will split in half...

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 21:35

Well, the State Department has made it clear yesterday that there is no chance the United States is going to intervene militarily. The U.S. needs Russia too much with regard to issues like North Korea, Iran and China/Taiwan. And since Nato can't do much without American leadership or participation, the Russians can easily continue their advance. They will occupy Gori, cutting off Georgian supplies to Abkhazia, at least until they haev taken that province as well, after which they will be in a perfect position to negotiate. Gori and other Georgian towns may become bargaining chips.

There is, however, little chance that the Russians will proceed to conquer most or all of Georgia proper; it would turn Georgia into a second Chechnya and we know how that played out.

My guess is a vetoed Security Council resolution on Tuesday, and a start of serious negotiations on Thursday.

I'll bet you that Georgia becomes a puppet Russian satellite nation after next week. Ukraine soon to follow. Way to go, west. I'm just glad that we've got the Baltic States already.

Caius

08-10-2008, 21:37

Anyway, I don't know how big of an idiot you need to be to try to join NATO in Georgia's position.
Maybe USA pressure on Georgia? You know, the USA could come with a "There is not democracy in Georgia, lets give them freedom!", and God knows what will come.

rory_20_uk

08-10-2008, 21:51

Sarmatian

08-10-2008, 22:01

The USA might decide to place enough troops in the country so that Russia might think about hurting them and escalating matters with the USA.

I don't imagine that both countries will be lost. What I don't understand is what Russia wants. Is it merely a land grab? A way to increase patriotism? Or to "accidentally" destroy the pipelines to the West?

~:smoking:

There is no chance that Russia will allow NATO troops in Georgia. This entire conflict is because the possibility that there may be NATO troops in Georgia.

So it's not what Russia wants, it's what it doesn't want - it doesn't want NATO troops in Georgia. And sooner NATO stops turning on various nationalists and idiots in Georgia (and Ukraine, but that's another issue) by promising membership, the sooner will this situation be resolved.

rory_20_uk

08-10-2008, 22:10

Allow? It's not Russia's territory. They have no choice. Yes, Russia has wrong footed the West, but I don't think it's too late to salvage most of Georgia nad the Ukraine. South Ossettia might be lost though.

~:smoking:

Sarmatian

08-10-2008, 22:16

Allow? It's not Russia's territory.

If Georgia continues on this route it will be. Think of it as a reverse Cuban crisis. Cuba wasn't US territory but they still didn't allow Russian missiles there...

Caius

08-10-2008, 22:30

Looks like to me that US will stay away for a moment away from this situation, and will appear as the "Mesiah of Georgia", saving them from "teh evil" that is Russia. At the end of the movie, Russia is the antagonist, Georgia the victim, and the US the protagonist, aka the good.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 22:33

Caius

08-10-2008, 22:37

Didn't they advance on the borders of their country?

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 22:56

Didn't they advance on the borders of their country?

What?

KarlXII

08-10-2008, 23:04

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

Noble Russian peacekeepers are freeing South Ossetia from Georgia tyranny.

Caius

08-10-2008, 23:30

What?
What I tried to say is that the Georgians didnt enter in the borders, but they movilized troops very near.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 23:33

What I tried to say is that the Georgians didnt enter in the borders, but they movilized troops very near.

So that mobilization - even though it was in no way a force suitable to invade Russia, it was nowhere near their border, and they absolutely knew that there was no chance of that - was a legitimate reason to invade their entire country and bomb civilian targets? Sounds insane to me. Has anyone else tried to use that as an excuse yet?

Innocentius

08-10-2008, 23:38

I have to admit I'm a sucker for imperialism, so personally I hope Russia pulls this one off. Unfortunately I don't have very much to add to the otherwise interesting debate here.

ICantSpellDawg

08-10-2008, 23:53

Well I appreciate your directness. Imperialists should be enamored by this Russian action.

Sarmatian

08-11-2008, 00:24

So... If Georgia wants to secure itself through NATO because Russia is an ominous neighbor - they will lose the right to govern themselves?

You are looking at this through an unfinished continuum. You say Georgia's attempt to join NATO is the reason behind Russia's aggression. Maybe the constant threat of this type of aggression is the reason that Georgia wants to join NATO, which is the reason for this type of aggression? It is a cyclical argument that hinges on Russian aggression towards the territorial security and general sovereignty of Georgia.

Well, if I were to be particularly cynical, I'd say Saakashvili is an American man (educated in the US, fully payed by American government) and he's been suggested to try this by the US, for the reason that will allow some NATO troops to be stationed in Georgia as "peacekeepers" in the confusion and that neither Saakashvili or US expected this kind of response from Russia. If I were to be even more cynical, I'd say that even the timing isn't an accident. Offensive starting on the very same day as the Olympics on which Chinese spent billions in order to impress the world and make a point that 21st century is going to "belong" to them (which is not going to make Chinese happy, naturally).

But, I'm not going to be cynical and I'll believe that Saakashvili is being an idiot on his own, without any outside help.

If you look on the US foreign policy policy after the cold war, you'll see that US is trying to get all ex-soviet countries into NATO and to surround Russia with NATO military bases. And if you look closely, you'll see that Russia enjoys excellent relationship with all ex-soviet countries that aren't and don't want to become NATO members. So, no - this conflict is triggered by Georgia trying to enter NATO and not the other way around.

US supports parties and politicians that are pro-NATO, gives them money (more often promises than gives but that's another story), calls them democratic options while all others are not. It doesn't matter if those politicians are using violence to stop protest in the streets or in jails. It doesn't matter if police kills or hurts protesters. It doesn't matter if those politicians state that all who try to destabilize the country should be shot and killed (protesters in this case). None of it matters. As long as those politicians and parties are pro-NATO they are "democratic". Bright, shining examples of freedom and hope for the oppressed.

The problem is that US didn't expect that Russia learned it's lesson from the Cold War. It's not what you do, it's how you do it. They won a PR victory. They've swooped in to protect the oppressed, made a statement that they're not gone, that they've just taken a vacation from the world affairs. This has also have given Medvedev an opportunity to make the first step of coming out of Putin's shadow. It was he who ordered the army to move in into S. Ossetia when Georgian offensive started, before Putin was back from Beijing. That is very important to show that changes in Russia are not just one-man show.

NATO overextended itself. It already got almost entire eastern Europe and wanted the Caucasus and beyond. Russia, because of vast reserves of strategic resources, powerful military, growing economy and never better relations with China, concluded that's enough and that Georgia and Ukraine are out of the question for NATO.

Now, I'm sometimes sad that I am a sane man and that I can not be glad when people are suffering. Although this is Kosovo coming back to haunt westerners, it is Georgians who are on the receiving end and they had nothing to do with that. What is sad is that almost no one from the west will be even remotely concerned with this. Almost no one will be able to connect those things and everything will remain the same. It's much easier to feed the irrational fear of Russia and to conclude that this is the return of Soviet Russia, Imperial Russia or any other kind of Russia that isn't happy sitting on the sidelines while thing are happening around it.

It is almost unbelievable how easy once the most liberal and democratic country in the world turned into a fear addict.

JR-

08-11-2008, 00:36

only georgia gets a say about which alliances they wish to join, and and if that alliance is ours and we will benefit by securing the multiplicity of our energy sources against an aggressive monoplist, then russia will have to put up or shut up.

ICantSpellDawg

08-11-2008, 00:48

Putin has been consolidating power in Russia under one man for the past decade. Russia consistently counters Western agendas in principle. Russia has now invaded a sovereign nation and shows no sign of ceasefire. If you lived in the United States you would see how unconcerned people are considering the circumstances - I haven't heard a person talk about it unless I bring it up. We are too busy talking about John Edwards Affair and Phelp's gold medals.

We are all just fear addicts.

I'd bet that you opposed the NATO defense of Kosovo even though you are defending something 10 times worse in Georgia and trying to rationalize it as the same thing.

ICantSpellDawg

08-11-2008, 02:16

Pat Buchanan is a great American. I believe that he is in his element when confronting the specter of authoritarian Nationalism in his writings. He does this primarily because he understands the ideology very well. Guys like Pat are very important in a democracy in a relationship similar to the way hackers are important to software companies.

Here is an article by Pat Buchanan that, while it isn't 100% relevant to our discussion, contains the overarching sense that I think we are all dealing with (or most of us).

Enjoy, especially if you usually hate Pat.

Democracy -- A Flickering Star?
by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)
Posted 08/08/2008 ET Link (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=27958)

In his 1937 "Great Contemporaries," Winston Churchill wrote, "Whatever else may be thought about (Hitler's) exploits, they are among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world."

Churchill was referring not only to Hitler's political triumphs -- the return of the Saar and reoccupation of the Rhineland -- but his economic achievements. By his fourth year in power, Hitler had pulled Germany out of the Depression, cut unemployment from 6 million to 1 million, grown the GNP 37 percent and increased auto production from 45,000 vehicles a year to 250,000. City and provincial deficits had vanished.

In material terms, Nazi Germany was a startling success.

And not only Churchill and Lloyd George but others in Europe and America were marveling at the exploits of the Third Reich, its fascist ally Italy and Joseph Stalin's rapidly industrializing Soviet state. "I have seen the future, and it works," Lincoln Steffins had burbled. Many Western men, seeing the democracies mired in Depression and moral malaise, were also seeing the future in Berlin, Moscow, Rome.

In Germany, Hitler was winning plebiscites with more than 90 percent of the vote in what outside observers said were free elections.

What calls to mind the popularity of the Third Reich and the awe it inspired abroad -- even after the bloody Roehm purge and the Nazi murder of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss in 1934, and the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws -- is a poll buried in The New York Times.

In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.

"Eighty-six percent of Chinese people surveyed said they were content with the country's direction, up from 48 percent in 2002. ... And 82 percent of Chinese were satisfied with their national economy, up from 52 percent," said the Times.

Yet, China has a regime that punishes dissent, severely restricts freedom, persecutes Christians and all faiths that call for worship of a God higher than the state, brutally represses Tibetans and Uighurs, swamps their native lands with Han Chinese to bury their cultures and threatens Taiwan.

China is also a country where Maoist ideology has been replaced by a racial chauvinism and raw nationalism reminiscent of Italy and Germany in the 1930s. Yet, again, over 80 percent of all Chinese are content or even happy with the direction of the country. Two-thirds say the government is doing a good job in dealing with the issues of greatest concern to them.

And what nation is it whose people rank as third most satisfied?

Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Moscow is today more nationalistic, less democratic and more confrontational toward the West than it has been since before the fall of communism. Power is being consolidated, former Soviet republics are hearing dictatorial growls from Moscow and a chill reminiscent of the Cold War is in the air.

Yet, wrote the Times, "Russians were the third most satisfied people with their country's direction, at 54 percent, despite Western concerns about authoritarian trends."

Of the largest nations on earth, the two that today most satisfy the desires of their peoples are the most authoritarian.

High among the reasons, of course, are the annual 10 percent to 12 percent growth China has experienced over the last decade, and the wealth pouring into Russia for the oil and natural gas in which that immense country abounds. Still, is this not disturbing? In China and Russia, the greatest of world powers after the United States, people seem to value freedom of speech, religion or the press far less than they do a rising prosperity and national pride and power. And they seem to have little moral concern about crushing national minorities.

Contrast, if you will, the contentment of Chinese and Russians with the dissatisfaction of Americans, only 23 percent of whom told the Pew poll they approved of the nation's direction. Only one in five Americans said they were satisfied with the U.S. economy.

Other polls have found 82 percent of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, only 28 percent approving of President Bush's performance and only half that saying they approve of the Congress. In Britain, France and Germany, only three in 10 expressed satisfaction with the direction of the nation.

Liberal democracy is in a bear market. Is it a systemic crisis, as well?

In his 1992 "The End of History," Francis Fukuyama wrote of the ultimate world triumph of democratic capitalism. All other systems had fallen, or would fall by the wayside. The future belonged to us.

Democratic capitalism, it would appear, now has a great new rival -- autocratic capitalism. In Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, nations are beginning to imitate the autocrats of China and Russia, even as some in the 1930s sought to ape fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

The game is not over yet. We are going into extra innings.

Faust|

08-11-2008, 02:32

*edit*

Caius

08-11-2008, 03:28

So that mobilization - even though it was in no way a force suitable to invade Russia, it was nowhere near their border, and they absolutely knew that there was no chance of that - was a legitimate reason to invade their entire country and bomb civilian targets? Sounds insane to me. Has anyone else tried to use that as an excuse yet?
Well, if Canadians moved their soldiers near the border of the US, would you believe they are going to visit Detroit? They plan something.

"The actions of the Georgian side led to deaths - among them are Russian peacekeepers. The situation reached the point that Georgian peacekeepers have been shooting at Russian peacekeepers. Now women, children and old people are dying in South Ossetia - most of them are citizens of the Russian Federation. According to the constitution, I, as the President of the Russian Federation, must protect lives and the dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are. Those responsible for the deaths of our citizens will be punished."

Extracted from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_War

Ignoramus

08-11-2008, 03:32

Well, if Canadians moved their soldiers near the border of the US, would you believe they are going to visit Detroit? They plan something.

You would expect that it if the US had been bombing Canada, wouldn't you?

Caius

08-11-2008, 03:36

You would expect that it if the US had been bombing Canada, wouldn't you?
One thing is defensive movilization. Other is launching a missile in Canada and fell in the US.

The other case is a special case of ambition.

Ignoramus

08-11-2008, 03:37

Russian peacekeepers? Bah! If anyone believes that rubbish, then they need to stop viewing Russia as a servant of humanity.

Caius

08-11-2008, 03:39

Russian peacekeepers? Bah! If anyone believes that rubbish, then they need to stop viewing Russia as a servant of humanity.
Would you stare, as a general, look how your troops die without doing something?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-11-2008, 05:08

South Ossettia might be lost though.

Lost South Ossetia? We haven't lost South Ossetia - they don't want us. They want Russia. As much as I'd like to expand NATO (and German) influence, South Ossetia has its own rights, and lets face it, that breakaway republic isn't worth much.

Alexander the Pretty Good

08-11-2008, 05:22

They want Russia
Well, they want autonomy with benefits - namely, a nationalist with a huge army to back them up.

They don't want to be Russians.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-11-2008, 05:39

They don't want to be Russians.

70% of them are Russians.

Marshal Murat

08-11-2008, 05:43

70% of them are Russians.
Because they can't be Georgians, Turks, Armenians, or Zulu.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-11-2008, 05:45

Because they can't be Georgians

Well, let me rephrase that. They're Ossetians with Russian citizenship.

ICantSpellDawg

08-11-2008, 05:57

Well, let me rephrase that. They're Ossetians with Russian citizenship.

Wait wait wait. Around 50% ofthe South Ossetian population hold dual citizenship between Georgia and Russia. That means that around 50% are technically Georgian only. If around 2/3rds of the population are Ossetian and they hold the majority of the dual Russian citizenships - around 1/3rd are simply Georgians with Georgian citizenship.

There are hardly any ethnically Russian people in Georgia (maybe 1-2%?) and South Ossetians are Russian in honorary citizenship only - and this is a relatively recent occurrence. Do we just ignore the 30% ethnically Georgian population or the 98% Georgian citizens, 50% of which are dual citizens?

Nonsense.

KarlXII

08-11-2008, 06:08

Wait wait wait. Around 50% ofthe South Ossetian population hold dual citizenship between Georgia and Russia. That means that around 50% are technically Georgian only. If around 2/3rds of the population are Ossetian and they hold the majority of the dual Russian citizenships - around 1/3rd are simply Georgians with Georgian citizenship.

There are hardly any ethnically Russian people in Georgia and South Ossetians are Russian in honorary citizenship only - and this is a relatively recent occurrence. Do we just ignore the 30% ethnically Georgian population or the 98% Georgian citizens, 50% of which are dual citizens?

Nonsense.

You forgot the fact that the Russians were handing out the passports and citizenship.....

ICantSpellDawg

08-11-2008, 06:17

You forgot the fact that the Russians were handing out the passports and citizenship.....

Like candy. "Who wants a free passport?!!!"

Will Russia Get Away With It?
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/opinion/11kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)

In August 1924, the small nation of Georgia, occupied by Soviet Russia since 1921, rose up against Soviet rule. On Sept. 16, 1924, The Times of London reported on an appeal by the president of the Georgian Republic to the League of Nations. While “sympathetic reference to his country’s efforts was made” in the Assembly, the Times said, “it is realized that the League is incapable of rendering material aid, and that the moral influence which may be a powerful force with civilized countries is unlikely to make any impression upon Soviet Russia.”

“Unlikely” was an understatement. Georgians did not enjoy freedom again until 1991.

Today, the Vladimir Putins and Hu Jintaos and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads of the world — to say nothing of their junior counterparts in places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea — are no more likely than were Soviet leaders in 1924 to be swayed by “moral influence.” Dictators aren’t moved by the claims of justice unarmed; aggressors aren’t intimidated by diplomacy absent the credible threat of force; fanatics aren’t deterred by the disapproval of men of moderation or refinement.

The good news is that today we don’t face threats of the magnitude of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Each of those regimes combined ruthless internal control, a willingness to engage in external aggression, and fervent adherence to an extreme ideology. Today these elements don’t coexist in one place. Russia is aggressive, China despotic and Iran messianic — but none is as dangerous as the 20th-century totalitarian states.

The further good news is that 2008 has been, in one respect, an auspicious year for freedom and democracy. In Iraq, we and our Iraqi allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists in what they have called the central front of their struggle. This joint victory has the potential to weaken the jihadist impulse throughout the Middle East.

On the other hand, the ability of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to get away with murder (literally), and above all the ability of Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions effectively unchecked, are setbacks for hopes of peace and progress.

And there is no evidence that China’s hosting of the Olympics has led to moderation of its authoritarianism. Meanwhile, Russia has sent troops and tanks across an international border, and now seems to be widening its war against Georgia more than its original — and in any case illegitimate — casus belli would justify.

Will the United States put real pressure on Russia to stop? In a news analysis on Sunday, the New York Times reporter Helene Cooper accurately captured what I gather is the prevailing view in our State Department: “While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries, Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia.”

But Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence — about 2,000 troops — fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty. Surely we cannot simply stand by as an autocratic aggressor gobbles up part of — and perhaps destabilizes all of — a friendly democratic nation that we were sponsoring for NATO membership a few months ago.

For that matter, consider the implications of our turning away from Georgia for other aspiring pro-Western governments in the neighborhood, like Ukraine’s. Shouldn’t we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?

Incidentally, has Russia really been helping much on Iran? It has gone along with — while delaying — three United Nations Security Council resolutions that have imposed mild sanctions on Iran. But it has also supplied material for Iran’s nuclear program, and is now selling Iran antiaircraft systems to protect military and nuclear installations.

It’s striking that dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical regimes — whatever their differences — seem happy to work together to weaken the influence of the United States and its democratic allies. So Russia helps Iran. Iran and North Korea help Syria. Russia and China block Security Council sanctions against Zimbabwe. China props up the regimes in Burma and North Korea.

The United States, of course, is not without resources and allies to deal with these problems and threats. But at times we seem oddly timid and uncertain.

When the “civilized world” expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis. Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?

And for all you Russia-lovers a different angle. Although I recognize the validity of this argument, I prefer the logic of the previous one. Both are accurate and two sides of the same coin - but life is about picking which side of the fence you are on. Georgia's argument is more sound and Russia has become more terrible by the month for the past 5 years.

Russo-Georgian conflict is not all Russia's fault
But war could ignite further disputes in the region.
By Charles King Link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html)

Washington - Following a series of provocative attacks in its secessionist region of South Ossetia late last week, Georgia launched an all-out attempt to reestablish control in the tiny enclave. Russia then intervened by dropping bombs on Georgia to protect the South Ossetians, halt the growing tide of refugees flooding into southern Russia, and aid its own peacekeepers there.

Now, the story goes, Russia has at last found a way of undermining Georgia's Western aspirations, nipping the country's budding democracy, and countering American influence across Eurasia. But this view of events is simplistic.

American and European diplomats, who have rushed to the region to try to stop the conflict, would do well to consider the broader effects of this latest round of Caucasus bloodletting – and to seek perspectives on the conflict beyond the story of embattled democracy and cynical comparisons with the Prague Spring of 1968.

Russia illegally attacked Georgia and imperiled a small and feeble neighbor. But by dispatching his own ill-prepared military to resolve a secessionist dispute by force, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has managed to lead his country down the path of a disastrous and ultimately self-defeating war.

Speaking on CNN, Mr. Saakashvili compared Russia's intervention in Georgia to the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979. Russia has massively overreacted to the situation in Georgia. It has hit targets across Georgia, well beyond South Ossetia, and has killed both Georgian military personnel as well as civilians. The international community is right to condemn this illegal attack on an independent country and United Nations member.

But this is not a repeat of the Soviet Union's aggressive behavior of the last century. So far at least, Russia's aims have been clear: to oust Georgian forces from the territory of South Ossetia, one of two secessionist enclaves in Georgia, and to chasten a Saakashvili government that Russia perceives as hot-headed and unpredictable.

Regardless of the conflict's origins, the West must continue to act diplomatically to push Georgia and Russia back to the pre-attacks status quo. The United States should make it clear that Saakashvili has seriously miscalculated the meaning of his partnership with Washington, and that Georgia and Russia must step back before they do irreparable damage to their relations with the US, NATO, and the European Union.

The attack on South Ossetia, along with Russia's inexcusable reaction, have pushed both sides down the road toward all-out war – a war that could ignite a host of other territorial and ethnic disputes in the Caucasus as a whole.

The emerging narrative, echoing across editorial pages and on television news programs in the US, portrays Georgia as an embattled, pro-Western country struggling to secure its borders against a belligerent Russia. Since coming to power in a bloodless revolution in late 2003, Saakashvili has certainly steered a clear course toward the West.

The EU flag now flies alongside the Georgian one on major government buildings (even though Georgia is a long way from ever becoming a member of the EU). The Saakashvili government seeks Georgian membership in NATO, an aspiration strongly supported by the administration of George W. Bush. Oddly, before the conflict erupted on its own soil Georgia was the third-largest troop contributor in Iraq, a result of Saakashvili's desire to show absolute commitment to the US and, in the process, gain needed military training and equipment for the small Georgian Army.

Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.

But regardless of its origins, the upsurge in violence has illustrated the volatile and sometimes deadly politics of the Caucasus, the Texas-size swath of mountains, hills, and plains separating the Black Sea from the Caspian.

Like the Balkans in the 1990s, the central problems of this region are about the dark politics of ethnic revival and territorial struggle. The region is home to scores of brewing border disputes and dreams of nationalist homelands.

In addition to South Ossetia, the region of Abkhazia has also maintained de facto independence for more than a decade. Located along Georgia's Black Sea coast, Abkhazia has called up volunteers to support the South Ossetian cause. Russia has now moved to aid the Abkhazians, who are concerned that Georgia's actions in South Ossetia were a dress rehearsal for an attack on them.

Farther afield, other secessionist entities and recognized governments in neighboring countries – from Nagorno-Karabakh to Chechnya – are eyeing the situation. The outcome of the Russo-Georgian struggle will determine whether these other disputes move toward peace or once again produce the barbaric warfare and streams of refugees that defined the Caucasus more than a decade ago.

For Georgia, this war has been a disastrous miscalculation. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are now completely lost. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario under which these places – home to perhaps 200,000 people – would ever consent to coming back into a Georgian state they perceive as an aggressor.

Armed volunteers have already been flooding into South Ossetia from other parts of the Caucasus to fight against Georgian forces and help finally "liberate" the Ossetians from the Georgian yoke.

Despite welcome efforts to end the fighting, the Russo-Georgian war has created yet another generation of young men in the Caucasus whose worldviews are defined by violence, revenge, and nationalist zeal.

Charles King is professor of international affairs in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is the author of "The Ghost of Freedom: A History of The Caucasus."

Oleander Ardens

08-11-2008, 06:57

IMHO a big red line is crossed when Russia starts to invade undisputed Georgian territory. If the do so Putins intention will be selfexplaining. Then the EU and USA should make it clear that a soviet-styled invasion of a democratic country is not an option.

ICantSpellDawg

08-11-2008, 07:08

It looks like the combat will be ending later today. Ban Ki-Moon and the office of the Secretary of the U.N. has reportedly taken the side of Georgia in communications with various delegations and Russia will be creating a "safe-travel" zone, whatever that means.

This will be a perfect excuse to bring NATO into Georgia. Hehe. The sooner South Ossetia and Abkhazia get figured out the sooner Georgia and Ukraine can join NATO. Once that happens this type of crap won't happen until China inevitably starts pushing its borders into Eurasia over the next 40 years.

KarlXII

08-11-2008, 07:26

It looks like the combat will be ending later today. Ban Ki-Moon and the office of the Secretary of the U.N. has reportedly taken the side of Georgia in communications with various delegations and Russia will be creating a "safe-travel" zone, whatever that means.

This will be a perfect excuse to bring NATO into Georgia. Hehe.

Means Russia will take it in to their hands to carve a zone out of Georgia's land......

ICantSpellDawg

08-11-2008, 07:28

Means Russia will take it in to their hands to carve a zone out of Georgia's land......

That's what i've been saying, but we'll see what happens.

Sarmatian

08-11-2008, 09:19

I'd bet that you opposed the NATO defense of Kosovo even though you are defending something 10 times worse in Georgia and trying to rationalize it as the same thing.

Of course I opposed it because there was no attack on Kosovo, so there was no need to defend it. In this case Russian peacekeepers were there under agreement that all three sides accepted - Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia. On top of that Georgia broke a ceasefire agreement.

So you have in one case military intervention of Russia after Georgia broke a ceasefire and in other case lies and fabrications of mass murders that were used to justify the aggression on Serbia. Sorry mate, those two things aren't comparable...

Banquo's Ghost

08-11-2008, 16:15

It appears that the Russian army has now invaded undisputed Georgian territory (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7554507.stm) from Abkhazia.

And Mr Saakashvili has had a small taste of what he has got his countrymen into.

Have any of our US colleagues got better clarity on what the Vice-President meant by "Russian aggression will not go unanswered"?