Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Because they can't be Georgians

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

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

---

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Will Russia Get Away With It?
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Link

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Russo-Georgian conflict is not all Russia's fault
But war could ignite further disputes in the region.
By Charles King Link


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."

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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...

It appears that the Russian army has now invaded undisputed Georgian territory 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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It appears that the Russian army has now invaded undisputed Georgian territory 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"?

---

So I guess the statements that Russia was pulling out were fallacious. If Russia knows that they can invade Georgia with impunity and carve out new land - they will do just that. I am really disappointed that we haven't dropped the hammer. The Bush administration has made the world less safe through its inaction.

It's all quite ambiguous at the moment. Though I can't imagine any actions but diplomatic ones.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...616,full.story

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Tricky Dick Chaney may be feeling froggy, but he lives in a fantasy world inside some bunker half the time.

Quote:

---

White House deputy national security advisor James Jeffrey offered a more sanguine tone during the news briefing in Beijing, telling reporters that the Russians had informally provided an indication that, with a Georgian troop withdrawal and other steps, "this situation could be resolved peacefully. So . . . they have held that door open."

---

Russia is going to try to kill or capture Saakashvili. They are going for regime change. What is the matter with the west?

The last thing we Euro's want is an all-out war between Russia and the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

The last thing we Euro's want is an all-out war between Russia and the USA.

---

Europeans take a bizarre interest in their own defense. I'm not talking about American action only - I'm talking NATO. Is it up to the U.S. alone to defend democratic European nations? Are you just bystanders?

We like sorting out stuff diplomatically ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What is the matter with the west?

---

I expect they don't wish to fall victim to one of Vizzini's classic blunders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We like sorting out stuff diplomatically ~;)

---

Riiiight. What European military conflict that has already started getting violent has ever been sorted out with words?

This is getting on my nerves. Georgia has/had the 3rd largest troop deployment in Iraq between the US and the UK. They are great ally and were close to becoming a member of NATO. I'm going to be a bit ticked at my government if we stand by and let the country of Georgia collapse to the Russians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Riiiight. What European military conflict that has already started getting violent has ever been sorted out with words?

---

Northern Ireland?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Northern Ireland?

---

Okay you win. Is this situation similar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

The last thing we Euro's want is an all-out war between Russia and the USA.

---

The last thing we Americans want is an all-out war between Russia and the US. :dizzy2:

I don't have all of my information here yet, but I'm on the fence as to who is in the right. I am certainly not going to side with Georgia just because it is an ally. If Georgia instigated this, then I have to favor Russia. That said, Russian escalation into Democratic Georgia with the intention of regime change of a democratically elected president is mighty disturbing.

This is quite a crisis with some very grave implications for international stability.

Edit: One last note. It seems to me that Russia's entire purpose here is to demonstrate its power and its anger at the west for encroachment into its territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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

---

And what he had got the Ossetians into, it appears. The stories of the Ossetian refugees who fled into Russia are pretty harrowing. It is hard to say how much of all that is true, but the fact that they fled their homes and cities during last weeks' Georgian attack, and the many concurring stories about Georgian troops firing artillety shells and sniping at the refugee columns, point to some serious issues.

Mr Saakashvili may have been elected democratically on a very chauvinist platform, but it does not give him the right to act so heavy-handedly against minorities, and doing so under the eyes of the Russian troops in the province was not constructive, to put it diplomatically.

It would be helpful though if Nato started flying in (token) forces into the Turkish border area with Georgia, in order to prepare the ground (and public opinion) for possible larger deployments to that area, provided of course that Turkey would allow it - just in case the Russians decide that taking Tbilisi would be a good idea after all, which I am sure they realize would cause a major international crisis.

As much i would like to side with Georgia, the fact is that Georgia broke the cease fire and is not even disputing it, which gives Russia a casus belli. Now the job for the west is to pressure Russia into negotiating table and prevent Russia from over running the entire Georgia. In poker terms, Georgia tried to bluff Russia into submission, but Russia called the cards. I dont think either side of this conflict has clean intentions, both are trying to strengthen their position in the area.
It was bad move from Georgia to think that Russia would be so fearful of west that it would just let Georgia do what it wants. From Russian perspective, such move would have been disastrous to the Government, showing weakness towards the west. Georgia should not have put Russian government into a position, where it had no other options then using force.
Now its the job for rest of the world to pressure Russia, so it cant use this pretext to destroy the independency of Georgia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And what he had got the Ossetians into, it appears. The stories of the Ossetian refugees who fled into Russia are pretty harrowing. It is hard to say how much of all that is true, but the fact that they fled their homes and cities during last weeks' Georgian attack, and the many concurring stories about Georgian troops firing artillety shells and sniping at the refugee columns, point to some serious issues.

Mr Saakashvili may have been elected democratically on a very chauvinist platform, but it does not give him the right to act so heavy-handedly against minorities, and doing so under the eyes of the Russian troops in the province was not constructive, to put it diplomatically.

It would be helpful though if Nato started flying in (token) forces into the Turkish border area with Georgia, in order to prepare the ground (and public opinion) for possible larger deployments to that area, provided of course that Turkey would allow it - just in case the Russians decide that taking Tbilisi would be a good idea after all, which I am sure they realize would cause a major international crisis.

---

That's all I'm after - some NATO response.

Georgia has a pretty good record of minority relations. The city of Gori withing greater Georgia is predominantly Ossetian, I believe and there haven't been any issues there. Where are you reading about the Ossetian refugee experience? I haven't found much on that.

Russia has moved forces into Georgian lands, as confirmed. It's interesting how the situation is developing. According to the Russians they have moved in to counter a Georgian counterattack, and I haven't seen a Georgian denial of this. However, Georgians claim Russia has captured Gori, which Russia denies. We'll see who is speaking the truth there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And what he had got the Ossetians into, it appears. The stories of the Ossetian refugees who fled into Russia are pretty harrowing. It is hard to say how much of all that is true, but the fact that they fled their homes and cities during last weeks' Georgian attack, and the many concurring stories about Georgian troops firing artillety shells and sniping at the refugee columns, point to some serious issues.

Mr Saakashvili may have been elected democratically on a very chauvinist platform, but it does not give him the right to act so heavy-handedly against minorities, and doing so under the eyes of the Russian troops in the province was not constructive, to put it diplomatically.

It would be helpful though if Nato started flying in (token) forces into the Turkish border area with Georgia, in order to prepare the ground (and public opinion) for possible larger deployments to that area, provided of course that Turkey would allow it - just in case the Russians decide that taking Tbilisi would be a good idea after all, which I am sure they realize would cause a major international crisis.

---

Good post Adrian. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Russia has moved forces into Georgian lands, as confirmed. It's interesting how the situation is developing. According to the Russians they have moved in to counter a Georgian counterattack, and I haven't seen a Georgian denial of this. However, Georgians claim Russia has captured Gori, which Russia denies. We'll see who is speaking the truth there.



Good post Adrian. :bow:

---

You still think the Russians are noble peacekeepers? Are they still trying to protect Russian citizens (you know, the one's who got the citizenship from the Russians)?

You know, I'm surprised you still won't admit that Russia is doing this for no one but themselves. I'm glad Georgia is trying to push the Russians out of their land.

Originally Posted by HoreTore: "Northern Ireland?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Okay you win. Is this situation similar?

---

he isn't really right at all.

it was never a shooting war between state actors.

we broke their will to continue fighting by utterly infiltrating them via every human and technical means available, to the point where if they planned an assassination there were SAS waiting to slot them, if they went to pick up an arms cache it was possibly booby-trapped, if they went looking for moles we served them up one of their own to execute whilst leaving our spies ever further up in the ranks of the IRA.

they came to the peace table on their knees!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

Originally Posted by HoreTore: "Northern Ireland?"


he isn't really right at all.

it was never a shooting war between state actors.

we broke their will to continue by utterly infiltrating them by every human and technical means to the point where if they planned a assassination there were SAS waiting to slot them, if they went to pick up an arms cache it was possibly booby-trapped, if they went looking for moles we served them up one of their own to execute whilst leaving our spies ever further up in the ranks of the IRA.

they came to the peace table on their knees!

---

So you are proud what Britain has done in Northern Ireland? You think they rose against you just for fun, without any reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

You still think the Russians are noble peacekeepers? Are they still trying to protect Russian citizens (you know, the one's who got the citizenship from the Russians)?

You know, I'm surprised you still won't admit that Russia is doing this for no one but themselves. I'm glad Georgia is trying to push the Russians out of their land.

---

Of course it's Russian power politics, that's a no-brainer. And in a sense it is a response to Nato power politics with regard to Kosovo.

If you think Nato should once again react from a power perspective alone, you are misguided. We would make the same mistake as in Kosovo and invite further trouble down the road. Nato is not being attacked here. Georgia is, and it partly has itself to blame.

Nato should hold itself to standards of legality and legitimacy. Both parties in this war are clearly wrong in most of their actions and demands. Which is why we are trying to sort out these issues in this forum, with an eye to deciding which solution would be just and what actions would bring it about. There is not much more we can do, is there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

Originally Posted by HoreTore: "Northern Ireland?"


he isn't really right at all.

it was never a shooting war between state actors.

we broke their will to continue fighting by utterly infiltrating them via every human and technical means available, to the point where if they planned an assassination there were SAS waiting to slot them, if they went to pick up an arms cache it was possibly booby-trapped, if they went looking for moles we served them up one of their own to execute whilst leaving our spies ever further up in the ranks of the IRA.

they came to the peace table on their knees!

---

I don't wish to derail the thread, but that's bollox. (If you want to explore it further, please start a new thread and I will discuss with you, subject to the constraints of the Official Secrets Act).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And what he had got the Ossetians into, it appears. The stories of the Ossetian refugees who fled into Russia are pretty harrowing. It is hard to say how much of all that is true, but the fact that they fled their homes and cities during last weeks' Georgian attack, and the many concurring stories about Georgian troops firing artillety shells and sniping at the refugee columns, point to some serious issues.

Mr Saakashvili may have been elected democratically on a very chauvinist platform, but it does not give him the right to act so heavy-handedly against minorities, and doing so under the eyes of the Russian troops in the province was not constructive, to put it diplomatically.

It would be helpful though if Nato started flying in (token) forces into the Turkish border area with Georgia, in order to prepare the ground (and public opinion) for possible larger deployments to that area, provided of course that Turkey would allow it - just in case the Russians decide that taking Tbilisi would be a good idea after all, which I am sure they realize would cause a major international crisis.

---

That is a good post. However, the British Channel 4 news has just broadcast some film of Russian "peacekeepers" attacking Georgian forces in South Ossetia a week before this conflict started. There is also little doubt that the Georgians behaved extremely badly towards the Ossetians in their attacks - trying to follow Putin's Chechen example perhaps?

Saakashvili has behaved in a cretinous manner, but that still doesn't give the Russians the right to violate international borders. Given the nationalism that is fuelling Russian dreams of regaining superpower status, I seriously doubt they will take any notice of NATO troops other than as a red rag. Putin knows they would be merely for show.

Unless... President Bush is sounding more and more like our own TuffStuff. His statements would normally be dismissed as posturing except that - it's President Bush.

:hide:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

(you know, the one's who got the citizenship from the Russians)?

---

That's how you'd normally get Russian citizenship, from the Russians. ~;)

Quote:

---

You know, I'm surprised you still won't admit that Russia is doing this for no one but themselves. I'm glad Georgia is trying to push the Russians out of their land.

---

I have said that - Russia is protecting their interests in the region. Big surprise. Doesn't mean they're completely in the wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That is a good post. However, the British Channel 4 news has just broadcast some film of Russian "peacekeepers" attacking Georgian forces in South Ossetia a week before this conflict started. There is also little doubt that the Georgians behaved extremely badly towards the Ossetians in their attacks - trying to follow Putin's Chechen example perhaps?

---

Russians, Ossetians, and Georgians, to my knowledge, were having some minor conflict before this round started. This round was started by the Georgians after they violated the ceasefire that halted the last round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

That's how you'd normally get Russian citizenship, from the Russians. ~;)



I have said that - Russia is protecting their interests in the region. Big surprise. Doesn't mean they're completely in the wrong.

---

Yes, Russia is protecting it's own interests....by invading Georgia......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That is a good post. However, the British Channel 4 news has just broadcast some film of Russian "peacekeepers" attacking Georgian forces in South Ossetia a week before this conflict started. There is also little doubt that the Georgians behaved extremely badly towards the Ossetians in their attacks - trying to follow Putin's Chechen example perhaps?

Saakashvili has behaved in a cretinous manner, but that still doesn't give the Russians the right to violate international borders. Given the nationalism that is fuelling Russian dreams of regaining superpower status, I seriously doubt they will take any notice of NATO troops other than as a red rag. Putin knows they would be merely for show.

Unless... President Bush is sounding more and more like our own TuffStuff. His statements would normally be dismissed as posturing except that - it's President Bush.

:hide:

---

not to criticise the rest of the post, i agree with it, but another way of phrasing the final sentence might be; that GWB is sincere in his stated desire, and firm in his intention, to see an end to russia's overreaction to georgia's foolish offensive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

You still think the Russians are noble peacekeepers? Are they still trying to protect Russian citizens (you know, the one's who got the citizenship from the Russians)?

You know, I'm surprised you still won't admit that Russia is doing this for no one but themselves. I'm glad Georgia is trying to push the Russians out of their land.

---

You know, there is another country that invaded a country far away that had no citizens of the first country, saying this other country had weapons of mass destruction. Turned out that was a blatant lie but that country is still occupying the other country and now it thinks it can complain about Russia doing a counter attack after Georgia shelled (that means shot at and likely killed, just to make that clear) russian citizens in a disputed province, keep in mind those people accepted the russian citizenship, unless you can find me a source saying they were forced to take it at gunpoint.

I do not really care what alignment you have but if you break a ceasefire, you're just asking for trouble and Georgia gets that trouble now. It's just too bad that there may be georgians/ossetians who did not want any of this but get fired at anyway, though my usual advice for them is get the hell out of there and come back when it's over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Yes, Russia is protecting it's own interests....by invading Georgia......

---

Protecting its own interests...by defending South Ossetia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Protecting its own interests...by defending South Ossetia...

---

You honestly call what they're doing "defending South Ossetia"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

You honestly call what they're doing "defending South Ossetia"?

---

Well, yes, it's rather obvious that that is what's going on right now. You may remember the part where Georgia attacked South Ossetia, as Husar outlined in the excellent post above mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

---

Are you kidding? Several here get in this thread get a boner if anyone ever mentions what NATO did to the Serbs. We bombed civilian Serbs in that conflict like a bad Dresden reenactment. Personally, I'm just waiting for the strongly worded statement from the UN. That'll show 'em!!!:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Protecting its own interests...by defending South Ossetia...

---

That is no longer the case. It is now an outright war of aggression against Georgia. Had the Russians stayed within the confines of South Ossetia, your argument would have been true, but that has now changed. One thing to remember is that this war will most certainly not go unnoticed by other neighbors of Russia, and *they* in turn will be far more receptive towards the idea of joining NATO ASAP. Ukraine is pretty much a done deal at this point. Others may follow, maybe even the central asian republics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Well, yes, it's rather obvious that that is what's going on right now. You may remember the part where Georgia attacked South Ossetia, as Husar outlined in the excellent post above mine.

---

Yes, that's why they are attacking Georgian forces and installations outside said zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Yes, that's why they are attacking Georgian forces and installations outside said zone.

---

To destroy Georgia's military capacity, for whatever reason. That's what you do in a war.

Banquo - what have I been calling for? Some NATO response. I'm not calling for war or a NATO intervention on the side of Georgia. I'm calling for something similar to what Adrian has called for PLUS the eventual inclusion of Georgia into NATO.

This has been the agenda of most western states AND Georgia. The conflict has become more widespread through doing nothing and more lives have been affected. A NATO presence in Turkey with the intent on moving in as Peacekeepers may give the conflict a much needed ceasefire. Russia would realize that the stakes were increasing and might be more likely to fall back into Ossetia and Abkhazia - since they have already realized their objectives.

In the ceasefire, if NATO would be too difficult to deal with for the Russians in the short term, their mere presence would serve as a great bargaining chip for the U.N. to use to permanently draw down the conflict through negotiating a UN peacekeeping mission. In the end, all we would have done was put NATO troops in a participating member nation with possibilities.

Do I sound like an ultra-nationalist hothead here?

Noticed on the news tonight there was a video of Russian-backed rebels firing against Georgian positions one week before the main conflict arose. Although I'm not sure of its reliability, this would appear to show that Russia has agitated Georgia into reacting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

.

Do I sound like an ultra-nationalist hothead here?

---

No, but in the "Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away" land, you're a Nazi.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

No, but in the "Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away" land, you're a Nazi.:laugh4:

---

Escalating the crisis with a nuclear power is sure a smart idea. Russia is no Serbia. Georgia gave Russia casus belli with its own actions, braking the ceasefire and how much as you might like it, Russia has muscle enough in its nuclear arsenal that will prevent anyone from beating it to submission and they know it. So negotiations are the only way, otherwise soon Georgia will have a puppet government planted by the Russia once they have over run Georgia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

No, but in the "Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away" land, you're a Nazi.:laugh4:

---

The word "Nazi" should be replaced with "person with a different outlook" and all guns should be replaced with walkie-talkies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

To destroy Georgia's military capacity, for whatever reason. That's what you do in a war.

---

War? The Russian invasion of Georgia was said to protect the "Russian" (I still laugh at that because Russia pretty much gave citizenship to people living in Georgia and called them Russians), not to go to war with Georgia and topple the government although anyone can see this seems to be their goal.

Edit: Can you explain the massing of Russian troops at the border of Georgia months before the invasion?

I'm having a hard time why people refuse to see what Russia is really trying to do.

Here is Denis MacShane on the situation with Russia.

Link

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Georgia: We must unite to resist Russian aggression

By Denis MacShane
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/08/2008


At least when Russian tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia exactly 40 years ago they did not shoot to kill. Nor did Russian planes bomb civilians or fly low over European cities to terrify inhabitants. And the Russian invasion of a nominally sovereign republic was covered by finding some local Czech communists who signed a Kremlin-drafted agreement in captivity.

Czechoslovakia was once described by a Conservative prime minister as "a faraway country of which we know nothing". Many may feel similarly about Georgia. But the frontiers of today's Europe now stretch to the Black Sea. Britain's energy supplies depend on a narrow pipeline stretching from Azerbaijan, across Georgia, to Turkey.

The failure of foreign policy in the 1990s led to a million or more people from Balkan states flooding into northern Europe as asylum seekers, many heading for our shores. As jihadist Islamism seeks new terrorism bases further east, Britain's security now requires engagement in the troubled arc of instability from eastern Turkey to the states of the Caucasus and all the countries ending in "stan".

Into this stewpot, Vladimir Putin has dropped - literally - a bombshell. By ordering a full-scale military invasion of Georgia, he has revealed the true face of his autocratic rule. By flying in person to the scene as if he was field commander-in-chief, he is showing the world that Russia will revert to being a military power willing to bully and threaten its neighbours.
advertisement

Two months ago, I asked Russia's EU ambassador who was in charge of Russia's foreign and defence policy. After a moment's hesitation, he replied: "The constitutional position is clear. It is the president of Russia." One can only feel sorry for the hapless Dimitri Medvedev, the placeman installed as president by Putin, who stepped down to the theoretically inferior position of prime minister. Like Stalin, who never had a grander title than general secretary of the Communist party, we now see a Russian voshd - chief - totally in charge. Poor Medvedev promised Russian support at the G8 for strong UN language on Zimbabwe, only to be disowned on his return to Moscow. Again today, Putin shows who is running Russia.

To be sure, the efforts of the democratically elected government in Tbilisi to establish its control over all of its territory was clumsy. South Ossetia has been promised full autonomy with respect for its Russian culture and languages - the same as, say, a Catalonia in Spain, or the French-speaking cantons of Switzerland. But this was not acceptable to the Kremlin, which has a group of corrupt cronies in place in South Ossetia.

Nor will this crisis remain on Russia's south-eastern flank. Putin does not fully accept the sovereignty of the Baltic states, with sizeable Russian minorities who arrived there after Stalin snuffed out the independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1939. Russia has already launched a cyber-war that shut down Estonia's government and economic life for 24 hours. Putin has also demanded a Russian corridor across Lithuanian territory to the ex-Soviet enclave of Königsberg, where Kant wrote his theory of perpetual peace.

Now called Kaliningrad, the former Prussian city was host to an infamous meeting of Putin, Chirac and Schröder at which they mocked Tony Blair's support for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. It was in Kaliningrad that Putin offered a job to Schröder as boss of the company building an oil pipeline in the Baltic to bypass the cheaper land route over Poland. Swedish diplomats worry that, once it is built, the Russians will exercise security oversight over the pipeline and turn the Baltic Sea into a zone of naval confrontation.

Russia has never accepted the loss of the old Soviet empire. Like British Right-wingers who dream of the days when the Union flag fluttered over parts of the world where English was spoken, the Russians still feel the loss of status when the end of communism forced the Kremlin to disgorge the Baltic states, Ukraine and Georgia.

Russia under Putin has energy wealth and thus the money to spend on arms and aggressive foreign policy. Moscow continues to bluster and threaten the Baltic states, has cut off energy supplies to countries it wants to lean on and, as Britain knows, has bullied the British Council, interfered in BP and Shell's commercial operations, and even harassed the British ambassador when he went out to buy food for the embassy cat. And then there is the Litvinenko murder, where the response of Putin was to put the man Scotland Yard wanted to question into the Duma with the immunity of an MP.

At the UN, Russia sabotages efforts to solve the Kosovo problem and lined up with Mugabe. In other international bodies, the Russians refuse to co-operate except on their own terms. The most bizarre example is the Council of Europe, which admitted Russia as a member even though Russia refuses to accept the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. In the Council of Europe, Conservative MPs sit in the same group as Putin's stooges, and Tory MPs even tried to install a Kremlin placeman as president last year.

In contrast to Conservatives cuddling up to the bear, Britain's Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has been commendably firm in the Commons on Russia, showing a steel hand behind his smile. But Britain alone cannot face down the new Russian aggression. This requires a united response from Europe. Unfortunately, too many Right-wing leaders in today's EU, notably Angela Merkel in Berlin and Silvio Berlusconi in Rome, appear to want to give Putin the benefit of the doubt.

This allows Moscow to divide and play. The idea of a common foreign policy and the means to implement it in the Lisbon Treaty are anathema to Eurosceptics; but a disunited EU will be easy meat for Russia and leave America without a partner of weight to face down Russian bullying.

The dispute in Georgia will find some temporary brokered settlement. But the bloody assault unleashed by Putin adds new dangers and difficulties to Europe. Once again, Russia threatens peace, stability, the rule of law and the rights of sovereign democracies on its border.

Denis MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and was minister for Europe under Tony Blair

Here is another article on how crazy Russia has become. It also rips on Chuck Schumer.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

McCOTTER: Russia's invasion of Georgia
Thaddeus G. McCotter

OP-ED:

The invasion of Georgia by Russia last Friday confirms that a new generation of Lenin's "useful idiots" are alive and well. Senator Charles Schumer, apparently now a lead negotiator for Russia, recently opined that Russia could be persuaded to support stronger sanctions against Iran if, in return, the United States refused to share its anti-ballistic missile shield with our allies in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).

In support of his deal to feed CEE to the revanchist Russian bear, Senator Schumer claimed our missile shield "mocks Mr. Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe."

It should. Mr. Schumer noted: "[Former KGB Lt. Colonel and current Russian strong man Vladimir Putin] seeks to regain the power and greatness Russia had before the fall of the Soviet Union." The Senior Senator from New York says this like it's a good thing, failing to note that this brand of "power and greatness" was premised on the Soviet Union's authoritarian grip over CEE nations' peoples; the poignant savagery of the gulags; and the unpardonable sin of tens of millions slaughtered in the name of Mother Motherland.

The Russian tanks and planes rolling into the sovereign country of Georgia (eerily reminiscent of Afghanistan in 1979) save as a reminder that Russia continues to exert economic and military pressure to strong-arm her former prisoners into a less formal, but no less real, subservience. This week Russia cut the Czech Republic's crude-oil supplies by 40 percent in retaliation for agreeing to allow radar associated with the missile shield to be installed there.

This comes two weeks after threatening military action against both the Czech Republic and the United States in an effort to prevent that agreement. Three weeks ago, after Lithuania banned the display of communist and Soviet symbols, Russian-based hackers attacked 300 Lithuanian government and private Web sites. In defiant contravention of its own promises, Russia still maintains a military presence in Moldova, and Russian military aircraft routinely violate Georgian airspace.

This isn't new behavior, either. Russia's thuggish instincts have been on display for years. And if that weren't enough, Russia's saber-rattling isn't limited to his nearby neighbors. In the past year, Comrade Putin has made a spectacle of building relations with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and just this week, Putin opined that perhaps it was time for Russia to re-engage with Cuba.

Mr. Putin's Bolshevik nostalgia trip notwithstanding, the West won the Cold War and freed CEE's peoples from the Soviet Union. It is, therefore, both strategically injurious and morally repugnant to propose a puerile and cynical return to by rewarding Russia's "bad neighbor" policy with the free peoples of CEE in exchange for Russia abiding its own and the world's interest in preventing the terrorist state of Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

But simply undercutting American foreign and defense policy isn't enough for Mr. Schumer. Again, acting as Russia's agent in place, he proposes that American taxpayers make annual payments to Russia for its losses incurred from trade sanctions against Iran. By Mr. Schumer's own reckoning, this system of fealty payments would cost American taxpayers approximately $2 billion to $3 billion per year.

Of course, tightening international economic sanctions against Iran is a noble and necessary goal, but appeasement will not attain it. Ultimately, by infringing the sovereignty and endangering the liberty of our Central and Eastern European allies and by prostrating America before Russia, the senator's modest proposal will embolden every international bad actor to extort the United States and the free world for concessions, both economic and strategic. In sum, rewarding bad behavior only begets more bad behavior.

That simply isn't acceptable. Regain power and greatness, indeed. If only Mr. Schumer showed this kind of dedication in ensuring his own country's strength and security.

Thaddeus G. McCotter is a Republican congressman from Michigan and chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.

i already commented in that article that it is a complete load of cack.

denis is a muppet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

War? The Russian invasion of Georgia was said to protect the "Russian" not to go to war with Georgia and topple the government although anyone can see this seems to be their goal.

---

We don't have evidence yet that Russia is trying to topple the Georgian government, but Russia has been, de facto (and I am aware I am using those two words a lot) at war with Georgia ever since Georgia crossed the border, broke a ceasefire, shelled civilians, and fired on Russian peacekeepers (who were originally told to seek cover rather than respond). Russia is breaking the military capacity of the Georgians, who were the aggressors in this round of the fighting.

Quote:

---

(I still laugh at that because Russia pretty much gave citizenship to people living in Georgia and called them Russians)

---

They gave citizenship to Ossetians, and the Ossetians wanted the citizenship and took the citizenship. Like someone else has said in this thread, unless you find evidence that they were forced to take citizenship at gunpoint, this is an invalid point.

Quote:

---

Edit: Can you explain the massing of Russian troops at the border of Georgia months before the invasion?

---

Because it's good to be prepared for a situation that can occur? Can I have a link about this "massing of forces" as well?

So, how do you then justify Russian subjugation of Chechnya while at the same time portraying Georgian attempts to regain what is clearly *their* land as aggression?

I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. I supported Russia there because it was a very similar border dispute. That was back when they weren't completely insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Where are you reading about the Ossetian refugee experience? I haven't found much on that.

---

Many papers carry such reports. Here is one from The Independent, bearng out reports about Georgian bombing of hospitals and such in Tskhinvali:

Eyewitness accounts from those sheltering in the makeshift camps set up by the Russian Emergency Ministry match the official claims of the Russian government and the South Ossetian rebel leadership.

Most people described scenes of horror, chaos and destruction. Few buildings are left standing in Tskhinvali, refugees said. Aerial and artillery bombardment had destroyed the hospital, maternity ward and cemetery, while most of the city's housing lies in ruins.

Linky

Thanks.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

They gave citizenship to Ossetians, and the Ossetians wanted the citizenship and took the citizenship. Like someone else has said in this thread, unless you find evidence that they were forced to take citizenship at gunpoint, this is an invalid point.

---

they took citizenship because they claim to come from a nation that no-one recognises, therefore they could not travel. try getting into the UK with a south ossettian passport and see what happens.

so the russians offered and the rebels-without-a-holiday accepted. after all, how are all the russian controlled criminal gangs supposed to go about their 'business' if they can't do dodgy dealings in foreign parts?

President Bush is about to speak on major news networks. Lets hear what the official line is, eh?

An interesting analysis on the BBC

Early lessons from S Ossetia conflict

Quote:

---

Because it's good to be prepared for a situation that can occur?

---

How about I punch you in the face? I mean, it's good to be prepared for a situation to occur, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

How about I punch you in the face? I mean, it's good to be prepared for a situation to occur, right?

---

Oh dear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

We don't have evidence yet that Russia is trying to topple the Georgian government, but Russia has been, de facto (and I am aware I am using those two words a lot) at war with Georgia ever since Georgia crossed the border, broke a ceasefire, shelled civilians, and fired on Russian peacekeepers (who were originally told to seek cover rather than respond). Russia is breaking the military capacity of the Georgians, who were the aggressors in this round of the fighting.

---

There are also accounts that the rebels attacked Georgian forces first. You speak like it is a well known fact that Georgia decided to shell the rebels for no apparent reason and Russia was the heroic savior who came to Georgia's aid.

Quote:

---

They gave citizenship to Ossetians, and the Ossetians wanted the citizenship and took the citizenship. Like someone else has said in this thread, unless you find evidence that they were forced to take citizenship at gunpoint, this is an invalid point.

---

I never said they forced to take citizenship. However, just because an area of sovereign country wants to become part of another country, doesn't them the right too. That would be like America absorbing half of Mexico but saying "Hey they wanted it so it's fine".

Quote:

---

Because it's good to be prepared for a situation that can occur?

---

They have had a ceasefire for quite some time now. Why now?

Quote:

---

Can I have a link about this "massing of forces" as well?

---

Sure

Quote:

---

Saakashvili said Russia had been massing troops on the border for months.

He said: 'They have been calling it training exercises, but they have not been concealing the fact that they are training these troops for use inside Georgia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The word "Nazi" should be replaced with "person with a different outlook" and all guns should be replaced with walkie-talkies.

---

Notice the little laughing smilie at the end of my post.:yes:

The President said pretty much the same thing he had been saying. Russia needs to back down and return to the status quo. He also said that Russia has seriously harmed its standing in the world and its status in Europe and the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That is no longer the case. It is now an outright war of aggression against Georgia. Had the Russians stayed within the confines of South Ossetia, your argument would have been true, but that has now changed.

---

You mean just how NATO air strikes and bombing raids were limited to Kosovo only?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The President said pretty much the same thing he had been saying. Russia needs to back down and return to the status quo. He also said that Russia has seriously harmed its standing in the world and its status in Europe and the U.S.

---

Judging by Churkin's speech in UN, I don't think that concerns them much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You mean just how NATO air strikes and bombing raids were limited to Kosovo only?

---

NATO was wrong to bomb Serbia and to meddle in Kosovo. What Russia is doing right now is just as wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Notice the little laughing smilie at the end of my post.:yes:

---

my post too was meant as a joke...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

There are also accounts that the rebels attacked Georgian forces first. You speak like it is a well known fact that Georgia decided to shell the rebels for no apparent reason and Russia was the heroic savior who came to Georgia's aid.

---

Well, the initial BBC article in this thread said that Georgia's government launched an operation "aimed at securing the stability of the region" very shortly after a ceasefire had just been agreed to by Georgia and the rebels. The rebels and Georgia had already been fighting before the ceasefire, but Georgia broke the recent one. The Georgians also didn't shell "rebels" - they levelled a good portion of town, including hospitals and homes, and killed Russian soldiers.

Quote:

---

I never said they forced to take citizenship. However, just because an area of sovereign country wants to become part of another country, doesn't them the right too. That would be like America absorbing half of Mexico but saying "Hey they wanted it so it's fine".

---

Well, for one thing, there is a massive amount of Russian citizens. Secondly, Russia is supporting a breakaway province. Former Yugoslavia, anyone? Thirdly, Russian soldiers were killed in the initial Georgian strike, making that strike a military attack against the Russian Federation as well as an attack against Ossetia.

Quote:

---

They have had a ceasefire for quite some time now. Why now?

---

Well, Georgia broke the ceasefire. Ask them.

Quote:

---

Sure

---

A statement by the Georgian President (obviously an unbiased source) saying that Russians were massing troops and conducting military exercises? Alright...

That article does reveal something very interesting, however. Check this out (it's a map featured in the article): http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/...x293_popup.jpg

And I quote:

Quote:

---

1. Georgian force backed by warplanes surround and shell Tshkinvali, the capital of the breakaway province. Many hundreds of civilians reported killed, homes burnt, a hospital destroyed, and 12 Russian peacekeepers dead.

---

This being the initial attack, carried out by Georgia, which left 12 Russian soldiers dead.

You expect the Russians to be fair and balanced?

Quote:

---

You expect the Russians to be fair and balanced?

---

Like Fox News right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

You expect the Russians to be fair and balanced?

---

Hardly. You expect anyone to be fair and balanced about current events?

EMFM - here is an article that postulates that Russia has been doing a mass build up and military maneuvers over the past month in the Caucasus.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Diplomatic mood darkens in Georgia

By Nik Gowing
BBC News, Tbilisi

European diplomats and foreign ministers have conceded they will struggle to regain the initiative in the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

They talk in the darkest terms of a possible return to tensions the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II.

Several have even compared events to Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland.

In more than 25 years covering international diplomacy, I have rarely seen such gloom and head-shaking over the activities of one nation - Russia.

It is not just me saying that. It is those in government almost check-mated in the past few days - both by Georgia's military push into South Ossetia on Thursday night, then Russia's defiant response on Friday, which continues as I sit writing this in the Georgian foreign ministry.

After spending more than a day with several of them at a private gathering in northern Italy, none can answer with precision whether the warning signs of the decisive Russian response against Georgia were there to be read in the middle of last week.

"The Russian capability was obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt as we descended in his Swedish air force jet out of Turkish airspace for a quick dash to Tbilisi's almost deserted airport.

"But capability never revealed intent - even after the many weeks of Russian manoeuvres in the Caucasus, just north of the Georgian border."

'Immense challenge'

If any of the capital's airport had been bombed by Russian warplanes, there was no obvious sign.

A handful of military helicopters sat untouched on the grass. As we taxied in, we could see French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's jet alongside the old Soviet-style VIP terminal.

It is against what Russia signed up to - to settle disputes by peaceful means
Terri Davis
Council of Europe

By the time we arrived, it had gone - for the French EU presidency's next dash to Moscow to broker a ceasefire agreement with Russia.

European diplomacy is not so co-ordinated that the foreign minister currently representing the EU's 27 members could wait a few more minutes to exchange impressions with the current chair of the European body representing the 47 nations in the Council of Europe.

Mr Bildt, a veteran of the diplomatic realities of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, could only shrug in the fierce Georgian sun, look across to the French jet waiting to take off, then turn away for his own mission.

He already told me on the plane that the diplomatic challenge to restrain Russian intentions was "immense in every respect".

The widespread diplomatic concern in the EU and Nato is that after South Ossetia and probably Abkhazia, next Moscow will have its eyes set on the Crimea region of Ukraine and then Ukraine itself.

No programme

It is the first time in the Council of Europe's 60-year history that two member nations who have pledged to resolve disputes peacefully have instead resorted to war. Turkey's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 does not qualify.

Along with the Council of Europe's Secretary-General, Terri Davis, Mr Bildt is here to make an assessment ahead of an emergency EU meeting in Brussels on Wednesday.

"This is unprecedented," said Mr Davis. "There is no international right to go into a country to protect the right of your citizens." South Ossetia is thought to have 70,000 Russian passport holders.

"It is against what Russia signed up to - to settle disputes by peaceful means."

I asked Mr Bildt whether it was too late before his first meeting with Georgia's foreign minister.

"Evidently, since the war is ongoing," he said, with Swedish understatement.

What should have happened?

"Perhaps to have acted more forcefully earlier and dealt with the activities that we saw," he added.

"There has been escalation over some time, over weeks and over months."

Mr Bildt and Mr Davis will have 36 hours here.

There is no programme, no list of appointments - just a determination to be well informed before difficult decisions have to be taken by the EU and Nato to underscore the warning of US Vice President Dick Cheney that Russian aggression "must not go unanswered".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Like Fox News right?

---

No, they're fake and biased :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

EMFM - here is an article that postulates that Russia has been doing a mass build up and military maneuvers over the past month in the Caucasus.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Diplomatic mood darkens in Georgia

By Nik Gowing
BBC News, Tbilisi

European diplomats and foreign ministers have conceded they will struggle to regain the initiative in the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

They talk in the darkest terms of a possible return to tensions the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II.

Several have even compared events to Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland.

In more than 25 years covering international diplomacy, I have rarely seen such gloom and head-shaking over the activities of one nation - Russia.

It is not just me saying that. It is those in government almost check-mated in the past few days - both by Georgia's military push into South Ossetia on Thursday night, then Russia's defiant response on Friday, which continues as I sit writing this in the Georgian foreign ministry.

After spending more than a day with several of them at a private gathering in northern Italy, none can answer with precision whether the warning signs of the decisive Russian response against Georgia were there to be read in the middle of last week.

"The Russian capability was obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt as we descended in his Swedish air force jet out of Turkish airspace for a quick dash to Tbilisi's almost deserted airport.

"But capability never revealed intent - even after the many weeks of Russian manoeuvres in the Caucasus, just north of the Georgian border."

'Immense challenge'

If any of the capital's airport had been bombed by Russian warplanes, there was no obvious sign.

A handful of military helicopters sat untouched on the grass. As we taxied in, we could see French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's jet alongside the old Soviet-style VIP terminal.

It is against what Russia signed up to - to settle disputes by peaceful means
Terri Davis
Council of Europe

By the time we arrived, it had gone - for the French EU presidency's next dash to Moscow to broker a ceasefire agreement with Russia.

European diplomacy is not so co-ordinated that the foreign minister currently representing the EU's 27 members could wait a few more minutes to exchange impressions with the current chair of the European body representing the 47 nations in the Council of Europe.

Mr Bildt, a veteran of the diplomatic realities of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, could only shrug in the fierce Georgian sun, look across to the French jet waiting to take off, then turn away for his own mission.

He already told me on the plane that the diplomatic challenge to restrain Russian intentions was "immense in every respect".

The widespread diplomatic concern in the EU and Nato is that after South Ossetia and probably Abkhazia, next Moscow will have its eyes set on the Crimea region of Ukraine and then Ukraine itself.

No programme

It is the first time in the Council of Europe's 60-year history that two member nations who have pledged to resolve disputes peacefully have instead resorted to war. Turkey's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 does not qualify.

Along with the Council of Europe's Secretary-General, Terri Davis, Mr Bildt is here to make an assessment ahead of an emergency EU meeting in Brussels on Wednesday.

"This is unprecedented," said Mr Davis. "There is no international right to go into a country to protect the right of your citizens." South Ossetia is thought to have 70,000 Russian passport holders.

"It is against what Russia signed up to - to settle disputes by peaceful means."

I asked Mr Bildt whether it was too late before his first meeting with Georgia's foreign minister.

"Evidently, since the war is ongoing," he said, with Swedish understatement.

What should have happened?

"Perhaps to have acted more forcefully earlier and dealt with the activities that we saw," he added.

"There has been escalation over some time, over weeks and over months."

Mr Bildt and Mr Davis will have 36 hours here.

There is no programme, no list of appointments - just a determination to be well informed before difficult decisions have to be taken by the EU and Nato to underscore the warning of US Vice President Dick Cheney that Russian aggression "must not go unanswered".

---

That is an interesting article, and I acknowledge that an arms buildup in the region is a good possibility in why Russia's response was so quick, but at the same time, Georgia launched the operation beginning this, and killed twelve Russian soldiers in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

That is an interesting article, and I acknowledge that an arms buildup in the region is a good possibility in why Russia's response was so quick, but at the same time, Georgia launched the operation beginning this, and killed twelve Russian soldiers in the process.

---

Okay - so you admit that Russia was most likely preparing for an invasion. They couldn't have been preparing to defend against an invasion into Russia, so what would the alternative reason be? Now - couple this fact with the idea that Russian forces and South Ossetians were firing at Georgian forces before the eruption of conflict, therefore breaking the conditions of the ceasefire and the entire reason that Russia was in South Ossetia in the first place. This was clearly a planned assault and regime change on a sovereign country rather than some sort of "reaction". I'm suprised that you've bought into that argument.

I think Russia's longer-term plans since positioning peacekeepers have been made clear, if they were ever in any doubt.

I just remembered how terrible Gordon Brown has been through all of this so far. I miss Tony Blair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Well, the initial BBC article in this thread said that Georgia's government launched an operation "aimed at securing the stability of the region" very shortly after a ceasefire had just been agreed to by Georgia and the rebels. The rebels and Georgia had already been fighting before the ceasefire, but Georgia broke the recent one. The Georgians also didn't shell "rebels" - they levelled a good portion of town, including hospitals and homes, and killed Russian soldiers.

---

Well, you might want to read up on it. The Georgians are claiming the shelling (yes they shelled), air bombardment, and troop movements were in response to attacks from the rebels upon Georgian citizens. It's not very clear cut who started the fighting.

Quote:

---

Well, for one thing, there is a massive amount of Russian citizens.

---

Actually they are Georgian citizens that Russia calls Russian citizens due to them obtaining Russian passports.s

Quote:

---

Secondly, Russia is supporting a breakaway province. Former Yugoslavia, anyone?

---

Do elaborate. South Ossetia is part of Georgia. It needs to work with the Georgians if it wants independence.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, Russian soldiers were killed in the initial Georgian strike, making that strike a military attack against the Russian Federation as well as an attack against Ossetia.

---

Refer to the above.

Quote:

---

Well, Georgia broke the ceasefire. Ask them.

---

That's disputed.

Quote:

---

A statement by the Georgian President (obviously an unbiased source) saying that Russians were massing troops and conducting military exercises? Alright...

---

Tuff did a good job of reinforcing that argument.

Quote:

---

This being the initial attack, carried out by Georgia, which left 12 Russian soldiers dead.

---

Still doesn't mean it's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Okay - so you admit that Russia was most likely preparing for an invasion. They couldn't have been preparing to defend against an invasion into Russia, so what would the alternative reason be? Now - couple this fact with the idea that Russian forces and South Ossetians were firing at Georgian forces before the eruption of conflict, therefore breaking the conditions of the ceasefire and the entire reason that Russia was in South Ossetia in the first place. This was clearly a planned assault and regime change on a sovereign country rather than some sort of "reaction". I'm suprised that you've bought into that argument.

---

Yeah pretty much. I can't believe how some people seem to the think the only reason Russia is doing this is to save "Russian Citizens". Putin could probably give two ***** about what happens to these people.

Does anyone possibly think this has something to do with Georgia trying to join Nato, Georgia's pro western government, or the massive oil pipeline to the west which avoids Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Yeah pretty much. I can't believe how some people seem to the think the only reason Russia is doing this is to save "Russian Citizens". Putin could probably give two ***** about what happens to these people.

Does anyone possibly think this has something to do with Georgia trying to join Nato, Georgia's pro western government, or the massive oil pipeline to the west which avoids Russia?

---

D. All of the above