Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia

[FactionHeir]

TIME has a very decent and more or less balanced article on the current situation and what led to its occurence.

[KarlXII]

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.....

[KarlXII]

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]

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]

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

[Caius]

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

[Adrian II]

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]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Funny how that works.....

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]

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

[Marshal Murat]

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]

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?

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ukraine Tells Russia To Find A New Black Sea Port

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]

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Adrian II]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Full-scale invasion of Georgia

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]

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]

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.