Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Because they can't be Georgians

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

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

Nonsense.

[KarlXII]

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

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

Nonsense.

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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."

[Oleander Ardens]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

[KarlXII]

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

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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"?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

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.

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."

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Conradus]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?

[HoreTore]

We like sorting out stuff diplomatically

[Banquo's Ghost]

What is the matter with the west?

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

We like sorting out stuff diplomatically

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

[Ice]

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.

[HoreTore]

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

Northern Ireland?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Northern Ireland?

Okay you win. Is this situation similar?

[Divinus Arma]

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.

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[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.

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.

[KarlXII]

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.

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.

[JR-]

Originally Posted by HoreTore: "Northern Ireland?"

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!

[Kagemusha]

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?

[Adrian II]

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?