Open warfare in South Ossetia

[Kaisa]

I would be ok with losing Quebec

You are absolutely right, neither of my examples were good

[Argus]

There're those funny little things called "satellites". They fly up in the sky, and observe (and record) what happens beneath. With resolution of 1m and less.

Every report - except those from Russia - has set there was a lot of back and forth shelling prior to the Georgian attack, and that Georgia tried itself to calm things by declaring a unilateral cease fire - which the Ossetians then repeatedly violated. These are reports from third party sources, not from the Georgian government.

But certainly, when we start ignoring facts to accommodate our moral expectations, nothing becomes impossible.

Indeed. That appears to be what you are doing in your virulent hatred of the Americans and the west.

[Argus]

As to the Russian actions in Georgia right now - they are not killing anyone, they are dismantling, destroying and re-possessing military bases and hardware.

And protecting their fellow Russians in the "south ossetian militia" who are raping and killing, and burning and looting private houses.

There's no way Georgia's 28,000 soldiers had a chance against Russian army - so, as you admitted, the army must have been built to regain control of break-away regions by force.

Every country in the world has a military, and 28,000 is peanuts. Besides, only about 1 in 7 members of a military are ever actual fighters. The rest are cooks, truck drivers, clerks, mechanics, etc.

"When there is a war the human losses are inevitable"... especially if you use multi-rocket systems "GRAD" against a city full of civilians at night without warning to maximize the number of kills... very inevitable... and then your special forces throw grenades into basements with women and children hiding from your bombing... inevitable indeed...

That sounds remarkably like what Russia did to Chechnia, something which somehow failed to arouse your indignation or concern for human rights and welfare.

[GostHacked]

Argus

Every country in the world has a military, and 28,000 is peanuts. Besides, only about 1 in 7 members of a military are ever actual fighters. The rest are cooks, truck drivers, clerks, mechanics, etc.

Wrong. Not every country has a military.

If Georgia fired the first shot, then Russia really has no obligation to pull out of S.O. Georgia would be at fault and no one can save them. Georgia should be punished for it.

If Russia fired the first shot, then Russia must leave now and Russia should be punished.

Since the US has supported Georgia in many ways (political - supporting the democratic government, economocaly - getting loans from the IMF and World Bank, which allowed them to grow at an astonighing rate for a former Bloc state, militarily - hardware/training)

Did Georgia provoke Russia into attacking knowing that the US would have their backs?

I don't think Russia is doing this to create the new USSR. All the breakaway states provided a good buffer zone for the US when they went into Iraq and Afghanistan. They are simply increasing their buffer zone as well. On both sides it makes sense.

I am neither a Bush lover or a Putin lover. But both countries are looking out for #1, themselves. Simple as that.

I am a poutine lover however.... mmmmm

[myata]

No, ignorance of reality are these outrageous statements that massive military for an all out assault (which was ackonowledged even by Georgia itself in the meeting of UN security council) could be amassed in just a few hours between the ceasefire, and the launch of operation (on the night of Olympic opening). Of course, satellite records would make it extremely challenging to claim that e.g certain troop movements did not happen. And, there're BBC pictures of burned Georgian tanks in Ossetia's capital. And, the bodies of Georgian military in the city. And the damage to the city from missile launchers and artillery shelling.

But nothing like a first hand source: (Georgia in control of Ossetia):

“Tskhinvali and the heights around Tskhinvali and the majority of the villages in South Ossetia are under the control of Georgian forces,” Mr. Saakashvili said in a televised address.

"Tskhinvali is surrounded by Georgian forces," Reintegration Minister Temur Iakobashvili told reporters.

He said Georgian forces had taken control of five Ossetian villages.

I guess in the hindsight it could have been premature to spill the news? But the word's out, no squeezing it back.

Yeah I know the only rational way these can be explained is the "hatred of the West".

Edited August 21, 2008 by myata

[PoliticalCitizen]

I would agree. Let's let facts speak for themselves.

I think Yeltsin was right to choose Putin as a President. But Putin let this position go to his head and now the whole world knows it.

First, why is Putin PM? In what normal country does a president become a prime minister?

Second, Putin never had the real courage to face an honest election. Putin is a coward and all the politicians sitting around the G8 table know it because they know what an election is. Yeltsin in 1996 is the closest to a courageous leader that Russia has ever known - Yeltsin faced an election. Putin has never done that.

Third, Putin's decision to invade Georgia (and let's be honest, Putin decided this) has been a horrible error. Putin thought that he was asserting Russian sovereignty and fixing Russia's territory but in fact, Putin has merely isolated Russia. For Russia, this is a monumental gaffe and Putin will pay personally for this.

----

I wonder about a potential coup d'état in Russia. The billions on the table from oil royalties (PSAs) and the number of frustrated, in-the-know people in Moscow excluded from the action makes a coup very possible. From the outside, we'd barely know the coup happened.

In this latest case, Putin may have over-reached. Medvedev may extend his reach.

Yeltsin... lol... the guy was never sober... he probalbly doesn't even remember the election... (Huh?)

Putin was elected as a president and then elected as a PM. "Democratic", isn't it?

About courage - Putin has demonstrated that he can face US, NATO, EU, UN and any other political entity without fear, subservience and ass-kissing that both Saakashvili and Yuschenko excel at.

It was a terrible error for Georgia to attack South Ossetia. Not only have they lost their land, but they have commited genocide and these things are NEVER forgot or forgiven.

If you just stop and think for a moment - US didn't have even one thousandth of the pretext that Russia has to go into Georgia when they invaded Iraq. Less than 100 Georgian civilians dead - tens of thousands Iraqi civilians dead. Russia is withdrawing tomorrow - US was in Iraq for 8 years and they're not withdrawing soon... Who should the international pressure be on?

Oh, about the coup... The only coup that would make sense at the moment would be Georgian people removing the blood-crazed lunatic that US has sponsored and supported...

BTW, both Putin's and Medvedev's popularity grew with the war. They both have more than 80% of popular support in Russia. Stock market hit the bottom, however...

[PoliticalCitizen]

That sounds remarkably like what Russia did to Chechnia, something which somehow failed to arouse your indignation or concern for human rights and welfare.

Grozny population was warned multiple times to evacuate before the city was bombed.

This came after months of street-fighting as well, as far as I can remember...

[jbg]

Russia is a bloody hippocrate. It screams bloody murder over Chechnya trying to seperate but then this.

As are the "peace" protesters. Where are the people, on this Board and off, who were constantly berating the US over Abu Ghraib and similar events? Where's Blackdog? Jdobbin? Hattrick? Normanchateau?

Nowhere to be found.

[myata]

Well, for once, Russia (in its new incarnation) never claimed to be the universal champion of peace and justice; yet, in her new incarnation since 1990s, it has been its first serious military confrontation, much unlike US / NATO;

Two, Russia actually had some grounds to go in Ossetia - much unlike e.g. US in Iraq;

Three, civilian casualties caused by it in Ossetia are by far (orders of magnitude) less than the results of US operation in Iraq, Israel in Lebanon, or NATO in Kosovo.

Four, they've been there a week, and in likelihood will be gone in another - of course, nothing ike US in Iraq, or NATO in Afghanistan.

And one can continue.

For the record, I don't apologise everything they did in Ossetia, and certainly not Chechnya. Just pointing out some essential differences.

[White Doors]

Well, for once, Russia (in its new incarnation) never claimed to be the universal champion of peace and justice; yet, in her new incarnation since 1990s, it has been its first serious military confrontation

ignorance or selective History?

Chechnya.

[Argus]

No, ignorance of reality are these outrageous statements that massive military for an all out assault (which was ackonowledged even by Georgia itself in the meeting of UN security council) could be amassed in just a few hours between the ceasefire,

Assembled from ---- where they were parked in garages at the other end of the country you mean? Now, me, I would figure that given the situation there, with the South Ossetian forces firing across the border and repeatedly violating truces, the majority of the Georgian military would already be - uhm, qutie nearby, and they would, as a matter of course, have planned various attacks on the breakaway province over the previous years.

. And, there're BBC pictures of burned Georgian tanks in Ossetia's capital. And, the bodies of Georgian military in the city. And the damage to the city from missile launchers and artillery shelling.

I don't think anyone has suggested there wasn't heavy fighting, or that tanks weren't involved. On the other hand, that's their territory. They have a right to have tanks there. Russia does not.

BTW, those thousands of civilians the Russians claimed Georgia killed? International human rights groups poking through things now are beginning to suggest the civilian deaths were actually in the "dozens".

[Argus]

Well, for once, Russia (in its new incarnation) never claimed to be the universal champion of peace and justice; yet, in her new incarnation since 1990s, it has been its first serious military confrontation, much unlike US / NATO;

Russia has troops in a dozen former Soviet republics, and has been working steadily behind the scenes to undermine those governments and replace them with puppets. One of its games is to incite violence, then offer Russian troops to put a stop to it.

Two, Russia actually had some grounds to go in Ossetia - much unlike e.g. US in Iraq;

What grounds?

Three, civilian casualties caused by it in Ossetia are by far (orders of magnitude) less than the results of US operation in Iraq, Israel in Lebanon, or NATO in Kosovo.

Yes, bringing overwhelming force to bear on a far weaker opponent who doesn't fight back certainly does bring the fighting to a quick end. I don't think any rational person would give the Russians credit for that, however.

[Argus]

Grozny population was warned multiple times to evacuate before the city was bombed.

This came after months of street-fighting as well, as far as I can remember...

The brutality inflicted on the civilian population of Chechnia was certainly not limited to Grozny. It was a sweeping style of conquest by atrocity comparable to the behaviour of the Nazis when they went through Soviet villages and towns.

[Argus]

It was a terrible error for Georgia to attack South Ossetia. Not only have they lost their land, but they have commited genocide and these things are NEVER forgot or forgiven.

Genocide? Human rights groups now say civilian casualties were in the dozens, not thousands, as the Russians claimed.

BBC

If you just stop and think for a moment - US didn't have even one thousandth of the pretext that Russia has to go into Georgia when they invaded Iraq. Less than 100 Georgian civilians dead - tens of thousands Iraqi civilians dead.

Is this the new talking points for those who defend Russia's criminal behaviour?

As I said earlier, casualties are bound to be far, far less when no one fights back and the fighting is over almost immediately. But when you have fighting in the midst of civilians there is bound to be civilian casualties, especially when one opponent, at least, shows not the slightest care about how many civilians die.

Russia is withdrawing tomorrow - US was in Iraq for 8 years and they're not withdrawing soon... Who should the international pressure be on?

Everyone knows the Americans would like nothing more than to get out of Iraq immediately, that they've wanted to do so for years. Only a sense of responsibility about what would happen to Iraq if they left keeps them there. The Russians, on the other hand, are only in Georgia to destroy as much infrastructure and steal as much as they can before leaving.

BTW, both Putin's and Medvedev's popularity grew with the war. They both have more than 80% of popular support in Russia. Stock market hit the bottom, however...

Since there is no free press in Russia, the Russian people only know what the government tells them, so of course, they're going to think the behaviour of the government was heroic. Businessmen, however, probably are more likely to realize the true extent of what happened and how it's going to affect things like foreign investment.

[Argus]

Argus

Wrong. Not every country has a military.

Every country that isn't on an island somewhere all by itself.

If Georgia fired the first shot, then Russia really has no obligation to pull out of S.O. Georgia would be at fault and no one can save them. Georgia should be punished for it.

I suppose it escapes you that this was a province of Georgia, and that the "militia" there had been repeatedly violating cease-fires, and firing into Georgian territory? No, of course not. That's not important. All that's important is the EVIL YANKEE IMPERIALIST WARMONGERS MUST DIE!. Is that just about the gist of all your arguments on this site?

[myata]

Russia has troops in a dozen former Soviet republics, and has been working steadily behind the scenes to undermine those governments and replace them with puppets. One of its games is to incite violence, then offer Russian troops to put a stop to it.

This needs to be proven first, you can't just be taken on word, can you? Which republics? Where were Russian troops directly involved in fighting on one side (WD - point taken on Chechnya, that was the second incident) - like e.g. NATO in Afghanistan; US in Iraq? And speaking of "behind the scenes" to "undermine", this opens whole new ground to be explored, slowly and carefully.. Perhaps, you are talking about US in e.g. Venezuela? Scores of other places around the world?

What grounds?

To remind, in case of selective memory lapses: Russian peacekeepers were under direct attack, scores killed. Find pictures of peacekeepers H/Q on BBC. Russian citizens killed in the night assault on a populated city. Find pictures of the destroyed city in any number of media sources. Whenever this happens to us (Chad, Folklends, Lebanon), there response happens to be every bit as strong and disproportionate, and more.

Yes, bringing overwhelming force to bear on a far weaker opponent who doesn't fight back ...

One can sure find records, pictures etc of fierce fighting in Ossetia and around it; if one's interested in any notion of reality as opposed to their own particular idea of it.

I don't think any rational person would give the Russians credit for that, however.

I'll give them a credit for 1) standing up to NATO's b/s-tting, and defending their own; and 2) doing so with minimal, (compared to NATO's own track record) civilian casualties. For the record, this is in no way to excuse any of their previous acts, nor to write them out a blank check for the future. Each act should be judged on its own merit, and in this incident, they had a valid point, no matter what Western politicians would say for and off the record.

And now there're reports that NATO pledging to help Georgia rebuild its defense capabilities. Talk about encouraging peace and non violent resolution of ethnic conflicts.

Edited August 22, 2008 by myata

[PoliticalCitizen]

For all the non-believers here - straight from CNN:

"The U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, told the Russian business daily Kommersant it had urged Georgia not to launch an attack and that Russia responded in a "legitimate" way, though he went on to say Russia went too far in its military incursion.

His comments represent a public acknowledgment from a senior U.S. official that Russia had some justification for its initial response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia.

CNN confirmed the ambassador's response with the U.S. Embassy in Russia."

[AngusThermopyle]

pledging to help Georgia rebuild its defense capabilities. Talk about encouraging peace and non violent resolution of ethnic conflicts.

So you would prefer that they they have no capability to defend themselves? Nice! Just give Georgia to Russia with a ribbon wrapped around it.

Earlier you were also talking about Georgia's "massive" military build up. What a crock of sh*t! Do some research, they can not have a "massive" military build up because they don't have a "massive" military. So your whole point about a "massive" military build up was nothing but hot air and empty rhetoric. Dramatic ina juvenile sort of way but meaningless for those who don't buy into that kind of propaganda.

[myata]

So you would prefer that they they have no capability to defend themselves? Nice! Just give Georgia to Russia with a ribbon wrapped around it.

No, only that if it's NATO's business to arm people with low trigger control ability, they'd have to shoulder some of the blame for their actions. Can have it both ways: arm those guys up to their teeth, then put on the angel wings of peace and justice.

Earlier you were also talking about Georgia's "massive" military build up. What a crock of sh*t! Do some research, they can not have a "massive" military build up because they don't have a "massive" military.

You must be kidding, right? Canada has what - 2,000 troops in Afghan, and it takes forever -months- to move it around. Georgia was reported to have up to 9,000 troops in the area of conflict, up to 2000 in the active combat, with aircraft, heavy artillery, tanks and massive missile launchers. Do you really have no clue what you're talking about?

For the record (easy to find), Georgia's military stands at 28,000 personnel. Russia had up 10,000 troops in the area of this conflict.

Correction: 37,000 (Wikipedia: Georgia's military); with another 100,000 reserve. To compare, Canada stands at 62,000 (active) with 25,000 reserve.

Edited August 22, 2008 by myata

[AngusThermopyle]

So what are you trying to say here? That Canada has a tiny military so Georgia's must be massive? I think you're the one who's kidding here. America has a massive military, China has a massive military, Russia has a massive military. England, France Germany etc have large militarie's, Georgia does not.

A listing of Georgian equipment was posted earlier, did you even check it out? They have minimal numbers when it comes to equipment. Just because in some areas they have a few more pieces of kit than us does not make it massive. And what the hell is this about "massive missile launchers", they're the same size as any other countries fielding these pieces. Did you think when they bought them they said"oh, and supersize the missile launchers please".

As for them having a respectable sized force who can blame them? Just look at who their neighbour is. Yep, Russia has always been a first class neighbour, no need for any military with those dudes living next door, after all their track record as the worlds leading humanitarians speaks for itself.

Now, having observed the fact that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong I expect you to continue with your ridiculous premise that the Georgians have a "massive" armed forces.

[GostHacked]

Every country that isn't on an island somewhere all by itself.

I suppose it escapes you that this was a province of Georgia, and that the "militia" there had been repeatedly violating cease-fires, and firing into Georgian territory? No, of course not. That's not important. All that's important is the EVIL YANKEE IMPERIALIST WARMONGERS MUST DIE!. Is that just about the gist of all your arguments on this site?

First off, I am no expert on that area of the world. So I will claim ignorance for the most part.

However, Argus .. there is a word at the beginning of that phrase you quoted from me... that word is 'IF'.

Lemme help you out there Argus.

If Georgia fired the first shot, then Russia really has no obligation to pull out of S.O. Georgia would be at fault and no one can save them. Georgia should be punished for it.

If Russia fired the first shot, then Russia must leave now and Russia should be punished.

The last part you convieniently leftout. So that can make it look like I was ranting on about the US. Which for that post was not the case. I do rant on about the US ... indeed.. but this was not one of the times.

It does not matter if it was a province of Georgia, an 'autonomous' region at that. It is still within Georgia's borders. So more or less it would come down to a civil type war between Georgia and SO seperatists. And being within the borders of Georiga, Russia has no business being there in the first place.

So how you get "EVIL YANKEE IMPERIALIST WARMONGERS MUST DIE" out of that, I have no clue.

[Isomorphic]

Everyone knows the Americans would like nothing more than to get out of Iraq immediately, that they've wanted to do so for years. Only a sense of responsibility about what would happen to Iraq if they left keeps them there. The Russians, on the other hand, are only in Georgia to destroy as much infrastructure and steal as much as they can before leaving.

Right, right...I wonder where this sense of responsibility was when they invaded in the first place.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Genocide? Human rights groups now say civilian casualties were in the dozens, not thousands, as the Russians claimed.

BBC

Is this the new talking points for those who defend Russia's criminal behaviour?

As I said earlier, casualties are bound to be far, far less when no one fights back and the fighting is over almost immediately. But when you have fighting in the midst of civilians there is bound to be civilian casualties, especially when one opponent, at least, shows not the slightest care about how many civilians die.

Everyone knows the Americans would like nothing more than to get out of Iraq immediately, that they've wanted to do so for years. Only a sense of responsibility about what would happen to Iraq if they left keeps them there. The Russians, on the other hand, are only in Georgia to destroy as much infrastructure and steal as much as they can before leaving.

Since there is no free press in Russia, the Russian people only know what the government tells them, so of course, they're going to think the behaviour of the government was heroic. Businessmen, however, probably are more likely to realize the true extent of what happened and how it's going to affect things like foreign investment.

Argus,

BBC's numbers are about as right as their reports on who attacked whom in the beginning of the conflict.

A "sense of responsibility", hey?

Well, that's exactly what prompted Russia to create a buffer zone and create additional peacekeeping checkpoints.

"There's no free press in Russia"?

I have personally witnessed how most major western news agencies: CNN, BBC, CBC, FOXnews etc. LIED about what happened and what is happening during almost a whole week from the beginning of the conflict. Who doesn't have "Free" press again?

Edited August 22, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[AngusThermopyle]

I have personally witnessed how most major western news agencies: CNN, BBC, CBC, FOXnews etc. LIED about what happened and what is happening during almost a whole week from the beginning of the conflict. Who doesn't have "Free" press again?

Russia doesn't. The Western Press is free to lie or tell the truth as they wish.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Russia doesn't. The Western Press is free to lie or tell the truth as they wish.

Well if you're right then apparently they WISHED not to tell the truth... in which case they're worse than state-controlled media...