Open warfare in South Ossetia

[Kaisa]

As you have probably noticed almost noone on this board sides with me.

This doesn't prevent me from expressing my compassion to the victims of war.

What does this have to do with your original argument about Georgia's case being trumpeted all over the news and Russia being painted an aggressor? What worries you, they don’t mourn victims of war or they think Russia is an aggressor?

Ethnic cleansing was happening on all sides starting with the early 1990s: Ossetians got rid of Georgians in their region, Abkhazians got rid of Georgians in their region and Georgia got rid of both on the rest of its territory. Sadly, these people were either forced to leave or killed...

But when I said "Genocide" I meant the onslaught of Georgian military on Tshinval.

Russians have been using the term "Genocide" long before August 8th. I did not realize you had a different opinion. If you call Georgian's action genocide, what do you call Russian's actions in Georgia now?

I'm pretty sure it was Georgian land... just like Kosovo was Serbian... Krimea was Russian... New Orleans was French...

See above... atrocities happened on both sides... to the time of the start of the conflict the "cleansing" was complete on all sides...

Did the Serbs in Kosovo have a right to say which country they want to be a part of?

What about the Russians in Krimea?

What about the Kurds? The poor guys don't even have a country... their land is split between Turkey, Iraq and Iran and they are hated in all 3... very sad...

So you realize that it is a Georgian land, Georgians were killed or forced to leave in 90th by Russians and there was no genocide conducted by Georgia prior to August 8th (and even not after that) yet you still think that "Ossetians have right to self-determination" on a Georgian land?

First of all you can read many articles about how your analogies are wrong. Second, I am sure you were not happy about Kosovo's independence yet you did not become supporter of Ossetian "Self-determination" overnight and were justifying their rights long before Kosovo's incident happened. Third, even IF there was a mistake made once or twice does it mean that we have to repeat it again and again? Don’t you realize that this kind of logic opens a door to many different small or big ethnic conflicts? What about Chechnya? How does your formula work for them? Are you saying that minorities or immigrants in any country have right to declare independence now? Justifying wrong action by recalling examples of other wrong actions does not make sense.

Both. My question to you is why does a country so small (4.5 million) have such a big and powerful army?

Who were Georgians planning to fight? Russia? Or Ossetia and Abkhazia?

So, Russia was a country that at least took part in ethnic cleansening of Georgians in "South Ossetia" but they have right to talk about genocide now, nice!

Do we have a bigger army than Russia (proportionally)? I don’t think so. Did you plan to fight somebody? Why are you surprised that a country with two breakaway regions and a difficult relationship with Russia wants to build a strong army?

Maybe in part it was supposed to help South Ossetians move to North Ossetia (which many did).

Your answers were honest till now. You know that the passports were not issued to help poor "South Ossetians" move to North Ossetia therefore I will not comment on this.

I'm pretty sure there were plenty of provocations on both sides.

Wrong! Georgians did not need provocations, it was not in their best interests for many different reasons. Anyways at least you admit that there were provocations from Russian “peacekeepers” and Ossetians.

I know what I definitely woul NOT do - try to exterminate the separatists (for human reasons), especially backed by Russia (for self-preservation interests). But unfortunately Saakashvili may have gotten the impression Bush will send troops to protect Georgia... and I guess the question of slaughtering the South Ossetians was not against the principles of anyone involved in preparing and executing the attack...

This is not an answer to my question. What WOULD you do?

When there is a war the human losses are inevitable. You say you are concerned about Georgian losses but I don’t think you call Russian's actions Genocide. Constantly talking about 2000 dead civilians (without any proof by the way) is a cheap propaganda. Much more Georgians died, Russian army destroyed many cities in Georgia and god knows when they get out but you justify that because "Georgians attacked you". Of course Saakashvili is a bloody tyrant especially relative to a big humanitarian Putin.

I believe part of the Russian agenda was destroying the Georgian military. Since the Georgian army fled, saving their lives (which is a good thing) Russians are trying to find and destroy any military bases and hardware they can find to at least somehow satisfy the hard-liners in Moscow. They are certainly not in a rush to leave...

How come you are not concerned about sufferings of Georgian people? There are civilians that are dying because of Russians. How come you don’t want them to leave?

[Kaisa]

Please, you don't want to get me started with Russian jokes about Georgians...

As I'm sure you very well know they are FAR from flattering...

This joke is not about any particular nationality, put a georgian name if it makes you happy.

I think you are missing the point here...

[Rue]

Russia does not seek to annex South Ossetia or Abkhazia...

Unlike Kosovo, they plan to follow the international laws and agreements in these regions self-determination cause.

Nonsense. What about the following statements from Dmitry Medvedev do you not understand?

"Russia does not reject the principle of territorial integrity but its foreign policy will take into account the will of the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who are unlikely to want to remain in the same state with Georgia. If someone continues to attack our citizens, our peacekeepers, then of course we will answer just as we did."

"We support any decision taken by the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, the 1966 international convention and the Helsinki Act on security in Europe. We don't just support this, but will guarantee them, both in the Caucasus and the world as a whole."

"The armed forces of the Russian Federation which were sent to South Ossetia to reinforce our peacekeeping forces, they will be withdrawn to Russian territory depending on the extent to which the Georgian troops go back to their barracks. Our peacekeepers will remain in South Ossetia. "

"The only change relates to the fact that Georgian peacekeepers, who were part of the peacekeeping contingent, but turned out to be simply traitors and cowards and started shooting at their colleagues - of course, they are never again going to appear as part of a peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia."

Let's stop beating around the Bush pretending either the West or Russia are innocents in this.

The bottom line is as simple as can be. Georgia enabled the West to by-pass Russia in shipping oil through pipe-lines to the West. That is not in Russia's financial interest. It is that simple. Russia wants a piece of the action and doesn't appreciate being by-passed. Its about the West adn Russia posturing over natural resources strategic positioning.

Neither side gives a flying f..ck about Georgia and its people whether they are Russian ethnics or Georgian ethnics.

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

The U.S. is also crippled by its foreign policy. It didn't exactly get the world's approval before it invaded Iraq.

Both the West and Russia violate international law every day. To suggest Russia will obey and does obey international law is a f..cking joke. They and the West will do what evry country in the world does, and that is do whatever they think is in their strategic interest, then rationalize their actions after the fact.

As for this continued use of the word ethnic cleansing although I appreciate it is popular with people born in the 1970's its been going on since humans were on the planet. Some of us call it tribal warfare. The new term is used as if some how its different.

As for the protestations that this should not be compared to Hitler's invasion of Poland of course it can. It is the exact same party line Hitler used to justify taking back the Sudetenland. No one is saying the Russians have set up extermination camps. When Hitler invaded, the Nazi empire didn't suddenly appear. It took time to develop.

Whether Russia rebuilds a totalitarian regime to expand remains to be seen but what is clear is it wants a piece of the world action in the natural resources and energy sector and American foreign policy which has been ridiculously ignorant of Russia's abilities has created this incident.

The time to have negotiated with Putin was 8 years ago not now. The best the West can do now is learn from its mistakes and not isolate Russia put give it a direct financial interest in being part of the Western economy by presenting China as the mutual economic enemy.

Right now Putin is playing the Middle East card to put Russia in the position of being the only place the West can turn to for oil. He's been playing that card 8 years and to do that he will do what it takes to assist Iran humiliate the West and assure China sucks Iran dry and controls strategic oil supplies in Angola and Sudan.

Right now the West is completely dependent on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for its oil and Putin is sitting their laughing realizing its only a matter of time until the West comes begging to him.

The West's attempt to control Afghanistan to assure a pipeline can travel through it to feed the West has proven to be the same disaster as when Russia tried to do the same for its pipelines.

Iraq did not become the oil colony the US thought it would become. They over-played their hand there and crippled the oil exports and now Iraq is sitting there accumulating monumental profit on oil it puts in the bank while US taxpayers bay trillions to prop the Iraq government and war.

The only people benefitting from this bull are the oil companies not you, not me, not the average person on the street.

Once again Georgians suffer. The name of the innocent civilians change but its always average every day shmucks that take the hit for this shit.

I call it like it is. Russia is a facist regime which consists of an alliance between organized crime and the former KGB who would be unemployed if they did not work as the professional international enforces for the Russian mob. Its all it is, a large, organized criminal syndicate using an otherwise unemployed professional hitman called Putin.

The West will sell their mother out for oil. China is one massive predatory whore.

That said, since I consider everyone a bloody whore in this matter, I will not single out the US as evil. It is simply doing what all the other whores do, protect its vital interests. This double standard that America is evil in this matter is bull. The last time I looked there were a lot of people in the brothel wallowing around.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Rue

[myata]

We do have the example of Canada. And compare it to Poland's history.

Canada lives alongside a so-called "superpower". Has our history been comparable to Poland's? Where is the Canadian Treblinka?

I'm not sure what you are alluding to. But the comment you were replying to, referred to free and democratic expression of people's will to self determination.

Myata, you are a naive Canadian. You have no understanding of how good America (your neighbour) is and how terrible the rest of the world can be.

That sounds a bit paternalistic. But at least clear enough. From now on, our criteria, the objective standard of how good vs terrible certain particular event may be, would be .... no, not facts; not evidence; judicial consideration; but an opinion of some appointed (or self appointed, for that) individual(s).

No need to waste time finding and analysing facts; verifying information; asking questions; trading arguments; all is fine and clear. This - good; them - bad. Because we say so.

Gawd, what a thread hijack.

Really.... and it was supposed to be united single voice condemnation of the barbarians of 21 century by the free people of the world.

[PoliticalCitizen]

What does this have to do with your original argument about Georgia's case being trumpeted all over the news and Russia being painted an aggressor? What worries you, they don’t mourn victims of war or they think Russia is an aggressor?

Sorry, not sure what you're trying to say...

My point was - regardless of my political opinions I feel compassion for all victims of war on all sides... especially civilians...

Russians have been using the term "Genocide" long before August 8th. I did not realize you had a different opinion. If you call Georgian's action genocide, what do you call Russian's actions in Georgia now?

I am unaware of the term "Genocide" used by Russians prior to the massive Georgian attack on South Ossetia.

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.

So you realize that it is a Georgian land, Georgians were killed or forced to leave in 90th by Russians and there was no genocide conducted by Georgia prior to August 8th (and even not after that) yet you still think that "Ossetians have right to self-determination" on a Georgian land?

First of all you can read many articles about how your analogies are wrong. Second, I am sure you were not happy about Kosovo's independence yet you did not become supporter of Ossetian "Self-determination" overnight and were justifying their rights long before Kosovo's incident happened. Third, even IF there was a mistake made once or twice does it mean that we have to repeat it again and again? Don’t you realize that this kind of logic opens a door to many different small or big ethnic conflicts? What about Chechnya? How does your formula work for them? Are you saying that minorities or immigrants in any country have right to declare independence now? Justifying wrong action by recalling examples of other wrong actions does not make sense.

So, Russia was a country that at least took part in ethnic cleansening of Georgians in "South Ossetia" but they have right to talk about genocide now, nice!

As Kosovo appears to prove - people are more important than the land... Sounds like a humane principle... But I'm pretty sure that in both cases these people only got their self-determination right upheld because a greater power was on their side.

Do we have a bigger army than Russia (proportionally)? I don’t think so. Did you plan to fight somebody? Why are you surprised that a country with two breakaway regions and a difficult relationship with Russia wants to build a strong army?

You're right, even proportionally Russia has a much bigger army. But Russia also has much larger borders and probably more potential enemies, too... and a chance to put up a battle.

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.

Now let's compare Georgia's 28,000 soldiers to South Ossetia's total population of 70,000...

I think the picture is clear...

As your first president Zviad Gamsakhurdia said: "Georgia for Georgians!"

Your answers were honest till now. You know that the passports were not issued to help poor "South Ossetians" move to North Ossetia therefore I will not comment on this.

So I guess your point is to use them as a pre-text to invade Georgia... maybe you're right... most Abkhazians hold Russian passports too... and Russians own a big part of Abkhazian land...

But imperialistic intentions aside - the Russan passports would still have given both ethnic groups the options of moving to Russia if nationalistic atrocities escalate.

I dare US giving American passports to Chechens - WELCOME ALL OPPRESSED JIHAD WARRIORS!

Wrong! Georgians did not need provocations, it was not in their best interests for many different reasons. Anyways at least you admit that there were provocations from Russian “peacekeepers” and Ossetians.

There were provocations on both South Ossetian and Georgian side prior to Georgian mass-murder of peace-keepers and civilians in Tshinval.

This is not an answer to my question. What WOULD you do?

The first thing I'd think of is where my allegiances lie? With a country and a people that we share a religion and hundreds of years of history or with a global empire that will use us as a pawn in their game of world domination.

In other words, do I, as a President, want my nation to be manipulated by US to screw Russia and then be discarded as a used condom?

When there is a war the human losses are inevitable. You say you are concerned about Georgian losses but I don’t think you call Russian's actions Genocide. Constantly talking about 2000 dead civilians (without any proof by the way) is a cheap propaganda. Much more Georgians died, Russian army destroyed many cities in Georgia and god knows when they get out but you justify that because "Georgians attacked you". Of course Saakashvili is a bloody tyrant especially relative to a big humanitarian Putin.

"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...

Georgia reported 200 killed to date - hopefully most of them were soldiers... but not necessarily "Vano's" - it looks like Ukrainians and Pribalts joined in the righteous battle...

How come you are not concerned about sufferings of Georgian people? There are civilians that are dying because of Russians. How come you don’t want them to leave?

As I said before - Russian forces in Georgian are not killing anyone now, just destroying military targets...

There is something I'm sure noone wants - it is a repeat attack of Georgian military on South Ossetia or Abkhazia. I'm pretty sure the response will be much stronger than it was now...

Edited August 19, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[PoliticalCitizen]

Nonsense. What about the following statements from Dmitry Medvedev do you not understand?

"Russia does not reject the principle of territorial integrity but its foreign policy will take into account the will of the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who are unlikely to want to remain in the same state with Georgia. If someone continues to attack our citizens, our peacekeepers, then of course we will answer just as we did."

"We support any decision taken by the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, the 1966 international convention and the Helsinki Act on security in Europe. We don't just support this, but will guarantee them, both in the Caucasus and the world as a whole."

"The armed forces of the Russian Federation which were sent to South Ossetia to reinforce our peacekeeping forces, they will be withdrawn to Russian territory depending on the extent to which the Georgian troops go back to their barracks. Our peacekeepers will remain in South Ossetia. "

I know what I read and I read it multiple times in Russian news. As you probably know - as of today not even Russia has recognized South Ossetia's or Abkhazia's independence. The strong words mean that there will be Russian military presence in both until their rights to self-determination are progressed according to existing European and international laws and agreements, which was not done for Kosovo.

Just watch the events unfold - I'm pretty sure under the world's scrutiny Russia will not go against its words...

Edited August 19, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[Alta4ever]

I know what I read and I read it multiple times in Russian news. As you probably know - as of today not even Russia has recognized South Ossetia's or Abkhazia's independence. The strong words mean that there will be Russian military presence in both until their rights to self-determination are progressed according to existing European and international laws and agreements, which was not done for Kosovo.

Just watch the events unfold - I'm pretty sure under the world's scrutiny Russia will not go against its words...

The Russian news, don't you mean Putins news, as he does control all media outlets in Russia.

[Kaisa]

PoliticalCitizen,

You are a typical example of a Russian Propaganda. I am not surprised that you distort facts to try to justify your crimes. And I don’t think you are brainwashed, I am sure you are a brainwasher. (It can actually be regarded as a compliment in some twisted way).

Your arguments can be read on any Russian forum. Yeah, it is only a land, shame on Georgians for killing people, right? If it is only a land - a Georgian land, how come you kill so many people to take it away?

Kosovo got independence, Chechnya did not. So you have two different precedents that you hope you can use in different cases to always achieve one goal - prove you are right. It does not work this way, nobody buys that from a criminal Putin who exterminated so many Chechens and nobody will buy it from you either.

What do you mean Russia has a larger border than Georgia. What kind of argument is that? Does it have bigger border proportionally? How about we compare Border/Number of Soldiers, do you want to do a math? So now Georgia is also guilty in maintaining an army? Here is an idea: if we keep the soldiers in a few years you can invade Georgia again for the intention of Genocide. I am sure Cuba will back you up. The latest history proves that Russia is the enemy to everyone not vice versa. What do you think the reason is?

Gamsakhurdia never said “Georgia for Georgians!". Do you have a video, an audio, a newspaper, a book? Anything except Russian newspapers that prove that he actually said that? Bring it on and we will talk then.

Please spare me your false sentiments.

I am so sorry to tell you that your prayers were not heard and much more Georgians were killed and are being killed now and most of them are civilians. Are you ok? I hope you did not get a stroke. I hope the fact that Russian soldiers don’t kill Georgians will console you though. They just occupy the country letting armed Ossetians in freely where they do all the killing of unarmed people, mostly elders and women. Do you really think anyone believes in your fake emotions?

You are trying to achieve two goals - invade a sovereign neighbor country and get approval of the world that apart from the moral values also has an interest in that country - these goals are conflicting, so don’t whine and face the reality.

I know you want Georgia to stick with you, not because you love Georgians, quite the contrary. Well, you should not have built a fascist and racist country. I think that we will eventually regain a full control over breakaway regions. Some Abkhazian and Ossetian Russian citizens might decide to live in Russia and I am sure they will feel the power of your "love" fully when you don’t need them any more.

[PoliticalCitizen]

The Russian news, don't you mean Putins news, as he does control all media outlets in Russia.

For the purpose of this statement it doesn't matter - it is meant for the West.

Edited August 20, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[PoliticalCitizen]

PoliticalCitizen,

You are a typical example of a Russian Propaganda. I am not surprised that you distort facts to try to justify your crimes. And I don’t think you are brainwashed, I am sure you are a brainwasher. (It can actually be regarded as a compliment in some twisted way).

Your arguments can be read on any Russian forum. Yeah, it is only a land, shame on Georgians for killing people, right? If it is only a land - a Georgian land, how come you kill so many people to take it away?

Kosovo got independence, Chechnya did not. So you have two different precedents that you hope you can use in different cases to always achieve one goal - prove you are right. It does not work this way, nobody buys that from a criminal Putin who exterminated so many Chechens and nobody will buy it from you either.

What do you mean Russia has a larger border than Georgia. What kind of argument is that? Does it have bigger border proportionally? How about we compare Border/Number of Soldiers, do you want to do a math? So now Georgia is also guilty in maintaining an army? Here is an idea: if we keep the soldiers in a few years you can invade Georgia again for the intention of Genocide. I am sure Cuba will back you up. The latest history proves that Russia is the enemy to everyone not vice versa. What do you think the reason is?

Gamsakhurdia never said “Georgia for Georgians!". Do you have a video, an audio, a newspaper, a book? Anything except Russian newspapers that prove that he actually said that? Bring it on and we will talk then.

Please spare me your false sentiments.

I am so sorry to tell you that your prayers were not heard and much more Georgians were killed and are being killed now and most of them are civilians. Are you ok? I hope you did not get a stroke. I hope the fact that Russian soldiers don’t kill Georgians will console you though. They just occupy the country letting armed Ossetians in freely where they do all the killing of unarmed people, mostly elders and women. Do you really think anyone believes in your fake emotions?

You are trying to achieve two goals - invade a sovereign neighbor country and get approval of the world that apart from the moral values also has an interest in that country - these goals are conflicting, so don’t whine and face the reality.

I know you want Georgia to stick with you, not because you love Georgians, quite the contrary. Well, you should not have built a fascist and racist country. I think that we will eventually regain a full control over breakaway regions. Some Abkhazian and Ossetian Russian citizens might decide to live in Russia and I am sure they will feel the power of your "love" fully when you don’t need them any more.

Kaisa,

I do not hate Georgians or the country of Georgia, and just for you to know - I'm not Russian.

Because you see me as the "enemy" I do not think you want to hear any other arguments from me as they will be "propaganda" and "lies" to you, so let's just each keep our position.

I think we would need an Ossetian or an Abkhazian on this board to have the "moral right" to question your arguments and express "real" emotions on the situation...

[moderateamericain]

My topic Up to now. Who has the Moral right? THe only for sure answer? Who ever has the bigger guns. Thats the reality of the situation. We can argue all day about who has the "moral" upperhand in this situation but the reality is morality never stopped a Russian or Georgian tank from rolling over your house. My question to you all is where do we go from here?

From the Russian stand point when do you feel satisfied that you have accomplished your mission and not be seen as bowing to the demands of NATO?

From Georgia's stand point how do you get your country back and fix the damage the Russians have done?

From the US and Nato's stand point how do you send a message to Russia that invasion of former Eastern bloc countries is not acceptible.

[PoliticalCitizen]

From the Russian stand point when do you feel satisfied that you have accomplished your mission and not be seen as bowing to the demands of NATO?

Medvedev said most of the Russian forces will be withdrawn by 22 Aug 2008.

Russian generals admit there will be a "buffer zone" of Georgian territory around South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Edited August 20, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[moderateamericain]

Medvedev said most of the Russian forces will be withdrawn by 22 Aug 2008.

Russian generals admit there will be a "buffer zone" of Georgian territory around South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The question is is the BUFFER zone going to be occupied? or a DMZ. IF its occupied how is Russia going to handle if the US say...puts a base right by Gori. Or if the world puts a ton of economic pressure on Russia to completely withdraw into South Ossetia?

[myata]

My topic Up to now. Who has the Moral right? THe only for sure answer? Who ever has the bigger guns. Thats the reality of the situation. We can argue all day about who has the "moral" upperhand in this situation but the reality is morality never stopped a Russian or Georgian tank from rolling over your house. My question to you all is where do we go from here?

From the Russian stand point when do you feel satisfied that you have accomplished your mission and not be seen as bowing to the demands of NATO?

From Georgia's stand point how do you get your country back and fix the damage the Russians have done?

From the US and Nato's stand point how do you send a message to Russia that invasion of former Eastern bloc countries is not acceptible.

All good questions. Indeed, from the "moral" perspective, nobody in this conflict can claim high moral ground:

Georgia, started the bloody mess;

Russia, with its knee-jerk reaction of disproportionate proportions;

And West, quietly encouraging (and later, covering up) the force solution, where otherwise it's given to preaching peace and democracy (but not when it'd apply to oneself, or "partners", apparently).

The challenge for Russia is to maintain the middle path, between falling back into authoritarian past, where there's nothing to be found or gained for it, on one hand, and submitting to the hypocritical standards proclaimed (but not always followed) by the West. The former is a greater danger by far (for Russia itself, first of all), and West, with its position in this conflict hasn't made it any easier for the progressive part of Russia. One concise and clear statement of inacceptance of military force, on the first day of conflict, would have given strong momentum to a different, "alternative" development of situation. Perhaps, the defining momentum.

Why it did not happen? Now, it's everybody's guess.

The challenge for Georgia is, of course, to look for peaceful ways of dealing with its people. I.e exercise the same principles that are proclaimed as a cornerstone of free and democratic Europe (but apparently can be overlooked in need).

The challenge for the West is to finally find a credible, principled position, standards, framework in the international matters. Continuation of the old "us against them", "because we can", "see no evil" policies, even in the new, "democratical" interpretation, would only lead to continuation of old problems. Which won't be good for anybody.

BTW, won't you think that the message here should be more general than "invasion by A" of "B" is inacceptable"?

Would it imply (given our talent with legalities of interpretations) what invasions of C,D,E by F are perfectly fine? Or, by A of N is also OK?

I'd much prefer something like, maybe, "invasions are inacceptable as a mean of resolution of conflicts". How would that go? Then of course, the real challenge would be to abide by what's claimed.

[moderateamericain]

All good questions. Indeed, from the "moral" perspective, nobody in this conflict can claim high moral ground:

Georgia, started the bloody mess;

Russia, with its knee-jerk reaction of disproportionate proportions;

And West, quietly encouraging (and later, covering up) the force solution, where otherwise it's given to preaching peace and democracy (but not when it'd apply to oneself, or "partners", apparently).

The challenge for Russia is to maintain the middle path, between falling back into authoritarian past, where there's nothing to be found or gained for it, on one hand, and submitting to the hypocritical standards proclaimed (but not always followed) by the West. The former is a greater danger by far (for Russia itself, first of all), and West, with its position in this conflict hasn't made it any easier for the progressive part of Russia. One concise and clear statement of inacceptance of military force, on the first day of conflict, would have given strong momentum to a different, "alternative" development of situation. Perhaps, the defining momentum.

Why it did not happen? Now, it's everybody's guess.

The challenge for Georgia is, of course, to look for peaceful ways of dealing with its people. I.e exercise the same principles that are proclaimed as a cornerstone of free and democratic Europe (but apparently can be overlooked in need).

The challenge for the West is to finally find a credible, principled position, standards, framework in the international matters. Continuation of the old "us against them", "because we can", "see no evil" policies, even in the new, "democratical" interpretation, would only lead to continuation of old problems. Which won't be good for anybody.

BTW, won't you think that the message here should be more general than "invasion by A" of "B" is inacceptable"?

Would it imply (given our talent with legalities of interpretations) what invasions of C,D,E by F are perfectly fine? Or, by A of N is also OK?

I'd much prefer something like, maybe, "invasions are inacceptable as a mean of resolution of conflicts". How would that go? Then of course, the real challenge would be to abide by what's claimed.

Thats a tough question because of Treaties, and because basically nobody wants someone else telling them what to do. No country wants someone else telling them how to live or what to do with there money, military, etc. i guess the real question is at what point do we draw a line in the sand and say. "IF you do this or support this or act in this manner, the major players in the world are going to fuck your world up." THe only problem is that makes the Major Players accountable to no one. Its definetly a quandry of world politics.

[myata]

"IF you do this or support this or act in this manner, the major players in the world are going to fuck your world up."

Exactly what we have now, isn't it? And on occasion, "major players" would have their own little disputes.

THe only problem is that makes the Major Players accountable to no one. Its definetly a quandry of world politics.

The only answer that's been found so far is the system of justice. Founded on the notions of law; impartiality; and universality (ie. nobody is above the law). May worth a few pennies (of saved future conflicts) to invest in one. Let's see who's interested.

[Rue]

I know what I read and I read it multiple times in Russian news. As you probably know - as of today not even Russia has recognized South Ossetia's or Abkhazia's independence. The strong words mean that there will be Russian military presence in both until their rights to self-determination are progressed according to existing European and international laws and agreements, which was not done for Kosovo.

Just watch the events unfold - I'm pretty sure under the world's scrutiny Russia will not go against its words...

Yah that's exactly what Neville Chamberlain said too. Peace in our time.

You do know what de facto and de jure possession are right? What I am referring to is de facto possession. As long as Russia stays where it is, it has de facto possession. Playing this game of semantics that it hasn't defined S.O. as a soveriegn state means butkus.

Butkus is a Greek word. In English we say ka ka.

Russia's intentions are clear. It will stay in SO and Abkhazia and disrupt and occupy those states with a military presence for two reasons; i-to serve as a warning to the Ukraine, Poland and all the other former Soviet satellite states; ii-serve as a warning to the West they should not by-pass Russia with their oil pipelines and freeze Russia out from getting revenue for selling oil to Europe.

Spare me with the official Russian poopoosturing. It is about as meaningful to me as what Neville said.

Excuse me but I prefer the words of Churchill when it comes to Russia no matter how much you try spin Putin as a someone who obeys the law.

He's a hit man. Pure and simple.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Excuse me but I prefer the words of Churchill when it comes to Russia no matter how much you try spin Putin as a someone who obeys the law.

He's a hit man. Pure and simple.

So is Bush. But between them they have to respect a set of rules not to step on each other's toes, or if you do step (and it's hard not to, as US "National Interests" appear to be everywhere at the same time) how to talk and not to get into a fight.

Adhering to whatever laws there are is Putin's only chance of winning the support of some major EU and NATO members such as France, Germany and Italy.

[Alta4ever]

So is Bush. But between them they have to respect a set of rules not to step on each other's toes, or if you do step (and it's hard not to, as US "National Interests" appear to be everywhere at the same time) how to talk and not to get into a fight.

Adhering to whatever laws there are is Putin's only chance of winning the support of some major EU and NATO members such as France, Germany and Italy.

There is a big difference between America and Russia, and I see alot of the Soviet era propaganda oozing out of what you say, but if we look at the two leaders one uses KGB style assination on his opponents in the media and one does not. One goes in and siezes television stations at gun point, one does not.

What laws are you talking about, Russia's civil laws, moral laws or international laws, but I suppose it doesn't matter he has breached them all.

[August1991]

So is Bush. But between them they have to respect a set of rules not to step on each other's toes, or if you do step (and it's hard not to, as US "National Interests" appear to be everywhere at the same time) how to talk and not to get into a fight.

Adhering to whatever laws there are is Putin's only chance of winning the support of some major EU and NATO members such as France, Germany and Italy.

How could Russia step on the toes of the US? It can't.

All that has happened here is that Putin has done tremendous harm to his own and the Russian government's reputation. In all likelihood, Medvedev will not be attending the G8 in Italy next summer.

For those who read French, the following report from a La Presse journalist who has been on both sides of the frontier:

«Je suis déjà deux fois réfugiée». Maya Mindiechvili, 38 ans, avait fui Tskhinvali en 1991, lors de la guerre d’indépendance entre l’armée géorgienne et les séparatistes sud-ossètes, pour s’installer à Gori. Le 8 août, elle quittait sous les bombes son refuge devenu maison pour l’école 195 de Tbilissi.

«Je n’ai aucune idée de ce qui est arrivé à mon édifice à logements», s’inquiète-t-elle.

Sa tante Lucia Guiounachvili, elle, sait que sa maison n’est plus qu’un tas de cendres. «On dit qu’il ne reste plus que quatre maisons dans mon village», dit la Géorgienne de 73 ans, qui habite en Ossétie-du-Sud.

Selon elle, les Russes et les Ossètes avaient préparé la guerre depuis longtemps. «Une semaine avant le conflit, ils ont fait sortir tous les femmes et enfants ossètes des villages. Ça m’a surprise et je ne savais pas pourquoi», raconte-t-elle.

La Presse ne peut toutefois confirmer cette information. D’autant plus qu’une semaine auparavant, des réfugiés sud-ossètes rencontrés à Vladikavkaz (Ossétie-du-Nord) nous avaient affirmé exactement le contraire… soit que les Géorgiens avaient évacué leurs villages d’Ossétie-du-Sud, laissant les Ossètes seuls face aux bombes. Tous assuraient également n’avoir jamais été prévenus par quiconque du déclenchement imminent des hostilités.

À Vladikavkaz et Tskhinvali, les Ossètes du Sud étaient tous convaincus que les bombardements en Ossétie-du-Sud étaient attribuables aux Géorgiens. À Tbilissi, les réfugiés géorgiens nous affirmaient l’inverse. Tout cela pratiquement dans les mêmes mots. Seuls les armées changeaient de rôle. Dans les deux cas, les civils restaient les victimes.

La Presse

IMV, Russia has created the impression that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first when in fact the truth is more complicated.

[Kaisa]

Kaisa,

I do not hate Georgians or the country of Georgia, and just for you to know - I'm not Russian.

Because you see me as the "enemy" I do not think you want to hear any other arguments from me as they will be "propaganda" and "lies" to you, so let's just each keep our position.

I think we would need an Ossetian or an Abkhazian on this board to have the "moral right" to question your arguments and express "real" emotions on the situation...

Even if not Russian you are as good as Russian.

I have a coworker who comes from Ukraine, has a Ukrainian last name and says she is Russian.

I guess sometimes your last name does not matter.

How can I agree to your arguments when you say that Ossetians who killed and forced Georgians to leave a Georgian land deserve right to "self-determination"?

Please explain to me why Ossetians have right to "self-determination" and Chechens don't.

Facts are against you so you use allegations and lies.

Of course Putin is as much affraid to be brought to justice for telling lies and providing twisted facts as a person dying of cancer is afraid to catch a cold.

Your emotions wheather real or false dont matter. You strongly support something no country could accept. You also believe that if a country fights back it is absolutely necessary to invade it, kill people and destroy everything you can. Do you think I want to hear how sorry you feel about lost lives?

My emotions dont matter either. If I knew that a III world war would begin unless a small country is destroyed, I would cry for victims but I am not sure I would support the war. However there is much more at stake than Georgia and sacrificing my country will not eliminate threats and difficulties.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Kaisa

[PoliticalCitizen]

To all of the above - let's wait and see... follow the news. Facts should speak for themselves...

[August1991]

To all of the above - let's wait and see... follow the news. Facts should speak for themselves...

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.

[myata]

IMV, Russia has created the impression that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first when in fact the truth is more complicated.

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.

It may go a long way to explain why even West has just accepted the story given by Russians.

Oh yeah, and isn't their UN rep on record admitting that they started the action in Ossetia?

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

[White Doors]

Ask any Canadian if they would be ok with losing Quebec

I would be ok with losing Quebec