Open warfare in South Ossetia

[WIP]

Now as for your theory Georgia was going to invade Abkhazia, the last time I looked that was within Georgia's legally constituted borders and so it is no business of Russia's under international law. If Russia feels human rights autrocities are about to be committed it should ask the United Nations to intervene. It has no legal authority to intervene unless it can show the legaly constituted government of Georgia asked it to intervene.

Well, the U.S. and N.A.T.O. already set the precedent for recognizing breakaway ethnic regions in sovereign nations, when they recognized Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and finally Kosovo. That last one came with a promise that an autonomous Kosovo would never be granted independence -- how long did that last?

So now the shoe is on the other foot! From the news so far, I've learned that after the Soviet Union fell, Georgia only controlled these regions when they abolished the limited autonomy of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 1990. Since the Georgians had recently voted for independence and threatened civil war if the Russians tried to prevent their independence, the Ossetians had a good argument for declaring their own independence from Georgia. Since that time, Georgia has never controlled these breakaway regions, and in recent years, this little Hitler that Dick Cheney calls a democrat, was building up an army that was being battle-trained in Iraq, for the purpose of invading and taking these regions by force:

# Ethnic-Territorial WarsIn Georgia, Gamsakhurdia's image as a "dictator" is due predominantly to his policies in relation to the opposition. His dictatorial fame abroad has resulted largely from his ethnic policies. Ethnic populism had helped him to become the leader of the independence movement. In December 1990, soon after he had come to power, the new parliament abolished the autonomous status of the South Ossetian Region. This decision was followed by a war, waged on both sides by irregular troops. Thousands of Ossetians, living outside the disputed region and loyal to the Georgian state, were evicted from their homes under the guidance of Gamsakhurdia's administrators.(12) Many foreign (and especially Russian) observers accused Gamsakhurdia of coming up with the slogan "Georgia for (ethnic) Georgians", thus making discrimination against minorities the core of his policy. When his adversaries branded him as a fascist, they also wanted to denounce his ethnic policies.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Ukrainian source:

http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-269509.html

"Fire broke out at ammunition depot in Kharkiv Oblast

A fire broke out at an ammunition depot of the Southern Operations Headquarters of the Ukraine Armed Forces situated near Lozova city of the Kharkiv Oblast on Wednesday. The evacuation of residents of the local military town has started.

According to an UNIAN’s sources from law-enforcement agencies, the fire broke out at 16.30.

According to the information of the source, the fire spread over from grass to open ammunition depots, where there are kept 90 thousand tons of ammunition, including 80-mm mines and 150-mm missiles.

The situation is aggravated due to the hot weather and strong winds. At present, only two fire tanks are operating at the scene, others have not arrived as yet."

Coincidence?

[bush_cheney2004]

The point is that the NATO, and specifically, its "champions", should be worried lot more about the ideological foundations of the organization, than the arithmetics of the expansion. If numbers were any guarantee of success and continuous progress, we would be living in 2,000 years Rome.

No problema...I hear that Rome is nice this year.

The West has been given a brief historical window in which it could share its ideas with the world in a free non confrontational environment. The ideas materialized as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo.

The West wasn't "given" anything...it was taken by the forces of economics and militarism. There is no such thing as "free non confrontational".

So, in the words of somebody (in)famous, make no mistake. If NATO would have to come face to face with a serious opponent determined to stand their ground, the result would be far less than clear. Despite the expansion, or technical superiority. Afghanistan. Not that I'm cheering to see it happen, unlike some here.

The result would be whatever the result will be. To do nothing in the way of collective security guarantees a known result.

"defeated", indeed! And we all know by whom. Could it be the same modest, unassuming people who won us the WWII? Launched the first rocket into space? Found WMD in Iraq?

Feelings of inadequacy are not my department.

To that I can only agree. It's certainly did a lot to undermine already fragile framework of international law and justice. Right to the point where it's about to deteriorate into a useless talking club. If you want to interpret that as a sign of progress and "success", it's in the eye of the beholder.

Well, it's certainly no worse than the current useless talking club (United Nations).

[bush_cheney2004]

Medvedev said there are 25 million Russians that ended up locked in foreign countries after the break-up of USSR. Most of them are probably in Ukraine (Krimea was never really "Ukrainian").

So yeah, it is a clear message - you f*ck with our citizens - we f*ck you up real good and let the West watch madly and helplessly as you're hang out to dry...

Does that include the ones fleeing to North America and Europe?

[myata]

Link

This is my understanding too despite how most of the MSM presented this story originally.

This is a remarkable case where the Western media has so flagrantly gotten the facts wrong. I don't really fault the media for this. Georgia is far away and of supreme indifference to most people in the West.

Persistent bs can only be met with equally persistent (though potentially very boring) response. Please address yourself to the posted links to Georgian officials very only boasting claims of capturing Ossetia, before Russian troops even moved in.

No matter how much they'd want to believe (or, somehow, make others to believe) it did not happen, the signal's out. Can't stop it now, as they say. Somebody should have thought better (ie considered this possibility) on the night of the 8th.

But in one aspect you're correct indeed. Our mass media do get things wrong for us. Speaking e.g of universal support of one side and, accordingly, condemnation of another. Threats of isolation and grave consequences. Please examine this information carefully: Wikipedia: international reaction to South Ossetia's crisis.

Note that outside NATO and its satellites (aka the "West" - not to ignore a few discenting voices in the West itself), that universal condemnation thing simply doesn't exist. It's a nonsense, myth, that only exists in the West own, hyper inflated ego. Not unlike the myths that undemocratic controlled media of authoritarian Russia are so known for.

And that's it, folks. No matter how much of that self righteous, reassuring, convincingly sounding (mostly for ourself) media stuff we'll release into the atmosphere, everybody who's not directly in the take, sees it for bs it is. And they won't care (forget democratic coalitions against...) and why should they? In the times of old, missing one of the two dominant clubs came with a clear and present danger. The times have changed. There're at least three more centers of power. So than two of the big pals have gotten themselves into a little misunderstanding, it's just not as scary anymore. And maybe, it's better this way. We had our two decades of virtually unchallenged supremacy in the world, and what do we have to show for it?

We have: Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo.

We haven't: credible international law and security framework; global programs to address poverty; global initiatives to adress global issues; and so on.

Well looks like our clock's up and we're in for a new and unknown future. Somebody else will have to take on the burden.

[bush_cheney2004]

... We had our two decades of virtually unchallenged supremacy in the world, and what do we have to show for it?

We have: Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Actually, we have a lot more than that: Haiti, Somalia, Sudan (Darfur), Eastern Europe, Oman, Kuwait, Dubai, and Albania.

We haven't: credible international law and security framework; global programs to address poverty; global initiatives to adress global issues; and so on.

No, instead we have global warming. It's the best we could do.

Well looks like our clock's up and we're in for a new and unknown future. Somebody else will have to take on the burden.

All things must pass.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Does that include the ones fleeing to North America and Europe?

No, BC.

The ones that are emmigrating do so by choice.

The ones that are stranded in a republic turned country may be opressed or considered second-class under the new rulers (as is the case for the Russians in the Baltic states). What can they do? The best they can hope is to get a Russian passport and move to Russia. "Peaceful" ethnic cleansing, forced reverse osmosis.

[August1991]

Persistent bs can only be met with equally persistent (though potentially very boring) response. Please address yourself to the posted links to Georgian officials very only boasting claims of capturing Ossetia, before Russian troops even moved in.

No matter how much they'd want to believe (or, somehow, make others to believe) it did not happen, the signal's out. Can't stop it now, as they say. Somebody should have thought better (ie considered this possibility) on the night of the 8th.

Earlier in this thread, I posted a link to an interview with Georgia's president. There was no boasting. Between Russian officialdom and Georgian officialdom, I'll take the Georgian variety in this case.

Myata, beware of how Russian officials have manipulated this news story. They do the same in Russia, BTW, and it is not at all comparable to what the Left claims western officials do.

George W. Bush does npot have the authority to fire journalists but Vladimir Putin has exactly that power and he exercises it. All of the TV networks in Russia are now either owned by the State or owned by State-controlled enterprises.

No matter how much of that self righteous, reassuring, convincingly sounding (mostly for ourself) media stuff we'll release into the atmosphere, everybody who's not directly in the take, sees it for bs it is. And they won't care (forget democratic coalitions against...) and why should they? In the times of old, missing one of the two dominant clubs came with a clear and present danger. The times have changed. There're at least three more centers of power. So than two of the big pals have gotten themselves into a little misunderstanding, it's just not as scary anymore. And maybe, it's better this way. We had our two decades of virtually unchallenged supremacy in the world, and what do we have to show for it?

We have: Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo.

We haven't: credible international law and security framework; global programs to address poverty; global initiatives to adress global issues; and so on.

Well looks like our clock's up and we're in for a new and unknown future. Somebody else will have to take on the burden.

Myata, why do you hate the West so much?

Why do you hate yourself?

[bush_cheney2004]

No, BC.

The ones that are emmigrating do so by choice.

The ones that are stranded in a republic turned country may be opressed or considered second-class under the new rulers (as is the case for the Russians in the Baltic states). What can they do? The best they can hope is to get a Russian passport and move to Russia. "Peaceful" ethnic cleansing, forced reverse osmosis.

Oh Christ...another reason Russia sucks. Not enough passports for Russian comrades back home? This challenge never stopped Mexicans or Canadians at the border!

[jbg]

Reports of tainted meat matter to people and the media will pay attention to accuracy; reports from Georgia don't matter and accuracy is not held to the same scrutiny.

The 1996 Olympics' coverage was widely followed and that emanated from Georgia.

[August1991]

Note that outside NATO and its satellites (aka the "West" - not to ignore a few discenting voices in the West itself), that universal condemnation thing simply doesn't exist. It's a nonsense, myth, that only exists in the West own, hyper inflated ego. Not unlike the myths that undemocratic controlled media of authoritarian Russia are so known for.

Criticized by the West, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday asked China and four ex-Soviet nations to sign a declaration of support for Russia's role in the conflict in Georgia.

But Russia's hopes of gathering support were dealt a huge blow when the five countries denounced the use of force and called for respect for every country's territorial integrity. The joint declaration from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization deepens Russia's international isolation.

AP

[myata]

Correct, it all depends on what you want to see - and read (and we already know it, from our free and impartial media):

''Placing the emphasis exclusively on the use of force has no prospects and hinders a comprehensive settlement of local conflicts; an all-embracing resolution of the existing problems is possible only through absolute recognition of interests of all parties involved in the negotiating process rather than through their isolation"

(note the direct quotes - m.)

The joint declaration adopted today at the summit of the leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, has reaffirmed commitment to the territorial integrity of states and rejected the use of force in resolving regional conflicts.

It also expressed concern over tensions in South Ossetia and extended support for Russia's peacemaking and cooperation in the region.

(highlights are mine - m.)

SCO summit

The sooner "the West" recognizes that it's not the only bloke on the block anymore, and shows genuine (as opposed to verbal only) committment to principles of justice, multi-lateralism and peace, the better it'll be - for everybody, and the West itself not in the least. Continue to make up rules "for us only" and it will make us lose all credibility on the international stage - if anything much of it left, after Iraq and Kosovo.

Edited August 28, 2008 by myata

[AngusThermopyle]

Correct, it all depends on what you want to see

Yes, you would know all about that wouldn't you.

[myata]

How thoughtful! And informative...

Anyways, this comment, from BBC world forums summarizes many's sentiments very well:

Having worked through the comments so far I would suggest that the answer to your question is yes, but not if the "diplomacy" comes from the UK or USA. Both countries are morally bankrupt after their own actions in Kossovo, and Iraq and have no right to pontificate on this matter. Perhaps what Brown/Milliband should take on board is that they have no consensus from us (their employers) to start the conflict with Russia that they seem intent on. We need to make ourselves very clear on this.

Smudge Smith, Swindon, United Kingdom

BBC forums

Indeed, if anybody cared to read carefully information provided, they'd see that nobody (outside of NATO club) is rushing to jump on the condemnation/isolation bandwagon. The world appears to see this as a Russia vs West affair in which both parties played dirty, and nobody's entirely in the right.

Which, after all, could be a good thing. Really, we couldn't honestly expect to keep on going as we are, making rules for us only, and condemning others for what we ourselves did just yesterday. It was given that one day, one time the bs was going to hit back, and what it was the undemocratic, authoritarian Russia, that was destined to stand up and call it, was only a matter of chance, or providence (whatever you choose to believe). The world works in mysterious ways, there's not a single answers to all questions, good people do bad things, and black turns out white, etc.

The real question is where are we going from here? Head on full speed, in our blissful democratic ignorance, or stand back and take a good hard look at who we are and what we do. Really, it's more about "us" than "them".

Edited August 28, 2008 by myata

[AngusThermopyle]

Indeed, if anybody cared to read carefully information provided, they'd see that nobody (outside of NATO club) is rushing to jump on the condemnation/isolation bandwagon.

First you quote someone on some other forum as proof of your contention, a worthless exercise at best. Then you conveniently forget to mention that countries such as China ( not a NATO member) refuse to support Russia in this matter. That is even after Russia solicited their support.

You're right, some people really do see only that which they wish to see.

[myata]

Clarification (for those who really need it): "information provided earlier in this very forum".

A note on English semantics (for those - understandably - confused by the extreme complexities of the issues being discussed): refusal to support is not equivalent to condemnation.

... SCO summit:

"It also expressed concern over tensions in South Ossetia and extended support for Russia's peacemaking and cooperation in the region"

... myata:

"The world appears to see this as a Russia vs West affair in which both parties played dirty, and nobody's entirely in the right"

I'll try to contribute as much as possible to the noble task of rasing public education above the junior high level, but only to the extent of my limited resources of which time is the most essential.

[AngusThermopyle]

refusal to support is not equivalent to condemnation.

You're really reaching now. Actually on the world stage refusal to support is seen as a form of condemnation. Especially in this case as the support that was sought was merely verbal, not physical.

Once again you prove your inability to admit when you are wrong. Thats a hell of a weakness to cart through life.

[myata]

OK, then, the refusal to support West's unilateral condemnation should amount to condemnation of that condemnation? Quelle fresh idea! Congrats on progress in independent, open minded thinking.

(BTW something to that exact extent was said in the earlier - directly - quoted declaration). Good, now we're at least trying to listen to others as opposed to only the sounds of our own indigestion.

[AngusThermopyle]

OK, then, the refusal to support West's unilateral condemnation should amount to condemnation of that condemnation?

Or it could be born of indifference, however refusal of a direct request is an entirely different matter.

[myata]

No, eh? Things are always bent in our favour. Either I win, or you lose. Comes with double vision.

[PoliticalCitizen]

First you quote someone on some other forum as proof of your contention, a worthless exercise at best. Then you conveniently forget to mention that countries such as China ( not a NATO member) refuse to support Russia in this matter. That is even after Russia solicited their support.

You're right, some people really do see only that which they wish to see.

China silently agreed to Russia's actions (a big power has to do whatever the hell it needs to do) but there's NO WAY China will openly support recognizing break-away regions as states (Tibet anyone?)

[jbg]

China silently agreed to Russia's actions (a big power has to do whatever the hell it needs to do) but there's NO WAY China will openly support recognizing break-away regions as states (Tibet anyone?)

What's missing in this whole discussion is whether a "break-away" South Ossetia or Akbhazia (sp) has any economic viability or prospect for real independence. For that matter, does Quebec?

The whole concept of "breakaway countries" needs to be explored in the contexyt of viability of those countries.

[Peter F]

What's missing in this whole discussion is whether a "break-away" South Ossetia or Akbhazia (sp) has any economic viability or prospect for real independence. For that matter, does Quebec?

The whole concept of "breakaway countries" needs to be explored in the contexyt of viability of those countries.

Interesting. An independant commission determines 'viability' of suggested nations. I wonder where Kosovo or Georgia would fit?

[PoliticalCitizen]

What's missing in this whole discussion is whether a "break-away" South Ossetia or Akbhazia (sp) has any economic viability or prospect for real independence. For that matter, does Quebec?

The whole concept of "breakaway countries" needs to be explored in the contexyt of viability of those countries.

As I said before, according to both Russian media and an analysis published by Reuters, Abkhazia can do it on its own (with Russia being the biggest and for now the only economic partner). Its economy is mostly fueled by tourism to the Black Sea resorts.

South Ossetia is to small and lacks the necessary structures to make it on its own. In the future it may opt to join North Ossetia within Russian Federation.

[AngusThermopyle]

China silently agreed to Russia's actions (a big power has to do whatever the hell it needs to do) but there's NO WAY China will openly support recognizing break-away regions as states (Tibet anyone?)

I hate to do this to you man...but can you provide a reference for that? a link, a cite, a remebered quote based on what your friend said when you guys were having a few wets last weekend?

How do you know what China agree's to or not? Thats just your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

All that really counts is what appears on the stage of world opinion. In this case what appears is not at all what you would like to convince people of, instead what is appearing is a steady stream of condemnation and lack of support from even those most likely to support the USSR (sorry, couldn't resist that).