Russia in Georgia

[SteveThaiBinh]

Russia distributing passports in the Crimea. Only an accusation, of course, and from a source that holds no love for Russia, but is it really so hard to believe they would do the same again in Ukraine?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Same crap just different body part.

 

As with much in life.

[Walsingham]

I'd also like some backup to the notion that the South Ossetians/Russians were totally blameless in the last few years. I've read articles on the BBC suggesting shelling into Georgia before the attack. Sounds to me like both sides were cracking away at each other.

 

 

I've read somewhere...suggesting....sounds to me....prepositions, not facts.

 

Georgia shelled the capital of S. Ossetia with MLRS and Howitzer, that is no surgical strike but an attempt to brake havoc and disarray in the capital while Georgian ground forces take control, in the process many civilians die due to rather unselective bombing.

 

Russia was standing by in case something like this should happen, because violence started a few months earlier only to erupt recently, and sure you'll have a contingency in the form of the 58th Army group.

 

Of course Russians aren't flowers, but main blame, when it comes to the starters of this conflict, lies with the Georgian nationalists backed by the West, mostly US and the interests around the Caspian pipeline.

 

 

Exactly, which is why I used that phrasing. I'm flagging up the fact that I'm working from unknown/possibly biased sources, without the background knowledge to exercise my full critical ability. I know you've got pedigree, from having debated with you at length before, but I'm curious to know brdavs' backup.

 

I note from Stratfor that the Russians are now embedding journalists with their units, having recognised the strategic error in not doing so before.

[Fighter]

Russia is still Butthurt over Cold War. Heck, they've already threatened Poland with a 'strategic preemtopive nuclear strike'. L0LZ

 

They've voiced the obvious. If you put elements of American nuclear arsenal on your territory, they are a fair target.

 

And, let's not forget that Russia invaded Georgia; not the other way around.

 

Let's not forget why Russia invaded Georgia.

 

And, yeah: Georgia > Butthurt Russia any day of the week.

 

Of course. Because no one in your country cares for who is right or who is wrong, they only want to police the world all by themselves.

 

Georgia may not be 'innocent'; but it's not the failure known as Russia that was so full of itself it had to change its name L0LZ from USSR/Soviet Union to Russia or whatever. HAHAHAHA!

 

*personal insults not welcome - Walsh*

[Nightshape]

Smoke and mirrors! SMOKE AND MIRRORS! I TELL THEE!

[Brdavs]

Oh, I`m sorry, I was not aware "credentials" were needed to convey (non-mainstream) oppinions in this fine establishment.

 

@Walsingham: ofcourse a political solution not a military one is more civilized and prefered. But since the political solution was not reached in the past 18 years and atm georgia still insists on not allowing them seceede, having the backing of the otherwise big fans of selfdetermination US and somewhat lukewarm spport of the EU, tell me, what "political solution" have the ossetians to look forward to heh? They`ll be reinstated the autonomy the nationalists stripped off them in 92 and they`ll live happly ever after with the people that didnt give much toss about diplomacy while they were the ones doing the rocketing, but promptly changed the tune when Russians started rocketing them in term?

 

Political solutions take time, even generations. Look at Scotland and England. I can hardly suggest a peace deal knowing so little about the country, but geographically the case looks strong to be part of Georgia. What's the alternative? be part of a country with only one two lane road joining it (a Greater Ossetia)? Be a republic of only 70,000 people? That might work in Europe, where people want a posh tax haven, but I hardly think that is an option. In any case, my point stands. Better jaw jaw than war war, as Churchill said.

 

I'd also like some backup to the notion that the South Ossetians/Russians were totally blameless in the last few years. I've read articles on the BBC suggesting shelling into Georgia before the attack. Sounds to me like both sides were cracking away at each other.

 

"Goegrapically the case looks strong to be part of Georgia". You`re having a laugh right? What is this, 19th century US and we`re drawing borders in a bid to create the "perfect square" state lol? the 70k populus managed for 18odd years as de facto independant, did they not? after decades/centuries of mutual killing, e. cleansing & crimes that make (balkans look like a sandbox compared to that part of the world) its also a bit of a stretch to have them kiss and make up at this point, is it not? Thoe the sco-eng "political" solution might work. Have Saakashvili kick the bucket and have Kokoity take over Georgia. Problem solved. Hopefully the practice will be as succesfull as it was in feudal times. lol. And I`m the one that should provide credentials heh?

 

As far as issuing of passports go... ossetians never held or wanted to hold georgian passports after the collapse of the soviet union. Whats the alternative, as W. puts it? Have 70k "noncitizens" of the world heh?

If your`re worried about it not being economically fiesable, fret not. Both Bosni&Herzegovina & Kosovo (and several other enteties) are completley reliant on international funding for their existance. And my guess is Russia would be more than willing to pick up the tab for independant Ossetia. For the juristic second before it would become part of the Russian Federation that is hehe...

 

Ukraine... That is a whole different and even more complex issue. But one quite unlikely to escalate. Unless Kiev decides to purge Sevastopol of its 75% russian population that is

 

 

Finally, I`d just like to leave you lads with a little quote:

"For us in Russia communism is a dead dog. For many people in the West, it is still a living lion."

-Alexander Solzhenitsyn

 

Edited August 19, 2008 by Brdavs

[Walsingham]

Rather pertinent BBC summary of the issue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7571096.stm

I know in advance that brdavs and maybe Hildegaarde are going to take issue with the provenance of this, but I'm going to call trumps because quite simply the BBC is a peer reviewed source from a country with a free press. If you want to take issue with the BBC then quote your sources, because so far you haven't quoted a single one.

 

In fact, thus far I've been bending over backward to admit my potential shortcomings and all I've seen in return is innuendo. Is this a debate or merely points scoring?

[Azarkon]

Part of the problem with quoting sources from the other side is that alot of them are Russian and we all know the credibility of Russian media...

 

But then, what's to say that just because a source is peer reviewed and part of a free press it can't be biased? Neutral commentary is most credible when it comes from a neutral source. Given the amount of half-truths that's been bandied about during the course of this conflict, I'm really not about to trust any one media source. A list of mutually independent sources, in this case, seems more dependable.

[Brdavs]

I should qute sorces? Does common sense not apply any longer?

 

K, sources for what? Improving Economic situation of Russia and genuine not "cheated/intimidated" widespread support for Putin&Medvedev? Allready did that a couple pages back. Of history of the region and of the ossetian people, south ossetian oblast etc. etc.? You can google sout ossetia, hit wikipedia or even pick up a book or two cant you not heh? We`re gonna go the true armchair expert method of pointing fingers to "iternets" sites that present "our" case "better" heh?

 

 

But heck, I`ll play your game. Even if your reasoning is hillarious. Pitching me BBC as a "unbiased source" is frankly laughable given the Russo-UK track record as of late lulz. As far as democratic free press standards working for you, imma just say "DA-Notice" and leave it at that lulz.

Thoe, frankly, I fail to see anything I ever said disputed there. Things are just "coloured" and "handpicked" to the UK pallete of the perception of russia, otherwise it seems a fine insight. But I like to diversify my sources before forming an oppinion. And by that I dont meand reading BBC and CNN diversification heh. I recommend the same to anyone.

 

 

And I`m gonna elevate myself and pitch something better than the BBC counterpart RussiaToday. 2 commentaries on the affair, approaching it more "globaly". 1st one written 3 weeks prior to the war predicting a Russo American bustup in the region as a logical continuation of the events unfolding. 2nd one from roughly a week ago delving deeper into the conflict at hand. You can read the pedigree of the comentators at the bottom.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9614

http://athensnews.com/opinion/commentary/2...a-huge-mistake/

 

I can go get my pravda link if you insist to those standards thoe, lol.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Brdavs

[Xard]

could you stop ending your each sentence with "lol" "lulz" "roflmao" or something similar?

 

You're not Volo are you?

[Brdavs]

Hey I just find this whole level of discussion funny lol.

 

oops, I did it again.

[Morgoth]

Lolz!

[Hildegard]

First of all Walsh when you quote the BBC in attempt of pointing to the solution of the question whom started this conflict and why, in my opinion, that doesn't proved one an answer because BBC ain't unbiased at all, just an extension of prejudice by the West and Great Britain towards anything that has to do with the Russian leadership, their military and conflicts involved. Now I don't want to derail this discussion to BBC's credibility or any other from the west, just want to express my point of view when it comes to the Russian-Georgian conflict.

 

hence forward...

 

It is my stance that Georgia is by part a victim of Moscow-Washington geopolitical meddling and tampering. You can point fingers at me that I'm involving the US where there isn't any involvement by their part, but in fact this is the first indirect showdown between US and Russia in the 21st Century, although some will say that was in Kosovo.

Russia first of all wants to show to the West that it has a strong position in Caucasus Mountain region, while on the other hand, US wants to strengthen its own influence in the Western-oriented country and the region in question.

 

The ruling elite in Tbilisi wants to reintegrate all the population that feels Georgian, and to do so, an internal homogenization is needed which proved impossible to be accomplished through negotiations with the separatist parties in the disputed regions. So war is a powerful tool to carry out that homogenization of a nation, especially one that needs to reaffirm its identity and borders.

You shouldn't forget that many Georgians still remember horrific scenes of bodies of Georgian soldiers lined up by the cost in the early 90's, killed by rebels from Abhazia or bunch of burned corpses of Georgian tank crews caught in ambushes by the rebels in Southern Ossetia which were armed by the Russians. Boris Yeltsin thought that Russian army doesn't need to defend Southern Ossetia and Abhazia, only that rebels from the disputed regions should be trained and armed, and the Georgians should be kept at a distance by a certain amount of Russian peacekeepers. That Eduard Shevardnadze, which was thrown from the position of president by Mikheil Saakashvili, was a week player.

 

The current president is an American pupil, if he fails to maintain power I beat he can always return to Harvard and teach hehe, he is c o c k y and educated, and is obvious he spend a few years thinking what force is needed to eliminate anti-Georgian efforts in the disputed regions. He reformed Georgian armed forces, defense budget went up several times during his presidency. And he didn't rely just on Americans, but on Israel as well. It's from that country they bought state of the art UAVs, and then heavier weapons and systems. From that point onwards you conduct a familiar strategy: you pick out your best soldiers, bring together best available military hardware, activate your best pilots, bring your 8 Su-25 ground attack planes and 9 Mi-24 helicopter gunships from the hanger, 21 MLRS ('grad' system), 150 tanks, mostly modified T-72s, a few hundred APCs, including those from Israel, selected 20 000 soldiers out of total 35 000 active trained by the US and God knows whom else. Then you select a point that you hit from dusk till dawn, that was the town of Tskhinvali, the heart of Ossetian

resilience to Georgia.

 

Georgian army unleashed a firepower that surprised not only the rebels, but the Russians as well, sticking to the plan that Tskhinvali needs to be pounded hard in order to brake rebel moral and swiftly take control of entire region of Ossetia which only has around 70 000 people, and on the day of the Olympics, declare a grand victory. Yeah right, and it maybe would be so if Saakashvili wasn't impatient and underestimated a few things. Here in the Balkans in 1995 when we launched an attack on Serbian controlled so called 'Krajna', we did so with a force who could take on any armed forces in the attacked land while on the border with Serbia positioned nearly the same amount of forces in case of an counterattack.

 

And what did Saakashvili do? He gambled, he gambled big time. He went forward with an attack without any reserve, little active troops and poor means to deal with possible contingency plans. But unfortunately for the Georgians Putin and Medvedev acted fast fast with the 58th Army Group equipped with 800 tanks, 2000 APCs, 900 MLRS and howitzers, counting 90 000 troops, supported by around hundred fighters and bombers, in fact, they acted so fast that is clear the Russians expected something like this could happen. Epilogue?

 

Saakashvili suffered a military defeat, but got if nothing, support from the West, words I mean hehe...Russian inflicted heavy losses to the Georgian army and expanded ground around the disputed regions in which they have deployed thousands of soldiers, between 10 and 25 thousand soldiers, that allow Russia to keep a close eye on the Georgians.

 

Americans now, have to work on restraining again powerful Russia in the region, securing local installations for fossil fuels and continue 'NATOzation' towards Asia which evidently includes Georgia. And the timing of the deal between Poland and US regarding the deployment of the third positioning missile defense area leaves little doubt that it is linked with the recent conflict in the Caucasus. Like Washington, Warsaw unreservedly backed Tbilisi at all levels, and eventually agreed to host US missile defense when the backing to the deal is ever higher according to the latest polls, due to the recent conflict, fear works wonders for politicians and rulers doesn't it hehe...

 

In my opinion (hence no link ) Georgia is partly a victim of geopolitical tampering between Moscow and Washington, and somebody says it was a fight between David and Goliath, David lost this time, but nothing is solved here in the long run.

 

Introspective - Heck, I started writing large posts again

Edited August 20, 2008 by Hildegard

[Killian Kalthorne]

Hildegard, I think that is a decent assessment of the situation. Very well written.

 

I am under the impression, however, that every news agency has its bias. Some news agencies don't try to hide their bias, such as Fox News, while others hide it pretty well on most issues, such as the BBC. I do think that the BBC is the most unbias news agency out there, but it still on the pro-West side of the balance line.

[Hildegard]

Hildegard, I think that is a decent assessment of the situation. Very well written.

 

I am under the impression, however, that every news agency has its bias. Some news agencies don't try to hide their bias, such as Fox News, while others hide it pretty well on most issues, such as the BBC. I do think that the BBC is the most unbias news agency out there, but it still on the pro-West side of the balance line.

 

 

Thanks Killian, and yes, I agree with you that every news agency has its bias, it's unavoidable, we're all human with all our imperfections no matter how professional one tends to be. And I also agree, BBC is a news agency that tries to be unbiased as much as it can. But when it comes to Russian and Western relations, there is still a great void between the two that results with prejudice fueled by history as each one knows it, and it stretches not only to governments but to society as whole therefor on the media as well. Thus regarding the Georgian conflict both the Western and the Russian media bend a truth, some more some less.

[Bos_hybrid]

After reading and watching the news since this began, I can say with 100% confidence, that freedom of the speech does not exist in western society, that the western press is much better at propaganda the any communist/terrorist group by the stretch of Russia and that the world as a whole is unhealthily frightened of a strong Russia.

 

Russia>Southern Ossetia

USA/Nato>Kosovo

 

USA set a dangerous precedent with Kosovo only know do they realise how dangerous. And if Russia gets away with this, Taiwan will be very concerned.

 

Russia>Georgia

USA>Iraq

 

USA used Saddam acts genocide and alleged WMD, to invade Iraq. Russia uses alleged acts of ethnic cleansing, to invade Georgia. Seems to me Russia's learning form the best. Let me make one thing clear though, IMO what Russia is doing now is wrong, but no more wrong the what the USA and its allies did to Iraq. Putin is not the 21st century version of Hitler and a healthy strong Russia is not a threat to the western world.

[Azarkon]

And now for something completely related and yet funny, at the same time:

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50890

 

Russia Should Return U.S. Humvees, Pentagon Spokesman Says

By John J. Kruzel

American Forces Press Service

 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21, 2008 – A group of American Humvees seized by Russian forces in Georgia this week should be returned immediately, a Defense Department official said today.

 

“We’ve certainly expressed our position over the fact that these Humvees are U.S. property and should be returned. It’s that simple,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

 

In the Georgian port town of Poti on Aug. 19, Russian forces, which entered Georgia Aug. 8, reportedly commandeered American Humvees that were awaiting shipment back to the United States after taking part in earlier U.S.-Georgian military exercises.

 

“We don’t have any assurance at this point that they’re prepared to do the right thing and return them,” Whitman said of Russia’s forces. He declined to specify the exact number of American vehicles in Russia’s possession, calling it “a handful.”

 

Russia: Hmm... Nice Humvees. I think I'll take them.

US: Hey, those are mine! Give it back! GIVE IT BACK!!!

Edited August 22, 2008 by Azarkon

[Brdavs]

And now for something completely related and yet funny, at the same time:

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50890

 

Russia Should Return U.S. Humvees, Pentagon Spokesman Says

By John J. Kruzel

American Forces Press Service

 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21, 2008

[Aponez]

Part of the problem with quoting sources from the other side is that alot of them are Russian and we all know the credibility of Russian media...

 

But then, what's to say that just because a source is peer reviewed and part of a free press it can't be biased? Neutral commentary is most credible when it comes from a neutral source. Given the amount of half-truths that's been bandied about during the course of this conflict, I'm really not about to trust any one media source. A list of mutually independent sources, in this case, seems more dependable.

 

 

[Volourn]

"Georgia started the war,"

 

No, they didn't. They never attacked Russia.

[Morgoth]

But Russia had a protection mandate to the Southossis. Should they just had these people plus the peacekeeper troops watch getting slained without intervening?

Edited August 23, 2008 by Morgoth

[Aponez]

"Georgia started the war,"

 

No, they didn't. They never attacked Russia.

 

 

Wrong answer Volourn, Georgia attacked South Osetia, while there was in the zone russian forces and killed 10 russian soldiers, then Georgia STARTED the war.

 

Serbia didnt attacked the NATO and the NATO bombed Serbia

[Volourn]

"Wrong answer Volourn, Georgia attacked South Osetia, while there was in the zone russian forces and killed 10 russian soldiers, then Georgia STARTED the war."

 

No, they didn't. South Osseita *is* Georgia. They wnatet o be serpate but they aren't. Also, the Russians were suppsoed to be in SO/Georgia as PEACEKEEPERS. They broke their mandate.

 

 

"Serbia didnt attacked the NATO and the NATO bombed Serbia

[~Di]

As a side note, Russia has apparently decided it would like control of the Port of Poti... and has taken it. It's happily building permanent structions for the Russian soldiers that will occupy it under the guise of "peacekeepers"... inside of Georgia's soveriegn borders! No sense letting a little thing like a signed withdrawal agreement stand in the way.

 

Anyone surprised?

Edited August 24, 2008 by ~Di

[Volourn]

Nope. Like I said, this has nothing to do with being saviours but flexing their military might... too bad, that if they keep it up, they're only spiting themselves. Does Russia really want the Cold War round 2? Don't they know what happened back then? Did they forget? Do they need another reminder? Their threats of a 'strategical premeptive nuclear strike' on Poland sure sound slike they want another Cold war. I guess they want their power to be even further eroded. *shrug*