Russia-Georgia conflict - Russian imperialism or Georgian provocation?

[Caesar]

Discuss.

[PHS Philip]

Georgia: I wonder what happens if I poke Russia in the eye...
Russia: You're stupid.

[Caesar]

Yea! Exactly. It's extremely annoying having to hear "This is about annihilation of a democracy on their borders" when that's such a blatant lie. Which many are comfortable believing. :rolleyes:

[thod]

They have been going at each other for years. Hundreds of thousands displaced in Georgia. This time I think the Georgians went too far. South Ossetia was supposed to be an independent region full of ethnic Russians. You cant blast its capital to bits with artillery fire, kill thousands of civilians, then move in troops, and expect the world to support you. They should have known Russia would react like it did. I accept its technically Georgian territory but you don't do that to your own people.

[SmileyMan]

Russia had been handing out Russian citizenships for free in South Ossetia. I suspect they only did it to have a casus belli on Georgia the day it would reclaim what is rightfully its.

I accept its technically Georgian territory but you don't do that to your own people.
You do when your own people are hostile and fight you.

[PHS Philip]

Russia had been handing out Russian citizenships for free in South Ossetia. I suspect they only did it to have a casus belli on Georgia the day it would reclaim what is rightfully its.


You do when your own people are hostile and fight you.

Er, why exactly is it "rightfully theirs?" My impression is that that's like saying that New Mexico is rightfully America's.

[SmileyMan]

Er, why exactly is it "rightfully theirs?" My impression is that that's like saying that New Mexico is rightfully America's.

Because South Ossetia hasn't been recognized by any UN member as a nation, so it's still a region of Georgia until that has happened.

The independence has not been diplomatically recognized by any member of the United Nations – which continues to regard South Ossetia as part of Georgia. Georgia has retained control over parts of the region's eastern and southern districts where it created, in April 2007, a Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia[1][2][3][4] headed by ethnic Ossetians (former members of the separatist government) which would negotiate with central Georgian authorities regarding its final status and conflict resolution.[5]

[PHS Philip]

Because South Ossetia hasn't been recognized by any UN member as a nation, so it's still a region of Georgia until that has happened.

*cough Taiwan cough*

I could point to Kosovo and the West's support for independence there, too. We support separatist efforts that will piss the Russians off, but god forbid they do the same!

[Shakyamuni]

Georgia: I wonder what happens if I poke Russia in the eye...
Russia: You're stupid.

Agreed. They were probably counting on western backing which never materialized. Either way, I can't see what they hoped to gain.

The Mclaughlin group had an interesting discussion on this topic this week. Although, most of their discussions are very interesting, if somewhat loud and noisy.

[Valiyn]

As I understand it, the USA has now backed Georgia.
Hopefully that's wrong but the source was Bush giving a speech (youtube).

Georgia is in trouble, they cannot win logistically and strategically. Russia has the support of the people, needs a smaller army to achive victory, and massive logistical support for that region. Georgia is hoping for western backing and the news seems to be portraying it in a david/goliath sort of spin. If the west is going to back georgia, it will soley be from international pressure and nothing more...so georgia would will be crushed indirectly economically.

Saw the Georgian president talk about how he witnessed a Russian fighter fly in and drop bombs in a civilian crowded marketplace right near him....Georgia will wage this war with civilians...most of which in the contested zone support russia. Ultimately, Russia will secure the contested area with it's main army and utilize special operations of civilian and military advisors to patrol the borders and attack supply lines. If Georgia is going to fight this war behind civilians for western support, then Russia will cause most of it's damage to Georgia with native hostilities. This will be a war not so much with weapons, but with media.

[Metaphor]

Georgian provocation.

Georgia invaded South Ossetia and killed over 1,500 citizens and 20 Russian peace keepers. Georgia claims it was/is trying to regain territory it had lost after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia moved in to help South Ossetia from Georgian aggression.

Either way, Georgia will probably fall under Russian control now.

[egazoid]

I think it goes like this:
Bush administration helped organize this provocation in order to play this "Russian aggression card" for support of McCain.
According to the usual Media bull, that's what's going on.

[ScottH]

I think Georgia is testing it's new-found muscle earned by the pipeline it helped finish in 2005. The USA, the EU, and others have a strong interest in that country now, and such was a [purported] motivator for Georgia to cooperate in the venture. It's previous president believed it would "...assure Georgian independence and security..." and it's current president has indicated the same.

I wonder if they now understand our ties ensure we'd protect them from take-over, but not from lessons or black-eyes they rightly earn :-)

[egazoid]

But most people's heads are square like the TV, so they don't get what's going on. They just see images flashing in the box and they get programmed for whatever the govt wants them to be programmed for...





egazoid added to this post, 13 minutes and 21 seconds later...

I think Georgia is testing it's new-found muscle earned by the pipeline it helped finish in 2005.

Well, you don't flex your muscle arainst a country with a population 30 times your own. I disagree with this hypothesys. Reasons have to be different.

[Reon]

I wouldn't say that the U.S. is helping Georgia, to be honest, I don't think we can. We support both countries for different reasons and, honestly, after kosovo, maybe russia 'wanted' to flex its muscle and Georgia gave them the opportunity. Historically, attacking russia is just NOT a good idea...

[Caesar]

I think Georgia is testing it's new-found muscle earned by the pipeline it helped finish in 2005.

Looks to me as if Georgia wants to flaunt their friendly relationship with the West and their support for its actions (and, of course, Saakashvili wants to fulfill -or attempt to - his election promise by any means possible). After all, playing the "Russia - bad, West - good" card is the easiest way to be called a democracy and to be accepted into the EU and NATO because of it.


Russia had been handing out Russian citizenships for free in South Ossetia. I suspect they only did it to have a casus belli on Georgia the day it would reclaim what is rightfully its.


You do when your own people are hostile and fight you.

South Ossetia had actually wanted to join Russia for quite a while, but the latter didn't accept them. Now, I suppose Saakashvili has given them perfect reason to. What a stupid move. :rolleyes: And, for some reason, you refuse to see it as primarily a South Ossetian-Georgian conflict, which was started without Russian involvement. Russia joined in when things got out of hand, to protect the South Ossetians from aggression.

When your own people fight you - you are obviously unfit to rule them. And anyway, the only reason South Ossetia was ever in the Georgian SSR was because Stalin "gave" it to his fellow countrymen in an attempt to build a Georgian powerbase. The Ossetians aren't and never were Georgians, they have their own language and culture.

Georgian provocation.
Either way, Georgia will probably fall under Russian control now.

Don't see why Russia would want to gain control over Georgia.

[Valiyn]

THey won't take control of Georgia, but they will disrupt the current government. Economically russia can cripple Georgia and with influement in the area gained from South Ossetia could get some influence with the pipeline because of it. Ultimately, Georgia is playing powerhungry for the land of South Ossetia, There are some minerals and ore there that can help the country, as well as the usual "more land and workers". Russia is South Ossetia backer, and shows Georgia took the war too far ((like the US did with Korea)). Georgia is only now making pleas to the west to counter Russia, but I don't believe they ever intended to actually fight russia military-wise dispite all they claim. If your the leader of a country and say publicly "Oh shit, we argoed Russia!" then morale in your army will plumit. You say "We've been preparing to fight Russia for a while now and we're ready to do so." and you keep morale up.

Russia will move to destroy georgian influence, logistics,and support for the current government, but will try to leave it's military intact if possible. Georgia in it's attempt to get support, will pick out every possible russia agression against civilians even if it's not. It will continue to mobilize it's army knowing that if russia slaughter's them they can play the victium card. Russia, as I've said before, will have the bulk of it's actual fighting force be natives of South Ossetia and will absolutely destory georgian logistics to descimate their army without firing too many rounds.

[egazoid]

Saakashvili is just a US puppet. Think about it... They played him all this time starting right from the "rose revolution" and even before that. Ofcourse, nobody would be so stupid as to attack Russia. However, it should be evident that this has been a planned media-stunt to make Russia look EVIL and AGGRESSIVE.

[SmileyMan]

Russia continues its invasion of Georgia:
Russian troops have entered Georgia from the breakaway region of Abkhazia, as the conflict between the two neighbours appears to be broadening.

Moscow said it had launched a raid on the town of Senaki to stop Georgia from attacking Russian forces in South Ossetia, another breakaway region.

And Georgia says Russian troops have captured the town of Gori in central Georgia - a claim denied by Moscow.

As the fighting continued, foreign envoys were pressing for a ceasefire.

Violence erupted in South Ossetia late last week when Georgia launched an overnight assault on the territory.

Russia, which supports the province's bid for separation, then bombed targets throughout Georgia and moved troops into the region and into Abkhazia.

Russian denial

Russia confirmed for the first time on Monday it had advanced beyond the borders of Abkhazia, saying it had launched an operation in the town of Senaki.

A Defence official told the Interfax news agency the move was intended to prevent Georgian troops from shelling South Ossetia, and to stop them from regrouping.

Georgian officials then accused Russian troops of moving into the town of Zugdidi, near Abkhazia.

The Russians issued an ultimatum to Georgian forces to disarm or face attack, and proceeded to occupy government buildings there, the Georgians said.

And the conflict over South Ossetia also appeared to have widened, with Georgia accusing Russia of capturing the town of Gori, just 76km (47 miles) from Tbilisi.

"This is a total onslaught," Georgia's National Security Council secretary Alexander Lomaia told AFP news agency.

He said Georgian troops were pulling back to defend Tbilisi.

But Russia's defence ministry later issued a statement rejecting the claim, saying there were no Russian troops in Gori.

Local officials in South Ossetia's secessionist government accused Georgia of bombing targets in the capital, Tskhinvali, by helicopter.

Nato plea

On Monday EU envoys were attempting to broker an agreement between Tbilisi and Moscow.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili signed an EU-backed ceasefire, but the document was rejected by Moscow.

And leaders from both countries carried on a war of words, with Russia accusing Georgia of genocide, and President Saakashvili hitting back with claims of ethnic cleansing.

Mr Saakashvili accused Russia of trying to overthrow his government and claimed Russia was now in control of the majority of Georgian lands.

Russian officials denied they were seeking a regime change, and reiterated that they were responding to Georgian attacks.

Georgia's foreign minister is due to meet Nato officials on Tuesday.

But Russia has also requested an emergency meeting with Nato, saying the organisation should hear Moscow's side before making any decisions.

Before the latest attacks, Nato's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer had accused Russian of using disproportionate force and violating Georgia's sovereignty.

And the G7 group of nations issued a strongly-worded statement calling on Russia to accept the ceasefire agreement.

Meanwhile, the Red Cross said it has visited several hospitals in Georgia and on Russian territory and warned that the humanitarian situation "remains very serious".

"It's still too early to say how many people have been killed or injured by the fighting," said Dominik Stillhart, the organisation's deputy director of operations.

"But our visits to these hospitals confirm that local medical facilities are dealing with a large number of wounded and dead."

BBC News (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Even though it's highly improbable, I do hope NATO or UN will do something soon, if not, Georgia will soon belong to Russia.

[Karamazov]

Russia continues its invasion of Georgia:

BBC News (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Even though it's highly improbable, I do hope NATO or UN will do something soon, if not, Georgia will soon belong to Russia.

The West has it's own interests concerning the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. According to this report (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
though, measures are being taken in order to safeguard the pipeline. Unfortunately, if things go south in the region, you could see global oil supplies being affected.

Either way, I doubt any such intervention will take place.

[xtremegeek]

Georgia cannot defeat Russia, so the border skirmish is foolish. Georgia would be in a better position if they passively let Russia become the aggressor. The world community would then be compelled to step in and resolve the issue for them. As it stands now, Georgia stands to incur much damage and loss of life without much support from the international community. This will be a long, drawn out skirmish like Kashmir or the Middle East...no end in sight because the world community cannot clearly see who the aggressor really is.

[NephilimAzrael]

Western media received claims that Russian military bombed Poti, the tapes in question were later denounced as images from the South Ossetian capital, which is being shelled by Georgian "peacekeeping" forces. In addition to this there was a media blockade imposed by the Georgian government during the Georgian invasion of the Republic of Ossetia. Russian troops were also accused of bombing Ossetia, undetonated bomb shells bare evidence of Georgian manufacture. Seeing as Western media is in support of the Georgian President, perhaps those who may wish to get insight into the Russian side may wish to go to: Russia today website (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[mxdntz]

I think it goes like this:
Bush administration helped organize this provocation in order to play this "Russian aggression card" for support of McCain.
According to the usual Media bull, that's what's going on.
Yes, right after they turned Barack black. Bush might have done it to isolate Russia and make them choose a side on Iran so Military action could be taken, but Bush and McCain do not like each other.

Nobody who can do anything will do anything. We (US) need Russia for Iran sanctions and Western Europe gets most of it's natural gas from Russia and Russia has already showed they will stop shipping it if you piss them off.

[zibber]

Saakashvili is just a US puppet. Think about it... They played him all this time starting right from the "rose revolution" and even before that. Ofcourse, nobody would be so stupid as to attack Russia. However, it should be evident that this has been a planned media-stunt to make Russia look EVIL and AGGRESSIVE.

That's an interesting angle. November approaches!

[PHS Philip]

Russia said it's halting operations, but it didn't say anything about pulling its troops out, and they're still "authorized to fire on enemies" in South Ossetia.

[Latte]

Bush: “we will use U.S. aircraft, as well as naval forces, to deliver humanitarian and medical supplies”.

Ah well...

Seems to be a taboo thing to say, but I find it more and more likely that the Bush administration wants a NATO - Russia armed conflict.

First step was this war, which was to be won as a media war, and it seems to have largely worked to build support in western nations and the western populous, as western media giants seem to treat Saakashvili's words as if they have merit, even after repeated exposed lies.
Among them, the claim of Tbilisi airport having been bombed, which it had not. After it was revealed that the claim was false, Georgian authorities stated that Russia is "going to bomb it".
The claim that Gori was bombed and that there was an "onslaught", when in fact, it was the military camp at Gori that was attacked (one could also see photage on CNN that was claimed to be of Gori, having been bombed, which was later revealed to be photage of Tshkinvali. The Georgian army have seemingly evacuated Gori at the very start of the conflict, one may speculate as to why they would do that.
Invasion of Photi is also another story of unsubstantiated claims, most likely disinformation. The military installations at Senaki - which isn't far away from Photi - were attacked.
Then there's the persistent claim over days that Russian forces were heading towards Tblisi. "Are we there yet?".

When on direct line with CNN & BBC, Sakaashvili has provided ample opportunities for them to call his bullshit and his minutes-long talks of evasion when confronted with important questions such as the fact that Georgia was the agressor and invaded South Ossetia.

Also, if the Georgian leadership really wanted to integrate South Ossetia (as a whole... people, infrastructure, cities, economy) into Georgia, it wouldn't have indiscrimately destroyed civilian buildings, forcing around half, if not more of the population to flee to Russia, and killed off at least 3% of the local population.


As for "protecting territorial integrity"... arbitrary rules which especially in this context are grossly abused.

This is perhaps a plausible plan to create a NATO - Russian confrontation:

Step 1 - The big media war. This was/is it. Building support against Russia in western populations to justify possible future actions by their leaders, pressure reluctant leaders, and convince ignorant leaders (if any). Ending in ceasefire.

Step 2 - Increasing military presence under the guise of humanitarian aid, continuing media war and getting Georgia into NATO.

Step 3 - NATO demanding that Russia eliminates its presence from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, claiming Russia is violating international law (oh the irony... hi Kosovo) and that if it does not withdraw from the territory of a NATO member, it is an act of war against NATO.

Step 4 - If Russia doesn't back down, war (not declared, but acting as if there is no choice due to Russia not backing down). Demanding all NATO members have an obligation to protect the sovereignty of Georgia, which would then be a member state.


MAD? No... not really. Before, MAD was a more likely scenario due to each side having large brute force, but little precision, small chances of protecting against missiles and air attacks and virtually no way to cripple the communications capabilities of the opponent.

Today is an age where the victor would be the one that would most efficiently destroy enemy sattelites, hack enemy networks, use precision weapons such as chemical laser canons or using high-tech smaller missiles in order to shoot down bombers, ICBMs and other airborne instruments of destruction. Naval forces will be easily dealt with with modern day weaponry... even Iran would be capable of taking on any surface-vessel. Submarines will probably be a highly valuable asset still, though they can be countered too in most cases, if not underwater stealth technology has improved a lot and clever weapons like amphibious drones carrying missiles are used and sendt out by the submarine with minimal noise.

There's probably a lot more I'm not thinking of right now... but the classic view of war as "like ww2, just more modern, and with nukes" doesn't really fit reality anymore.


Adding: Weapons of mass destruction of a possible world war 3 might be until now entirely unseen technological feats and perhaps unblockable. Sadly we don't have any idea what goes on in those programs :\

Update: Seems Gori has been largely abandoned. Russian officials claim that the local population that remained were left to fend for themselves, and that they are providing humanitarian aid. I have no way of confirming whether this is true. The Georgian side, and CNN is claiming torture and looting. I have no idea how that would be in the interest of the Russia, and the Russian army is highly disciplined and would most likely not do such things without orders from officers... I find it likely that the Georgian government is spreading misinformation, considering the overall situation and what has happened so far.

[Karamazov]

[I]
This is perhaps a plausible plan to create a NATO - Russian confrontation:

Step 1 - The big media war. This was/is it. Building support against Russia in western populations to justify possible future actions by their leaders, pressure reluctant leaders, and convince ignorant leaders (if any). Ending in ceasefire.

Step 2 - Increasing military presence under the guise of humanitarian aid, continuing media war and getting Georgia into NATO.

Step 3 - NATO demanding that Russia eliminates its presence from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, claiming Russia is violating international law (oh the irony... hi Kosovo) and that if it does not withdraw from the territory of a NATO member, it is an act of war against NATO.

Step 1 and 2 seem plausible. It isn't hard to arouse the ire of the American public when major news outlets churn out stories that make vague allusions of the glory days of the "Evil Empire", when matters of foreign policy were oh so simple. West good - Russia Bad. Somalia was humanitarian in nature as well, so in that sense it's possible. Step 3 though, isn't likely. NATO, as it is, is very hesitant to do much else, given it's history with Kosovo, without looking completely incompetent and unable to get the international community to set any precedent or rules on the independence of smaller regions. So I suppose that might nullify both steps 1 and 2.

The hypocrisy is so glaring, in regards to NATO (as you have pointed out) not just in terms of Kosovo but even as far back as...2003? A US Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, to Russia stated “The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe — those days are gone.” If you saw the video, the hesitancy was evident in his geography.

As noted previously, Georgia thought it could flaunt it's Western ties and get away with it. Unfortunately, nothing concrete can be established given the ongoing conflict. All that is established is that Georgian leadership is embellishing it's status, making itself out as wounded baby deer.

However, the Russians are not saints, If you were to consider it's tactics in Afghanistan. Since this is Georgia, and they are dealing with their people, a repeat isn't likely.

[Tim]

I'm sure that at some point, Georgia will be receiving shitloads of foreign aid which will promptly line its leaders' pockets. For Putin, (or Medvedev) this can only boost his already-soaring popularity with Russian citizens as state-controlled media outlets will portray him as a hero.

It's a win-win situation for the politicians, while common civilians (as usual) will foot the bill.

[OneHertz]

wow I can not believe the media in North America. Not a single word in any articles that say it was Gerogia that was the agressor. They keep writing about the claims of the Georgian government of big bad Russia doing this and that, but they do not write anything when it is found out that most of these claims were blatent 100% lies.

[Danisty]

It is so refreshing to see that other people aren't jumping on the "big bad Russia" bandwagon. Everyone I've talked to outside this site (except my husband) has been showing extreme bias against Russia. It's been driving me crazy. I don't have anything to add because the posts here sum up most of my thoughts. I just wanted to thank everyone for showing me some sanity.

[josephine]

However, the Russians are not saints, If you were to consider it's tactics in Afghanistan. Since this is Georgia, and they are dealing with their people, a repeat isn't likely.

What do you mean by their people? Georgians are not in any way related to Russians - it's a completely different country and always was until it became a part of the Soviet Union. As for a "repeat", if you consider Chechnya, Russia targeted the civilians as well. They don't care how they win as long as they win.

wow I can not believe the media in North America. Not a single word in any articles that say it was Gerogia that was the agressor. They keep writing about the claims of the Georgian government of big bad Russia doing this and that, but they do not write anything when it is found out that most of these claims were blatent 100% lies.

Um, South Ossetia is Georgia's territory, so how is Georgia the aggressor if it tries to defend its own territory?

when confronted with important questions such as the fact that Georgia was the agressor and invaded South Ossetia.

South Ossetia broke away de facto from georgia in the early 1990s - it was Georgia's territory before that. The province was NOT recognized as independent by Georgia OR by the international community, and it's considered to be a part of Georgia. So there was no "invasion" by Georgia, as you can't invade your own land. Georgia tried to retake South Ossetia because its borders need to be clearly defined before it can join NATO.

You don't get to settle on another country's territory (South Ossetia was historically Georgia's territory), as the Ossetians did, and then demand "independence" from the nation whose land you're living on. If South Ossetians don't want to live with Georgians, and would prefer to join the North Ossetains, then they should simply leave the land. The don't get to take the land with them as they leave.

It is unfortunate that regular people who don't want to be in this conflict are stuck in the middle of it - hundreds of citizens are already dead. :(

[Latte]

You don't get to settle on another country's territory (South Ossetia was historically Georgia's territory), as the Ossetians did, and then demand "independence" from the nation whose land you're living on. If South Ossetians don't want to live with Georgians, and would prefer to join the North Ossetains, then they should simply leave the land. The don't get to take the land with them as they leave.

South Ossetia was put under the control of the Georgian soviet republic by Stalin during the soviet times. The land itself is not historically Georgian at all. Ossetians have lived there for centuries, being the majority ethnic group.

Adding: That is, when Georgia split from the USSR, it tried to take South Ossetia with them (and Abkhazia). The inhabitans of these regions did not want that, and it led to referendums of indepence (with above 90% yes, with high turnout), and the early 90s independence wars.

[Colette]

South Ossetia was put under the control of the Georgian soviet republic by Stalin during the soviet times. The land itself is not historically Georgian at all. Ossetians have lived there for centuries, being the majority ethnic group.

Well so what? Akhazia and South Ossetia are now within the UN accepted and defined boundaries of the republic of Georgia, and either the Security Council now supports Georgia to maintain its territorial integrity, or it doesn't. There's no in-between solution as far as I can see.

It's also quite wrong (as some posters have) to suggest that the US intends military intervention to safeguard Georgia's borders, or dispel Russian occupation (which is now, I think, an undisputed fact of this conflict). The US (beginning with Rice's visit to Georgia on Friday) will try to broker a diplomatic solution, and will use fundamentally empty threats such as blocking Russia's accession to the WTO, or bringing about Russia's expulsion or suspension from G8, to try and ensure Russia withdraws its tanks and troops.

[Latte]

Well so what? Akhazia and South Ossetia are now within the UN accepted and defined boundaries of the republic of Georgia, and either the Security Council now supports Georgia to maintain its territorial integrity, or it doesn't. There's no in-between solution as far as I can see.

It's also quite wrong (as some posters have) to suggest that the US intends military intervention to safeguard Georgia's borders, or dispel Russian occupation (which is now, I think, an undisputed fact of this conflict). The US (beginning with Rice's visit to Georgia on Friday) will try to broker a diplomatic solution, and will use fundamentally empty threats such as blocking Russia's accession to the WTO, or bringing about Russia's expulsion or suspension from G8, to try and ensure Russia withdraws its tanks and troops.

Right. These arbitrary boundaries that apply to everyone else than the US and whomever the US acts like they don't apply to means that one should surely punish and condemn the evil Russian Empire, which has no business intervening in Georgia's own business of firing indiscriminately at the South Ossetian capitol with missiles and artillery, destroying border villages, killing off a quite noticeable chunk of the South Ossetian civilian population, resulting in over half the South Ossetian inhabitants fleeing to North Ossetia.

Because, rules.

Edit-add: If the US administration is the world police, they're corrupt cops.

[Colette]

Right. These arbitrary boundaries that apply to everyone else than the US and whomever the US acts like they don't apply to means that one should surely punish and condemn the evil Russian Empire, which has no business intervening in Georgia's own business of firing indiscriminately at the South Ossetian capitol with missiles and artillery, destroying border villages, killing off a quite noticeable chunk of the South Ossetian civilian population, resulting in over half the South Ossetian inhabitants fleeing to North Ossetia.

Because, rules.

Edit-add: If the US administration is the world police, they're corrupt cops.

How else does a country (particularly a new one) protect its territorial boundaries when an area tries to secede? Does it go in offering tea, scones, and a nice chat, and hope that the breakaway faction feels sufficiently contrite to realize the error of its ways and embrace its mother country with a new enthusiasm and gratitude? Is that the approach Russia's taken with Chechnya since its 'declaration of independence' in 1991?

[Latte]

How else does a country (particularly a new one) protect its territorial boundaries when an area tries to secede? Does it go in offering tea, scones, and a nice chat, and hope that the breakaway faction feels sufficiently contrite to realize the error of its ways and embrace its mother country with a new enthusiasm and gratitude? Is that the approach Russia's taken with Chechnya since its 'declaration of independence' in 1991?

I don't know much about the Chechnya story. I got the impression that the actions of Russia's armed forces has had rather disastrous results for the civilian population. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right.

To dispel any possible assumptions on your part, I'm no fan of Russia. I merely think they did what was in the best interest of the South Ossetian people in this conflict, and that Georgia's leadership acted against the wellbeing of the South Ossetian people as well as its own people.

On the teaparty bit, the argument that "if not this, then what?" does not make "this" (that is, use of military force. In this case destroying infrastructure and civilian buildings en-masse) a reasonable, justified or "good" course of action. If I can't figure out an option besides rubbing my chest with pesto in order to make my left index finger grow longer, it wouldn't really make me rub pesto on my chest.


Georgia could have actually tried to regain the regions peacefully through focusing on economic development and social improvement to first encourage economic ties, then eventually reintegration. That is, instead of boosting its military spending to 15% of GDP.

This reminds me of a man raping his wife because x scripture says she is obliged to have sex with him, with the wife fighting back, and the man going "what else should I have done?". This case being an arranged marriage by Stalin.

In this case, thankfully, someone intervened in the rape, though, the wife is still brutally bruised.

[Karamazov]

What do you mean by [I]their people? Georgians are not in any way related to Russians - it's a completely different country and always was until it became a part of the Soviet Union. As for a "repeat", if you consider Chechnya, Russia targeted the civilians as well. They don't care how they win as long as they win.

Uh, perhaps I should clarify. People of South Ossetia are largely comprised of people with Russian citizenship. So in effect, yes, Georgia attacked the capital, killing numerous civilians and peace keepers. This has been established already, so either you didn't read the news reports or you ignored them.

Um, South Ossetia is Georgia's territory, so how is Georgia the aggressor if it tries to defend its own territory?

Really? Ossetians and Abkhazians were ethnic minorities within Georgia, in the same right as Georgians were from Soviet Russia and the Ottoman Empire. They are both autonomous republics, de facto to be fair, but Georgia as been living up to this point without interfering with them.

South Ossetia broke away de facto from georgia in the early 1990s - it was Georgia's territory before that. The province was NOT recognized as independent by Georgia OR by the international community, and it's considered to be a part of Georgia. So there was no "invasion" by Georgia, as you can't invade your own land. Georgia tried to retake South Ossetia because its borders need to be clearly defined before it can join NATO.

You don't get to settle on another country's territory (South Ossetia was historically Georgia's territory), as the Ossetians did, and then demand "independence" from the nation whose land you're living on. If South Ossetians don't want to live with Georgians, and would prefer to join the North Ossetains, then they should simply leave the land. The don't get to take the land with them as they leave.

Uh huh, and the fact that Chechnya broke away de facto from Russia isn't the same because the Russians just enjoy being the big meanie that it is.

Again, many South Ossetians had Russian citizenship, so attacking innocent civilians isn't exactly the way to go If you have a grievance that needs to be addressed by the international community. Georgia is no better than the Russians in how the government has conducted itself.

[Colette]

I don't know much about the Chechnya story. I got the impression that the actions of Russia's armed forces has had rather disastrous results for the civilian population. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right.

That's my point. Russia will stop at no lengths to protect its own territorial boundaries, and yet when other sovereign nations attempt to do so, Russia sees fit to interfere. My point was that Russia's approach to resolving territorial disputes has always been a strong show of military force - as a country it has no history of or skills in the art of diplomacy, so should it expect the fledgling nation of Georgia to act any differently?

Georgia could have actually tried to regain the regions peacefully through focusing on economic development and social improvement to first encourage economic ties, then eventually reintegration. That is, instead of boosting its military spending to 15% of GDP.

Yes perhaps, but that isn't going to work to solve the immediate secessionist problem. I agree though that the Georgian leader isn't strong in areas of domestic and economic policy, and in building necessary infrastructure. That will have to change if Georgia wants to retain its breakaway areas.

[rawshark]

Again, many South Ossetians had Russian citizenship.

Yeah through blanket government laws. By their standards the U.S. Congress could pass a law granting blanket citizenship to the people of Chechnya and then invade Russia the next time they fuck with them.

[Danisty]

The thing that's been irritating me is that it seems like nobody is considering what the South Ossetians want. They don't want to be part of Georgia. They like Russia.

[Colette]

The thing that's been irritating me is that it seems like nobody is considering what the South Ossetians want. They don't want to be part of Georgia. They like Russia.

Does this mean that if the Hispanic population of New Mexico decides it wants the state to leave the US and become part of Mexico, it should be permitted to do so?

A bit of relevant history here that might put the debate in context. Georgia consists of 84% ethnic Georgians, and up until the 19th century was independent of Russia. After the Russian revolution (1917) Georgia made a bid for independence, but was absorbed into the Soviet Union in 1922. A peaceful pro-independence demonstration in Tblisi just prior to the collapse of Tthe Soviet Union, resulted in a bloody massacre, when Russia fired on the demonstrators.

In the 1990 elections which led to the Georgian declaration of independence and membership of the UN, free-Georgia parties won 155 out of the 250 parliamentary seats, whereas communist (pro-Russian) parties won only 62.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia were always part of Georgian territory (even prior to independence and when Georgia was a socialist republic of the USSR). Ever since independence the two regions have been battling separatist factions who want to reunite the territories with Russia, because they contain ethnic Russian majorities, and Russia has actively supported these separatists; doing everything it could to undermine Georgian territorial sovereignty.

In 1992 there was an "ethnic cleansing" in Abkhazia in which roughly 250,000 Georgians were cleansed from Abkhazia by separatists (including Russian recruits and Chechens). There have also been ethnic cleansings in Tskhinvali (the South Ossetian capital).

Since the independence part of South Ossetia has effectively broken away from Georgian government control, but no UN country has accepted the validity of this area's secession from Georgia, or the validity of the separatists 'independence referendum' in 2006 (in fact it was condemned by NATO at the time).

Georgia has made efforts, through the Provisional Administrative Entity in Sth Ossetia (headed by former separatists) to put in place a mechanism which will allow future governance issues to be resolved. IN 2007 Georgia set up a state commission geared towards giving South Ossetia semi-autonomous status within the Georgian state.

The latest action by Georgia was simply an effort to reassert control of that area (which has rightfully been part of Georgia for many centuries), and was promoted by the invasion of three Russian military aircraft into Georgian airspace.

[Danisty]

I'm aware of the history and fail to see how it's comparable to New Mexico. New Mexico has not been functioning as it's own nation for a decade. And, if New Mexico wanted nothing to do with us and it meant war, sure, I'd let them go.

None of that is my point though. My point is that everyone is thinking about what Georgia wants and what the U.N. wants and what NATO wants, and what Russia wants. Nobody is considering the people in South Ossetia.

[lowtech redneck]

Oh for chrissakes...

Is anybody else on this site aware that one of the de-facto Russian protectorates, Abhkazia (with a LOT of Russian assistance), expelled more than 200,000 Georgians before the Russians entered the territory as "peacekeepers"? Did you know that ethnic Georgians comprised a large plurality of that regions' population before the ethnic cleansing? Did you know there are only about 30,000 South Ossetians (which are not ethnic Russians, btw), and that the South Ossetian "government" is a puppet of Russia? Has anyone stopped to consider that the actions of the Georgian government were in response to actions undertaken by the South Ossettian militias, and that the Russian response was extremely well-coordinated for a "retalitory" strike? Everybody seems to be basing their opinions on the fact that the Georgian president is an ally of President Bush and the United States, and allowing their prejiduces to lead their reasoning.

Edit: Apparently, Collette DOES know. Sorry for overlooking your post, I was eager to respond to some of the earlier post.





lowtech redneck added to this post, 18 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Seeing as Western media is in support of the Georgian President, perhaps those who may wish to get insight into the Russian side may wish to go to: Russia today website (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Maybe we would rather view Russian news swources that are not funded and controlled by the Kremlin...oh wait, Putin got rid off all of those.

[PHS Philip]

the Russian response was extremely well-coordinated for a "retalitory" strike?

Just a quick point on this: retaliatory does not mean unplanned. You better believe that we have very well prepared retaliatory plans against countries like Russia and China.


Maybe we would rather view Russian news swources that are not funded and controlled by the Kremlin...oh wait, Putin got rid off all of those.

Whether or not Russia is a wonderful, happy, free place with bunnies frolicking in the streets is irrelevant.

[Latte]

That's my point. Russia will stop at no lengths to protect its own territorial boundaries, and yet when other sovereign nations attempt to do so, Russia sees fit to interfere. My point was that Russia's approach to resolving territorial disputes has always been a strong show of military force - as a country it has no history of or skills in the art of diplomacy, so should it expect the fledgling nation of Georgia to act any differently?

As I already said, two wrongs don't make a right, especially when it's a third party that suffers. Did the South Ossetian population supress Chechnya?

If someone has kicked a baby before, and that someone prevents another person from kicking a baby, I say "good for the baby".

Yes perhaps, but that isn't going to work to solve the immediate secessionist problem. I agree though that the Georgian leader isn't strong in areas of domestic and economic policy, and in building necessary infrastructure. That will have to change if Georgia wants to retain its breakaway areas.

"Isn't strong". There's something called prioritization, and he did it.

Say, even if Russia hadn't intervened and the attack on South Ossetia would have been largely unhindered, the territorial gain would not really benefit the Georgian people at all compared to focusing on civilian development. Imagine how Georgia could have looked like today had its leadership taken it on another course. Yes, it'd not be capable of trying to focefully regain the seperatist regions, but it would be a far better course of action if the wellbeing of the Georgian people is the ultimate goal. I'll happily claim that Saakashvili doesn't give a shit about them.

Do not get stuck on one objective. The secessions themselves were not a problem. It was the effects of the secessions that were a problem. When the "cure" for the cause of those problems cause more harm and takes more effort than it can ever possibly hope to gain in benefits even in the lucky possible outcomes (that is, Russia backing off), then trying to solve that cause with that "cure" is pretty stupid.

If someone takes one of my shirts (shirt being the economic benefits of controlloing the regions) and runs away with it, and it costs me the effort in which I could make 2 shirts (military buildup at expense of civilian population) to pursue them in order to try to gain this 1 shirt back through forcefully trying to rip it out of the hands of them, something which would ruin the shirt in the progress, leaving only the fabric (territory without civilian infrastructure and economy) as possible spoils of war as well as risking 1 extra shirt to be ruined in the conflict (the direct cost of war).

This is probably my last post in this thread. I enjoyed making colorful insane allegories.

[Caesar]

It is so refreshing to see that other people aren't jumping on the "big bad Russia" bandwagon. Everyone I've talked to outside this site (except my husband) has been showing extreme bias against Russia. It's been driving me crazy. I don't have anything to add because the posts here sum up most of my thoughts. I just wanted to thank everyone for showing me some sanity.

I am pleasantly surprised too. :)


Abkhazia and South Ossetia were always part of Georgian territory (even prior to independence and when Georgia was a socialist republic of the USSR). Ever since independence the two regions have been battling separatist factions who want to reunite the territories with Russia, because they contain ethnic Russian majorities, and Russia has actively supported these separatists; doing everything it could to undermine Georgian territorial sovereignty.


On July 7, 1924 Osetia was reorganized as the North Ossetian Autonomous Oblast and on December 5, 1936, as the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The south Ossetian Oblast was organized within the Georgian republic on April 20,1922. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Georgia was a former kingdom of Transcaucasia, which existed historically for more than 2000 years. Its earliest name was Karthli or Karthveli; the Persians knew it as Gurjistan, the Romans and Greeks as Iberia, though the latter placed Colchis also in the west of Georgia. Vrastan is the Armenian name and Gruzia the Russian. Georgia proper, which included Karthli and Kakhctia, was bounded on the North by Ossetia and Daghestan, on the South by the principalities of Erivan and Kars, and on the West by Curia and Imeretia; but the kingdom also included at different times Guria, Mingrelia, Abkhasia, Imeretia and Daghestan, and extended from the Caucasus range on the North to the Aras or Araxes on the South. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Oh for chrissakes...

Is anybody else on this site aware that one of the de-facto Russian protectorates, Abhkazia (with a LOT of Russian assistance), expelled more than 200,000 Georgians before the Russians entered the territory as "peacekeepers"? Did you know that ethnic Georgians comprised a large plurality of that regions' population before the ethnic cleansing? Did you know there are only about 30,000 South Ossetians (which are not ethnic Russians, btw), and that the South Ossetian "government" is a puppet of Russia?


Yup, tensions ran high when Georgia attempted to make Abkhazia part of the country. Too high. Your point being? I am against that as well, but that, in reality is what happens under such circumstances.
30,000? It's actually 45,000, though if you count the fact that many have become displaced and went off to Russia as refugees - I believe it's much less than 30k.
Puppet of Russia? A la Afghanistan and Iraq for the USA? Yes, two wrongs do not make a right, but my point is that the country cannot support itself, and is therefore helped financially by Russia. Do you have an alternative scenario for their survival? Forcing them to join a country they don't want to have anything to do with doesn't count as one.


Maybe we would rather view Russian news swources that are not funded and controlled by the Kremlin...oh wait, Putin got rid off all of those.

Did you do any research into that, good sir? You may not have been in Russia, and your only sources of information are FOX NEWS (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and their ilk, so you may never have heard of the famous liberal (no, not Kremlin-controlled - they criticize Putin's lack of democracy) TV talk show called "To The Barrier" (or in russian к барьеру, if you're interested) or the radio show called Echo Of Moscow. which is no Putinist propaganda either.
P.S. - what reply do you have to the numerous Russians who are commenting on online English newspapers (thereby knowing both sides of the conflict) but nevertheless being of the 'opinion' that Russia did the right thing (I'm talking about moving in to help the South Ossetians here, and retaliating militarily against Georgia.....not moving into Georgia and and controlling Georgian territory - IF it isn't Western propaganda. Too early to know for sure, isn't it)?
P.P.S - Thanks for making me remember Echo Of Moscow, which is what I'm listening to right now (didn't know they had an online service).
P.P.P.S - Hope you check out my sources and mention it if you have any problems with any of them, in which case you are free to supply counter-sources.
P.P.P.P.S. Wasn't planning on staying up so late as I had movie plans for the next day; wasn't expecting so many opposing views. :scared:

Edit:
the Russian response was extremely well-coordinated for a "retalitory" strike?
Which is why the Russian military have quite a few losses? Lol.

This is probably my last post in this thread. I enjoyed making colorful insane allegories.
Your posts have been great. Good thing there's the 'probably'. ;)

[thod]

It makes you wonder what kind of people live in the US. The latest story I find funny is that the US is to position a missile defense system in Poland to protect them from Iranian missiles. The fact that Iran probably doesn't have any missiles that can reach Poland, that it doesn't have any nukes, and if you draw a line through Iran and Poland you are only protecting Finland doesn't seem to register.

Perhaps the US should consider its own belligerence. The Russians and everyone else can see that the only reason to put it there is against Russia. Its like arguing that a missile defense system in Cuba is needed to protect Russia against Libyan missiles. The geography is all wrong.

When Saddam uses chemical weapons to wipe out a town then he is a villain for killing his own people and the US must intervene. When the Georgians kill thousands of civilians with artillery and rocket fire onto the main town, we don't mention it. The evil Russians are invading. How about we try the Georgian leader for war crimes. If S Ossetia is Georgian then he has killed thousands of his own people with intent.

[konec]

It makes you wonder what kind of people live in the US. The latest story I find funny is that the US is to position a missile defense system in Poland to protect them from Iranian missiles. The fact that Iran probably doesn't have any missiles that can reach Poland, that it doesn't have any nukes, and if you draw a line through Iran and Poland you are only protecting Finland doesn't seem to register.

Perhaps the US should consider its own belligerence. The Russians and everyone else can see that the only reason to put it there is against Russia. Its like arguing that a missile defense system in Cuba is needed to protect Russia against Libyan missiles. The geography is all wrong.

When Saddam uses chemical weapons to wipe out a town then he is a villain for killing his own people and the US must intervene. When the Georgians kill thousands of civilians with artillery and rocket fire onto the main town, we don't mention it. The evil Russians are invading. How about we try the Georgian leader for war crimes. If S Ossetia is Georgian then he has killed thousands of his own people with intent.
It's totally offtopic, and I dont know anything about radarstations and missile stations and how Iranian missiles would fly to the US, but location-wise it doesnt seem that strange to me... and since I have some time to kill I made these neat pictures!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[lowtech redneck]

P.P.P.S - Hope you check out my sources and mention it if you have any problems with any of them, in which case you are free to supply counter-sources.


Sure thing! For starters, Gazprom Media owns two-thirds of Echoes of Russia (as of 2005). Not exactly independent from government control. I'm sure Reporters Without Borders will be able to inform you how the Kremlin controls the domestic media.

Btw, the fact that South Ossetia is a puppet of Russia is relevent because Georgia's actions are (allegedly) in response to South Ossetian instigation. Which equates to deliberate Russian instigation. Sorry if that point was too subtle for you.

I get my information concerning the caucases primarily from either The Jamestown Foundation or the International Crisis Group. Read the former for evidence concerning deliberate Russian provacation and architecture of aggression. Also read today's Wall Street Journal for information about facts on the ground disproving Russia's version of events-it might open your eyes a little.

[Reon]

It makes you wonder what kind of people live in the US. The latest story I find funny is that the US is to position a missile defense system in Poland to protect them from Iranian missiles. The fact that Iran probably doesn't have any missiles that can reach Poland, that it doesn't have any nukes, and if you draw a line through Iran and Poland you are only protecting Finland doesn't seem to register.

Perhaps the US should consider its own belligerence. The Russians and everyone else can see that the only reason to put it there is against Russia. Its like arguing that a missile defense system in Cuba is needed to protect Russia against Libyan missiles. The geography is all wrong.

When Saddam uses chemical weapons to wipe out a town then he is a villain for killing his own people and the US must intervene. When the Georgians kill thousands of civilians with artillery and rocket fire onto the main town, we don't mention it. The evil Russians are invading. How about we try the Georgian leader for war crimes. If S Ossetia is Georgian then he has killed thousands of his own people with intent.

Oh, you are indeed correct. If we put a missile defense system their, russia would lose its second strike capabilities.

[lowtech redneck]

Just a quick point on this: retaliatory does not mean unplanned. You better believe that we have very well prepared retaliatory plans against countries like Russia and China.

Whether or not Russia is a wonderful, happy, free place with bunnies frolicking in the streets is irrelevant.

I would also advise you to read the Jamestown Foundation articles along with today's Wall Street Journal. Incidentially, the point about the state of the press in Russia is made relevent when someone cites them as an allegedly legitimate or reliable source.

[Danisty]

It makes you wonder what kind of people live in the US. The latest story I find funny is that the US is to position a missile defense system in Poland to protect them from Iranian missiles. The fact that Iran probably doesn't have any missiles that can reach Poland, that it doesn't have any nukes, and if you draw a line through Iran and Poland you are only protecting Finland doesn't seem to register.

Perhaps the US should consider its own belligerence. The Russians and everyone else can see that the only reason to put it there is against Russia. Its like arguing that a missile defense system in Cuba is needed to protect Russia against Libyan missiles. The geography is all wrong.I'm trying to figure out why Poland is allowing it. Surely it makes them a target.

[PHS Philip]

Oh, you are indeed correct. If we put a missile defense system their, russia would lose its second strike capabilities.

Ok, so how about this. Russia can build a giant missile defense system in Canada, Mexico, and Cuba. It's just a defense system, right?

[Colette]

Caesar I'm not going to quote you. Just asking, what is your point exactly? That South Ossetia is entitled to break away from Georgia and have Russian military support to do so?

To suggest that Georgia has ignored the needs and aspirations of the South Ossetian region is simply disingenuous, and ignores the recent establishment of the South Ossetian Provisional Administrative Entity (headed by former separatists), whose entire raison d'etre is to negotiate with the Georgian government about the future status of the region, and ways in which its autonomy can be recognised within the umbrella of the Georgian state.

[Latte]

I'm trying to figure out why Poland is allowing it. Surely it makes them a target.

Goals of polish leaders, best interest of polish population. Might not be the same.

I would also advise you to read the Jamestown Foundation articles along with today's Wall Street Journal. Incidentially, the point about the state of the press in Russia is made relevent when someone cites them as an allegedly legitimate or reliable source.

Had a short look at Jamestown. I have to say, they use a lot of fear-inducing vague and colorful adjectives and definitions (the most amusing was "onslaught"). They also cite a lot of disputed claims as if they were undisputed facts, like the claim that South Ossetian troops shelled Georgian villages before Georgia invaded, right after the pre-war ceasefire. Something which South Ossetia denies, them saying Georgian troops fired first. It would not in any way be in South Ossetia's best interest. In fact, it would be outright stupid.

Myeah, and conviniently refraining from mentioning anything that is bad for the image of the Georgian leadership, like the massive destruction of Tshkinvali and deliberate targeting of civilian buildings by bombs, rockets and artillery, the city standing there itself as proof. This and among other things, like the lie that Tblisi airport had been bombed, and then the claim that "it was going to be bombed" once that was disproven through pictures when Sarkozy landed seems to not be mentioned at all.

If you want proper analysis, read stuff on sites where the authors do not have such a "us vs them" attitude. The best would be to find news sites with mild or medium'ish bias towards each side like CNN, BBC & Russia Today to keep updated on all the claims and counterclaims, and analytical articles that seem as least biased as possible on various other sites. That way you can see which claims are proven right or wrong as time goes by as well as getting a good objective picture of things, knowing you haven't missed any info that might had changed your view had you heard of it.

Yeah... I jumped in again >.>.

[PHS Philip]

I would also advise you to read the Jamestown Foundation articles along with today's Wall Street Journal. Incidentially, the point about the state of the press in Russia is made relevent when someone cites them as an allegedly legitimate or reliable source.

But that was not the tone of the post. It's quite easy to say that the source isn't reliable without implying that Russia are wrong because they have state controlled media, but the post made no attempt in that direction, so the obvious assumption was that the post was saying exactly that.

[Colette]

British news sources are also great for independent analysis and 'on the ground' reporting. The English version of Al Jazeera for example has some good coverage, and it has an excellent website.

The latest news is that Medvedev (Russia) is going to sign the EU brokered peace accord (already signed by Georgia after 5 hours of talks with Rice and Sarkozy in Tblisi).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[lowtech redneck]

But that was not the tone of the post. It's quite easy to say that the source isn't reliable without implying that Russia are wrong because they have state controlled media, but the post made no attempt in that direction, so the obvious assumption was that the post was saying exactly that.

I don't see any reason for the confusion; my comments explained why I think Russian media sources cannot be trusted in response to someone who suggested that we view them as an alternative to mainstream Western media. My comment had nothing to do with why Russia was wrong, though there was the implication that a government that controls the media generally cannot be trusted.

[PHS Philip]

I don't see any reason for the confusion; my comments explained why I think Russian media sources cannot be trusted in response to someone who suggested that we view them as an alternative to mainstream Western media.

Maybe we would rather view Russian news swources that are not funded and controlled by the Kremlin...oh wait, Putin got rid off all of those.

This isn't just saying that the source is unreliable. This is specifically an anti-Putin, anti-Russian comment.

[lowtech redneck]

This isn't just saying that the source is unreliable. This is specifically an anti-Putin, anti-Russian comment.

See the edited version of my post.





lowtech redneck added to this post, 11 minutes and 58 seconds later...

Goals of polish leaders, best interest of polish population. Might not be the same.

If you want proper analysis, read stuff on sites where the authors do not have such a "us vs them" attitude. The best would be to find news sites with mild or medium'ish bias towards each side like CNN, BBC & Russia Today to keep updated on all the claims and counterclaims, and analytical articles that seem as least biased as possible on various other sites. That way you can see which claims are proven right or wrong as time goes by as well as getting a good objective picture of things, knowing you haven't missed any info that might had changed your view had you heard of it.


I've been reading Jamestown Foundation for awhile, and I have found their news and analysis to be in synch with events as time goes by. I'm an International Affairs major, and I have been casually following this conflict for awhile. CNN and BBC are mainstream, and therefore not worth mentioning (i.e. everybody already knows about them). I've already expressed my opinion concerning Russian media; you might as well consider Xinhua to be a reliable source.

[Latte]

I've been reading Jamestown Foundation for awhile, and I have found their news and analysis to be in synch with events as time goes by. I'm an International Affairs major, and I have been casually following this conflict for awhile. CNN and BBC are mainstream, and therefore not worth mentioning (i.e. everybody already knows about them). I've already expressed my opinion concerning Russian media; you might as well consider Xinhua to be a reliable source.

I don't think you properly understood my post. You should read it again.

[lowtech redneck]

I don't think you properly understood my post. You should read it again.

Oh, I understood your post, I'm just not impressed. Incidently, the supposition that "thousands" of South Ossetians were killed is more than a little dubious in light of available evidence, as the Wall Street Journal article makes clear.

[Latte]

Oh, I understood your post, I'm just not impressed. Incidently, the supposition that "thousands" of South Ossetians were killed is more than a little dubious in light of available evidence, as the Wall Street Journal article makes clear.

I proposed checking for info from various sources so that you don't have to trust any source or any group of sources that may be biased towards one side in particular.

"Thousands" is misleading indeed, as it implies ranges in the area of 4+ thousand (at least that's what pops into my head), when less inaccurate estimates (that are actually based on anything) are in the ranges of around 2000 give or take. 2k would technically be "thousands", but yeah, it's deliberately written in a misleading way. This is why it's so important to view several sources that have multiple points of view with different biases when it comes to searching for info.

Analysis - another matter - is completely pointless unless the person writing it is close to entirely unbiased. An easy way to spot very biased analysts is redundant adjectives and definitions. Another way is to see whether the analyst has ignored important info, claims and counterclaims, writes in misleading ways with vague terms (such as the "thousands" thing) and repeating claims that have been proven to be unsubstantiated, grossly exxagurated (quote: "Gori is in ruins") or plain false.

[lowtech redneck]

I proposed checking for info from various sources so that you don't have to trust any source or any group of sources that may be biased towards one side in particular.

"Thousands" is misleading indeed, as it implies ranges in the area of 4+ thousand (at least that's what pops into my head), when less inaccurate estimates (that are actually based on anything) are in the ranges of around 2000 give or take. 2k would technically be "thousands", but yeah, it's deliberately written in a misleading way. This is why it's so important to view several sources that have multiple points of view with different biases when it comes to searching for info.

Analysis - another matter - is completely pointless unless the person writing it is close to entirely unbiased. An easy way to spot very biased analysts is redundant adjectives and definitions. Another way is to see whether the analyst has ignored important info, claims and counterclaims, writes in misleading ways with vague terms (such as the "thousands" thing) and repeating claims that have been proven to be unsubstantiated, grossly exxagurated (quote: "Gori is in ruins") or plain false.

I already get my news from various sources, thanks for your concern.

The strength or credibility of an analysis is determined by the evidence presented and the reasoning tying that evidence together. Bias has very little to do with it.

Finally, you might want to check out statements by Human Rights Watch indicating that there is no evidence to suggest that even 100 South Ossetians were killed, nor is there evidence that civilians were deliberately targeted. You know, since you are so concerned about unsubstantianted or grossly exaggerated claims.

[Colette]

This is what happens to independent Russian journalists who, in pursuit of the truth, get too close to it. Coincidence? Well maybe, but the stats kind of speak for themselves:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Caesar]

Sure thing! For starters, Gazprom Media owns two-thirds of Echoes of Russia (as of 2005). Not exactly independent from government control. I'm sure Reporters Without Borders will be able to inform you how the Kremlin controls the domestic media.


That's right, that's in the first site that you get wehn you type "Echo of Moscow" into google. I was very surprised to see that they held most of the stocks for the radio. But, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Don't ask me why. I don't know, I find it rather surprising too. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't, period.
Can you please either learn Russian and listen to it, or ask someone who knows Russian and whom you trust to do so, and then you will see true democracy well and thriving. Have you personally heard/seen ANY pro-Russian reporters/radio or TV hosts/others? Seeing them through the eyes of biased media don't count, by the way. Then we can continue talking about this.


Btw, the fact that South Ossetia is a puppet of Russia is relevent because Georgia's actions are (allegedly) in response to South Ossetian instigation. Which equates to deliberate Russian instigation. Sorry if that point was too subtle for you.

The war began after a ceasefire agreement between Georgia and South Ossetia broke down (each side accused the other of breaking the ceasefire), and Georgia invaded South Ossetia with a large military force leaving the capital Tskhinvali largely destroyed.

Key-word in what you wrote: ALLEGEDLY. When you can prove that it is a fact (or at least that it is highly likely....and no, Georgia's word doesn't make it so), you can try to prove subtle points.


I get my information concerning the caucases primarily from either The Jamestown Foundation or the International Crisis Group. Read the former for evidence concerning deliberate Russian provacation and architecture of aggression. Also read today's Wall Street Journal for information about facts on the ground disproving Russia's version of events-it might open your eyes a little.

Care to provide direct links, if you're striving to open my eyes? You have a better idea of what to look for.

P.S. How'd you like the Fox News link? I thought it was pretty hilarious. :thumbsup:


Caesar I'm not going to quote you. Just asking, what is your point exactly?

I refuted (successfully?) certain points made by individuals including yourself. For example whether or not Abkhazia and South Ossetia were always a part of Georgia proper. Why?


To suggest that Georgia has ignored the needs and aspirations of the South Ossetian region is simply disingenuous, and ignores the recent establishment of the South Ossetian Provisional Administrative Entity (headed by former separatists), whose entire raison d'etre is to negotiate with the Georgian government about the future status of the region, and ways in which its autonomy can be recognised within the umbrella of the Georgian state.


I've tried to look up the South Ossetian Provisional Administrative Entity, to see where it's based, how much territory it controls, and what percentage of the South Ossetian population is part of it, and couldn't find anything, so I can't comment. Perhaps you can provide links to information and/or maps? If not, I'll continue looking some other time. I've got a bit of a headache right now.


This is what happens to independent Russian journalists who, in pursuit of the truth, get too close to it. Coincidence? Well maybe, but the stats kind of speak for themselves:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From what I've read about most of the journalists' descriptions and their deaths, I don't see much of a connection between the killings and the government. Corrupted politicians/businessmen/mafia look more likely. There are some suspicious ones, though, where that may very well be true. But i fail to see your point. That it's dangerous report sensitive information in Russia? Point conceded. You didn't even have to prove that. That there is no free press or freedom of opinion in Russia at all, and therefore there is no way for Russians to know the truth? Not true. As I mentioned earlier, many Russians read English-language newspapers. and, of course....
so you may never have heard of the famous liberal (no, not Kremlin-controlled - they criticize Putin's lack of democracy) TV talk show called "To The Barrier" (or in russian к барьеру, if you're interested) or the radio show called Echo Of Moscow. which is no Putinist propaganda either.
:thumbsup: ^^

[Colette]

Caesar I've repeatedly asked you what your central point is in this debate. If you won't provide it, I'm bowing out. I tire rapidly of debates which consist solely of opponents being asked to 'prove' everything they say, and no positive arguments being put forward.

[Latte]

Finally, you might want to check out statements by Human Rights Watch indicating that there is no evidence to suggest that even 100 South Ossetians were killed, nor is there evidence that civilians were deliberately targeted. You know, since you are so concerned about unsubstantianted or grossly exaggerated claims.

Humans Rights Watch does not have first hand accounts of many casualties, no. I think independent verification from one organization of all deaths at this time would be rather hard. There's also lots of people missing that is presumed dead, but whose status cannot be known. A decent portion of those are probably guesstimated as dead depending on where they lived in South Ossetia.

The reason I find somewhat high figures to be likely approximations is due to the undisputed fact that Tshkinvali was damaged so heavily.

There are first-hand accounts of civilians telling they were deliberately targeted. Accounts by South Ossetians telling they were targeted by the Georgian military or mercenaries and accounts by Georgians telling they were targeted by South Ossetian militias or the Russian army.

[Linn]

[I]
Update: Seems Gori has been largely abandoned. Russian officials claim that the local population that remained were left to fend for themselves, and that they are providing humanitarian aid. I have no way of confirming whether this is true. The Georgian side, and CNN is claiming torture and looting. I have no idea how that would be in the interest of the Russia, and the Russian army is highly disciplined and would most likely not do such things without orders from officers... I find it likely that the Georgian government is spreading misinformation, considering the overall situation and what has happened so far.
[/LEFT]

Russians are not providing humanitarian aid. The international and georgian humanitarian transport cannot get to Gori, because the russian army is blocking it. Looting and burning of houses is a fact, it is not misinformation. Journalists trying to film it were aimed at by the russian soldiers.

[JonD]

I've been following this issue quite closely, and it is most certainly Georgian provocation. Here are some great articles regarding the issue:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Caesar]

Caesar I've repeatedly asked you what your central point is in this debate. If you won't provide it, I'm bowing out. I tire rapidly of debates which consist solely of opponents being asked to 'prove' everything they say, and no positive arguments being put forward.

For one, you've asked once. Two, you asked about my point in all that I wrote, which is what I informed you about. Didn't see anything about *central* points.
Sorry, I don't like people messing up facts, which also explains why I spent so much time refuting your points pertaining to the Gerorgia situation. If you take the request for backing up your facts too personally, you may bow out if you so wish.
Now, if you are still here....about my central position - Georgian provocation, open breaking of peace agreements, etc. I have not checked out JonD's links yet, but I believe I agree with him, since he has come to the same conclusion, and has information to back that up too. Check them the links if you want.

[Karamazov]

The latest action by Georgia was simply an effort to reassert control of that area (which has rightfully been part of Georgia for many centuries), and was promoted by the invasion of three Russian military aircraft into Georgian airspace.

By attacking the capital? This only provided the pretext for Russia to invade. I am well aware of the history, but this isn't the first time such regional disputes have happened. This was no reassertion of supposed territorial boundaries but simply a plea for Western support.

[Caesar]

By attacking the capital? This only provided the pretext for Russia to invade. I am well aware of the history, but this isn't the first time such regional disputes have happened. This was no reassertion of supposed territorial boundaries but simply a plea for Western support.

In your opinion South Ossetia had been a part of Georgia for centuries? :suspicious:

[Karamazov]

In your opinion South Ossetia had been a part of Georgia for centuries? :suspicious:

No. I never said I agreed.

[Colette]

Now, if you are still here....about my central position - Georgian provocation, open breaking of peace agreements, etc. I have not checked out JonD's links yet, but I believe I agree with him, since he has come to the same conclusion, and has information to back that up too. Check them the links if you want.

You want the facts? Let's be clear about them. South Ossetia is not and never has been an "autonomous" region of Georgia, as Russia and some Western European leaders are claiming. It is a breakaway region which (due to its strong links with Russia) has sought to assert independence. Georgian forces invaded to prevent the region seceding to Russia, as a country is more than entitled to do to safeguard its own territorial integrity (and as Russia itself has done on more than a few occasions).

After Georgia was seized by the Soviet Union under Stalin, Stalin drew the borders to ensure Georgia contained the 'autonomous' ethnic entities, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Adzharia, and this was a means of ensuring Moscow could retain a measure of control over events in Georgia.

Since independence in 1991 there have been a number of conflicts over this region, in which Georgia has sought to suppress attempts by the region to break free. Russia has mischievously attempted to play kingmaker by encouraging these regions to break away and become statelets in their own right. The incompetence of the first two Georgian governments allowed these regions to virtually become controlled by Moscow, although nominally they remained part of the Georgian republic. Abkhazia was lost in 1993 in a Russian led coup, but then regained as part of a peace pact.

Admittedly Georgia's motives might seem suspect (as might NATO's) - Saakashvili desperately wants membership of NATO and needs to be able to demonstrate the ability to preserve domestic order and territorial integrity in order to convince NATO powers of the worth of his bid. The West has strategic political and oil interests to protect in this area.

However the fact remains that these regions are part of Georgia, and they are economically important areas. Russia's actions since the invasion (marching on Tblisi for example, and stationing tanks and troops around Gori, despite having signed a ceasefire not more than 12 hours earlier) demonstrate in my mind that Russia's agenda in Georgia is far more aggressive than Putin and Medvedev would have us believe.

Russia seems hellbent on becoming an occupying force in Georgia to a greater or lesser extent, which could lead to de facto control of the republic from Moscow - comparisons with the Czech invasion of 1968 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 (which lasted 10 years and resulted in the death or exile of roughly 1 million Afghani citizens) aren't looking completely hyperbolic at this stage. We'll see what events of the next few days bring, but I wouldn't be holding my breath for a complete Russian withdrawal (even if the breakaway regions do end up under Russian control).

[OneHertz]

You want the facts? Let's be clear about them. South Ossetia is not and never has been an "autonomous" region of Georgia, as Russia and some Western European leaders are claiming. It is a breakaway region which (due to its strong links with Russia) has sought to assert independence. Georgian forces invaded to prevent the region seceding to Russia, as a country is more than entitled to do to safeguard its own territorial integrity (and as Russia itself has done on more than a few occasions).

Typical american...I still can't believe you are serious. 99% of the people in that region WANT independence, so according to you it is perfectly ok for the Georgian government to just come and kill them for wanting to separate? Why didn't the Canadian army just march in and kill everyone in Quebec when they wanted to separate?

I hope you know that most people in Georgia hate their president, which was put there by the USA to act as a complete puppet in the 2003 US engineered Rose Revolution.

USA trained the Georgian troops to ethnically cleanse the South Ossetian area just two weeks before the incident. This isn't even about South Ossetia, this is about the US systematically trying to break up the Russian Caucasus. Do you expect Russia to just sit there and take it?

[Danisty]

Typical american...I still can't believe you are serious. 99% of the people in that region WANT independence, so according to you it is perfectly ok for the Georgian government to just come and kill them for wanting to separate? Why didn't the Canadian army just march in and kill everyone in Quebec when they wanted to separate?

I hope you know that most people in Georgia hate their president, which was put there by the USA to act as a complete puppet in the 2003 US engineered Rose Revolution.

USA trained the Georgian troops to ethnically cleanse the South Ossetian area just two weeks before the incident. This isn't even about South Ossetia, this is about the US systematically trying to break up the Russian Caucasus. Do you expect Russia to just sit there and take it?If it makes you feel any better, I'm American and I agree with you. The articles JonD linked to were a pretty good summary of how I see it.

[Colette]

Typical american...I still can't believe you are serious. 99% of the people in that region WANT independence, so according to you it is perfectly ok for the Georgian government to just come and kill them for wanting to separate? Why didn't the Canadian army just march in and kill everyone in Quebec when they wanted to separate?

Not that it's especially relevant, but I'm not actually American. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from regarding the wishes of the South Ossetians. Sure, around 2/3 of the population of that region is of 'Ossetian' ethnicity and want to join North Ossetia and become part of Russia, but the other 1/3 (or slightly under as I understand it) is ethnic Georgian, and has no desire whatsoever to join Russia. That is evidenced by the continued conflicts over secession which have taken place between the two groups since Georgia's independence in 1991. No other country has officially recognised South Ossetia's declaration of independence in 1991, and as far as I'm concerned Russia has been spoiling for this conflict ever since Georgia's move closer to NATO membership. Russia can see itself losing control of strategic areas of the Caucasus (including Chechnya) to Western influence; thereby losing its political and economic stranglehold in the area, and it simply won't countenance this happening.

I hope you know that most people in Georgia hate their president, which was put there by the USA to act as a complete puppet in the 2003 US engineered Rose Revolution

That may well be true, but Sashkaavili was democratically elected (a fact verified by international observers of the election which led to the bloodless coup toppling Schevardnadze. I don't doubt that since then he's become unpopular due to human rights abuses and suppression of the separatist movements in Abkhazia and other disputed areas, but I fail to see the relevance of that fact in the context of whether his Government has the right to protect its own territorial boundaries by armed force.

USA trained the Georgian troops to ethnically cleanse the South Ossetian area just two weeks before the incident. This isn't even about South Ossetia, this is about the US systematically trying to break up the Russian Caucasus. Do you expect Russia to just sit there and take it?

Again I have no idea where you're getting your information from, but this assertion is patently untrue. Indeed there is growing evidence that the converse is true; that after Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, and in the presence of and sanctioned by Russian troops which had rolled into the area in tanks, Ossetians had been running around Tskhinvali looting, hunting down ethnic Georgians in their enclaves, and killing them. This has been witnessed both by international reporters and human rights watchdogs, and I can provide links if you want. According to Georgian sources the worst 'ethnic cleansing' against Georgians following the attack, has occurred in the provincial capital, and also in the towns of Eredvi, Ditsi, Tirdznisi, and Kuraleti.

Finally, what evidence do you have that the US has a systematic 'plot' to break up the Russian Caucasus? Currently only the northern parts of the Caucasus region are part of the Russian Federation - the southern parts: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, are independent states.

[OneHertz]

Not that it's especially relevant, but I'm not actually American. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from regarding the wishes of the South Ossetians. Sure, around 2/3 of the population of that region is of 'Ossetian' ethnicity and want to join North Ossetia and become part of Russia, but the other 1/3 (or slightly under as I understand it) is ethnic Georgian, and has no desire whatsoever to join Russia. That is evidenced by the continued conflicts over secession which have taken place between the two groups since Georgia's independence in 1991. No other country has officially recognised South Ossetia's declaration of independence in 1991, and as far as I'm concerned Russia has been spoiling for this conflict ever since Georgia's move closer to NATO membership. Russia can see itself losing control of strategic areas of the Caucasus (including Chechnya) to Western influence; thereby losing its political and economic stranglehold in the area, and it simply won't countenance this happening.



That may well be true, but Sashkaavili was democratically elected (a fact verified by international observers of the election which led to the bloodless coup toppling Schevardnadze. I don't doubt that since then he's become unpopular due to human rights abuses and suppression of the separatist movements in Abkhazia and other disputed areas, but I fail to see the relevance of that fact in the context of whether his Government has the right to protect its own territorial boundaries by armed force.



Again I have no idea where you're getting your information from, but this assertion is patently untrue. Indeed there is growing evidence that the converse is true; that after Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, and in the presence of and sanctioned by Russian troops which had rolled into the area in tanks, Ossetians had been running around Tskhinvali looting, hunting down ethnic Georgians in their enclaves, and killing them. This has been witnessed both by international reporters and human rights watchdogs, and I can provide links if you want. According to Georgian sources the worst 'ethnic cleansing' against Georgians following the attack, has occurred in the provincial capital, and also in the towns of Eredvi, Ditsi, Tirdznisi, and Kuraleti.

Finally, what evidence do you have that the US has a systematic 'plot' to break up the Russian Caucasus? Currently only the northern parts of the Caucasus region are part of the Russian Federation - the southern parts: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, are independent states.

The last referendum in South Ossetia was in November 2006. Ninety-one percent of attendance. Ninety-nine percent voted for union with North Ossetia and Russia. Once again, you are saying it is ok to just kill them all to protect Georgian land and you have the nerve to say things about human rights.

Sashkaavili's election was about as democratic as the last election in Russia. USA personnel were present everywhere and they had the complete ability to put whoever they wanted up there. Similar to what Putin did for Medvedev.

Sure the Ossetians are killing Georgians now, because they saw what the Georgian military was doing in their capital. Many of those people lost their relatives. I know I would be doing the same in their place if I lost someone close to me. I am not saying that part is right, but it's human nature.

Georgia - basically a US client state in the middle of the Caucasus. They are turning Poland and Ukraine into one as well. Missles in Poland? If this is not trying to break up Russian influence in Caucasus then I don't know what is.

[Linn]

Even one of Putin's former aides has admitted that Russia has very ingeniously crafted the escalation of the conflict for a long time. Overstepping the air border, granting russian citizenship to ossetians, keeping the troops ready etc.
Fortunately Angela Merkel has finally come to reason today.

[Karamazov]

Sure, and the Georgian government played right into it. This isn't about who is evil or not, it's about the fact that Georgia resorted to such cowboy antics.

[zibber]

JonD, thanks!

Is anyone aware of Randy Scheunemann? Former paid lobbyist for Georgia and PNAC director, and John McCain's current senior foreign policy adviser.

Truthout link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I just want to drop this in here. I am by no means qualified to enter in this debate fully, but this seems like something relevant.

It is so refreshing to see that other people aren't jumping on the "big bad Russia" bandwagon. Everyone I've talked to outside this site (except my husband) has been showing extreme bias against Russia. It's been driving me crazy. I don't have anything to add because the posts here sum up most of my thoughts. I just wanted to thank everyone for showing me some sanity.

The only two people I've had relatively in-depth convos on the topic with were so anti-Russia that they litterally got red in the face.

[Colette]

Sure, and the Georgian government played right into it. This isn't about who is evil or not, it's about the fact that Georgia resorted to such cowboy antics.

Really? The debate seems fairly polarized to me, into 'good cops' and 'bad cops'.

From the pro-Russia 'faction' (if I may call it that), I'm still waiting for an explanation as why Georgia's actions here are any less acceptable or legitimate than Russia's violent suppression of the Chechen insurgency; effectively resulting in two wars of relatively long duration.

Why is this 'cowboy antics' when Georgia seeks to protect its territorial boundaries?

[zibber]

Why is this 'cowboy antics' when Georgia seeks to protect its territorial boundaries?

Just to repeat what OneHertz said, there was a referendum a long time ago where 99% (out of the 91% of the population that voted) voted in favor of joining N-Ossetia.

[vkut79]

From the pro-Russia 'faction' (if I may call it that), I'm still waiting for an explanation as why Georgia's actions here are any less acceptable or legitimate than Russia's violent suppression of the Chechen insurgency; effectively resulting in two wars of relatively long duration.

1. South Ossetia was never historically part of Georgia. This has been covered already. Chechnya has historically been part of Russia.

2. Popular referendums have indicated that over 90% of South Ossetians want independence from Georgia. I'm pretty sure that only a minority of Chechnyans want independence.

3. South Ossetia has been de facto independent from Georgia since the early 90's. Chechnya has not.

4. An independent Chechnya would be wildly unstable according to the Russian government. Without their rule it would fall apart.[/QUOTE]


Why is this 'cowboy antics' when Georgia seeks to protect its territorial boundaries?

Because Georgia is massacring innocent civilians, because the overwhelming majority of people there don't want to be part of Georgia, have historically not been part of Georgia, and in addition have been de facto independent from Georgia for 15 years. Mostly it is the first reason. You can't commit such a massive war crime against your own people under any circumstances.

[tranquill]

Russia-Georgia conflict created a big headache for Israel which armed and trained Georgians for years - and now suddenly Russians threaten retaliation by supplying S-300 SAM batteries to Syria. Here is what a prominent Israeli analyst says: samsonblinded.org/blog/on-russia-georgia-and-israel.htm

[Little Bo Peep]

I found an interesting source to read and listen about the conflict.
therealnews.com/t/

[Caesar]

From the pro-Russia 'faction' (if I may call it that), I'm still waiting for an explanation as why Georgia's actions here are any less acceptable or legitimate than Russia's violent suppression of the Chechen insurgency; effectively resulting in two wars of relatively long duration.


Firstly, I don't really see how Russia (or any country, for that matter) doing something (supposedly) wrong gives another country the right to follow the example. Two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore I don't see the point in bringing this in. One need not support the Chechen War to support Russia stepping in to protect the Ossetians.
But as vkut79 wrote, they are very different situations. Chechnya proved itself to be incapable of ruling itself, in addition to having been part of the country since the Russian Empire, and the majority of Chechens not seeking independence.

[zibber]

I found an interesting source to read and listen about the conflict.
therealnews.com/t/

Yup, consortiumnews.com too