Who are wearing the black hats? The Russians or the Georgians?
Guest
Posts: n/a
jacko, you asked for an opinion about the 'black hats.'
My vote is on the Russians.
South Ossetia is a red herring (pun intended).
Is Russia going to allow North Ossetia break free, join with their southern brothers, and live happily ever after?
Did Russia take kindly to Chechnya's attempts to do the same thing?
I don't believe Putin's aim was to liberate his Ossetian 'brothers.' It was to demonstrate in very clear terms about former Soviet Republics going 'all Western 'n stuff.'
Have you come to a conclusion yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To the comment about Russia wanting to influence things in its own backyard and the ring of familiarity. Fair enough. They (the Russians) are in place with force and there really is f*ck all anyone can do about it militarily.
The question remains, however, is that what the West should do? Lie back and 'think of England?'
It may very well be that is all that can be done.
My vote is on the Russians.
South Ossetia is a red herring (pun intended).
Is Russia going to allow North Ossetia break free, join with their southern brothers, and live happily ever after?
Did Russia take kindly to Chechnya's attempts to do the same thing?
I don't believe Putin's aim was to liberate his Ossetian 'brothers.' It was to demonstrate in very clear terms about former Soviet Republics going 'all Western 'n stuff.'
Have you come to a conclusion yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To the comment about Russia wanting to influence things in its own backyard and the ring of familiarity. Fair enough. They (the Russians) are in place with force and there really is f*ck all anyone can do about it militarily.
The question remains, however, is that what the West should do? Lie back and 'think of England?'
It may very well be that is all that can be done.
Last edited by brickhistory; 14th Aug 2008 at 15:42.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
Beware what you read my friend. This may be so; however, the population your refer to (like the population of Abkhazia) is the population that was left after the large number of ethnic Georgians were forced out of the areas in the conflicts of the early 90s. That said, using ethnicity is fraut with dificulty to describe Georgian society - indeed almost the same as using it to descrieb British society. In Abkhazia (an area I know better than South Ossetia) there were ethnic Abkhazians, ethnic Russians, ethnic Mingrelians and ethnic Svanetians althought the latter 2 (alongside other 'Georgian' ethinc groups) had largely been burnt/killed/raped out of their homes and were in temporary (over 15 years) Internally Displaced People camps (note, they are legally not refugees as they had not crossed internationally recognised borders).
Climebear has served as a UN Military Observer in Georgia
I read that South Ossetia is roughly 66% Ossetian and 29% Georgian by ethnicity, with most of the remainder being Russian. More than 70% of the South Ossetia citizens voluntarily hold Russian citizenship. The South Ossetians want to unite with the other ethnic Ossetians in North Ossetia (part of Russia) and do not want to be citizens of the Georgian government in Tbilisi. They have repeatedly shown very high levels of support for independence from Georgia (not least in two recent referenda) and have repeatedly rejected Georgian offers of ‘autonomy’ instead demanding full independence. After the 2006 referendum South Ossetia declared itself a de facto status independent state.
Climebear has served as a UN Military Observer in Georgia
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a far from uncritical admirer of America and Americans. But while I share many of your misgivings and criticisms, I still see them as having some moral authority, and I see them as being leaders of the free world because of that moral authority, and due to their fundamental decency, and not just their economic and military power.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone should be putting their shoulder to the wheel, shouldn't it be Georgia's neighbours who share the pipeline - Turkey and Azerbaijian? Theirs is the most direct economic interest.
Thread Starter
Climebear,
Abkhazia is a VERY different proposition to South Ossetian. It has a much more diverse ethnic population, with a much less overwhelming support for independence.
It may be true that large number of ethnic Georgians were forced out of SOME areas in the conflicts of the early 90s, and that some Georgians were burned out/raped out in Abkhazia, but the proportion of Ossetians to Georgians in South Ossetia has hardly changed since 1939 (68.1 % Ossetian, 25.9 % Georgian) though the Jewish and Armenian populations have taken a kicking since 1970....
The figures from the various censuses do not support the conclusion that there has been ANY significant movement of ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia.
Abkhazia is a VERY different proposition to South Ossetian. It has a much more diverse ethnic population, with a much less overwhelming support for independence.
It may be true that large number of ethnic Georgians were forced out of SOME areas in the conflicts of the early 90s, and that some Georgians were burned out/raped out in Abkhazia, but the proportion of Ossetians to Georgians in South Ossetia has hardly changed since 1939 (68.1 % Ossetian, 25.9 % Georgian) though the Jewish and Armenian populations have taken a kicking since 1970....
The figures from the various censuses do not support the conclusion that there has been ANY significant movement of ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I have seen, nobody has denied that Georgia effectively started this conflict - nobody seems to be disputing that.
To that end, I really dont understand why the west have been so vocal in support for Georgia and condemnation of Russia, rather than slapping their foreheads in a collective "Doh" at Georgias own goal, and keeping their mouths shut other than calls for peace. I understand Russia may have gone a bit further than was strictly necessary, but equally they were provoked, and haven't really done anything Western countries haven't done.
You do also get the impression that elements of the press are puzzled!
To that end, I really dont understand why the west have been so vocal in support for Georgia and condemnation of Russia, rather than slapping their foreheads in a collective "Doh" at Georgias own goal, and keeping their mouths shut other than calls for peace. I understand Russia may have gone a bit further than was strictly necessary, but equally they were provoked, and haven't really done anything Western countries haven't done.
You do also get the impression that elements of the press are puzzled!
Guest
Posts: n/a
postman, without trying to be too flippant, I think I deny Georgia's 'starting this.'
They, the Georgians, were operating within their own territorial borders. Now to the amount of force or tactics used, I've yet to see anything substantive on that - did they go to far/heavy-handed? I don't know - but it was an internal matter within the established borders of Georgia.
Russia's claim to protect 'Russian' citizens does seem thin on its face. As Russia gave Russian passports to Georgian (Ossetian) citizens, does that then make them 'Russian' over 'Georgian?'
Did Georgia screw the pooch by attempting to subdue the problem after it had been festering since the 1990s? Yes. But as it was within its own borders, I'm not seeing how Russia isn't the bad guy here.
They, the Georgians, were operating within their own territorial borders. Now to the amount of force or tactics used, I've yet to see anything substantive on that - did they go to far/heavy-handed? I don't know - but it was an internal matter within the established borders of Georgia.
Russia's claim to protect 'Russian' citizens does seem thin on its face. As Russia gave Russian passports to Georgian (Ossetian) citizens, does that then make them 'Russian' over 'Georgian?'
Did Georgia screw the pooch by attempting to subdue the problem after it had been festering since the 1990s? Yes. But as it was within its own borders, I'm not seeing how Russia isn't the bad guy here.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
So I was imagining all those people in the IDP 'camps' around Gori and Tbilisi then! There certainly seemed to be an awful lot of them.
The figures from the various censuses do not support the conclusion that there has been ANY significant movement of ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But using military force in a heavily disputed area (your own or otherwise), patrolled by an internationally agreed peacekeeping force, and not expecting a reaction, is naive at best! Whether or not they are Russian citizens is a moot point - its who the majority South Ossetians identify with. From a UK perspective, you could argue there are vague fleeting similarities to the Falkalnds conflict (only we were effectively trying to offload the islands onto Argentina against the will of the people), and traditional Western calls for self determination seem a little hollow
Leaving aside Russias action and the fact this territory is disputed, this sort of activity would normally draw scathing critisism from the West - using force to subdue your own population?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Russia are saints in this, but it just doesn't seem as one sided as our governments seem to be suggesting, and you do have to wonder exactly why they're suggesting it? They also seem to be openly and hugely contradicting their own actions over the last 10-15 years. Its OK for us to assert ourselves and our beliefs all over the world, but its not OK for Russia to assert itself in its own back yard?
Leaving aside Russias action and the fact this territory is disputed, this sort of activity would normally draw scathing critisism from the West - using force to subdue your own population?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Russia are saints in this, but it just doesn't seem as one sided as our governments seem to be suggesting, and you do have to wonder exactly why they're suggesting it? They also seem to be openly and hugely contradicting their own actions over the last 10-15 years. Its OK for us to assert ourselves and our beliefs all over the world, but its not OK for Russia to assert itself in its own back yard?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a good thread!
For which, Jacko, full marks!
For me there are shades of grey hats, and for those not inclined to read the rest of this post, I see the Russians have substantially darker grey hats than the Georgians; however, President Saakashvili has a great deal to answer for and has set back his country's application to NATO/OTAN and the EU for at least a decade. In so doing, he has also exposed a fundmental weakness of western policy in the former WarPac, and especially in the Former Soviet Union / Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) or as the Russians so subtly put it, "the near abroad" (cringe).
Q1. Who started it? Does it matter?
Firstly, it really does matter. And secondly, we'll probably never know exactly what kicked it off, but the first substantive move was by the Georgians, timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympics. Probably not a coincidence! Even if there had been small scale attacks across the border by South Ossetians and this has tacit Russian support (unproven, but probable) , then the Georgians acted first across an international ceasefire line.
Despite the historical parallels with the Croatian reoccupation of the Krajina in 1995, it isn't clear to me that there was no certainty that a diplomatic solution couldn't have been done in time, or that the attack on Tskhinvali was a proportionate response to the attacks. IMHO, Saakasvili chanced his arm and lost.
Q2. Has Russia acted legally?
No. Not normal for me to be so definite, but whilst it could make a case for reinforcing its' peacekeepers and restoring the status quo ante, it has grossly exceeded this, and in marching troops into Ahbkazia and then into Georgia, it has committed aggression. It has also been flagrantly violating the concept of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states that they - and the Chinese - hold so dear (when it applies to other countries talking about them or their friends - Chechnya, Tibet, Burma, Zimbabwe and Sudan all spring to mind). Russia is guilty of aggression against Georgia.
Q3. Will Georgia join NATO?
It will still want to, with caveats about the lack of military support in the last week when the country was under attack. The more important question is does NATO want Georgia - and by extension, Ukraine?
France and Germany seem to have kyboshed a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the last NATO summit, concerned that Article 5 of the Charter ("An attack on one is an attack on all etc etc) could get us into a war with the Russians over Southern Ossetia. Worse, the trigger for this could be in the hands of someone as apparently impetuous as President Saakasvili. Given that almost every limited war scenario run during and after the Cold War ended in escalation to a full blown nuclear exchange and all that entails, this can be rephrased as "Do you want to put the NATO big red button in the hands of the Georgians?" Under the current regime, I'd suggest not.
This for me is the problem with NATO - in providing a shield under Art 5, it actually dilutes decision making when it admits new members with border problems / ethnic minorities issues. I'd much preferred it if we'd have declared victory after the demise of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation (to give the WarPac it's proper name) and reinvented "child of NATO" that would be more flexible: instead, the geo-political calculation was made in the early 90s to use the NATO brand, with Art 5 in place, presumably in the hope that it'd never actually come close to being used. If true thn, we need ot be rather more circumspect now, IMHO.
Q4. What happens next?
Forgive me if I defer to others with more expertise than me on this!
Until later - I look forward to your views.
S41
PS, And too bad for the Brimstone community - all that Russian Armour would've made a great operational proof of concept!
For me there are shades of grey hats, and for those not inclined to read the rest of this post, I see the Russians have substantially darker grey hats than the Georgians; however, President Saakashvili has a great deal to answer for and has set back his country's application to NATO/OTAN and the EU for at least a decade. In so doing, he has also exposed a fundmental weakness of western policy in the former WarPac, and especially in the Former Soviet Union / Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) or as the Russians so subtly put it, "the near abroad" (cringe).
Q1. Who started it? Does it matter?
Firstly, it really does matter. And secondly, we'll probably never know exactly what kicked it off, but the first substantive move was by the Georgians, timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympics. Probably not a coincidence! Even if there had been small scale attacks across the border by South Ossetians and this has tacit Russian support (unproven, but probable) , then the Georgians acted first across an international ceasefire line.
Despite the historical parallels with the Croatian reoccupation of the Krajina in 1995, it isn't clear to me that there was no certainty that a diplomatic solution couldn't have been done in time, or that the attack on Tskhinvali was a proportionate response to the attacks. IMHO, Saakasvili chanced his arm and lost.
Q2. Has Russia acted legally?
No. Not normal for me to be so definite, but whilst it could make a case for reinforcing its' peacekeepers and restoring the status quo ante, it has grossly exceeded this, and in marching troops into Ahbkazia and then into Georgia, it has committed aggression. It has also been flagrantly violating the concept of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states that they - and the Chinese - hold so dear (when it applies to other countries talking about them or their friends - Chechnya, Tibet, Burma, Zimbabwe and Sudan all spring to mind). Russia is guilty of aggression against Georgia.
Q3. Will Georgia join NATO?
It will still want to, with caveats about the lack of military support in the last week when the country was under attack. The more important question is does NATO want Georgia - and by extension, Ukraine?
France and Germany seem to have kyboshed a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the last NATO summit, concerned that Article 5 of the Charter ("An attack on one is an attack on all etc etc) could get us into a war with the Russians over Southern Ossetia. Worse, the trigger for this could be in the hands of someone as apparently impetuous as President Saakasvili. Given that almost every limited war scenario run during and after the Cold War ended in escalation to a full blown nuclear exchange and all that entails, this can be rephrased as "Do you want to put the NATO big red button in the hands of the Georgians?" Under the current regime, I'd suggest not.
This for me is the problem with NATO - in providing a shield under Art 5, it actually dilutes decision making when it admits new members with border problems / ethnic minorities issues. I'd much preferred it if we'd have declared victory after the demise of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation (to give the WarPac it's proper name) and reinvented "child of NATO" that would be more flexible: instead, the geo-political calculation was made in the early 90s to use the NATO brand, with Art 5 in place, presumably in the hope that it'd never actually come close to being used. If true thn, we need ot be rather more circumspect now, IMHO.
Q4. What happens next?
Forgive me if I defer to others with more expertise than me on this!
Until later - I look forward to your views.
S41
PS, And too bad for the Brimstone community - all that Russian Armour would've made a great operational proof of concept!
Thread Starter
I have a grudging respect for the Russians for actually going to the aid of South Ossetia. Their people. For whom they obviously feel some kinship and/or perhaps responsibility.
The ethnic mix in Ossetia (and the democratically expressed wishes of the Ossetians) is such that the country's declaration of independence really SHOULD have been recognised by the international community. It's failure to do so lets people like Brick get all legalistic (ignoring morality) declaring that the region is 'within Georgia's sovereign territory', while cynically portraying this as an 'internal matter'.
This may legitimise Georgia's actions in a narrow legal sense, but morally this was wrong. They invaded an area that had been a de facto independent state, against the wishes of its people, and quite deliberately did so hoping that the Olympics would distract those who might otherwise have intervened.
Hats off to the Russians for restoring the status quo, I think, with some sneaking admiration to them for giving the Georgians a bloody nose in the process.
Climebear
In 1979 there were 65,077 Ossetians in South Ossetia (66.4%) and 28,187 Georgians (28.8%). In 1989 there were 65,200 and 28,700 (66.2% and 29%). Today the totals are said to be 45,000 and 17,500. There doesn't seem to be any real evidence of a systematic ethnic cleansing. In any event, 70% of them are estimated to have Russian passports, and 90-odd percent have voted for full independence.
The ethnic mix in Ossetia (and the democratically expressed wishes of the Ossetians) is such that the country's declaration of independence really SHOULD have been recognised by the international community. It's failure to do so lets people like Brick get all legalistic (ignoring morality) declaring that the region is 'within Georgia's sovereign territory', while cynically portraying this as an 'internal matter'.
This may legitimise Georgia's actions in a narrow legal sense, but morally this was wrong. They invaded an area that had been a de facto independent state, against the wishes of its people, and quite deliberately did so hoping that the Olympics would distract those who might otherwise have intervened.
Hats off to the Russians for restoring the status quo, I think, with some sneaking admiration to them for giving the Georgians a bloody nose in the process.
Climebear
In 1979 there were 65,077 Ossetians in South Ossetia (66.4%) and 28,187 Georgians (28.8%). In 1989 there were 65,200 and 28,700 (66.2% and 29%). Today the totals are said to be 45,000 and 17,500. There doesn't seem to be any real evidence of a systematic ethnic cleansing. In any event, 70% of them are estimated to have Russian passports, and 90-odd percent have voted for full independence.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
I'm not going to press this further. I respect you as a poster and have enjoyed many of your posts.
Lets just agree to disagree. I can't disagree with your stats - they just don't match my observation.
I'm not going to press this further. I respect you as a poster and have enjoyed many of your posts.
Lets just agree to disagree. I can't disagree with your stats - they just don't match my observation.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
corrections
Squirrel 41
<<I'd much preferred it if we'd have declared victory after the demise of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation ... and reinvented "child of NATO" that would be more flexible:>>
I was able to put a question to Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Nato Sec.) on “Talk Back” radio some time back – the topic was the direction NATO should take with the changes in the east.
Tongue in cheek I suggested that, as an aim of NATO had been to protect individual states from “bullying” by a powerful block, perhaps NATO should be reorganised so as to be able to effectively curb excesses by the remaining “superpower”, America.
You should have heard him dribble on (for about 5 minutes, it seemed) about that being a silly concept as America was a democracy, blah, blah – it was amusing but at the same time sad and revealing to hear him so uncomfortable with such a question.
.
About Georgia – a very complex situation: there is the pipeline issue (threatening to bypass Russia, etc) to which I add the very large number (1000 ish?) of Israeli military advisors who were present in Georgia at the critical time – was Georgia being egged on to get back at Putin for his regaining control of resources from the oligarchs?
Whatever the gambit was it backfired and the cost in “collateral damage” to the locals is tragic.
.
But specifically on the topic of this thread, who wears the black hats, while I understand some Russian points, I am not an all out fan of, say, Putin – I don't like his methods at all: remember the blocks of flats blown up allegedly by the Russians to justify the Chechen war? (Russia's 911 if you like); and what happened to two of the whistleblowers? One was a female journalist who was pushing the theory of state involvement (she was shot dead) – the other was her boyfriend, the ex KGB officer who reckoned he had documentary evidence to support her work (he was the chap who got that radioactive poisoning). (Funny how this angle and link have had very little coverage relative to that of the details of the latter's demise.)
So, on the one hand we have the Russian leadership wearing black hats for their nasty, ruthless (or perhaps just unsubtle) methods but acting in the basic interests of their nation states and on the other hand the seemingly more socially acceptable Georgian leadership pictured in white hats by the west but circumventing national controls over regional resources for the benefit of the “global economy”.
Not a situation into which one should get involved with the level of understanding that our public has – goes for other theatres too, in my opinion – look at poor Afghanistan (there was a pipeline issue there also originally – the Taliban wanted too much for it, or something like that).
Got a spare black hat for Bush?
<<I'd much preferred it if we'd have declared victory after the demise of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation ... and reinvented "child of NATO" that would be more flexible:>>
I was able to put a question to Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Nato Sec.) on “Talk Back” radio some time back – the topic was the direction NATO should take with the changes in the east.
Tongue in cheek I suggested that, as an aim of NATO had been to protect individual states from “bullying” by a powerful block, perhaps NATO should be reorganised so as to be able to effectively curb excesses by the remaining “superpower”, America.
You should have heard him dribble on (for about 5 minutes, it seemed) about that being a silly concept as America was a democracy, blah, blah – it was amusing but at the same time sad and revealing to hear him so uncomfortable with such a question.
.
About Georgia – a very complex situation: there is the pipeline issue (threatening to bypass Russia, etc) to which I add the very large number (1000 ish?) of Israeli military advisors who were present in Georgia at the critical time – was Georgia being egged on to get back at Putin for his regaining control of resources from the oligarchs?
Whatever the gambit was it backfired and the cost in “collateral damage” to the locals is tragic.
.
But specifically on the topic of this thread, who wears the black hats, while I understand some Russian points, I am not an all out fan of, say, Putin – I don't like his methods at all: remember the blocks of flats blown up allegedly by the Russians to justify the Chechen war? (Russia's 911 if you like); and what happened to two of the whistleblowers? One was a female journalist who was pushing the theory of state involvement (she was shot dead) – the other was her boyfriend, the ex KGB officer who reckoned he had documentary evidence to support her work (he was the chap who got that radioactive poisoning). (Funny how this angle and link have had very little coverage relative to that of the details of the latter's demise.)
So, on the one hand we have the Russian leadership wearing black hats for their nasty, ruthless (or perhaps just unsubtle) methods but acting in the basic interests of their nation states and on the other hand the seemingly more socially acceptable Georgian leadership pictured in white hats by the west but circumventing national controls over regional resources for the benefit of the “global economy”.
Not a situation into which one should get involved with the level of understanding that our public has – goes for other theatres too, in my opinion – look at poor Afghanistan (there was a pipeline issue there also originally – the Taliban wanted too much for it, or something like that).
Got a spare black hat for Bush?
Last edited by walter kennedy; 14th Aug 2008 at 21:08. Reason: format
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxenfforrdde
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think theres a lot to commend in this Newsweek overview of the situation
Hirsh: The West Shares Blame for Georgia Invasion - Newsweek articles on MSN UK News - news & weather
Hirsh: The West Shares Blame for Georgia Invasion - Newsweek articles on MSN UK News - news & weather
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxenfforrdde
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really do think , possibly because of our recent western ''disconnect'' with politics, that western european people don't realise that the issues talked about in para 4, ie ''encroachment'', or''nationality'' or whatever, are still very important to some nationalities.
The Russian people are at the moment very nationalistic, and looking for a role ( maybe comparable to the U.S. ).
Not a good mix IMHO.
The Russian people are at the moment very nationalistic, and looking for a role ( maybe comparable to the U.S. ).
Not a good mix IMHO.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are the good guys!
Yes we've done some very bad things in the past and we'll probably still do some very bad things in the future but we are the good guys!
The Russians will always be the bad guys! When have they ever done something good?
The Georgians want to be like us but they used to be part of the Soviet Union so they are somewhere inbetween.
It was a major miscalculation by the georgians if they thought they could march into South Ossetia and 1. The Russians not react and 2. The West to react if the Russians did!
However since everything in the world is always our fault perhaps there is a more devious conspiracy going on! Perhaps the US told Georgia it was OK to send troops, knowing what would happen, because now, anyone with a border on Russia is going to be even more keen to join NATO! Even better those in the US arguing that a more meaningful dialogue should be held with the Russians can now be totally ignored, and even more money can be spent on F-22s, and anti-missile missiles!
But we are still the good guys in all of this! It can't really be our fault! or can it?
Yes we've done some very bad things in the past and we'll probably still do some very bad things in the future but we are the good guys!The Russians will always be the bad guys! When have they ever done something good?
The Georgians want to be like us but they used to be part of the Soviet Union so they are somewhere inbetween.
It was a major miscalculation by the georgians if they thought they could march into South Ossetia and 1. The Russians not react and 2. The West to react if the Russians did!
However since everything in the world is always our fault perhaps there is a more devious conspiracy going on! Perhaps the US told Georgia it was OK to send troops, knowing what would happen, because now, anyone with a border on Russia is going to be even more keen to join NATO! Even better those in the US arguing that a more meaningful dialogue should be held with the Russians can now be totally ignored, and even more money can be spent on F-22s, and anti-missile missiles!
But we are still the good guys in all of this! It can't really be our fault! or can it?
Last edited by The Upright Man; 15th Aug 2008 at 00:04. Reason: It's late, I rambled sorry! I'll get my coat!