Who are wearing the black hats? The Russians or the Georgians?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I was going to answer this on many levels, but decided both both brevity - and to keep my powder dry, so to speak - to limit it one, that being the question of autonomy.
South Ossetia is not seeking independence, or even independence after merger with North Ossetia (it would be unviable in either case). Rather Russia, after unilaterally issuing passports to some of the inhabitants, is claiming Ossetia as it's aown and that it be absorbed back into the Motherland.
This is a claim that, since the early 1990s, has not been accepted by one single other country in the world, mainly because of the precedent it would set. Independence of a small state is one thing, but a land grab by another based on the ethnic origins of the inhabitants? Do you have any idea of the number of equivalent situations this could inflame and the wars that could ensue?
In the Caucasus and Eastern Europe Russia would claim at least the Crimea, if not the whole of The Ukraine (their Foreign Minister obliquely did so yesterday); they could claim at least 30-40 of each of Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia, and large chunks of the various 'Stans besides.
But elsewhere it could set an even more dangerous precedent. Pakistan would have a far, far, better case to Kashmir; China to Taiwan and large chunks of Vietnam and other neighbouring states. In all there are over 129 territorial disputes based on ethnic issues ( Standing your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict by Paul K. Huth).
Internally in Europe you would reopen issues between Poland, Hungary and Germany plus France and Germany over the Alsace etc. (have a look at the border changes during the 20th Century).
Not only does the claim have no accepted precedent, it is far too dangerous to let stand.
South Ossetia is not seeking independence, or even independence after merger with North Ossetia (it would be unviable in either case). Rather Russia, after unilaterally issuing passports to some of the inhabitants, is claiming Ossetia as it's aown and that it be absorbed back into the Motherland.
This is a claim that, since the early 1990s, has not been accepted by one single other country in the world, mainly because of the precedent it would set. Independence of a small state is one thing, but a land grab by another based on the ethnic origins of the inhabitants? Do you have any idea of the number of equivalent situations this could inflame and the wars that could ensue?
In the Caucasus and Eastern Europe Russia would claim at least the Crimea, if not the whole of The Ukraine (their Foreign Minister obliquely did so yesterday); they could claim at least 30-40 of each of Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia, and large chunks of the various 'Stans besides.
But elsewhere it could set an even more dangerous precedent. Pakistan would have a far, far, better case to Kashmir; China to Taiwan and large chunks of Vietnam and other neighbouring states. In all there are over 129 territorial disputes based on ethnic issues ( Standing your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict by Paul K. Huth).
Internally in Europe you would reopen issues between Poland, Hungary and Germany plus France and Germany over the Alsace etc. (have a look at the border changes during the 20th Century).
Not only does the claim have no accepted precedent, it is far too dangerous to let stand.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people seem to be "forgetting" some important basic facts.
South Osetia was the subject of a ceasefire agreement which meant that Russian "peacekeepers" (notably passive) were in place and Georgian military forces were specifically banned from the region.
The Georgians broke the ceasefire and were the agressors by invading the region (at what I suppose they considered a PR sensitive time).
The Russians responed with their available forces, estimated at 3 divisions, which did not include top-of-the-range equipment (indeed some very old stuff indeed).
The Georgians started almost continuously making silly propaganda campaigns (e.g. Russia attacked first [wrong], Russia pre-postioned invasion forces [wrong], Russia committed "ethnic cleansing", genocide, deliberate attacks on civilians, etc... [so far no proof offered], Russia attacked oilpipelines destroying one [wrong, BP confirmed no damage], Russia intended occupying Georgia {no], etc............). Russia started responding with their own genocide and targetting civilians claims [no proof yet].
The US had 150-odd military advisors in Georgia, and yet seems to have been surprised by Georgia's actions, and somehow they seemed to be unable to who the first was to attack (very poor work there).
Tied in to that is the fact that in previous conflicts the US has shown itself very happy to use its intelligence organisation to expose the "true" facts about what has been happening. Strangely enough this time around the US has forgotten to do this and the administration comments from intelligence sources has been noticeably lacking. So either the US Intelligence assets were all asleep or they are being very careful about telling the truth. I am sure the US Intelligence organisations loved "watching" the action happen - but somehow their reports must have got lost on the way to the desks of their political masters.
All in all, the US (and many other western politicans) have managed to respond in the first instance more to Georgian propaganda (e.g. all those [false] worries about Russia's motives in [not] attacking the oil pipelines) and now to some weird set of false memories about who broke the ceasefire and who was the agressor.
As long as people let the politicans mis-remember and spin the idea that it was all Russia's fault then they deserve another round of politican inspired paranoia.
I'm sure that if I was a Ukrainian or from one of the Baltic states then I would be much more concerned than two weeks ago, but the attitude of many Western politicans would also concern me .
As far as NATO is concerned - as it is a defensive alliance, there would have been no obligation for any NATO country to come to the "aid" of the aggressor nation, Georgia. However, as shown at the time, and possibly even more worryingly afterwards, there were/are numerous silly politicans who claimed/claim that it was Russia was the agressor. The claims from some politicans that Russia was the agressor would have meant that NATO might have been dragged in if Georgia had been a member - that stops the political claims from being mere spin and lies to something to be really worried about.
.
South Osetia was the subject of a ceasefire agreement which meant that Russian "peacekeepers" (notably passive) were in place and Georgian military forces were specifically banned from the region.
The Georgians broke the ceasefire and were the agressors by invading the region (at what I suppose they considered a PR sensitive time).
The Russians responed with their available forces, estimated at 3 divisions, which did not include top-of-the-range equipment (indeed some very old stuff indeed).
The Georgians started almost continuously making silly propaganda campaigns (e.g. Russia attacked first [wrong], Russia pre-postioned invasion forces [wrong], Russia committed "ethnic cleansing", genocide, deliberate attacks on civilians, etc... [so far no proof offered], Russia attacked oilpipelines destroying one [wrong, BP confirmed no damage], Russia intended occupying Georgia {no], etc............). Russia started responding with their own genocide and targetting civilians claims [no proof yet].
The US had 150-odd military advisors in Georgia, and yet seems to have been surprised by Georgia's actions, and somehow they seemed to be unable to who the first was to attack (very poor work there).
Tied in to that is the fact that in previous conflicts the US has shown itself very happy to use its intelligence organisation to expose the "true" facts about what has been happening. Strangely enough this time around the US has forgotten to do this and the administration comments from intelligence sources has been noticeably lacking. So either the US Intelligence assets were all asleep or they are being very careful about telling the truth. I am sure the US Intelligence organisations loved "watching" the action happen - but somehow their reports must have got lost on the way to the desks of their political masters.
All in all, the US (and many other western politicans) have managed to respond in the first instance more to Georgian propaganda (e.g. all those [false] worries about Russia's motives in [not] attacking the oil pipelines) and now to some weird set of false memories about who broke the ceasefire and who was the agressor.
As long as people let the politicans mis-remember and spin the idea that it was all Russia's fault then they deserve another round of politican inspired paranoia.
I'm sure that if I was a Ukrainian or from one of the Baltic states then I would be much more concerned than two weeks ago, but the attitude of many Western politicans would also concern me .
As far as NATO is concerned - as it is a defensive alliance, there would have been no obligation for any NATO country to come to the "aid" of the aggressor nation, Georgia. However, as shown at the time, and possibly even more worryingly afterwards, there were/are numerous silly politicans who claimed/claim that it was Russia was the agressor. The claims from some politicans that Russia was the agressor would have meant that NATO might have been dragged in if Georgia had been a member - that stops the political claims from being mere spin and lies to something to be really worried about.
.
Thread Starter
Orac,
You are factually incorrect.
The pro-Russian, pro-independence Government of the Republic of South Ossetia, which has its capital at Tskhinvali isn't just 'seeking autonomy' it declared itself a de facto status independent state following the 2006 referendum that demonstrated almost universal (99%) support for independence.
Nor is Russia seeking to reabsorb South Ossetia into the motherland.
Nor does South Ossetia set the precedent that you suggest.
Unlike the Baltic states and the 'Stans, and unlike even Abkhazia, South Ossetia is a long-standing entity, with long-standing borders, whose population is overwhelmingly from one major ethnic group, and which has voted for independence in overwhelming numbers. It really is Scotland in the Caucasus.
North Ossetian independence would not 'encourage China' with regard to Taiwan - it would provide a precedent for self determination and for a democratically mandated route to full independence.
You are factually incorrect.
The pro-Russian, pro-independence Government of the Republic of South Ossetia, which has its capital at Tskhinvali isn't just 'seeking autonomy' it declared itself a de facto status independent state following the 2006 referendum that demonstrated almost universal (99%) support for independence.
Nor is Russia seeking to reabsorb South Ossetia into the motherland.
Nor does South Ossetia set the precedent that you suggest.
Unlike the Baltic states and the 'Stans, and unlike even Abkhazia, South Ossetia is a long-standing entity, with long-standing borders, whose population is overwhelmingly from one major ethnic group, and which has voted for independence in overwhelming numbers. It really is Scotland in the Caucasus.
North Ossetian independence would not 'encourage China' with regard to Taiwan - it would provide a precedent for self determination and for a democratically mandated route to full independence.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: LHR
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jacko,I share the same thoughts.
I've always considered Russia as the black sheep among whities, but in this case, it is differrent.I wouldn't say russian propaganda, but western propaganda...with a russian-bashing world-wide media.
Since the start of the hostilities, almost no media seem to focus on the wrong steps of Georgia first of all by invading South Ossetia.( its a quasi invasion yes because a large majority of the people do not consider themselves georgian and are aleady of russian nationality)
With an impartial thinking and reasoning, i find it really disgusting that on every news ( i'll refer to british and french news to which i am more comfortable with) there is a complete russian bashing tendency that leads people to forgetting about the initial-issue of this crisis, thus drifting them away from reality.
Clearly there was provocation from georgia.
They ignited hostilities by trying to re-conquer a land they deemed geographically theirs but politically not (or contraversial), and began to kill people first.
Russian interfered logically and really punished georgia.(disproportionately or not...the same thing as israel & palestine)
There is no sad thing more than civilian deaths.
But in my opinion, Mikhail Saakashvili is to be entirely blamed for provoking a fierce dog by jumping in its cage.
And Phil Gollin...i share your thoughts too.You're right.
I've always considered Russia as the black sheep among whities, but in this case, it is differrent.I wouldn't say russian propaganda, but western propaganda...with a russian-bashing world-wide media.
Since the start of the hostilities, almost no media seem to focus on the wrong steps of Georgia first of all by invading South Ossetia.( its a quasi invasion yes because a large majority of the people do not consider themselves georgian and are aleady of russian nationality)
With an impartial thinking and reasoning, i find it really disgusting that on every news ( i'll refer to british and french news to which i am more comfortable with) there is a complete russian bashing tendency that leads people to forgetting about the initial-issue of this crisis, thus drifting them away from reality.
Clearly there was provocation from georgia.
They ignited hostilities by trying to re-conquer a land they deemed geographically theirs but politically not (or contraversial), and began to kill people first.
Russian interfered logically and really punished georgia.(disproportionately or not...the same thing as israel & palestine)
There is no sad thing more than civilian deaths.
But in my opinion, Mikhail Saakashvili is to be entirely blamed for provoking a fierce dog by jumping in its cage.
And Phil Gollin...i share your thoughts too.You're right.
Last edited by Captain_djaffar; 15th Aug 2008 at 11:01.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The pro-Russian, pro-independence Government of the Republic of South Ossetia, which has its capital at Tskhinvali isn't just 'seeking autonomy' it declared itself a de facto status independent state following the 2006 referendum that demonstrated almost universal (99%) support for independence.
The Russian Federation didn't recognise the result of the referendum - and they have issued the inhabitants with Russian passports; the "government is stuffed with Russian KGB and other security apparatchiks*, and it relies entirely on Russia for financial support; it's other half - North Ossetia, is a Russian Federal Republic.
*The head of the local KGB, Anatoly Baranov, used to head the Federal Security Service (FSB) in the Russian Republic of Mordovia. The head of the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, Mikhail Mindzayev, served in the Interior Ministry of Russia's North Ossetia. The South Ossetian "defense minister," Vasily Lunev, used to be military commissar in Perm Oblast, and the secretary of South Ossetia's Security Council, Anatoly Barankevich, is a former deputy military commissar of Stavropol Krai. Not one is a supporter of true independence - it's a front.
If you truly believe this an independence movement and the Russians are truly looking at supporting a viable independent state, I must say I am starting to lose faith in either your investigative journalist abilities or credulity.
Last edited by ORAC; 15th Aug 2008 at 09:32. Reason: sp
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In completely unrelated news, Poland has suddenly dropped its tough negotiating stance with the US on the ABM base and signed the offered deal double-quick pronto:
A-level results show education gap widening - Telegraph
I wonder what prompted this sudden change?
A-level results show education gap widening - Telegraph
I wonder what prompted this sudden change?
Thread Starter
Even if the Georgians in South Ossetia had boycotted both referenda, you'd still be looking at a more than 75% vote for independence. And I'm told that many ethnically Georgian Ossetians actually favour independence too - in the way that some English folk in Scotland support the SNP.
What would be the percentage of people in South Ossetia who would favour continued rule from Tbilisi? 10%? !5%?
The status quo simply can't be justified, however odious we might find the South Ossetian government and however much we might deplore the choice expressed by their people.
Would we have any right to prevent Ulster opting to become part of the Irish Republic if 75% in the North were Catholic Nationalists, and if, in a referendum, 98% voted for that - twice? We might regret it, (if you're like me you'd hate and deplore it), we might want to ensure that the interests of the minority were guaranteed, we might even want to offer them sanctuary. But could we ignore it and insist that Ulster remained part of the UK?
What would be the percentage of people in South Ossetia who would favour continued rule from Tbilisi? 10%? !5%?
The status quo simply can't be justified, however odious we might find the South Ossetian government and however much we might deplore the choice expressed by their people.
Would we have any right to prevent Ulster opting to become part of the Irish Republic if 75% in the North were Catholic Nationalists, and if, in a referendum, 98% voted for that - twice? We might regret it, (if you're like me you'd hate and deplore it), we might want to ensure that the interests of the minority were guaranteed, we might even want to offer them sanctuary. But could we ignore it and insist that Ulster remained part of the UK?
Jacko
I suspect dragging the US in provides some personal catharsis...but I'll play along.
Indecision over what hat to award is a bit premature. I say the hat is camouflage. The arguably noble idea of defending de-facto Russians from the oppressive Georgians may elicit some sympathy ("those darn Ruskies, good idea, bad plan") but is it really the reason they're there or is it simply a vehicle? The words and actions of the Russians seem in conflict with one another. Rushing tanks well outside the disputed regions, within 20 min drive of Tbilisi sounds different than freeing someone from tyranny. Refusing (depending on what Russian official you listen to) to rule out regime change in Georgia has a decidedly forward leaning, fangs hanging out tint about it.
You're gonna need to see how it plays out before you'll have your answer. True motives have yet to be determined. The old satellites seem to be drawing some conclusions early on however. They don't have the luxury of armchair quarterbacking (does that translate to British?) like those of us here do.
I believe the Soviet Union was "invited" to intervene in Czechoslovakia, The Poles and Ukrainians certainly hope they don't find that same invitation in the mail with Vlad's hand writing on it.
I suspect dragging the US in provides some personal catharsis...but I'll play along.
Indecision over what hat to award is a bit premature. I say the hat is camouflage. The arguably noble idea of defending de-facto Russians from the oppressive Georgians may elicit some sympathy ("those darn Ruskies, good idea, bad plan") but is it really the reason they're there or is it simply a vehicle? The words and actions of the Russians seem in conflict with one another. Rushing tanks well outside the disputed regions, within 20 min drive of Tbilisi sounds different than freeing someone from tyranny. Refusing (depending on what Russian official you listen to) to rule out regime change in Georgia has a decidedly forward leaning, fangs hanging out tint about it.
You're gonna need to see how it plays out before you'll have your answer. True motives have yet to be determined. The old satellites seem to be drawing some conclusions early on however. They don't have the luxury of armchair quarterbacking (does that translate to British?) like those of us here do.
I believe the Soviet Union was "invited" to intervene in Czechoslovakia, The Poles and Ukrainians certainly hope they don't find that same invitation in the mail with Vlad's hand writing on it.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the fact that the worst of this crisis seems to be over and a peace plan has been signed, there US / British rhetoric seems to be getting increasingly hard line, rather than at least vaguely welcoming peace and a (all be it slow) return to the pre-conflict positions.
There still seems to be no acknowledgement that Georgia kicked this off, and in fact they seem to be being held up as a shining light of democracy, and a completely innocent party in all this. George Bush is adamant that the disputed boundaries of Georgia will remain, (regardless it seems of the wishes of the people within those boundaries) and David Cameron is wading in with claims of attrocities (has there been any proof of this at all??) and calls for Russian expulsion from the G8.
I just can't help thinking the West has perhaps been looking for an excuse to stamp on Russia, and that regardless of the circumstances, they've just found one. I also can't help thinking that our governments have just proved their hypocracy and inconsistency, in that its OK if the US/UK does it, but not if anyone else does it, especially people we historically don't like. Whether or not we need Russia, I dont know, however I certainly don't think we particularly want to actively encourage hostility with them, and that almost seems to be what the politicians are doing. Is this electioneering on the US part perhaps??
Its like poking a bear with a sharp stick - only we seem to be surrounding it and using lots of sticks (this, NATO expansion, missile defence shield, etc) - at some point the bear is going to get scared and angry and bite back, and we're actively encouraging it.
just found this:
West Must Stop Poking The Bear With A Stick (from The Herald )
There still seems to be no acknowledgement that Georgia kicked this off, and in fact they seem to be being held up as a shining light of democracy, and a completely innocent party in all this. George Bush is adamant that the disputed boundaries of Georgia will remain, (regardless it seems of the wishes of the people within those boundaries) and David Cameron is wading in with claims of attrocities (has there been any proof of this at all??) and calls for Russian expulsion from the G8.
I just can't help thinking the West has perhaps been looking for an excuse to stamp on Russia, and that regardless of the circumstances, they've just found one. I also can't help thinking that our governments have just proved their hypocracy and inconsistency, in that its OK if the US/UK does it, but not if anyone else does it, especially people we historically don't like. Whether or not we need Russia, I dont know, however I certainly don't think we particularly want to actively encourage hostility with them, and that almost seems to be what the politicians are doing. Is this electioneering on the US part perhaps??
Its like poking a bear with a sharp stick - only we seem to be surrounding it and using lots of sticks (this, NATO expansion, missile defence shield, etc) - at some point the bear is going to get scared and angry and bite back, and we're actively encouraging it.
just found this:
West Must Stop Poking The Bear With A Stick (from The Herald )
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Despite the fact that the worst of this crisis seems to be over and a peace plan has been signed
and David Cameron is wading in with claims of attrocities (has there been any proof of this at all??)
Under the terms of the ceasefire, Russia will be able to maintain patrols in a five-mile buffer zone in Georgian territory outside the enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Troops manoeuvred around the Gori and pushed deeper towards another town - Akhalgori - with a column of around 1,000 men, possibly South Ossetian irregulars. Another detachment remained just 25 miles from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, near the village of Igoeti, where they showed no signs of moving......
Mythmaking in Moscow
.......Militia forces under Russian control include South Ossetians and others brought in from Russia itself -- what Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza described as "the North Caucasus irregular forces that the Russian military inexplicably encouraged to enter South Ossetia to murder, rape and steal." They have attacked civilians in Gori and engaged in ethnic cleansing of Georgian-populated villages in South Ossetia. Remarkably, the Russian-allied "president" of South Ossetia acknowledged the ethnic cleansing yesterday in an interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant, although he did not acknowledge the killings of Georgian civilians that others have documented. Eduard Kokoity said that his forces "offered them a corridor and gave the peaceful population the chance to leave" and that "we do not intend to allow" their return.
A war crime, yes; but at least he was honest about it.....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ukraine offers satellite defence co-operation with Europe and US
Ukraine inflamed mounting East-West tensions yesterday by offering up a Soviet-built satellite facility as part of the European missile defence system.
The proposal, made amid growing outrage among Russia's neighbours over its military campaign in Georgia, could see Ukraine added to Moscow's nuclear hitlist. A Russian general declared Poland a target for its arsenal after Warsaw signed a deal with Washington to host interceptor missiles for America's anti-nuclear shield.......
Ukraine said it was ready to give both Europe and America access to its missile warning systems after Russia earlier annulled a 1992 cooperation agreement involving two satellite tracking stations. Previously, the stations were part of Russia's early-warning system for missiles coming from Europe.
"The fact that Ukraine is no longer a party to the 1992 agreement allows it to launch active cooperation with European countries to integrate its information," a statement from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said.
It follows a declaration earlier this week from Ukraine's pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko, that the Russian naval lease of the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sebastopol would be scrapped if any vessels joined the conflict in Georgia........
Ukraine inflamed mounting East-West tensions yesterday by offering up a Soviet-built satellite facility as part of the European missile defence system.
The proposal, made amid growing outrage among Russia's neighbours over its military campaign in Georgia, could see Ukraine added to Moscow's nuclear hitlist. A Russian general declared Poland a target for its arsenal after Warsaw signed a deal with Washington to host interceptor missiles for America's anti-nuclear shield.......
Ukraine said it was ready to give both Europe and America access to its missile warning systems after Russia earlier annulled a 1992 cooperation agreement involving two satellite tracking stations. Previously, the stations were part of Russia's early-warning system for missiles coming from Europe.
"The fact that Ukraine is no longer a party to the 1992 agreement allows it to launch active cooperation with European countries to integrate its information," a statement from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said.
It follows a declaration earlier this week from Ukraine's pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko, that the Russian naval lease of the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sebastopol would be scrapped if any vessels joined the conflict in Georgia........
Thread Starter
Westie,
I’m not sure what you think I’ve said about America, nor why my expressing my admiration for the US and defending its ‘national integrity’ should be ‘personally cathartic’.
Beyond making that defence, I hadn't "dragged the US into it", though the Bush adminstration, through its actions and statements has become part of the issue.
My problem with the US position on this is that it has criticized Russia, while failing to offer any condemnation of the Georgian aggression which triggered the crisis. I would personally be inclined to strongly condemn both parties - though like you, I believe it's a bit early to judge the Russians. I'd really want to see where Russian forces end up in ten days time, after they've done with putting spanners in the Georgian military machine, which I think is morally defensible, if illegal!
I’d always have been profoundly uncomfortable with putting Georgian ‘territorial integrity’ ahead of the aspirations of the Ossetians for self determination – it’s all too redolent of favouring China at the expense of Taiwan. But once Georgia tried to take matters into its own hands by using force of arms, any case that it had was, in my mind, lost.
I would agree that Russia’s response may have been disproportionate – and that it certainly went further than it needed to simply to safeguard the interests of the South Ossetians. But it seems clear that Russia has done nothing more than respond to Georgian Brinkmanship and aggression – restoring the status quo, and trying to ensure that Georgia cannot repeat the exercise.
It’s hard to see the Russian action as being any different to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 – and in many ways it was more justified. But whatever we thought of the 2003 invasion, pulling out now would not be a good idea, nor morally good.
Finally I'd caution about comparisons between Russia today and the USSR in 1968. However imperfect, Russia is a democracy today, and though I find the spectre of Russian nationalism pretty scary, the Russians today are not the 'Imperialists' that the Soviets were back then, nor have they (yet) got so much reason for paranoia about an encircling and hostile West.....
(In reply 6, dallas said:
It should be interesting to see what moral platitudes the Americans now spout, having cashed-in most of their scruples and positions on the high ground since 9/11.
My response (9) was that:
I don't buy the explanation that this is all about US cynicism, opportunism and self interested inconsistency. Whatever you think of the action in Iraq, one has to recognise that American foreign policy is more often (not always, just more often) motivated by genuine altruism, fighting for freedom and democracy and 'doing the right thing' than any other nation's.
So there must be a cogent, moral explanation for the US failure to condemn Georgia's original aggression, and for the strength of support that we're seeing.
Ancient Aviator (10) chipped in:
American foreign policy is self-serving - to keep, one could argue, the American defence industry at the forefront of the incumbent Administration.
Dallas (11):
I agree, America only ever acts in its own interests - which is understandable - but don't be fooled by banners for freedom, good and other emotivators!
I said:
With respect, and without wishing to be a shill for the USA (and especially not for the Bush administration, which I deplore), I do think that the US has always been more driven by honour, decency and altruism than other nations, (as well as self interest, often, of course), and even by a sense of international responsibility.
Dallas responded (16)
Jacko, you're far from naive and I respect your point of view, but I find your angle at odds with most people who have looked past banner headlines and catchphrases. Ironically, until after 9/11 I would have probably sided with you, but I don't think America has changed her spots so much as become more blatent. For the most part I like the US, but hamburgers and cowboy hats belie the real America, the ruthless machine of hegemony, driven by the likes of Cheney.
They might have dropped blankets on Ethiopians like the rest of us, but most American operations have or had an underlying strategy behind them which was solely for their benefit. Again, I don't have an issue with that - of course a country mounts operations for their own benefit - the bit that annoys me is the duplicity and lies that hide behind consumer phrases like 'freedom'.
With regard to whether the US is the most altruistic of a dodgy bunch, we could argue all day, I'm sure, but personally I don't think the front runners at the Selfless Olympics would be that far apart from each other - which certainly contradicts my Americans good ~ Russians Bad upbringing too.
I said:
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.)
I’m not sure what you think I’ve said about America, nor why my expressing my admiration for the US and defending its ‘national integrity’ should be ‘personally cathartic’.
Beyond making that defence, I hadn't "dragged the US into it", though the Bush adminstration, through its actions and statements has become part of the issue.
My problem with the US position on this is that it has criticized Russia, while failing to offer any condemnation of the Georgian aggression which triggered the crisis. I would personally be inclined to strongly condemn both parties - though like you, I believe it's a bit early to judge the Russians. I'd really want to see where Russian forces end up in ten days time, after they've done with putting spanners in the Georgian military machine, which I think is morally defensible, if illegal!
I’d always have been profoundly uncomfortable with putting Georgian ‘territorial integrity’ ahead of the aspirations of the Ossetians for self determination – it’s all too redolent of favouring China at the expense of Taiwan. But once Georgia tried to take matters into its own hands by using force of arms, any case that it had was, in my mind, lost.
I would agree that Russia’s response may have been disproportionate – and that it certainly went further than it needed to simply to safeguard the interests of the South Ossetians. But it seems clear that Russia has done nothing more than respond to Georgian Brinkmanship and aggression – restoring the status quo, and trying to ensure that Georgia cannot repeat the exercise.
It’s hard to see the Russian action as being any different to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 – and in many ways it was more justified. But whatever we thought of the 2003 invasion, pulling out now would not be a good idea, nor morally good.
Finally I'd caution about comparisons between Russia today and the USSR in 1968. However imperfect, Russia is a democracy today, and though I find the spectre of Russian nationalism pretty scary, the Russians today are not the 'Imperialists' that the Soviets were back then, nor have they (yet) got so much reason for paranoia about an encircling and hostile West.....
(In reply 6, dallas said:
It should be interesting to see what moral platitudes the Americans now spout, having cashed-in most of their scruples and positions on the high ground since 9/11.
My response (9) was that:
I don't buy the explanation that this is all about US cynicism, opportunism and self interested inconsistency. Whatever you think of the action in Iraq, one has to recognise that American foreign policy is more often (not always, just more often) motivated by genuine altruism, fighting for freedom and democracy and 'doing the right thing' than any other nation's.
So there must be a cogent, moral explanation for the US failure to condemn Georgia's original aggression, and for the strength of support that we're seeing.
Ancient Aviator (10) chipped in:
American foreign policy is self-serving - to keep, one could argue, the American defence industry at the forefront of the incumbent Administration.
Dallas (11):
I agree, America only ever acts in its own interests - which is understandable - but don't be fooled by banners for freedom, good and other emotivators!
I said:
With respect, and without wishing to be a shill for the USA (and especially not for the Bush administration, which I deplore), I do think that the US has always been more driven by honour, decency and altruism than other nations, (as well as self interest, often, of course), and even by a sense of international responsibility.
Dallas responded (16)
Jacko, you're far from naive and I respect your point of view, but I find your angle at odds with most people who have looked past banner headlines and catchphrases. Ironically, until after 9/11 I would have probably sided with you, but I don't think America has changed her spots so much as become more blatent. For the most part I like the US, but hamburgers and cowboy hats belie the real America, the ruthless machine of hegemony, driven by the likes of Cheney.
They might have dropped blankets on Ethiopians like the rest of us, but most American operations have or had an underlying strategy behind them which was solely for their benefit. Again, I don't have an issue with that - of course a country mounts operations for their own benefit - the bit that annoys me is the duplicity and lies that hide behind consumer phrases like 'freedom'.
With regard to whether the US is the most altruistic of a dodgy bunch, we could argue all day, I'm sure, but personally I don't think the front runners at the Selfless Olympics would be that far apart from each other - which certainly contradicts my Americans good ~ Russians Bad upbringing too.
I said:
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.)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Georgia conflict: How a flat tyre took the Caucasus to war Years of simmering ethnic tensions and East-West brinkmanship helped brew the war that broke out between Georgia and Russia ten days ago. But a puncture on a Russian diplomat's car may have proved the final straw.
A flat tyre on a Russian diplomatic car triggered the slide to war in Georgia after it forced the cancellation of key peace talks the day before fighting erupted, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
Trouble had been brewing in the disputed South Ossetian region for weeks as Moscow-backed militias skirmished with Georgian troops, yet Russian-brokered negotiations between the Georgian government and the separatists had continued.
But the first substantial face-to-face talks on August 7 fell through after a farcical chain of events in which the top Russian diplomat claimed he was unable to attend the meeting in South Ossetia because his car tyre had run flat. Refusing to take his excuse at face value, the Georgian delegation then assumed they were being lured into a trap, and began the shelling that invited the Russian invasion.
Details of how such a mundane incident sparked the crisis that now threatens to redraw global East-West relations emerged during an interview given to The Sunday Telegraph last week by Timur Yakobashvili, Georgia's chief negotiator. He recalled how on August 7, he traveled to the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, for what he hoped would be a ground breaking round-the-table meeting. Waiting for him was a Russian General, Marat Kulakhmetov - but there was no sign of his Russian diplomatic counterpart, Yuri Popov, who was supposed to be chairing the talks, nor were any South Ossetian officials present. "It was disturbing atmosphere," recalled Mr Yakobashvili. "Two days before, the South Ossetians had started using Russian positions to shoot at our troops. But we decided to make the trip anyway because a direct meeting would have been a breakthrough."
Asked as to whereabouts of the rest of the delegation, General Kulakhmetov was polite but blunt. He held up his phone to the Georgian negotiator's ear to demonstrate that the South Ossetian delegate had turned his mobile off. A second mobile phone call to Yuri Popov, the Russian diplomat, chairman of the talks, added an element of the ridiculous to the impasse. "I called and spoke to Popov and he said he could not get to the office because his car had a flat tyre," said Mr Yakobashvili. "This was preposterous. I said the delegation must have more cars. He said there is another car but its tyre is flat too. At this point I knew it was a trap and I was very angry."
But Gen Kulakhmetov was not finished. "He had a message for me," said Mr Yakobashvili. "He said he could not control the South Ossetians while there was Georgian military on the boundary. He said we must declare a unilateral ceasefire before the Russians could push them back."
Before Mr Yakobashvili left the South Ossetian capital, Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili was preparing to make a ceasefire declaration on national television. But as he came off air, he was handed a folder containing what the Georgians claim were US-provided satellite photos of a column of Russian armour advancing towards the Roki tunnel, the passageway that links South Ossetia to Russia.
In the volatile and paranoid world of Caucasian politics, there was only one way in which such photos would be interpreted. The Georgian government concluded Russia had devised a premeditated exercise to humiliate its envoy during his trip to Tskhinvali, and in the heat of the moment, the flat tyre was interpreted as a contemptuous first move for a well-planned invasion. The Georgians also realised that they had only one opportunity to stop the Russian column - at the Kurta bridge, which straddles a high ravine south of the tunnel.
"This was a heavy armoured Russian column, moving slowly, on very rugged terrain," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, who is adamant that the Russians had intended an ambush. "Think about how many hours of preparation, assembly, then marching, it would take for that column, moving at that speed on rugged terrain to be at the Kurta bridge at six in the morning. If that isn't a premeditated invasion, I don't know what is."
Georgia also calculated that by dawn the following the day, the world's attention would be focused on Beijing for the opening of the Olympic Games. Its US-trained Georgian army therefore formed an audacious plan to sabotage the bridge more than 100 miles behind enemy lines. The operation, however, was a only a partial success. The bridge was damaged and almost one dozen Russian vehicles were blown up, but the Russians then regrouped and repulsed the Georgians.
From a trival beginnings, war had ignited in the tiny mountainous statelet.
Georgia decided to establish a defensive line north of Tskinvali, the self-declared capital of South Ossetia. By midnight shelling on both sides was intense. Russia's version of events has it that the Georgians were already on the move while Mr Yakobashvili met the Russian general. "They moved their forces into positions on high ground around Tskinvali," a Russian official claimed. "It's very simple: The Georgians decided to take South Ossetia by force. They thought we'd whine like over Kosovo, but our response was very tough."
A flat tyre on a Russian diplomatic car triggered the slide to war in Georgia after it forced the cancellation of key peace talks the day before fighting erupted, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
Trouble had been brewing in the disputed South Ossetian region for weeks as Moscow-backed militias skirmished with Georgian troops, yet Russian-brokered negotiations between the Georgian government and the separatists had continued.
But the first substantial face-to-face talks on August 7 fell through after a farcical chain of events in which the top Russian diplomat claimed he was unable to attend the meeting in South Ossetia because his car tyre had run flat. Refusing to take his excuse at face value, the Georgian delegation then assumed they were being lured into a trap, and began the shelling that invited the Russian invasion.
Details of how such a mundane incident sparked the crisis that now threatens to redraw global East-West relations emerged during an interview given to The Sunday Telegraph last week by Timur Yakobashvili, Georgia's chief negotiator. He recalled how on August 7, he traveled to the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, for what he hoped would be a ground breaking round-the-table meeting. Waiting for him was a Russian General, Marat Kulakhmetov - but there was no sign of his Russian diplomatic counterpart, Yuri Popov, who was supposed to be chairing the talks, nor were any South Ossetian officials present. "It was disturbing atmosphere," recalled Mr Yakobashvili. "Two days before, the South Ossetians had started using Russian positions to shoot at our troops. But we decided to make the trip anyway because a direct meeting would have been a breakthrough."
Asked as to whereabouts of the rest of the delegation, General Kulakhmetov was polite but blunt. He held up his phone to the Georgian negotiator's ear to demonstrate that the South Ossetian delegate had turned his mobile off. A second mobile phone call to Yuri Popov, the Russian diplomat, chairman of the talks, added an element of the ridiculous to the impasse. "I called and spoke to Popov and he said he could not get to the office because his car had a flat tyre," said Mr Yakobashvili. "This was preposterous. I said the delegation must have more cars. He said there is another car but its tyre is flat too. At this point I knew it was a trap and I was very angry."
But Gen Kulakhmetov was not finished. "He had a message for me," said Mr Yakobashvili. "He said he could not control the South Ossetians while there was Georgian military on the boundary. He said we must declare a unilateral ceasefire before the Russians could push them back."
Before Mr Yakobashvili left the South Ossetian capital, Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili was preparing to make a ceasefire declaration on national television. But as he came off air, he was handed a folder containing what the Georgians claim were US-provided satellite photos of a column of Russian armour advancing towards the Roki tunnel, the passageway that links South Ossetia to Russia.
In the volatile and paranoid world of Caucasian politics, there was only one way in which such photos would be interpreted. The Georgian government concluded Russia had devised a premeditated exercise to humiliate its envoy during his trip to Tskhinvali, and in the heat of the moment, the flat tyre was interpreted as a contemptuous first move for a well-planned invasion. The Georgians also realised that they had only one opportunity to stop the Russian column - at the Kurta bridge, which straddles a high ravine south of the tunnel.
"This was a heavy armoured Russian column, moving slowly, on very rugged terrain," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, who is adamant that the Russians had intended an ambush. "Think about how many hours of preparation, assembly, then marching, it would take for that column, moving at that speed on rugged terrain to be at the Kurta bridge at six in the morning. If that isn't a premeditated invasion, I don't know what is."
Georgia also calculated that by dawn the following the day, the world's attention would be focused on Beijing for the opening of the Olympic Games. Its US-trained Georgian army therefore formed an audacious plan to sabotage the bridge more than 100 miles behind enemy lines. The operation, however, was a only a partial success. The bridge was damaged and almost one dozen Russian vehicles were blown up, but the Russians then regrouped and repulsed the Georgians.
From a trival beginnings, war had ignited in the tiny mountainous statelet.
Georgia decided to establish a defensive line north of Tskinvali, the self-declared capital of South Ossetia. By midnight shelling on both sides was intense. Russia's version of events has it that the Georgians were already on the move while Mr Yakobashvili met the Russian general. "They moved their forces into positions on high ground around Tskinvali," a Russian official claimed. "It's very simple: The Georgians decided to take South Ossetia by force. They thought we'd whine like over Kosovo, but our response was very tough."
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one thought to this debate. Perhaps Saakashvili was being calculated in his attack against South Ossetia, knowing that it would trigger a war with Russia even if Georgian forces were pushed back and defeated.
Firstly, he wanted the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be the main priority on the international agenda instead of endless dialogue that seemed to go nowhere with recent focus on solving the Abkhazia issue. Indeed, the main focus seemed to be on Abkhazia in early July with Russia warning Georgia that a war could break out between the two country's if Tbilisi intervened militarily. Given Moscow's warning's Saakashvili knew exactly what would happen if he used force in South Ossetia.
Moreover, he was also an unpopular president in some quarters. Less than a year ago he announced a state of emergency in the country after Georgian security forces cracked down on up to 70,000 anti-goverment protestors in Tbilisi (of course Saakashvili blamed Russia for orchestrating the protests). He only gained nearly 53 per cent of the vote in presidential elections in early 2008, giving him a weakened mandate. Coupled with the failure to get Georgia's involvement in NATO's Membership Action Plan (MAP), a central policy of his government, his position was looking increasingly weak.
Now he appears to be strongly supported by the Georgian population (but whether that will last is another question) and has South Ossetia (and Abkhazia) right at the front of the international agenda. Some could say that it is Saakashvili's Thatcher moment. A leader who was seeing her popularity diminish at the time, seeing a complete overturn following a war (although obviously there was a different outcome).
There is, of course, the argument (mostly from the US) that Russian military exercises in North Ossetia that were held in July were a provocation for the Georgian attack with Russia already planning to attack after Georgia was refused involvement in NATO's MAP. But I wonder, a weakened president in his own country now seems to be extremely popular and has managed to boost international support particularly from the US. He may have calculated that he would not get military support from the US, but from a PR point of view, his decision to send troops in South Ossetia has made Georgia look like the victim with Russia looking like the aggressor. On that basis, he has already won his spat with Russia both domestically and internationally.
Firstly, he wanted the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be the main priority on the international agenda instead of endless dialogue that seemed to go nowhere with recent focus on solving the Abkhazia issue. Indeed, the main focus seemed to be on Abkhazia in early July with Russia warning Georgia that a war could break out between the two country's if Tbilisi intervened militarily. Given Moscow's warning's Saakashvili knew exactly what would happen if he used force in South Ossetia.
Moreover, he was also an unpopular president in some quarters. Less than a year ago he announced a state of emergency in the country after Georgian security forces cracked down on up to 70,000 anti-goverment protestors in Tbilisi (of course Saakashvili blamed Russia for orchestrating the protests). He only gained nearly 53 per cent of the vote in presidential elections in early 2008, giving him a weakened mandate. Coupled with the failure to get Georgia's involvement in NATO's Membership Action Plan (MAP), a central policy of his government, his position was looking increasingly weak.
Now he appears to be strongly supported by the Georgian population (but whether that will last is another question) and has South Ossetia (and Abkhazia) right at the front of the international agenda. Some could say that it is Saakashvili's Thatcher moment. A leader who was seeing her popularity diminish at the time, seeing a complete overturn following a war (although obviously there was a different outcome).
There is, of course, the argument (mostly from the US) that Russian military exercises in North Ossetia that were held in July were a provocation for the Georgian attack with Russia already planning to attack after Georgia was refused involvement in NATO's MAP. But I wonder, a weakened president in his own country now seems to be extremely popular and has managed to boost international support particularly from the US. He may have calculated that he would not get military support from the US, but from a PR point of view, his decision to send troops in South Ossetia has made Georgia look like the victim with Russia looking like the aggressor. On that basis, he has already won his spat with Russia both domestically and internationally.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Anyone read the reports in the press yesterday, such as the Sunday Times, where they were riding around with the South Ossetian irregulars looking for people to kill and rape? Or perhaps the one's in today's papers with the reports of the killings of husbands and sons of those sent south so magnanimously through the Ossetian government "corridor". Not all of them of course, there are the hostages being held by the Ossetian "government".
Not much being done to stop it by the Russian army of course, they're pulling out in accordance with the ceasefire, right? Err, no; in Gori they're busy replacing the destroyed TV and radio stations with their own, and they now hold a third of the country. Effectively they have taken the road that runs east-west and have ceased the top third of Georgia and are destroying all military installations and civil infrastructure as well as expelling the population.
The reasoning for their lack of movement from the Kremlin ia that they are no longer the Russian army; no, now they are peacekeepers, enforcing a buffer zone. Well, that must be OK then.
They will be leaving Gori and the like then? And, after all the first hand reports, they must be going to make some arrests, restore some order? Ohh yes, indeed, as soon as they can catch the Georgians at it. It's a lies and a plot you see...
Torygraph: "As the Russian occupation continued on Sunday, the defence ministry in Moscow claimed to have uncovered a Georgian plot to send undercover mercenaries, Ukrainians and Chechens among them, into the strategic town of Gori. "They will be dressed in Russian military uniform and let go in Gori, where these bands will loot and pillage the local residents," a spokesman for the ministry said. "This will be filmed by television cameras and then presented to the world as an atrocity of the Russian war machine."
And your really have to ask who wears the black hats?
Some peoples memories are waaaay too short, and they never suffered under the Russian boot themselves. Which is why it is unsurprising that Poland, the Baltic states etc are reacting so much more vigourously than "old Europe".
Not much being done to stop it by the Russian army of course, they're pulling out in accordance with the ceasefire, right? Err, no; in Gori they're busy replacing the destroyed TV and radio stations with their own, and they now hold a third of the country. Effectively they have taken the road that runs east-west and have ceased the top third of Georgia and are destroying all military installations and civil infrastructure as well as expelling the population.
The reasoning for their lack of movement from the Kremlin ia that they are no longer the Russian army; no, now they are peacekeepers, enforcing a buffer zone. Well, that must be OK then.
They will be leaving Gori and the like then? And, after all the first hand reports, they must be going to make some arrests, restore some order? Ohh yes, indeed, as soon as they can catch the Georgians at it. It's a lies and a plot you see...
Torygraph: "As the Russian occupation continued on Sunday, the defence ministry in Moscow claimed to have uncovered a Georgian plot to send undercover mercenaries, Ukrainians and Chechens among them, into the strategic town of Gori. "They will be dressed in Russian military uniform and let go in Gori, where these bands will loot and pillage the local residents," a spokesman for the ministry said. "This will be filmed by television cameras and then presented to the world as an atrocity of the Russian war machine."
And your really have to ask who wears the black hats?
Some peoples memories are waaaay too short, and they never suffered under the Russian boot themselves. Which is why it is unsurprising that Poland, the Baltic states etc are reacting so much more vigourously than "old Europe".
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Just as a thought, where is our much vaunted Prime Minister and his deft handling of crises? Or, come to think of it, our Foreign Secretary or our Defence Secretary whilst all thbis is happening? We used, after all, to be one of the most powerful states in Europe and claimed we had a voice in such matters.
Or have we had a putsch and, he says hopefully, are they all locked up incommunicado in the Tower?
Or have we had a putsch and, he says hopefully, are they all locked up incommunicado in the Tower?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Troops to leave 'sooner or later': Russian official
Despite Medvedev's pledge on Sunday, another Russian politician compared the presence of Russian troops in Georgia to the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Konstantin Kosachev, chair of the Russian parliament's security committee, said the Russian forces would withdraw "sooner or later" but added the withdrawal would only occur when it was "assured that Georgians would not continue to use military force" in South Ossetia and another breakaway province, Abkhazia.
"If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there," Kosachev told reporters when asked about the withdrawal plans. "But how much time it will take, it depends definitely on how Georgians will continue to behave."....
Meanwhile on Monday, Eduard Kokoity, the separatist leader of South Ossetia, said he would ask Russia to set up a military base there while also declaring he would not allow international observers into the territory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 18, 2008 -WASHINGTON — Even as Russia pledged to begin withdrawing its forces from neighboring Georgia on Monday, American officials said the Russian military had been moving launchers for short-range ballistic missiles into South Ossetia, a step that appeared intended to tighten its hold on the breakaway territory.
The Russian military deployed several SS-21 missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia on Friday, according to American officials familiar with intelligence reports. From the new launching positions north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, the missiles can reach much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, the capital.......
Despite Medvedev's pledge on Sunday, another Russian politician compared the presence of Russian troops in Georgia to the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Konstantin Kosachev, chair of the Russian parliament's security committee, said the Russian forces would withdraw "sooner or later" but added the withdrawal would only occur when it was "assured that Georgians would not continue to use military force" in South Ossetia and another breakaway province, Abkhazia.
"If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there," Kosachev told reporters when asked about the withdrawal plans. "But how much time it will take, it depends definitely on how Georgians will continue to behave."....
Meanwhile on Monday, Eduard Kokoity, the separatist leader of South Ossetia, said he would ask Russia to set up a military base there while also declaring he would not allow international observers into the territory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 18, 2008 -WASHINGTON — Even as Russia pledged to begin withdrawing its forces from neighboring Georgia on Monday, American officials said the Russian military had been moving launchers for short-range ballistic missiles into South Ossetia, a step that appeared intended to tighten its hold on the breakaway territory.
The Russian military deployed several SS-21 missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia on Friday, according to American officials familiar with intelligence reports. From the new launching positions north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, the missiles can reach much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, the capital.......
Guest
Posts: n/a
For those more knowledgeable about land campaign planning, how long would it realistically take for forces to go from garrison duty to a fairly well executed offensive?
I ask because the response time from the Georgian 'offensive into South Ossetia - (Slingblade voice on: "Some folks call it an invasion, I call it regaining control of one's sovereign territory." voice off. The tactics used may prove to be unpalatable however) to the Russians rolling through seemed very prompt.
I ask because the response time from the Georgian 'offensive into South Ossetia - (Slingblade voice on: "Some folks call it an invasion, I call it regaining control of one's sovereign territory." voice off. The tactics used may prove to be unpalatable however) to the Russians rolling through seemed very prompt.
Thread Starter
"Some folks call it an invasion, I call it regaining control of one's sovereign territory."
Unless you're a dyed in the wool, Russki-hating Cold War Warrior, perhaps 'disputed territory' would be a more accurate and neutral term?
If it were simply Georgian sovereign territory like any other part of Georgia, there wouldn't be internationally recognised and mandated Russian peacekeepers in place, Georgia wouldn't have been offering it autonomy and we wouldn't have seen a 90%+ referendum in favour of independence. Twice.
How exactly does South Ossetia differ from (say) Croatia, Bosnia or Kosovo immediately before their independence?
Why do you and those like you find it so hard to condemn BOTH parties?
With regard to evidence of Russian pre-planning and a 'well-prepared offensive', I'd suggest to you that the Russian air campaign smacked of hurried 'last minute' preparation and planning, and that the apparent speed of the Russian response may have reflected some intelligence of what Georgia was about to do? Had the Russians intended to invade 'all along' then we might have expected to see more forces being brought in from outside the immediate area (especially aviation and SF).
The forces deployed since the initial Russian response are exactly those that you'd have expected to see participate in a long pre-planned operation. A battalion from Russia's 76th Guards Airborne Division has been deployed from Pskov to Beslan, for example, while several additional battalions from the 98th Guards Airborne Division at Kostroma have been preparing for possible deployment to the Caucasus region. Suddenly strategic aviation is being seen in strength over the Black Sea.
Nor would I have expected them to be meekly withdrawing today.
I say meekly....
"The pull-out of peacekeeping forces started today," the Russian general staff's deputy chief, Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said today, though Moscow insists that it has the right to keep some troops as peacekeepers in a buffer zone around South Ossetia and that it will only fully withdraw combat troops from Georgian territory once what it calls "extra security measures are in place." This sounds pretty intransigent and even provocative, until you realise that a covering letter attached to the ceasefire document provides for Russia to place peacekeepers in a buffer zone of a few kilometres around the South Ossetian border, and that the original 1999 peacekeeping accord on South Ossetia provides for Russian peacekeepers to be allowed up to 14-km into Georgia proper.
Looking at a map, this looks as though Gori might not be relinquished, and that Russian forces might even remain quite close to Tbilisi - which looks to be about 45-50 km from the South Ossetian border, perhaps even a little closer.
Unless you're a dyed in the wool, Russki-hating Cold War Warrior, perhaps 'disputed territory' would be a more accurate and neutral term?
If it were simply Georgian sovereign territory like any other part of Georgia, there wouldn't be internationally recognised and mandated Russian peacekeepers in place, Georgia wouldn't have been offering it autonomy and we wouldn't have seen a 90%+ referendum in favour of independence. Twice.
How exactly does South Ossetia differ from (say) Croatia, Bosnia or Kosovo immediately before their independence?
Why do you and those like you find it so hard to condemn BOTH parties?
With regard to evidence of Russian pre-planning and a 'well-prepared offensive', I'd suggest to you that the Russian air campaign smacked of hurried 'last minute' preparation and planning, and that the apparent speed of the Russian response may have reflected some intelligence of what Georgia was about to do? Had the Russians intended to invade 'all along' then we might have expected to see more forces being brought in from outside the immediate area (especially aviation and SF).
The forces deployed since the initial Russian response are exactly those that you'd have expected to see participate in a long pre-planned operation. A battalion from Russia's 76th Guards Airborne Division has been deployed from Pskov to Beslan, for example, while several additional battalions from the 98th Guards Airborne Division at Kostroma have been preparing for possible deployment to the Caucasus region. Suddenly strategic aviation is being seen in strength over the Black Sea.
Nor would I have expected them to be meekly withdrawing today.
I say meekly....
"The pull-out of peacekeeping forces started today," the Russian general staff's deputy chief, Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said today, though Moscow insists that it has the right to keep some troops as peacekeepers in a buffer zone around South Ossetia and that it will only fully withdraw combat troops from Georgian territory once what it calls "extra security measures are in place." This sounds pretty intransigent and even provocative, until you realise that a covering letter attached to the ceasefire document provides for Russia to place peacekeepers in a buffer zone of a few kilometres around the South Ossetian border, and that the original 1999 peacekeeping accord on South Ossetia provides for Russian peacekeepers to be allowed up to 14-km into Georgia proper.
Looking at a map, this looks as though Gori might not be relinquished, and that Russian forces might even remain quite close to Tbilisi - which looks to be about 45-50 km from the South Ossetian border, perhaps even a little closer.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 18th Aug 2008 at 13:23.