Who are wearing the black hats? The Russians or the Georgians?
Guest
Posts: n/a
jacko, your original premise asked "Who are wearing the black hats?"
It would appear that you've decided.
Georgia is not blameless, but Russia is the bigger bad guy here.
If Georgia's action in South Ossetia were over the top, then why not have the UN get involved as a first step in resolving the issue vs. a unilateral, pre-planned combined arms campaign? (I don't ask this as a serious, practical matter as evidenced by the lack of anything substantive emanating from the glass building in NYC to date on this, just philosophically.)
I think Russia had this in mind for a long time, Georgia provided a convenient excuse, now Russia will be a power taken much more seriously by the former Soviet Republics. Which was, I believe, Putin's intent all along.
It would appear that you've decided.
Georgia is not blameless, but Russia is the bigger bad guy here.
If Georgia's action in South Ossetia were over the top, then why not have the UN get involved as a first step in resolving the issue vs. a unilateral, pre-planned combined arms campaign? (I don't ask this as a serious, practical matter as evidenced by the lack of anything substantive emanating from the glass building in NYC to date on this, just philosophically.)
I think Russia had this in mind for a long time, Georgia provided a convenient excuse, now Russia will be a power taken much more seriously by the former Soviet Republics. Which was, I believe, Putin's intent all along.
Thread Starter
I haven't made up my mind, entirely.
First, I'd be the first to state that Putin's default hat is black. In this case, I'd say that by going beyond repulsing the Georgian attack, and by occupying Georgian territory beyond Ossetia, the Russians earned a black-ish hat. (Destroying Georgia's ability to repeat its aggression was illegal, I suspect, albeit entirely understandable). If the Russians are back within South Ossetia and a 14-km buffer within ten days, that black hat fades, somewhat.
On the other hand Georgia attacked a national entity from which its armed forces were specifically excluded by an internationally validated ceasefire agreement (that's black hat behaviour) and attacked Russian peacekeepers (and so's that). That territory is presented as 'part of Georgian sovereign territory' but its population have overwhelmingly voted for full independence, and even Georgia has recognised Ossetia's 'special case' status by offering 'autonomy'. With that in mind, it's not just a matter of Georgian internal affairs.
I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression. Firstly, it looked reactive and far-from-well-planned, and secondly, they seem to be withdrawing when they could plainly have swept on to Tbilisi had that been their aim.
So this does not show Russia's 'true colours'. Indeed Russia's military action (if they do move back to their pre-war positions within a reasonable period) will be (or will appear to be) more justified and more proportionate than our own invasion of Iran.
However, Putin's Russia does deserve a black hat for plenty of other reasons, and it has shown its true colours by threatening to nuke Poland.
So by all means criticise Russia, but do so for the right reasons. I'd suggest that its actions in South Ossetia are not the right reason, and look like unjustified Russki-bashing, undermining the very real case that could be made against them.
First, I'd be the first to state that Putin's default hat is black. In this case, I'd say that by going beyond repulsing the Georgian attack, and by occupying Georgian territory beyond Ossetia, the Russians earned a black-ish hat. (Destroying Georgia's ability to repeat its aggression was illegal, I suspect, albeit entirely understandable). If the Russians are back within South Ossetia and a 14-km buffer within ten days, that black hat fades, somewhat.
On the other hand Georgia attacked a national entity from which its armed forces were specifically excluded by an internationally validated ceasefire agreement (that's black hat behaviour) and attacked Russian peacekeepers (and so's that). That territory is presented as 'part of Georgian sovereign territory' but its population have overwhelmingly voted for full independence, and even Georgia has recognised Ossetia's 'special case' status by offering 'autonomy'. With that in mind, it's not just a matter of Georgian internal affairs.
I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression. Firstly, it looked reactive and far-from-well-planned, and secondly, they seem to be withdrawing when they could plainly have swept on to Tbilisi had that been their aim.
So this does not show Russia's 'true colours'. Indeed Russia's military action (if they do move back to their pre-war positions within a reasonable period) will be (or will appear to be) more justified and more proportionate than our own invasion of Iran.
However, Putin's Russia does deserve a black hat for plenty of other reasons, and it has shown its true colours by threatening to nuke Poland.
So by all means criticise Russia, but do so for the right reasons. I'd suggest that its actions in South Ossetia are not the right reason, and look like unjustified Russki-bashing, undermining the very real case that could be made against them.
Jacko
I'd like to see how you arrive at some of your conclusions. Having come from a "mid level management" position within the USMC I've participated in a few round ups.
Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law, and does Soviet, err Russian annexation of the disputed areas the answer to the root question?
I guess they didn't consult you first. What evidence are you basing this on? There was a great deal of antagonism leading up to the invasion. Both militarily and politically.
Or conducted at a level of competency you're not accustomed to as a western reporter living in a country accustomed to competent armed response.
By not taking Tbilisi now they have reporters wondering if they are actually the good guys. You dont have to take the capital to decapitate the leadership, as popular as it might be. Perhaps they recognize there are some sympathetic in the West who are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are loads of sound tactical and geo political reasons not to have a bloody fight in the capital of a democracy as part of an invasion.
I'd like to see how you arrive at some of your conclusions. Having come from a "mid level management" position within the USMC I've participated in a few round ups.
That territory is presented as 'part of Georgian sovereign territory' but its population have overwhelmingly voted for full independence
I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression.
Firstly, it looked reactive and far-from-well-planned,
they could plainly have swept on to Tbilisi had that been their aim.
Thread Starter
Westie,
Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?
Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer.
But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?
Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?
I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression.
I guess they didn't consult you first. What evidence are you basing this on? There was a great deal of antagonism leading up to the invasion. Both militarily and politically.
There's no evidence of a longstanding plan to invade. The operation showed every sign of being ad hoc and reactive, and not just because it didn't show Western levels of 'competence'. (And the Russians have some experience of rolling in to places with overwhelming force....)
By not taking Tbilisi now they have reporters wondering if they are actually the good guys. You dont have to take the capital to decapitate the leadership, as popular as it might be. Perhaps they recognize there are some sympathetic in the West who are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are loads of sound tactical and geo political reasons not to have a bloody fight in the capital of a democracy as part of an invasion.
OK, so not taking Tbilisi doesn't necessarily show that the Russians weren't aiming to invade Georgia and force regime change as part of a long-standing plan they'd prepared years before.
But where's the evidence for any such motivation?
All of the facts support the contention that, having seen their own peacekeepers and their South Ossetian chums attacked they responded, repulsing the attack, forcing the Georgians back and dismantling as much of Georgia's offensive capability as it could. And no more than that.
TOFO,
Good point. But while righteous indignation might be fair enough, and taking sanctions might be white-hat stuff, threatening a nuclear strike seems to be in black hat territory, to me.
Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?
Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer.
But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?
Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?
I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression.
I guess they didn't consult you first. What evidence are you basing this on? There was a great deal of antagonism leading up to the invasion. Both militarily and politically.
There's no evidence of a longstanding plan to invade. The operation showed every sign of being ad hoc and reactive, and not just because it didn't show Western levels of 'competence'. (And the Russians have some experience of rolling in to places with overwhelming force....)
By not taking Tbilisi now they have reporters wondering if they are actually the good guys. You dont have to take the capital to decapitate the leadership, as popular as it might be. Perhaps they recognize there are some sympathetic in the West who are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are loads of sound tactical and geo political reasons not to have a bloody fight in the capital of a democracy as part of an invasion.
OK, so not taking Tbilisi doesn't necessarily show that the Russians weren't aiming to invade Georgia and force regime change as part of a long-standing plan they'd prepared years before.
But where's the evidence for any such motivation?
All of the facts support the contention that, having seen their own peacekeepers and their South Ossetian chums attacked they responded, repulsing the attack, forcing the Georgians back and dismantling as much of Georgia's offensive capability as it could. And no more than that.
TOFO,
Good point. But while righteous indignation might be fair enough, and taking sanctions might be white-hat stuff, threatening a nuclear strike seems to be in black hat territory, to me.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression.
Pavel Felgenhauer on Russia's Preemptive War Planning
Pavel Felgenhauer is a respected Russian military reporter and generally well known man-about-town among the opposition, and his latest piece in Novaya Gazeta about Russia's early war planning for the invasion of Georgia is making quite a stir, and has gotten picked up by numerous other sources. Below is an exclusive English translation of the original NG piece.
As a follow up to his comment that, " during the course of the «Caucasus-2008» training, which ended on 2 August, a week before the war, the forces of the military-air forces, the military-sea fleet and the army completed on a locale at the Georgian border the last readiness inspection."
I will pass on a comment from a New York Times article that: ..Pentagon and military officials say Russia held a major ground exercise in July just north of Georgia’s border, called Caucasus 2008, that played out a chain of events like the one carried out over recent days. “This exercise was exactly what they executed in Georgia just a few weeks later,” said Dale Herspring, an expert on Russian military affairs at Kansas State University. “This exercise was a complete dress rehearsal.”
As too the railway repair and it's timing, I will point you at the following article:
Abkhaz Rail Repair to End in July
Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 24 Jul.'08 / 17:41
Units of the Russian Railway Forces will finish the repair of the Ochamchire-Sokhumi railway in breakaway Abkhazia by the end of the month, a Russian Ministry of Defense official said on July 24. Interfax news agency reported, quoting Russian MoD spokesperson Alexander Drobishevsky, that a so-called “hand over ceremony” of the repaired railway to the Abkhaz authorities would be held either on July 29 or 30.
Russian MoD Railway Forces, sent to the region in late May, have repaired a 54-kilometer section of railway.
Georgia has strongly condemned the deployment of the Russian MoD Railway Forces to Abkhazia.
The Russian Ministry of Defense said that it had sent the unarmed units – tasked with the protection and reconstruction of railway infrastructure – to Abkhazia as part of Moscow’s “humanitarian assistance” to the unrecognized republic and would withdraw them as soon as the reconstruction works were over. Tbilisi, however, said that Russia was preparing infrastructure in Abkhazia for possible military aggression.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The timings of the above were, I am sure, totally coincidental.....
Thread Starter
Orac,
Interesting, certainly, but how close was the exercise to the actual op? Were the same forces involved?
And with regard to your crack about how seriously you actually wish too look for evidence, I found it interesting that one of the links in your hysterical post about the South Ossetians raping their way through Georgia and taking civilian hostages contained as much evidence of Georgian atrocities as of South Ossetian.
I find it fascinating who is participating in the white-washing of the Georgians' actions.
Interesting, certainly, but how close was the exercise to the actual op? Were the same forces involved?
And with regard to your crack about how seriously you actually wish too look for evidence, I found it interesting that one of the links in your hysterical post about the South Ossetians raping their way through Georgia and taking civilian hostages contained as much evidence of Georgian atrocities as of South Ossetian.
I find it fascinating who is participating in the white-washing of the Georgians' actions.
Thread Starter
No, but pursuing narrow national self interest should certainly come second to obeying international law, and perhaps even to natural justice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No, but pursuing narrow national self interest should certainly come second to obeying international law, and perhaps even to natural justice.
As a practical matter, any nation that puts others before self is pretty much done for.
Cooperation for mutual benefit, good thing.
Obeying international law when it conflicts with one's own, not so much.
I wouldn't want a US soldier obeying US law prosecuted under ICC law for some conflict, for example.
Thread Starter
You're not in favour of: "Obeying international law when it conflicts with one's own (interests)?"
You'll be in favour of Adolf Hitler, Bob Mugabe, and the others who've put their own regime's interests ahead of international law, then?
If your view reflects the USA's 'official position' it's certainly a very, very clear reason for the UK to avoid any co-operation with the US in the future.
You'll be in favour of Adolf Hitler, Bob Mugabe, and the others who've put their own regime's interests ahead of international law, then?
If your view reflects the USA's 'official position' it's certainly a very, very clear reason for the UK to avoid any co-operation with the US in the future.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Interesting, certainly, but how close was the exercise to the actual op? Were the same forces involved?"
Given it was forces of the North Caucasus Military District that were involved in Caucasus 2008, then yes. The US and Georgians later claimed these forces were bolstered by other Russian units.
The Russians did not make a secret of the exercise either when it happened or what its objectives were. The Russian Ministry of Defence actually announced in a press release in July (News details), stating "The main goal of the exercise is to estimate the ability of military command to joint actions in conditions of terrorist threat in the South of Russia. In view of escalation of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetic conflicts, during the exercise questions of participation in special operations on peace enforcement in zones of confrontations will be fulfilled."
Given that those conflicts have been identified as major threats to Russian security, it would have been normal for its forces to train for these events (just as any other military would train for potential conflicts or deployments without necessary having to actually undertake them). It might be that Russian troops were in the right place at the right time, rather than a pre-planned invasion as some have suggested.
Given it was forces of the North Caucasus Military District that were involved in Caucasus 2008, then yes. The US and Georgians later claimed these forces were bolstered by other Russian units.
The Russians did not make a secret of the exercise either when it happened or what its objectives were. The Russian Ministry of Defence actually announced in a press release in July (News details), stating "The main goal of the exercise is to estimate the ability of military command to joint actions in conditions of terrorist threat in the South of Russia. In view of escalation of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetic conflicts, during the exercise questions of participation in special operations on peace enforcement in zones of confrontations will be fulfilled."
Given that those conflicts have been identified as major threats to Russian security, it would have been normal for its forces to train for these events (just as any other military would train for potential conflicts or deployments without necessary having to actually undertake them). It might be that Russian troops were in the right place at the right time, rather than a pre-planned invasion as some have suggested.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
found it interesting that one of the links in your hysterical post
But then, I would hate to throw the first personal insult.....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Jacko, surely any criticism of the US can automatically be read as criticism of the UK I imagine, as I'm not really seeing the official positions of the UK and the US being any different, other than the UK being worse in that they don't appear to have any national interests any more or look out for their own people, preferring to pander to others.
Morally you're completely right and I doubt many would argue (well, outside of PPRuNe anyway...) however incidents such as this just highlight the hypocrisy and cynicism of particularly the UK government (The USA can always be guaranteed to act in its self interest, and is always very clear about it - the UK government just lies and cites human rights abuses, WMD, 10 minutes, etc etc.)
Morally you're completely right and I doubt many would argue (well, outside of PPRuNe anyway...
) however incidents such as this just highlight the hypocrisy and cynicism of particularly the UK government (The USA can always be guaranteed to act in its self interest, and is always very clear about it - the UK government just lies and cites human rights abuses, WMD, 10 minutes, etc etc.)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
To answer a couple of throw-away remarks from Jacko, namely:
and
They are both references to cases with totally different backgrounds.
You know, and I could list thousands of papers over many years relating to each case, the agonizing international decision making involving multiple international bodies, to reach a least worst decision.
I could for example, mention Kosovo where, apart from the Russian veto, the whole international body was in agreement; to relate that to one where, apart from Russia , every one disagreed, is a equivalent case is a travesty of fact, logic, and intellectual integrity.
How exactly does South Ossetia differ from (say) Croatia, Bosnia or Kosovo immediately before their independence?
Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?
Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer. But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer. But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?
You know, and I could list thousands of papers over many years relating to each case, the agonizing international decision making involving multiple international bodies, to reach a least worst decision.
I could for example, mention Kosovo where, apart from the Russian veto, the whole international body was in agreement; to relate that to one where, apart from Russia , every one disagreed, is a equivalent case is a travesty of fact, logic, and intellectual integrity.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't look at every thread but haven't seen much on the full objective of this theatrical show BAKU-CEYHAN PIPELINE 1 MILLION BPD
Since the Rose revolution the USA have increased the pressure in the Caucasus by arming and training both the Georgian and the Azeri armed forces, allegedly using Israelis for much of the work in Georgia, as if they don't have enough trouble at home ! and of course the cheerful new age mercenaries of Blackwater in Azerbaijan.
My little theory, and I am sure that there are a few of you out there willing to jump on it is the following series of chess moves;
1. US tries to get Georgia admitted to NATO as a bona-fide reason for placing NATO troops and influence on top of the new pipeline. EU member countries of NATO reject this idea as they see it as provocative.
2. "advisors" of Georgian President convince him that lightning (Israeli style) operation to seize South Ossetia would present an olympic fait accompli, knowing of course that the Russians would not see it that way.
3. Georgians attempt the lightning strike but end up rebuffed by the Russians and crying for help from the west to protect them from the results of an agression that they started. The west, particularly the EU still not taking the bait.
4. As the Americans hoped, the Russians over play their hand and can't resist the opportunity to "punish" Georgia, true to form. Throw in a very unhelpful and provocative missile defense agreement with Poland at the right time to stoke up Russia's deepest fears provoking an ill advised comment by a Russian General and you have all of the poorly armed and defended new EU states panicking and pressing old Europe to accept the US request to bring georgia in to NATO.
5. Georgia comes in to NATO, US will probably sign SOFA and base forces there, build a couple of airfields and hey presto, those 1 million bpd on Baku-Ceyhan pipeline come under US control.
So predictably the US strategists are better at chess than the Russian ones who as usual get biceps and brains mixed up (well they both begin with B don't they ?)
Meanwhile we all take a step closer to another major war, with the emerging Chinese happy to sit on the sidelines and pick up the pieces.
Who's wearing the black hats,I say that BOTH the Russians and the AMERICANS are wearing black hats in all this, one however has better PR skills than the other. For the Russians its almost forgivable as they are over-sensitive, politically naive and stupid ! whats the US excuse as the world's moral leaders. As for the Georgians and Ossetians they are mostly wearing burial shrouds and bandages as a result of being the meat in the US/Russian sandwich.
Meanwhile I am waiting to see if it occurs to the Russians to build missile defence screens in Cuba and Venezuela, after all the largest terrorist attack in history (9/11) was carried out by US green card holders ! and will the US be pleased to see them in the backyard (I doubt it !)
Since the Rose revolution the USA have increased the pressure in the Caucasus by arming and training both the Georgian and the Azeri armed forces, allegedly using Israelis for much of the work in Georgia, as if they don't have enough trouble at home ! and of course the cheerful new age mercenaries of Blackwater in Azerbaijan.
My little theory, and I am sure that there are a few of you out there willing to jump on it is the following series of chess moves;
1. US tries to get Georgia admitted to NATO as a bona-fide reason for placing NATO troops and influence on top of the new pipeline. EU member countries of NATO reject this idea as they see it as provocative.
2. "advisors" of Georgian President convince him that lightning (Israeli style) operation to seize South Ossetia would present an olympic fait accompli, knowing of course that the Russians would not see it that way.
3. Georgians attempt the lightning strike but end up rebuffed by the Russians and crying for help from the west to protect them from the results of an agression that they started. The west, particularly the EU still not taking the bait.
4. As the Americans hoped, the Russians over play their hand and can't resist the opportunity to "punish" Georgia, true to form. Throw in a very unhelpful and provocative missile defense agreement with Poland at the right time to stoke up Russia's deepest fears provoking an ill advised comment by a Russian General and you have all of the poorly armed and defended new EU states panicking and pressing old Europe to accept the US request to bring georgia in to NATO.
5. Georgia comes in to NATO, US will probably sign SOFA and base forces there, build a couple of airfields and hey presto, those 1 million bpd on Baku-Ceyhan pipeline come under US control.
So predictably the US strategists are better at chess than the Russian ones who as usual get biceps and brains mixed up (well they both begin with B don't they ?)
Meanwhile we all take a step closer to another major war, with the emerging Chinese happy to sit on the sidelines and pick up the pieces.
Who's wearing the black hats,I say that BOTH the Russians and the AMERICANS are wearing black hats in all this, one however has better PR skills than the other. For the Russians its almost forgivable as they are over-sensitive, politically naive and stupid ! whats the US excuse as the world's moral leaders. As for the Georgians and Ossetians they are mostly wearing burial shrouds and bandages as a result of being the meat in the US/Russian sandwich.
Meanwhile I am waiting to see if it occurs to the Russians to build missile defence screens in Cuba and Venezuela, after all the largest terrorist attack in history (9/11) was carried out by US green card holders ! and will the US be pleased to see them in the backyard (I doubt it !)
Thread Starter
International approval is irrelevant to morality.
The International body recognises the People's Republic of China but not Taiwan, for example. We recognise a mass abuser of human rights over (an admittedly flawed) democracy.
Why did the Kosovans, Croats and Bosnians aspirations for self determination warrant our support, and why should South Ossetian aspirations be subjugated to the requirements of the Georgians?
Why was Russia wrong to go in for a brief period (about a fortnight) after its peacekeepers were attacked, to defend the South Ossetians, and to repel illegal aggression (under the terms of the ceasefire agreements, Georgian armed forces were not permitted to enter South Ossetia), if the USA was right to invade Iraq on entirely spurious grounds (a cooked up WMD threat which did not exist)?
PP,
I have no problem at all in condemning the UK when it does the wrong thing.
The International body recognises the People's Republic of China but not Taiwan, for example. We recognise a mass abuser of human rights over (an admittedly flawed) democracy.
Why did the Kosovans, Croats and Bosnians aspirations for self determination warrant our support, and why should South Ossetian aspirations be subjugated to the requirements of the Georgians?
Why was Russia wrong to go in for a brief period (about a fortnight) after its peacekeepers were attacked, to defend the South Ossetians, and to repel illegal aggression (under the terms of the ceasefire agreements, Georgian armed forces were not permitted to enter South Ossetia), if the USA was right to invade Iraq on entirely spurious grounds (a cooked up WMD threat which did not exist)?
PP,
I have no problem at all in condemning the UK when it does the wrong thing.
Thread Starter
"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?"
Hysterical.
Hysterical.
QUOTE]Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?
Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer.
Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Of no relevance as far as the last question as applied to this. Can only be seen as a dig. Now imagine if my questions were asked by someone who agreed with you re: Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
An invasion of their own country is what you meant to type. Gawd, I hate to see your litmus test for a country to move troops around its sovereign territory.
Just the same, why did the Russians far exceed the scope necessary to defend Ossetia?
I don't have the answers, I have questions. My point is that you're trying to write history when it's an ongoing operation. Absence of a particular level of violence during an active, dynamic military operation to divine intent is hardly a good determinant of the Russian goal. Even then, there are plenty of pointers that give pause, inferring a more nefarious goal beyond simply saving a bunch of de facto Russians.
Could almost be seen as a dig at the UN, I like it.
Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer.
Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Of no relevance as far as the last question as applied to this. Can only be seen as a dig. Now imagine if my questions were asked by someone who agreed with you re: Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?
But where's the evidence for any such motivation?
I don't have the answers, I have questions. My point is that you're trying to write history when it's an ongoing operation. Absence of a particular level of violence during an active, dynamic military operation to divine intent is hardly a good determinant of the Russian goal. Even then, there are plenty of pointers that give pause, inferring a more nefarious goal beyond simply saving a bunch of de facto Russians.
International approval is irrelevant to morality.
Thread Starter
The UN is not immune to making mistakes. Its failure to admit Taiwan being just one. Its failure to properly censure Israel being another.
I'll give the UN credit where it's due, and a kick where that's more appropriate.
The Georgian 'invasion' (I'll allow inverted commas!) of Ossetia was not a simple movement of Georgia's troops around its sovereign territory, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous and stupid.
It was a direct military attack against a region that had been offered autonomy, that demanded full independence (backed by massive popular support expressed in a democratic referendum) and a region from which Georgian forces had been explicitely barred under the terms of an internationally validated ceasefire agreement. It was also an attack which saw Georgia killing another country's peacekeepers (in this case Russians).
Which part of that is it so hard to condemn?
And why is it so unacceptable to compare Russia's very temporary invasion of Georgia (mounted in response to an actual direct attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, and intended to protect an attacked population) with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iraq had not attacked the USA, and presented no immediate or direct threat.
Russia went in, hobbled the Georgian military, avoided large scale civilian characters and made no attempt to decapitate Georgia's regime, and then got out. The USA, by contrast......
That's not a dig, it's a simple statement of fact.
I'd say that a moral case could be made that the US invasion was right because the Baath regime was plainly oppressing the Kurdish and Shia populations, and because Saddam represented a long term threat to his own people and his neighbours. But legally? Dubious.
Both the US and Russian actions could be condemned as illegal aggressions, or excused on the basis of their intent. I'm not suggesting any equivalence - just some interesting parallels which make some of the criticism of Russia hypocritical and simplistic.
I'll give the UN credit where it's due, and a kick where that's more appropriate.
The Georgian 'invasion' (I'll allow inverted commas!) of Ossetia was not a simple movement of Georgia's troops around its sovereign territory, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous and stupid.
It was a direct military attack against a region that had been offered autonomy, that demanded full independence (backed by massive popular support expressed in a democratic referendum) and a region from which Georgian forces had been explicitely barred under the terms of an internationally validated ceasefire agreement. It was also an attack which saw Georgia killing another country's peacekeepers (in this case Russians).
Which part of that is it so hard to condemn?
And why is it so unacceptable to compare Russia's very temporary invasion of Georgia (mounted in response to an actual direct attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, and intended to protect an attacked population) with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iraq had not attacked the USA, and presented no immediate or direct threat.
Russia went in, hobbled the Georgian military, avoided large scale civilian characters and made no attempt to decapitate Georgia's regime, and then got out. The USA, by contrast......
That's not a dig, it's a simple statement of fact.
I'd say that a moral case could be made that the US invasion was right because the Baath regime was plainly oppressing the Kurdish and Shia populations, and because Saddam represented a long term threat to his own people and his neighbours. But legally? Dubious.
Both the US and Russian actions could be condemned as illegal aggressions, or excused on the basis of their intent. I'm not suggesting any equivalence - just some interesting parallels which make some of the criticism of Russia hypocritical and simplistic.