Who are wearing the black hats? The Russians or the Georgians?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
2. So you come down firmly on the side of the Russians then? And you're sure your mind's not made up?
Thread Starter
Orac,
Fact? Or opinion and reportage?
And in any case, the piece to which you link gives as many emotive stories of Georgian atrocities as it does of Vadim and his Ossetian buddies' bloodthirsty rhetoric.
"Witnesses told of cars filled with fleeing Ossetian refugees being shelled by Georgian tanks.
They claimed that in one incident Georgian soldiers finished off the wounded by pouring fuel over them and burning them. Independent human rights observers confirmed that civilian targets had been repeatedly hit, including basements where terrified residents had sought refuge and were trapped for days. Moscow has claimed that some 2,000 people died at the hands of Georgian forces – including 15 Russian peacekeepers.
However, Human Rights Watch, the American group, said that Russian estimates were “suspicious”. Doctors at the main hospital said that 44 dead had been brought to the city morgue. Whatever the final death toll, few dispute that the city suffered destruction and that civilians were hardest hit. Nor is there any doubting Albina Shanazarov’s tragic fate. A 13-year-old girl, she sought to flee the city with her mother and three sisters. They set off with other civilians in a bus, which was ambushed by Georgian forces as they tried to reach Russia.
“A bullet smacked right into the steering wheel. I had to stop and we scattered along the highway,” said Guram Beloyev, the bus driver. “It was dark and I was hoping they wouldn’t see as we hid but they must have been using night-vision goggles because the Georgian sniper fired pretty accurately. Albina was terrified and ran towards me. That’s when she was hit by a bullet that smashed right through her chest. She died almost at once.”
None of it leads one far from the conclusion that Saakashvili (whose mandate is pretty slender) has been engaging in some high-risk populist brinkmanship, and despite his democratic and pro-Western credentials he has been stupid and wicked, resorting to military adventurism to gain popularity at home and in a misjudged effort to secure stronger support from the West.
The enemy will sometimes do good things (like Germany attacking Stalin in '41, perhaps, or like the Germans respecting the monastery at Monte Cassino until after we reduced it to rubble) and your allies will sometimes do wicked things. Life isn't black and white and Georgia=good/Russia=bad is witless and simplistic.
Fact? Or opinion and reportage?
And in any case, the piece to which you link gives as many emotive stories of Georgian atrocities as it does of Vadim and his Ossetian buddies' bloodthirsty rhetoric.
"Witnesses told of cars filled with fleeing Ossetian refugees being shelled by Georgian tanks.
They claimed that in one incident Georgian soldiers finished off the wounded by pouring fuel over them and burning them. Independent human rights observers confirmed that civilian targets had been repeatedly hit, including basements where terrified residents had sought refuge and were trapped for days. Moscow has claimed that some 2,000 people died at the hands of Georgian forces – including 15 Russian peacekeepers.
However, Human Rights Watch, the American group, said that Russian estimates were “suspicious”. Doctors at the main hospital said that 44 dead had been brought to the city morgue. Whatever the final death toll, few dispute that the city suffered destruction and that civilians were hardest hit. Nor is there any doubting Albina Shanazarov’s tragic fate. A 13-year-old girl, she sought to flee the city with her mother and three sisters. They set off with other civilians in a bus, which was ambushed by Georgian forces as they tried to reach Russia.
“A bullet smacked right into the steering wheel. I had to stop and we scattered along the highway,” said Guram Beloyev, the bus driver. “It was dark and I was hoping they wouldn’t see as we hid but they must have been using night-vision goggles because the Georgian sniper fired pretty accurately. Albina was terrified and ran towards me. That’s when she was hit by a bullet that smashed right through her chest. She died almost at once.”
None of it leads one far from the conclusion that Saakashvili (whose mandate is pretty slender) has been engaging in some high-risk populist brinkmanship, and despite his democratic and pro-Western credentials he has been stupid and wicked, resorting to military adventurism to gain popularity at home and in a misjudged effort to secure stronger support from the West.
The enemy will sometimes do good things (like Germany attacking Stalin in '41, perhaps, or like the Germans respecting the monastery at Monte Cassino until after we reduced it to rubble) and your allies will sometimes do wicked things. Life isn't black and white and Georgia=good/Russia=bad is witless and simplistic.
Thread Starter
BH,
Hyperbole or not, it's not me that needs to explain why the democratically expressed wishes of the vast majority in a region that has declared itself independent should be supported in some cases (Kosovo, Croatia, etc.) and not in others (Ossetia, Taiwan, Hong Kong)?
I do believe that the good of the international community usually outweighs the narrow self interest of a single nation - if such an amorphous concept can be discerned.
I do believe that morality should outweigh national self interest. You've expressed the belief that national self interest outweighs international law. How does that position differ from other regimes who have followed that approach?
I'd like to think that most Americans (and certainly most US leaders) have been more honourable than that. But if I'm wrong, then we should find better allies.
I don't come down firmly on the side of the Russians. I don't trust Putin, and Russian nationalism scares me. But the evidence seems to be that they did what they claimed on this occasion, in response to a Georgian aggression that was inexcusable and morally and legally unsustainable.
And I think that giving the Russians a kicking when they don't deserve it is going to be counter-productive - exacerbating Russian paranoia and increasing tension, and helping act as a recruiting sergeant for support for Putin when we should be aiming to reassure the Russians and defuse tension, and showing ordinary Russians that we are fair minded and not their enemies.
Hyperbole or not, it's not me that needs to explain why the democratically expressed wishes of the vast majority in a region that has declared itself independent should be supported in some cases (Kosovo, Croatia, etc.) and not in others (Ossetia, Taiwan, Hong Kong)?
I do believe that the good of the international community usually outweighs the narrow self interest of a single nation - if such an amorphous concept can be discerned.
I do believe that morality should outweigh national self interest. You've expressed the belief that national self interest outweighs international law. How does that position differ from other regimes who have followed that approach?
I'd like to think that most Americans (and certainly most US leaders) have been more honourable than that. But if I'm wrong, then we should find better allies.
I don't come down firmly on the side of the Russians. I don't trust Putin, and Russian nationalism scares me. But the evidence seems to be that they did what they claimed on this occasion, in response to a Georgian aggression that was inexcusable and morally and legally unsustainable.
And I think that giving the Russians a kicking when they don't deserve it is going to be counter-productive - exacerbating Russian paranoia and increasing tension, and helping act as a recruiting sergeant for support for Putin when we should be aiming to reassure the Russians and defuse tension, and showing ordinary Russians that we are fair minded and not their enemies.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?
First, so as not to keep repeating the basic facts, I would refer back to my post (no. 42).
There are two (and a half) "invasions" - so it depends on which one you are talking about.
The real one - the Georgian one - broke a ceasefire agreement which specifically excluded Georgian military forces from South Osetia and in doing so the Georgians attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers. Certainly no "clear and compelling basis in international law" there. Indeed as an "agressive" act of war it would be specifically against the UN charter.
The one that has been expoused by many western politicans - the Russian one - was a counter-attack (and thus not "aggression") and certainly had a "clear and compelling basis in international law" and it was justifiable under the basis of self-defence.
The "half" one is what the Russians did (are doing) in parts of Georgia adjacent to South Osetia which is subject to various interpretations. First, until the Russians counter-signed the ceasefire officially the two countries were at war (see the Georgian declaration of a state of war with Russia for 15 days) and hence, STRICTLY SPEAKING as long as Russian actions were in accordance with the laws of war, everything was o.k.. Now in the present state of the world such black and white "states of war" does not give any country carte Blanch to attack anything they want in their enemies country. As far as has been publicied the Russians SEEM to have been attacking Georgian military infrastructure capable of attacking, or supporting an attack on, South Osetia. Now whilst that MIGHT be within the STRICT intrepretation of what might be "allowed" it really depends more on particular perceptions. I refer people to US "shock and awe" tactics.
As far as the withdrawal goes, I think the idea that the Russians can just turn around and go is rather simplistic (again, I refer people to the time taken to evacuate Southern Iraq after Desert Storm).
Just remember, do not listen to politicans who are more interested in spinning and lying.
.
First, so as not to keep repeating the basic facts, I would refer back to my post (no. 42).
There are two (and a half) "invasions" - so it depends on which one you are talking about.
The real one - the Georgian one - broke a ceasefire agreement which specifically excluded Georgian military forces from South Osetia and in doing so the Georgians attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers. Certainly no "clear and compelling basis in international law" there. Indeed as an "agressive" act of war it would be specifically against the UN charter.
The one that has been expoused by many western politicans - the Russian one - was a counter-attack (and thus not "aggression") and certainly had a "clear and compelling basis in international law" and it was justifiable under the basis of self-defence.
The "half" one is what the Russians did (are doing) in parts of Georgia adjacent to South Osetia which is subject to various interpretations. First, until the Russians counter-signed the ceasefire officially the two countries were at war (see the Georgian declaration of a state of war with Russia for 15 days) and hence, STRICTLY SPEAKING as long as Russian actions were in accordance with the laws of war, everything was o.k.. Now in the present state of the world such black and white "states of war" does not give any country carte Blanch to attack anything they want in their enemies country. As far as has been publicied the Russians SEEM to have been attacking Georgian military infrastructure capable of attacking, or supporting an attack on, South Osetia. Now whilst that MIGHT be within the STRICT intrepretation of what might be "allowed" it really depends more on particular perceptions. I refer people to US "shock and awe" tactics.
As far as the withdrawal goes, I think the idea that the Russians can just turn around and go is rather simplistic (again, I refer people to the time taken to evacuate Southern Iraq after Desert Storm).
Just remember, do not listen to politicans who are more interested in spinning and lying.
.
For me, it's simply too early to decide final intentions. I'll wait for a few weeks to see.
I did read that the NATO is quite divided by the level of response. Some want to appease Russia (and preserve the oil shipments) and others are demanding significant action. Seems the closer you are to Russia the more adament about punishing her you are.
I did read that the NATO is quite divided by the level of response. Some want to appease Russia (and preserve the oil shipments) and others are demanding significant action. Seems the closer you are to Russia the more adament about punishing her you are.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgess Hill
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let the Good times Roll
Putin stepped into the Bush/Cheney trap . The USA had led Sakashvili up the garden path with implied support from the West etc etc and Sakashvili ( being a bit impulsive) decided, given all the understood US support , to sort out his Georgian region that was being a bit difficult. Putin blew a gasket ( he'd already been wound up by the Polish/Patriot deal) and went in - SNAP the trap shut. Cheney/the defence lobby in Washington/ etc etc jumped with joy -the cold war defence budgets were back on the table after 19 years absence - let the good times roll. As to heightened tension in Europe - who gives a s**t in Washington DC or anywhere in the USA for that matter.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so much a trap as a plan.
Russia gets its handies smacked for being a bad bay, but Putin's popularity at home skyrockets, the cold war is back on with new mil procurement budgets all round.
GWB leaves office with a high profile non shooting war sorted out before he leaves office.
Even napoleon gets his oar in to soften the blow of failing to ratify the Lisbon treaty.
Oh , the oil price goes up again because of the interruption of supply from the Kazakh pipeline
Russia gets its handies smacked for being a bad bay, but Putin's popularity at home skyrockets, the cold war is back on with new mil procurement budgets all round.
GWB leaves office with a high profile non shooting war sorted out before he leaves office.
Even napoleon gets his oar in to soften the blow of failing to ratify the Lisbon treaty.
Oh , the oil price goes up again because of the interruption of supply from the Kazakh pipeline
Guest
Posts: n/a
lower hangar:
Brilliant analysis of the situation and a Holmes-ian deduction as to who the real culprit is.
The minor details of Cheney being out of office in about five months and presumably not involved in foreign policy/national security issues and the one of most of the US' military being a bit tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq - not to mention the impending Iranian 'round up' to use the cowboy metaphor that is so loved on the eastern side of the Atlantic - are surely easily explained away.
That arms budget rapidly soaring to the stratosphere will be good for us on top of the few dollars that have gone so far into those minor details mentioned above. Of course, how and where to employ those weapons against Russia seems to not be fleshed out fully, but again, I'm sure a minor detail in your discovery. The 'big picture' is what's important.
Agreed, if the US would just say a firm 'no' when the former Soviet Republics or Warsaw Pact nations come asking for modernization of their militaries, ATC systems, and the like, all would be better. We should not get involved or try to help our and their industries and economy with the opportunity. I'm sure France or Germany would also say 'no.'
And when they do, then Putin's Russia can step up to the plate and help their 'neighbors.' He likes doing that from what I read.
Putin and his handpicked 'democracy' are simply looking for a way to play nice with Europe. If we, the US, would just kindly step aside, all would be sweetness and light. Instead, by butting our bovine nose into Eastern Europe's business, we just gum up the works.
Finally, as the apathy level in the US - Washington, DC or otherwise - does seem to be elevated, I'm ashamed to admit that I'm curious as to what exactly 'you give a sh1t for?'
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOFO,
One thing Britain does right is Bond. And he always has some stunning arm candy handy!
Putin stepped into the Bush/Cheney trap . The USA had led Sakashvili up the garden path with implied support from the West etc etc and Sakashvili ( being a bit impulsive) decided, given all the understood US support , to sort out his Georgian region that was being a bit difficult. Putin blew a gasket ( he'd already been wound up by the Polish/Patriot deal) and went in - SNAP the trap shut. Cheney/the defence lobby in Washington/ etc etc jumped with joy -the cold war defence budgets were back on the table after 19 years absence - let the good times roll. As to heightened tension in Europe - who gives a s**t in Washington DC or anywhere in the USA for that matter.
Brilliant analysis of the situation and a Holmes-ian deduction as to who the real culprit is.
The minor details of Cheney being out of office in about five months and presumably not involved in foreign policy/national security issues and the one of most of the US' military being a bit tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq - not to mention the impending Iranian 'round up' to use the cowboy metaphor that is so loved on the eastern side of the Atlantic - are surely easily explained away.
That arms budget rapidly soaring to the stratosphere will be good for us on top of the few dollars that have gone so far into those minor details mentioned above. Of course, how and where to employ those weapons against Russia seems to not be fleshed out fully, but again, I'm sure a minor detail in your discovery. The 'big picture' is what's important.
Agreed, if the US would just say a firm 'no' when the former Soviet Republics or Warsaw Pact nations come asking for modernization of their militaries, ATC systems, and the like, all would be better. We should not get involved or try to help our and their industries and economy with the opportunity. I'm sure France or Germany would also say 'no.'
And when they do, then Putin's Russia can step up to the plate and help their 'neighbors.' He likes doing that from what I read.
Putin and his handpicked 'democracy' are simply looking for a way to play nice with Europe. If we, the US, would just kindly step aside, all would be sweetness and light. Instead, by butting our bovine nose into Eastern Europe's business, we just gum up the works.
Finally, as the apathy level in the US - Washington, DC or otherwise - does seem to be elevated, I'm ashamed to admit that I'm curious as to what exactly 'you give a sh1t for?'
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOFO,
One thing Britain does right is Bond. And he always has some stunning arm candy handy!
Last edited by brickhistory; 20th Aug 2008 at 21:46.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Torygraph: Russia threatens new confrontation over Georgian provinces A fresh confrontation between Moscow and the West was looming after Russia announced that it was preparing to recognise the independence of the two Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The State Duma, Russia's parliament, has been recalled and will meet in emergency session on Monday to debate an Abkhaz appeal for immediate recognition of the region's sovereignty. The South Ossetian rebel leader, Eduard Kokoity, said he would follow suit imminently. Russian acquiescence to the proposals would inevitably mark a serious escalation of the crisis in the Caucasus by further undermining a fragile ceasefire in the area and creating a fresh diplomatic rift with the United States and Europe.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has signed 14 United Nations Security Council resolutions accepting that Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain part of Georgia despite establishing rebel administrations after secessionist wars in the early 1990s. But after crushing Georgia on the battlefield, Russia has indicated that it was no longer prepared to honour UN edicts on the breakaway provinces. Earlier this week, Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told the world to "forget" about Georgia's territorial integrity.
Moscow is now signaling that it will move much quicker than expected in formally recognizing the two regions. Sergei Mironov, speaker of the Duma's upper house or Federation Council, said a vote on recognition would be overwhelmingly passed. "The Federation Council is ready to recognize the independent states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia if that is what the people of these republics want," he said.
There can be little doubt that the legislators who sit in the Duma, whose independence from the executive was removed by the prime minister Vladimir Putin, will vote as they are ordered. Recognition can only be made with the agreement of President Dmitry Medvedev. He has already said that he would "unambiguously" support independence for the two provinces.
Such a move would place tremendous strain on the fragile French brokered truce that ended the five-day war last week. Georgia has insisted that it would not tolerate losing either province, while the international community has repeatedly insisted that the country's borders would not be changed.
Russia, which has long given financial and military backing to both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, has accused the West of hypocrisy in supporting independence for Kosovo but opposing sovereignty for the two regions.
The West has argued that Kosovo was a special case, in large part because of its overwhelmingly Albanian majority. The Abkhaz have only become a majority in Abkhazia after 300,000 ethnic Georgians were forced to flee their homes during a brutal war in the early 1990s. Ossetians are a majority in South Ossetia, but the tiny province - roughly the size of Norfolk - has many ethnic Georgian villages too.
The development came as the focus of diplomatic pressure on Russia switched from the United States to Europe, with Britain, France and Germany all condemning Moscow for reneging on pledges to withdraw its troops from Georgia. While 40 empty army lorries were seen heading back across the Georgian border, there was no sign of a large-scale withdrawal and in many parts of the country Russian troops continued to dig themselves in.
Fed up with Russia's recalcitrance, David Miliband has warned the Kremlin that it faced serious consequences for its invasion of Georgia even if it does finally honour repeated pledges to its withdraw troops.
"Withdrawal is the first step but that doesn't mean that we forget about what has happened," the Foreign Secretary said in Tbilisi. "The sight of Russian tanks in a European city has been a chilling one." France accused Russia of breaking its word on a pullout three times, while Germany described Moscow's apparent prevarication as "very unsatisfactory".
Mr Miliband also condemned Russia's attacks on Georgia's civilian infrastructure, accusing Moscow of seeking to command international respect in a "very Cold War way".
The State Duma, Russia's parliament, has been recalled and will meet in emergency session on Monday to debate an Abkhaz appeal for immediate recognition of the region's sovereignty. The South Ossetian rebel leader, Eduard Kokoity, said he would follow suit imminently. Russian acquiescence to the proposals would inevitably mark a serious escalation of the crisis in the Caucasus by further undermining a fragile ceasefire in the area and creating a fresh diplomatic rift with the United States and Europe.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has signed 14 United Nations Security Council resolutions accepting that Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain part of Georgia despite establishing rebel administrations after secessionist wars in the early 1990s. But after crushing Georgia on the battlefield, Russia has indicated that it was no longer prepared to honour UN edicts on the breakaway provinces. Earlier this week, Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told the world to "forget" about Georgia's territorial integrity.
Moscow is now signaling that it will move much quicker than expected in formally recognizing the two regions. Sergei Mironov, speaker of the Duma's upper house or Federation Council, said a vote on recognition would be overwhelmingly passed. "The Federation Council is ready to recognize the independent states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia if that is what the people of these republics want," he said.
There can be little doubt that the legislators who sit in the Duma, whose independence from the executive was removed by the prime minister Vladimir Putin, will vote as they are ordered. Recognition can only be made with the agreement of President Dmitry Medvedev. He has already said that he would "unambiguously" support independence for the two provinces.
Such a move would place tremendous strain on the fragile French brokered truce that ended the five-day war last week. Georgia has insisted that it would not tolerate losing either province, while the international community has repeatedly insisted that the country's borders would not be changed.
Russia, which has long given financial and military backing to both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, has accused the West of hypocrisy in supporting independence for Kosovo but opposing sovereignty for the two regions.
The West has argued that Kosovo was a special case, in large part because of its overwhelmingly Albanian majority. The Abkhaz have only become a majority in Abkhazia after 300,000 ethnic Georgians were forced to flee their homes during a brutal war in the early 1990s. Ossetians are a majority in South Ossetia, but the tiny province - roughly the size of Norfolk - has many ethnic Georgian villages too.
The development came as the focus of diplomatic pressure on Russia switched from the United States to Europe, with Britain, France and Germany all condemning Moscow for reneging on pledges to withdraw its troops from Georgia. While 40 empty army lorries were seen heading back across the Georgian border, there was no sign of a large-scale withdrawal and in many parts of the country Russian troops continued to dig themselves in.
Fed up with Russia's recalcitrance, David Miliband has warned the Kremlin that it faced serious consequences for its invasion of Georgia even if it does finally honour repeated pledges to its withdraw troops.
"Withdrawal is the first step but that doesn't mean that we forget about what has happened," the Foreign Secretary said in Tbilisi. "The sight of Russian tanks in a European city has been a chilling one." France accused Russia of breaking its word on a pullout three times, while Germany described Moscow's apparent prevarication as "very unsatisfactory".
Mr Miliband also condemned Russia's attacks on Georgia's civilian infrastructure, accusing Moscow of seeking to command international respect in a "very Cold War way".
LH
I am pretty certain the US military would not want to go back to the Cold War defence budget. Their current budget far exceeds anything they got in the Cold War, even accounting for inflation!
the cold war defence budgets were back on the table after 19 years absence
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have the text of the ceasefire agreement signed by Georgia and Russia ?
There were reports that there were slighty different versions signed - the Russians claiming that their version contained an introduction that the Georgians refused to sign.
.
There were reports that there were slighty different versions signed - the Russians claiming that their version contained an introduction that the Georgians refused to sign.
.
Having worked in the field in both Moscow and Tbilisi (Georgia) in a previous life I could honestly say this was coming years ago, it was just a matter of when.
The distrust between the two nations was such that to obtain Visas for our (local) Russian staff from the Georgians was a long and ardous process that most often ended in failure. Putting a Russian into a position of authority over a Georgian always ended in tears. They despise each other. I was often in the middle.
The Georgian Mind bears no relation to Logic, shambolic perhaps. There were times that meetings with Senior Officials could have come out of Alice in Wonderland.
The Russians on the other hand were hard, ruthless b*st*rds in negotiation. I gained considerable respect for them (quite friendly though off the record).
You can be sure Georgia will come off worse in this in all respects. The Russians calculated the odds for every outcome of this new "great" game.
The distrust between the two nations was such that to obtain Visas for our (local) Russian staff from the Georgians was a long and ardous process that most often ended in failure. Putting a Russian into a position of authority over a Georgian always ended in tears. They despise each other. I was often in the middle.
The Georgian Mind bears no relation to Logic, shambolic perhaps. There were times that meetings with Senior Officials could have come out of Alice in Wonderland.
The Russians on the other hand were hard, ruthless b*st*rds in negotiation. I gained considerable respect for them (quite friendly though off the record).
You can be sure Georgia will come off worse in this in all respects. The Russians calculated the odds for every outcome of this new "great" game.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Does anyone have the text of the ceasefire agreement signed by Georgia and Russia ?"
The original ceasefire agreement revolved around six points:
(1) Not to resort to force;
(2) To end hostilities definitively;
(3) To provide free access for humanitarian aid;
(4) Georgian military forces will have to withdraw to their usual bases;
(5) Russian military forces will have to withdraw to the lines held prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Pending an international mechanism, Russian peace-keeping forces will implement additional security measures;
(6) Opening of international talks on the security and stability arrangements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Note that point 5 gave the green light to the Russians to "implement" additionally security measures (ie. maintain some kind of troop presence in Georgian territory to take security measures) pending the definition of an international mechanism. The French (EU/US-backed) then presented a draft UN resolution that was rejected by the Russians a few days ago because it did away with no 5 by calling for an immediate withdrawal and recognising the territorial integrity of Georgia, which the Russians won't accept (obviously because of the position of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Russia's own draft resolution that was presented to the UN Security Council yesterday moreorless returns to the six-point plan.
The original ceasefire agreement revolved around six points:
(1) Not to resort to force;
(2) To end hostilities definitively;
(3) To provide free access for humanitarian aid;
(4) Georgian military forces will have to withdraw to their usual bases;
(5) Russian military forces will have to withdraw to the lines held prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Pending an international mechanism, Russian peace-keeping forces will implement additional security measures;
(6) Opening of international talks on the security and stability arrangements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Note that point 5 gave the green light to the Russians to "implement" additionally security measures (ie. maintain some kind of troop presence in Georgian territory to take security measures) pending the definition of an international mechanism. The French (EU/US-backed) then presented a draft UN resolution that was rejected by the Russians a few days ago because it did away with no 5 by calling for an immediate withdrawal and recognising the territorial integrity of Georgia, which the Russians won't accept (obviously because of the position of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Russia's own draft resolution that was presented to the UN Security Council yesterday moreorless returns to the six-point plan.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick
Yes, I have seen these "points" - it is amazing how all those politicans are commenting on the ceasefire compliance without actually knowing what the document says.
I totally agree with your comment. The "western" politicans seem to be intent on making a mess of even the ceasefire by trying to change the agreement.
It really gets me annoyed that self-interest seems to be the main driver for their comments.
.
Yes, I have seen these "points" - it is amazing how all those politicans are commenting on the ceasefire compliance without actually knowing what the document says.
I totally agree with your comment. The "western" politicans seem to be intent on making a mess of even the ceasefire by trying to change the agreement.
It really gets me annoyed that self-interest seems to be the main driver for their comments.
.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just seems to be spiralling out of control, with both sides rhetoric probably now as bad as each others, but frankly I don't see our Foreign Secretary suggesting that the relative calm we've had in Europe is over as being helpful, and I suggest that even talking about all out war (even in a negative sense) is inflamatory. Equally, the Russians testing a TOPOL ICBM doesn't help matters much.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Miliband warns over Russia crisis
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Putin blames US for Georgia role
It strikes me that politicians (on all sides) are talking us into another cold war, without anyone seemingly trying to do anything to calm the situation down, or even negotiate by the sounds of things. All this recent talk of energy security, and this happens. I wonder what will happen if / when Russia turns off the gas supply?
Again I just can't help thinking we're constantly poking a bear with a sharp stick and pushing it into a corner - rightly or wrongly - and we seem surprised that its acting in the way it is, and that its not capable of more!
BBC NEWS | Politics | Miliband warns over Russia crisis
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Putin blames US for Georgia role
It strikes me that politicians (on all sides) are talking us into another cold war, without anyone seemingly trying to do anything to calm the situation down, or even negotiate by the sounds of things. All this recent talk of energy security, and this happens. I wonder what will happen if / when Russia turns off the gas supply?
Again I just can't help thinking we're constantly poking a bear with a sharp stick and pushing it into a corner - rightly or wrongly - and we seem surprised that its acting in the way it is, and that its not capable of more!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I hate to say I told you so, Jacko.....
Torygraph: South Ossetia seeks to merge with Russia
Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia has signalled that it will formally seek to merge with Russia.
By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor
This move would amount to Russia’s annexation of an area of another state and the redrawing of the map of a corner of Europe.
South Ossetia, with a largely Russian population of only 70,000, has no viable future as an independent state and observers believe that its only realistic option is to join its giant neighbour. President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia discussed this option with his South Ossetian counterpart, Eduard Kokoity, earlier this week during a meeting in Moscow.
Znaur Gassiyev, the Speaker of South Ossetia’s parliament, said the enclave would formally join Russia "in several years" or possible earlier. This had been "firmly stated by both leaders” during their meeting in Moscow. Tarzan Kokoiti, the deputy Speaker, predicted: “We will live in one united Russian state.”
While the Kremlin has recognised South Ossetia as an “independent” country, Russia effectively controls the tiny enclave, which has no viable economy and depends largely on smuggling. If the area merges with Russia, this would be a formal acknowledgement of reality......
Torygraph: South Ossetia seeks to merge with Russia
Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia has signalled that it will formally seek to merge with Russia.
By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor
This move would amount to Russia’s annexation of an area of another state and the redrawing of the map of a corner of Europe.
South Ossetia, with a largely Russian population of only 70,000, has no viable future as an independent state and observers believe that its only realistic option is to join its giant neighbour. President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia discussed this option with his South Ossetian counterpart, Eduard Kokoity, earlier this week during a meeting in Moscow.
Znaur Gassiyev, the Speaker of South Ossetia’s parliament, said the enclave would formally join Russia "in several years" or possible earlier. This had been "firmly stated by both leaders” during their meeting in Moscow. Tarzan Kokoiti, the deputy Speaker, predicted: “We will live in one united Russian state.”
While the Kremlin has recognised South Ossetia as an “independent” country, Russia effectively controls the tiny enclave, which has no viable economy and depends largely on smuggling. If the area merges with Russia, this would be a formal acknowledgement of reality......