Russia vs. Georgia

[welsh]

US dominates Olympic swimming!
China dominates gymnastics!
Russia dominates armored blitzkrieg!

Hey, everyone has something to be proud of this Olympic season!


Personal attacks already, BN? That's pretty weak shit coming from you. A little civility?

While W's admin wanted to bring in Georgia quickly, the other NATO countries were against it, and they were correct. Not the first time US was wrong.

As for who started this war- seems to me that both countries have enough blood on their hands and it also seems that both were manuevering around this for the past few months before it actually started. Also seems to me that while Georgia pulled the trigger, the Russians don't quite have clean hands either.

Who started this? Did Georgia invade Russia? The more I read, the murkier it becomes. How long has this been heating up? Who is telling the story? Who do you want to believe? To me, it looks like a mess. NATO shouldn't get involved. It is Russia's backyard.

Break away republic- from which country? Georgia?

Anyway, its still imperialism. Russia wants to have its say in Georgia and influence oil. And Georgia is in Russia's sphere, so sucks for them. The smart imperialism rules without the need for military force. So if Russia backs out and gets its way, bully for them! It also seems consistent with Russian policy in other near-abroad nations.

Do you really think this is not imperialism? The Russians are not trying to control politics in their sphere? That this is merely a humanitarian gesture?

And yes, I don't trust Russia. Its a bully that uses it oil, but at the end of the day it seems mostly like a petro-state with a big military and nuclear weapons and a state run by a strongman. Which, by the way, is another reason for getting off oil.

 

[Brother None]

Personal attacks already, BN? That's pretty weak shit coming from you.

I don't think the standard Russophobic line really deserves more effort than that. Why should I? Am I likely to change your mind? Would you ever believe Russia has no interest in grabbing land from Georgia? That Georgia started this war primarily because of military support from the US? That Russia just wants a neighbour they can live with like every other superpower out there?

As for who started this war- seems to me that both countries have enough blood on their hands and it also seems that both were manuevering around this for the past few months before it actually started. Also seems to me that while Georgia pulled the trigger, the Russians don't quite have clean hands either.

How so? Georgia was looking to attack South-Ossetia and Russia responded by moving troops into this region that was under their protection. They responded to a violent move effectively and in doing so prevented protracted war from breaking out. There is no possible way you can blame Russia for the outbreak of this war, and no way to deny their way of handling it was simply the best possible available option.

"Excessive use of force" is the most ridiculous accusation I've ever heard levelled at a country protecting a people from possible genocide. At most, Russia has pushed the point too far in assuring Georgia is properly humiliated, and I do not approve of the power-playing with Georgia, but the funny thing is that power-playing is not just a Russian matter. This whole thing started with the US using Georgia as a pawn in a blatant powergrab, Georgian weaponry being provided by the US, Georgian troops trained by NATO.

Break away republic- from which country? Georgia?

Uh, yes?

Do you really think this is not imperialism? The Russians are not trying to control politics in their sphere? That this is merely a humanitarian gesture?

It is realpolitic of Russia in its sphere of influence. I feel no need to use propagandistic terms like "imperialism" for that any more than I feel the need to use such terms for how the US treats South-America.

If it is reminiscent of anything, this situation is reminiscent of the US and Cuba during the 60's and 70's.

Look, I think fair is fair when Russia says they want a neighbour they can work with, just like fair is fair when Russia says they don't like NATO stockpiling guns on their border.
There are plenty of countries that claim such rights and Russia isn't the only one to actively assert this right. It sucks that Russia doesn't care whether it is a democracy or dictatorship, yes, and it sucks that all that happened in the Rose Revolution was that a Russian puppet was replaced by a US puppet. Ideally, the president of Georgia should have Georgian interest at heart, and said interest includes having good relations with your big neighbour - that's a basic truism. But it doesn't look like that'll happen, and the country will have to continue to suffer under either a US or a Russian puppet. That doesn't help them much, does it?

 

[welsh]

BN- making statement about Russia's intentions in Georgia seems a bit like wishful thinking on your part. Given that its unclear what is the relationship within the Russian leadership or Russia's relationship with its near abroad, I think its dubious to say that their intentions are purely humanitarian.

Indeed, I have compared Russia's behavior as a case of real politick- in this case and exercise of imperialism over its neighbors- much like the US over Latin America. You don't like that term either? First facism and then imperialism? Dude, you're killing the dictionary in search of language you're happy with.

And the US has used humanitarian reasons for its interventions too. This is why humanitarian intervention is such a shakey basis for the use of force- its easily fabricated.

Does the US have an interest in Georgia? Sure. Oil. But its still Russia's sphere. Power grab? Maybe.

It does seem that both sides have dirty hands in this and they've been dancing around a conflict for a few months. But then, I am not a russophile.

I'll admit to not knowing much on this. Its not my corner of the world to study and what I read seems to suggest that this is part of the great game in central asia.

That said, you should avoid wishful thinking as to Russian intentions. Countries go to war because its in their national interest- as defined by those in power. The US is in a bullshit war because of the propaganda and lies told by its government to its people. The russians have greater freedom in telling people what it wants too.

Oh I did read this from page 1. You really should stop trying to read the minds of the Russian leadership when you can't even do it
here.

 

[Brother None]

BN- making statement about Russia's intentions in Georgia seems a bit like wishful thinking on your part. Given that its unclear what is the relationship within the Russian leadership or Russia's relationship with its near abroad, I think its dubious to say that their intentions are purely humanitarian.

Uh...huh? Where did I claim their intention are purely humanitarian? I've stated multiple times that this is realpolitik in Russia's sphere of influence.

However, in their actions Russia also protected the Ossetian, a people under their protection since 1992, from a possible attempt of ethnic cleansing at worse or from a protracted ugly war at best.

You don't like that term either? First facism and then imperialism? Dude, you're killing the dictionary in search of language you're happy with.

Why use words that do not apply only to make the acts sound worse than they are? That is using language for rhetoric, rather than arguments. I prefer to be more exact in my choice of words.

And the US has used humanitarian reasons for its interventions too.

Did Russia interfere? Again, a region under its protection was attacked. That is not an intervention.

Does the US have an interest in Georgia? Sure. Oil. But its still Russia's sphere. Power grab? Maybe.

What else would you call the US training and arming their Georgian puppet government?

It does seem that both sides have dirty hands in this and they've been dancing around a conflict for a few months.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That Russia is somehow responsible for the outbreak of this war?

Prove it. All accounts I've read have Georgia attacking Ossetia after skirmishes between Ossetians and Georgians. To think Russia is responsible is just knee-jerk paranoia.

Countries go to war because its in their national interest- as defined by those in power.

Which is exactly what I've been saying since page 1. I've used terms such as realpolitics and spheres of influence to describe Russia's motives in crippling Georgia all the time now. Why are you trying to attribute a different opinion to me?

 

[welsh]

"US puppet goverment" is not rhetorical but an argument when "Russian imperialism" is rhetorical and not argumentative? Dude, your bias is a little obvious here.

Out of curiousity- who was arming the Ossetians?

According to this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia-Russia_crisis

It seems both sides have been playing political games that could provoke war.

Still, an odd thing for a small country with a small military to initiate a war with a big country with a big military.

Plus this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_South_Ossetia_(2008)

What a messy business is real politics.

 

[Brother None]

"US puppet goverment" is not rhetorical but an argument when "Russian imperialism" is rhetorical and not argumentative? Dude, your bias is a little obvious here.

How so? Puppet government is a normal term for when a government simply functions as an extension in international policy for another government, as far as I know.

But perhaps it is overstating it. Regardless, Georgia served the US after the rose revolution much like they did Russia before it, in neither case did the government actually serve its own country.

Out of curiousity- who was arming the Ossetians?

I'm not sure what point you'd be trying to make there, the situation in South-Ossetia was one of de facto independence with protection and support from Russia. That's not really the same as the US stockpiling arms on the border of Russia, is it?

It seems both sides have been playing political games that could provoke war.

Yes and no. I mean, Russia had limited interest in this war until the Georgian Rose Revolution, but they have always kept a watch over South-Ossetia. Their interest in South-Ossetia isn't tied strictly to Georgia turning towards the US.

Considering Russia had no reason to be happy about the US moving in on territory on their border, they did have every reason to instigate this war. However, "every reason to" does not constitute proof, and all the coverage I've seen indicates Georgia striking first. To believe Russia the guilty party in spite of evidence to the contrary would be senseless.

Still, an odd thing for a small country with a small military to initiate a war with a big country with a big military

It is a typical consequence of great powers failing to understand local politics they're sticking their nose in. As mentioned in the beginning of this thread, anyone ingrained in Russian politics like me or iii saw this war coming the moment the Rose Revolution was finished.

You had an unstable political situation in the Caucasus that in 1992 Russia had prevented from escalating and was now maintaining, then the US decided to support Georgia not only politically but - foolishly - also by arming them and training their men. I don't know what they were thinking, how can you arm a country that is in an unstable internal political situation like that before enforcing a solution to the political problem?

Abkhazia and South-Ossetia both have viable political solutions, those of full autonomy under the Georgian flag. You can never have a real full-term solution in the Caucasus, but that would have stopped war from breaking out on the short term. With the US backing Georgia and Russia backing the two break-away provinces, that would never have happened.

Thus an unnecessary war happens, in which no one gains anything and thousands of people die. Bad stuff.

 

[GreyViper]

I found the reactions of Belaruss and Ukraine interesting. Mostly what caught my eye was russian ambassador asking why isn't Belaruss supporting russia vocally. And I understand Ukraine is giving russian fleet grief to.

 

[welsh]

How so?

Point being that you are being fast and loose with your choice of concepts. You like the ones that rhetorically buttress your argument and don't like the ones that might make Russia look bad, but which are about as rhetorically neutral.

Imperialism leads to puppet states.

Out of curiousity- who was arming the Ossetians?

I'm not sure what point you'd be trying to make there, the situation in South-Ossetia was one of de facto independence with protection and support from Russia. That's not really the same as the US stockpiling arms on the border of Russia, is it?

Potentially a big difference-

Defacto is not de jure. To have autonomy and sovereignty, one has to be recognized as such. Until then, the territory is still legally in Georgia.

So actually it is. Georgia wants to be independent from Russia so it acquires arms from the US. The US wants to see Georgia as a member of NATO. Both are soverign nations and sovereign nations can enter into treaties and arrangements. Whether the US is defending Georgia from Russia or protecting its security concerns over oil pipelines- is irrelevant. These are countries that can enter into treaties.

Which is a big difference than a foreign country arming belligerent militias inside another country. For Russia to be arming civilian troops in a would be break-away region and those civilian troops become militias that attack the country, would suggest that Russia is provoking a war. International law here is pretty clear- thou shalt not arm the insurgents of another country (although it happens quite frequently).

Furthermore Article 2(7) of the UN Charter says essentially that countries will not intervene in the sovereign territory of another. As these are not de jure sovereign or autonomous regions, than its Russia that is intervening in the affairs of another.

Russia's hands are not clean here, which is another element needed to justify a humanitarian intervention- a doctrine that has been correctly never been justified or allowed under international law (even when Tanzanian troops intervened in Uganda to get rid of Idi Amin was that intervention kosher under international law).

That Russia may justify its intervention under the idea that "those are Russians and we are sworn to protect them under national law," might be right under domestic Russian Law . The US used the same rationale when it intervened in Grenada, but that didn't make it legal.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying Georgia is kosher either. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes and no. I mean, Russia had limited interest in this war until the Georgian Rose Revolution, but they have always kept a watch over South-Ossetia. Their interest in South-Ossetia isn't tied strictly to Georgia turning towards the US.

Considering Russia had no reason to be happy about the US moving in on territory on their border, they did have every reason to instigate this war. However, "every reason to" does not constitute proof, and all the coverage I've seen indicates Georgia striking first. To believe Russia the guilty party in spite of evidence to the contrary would be senseless.

I think the Russians gave fair warning of this weeks ago, and this war has been brewing for most of this year. US interests here seem primarily concerned with protecting oil lines from Central Asia, otherwise, I don't see much interest.

As for "who struck first"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia-Russia_crisis
Looks like July was a month full of provocation by both Georgians and Russian proxies.

It is a typical consequence of great powers failing to understand local politics they're sticking their nose in. As mentioned in the beginning of this thread, anyone ingrained in Russian politics like me or iii saw this war coming the moment the Rose Revolution was finished.

You had an unstable political situation in the Caucasus that in 1992 Russia had prevented from escalating and was now maintaining, then the US decided to support Georgia not only politically but - foolishly - also by arming them and training their men. I don't know what they were thinking, how can you arm a country that is in an unstable internal political situation like that before enforcing a solution to the political problem?

Messy. Georgians also seem to have suffered in that mess and it seems there is a bit too much identity politics at play. As mentioned, I doubt the US interest is much beyond oil of Central Asia. Its the same rationale why the US has sent troops to other countries in Central Asia.

That said, arming one side which is fighting someone armed by an other side is a bad way to start a proxy war, then an all out war.
But such is real politick.

Abkhazia and South-Ossetia both have viable political solutions, those of full autonomy under the Georgian flag. You can never have a real full-term solution in the Caucasus, but that would have stopped war from breaking out on the short term. With the US backing Georgia and Russia backing the two break-away provinces, that would never have happened.

Which is why the offer was laughed at?
End result seems to be that the breakaways become Russian puppets and Georgia doesn't get into NATO. If that was the goal, then Russia cleans up nicely.

Thus an unnecessary war happens, in which no one gains anything and thousands of people die. Bad stuff.

Yep. That and bad geography.

 

[liberty rogue]

I found the reactions of Belaruss and Ukraine interesting. Mostly what caught my eye was russian ambassador asking why isn't Belaruss supporting russia vocally.

Belarusians were disapointed with the fact, that we didn't ask for their opinion before commencing the operation. They are in full right to be.

Nevertheless, Lukashenko spoke to Medvedev recently and Belarusbank is rasing funds to help with Ossetian refugee catastrophe.

What's with public opinion in Estonia?

 

[fedaykin]

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551

What's with public opinion in Estonia?

I posted about it earlier in this thread. Most Estonians pretty much hate Russia and consider the war to be imperialist aggression started by the Russians.

 

[liberty rogue]

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551

Kadyrov wasn't kidding then.

Since most of you can't read Russian: those are the shots made by military journalist Arkadiy Babchenko, while traveling with Vostok, a battle-hardened Chechen unit specializing in mountain warfare. They went all the way from Vladikavkaz to Tskhinvali, participated in Zemo-Nikozi assault and then followed to Gori.

There are shots of dead and wounded.

 

[fedaykin]

The Russian Advanced Warfighter:
"Dont vori, mem. Ai em from ze internet."

Oh, and in case you're wondering where the dude got his elite goggles from:

 

[GreyViper]

What's with public opinion in Estonia?

Fedyakin is somewhat right, most people I spoke today were more interested in olympics and when the issue of Georgia came up they shook their head and said that russia for you was there anything else to expect. But yes media is most aggressive, most newspapers cover Georgian conflict pretty thoroughly. Politicians make the right noise for support to Georgia, collecting brownie points from people. Then there's the extremist who want fly to georgia and help to fight the oppressors, forgetting hey that's what the south ossetians did and look what that got them. That much I got from papers.

Maybe fedyakin give insight what people close to him think. Because I dint have time to speak with my russian speaking colleges at the company meeting.

PS. Oh yes also the view of Eu has changed and not for better.

 

[meson]

I posted about it earlier in this thread. Most Estonians pretty much hate Russia and consider the war to be imperialist aggression started by the Russians.

Interestingly enough you dont mention what local russians think. Let me do that for you.

This was The First Peacekeeping War. Fascist Georgia ruled by Adolf Sukashvili launched genocide against Ossetians, luckily russian peacekeepers arrived magically next morning and kept the peace by liberating several Georgian towns. Or maybe that last part isnt true because at least until this afternoon suggesting that russian troops are in Gori was fascist lie. Funny thing is, some russian general just gave an interview saying that they are giving Gori over to georgian police.

Yes, I know, this abit extreme, but so was your view of estonians


Anyway, georgians should get rid of Saakashvili because he clearly is a loose cannon, doing a huge disservice to his country. Sadly we have those here in estonia too, going out of their way to demonize russia. Marko Mihkelson comes to mind, how this guy gets so much air time is beyond me.

 

[fedaykin]

Actually, I haven't personally spoken to a single Russian about this yet. But to be fair, most probably support Russia. There was also a poll conducted recently: http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/438502

My view of Estonians extreme? Look, I can use the word "dislike" instead of "hate", okay? Doesn't change the fact how Estonians generally see this war, though. And I haven't taken the time to write up anything like you did, so...extreme, really?

 

[meson]

Yes, extreme. Most people I have talked to know that georgians shelled Tshinvali, so reaction in first days of conflict was .... confusion. Imperialist Russia at it again attitude has taken root only in last days when peacekeepers kept going forward in georgia proper.

 

[fedaykin]

Most people I have talked to either don't know that Georgia technically started this or flat out deny the shelling or blame the South-Ossetian separatists whom they see as virtually synonymous with Russians. But the people I talked to aren't very intelligent. Also, public sentiment was strongly pro-Georgian from the start. Particularly the media swarmed over it like flies and online newspapers were filled with pieces comparing Russia's actions to Hitler, as well as poorly thought through opinions of various politicians and pundits who are known to be critical of Russian politics.

 

[Maphusio]

It's funny to watch American news propaganda.
"Russia is teh evil! They are killing Gerogian babies!"

You think that's funny, I heard on the news this morning that there have been quite a few Americans in Georgia, USA asking where all the Russian tanks were at...

 

[Ozrat]

They probably came over from South Carolina and Alabama.

 

[meson]

Particularly the media swarmed over it like flies and online newspapers were filled with pieces comparing Russia's actions to Hitler, as well as poorly thought through opinions of various politicians and pundits who are known to be critical of Russian politics.

ahh, yes. tell you the truth my first reaction (after reading postimees ) was that this is russian agression. only after spending some time reading different coverage on the net came to the conclusion that georgians arent saints on this matter either. Postimees is pretty much estonian counterpart of the Russia Today tv channel.