Russian tanks enter South Ossetia, Georgia declares war

[Stevisiov]

Russia isn't going to back down in its own back yard, guns on the table or not. Its going to take direct action. So what is America going to do? With two conflicts on the go, and another possibly in waiting, is America ready to step into a proxy war with a former superpower?

Russia has a very strong hand, too strong maybe, for for the West to challenge. On to of that, America needs Russia's influence with countries like Iran and North Korea. You can also be sure that China will align itself with Russia on this matter too. Is America going to destroy relations with Russia and possibly China over a tiny country (with an oil pipeline), in a forgotten part of the world?

Russia is not entirely innocent in this affair though, they may have been manipulating things in their favour, but you have to remember that it was Georgia who initiated combat, and not Russia. Starting a war against all good advice and then running off crying when it goes pear shaped is no way for any nation to act.

I don't envy America's position either - they seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have to be seen to support an ally, but on the other hand, they have to be mindful of the wider implications that this conflict represents.

I was also very surprised by some of the comments that George Bush made regarding Russia's attacks on Georgia. He used words like 'disproportional', and 'sovereign'. A few years ago, Israel invaded Lebanon and exacted disproportional revenge for the kidnapping of a couple of Israeli soldiers, and Bush thought that was acceptable. He also mentioned that Russia had no right attacking a sovereign state, yet 5 or 6 years ago, America invaded Iraq - a sovereign state. I fail to see the difference between this current conflict and those that have gone before. If you want to lead, lead by example, not by rhetoric.

Have you ever thought about a career in journalism?

Interesting read.

 

[Omnis]

Russia is not entirely innocent in this affair though, they may have been manipulating things in their favour, but you have to remember that it was Georgia who initiated combat, and not Russia. Starting a war against all good advice and then running off crying when it goes pear shaped is no way for any nation to act.

I don't envy America's position either - they seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have to be seen to support an ally, but on the other hand, they have to be mindful of the wider implications that this conflict represents.

When a leader's election platform is, "I promise to reclaim South Ossetia," there is bound to be trouble in the future.

As far as the US is involved, this is yet another great example of why we should take George Washington's advice more seriously. Trade with all, but avoid entangling alliances.

 

[Danoff]

I was also very surprised by some of the comments that George Bush made regarding Russia's attacks on Georgia. He used words like 'disproportional', and 'sovereign'. A few years ago, Israel invaded Lebanon and exacted disproportional revenge for the kidnapping of a couple of Israeli soldiers, and Bush thought that was acceptable.

I'm not entirely familiar with the scenario that has started the Georgia/Russia conflict, but Israel's response to repeated kidnapping and attacks on civilians seemed reasonable to me. Has Georgia or Russia done something similar to Lebanon causing you to make this comparison?

He also mentioned that Russia had no right attacking a sovereign state, yet 5 or 6 years ago, America invaded Iraq - a sovereign state

It is possible to have a right to attack a sovereign state. Repeated and blatant treaty violations, especially cease fire treaty violations, come to mind as one such example.

What was the justification for war in this case? I have not heard a good explanation. So far the evidence I've heard (and there is little) makes me think that it's just a straight forward land grab.

 

[YSSMAN]

Russia isn't going to back down in its own back yard, guns on the table or not. Its going to take direct action. So what is America going to do? With two conflicts on the go, and another possibly in waiting, is America ready to step into a proxy war with a former superpower?

There isn't a chance in hell we could extend ourselves into another direct war with Russia unless we re-instate the draft in the US. Simply put, as it stands, we have neither the money or the manpower. However, in a supporting role under the flag of NATO (or the UN), we'd be rather comfortable I believe.

...As for a proxy war, we're already there. Our troops trained the Georgians, we still have military advisers there (should remind you of a little place called Vietnam), and its my understanding that they're using some of our equipment as well.

Is America going to destroy relations with Russia and possibly China over a tiny country (with an oil pipeline), in a forgotten part of the world?

Presumably not, I doubt many in Washington are stupid enough to do it. The problem is, they've put themselves into a position in which they may have to. Per the Chinese part of the equation, I've been under the impression that their relationship with the US is a bit more 'warm' than with the Russians since the end of the Cold War, but given that this certainly can be viewed as come kind of pre-text for their handling of situations in SW China, its give/take.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the involvement with the OSCE would bring in other member states, correct? Sadly, my understanding of this organization is very limited...

Russia is not entirely innocent in this affair though, they may have been manipulating things in their favour, but you have to remember that it was Georgia who initiated combat, and not Russia. Starting a war against all good advice and then running off crying when it goes pear shaped is no way for any nation to act.

It depends on how you look at it. The Georgians were attempting to place control on a territory that is still rightfully theirs, the Russians claim that they are attacking their people and territory. I tend to agree with the Georgians on this one.

I don't envy America's position either - they seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have to be seen to support an ally, but on the other hand, they have to be mindful of the wider implications that this conflict represents.

I'm personally under the impression that we're going to wait it out and not to much outside of being some kind of mediator between the two parties. I doubt we'd commit to anything militarily unless the UK, France and Germany sign on... Or for that matter, we get some kind of blessing from the UN, which is still unlikely either way.

If you want to lead, lead by example, not by rhetoric.

Remember, this is the United States we're talking about, rhetoric is all that we (and the Soviets) did for 50 years. If there was ever a country not to follow by example, it would be the US.

 

[Tornado]

At the very least I'd say no one in the U.N. will do anything until the Olympics are over. And I would hope that NATO would have the common sense to feel that Georgia is trying to force their hand in letting the country in and stay out of it completely.

You can also be sure that China will align itself with Russia on this matter too. Is America going to destroy relations with Russia and possibly China over a tiny country (with an oil pipeline), in a forgotten part of the world?

I'm not so sure on that. There is a long tradition of hate between China and Russia, especially since China became Communist. The way I see it, China won't do anything unless one of their little friends (North Korea, Vietnam, etc.) becomes involved (which I'm sure China will take steps to prevent) or China is dragged into it directly. After there current funk of "China can do no wrong," I doubt they want to even get involved on a "we're rooting for you" level. I'm thinking most everything to the east of Georgia will stay a non-factor. Its the already-tumultuous relations with countries to the west that will probably come into play if anything happens in the way of expansion of the battlefront.

 

[Danoff]

There isn't a chance in hell we could extend ourselves into another direct war with Russia unless we re-instate the draft in the US.

Why do you need manpower to fight a war. We have more than enough aircraft and cruise missiles rotting in warehouses somewhere just begging to be deployed. I think we could extend ourselves EASILY into this conflict if we wanted to.

 

[Omnis]

There isn't a chance in hell we could extend ourselves into another direct war with Russia unless we re-instate the draft in the US. Simply put, as it stands, we have neither the money or the manpower. However, in a supporting role under the flag of NATO (or the UN), we'd be rather comfortable I believe.

...As for a proxy war, we're already there. Our troops trained the Georgians, we still have military advisers there (should remind you of a little place called Vietnam), and its my understanding that they're using some of our equipment as well.



Presumably not, I doubt many in Washington are stupid enough to do it. The problem is, they've put themselves into a position in which they may have to. Per the Chinese part of the equation, I've been under the impression that their relationship with the US is a bit more 'warm' than with the Russians since the end of the Cold War, but given that this certainly can be viewed as come kind of pre-text for their handling of situations in SW China, its give/take.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the involvement with the OSCE would bring in other member states, correct? Sadly, my understanding of this organization is very limited...



It depends on how you look at it. The Georgians were attempting to place control on a territory that is still rightfully theirs, the Russians claim that they are attacking their people and territory. I tend to agree with the Georgians on this one.



I'm personally under the impression that we're going to wait it out and not to much outside of being some kind of mediator between the two parties. I doubt we'd commit to anything militarily unless the UK, France and Germany sign on... Or for that matter, we get some kind of blessing from the UN, which is still unlikely either way.



Remember, this is the United States we're talking about, rhetoric is all that we (and the Soviets) did for 50 years. If there was ever a country not to follow by example, it would be the US.

Georgians are in the wrong here, imo.

Here's an interesting video:

 

[magburner]

Woah! Now I remembered why I stopped posting down here!

I was watching BBC News 24 earlier, getting the latest update, and it struck me that this conflict bears a striking resemblance to the Cuban missile crisis. Obviously there are no nukes involved, but as a 'stand up and be counted' moment, it is very similar. Back then, America had to stare the Russians down, and (thankfully), it worked. I think that Russia is maybe doing the same thing with the West, Nato, and (by default) America.

There are many wider issues here too. For instance, I've already mentioned oil as one reason, NATO's encroachment into former Easter bloc nations is another, and the proposed American missile defence system is yet another. Maybe Russia feels like they are on the back foot in their own back yard, I dunno?

In my mind, this conflict will not stop until Russia says so, who is going to stop them? I could imagine that Putin will have ordered his soldiers to march right up to the parliament building in Tbilisi, just because they can.

The Georgian President made a grave tactical error initiating this conflict, one that will no doubt cost him and his country dearly. Not just in lives, but also in standing on the world stage, and it must also surely put their entry into both NATO and the EU in very serious doubt.

Have you ever thought about a career in journalism?

Interesting read.

Thanks pal. 👍 I haven't really got the patience or determination to do journalism, but every now and then something will catch my imagination, and I will have a crack at it.

I'm not entirely familiar with the scenario that has started the Georgia/Russia conflict, but Israel's response to repeated kidnapping and attacks on civilians seemed reasonable to me. Has Georgia or Russia done something similar to Lebanon causing you to make this comparison?

It is possible to have a right to attack a sovereign state. Repeated and blatant treaty violations, especially cease fire treaty violations, come to mind as one such example.

From what I've been reading, Georgia has reneged on a previous agreement of non-aggression that dated back to 1992. I'd say that is good enough grounds. You also have to ask yourself, when is enough enough? Israel (and the rest of the world) have obviously shown more restraint than Russia, but when enough is enough, its enough I guess.

South Ossetia (wikipedia article)

In 1992, Georgia was forced to accept a ceasefire to avoid a large scale confrontation with Russia. The government of Georgia and South Ossetian separatists reached an agreement to avoid the use of force against one another, and Georgia pledged not to impose sanctions against South Ossetia. However, the Georgian government still retains control over substantial portions of South Ossetia, including the town of Akhalgori.[22] A peacekeeping force of Ossetians, Russians and Georgians was established. On November 6, 1992, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) set up a Mission in Georgia to monitor the peacekeeping operation. From then, until mid-2004 South Ossetia was generally peaceful.

What was the justification for war in this case? I have not heard a good explanation. So far the evidence I've heard (and there is little) makes me think that it's just a straight forward land grab.

To figure that one out, you'd have to ask the Georgian President! Georgia were the aggressors in this case, Russia merely responded. Some might say cynically, because they offered every South Ossetian a Russian passport, so in effect Russia was acting in defence of its own people. Of course Russia never really acts out of benevolence (come to think of it,when does any nation?). Some of the points I mentioned earlier could be good enough reason.

@YSSMAN: I agree totally with everything you say pal. 👍

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the involvement with the OSCE would bring in other member states, correct? Sadly, my understanding of this organization is very limited...

I don't know too much about the OSCE either, but I doubt they are going to jump into anything serious, why would they?

I'm not so sure on that. There is a long tradition of hate between China and Russia, especially since China became Communist.

You may be right there, I was merely making an assumption based on how Russia and China have mostly 'Vetoed' or blocked Americas actions at the UN. Besides, you have to remember that George Bush publicly denounced China on the eve of the Olympic opening ceremony.

China and America may be on better terms, but I'm sure there is going to have to be some sweet talking to get them to stand up and say something against Russia. My bet is that they will keep quiet.

 

[Danoff]

Georgians are in the wrong here, imo.

Here's an interesting video:

I hope you're not basing your opinion on whether Georgia is in the wrong on that video - which was filled with almost not facts and pretty much a bunch of human interest crap.

It's frustrating to wade through the sea of "what was your experience like" looking for real facts about the conflict.

 

[YSSMAN]

Why do you need manpower to fight a war. We have more than enough aircraft and cruise missiles rotting in warehouses somewhere just begging to be deployed. I think we could extend ourselves EASILY into this conflict if we wanted to.

You always need boots on the ground, any military man will tell you that. Quite certainly we can throw in our aircraft already stationed in Germany and the UK, and quite certainly, we can lob cruise missiles into the theater as well... But destruction like that will not stop all of the fighting.

 

[Danoff]

You always need boots on the ground, any military man will tell you that. Quite certainly we can throw in our aircraft already stationed in Germany and the UK, and quite certainly, we can lob cruise missiles into the theater as well... But destruction like that will not stop all of the fighting.

It can greatly hinder it if we hit military targets. Render their bases useless, render the roads unusable, even their communications can be disabled... and suddenly they'll have a lot more difficulty bringing their force to bear.

Not that I think we should do that, but we could, practically overnight.

 

[Tornado]

We could do that, but that is like asking for WWIII. At least with ground troops the civilian casualties can stay relatively low than when countries start getting missile happy.

 

[Solid Fro]

I hope you're not basing your opinion on whether Georgia is in the wrong on that video - which was filled with almost not facts and pretty much a bunch of human interest crap.

It's frustrating to wade through the sea of "what was your experience like" looking for real facts about the conflict.

Absolutely. That guy is giving no evidence what so ever. The only evidence he provided was his wife's sister's cousin daddy said... something.

George Bush this, George Bush that! War, killing, genocide, Saddam Hussein, Nazis!

It appears that the guy in the video has a bit of post traumatic stress and a whole lot of BDS.

 

[a6m5]

I've been seeing the headlines on google news about how the Russians are now going deeper into Georgia, past South Ossetia.

I kind of appreciated the restraint shown by the U.S. It was frustrating at times, but I felt that they were taking the right approach to this cluster. Big wars have started over some small incidents in middle of nowhere, before. I thought Russia will humiliate Georgia, gain more influence over South Ossetia, settle for somewhat of status quo....... Damn, what the hell are they thinking?

United States need Russia. With Kim Jong Il, etc., true that. But at what cost? Georgia might be a tiny country, but isn't it the most notable Ex-Soviet nation to reach over to the Western nations? And this tiny country actually sent couple thousand(I forget exactly how many) of their troops to Iraq, too. I was glad to hear that American planes transported those Georgian troops back home, at least!

Should the United States make a "smart" move here, leave Georgia to mercy of the Russians? Russians will get stronger in the region they totally controlled anyway. Other than the fact that speed bump called Georgia get smaller(even considering the energy situation), only thing it will hurt is the reputation of the U.S. IMO. Russians are definitely pushing the little kid the U.S. is friends with, and the U.S. are looking like they are going to look the other way.

Or should U.S. jump in? They could warn the Russians, right now. If they don't back off, United States military will protect the Georgian border/sovereignty. Not counting the obvious drawbacks like the "Anti-Iraq" crowd flipping out in the States, U.S.-Russia relations worsening(it wasn't that good before, folks), this will be a very expensive move, costing in very high billions. I wouldn't go for the tactical strike Dan's talking about. I'd put the U.S. Army on Georgian soil. All defense. I've been wrong before, but the Russians gotta know, if they attack those American troops, they will be in a serious trouble. Maybe politcally(all those tanks couldn't protect U.S.S.R.*wink-wink*), maybe militarily.

I don't understand all the hidden agendas, all I know about the region's what I've read in last few days, and I'm not smart enough to know what exactly is the right move for the U.S. Georgians aren't all innocent by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel that blame here has more to do with the Russians than the Georgians. If Russians weren't happy with what was going on in South Ossetia, they could protest, or politically pressure Georgia. You just can't send your military in another country to solve "their" dispute. From what I've read & heard so far, I do buy that this does have a lot to do with land grabbing.

 

[Omnis]

I hope you're not basing your opinion on whether Georgia is in the wrong on that video - which was filled with almost not facts and pretty much a bunch of human interest crap.

It's frustrating to wade through the sea of "what was your experience like" looking for real facts about the conflict.

Of course not. I just said it was an interesting video.

But why would you invade part of your own country? If South Ossetia would like to separate, they ought to be able to. I don't know the history of diplomacy between the areas, but surely there are other ways to resolution instead of war. So, just from what I know I'd say Georgia is wrong here, but that doesn't mean the other side is right either.

 

[Solid Fro]

 

[magburner]

^^ Thanks for the video Solid Fro, you saved me the trouble of looking for it. I have a something to say about what he said, but first listen to a gem of a Bushism...

Watch the video form to 0.51, and listen to what George Bush says:

'It now appears that an effort may be under way to depose Russia's duly elected President.'

Classic George Bush!

OK, joking aside, lets move on to something else he said in the video just after that blooper. At 0.58, George Bush says this:

'Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state, and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.'

In 2006, Israel was provoked into an invasion of a neighbouring state, and threatened a democratic government that was elected by its people. It used disproportional force and exacted heavy revenge on the nation of Lebanon, attacking civilian infrastructure. As they withdrew, they littered Southern Lebanon with more that 1,000,000 cluster bomb munitions.

George Bush's reaction: There was no public denouncement of Israel, infact you could even say that George Bush was blase about the whole affair.

In 2008, Russia was provoked into an invasion of a neighbouring state, and threatened a democratic government that was elected by its people. It used disproportional force and exacted heavy revenge on the nation of Georgia, attacking civilian infrastructure. It is yet to be determined what parting gift the Russian will leave the Georgians.

George Bush's reaction: 'Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state, and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.'

Why is one acceptable and the other not? I'm not disputing the reasons for going to war, there will always 'justifiable reasons'. What I am disputing though, is the duplicity in his rhetoric.

This is is why I, and probably many others around the world have great frustration towards American foreign policy.

 

[Omnis]

Why is one acceptable and the other not?

I've been asking my representatives the same question.

I just hope the Russians don't start attacking Georgia itself and especially Georgian civilians. Originally I read that Russian military was coming in to help South Ossetia-- that they were just defending.

I hope they resolve something.

 

[Danoff]

Why is one acceptable and the other not? I'm not disputing the reasons for going to war, there will always 'justifiable reasons'.

Uh.... what? It's all about the origin of the situation as to what is justifiable. You can't just say "there will always be a justification" and pretend that means something.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I cannot believe the crap I'm reading! How can anybody blame Georgian's for this mess?! I don't think people understand what is occurring, so let's use an example.

SoCal has a huge Hispanic population, in case you weren't aware. Say, Los Angeles Hispanics decide to secede from the California Union, and want to become a 'Mexico territory.' The California Republic say, "No, no, no! We're America, not Mexico! Cease all rebellious activity and fighting at once!" However, it doesn't work, so SoCal troops go in to stabilize the area. Then, Mexico comes in and Invades Los Angeles and attempts to stop the California Republic! Is that just? Hell no!

Russia is 100% blame for this war. They shouldn't have entered or interfered with what's going on. But, I understand why they did. Russia became destabilized due to military cutbacks after the end of the Cold War. It's trying to up military contracts and spending while their equipment rots away unused in storage.

 

[magburner]

Uh.... what? It's all about the origin of the situation as to what is justifiable. You can't just say "there will always be a justification" and pretend that means something.

I was not saying justification as if it meant something, I said it in quite the opposite in fact; because the justifications nowadays seem to matter little to the actions that are taken. That is why I typed it like this: 'justifiable reasons'.

Edit:

Russia is 100% blame for this war.

No, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, they were the aggressor. Russia rather cynically issued 70,000 passports to the South Ossetians as an excuse to enter the fray, but they didn't instigate the conflict (well not directly anyway).

 

[Solid Lifters]

No, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, they were the aggressor.

100% false. South Ossetia is under the rule of Georgia, though not 100% agreed due to years of ongoing conflict, and not Russia. Russia has no right interfering with Georgia's business. Russia invaded South Ossetia to seize control of this area and is now attempting to gain more control of the region.

 

[Danoff]

I was not saying justification as if it meant something, I said it in quite the opposite in fact; because the justifications nowadays seem to matter little to the actions that are taken. That is why I typed it like this: 'justifiable reasons'.

Allow me to rephrase (since it wasn't clear before): The justification is the most important part of this conflict. Sovereignty does not allow you to do whatever the hell you want.

 

[Solid Lifters]

To better relate to the situation in this region, an internet friend received a letter from a former student of his, now living in the US but is Georgian, telling the events leading up to this conflict.

It is a very complicated situation. It is not really about South Ossetia or Abkhazia. And it is not about Georgian soldier's provokating Russian soldiers like Russian press said. The Russian peacekeepers at the Georgian borders have been training last couple of month. Also, the Russian people from South Ossetia were evacuated days before the bombing happend. Last year, Russia deported every single Georgian person from Russia over night. They threw people into cargo airlines and without any explanations they were deported. Everyone thinks that it is a very well planned attack. They believe that Russia was waiting on Olimpics so, that no one would pay attention to what they were going to do with Georgia. Yes, that country has been recognized as an independent republic. The real problem liesf irst of all, in oil pipeline that runs through Georgia and second of all in Goergian-US relationship. When Georgians were deported from Russia last year, Georgian president asked for their explanation, Putin's answer was that they chose to be friends with America and their American friends should take care of them. So, it is only about oil and US-Georgian friendship. I feel bad that 146million Russians are against 4.6 million Georgians, all the georgian troops (2000 soldiers) are stationed in Iraq right now and they are not getting any support from anyone. EU, UN, NATO and other organizations sent delegation to Georgia for diplomatic negotiations but Russia is refusing to agree on anything. Meanwhile people are getting killed and cities are being bombed. I called my family today. I guess all the airplane tickets are sold out until August 23rd. Georgian Airline is flying even more flights because all the tourists and terrified people are leaving. She said that they stay up all night because airplanes are flying above their city and they show all day long on TV how Russians are continueing to bomb and how people get killed. My family wants to contact German embassy if they offer emergency flight for German citizens to get them out of country. I'm following the news on internet, and talk to them couple times a day. I just read that Georgian troops were withdrawn from SOuth Ossetia to show Russia that they really want peace but it seems that Russia is been ignoring everything from Georgian side, as well as from International organizations. That's all I know for right now.

 

[Tornado]

Russia is 100% blame for this war.

I wouldn't go that far. Georgia knew well before hand that what they were going to do with the region would probably give Russia an excuse to invade, then they did it anyway. I'm not saying Russia has any right to do what they are doing, but Georgia would have done well not to provoke anything with a country they had been teetering with war over for 15 years. It isn't wise to give a someone an excuse to do something you don't want them to do when you know full well that they are looking for excuses, and you shouldn't be asking for trouble even if you know the one who will cause it will be in the wrong.

 

[Solid Fro]

SoCal has a huge Hispanic population, in case you weren't aware. Say, Los Angeles Hispanics decide to secede from the California Union, and want to become a 'Mexico territory.' The California Republic say, "No, no, no! We're America, not Mexico! Cease all rebellious activity and fighting at once!" However, it doesn't work, so SoCal troops go in to stabilize the area. Then, Mexico comes in and Invades Los Angeles and attempts to stop the California Republic! Is that just? Hell no!

Thanks Lifters, that's a good analogy. 👍

 

[Tornado]

Replace "California" with "Texas" and you have another good one from a completely different perspective that I should have noticed earlier.

 

[Kent]

If anything, this should be a sign that Russia never changed its basic philosophies and instead simply had to put their horrible goals on hold. How long will it be before the USSR is alive and kicking again with nuclear threats and constant conscription of neighboring countries? 👎

 

[Omnis]

SoCal has a huge Hispanic population, in case you weren't aware. Say, Los Angeles Hispanics decide to secede from the California Union, and want to become a 'Mexico territory.' The California Republic say, "No, no, no! We're America, not Mexico! Cease all rebellious activity and fighting at once!" However, it doesn't work, so SoCal troops go in to stabilize the area. Then, Mexico comes in and Invades Los Angeles and attempts to stop the California Republic! Is that just? Hell no!

Good analogy, but it relies on one question: Does Georgia have provincial/regional/lower governments? If South Ossetia has its own government, then the analogy becomes more like the US Civil War. The Confederate States of America had every right to secede from the Union, but the Union objected and invaded. Likewise, South Ossetia would have the right to autonomy, and they have Russian help in seeking it.

But, if Russia is using this as an opportunity to annex the entire state, then they too are doing wrong.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Good analogy, but it relies on one question: Does Georgia have provincial/regional/lower governments? If South Ossetia has its own government, then the analogy becomes more like the US Civil War. The Confederate States of America had every right to secede from the Union, but the Union objected and invaded. Likewise, South Ossetia would have the right to autonomy, and they have Russian help in seeking it.

But, if Russia is using this as an opportunity to annex the entire state, then they too are doing wrong.

Another good analogy, Omnis.

Yes, South Ossetia has 'officially seceded from the union (Georgia),' but it has never been officially recognized. The US, UN, as well as the European Union haven't recognized South Ossetia as an independent state, much like the Confederate States of America back during the US Civil War. The "state of their Union" is de facto and Georgia has every right to cease all military rebellious fighting that is taking place there. It is their business.

But, as pointed out by the personal letter above, Russia is behind the events occurring. This is nothing but a Russian occupation of the territory that appears to be spreading into the greater Georgian region. Georgia, and South Ossetia, are not under the control of Russia, however Russia has always wanted it back, from the time the region separated itself.

It is now coming to light that the recent military rebellious activity by those in South Ossetia were indeed the Russian military disguised as 'peacekeepers.' It was their rebellious actions that caused the Georgian government to act, thus giving Russia the appeared right, opportunity and onus to invade. I'm not fooled by the Russians.

Simply put, this event is nothing more than a Russian land grab, annexation under well planed military force. Therefor, Russia is 100% responsible and at fault for this war.