Russian tanks enter South Ossetia, Georgia declares war

[Tornado]

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 is?


Possible Cease Fire?

 

[Solid Lifters]

It is?

Yes.

Possible Cease Fire?

Positive news is always good sign. Not holding my breath on it, though.

 

[YSSMAN]

Possible Cease Fire?

I do hope so. The saber-rattling that some of the people were doing here in the US had me (and I'm sure many of our Allies) a bit worried.

Now, if we can get around to having non-Russian peace keepers on the ground (ie, impartial Blue Helmets) in South Ossetia, that would be a great step forward as well.

 

[Omnis]

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.

Georgia invaded. You're absolutely right that it's their business, but they still pulled out the guns instead of pulling up the chair.

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's the other way around, from what I read. The South Ossetians have a 99% referendum for unity with Russia, and a lot of them are Russian citizens.

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.

Any South Ossetian rebel activity is in response to Georgian invasion. They had nothing to gain from preemptively attacking Georgia. Russian peacekeepers and citizens were killed, which is why Russia is involved. For Russia, it's not so much a land grab as it is a land "catch". Because of the invasion, Russia basically wants to teach Saakashvili a lesson and to make the statement that South Ossetia should do what the population of South Ossetia wants.

Now, if we can get around to having non-Russian peace keepers on the ground (ie, impartial Blue Helmets) in South Ossetia, that would be a great step forward as well.

Not really. The best thing would be for each military to exit the battlefield and for Red Cross/etc. to get to the Ossetians.

 

[Danoff]

Georgia invaded. You're absolutely right that it's their business, but they still pulled out the guns instead of pulling up the chair.

That's not necessarily the wrong move. Nor is it necessarily unjust.

 

[a6m5]

Russian peacekeepers and citizens were killed, which is why Russia is involved. For Russia, it's not so much a land grab as it is a land "catch".

I'd seriously qestion how these Russian Peacekeepers were killed. First of all, Russian troops playing U.N. Peacekeeper in a region, where they are fully dipped in the dispute, at least to me, is a joke. Secondly, I have very hard time believing that Georgians are stupid enough to kill Russian troops, just to move in on South Ossetians.

How were these Peacekeeping(grain of salt ) troops killed? Do we know exactly why?

 

[Solid Lifters]

Georgia invaded. You're absolutely right that it's their business, but they still pulled out the guns instead of pulling up the chair.

The use of military force by Georgian leaders was justified. The level of violence and military attacks by Russian 'peacekeepers' are not the direct result of Georgian use of force, but more of an opportunity to keep the conflict going which is preventing Georgia from entering NATO, which Russia doesn't want to happen. Again, this war is more complex than just a 'land grab.'

It's the other way around, from what I read. The South Ossetians have a 99% referendum for unity with Russia, and a lot of them are Russian citizens.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/south-ossetia.htm

I'm trying to catch up and read much about the history of this conflicts between Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia. It's hard to read through conflicting stories, articles and reports. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've read different. The above link is as good as it gets, but I haven't finished reading it. Lost of stuff to read up on, including the links to the right of that page.

Any South Ossetian rebel activity is in response to
Georgian invasion.

Likewise, any Georgian actions are direct result of Russian military attacks. It goes both ways.

They had nothing to gain from preemptively attacking Georgia.

1)Increasing military contracts and spending, 2)Preventing Georgia from entering NATO, 3)Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline control, 4)Oust Saakashvili, 5) Prevent Georgia from breaking the post-soviet Russian chain. Five really good gains for Russia, if you ask me.

Russian peacekeepers and citizens were killed, which is why Russia is involved. For Russia, it's not so much a land grab as it is a land "catch".

So, that's the fault of their own. They should have stayed out of the Georgian dealings. But, this is what Russia wanted and the Georgian's fell for it.

Because of the invasion, Russia basically wants to teach Saakashvili a lesson and to make the statement that South Ossetia should do what the population of South Ossetia wants.

More reasons, as I gave above, than that.

 

[Tornado]

1)Increasing military contracts and spending, 2)Preventing Georgia from entering NATO, 3)Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline control, 4)Oust Saakashvili, 5) Prevent Georgia from breaking the post-soviet Russian chain. Five really good gains for Russia, if you ask me.

I think he meant people living in South Ossetia.

 

[Omnis]

1)Increasing military contracts and spending, 2)Preventing Georgia from entering NATO, 3)Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline control, 4)Oust Saakashvili, 5) Prevent Georgia from breaking the post-soviet Russian chain. Five really good gains for Russia, if you ask me.

I was talking about the South Ossetians attacking Georgia. But, yeah, those are excellent reasons why Russia is in their business. The pipeline, however, isn't even in Ossetia. It wouldn't be worth all this trouble as Russia is already a major exporter of gas and oil and has their own Baku pipeline.

So, that's the fault of their own. They should have stayed out of the Georgian dealings. But, this is what Russia wanted and the Georgian's fell for it.

True-- and this backs up both of us.

I'm just looking for understanding on both sides, and to go back and forth between the two perspectives is good for everyone.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I was talking about the South Ossetians attacking Georgia. But, yeah, those are excellent reasons why Russia is in their business. The pipeline, however, isn't even in Ossetia. It wouldn't be worth all this trouble as Russia is already a major exporter of gas and oil and has their own Baku pipeline.

I agree, the pipeline reason is very thin, but I still think it's valid enough to list. It appears Russia knows how important the pipeline is to America and I cannot help to think the Russians are looking to cause us to be concerned about it. Glasnost!

I'm just looking for understanding on both sides, and to go back and forth between the two perspectives is good for everyone.

I too, have been reading up on both sides, but keep coming to my final opinion of the situation. Of course, that could change, but I haven't read anything yet that will change it.

Yes, Georgians did bad things to Ossetians, and vice versa, throughout the history of the region, but Russia has been the worst offender here.

 

[Sureboss]

It's the other way around, from what I read. The South Ossetians have a 99% referendum for unity with Russia, and a lot of them are Russian citizens.

I believe the referendum was for independence rather than unity with Russia. That referendum was rejected by Russia, along with the rest of the world.

 

[Touring Mars]

Mikhail Gorbachev has written a piece in today's Guardian on the situation in Georgia...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/russia.georgia1

 

[Omnis]

I believe the referendum was for independence rather than unity with Russia. That referendum was rejected by Russia, along with the rest of the world.

You're right. Sorry for the mistake.

 

[a6m5]

Mikhail Gorbachev has written a piece in today's Guardian on the situation in Georgia...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/russia.georgia1

You are either Pro-Russia, or are just thick, if you buy this crap(not you, Chris. ). I expected a whole lot more from this guy. He is blaming this on everybody and their mothers, except Russia. Just, wow.

From the article:

The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.

Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.

I do agree on solving these issues peacefully, but what did Russia just do? Should Georgia have taken peaceful approach, of course! Should Russia taken a peaceful approach, yes, but they didn't either!

What happened on the night of August 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenceless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.

The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of US instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of Nato membership, emboldened Georgian leaders.

Just like the Russian military's reaction to the Georgians, yes, it was very beyond comprehension. Placing the blame of this paticular incident on the U.S. for training the Georgian troops is absurd. Also, this coming from a Russian is very hypocritical. And if Gorbachev actually believed that this thing was going to help Georgian join the NATO, he is as smart as that other Mikhail, who's in charge of Georgia.

blah, blah, blah.....
that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important. The region's political leaders need to realise this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.

I agree.

Over the past few days, some western nations have taken positions, particularly in the UN security council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the security council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict.

By postions, you mean like "you've already stopped the Georgian troops, so stop attacking"? Try reading the first part of your own article. I guess that rule applies to Georgians, but when the Russians are doing the attacking, it goes out the window.

By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest", the US made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognise that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.

This is just getting silly now. It doesn't matter if Georgia/South Ossetia were on the moon. If U.S. had attacked & invaded one of Russian allies on the American continent, Russia will not get involved? Really?

The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too - but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.

Yes, and we can call it "CCCP". Great.

 

[Touring Mars]

I have to say that I think Gorbachev does make some good points, particularly about the fact that many nations in Nato (as well as the media) have been very quick to portray the whole thing as if it is an act of Russian aggression, which is not only a huge over-simplification, but it also a pretty big misrepresentation of what is really going on. Gorbachev is saying that those people responsible for bringing this situation to blows should not be let off the hook or portrayed as if they are innocent victims of naked Russian aggression - the Georgian government are by no means the innocent parties in this debacle, and neither are the US.

It does matter where this is happening, and it is also important to ask why the US are involved at all. The US are complaining that their sphere of influence is being attacked. But their 'sphere of influence' seems to be any country that decides to call itself a democracy - even when the term 'democracy' seems to be little more than a euphemism for "pro-American", and especially when that region happens to be right on the doorstep of their number one strategic enemy... If the US can call the Caucusus region a "sphere of it's national interest" (hence justifying why they're involved in the region at all), then surely it is equally (if not considerably more) justified that the Russians also consider the region within it's sphere of national interest, given the historical and geographical links to both contested regions?

It seems just a little bit hypocritical of the US and other Nato nations to whine about their "interests" being attacked and extol the virtues of democracy as a justification, when the real reason that Georgia is of interest to them has little to do with "democracy" (or indeed the people in the region) at all, and plenty to do with expansion of their own control/influence in the region. I don't see why the Russians are any more to blame or any less justified than the US-backed Georgians, whose attack and attempted ethnic cleansing of a de facto independent state provoked the Russian response in the first place. At the end of the day, it is the people of South Ossetia who are paying the price.

It seems that democracy is perfectly good, just so long as that democracy supports us...

 

[Tornado]

It seems that democracy is perfectly good, just so long as that democracy supports us...

One could say that has always been the case when dealing with Russia. Look at the human rights BS that we swept under the rug during the 70s and 80s just because the murderous dictatorships we showered with money, guns and support (and in some cases brought to power) were not friends with the Soviets, or those nasty little screwups in the Middle East we made for the same reason.

 

[Rainmaster]

Turkish journalists have been shot by russian soldiers while they were capturing some video in a car. They are fine and back to Turkey. But just watch this video and see how scary it is.

Click To Watch

 

[Sureboss]

I have to say that I think Gorbachev does make some good points, particularly about the fact that many nations in Nato (as well as the media) have been very quick to portray the whole thing as if it is an act of Russian aggression, which is not only a huge over-simplification, but it also a pretty big misrepresentation of what is really going on. Gorbachev is saying that those people responsible for bringing this situation to blows should not be let off the hook or portrayed as if they are innocent victims of naked Russian aggression - the Georgian government are by no means the innocent parties in this debacle, and neither are the US.

It does matter where this is happening, and it is also important to ask why the US are involved at all. The US are complaining that their sphere of influence is being attacked. But their 'sphere of influence' seems to be any country that decides to call itself a democracy - even when the term 'democracy' seems to be little more than a euphemism for "pro-American", and especially when that region happens to be right on the doorstep of their number one strategic enemy... If the US can call the Caucusus region a "sphere of it's national interest" (hence justifying why they're involved in the region at all), then surely it is equally (if not considerably more) justified that the Russians also consider the region within it's sphere of national interest, given the historical and geographical links to both contested regions?

It seems just a little bit hypocritical of the US and other Nato nations to whine about their "interests" being attacked and extol the virtues of democracy as a justification, when the real reason that Georgia is of interest to them has little to do with "democracy" (or indeed the people in the region) at all, and plenty to do with expansion of their own control/influence in the region. I don't see why the Russians are any more to blame or any less justified than the US-backed Georgians, whose attack and attempted ethnic cleansing of a de facto independent state provoked the Russian response in the first place. At the end of the day, it is the people of South Ossetia who are paying the price.

It seems that democracy is perfectly good, just so long as that democracy supports us...

The South Ossetians aren't exactly the innocent party, TM. Many forecast a violent oppression of Georgian-Ossetians by the majority Russian-Ossetians. Already seeing this on news videos of this. They have been offered many political "deals" (full autonomy) by the Georgian government, but refused all of them. These offers are still standing according to the Georgian president.

Where doe the future lie? Well, we all want a peaceful end. Though, as we all know, this hardly ever happens. Especially as you have two different ethnic factions in South Ossetia. If you gave the majority Russian-Ossetians independence, the Georgian-Ossetians would either have to move or face oppression. However, clearly the current climate isn't suitable. I think Russia's hold of Gori is diabolical. There is protecting South Ossetia and there is invading another country. They have gone over the line in 'protecting their citizens'. Then again, the Georgians went over the mark in shelling the South Ossetian capital. I believe, in retaliation at a ceasefire which the South Ossetian "rebels" breached by attacks on Georgian towns.

It is a very complex situation, that is about the only thing for certain in this.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, there's no question that 'siding with the Russians' is a bad idea also. But it's the indignation of NATO countries (well, the US mostly) that is what I don't get. With allegations of ethnic cleansing on both sides, decades of 'history' and a powder-keg situation in South Ossetia, it's a pretty dire situation all round - but my argument is that the Russians - having a native population in South Ossetia - have (as Gorby put it) no choice but to be involved... they are involved intrinsically, and NATO should be butting right out of it IMO. Why the US feel the need to press their interests and get muddled up in an already dangerous and volatile situation is anybody's guess (although it doesn't take a genius to work it out...)

Let's not forget that the US can ill-afford to jeopardize their own extremely important links with Moscow right now, and trying to claim the moral highground when neither side can rightly do so is pretty stupid. However much Russia should "be true to their word" and respect Georgia's sovereignty, NATO countries should also stay out of what is essentially a civil dispute which is already complicated enough. If the US really wanted to help achieve a peaceful resolution in the region, they'd not be backing Georgia to the hilt - politically and military - to kick out the ethnic Russians from their own land. Fortunately, not all NATO nations agree with the US stance in this matter, which is probably just as well since Russia's response was/is a brutal reminder that they are capable of hitting back hard if they're pushed into it...

 

[Solid Fro]

I have two other videos of reporters being shot at by Russian soldiers. An Israeli crew and a Georgian crew. Absolutely despicable actions by the Russians.





I say send up a carrier battle group to the Mediterranean to tickle Russia's testicles.

 

[YSSMAN]

Let the Europeans fight them first, then we'll throw a few kicks in when they're down for the count...

 

[Tornado]

I say send up a carrier battle group to the Mediterranean to tickle Russia's testicles.

Yes. Lets turn this into Vietnam Part 2: We Still Shouldn't be Involved.

 

[Solid Fro]

Vietnam Part 2: The Director's Cut. It removes all that anti-war political bull**** that ruined the first movie.

 

[a6m5]

I have to say that I think Gorbachev does make some good points, particularly about the fact that many nations in Nato (as well as the media) have been very quick to portray the whole thing as if it is an act of Russian aggression, which is not only a huge over-simplification, but it also a pretty big misrepresentation of what is really going on. Gorbachev is saying that those people responsible for bringing this situation to blows should not be let off the hook or portrayed as if they are innocent victims of naked Russian aggression - the Georgian government are by no means the innocent parties in this debacle, and neither are the US.

It does matter where this is happening, and it is also important to ask why the US are involved at all. The US are complaining that their sphere of influence is being attacked. But their 'sphere of influence' seems to be any country that decides to call itself a democracy - even when the term 'democracy' seems to be little more than a euphemism for "pro-American", and especially when that region happens to be right on the doorstep of their number one strategic enemy... If the US can call the Caucusus region a "sphere of it's national interest" (hence justifying why they're involved in the region at all), then surely it is equally (if not considerably more) justified that the Russians also consider the region within it's sphere of national interest, given the historical and geographical links to both contested regions?

It seems just a little bit hypocritical of the US and other Nato nations to whine about their "interests" being attacked and extol the virtues of democracy as a justification, when the real reason that Georgia is of interest to them has little to do with "democracy" (or indeed the people in the region) at all, and plenty to do with expansion of their own control/influence in the region. I don't see why the Russians are any more to blame or any less justified than the US-backed Georgians, whose attack and attempted ethnic cleansing of a de facto independent state provoked the Russian response in the first place. At the end of the day, it is the people of South Ossetia who are paying the price.

It seems that democracy is perfectly good, just so long as that democracy supports us...

Just to clarify my position: I'm not claiming that any one party involved here is innocent(including the South Ossetians). But I do believe that Russians went way too far, and I am convinced that if it wasn't for the Western nations support for Georgia, Russia would have taken over Georgia. Completely. Also, South Ossetia is a recognized Georgian territory, and Russia invited itself into this conflict without any diplomatic attempt to fix it. U.S. or NATO, to their credit, did not get themselves directly involved in this conflict.

What did tick me off about the article is that biggest hypocrite here, in my view, is Gorbachev himself. He is taking shots at the U.S. for something Russia wouldn't hesitate to do themselves. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. He thinks he was a former president of Canada or something.

On hypocrisy, you gotta expect it. When has U.S. or anybody else ever not been a hypocrite? I guess I look at politics more cynically than you do.

P.S. Took me three google search to correctly spell "cynically".

 

[YSSMAN]

Is it just me or does it feel like 1985 all over again?

So, lets forget about Iran for now and turn the clock back and start to slowly pick a fight with the Russians. Good idea, Washington. I can understand a little saber rattling now and then to try and get your point across, but the Russians are calling our bluff. Its time to just back away slowly and let the Europeans handle it.

 

[Prosthetic]

I really don't think we could afford an another war with are efforts in the middle east... We are already in "War Dept" some may say... There are going to be conflicts in the war and the USA should NOT be involved with all of them. We aren't the Super Hero country we try to be.

 

[YSSMAN]

Even more shocking, Ron Paul (R-TX) predicted it happening six years ago...



===

But, you are quite right. We really cannot afford another war, not just with the monetary capital, but with the political capital as well.

 

[Solid Fro]

Heeeey, Crazy Uncle returns! What happened to the Zeppelin that will transport all of his supporters to their new holy land?

 

[Tornado]

Vietnam Part 2: The Director's Cut. It removes all that anti-war political bull**** that ruined the first movie.

I doubt the American public would be terribly thrilled with the idea of us getting involved in this at all, especially considering the reasoning this time would be extra-flimsy.

 

[Sureboss]

Let the Europeans fight them first, then we'll throw a few kicks in when they're down for the count...

See you in 3 years?