BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:42 PM

Ossetians are the rightful owner of South Ossetia. It has been their territory for many hundreds of years. Georgia forcing South Ossetia to be a part of Georgia would be like Russia forcing Georgia to be a part of Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:40 PM

"Serbia, Allies?

Since when?

Haven't they always been close to the Russians?" ~ JtS

Well, the United States helped Russia any way it could to defeat Nazi Germany. Serbia was the only Balkan country allied us. The Shah of Iran was a very important ally, his country having a huge border with Russia and warm water ports. The supply route that allowed Russia to defeat Germany went through Iran. Yes, Iran, Serbia, Russia and the United States were allies and essential in winning WWII in Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:37 PM

Methinks LH, ye have hit a nerve. It is rare to see such a sharp scientific mind reduced to name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:21 PM

Liberal Squawk,

No, you are the one stuck on party line platitudes. My opinions are as diverse as anyone on Mudcat since I try to find facts. That is something that people with a science background must do. Philosophy majors believe that "truth" is on the side of the one who can use tha best wordplay and win an argument. They make good lawyers.

Albania stealing Kosovo from the rightful owner, Serbia, is equivalent to Russia stealing South Ossetia from the rightful owner, Georgia. Unhappy inhabitants who were given Russian citizenship should move to Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:03 PM

Yes, Jack, they have, as a matter of fact.

They fought the Germans in WWII, while the Catholic Croatians mostly were allied with the Germans against the Serbs. After the war, the whole area of what was called Yugoslavia aligned itself closely with the Soviets, but maintained political autonomy.

As soon as Yugoslavia broke up after Tito's death the West began playing the usual "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" games that all powers great and small always play, and the Serbs became the odd man out in that game as wars broke out between Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, etc. Russia tended to favor the Serbs in those conflicts, the West tended to side against them.

Many wrongs were committed on all sides.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:57 PM

Serbia, Allies?

Since when?

Haven't they always been close to the Russians?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:53 PM

Yeah, we've hade 30 years of anti-human foriegn policies... This ain't about Dems or Repubs... It's failed vision stuck in a hampster wheel... We need a paradyme change which is not realted to political parties but founded on pro-human, pro-earth thinking and not US always getting our way...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:45 PM

"That was a monstrous crime by Madeleine Halfbright and "Worthless Willie" Clinton, our second worst president ever."

That's true, pdq, in my opinion. It was a monstrous crime. But I am sort of getting the impression that you always see these things primarily along old party lines that you are traditionally loyal to, regardless of the real circumstance.

In other words, when a Democratic administration does it, it's terrible. But when a Republican administration does it, well, then it's probably justifiable...and when a US ally (Georgia) does it, well then, it's even more justifiable. But when Russia does it! Then it's absolutely despicable...

I think you're having trouble being objective about certain war crimes and war criminals, because your own political loyalties are getting in the way of your ability to recognize them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:21 PM

Peter K (Fionn),

Why do you expect an argument? I agree with everything you said about Kosovo and our betrayal of our Serbian allies. That was a monstrous crime by Madeleine Halfbright and "Worthless Willie" Clinton, our second worst president ever. When the news media said that a mass grave with 700 slaughtered innocent Kosovar Muslims was found which later proves to be 5 dead bodies, unidentifiable and probably Serb, the news media had an obligation to correct their disinformation. They did not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:06 PM

Bruce,

I started to read you first sorce and found lies right there in the first sentence...

You, my friend, are doing nothin' in the interent in truth... What you are doing is spreading propaganda...

All of a sudden Putin is the Devil???

Yeah, Bush and Cheney do love their boogie men...

Give us a break... Most intellegent people don't hacve to read thru reems and reems of propaganda to know which way the wind blows...

This war was started by the Unitied States and their puppets... That is the truth... Unless you can get that far then you are out of the intellegent discussion on why the US did it and what they must now do to fix it... Other than blow smoke up the posteriors of true believers...

B~

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:50 PM

This, as with all recent wars, is not about ideologies per se. It is about money and who will control what aspect of the money market. Note the singular--market.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:49 PM

Just look at how smug and pleased with himself that yucky little Sarkozy is that he got to be the most important boy in assembly.

Gordon Brown and David Cameron are both looking on in envy.

And of course David Cameron is showing that he can talk tough too (puke)

Like a litle annoying terrier barking more aggressively so the other dogs might take him seriously.

We must apparently fasttrack Georgia's entry into NATO ...

... yes david ... that'll solve the problem ...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:37 PM

I don't disagree with any of that. I was just giving the meaning of partnership with the US from the perspective of the current (and some former) administrations.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:32 PM

I'm not sure I agree with your last statement on partnership.

I think that neo-condoleezas words can be turned back on her.

I think the US needs the cooperation of the other G8 countries and wider international cooperation as much as russia does to function on the global chessboard/marketplace.

America can no longer afford to isolate itself either.

Especially now that europe is staarting to grow significantly in strength.

At the end of the next recession Europe will be seen to have weathered the storm the best and that includes countries like poland and the other old soviet block countries who will suddenly be in undreamed of positions of influence.

America and russia both require a strong partnership with Europe, as Europe does with them. Not to mention China.

There is an American tendancy sometimes, when criticizing themselves, to remain nonetheless in a self aggrandizing mindset.

This isn't all about US foreign policy, it is about Diplomatic jostling on the great global chessboard.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:15 PM

Interesting article Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:14 PM

Partnership with the US means get a gun and use it on whoever we tell you to.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:10 PM

so did the chicken come home to roost in the can of worms? ...

Sorry ... I never was much good at politics ;-)

but seriously ...

I see partnership as meaning "don't buy a gun, get a lawyer!"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:04 PM

Some historical perspective...


"Up until now, this war was framed as a simple tale of Good Helpless Democratic Guy Georgia versus Bad Savage Fascist Guy Russia. In fact, it is far more complex than this, morally and historically. Then there are two concentric David and Goliath narratives here. The initial war pitted the Goliath Georgia--a nation of 4.4 million, with vastly superior numbers, equipment and training thanks to US and Israeli advisers--against David-Ossetia, with a population of between 50,000-70,000 and a local militia force that is barely battalion strength. Reports coming out of South Ossetia tell of Georgian rockets and artillery leveling every building in the capital city, Tskhinvali, and of Georgian troops lobbing grenades into bomb shelters and basements sheltering women and children. Although true casualty figures are hard to come by, reports that up to 2,000 Ossetians, mostly civilians, were killed are certainly believable, given the intensity of the initial Georgian bombardment, the wanton destruction of the city and surrounding regions and the generally savage nature of Caucasus warfare, a very personal game where old rules apply.

But you don't hear about this story from the Western media. Indeed, you hear little if anything about the Ossetians, who seem to hardly exist in the West's eyes, even though their grievance is the root cause of this war.

While Russia and America see the conflict in abstract terms about spheres of influence and protecting allies, for Ossetians, who still recall the centuries of massacres Georgians committed against them, it is highly personal. They will still recall the Georgian massacres in the early 1920s, when Georgia was briefly independent, which exterminated up to 8 percent of the Ossetian population. In 1990, when Georgia was again moving towards independence, the ultranationalist leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia abolished Ossetia's limited autonomy, leading to another Ossetian rebellion that was only quelled by a peace agreement signed by Georgia, Russia and the Ossetians. Gamsakhurdia was subsequently deposed, and Georgia's ethnic chauvinism was shelved until the rise of current president Mikhail Saakashvili in 2003."


http://mobile.thenation.com/docmobile.mhtml?i=20080818&s=ames2

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:45 PM

Ssaakashvili sounded quite unhinged as he ranted today. Even Condi, standing beside him, had the grace to look a bit uncomfortable.

Thanks for the Strobe Talbot cut & paste, beardedbruce. I thought such lengthy clippings were discouraged in the non-music threads but it is a useful pointer to who does your thinking.

The US admin line on Kosovo, parroted by Talbot, has always been a travesty.

First there was no genocide inflicted on the Albanian muslims. Remember those figures that were being bandied around at the time? The US state department was talking about 250,000 dead Albanians IIRC, and the UK foreign secretary (Robin Cooke) used a more conservative figure of 150,000. So far about 3,000 bodies have been found, most of them Serbs.)

Second the Albanian muslims (in the main, refugees and economic migrants who got out of Albania proper in the Hoxhe years and earlier) had discriminated against the indigenous Serbs for years.

Third, all that stuff about Milosevic withdrawinig Kosovo autonomy is blatant hypocrisy. Tito granted it in 1974 - yes, the guy was human and made some mistakes. When Milosevic withdrew it, the IMF and the World Bank were delighted because they wanted to see strong central government. Can you imagine how the US admin would function if California, for instance, had a veto on federal policy-making?

Pdq, try applying your South Ossetia and San Diego logic to Kosovo. Russia, along with Spain and others, warned that sovereignty for Kosovo would open a can of worms. Now a chicken has come home to roost. And this time, joy of joys, there's fuck all that Uncle Sam can do about it except huff and puff.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:33 PM

The US isn't being less hamfisted. It's just being a lot more covert in its hamfistedness. Any rhetoric on the part of the US government about "global partnership" is just a cover for what is really being done, which is the US attempting to bend the entire world to its will whether the rest of the world likes it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:46 PM

I have to say that I also find carols point interesting regarding the need for a georgian non aggression pledge.

There seems to me to be no harm in the georgians agreeing not to attack Ossetia or Abkhazia again.

Nor does there seem to be any harm in Georgia accepting that the sovereignty of Ossettia and Abkhazia and their respective desires for self determination deserve to be given due attention and scrutiny.

Perhaps it is right and proper that Georgia accepts their right to coexist as independant political states.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:36 PM

Yes - and it makes me a bit sick to see Bush and Rice enjoying their new found status as courageous diplomats.

America is being slightly less hamfisted.

I heard one US representative say scathingly " Russia is nothing ... it's saudi with trees" as a way of explaining why they would have no chance in a diplomatic struggle against America.

I believe Obama might be so much less hamfisted as to be considered Graceful.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:33 PM

"My own opinion is that Russia is doing it to show Georgia (and its puppet master, the US) that Georgia is going to have to relinquish any claim on South Ossetia and Abkhazia whether it wants to or not. I think it is doing it to pressure Georgia to sign a non use of force agreement."

No, they are really doing it to show Georgia that they can't follow policies which Russia doesn't approve of.
S. Ossetia and Abkhazia are mere examples of that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:27 PM

"Russians are doing it in a hamfisted neanderthal way."

Agreed. Perhaps they are trying to imitate George Bush? ;-)

The USA has been clearly giving the world the message since 2001 that might is right and that he with the largest military in the world is absolutely free to attack whom he wants when he wants, regardless of legality, regardless of what the U.N. has to say about it, and even upon wholly spurious excuses (like WMDs that don't exist). Furthermore, he with the largest military has the right to torture prisoners and hold them in offshore facilities without trial or legal representation.

I'm sure Russia has learned a lot from watching the Bush administration's gentle approach to diplomacy in these last 7 years. (sarcasm)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:21 PM

LH,

Thing is that Russians are doing it in a hamfisted neanderthal way.

The global partnership that the US speaks of is in fact the diplomatic battlefield where the nations of today fight their battles without suffering damage to their people, infrastructure or reputation.

America is right that Russia has taken a step backwards and in the process undermined her standing on the world stage.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:14 PM

"Essentially, it's payback time for a grievance that Russia has borne against the West for nine years."

Exactly. And a legitimate grievance, in my opinion...but it goes back a lot further than nine years. It goes all the way back to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the subsequent dismembering of most of their border regions and the devastation of their domestic economy, indeed the devastation of the fabric of their entire society.

If you were Russian, BB, you would most likely understand that it's a legitimate grievance.

The West has been throwing its weight around in an arrogant manner for decades now, subverting various cultures through economic and political manipulation, bombing invading small countries at its whim, and attempting to control all the oil in the world...confident that no one could stop them.

The Russians are now saying, "Enough. We draw the line here."

You would say exactly the same thing were you in their position.

You have your interests at heart. They have theirs. They are human too.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:13 PM

And the russian Media is romanticising the whole campaign and glorifying it with slow moving music on news reports which, as we have seen in Ireland amongst other places, can make ordinary murderers feel and appear like warrior poets.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:07 PM

lox...

There are genuine members of the Russian Army in S. Ossetia (a part of Georgia) right now, but there are also paid mercenaries as well as volunteers from various areas. Those who don't wear a Russian uniform but kill people are probably mercenaries being protected by the Russian Army as the former do the "dirty work". The volunteers seem to be unpaid folks who either have a grudge to settle or just want to be able to kill people.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:04 PM

Saakashvili is not speaking like a true conqueror. Shame! No wonder his invasion plans in South Ossetia went awry. He should have said "Georgia will be completely free only when the most beautiful flag in the world, the five-star flag, flies over Moscow, Vienna, Dresden, and Paris!" You can't win total hegemony for the most beautiful flag in the world with feeble half-measures. George "It's all the way to Baghdad!" Bush could have told him that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM

My own opinion is that Russia is doing it to show Georgia (and its puppet master, the US) that Georgia is going to have to relinquish any claim on South Ossetia and Abkhazia whether it wants to or not. I think it is doing it to pressure Georgia to sign a non use of force agreement.

If Georgia can throw its weight around and force South Ossetia to do its bidding (killing many civilians in the process), it seems to me that Georgia is not in a position to complain if someone else does the same thing to it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM

Russia's Ominous New Doctrine?

By Strobe Talbott
Friday, August 15, 2008; Page A21

Russia has been justifying its rampage through Georgia as a "peacekeeping" operation to end the Tbilisi government's "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" of South Ossetia. That terminology deliberately echoes U.S. and NATO language during their 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia, which resulted in the independence of Kosovo. Essentially, it's payback time for a grievance that Russia has borne against the West for nine years. The Russians are relying on the conceit that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is today's equivalent of Slobodan Milosevic, and that the South Ossetians are (or were until their rescue by the latter-day Red Army last week) being victimized by Tbilisi the way the Kosovar Albanians suffered under Belgrade.

This analogy turns reality, and history, upside down. Only after exhausting every attempt at diplomacy did NATO go to war over Kosovo. It did so because the formerly "autonomous" province of Serbia was under the heel of Belgrade and the Milosevic regime was running amok there, killing ethnic Albanians and throwing them out of their homes. By contrast, South Ossetia -- even though it is on Georgian territory -- has long been a Russian protectorate, beyond the reach of Saakashvili's government.

An accurate comparison between the Balkan disasters of the 1990s and the one now playing out in the Caucasus underscores what is most ominous about current Russian policy. Seventeen years ago, the Soviet Union came apart at the seams more or less peacefully. That was overwhelmingly because Boris Yeltsin insisted on converting the old inter-republic boundaries into new international ones. In doing so, he kept in check the forces of revanchism among communists and nationalists in the Russian parliament (which went by the appropriately atavistic name "the Supreme Soviet").

Meanwhile, Yugoslavia collapsed into bloody chaos because its leaders engaged in an ethnically and religiously based land-grab. Milosevic, as the best-armed of the lot, tried to carve a "Greater Serbia" out of the flanks of Bosnia and Croatia. If Yeltsin had gone that route, seeking to create a Greater Russia that incorporated Belarus and the parts of Ukraine, northern Kazakhstan and the Baltic states populated by Russian speakers, there could have been conflict across 11 time zones with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the mix.

A question that looms large in the wake of the past week is whether Russian policy has changed with regard to the permanence of borders. That seemed to be what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was hinting yesterday when he said, "You can forget about any discussion of Georgia's territorial integrity." He ridiculed "the logic of forcing South Ossetia and Abkhazia to return to being part of the Georgian state."

Lavrov is a careful and experienced diplomat, not given to shooting off his mouth. That makes his comments all the more unsettling. If he has given the world a glimpse of the Russian endgame, it's dangerous in its own right and in the precedent it would set. South Ossetia and Abkhazia might be set up as supposedly independent countries ("just like Kosovo," the Russians would say) -- but would in fact be satrapies of Russia. While Russia might see that outcome as proof of its comeback as a major power, the Balkanization of the Caucasus may not end there: Chechnya is just one of several regions on Russian territory that are seething with resentment against the Kremlin and that might hanker after a version of independence far less to Moscow's liking than what may be contemplated for Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Among Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's important tasks in the days ahead is to get clarity on whether a Lavrov doctrine has replaced the Yeltsin one of 16 years ago. If so, big trouble looms -- including for Russia. Moscow's action and rhetoric of the past week have highlighted yet another, potentially more consequential respect in which this episode could bode ill for all concerned. For the Bush administration -- and those of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush as well -- the fundamental premise of American policy has been that Russia has put its Soviet past behind it and is committed, eventually, to integrating itself into Europe and the political, economic and ideological (as opposed to the geographical) "West."

Prominent Russians have said as much. In one of my first meetings with Vladimir Putin, before he became president, he spoke of his country's zapadnichestvo, its Western vocation. Yet it now appears that beyond the undisguised animosity that Putin bears toward Saakashvili, he and his government regard Georgia's pro-Western bent and its aspiration to join two Western institutions, NATO and the European Union, as, literally, a casus belli. If that is the case, the next U.S. administration -- the fourth to deal with post-Soviet Russia -- will have to reexamine the underlying basis for the whole idea of partnership with that country and its continuing integration into a rule-based international community.

The writer is president of the Brookings Institution and was deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:59 PM

For the record,

I would trust Obama to be a million times more resourceful, more intelligent, and more competent to deal with this situation than McCain.

I think politics is indeed a game of chess and that is unavoidable as if you aren't playing it you'll be beaten by someone who is.

I believe that Obama would be a subtler and more effective player.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:55 PM

...there should be no doubt that Abkhazia must be regained and that Georgia's territorial integrity must be restored. Georgia will be completely free only when the most beautiful flag in the world, the five-star flag, flies at the (*1) Roki tunnel and on the (*2) Psou.

--Mikheil Saakashvili, November 22, 2004


*1 The Roki tunnel crosses the border between South Ossetia and Russia.

*2 The Psou River is forms the border between Abkhazia and Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:53 PM

I think I am becoming more entrenched in my suspicion of Putin.

However, now that i look at the Americans a bit more closely, they are coming across as though they are revelling in their righteousness.

They don't seem to be engaging the Russians on the question of Georgia's irresponsibility but are stuck in a groove blaming russia.

Again though, I find myself returning to the pictures of the south ossetian forces currently in Georgia laying waste to those around them whilst under the protection of the russian peacekeepers.

I don't see how allowing that has anything to do with humanitarianism or peacekeeping or russian responses to georgian aggression against ossetians.

Why are the russians giving tacit licence to the south ossetian seperatists to murder and destroy in georgia?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:46 PM

Bobert,

You state:
"Ummmmmm, what would Russia's motive be here, folks??? "


Do you ever bother to read anything? There have been a number of posts about what Russia stands to gain by this. If you truely believe what you have stated, you disappoint me greatly. Those NASCAR fans you wanted to disenfranchise have a better grasp of international politics than you have shown.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:42 PM

Ummmmmm, what would Russia's motive be here, folks??? I mean, lets get real... Russsia needs another Cheknya like the US needs another Iraq... If anything, Russia has been suckered into this by the US and their CIA puppet in Georgia... Russia has everything to loose... Especially now with Russia enjoying all these oil profits...

Maybe this is why Putin very angerily waged his finger at Bush at the Olympics after getting a call informing him of the attacks...

Russia nas been sucker punched by Cheney and Putin is gonna be one pissed off guy for a long time over it... And I don't blame him... And big moth John McCain, whould he be elected, won't be able to fix nuthin' because he had to use his Georgian lobbiest to turn this into a big ol' fashion circle jerk of a PR campaign...

One more reason to not vote for John McCain unless you want 4 more years of lousy US/Russian relations...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:26 PM

The BBC showed footage the other night which they filmed a couple of weeks ago that they said was filmed by one of their crews and which they claimed depicted russian backed south ossetian seperatists attacking georgian targets in georgia.

To what extent is the "popular" uprising of the russian backed seperatists comparable to the "popular" uprising of the Contras in Nicaragua.

Is Russia deliberately trying to destabilize Georgia to effect a regime change in Georgia as Sakashvili claims?

Is the whole Contra thing the reason why America has been so quick to deduce the russians motives?

Is it a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or worse, is it a case of the Americans projecting their own guilt onto Russia?

Russian propaganda ... er ... news ... gives such a different picture to the news agencies that I trust that I have to consider that they do indeed have something to hide.

There simply isn't the same honest media scrutiny that we enjoy in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:18 PM

Georgia reports Shootout in S.Ossetia

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 29 Jul.'08 / 09:56
   

Georgian posts in the South Ossetian conflict zone came under fire from South Ossetian militias overnight and early on July 29, Rustavi 2 TV and the Georgian Public Broadcaster reported.

According to the reports, posts located on the Sarabuki heights were attacked. No one was injured, the reports said. The South Ossetian side has yet to comment.

A group of officials from the Georgian Ministry of Defense, including Deputy Minister Ramaz Nikolaishvili, visited the conflict zone on July 28. The Georgian MoD reported that the delegation also visited, as it put it, "the strategic height" of Sarabuki and placed the Georgian national flag there.

In a separate incident, the Russian command of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces stationed in the conflict zone said late on July 28 that South Ossetian militiamen had prevented peacekeepers and OSCE observers from monitoring the village of Cholibauri. The Georgian side has claimed that South Ossetian militiamen are setting up military fortifications in an area close to the village.

"They [the South Ossetian militiamen] threatened us at gunpoint and even fired several shots into the air over the observers' heads," Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies quoted Vladimir Ivanov, a spokesman for the Russian peacekeepers in the conflict zone, as saying late on July 28. "Such actions fuel tensions in the conflict zone."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:16 PM

1.
"Georgia said the same day that Georgian posts on the Sarabuki heights were attacked by South Ossetian forces with no injuries reported.[103]"


2."Georgia bombed and invaded South Ossetia for no other reason than because it wants to force South Ossetia to be reabsorbed back into Georgia." = A judgement made by you without substantiation. I read that Georgia was tired of being attacked by the South Ossetian sepratists, even afetr various ceasefires, and was trying to show them that they should not blow up Georgians. Just as valid as your claim, and a lot closer to the stated facts by BOTH sides.


3/"And any and all violence by South Ossetians has been in response to these efforts by Georgia."

A false claim, as several of the attacks on Georgia are claimed to be AFTER cease-fires were in place- the South Ossetians DID NOT WANT a peaceful resolution.

I will state that "Any and all violence by Georgians has been in response to these efforts by South Ossetians to violently leave the state of Georgia." This is obviously as true as your claim, perhaps more so.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:09 PM

On July 29, 2008 South Ossetia said two South Ossetian villages had been fired on by Georgian forces in response to South Ossetia reinforcing its positions on the perimeter of the conflict zone

As we can see, Georgia has been firing on South Ossetians even in the absence of any attacks coming from South Ossetians. Georgia's bombing and invasion of South Ossetia had notthing whatever to do with any skirmishes instigated by South Ossetians or anyone else. Georgia bombed and invaded South Ossetia for no other reason than because it wants to force South Ossetia to be reabsorbed back into Georgia. And any and all violence by South Ossetians has been in response to these efforts by Georgia. This makes Georgia the aggressor.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:04 PM

South Ossetia considers itself an independent country. Nobody in the world has a right to tell them otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:48 PM

"The Government of Georgia has been preparing for an invasion of South Ossetia for a long time..."

This is getting to be just plain silly. South Ossetia is part of Georgia and has been since 1991 after Russian and Georgian leaders negotiated the current boundries. Not one international body, including the UN, recognizes the South Ossetian claim of independence, and no rational peolple consider it a part of Russia. It belongs to Georgia just as San Diego County belongs to the United States.

Perhaps the unhappier folks in South Ossetia will pick up and got to Russia to live. I'm sure there will be plenty of their relatives will want to stay and the area will be much the better for it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:44 PM

The South Ossetian Press and Information Committee reported that a South Ossetian militiaman had been killed and another injured in an attack on a police post in the village of Ubia and this was followed by the shelling of Tskhinvali, which resulted in the death of one man. The shelling involved the use of mortars and grenade launchers, they said. Georgia claimed it had opened fire in response to the shelling by South Ossetian militiamen of Georgian-controlled villages.

The Georgian Ministry of Defense said on July 7, 2008 a group of up to ten militiamen were apparently prevented from placing mines on a Georgian-controlled by-pass road linking the Georgian villages in the north of Tskhinvali with the rest of Georgia. The Georgian side opened fire and the group was forced to retreat towards the nearby South Ossetian-controlled village

According to media reports, on July 19, 2008 a Georgian police post was attacked by Abkhaz militias using grenades, one of the militiamen died from a grenade exploding accidentally. Abkhaz officials condemned the reports as false.[99]

On July 29, 2008 South Ossetia said two South Ossetian villages had been fired on by Georgian forces in response to South Ossetia reinforcing its positions on the perimeter of the conflict zone.[104] Georgia said the same day that Georgian posts on the Sarabuki heights were attacked by South Ossetian forces with no injuries reported.[103]

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:38 PM

"By the way, the locations of the skirmishes that the government of Georgia is alleging happened in July in its timeline are in South Ossetia, not Georgia. "

Not entirely true, CarolC: The attacks that caused the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia DID occur in Georgian territory. I will have to check the earlier ones ( before the ceasefire by Georgia that South Ossetia violated)



"But years of negotiations with separatist leaders in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have proved fruitless. Saakashvili has offered those governments broad autonomy in exchange for allegiance to Georgia, but Abkhaz and South Ossetian leaders have insisted on full-scale independence or absorption into Russia.

Georgia's all-out assault on South Ossetia was preceded by attacks by Ossetian forces against Georgian troops earlier in the week, including a separatist ambush with rocket-propelled grenades on a Georgian armored personnel carrier that killed two soldiers and injured six, Georgian authorities said. On Thursday, a separatist mortar attack on the village of Avnevi killed eight Georgian civilians.

Thursday evening, Saakishvili called for a cease-fire and urged separatist leaders to resume talks on a peaceful settlement. But when separatists began shelling Georgian villages after Saakashvili's cease-fire call, Georgian leaders decided to move ahead with the assault.

"Separatists opened fire in response to yesterday's peaceful initiative of the president of Georgia," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze in a televised address. "As a result, lives of civilians were under threat."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080808-georgia-ossetia-webaug09,0,4176197.story

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:31 PM

By the way, the locations of the skirmishes that the government of Georgia is alleging happened in July in its timeline are in South Ossetia, not Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Goose Gander
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:17 PM

And why do 'US interests' always seem to lie on the other side of the globe? Georgia borders Russia, so Russian concern is understandable. Regarding who's to blame and whether one side is 'less guilty' than the other, I really don't have a dog in that fight. But US hypocrisy is astounding. What would be the response if San Diego County (for example) attempted to secede from the US and Russia backed the 'breakaway republic of san diego'?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

I have not seen any evidence that the conflict started with South Ossetians firing on Georgians other than what Wikipeda says the government of Georgia has reported. The Government of Georgia has been preparing for an invasion of South Ossetia for a long time (since long before this summer). The South Ossetians themselves have been bracing for such an invasion for a long time.

This conflict has been ongoing since Georgia started it in 1991, and since then, it has always been Georgia's intention to finish it by invading and reoccupying South Ossetia.

If Georgia wants to end the conflict, it's going to have to stop waging war against South Ossetia and recognise it as an independent nation.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 02:52 PM

1. I only post when I get on the computer- Unlike Bobert, I do not assume that a lack of response is anything other than a lack of response.

2. The START of this is years ago- THIS engagement started with the claimed attack by South Ossetians on Georgian by artillary ( in spite of the mixed Ossetian/Georgian/Russian peacekeepers, who should have stopped this.) and the subsequent attack by Georgia on South Ossetia.

3. I note no comment here about the failure of the Russians to either control the South Ossetians, ot to withdraw from Georgian territory.

As for Lebenon, the parallel is that Hezboallah ( like the South Ossetians) attacked Isreal, who( , like Geogia) then invaded to put an end to the acts of warfare.

Russia is most certainly acting in what it considers it's best interests: If that is OK, why can't the US act in its own interests as well? Or do you all still demand that there be two standards, one for the US and allies, and another, looser one for the rest of the world?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Goose Gander
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 02:01 PM

Georgia invaded South Ossetia, and only then did Russia intervene. If you start a war, you don't get to decide how it ends. Just ask George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 12:05 PM

I do agree, however, with the premise that the US is using this situation to persuade the rest of Europe to not stand in the way of the missile sites that the US and Poland have had planned for a long time.