BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:51 PM

Bruce there are 'faults' on both sides despite the very one sided initial reporting which demanded a response.

'Saakashvili is a famously volatile risk-taker, veering between warmonger and peacemaker, democrat and autocrat. On several occasions international officials have pulled him back from the brink. On a visit to Washington in 2004, he received a tongue-lashing from then Secretary of State Colin Powell who told him to act with restraint. Two months ago, he could have triggered a war with his other breakaway province of Abkhazia by calling for the expulsion of Russian peacekeepers from there, but European diplomats persuaded him to step back. This time he has yielded to provocation and stepped over the precipice.

The provocation is real, but the Georgian President is rash to believe this is a war he can win or that the West wants it. Both George Bush and John McCain have visited Georgia, made glowing speeches praising Saakashvili and were rewarded with the Order of St George. But Bush, at least in public, is now bound to be cautious, calling for a ceasefire.

The reaction in much of Europe will be much less forgiving. Even before this crisis, a number of governments, notably France and Germany, were reporting 'Georgia fatigue'. Though they broadly wished the Saakashvili government well, they did not buy the line that he was a model democrat - the sight last November of his riot police tear-gassing protesters in Tbilisi and smashing up an opposition TV station dispelled that illusion. And they have a long agenda of issues with Russia, which they regard as more important than the post-Soviet quarrel between Moscow and Tbilisi. Paris and Berlin will now say they were right to urge caution on Georgia's Nato ambitions at the Bucharest Nato summit.

Both sides are behaving badly.

It is outrageous that Russia is seizing the chance to attack Georgian towns and airfields. Dozens of Georgian civilians are now dying too. But Georgia needs to be restrained, for its own sake.'

'Georgia's volatile risk-taker has gone over the brink'
Thomas de Waal The Observer, Sunday August 10 2008

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:43 PM

"someone is being very selective about which events they are willing to report."

I have noticed: When I post that BOTH sides are to blame, you decide that ONLY Georgia is at fault, and that it is OK for the South Ossetians to kill and murder.




" Georgia was also engaging in the very same sort of thing as the above posts are accusing the South Ossetians of engaging in."

As I have said- BUT you seem to always ignore the fact that the South Ossetians ARE engaged in it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:39 PM

After the GMT 4:00 8 August UN Security Council meeting, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said that it appeared that the South Ossetians were the provokers of the violence. Fried said, "We have urged the Russians to urge their South Ossetian friends to pull back and show greater restraint. And we believe that the Russians ... are trying to do just that

The US Vice President Dick Cheney said on August 10, "Russian aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community." in an expression of U.S. solidarity with Georgia in the conflict with Russia.

Confused?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:31 PM

As I said before, someone is being very selective about which events they are willing to report. And as I said before, Georgia was also engaging in the very same sort of thing as the above posts are accusing the South Ossetians of engaging in.


This one is proof of nothing, since each side is blaming the other side...

"On the night of June 14 into the early morning of June 15 of 2008 mortar fire and an exchange of gunfire were reported between South Ossetian and Georgian forces. South Ossetia reported that mortar fire was launched from Georgian-controlled villages on Tshinkvali, the South Ossetian capital, and that their forces came under fire from Georgian forces on the outskirts of the capital. Georgia denies firing the first shot claiming instead that South Ossetia had attacked the Georgian-controlled villages.[63] Russian, Georgian, and North Ossetia peacekeepers as well as OSCE monitors went to the site of the clashes however it was not determined who fired the first shot. One person was killed and four wounded during the violence.[64]"



25 April 2008 – Russian Foreign Ministry claims Georgia is potentially planning a military intervention in Abkhazia.

June 2007 – South Ossetia asserts Tskhinvali shelled by Georgian mortar and sniper fire.

15 May 2008 – Russian defence chief Yuri Baluyevsky urges NATO to help stop the 'military build-up' in Georgia, and names the US, Turkey, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria the top providers of military resources to Georgia.

30 June-2 July 2008 – Blasts in Sukhumi market and Russian peacekeepers' checkpoint on Georgian-Abkhaz border. Russia blames Georgian special forces for the incidents.

3-4 July 2008 – Explosions in South Ossetia prompt Russia to accuse Georgia of military intervention and to condemn its 'aggression'.

29-30 July 2008 – South Ossetia accuses Georgia of shelling villages outside of Tskhinvali. Georgia asserts that South Ossetians directed fire towards its monitoring group.

Aug. 4: Russia accuses Georgia of using excessive force in South Ossetia after the Russian-backed rebels said Georgian artillery had killed at least six people.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 04:07 PM

"Georgian police said on June 18, 2008 that they detained four Russian peacekeepers and a military truck in the conflict zone between Georgia and its breakaway Abkhazia, accusing the peacekeepers of transporting ammunition and shells without coordination with the Caucasus states. Georgia's Interior Ministry said Tuesday that the peacekeepers were transporting 35 crates of ammunition, including guided missiles and anti-tank mines, a violation of agreements in the region. Russia's Defense Ministry said the arrest was "in violation of all regulatory norms in the buffer zone." The peacekeepers were released after nine hours of interrogation.[53] Lt. Gen. Alexander Burutin, a deputy head of the General Staff, on June 19, 2008 compared the detention to a "bandit attack" warning Russian peacekeepers had every right to use their weapons and that future attempts at detaining peacekeepers may result in bloodshed.[54] A Russian military expert commenting on the detentions predicted war between Georgia and Abkhazia if such actions didn't stop.[55] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Russia would not tolerate such actions against peacekeepers.[56]

The Abkhaz government claimed Georgian special forces were responsible for a bombing in Abkhazia on June 30, 2008 that wounded two in Sukhumi and another in Gagra the day before which wounded six. Abkhazia closed off traffic from Georgia in response to the bombing. [57]"

"In South Ossetia three explosions were heard near the village of Eredvi with one blast meters away from a line Georgian military vehicles. South Ossetian authorities have called the blasts a "provocation".[59] Deputy Defense Minister Batu Kutelia accused the South Ossetian administration of being responsbile, saying they had taken up "tactics of terrorism."[60]"

"On the night of June 14 into the early morning of June 15 of 2008 mortar fire and an exchange of gunfire were reported between South Ossetian and Georgian forces. South Ossetia reported that mortar fire was launched from Georgian-controlled villages on Tshinkvali, the South Ossetian capital, and that their forces came under fire from Georgian forces on the outskirts of the capital. Georgia denies firing the first shot claiming instead that South Ossetia had attacked the Georgian-controlled villages.[63] Russian, Georgian, and North Ossetia peacekeepers as well as OSCE monitors went to the site of the clashes however it was not determined who fired the first shot. One person was killed and four wounded during the violence.[64]"

Events from July 4 on have already been posted.




If you can state that one side, and only one side is at fault, you either are not looking at the facts, or you have already decided what to think before looking at them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 04:02 PM

CarolC,

"Had Georgia not kept trying to subjugate the South Ossetians, there would have been no bloodshed whatever"


I have to differ- it was the South Ossetians who seem to have started THIS round of violence, against Georgians.

"The 2008 Georgian - Russia crisis began on March 6, 2008 when Russia announced that it would no longer participate in the Commonwealth of Independent States economic sanctions imposed on Abkhazia in 1996.[1] The crisis has been linked to the push for Georgia to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan and the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo.[2] Tensions in the crisis have been primarily centered around the breakaway state of Abkhazia and increased following the shootdown of a Georgian UAV drone airplane and subsequent buildup of military forces by Russia."

"The crisis deepened on April 20, 2008 when a Georgian unmanned unarmed aerial vehicle (UAV) was shot down over the Abkhazian conflict zone. Abkhazia's separatist administration immediately said its own forces shot down the drone because it was violating Abkhaz airspace and breached ceasefire agreements. Garry Kupalba, deputy defence minister of the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, told reporters the drone had been shot down by an "L-39 aircraft of the Abkhaz Air Force". He also identified the drone as an Israeli-made Hermes 450.[17]

However, Georgia's defence ministry released video the next day showing what appears to be a Russian MiG-29 shooting down the unarmed Georgian drone. The video, shot from the drone moments before impact, shows a jet launching a missile over what appears to be the Black Sea. According to Georgia the jet came from Gudauta and then returned to Russia. Moscow denied Georgia's accusation and stressed that none of its planes were in the region at the time.[18][19] Furthermore, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement accusing Georgia of violating 1994 Moscow agreement and United Nations resolutions on Abkhazia by deploying without authorisation a UAV (which also can be used to direct fire) in the Security Zone and the Restricted Weapons Zone.[20]

On April 24, a closed-door U.N. Security Council emergency session convened at Georgia's request failed to resolve the dispute, but the U.S., the United Kingdom, France and Germany issued a joint statement expressing their concern over Russia's recent moves in Abkhazia and calling Moscow to reverse or not to implement its decision to legalize ties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Russian ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin called the demand by the Western states "a tall order" and stressed that Russia had no intention of reversing its plans.[21]

Although Moscow denies that a MiG-class fighter was involved in the incident, the Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has suggested that a MiG-29 belonging to a NATO member might have downed the Georgian spy plane. In response, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has reportedly remarked that "he'd eat his tie if it turned out that a NATO MiG-29 had magically appeared in Abkhazia and shot down a Georgian drone."[22]

Early in May 2008, both Russian and Abkhaz sides claimed that three more Georgian reconnaissance drones were shot over Abkhazia, and declared that Georgia was preparing to mount an offensive into the region in the near future. Georgia denied these allegations, stating that it was "a provocation aimed at propagandistic support of Russia's military intervention."[23]

On May 26, 2008, the U.N. mission released the conclusion of its independent investigation into the April 20 incident. It confirmed that the Georgian video footage and radar data were authentic and the jet which destroyed the drone was indeed Russian. The conclusion report said that the jet flew towards the Russian territory after the incident, but it was unclear where the attacker took off, naming the Gudauta base as a possible locality. The mission also noted that "a reconnaissance mission by a military aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, constituted "military action" and therefore contravened the ceasefire accord.[24] Georgia hailed the report,[25] but Russia dismissed it.[26]

Georgia had officially suspended drone flights over Abkhazia in early June, but Abkhazia accuses Georgia of continuing to fly drones in the region.[27"

"On May 21, 2008 automatic weapons fire and grenade blasts were reported near the village of Kurcha. A passenger bus is also reported to have come under fire. Russian peacekeepers and UN observers were called to the scene of the violence.[44] A deputy Georgian interior minister told journalists two buses of passengers going to vote in the Georgian elections were blown up and that the injured were being taken to Zugdidi hospital.[45] Abkhaz officials claimed the attacks happened in Georgian territory, not Abkhaz. Two Georgians were reported to be those injured in the attack.[46] Some reports said the Inguri Bridge, the only legal crossing-point between the breakaway region of Abkhazia and Samegrelo, was blocked by Abkhaz paramilitary units and that Bus crossing has also been banned. Dozens of local residents assembled in front of the administrative office of the district to protest the decision. [47] Georgian officials accused Abkhazia of the attacks and preventing Georgians from voting in the legislative elections, which Abkhaz officials denied instead saying Georgia was responsible for the attack and Georgians in Abkhaiza were not interested in voting. Abkhazia said Russian peacekeepers were sent to the border to prevent further violence.[48]

Georgia's Foreign Ministry has sent a protest note to the CIS secretariat demanding some Russian troops and armaments be immediately withdrawn from Abkhazia saying that according to the UN, an airborne battalion, 50 BMD-2 airborne combat vehicles, and two artillery batteries have been deployed in Abkhazia. The ministry said this was out of line with a 1995 resolution of the CIS presidents' council.[49]

On June 15, 2008 media reports circulated saying Russia had set up a military base near the village of Agubedia in Abkhazia's Ochamchir district and had deployed heavy armor there. Russia's Defense Ministry denied the report.[50] The Georgian-backed Abkhaz government said on June 17, 2008 that Russia refuse to allow UN observers in the area.[51]"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 03:56 PM

"Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said there was "mounting evidence that Russian and Georgian military used armed force unlawfully during the South Ossetian conflict" and it emphasized that this "highlights the need for international fact-finding missions in Georgia."

"Ongoing militia attacks and a growing humanitarian crisis also indicate the urgent need for the deployment of a mission to enhance civilian protection," HRW said in a report.

"This conflict has been a disaster for civilians," said Rachel Denber, HRW's Europe and Central Asia deputy director.

The conflict has devastated parts of Georgia and South Ossetia, with many casualties reported. The U.N. refugee agency said more than 158,000 people had been displaced by fighting in Georgia, mostly from districts outside the breakaway territories where the fighting began."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/18/georgia.russia.war/index.html




AND- ie, BOTH SIDES.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 03:48 PM

Peace,

I have to disagree. The recent unrest ( may 2008 to present ) seems to have been started by South Ossetians attacking Georgians, in an effort to turn their defacto independence into dejure. Prior to this, after the 1991-2 conflict, it was non-violent.

I do NOT judge whether they were justified in taking up arms- BUT I do think that it should be noted who it was that restarted the violent conflict, and who ( the Russian Peacekeepers) who did NOT prevent the attacks of Georgians that are noted.

Too much happened BEFORE 7 August to think that the Georgian invasion was the start of this round of war.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:43 PM

There seems to be some confusion as to who shot at who first. I do think the bad asses in this are Georgian. They teased Russia expecting the US to declare for them--which George did. Now what?

Georgia will have a collapsed government within a few months, because when ya start a fight, ya don't always get to say when it stops.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:40 PM

'Georgia proclaimed its independence in April 1991 in a wave of nationalist fervour, partially expressed by the abolition of South Ossetian autonomy. Fighting broke out across South Ossetia in the winter of 1991. This involved armed units based around the former Georgian and South Ossetian police forces, ex-soldiers, and a variety of militia.

In the summer of 1992 Russian president Boris Yeltsin and his Georgian counterpart (and former Soviet foreign minister) Eduard Shevardnadze agreed a ceasefire under the auspices of the largely moribund Commonwealth of Independent States.'

In fact, Russian peacekeeping forces have remained in South Ossetia since that date until President Saakashvili launched his 'reckless shelling of the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, on August 8th last, killing several Russian soldiers.'

The Irish Times perspective 18th August

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:35 PM

Or partisanship. ;-) That's h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y spelled differently.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:33 PM

The South Ossetians have just as much right to defend themselves against subjugation by Georgia as Georgia has to defend itself from subjugation by Russia. Anyone who defends Georgia's right to defend itself from subjugation by Russia, while denying South Ossetia's right to defend itself from subjugation by Georgia is engaging in hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:31 PM

I agree with you, Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:31 PM

Had Georgia not kept trying to subjugate the South Ossetians, there would have been no bloodshed whatever. Georgia is the responsible party in this particular conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:29 PM

BTW, I have never said that Georgia was JUSTIFIED, just that they had a reason. They did not act wisely.

I object ONLY to CarolC's declaration that South Ossetia is the "innocent party" - the comment that Georgia has some blame is certainly true- But there is blood on the South Ossetians, and on Russia, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:26 PM

"If you are right and Putin is the conquering warlord you say he is, he must conquer Georgia in its entirety now. Really, he would have had to do it last week."

Nope- all Putin has to do is keep his "peacekeepers " in Georgian Territory to show that he is in control. Note he is NOT withdrwing even though the ceasefire calls for that.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:04 PM

Even The Telegraph, a staunchly Conservative UK broadsheet and supporter of Mikheil Saakashvili, is critical of 'his decision to invade South Ossetia' and concludes 'he could soon be fighting for his political life with no prospect of any meaningful help from his Western allies.'

Georgia: Mikheil Saakashvili, the man who lost it all

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:00 PM

In this game of brinksmanship, Georgia got what it wanted. A knee-jerk response from Bush. If you think not, then why would a place like Georgia with a less than effectively trained and armed military go grab Russia by the nuts and squeeze?


Well, now ya know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:50 PM

Putin is not trying to conquer. He is simply doing the same thing that Israel did to Lebanon a couple of years ago. He's just showing who is boss.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:45 PM

BB

I'll bet you 50 bytes that in a week Russia is out of Georgia and Europe and america have agreed to neuter Sakashvilli.

It'll be done in such a way that Europe will be seen to be the mature referee, america will save face by "letting" europe and sarkozy resolve the situation and russia will tell it's people about the heroic liberation.

North and South Ossetia will eventually be reunited, and will become independant under russias protection.

The fate of Abkhazia will probably continue to be messy for years to come.

Sakashvilli will lose his presidency at the next election and a more docile "partner" will take over after running a campaign blaming sakashvilli for nearly turning georgia into a battle field for the two superpowers.

Georgia will remain independant.

If you are right and Putin is the conquering warlord you say he is, he must conquer Georgia in its entirety now. Really, he would have had to do it last week.

If he wants the oil, why did he not annex that part of Georgia. The pipeline goes nowhere near Ossetia, let alone Abkhazia.

I bet 100 bytes that I am right.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:43 PM

I would tend to trust the South Ossetians because they have only one objective. They want their freedom. Georgia and all of the other players have many hidden objectives, all of which involve subjugating other people.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:41 PM

We are being given one sided accounts of what was going on during the period leading up to Georgia's bombing and invasion of South Ossetia in the Washington Post and other news outlets with the same agenda as the Washington Post. Georgia was also guilty of violating the ceasefire on many occasions. This was not a one sided situation at all. And Georgia was also doing other things to undermine South Ossetia's internal order and political structure.

Georgia was not acting in response to unprovoked attacks. Georgia was just as guilty as the South Ossetians of violating the ceasefire, and its attack on and invasion of South Ossetia was something that had been planned and prepared for long before the incidents that are being used as cover (by the government of Georgia and some people in this thread).

And as the speech from Saakashvili shows, it was always his intention to take back the areas that broke away by any means necessary.


One theory I've run across lately about a possible motive for Saakahsvili's decision to act when he did, was to coerce the rest of Europe into allowing Georgia to become a member of NATO. He may have succeeded in that objective, but possibly at the cost of his presidency. Of course, the member countries of NATO may regret their decision if they allow Georgia into NATO, especially if Saakashvili remains in office. I think it will be a much bigger problem for them than it will be for Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:37 PM

Putin

Doesn't give a rats ass about Ossetia or Georgia. He's just rattling Bush's cage and trying to drive up energy prices.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:34 PM

Everybody pissed on someone Lox. Isn't 20-30% of Ossetia ethnic Georgian? Is anyone asking them if they want to break away?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:32 PM

I forgot to include Georgia in that group.

Sakashvilli wants to be *taken seriously*.



Yeah right!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:30 PM

The difference between South Ossetia and the group consisting USA Russia and Europe is that they have no illusions of international dominance or power.

The best they can hope for is a big friend to look after them and trade with them. If they can have independance that is a bonus.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:26 PM

CarolC,

Why?


How are they any different than Georgia, or Russia? Don't they have a vested point of view, and wouldn't they lie to put it forward?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:25 PM

I don't particularly trust sakashvilli, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that putin's motivation is and has always been the subjugation of Georgia to unwelcome Russian control.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:21 PM

I would tend to trust the South Ossetians in this particular case.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:21 PM

I don't particularly trust putin, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that Sakashvilli's motivation is and has always been the subjugation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to unwelcome Georgian control.

I have a family member who worked in Abkhazia with the red cross in about 2001 and I remember him describing Georgian policy towards Abkhazia in pretty scathing terms.

The days of Shevrednadze are sadly long gone and have been replaced by yet another ambitious reckless nationalist in the form of Sakashvilli.

His foray into Chicken Valley was something he has been looking for an excuse to do for years.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:12 PM

another 'explanation' of how the current dispute originated

'Here in Tskhinvali, residents have no doubt that Georgia started the war with Russia and there is much bitterness about the rain of artillery and rockets that the government of President Mikhail Saakashvili used in its efforts to capture the city.

The Georgian government said much of the destruction of Tskhinvali was caused by a Russian counteroffensive, but that argument carries no weight with residents.

People insist that a terrible barrage struck the city late Aug. 7 and continued into the morning - accounts supported by Western monitors who were also forced into their cellars. Even buildings used by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were damaged, one severely.'

from the Boston Globe

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

We can click the links as well as you can pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:05 PM

So, who besides Putin would you trust?


Names please.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:03 PM

"but nobody has offered any explanation why Saakashvili behaved as he did. "

Actually, there have been several explainations.

Georgia was reacting to the South Ossetian shelling of the Gerogian posts, after the ceasefire of Aug 7.


Can I start shelling your house, and expect you to do nothing about it?

BTW, the RUSSIANs has been bulding up their forces for the previsous several weeks, and had already spent two weeks in cyberattacks against Georgia, shutting down the Georgian government internet capability.

BEFORE the Georgian attack of 8 August.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:54 PM

...or Nicolas Sarkozy, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:53 PM

From bb's 12:28 link:



By Fred Hiatt

Monday, August 18, 2008; Page A11

As Russian forces loot and occupy a neighboring state, conscripting Georgian civilians at gunpoint to sweep their city streets, it's not uncommon, in Moscow or in Washington, to find America at fault.

Russia has gone over to the dark side -- or, in the Moscow version, has finally stood up for itself -- in understandable reaction to U.S. disrespect, according to this view. And the next president should learn a lesson from this: that there are limits to how far Russia can or should be pushed.

This narrative of American provocation cites a long list of grievances, but the principal and original sin is NATO expansion. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States encouraged the newly free nations of Central and Eastern Europe to join a military alliance whose founding purpose had been containment of the U.S.S.R. Russia hated the idea from the start, and the United States should have known that Moscow, once it recovered its strength, would exact retribution.

But was this really something that was done to, or even against, Russia? The vision behind NATO expansion under both President Bill Clinton and President Bush was a Europe whole and free. The carrot of NATO membership was dangled, first of all, to ease the dangers of transition. Applicant countries had to promise civilian control of their militaries, fair treatment of ethnic minorities and respect for international borders. Given the terrible things that might have accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and Czechoslovakia -- Yugoslavia on a far greater scale -- the policy was amazingly successful.

Of course, applicant nations had an additional motive: They wanted an insurance policy against the possibility that Russia might eventually revert to its old form and seek hegemony over them. America sympathized but also hoped that Russia would cooperate with and someday even join NATO -- that it would recognize the potential benefits of living as part of a neighborhood of prosperous, freely trading, democratic nations. It did not seem crazy to hope that Russians themselves would notice how much better off Germans are today, for example, living in respectful peace with smaller neighbors such as Denmark and Belgium than they were when Germany sought domination.

But Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000, had a different vision of Russia's place in the world. Russia "has tended to feel absolutely secure only when everybody else, particularly those around its borders, feels absolutely insecure," Russia hand Strobe Talbott noted last week, and Putin fell squarely in that tradition. At home, he quashed political opposition and independent media. He brought Russia's mineral riches back under state control and then began using them -- oil and natural gas in particular -- to enforce obeisance abroad.

And he viewed NATO expansion as an affront, as something done to Russia, not because he imagined that Estonia or Georgia or even NATO itself ever would attack Russia, but because it complicated Russia's drive for hegemony. Seeing the world as a contest among spheres of influence, he could not imagine that the leaders behind NATO might see things differently.

So NATO expansion is an affront only to the kind of Russia that the West would find unacceptable in any case. But, even if America has not sought to encircle or strangle Russia, should it not have been more sensitive to Russia's wounded pride? Might Russia have evolved more democratically if Washington had been more deferential?

Maybe so, but there's not much evidence to support such a theory. The West spent a good part of the past 17 years worrying about Russia's dignity -- expanding the Group of Seven industrial nations to the G-8, for example -- and it's not clear such therapy had any effect. Putin had his own reasons for stifling democracy, and, to quote Talbott again, the "more authoritarian or totalitarian" Russia has been, "the more aggressively it asserts its interests overseas." The unhealthy cycle is on display now: Hearing only about Georgian "genocide" and aggression on state-controlled television, Russians cannot understand Western criticism of Russia's actions as anything but further evidence of unfairness, which could be used to justify more aggressive behavior.

What does all this mean for the next president? By all means he should cooperate with Russia when possible, and he should remain open to the idea that Russia might one day join NATO and other international arrangements on terms of mutual respect.

But if the hope is that greater understanding of and deference to Russia's imperial ambitions would tame those ambitions, the historical analogies are not encouraging.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:52 PM

the thoughtless Georgian military intervention in South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7-8; the brutal and disproportionate response of Russian troops

I've no brief for the Russians- in fact, I believe that Putin is a fascist dicator in preparation, and in 5 years time, we'll see what a fascist nuclear power looks like- but nobody has offered any explanation why Saakashvili behaved as he did. Why take your trousers off and stick your dick in a wasp's nest? And, though one's concern must be for the civilians of either side, and for the poor benighted soldiers too, just for a moment imagine the USA's response if Cuba invaded Florida, and the Russians put military equipment in Mexico. What sort of "proportionate response" would be appropriate?

Remember that the USA is sponsoring some vile dictatorships in former Soviet states on Russia's southern border, and can't claim any democratic moral high ground.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:51 PM

Sorry, I very seldom trust any information coming from the Washington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM

Just had a naughty little risque giggle at the idea of Genocide in Chicken Valley ...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

I don't blame bush - I see him as taking a golden opportuity to capitalise on circumstances.

Sakashvilli is a little trouble maker trying to play the powers off against each other and using his own people as well as the south ossetians as cannon fodder to further his own spiteful self aggrandizing agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:47 PM

CarolC,

Did you read the article. and even see who the source WAS?

And tour numbers are slightly biased- YOU need to look at more than one side to get a real idea of the numbers killed. Or even look for a NEUTRAL party... Like France???

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:34 PM

Thoughtless of Georgia to kill more than a thousand South Ossetian civilians, and brutal of Russia to kill less than two hundred Georgian civilians?

I guess this assertion doesn't surprise me considering the source.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:29 PM

The time will come when the sequence of events and responsibilities can be established in an indisputable and impartial manner: several weeks of provocations and skirmishes along the lines separating South Ossetia from the rest of Georgia; the thoughtless Georgian military intervention in South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7-8; the brutal and disproportionate response of Russian troops, driving the small Georgian army from South Ossetia and dislodging it from Abkhazia -- the other separatist province, where it had regained a foothold in 2006 -- before occupying part of the rest of Georgian territory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702078.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:28 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702076.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:23 PM

sorry , typical forum mistake due to not reading every post.

thanks

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:45 AM

It was another poster (not JtS) who said that about Iraq not ever being our ally or receiving a "wink" from us.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:03 AM

bottom line: Russia wins.

The US is 54 Trillion dollars in debt with a stop lost military and is not the mythological undenied supreme super power.

Jack when you (quoted) "Iraq never was our ally and they never received a "wink" from the US ambassador to invade Kuwait"
you probably did not intend to revise history but that statement is dead wrong. I watched the ambassador speak of her involvment and she said she was ordered to say "we have no intention to intervene."

Under Reagan we sent GHW Bush to Iraq for Saddams birthday. Bush was taped kissing Saddam on each cheek. ITs a much more powerful video than Rumsfeld sahking hands with Saddam.

Isn't it amaking how quickly we lose touch with accurate history?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:15 AM

Lox, I don't see how Bush escapes blame in this. Form seeing Putin's soul to the combination of bluster and neglect in foreign policy, to the cancellation of Russian oil contracts in Iraq, to the "missile defense", to the offer of a NATO seat to Georgia, which Bush does not have authority to give. The man is a perfect storm of diplomatic fuckups and the negation of power.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: folk1e
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 07:52 AM

One of the problems with playing with the "brown and smelly" is that you end up covered in it!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 07:52 AM

Obama - I don't know how you could get more egotistical than that.