Girl on Fox News Frustrates Neocon Portrayals

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Jan 23, 2004
9,758
1,156
190
Caucasiastan
Of Russia v. Georgia v. S. Ossetia:

[ame=http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ]YouTube - Fox News: 12 Year Old Girl Tells the Truth about Georgia[/ame]

Holy shit! Actual truth slips through. Note the comment at the end...
 
Good video. I don't know enough about the region or the situation to pick sides yet.
 
Thank GOD the Russian troops just happened to be poised to save that poor child, eh?

Why it was almost like they knew in advance that Georgia was going to start indescriminantly killing its own citizens of that part of their country for absolutely no reason other than that famously bloodthirty nature of those damned Georgian people.

Yeah, those Georgians have been a real thorn in the side of the world for a mighty long time, haven't they?

Remember how the Georgians took over Poland with the NAZIs in 39, and then in 45- 49 how they took over Poland Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bugaria, and all those other places with names that end in A?

Thank St Basil the Ruskies just happened to be in the neighbood to save that charming little girl from the damned empire building Georgians.

Yes siree, I'm like totally convinced.

The first casualty of war is truth.

My point?

We are going to be bombarded with heart breaking stories like this from both sides until this is resolved.

Believe none of them even if you know that some of them must be true.

The only thing we can do right now is remember that this is about money in form of oil.

Ask yourself who will benefit and who will lose if things change.

I suspect there are two basic motivations driving this conflect.

Russians motivated to keep the oil piped though their land, and the Ossetians who support them.

Georgians motivated to get the oil piped though thier land, the Ossetians who support them.

As to a free Ossetian nationalist movement?

Well there very well may be Ossetians who want that, but look at that place's history and realize there hasn't been a nation of Ossetians since they were driven out of..

" their medieval homeland south of the Don River in present-day Russia and part migrated towards and over the Caucasus mountains, to Georgia"

.. in mideval times.

source

This is about OIL, folks.

Believe nothing except that until it is confirmed and confirmed again and again and again by neutral reporters.
 
Last edited:
Good video. I don't know enough about the region or the situation to pick sides yet.

Let me help you. The girl was a plant. She came on with an agenda. It was to try to convince Americans that the Russians were the nice guys. The only question is who told her to say that.
 
We are going to be bombarded with heart breaking stories like this from both sides until this is resolved.

But we haven't been "bombarded" with the Russian/South Ossetian side of it, only the Georgian side. If you look at the neocon spinners, they are all saying Russia bad, Georgia good.
 
its damn close though
:lol:

In this case I think Putin used the Olympics as a distraction.

While Bush is yuking it up with Putin at the Olympics, Russia is invading Georgia.

Brilliant strategy on Putin's part.
 
Georgia started the damn thing by breaking the Sochi Agreement, killing Russian peace keepers who were under an international mandate also signed by Georgia and blasting the Shit out of the South Ossetian Capital.
While having internationally recogniced claims on this area (and therefor having a Casus Belli) the Georgians are still the ones who started the war. Note that having your peace keeping troops operating under an international mandate shot also gives a very clear Casus Belli to the Russians.

Link one:
BBC NEWS | Europe | Heavy fighting in South Ossetia
Link 2:
APA - Georgia starts military operations in South Ossetia
Link 3:
AFP: Heavy fighting as Georgia attacks rebel region

Note that these are "western" links, not Ria novosti.

Their apparent plan of action was to:
1: Blitz South Ossetia
2: Block/Blow up the Roki tunnel
3: Shrug off the Russian air retaliation while winning the diplomatic PR game with backing from the west.

Their problem was that they did not suceed in point 2, if they would have done it they could have won, provided that Abkhazia would chicken out from its obligations.

The Russian plan of action is likely:
1. Beat the Georgians out of South Ossetia (succeeded)
2. Let the Abkhazians beat the Georgians out of the Kodori Gorge (succeeded)
3. Destroy the Georgian military potential (pretty much succeeded)
4. Establish a much larger "security zone" around South Ossetia
5. Directly (by placing S-Vili in a Russian cell/sending him to Den Haag) or indirectly (politician who start wars and loose them have a short half life) remove S-Vili.

A fairly interesting thing about the history prior to the current conflict:

The Georgian - South Ossetian Conflict, chapter 4
 
Georgia started the damn thing by breaking the Sochi Agreement, killing Russian peace keepers who were under an international mandate also signed by Georgia and blasting the Shit out of the South Ossetian Capital.
While having internationally recogniced claims on this area (and therefor having a Casus Belli) the Georgians are still the ones who started the war. Note that having your peace keeping troops operating under an international mandate shot also gives a very clear Casus Belli to the Russians.

Link one:
BBC NEWS | Europe | Heavy fighting in South Ossetia
Link 2:
APA - Georgia starts military operations in South Ossetia
Link 3:
AFP: Heavy fighting as Georgia attacks rebel region

Note that these are "western" links, not Ria novosti.

Their apparent plan of action was to:
1: Blitz South Ossetia
2: Block/Blow up the Roki tunnel
3: Shrug off the Russian air retaliation while winning the diplomatic PR game with backing from the west.

Their problem was that they did not suceed in point 2, if they would have done it they could have won, provided that Abkhazia would chicken out from its obligations.

The Russian plan of action is likely:
1. Beat the Georgians out of South Ossetia (succeeded)
2. Let the Abkhazians beat the Georgians out of the Kodori Gorge (succeeded)
3. Destroy the Georgian military potential (pretty much succeeded)
4. Establish a much larger "security zone" around South Ossetia
5. Directly (by placing S-Vili in a Russian cell/sending him to Den Haag) or indirectly (politician who start wars and loose them have a short half life) remove S-Vili.

A fairly interesting thing about the history prior to the current conflict:

The Georgian - South Ossetian Conflict, chapter 4

Yup, isn't it amazing how all you liberals have NO problem letting Russia run all over a democratically elected and free Government. Now if Obama were to suddenly make demands I can bet all of you would start singing a different tune all to gether. Suddenly THEN it would be an outrage.

Russia must be forced to LEAVE Georgia territory, plain and simple, anything less tells Putin he is free to do pretty much anything he damn well pleases. YOU people are encouraging the lead up to WW3. Putin WILL push until he pushes to far. Eventually he will cross a line that starts the war. That is the way it works. Or are you guys ok with him seizing all the old Iron Curtain Countries and the Ukraine and all the countries that used to be part of Russia? That is where this is leading.

Try reading about a little European history from 1936 to 1939. Appeasement does not work, it never has. It simply emboldens the thugs and despots.
 
RGS, you significantly overestimate the amount of influence that Obama (or McCain) has on my perception of this conflict. Although I would vote for Obama if I was American, McCains reaction consisted of hollow threats, which are significantly worse than nothing.
Im more with Gerhard Schröder(german ex Chancellor), Mikhail Gorbatschew(even you should now him) and Eduard Shevadnaze(former Georgian president), who all share my opinion here, S-Vili was reckless and got his arse kicked.


Besides that:

1: Russia did not roll over Georgia, they did stop before Tiflis.
2: If Russia continues like this, it will take them a very long time to roll up the old Iron curtain.
3:If you attack someone and loose, beeing run over is quite a common fate.

What made Russia invade was a full scale invasion of Georgia into South Ossetia, Georgia killing Russians and Georgia breaking the Sochi agreement.
In my opinion, its the clearest Casus Belli of the last 50 years.

If they want to pull of the same stunt in the Ukraine than:

1: Get the Ukraine to become more repressive towards its Russian minorities
2: Make this minorities dependent on Russia alone
3: Get the Ukraine to shoot at their Russian minorities
4: Intervene and defeat (the fairly significant) forces of the Ukraine

In the Georgian case, the whole thing from the start of South Ossetian Independence movements to todays situation took 18 years.
Assuming that the whole affair was a result of an 18 year long Russian masterplan is pretty nuts too.

Point one and Point 3 would be Ukrainian decisions, as long as the Ukraine does not do that, Russia cannot intervene in the way it did in the Ukraine.


Georgia made decision one under Zviad Gamsakhurdia in the early 1990.
The creation of "Georgian only" army units, the "resettlement" of Georgians into areas dominated by minorities and most importantly the prohibition of parties that only operate in a certain region (like and South Ossetian or Abkhazian party would) was what caused the initial revolt.
This revolt succeeded, although Russia was taken a much more "neutral" (f.e. not doing anything when Georgian militias commited atrocitys in Zhinwali at that time) approach than it took in more recent times.
Point 2 was largely done by the international community. Noone recogniced the new states, so they had to turn to Russia for support. Note that, during the less nationalistc days of Shewadnaze, tensions in the border region where significantly lower. He even convinced the Russians to conduct a naval Blockade of Abkhazia in 1997.
The period of good relations ended when the "Rose revolution" came, Georgia now allgedly provided support the Tschetchen Seperatists (or Terrorists, distinctions are difficult to make) as a retaliation Moscow souped up their support for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That part could have been the other way round too.

Georgia responded with force and already did so in 2004 where a first attempt at South Ossetia and Abkhazia was made. The Georgians were driven out of South Ossetia but occupied the Kodori valley in Abkahzia from that time on.

With their credibility significantly damaged (people dont trust those who attacked them) Georgia again tried to convince their break away region to autonomy, while the seperatists, having fought for their freedom twice already, where not forthcoming. Turning to the US, Georgia improved its military and waited for a decent time to strike.

Which they did at the 9. of August, while the perceived Russian head of state was in Beijing.

Bottomline:
1: Georgia friggin started it and admitted that on the first day.
2: Someone who starts a hot war with Russia and later tries to wimp out while accusing his potential allies of beeing responsible for the mess is, in my eyes, not someone I would ally with.
 
Georgia did not 'start' it, a little history:

Blaming the Victim

Blaming the Victim
Putin's provocations.
by Matthew Continetti
08/25/2008, Volume 013, Issue 46


Blaming the victim is nothing new. But, in the days since Russian tanks first rolled into democratic Georgia, we have been rather surprised at the alacrity with which some--on both the left and right--have blamed that tiny country for the onslaught, and the West for encouraging Georgia's liberalization. That encouragement, it has been argued, led Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili to believe he could use military force to quell insurgents in the breakaway province of South Ossetia, thereby all but guaranteeing Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's retaliatory assault. This is not just a foolish argument, it is a pernicious one. It masks the true nature of the conflict and assumes that all the actors in this drama are moral equals. They are not.

Putin has been pressuring Georgia for years. Indeed, Russian despots have long considered the southern Caucasus, along with Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, their personal stomping grounds. There is no need to rehearse the long, complicated, and bloody history; suffice it to say that the tradition did not end with the Soviet empire. In the Caucasus, for example, Russia almost certainly had a hand in the fall of Georgian nationalist president Zviad Gamsakhurdia in 1992, as well as that of Azerbaijan's president Abulfaz Elchibey in 1993. Both were replaced by pro-Moscow strongmen. But Russian hegemony over Georgia was upset in November 2003, when the pro-Western democrat Saakashvili came to power.

Saakashvili cuts a colorful figure. And his rise set a powerful example. The Rose Revolution that ushered in a new era for Georgia was the first of the "color revolutions" bringing youthful democrats to Russia's near abroad. That is probably why Putin, who on his borders seeks client autocracies, has done so much to undermine it. He has used Georgia's territorial conflicts with the breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to weaken Saakashvili personally and undermine the Georgian people's national aspirations. To that end, Russia began to distribute passports to the Abkhazians and South Ossetians as early as 2004. It used its power to appoint Russians and pro-Moscow locals to positions in the territories' independent governments. And it built up its military presence in both places under the guise of peacekeeping operations.

At first the warfare was economic. "Trouble started brewing in 2006," writes Edward Lucas in The New Cold War, "when from March to May Russia imposed an escalating series of import restrictions, first on wine, vegetables, and fruits; then on sparkling wine and brandy, finally Georgian mineral water--at the time one of the country's most important exports." That July, Lucas continues, "Russia abruptly closed the only legal land border crossing" with Georgia. It was the equivalent of a blockade. Georgia had done nothing to provoke these punitive measures. It was Saakashvili and democracy that offended Putin.

On September 27, 2006, Saakashvili ordered the arrest of four Russian GRU officers whom he accused of plotting a coup. He paraded them in front of the cameras. Moscow was not amused. Putin recalled his ambassador from Tbilisi and, according to Lucas, "cut postal, phone, and banking links with Georgia." Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, announced a price spike specific to Georgia. The following month Putin's government began to detain and expel ethnic Georgians living in Russia--more than 2,300 of them, according to a report by Human Rights Watch.

Some were Russian citizens. "Russian authorities denied basic rights to many of the detained," the authors from Human Rights Watch wrote, "including access to a lawyer or the possibility of appealing the expulsion decision taken against them. Most were given trials lasting only a few minutes. Georgians were held in sometimes appalling conditions of detention and in some cases were subjected to threats and other ill-treatment. Two Georgians died in custody awaiting expulsion."

In March 2007, Russian military forces attacked villages in Abkhazia that had recently fallen under Georgian control. This was an illegal act, and when the United Nations investigated the incident Moscow did not cooperate. Another attack--one that failed--occurred in Georgia proper, near Tbilisi, in August 2007. Russian intransigence followed that incident, too....
Lots more at site.
 
Sorting out whom is to blame is certainly no easy. Both sides can muster arguments. This is why Barak Obama chose the wise course when he counciled restraint and cessation of hostilities.

McCain did the rash thing with his knee jerk belicosity.
 
Sorting out whom is to blame is certainly no easy. Both sides can muster arguments. This is why Barak Obama chose the wise course when he counciled restraint and cessation of hostilities.

McCain did the rash thing with his knee jerk belicosity.

You probably assume they listened to him too.
 
Let's be honest here.

The argument that Saakashvili is automatically the good guy who can possibly do no harm simply because he is democratically elected is a bit ironic when coming from the US media. American foreign policy has a history of backing whoever best suits American interests, be it democratic or authoritaran. The paradigm that America leads a so-called "free world" and that all democracies are allies of the United States is a myth constructed by psy-ops strategists aimed at manufacturing American public support and consent (or better yet, ignorance) for their government's foreign policy. Which is what makes it hilarious when American journalists with little knowledge on international affairs -let alone amateur political analysts on internet message boards- cry foul when Russia "invades a democratic country". As editic correctly noted, we really do not know what exactly happened and who started it, although mightypeon does offer a very convincing argument, far more convincing than that article posted by kathianne. The former gives us a detailed moment by moment account of how things escalated to where they are now, while the latter simply provides a vague conspiracy theory based on speculation and some factual events.

For anyone who has studied literature, journalism, public relations, or other literary and communications disciplines, what the American press has been doing, regarding the Russian invasion of Georgia, is blatantly obvious, and is -in fact- a millenia-old gimmick. To illustrate this point, just remember back to watching Disney's Cinderella as a kid. I'm not sure how much the 20th century film has corrupted the original, ancient folk tale, but just by watching the film, it is quite obvious who the filmmaker wants us to dislike and who the filmmaker wants us to sympathize with. In order to do this, Disney relies on characterizations: the step-sisters, who we're supposed to hate, are portrayed as very unattractive, while Cinderella and even the Prince (a minor character) are both attractive. This visual characterization of antagonists and protagonists -highly common in Disney films from Snow White to the Lion King- is a very simple yet highly effective way of getting children to support the protagonist of the story and to dislike the antagonist.

Similarly, the US media relies on characterizations in order to create an antagonist and a protagonist in the current Russia-Georgia conflict. Often times, near the beginning of a news article, it is emphasized that Georgia is either "democratic" or "pro-Western" (or both), immediately identifying the protagonist of the story. You can see this quite clearly in the article posted by kathianne: just in the first sentence, Georgia is introduced as the democratic country in the conflict, thus the protagonist of the story. Further into the article, the protagonist is developed more fully (a country that overcame obstacles, became democratic, and so on). Russia, on the other hand, is given various characterizations in the US media in order to create an antagonist; these characterizations frequently compose a bully looking to regain its former sphere of influence. While constructing this antagonist character, the characterization of Russia fails to provide precise insight relevant specifically to this conflict (let alone the Russian perspective), and instead attempts to tie the Ossetia conflict into a broader theme of Russia bullying and controlling its neighbors. These characterizations of the conflict's antagonist and protagonist are reinforced by the simplified narration of a complex international deveopment.

It is very clear that the US media want and need the American public to support the Georgian side in this conflict. The irony is that most Americans are completely oblivious to the similarities that the 2008 Ossetian conflict shares with the Kosovo conflict of 1999 except that the United States and Russia have switched roles. The publc is also ignorant of the fact that Georgia hosts the only two pipelines that bypass enemy territory (ie Russia, Iran) to bring Central Asian and Caspian crude oil to the sea and onwards to the "West" and the United States, thus having immense geostrategic importance to Washington. Among other things not mentioned by most US media: the United States has been Georgia's closest ally since Saakashvili came to power; there were [curiously] over 100 American military advisors in the country months before the Russian invasion, and -according to Texas-based private intelligence firm StratFor- it's highly unlikely that the Georgians acted on South Ossetia without approval from Washington (perhaps because possible Russian counteraction was underestimated). Washingon, on the other hand, maintains that it advised Saakashvili against this move.
 
Last edited:
Lets argue what Rights both parties have under international law.

From the formal law point of view (not counting Nuerembergs explicit criminalisations of any aggresive war, at the moment not even the creators of Nueremberg care about that) Georgia does not need an additional Casus Belli created by Russian sanctions, they do have the right to go to war in order to access their (internationally recogniced) claims on South Ossetian and Abkhazian territory.
However, since they (Georgia) did sign the Sochi agreement (peace deal after 1992), they would have had to remove themselves from that agreement beforehand.
This they did not do.
I do have no verification on the level of destruction in and around Zhinvali, but shelling/bombarding an inhabited city in a suprise attack can be seen as a warcrime. It is obviously a breach of the Sochi agreement.

The Russians have several legal grounds for interfering:
1: Although not beeing a formal guaranteeing power of the Sochi agreement, Russia did mediate it and can claim a right to take steps enforcing it.
2: Russian peacekeeping troops were directly attacked and killed during the suprise attack. This is a very clear Casus Belli, and may also be seen as a war crime. As far as I know, this is the main reason the Russian are quoting.
3: The majority of South Ossetias citicen carry Russian passports, the Russian constitution forces the gouverment to protects Russian citicen everywhere.
This is a valid Casus Belli but relativly rarely quoted by Russian officials.
4: If the Russian allegations of ethnic cleansing by Georgians hold true, Russia can claim a Casus Belli on the same reasoning that allowed Nato to intervene in Kosovo.

Sidenote: I, amongst other, was under the impression that Russia was a guaranteeing power of South Ossetia and Abkazia. There is no formal Russian guarantee of indepedence, Russia cannot claim a Casus Belli for this reason.
This is similiar to the situation of Taiwan, while the US is not formally guaranteeing Taiwans indepedence (which they cant as they do not officially recognize Taiwan) the US would, in practice, likely go to war if Taiwan is attacked.

The Russians currently claim Casus Belli number 2 (Russian peace keeping Soldiers were targeted, attacked and killed) this is done for a number of reasons. First, casus Belli number one would not entitle them to conduct significant operations on the Georgian mainland, it would only allow them to reestablish the Status Quo, since Russia obviously wants to go beyond that, Casus Belli number one is rarely cited by Russian officials.

Casus Belli number 3 would allow an attack on Georgia (with the goal of destroying its military potential, not with the goal of a permanent occupation), however the giving of Russian passports to Ossetian citicens can be disputed as beeing unlawful and therefore void, making the Casus Belli slightly problematic from the formal point of view.

Casus Belli number 2 however is rock solid and also allows operations inside Georgia with the goal of preventing such attacks in the future by destroying Georgias military capacity and/or changing its leadership based on war crime charges.
Casus Belli number 2 is also a direct consequence of Georgian actions.



To Kathianne:

The afromentioned sanctions started after a series of incidents, involving the arrest of Russian officiers on charges on Espionage and Sabotage.
These charges may not be completely unfounded (it is very difficult to access such things), however parading them before the media was a) bad style b) a provocation and c) may have been a violation of international law.
The South Ossetians promptly awnsered with some kidnappings(which is a regular occurence), the Georgians assembled their troops (partly blockading South Ossetia) and Moscow decided to show how big their economical dicks were.
Bigger than Georgias to be sure.

The actual Russian reason for the blockade may have more to do with alleged Georgian support for Tschechen Terrorists/Seperatists. The Tschetschen Fighters are divided between Nationalists who want an independent Tschetchenia and Moslem Fundamentalists who want a Caucasus under the Scharia. Strictly speaking, the nationalists are Seperatists while the muslim extremists are terrorists.

Russia was apparently unable to prove it. In general, proving that other states support terrorists/seperatist can be very difficult, as the US already experienced in Iraq.

From the Georgian point of view, Russia is (openly)supporting Seperatist inside Georgian borders, so Georgia supporting Tschetschenians could be seen as an action on the same level.

The arresting incident was a nice reason to go on with sanctions against Georgia.

If Jordania would secretly support the Iraqi insurgence (with the US knowing it but unable to prove it) and then arrest 4 American officers on "strange" Espionage charges (Let assume that the Americans would have a UN mandate like the Russians did in the Georgian case) and parade them around the country, the US would definitly impose sanctions and likely go some steps further.

Also, if economic sanctions by Russia would be legalising the Georgian suprise attack on South Ossetia, than the American Oil sanctions against Imperial Japan would have legalised Pearl Harbor.
As I already said, Georgia has a Casus Belli, there is no need to invent fictional ones. Although they (legally speaking) should have formally removed themself from the Sochi agreement before attacking.
While I understand the Georgian reasoning for striking on the start of the Olympics and just hours after declaring a cease fire, suprise was their best bet, this deed will certainly not improve Georgias reputation.


Personally, I do not like Putin, nor the state of democracy in Russia, but there is absolutly no reason to paint him blacker than he is while whitewashing S-Vili.
In addition, I trust Bush about as far as I can throw a M1A1, in my (and not only my) opinion he lied to both his allies and his congress about a Casus Belli, which significantly reduces his credibility.


Some other random comments:

-Any invasion that temporary captures the enemys capital is full scale in my book. From the military side, anything other than a full scale strike aimed at the capture of Zhinvali and the blocking/blowing up Roki tunnel would have been plain stupid too.
 
...

To Kathianne:

The afromentioned sanctions started after a series of incidents, involving the arrest of Russian officiers on charges on Espionage and Sabotage.
These charges may not be completely unfounded (it is very difficult to access such things), however parading them before the media was a) bad style b) a provocation and c) may have been a violation of international law.
The South Ossetians promptly awnsered with some kidnappings(which is a regular occurence), the Georgians assembled their troops (partly blockading South Ossetia) and Moscow decided to show how big their economical dicks were.
Bigger than Georgias to be sure.

The actual Russian reason for the blockade may have more to do with alleged Georgian support for Tschechen Terrorists/Seperatists. The Tschetschen Fighters are divided between Nationalists who want an independent Tschetchenia and Moslem Fundamentalists who want a Caucasus under the Scharia. Strictly speaking, the nationalists are Seperatists while the muslim extremists are terrorists.

Russia was apparently unable to prove it. In general, proving that other states support terrorists/seperatist can be very difficult, as the US already experienced in Iraq.

From the Georgian point of view, Russia is (openly)supporting Seperatist inside Georgian borders, so Georgia supporting Tschetschenians could be seen as an action on the same level.

The arresting incident was a nice reason to go on with sanctions against Georgia.

If Jordania would secretly support the Iraqi insurgence (with the US knowing it but unable to prove it) and then arrest 4 American officers on "strange" Espionage charges (Let assume that the Americans would have a UN mandate like the Russians did in the Georgian case) and parade them around the country, the US would definitly impose sanctions and likely go some steps further.

Also, if economic sanctions by Russia would be legalising the Georgian suprise attack on South Ossetia, than the American Oil sanctions against Imperial Japan would have legalised Pearl Harbor.
As I already said, Georgia has a Casus Belli, there is no need to invent fictional ones. Although they (legally speaking) should have formally removed themself from the Sochi agreement before attacking.
While I understand the Georgian reasoning for striking on the start of the Olympics and just hours after declaring a cease fire, suprise was their best bet, this deed will certainly not improve Georgias reputation.


Personally, I do not like Putin, nor the state of democracy in Russia, but there is absolutly no reason to paint him blacker than he is while whitewashing S-Vili.
In addition, I trust Bush about as far as I can throw a M1A1, in my (and not only my) opinion he lied to both his allies and his congress about a Casus Belli, which significantly reduces his credibility.


Some other random comments:

-Any invasion that temporary captures the enemys capital is full scale in my book. From the military side, anything other than a full scale strike aimed at the capture of Zhinvali and the blocking/blowing up Roki tunnel would have been plain stupid too.
The fact that you even bring up Chechnya speaks to the problems of Russia's arguments. That the will not tolerate 'break away republics' while encouraging the two from Georgia, sorry, doesn't fly.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top