War in the Caucus

[Epsilon Delta]

Russian, Georgian troops battle in South Ossetia - CNN.com

Well, how's that for International Intervention.

I'm sure now all those great peeps that support the war in Iraq or against Palestine will be applauding Russian action against this very severe threat to their security. Hurray for the defense of the Motherland.

In the meanwhile, Russian tanks are unleashing hell unto Georgia.

What does everyone think?

 

[mightypeon]

I believe that Georgia started this one:

1: If Georgia was attacked, why were their troops in the South Ossetian capital of Tsinchwali after the first day?
2: Also, if Russia was the aggressor, why was their first action to "liberate" Tsinchwali? If Russia does an "alpha strike" on a country like Georgia, than Georgias troops would not make progress, especially they would not be able to take a fairly well defendet capital.
3: Of the conflict parties, Georgia is the one least happy with the Status Quo.

The timing of the attack would be a fairly good one, f.e. Putin is in Beijing, leading to a longer latency time of the Russian forces.

I believe that Georgia tried to create hard facts (this means achieve occupation of South Ossetia before anyone else acts) and later use "diplomacy" based on this created facts. Since Georgia is now high tailing out of South Ossetia, they obviously failed. The USs goal should be to try to "bail out" their ally back to the status quo ante bellum, otherwise the US friendly Sakashwili regime may topple very quickly.

And to Georgia trying to defeat Russia:

 

[editec]

Some background is in order, I think..

from Wikipedia

Two ancient Georgian states were the Kingdoms of Colchis and Iberia. The latter, one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion early in the 4th century, subsequently provided a nucleus around which the unified Kingdom of Georgia was formed early in the 11th century. After a period of political, economic and cultural flourishing, this kingdom went into decline in the 13th century and eventually fragmented into several kingdoms and principalities in the 16th century. The three subsequent centuries of Ottoman and Persian hegemony were followed by a piecemeal absorption into the Russian Empire in the 19th century. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years were marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. Georgia began to gradually stabilize in 1995, and achieved more effective functioning of state institutions following a bloodless change of power in the so-called Rose Revolution of 2003.[4] However, Georgia continues to suffer from the unresolved secessionist conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Relations with Russia remain tense over these issues as well as Georgia’s aspiration of NATO membership.[5]
Georgia is a representative democracy, organized as a secular, unitary, semi-presidential republic. It is currently a member of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, and GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development. The country seeks to join NATO and, in the longer term, accession to the European Union.[6]

Now Georgia is seeking entry into NATO.

Naturally Russia feels threatened by this move as it becomes increasingly isolated from the rest of Europe.

Doesn't it seem odd that Georgia would launch and invasion for Russian territory at this time?

There's only 4 million people in Gerogia and they attack Russia with a population of 142 million?!


Tension between these two nation has been building for some time:

Here's what Time Mag online tells us

Russia has escalated its showdown with its small, NATO-inclined neighbor of Georgia by closing all transport and postal communications. No trains, no flights, no ships, no vehicles, no mail money orders — nothing can cross the border. This time, it's much worse than just another Russian spat with a former satellite state. The Georgia standoff may soon create a major headache for the Bush Administration, because of U.S. support for Georgia's right to align itself with the West.

Tuesday's announcement of the new measures came even after Georgia had handed over four Russian military intelligence officers accused of spying, and months of insults against Russia, threats to restore Georgia's sovereignty over its breakaway pro-Moscow provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and also assaults on Russian personnel serving in Georgia. Moscow insists that Russia is the injured party, forced to retaliate.

But the crisis, spurred by some emotional and erratic outbursts from Georgia, may actually suit Moscow's agenda, since the deeper issue driving the conflict is Georgia's geopolitical orientation: Georgia has joined the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline that skirts Russia and ends its monopoly on transporting Caspian Sea oil to world markets; it has defied Moscow on a range of regional issues; and it is attempting to join NATO, presenting the Russian military brass with the prospect of a strategic rival strengthening its position along Russia's southern underbelly. In short, the crisis is an expression of Russia's failure to accept Georgia's independence.

Who is the aggressor here?

Looks to me like the Russian bear is seeking to maintain control over Georgia by economic means, that Georgia is seeking ways to escape that dominance, and that Russia is seeking excuses to invade.

But hey, all I know is what I read in the papers.

 

[mightypeon]

What I got is that the firing started at Friday, leading to the capture the the South Ossetian Capital Zhanwali by georgian forces during the day.

If Russia would have been the aggressor, it is highly unlikely that Georgia succeeds in capturing an enemy capital just after the beginning of hostilities.

Unfortunatly I cannot post sources since I got less than 15 posts.
I would suggest Reuters, CNN seems to be fairly pro Georgian while RIA and Itar-TASS are obviously pro moscow.


Just now, Georgia declared a monolateral ceasefire. Which is quite equivalent to a surrender.
It remains to be see if Russia will be content with restoring the Status Quo or if they also seek recognition for the Abhazia etc. and/or a regime change in Tiflis.

I believe that the US would have a similiar stance if f.e. Hugo Chavez tries to invade Columbia (after fabricating a Casus Belli), temporarilly captures the columbian capital killing US citicens in the process and runs away quickly once US troops turn up, than declares an unilateral ceasefire and accuses the US of beeing the aggressor.

Considering Nato: The official grounds for not admitting Georgia where its "unresolved territorial disputes", as long as this disputes are maintained, there will be no Nato membership. Therefore the Status Quo stops the Nato membership, its not as if there is a clock ticking for the Russians.
However, Bush may soon be replaced by Obama, who will likely be less endorsing of doing things pissing of the red bear, in fact, I would believe that it was Georgias time window that was closing.

 

[Avatar4321]

What I got is that the firing started at Friday, leading to the capture the the South Ossetian Capital Zhanwali by georgian forces during the day.

If Russia would have been the aggressor, it is highly unlikely that Georgia succeeds in capturing an enemy capital just after the beginning of hostilities.

Unfortunatly I cannot post sources since I got less than 15 posts.
I would suggest Reuters, CNN seems to be fairly pro Georgian while RIA and Itar-TASS are obviously pro moscow.


Just now, Georgia declared a monolateral ceasefire. Which is quite equivalent to a surrender.
It remains to be see if Russia will be content with restoring the Status Quo or if they also seek recognition for the Abhazia etc. and/or a regime change in Tiflis.

I believe that the US would have a similiar stance if f.e. Hugo Chavez tries to invade Columbia (after fabricating a Casus Belli), temporarilly captures the columbian capital killing US citicens in the process and runs away quickly once US troops turn up, than declares an unilateral ceasefire and accuses the US of beeing the aggressor.

Considering Nato: The official grounds for not admitting Georgia where its "unresolved territorial disputes", as long as this disputes are maintained, there will be no Nato membership. Therefore the Status Quo stops the Nato membership, its not as if there is a clock ticking for the Russians.
However, Bush may soon be replaced by Obama, who will likely be less endorsing of doing things pissing of the red bear, in fact, I would believe that it was Georgias time window that was closing.

Once again, Georgia can't invade itself. Russia was not invaded. Georgia was.

 

[mightypeon]

-South Ossetia was never a de facto part of Georgia, they were de facto independent since 1992
-There has been an international peace agreement featuring South Ossetia, Russia and Georgia
-If Serbia can "invade" Kosovo, than Georgia certainly can and did "invade" South Ossetia, seems like Russia is also on operation "Jugoslawia payback" and generously aided by this due to a very big mistake by the Georgian President


-Bottomline, Russias actions are fairly legitimate, allthough noone in the west really likes them, anyone expecting them to waste such a opportunity to reshape the Caucasus or at least Georgia is fairly naive.

 

[editec]

I think it's about as likely that Georgia threatened Russsia as Poland threatened Germany in Sept. 1939.

I don't give a rat's ass what Russia is saying, what lies they are telling the world, I do not think Gerogia is run by idiots who looked at the Bear and it's huge military might and said

"Hey, comrade! let's commit national suicide and attack a nation 45 times bigger than we are"

Call me cynical about the media or whatever, but I ain't buying the story that Georgia started a war they knew they had no chance of winning.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Russia's actions have absolutely zero legitimacy, Peon. You could say Georgia's actions aren't legitimate either, but whether it was the Ossetians or the Georgians doesn't a make a bit of difference in regards to Russian action, for the simple fact that Ossetians aren't Russians. Ossetia isn't part of Russia, and it doesn't want to be a part of Russia. They're interefering in the internal affairs of a country. S.O. might be de facto independent but it's not recognized as a state by anyone, INCLUDING Russia, who in fact denounced their independence referendum (and nullifying any possibly legitimacy they might have been able to argue for).

This was nothing more than a Russian imperial muscle flex, with little more legitimacy than, say, US action in Iraq.

 

[mightypeon]

Why Russias has a fair bit of legitimacy:

1: There was a peace agreement between the South Ossetia, Abkhazia Georgia and Russia. Otherwise there would be no Peace keeping troops under UN Mandate.
2: This peace keeping agreement did definitly not entail a legitimate Georgian right to move in, capture the South Ossetian capital and shoot and kill on the Russian peace keeping troops.
3: around 90% of South Ossetias citizens have Russian passports.

If we compare that with f.e. Kosovo,

1: Kosovo never existed before the Nato intervention
2: There were no peace agreements with anyone
3: I am not aware of Kosovo Albanians having citicenships of any Nato country.

I mean, If China would go for Taiwan (which is currently recogniced by some 23 states, most of them beeing really small islands and/or city states and/or 3. World countries), would the US have no legitimacy of defending it?

As I said, Ossetians have Russian passports. And one does not get a passport unless one wants one.


Considerign the military situation:

Georgia wanted to defeat South Ossetia quickly(succeeded), block/blow up the only way that connects it to Russia (not succesfull) and shrug of the Russian air raids while trying to win the diplomatic battle.
If they would have succeeded with blocking/blowing up the tunnel it could have worked.

 

[Munin]

Why Russias has a fair bit of legitimacy:

3: around 90% of South Ossetias citizens have Russian passports.

Yeah, right. You know that this is not normal?

They got Russian passports while they weren't part of Russia anymore, and isn't it strange that 90% have Russian passports: I mean they re officially inhabitants of Georgia so everyone born in South Ossethia should be given a Georgian Passport. Appearantly this has not happend, Russia interfered. How do you think US would react if Russia would give Russian passports to the people in Alaska (also former Russian territory) and then claimed Alaska?

And if so, is this not an act of aggression?

I m not saying Georgia doesn't carry anything of the blame, but Russia overreacted: they bombed Georgian cities, they took US technology from a Georgian base that was far from both breakaway provinces, they explicitly bombed the Georgian oil pipeline, they destroyed all Georgian Coastguard ships, occupied their most important sea-port, occupied a very big part of Georgia. And wasn't it strange that those Russian tanks seem to have been waiting at the border for an excuse to invade Georgia.

The Russian Reaction should have limited itself to South Ossethia, when they got past that region they overreacted and became an aggressor no matter what Georgia did before: The Russian army is many multiple times bigger then the Georgian army, invading Georgia is like "an adult picking a fight with a baby": there is no honor in that. But the Soviets have proven in the past that honor is not something their army has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#Rapes_and_pacifications), maybe the Russians haven't changed much.