South Ossetian conflict
 

Off topic, but that's why we have this sub forum.

Complicated situation, but for the time being I'm of opinion that it actually is a Georgian (or perhaps more exact Saakashvili's) attempt to escalate the conflict in their long term advantage by drawing in US/Nato forces in the region.

I find current news a little too biased in favor of Georgia, in a way that is not warranted by the historical background and current events. There seems to be somewhat of a flip flop in the making. I'm curiously following how the spin is developing.

Also I find it amusing that Russian air raids outside the direct conflict zone are criticized, as everyone must know that air force doctrine and support would dictate such operations. Again this is a sign of very arbitrary reporting.

Current weak (world) economy has me worried, as this type of conflict is perfect to draw the attention away from problems closer to home. Also those who wish a return to the cold war in terms of military spending must be chomping at the bit to turn this into something bigger.

Just some thoughts, let the flames begin (but hopefully not literally).

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Have to agree with you Ruy.
Thought while Putin and Bush were together in Beijing yesterday it was a perfect opportunity for someone to knock their heads together and get a little sense in. Both sides are too trigger happy.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Hello!

I hope that you are not restricting this thinking only to so called Western countries. Russian military funding was cut much more severely than, say NATO-countries.

If this crisis ends with the message that Russia is entitled to use military forces against sovereign countries in the name of Russian/"Russian" enclaves in them, then I am more than worried. Now at Georgia - Ossetia the situation and history somewhat supports Russian actions, but I sure hope this will not became a modus operandi for future.

Cheers,
Kari

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Ruy
I see its disturbing that a superpower bombed towns of its small neighbour. But as You live thousands of kms away of Russia your POW is understandable.

Juha

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Juha,

Superpowers bombing towns of small countries isn't unique to Russia.

Isn't it acceptable if the press agencies call it collateral damage, while attacking legitimate military targets?

That Russia has its own agenda isn't unique either (call it national interests, to coin a popular phrase), but that doesn't mean Georgia doesn't have such an agenda of its own and is willing to take some gambles to achieve their own goals. It is easy to point at Russia as the aggressor, but IMHO this case just isn't as cut and dried.

But I guess your "Weltanschauung" will lead you to a different conclusion.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Ruy
I'm not claiming that this is black and white question, but Georgia is an independent state and Russia has been very strict in its oppinion on the rights of sovering states to do what they want inside their borders when it had suited to it. And its handling of its own regions which have had separistic intentions has been very harsh, remember for ex Chechnia and bombing of Grozny. And I have not hear that Georgia has attacked Russian territory, have you?

Juha

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Again, it is arguable wether or not these two autonomous regions during the Soviet era, should automatically have been part of the new sovereign state of Georgia.

At least the Ossetians and Abkhazians don't seem to think so, but we in the west thought otherwise.

The right of recognition is often arbitrary and mostly dictated by national interests. I don't see any difference in this regard between east or west, north or south for that matter. Rebel, separatist, freedom or independence fighter. It probably boils down to which side has to offer the best deals.

Perhaps I'm too much of a cynic.

As for your second point, at least according to the Russians (and Saakashvili's own comments on CNN) Georgian troops opened fire first with a relatively heavy (rocket) artillery barrage. Not on Russian territory, but against Russian troops (or peacekeepers in their point of view).

I don't want to press my views and it is clearly too early to tell how this will play out, but my instinct is not to jump in support of Saakashvili.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Ruy
if you own pre-1991 maps on Caucasus, looking at them you'll see that both South Ossetia and Abkhazia Autonomous Regions belonged to Georgia Socialist Soviet Republic. Now when Baltic states got back their independence they wanted their 1939 borders back but Russia insisted (and eventually got its will accepted) that no, only accepted borders were those of the former Socialist Soviet Republics. Now "grateful" new Socialistic Republics Estonia, Latvia, cannot recall was Lithuenia also, had ceded some of their eastern areas to Mother Russia in 40s and to Russia these new Soviet Union time internal borders were only acceptable solution not 1939 internationally, also by SU, accepted borders. And of course in Georgia's case Russian view is different.

But as you wrote it is too early to draw definite conclusions and Georgia has acted at least thoughtlessly. If one is smaller, it's not clever to step on Russian's toes, one is to get a hefty kick, at least, for such a behavior.

Juha

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

I hope this conflict can be settled soon. Since Evgeny Velichko is now in the Russian army that bothers me also about this conflict.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

I am Czech, it is August 2008 - 40th anniversary of invasion into Czechoslovakia. Therefore if Russian army goes with tanks over some border, you can imagine what are my first emotions. The picture of Russian army as friendly force and peace keeper was not part of education I got from my parents (married in 1968) :) small example: when I was small boy, I was prohibited by my parents to wave at Russian soldiers when they were driving around.

I appreciate Juha´s comments on similarities with Chechnia and Grozny, but I try listen to the news carefully (Russian, European and US) it looks like:

- there was some kind of small clash several days ago, but both parties (Georgia and Russia) agreed on cease of fire.
- suddenly, at the end of this week, Georgia opened artilery shelling (unguided rockets) at Tskhinvali city - residential area and also at area with peace-keeping soldiers from several countries including Russians. Think about it ... shelling of city with inhabitants.
- the attack was done at the beginning of Olympic games ... hardly a coincidence.
- Russian Army entered the area to push Georgian army back. Russian a/c bombed Georgian targets and IMHO tried to hit military and logistics targets and did not hit too much residential buildings - otherwise Georgian media would make publicity of such bombings.
- Russian media say (could be fake, exaggerated or correct, who knows - it´s media war as well) - about 1600 residents dead, Georgian tanks rolling over women and children, Georgian soldiers throwing hand-grenades into cellars with people, group of people locked in a house and burned live etc. ... there is even an American citizen as eyewitness in Russian news.

My impression - Georgia is agressor, but the overall situation is very much in favour of Russia. Georgia is now having zero chance to enter NATO, and US got cold shower from Kremlin. I bet that Putin was waiting for similar opportunity. Looks like Russian side was well prepared for both - war with weapons as well as media war.

Friend of mine told me today that this is somewhat similar to Falkland war. If the similarity works - let me guess - current Georgian goverment will not last long.

But bloody hell, who cares. There were hundreds or maybe thousands of simple people alive over there a week ago. And they are now dead. Again same story. Politians and army big guys have their games and simple people are in sh..

:(

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Actually, our knowledge is limited to media, and they are quite used to lie just about anything.
I am afraid, though, that some people deny the right of Georgia to exist as an independent country. Whatever happened in recent days, it must be noted, that this is the direct result of Soviet occupation and Russian influence. Some people may claim, what is the fuss all about, but why there was any fuss, when Germany wanted to make the Netherlands just another province of the great Reich?
Current tensions were instigated by Russia, which for years supported separatists at Ossetia and Abkhazya, and attacked Georgian territory, reputedly hitting bases of Chechnyans. Even choice of Saakashvili may be considered as a direct result of Russian actions and attempts to influence the situation, eg. during the coup that elevated Shevardnadze.
Oh, and about bombings, it sounds ridiculous when claimed by people who leveled Groznyj and other cities in Chechnya, not caring about inhabitants.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Jan, from sifting through the news that seems to be the red line connecting the dots. Apart from the casualty and atrocity stories few seem to dispute these turn of events.

The politics behind it are far more complex. I am not naive enough to miss Russia's strategic objectives, but the situation is not helped by the position of these autonomous regions under the Soviet era and the way they were absorbed into Georgia without their consent. If Georgia had a right to be independent from Russia, so do these regions have a right to decide if they want to stay with Georgia (which they don't) or not. It is arbitrary to recognise one claim to independence over the other. But arbitration is influenced by interest.

One war does not equal the other. Is Iraq the same as Korea or Viet Nam? No, neither is Afghanistan (now there is a ghost from the past) nor Chechnya the same South Ossetia (or Abkhazia for that matter). It is clear that Russia won't stop until they have finished the business, no half measures.

These regions are strategically importants in terms of gas and oil interests. Both Georgia and Russia recognise that fact in abundance. Unfortunately, Russia has the better cards, even morally so. Even Russia might be "right" sometimes, unless you believe in the evil empire of course.

I seem to recall that Saakashvili was having some problems of his own domestically, that might indeed make the Falklands a fitting analogy.

Its amusing to see Nazi aggression pop up in this context, playing those emotions. :o

BTW, speaking of Saakashvili.

I'm pretty much outraged over his misuse of the EU flag. What's next, placing the NATO and US flags as well behind him? These plays are not the signs of a mature government.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Ruy
with all respect You are mixing facts and misinformation. Georgia was part of Russia only from 1801 to 1918/20 after that it was independent appr 1½ year, ruled by Menseviks, until conquerred by Bolseviks in 1923 IIRC. After that to 1991 it was a SSR, Sosialist Soviet Republic, and part of Soviet Union, not part of the Russian SFSR. And as a SSR it had right to separate from the Union according to the constitution of the Soviet Union and it used that right and SU accepted Georgia's declaration of independence appr ½ year after the declaration, a couple months before the dissolution of SU. So all went according to SU constitution and international law or at least more or less according those. Now IIRC areas can be separate from states if the "mother" state accepts that. If "mother" state doesn't accept the separation it had right to use certain amount of force to prevent the separation but not "excessive" force but of course what is "excessive" is a matter of oppinion.

And both South Ossetia and Abkhazia were ASSRs inside Georgia ie parts of Georgia SSR during Soviet era. At least most ASSRs belonged to one or other SSRs, for ex many were part of Russian SFSR.

Now what is morally right sometimes differs from that what is lawfull, on Abkhazia problem is that 1/3 of population kicked 2/3 of population out of area, or at least appr ½ out and rest flee the war and chaos. Now in 1991 a little over ½ of the population wanted the SU to continue, georgians (46% of population) boicotted the vote. Abkhazes made some 20% of the population in 1989. So who has right to decise the future of Abkhazia, those who live there now or has also those who were forced out or fled the violence of early 90s some say on the question? I don't have any firm oppinion on that.

On Shaakasvili, at least his policy towards South Ossetia has been a catastrophe, so I'd not be surprise if his time in office will run out.

Juha

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Hello!

I thought Russian were and are supposed to be peacekeepers, not a participant? The initial shellings towards Georgia was made by (South) Ossetians, not by Russians? Or do I have it wrong?


Other points to ponder:

Russia has not recognized the independency of South Ossetia (I would see recognition as the fair solution). Why? What are they going to do now?

Who are gaining from the instability in the region? Not Russia, not Georgia. Not Ossetians, not Abhasians, not Georgians. Are "they" the "silovniki" in Moscow like suggested by this Russian article in Radio Echo site?:
http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/code/532628-echo/
(google tranlates it easily)
The article goes so far that compares South Ossetian regime with Hamas and says it is keeping their own people as hostages to gain themselves.

According to some sources South Ossetian economy is/was based on two things: dotations and similar from grey to black money from Moscow and smuggling. Georgians put customs on the county border awhile ago and smuggling has been diminshed. Tha left money from Moscow the major income. Large portion of the money vapours away while travelling from Moscow to Tskhinval.

All this is clear as a mud.


Kari

PS Why similar thread was not initiated when the so called "Iraqi Freedom" was launched?

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Do you know?

I don't, I just took the opportunity of using the Off Topic section.

I had my thoughts about the Iraqi Freedom operation as well, but the reason I personally didn't start such a thread was not to hurt the feelings of the many American contributors to the forum. Such a thread would certainly have been more explosive than this one, judging by the activity. It is interesting who is reacting though.

In some ways I find Afghanistan a much more interesting topic, but it might even be more explosive than an Iraqi discussion.

But Kari, feel free to discuss off topic subjects in this sub-forum, as long as they are not offensive or commercial in nature (and have some connection to the spirit of the forum.

I do value the counter points given and I thank all of you for keeping it more or less civil and constructive up to this point. Unfortunately I am both host and participant (but I like to participate every now and then).

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Quite frankly this mess puzzles me. On the one hand I do not really understand what the Georgian president wanted to achieve with this course of action other than angering the Russians. The methods he and his commanders chose were downright amateurish and - if the current chain of events and discrediting Russia were the goals - these guys screwed up royally. Did he hope for a NATO intervention? Snort! Yeah, sure. Is he trying to make his country and himself look like the poor victim? Could have worked, except that little issue with shelling residential areas.

But: Russia's reaction is overblown. What makes it worse (in my eyes) is the saber rattling and the loudmouthed cawing. Maybe I'm a cynic or simply allergic to Russian propaganda (had enough of it growing up in the GDR), but it sounds too much like the old stuff from pre-1990. And even if part of it is true, we Krauts have a saying: Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, auch wenn er gleich die Wahrheit spricht! (loosely translated: He who lies once won't be trusted even if he speaks the truth.)

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Terve!

I will try to get back with some evidence. But it will be based on media. No eyewitness, no radio intercepts, no archival documents as we got used to it during WW II research

Jan

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

This is a very interesting thread where I keep silent because I have little knowledge of the overall situation but learn a lot thanks to contributors coming from many different horizons and sensitivities.
I do appreciate the gentleman's behaviour of you all.

Chris

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

I've seen many different news casts (don't really have much faith in CNN) about this war. Is the European feel on this that Russia might be looking for control of all the pipelines going out of that region or just to keep that area in line with it's views. I know that Russia has a history aleast in the last century if they want it they don't give it back (East Prussia and parts of Finland for intstance.)

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Hello, here is one link which tried to figure out what has happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_War

IMHO it's still difficult to form a clear oppinion on what has happened. I have rather dim view on Russian's ultimate motives, hopefully I'm wrong and anyway we don't know what is happening in background.

Juha

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Hi guys

I don't know sufficient about the politics of the area to make a sensible contribution, but am appalled that in 2008 members of the so-called civilised world can once again be found involved in such a barbaric conflict. I agree with Jan - it's the wretched civilians who suffer and pay the price.

Afghanistan was mentioned - am I really so naive to have been led to believe that the Taliban had to be ousted before the opium poppies could be destroyed - thus saving the young people from a fate far worse than death itself? Why don't we (NATO/UN) destroy the poppy fields - the Americans de-foliated much of Vietnam/Cambodia when it was considered necessary - and surely to save the kids from suffering hell on earth is worth the criticism they would receive for doing the same in Afghanistan. Far too many lives of young British and American soldiers have been sacrificed - for what? What is the aim, the goal?

Brian

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Brian,

Since mankind invented the mace, the best place to be during a conflict has been in the army. In all wars civilians paid the higher price because they are stucked between the two opponents.

Why don't we (NATO/UN) destroy the poppy fields
As we put it in French : asking the question is already answering it.

Chris

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Chris
All is dangerous word, there are a few absolutely correct claims. During WWII Finland lost 84 000 soldiers and 2 000 civilians killed. And of course the civilian population was much bigger. The key was that we managed to keep enemy out of heavily populated areas and a good air defence. So during WWII it was much more safe to be a Finnish civilian than a Finnish soldier. But this is a bit far from Caucasus.

Juha

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

I am a bit hesitant to reply, as the first American to do so here. I see my self as more of a citizen of the planet.

First, from an American view point, (or, MY personal view point) Georgia should have never attempted to absorb S Ossetia or Abkhazia in the first place. Yes, I know the historical reasons why it was done, yet they apparently got greedy.

This is the 21st Century, and people have had enough of territorialism. People who want their own space, should be allowed. We ALL want freedom as we see it.

Yet, I am a bit concerned that Russia had such a large force available for instant duty. Some one was thinking ahead.........

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Well, just few of my notes:

1. Russia don´t have right to attack independent Territory of Georgia according to international law. Russia don´t have right to support separatists in South Osetia and Abkhazia.
2. This Russian move is in close connection to proclamation of idependency of Kosova. NATO and EU made a big fault to recognize Independent Kosova. Russia opposed this political step. Russia thinks when we didn´t have word in question of Kosova, nobody has right to say us what we should do in our "sphere of influence". Be aware of European addiction of gas and oil from Russia. EU is such crazy model of modern state, European Policy is ununderstable for me.
3. What wanted Saakashvili to do? In my opinion he was very afraid of possible attack of separatists from Abkhazia and South Osetia with strong Russian Support. He decided the best way is provoke to Russia to military action on territory of independent Georgia. Future will show it.
4. Russians are first of all nostalgic for their imperial times. Putin gave them some kind of believe that Russia is still strong power (economicaly, military). Personally I won´t believe Russia Government anytime. Forty years after "liberation of Czechoslovakia from terorists" they are once again fight to "terrorists" on the territory of independent state. Don´t forgot that Russia attacked by air Georgian Territory many times from beginning of 1st Chechen War in 1994. May be not many, but hundred times. 5. NATO wanted to develope "sphere of influence" to Ukraine and Georgia (in my opinion only because of rich sources of oil and gas in Black Sea and not for human rights or support of independence and weak post-Soviet states). But NATO won´t want to has some military conflict with Russia. And - I am not sure - in my opinion NATO and Russia has some secret agreements about sphere of influence as final step of agreements about Kosova. So, nor NATO nor European nor International Community will help to Georgia. Only diplomatic discussions which will lead to nothing. At the end International Community will deploy hundreds of "Peace-keep" Forces and Military Observators in Georgia. I can not understand how Russian Forces can be in Abkhazia and South Osetian as "peace-keepers".
6. It is question if Saakashvili will be satisfied. International Community will say that Russia acted against international rules. But on the other hand, all world will have close commercial contacts with Russia. Result: nothing. On the other hand deployment of "international peace-keepers" would be at the end probably for support of Georgian Suverenity. And of course - there are some doubts if it is not one step to support Saakashvili´s Presidency. His popularity decreased before this war. Of course, particulary because of strong involvment of Russian Secret Services in Georgian Affairs.

Once again one stupid war.

Michal

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Hi guys! Very very interesting for those who are interested on Geo-Polithics!
However, may I ask another question:
I read on CNN/International that at least 4 russian aircraft were shot down. Does someone have more information about that? Or about Georgian losses?
( I am trying to obtain more information on the Aviation History side )
Glad
Adriano

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

I saw photos of at least one crash site. Said to be a Russian "fighter". As both sides are using "Sukhoi 25 family" ground attack aircraft, it is difficult to which side it belonged.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

In my local daily newspaper there is a reprint from a Washington Post correspondent on the causes. Essentially he says Georgia got too close to the "West" and Putin was determined to stop this. Putin has used the excuse of Georgia firing on Russian peacekeepers. I.e., Russia is putting paid to having a potential NATO country right next door in a sensitive (to Russian interests) area. Russia really got ticked off over the "missiles" in Poland and other former "eastern" countries and the "color revolutions" next door which removed their influence in Ukraine, etc.

Interesting peice. Unfortunately, I cannot post a link to the W. Post.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Well, in my opinion, based on the appliance of same standards to all nations, Russia´s right to be in Georgia is equal to the right of Amis to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Either you condemn both, or you condemn neither. The same applies to Kosovo vs. South Ossetia/Abhazia. Ultimately, one must either condemn all violent expansion (like the "expansion" to the West by a certain people north of Mexico) or none of it. All other views are double standards.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Jukka,

That sounds fine on the surface, but any conflict must be seen within its own context. The variables that make up for lets say Iraq 2003 are not the same as those for Georgia 2008 or Finland 1939 for that matter. Is Afghanistan 2001 the same as Afghanistan 1978? One's violent expansion, is another's justified intervention. One's peacekeeper, is another's occupier. I see enough room to accept one action and condone another, without having double standards.

The trick is to be objective in terms of standards. The fact that hidden agendas are always accompanying the public one doesn't make things prettier nor easier. Lets be honest, one's world view will always influence one's interpretation of these events. But one can try and maintain a certain objectivity when judging the sequence of events. Even as a cynic.

BTW, a dutch RTL news camera man was killed in the last air strike on Gori before the Russian ceasefire was called.

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

According to aircraft losses:

Russia said he lost two planes - one Tu-22M and one Su-25 between August 8 and 10 . Georgian losses are uncertain - Abkhazia told her soldiers shot down one Su-25, South Osetia one helicopter and Russia probably destroyed two Georgian Su-25 on ground, one Su 25 in air combat and several Georgian helicopters. Georgian Air Force had only seven Su-25 before conflict. Georgians claimed 10 shot down Russian Planes. But we can take for sure only two Russian planes which were confirmed by Russian Officials.

Michal

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

According to latest news, on August 11 2008 destroyed Russian planes on Senaki A/F on Ground one Georgian helicopter Mi-8 and one Mi-24. During attack on South Osetian Units and Units of Russian 58th Army was shot down one Georgian Su-25 in area of Eredvi, South Osetia. This information is from Russian Sources.

Michal

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Hello!

It seems that Russian Ministry of Defence has admitted 4 Russian planes lost. One of them is Tu-22 and three(?) Su-25.

The Tu-22 (or Tu-26M3-R) was reconnaissance plane from 929 GLITs (some kind of testing unit). One of the crew died. This posting at VIF2-forum gives even the tactical number "36" for the plane:

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/0/co/125433.htm



Peace!
Kari

Re: South Ossetian conflict
 

Final account of Russian losses on August 11 2008:

Georgia claimed 19 shot down Russian Planes. Russia confirmed one Tu-22M and three Su-25.