South Ossetian conflict

[Franek Grabowski]

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.

[Ruy Horta]

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.

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.

[Juha]

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

[Kari Lumppio]

it looks like:

- there was some kind of small clash several days ago, but both parties (Georgia and Russia) agreed on cease of fire

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?

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Kari Lumppio

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

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).

[Christian Schulz]

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.)

[Jan Bobek]

Originally Posted by Kari Lumppio

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?

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

[CJE]

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

[Nokose]

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.)

[Juha]

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