South Ossetian conflict

[Brian]

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

[CJE]

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

[Juha]

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

[Dan O'Connell]

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.........

[Michal]

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

[Adriano Baumgartner]

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

[Jan Bobek]

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.

[John Beaman]

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.

[Jukka Juutinen]

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.

[Ruy Horta]

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.