South Ossetia War

[Labcoatguy]

It's much closer to how Otto von Bismarck started his do, by goading his neighbor into acting first and then to respond with overwhelming force. Now to see if Putin shows the realpolitik restraint of Bismarck or the suicidal tendencies of Hitler.

 

[Firecat]

I realize that i'm late to the party....but hold on a second...

Georgia part of NATO? So the next time they provoke a war with the Russians, they can count on the United States to intervene militarily?

I think not!

 

[jetsetter]

Russia provoked war with Georgia. It has been doing that since the end of the Cold War.

 

[Firecat]

More revisionism. That simply isn't true. Georgia knew what they were getting into before attacking SO. The Russians, although heavy-handed in their approach, were not at fault.

 

[the Interceptor]

Georgia knew what they were getting into before attacking SO.

But what else would they do? Just sit there and watch how Georgians are banished out of their South Ossetian homes, the Russians taking over the region? (which is exactly what's happening right now)

The Russians, although heavy-handed in their approach, were not at fault.

Yes, they were. Russia created a situation they knew it was impossible to take for Georgia. They provoked Georgian military to make a step that Russian military took as a justification to occupy South Ossetia and silently absorb it in the process.

 

[Firecat]

So Georgia thought it would be smart to attack and kills South Ossetians and have them flee into Russia?

It's interesting how the United States et al will criticize Russia and support Georgia, but not too long ago when Israel started leveling Lebanon because a few soldiers were kidnapped, they were supportive of those actions.

 

[SuperStalin]

That has always been the state of politics in the world.

During the 90's USA and EU just tried to sugarcoat it a bit with all that "human rights" nonsense...
they were full of human rights, so they destabilized many countries and as a result millions suffered war and poverty.

Look at Iraq. Everyone with a wikipedia could have known that Iraq would go into a state of civil war between the factions that Saddam kept at bay. Everyone with a brain could tell you that civil war would last for years, and that all the elite would pack up and leave the fanatics and peasants to fight it out.

So, from a stable Iraq, where people had few rights, but didn't live that bad, under a secular dictator,
through "humanitarian" actions, the USA brought "freedom" of armed clans to do whatever the hell they like,
as long as they don't interrupt oil production. The result will probably be a deeply divided, unstable country
shared by Shia, Sunni and Kurds, constantly in turmoil, the death toll and suffering far greater then at any period under Saddam. What a great deal!

 

[the Interceptor]

So Georgia thought it would be smart to attack and kills South Ossetians and have them flee into Russia?

There was no smart move in this "game", every action of every party would have meant losses and suffering for another party.

It's interesting how the United States et al will criticize Russia and support Georgia, but not too long ago when Israel started leveling Lebanon because a few soldiers were kidnapped, they were supportive of those actions.

The USA have always had a close relationship with Israel. The latest criticism towards Russia is based on their actions against Georgia, which was becoming a democratic, western-orientated country. Obviously, that is in the interest of the western world, but not good for Russia.

 

[SuperStalin]

The USA have always had a close relationship with Israel. The latest criticism towards Russia is based on their actions against Georgia, which was becoming a democratic, western-orientated country. Obviously, that is in the interest of the western world, but not good for Russia.

Yep. Very western and democratic of them to mortar Ossetian civillians.

 

[Firecat]

It shouldn't matter what kind of relationship you have. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

And when you have situations where neighboring countries (or areas) are in a very tense situation, you will see some cross-border skirmishes and such, but every precaution needs to be taken in order to prevent it from escalating into a larger conflict. Bottom-line, Georgia should not have sent their army into SO.

This is cold war politics, and no good can come of it.

 

[the Interceptor]

Both your statements have the same answer, so allow me to reply to them together.

Before the actual war broke out, South Ossetian troops were occupied in fights with Georgian troops. Who did what is not reconstructable, as both sides always name their enemy as the one who started the individual actions. In the end, Georgia had two options:

a) watch their troops and their citizens constantly being attacked in South Ossetia
b) launch an own attack on South Ossetian troops in an attempt to end the attacks

As in all wars on civil ground, there will be casualties among the innocent. That's why war is a bad thing. But what should they do? The peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia obviously didn't help at all. South Ossetians kept attacking Georgians.

Also, Russia was drawing together troops at their side of the Georgian border. Cleverly, Russia equipped the majority of Russians in South Ossetia with Russian passports, so according to Russian law, the attack of Georgian troops enabled Russia to retaliate.

Of course, Saakashvili must have known what kind of actions the attack would provoke. But what else would you do? What would you guys have done?

 

[SuperStalin]

In the end, Georgia had two options:

b) launch an own attack on South Ossetian troops in an attempt to end the attacks

So, you think Georgia had no idea that Russians would react to the attack
on a teritory populated mostly by Russian loyalists?

Georgia had no idea... they just went in and enflamed a bad situation?

Or they did know? But, in that case, they thought USA would support them.

Or was it USA that cooked the whole thing up, just to mess with Russia,
the growing superpower?

Cleverly, Russia equipped the majority of Russians in South Ossetia with Russian passports, so according to Russian law, the attack of Georgian troops enabled Russia to retaliate.

It's not that clear-cut. Russia, South Ossetia and Georgia were up until 1991.
a part of the SSSR. At the time, internal borders weren't so important.

Of course, Saakashvili must have known what kind of actions the attack would provoke. But what else would you do? What would you guys have done?

Well, it would be smart of Saakashvili not to do things that ruin Georgia and the entire region, just so USA could fuck with Russia.

 

[Firecat]

I would let South Ossetia determine their own status. They don't want to be a part of Georgia.

 

[the Interceptor]

Here's an analogy. Imagine a couple of masked men break in your house and rape your sister while holding you at gunpoint. You can either

a) just watch it happen
b) attack the guys in an attempt to disarm and overpower them

You are aware that you and maybe even your sister will be shot if you attack. So what do you do? And more importantly: is there a good solution for all parties?

I would let South Ossetia determine their own status. They don't want to be a part of Georgia.

Okay, but what happens to the 30% of people in South Ossetia that don't want to be sovereign, or even a part of Russia?

I don't know where you are from, but imagine that one day someone rings at your door and tells you that you're not welcome in your region anymore, because a part of the inhabitants has decided that they want to belong to another country. They force you to go somewhere within the rest of your old country. All your life, your house, your work, your friends - gone. A good solution?

 

[jetsetter]

Then there is the fact that Russia has been in South Ossetia for years basically handing out Russian passports. You think they do with out of the goodness of their heart? Please.

 

[SuperStalin]

...and USA is supporting Georgia in this conflict out of the goodness of THEIR heart.


Riiiight...

 

[the Interceptor]

The USA supports Georgia because every western-orientated island in a region dominated by Russia weakens Moscows influence and, in the same step, intensifies the influence of Washington in said region. In the end, both sides are struggeling for soil and influence, it's just that this fight currently is being fought in Georgia.

And just that I'm not understood falsely: I'm not very happy with how things went here. This is a conflict that could have been and should have been prevented by all sides involved, including Europe. But warnings were discarded, so war broke out. Now, the problem is much bigger than it ever should have been. Still, I don't see how Georgia is the only one to blame in this crisis. As in all examples of humanity in action, there's no simple black & white, right & wrong, agressor & attacked.

 

[Firecat]

Here's an analogy. Imagine a couple of masked men break in your house and rape your sister while holding you at gunpoint. You can either

a) just watch it happen
b) attack the guys in an attempt to disarm and overpower them

You are aware that you and maybe even your sister will be shot if you attack. So what do you do? And more importantly: is there a good solution for all parties?

That's a poor analogy, but let's roll with it. I guess that means you support the Iraqi insurgency, right?

Okay, but what happens to the 30% of people in South Ossetia that don't want to be sovereign, or even a part of Russia?

I don't know where you are from, but imagine that one day someone rings at your door and tells you that you're not welcome in your region anymore, because a part of the inhabitants has decided that they want to belong to another country. They force you to go somewhere within the rest of your old country. All your life, your house, your work, your friends - gone. A good solution?

It's not a perfect solution, but similar situations can be found throughout the world (Israel or even Quebec for instance). I don't see why that 30% should mean SO should be tethered to Georgia.

 

[SuperStalin]

The USA supports Georgia because every western-orientated island in a region dominated by Russia weakens Moscows influence and, in the same step, intensifies the influence of Washington in said region. In the end, both sides are struggeling for soil and influence, it's just that this fight currently is being fought in Georgia.

So basically you admit being on the US side, and against Russia.

Since the suffering of the Georgians and Ossetians in this conflict means nothing to you, as long as Washington gets what it wants, do you think Russia should be destroyed, or just weakened to the point they can't do anything? Or even partitioned?

 

[Firecat]

And just that I'm not understood falsely: I'm not very happy with how things went here. This is a conflict that could have been and should have been prevented by all sides involved, including Europe. But warnings were discarded, so war broke out. Now, the problem is much bigger than it ever should have been. Still, I don't see how Georgia is the only one to blame in this crisis. As in all examples of humanity in action, there's no simple black & white, right & wrong, agressor & attacked.

I can agree with that. I don't particularly like being in the position where I'm defending Russia. My biggest issue is with some pushing for Georgia to be part of NATO. I just don't see that as good for the United States. Despite my opinions on foreign policy of the USA and my lack of support of their actions in Iraq, sometimes it seems that I'm the one who is intersted in keeping the USA out of unecessary war as opposed to those that consider themselves to be "patriotic" Americans.