Georgia/Russia

[SouthArmaghBandit]

Despite the attempts by NATO countries to put a spin on this, it is becoming abundantly clear that Russia had no choice other than to take the action they did. Failure to do so would have resulted in Genocide. This was a naked land grab and ethnic cleansing operation, pre-planned and launched by Georgia, with the connivance of the Americans. In an all out war there can be only one victor, Russia has to date shown remarkable restraint in not pressing their advantage

I think that's spot on.

[Loughers]

So a majority of a people in a province of a soverign state want to be allied to it's much bigger and more powerful neighbour.  Interesting!!

[Tony Baloney]

Why have the Russkies refused to recognise the ceasefire called by Georgia?

[Main Street]

Despite the attempts by NATO countries to put a spin on this, it is becoming abundantly clear that Russia had no choice other than to take the action they did. Failure to do so would have resulted in Genocide. This was a naked land grab and ethnic cleansing operation, pre-planned and launched by Georgia, with the connivance of the Americans. In an all out war there can be only one victor, Russia has to date shown remarkable restraint in not pressing their advantage

Sounds like something from Russia Today (which is Fox news x 10).
Where is the evidence for this definitive opinion on genocide, land grab  and ethnic cleanse.

Isn't it also possible that the Russians had (totally) selfish motives for actively supporting armed insurrection in this troubled province?

[Zapatista]

Despite the attempts by NATO countries to put a spin on this, it is becoming abundantly clear that Russia had no choice other than to take the action they did. Failure to do so would have resulted in Genocide. This was a naked land grab and ethnic cleansing operation, pre-planned and launched by Georgia, with the connivance of the Americans. In an all out war there can be only one victor, Russia has to date shown remarkable restraint in not pressing their advantage

Sounds like something from Russia Today (which is Fox news x 10).
Where is the evidence for this definitive opinion on genocide, land grab  and ethnic cleanse.

Isn't it also possible that the Russians had (totally) selfish motives for actively supporting armed insurrection in this troubled province?

They might have been trying to protect the mass movent of their natural resourses through the largley pro EU Georgia destined for east and central Europe.  This would be in self interest but not selfish.

Why have the Russkies refused to recognise the ceasefire called by Georgia?

Don't listen to a word from either side at this stage. I would imagine the call for ceasefire was just to get in first to win the hearts and minds of international public opinion.

[scud]

The only reason the US/Russia give a damn about the area is the oil pipline running through it from the caspian to the the turkish ports on the black sea. Its the only route out of the caspian at the moment which is outside Russian influence.

The Georgian government's gamble that Russia would not intervene seems in hindsight extraordinarily stupid. NATO would never directly engage Russia, who seemed to have been itching for an oppertunity to lay down a marker to the US in their courtship of former soviet bloc countries, in violation of the post cold-war agreement.

Neither side (I hope) will emerge from this with any glory, and as usual civilians bear the brunt of the suffering

[puskas]

'Remarkable restraint', 'credible reporting', 'concern for civilians' welfare' be they Russian or non-Russian inside or outside Russia are not hallmarks of Russia under Putin. They aren't allowing independent journalists or monitors into the region so their claims on ethnic cleansing or casualties are not credible. It's an excellent excuse for the local bully to flex his muscles in his own backyard and get off scot-free.

[Hardy]

Still, it's frightening that in 2008 we have European countries invading each other and bombing each other not many miles from the borders of the EU. We got a chilling preview of what the next major war may be about when Russia turned off the gas supplies a couple of years ago. And I don't think you can have a war between nuclear powers without the use of nuclear weapons.

[Zapatista]

Still, it's frightening that in 2008 we have European countries invading each other and bombing each other not many miles from the borders of the EU. We got a chilling preview of what the next major war may be about when Russia turned off the gas supplies a couple of years ago. And I don't think you can have a war between nuclear powers without the use of nuclear weapons.

While it is not so frightening when European (and the USA) countries are fighting numerous wars in other continents. How long does Europe think they can avoid war at home when we are orchestrating it globally?

[Hardy]

I think you make an unwarranted inference. I didn't imply that wars outside Europe were OK. It's frightening that regions we convince ourselves are stable (i.e. Europe as a whole) can suddenly be seen to be so unstable that you have warplanes operating on the European continent - not something we would expect.

[Zapatista]

Perhaps I was hasty but I see it as almost inevitable such things would happen. Europe is a continent with a proud history of fighting with eachother. This stability is still in it's infancy and probably shouldn't be seen as a success in peacefull relations just yet.

[gallsman]

So a majority of a people in a province of a soverign state want to be allied to it's much bigger and more powerful neighbour.  Interesting!!

Hmmm, slighyly different situation the Soviet Union broke up 20 odd years ago, not quite the same as 800.

[Mentalman]

Georgia and Russia

Russia has the upper hand

Aug 11th 2008 | NEW YORK AND YEREVAN
From The Economist print edition

Russia has extended the conflict to a war inside Georgia. The West will have a hard time responding

GEORGIAN troops would withdraw from South Ossetia and would cease firing on the advancing Russians, said Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, on Sunday August 10th. But the war rages on. Russia has not only tightened its hold on the breakaway region. It has hit the Georgian city of Gori, in Georgia proper, with airstrikes and is reportedly sending ground forces that way. Russia has also moved on Abkhazia, a separate breakaway region in western Georgia. Russia also says that it has lost four aircraft, shot down over Georgia.

Georgia began shelling South Ossetia—a tiny territory run by Russia's security forces and a clique of local thugs who live off smuggling goods and pocketing Russian aid money—on August 7th and 8th. At first Russia sent in tanks, but its response escalated quickly to a full-scale invasion. A host of factors give Russia the upper hand. One is, of course, Russia's military preponderance over its small neighbour. Another is geography: Georgia is not so near other American or NATO interests that the feelings of these latter need to be taken overmuch into account.

To much of the Western world, the Russian-Georgian war is a straightforward case of a powerful, autocratic nation bullying a weak democracy nearby. But many complications make a meaningful response hard. One is that Georgia has not been lily-white itself. The government, led by the pro-western Mr Saakashvili, tarnished its image last year with a crackdown on protesters. And in response to nationalist pressures, he has begun in the past year to try to tighten Georgian control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a separatist region on the Black Sea coast in which Russia has much more strategic interest. It appears that Georgian forces erred badly by shelling South Ossetia last week, but in any case it seemed only a matter of time before Russia responded.

Georgia has called on the outside world to intervene. But it is not clear how effective any response would be. Russia would veto any action at the UN Security Council. Neither NATO nor the European Union have put Georgia on the fast track to membership; if they had, Russia may not have felt so bold. Leading European countries have called for a ceasefire, but have been somewhat even handed in their language. A group of states formerly dominated by Russia—the Baltic republics and Poland—issued a statement more strongly decrying Russian bullying. But some of the bigger EU countries see Georgia's provocation of Russia as irresponsible. Georgian leaders, in response, ruefully note Europe's dependence on Russian energy supplies.

The American reaction has been not much clearer. On Sunday America's vice-president, Dick Cheney, said that Russia's military action "must not go unanswered". George Bush, visiting the Olympics, has called for an immediate end to the fighting. So have the two presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. All put the blame on Russia. But America, besides helping to bring Georgia's troops home from Iraq quickly, does not have many obvious tools to hand. There is no talk of any military response; America will join mediating efforts with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the EU.

Russia sees it actions as having a parallel in Kosovo. In 1999, NATO fought a war to protect the Albanian-majority province of Yugoslavia from a Serbian crackdown, despite Russian opposition. This year, many western countries recognised Kosovo's declaration of independence, while somehow suggesting that Kosovo should not set any precedent. Russia claims to see in South Ossetia a friendly and oppressed region seeking independence from a larger country. But the disproportionate Russian response signals far more than concern for hard-pressed South Ossetians (and Russia's "citizens", South Ossetians recently given Russian passports). It may be a naked challenge to the West: Russia expects the response to be no more than diplomatic manoeuvres. Russia may also be seeking the removal from power of Mr Saakashvili, sending a signal to other countries on its periphery that, in breaking from Russia and moving westwards, they are playing a dangerous game. That signal is coming through loud and clear.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=11914036

[Tankie]

Georgia signs cease-fire Print
     
Georgia's president said today he signed a cease-fire pledge proposed by envoys from the European Union.

President Mikhail Saakashvili said he signed the document together with French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner and his Finnish counterpart, Alexander Stubb.

Mr Saakashvili said the EU mediators will head to Moscow later today to try to persuade Russia to accept the cease-fire.

Meanwhile a senior Russian general said there were no plans to move troops further into Georgian territory.

Deputy chief of General Staff Anatoly Nogovitsyn said Russia had also demanded that Georgian troops near the second breakaway province of Abkhazia disarm.

The warning has raised Georgian fears that Russia might open a second front in the conflict over the original breakaway province of South Ossetia.

This president is some bitch, he knew what he was starting and now wants the world to stop big bad russia!

[Rav67]

What an idiot the Georgian president is, he would have been aware how a Putin-led Russia would react.  Has the US government made any statement on the conflict yet?