Russia invades Georgia - WW3 on it's way?

[Xandax]

@Xandax


Even so. Does it excuse poor little darling Saakashvili? Of course, he is "our staunch ally" who sent 2000 military contingent into Iraq despite the fact his own country's economy was (and is) in shambles. Of course, we need to support and protect our best friend (aka puppet) who was sending in more and more troops (to suck up to Bush, no doubt) while the other countries were pulling their troops out (which was the right thing to do, imho).

You guys keep on dismissing the obvious - this ambitious guy started the whole affair and apparently committed genocide hoping to force America into the conflict. Right, all we need is to fund another war. As if millions of taxpayers' dollars already pumped into this "democratic" regime are not enough.

He is a drama queen as well - all those staged "cover him up!" in front of the amused reporters (when nothing was going on, really) and "sorry guys but I have to go my bomb shelter, talk to you later", or "The bombs that are falling on us, they have an inscription on them: This is for NATO. This is for the U.S." stink of melodramatic cheese.

Just go ahead and tell me: do you approve of his actions?
<snip>

Firstly - there are currently just as many "speculations" and "report" that this might have been instigated by the Russians who've been "mediating" in the conflict for years. That they baited Georgia to attack and succeeded with great effect.
Sorry, but I do not trust Russian politics, even less so then I do the US ones. At least the US ones are somewhat democratically choosed in a country where a means of liberty exists. Not some two bit dictators wanting to play Tsars again and cling to power.

I've seen nothing indicating that Georgia were the aggressor in this instance, more so then it wasn't Russian backed and armed people in South Ottesia and Abkhazia.
Russia have many political reasons to want to "punish" Georgia severely, and their actions in Chechnya shows quite truly to which lengths Russia is willing to go to with wiping out civilians and keeping control of "its" lands.

One must also ask why Russia was/is so hell-bent on "defending" South Ottesia, while at the same time did not want Kossovo to be "liberated" and "defended" and while they at the same time perform such devastating actions in Chechnya. It doens't add up, lest one thinks that Russian politicians suddenly got a "change of heart". (doubtful, they still occupy Chechnya)
Sorry - this one sided "Georgia must get its ass kicked because they started it" line rings so incredible hollow.
Dig a little deeper, and it is clearly because Russia wants to assert its power as a superpower again; wants to show that those countries are *its* sphere of influence and its word is law and so on.....

Besides, once it is official that Georgian has performed genocide these last couple of days, you can claim they did - until then you just speculate that one part did and the other didn't, and that is hardly usable as an argument.
So you can drop the "do you support genocide" line of question as they aren't relevant, nobody here supports it - even you I'm sure - but we try to see a little more deeper then just some playground father beating up a bully until he must be hospitalized.

There is much more to this then what can be read in the censured and state controlled Russian press - that's almost undeniably clear.

[GawainBS]

No one is claiming that either; you're building a straw-man.

Be serious, that's no strawman. Granted, I exagerated, but I'd label that "sarcasm". If you read the previous posts, it is rather what we've been talking about:Russia serves its own intrests and uses S-Ossetia for that. That's the point I, and I do think Galraen and Xandax, are trying to convene.

[galraen]

If you read the previous posts, it is rather what we've been talking about:Russia serves its own intrests and uses S-Ossetia for that. That's the point I, and I do think Galraen and Xandax, are trying to convene.

Essentially that's accurate as far as I'm concerned. One shouldn't just see this as an isolated incident, but in it's ongoing context. As I've mentioned before if you take into account Russia's previous 'form', constantly threatening neighbouring states that show a interest in joining NATO or the EU, the attempts they've made to de-stabilise neighbouring countries. They've tried infiltrating Ukraine politics, they've used economic blockade, and 'carried out maneuvers' along neighbouring borders. And of course there's the abysmal way they've behaved in Chechnya.

It's when you add the latest behaviour to the previous actions that it becomes clear what Russias ambitions are, and it's not just worrywarts like me that see it, many 'official' bodies view it in the same light, and it's a rare day indeed that David Milliband and I sing from the same hymn sheet!

[Brother None]

Hmmm, I'd like to offer some points of disagreement here, because I think the media is trying too hard to sell either pro-Russian or Russophobic lines of thoughts and not always giving all the information. As a student of Russian politics, this region is one I've been following for some time, and most of us knew this conflict was inevitable as soon as the US started arming Georgia.
I can tell from this thread title and some of these posts that the Russophobic line found easy entry here. And yet Russia is not the instigator nor the big criminal here. Read on to see why I think so.

Georgia also ignored an ultimatum regarding Abkhazia. Russia called for peace as soon as they felt Georgia was sufficiently humiliated to end all fighting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Firstly - there are currently just as many "speculations" and "report" that this might have been instigated by the Russians who've been "mediating" in the conflict for years. That they baited Georgia to attack and succeeded with great effect.

It is unknown what exactly happened, but by most accounts these reports are false.

Prior to the war, "sporadic fighting" happened between Ossetian insurgents and Georgian soldiers as it has at times since 1992. Saakashvili declared a unilateral cease-fire on the 7th, then 3 hours later ordered the Georgian army to invade South-Ossetia and started bombing Tskhinvali.

Now is it possible that Georgia was "goaded" into this somehow? Sure. Regardless, they were the aggressor, pure and simple. Being goaded does not mean they are not responsible for starting this war.

At least the US ones are somewhat democratically choosed in a country where a means of liberty exists. Not some two bit dictators wanting to play Tsars again and cling to power.

This is a poor reflection of reality in Russia. Russia is not a dictatorship. In system, it comes close to delegated democracy with heavily centralized purposes. No need to over-simplify.

One must also ask why Russia was/is so hell-bent on "defending" South Ottesia

To answer your question is a bit complex.

To start of with, in 1991/1992 Georgian actions were bordering on genocide, as historically recognized. Russia was not the strongest of nations at the time, but still kept tabs on what happened in post-USSR countries. They intervened in this conflict, forced a truce in which Georgia and Russia negotiated a de facto independent situation for Abkhazia and South-Ossetia under protection of Russia. This was the situation in 2008, with Russian peace-keepers in South-Ossetia.

Georgia knew that by invading South-Ossetia as they did they were declaring war on Russia. To draw a historical parallel, these actions were comparable to if the USSR would have invaded West-Berlin to "reintegrate" the East German lands, and the US would have responded to actions against an area under their control.

But why did Georgia do this? That's more the mystery. But what is interesting to note here is that since the Rose Revolution a few years ago the US and other NATO countries have been providing the Georgian army with training and weaponry - offensive weaponry such as attack helicopters, not weaponry meant for defence. I have absolutely no idea why Russia was ok with such a troop build-up on their border supported by the US, but perhaps they saw this end to it coming. Regardless, what business did the US have arming a country on the border of Russia for offensive war? Very little, one would say.

More's the folly for them not realising how unstable Georgia is. Saakashvili promised Georgian "reunification" pretty shortly after being elected and always held it up as one of his (populist) points of policy. It was always a foolish promise to make, but he felt strengthened by direct military support from the West. And thus he destabilized his own country, also ruining prospects for an oil pipeline to be built through it in the progress, not to mention NATO will now see the folly of wanting to accept Georgia as a member-state.

As for claims of genocide: both countries have wantonly targeted cities in spread-fire bombings, that much is clear. Attempts of genocide in the most literal sense of the world have not been present from either side, much care for civil casualties has not been apparent either. However, that's barely the point. In 1991/92, Russia intervened in an attempted genocide by Georgia on South-Ossetia. Power politics nonwithstanding, the main reason international politics accepted the presence of Russian peace-keepers in South-Ossetia was for fear of renewed Georgian attempts at ethnic cleansing. And indeed, if Georgia had been allowed to run over and into South-Ossetia the fighting would doubtlessly have turned as nasty as they did in 91/92, but Russia prevented that from happening.

Now the secondary part of it is the whole spheres of influence thing. The situation in the Balkan is messy, but when it comes down to it the reason Russia was against Kosovo was to support its ally Serbia. That is simply power politics. Likewise, one of the reasons Russia has an interest in Abkhazia and South-Ossetia is because Georgia lies within the Russian sphere of interest.

Unfair? Ok, how would the US like it if Russia made a defence treaty with Mexico and started arming that country to the teeth? Not very much, would they. The argument that Russia has no right to do anything about countries allying with NATO on its borders is insane, and completely ignores political reality.

I may have been brought up with too much realpolitik, but spheres of influence are an important concept in international politics, and the US is now learning what happens when you mess too much with someone's spheres without regard of the consequences. Indirectly, the US' strong (in words and military arming) support of Georgia is a cause of this highly unnecessary war.

Why? Well, look at it this way, both Abkhazia and South-Ossetia have been de facto independent under Russian protection since 1992. The most sensible solution for Georgia in good-neighbour politics would be to recognize the full autonomy of both provinces (the same thing Russia has done for a number of Caucasus states) and accept it is under military protection of Russia. With any luck, some sense of economic integration could have occurred for this weak state and these weak provinces.

Instead, it escalated into war because Saakashvili could sell the more popular line of "national reintegration" and escalate an unstable but peaceful situation into full-blown war. No one is to be blamed for that except him. Russia can only be blamed for a heavy military response and I would agree, Russia pushed the limits of what is permissible in response to military actions pretty far, but they did not violate Georgia's integrity. They want Saakashvili gone now, but if anyone is surprised that they do not wish to negotiate a peace settlement with a man who broke the truce he himself declared in three hours time, then you're just deluding yourself.

Now it is easy to fall for the Russophobic line and think they wish to claim Georgia. Believe me, that is the last thing on their mind. Russia is well familiar with the unstable and dangerous nature of the Caucasus and has no intention of expanding their existing problems. What Russia wants is a return to the status quo for South-Ossetia and Abkhazia, possibly with further independence for the provinces but they have no interest in taking these provinces, let alone providing them independence.

What Russia also wants is a friendly government in Georgia, kind of like how the US has always treated communist Cuba. It's true, Russia has absolutely no interest in whether or not this is a democratic government, and at the end of the day it's easier to have long-term partnerships with autocratic governments. But that's real-politics, it's the same thing the US has always done in South America, and it'd be a bit hypocritical for the international community to condemn that, no matter how easily the public may believe it.

Still, I'm not in favour of it, and would rather not see Georgia return to its pre-Rose Revolution days. Neither would I like seeing another puppet of the US installed in Georgia either. It'd be nice if the next president of Georgia was someone who had Georgian, rather than US or Russian, interests at heart and realised a good-neighbour policy was the best way to deal with Russia. But perhaps that is wishful thinking.

Regardless, Saakashvili shows what happens if you start arming someone in an unstable region of the world. The arming of the Georgian army by the US was nothing but a blatant powergrab on the border of Russia, and Russia has shown they will not accept this. That does not mean they are to be blamed for this war, all they are to be blamed for is not accepting Georgia as a US puppet-nation. No shock there.

I think the main reason for the Russian involvement is the oil and gas.

What oil and gas? Georgia barely has any oil or gas.

The "where is the money" question is not answered by oil. The US foolishly believed they could circumvent their need for Russia by involving Georgia, without considering the country's history of instability, and Russian is unwilling to accept that. But that is as much a question of spheres of influence as it is of oil or gas.

[SupaCat]

Russia called for peace as soon as they felt Georgia was sufficiently humiliated to end all fighting. Nothing more, nothing less.

And yet they keep on fighting. As I write this, they are capturing the city of Gori.

[Moonbiter]

Beautiful! Thank you, Brother.

[Brother None]

And yet they keep on fighting. As I write this, they are capturing the city of Gori.

That disturbs me as well. Not that they're dismantling the military bases in Gori, because the whole reason they attacked Gori in the first place was to strike at Georgia's military capacity, but rather reports of them holding and blocking off Gori. That might just be in support of the military disarmament, tho'

Dunno. Waiting for more reports.

[Xandax]

<snip>
Georgia also ignored an ultimatum regarding Abkhazia. Russia called for peace as soon as they felt Georgia was sufficiently humiliated to end all fighting. Nothing more, nothing less.<snip>

Russia also kept on the fighting - bombing Gori and Tblisi and surrounding villages without military value - after Georgia said they wanted peace and had pulled out all its troops.
So it is one thing to "call for peace" via diplomacy, and another to actually accept/initiate the peace and stop ones military actions against civilians.

<snip>
It is unknown what exactly happened, but by most accounts these reports are false.<snip>

Perhaps, but so could the Russian reports of Georgia being the aggressor in the last instance be. Much of this comes down to point of view, because as I've also stated myself - the information is sketchy at best and no doubt subject to large amount of spin from both parties.
That is why I do not simply buy the "Russian Good Guys" one bit because their press is subject to a lot of control and track record of recent actions shows Russia is not shy of invading countries and inflicting large civilian casualties.
The situation is more complex then just "pro-Georgia" or "pro-Russia" as you well know.

<snip>
This is a poor reflection of reality in Russia. Russia is not a dictatorship. In system, it comes close to delegated democracy with heavily centralized purposes. No need to over-simplify.<snip>

It is not a poor reflection in my book. Putin and the regime in Russia has in recent time displayed behaviour and actions not shy of other dictators in history and enforced a lot of government control over media and the like.
Russia is currently asserting itself as thee power in its region and woe to any nation who dares to disagree.

<snip>
Now it is easy to fall for the Russophobic line and think they wish to claim Georgia. Believe me, that is the last thing on their mind. Russia is well familiar with the unstable and dangerous nature of the Caucasus and has no intention of expanding their existing problems. What Russia wants is a return to the status quo for South-Ossetia and Abkhazia, possibly with further independence for the provinces but they have no interest in taking these provinces, let alone providing them independence.

What Russia also wants is a friendly government in Georgia, kind of like how the US has always treated communist Cuba. It's true, Russia has absolutely no interest in whether or not this is a democratic government, and at the end of the day it's easier to have long-term partnerships with autocratic governments. But that's real-politics, it's the same thing the US has always done in South America, and it'd be a bit hypocritical for the international community to condemn that, no matter how easily the public may believe it.
<snip>

That would be a whole lot more convincing if it weren't for Chechnya.
As I see it there is no doubt that Russia would like puppets in the surroinding nations, even if they do not want to control them USSR-like. Their current actions however only alienate those countries more and more though.
Look at Ukraine and Poland, the Baltic.

<snip>
Still, I'm not in favour of it, and would rather not see Georgia return to its pre-Rose Revolution days. Neither would I like seeing another puppet of the US installed in Georgia either. It'd be nice if the next president of Georgia was someone who had Georgian, rather than US or Russian, interests at heart and realised a good-neighbour policy was the best way to deal with Russia. But perhaps that is wishful thinking.
<snip>

No doubt, but as you know - that will be all but impossible.
The only thing this would have sparked basically - is expand Russian territories and spark more nationalistic and thus anti-Russian feelings in Georgia and other regional countries. Clearly visible in the statements that for example Ukraines leaders have made in the last couple of days.

<snip>
Regardless, Saakashvili shows what happens if you start arming someone in an unstable region of the world. The arming of the Georgian army by the US was nothing but a blatant powergrab on the border of Russia, and Russia has shown they will not accept this. That does not mean they are to be blamed for this war, all they are to be blamed for is not accepting Georgia as a US puppet-nation. No shock there.<snip>

I find this one very strange. You acknowledged the fact that Russia have strong motives for escalating the conflict, yet dismiss it as "false". It is entirely unconceivable in lieu of other actions Russia have performed over the last decade or so. Few have ever stated that Georgia is guilt-free, and I for sure have not.
However Russia does not have clean hands in this or in many other situations, that much is clear. Russia is not the liberator they try to claim to be.

<snip>
What oil and gas? Georgia barely has any oil or gas.

The "where is the money" question is not answered by oil. The US foolishly believed they could circumvent their need for Russia by involving Georgia, without considering the country's history of instability, and Russian is unwilling to accept that. But that is as much a question of spheres of influence as it is of oil or gas.

The sphere of influence in that region is very much made up by money. Russian pipelines are threatened by non-Russian pipelines, whether people would like to see it or not. So while Georgia does not have oil, it have a very economical strategic location, which Russia doesn't like. That is no doubt the only reason the US and most of (entire?) west is interested in that piece of dirt and why they are so close to NATO after so short a time.

Also the sphere of influence thing - is also a case of how many countries Russia is willing to have "peace keeping" forces in. I'm sure certain countries in the region wonder when they are next if they disagree with Russia or upsets them. Heck they keep sending military planes close to other nations national airspace, just to "show" force. Including this country and other Scandinavian countries. Russia is not a peace loving country when viewing the ruling regime.

And again - I'm personally not defending Georgia in anyway. They have their part no doubt, both in the current one and historically.
But downplaying Russia's role and portraying them remotely as saviour of people in the region is sounding so hollow given all the actions of Russia over the last long period of time. Russia's hands are very bloody as well and their blame in this is deserved.
Had Russia cared about the "minorities" in such situations as this, they wouldn't have opposed a similar solution in Kosovo and they wouldn't eradicate people in Chechnya.


I just wait for the next country Russia decides to keep the peace in......

[Brother None]

Russia also kept on the fighting - bombing Gori and Tblisi and surrounding villages without military value - after Georgia said they wanted peace and had pulled out all its troops.

Georgia was lying, they had not pulled out all of its troops at that point.

In other words, both parties kept fighting. Georgia was already retreating by the point they started making serious overtures towards "negotiations", which is ridiculous, what you do at that point is surrender.

Perhaps, but so could the Russian reports of Georgia being the aggressor in the last instance be.

Could? Sure. But most accounts appear to agree that Georgia instigated this war. Indeed, it may take a while for facts to become clear and maybe they never will, so you can believe what you wish to believe.

That is why I do not simply buy the "Russian Good Guys"

There are no good guys here, only bad guys. It's a question of who is more bad.

The situation is more complex then just "pro-Georgia" or "pro-Russia" as you well know.

But my line is neither pro-Georgia or pro-Russia. As I said, I think Russia went too far in invading Georgia even for disarmament reasons. I was also deadly afeerd of Russia's intentions when they shipped in companies from Vostok/Zapad, who always scare the bejeepers out of me.

But this is still a war Georgia started and Russia ended.

Putin and the regime in Russia has in recent time displayed behaviour and actions not shy of other dictators in history and enforced a lot of government control over media and the like.

And that makes them a dictatorship? As I said, Russia is a delegated democracy in the sense that elections happen on acceptable standards (not perfect standards, tho') and the president is given extensive powers for his period of government. It's not the first nor the only democracy that works that way, and other presidential republics (like France) come quite close to it.

Besides, Russia as a democratic state has always focused more on the substantive rights of its citizens, the individual rights to certain standards of living, than on the procedural rights that determine who rules the land. We often fail to make the distinction in the West, but that is ignoring that multiple models of democracy are possible.

Let me simplify it: Putin and Medvedev always ruled with a mandate from the people. The last president of Russia who you could seriously say had no backing from the majority of the populace was 2nd-term Jeltsin. Even if you define democracy as simple as "the majority rules", then Russia is a democracy.

Though the freedom of the press is a problem.

Russia is currently asserting itself as thee power in its region and woe to any nation who dares to disagree.

So? The US does the same in South-America, yet they do not default to undemocratic because of it. Superpower always assert their influence in their spheres, that's simply the way international politics works. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

That would be a whole lot more convincing if it weren't for Chechnya.

Chechnya is a separate matter. I don't approve of anything Russia did there, but I find it hard to use it as a litmus test, and to uphold all political and military actions in the region against that light.

That said, Chechnya actually proves my point. It took Russia more than a decade to pacify that region, and Chechnya has only a fifth of the population of Georgia. It is exactly because they already experienced Chechnya that Russia has no interest in repeating the experience with Georgia.

As I see it there is no doubt that Russia would like puppets in the surroinding nations, even if they do not want to control them USSR-like.
Look at Ukraine and Poland, the Baltic.

I feel your grasp of the GOS/post-USSR political landscape is a bit on the weak side, forgive me for saying. Russia has never had any serious chance of maintaining a sphere of influence in the Baltic countries or Poland, as these four nations steamrolled towards the West from the moment the USSR fell.

But when it comes to other nations, be it Serbia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Azerbejian or Georgia, the situation has been more muddled. All these countries are internationally seen as within the sphere of influence of Russia, despite their occasional vicinity to other world powers (Serbia and the EU, Kazakhstan and China), and as is often the case with such nations it is in the interest of the country itself to be on good terms with Russia.

Yes, Russia wants these countries on good terms with them as well. Like any superpower, Russia does not care if "good terms" means planting a dictatorship or manipulating a democracy. The US certainly never cared about such distinctions in South America. These kind of policies are terrible, but they're also political reality, and there's no reason to single out Russia as the big bad.

As I said, it is in the interest of the country itself to be on good terms with Russia. Georgia is a prime example of this. It is not a nation that has the wealth to run by itself. It replaced its status as a puppet of Russia by a status as a puppet of the US. Because of this shift in political force, Georgia inevitably moved towards war over Abkhazia and South-Ossetia. As I mentioned, most Caucasus experts saw this war coming a mile away.

In the end, the people that have suffered most over the last years are the Georgians, suffered under the thumb of the US-backed corrupt Saakashvili, who finally pushed the country into a war that the populace probably wanted, but that any good leader should have seen was folly. It's almost a natural consequence of failing to have a good-neighbour policy with your much stronger neighbour. Meanwhile, if Georgia has good relations with Russia, democratic or otherwise, the country can do little else than benefit from said cooperation. A diplomatic solution to Abkhazia/South-Ossetia could have been found if the countries were on better terms.

is expand Russian territories and spark more nationalistic and thus anti-Russian feelings in Georgia and other regional countries.

How are Russian territories being expanded, exactly?

These actions sparking anti-Russian feelings is as inevitable as it is irrelevant. Certain people will jump at any change to spout anti-Russian lines, and Russia is under no obligation to adopt their foreign policy to them, let alone fail in its task of protecting South-Ossetia.

You acknowledged the fact that Russia have strong motives for escalating the conflict, yet dismiss it as "false". It is entirely unconceivable in lieu of other actions Russia have performed over the last decade or so.

Oh no, it's not impossible (and I never said it was), I simply have seen no reports even remotely proving it. So for me to accept Russia instigated this war somehow would go against common sense, it would be me assuming the worst simply because of Russia's bad reputation.

So while Georgia does not have oil, it have a very economical strategic location, which Russia doesn't like.

Not really, Azerbaijan and Armenia are quite as well placed, only any usage of Armenia is blocked by Turkey's claim on spheres of influence. Huh. Guess Russia's not the only evil powerplayer in the region.

So yes, then Georgia's location is of economic strategy, because apparently the international community never realised how unstable that country is. They do now. A country that at the drop of a hat attacks their bigger neighbour tend to be rather unreliable.

Also the sphere of influence thing - is also a case of how many countries Russia is willing to have "peace keeping" forces in.

What are the quotation marks for?

I'm sure certain countries in the region wonder when they are next if they disagree with Russia or upsets them.

Which would be great. The Caucasus is a region of constant instability, with Turkey looking to invade Armenia first chance, and Azerbaijan and Armenia poised on war over Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan has in fact stated they will likely go to war over this region this year). It would be a great relief to me if these aggressive nations were shocked into pacification, by whatever means.

Peace in your backyard. It's one of the things the EU has always interfered in the Balkan for.

Heck they keep sending military planes close to other nations national airspace, just to "show" force. Including this country and other Scandinavian countries. Russia is not a peace loving country when viewing the ruling regime.

Oh, indeed, Russia uses a lot of military muscle to massage other countries into submission, as well as economic pressure. Pretty standard stuff for spheres of influence politics, really.

But downplaying Russia's role and portraying them remotely as saviour of people in the region is sounding so hollow given all the actions of Russia over the last long period of time.

So basically what you're saying is Russia has done bad things before, so inherently the defence of South-Ossetia by Russia has to be a bad thing as well? You're going to have to run by me how that's supposed to make any sense.
Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing?

I just wait for the next country Russia decides to keep the peace in......

Yes, because Russia decided out of the blue to invade Georgia...

[Xandax]

Georgia was lying, they had not pulled out all of its troops at that point.

In other words, both parties kept fighting. Georgia was already retreating by the point they started making serious overtures towards "negotiations", which is ridiculous, what you do at that point is surrender.

<snip>

And Russia is lying right now, cause there are still eyewitness reports of Russian APVs driving into Gori... properly to "keep peace".

<snip>
So? The US does the same in South-America, yet they do not default to undemocratic because of it. Superpower always assert their influence in their spheres, that's simply the way international politics works. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.<snip>

And the standard of one aren't apparently that of the other. People are quick to jump on the "bash US" bandwagon when they exert their interest in their "influence sphere" on slim or less then obvious reasons.

<snip>
Chechnya is a separate matter. I don't approve of anything Russia did there, but I find it hard to use it as a litmus test, and to uphold all political and military actions in the region against that light.

That said, Chechnya actually proves my point. It took Russia more than a decade to pacify that region, and Chechnya has only a fifth of the population of Georgia. It is exactly because they already experienced Chechnya that Russia has no interest in repeating the experience with Georgia.
<snip>

Actually - Chechnya is very much a related matter. Because it purely and clearly demonstrate how far Russia is willing to go to keep the control they think they own. It shows they care little, if anything, for the rights of anybody then themselves (if even that) and aren't shy of targeting civilians left and right to achieve their means.
And now they went to war with Georgia with the argument that Georgia was doing what Russia did in Chechnya. It is very much relevant and related.


Combine this with all the times Russia have spoken out against others doing what they do themselves now - Kosovo being an excellent example - simply because they were more or less allied with the "targeted" part, then it is very very clear that they uses this instance for something more then "peace keeping".

<snip>
I feel your grasp of the GOS/post-USSR political landscape is a bit on the weak side, forgive me for saying. Russia has never had any serious chance of maintaining a sphere of influence in the Baltic countries or Poland, as these four nations steamrolled towards the West from the moment the USSR fell.
<snip>

You might call that "weak", however the examples set by how easy/fast countries like Poland, the Baltic and Ukraine can turn towards the west and away from mother Russia is a political scenario that Russia does not want to happen elsewhere in their "sphere of influence". Especially considering the missile defense that the US want to put up, possible expansion of NATO and similar.
So I feel it is a bit naive, to say the least, to ignore such history for why Russia really wants to tear Georgia apart. Weak as you might think it is or not.
Russia doesn't want other nations to turn towards the west as fast or at all, and they prove that right now. Huge motives for using this conflict or even escalating it to achieve what they want.

<snip>
How are Russian territories being expanded, exactly?
<snip>

Gaining de facto control over South Ottensia and Akbazia. Perhaps taking a larger part of Georgia as they are at the moment in Gori as well.

<snip>
These actions sparking anti-Russian feelings is as inevitable as it is irrelevant. Certain people will jump at any change to spout anti-Russian lines, and Russia is under no obligation to adopt their foreign policy to them, let alone fail in its task of protecting South-Ossetia.
<snip>

Or fail in protecting Chechnya.

<snip>
What are the quotation marks for?
<snip>

Peacekeeping troops doesn't support militias.

<snip>
Oh, indeed, Russia uses a lot of military muscle to massage other countries into submission, as well as economic pressure. Pretty standard stuff for spheres of influence politics, really.
<snip>

Yes, but why is it bad when the USA does it, or other nations - but okay when Russia does it?

<snip>
So basically what you're saying is Russia has done bad things before, so inherently the defence of South-Ossetia by Russia has to be a bad thing as well? You're going to have to run by me how that's supposed to make any sense.
Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing?
<snip>

I'm saying Russia is doing bad things right now, have a recent history of military violence and willingness to directly attack countries they deem within their right to do so.
There are strong political and economical reasons for why they want to slap Georgia upside down and they have a history of doing so when they so choose. I say that they have motives for escalating the conflict to new heights even by supporting militants to break the cease-fire with Georgia goading a weak president in that country to retaliate and then getting an excuse for smacking Georgia as a deterrent for other nations seeking towards the west.
I'm saying that their motives clearly go deeper then "defense" Of South Ossetia and that I can't see the noble intentions of them.

<snip>
Yes, because Russia decided out of the blue to invade Georgia...

Who ever said it was out of the blue. Something as this is calculated and weighed.
No doubt Russia identified a weak Georgia courting the West, and a US spread out over the world in other conflicts and an EU which of course wouldn't actually do anything but offer diplomatic "support".
No - this isn't "out of the blue", it is very well calculated.

Russia has blood on its hands, and this doesn't wash it the least. Georgia has as well no doubt - but Russia isn't noble in its endeavors and its actions show that clearly. It is silly to think so in my view.

[Brother None]

And Russia is lying right now, cause there are still eyewitness reports of Russian APVs driving into Gori... properly to "keep peace".

Aye, I know. It's worrying.

And the standard of one aren't apparently that of the other. People are quick to jump on the "bash US" bandwagon when they exert their interest in their "influence sphere" on slim or less then obvious reasons.

I do not care what "people" are apt to do, I'm not one of them. I'm just pointing out there's no need to single out the Russia. I do not approve of these policies coming from either the US or Russia, but also recognize that international sphere of influence politics have averted wars more often than not.

Because it purely and clearly demonstrate how far Russia is willing to go to keep the control they think they own.

But Russia lays no claim to owning or wanting to incorporate Abkhazia or South-Ossetia.

The political reality is vastly different. Chechnya was about setting an example regarding the territorial integrity of Russia itself, if Russia had granted independence to Chechnya they would be right to fear a domino effect spreading over Caucasus and lands bordering Kazakhastan and China.

This isn't a question of territorial integrity, and the fact that Russia has not invaded Georgia in full force for a protracted war as happened with Chechnya shows their intent is different here.

It shows they care little, if anything, for the rights of anybody then themselves (if even that) and aren't shy of targeting civilians left and right to achieve their means.
And now they went to war with Georgia with the argument that Georgia was doing what Russia did in Chechnya. It is very much relevant and related.

Not really. By depending on the "but look at what they did in Chechnya"-line you're just painting them as the bad guy, making it seem as if because Russia did horrible things in Chechnya they are incapable of committing any good, just wars anywhere. That is clearly not the case.

Combine this with all the times Russia have spoken out against others doing what they do themselves now.

And what country doesn't flip flop on such subjects? Again, recognizing independence in countries is always about sphere of influence first and only about caring about the rights of the people there second. The countries that jumped on recognizing Kosovo would shudder at thinking of recognizing the independence of South-Ossetia.

The double standard are omnipresent, and as such the existence of the double standard itself is meaningless for proving anyone's intent.

simply because they were more or less allied with the "targeted" part.

Not more or less. South-Ossetia was under their protection. Ossetia knew this. Russia knew this. Georgia knew this. Everyone knew this.

Russia doesn't want other nations to turn towards the west as fast or at all, and they prove that right now. Huge motives for using this conflict or even escalating it to achieve what they want.

Uh, yes, I know, I've been saying this since my first post in this thread.

It's not that part that I feel is weak, it is the fact that you're simplifying the situation. Russia has a recognized sphere of influence like any superpower does and has every right to be indignant when another superpower builds up arms in their sphere of influence. That's just international politics. Beyond that, the situation is markedly different for the Caucasus compared to the Eastern European sphere of influence or the Far East sphere of influence, and just heaping them together is a simplification.

Gaining de facto control over South Ottensia and Akbazia. Perhaps taking a larger part of Georgia as they are at the moment in Gori as well.

They are in Gori because Gori holds key military bases.

Also, Russia has no more de facto control over South Ossetia or Abkhazia now than they ever did.

Or fail in protecting Chechnya.

See? This is exactly why you don't bring Chechnya into this discussion. It's the mental equivalent of bringing the Nazis into any war-discussion. How horrible Russia was against Chechnya does not automatically reflect on other actions. If you want to make a point, you have to find logical lines of arguments drawing parallels and proving relations.

Peacekeeping troops doesn't support militias.

You mean peacekeeping troops never cooperate with local armies of (de facto) sovereign states to ward of aggressors?

I think you'll find you're wrong.

Yes, but why is it bad when the USA does it, or other nations - but okay when Russia does it?

Where did I say it was? Why do you equate my explaining of things with my approving of things?

I'm saying Russia is doing bad things right now.

Again: Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing? Should Russia not have stepped in to protect South-Ossetia?

willingness to directly attack countries they deem within their right to do so.

Wait what. What countries exactly has the Russian Federation attacked, in its history?

I say that they have motives for escalating the conflict to new heights even by supporting militants to break the cease-fire with Georgia

Except that the militants didn't break any cease-fire. The Georgian president declared a cease-fire unilaterally (meaning the militants were never bound to it anyway), and then broke it himself.

I'm saying that their motives clearly go deeper then "defense" Of South Ossetia

But, er, isn't that what I've been saying?

Are you sure you know what you're arguing against?

No doubt Russia identified a weak Georgia courting the West, and a US spread out over the world in other conflicts and an EU which of course wouldn't actually do anything but offer diplomatic "support".
No - this isn't "out of the blue", it is very well calculated.

Look, you can keep repeating this, but I already stated clearly that all the evidence I've seen points to Georgia starting the conflict before Russia became anywhere near involved.

It is silly to think so in my view.

Good!

So...uhm...who thinks so, exactly?

[galraen]

but also recognize that international sphere of influence politics have averted wars more often than not.

I was actually taking you somewhat seriously until I read that garbage, after that I stopped wasting my time as you clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about!

[Brother None]

I was actually taking you somewhat seriously until I read that garbage, after that I stopped wasting my time as you clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about!

Hmmm. I admit, that was somewhat poorly worded. However, spheres of influence is a key political concept that tends to harm the countries under the sphere, but at the same time avoid wars between different spheres - if you know what I mean.

But you're right, it has caused a lot of nastiness in the former Soviet-Union and South America, amongst other places. I was mostly thinking of - say - the way the political concept has helped alleviate major wars over such places as Cuba. Likewise, recognition of Eastern Europe as the Soviet sphere of influence helped stop "internal" issues from escalating into international war, though they certainly did not benefit the local populace.

Still, you're right, and I certainly don't mean to approve of the concept wholesale. As I said, while I do think Georgia has to gain from holding to good-neighbour policy, I realise sphere of influence-thinking will likely just bring it under the fold and make it hold to Russia-first policies. That's the reality, but I certainly don't approve of it.

[Xandax]

<snip>
The political reality is vastly different. Chechnya was about setting an example regarding the territorial integrity of Russia itself, if Russia had granted independence to Chechnya they would be right to fear a domino effect spreading over Caucasus and lands bordering Kazakhastan and China.
<snip>

And you see no relation between Chechnya and Russia wanting to keep its "own" lands, and Georgia doing likewise? You don't see suspicious pattern of political behaviour when you use the military to smack down those who behave like you do?

<snip>
See? This is exactly why you don't bring Chechnya into this discussion. It's the mental equivalent of bringing the Nazis into any war-discussion. How horrible Russia was against Chechnya does not automatically reflect on other actions. If you want to make a point, you have to find logical lines of arguments drawing parallels and proving relations.
<snip>

No - this is exactly why you bring in Chechnya, just like you would indeed have brought in the Nazis if they had stayed in power in Germany and performed severe military actions a decade after WW2. Then I'm certain that the topic of "Nazis" in WW2 would somehow pop up, just a little......(and no just as a preemptive answer, I'm not equating what the Nazis did with what Russia do in Georgia)
And for "relation" and "parallel", then as I've stated multiple times, that it shows the current Russian leaderships willingness to perform excessive military actions, targeting civilians at will, and so on based on achieving/keeping control of what it deems "influence sphere". That draws a huge relevance and relation to this, because of Georgia being in the same sphere, just not (currently) in Russia control.
It also shows a hollowness to Russia's arguments, because Chechnya wanted independence - Russia didn't want them to have it, so they took severe military action. Yet when it is another region, then Russia is full within their "right" to act against what they do themselves.

<snip>
But, er, isn't that what I've been saying?

Are you sure you know what you're arguing against?<snip>

Yeah, I know. Do you?
I'm arguing that the motives for Russia are clear enough that they have a very bloody hand in this conflict and painting them as "noble defenders" is plainly naive.

[Brother None]

And you see no relation between Chechnya and Russia wanting to keep its "own" lands, and Georgia doing likewise?

Some relation, certainly, but on the other hand, the Georgian situation had been one of de facto independence since 1992. Russia has long-since granted Chechnya full autonomy but Georgia has done no such thing for South-Ossetia or Abkhazia, instead letting an uneasy status quo exist.

The Chechen wars were about Russia responding to a rebellion in an ugly, brutal way. This war was about Saakashvili's populist promise of a reunited Georgia. Similar, but not identical.

You don't see suspicious pattern of political behaviour when you use the military to smack down those who behave like you do?

Chechnya was not really case of people simply not behaving like Russia wanted, and this war with Georgia was not an unprovoked war, so not really stepping in to teach a lesson much.

No - this is exactly why you bring in Chechnya, just like you would indeed have brought in the Nazis if they had stayed in power in Germany and performed severe military actions a decade after WW2.

Hmmm, that much is certainly true, in the sense that you can draw parallels. But again, I get the impression - and correct me if I'm wrong - that you're simplifying it down to Russia being evil in the case of Chechnya and thus nobody should even suspect that their current actions could be good. I agree with you that Chechnya was bad, but that in itself does not prove Russia protecting South-Ossetia is bad.

that it shows the current Russian leaderships willingness to perform excessive military actions, targeting civilians at will, and so on based on achieving/keeping control of what it deems "influence sphere".

But the Chechnyan war wasn't about keeping control of an influence sphere, it was about national integrity of Russia. Those are rather severely different things.

It also shows a hollowness to Russia's arguments, because Chechnya wanted independence - Russia didn't want them to have it, so they took severe military action. Yet when it is another region, then Russia is full within their "right" to act against what they do themselves.

Russia's claim of right to defend South-Ossetia is secondary to the political reality. Ideally, everyone would be free to rule themselves as they chose, but the reality is that claims to independence depend on the political reality on the spot.

Obviously Russia's claims are dubious. However, that doesn't mean they did not prevent genocide in 1991/1992. More importantly, I ask you again: Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing? Should Russia not have stepped in to protect South-Ossetia? That is the third time I've asked that question, and I would appreciate an answer.

I'm arguing that the motives for Russia are clear enough that they have a very bloody hand in this conflict and painting them as "noble defenders" is plainly naive.

But no one painted them as noble defenders.

[galraen]

Hmmm. I admit, that was somewhat poorly worded. However, spheres of influence is a key political concept that tends to harm the countries under the sphere, but at the same time avoid wars between different spheres - if you know what I mean.

But you're right, it has caused a lot of nastiness in the former Soviet-Union and South America, amongst other places. I was mostly thinking of - say - the way the political concept has helped alleviate major wars over such places as Cuba. Likewise, recognition of Eastern Europe as the Soviet sphere of influence helped stop "internal" issues from escalating into international war, though they certainly did not benefit the local populace.

Still, you're right, and I certainly don't mean to approve of the concept wholesale. As I said, while I do think Georgia has to gain from holding to good-neighbour policy, I realise sphere of influence-thinking will likely just bring it under the fold and make it hold to Russia-first policies. That's the reality, but I certainly don't approve of it.

I thought I'd deleted the text in my previous post as it was written in anger, for some reason the edit didn't take.

The reason I was angry was that I'd come to the conclusion you knew what you were talking about, even though I disagreed with you on some points. In light of that the piece I quoted came across as sheer sophistry. One has only to study the leadup to World War One to see where Sphere's of Influence, or drawing lines in the sand can get us. Certainly they may cause the nations intent on belligerence to hold back for a time, whilst they tool up, which leads of course to arms races and the resulting conflict is even worse than it might have been had the SOIs not existed.

However I'm the last person to critisize others or prolong an argument over unintended conclusions being taken from ones words.

My real concerns, beyond the immediate repercussions are about where this is all taking us. At the moment Russia (in my view) saw this as an opportune moment to push it's luck. The US and it's pet puppet are still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan so couldn't respond even if they wanted too, and because of that don't have any moral grounds to critisize Russia for doing what they're doing themselves. Although that hasn't stopped them bleating of course, and unfortunately the chance of any meaningful progress on nuclear disarmament, or any disarmament has been well and truly kicked into the long grass.

[Brother None]

My real concerns, beyond the immediate repercussions are about where this is all taking us.

The smoke will have to clear before that is clarified, but it's certainly Russia "scored a point" - to use crude parlance - over the West. And that's not a good thing, Russia should not be given the impression they can do whatever the hell they want militarily any more than any other country ('cept the US, they're the biggest, so who's to stop 'em?)

Georgia will not enter NATO now, and its candidacy for a pipeline has taken a hit. If that was all Russia wanted, they've got it, but perhaps they will not stop there.

That said, it was a mistake of the US to do what they did in involving itself with Georgia and arming/training its military forces. The end to that folly is at least a positive footnote to this.

[Xandax]

<snip>
Obviously Russia's claims are dubious. However, that doesn't mean they did not prevent genocide in 1991/1992. More importantly, I ask you again: Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing? Should Russia not have stepped in to protect South-Ossetia? That is the third time I've asked that question, and I would appreciate an answer.
<snip>

I've answered that twice already, plus many times in previous posts.

[Xandax]

<snip>

Georgia will not enter NATO now, and its candidacy for a pipeline has taken a hit. If that was all Russia wanted, they've got it, but perhaps they will not stop there.

That said, it was a mistake of the US to do what they did in involving itself with Georgia and arming/training its military forces. The end to that folly is at least a positive footnote to this.

I doubt anybody would have thought Georgia would be included as a full member into NATO soon anyway, the pipeline issue is in my view an important one and I think you are correct in that.
It'll halt further development of new investments in Georgia from companies because of the volatile nature of the powder keg.

I certainly think that is part of Russia's goals, because it makes Georgia more dependent on Russia again and serves as a "lesson" for other similar regions/nations.

However I'm not so certain that it'll indeed work quite as intended, because both EU nations, the US and East European countries have all expressed "moral" (worthless) and "diplomatic" (also worthless) support.
But there are also starting to provide humanitarian support and in this country our government is saying "we" must continue to support the democracies "we" help create. Currently it looks as if these nations select Georgia over Russia to the degree that they do not want to go to war with Russia (which Russia of course counted on when they performed as they did)

Where I think Russia have had most success in their mission, was with creating a disappointment with the US within Georgia itself. From news reports and blog reports/forum reports etc - they feel abandoned by the US and the West. That could easily cause internal issues now.
However because the US was only trying to expand its sphere of influence and contain Russia's, it is understandable that they'll try to keep good relations with Georgia.

[Brother None]

I've answered that twice already, plus many times in previous posts.

Well, pretend I missed it. All I'm looking for is a yes or no answer: Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing? Should Russia not have stepped in to protect South-Ossetia?