NationStates Jolt Archive

I seriously doubt that any US President or any member of the European Union would ignore Russia attacking Ukraine.
You're right. They'd probably make a few speeches, maybe publicly condemn them. Just don't count on them to do anything about it.

I would (......) either.

Hate to interrupt the pontification but is there any independent verification re that T-80 yet?

Hate to interrupt the pontification but is there any independent verification re that T-80 yet?

I could arrange for you to go to Iraq. All you'll have to do is raise your right hand...

I could arrange for you to go to Iraq. All you'll have to do is raise your right hand...

For a number of reasons thats not feasible.

I take it that you haven't got any sources yet.

For a number of reasons thats not feasible.

I take it that you haven't got any sources yet.

None that you would accept yet.

I'm sure it's feasible - they need infantrymen these days.

None that you would accept yet..

Well then, chop, chop.

I'm sure it's feasible - they need infantrymen these days.

The Iraqis? I'm sure they do. I'm a bit too secular for them though.

When can we build robot suits with nuclear powered cannon & laser swords? No one would fight us then.....










Unless we used Russian reactors.....

When can we build robot suits with nuclear powered cannon & laser swords? No one would fight us then.....










Unless we used Russian reactors.....


Not even then, if you think about it.

How the hell would nuclear powered cannon work?

I don't know do I? It sounds scary though and that's all that matters.

for clarification about the Iraqi "T-80"



T-80:

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-80/T-80.gif

note the smaller road wheels, and the[not visible]exhaust port on the back. the turret is also of a different shape, and the commander's machine gun remote controlled.




T-72:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/t72-1.gif

larger road wheels, exhaust on the left side, slightly smaller due to a regular engine.


These are all the older variants, without modern equipment. As you can see, the tanks look quite similar, and the fact remains that Iraq had no T-64 or T-80. Hell, their T-72 weren't even "real" T-72, since they were bad copies of outdated export models.






And it's just "Ukraine", there is no "the" in it, in fact most Slavic languages don't have definitive words such as "a" or "the". xD

Your link for the T-80 dosent work.

Heres one,

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U_PICS/T-80U_drawing-01.gif

Okay explain why Russia is setting up defensive positions and deploying checkpoints in Poti?

Around Georgia's main Black Sea port city of Poti - outside any security zone - signs seemed to point to a prolonged presence. Russian troops excavated trenches, set up mortars and blocked a key bridge with armored personnel carriers and trucks. Other armored vehicles and trucks parked in a nearby forest.

Officials in Poti said the city had been looted by the Russians over the past week. Associated Press journalists saw Russian troops carry tables and chairs out on armored personnel carriers Thursday as residents protested. An AP photographer and TV crew were briefly detained by armed soldiers near Poti, who seized their digital memory cards and videotapes.

Poti Mayor Vano Taginadze said Russian troops were setting up new roadblocks and "moving around in the city and looking and searching in different places." Residents in Poti demonstrated against the Russian presence, waving red-and-white Georgian flags and banners and shouting "Russian occupants go home" in English. -Associated Press (http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7401&eeid=6032814&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt)

Explain that please. To blockade the only sea route? If so that's going to be a BIG problem because of this:
In a move sure to heighten tensions, a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian supplies headed toward Georgia through Turkey's straits between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was the first of three U.S. warships carrying blankets, hygiene kits and baby food to Georgia. If Poti is still in Russian hands and they refuse to let the US enter. God forbid what will happen if the US ship ignores them and trys to enter anyway.
----

To sum it up:

Russia has dug in at Poti, a place out of the way from both the locations Russia is claiming to "Defend" hence they have no reason to be there.

And the US is sending WARSHIPs to deliver supplies, not cargo or logistic ships, warships, warships which might have to unload in Poti.
If that's not saber rattling I don't know what is.

How the hell would nuclear powered cannon work?

People like you ruin movies and are responsible for the decline of religon.


Okay explain why Russia is setting up defensive positions and deploying checkpoints in Poti? ?

The "digitus impudicus" manouvere.

Okay explain why Russia is setting up defensive positions and deploying checkpoints in Poti?

-Associated Press (http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7401&eeid=6032814&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt)

Explain that please. To blockade the only sea route? If so that's going to be a BIG problem because of this:
If Poti is still in Russian hands and they refuse to let the US enter. God forbid what will happen if the US ship ignores them and trys to enter anyway.
----

To sum it up:

Russia has dug in at Poti, a place out of the way from both the locations Russia is claiming to "Defend" hence they have no reason to be there.

And the US is sending WARSHIPs to deliver supplies, not cargo or logistic ships, warships, warships which might have to unload in Poti.
If that's not saber rattling I don't know what is.

To set up a demilitarized zone near South Ossetia and Abkhazia, so that Georgian forces cannot try to attack them agian.

Why would we refuse to let USA ships through? They will be free to past.

How the hell would nuclear powered cannon work?

Simple. You give the cannon an electronic firing mechanism and use nuclear power to provide the electricity require to activate the mechanism.

Nuclear powered cannon.

To set up a demilitarized zone near South Ossetia and Abkhazia, so that Georgian forces cannot try to attack them agian.
Bull.

Do you even know where that place is?

It's over 25 kilometers from Poti(P'ot'i) to Abkhazia and over 100 to South Ossetia.
Map (http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/maps2/890_a.jpg) No that's a lie right there.

Bull.

Do you even know where that place is?

It's over 25 kilometers from Poti(P'ot'i) to Abkhazia and over 100 to South Ossetia.
Map (http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/maps2/890_a.jpg) No that's a lie right there.


Please tell me the distance between U.S.A. and Poland, or Poland - Iran ... More than 25 kilometers perhaps? :rolleyes:

Mmmm... Maps... Good

Please tell me the distance between U.S.A. and Poland, or Poland - Iran ... More than 25 kilometers perhaps? :rolleyes:

Bull.

Do you even know where that place is?

It's over 25 kilometers from Poti(P'ot'i) to Abkhazia and over 100 to South Ossetia.
Map (http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/maps2/890_a.jpg) No that's a lie right there.

Lie? 25 kilometers is not even that far.

Tell me what would do you think they are doing?

Mmmm... Maps... Good

Please tell me the distance between U.S.A. and Poland, or Poland - Iran ... More than 25 kilometers perhaps? :rolleyes:

Iran's Shahab V missile can reach beyond Poland.

Please tell me the distance between U.S.A. and Poland, or Poland - Iran ... More than 25 kilometers perhaps? :rolleyes:

How utterly, entirely, 100% irrelevant.

Simple. You give the cannon an electronic firing mechanism and use nuclear power to provide the electricity require to activate the mechanism.

Nuclear powered cannon.
Didn't think of that.

Just using nuclear ammunition would be simpler and more cost effective.

However, I like the idea that I ruin movies and am causing the decline of organised religion :p

How utterly, entirely, 100% irrelevant.
Sure... USA can reach anywhere they please, thousands of miles from their borders... But if anyone else tries to have military presense at 25 km of their own borders, then it's "wrong"...

Yeah... The truth and justice are utterly, entireley, 100% irrelevant to the USA if they don't like something... The rules are for everbody but them...

There was: "Remember the Maine", "Remember Pearl Harbor"... Now, Remember Kosovo...

Sure... USA can reach anywhere they please, thousands of miles from their borders... But if anyone else tries to have military presense at 25 km of their own borders, then it's "wrong"...

Yeah... The truth and justice are utterly, entireley, 100% irrelevant to the USA if they don't like something... The rules are for everbody but them...

There was: "Remember the Maine", "Remember Pearl Harbor"... Now, Remember Kosovo...

Your virulent anti-Americanism is cute, but I've seen it done better.

At any rate, what the USA is or is not doing in Poland has absolutely no bearing on whether Russia is justified in establishing a military presence in Poti. Just because the USA installs missiles in Poland (with the cooperation of the government of Poland, which you may recall is a sovereign nation and is allowed to make its own military alliance decisions, irrespective of what Russia may want them to do) does not mean that Russia is somehow justified in occupying a position they themselves agreed to withdraw from outside of the area that they were intervening to protect. They are two entirely unrelated events.

It's like saying that, because China occupied Tibet, the USA is justified in occupying Iraq. You have two choices here to avoid being hypocritical. Either you withdraw all criticism of American imperialism, or you rightly criticize Russian imperialism. You have to be consistent, otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

Your virulent anti-Americanism is cute, but I've seen it done better.

Yeah, yeah

I am a terrorist now. Right?

Excuse me a moment, I am going to hide my iraqui-made mass destruction weapons.

:gas:


At any rate, what the USA is or is not doing in Poland has absolutely no bearing on whether Russia is justified in establishing a military presence in Poti.

Why not?


Just because the USA installs missiles in Poland (with the cooperation of the government of Poland, which you may recall is a sovereign nation and is allowed to make its own military alliance decisions, irrespective of what Russia may want them to do) does not mean that Russia is somehow justified in occupying a position they themselves agreed to withdraw from outside of the area that they were intervening to protect. They are two entirely unrelated events.

No. They are tottaly related events. It`s the power game.


It's like saying that, because China occupied Tibet, the USA is justified in occupying Iraq. You have two choices here to avoid being hypocritical. Either you withdraw all criticism of American imperialism, or you rightly criticize Russian imperialism. You have to be consistent, otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

Georgia attacked South Osethia. I can criticize that if I want to. I don`t need nor want your permission.

You like it or not, there is such a thing called "speech of freedom"...

Why not?

How about because Russia established that position before the US and Poland signed their agreement?



Georgia attacked South Osethia. I can criticize that if I want to. I don`t need nor want your permission.

You like it or not, there is such a thing called "speech of freedom"...

You can, and I can call you a blind, biased, hateful, anti-American hypocrite if you do.

How about because Russia established that position before the US and Poland signed their agreement?

And what else? (go on)


You can, and I can call you a blind, biased, hateful, anti-American hypocrite if you do.

What an argument ! :eek:

You missed "terrorist"...

That`s the best you can do?

Poor thing....

I don't think this has been posted yet. I apologize for the Russian source, but the only other source I found (the first one I found) is in French.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080821/116198014.html

UKHUMI, August 21 (RIA Novosti) - Georgia's breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia sent official appeals Thursday to Russia's president and parliament to recognize their independence.

The relevant resolutions were announced during rallies in the two separatist republics' capitals earlier Thursday.

In Sukhumi, around 50,000 people gathered on the central square to show support for the appeal to recognize Abkhazia "as a sovereign and independent state, and sign a treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance."

"It has become clear that Abkhazia will not live in the same state with Georgia," Abkhazian parliament speaker Nugzar Ashuba told the rally.

Addressing a similar gathering in Tskhinvali, South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity said: "Those who armed Georgia are also responsible for what happened in South Ossetia, and do not have the moral right to claim the role of peacekeepers."

"We appeal to Russia to be the first country from the international community to recognize the independence of the republic of South Ossetia," reads Tskhinvali's request.

Both chambers of Russia's parliament are expected to consider the appeals by the republics on Monday.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled that whether Russia recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries would depend on the Georgian president.

"[Mikheil] Saakashvili is responsible for how the situation will develop," Lavrov said

France 24 link in French (http://www.france24.com/fr/20080821-ossetie-abkhazie-reclament-independance-georgie-russie-kremlin-poutine)

Anyway, I'm fairly certain on Monday the West will have its own two little Kosovos.

That's ok. We don't care. Let them have indyness.

We'll recognise them. We just won't help them at all.

That's ok. We don't care. Let them have indyness.

We'll recognise them. We just won't help them at all.

Yeah!

How they dare to be independent? Only because they had free elections and 99% of the people voted for independence?

Those criminals...

Well, if it`s the kind of help that is receiving Georgia, I really hope "you" never help them...

snip

Explain to me how Russia is justified in establishing a position that is a minimum of 25km away from any area that they have even a tenuous claim to. Explain to me why it is okay for Russia to occupy a Georgian city after they have signed a ceasefire stating they would withdraw to pre-conflict positions. Explain to me how Poland agreeing to install US missiles has anything to do with the conflict in Georgia, since the agreement came AFTER the conflict. Explain to me how you can support Russian imperialism, while opposing American imperialism, and justify it with anything other than anti-US sentiment.

That last one is the one I'm really interested in. I'd like to know why you feel Russia is totally justified in occupying the sovereign nation of Georgia, but the USA is in the wrong for enterring into a military agreement with the sovereign nation of Poland.

And see if you can explain your positions on anything without resorting to using smiley faces and generally coming off as a 12 year old.

Yeah!

How they dare to be independent? Only because they had free elections and 99% of the people voted for independence?

Those criminals...

Well, if it`s the kind of help that is receiving Georgia, I really hope "you" never help them...

Considering that the war criminals on the SO & AB sides are never going to be done for what they have committed when they attacked back, I don't care if 99% voted. Screw them.

They want to be their own country, fine. No one's going to stop them. We'll just not give them any aid, let them into anything like the UN or EU and such. Russia can be the babysitter. Hey, this time next week they'll be airdropping oil tanks full of Vodka to help intergrate them :tongue:

Again, those elections were rigged because at least 15% of South Ossetia was of Georgian ethnicity when that referendum was held.

Considering that the war criminals on the SO & AB sides are never going to be done for what they have committed when they attacked back, I don't care if 99% voted. Screw them.

They want to be their own country, fine. No one's going to stop them. We'll just not give them any aid, let them into anything like the UN or EU and such. Russia can be the babysitter. Hey, this time next week they'll be airdropping oil tanks full of Vodka to help intergrate them :tongue:

See that?

The west helped Kosvo becuase it would be a slap in the face to Russia. When South Ossetia wanted indpendce the west said no. Why? Simple the west cares nouthing for the people and only help those who fit their agenda. Then when Russia tries to help the people of South Ossetia, they twist the truth to make Russia look like the bad guy. Its sad, it really is.

See that?

The west helped Kosvo becuase it would be a slap in the face to Russia. When South Ossetia wanted indpendce the west said no. Why? Simple the west cares nouthing for the people and only help those who fit their agenda. Then when Russia tries to help the people of South Ossetia, they twist the truth to make Russia look like the bad guy. Its sad, it really is.

The west helped Kosovo because of well-documented, extensive use of ethnic cleansing by the Serbian government against Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We're still waiting for that evidence of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Georgia upon South Ossetia. Until then, it's just like Chechnya, which you'll recall the West had no real interest in seeing gain independence.

Simple the west cares nouthing for the people and only help those who fit their agenda.

Just another point. Russia doesn't care about the people and Russia only helps those who fit their agenda. Stop pretending like Russia doesn't play the exact same political game that you keep on accusing the West of playing. If Russia was so good and kind, they would have supported the self-determination of the ethnic Albanians being persecuted in Kosovo. But they didn't, because they wanted to appear to be the great Slavic benefactor.

Well Georgia did in fact use ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia, during 1990's.

Weather the west wants South Ossetia or Abkhazia independed or not, they will gain their independence.

That's funny, because I found evidence of the exact opposite (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Georgia2.htm), and no evidence of Georgian committed ethnic cleansing.

edit: Oh, you deleted your post.

Agreeing to put a military base in a nation has no relation to illegally occuping a city in another country!

Sheesh, what are you getting paid to be in denial or something?

Oh NOW i understand Russias plan! The reason Russia is not withdrawing from the Georgian Port, despite the fact that its not in Russias own established buffer zone is that they dont want Georgians driving Hummers. See the West is clearly being unreasonable.

"Poti is not in the security zone. But that doesn't mean that we will sit behind the fence watch as they drive around in Hummers," Nogovitsyn said, making reference to four U.S. Humvees the Russians seized in Poti this week."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia;_ylt=Alnw3r9iInRSBhXtBHvtc_L9xg8F

Coming next week: Russian invasion of the Ukraine due to thier hatred of Hondas.

We are keeping the port locked down so they can't get new weapons, most likely

We are keeping the port locked down so they can't get new weapons, most likely

And Russia is going to try and stop US weapons shipments in Georgias own port in thier own soverign territory? Good luck with that.

And using that logic, shouldnt Russia post soldiers in the Georgian Presidents office just to make sure they dont give any orders to buy weapons? Where does it end? Shouldnt there be Russian checkpoints every block in the entire country, to check for bandits and weapons?

And Russia is going to try and stop US weapons shipments in Georgias own port in thier own soverign territory? Good luck with that.

Well according to that cease fire, we can have forces in Poti..


Well it's not like them getting American weapons would help them, since the Chechens fought much better then the Georgians did.

well according to that cease fire, we can have forces in poti.. did you even read it?
No you can't. It's not in the security zone so Russia needs to GTFO.

You guys are just asking for World War 3.

When that Destroyer gets there you better stay the hell out of the way with your ILLEGAL occupiation.

Well according to that cease fire, we can have forces in Poti..


From the article i already cited...

"But although Poti, the Black Sea port, is outside the buffer zone for the Abkhazia conflict, Nogovitsyn said Russian troops who have set up positions on the city's outskirts won't leave and will patrol the city."

"Poti is not in the security zone. But that doesn't mean that we will sit behind the fence watch as they drive around in Hummers," Nogovitsyn said, making reference to four U.S. Humvees the Russians seized in Poti this week."

did you even read it?
No you can't. It's not in the security zone so Russia needs to GTFO.

You guys are just asking for World War 3.

When that Destroyer gets there you better stay the hell out of the way with your ILLEGAL occupiation.

Buffers zones must be made and the Gerogian military must stay out.

American destroyers should stay out of this conflict. If Americans want to send aid why use a military ship? Chances are they would give the Gerogians weapons.

Buffers zones must be made and the Gerogian military must stay out.

American destroyers should stay out of this conflict. If Americans want to send aid why use a military ship? Chances are they would give the Gerogians weapons.

Georgians are entitled to weapons. They are a soverign country and have the right to hold weapons like any other country does.

Buffers zones must be made and the Gerogian military must stay out.



And when Russians go beyond even thier own established buffer zones?

Georgians are entitled to weapons. They are a soverign country and have the right to hold weapons like any other country does.

Not when they use their weapons to kill Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers. They should lay down all their weapons.

Not when they use their weapons to kill Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers. They should lay down all their weapons.

Yes even then. Unless Russia attempts to remove thier soverignty, they have the international right to have arms to defend the society that they are responsible for maintaining.

Not when they use their weapons to kill Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers. They should lay down all their weapons.

They are still a sovereign nation. They have the right to have weapons until Russia finishes this charade and just annexes Georgia like we know they want to.

I don't think Russia is entitled to weapons. Look how many AK-47's have been used by terrorists to kill innocent people and UN peacekeepers.

Bite that one and like it KLM.

I don't think Russia is entitled to weapons. Look how many AK-47's have been used by terrorists to kill innocent people and UN peacekeepers.

Bite that one and like it KLM.

It is unlikely that you will find many Russian made AK-47s these days. The AK-47 is one of the most widely manufactured rifles in the world, with many countries aligned with the Soviet bloc of the cold war receiving licensing rights to manufacture their own copies.

Looking at the location of Russian forces inside Georgia, it would seem that the Russian troops are being deployed as a mechanism of enforcing an economic blockade, and starving the city of Tbilisi. They failed to toss out Saakashvili with military action, so, perhaps they might be able to oust him by starving the people, and forcing them to revolt. What an enlightened policy Russia, you really are a great country. :rolleyes:

Oh NOW i understand Russias plan! The reason Russia is not withdrawing from the Georgian Port, despite the fact that its not in Russias own established buffer zone is that they dont want Georgians driving Hummers. See the West is clearly being unreasonable.

"Poti is not in the security zone. But that doesn't mean that we will sit behind the fence watch as they drive around in Hummers," Nogovitsyn said, making reference to four U.S. Humvees the Russians seized in Poti this week."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia;_ylt=Alnw3r9iInRSBhXtBHvtc_L9xg8F

Coming next week: Russian invasion of the Ukraine due to thier hatred of Hondas.

That could be a lucky thing for the Russians. If the HMMWVs have Blue Force Trackers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_force_tracker) (possible) or Harris radios (unlikely) that'd be quite the intelligence haul.

It is unlikely that you will find many Russian made AK-47s these days. The AK-47 is one of the most widely manufactured rifles in the world, with many countries aligned with the Soviet bloc of the cold war receiving licensing rights to manufacture their own copies.

Quite. I and several people I know own Romanian made AK-47s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASR-10). The Russians seem more interested in making more advanced things these days.

Quite. I and several people I know own Romanian made AK-47s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASR-10). The Russians seem more interested in making more advanced things these days.

I've come across a few Type 56's in my odd associations with elements of the libertarian movement. And one of the Hungarian variants.

I've come across a few Type 56's in my odd associations with elements of the libertarian movement. And one of the Hungarian variants.

I've also got a Yugoslavian SKS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M59/66) that I bought a few years back.

The people I know that own them are a pretty mixed group. A libertarian, a couple of Republicans, a handful of Democrats and one socialist (me). Assault rifles are sort of a "thing" where I live, regardless of political leanings.

Looking at the location of Russian forces inside Georgia, it would seem that the Russian troops are being deployed as a mechanism of enforcing an economic blockade, and starving the city of Tbilisi. They failed to toss out Saakashvili with military action, so, perhaps they might be able to oust him by starving the people, and forcing them to revolt. What an enlightened policy Russia, you really are a great country. :rolleyes:

If we wanted to remove Saakashvili with military action, we could of.

I like the USA policy like in the 80s...

Lets supply people who will form the Taliban and other terroists groups to fight the soviet forces. That policy did wonders for the world.

Than theres the American policy of invading countries like Iraq for having ''WMDs''.

Well it showed how pathetic the Soviet Union was when it couldn't defeat a bunch of bandits with rocket launchers.

When we finish them off, we might have to gloat about it and rub it in your face even more.

You want to talk about America invading people and shit, let's talk about Russia doing it's fair share of "bad things".

You invaded Finland illegally.

You invaded Afghanistan to help your PUPPET government.

You attacked Japan only when the rest of us had done the hard work.

You tried to help China & North Korea invade the South.

You butchered people for protesting against you until more enlightened people like Gorbachov came along and even he has blood on his hands.

You've tried to claim territory in the North Pole which legally you CAN'T.

You fly bomber patrols near us and if we did the same you'd kick up a fuss.

You shot down an innocent airliner killing hundreds of innocent people.

You've killed hundreds of your own men through your own stupidity.

Murdered people in other countries who speak out against you (nearly as bad as Isreal killing people in other lands).

Ruined the Aral Sea.

Committed crimes during WWII you got let off for.

Sold all kinds of weapons to dangerous nations and such.

The US & Russia are as bad as each other (with Russia having more blood on its hands). Thanks to both of you, I have to live in a world where MAD is only a buttons push away. Damn the fucking Bolsheviks for ever creating the Soivet Union.

If you live in any NATO nation, your govemrnt blamed for MAD just like Russia and America. I am sure whatever country you may live in it has many past crimes it has done, like every other nation.

Well it showed how pathetic the Soviet Union was when it couldn't defeat a bunch of bandits with rocket launchers.

When we finish them off, we might have to gloat about it and rub it in your face even more.

Reaaaalllly?

[The Russians] are just asking for World War 3.
No, they're not. The media is asking for World War 3, because it would give them something to report on for a bit. The Russians went into Georgia in force because their peacekeepers and citizens got shot at when the Georgians invaded South Ossetia, trying to use the Beijing Olympics as cover because they thought the Russian government couldn't do much about it for at least a couple of hours, and were proven wrong.
When that Destroyer gets there you better stay the hell out of the way with your ILLEGAL occupiation.
Uhu... whatcha going to do about it?

Yanks might be happy to complain, because they don't need Russia all that much. On the other hand, basically the whole of Europe relies on Russia for its oil and, more importantly, gas. Europe also has very little patience for hot-headed businessmen who somehow got in charge of countries and might get NATO into wars because their popularity is flagging somewhat.

Which is why the US, and other countries who are allied to it and don't use Russia for much, like France and the UK, are taking a sterner line than anything east of Holland.

Well it showed how pathetic the Soviet Union was when it couldn't defeat a bunch of bandits with rocket launchers.
Uhu... not unlike the US in Vietnam, then...
When we finish them off, we might have to gloat about it and rub it in your face even more.
Unless NATO goes into Pakistan (which it won't, because that would be rather hard to hide from the media's eyes, and not entirely popular), the Taliban will always have a base.
You want to talk about America invading people and shit, let's talk about Russia doing it's fair share of "bad things".
Eugh, why bother? Both sides are piss poor... still, here's me defending Russia for some reason. Probably because I'm very bored and haven't been on NSG for a week, so am spoiling for an argument.
You invaded Finland illegally.
At about the same time, the US was happy to use gunboat diplomacy and deploy the marines all over South America, so there we go.
You invaded Afghanistan to help your PUPPET government.
Vietnam is the very same for the US...
You attacked Japan only when the rest of us had done the hard work.
Uhu, the reverse is true in Europe with the USSR and everyone else.
You tried to help China & North Korea invade the South.
In 1951, by which time the US and its chums had been helping the South Koreans for almost a year.
You butchered people for protesting against you until more enlightened people like Gorbachov came along and even he has blood on his hands.
1) Stalin was Georgian, not Russian.
2) Aye, sad times.
You've tried to claim territory in the North Pole which legally you CAN'T.
So? The impact of this = almost nothing, to anyone.
You fly bomber patrols near us and if we did the same you'd kick up a fuss.
You're
You shot down an innocent airliner killing hundreds of innocent people.
The US did the same in the Iran-Iraq war timeframe.
You've killed hundreds of your own men through your own stupidity.
True of every large country going through massive industrial upheaval.
Murdered people in other countries who speak out against you (nearly as bad as Isreal killing people in other lands).
True of every country apart from maybe in Scandinavia and Canada, but then those countries are boring, so there we go.
Ruined the Aral Sea.
Which is now coming back in Kazakhstan, and if the Uzbheki government could provide some other main source of revenue than cotton farming, would come back there, too.
Committed crimes during WWII you got let off for.
So did everyone.
Sold all kinds of weapons to dangerous nations and such.
So has everyone.
The US & Russia are as bad as each other (with Russia having more blood on its hands).
"Superpowers are total dickheads shocker"
Thanks to both of you, I have to live in a world where MAD is only a buttons push away.
Err yep, might as well not impotently complain about it, then.

The only people who ever have and indeed probably ever will stop their nuclear ambitions are the South Africans. The North Korean, Israeli, Russian, American, French, Chinese, British, Indian and Pakistani governments are going to keep their ambitions going for a long time yet.
Damn the fucking Bolsheviks for ever creating the Soivet Union.
Uhu... the USSR was basically the same in size and structure as Tsarist Russia, so there we go. Oughtn't to blame the Bolsheviks for Russian military culture being what it is, that's just the way things are.

You want to talk about America invading people and shit, let's talk about Russia doing it's fair share of "bad things".

And the US has done everything you've listed.

You invaded Finland illegally.

Iraq?

You invaded Afghanistan to help your PUPPET government.

Vietnam?

You attacked Japan only when the rest of us had done the hard work.

The Soviets could have said the same thing about us and Germany.

You tried to help China & North Korea invade the South.



You butchered people for protesting against you until more enlightened people like Gorbachov came along and even he has blood on his hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_march#The_U.S._Army_intervenes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity

There is a lot more, but I can't be bothered at the moment.

You've tried to claim territory in the North Pole which legally you CAN'T.

I don't know that the US has done this, but I know Canada and others have tried claiming North Pole territory.

You fly bomber patrols near us and if we did the same you'd kick up a fuss.

Gary Powers? Imagine what we'd do if Russian spy planes were over the US.

You shot down an innocent airliner killing hundreds of innocent people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

You've killed hundreds of your own men through your own stupidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn

Murdered people in other countries who speak out against you (nearly as bad as Isreal killing people in other lands).

Like we tried to kill Qaddafi?

Ruined the Aral Sea.

Is this any worse than the attempted destructed of the American Bison?

Committed crimes during WWII you got let off for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes#United_States_perpetrated_crimes

Sold all kinds of weapons to dangerous nations and such.

Do I even need to address this?


Not to say that any of this excuses Russia, but you're throwing rocks from a glass house.

Is this any worse than the attempted destructed of the American Bison?

I don't particularly disagree with the rest of the post, but to answer this question: Yes, to an exponential degree. The Aral Sea, or what's become of it, is widely regarded as an enviromental catastrophe and perhaps the greatest 'man-made' ecological disaster in human history.

They should lay down all their weapons.See this just gives more evidence of Russia wanting Georgia. To want their government and armies to surrender to Russia. Which means they can go ahead and seize the rest of the country, and annex it because the government is no more. Land Grab.


Uhu... whatcha going to do about it?

No what are YOU going to do about it.
If you tell the ship no and the ship says yes what are YOU going to do about it? Send the Black Sea fleet at it and start something? Board the ship illegally?


Which is why the US, and other countries who are allied to it and don't use Russia for much, like France and the UK, are taking a sterner line than anything east of Holland. You need to look it over again then.

The former Eastern Bloc nations are quite willing to defend themselves from Russian Agression. They fear that Russia will not stop with Georgia.

Right, I keep seeing people repeat false statements, so I'd just like to clear a few things up.
This may seen like a carbon-copy of my post in the other thread, but to be honest, the same issues have arrised.

As I stated before, any event of so-called 'ethnic cleansing' or killing of Russian Peace Keepers in Georgia is completely unconfirmed, unless you count President Medvedev claiming it several thousand kilometres away in the Kremlin. The same goes for the apparant "1000/1500/2000" death toll. If Russian PKs were actually killed, I'm sure that either:
A) It was an accident. What exactly were supposed 'neutral' Russian PKs doing in Tshkinvali, anyway?
B) They were caught supplying separatists with weapons, thus breaching their terms as a PK.
The Georgians aren't stupid. They would not purposively risk war with a neighbouring semi-superpower, who they have had bad blood with in the past.
Basically, Russia decided they need justification - no matter how flimsy or laughable - before they invaded, so they decided to fabricate war crimes.

What Russia should have done: Requested a UN investigation into the charges.

What Russia did: Invaded Georgia immediately. Seriously, what country is able to mobilise its army within hours of declaring war? A prepared country. Russia had been planning this attack since Georgia attacked South Ossetia, and were biding their time until it was convienent.

As Europeans, this issue is more important to us than it probably is to America. Georgia has been a possible NATO recruit for years, blocked only by Russian tempter-tantrums. The Caucasus have always been an area of instability, and also contain a pipeline that supplies a lot of Eastern Europe with oil, which Russia attempted to destroy then claimed it didn't. No one wants to see a return to the unregulated, unrestricted and unstoppable Russia of the 20th century.

What Europe should have done: NATO should have called for an immediate ceasefire, and moved PKs into South Ossetia and Georgia to observe Russia's actions. Afterwards, it should admit Georgia into NATO, regardless of Russian consent. This would stem any further violence in the Caucasus.

What Europe did: Nothing, pretty much, except debate over the issue a lot and decided that it was wrong around about the time Russia had finished invading Georgia.

There has been a lot of flack for the Georgian Premier Saakashvili - mainly from pro-Russian Soviet stooges, admittedly. He probably should not have invaded South Ossetia, but to be honest, we in the West and in Europe can't really condemn him. He launched an attack on a bordering rogue state that was being supplied with Russian firearms and passports, which stretched straight into the heart of his country. We launched an attack on a sandy, internationally-harmless dictatorship, which wasn't even on the same continent as us. From what I have read, Saakashvili has been a good President, and has dealt with a number of Georgian political and social issues. He is creating more democracy for his country, so it is no wonder Russia is afraid.

What Georgia should have done: Saakashvili should have attempted to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict, but with Russia supplying South Ossetia and backing it, this would be impossible. Furthermore, Saakashvili should have toned down on the anti-Russian rhetoric a little, even if Russia had invaded his country. While it is not exactly directly responsible for the war, it did nothing to help matters.

What Georgia did: Invaded South Ossetia, and then mobilised for war when the Russian counter-attack was arriving, rather than attempting to try and come to diplomacy. A conflict could have been completely averted if either side had given an inch, but that being said, it wasn't Medvedev's country that was being invaded.

On the other hand, Russia has no excuse to move troops into South Ossetia, nevermind Georgia. Russia uses the flimsiest of excuses to give its old adversary Georgia a bloody nose, as well as solidate it's position in supporting an illegal state. Was it not Russia who voted against recognising Kosovo as an independent nation so very recently? Why is it that Russia doesn't support an independent state breaking away from its old buddy Serbia, but does support a breakaway Georgian state? Of course, this would be assuming that Russia actually has political morals and ideals, and isn't just serving its own interests. And then of course, Russia's blatant disobediance of the terms of the ceasefire and defiant attitude is more that of a cruel bully than a righteous crusader.
The conflict also revealled who's really in power in Russia. When the pressure was building and war was imminent, who was it that first spoke out on the issue for Russia? Surely it must have been the 'official' Russian President Medvedev, sitting in the Kremlin? Surely it couldn't have been Prime Minister-cum-President Vladimir Putin, attending the Beijing Olympics in China? But it was Putin that held a press conference on the issue, was Putin who discussed the issue with US President George Bush, was Putin who directly spearheaded the entire conflict. All poor old Medvedev got to do was release the odd statement and twiddle his thumbs.

What Russia should have done: Called for a UN investigation into any supposed ethnic cleansing or killings of Russian PKs. Should have kept its army firmly on Russian soil. Finally, in an ideal world, it should have ditched its puppet President and removed its jingoistic Prime Minister, before installing rational, democratic, non-Soviet nostalgics.

What Russia did: Invaded a completely harmless nation, attacked its capital, before agreeing to a ceasefire it did not obey, all the while establishing more control in South Ossetia.

In short, this minor conflict is actually a microcosm for something much more sinister. It has revealled Russia's warlike tenacity, its blatant disregard for the UN and NATO (and for a nation's sovereignity for that matter), and shows that if it pushes hard enough, Russia will always get its own way. It reveals that another cold-wall is establishing between West and East. Summarily, it is a warning. If even one of these issues hasn't been resolved, we are on our way to another Soviet Union, and possibly a Cold War to boot.
But people need to stop sensationalising and going on about this like it was World War Three. There were no such sentiments in Britain, which leads me to believe that this is a creation by American cable news networks. Please, don't inflate a sensitive issue just for increased ratings.

When that Destroyer gets there you better stay the hell out of the way with your ILLEGAL occupiation.



How is this even an occupation? The Georgian government is still in power.

In short, this minor conflict is actually a microcosm for something much more sinister. It has revealled Russia's warlike tenacity, its blatant disregard for the UN and NATO (and for a nation's sovereignity for that matter), and shows that if it pushes hard enough, Russia will always get its own way.

Ye'd wonder where they got the idea that you could go around like that from, wouldn't ye....

How is this even an occupation? The Georgian government is still in power.

It's an occupation because your soldiers are still there.

The ByzantineDiscidium, are you trying to make some sort of a point by repeatedly mistyping people's names and assigning wrong positions to them?

The ByzantineDiscidium, are you trying to make some sort of a point by repeatedly mistyping people's names and assigning wrong positions to them?

Oh and I am pretty sure those Peace Keepers deaths were confirmed.

As I stated before, any event of so-called 'ethnic cleansing' or killing of Russian Peace Keepers in Georgia is completely unconfirmed, unless you count President Mdedev claiming it several thousand kilometres away in the Kremlin. The same goes for the apparant "1000/1500/2000" death toll.
That I can agree with.
If Russian PKs were actually killed, I'm sure that either:
A) It was an accident. What exactly were supposed 'neutral' Russian PKs doing in Tshkinvali, anyway?
B) They were caught supplying separatists with weapons, thus breaching their terms as a PK.
How and why are you sure of that?
The Georgians aren't stupid. They would not purposively risk war with a neighbouring semi-superpower, who they have had bad blood with in the past.
Saakashvili's popularity was flagging, and the olympics gave them the opportunity to have the top Russian decision-makers away from their posts for a few hours.

Perfect time to go into South Ossetia, basically. The only problem is that the Georgian military is utter pish and as soon as it ran into UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers, it stalled. Then the 58th Army came in, and things started to go wrong.
Basically, Russia decided they need justification - no matter how flimsy or laughable - before they invaded, so they decided to fabricate war crimes.

What Russia should have done: Requested a UN investigation into the charges.

What Russia did: Invaded Georgia immediately. Seriously, what country is able to mobilise its army within hours of declaring war? A prepared country. Russia had been planning this attack since Georgia attacked South Ossetia, and were biding their time until it was convienent.
Uhu. I'm sure they did indeed have lots of plans as to what to do.
As Europeans, this issue is more important to us than it probably is to America. Georgia has been a possible NATO recruit for years, blocked only by Russian tempter-tantrums.
Uhu... Georgia wasn't blocked by Russian "temper-tantrums", it was blocked because the Germans and several other NATO states don't want hotheaded leaders in the Caucasus plunging the whole of NATO into a war with Russia. The fact that the Georgians made an extremely poorly-timed attack on South Ossetia, even though they knew
The Caucasus have always been an area of instability
Exactly why none of those states should be in NATO.
and also contain a pipeline that supplies a lot of Eastern Europe with oil, which Russia attempted to destroy then claimed it didn't. No one wants to see a return to the unregulated, unrestricted and unstoppable Russia of the 20th century.
NATO is a regulatory factor in Russian actions, but that should only extend to countries we actually benefit from having in the organisation. What does Georgia and indeed Ukraine offer NATO? Nothing. They have massive stocks of weapons which would have to be taken out of service and replaced due to their non-NATO calibres, and although this is a possibly a 'good' reason to have them in, for arms deals, having such unstable countries in NATO is not a good idea.
What Europe should have done: NATO should have called for an immediate ceasefire, and moved PKs into South Ossetia and Georgia to observe Russia's actions.
Err no.
Afterwards, it should admit Georgia into NATO, regardless of Russian consent. This would stem any further violence in the Caucasus.
Seeing as Georgia attacked UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers, this is not the fault of Russia, this is the fault of Saakashvili's government.
What Europe did: Nothing, pretty much, except debate over the issue a lot and decided that it was wrong around about the time Russia had finished invading Georgia.
Damn right.
There has been a lot of flack for the Georgian Premier Saakashvilli
Largely because he's a tool.
mainly from pro-Russian Soviet stooges, admittedly.
Also anyone with common sense.
He probably should not have invaded South Ossetia, but to be honest, we in the West and in Europe can't really condemn him.
We can and should do so. You cannot let people off for doing extremely stupid things, they ought to know that we in the West are not actually impressed.

Fuck bigging up the underdog. Georgia is in the wrong on this one.
He launched an attack on a bordering rogue state that was being supplied with Russian firearms and passports, which stretched straight into the heart of his country.
So?

The Russians counterattacked against a bordering rogue state which is being supplied with American firearms and training, which is on a vital trade route.

Oh look, it's the same, but slightly different!
We launched an attack on a sandy, internationally-harmless dictatorship, which wasn't even on the same continent as us.
And were rightly condemned for it around the world.
From what I have read, Saakashvilli has been a good President, and has dealt with a number of Georgian political and social issues.
Such as?
He is creating more democracy for his country, so it is no wonder Russia is afraid.
Uhu... I don't see why they'd be afraid of democracy in Georgia, especially since it means that the public seeing Saakashvili as a shit-scared child in the face of Russian counterattacks from South Ossetia and Abkhazia will mean he'll be out of power next time there's an election.
What Georgia should have done: Saakashvilli should have attempted to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict, but with Russia supplying South Ossetia and backing it, this would be impossible. Furthermore, Saakashvilli should have toned down on the anti-Russian rhetoric a little, even if Russia had invaded his country. While it is not exactly directly responsible for the war, it did nothing to help matters.
What he should have done is not invaded at all.
What Georgia did: Invaded South Ossetia, and then mobilised for war when the Russian counter-attack was arriving, rather than attempting to try and come to diplomacy. A conflict could have been completely averted if either side had given an inch, but that being said, it wasn't Mdedev's country that was being invaded.
Uhu... it was Medvedev's citizens who got killed by the Georgian military, though, and South Ossetia is a Russian client state, for better or for worse.
On the other hand, Russia has no excuse to move troops into South Ossetia[.QUOTE]
Other than "because its legally mandated peacekeepers were getting shot at, as well as (supposedly) Russian citizens".
[QUOTE]nevermind Georgia.
"You shot our troops, we will destroy your military" - Sounds fair enough to me.
Russia uses the flimsiest of excuses to give its old adversary Georgia a bloody nose, as well as solidate it's position in supporting an illegal state.
Uhu.
Was it not Russia who voted against recognising Kosovo as an independent nation so very recently? Why is it that Russia doesn't support an independent state breaking away from its old buddy Serbia, but does support a breakaway Georgian state?
Perhaps it's doing this precisely because of what's gone on in Kosovo. Showing NATO that breakaway regions are indeed a pain in the arse to deal with, and lead to blood getting spilt over fairly pointless regions of the world.
Of course, this would be assuming that Russia actually has political morals and ideals, and isn't just serving its own interests. And then of course, Russia's blatant disobediance of the terms of the ceasefire and defiant attitude is more that of a cruel bully than a righteous crusader.
Uhu.

Bullies who smaller children try to attack make a bloody example of them. This is what happened here.
The conflict also revealled who's really in power in Russia.
Yes, "absolutely nobody". We've had conflicting reports on almost everything, and the Russian military looks like it's taking more than one set of orders.

If I was being more cynical, I'd probably say that it proves that Gazprom is the power behind Russia, but there we go.
When the pressure was building and war was imminent, who was it that first spoke out on the issue for Russia? Surely it must have been the 'official' Russian President Mdedev, sitting in the Kremlin? Surely it couldn't have been Prime Minister-cum-President Vladimir Putin, attending the Beijing Olympics in China? But it was Putin that held a press conference on the issue, was Putin who discussed the issue with US President George Bush, was Putin who directly spearheaded the entire conflict. All poor old Mdedev got to do was release the odd statement and twiddle his thumbs.
That's because Medvedev is a figurehead and got the job because he's very shrewd. Being shrewd means not opening your mouth from time to time.
What Russia should have done: Called for a UN investigation into any supposed ethnic cleansing or killings of Russian PKs. Should have kept its army firmly on Russian soil. Finally, in an ideal world, it should have ditched its puppet President and removed its jingoistic Prime Minister, before installing rational, democratic, non-Soviet nostalgics.
Err nope.

What Russia should have done is exactly what it did. Its troops were shot at, and it displayed its total superiority to Georgia to ensure that it doesn't happen again soon. Why should you have a military, except to kick peoples' arses when they go after your citizens?
What Russia did: Invaded a completely harmless nation, attacked its capital, before agreeing to a ceasefire it did not obey, all the while establishing more control in South Ossetia.
Uhu. It used its massively superior military to completely rout the Georgians and protect its own interests, how is this a bad thing?
In short, this minor conflict is actually a microcosm for something much more sinister. It has revealled Russia's warlike tenacity, its blatant disregard for the UN and NATO (and for a nation's sovereignity for that matter), and shows that if it pushes hard enough, Russia will always get its own way.
Yep. Big country with a proper army will almost always beat small country with a very shitty army. And everyone knows this.
It reveals that another cold-wall is establishing between West and East. Summarily, it is a warning. If even one of these issues hasn't been resolved, we are on our way to another Soviet Union, and possibly a Cold War to boot.
Autocracy has always been the Russian way of doing things, not very surprisingly. Whether that's Tsarism or the Soviet Union, that's why you get when you have a very large, ethnically very mixed country with a sparse population mainly of peasants.
But people need to stop sensationalising and going on about this like it was World War Three. There were no such sentiments in Britain, which leads me to believe that this is a creation by American cable news networks. Please, don't inflate a sensitive issue just for increased ratings.
Aye, the media is pish etc.

He won't be out in the next election, thousands have been flocking the streets showing their support for him.

He won't be ot in the next election, thousands have been flocking the streets showing their support for him.
So?

Thousands of his die-hards show up because they are too stupid to understand that his government is going to have to spend hundreds of millions of pounds fixing up their military airports and buying new weapons for the military which have been lost in their withdrawl from the Kidori Gorge, as well as new tanks to replace those lost in Gori?

Doesn't say all that much to me...

Yeah, but the Americans are gonna lighten their load a bit. Not because they care, but because they don't like the Russians.

I find it odd, Yootopia, that you agree with my statement that any Russian PKs and citizen deaths are completely unconfirmed, then use them to justify most of Russia's actions.
Admitting Caucasus and ex-Soviet bloc nations is beneficial to NATO, as it will effectively stall any Russian plans for expansion and will add stability to the region.
Saakashvili, since his inaguration, has fought against government corruption and breaches of human rights. He managed to peacefully resolve a rebellion in 2004, pushed forward a peace plan for South Ossetia in 2005, disarmed a violent militia in 2006, and even - ironically - held talks with Vladimir Putin in 2008 about ending economic sanctions. He may be hot-headed, impulsive and passionate, but he's not a lame duck.

And Ahumoclum:

Mikheil Saakashvili - Georgian President
Vladimir Putin - Russian Prime Minister
Dmitry Medvedev - Russian President

I know that it is absurd that a British person can't spell Russian and Georgian names off by heart that he has only read and heard once or twice on the news, but bear with me.

I find it odd, Yootopia, that you agree with my statement that any Russian PKs and citizen deaths are completely unconfirmed, then use them to justify most of Russia's actions.
The PK deaths have been confirmed, that Russian civilians were killed is also true. That there was some kind of massive ethnic cleansing operation is just ridiculous.
Admitting Caucasus and ex-Soviet bloc nations is beneficial to NATO, as it will effectively stall any Russian plans for expansion and will add stability to the region.
Uhu... how will it add stability? Those countries are pretty poor democracies, an inherently unstable way of doing things.
Saakashvili, since his inaguration, has fought against government corruption and breaches of human rights.
Oh, I agree, his handling of the June 2005 demonstrations in Tblisi by sending in special forces and heavily-armed riot police shows a great human rights commitment. See also the 2007 demostrations.
He managed to peacefully resolve a rebellion in 2004
Aye, in Adjara...
pushed forward a peace plan for South Ossetia in 2005
Shame it died on its knees.
disarmed a violent militia in 2006
Uhu...
and even - ironically - held talks with Vladimir Putin in 2008 about ending economic sanctions.
Also failed.
He may be hot-headed, impulsive and passionate, but he's not a lame duck.
Aye, it's the first three things which make him a piss-poor leader of a NATO country bordering Russia.

So?

Thousands of his die-hards show up because they are too stupid to understand that his government is going to have to spend hundreds of millions of pounds fixing up their military airports and buying new weapons for the military which have been lost in their withdrawl from the Kidori Gorge, as well as new tanks to replace those lost in Gori?

Doesn't say all that much to me...

actually the US is paying for it and upgrading their weapons too. so to the normal joe it looks like a free upgrade.

How is this even an occupation? The Georgian government is still in power. *Eye Twitch* The city is not under the control of the Georgian Government, thereby it's occupied.

I realize you will endorse whatever Russia wants, not matter what anyone else says. I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of the hackers that hit the Georgian websites.

You can keep your nationalistic Fanaticism and your blind devotion to Putin, but mark my words it will come back to bite you. It did for the US and it will do for you.

If we wanted to occupy/annex Georgia, it would have been done by now.

If we wanted to remove Saakashvili with military action, we could of.

And how wonderful would that have looked. Russia is possibly opting for a slightly more subtle measure, one it has tried in the past, oh, and failed at then.

I like the USA policy like in the 80s...

Lets supply people who will form the Taliban and other terroists groups to fight the soviet forces. That policy did wonders for the world.

Several key things, the US did not actually supply the Taliban, they supplied the Mujahadeen, the group that the Taliban was actually formed as a response, and opponent, to. Beyond that, the Mujahadeen, despite the claims of Hollywood and Tom Clancy, did not receive even a plurality of their weapons from the US. A majority of the arms used were Soviet or Chinese made, were captured from Soviet or Afghan national forces, and the insurgency was domestically driven.

The stingers, which did a number on the Hind helicopters, were the most significant US contribution to the war.

Than theres the American policy of invading countries like Iraq for having ''WMDs''.

Tu quoque fallacy.

*Eye Twitch* The city is not under the control of the Georgian Government, thereby it's occupied.

I realize you will endorse whatever Russia wants, not matter what anyone else says. I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of the hackers that hit the Georgian websites.

You can keep your nationalistic Fanaticism and your blind devotion to Putin, but mark my words it will come back to bite you. It did for the US and it will do for you.

What America did was different. First, they invaded a country that did not provoke them, and they invaded Iraq for having WMDs. Which turned out false.

Gerogia attcked South Osstia, which we warned them not to. They killed Russian peacekeepers, and in doing so they delcared war on us. Steos must now be taken to make sure this dose not happen again and buffer zones should be made.

Also you will find that many troops did pulled back that have ''occupied'' parts of Georgia.

Yes, some of your troops have pulled back, but not all, and Georgia did NOT declare war on you, they said they were in a State of War because you were invading, which is different.

If we wanted to occupy/annex Georgia, it would have been done by now.

Funny, i remember Russians saying the same thing about Afghanistan.

Yes, some of your troops have pulled back, but not all, and Georgia did NOT declare war on you, they said they were in a State of War because you were invading, which is different.

When your peacekeepers are killed, thats war.

When your peacekeepers are killed, thats war.

One countries peacekeepers are anothers occupying force. These wernt exactly UN peacekeepers, a better name for them would be the Russian Army. And where the Russian Army was standing, wasnt Russia.

They were actually UN mandated.

One countries peacekeepers are anothers occupying force. These wernt exactly UN peacekeepers, a better name for them would be the Russian Army. And where the Russian Army was standing, wasnt Russia.

The UN put them there and they were in South Ossetia, where they should of been.

The UN put them there and they were in South Ossetia, where they should of been.

I honestly wasnt aware of that, case of fox in charge of the henhouse? Why wernt they normal UN troops?

Yes they should, but then when Georgia put soldiers into South Ossetia, which it has every right to do, some Russian peacekeepers got killed. Then, instead of complaining or sending a small military force to make the Georgians leave South Ossetia, you put thousands of soldiers in, send them into Abkhazia and Georgia proper, bomb civilians and then don't leave.

I honestly wasnt aware of that, case of fox in charge of the henhouse? Why wernt they normal UN troops?

They were. The army that invaded wasn't.

They were. The army that invaded wasn't.

So why do i keep hearing references to attacking Russian peacekeepers? Wouldnt they be international peacekeepers including Americans etc? Or were there no shots ever fired at UN forces and they just bailed and Russian troops proper all attacked from mainland?

So why do i keep hearing references to attacking Russian peacekeepers? Wouldnt they be international peacekeepers including Americans etc?

No, you can request where the peacekeepers are from if you have enough power. Like in in Darfur China and Sudan blocked western peacekeepers, so they're only from Africa.

Yes they should, but then when Georgia put soldiers into South Ossetia, which it has every right to do, some Russian peacekeepers got killed. Then, instead of complaining or sending a small military force to make the Georgians leave South Ossetia, you put thousands of soldiers in, send them into Abkhazia and Georgia proper, bomb civilians and then don't leave.

I see, you think we should of jsut sat on our ass and let more Russian and Ossetians be killed.

I see, you think we should of jsut sat on our ass and let more Russian and Ossetians be killed.

More people have been killed by this war than would've been killed if you hadn't sent thousands of soldiers in. I did see you could have sent a small force into South Ossetia, which would have forced Georgia to leave, instead of blasting the place to bits and invading the rest of it.

No, you can request where the peacekeepers are from if you have enough power. Like in in Darfur China and Sudan blocked western peacekeepers, so they're only from Africa.

So i assume the Russian Peacekeepers were under UN command. Did they participate in the war in any way? Did UN forces ever shoot anything anywhere? Did the Russian UN guys join the Russian front?

So i assume the Russian Peacekeepers were under UN command. Did they participate in the war in any way? Did UN forces ever shoot anything anywhere? Did the Russian UN guys join the Russian front?

They did join the attack, yes. They're not really under UN command, just on paper.

They did join the attack, yes. They're not really under UN command, just on paper.

So it goes full circle back to a UN stamped approval of a Russian Army occupation yes? And im suggesting had the forces in S Ossetia had been truely international forces Georgia never would have dared attack it.

The UN's a corruption riddled shithole, with Sudan on the Human Rights council, and Syria and Iran complaining about human rights and the treatment of women in the UK. I think they're on some sort of council too.

The ByzantineDiscidium
I know that it is absurd that a British person can't spell Russian and Georgian names off by heart that he has only read and heard once or twice on the news, but bear with me.
Oh, it just shows that you didn't spend much time or attention on subject research. Otherwise it would've been easier to remember the names and ranks, especially considering the fact that they're rather simple (no one had any problems with Pavel Nedved the footballer, for instance). All in all, it seemed a little like this, "I think Medvedev is a pathetic puppet, so I'll mistype his name several times, thus underlying his irrelevance and my contempt for him."

Similar attitude can be seen all over the post. Say, the part about wondering how the Russian PK's turned out to be in South Ossetia, even though they've been there alongside Georgian PK's since the Georgian-Ossetian conflict in the early 90'ies.

Unfortunately, the rather undiplomatic manner in which the US handles the situation thus far is merely fuelling jingoistic attitudes in Russia, raising the popularity of the government and the army.

Oh, it just shows that you didn't spend much time or attention on subject research. Otherwise it would've been easier to remember the names and ranks, especially considering the fact that they're rather simple (no one had any problems with Pavel Nedved the footballer, for instance).

Considering you keep mistakenly claiming I assigned the parties the wrong ranks, I think we can clearly see how much time and attention you've spent on the subject. I like it how you've managed to establish some sort of microcosm on my ommitting of two letters from Medvedev. Perhaps you should become an English teacher.

Unfortunately, the rather undiplomatic manner Smilies in which the US handles the situation thus far is merely fuelling jingoistic attitudes in Russia, raising the popularity of the government and the army.

Because obviously, calling for a ceasefire and supplying humanitarian aid is so undiplomatic.

I honestly wasnt aware [that the Russians there to begin with were peacekeepers]
Aye, it's only been pointed out in about 30 posts so far, eh?
case of fox in charge of the henhouse?
Not really, no.
Why wernt they normal UN troops?
No such thing.

The UN's a corruption riddled shithole
Some of it. Some of it is genuinely worthwhile and excellent, like the various aid organisations.
with Sudan on the Human Rights council, and Syria and Iran complaining about human rights and the treatment of women in the UK. I think they're on some sort of council too.
What, the Russians?

Aye, the UNSC, unsurprisngly.

with Sudan on the Human Rights council, and Syria and Iran complaining about human rights and the treatment of women in the UK. I think they're on some sort of council too.

Unfortunately theres a very long list of countries with dubious records, so unless you bar them all, you can't just bar the "usual suspects".

http://www.france24.com/en/20080825-russian-parliament-meet-rebel-georgian-regions-abhkazia-south-ossetia&navi=EUROPE

MOSCOW - Russia's lower house of parliament on Monday
called on President Dmitry Medvedev to recognise Georgia's
breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent
states.

The State Duma voted 447 for the resolution with none
against, according to a screen showing voting results in the
parliament chamber, a Reuters reporter said.

The vote followed a similar resolution passed in the upper
house of parliament earlier on Monday.

We'll see how much support there is from Moscow when North Ossetia demands to be united with an independent South Ossetia.

We'll see how much support there is from Moscow when North Ossetia demands to be united with an independent South Ossetia.

I think it'd be more likely that S. Ossetia asks to join N. Ossetia as a Russian republic.

Longer article.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/25/russia.vote/index.html

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian lawmakers asked President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday to recognize the independence of two breakaway regions of Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Neither Russia nor the United Nations currently recognize either region as independent, despite both declaring de facto independence from Georgia.

The two regions have autonomous governments backed by Russia.

On Monday, both houses of Russian parliament voted overwhelmingly for such recognition. The Federation Council, the upper chamber, voted unanimously for the measure -- 130-0. In the Duma, the lower chamber, the vote was 447-0 with three lawmakers absent.

However the parliamentary votes are not legally binding and Medvedev will make the final call.

"We have more political-legal grounds than Kosovo to have our independence recognized," South Ossetia President Eduard Kokoity told the upper chamber, according to the Interfax news agency. "When I say 'we' I mean both South Ossetia and Abkhazia."

Meanwhile U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney will travel to Georgia next week as part of a broader visit to "key partners" in Europe and Asia, the White House announced Monday.

During his visit Cheney will "reiterate U.S. commitment" to Georgia, and consult with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "on common security interests," a White House official said.

Georgian troops attacked pro-Russian separatists in South Ossetia on August 7, triggering a Russian invasion of Georgia.

Russian tanks, troops and armored vehicles poured into South Ossetia and another breakaway Georgian territory, Abkhazia, the following day, advancing into Georgian cities across the administrative borders with those regions.

Each side offered conflicting figures on how many people died in the fighting.

Kosovo declared independence from Russia's historical ally Serbia in February. Serbia still considers Kosovo a province and has refused to recognize its self-declared status.

Russian officials -- angered by U.S. and European support for the independence of Kosovo -- have said Abkhazia and South Ossetia should have self-determination.

The two regions broke away from Georgia during civil wars in the 1990s, but they are not internationally recognized as independent nations.

Georgia considers them part of its territory, and U.S. President Bush earlier this month said that the United States stands by Georgia's "territorial integrity."

What of Chechnya and Dagestan? Surely they deserve self-determination as well.

What of Chechnya and Dagestan? Surely they deserve self-determination as well.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, Russia doesn't.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, Russia doesn't.

But both Russia and the West have established that it doesn't matter if the larger nation agrees or not. Unilateral declarations of independence are the wave of the future.

But both Russia and the West have established that it doesn't matter if the larger nation agrees or not. Unilateral declarations of independence are the wave of the future.

I do certainly hope so.

Did you look at that article more carefully? Notice something interesting? Let me quote it directly:

On Monday, both houses of Russian parliament voted overwhelmingly for such recognition. The Federation Council, the upper chamber, voted unanimously for the measure -- 130-0. In the Duma, the lower chamber, the vote was 447-0 with three lawmakers absent.

No truly democratic government EVER has that kind of unanimous vote. There's always at least a few naysayers. Yes, three were absent from the Duma, but I'll bet you bunches they'd have voted yes too.

Any Russians care to explain this odd behavior from your legislative body?

Seems like the word "overwhelmingly" in that quote was a poor choice. "Unanimously" would have been more precise.

Did you look at that article more carefully? Notice something interesting? Let me quote it directly:



No truly democratic government EVER has that kind of unanimous vote. There's always at least a few naysayers. Yes, three were absent from the Duma, but I'll bet you bunches they'd have voted yes too.

Any Russians care to explain this odd behavior from your legislative body?When exactly was Russia a democratic country? You'd think the OECD refusing to monitor the elections on grounds of being roadblocked at every turn was indicator enough that the Putin of Russia wasn't interested in what the people thought, ironically despite the fact that he's popular enough not to have to resort to the tactics he has.

Oh, and this just in: Medvedev recognizes South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence.

Yes! Finally. After sixteen friggin' years, Russia has finally recognised the two Republics. Took her sweet damned time she did >:[ Ah well, better late than never \o/

All I can say is that there's gonna be some partying tonight \o/

Where are you from?

Where are you from?

I am Swiss, but my origins are a long and complicated story. Just know that my god parents are Abkhaz. ;) Just called them, they are totally elated.

I am Swiss, but my origins are a long and complicated story. Just know that my god parents are Abkhaz. ;) Just called them, they are totally elated.Well, I suppose ethnic cleansing pays off in the end, then.

Why do the Russians get to complain about alleged ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia, but they don't care that at least 10,000 Georgians were killed in the early 90s in Abkhazia? And also why are the Abkhazians reacting like they've been granted independence?

Well, I suppose ethnic cleansing pays off in the end, then.

Are you German? If yes, then you should know it better than anyone else. What with 12 million of you folks kicked out of Poland and Czechoslovakia ;)

Oh yes, because Laerod took centre stage in the ethnic cleansing in WW2, as did every other German.

Are you German? If yes, then you should know it better than anyone else. What with 12 million of you folks kicked out of Poland and Czechoslovakia ;)Yup. Two of 'em my maternal grandparents. Though even if that weren't the case, I'd probably still be vehemently opposed to the practice and hence why I loathe governments and people that actively engage in ethnic cleansing (I am aware that in addtion to the Poles, Germans, Czechs, Soviets, and Abkhazians already mentioned, this includes the South Ossetians, Georgians, and Russians as well).

Oh yes, because Laerod took centre stage in the ethnic cleansing in WW2, as did every other German.
S/he's referring to the ethnic cleansing committed against the Germans after WWII.

I never said I approved that expulsion or any other expulsion for that matter.

My point was that history knows precedents where ethnic cleansing has led to the eventual creation of democratic, stable nation-states (Czech republic and Poland in our case). Because modern Polish and Czech authorities are not really in that much of a hurry to invite the Germans back ;) Does not prevent you people from having them as buddy-buddies through the EU and NATO.

At any rate, the Georgians began this mess in 1991 under their "Georgia for Georgians!" motto under the then president Gamsakhurdia. He failed. D'uh. Saakashvili's attempt to retake South Ossetia by levelling Tskhinval to the ground also failed. D'uh.

It is, however, unfortunate that the average Georgian villager has to pay the price of his leaders' stupidity. I do hope that now that they have their independent status protected, Abkhazia and South Ossetia will feel more secure in allowing the Georgian refugees back in. But history has shown that this is not exactly the case in the near entirety of cases.

S/he's referring to the ethnic cleansing committed against the Germans after WWII.

Yeah, just re-read that.

I never said I approved that expulsion or any other expulsion for that matter.

My point was that history knows precedents where ethnic cleansing has led to the eventual creation of democratic, stable nation-states (Czech republic and Poland in our case). Because modern Polish and Czech authorities are not really in that much of a hurry to invite the Germans back ;) Does not prevent you people from having them as buddy-buddies through the EU and NATO.Czechs and Poles remain the least buddy-buddies of Germany to this day, though the decision of the Czech government to apologize for the Benes Decrees and the ousting of one of the Kaczynskis in the Polish government have helped. In fact, the Czech stance on the Benes Decrees jeopardized their admission into the EU.

But do note the eventual. It took nearly 50 years for that to happen, and some governments (Russia) still aren't democratic.

As far as the differences between South Ossetia and Kosovo...

Kosovo, once a province of Yugoslavia, and later the successor state of Serbia is a territory that measures 10,908 km2. It's population is slightly over two million, over 90% of whom are Albanian. The capital city of Pristina is home to roughly 500-600,000 people. Geographically, it is fairly isolated from Serbia, and shares a majority of its border with Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia. During the regional wars that followed the evaporation of Yugoslavia, Kosovo was stripped of its prior autonomy by Serbia. After the Serbian failed to retain territory in the Wars in Croatia and Bosnia, it turned its attention to Kosovo, where after a protracted series of negotiations and the unwillingness of Serbia to return Kosovo to its prior autonomous state through the Rambouillet Accords. The Conflict with NATO resulted in the eventual withdrawal of Serbian troops from Kosovo, and the installation of an international peacekeeping force. Following NATO military action, and in light of the previous misdeeds of the Serbian-led Yugoslav state in other regions a long-term process was initiated that eventually resulted in Kosovar independence from Serbia, with several key restrictions on Kosovo's actions, including that it prohibits Kosovo from joining any other country, provides for only a limited military capability, states that Kosovo will be under international supervision and provides for the protection of minority ethnic communities.

South Ossetia, by comparison, is part of the Soviet successor state of Georgia. It's land area is roughly 3,900 km2. South Ossetia is geographically central to Georgia, sharing almost the entirety of its border with that country. There are no natural geographic boundaries between them. Total population is somewhere between 30-60,000, and population density is about 18/km2. The population of the capital city of Tskhinvali is approximately 20-30,000. Demographically it is roughly 70% South Ossetian and 30% Georgian. A referendum on independence was held, but the Georgian population almost entirely abstained. The extremely high pro-independence result also begs questions about the legitimacy of the referendum. Kokoity, the President, gained power through gaining favor of a large and powerful family. After ethnic violence in the region following the dissolution of the USSR, Russian and Georgian forces were deployed to South Ossetia to jointly serve as peacekeepers. Russian troops, though, were increasingly seen as supplying the South Ossetian separatist movement with equipment, funding and arms. Several weeks ago, simmering tensions between Georgia and South Ossetia, fueled largely by Russian interventions, resulted in a Georgian incursion into the region. Russian troops, who had been stationed across the border, and had been kept at high readiness in hopes of such an event, crossed into Georgia/South Ossetia and devastated the Georgian army in a very few days. Russian troops advanced deep into Georgian territory, and then openly flaunted the recently signed cease-fire agreement by remaining. Shortly thereafter, the Russian Legislature and President decided to recognize South Ossetian independence.

Oh, and this just in: Medvedev recognizes South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence.

Link for convenience.

http://www.france24.com/en/20080826-russia-recognises-independence-georgian-breakaway-provinces-south-ossetia-abkhazia&navi=EUROPE

Czechs and Poles remain the least buddy-buddies of Germany to this day, though the decision of the Czech government to apologize for the Benes Decrees and the ousting of one of the Kaczynskis in the Polish government have helped. In fact, the Czech stance on the Benes Decrees jeopardized their admission into the EU.

But do note the eventual. It took nearly 50 years for that to happen, and some governments (Russia) still aren't democratic.

Just to let you know we are a democratic state.

When exactly was Russia a democratic country? You'd think the OECD refusing to monitor the elections on grounds of being roadblocked at every turn was indicator enough that the Putin of Russia wasn't interested in what the people thought, ironically despite the fact that he's popular enough not to have to resort to the tactics he has.

Oh, and this just in: Medvedev recognizes South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence.
Exactly. Russia is not democratic no matter what it claims.

Too bad too...you'd think the Russians would be sick of dictators right now.

Also, speaking of sick: Could you just call it genocide please? I HATE the term "ethnic cleansing." It pretends like it's something vaguely okay, or as if you need a euphemism to discuss it in polite conversation.

It's genocide.

Exactly. Russia is not democratic no matter what it claims.

Too bad too...you'd think the Russians would be sick of dictators right now.

Also, speaking of sick: Could you just call it genocide please? I HATE the term "ethnic cleansing." It pretends like it's something vaguely okay, or as if you need a euphemism to discuss it in polite conversation.

It's genocide.

Ethnic cleansing is often used as a euphemism for genocide, but strictly speaking they're different. Genocide aims to completely exterminate an ethnic population, across all borders, while ethnic cleansing seeks to render an area ethnically homogenous through force. Ethnic cleansing does not require the slaughter of an ethnic group (think the USA and Native American tribes being forcibly relocated to reservations). So often does ethnic cleansing involve murder that the terms are used synonymously, but purely by definition, a difference does exist.

Ethnic cleansing is often used as a euphemism for genocide, but strictly speaking they're different. Genocide aims to completely exterminate an ethnic population, across all borders, while ethnic cleansing seeks to render an area ethnically homogenous through force. Ethnic cleansing does not require the slaughter of an ethnic group (think the USA and Native American tribes being forcibly relocated to reservations). So often does ethnic cleansing involve murder that the terms are used synonymously, but purely by definition, a difference does exist.

Yeah, well...

Okay then. I'll accept that.

Oh, as another difference between Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia...

Countries that recognize Kosovo (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png)

I took the liberty of highlighting the countries that recognize either South Ossetia or Abkhazia (http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/9461/russiamapwe1.jpg)

Oh, as another difference between Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia...

Countries that recognize Kosovo (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png)

I took the liberty of highlighting the countries that recognize either South Ossetia or Abkhazia (http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/9461/russiamapwe1.jpg)

So what's the magic number for legitimacy?

So what's the magic number for legitimacy?
Twelve.

But at least three have to be constitutional monarchies.

So what's the magic number for legitimacy?

I don't know for sure, but it is definitely more than one.

I don't know for sure, but it is definitely more than one.

Is Kosovo any more legitimate a state than S. Ossetia or Abkhazia?

The only litmus for "legitimacy" I can think of above recognition by another sovereign state is recognition by the UN, which neither Kosovo nor S. Ossetia nor Abkhazia have.

Of course, I don't see UN recognition as a requirement for legitimacy but I can understand the argument.

I don't know for sure, but it is definitely more than one.
If that one was US, it would definitely be one.

Is Kosovo any more legitimate a state than S. Ossetia or Abkhazia?

The only litmus for "legitimacy" I can think of above recognition by another sovereign state is recognition by the UN, which neither Kosovo nor S. Ossetia nor Abkhazia have.

Of course, I don't see UN recognition as a requirement for legitimacy but I can understand the argument.

Neither Kosovo, S. Ossetia or Abkhazia have any legitimacy until the parent nations, that is Serbia and Georgia, recognise them as independent.

UN recognition and membership would secure these aspiring nations places in the world.

In the case of the breakaway regions of Georgia, I believe the self-determination of the people should be authenticated first, by establishing an unbiased region-wide referendum by a UN authority.

Currently, the only regional polls suggesting a majority of regional citizens are in favour of independence have been conducted unilaterally by Russian/Seperatist authorities, which are deemed untrustworthy. Unless it can be determined that a majority of regional citizens want independence, then there is no point in establishing independant Abkhazia and S. Ossetia.

Second, if a majority of regional citizens are in favour of independence, then I believe the next step would be to create UN interim administrative missions, as where established in Kosovo, in addition to attached multinational UN peacekeeping missions. These missions would set up official provisional governments elected through a fair electoral process organised by the peacebuilding mission, which would be capable of directly negotiating with the central Georgian government for independence through UN mediation, until a time where a negotiated settlement is reached.

The peacekeeping mission would prevent attacks from within and without the breakaway regions until a time where a settlement between the breakaway regions and Georgia had been decided upon.

No doubt any negotiations would take years, even over a decade or more. Public opinion regarding seperation would be regularly queried.

Only through compromise and negotiation, where Abkhazia and S. Ossetia is granted recognition by Georgia itself, can these two seperatist regions ever be formally recognised as independent nations. The same goes for Kosovo, and Serbia.

The transition of seperatist regions into independent nations or, if it comes to it, constituent regions must be regulated by an impartial, objective process presided over by the only current organisation capable of the task, the UN.

The current situation, with unilateral declarations of independence and the following recognition by select states is entirely unsatisfactory and disorderly.

Is Kosovo any more legitimate a state than S. Ossetia or Abkhazia?

The only litmus for "legitimacy" I can think of above recognition by another sovereign state is recognition by the UN, which neither Kosovo nor S. Ossetia nor Abkhazia have.

Of course, I don't see UN recognition as a requirement for legitimacy but I can understand the argument.

Hardly. How, praytell, were independent states determined before the UN, or the League of Nations? Through recognition by many other countries.

There is a threshold over which states can seemingly cross, when they receive sufficient international support to overcome the hurdle of legitimacy.

If that one was US, it would definitely be one.

Which country might that have been, dear?

Hardly. How, praytell, were independent states determined before the UN, or the League of Nations? Through recognition by many other countries.

There is a threshold over which states can seemingly cross, when they receive sufficient international support to overcome the hurdle of legitimacy.

Indeed. However, this threshold is ill-defined, and as demonstrated by recent events in Kosovo, this antiquated method of defining nation-states is not only ad-hoc and vague, it is dangerous.

Neither Kosovo, S. Ossetia or Abkhazia have any legitimacy until the parent nations, that is Serbia and Georgia, recognise them as independent.

I don't agree with the recognition of the parent nation being a condition for legitimacy. I agree it would be preferable, but I believe that the seceding state's right to self determination trumps the parent nation's territorial integrity.

UN recognition and membership would secure these aspiring nations places in the world.

In the case of the breakaway regions of Georgia, I believe the self-determination of the people should be authenticated first, by establishing an unbiased region-wide referendum by a UN authority.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, the situation on the ground didn't facilitate this.

Currently, the only regional polls suggesting a majority of regional citizens are in favour of independence have been conducted unilaterally by Russian/Seperatist authorities, which are deemed untrustworthy. Unless it can be determined that a majority of regional citizens want independence, then there is no point in establishing independant Abkhazia and S. Ossetia.

Also agreed.

Second, if a majority of regional citizens are in favour of independence, then I believe the next step would be to create UN interim administrative missions, as where established in Kosovo, in addition to attached multinational UN peacekeeping missions. These missions would set up official provisional governments elected through a fair electoral process organised by the peacebuilding mission, which would be capable of directly negotiating with the central Georgian government for independence through UN mediation, until a time where a negotiated settlement is reached.

I'd prefer that elections were held in each of the new states using their existing structures, monitored by various organizations, UN, EU, OSCE, etc. As to peacekeeping missions, I'd support such a thing, although I don't see them as essential.

The peacekeeping mission would prevent attacks from within and without the breakaway regions until a time where a settlement between the breakaway regions and Georgia had been decided upon.

Again, I'd support it, but it's not entirely essential. A monitoring force to keep the various parties honest would definitely be a positive thing.

Only through compromise and negotiation, where Abkhazia and S. Ossetia is granted recognition by Georgia itself, can these two seperatist regions ever be formally recognised as independent nations. The same goes for Kosovo, and Serbia.

Again, I don't see the extra importance attached to recognition by the parent state.

The transition of seperatist regions into independent nations or, if it comes to it, constituent regions must be regulated by an impartial, objective process presided over by the only current organisation capable of the task, the UN.

Monitored by the UN, yes. Presided over by the UN, no.

The current situation, with unilateral declarations of independence and the following recognition by select states is entirely unsatisfactory and disorderly.

It may be "disorderly", but I personally feel it's better than the alternative, forcing peoples to be part of states they don't wish to belong to.

Hardly. How, praytell, were independent states determined before the UN, or the League of Nations? Through recognition by many other countries.

I hardly see how that's relevant to today. The world has changed a great deal, I'm sure you'll agree.

There is a threshold over which states can seemingly cross, when they receive sufficient international support to overcome the hurdle of legitimacy.

That threshold is gaining the support of the United States and it's allies. Do you think that's the way things should be?

Which country might that have been, dear?

You misunderstood. He was saying that if the United States were the one country recognizing a new state, then one would be sufficient.

I'm going to have to agree with UN Protectorates. We're not going to see a shortage of breakaway provinces becoming new nations anytime soon, and the sooner we develop a reliable means for authenticating nation-states, the better.

That threshold is gaining the support of the United States and it's allies. Do you think that's the way things should be?

Except there are countries recognizing who are not NATO or OECD states. Meanwhile, there are US allies who do not recognize, for obvious reasons (*cough* Spain *cough*) In fact, most of the states who don't recognize Kosovo seem to either have a.) separatist regions of their own, or are Russian-oriented Slavs.



You misunderstood. He was saying that if the United States were the one country recognizing a new state, then one would be sufficient.

No, actually it would be a joke.

From what I've read about all this... I side with Russia.

Not that it matters.. but since there wasn't a poll. There.

Yeah, well...

Okay then. I'll accept that.Yeah. Basically what Sdaeriji said.

So what's the magic number for legitimacy?Eight. But five of them need to have a permanent seat on the UNSC and three need a rotating seat.

Yuschenko ( President of the Ukraine, in case you didn't know) has said that recognising South Ossetia and Abkhazia was gonna cause violence and instability in the region.

here is what we should do. consider for a moment that when the soviet union was given a place on the security council it was actually a Georgian (Stalin was Georgian.) we should remove Russia and put Georgia in its rightful place. not even really a punishment just a correction.

Given that the Ukraine has a large, anti-Kiev ethnically Russian population in the Crimea, who are radically opposed to his efforts to bring his country into NATO, and his neighbor, Moldova has a similar problem in the form of Trans-Dniester, where there are also Russian troops serving as "peacekeepers", I can certainly see why he is concerned about what Russia did in Georgia.

Ukraine is further struck with the fact that the government is less than willing to renew the permission for the Russian Black Sea Fleet to remain in Sevastopol, a direct strategic threat to Russian influence in the region.

Seems like Yuschenko has reasons to worry.

here is what we should do. consider for a moment that when the soviet union was given a place on the security council it was actually a Georgian (Stalin was Georgian.) we should remove Russia and put Georgia in its rightful place. not even really a punishment just a correction.
Russia is the legal successor to the Soviet Union.

Given that the Ukraine has a large, anti-Kiev ethnically Russian population in the Crimea, who are radically opposed to his efforts to bring his country into NATO, and his neighbor, Moldova has a similar problem in the form of Trans-Dniester, where there are also Russian troops serving as "peacekeepers", I can certainly see why he is concerned about what Russia did in Georgia.

Ukraine is further struck with the fact that the government is less than willing to renew the permission for the Russian Black Sea Fleet to remain in Sevastopol, a direct strategic threat to Russian influence in the region.

Seems like Yuschenko has reasons to worry.
I wonder whether the situation is quite the same though. While Ukraine's substantial Russian minority is opposed to 'Ukraineisation' and integration with the western world, they are integrated into the Ukranian state and political system, unlike South Ossetia and Abkhazia. (With the possible exception of Sevastopol, which is dependent on the Russian base there) There isn't any break away state in Ukraine for Russia to defend.

And, of course, there's no guaranteeing that the pro-western Ukrainian government will remain in place forever; it only has a small majority in Parliament and Yuschenko has to be reelected some time soon, 2009ish I think. His allies may well not be in power in 2017 when the lease fpr the Black Sea base has to be renewed, although I suppose the Russian-Ukranian parties could become less pro-Russian in 10 years if the Russian government tries it's gas trick one time too many.

Transnistria looks far more interesting.

How can Moldova have a breakaway region? It's about 5 feet wide.

How can Moldova have a breakaway region? It's about 5 feet wide.

Your comment rendered even more humorous with a map of the breakaway region of Transnistria:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Transnistria-map.png

So how many people live there?

About 550,000. It's the area of Moldova east of the Dniester River.

So how did Russia get troops in? They'd have to march through the Ukraine or Belarus.

So how did Russia get troops in? They'd have to march through the Ukraine or Belarus.

Same way they put troops in South Ossetia. When Moldova declared independence from the USSR, Transnistria declared independence from Moldova. They fought a war and part of the cease-fire agreement was Russian peacekeepers. There are about 1,200 Russian soldiers in Transnistria right now.

I wonder whether the situation is quite the same though. While Ukraine's substantial Russian minority is opposed to 'Ukraineisation' and integration with the western world, they are integrated into the Ukranian state and political system, unlike South Ossetia and Abkhazia. (With the possible exception of Sevastopol, which is dependent on the Russian base there) There isn't any break away state in Ukraine for Russia to defend.Yeah, if you remove the crimean peninsula from the equation, then there is no area where Russia could deploy peacekeepers to protect its citizens in the Ukraine.

Aren't Belarus and Russia talking about joining together?

Aren't Belarus and Russia talking about joining together?

A couple of years ago, yeah, there was some talk of that, but Putin and Lukashenko have had a couple of spats recently, especially over energy supplies. Since then, the ol' weasel has been trying to ingratiate himself to the West. I suspect that this little deal with Georgia has actually driven an even further wedge between Minsk and Moscow, especially after the Russians threatened Lukashenko to get into line with them on the matter.

We've been talking about the unsupported Russian assertion that there was some sort of an attempt at genocide in South Ossetia by the Georgian military, well, now we've got some more unsupported assertions, although, this time they're about the US role.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html

Quick question...if Bush orchestrated this war for McCain's benefit, then why were Russian troops on ready status across the Georgian border for months?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7583801.stm

And claiming that the US is using the humanitarian aid shipments to smuggle weapons into Georgia.

We've been talking about the unsupported Russian assertion that there was some sort of an attempt at genocide in South Ossetia by the Georgian military, well, now we've got some more unsupported assertions, although, this time they're about the US role.Unsupported? Because the Russians said it happened? I've been seeing plenty of instances of deliberate violence against civilians by Georgian troops. Then again:
...
What we now have is a dilemma, characterized by being a situation with no good choices available, but a choice needing to be made: Which lying, murdering bastards are at fault and which are less at fault?
...
But the Russians and the Georgians have already invoked Godwin's law on national television and are trying their damnedest to outlie eachother.

When Moldova declared independence from the USSR, Transnistria declared independence from Moldova.
And the southern section of Transnistria, occupied by a Turkish-speaking minority called the Gaugaz, declared an independent Gaugazia. But one of the villages there wanted nothing to do with creating a new little mini-state (I believe Gaugazia is now reattached to Moldova) and opted out. So the local joke was that this village declared independence from Gaugazia, and one of the families there declared independence from the village, and their teenage son declared independence from the family, and then a certain one of the boy's body parts declared independence from him.

Unsupported? Because the Russians said it happened? I've been seeing plenty of instances of deliberate violence against civilians by Georgian troops. Then again:

I should have been more specific. Russia has claimed that there was a systematic attempt to obliterate the residents of South Ossetia, I have seen virtually no evidence of such coming from a source that isn't Russia trying to justify itself. That, though, is largely a function of the fact that Russia had largely frozen foreign reporters out of the region until fairly late in the game.

Did the Georgian military break the rules? Probably, but the matter of scale has not been verified by Russia. Is it frustrated, retreating troops going rogue and lashing out at civilian populations, or is it a deliberate act of the Georgian government?

Beyond that, Russia has made many false or unproven claims, things such as "Russian troops are not in Gori", when they clearly were. Or this newest charge from Putin, that it was the US that orchestrated this Kriegchen.

And the southern section of Transnistria, occupied by a Turkish-speaking minority called the Gaugaz, declared an independent Gaugazia. But one of the villages there wanted nothing to do with creating a new little mini-state (I believe Gaugazia is now reattached to Moldova) and opted out. So the local joke was that this village declared independence from Gaugazia, and one of the families there declared independence from the village, and their teenage son declared independence from the family, and then a certain one of the boy's body parts declared independence from him.

AHAHAHAHAHA. You gotta love Eastern Europe.

I should have been more specific. Russia has claimed that there was a systematic attempt to obliterate the residents of South Ossetia, I have seen virtually no evidence of such coming from a source that isn't Russia trying to justify itself. That, though, is largely a function of the fact that Russia had largely frozen foreign reporters out of the region until fairly late in the game.

Did the Georgian military break the rules? Probably, but the matter of scale has not been verified by Russia. Is it frustrated, retreating troops going rogue and lashing out at civilian populations, or is it a deliberate act of the Georgian government?

Beyond that, Russia has made many false or unproven claims, things such as "Russian troops are not in Gori", when they clearly were. Or this newest charge from Putin, that it was the US that orchestrated this Kriegchen.We're talking about the Georgians that were "retreating" into South Ossetia before the Russians retaliated here.

We're talking about the Georgians that were "retreating" into South Ossetia before the Russians retaliated here.Were they? Says who? Were you there to witness?

Except there are countries recognizing who are not NATO or OECD states. Meanwhile, there are US allies who do not recognize, for obvious reasons (*cough* Spain *cough*) In fact, most of the states who don't recognize Kosovo seem to either have a.) separatist regions of their own, or are Russian-oriented Slavs.

Yes, but the only reason most of those countries recognized them is because the US did. If the US and it's major allies didn't recognize it, it wouldn't be legitimate by your standards.

No, actually it would be a joke.

Ah, apologies then.

Were they? Says who? Were you there to witness?German camera team was, and the channel's been pretty tough on the Georgians/South Ossetians crying "children in basement/church bombed by aggressors". Sure, the people claiming that it was happening were South Ossetians, but the car wrecks clearly weren't Russian military and had holes in them that you don't necessarily achieve with regular firearms. 'Sides, the Georgians are apparently willing to attack their own people and claim it was the Russians, as was probably the case with an incident a short while before this mess.

Quick question...if Bush orchestrated this war for McCain's benefit, then why were Russian troops on ready status across the Georgian border for months?

Answer: Silly conspiracy theories wackos.


And claiming that the US is using the humanitarian aid shipments to smuggle weapons into Georgia.

Smuggle? Why does a Soverign country need to smuggle anything? The US could hold a giant US weapons bake sale on the shore of every Naval port in Georgia and its perfectly legal.

Answer: Silly conspiracy theories wackos.

The answer should include hidden-from-public pact between US and Russia, calculated to bring Europe under US control by means of "good cop, bad cop" technique. Insert Illuminati, Knights Templar or Freemasons at will.

Alternatively, one can consider it a proxy war fought between X and Y, where X and Y are two of historically known secret societies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588428.stm

Whilst this thread is still alive, I thought I'd post this article. Georgia has broken off relations with Russia, not really a big deal to the Russians, given that Russia is kinda big and Georgia is kinda small.

Interesting, though, are the non-headline elements of the article.

The most interesting part being the Speaker of South Ossetia's "parliament" and the Foreign Minister of Abkhazia both saying that their regions will either be absorbed into Russia, or will likely be absorbed into Russia.

Also, interesting is the part about the Human Rights Watch finding that South Ossetians have burned several Georgian villages, and their call that the Russians should, if their concerns are human rights concerns, prosecute those involved.

The most interesting part being the Speaker of South Ossetia's "parliament" and the Foreign Minister of Abkhazia both saying that their regions will either be absorbed into Russia, or will likely be absorbed into Russia.

It's a bit more complicated than that. I've said since the beginning of this the S. Ossetians may ask to join their fellow Ossetians in Russia, but the Abkhazians are talking about joining the Union of Russia and Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Russia_and_Belarus), sort of an official "Hey, we're Russia's puppets!" club. It gives Russia the benefits of eating Abkhazia while allowing Abkhazia to continue to exist as a separate state as Russia's little Kosovo-buddy.

The most interesting part being the Speaker of South Ossetia's "parliament" and the Foreign Minister of Abkhazia both saying that their regions will either be absorbed into Russia, or will likely be absorbed into Russia.But Putin said that Russia would never do that, and Putin does not lie! :eek2:

But Putin said that Russia would never do that, and Putin does not lie! :eek2:
What did I say, Land Grab.

I hate being right sometimes.

I wonder what happened with those US destroyers?

Oh wait I just found out the made dock at Batumi because Potiwas destroyed by Russian attacks (And is still under Russian control)

There are currently 10 NATO ships in the Black Sea, and NATO is trying to bring in another.

-----
In related

Venezuela and Belarus are going to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Big surprise there.(not)
Every other tiny breakaway region supports it also, with the exception of Kosovo and a few others.

Everyone else is telling Russia to get out.

Serbia is saying "We told you this would happen".

Sweden is being VERY aggressive about this. Making insults in their speeches and saying "Russia better watch it's borders"

Heck even Iran and Israel are agreeing!

Only nations who support Russia are ones desperate to be noticed and ones who are suck ups to Russia.

Sweden is being VERY aggressive about this. Making insults in their speeches and saying "Russia better watch it's borders"

Heck even Iran and Israel are agreeing!

Only nations who support Russia are ones desperate to be noticed and ones who are suck ups to Russia.

You know the world has completely gone to hell when Isreal and Iran are playing nice, and Sweden's the one being agressive.

Lol. Can you imagine Sweden threatening Russia? Like the Russians care. They don't even share borders.

Lol. Can you imagine Sweden threatening Russia? Like the Russians care. They don't share borders.

That and theyre....Sweden. That would be like a kindergartener threatening a UFC fighter.

What did I say, Land Grab.

I hate being right sometimes.

I wonder what happened with those US destroyers?

Oh wait I just found out the made dock at Batumi because Potiwas destroyed by Russian attacks (And is still under Russian control)

There are currently 10 NATO ships in the Black Sea, and NATO is trying to bring in another.Thing is, Putin went on record yesterday saying it wasn't going to happen. We'll have to see whether his words ring true.

-----
In related

Venezuela and Belarus are going to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Big surprise there.(not)
Every other tiny breakaway region supports it also, with the exception of Kosovo and a few others.

Everyone else is telling Russia to get out.

Serbia is saying "We told you this would happen".

Sweden is being VERY aggressive about this. Making insults in their speeches and saying "Russia better watch it's borders"

Heck even Iran and Israel are agreeing!

Only nations who support Russia are ones desperate to be noticed and ones who are suck ups to Russia.Iran has problems with Kurds. They're not going to go recognizing breakaways anymore than Spain is.

And the same with Israel, because of Palestine, Golan heights, etc.

Well, looking at it fairly, pretty much the entirety of ex-USSR countries aren't really legitimate nation-states (including Russia, which never had a specific ethnicity at all). They all are a hodge-podge of various ethnicities, changing empires times and times again, until conquered by the Russian Empire, and having their borders redrawn by the Empire, then by USSR, then by its fall. Random() could produce borders just as valid.

That and theyre....Sweden. That would be like a kindergartener threatening a UFC fighter.

Sweden may not be a big country, but it has a remarkable military industry for its size. The fighter aircrafts designed and built by Saab are quite impressive.

Well, looking at it fairly, pretty much the entirety of ex-USSR countries aren't really legitimate nation-states (including Russia, which never had a specific ethnicity at all). They all are a hodge-podge of various ethnicities, changing empires times and times again, until conquered by the Russian Empire, and having their borders redrawn by the Empire, then by USSR, then by its fall. Random() could produce borders just as valid.


Wrong, the Eastern European ex-USSR countries are made up of Slavs, including Russia.

The Armenians would disagree.

By Eastern Europe I mean Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova etc. Armenia to me is one of the Caucasus countries.

Wrong, the Eastern European ex-USSR countries are made up of Slavs, including Russia.
From one point of view, they're long mixed up. From the other, this also brings a question of why they are separate, despite, which is correct, the same ethnicity.

Though, going deeper, it's a big question whether Slavs even can count as an ethnicity, since they're a mix of peoples ranging from the Northmost of Scandinavia to Asians.

From one point of view, they're long mixed up. From the other, this also brings a question of why they are separate, despite, which is correct, the same ethnicity.

Though, going deeper, it's a big question whether Slavs even can count as an ethnicity, since they're a mix of peoples ranging from the Northmost of Scandinavia to Asians.

No. Slavs are the white skinned people who live as far South as Macedonia, as far North as Northern Russia, as far West as the Czech Republic and as far East as Vladivostok. Before the massive Russian expansion, though, they were confined to Southern, Eastern and Central Europe.

No. Slavs are the white skinned people who live as far South as Macedonia, as far North as Northern Russia, as far West as the Czech Republic and as far East as Vladivostok. Before the massive Russian expansion, though, they were confined to Southern, Eastern and Central Europe.
However, Rus has been founded by Vikings, and then partially conquered by Mongols. So these "pure" Slavs are long dissolved.

This sounds as if you were going to suggest some measuring the purity of one's Aryanness, 'scuse me, Slavness, y'know.

Show me pure X.

However, Rus has been founded by Vikings, and then partially conquered by Mongols. So these "pure" Slavs are long dissolved.

Founded by. It wasn't a mass migration, and the Mongols didn't settle either.

Well, looking at it fairly, pretty much the entirety of ex-USSR countries aren't really legitimate nation-states (including Russia, which never had a specific ethnicity at all). They all are a hodge-podge of various ethnicities, changing empires times and times again, until conquered by the Russian Empire, and having their borders redrawn by the Empire, then by USSR, then by its fall. Random() could produce borders just as valid. That's a very dangerous belief right there.

Sweden may not be a big country, but it has a remarkable military industry for its size. The fighter aircrafts designed and built by Saab are quite impressive.

That and Sweden can shut down the North Sea.

That and Sweden can shut down the North Sea.
For about ten minutes, until the RAF and Royal Navy show up.

I should have been more specific. Russia has claimed that there was a systematic attempt to obliterate the residents of South Ossetia, I have seen virtually no evidence of such coming from a source that isn't Russia trying to justify itself. That, though, is largely a function of the fact that Russia had largely frozen foreign reporters out of the region until fairly late in the game.

Did the Georgian military break the rules? Probably, but the matter of scale has not been verified by Russia. Is it frustrated, retreating troops going rogue and lashing out at civilian populations, or is it a deliberate act of the Georgian government?

Der Spiegel will apparently publish a report in its Monday edition, in which officials of the OSCE claim that acts by the Georgian government, namely making elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia, contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia.

It seems that the OSCE report will also describe suspected war crimes by the Georgians, including the Georgians ordering attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians.

See also: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,575396,00.html

That and Sweden can shut down the North Sea.

No it can't. Here's a map of Sweden: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sweden.html

No it can't. Here's a map of Sweden: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sweden.html *headsmack*
Baltic Sea, my mistake.

For about ten minutes, until the RAF and Royal Navy show up.
Considering it's the Baltic and not the North like I said it was. More like Germany, Norway, and the rest of them.

But Sweden wouldn't do that anyway. Their navy mainly consists of Light naval craft, the majority of them corvettes.

Swedish Navy: 9 Corvettes, 13 Patrol boats, 187 small attack boats (Torpedo boat size), 11 minesweepers, and 5 subs.

Not a big heavy hitter. The Baltic Fleet would most likely beat them. Even if it is run by a skeleton crew.

Founded by. It wasn't a mass migration, and the Mongols didn't settle either.
Founded by, in a way. No, it was not some migration, it originally was the same nation altogether, so no need to migrate. Later there has been arising a bit of a difference between more urbanized Rus and more rural Scandinavia, with Rus conquering and assimilating a number of tribes around it. The nation has been only really split by the Mongols, which managed to conquer or align the Eastern Europe, but couldn't reach into Scandinavia. Then, after the Mongols fell, it became two separate nations. Rus and aligned tribes proceeded to *liberate* (see late WWII) old Mongol conquests, but then they weren't some alliance, so ended up as a bunch of duchies, until much later when some of them conquered others.

So all the ethnic and national unrest in the region is basically about the differences in when Vikings have conquered them, how well the nearby dukes used to fare in conquest of one another, and which duke each 'nation' has been conquered by.

So all the ethnic and national unrest in the region is basically about the differences in when Vikings have conquered them, how well the nearby dukes used to fare in conquest of one another, and which duke each 'nation' has been conquered by.And yet, Ossetian is a different language than Georgian...

Yeah, that's right. There are culturally-ethnical divisions, although many of them are late. The point was rather than speaking about "historic borders" in relations to that region would be pointless. Plus, most countries there are multinational in any case. So, pretty much everything there has to be considered from a purely pragmatic view, rather than digging into the history.

Yeah, that's right. There are culturally-ethnical divisions, although many of them are late. The point was rather than speaking about "historic borders" in relations to that region would be pointless. Plus, most countries there are multinational in any case. So, pretty much everything there has to be considered from a purely pragmatic view, rather than digging into the history.

If there are no "Historic Borders" that means there is no set lines.

You know that could be taken as justification of a nation going and "Redrawing the borders".

If there are no "Historic Borders" that means there is no set lines.

You know that could be taken as justification of a nation going and "Redrawing the borders".

Which has been happening there for the past 100 years.

Which has been happening there for the past 100 years. Or right now?

And particularly right now, of course. Over the past 20 years it's, I think... Sixth... No, at least eighth time. That is not counting the USSR split.

And particularly right now, of course. Over the past 20 years it's, I think... Sixth... No, at least eighth time. That is not counting the USSR split. And each time it causes an international incident as well as alot of civilian deaths and several nations becoming eternal enemies.

Back to the story, apparently EU sanctions will hurt us more than them, and the American aid is really guns in disguise.

EU is throwing bricks from a glass house...

Yep, because if we sanction you, you'll cut our gas off.

And each time it causes an international incident as well as alot of civilian deaths and several nations becoming eternal enemies.
Yes, that's part of the problem. Hopefully, this time troubles at least in that piece of the region will be over. It's the presence of a local superpower that keeps it from going through another bloody cycle of breakups, wars and revolutions. Its recent intervention won't remove the tensions, but should keep them from breaking out.

Yep, because if we sanction you, you'll cut our gas off.

And we couldn't have that, now could we? Mind you, I don't think that Gazprom would like to lose its Western customers. But it looks like the diplomatic dust thrown up between the Russian Federation and the European Union is already settling down again.

And we couldn't have that, now could we? Mind you, I don't think that Gazprom would like to lose its Western customers.
Central Europe doesn't really have much of a choice about where it gets its gas from, I'll be honest.

Central Europe doesn't really have much of a choice about where it gets its gas from, I'll be honest.

Plans are for Azerbaijan and Norway, with emergency port for tankers. 'Course, that bombing raid on Georgian pipelines looks like someone would like to preserve the status quo.

Plans are for Azerbaijan and Norway, with emergency port for tankers. 'Course, that bombing raid on Georgian pipelines looks like someone would like to preserve the status quo.
I'm pretty sure that the Nordstream project is going to be the main focus, certainly at least for Germany, for the next couple of decades.

I'm pretty sure that the Nordstream project is going to be the main focus, certainly at least for Germany, for the next couple of decades.

And that's why there is so much noise about "diversifying energy sources" - because now, when Russia cuts the gas off, they risk pissing off their German buddies. With Nordstream, they can potentially do it to Eastern Europe without hurting their interests elsewhere.

Yootopia, who changed the thread name and why?

Bit of a res, but Russia is now withdrawing from Poti, which is good. If only they'd leave the rest of the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7606774.stm

What was that about war crimes and ethnic cleansing, there, Russia? The fact that the Russian military is not doing anything to stop these blatant criminal acts gives clear lie to their claim to be peacekeepers. In reality, they are clearly nothing more than allied belligerents.

Yeah, that's right. There are culturally-ethnical divisions, although many of them are late.
No, they are extraordinarily ancient. The last-common-ancestor of the Georgian language and the Indo-European group would be approx 20 thousand years ago.

Yootopia, who changed the thread name and why?
A mod, because they're a total douche.

And that's why there is so much noise about "diversifying energy sources" - because now, when Russia cuts the gas off, they risk pissing off their German buddies. With Nordstream, they can potentially do it to Eastern Europe without hurting their interests elsewhere.
Exactly.

lol Georgia.

Good to see the Gerogians are finally out of South Ossetia for good.

Good to see the Gerogians are finally out of South Ossetia for good.

They'll be back, when the Russians start murdering civilians in South Ossetia, just like they do everywhere else.

Oh for fuck's sake. Is it really that much better when a government with Western backing kills civilians? And no- I really don't see how Russian atrocities would somehow magically allow the Georgian military to defeat the Russian military.

Oh for fuck's sake. Is it really that much better when a government with Western backing kills civilians? And no- I really don't see how Russian atrocities would somehow magically allow the Georgian military to defeat the Russian military.

I didn't say they would defeat, I said they'd be back after the Ossetians beg them for help once the Russians start looting and killing.

They'll be back, when the Russians start murdering civilians in South Ossetia, just like they do everywhere else.
... yeah or not...

Yeah- that'll happen. I'm sure that in the case that such highly hypothetical looting and killing will materialize, the victims will largely belong to some small pro-Georgian minority. The majority of the population will prefer to reserve such treatment for their opponents rather then suffer it themselves at the hands of the Georgian army.

They live in Eastern Europe, they're screwed anyway.

They live in Eastern Europe, they're screwed anyway.

Explain why, and "they" being...?

That being said, this wasn't so much about helping out the Ossetians, as it was a chance for Russia to test out world politics. They wanted to see how America would react, and if they could get away with it. In the end their economy plunged 45%, so although it turns out that there was no military response, in today's modern age of interdependancy, its getting more and more difficult to ignore the economic ramifications that come with waging war that pisses everybody off legitamately. This conflict clearly showed how even one of the more powerful militaries in the planet couldn't stave off the biggest counter offensive of the "war", because it was economic.

Explain why, and "they" being...?

Just that the citizens of Georgia live in Eastern Europe, and they always get caught in the power struggles of Russia and the West. The always get caught in the gears of war when either side decides to make a definitive statement. So for the future, its not a matter of if, so much as when similar events come back up to the fore.

They live in Eastern Europe, they're screwed anyway.

While that's somewhat true geographically, it's not really 'Eastern Europe' as you probably think of it in a cultural sense. Georgia is just north of Turkey.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Europe_location_GEO2.png

That being said, this wasn't so much about helping out the OssetiansOf course. And the Ossetians know this. But they seem to have chosen what they see as the lesser of the two evils.

While that's somewhat true geographically, it's not really 'Eastern Europe' as you probably think of it in a cultural sense. Georgia is just north of Turkey.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Europe_location_GEO2.png

While I conceed, that Georgia may not be culturally Eastern European, in the 1910's it was conquered by Russia, and in the 1990's released from it. And with the way events are unfolding, I wouldn't be surprised if it found itself as the backdrop for Russia Vs. West clashes. In that case its going to turn into a proxy "war". Which was at the heart of what I said with them being Eastern European. Not that I'm being prejudiced, jus that that region had a history of getting screwed by the East and the West in the last century.

Not that I'm being prejudiced, jus that that region had a history of getting screwed by the East and the West in the last century.

Change century to 3000 years and you're pretty much spot on.

that region had a history of getting screwed by the East and the West in the last century.Fair enough.

While that's somewhat true geographically, it's not really 'Eastern Europe' as you probably think of it in a cultural sense.
It's not Europe at all. It's just over the line into Asia, as they are traditionally defined.

It's not Europe at all. It's just over the line into Asia, as they are traditionally defined.

I think the North Eastern part is just in Europe.

This probably the last ever post in this thread, but I think it's the best place for it to go. The Russians are pulling out of the buffer zones by South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

This probably the last ever post in this thread, but I think it's the best place for it to go. The Russians are pulling out of the buffer zones by South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

They should of been kept up, Georgian soilders reported to drive up to the boarder of Ossetian soldiers, and try to provke to open fire.

They should of been kept up, Georgian soilders reported to drive up to the boarder of Ossetian soldiers, and try to provke to open fire.

Source please.

Source please.

Here

"South Ossetia's Acting Interior Minister, Mikhail Mindzaev, told RT: “Yesterday, immediately after the peacekeepers left, across the entire perimeter of the border the provocations resurfaced. We saw how a bunch of armed Georgians drove up to our posts, and began shouting at us and threatening us. After that, several other cars came to a place about 50 metres away from here and began provoking us to open fire. We didn't do anything and just observed them. The whole thing lasted 3 or 4 hours."

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31653

Russia Today is as biased as Fox, therefore I ignore it.

Russia Today is as biased as Fox, therefore I ignore it.

Hopefully the EU observers will look into this and report on it, however they are baised and will most likly overlook this.

Hopefully the EU observers will look into this and report on it, however they are baised and will most likly overlook this.

Yeah, probably, but Russians probably made it up so it works both ways.

Yeah, probably, but Russians probably made it up so it works both ways.

It was South Ossetia's Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzaev.

It was South Ossetia's Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzaev.

It was South Ossetia's Interior Minister by way of the Russian state news agency. Surely you can understand why that might be considered a biased source. Perhaps when a news agency without a vested interest in this conflict reports, we'll consider it. But then again, you consider anything that ISN'T Russian state news to be biased against you, so there's really no winning, is there?

It was South Ossetia's Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzaev.

Nice and impartial then. The South Ossetian government are all Russians, Russian puppets or gangsters.

Nice and impartial then. The South Ossetian government are all Russians, Russian puppets or gangsters.

They are not puppets, they are free to chose their own future and have. The kremlin dose not control them.

They are not puppets, they are free to chose their own future and have. The kremlin dose not control them.

Sure.

They should of been kept up, Georgian soilders reported to drive up to the boarder of Ossetian soldiers, and try to provke to open fire.

Those couldn't have been Georgians, since they're off like a shot at the scent of smoke...