Saakashvili blows up memorial for his birthday; 2 people die

[K. A. Pital]

Nice selective quoting, Stas. I suppose the Treaty of Moscow, like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, doesn't exist for Mother Russia

Comparing the Treaty of Moscow to the Soviet-German pact is an illustration of how in your head two severely different items come to be in one category. That is just ... strange. Moreover, like I said, a plethora of conflicts with "recognized" governments happened in that era. How are any of them different than any other faction? The Trans-Caucasian Commisariate which was a nationalist-military junta, hardly qualifies as in any way more legitimate than any other construct of the same era, including the Bolshevik governments themselves which were a long way from victory.

I guess Finland was also an "illegitimate White government" and the Winter War was just a belated theater of the Civil War, too?

The Civil War ended several decades ago, and in Finland Whites utterly crushed the Reds thereby setting up a legitimate government. What is unclear? The wars in the territories of the former Russian Empire of 1917-1922 collectively fall under the Civil War that went inside the entire nation. Government constructs created by various organs, each claiming itself as legitimate, had no legitimacy until they solidified power for many years. Of course, that is my position, you may have another one. In my view, a state is not automatically legitimate as soon as a government is proclaimed. Self-proclaimed governments, even with recognition, often are little more than artificial constructs propped by foreign powers (see today's Abkhazia and Ossetia, for example). How is that different from nationalist Georgia, which was propped by the Entente and it's government upheld by dozens of thousands of Entente soldiers?

Like the Russian government has done in the past an old Soviet war monument was demolished to make way for a new construction site. Your outrage is hypocritical

Evidence of said destruction (not relocation)? And why, praytell, does it make my outrage "hypocritical" - am I the Russian government? In case you didn't know, I loathe the modern Russian government all the same as I do all other corrupt oligarchic governments in the post-Soviet space. Perhaps even more, for I have to daily deal with it's ugliness.

The Democratic Republic of Georgia was set up by a nationalist government that was neither Red nor White and enjoyed a wide degree of international recognition

It was repeatedly a place filled with foreign soldiers (German, British and finally French), so I'm kinda all ears as to what "wide international recognition" are we speaking about - the "recognition" in the form of foreign soldiers tramping Georgian land for the sake of fighting the RSFSR or Turkey? That hardly strikes me as much respect - the nationalist government was supported by the Entente forces as an opposition to it's foes in the Caucasus.

...also of course you've presented no evidence whatsoever that Saakashvili was personally responsible for the decision to destroy the monument, much less for the details of the demolition, in case we forget that

Like I said - if you do not have an understanding of how politics work in a corrupt state, do not brave this ignorance. Do you really think the local government just decided to do it for the fun of it right, all by itself and fully of their own iniative on the eve of Saakashvili's birthday? Do not be naive. I see "local government" putting up Putin posters and restoring churches out of state budget - apparently this is a local initiative, but how much trust do I have for that? Absolutely zero, because I know how politics work here, in the post-Soviet space.

Of course, you have yet to explain how Saakashvili remains not implicated if the Georgian Parliament accepted the new place of it's seat in Kutaisi at the location of the monument, and Saakahsvili was the initiator of the government's relocation to Kutaisi?

[MarshalPurnell]

Nice selective quoting, Stas. I suppose the Treaty of Moscow, like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, doesn't exist for Mother Russia

Comparing the Treaty of Moscow to the Soviet-German pact is an illustration of how in your head two severely different items come to be in one category. That is just ... strange. Moreover, like I said, a plethora of conflicts with "recognized" governments happened in that era. How are any of them different than any other faction? The Trans-Caucasian Commisariate which was a nationalist-military junta, hardly qualifies as in any way more legitimate than any other construct of the same era, including the Bolshevik governments themselves which were a long way from victory.

I supplied the context right there, as a diplomatic engagement embarrassing to Russia. The RSFSR signed a binding treaty recognizing the independence and sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. That is the sine qua non of international legitimacy, the recognition of one state by another. The Russian state then tore up that treaty and invaded Georgia the next year, imposing a government by force that later requested admission into the USSR, which is more or less what the Soviet Union later did with the Baltic states and would try to do with Finland - right down to staging border incidents and proclaiming a nonexistent civil uprising before setting up a puppet government to invite them in.

Also of course the Transcaucasian Federation was the remnant of the Provisional Government in the Caucasus region, supported by the local Soviets. Georgia declared independence from it in May 1918, under a government dominated by the Mensheviks. In no way except delusional Soviet propaganda can it be called "nationalist military junta" or part of the White movement. It experienced no serious military threats after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, until the RSFSR invasion in February 1921, overall enjoying nearly three years of relative stability, with the last British troops removed in 1920. It had as much claim to being independent and legitimate as Finland did, save for the ability to stave off an overwhelming foreign invasion. Of course, "you aren't legitimate because you can't fight off your largest neighbor" is no standard recognized by international law; and since the RSFSR was run by the same people who put together the USSR, it can surely be said that Georgia entered the USSR only by force, which can also be said of the Baltic states.

I guess Finland was also an "illegitimate White government" and the Winter War was just a belated theater of the Civil War, too?

The Civil War ended several decades ago, and in Finland Whites utterly crushed the Reds thereby setting up a legitimate government. What is unclear? The wars in the territories of the former Russian Empire of 1917-1922 collectively fall under the Civil War that went inside the entire nation. Government constructs created by various organs, each claiming itself as legitimate, had no legitimacy until they solidified power for many years. Of course, that is my position, you may have another one. In my view, a state is not automatically legitimate as soon as a government is proclaimed. Self-proclaimed governments, even with recognition, often are little more than artificial constructs propped by foreign powers (see today's Abkhazia and Ossetia, for example). How is that different from nationalist Georgia, which was propped by the Entente and it's government upheld by dozens of thousands of Entente soldiers?

The Russian state itself recognized Georgia as a legitimate and independent country. It then turned around and invaded it. That is my position. Georgia was no threat to the RSFSR, there were no Entente troops in Georgia at the time, and the excuse the Russians gave for invading it was manufactured. Georgia had maintained an independent existence for quite some time, and enjoyed recognition by the major Entente powers, most of Eastern Europe, Germany, Turkey, Japan, as well as, again, the RSFSR. The only difference between it and Finland or the Baltic States was that the RSFSR conquered it in that arbitrary period of time you proclaim the "Civil War." So naked aggression and violation of solemn international treaties only became wrong in 1922?

In any case, I have no doubt most Georgians do not take such a blase view of the Russian state demolishing their independence.

Like the Russian government has done in the past an old Soviet war monument was demolished to make way for a new construction site. Your outrage is hypocritical

Evidence of said destruction (not relocation)? And why, praytell, does it make my outrage "hypocritical" - am I the Russian government? In case you didn't know, I loathe the modern Russian government all the same as I do all other corrupt oligarchic governments in the post-Soviet space. Perhaps even more, for I have to daily deal with it's ugliness.

That's what the European Parliamentary Association had to say on the matter. It's there in the link I posted. It's a secondary source but from a credible international organization. If you have reason to believe they are lying then you can look up primary sources since I obviously do not have Russian language skills.

The Democratic Republic of Georgia was set up by a nationalist government that was neither Red nor White and enjoyed a wide degree of international recognition

It was repeatedly a place filled with foreign soldiers (German, British and finally French), so I'm kinda all ears as to what "wide international recognition" are we speaking about - the "recognition" in the form of foreign soldiers tramping Georgian land for the sake of fighting the RSFSR or Turkey? That hardly strikes me as much respect - the nationalist government was supported by the Entente forces as an opposition to it's foes in the Caucasus.

Frankly Transcaucasia needed British forces to try and stem the Ottoman advance through November 1918. After the Army of Islam was driven out there was little fighting in Georgia proper, and all Entente troops were out of Georgia by 1920. And the government was in fact Menshevik rather than "nationalist" in the sense you mean to imply. It was drawn into the civil war by the RSFSR invading it after having signed a treaty with the Georgians recognizing their independence - a delaying tactic only so they could deal with more pressing enemies, undoubtedly. But since the same people who ruled the RSFSR later ruled the USSR, what does that say about the early leadership of the Soviet Union?

...also of course you've presented no evidence whatsoever that Saakashvili was personally responsible for the decision to destroy the monument, much less for the details of the demolition, in case we forget that

Like I said - if you do not have an understanding of how politics work in a corrupt state, do not brave this ignorance. Do you really think the local government just decided to do it for the fun of it right, all by itself and fully of their own iniative on the eve of Saakashvili's birthday? Do not be naive. I see "local government" putting up Putin posters and restoring churches out of state budget - apparently this is a local initiative, but how much trust do I have for that? Absolutely zero, because I know how politics work here, in the post-Soviet space.

Of course, you have yet to explain how Saakashvili remains not implicated if the Georgian Parliament accepted the new place of it's seat in Kutaisi at the location of the monument, and Saakahsvili was the initiator of the government's relocation to Kutaisi?

You implied that Saakashvili personally ordered this demolition as a spiteful anti-Russian act. There was evidently a process involving the legislature approving the location of the new Parliament, and the municipal authorities handing out a contract to carry through the demolition. No doubt if Saakashvili were highly opposed to dynamiting the monument it would not have gone forward. But there were plenty of other people involved in the decision to demolish the monument, and I have no doubt the exact details were handled well below the office of the President. Your caricature of Saakashvili sitting in his office and rubbing his hands while plotting out how to insult Russia more ignores the Georgian legislature and the bureaucracy that actually handles matters like this.

[K. A. Pital]

The Russian state then tore up that treaty and invaded Georgia the next year

Unilateral invasions must have been rare. Or maybe they were order of the day.

...which is more or less what the Soviet Union later did with the Baltic states and would try to do with Finland - right down to staging border incidents and proclaiming a nonexistent civil uprising before setting up a puppet government to invite them in

I wouldn't say the "uprisings" - both pro and anti-bolshevik were nonexistent. Georgia and the Entente supported anti-Bolshevik uprisings in RSFSR territory, the RSFSR staged the same in Georgian territory. The fact that an uprising is crushed does not make it "nonexistent" - that is especially funny vis-a-vis Finland that fought it's own full civil war.

Also of course the Transcaucasian Federation was the remnant of the Provisional Government in the Caucasus region ... Georgia declared independence from it in May 1918, under a government dominated by the Mensheviks.

The Commisariate - I hardly understand how could you translate "commisariate" as "Federation". And of course Georgia declared independence - it was a proclaimed government, after all.

It experienced no serious military threats after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, until the RSFSR invasion in February 1921, overall enjoying nearly three years of relative stability

It was, though, not recognized by a single state prior to the RSFSR recognition in May 1920.

Of course, "you aren't legitimate because you can't fight off your largest neighbor" is no standard recognized by international law

The international law has something to say about the legitimacy of governments arising from a national desintegration? Why then Kosovo, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Chechnya, Karabach, Montenegro, etc. posed such legal problems?

So naked aggression and violation of solemn international treaties only became wrong in 1922?

Violation and denouncing of international treaties has been the business of everyone and his dog until the mid-XX century. And this partly continues until now. That does not make it right, but there has to be a stronger argument towards the legitimacy of a state construct.

The only difference between it and Finland or the Baltic States was that the RSFSR conquered it in that arbitrary period of time you proclaim the "Civil War."

That period of time is hardly "arbitrary".

But since the same people who ruled the RSFSR later ruled the USSR, what does that say about the early leadership of the Soviet Union?

That it took over a Russian Empire territory with an existing government by force, sure - note that I do not mean to deny it. However, forcible supression of proclaimed governments during the Civil War is distinct from basically invading solidified governments two decades later, nes pa?

But there were plenty of other people involved in the decision to demolish the monument, and I have no doubt the exact details were handled well below the office of the President.

Such detail as the destruction of memorial could not have escaped his view; and it is quite evident it's destruction was meant to appease him, otherwise the hasty set "before birthday" deadline cannot be explained, especially as such haste led to inadequate security and thus (by now) three human deaths.

[Axis Kast]

It was, though, not recognized by a single state prior to the RSFSR recognition in May 1920.

Incorrect. Georgia obtained instant recognition from German and the Ottoman Empire. In June 1918, the Democratic Republic of Georgia was already in diplomatic negotiations with the Ottomans over the disposition of specific Muslim majority regions located between them. It was one of the signatories of the Treaty of Batum on June 4, 1918. As has been pointed out, an exchange of signatures on such documents is the stuff of formal recognition.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh, then my memory failed me *hides face in shame, goes reading*

Purnell can consider his points on Georgian Democratic Republic and it's legal acceptance conceded - it's not like I would contest the facts themselves, and my view of them is obviously biased in favor of the RSFSR and thus hardly of interest to anyone but myself.