Trouble in South Ossetia escalates

[Vympel]

There's a ton of good analysis of the situation for geopolitical neophytes on various blogs and such I've been reading - the uniform comment you'll find on those blogs, if they're of American origin - is that American media coverage is absolutely appalling, and is making no mention of the fact that the Georgians are the ones who launched the offensive.

Goliath smacks David, slingshot missing wins points for hilarious title ...

1. Russia was ready for this. They had lots of equipment in place and ready to go. And the response was swift and decisive. Saakashvili was probably counting on the fact that a) Putin is out of the country; and b) Russian officialdom tends to vacate to their dachas for the month of August, with the idea that the Russian response would be slow and disorganized. This seems profoundly stupid, given the tit-for-tat provocations over the last several weeks and the recent war games Russia conducted in the region, but Saakashvili's intelligence has so far left me unimpressed.

2. Medvedev gets to look strong and in charge. Since Putin is out of the country, Medvedev is on his own in the Security Council and in making speeches (at least to the domestic audience). A convenient little war (2nd Chechnya War) did a lot to boost Putin's popularity when he first became president. Can they be hoping that this war will do the same for Medvedev? Medvedev's popularity has been slipping, and a substantial number of poll-respondents don't think he's really in charge (a number that has gone up over the last couple months). Throw a little war presidency into the mix, though, and the situation may look a bit different.

3. If Russia did indeed lay out bait for Georgia, they must be pleasantly surprised by the results--Georgia not only took the bait, but did so in a way that makes the Russian response look like it occurred on a not totally flimsy pretext. Georgia launched an organized, planned ground assault. Russia gets to respond not on the basis of the harassment or death of a couple of civilians with Russian citizenship, but to an all-out invasion.

4. This is not going to end well for Georgia. Russia has expanded its targets beyond the vicinity of South Ossetia, hitting not only military but also economic and communications targets throughout Georgia. It is unlikely, though, that Russia intends to set up a puppet government as they did in Chechnya--the local population is far too hostile, and I doubt that they have any reliable local elites that they can turn to. More likely, we will see a clear demand for independence for both Abkhazia and South Ossetia (though I suspect that shortly after obtaining independence, S. Ossetia would petition to rejoin the motherland, which Russia would, of course, graciously grant

[The Vortex Empire]

There's a ton of good analysis of the situation for geopolitical neophytes on various blogs and such I've been reading - the uniform comment you'll find on those blogs, if they're of American origin - is that American media coverage is absolutely appalling, and is making no mention of the fact that the Georgians are the ones who launched the offensive.

Yeah, from what I've seen in the American news, you'd think that Russia invaded Georgia unprovoked.

[xerex]

It's not exactly an uncontroversial fact that South Ossetia is pretty ethnically homogenous and their desire to join with their brethren in the north is why they broke away from Georgia to begin with...

Cute, so once they get Moscow to rid them of Tiblisi then the next step will be to rid themselves of Moscow...
What was it Habsburg said? "We shall amaze the world with our ingratitude."

nah they'll merge with North Ossetia as an autonomous part of Russia.

why they think they'll be better of under Russia as opposed to Georgia I dont know.

[Coyote]

The American media-- even HuffPo-- keeps referring to Georgia as "a staunch US ally". It never seems to occur to them that Georgia may have sucked up to the US so they could hide under our skirts while they pull a fast one.

The weak friend who goes into bars and picks fights with the big thugs, expecting his big friend to back him up... this is not a good friend.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The American media-- even HuffPo-- keeps referring to Georgia as "a staunch US ally". It never seems to occur to them that Georgia may have sucked up to the US so they could hide under our skirts while they pull a fast one.

The weak friend who goes into bars and picks fights with the big thugs, expecting his big friend to back him up... this is not a good friend.

America, beyond Britain and maybe a few others, hasn't got a good track record of getting good reliable friends that don't turn out to be trouble makers in the future.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I do think any idea of the West in general and the U.S. in particular taking sides in this quarrel is fucking stupid. I think we should support a return to the status quo ante bellum with Russia hopefully at least somewhat restraining its creation of a enclave in the sovereignty of Georgia and Georgia sitting the fuck down and living with the fact that their hope of fully reclaiming South Ossetia is not going to fucking happen. The Russians have a right to retaliate, to be sure, but we should not let a hands-off approach say we're a-okay with Russia supporting Serbian aggression in the future or making a grab for the Crimea. Obviously though in this case, the Georgians played chicken and got wrecked by the 18-wheeler. Time to pay the piper.

[Axis Kast]

I had trouble finding the original article in which Georgia was said to have provoked confrontation by using the pretext of the broken ceasefire to launch a major ground invasion that opened with indiscriminate bombardment of civilian targets and mysteriously accurate attacks on Russian peacekeeper positions.

As I have been able to understand it from Yahoo! News and the BBC, the Georgians simply activated a major attempt to quash the South Ossetian seperatists, obviously aimed at reoccupying the region. This supposedly opened with a massacre of a civilian convoy, reported by the South Ossetian leadership, and included rocket and artillery fire against the South Ossetian capital, which seems logical given the nature of the conflict (counter-insurgency).

Can anyone provide sources on the Georgian "perfidy," as it were?

[Vympel]

Some in the blogosphere (wanky word, but whatever) have noted that "rhetoric has consequences" and the US mollycoddling of Georgia by the Bush administration - in particular, their reckless enthusing about Georgia being allowed to join NATO when France and Germany etc said "no fucking way" (aka being realistic) may have given Georgia's idiot president (the Democracy Sheen went off of his regime last year when he violently dispersed protesters in the capital) unrealistic expectations of American support if he attacked South Ossetia.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well, Bush being a fucking lumbering, clumsy troglodyte when it comes to foreign policy in general, and international relations in particular is no surprise. It goes without saying "Bush was a bad idea." Maybe that should be our Carthago Delenda Est.

[Siege]

If there is a need to send troops to Georgia to stabilize a cease-fire, and give some reason to make Russia pause and consider before launching another strike, is anyone in the EU really able to do this? Most of Europe doesn't even have the airlift capacity to do this-- except, as you mentioned, Britain and France, who may feel like they are shouldering the burden and risk while everyone else writes a check from their air-conditioned apartments.

There is a European framework for organizing such things: EUFOR. It seems to be working reasonably well for Bosnia, so why wouldn't it work somewhere else?

Of course I sincerely doubt there'll be many European nations willing to deploy troops to this particular theatre... There's preciously few nations who'd be willing to get in Russia's way if doing so wasn't absolutely neccesary. But that's beside the point: there's a way to organize such a deployment in Europe, so if the EU really wanted to, it could deploy peacekeepers to Georgia without much trouble.

Let's be realistic, here, Europe had to be prodded into the Balkans. For the most part, in the begining, it was just accepting refugees and waiting for the whole thing to blow over.

So Europe generally isn't too eager to get involved in a fight. It is hardly alone in that respect.

The EU could save a ton of money by standardizing everything from ships to planes to tanks to uniforms, with only the little shoulder-patch flag being different, and by using a common pool of major strategic assets (ie, airlift, sealift). Folks love to talk smack about how the EU economy pwnzorz the US economy-- by that standard, some heavy sea and airlift assets should be chump change.

Sure, there's a lot of redundancy involved in the European armies, but then Rome wasn't built in a day. Getting nations who until fairly recently were tearing at each other's throats for centuries on end to pool their military resources is, as you can probably imagine, not as easy as it may sound on paper.

Under DeGaulle it was unimaginable that French troops would be commanded by a foreigner. Then in 1989 the Franco-German Brigade was found, followed in '93 by Eurocorps. Now we've got the Headline Goal 2010 that should (at least if it works out) address some of the problems concerning lack of air- and sealift.

Yeah, so military integration is going slowly... But then again, the EU itself is only barely 15 years old. What did you expect? I don't think anyone's ever even attempted to integrate the militaries of so many nations before, so it should hardly come as a surprise that no fully integrated Grand Army of Europe has sprung up.

[fgalkin]

It's a stupid move and just presents Russia with a reward for all the intentional trouble it has stirred in the region for the past 17 years. It has consistently supported the separatists, arming them, training them, giving them other military support, intelligence and other resources and enabled them to commit attacks on Georgians. So in effect they have waged 17 years of war by proxy against Georgia until they got an excuse for a full-scale invasion.

Do you have a Georgian boyfriend? Because you're sucking a massive Gerorgian cock here.

There was no "war" for 17 years, you lying fucktard. Georgia and South Ossetia largely abided by the the 1996 ceasefire . The conflict started again in 2004 because of Saakashvili's actions. To say that Russia has somehow been waging a war with Georgia (why do we even need that shithole? The only good thing that came out of it was Borjomi mineral water) is ludicrous. Georgia is not Ukraine.

What I do know that if we bombed Helsinki you'd be screaming bloody murder. Yet, killing 2000 Russian citizens is perfectly fine.

The more Russian soldiers die in this, the better. It's a foregone conclusion what happens to Georgians and South Ossetians, military and civilian alike.

And I hope that your Muslims rise up and slaughter every last Finn, starting with your own family, and use their skulls as urinals. Because mindless ethnic hatred is fun.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[K. A. Pital]

I'm curious to ask people who think Russia orchestrated a conflict with Georgia - what is the gain from such a conflict? Which resources does Georgia have? South Ossetia? Shit-poor nations who managed to collectively ruin even their centralized electricity supply system which was inherited from Soviet days?

You are saying Russia has "gain" from the war? But what is it?

[ray245]

There's a ton of good analysis of the situation for geopolitical neophytes on various blogs and such I've been reading - the uniform comment you'll find on those blogs, if they're of American origin - is that American media coverage is absolutely appalling, and is making no mention of the fact that the Georgians are the ones who launched the offensive.

Yeah, from what I've seen in the American news, you'd think that Russia invaded Georgia unprovoked.

Yeah...free and unbiased media my ass...just because a media is more open in attacking some of the government policies does not mean they are not bias in reporting about the world news.


Too bad I have seen tons of idiots who support the US without thinking twice.

[Mobius]

I'm curious to ask people who think Russia orchestrated a conflict with Georgia - what is the gain from such a conflict? Which resources does Georgia have? South Ossetia? Shit-poor nations who managed to collectively ruin even their centralized electricity supply system which was inherited from Soviet days?

You are saying Russia has "gain" from the war? But what is it?

Destroy pipelines to make sure that west is dependant of Russia for Gas and Oil supplies?

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm curious to ask people who think Russia orchestrated a conflict with Georgia - what is the gain from such a conflict? Which resources does Georgia have? South Ossetia? Shit-poor nations who managed to collectively ruin even their centralized electricity supply system which was inherited from Soviet days?

You are saying Russia has "gain" from the war? But what is it?

For that matter, what does Russia have to gain from trying to hang on to their control over South Ossetia? Obviously, peacekeepers are one thing, but then you went and gave a lot of the South Ossetians Russian passports and the like - why?

[fgalkin]

I'm curious to ask people who think Russia orchestrated a conflict with Georgia - what is the gain from such a conflict? Which resources does Georgia have? South Ossetia? Shit-poor nations who managed to collectively ruin even their centralized electricity supply system which was inherited from Soviet days?

You are saying Russia has "gain" from the war? But what is it?

For that matter, what does Russia have to gain from trying to hang on to their control over South Ossetia? Obviously, peacekeepers are one thing, but then you went and gave a lot of the South Ossetians Russian passports and the like - why?

Because all their friends and relatives live just up north in North Ossetia, and you'd need a visa to visit them otherwise?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[xerex]

Destroy pipelines to make sure that west is dependant of Russia for Gas and Oil supplies?

but cant pipelines be rebuilt ?

I doubt Russia intends to annex more than S Ossetia and Abkazia and it looks like that pipeline runs through Georgia proper.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Pipelines can be rebuilt, but that takes time and money and if the land it has to go through is in the hands of those putting a squeeze on you, then you're shit out of luck.

EDIT: Stratfor article.

[Edi]

What evidence do you have that South Ossetia was waging a war by proxy on behalf of Russia against Georgia? It's not exactly an uncontroversial fact that South Ossetia is pretty ethnically homogenous and their desire to join with their brethren in the north is why they broke away from Georgia to begin with - for 17 years, the region has been largely quiet, now you think the Russians directed them to attack territories which have nothing to do with them, and never have? Come off it. The Georgians provoked this conflict, not the South Ossetians, and not the Russians. They could've let sleeping dogs lie. They've made their bed, now they get to lie in it.

Helsingin Sanomat, which is the largest newspaper in Finland, is good enough for me. They've written about this incident and interviewed experts on Russia and Caucasus and followed various things in Russia as a matter of course, so I'm inclined to trust them. Especially since if they do write bullshit, we have efficient mechanisms of correcting that.

The presence of Russian military personnel in South Ossetia training the separatists and supplying them with arms is a proven fact and has been for a good while. We'll see where this goes, but simply blaming only the Georgians is fucking stupid. Especially with Russia's history in similar situations in the past.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As far as I'm concerned, this whole mess has been orchestrated by the Russian government for their own gain, so I really do not give a flying fuck how many of their soldiers die, conscripted troops or not. The responsibility for that lies squarely at the Kremlin. It is Russian policy at every border they have to constantly engage in provocation and to use all manner of underhanded measures to do harm, economic or otherwise so that Russians can benefit and the other side ground under their heel as much as possible. So if they get blowback every once in a while, it is completely to be expected that those who have been the target of said Russian policies are going to wish them every ill outcome possible.

Some in this thread have lamented the Russophobia of eastern Europe and talked about how that should be lessened, but the facts of the matter are that Russia is doing practically everything it can to inflame resentment and confirm every bad impression of Russia there is. Let them reap the consequences of that, namely general ill will. It's not going to change anything on the ground there in this instance. The attitude of Russians themselves is not improving things with their neighbors. That country is so nationalistic, or one should say jingoistic, that there is often simply no way to even talk with them on any constructive level. My uncle's wife is Russian and they are barely on speaking terms with my parents because she is such a rabid pro-Russian jingoist who will find any excuse to rationalize and support utterly unethical actions on the Russian side. Russia can do no wrong, no matter what, and everything to the contrary is simply lies invented by the Western media. And if someone in Russia says anything against the current government or its actions, why, they are practically traitors. Her attitude is by no means uncommon.

And to find that same attitude echoed here in your posts and those of some others, fuck that. If you get to spew that tripe, DO NOT lecture me when similar things get thrown on your face.

Oh, I don't dispute that the country has been violent in the past and fucked up severely. Particularly the whole communism thing--the reason I exist, the reason my family moved to Europe and then America, and the reason most of my relatives are all dead. I'll also admit to being raised with a deep and abiding love for the Russian Empire inoculated in the usual ways by exile families--my grandfather fought with Wrangel, after all, so that's unavoidable (I am, of course, ethnically German, but we were upper-class in Russia at the time so it didn't matter back then). For all that I dislike my family I still feel every cultural impulse that Fima would toward Russia--the land and its customs, I do love.

But then again, you're also being blinded by the Finnish hatred for the Soviets, and to some extent through the Tsarist days (though you didn't revolt when when we ran things, did you?). Russians are people, too, and, really, even the most moral government in the world would be forced to use force to stop indescriminate shelling of a city filled with its citizens, near its border.

Frankly I think the ideal end to this solution would be for Russia to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia and then cast off Georgia. Who needs them, anyway? The Georgians can, after losing those regions, join NATO with wild abandon and enter the EU process. And why not? I'd propose offering that to them as a quid-pro-quo, even; the Russians get the breakaway territories without dispute, Georgia enters a European orbit. I'd suggest the same offer for Ukrainian membership, let the Donetsk and the Crimean vote on association with Russia, guarantee a peaceful transfer, and then let the pro-western part of the Ukraine join NATO and the EU.

No, the problem here is that the Western world has Victory Disease, and doesn't want to compromise with Russia.

[fgalkin]

What evidence do you have that South Ossetia was waging a war by proxy on behalf of Russia against Georgia? It's not exactly an uncontroversial fact that South Ossetia is pretty ethnically homogenous and their desire to join with their brethren in the north is why they broke away from Georgia to begin with - for 17 years, the region has been largely quiet, now you think the Russians directed them to attack territories which have nothing to do with them, and never have? Come off it. The Georgians provoked this conflict, not the South Ossetians, and not the Russians. They could've let sleeping dogs lie. They've made their bed, now they get to lie in it.

Helsingin Sanomat, which is the largest newspaper in Finland, is good enough for me. They've written about this incident and interviewed experts on Russia and Caucasus and followed various things in Russia as a matter of course, so I'm inclined to trust them. Especially since if they do write bullshit, we have efficient mechanisms of correcting that.

.

Considering that they have this photo on their front page, I'd say they're as biased as CNN, which claims Russia has launched an unprovoked invasion, if not moreso.

P.S. The photo is credited to a "DAVID MDZINARISHVILI / REUTERS" You'd think they would know better to trust local photographers after the Burning Beirut fiasco, but apparently, they never learn.

In this case, they put up pictures like this one, of running villagers, with captions like "Georgian villagers leave their houses near the city of Tskhinvali, about 100 km (62 miles) from Tbilisi, August 8, 2008. "

That's right, folks. These are GEORGIAN villagers. Fleeing from Tskhinvali.
Never mind that I've seen that very pic stating that they are Ossetians. Which is more likely?

You can look and weep at the Georgian propaganda here.

P.P.S. Incidentally, Georgia has accused the Russian mass media of carrying out "information warfare" and has cut off the broadcast of all Russian channels in Georgia, as well as blocking all .ru internet domains.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Norseman]

If Georgia loses South Ossetia and Abkhazia they lose the protection of the mountains surrounding Georgia. With those two provinces Russia could really increase the pressure on Georgia, and the odds of them being let into NATO at this point is... slim. So yeah Georgia will be hurting for this.

[CJvR]

And I hope that your Muslims rise up and slaughter every last Finn, starting with your own family, and use their skulls as urinals. Because mindless ethnic hatred is fun.

The Finns have been smart enough not to let any in...

[fgalkin]

And I hope that your Muslims rise up and slaughter every last Finn, starting with your own family, and use their skulls as urinals. Because mindless ethnic hatred is fun.

The Finns have been smart enough not to let any in...

Not according to this.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Edi]

What evidence do you have that South Ossetia was waging a war by proxy on behalf of Russia against Georgia? It's not exactly an uncontroversial fact that South Ossetia is pretty ethnically homogenous and their desire to join with their brethren in the north is why they broke away from Georgia to begin with - for 17 years, the region has been largely quiet, now you think the Russians directed them to attack territories which have nothing to do with them, and never have? Come off it. The Georgians provoked this conflict, not the South Ossetians, and not the Russians. They could've let sleeping dogs lie. They've made their bed, now they get to lie in it.

Helsingin Sanomat, which is the largest newspaper in Finland, is good enough for me. They've written about this incident and interviewed experts on Russia and Caucasus and followed various things in Russia as a matter of course, so I'm inclined to trust them. Especially since if they do write bullshit, we have efficient mechanisms of correcting that.

.

Considering that they have this photo on their front page, I'd say they're as biased as CNN, which claims Russia has launched an unprovoked invasion, if not moreso.

The headline on that page says: "Russian Ambassador: At least 2000 Dead in Fighting". Nothing about an unprovoked Russian attack. The article behind the link is remarkably neutral in tone and reports what the Russians are saying, what the Gerogians are saying and what foreign correspondents have observed as fact (e.g. North Ossetians and Abkhaz fighters moving to reinforce Russians). It is not calling things this way or that.

P.S. The photo is credited to a "DAVID MDZINARISHVILI / REUTERS" You'd think they would know better to trust local photographers after the Burning Beirut fiasco, but apparently, they never learn.

The caption says it is of an injured Georgian woman near Gori and it's relevant o the conflict. What of it?

In this case, they put up pictures like this one, of running villagers, with captions like "Georgian villagers leave their houses near the city of Tskhinvali, about 100 km (62 miles) from Tbilisi, August 8, 2008. "

That's right, folks. These are GEORGIAN villagers. Fleeing from Tskhinvali.
Never mind that I've seen that very pic stating that they are Ossetians. Which is more likely?

Since when were South Ossetians not citizens of Georgia, as the state claims the territory as its own and the population as its citzens? Where's the factual inaccuracy? Or must all reporting from the region make a specific distinction between them?

You can look and weep at the Georgian propaganda here.

P.P.S. Incidentally, Georgia has accused the Russian mass media of carrying out "information warfare" and has cut off the broadcast of all Russian channels in Georgia, as well as blocking all .ru internet domains.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Anyone who fails to recognize that both sides are engaging in information warfare is simply stupid. Just now on the evening news we had a report from Moscow, on how things are being presented there, as well as how things are presented in Tbilisi. Among other things, Shaakasvili has now called for a ceasefire, but there has been no mention of it in e.g. Russian internet news services, which are claiming Georgia has no interest in ceasefire.

According to our media, the situation is currently unknown and exact numbers of dead will be reliable once there is time to verify things when the situation calms down on the ground.