Trouble in South Ossetia escalates

[Darth Wong]

Is there a reason why the West has suddenly forgotten that Georgia started this in the first place? Its like we purposely want Russia to be the bad guy. And one wonders why the Russians act paranoid at times.

They did nothing untowards, though, as it was their sovereign soil they fired upon.

"Sovereign" in what sense? They were not governing it, and South Ossetia had been operating under its own independent government for roughly as long as Georgia has.

The Russian reaction is not "understandable", but blatant power playing, so I find it quite agreeable that people at least pretend to be concerned.

All international politics is "power playing". That's a completely meaningless accusation.

This idea that Georgia is a legitimate sovereign state while South Ossetia is not ... it seems to come from the longstanding conceit that it is the "Great European Powers" which decide where a nation's borders are. If it's recognized by them, then it's a real nation. If not, then it's not a real nation.

[Karrick]

Has anyone heard about Russia (or any other nation) calling Bush and McCain on their idiotic "nations don't invade other nations in the 21st century" crap? I cringe every time I hear those quotes repeated and it seems like an obvious way to discredit the U.S. government on the matter.

[Darth Hoth]

"Sovereign" in what sense? They were not governing it, and South Ossetia had been operating under its own independent government for roughly as long as Georgia has.

As in part of their country within its internationally recognised borders.

All international politics is "power playing". That's a completely meaningless accusation.

The focus on "blatant"; what I meant to say was that the invasion is a coldly calculated move against the Georgian state, not an "understandable reaction to Western Imperialism" or a "humanitarian action to protect the Ossetian people from genocide" or some similar tripe.

This idea that Georgia is a legitimate sovereign state while South Ossetia is not ... it seems to come from the longstanding conceit that it is the "Great European Powers" which decide where a nation's borders are. If it's recognized by them, then it's a real nation. If not, then it's not a real nation.

Legitimacy as a state is entirely dependant on recognition in any meaningful general definition. If one goes by ethnicity, claims of self-governance or other criteria to determine such, the definition becomes ambiguous and subjective enough to lose all meaning as a tool of communication.

[Darth Wong]

"Sovereign" in what sense? They were not governing it, and South Ossetia had been operating under its own independent government for roughly as long as Georgia has.

As in part of their country within its internationally recognised borders.

Exactly. Europe decides, since the rest of the world couldn't care less one way or another. Welcome back to the 19th century.

All international politics is "power playing". That's a completely meaningless accusation.

The focus on "blatant"; what I meant to say was that the invasion is a coldly calculated move against the Georgian state, not an "understandable reaction to Western Imperialism" or a "humanitarian action to protect the Ossetian people from genocide" or some similar tripe.

Still an absolutely absurd charge for the United States to be making, given its own contempt for international law.

This idea that Georgia is a legitimate sovereign state while South Ossetia is not ... it seems to come from the longstanding conceit that it is the "Great European Powers" which decide where a nation's borders are. If it's recognized by them, then it's a real nation. If not, then it's not a real nation.

Legitimacy as a state is entirely dependant on recognition in any meaningful general definition. If one goes by ethnicity, claims of self-governance or other criteria to determine such, the definition becomes ambiguous and subjective enough to lose all meaning as a tool of communication.

Not "claims" of self-governance: a traceable record of actual functioning self-governance. How the fuck is that "subjective"? Do you even know what the word "subjective" means?

[Adrian Laguna]

In simple black and white: The South Ossetians govern themselves independent of any other State, that means they are sovereign, recognition is irrelevant.

[Darth Hoth]

Exactly. Europe decides, since the rest of the world couldn't care less one way or another. Welcome back to the 19th century.

So what alternative do you propose? Rule by the strong? The freedom of Great Powers to "revise" their smaller neighbours' borders at will?

Still an absolutely absurd charge for the United States to be making, given its own contempt for international law.

Am I the US? Fire Fly referred to "the West", which typically includes Europe, most of which does not flaunt international law at will.

Not "claims" of self-governance: a traceable record of actual functioning self-governance. How the fuck is that "subjective"? Do you even know what the word "subjective" means?

I question how "functional" a state with all of 70,000 inhabitants can be without massive natural wealth (which I do not remember South Ossetia having) or severely artificial circumstances. What kind of economy can it maintain on that basis? For how many days would it function without Russia propping it up?

[Stargate Nerd]

I question how "functional" a state with all of 70,000 inhabitants can be without massive natural wealth (which I do not remember South Ossetia having) or severely artificial circumstances. What kind of economy can it maintain on that basis? For how many days would it function without Russia propping it up?

I thought the South Ossetians want to be part of Russia rather than have their own wholly independent state.

[Siege]

I doubt the South Ossetians are gunning for an autarky. It's perfectly feasible for small states to exist and even prosper, as long as they maintain some cordial ties with their neighbors. There's plenty of small states the world over that have demonstrated this. As long as the South Ossetians and Abkhazis remain as buddy-buddy with Russia as they seem to be now, they should be able to do well enough.

[Glocksman]

I usually don't watch Fox, but I was flipping channels and there was some kind of panel discussion over Georgia going on, so I stopped to hear it.

One commentator was seriously arguing that the US and Europe need to make Russia 'feel the pain' by imposing a total economic boycott, despite the damage it'd do to our economy.

Though one of the others was quick to point out that since the Europeans get 40% of the gas from Russia, they probably won't be too eager to freeze in the dark, and that such an embargo would totally wreck the US economy when oil prices spike up.

And the guy basically said it'd be worth it.

[Ender]

They did nothing untowards, though, as it was their sovereign soil they fired upon. The Russian reaction is not "understandable", but blatant power playing, so I find it quite agreeable that people at least pretend to be concerned.

Nothing untoward about deliberately targeting civilians and wiping 1500 of them off the map? 2-4-6-8 who do we appreciate? ETHNIC CLEANSING! YEAH!

[Darth Hoth]

Nothing untoward about deliberately targeting civilians and wiping 1500 of them off the map? 2-4-6-8 who do we appreciate? ETHNIC CLEANSING! YEAH!

Has that number been corroborated by non-Russian sources yet? Nothing such turns up in Swedish media.

[Ender]

Has that number been corroborated by non-Russian sources yet? Nothing such turns up in Swedish media.

Russia states 2,000+, South Ossetian government and Human Rights Watch list 1,400

[Edi]

Nothing untoward about deliberately targeting civilians and wiping 1500 of them off the map? 2-4-6-8 who do we appreciate? ETHNIC CLEANSING! YEAH!

Has that number been corroborated by non-Russian sources yet? Nothing such turns up in Swedish media.

The numbers on both sides are still uncorroborated and at one point the Russians were saying there weren't so many civilian casualties. Their numbers have changed as many times as Saakashvili's fairy tales.

It's a case of both sides being assholes, now it's the Russians and Ossetians ethnically cleansing SO of ethnic Georgians, so no matter who comes out on top, shit will happen.

[Adrian Laguna]

Burnt tanks, blasted vehicles, and battle scarred villages! Also, dead people and bloody wounds.

http://exiledonline.com/photo-essay-rus ... h-ossetia/

[K. A. Pital]

Their numbers have changed as many times as Saakashvili's fairy tales.

We didn't have any numbers of our own, and the numbers that S.Ossetia reported were and remain ~1600. Early reports claimed around 2000.

When a 30,000 city is shelled and then lost to enemy troops, that's a reasonable margin of error.

However, Georgia claimed to lose 175 people overall (civilian + military). It's not hard to see who really is the culprit here.

Georgia was soundly defeated here, but it seems to me that the real purpose of Saakashvili's pathetic "blitzkrieg" was to play the victim card (1) and (2) hasten America's strategic alliance goals in E.Europe - like the Polish question of ABM systems.

[Axis Kast]

Not "claims" of self-governance: a traceable record of actual functioning self-governance. How the fuck is that "subjective"? Do you even know what the word "subjective" means?

A variety of rebellions have boasted a traceable record of actual functioning self-governance.

The Confederate States of America comes instantly to mind. Do you, like Marina, believe that it was wrong for the Union to attempt to keep them in the fold?

South Lebanon exercised temporary self-governance during the period of Israeli occupation.

South Vietnam exercised functioning self-governance despite American intervention to make it so.

[K. A. Pital]

A variety of rebellions have boasted a traceable record of actual functioning self-governance.

Like 15 years of peaceful self-governance? Not in times of war?

[Darth Wong]

Not "claims" of self-governance: a traceable record of actual functioning self-governance. How the fuck is that "subjective"? Do you even know what the word "subjective" means?

A variety of rebellions have boasted a traceable record of actual functioning self-governance.

How is this relevant to my argument that "recognition" is no more of a valid criterion for statehood than self-government? Do you think that my argument was an attempt to say that every rebellion in history was right? Is that honestly what you read into the text?

[Axis Kast]

Like 15 years of peaceful self-governance? Not in times of war?

Both sides continued to antagonize one another, stemming from Georgia's inability to make its will done.

Saakashvili's decision represents only a much heavier reaction than most people expected, but there was already skirmishing, on and off.

[Axis Kast]

How is this relevant to my argument that "recognition" is no more of a valid criterion for statehood than self-government? Do you think that my argument was an attempt to say that every rebellion in history was right? Is that honestly what you read into the text?

The criteria of de-facto independence is worse than international recognition.

De-facto independence, defined strictly as self-government, means absolute statehood for any group that holds an election in an area where its followers are a majority.

[Darth Wong]

Like 15 years of peaceful self-governance? Not in times of war?

Both sides continued to antagonize one another, stemming from Georgia's inability to make its will done.

Saakashvili's decision represents only a much heavier reaction than most people expected, but there was already skirmishing, on and off.

Again, you seem to think that my argument was some kind of declaration that rebellions are always morally superior. I never said that; the slave-owner rebellion you spoke of previously was not right by any means; it was an attempt to protect an institution which itself was in massive violation of human rights on a widespread scale.

I was simply pointing out that "recognition" is no more valid than self-government, as a criterion for recognizing statehood. In fact, "recognition" is arguably more subjective, as it is literally based on the opinions of certain national leaders.

[Darth Wong]

The criteria of de-facto independence is worse than international recognition.

Why?

De-facto independence, defined strictly as self-government, means absolute statehood for any group that holds an election in an area where its followers are a majority.

Why is that any more outrageous than squatters' rights, where someone who occupies a territory for long enough will become its owner? That's the principle upon which America is considered to own the land it stole from the Natives, isn't it?

Similarly, if a region is allowed to self-govern for more than a decade, why shouldn't that be considered de facto statehood? If some region decides to hold an election and declare itself independent, its host nation has a simple remedy: attack that region and stamp out the independence movement. Letting it sit for more than a decade while stubbornly declaring that it's still part of your country (especially if your own country isn't much older than that) is a joke.

[K. A. Pital]

Saakashvili's decision represents only a much heavier reaction than most people expected, but there was already skirmishing, on and off.

That's why the peacekeepers were there in the first place, because Georgians and S.Ossetians antagonized each other.

The criteria of de-facto independence is worse than international recognition.

Bullcrap. If Kosovo didn't have any self-governing mechanisms, how much would it's "international recognition" mean. How much did the recognition of Taiwan and non-recognition of PRC mean? It meant nothing.

[Axis Kast]

Again, you seem to think that my argument was some kind of declaration that rebellions are always morally superior.

What was your argument? All you have done is to cast aspersion on the standard and accepted definition of statehood.

Do you accept the moral superiority of certain rebellions over others as the qualifier for right-to-independence, as Marina offered?

"Recognition" is subjective when granted by other states. Most of those who favor it argue that it is at least the consistent way of things as they are today.

[K. A. Pital]

Do you accept the moral superiority of certain rebellions over others as the qualifier for right-to-independence, as Marina offered?

The actual ability to govern should be sufficient grounds, even for a vile regime like the CSA. Why would anyone argue that the CSA was not a self-governing state, and an independent one, which waged war on it's northen neighbor?