It's war.

[Arrian]

It kinda reminds me of the secession of West Virginia from Virginia.

Virginia seceeds from the Union. The Union says "you can't do that!" and raises an army to reconquer them.

WV seceeds from Virginia. Virginia says "you can't do that!" and sends Robert E. Lee and a small army in to make 'em pay. IIRC, Lee didn't do very well.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

It's really sad for me to say, but I hope Ossetians manage to defend themselves. And yes, it's a hypocrisy from the west to support Kosovo, but not Ossetia.

I think South Ossetia should remain independent of Russia, but should stay a part of Georgia, and that Kosovo should have stayed in Serbia.

What does that make me?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What does that make me?

confused?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Saras
you would not disagree that the destruction of, say, a city block of Kharkov by Soviets while kicking out Germans was justified.

I wouldn't disagree. But is it correct to compare a war of attrition, which the war against Germany was for the USSR, with a relatively peaceful impass/standoff with the separatists? I'm afraid your partners by the European Union would be horrified by what you consider justified in this case. You who still mourn (and rightfully so) a few victims produced in Vilnius in 1990 show an amazing indifference about a possibility of 1000 civilian victims in the case of Ossetia.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Pekka
Saras, Well that's what it easily looks like, but to be fair, I don't have all the facts to make my mind. I don't know enough. It looks bad for both sides IMO, but it all depends who the real provocateur is. It's not like Russia isn't known for false flag operations, but then again, it's not that it should be always assumed by default. So I'll just have to be more informed. To me it's a clear cut case, if Georgia truly provoked first, targeted the peacekeepers and other folks on purpose, then I don't see how the Russian response would be unreasonable. But if it was not like that, then you know, it's the other way around.

Very balanced viewpoint.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
It kinda reminds me of the secession of West Virginia from Virginia.

Virginia seceeds from the Union. The Union says "you can't do that!" and raises an army to reconquer them.

WV seceeds from Virginia. Virginia says "you can't do that!" and sends Robert E. Lee and a small army in to make 'em pay. IIRC, Lee didn't do very well.

-Arrian

I'm far from a Southern apologist, but I think those two cases were fairly distinct from a legal and material standpoint.

[Ben Kenobi]

Saras: I saw the whole Kosovo affair as a means to punish Serbia. Historically, the region is a part of Serbia and should have remained there.

However, I don't think the Russians have any such claim to South Ossetia, just like the Serbs didn't have a claim over Montenegro.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Heresson
It's really sad for me to say, but I hope Ossetians manage to defend themselves. And yes, it's a hypocrisy from the west to support Kosovo, but not Ossetia.

Is it really you, Heresson?

[Saras]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


I wouldn't disagree. But is it correct to compare a war of attrition, which the war against Germany was for the USSR, with a relatively peaceful impass/standoff with the separatists? I'm afraid your partners by the European Union would be horrified by what you consider justified in this case. You who still mourns (and rightfully so) a few victims produced in Vilnius in 1990 show an amazing indifference about a possibility of 1000 civilian victims in the case of Ossetia.

Good point. But I think Russia forced Saaks hand by sending that armoured column. You can't claim you're serious about maintaining sovereignty if you sit idly in the middle of a forced annexation of a piece of your territory, however contested.

BTW it was in 1991.

[Kirnwaffen]

If anyone stands to gain anything at all from this, it looks to me like it's the Russians. The Georgians are hopelessly outgunned, and they have to know it. It would be foolhardy for them to launch an attack into South Ossetia and not expect a Russian response, particularly given that there are already Russian forces in the area.

The Russians, on the other hand, have little to lose. Realistically, no one will provide military aid to the Georgians and risk the ire of or war with Russia. The same goes for sanctions (not to mention, Russia wields veto power on the only major body capable of imposing sanctions).

There's admittedly something about this whole situation that seems somewhat underhanded, but, at the end of the day, score one for Moscow.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Saras


Color me biased, but I have zero faith in Russian sources.

So what color paint do we need? I mean, biased is which color again?

[Saras]

Originally posted by GePap


So what color paint do we need? I mean, biased is which color again?

Yellow, green and red!

seriously, your point?

[GePap]

I am agreeing with you, that you are clearly biased.

You did say to color you, so I was just asking.

[Saras]

you mean I should have nonzero trust in Russian sources? Why?

[GePap]

Given the lack of trully objective sources, to dec ide one side is to be believed 100% and the other 0% means that your opinion on the situation is as trustworthy as those Russian journalists you refuse to believe.