It's war.

[Pekka]

Hmhhh, this has become too complicated to call it a clear case for either side IMO.

I still remain with the "who really started it", and draw the line if they bombed RUssian peacekeepers on purpose or not. This very question is the equivalent of "is this a false flag operation or not".

Given history, opportunity and timing, it could go either way, so basically I can't call it anymore. So in my mind the most important thing now is to stop fighting ASAP. I can't see anything good coming out of this one. I don't think any side can win this, there are no victors.

[Krill]

1400 dead, mostly civilians. I don't care about any of the politics, but both sides...Well, let's just say that Russia should have difficulty claiming they are fighting on the side of the inhabitants.

[Gatekeeper]

Looking beyond the seemingly imminent dismemberment of Georgia's territorial integrity, what does this portend for say, Ukraine, which also has a separatist movement that wants to take a chunk out of Ukraine and reunite with Russia?

Gatekeeper

[Solver]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Looking beyond the seemingly imminent dismemberment of Georgia's territorial integrity, what does this portend for say, Ukraine, which also has a separatist movement that wants to take a chunk out of Ukraine and reunite with Russia?

Gatekeeper

It's a superficial similarity. Russia does recognize Crimea as a part of Ukraine. Russia doesn't give Crimeans Russian passports, either. So while most of the residents are ethnically Russian, Russia wouldn't be able to justify any intervention in Crimea. Their justification for intervention in Georgia is that South Ossetian residents are Russian citizens and Russia also doesn't recognize it as a part of Georgia. Finally, South Ossetia is de facto independent, even though it's de jure a part of Georgia, Crimea does not have de jure or de facto independence.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Solver

Russia also doesn't recognize it as a part of Georgia.

Are you sure about this? Has Russia given recognition to South Ossetia or claimed the territory as their own?

[Victor Galis]

From the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/wo...ed=2&ref=world

Georgian officials said that Russian warplanes had attacked the major Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, operated by British Petroleum, that carries oil to the West from Asia, but that the pipeline had not been struck.

I'm wondering if that's what this whole thing is actually about. Cutting that pipeline would make Western Europe a lot more dependent on Russian-controlled pipelines and probably make any sort of intervention harder and less likely.

[Solver]

Originally posted by PLATO


Are you sure about this? Has Russia given recognition to South Ossetia or claimed the territory as their own?

No, their position is ambiguous. They don't claim SO as their territory nor do they recognize it as independent, but they don't seem to recognize Georgian authority, either. For example, today Putin said something to the effect that now South Ossetia surely won't want to become a part of Georgia. So basically the Russian position is ambiguous, I can't find any reference where they officially state what they consider South Ossetia to be.

Found a link now, though, where the parliament's speaker says that "South Ossetia doesn't want to enter the Georgian state".

EDIT: Now I can find some excerpts from Russian foreign ministry documents that call South Ossetia an "unrecognized state". Another link from 2006 has a Russian official saying something along the lines that Russia respects Georgian rights to territorial integrity but recognizes that South Ossetia is not under Georgian control de facto and is an internationally recognized disputed zone. So you can see how it's an ambiguous position but they avoid stating that South Ossetia is Georgian.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I'm wondering if that's what this whole thing is actually about. Cutting that pipeline would make Western Europe a lot more dependent on Russian-controlled pipelines and probably make any sort of intervention harder and less likely.

Neither russian nor european polticians are excactly stupid. The russkies knows very well that if they can't provide stable deliverances, then teh euros will find other sources - probably why they didn't hurt the pipeline. Likewise the euro piticians look for other sources of energy if they think the russkies are getting too much control.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I happen to back Russia on this. The Western Media seems to beating the drum while neglecting that (1)Georgia started the attack with indiscriminate shelling of a city and (2) Most South Ossetians have gone out of their way to apply for Russian passports, clearly they would rather be Russian than Georgian.

Both are in dispute. Georgia claims their offensive was in response to increased attacks by rebels but I have to agree that the 70k people left in South Ossetia have applied for Russia passports. Of course that's after everyone supporting the Georgian government had either been killed or forced to flee via ethnic cleansing so the point is mute. Then there is the fact that the rebels couldn't travel through Georgia so if they wanted to travel outside South Ossetia they had to have Russian passports.

For both reasons the passport thing is meaningless.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Oerdin
ethnic cleansing

Source?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Then there is the fact that the rebels couldn't travel through Georgia so if they wanted to travel outside South Ossetia they had to have Russian passports.

Just out of curiosity - what are you trying to tell with this ?

[Chemical Ollie]

Which side has the best MBT, anyway?

[Kuciwalker]

[snoopy369]

Oerdin: the word is moot. Please commit this word to memory, and never use the word mute again except to refer to people unable to talk. (You won't need it on Apolyton, of course... )

[Heresson]

Russia is bombing entire Georgia. It has no right to do so. I am afraid about my Georgian friends