Will Georgia turn into a Moscow satellite?

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by binTravkin
You have a reading or interpreting problem. I stated that it repeats over and over, no matter what the country is, Chechnya, Georgia, Mountain Karabakh, Baltic states, etc.

So? That's exactly my point. Majority of the Western press is always anti-Russian, majority of a Russian press is always pro-Russian, it doesn't matter who's right in each case. That's exactly my point. Well, Russian press is supposed to be mosly pro-Russian, after all it's Russian itself, so there is no surprise here. But Western press is a neutral side in most cases yet it's always anti-Russian.

Originally posted by binTravkin US had too, the WMD and stuff, yet there were many (a bit less than half of the population according to surveys) people in the US itself opposing the war.
In Russia it seems like everyone or nearly everyone is pro-war, a view which you and other Russian members of this forum only reinforce.

This is so stupid i find it hard to argue with it. Please, don't insult me with something like that.

First, there was no WMD, even USA admitted that they didn't find it. And trust me they took serious efforts to find at least something.
Second, even if they had WMD, it is not a legal reason so to start a war. If you want to prove that it is, then try to find a UN charter article stating that you're right, like i did (in that link that i gave you twice, it's an official Russian statement). Also, in that case you're bound to admit that every country in the world has a legal right to invade USA because USA also has WMD.

Originally posted by binTravkin "west"? Who is him/her/it?
I don't remember any distinct political entity or social group unilaterally supporting Iraq war.

Western press, to be more specific. I didn't see any significant number of articles that USA is an evil agressor, they should withdraw asap, international community should condemn them blah blah blah.

Originally posted by binTravkin Lol, so if I, as a Russian commander, would order attack on Tbilisi while some column with wounded troops departs to my bases in Russia, I'd still be "withdrawing".
Interesting point of view..
Or may I say, another example how Russians explain common concept to their own good?

You show problems with critical thinking.
US never signed an agreement or gave promise that obliges them to withdraw troops.
You are defending your country even when it's obviously not keeping it's promises.

Well, we're not in Tbilisi so it should have been an advance of troops. However, we were in that port earlier so it's just some delayed retreat, our troops have some business there dismantling Georgia military facilities and equipment (say thanks we don't bomb civilian targets like bridges and power stations, like NATO did in Serbia - we just carefully destroy military objects). In other regions, where all tasks were completed, we started retreating, exactly as promised.

Ok, i got it, so you say we shouldn't give any promises, like US. Then again, US gave a promise not to move NATO to the East, yet now it come even to Ukraine and Georgia. ABM treaty is more than a promise, it's a treaty, yet US broken it too.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Ahh, and this is August 20th, 2 days after the withdrawal had to be started and there are still no news of real withdrawal.
And the Russian president announced just yesterday the troops will be out by friday. I wonder what's the next date he will mention.

We'll see.

Originally posted by binTravkin
And when they are asked to just do what they promised they do just what?

Bingo, they block an UN resolution asking them to just start doing it at last!

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/0...a-georgia.html

That resolution includes only 2 of the 6 points of the cease-fire agreement. Sorry, you can't sign a cease-fire with one agrement and then demand that another agreement will be in effect instead of a previous one.

And once again, you're not in a good position to say something like that. Russia called an UN secuirty council meeting just hours after Georgia invaded so to end Georgian's invasion in South Ossetia. Yet you allowed your ally Georgia to continue the attack and kill innocent civilians. So, obviosuly, you didn't want to make a resoltution to save human's lives.

Now, when people's lives are not on the table, you cry wolf when we don't let you to cheat on us and replace one agreement with another. So, it's ok for you to sacrifice human's lives but it's not ok for us to prevent cheating? Another perfect example of a Western hypocrisy.

[Sandman]

Western press, to be more specific. I didn't see any significant number of articles that USA is an evil agressor, they should withdraw asap, international community should condemn them blah blah blah.

Confirmation bias, dude. There were plenty of them.

[binTravkin]

Well, Russian press is supposed to be mosly pro-Russian, after all it's Russian itself, so there is no surprise here.

I think we have identified the problem here.
Ask yourself a question - why it is not so with most other countries in the world?
Why there was quite a lot of anti-iraq war press in US?
Why is it so that so called "western" press often criticizes the decisions of their own leaders while Russian almost never does so?
Also, why anything or anyone who criticizes decisions of Russia as a country i.e. it's government is automatically "anti-Russian", not, say "anti-Putin" or something?

Have you ever thought about these questions?

This is so stupid i find it hard to argue with it. Please, don't insult me with something like that.

First, there was no WMD, even USA admitted that they didn't find it. And trust me they took serious efforts to find at least something.
Second, even if they had WMD, it is not a legal reason so to start a war. If you want to prove that it is, then try to find a UN charter article stating that you're right, like i did (in that link that i gave you twice, it's an official Russian statement). Also, in that case you're bound to admit that every country in the world has a legal right to invade USA because USA also has WMD.

1.The fact there was no WMD was only proven after the war.
2.Of course, WMD's themselves are not dangerous and can't be a reason for war, it's when they get into the hands of people connected to terrorism when it becomes a reason for war, well, at least US leaders thought so.

So, again, problems with critical thinking and bad memory plague your argumentation.

Western press, to be more specific. I didn't see any significant number of articles that USA is an evil agressor, they should withdraw asap, international community should condemn them blah blah blah.

That's perhaps because you didn't even read any articles of "western" press, just out-of-context excerpts which RIAN and other state-sponsored agencies fed you?
You show a real lack of knowledge here. The buzz around Iraq war was intense since ever the intention of war was announced.

Well, we're not in Tbilisi so it should have been an advance of troops. However, we were in that port earlier so it's just some delayed retreat, our troops have some business there dismantling Georgia military facilities and equipment (say thanks we don't bomb civilian targets like bridges and power stations, like NATO did in Serbia - we just carefully destroy military objects). In other regions, where all tasks were completed, we started retreating, exactly as promised.

Ok, i got it, so you say we shouldn't give any promises, like US. Then again, US gave a promise not to move NATO to the East, yet now it come even to Ukraine and Georgia. ABM treaty is more than a promise, it's a treaty, yet US broken it too.

1.Russian army moved in Poti after announcing withdrawal.
2.Say thanks you don't bomb civilian targets? There are numerous reports Russian army is doing just that - pillagin, looting and stuff; scorched earth.
3.US doesn't move NATO, NATO consists of more countries than just US, and if a nation wants to join NATO it's not like US moved it.
4.Retreating as promised? Yeah, whatever.
5.It is your problem you're trying to drag US into comparison, I'm saying that Russia does not keep it's promises and don't follow signed agreements, but you're trying to drag in Iraq in comparison where US has signed no agreement on withdrawal. That's flawed logic, buddy.

What strikes me in your response is that you're so definitely sure as if you were an eyewitness.

That resolution includes only 2 of the 6 points of the cease-fire agreement. Sorry, you can't sign a cease-fire with one agrement and then demand that another agreement will be in effect instead of a previous one.

Given the context, what you're pretending is that one cannot sign an agreement with Russia that it withdraws it's troops then pass a resolution that demands to still withdraw it's troops when the date promised is past and the first agreement has not been fulfilled.
Oh, come on..

[Arrian]

The US press was pretty docile wrt Iraq. But the "Western" press wasn't.

Hell, if you want an anti-whatevertheUSisdoingrightnow viewpoint at any time, feel free to check the Guardian. They're quite reliable in that way. The negative press about the war goes well beyond the big G, though. It took time for the American press to say boo (to its shame), but the Brits seemed to be on it from the get-go. Methinks the French and Germans were all over it too.

-Arrian

[DanS]

The Russkis better not harm the US Navy as it carries out its humanitarian mission!

Aid workers provided Gori residents with blankets and boxes of high-energy biscuits. A U.S. naval destroyer delivered relief supplies Sunday at the Black Sea port of Batumi, the first of three such American vessels due to arrive in the coming days. The western port of Poti -- far from the combat zone -- is still occupied by the Russian army.

"The situation in the Black Sea is tending to become more tense," Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian general staff, told reporters Sunday as the U.S. ship steamed toward port. "NATO countries are building up their naval presence to deliver humanitarian aid. . . . I do not think that this will contribute to the stabilization of the situation in the region."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/24/AR2008082401673.html?hpid=topnews

[carnide_]

Cold wars



At the end of the first Punic war, Carthage lost is empire.
At the end of the second Punic war, Moscow lost is navy.
At the end of the third cold war, Carthage joined the NATO.


- - -
Why? Because NATO is not the real enemy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
The US press was pretty docile wrt Iraq.

Actually there were very gung ho.

[PLATO]

We now have the answer to the thread title:

Russian Parliament backs independence for Georgia separatists
Posted 1 hour 14 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 6 minutes ago


Russian troops are still inside Georgia. (Reuters: Denis Sinyakov)

Audio: Tensions simmer in Caucasus conflict (PM) Related Story: Russia moves to recognise South Ossetia, Abkhazia independence The Russian Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to recognise the independence of two breakaway Georgian regions, while President Dmitry Medvedev linked the Georgia conflict to tensions over another separatist region.

Both houses of Russia's Parliament convened for emergency sessions to consider their stance on the future status of the two disputed regions in Georgia.

With Russian troops still inside Georgia and tensions heightened by the arrival in a Georgian port of a US warship carrying aid, Russia's two Parliament chambers approved a resolution calling on Mr Medvedev formally to recognise the two regions.

Only the president can officially recognise a foreign state and so far, there has been no response to the vote from the Kremlin.

The Duma and Federation Council held special sessions to debate the region's calls for recognition.

The two regions are internationally recognised as part of Georgia, where Russian troops rolled in on August 8 to fight off a Georgian offensive to retake South Ossetia.


'Genocide'

Addressing the Federation Council, South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity said Russia had saved his region from "genocide".

He asserted there was more political and legal legitimacy to recognising South Ossetia's independence than there had been for Kosovo, the Serbian province which broke free with EU and US backing.

The Abkhaz separatist leader, Sergei Bagapsh, said: "Neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia will ever again live in one state with Georgia".

The European Union, which has criticised Russia's military intervention, called a special summit on the Georgia crisis. Many European nations expressed concern at the Russian Parliament vote to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent.

The Russian President has signalled his support for independence and he has mentioned the South Ossetia case when he said a dispute with Moldova over the Transdniestr region could be settled.

"It's reasonable to discuss already today the Transdniestr problem. I see good chances for solving it," Mr Medvedev told Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin at a meeting at the Russian leader's Black Sea coastal residence at Sochi.

He said Transdniestr, which lies on Moldova's eastern edge adjoining Ukraine, should be viewed in the context of the battle with Georgia.

Events in South Ossetia showed "how dangerous such so-called frozen conflicts can be, given that the Georgian leadership, as they say, went crazy," Mr Medvedev said, quoted by Interfax news agency.

"This is a serious warning for us all. It is in this context that we should view the question of Transdniestr resolution," the Russian leader said.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be "an attempt to change Europe's borders by force," in an interview with French newspaper Liberation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/25/2346167.htm?section=justin

[carnide_]

Just learned about one more hot spot: Transdniestr.
- - -
The Russian leadership knows for a fact that they are the leading power in the region... This is not going to stop here?

[PLATO]

Yes, it is seeming more likely by the day that Russia will try to push their sphere of influence up to the point where the West will push back.

It is looking like a better and better move that the new NATO members joined when they did.

[onodera]

Originally posted by PLATO
Yes, it is seeming more likely by the day that Russia will try to push their sphere of influence up to the point where the West will push back.

It is looking like a better and better move that the new NATO members joined when they did.

Do you deny us our right to have a sphere of influence? I remember one country saying that the whole Western hemisphere was their sphere of influence.
Well, consider this a reverse Monroe doctrine: CIS is our sphere of influence. Do whatever you want to Iran, though. Just spare the architecture, I'm hoping to visit it some day.

[Saras]

So... now that Georgia and Ukraine are out of CIS, they get a free pass?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by onodera

Do you deny us our right to have a sphere of influence? I remember one country saying that the whole Western hemisphere was their sphere of influence.
Well, consider this a reverse Monroe doctrine: CIS is our sphere of influence. Do whatever you want to Iran, though. Just spare the architecture, I'm hoping to visit it some day.

I am denying your right to invade countries that have democratically elected governments wherever they are.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by PLATO
Yes, it is seeming more likely by the day that Russia will try to push their sphere of influence up to the point where the West will push back.

It is looking like a better and better move that the new NATO members joined when they did.

I was surprised to hear a report that Chancellor Merkle said that, if Georgia wanted to join NATO, it should ask. Up until now, Germany has been blocking Georgia's admission.

[onodera]

Originally posted by PLATO
I am denying your right to invade countries that have democratically elected governments wherever they are.

Is there a right to invade countries that have otherwise elected governments?