It's war. Part II

[Arrian]

The only difference there is that Kuwait was recognized as a sovereign state, while South Ossetia is not.

That matters.

Kosovo is by far the better analogy (not perfect, but much better). Iraq-Kuwait just doesn't work, man. Let it go.

-Arrian

[carnide_]

Truth is war first casualty.

[Cort Haus]

Only opponents of western powers face sustained charges by tribunals. They are sponsored by western powers to 'legitimise' their own actions and whitewash those of their smaller allies while zapping opponents. They are kangaroo courts.

Interestingly though, future historians will actually read and analyse the transcripts for what they actually say. By contrast, contemporary western journalists tend to ignore the details and repeat the pre-judiced conclusions which dovetail nicely with their own simple morality tales with which they use to try and win awards.

As for this conflict, much, but not all, of the output from the Western media is on Georgia's side. I may post some of the articles I have found to the contrary at some point, but much of it has been so ridiculously one-sided and anti-Russian that it makes a mockery of the supposed honest journalism that many in the west assume they are being fed.

I cannot comment on Russian media because I don't speak Russian. I'm sure it's biased too, but one thing is certain - all of our Russian posters here speak better English than over 95% of our non-Russian posters, so they have better access to 'both sides of the story' than most of the rest of us.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, but while genocide is a war crime, not all war crimes are genocide.



How would you? Care to show documentation showing that Saakashvili knew or approved such actions? Because otherwise you are left with the commanders on the ground, or even the particular troops being blamed for any such incident that can be proved.


Why do people always get the stupid idea that they must accuse their enemies of some hideous crime to justify their military actions? Does no one have the guts to state outright that they are blowing people and stuff up in order to meet some political aim?

Does it mean nobody ever commited a war crime? If one survived a war crime, he can't be trusted only because the one who actually commited the war crime was his enemy?
How then you brought Saddam, Miloshevich, Karajich, etc, to the court and proved that Saddam f.e. is guilty?
Saak is no better then Miloshevich, in my Serbaverse he is much worse. If your enemies, portrayed by your media as devils for giving an order to slaughter a village end their days in jails, then our enemy who ordered slaughtering of the entire city and a dozen of villages should face the tribunal as well.
War crimes must be punished even if the son of a b!tch who commited them is your son of the b!tch.
Otherwise it's hypocricity, double standards and... a real world, unfotunatelly.

[Ramo]

Regardless of who committed what atrocity, it's pretty clear that Saakashvili is a dumbass. After the Duma recognized the independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, he had a heart to heart with Putin demanding that the Russians revoke these recognitions, and claimed Western assurances preserving Georgia's territorial integrity; Putin told him that he could stick those assurances up his ass. He was, reportedly, warned multiple times by the US not to start anything. And he went ahead with this anyways. What a ridiculous person.

Imagine what would've happened if Georgia actually was part of NATO. Hell, the best case scenario would've been the dissolution of NATO.

And we were encouraging him to join NATO? Absurd...

[GePap]

Well, I have access to the cable channel RT (Russia Today) and the coverage was more one sided than even the Western Media. For a while the anchor was speaking with a banner headline saying "Genocide" on the screen.

What was interesting was that as obviously one sided as that coverage was (part of the broadcast was an older RT expose against Saakashvili), they still took the time to air the first days UNSC in its entirety, which didn't produce a lot of news, but still, a touch I liked because stuff like that rarely ever gets any press time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Serb


Does it mean nobody ever commited a war crime? If one survived a war crime, he can't be trusted only because the one who actually commited the war crime was his enemy?
How then you brought Saddam, Miloshevich, Karajich, etc, to the court and proved that Saddam f.e. is guilty?
Saak is no better then Miloshevich, in my Serbaverse he is much worse. If your enemies, portrayed by your media as devils for giving an order to slaughter a village end their days in jails, then our enemy who ordered slaughtering of the entire city and a dozen of villages should face the tribunal as well.
War crimes must be punished even if the sun of a b!tch who commited them is your sun of the b!tch.
Otherwise it's hypocricity, double standards and... a real world, unfotunatelly.

Sorry Serb, but war crimes trials require EVIDENCE. Not only evidence that an act that can be labelled a war crime occured, but evidence as to whom is culpable for the act. If a LT orders his squad to say kill the population in a small village, unless you can show proof that the LT was acting under orders from his superiors and so forth, you can't blame anyone but the LT, and those soldiers that followed an illegal order.

That is why Milosevich and Saddam were brought to trial, why Karadich will face a trial. And sorry to burst your bubble, but Saddam was guilty as sin, and his guilt was obvious. There was plenty of evidence against Milosevich and Karadich, which is why they wrre indicted.

If Russia builds up the evidence against Saakashvili, then Russia can argue for the setting up of a tribunal and then issue warrants. Heck, given the indictment of Omar Al-Bashir, there isn;t even a precedent any more against indicting sitting heads of state.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by rah
I'm not making any claims who's good and who's evil here.
I've read many possibly biased articles. There are still a few questions I just can't trust the answers to.

Before Georgia when balistic there were multiple provocations. I'd like to know just what kind there were. There was a cease fire signed prior. (I think that's an undisputed fact) Was that cease fire violated. If it was, that might change the picture a bit.

And something we'll never see in the papers. What type of urging on was happening behind the scenes, and what role did that play. What guarentees where made and which ones will be ignored?

I think it is interesting that people are looking at the "provocations" as something that Georgia should not have responded to. A couple of thoughts come to mind. How does a province with 70,000 people that are in the soverign territorial boarders come to have the weapons to shell government troops? The answer seems to me to clearly be that the Russians supplied them. Not to mention the fact that there were 500 Russian peacekeepers already there to stop this sort of thing.

What should the response of the Georgian government be? Should they have let the partisans shell them with Russian supplied weapons and just let it go? Did they have an obligation to try and restore order in their soverign territory? Sure, they probably responded in a more lethal way than most everybody would have hoped.

There also seems to have been a mechanism for resolving disputes in place from the 1990's cease fire. It appears that there was a council to be made up of Russians, Georgians, and South Ossetians to resolve disputes. However, if the Russians were supplying the weapons to shell the Georgians and not taking any action to prevent it, then they could hardly be counted on to have been the unbiased third party.

In addition, there are numerous reports of the Russians conducting war games for just this event in recent months. Were the Russians behind the provocations? There is now talk of Russia "absorbing" the breakaway regions. There is a lot of evidence to suggest a Russian plot here.

If you were the President of Georgia, what would you have done?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ramo
Regardless of who committed what atrocity, it's pretty clear that Saakashvili is a dumbass. After the Duma recognized the independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, he had a heart to heart with Putin demanding that the Russians revoke these recognitions, and claimed Western assurances preserving Georgia's territorial integrity; Putin told him that he could stick those assurances up his ass. He was, reportedly, warned multiple times by the US not to start anything. And he went ahead with this anyways. What a ridiculous person.

Imagine what would've happened if Georgia actually was part of NATO. Hell, the best case scenario would've been the dissolution of NATO.

And we were encouraging him to join NATO? Absurd...

The Duma NEVER recognized the independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, though it may do so in near future. After what happened within last week, I can't see how South Ossetia can be a part of Georgia.

And yeah, Hitlershvilli is a dumbass, no doubt.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
Regardless of who committed what atrocity, it's pretty clear that Saakashvili is a dumbass. After the Duma recognized the independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, he had a heart to heart with Putin demanding that the Russians revoke these recognitions, and claimed Western assurances preserving Georgia's territorial integrity; Putin told him that he could stick those assurances up his ass. He was, reportedly, warned multiple times by the US not to start anything. And he went ahead with this anyways.

I had not heard these things before. Where did you learn them?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO

If you were the President of Georgia, what would you have done?

Nothing, because I would be bound to lose and lose big in any direct confrontation.

Haven't you figured it out PLATO that there are different sets of rules for different sets of countries?

And be glad you live in one of those countries who gets to act under the less stringent set of rules. Being in one of those other countries sure does suck.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Nothing, because I would be bound to lose and lose big in any direct confrontation.

Haven't you figured it out PLATO that there are different sets of rules for different sets of countries?

And be glad you live in one of those countries who gets to act under the less stringent set of rules. Being in one of those other countries sure does suck.

Indeed you are correct. Between a rock and a hard place for Georgia...

[Serb]

Originally posted by GePap


Sorry Serb, but war crimes trials require EVIDENCE. Not only evidence that an act that can be labelled a war crime occured, but evidence as to whom is culpable for the act. If a LT orders his squad to say kill the population in a small village, unless you can show proof that the LT was acting under orders from his superiors and so forth, you can't blame anyone but the LT, and those soldiers that followed an illegal order.

That is why Milosevich and Saddam were brought to trial, why Karadich will face a trial. And sorry to burst your bubble, but Saddam was guilty as sin, and his guilt was obvious. There was plenty of evidence against Milosevich and Karadich, which is why they wrre indicted.

If Russia builds up the evidence against Saakashvili, then Russia can argue for the setting up of a tribunal and then issue warrants. Heck, given the indictment of Omar Al-Bashir, there isn;t even a precedent any more against indicting sitting heads of state.

You think we don't have evidences?
I bet we have enough to prove that Saakashvili and his minions are responsible for war crimes in SO. I just don't believe that your "democratic" and "free" western world will ever accept no matter how strong evidences, if those evidences prove the guilt of "their son of a b!tch".

[Ramo]

The Duma NEVER recognized the independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, though it may do so in near future.

Right, not recognition. First step to recognition, I suppose:

Soon afterward, the Russian Duma held hearings on recognition of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, a pro-Russian breakaway republic in Moldova. Moscow argued that the West’s logic on Kosovo should apply as well to these ethnic communities seeking to free themselves from the control of a hostile state. And then, in mid-April, Mr. Putin held out the possibility of recognition for the breakaway republics.

Now things began to degenerate rapidly. On April 21, Mr. Saakashvili called the Russian leader to demand that he reverse the decision. He reminded Mr. Putin that the West had taken Georgia’s side in the dispute. And Mr. Putin, according to several of Mr. Saakashvili’s associates, shot back with a suggestion about where they could put their statements. Mr. Saakashvili, prudent for once, shied from uttering the exact wording, but said that Mr. Putin had used “extremely offensive language,” and had repeated the expression several times.

Mr. Saakashvili was shaken by the naked hostility. He already feared that the West, or at least Europe, would never rally to Georgia’s side in a crisis; and here was Mr. Putin saying that the West’s support meant nothing to him. Here, indeed, was 1938.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[Cort Haus]

From Saturday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/09/georgia.russia1

Plucky little Georgia? No, the cold war reading won't wash
It is crudely simplistic to cast Russia as the sole villain in the clashes over South Ossetia. The west would be wise to stay out
All comments (185)

* Mark Almond
* The Guardian,
* Saturday August 9 2008
* Article history

For many people the sight of Russian tanks streaming across a border in August has uncanny echoes of Prague 1968. That cold war reflex is natural enough, but after two decades of Russian retreat from those bastions it is misleading. Not every development in the former Soviet Union is a replay of Soviet history.

The clash between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia, which escalated dramatically yesterday, in truth has more in common with the Falklands war of 1982 than it does with a cold war crisis. When the Argentine junta was basking in public approval for its bloodless recovery of Las Malvinas, Henry Kissinger anticipated Britain's widely unexpected military response with the comment: "No great power retreats for ever." Maybe today Russia has stopped the long retreat to Moscow which started under Gorbachev.

Back in the late 1980s, as the USSR waned, the red army withdrew from countries in eastern Europe which plainly resented its presence as the guarantor of unpopular communist regimes. That theme continued throughout the new republics of the deceased Soviet Union, and on into the premiership of Putin, under whom Russian forces were evacuated even from the country's bases in Georgia.

To many Russians this vast geopolitical retreat from places which were part of Russia long before the dawn of communist rule brought no bonus in relations with the west. The more Russia drew in its horns, the more Washington and its allies denounced the Kremlin for its imperial ambitions.

Unlike in eastern Europe, for instance, today in breakaway states such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia, Russian troops are popular. Vladimir Putin's picture is more widely displayed than that of the South Ossetian president, the former Soviet wrestling champion Eduard Kokoity. The Russians are seen as protectors against a repeat of ethnic cleansing by Georgians.

In 1992, the west backed Eduard Shevardnadze's attempts to reassert Georgia's control over these regions. The then Georgian president's war was a disaster for his nation. It left 300,000 or more refugees "cleansed" by the rebel regions, but for Ossetians and Abkhazians the brutal plundering of the Georgian troops is the most indelible memory.

Georgians have nursed their humiliation ever since. Although Mikheil Saakashvili has done little for the refugees since he came to power early in 2004 - apart from move them out of their hostels in central Tbilisi to make way for property development - he has spent 70% of the Georgian budget on his military. At the start of the week he decided to flex his muscles.

Devoted to achieving Nato entry for Georgia, Saakashvili has sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan - and so clearly felt he had American backing. The streets of the Georgian capital are plastered with posters of George W Bush alongside his Georgian protege. George W Bush avenue leads to Tbilisi airport. But he has ignored Kissinger's dictum: "Great powers don't commit suicide for their allies." Perhaps his neoconservative allies in Washington have forgotten it, too. Let's hope not.

Like Galtieri in 1982, Saakashvili faces a domestic economic crisis and public disillusionment. In the years since the so-called Rose revolution, the cronyism and poverty that characterised the Shevardnadze era have not gone away. Allegations of corruption and favouritism towards his mother's clan, together with claims of election fraud, led to mass demonstrations against Saakashvili last November. His ruthless security forces - trained, equipped and subsidised by the west - thrashed the protesters. Lashing out at the Georgians' common enemy in South Ossetia would certainly rally them around the president, at least in the short term.

Last September, President Saakashvili suddenly turned on his closest ally in the Rose revolution, defence minister Irakli Okruashvili. Each man accused his former blood brother of mafia links and profiting from contraband. Whatever the truth, the fact that the men seen by the west as the heroes of a post-Shevardnadze clean-up accused each other of vile crimes should warn us against picking a local hero in Caucasian politics.

Western geopolitical commentators stick to cold war simplicities about Russia bullying plucky little Georgia. However, anyone familiar with the Caucasus knows that the state bleating about its victim status at the hands of a bigger neighbour can be just as nasty to its smaller subjects. Small nationalisms are rarely sweet-natured.

Worse still, western backing for "equip and train" programmes in Russia's backyard don't contribute to peace and stability if bombastic local leaders such as Saakashvili see them as a guarantee of support even in a crisis provoked by his own actions. He seems to have thought that the valuable oil pipeline passing through his territory, together with the Nato advisers intermingled with his troops, would prevent Russia reacting militarily to an incursion into South Ossetia. That calculation has proved disastrously wrong.

The question now is whether the conflict can be contained, or whether the west will be drawn in, raising the stakes to desperate levels. To date the west has operated radically different approaches to secession in the Balkans, where pro-western microstates get embassies, and the Caucasus, where the Caucasian boundaries drawn up by Stalin, are deemed sacrosanct.

In the Balkans, the west promoted the disintegration of multiethnic Yugoslavia, climaxing with their recognition of Kosovo's independence in February. If a mafia-dominated microstate like Montenegro can get western recognition, why shouldn't flawed, pro-Russian, unrecognised states aspire to independence, too?

Given its extraordinary ethnic complexity, Georgia is a post-Soviet Union in miniature. If westerners readily conceded non-Russian republics' right to secede from the USSR in 1991, what is the logic of insisting that non-Georgians must remain inside a microempire which happens to be pro-western?

Other people's nationalisms are like other people's love affairs, or, indeed, like dog fights. These are things wise people don't get involved in. A war in the Caucasus is never a straightforward moral crusade - but then, how many wars are?

· Mark Almond is a history lecturer at Oriel College, Oxford