If Only...

[oolatec]

Then the world might care.

[SimplexCoda]

Ya, but i can bet it wont be long before we get our selves involved. I just wish the world would just simmer down.

[oolatec]

Ya, but i can bet it wont be long before we get our selves involved. I just wish the world would just simmer down.

This is one case we really should... unfortunately... Russia has designs to bring back the Soviet Union. Putin is ex KGB and they've been planning this massacre for a few months now. Ugh.

[kornkitten42]

America- Damned if you do and Damned if you don't. In a few months if we HAVEN'T stepped in, the world will bitch at us and say, WHY DIDN'T YOU HELP!?!

[TheScotsman]

Ya, but i can bet it wont be long before we get our selves involved. I just wish the world would just simmer down.

This is one case we really should... unfortunately... Russia has designs to bring back the Soviet Union. Putin is ex KGB and they've been planning this massacre for a few months now. Ugh.

Initial reactions should have been far stronger, Russia "created" citizens by passing out Russian passports, in what is nothing more than an oil grab. Putin doesn't like stability, and falling oil prices. He needs the rubles to rebuild the military, and "return to previous glory." Going to be interesting to see where the Ukraine enters. Russian Black Sea Fleet has to sail through Ukrainian water to get to home port. Ukraine is seeking to limit fleet involvement in any conflicts in the region. I think they may soon to be on Putin's bad list.

The USA yet again shows it's allies that it will turn it's back on them.

[John Stuart Mill]

Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have some historical basis for desiring independence. South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast of the Georgian SSR and Abkhazia was actually a separate entity in the Soviet Union. They are also ethnically divergent, and don't even share a common tongue. Georgia attempted to annex these unwilling areas after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They fought for their independence and essentially gained it to the Georgians dismay. After the fighting they did push out and kill many ethnic Georgians, but also had atrocities committed on them.

Recently, Saakashvili has appealed to Georgian nationalism and outrage over their supposed territory being under hostile control. He had prior to this incident invaded small portions of each region and installed pro-Georgian puppet governments. His often repeated pledge of unification is quite popular among the Georgian masses, some being displaced by the prior conflict. However, his popularity of late had slipped. He won the last election due to a divided opposition who fielded two candidates. His regime was also cited by the U.N for somewhat suspect election practices and intimidation. Saakashvili also cracked down on non-violent protesters throughout Georgia. He may have been attempting to shore up support through his risky gambit in south Ossetia. Perhaps, he hoped to seize the strategic Roki tunnel stymieing Russia before they could respond. The Olympic Games did have the ostensibly more hawkish Putin in Beijing. Russia had warned the U.N that Georgia was planning such a move for month, so it seems odd Saakashvilli thought he could catch them unprepared. He may also have thought that the West would come to his rescue. He has been emboldened by almost a billion dollars in U.S aid to his country of less than 5 million in the past 4 years. The United States has trained his troops and participated in joint military exercises and operations (Iraq). We have also widely supported his bid to join NATO. This may have given him the impression that we would not allow his country to be compromised. What aid he might have expected from the west is unknown, but he should have foreseen reluctance to confront a nuclear power. In any case, Saakashvili made a grave miscalculation as the U.S could exert little influence, and the Russians were obviously prepared for an assault.

If one believes in popular sovereignty rather than mere geographic concerns, than Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be allowed to split. South Ossetia had a referendum on independence where over 98 percent voted in favor. Hell, we allowed Kosovo to separate when only 80% of the population were ethnic Albanians. Kosovo was the geographic and historical heart of Serbia, so we shouldn't make exceptions, but rather generally support popular sovereignty. All polling and any objective analysis leads one to the conclusion that both regions would honestly favor independence. In fact, south Ossetia overwhelmingly favors integration with their ethnic brethren in North Ossetia, which would mean a union with Russia.

Are the Russians to blame? In part yes, but the fundamental division between the separatists and Georgia exists regardless. The existence of Russian peace keepers essentially froze the conflict. They emboldened the separatists with citizenship, passports and a lifting of economic sanctions. This encouraged limited fighting within the area the Georgian military controlled. The separatists felt safer and wanted to assault the areas forcibly "repatriated" by Saakashvili. A series of minor attacks by both sides occurred for months before the conflict. These involved limited shelling by both sides and small firefights. A single attack in this string of hostilities is what Saakashvili used as an excuse to invade. He declared a unilateral ceasefire and claimed the South Ossetions broke it on the same day. He knew attacks would continue and obviously planned to use the ceasefire as an excuse. Only a fool would declare it unilaterally, and then expect the rebels to follow suit without consultation. Did Russia prod the separatists to attack? Probably not, as they had enough lingering hatred to do so of their own accord. However, they did create a situation that led to the rebel's resurgence. Did they have to aid the separatists? No, but imagine how Russia would look if they allowed Georgia to steamroll the Russian backed region. Russia also has a strong motivation for keeping Georgia divided. It doesn't want a western military alliance that was designed to thwart it at its doorstep. Georgia joining NATO is akin to Mexico joining the Warsaw pact if our roles were reversed. Georgia also did attack the civilian populace by indiscriminately bombing and shelling Tskhinvali. It is obvious to anyone who has witnessed the videos of the area that they went beyond reasonable force. Perhaps Russia's response was too strong, but I doubt anything aside from a complete military collapse would deter the Georgians from causing farther trouble.

However, the initial split was made without Russian provocation and subsequent support merely stymied Georgia's attempt to retake the region.



These links demonstrate that Saakashvili is no saint.

http://hrw.org/reports/2007/georgia1207/

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7398

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/georgi12229.htm

Edited August 13, 2008 by John Stuart Mill

[Balthazar]

Tl; dr:







I agree with Mill here.

[MechAnt]

Well, Russia has backed out of Georgia though. This is subject to which many of us don't know too well. Lets let this stew over for a little longer and see how Russia's stepping down will calm things down a little.

[Apoc Genesis]

Wow. Russia really bent them over a barrel these past few days.

Honestly if thats what the people of South Ossetia want, theyll find a way to be with Russia. The idea of the columns of Russian tanks being the good guys is a little unsettling thought, because for 50 years they were going in and forcing their brand of life down the throat of Eastern Europe. It's a little eerie to think of them defending people's democratic choices, even if they arent what our country would like to see.

[oolatec]

Well, Russia has backed out of Georgia though. This is subject to which many of us don't know too well. Lets let this stew over for a little longer and see how Russia's stepping down will calm things down a little.

Russia is all over Georgia. Russia is all over the whole region. This was just the tip of the iceberg. Since Europe didn't even lift a finger to help Georgia, Putin will take that as a message that he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reasons he wants.

Here's a 3 month old article concerning Georgia/Ossetia... it's full of information... a lengthy read, however. So anyone that wishes to stay well informed should take the time... you may be surprised how things really are there:

Travels in the former Soviet Union. - By Joshua Kucera - Slate Magazine

[r1v3th3ad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIqH11Fa3e0


really though...I think they miss sticking their foot up someone's ass...the last try(that I know of, haven't studied much of Russia yet) back in Afghanistan gave them ulcers.

[TheScotsman]

Well, Russia has backed out of Georgia though. This is subject to which many of us don't know too well. Lets let this stew over for a little longer and see how Russia's stepping down will calm things down a little.

Actualy they haven't backed out of, or calmed down anything.
As of wed AM the russians were still advancing. Poutin and that french gargoyle-looking dwarf are saying they aren't, but even CNN, and BBC news say there is an armored russian column moving deeper into Georgia from Gori. Russian black sea fleet has landed anphibious-armored combat units in Georgia overnight.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080813/D92HFHH82.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2...3517926662.html

One thing we have always known, you can't believe a word comming out of a KGB goon's mouth. any cease fire talk is just lip serviece to get troops in deeper. (a bit like they did in Ass-ganistan in the 80's)

Hmmm... didn't Germany enter the Sudaten under the same pretense as the russians are using in Georgia? Look where that ended. This is more a war over freedom/democracy in Europe... and Europe is screwed, since 40% of their Nat Gas, and oil come from Russia.

[Brownman18]

Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have some historical basis for desiring independence. South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast of the Georgian SSR and Abkhazia was actually a separate entity in the Soviet Union. They are also ethnically divergent, and don't even share a common tongue. Georgia attempted to annex these unwilling areas after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They fought for their independence and essentially gained it to the Georgians dismay. After the fighting they did push out and kill many ethnic Georgians, but also had atrocities committed on them.

Recently, Saakashvili has appealed to Georgian nationalism and outrage over their supposed territory being under hostile control. He had prior to this incident invaded small portions of each region and installed pro-Georgian puppet governments. His often repeated pledge of unification is quite popular among the Georgian masses, some being displaced by the prior conflict. However, his popularity of late had slipped. He won the last election due to a divided opposition who fielded two candidates. His regime was also cited by the U.N for somewhat suspect election practices and intimidation. Saakashvili also cracked down on non-violent protesters throughout Georgia. He may have been attempting to shore up support through his risky gambit in south Ossetia. Perhaps, he hoped to seize the strategic Roki tunnel stymieing Russia before they could respond. The Olympic Games did have the ostensibly more hawkish Putin in Beijing. Russia had warned the U.N that Georgia was planning such a move for month, so it seems odd Saakashvilli thought he could catch them unprepared. He may also have thought that the West would come to his rescue. He has been emboldened by almost a billion dollars in U.S aid to his country of less than 5 million in the past 4 years. The United States has trained his troops and participated in joint military exercises and operations (Iraq). We have also widely supported his bid to join NATO. This may have given him the impression that we would not allow his country to be compromised. What aid he might have expected from the west is unknown, but he should have foreseen reluctance to confront a nuclear power. In any case, Saakashvili made a grave miscalculation as the U.S could exert little influence, and the Russians were obviously prepared for an assault.

If one believes in popular sovereignty rather than mere geographic concerns, than Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be allowed to split. South Ossetia had a referendum on independence where over 98 percent voted in favor. Hell, we allowed Kosovo to separate when only 80% of the population were ethnic Albanians. Kosovo was the geographic and historical heart of Serbia, so we shouldn't make exceptions, but rather generally support popular sovereignty. All polling and any objective analysis leads one to the conclusion that both regions would honestly favor independence. In fact, south Ossetia overwhelmingly favors integration with their ethnic brethren in North Ossetia, which would mean a union with Russia.

Are the Russians to blame? In part yes, but the fundamental division between the separatists and Georgia exists regardless. The existence of Russian peace keepers essentially froze the conflict. They emboldened the separatists with citizenship, passports and a lifting of economic sanctions. This encouraged limited fighting within the area the Georgian military controlled. The separatists felt safer and wanted to assault the areas forcibly "repatriated" by Saakashvili. A series of minor attacks by both sides occurred for months before the conflict. These involved limited shelling by both sides and small firefights. A single attack in this string of hostilities is what Saakashvili used as an excuse to invade. He declared a unilateral ceasefire and claimed the South Ossetions broke it on the same day. He knew attacks would continue and obviously planned to use the ceasefire as an excuse. Only a fool would declare it unilaterally, and then expect the rebels to follow suit without consultation. Did Russia prod the separatists to attack? Probably not, as they had enough lingering hatred to do so of their own accord. However, they did create a situation that led to the rebel's resurgence. Did they have to aid the separatists? No, but imagine how Russia would look if they allowed Georgia to steamroll the Russian backed region. Russia also has a strong motivation for keeping Georgia divided. It doesn't want a western military alliance that was designed to thwart it at its doorstep. Georgia joining NATO is akin to Mexico joining the Warsaw pact if our roles were reversed. Georgia also did attack the civilian populace by indiscriminately bombing and shelling Tskhinvali. It is obvious to anyone who has witnessed the videos of the area that they went beyond reasonable force. Perhaps Russia's response was too strong, but I doubt anything aside from a complete military collapse would deter the Georgians from causing farther trouble.

However, the initial split was made without Russian provocation and subsequent support merely stymied Georgia's attempt to retake the region.



These links demonstrate that Saakashvili is no saint.

http://hrw.org/reports/2007/georgia1207/

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7398

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/georgi12229.htm

NO UH CNN TOLD ME THAT THE RUSSIANS DONE STARTED IT!!! \

OMG SOVIET UNION IS RETURNING OH GOD!!!!!!!!! SAVE US !!!!!!!!! SAVE US!!!!!!!


sarcasm intended.......


its a shame so few have such an intellectual grasp on a situation easily reinforced by minor independent news observations....


+1

[Scoop]

Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have some historical basis for desiring independence. South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast of the Georgian SSR and Abkhazia was actually a separate entity in the Soviet Union. They are also ethnically divergent, and don't even share a common tongue. Georgia attempted to annex these unwilling areas after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They fought for their independence and essentially gained it to the Georgians dismay. After the fighting they did push out and kill many ethnic Georgians, but also had atrocities committed on them.

Recently, Saakashvili has appealed to Georgian nationalism and outrage over their supposed territory being under hostile control. He had prior to this incident invaded small portions of each region and installed pro-Georgian puppet governments. His often repeated pledge of unification is quite popular among the Georgian masses, some being displaced by the prior conflict. However, his popularity of late had slipped. He won the last election due to a divided opposition who fielded two candidates. His regime was also cited by the U.N for somewhat suspect election practices and intimidation. Saakashvili also cracked down on non-violent protesters throughout Georgia. He may have been attempting to shore up support through his risky gambit in south Ossetia. Perhaps, he hoped to seize the strategic Roki tunnel stymieing Russia before they could respond. The Olympic Games did have the ostensibly more hawkish Putin in Beijing. Russia had warned the U.N that Georgia was planning such a move for month, so it seems odd Saakashvilli thought he could catch them unprepared. He may also have thought that the West would come to his rescue. He has been emboldened by almost a billion dollars in U.S aid to his country of less than 5 million in the past 4 years. The United States has trained his troops and participated in joint military exercises and operations (Iraq). We have also widely supported his bid to join NATO. This may have given him the impression that we would not allow his country to be compromised. What aid he might have expected from the west is unknown, but he should have foreseen reluctance to confront a nuclear power. In any case, Saakashvili made a grave miscalculation as the U.S could exert little influence, and the Russians were obviously prepared for an assault.

If one believes in popular sovereignty rather than mere geographic concerns, than Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be allowed to split. South Ossetia had a referendum on independence where over 98 percent voted in favor. Hell, we allowed Kosovo to separate when only 80% of the population were ethnic Albanians. Kosovo was the geographic and historical heart of Serbia, so we shouldn't make exceptions, but rather generally support popular sovereignty. All polling and any objective analysis leads one to the conclusion that both regions would honestly favor independence. In fact, south Ossetia overwhelmingly favors integration with their ethnic brethren in North Ossetia, which would mean a union with Russia.

Are the Russians to blame? In part yes, but the fundamental division between the separatists and Georgia exists regardless. The existence of Russian peace keepers essentially froze the conflict. They emboldened the separatists with citizenship, passports and a lifting of economic sanctions. This encouraged limited fighting within the area the Georgian military controlled. The separatists felt safer and wanted to assault the areas forcibly "repatriated" by Saakashvili. A series of minor attacks by both sides occurred for months before the conflict. These involved limited shelling by both sides and small firefights. A single attack in this string of hostilities is what Saakashvili used as an excuse to invade. He declared a unilateral ceasefire and claimed the South Ossetions broke it on the same day. He knew attacks would continue and obviously planned to use the ceasefire as an excuse. Only a fool would declare it unilaterally, and then expect the rebels to follow suit without consultation. Did Russia prod the separatists to attack? Probably not, as they had enough lingering hatred to do so of their own accord. However, they did create a situation that led to the rebel's resurgence. Did they have to aid the separatists? No, but imagine how Russia would look if they allowed Georgia to steamroll the Russian backed region. Russia also has a strong motivation for keeping Georgia divided. It doesn't want a western military alliance that was designed to thwart it at its doorstep. Georgia joining NATO is akin to Mexico joining the Warsaw pact if our roles were reversed. Georgia also did attack the civilian populace by indiscriminately bombing and shelling Tskhinvali. It is obvious to anyone who has witnessed the videos of the area that they went beyond reasonable force. Perhaps Russia's response was too strong, but I doubt anything aside from a complete military collapse would deter the Georgians from causing farther trouble.

However, the initial split was made without Russian provocation and subsequent support merely stymied Georgia's attempt to retake the region.



These links demonstrate that Saakashvili is no saint.

http://hrw.org/reports/2007/georgia1207/

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7398

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/georgi12229.htm

ah, it is refreshing to read something intelligent on these forums. its funny how people who have no idea whats going on just pick up the popular opinion offered by the media.

[Texico]

Here's what I'm wondering. Let me write everything out as I understand it first. Abhkazia and South Ossetia are both recognized by the international community as being controlled by Georgia. Russia is the only country which does not recognize them as part of Georgia, and in fact has been illegally distributing Russian passports in order to fuel the separatist beliefs of the two regions. Now, when Georgia attempts to regain control of a renegade region which has been running its own affairs with more or less Russian help depending on the year Russia decides that the international community is wrong in its assertion that South Ossetia is under Georgian sovereignty and decides to attack Georgia through both South Ossetia and Abhkazia, the latter of which was not originally involved in the conflict.

Now, let us draw the parallels (loose parallels and extremely oversimplified).

Georgia is Iraq. For all intents and purposes it's a good country. It's done some things wrong in the past and it's doing some things wrong right now, but not to the extent that warrants an international response. Now, the kurds of north Iraq have always been in conflict with the Iraqi government but no one has really done anything to protect them. Now imagine that the US war in Iraq was to protect the Kurds. Everything else would be the same. People would still decry the war in Iraq as illegal. People would still hate the US (government). Nothing would be different. Now change everything to what is happening between Georgia and Russia and all of a sudden Russia is the good guy and Georgia essentially deserves what is happening? No. Russia had no right to invade an internationally recognized sovereign country in the first place. Come on people. You can't claim that the US is waging an illegal war and then support the Russian response (even if you think it was too much).

This is the way I see it. To me, it's hypocrisy from all sides. The US shouldn't denounce it after what we've done, and people around the world shouldn't say it's 'OK' if they think the war in Iraq is illegal.

[gaia.plateau]

I'm largely in agreement with JSM.

In any case, as long as Russia is a permanent member of the UNSC, no country in the world can take legitimate action of any kind against them. Even the EU's proposed sanctions are internationally illegitimate, because they won't, in fact can't, be ratified by the UN. So it's kind of pointless to play at flights of fancy in regard to taking action against Russia, whether you're the US government or hookah smokers on a forum.

If nothing else, this should serve as more evidence for the increasingly monumental case for international diplomatic reform.

Now, let us draw the parallels (loose parallels and extremely oversimplified).

Georgia is Iraq. For all intents and purposes it's a good country. It's done some things wrong in the past and it's doing some things wrong right now

The difference is that Iraq wasn't doing anything particularly wrong before military intervention. Certainly nothing to rival the governments of North Korea, Burma, Guatemala, Columbia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Somalia, or even Russia/China/The US, for that matter. Invading another nation is relatively just cause for Russia's military action, even if their motivations were hardly altruistic. They certainly had just as much reason to use force as NATO did in Kosovo, or the UN did in East Timor. Edited August 29, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[oolatec]

The difference is that Iraq wasn't doing anything particularly wrong before military intervention.

Eh, not so sure about that. Shooting at jets patrolling UN mandated no-fly zones... I could go on, but as far as I am concerned, that's a big no-no.

[gaia.plateau]

The difference is that Iraq wasn't doing anything particularly wrong before military intervention.

Eh, not so sure about that. Shooting at jets patrolling UN mandated no-fly zones... I could go on, but as far as I am concerned, that's a big no-no.

First correction: jet, not jets. Second correction: unmanned surveillance drone, not jet.

First rebuttal: the surveillance drone shooting wasn't even mentioned in the first UN assembly regarding what to do about US unilateral ambitions for Iraq, nor was it brought up as a justification by the bellicose administrations for the invasion.

Second rebuttal: many other countries routinely violate no-fly zone regulations, including North Korea and indeed the US (2004, Haiti, for example). If that was sufficient justification for going into a sovereign country, overthrowing its leadership, and massacreing hundreds of thousands of its citizens, then NATO would be much too busy to worry about Russia.

Third rebuttal: you missed the point. Look at the very few examples I gave. In North Korea, populations are starved while rampant weapon spending and nuclear weaponization goes on, and the government has openly threatened other sovereign nations with force. In Burma, Sudan and Sri Lanka, militant government regimes oppress and exchange violence with the minorities on a daily basis, often involving ethnic cleansing. The governments of Columbia and Guatemala routinely exercise death squads to crush political opposition or even the slightest whisper of sedition, and Columbia recently invaded another sovereign nation, Bolivia, for economic and geopolitical purposes. Somalia is a warzone constantly leaking out into surrounding states. China, Russia and the US frequently commit human rights attrocities putting to shame most of the things Saddam did, while China controls Tibet illegitimately and the US maintains several militant fascist puppet governments around the world. No action has been taken in any of these situations, some of which have been going on for over 50 years.

The point that you missed is, military intervention very seldomly occurs because a government or organization is doing something wrong. Edited August 30, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Texico]

Invading another nation is relatively just cause for Russia's military action, even if their motivations were hardly altruistic.

When did Georgia invade another country though? What Georgia did was attempt to reign in a problematic province which was recieving Russian passports and support (and I always thought that issuing passports to citizens of another country was considered to be undermining that country's authority). The United Nations had not recognized South Ossetia and Abhkazia as sovereign countries and yet Russia was unilaterally annexing them. It was just allowed to go on for too long becuase no one cared about what was going on there until Georgia finally attacked. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion now. If Russia hadn't attacked Georgia they would be in a better position to finally annex the two regions, because that's what they really want.

There's a bunch of thought lines tied up in there, but I don't feel like rearranging it. You can all get a general idea of what I'm saying. Russia's wrong, Georgia's wrong, but Georgia is closer to being right. Russia was just exacerbating what should have been an internal conflict (maybe). They should have waited to act with UN approval (which they most likely would have recieved despite US protest).

It's all speculation though, but that's what's fun about this forum. So many differing opinions and a freedom to post (most of) them.

[gaia.plateau]

Invading another nation is relatively just cause for Russia's military action, even if their motivations were hardly altruistic.

When did Georgia invade another country though? What Georgia did was attempt to reign in a problematic province which was recieving Russian passports and support (and I always thought that issuing passports to citizens of another country was considered to be undermining that country's authority). The United Nations had not recognized South Ossetia and Abhkazia as sovereign countries and yet Russia was unilaterally annexing them. It was just allowed to go on for too long becuase no one cared about what was going on there until Georgia finally attacked. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion now. If Russia hadn't attacked Georgia they would be in a better position to finally annex the two regions, because that's what they really want.

Tex, it's important to remember the distinction between the terms nation and state, or country. You live in the US, which is both a nation and a state. In Canada, we have two nations - the Quebecois, and the rest of Canada. In Iraq, to borrow your example, there are three nations: the Sunni, the Shi'a, and the Kurds. In Georgia, there are the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in addition to the Georgian majority.

Georgia attempted to "reign in" separate, arguably oppressed nations who wanted independence. In Canada, when Quebec did that, we allowed them to hold a referendum and decide for themselves. If we'd tried to "reign them in", it would have started a civil war, and the international community would have been right to defend the Quebecois against the aggressive Canadian government.

It is not an entirely dissimilar situation from Sri Lanka, wherein the Tamils seek independence from the tyrannical majority of the Singhalese. It is entirely similar to the situation in Kosovo, 1999, wherein the international community intervened against the government's "reigning in" of the problematic Albanians. And what did the West do? We undertook a three month bombing campaign which killed hundreds of thousands and innocent civilians and, to be sure, innocent drafted Yugoslavian soldiers.

The people stirring up the controversy over this, most notably the EU and the US administration, are doing so not because they have found Russia's actions to be illegitimate or "wrong", but for political, or geopolitical agendas.

That being said, and let me make this clear, military intervention is never right, in my perception and opinion. Even in the most extreme cases, like Rwanda, there were many other options- the ethnic cleansing in that case was simply the culmination of 36 years of socioeconomic conflict, caused entirely by colonial policies, and diplomacy/peacebuilding in the 60s, 70s or 80s almost certainly would have avoided the need for intervention.

Russia's wrong, Georgia's wrong, but Georgia is closer to being right. Russia was just exacerbating what should have been an internal conflict (maybe).

Well, you're correct, Russia should have gone to the UN. But consider this, can we really blame them for expecting to get away with bypassing bureaucracy, after the US invasion of Iraq? I will say this, Putin blaming the whole thing on the presence of US citizens in Georgia is complete bullshit.

The bottom line, I think, in considering Russian culpability in this matter, is what would likely have happened if they hadn't intervened militarily.

Well, one possibility is that the UN could have enforced discourse between the Georgian government and the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, to reach some kind of interim settlement, which is basically a compromise wherein the government is able to address the concerns and needs of ethnic minorities without actually granting them independence. That would have been the best solution, but recent history suggests that the chances of the UN actually doing that are almost zero.

So what's the more likely possibility? Ethnic cleansing, or in the best-case scenario, outright civil war. Would those have been better options than Russian intervening? Edited August 30, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Texico]

I just reread your post, gaia, and realized that I skipped over the part where you recognize the need for "international diplomatic reform." I also believe this because, to be honest, the United Nations is a joke.

The rest of my beliefs I will keep to myself.

I really need to stop posting on this forum. I love reading your posts, though, gaia. They are always quite informative.

[TheScotsman]

Invading another nation is relatively just cause for Russia's military action, even if their motivations were hardly altruistic.

When did Georgia invade another country though? What Georgia did was attempt to reign in a problematic province which was recieving Russian passports and support (and I always thought that issuing passports to citizens of another country was considered to be undermining that country's authority). The United Nations had not recognized South Ossetia and Abhkazia as sovereign countries and yet Russia was unilaterally annexing them. It was just allowed to go on for too long becuase no one cared about what was going on there until Georgia finally attacked. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion now. If Russia hadn't attacked Georgia they would be in a better position to finally annex the two regions, because that's what they really want.

Tex, it's important to remember the distinction between the terms nation and state, or country. You live in the US, which is both a nation and a state. In Canada, we have two nations - the Quebecois, and the rest of Canada. In Iraq, to borrow your example, there are three nations: the Sunni, the Shi'a, and the Kurds. In Georgia, there are the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in addition to the Georgian majority.

Georgia attempted to "reign in" separate, arguably oppressed nations who wanted independence. In Canada, when Quebec did that, we allowed them to hold a referendum and decide for themselves. If we'd tried to "reign them in", it would have started a civil war, and the international community would have been right to defend the Quebecois against the aggressive Canadian government.

It is not an entirely dissimilar situation from Sri Lanka, wherein the Tamils seek independence from the tyrannical majority of the Singhalese. It is entirely similar to the situation in Kosovo, 1999, wherein the international community intervened against the government's "reigning in" of the problematic Albanians. And what did the West do? We undertook a three month bombing campaign which killed hundreds of thousands and innocent civilians and, to be sure, innocent drafted Yugoslavian soldiers.

The people stirring up the controversy over this, most notably the EU and the US administration, are doing so not because they have found Russia's actions to be illegitimate or "wrong", but for political, or geopolitical agendas.

That being said, and let me make this clear, military intervention is never right, in my perception and opinion. Even in the most extreme cases, like Rwanda, there were many other options- the ethnic cleansing in that case was simply the culmination of 36 years of socioeconomic conflict, caused entirely by colonial policies, and diplomacy/peacebuilding in the 60s, 70s or 80s almost certainly would have avoided the need for intervention.

Russia's wrong, Georgia's wrong, but Georgia is closer to being right. Russia was just exacerbating what should have been an internal conflict (maybe).

Well, you're correct, Russia should have gone to the UN. But consider this, can we really blame them for expecting to get away with bypassing bureaucracy, after the US invasion of Iraq? I will say this, Putin blaming the whole thing on the presence of US citizens in Georgia is complete bullshit.

The bottom line, I think, in considering Russian culpability in this matter, is what would likely have happened if they hadn't intervened militarily.

Well, one possibility is that the UN could have enforced discourse between the Georgian government and the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, to reach some kind of interim settlement, which is basically a compromise wherein the government is able to address the concerns and needs of ethnic minorities without actually granting them independence. That would have been the best solution, but recent history suggests that the chances of the UN actually doing that are almost zero.

So what's the more likely possibility? Ethnic cleansing, or in the best-case scenario, outright civil war. Would those have been better options than Russian intervening?

Wouldn't it be more akin to Canada trying to reign in Quebec, then having France show up and invade Canada under the pretense of protecting people of French decent. (putting aside, for a moment, that France is much better at being invaded than invading)

Under a best case, I would think it better for any nation to resolve it's own problems, regardless of outcome, than foreign intervention. (Assganistan, Korea, VietNam, Bosnia, and Iraq included). If you are implying that Russian invasion may have been better than genocide or civil war, It's still an invasion of a sovereign nation. Besides, does anyone really think it's going to stop with stealing a few hunks of Georgia?

Good to see Gaia back. As much as I hate to say it, I missed those long-winded liberal posts!

[gaia.plateau]

Good to see Gaia back. As much as I hate to say it, I missed those long-winded liberal posts!
...
Wouldn't it be more akin to Canada trying to reign in Quebec, then having France show up and invade Canada under the pretense of protecting people of French decent. (putting aside, for a moment, that France is much better at being invaded than invading)

Oy, Scots! I missed you too.

And I've told you, I'm not a liberal. I'm against neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism, and fascism and communism, but apart from that I have no political alignments. I suspect that you're just used to equating common sense with the American liberal left.

And like I said, if Canada had tried to reign in Quebec, like Georgia did to its secessionist provinces, the international community (perhaps France included) would have been right to get involved.

Under a best case, I would think it better for any nation to resolve it's own problems, regardless of outcome, than foreign intervention. (Assganistan, Korea, VietNam, Bosnia, and Iraq included). If you are implying that Russian invasion may have been better than genocide or civil war, It's still an invasion of a sovereign nation. Besides, does anyone really think it's going to stop with stealing a few hunks of Georgia?

That's a whole 'nother can of worms, really. It's pretty clear in the face of recent history that states are incapable of resolving most, if not many, of the political and socioeconomic challenges of a globalizing world. If you want my opinion, we need to do away with states; it isn't 1648 anymore.

But the easiest argument to make against what you're saying, is that the precedent has long been set and reset for military intervention as a strategy for international conflict resolution. So firstly, to reiterate, no Russia was not just in their actions, but it may have been the best option for defending the freedoms of the secessionist provinces and avoiding massive, unnecessary loss of life. And secondly, Russia has only been following a precedent that has long been set, and far be it for those who set those precedents, including the UN and most Western countries, to say do as I say, not as I do.

[newjacksm]

WE CANT INVADE GEORGIA THIS WOULD BE CIVIL WAR!!!!!! Edited September 4, 2008 by newjacksm