A Shot Across Nato's Bows - Russian tanks enter Georgia - Georgians enter South Ossetia - all out war?

Oh, they plan to hang him. At least replace Sakashvilli. Do remember, this is the individual who came to power in the Rose revolution and set about removing corruption from Georgian political life. Ok, he may have an ego the size of the gulf of mexico, but he does have democratic credentials. There is certainly regime change in the offing, but how effective is regime change in a democratic country? The Russian ambassador to the UN acts like such is even possible 1hr 42 mins on that video I earlier referred to.

I guess we'll see. I'm off to bed.

It is ethnic cleansing and should indeed be frowned upon. It is also a fact of life and should be recognised as such. Sack. was not dealing in reality when he believed the Americans and swallowed all the UN and recognising states baloney. As we say here, Get Real.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hV2N6fVKS5slf10A13Dj_uIdaZ4QD92GE8780

It appears that the Georgians are racing back to defend the capital. There are no Georgian troops even to try to defend anyplace else. The question is will the Russians pound the capital to bits. They want the guy that started it dead.

"Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said in Moscow. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection."

Vladimir Putin. I fear someone is going to swing.

They are going to get him and they are going to grab the pipeline at the least. At the most they might drag Ukraine in for a hiding as well. If the West buts in they can suck on a few topal nuke missiles

youngdan wrote:

They are going to get him and they are going to grab the pipeline at the least. At the most they might drag Ukraine in for a hiding as well. If the West buts in they can suck on a few topal nuke missiles

I hate to say this, but it's times like this that you need America. If only she hadn't destroyed her reputation and her military efficacy by those horrific blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia would be a bit more wary about overstepping the mark. Now, Russia clearly doesn't fear America, and is more than willing to flex her muscles and restablishing central Asian hegemony at the expense of the former SSRs.

cactus flower wrote:

The bombing of Georgian Villages was 'yesterday' in Abkhazia, not in South Ossetia. There is No UNOMEG force in South Ossetia. In South Ossetia the Russians are part of the peace-keeping force..

You are correct, UNOMIG operates exclusively in Abkhazia.

Quote :

UNOMIG Mandate
UNOMIG was originally established on 24 August 1993 by Security Council resolution 858 (1993) to verify compliance with the 27 July 1993 ceasefire agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Abkhaz authorities in Georgia with special attention to the situation in the city of Sukhumi; to investigate reports of ceasefire violations and to attempt to resolve such incidents with the parties involved; and to report to the Secretary-General on the implementation of its mandate, including, in particular, violations of the ceasefire agreement. The authorized strength of the Mission was 88 military observers.

After UNOMIG's original mandate had been invalidated by the resumed fighting in Abkhazia in September 1993, the Mission was given an interim mandate, by Security Council resolution 881 (1993) of 4 November 1993, to maintain contacts with both sides to the conflict and with Russian military contingent, and to monitor and report on the situation, with particular reference to developments relevant to United Nations efforts to promote a comprehensive political settlement. Following the signing, in May 1994, by the Georgian and Abkhaz sides of the Agreement on a Ceasefire and Separation of Forces, the Security Council, by its resolution 937 (1994) of 27 July 1994, authorized the increase in UNOMIG's strength to up to 136 military observers and decided that the mandate of an expanded Mission shall be as follows:....

I think we could abandon the fiction that the Russians are or ever were a peacekeeping force.

riadach wrote:

I hate to say this, but it's times like this that you need America. If only she hadn't destroyed her reputation and her military efficacy by those horrific blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia would be a bit more wary about overstepping the mark. Now, Russia clearly doesn't fear America, and is more than willing to flex her muscles and restablishing central Asian hegemony at the expense of the former SSRs.

Isn't it time we Europeans grew the hell up and stopped depending on the US. This is a problem for Europe, every country in Europe has a military force, most of them are members of NATO and the EU has 2 battlegroups on standby for these emergencies. While I realise that the US is the dominant world power, or it was until this week, Europe needs to start looking after it's own emergencies.

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The bombing of Georgian Villages was 'yesterday' in Abkhazia, not in South Ossetia. There is No UNOMEG force in South Ossetia. In South Ossetia the Russians are part of the peace-keeping force..

You are correct, UNOMIG operates exclusively in Abkhazia.

Quote :

UNOMIG Mandate
UNOMIG was originally established on 24 August 1993 by Security Council resolution 858 (1993) to verify compliance with the 27 July 1993 ceasefire agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Abkhaz authorities in Georgia with special attention to the situation in the city of Sukhumi; to investigate reports of ceasefire violations and to attempt to resolve such incidents with the parties involved; and to report to the Secretary-General on the implementation of its mandate, including, in particular, violations of the ceasefire agreement. The authorized strength of the Mission was 88 military observers.

After UNOMIG's original mandate had been invalidated by the resumed fighting in Abkhazia in September 1993, the Mission was given an interim mandate, by Security Council resolution 881 (1993) of 4 November 1993, to maintain contacts with both sides to the conflict and with Russian military contingent, and to monitor and report on the situation, with particular reference to developments relevant to United Nations efforts to promote a comprehensive political settlement. Following the signing, in May 1994, by the Georgian and Abkhaz sides of the Agreement on a Ceasefire and Separation of Forces, the Security Council, by its resolution 937 (1994) of 27 July 1994, authorized the increase in UNOMIG's strength to up to 136 military observers and decided that the mandate of an expanded Mission shall be as follows:....

I think we could abandon the fiction that the Russians are or ever were a peacekeeping force.

The Russians had a peacekeeping force in South Ossetia under the 1992 agreement which included Georgia. The agreement was made to end civil war and since then South Ossetia has been semi-autonomous. That agreement is recognised by the UN. All the UN reports I have seen refer to the Russians as a peacekeeping force. The Russians in their reports distinguish between the peacekeeping force (several of whom they say were killed in Georgia's first assault) and the troops they subsequently sent in. Georgia went in to end that 'semi-autonomy'.

riadach wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Checkoslovakia maybe but I did not follow it too closely. The Soviet Union itself was smooth considering what was involved. California seceding will be a good test. Canada is close as well. Scotland will hardly be bombed if it decides to break.

Perhaps protest doesn't automatically mean bombing.

Let's suggest that a pseudo-state sets itself up in America, with a particular ethnic make up run by formers members of a state which wishes to exert an unnatural influence over the U.S.. Let us also suggest that this pseudo-state is criminal in nature, it is involved in drug smuggling and gun smuggling in the area. It is also fairly democratic, as it denies ethnic georgians a voice in its vote, has made attacks on a rival movement which seeks autonomy within the United States, and attempted to assasinate its leader. Lets say there are reports that it has been attacking pro-American civilians within the area. That it has been armed by the above external power. Could you imagine a smooth resolution?

I take it you're not a republican then, Riadach.

Lestat wrote:

riadach wrote:

I hate to say this, but it's times like this that you need America. If only she hadn't destroyed her reputation and her military efficacy by those horrific blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia would be a bit more wary about overstepping the mark. Now, Russia clearly doesn't fear America, and is more than willing to flex her muscles and restablishing central Asian hegemony at the expense of the former SSRs.

Isn't it time we Europeans grew the hell up and stopped depending on the US. This is a problem for Europe, every country in Europe has a military force, most of them are members of NATO and the EU has 2 battlegroups on standby for these emergencies. While I realise that the US is the dominant world power, or it was until this week, Europe needs to start looking after it's own emergencies.

But it will never happen as we will never speak with one voice. Russia knows that whatever happenes, Europe is divided and can rely on a fair chunk of us to agree with its actions. America, however, is different. They're either with you or against you, there is no halfway house. There is much more reason to be more careful with your foreign policy.

cactus flower wrote:

riadach wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Checkoslovakia maybe but I did not follow it too closely. The Soviet Union itself was smooth considering what was involved. California seceding will be a good test. Canada is close as well. Scotland will hardly be bombed if it decides to break.

Perhaps protest doesn't automatically mean bombing.

Let's suggest that a pseudo-state sets itself up in America, with a particular ethnic make up run by formers members of a state which wishes to exert an unnatural influence over the U.S.. Let us also suggest that this pseudo-state is criminal in nature, it is involved in drug smuggling and gun smuggling in the area. It is also fairly democratic, as it denies ethnic georgians a voice in its vote, has made attacks on a rival movement which seeks autonomy within the United States, and attempted to assasinate its leader. Lets say there are reports that it has been attacking pro-American civilians within the area. That it has been armed by the above external power. Could you imagine a smooth resolution?

I take it you're not a republican then, Riadach.

Depends what you mean by republican.

If it is an NI analogy, then it cuts both ways.

riadach wrote:

I hate to say this, but it's times like this that you need America. If only she hadn't destroyed her reputation and her military efficacy by those horrific blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia would be a bit more wary about overstepping the mark. Now, Russia clearly doesn't fear America, and is more than willing to flex her muscles and restablishing central Asian hegemony at the expense of the former SSRs.

There's an ineresting piece on the BBC website which looks at all the 'humanitarian' interventions over the past few years and how Russia is using this:

Quote :

In recent years the ground has shifted away from the idea that national boundaries should be respected at all costs.

No-one wants a return to the dangerous tensions of the Cold War days

Humanitarian intervention was the justification given for the Nato attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. It lay in part behind the United States and Britain's 2003 invasion of Iraq. It lies at the root of that decision which so angered Russia to grant Kosovo independent status from Serbia - against Serbia's wishes.

And only this summer a debate raged internationally about whether the outside world should overrule Burma's government and move in to help the flood victims - also an invasion on humanitarian grounds.

Mr Putin may well think that when it comes to so called humanitarian interventions, the West has now been hoisted by its own petard.

BBC - Russia actions confound allies

The Russians are saying that their operation in Georgia proper has ended. I doubt they'll ever leave South Ossetia again though.

cactus flower wrote:

The Russians had a peacekeeping force in South Ossetia under the 1992 agreement which included Georgia. The agreement was made to end civil war and since then South Ossetia has been semi-autonomous. That agreement is recognised by the UN. All the UN reports I have seen refer to the Russians as a peacekeeping force. The Russians in their reports distinguish between the peacekeeping force (several of whom they say were killed in Georgia's first assault) and the troops they subsequently sent in. Georgia went in to end that 'semi-autonomy'.

In the same manner that the US has a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan with UN recognition.

riadach wrote:

America, however, is different. They're either with you or against you, there is no halfway house. There is much more reason to be more careful with your foreign policy.

The Russians have just demonstrated the extent of their respect for the US.

It certainly does. Are you sure that you are fair on South Ossetia's case not to be part of Georgia though? If we were to judge by atrocity-counting we would not get very far as both sides have behaved beyond appallingly at various times.
South Ossetia has the same language and culture as North Ossetia (mountainy men, as you point out - often a bit on the hair-raising side), and they have a vvery short term association with Georgia. Yes, they are tiny, but is that a big pproblem? The Russians don't particularly want them and turned them down from the Federation.

Is the underlying belief/reality that no small state can be truly independent but it must be either a client state of a great power, or subsumed by a hungry neighbour?

They can play larger states off against each other as well, if they are clever and are correctly positioned.

Or you could have little that other larger states want and get on with your own thing. Like a south sea island.

Or you could act within a broader body which allows for smaller states to exert greater power. The only such body in existence is the EU. Terrible pity people are hell bent on destroying it.

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The Russians had a peacekeeping force in South Ossetia under the 1992 agreement which included Georgia. The agreement was made to end civil war and since then South Ossetia has been semi-autonomous. That agreement is recognised by the UN. All the UN reports I have seen refer to the Russians as a peacekeeping force. The Russians in their reports distinguish between the peacekeeping force (several of whom they say were killed in Georgia's first assault) and the troops they subsequently sent in. Georgia went in to end that 'semi-autonomy'.

In the same manner that the US has a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan with UN recognition.

riadach wrote:

America, however, is different. They're either with you or against you, there is no halfway house. There is much more reason to be more careful with your foreign policy.

The Russians have just demonstrated the extent of their respect for the US.

Which was precisely my initial point. America can no longer fulfill that ideal role because of her actions since 2001.

cactus flower wrote:

It certainly does. Are you sure that you are fair on South Ossetia's case not to be part of Georgia though? If we were to judge by atrocity-counting we would not get very far as both sides have behaved beyond appallingly at various times.
South Ossetia has the same language and culture as North Ossetia (mountainy men, as you point out - often a bit on the hair-raising side), and they have a vvery short term association with Georgia. Yes, they are tiny, but is that a big pproblem? The Russians don't particularly want them and turned them down from the Federation.

Is the underlying belief/reality that no small state can be truly independent but it must be either a client state of a great power, or subsumed by a hungry neighbour?

They association with Georgia is longer than you might realise. They went into the Caucasus to seek shelter from the mongols, and were subsumed with Georgia into the Ottoman empire, they then were subsumed into Russia at the opening of the 19th century with Georgia. In practice, since that branch of the alans entired Georgia in the 1300s, they have constantly being governed by the same group that governed Georgia. Therefore, they have a stronger historical connection to Georgia than is often claimed. They have a stronger interdependent connection with Georgia over the past 700 years than they have with North Ossetia.

cactus flower wrote:

... Are you sure that you are fair on South Ossetia's case not to be part of Georgia though?

What is South Ossetia's case? They are 70,000 people ethnically different from the majority. In recent history the region was an autonomous area within the Georgian SSR. Logically, when Georgia reasserted it's independence, South Ossetia should have remained part of Georgia. Russia, as I see it, kept an occupying force (which they termed peacekeepers) in South Ossetia in order to keep a foothold in a strategically vital area. To justify the "peacekeeping" operation they retrospectively awarded Russian passports to the South Ossetians. South Ossetia is just another example of how disastrous balkanization is, compunded by selfish superpower interference.

The Swedish Foreign Minister puts Russian interference in the region in a nutshell.

Quote :

Statement Ministry for Foreign Affairs 09 August 2008
Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs


Russia's justification of its offensive deeply ominous

"The Russian offensive against and in Georgia is an act of aggression that is incompatible with international law and fundamental principles of security and cooperation in Europe," says Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt in a statement on Saturday.
"We - and Russia - will have to live with the consequences of Russia's use of force for a long time to come.
"The justification given by Russia is that it is protecting Russian nationals, but the obligation to protect people - irrespective of their nationality - lies with the state in which those individuals are located. No state has a right to intervene militarily in the territory of another state simply because there are individuals there with a passport issued by that state or who are nationals of that state.
"Attempts to apply such a doctrine have plunged Europe into war in the past - and that is why it is so important that this doctrine is emphatically dismissed. The same doctrine can be equally dangerous in other situations.
"We did not accept military intervention by Milosevic's Serbia in other former Yugoslav states on the grounds of protecting Serbian passport holders. And we have reason to remember how Hitler used this very doctrine little more than half a century ago to undermine and attack substantial parts of central Europe.
"It is important now to demand an immediate end to the bombing raids, immediate withdrawal of the Russian troops that have entered Georgia and the establishment of political contacts to bring about a peaceful solution. As chair of the OSCE, Finland has a particularly important role to play."

Quote :

The Russians don't particularly want them and turned them down from the Federation.

Then why the occupation force and the passports.

Quote :

Is the underlying belief/reality that no small state can be truly independent but it must be either a client state of a great power, or subsumed by a hungry neighbour?

We live or die at the pleasure of the likes of the Russias and the USAs by the looks of it.

johnfás wrote:

They can play larger states off against each other as well, if they are clever and are correctly positioned.

Or you could have little that other larger states want and get on with your own thing. Like a south sea island.

Or you could act within a broader body which allows for smaller states to exert greater power. The only such body in existence is the EU. Terrible pity people are hell bent on destroying it.

Who would those bad people be ...

The little state in the EU still remains a little state. Is the only way to be "influential" to toe the line set by the large states.

cactus flower wrote:

Is the only way to be "influential" to toe the line set by the large states.

To a point. The EU is a complex and remarkable institution which does in fact allow for a great deal of power to be wielded by the smaller states so long as they act within the institutions of the Community. One only need study EU Politics or EU Law to see that. In no other body in the world can you have somewhere like Luxembourg take France to court, win, and have a binding judgment placed upon France which they must comply with, including the payment of damages. That is simply unheard of in international law which exists, to a great degree, in an anarchical situation. Aside that is from the EU.

riadach wrote:

Which was precisely my initial point. America can no longer fulfill that ideal role because of her actions since 2001.

But it isn't and never has been an ideal role. I don't like the idea of the US as the World's Policeman, do you? Particularly not now when it appears that the fate of large areas of the planet is dictated by the boards of directors of whichever companies have bought the presidency.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Is the only way to be "influential" to toe the line set by the large states.

To a point. The EU is a complex and remarkable institution which does in fact allow for a great deal of power to be wielded by the smaller states so long as they act within the institutions of the Community. One only need study EU Politics or EU Law to see that. In no other body in the world can you have somewhere like Luxembourg take France to court, win, and have a binding judgment placed upon France which they must comply with, including the payment of damages. That is simply unheard of in international law which exists, to a great degree, in an anarchical situation. Aside that is from the EU.

Given the new perspectives that have opened up, I think I'll root around for one of our Lisbon/Europe threads.

Why not just hold a referendum in those disputed areas and let the outcome decide? If the people there do not want to be part of Georgia what is the point in trying to force them? Get rid of the problem and get on with life is usually a good policy. All the Georgians would be losing would be a few walnut groves, but think of the advantages of a settlement and long term who knows?

I am still unclear in my mind as to who exactly started this, the versions I hear don't entirely make sense. If accurate the Georgian President has been stupid beyond belief. No one in their right mind is going to send troops in to support Georgia and Georgian military has no chance of prevailing against Russia.

Once again Putin plays his cards cleverly and in many way he could be partially right in what he did. Certainly he gave everyone something to think about other than a strike against Iran and the interests Russia has there.

As for European response one has to consider that oil supply in the region in the control of the USA is about as welcome as oil supply being controlled by the Russia. European and US interests are two entirely different things. The USA does not want a strong Europe, and is doing its utmost to weaken it. Having a US dominated world is not necessarily in Europe's interests. The sooner some here in Europe realise that the better. The USA is not necessarily a friendly state.


European foriegn policy tends to be diverse, but I have absolutely no doubt that the influence of the EU, and its states, is growing. Germany has been up to their neck in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, France has its Mediterranean outlook (one to watch) and is busy in the Middle East and Africa, and Britain is always scheming.

The EU is a remarkable institution and is undoubtedly the greatest political achievement of the last century.