Georgia, the Olympics, the US armada and Iran

[Glaucus]

Well spoken Mike (only they call it FSB these days... same bureau, different name.

I do know that. But in his prime, Putin worked for the KGB, which is who I was really talking about. ;-)

 

[ltstanfo]

Well spoken Mike (only they call it FSB these days... same bureau, different name.

I do know that. But in his prime, Putin worked for the KGB, which is who I was really talking about. ;-)

No arguement from me. Press on with the comment good sir... press on! 8)

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

RT reports that the BBC has uncovered Georgian war crimes at least that is RTs interpretation of what the BBC said.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch has concluded that Georgia used cluster bombs.

 

[Glaucus]

Quite possible war crimes were committed, but this article is very poor evidence of anything. First the evidence appears to have been gathered by BBC journalists. Typically, journalists aren't trained to investigate these sorts of things. And by the looks of it, all evidence is based on witnesses - most likely non-Georgian witnesses (ie, Ossetians or Russians). Little else is mentioned on the RussiaToday website. You'd think RT would have a link to a BBC article considering it was a BBC reporter who risked his life in the Russia imposed off-limits zones of the conflict to gather the "evidence".

Fact is, we still can't trust anything that comes from that region so long as Russia clamps down on all media in the region - as they continue to do so in Chechnya.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

US and UK concede that Georgia started it.

 

[Robert]

US and UK concede that Georgia started it.

Similar tactic to the whole Saddam=Al Qaeda rubbish (where is Tig these days?) that was being peddled in 2002: Make enough fuss so the incurious sheep and right wing apologists buy it then by the time you concede it isn't so the damage has already been done.

 

[Glaucus]

Um, guys, neither article actually states they concede Georgia started it. From the first article we have:

But officials here say overall culpability for the war may never be known, and the focus now should be on getting Georgia, and especially Russia, to heed ceasefire obligations, and help return the region to stability.

That doesn't sound like they're conceding Georgia started it, although it appears they do concede it was a mistake that they attacked Tskhinvali in the way that they did. However, even that you'd need to take with a grain of salt as it doesn't mention which official actually said that. I could write articles like that if you like, getting top guys on record is a little more credible me thinks.

And the second article talks about 2 retired UK soldiers who saw Georgians attacking S. Ossetia, but this a far cry from the UK conceding that Georgia started the war.

But let's also remember that the conflict didn't begin with the attack on Tskhinvali. It's not like the Georgians and South Ossetians were enjoying a harmonious co-existence when out of the blue the Georgians decided to go ballistic on them literally. There were increased tensions reported before the attack. None of this addresses that, or the belief that Russia encouraged the South Ossetians to rise against the Georgians to draw them into a war with Russia. Those who keep pointing at the attack of Tskhinvali as the start of the war tend to side with Russia, but that's also misleading and factually incomplete.

And we do have evidence that Russia entered South Ossetia before the Georgians attacked Tskhinvali:

Georgia Offers Fresh Evidence on War’s Start

Georgia has released intercepted telephone calls purporting to show that part of a Russian armored regiment crossed into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia nearly a full day before Georgia’s attack on the capital, Tskhinvali, late on Aug. 7.

...

Russia has not disputed the veracity of the phone calls, which were apparently made by Ossetian border guards on a private Georgian cellphone network. “Listen, has the armor arrived or what?” a supervisor at the South Ossetian border guard headquarters asked a guard at the tunnel with the surname Gassiev, according to a call that Georgia and the cellphone provider said was intercepted at 3:52 a.m. on Aug. 7.

“The armor and people,” the guard replied. Asked if they had gone through, he said, “Yes, 20 minutes ago; when I called you, they had already arrived.”

This is the first I've heard of this, but if so, we've found another case where the Russians have changed their story. First they tell us they didn't move into South Ossetia until after the Georgians invaded, now they tell us it was just a routine troop movement (which even if it was, was illegal as the treaty between Georgia and Russia stipulates that rotations of peace keeps needs to happen in day time hours and with 1 month notice).

 

[Robert]

But let's also remember that the conflict didn't begin with the attack on Tskhinvali.

Sorry Mike but this is horsefeathers.

You might as well argue that the Bush regime didn't start the Iraq war.

Almost (if not all) all wars have incidents in the run up that can be claimed to have 'started' it.
However, if you accept that the 'shock and awe' attack 'started' the Iraq war, then you have to accept that the attack on Tskhinvali 'started' this conflict.

neither article actually states they concede Georgia started it.

As far as I'm concerned this does:

Ryan Grist, a former British Army captain, and Stephen Young, a former RAF wing commander, are said to have concluded that, before the Russian bombardment began, Georgian rockets and artillery were hitting civilian areas in the breakaway region of South Ossetia every 15 or 20 seconds.

Their accounts seem likely to undermine the American-backed claims of President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia that his little country was the innocent victim of Russian aggression and acted solely in self-defence.

Also worth bearing in mind that the story is from a Murdoch owned organ.

You know, LIBERAL media?

I know you're wary of Russia. I am too. However, although no one is without blame in this conflict (and I'd agree that Russian response was 'disproportionate') I cannot see past the obvious fact that Georgia gave Russia the perfect excuse.

And the one-sided rush to blame Russia for the whole thing whilst exhonerating Georgia was ridiculous.

 

[Glaucus]

I find it interesting that you ignore all evidence that Russia had troops in Georgia before the Georgian attack, yet seem to think that a couple of retired RAF guys can concede Georgian guilt on behalf of the UK government. Fact is, no matter what these two guys say is just eye-witness evidence, which means there's plenty of action that they may not have seen. To really get to the bottom of this satellite photos and intercepted communications would carry more weight. We have no photos yet, but we do have one phone call that suggests Russians were in Georgia on Aug 7th, a day before Georgia attacked Tskhinvali on the 8th. And the Russians don't seem to deny this. If this is all true, and the Russians did move military units into Georgia at night and without prior warning, then Georgia was in it's full right to defend itself from a foreign invasion. There is no country in the world that would not act in self defense.

And yes, I am wary of Russia, as I am of China and even the US. We must not allow ourselves to think that because of Iraq the US is now the only bad nation out there. And although the US has much in stake in Georgia, Russia has much more - especially with current NATO expansion and US unilateralism. Everything about this war reeks of KGB (and yes I know it's FSB now). Everything from the timing and to how quickly Russia countered and then invaded deep into Georgia hitting strategic targets (blowing up NATO style bases and equipment) suggests this was well planned out in advance with specific targets and objectives. If you just look at how each side executed their plans it's easy to see that Russia's plans were much better thought through. If Georgia were to provoke something like this, they'd probably do a better job, maybe even recall some of their combat troops from Iraq BEFORE, not after. Georgia made some big mistakes, both strategically and tactically, Russia's counter move was swift and flawless. So forgive my skepticism when the Russians tell us that they were caught completely off-guard.

- Mike

 

[Robert]

I find it interesting that you ignore all evidence that Russia had troops in Georgia before the Georgian attack

I find it interesting that you ignore the majority of my post but no matter.

Georgia was in it's full right to defend itself from a foreign invasion. There is no country in the world that would not act in self defense.

Defend itself? They attacked civilian areas. Your increasing readiness to perform apparent intellectual gymnastics in order to justify Georgian aggression is baffling.

And I guess I must have missed the Georgian claims from the time that they were attacking Russian military units.
I've only seen admissions of attacking the city itself. Rather revisionist way of looking at it, I'm afraid.
(Unless you can provide a link from the time of the attack stating that Georgia was actually reacting to Russian invasion or attacking invading Russian units. Otherwise your self defence argument is retrospective and thus bogus.)

 

[Glaucus]

I find it interesting that you ignore all evidence that Russia had troops in Georgia before the Georgian attack

I find it interesting that you ignore the majority of my post but no matter.

Feel free to point out any major points I neglected in my last response. I thought I hit all major points.

You seem to ignore the evidence of Russians entering Georgia before the Georgian assault. Do you believe that the evidence is not credible, or that Georgia had no right to defend itself from a Russian incursion?

[quote:26vppfg4] Georgia was in it's full right to defend itself from a foreign invasion. There is no country in the world that would not act in self defense.

Defend itself? They attacked civilian areas. Your increasing readiness to perform apparent intellectual gymnastics in order to justify Georgian aggression is baffling.[/quote:26vppfg4]First of all, there are at least two key issues here. The first I'm trying to establish is what sparked the Georgian assault. Was it Russian troop movements inside Georgian borders, or something else? Second, how was the Georgian assault carried out? So far we have more evidence on the latter issue, and that is, that there was a major battle over Tskhinvali, with heavy artillery used. As for the damage caused in Tskhinvali both sides claim the other caused it - and the reality is that both sides may be to blame. This last bit is however not easy to prove either way. I admit there are plenty of facts missing or disputed here and I'm baffled as to why you think they all seem to support one theory and not the other. The evidence I provided seems solid so far, although that might change. I'd expect you to at least challenge it, but neither you or the Russians seem to deny that Russians were in Georgia a day before the Georgians attacked. Not sure why you don't think that's a key issue.

And I guess I must have missed the Georgian claims from the time that they were attacking Russian military units.

I don't know what they were attacking, but with less then 50 confirmed civilian deaths (according to Human Rights watch) it doesn't seem that likely that they were specifically targeting civilians. With the heavy weapons they admit using the casualties should have been in the thousands, if civilians were the intended targets.

I've only seen admissions of attacking the city itself. Rather revisionist way of looking at it, I'm afraid.

See this: Events of August 7. You'll see here that both sides took Tskhinvali at least once, and both sides shelled the city at least once. Once you read it you'll notice that it's very hard to make heads or tails of what really happened there. It looks like a typical battle with both sides desperately trying to kill the enemy any which way they can. Who did what exactly is very hard to tell. But you should read that, and the section after it: The bombing and occupation of Gori.

 

[Glaucus]

The NYTimes has this artile:

Russians Melded Old-School Blitz With Modern Military Tactics

The Russian military borrowed a page from classic Soviet-era doctrine: Moscow’s commanders sent an absolutely overwhelming force into Georgia. It was never going to be an even fight, and the outcome was predictable, if not preordained.

At the same time, the Russian military picked up what is new from the latest in military thinking, including American military writings about the art of war, replete with the hard-learned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So along with the old-school onslaught of infantry, armor and artillery, Russia mounted joint air and naval operations, appeared to launch simultaneous cyberattacks on Georgian government Web sites and had its best English speakers at the ready to make Moscow’s case in television appearances.

If the rapidly unfolding events caught much of the world off guard, that kind of coordination of the old and the new did not look accidental to military professionals.

“They seem to have harnessed all their instruments of national power — military, diplomatic, information — in a very disciplined way,” said one Pentagon official, who like others interviewed for this article disclosed details of the operation under ground rules that called for anonymity. “It appears this was well thought out and planned in advance, and suggests a level of coordination in the Russian government between the military and the other civilian agencies and departments that we are striving for today.”

In fact, Pentagon and military officials say Russia held a major ground exercise in July just north of Georgia’s border, called Caucasus 2008, that played out a chain of events like the one carried out over recent days.

“This exercise was exactly what they executed in Georgia just a few weeks later,” said Dale Herspring, an expert on Russian military affairs at Kansas State University. “This exercise was a complete dress rehearsal.”

Russian commentators have countered that more than 1,000 American military personnel were in Georgia for an exercise last month. But that exercise focused on counterinsurgency operations to prepare a Georgian brigade for duty in Iraq, a different mission from the seizing of territory or denying an aggressor a new stake on the land.

I find that last bit interesting. If true, it shows that Georgia was preparing itself for further deployments in Iraq, not South Ossetia.

At the start of the fighting, the Georgian Army’s First Brigade was in Iraq, and was airlifted home aboard American aircraft — but without their war-fighting gear. The Fourth Brigade was in training for the next rotation to Iraq. The Second and Third Brigades were in western Georgia, closer to Abkhazia than to South Ossetia, where the fighting started.

Again, with it's small military scattered around, it hardly seems as though Georgia was in any position to launch a major offensive.

One other fact that no article I've seen mention is that if the Georgians really were to make a pre-planned move on South Ossetia, their first target would/should have been the Roki tunnel, to cut off any chance of resupply/invasion from Russia. In fact, if they did do that, Tskhinvali would probably still be in Georgian hands. The more I read about this the more implausible it seems that Georgia could have conducted an unprovoked attack.

 

[Robert]

Mike, what are we debating here?

As far as I'm concerned it's "who started it?"

Now, we can argue forever over the definition of 'start'. My position is that in this conflict it is whoever launched the first major attack.

I have seen nothing to contradict the evidence that the Georgian military launched the first major attack.


Were there Russian troops (other than 'peacekeepers') in South Ossetia prior to this? (an autonomous area remember - it's as much Georgian territory as Kosovo is Serbian)
Perhaps - transcript from an intercepted telephone call does not convince me - but, even if they were, that the Georgians appear to have attacked the city rather than attack these invading Russians makes the whole argument *that this was the motive for attack* (your 'self defence' position) rather flimsy, to say the least.


So, I'm not ignoring the evidence I just don't think it's particularly relevant to this particular point.

For example, here is some other evidence:

"Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had long planned a military
strike to seize back the breakaway region of South Ossetia but executed
it poorly, making it easy for Russia to retaliate, Saakashvili's former
defence minister said."

"The original plans called for a two-pronged operation entering South
Ossetia, taking Tskhinvali, the Roki Tunnel and Java," he said,
referring respectively to the regional capital, the main border crossing
between Russia and the rebel region, and another key town.

"Saakashvili's offensive only aimed at taking Tskhinvali, because he
thought the U.S. would block a Russian reaction through diplomatic
channels."

"But when the U.S. reaction turned out to be non-existent, Saakashvili
then moved troops toward the Roki tunnel, only to be outmaneuvered by
the Russians," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRe ... dChannel=0

Are you 'ignoring' that?

I'm not trying to defend Russia here - I think their actions were, overall, a disgrace.
What I am doing is calling "kiech!" on your spurious claims of Georgia 'defending itself'.
Their motives were nothing of the sort, as far as I can tell.

Now, if you want to go over the rights and wrongs of the whole situation, that is a different matter.

 

[Glaucus]

Mike, what are we debating here?

As far as I'm concerned it's "who started it?"

That is is the biggest unknown here, yes. And we can agree that it does appear that Georgia attacked first on the 8th, but there are reports that South Ossetians attacked Georgians on the 1st of August. You seem to completely ignore this, which is why I think it's wrong to look at only events from the 8th. In fact, to truly understand the situation you need to look at the history of the region and how it got to this current situation.

Now, we can argue forever over the definition of 'start'. My position is that it is whoever launched the first major attack.

So why should we ignore who started the minor attacks?

I have seen nothing to contradict the evidence that the Georgian military launched the first major attack.

We can agree that the Georgians launched the first major, organized attack using heavy weapons. But there is also evidence that the Georgians took the first causalities days before. And to be honest, if the Russians did move their military into S. Ossetia, that constitutes an attack as well, even if you don't think so. If the Russians landed a division of paratroopers in Scottland, I think you'd conclude that you're under attack pretty darned quickly.

Were there Russian troops (other than 'peacekeepers') in South Ossetia prior to this? (an autonomous area remember - it's as much Georgian territory as Kosovo is Serbian)
Perhaps - transcript from an intercepted telephone call does not convince me - but, even if they were, that the Georgians appear to have attacked the city rather than attack these invading Russians makes the whole argument *that this was the motive for attack* (your 'self defence' position) rather flimsy, to say the least.

You realize that in military speak, when you attack a city, you're in fact attacking the city's defenses? You also realize that the initial reports of mass civilian deaths was ridiculously over exaggerated (Russians accused Georgia of killing over 2000 civilians on the 8th, when the reality was closer to 50)? The casualty figures that even Russia now agrees with simply do not support any form of genocide or deliberate attempt at killing civilians. Even the Russians never attempted to kill civilians when they attacked Gori, even though they killed significantly more civilians then the Georgians did. I don't think anyone really believes that Georgia attempted to mass murder the Ossetians, I think it's pretty obvious that Georgia attacked military/government positions in Tskhinvali. Were they attacking Russian positions in Tskhinvali? Since it really seems they were there, I see no reason why they would ignore them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Goes_On_(The_Article).

So, I'm not ignoring the evidence I just don't think it's particularly relevant to this particular point.

I think it's more then relevant, I think it's key.

I found this interesting article that talks more about the events prior to the the August offensive that I find very revealing as well:

THE GOALS BEHIND MOSCOW’S PROXY OFFENSIVE IN SOUTH OSSETIA

On July 3 an assassination attempt targeted Dmitry Sanakoyev, head of the Tbilisi-backed interim administration of South Ossetia, which controls at least one third of the region’s territory. The blast injured Sanakoyev’s bodyguards. On July 9 Moscow demonstratively acknowledged that four Russian Air Force planes had flown a mission over South Ossetia. That action sought to deter Georgia from flying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), thus blinding Tbilisi to Russian and proxy military movements in the area. A series of roadside bomb blasts targeted Georgian police patrols. During the second half of July and the first days of August, Russian-commanded Ossetian troops under the authority of Russian-led South Ossetian authorities fired repeatedly at Georgian-controlled villages, forcing Georgian police to fire back defensively.

Meanwhile, Russia’s state-controlled media orchestrated a war scare, accusing Georgia of intentions to attack. In the North Caucasus and Russia proper, Cossack chieftains on government payroll threatened to send “volunteers” to fight against Georgia. The North Ossetian authorities, apparently aware of Moscow’s plans, showed nervousness at the prospect of becoming embroiled in a major military operation by proxy to their south.

Although written with what is clearly a Western perspective, the history here is interesting. It's all very KGB like. The Russians did similar things before they went into Afghanistan. I also found this prediction interesting:

Moscow’s next goal, on a timeframe overlapping with the first, is to capture Georgian-controlled villages in South Ossetia. The pattern of attacks since August 6 indicate the intent to reduce the Sanakoyev administration’s territory to insignificance or even remove it from South Ossetia altogether. If successful, this undertaking may well be replicated in upper Abkhazia by Russian and proxy forces attempting to evict authorities loyal to Tbilisi.

This was written on the 8th, but his predictions were bang on. Abkhazia, which had no major armed conflict with the Georgians at that time, also happens to be under Russian military control right now - and will probably continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

For example, here is some other evidence:
[quote:323a3l4c]"Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had long planned a military
strike to seize back the breakaway region of South Ossetia but executed
it poorly, making it easy for Russia to retaliate, Saakashvili's former
defence minister said."

"The original plans called for a two-pronged operation entering South
Ossetia, taking Tskhinvali, the Roki Tunnel and Java," he said,
referring respectively to the regional capital, the main border crossing
between Russia and the rebel region, and another key town.

"Saakashvili's offensive only aimed at taking Tskhinvali, because he
thought the U.S. would block a Russian reaction through diplomatic
channels."

"But when the U.S. reaction turned out to be non-existent, Saakashvili
then moved troops toward the Roki tunnel, only to be outmaneuvered by
the Russians," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRe ... dChannel=0

Are you 'ignoring' that?[/quote:323a3l4c]No, but one must wonder why a former minister would openly undermine his former president like that. Could this be the reason?

Okruashvili, 34, fled to Europe in 2007 after imprisonment in Georgia, where he faced corruption charges he denied, saying they were intended to punish him for criticizing the president.

In March, a Georgian court sentenced him to 11 years in prison in absentia, but he was granted asylum in France where last week a court rejected Tbilisi's extradition request.

Btw, Okruashvili wasn't a minister at the time of the invasion, and had fallen out of favor with Saakashvili, meaning, he'd have very little insider knowledge of what Saakashvili was planning. And that they had drawn up plans over a year ago doesn't surprise me much, and his original plan seems plausible, although his explanation as to why Saakashvili wouldn't attack the Roki tunnel seems pretty weak.

I'm not trying to defend Russia here - I think their actions were, overall, a disgrace.
What I am doing is calling "kiech!" on your spurious claims of Georgian 'right to defend itself'.
Their motives were nothing of the sort, as far as I can tell.

Well, it might be a bizarre case of preempting the preempted attack. I have read reports of NATO officials who believe Russia did enter S. Ossetia before Georgia attacked, although they believe Georgia would have attacked anyway. Of course this is almost impossible to prove. Of course it's equally likely that Georgia had intel on what Russia was planning and tried to ambush them. Regardless of what their initial motives may have been, if Russia did enter S. Ossetia illegally, then they share the brunt of the blame for starting major hostilities as far as I'm concerned. But despite that, I still believe this war really started well before Aug 8th.

 

[Robert]

we can agree that it does appear that Georgia attacked first on the 8th,

Glad we've finally established that.

but there are reports that South Ossetians attacked Georgians on the 1st of August. You seem to completely ignore this, which is why I think it's wrong to look at only events from the 8th. In fact, to truly understand the situation you need to look at the history of the region and how it got to this current situation.

Ignoring? You keep saying this.
Go back and read this very thread. Particularly pages five and six. I think you'll find that, if anything I'm the one attempting to document the history.

[quote:1am2noen]Now, we can argue forever over the definition of 'start'. My position is that it is whoever launched the first major attack.

So why should we ignore who started the minor attacks?[/quote:1am2noen]

For exactly the reasons I've already given numerous times in this thread - how far back do you want to go? There have been minor attacks going back years.

We can agree that the Georgians launched the first major, organized attack using heavy weapons.

Thank you.

But there is also evidence that the Georgians took the first causalities days before.

Indeed and I've never disputed this - both the Ossetians and the Georgians appear to have reasonable claims to being shot at, etc, for days, weeks months and even years before the assault. Like I said, how far back do you want to go to?

If the Russians landed a division of paratroopers in Scottland, I think you'd conclude that you're under attack pretty darned quickly.

Poor analogy. Scotland can hardly be compared to Ossetia (despite the fact they claim to have spawned us : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/f ... 701614.stm)

You realize that in military speak, when you attack a city, you're in fact attacking the city's defenses?

Military speak? No, I can't say I have but I'm sure the people of Dresden, London and Hiroshima will be delighted to find that out. Sorry, tasteless I know but I really haven't heard this before.

You also realize that the initial reports of mass civilian deaths was ridiculously over exaggerated (Russians accused Georgia of killing over 2000 civilians on the 8th, when the reality was closer to 50)?

Yes - covered already in the thread. And what has that to do with who started it? The city (or 'city defences' if you prefer) was bombarded. Scores of civilians were killed. This appears to be well established.

I don't think anyone really believes that Georgia attempted to mass murder the Ossetians, I think it's pretty obvious that Georgia attacked military/government positions in Tskhinvali.

Three points.
1. We are debating who started, not who intended genocide. You really are labouring the point about Georgia being accused of genocide. This implies you think I'm accusing them of that. For the record I'm not. Furthermore it has nothing to do with whether they launched an assault. Having said that, whether it's 50, 133 or 2000, you could still argue it's mass murder. Like I said though, that's not what we're debating.
2. Is it your position that Georgia was only acting in self defence and only because Russian troops had entered Ossetia? (I ask as this appears to be the thrust of your recent comments.)
3. If the Georgians were only attacking invading Russians , why did they attack Tshkinvali? There is a complete lack of logic here.

I still believe this war really started well before Aug 8th.

Well, of course it did. Ignoring the overwhelming will of the people for over a decade can't have helped. Whe the USSR broke up in '89 there was civil war because it appears neither SO nor Abkhazia (or the vast majority of the populations, if you prefer) wanted to be part of Georgia.
The last referendum in the region was in November 2006. 99% of a 91% turnout appear to have voted for independence from Georgia.
Of course, Georgia the EU and the US rubbished it.

 

[Glaucus]

Well, let me just sum things up this way: I still feel that this entire conflict was orchestrated by Moscow, with the specific intention of making Georgia look like the aggressor. I think that if you look at the events of only Aug 8th you may conclude that Georgia was the initiator of the war, but if you look at all the evidence it's pretty clear that Russia used all it's KGB and Military power to achieve some very strategic objectives which include: Re-asserting itself in the region and on the world stage, slowing (if not halting) NATO expansion into both Georgia and the Ukraine and of course improving the image of the Russian leadership in a country that seems to value strength and security over freedom and liberty.

That doesn't mean Georgia is innocent, but I do believe they were suckered into doing something they otherwise may not have done. This may not mean anything to you, but to me it does.

Poor analogy. Scotland can hardly be compared to Ossetia (despite the fact they claim to have spawned us : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/f ... 701614.stm)

Funny. And I've heard that Macedonians fought as mercenaries in Scotland against the English, and that's how so many modern day Scot's have "Mac" in their names. Never looked into it, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that.

Military speak? No, I can't say I have but I'm sure the people of Dresden, London and Hiroshima will be delighted to find that out. Sorry, tasteless I know but I really haven't heard this before.

Sure, these are examples where civilians were killed in massive amounts. I understand your point, but my point is that it does not appear that Georgia carpet bombed Tskhinvali indiscriminately. I've read reports that they did in fact target military and government targets inside the city, but it's inevitable that civilians would be killed. To be honest, if Russia did deploy military units in Tskhinvali, I have no issues at all with a Georgian attack so long as they focused primarily on military targets. The fact that South Ossetians have a huge militia contingent (which was very actively involved I might add) totally muddies the line between civilian and militant in this case.

Yes - covered already in the thread. And what has that to do with who started it? The city (or 'city defences' if you prefer) was bombarded. Scores of civilians were killed. This appears to be well established.

Answer me this, why would the Russians over-inflate the figures so much? Why announce to the world Georgia is committing genocide when they were clearly not? this alone proves nothing, but when you look at all the facts you see that Russia has changed it's story more then once now.

Three points.
1. We are debating who started, not who intended genocide. You really are labouring the point about Georgia being accused of genocide. This implies you think I'm accusing them of that. For the record I'm not. Furthermore it has nothing to do with whether they launched an assault. Having said that, whether it's 50, 133 or 2000, you could still argue it's mass murder. Like I said though, that's not what we're debating.
2. Is it your position that Georgia was only acting in self defence and only because Russian troops had entered Ossetia? (I ask as this appears to be the thrust of your recent comments.)
3. If the Georgians were only attacking invading Russians , why did they attack Tshkinvali? There is a complete lack of logic here.

I think Georgia responded to escalation. From what I can see, the South Ossetians attacked the Georgians, who after about a week of continues low-grade attacks decided to teach the Ossetians a lesson. Meanwhile, Russia was expecting this and secretly moved troops into the area as part of what I believe was a pre-planned attempt at destabilizing Georgia and it's leadership. I'm not sure how the Georgians would have proceeded if they did not discover the extra Russian forces in S. Ossetia, but one can't assume that they would have done nothing different (brandishing power is a popular tactic in that region). Regardless, if the news about Russia entering S. Ossetia on the 7th is true, then they knowingly provoked the attack.

As to why Georgia attacked Tshkinvali? That's easy, the first thing the Russians did was make a bee line to Tshkinvali. This has not been disputed by any side, only that the Russians insist it didn't happen until after the Georgian assault. Which is why I think this evidence that Russia entered on the 7th is so important.

Well, of course it did. Ignoring the overwhelming will of the people for over a decade can't have helped. Whe the USSR broke up in '89 there was civil war because it appears neither SO nor Abkhazia (or the vast majority of the populations, if you prefer) wanted to be part of Georgia.
The last referendum in the region was in November 2006. 99% of a 91% turnout appear to have voted for independence from Georgia.
Of course, Georgia the EU and the US rubbished it.

On this I think we agree. I think Georgia should put Abkhazia and S. Ossetia behind it now. As for the referendum, I have little respect for Russian democracy (which brings the meaning of that word to a new low). It seems that they want to extend the limit for the Russian president so that Putin can officially take control again. I don't think there's been a more powerful Russian leader since Stalin. The only thing I trust to come from Russia these days are lies.

- Mike

 

[Robert]

From what I can see, the South Ossetians attacked the Georgians, who after about a week of continues low-grade attacks decided to teach the Ossetians a lesson. Meanwhile, Russia was expecting this and secretly moved troops into the area

That could well be what happened and there's not a great deal between us here. I'm not entirely convinced that the South Ossetians were solely responsible for the pre-assault skirmishes but I agree it's plausible. Again, Georgia hardly has a history of innocence here.
I also believe the evidence indicates that Georgia has had plans of some sort to attack South Ossetia for some time.
I accept that Russia could have planned the whole thing but if that is the case then Saakashvili's callous stupidity in launching that attack is unforgivable and deserves it's fair share of the blame.

It seems that they want to extend the limit for the Russian president so that Putin can officially take control again.

That has me worried too. Not an encouraging development.

 

[Glaucus]

I got a good laugh out of this this morning:

Politkovskaya murder case opens

A court spokesman told the BBC he could not specify exactly what charges the men were facing, although none of them was accused of either carrying out the murder or ordering it.

....

Earlier, some of Ms Politkovskaya's colleagues described the trial as a "farce".

"How can you say the investigation is complete if you have neither the killer nor the person who ordered it in the dock?" Russian journalist Grigory Pasko said.

So, we have three guys going to trial for unknown charges, but none of them carried out the killing or ordered it, and the case is now considered to be closed. And the Russians still see no major problems with their government. Unbelievable.

 

[Robert]

So, we have three guys going to trial for unknown charges, but none of them carried out the killing or ordered it, and the case is now considered to be closed. And the Russians still see no major problems with their government. Unbelievable.

It's farcical. They're being tried in a military court too, so don't hold your breath for justice.
This despite neither the victim or the suspects being military.

I heard her son on the radio this morning. He said it was obvious to him that although the FSB didn't kill her, they were indirectly involved.

 

[Robert]

'Shots fired' near Georgia leader

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7744859.stm

Georgian officials said the shots came from inside South Ossetia. But Russia and South Ossetia denied the claim.
-
Since the August conflict there have been a string of incidents along the border, with each side accusing the other of violating a ceasefire agreement.
-
On 7 August, Georgia tried to retake South Ossetia by force after a series of lower-level clashes with Russian-backed rebels.
Russia launched a counter-attack and the Georgian troops were ejected from both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a second breakaway region, days later.

Funny that even the BBC now appears to be conceding Georgia started it.
They were well and truly aboard the blame Russia bus back in August.