Look, I understand that you're down to your last and rather pathetic argument that Georgia attacked first but sorry, I am not biting. While it's debatable to begin with, more importantly it's completely irrelevant even if true. Georgia did not attack Russia, it "invaded" their own land and it makes all the difference in the world. You might of course try to accuse Georgia of genocide and ethnic cleansing again but then with less than 50 dead in city morgues (according to Human Rights Watch no less) it's quite obvious that you fell victim to your anti-american ideology which clouds your mind and makes you blindly believe Russian desinformation and a bunch of other nonsense. And even if there was genocide in South Ossetia, it would still not change the fact that it was Russia, not Georgia who bombed, invaded and occupied a sovereign country. PS Don't you understand that with 50 (as opposed to 2000) dead Ossetians (half of them militants) Russia lied to you, made a fool out of you and turned you into a laughing stock, yet you continue defending their actions. Comrade Vladimir Lenin called Westerners who blindly believed his propaganda "useful idiots", please keep that in mind when you're reciting Pravda editorials.
a_person, the difference between us two - is that I am not making any claims to the number of dead, while you are. You have no facts for how many dead there are - and no one have hard numbers yet. We still have to wait for full reports. It is apparent to me that Georgia sent tanks into and bombarded Tkshinvali, and then Russia responded and later pushed into Georgia. Again the difference between us two is that you spin the attack on Tkshinvali and the shelling of that city - as something that Georgia had the right to do - when in fact there were international UN peacekeepers there, as well as russian peacekeeping observers - all observing the peace already established from earlier conflicts. I guess that is in line with the celebration of killing of russians and successful attacks on russian soldiers seen earlier. Last month - this was the reality of the ethnic minority regions in Georgia: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/07/europe/08georgia.php Blast in Georgian region of Abkhazia kills 4 By Michael Schwirtz - Published: July 7, 2008 An explosion in a café in a separatist region of the former Soviet republic of Georgia killed four people Sunday night, including a security service official from the rebel government. Six people were injured in the blast. It was latest in at least half a dozen bombings in less than a week in Abkhazia and the first to cause deaths. Although no suspects have been identified, leaders of the separatist government blamed Georgia, which they accused of inflaming a 15-year conflict that has been marked by increasing violence in recent months. Georgia, which claims Abkhazia as part of its territory, has denied involvement. The bomb exploded at about 11 p.m. Sunday at a café in the city of Gali in the southeast of Abkhazia close to the Georgian border, said Alkhad Cholokua, a spokesman for the president of the separatist government. The blast killed the chief of the security service in Gali, along with a border guard. A female employee of the café and a translator for the United Nations mission in Abkhazia were also killed. ...
Right...You're smearing a country without any supporting evidence instead. Or how else should we interpret the following statement of yours: and this statement: You have no intellectual honesty to admit your mistake. In your last post you said "We still have to wait for full reports.". Why did not you?
a_person, it was admitted by Saakashvili in the fumbling early press appearances that they had attacked Tskhinvali. The attack and shelling happened during nighttime, and the South Ossetia region mainly consists of this minority group. Then there were the facts that Saakashvili had been elected with the promise to regain control over the breakaway regions. It all seems pretty consistent to me. Now we are seeing western media taking a harder look at Saakashvili and the geopolitical events that followed. It seems the russians followed extended opportunities to disarm Georgia, while the US and Georgia went into overdrive with the media for political clout. I think the obvious advantages have been pretty clean cut - even from before the conflict erupted - as I've pointed out since my first posts on the conflict. I don't see any mistake at all, but rather consistency which I think I can contribute to my integrity on the issue. Your stance have been all over the place - mostly in reaction to what I and others have been saying, following whatever contradictory stance you can find - followed with incessant personal attacks.
Gringinho: "We still have to wait for full reports" but Gringinho: slaughter of an ethnic minority population Gringinho: Defending a ethnic minority population from being wiped out LOL, if this is your idea of consistency, I'd hate to read your inconsistent posts.
Some more details seem to have become more clear now in the last day to how this conflict unfolded itself. On the 7th there were skirmishes in South Ossetia with the Georgia military involved. A few hours later in the early evening Georgia proclaimed a ceasefire, and then later in the evening and night they started shelling the town of Tskhinvali with 155mm howitzers from the area close to Gori, as well as attacking from a nearby airbase and sending tanks into Tskhinvali. There were 500 stationed russian troops in South Ossetia - the small region with a population of 70 000, 90% with russian passports. There were also georgian troops stationed in South Ossetia as part of the 1992 peace agreement. Of the 500 russian troops, 18 were killed in the unfolding attack on Tskhinvali by georgian forces, and they radioed for reinforcements. The response from Russia took around 24h before they had a full response, and the requested reinforcements had reached Tskhinvali from bases within Russia. The russians say their response took this amount of time because of the Olympic games, vacation season and initial unbelief that it was really happening. Saakashvili thinks that the russians were able to react very quick, but there is also the knowledge from military intelligence within NATO, that russian forces have extremely quick reaction times, because of their command structure, logistical capabilities and logistical training. When russians troops expanded into Georgia, they also captured plans and intelligence detailing a broadly planned attack by Georgia on both South Ossetia and Abkhazia whereby Georgia was planning to take Tskhinvali being the largest town in South Ossetia, and then quickly move up north to block off the main passage from North Ossetia in Russia to South Ossetia. According to russian analysts, the timing of this plan made it realistic, since the russian response time was reduced with the Olympics and general vacation time. Georgia has earlier been successful in regaining a third breakaway region, when the 1991 conflicts after the demise of Soviet union saw many republics claim independence. Georgia would not let South Ossetia become independent - as the georgian borders had been set up by Stalin, they cut Ossetia in half though. Russia did not let North Ossetia become independent either, along with the Chechen region and others. Militarily, even though Georgia had received a lot of equipment and training by the US and Israel, it seems insanely risky to force such an attack on russian forces protecting the minority region. Still, the georgian president seem to have believed it viable - and russians admitted it could have been. The response however from the russians came as no surprise, as admitted the israeli IDF instructors. This means that both Georgia and it's military instructors were fully aware that Russia would respond in a very forceful way. This is also evident in the days that followed, with Saakashvili exerting a media barrage where disinformation and appealing to sympathy by claiming that Russia wants to overthrow democracy in Georgia - a regime change. Condoleezza Rice visited Georgia in july, just a few weeks before the attack started. Publicly it appears Saakashvili was informed by Rice that he should not provoke anything with Russia. Russia wanted to explain their views and give a military strategic assessment to NATO after the fighting started, but the US blocked the presentation to NATO leaders from the russian diplomat from happening. Therefore it seems like a somewhat concerted effort to keep out, russian information by completely swamping western media as well as refusing to talk to Russia or let them present their views on the conflict. Currently, the situation has calmed down much more - after Russia also sought out strategic objectives of their own by significantly reducing Georgia's offensive military capability around several areas within Georgia. Furthermore, the strategic implications are now becoming more clear. NATO membership for Georgia is not possible at all in the current climate, and will certainly be blocked for quite some time. The important issue is that there are territorial disputes, and the resolving of such is a prerequisite for NATO membership. With the attacks, Georgia effectively fumbled their opportunity for NATO membership, unless they could have seized the two regions. However, either way, successful military takeover of the regions or not - it would be unlikely that they could dominate the ethnic minorities in such a way that they would fulfill the requirement of "no territorial disputes". Now, the minority population will strongly resist any future reconciliation, as well as Russia having a permanent presence in the breakaway regions. This sums up to no NATO membership for Georgia for quite some time. However, and this seems to have been considered by the Georgia leadership, the sympathy and focus on Georgia now emphasizes it's strategic importance to the west and will be bringing Georgia and the west closer. The current leadership of Saakashvili does not seem helpful, though - with european countries seeking to reach stability for the region and understanding between the US and Russia on the issue. (cont.) ...
... (cont.) The reason behind the conflict seem impossibly to stem from within Georgia, as in any case, a strong military reaction from Russia was expected. Also, the sacrifice of the civilians likely from such a conflict seem utterly wasted on strategic rewards locally achievable for Georgia. They would further diminish chances for NATO membership in any case. Therefore it seems obvious that there were in fact strong external factors which decided the start of this conflict. A country is not only made up by its politicians, but also other strong policy makers, organizations, corporations and individuals who act mostly in line with national mutual interests. It is unlikely that Saakashvili would have been told by Bush/Rice that an attack on South Ossetia and Bakhazia, provoking a russian response, was something they wanted. However, one could argue that the strong geopolitical rewards for the US and other interests like the defense industry of both the US and Israel, along with political gains for republican interests and military strategic interests like current NATO members consolidating support for US strategies, like the missile defense shield - these were truly things that could be considered as voicing support for a beneficial conflict with Russia. There are also long term economic benefits external to Georgia by weakening Russia's image, while these seem more unlikely to be wanting a military confrontation as carrying probable scenario outcomes that lie far into the future are extremely difficult to predict. In principle, it's fairly easy to predict realistic outcomes from strategic choices of action carrying high probabilities, when these outcomes lie close in the future. It is very difficult to predict detailed outcomes for something that lies longer into the future. These are philosophical/scientific facts - inherent to nature and the universe itself. Therefore it seems that the near term strategic goals were those who could influence with a great probability for a rewarding outcome of the conflict. These are as following: the US interests in the missile shield and Ukraine NATO membership referendum, the republican political campaign and defense industry interests. The rationale for Georgias leadership seem to be: closer western ties with guaranteed sympathy and support, and possible special economic interests in defense or energy transportation. This is all based on analysis of what is realistic, because of near time restrictions on detailed possible outcomes - as well as broader strategic long term geopolitical benefits of the conflict. With other words, an analysis based on realistic restrictions as well as the broader benefits. It also seems logical that strong external influence was present to deciding and giving incentives to this conflict. One of these incentives are as a fact - the US and israeli supported build up of Georgia's military. It is unlikely that we will ever know - who were the actually active external influences, but with both a defense minister and minister for "territorial integration" that both have a background from Israel - and the economic ties in the arms supplies and training by israeli companies, it is very, very likely that these commercial and military interests were well aware of what was going to happen. Furthermore, the early stumbling in Saakashvili's relations to the mass media clearly showed how dynamic the situation was - and the strategies he deploys in his arguments towards the press and the world, by bringing in whatever rumour and unsubstantiated grasp he can think of, is typical of the advice and support on media strategic relations that he seems to be enjoying. By analyzing how Saakashvili and his advisers are reacting to the events unfolding and a thorough consideration of the rationale before the decisions being made, it is possible to understand more of the incentive and strategy behind this conflict and it's interests. The western media has at least become much more aware of how Saakashvili is employing his media strategy. Poland's leadership was quick to go for their decision, while the Czech republic is very balanced in it's view on the conflict. Balanced is also the trend in the european public opinion although extreme support for any of the sides and considerations is voiced, but this (on average) balanced view will surely be reflected in the diplomacy and policy for the time being from the european countries. For the benefit of Georgia, it seems unlikely that Saakashvili will continue to be in power for the foreseeable future, when this conflict settles down sufficiently for Georgia's national political opposition to organize itself. Then we might see some internal political changes and hopefully a much more mature, stable and fruitful government of Georgia with its relations to the west and Russia. The reward opportunity for the political opposition is enormous right now, as both Russia and world public opinion have showed some restraint and foiled much of what "could have been". If the opposition in Georgia can stay calm, and show an alternative that speaks stability and a more mature democratic rule, while emphasizing the recklessness of Saakashvili - perceived in Europe, the US and within the population of Georgia - then his days of rule is certainly over. The foremost argument to the demise of Saakashvili and his supporters, is that Condoleezza Rice actually told Saakashvili a few weeks before the attack - to not attack the breakaway regions. This clever argument undermines any support that the US government can show Saakashvili publicly, and is worth a lot of political support from the public. This is an analysis, while trying to keep it as realistic as possible, the hard facts are unavailable, and will likely remain unavailable unless someone like Saakashvili would reveal them - seemingly extremely unlikely and he has clearly showed that he does not convey a trustworthy image - neither as a politician caring for the civilan population nor in speaking to the world from his new-found political center stage, which he seems to be enjoying fully at the moment.
Summarized one can ask oneself: why would Saakashvili attack South Ossetia and have plans for attacking Abkhazia, when Condoleezza Rice just weeks before publicly and specifically had told him not to do so? At the latest G8 meeting Russia's Medvedev expressed concerns on Georgia, then Condi Rice went to Georgia and told Saakashvili not to provoke Russia. For Georgia to become a NATO member, it would suffice for it to recognize the breakaway regions as independent, and the region to become sufficiently calm - while adhering to democratic principles - and it would become a NATO member. In stead they attack the breakaway regions where the minority populations declared independency. Immediately after the russian response, Saakashvili launch an overwhelming media barrage, and russian diplomats are denied the opportunity to explain themselves in trying to meet with NATO at NATO's urgency meeting on the conflict.
Some day-by-day details, especially interesting are the first actions of august 7th and 8th. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551576.stm Each day is accompanied with articles, and even comments from people from within Tkshinvali and georgian locals from Gori nearby the fighting. There are also statements from Saakashvili and reported attempts from Russia to address this in the UN security council. First day http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7546639.stm . Analysis http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551576.stm . Media onslaught http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562611.stm . Extremely interesting reads ... Something from the US is starting to look extremely dirty in all of this - across the world media. It's starting to appear beyond any reasonable doubt that some interest from the US were strongly involved.
If there can be somewhat of a consensus on Saakashvili sometime in the future, then maybe he can be held accountable, and it would be a very interesting case for the courts in the Haag to say the least ... if he survives so long. It has already been mentioned in the media that Saakashvili is living in very dangerous personal situation. I would not at all be surprised if something happened to him, although that would seal the history somewhat. A copout could be if "an uprising" appeared and he flees to the USA, I'm sure he can collect on some favours and he'd be kept close to important supporters.