• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Explain the Georgian conflict to me please

berrybunches

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
994
Could someone please explain to me or point me to another thread or resource that lays out all I need to know about the Russian/Georgian conflict?
I am really confused on whats going on. I even watch the news but I have heard nothing that explains it.
I am sure it has already been discussed so pointing me to another thread is fine too.

I would like to hear different opinions and facts if anyone would be so kind.
:)
 
dywqpd.jpg
 
that picture pretty much (humorously at that) summed it up.

South Ossetia has been wanting to break away from Georgia and join Russia (which has North Ossetia) for years...but Georgia hasn't let them.

Either way, for whatever reason, Georgia attacked South Ossetia (some thing it was an attempt to squash the 'land dispute' so Georgia could join NATO...others thing it was the US urging Georgia to do so....and others? Well the list goes on and on)...either way, the Georgians attacked S. Ossetia, and the Russians said "huh-uh! That's it, you haven't let them break away in years, and now you're attacking people you claim to be your own...we're intervening" so they basically kicked the crap out of Georgia, and now its President is bitching and complaining and wanting the US (or NATO) to intervene and help out.

sadly (but not surprisingly) the US is falling for it and backing Georgia in favor if Russia.

As much as I don't like (or don't trust) Russia, I think they're in the right, in this particular instance.

In either situation, we shouldn't get involved.
 
lmao@ that picture...yes I had been wondering the same thing, this is what I was told in another thread.

Originally Posted by SigurdVolsung View Post
Soviet Union was collapsing and Georgia broke away. North Ossetia stayed part of the Soviet Union and is currently part of the Russian Federation, South Ossetia was dragged out with Georgia as was Abkhazia the other Georgian breakaway Republic. Both of them faught a war against Georgia in 1992-1993 to become semi-autonomous.

Russian and Georgian peacekeepers have been there ever since along with local forces. Ossetia never wanted to be a part of Georgia because the Georgians have a nasty habit of murdering them. The current president of Georgia is a Harvard educated lawyer and busom buddy of Bush. He has increased military spending by a factor of 30 since taking office a few years ago on the promise of reintegrating the breakaway Republics.

During the Olympic opening ceremony with Israeli and probably American military advisors in tow, the U.S. trained and equipped Georgian military invaded Ossetia, murdered Russian peacekeepers and started shelling the capital city with artillery and multiple launch rockets. Russia immediately stepped in to protect their peace keepers and citizens because most Ossetians happen to be Russian citizens.

After murdering about 2000 civilians and commiting numerous atrocities the Georgians pulled out after the enormous Russian response while their President bleated to every MSM outlet about how his poor little nation was being attacked by the big bad Bear Russia.

Cheers.
 
I thought they hated their freedoms?!

In either situation, we shouldn't get involved.

After what you told me I agree 100%. No reason to at all besides make a bigger enemy of Russia.
Its not our fault Georgia was stupid enough listen to Bush and send troops in Iraq.

I was watching Glenn Beck with his interview with the president and my jaw dropped when the president kept saying that the Russians 'attacked them becuase they hate their freedoms' and 'freedom is at stake, support me' and so on.

I really felt that something was not right listening to him. He seemed to be trying to use key words and phrases, using emotion to manipulate us into supporting him, must have borrowed from the Bush play book.
 
I just hope this doesn't stir up a whole bunch of anti-Russian sentiment at home, and the US/Georgia/Russia (with US or Georgia MUCH more likely) does something stupid and we end up in a huge conflict with Russia--we can't afford it on any scale, short of being put in a state of 'Total War'--even then, they could still sink us without firing a shot--the Russians hold a lot of dollar reserves as well.
 
The short explanation provided above by AstroSamurai is excellent. I would add, though, that the area was under a lot of tension for the month leading up to the latest crisis, with hostilities being conducted by both sides during this period. There have been claims that South Ossetia attacked Georgia first. The basis for this are the events leading up to August 8th, but these claims are unjustified because these precursive attacks were being engaged by both of the belligerents. Russia's response has been called "disproportionate". Well, Georgia's night time bombardment of Tskhinvali and subsequent occupation of the city was equally disproportionate to anything which had happened prior.

Here's an excellent compilation of these events occurring in the prior month:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=287201
 
Could someone please explain to me or point me to another thread or resource that lays out all I need to know about the Russian/Georgian conflict?
I am really confused on whats going on. I even watch the news but I have heard nothing that explains it.
I am sure it has already been discussed so pointing me to another thread is fine too.

I would like to hear different opinions and facts if anyone would be so kind.
:)

A libertarian perspective is here

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13285

The Real Aggressor
Georgian invasion of South Ossetia sets the stage for a wider war

He has more recent posts if you like.
 
South Ossetia has been trying to seperate themselves from Georgia pretty much ever since the collapse of the old USSR in around 1990. They have been fighting off and on ever since. This latest round started when Georgia offered a cease fire and promised to negotiate an agreement but then almost immediately turned arround and sent their forces into the capital of South Ossetia to try and drive the "rebels" out. Russia decided to intervene on behalf of the South Ossetians and probably to help achieve some of their own goals- including control of the energy pipelines and ports crucial to their (Russian) energy exports to Europe.

Russia relies on energy exports for all their money (and the recent high prices have yielded lots of that for them lately) and has used the control of it (energy) to try to influence other countries which once were part of the USSR. Ones that play along get cheap rates for energy, others can literally have the taps shut off (Ukraine) or charged higher rates. Europe gets one fourth of their oil and half of their natural gas from Russia and Georgia is the main pipeline route.

A history of the current crisis beginning with the Georgian surprise attack: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551576.stm
 
Both parties have legitimate grievances. Both parties are wrong on how they are resolving the problems in the region.

Russia has been encouraging and supporting cross border attacks on Georgia by Ossetian and Abkhazian patriots(read terror) in hopes of provoking the Georgians to make a stupid decision.....mission accomplished.

Georgia is no saint either, they can be quite brutal in dealing with the insurgents.

Russia is making a power move in the region, specifically related to the pipelines...they would love to expand their energy power via controlling Georgia. With the acquisition of Georgias pipeline they would control a vast majority of the energy market for all of Europe....quite an enviable(and powerful) position for them to be in.

Georgia has been pissing off Russia by trying to enter NATO. Russia feels this is a direct attack on what should be their sphere of influence.

Russia is not a cute and cuddly teddy bear, they are a big bad grizzly with a chip on their shoulders.

The chip is there partly because of the USA's attempt to make good friends there who will accept our missle bases.....I think this provocation by the US is questionable.

Never believe anyone who says one party is 100% right and the other party is 100% wrong, usually both sides have legitimate grievances.
 
Blowback from Bear Baiting

Could someone please explain to me or point me to another thread or resource that lays out all I need to know about the Russian/Georgian conflict?
I am really confused on whats going on. I even watch the news but I have heard nothing that explains it.
I am sure it has already been discussed so pointing me to another thread is fine too.

I would like to hear different opinions and facts if anyone would be so kind.
:)

Here is a nice piece by Pat Buchanan.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28053

Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight -- Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.

Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?

Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?

That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili's provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.

When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?

American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia's doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.

Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin's birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?

The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.

We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic "revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.

Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?

For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia's space and getting into Russia's face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost -- in Tbilisi.
 
Could someone please explain to me or point me to another thread or resource that lays out all I need to know about the Russian/Georgian conflict?
I am really confused on whats going on. I even watch the news but I have heard nothing that explains it.
I am sure it has already been discussed so pointing me to another thread is fine too.

I would like to hear different opinions and facts if anyone would be so kind.
:)

This is precisely the sentiment I had growing up regarding EVERY SINGLE friggin international dispute that ended up on the news.

Whether it was Kosovo, Iraq I or whatever, I ALWAYS felt like I was missing the big picture. I felt stupid for not understanding what was happening. A few years ago I finally realized that the reason I was missing a big part of the picture was because I was being fed incomplete information and propaganda, and it is the majority of the population who is just too damn stupid to question it.

I applaud you for asking and not just accepting the BS from the media.
 
Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?


Hah, Buchanan has definitely been listening to Ron Paul!!

I know he's always been anti-imperialist, but just the wording..
 
When Soviet Union broke apart first thing Georgia did was restoring Georgian constitution of 1921, from a brief three year period when they were independent from Russia within last 300 years, and dismissed all Soviet laws adopted since.

One of the consequences was that Georgia was losing any legitimate right on South Ossetia since. They were refusing to take matter to the court, however. And only today they were forced to sign an agreement to 'renounce use of force'. Before then they always refused to sign such obligation.
 
Back
Top