Georgia and Russia on Brink of War

[Serious_Stalin]

Hmm, well if russia win and decide to stick about to control the politics wherever the hell they end up then I reckon that their probably in the wrong. If they do what they say they are gonna do and go away then at least their not as bad as the west.
At the end of the day the root of conflict in these days always seems to end up being money or political power in a new area which means more money. Wish I could understand why billions of pounds is worth even one persons life let alone the huge numbers which are taken.

 

[Saskwach]

i mean what have they gained? did they accomplish what they wanted to?

I think we can only wait to see what Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia will do after all mess with tons of wounded and homeless is sorted out.
BTW, I'm still sure that we won't see reestablishing of so-called 'Russia Empire'. That's still just seeing Russia as "red empire of evil".

Russia likes its satellite states being, well, satellites. Putin has just made clear that if they're not under his thumb then the next best thing would be that they s**t themselves with fear. That's not an empire but it's definitely toeing the line.

Any more than the 'liberation' of Iraq where in about 41,000 at least civilans have died, the 'weapons of mass-destruction' haven't been found, etc? Or any more than the ghetto that the palestine has been converted into by the Israel's?

Although I do think the Russian motives aren't noble, lets not forget that Georgians where the one's shelling the Ossetian capital at the start of the war.

Ah, the "others do it too!" argument. Yes, let's point at those other cases that weren't mentioned in the first post to make the original crime seem better than it is and obscure the issue. If you ever run out of logical fallacies, I have a book; I can give you some more.
While we're remembering things so clearly and making comparisons let's remember that practically every reason that Russia gave to get involved in this little conflict were either manufactured or crimes that Russia was also guilty of but would be shocked if anyone were to intervene in.

 

[Gapperjack]

This idea that this is all a cunning plan by the Russian's is just ridiculous. Look at the timetable of events:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7551576.stm

Russia are just responding to Georgian aggression. The only reason the US are making so many strong statements about this is because in addition to training the Georgian military they are one of the main backers of their entry into NATO. My country, the UK have also been heavily involved.

Saakashvili's actions should be a clear enough indication that we should have never backed him in the first place. The man is a trouble-maker and his actions have inflamed an already bad situation between Russia and Georgia. Bush sounds ridiculous when he talks about Russia's actions seriously damaging their standing in the world, as if they had just invaded unprovoked.

Saskwatch - if you're going to criticise other's opinions on the crisis, at least have the decency to link to your sources. You can't make a claim like:

"practically every reason that Russia gave to get involved in this little conflict were either manufactured or crimes that Russia was also guilty of but would be shocked if anyone were to intervene in."

and not support it. Where is your evidence for that.

The way I read it, Doug wasn't arguing in favour of the Russians, he was pointing out that the US are in no position to be dictating morality to the rest of the world.

 

[werepossum]

Any more than the 'liberation' of Iraq where in about 41,000 at least civilans have died, the 'weapons of mass-destruction' haven't been found, etc? Or any more than the ghetto that the palestine has been converted into by the Israel's?

Although I do think the Russian motives aren't noble, lets not forget that Georgians where the one's shelling the Ossetian capital at the start of the war.

Actually we found almost all the WMDs we KNEW Iraq had except for the anthrax. What we did not find are the WMDs we THOUGHT they had, WMDs manufactured after the war's first phase in 1991. (Just in case you don't know, the second Iraq war is actually the first. The fighting ended with an armistice, Hussein accepting a list of conditions so as to not lose his country and probably his life in continued fighting. As soon as UN troops pulled out of Iraq, Hussein began violating those conditions in every way he could. He had to - you can't be a dictator unless you are feared. The USA insisted that the UN resolutions contain provisions allowing any UN combatant to restart the fighting specifically for this reason. The 2003 war was therefore one of the combatants finishing the '91 war due to Hussein's violations of the armistice. Here's a link to one part of the findings which have been declassified.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50746
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
We've also found a couple of tons of yellow cake uranium, including a couple hundred shells of powderized uranium (Hussein never succeeded in acquiring enough centrifuges to enrich significant quantities of uranium to make a bomb, but uranium powder makes a dandy dirty bomb.) We've even found shells with cyclosarin, an extremely toxic advanced nerve agent not known to be in Iraq's WMD arsenal in 1991. We've also found binary IEDs with sarin and cyclosarin which are clearly post-2003 but probably used stored pre-'91 components, probably manufactured because there were no casualties in the two incidents (that I know of - there may have been more) where sarin and mustard artillery shells were used as IEDs against Allied troops.

The reason everyone thinks Iraq had no WMDs is because we never found the stocks of WMDs that we believed to be manufactured after 1991. The media has reported that no WMDs were found because we thought Iraq had rebuilt its stocks in the intervening years. (If you have followed the war through soldiers' blogs it's been pretty funny to read about a unit finding a cache of sarin, cyclosarin, and/or mustard gas shells and then later hear the media report about it. The report almost always ended with a solemn "This discovery [of WMDs] does not mean Iraq has WMDs.")

So why didn't we find these new WMDs? Some people think the Russians moved them out. There were numerous flights of Russian military cargo planes between Syria and Iraq, as well as numerous truck convoys. We haven't a clue as to what was moved, or if we do it's still classified. (For all I know, the Russians might have been moving things INTO Iraq in preparation for the war, either arms or foreign fighters.) However the prevailing opinion (at least in the declassified documentation I've seen) is that Hussein really didn't make any more OR that he did but later destroyed the bulk of them. We have numerous intercepts before and during the war regarding WMDs, including at least a few orders for front-line troops to use them. We have testimony from numerous defectors. And we have numerous captured examples of diluted training sarin and mustard used to train troops in their use.

But none of that is definitive. It's possible that Hussein thought he had stocks of WMDs - after all, if the penalty for failing to produce something is death, you might as well report that you've succeeded. At least then you aren't killed until he tries to use them. The defectors had ample reason to lie - if they went home they were certain to be killed - and once they saw the reports on US claims of WMDs it wouldn't take a lot of smarts to make up confirming stories. Personally I'm guessing Hussein never had new stocks and was running an elaborate double bluff - claim not to have them (to avoid sanctioning an invasion or attack) whilst simultaneously spreading training kits and broadcasting the odd command vaguely inferring WMDs to deter an invasion with the threat of WMD attacks, perhaps on Israel.

I won't even try to explain Israel and Palestine to you, since it's obvious you have a big chip against the west and Israel, and the background information is freely available as long as you are careful as to sources since almost everyone has an ax to grind for one side or another. But I had to chime in on the "Iraq had no WMDs" thing because some things are just too ignorant to be allowed to spread without opposition.

As to your statements that the Georgians were shelling Tskhinvali, not even the Russians, who supported and armed them, ever recognized South Ossetia (or Abkhazia) as a valid independent nation. Now that Russia has taken the two provinces they are saying not a word on independence but are absorbing both provinces into Russia. That ought to tell you something.

EDIT: Gapperjack, the time line you reference begins 7 August 2008. Asserting that this conflict began on 7 August 2008 makes you either a base liar or a complete buffoon - there is no other possibility. This conflict has been ongoing since 1991, with both sides shelling each others' villages and cities. Even a cursory search of the Internet can turn that up. All the heavy weapons - anti-aircraft guns, heavy machine guns, heavy mortars, artillery - in South Ossetia have been given to them by Russia. South Ossetia has no significant income and no significant manufacturing base; they have no way to buy armaments. (Again, that is easily discovered.) Russia has armed Georgia's separatists specifically to control Georgia, and the current situation was ordained when Georgia began seeking Western ties and NATO membership.

EDIT2: As to your specific comments to Saskwach, the name "Chechnya" ring any bells? If you need a link to that, please refrain from discussing geopolitics until you've saved enough to buy a clue.

Grrr!

 

[dart sifilis]

Now that Russia has taken the two provinces they are saying not a word on independence but are absorbing both provinces into Russia.

O'really? And where did that info come from? I didn't hear any information even close to this. As a matter of fact - everything's just vice versa. South Ossetia's government remained the same, Georgian so called democratic president freely stated about Georgia's leaving Commonwealth of Independent States and called upon every member of it to do the same. And Russia hasn't bombed them yet, you know.

 

[werepossum]

Now that Russia has taken the two provinces they are saying not a word on independence but are absorbing both provinces into Russia.

O'really? And where did that info come from? I didn't hear any information even close to this. As a matter of fact - everything's just vice versa. South Ossetia's government remained the same, Georgian so called democratic president freely stated about Georgia's leaving Commonwealth of Independent States and called upon every member of it to do the same. And Russia hasn't bombed them yet, you know.

You want a link to where someone DIDN'T say something? How exactly would that work? Seems to me I could link the whole damned Internet to show Russia NOT recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as free and independent nations, but that promises to take rather a long time and be somewhat dull.

Russia has already given most South Ossetians and ethnic Abkhazians (a minority within Abkhazia) Russian ID and passports. Does that indicate an independent nation in your world? Because in this world, an independent nation issues its own passports which are recognized by all nations recognizing that country as a legitimate country.

Here's a link from Pravda (if you don't know what Pravda is, look it up on your own) on 8-8-08.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/08-08-2008/106026-south_ossetia-0
Note the phrase "Chochiyev asked the Russian government to defend South Ossetians, most of whom hold Russian passports, from what he called aggression." Note the phrase "A week of clashes and escalating tension in South Ossetia has raised fears of an all-out war that could draw in Russia, which has close ties with South Ossetia's separatist leadership." Just to be clear, that was written on 8-8-08. 'A week of clashes and escalating tension' - not 'Georgia suddenly bombed South Ossetia on 8-7-08 because they're evil gits.'

Try this one.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/14-08-2008/106095-War_South_Ossetia-0
How about "The truce allows Russian forces to take unspecified "security measures," raising the possibility they could try to stay in Georgia proper under the justification of protecting their troops in South Ossetia, the AP reports."

Or "Equally important - Georgia has built an oil and soon a gas pipeline which will carry oil and gas from Central Asia - this will end Russia's monopoly control over access to energy in Central Asia. This in itself makes Georgia a target for Russia." Sound familiar? That's in Pravda.

Or perhaps you'd like "As for Georgia, it has always had an independent streak and the Georgians have never been happy to take Russian dictate. The US has been quite willing to take advantage of this attitude to do what it can to make sure that Georgia does not find itself bullied by Russia. That is necessary to ensure that Russia is unable to reconstitute the USSR. If Georgia becomes intimidated by Russia, the fear is that soon Ukraine, the Baltics and even Central Asia will be next.?

In fact, all the articles on Pravda feature the Russian government prominently not recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations. Coincidentally there is nary a word about the Russian government recognizing North Ossetia as an independent nation. Perhaps you can see a pattern developing?

Perhaps you'd like another article on Pravda, such as "Estonia torments ethnic Russians with rotten food." Just so we all know that when Russia invades Estonia and sets up a new government, it is purely for humanitarian reasons.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/06-08-2008/106004-estonia-0

When Pravda (the original voice of the Russian Communist Party) writes such as "If Georgia becomes intimidated by Russia, the fear is that soon Ukraine, the Baltics and even Central Asia will be next? in a nation that is most dangerous for journalists (see below), do you get the idea that maybe Putin is trying to tell the world something?

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8820514
http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/watchlist_detail.html?country=KW0078
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-76519965.html
http://www.kommersant.com/p748098/
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/October/theworld_October319.xml&section=theworld
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058695.html
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7012-1.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

 

[dart sifilis]

You want a link to where someone DIDN'T say something? How exactly would that work?

I wanted a link to something like "a numerous amount of Russian troops are invading South Ossetia and Abkhazia to make them part of new fresh USSR" or even "Russian President visited South Ossetian and Abkhazian governments to sign some papers that will enslave them". I obviously didn't want to get links on how internet media sources interpret previous Russia's actions in coflict because I get a lot of that stuff myself without any help.
English part of site pravda.ru differs greatly from Russian one. For example, I can't see articles like "I hoped my child will die fast: citizens that survived Tskhinvali talk", "EU is going to make "Kosovo vice versa" out of South Ossetia", "Georgian plan called Tskhinvali-2 was captured in Abkhazia" and "Georgian genocide of people in South Ossetia broke Europe apart".

How about "The truce allows Russian forces to take unspecified "security measures," raising the possibility they could try to stay in Georgia proper under the justification of protecting their troops in South Ossetia, the AP reports."

Yes, but author "forgot" to mention that there'll be other international observers in the region to look after situation. I read it in Russian version of the article on the same site. And Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov mentioned that those observers' role should be in watching out for possible Georgian provocations.

As for Georgia, it has always had an independent streak and the Georgians have never been happy to take Russian dictate.

Yeah and "poor" freedom-loving Georgia bombed Ossetian city at night of Olympic games into 2k dead and many-many wounded (not mentioning the loss of property) because Georgia decided that it's just the right time and rightful measure to herd not-so-freedom-loving Ossetians to stalls.

That is necessary to ensure that Russia is unable to reconstitute the USSR.

Oh Jesus, not again...

If Georgia becomes intimidated by Russia, the fear is that soon Ukraine, the Baltics and even Central Asia will be next.

Georgia is already scared shitless, especially it's president. And I'm sure it's totaly right - people who think they can shell whole towns to the ground should fear.
Baltics chose to kiss Western asses, it's their call, no problem. Problem is that with kissing wrong asses goes Baltic's own history rewrited, especially WW 2 time interval. They take down all Soviet soldiers' monuments and cemeteries like those soldiers didn't save them from nazis. It's just fucking shame. Ukraine is heading the same way and it hurts me the most.

Perhaps you'd like another article on Pravda, such as "Estonia torments ethnic Russians with rotten food." Just so we all know that when Russia invades Estonia and sets up a new government, it is purely for humanitarian reasons.

After Tallinn's authorities ordered to dug up and remove old cemetery for Russian soldiers who died defending Estonia during WW 2 I sincerely hope that Russia will envade Estonia because people such as mentioned authorities had completely lost a touch with humanity.

 

[Alex_P]

I think I mostly agree with Michael Dobbs' analysis [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401360.html?hpid=opinionsbox1] on this one.

Highlights for those who hate the op-ed section:
- Ethnic strife is business-as-usual in the Caucasus, as is Russia taking advantage of it for its own gain.
- Saakashvili's plan was utter crap, but his actions are understandable.
- The West tries very, very hard to overlook the fact that Saakashvili's politics are as much about nationalism as they are about democracy.
- Russia's response was significantly more "disproportionate" than Georgia's.
- Russia sees this as "defending" its sphere of influence rather than expanding it; Georgia is, at best, a far-flung outpost for "the West," but it's part of Russia's backyard.
- Over the recent years, the US has both spread itself thin and savaged its international standing, which cripples its ability to do anything useful here.

Money quote from the article: "The events of the past few days serve as a reminder that our ideological ambitions have greatly exceeded our military reach, particularly in areas such as the Caucasus, which is of only peripheral importance to the United States but of vital interest to Russia."

-- Alex

 

[hamster mk 4]

I think this will end up being like the falklands war/military action. A country a little past its prime on the world stage sees another country not nearly as strong as they are trying to edge in on their territroy. So they smash the weaker country's millitary flat as a reminder to the world that they still have teath.

I do not mean to speak ill of either Russia or the Great Brittan. They both held the title of world's greatest nation at some point in history and were relativly gracious when it came time to pass that title on. I hope the USA behaves as well when ever the time comes.

 

[werepossum]

After Tallinn's authorities ordered to dug up and remove old cemetery for Russian soldiers who died defending Estonia during WW 2 I sincerely hope that Russia will envade Estonia because people such as mentioned authorities had completely lost a touch with humanity.

ESTONIA has lost touch with humanity? Perhaps you missed the part where the Soviet Union swallowed Estonia for half a century? Think maybe the Estonians might not have your appreciation of the glorious security of the KGB? The Soviet Union signed a treaty, set up military bases, then invaded and took over Estonia from those bases in '40 and had murdered or deported over a hundred thousand Estonians BEFORE Germany invaded the USSR in '41 - it was one of the most brutal reigns of the Soviet Union. Sixty thousand Estonians were deported in one freaking day, for G-d's sake - Google June 14th, 1941, it's only one of the greatest atrocities of all time. And you think the Estonians should be grateful?

Alright, this is becoming insane. I'm giving up and getting out of this discussion. Perhaps you guys will be happy when Russia has "liberated" the ungrateful Baltics, Poland, the Ukraine - maybe they'll even take back half of Germany. Gotta be some ethnic Russians in there somewhere. Maybe they'll just go ahead and take the USA and Australia, lots of journalists to murder here. Or maybe they'll just poison our leaders like Ukraine's. Hey, it's all good, right?

 

[Gapperjack]

Alright, this is becoming insane. I'm giving up and getting out of this discussion. Perhaps you guys will be happy when Russia has "liberated" the ungrateful Baltics, Poland, the Ukraine - maybe they'll even take back half of Germany. Gotta be some ethnic Russians in there somewhere. Maybe they'll just go ahead and take the USA and Australia, lots of journalists to murder here. Or maybe they'll just poison our leaders like Ukraine's. Hey, it's all good, right?

Good to hear it. You're clearly seeing this all through a McCarthy era mist. The red tide is coming... yes, of course it is.

You seem to think I've got some pro-Russia stance on all issues. This isn't the case. I recognise that Russia is currently in a pretty dark place poltically, have bullied other nations by threatening to cut natural gas supplies, and almost certainly murdered Alexander Litvinenko. However, in this particular case, they are in the right. The timeline I posted was for the current conflict, not he ongoing one. Georgia have breached the terms of the agreement made between them and Russia regarding the two breakaway regions. Russia have responded.

I certainly see closer parallels between the current Russia/Georgia situation and the Falklands Conflict as hamster mentioned than Hitler and the Sudetenland as some commentators are suggesting.

If a similar situation arose for the US - Part of north Mexico became a breakaway region and wished for independence from Mexico, and after an agreement was reached, Mexico tried to seize the region by force, who would doubt that the US wouldn't send troops in?

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
If a similar situation arose for the US - Part of north Mexico became a breakaway region and wished for independence from Mexico, and after an agreement was reached, Mexico tried to seize the region by force, who would doubt that the US wouldn't send troops in?

Well, FYI Chiapas, a southern province of Mexico, DID rebel due to harsh treatment from the Mexican government, WAS put down with brutal military action, and the USA DID NOT intervene except with humanitarian aid. Chiapas is hardly contiguous with the USA - but then Abkhazia is hardly contiguous with Russia. Well, it is NOW, but it wasn't last month. I'm sure none of this matters - both the rebellion and the suppression are clearly our fault because Bush eats babies - but I thought I'd bring it to your attention since it was curiously unappealing to the mainstream media both then and now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

 

[Gapperjack]

Certainly interesting, werepossum. I didn't know about that situation in Mexico. Though there are similarities, especially with Abkhazia, the fact that the northern part of Osettia lies in Russia makes the issue a little closer to home for them than Chiapas is for the US.

I'd also like to apologise for my earlier post. I was horribly condescending, and looking at some of your other posts in other threads, I see that you do know what you're talking about, and seem pretty well read on Geopolitics. Though I disagree with you on a lot of points, I believe you probably know more about this than I do, and I'm arguing at a disadvantage.

Perhaps my viewpoint comes from a stance of hope, the hope that Russia really aren't planning to take this that much further, and though they may remain in the disputed regions, toppling the government of Georgia and going on to seize areas of the baltic isn't on their agenda. I suppose only the future will tell if either one of us is right.

 

[werepossum]

Certainly interesting, werepossum. I didn't know about that situation in Mexico. Though there are similarities, especially with Abkhazia, the fact that the northern part of Osettia lies in Russia makes the issue a little closer to home for them than Chiapas is for the US.

I'd also like to apologise for my earlier post. I was horribly condescending, and looking at some of your other posts in other threads, I see that you do know what you're talking about, and seem pretty well read on Geopolitics. Though I disagree with you on a lot of points, I believe you probably know more about this than I do, and I'm arguing at a disadvantage.

Perhaps my viewpoint comes from a stance of hope, the hope that Russia really aren't planning to take this that much further, and though they may remain in the disputed regions, toppling the government of Georgia and going on to seize areas of the baltic isn't on their agenda. I suppose only the future will tell if either one of us is right.

No need to apologize, I'm at least as condescending. I make it a point to be very educated on what's happening around the world, but I could still be wrong. On the other hand, Russian troops are moving ever deeper into Georgia, the Russian Deputy Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces today warned Poland of a possible nuclear strike if it deployed elements of the NATO missile defense shield, and after the Georgian Parliament voted yesterday to leave the CIS, today the Russian chairman of the Russian Federation Council said that Georgia cannot leave the CIS for twelve months.

It's all well and good to be hopeful. Just don't forget that when your head is in the sand, your ass is in prime position to get screwed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSLF9676120080815?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/15-08-2008/106113-russia_poland-0

http://www.kommersant.com/p-13105/r_527/Russia_Georgia_South_Ossetia_conflict/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1563317.ece

 

[Gapperjack]

Worrying about the Russian threat against Poland. To me it just reads like more sabre-rattling, though. They've been making similar threats for a while now. They hate the idea of a US weapons system being based in nations close (well relatively) to their borders. Worrying that they have explicitly said that the use of nuclear weapons against Poland would be authorised by the new defence doctrine.

I saw about Russia moving further into Georgia on the BBC news earlier. They're currently occupying the port at Poti, which is worryingly deep into Georgian territory. Looks likely I might be wrong about Russian plans. The worst thing is there is very little that any of the western powers can do about this. We're already overstretched fighting two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan).

I'll have to remember that saying! Oh, and thanks for adding me as a friend.

Oh finally, I wouldn't rely on The Sun as a good source of information. It's one of the worst tabloids we have, owned by Murdoch's news corporation, and has been guilty at various times of heavily distorting the truth and misleading the public.

Not that soldiers looting is unbelievable.

 

[werepossum]

Worrying about the Russian threat against Poland. To me it just reads like more sabre-rattling, though. They've been making similar threats for a while now. They hate the idea of a US weapons system being based in nations close (well relatively) to their borders. Worrying that they have explicitly said that the use of nuclear weapons against Poland would be authorised by the new defence doctrine.

I saw about Russia moving further into Georgia on the BBC news earlier. They're currently occupying the port at Poti, which is worryingly deep into Georgian territory. Looks likely I might be wrong about Russian plans. The worst thing is there is very little that any of the western powers can do about this. We're already overstretched fighting two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan).

I'll have to remember that saying! Oh, and thanks for adding me as a friend.

Oh finally, I wouldn't rely on The Sun as a good source of information. It's one of the worst tabloids we have, owned by Murdoch's news corporation, and has been guilty at various times of heavily distorting the truth and misleading the public.

Not that soldiers looting is unbelievable.

I don't think the Russians are planning to nuke Poland - Poland is a NATO member, after all, that would mean World War 3 - but the fact that the deputy chief of staff would say such a thing is deeply disturbing. And there is nothing militarily the West can do, and probably little economically. Russia now holds all the oil and gas pipelines in the region, and I can't see Germany and France doing much to anger Russia. And Bush has been neutered by Pelosi and Reid even if we had any fresh troops available. Not that saving Georgia is worth starting World War 3 anyway. To be honest, I was quite concerned when Ukraine was mobilizing troops and restricting Russian ships' movements. (They are still doing the latter, but at least they aren't actually fighting.)

That Sun link was a throw-away; I agree the Sun is not necessarily a reliable source unless they are re-sourcing an AP or Interfax story. And I think Georgia and Russia still use the same pattern BDU anyway.

 

[CelticWarrior]

I dunno what to think of this. If Russian citizens in S.O. were getting bombed by Georgian forces, and the S.O. was being forced by violence to rejoin or join (not sure) Georgia then Russia had to step in. If your citizens are dying over a territorial conflict you have to step in. Granted this is a fine line to walk when your Russia invaded an ex soviet republic. It just looks fishy. Maybe Russia acted harshly, I am not sure. But if a territory with alligence to your country in anyway was being bullied by a neighbor wouldn;t you feel inclined to stepping in. Tbh I am neutral atm until I het more intel on the manor because i also heard the S.O. fighters shot first.

 

[Saskwach]

Saskwatch - if you're going to criticise other's opinions on the crisis, at least have the decency to link to your sources. You can't make a claim like:

"practically every reason that Russia gave to get involved in this little conflict were either manufactured or crimes that Russia was also guilty of but would be shocked if anyone were to intervene in."

and not support it. Where is your evidence for that.

The evidence for that claim had been made by myself and others in this thread already and I don't like repeating myself or others.
I criticised his reply because I've wasted too much time in my life rebutting arguments that weren't even valid - were in fact logical fallacies. Not only does humouring them strengthen their resolve - and thus draw out the debate beyond my patience, which thins as fallacies thicken - but it encourages them to think that the way they debate is alright when it's not, and so waste others' time when they move onto other disagreements. My new strategy is simply to point out their mistake rather than face their arguments; if Doug had said something that wasn't fallacious I would have responded more productively.