Russia was probably testing the waters, seeing how far they could go. It does seem that Russia is out for some retrobution not giving a f*ck about what Europe or the rest of the world thinks about them.
Poll: The South Ossetian War of 2008
- Thread starter Federalist92
- Start date
The Russians are pretty good about defending their mates, South Ossetia from Georgia, and the Russians don't let the Turks fuck about with the Armenians. It was no surprise that as soon as the Ossetians sent out the call, the Georgians were screwed. They were just too gung-ho.
I reckon Poland needs to watch its back. Its been negotiating with the Americans to put there Ballistic Missile Shield missile bases (irony anyone) pretty damn close to the Russian border. I don't think that Russia is beyond air-strikes in Poland. The EU would tread carefully and respond with diplomatic force rather than military force as they are very reliant upon Russian Natural Gas and Oil. Only a full invasion would probably see a mobilisation of EU armies. As I said, Poland needs to be careful.
I reckon Poland needs to watch its back. Its been negotiating with the Americans to put there Ballistic Missile Shield missile bases (irony anyone) pretty damn close to the Russian border. I don't think that Russia is beyond air-strikes in Poland. The EU would tread carefully and respond with diplomatic force rather than military force as they are very reliant upon Russian Natural Gas and Oil. Only a full invasion would probably see a mobilisation of EU armies. As I said, Poland needs to be careful.
The independant EU investigation concluded that both the russians and the Georgians commited attrocities in South Ossetia. Georgia fired rockets without due care and attention in civillian neibourhoods, but Russia used its tanks heavy weapons in the closed in spaces of towns and villages seriously damaging them just as much as the russians.deadman91 said:
Ohh I remember this war.. The EU should of slapped both of those big countries and told them to stop acting up.
But ont forget that 50% of the EU's oil and gas supply comes through our allies in Azerbijan, Georgia and turkey.deadman91 said:
Actually. theres a thought.
What if Russia was starting to see the EU as a threat. it has been inviting all its neibours to join them. What if Russia wanted to make sure Europe didnt become too powerful by trying to control ALL the Gas that comes into the EU. not just the russian gas but the one through Georgia as well. Thats a reasonable motive.
Irrespective of the citizens of those areas (who prefer independence or union with Russia) Georgia has the right by international law to hold those areas and determine their future, and even to take military action where appropriate. Russia has obviously been interfering as part of a strategy of maintaining a sphere of influence over as much of the old USSR as possible. They've been undermining Georgia, and in my view had pretty much no right to send troops in at all.
That said, it was obvious Russia would respond like that, which makes the Georgian president's decision to militarily assert his will an act of enormous stupidity. He - although not the Georgians as a whole - deserved what he got, and he certainly wouldn't have deserved the EU and USA coming in to back him up.
That said, it was obvious Russia would respond like that, which makes the Georgian president's decision to militarily assert his will an act of enormous stupidity. He - although not the Georgians as a whole - deserved what he got, and he certainly wouldn't have deserved the EU and USA coming in to back him up.
It
But it is an applicant with half of Europes natural Gas flowing in pipes under itEchetusXe said:
Oh there's no doubt the Russians did wrong, but they weren't guilty of the deliberate bullying of the South Ossetian populace that the Georgians were. I read a BBC article about apparent executions in a village by the Georgians, being scratched off as collateral damage, with old women thanking God that the Russians had arrived. I'm not saying the Russians were squeaky clean, but they fought a much cleaner war than the Georgians and they were wanted by most of the Ossetians.Federalist92 said:
That is if you count
But if you think Breaking many international Laws and invading a third world country when your a superpower is a clean war then you need to look up the meaning of a clean war.
No offence intended but neither of them were exactly clean. They were both terrible.
Sure what Georgia did was to civillians was wrong.deadman91 said:
But if you think Breaking many international Laws and invading a third world country when your a superpower is a clean war then you need to look up the meaning of a clean war.
No offence intended but neither of them were exactly clean. They were both terrible.
Georgia aint part of their country.Malicious said:
And I think the EU could have done something.
look:
Georgia V South Ossetia
then
Georgia V South Ossetia and RUSSIA
what if then...
The 20 EU Battlegroups and georgia V South Ossetia, Abkahzia and Russia
At least that would have been more fair rather than having two independancies and a superpower V a third world country.
Never mind Poland.deadman91 said:
I had almost forgotten this fact.
It was almost two weeks ago now, but Russia imposed Heavy trade restrictions on Latvia. A former USSR country. It was starting to cripple their country and there were calls of fowl play amongst the russian inspecters of the Latvian goods.
Then Latvias president formerly requested the European Council to intervene on Russia.
Its one thing showing youve still got it as a superpower, but in the last year thats 4 former USSR countrys theve had disputes with, one neding in this war.
the other two were Poland and the Ukraine
Sure what Georgia did was to civillians was wrong.Federalist92 said:
But if you think Breaking many international Laws and invading a third world country when your a superpower is a clean war then you need to look up the meaning of a clean war.
No offence intended but neither of them were exactly clean. They were both terrible.[/quote]
As I said, I'm not saying either of them were clean, I'm just saying the Russians were cleaner, cause among other reasons, they were asked for help. Is that breaking international law or assisting a nation whose sovereignty they had already recognized? I also understand why they went on blasted Georgia, they were trying (and succeeding) to limit American Influence in the area, which makes a lot of sense with the idiotic posturing and provocation by the Bush and now Obama administrations (seriously America, The Russians don't want a Missile Shield that they won't benefit from right at their border. Get it through your thick skulls and pull it out of Eastern Europe)
Well Russia IS imperialistic and you can bet your ass putin wouldn't mind having georgia. However, reasons for war aside, the russians should have kept the ossetians in check. When russia counter attacks georgia south ossetian troops joined them and committed numerous war crimes most of which involves mistreatment of civilians. Russian troops simply shrugged it off saying it's none of their business even though as the invading army it IS their responsibility to ensure the safety of the civilians.
Why you fight the war, i honestly don't care right about now. The eastern bloc business is very very messy stuff. But HOW you fight your war is a problem i'm more interested in.
Why you fight the war, i honestly don't care right about now. The eastern bloc business is very very messy stuff. But HOW you fight your war is a problem i'm more interested in.
If i remember correctly, russia recognized south ossetia AFTER the war. Huge difference there, they invaded first and then decided to recognize it.deadman91 said:
Yeah they use third world countries to fight for them, but they shouldnt fight the third world countries, and anyway, only North ossetia is in Russian Borders. By international law South ossetia is Georgian land. The Ossetians are breaking the law and russia should be more responsible being on the UN security Council. it shouldnt join in breaking the law.Malicious said:
oh.
and theres a difference between the US and Russia.
US, sticks up for little guy alot, only invaded Iraq because they thought thats where the terrorists were. they were actually just over the border to the north.
Russia always throws it weight around just to show off and judging by this recent development, picks on third world countries.
Well the story that I got was that Southern Ossetia held a referendum and declared independence from Georgia not long back. This was recognised by Russia, but was ignored by Georgia, US and EU. Then Russia clearly stated that if Georgia tried to retake Southern Ossetia, the Russians would lend the Ossetians their power. Georgia ignored this and went along with the attack. Russia stayed true to its word and kicked them out. That was all good. But in invading Georgia Saakashvili gave Russia the opportunity to flex some muscle and wreak the military bases just in case.
Overall i believe that Saakashvili brought it upon himself and what Russia did was right until the point they crossed the Georgian border.
Overall i believe that Saakashvili brought it upon himself and what Russia did was right until the point they crossed the Georgian border.
i think because georgia had applied to NATO and the EU he thought he would also have some superpower back up, and he must have been surprised when all the EU did was send in a couple of peacekeepers with binoculars and no soldiers.artemkin said:
I mean...they created the EU battlegroups to ensure memberstate safety for the states that couldnt properly defend themsleves and so that the EU could be represented militarily as one. but whats the point having them when a applying state gets attacked and they just sit around at their various bases sipping various national drinks.