PDA

View Full Version : whats the whole reason why Russia is attacking Georgia?


robm_2007
27-08-08, 16:29
i watch the news, and i know that Russia has armed troops and tanks and such in Georgia. but why? its something about them wanting some land or something. Right?

i still dont get it.

please explain.

lararoxs
27-08-08, 16:49
Georgia was threatening another country that Russia thought belonged to then, Russia took offence at Georgia and decided to fight back!:p:wve:

I think anyway!:D

SamReeves
27-08-08, 16:52
From what we see in the U.S., the Russians are flexing their muscles to see what they can get away with. Which has been plenty in Georgia. This is an attempt to scare Eastern Bloc countries out of NATO and the missile shield.

robm_2007
27-08-08, 17:25
thanks!

Forwen
27-08-08, 20:18
Plus Russia wants to scare oil concerns out of Caucasus, so they can't develop an oil transportation network there out of Russia's control.

Goose
27-08-08, 20:44
Georgia was threatening another country that Russia thought belonged to then, Russia took offence at Georgia and decided to fight back!:p:wve:

I think anyway!:D

South Ossetia isnt another country, its a region in Georgia that became a seperatist state in a way. Russia had a military presence there before all this for years, as a 'peace keeping' force.

I cant tell you why they are in Georgia 'peacekeeping' especially as they signed a cease fire that should put all russian forces out of Georgis AND south ossetia and back to russia. But thats yet to be seen.

Cochrane
27-08-08, 21:52
A short background of what happened before the war: Georgia has two regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which don't want to belong to modern Georgia and act as de-facto independent states, although they are not internationally recognized by anyone (except for Russia, which happened I think yesterday). Both are pro-Russia, with especially South Ossetia wishing to join the Russian Federation. Due to a peace treaty, there are always Russian, Georgian and South Ossetian or Abkhazian soldiers present in the region, although there is always some fighting between someone.

Under international law, neither of the two regions can become independent without Georgia agreeing to this. Recently, however, Kosovo gained independence from Serbia against Serbia's wishes, so both and Russia voiced that they had the right to do the same. The precise details on this war aren't 100% clear, but it seems that Georgia wanted to prevent that by using one of the constant attacks by either side to warrant a full invasion in South Ossetia, hoping to completely conquer it and that Russia didn't dare act offensively, since Georgia had western backing and was trying to become a NATO member.

Turns out that Georgia's calculations were completely wrong, Russia did strike back with significant force and ended up having troops in core Georgia as well. Western support for Georgia didn't really materialize beyond international leaders voicing their concerns. There is an armistice now, and all parties had grudgingly accepted to go back to the status quo, but Russian troops are still in Georgia and now Russia has officially recognized both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

True Reasons: I think we'll need a few decades and historicians to find out what everyone was actually thinking here. Russia has long demanded more power in general and more influence in former soviet republics, many of which are going on a more pro-western course. The Kosovo incident, which happened against Russia's expressed wishes, soon raised the question whether this was possible elsewhere, which made the issue of these two provinces more urgent. Georgia turned away from a pro-Russian government not very long ago. Also, a lot of gas is transported through Georgia, avoiding Russia and russian influence on gas price and supply. These are just a few of the possible reasons, pick your favorites as you wish.

EmeraldFields
27-08-08, 21:59
Well said Cochrane!:tmb:

Paul H
27-08-08, 22:54
Why all the conspiracy theories? Whatís wrong with the simple answer that the Russians went into South Ossetia to protect the civilians (mostly Russian passport holders) from the madman Saakashvili (the Georgian president) who was murdering them, and have remained there to make sure that the madman doesnít try it again?

Sometimes the obvious answers are the correct ones.

Cochrane
27-08-08, 23:01
Why all the conspiracy theories? Whatís wrong with the simple answer that the Russians went into South Ossetia to protect the civilians (mostly Russian passport holders) from the madman Saakashvili (the Georgian president) who was murdering them, and have remained there to make sure that the madman doesnít try it again?

Sometimes the obvious answers are the correct ones.

What's simple about that answer? It assumes that Saakashvili had ill intent against South Ossetian civilians, which has been claimed by one side (if one regards South Ossetia and Russia as one side; I do) and denied by the other. The same thing happened, with reversed sides, concerning civilians in Georgia. Without independent observers in the zone, chances are we'll never know for sure.

Also, why are South Ossetians Russian passport holders? Yeah, they obviously agreed to be that, but why was Russia offering it in the first place?

I think all those people screaming about how big, evil Russia mistreated small, innocent Georgia are wrong, but I refuse to see Russia as the knight in shining armor as well. Things like these are never as simple as either side would like them to look.

Fortune&Glory
27-08-08, 23:02
UPS this to Vladimir, he'll stfu in no time. Swig it comrade!!!!!

http://www.arenaflowers.com/product_image/large/1253-smirnoff_premium_vodka.jpg

Paul H
27-08-08, 23:21
What's simple about that answer? It assumes that Saakashvili had ill intent against South Ossetian civilians, which has been claimed by one side (if one regards South Ossetia and Russia as one side; I do) and denied by the other.

On August 7, Saakashvili sent his troops into South Ossetia, killing up to 1600 civilians and causing tens of thousands more to flee across the border into Russia. If that isnít "ill intent" then what is? How much more do we need to know?

Forwen
27-08-08, 23:25
Paul H, you really must be desperate to be looking for righteousness in Russia :D

killing up to 1600 civilians

I was waiting for this to pop up. Right now, even Russians themselves have trimmed the number down to around 130. The Ccinvali hospital registered a number of around 50 dead.

Cochrane
27-08-08, 23:29
On August 7, Saakashvili sent his troops into South Ossetia, killing up to 1600 civilians and causing tens of thousands more to flee across the border into Russia. If that isnít "ill intent" then what is? How much more do we need to know?

Well, all politicians, including georgians and russians, tend to ignore civilian deaths when going to war (and no, I don't like that, but it seems to be a fact all over the world). Also, there are many wars in the world where nobody intervenes. So it does leave the question: Why did Russia choose precisely this event to care, why did they invade core Georgia, why are they still there and why did they suddenly decide to officially recognize the two countries?

According to UNHCR, most displaced people were actually ethnic Georgians, with about 73,000 in Georgia proper (most of them from Gori). Was that necessary to protect South Ossetians? Maybe it was, I'm not denying that possibility. But maybe it wasn't. As I said before, I think we need some distance to be able to accurately judge these events.

Paul H
27-08-08, 23:31
Paul H, you really must be desperate to be looking for righteousness in Russia :D



I was waiting for this to pop up. Right now, even Russians themselves have trimmed the number down to around 130. The Ccinvali hospital registered a number of around 50 dead.

No, they haven't. They have produced the names of 133 civilians who were killed but have said that many more were killed who have not yet been identified. That is very different from the totally false and misleading picture you have tried to paint.

Edit: And the South Ossetians themselves are maintaining that 1492 civilians were killed by Saakashvili's August 7 attack.

Forwen
27-08-08, 23:36
No, they haven't. They have produced the names of 133 civilians who were killed but have said that many more were killed who have not yet been identified. That is very different from the totally false and misleading picture you have tried to paint

No, they have found 133 dead so far, not identified those. Russian officials mutter something about mass burial sites they aren't about to open, and until they do, I'm not leaping to trigger-happy conclusions.

That is very different from your demagogic story of good Russia vs evil Western-backed Georgia.

Paul H
27-08-08, 23:52
No, they have found 133 dead so far, not identified those. Russian officials mutter something about mass burial sites they aren't about to open, and until they do, I'm not leaping to trigger-happy conclusions.


You are wrong again. Why donít you check these things out? Itís not difficult to do.

Note the bold parts:

Officially there are 133 people registered who have been killed as a result of the conflict on the South Ossetian side, an official from the Russian General Prosecutorís Office said.

"133 victims have been registered, but there are many graves, which we are not yet able to examine," Boris Salmaksov, deputy head of investigative unit at the General Prosecutorís Office southern district service, was quoted by Interfax as saying on August 20.

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19225
And even from a broadly anti Russian report:

Moscow initially insisted that 1600 civilians were killed when Georgian forces attacked the pro-Russian enclave of South Ossetia on August 7, but yesterday it said it had obtained the names of only 133 civilian victims.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24219963-2703,00.html

xxitsxnadyaxx
28-08-08, 00:24
news in the US don't say anything about whats really happening and its $%&*!!!

i heard the president of Georgia is thick in the head xP

Draco
28-08-08, 00:27
Isn't Georgia a member of NATO? Not sure why NATO hasn't responded in a more official capacity.

Forwen
28-08-08, 00:28
My bad as I kept to more general reports after the ceasefire, but that still doesn't change the fact that 1400-1600 number hasn't yet been backed by proof (or was it? Feel free to provide it to me). Be my guest and open those mass graves, and let as many independent groups into South Ossetia as they wish to come so they can confirm it, and I'll accept it.

Also, I wasn't dismissing the 2000 number off the bat until the recent reports, so whatever "totally misleading" picture you saw in my posts was for your eyes only I'm afraid. I'm quite aware of my own biases and how they may influence my judgement.

Flipper1987
28-08-08, 02:02
Isn't Georgia a member of NATO? Not sure why NATO hasn't responded in a more official capacity.

They wanted to join NATO. Bush was all for it. Unfortunately Russia vehemently objected so other European nations in NATO voted down Georgia's admission.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/nato-allies-turn-down-bus_n_94780.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VQ6LF80&show_article=1

Apparently Russia had other "plans" for Georgia.

FLIPPER

Mad Tony
28-08-08, 17:59
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7586605.stm
Apparently the US is involved in the conflict in Georgia. Same old Putin: full of BS.