EU Report blames both sides for 2008 Russian-Georgian War

[Silent Hunter]

BBC News Story

Georgia started it after a lot of Russian provocation. I accept that.

[ChrisJG777]

Both sides are just as bad as each other in my view...

[GMantis]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Israel is wrong, as was Russia. I have zero sympathy for South Ossetia, a brutal dictatorship that ethnically cleansed ethnic Georgians. The Georgians didn't do things the right way though, they should've just sent special forces to the capitol and riddled the "President" full of bullet holes.

[GMantis]

Israel is wrong, as was Russia. I have zero sympathy for South Ossetia, a brutal dictatorship that ethnically cleansed ethnic Georgians. The Georgians didn't do things the right way though, they should've just sent special forces to the capitol and riddled the "President" full of bullet holes.

They didn't cleanse any Georgians until Georgia tried to destroy them.
This didn't start last year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991–1992_South_Ossetia_War
Before the war started, many Georgian intellectuals stated that the Georgians should decide whether other peoples could live in Georgia and most Ossetians who lived in Georgia proper have left now. The regime in South Ossetia was not very democratic, but its inhabitants most certainly prefer it to Georgian control.
I find it rather ironic that BRTD, the supposed enemy of nationalists is defending a rather extreme brand of nationalism.

[k-onmmunist]

Wrong. It's all Russia's fault.

[GMantis]

Wrong. It's all Russia's fault.

Cite?

[Хahar 🤔]

Wrong. It's all Russia's fault.

Cite?

It's always Russia's fault, don't you know?

[Silent Hunter]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

It was deemed to be an over-reaction. Just because Israel does it, it doesn't mean it's justified.

[GMantis]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

It was deemed to be an over-reaction. Just because Israel does it, it doesn't mean it's justified.

Yeah, but does the EU condemn Israel?

[Silent Hunter]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

It was deemed to be an over-reaction. Just because Israel does it, it doesn't mean it's justified.

Yeah, but does the EU condemn Israel?

That's irrelevant for this discussion.

[GMantis]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

It was deemed to be an over-reaction. Just because Israel does it, it doesn't mean it's justified.

Yeah, but does the EU condemn Israel?

That's irrelevant for this discussion.

The double standarts used by the EU and the US are quite relevant.

[Silent Hunter]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

It was deemed to be an over-reaction. Just because Israel does it, it doesn't mean it's justified.

Yeah, but does the EU condemn Israel?

That's irrelevant for this discussion.

The double standarts used by the EU and the US are quite relevant.

So are the double standards employed by Russia. The report rejected humanitarian intervention as justification, but also rejected it for Kosovo.

[GMantis]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

It was deemed to be an over-reaction. Just because Israel does it, it doesn't mean it's justified.

Yeah, but does the EU condemn Israel?

That's irrelevant for this discussion.

The double standarts used by the EU and the US are quite relevant.

So are the double standards employed by Russia. The report rejected humanitarian intervention as justification, but also rejected it for Kosovo.

According to Russia, the people in South Ossetia were Russian citizens and therefore under Russian protection. This wasn't the case in Kosovo.

[Silent Hunter]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

It was deemed to be an over-reaction. Just because Israel does it, it doesn't mean it's justified.

Yeah, but does the EU condemn Israel?

That's irrelevant for this discussion.

The double standarts used by the EU and the US are quite relevant.

So are the double standards employed by Russia. The report rejected humanitarian intervention as justification, but also rejected it for Kosovo.

According to Russia, the people in South Ossetia were Russian citizens and therefore under Russian protection. This wasn't the case in Kosovo.

Therefore why did they invade Georgia proper instead of merely protecting them?

[GMantis]

The important part is that Saakashvilli idiotic suggestion that he invaded to preempt the Russians has been mostly refuted. Though I don't see how advancing into the territory of an opponent when he started the war is not justfied - isn't that the mainstay of Israel's foreign policy?

It was deemed to be an over-reaction. Just because Israel does it, it doesn't mean it's justified.

Yeah, but does the EU condemn Israel?

That's irrelevant for this discussion.

The double standarts used by the EU and the US are quite relevant.

So are the double standards employed by Russia. The report rejected humanitarian intervention as justification, but also rejected it for Kosovo.

According to Russia, the people in South Ossetia were Russian citizens and therefore under Russian protection. This wasn't the case in Kosovo.

Therefore why did they invade Georgia proper instead of merely protecting them?

To prevent further invasions by destroying their millitary hardware. It should be remembered that they didn't invade very deeply or stayed very long, which discredits the theory that they were there in order to overthrow Saakashvilli or destroy the pipelines.

[Silent Hunter]

To prevent further invasions by destroying their millitary hardware. It should be remembered that they didn't invade very deeply or stayed very long, which discredits the theory that they were there in order to overthrow Saakashvilli or destroy the pipelines.

You don't need to roll in with tanks to do that. You can just as easily do that with aircraft.

[GMantis]

To prevent further invasions by destroying their millitary hardware. It should be remembered that they didn't invade very deeply or stayed very long, which discredits the theory that they were there in order to overthrow Saakashvilli or destroy the pipelines.

You don't need to roll in with tanks to do that. You can just as easily do that with aircraft.

Takes much longer. In any case such an invasion (from Russia's point of view, I'm not saying they are correct) helps to dissuade others from making similar moves.

[dead0man]

To prevent further invasions by destroying their millitary hardware. It should be remembered that they didn't invade very deeply or stayed very long, which discredits the theory that they were there in order to overthrow Saakashvilli or destroy the pipelines.

You don't need to roll in with tanks to do that. You can just as easily do that with aircraft.

But they had to show the world that they still could.  Like us in Grenada and Panama in the 80s.

[Silent Hunter]

To prevent further invasions by destroying their millitary hardware. It should be remembered that they didn't invade very deeply or stayed very long, which discredits the theory that they were there in order to overthrow Saakashvilli or destroy the pipelines.

You don't need to roll in with tanks to do that. You can just as easily do that with aircraft.

Takes much longer. In any case such an invasion (from Russia's point of view, I'm not saying they are correct) helps to dissuade others from making similar moves.

Destroying a country's entire military hardware just to "prevent further invasions" is generally deemed an over-reaction. If they had occupied South Ossetia only, things might not have been so bad.

[GMantis]

To prevent further invasions by destroying their millitary hardware. It should be remembered that they didn't invade very deeply or stayed very long, which discredits the theory that they were there in order to overthrow Saakashvilli or destroy the pipelines.

You don't need to roll in with tanks to do that. You can just as easily do that with aircraft.

Takes much longer. In any case such an invasion (from Russia's point of view, I'm not saying they are correct) helps to dissuade others from making similar moves.

Destroying a country's entire military hardware just to "prevent further invasions" is generally deemed an over-reaction. If they had occupied South Ossetia only, things might not have been so bad.

As dead0man said, they needed to prove a piont. Even Russians opposed to Ptuin that admit that not reacting to the invasion would mean losing all credibility. Of course they acted disproportioanly, but when a country provokes a war with a stronger neighbour, it can't expect that the stronger country will simply stop at the border.
In any case they left those territories within a month - rather sooner than most similar cases.

[Silent Hunter]

To prevent further invasions by destroying their millitary hardware. It should be remembered that they didn't invade very deeply or stayed very long, which discredits the theory that they were there in order to overthrow Saakashvilli or destroy the pipelines.

You don't need to roll in with tanks to do that. You can just as easily do that with aircraft.

Takes much longer. In any case such an invasion (from Russia's point of view, I'm not saying they are correct) helps to dissuade others from making similar moves.

Destroying a country's entire military hardware just to "prevent further invasions" is generally deemed an over-reaction. If they had occupied South Ossetia only, things might not have been so bad.

As dead0man said, they needed to prove a piont. Even Russians opposed to Ptuin that admit that not reacting to the invasion would mean losing all credibility. Of course they acted disproportioanly, but when a country provokes a war with a stronger neighbour, it can't expect that the stronger country will simply stop at the border.
In any case they left those territories within a month - rather sooner than most similar cases.

True, but Russia provoked Georgia as well.

[GMantis]

To prevent further invasions by destroying their millitary hardware. It should be remembered that they didn't invade very deeply or stayed very long, which discredits the theory that they were there in order to overthrow Saakashvilli or destroy the pipelines.

You don't need to roll in with tanks to do that. You can just as easily do that with aircraft.

Takes much longer. In any case such an invasion (from Russia's point of view, I'm not saying they are correct) helps to dissuade others from making similar moves.

Destroying a country's entire military hardware just to "prevent further invasions" is generally deemed an over-reaction. If they had occupied South Ossetia only, things might not have been so bad.

As dead0man said, they needed to prove a piont. Even Russians opposed to Ptuin that admit that not reacting to the invasion would mean losing all credibility. Of course they acted disproportioanly, but when a country provokes a war with a stronger neighbour, it can't expect that the stronger country will simply stop at the border.
In any case they left those territories within a month - rather sooner than most similar cases.

True, but Russia provoked Georgia as well.

True, but Saakashvili stated from the moment he came to power that he would regain South Ossetia and Abkhazia and he certainly started provocative action long before that. Nor did the Georgians abstain from provocations in the last few months prior to the war.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The South Ossetians started it by raiding Georgian border towns. Georgia just reacted. South Ossetia is no different than the Confederate States of America, and is deserving of the same fate.

[GMantis]

The South Ossetians started it by raiding Georgian border towns. Georgia just reacted. South Ossetia is no different than the Confederate States of America, and is deserving of the same fate.

That is not quite clear. There had been provocations by both sides for months. What is quite clear, however is that Georgia attacked several hours after agreeing to a ceasefire, with the stated intention to restore constitutional order - not exactly what I would call a reaction.