Georgia Conflict's Causes

According to an article on CNN.com from August 14th, the previous president of the Soviet Union (who still calls himself president which gets confusing) Mikhail Gorbachev believes that Georgia started the conflict between Georgia and Russia by attacking a small town in S. Ossetia. The president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili says that Russian separatists attacked and killed innocent Georgian civilians and started the conflict. I've heard that Georgia attacked S. Ossetia and Russia attacked Georgia in defense of S. ossetia.

This is obviously a political ploy. This conflict is totally generated by "he said" "she said"'s. Heresay should not drive a war.
So what did really happen? None of them make sense. President Saakashvili didn't say what happened before the Russian citizens attacked his people, so I tend to believe that Georgia did lead an unprovoked attack on S. Ossetia. But why would they attack their own region???? That's like the United States army attacking Southern California. Why?
I've heard rumors that S. Ossetia is "pro-Russian" but what does that mean? Do they want to rejoin with Russia, to they want to be independent from Georgia, and have they done anything to make anyone believe that's the case? This conflict is a mess. No one knows what started, and no one even knows who's involved. How is this a conflict in S. Ossetia that doesn't even involve them? The media from those three countries seem to be based on nothing but rumors, and our media obviously isn't really helping.

Channel 4 news was awesome enough to post a timeline about the Georgia conflict and I've finally figured out what happened! Just promise to ignore the American's media mumbo jumbo about Russia being the "intimidating bully" and we're good!

So according to the timeline, South Ossetia (which is somewhat independent from Georgia, but I don't know the details) was afraid of their "situation." Georgia was that situation. S. Ossetia was nervous about Georgia being aggressive, so they asked Russia for help, and Russia sent in their troops into South Ossetia. Georgia decided on August 8th, the beginning of the olympics to invade S. Ossetia. Yes, Georgia started it. They invaded S. Ossetia on the day the Olympics started while all the world leaders were in China celebrating. Hmmm....

South Ossetia had actually asked Russia to set up a military base in their country because they were afraid of Georgia. So, when Georgia attacked S. Ossetia, Russia defended them and drove the Georgians back to their own country. I assume Russia stayed in Georgia to keep them from coming back into Ossetia. If you look at the timeline carefully, you'll see that relatively soon after every time Russia tried to withdraw troops back into S. Ossetia, Georgia would threaten to attack them with US Missles or NATO, drawing Russia back into Georgia.

I feel bad. An entire American people so easily convinced that Russia was trying to re-conquer Georgia, only to find out that Georgia was the one trying to conquer S. Ossetia. Since the situation, another smaller country near Georgia also asked for Russia's support against the aggressive Georgia. Both this country and S. Ossetia have shown their full support for Russia.

Finally.... some truth, huh?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/georgia+conflict+daybyday+timeline/2400777

The United States is still demanding that Russia withdraw from Georgia. They are still accusing Russia of neocolonialism and attempting to re-conquer the small country. We, however, know differently. But how is this propoganda going to fuel the world?

The United States -as a government and a media source- is lying and everyone is eating it up. However, Bush is still astounded that the EU has done nothing. They may be the ones that are actually attempting to solve the issue peacefully based on the actual issue.

An article from alertnet.org discussed the EU's lack of action fairly objectively. They spoke about the United States and the rest of the world questioning their decisions, although they haven't made any yet. The article quotes the French Minister as saying "We'll have to see. We have to take stock of the situation." There is another article I found that supports my theory that the EU is regarding the issue as a Georgia-Russia one, without US propaganda. This other article from cfr.org states that the EU was "at the forefront of diplomacy on the South Ossetia dispute." This shows me that the European Union has already by-passed Georgia's claim to innocence and has began dealing with the real issue, rather than what the United States tells them the issue is .
(http://www.cfr.org/publication/17021/russias_arms_control_ripples.html)

Many others say that the EU's inaction is simply because they are afraid of losing Russian energy. While I think that would most definately be a powerful bargaining tool... I hope that the issue is the actual issue in Georgia itself, rather than what everyone else in the world is worried about. The fact that no one except channel 4 is admitting what Georgia did before any of this actually happened is VERY disappointing.

Ok.. Ok ok ok ok...
I'm going to give you a quote made by an Arkansas newspaper about the actual issues in the Georgia conflict....

"[...] Russia has withdrawn most of its troops from Georgia, but some remain in South Ossetia in what Russia calls a peacekeeping role."

Ok ok...
...
ok...
Let's replace some names shall we?

[...] The United States has withdrawn most of its troops from Iraq, but some remain in Baghdad in what the United States calls a peacekeeping role.

Hmmmmmm....
Hmmm......
Why does that sound familiar?
I apologize, but this is really starting to irritate me, how dare we, the United States, call Russia a conquering aggressor when we are doing (since before the Georgia issue) what they are doing now? At least Russia was asked to intervene.

I'm sorry, I don't want this thread to become about the ethics of the war in Iraq, but this is such a recurring theme this century, I can't help but point it out.

"By overplaying their hand and using disproportionate force and establishing a new situation, rather than restoring the old, they lost any sense of legitimacy."
Hmmm....
If this wasn't a thread specifically about the Georgia conflict, and you had no context for that quote, what country would you think it's referring to????????????



It's frustrating.

I'm very impressed with this article from Arkansas. It discusses the fact that the world seems to have forgotten that Georgia began the conflict.
An additional note that I didn't previously know is that apparently S. Ossetia is not only an ally with Russia, but wants to become a part of it. The same thing goes for Abkhazia.
This is something I want to double-check, but I wouldn't doubt it.

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/09/17/News/347958.html

I can't find anything on the Georgia conflict that's any more recent than August 28th, but I'm going to keep looking.
In the process, though, I did find another timeline of events. This time, it goes back to the 1980's and gives a brief -and probably somewhat simplified- description of the events leading up to the conflict today.

In the late 80's, South Ossetia had just gotten free from Georgia with the support of Russia. It does seem like S. Ossetia not only wanted to be free of them, but to actually become a part of Russia. I'm a little curious about why they haven't yet. You'd think Russia would want to take them in and expand their country. I want to say I'm impressed with the fact that Russia is obviously avoiding the impression that it's trying to "re-form" the Soviet Union; however, I don't totally know the whole story on that yet, or what their motivations are. In fact, it seemed like Georgia is the one trying to hold on as the Soviet Union, and is refusing to let S. Ossetia go. Hence, the conflict today. If you read the timeline, you can see that things have been building for quite some time, and Russia has actually had a very minimal part in it, only when asked to intervene by S. Ossetia have they actually acted in anything.

I would like to know what happened with Tskhinvali in June last year. I had no idea that there had actually been a claimed attack already. I'd like to know what exactly happened and whether or not Georgia really attacked the city.

I still can't find anything new about the Georgia conflict, but old events just keep coming up. I found another article that supports Georgia's aggressive behavior form BBC.

"Fghting over South Ossetia erupted late last week when Georgia launched an overnight assault on the territory, which has had de facto independence since the end of a war in 1992."

Granted this article is from Aug 11th. It also provides a little clarification about Abkhazia. The small country also has Georgian troops within its borders. Whether it's completely independent or not, I'm not sure, but Russia had given warnings to Georgia about them too. Whether or not Russia has attacked since, I'm not sure.

Someone, I think a third party organization, was saying that Russia and Georgia were talking about ceasefire agreements and diplomacy talks in the future.

So what happened to S. Ossetia? They just don't matter? Yes. Let's have Georgia and Russia argue over their diplomacies on behalf of S. Ossetia. Then, united, they can decide it's fate
Why isn't Georgia attempting diplomacy talks with S. Ossetia? The ones their at war with? As long as Georgia attacks them, Russia's going to fight back.
And then... of course... enter...
The United States

""I said this violence is unacceptable," Mr Bush said, adding: "I was very firm with Vladimir Putin. Hopefully this will get resolved peacefully.""

President Bush was very firm about an incident he knows nothing about the day after he found out about it...

I'm still a little worried about the fact that I can't find any info on the conflict that's more recent than august. Convenient that there's loads of media while people believe it was Russia's fault. Now that foreign media is questioning Georgia, I suddenly can't find anything here....

I've finally found some new information about the Georgia conflict, 2 weeks later

Over the past week or so, Russia has been hit by two car bombs. Here is where it gets tricky...
According to the Telegraph, Russia recognized that the bombs were probablly placed extremists from Georgia that really had no connection to the government itself. However, this was said by a "Western diplomat" on behalf of the Russian military.

Bloomberg, however, has found quotes stating that the Russian military acknowledges that Georgia itself placed the car bombs in an attempt to initiate another start to the war; but Russia is going to gold to its agreement with France, and contintue to pull out.

South Ossetian leaders then say that the attack was caused by the Russian military trying to prove that they still have a reason to remain prominant a force in the area.

More he said she said. It never gets old. I don't think that Russia placed the car bombs to create excuses to stay, mostly because they are actually pulling out (I guess they are just bigger than us since we use every possible gunshot as an excuse to remain in Iraq ). Whether or not Russia believes it was Georgia, I'm not sure. That's something that will definately take more research.

Needless to say, once again, Russia is demonized. Within that week article after article claimed Russia would use it as an excuse to stay in South Ossetia, but.... not so much.

I did also find out that the European Union did send in unarmed peacekeepers. And the United States has still done nothing but whine. It's not that I want the United States to get involved... in fact I'm thoroughly against it.... but if the United States is going to "talk tough" about the issue, then just do it, just go in, if you're not going... then don't talk.

Another fact... We do not recognize South Ossetia or Abkhazia as separate nations. Other than Russia, there are only two countries in the world that do recognize them as independent from Georgia. This begs some questions:

Why didn't we, nor the UN, do anything in the past 17 years that S. Ossetia had been fighting for their freedom? Why do we become involved now? Russia didn't get involved until Georgia reached the South Ossetian capital. Why didn't we get involved and help S. Ossetia become independent? Why now? And why Georgia?

Why Georgia? Aren't we the land of the free? Don't we, the United States, base everything we have ever done on freedom and liberty for all? Why are we hindering South Ossetia's freedom? We helped Israel. We helped them get freedom from its surrounding countries and become its own nation. Why aren't we helping S. Ossetia? Instead of helping them gain their freedom, we are helping Georgia take it?

On top of that, the world has decided that we need to step up military spending. Suprise, suprise.... Now, NATO is going to begin providing military support to the ex-soviet nations, which is apparently something we weren't doing before? Why weren't we doing it before ? We fought an entire war to wipe out the Soviet Union, and then refused to provide any support for the nations who joined our side and tried to break away??? How does that work? And what does that mean? Who will we be defending? Obviously South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't on that list? Who is NATO going to defend?

This conflict has become something that is going to define the flow of military spending for years to come. A short-term issue (concerning how long we've been involved) turned into long-term policy change.... Towards massive military spending away from the Middle-East and into Eastern Europe....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=georgia+conflict+latest+news&aq=1&oq=Georgia+conflict+latest

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avfV4XMokbQk&refer=home

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3146941/Nato-commanders-to-draw-up-plans-to-defend-ex-Soviet-bloc-members-from-Russia.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/3140321/Russia-begins-Georgia-pull-out.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/3130522/Georgia-crisis-Car-bomb-kills-seven-Russian-soldiers-in-South-Ossetia.html

Alright, so Russia has managed to pull out all of it's troops form Georgia. I think they officially got the last troop out on the 8th, I'm not sure. There may still be a camp or two lying around. An issue is now that Georgians are going home, a lot of houses got burnt down by the South Ossetian militia. It's sad, but I'm glad to see that S. Ossetia had some involvement in their own issue.

Of course... there are still issues. The EU has asked Russia to pull all the way back to having a few thousand "peace-keepers" in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. According to most of the world, keeping troops there is just the same as keeping troops in Georgia since they aren't recognized as independent... yet . A few people in particular are demanding that Russia continue to withdraw. I think they've forgotten that Russia already said they won't be withdrawing completely. I'm not expecting them too; and honestly, if they do, I'll bet that Georgia will be days away from re-entering South Ossetia and Abkhazia and starting war again trying to take them under control.

Thankfully, however, some people in the EU have realized that Georgia might be an issue itself now. Some are saying that pressure will move from Russia to Georgia. France and Germany are already trying to re-instate a pact made with Russia that was halted during the conflict. Apparently, most but a few ministers admit that Georgia "[...] may be asked to accept that the re-integration of the rebel regions into its territory is implausible for the foreseeable future."

We'll see how that goes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3174291/Russia-withdraws-from-Georgian-territory-but-still-violating-ceasefire.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/3161422/Russia-completes-troop-withdrawal-from-Georgia-buffer-zones.html

As of the past week, little as happened. The biggest issue in the conflict right now is whether or not the European Union is going to decide to re-engage agreements and trade with Russia or continue giving them the silent treatment until they leave Georgia.

According to Georgian supporters, Russia has not yet honored the cease-fire agreement. This is obviously an agreement that was never actually agreed upon. I even looked it up. When signing the agreement, Russia said that they would withdraw their troops into South Ossetia and Abkhazia (aka out of Georgia), but would not remove their troops from the breakaway region. I'm pretty sure that was crystal clear from three weeks ago. We all knew that Russia wasn't going to withdraw all their troops from the rebel areas and weren't planning to. We knew that, because Russia told us. Yet.... For some reason unknown to me... Georgia still seems to think that Russia agreed to withdraw back to pre-war positions which were a very small amount of unarmed peacekeepers. I'm pretty sure that it had been agreed that Russia wasn't going to do that, they made it very clear. However, Georgia seemed to have missed that minor detail. So, according to Georgia and its supporters Russia has not finalized the cease-fire agreement and if Georgia is going to wait for them to do so, they will be waiting a very long time.

The second discrepency in the EU is "occupation". I was confused for a little while because after the withdrawal of troops from Georgia, people were still saying that Russia was occupying Georgia. I didn't get it because I knew that Russia had withdrawn. But the issue is that Russia withdrew to S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, who accroding to Georgia are Georgian territory. The second thing that confused me is that Russia is considered to be occupying these regions who have actually invited and asked Russia to stay. So the argument between Georgian supporters and supporters of re-opening trade is whether or not Russia is actually occupying the country. I say they're not, but what do I know?

Russia made a very good point. They said that if they pull out, Georgia will attack again and how are the EU peacekeepers (who would be few and unarmed) supposed to contain that? This war isn't going to end until the breakaway regions are given their freedom whether or not Russia is involved. France and Germany seem anxious to move on and continue dealign with Russia, while Great Britain and Georgia want Russia completely out of the area. Russia isn't going to leave...

In the end, by now it's come down to who can hold out longer. Russia (being welcomed into to small nations fighting for freedom and supporting the Russian troops), or Europe (who is totally dependent on Russian energy).

Gee.... I wonder who's going to win that stare down?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3210246/Britain-prevents-EU-from-reopening-trade-talks-with-Russia.html
http://www.emportal.co.yu/en/news/region/61156.html
http://www.rferl.org/content/Russian_Troops_Dig_In_For_Long_Stay_In_South_Ossetia/1328678.html
http://www.izo.com/2008/10/abkhazians-and.html
http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/08/russia-georgia.html

P.S. Check out the IZO link. Apparently South Ossetian people have made over 2,000 complaints about Georgia to human rights organizations asking for help and freedom from the larger country. This is not something that is just happening now. Remember, South Ossetia and Georgia have been fighting for years and years before Russia was ever involved.

This is such a mess. I don't know what's going on.
The cease-fire has been agreed on. Russia is out of the main area of Georgia. Yet... Georgia is still attacking Abkhazia? People have been dying on the Abkhaz border and Abkhazia is accusing Georgia. The fact that Georgia remains in a sort of "no comment" position doesn't make them look any better. What ever happened to that cease-fire? I guess that's about as one-sided as our media was when the issue began in the first place .

So nothing has been solved yet.

On top of that... Saakashvili is pissing off his politicians. One of them, his prime minister, supposedly quit. Another article says he was dismissed. Lord only knows what really happened. I'm going to lean towards him quitting because his whole term was based on foreign direct investment from the west and increasing relations with Europe and the United States which is exactly what Georgia has been trying to do for decades. He's made them a rich country. I don't understand why he'd be dismissed.

Another "ally" of Saakashvili has actually decided to quit his cabinet and start an opposition party against him. Try to figure that one out. Apparently what Saakashvili did during the Georgia conflict was never agreed on by any of his fellow politicians.
So... really... No update. Just slight confusion ?

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20081026%5cACQDJON200810260910DOWJONESDJONLINE000222.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Abkhaz%20Leader%20Orders%20Response%20To%20Georgian
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azDb5GnJpKgQ
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20081027%5cACQDJON200810271227DOWJONESDJONLINE000401.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Former%20Saakashvili%20Ally%20To%20Form%20Georgian%20Opposition%20Party
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081027/wl_nm/us_georgia_pm_2

The people of Georgia are protesting Saakashvilli. They want him to back down from the presidency and have a new election for a new leader.

Is it because he started a war? No...
Is it because he attacked a capital city in his own nation? No...
Is it because he increased the amount of FDI into his country? No...

It's because he lost to Russia!
He "[..] lost all that it was possible for Georgia to lose; a war, respect and our territory."



you see... They're not mad because he started the war, they're mad because they blame him for losing it.

It's confusing... They say that he started a war with Russia that he couldn't have ever won... But really, you can't just blame him. They're totally separating the Russia issue, and the South Ossetia issue. I'm not sure they know anything about what actually happened. Russia didn't attack Georgia because Saakashvilli prodded them with a stick, they attacked Georgia because South Ossetia asked for help.

For some reason... they seem to believe that if they elect a president, by a different name, and continue the attack on South Ossetia, that Russia will simply back off because it's not Saakashvilli?

When I first heard about the protests, I thought they would be human rights protests against him because he started the war in the first place. But they're not, they're just angry because Russia crushed them. I don't know what these people are looking to get out of this? Yes. I think he should step down and they should have the chance to elect a new president. Everyone should have that right after your country decides attack one of it's own regions because it wants freedom. However, I don't think their election is actually going to get anyone new in their parliament. From what it sounds like, it looks like they're just going to elect whoever promises to re-take S. Ossetia, and once that happens, Russia will attack again. I thought these facts were already well established....

I want to find some articles and news from the point of view of the South Ossetians. Are they happy with what happened and how it happened? I'd think so, they want freedom and Russia helped them get it on a small level. But who ever really knows?



So that's what's going on the side of Eastern Europe. But what about Western Europe? What's going on with the EU and the UN? Well... I think they're just trying to move on.

Most countries in the European Union want to start up negotiations with Russia again. Whatever they were discussing before got interrupted. However, there are still some issues. Poland and Lithuania still have issues with Russia because they haven't fully withdrawn from Georgia (reminder: they're still in S. Ossetia). However... I was pretty sure that everyone had realized that Russia wasn't going to completely withdraw until S. Ossetia was an independent nation. I guess some people are still confused...

Once again, I believe people are trying to separate the Russia issue, and the South Ossetia issue. No one remembers that Georgia and S. Ossetia were at war for a very long time before this year, and that that was the reason for Russia to be in there in the first place.

Once again... how has no one from the Western world come to the aid of South Ossetia? How can any media source speak about the Russia-Georgia issue without mentioning South Ossetia?

While both Poland and Lithuania have admitted that there's really no way for them to veto anything within the EU because they're only two of the many nations... some issues may develop.
South Ossetia has placed troops and and checkpoints along the border of their region. One in particular being Perevi. Actually... this is rather funny.

The border of the S. Ossetian region actually goes through the city, however apparently Tbilisi doesn't know that. S. Ossetia set up a checkpoint at the very edge of their border in Perevi, which actually puts them in the city. Georgia is in an uproar about this because they think they're actually in Georgia... however the leader of Perevi itself, Kokoity (probably some sort of mayoral official), explained that they weren't actually in Georgia, and were still within their own borders:

Unfortunately it seems the Georgian leadership is bad at geography and doesn't even know the borders of its own state. ~Kokoity

This could cause problems, if only because it's increasing tensions and there's always the chance someone may do something stupid. However, I think that Georgia is attempting to exaggerate this to get Europe to attack. Once again, they seem to forget that they've been at war for over 15 years now already, so this shouldn't be anything new.

I don't think this issue is going to go away until S. Ossetia is free. They haven't backed down for 15 years, and now that they have the support of Russia (and maybe even Ukraine), I doubt they ever will.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122609384573709433.html?mod=todays_asia_economy_and_politics
http://africa.reuters.com/country/CD/news/usnL950869.html
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/372219.htm
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/372218.htm