Hmmm, I'd like to offer some points of disagreement here, because I think the media is trying too hard to sell either pro-Russian or Russophobic lines of thoughts and not always giving all the information. As a student of Russian politics, this region is one I've been following for some time, and most of us knew this conflict was inevitable as soon as the US started arming Georgia.
I can tell from this thread title and some of these posts that the Russophobic line found easy entry here. And yet Russia is not the instigator nor the big criminal here. Read on to see why I think so.
Quote: |
Originally Posted by Xandax On other notes, it looks as Georgia is willing to make a peace treaty, yet Russia continues to bomb/fight near Tbilisi, looking more like an invading force instead of a "peacekeeping" one. Russia is looking more and more like wanting to "punish" Georgia. |
Georgia also ignored an ultimatum regarding Abkhazia. Russia called for peace as soon as they felt Georgia was sufficiently humiliated to end all fighting. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xandax  Firstly - there are currently just as many "speculations" and "report" that this might have been instigated by the Russians who've been "mediating" in the conflict for years. That they baited Georgia to attack and succeeded with great effect. |
It is unknown what exactly happened, but by most accounts these reports are false.
Prior to the war, "sporadic fighting" happened between Ossetian insurgents and Georgian soldiers as it has at times since 1992. Saakashvili declared a unilateral cease-fire on the 7th, then 3 hours later ordered the Georgian army to invade South-Ossetia and started bombing Tskhinvali.
Now is it possible that Georgia was "goaded" into this somehow? Sure. Regardless, they were the aggressor, pure and simple. Being goaded does not mean they are not responsible for starting this war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xandax At least the US ones are somewhat democratically choosed in a country where a means of liberty exists. Not some two bit dictators wanting to play Tsars again and cling to power. |
This is a poor reflection of reality in Russia. Russia is not a dictatorship. In system, it comes close to delegated democracy with heavily centralized purposes. No need to over-simplify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xandax One must also ask why Russia was/is so hell-bent on "defending" South Ottesia |
To answer your question is a bit complex.
To start of with, in 1991/1992 Georgian actions were bordering on genocide, as historically recognized. Russia was not the strongest of nations at the time, but still kept tabs on what happened in post-USSR countries. They intervened in this conflict, forced a truce in which Georgia and Russia negotiated a de facto independent situation for Abkhazia and South-Ossetia under protection of Russia. This was the situation in 2008, with Russian peace-keepers in South-Ossetia.
Georgia knew that by invading South-Ossetia as they did they were declaring war on Russia. To draw a historical parallel, these actions were comparable to if the USSR would have invaded West-Berlin to "reintegrate" the East German lands, and the US would have responded to actions against an area under their control.
But why did Georgia do this? That's more the mystery. But what is interesting to note here is that since the Rose Revolution a few years ago the US and other NATO countries have been providing the Georgian army with training and weaponry - offensive weaponry such as attack helicopters, not weaponry meant for defence. I have absolutely no idea why Russia was ok with such a troop build-up on their border supported by the US, but perhaps they saw this end to it coming. Regardless, what business did the US have arming a country on the border of Russia for offensive war? Very little, one would say.
More's the folly for them not realising how unstable Georgia is. Saakashvili promised Georgian "reunification" pretty shortly after being elected and always held it up as one of his (populist) points of policy. It was always a foolish promise to make, but he felt strengthened by direct military support from the West. And thus he destabilized his own country, also ruining prospects for an oil pipeline to be built through it in the progress, not to mention NATO will now see the folly of wanting to accept Georgia as a member-state.
As for claims of genocide: both countries have wantonly targeted cities in spread-fire bombings, that much is clear. Attempts of genocide in the most literal sense of the world have not been present from either side, much care for civil casualties has not been apparent either. However, that's barely the point. In 1991/92, Russia intervened in an attempted genocide by Georgia on South-Ossetia. Power politics nonwithstanding, the main reason international politics accepted the presence of Russian peace-keepers in South-Ossetia was for fear of renewed Georgian attempts at ethnic cleansing. And indeed, if Georgia had been allowed to run over and into South-Ossetia the fighting would doubtlessly have turned as nasty as they did in 91/92, but Russia prevented that from happening.
Now the secondary part of it is the whole spheres of influence thing. The situation in the Balkan is messy, but when it comes down to it the reason Russia was against Kosovo was to support its ally Serbia. That is simply power politics. Likewise, one of the reasons Russia has an interest in Abkhazia and South-Ossetia is because Georgia lies within the Russian sphere of interest.
Unfair? Ok, how would the US like it if Russia made a defence treaty with Mexico and started arming that country to the teeth? Not very much, would they. The argument that Russia has no right to do anything about countries allying with NATO on its borders is insane, and completely ignores political reality.
I may have been brought up with too much realpolitik, but spheres of influence are an important concept in international politics, and the US is now learning what happens when you mess too much with someone's spheres without regard of the consequences. Indirectly, the US' strong (in words and military arming) support of Georgia is a cause of this highly unnecessary war.
Why? Well, look at it this way, both Abkhazia and South-Ossetia have been de facto independent under Russian protection since 1992. The most sensible solution for Georgia in good-neighbour politics would be to recognize the full autonomy of both provinces (the same thing Russia has done for a number of Caucasus states) and accept it is under military protection of Russia. With any luck, some sense of economic integration could have occurred for this weak state and these weak provinces.
Instead, it escalated into war because Saakashvili could sell the more popular line of "national reintegration" and escalate an unstable but peaceful situation into full-blown war. No one is to be blamed for that except him. Russia can only be blamed for a heavy military response and I would agree, Russia pushed the limits of what is permissible in response to military actions pretty far, but they did not violate Georgia's integrity. They want Saakashvili gone now, but if anyone is surprised that they do not wish to negotiate a peace settlement with a man who broke the truce he himself declared in three hours time, then you're just deluding yourself.
Now it is easy to fall for the Russophobic line and think they wish to claim Georgia. Believe me, that is the last thing on their mind. Russia is well familiar with the unstable and dangerous nature of the Caucasus and has no intention of expanding their existing problems. What Russia wants is a return to the status quo for South-Ossetia and Abkhazia, possibly with further independence for the provinces but they have no interest in taking these provinces, let alone providing them independence.
What Russia also wants is a friendly government in Georgia, kind of like how the US has always treated communist Cuba. It's true, Russia has absolutely no interest in whether or not this is a democratic government, and at the end of the day it's easier to have long-term partnerships with autocratic governments. But that's real-politics, it's the same thing the US has always done in South America, and it'd be a bit hypocritical for the international community to condemn that, no matter how easily the public may believe it.
Still, I'm not in favour of it, and would rather not see Georgia return to its pre-Rose Revolution days. Neither would I like seeing another puppet of the US installed in Georgia either. It'd be nice if the next president of Georgia was someone who had Georgian, rather than US or Russian, interests at heart and realised a good-neighbour policy was the best way to deal with Russia. But perhaps that is wishful thinking.
Regardless, Saakashvili shows what happens if you start arming someone in an unstable region of the world. The arming of the Georgian army by the US was nothing but a blatant powergrab on the border of Russia, and Russia has shown they will not accept this. That does not mean they are to be blamed for this war, all they are to be blamed for is not accepting Georgia as a US puppet-nation. No shock there.
Quote: |
Originally Posted by Gawain I think the main reason for the Russian involvement is the oil and gas. |
What oil and gas? Georgia barely has any oil or gas.
The "where is the money" question is not answered by oil. The US foolishly believed they could circumvent their need for Russia by involving Georgia, without considering the country's history of instability, and Russian is unwilling to accept that. But that is as much a question of spheres of influence as it is of oil or gas.