Actually, it would appear as though the bulk of it was coming from the South Ossetian leader. Saying that hundreds of civilians were killed. While other South Ossetian people were saying that not a building there was left undamaged. When some of the attacks ended up killing Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, that gave Russia the green light (in their minds) to retaliate in the manner they did. Of course there is more evidence of the Russians fueling the turmoil there than keeping peace. Many indications of them supplying Ossetians with weapons and more. So once the Russian peacekeepers were killed, Georgia became the aggressor. If you ask me, it was justified. Even if they attacked the Russian "peacekeepers" on purpose. However, it was way too bold of a move considering the ramifications and Georgia's inability to defend itself afterward. It is also worth noting that the Russian peacekeepers first arrived there as part of an agreement many years ago between Boris Yeltsin and Georgian leader Eduard Shevardnadze. Yet practically ever since, Georgia has demanded the peacekeepers leave. So you really wonder how much of a choice they had in acceptance of this agreement.
How so? You are suggesting that a country is justified in invading another if there is a majority of their own ethnic group making a civil disturbance there. I pointed out a parallel. Actually if Russia was smart, they would be pointing out that Ossetia is an exact parallel with California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. They were all provinces of Mexico with large immigrant populations from America that wanted to stay there but remain Americans too. So the United States invaded Mexico, sacked their capital and held it until Mexico ceeded the area to us. It was a naked land grab that we cloaked in phrases like "manifest destiny" and justified by other language remarkable similar to that of the Russians today. They believe they have a manifest destiny to regain their old Soviet territory and they are starting to act on it.
As the US is, Russia is the more powerful and stable of the two. It is hard for me to ignore that the majority in South Ossetia are neither ethnically Russian nor Georgian and that the issue between Georgia and South Ossetia as well as Abkhazia has been ongoing since Georgia split from the Soviet Union. What right does Georgia have to South Ossetia or Abkhazia?
It's been going on a lot longer than that. Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Georgia were all conquered and annexed by Imperial Russia in the 18th century but all maintained local autonomy. Boundaries here have been drawn and redrawn many times since the Mongols invaded 1,000 years ago. The boundaries now accepted by the UN have Abkhazia and Ossetia as Georgian provinces. They have been ethnically autonomous but politically joined for a hundred years.
When South Ossetia and Abkhazia seem to have wanted independence since breaking from the Soviet Union (or before), why does the UN ignore that and give that territory to Georgia?
The Ossetians don't want to be Russian either. They will continue to struggle for autonomy within Russia as they always did under the Soviets. It's the ethnic Russians that moved into Ossetia since 1767 and now constitute a large part of the population that want to go back to Russia. They ethnically cleansed the ethnic Georgians who lived in Ossetia and 100,000 Ossetians have fled the province, too. They aren't in control Russia is and they back the "Ossetian" insurgent groups, too. Russian "peacekeepers" my ass. Who ever heard of one of the protagonists in a conflict acting as "peacekeepers". It was a low-intensity Russian military invasion and occupation.
Well, that is a different discussion all together. The South Ossetians and Abkhazians want full independence, but they may be willing to compromise to join Russia, who has probably been VERY good to them (ie, bribes). Why does the UN have the right to deny them independence or the right to join Russia?
The UN doesn't have the right to deny them anything. But borders have to be recognized ort here is constant dispute. The UN has simply recognized the borders for legal purposes. Africa's borders are horrible, having been establish by Europeans for colonial reasons and make no sense tribally and ethnically. Yet all have agreed it is best to recognize the existing borders and work out differences. Else the world would be in a chaotic situation where everyone declared different borders, the right to change them on a whim, and only needs a pretext for violating national sovereignty.
Well, isn't that a big pbbt... I guess life ain't fair. It does kind of put a damper on our moral superiority, though.
Well, I go on vacation for a few days and this breaks out. Looking at the situation as it stands today, Russia is going to drag it's feet on leaving Georgian territory, even though they "agreed" to a cease-fire. It's pretty simple from my point of view-this is a message to all former Soviet Republics. Russia is still your Daddy. Think about it. Russia has been pretty upset lately with the former Soviet bloc nations joining NATO and the US pursuing the missle defense system with Poland and the Czech Republic. Kosovo delcares independance from Serbia and the US and most of the West immediately recognize it. Russia has finally gotten fed up with feeling impotent and the situation in Georgia, along with the US's dealings with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea give them what they consider a perfect opportunity and pretext to flex some muscle. Add to it the fact that Georgia is the most pro-US of the former Soviet Republics just sweetens the deal for them and makes for a larger impact. We are not in much of a position right now to do much more than protest. Even if Russia lives up to the cease fire agreement and completely pulls out of Georgia proper, the point is made. Bottom line this is not about breakaway Georgian provinces. This is about Russia trying to regain its place in the world.
