Russia invades Georgia

[geni]

Nothing justifies expelling people from their land. The fact that so many South Ossetians have sought and been granted Russian citizenship demonstrates that they don't want to be Georgian, and never did. Georgia's claim to South Ossetia is pure imperialism.

Problem is so is Russia's.

 

[Puppycow]

A shooting war developing coinciding with the Olympics. (Heads of State including Bush and Putin are now in China). Here's what the NY Times says about the political status of South Ossetia:

GORI, Georgia — Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia veered closer to all-out war on Saturday as Russia moved parts of its Black Sea fleet toward Georgia’s coast and intensified air attacks on Georgia, striking two apartment buildings in the city of Gori and clogging roads out of the area with fleeing refugees.

Russia acknowledged that Georgian forces had shot down two Russian warplanes, while a senior Georgian official said the Georgians had destroyed 10 Russian jets. Russian armored vehicles continued to stream into South Ossetia, the pro-Russian region that won de facto autonomy from Georgia in the early 1990s.

 

[egslim]

Sorry I meant specifically Article 41 (collective self defense).

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm
Chapter VII, Article 41:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

What can Georgia do through Article 41, against a Russian veto?

Or do you mean Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
That's possible, but I doubt anyone is stupid enough to significantly back the Georgians. As long as Russia limits itself to South Ossetia they enjoy the overwhelming support of the local population - so no insurgence. And Georgia is otherwise indefensible against Russia.

Russia seems to be citing "protection of its citizens" as their justification for invasion, which suggests to me that they issued these people Russian passports specifically to allow such an act. Seems a bit... well... wrong. Doesn't it?

Some half of the South-Ossetian population fled to North Ossetia when Georgia began shelling their villages. I see no moral reason for any Ossetians to remain loyal to Georgia after that.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I suspect that the international community will just stand back, wring their hands, speak some somber words about restraint and diplomacy, and do nothing, while civilians die...

DINGDINGDING!!!

 

[Wildy]

As long as Russia limits itself to South Ossetia they enjoy the overwhelming support of the local population - so no insurgence.

Do you mean after they defeat Georgia?

Since the last news reports I've read say that the Russians have started bombing places outside of South Ossetia.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Since the last news reports I've read say that the Russians have started bombing places outside of South Ossetia.

Given the CEP on Soviet-era air to surface munitions, and how big South Ossetia is, that could have been a mistake.

Or all part of the plan, who knows?


In any case, it's a proper war now:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html

 

[egslim]

DINGDINGDING!!!

A quick and decisive victory for Russia, followed by uniting the two Ossetians and expelling the some 14,000 Georgians from Ossetian territory would probably be best. That would settle the issue, except for a harmless Georgian grudge against Russia.

In my opinion Georgia has very little moral legitimacy claiming South Ossetia:
- The Ossetians themselves prefer Russia.
- Georgia extensively shelled Ossetian villages.
- Because the current Georgian borders are so new they lack historical legitimacy.

Which basically reduces the conflict to one of geopolitical interests for both sides.

Do you mean after they defeat Georgia?

Since the last news reports I've read say that the Russians have started bombing places outside of South Ossetia.

I should have clarified that.

Yes, I think Russia should combine limited demands (a united Ossetia) with a thorough defeat of Georgia - if that's necessary to make Georgia accept those demands.
The reason is that if Russia limits itself to fighting in Ossetia, then Georgia could pretty much indefinately refuse those demands. Perhaps even with foreign support. That would result in a far more drawn out conflict, without any solution in sight.

Better to put the knife on their throat and force a relatively clean solution quickly.

 

[Uzzy]

In another worrying move, apparantly the Russians have launched an attack on the BTC pipeline. It wasn't damaged, but attacking something like that does raise the possibility of other nations getting involved.

AFP: Russia stages raid near key oil pipeline: Georgia.

 

[geni]

In another worrying move, apparantly the Russians have launched an attack on the BTC pipeline. It wasn't damaged, but attacking something like that does raise the possibility of other nations getting involved.

AFP: Russia stages raid near key oil pipeline: Georgia.

Russia has a massive logistics advantage, nucelear weapons and is clearly prepared to takw things seriously. No other nation is going to get involved.

 

[Uzzy]

Right. Cause Europe doesn't care at all about it's oil supplies.

 

[senorpogo]

As an American, I find this particularly disturbing.

At the request of Russia, the United Nations Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday on a Russian-drafted statement.

The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the United States, Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides ``to renounce the use of force,'' council diplomats said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7710049

So we forced Russia's hand.

 

[egslim]

Right. Cause Europe doesn't care at all about it's oil supplies.

Of course Europe cares, but Russia cares more. Not to mention the massive Russian military advantage in the Caucasus.

Short of nuking Russia, there is nothing any country on Earth can militarily do to protect Georgia against Russia. Recognising that, at most Europe can pressure Georgia to accept Russian demands over Ossetia.

 

[CapelDodger]

Problem is so is Russia's.

Russia's following standard Great Power practices, but that's not the problem in this case. In this case it's Georgia's behaviour that's the problem - claiming sovereignty over people who don't want them, and trying to impose it by force. The tried before and lost, and they'll lose this time. Much death and destruction for absolutely no good purpose.

Exactly like the Serb assault on Kosovo. A tragic, pointless waste of blood and treasure.

 

[Uzzy]

Of course Europe cares, but Russia cares more. Not to mention the massive Russian military advantage in the Caucasus.

Short of nuking Russia, there is nothing any country on Earth can militarily do to protect Georgia against Russia. Recognising that, at most Europe can pressure Georgia to accept Russian demands over Ossetia.

I've been thinking about this. Now, if NATO were to vote to immediately let Georgia into the organisation, I think that might frighten the Russians off. At the very least, Rapid Reaction Forces can get into Georgia quickly, along with air squadrons based in Turkey.

Of course, if it actually got that far, it'd be pretty frightening, but I don't see why we should pressure Georgia into accepting the demands of an aggressor.

 

[senorpogo]

In this case it's Georgia's behaviour that's the problem - claiming sovereignty over people who don't want them, and trying to impose it by force. The tried before and lost, and they'll lose this time. Much death and destruction for absolutely no good purpose.

This article quotes Bruce Lincoln's Red Victory about the British backed Georgian state from the late 1910s. While the modern day country is a unique entity from this earlier state, the general mindset of the leadership seems consistent.

[T]he Georgian leaders quickly moved to widen their borders at the expense of their Armenian and Azerbaijani neighbors, and their territorial greed astounded foreign observers. ‘The free and independent socialist democratic state of Georgia will always remain in my memory as a classic example of an imperialist small nation,” one British journalist wrote…. “Both in territory snatching outside and bureaucratic tyranny inside, its chauvinism was beyond all bounds.”

 

[Wildy]

Russia's following standard Great Power practices, but that's not the problem in this case. In this case it's Georgia's behaviour that's the problem - claiming sovereignty over people who don't want them, and trying to impose it by force. The tried before and lost, and they'll lose this time. Much death and destruction for absolutely no good purpose.

So in other words you support a foreign country invading another to support a group of people who don't have any international recognition at all?

Under international law what the Georgian government did was an internal matter, and considering Russia's official stance on the matter (South Ossetia as an independent entity does not exist), had no right to launch an invasion.

By the way, would you feel the same way if Moldova started military operations to bring Transnistria back under their official control?

 

[CapelDodger]

Right. Cause Europe doesn't care at all about it's oil supplies.

Europe certainly does care, which is why it can do without a war in the Caucasus, thank you very much. I haven't looked at the markets today; has anybody noticed an impact on the oil price?

Europe will be trying to re-freeze the conflict as quickly as possible, and a bunch more diplomats will get extended holidays, on expenses, in a magnificent location.

Russia will be satisfied with that, and President Medvedev in particular will be pleased as punch. He's proved himself decisive in a crisis, and no wimp. The Nationalist vote is his from now on, and it's a substantial one.

The political repurcussions in Tblisi will be ugly for the present regime. but they're pretty ugly themselves.

 

[egslim]

I've been thinking about this. Now, if NATO were to vote to immediately let Georgia into the organisation, I think that might frighten the Russians off.

And what if it doesn't? Then we've got WWIII on our hands. Immense danger + insignificant potential reward = very bad idea.

At the very least, Rapid Reaction Forces can get into Georgia quickly, along with air squadrons based in Turkey.

That would probably still be insufficient to protect Georgia effectively.

 

[senorpogo]

So in other words you support a foreign country invading another to support a group of people who don't have any international recognition at all?

Under international law what the Georgian government did was an internal matter, and considering Russia's official stance on the matter (South Ossetia as an independent entity does not exist), had no right to launch an invasion.

If we're going to get legal about it, Georgia attacked and killed Russian peace keepers that were legally stationed there under a 1994 cease fire agreement. I don't know if that by the letter of the law is an act of war, but I definitely construe it as such.

 

[CapelDodger]

So in other words you support a foreign country invading another to support a group of people who don't have any international recognition at all?

I support the Russians protecting the South Ossetians from Georgians. People count even when they're not "internationally recognised", and anyway, South Ossetia does have international recognition. There are Russian troops stationed in South Ossetia in accordance with a treaty signed after the last Georgian invasion. That constitutes international recognition.

Under international law what the Georgian government did was an internal matter, and considering Russia's official stance on the matter (South Ossetia as an independent entity does not exist), had no right to launch an invasion.

The Georgians have no moral right to invade South Ossetia, or to claim it against the wishes of its population. The Georgian borders that "international law" recognises were laid down by Lenin and Stalin, which does not make them legitimate or viable.

By the way, would you feel the same way if Moldova started military operations to bring Transnistria back under their official control?

Those two split because they're mutually incompatible, so I'd be against either trying to dominate the other.

You have to realise that the internal borders of the USSR were specifically designed not to define distinct nations. (Nationalism was always viewed as the primary threat to Communist rule.) So taking those borders as defining new nations was never sound policy. It appealed to the international community because it was simple, and didn't bring up the tricky subject of border-adjustments.

Of course, with Kosovo that can of worms has been well-and-truly opened.