![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Isnt this just a Russian propaganda phrase intended to draw attention away from the wider invasion of Georgia? Ive actually never heard this name used before, even on the BBC. 86.10.0.187 ( talk) 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
[3] [4]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the region's leader, Eduard Kokoity, discussed the future of South Ossetia earlier this week in Moscow, South Ossetian parliamentary speaker Znaur Gassiyev said.
Russia will absorb South Ossetia "in several years" or earlier, a position was "firmly stated by both leaders," Gassiyev said in Tskhinvali, the provincial capital. [5] Menrunningpast ( talk) 16:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Censoring this information on the basis that it came from Russians and S.O.'s is misleading. At the very least, publish the information and then publish any relevant denials.
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18871
"According to the Russian command of the peacekeeping forces in the conflict zone, one South Ossetian militiaman was killed by a sniper located in a Georgian police post close to the village of Prisi at about 6:17pm local time on August 1.
The Russian peacekeepers also reported that snipers, starting from about 9pm local time on August 1, killed at least three people in Tskhinvali. The Russian peacekeeping command also reported late on August 1 that Tskhinvali also came under mortar fire from the Georgian villages of Ergneti and Zemo Nikozi, which are close to the breakaway region’s capital." Xchange ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. My main concern is that the article left the impression that the S.O.s arbitrarily started shelling Georgia. I don't know exactly how this fighting started, but that explanation seems highly improbable. I hope that someone can find & post more information on the "sniper war." This seems particularly relevant to confirming or denying Putin's suggestions in the Aug 28 CNN interview. Xchange ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot get the text of the background section to stop sitting on top of the three blue boxes. Is it just my browser? Can anyone help? Orthorhombic ( talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The entire "Time line" section and many other segments of text have been deleted by User:Orthorhombic without justification and discussion. Sorry, I have to revert these changes. Please discuss such deletions here. Biophys ( talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the reversion. The timeline is very important and should be on the main page rather than on a separate page. Xchange ( talk) 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest removing the photograph purpotedly showing 'Russia's intentional bombing of civilian targets in Gori' (picture on the very top).
The appartments were located in the immediate vicinity to a Georgian military base in Gori targeted by Russian air-force and did indeed suffer some collateral damage (presumably from secondary explosion of destroyed ammunition depos?).
IMPORTANTLY: While many of the inhabitants were innocent civilians, these appartments beside the base are actually owned by Georgia's army soldiers and officers, who rent them out to civilians.
The same few houses were then photographed from different angles, and their photographs spread around the world as an evidence of Russia's wide-scale targeting of civilian infrastructure.
I believe the extent of collateral damage suffered by the civilians (renting appartments owned by Georgian military men) shows actually a reasonable restraint by Russian military and the collateral damage and casulaties are much smaller than the one inflicted by US bombing of civilian targets in Afghanistan, Iraq or Yugoslavia.
(SOURCE: According to a on-ground observation in Gori by a team "People in Need"/Clovek v Tisni, a respected humanitarian NGO from the Czech Republic with many years of track record from operations in Chechnya and other Caucasus crises - which made them unpopular and eventually banned by the Russian government. Photographs and reporting from Gori on http://blog.aktualne.centrum.cz/blogy/roman-stank.php?itemid=4339)
I suggest removing the section "Military situation in the Black Sea" completely. A small summary of it can be moved to either Humanitarian response to the 2008 South Ossetia war (where some parts are already mentioned) or to the subsection "International reactions".
Rationale: Since NATO is not a belligerent, listing individual nato ships is not needed. In the (hopefully very unlikely) case that NATO enters war with Russia, they could be added back in. -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Answer to me - are NATO ships standing without weapon when they "have delivered bottled milk"? Coldn't they use radars? Operational range of Tomahawks missiles is 2500-2800 km (depends on modification). So NATO has alredy entered. -- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 13:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Simply Romania, Bulgaria & Turkey are NATO members ... the Black Sea doesn't belong to Russia; maybe Russia should invade the Black Sea :)) Elysander ( talk) 13:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The longest section of this article is the reference section. If you'd like to shrink it, move references to its own page. Raghar ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add one (English-lamguage) site dedicated to voting for the favourite combatant in the external links:
International site dedicated to online voting for the favourite of the two sites
Is there any Wiki rule interdicting it? Bogorm ( talk) 18:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Syntax and sentence structure are wrong. Spelling is odd in places (but then they could be typos), such as America with a K. The choice of certain words also seems odd (and in places boarders on Cyloness). By the way I have just voted again useing the same IP[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 12:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]]
[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]]
Hi, there was sourced info removed with comments like [6] "... this picture is NOT proof of use of cluster bombs", [7] "... do not use weasel words like 'some claim', this is about facts not speculations", see also other edits of this editor like [8] - what is the correct action should be? -- windyhead ( talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Simply add or insert it again . It is always the same lousy game every day. ;) Elysander ( talk) 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No one proofing; but to delete HWR's opinion - not necessary. Магистер ( talk) 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Russian troops are preventing Georgians from returning to their homes, a United Nations agency warned yesterday. | ” |
“ | Russian troops deep inside Georgian territory are stopping thousands of refugees from returning to their homes, a Georgian official said on Saturday. | ” |
[10] Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Russian-backed paramilitaries have systematically burned and looted Georgian villages inside South Ossetia, according to victims and satellite pictures released by the United Nations. | ” |
Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Article is an opinion. Please refrain from original research. Much appreciated 68.164.118.38 ( talk) 06:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget to add this, to balance out NPOV: [12]
In a report to be published in its Monday edition, OSCE military observers in the Caucasus described detailed planning by Georgia to move into South Ossetia which contributed to the crisis, the German magazine said.
The report also backed up Russian claims that the Georgian offensive was already in full swing by the time Russian troops and armored vehicles entered the Roksky Tunnel, on the border with Russia and South Ossetia, to protect its peacekeepers and the civilian population.
The OSCE report also contains suspected war crimes committed by Georgians, who ordered attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians.
-- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 06:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
[13]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 05:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia Ministry of Internal Affairs issues data on the Russian troops in the occupied territories http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19349. -- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least in the "Background" and "Timeline" sections, where the text is squeezed between a table of contents, a map, a photo, a cleanup template and no less than six infoboxes! (Weren't blue infoboxes usually located at the end of an article?) Could someone clean this up a bit? In the current state, it hurts the eyes (at least on Firefox...).
Oh, I just noticed someone actually inserted the "2008 campaign" infobox twice! Really, now! But even without the "duplicate", it's still too jumbled. Can a consensus be reached what to move away from those sections in order to ease reading? -- megA ( talk) 09:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Who wrote this date? If you mean the "Medvedev-Sarkozy" agreements, the definitive signing of it was on 16 August. Mischa G ( talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, rursus to the question about the 15th August - I am asking together with Mischa G. which reason would the proponent of the date show? I have come across a sentence in the quite authoritative news portal Lenta.ru here about "war 8-12 August" and I insist on 12 August. Bogorm ( talk) 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,575396,00.html http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1427854.php/Spiegel_OSCE_observers_fault_Georgians_in_conflict
"Hamburg - European observers have faulted Georgia in this month's Caucasus conflict, saying it made elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday.
In a report to appear in its Monday edition, it said officials of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had said acts by the Georgian government had contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia.
Spiegel said OSCE military observers in the Caucasus had described preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia.
The onslaught had begun before Russian armoured vehicles entered a southbound tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains to South Ossetia.
It said the OSCE report also described suspected war crimes by the Georgians, including the Georgians ordering attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
spiegal is the biggest magazine in all of europe, theyre not making it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
are you saying that the biggest magazine in europe is making it up or lying? wikipedia doesnt require to use a organisations official website for reporting on its statements. i see you are from georgia, and i understand that you dont like this news, but it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your ad hominem arguments are weak. There are too many media speculations over such issues. All OSCE reports appear at this organization's website. If you find such report, you can obviously add it to the article. -- Kober Talk 18:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
wikipedia doesnt require to use a organisations official website for reporting on its statements as i already said. there are no conflicting reports on what the osce said today it is not a matter of debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As usual Source Manipulation .. SPIEGEL didn't say: OSCE say Georgia is responsible for conflict. SPIEGEL reported "acts by the Georgian government had contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia." Therefore more responsible players must exist in this " war game " according a still not released OSCE report. Elysander ( talk) 19:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia" "preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia." "The onslaught had begun before Russian armoured vehicles entered a southbound tunnel...to South Ossetia"
This looks clear to me what they're saying. The article is named "OSCE observers fault Georgians in conflict". Who is manipulating the source? Johnnycashnin ( talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think, Spiegel is not worse than BBC or CNN. It can be used as source. Магистер ( talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(To Elysander) Have you made yourself familiar with the article in German and what is your knowledge in the language??? "die Führung in Tiflis den Krieg mit Russland verschuldet hat" - (though I know it ineffably well) in my Langenscheidt dictionary verschulden is defined as "an einem Unglück schuld sein". Bogorm ( talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Moreover they speak of war crimes committed by the Georgian army, since they attacked civilians during the night. Actually, the Russian medias have reported that weeks ago, so the report is quite procrastinated, but potius sero quam nunquam... Bogorm ( talk) 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Again source manipulation
Just to clarify usage of the German language (and defend Der Spiegel's reporting): Konjunktiv I is not equal to Präsens!
Konjunktiv I, as used here, is a form of indirect speech. Check http://german.about.com/od/grammar/a/konjunktivI_2.htm for a good description. To quote from that website: "Generally the Konjunktiv I is telling you that someone said something that may or may not be true.". Der Spiegel reported on something said by someone else. The use of Konjunktiv I indicats that Der Spiegel does not guarantee for the truthfulness of that message and is simply relaying it. -- Xeeron ( talk) 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
OSCE in Vienna disclaimed that an official report or documents with content described by SPIEGEL exist at OSCE.
Liberation - Sept-01 -
[14] - Die Presse (AT) Sept-01 -
[15] - networld (AT) Sept-01 -
[16] >>
There is some interesting analysis at CER regarding Russia-Georgia war, whom to blame, possible future sanctions, etc. Basically, it shows that EU is divided and why. Also some of the analysis unambiguously places the blame on Saakashvili's gambling. Also it mentioned that some policy-makers believe that that was in USA interest to provoke the conflict to tarnish Russia's image ("if it did not react then it is weak, if it did react then it is aggressive").( Igny ( talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
Introduction somehow had become a mess-of-a-POV again. Now, it uses words like "invasion" and contains carefully chosen statements from both side which is supposed to give kind-of a balance of views, but, IMHO, works in an apposite way. It was much better just recently. Why there is anything beyond facts in introduction? Introduction is not a place to present conflicting points of view -- they can be covered in the corresponding sections. Can anybody clean it up, please? 89.113.128.63 ( talk) 11:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC) But what are your proposition? May be if you put here how you see we can discuss it before puting it to the article.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 14:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Will someone edit the casualties section of the infobox, it should be put in the Russian part of the casualties section 19 missing (5 captured [1]), as the reference I provided confirms that 5 soldiers or pilots were captured, also the given reference and plus this one [17] confirm that 15 georgian soldiers were captured during the conflict in South Ossetia and another 22 were captured today in Poti so it should be put in the georgian casualty section something like this: 215 soldiers killed, 300 missing and 37 captured, based on these two references. Will anyone make this edit?
== Number of Casualties ==-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia states 65 dead russians, 121 wounded 8 tanks and 2 aircrafts lost. They state, 4000 ( of 2000 georgian soldiers who took part in the operations ) were killed.
Rocki tunnel, Georgian Battalion shot the whole ammunition at every russian tank that left :the tunnel, at least, 12 destroyed. ( crew: 48 dead ), before leaving
Kodori heights, georgian regiment held every position against 5 russo-abkhaz attacks before retreating back to Tbilisi. 584 abkhaz dead, 96 russian dead. 1 Grad destroyed, 12 armored vehicles destroyed ( crew: at least 24 dead )
Gurja, GRU elite special forces knocked out when engaged and ambushed by georgian :commandos Casulties: 45 of 80 russian dead, 2 georgian commandos.
Battle for 12 villages around Tskhinvali, heavy fights, high losses on both sides. Casulties: 125 georgian, 145 russian. ( Disadvantage for russian forces )
1st battle of Tskhinvali: Georgian artillery destroyed ossetian positions around the capitol, :200-1000 ossetian dead, Ossetian tanks and armor do not exist anymore. Georgian troops :enter the city, loosing 4 T-72 MBT's. Heavy fights in the city. 45 georgian dead 3 tanks lost, 300 ossetian dead 8 tanks given up, 18 :russian peacekeepers dead 150 wounded, retreat of Russo-Ossetian Forces.
2st battle of Tskhinvali: Russia advances against Tskhinvali, Georgian positions repell 7 attacks destroying 8 russian T-72 MBT's ( crew: 32 dead ) and killing 36 russians . Russian Air Force bombs armor and positions in Tskhinvali. 18 dead georgians. Georgia leaves Tskhinvali because of heavy bombardement and ceasefire agreement.
Russian Air Force 7 days bombardament kills 42 georgian soldiers and destroys up to 20 :tanks and armor in Georgia. Georgian Special Forces and Units shoot down 22 russian SU-24/ SU-25/ MiG-29 and one Tu-22 with Stingers and light AA systems. Heavy AA batteries ( like S-120 ) were never used in this 7 days.
Battle of Gori: 1000 russian airborne troops try to take Gori by surpirse attack from sky. Operation failed. Number of Casulties unknown, Georgians still controlled the city. Russian armor advances from Tskhinvali to Gori. Georgian troops leave the city to show the rest of :the world, what are the true interests of Putin. Taking over whole Caucasia.
During the ceasefire agreement a convoy of georgian soldiers and special units were :ambushed by russian tanks and armors, leaving 18 dead georgians and 3 destroyed georgian :Toyota SF jeeps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Still, I see too many POVs "Georgian troops leave the city to show the rest of :the world, what are the true interests of Putin. Taking over whole Caucasia" "Georgia leaves Tskhinvali because of heavy bombardement and ceasefire agreement" and not a single reliable source. Also, I see the user having a pro-georgian POV in some articles. It would be interesting if it could be proven, though-- Jaimevelasco ( talk) 17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to see CormanL's sources. However, his "inside sources" seem to mesh with rumors of something of a Russian military debacle that I've heard (along the lines of thirty Russian armored vehicles destroyed and hundreds dead in the first day of fighting alone) and their reluctance to advance on Tblisi outright. One would think that if the Russian military was up to the task of overthrowing the Georgian government they would have done so. What, do any of us here seriously think world public opinion will stop an army in its tracks? 66.66.154.162 ( talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
For the same Reason US led forces did not advance on Baghdad after the Gulf war: the Georgian Regime is already unstable and the Armenian population in the south is agitating for independence. It seems Moscow calculates that it only needs to wait for a new pro-Russian Govt to take power. As for the War itself the Russians did suffer significant casualties in the Initial attack mostly due to the fact that the “peacekeepers” were light infantry unsuited for frontline combat. Combat effectively ended by the third day, with Russian forces and allies Seizing key Georgian bases in Gori, Poti and Senaki and subsequently destroying all remaining Georgian military assets. It seems that the Russians simply plan to cary out a Serbian scenario and encourage the Georgian government to collapse rather than storming Tbilisi and Facing bloody Urban warfare. As for the losses Georgian and international media have only shown wreckage belonging to four planes and I simply don’t find the Georgian Gov’t who was making outlandish “Bagdad bob” like claims of Victory at Roki Tunnel to be a credible source. Freepsbane ( talk) 19:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Horseshit. This war has no resemblance whatsoever to Desert Storm. Given the generally abysmal combat performance of Russian forces in the war (I do not ever recall them having captured a Georgian position by force of arms, only occupying abandoned positions - and their "air superiority" seems to have been largely ineffective) it stands to reason that they would be leery of advancing on Tblisi where essentially the entire Georgian military had dug in almost entirely intact in both personnel and heavy equipment (the Russians appear to have captured or destroyed very little of their stuff). The Georgians appear to have made a very sound move by withdrawing and concentrating their forces to fight a decisive battle at Tblisi subsequent to their initial failure to stop the Russians at the border. The Russians may be able to beat their chests and let their militia dogs run wild but they sure as hell will not overthrow the Georgian government or keep it out of NATO or the EU at this point. Their troops would be slaughtered like cattle in Tblisi. 128.153.195.109 ( talk) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
American reconnaisance did not find a single Japanese military position on the entire island of Okinawa before we invaded. Concealment is a basic principle of warfare and the Georgians appear to have been practicing it. Defensive works that can be observed by media in a situation where the enemy possesses air superiority are worse than useless, they are a waste of soldiers and equipment and effectively hand propaganda victories to the enemy. If the Russians had advanced they would have found no opposition until they walked into an ambush and were massacred.
I tend not to take most media outlets very seriously when warfare comes up - a 24-hour news cycle means their judgement on current events is generally hasty at best and laughable at worst. These are the same people who declared that the offensive against the Sadrists back in March was a complete failure a few days before they effectively surrendered. Accurate information has to be derived from -facts- reported by the media, not their generally uninformed opinions on the subject.
In this case the facts are that Georgian troops retreated to Tblisi (I saw no real evidence of a disorganized rout - one traffic accident and a few pieces of abandoned artillery do not a rout make) from all across the country and seem to have dropped off the radar screen. There are two possibilities arising from this, either that the Georgian military has disbanded itself a-la Iraq 2003 or that they have established a defensive plan with proper operational security. I believe any rational analysis of the situation over the last couple of weeks leads to the latter conclusion. 128.153.195.195 ( talk) 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you can hide a whole army for weeks at a time in a small European country while conducting combat operations. It's not even that difficult. See Kosovo War. Given the combination of piss-poor intelligence-gathering capabilities on the Russian side and the fact that Western journalists are not out breaking brush looking for camouflaged Georgian positions, I find it unremarkable that the Georgians have maintained operational security in this case. In any event Western journalists are unanimous that there is in fact a high level of Georgian military activity in and around Tblisi and that Russian probes towards the capital (obvious attempts to determine the extent of Georgian defenses by reconnaisance in force) have been responded to by Georgian troops publicly moving out and blocking the roads before the Russians could get close to Tblisi, so that part of your thesis doesn't hold water.
Your attempt to use Occam's Razor is laughable. The Georgians suffered about a hundred dead out of a full-time army of 10,000 and minor equipment losses, mostly in the form of obsolete and unreliable Soviet vehicles. You're telling me they're out of the fight? Occam's Razor dictates that something's going on here behind the convenient story of a Georgian "defeat". I think the Russians know very well that their short, victorious war will turn into a fiasco if they push too hard. 128.153.195.195 ( talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So you're basing your opinion of a Russian victory on a combination of a newspaper that has printed Iraqi insurgent propaganda in the past (after their reporting during the Iraqi offensive in Basra I no longer consider the Telegraph to be a reliable source), Saakashvilli justifiably wanting to a continue the conflict and beat on the Russians to the point that they would not hang around occupying half his country, and Russian lies? No Russian source is reliable here. They have provided photographic documentation of perhaps ten or twelve "captured" T-72s (which could have easily been drawn from all those T-72s of the exact same make and model the Russians have on hand), about as many BMPs and a couple of unmistakably Georgian vehicles (which were completely destroyed or had been previously verified photographically as having broken down). It's called critical thinking. See through the propaganda.
If you want my sources? Look at the casualty box. Then look at the list of Georgian units actually committed to the fighting. One brigade of five. Georgian casualties were low and few of their units actually engaged. This makes Russian claims of huge amounts of captured Georgian tanks doubly ridiculous - the Georgians only -have- eighty or so T-72s. Ergo, they prepared to fight a decisive battle at Tblisi and the Russians blinked and agreed to an advantageous ceasefire rather than see their short, victorious war turn into another Chechen debacle from biting off more than they could chew. CarbonArmor ( talk) 04:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
So even by believing every lie told by Russian propaganda, the Georgians have three full brigades in combat condition (likely four, as the Georgians suffered no losses in Kodori) deployed in and around Tblisi and a further fifth that is in the process of reorganizing and which suffered minimal confirmed casualties. And you're telling me the Russians are not fully cognizant that attacking Tblisi would be walking to their deaths? Give me a break, this discussion is over. You just conceded regardless of your rhetoric otherwise.
And about unrefuted Russian claims: the Georgians have consistently kept their mouths professionally shut throughout this conflict rather than spout off like the increasingly-comical Russians. The Russian claims are facially ridiculous and no refutation is needed, nor should the Georgians feel obliged to give the Russians a real damage report by giving one. CarbonArmor ( talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My POV is entirely supported by sources already available and by any low-level knowledge of military operations. Every reliable report is unanimous on the fact that relatively little combat actually took place and only a small amount of Georgian military equipment was lost and that the Georgian military is therefore almost completely intact and has withdrawn to Tblisi to fight a decisive battle at the capital rather than allow themselves to be overwhelmed piecemeal in the countryside. The facts underlying this interpretation of events are in the article, so I don't get why you're demanding sourcing. Rather than ask -me- for sources, I ask you two to provide assessments of the Georgian military's combat capability to support your views that DO NOT rely on Russian sources, which are universally unreliable.
I don't get your later line of accusation, Freepsbane. The Telegraph at one point printed Iraqi insurgent propaganda without basic fact-checking with Baghdad during the offensive against the Sadrists this March. It is not treasonous for a Western newspaper to print lies distributed by the enemy, it just compromises their journalistic integrity and ergo the Telegraph is not a reliable source. CarbonArmor ( talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
its conflict with Russia ends in swift defeat and humiliation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7576305.stm
¿Had Enough sources already? All western sources, nice and tidy for you.
The facts reported in the sources provided universally support my POV. The amateurish analysis (including Stratfor, I read the parts of their report that were free and it shows no more insight into affairs than any of the other analyses you have provided - I do not care at all if there are ex-military personnel involved if they are still wrong) accompanying them is the only indicator of a Georgian defeat. Any reader of the news knows that military analysis in the Western media is generally wrong and that the only thing the media is useful for reporting are facts. Your comment about the 2003 Iraq War is simply laughable and I dismiss it. So, again - FACTS, NOT ANALYSIS, NOT ARMCHAIR GENERAL HYPERBOLE and NOT STATEMENTS DRAWN FROM RUSSIAN SOURCES reported by Western media indicative of a substantial Georgian defeat. Retreating to defend key regions in force at the cost of relatively unimportant peripheral areas is a strategy as old as time, my friend. CarbonArmor ( talk) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
My sources are those listed in the article. Hell, even the map agrees with my assessment. I take it you're conceding, then? CarbonArmor ( talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Result Russian / South Ossetian / Abkhazian victory(don't forget to complain about that)-- Jaimevelasco ( talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Those reports say the opposite of what you claim. Nothing at all about "Wiping Floors" in Osset, or a column destroyed in Roki, just a bit about Shrapnel from small arms hitting the Lt.Gen and the reporters. The Reason why the initial Georgian attack overran defensive lines was due to the fact that the Ossetian rebels and Russian peacekeepers were Light Infantry: in other words they were nonmechanised infantry that lacked anti-armor Assets. After the Regular 58th entered the battle the engagements were totally one sided following a pattern similar to the Persian Gulf war (Kuwait)As the links you gave all say. Typing down claims that have nothing to do with the content and have soapbox claims such as having downed a “huge bomber” (A older Tu-22 used for recon) and having “wiped out the floor” simply don’t belong in Wikipedia; The fact that a commander was wounded by shrapnel when he had (foolishly) strayed outside the protection of his armor, Should not be given the Baghdad Bob treatment and somehow be interpreted into the (absurd) idea that a whole colum of T-80 tanks was wiped out. If such would have been accomplished it certainly would have been possible for Georgia to collapse the tunnel and cut of the invasion route. As we all know that didn’t happen, Georgian defensive lines collapsed by the 11th and Georgian forces abandoned expensive equipment in Gori and Senaki while retreating to the capital. Subsequently Russian, Abkhazian and Ossetian forces occupied former Georgian strongholds where the Ossets then reportedly proceeded to loot. Clearly having your logistical headquarters (Gori ) be seized along with your Naval headquarters (Poti) and a key airbase (Senaki) in one week of fighting is not a sign of victory. Freepsbane ( talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, there is a merry-go-round between saying Russian victory, Russian/Abkhazian victory and Russian/separatist victory. While I do not want to join in on the revert war, let me argue why the latter is the correct version: Even if southern ossetian forces did not win a single battle, it is clear that they won the war. Southern Ossetia (and Abkhazia) went to war with the goal of removing georgian soldiers from their territory, removing any military treat by georgia, removing georgian civilians from their territory (whether this was a goal before hand can be disputed) and capturing part of georgia propper (whether this was a goal before hand can be disputed). It is very obvious that all of these goals were attained. As such it is clear that both separatist states did win the war. -- Xeeron ( talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This user recently removed the definition of the duration of the war by the respectable news portal Lenta.ru. Additionally, some claim about 19 Aug has emerged. Neither for 15 August nor for 19 Aug have been provided any sources and their presence in the article is thereby dubitable - I pray their adherents to provide at least one (reliable) source, where the expression in any written language "the war lasted from ... to ...(their option)" or "the South Ossetian War ... Aug - ... Aug" is visible. The presence of 12 Aug is indispensable because of the reliable source already secured by me. In the Spanish, Chinese and Serbian Wikipedia 12 Aug stays tranquilly in the article and nobody deletes it even without any source therefor (and I doubt that any Spaniard or Chinese from them reads Lenta.ru), whereas here the provided sources face incessant vandalism, which inflicts on me profound desolation, to say the least. Bogorm ( talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Just something to ponder about. Medvedev declared the end to hostilities and stopped the Russian advance and started negotiations for ceasefire on Aug 12. Ceasefire was officially signed later, but both sides keep claiming that the other one does not comply. Skirmishes still occur there, does it qualify for the continuation of the war? Georgia still in state of war and considers part of its territories occupied. Interestingly, after WW2 exchange of POWs happened long after May/September 1945 (official end of WW2), and there is still no peace treaty between Russia and Japan, only truce is in effect. ( Igny ( talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
Excuse me , that i'm not always interested to discuss with "POV insertors" who always acting one-sided on a regular basis. There are sections enough on the this Talk Page or other T.P.s where after certain time only members of this "fraction" talking with each other. Other editors are obviously rarely interested at this boring content. :)) Elysander ( talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- source: Civil Georgia -- Tananka ( talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Martial law, initially imposed on August 9 for two weeks, has been extended till September 8. “As long as even one Russian occupier stays on our territory, Georgia will remain in a state of war,” Justice Minister Nika Gvaramia said in Parliament on August 23. He stressed that the prolongation of martial law did not mean a violation of the six-point ceasefire agreement
The Georgian administration is trying its best to create some extra benefits for foreign investors. Recently the Ministry of Economic Development issued a decree that until the end of the state of war all financial liabilities for all investors should be lifted. It remains to be seen however whether this will prove to be enough.
- source: The Messenger -- Tananka ( talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Georgia use the M85 cluster munition http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5je4oTliESokD-zge0diVbbczCPIgD92TT2VG0
-- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You can always use this link -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
And this too: Georgia admits dropping cluster bombs, says rights group. But the previous link are more informative. For example, it notes that "more than 100 countries agreed in Dublin, Ireland, to ban cluster bombs [...]. But neither Georgia nor Russia pledged to do so." ( Pubkjre ( talk) 20:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
From Georgian page http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19365
Bonnie Docherty, arms division researcher at HRW said on September 1, that M85 cluster munitions were discovered in Shindisi, a village outside breakaway South Ossetia, north of the town of Gori. Docherty said that while this could point to Russian use, Moscow was not known to have that particular make in its arsenal. She added that it was possible that the M85 munitions had been scattered about, having been hit in a Russian strike. ... “The Georgian armed forces have GRADLAR 160 multiple launch rocket systems and MK4 LAR 160 type (with M85 bomblets) rockets with a range of 45 kilometers,” the Georgian MoD said.-- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 11:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
More interest information about the topic - see in wiki-page Cluster bomb#History of usage
History of usage
...
Georgia, 2008
Used by Georgia, Russia
According to Human Rights Watch, the Russian Air Force dropped RBK-250 cluster bombs in populated areas during the war in Georgia, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens: "this is the first known use of cluster munitions since 2006, during Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon" - the group said.[1] However, according to Ove Dullum, Chief Scientist of the Norwegian defence institute FFI, the photos on the Human Rights Watch web site actually showed bomblets made in Israel, as it was identical to one of the kinds of bomblets used in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The claim came in an interview with Sveriges Radio, and was also aired on NRK radio. He told that both HRW as well as the NPA (which upon the rumours about the use of bomblets had launched a protest against Russia), had received this info from him. [2] Human Rights Watch said on September 1 that Georgia had admitted to using cluster bombs during the hostilities in South Ossetia, The Associated Press and AFP reported.[8] “Georgian armed forces have GRADLAR 160 multiple launch rocket system and rockets of MK4 LAR 160 type (with M85 bomblets) with the range of 45 kilometers,” the Georgian MoD said.[9]
-- Niggle ( talk) 11:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't superbly accurate military. The Georgians attacked S. Ossetia with 8,000 (NOT 2,000) troops. Also, there is no 1st and 2nd Battle of Tskhinvali, as the fighting never stopped. There's no First and Second battle of Baghdad either. Now, as for the attack: most of Georgia's attacking army of 8,000 men was wiped out. That's why the brigade from Iraq was rushed in, along with 1,000 American soldiers to defend Tbilisi. Outside of Tbilisi Georgian forces were completely, totally and utterly routed. The casualty rates for such operations should be about 1 to 10. Granted some of the 8,000 men retreated, some got away. But they had to have taken significant losses, of at least 2,000 before routing. Otherwise they're just a chickenshit army that runs at the first sight of gunfire. Either way you want to play, Saakashvili and Georgians lost the war, big time, that much is clear. And you cannot separate battles in half to show Georgian 'victories' - see military convention rules on reporting battles. 68.164.118.38 ( talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Where this came from? See this good source: Russian fighting machine is showing its age, say military analysts. Biophys ( talk) 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you meant that article was a joke. Do you really want me to take it apart? Ok first off:
"Victory came as a result of overwhelming numerical superiority and a textbook Soviet-style strategy based on detailed planning that leaves little room for flexibility."
Russian Forces in Georgia, according to this article: 38,000. Georgian forces: 37,000. Overwhelming numerical superiority?
" They lost four aircraft, shot down by Russian-built Georgian anti-aircraft weapons."
Actually these were shot down by defense system upgraded by the Americans and purchased from Ukraine. Also, four aircraft lost by the Russian Air Force are expendable. Russia/US/China lose more then that in training/year. Not that big of a loss.
"Losing their overall commander, who suffered shrapnel wounds as he travelled in an armoured convoy in South Ossetia, the breakaway Georgian region, looked like carelessness. "
The commander was wounded. They didn't lose him. I guess it's wierd for people like Saakashvili and his supporters that a General actually goes in with the troops, but in most countries it's common practice. BTW, it wasn't their overall commander. The article really needs to get its facts straight.
Should I keep going? 68.164.118.38 ( talk) 06:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Peace, I agree. But if you mean that it's not Georgia attacked first then I can't agree as for the rest :-). Russia isn't isolated, and other countries, US as example, will support Georgia no matter that they are agressors now. And it didn't make Georgians or US become right in this situation. This article is interesting - Failings
"— Ageing armoured personnel carriers lacked proper bolt-on armour to protect against anti-tank weapons." Sorry - you mean that APC can't resist what will kill tanks? That laughable. "— No airborne unmanned surveillance platforms to spot Georgian anti-air defence systems" Yeah, no UAV's. Possibly - I can't say for sure. But what I can say - many Georgians radars were destroyed. They got targeting info from some outside sources or where working in "flash" mode. Same as NATO wasn't able to deal well with radars in Yogoslavia. "— No night-vision or satellite-linked navigation equipment" There is less of it, then in US, but who sad it's none of it? "— No protection for Tu22 bomber destroyed during reconnaissance" No protection? Like it's Georgian fighters shot it down.
I also can keep going, Just ask :-). -- Oleg Str ( talk) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention the ambiguous role of the U.S. and Israel in this war?
The following Wall Street Journal article indicates that Saakashvili ignored U.S. advice.
Some U.S. officials were also concerned. Washington's then-Ambassador Richard Miles tried to restrain Mr. Saakashvili, worried he might destabilize the country, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Saakashvili's storming of Georgia's parliament, which forced the resignation of autocratic President Eduard Shevardnadze and led to a new election, caught U.S. officials off guard. At the time, support for Mr. Shevardnadze was official U.S. policy, and key American diplomats thought they could still work with him.
"It was like the U.S. was slamming the brakes all the time," says Scott Horton, who hired Mr. Saakashvili to his first law job in New York and kept in regular contact with him. "The U.S. was always trying to calm him down."
Mr. Saakashvili didn't rely on the State Department to secure support in Washington, and worked hard to create alternative channels of communication. He hired Randy Scheunemann, now Sen. McCain's top foreign-policy adviser, as a lobbyist. The U.S. Agency for International Development paid for Daniel Kunin, a former National Democratic Institute official, to work as a full-time adviser to the Georgian president. Mr. Kunin has become an indispensable aide, staying on after his agency contract expired earlier this year.
Does ynet meet WP:RS? The following ynet article addresses the Israeli role:
Georgian minister: Israel should be proud / 'The Israelis should be proud of themselves for the Israeli training and education received by the Georgian soldiers,' Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili said Saturday. Yakobashvili is a Jew and is fluent in Hebrew. 'We are now in a fight against the great Russia,' he said, 'and our hope is to receive assistance from the White House, because Georgia cannot survive on its own. It's important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order. It's not just Georgia's business, but the entire world's business.' [3]
-- NonZionist ( talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Israel was a major commercial partner of Georgia, but they didn't play any part in the South Ossetia war proper. Specially after Russia threatened Israel with continuing with the weapon exports to Hamas and Hizbula (if they said they would continue, do they admit they are doing it?). That's like mentioning the participation of China in the war, since they are major economic partners of Russia. The US supported Georgia, but that's already covered in the article. -- Jaimevelasco ( talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say mention it, but make it very limited. You don't want to open up a whole can of worms here. As for Israeli military being proud that their training tactics got pwned by Russia? I'm not too sure they are proud of Georgia, considering some of their statements I've read: http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1218833445.html Read between the lines, Israel doesn't want its tactics defeated, so they've stopped military aid to Georgia. Oh, sorry I didn't initially introduce myself and my background: "hi, I'm a military historian". There 68.164.118.38 ( talk) 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't mention it: the only reason anyone suggesting it is because of a completely unrelated conflict. There is absolutely no need to mention Israel in this article, at all, except maybe to note that they've been threatened by Russia for their military aid to Georgia.
Let's not play "military historian" by bringing in flamebait topics here. BuddyJesus ( talk) 10:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with BuddyJesus. To mention every single major commercial or military partner would be waaaay too stupid. The only part worth mentioning is that Russia threatened Israel. That comment of the georgian president is just a gesture to get some goodwill -- Jaimevelasco ( talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The information below strikes me as important to the US Role. Can someone post it?
Putin also said that "the suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict with the aim of making the situation more tense and creating a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US President." [1]. Some have noted the coincidence that military action began during a much publicized vacation by Senator Barack Obama. [2] Although no concrete evidence of involvement by the Bush Administration has surfaced, officials from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney were in the country at the time Georgia's military action began. [3] Conservative commentators have used the South Ossetia conflict to criticize Obama and reinforce a McCain charge that Obama lacks the foreign policy experience to be president. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nauscopy ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
More reports about the ethnic cleansing: "Ossetia Is for Ossetians, Let the Georgians Suffer" [22]. Narking ( talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why stop there? I'm sure we can gather enough info on S.O.-Georgian forces fighting to go all the way back to 1992(or whenever their first conflict erupted). 68.151.53.85 ( talk) 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
From Defense news http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3702496&c=EUR&s=TOP
Robert Cadillo, Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA's) deputy director of analysis, said he had to pull analysts from other desks when the conflict broke out Aug. 7, he also defended DIA's reporting on the situation before that day.
...
Cardillo said he could not "speak to what [administration] officials knew or how well informed they were. "If you asked senior officials if they read that report or that cable from DIA, the answer is probably going to be no," the DIA analysis chief said. "They get large books in the morning to read every day. They're busy folks." -- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Isnt this just a Russian propaganda phrase intended to draw attention away from the wider invasion of Georgia? Ive actually never heard this name used before, even on the BBC. 86.10.0.187 ( talk) 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
[3] [4]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the region's leader, Eduard Kokoity, discussed the future of South Ossetia earlier this week in Moscow, South Ossetian parliamentary speaker Znaur Gassiyev said.
Russia will absorb South Ossetia "in several years" or earlier, a position was "firmly stated by both leaders," Gassiyev said in Tskhinvali, the provincial capital. [5] Menrunningpast ( talk) 16:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Censoring this information on the basis that it came from Russians and S.O.'s is misleading. At the very least, publish the information and then publish any relevant denials.
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18871
"According to the Russian command of the peacekeeping forces in the conflict zone, one South Ossetian militiaman was killed by a sniper located in a Georgian police post close to the village of Prisi at about 6:17pm local time on August 1.
The Russian peacekeepers also reported that snipers, starting from about 9pm local time on August 1, killed at least three people in Tskhinvali. The Russian peacekeeping command also reported late on August 1 that Tskhinvali also came under mortar fire from the Georgian villages of Ergneti and Zemo Nikozi, which are close to the breakaway region’s capital." Xchange ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. My main concern is that the article left the impression that the S.O.s arbitrarily started shelling Georgia. I don't know exactly how this fighting started, but that explanation seems highly improbable. I hope that someone can find & post more information on the "sniper war." This seems particularly relevant to confirming or denying Putin's suggestions in the Aug 28 CNN interview. Xchange ( talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot get the text of the background section to stop sitting on top of the three blue boxes. Is it just my browser? Can anyone help? Orthorhombic ( talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The entire "Time line" section and many other segments of text have been deleted by User:Orthorhombic without justification and discussion. Sorry, I have to revert these changes. Please discuss such deletions here. Biophys ( talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the reversion. The timeline is very important and should be on the main page rather than on a separate page. Xchange ( talk) 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest removing the photograph purpotedly showing 'Russia's intentional bombing of civilian targets in Gori' (picture on the very top).
The appartments were located in the immediate vicinity to a Georgian military base in Gori targeted by Russian air-force and did indeed suffer some collateral damage (presumably from secondary explosion of destroyed ammunition depos?).
IMPORTANTLY: While many of the inhabitants were innocent civilians, these appartments beside the base are actually owned by Georgia's army soldiers and officers, who rent them out to civilians.
The same few houses were then photographed from different angles, and their photographs spread around the world as an evidence of Russia's wide-scale targeting of civilian infrastructure.
I believe the extent of collateral damage suffered by the civilians (renting appartments owned by Georgian military men) shows actually a reasonable restraint by Russian military and the collateral damage and casulaties are much smaller than the one inflicted by US bombing of civilian targets in Afghanistan, Iraq or Yugoslavia.
(SOURCE: According to a on-ground observation in Gori by a team "People in Need"/Clovek v Tisni, a respected humanitarian NGO from the Czech Republic with many years of track record from operations in Chechnya and other Caucasus crises - which made them unpopular and eventually banned by the Russian government. Photographs and reporting from Gori on http://blog.aktualne.centrum.cz/blogy/roman-stank.php?itemid=4339)
I suggest removing the section "Military situation in the Black Sea" completely. A small summary of it can be moved to either Humanitarian response to the 2008 South Ossetia war (where some parts are already mentioned) or to the subsection "International reactions".
Rationale: Since NATO is not a belligerent, listing individual nato ships is not needed. In the (hopefully very unlikely) case that NATO enters war with Russia, they could be added back in. -- Xeeron ( talk) 12:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Answer to me - are NATO ships standing without weapon when they "have delivered bottled milk"? Coldn't they use radars? Operational range of Tomahawks missiles is 2500-2800 km (depends on modification). So NATO has alredy entered. -- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 13:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Simply Romania, Bulgaria & Turkey are NATO members ... the Black Sea doesn't belong to Russia; maybe Russia should invade the Black Sea :)) Elysander ( talk) 13:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The longest section of this article is the reference section. If you'd like to shrink it, move references to its own page. Raghar ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add one (English-lamguage) site dedicated to voting for the favourite combatant in the external links:
International site dedicated to online voting for the favourite of the two sites
Is there any Wiki rule interdicting it? Bogorm ( talk) 18:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Syntax and sentence structure are wrong. Spelling is odd in places (but then they could be typos), such as America with a K. The choice of certain words also seems odd (and in places boarders on Cyloness). By the way I have just voted again useing the same IP[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 12:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]]
[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]]
Hi, there was sourced info removed with comments like [6] "... this picture is NOT proof of use of cluster bombs", [7] "... do not use weasel words like 'some claim', this is about facts not speculations", see also other edits of this editor like [8] - what is the correct action should be? -- windyhead ( talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Simply add or insert it again . It is always the same lousy game every day. ;) Elysander ( talk) 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No one proofing; but to delete HWR's opinion - not necessary. Магистер ( talk) 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Russian troops are preventing Georgians from returning to their homes, a United Nations agency warned yesterday. | ” |
“ | Russian troops deep inside Georgian territory are stopping thousands of refugees from returning to their homes, a Georgian official said on Saturday. | ” |
[10] Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Russian-backed paramilitaries have systematically burned and looted Georgian villages inside South Ossetia, according to victims and satellite pictures released by the United Nations. | ” |
Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Article is an opinion. Please refrain from original research. Much appreciated 68.164.118.38 ( talk) 06:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget to add this, to balance out NPOV: [12]
In a report to be published in its Monday edition, OSCE military observers in the Caucasus described detailed planning by Georgia to move into South Ossetia which contributed to the crisis, the German magazine said.
The report also backed up Russian claims that the Georgian offensive was already in full swing by the time Russian troops and armored vehicles entered the Roksky Tunnel, on the border with Russia and South Ossetia, to protect its peacekeepers and the civilian population.
The OSCE report also contains suspected war crimes committed by Georgians, who ordered attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians.
-- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 06:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
[13]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 05:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia Ministry of Internal Affairs issues data on the Russian troops in the occupied territories http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19349. -- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 06:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least in the "Background" and "Timeline" sections, where the text is squeezed between a table of contents, a map, a photo, a cleanup template and no less than six infoboxes! (Weren't blue infoboxes usually located at the end of an article?) Could someone clean this up a bit? In the current state, it hurts the eyes (at least on Firefox...).
Oh, I just noticed someone actually inserted the "2008 campaign" infobox twice! Really, now! But even without the "duplicate", it's still too jumbled. Can a consensus be reached what to move away from those sections in order to ease reading? -- megA ( talk) 09:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Who wrote this date? If you mean the "Medvedev-Sarkozy" agreements, the definitive signing of it was on 16 August. Mischa G ( talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, rursus to the question about the 15th August - I am asking together with Mischa G. which reason would the proponent of the date show? I have come across a sentence in the quite authoritative news portal Lenta.ru here about "war 8-12 August" and I insist on 12 August. Bogorm ( talk) 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,575396,00.html http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1427854.php/Spiegel_OSCE_observers_fault_Georgians_in_conflict
"Hamburg - European observers have faulted Georgia in this month's Caucasus conflict, saying it made elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday.
In a report to appear in its Monday edition, it said officials of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had said acts by the Georgian government had contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia.
Spiegel said OSCE military observers in the Caucasus had described preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia.
The onslaught had begun before Russian armoured vehicles entered a southbound tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains to South Ossetia.
It said the OSCE report also described suspected war crimes by the Georgians, including the Georgians ordering attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
spiegal is the biggest magazine in all of europe, theyre not making it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
are you saying that the biggest magazine in europe is making it up or lying? wikipedia doesnt require to use a organisations official website for reporting on its statements. i see you are from georgia, and i understand that you dont like this news, but it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your ad hominem arguments are weak. There are too many media speculations over such issues. All OSCE reports appear at this organization's website. If you find such report, you can obviously add it to the article. -- Kober Talk 18:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
wikipedia doesnt require to use a organisations official website for reporting on its statements as i already said. there are no conflicting reports on what the osce said today it is not a matter of debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As usual Source Manipulation .. SPIEGEL didn't say: OSCE say Georgia is responsible for conflict. SPIEGEL reported "acts by the Georgian government had contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia." Therefore more responsible players must exist in this " war game " according a still not released OSCE report. Elysander ( talk) 19:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia" "preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia." "The onslaught had begun before Russian armoured vehicles entered a southbound tunnel...to South Ossetia"
This looks clear to me what they're saying. The article is named "OSCE observers fault Georgians in conflict". Who is manipulating the source? Johnnycashnin ( talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think, Spiegel is not worse than BBC or CNN. It can be used as source. Магистер ( talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(To Elysander) Have you made yourself familiar with the article in German and what is your knowledge in the language??? "die Führung in Tiflis den Krieg mit Russland verschuldet hat" - (though I know it ineffably well) in my Langenscheidt dictionary verschulden is defined as "an einem Unglück schuld sein". Bogorm ( talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Moreover they speak of war crimes committed by the Georgian army, since they attacked civilians during the night. Actually, the Russian medias have reported that weeks ago, so the report is quite procrastinated, but potius sero quam nunquam... Bogorm ( talk) 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Again source manipulation
Just to clarify usage of the German language (and defend Der Spiegel's reporting): Konjunktiv I is not equal to Präsens!
Konjunktiv I, as used here, is a form of indirect speech. Check http://german.about.com/od/grammar/a/konjunktivI_2.htm for a good description. To quote from that website: "Generally the Konjunktiv I is telling you that someone said something that may or may not be true.". Der Spiegel reported on something said by someone else. The use of Konjunktiv I indicats that Der Spiegel does not guarantee for the truthfulness of that message and is simply relaying it. -- Xeeron ( talk) 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
OSCE in Vienna disclaimed that an official report or documents with content described by SPIEGEL exist at OSCE.
Liberation - Sept-01 -
[14] - Die Presse (AT) Sept-01 -
[15] - networld (AT) Sept-01 -
[16] >>
There is some interesting analysis at CER regarding Russia-Georgia war, whom to blame, possible future sanctions, etc. Basically, it shows that EU is divided and why. Also some of the analysis unambiguously places the blame on Saakashvili's gambling. Also it mentioned that some policy-makers believe that that was in USA interest to provoke the conflict to tarnish Russia's image ("if it did not react then it is weak, if it did react then it is aggressive").( Igny ( talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
Introduction somehow had become a mess-of-a-POV again. Now, it uses words like "invasion" and contains carefully chosen statements from both side which is supposed to give kind-of a balance of views, but, IMHO, works in an apposite way. It was much better just recently. Why there is anything beyond facts in introduction? Introduction is not a place to present conflicting points of view -- they can be covered in the corresponding sections. Can anybody clean it up, please? 89.113.128.63 ( talk) 11:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC) But what are your proposition? May be if you put here how you see we can discuss it before puting it to the article.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 14:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Will someone edit the casualties section of the infobox, it should be put in the Russian part of the casualties section 19 missing (5 captured [1]), as the reference I provided confirms that 5 soldiers or pilots were captured, also the given reference and plus this one [17] confirm that 15 georgian soldiers were captured during the conflict in South Ossetia and another 22 were captured today in Poti so it should be put in the georgian casualty section something like this: 215 soldiers killed, 300 missing and 37 captured, based on these two references. Will anyone make this edit?
== Number of Casualties ==-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)-- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Russia states 65 dead russians, 121 wounded 8 tanks and 2 aircrafts lost. They state, 4000 ( of 2000 georgian soldiers who took part in the operations ) were killed.
Rocki tunnel, Georgian Battalion shot the whole ammunition at every russian tank that left :the tunnel, at least, 12 destroyed. ( crew: 48 dead ), before leaving
Kodori heights, georgian regiment held every position against 5 russo-abkhaz attacks before retreating back to Tbilisi. 584 abkhaz dead, 96 russian dead. 1 Grad destroyed, 12 armored vehicles destroyed ( crew: at least 24 dead )
Gurja, GRU elite special forces knocked out when engaged and ambushed by georgian :commandos Casulties: 45 of 80 russian dead, 2 georgian commandos.
Battle for 12 villages around Tskhinvali, heavy fights, high losses on both sides. Casulties: 125 georgian, 145 russian. ( Disadvantage for russian forces )
1st battle of Tskhinvali: Georgian artillery destroyed ossetian positions around the capitol, :200-1000 ossetian dead, Ossetian tanks and armor do not exist anymore. Georgian troops :enter the city, loosing 4 T-72 MBT's. Heavy fights in the city. 45 georgian dead 3 tanks lost, 300 ossetian dead 8 tanks given up, 18 :russian peacekeepers dead 150 wounded, retreat of Russo-Ossetian Forces.
2st battle of Tskhinvali: Russia advances against Tskhinvali, Georgian positions repell 7 attacks destroying 8 russian T-72 MBT's ( crew: 32 dead ) and killing 36 russians . Russian Air Force bombs armor and positions in Tskhinvali. 18 dead georgians. Georgia leaves Tskhinvali because of heavy bombardement and ceasefire agreement.
Russian Air Force 7 days bombardament kills 42 georgian soldiers and destroys up to 20 :tanks and armor in Georgia. Georgian Special Forces and Units shoot down 22 russian SU-24/ SU-25/ MiG-29 and one Tu-22 with Stingers and light AA systems. Heavy AA batteries ( like S-120 ) were never used in this 7 days.
Battle of Gori: 1000 russian airborne troops try to take Gori by surpirse attack from sky. Operation failed. Number of Casulties unknown, Georgians still controlled the city. Russian armor advances from Tskhinvali to Gori. Georgian troops leave the city to show the rest of :the world, what are the true interests of Putin. Taking over whole Caucasia.
During the ceasefire agreement a convoy of georgian soldiers and special units were :ambushed by russian tanks and armors, leaving 18 dead georgians and 3 destroyed georgian :Toyota SF jeeps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Still, I see too many POVs "Georgian troops leave the city to show the rest of :the world, what are the true interests of Putin. Taking over whole Caucasia" "Georgia leaves Tskhinvali because of heavy bombardement and ceasefire agreement" and not a single reliable source. Also, I see the user having a pro-georgian POV in some articles. It would be interesting if it could be proven, though-- Jaimevelasco ( talk) 17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to see CormanL's sources. However, his "inside sources" seem to mesh with rumors of something of a Russian military debacle that I've heard (along the lines of thirty Russian armored vehicles destroyed and hundreds dead in the first day of fighting alone) and their reluctance to advance on Tblisi outright. One would think that if the Russian military was up to the task of overthrowing the Georgian government they would have done so. What, do any of us here seriously think world public opinion will stop an army in its tracks? 66.66.154.162 ( talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
For the same Reason US led forces did not advance on Baghdad after the Gulf war: the Georgian Regime is already unstable and the Armenian population in the south is agitating for independence. It seems Moscow calculates that it only needs to wait for a new pro-Russian Govt to take power. As for the War itself the Russians did suffer significant casualties in the Initial attack mostly due to the fact that the “peacekeepers” were light infantry unsuited for frontline combat. Combat effectively ended by the third day, with Russian forces and allies Seizing key Georgian bases in Gori, Poti and Senaki and subsequently destroying all remaining Georgian military assets. It seems that the Russians simply plan to cary out a Serbian scenario and encourage the Georgian government to collapse rather than storming Tbilisi and Facing bloody Urban warfare. As for the losses Georgian and international media have only shown wreckage belonging to four planes and I simply don’t find the Georgian Gov’t who was making outlandish “Bagdad bob” like claims of Victory at Roki Tunnel to be a credible source. Freepsbane ( talk) 19:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Horseshit. This war has no resemblance whatsoever to Desert Storm. Given the generally abysmal combat performance of Russian forces in the war (I do not ever recall them having captured a Georgian position by force of arms, only occupying abandoned positions - and their "air superiority" seems to have been largely ineffective) it stands to reason that they would be leery of advancing on Tblisi where essentially the entire Georgian military had dug in almost entirely intact in both personnel and heavy equipment (the Russians appear to have captured or destroyed very little of their stuff). The Georgians appear to have made a very sound move by withdrawing and concentrating their forces to fight a decisive battle at Tblisi subsequent to their initial failure to stop the Russians at the border. The Russians may be able to beat their chests and let their militia dogs run wild but they sure as hell will not overthrow the Georgian government or keep it out of NATO or the EU at this point. Their troops would be slaughtered like cattle in Tblisi. 128.153.195.109 ( talk) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
American reconnaisance did not find a single Japanese military position on the entire island of Okinawa before we invaded. Concealment is a basic principle of warfare and the Georgians appear to have been practicing it. Defensive works that can be observed by media in a situation where the enemy possesses air superiority are worse than useless, they are a waste of soldiers and equipment and effectively hand propaganda victories to the enemy. If the Russians had advanced they would have found no opposition until they walked into an ambush and were massacred.
I tend not to take most media outlets very seriously when warfare comes up - a 24-hour news cycle means their judgement on current events is generally hasty at best and laughable at worst. These are the same people who declared that the offensive against the Sadrists back in March was a complete failure a few days before they effectively surrendered. Accurate information has to be derived from -facts- reported by the media, not their generally uninformed opinions on the subject.
In this case the facts are that Georgian troops retreated to Tblisi (I saw no real evidence of a disorganized rout - one traffic accident and a few pieces of abandoned artillery do not a rout make) from all across the country and seem to have dropped off the radar screen. There are two possibilities arising from this, either that the Georgian military has disbanded itself a-la Iraq 2003 or that they have established a defensive plan with proper operational security. I believe any rational analysis of the situation over the last couple of weeks leads to the latter conclusion. 128.153.195.195 ( talk) 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you can hide a whole army for weeks at a time in a small European country while conducting combat operations. It's not even that difficult. See Kosovo War. Given the combination of piss-poor intelligence-gathering capabilities on the Russian side and the fact that Western journalists are not out breaking brush looking for camouflaged Georgian positions, I find it unremarkable that the Georgians have maintained operational security in this case. In any event Western journalists are unanimous that there is in fact a high level of Georgian military activity in and around Tblisi and that Russian probes towards the capital (obvious attempts to determine the extent of Georgian defenses by reconnaisance in force) have been responded to by Georgian troops publicly moving out and blocking the roads before the Russians could get close to Tblisi, so that part of your thesis doesn't hold water.
Your attempt to use Occam's Razor is laughable. The Georgians suffered about a hundred dead out of a full-time army of 10,000 and minor equipment losses, mostly in the form of obsolete and unreliable Soviet vehicles. You're telling me they're out of the fight? Occam's Razor dictates that something's going on here behind the convenient story of a Georgian "defeat". I think the Russians know very well that their short, victorious war will turn into a fiasco if they push too hard. 128.153.195.195 ( talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So you're basing your opinion of a Russian victory on a combination of a newspaper that has printed Iraqi insurgent propaganda in the past (after their reporting during the Iraqi offensive in Basra I no longer consider the Telegraph to be a reliable source), Saakashvilli justifiably wanting to a continue the conflict and beat on the Russians to the point that they would not hang around occupying half his country, and Russian lies? No Russian source is reliable here. They have provided photographic documentation of perhaps ten or twelve "captured" T-72s (which could have easily been drawn from all those T-72s of the exact same make and model the Russians have on hand), about as many BMPs and a couple of unmistakably Georgian vehicles (which were completely destroyed or had been previously verified photographically as having broken down). It's called critical thinking. See through the propaganda.
If you want my sources? Look at the casualty box. Then look at the list of Georgian units actually committed to the fighting. One brigade of five. Georgian casualties were low and few of their units actually engaged. This makes Russian claims of huge amounts of captured Georgian tanks doubly ridiculous - the Georgians only -have- eighty or so T-72s. Ergo, they prepared to fight a decisive battle at Tblisi and the Russians blinked and agreed to an advantageous ceasefire rather than see their short, victorious war turn into another Chechen debacle from biting off more than they could chew. CarbonArmor ( talk) 04:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
So even by believing every lie told by Russian propaganda, the Georgians have three full brigades in combat condition (likely four, as the Georgians suffered no losses in Kodori) deployed in and around Tblisi and a further fifth that is in the process of reorganizing and which suffered minimal confirmed casualties. And you're telling me the Russians are not fully cognizant that attacking Tblisi would be walking to their deaths? Give me a break, this discussion is over. You just conceded regardless of your rhetoric otherwise.
And about unrefuted Russian claims: the Georgians have consistently kept their mouths professionally shut throughout this conflict rather than spout off like the increasingly-comical Russians. The Russian claims are facially ridiculous and no refutation is needed, nor should the Georgians feel obliged to give the Russians a real damage report by giving one. CarbonArmor ( talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My POV is entirely supported by sources already available and by any low-level knowledge of military operations. Every reliable report is unanimous on the fact that relatively little combat actually took place and only a small amount of Georgian military equipment was lost and that the Georgian military is therefore almost completely intact and has withdrawn to Tblisi to fight a decisive battle at the capital rather than allow themselves to be overwhelmed piecemeal in the countryside. The facts underlying this interpretation of events are in the article, so I don't get why you're demanding sourcing. Rather than ask -me- for sources, I ask you two to provide assessments of the Georgian military's combat capability to support your views that DO NOT rely on Russian sources, which are universally unreliable.
I don't get your later line of accusation, Freepsbane. The Telegraph at one point printed Iraqi insurgent propaganda without basic fact-checking with Baghdad during the offensive against the Sadrists this March. It is not treasonous for a Western newspaper to print lies distributed by the enemy, it just compromises their journalistic integrity and ergo the Telegraph is not a reliable source. CarbonArmor ( talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
its conflict with Russia ends in swift defeat and humiliation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7576305.stm
¿Had Enough sources already? All western sources, nice and tidy for you.
The facts reported in the sources provided universally support my POV. The amateurish analysis (including Stratfor, I read the parts of their report that were free and it shows no more insight into affairs than any of the other analyses you have provided - I do not care at all if there are ex-military personnel involved if they are still wrong) accompanying them is the only indicator of a Georgian defeat. Any reader of the news knows that military analysis in the Western media is generally wrong and that the only thing the media is useful for reporting are facts. Your comment about the 2003 Iraq War is simply laughable and I dismiss it. So, again - FACTS, NOT ANALYSIS, NOT ARMCHAIR GENERAL HYPERBOLE and NOT STATEMENTS DRAWN FROM RUSSIAN SOURCES reported by Western media indicative of a substantial Georgian defeat. Retreating to defend key regions in force at the cost of relatively unimportant peripheral areas is a strategy as old as time, my friend. CarbonArmor ( talk) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
My sources are those listed in the article. Hell, even the map agrees with my assessment. I take it you're conceding, then? CarbonArmor ( talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Result Russian / South Ossetian / Abkhazian victory(don't forget to complain about that)-- Jaimevelasco ( talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Those reports say the opposite of what you claim. Nothing at all about "Wiping Floors" in Osset, or a column destroyed in Roki, just a bit about Shrapnel from small arms hitting the Lt.Gen and the reporters. The Reason why the initial Georgian attack overran defensive lines was due to the fact that the Ossetian rebels and Russian peacekeepers were Light Infantry: in other words they were nonmechanised infantry that lacked anti-armor Assets. After the Regular 58th entered the battle the engagements were totally one sided following a pattern similar to the Persian Gulf war (Kuwait)As the links you gave all say. Typing down claims that have nothing to do with the content and have soapbox claims such as having downed a “huge bomber” (A older Tu-22 used for recon) and having “wiped out the floor” simply don’t belong in Wikipedia; The fact that a commander was wounded by shrapnel when he had (foolishly) strayed outside the protection of his armor, Should not be given the Baghdad Bob treatment and somehow be interpreted into the (absurd) idea that a whole colum of T-80 tanks was wiped out. If such would have been accomplished it certainly would have been possible for Georgia to collapse the tunnel and cut of the invasion route. As we all know that didn’t happen, Georgian defensive lines collapsed by the 11th and Georgian forces abandoned expensive equipment in Gori and Senaki while retreating to the capital. Subsequently Russian, Abkhazian and Ossetian forces occupied former Georgian strongholds where the Ossets then reportedly proceeded to loot. Clearly having your logistical headquarters (Gori ) be seized along with your Naval headquarters (Poti) and a key airbase (Senaki) in one week of fighting is not a sign of victory. Freepsbane ( talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, there is a merry-go-round between saying Russian victory, Russian/Abkhazian victory and Russian/separatist victory. While I do not want to join in on the revert war, let me argue why the latter is the correct version: Even if southern ossetian forces did not win a single battle, it is clear that they won the war. Southern Ossetia (and Abkhazia) went to war with the goal of removing georgian soldiers from their territory, removing any military treat by georgia, removing georgian civilians from their territory (whether this was a goal before hand can be disputed) and capturing part of georgia propper (whether this was a goal before hand can be disputed). It is very obvious that all of these goals were attained. As such it is clear that both separatist states did win the war. -- Xeeron ( talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This user recently removed the definition of the duration of the war by the respectable news portal Lenta.ru. Additionally, some claim about 19 Aug has emerged. Neither for 15 August nor for 19 Aug have been provided any sources and their presence in the article is thereby dubitable - I pray their adherents to provide at least one (reliable) source, where the expression in any written language "the war lasted from ... to ...(their option)" or "the South Ossetian War ... Aug - ... Aug" is visible. The presence of 12 Aug is indispensable because of the reliable source already secured by me. In the Spanish, Chinese and Serbian Wikipedia 12 Aug stays tranquilly in the article and nobody deletes it even without any source therefor (and I doubt that any Spaniard or Chinese from them reads Lenta.ru), whereas here the provided sources face incessant vandalism, which inflicts on me profound desolation, to say the least. Bogorm ( talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Just something to ponder about. Medvedev declared the end to hostilities and stopped the Russian advance and started negotiations for ceasefire on Aug 12. Ceasefire was officially signed later, but both sides keep claiming that the other one does not comply. Skirmishes still occur there, does it qualify for the continuation of the war? Georgia still in state of war and considers part of its territories occupied. Interestingly, after WW2 exchange of POWs happened long after May/September 1945 (official end of WW2), and there is still no peace treaty between Russia and Japan, only truce is in effect. ( Igny ( talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
Excuse me , that i'm not always interested to discuss with "POV insertors" who always acting one-sided on a regular basis. There are sections enough on the this Talk Page or other T.P.s where after certain time only members of this "fraction" talking with each other. Other editors are obviously rarely interested at this boring content. :)) Elysander ( talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- source: Civil Georgia -- Tananka ( talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Martial law, initially imposed on August 9 for two weeks, has been extended till September 8. “As long as even one Russian occupier stays on our territory, Georgia will remain in a state of war,” Justice Minister Nika Gvaramia said in Parliament on August 23. He stressed that the prolongation of martial law did not mean a violation of the six-point ceasefire agreement
The Georgian administration is trying its best to create some extra benefits for foreign investors. Recently the Ministry of Economic Development issued a decree that until the end of the state of war all financial liabilities for all investors should be lifted. It remains to be seen however whether this will prove to be enough.
- source: The Messenger -- Tananka ( talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Georgia use the M85 cluster munition http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5je4oTliESokD-zge0diVbbczCPIgD92TT2VG0
-- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You can always use this link -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
And this too: Georgia admits dropping cluster bombs, says rights group. But the previous link are more informative. For example, it notes that "more than 100 countries agreed in Dublin, Ireland, to ban cluster bombs [...]. But neither Georgia nor Russia pledged to do so." ( Pubkjre ( talk) 20:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
From Georgian page http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19365
Bonnie Docherty, arms division researcher at HRW said on September 1, that M85 cluster munitions were discovered in Shindisi, a village outside breakaway South Ossetia, north of the town of Gori. Docherty said that while this could point to Russian use, Moscow was not known to have that particular make in its arsenal. She added that it was possible that the M85 munitions had been scattered about, having been hit in a Russian strike. ... “The Georgian armed forces have GRADLAR 160 multiple launch rocket systems and MK4 LAR 160 type (with M85 bomblets) rockets with a range of 45 kilometers,” the Georgian MoD said.-- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 11:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
More interest information about the topic - see in wiki-page Cluster bomb#History of usage
History of usage
...
Georgia, 2008
Used by Georgia, Russia
According to Human Rights Watch, the Russian Air Force dropped RBK-250 cluster bombs in populated areas during the war in Georgia, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens: "this is the first known use of cluster munitions since 2006, during Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon" - the group said.[1] However, according to Ove Dullum, Chief Scientist of the Norwegian defence institute FFI, the photos on the Human Rights Watch web site actually showed bomblets made in Israel, as it was identical to one of the kinds of bomblets used in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The claim came in an interview with Sveriges Radio, and was also aired on NRK radio. He told that both HRW as well as the NPA (which upon the rumours about the use of bomblets had launched a protest against Russia), had received this info from him. [2] Human Rights Watch said on September 1 that Georgia had admitted to using cluster bombs during the hostilities in South Ossetia, The Associated Press and AFP reported.[8] “Georgian armed forces have GRADLAR 160 multiple launch rocket system and rockets of MK4 LAR 160 type (with M85 bomblets) with the range of 45 kilometers,” the Georgian MoD said.[9]
-- Niggle ( talk) 11:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't superbly accurate military. The Georgians attacked S. Ossetia with 8,000 (NOT 2,000) troops. Also, there is no 1st and 2nd Battle of Tskhinvali, as the fighting never stopped. There's no First and Second battle of Baghdad either. Now, as for the attack: most of Georgia's attacking army of 8,000 men was wiped out. That's why the brigade from Iraq was rushed in, along with 1,000 American soldiers to defend Tbilisi. Outside of Tbilisi Georgian forces were completely, totally and utterly routed. The casualty rates for such operations should be about 1 to 10. Granted some of the 8,000 men retreated, some got away. But they had to have taken significant losses, of at least 2,000 before routing. Otherwise they're just a chickenshit army that runs at the first sight of gunfire. Either way you want to play, Saakashvili and Georgians lost the war, big time, that much is clear. And you cannot separate battles in half to show Georgian 'victories' - see military convention rules on reporting battles. 68.164.118.38 ( talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Where this came from? See this good source: Russian fighting machine is showing its age, say military analysts. Biophys ( talk) 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you meant that article was a joke. Do you really want me to take it apart? Ok first off:
"Victory came as a result of overwhelming numerical superiority and a textbook Soviet-style strategy based on detailed planning that leaves little room for flexibility."
Russian Forces in Georgia, according to this article: 38,000. Georgian forces: 37,000. Overwhelming numerical superiority?
" They lost four aircraft, shot down by Russian-built Georgian anti-aircraft weapons."
Actually these were shot down by defense system upgraded by the Americans and purchased from Ukraine. Also, four aircraft lost by the Russian Air Force are expendable. Russia/US/China lose more then that in training/year. Not that big of a loss.
"Losing their overall commander, who suffered shrapnel wounds as he travelled in an armoured convoy in South Ossetia, the breakaway Georgian region, looked like carelessness. "
The commander was wounded. They didn't lose him. I guess it's wierd for people like Saakashvili and his supporters that a General actually goes in with the troops, but in most countries it's common practice. BTW, it wasn't their overall commander. The article really needs to get its facts straight.
Should I keep going? 68.164.118.38 ( talk) 06:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Peace, I agree. But if you mean that it's not Georgia attacked first then I can't agree as for the rest :-). Russia isn't isolated, and other countries, US as example, will support Georgia no matter that they are agressors now. And it didn't make Georgians or US become right in this situation. This article is interesting - Failings
"— Ageing armoured personnel carriers lacked proper bolt-on armour to protect against anti-tank weapons." Sorry - you mean that APC can't resist what will kill tanks? That laughable. "— No airborne unmanned surveillance platforms to spot Georgian anti-air defence systems" Yeah, no UAV's. Possibly - I can't say for sure. But what I can say - many Georgians radars were destroyed. They got targeting info from some outside sources or where working in "flash" mode. Same as NATO wasn't able to deal well with radars in Yogoslavia. "— No night-vision or satellite-linked navigation equipment" There is less of it, then in US, but who sad it's none of it? "— No protection for Tu22 bomber destroyed during reconnaissance" No protection? Like it's Georgian fighters shot it down.
I also can keep going, Just ask :-). -- Oleg Str ( talk) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention the ambiguous role of the U.S. and Israel in this war?
The following Wall Street Journal article indicates that Saakashvili ignored U.S. advice.
Some U.S. officials were also concerned. Washington's then-Ambassador Richard Miles tried to restrain Mr. Saakashvili, worried he might destabilize the country, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Saakashvili's storming of Georgia's parliament, which forced the resignation of autocratic President Eduard Shevardnadze and led to a new election, caught U.S. officials off guard. At the time, support for Mr. Shevardnadze was official U.S. policy, and key American diplomats thought they could still work with him.
"It was like the U.S. was slamming the brakes all the time," says Scott Horton, who hired Mr. Saakashvili to his first law job in New York and kept in regular contact with him. "The U.S. was always trying to calm him down."
Mr. Saakashvili didn't rely on the State Department to secure support in Washington, and worked hard to create alternative channels of communication. He hired Randy Scheunemann, now Sen. McCain's top foreign-policy adviser, as a lobbyist. The U.S. Agency for International Development paid for Daniel Kunin, a former National Democratic Institute official, to work as a full-time adviser to the Georgian president. Mr. Kunin has become an indispensable aide, staying on after his agency contract expired earlier this year.
Does ynet meet WP:RS? The following ynet article addresses the Israeli role:
Georgian minister: Israel should be proud / 'The Israelis should be proud of themselves for the Israeli training and education received by the Georgian soldiers,' Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili said Saturday. Yakobashvili is a Jew and is fluent in Hebrew. 'We are now in a fight against the great Russia,' he said, 'and our hope is to receive assistance from the White House, because Georgia cannot survive on its own. It's important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order. It's not just Georgia's business, but the entire world's business.' [3]
-- NonZionist ( talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Israel was a major commercial partner of Georgia, but they didn't play any part in the South Ossetia war proper. Specially after Russia threatened Israel with continuing with the weapon exports to Hamas and Hizbula (if they said they would continue, do they admit they are doing it?). That's like mentioning the participation of China in the war, since they are major economic partners of Russia. The US supported Georgia, but that's already covered in the article. -- Jaimevelasco ( talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say mention it, but make it very limited. You don't want to open up a whole can of worms here. As for Israeli military being proud that their training tactics got pwned by Russia? I'm not too sure they are proud of Georgia, considering some of their statements I've read: http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1218833445.html Read between the lines, Israel doesn't want its tactics defeated, so they've stopped military aid to Georgia. Oh, sorry I didn't initially introduce myself and my background: "hi, I'm a military historian". There 68.164.118.38 ( talk) 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't mention it: the only reason anyone suggesting it is because of a completely unrelated conflict. There is absolutely no need to mention Israel in this article, at all, except maybe to note that they've been threatened by Russia for their military aid to Georgia.
Let's not play "military historian" by bringing in flamebait topics here. BuddyJesus ( talk) 10:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with BuddyJesus. To mention every single major commercial or military partner would be waaaay too stupid. The only part worth mentioning is that Russia threatened Israel. That comment of the georgian president is just a gesture to get some goodwill -- Jaimevelasco ( talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The information below strikes me as important to the US Role. Can someone post it?
Putin also said that "the suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict with the aim of making the situation more tense and creating a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US President." [1]. Some have noted the coincidence that military action began during a much publicized vacation by Senator Barack Obama. [2] Although no concrete evidence of involvement by the Bush Administration has surfaced, officials from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney were in the country at the time Georgia's military action began. [3] Conservative commentators have used the South Ossetia conflict to criticize Obama and reinforce a McCain charge that Obama lacks the foreign policy experience to be president. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nauscopy ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
More reports about the ethnic cleansing: "Ossetia Is for Ossetians, Let the Georgians Suffer" [22]. Narking ( talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why stop there? I'm sure we can gather enough info on S.O.-Georgian forces fighting to go all the way back to 1992(or whenever their first conflict erupted). 68.151.53.85 ( talk) 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
From Defense news http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3702496&c=EUR&s=TOP
Robert Cadillo, Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA's) deputy director of analysis, said he had to pull analysts from other desks when the conflict broke out Aug. 7, he also defended DIA's reporting on the situation before that day.
...
Cardillo said he could not "speak to what [administration] officials knew or how well informed they were. "If you asked senior officials if they read that report or that cable from DIA, the answer is probably going to be no," the DIA analysis chief said. "They get large books in the morning to read every day. They're busy folks." -- 195.98.173.10 ( talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)