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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
"An international fact-finding mission headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini concludes that Georgia started the 2008 South Ossetia war and that Russia answered by using excessive measures."
It made the front page of Wikipedia, it's of critical importance, why not just use it? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the issue of misrepresenting the EU report addressed above, this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&curid=18762503&diff=317584506&oldid=317583525, removed the reuters facts about SO being largely financed by Russia, which is very different from the question of which passports its inhabitants have. Being financed by Russia is not at all the same as "being a de facto part of Russia". -- Xeeron ( talk) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is at 190Kb. From WP:SPLIT:
"There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split. A guideline for article size is:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100 KB | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60 KB | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) |
> 40 KB | May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 30 KB | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1 KB | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. |
"
The article is of sufficient size to make 3 'Probably should be divided' articles and still have enough left over for a stub, in terms of raw size. I only have one halfhearted suggestion for article topics for spinoff, and that is Military operations of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Even splitting will not accomplish what needs to be done, unless two articles are split off; note that since many articles already have been made, the main problem seems to be the lack of adequately succinct summaries. I will WP:BOLDly reduce at least one section in the main article, and await your responses. Anarchangel ( talk) 08:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So the damage may be done already, and if I only convince you of one thing, it would be that what you say on talk does not only matter because it is supposed to improve the article, but that arguing back and forth forever can actually harm the article directly.
But on the other hand, the spinoff articles are word for word exactly the same as what is in this article; there is still a lot of work that can be done to summarize the material here. WP:Ignore All Rules would indeed apply, to ignore the standard of 100Kb for this subject, if there were not other options. Anarchangel ( talk) 06:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to claim them handing out passports to former citizens of the USSR was against international law, then please cite where in the source it says this, and perhaps someone can add it to the article. That's entirely irrelevant from the Russian's point of view though, since their own constitution trumps international law, and their point of view and hence legal justifications are important to note. It's kind of telling when my first real contribution to the article in months gets blindly reverted immediately. I was under the assumption that we were actually going to make use of this report, not hamper further development of the article by hanging on to old Reuters articles from a year ago. LokiiT ( talk) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
From my forum page, I think it's relevant:
After reading certain newspapers and claims, as well talking to people on the streets, I get the distinct feeling that some people still believe the claim that "evil Russians are giving out Ossetians passports in order to provoke, poor, little, Democratic Georgia". Well first off the media censorship in Georgia is at Stalinist levels, so I wouldn't call that Democratic. Just try to find a Russian TV channel; oh wait - those are blocked. I thought Democracy was about getting both sides of the story, but when certain interests love an oil pipeline, Democracy takes a backseat, and is lucky that it's not thrown out of the car. Sorry, I digressed a bit.
If one was to actually study the Ossetian people, one would notice that there are 720,000 Ossetians alive today. They're not a major ethnic group. (Major ethnic groups are those that have over a million members.) They are descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians. Seen the move King Arthur? The one with Kiera Knightley? Those are the Sarmatian Knights. Even back then Sarmatians had good taste in women; sorry I digressed again.
Anyways, there are 720,000 Ossetians today. Out of that number, 445,300 reside in North Ossetia, and make up 62.69% of that region. In other words, that province (state), that is, and has been for centuries an undeniable part of Russia is what the Ossetians call home. Russia is the homeland of the Ossetians. Aside from the 445,300 Ossetians an additional 69,700 reside in other parts of Russia. In addition, 45,000 Ossetians live in South Ossetia, a region that has for centuries been a De Facto part of Russia, and was chopped off from Russia, by a brutal Georgian dictator called Dzugashvili, but he's better known as Stalin. In other words, 77.78% of Ossetians live in Russia, or De Facto Russian territory. They are as much a part of Russia as Russians are! Why the fuck do CNN, Fox News, Sky News, New York Times, and others have a problem with Russia giving out Russian passports to these people?! Ahh, right great propaganda; if only these "newsmen" were committed to journalism as much as they're committed to propaganda, the US wouldn't be in Iraq and would still be a Superpower. The US forces might have even caught bin Laden, had there been no need to send US Forces fighting a just war in Afghanistan, into the Iraqi Quagmire.
Gah! I gotta stop digressing. But, on the other hand, that last digression was good; well at least it was honest. So I guess I shouldn't stop digressing. But you probably want to know more about Ossetians, right? 59,200 Ossetians, or 8.22% live in Syria. 38,000 or 5.28% live in Georgia. 36,900 or 5.13% live in Turkey. 18,670 or 2.59% are spread amongst the five Stans, (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan). 7,230 or 1.00% percent live in other places, mostly the former Soviet Republics, and parts of California; well at least Amanda Kokoeva lives in California, and you can Google the fine mess that she got Faux News in.
Now do you see why the claim "zomg Russia, ebil, dey give Ossetians passports to provoke Georgia" is silly? Russians giving Ossetians passports is like Russians giving Russians passports. If that provokes you, you're a moron. Russia conducting unmanned flights of your territory, and Russia withdrawing its peacekeepers, now that's provocative. Russia shelling innocent civilians with rockets - now that's truly provocative. Too bad it wasn't the Russians who did that; it was Saakashvili, Dzugahsvili's boy. Of course the "reporters" of the "Saddam has WMDs" Brigade, hope that you don't find actual statistics, and do actual research; they, (CNN, Faux News, Sky News, New York Times, and others) just pray that you don't get educated, and instead listen to, believe, and worship their drivel. Seriously, don't take my word for it, do some research: every mass media force that stated that Saddam had WMDs, the exact same ones, stated that Russia started this war. Since when did "damn the statistics, damn the truth, yellow journalism - FULL SPEED AHEAD!" become the new journalistic motto?
But there is a simple way to fight it. Do your own research and stop watching their crap. Then their ratings go down, and they'll be forced to either hire honest correspondents, stop reporting "news" and start reporting actual news, or sink into debt.
And Xeeron making the edit, again not at all surprising. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 04:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Another legal issue related to the conflict and to relations between Georgia and Russia is the Russian so-called “passportisation” policy, meaning the mass conferral of Russian citizenship and consequently passports to persons living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where a vast majority of the population are now carrying such Russian passports. While Russian citizenship had been conferred in individual cases already at an earlier point in time, the new Russian Law on Citizenship which entered into effect in the year 2002 regulated in its articles 13 and 14 admittance to Russian citizenship in a simplified procedure and thus opened broader avenues soon to be exploited by thousands of new applicants from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. One of the essential requirements for other states to be obliged to recognise such conferrals of citizenship under the terms of international law is, however, that there must be an adequate factual connection between the applicant and the receiving country – in this case Russia – and which must not be arbitrary. This could be for example family connections, long-time residence and extended government or military service. In addition, an explicit consent of the home country is required. Georgian law, however, does not recognise dual citizenship. Former Soviet citizenship is not considered sufficient grounds, since this status had already been translated into Georgian citizenship at the time of independence. Given these requirements, only a limited number of such conferrals can be deemed as legally binding under international law. The vast majority of purportedly naturalised persons from South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not Russian nationals in terms of international law. Neither Georgia nor any third country need acknowledge such Russian nationality. Consequently, the persons living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia who had first become Georgian citizens after the dissolution of the Soviet Union continue to remain so irrespective of “passportisation” policies. They were still citizens of Georgia at the time of the armed conflict of August 2008, and in legal terms they remain so to this day unless they had renounced or lost their Georgian nationality in regular ways. The mass conferral of Russian citizenship to Georgian nationals and the provision of passports on a massive scale on Georgian territory, including its breakaway provinces, without the consent of the Georgian Government runs against the principles of good neighbourliness and constitutes an open challenge to Georgian sovereignty and an interference in the internal affairs of Georgia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317577195
Here Xeeron moves this section up: "Georgia released intercepted telephone calls purporting to show that part of a Russian armoured regiment crossed into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia nearly a full day before Georgia’s attack on the capital, Tskhinvali, late on Aug. 7. [1]" in a desperate move to try to make the New York Times more important than it sounds, AFTER the EU Report already destroyed the theory that Russia started the war. However this part gets conveniently forgotten by Xeeron, and oh look, it just happens to come later and be pro-Russian, a miraculous coincidence, no doubt: "In a later article published on 6 November The New York Times said that "neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary" and that the phone intercepts published by Georgia did not show the Russian column’s size, composition or mission, and that "there has not been evidence that it was engaged with Georgian forces until many hours after the Georgian bombardment." [2]"
Who are honest editors to tell Xeeron what to do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317582123
Here Xeeron dutifully deleted the entire analysts section, without any consultations from his fellow editors. A section, POOF, gone! The heading: " REWRITE/SHORTENING END, removed all the redundant earlier TOO LONG stuff" Excuse me, but you aren't the only editor here. You don't make the calls on what's redundant. I think it's very relevant, irrespective of how many times you write "TOO LONG" in caps. The removal of vital information, without any consultation with your fellow editors, amounts to nothing short of Vandalism. Speaking of Redundancy, Xeeron favoring the same sources over and over again is very redundant.
Another edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317582338
Here Xeeron changes the Russia's government opinion to his own. Xeeron, we don't care what you think! Honestly, we don't.
From: From the viewpoint of Russian constitutional law, the legal position of Russian passport holders in South Ossetia is the same as that of Russian citizens living in Russia. Moreover, Russian officials already had de facto control over South Ossetia's institutions, including security institutions and security forces, and South Ossetia's de facto government was largely staffed with Russian representatives and South Ossetians with Russian passports who had previously worked in equivalent government positions in Russia. [3] In mid-April, 2008, the Russian Foreign Ministry
To: Reuters describes the government as "dependent on Russia, [supplier of] two thirds of [its] annual budget", and reports that "Russia's state-controlled gas giant Gazprom is building new gas pipelines and infrastructure" worth hundreds of millions of dollars to supply South Ossetian cities with energy. [4]
Russia speaks for Russia just fine, we don't need your interpretation of "Oil Politics". HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I must have missed that.
"Russia pointed out that in a later article published on 6 November The New York Times said that "neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary"
Of course, "Russia" says no such thing in the source (mis)quoted. -- Xeeron ( talk) 05:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
As per this edit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=318391848&oldid=318380903
It's also the one made by Kouber, as described above. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Remember when I was talking about only conclusions of the EU Report being cited? Remember how I said that the report was too big, and that going beyond the conclusions would lead to silly statements, edit wars, POVed edits, etc? Remember? Well here we go:
Exhibit #1, my favorite, Kouber!
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=318227565&oldid=318015555
From: "The final report found that all parties violated international law during the conflict. While the report acknowledged the presence of some non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia, their presence did not justify the Georgian attack, no Russian invasion took place prior to August 8. Neither was the Georgian response proportionate as a response to low level attacks by South Ossetian forces. There was conclusive evidence that the Georgian offensive was not meant only as a defensive action. As such, the initial Russian response was justified self-defense of the Russian peacekeeping units. However, the later attacks by Russian and South Ossetian units in Georgia (outside of South Ossetia) were disproportionate and in violation of international law.. The commission did not find evidence of the alleged genocide by Georgians against South Ossetians. On the other hand, it did find evidence of illegal ethnic cleansing by South Ossetians against Georgians in the later stages of the conflict. The report further found that the vast majority of Russian passports distributed to South Ossetians are not legally binding. With respect to the war's second theater, the report found the Abkhaz/Russian attack on the Kodori Gorge was not justified under international law."
To: "The final report found that all parties violated international law during the conflict. While the report acknowledged the presence of some non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia, their presence did not justify the Georgian attack, no Russian invasion took place prior to August 8. Neither was the Georgian response proportionate as a response to low level attacks by South Ossetian forces. The mission didn't find enough evidences to support the Georgian claim of self-defense, in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter, neither it was able to verify the alleged Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers, which if really happened, would justify the initial Russian response. The later attacks by Russian and South Ossetian units in Georgia were unnecessary, disproportionate and in violation of international law. The commission did not find evidence of the alleged genocide by Georgians against South Ossetians. On the other hand, it did find evidence of illegal ethnic cleansing by South Ossetians against Georgians in the later stages of the conflict. The report further found that the vast majority of Russian passports distributed to South Ossetians are not legally binding. With respect to the war's second theater, the report found the Abkhaz/Russian attack on the Kodori Gorge was not justified under international law."
And Kouber's very own commentary: "Initial Russian response was legal, but only under some circumstances (Volume II, pages 268 - 275))"
That's right - Kouber's Interpretation of the EU Report's interpretation of events, is actually disputing the attack on the Russian Peacekeeping base. According to Kouber's version, it was the Russian Peacekeepers themselves, or Ossetians, or Abkhaz, or Aliens that killed 10 Russian Peacekeepers; cleary the Georgian attack on Russian Peacekeeping HQ was not verified, according to the stellar Scholar Kouber.
Had people instantly listened to me, and rallied behind the policy of just including conclusions, rather then letting the imagination of certain Wikipedians run wild, (especially those unable to tell the difference between planes and soldiers,) none of this stuff would have happened. But did anyone listen? Nope. The result is above: Russian Peacekeeping Base wasn't attacked by Georgians, it was attacked by Aliens!
Exhibit #2: Xeeron's statement:
"So? I read the same in the report, but I fail to see your point here. --Xeeron (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)"
That statement is correct, from Xeeron's perspective and incorrect from LokiiT's and mine; people are going to have different interpretations of the report. People are going to argue about different interpretations of the report. Instead, all this could be avoided, if we simply quoted the report's conclusions, which are boxed so that anyone can understand where the conclusions are, despite a vivid imagination.
So far, these are the only two examples that I found. However, here is what I am predicting: slowly, but surely, and edit-war will erupt over this. A moderator will be brought in, and this might even go to ADR. In the end, to avoid the drama, the only logical conclusion to keep the article NPOV is to cite conclusions in boxes, not one's interpretation of the article, after a colossal waste of time. Or, we can just stop the sillyness and start citing just the conclusions? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 02:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"Вооруженные силы Южной Осетии
Южноосетинская армия на порядок уступает грузинским войскам как по укомплектованности личным составом, так и по уровню оснащенности вооружением и военной техникой. Численность вооруженных сил непризнанной республики составляет всего 3 тысячи человек. В резерве состоит 15 тысяч человек.
На вооружении Южной Осетии имеется 87 танков Т-72 и Т-55, 95 орудий и минометов, в том числе 72 гаубицы, 23 реактивные системы залпового огня БМ-21 "Град", а также 180 бронемашин, в том числе 80 боевых машин пехоты. Ударная авиация отсутствует у самопровозглашенной республики, а транспортная представлена 3 вертолетами Ми-8.
Таким образом, без поддержки России шансы Южной Осетии отразить нападение со стороны Грузии можно считать минимальными. "
Wrong! The 87 tanks, that's Abkhazia's not Ossetia's OrBat. Also, Abkhazia has 3 Mi-8, but RSO (Republic of South Ossetia) has 4 Mi-8. Nor does South Ossetia have 95 mortars; I don't think they even have 50. Nor does South Ossetia have 23 Grads; this looks to be like Abkhaz OrBat. (OrBat or ORBAT = Order of Battle) The numbers are right, he just got the wrong country, happens occasionally when you focus on a Bush too much ;) HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please cite the relevant volume/page number with each different citation? Citing a random sentence to a thousand+ page report without a page number makes it really time consuming for anyone who wants to double check the entry. LokiiT ( talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Reneem, that includes you. We have the 10,000 number, because it is cited by multiple sources. Your blog cites estimates, whereas we have exact numbers, from later dates. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 08:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
1st Infantry Brigade - located in Gori tank + arty bats fought 2nd Infantry Brigade - located in Senaki covered 3rd Infantry Brigade - located in Kutaisi fought 4th Infantry Brigade - located in Vaziani fought 5th Infantry Brigade - located in Khelvachauri (temporary distribution place) and Khoni was in Kodori 1st Artillery Brigade - located in Vaziani covered 2nd Artillery Brigade - located in Khoni fought Separate Combat-Engineering Battalion - located in Tbilisi (temporary distribution place) parts of it fought Separate Light Infantry Battalion - located in Adlia fought Separate Anti-aircraft-Rocket-Artillery Battalion - located in Kutaisi covered Separate Communication Battalion - located in Saguramo covered Separate Technical Reconnaissance Battalion - located in Kobuleti fought Separate Medical Battalion - located in Saguramo extracted the wounded Separate Tank Battalion - located in Gori - fought Georgian Special Forces - location classified, during war located at Gori, Poti, Senaki - fought
The strength of Land Forces is 20 548 from which 2 176 are officers, 18 356 sergeants/corporals (contracting) and 16 civilians.
The guideline for Wikipedia is Verifiability, not NPOV. However, another guideline is the be as NPOV as possible.
As such, I think that, while the EU Report should definitely be cited, it shouldn't be treated as "Holier than thou". As such, the remedies that I am proposing include:
Point #1:
The Report itself concludes that Volumes II and III aren't authoritative, and that all of the necessary data is in volume I, as has been previously pointed out: "This volume contains a selection of contributions by experts in the military, legal, humanitarian, human rights, political and historical fields. They were critically reviewed by the fact-finding mission, and constitute the basis for this Report on the Conflict in Georgia. The elaboration, findings and opinions expressed in these texts [Volumes II and III] do not necessarily reflect the views of the mission. In this regard, the views and findings as laid out in Volume I shall be considered as authoritative".
This is on page 1 of the report. The bolded part means that conclusions of the Report cannot come from Volumes II and III, as conclusions always reflect the views of the writer, or the mission. The Report's argument for not citing Volumes II and III of itself are crystal clear, and we cannot, as good Wikipedians, attribute to the report that, which is does not say; we aren't the New York Times.
The other three points are going to be lumped together:
The Report instantly establishes “unbiased sources”: All EU Governments, (with Sweden/Norway/Poland/Baltic States/UK being rabidly anti-Russian, France and Germany being in the middle, and Italy being pro-Russia, so 7 anti-Russian, 2 middle of the road, 1 pro-Russian, the rest not caring) NATO (yeah, they’re the people providing direct aid to Georgia, (flying in the soldiers) I wonder which side they’ll take), US and Ukraine (as if the report needs more anti-Russian sources) OSCE (neutral) Council of Europe (anti-Russian), and ICRC (neutral by definition and in reality). So 11 anti-Russian Sources, 4 neutral sources and 1 pro-Russian source. So far, so good. (Page 7). This is called “neutral analysis”.
The Report continues to look at “unbiased” declarations: “The House of Lords (anti-Russian), US Congress (anti-Russian), Parliaments of Georgia and Ukraine (anti-Russian), 4 neutral NGOs, and I don’t know that much about ICG. Why not Russia, Belarus, Italy, France, Germany? Are they not European enough? Did they not publish any statements/documents?
The Report admits that it’s just a report, not Holy or anything: “In summary, it should be noted that the factual basis thus established may be considered as ADEQUATE (i.e. not good, not Deity-like) for the purpose of fact-finding, but not for any other purposes.
The Report furthermore has a legal disclaimer, saying that the report is incomplete, and only has the data it was presented to it, or that it was able to collect; it is not a “Final Report”, thus it cannot be treated as a final report.
Furthermore, the Report believes that it is a “starting point”. In other words, don’t worry, there’s more to come, including the military data.
Nevertheless, the Report is well-written. Unfortunately, it completely ignores the Ossetian side of the story, as well as the Abkhaz side, and this should be mentioned.
The Report believes that the overwhelming theory in terms of the creation of New States is Uti Possidetis. However the Report fails to note that Uti Possidetis has itself been in existence for less then twenty years. In short it was/is a legal fiction imposed on the World, during the twenty years when US had the leading role. This is no longer the case, as the World is becoming more and more multi-lateral. The US must now accede to Russia’s and China’s opinions on Iran; case in point: the theory of Uti Possidetis is a youthful theory, that hasn’t even been dominant for twenty years. To portray such a theory as the final say on International Law, is to misinterpret the potential evolution of International Law, which is itself, less than a century old. (UN was created in 1946.) Not to mention the coming into existence of the state of Eritrea, directly contradicts Uti Possidetis, and Eritrea is a UN member. Whoopsie. The Report also believes, wrongly, that Yeltsin’s decisions bind Medvedev’s decisions. Russia’s actions on Kosovo cannot bind Russia's actions on South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other De Facto Independent Regions. Serbia may argue that Kosovo and South Ossetia are unique cases; Russia doesn't have to. But since this article is on the 2008 South Ossetia War, not International Recognition...blah blah politics, I won't belabor that point further, unless I am called on to do so. Uti Possidetis has no place in this article, albeit it may have a place in one or two of the child articles.
The Report believes that Former Soviet Citizenship isn’t grounds to receive Russian Citizenship if one is domiciled in Georgia. However, as Russia has accepted the responsibilities of the USSR, (including debts of the USSR,) Russia also has access to the privileges of the USSR, such as granting all former Soviet Citizens, Russian Citizenship. If countries do not recognize Dual Citizenship, then it is upto the person to decide which country he or she wants to be a citizen of, not upto the state. No state can bind a person to become their citizen, and only their citizen can agree to the demand voluntarily. In other words, whether citizenship is a justification for warfare or not, is still in question; however if the Russian attorneys/PR people were as good as the Russian military, they would've figured out that Georgia's denial of a safety corridor for Russian civilians, (Russian citizens visiting Ossetia) was yet another reason for a Casus Belli. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 08:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's what the IP the wrote: "Conversely, William Dunbar, a reporter for Russia Today TV in Georgia, resigned in protest of alleged bias in the Russian media. He claimed he had not been on air since he mentioned Russian bombing of targets inside Georgia. He told The Moscow Times: "The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it. I felt that I had no choice but to resign.""
Here's what Dutch News Reported: Russia Today correspondent quits over censorship of his reports from Georgia August 13th, 2008 - 9:34 UTC by Andy Sennitt.
William Dunbar, a correspondent for the English-language international TV channel Russia Today, has left the station after his live reports from Georgia were dropped by the station after one in which he mentioned Russian bombing. He said: “I felt that I had no choice but to resign.” He said that he was reporting the facts, but that “the real facts of the matter didn’t conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore they wouldn’t let me report it.”
A Russia Today spokeswoman cited a Georgian media report that claimed Dunbar had protested at Russia’s “aggression” against Georgia. She said the channel assumed that was why he quit.
(Source: Media Guardian)
In other words, this is called - faulty argumentation. Dunbar resigned because he was allegedly censored. However, the IP presents Dunbar's arguments as counter-arguments to the actual events, rather then Russia Today's censorship. In other words, it's like one person saying "My oranges are delicious" and another going "your apples absolutely suck!" Dunbar is not challenging the credibility of Grist nor of Young, nor of Petro. All Dunbar claimed is that RT censors. However RT wasn't the only Russian Mass Media channel reporting on the war. This belongs in the Media War article, if anywhere; it doesn't belong in this article, and I have thus removed it. The rule is to discuss controversial edits before making them, a rule that the IP should have followed.
HistoricWarrior007 (
talk)
23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
While the map graphic at the beginning of the article is very nicely done, there is absolutely no factual material cited anywhere in the article that indicates that such a blockade ever occurred. In the interest of accuracy the initial map graphic should be amended to REMOVE the indication of a naval blockade. Федоров ( talk) 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
August 11, At 20:25, Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia was notified that Russian Black Sea Fleet prevented cargo ships “Castor” and “Asha” from entering the Poti port.-- 78.48.225.28 ( talk) 20:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The above two citations of alleged blockade actions by the Russian Navy carry no citations of source or proof of fact. If the allegedly "blocked" vessels can be cited why cannot the Russia ships that supposedly stopped them? Федоров ( talk) 06:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well since someone was polite enough to place a "Dubious/Discuss" tag next to CAST, I think an argument is necessary as to why the Moscow Defense Brief is neutral.
First, the magazine does not tow the Kremlin line; remember the statement that "no new weapons were tested during this war" made by the Kremlin? Then what the heck was the was the Iskander? From the MDB: Moreover, the Russian Army launched 15 Tochka-U (SS-21) short-range ballistic missiles against military targets and a few new Iskander (SS-26) short-range theater ballistic missiles. The MDB later went on to to find that two Iskander missiles were launched, and hit the Georgian Tank Battalion at Gori. This is further confirmed by the fact that before the 2008 South Ossetia War, Georgia had a tank battalion in their ORBAT, and now they don't.
Second, the magazine does not tow the Georgian line; it calls Saakashvili's acts into question from the get-go: In the end, Saakashvili seems to have become the victim of his own militaristic self-advertising, convinced that the new Georgian military machine was sufficiently effective, capable, and powerful to impose a final solution on the rebellious autonomous regions. The temptation to use his pretty toy soldiers became increasingly hard to resist; indeed, overwhelming, when he launched upon his fateful military adventure in South Ossetia in August.
Third, the magazine ignores the Western and Russian Press, and actually tells us what happened, citing a few actual experts.
Fourth, gives us the actual number of the men who fought: The attack on South Ossetia was not spontaneous. Over the course of several days in early August, the Georgians appear to have secretly concentrated a significant number of troops and equipment (the full 2th, 3th and 4th Infantry Brigades, the Artillery Brigade, the elements of the 1th Infantry Brigade, the separate Gori Tank Batallion – total the nine light infantry and five tank battalions, up to eight artillery battalions – plus special forces and Ministry of the Internal Affairs troops – all in all, up to 16,000 men) in the Georgian enclaves in the South Ossetian conflict zone, under cover of providing support for the exchange of fire with Ossetian formations. On August 7, at about 22:00, the Georgians began a massive artillery bombardment of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, and by dawn the next day began an attack aimed at capturing Tskhinvali and the rest of the territory of South Ossetia. By 08:00 on August 8, Georgian infantry and tanks had entered Tskhinvali and engaged in a fierce battle with Ossetian forces and the Russian peacekeeping battalion stationed in the city.
In these conditions, on the morning of August 8, the Russian Government, headed by Vladimir Putin and Dmitriy Medvedev, decided to conduct an operation to prevent the seizure by Georgia of South Ossetia, characterized as a "peace enforcement" mission. Later that day, three tactical battalion groups from the 135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division (based in Vladikavkaz) of the 58th Army of the North Caucasus Military District were deployed in battle formation to Java and Gufta, and by the end of the day had cleared the roads and heights around Kverneti, Tbeti, and Dzari districts, and as far as the western edge of Tskhinvali. Russian Air Force also took action."
Fifth, it annihilates morons like Felgenhauer in the very fist paragraph: Initially, Georgia's attack on the capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia on August 8, 2008, seemed like it would lead to yet another bloody, drawn out Caucasus war. However, the quick, energetic, and sustained intervention of Russia (the guarantor of peace in South Ossetia since 1992) escalated by August 11 into a powerful blitzkrieg against Georgia proper. Commentators who until recently described the Georgian Army as the “best” in the post-Soviet space were at a loss for words.
Sixth, it has no ties to the Kremlin, but has ties to real experts working in the Russian military, as is evident by the quickness of the publication, and the correct number presented. It also correctly predicted Georgia's casualties at slightly over 2,000. Furthermore, while the EU Report that is paraded around didn't have access to satellite data, the accuracy of the MDB - shows that they did have the data. Furthermore, the MDB was cited by Western and Russian sources alike, as an expert account.
Seventh, no arguments were presented, by either side, to show the MDB as a biased source.
I hereby move to have the (dubious/discuss) tag removed from the MDB. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Somebody considers the fact, that Russia has captured it after signing Medvedy-Sarkozy plan unimportant or was it simply forgotten?-- 136.2.1.101 ( talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are some interesting points I noticed (these are mostly from the "Use of force" section in volume II):
The report also contains good info about the military action. However, this seems to based on the same sources we are already using in the article. But one could think that the authors only picked sources they trusted in and that were consistent with other findings. Should we give the "Military events of 2008" section in volume II more weight than to other sources?
Here's some info about troop levels, for example:
The report also contains a large amount of material on the history of the conflict. I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure we can use this as an additional source for the background section.
Any thoughts on the report and on how to use it? Offliner ( talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Spiegel article from a few months ago was spot on, despite all the attacks on the author's credibility by certain editors here. But patients have payed off. Now that we have perhaps one of the most credible and well-rounded reports on the war available to date, we should make good use of it. I think it should be used as a main/overriding source so we can trim down the number of references in the article and just make the overall picture more consistent and less confusing. LokiiT ( talk) 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the report cites Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell. And then discredits them. Mere citation doesn't mean they're important sources. Gordon Hahn cited Pavel Felgenhauer, only to completely discredit him; Felgenhauer replied with Ad Hominem. Mark Ames cited Felgenhauer, and then showed how much of a joke Pavluysha Felgenhauer really was. Citation doesn't equate to being an important source, and if you think it does...oh riiight, you think that army still = air force, nevermind.
HistoricWarrior007 (
talk)
18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Guideline for citing the report - I believe that we should only cite the report's conclusions, rather than the report's interpretation of other writings on the war. The report is massive, and citing something outside of the conclusion, is likely to generate an edit-war, what do we cite, vs. what do we not cite. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Our Georgiaphobes probably missed the part of the report which mentions Russia's role in escalating the tensions as well as the presence of "some" non-peacekeeping Russian forces and the influx of volunteers and mercenaries from the North Caucasus (sic) just before 07/08/08.-- Kober Talk 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have much time atm (they took their time releasing the report in "september"), but I still plan on drastically shorten that section, mostly by taking out the "analysts" section out. This report is neutral and pretty much sums up the opinions, so we don't need the assorted others anymore outside of one or two summary sentences. -- Xeeron ( talk) 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Fyi., Tagliavini's report is going to end up in trash. Many parts are missing empirical evidencies. Investigation was incomplete and erratic. Eventually there will be the lawsuits aginst the commission. The latest developments in the conflict zones and behavior of Russian millitary close to EU borders and the new law- on 'defending russians everywhere'- is signaling the seriousness of the matther. The report was clearly orchestrated by the Russian lobysts, businessman and gazprom. But Russia's final goal is not good relations with the west. Russia is trying to get back where it was 20-25 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.13.103 ( talk) 12:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Russia–Georgia War, was an armed conflict in August 2008 between Georgia on one side, and South Ossetia, Russia and Abkhazia on the other.[1]
The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians left most of South Ossetia under de-facto control of a Russian-backed, internationally unrecognised government. Some ethnic Georgian-inhabited parts of South Ossetia remained under the control of Georgia. A similar situation existed in Abkhazia after the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). The increasing tensions escalated during the summer months of 2008. [2]
On August 5th, Russia warned Georgia that it will defend South Ossetia in the case of an attack. [cite BBC] [*] During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military attack against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reconquer the territory. The following day, Russia reacted by deploying combat troops in South Ossetia and launching bombing raids into Georgia Proper. Russian and Ossetian troops clashed with Georgian troops in the three-day Battle of Tskhinvali, the main battle of the war. Russian naval forces blocked Georgia's coast and landed ground forces and paratroopers on the Georgian coast. On 9 August Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge, held by Georgia. After five days of heavy fighting, the Georgian forces were routed, enabling the Russian troops entered Georgia Proper, occupying the cities of Poti and Gori among others. [3]
After mediation by the French presidency of the European Union, the parties reached a preliminary ceasefire agreement on 12 August, signed by Georgia on 15 August in Tbilisi and by Russia on 16 August in Moscow. On 12 August, President Medvedev had already ordered a halt to Russian military operations, but fighting did not stop immediately. After the signing of the ceasefire Russia pulled most of its troops out of uncontested Georgia and established buffer zones around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which led to the creation of check-points in Georgia's interior (Poti, Senaki, Perevi). [4]
On 26 August 2008 Russia recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia completed its withdrawal from Georgia Proper on 8 October, but as of 2009[update] Russian troops remain stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia under bilateral agreements with the corresponding governments. However, according to a number of European and US sources, Russia has not fully complied with the peace agreement because Georgia lost control over some of the territories. [5]
A number of incidents occurred in both conflict zones in the months after the war ended. As of 2009[update] tensions between the belligerents remain high.
1. On the one hand you mention the country informally - Georgia. On the other you mention the country formally, Russian Federation, and the regions/countries as if they're non-existent; however, even Georgia concedes that Abkhazia is a province, and South is an autonomous republic. Need to be consistent.
2. Basic grammar
3. According to Military Historiography, if there are military forces of opposing countries in the region - it's contested! Additionally, you don't have to state that Russian entered Georgia Proper every time. We get it, Russians overreacted, this isn't contested by anyone; then again, who wouldn't overreact if their countrymen came under attack, and North Ossetia is a part of Russia. And the Georgian forces were routed - this is obvious, they weren't ejected and performing a tactical retreat, they were running back to Tbilisi.
4. Again, you don't have to say "in Georgia every time". As to by whom - come on - it's by Russia, that should be obvious from the text.
5. Whose sources? I had to fix that.
Additionally:
"1)" for the first point, "2)" for the second one. Yes, they have not taken a break in some examples, but re this article - they seem not to be involved in editing for quite some time now. I'd rather wait until the case is resolved before proceeding with any important edits. FeelSunny ( talk) 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I beleive we should update the article with the conclusions of the EU report. FeelSunny ( talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As it is widely known, mr. Putin is an admirer of eastern tactics in sports, such as Karate, and in millitary matters. If you reread The Art of War, you will draw numerous parallels betwen Sun Tzu's teaching and the behaviour of the russian troops during the war. This does not mean that the russian troops are stronger than Georgian troops. Simply, the war was provoked purposfully using the teachings of The Art of War. Sun Tsu teaches: "Appear far but, but be close...troops prefer mountains to plains...use the converted spyies and treat them well...divide the enemy's army..." Please translate the book into Georgian and the nation will understand what happened and how it happened. However, there is no guarantee that the Russians will use the same tactics, because Sun Tzu teaches not to use the same tactics in the next attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why are you concerned that Georgia wants help to achive peace in Iraq and Afghanistan? Instead of joining the effort Russia is helping Iran to develop nukes. It is unclear what russias true asspirations are today except that it wants its soviet power back. If russia was not stupid, it could have treated these 9former soviet) countries friendly and maybe they'd decide to unite in some form commonwealth, but russia treated the sovereigns as subordinates, threatened them and has been bullying them for the last 20 years. This has ruined Russia's perspecive of friendship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that is your argument. Now let's get back to the responsibility issue. Who is responsible for the latest developments in Geogria? Kidnappings in so called south ossetia and abusing ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia by the Russian troops? What is Russia trying to achieve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Historic Warior, yes, russia is misbehaving in the conflic zones, why do you think all the EU embassadors are going there next week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaucasianAcacia ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
georgian kids remain in hostage in the occupied territory of Georgia (in south ossetia. Everyday something horrible has been taking place almost every day lately:
Russian occupants assault families of ethnic Georgians in Gali 11.11.09 10:53 Russian occupants assaulted several families pf ethnic Georgians in Gali district. The beat up and robbed the families of Tordias, Tsikolias and Shonias in the villages of Saberio and Sida. The occupants have been robbing the houses for a whole hour. They tortured the members of the families and took away jewelry and domestic appliances. Afterwards, the villains assaulted a vehicle, injuring its passengers, who were taking a sick child to Zugdidi hospital.
Occupants kidnap two anglers in Anaklia
10.11.09 18:31
Russian occupants kidnapped two Georgian anglers in the seaside settlement of Anaklia today. Chabuka Oghli and Gia Gabelaia were fishing near Pichori resort, when Russian soldiers assaulted them. The anglers tried to escape but the occupants laid siege with boats and took the anglers to Ochamchire.
ed south ossetia. Evryday someone is beaten or kidnapped in the conflict regions lately.
Found this nice link: http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/2009/10/the-eu-report-little-and-late.html
The criticism, from the link, is that the EU Report took their sweet time figuring out who the attacker was, and that it says precious little as to how to resolve the crisis. Here's the summary: "Generally speaking, I regard it as rather little, rather late, naïve and incomplete. It is also excruciatingly delicate – even precious – in what it says and what it avoids saying. It concludes with a number of unexceptionable, but rather vague, recommendations." Comments?
Another interesting criticism I found is this: "It is incomplete because it, evidently seeing the conflict as one between Georgia and Russia as other commentators have, leaves the Ossetians out. While the authors feel it useful to give some historical background on Georgia, going back to the Treaty of Georgievsk in 1783, there is no equivalent discussion of the Ossetian (or Abkhazian) point of view. But, if asked, Ossetians would certainly speak of their unwillingness to be part of Georgia and refer to earlier Georgian attacks in 1920 and 1991. Their arguments for independent status should be heard out even if they are to be refuted. Tendentious perhaps but a significant factor in Ossetian (and Abkhazian) perceptions. The fact is that the Ossetians, rightly or wrongly, do not want to be part of Georgia, fought for their independence when the Russian Empire collapsed, were placed in the Georgian SSR by Stalin-Jughashvili, tried to be excluded from it when the USSR collapsed, fought another independence war and, very probably, stopped the Georgian attack before the Russian forces got there (some Tskhinvali combat footage at 7:50). To leave their point of view out of the Report is to be incomplete. Added to which, the discussion about their citizenship (the authors assert that they were Georgian citizens) is to altogether ignore their contention that, while they were certainly Soviet citizens in 1991, they never agreed to becoming Georgian citizens. Indeed the world recognised Georgia, in the borders that Stalin gave it, while the disputes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were actually going on."
In other words, as I've been saying from the begining, the Report cannot be neutral, as it excludes the Ossetians and Abkhaz viewpoint. Here's Abkhazia's brilliant argument for independence: http://www.abkhazworld.com/articles/analysis/285-int-legal-status-abkhazia-vchirikba.html Although it is written from an Abkhaz standpoint, it hits a major question: if Slovenia, why not Abkhazia? Aside from the difference in the year, Abkhazia being recognized roughly twenty years after Slovenia, the two cases are virtually identical. However, the article also mentions the independence of Bangladesh, which has a difference of roughly twenty years with Slovenia's recognition. Additionally, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia meet the Montvideo Convention, whereas Kosovo does not: "The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood." Russian lawyers, sorry, but this guy, Chirikba, vas vseh perechirikal (kicked all of your butts). What is the territorry of Kosovo? Does it include North Kosovo? If so, where is North Kosovo's Political Authority? Does it, in practice, answer to Thaci or Tadic? C'mon, we all know it ain't Thaci. Thus, Kosovo fails the Badinter Commission/Montevideo Convention test. But, as the criticism of the EU Report states, these arguments, as well as South Ossetian and Abkhaz viewpoints aren't even mentioned. Nor have I read anyone refuting Chirikba's major arguments, because he's being ignored. You are welcome to post counter-arguments to his points, or those of the Pat Armstrong.
I think, and this is the only valid criticism of the EU Report that I found, that this information, should be summarized and included into the article. Any objections? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
nyt-20081106
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
"An international fact-finding mission headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini concludes that Georgia started the 2008 South Ossetia war and that Russia answered by using excessive measures."
It made the front page of Wikipedia, it's of critical importance, why not just use it? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the issue of misrepresenting the EU report addressed above, this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&curid=18762503&diff=317584506&oldid=317583525, removed the reuters facts about SO being largely financed by Russia, which is very different from the question of which passports its inhabitants have. Being financed by Russia is not at all the same as "being a de facto part of Russia". -- Xeeron ( talk) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is at 190Kb. From WP:SPLIT:
"There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split. A guideline for article size is:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100 KB | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60 KB | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) |
> 40 KB | May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 30 KB | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1 KB | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. |
"
The article is of sufficient size to make 3 'Probably should be divided' articles and still have enough left over for a stub, in terms of raw size. I only have one halfhearted suggestion for article topics for spinoff, and that is Military operations of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Even splitting will not accomplish what needs to be done, unless two articles are split off; note that since many articles already have been made, the main problem seems to be the lack of adequately succinct summaries. I will WP:BOLDly reduce at least one section in the main article, and await your responses. Anarchangel ( talk) 08:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So the damage may be done already, and if I only convince you of one thing, it would be that what you say on talk does not only matter because it is supposed to improve the article, but that arguing back and forth forever can actually harm the article directly.
But on the other hand, the spinoff articles are word for word exactly the same as what is in this article; there is still a lot of work that can be done to summarize the material here. WP:Ignore All Rules would indeed apply, to ignore the standard of 100Kb for this subject, if there were not other options. Anarchangel ( talk) 06:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to claim them handing out passports to former citizens of the USSR was against international law, then please cite where in the source it says this, and perhaps someone can add it to the article. That's entirely irrelevant from the Russian's point of view though, since their own constitution trumps international law, and their point of view and hence legal justifications are important to note. It's kind of telling when my first real contribution to the article in months gets blindly reverted immediately. I was under the assumption that we were actually going to make use of this report, not hamper further development of the article by hanging on to old Reuters articles from a year ago. LokiiT ( talk) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
From my forum page, I think it's relevant:
After reading certain newspapers and claims, as well talking to people on the streets, I get the distinct feeling that some people still believe the claim that "evil Russians are giving out Ossetians passports in order to provoke, poor, little, Democratic Georgia". Well first off the media censorship in Georgia is at Stalinist levels, so I wouldn't call that Democratic. Just try to find a Russian TV channel; oh wait - those are blocked. I thought Democracy was about getting both sides of the story, but when certain interests love an oil pipeline, Democracy takes a backseat, and is lucky that it's not thrown out of the car. Sorry, I digressed a bit.
If one was to actually study the Ossetian people, one would notice that there are 720,000 Ossetians alive today. They're not a major ethnic group. (Major ethnic groups are those that have over a million members.) They are descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians. Seen the move King Arthur? The one with Kiera Knightley? Those are the Sarmatian Knights. Even back then Sarmatians had good taste in women; sorry I digressed again.
Anyways, there are 720,000 Ossetians today. Out of that number, 445,300 reside in North Ossetia, and make up 62.69% of that region. In other words, that province (state), that is, and has been for centuries an undeniable part of Russia is what the Ossetians call home. Russia is the homeland of the Ossetians. Aside from the 445,300 Ossetians an additional 69,700 reside in other parts of Russia. In addition, 45,000 Ossetians live in South Ossetia, a region that has for centuries been a De Facto part of Russia, and was chopped off from Russia, by a brutal Georgian dictator called Dzugashvili, but he's better known as Stalin. In other words, 77.78% of Ossetians live in Russia, or De Facto Russian territory. They are as much a part of Russia as Russians are! Why the fuck do CNN, Fox News, Sky News, New York Times, and others have a problem with Russia giving out Russian passports to these people?! Ahh, right great propaganda; if only these "newsmen" were committed to journalism as much as they're committed to propaganda, the US wouldn't be in Iraq and would still be a Superpower. The US forces might have even caught bin Laden, had there been no need to send US Forces fighting a just war in Afghanistan, into the Iraqi Quagmire.
Gah! I gotta stop digressing. But, on the other hand, that last digression was good; well at least it was honest. So I guess I shouldn't stop digressing. But you probably want to know more about Ossetians, right? 59,200 Ossetians, or 8.22% live in Syria. 38,000 or 5.28% live in Georgia. 36,900 or 5.13% live in Turkey. 18,670 or 2.59% are spread amongst the five Stans, (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan). 7,230 or 1.00% percent live in other places, mostly the former Soviet Republics, and parts of California; well at least Amanda Kokoeva lives in California, and you can Google the fine mess that she got Faux News in.
Now do you see why the claim "zomg Russia, ebil, dey give Ossetians passports to provoke Georgia" is silly? Russians giving Ossetians passports is like Russians giving Russians passports. If that provokes you, you're a moron. Russia conducting unmanned flights of your territory, and Russia withdrawing its peacekeepers, now that's provocative. Russia shelling innocent civilians with rockets - now that's truly provocative. Too bad it wasn't the Russians who did that; it was Saakashvili, Dzugahsvili's boy. Of course the "reporters" of the "Saddam has WMDs" Brigade, hope that you don't find actual statistics, and do actual research; they, (CNN, Faux News, Sky News, New York Times, and others) just pray that you don't get educated, and instead listen to, believe, and worship their drivel. Seriously, don't take my word for it, do some research: every mass media force that stated that Saddam had WMDs, the exact same ones, stated that Russia started this war. Since when did "damn the statistics, damn the truth, yellow journalism - FULL SPEED AHEAD!" become the new journalistic motto?
But there is a simple way to fight it. Do your own research and stop watching their crap. Then their ratings go down, and they'll be forced to either hire honest correspondents, stop reporting "news" and start reporting actual news, or sink into debt.
And Xeeron making the edit, again not at all surprising. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 04:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Another legal issue related to the conflict and to relations between Georgia and Russia is the Russian so-called “passportisation” policy, meaning the mass conferral of Russian citizenship and consequently passports to persons living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where a vast majority of the population are now carrying such Russian passports. While Russian citizenship had been conferred in individual cases already at an earlier point in time, the new Russian Law on Citizenship which entered into effect in the year 2002 regulated in its articles 13 and 14 admittance to Russian citizenship in a simplified procedure and thus opened broader avenues soon to be exploited by thousands of new applicants from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. One of the essential requirements for other states to be obliged to recognise such conferrals of citizenship under the terms of international law is, however, that there must be an adequate factual connection between the applicant and the receiving country – in this case Russia – and which must not be arbitrary. This could be for example family connections, long-time residence and extended government or military service. In addition, an explicit consent of the home country is required. Georgian law, however, does not recognise dual citizenship. Former Soviet citizenship is not considered sufficient grounds, since this status had already been translated into Georgian citizenship at the time of independence. Given these requirements, only a limited number of such conferrals can be deemed as legally binding under international law. The vast majority of purportedly naturalised persons from South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not Russian nationals in terms of international law. Neither Georgia nor any third country need acknowledge such Russian nationality. Consequently, the persons living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia who had first become Georgian citizens after the dissolution of the Soviet Union continue to remain so irrespective of “passportisation” policies. They were still citizens of Georgia at the time of the armed conflict of August 2008, and in legal terms they remain so to this day unless they had renounced or lost their Georgian nationality in regular ways. The mass conferral of Russian citizenship to Georgian nationals and the provision of passports on a massive scale on Georgian territory, including its breakaway provinces, without the consent of the Georgian Government runs against the principles of good neighbourliness and constitutes an open challenge to Georgian sovereignty and an interference in the internal affairs of Georgia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317577195
Here Xeeron moves this section up: "Georgia released intercepted telephone calls purporting to show that part of a Russian armoured regiment crossed into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia nearly a full day before Georgia’s attack on the capital, Tskhinvali, late on Aug. 7. [1]" in a desperate move to try to make the New York Times more important than it sounds, AFTER the EU Report already destroyed the theory that Russia started the war. However this part gets conveniently forgotten by Xeeron, and oh look, it just happens to come later and be pro-Russian, a miraculous coincidence, no doubt: "In a later article published on 6 November The New York Times said that "neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary" and that the phone intercepts published by Georgia did not show the Russian column’s size, composition or mission, and that "there has not been evidence that it was engaged with Georgian forces until many hours after the Georgian bombardment." [2]"
Who are honest editors to tell Xeeron what to do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317582123
Here Xeeron dutifully deleted the entire analysts section, without any consultations from his fellow editors. A section, POOF, gone! The heading: " REWRITE/SHORTENING END, removed all the redundant earlier TOO LONG stuff" Excuse me, but you aren't the only editor here. You don't make the calls on what's redundant. I think it's very relevant, irrespective of how many times you write "TOO LONG" in caps. The removal of vital information, without any consultation with your fellow editors, amounts to nothing short of Vandalism. Speaking of Redundancy, Xeeron favoring the same sources over and over again is very redundant.
Another edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317582338
Here Xeeron changes the Russia's government opinion to his own. Xeeron, we don't care what you think! Honestly, we don't.
From: From the viewpoint of Russian constitutional law, the legal position of Russian passport holders in South Ossetia is the same as that of Russian citizens living in Russia. Moreover, Russian officials already had de facto control over South Ossetia's institutions, including security institutions and security forces, and South Ossetia's de facto government was largely staffed with Russian representatives and South Ossetians with Russian passports who had previously worked in equivalent government positions in Russia. [3] In mid-April, 2008, the Russian Foreign Ministry
To: Reuters describes the government as "dependent on Russia, [supplier of] two thirds of [its] annual budget", and reports that "Russia's state-controlled gas giant Gazprom is building new gas pipelines and infrastructure" worth hundreds of millions of dollars to supply South Ossetian cities with energy. [4]
Russia speaks for Russia just fine, we don't need your interpretation of "Oil Politics". HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I must have missed that.
"Russia pointed out that in a later article published on 6 November The New York Times said that "neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary"
Of course, "Russia" says no such thing in the source (mis)quoted. -- Xeeron ( talk) 05:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
As per this edit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=318391848&oldid=318380903
It's also the one made by Kouber, as described above. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Remember when I was talking about only conclusions of the EU Report being cited? Remember how I said that the report was too big, and that going beyond the conclusions would lead to silly statements, edit wars, POVed edits, etc? Remember? Well here we go:
Exhibit #1, my favorite, Kouber!
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=318227565&oldid=318015555
From: "The final report found that all parties violated international law during the conflict. While the report acknowledged the presence of some non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia, their presence did not justify the Georgian attack, no Russian invasion took place prior to August 8. Neither was the Georgian response proportionate as a response to low level attacks by South Ossetian forces. There was conclusive evidence that the Georgian offensive was not meant only as a defensive action. As such, the initial Russian response was justified self-defense of the Russian peacekeeping units. However, the later attacks by Russian and South Ossetian units in Georgia (outside of South Ossetia) were disproportionate and in violation of international law.. The commission did not find evidence of the alleged genocide by Georgians against South Ossetians. On the other hand, it did find evidence of illegal ethnic cleansing by South Ossetians against Georgians in the later stages of the conflict. The report further found that the vast majority of Russian passports distributed to South Ossetians are not legally binding. With respect to the war's second theater, the report found the Abkhaz/Russian attack on the Kodori Gorge was not justified under international law."
To: "The final report found that all parties violated international law during the conflict. While the report acknowledged the presence of some non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia, their presence did not justify the Georgian attack, no Russian invasion took place prior to August 8. Neither was the Georgian response proportionate as a response to low level attacks by South Ossetian forces. The mission didn't find enough evidences to support the Georgian claim of self-defense, in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter, neither it was able to verify the alleged Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers, which if really happened, would justify the initial Russian response. The later attacks by Russian and South Ossetian units in Georgia were unnecessary, disproportionate and in violation of international law. The commission did not find evidence of the alleged genocide by Georgians against South Ossetians. On the other hand, it did find evidence of illegal ethnic cleansing by South Ossetians against Georgians in the later stages of the conflict. The report further found that the vast majority of Russian passports distributed to South Ossetians are not legally binding. With respect to the war's second theater, the report found the Abkhaz/Russian attack on the Kodori Gorge was not justified under international law."
And Kouber's very own commentary: "Initial Russian response was legal, but only under some circumstances (Volume II, pages 268 - 275))"
That's right - Kouber's Interpretation of the EU Report's interpretation of events, is actually disputing the attack on the Russian Peacekeeping base. According to Kouber's version, it was the Russian Peacekeepers themselves, or Ossetians, or Abkhaz, or Aliens that killed 10 Russian Peacekeepers; cleary the Georgian attack on Russian Peacekeeping HQ was not verified, according to the stellar Scholar Kouber.
Had people instantly listened to me, and rallied behind the policy of just including conclusions, rather then letting the imagination of certain Wikipedians run wild, (especially those unable to tell the difference between planes and soldiers,) none of this stuff would have happened. But did anyone listen? Nope. The result is above: Russian Peacekeeping Base wasn't attacked by Georgians, it was attacked by Aliens!
Exhibit #2: Xeeron's statement:
"So? I read the same in the report, but I fail to see your point here. --Xeeron (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)"
That statement is correct, from Xeeron's perspective and incorrect from LokiiT's and mine; people are going to have different interpretations of the report. People are going to argue about different interpretations of the report. Instead, all this could be avoided, if we simply quoted the report's conclusions, which are boxed so that anyone can understand where the conclusions are, despite a vivid imagination.
So far, these are the only two examples that I found. However, here is what I am predicting: slowly, but surely, and edit-war will erupt over this. A moderator will be brought in, and this might even go to ADR. In the end, to avoid the drama, the only logical conclusion to keep the article NPOV is to cite conclusions in boxes, not one's interpretation of the article, after a colossal waste of time. Or, we can just stop the sillyness and start citing just the conclusions? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 02:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"Вооруженные силы Южной Осетии
Южноосетинская армия на порядок уступает грузинским войскам как по укомплектованности личным составом, так и по уровню оснащенности вооружением и военной техникой. Численность вооруженных сил непризнанной республики составляет всего 3 тысячи человек. В резерве состоит 15 тысяч человек.
На вооружении Южной Осетии имеется 87 танков Т-72 и Т-55, 95 орудий и минометов, в том числе 72 гаубицы, 23 реактивные системы залпового огня БМ-21 "Град", а также 180 бронемашин, в том числе 80 боевых машин пехоты. Ударная авиация отсутствует у самопровозглашенной республики, а транспортная представлена 3 вертолетами Ми-8.
Таким образом, без поддержки России шансы Южной Осетии отразить нападение со стороны Грузии можно считать минимальными. "
Wrong! The 87 tanks, that's Abkhazia's not Ossetia's OrBat. Also, Abkhazia has 3 Mi-8, but RSO (Republic of South Ossetia) has 4 Mi-8. Nor does South Ossetia have 95 mortars; I don't think they even have 50. Nor does South Ossetia have 23 Grads; this looks to be like Abkhaz OrBat. (OrBat or ORBAT = Order of Battle) The numbers are right, he just got the wrong country, happens occasionally when you focus on a Bush too much ;) HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please cite the relevant volume/page number with each different citation? Citing a random sentence to a thousand+ page report without a page number makes it really time consuming for anyone who wants to double check the entry. LokiiT ( talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Reneem, that includes you. We have the 10,000 number, because it is cited by multiple sources. Your blog cites estimates, whereas we have exact numbers, from later dates. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 08:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
1st Infantry Brigade - located in Gori tank + arty bats fought 2nd Infantry Brigade - located in Senaki covered 3rd Infantry Brigade - located in Kutaisi fought 4th Infantry Brigade - located in Vaziani fought 5th Infantry Brigade - located in Khelvachauri (temporary distribution place) and Khoni was in Kodori 1st Artillery Brigade - located in Vaziani covered 2nd Artillery Brigade - located in Khoni fought Separate Combat-Engineering Battalion - located in Tbilisi (temporary distribution place) parts of it fought Separate Light Infantry Battalion - located in Adlia fought Separate Anti-aircraft-Rocket-Artillery Battalion - located in Kutaisi covered Separate Communication Battalion - located in Saguramo covered Separate Technical Reconnaissance Battalion - located in Kobuleti fought Separate Medical Battalion - located in Saguramo extracted the wounded Separate Tank Battalion - located in Gori - fought Georgian Special Forces - location classified, during war located at Gori, Poti, Senaki - fought
The strength of Land Forces is 20 548 from which 2 176 are officers, 18 356 sergeants/corporals (contracting) and 16 civilians.
The guideline for Wikipedia is Verifiability, not NPOV. However, another guideline is the be as NPOV as possible.
As such, I think that, while the EU Report should definitely be cited, it shouldn't be treated as "Holier than thou". As such, the remedies that I am proposing include:
Point #1:
The Report itself concludes that Volumes II and III aren't authoritative, and that all of the necessary data is in volume I, as has been previously pointed out: "This volume contains a selection of contributions by experts in the military, legal, humanitarian, human rights, political and historical fields. They were critically reviewed by the fact-finding mission, and constitute the basis for this Report on the Conflict in Georgia. The elaboration, findings and opinions expressed in these texts [Volumes II and III] do not necessarily reflect the views of the mission. In this regard, the views and findings as laid out in Volume I shall be considered as authoritative".
This is on page 1 of the report. The bolded part means that conclusions of the Report cannot come from Volumes II and III, as conclusions always reflect the views of the writer, or the mission. The Report's argument for not citing Volumes II and III of itself are crystal clear, and we cannot, as good Wikipedians, attribute to the report that, which is does not say; we aren't the New York Times.
The other three points are going to be lumped together:
The Report instantly establishes “unbiased sources”: All EU Governments, (with Sweden/Norway/Poland/Baltic States/UK being rabidly anti-Russian, France and Germany being in the middle, and Italy being pro-Russia, so 7 anti-Russian, 2 middle of the road, 1 pro-Russian, the rest not caring) NATO (yeah, they’re the people providing direct aid to Georgia, (flying in the soldiers) I wonder which side they’ll take), US and Ukraine (as if the report needs more anti-Russian sources) OSCE (neutral) Council of Europe (anti-Russian), and ICRC (neutral by definition and in reality). So 11 anti-Russian Sources, 4 neutral sources and 1 pro-Russian source. So far, so good. (Page 7). This is called “neutral analysis”.
The Report continues to look at “unbiased” declarations: “The House of Lords (anti-Russian), US Congress (anti-Russian), Parliaments of Georgia and Ukraine (anti-Russian), 4 neutral NGOs, and I don’t know that much about ICG. Why not Russia, Belarus, Italy, France, Germany? Are they not European enough? Did they not publish any statements/documents?
The Report admits that it’s just a report, not Holy or anything: “In summary, it should be noted that the factual basis thus established may be considered as ADEQUATE (i.e. not good, not Deity-like) for the purpose of fact-finding, but not for any other purposes.
The Report furthermore has a legal disclaimer, saying that the report is incomplete, and only has the data it was presented to it, or that it was able to collect; it is not a “Final Report”, thus it cannot be treated as a final report.
Furthermore, the Report believes that it is a “starting point”. In other words, don’t worry, there’s more to come, including the military data.
Nevertheless, the Report is well-written. Unfortunately, it completely ignores the Ossetian side of the story, as well as the Abkhaz side, and this should be mentioned.
The Report believes that the overwhelming theory in terms of the creation of New States is Uti Possidetis. However the Report fails to note that Uti Possidetis has itself been in existence for less then twenty years. In short it was/is a legal fiction imposed on the World, during the twenty years when US had the leading role. This is no longer the case, as the World is becoming more and more multi-lateral. The US must now accede to Russia’s and China’s opinions on Iran; case in point: the theory of Uti Possidetis is a youthful theory, that hasn’t even been dominant for twenty years. To portray such a theory as the final say on International Law, is to misinterpret the potential evolution of International Law, which is itself, less than a century old. (UN was created in 1946.) Not to mention the coming into existence of the state of Eritrea, directly contradicts Uti Possidetis, and Eritrea is a UN member. Whoopsie. The Report also believes, wrongly, that Yeltsin’s decisions bind Medvedev’s decisions. Russia’s actions on Kosovo cannot bind Russia's actions on South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other De Facto Independent Regions. Serbia may argue that Kosovo and South Ossetia are unique cases; Russia doesn't have to. But since this article is on the 2008 South Ossetia War, not International Recognition...blah blah politics, I won't belabor that point further, unless I am called on to do so. Uti Possidetis has no place in this article, albeit it may have a place in one or two of the child articles.
The Report believes that Former Soviet Citizenship isn’t grounds to receive Russian Citizenship if one is domiciled in Georgia. However, as Russia has accepted the responsibilities of the USSR, (including debts of the USSR,) Russia also has access to the privileges of the USSR, such as granting all former Soviet Citizens, Russian Citizenship. If countries do not recognize Dual Citizenship, then it is upto the person to decide which country he or she wants to be a citizen of, not upto the state. No state can bind a person to become their citizen, and only their citizen can agree to the demand voluntarily. In other words, whether citizenship is a justification for warfare or not, is still in question; however if the Russian attorneys/PR people were as good as the Russian military, they would've figured out that Georgia's denial of a safety corridor for Russian civilians, (Russian citizens visiting Ossetia) was yet another reason for a Casus Belli. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 08:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's what the IP the wrote: "Conversely, William Dunbar, a reporter for Russia Today TV in Georgia, resigned in protest of alleged bias in the Russian media. He claimed he had not been on air since he mentioned Russian bombing of targets inside Georgia. He told The Moscow Times: "The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it. I felt that I had no choice but to resign.""
Here's what Dutch News Reported: Russia Today correspondent quits over censorship of his reports from Georgia August 13th, 2008 - 9:34 UTC by Andy Sennitt.
William Dunbar, a correspondent for the English-language international TV channel Russia Today, has left the station after his live reports from Georgia were dropped by the station after one in which he mentioned Russian bombing. He said: “I felt that I had no choice but to resign.” He said that he was reporting the facts, but that “the real facts of the matter didn’t conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore they wouldn’t let me report it.”
A Russia Today spokeswoman cited a Georgian media report that claimed Dunbar had protested at Russia’s “aggression” against Georgia. She said the channel assumed that was why he quit.
(Source: Media Guardian)
In other words, this is called - faulty argumentation. Dunbar resigned because he was allegedly censored. However, the IP presents Dunbar's arguments as counter-arguments to the actual events, rather then Russia Today's censorship. In other words, it's like one person saying "My oranges are delicious" and another going "your apples absolutely suck!" Dunbar is not challenging the credibility of Grist nor of Young, nor of Petro. All Dunbar claimed is that RT censors. However RT wasn't the only Russian Mass Media channel reporting on the war. This belongs in the Media War article, if anywhere; it doesn't belong in this article, and I have thus removed it. The rule is to discuss controversial edits before making them, a rule that the IP should have followed.
HistoricWarrior007 (
talk)
23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
While the map graphic at the beginning of the article is very nicely done, there is absolutely no factual material cited anywhere in the article that indicates that such a blockade ever occurred. In the interest of accuracy the initial map graphic should be amended to REMOVE the indication of a naval blockade. Федоров ( talk) 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
August 11, At 20:25, Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia was notified that Russian Black Sea Fleet prevented cargo ships “Castor” and “Asha” from entering the Poti port.-- 78.48.225.28 ( talk) 20:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The above two citations of alleged blockade actions by the Russian Navy carry no citations of source or proof of fact. If the allegedly "blocked" vessels can be cited why cannot the Russia ships that supposedly stopped them? Федоров ( talk) 06:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well since someone was polite enough to place a "Dubious/Discuss" tag next to CAST, I think an argument is necessary as to why the Moscow Defense Brief is neutral.
First, the magazine does not tow the Kremlin line; remember the statement that "no new weapons were tested during this war" made by the Kremlin? Then what the heck was the was the Iskander? From the MDB: Moreover, the Russian Army launched 15 Tochka-U (SS-21) short-range ballistic missiles against military targets and a few new Iskander (SS-26) short-range theater ballistic missiles. The MDB later went on to to find that two Iskander missiles were launched, and hit the Georgian Tank Battalion at Gori. This is further confirmed by the fact that before the 2008 South Ossetia War, Georgia had a tank battalion in their ORBAT, and now they don't.
Second, the magazine does not tow the Georgian line; it calls Saakashvili's acts into question from the get-go: In the end, Saakashvili seems to have become the victim of his own militaristic self-advertising, convinced that the new Georgian military machine was sufficiently effective, capable, and powerful to impose a final solution on the rebellious autonomous regions. The temptation to use his pretty toy soldiers became increasingly hard to resist; indeed, overwhelming, when he launched upon his fateful military adventure in South Ossetia in August.
Third, the magazine ignores the Western and Russian Press, and actually tells us what happened, citing a few actual experts.
Fourth, gives us the actual number of the men who fought: The attack on South Ossetia was not spontaneous. Over the course of several days in early August, the Georgians appear to have secretly concentrated a significant number of troops and equipment (the full 2th, 3th and 4th Infantry Brigades, the Artillery Brigade, the elements of the 1th Infantry Brigade, the separate Gori Tank Batallion – total the nine light infantry and five tank battalions, up to eight artillery battalions – plus special forces and Ministry of the Internal Affairs troops – all in all, up to 16,000 men) in the Georgian enclaves in the South Ossetian conflict zone, under cover of providing support for the exchange of fire with Ossetian formations. On August 7, at about 22:00, the Georgians began a massive artillery bombardment of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, and by dawn the next day began an attack aimed at capturing Tskhinvali and the rest of the territory of South Ossetia. By 08:00 on August 8, Georgian infantry and tanks had entered Tskhinvali and engaged in a fierce battle with Ossetian forces and the Russian peacekeeping battalion stationed in the city.
In these conditions, on the morning of August 8, the Russian Government, headed by Vladimir Putin and Dmitriy Medvedev, decided to conduct an operation to prevent the seizure by Georgia of South Ossetia, characterized as a "peace enforcement" mission. Later that day, three tactical battalion groups from the 135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division (based in Vladikavkaz) of the 58th Army of the North Caucasus Military District were deployed in battle formation to Java and Gufta, and by the end of the day had cleared the roads and heights around Kverneti, Tbeti, and Dzari districts, and as far as the western edge of Tskhinvali. Russian Air Force also took action."
Fifth, it annihilates morons like Felgenhauer in the very fist paragraph: Initially, Georgia's attack on the capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia on August 8, 2008, seemed like it would lead to yet another bloody, drawn out Caucasus war. However, the quick, energetic, and sustained intervention of Russia (the guarantor of peace in South Ossetia since 1992) escalated by August 11 into a powerful blitzkrieg against Georgia proper. Commentators who until recently described the Georgian Army as the “best” in the post-Soviet space were at a loss for words.
Sixth, it has no ties to the Kremlin, but has ties to real experts working in the Russian military, as is evident by the quickness of the publication, and the correct number presented. It also correctly predicted Georgia's casualties at slightly over 2,000. Furthermore, while the EU Report that is paraded around didn't have access to satellite data, the accuracy of the MDB - shows that they did have the data. Furthermore, the MDB was cited by Western and Russian sources alike, as an expert account.
Seventh, no arguments were presented, by either side, to show the MDB as a biased source.
I hereby move to have the (dubious/discuss) tag removed from the MDB. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Somebody considers the fact, that Russia has captured it after signing Medvedy-Sarkozy plan unimportant or was it simply forgotten?-- 136.2.1.101 ( talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are some interesting points I noticed (these are mostly from the "Use of force" section in volume II):
The report also contains good info about the military action. However, this seems to based on the same sources we are already using in the article. But one could think that the authors only picked sources they trusted in and that were consistent with other findings. Should we give the "Military events of 2008" section in volume II more weight than to other sources?
Here's some info about troop levels, for example:
The report also contains a large amount of material on the history of the conflict. I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure we can use this as an additional source for the background section.
Any thoughts on the report and on how to use it? Offliner ( talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Spiegel article from a few months ago was spot on, despite all the attacks on the author's credibility by certain editors here. But patients have payed off. Now that we have perhaps one of the most credible and well-rounded reports on the war available to date, we should make good use of it. I think it should be used as a main/overriding source so we can trim down the number of references in the article and just make the overall picture more consistent and less confusing. LokiiT ( talk) 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the report cites Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell. And then discredits them. Mere citation doesn't mean they're important sources. Gordon Hahn cited Pavel Felgenhauer, only to completely discredit him; Felgenhauer replied with Ad Hominem. Mark Ames cited Felgenhauer, and then showed how much of a joke Pavluysha Felgenhauer really was. Citation doesn't equate to being an important source, and if you think it does...oh riiight, you think that army still = air force, nevermind.
HistoricWarrior007 (
talk)
18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Guideline for citing the report - I believe that we should only cite the report's conclusions, rather than the report's interpretation of other writings on the war. The report is massive, and citing something outside of the conclusion, is likely to generate an edit-war, what do we cite, vs. what do we not cite. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Our Georgiaphobes probably missed the part of the report which mentions Russia's role in escalating the tensions as well as the presence of "some" non-peacekeeping Russian forces and the influx of volunteers and mercenaries from the North Caucasus (sic) just before 07/08/08.-- Kober Talk 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have much time atm (they took their time releasing the report in "september"), but I still plan on drastically shorten that section, mostly by taking out the "analysts" section out. This report is neutral and pretty much sums up the opinions, so we don't need the assorted others anymore outside of one or two summary sentences. -- Xeeron ( talk) 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Fyi., Tagliavini's report is going to end up in trash. Many parts are missing empirical evidencies. Investigation was incomplete and erratic. Eventually there will be the lawsuits aginst the commission. The latest developments in the conflict zones and behavior of Russian millitary close to EU borders and the new law- on 'defending russians everywhere'- is signaling the seriousness of the matther. The report was clearly orchestrated by the Russian lobysts, businessman and gazprom. But Russia's final goal is not good relations with the west. Russia is trying to get back where it was 20-25 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.13.103 ( talk) 12:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Russia–Georgia War, was an armed conflict in August 2008 between Georgia on one side, and South Ossetia, Russia and Abkhazia on the other.[1]
The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians left most of South Ossetia under de-facto control of a Russian-backed, internationally unrecognised government. Some ethnic Georgian-inhabited parts of South Ossetia remained under the control of Georgia. A similar situation existed in Abkhazia after the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). The increasing tensions escalated during the summer months of 2008. [2]
On August 5th, Russia warned Georgia that it will defend South Ossetia in the case of an attack. [cite BBC] [*] During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military attack against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reconquer the territory. The following day, Russia reacted by deploying combat troops in South Ossetia and launching bombing raids into Georgia Proper. Russian and Ossetian troops clashed with Georgian troops in the three-day Battle of Tskhinvali, the main battle of the war. Russian naval forces blocked Georgia's coast and landed ground forces and paratroopers on the Georgian coast. On 9 August Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge, held by Georgia. After five days of heavy fighting, the Georgian forces were routed, enabling the Russian troops entered Georgia Proper, occupying the cities of Poti and Gori among others. [3]
After mediation by the French presidency of the European Union, the parties reached a preliminary ceasefire agreement on 12 August, signed by Georgia on 15 August in Tbilisi and by Russia on 16 August in Moscow. On 12 August, President Medvedev had already ordered a halt to Russian military operations, but fighting did not stop immediately. After the signing of the ceasefire Russia pulled most of its troops out of uncontested Georgia and established buffer zones around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which led to the creation of check-points in Georgia's interior (Poti, Senaki, Perevi). [4]
On 26 August 2008 Russia recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia completed its withdrawal from Georgia Proper on 8 October, but as of 2009[update] Russian troops remain stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia under bilateral agreements with the corresponding governments. However, according to a number of European and US sources, Russia has not fully complied with the peace agreement because Georgia lost control over some of the territories. [5]
A number of incidents occurred in both conflict zones in the months after the war ended. As of 2009[update] tensions between the belligerents remain high.
1. On the one hand you mention the country informally - Georgia. On the other you mention the country formally, Russian Federation, and the regions/countries as if they're non-existent; however, even Georgia concedes that Abkhazia is a province, and South is an autonomous republic. Need to be consistent.
2. Basic grammar
3. According to Military Historiography, if there are military forces of opposing countries in the region - it's contested! Additionally, you don't have to state that Russian entered Georgia Proper every time. We get it, Russians overreacted, this isn't contested by anyone; then again, who wouldn't overreact if their countrymen came under attack, and North Ossetia is a part of Russia. And the Georgian forces were routed - this is obvious, they weren't ejected and performing a tactical retreat, they were running back to Tbilisi.
4. Again, you don't have to say "in Georgia every time". As to by whom - come on - it's by Russia, that should be obvious from the text.
5. Whose sources? I had to fix that.
Additionally:
"1)" for the first point, "2)" for the second one. Yes, they have not taken a break in some examples, but re this article - they seem not to be involved in editing for quite some time now. I'd rather wait until the case is resolved before proceeding with any important edits. FeelSunny ( talk) 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I beleive we should update the article with the conclusions of the EU report. FeelSunny ( talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As it is widely known, mr. Putin is an admirer of eastern tactics in sports, such as Karate, and in millitary matters. If you reread The Art of War, you will draw numerous parallels betwen Sun Tzu's teaching and the behaviour of the russian troops during the war. This does not mean that the russian troops are stronger than Georgian troops. Simply, the war was provoked purposfully using the teachings of The Art of War. Sun Tsu teaches: "Appear far but, but be close...troops prefer mountains to plains...use the converted spyies and treat them well...divide the enemy's army..." Please translate the book into Georgian and the nation will understand what happened and how it happened. However, there is no guarantee that the Russians will use the same tactics, because Sun Tzu teaches not to use the same tactics in the next attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why are you concerned that Georgia wants help to achive peace in Iraq and Afghanistan? Instead of joining the effort Russia is helping Iran to develop nukes. It is unclear what russias true asspirations are today except that it wants its soviet power back. If russia was not stupid, it could have treated these 9former soviet) countries friendly and maybe they'd decide to unite in some form commonwealth, but russia treated the sovereigns as subordinates, threatened them and has been bullying them for the last 20 years. This has ruined Russia's perspecive of friendship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that is your argument. Now let's get back to the responsibility issue. Who is responsible for the latest developments in Geogria? Kidnappings in so called south ossetia and abusing ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia by the Russian troops? What is Russia trying to achieve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Historic Warior, yes, russia is misbehaving in the conflic zones, why do you think all the EU embassadors are going there next week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaucasianAcacia ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
georgian kids remain in hostage in the occupied territory of Georgia (in south ossetia. Everyday something horrible has been taking place almost every day lately:
Russian occupants assault families of ethnic Georgians in Gali 11.11.09 10:53 Russian occupants assaulted several families pf ethnic Georgians in Gali district. The beat up and robbed the families of Tordias, Tsikolias and Shonias in the villages of Saberio and Sida. The occupants have been robbing the houses for a whole hour. They tortured the members of the families and took away jewelry and domestic appliances. Afterwards, the villains assaulted a vehicle, injuring its passengers, who were taking a sick child to Zugdidi hospital.
Occupants kidnap two anglers in Anaklia
10.11.09 18:31
Russian occupants kidnapped two Georgian anglers in the seaside settlement of Anaklia today. Chabuka Oghli and Gia Gabelaia were fishing near Pichori resort, when Russian soldiers assaulted them. The anglers tried to escape but the occupants laid siege with boats and took the anglers to Ochamchire.
ed south ossetia. Evryday someone is beaten or kidnapped in the conflict regions lately.
Found this nice link: http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/2009/10/the-eu-report-little-and-late.html
The criticism, from the link, is that the EU Report took their sweet time figuring out who the attacker was, and that it says precious little as to how to resolve the crisis. Here's the summary: "Generally speaking, I regard it as rather little, rather late, naïve and incomplete. It is also excruciatingly delicate – even precious – in what it says and what it avoids saying. It concludes with a number of unexceptionable, but rather vague, recommendations." Comments?
Another interesting criticism I found is this: "It is incomplete because it, evidently seeing the conflict as one between Georgia and Russia as other commentators have, leaves the Ossetians out. While the authors feel it useful to give some historical background on Georgia, going back to the Treaty of Georgievsk in 1783, there is no equivalent discussion of the Ossetian (or Abkhazian) point of view. But, if asked, Ossetians would certainly speak of their unwillingness to be part of Georgia and refer to earlier Georgian attacks in 1920 and 1991. Their arguments for independent status should be heard out even if they are to be refuted. Tendentious perhaps but a significant factor in Ossetian (and Abkhazian) perceptions. The fact is that the Ossetians, rightly or wrongly, do not want to be part of Georgia, fought for their independence when the Russian Empire collapsed, were placed in the Georgian SSR by Stalin-Jughashvili, tried to be excluded from it when the USSR collapsed, fought another independence war and, very probably, stopped the Georgian attack before the Russian forces got there (some Tskhinvali combat footage at 7:50). To leave their point of view out of the Report is to be incomplete. Added to which, the discussion about their citizenship (the authors assert that they were Georgian citizens) is to altogether ignore their contention that, while they were certainly Soviet citizens in 1991, they never agreed to becoming Georgian citizens. Indeed the world recognised Georgia, in the borders that Stalin gave it, while the disputes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were actually going on."
In other words, as I've been saying from the begining, the Report cannot be neutral, as it excludes the Ossetians and Abkhaz viewpoint. Here's Abkhazia's brilliant argument for independence: http://www.abkhazworld.com/articles/analysis/285-int-legal-status-abkhazia-vchirikba.html Although it is written from an Abkhaz standpoint, it hits a major question: if Slovenia, why not Abkhazia? Aside from the difference in the year, Abkhazia being recognized roughly twenty years after Slovenia, the two cases are virtually identical. However, the article also mentions the independence of Bangladesh, which has a difference of roughly twenty years with Slovenia's recognition. Additionally, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia meet the Montvideo Convention, whereas Kosovo does not: "The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood." Russian lawyers, sorry, but this guy, Chirikba, vas vseh perechirikal (kicked all of your butts). What is the territorry of Kosovo? Does it include North Kosovo? If so, where is North Kosovo's Political Authority? Does it, in practice, answer to Thaci or Tadic? C'mon, we all know it ain't Thaci. Thus, Kosovo fails the Badinter Commission/Montevideo Convention test. But, as the criticism of the EU Report states, these arguments, as well as South Ossetian and Abkhaz viewpoints aren't even mentioned. Nor have I read anyone refuting Chirikba's major arguments, because he's being ignored. You are welcome to post counter-arguments to his points, or those of the Pat Armstrong.
I think, and this is the only valid criticism of the EU Report that I found, that this information, should be summarized and included into the article. Any objections? HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
nyt-20081106
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).