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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Most media now call this violence a "Georgia-Russia conflict". Let's move to 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict or 2008 Georgia-Russia War. NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
But, I do wish we could call it "The Invasion of Georgia". But, it's not PCorrect. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above poster. No war has been declared between Georgia and Russia, and all of the conflict is restricted to South Ossetia, which is not part of Georgia.
You're totally wrong: South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. No war has been declared but Russia invaded Georgian territory. In fact that means war. Hitler as well hasn't declared war in 1939 but he started world war two. Soviet Russia as well hasn't declared war while attacking Poland and Finnland. Now Russia continues this policy. KubicaPOL ( talk) 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian 'peacekeepers' are NOT under UN mandate, thety are under CIS mandate! And Russian agression is not carries by these forces, but by active Russian army deployed during last week. That's why it is agression/invasion/occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magradze ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The double standard in interpretation of what is going on there is of immense importance regarding moral, humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The watershed that separates the Western and the non-western sides observing the conflict brightly appears in informational sphere.
It is obvious for impartial observers the gap that lays between the Western propagandistic system, which inconditionnaly supports Georgia and its President, and the real state of things. The american president, the american governement, the nationalistic russophobic Ukraine leaders deckare, that Russia must not take part in this war jadged to be neo-colonial.
The russian prime-minister Vladimir Putin, who was recently in the refugee camp in the North Osetia, seing the physical tragic results of this war, declared yesterday, that the military operations of Georgian goverment against Ossetian civil polulation was the real genocide. And if it's not the genocide, then what's it?
The 7th august Georgia used the tactics of the "burning ground".Georgia dive-bombed the osetian villages and cities, erased trhe houses and living creatures with heavy tanks, killing everybody, who was on the way.
Pavel Zarifullin, the leader of International Eurasian Youth who was present in Zkhinvali yesterday, tells us, that the georgian soldiers recieved a command not to take prisoners. This is the reason, why the georgian soldiers killed the russian peacemakers straight off,shooting at the peace-makers's heads. The georgian soldiers made the ethnical cleansings. The georgian soldiers had to kill everybody - even old people, women and children.
During the battle for Zkhinvali, the central office of Ossetian TV was hardly attacked. The workers of the TV hide in cellars.Now all people, who are still alive, hide in cellars without any food, medicines and even water.The georgian soldiers are seeking for this cellars and are destroying them with chemical grenades.
About 4.000 people of South Osetia are killed.The georgian army blokades the possible ways of evacuation of wounded people.The cars with doctors and medical help are constantly attacked by snipers.
But, moreover Saakashili kills the georgian nation.The massmedia and the tv of Georgia tries their best to hide the real numbers of killed people of georgian army. But this numbers are presumably very high and is sure to grow in the near future.
Many young people of Georgia, who are mobilized, refuse to participate in the new Saakashvili adventure.
The georgian people now starts to hesitate - was the war with such the costs necassary? Now many people organize mass-meetings to protest against the tyrannical and the destructive politic of Saakashvili.
Now, nobody can predict closely the further development of the events.But, It's obvious, that Saakashvili is comdemned to death.
From the historical view it would be normal, if Saakashvili dies beeing doomed by his own nation.Many georgian dictators - recently it was the case of Gamsakhurdia -- were exectuted by the will of georgians deceived by their opportunistic and voluntaristic gouverning. To kill Saaskashvili is the task of georgian people itself. I think, it would be the best and effective gesture, which will show, that the georgians are not agree with the politics of this criminal and irresposibli extremist.
According to the historian Igor Diakonov [1]:
“ | It is difficult to explain why two separate Ossetian autonomies exist; Southern Ossetia south of the Caucus, and Northern Ossetia to the north of it. Presumably, Stalin who was commissioned to solve the Caucasian national problems, did not want to create resentment among the Georgians who regarded Southern Ossetia as an integral part of Georgia. However, the allegation that Southern Ossetia was formerly inhabited by Georgians is not proven; and anyway, since the Ossetians have certainly lived there for centuries, there is no reason why they should not be regard this land as their own. | ” |
(I. M. Diakonoff, The Paths of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 262 )
Are the Georgians refering to themselves as peacekeepers? The only sources we have for "Georgian peacekeepers" are from 2004 and 2006. They did invade South Ossetia, which is hardly peacekeeping. Unless we can find some more up-to-date sources calling the Georgians peacekeepers, we should refer to them as the Georgain Armed Forces, not Georgian peacekeepers. Saru ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please reference the Wikipedia article on South Ossetia. Georgians, Ossetians and Russians all participated as Peacekeepers prior to the present conflict. That is what started all this, unofficial armed exchanges between rebels and Georgian peacekeepers which then escalated to a coordinated Georgian military advance. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As is reported by nearly all media that covers Russia properly. This should be added in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.135.250 ( talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the relationship between the United States and Georgia, and how is the United States involved in the conflict? Naurmacil ( talk) 01:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia is a staunch ally of the US and the countries have had a strong relationship since Georgia first extended it's invitation for US military trainers to retrain it's post-soviet army in 2001, much to Russia's chagrin. Currently there are 130 contractors and US DOD personal in Georgia http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/08/military_georgia_080808w/ in addition to Embassy/Consular staff and ex-pats and, as you can see, the bulk of US support is military and monetary in addition to political interdiction on behalf of Georgia, as well as that works. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We have been training Georgians since 2001! This is the current contingent of trainers. To the contrary, It is entirely possible that the US will use the opportunity of an expedited return of Georgian forces from Iraq to resupply and improve Georgian equipment. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not speculation - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/gtep.htm or any number of other United States Government sites. I know quite well as I was there, but that is original research. Just look at the cite above. Dobbs ( talk) 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the order of appearance:
I omit "invasion", "agression" etc. (because of POV) and "Caucasus War" (because it's not all the Caucasus there). Let's vote? ;) -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 08:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"The fighting had spread well beyond South Ossetia, with Russian airstrikes on Georgian cities and with thousands of Russian troops in the breakaway province of Abkhazia." – CNN -- Elliskev 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Even Associated Press is incapable of not dissolving into "teh evil russians are teh evil". Be careful. -- Leladax ( talk) 10:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you can expect bias from a combatant's media. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 11:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying, this is the english wikipedia and most of its users and editors are American. Be careful because I noticed they've gone into 'russia is teh evil of the world' in this one. -- Leladax ( talk) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
duplicity of western media best surmised by comparisons of its reactions in
ossetia with kosovo,
comparing hiter's unfullfillable demands(1939) for invading countries with us's similar demands on iraq before invading a sovereign nation,
comparing the coverage of german action of evicting millions of jewish civilians (before ww2 ended) with allied action of evicting more millions of german civilians (after ww2 ended)...
use of atomic weapons by usa on an imperial warring (but losing) japan and preaching iran to not to develop use nuclear weapons deterrant when israel is a proven 'conventionally(weapons-wise) superior' aggressor of all surrounding arabs (like imperial japan)-(see attacks on palestine, egypt, syria, lebanon and iraq/iran's facilities... Cityvalyu ( talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that whenever we use any source, even the best American sources like Washington Post, NT, and so on, the country (US) should be mentioned in brackets. It is important to mention it in the article, not just to give link to the wikipedia page of this source. USA and it's NATO allies (and Israel) are all allegedly can be pro-Georgian, therefore these sources should not be regarded as neutral but should be treated equally with Russian and Georgian sources. This is why in my reference to "Washington Post" in "Georgian order of battle" I have added the remark: "(US source)". -- Victor V V ( talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There are 3'920 Google hits for "South Ossetia War", 13'200 hits for "Georgia-Russia War", 55'200 hits for "Russia-Georgia War", 29'700 hits for "Russia-Georgia conflict", 9'500 hits for "Georgia-Russia conflict", 64'200 hits for "Georgia-South Ossetia conflict", 113 hits for "South Ossetia-Georgia conflict", 176 hits for "South Ossetia-Georgia war", and 242 hits for "Georgia-South Ossetia War". NerdyNSK ( talk) 10:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What you're suggesting here is like that: "South Ossetia independence" gives 1200 Google hits while "South Ossetia part of Georgia" gives 5000 Google hits, so we should side with Georgia and claim that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. That's just ridiculous. Wikipedia should be neutral, period. Naming the article "Russia-Georgia War" implicitly suggests that Russia is the aggressor (how else it's possible to have a war between these two on the Georgia's land?). No matter how many people share that point of view, it's just point of view. Wikipedia should name articles in a way, that's netural. If sides do not agree on how to call the war, it's incorrect to take one side or the other. It's not a question of what's popular. -- 91.78.160.22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There are all so other wars with the Russo prefix, the Russo-Swedish War and the Russo-Turkish War as well as others. Just because russia comes first does not mean that they started the war or anything else. The Sino-Japanese War was not started by china nor was the Russo Swedish War started by russia. I vote for Russo-Georgian War as the title as it accurately describes the conflict. XavierGreen ( talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
According to groong.usc.edu several ethnic Georgians of Azerbaijani citizenship in Qakh and Zaqatala regions of Azerbaijan have crossed the Azerbaijani-Georgian border to join the war against Russia. We should add this in the article and also in the infobox as a new party (Georgians from Azerbaijan) has joined the Georgian side. Baku87 ( talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I know this is a high visibility article at the moment, and normally wouldn't bother trying to edit it. However when I first heard about this 2 days ago (the Olympic opening ceremony fresh in my mind), my first thought was; What will happen between their athletes at the Olympics? So I scoured the article, but to no avail. Then this morning my prayers were answered, so how would we go about adding this to the article? i.e. what section etc Ryan4314 ( talk) 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Its an amzing show which i wished i had seen. Sports and culture have an amazing effect on changing hatred and feelings between people. Unfortunetley I would agree that this has no place in a war article as it is a result of the conflict as oppose to something that will affect it. so no to incluion.
Kieraen (
talk) 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Both countries have said they will remain at the Olympics. [1] 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the article (in the table) it is claimed that the Georgians have 82 aircraft (without any source): Just found a German news paper article with a table (based on The Military Balance 2008) claiming that they only have 9 aircraft. German News Paper Focus. Other German media use the same numbers. -- DanteRay ( talk) 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
BBC News is reporting that the Black Sea Fleet has sunk a Georgian ship that fired on it and was carrying weapons shipments, more is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552908.stm zibzibzib ( talk) 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In the sentence
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that the Russian Federation begins operation "to force the Georgian side to peace"
the phrase enclosed to doublequotes is the well known UN term " Peace enforcement" translated to russian (as "принуждение к миру") and then back to english. You may want to make it a link for correctness.
Related, I hear the Turkish navy is maneuvering to prevent a naval blockade of Georgia. All I have is a Russian source.
http://newsru.com/world/10aug2008/portvmf.html
Canationalist (
talk) 01:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lack of strategic information in this article, and what strategic info there is seems to be scattered around and broken up among various sections. It might be a good idea to add a strategic section, and group together information such as total military forces engaged, total military forces of both sides, where Georgian Black Sea ports are and what their cargo capacities are, where the main road/rail routes are, where the main airfields are, etc. I couldn't even find a decent detailed map of Georgia in the article. The following is my view of the current strategic situation. I know it does not qualify as NPV, but it seems to be the best summary of the situation I can come up with at present, and might help give people some ideas about what variables are strategically significant. The main issue here from a strategic point of view is this: Modern weapons are so complex that they cannot be quickly manufactured. As a result, when a war starts (assuming it does not last very long), both sides pretty much have only what weapons they start off with. The side who looses the war is the one who either gives up first, or runs out of weapons and equipment first. A quick glance at the size of the Russian and Georgian militaries will show that even if the war does not escalate from where it is now, the simple fact is that the Russians can replace their losses, while the Georgians cannot. As a result, at this point, the Russians have the strategic upper hand, no matter what the tactical situation, so it is their choice as to how far they want to go in this war, and to what degree they want to win it. It's pretty clear the Georgians have either lost air superiority, or are in serious danger of loosing it, and that will limit their ability to move on the ground. This will give the Russians the initiative, and allow them to strike when and where they please (within the capabilities of the road system), while the Georgians will have a hard time responding quickly and effectively due the possibility of Russian air strikes. The Georgians will have the ability to go on the offensive as long as they still have armor. However, once their armored assets are depleted, they will effectively be limited to defensive operations. I doubt the Russians want to do much other than make a power show, because trying to take any significant part of Georgia would result in heavy guerrilla warfare. However, I think the Georgians are in trouble if they can't figure out how to get a lot more weapons quickly (especially more anti-aircraft capability), and the only way to get so many weapons so fast would probably be to ship them in via the Black Sea. The Russians are no doubt aware of this, and have thus mobilized their Black Sea Fleet to prevent any such interference by foreign countries, as well as possibly for other blockade operations if they feel they are required for some reason. Some of this is strategic fact, while some is just speculation, and while I know the speculation does not belong on Wikipedia, I think the facts do.
Reuters is reporting [3] that Ukraine has barred Russian warships from returning to the naval base at Sevastopol. Russia accuses Ukraine of arming Georgia. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is too transparent. -- Leladax ( talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed two sections from the talk page per Wikipedia policy, one of which was a general discussion on the war with no relations to the article, and another which started out as an attack against editors in this article, accusing them of being web brigades - something we certainly don't need here. Thanks. Naurmacil ( talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why was it removed with all of its info cluttered into other sections? It seems unorganized and hard to read now, I'd like to keep the humanitarian crisis as a section on its own for easy reading. LokiiT ( talk) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This link isn't going to stay stable, I think, but here it is: Yahoo! News reporting that Russians sources are reporting that a Georgian ship was sunk after it attacked Russian naval forces. Not sure where it should be inserted.
Kingnavland (
talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest removing npov template which was added without specifying what is exactly POV, as required by the rules. -- Anthony Ivanoff ( talk)
I second. At the moment all sentences are sourced and remarked with "According to NNN sources", where NNN = Russian, Georgian, everything else. This is not a violation of NPOV. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please incorporate this
[4] article to wikipedia article?
There is also interesting part regarding friday's attack:
Last year, the Georgian president commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.
These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday.
In recent weeks, Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was “defensive.”
toxygen (
talk) 20:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
reference links are broken after 130s or so - I don't know how to fix them - thanks, everybody
I don't know if this is relevant to the article but today the Italians and Israelis were evacuated from Georgia. Narking ( talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I don't have a source except for what I've seen myself. The French here are still waiting for news from the embassy about evacuation. Narking ( talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this is all on the subject of international reaction, I think that the subject should probably be discontinued here and relocated in the talk page for the article specifically dedicated to the international reaction. Christiangoth ( talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It Has Been Released, that Osseti broke the ceasefire, georgia went in to help, russian pigs came in to attack. check your facts before you post something that is completely biased. Russia is supposed to be the peacekeepers, and yet they are the ones attacking civilians. the only reason russia is in georgia is to prevent georgia from joining nato. CHECK YOUR FACTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.101.214 ( talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) yeah article is getting bias atm..
my sources are from the lou dobbs show, they had a hole segment on it yesterday, and it was confirmed by fox, the ap, and cbs, as well as many others. also putin himself came out yesterday and stated that georgia will never be let into nato, it is, always will be, and always was russia's backyard, where only russia is in control and if anyone is against this, then let them interfere. this is no longer a peace-keeping effort, this is an invasion. they have taken out our newly built military airport(built by the u.s. they have bombed our ports, stopping the oil pipeline which is the only alternative pipeline in eastern europe other than russia. germany and france said georgia's border troubles where the reason they didnt get accepted to nato. saakashvili said that now russia would ensure border troubles for good now, and that is what is happening. same sources as before, all facts can be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.101.214 ( talk) 04:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
NO media has reliable, precise and complete information about this war. Well, about ANY ongoing war. There are civilian casualitys on both sides, and the much better recherched reports from the past few years show, that both sides startet low scale military operations. This conflict, like most other conflicts, is NOT as easy as an holywood movie. There are not good and evil. There are a lot of angry, armed men who care more about nationalistic proud, revenge, power and money than about the lives of civilians. I would like to know much more about it now, but it will take weeks, month or even years to gather and, most important, confirm good information. But there are two interesting strategic facts: 1st the georgian armed forces had until yesterday 4000 of their best troops in Irak and Afghanistan - about 25% of there professional troops! And 2nd the russians startet their actions within less than 2 Days on large scale - NO army, not even the US or Israle, who are much quicker than the russian forces, can REact so fast. They definetively WANTED the war. What, by the way, does NOT necesarily mean that they started it...
Here is the official transcript of the Lavrov's interview for BBC (from the Russian Ministry of Foreing Affairs): http://www.ln.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps/7DA7151CCFE690B6C32574A00061BF06
http://www.vz.ru/society/2008/8/8/194738.html - "The Union of (ethnic) Georgians in Russia" called for the peaceful resolution of the conflict (on 8/8).
The picture states: "Georgia, wake up! Throw the bloodsucker away from your shoulders!". I'd add this picture for the NPOV as an addition to the "Demonstration against the Russian intervention". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
directly from russian army, if anyone finds it in media, i'll be glad: "Russian tactical commanding office expects new Georgian strike on Tshinvali tomorrow morning." this is ~4 hours old. so the attack is supposed to occur in next few hours. toxygen ( talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgian Civil War needs to be updated. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the Russian media will be covering this war more thoroughly than other nations medias, but we need to be careful and not use the same sources over and over again. Right now I see about 8 citations in a row which link to the same site, Lenta.ru . -- Tocino 22:06, 10 Ugust 2008 (UTC)
How come when I add Azerbaijan volunteers for Georgia (well sourced) it is deleted, but its ok to have volunteers for Russia. This is biased and POV Ijanderson977 ( talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please check this out, it needs to be mentioned but I don't know where to put it: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/10/un.georgia/index.html.
Here's a quote: "At an emergency session of the United Nations' Security Council, the U.S. alleged Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "must go."
"This is completely unacceptable and crosses a line," said the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, who made the allegation." Jason3777 ( talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The stuff I cut here is WP:UNDUE in the lede, but it should fit in lower down in the article. Not sure where. The lede at the moment should be a factual summary of events to date, with maybe a little equally-balanced opinion. Not a whopping chunk of pro-Russia material. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The introduction continues down to,
According to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's intention is to defend the many civilians of South Ossetia who hold Russian citizenship. He said that it aims to force Georgia to accept peace and restore the status quo, and that it is acting within its peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia, and in line with the mandate issued by the international community.[18][19] "The actions of the Georgian powers in South Ossetia are, of course, a crime — first of all against their own people," Putin said and opined that the territorial integrity of Georgia has suffered a fatal blow. Putin said the government was ready to earmark up to $425 million for aid to the region. Medvedev said he was ordering the military prosecutor to document crimes against civilians (by Georgia) in South Ossetia. Russia also laid much of the responsibility for ending the fighting on Washington, which has trained Georgian troops.[20]
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili says his country is defending itself from Russian aggression and that Russian forces are bombing its civilian population.[21]
This seems to be too long and one sided. Anyone disagree? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 10:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, reference 20 does not seem to exist.
I'm suggesting removing from the end of ref 19 to ref 20,
Because the reference is bad and the material is covered later in the article. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 10:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
BalkanFever has fixed the reference. So, I am considering moving it to "Combatant Statements". Any problems with that? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This change is too major to not get consensus on it. Any opinions ? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 10:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
argument1: the whole article and each and every section of it is too long (more than 80 kb- deserves split!?!)..efforts to form collapsible lists (see effort on "aug 9"section) were reverted too..i find the size of intro dwarfs in comparison to the individual sections..so it is relatively small anyway.. Cityvalyu ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
argument2: if saakashville's stand on the conflict deserves mention, then why accuse mentioning the russian stand? ... georgia could have had a single lined complaint about russian aggression in the breakaway republic of ossetia because it wanted to hide its own role in the preceding attack on 'its own people' (assuming ossetians are georgia nationalists)....just because the russians used more words (more clarity) to describe their response, it is not reason to delete them. if deleted, it serves the motive of saakashville who wants to hide georgia's preceding 'provoking unilateral acts in ossetia' from international attention and who may be wants to portray the event as "unprovoked", "unjustified", "unilateral aggression", "without locus standi" ..from the russian side..Everyone knows that's not the truth since GOERGIA PROVOKED..and russia was forced to respond(see argument3) ! Cityvalyu ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
argument3: although i didnt add the following, i infact want to add in future the role of
1 refugee crisis (half the population!)--see indo pak war 1971 to get similarities
2 russia's duty to protect its citizens in the breakaway republic of ossetia (passport holders)
3 mandate to maintain peace in the breakaway province as a major regional power and since ossetia has never been integral part of georgia from 1990 s.
in the crisis as part of the intro to help wiki readers understand "why" this armed conflict occured in ossetia "now". Cityvalyu ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I initally thought the present title (2008 South Ossetia War) was a good compromise. Fact is the war has now shifted beyond South Ossetia. I propose the article be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.72.59 ( talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The christian sciene monitor has called this thing the russio georgian war, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html XavierGreen ( talk) 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been already news about corpses of "black" merceneries. This Russian sorce ( http://www.vz.ru/news/2008/8/10/195089.html) claims that an USA mercenary has been captured among other georgian diversants. He is said to be in good health condition.
I think this should be added, since it gives an interesting twist on who are the backstage players in this conflict :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad85 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure we should be including mercenaries in the Georgian forces strength description? At the moment there is so little evidence to support it that it's really nothing more than conjecture, so maybe we should refer to them as 'alleged mercenaries.' It might be an idea to put this into the Russian POV section.
That article seems overly sensationalistic. An black soldier has definitely been captured by the South Ossetians/Russians, but I wouldn't bite into the "USA mercenary" conclusion without a direct source (the vz.ru article above references another article that references a radio station... no confirmation on the "US mercenary" bit from any news agencies that I can find). According to this:
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/11/capture/ (sorry, Russian, cites an apparently nonexistent Interfax report), the 19 Georgians were captured near the village Zar (Зар), they do include one dark-skinned soldier, but nothing about him having anything to do with the US.
Vectra14 (
talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we sure that this isn't just a black Georgian citizen? I mean, obviously there are very few of these, but few is not zero. The only description I have heard of him on which all of this US mercenary business seems based is that he is black, and being black and being Georgian are not mutually exclusive, even if it is uncommon to be both. Christiangoth ( talk) 04:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine has expressed strong disapproval of Russian actions and won't let Russian warships to return to their base in Sevostopol,Ukraine. According to Finnish newspapers website: http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Valkoinen+talo+Ven%C3%A4j%C3%A4+vaarantaa+suhteensa+USAan/1135238473501 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.250.108 ( talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Much bigger then I would have thought. Is that shown here or should it be shown on the international reaction page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 ( talk) 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is word "black" looks like racism? I think no. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not racist to American blacks unless you hate blacks, then you're racist. -- Leladax ( talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Most media now call this violence a "Georgia-Russia conflict". Let's move to 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict or 2008 Georgia-Russia War. NerdyNSK ( talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
But, I do wish we could call it "The Invasion of Georgia". But, it's not PCorrect. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above poster. No war has been declared between Georgia and Russia, and all of the conflict is restricted to South Ossetia, which is not part of Georgia.
You're totally wrong: South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. No war has been declared but Russia invaded Georgian territory. In fact that means war. Hitler as well hasn't declared war in 1939 but he started world war two. Soviet Russia as well hasn't declared war while attacking Poland and Finnland. Now Russia continues this policy. KubicaPOL ( talk) 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian 'peacekeepers' are NOT under UN mandate, thety are under CIS mandate! And Russian agression is not carries by these forces, but by active Russian army deployed during last week. That's why it is agression/invasion/occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magradze ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The double standard in interpretation of what is going on there is of immense importance regarding moral, humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The watershed that separates the Western and the non-western sides observing the conflict brightly appears in informational sphere.
It is obvious for impartial observers the gap that lays between the Western propagandistic system, which inconditionnaly supports Georgia and its President, and the real state of things. The american president, the american governement, the nationalistic russophobic Ukraine leaders deckare, that Russia must not take part in this war jadged to be neo-colonial.
The russian prime-minister Vladimir Putin, who was recently in the refugee camp in the North Osetia, seing the physical tragic results of this war, declared yesterday, that the military operations of Georgian goverment against Ossetian civil polulation was the real genocide. And if it's not the genocide, then what's it?
The 7th august Georgia used the tactics of the "burning ground".Georgia dive-bombed the osetian villages and cities, erased trhe houses and living creatures with heavy tanks, killing everybody, who was on the way.
Pavel Zarifullin, the leader of International Eurasian Youth who was present in Zkhinvali yesterday, tells us, that the georgian soldiers recieved a command not to take prisoners. This is the reason, why the georgian soldiers killed the russian peacemakers straight off,shooting at the peace-makers's heads. The georgian soldiers made the ethnical cleansings. The georgian soldiers had to kill everybody - even old people, women and children.
During the battle for Zkhinvali, the central office of Ossetian TV was hardly attacked. The workers of the TV hide in cellars.Now all people, who are still alive, hide in cellars without any food, medicines and even water.The georgian soldiers are seeking for this cellars and are destroying them with chemical grenades.
About 4.000 people of South Osetia are killed.The georgian army blokades the possible ways of evacuation of wounded people.The cars with doctors and medical help are constantly attacked by snipers.
But, moreover Saakashili kills the georgian nation.The massmedia and the tv of Georgia tries their best to hide the real numbers of killed people of georgian army. But this numbers are presumably very high and is sure to grow in the near future.
Many young people of Georgia, who are mobilized, refuse to participate in the new Saakashvili adventure.
The georgian people now starts to hesitate - was the war with such the costs necassary? Now many people organize mass-meetings to protest against the tyrannical and the destructive politic of Saakashvili.
Now, nobody can predict closely the further development of the events.But, It's obvious, that Saakashvili is comdemned to death.
From the historical view it would be normal, if Saakashvili dies beeing doomed by his own nation.Many georgian dictators - recently it was the case of Gamsakhurdia -- were exectuted by the will of georgians deceived by their opportunistic and voluntaristic gouverning. To kill Saaskashvili is the task of georgian people itself. I think, it would be the best and effective gesture, which will show, that the georgians are not agree with the politics of this criminal and irresposibli extremist.
According to the historian Igor Diakonov [1]:
“ | It is difficult to explain why two separate Ossetian autonomies exist; Southern Ossetia south of the Caucus, and Northern Ossetia to the north of it. Presumably, Stalin who was commissioned to solve the Caucasian national problems, did not want to create resentment among the Georgians who regarded Southern Ossetia as an integral part of Georgia. However, the allegation that Southern Ossetia was formerly inhabited by Georgians is not proven; and anyway, since the Ossetians have certainly lived there for centuries, there is no reason why they should not be regard this land as their own. | ” |
(I. M. Diakonoff, The Paths of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 262 )
Are the Georgians refering to themselves as peacekeepers? The only sources we have for "Georgian peacekeepers" are from 2004 and 2006. They did invade South Ossetia, which is hardly peacekeeping. Unless we can find some more up-to-date sources calling the Georgians peacekeepers, we should refer to them as the Georgain Armed Forces, not Georgian peacekeepers. Saru ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please reference the Wikipedia article on South Ossetia. Georgians, Ossetians and Russians all participated as Peacekeepers prior to the present conflict. That is what started all this, unofficial armed exchanges between rebels and Georgian peacekeepers which then escalated to a coordinated Georgian military advance. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
As is reported by nearly all media that covers Russia properly. This should be added in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.135.250 ( talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the relationship between the United States and Georgia, and how is the United States involved in the conflict? Naurmacil ( talk) 01:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia is a staunch ally of the US and the countries have had a strong relationship since Georgia first extended it's invitation for US military trainers to retrain it's post-soviet army in 2001, much to Russia's chagrin. Currently there are 130 contractors and US DOD personal in Georgia http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/08/military_georgia_080808w/ in addition to Embassy/Consular staff and ex-pats and, as you can see, the bulk of US support is military and monetary in addition to political interdiction on behalf of Georgia, as well as that works. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We have been training Georgians since 2001! This is the current contingent of trainers. To the contrary, It is entirely possible that the US will use the opportunity of an expedited return of Georgian forces from Iraq to resupply and improve Georgian equipment. 75.216.27.164 ( talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not speculation - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/gtep.htm or any number of other United States Government sites. I know quite well as I was there, but that is original research. Just look at the cite above. Dobbs ( talk) 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the order of appearance:
I omit "invasion", "agression" etc. (because of POV) and "Caucasus War" (because it's not all the Caucasus there). Let's vote? ;) -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 08:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"The fighting had spread well beyond South Ossetia, with Russian airstrikes on Georgian cities and with thousands of Russian troops in the breakaway province of Abkhazia." – CNN -- Elliskev 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Even Associated Press is incapable of not dissolving into "teh evil russians are teh evil". Be careful. -- Leladax ( talk) 10:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you can expect bias from a combatant's media. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 11:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying, this is the english wikipedia and most of its users and editors are American. Be careful because I noticed they've gone into 'russia is teh evil of the world' in this one. -- Leladax ( talk) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
duplicity of western media best surmised by comparisons of its reactions in
ossetia with kosovo,
comparing hiter's unfullfillable demands(1939) for invading countries with us's similar demands on iraq before invading a sovereign nation,
comparing the coverage of german action of evicting millions of jewish civilians (before ww2 ended) with allied action of evicting more millions of german civilians (after ww2 ended)...
use of atomic weapons by usa on an imperial warring (but losing) japan and preaching iran to not to develop use nuclear weapons deterrant when israel is a proven 'conventionally(weapons-wise) superior' aggressor of all surrounding arabs (like imperial japan)-(see attacks on palestine, egypt, syria, lebanon and iraq/iran's facilities... Cityvalyu ( talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that whenever we use any source, even the best American sources like Washington Post, NT, and so on, the country (US) should be mentioned in brackets. It is important to mention it in the article, not just to give link to the wikipedia page of this source. USA and it's NATO allies (and Israel) are all allegedly can be pro-Georgian, therefore these sources should not be regarded as neutral but should be treated equally with Russian and Georgian sources. This is why in my reference to "Washington Post" in "Georgian order of battle" I have added the remark: "(US source)". -- Victor V V ( talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There are 3'920 Google hits for "South Ossetia War", 13'200 hits for "Georgia-Russia War", 55'200 hits for "Russia-Georgia War", 29'700 hits for "Russia-Georgia conflict", 9'500 hits for "Georgia-Russia conflict", 64'200 hits for "Georgia-South Ossetia conflict", 113 hits for "South Ossetia-Georgia conflict", 176 hits for "South Ossetia-Georgia war", and 242 hits for "Georgia-South Ossetia War". NerdyNSK ( talk) 10:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What you're suggesting here is like that: "South Ossetia independence" gives 1200 Google hits while "South Ossetia part of Georgia" gives 5000 Google hits, so we should side with Georgia and claim that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia. That's just ridiculous. Wikipedia should be neutral, period. Naming the article "Russia-Georgia War" implicitly suggests that Russia is the aggressor (how else it's possible to have a war between these two on the Georgia's land?). No matter how many people share that point of view, it's just point of view. Wikipedia should name articles in a way, that's netural. If sides do not agree on how to call the war, it's incorrect to take one side or the other. It's not a question of what's popular. -- 91.78.160.22 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There are all so other wars with the Russo prefix, the Russo-Swedish War and the Russo-Turkish War as well as others. Just because russia comes first does not mean that they started the war or anything else. The Sino-Japanese War was not started by china nor was the Russo Swedish War started by russia. I vote for Russo-Georgian War as the title as it accurately describes the conflict. XavierGreen ( talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
According to groong.usc.edu several ethnic Georgians of Azerbaijani citizenship in Qakh and Zaqatala regions of Azerbaijan have crossed the Azerbaijani-Georgian border to join the war against Russia. We should add this in the article and also in the infobox as a new party (Georgians from Azerbaijan) has joined the Georgian side. Baku87 ( talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I know this is a high visibility article at the moment, and normally wouldn't bother trying to edit it. However when I first heard about this 2 days ago (the Olympic opening ceremony fresh in my mind), my first thought was; What will happen between their athletes at the Olympics? So I scoured the article, but to no avail. Then this morning my prayers were answered, so how would we go about adding this to the article? i.e. what section etc Ryan4314 ( talk) 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Its an amzing show which i wished i had seen. Sports and culture have an amazing effect on changing hatred and feelings between people. Unfortunetley I would agree that this has no place in a war article as it is a result of the conflict as oppose to something that will affect it. so no to incluion.
Kieraen (
talk) 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Both countries have said they will remain at the Olympics. [1] 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the article (in the table) it is claimed that the Georgians have 82 aircraft (without any source): Just found a German news paper article with a table (based on The Military Balance 2008) claiming that they only have 9 aircraft. German News Paper Focus. Other German media use the same numbers. -- DanteRay ( talk) 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
BBC News is reporting that the Black Sea Fleet has sunk a Georgian ship that fired on it and was carrying weapons shipments, more is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552908.stm zibzibzib ( talk) 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In the sentence
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that the Russian Federation begins operation "to force the Georgian side to peace"
the phrase enclosed to doublequotes is the well known UN term " Peace enforcement" translated to russian (as "принуждение к миру") and then back to english. You may want to make it a link for correctness.
Related, I hear the Turkish navy is maneuvering to prevent a naval blockade of Georgia. All I have is a Russian source.
http://newsru.com/world/10aug2008/portvmf.html
Canationalist (
talk) 01:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lack of strategic information in this article, and what strategic info there is seems to be scattered around and broken up among various sections. It might be a good idea to add a strategic section, and group together information such as total military forces engaged, total military forces of both sides, where Georgian Black Sea ports are and what their cargo capacities are, where the main road/rail routes are, where the main airfields are, etc. I couldn't even find a decent detailed map of Georgia in the article. The following is my view of the current strategic situation. I know it does not qualify as NPV, but it seems to be the best summary of the situation I can come up with at present, and might help give people some ideas about what variables are strategically significant. The main issue here from a strategic point of view is this: Modern weapons are so complex that they cannot be quickly manufactured. As a result, when a war starts (assuming it does not last very long), both sides pretty much have only what weapons they start off with. The side who looses the war is the one who either gives up first, or runs out of weapons and equipment first. A quick glance at the size of the Russian and Georgian militaries will show that even if the war does not escalate from where it is now, the simple fact is that the Russians can replace their losses, while the Georgians cannot. As a result, at this point, the Russians have the strategic upper hand, no matter what the tactical situation, so it is their choice as to how far they want to go in this war, and to what degree they want to win it. It's pretty clear the Georgians have either lost air superiority, or are in serious danger of loosing it, and that will limit their ability to move on the ground. This will give the Russians the initiative, and allow them to strike when and where they please (within the capabilities of the road system), while the Georgians will have a hard time responding quickly and effectively due the possibility of Russian air strikes. The Georgians will have the ability to go on the offensive as long as they still have armor. However, once their armored assets are depleted, they will effectively be limited to defensive operations. I doubt the Russians want to do much other than make a power show, because trying to take any significant part of Georgia would result in heavy guerrilla warfare. However, I think the Georgians are in trouble if they can't figure out how to get a lot more weapons quickly (especially more anti-aircraft capability), and the only way to get so many weapons so fast would probably be to ship them in via the Black Sea. The Russians are no doubt aware of this, and have thus mobilized their Black Sea Fleet to prevent any such interference by foreign countries, as well as possibly for other blockade operations if they feel they are required for some reason. Some of this is strategic fact, while some is just speculation, and while I know the speculation does not belong on Wikipedia, I think the facts do.
Reuters is reporting [3] that Ukraine has barred Russian warships from returning to the naval base at Sevastopol. Russia accuses Ukraine of arming Georgia. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This is too transparent. -- Leladax ( talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed two sections from the talk page per Wikipedia policy, one of which was a general discussion on the war with no relations to the article, and another which started out as an attack against editors in this article, accusing them of being web brigades - something we certainly don't need here. Thanks. Naurmacil ( talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why was it removed with all of its info cluttered into other sections? It seems unorganized and hard to read now, I'd like to keep the humanitarian crisis as a section on its own for easy reading. LokiiT ( talk) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This link isn't going to stay stable, I think, but here it is: Yahoo! News reporting that Russians sources are reporting that a Georgian ship was sunk after it attacked Russian naval forces. Not sure where it should be inserted.
Kingnavland (
talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest removing npov template which was added without specifying what is exactly POV, as required by the rules. -- Anthony Ivanoff ( talk)
I second. At the moment all sentences are sourced and remarked with "According to NNN sources", where NNN = Russian, Georgian, everything else. This is not a violation of NPOV. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please incorporate this
[4] article to wikipedia article?
There is also interesting part regarding friday's attack:
Last year, the Georgian president commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.
These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday.
In recent weeks, Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was “defensive.”
toxygen (
talk) 20:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
reference links are broken after 130s or so - I don't know how to fix them - thanks, everybody
I don't know if this is relevant to the article but today the Italians and Israelis were evacuated from Georgia. Narking ( talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I don't have a source except for what I've seen myself. The French here are still waiting for news from the embassy about evacuation. Narking ( talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this is all on the subject of international reaction, I think that the subject should probably be discontinued here and relocated in the talk page for the article specifically dedicated to the international reaction. Christiangoth ( talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It Has Been Released, that Osseti broke the ceasefire, georgia went in to help, russian pigs came in to attack. check your facts before you post something that is completely biased. Russia is supposed to be the peacekeepers, and yet they are the ones attacking civilians. the only reason russia is in georgia is to prevent georgia from joining nato. CHECK YOUR FACTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.101.214 ( talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) yeah article is getting bias atm..
my sources are from the lou dobbs show, they had a hole segment on it yesterday, and it was confirmed by fox, the ap, and cbs, as well as many others. also putin himself came out yesterday and stated that georgia will never be let into nato, it is, always will be, and always was russia's backyard, where only russia is in control and if anyone is against this, then let them interfere. this is no longer a peace-keeping effort, this is an invasion. they have taken out our newly built military airport(built by the u.s. they have bombed our ports, stopping the oil pipeline which is the only alternative pipeline in eastern europe other than russia. germany and france said georgia's border troubles where the reason they didnt get accepted to nato. saakashvili said that now russia would ensure border troubles for good now, and that is what is happening. same sources as before, all facts can be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.101.214 ( talk) 04:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
NO media has reliable, precise and complete information about this war. Well, about ANY ongoing war. There are civilian casualitys on both sides, and the much better recherched reports from the past few years show, that both sides startet low scale military operations. This conflict, like most other conflicts, is NOT as easy as an holywood movie. There are not good and evil. There are a lot of angry, armed men who care more about nationalistic proud, revenge, power and money than about the lives of civilians. I would like to know much more about it now, but it will take weeks, month or even years to gather and, most important, confirm good information. But there are two interesting strategic facts: 1st the georgian armed forces had until yesterday 4000 of their best troops in Irak and Afghanistan - about 25% of there professional troops! And 2nd the russians startet their actions within less than 2 Days on large scale - NO army, not even the US or Israle, who are much quicker than the russian forces, can REact so fast. They definetively WANTED the war. What, by the way, does NOT necesarily mean that they started it...
Here is the official transcript of the Lavrov's interview for BBC (from the Russian Ministry of Foreing Affairs): http://www.ln.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps/7DA7151CCFE690B6C32574A00061BF06
http://www.vz.ru/society/2008/8/8/194738.html - "The Union of (ethnic) Georgians in Russia" called for the peaceful resolution of the conflict (on 8/8).
The picture states: "Georgia, wake up! Throw the bloodsucker away from your shoulders!". I'd add this picture for the NPOV as an addition to the "Demonstration against the Russian intervention". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
directly from russian army, if anyone finds it in media, i'll be glad: "Russian tactical commanding office expects new Georgian strike on Tshinvali tomorrow morning." this is ~4 hours old. so the attack is supposed to occur in next few hours. toxygen ( talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgian Civil War needs to be updated. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the Russian media will be covering this war more thoroughly than other nations medias, but we need to be careful and not use the same sources over and over again. Right now I see about 8 citations in a row which link to the same site, Lenta.ru . -- Tocino 22:06, 10 Ugust 2008 (UTC)
How come when I add Azerbaijan volunteers for Georgia (well sourced) it is deleted, but its ok to have volunteers for Russia. This is biased and POV Ijanderson977 ( talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please check this out, it needs to be mentioned but I don't know where to put it: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/10/un.georgia/index.html.
Here's a quote: "At an emergency session of the United Nations' Security Council, the U.S. alleged Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "must go."
"This is completely unacceptable and crosses a line," said the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, who made the allegation." Jason3777 ( talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The stuff I cut here is WP:UNDUE in the lede, but it should fit in lower down in the article. Not sure where. The lede at the moment should be a factual summary of events to date, with maybe a little equally-balanced opinion. Not a whopping chunk of pro-Russia material. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The introduction continues down to,
According to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's intention is to defend the many civilians of South Ossetia who hold Russian citizenship. He said that it aims to force Georgia to accept peace and restore the status quo, and that it is acting within its peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia, and in line with the mandate issued by the international community.[18][19] "The actions of the Georgian powers in South Ossetia are, of course, a crime — first of all against their own people," Putin said and opined that the territorial integrity of Georgia has suffered a fatal blow. Putin said the government was ready to earmark up to $425 million for aid to the region. Medvedev said he was ordering the military prosecutor to document crimes against civilians (by Georgia) in South Ossetia. Russia also laid much of the responsibility for ending the fighting on Washington, which has trained Georgian troops.[20]
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili says his country is defending itself from Russian aggression and that Russian forces are bombing its civilian population.[21]
This seems to be too long and one sided. Anyone disagree? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 10:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, reference 20 does not seem to exist.
I'm suggesting removing from the end of ref 19 to ref 20,
Because the reference is bad and the material is covered later in the article. 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 10:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
BalkanFever has fixed the reference. So, I am considering moving it to "Combatant Statements". Any problems with that? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This change is too major to not get consensus on it. Any opinions ? 65.68.1.90 ( talk) 10:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
argument1: the whole article and each and every section of it is too long (more than 80 kb- deserves split!?!)..efforts to form collapsible lists (see effort on "aug 9"section) were reverted too..i find the size of intro dwarfs in comparison to the individual sections..so it is relatively small anyway.. Cityvalyu ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
argument2: if saakashville's stand on the conflict deserves mention, then why accuse mentioning the russian stand? ... georgia could have had a single lined complaint about russian aggression in the breakaway republic of ossetia because it wanted to hide its own role in the preceding attack on 'its own people' (assuming ossetians are georgia nationalists)....just because the russians used more words (more clarity) to describe their response, it is not reason to delete them. if deleted, it serves the motive of saakashville who wants to hide georgia's preceding 'provoking unilateral acts in ossetia' from international attention and who may be wants to portray the event as "unprovoked", "unjustified", "unilateral aggression", "without locus standi" ..from the russian side..Everyone knows that's not the truth since GOERGIA PROVOKED..and russia was forced to respond(see argument3) ! Cityvalyu ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
argument3: although i didnt add the following, i infact want to add in future the role of
1 refugee crisis (half the population!)--see indo pak war 1971 to get similarities
2 russia's duty to protect its citizens in the breakaway republic of ossetia (passport holders)
3 mandate to maintain peace in the breakaway province as a major regional power and since ossetia has never been integral part of georgia from 1990 s.
in the crisis as part of the intro to help wiki readers understand "why" this armed conflict occured in ossetia "now". Cityvalyu ( talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I initally thought the present title (2008 South Ossetia War) was a good compromise. Fact is the war has now shifted beyond South Ossetia. I propose the article be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.72.59 ( talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The christian sciene monitor has called this thing the russio georgian war, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html XavierGreen ( talk) 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been already news about corpses of "black" merceneries. This Russian sorce ( http://www.vz.ru/news/2008/8/10/195089.html) claims that an USA mercenary has been captured among other georgian diversants. He is said to be in good health condition.
I think this should be added, since it gives an interesting twist on who are the backstage players in this conflict :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad85 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure we should be including mercenaries in the Georgian forces strength description? At the moment there is so little evidence to support it that it's really nothing more than conjecture, so maybe we should refer to them as 'alleged mercenaries.' It might be an idea to put this into the Russian POV section.
That article seems overly sensationalistic. An black soldier has definitely been captured by the South Ossetians/Russians, but I wouldn't bite into the "USA mercenary" conclusion without a direct source (the vz.ru article above references another article that references a radio station... no confirmation on the "US mercenary" bit from any news agencies that I can find). According to this:
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/11/capture/ (sorry, Russian, cites an apparently nonexistent Interfax report), the 19 Georgians were captured near the village Zar (Зар), they do include one dark-skinned soldier, but nothing about him having anything to do with the US.
Vectra14 (
talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we sure that this isn't just a black Georgian citizen? I mean, obviously there are very few of these, but few is not zero. The only description I have heard of him on which all of this US mercenary business seems based is that he is black, and being black and being Georgian are not mutually exclusive, even if it is uncommon to be both. Christiangoth ( talk) 04:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine has expressed strong disapproval of Russian actions and won't let Russian warships to return to their base in Sevostopol,Ukraine. According to Finnish newspapers website: http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Valkoinen+talo+Ven%C3%A4j%C3%A4+vaarantaa+suhteensa+USAan/1135238473501 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.250.108 ( talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Much bigger then I would have thought. Is that shown here or should it be shown on the international reaction page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 ( talk) 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is word "black" looks like racism? I think no. -- Alexander Widefield ( talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not racist to American blacks unless you hate blacks, then you're racist. -- Leladax ( talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)