Georgia - a peaceloving genocide

Lawyee

Have you two realized that the only people who so far discussed in this thread are Russians? What's the reason?

 Sorry but not two - i missed this post and add my option about this war in nearest post - you may look discussion if it interesting - [link]

Lawyee

if you remember Chechenyan conflict, which is in my opinion analogous to present conflict in Georgia.

You want to say - Ossetian blow up the home`s of innocent people , kidnap the Georgian people for slave and do another crimes , like Chechenyan gangsters ? It is seriosis accusation , but you have any evidence ?

So you would prefer to discuss Russia without Russians? Along with duscussing Russia neglecting her history and the world history? It would rather seem gossiping and spreading misinformation about Russia than finding out the truth (exactly what the western mass media are doing now).

Lawyee

Is there really a need to speak about Napoleon's and Hitler's "journeys" to Russia everytime a European tries to discuss?

YES, there is really a need to REMEMBER about that because too many people died during those wars; because we do not want any repeat of such wars; because those "journeys" belong to history that should have taught us something; because if we do not remember history, its mistakes will be repeated until we learn the lessons of history. History punishes those who forget it, badly punishes!

The EU and US are not paying attention to reviving of Fascism inside european boarders now, as well as they hadn't been paying attention to it up to 1939. Fascism is now being revived in the Baltic States, in the Ukraine, in Georgia - or how else can the genocide againts ossetinians be called there? Let's consider Mr. Saakashvili's wife, Sandra, recent statement in an interview to a baltic TV: "My husband wants to be a great leader such as Stalin or Beria". Great. NATO and the EU, if Georgia joins it, run the risk to have an agressive dictator as an ally who, by his ambitions and venality, will gladly involve the allied countries into war.

Hi,

Personally, I think that Saakashvili is completely foolish. Starting wars that you obviously can't win is a peak of stupidity. He clearly cannot count on US support either - the region would be hard to reach for the Americans and, above all, they are too preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan. They would also not risk a larger conflict with Russia over this matter.
On the other hand, I don't see Russia as having a moral high ground here. Firstly the Russians are operating on a territory of a foreign country, attacking even targets beyond the disputed region of South Ossetia. Is that all right under international law? This makes you no different from Americans in terms of disregard for that law. Russia has been supporting the separatists, so its peacekeepers are not an unbiased third party. I heard Putin saying that he can't envisage S. Ossetia reintegrating in Georgia. He may be right but isn't that exactly the same argument that Russians criticized so much in the case of Kosovo?
And I see Lawyee's point regarding the historical references. Should we recall the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan every time Russia is discussed?

Winpoj

I don't see Russia as having a moral high ground here. Firstly the Russians are operating on a territory of a foreign country...

Fact #1.
There are North and South Ossetia. North Ossetia belongs to Russia. South Ossetia belongs to Georgia. A lot of people living in South Ossetia have Russian passports and are relatives to people in North Ossetia. There are no seperatists there, as western people are being convinced by mass media (watch the movie above).
Fact #2.
In Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, there were Peace keeping Russian forces that had an official credential from the UN to be there and to prevent any military conflicts. On 8.08.2008, by night, Georgian troops fired sleeping inhabitans of Tskhinvali and fired the Russian peace keeper forces, and this led to 2000 deaths of Russian citizens, women, children, peace keepers... (Ah hour before the attack, Mr. Saakashvili declared a start of peaceful talks.)
Would that mean that Georgian troops, practically, attacked the UN?
Fact #3.
Russia, entering the foreign county, was protecting the Russian citizens and Russian peace keepers. Does so called international law prohibit that? It has nothing to do with separatists (who are actually a tale by western mass media).
Fact #4.
Until now, for about 3 days, Georgia hasn't been willing to open a humane corridor to let peaceful inhabitants and wounded leave the war area and have medical help.

Some history points regarding small european countries in the WWII. Why are they mad at the Soviet Union only? It was a plot created by both the "big" regimes, Hitler and Stalin, if you want to be unbiased. Moreover, Polland itself was taking part in division of Czechoslovakia in 1938. So in the end everyone got what he was going to. But you are misled and misinformed if you blame the Soviet Union only.

...and yes, we should remember every invasion of the past whenever it was and whoever started it. But the problem is that those facts have been distorted by politicians, and it becomes rather difficult to find out the truth now.

I personally think that "international law" is another tale. If politicians want to do something, they do it, neclecting any law. It's been like that so far, at least.

Maybe I will once again regret trying to DISCUSS this matters, BUT as an international lawyer I need to say:
"Fact #1.
There are North and South Ossetia. North Ossetia belongs to Russia. South Ossetia belongs to Georgia. A lot of people living in South Ossetia have Russian passports and are relatives to people in North Ossetia. There are no seperatists there, as western people are being convinced by mass media (watch the movie above)."
Georgia is a sovereign state within its territory and has a sovereign right to rule its area by a central government. If a region within a state creates its own government without any approval of the central government (as a representative of sovereignty), if they declare sovereignty in their region, YES, THEY ARE SEPARATISTS. And if you ask about Kosovo, yes they are separatists in the same way. United Nations still recognize sole right of the state to decide about his territory. That's why Kosovo is matter of disputes and will always be. That's why my country has not yet recognized Kosovo and is not really intending to do it. Not because of politics, but because of law.
Furthermore, if you say that there are many (maybe majority of) Russian citizens in the region, they have no right to decide about the form of the state, because they are not citizens of that state and do not have right of sovereignty which was conferred to Georgian state. In other words, they are foreigners on the territory of Georgia and have no political rights there (they have them in Russia)

"Fact #2.
In Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, there were Peace keeping Russian forces that had an official credential from the UN to be there and to prevent any military conflicts. On 8.08.2008, by night, Georgian troops fired sleeping inhabitans of Tskhinvali and fired the Russian peace keeper forces, and this led to 2000 deaths of Russian citizens, women, children, peace keepers... (Ah hour before the attack, Mr. Saakashvili declared a start of peaceful talks.)
Would that mean that Georgian troops, practically, attacked the UN?"
If Russian soldiers are in this territory as UN soldiers, Russia has no right to enter Georgia to protect them on their own. As they were sent there on behald of United Nations, they have to wait for the command of United Nations to intervene. They can always withdraw the soldiers from the mission to protect them, but not to enter the country - this is UN mission (as you've said), not a Russian one.
Do you think that when Slovak soldiers fighting in UN mission in Afghanistan were attacked by guerrilas, Slovakia should have sent Slovak army to kill those "bad terrorists"? It wasn't our right to intervene, nor it is now Russian's right.

"Fact #3.
Russia, entering the foreign county, was protecting the Russian citizens and Russian peace keepers. Does so called international law prohibit that? It has nothing to do with separatists (who are actually a tale by western mass media)."
YES, IT DOES. The "so called" international law prohibits military intervention in area of another state without approval of UN (and YES, all the cases of such intervention in the past without such approval were violating international law). There were few Slovak citizens in Georgia. Should we send there Slovak army to protect them? No, we have no right. Our embassy is trying hard to bring them home, but we have no right to "protect" them by military force there. Russia has no sovereign power in Georgia which means (by a traditional definition) Russia has no right to make any measures of governmental nature (including military actions) in the region of Georgia. You can protect people in your state but not go to another state and fight for their rights there (only on behalf of UN)


"Some history points regarding small european countries in the WWII. Why are they mad at the Soviet Union only? It was a plot created by both the "big" regimes, Hitler and Stalin, if you want to be unbiased. Moreover, Polland itself was taking part in division of Czechoslovakia in 1938. So in the end everyone got what he was going to. But you are misled and misinformed if you blame the Soviet Union only."
Me and my Czech colleague were not talking about WWII (when really all countries went absolutely mad) but about the years thereafter. Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1980, Afghanistan... was not a matter of any other political power than Russia. Should I therefore start any message written to you, Ruslana, by "I still remember 20 years of watching Russian soldiers in my country"?
"...and yes, we should remember every invasion of the past whenever it was and whoever started it."
As you've said. But I don't see a point why to blame present German government for Hitler or French government for Napoleon. Do you see a reason why? Just to remind you that all these guys on their way to Russia went through our "small european countries".

"I personally think that "international law" is another tale. If politicians want to do something, they do it, neclecting any law." Saying this machiavellist idea, you are in no way better than USA, which has been criticized (by myself as well) here just for this attitude. Is Russia really the same?

Please stop mixing law with emotions (though I understand and accept all emotions involved here). Don't use law as a support for any military involvement, since you will surely fail to evidence it. If you want to write about emotions, write about them but don't expect me to react to them. If you want to discuss law, I am prepared to take part.
I personally doubt that anyone will read such a long article here. I am sorry