I've been trying to learn more about this subject, and this is the closest thing I've found to a balanced analysis of the 2008 war and the conflict leading up to it. What I gleaned from this is that Russia had been supporting Ossetian separatists for a while, and they had been attacking Kartvelian villages. This had escalated sharply in early August of that year. Saakashvili responded in a way that he believed was in the best interest of his country, to try to reunite it, but the military execution of it was really screwed up, like how Israel has been known to respond to terrorist attacks sometimes. The Russians rolled in to paint themselves as saviors and heroes, but their military also acted like buffoons and killed civilians. Both sides engaged in information warfare after the fact to cover up the abuses and incompetence by their respective troops. I doubt that most of the grieving mothers who lost their children cared about "who started it" or which side was more to blame; they just wanted their kids back.
South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia during the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War on 29 May 1992, with its Constitution referring to the "Republic of South Ossetia". Abkhazia declared its independence after its war with Georgia in 1992–1993. Its Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1994. that's all there is to know. This phrase looks like this, whether Russia forced Abkhazia to fight with the Kartavelian peoples. This is not true. In those places, national conflicts are a common thing. In August 2008, Georgia attempted to take away the independence of Abkhazia and North Ossetia by force. These republics officially turned to Russia for help, since they did not have the opportunity to resist Georgia. Russian troops acted as peacekeepers. Georgian troops were not allowed into Abkhazia and North Ossetia.. Russia did not fight with Georgia, did not change power, did not occupy territory. Only after that, different countries began to recognize Abkhazia and North Ossetia at the international level. This is what I know.
Well, no, it's actually a lot more complex than that, with a lot more to know. You misunderstood. I was not saying Russia forced anyone to fight with the Kartvelian peoples, but they took advantage of it. I'm aware of the ethnic tensions and previous wars. As far as the vast majority of the world sees it, this was/is a "civil war" within Georgia. Far fewer countries recognize Abkhazia or South Ossetia than recognize Taiwan, which hasn't even declared independence. Why do you think this is? Did you watch the video? Some of the South Ossetians admitted to deliberately engaging in ethnic cleansing. even though they're in denial about that's what it was. It appears the Russian leaders decided to support these people, even though they're parallel to the Chechnyan separatists within Russia. The Georgian government's attack on Tskhinvali didn't just happen out of the blue, although it was very poorly handled and they deserved criticism for it. No one looked good in that war.
The Sentinel, I agree, it's not that simple. We look at the dates - the beginning of the 90s. At this time, the USSR was collapsing. After Yeltsin's words: "Take as much sovereignty as you can swallow." All former republics of the USSR proclaimed independence. Of course, in the republics themselves, such as Georgia, the same processes were going on as in the entire territory of the former Soviet Union. Abkhazia and North Ossetia took sovereignty as former parts of the USSR. In other words, Georgia has no more rights to these territories as part of its country than Russia has to the territory of Latvia or Estonia. ... Thus, it turns out that Russia did not have the desire and the opportunity to somehow influence politics. Abkhazia and North Ossetia. In the 90s it was not up to that. There were many other problems in the country, and Russia did not deal with foreign policy at all (Unfortunately). There is no need to blame Russia for allegedly creating problems for Georgia ... I repeat, Yeltsin let everyone go without any conditions. Prior to the outbreak of the war on 8/8/08, North Ossetia and Abkhazia were de facto independent without any Russian involvement. ... The peoples of the Caucasus are very numerous and constantly at knifepoint - in the literal sense of the word. This, one might say, is their tradition... blood feuds and all that. An outsider cannot understand this. I want to say that Russia did not support ethnic cleansing. Russia supported only the independence of Ossetia and Abkhazia... I admit the idea that the decision to enter the conflict was made by Russia, among other things, to prevent genocide.
I’m sure many of the Russian troops were told they were only there to stop genocide, and many of them believed it. I’m think many back in Moscow even believe it. The problem for Russia is that when their politicians try to explain their military actions in the 21st century, they come across as shamelessly guilty, even less credible than the phone call recording that was supposedly “found” by the Georgians, which I am also skeptical of.
Soldiers follow orders - they do not need to believe or not believe. Their job is to complete the task. From your video, the chronology of events is clearly traced. Why are they blaming Russia again? Georgia started out - there is no doubt about it. Russia did not even begin to occupy Georgia, leaving the country at the end of the conflict.
Again, why do you think the vast majority of countries in the world disagree with this and do not recognize those regions as anything more than territories within Georgia's internationally recognized borders? Probably for similar reasons to why they didn't and don't recognize Chechnya or Tatarstan. Again, no one's alleging that Russia "created" the problems, and I don't doubt that Moscow had little or no interest in these subregions during the 1990s, but by the time of the 2000s the pendulum had already swung back in the other direction. The way you describe it, it sounds like nothing happened between a statement made by Yeltsin in the 90s and the "outbreak" of the war on 8/8/08. Clearly a double standard is being applied here, where it's okay for Russia to use extreme violence to quell violent separatists, but not if anyone else does it.
I do not see any relationship between recognition and independence. If you don't want to, don't admit it. Exactly since 1993 Abkhazia and North Ossetia feel independent. Why would Russia interfere there? What's the point at all? Russia should not be considered an Evil Empire. Russia voluntarily gave independence to Georgia. Why, on its own initiative, spoil relations and for some reason influence petty Ossetia ... it would immediately influence Georgia. I'm sorry, but your video clearly shows that Georgia was the initiator of the violence. Autumn, as an independent state, asked for protection from a neighbor. Everything is simple - why look for hidden meanings? Conspiracy theory? They say Russia has been trying to persuade Ossetia to provoke Georgia for 15 years. What's the point? But Georgia's attempt to return the territory (As Azerbaijan returned the territory from Armenia last year) is quite understandable.
No offense, but we clearly have a language barrier here. Are you familiar with the phrase "tit for tat"? The video refers to that, and it's talking about violence prior to and leading up to 8/8/08. So, that contradicts the claim that the Georgian government initiated the violence. It's more accurate to say they escalated it. In their minds, the escalation was justified by what they were responding to, just like the Russians apparently think their own escalation was justified. You keep arguing against the straw man that "Russia is an Evil Empire". I never said that, and I don't think it's constructive to call Russia, or the U.S., or China, etc. Evil Empires. But it's true that all big nations go through phases of being destructive pendulums, and I think it's fair to say that Russia's current leadership is not as innocent and pure in their intentions as you've been suggesting. It's clear they were supporting the separatists prior to the 2008 war.
Of course, "an eye for an eye" is familiar to me. I already wrote that the peoples of the Caucasus are numerous - and the traditions of blood feud and mutual hostility have old roots. This is not a reason for Georgia to send troops into a civilian city and shoot at everything in a row. In the early 90s, Ossetia gained independence after the war. People were dying from both sides. Both sides wanted revenge. Georgia decided to go to war and return Ossetia to itself. Do you think people will agree to live in Georgia? It's obvious to me that it doesn't. Surely Georgia thought so too. Genocide was therefore an acceptable way out for the acquisition of this territory. Please note that Ossetians speak pure Russian in the video. I don't hear the accent at all. Georgians, on the other hand, mostly give Internet views and prefer to speak Georgian, everyone knows the Russian language in principle, but they don't want to speak it. Do you think these people will be able to live side by side in one Georgia? Not for this Ossetia fought. It's their own business, but you keep seeing a Russian conspiracy. I will ask again: what is the benefit for Russia in that conflict? Why should Russia persuade Ossetia to commit suicide in order to fight with Georgia, and as a result, without even occupying the country? We really have a misunderstanding at a basic level. The West in conflict always talks about territory. If there are people on the territory, it is their problem. It can be destroyed as a last resort. For Russia, the territory is not important - the country has a lot of empty land. Russia always cares about people in the first place - this task is a priority. In general, I have no doubt that Russia has responded to the call to help people. Without any secret plans - this is not typical for Russians, they are more straightforward. In addition, Rossya did not receive anything as a profit from the conflict.
Many of Russia's leaders and nationalists have admitted numerous times why they think interfering in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict is to Russia's benefit: they claim it's a "national security" issue. That's their motivation and justification for (further) destabilizing neighboring states if they are too friendly with Europe and NATO, which was the case with Georgia at that time. I know you probably don't want to admit it, but Russia's leaders aren't any more pure or innocent than the ones in 'the West'. They stoke nationalism for their own benefits, just like some factions within the U.S. do. Your argument about the Ossetian woman speaking pure Russian is really odd and irrational. It's like saying because there are pure English speakers in Hong Kong, then Hong Kong can't possibly live side by side in one China. I don't believe the claim that Georgia tried to commit "genocide" by responding to violent separatists and terrorists in a single military incident. Did Russia commit genocide against Chechnyans? No, of course not. It sounds a lot like when people accuse Israel of "genocide" every time they respond to attacks. Even if I sometimes disagree with Israel's actions as over the top and inappropriate, the genocide accusation is disingenuous propaganda. The Russian government really undermined their credibility by making a false claim of genocide, similar to how western governments hurt their credibility with WMD claims in the same decade.
What happened??....is the Asiatic fiefdom know as Muscovy invaded and carved out a slice of Gruzia....so don't let some Potemkin agents tell otherwise here.
No, I really don't understand why Russia needs this destabilization in the Caucasus. Anyway, it is quite a troubled and problematic region. Russia is greatly hindered. I don't see how this conflict prevented Georgia from having a national conflict anymore. They don't have a civil war. Russia did not hurt their sovereignty. They have normal leaders, and Saakashvili is in prison. Does that mean chaos? Let me remind you that Georgia attacked, Georgia brought in tanks and fired at civilians. Georgia has committed military attacks - this is a fact. And there is little information about conflicts between Georgian and Ossetian villages. For all their centuries of enmity, there may have been fewer murders there than the New York ghetto. (Otherwise people quickly ran out.) "Genocide" is an English term. In Russian, I can use other expressions like: "kill all the locals", "cut out the population" - but they take a long time to write. I ask once. Change your outlook on life. Do not look for secret meanings in the words and actions of Russia. The Russians will not support "talk about nothing". Russians don't smile for no reason, like Americans do. Russians will not lie - if there is an opportunity to remain silent. For Russia, an interethnic conflict is generally an incomprehensible thing. For me, an Ossetian woman is the same Russian - because she speaks pure Russian. And for you, a Chinese speaker in English will be an Englishman? Georgians live and work in Russia - there is no hostility or conflicts. No one was driven or followed even during 8/8/08. In Russia, Georgians speak Russian with a recognizable accent. Do not enter into a conversation with your Ukrainian intolerance. Here adults discuss serious topics.
I think I'll reply to whomever....quite a dog's breakfast of a reply you have there. Like I said Mafialand invaded Gruzia back in 2008. Besides...what of Abkazia/South Ossetia....isn't one of the "governors" wanted by Interpol.
Hello. Yes, I'm aware that Russia used a pretext to invade and occupy parts of Georgia, just as they have in Ukraine. That's obvious to anyone with open eyes. Still, I do not take everything that the Georgian or Ukrainian governments say at face value. The truth is usually more complex than either side would have you believe in conflicts like this. By the way, most Georgians do not like their country being referred to as the exonym of Gruzia, AIUI. They prefer Sakartvelo/Saqartvelo, or Winterfell/Land of the Wolves.
I think I answered your question clearly about the Russian government's motivation for intervention. According to their own words and actions, they are extremely insecure and paranoid and vindictive about NATO and 'the West', or at least they are pandering to people within Russia who are. There are some factions who want to revive and continue the Cold War (just like there are some factions within the West that want the same), and there are others who want to restore as much of the Soviet Union as possible (just like there were people who wanted to restore the British Empire for many decades after it fell). Do you really think it's impossible these types of people exist within Russia, or have influence over its foreign policy? That's certainly how it looks. I don't know what you're saying here. The paragraph is disconnected and incomprehensible. It sounds like you're throwing up a bunch of red herrings to try to deny the possibility that the central government in Moscow would exploit a pre-existing conflict for its own benefit. Even though they've shown a pattern of doing so in recent times. No matter how you choose to write it, it's an exaggeration of what happened. Russia admitted that the number of people killed was much lower than either they or the Ossetians had claimed. Yes, civilians were killed, and the Georgian military deserved harsh criticism for how they handled it, but that's not the same as the hyperbolic propaganda that Russia used (and still uses) to justify its reaction. I have seen no evidence they were trying wipe out the South Ossetian population. I would ask you to reflect on your own prejudices here before lecturing me on mine. If you think Americans "smile for no reason" or "talk about nothing", then you have an ignorant stereotype in your mindset. Every culture has their own verbal and non-verbal communication habits and cues. They may seem nonsensical or meaningless to an outsider, but there's always a reason for it within the context of the culture or individual. I still don't see the point you're trying to make here. Why is the accent relevant? Does it give the South Ossetians' propaganda more credibility than the central Georgians', in your eyes?
The Sentinel, I'm your expert on "how to be Russian in Russia" Honestly. Russia has no plans to re-establish an empire within the Borders of the USSR. Yeltsin peacefully gave independence to all who wished. (I will not say that under the influence of the West - I don’t know) At least until 2000 there was no influence on the policy of neighbors 100%. Since 2000, Putin has had TOO many problems in Russia to also be involved in foreign policy. The pacification of Chechnya and Dagestan, the fight against crime and terrorism, the stabilization of their own politics and economy. Look at Putin's early rhetoric - he was a typical pro-Western politician, ready to cooperate and sacrifice for the sake of friendship. After the Maidan in Ukraine, the Russian government was deservedly criticized for not engaging in foreign policy and allowing it to happen. And in Georgia there was no influence at all. Georgia started the war in an attempt to regain those lands that it lost 15 years ago due to its rebels. I said, look at the results of the war: Georgia has not lost its sovereignty. Ethnic conflicts have ended in Georgia. There is no civil war. Saakashvili is now in prison (it was not the Russians who put him in prison, by the way). And what did Russia get? earth? no. Control over Georgia? No. The world beyond its borders - yes. For this, it is not necessary to push Ossetia to commit suicide and conduct secret conspiracies. Didn't you watch the video you posted? Georgian troops entered the city and began to kill civilians. Do you think they would stop there? I repeat - the traditions of blood feud are strong in the Caucasus. According to Georgia, this forced them to clear the territory. Genocide is an acceptable result from their point of view. I'm hinting that one should not judge the motives of people with a different culture from the standpoint of one's own views and rules. Because the Georgian tanks arrived in Tskhinvali, and not vice versa. I am trying to explain that Russians do not tend to look for an ethnic component in conflicts. Russia will not create conflicts between ethnic groups - this is obvious to me. Russia intervenes in the conflict if there is a threat to the lives of people... Russian people. And everyone who speaks and thinks in Russian will be Russian.
