Tour of Tskhinvali undercuts Russian version of fighting

[rayofreason]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

TSKHINVALI, Georgia_ As Russian troops pounded through Georgia last week, the Kremlin and its allies repeatedly pointed to one justification above all others: The Georgian military had destroyed the city of Tskhinvali.

Russian politicians and their partners in Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway region South Ossetia, said that when Georgian forces tried to seize control of the city and the surrounding area, the physical damage was comparable to Stalingrad and the killings similar to the Holocaust.

But a trip to the city on Sunday, without official escorts, revealed a very different picture. While it was clear there had been heavy fighting — missiles knocked holes in walls, and bombs tore away rooftops — almost all of the buildings seen in an afternoon driving around Tskhinvali were still standing.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/48860.html

---

What a surprise!!! Putin's autocratic Russian government spinning, dissembling about what happened in Georgia? I'm shocked, totally shocked.

[Occam Bandage]

1. This is why I do not understand

the people taking one side or another here. It's fairly obvious that both the Russians and the Georgians are thuggish, lying, power-hungry bastards attempting to make a land grab.

[drmeow]

2. My sentiments exactly n/t

[The Traveler]

3. Exactly

These are deep, complex waters. But the Russian military retains the capacity for producing some really good strategic thinkers. I assure you, the game is being played skillfully ... on one side of the board.

Best not to demonize either side here. Just be aware of what we are dealing with. We have just been probed. And the other guys are happy about the results of their experiments.

[harmonicon]

7. Oh, I'm taking a side

That side is the side of the law. Russia invaded a sovereign country without provocation, and that shit just should not fly, not without the UN giving it a heads-up. This was/is an illegal war of aggression just as the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has been. I don't buy the crap I've read about "Georgian aggression" - against part of their country that voted to be independent? That happened in the US once too, and our government justifiably kicked some fucking "confederate" ass to keep that separation from happening. Countries have, in the past, been broken up through agreed upon legal means (that's why Georgia is now a country), but for a government to suppress what could become a civil war is A-ok in my book.

This doesn't mean that Georgia is "good" and Russia is "bad", but I do not like how the whole world seems to have become all namby-pamby about taking a hard-line on what has already been decided is right and wrong. Just as I didn't think Saddam Hussein was a great guy, I also KNOW that invading Iraq and overthrowing him was illegal and wrong.

[Fedja]

9. Your side is skewed

You have to look at this from above to understand it. South Ossetia was de facto independent since 1992, and has held another independence referendum which was attended by 95% of the local population, and passed with 90+% approval.

This is the EXACT same situation as Kosovo.
South Ossetia starring as Kosovo
Georgia starring as Serbia
Russia starring as liberators *cough* errr... the US.

So how's that law looking now?

[harmonicon]

16. Kosovo is/was a boodoggle

I said when that independence crap from them almost universally accepted that it was opening up a can of worms that people weren't ready to deal with. This is also like Chechnya, and Kashmir if you want more recent comparisons. I say, fine, let them declare independence, but they're still a part of Georgia, and I think a country's government has every right to lay the smack down when part of it decides they want some new special recognition. This doesn't mean that bombing them is ok, but it is a matter internal to the country, and could be settled with help from the international community, but having Russian tanks roll in helps nothing.

We have plenty of examples of peaceful separations over the last few decades. That can work, but both parties have to be ok with it. Two generations back, my family came to the US from Lithuania, which was at the time part of the Russian empire. They were looking for a better life, and an end to persecution as minorities. There was a lot of excitement in my family when Lithuania was the first Soviet republic to declare independence. The writing was on the wall that the USSR was over. Luckily, everyone saw it, and there was no bloodshed. What I see happening in Georgia right now seems to have less in common with that, and far more in common with the Soviets taking over Lithuanian after the country's brief stint of independence from the Russian empire.

What is the point of having laws, both domestic and international, if we're going to look at everything and make decisions apart from what law and history state? This shit is deeply troubling, I think, because, like with the US invasion of Iraq, the international community and press seems to be accepting the imperialist paradigm of 'might is right'.

[Igel]

17. Like "law".

"De facto" and "de jure" have rather different definitions.

When you say you're taking "de jure" as your standard, arguing that "de facto" is something else seems rather pointless.

It does have some similarities to Kosovo--which, of course, Russia denounced as contrary to law. Including the ethnic cleansing, overblown tales, and massive PR value for domestic consumption--first in Srbija, then in Rossija. Including post-invasion ethnic cleansing, an insistance that ethnic boundaries rule as the only possible (de facto) until the possibility of getting more land by maintaing the primacy of "de jure" boundaries.

But having a large Russian force ready to entire either minutes before or minutes after the Georgian invasion is a bit of a departure. As were the rocket attacks, something not quite the same as Kosovar seizing of some villages and killing the police. Kosovo was mostly under Serbian control, if you'll remember, not under Russian control. So the "de facto" parallel really does breakdown, the similarities don't go nearly as far as they should to narrow the de facto/de jure gap.

Oddly, though, while Ossetia had its breakaway majority-minority breakaway problem before the military conflict, Kosovo's happened only after the conflict--Mitrovica and such versus the mini-Georgian area lead by Kurta. However, the Russians figured that out. The mini-Georgian area in Ossetia is now properly purged, so no repeat of Mitrovica. (The solved the problem in the Kodori Gorge, with a hefty Georgian population, in parallel--but in that area the Abkhazians were the aggressor. No matter. The right side won, and the collective and communal punishments--de jure foul--are de facto ideal.

Ivan Groznyj, like those he admired--the Ottomans and the Horde, and the one who admired him--made heavy practice of making sure ethnic populations knew their place. Novgorod's population was displaced under Ivan IV, as the Circassians were under the Ottomans, some Turkic tribes under the Mongols, and the Volga Germans (and many Latvians) under the one who made Russians oh-so-proud (or is that "prideful"? Ah, pustaja semantika.)

[Fedja]

30. Minor misunderstandings

Nothing we can't work out.

"But having a large Russian force ready to entire either minutes before or minutes after the Georgian invasion is a bit of a departure. As were the rocket attacks, something not quite the same as Kosovar seizing of some villages and killing the police."

It appears as if you're pulling a comparison between Russia and Kosovo natives, which isn't really the case here. Kosovo natives (same as Ossetian natives) were pretty much ignored in my comparison. These are local populations who do dumb things in anger, but usually on a minor scale.

The deep connection I was refering to was Georgia putting the smack down on Ossetia in much the same way as Serbia did on Kosovo. Technical differences in interpretation, but both territories saw their desires for independence followed by a military attack on a civilian infrastructure.

Now, the deus ex machina was represented by the US and Russia in these two cases. The US had a nice little run with stealth bombers and tomahawks, turning much of the key infrastructure of Serbia into dust, including several key military and civilian structures in the capitol, Belgrade. Russia did pretty much the same, targetting (more or less) strategic positions all over Georgia, kicking them into shape and reminding them that much pain is on the horizon if they don't shape up.

Now sure, Russia had a massive army at the ready in light of the recent tensions (which entered after the slaughter of Ossetian civilians - saying "before" with a pundit cackle doesn't make it true), but one should note that the US had a fleet ready in the Mediterranean as Kosovo was looming as well. It's called being ready to act. Both big brothers were ready.

The other point you raise is very valid. What makes a state a state? Does each nation have the right to self-determination and independence? How do we consider ethnically mixed territories? Is the rule of the land the guideline, or is it lines on a map?

With the Kosovo escapade, the US stated that Serbia, however disgusting the whole situation may have been, does not have the right to discipline a minority territory and has to let it become independent. The US enforced this decision with fire and force, and the world cheered on. Now when Russia acts in the exact same capacity in Ossetia (ignoring the fact that this is a predominantly Russian territory), you would deny them the same authority?

Are you not applying two directly opposite standards to what is in essence the same question?

And don't get me wrong, I don't condone what happened in either location. I just object to the two-faced approach of the west in this particular case. The same "West" that encouraged and equipped Georgia to act aggressively against Russian nationals within its borders, the same "West" that made every effort to appear as if they would protect them from the expected Russian retribution. The same "West" that used the poor civilians of both Georgia and Ossetia and gambled their lives, taunting Russia into the inevitable quagmire that followed.

Under the whole mess, the goal seems to be (apart from the Kaspian oil pipeline) to intimidate the Polish into selling out and taking in the "missile shield deal". A despicable expansion of the US military presence in Europe, which Poland is going to be feeling for generations.

[IsItJustMe]

38. Georgia, like it or not, is in the Russian sphere of influence, always has been, and most likely

will be for our life times. Russia has a huge stake on what goes on there, and it will protect its interests. It is what it is. And all of the bull shit that is coming from Bush won't make a damn bit of difference to the Russians.

[MGKrebs]

19. That's the way I see it too.

There has to be some sort of international community consensus before one country can attack another. If there really is a holocaust or something going on, then if a country chooses to step in, they better be prepared to justify their action after the fact. I haven't seen that here.

[knixphan]

21. ditto.

[IsItJustMe]

37. Yep, and you can bet your bottom dollar we have our fingers in it also.

[AlphaCentauri]

4. So everything has been clean?

could it be that Russians are doing a good job reconstructing that city without paying billions and stealing oil?

just speculating a little bit

[Ex Lurker]

5. they couldn't rebuild a city in

three days.

[Regret My New Name]

15. Why not? Germany and Japan were rebuilt in 6 hours and 22 minutes... Doesn't seem hard to believe.

[Art_from_Ark]

53. WTF?

Japan was still rebuilding well into the 1950s. I have no idea where you get this 6 hours and 22 minutes stuff.

[Posteritatis]

8. You can't possibly believe that's possible inside of a week. (nt)

[Hyuke4]

6. Shocked? No

Why should you be shocked?.Bushco and Boys can not be touched,when it comes to spinning facts and the truth,I see no one else even close.
How about all the WMDs we have found? how about the so called connection by saddam with al quieda?
I think Bush,Cheney Rice,Rummy all pathological liars,claimed on more than one occasion that we had found the SMOKING gun,that we had fond the wmd's.
Russia is not in that league yet,but I am sure they picked up a few pointers

[Satyagrahi]

10. Tskhinvali bears deep scars of war

By Catherine Belton in Tskhinvali

Published: August 17 2008 20:17 | Last updated: August 17 2008 20:17

The library in Tskhinvali is charred and pockmarked. House after house on the city’s main streets has been hit by rocket fire. And on Telman Street, a residential Jewish quarter just a few hundred yards from the city centre, nearly every home has been reduced to rubble.

Nowhere has suffered more than the South Ossetian capital during this month’s fierce fighting between Russian and Georgian troops for the breakaway enclave.

In Tskhinvali, few residents doubt that the government in Tbilisi began the battle for the city when the Georgian army launched a volley of rocket fire shortly before midnight on August 7. But among the thud of rockets that continued to rain on the town for the next three days, leaving those cowering in cellars shocked and traumatised, few could tell whether Russian bombs also took their toll.

“When you are sitting in a cellar under fire it makes no difference to you who is bombing you. You have no idea. Mainly people were hoping that the Russians would come and get us out. We just wanted to survive,” said Mamuka Tzemashvili, one of the few Georgians still living in the ethnic Ossetian-dominated capital.

More:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dcc5225a-6c86-11dd-96dc-0000779fd18c,dwp_uuid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1272735,00.jpg

[Tiberius]

11. Give me a break

from the article: But a doctor at the city's main hospital, the only one open during the battles that began late on Aug. 7, said the facility recorded just 40 deaths.

So if the Canadians shelled Buffalo and caused "just 40 deaths", we'd be fine with a token retaliation? This whole article smells of B.S.

The article also says that "for every building destroyed, there's one standing." That's hilarious. So again, if half of Buffalo's buildings were destroyed, we'd be okay with that? Hey, at least half are still standing!

[jeff30997]

12. "damage was comparable to Stalingrad and the killings similar to the Holocaust. "

I believe that's an insult to the peoples who suffered and died during the siege of Stalingrad and the Holocaust.

[mbperrin]

13. Gosh, if only the media could possibly cover

something which undercuts the * version of events in Iraq........but that would be too much like a free press. Meanwhile, feel free to parrot the * line, press comrades!

[Xipe Totec]

14. Quibbling about how many times the rubble bounced?

That certainly makes me feel better about Georgia attacking South Ossetia... :eyes:

[Igel]

18. There were three attempts by Georgians to take Tskhinvali.

Initial bombardment, then occupation of the downtown "ministry" area.

This was turned back by Russian aerial bombing. As were the next two attempts.

Both were also accompanied by ground fighting.

Now, while I agree that defensive destruction of Tskhinvali--something not contrary to how Russia dealt with Chechnya--isn't entirely Russia's fault, it's at least partially their fault.

As for the post about houses long the main street and the Jewish quarter--both are reasonable. The houses destroyed in the first case (not really "houses," but "doma", which include shops and a school") are adjacent to the ministry area. The Jewish quarter was between the Georgian rocket battery and a military target; any rockets that didn't reach their target hit civilian, largely deserted, areas (the Jews almost all left in the '92/'93 fighting, and weren't allowed to return--maybe a third in Israel, a third in Georgia, and a third elsewhere, just not Russia or Ossetia, these days.)

It's the old "use poorly targetable weapons, and are you really responsible for collateral damage?" argument we heard in the Lebanon/Israel dust-up and about Hamas, to be honest. Hezbollah denied responsibility, with widespread report, when Arab villages in Israel were hit.

[The Croquist]

39. Why weren't the jews allowed to return?

"the Jews almost all left in the '92/'93 fighting, and weren't allowed to return"

Will they be allowed to vote in this plebiscite regarding the future of South Ossetia?

A second question. When will the plebiscite regarding the future of Chechnya be held?

[JerseygirlCT]

20. Yup. And Iraq had WMD. I don't think there's necessarily a good

guy in this situation, but the Russians surely are not to be trusted very far on this.

[cobalt1999]

22. I wouldn't trust Putin anymore than I trust George Bush.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MGKrebs]

27. So your evidence of war crimes is a NYT article and some propaganda?

Is that justification for a unilateral invasion of another country?
What are other heads of state saying? What is the UN saying?
If the problem was so egregious, why didn't Russia go to the UN or at least SOME other country for intervention support?


I don't doubt that Georgia used a heavy hand in trying to contain the secession, but it should almost never be acceptable for one country to invade another without some sort of international consensus. It's what we asked for before Iraq, why would we want something different now?

Just because George Bush comes down on one side doesn't mean we have to automatically take the opposite side. Even that idiot may get it right once in a while, although probably for the wrong reasons.

PS- I don't get the Neocon reference. The people who are defending the sovereignty of a small country against the hegemony of a large country are the Neocons? Perhaps one of us should re-evaluate what we mean by 'Neocon'.

[frankieT]

28. This is not an INVASION, it is a WAR between neighbors

CAN you see the difference between a full scale invasion and a war ?

Invasion (like Iraq or Afghanistan) is a war which aim is to take TOTAL control of the country, destroy it, and eventually replace the regime with collaborators.

In this case, Russia wasn't interested in controlling Georgia, this is utter propaganda crap echoing our cold war fears about Soviet Union. There is nothing interesting in Georgia and Russia cannot afford such a war. They know georgian resistance will be stiff and relentless. This is Caucasus, this is the reality.

It was a plain and simple case of warfare between neighboring countries on some kind of territorial dispute with a heavy geopolitical background (Georgia siding aggressively with NATO - the enemy of Russia).

Why didn't Russia go to the UN ?
- It did. But in the first hours of the georgian attack, we heard absolutely NO PROTESTS in the western embassies about the violent shelling of South Ossetia. We had even peachy reports in western media showing the magnificent fireworks of GRAD rockets showering Tskhinvali (watch the upbeat BBC report http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c7_1218202976 ). Within 12 hours the 9000 georgian troops almost took control of South Ossetia in their impressive blitzkrieg (oh they had a week before major military exercises with US). If Russia waited longer they could have lost the opportunity to launch a counter-attack (Georgia would control Roki tunnel the only way between North Ossetia and South Ossetia). Knowing that the South Ossetians never lived under Georgia control, what do you think would have happened there ? My guess : ethnic cleansing (go to North Ossetia), massacres (that already happened there in the 90's when SO fought for its independence and earlier between 1918 and 1921). Besides, when you see the biased reaction from the West and its powerful media machine, i can guess that the cleansing of South Ossetia would have received no coverage (like the murders and ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo after NATO kicked serbian military). Again this is CAUCASUS, Georgians can be ruthless killers. When you consider these simple facts you understand that RUssia had 2 choices :
- watch georgian troops kill or capture russian soldiers and citizens maintaining the status quo since 1992, kill or oust russian-friendly south-ossetians.
- act and repel the georgian attack.

What about the neocon reference ?
- Learn a little about Saukville. He's a neocon tool. I support all kind of democratic reforms, but lately Saukville behaved more like a little dictator, looking for military might and victories (a disproportionate part of the georgian public budget is for military). Except nice talk toward western audience (all the warm and nice things about freedom and democracy) military bragging and political moves to fuck with Russia (NATO), he accomplished little for his people. Wait till the dust settles, georgian people will oust him swiftly.

If Russia tried to destroy civil infrastructure including the capital (like US did to Serbia in 99), or tried to topple Tsakachvili, i would definitely condemn it. But if you watch the facts you must admit that it was a military response, just security business.

[WriteDown]

29. I will bookmark this for later....

Russia hasn't exactly left Georgia yet.

[MGKrebs]

31. Couple of problems with your post.

You are making up a definition for "invasion", and adding "full scale" to boot. I don't know if Russia wants to control Georgia or not, but they crossed the border and started shooting. That's an invasion. You can call it a war if you want, but so what? The same principle applies: They crossed the border into another country. They do so at their peril. If they can convince the rest of the region that it was justified, then fine, but they shouldn't get to decide for themselves when it's OK to invade another country.

I can't claim to know the reason (or reasons) for Russia's attack, but I am aware of this map:

[frankieT]

32. sorry to insist but INVASION is meant to take control of a country

WARS between neighbors have to take place in someone's turf. Here it took place in and around South-Ossetia. It was a typical conventional war like we see rarely these days. The last major war like this was when US countered Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, pushing his troops out of Kuwait and destroying his army in the IRAQI desert (US bombed Baghdad for some time also).

Russia didn't start the war, Georgia did.

Sure they shouldn't decide alone to pour fresh troops in SOuth Ossetia. People seem to forget that 500 russian "peacekeepers" along with 500 georgian "peacekeepers" were already in SO under a cease-fire TREATY brokered after the secessionist war of the 90's.
Maybe i'm wrong but i think Russia had no choice here. If they went the legal way (UN), no one would have protested against the killing of russians or south ossetians, just look at the media reports : almost no word about the people of South Ossetia who suffered the most from this military adventure. No word about their freedom neither.

PS: your map is as good for US, EU, Russian interests, no point to accuse RUssia especially.

[MGKrebs]

33. What the map points out is that there IS a reason to "control" Georgia.

Not necessarily just a border skirmish. The rest of the world seems to be pushing back pretty strongly so we may never know if Russia could have or would have tried for more.

If that pipeline is part of the equation though, Russia made it's point. It doesn't have to physically control it to control it. The government of Georgia will think twice before defying the will of Russia again.

[frankieT]

34. I agree with the second part !

"The rest of the world seems to be pushing back pretty strongly so we may never know if Russia could have or would have tried for more."

Maybe, but PROBABLY not. Unlike US foreign policy which is heavily driven by ideology, russian policy is very pragmatic (military and economic "security"), therefore it's quite easy to anticipate russian immediate motives they're very logical and anyone who knows little history and geography can understand them. And we can easily see why Russia has no interest in conquering Georgia: conquering territories is out of fashion nowadays (except for Israel), there are no resources to speak of in Georgia and the georgian resistance will be bloody (look how less than 1 million chechen nation humiliated Russia). So the most probable outcome is what we see now, mainly defeating georgian army and gaining some assurances by destroying the georgian military infrastructure. Maybe if US-NATO wasn't watching, RUssia would have tried a NATO-Belgrade treatment for Tbilisi, but hopefully western media are very critical and suspicious -to say the least- of russian actions. IMHO, the simplest reason for this uproar from the "international community" (a code word for the community of the 7 richest countries of the world) is that barking is all they can do. They cannot act on the field (already in 2 invasion wars and hey Georgia is really far away deep under the belly of the russian bear) and US credibility as the only superpower is at stake. So there are throwing a lot of bad names at Russia (i mean more than usual), threatening of a lot of bad reactions, speaking of "territorial integrity" and "unacceptable bullying" like some third world peacenik ambassador at the UN, so they can regain some prestige when finally things settle the way they're supposed to be (Georgia still independent, South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent with strong ties to RUssia, which BTW was always the case). Bush and his NATO friends will try to look as the saviors of Tbilisi even if they did nothing to save Saakachvili from his own idiocy.

"If that pipeline is part of the equation though, Russia made it's point. It doesn't have to physically control it to control it."

Frankly, i don't know if that pipeline matters so much. I think Russia got even economic interests in it. THere is a lot of oil and gas in Russia. But You are right about the control not being physical. We knew they can defeat Georgia or destroy the pipeline (even PKK bombed it in Turkey a week before this war started), but they showed they CAN actually do it. They drew a red line not to cross.

"The government of Georgia will think twice before defying the will of Russia again."

They have done more than defying the will of Russia. Georgia willing to join NATO the arch enemy of Russia is understandably felt as a treason to russians.

[Fedja]

35. Reason to control eh..

From what I've seen the US triggered this. Sakashviili isn't a moron, he wouldn't have done a thing if he didn't have US assurances of protection. Check into recent travels to the region by State Department people. The US told him they had his back, and Russia saw through it, and rolled in heavily. Putin knew damn well that the US doesn't have the available army to do good on the promise, and he called their collective bluff.

It's classic superpower arm wrestling. With the slight difference that Russia had a reason to protect the people of South Ossetia from heavy shelling. The US, on the other hand, couldn't even come up with an excuse.

[MGKrebs]

36. Not much doubt that the US would like- if not control of- at least access to

that pipeline as well.
George Bush is an idiot and can't play at this level, but nevertheless, I'm sure the end of this story hasn't been written yet.

[The Croquist]

40. Sorry but I completely disagree

It looks to me that the Russians triggered this.

Georgia claims that South Ossetia started it. Russia and South Ossetia claim that Georgia started it. None of us know who really started it.

Russia just happened to have enough troops on the border to overwhelm the Georgian army and they just happened to be ready to move in immediately. That sounds fishy to me.

Russia has also been issuing the residents of South Ossetia with Russian passports and provides about 70% of the South Ossetia government revenue. It sounds like Russia has been moving to control South Ossetia for years. When Russia says that they are protecting "Russian" lives I'm wondering exactly who they consider "Russian".

The Russian damage claims for Tskhinvali were greatly exaggerated and again nobody knows who caused the damage. Russia took part in the fighting there and bombed the city.

Russia has essentially done the same thing with Abkhazia.

It would be polite to say that Russia has less then compliant with the cease fire agreements that they have agreed to.

Sorry but it seems to me like the Russians are the aggressors.

[Fedja]

41. erm..

"It looks to me that the Russians triggered this.
Georgia claims that South Ossetia started it. Russia and South Ossetia claim that Georgia started it. None of us know who really started it."

I was going to reply, I was. However, I'll do so when you're at least vaguely familiar with the topic. It would be polite to say that equating the Ossetian and Abkhazian situations is daft.

[The Croquist]

42. Actually I think I am quite familiar with the topic...

If you disagree with my points please educate me. That's what these forums are for. frankieT, in a later post cites a Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600502_pf.html
article that provides a good example of the confusing events that started the war.

"On Aug. 1, an explosion in a small patch of South Ossetia held by the Georgians since the 1990s war wounded five Georgian policemen. Over the next two days, a series of shootings killed six Ossetians and five Georgians, according to figures compiled by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Each side accused the other of initiating artillery attacks and using heavier weapons."

It goes on to describe how events may have taken place. It mentions that the different sides have different versions.

One more thing:
It appears that Russia greatly exaggerated the civilian deaths from the fighting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia

"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful," she said. "Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."

"Neistat said that doctors at Tskhinvali hospital had provided figures that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue. Russian and South Ossetian officials have claimed that 1,400 people were killed in the first day of fighting, mostly in Tskhinvali."

Maybe the Russian's made an honest mistake in their estimate or maybe they deliberately lied in order to provide an excuse to attack.

[Fedja]

43. welcome to war.

EVERY estimate on casualties is exaggerated, always.

As for the Ossetian issue... Ossetia voted in independence. The Georgians wouldn't let them go (gasp), so there was a constant element of small-scale attacks in the region. That's called "crime". If someone wounds 5 cops, you go and perform an investigation, arrests, and trials. That's what a country does to enforce the law.

Georgia, instead of policing the region, hit the South Ossetian capitol with heavy artillery fire. They used weapons that are NEVER used in urban environments due to their massive collateral damage. That's an act of war.

And to those of you that still play the apologist card and pretend that Georgia did not willingly slaughter a city population as best as they could within their short window of opportunity, those of you that think that 1000 dead is ok as long as it's not your house getting shelled, here's an account of a western journalist:

The war here cut a swath of destruction, severely damaging many homes and apartment buildings.

Gaping holes scar five-story blocks of apartments, the detritus of what was once ordinary life blown onto shattered balconies.

In one neighborhood, along Telman Street, house after crumpled house was a scorched shell, bricks piled high in basements exposed to the sunlight. The area is about 200 yards from destroyed separatist government buildings, an acknowledged target of Georgian forces.

A school, a library and a kindergarten were blackened and pockmarked from small-arms fire, as were the houses around them.

At certain moments, in certain places, the smell of rotting corpses was in the air.

The scale of the destruction is undeniable; some streets summon iconic images of Stalingrad during World War II or Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, which was leveled in two wars between Russian troops and Chechen separatists.

http://www.startribune.com/world/27078214.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU

[The Croquist]

44. The last number I saw was 133 not 1,000 (or the earlier 2,000)

and we don't know who killed them. The dead aren't talking and we know that the Russians were fighting inside the city too. Most of the people were hiding in cellars so they don't know where the firing came from either.

Estimates are not always exaggerated. Sometimes they are low. I understand that in the heat of battle it is tough to know what is going on but it pisses me off that the Russian version of things seems to be accepted without question and the Georgian version seems to be discounted. It pisses me off even more that when the Russian version is proven wrong it becomes unimportant. Did you think it was unimportant that Iraq had no WMD's?

To compare the damage to Stalingrad is absurd. 133 civilians were killed in Tskhinvali. At least 40,000 civilians were killed in Stalingrad. Do you really thing that 133 and 40,000 are comparable? There were over a million people died in the battle of Stalingrad. The entire population of South Ossetia is only about 100,000 people. How can you compare them without saying "there is no comparison"?

By the way a country with a population of 100,000 would be a pretty small country.

[Fedja]

45. The deaths are measured per capita

Also... From what I've seen there's a 300 million population country that barely deserves to be called one in this past decade. Assuming that only empires are worthy of mention is quite the cocky attitude.

A country that treats its people and others well is a country that warrants respect no matter how small. It may not call itself "the greatist country in the world", but then again... most don't.

[The Croquist]

46. On a per capita basis they don't compare

The Tskhinvali population is about 30,000. 133 dead out of 30,000 equates to 0.0044 deaths per person. Stalingrad had 40,000 civilians killed. To have the same death rate it would have needed a population of over 9,000,000. The 1939 census lists Stalingrad with a population of 445,000 although I have seen a figure as high as 710,000 due to refugees.

"Assuming that only empires are worthy of mention is quite the cocky attitude."

I simply mentioned that a country with a population of 100,000 is pretty small. The only non-island countries I can find that are smaller are Liechtenstein and Monaco.

"South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum."
James L. Petigru 1860
South Carolina's population in 1860 was 703,708.

"A country that treats its people and others well is a country that warrants respect no matter how small."

I assume by this you mean Russia. Why don't you ask the Chechens how well Russia treats them and how the Russians really feel about self-determination. I don't recall that the Russians were big fans of it when it was their citizens that wanted it.

[Fedja]

47. Indeed

Assuming the Russians are a benevolent party would be ludicrous. They're basically guilty of the same actions as the ones perpetrated (or attempted) by Georgia recently. The difference being, nobody stood up for the Chechens. These things happen every day, they also happened in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo. Sometimes they happen without provocation, such as in Iraq.

Still, my argument stands that the Georgians provoked this response by a military attack on a minority civilian population. They were absolutely aware of the Russian attitude about it and the response that would follow, and they only acted on a misplaced trust in US intervention.

As for South Ossetia and their capitol, Tskhinvali lays deserted and ruined. The death counts are impossible due to the fact that most civilians left the city, and I'm sure both the 130* and the 2000* numbers are exaggerated. Still, it was an artillery attack on a civilian city that caused the war.

I suppose we'll have to leave it at that, and hope that no other "small country" ever desire prosperity or selfdetermination in the face of people sharing your beliefs.

[The Croquist]

48. I don't think that the Georgians would have attacked if they thought the Russians would intervene.

That is why I don't think that they started this.

One reason why I feel this way is this statement from the Russian ambassador to Nato in Brussels:

"They shot their brother Russian peacekeepers, then they finished them off with bayonets"

Georgia must have known that an attack on Russian peacekeepers would force a violent reaction. I can't believe that Georgia would be this stupid.

Georgia would have also known that, even if the US was willing to, they could never arrive in time to help.

I think Russia and South Ossetia started it and provoked Georgia. Why is that so hard to believe? It is a time honored tactic used by Japan against China, Germany against Poland and the US against Vietnam.
Georgia fell into the trap and got their asses kicked. The speed of the Russian advance shows that they were expecting something to happen.

I think that by the time Georgia shelled Tskhinvali the war had already started. Georgia just didn't know it yet.

I have no problem with small countries desiring self-determination but I don't think that is what we are seeing here. I think Russia is annexing South Ossetia.

[Fedja]

49. sigh

"I think Russia and South Ossetia started it and provoked Georgia. Why is that so hard to believe? It is a time honored tactic used by Japan against China, Germany against Poland and the US against Vietnam.
Georgia fell into the trap and got their asses kicked. The speed of the Russian advance shows that they were expecting something to happen.

I think that by the time Georgia shelled Tskhinvali the war had already started. Georgia just didn't know it yet."

Too many factual fallacies for me to grasp, I'm going to call it a day and leave you with your dreams. Just don't go around telling the Polish they provoked the German invasion, they'll take offense.

[The Croquist]

50. How does this statement equate to Poland provoking Germany?

"I think Russia and South Ossetia started it and provoked Georgia. Why is that so hard to believe? It is a time honored tactic used by Japan against China, Germany against Poland and the US against Vietnam."

In reality Germany faked a Polish attack and then "counter attacked" with their army that was conveniently mobilized on the Polish border. Sound familiar?

PS: I wish someone would add "Ossetia" into the dictionary.

[frankieT]

24. FINANCIAL TIMES : Tskhinvali bears deep scars of war

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dcc5225a-6c86-11dd-96dc-0000779fd18c,dwp_uuid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html

Even FT which cannot be suspected of being pro-russian (euphemism) called Tskhinvali situation different.
McClatchy Newspapers is no good, next time do us a favor and bring us some FOXNEWS or CNN unbiased reports :D

[maddezmom]

25. another interesting one from FT:

Dazed and confused on Russian front line
By Charles Clover in Igoeti

Published: August 17 2008 19:50 | Last updated: August 17 2008 19:50

The young Russian army captain had been trained for anything, and his company, battle-hardened in Chechnya, had fought their way through Georgia all the way to Igoeti, 40km from the capital, Tbilisi.

There, at the farthest point of Russian advance into Georgia, his company of nine armoured personnel carriers sat ready, at the tip of the Russian spear.

They were on foot, as the Georgian police had not let their SUVs through the forward Georgian lines at Igoeti, 2km away.

Many of the press pack had not even realised they had crossed the front lines, which on Saturday was the river Lekhura, with its shady banks and chirpy frogs, and no sign of trenches, tanks or other things one expects to see at a proper war. Arriving at the bewildered Russian checkpoint, which consisted of four soldiers standing under a tree eating peaches, one of the reporters hailed them with a hearty “gamarjobat”, Georgian for hello.
more:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da8b9e68-6c88-11dd-96dc-0000779fd18c.html

[frankieT]

26. Even the Washington Post mentions the indiscriminate shelling of South Ossetia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600502_pf.html

"Georgian forces fired artillery rounds into Tskhinvali, which sits in a hollow. They attacked villages on surrounding higher ground. By 1 a.m., they were shelling the road along which a Russian column of more than 100 vehicles, including tanks and other armored vehicles, was moving south from the Roki Tunnel.

The column stopped for 90 minutes, Kezerashvili said.

By 2 a.m. on Friday, Aug. 8, Kezerashvili said, Georgian ground troops had advanced to the edge of Tskhinvali, and Georgian units had unleashed the BM-21 multiple rocket system, which can launch 40 rockets in 20 seconds.

Kezerashvili said the system was used to target separatist government buildings in the center of Tskhinvali, including the Defense Ministry and the Interior Ministry, where police forces have their headquarters. "It's not like a very open and big city, and I can tell you that we only targeted the places, the governmental organizations," Kezerashvili said.

But military experts said the BM-21 is a weapon for battlefield combat and not for use anywhere near civilians. "The BM-21 was designed to attack forces in large areas, and, as a consequence, if you use them in an urban environment, the likelihood of collateral damage is high," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The artillery fire on the city continued until daylight, according to the reports of three OSCE monitors who were there in a cellar; their building was shelled and damaged. The three got out of Tskhinvali on Friday afternoon during a lull in fighting."

[sofa king]

51. The Russians like to blow things up with artillery and mortars.

Just as the German army of World War II used the machine gun as its primary infantry weapon, and Americans often place a lot of stock in high-volume semi-automatic weapons fire, the Russians are particularly enamored with artillery and mortars. If I recall correctly, every Russian infantry platoon of 40 or so people has a heavy weapons squad which carries at least one mortar, plus company and regimental sections. They also have self-propelled mortars which reporters would probably style "tanks."

Of course, the Georgians have probably inherited that preference as well, despite their claims that their military is based on a NATO model. That article I linked mentions that the Russians were doing final testing on a new model in the North Caucasus around six weeks before all this went down. Hard to resist trying out the new toy.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

52. according to the Nation, Reuters, Der Spiegal, BBC

the GEORGIANS, with the able assistance of our State Department and DOD advisers, invaded a break-away region, which then invited the Russians in to help.

McClatchy is good quite often, but they are swallowing McCainist spin whole this time around.