Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

How about this summary of the report? (Wikipedia Front Page!)

"An international fact-finding mission headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini concludes that Georgia started the 2008 South Ossetia war and that Russia answered by using excessive measures."

It made the front page of Wikipedia, it's of critical importance, why not just use it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing Reuters facts

Apart from the issue of misrepresenting the EU report addressed above, this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&curid=18762503&diff=317584506&oldid=317583525, removed the reuters facts about SO being largely financed by Russia, which is very different from the question of which passports its inhabitants have. Being financed by Russia is not at all the same as "being a de facto part of Russia". --Xeeron (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I simply removed it because I thought it was redundant. If Russians are in the government, and Russians are controlling the institutions etc.. then I think it goes without saying that a lot of their funding comes from Russia. You can re-insert some of those details if you really think it's necessary, but a removal of what I added was not warranted or explained. LokiiT (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you continue to do blind reverts based on a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with the content that you reverted, while ignoring the relevant discussion entirely. LokiiT (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Article split and reduction

The article is at 190Kb. From WP:SPLIT:

"There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split. A guideline for article size is:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB	May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page.

"

The article is of sufficient size to make 3 'Probably should be divided' articles and still have enough left over for a stub, in terms of raw size. I only have one halfhearted suggestion for article topics for spinoff, and that is Military operations of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Even splitting will not accomplish what needs to be done, unless two articles are split off; note that since many articles already have been made, the main problem seems to be the lack of adequately succinct summaries. I will WP:BOLDly reduce at least one section in the main article, and await your responses. Anarchangel (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way to reduce size is to shorten the "responsibility" section, and use fewer references. The refs make up a large amount of the size, and we should reduce them first before starting to remove information. Also, I think the subject is such that a large article is required for a balanced representation. Gaza War is 182kB; Iraq War is 179kB. Offliner (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Offliner. We need to go through the references, and see which ones we don't need. Any massive revisions of text will likely be met with hostility from the editors. Everyone worked hard to present their side of the story, and the article has been improving. The war is a recent one, the mass media on both sides, Western and Russian was misleading; as such, it is a hard article to write. Taking anything out at this point, would not be beneficial. Other recent war articles are just as big as ours. This article already has twelve child articles. Sometimes, in favor of compromise, when most editors who have edited agree, and I would actually like to get Kober's point of view on this question too, but sometimes, when 90% of the editors truly editing this article agree, we must follow recent trends. If war articles are just under 200 kb, then so be it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note the difference between readable prose and the number displayed in the articles history. The later is much bigger. --Xeeron (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you go to a 60Kb article, and then to here, you may notice a difference in loading time. That's two things: the size of the article, and the size of the talk page archives. Same with the Sarah Palin article; even though it is has been scrupulously kept small, the huge number of archives makes for very slow loading.

So the damage may be done already, and if I only convince you of one thing, it would be that what you say on talk does not only matter because it is supposed to improve the article, but that arguing back and forth forever can actually harm the article directly.

But on the other hand, the spinoff articles are word for word exactly the same as what is in this article; there is still a lot of work that can be done to summarize the material here. WP:Ignore All Rules would indeed apply, to ignore the standard of 100Kb for this subject, if there were not other options. Anarchangel (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The size of the talk page or its archives has absolutely nothing to do with how fast the article itself loads.
2. The size of readable prose in the article is 93kB (see here: User:Offliner/SOWSIZE) Offliner (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

93 kB? Wouldn't that place the article, just barely, within the 100 kB limits, meaning we don't have to shorten the article, yet again? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I speak from personal experience, and Offliner's edit mentions nothing of having tried my suggested test of loading time, nor any reason why the assertion should be so.

It is more than a possibility that the Kb size in WP:SPLIT is total size, not readable size, as the article does not specify, and the total size is the more used and accessible number. However, I will be directing my attentions to the search for knowledgeable people to specify which it is, and then some second opinions, as many Wikipedians are of a technical level so as to confuse RAM with storage space. Anarchangel (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, will you also be doing this for the Iraq War and the Gaza War articles, so as to apply the policy to all articles in the same category, not just to one of them? And if so, have you tried discussing the issue with the editors of the above-mentioned articles? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Passport issue

If you want to claim them handing out passports to former citizens of the USSR was against international law, then please cite where in the source it says this, and perhaps someone can add it to the article. That's entirely irrelevant from the Russian's point of view though, since their own constitution trumps international law, and their point of view and hence legal justifications are important to note. It's kind of telling when my first real contribution to the article in months gets blindly reverted immediately. I was under the assumption that we were actually going to make use of this report, not hamper further development of the article by hanging on to old Reuters articles from a year ago.LokiiT (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

From my forum page, I think it's relevant:

After reading certain newspapers and claims, as well talking to people on the streets, I get the distinct feeling that some people still believe the claim that "evil Russians are giving out Ossetians passports in order to provoke, poor, little, Democratic Georgia". Well first off the media censorship in Georgia is at Stalinist levels, so I wouldn't call that Democratic. Just try to find a Russian TV channel; oh wait - those are blocked. I thought Democracy was about getting both sides of the story, but when certain interests love an oil pipeline, Democracy takes a backseat, and is lucky that it's not thrown out of the car. Sorry, I digressed a bit.

If one was to actually study the Ossetian people, one would notice that there are 720,000 Ossetians alive today. They're not a major ethnic group. (Major ethnic groups are those that have over a million members.) They are descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians. Seen the move King Arthur? The one with Kiera Knightley? Those are the Sarmatian Knights. Even back then Sarmatians had good taste in women; sorry I digressed again.

Anyways, there are 720,000 Ossetians today. Out of that number, 445,300 reside in North Ossetia, and make up 62.69% of that region. In other words, that province (state), that is, and has been for centuries an undeniable part of Russia is what the Ossetians call home. Russia is the homeland of the Ossetians. Aside from the 445,300 Ossetians an additional 69,700 reside in other parts of Russia. In addition, 45,000 Ossetians live in South Ossetia, a region that has for centuries been a De Facto part of Russia, and was chopped off from Russia, by a brutal Georgian dictator called Dzugashvili, but he's better known as Stalin. In other words, 77.78% of Ossetians live in Russia, or De Facto Russian territory. They are as much a part of Russia as Russians are! Why the fuck do CNN, Fox News, Sky News, New York Times, and others have a problem with Russia giving out Russian passports to these people?! Ahh, right great propaganda; if only these "newsmen" were committed to journalism as much as they're committed to propaganda, the US wouldn't be in Iraq and would still be a Superpower. The US forces might have even caught bin Laden, had there been no need to send US Forces fighting a just war in Afghanistan, into the Iraqi Quagmire.

Gah! I gotta stop digressing. But, on the other hand, that last digression was good; well at least it was honest. So I guess I shouldn't stop digressing. But you probably want to know more about Ossetians, right? 59,200 Ossetians, or 8.22% live in Syria. 38,000 or 5.28% live in Georgia. 36,900 or 5.13% live in Turkey. 18,670 or 2.59% are spread amongst the five Stans, (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan). 7,230 or 1.00% percent live in other places, mostly the former Soviet Republics, and parts of California; well at least Amanda Kokoeva lives in California, and you can Google the fine mess that she got Faux News in.

Now do you see why the claim "zomg Russia, ebil, dey give Ossetians passports to provoke Georgia" is silly? Russians giving Ossetians passports is like Russians giving Russians passports. If that provokes you, you're a moron. Russia conducting unmanned flights of your territory, and Russia withdrawing its peacekeepers, now that's provocative. Russia shelling innocent civilians with rockets - now that's truly provocative. Too bad it wasn't the Russians who did that; it was Saakashvili, Dzugahsvili's boy. Of course the "reporters" of the "Saddam has WMDs" Brigade, hope that you don't find actual statistics, and do actual research; they, (CNN, Faux News, Sky News, New York Times, and others) just pray that you don't get educated, and instead listen to, believe, and worship their drivel. Seriously, don't take my word for it, do some research: every mass media force that stated that Saddam had WMDs, the exact same ones, stated that Russia started this war. Since when did "damn the statistics, damn the truth, yellow journalism - FULL SPEED AHEAD!" become the new journalistic motto?

But there is a simple way to fight it. Do your own research and stop watching their crap. Then their ratings go down, and they'll be forced to either hire honest correspondents, stop reporting "news" and start reporting actual news, or sink into debt.

And Xeeron making the edit, again not at all surprising. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Loki please stop misquoting me and misrepresenting the EU report. From the EU report (I'll quote the entire section and highlight the important part):

"Another legal issue related to the conflict and to relations between Georgia and Russia is the Russian so-called “passportisation” policy, meaning the mass conferral of Russian citizenship and consequently passports to persons living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where a vast majority of the population are now carrying such Russian passports. While Russian citizenship had been conferred in individual cases already at an earlier point in time, the new Russian Law on Citizenship which entered into effect in the year 2002 regulated in its articles 13 and 14 admittance to Russian citizenship in a simplified procedure and thus opened broader avenues soon to be exploited by thousands of new applicants from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. One of the essential requirements for other states to be obliged to recognise such conferrals of citizenship under the terms of international law is, however, that there must be an adequate factual connection between the applicant and the receiving country – in this case Russia – and which must not be arbitrary. This could be for example family connections, long-time residence and extended government or military service. In addition, an explicit consent of the home country is required. Georgian law, however, does not recognise dual citizenship. Former Soviet citizenship is not considered sufficient grounds, since this status had already been translated into Georgian citizenship at the time of independence. Given these requirements, only a limited number of such conferrals can be deemed as legally binding under international law. The vast majority of purportedly naturalised persons from South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not Russian nationals in terms of international law. Neither Georgia nor any third country need acknowledge such Russian nationality. Consequently, the persons living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia who had first become Georgian citizens after the dissolution of the Soviet Union continue to remain so irrespective of “passportisation” policies. They were still citizens of Georgia at the time of the armed conflict of August 2008, and in legal terms they remain so to this day unless they had renounced or lost their Georgian nationality in regular ways. The mass conferral of Russian citizenship to Georgian nationals and the provision of passports on a massive scale on Georgian territory, including its breakaway provinces, without the consent of the Georgian Government runs against the principles of good neighbourliness and constitutes an open challenge to Georgian sovereignty and an interference in the internal affairs of Georgia."

You quote the report stating that naturalisation is in general possible (which is true), but fail to mention that it was not ok in this case, thus putting the conclusion of the report on its head. --Xeeron (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But how is it relevant to what the Russian constitution says? We're looking for Russia's own legal justifications. Whether or not the issuing of the passports was illegal by some interpretations of international law (obviously not their own) is irrelevant to the fact that they did it anyways, and were then obliged by their own constitutional law to treat those passport holders as Russian citizens. That's the point that needs to be made - what their law which dictates their actions states. LokiiT (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well some state might write the obligation to attack all neighbors of sundays into their constitution, but that would not have any effect on whether the attack is legal under international law. Same here: Russia handed out passports to people who remained, under international law, Georgian nationals. So Russia can not use this as a justification for sending troops to Georgia.

Of course this is all irrelevant, since protecting their peacekeepers was already a valid justification and you do not need two. --Xeeron (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's upto the ICJ to decide, not you. The ICJ has yet to give a verdict on the passport issue. And in law school, one is taught to bring in all the arguments, and all the defenses that are relevant to the issue, not just the ones that work. We are stating Russia's arguments, explaining that those are Russia's arguments. You are engaging in WP:OR, especially when falsely claiming that you only need one justification for the war. The Americans had several for invading Afghanistan, most of them just. Why are you limiting Russia's number? If someone bombs my house and burns my shed, I can only sue them for bombing my house, as that would be a valid justification, and I wouldn't need two? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If some state writes the obligation to attack all neighbors on Sundays into their constitution, then of course that would be critical information to include in the relevant article. And keep in mind that this is only the interpretation of international law by one group of legal experts. Russia has its own legal experts who could just as easily make different conclusions. Like HistoricWarrior said, It hasn't been decided in a court of law, therefor nothing has been concluded yet on the issue of international law. LokiiT (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of different Legal Interpretations, the Sarkozy-Medvedev Treaty is interpreted in an at least five different ways. According to the UK, Russia broke it. According to Venezuela, Russia is following it. According to Slovakia, there is sufficient legal room to decide it either way. Plus we have the Russian and French interpretations. And they all have equal value under the ICJ. We cannot just take one argument away, until the ICJ makes a ruling, which will take several years judging by the rapid pace that the ICJ is moving at. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Xeeron refuses to discuss his edits, I'll discuss them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317577195

Here Xeeron moves this section up: "Georgia released intercepted telephone calls purporting to show that part of a Russian armoured regiment crossed into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia nearly a full day before Georgia’s attack on the capital, Tskhinvali, late on Aug. 7." in a desperate move to try to make the New York Times more important than it sounds, AFTER the EU Report already destroyed the theory that Russia started the war. However this part gets conveniently forgotten by Xeeron, and oh look, it just happens to come later and be pro-Russian, a miraculous coincidence, no doubt: "In a later article published on 6 November The New York Times said that "neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary" and that the phone intercepts published by Georgia did not show the Russian column’s size, composition or mission, and that "there has not been evidence that it was engaged with Georgian forces until many hours after the Georgian bombardment.""

Who are honest editors to tell Xeeron what to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317582123

Here Xeeron dutifully deleted the entire analysts section, without any consultations from his fellow editors. A section, POOF, gone! The heading: " REWRITE/SHORTENING END, removed all the redundant earlier TOO LONG stuff" Excuse me, but you aren't the only editor here. You don't make the calls on what's redundant. I think it's very relevant, irrespective of how many times you write "TOO LONG" in caps. The removal of vital information, without any consultation with your fellow editors, amounts to nothing short of Vandalism. Speaking of Redundancy, Xeeron favoring the same sources over and over again is very redundant.

Another edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=317582338

Here Xeeron changes the Russia's government opinion to his own. Xeeron, we don't care what you think! Honestly, we don't.

From: From the viewpoint of Russian constitutional law, the legal position of Russian passport holders in South Ossetia is the same as that of Russian citizens living in Russia. Moreover, Russian officials already had de facto control over South Ossetia's institutions, including security institutions and security forces, and South Ossetia's de facto government was largely staffed with Russian representatives and South Ossetians with Russian passports who had previously worked in equivalent government positions in Russia. In mid-April, 2008, the Russian Foreign Ministry

To: Reuters describes the government as "dependent on Russia, [supplier of] two thirds of [its] annual budget", and reports that "Russia's state-controlled gas giant Gazprom is building new gas pipelines and infrastructure" worth hundreds of millions of dollars to supply South Ossetian cities with energy.

Russia speaks for Russia just fine, we don't need your interpretation of "Oil Politics". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you are back to old form HistoricWarrior.

• "without any consultations from his fellow editors". Lie: [1]
• Moved section: This is now in the Georgian position part, and even you can't doubt that this IS the Georgian position. The EU report below makes clear that this position is not shared by the reports authors.
• "Xeeron changes the Russia's government opinion to his own". Lie: I reverted LokiiT's unwarranted change (even you agree that the two versions are vastly different and not, as he claims, similar), not the other way round.

Unfortunate that you restart your campaign of false accusations just so soon. --Xeeron (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your post, I didn't see any reactions. That would qualify as "without any consultations". I also recall responding to that with a definite NO, sometime later, possibly in another section.

When moving to Georgia's position, you deleted the counter-argument.

Ahhh, but you chaged LokiiT's edits without discussion with him. Discussion might have prevented that mini edit-war.

If I may have gotten a bit heated, I apologize for that. However, I stand by my decision on your revert of the analyst section. And a single report, cannot deny multitudes of other analytical statements; the EU Report isn't the only analytical paper under the Sun, and others should have a voice too. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Here Xeeron dutifully deleted the entire analysts section, without any consultations from his fellow editors"

"I see your post, I didn't see any reactions."

Well, the response is there, either follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#shortening_of_responsibility_section or just scroll up a page. You accused me three times now (four, if I count that post directly above). Sorry, but you not reading the talk page is no excuse for attacking other editors. We have a longstanding consensus that the responsibility section needs to be considerably shortened, so please provide proof that there is consensus for keeping it before inserting it again. --Xeeron (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Very clever. So under the guise of "consensus" and "needs to be considerably shortened", you removed the entire section. It was validly placed into the article. I have yet to see any arguments made for removing it. Offliner has proven that the article's writing is 93kB, and that recent war articles are similarly long. I want to see arguments made for removing it, not votes. I am sure many editors were fooled, just as I was, by your vague language of "needs to be considerably shortened". You didn't say "I'll sum it up and delete all of the analysts" that we spent pages upon pages of discussion on. The EU Report isn't Holy. It's just another report. It shouldn't serve to remove every single other analysts. Personally, I think MDB's analysis are much better. So why not have both in, and let the reader decide? Why not have all of them in, and let the reader decide? Why are you limiting the reader to a single report? Yes it's comprehensive, but in schools, we don't just learn material from the textbooks; we use other sources as well. And the consensus came as a result of you being purposefully vague. If I would've known, heck I think others will agree with me, so if we would've known what you were about to do, you would've had instant objections. And yet you have the gall to call me a liar! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason is simple: It is (much) too long and not encyclopedic. We are not trying to list as many analysts as possible. The whole question of "who is responsible" has a very clear answer, there is no reason to drag it out over several pages. If you want to have a detailed account of the minor differences between the major analysts, edit Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war. The part in the main article should be concise. --Xeeron (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually encyclopedias often show different views of the experts. For instance the EU Report doesn't explain why the Russians intervened with such a heavy hand; but the Moscow Defense Brief does. The EU Report cannot make the conclusion that Ryan Grist made, because Grist was there, whereas the EU Report didn't have a firsthand experience. NATO analysis also deserves a mention, as NATO analysis are military, whereas the EU Report is civilian. Heidi Tavliani isn't serving last time I checked. Nor does the EU Report reflect the opinions of politicians, as well as the politicians themselves. The EU Report fails to represent any Latin American views, but Raul Fajardo does. The dates of the reports are equally important. Yes, the EU Report stated something that was blatantly obvious to anyone who study the issue, and then placed a European Spin on it, while ignoring the opinions of Ossetians and Abkhaz, because Europe doesn't care about the Caucasian Region, with the exception of crazy UK that still thinks "our empire was wonderful". Furthermore, here only the conclusions of the experts are quoted. When I suggested doing the same thing for the EU Report, which people mistakenly treat as sainted I was rebuffed. It's just another piece of paper.

Furthermore, this is no minor differences between the major analysts; they have major differences! Svante Cornell and Roy Allison blamed Russia for instigating the war, whereas the Moscow Defense Brief and the EU Report concluded that Russian provocations didn't amount to enough to launch a full scale strike. Some analysts claim that Russia started the war, others say Georgia, and we have everything in between. Silencing all of the sources, and giving the voice to the EU Report, which in essence said the exact damn thing the US Ambassador to Russia said a year before, isn't just unencyclopedic; it's morally wrong! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Russia" is an author of the NYT now?

Funny, I must have missed that.

"Russia pointed out that in a later article published on 6 November The New York Times said that "neither Georgia nor its Western allies have as yet provided conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary"

Of course, "Russia" says no such thing in the source (mis)quoted. --Xeeron (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter. If you still believe that Georgia didn't start the war then you're living in a fantasy world. That claim should only be mentioned under the pretext of being an outrageous lie, because that's what it's been revealed to be, indisputably.LokiiT (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lokii, if your POV blinds you to reality, please check my edits carefully before posting nonsense here. I believe in the EU report, which states that a) Georgia did start the war (so you are wrong about me) and b) "Additionally there seems to have been an influx of volunteers or mercenaries from the territory of the Russian Federation to South Ossetia through the Roki tunnel and over the Caucasus range in early August, as well as the presence of some Russian forces in South Ossetia, other than the Russian JPKF battalion," which the report deemed as not sufficient reason for the Georgian attack (so you are wrong about this one too). Love the use of the word "indisputably", when the report just out says something different.

You fail to notice that I moved the section under "georgian" position, just like the ridiculous genocide claim is under the "russian" position. Both as claims. The truth (as I, and almost all news reports I have read, see it) follows below in the EU report. --Xeeron (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but their claim was that Russia was sending its troops in full force, tanks and all, and that they were repelling the full Russian attack. That's far from what the EU report says about small amounts of light infantry, mercenaries and volunteers simply being present in the area, picking their noses. LokiiT (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So? I read the same in the report, but I fail to see your point here. --Xeeron (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that mistake. I fixed it. See how well it works when you discuss the edits first, Xeeron? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior, instead of wrongly accusing me (for the third time now) of not discussing my edits, please take better care with your own edits. Your have again inserted a wrong statement without source. Please correct your unsourced addition that "Russia cited" the NTY article. --Xeeron (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh* I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was showing you how well it works when a user discusses his edits. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kober - do you really believe that the Georgians never attacked the Russian Peacekeeping Base?

As per this edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=318391848&oldid=318380903

It's also the one made by Kouber, as described above. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

After certain edits and arguments, now can we finally follow my plan that would have prevented these edits and arguments?

Remember when I was talking about only conclusions of the EU Report being cited? Remember how I said that the report was too big, and that going beyond the conclusions would lead to silly statements, edit wars, POVed edits, etc? Remember? Well here we go:

Exhibit #1, my favorite, Kouber!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=318227565&oldid=318015555

From: "The final report found that all parties violated international law during the conflict. While the report acknowledged the presence of some non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia, their presence did not justify the Georgian attack, no Russian invasion took place prior to August 8. Neither was the Georgian response proportionate as a response to low level attacks by South Ossetian forces. There was conclusive evidence that the Georgian offensive was not meant only as a defensive action. As such, the initial Russian response was justified self-defense of the Russian peacekeeping units. However, the later attacks by Russian and South Ossetian units in Georgia (outside of South Ossetia) were disproportionate and in violation of international law.. The commission did not find evidence of the alleged genocide by Georgians against South Ossetians. On the other hand, it did find evidence of illegal ethnic cleansing by South Ossetians against Georgians in the later stages of the conflict. The report further found that the vast majority of Russian passports distributed to South Ossetians are not legally binding. With respect to the war's second theater, the report found the Abkhaz/Russian attack on the Kodori Gorge was not justified under international law."

To: "The final report found that all parties violated international law during the conflict. While the report acknowledged the presence of some non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia, their presence did not justify the Georgian attack, no Russian invasion took place prior to August 8. Neither was the Georgian response proportionate as a response to low level attacks by South Ossetian forces. The mission didn't find enough evidences to support the Georgian claim of self-defense, in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter, neither it was able to verify the alleged Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers, which if really happened, would justify the initial Russian response. The later attacks by Russian and South Ossetian units in Georgia were unnecessary, disproportionate and in violation of international law. The commission did not find evidence of the alleged genocide by Georgians against South Ossetians. On the other hand, it did find evidence of illegal ethnic cleansing by South Ossetians against Georgians in the later stages of the conflict. The report further found that the vast majority of Russian passports distributed to South Ossetians are not legally binding. With respect to the war's second theater, the report found the Abkhaz/Russian attack on the Kodori Gorge was not justified under international law."

And Kouber's very own commentary: "Initial Russian response was legal, but only under some circumstances (Volume II, pages 268 - 275))"

That's right - Kouber's Interpretation of the EU Report's interpretation of events, is actually disputing the attack on the Russian Peacekeeping base. According to Kouber's version, it was the Russian Peacekeepers themselves, or Ossetians, or Abkhaz, or Aliens that killed 10 Russian Peacekeepers; cleary the Georgian attack on Russian Peacekeeping HQ was not verified, according to the stellar Scholar Kouber.

Had people instantly listened to me, and rallied behind the policy of just including conclusions, rather then letting the imagination of certain Wikipedians run wild, (especially those unable to tell the difference between planes and soldiers,) none of this stuff would have happened. But did anyone listen? Nope. The result is above: Russian Peacekeeping Base wasn't attacked by Georgians, it was attacked by Aliens!

That is what the source is saying HW007. I am not claiming that the peacekeepers weren't under attack, but it is crucial whether the attack came after the Russian peacekeepers opened fire on Georgians or before it, i.e. whether the Russian peacekeepers acted or reacted. Their action would be justified self-defense only in the latter case, but the fact-finding mission, as you can read in Volume II (pages 265 - 275), wasn't able to reveal that:

Page 265: "To conclude, an attack by Georgian forces on Russian peacekeepers deployed in Georgia ... equals an attack on Russian territory which is apt to trigger Russia’s right to self-defence. However, as stated above, the fact of the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers’ basis could not be definitely confirmed by the mission."

Page 268: "Under these circumstances, the Georgian attacks against the Russian peacekeepers’ base would equal an attack on an ordinary Russian base in foreign territory, and were therefore specifically addressed against Russia as a state, but this does not constitute a sufficient condition for self-defence. Moreover, as stated above, the fact of the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers’ basis could not be definitely confirmed by the mission."

Page 269: "If the Russian allegations were true, the attack by Georgian armed forces on the Russian military base would surpass the minimum threshold in scale and effects required for an armed attack” in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter. In such a case, Georgia could not justify its operation against the peacekeepers as self-defence necessary to respond to an ongoing or imminent attack by Russia. Therefore there was an armed attack by Georgia in the sense of Art. 51.152 That means that Russia’s military response could be justified, but only if all the other conditions needed for self-defence under Art. 51 were met as well."

Page 270: "Still, doubts remain whether the Russian peacekeepers were attacked in the first place."

Page 327: "The Mission was unable to establish whether, at the time of the alleged attacks on Russian peacekeepers’ bases, the peacekeepers had lost their protection owing to their participation in the hostilities. The Mission is consequently unable to reach a definite legal conclusion on these facts." Kouber (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me, how the 10 Russian Peacekeepers died? Was it magic? Or are you now claiming that Russian Peacekeepers attacked Georgian Grads? You found weakspots in the report, congratulations Kouber. Also, your little editorial comments, like "HW007, read the source and stop wasting our time, by flooding the talk page" are really inappropriate. It makes it look like you need Ad Hominems to win arguments, which makes you look like a very poor debater. So, the new Kouber Version is that Russian Peacekeepers opened fire on Georgian Grads; got it. Kouber, tell me, have you studied such factors as military range? And if you have, please explain to me how exactly the Russian Peacekeepers, having no artillery except mortars, were able to out-range Georgian long-range artillery. Oh, and if you still want to fly a plane through the Roki Tunnel, let me know. I'll have some free time on friday, when I'll be able to re-read those fine sections, and figure out what exactly you are quoting out of context. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, HW007, it wasn't magic, they obviously died in combat. How exactly they died? I don't know, and more importantly the EU fact-finding mission doesn't know!

There were some research on it, so you can read and judge for yourself. From what I've read, the Russian peacekeepers were given orders to stop the Georgian advancement, Timerman (the hero of Russia) for example corrected the Ossetian fire for hours before he was shot down. There was also firing reported from the roof of the Russian peacekeepers headquarters, etc., etc.

But it isn't worth much what I, you or any other wikipedian thinks about it. The important thing that matters here is what the sources say. Also, I remember well your proposition on citing conclusions, and indeed what I did is exactly what you wanted - I cited conclusions only. So, please stop flooding the talk page by opening new sections for every revert of your abusive edits. Thank you! Kouber (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes, Illarionov, that man who couldn't tell the difference between Special Forces and Martians, "there was a third force" (his words, not mine), that's your research? And you're quoting his livejournal for an encyclopedic article? Yes, when there is an advance on your peacekeeping base, you aren't supposed to run around the UN screaming for help, but you're supposed to fight back. The UN reacts very slowly. By the time the UN helps, all of your buddies would be dead. There is nothing wrong with peacekeepers being ordered to stop an advancing army from attacking a civilian city. Also, Kouber, I was talking about range; Georgia's BM-21 Grad has a max range of 40 kilometers. The Russian Peacekeepers long range weapon, the 2B9 Vasilek has a max range of 0.5 kilometers. In order for the Russians to attack first, the Georgians had to present their force in front of the Russians, without firing. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

"Stop flooding the talk page by opening new section for every revert of your abusive edits" - now that's just not very nice of you Kouber. That's what a person says when he lost an argument. If you bothered to look at the article's history, you'll notice that the talkpage doesn't apply to any of my original edits; I'm not the one making abusive edits Kouber, you are; and instead of reverting them, I'm making arguments that you know you aren't able to counter; thus, you make up stuff about my abusive edits being reverted - which is fiction. My reverts of your edits were reverted, and in order to discuss them in a civilized manner, I bring these edits to the talkpage. It's not my edits that are being discussed, it's my reverts of your abusive edits Kouber. Anyways, by Friday, the 16th of October, I'll offer a full rebuttal to all of your abusive edits. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to counter your arguments, HW007, but unfortunately I can't see even a single argument presented by you, concerning my last contribution to the article. What is your argument? Posing the question whether we remember your recent proposal? Yes we do. I am citing conclusions only, are you happier now? Or maybe your so called argument is to ask everybody off-topic questions all the time?

And, no, I cannot be nice with somebody who qualifies my statements as silly and stupid, and my imagination as running wild, when I am clearly indicating what parts of the report I am citing. Neither I can be nice and respect somebody who cites things that people have never said. If I want to present my version, I will do it myself, so would you please stop once and for all citing me the way you do? It isn't funny at all. Wikipedia is not a kindergarten. Kouber (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are only citing conclusions? Really now? Because you cited from Volume II, and the introductory page to Volume II specifically states that Volume I is the only valid source for conclusions. I'll quote the source directly for you: "This volume contains a selection of contributions by experts in the military, legal, humanitarian, human rights, political and historical fields. They were critically reviewed by the fact-finding mission, and constitute the basis for this Report on the Conflict in Georgia. The elaboration, findings and opinions expressed in these texts [Volumes II and III] do not necessarily reflect the views of the mission. In this regard, the views and findings as laid out in Volume I shall be considered as authoritative". (This is on page 1 of the report, and should have been the first thing anyone picked up; those who chose to do ctrl-f for "Russia Bad" missed this part.)

The bolded part means that conclusions of the Report cannot come from Volumes II and III, as conclusions always reflect the views of the writer, or the mission. As such, the opinions expressed, that do not necessarily reflect the views of the mission, cannot possibly be conclusions. Wikipedia is indeed not kindergarten, and I expect editors to be very well acquainted with the very first page of the article they cite, instead of just blindly finding anti-Russian material, and placing it into our article. I trust this argument should be enough to get you to undo your edit, and not turn Wikipedia into Kindergarten. As I said, I will bring more arguments in later, but this isn't even my strongest one. Please realize, that editors can have emergencies that need to be handled, and that we do not get paid for editing Wikipedia; also, please realize that educated discussion requires research and time, and as such, I cannot give you instant gratification. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Exhibit #2: Xeeron's statement:

"So? I read the same in the report, but I fail to see your point here. --Xeeron (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)"

That statement is correct, from Xeeron's perspective and incorrect from LokiiT's and mine; people are going to have different interpretations of the report. People are going to argue about different interpretations of the report. Instead, all this could be avoided, if we simply quoted the report's conclusions, which are boxed so that anyone can understand where the conclusions are, despite a vivid imagination.

So far, these are the only two examples that I found. However, here is what I am predicting: slowly, but surely, and edit-war will erupt over this. A moderator will be brought in, and this might even go to ADR. In the end, to avoid the drama, the only logical conclusion to keep the article NPOV is to cite conclusions in boxes, not one's interpretation of the article, after a colossal waste of time. Or, we can just stop the sillyness and start citing just the conclusions? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Krasnogir made a boo-boo

"Вооруженные силы Южной Осетии

Южноосетинская армия на порядок уступает грузинским войскам как по укомплектованности личным составом, так и по уровню оснащенности вооружением и военной техникой. Численность вооруженных сил непризнанной республики составляет всего 3 тысячи человек. В резерве состоит 15 тысяч человек.

На вооружении Южной Осетии имеется 87 танков Т-72 и Т-55, 95 орудий и минометов, в том числе 72 гаубицы, 23 реактивные системы залпового огня БМ-21 "Град", а также 180 бронемашин, в том числе 80 боевых машин пехоты. Ударная авиация отсутствует у самопровозглашенной республики, а транспортная представлена 3 вертолетами Ми-8.

Таким образом, без поддержки России шансы Южной Осетии отразить нападение со стороны Грузии можно считать минимальными. "

Wrong! The 87 tanks, that's Abkhazia's not Ossetia's OrBat. Also, Abkhazia has 3 Mi-8, but RSO (Republic of South Ossetia) has 4 Mi-8. Nor does South Ossetia have 95 mortars; I don't think they even have 50. Nor does South Ossetia have 23 Grads; this looks to be like Abkhaz OrBat. (OrBat or ORBAT = Order of Battle) The numbers are right, he just got the wrong country, happens occasionally when you focus on a Bush too much ;) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

On citing the EU report

Could you please cite the relevant volume/page number with each different citation? Citing a random sentence to a thousand+ page report without a page number makes it really time consuming for anyone who wants to double check the entry. LokiiT (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur and I shall do so from now on too! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't as I will give direct citations, i.e. word for word. Then it could be easily ctrl-f-ed in the text.FeelSunny (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For those who didn't see it the first time:

Reneem, that includes you. We have the 10,000 number, because it is cited by multiple sources. Your blog cites estimates, whereas we have exact numbers, from later dates. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we update the troop numbers based on the EU report:

• 10,000-11,000 Georgian troops took part in the Georgian offensive
• 12,000 Russian troops were deployed on the eastern front (South Ossetia and beyond) during the crisis
• Up to 15,000 Russian troops were deployed in Abkhazia on total. Overall number of Russian troops moved into Georgia in August amounted to 25,000-30,000

Looks like Cornell was totally wrong with his claim "In South Ossetia, Russians outnumbered the Georgians 2 to 1". I don't have time to make this edit right now; maybe someone else wants to do it? Offliner (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd dispute those numbers; first off it's the Caucasian Front, not the Eastern Front, which is Russia's case would be Kamchatka :P Also, even at 11,000 - that figure is still a bit too small for Georgian troops, considering they had four infantry brigades (minus 2,000 in Iraq), at least one artillery brigade, special forces, and the separate tank battalion sent into action. The 11,000 figure might be more accurate for Georgian forces that entered the outskirts of Tskhinval, but not for the whole front. As for the 12,000 number, is that for all of Georgia? If so, that's also too small, considering that parts of the 20th motorized rifle division, elements of the 131st brigade, 2 battalions of Black Sea Fleet Marines, etc. I think the estimates we currently have are fine. Additionally, the report admitted that it didn't have access to satellite data, which is one of the best ways to determine the number of troops. You cannot spot individual troops, but you can spot battalions, and you usually know that a battalion has anywhere from 100-600 troops depending on its type. Additionally, the Russians only sent in Contract Soldiers, and not a lot of special forces. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

11,000 is the number of troops taking part in the Georgian offensive. This is different from what the Georgians had deployed near the conflict zone (up to 16,000 according to MDB) -- not all Georgian troops took part in the attack. As for the Russian 12,000 number, no, it's not for the whole of Georgia like I said above. I really think these numbers are much better than the current estimates used (which are very vague numbers). Offliner (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the question is, should we give the overall deployment number (10k-16k) for Georgia, or the number or troops who took part in the offensive (10k-11k) or maybe both numbers? For the Russian numbers, I think these are much better than the current ones (10k in SO and 9k in A), which are really vague. Offliner (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well one of the things to consider, is do you include the Georgian Artillery, such as "Dana" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152mm_SpGH_DANA#Ammunition and "Grad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad, and other such units, with ranges from 18 kilometers (in the case of "Dana") or 40 kilometers (in the case of "Grad"), where the artillery was used against Ossetian civilians, militia and military, as well as Russian military, in the Battle of Tskhinval(i) but didn't enter the city's outskirts, nor has been counter-attacked, except by Russo-Ossetian artillery, Russian Air Force, and Russian Special Forces, but outside of Tskhinval(i). Whether to include the artillery brigade(s) or not is a serious question, as you are talking about estimates ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 men. (A Georgian Artillery Brigade is roughly 1,500 men and the Georgian Army reports having two such brigades.) "Grad" and "Dana" are but two examples. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that, well here's the Georgian current Orbat:

1st Infantry Brigade - located in Gori tank + arty bats fought 2nd Infantry Brigade - located in Senaki covered 3rd Infantry Brigade - located in Kutaisi fought 4th Infantry Brigade - located in Vaziani fought 5th Infantry Brigade - located in Khelvachauri (temporary distribution place) and Khoni was in Kodori 1st Artillery Brigade - located in Vaziani covered 2nd Artillery Brigade - located in Khoni fought Separate Combat-Engineering Battalion - located in Tbilisi (temporary distribution place) parts of it fought Separate Light Infantry Battalion - located in Adlia fought Separate Anti-aircraft-Rocket-Artillery Battalion - located in Kutaisi covered Separate Communication Battalion - located in Saguramo covered Separate Technical Reconnaissance Battalion - located in Kobuleti fought Separate Medical Battalion - located in Saguramo extracted the wounded Separate Tank Battalion - located in Gori - fought Georgian Special Forces - location classified, during war located at Gori, Poti, Senaki - fought

The strength of Land Forces is 20 548 from which 2 176 are officers, 18 356 sergeants/corporals (contracting) and 16 civilians.

For the sake of staying on topic I won't focus too much on the 16 civilians performing military duty and hoping for civilian protection, but I don't think you're allowed to call men in uniform, civilians. Anyways if you add the Independent Tank Battalion at Gori to that ORBAT, and subtract 2,000 men from the first Infantry Brigade, you'd have the forces that were available to fight in the Battle of Tskhinval(i). Elements of the 1st, as well as the 3rd, 4th, 2nd arty, CE Bat, LI Bat, Recce Bat, and possibly 1st Art and the rest of the "separate" units. Furthermore, how do you take into account those that covered the attack? On the Russian side there are problems as well; 70th and 71st didn't take part in the Battle of Tskhinval(i), but their actions helped rout the Georgian Army and save Tskhinval(i), as the Georgians were forced to reform under fire and outmaneuver the Russian army, an impossible feat. Furthermore the 104th and 234th neutralized Georgian artillery, thus preventing it from firing on Tskhinval(i), but took no part in the battle. The Russian maneuvers also forced Georgia's Air Force to conduct bombing strikes against them, and thus away from Tskhinval(i). All of these events described above, that affected the Battle of Tskhinval(i), cannot be included under the classical approach. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Critique of the EU Report - I said I'd do it and I am doing it

The guideline for Wikipedia is Verifiability, not NPOV. However, another guideline is the be as NPOV as possible.

As such, I think that, while the EU Report should definitely be cited, it shouldn't be treated as "Holier than thou". As such, the remedies that I am proposing include:

• Citing the actual report, not the scratch paper (Volume II) or the notes (Volume III)
• If there is a conflict amongst editors on what's NPOV, the report should be cited verbatim
• A summary of the report is to be included, i.e. Georgia started the war, Russia responded disproportionately

Could you, please, cite "Georgia startet the war" part of the report, please?

Should be obvious to anyone who read the report, but it's #14 on page 19: "Open hostilities began with a large scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinval(i) and the surrounding areas, launched on the night of 7 to 8 August". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, can you cite it verbatim, or is "Georgia started the war" simply your opinion?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a direct quotation. Also happens to be number 14 on page 19. Did the Georgian Press block page 19 of the report out or something? Also, when something states that "open hostilities began" - that means it was the start of the war. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• A critique of the sources used by the report; this is necessary, because, while the report presents itself as independent, this is not the case.
• The report should not be used to cite other sources, such as the HRW, when the HRW directly states the opposite.

Point #1:

The Report itself concludes that Volumes II and III aren't authoritative, and that all of the necessary data is in volume I, as has been previously pointed out: "This volume contains a selection of contributions by experts in the military, legal, humanitarian, human rights, political and historical fields. They were critically reviewed by the fact-finding mission, and constitute the basis for this Report on the Conflict in Georgia. The elaboration, findings and opinions expressed in these texts [Volumes II and III] do not necessarily reflect the views of the mission. In this regard, the views and findings as laid out in Volume I shall be considered as authoritative".

This is on page 1 of the report. The bolded part means that conclusions of the Report cannot come from Volumes II and III, as conclusions always reflect the views of the writer, or the mission. The Report's argument for not citing Volumes II and III of itself are crystal clear, and we cannot, as good Wikipedians, attribute to the report that, which is does not say; we aren't the New York Times.

The other three points are going to be lumped together:

The Report instantly establishes “unbiased sources”: All EU Governments, (with Sweden/Norway/Poland/Baltic States/UK being rabidly anti-Russian, France and Germany being in the middle, and Italy being pro-Russia, so 7 anti-Russian, 2 middle of the road, 1 pro-Russian, the rest not caring) NATO (yeah, they’re the people providing direct aid to Georgia, (flying in the soldiers) I wonder which side they’ll take), US and Ukraine (as if the report needs more anti-Russian sources) OSCE (neutral) Council of Europe (anti-Russian), and ICRC (neutral by definition and in reality). So 11 anti-Russian Sources, 4 neutral sources and 1 pro-Russian source. So far, so good. (Page 7). This is called “neutral analysis”.

The Report continues to look at “unbiased” declarations: “The House of Lords (anti-Russian), US Congress (anti-Russian), Parliaments of Georgia and Ukraine (anti-Russian), 4 neutral NGOs, and I don’t know that much about ICG. Why not Russia, Belarus, Italy, France, Germany? Are they not European enough? Did they not publish any statements/documents?

The Report admits that it’s just a report, not Holy or anything: “In summary, it should be noted that the factual basis thus established may be considered as ADEQUATE (i.e. not good, not Deity-like) for the purpose of fact-finding, but not for any other purposes.

The Report furthermore has a legal disclaimer, saying that the report is incomplete, and only has the data it was presented to it, or that it was able to collect; it is not a “Final Report”, thus it cannot be treated as a final report.

Furthermore, the Report believes that it is a “starting point”. In other words, don’t worry, there’s more to come, including the military data.

Nevertheless, the Report is well-written. Unfortunately, it completely ignores the Ossetian side of the story, as well as the Abkhaz side, and this should be mentioned.

The Report believes that the overwhelming theory in terms of the creation of New States is Uti Possidetis. However the Report fails to note that Uti Possidetis has itself been in existence for less then twenty years. In short it was/is a legal fiction imposed on the World, during the twenty years when US had the leading role. This is no longer the case, as the World is becoming more and more multi-lateral. The US must now accede to Russia’s and China’s opinions on Iran; case in point: the theory of Uti Possidetis is a youthful theory, that hasn’t even been dominant for twenty years. To portray such a theory as the final say on International Law, is to misinterpret the potential evolution of International Law, which is itself, less than a century old. (UN was created in 1946.) Not to mention the coming into existence of the state of Eritrea, directly contradicts Uti Possidetis, and Eritrea is a UN member. Whoopsie. The Report also believes, wrongly, that Yeltsin’s decisions bind Medvedev’s decisions. Russia’s actions on Kosovo cannot bind Russia's actions on South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other De Facto Independent Regions. Serbia may argue that Kosovo and South Ossetia are unique cases; Russia doesn't have to. But since this article is on the 2008 South Ossetia War, not International Recognition...blah blah politics, I won't belabor that point further, unless I am called on to do so. Uti Possidetis has no place in this article, albeit it may have a place in one or two of the child articles.

The Report believes that Former Soviet Citizenship isn’t grounds to receive Russian Citizenship if one is domiciled in Georgia. However, as Russia has accepted the responsibilities of the USSR, (including debts of the USSR,) Russia also has access to the privileges of the USSR, such as granting all former Soviet Citizens, Russian Citizenship. If countries do not recognize Dual Citizenship, then it is upto the person to decide which country he or she wants to be a citizen of, not upto the state. No state can bind a person to become their citizen, and only their citizen can agree to the demand voluntarily. In other words, whether citizenship is a justification for warfare or not, is still in question; however if the Russian attorneys/PR people were as good as the Russian military, they would've figured out that Georgia's denial of a safety corridor for Russian civilians, (Russian citizens visiting Ossetia) was yet another reason for a Casus Belli. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

IP strikes again - William Dunbar

Here's what the IP the wrote: "Conversely, William Dunbar, a reporter for Russia Today TV in Georgia, resigned in protest of alleged bias in the Russian media. He claimed he had not been on air since he mentioned Russian bombing of targets inside Georgia. He told The Moscow Times: "The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it. I felt that I had no choice but to resign.""

Here's what Dutch News Reported: Russia Today correspondent quits over censorship of his reports from Georgia August 13th, 2008 - 9:34 UTC by Andy Sennitt.

William Dunbar, a correspondent for the English-language international TV channel Russia Today, has left the station after his live reports from Georgia were dropped by the station after one in which he mentioned Russian bombing. He said: “I felt that I had no choice but to resign.” He said that he was reporting the facts, but that “the real facts of the matter didn’t conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore they wouldn’t let me report it.”

A Russia Today spokeswoman cited a Georgian media report that claimed Dunbar had protested at Russia’s “aggression” against Georgia. She said the channel assumed that was why he quit.

(Source: Media Guardian)

In other words, this is called - faulty argumentation. Dunbar resigned because he was allegedly censored. However, the IP presents Dunbar's arguments as counter-arguments to the actual events, rather then Russia Today's censorship. In other words, it's like one person saying "My oranges are delicious" and another going "your apples absolutely suck!" Dunbar is not challenging the credibility of Grist nor of Young, nor of Petro. All Dunbar claimed is that RT censors. However RT wasn't the only Russian Mass Media channel reporting on the war. This belongs in the Media War article, if anywhere; it doesn't belong in this article, and I have thus removed it. The rule is to discuss controversial edits before making them, a rule that the IP should have followed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that it belongs to the media war subarticle and not in the main article. Offliner (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Naval Blockade ??

While the map graphic at the beginning of the article is very nicely done, there is absolutely no factual material cited anywhere in the article that indicates that such a blockade ever occurred. In the interest of accuracy the initial map graphic should be amended to REMOVE the indication of a naval blockade. Федоров (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. Perhaps you can provide us with an altered map that doesn't show the blockade; I'd also like to give time to anyone willing to rebut the statement that there was no blockade, by finding an article from a credible source that the blockade existed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The graphic posted has earned kudos for excellent graphic. Unless proof of a "blockade" can be furnished, the author of the graphic should amend it. With the exception of the blockade indication, it is a very good graphic. Федоров (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

August 9, At 16:40, Russian navy blocked Moldovan ship “Lotus-1,” carrying wheat, from entering the Poti port.

August 11, At 20:25, Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia was notified that Russian Black Sea Fleet prevented cargo ships “Castor” and “Asha” from entering the Poti port.--78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The above two citations of alleged blockade actions by the Russian Navy carry no citations of source or proof of fact. If the allegedly "blocked" vessels can be cited why cannot the Russia ships that supposedly stopped them? Федоров (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add response in the new section that you've opened.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean that I opened, right? Of course I'm right ;) Arguing with facts on your side is sheer pleasure :DHistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussing CAST

Well since someone was polite enough to place a "Dubious/Discuss" tag next to CAST, I think an argument is necessary as to why the Moscow Defense Brief is neutral.

First, the magazine does not tow the Kremlin line; remember the statement that "no new weapons were tested during this war" made by the Kremlin? Then what the heck was the was the Iskander? From the MDB: Moreover, the Russian Army launched 15 Tochka-U (SS-21) short-range ballistic missiles against military targets and a few new Iskander (SS-26) short-range theater ballistic missiles. The MDB later went on to to find that two Iskander missiles were launched, and hit the Georgian Tank Battalion at Gori. This is further confirmed by the fact that before the 2008 South Ossetia War, Georgia had a tank battalion in their ORBAT, and now they don't.

On 12th of August at 11:30 Russian forces bombed Baku-Supsa oil pipeline and the town of Gori with Iskander-M/SS-26 missiles a cameraman of Dutch TV Stan Storimans was killed on the central square in Gori, Greek TV channel journalist Filios Stangos and Israeli journalists Zadok Yehezkeli were wounded (later Human Rights Watch found out that this was a RBK-250 cluster bomb, containing 30 PTAB 2.5M sub-munition) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.225.28 (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean when the Iskanders hit the tank Battalion next to Gori, right? Or are you arguing that Iskanders cannot hit an oil pipeline? If the Iskander used a submunition exploding warhead, the ones that Storimans was allegedly killed by, next to an oil pipeline, it wouldn't have missed. We had a similar discussion with Kober in the Iskander article. Also, if the Iskanders were aimed at the pipeline and not the tank battalion, what happened to the tank battalion? Did it magically vanish? And if the Iskander didn't hit the ammo dump, how did the ammunition dump blow up? Were the Russians taking ammunition everywhere else, but decided to blow it up in Gori for the heck of it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't mean the MDF fantasies, I mean Stan Storimans who was killed on the central square of Gori by Russian rocket with cluster bomb, as confirmed by Dutch investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean where the Georgian Tank Battalion was stationed? Yes, if you are near a tank battalion, that is at war with the Russian Army, you may get killed, even if you are in the middle of the city square. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Georgian Tank Battalion wasn't not station on the Gori's central square or close to it, )neither was there any reason to bomb on 12th of August), where Storimans was killed by Iskander with RBK-250 cluster bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgian Tank Battalion was not at Gori? It just magically vanished after the Iskanders hit it? And according to the Dutch Report, Stan Storimans saw that the Russians just bombed north of Gori, knew that the Russians were bombing in a North to South pattern, and decided to film in Gori anyways. Perhaps you can show me a source that explains where the Georgian Tank Battalion was. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Second, the magazine does not tow the Georgian line; it calls Saakashvili's acts into question from the get-go: In the end, Saakashvili seems to have become the victim of his own militaristic self-advertising, convinced that the new Georgian military machine was sufficiently effective, capable, and powerful to impose a final solution on the rebellious autonomous regions. The temptation to use his pretty toy soldiers became increasingly hard to resist; indeed, overwhelming, when he launched upon his fateful military adventure in South Ossetia in August.

The last sentence does indeed sound like coming from a real, unbiased expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.225.28 (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that we agree. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Third, the magazine ignores the Western and Russian Press, and actually tells us what happened, citing a few actual experts.

Fourth, gives us the actual number of the men who fought: The attack on South Ossetia was not spontaneous. Over the course of several days in early August, the Georgians appear to have secretly concentrated a significant number of troops and equipment (the full 2th, 3th and 4th Infantry Brigades, the Artillery Brigade, the elements of the 1th Infantry Brigade, the separate Gori Tank Batallion – total the nine light infantry and five tank battalions, up to eight artillery battalions – plus special forces and Ministry of the Internal Affairs troops – all in all, up to 16,000 men) in the Georgian enclaves in the South Ossetian conflict zone, under cover of providing support for the exchange of fire with Ossetian formations. On August 7, at about 22:00, the Georgians began a massive artillery bombardment of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, and by dawn the next day began an attack aimed at capturing Tskhinvali and the rest of the territory of South Ossetia. By 08:00 on August 8, Georgian infantry and tanks had entered Tskhinvali and engaged in a fierce battle with Ossetian forces and the Russian peacekeeping battalion stationed in the city.

In these conditions, on the morning of August 8, the Russian Government, headed by Vladimir Putin and Dmitriy Medvedev, decided to conduct an operation to prevent the seizure by Georgia of South Ossetia, characterized as a "peace enforcement" mission. Later that day, three tactical battalion groups from the 135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division (based in Vladikavkaz) of the 58th Army of the North Caucasus Military District were deployed in battle formation to Java and Gufta, and by the end of the day had cleared the roads and heights around Kverneti, Tbeti, and Dzari districts, and as far as the western edge of Tskhinvali. Russian Air Force also took action."

Fifth, it annihilates morons like Felgenhauer in the very fist paragraph: Initially, Georgia's attack on the capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia on August 8, 2008, seemed like it would lead to yet another bloody, drawn out Caucasus war. However, the quick, energetic, and sustained intervention of Russia (the guarantor of peace in South Ossetia since 1992) escalated by August 11 into a powerful blitzkrieg against Georgia proper. Commentators who until recently described the Georgian Army as the “best” in the post-Soviet space were at a loss for words.

Sixth, it has no ties to the Kremlin, but has ties to real experts working in the Russian military, as is evident by the quickness of the publication, and the correct number presented. It also correctly predicted Georgia's casualties at slightly over 2,000. Furthermore, while the EU Report that is paraded around didn't have access to satellite data, the accuracy of the MDB - shows that they did have the data. Furthermore, the MDB was cited by Western and Russian sources alike, as an expert account.

Seventh, no arguments were presented, by either side, to show the MDB as a biased source.

I hereby move to have the (dubious/discuss) tag removed from the MDB. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

According to BBC, CAST is a respected research organization.[2] MDB has also been quoted in almost all academic papers about the war. This is enough for me to prove that it's a reliable journal. Offliner (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Over the course of several days in early August, the Georgians appear to have secretly concentrated a significant number of troops and equipmen" - did any reliable source confirm this? Taliavini report states movement of georgian troops started on 7th of August. (well, actually neither georgian base is too far from the conflict zone, to move it in advance)/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.105.25 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that when several brigades come to considerably small bases to launch an attack days later, that could well be named "concentrating".FeelSunny (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When you group most of your artillery into two tactical formations, when you mass half of your working tanks on the border, when said artillery formations have targets close to one another, and when you mass at least a third of your army to attack an entity, that's called "concentrating". When you also preach peace, call for ceasefire, and blame the other side for "concentrating", that's called trying to trick the International Community to overlook your real intentions - that means that you are trying to, or appearing to, do it in secret. The beauty of history is that you cannot argue against facts. I found that simply knowing history, and having most of the facts on my side, enables me to win debates. Oh no! I just gave away my formula! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't anwer my question, is there any independent report, confirming massive georgian troops movement PRIOR to 7th of Autust? Doesn't Taliavini's report state that georgian troops started movement only on 7th of August? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.49.17 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. MDB, IISS, Spiegel and Antonenko, for example. You will find these in the article. Offliner (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Spiegel+Uwe Klussman is a famous masterpiece of Russian propaganda, where are promised "requests" from Tagliavini comission, regarding "order No 2" (written in broken Georgian) please? Where can I see Spiegel's interview with Saakashvili, in that he mentiones "....the Georgian president, which he also mentioned in an interview with SPIEGEL, that a Russian column of 150 tanks had advanced into South Ossetia on the evening of Aug. 7.|" please? I'll check yor MDB/IISS/Antonenko sources.

Spiegel is Russian Propaganda? Damn. I didn't know Putin was this powerful. If you honestly think that Spiegel is Russian Propaganda, oh boy, someone's been watching too much Apsny TV, which managed to claim that Georgia didn't start the war: http://www.apsny.ge/2009/conf/1254358459.php Quoting the Title: "В докладе комиссии Тальявини нет обвинении Грузии в начале военных действий" Translation: "In Tavliani's Report, there are no indications to show that Georgia is at fault for starting the military conflict". And from Tavliani's Report: (page 11, #3) states that Georgia started the war. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am missing some points here:

• what is "apsny TV" and what does it have to do with this discussion
• why whould it be such a big deal for Putin to buy Uwe Klussman, who currently lives in Moscow (and why would Uwe lie so much in line with Moscow's stance, if he wasn't payed/blackmailed)
• Where is the Saakashvili's interview with Spiegel, in that he mentions "150 tanks" please? Or do you admit, that dear Uwe just made it up? Where is the mention of "order No 2" in Tagliavini's report?.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Apsny TV shows the blatant propaganda shown to those living in Georgia. And while we're on the topic, where are Russian TV Channels still banned in Georgia. What happened to all this Democracy and Freedom of Speech talk? Or is being profitable to a Western Corporation a new requirement for Democracy?

As for Der Spiegel, I doubt that a respected German newspaper would print a report, that goes against everything previously said, risks its reputation, (if DS was to be proven as wrong as the NYT was, it would be a dead newspaper,) because it's bribed by Putin. Additionally, it was 150 tanks that fought. Here's Saakshvili talking about 1200 tanks: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19162 "Excuse me, 1,200 tanks came into Georgia within few hours. There is no way you can mobilize those tanks in such a fast period unless you are ready." Yeah, too bad Russia only had 150, and South Ossetia 15. The entire North Caucasian military district has under 650 tanks. Doesn't look like dear Uwe just made that up, looks like dear IP didn't do his research. And Order Number 2 is quoted as number 14 on page 19. It just doesn't say that it's Order #2. See, intelligently written documents don't spoon-feed you the information, they just present the facts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No mention of capturing Akhalgori district on 16 of August?

Somebody considers the fact, that Russia has captured it after signing Medvedy-Sarkozy plan unimportant or was it simply forgotten?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Got a source for that? That's not a Georgian Government source? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Tagliavini report, but I missed the point here. Are you challenging the fact Akhalgori district was captured or that it was captured on 16th of August?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The report

• Here it is.
• Georgia 'started unjustified war' - BBC Offliner (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some interesting points I noticed (these are mostly from the "Use of force" section in volume II):

• There was an abstract danger that Russia might carry out its threats to use force, but there was no concrete danger of an imminent attack.
• There is no evidence of a prior Russian invasion

Word "massive" is used. Presence of Russian military, other than "peacekeepers" is sort of confirmed.--78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sort of confirmed? Well Pavel Felgenhauer was sort of right in regards to the Russian Tanks. He was off by a factor of 10, i.e. it was 165 tanks, not 1200, but he was sort of right, those were Russian tanks. Do you see why "sort of" doesn't fly here? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tagliavini herself, said "no MASSIVE", so your point is moot here. The 165 tanks and where did you get that number is also irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is my point moot? Are you just going to keep on making irrelevant assertions, or are you actually going to show us your argument? Or is it hidden within the NYT tapes? Also, how in the World does Tavliagni saying "no MASSIVE" make my point that "almost doesn't count" moot? I'm saying "my oranges taste delicious" and you're saying that "my apples totally suck". This is the classes Apples vs. Oranges argument. The 165 tanks? 30 from the 135th Motorized Rifle Regiment, 29 from the 503rdMRR, 30 from the 693rdMRR, 30 from the 141st Separate Tank Battalion, 31 from the 42nd Motorized Rifle Division, and 15 from South Ossetia. Why don't you actually read the article before commenting further on the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no evidence of illegal Russian troops being present in South Ossetia before the Georgian attack, although a minor amount of non-peacekeepers was probably present

Doesn't your sentence contradict itself? What was the status of "non-peacekeepers" please?--78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you skip over the word "probably"? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, then there is PROBABLY no evidence, that no illegal Russian troops were present, isn't there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, ok, here's the thing; according to the Dagomys (Sochi) Agreement, Russians were allowed to have a certain amount of soldiers in the area as peacekeepers, provided these soldiers were light infantry. Georgia withdrew 500 peacekeepers, that were part of Russia's quote; thus this allowed the Russians to bring in upto 500 more peacekeepers. Ergo, they had light infantry enter the country, and this was legal. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so you not only make things up yourself, "citing" the opposite of the fact that was actually mentioned by the commission, namely, that there probably were illegal Russian troops there, you go furtther, and develop new theories about why those "troops" mentioned in the report as "Russian troops other than peacekeepers" are actualy "peackeepers". Brilliant. I think this deserves a new chapter: "what HistoricWarrior007 just made up", but is hardly relevant in this article.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you know the whole Sochi Agreement? I totally made that up. And I made up this war too. So I could write a Wikipedia Article on it. It's all made up. The report tells you that the troops weren't illegal. Nor have I developed a new theory; the cap on Peacekeepers is 1,500. Russia had under 1,500. Therefore it wasn't illegal. No "new" theory. Just basic math and facts. You're welcome to actually read the Sochi Agreement. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite the part where the report says "troops weren't illegal" verbatim please!

And regarding your new 1500 theory, first, 500 out of 1500 peace-keepers were Georgians, second, the report clearly states "...other than peacekeepers...". --136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Georgia's immediate spot-on reactions to South Ossetian fire were justified
• There is convincing evidence that the Georgian offensive was not meant only as a defensive action

Do you mean Kurashvili's statement?--78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And pretty much every other statement of sane people; Grist's, the US Ambassador's to Russia, want me to keep going? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Please go on. And I fail to see, how some ambassador's statements is an evidence, when, at the same time, Daniel Fried reported in Congress, that Georgian side contacted US regarding ongoing Russian invasion already on 7th of August.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you like Congressional Reports, please take a look at the statements made by Ron Paul and Dana Rochrabacher. Also, just because it was reported to Congress, doesn't make it true. Find those WMDs in Iraq yet? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Which FACTS did "Ron Paul and Dana Rochrabacherv" mention please? And how does that deny what Daniel Fred said? Oh, and WMD story is simply irrelevant here, isn't it?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Which FACTS did Daniel Fred cite? And the WMDs are relevant, as they show that certain people in Washington, who were behind the Iraq War and this one, won't mind manufacturing "facts" for their own needs. The WMD example clearly shows that. Are you familiar with the fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? If the witness in a courtroom, or during an interview isn't credible, I have a right to show how he's not credible. That's where the WMDs come in. It's not rocket science. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Fred in US Congress cited the fact, that Georgian government has contacted US government on 7th of August, regarding Russian troops entering the Roki tunnel. Regarding WMD, USA was _suspecting_ that there are WMDs in Iraq.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• The attacks from the South Ossetian side during early August cannot justify the massive Georgian attack
• The Georgian attack was unjustified per international law
• The initial Russian response was justified

Could you cite this part please? I've read only "would be if" statements.--78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Page 23, #21. Initial Russian attack was justified, and then Russia overreacted. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "was justified" on page 23, the mere "would be justified ".--136.2.1.101 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would be justified if X, Y and Z occurred; surprise, they occurred. Or are we arguing that Martians were shooting Russians from Grads now?

Nope. "Would be justified, if X would occur, however, we have no idea who has attacked whom first"--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't? Wow, propaganda works really well in Georgia. Stalin would be proud. Let's see, where did the battle take place initially? Tskhinval(i). How did the Georgians get there? By attacking Ossetians. I mean come on, this isn't rocket science. The Argument that Georgia needed to attack South Ossetia because Russia had 2 or 3 Light Infantry Battalions there instantly falls apart. To show the sheer stupidity of that argument: "Clearly, Cuba must invade Guantanamo, because the US base there is a threat, and in such an invasion, Cuba would never place itself under a bigger threat of the US Invasion". See how silly that sounds? Yet that's Saakashvili's argument. And just for the record, Cuba can argue that Gitmo is illegal, (the lease expired in the early 2000's) but that still wouldn't justify an attack on Gitmo. The proper course of action would be to take the case to the UN World Court. Georgia, on the other hand, cannot argue that Russia's base there is illegal, as no expiration date was set on the peacekeeping base. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop the nonsense about Stalin Guantanamo and "propaganda" please? Considering you obviously come from Russia, country that continues to lie about 2000 dead civilians as of August 2009, country who's president (among other beyond ridiculous statements) announces, that Gamsakhurdia has started the war in Abkhazia, it's beyond cynicism.

Now, get back on topic please. There is no "Russia's initial attack was justified" statement in the document.

Actually I come from California. Russia is no longer continuing to lie about 2,000 dead civilians. In fact, if you bothered reading this article, instead of spewing your propaganda, you'd notice that number is actually 162. If you further bothered reading my posts and comments, you'd notice that I called Russia out on the 2,000 dead civilians comment very early. The propaganda isn't nonsense, and your posts confirm how throughoutly Saakashvili is brainwashing his population. As per the report, it clearly stated, number 21, page 23, quoting verbatim: "When considering the legality of Russian Military force against Georgia, the answer needs to be differentiated. The Russian reaction to the Georgian attack can be divided into two phases: first, the immediate reaction in order to defend Russian Peacekeepers, and second, the invasion of Georgia by Russian armed forces reaching far beyond the administrative boundary of South Ossetia. In the first instance, there seems to be little doubt that if Russian Peacekeepers were attacked, Russia had the right to defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of force for defensive purposes during the first phase of the conflict would be legal. There is no doubt that Russian Peacekeeping Base was attacked by Georgian Artillery. Hence the "if" is met. But then again, there are clear facts, and there's Saakashvili's propaganda, which is doing an amazing job. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then actually I come from Germany. I watched RTR (Russian Federal channel) on 8th of August 2009 and they were announcing stinking lies (they knew it was dozens even in 2008, Kulakhmetov announced it and Putin has mentioned number of casualties being in Vladikavkaz) about "thousands of dead civilians" again.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The "if" statement isn't met, according to the EU commission, otherwise it wouldn't use that conditional form in its report. And that is what actually matters - the conclusions of the EU commission, not your own ones. Kouber (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Too bad the report disagrees with you. #17, page 21. I'm not going to copy it verbatim, because I'm lazy, but I'll make the general connection for you: If the Georgians fired on the Russian Peacekeepers, the initial Russian counterattack was justified. Now here's a direct quote: "The Mission does not have independent reports [satellite data] which could substantiate or deny the allegations of either side. Albeit, taking into account the existing dangerous conditions on the ground, casualties amongst the Russian JPKF [peacekeepers] were extremely likely." Sources that have satellite data, as well as images captured after the war, like the one that we have in our very own article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peacekeepers_barracks_Ossetia_2008.jpg point to the fact that the Russian JPKF was attacked. Now who attacked it is the question. I believe it was the Georgians, although Kouber strongly denies that; maybe it was the Martians? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is HUGE a difference between "attack" and shoot. You also shoot when you return fire. What the report says is basically "we know they shoot each other, but have no idea who started first". You cannot copy "initial Russian attack was justified" simply because you made it up.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• The later stage of the Russian attack was disproportionate and unjustified

Very important point is missing here: distribution of Russian passports was illegal and hence Russia had on right to intervene to "defend its citizens".--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually no it wasn't. Many people in North Ossetia, unquestionably Russian citizens, have families in South Ossetia. Every country allows other family members to become citizens, if one family member is a citizen. Additionally, Russia has a claimed that since they inherited USSR's UN seat, USSR's capital city and USSR's debt, they also inherited the right the hand out passports to all citizens of the USSR who apply for them. You actually have to APPLY for a passport, in order to get it. It's not like Putin is standing on a corner, drinking vodka, and handing out passports to everyone on the street corner. The fact that Ossetians applied for Russian passports, instead of Georgian ones, should tell you something. Additionally, there were at least 500 Russian civilians in South Ossetia that were denied the escape corridor.

And even if the passports aren't reason enough for Russia to counterattack, the Georgian attack against the Russian Peacekeeping base was. So there was a legitimate reason to counterattack, the problem was that Russia went too far. But when did Russia not go too far? There's a reason you don't attack the Russian Army/Peacekeepers/civilians. On top of everything else, you managed to post your point under the wrong assertion! This assertion talks about Russia's response outside of South Ossetia, and has nothing to do with the passport issue. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear statement in the report, that Russian citizenship was illegal under international law, hence "defending my citizens" is not justified. --136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ethnic cleansing of Georgians took place, but Russia cannot be held responsible

There was no definitive statement about Russia's fault, it says "did not or could not stop".--78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That means they're not guilty. You need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The word "or" automatically leaves doubt. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That means commission neither said that they are guilty nor that they aren't responsible. It merely states what troops did or did not do, saying nothing about Russia's responsibility, which is completely different subject.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're not guilty, that means that they're not responsible. If they were responsible, they would be held guilty. "Your Honor, I know the Defendant is innocent, but I claim that he is still responsible for the crime he committed!" Want to try that argument in Court my dear IP? How can they be held responsible, if they're not guilty? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are actually even COURTS that differentiate between: guilty, innocent, not found guilty, for example in Ireland. But even if it weren't so, the commission is not a court. It's a mere "fact finding mission". When they find facts, they state it. When they don't, well, they don't. Please don't do their job and don't mix your (dubious) conclusions with conclusions of the mission.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add the "*there was no genocide of ossetians" point

It's been added already, by me. There was no Genocide, period. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The report also contains good info about the military action. However, this seems to based on the same sources we are already using in the article. But one could think that the authors only picked sources they trusted in and that were consistent with other findings. Should we give the "Military events of 2008" section in volume II more weight than to other sources?

Here's some info about troop levels, for example:

• 10,000-11,000 Georgian troops took part in the Georgian offensive
• 12,000 Russian troops were deployed on the eastern front (South Ossetia and beyond) during the crisis
• Up to 15,000 Russian troops were deployed in Abkhazia on total. Overall number of Russian troops moved into Georgia in August amounted to 25,000-30,000

The report also contains a large amount of material on the history of the conflict. I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure we can use this as an additional source for the background section.

Any thoughts on the report and on how to use it? Offliner (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This ambassador was educated in Russia and is from the EU, who have an interest in undermining America. Do you really expect these people to have an unbiased opinion in these regards? 67.162.148.7 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Logical conclusion is that, to have an unbiased opinion, you have to be from the USA? Pity you don't have an account yet, for we should know when we talk with you next time:)FeelSunny (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Spiegel article from a few months ago was spot on, despite all the attacks on the author's credibility by certain editors here. But patients have payed off. Now that we have perhaps one of the most credible and well-rounded reports on the war available to date, we should make good use of it. I think it should be used as a main/overriding source so we can trim down the number of references in the article and just make the overall picture more consistent and less confusing. LokiiT (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still reading and examining it. It seems to be a very credible work we all were waiting for, but honestly speaking I was expecting a bit more (concerning details). Just a side note - it is citing both Pavel Felgenhauer and the book "The Guns of August: Russia's War in Georgia", which means that the military experts behind the report are considering both a reliable source. Kouber (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally "citing" does not equal "considering the source reliable". Besides, there are levels of reliability. The source may be reliable for it is demonstrating Felgenhauer's position and may rightfully belong to his own article. However it may not be considered reliable on a wide range of other topics, I do not think biology articles should start citing Felgenhauer any time soon and neither military history/politics. (Igny (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Kouber - Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell claimed that Russia cajoled Georgia into the war. The EU Report states that Saakashvili's attack was uncalled for. Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell claimed that Russia couldn't remove Saakashvili from power, militarily. The EU Report points out the total rout of the Georgian forces.

Could you cite this part please?--78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the equipment that Russia captured? Are you going to argue that abandoning their basis, and 90% of their military infrastructure to the Russians was Saakashvili's master plan? I'd cite the equipment that Russia captured to prove my point, but it's already cited in our article, and I'm not going to spoon-feed you every citation you ask for, especially ones that are already present in the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

On 10th of August Georgian army was given the order to withdraw , which they did. There were quite a few episodes of direct fighting between russian and georgian troops, some of them were described by Alexand Kokh (one Russian battalion nearly entirely annihilated by georgians) some by Andrey Babitsky (the Nikozi episode, when russian troops suffered losses and had to retreat). And, last, but not least, russian general Shamanov, admitting, that on 10th of August, Russia had to open second front in western Georgia, since russian troops had "a difficult situation" in SO. So, what exactly proves that Russian army was better than Georgian, the fact that it vastly outnumbers the latter in all aspects?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You take a look at the men who fought, not the reserves. On the ground, the forces had a 1 to 1 ratio. And, while there were limited combat engagements on the 10th of August, do tell, is it standard Georgian procedure to leave all of their equipment behind as they retreat? I've read some Russian Accounts on what happened; how some of the weapon lockers weren't even used, how all those NATO and Israeli military guides were left open on the tables, how the heavy equipment was left in the middle of the road. So tell me, is this standard Georgian retreating procedure? Because it looks like a rout to me. If not by August 10th, then by August 11th, the Georgians were routed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

First, it wasn't 1 to 1 ratio by that time, second, despite reporting, that Russian troops have entered Tskhinivali on 8th of August, they couldn't do it until Georgian troops were ordered (on 10th of August) to retreat. The fact is: "green" unexperienced Georgian troops fared pretty well vs 58th army that had gained a lot of experience in Chechen wars and had overwhelming advantage in the air and not only. Even Russian sources admit: "...was precisely hit by the very first shot", "Khrulev: 'Sniper tank is shooting at us...'" (yep, sniper tank, that what he said), Alexander Kokh, very pro-government Russian journalist: "Georgian artillery was amazingly precise". --136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Green, inexperienced Georgian Troops? Really? The 1st was NATO trained, parts of the 1st fought in the 2008 South Ossetia War. Fared pretty well vs. 58th army? I'm sorry, but I don't consider being routed in 3 to 4 days, as faring pretty well, anymore then I consider leaving generous ammunition supplies for the enemy, as a "tactical retreat". And most of the 4th Brigade had previous combat experience, as they were formed from Georgia's Interior Ministry Troops. Please get your facts straight. And can you cite the Khrulev quote from a Russian source? I don't think Khrulev was speaking in English. In case you missed it, this video is fake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHVo-DRcmEA&feature=related. And after your insistence that it was a tactical retreat, and not a rout, I just cannot take you, or your posts seriously. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the link to obviously Russian made boring pointless video has to do with this discussion? Should I link to funny "sniper tank" statements of 58th army commanding general, wounded by Georgians?

The 1st brigade was in Iraq when war began. Not to mention being trained is one thing, being experienced in actual fights is another.

Yes, green inexperienced Georgian Troops. And Georgian troops withdrew back to Tbilisi only after Russia has opened second front in the west. Regarding 1:1 ratio thousands were wounded from both sides (mostly by artillery and air strikes). In case of Russia they were replaced by new soldiers flowing through the Roki tunnel, Georgia didn't have any resources to replace them. And on Russia's side you are counting only regular troops.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the report cites Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell. And then discredits them. Mere citation doesn't mean they're important sources. Gordon Hahn cited Pavel Felgenhauer, only to completely discredit him; Felgenhauer replied with Ad Hominem. Mark Ames cited Felgenhauer, and then showed how much of a joke Pavluysha Felgenhauer really was. Citation doesn't equate to being an important source, and if you think it does...oh riiight, you think that army still = air force, nevermind. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Guideline for citing the report - I believe that we should only cite the report's conclusions, rather than the report's interpretation of other writings on the war. The report is massive, and citing something outside of the conclusion, is likely to generate an edit-war, what do we cite, vs. what do we not cite. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are the right person to establish guidelines for editing this article. The report itself is based on the analysis of numerous sources which are listed in its third part. If the report is reliable, then its assessment of its own sources and the conclusions drawn from them are supposed to be reliable, no? --Kober^Talk 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The conclusions are reliable. That's what we are quoting. What you are suggesting, will end up in another edit-war. I am trying to prevent said edit war, before it starts. You however want to try edit-warring first, and asking questions later. So I'll reiterate: the report contains hundreds of pages. If one misquotes the report, and sources were certainly misquoted in this article previously, that will lead to numerous battles, as to what to include, or what to not include. People are interested in conclusions, i.e. what happened. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of analysis. Furthermore, I am suggesting that we use all conclusions, those beneficial to Russia, and those beneficial to Georgia. Do you not trust the article Kober? Because if you trust the article, then post the conclusions. If you don't trust it, dispute its credibility, and good luck with that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is too restricting. Yes, the timeline in the "use of force" section uses third-party sources, for example. But my gut feeling is still that this timeline is more reliable than anything we had before, since it represents the best understanding of the authors. I'd like to rewrite the material about the military action to be more clear and informative, and this is possible with the information in the report. Offliner (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem that it might run into, is that certain Wikipedians will quote what this article concluded about the HRW, which is different, then what the HRW concluded the HRW said. Personally, I believe that the HRW is the best source on what the HRW said. What I am saying, is that if we have the HRW's views on HRW, we don't need the EU Commission's views on the HRW. The same should be said for every other article. If you want to rewrite the military section, then the report, in the third part, cites all of the articles that it used. You can just use these same articles, rather then the EU Commission's conclusion about these articles, to rewrite the military section. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Our Georgiaphobes probably missed the part of the report which mentions Russia's role in escalating the tensions as well as the presence of "some" non-peacekeeping Russian forces and the influx of volunteers and mercenaries from the North Caucasus (sic) just before 07/08/08.--Kober^Talk 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Saakshvili's claim was BTRs/APCs, light infantry and heavy infantry, i.e. people with flame-throwers, grenade-launchers, etc. There were only reports of light infantry. No one is disputing that there was an influx of light infantry prior to the war. Now Kober, being the stellar military historian you are, please explain, how does one attack Georgia's 191 T-72 tanks with Light Infantry? In other words, there was an influx of Light Infantry, possibly snipers. However, Light Infantry by itself is not an attacking unit, unless your country doesn't have anything else. Light Infantry, less then 500 men, posed no threat to Georgia. If 500 men of light infantry pose a threat to your country, then I'm sorry, but your country's military needs to be improved. 500 light infantry vs. 191 T-72s? If you aren't laughing by now.... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What an impudent statement is that?! What more should Georgia have accepted before reacting? A Russian military parade in Tbilisi probably?... Kouber (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Up to 500, most likely 100-300 light infantry without heavy armament in Tskhinval, somehow becomes a war parade in Tbilisi? Last time I checked, you need tanks for a war parade. But then there's Kouber's version....

Guys, stop elaborating on Heidi's words. She only said Geargia started and Russia overreacted. That's the two main points of the report, and we all know that.FeelSunny (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all I want to put into the article. I love that summary, because it's honest. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect you to understand my allegory. Still, I doubt you would accept as something normal the eventual movement of Georgian troops into Russia, violation of Russian air-space by Georgian air-planes, deployment of Georgian transport troops into North Ossetia, establishment of official ties between Georgia and Chechnya, for example, etc.

Anyhow, the report is saying much more than these two points. For example, it reveals the official Russian version, that the Russian armed forces entered South Ossetia on 8 August 2008 at 14:30, which is ridiculous, as the first Russian aerial bombardment occurred reportedly at 9:45 a.m. on 8 August near the village of Shavshvebi, on the highway between Poti and Tbilisi. Hence, I am getting the impression that the mission of Russia, regarding this report, was rather fact-hiding. Kouber (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Kouber - by saying Russia's forces entered, if you read it, it says through the Roki Tunnel. You are more then welcome to take an airplane, and try to fly it through the Roki Tunnel. In fact, I'd even recommend that someone provide you with an airplane. And your allegory fails, because in this war, both the Ossetians and the Chechens, (220 Chechens officially) fought on Russia's side. You actually have to be invited, in order to establish bi-lateral ties, hence the term, bi-lateral. But it seems that someone's confusing army with air force again ;) Thankfully the report pointed out it was through the Roki Tunnel, apparently anticipating.... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Russian version of events, presented in the report, says exactly what I wrote above: "Russian armed forces entered South Ossetia on 8 August 2008". You're welcome now to claim once again that the air-forces aren't part of the armed forces. It would be funny to read these things again. Kouber (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dearest Kouber, avoiding the main argument, while hilarious, is still not considered as refuting it. Now, try again, and this time actually focus on the main point that I made: here's a hint - it involves the Roki Tunnel. As for your counter-argument, the report was referring to Russian army forces, which was blatantly obvious to any reader. Not Russian Armed forces. Army is a part of the, armed forces, but it's not the entire armed forces. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

shortening of responsibility section

Unfortunately, I don't have much time atm (they took their time releasing the report in "september"), but I still plan on drastically shorten that section, mostly by taking out the "analysts" section out. This report is neutral and pretty much sums up the opinions, so we don't need the assorted others anymore outside of one or two summary sentences. --Xeeron (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest dropping "politicians" and "georgian intelligence" as well. Also the "combatants positions" section can be shortened as well. Of course, everything should be copied over to the Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war subsarticle before removal. Offliner (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the first thing we need to do is making thumbs of pictures. That would make the page load much faster.FeelSunny (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the section on the EU to include all important points, added two sentences that were (as far as I saw) not mentioned in the EU report and ditched all the unnecessary and redundant rest. --Xeeron (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the shortened version was good, except that I'd like Georgia's war preparations mentioned too (a point raised by Antonenko and Spiegel, whose opinions were removed.) Offliner (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be viewing the report as if it were a Deity. Other analysts should also be mentioned. I mean you guys are like "the report came out, nothing else matters anymore!" It's just a single report, that's certainly credible; but it's not something that speaks for everyone else, or can sum up the opinions of everyone else. We need to give the reader the option to see what all analysts think, not just what one of them thinks. Seriously, enough with the worshiping of the EU Report. It's just a report, not a Deity. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The EU report is the most credible and neutral source we have. There is no room for the opinion of every analyst under the sun. All the opinions would still be present in Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that this article is called the 2008 South Ossetia War, not The EU Report's Most Credible and Neutral Stance on the 2008 South Ossetia War. If you want to start the latter, please do so. We do not have every analyst under the sun, we just have the ones that we spent pages on pages including. What is going on here? Did I miss the part where Jesus handed us the EU Report or something? And if later another report comes out, disproving the EU Report, or parts thereof, what then? If you want to turn this article into EU Report worshiping, then my time here has expired. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to remind you that the HRW wording on the "ethnic cleansing" was this: Human Rights Watch: "Instead of protecting civilians, Russian forces allowed South Ossetian forces who followed in their path to engage in wanton and wide-scale pillage and burning of Georgian homes and to kill, beat, rape, and threaten civilians," said Denber. "Such deliberate attacks are war crimes, and if committed as part of a widespread or systematic pattern, they may be prosecuted as a crime against humanity." However, also according to the HRW, 15,000 of 17,500 Georgians have left South Ossetia prior to the arrival of the Russian soldiers. Your infallible and o worshipful report turned the HRW's stance, described above, into this: "The facts of ethnic cleansing against the Georgian populace in South Ossetia have been confirmed by the Human Rights Watch". Now I may not be an expert on the English Language, but did the o worshipful report just throw out the word if?

A story comes to mind: A powerful Greek city state sent a message to Laconia: "Continue to act as you are acting, and we will come into your houses and destroy all of your crops if our army gets to your homes". The Laconic response was "if". That word is crucially important. And that is just one of the errors made by the EU Report. It was written by a human being, and human beings make errors. This is why you are allowed jury trials, with a selection of not one of the "most credible and neutral [jurors] we have"; instead you have 12 of your peers to make the judgment. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fyi., Tagliavini's report is going to end up in trash. Many parts are missing empirical evidencies. Investigation was incomplete and erratic. Eventually there will be the lawsuits aginst the commission. The latest developments in the conflict zones and behavior of Russian millitary close to EU borders and the new law- on 'defending russians everywhere'- is signaling the seriousness of the matther. The report was clearly orchestrated by the Russian lobysts, businessman and gazprom. But Russia's final goal is not good relations with the west. Russia is trying to get back where it was 20-25 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.13.103 (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Report portrays the European Viewpoint, not the Russian viewpoint. The Report actually denied Russia's right to protect civilians everywhere, and found the passport issue to be illegal. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying what the report said. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the introduction paragraphs: (proposed edits in Italics, explanations below, citations taken out, my numbers place in

The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Russia–Georgia War, was an armed conflict in August 2008 between Georgia on one side, and South Ossetia, Russia and Abkhazia on the other.[1]

The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians left most of South Ossetia under de-facto control of a Russian-backed, internationally unrecognised government. Some ethnic Georgian-inhabited parts of South Ossetia remained under the control of Georgia. A similar situation existed in Abkhazia after the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). The increasing tensions escalated during the summer months of 2008. [2]

Define "most" please. Most of SO is uninhabited mountains. Nearly half of the former autonomy was controlled by the Georgian government. Your sentence is misleading.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Most is 50% + 1, be it population or area. In terms of population, it is met by South Ossetia. It terms of area, it is also met. But in the English language, most means either 50% + 1, or something greater then 50% + 1. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You deliberatelly confuse the user, hiding from him, that close to half of both population and inhabited land was controlled by the central government--136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most is still 50% + 1. Nor do I confuse anyone. Now you are just rambling. Close to most doesn't count. The difference between an Olympic Swimming Champion and someone who isn't, (Phelps v. Cavic) was less than a tenth of second, and I needed to see the super-slow motion review to figure out who won. The article cites most correctly. It's 50% + 1. Or are we redefining the English language to fit Saakashvili's PR needs? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what "most" is, there are no exact numbers of how many ethnic Georgians and Ossetians still were there and who's controlled more. We have number from Russia's CEC - 28 thousand voters and number of Georgian IDPs 30 thousand. We have maps from OSCE monitoring mission, that shows near 50%/50% control (which is no wonder, considering Georgians won that war, Russia had to intervene to stop Georgian's from completely controlling Tskhinvali).

Wether you control 3% of the territory or nearly half of the territory is important. And you confuse readers on this.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On August 5th, Russia warned Georgia that it will defend South Ossetia in the case of an attack. [cite BBC] [*] During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military attack against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reconquer the territory. The following day, Russia reacted by deploying combat troops in South Ossetia and launching bombing raids into Georgia Proper. Russian and Ossetian troops clashed with Georgian troops in the three-day Battle of Tskhinvali, the main battle of the war. Russian naval forces blocked Georgia's coast and landed ground forces and paratroopers on the Georgian coast. On 9 August Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge, held by Georgia. After five days of heavy fighting, the Georgian forces were routed, enabling the Russian troops entered Georgia Proper, occupying the cities of Poti and Gori among others. [3]

After mediation by the French presidency of the European Union, the parties reached a preliminary ceasefire agreement on 12 August, signed by Georgia on 15 August in Tbilisi and by Russia on 16 August in Moscow. On 12 August, President Medvedev had already ordered a halt to Russian military operations, but fighting did not stop immediately. After the signing of the ceasefire Russia pulled most of its troops out of uncontested Georgia and established buffer zones around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which led to the creation of check-points in Georgia's interior (Poti, Senaki, Perevi). [4]

On 26 August 2008 Russia recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia completed its withdrawal from Georgia Proper on 8 October, but as of 2009[update] Russian troops remain stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia under bilateral agreements with the corresponding governments. However, according to a number of European and US sources, Russia has not fully complied with the peace agreement because Georgia lost control over some of the territories. [5]

A number of incidents occurred in both conflict zones in the months after the war ended. As of 2009[update] tensions between the belligerents remain high.

1. On the one hand you mention the country informally - Georgia. On the other you mention the country formally, Russian Federation, and the regions/countries as if they're non-existent; however, even Georgia concedes that Abkhazia is a province, and South is an autonomous republic. Need to be consistent.

2. Basic grammar

3. According to Military Historiography, if there are military forces of opposing countries in the region - it's contested! Additionally, you don't have to state that Russian entered Georgia Proper every time. We get it, Russians overreacted, this isn't contested by anyone; then again, who wouldn't overreact if their countrymen came under attack, and North Ossetia is a part of Russia. And the Georgian forces were routed - this is obvious, they weren't ejected and performing a tactical retreat, they were running back to Tbilisi.

4. Again, you don't have to say "in Georgia every time". As to by whom - come on - it's by Russia, that should be obvious from the text.

5. Whose sources? I had to fix that.

Additionally:

• I believe that it's important to place that sentence in, due to the current climate created by certain media outlets, who believe that Russia counter-attacked without warning, and that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to the proposed changes, but I'd rather 1) include the sentence about PK format in the first paragraph, and 2) wait until the Easter European mailing list case is closed, so that every interested editor could participate.FeelSunny (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by 1? I'm not sure what PK format is. Also, the Caballites have been editing articles, they haven't taken a break, they've been doing it all throughout the trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&action=history HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"1)" for the first point, "2)" for the second one. Yes, they have not taken a break in some examples, but re this article - they seem not to be involved in editing for quite some time now. I'd rather wait until the case is resolved before proceeding with any important edits.FeelSunny (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the peacekeeper part. However I believe that since they're editing other articles, there is nothing wrong with editing this one was well. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war

I beleive we should update the article with the conclusions of the EU report.FeelSunny (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I still believe we could (and should) make the section a lot shorter based on the EU report. However, HistoricWarrior007 objected to the shortening, and I didn't have enough time to look for a compromise solution, so I haven't done anything yet. Offliner (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Offliner - I think he's talking about the article he linked. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article has only but a small section about the report conclusions, and it does not mention many of them.FeelSunny (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What did you mean by PK format, in the section above? And you're right, the child articles of this article are neglected. As soon as I'm done reviewing this article, I'll get to the child articles. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PK for peacekeeper.FeelSunny (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As it is widely known, mr. Putin is an admirer of eastern tactics in sports, such as Karate, and in millitary matters. If you reread The Art of War, you will draw numerous parallels betwen Sun Tzu's teaching and the behaviour of the russian troops during the war. This does not mean that the russian troops are stronger than Georgian troops. Simply, the war was provoked purposfully using the teachings of The Art of War. Sun Tsu teaches: "Appear far but, but be close...troops prefer mountains to plains...use the converted spyies and treat them well...divide the enemy's army..." Please translate the book into Georgian and the nation will understand what happened and how it happened. However, there is no guarantee that the Russians will use the same tactics, because Sun Tzu teaches not to use the same tactics in the next attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sun Tzu also said "leave your soldiers no escape, and they will prefer fight to death". And Saakashvili refused to give the Ossetians any corridors of escape; apparently the phrase "your" somehow was mixed up with "the enemy's" in Saakashvili's mind and "soldiers" was mixed up with "civilians". I think Sun Tzu is much too advanced for Georgia's current government. Now if the Georgians were to actually elect a wiser government that cares about their country, instead of their lobbyists....BTW, the same happened with Bush, who interpreted the phrase "divide the enemy's army" as "divide our own army between Iraq and Afghanistan". Sun Tzu is just too complex for Neocons to comprehend, but if truly democratic elections take place in Georgia, and a government of peace and not of war is elected, there might be hope for reconciliation. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you concerned that Georgia wants help to achive peace in Iraq and Afghanistan? Instead of joining the effort Russia is helping Iran to develop nukes. It is unclear what russias true asspirations are today except that it wants its soviet power back. If russia was not stupid, it could have treated these 9former soviet) countries friendly and maybe they'd decide to unite in some form commonwealth, but russia treated the sovereigns as subordinates, threatened them and has been bullying them for the last 20 years. This has ruined Russia's perspecive of friendship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The Iraq-Afghanistan reference was to the US, not to Georgia. The US had the right and the responsibility, as well as a moral duty, to enter into Afghanistan and fight. And until the US invaded Iraq, the Americans were winning in Afghanistan. The Taliban was being routed, and a few more years of such pressure, would have destroyed the Taliban, and brought a potentially Democratic, and at the very least stable and anti-terrorist government into Afghanistan. Instead of continuing the Just War against Al Qaeda, Bush/Cheney decided to invade Iraq, without any reason whatsoever. WMDs? "We will be greeted as Liberators"? Removing a dictator from power? Helping stabilize the Middle East? All of these reasons were bullshit. Had the US kept its army in Afghanistan, and not split its forces between Afghanistan and Iraq, the Taliban would be dead, and the US Troops would be returning home with victory.

Iran and Taliban aren't related. There is no connection between Al Qaeda and Iran. Additionally, Iran has been a stable trade partner in the Caspian Sea, and proven to be a dependable ally for Russia. Iran might be a threat to Israel, but it is no threat to Russia; nor does it have ties to Taliban and Al Qaeda. If it did, Russia would not be supporting Iran. Nor would China, as pretty much everyone hates Al Qaeda.

As per Russia's treatment of other states; Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan get along with Russia extremely well. The Baltic States have generally been anti-Russian, quickly forgetting that they owed their independence to a Communist, (the one who signed the "let's give Germany lotsa land treaty", aka the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) and remember the unjustified invasion of 1940, but not the subsequent liberation, that happened only a short time after the unjustified invasion. Except for the Baltic Region, Russia has a friendly power in each region; Armenia in the Caucasian, Belarus in the European and Kazakhstan in the Stan Region. Additionally, with the exception of Georgia and Ukraine, other post-Communist States get along with Russia, and only Georgia wanted to leave the CIS. So it's not exactly everyone vs. Russia as you portray.

After the "Democratic Reforms" Russia was thrown into a massive economic crisis, similar to the one in Ukraine today. The extent to which Russia could help the former USSR states remains limited. What I do find interesting, is that the people in "Democratic" countries, and as a sign of "Freedom of Speech" Georgia banned Russian channels and Ukraine banned the "Putin Song" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rhg1Ngz7y4, the people in these countries have a much lower standard of living than their counterparts in Belarus (in the case of Ukraine) and Armenia & Azerbaijan (in the case of Georgia). GDP per Capita in Belarus: $11,800. GDP per Capita in Ukraine: $7,400. (Russia's is $16,100.) GDP per Capita in Azerbaijan: $9,500. Armenia: $6,300. Georgia: $4,600. And I could go into income distribution statistics, which would make the difference even greater! And one can argue that Russia has natural resources, such as oil stocks, as does Azerbaijan. But what about Armenia and Belarus? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is your argument. Now let's get back to the responsibility issue. Who is responsible for the latest developments in Geogria? Kidnappings in so called south ossetia and abusing ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia by the Russian troops? What is Russia trying to achieve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence to corroborate that data. As far as I know, Russian soldiers aren't involved in attacking Ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia, unless the latter are Narco-Dealers. Maybe you know something I don't. I do know that some kidnappings of Intelligence Personnel are being carried out by both sides in South Ossetia. But Russians and/or Ossetians going after Ethnic Georgian Civilians, I haven't heard anything about it. Anyways, we've gone far beyond the scope of the war, but if you want to continue this conversation on my talkpage, you're welcome to do so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007 HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

People, start getting accounts for your IPs:)FeelSunny (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Historic Warior, yes, russia is misbehaving in the conflic zones, why do you think all the EU embassadors are going there next week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaucasianAcacia (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm guessing that we shall find out. From which countries are these EU Ambassadors coming? I'm a lot more likely to trust the German Ambassador, than the Swedish Ambassador. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

georgian kids remain in hostage in the occupied territory of Georgia (in south ossetia. Everyday something horrible has been taking place almost every day lately:

Russian occupants assault families of ethnic Georgians in Gali 11.11.09 10:53 Russian occupants assaulted several families pf ethnic Georgians in Gali district. The beat up and robbed the families of Tordias, Tsikolias and Shonias in the villages of Saberio and Sida. The occupants have been robbing the houses for a whole hour. They tortured the members of the families and took away jewelry and domestic appliances. Afterwards, the villains assaulted a vehicle, injuring its passengers, who were taking a sick child to Zugdidi hospital.

Occupants kidnap two anglers in Anaklia 10.11.09 18:31 Russian occupants kidnapped two Georgian anglers in the seaside settlement of Anaklia today. Chabuka Oghli and Gia Gabelaia were fishing near Pichori resort, when Russian soldiers assaulted them. The anglers tried to escape but the occupants laid siege with boats and took the anglers to Ochamchire. ed south ossetia. Evryday someone is beaten or kidnapped in the conflict regions lately.

Valid Criticism of the European Union Report

Found this nice link: http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/2009/10/the-eu-report-little-and-late.html

The criticism, from the link, is that the EU Report took their sweet time figuring out who the attacker was, and that it says precious little as to how to resolve the crisis. Here's the summary: "Generally speaking, I regard it as rather little, rather late, naïve and incomplete. It is also excruciatingly delicate – even precious – in what it says and what it avoids saying. It concludes with a number of unexceptionable, but rather vague, recommendations." Comments?

Another interesting criticism I found is this: "It is incomplete because it, evidently seeing the conflict as one between Georgia and Russia as other commentators have, leaves the Ossetians out. While the authors feel it useful to give some historical background on Georgia, going back to the Treaty of Georgievsk in 1783, there is no equivalent discussion of the Ossetian (or Abkhazian) point of view. But, if asked, Ossetians would certainly speak of their unwillingness to be part of Georgia and refer to earlier Georgian attacks in 1920 and 1991. Their arguments for independent status should be heard out even if they are to be refuted. Tendentious perhaps but a significant factor in Ossetian (and Abkhazian) perceptions. The fact is that the Ossetians, rightly or wrongly, do not want to be part of Georgia, fought for their independence when the Russian Empire collapsed, were placed in the Georgian SSR by Stalin-Jughashvili, tried to be excluded from it when the USSR collapsed, fought another independence war and, very probably, stopped the Georgian attack before the Russian forces got there (some Tskhinvali combat footage at 7:50). To leave their point of view out of the Report is to be incomplete. Added to which, the discussion about their citizenship (the authors assert that they were Georgian citizens) is to altogether ignore their contention that, while they were certainly Soviet citizens in 1991, they never agreed to becoming Georgian citizens. Indeed the world recognised Georgia, in the borders that Stalin gave it, while the disputes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were actually going on."

This is a Russian myth about Georgia. Both Abkhazia and what is now called "South Ossetia" were parts of Republic of Georgia 1918. Stalin had nothing to do with it.

Yes, yes, South Ossetia and Abkhazia were both parts of Georgia, which is exactly why they desperately wanted the status of Autonomous Republics in the USSR, riiight. Meanwhile, here's Stalin, "having nothing to do with it":

During the Stalin years, a purge was carried out against Communist Party officials and intelligentsia of Abkhaz provenance on the orders of Lavrentiy Beria, then-the Party Secretary in Transcaucasus and himself a native of Abkhazia, in order to break a resistance to forced collectivization of land. The Abkhaz party leader Lakoba suddenly died shortly after his visit to Beria in Tbilisi in December 1936. There was a strong suspicion that he was poisoned by Beria who declared Lakoba an "enemy of the people" posthumously. The purges in Abkhazia were accompanied by the suppression of Abkhaz ethnic culture: the Latin-based Abkhaz alphabet was changed into Georgian and all the native language schools were closed, ethnic Georgians were guaranteed key official positions, many place names were changed to Georgian ones.

Similar events occurred in South Ossetia. We all know Stalin isn't an innocent lamb. He may not have personally executed people, but the execution of Lakoba came on Stalin's orders. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, back to the point, both regions were part of Republic of Georgia as of 1918, and thats a few years before Georgia "deliberately" joined Russian Federation (with help of 7th and 11th red army). What has Stalin to do with this?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And if you go back further in time, you'd find that Abkhazia joined Russia in 1822, whereas Georgia joined Russia in 1801. So in terms of the Russian Empire, they weren't the same country, or even the same state within the Russian Empire. Furthermore, the Ossetians and Abkhaz rebelled against Georgia, who subjugated them by force. Eventually, they joined the USSR as two autonomous regions; When the USSR fell apart, instead of compromising, Georgia trampled all over their autonomy, so they rebelled. Stop trying to paint snapshots as the whole picture. It won't work. Stalin took away Abkhazia's independence, that was given to Abkhazia by Lenin. Why can Estonia separate from Russia as a result of WWI and the Russian Revolution, but Abkhazia cannot separate from Georgia as a result of WWI and the Russian Revolution? Oh, right, hypocrisy. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How Russian's continued to split Georgia after it again "deliberatelly" joined Russia in 192x is not relevant. In 1918 Abkhazia was part of Georgia and Stalin obviously has nothing to do with it.

Now, regarding "joining" Russian Empire in 19th century argument: only Khartli and Kakheti districts of Georgia were annexed by Russia in 1801. So, by that logic, I guess it the rest of Georgia has become part of Republic of Georgia in 1918 by the same miraculous Stalin's influence.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, as I've been saying from the begining, the Report cannot be neutral, as it excludes the Ossetians and Abkhaz viewpoint. Here's Abkhazia's brilliant argument for independence: http://www.abkhazworld.com/articles/analysis/285-int-legal-status-abkhazia-vchirikba.html Although it is written from an Abkhaz standpoint, it hits a major question: if Slovenia, why not Abkhazia? Aside from the difference in the year, Abkhazia being recognized roughly twenty years after Slovenia, the two cases are virtually identical. However, the article also mentions the independence of Bangladesh, which has a difference of roughly twenty years with Slovenia's recognition. Additionally, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia meet the Montvideo Convention, whereas Kosovo does not: "The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood." Russian lawyers, sorry, but this guy, Chirikba, vas vseh perechirikal (kicked all of your butts). What is the territorry of Kosovo? Does it include North Kosovo? If so, where is North Kosovo's Political Authority? Does it, in practice, answer to Thaci or Tadic? C'mon, we all know it ain't Thaci. Thus, Kosovo fails the Badinter Commission/Montevideo Convention test. But, as the criticism of the EU Report states, these arguments, as well as South Ossetian and Abkhaz viewpoints aren't even mentioned. Nor have I read anyone refuting Chirikba's major arguments, because he's being ignored. You are welcome to post counter-arguments to his points, or those of the Pat Armstrong.

Let me guess, because as a result of ethnic cleansing, commited by abkhazians & russian friends 2/3 of pre-war population was driven out of their homes? Ethnic georgians, greeks, jews, were are they?

Driven out their homes? 15,000 left as a result of the actions of Georgia's Army. Got sources on Greeks and Jews being driven out of their homes? Georgians were told that the Georgian Army was invading, so they packed and left. But thank you for finding a way to blame the Russians even for that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

15,00 left what, sorry? Number of citizens in Abkhazia went down from 550 thousand to (UN estimation) 100-150 thousands. Not only Georgians, but Greeks and Jews as well (actually that's nearly all of the major minorities there, except Russians and Armenians) cannot return to their homes, which are currently either occupied by abkhazs or rented/sold to Russian tourists. I'd call it a solid foundation for "independence".

15,000 number was for South Ossetia, as a result of this war. Are you sure you are in the correct article? This is an article about the 2008 South Ossetia War. The article you are talking about, are events that happened in 1992-1993. You are off by 15 years, and in the wrong article, congratulations! Nevertheless, I will respond: during the Abkhaz Depression, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Abkhazia#Historical_developments, a lot of people left; 50,000 Russians, and 13,000 Greeks left Abkhazia, for better economic opportunities. The same can be said of Jews. At least 3 million people left Russia, due to the "Democratic Reformers" stealing everything in sight and starving the population. The exact same fate befell all other USSR Republics, except Belarus, and so Lukashenko was demonized. Banning all Russian Media = Democratic. Preventing Corporation from making a profit = Undemocratic. Riiight. Anyways, back to my original point: what happened in Abkhazia, with the Russians and Greeks fleeing, BTW, if you bothered to study Greco-Russian history, and Abkhaz-Russian history, you'd realize that Abkhaz could never ethnically cleans Greeks; the economic downturn that cause a massive emigration, isn't prerequisite for Independence. The prerequisite is the Montevideo Convention, which Abkhazia meets. Oh, and here's the map that shows Abkhazia as an Independent SSR, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GASSR.png, in 1921, just like Estonian SSR. Except Stalin gave Abkhazia to Georgia, instead of Estonia. Had he not done so, Abkhazia would probably be independent today. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you forget what you were saying? "if Slovenia, why not Abkhazia?" Well, because nowadays "Abkhazia" is a result of ethnic cleansing. A "country" where small part of Georgians, who returned, are refused citizenship, because, you know, they are ethnic Georgians.

Most Jews and Greeks left during the conflict (when Sukhumi was pounded by separatist artillery and Russian plains). Their homes are now occupied and their right to return/get back their property is refused.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, and this is the only valid criticism of the EU Report that I found, that this information, should be summarized and included into the article. Any objections? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. The commission's job was not to present all points of view, but to analyse all the evidence and see what can be concluded from that evidence. What the war parties think is already presented elsewhere in this article. We already have more than enough third-party opinions. If we now start adding criticism of those opinions, this is going to balloon out of control. Offliner (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The EU Report styles itself as an "Independent Fact Finding Mission". How can one be independent, when it's dependent on the opinions of UN Member states, but analyzing a war over two previously unrecognized, but De Facto Independent, Republics? For instance if the EU Report was focused solely on NATO-Russian relationship, then its sources are adequate. But when you are ignoring half of the combatants, due to legalistic constraints, how can you be independent? Nevertheless, I am ok with shortening the argument to merely stating: "A valid criticism of the EU Report is that the report completely ignored the South Ossetian and Abkhaz side of the story; their arguments ought to be presented, and, if possible, refuted. Instead the EU Report just ignored these arguments".

I agree that Tavliagni had noble intentions, and that the report is well written. However the Report's funding constrained it, in order to carry out the European point of view on the war:

1. Attacking De Facto Russian Soil is retarded. (Well they phrased it nicer.)

2. Russia had a right to beat the shit out of anyone who attacks her soldiers.

3. Russia had no right to raid NATO-like bases and take our military tactics.

4. Russia had no right to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Independent Republics.

5. All arguments must conform to the EU's Legal Norms.

That is a rough outline of what Tavliagni was forced to work with, and you'll find that each and every part of the report, (Volume I) follows these guidelines. For instance, after the EU Report attempts to destroy the passport questions, (conforming to EU's Legal Norms) the report states that Georgia was still in the wrong (attacking De Facto Russian Soil is retarded); as such the report was forced to rule that attacking civvies is ok, but attacking soldiers isn't. And that's just one example. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The commission's job was to examine this war only, and not the general Georgian-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhazian conflicts. This is the reason why the arguments for SO and A independence may not have been addressed (I don't remember if they were.) I don't understand why the commission's failure to address this would undermine its neutrality in any way. They did, however, address the issue whether Abkhazian and South Ossetian military actions were in line with international law. I do not personally agree with the criticism presented above, and I do not believe that this is a reliable source. Therefore I object to adding your suggestion to the article. Offliner (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comission has considered whether declaring independence from Georgia was legal and the conclusion was: it was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.225.28 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Chirikba and Armstrong are talking about different theories of International Law. If you read further, you would find that the EU Report found it illegal under Uti Possidetis. However, should another theory become dominant, which is easily possible in the next thirty years, heck Uti Possidetis Theory hasn't been used "en masse" for even thirty years, it's a young theory. Chirikba is saying that Uti Possidetis is incorrect, and that one should follow the Montvideo Convention, a theory of law, under which the Abkhaz and South Ossetian Independence would be legal. Armstrong's criticism of the report, is that it doesn't even mention Chirikba's argument, instead of mentioning it, and then refuting it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a reasonable theory, that would find ethnic cleansing an acceptable reason to declare independence. At 1989, according to USSR, 246 thousand Georgians and 97 thousand Abkhazians lived in the autonomy.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Chirikba is arguing independence on the basis of the Montevideo Convention that has nothing to do with Ethnic Cleansing. You are yelling Ethnic Cleansing to bolster your argument, and yet, it is superbly irrelevant. Furthermore, the Ethnic Cleansing started as a result of Gamzakhurdia's actions; first came the Georgian Invasion of Abkhazia, then came the Ethnic Cleansing. You're trying to paint a picture of noble Georgians living side by side with Abkhaz, and then, for no reason, the Abkhaz ethnically cleanse the Georgians, while conveniently forgetting about the Georgian Invasion of Abkhazia that started the Ethnic Cleansing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: "Patrick Armstrong received a PhD from Kings College, University of London, England in 1976 and started working for the Canadian government as a defence scientist in 1977. He began a 22-year specialisation on the USSR and then Russia in 1984, and was Political Counsellor in the Canadian Embassy in Moscow from 1993 to 1996. He has been a frequent speaker at the Wilton Park conferences in the UK." I believe he is a credible source. If you wish, I can ask other Wikipedians if Patrick Armstrong is a reliable source. Additionally, where in the report does it say that Abkhaz Military acted in the confines of International Law? I believe it said exactly the opposite. Your objection is only on two grounds: invalid source, (which is easily disproved) and your suggestion that the report stated that Abkhaz military was in line with international law, which is the opposite of what the EU Report said. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not say that "the report stated that Abkhaz military was in line with international law" (read again what I wrote.) I really don't see any need for adding Armstrong's opinion - it simply just isn't important enough, not even close. The responsibility material must be cut down, not expanded. Offliner (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Yet I don't think a single sentence would cause that section too much harm. Plus I shortened the section on Genocide from 2 sentences to one, and fixed refs, so it should fit now, without technically expanding it :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This information, whether it is an invalid source or not, is a substantial addition to an overcrowded page. The best place for it would to be added to the main article, which is: Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war, where this page already refers viewers to. This section is supposed to be a brief summary of the arguments surrounding the responsibility for the war that directs the user to where they can read more, if they so choose. Does any other editor disagree with this assertion? Improvements should be focused on the responsibility page, and the section on this page should be scaled back gradually as the bulk of information is transferred from this article to other. Outback the koala (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what would be problematic with adding a single sentence pointing out that Ossetian and Abkhaz sides were ignored, nor would I call a single sentence, "a substantial addition". Nor have I ever objected to anyone improving Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia War article; I have merely stated that I will be working to improve this article first. Additionally, I have already addressed as to why reducing the section here would be a bad idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#shortening_of_responsibility_section HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see now that I had misinterpreted one of your previous statements, and so my statement was based on faulty info. My argument is null as a result, so please disregard it. I had misread your initial statement; as I believed you wanted to add all that you had quoted! Oh well! silly me.... Outback the koala (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you for letting me clarify my argument. Don't ever think it's silly. I'd rather have a silly question asked once, than have misconceptions, and I don't think you were the only one confused, so thank you for letting me clarify it :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)