1 year has passed since the Russian aggression in Georgia

[Dumanios]

Russia:I'm building up my forces.
:A while Later:
Russia:I'm building up my forces.
Georgia:Eat my poop,Russia!
Russia:Rawr!
Georgia: (Girly Scream)

 

[red_elk]

It makes sense. Russia took violent action against it's breakaway province of Chechnya. But no one invaded Russia because of that.

This is really strange. Why no one invaded Russia?

But when Georgia took action against it's breakaway provinces, Russia felt it was it's duty to invade Georgia.

So yeah, Russia seems like the aggressor in both cases.

Yes, you understood correctly.
When Russia took violent action against it's breakaway province, Russia is aggressor.
When Georgia took violent action against it's breakaway province, Georgia is victim.

No thanks.

Good vodka and good women, but bad weather you fellas got there. Not our thing.

But it is your duty, as democratic state, to stop aggressor!

 

[Winner]

We don't need to. It's better to simply contain the aggressor and wait until it collapses. It works very well with Russia and its cyclical rises and falls.

 

[red_elk]

We don't need to. It's better to simply contain the aggressor and wait until it collapses. It works very well with Russia and its cyclical rises and falls.

As you can see, not too much people consider Russia was aggressor in this war, despite all your explanations. And there are no countries who started to actually "contain" it since last year. So, good luck

 

[Ayatollah So]

It sits on the pipeline from Azerbajian to Turkey.

So? The oil market is a GLOBAL market. As long as wars over oil don't disrupt the production, consuming nations have no self-interested reason to give a fig who controls the oil.

Or do we fall into the old joke: "Americans have the right to shout down with Reagan in front of White House, Russians have the right to shout down with Reagan in Red Square"?

That's a great joke, thanks for reminding me.

 

[Winner]

As you can see, not too much people consider Russia was aggressor in this war, despite all your explanations. And there are no countries who started to actually "contain" it since last year. So, good luck

All I see is a bunch of naive posters on an internet gaming forum. Fortunately those who actually run their respective countries are that foolish and most Western countries clearly condemned the Russian aggression.

Though it's clear greater effort must be undertaken to effectively roll back Russia in the area it considers its "sphere" of influence.

 

[Riffraff]

All I see is a bunch of naive posters on an internet gaming forum. Fortunately those who actually run their respective countries are that foolish and most Western countries clearly condemned the Russian aggression.

Though it's clear greater effort must be undertaken to effectively roll back Russia in the area it considers its "sphere" of influence.

Western leader condemn pretty much any violence anywhere.

 

[REDY]

Its true that West was suprisingly united, on the other hand words are cheap. Now it more seems that US contains "Russian sphere of influence" than Russia

 

[luiz]

This is really strange. Why no one invaded Russia?

Isn't it stranger why Russia invaded Georgia for doing much less than Russia did in Chechnya?

Yes, you understood correctly.
When Russia took violent action against it's breakaway province, Russia is aggressor.
When Georgia took violent action against it's breakaway province, Georgia is victim.

Indeed, because I don't remember anyone invading Russia, but I do remember a rather big bully invading Georgia.

But it is your duty, as democratic state, to stop aggressor!

Not really. It's hardly our duty to stop a psychopathic regime much stronger than we are. It is our duty to point out that they behave like psychopaths, though.

 

[red_elk]

All I see is a bunch of naive posters on an internet gaming forum. Fortunately those who actually run their respective countries are that foolish and most Western countries clearly condemned the Russian aggression.

And these strong measures must make aggressor to collapse?

Isn't it stranger why Russia invaded Georgia for doing much less than Russia did in Chechnya?

A lot less strange than the US invading Iraq for doing nothing. No? Tell me your opinion.

Not really. It's hardly our duty to stop a psychopathic regime much stronger than we are. It is our duty to point out that they behave like psychopaths, though.

Ok. Let's assume that Russia repelling Georgian aggression against SO did behave like psychopaths.
Did you condemn NATO attacking Serbia and forcing it to secede part of its territory, for being psychopaths?
Just wondering.

 

[Gelion]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today. Sick interest - yeah For example these guys are really sick:

Nice article.
Here are a few that should interst you:

http://www.tiflisi.info/georgian-hackers-hacked-russian-governmental-web-site/
http://lin67.ru/it/554-vojjna-khakerov-gruzii-i-rossii.html

Russian nationalism at its best. Sorry, the world isn't going to forget about Russian aggressions just because you want it too.

Should the world forget about Georgian agression and deliberate slaughter of civilians?

Because I don't share your "two wrongs make right" attitude.

Is that why you disapprove of Georgian methods 8.08.08? GRADing the city and firing at houses when "liberating" it?

Besides, Iraq and other stuff has been done to death. For me, Iraq has been a monumental American foreign policy screwup, however it doesn't concern Europe

Great. Next time US does something out of life I hope you'll say something. I fail to see how Iraqi and Afghani adventures do not concern Europe, but you must know best.

so much so I see no need to talk about it endlessly when there are hundreds of other people who do that all the time. Russia, on the other hand, is much closer to home and it directly acts against European interests in many areas.

That is a point of view. My point of view is that Russian actions for the past 20 years have been purely defensive, faced with US threats. Relations with Europe are a byproduct of that and Russia trying to assert their national goals. Like selling gas for market price or keeping territory together.

No evil Russian stole my candy when I was a kid if that's what you're asking.

I do remember some alaring stories from your childhood, something about "we hate Russians in our family", but lets forget the past.

There are some 30,000 Russians officially living in this country and I am perfectly fine with most of them (except the mafia bosses and oligarchs, obviously).

Are you friends with at least one of them? Do you discuss politics?

I have also said at least 100 times on this forum that my quarrel isn't with the Russian people, but the way their government and country behaves, yet you still suspect me of being some kind of anti-Russian bigot.

I guess its the way people see you. I wonder what gives them that idea.

Again, once your country starts acting like a civilized state in the internation affairs, you'll see a lot less criticism from me. Think about it before you start seing conspiracies everywhere.

Give me an example from US current policy. Something "civilized".

I am not making conclusions because CFCers. It would be pretty misleading, fascist Swede, communist Irish - but there are some situatons on which Irish and Swede would react differently. People who are interested in Russia will soon or later meet with concept of Russian soul.

Wow, a change of plane How would you interpret or define it? Outside the debate, I am kind of curious.

I never said that Russia is somehow homogenous. It's jsut that people who openly follow the Western ideals are usually seen with suspicion by the majority of Russians. That's where the national mentality shows.

It depends on the era. When Western ideas are spread in Russia during a time when leading Western powers are hostile, these ideas only further their goals. As is the case in the past 30 years.

The difference is that Russian nationalism usually borders on xenophobia. Russians often see themselves as being "encircled" by enemies

Very strange. Russia has enjoyed neutral to good relations with Norway, Finland, Armenia, Iran, Central Asian Republics, Mongolia for most of its recent history.
A strange comparision to XXc Germany (warred with every neighbour) and USA invading every Latin American country. I guess why don't want to be surrounded by enemies no more than Russia.

(enemy = someone who's not ruled by a Russian puppet government).

Enemies and unfriendly governments are different concepts. Simple reality check shows that it is better to have friendlier governments around than not. Its not like modern Russia makes expeditions over seas to install puppets there.

You can see this again being used as a propaganda tool in Russia - "Americans are evil, the post-soviet republics cooperate with them and they're out to get us, Chinese are somewhat friendly now but we can't really trust them either..." It's a sort of siege mentality which the leaders abuse to justify expansionistic goals.

Ever heard of realpolitik? In the world that saw 2003 Iraq invasion over a knowingly false excuse would you trust them not to attack you? Unless you are their puppet I mean.

 

[Gelion]

Yes, but it's still dangerous.

How so? Don't people have the right for self determination?

I am a bit confused about something. How was it Georgian aggressian when Georgian troops never left Georgia but were somehow still involved in conflicts with Russian troops on Georgian soil?

Since end of the "active phase" of the conflict there was a "Dagomys treaty" establishing conditions for cease-fire similar to that in Korea. Under that treaty there was a peacekeping force on Georgian-Ossetian border. It consisted of 500 Ossetians, 500 Georgians, 500 Russians.

If someone could please explain that to me, because silly me, it just seems like if Russians were on Georgian soil fighting Georgians and the Georgians never invaded or attacked Russia... well... darn it, I know Georgia just MUST be at fault somehow but I just must be missing something pretty basic here.

The basic is that Georgian "peacekeepers" withdrew from their common positions with the Russian peacekeepers few days prior to attack. On the 8th of August Georgian army attacked Russian peacekeepers during their attack on Tshinval, therefore violating the Treaty and effectively mounting an attack on Russia itself (remember Angola for comparison). Russia intervened to protect the treaty, civilian population being massacred and to save their own (and Ossetian) peacekeepers. That is all.
EDIT: I found the original of this treaty in Russian here. It is a Georigan site, so I hope the text is genuine. Wiki link is here.

Like Russia's aggression against Chechnya?
Who should invade Russia to stop that?

First Chechen war ended with Chechnya gaining independance. Second war began with Chechen army attacking Russian territory. After that Chechnya was beaten and their independance annuled. Any more questions?
P.S. Who should invade USA to stop occupation of Iraq?

It makes sense. Russia took violent action against it's breakaway province of Chechnya. But no one invaded Russia because of that.
But when Georgia took action against it's breakaway provinces, Russia felt it was it's duty to invade Georgia.

See above. Russia didn't violate any treaties. Chechnya and Georgia did. Also, Russian soldiers didn't ride into Grozny firing on buildings.

So yeah, Russia seems like the aggressor in both cases.

If you do not know the facts, sure.

All I see is a bunch of naive posters on an internet gaming forum. Fortunately those who actually run their respective countries are that foolish and most Western countries clearly condemned the Russian aggression.

I thought we had lawyers, soldiers, plane pilots, etc. I guess they have no idea what is going on. You do?

Isn't it stranger why Russia invaded Georgia for doing much less than Russia did in Chechnya?

Read above.

Indeed, because I don't remember anyone invading Russia, but I do remember a rather big bully invading Georgia.

CIA, was it?

Not really. It's hardly our duty to stop a psychopathic regime much stronger than we are. It is our duty to point out that they behave like psychopaths, though.

Words are not worth much. Words and protests did not stop the Iraq of 2003. Thus, well, you are prowerless to stop the big bully. Why worry about Russia? Because the big bully tells you so?

 

[red_elk]

After Yeekim's attempt, I don't see here any constructive critics of Russian actions.
Only about "psychopathic regime" are remaining.

 

[Gelion]

After Yeekim's attempt, I don't see here any constructive critics or analysis.
Only about "psychopathic regime" are remaining.

Still waiting for him to reply....

 

[RalofTyr]

I just remember debating on another forum with somebody that was majoring in Russian studies thought they knew more than an annalist that studied Russia for 30 years...

 

[Gelion]

I just remember debating on another forum with somebody that was majoring in Russian studies thought they knew more than an annalist that studied Russia for 30 years...

OT: Poor anna

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

All I see is a bunch of naive posters on an internet gaming forum. Fortunately those who actually run their respective countries are that foolish and most Western countries clearly condemned the Russian aggression.

Though it's clear greater effort must be undertaken to effectively roll back Russia in the area it considers its "sphere" of influence.

I don't even think they have a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and Eurasia as they once had before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I think the proper term for all the surrounding States neighboring Russia is "buffer zone." Right now I think it is all about Russia making formal relationship with their neighbors by treating them as partners in many cooperative agendas, and to create a common enemy so that they can prosper against opposing forces who are trying to undermine them.

 

[Verbose]

How so? Don't people have the right for self determination?

So you let them apply for Russian citizenship, in Russia.

But entirely seriously, it's dangerous for the reasons sovereignty was adopted as a central tenet of western international politics at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The risks then and now are similar.

Of course, it's one of the big issues of the day to what extent sovereignty might be overruled on humanitarian grounds.

Doing so is still inherently dangerous though.

 

[Winner]

Western leader condemn pretty much any violence anywhere.

They condemned Russia, repeatedly, and acted clearly against the Russian aggression. Sure, the steps were inadequate, but I don't know a single Western leader who would say "Russia is right, let them crush the Georgians." Well, except for Václav Klaus, but that only shows how utterly crazy he is

 

[Riffraff]

They condemned Russia, repeatedly, and acted clearly against the Russian aggression. Sure, the steps were inadequate, but I don't know a single Western leader who would say "Russia is right, let them crush the Georgians." Well, except for Václav Klaus, but that only shows how utterly crazy he is

Acted cleary as in: moving troops to aid Georgia, trade embargo, retreating diplomats?

Or as in: doing nothing.