[PassedOut]

The recent conflict between Georgia and Russia dropped off the radar screen in the US presidential campaign once the economy tanked. Still, the relationship between NATO and Russia will remain important for a long time.

Rhetorical fireworks erupted in the Georgian parliament when the former ambassador to Russia testified that his own government had intentionally started the war: Ex-Diplomat Says Georgia Started War With Russia

Quote

TBILISI, Georgia — A parliamentary hearing on the origins of the war between Georgia and Russia in August ended in a furor on Tuesday after a former Georgian diplomat testified that Georgian authorities were responsible for starting the conflict.

Erosi Kitsmarishvili, Tbilisi’s former ambassador to Moscow, testified for three hours before he was shouted down by members of Parliament.

I wonder how this will affect the Georgian NATO membership application. And it will be interesting, too, to see how Obama handles the US relationship with Russia.

[Winstonm]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20.../russia-georgia

[Aberlour10]

It's hard to find truth among the ocean of russian and georgian war propaganda, there were only few independent OSCE monitors in the decided moment, what they saw and reported...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5114401.ece

Quote

Two former British military officers are expected to give crucial evidence against Georgia when an international inquiry is convened to establish who started the country’s bloody five-day war with Russia in August.

Ryan Grist, a former British Army captain, and Stephen Young, a former RAF wing commander, are said to have concluded that, before the Russian bombardment began, Georgian rockets and artillery were hitting civilian areas in the breakaway region of South Ossetia every 15 or 20 seconds.

Their accounts seem likely to undermine the American-backed claims of President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia that his little country was the innocent victim of Russian aggression and acted solely in self-defence.

....

HOW FIGHTING BROKE OUT

August 7, 3pm: OSCE monitors see build-up of Georgian artillery on roads to South Ossetia.

6.10pm: Russian peacekeepers inform OSCE of suspected Georgian artillery fire on Khetagurovo, a South Ossetian village.

7pm: Georgia declares a unilateral ceasefire.

11pm: Georgia announces that its villages are being shelled and launches attack in South Ossetia.

11.30pm: Georgian forces bombard Tskhinvali.

11.45pm: OSCE monitors report shells falling on Tskhinvali every 15-20 seconds.

August 8, 12.15am: Commander of Russian peacekeepers reports that his unit has taken casualties. Russia later announces that it has invaded Georgia to protect civilians and Russian peacekeepers

[NickRW]

PassedOut, on Nov 26 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

I wonder how this will affect the Georgian NATO membership application. And it will be interesting, too, to see how Obama handles the US relationship with Russia.

My feeling is that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the military action and the tensions that preceded it, trying to put the Russians on the back foot over it is a diplomatic road to nowhere useful to anyone.

Whether Obama or other Western politicians follow that course is another kettle of fish.

Nick

[Aberlour10]

PassedOut, on Nov 26 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

I wonder how this will affect the Georgian NATO membership application. .

The United States will continue to push the NATO alliance to offer Georgia the Membership Action Plan (MAP) status on the NATO meeting next week, but its for certain that Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi & Co will say : NO.

Robert

[Codo]

I think you asked an impossible question.

What do you think when the war begun?

When Russia invades Georgia?
When Georgia send troops to South Ossetia and Berg Karabach?
When Russia supported South Ossetia in their wish to departe from Georgia and gave the russian passport to georgian inhabitants?
When Georgia surpressed these provinces?
When.....

Hard to answer who started the war.

But I think the news in most countries do agree that Russia was allowed to send some troops to South Ossetia as peacekeepers, they did so.
Later Georgia invades their own provinces to regain more influence. So this hot part of the war was started by Georgia.

[mike777]

Codo, on Nov 27 2008, 02:56 AM, said:

I think you asked an impossible question.

What do you think when the war begun?

When Russia invades Georgia?
When Georgia send troops to South Ossetia and Berg Karabach?
When Russia supported South Ossetia in their wish to departe from Georgia and gave the russian passport to georgian inhabitants?
When Georgia surpressed these provinces?
When.....

Hard to answer who started the war.

But I think the news in most countries do agree that Russia was allowed to send some troops to South Ossetia as peacekeepers, they did so.
Later Georgia invades their own provinces to regain more influence. So this hot part of the war was started by Georgia.

I thought this was a great post. As an American I can only wish this was broadcast worldwide. I assume this is a common post worldwide...with no objections so far.

Also this one:


"My feeling is that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the military action and the tensions that preceded it, trying to put the Russians on the back foot over it is a diplomatic road to nowhere useful to anyone.

Whether Obama or other Western politicians follow that course is another kettle of fish.

Nick "



I thought this said it all. btw not one objection.

[helene_t]

Ditto Mike777. Great post, Codo.

[PassedOut]

Codo, on Nov 27 2008, 02:56 AM, said:

So this hot part of the war was started by Georgia.

Yes, to be more accurate I should have specified the "hot" part of the war. The answer to that question has been disputed in the US. Senator McCain and others laid the blame squarely on Russia.

Assuming that Obama retains Gates as Secretary of Defense, as seems likely now, he'll signal that the US will take a less bellicose stance toward Russia: Common Ground for Defense Chief and Obama

Quote

Mr. Gates, a longtime Kremlin watcher from his days at the Central Intelligence Agency, has cautioned more broadly against a rush to enlarge the alliance. He has said that “NATO is not a talk shop nor a Renaissance Weekend on steroids,” and that the alliance must be wary of bringing in nations that other members might not actually defend in case of war with Russia.

It's tragic when folks go to war under the false impression that others will rush to their aid. I hope that the Obama administration communicates unambiguously about the US position in such matters.

[Al_U_Card]

Mr. Putin needs to keep his military "supporters" happy and flex his "muscles" for all to see. Shades of LBJ et al. The substantial loss of lives is of little importance to them.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It's tragic when folks go to war under the false impression that others will rush to their aid. I hope that the Obama administration communicates unambiguously about the US position in such matters.

To those who believe Obama's change will result in differences of foreign policy ideology, I am afraid Obama and his crusade for change will turn out to be a huge disappointment, and I fully expect an Obama foreign policy little different than that of Bush the Lesser, one that is geared to maintaining status quo in lieu of one that might actually change the agenda - see Jones, Clinton, Gates, et al.

As to the "war" - regardless of who started it, there is no argument that Russia ended it.