Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state'

reply to post by maloy

South Ossetia is about 1/900 of the size all the territory of CIS countries other than Russia. If it took Putin 8 years to "reconstitute" 1/900 of the "Soviet Socialist Republics", it should take him another 7,200 years to fullfill this mission. Now science is advancing fairly fast, but I doubt even with the most optimistic advancements that a Putin cyborg that can live that long could be created.

That is a fallacious argument. Tyrants start small. If you remember, Hitler started small by sending armed soldiers into the Rhineland, and when England didn't protest, he knew that he could go for bigger game. At each step, his moves were only met with appeasement, and "peace in our times". It didn't take long for the stakes to get big. It wasn't 7,200 years! By 1942 he had most of Europe.
If Russia gets away with this, most of us (maybe not you) can be sure that much bigger things are to come.

look dont give me this bull

THE legitimate solution is to let north ossetia and south ossetia become 1 independant state separate from all entities

OSSETIA!

not to have ossetia dissappear completely and become Russia

USA didnt annex Iraq as a state did it?

annexing isnt allowed, how do you not get this?
your suppost to lie about everything and set up a puppet state that way everyone "thinks" they are independant

anyways, if georgia shelling a town and killing a few hundred people is genocide, then Russia shelling georgia and killing a few hundred is also genocide

despite the fact Neither are genocide lol, genocide is killing a Race of people

last time i checked georgians, russians, ossetians etc were all white
therefore it cannot be genocide, its just plain murder
theres a slight differance

sigh, this is all staged tho anyways

i can see this entire incident being used to drum up support for, and need for, a one world government

that way no one can fight anyone over border diputes anymore
(see how neat that works out?)

[edit on 29-8-2008 by muzzleflash]

reply to post by habu71


Actually there was a referendum in S Ossetia some time ago. It overwhelmingly voted for independence and to have closer ties with Russia.

The problem is that the West refused to hold any official referendums there, and the local government had to do it. The West refuses to approach the problem of S Ossetia and Abkhazia, and throws blind support behind Georgia.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by maloy]

Originally posted by muzzleflash
THE legitimate solution is to let north ossetia and south ossetia become 1 independant state separate from all entities

Sure - if they want to. There isn't a separatist movement in N Ossetia though, and they don't have a problem staying with Russia. N Ossetia already has extensive autonomy and regional rule, and has no reason to split from the federation.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
not to have ossetia dissappear completely and become Russia

It won't disappear. Russia is a federation - made up of numerous autonomous republics. Tatarstan, Adegeya, Dagestan, Buryatia, the Jewish autonomous oblast are just some of them. They have some degree of autonomy and retain much of their own traditional and cultural heritage.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
USA didnt annex Iraq as a state did it?

Ossetia was part of the Russian empire where it received protection from the Turks. Iraq has nothing to do with U.S. culturally, religiously, languistically, or historically - as Ossetia has with Russia.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
annexing isnt allowed, how do you not get this?

Not allowed by whom? By you?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
your suppost to lie about everything and set up a puppet state that way everyone "thinks" they are independant

A puppet state? You mean like Georgia, which is recognized as a U.S. puppet state?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
anyways, if georgia shelling a town and killing a few hundred people is genocide, then Russia shelling georgia and killing a few hundred is also genocide

Fair enough. Let God sort them out. Or do you prefer to waste money in Hague, to create another political circus?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
despite the fact Neither are genocide lol, genocide is killing a Race of people

Nice. Then what's the problem? Russian "invasion" isn't an invasion either; an invasion is occupying a country and ousting its current regime.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
last time i checked georgians, russians, ossetians etc were all white
therefore it cannot be genocide

Guess what ethnicity means. I'll give you a clue - it doesn't mean race.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
look dont give me this bull

THE legitimate solution is to let north ossetia and south ossetia become 1 independant state separate from all entities

OSSETIA!

I actually agree with this!

anyways, if georgia shelling a town and killing a few hundred people is genocide, then Russia shelling georgia and killing a few hundred is also genocide

Actually, Georgia is responsible for WAY more deaths than Russia in this event. Tshkinvali lost an estimated 2,000 people because of Georgian shelling.

Russia didn't shell cities. They bombed military targets... unfortunately, their bombs aren't smart bombs, so they don't always hit their exact targets. All civilian deaths due to Russian attacks were located directly adjacent to military installations.

Though, there were a few incidents where road vehicles were mistaken for military vehicles on the highways approaching South Ossetia.

despite the fact Neither are genocide lol, genocide is killing a Race of people

last time i checked georgians, russians, ossetians etc were all white
therefore it cannot be genocide, its just plain murder
theres a slight differance

Genocide.
"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

Genocide doesn't mean the eradication of a certain gene. Though, that is typically what has resulted through history.

Shelling a city due to a national cause IS defined as genocide.

But I can see why you'd make that mistake. Usually you hear about genocide in history class when dealing with the Nazis... but that was only one form of genocide.

i can see this entire incident being used to drum up support for, and need for, a one world government

I sincerely hope you are wrong.

But with the way things are going... I'm not about to disagree with you.



To another user...

Actually there was a referendum in S Ossetia some time ago. It overwhelmingly voted for independence and to have closer ties with Russia.

The problem is that the West refused to hold any official referendums there, and the local government had to do it. The West refuses to approach the problem of S Ossetia and Abkhazia, and throws blind support behind Georgia.

You mean, South Ossetia voted for independence, and Georgia flat out ignored it?!

I was outraged when Georgia committed genocide on Tshkinvali... you're suggesting they were already a separate nation?!

Well, that would mean that Georgia invaded a sovereign nation.

That would also mean Russias presence in South Ossetia is not an invasion on Georgian soil!

[edit on 29-8-2008 by johnsky]

So now that everyone pretends to be an expert in Georgian geopolitics, what do all of the experts think the reason for the same modus operandi in the Ukraine is? "Passports passports get your free passports here" getting schilled out to the Ukraine citizens and generals throwing threats at them can mean what? The Ukraine desperately seeking NATO and US support, offering them anything (radar bases) on a silver platter. This is an act of desperation, the Ukraine knows they are next. A content Ukraine that felt self secure would never offer this to the west for fear of Russia but if you already fear, then there is nothing to lose and a chance to survive.

reply to post by johnsky


An independent Ossetia? Surely the West will still refuse to recognize it - because of the S Ossetia issue. A small, landlocked unrecognized country with barely any industry or economy for self-sustaining. How do you suppose they will last alone? They won't. Just like all other unregognized impoverished and disputed sovereign states, their economy will consist of criminal activity and their government will threive in chaotic authoritarianism.

And what do you suppose will happen to it once NATO rumbles into Georgia? Without Russian protection they could be overrun in no time. And if it is not part of Russia - NATO won't risk a war with Russia when Georgia again tries to restore constitutional order there.



The issue is - independence doesn't really work well in the Caucasus. It didn't work for Chechnya when it had sovereignty in 1991-1994 and again from 1996-1999. It is hardly working for Georgia and Azerbaijan which are up to their neck in corruption and "puppetry".

Personally I don't much support the independence of Abkhazia and S Ossetia by themselves. Not because they don't deserve it - but because it is guaranteed to spiral into lawlessness and lead to another conflict.

Originally posted by SectionEight
So now that everyone pretends to be an expert in Georgian geopolitics, what do all of the experts think the reason for the same modus operandi in the Ukraine is?

Jesus man, you're not making any friends talking like that. This is a forum, the whole intent is to place our opinions, viewpoints, and information down. If you're going to ridicule us for doing so, maybe the forums aren't for you.

We're not pretending to be anything, Just relax there...

Now as for your question about the Ukraine. Yes, offering passports is clearly a play for expansion. But I can say this, at least they aren't rolling in en-force to do it.

Its just an attempt to rally the people on their side. The people still have full right to refuse the Federation and vote for the Ukraine to join NATO instead.
Nobody's rights are being infringed with the distribution of passports. If they decide to cross the Ukraine's border to take them by force, feel free to wake me, I'll be pretty pissed.



To Maloy.

I suppose you're right. The area does have a tendency to fail when it comes to diplomatic declarations of independence.

At least in this scenario, we know South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanted to join the Federation. So the Federation isn't making enemies of them by helping them declare it by force. In fact, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are greeting Russian forces as liberators.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by johnsky]

just yesterday i was telling my wife, that unlike most of NATO, i an american citizen, was willing to Recognize ossetia and abkhazia as 2 separate independant states

i was totally down with that, and agreed fully with it

and now, those 2 independant states are part of Russia??

wtf happened to me recognizing them as independant?

if this line of thinking (justifying annexation of the 2 regions) is to prevail, than that means Mexico can annex texas, N.mexico, arizona , and california back into the Mexican republic

since we all know, a ton of mexicans live there and love mexico

but thats not how it works in the 21st century

you cant just send a bunch of mexican citizens illegally across the US border, overwhelm the population, then annex them as their citizens "want" to become part of mexico agian

for all i know, thats what russia is doing in the 2 provinces

Look, my map of the world shows Ossetia and Abkhazia as part of Georgia, a legitimate republic that arose when the USSR collapsed

now Georgia is smaller, and Russia is bigger, and the 2 nations i was willingly (and fairly) recognizing yesterday, disappeared

so i changed my freaking map 3 times in 3 days
this is stupid it really is

lets go back to yesterday, and stop there please

i thought it was kinda cool Ossetia and Abkhazia finally got independance(since im american i saw it as a wonderful thing) and i thought russia was acting civilized and respectable in those regaurds

but annexing them (even if they want to join the federation) is out of bounds

like you said above, Kosovo had a RULE that it could not join Albania

well wheres the fair and balanced rule that ossetia and abkhazia cannot join Russia?

theres a differance between legitimate independance , and outright conquoring of regions that were previously not part of your nation thru ANNEXATION

all im saying is that yesterady i was accepting what was going on, and today i simply am not accepting that

I accept independance for the 2 regions and I recognize it as Legitimate, but I do not accept Annexation as legit
its too direct, too open

not even trying to hide the conquest

a guy said a long time ago, that a population cannot legitimately revolt agianst its govt if that govt held "fake" elections, as they gave the "appearance" of democracy

But when they call all elections off, and declare themselves dictators, the people have a legit right to revolt

this is the same situation just in different terms

Originally posted by muzzleflash
just yesterday i was telling my wife, that unlike most of NATO, i an american citizen, was willing to Recognize ossetia and abkhazia as 2 separate independant states

i was totally down with that, and agreed fully with it

and now, those 2 independant states are part of Russia??

Those two regions wanted to separate and join the Federation. Not separate and be autonomous forever.

reply to post by maloy


ya the Reason independance doesnt work there is because russia keeps killing everyone and annexing them, apparently.

No offense intended, more of a step back and look what is being said.

Georgia in fact had a right to project its sovereiignty within its own borders. The dispute erupted into a civil war. Russia had no right to put boots on the ground in Georgia no matter which way you look at it. They could have easily projected air power to force a cease fire and been a negotiator on behalf of the S Ossetians, effectiviely enforcing a ceasefire.

The only fact that matters at the end of the day is that Russia annexed territory through war.

Originally posted by SectionEight
So now that everyone pretends to be an expert in Georgian geopolitics

Well I am no expert, but I lived in Krasnodar (right near Ossetia) a good part of my life, and have been to Sukhumi, Abkhazia several times (before the 1992 war and 2 times after).

Originally posted by SectionEight
what do all of the experts think the reason for the same modus operandi in the Ukraine is?

Ukraine is a whole other story. A large part of Ukraine considers itself to be Russian, and for a good reason. What you know as Ukraine today was never in history a sigle independent entity (or kingdom like Georgia was) untill 1991. Ukraine is composed of many bits and pieces of various empires and war annexations, and the same goes for its population.

Originally posted by SectionEight
"Passports passports get your free passports here" getting schilled out to the Ukraine citizens and generals throwing threats at them can mean what?

Well a large minority in Ukraine is Russian. Why can't they have dual citizenship (many already do)? The "passport diplomacy" is nothing new - and has been practiced by several CIS states since 1991.

Many Ukrainian Russians are rightfully afraid that Western Ukraine with NATO's support will try to "Ukrainify" the country despite that fact that regions like Crimea have historically been part of Russia and want to hold on to their heritage.

I don't agree with the passport diplomacy - but both sides have dirty politicians. Ukraine under Kravchuk, Kuchma and now Yuschenko have done some questionable things in reorganizing the country. large portions of the population oppose this - too large to be ignored yet Yuschenko is still ignoring them.

Originally posted by SectionEight
The Ukraine desperately seeking NATO and US support, offering them anything (radar bases) on a silver platter.

Actually Yuschenko is desperately seeking NATO. 40% of Ukraine is actively opposed to it, and another 20% is passively opposed. The country is divided in two. Eastern half wants nothing to do with NATO and the Western half. The Western half wants NATO and nothing to do with the Eastern half. That's a blunt summary.

Originally posted by SectionEight
This is an act of desperation, the Ukraine knows they are next.

Next to what? Ukraine was never under Russia's influence since it became independent in 1991. Kuchma and Kravchuk maintained good relations with Russia - but were hardly puppets. But Yuschenko has a clear agenda which has nothing to do with what is best for his country. That agenda has half of Ukraine's population as well as Russia concerned.

But it is practically guaranteed that there will be no blood shed. There will instead be a long and dirty political struggle with both Russia and U.S. playing a role. No one is going to invade anyone, as long as Yuschenko doesn't jump to a military conclusion like Saakshvili has.

The unstable factor is not Russia or NATO - is the local reckless politicians.

Originally posted by SectionEight
A content Ukraine that felt self secure would never offer this to the west

And it doesn't. The Ukrainian Parliament (RADA) is blocking Yuschenko's attempts to join NATO. His major ally - Timoshenko just switched sides too. So Yuschenko and his now-minority party hardly represents the entire Ukraine.

Originally posted by SectionEight
for fear of Russia but if you already fear

There is no fear of Russians in Ukraine. Part of the country sees Russians as brothers, and another part treats Russians with contempts - but there is no fear involved. It is the politicians like Yuschenko who benefit from their fear mongering agendas.

Originally posted by SectionEight
then there is nothing to lose and a chance to survive.

Ukraine is not under any threat from outside. It is under threat from within - and it is being split into two. More and more people there are convinced that the country might eventually have to divide in two - and for a good reason. Western Ukraine has a different language, different self-identity, and different culture from the Eastern half. Western half wants to join NATO. Eastern half wants good relations with Russia - but not to join Russia.

I think that instead of this inner-political fighting, Ukraine should just hold a referendum once and for all. I am more than convinced that at least the Eastern half will vote to separate.


But I can say it now - there will be no violence in Ukraine. The 90's were a much tougher time with internal differences, and Ukraine didn't succumb to bloodshed then. The only possible way it would reach bloodshed - is if Yuschenko decides to resort to militaristic mean to settle problems with his own people. But I think he is a far smarter and more careful leader than Saakashvili, even if he is somewhat of a Western puppet.

those of you doubting the possibility of a new soviet union type entity being created; just read up on the EurAsEC, judge for yourself the intent.

"Next to what? Ukraine was never under Russia's influence since it became independent in 1991. Kuchma and Kravchuk maintained good relations with Russia - but were hardly puppets. But Yuschenko has a clear agenda which has nothing to do with what is best for his country. That agenda has half of Ukraine's population as well as Russia concerned. "


Right because Russia clearly has the authority to decide whats best for ukraine and ukranians ...

wait...i thought Yuschenko , a legit elected president, had the authority to decide that for the nation that elected him???

and who are you to say whats best for Ukraine? i figured since they were a Democracy, they had the authority to decide that for themselves ?

if half of ukraine is "so concerned" why cant they do what other democracies do? and vote in their man who supports their agenda?

[edit on 29-8-2008 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by SectionEight
Georgia in fact had a right to project its sovereiignty within its own borders.

But it nevertheless is wrong to use excessive force against civilian population (if you know what GRAD artiellery is - than you know the definition of excessive). If it truly saw S Ossetia as part of its territory - why did it start killing its own people?

Originally posted by SectionEight
The dispute erupted into a civil war.

Civil war started there in 1992 when Georgia was still being organized as a new state.

Originally posted by SectionEight
Russia had no right to put boots on the ground in Georgia no matter which way you look at it.

Russia was a recognized and approved as peacekeeper in S Ossetia. Russia's direct intervention is what stopped the bloodshed and ethnical cleansing in 1990's and kept peace all this time.

So Russia had a justification for repelling Georgians out of S Ossetia. But you are right - Russia was not justified in pusuing the Georgian army into undisputed Georgia. But then Russia is withdrawing from there.

Originally posted by SectionEight
They could have easily projected air power to force a cease fire and been a negotiator on behalf of the S Ossetians, effectiviely enforcing a ceasefire.

No they couldn't. The mountanous region makes it very difficult to have precise air strikes. Plus Georgians had advanced anti-air weapons. Also Georgia's strategy was to blitzkrieg the whole area in about three days - and they bet that Russia wouldn't have time to intervene.

Georgia also fired on Russian peacekeepers on the night of August 7th.

Originally posted by SectionEight
The only fact that matters at the end of the day is that Russia annexed territory through war.

There isn't any annexation yet. What is everyone talking about? The article is SPECULATING on the future status of S Ossetia.

All S Ossetia did is declare independence. Russia recognized it. S Ossetia asked Russia to defend it.

THATS IT.

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by SectionEight
So now that everyone pretends to be an expert in Georgian geopolitics

Well I am no expert, but I lived in Krasnodar (right near Ossetia) a good part of my life, and have been to Sukhumi, Abkhazia several times (before the 1992 war and 2 times after).

Originally posted by SectionEight
what do all of the experts think the reason for the same modus operandi in the Ukraine is?

Ukraine is a whole other story. A large part of Ukraine considers itself to be Russian, and for a good reason. What you know as Ukraine today was never in history a sigle independent entity (or kingdom like Georgia was) untill 1991. Ukraine is composed of many bits and pieces of various empires and war annexations, and the same goes for its population.

Originally posted by SectionEight
"Passports passports get your free passports here" getting schilled out to the Ukraine citizens and generals throwing threats at them can mean what?

Well a large minority in Ukraine is Russian. Why can't they have dual citizenship (many already do)? The "passport diplomacy" is nothing new - and has been practiced by several CIS states since 1991.

Many Ukrainian Russians are rightfully afraid that Western Ukraine with NATO's support will try to "Ukrainify" the country despite that fact that regions like Crimea have historically been part of Russia and want to hold on to their heritage.

I don't agree with the passport diplomacy - but both sides have dirty politicians. Ukraine under Kravchuk, Kuchma and now Yuschenko have done some questionable things in reorganizing the country. large portions of the population oppose this - too large to be ignored yet Yuschenko is still ignoring them.

Originally posted by SectionEight
The Ukraine desperately seeking NATO and US support, offering them anything (radar bases) on a silver platter.

Actually Yuschenko is desperately seeking NATO. 40% of Ukraine is actively opposed to it, and another 20% is passively opposed. The country is divided in two. Eastern half wants nothing to do with NATO and the Western half. The Western half wants NATO and nothing to do with the Eastern half. That's a blunt summary.

Originally posted by SectionEight
This is an act of desperation, the Ukraine knows they are next.

Next to what? Ukraine was never under Russia's influence since it became independent in 1991. Kuchma and Kravchuk maintained good relations with Russia - but were hardly puppets. But Yuschenko has a clear agenda which has nothing to do with what is best for his country. That agenda has half of Ukraine's population as well as Russia concerned.

But it is practically guaranteed that there will be no blood shed. There will instead be a long and dirty political struggle with both Russia and U.S. playing a role. No one is going to invade anyone, as long as Yuschenko doesn't jump to a military conclusion like Saakshvili has.

The unstable factor is not Russia or NATO - is the local reckless politicians.

Originally posted by SectionEight
A content Ukraine that felt self secure would never offer this to the west

And it doesn't. The Ukrainian Parliament (RADA) is blocking Yuschenko's attempts to join NATO. His major ally - Timoshenko just switched sides too. So Yuschenko and his now-minority party hardly represents the entire Ukraine.

Originally posted by SectionEight
for fear of Russia but if you already fear

There is no fear of Russians in Ukraine. Part of the country sees Russians as brothers, and another part treats Russians with contempts - but there is no fear involved. It is the politicians like Yuschenko who benefit from their fear mongering agendas.

Originally posted by SectionEight
then there is nothing to lose and a chance to survive.

Ukraine is not under any threat from outside. It is under threat from within - and it is being split into two. More and more people there are convinced that the country might eventually have to divide in two - and for a good reason. Western Ukraine has a different language, different self-identity, and different culture from the Eastern half. Western half wants to join NATO. Eastern half wants good relations with Russia - but not to join Russia.

I think that instead of this inner-political fighting, Ukraine should just hold a referendum once and for all. I am more than convinced that at least the Eastern half will vote to separate.


But I can say it now - there will be no violence in Ukraine. The 90's were a much tougher time with internal differences, and Ukraine didn't succumb to bloodshed then. The only possible way it would reach bloodshed - is if Yuschenko decides to resort to militaristic mean to settle problems with his own people. But I think he is a far smarter and more careful leader than Saakashvili, even if he is somewhat of a Western puppet.

Excellent analysis which covers all the interior motives and excludes the new outside force, an openly expansionist Russia headed by Putin. What you describe is ripe ground for the pickings. An eastern side that will be a pushover and welcome Putin with open arms under the right circumstances and a fearful western side that looks all too easy to back into a corner where it will make desperate decisions.

reply to post by SectionEight


NO NEED TO I GUESS SOMEONE ALREADY DID IT FOR US LOLS

reply to post by maloy


"So Russia had a justification for repelling Georgians out of S Ossetia. But you are right - Russia was not justified in pusuing the Georgian army into undisputed Georgia. But then Russia is withdrawing from there. "

I agree 100% with you here

But this is where we disagree. I believe Ossetia and Abkhazia should be recognized as independant states and remain so for at least a decade to let the dust settle.
You think its cool for Russia to up an annex them tonite.

No pretext is acceptable.

Also if Ukraine wants to split in two, i can accept that, its their choice.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by muzzleflash
wait...i thought Yuschenko , a legit elected president, had the authority to decide that for the nation that elected him???

Think again. Yanukovich was elected president. Yuschenko fought and won an overturning of the earlier election. And in Ukrainian politics the President has no more power than the Parliament - in some instances less power.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
and who are you to say whats best for Ukraine?

Being half-Ukrainian myself and having a house in Ukraine I think I have a right to say what is best for Ukraine.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
i figured since they were a Democracy, they had the authority to decide that for themselves ?

And they do. Half of the population is deciding that it wants to have good relations with Russia.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
if half of ukraine is "so concerned" why cant they do what other democracies do? and vote in their man who supports their agenda?

They do. Which is why the "Party of Regions" won the majority of the Parliament seats. The only way Yuschenko was able to hold on to power was through a tricky political alliance with Timoshenko and her party. Now Timoshenko is drafting over to the opposition side, leaving Yuschenko and his minority party by themselves.

If things go the way they are - Yuschenko and his party stand no chance in the next election (Presidential and Parliamentary). The next political fight would be between Timoshenko and Yanukovich - that is unless they form an alliance.