Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:06, 7 November 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Georgian War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 15 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abkhazia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbkhaziaWikipedia:WikiProject AbkhaziaTemplate:WikiProject AbkhaziaAbkhazia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Ossetia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (country) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

A news item involving Russo-Georgian War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 August 2008.

[REDACTED]

A news item involving Russo-Georgian War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 October 2009.

[REDACTED]

2008 South Ossetia war???

Why "south ossetia"? Was it fought only in South Ossetia? Wasn't it mainly between Russia and Georgia? Didn't it involve other parts of Georgia?

Google search: 2008 russia georgia war - 9,320,000 results 2008 south ossetia war - 585,000 results

So, the current title not only does confuse about what and where has happened, but is used 20 times less often, than "2008 Russia Georgia war".

Current article title is clearly a Russian POV.--78.48.225.28 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, more scholarly articles are using Russo-Georgian War or some other similar derivative. The current title of the article was created by wikipedians at the start of the conflict, at a time when it was confined to South Ossetia and involved solely the Georgians and South Ossetians. I would challenge anyone to find a scholarly source that terms the war the 2008 South Ossetian War, those articles that you do find will use[REDACTED] as a source for the title of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here comes the flash mob! Haven't we been through all of this before already? Come on guys, we have better stuff to do. Furthermore, at no point in time was this a war that involved only Georgians and South Ossetians, as the Russian Peacekeeping Battalion was hit very early in the war, and when you hit a part of the Russian Peacekeepers, and by extension the Russian Army, you involve Russia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You should read the sheer number of pages on discussion of the title before proposing your own changes, that have been already proposed multiple times here. I have yet to see anyone argue that it's Russian POV. So do tell, how is it Russian POV? Is the name Kosovo War, US POV? Vietnam War? Korean War? First Chechen War? Second Chechen War? Damn, there's so much POVed names going on. Or, are we biased, because we don't adhere to Google Hits? Do you know how many wars were named after Google Hits? It's zero, nada, zilch, nil. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Google_hits_yet_again and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move.2C_part_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people, and if you actually had the courtesy to browse through the talkpage, you would actually find lots of discussion on this issue. But naming the war after the region, where the main battle was fought, has yet to be declared POV by anyone, congratulations, you are the first.

Also, the Berkelian, that's the newspaper published by UC Berkeley, you know, the #1 Public University in North America, they're calling this war, the 2008 South Ossetia War. Additionally, there has been a vote on the issue, and despite an entire Cabal trying to rig the vote, people still preferred this title. Oh right, I still haven't presented that evidence, thank you for the reminder! For instance, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Article_name_vote. Finally, we even had an administrator come in and explain that there are valid arguments for both sides, (although I've yet to hear a valid argument aside from "Bang we haz moar Google Hits" and since there is no consensus on this article, we won't be changing the title. No wars are named after Google Hits, and Misplaced Pages Editors cannot establish precedence, no matter how desperately some people might want to do so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Google hits just demonstrate which term is more commonly used. So, again, what is the reason of using this CONFUSING title, besides that it pleases some Russians and is in line with Russian propaganda, please?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings same person with different IP. How is this confusing? How is this Russian propaganda? You can yell that it's Russian propaganda all you want, (BTW Russia called it Gruzinsko-Osetinskaya Voina, Georgian-Ossetian War), but unless you actually show us how it's Russian propaganda, your posts on the matter are pointless. We're academics here, not New York Times Readers. Just saying something, without any proof whatsoever, isn't going to fly here. All Google Hits demonstrate is which term the Corporate Media uses most often, but that doesn't mean that it's the most often used terms by the ordinary folks, who cannot produce 1,000 Google Hits on a whim. If you read any of my links, you'd know by now that the reason is that's how most wars are named, either attacker-defender format, or via location where most of the fighting took place, i.e. Vietnam War, Korean War, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Dagestan War, Iraq War, want me to keep going? And in the Vietnam War, there was some fighting in Cambodia, but most of the fighting took place in Vietnam. Same thing here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, you are Spiegel and Uwe Klussman reader. But back to the point:

• Was it fought only in South Ossetia?
• Wasn't it mainly between Russia and Georgia?
• Didn't it involve other parts of Georgia?
• The current title not only does confuse about what and where has happened, but is used 20 times less often, than "2008 Russia Georgia war" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was World War 2 fought in Antarctica or on Rapa Nui? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see, how an example of a more broad name applies here? Wouldn't it be easier for you to state, that this war wasn't fought in Russia and all of Georgia? Now, how does it make Russian term "south ossetia war" less misleading?--136.2.1.101 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming a war after the location where most of the fighting occurs is misleading? And your proposed name, that portrays Russia, the defender in this war, as the attacker, isn't misleading? Wow. Just wow. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It was fought mostly in South Ossetia. Vietnam War was fought mostly in Vietnam. More South Ossetian Servicemen died than Russian. In fact it was roughly twice as much. To claim that Russia would have achieved as stunning a victory, in such a short time period, as they did, without the help of Ossetia's Army, is to bullshit. According to pro-Georgian editors, their were no battles in Poti and Gori, there were just "occupations and bombings" of those cities. Irrespectively, most of the fighting still took place in South Ossetia. The current title isn't used 20 times less often. It's used 20 times less often by the mass media, but here's a hint: not all of us work for Fox News/CNN/Sky News. Furthermore, upon looking at the war naming conventions that are generally accepted, you will find that the extreme majority of wars are named either by locations, or in the attacker-defender format. No wars are named by Google Hits. Nil. Zero. Zilch. Nada. All of these arguments that you are making, have already been made, multiple times, and have been rejected. If you would have actually bothered to read the discussion archive, you would know this. Nor is this the Russian Title; the Russian Title is Georgian-Ossetian War. This title is 2008 South Ossetia War. Last time I checked those two titles aren't the same. The term was obtained per WP:MilHist which requires that unnamed wars are to be named after the location where they took place. Thus it was legitimately named. We don't need Saakasvhili's propaganda department renaming these wars. If you have anything new to add, please do so. If you are going to parrot failed arguments, please stop. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No it was not. There were not only fights outside SO administrative borders, but naval battles as well as capturing of upper Kodori Gorge. It was a full blown Russia-Georgia conflict, which was fought wherever possible, focusing only SO confuses the reader.--136.2.1.101 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the point: that's what we call it. Jellyfish aren't really fish, a Bomberbeetle doesn't have actual bombs, and you can try suing the local zoo for calling Hippocampus a seahorse. It's a name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now arguing against facts, Mr. IP. There was a single Naval Engagement. There was no Battle of Tbilisi. If this was a full blown Georgia-Russia Conflict, then Russians would have, at the very least attacked Tbilisi. Seriously, we don't need Saakashvili Central here. Once again, see the previous arguments. Here, I'll post the discussion for the IP:

We've had over one hundred pages of debate on this, we have had two votes on it. Get over it. Thank you. This was already discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_2#Article_name and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_3#Name_change and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Google_hits_confirm_most_popular_names and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Media_call_it_Georgia-Russia_conflict and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_War_in_Georgia and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#name_change.3F and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_now and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Article_rename and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamed (this one actually started by the Devil's Advocate on August 12th, 2008) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_7#Requested_move (although it's crossed out) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_8#Needs_to_be_renamed and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_10#Article_rename and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_rankings_on_Google_News (after being defeated, the Devil's Advocate waited a whopping two weeks to bring it up, again) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_of_article and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_13#.22South_Ossetia_War.22.3F and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_14#Title_consensus (where the Devil's Advocate waited two more weeks, before getting slaughtered in the name change debate, I am beginning to see a pattern...) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#New_Title_consensus (yup, Devil's Advocate strikes again) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Rename (Where the Devil's Advocate waited a whole *gasp* three weeks) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_19#Rename (I wonder who suggested it? Could it be, the Devil's Advocate? *inserts eerie music*) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_22#Specific_options (where there is a whole vote on it!) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23#To_Those_Opposing_the_current_title and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 - where the whole damn archive is dedicated to yet another vote! And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#The_title_and_the_lead and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_people and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#It_Appears_that_Kober_did_violate_the_moving_convention (where editors are getting sick and tired of it, but the Devil's Advocate marches on!) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 (yup another vote, illegally started, for those who missed the first two: attractions include editors who have never watched the article, but miraculously, three of them appear and vote to change the title, on the exact date that it's proposed!)

Now, IP - we have been more than patient here. If you are unable to offer any new arguments, and you continue to spam this page with cluelessness, you will be reported. A full-blown war would have involved a lot more than two Iskanders, and would last for more than nine days. That much is obvious to everyone, and I'm not going to babysit every user who claims that 2+2 is really 5. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bit early for new move request, I would wait until 2010. Although its pretty obvious that despite wikipedia's promotion of current fringe title it still fails google books=2 scholar=14 in competition with title like "August War" google books=13 scholar=146 or "Russo-Georgian War" google books=6 scholar=59. Just moving article away from current fringe title is horrible pain, because there is always notable bunch of editors that will rush to its defence and accept no alternatives.--Staberinde (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should actually try and get new arguments, before moving for a request. The "Google Said So" Argument is getting old. Not a single war was named after Google Hits, and Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming. We can only follow it, like we did in this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming."

That's exactly what I have argued ever since I joined this title dispute here, because this is what[REDACTED] is currently doing by using title that is clearly used only relatively small minority of reliable sources, while there are clearly several more popular titles in use. Google books and Google scholar are just most easily avaible methods for evaluating usage of title in large number of sources easily. If you have better alternative method for evaluating which title is most widely used in reliable sources, then please explain it to us.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, Google Books and Google Scholar are not the most easily available methods of evaluating usage, as, believe it or not, but some books, especially military books that name wars, aren't published on Google Books and/or Google Scholar!

Second, searching for 2008 South Ossetia War is incorrect, as others can simply call it Third S. Ossetian War, and still be correct about the naming. As thus, the proper Google Search is Ossetia War. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040,000 for Ossetia War. One million Google Hits. That's quite popular to me. Google Scholar: Results 1 - 10 of about 6,550. Google Books: Books 1 - 10 of 926 on Ossetia War.

Third, I have already explained this multiple times, see all the links above, but here's the summary: wars are either named after the location where most of the battles took place, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, First Chechen War, Dagestan War, Second Chechen War, or in the agressor-defender format. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, obviously Google Books and Google Scholar are not 100% ideal. Best solution would be gathering all reliable English language sources together, and then let a committee of neutral professional encyclopedians to evaluate them. Unfortunately that is not a realistic option. Also you failed to propose better alternative for evaluating usage of titles in large number of reliable sources.

Second, "Ossetia war", google books=2 scholar=18 is only marginally better than "South Ossetia war". "2008" and "August" are included in search because there is also 1991–1992 South Ossetia War. Also we need to search for source using exactly term "South Ossetia War" not for source that includes words "war", "ossetia" and "south", because it is useless as these words may all appear on separate pages.

Third, these are all statements of anonymous[REDACTED] editor, you need to provide a "reliable source" that backs up your claims about war naming, especially that claim about "agressor-defender format" (I have been asking a source to that for months). Obviously original research by wikipedians does not count as reliable source.--Staberinde (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You have? I think I posted this link multiple times, don't know how you missed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/Lists_of_wars. You take a look at the war titles, and who the attacker was and who the defender was. We already agreed that 2+2=4 isn't original research, nor is 2+2*2=6 original research. You look at war titles, you look at who the agressor/defender was. It's so simple that Geico...errr a caveman can do it! And the reason that I didn't give it much attention, is because it's mostly irrelevant, as after World War II, most wars are named after the location. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon a further inspection of the wars, I have found that out of the wars on that list, since World War II, as we are living in 2009 and that's past 1945, 135 out of 176 Wars are named after location. The ones that aren't, are famed exceptions, such as the Israeli-Arab Wars, the War on Terrorism, India and Pakistan going at it, retarded names like Shifta War, Sand War, Dirty War, Clean War (sorry had to make that joke), names after predominant insurgencies, names of operations, there's also the Football War, War of Attrition, and The Troubles. These inapplicable names account for 29/41 wars. Furthermore, if one looks at the historiography of naming conflicts taking place in post-USSR space one will find that all wars are named exclusively after location. Nagono-Karabakh War, War in South Ossetia, War in Transnistria, War in Abkhazia, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Ingushetia Civil War, 2008 South Ossetia War. Additionally, if one was to look at Yugoslavia, that experienced rabid nationalism and an economic fallout, errr Free Speech and Democracy, you will find the same pattern: Slovenian War, Croatian War of Independence, War in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo War, Insurgency in Presovo Valley. Anyways, my evidence is overwhelming. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CIRCULAR.--Staberinde (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be such a big issue (Frankly, I'm dumbfounded, but alright), let me be naive and ask: would it be agreeable to add a short section "Terminology" similar to the one given at Vietnam_War#Terminology? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, adding a Terminology/Etymology section and creating a new article on the etymology of the war, like Vietnam_War#Terminology and Etymology of the Vietnam War, sounds good to me, and is certainly much better than going through another huge article move discussion that'll likely end after fervent debate with no consensus. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:11, 7 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)

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)

CASUALTIES !!!!

SOURCE:

Please fix it !

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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 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 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/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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)

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. 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)

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

The guideline for Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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.

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.

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)

On August 5th, Russia warned Georgia that it will defend South Ossetia in the case of an attack. 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.

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).

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 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.

A number of incidents occurred in both conflict zones in the months after the war ended. As of 2009 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/search/?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/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)

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)

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/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/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)

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/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)

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)

Moving Over from my Talkpage - naval stuff

Do you know who had inserted this ridiculous text? Offliner (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the comment (though likely incorrectly inserted) is germane. Anybody/source asserting a naval blockade by the Russians of Georgia during the August 2008 conflict should cite some source facts rather than merely making an assertion. If we only go with the rule that you merely have to cite a source, any number of insertions into the overall article should be considered valid and not removed. However, I believe that the purpose of the Wiki process is to ferret out the "truth". To do so we need facts and not undocumented assertions. An article in an apparently reputable publication which reflects the author's opinion is only that, the author's opinion - unless some provable facts are cited.Moryak (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was incorrectly inserted. If one questions a source, it should be done by providing a counterpoint, or questioning the original source, not by writing "THIS QUOTE IS INCORRECT". One has the "Dubious-Discuss" and the "Citation Needed" tags for this purpose. Prior to attaching such tags, one must make an argument on the discussion page. On the other hand, it looked to me like an honest mistake, so I'm not going to go after the culprit. We all make mistakes, and what I've let slide in the past, is much more egregious, than the newbie mistake presented above.

Now unto the problem: Fedorov stated that the map is incorrect because it includes the Russian Blockade. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg However, the way the map portrays the Russian Blockade, is that the blockade doesn't extend all the way to Batumi. A proper naval blockade covers the entire country. What the map presents, is a partial naval blockade.

The IP presented evidence, which is most likely questionable, that on August 9, At 16:40, Russian navy blocked Moldovan ship “Lotus-1,” carrying wheat, from entering the Poti port" and "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. This, if true, certainly signifies the Naval Blockade of Poti; nevertheless, there are no sources confirming the Naval Blockade of Batumi that I could find. The Report of Xinhua states: MOSCOW, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) -- Russian warships had arrived at Georgian Black Sea coast to prevent weapons from landing by sea, Interfax news agency quoted a Russian navy source as saying Sunday. "The crews were assigned the task to not allow arms and military hardware supplies to reach Georgia by sea," the source told Interfax. The Black Sea Fleet comprises missile cruiser Moskva, patrol boat Smetlivy, three large amphibious ships and logistics ships, the source said. Meanwhile, the Abkhaz law enforcement agencies confirmed that several Georgian warships attempted on Saturday to approach the coast of Abkhazia. But the attempts were curbed by ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet."

In other words, we have a possible blockade of Poti, and no blockade of Batumi. As such, I believe that we should clarify, on the map if necessary, and definitely in the text, that no Russian Naval Blockade of Batumi existed, and as such, no Russian Naval Blockade of Georgia existed. At best, there is a partial Russian Naval Blockade. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most sources don't go into detail about the blockade and don't give more info other than that it existed.

1. The Russian Black Sea Fleet left Sevastopol on the evening of August 8 and established a de-facto sea blockade of the Georgian coast.
2. The Black Sea Fleet, among the most combat capable in the Russian Navy, was used to blockade the Georgian coastline. Offliner (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Федоров or Moryak, any counter-arguments? 68.164.150.133 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there was a vessel on the 24th of August that docked in Batumi. Aside from that, I don't see any issues here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some rejoiners.

- Units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet were observed leaving Sevastopol. However, that in and of itself does not mean they deployed off the Abkhazian-Georgian coast. The Russian Black Sea Fleet has been known to move ships between Sevastopol and Novorossiysk - closer to Georgia. The armed conflict was ongoing in South Ossetia. It would be prudent for Russia to move naval forces to Novorossiysk. - Reports of the Russian at-sea engagement with possibly one Georgian unidentified sunk generally refer to small ships, not large combatants, and are described to take place off the Abkhazian coast just south of Sukhumi. - As I have noted elsewhere, the stated blockade actions (turning away ships) by the Russian Navy have no source citations and provide no proof. If the "blocked" vessels can be identified why can't the Russian naval ships that allegedly stopped them? - Also, the term "blockade" has a very specific definition in both military usage and in international law. Information cited does not match that definition. - I view as insufficient the mere assertion of an alleged action. If this were an acceptable approach than any single unproved assertion published by an established newspaper or made by an established media outlet should be accepted as fact. We all know where such uncritical acceptance leads. Федоров (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet, even Russian media has reported, that they have entered "one Abkhaz port" and even sank Georgian vessel: http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/10/sank/ (in Russian)

According to Georgian officials:

• 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

source --136.2.1.101 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's your source? Good one! "At 11:00, a Russian motorcade consisting of 30 armored vehicles led by the Commander of the 58th Army General Anatoly Khruliov was destroyed by Georgian armed forces at the northwestern entrance of Tskinvali." Umm - really? So how come most of the people in the destroyed motorcade survived? Isn't a destroyed motorcade supposed to be destroyed, and therefore unable to return back to base? " 05:30 additional column of Russian troops entered Georgia through the Roki Tunnel, passing Java, crossing the Gupta bridge and advancing on the Dzari bypass road. Georgian artillery and military aircraft conducted targeted attacks on the Gupta bridge and the moving Russian column (Georgian aviation has made no operational flights since then). Soon after that, two more columns of Russian troops entered the Roki Tunnel and advanced south by the Geri-Dmenisi road." No operational flights since August 8th? Oh boy. I am not even going to comment on this one. "At 15:00, Georgian forces declared a 3-hour ceasefire to establish a humanitarian corridor. The Russians used the ceasefire to advance towards Tskinvali by the Dzari road and towards Dmenisi by the Geri-Dmenisi road." Humanitarian Corridor, eh? How come most of the civilians who tried to use the humanitarian corridor were shot? Part of Georgia's "Humanitarian" efforts? Not to mention, we aren't going to count IP sources as legitimate. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Entering one port" or "sinking one vessel (unnamed)" does not consitute a naval blockade.

It is tragically unfortunate that due to a number of patently false statements made by the Georgian Government in the course of the 2008 August conflict and even since (see previous highly illustrative comment by Historic Warrior) it is extremely difficult blanketly to assume that statements by the Georgian Government are true. Therefore, references to a Russian naval blockade of Georgia - whether those made by the Georgian Government or those that are echoes of the Georgian statements in other publications - cannot be credited as true. Only if there is information of persuasive credibility can a naval blockade be said to have occurred. As noted in previous posts, if the blockaded ships can be named why cannot the Russian Navy ships alledgedly responsible for the blockade?Moryak (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What I think should first and foremost be noted, is that the actions of Russia's Navy have been largely ignored, or relegated to a secondary concern by the authors of this article, and since "all it takes for Propaganda to triumph is for Good Men to do nothing" - Russian Naval Actions are not represented properly in this article. And no one has presented any evidence, let alone legitimate evidence, of a Russian Naval Blockade of Batumi. We have proof of a single ship sunk, and it's either the Tbilisi or the Grigoriy Torelli. However there was a single engagement, with no more then five shots fired by both sides; to call it a battle is laughable. As per the Russian blockade of Poti, one could argue that Russia's Navy was simply supporting Russia's Army in the Battle and subsequent occupation of Poti. Furthermore, Russia could not have blockaded the Abkhaz Ports, simply because Georgia cannot claim blockade of ports that it cannot reach via land. The purpose of a blockade is to prevent resources from reaching the interior of the country, and as such, Georgia cannot claim blockade of Abkhaz ports, as supplies dropped in those ports have no chance of reaching Georgia's interior, as they are controlled by Abkhazia, that was at war with Georgia during this time period.

On the other hand, Offliner's sources are credible, and cannot be ignored. They claim that a blockade existed. However they do not tell us the extent of the blockade. Perhaps a compromise is in order, saying something like "Russia's Black Sea Fleet Blockaded the Georgian Coastline near Poti to aid Russia's Army; however the Russian Blockade did not extend to Batumi. What do you Wikipedians, think? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• HistoricWarrior, which of Offliner's sources do you consider credible and why? Perhaps a reason why Russian naval actions have not been represented properly in this article is because there weren't many and those that occurred were of very short duration and limited spacial extent.Федоров (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Moscow Defense Brief has pretty much been viewed by experts in both, Russia and NATO, and hasn't attracted virtually any criticism. Generally, if a publication stays in the mainstream of the military for as long as MDB has, and hasn't been discredited or properly criticized, it's considered valid. Additionally, no one has disproved anything the MDB said about this war. I don't know enough about the second source to comment on it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• If a publication merely repeats a statement made by an untrustworthy source - in this case the Georgian Government - does it make that statement true or credible? I think not. This is the case with many items used in Wiki entries in general, particularly regarding near current events where there is not extensive reporting. The best that should be said in such instances in the actual article text is: such and such source says "x". Then the reader can form his/her own judgment whether they wish to accept the statement. Insertion of information with a disembodied footnote leaves the impression that what is said is accepted as credible fact.Федоров (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"You know the source is truly independent when it is attacked by both sides" - famed quote by speaker whose name I forgot. The MDB wasn't quoting the Georgian Government. The Georgian Government reported the blockade on August 9th, the MDB reported it on August 8th. I'm wondering, do you have any sources that state that the Russian Navy wasn't blockading the Georgian Coastline? Such as the location of the Russian Navy during August 7th - August 16th? The Russian Navy cannot be in two places at once. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought our issue was credibility not independence. There are more than enough independent voices who don't get it right. In the case of this reporting I believe that when the Ukrainians watched Russian Black Sea Fleet ships leaving Sevastopol they assumed they were heading for Georgia and so reported. I'd have to rummage about to find a Ukrainian report. However, an assumption isn't a fact.Федоров (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde gets busted using the "Kamikaze" Tactic

Here's how the tactic works: Let's say you have an editor on an article, who wins most of his battles, and all of his major ones. His side has the most facts, and his arguments are well constructed. Let's call him HW. How do you deal with someone like that? One of the answers is the infamous "Kamikaze" Tactic. That is you take a non-issue, say the name of the article, and try to make an argument about it, for the mere purpose of provoking HW. In doing so, you employ several techniques: first you must find out what pisses off HW. Ignoring his arguments and presenting your B/S pisses him off? Making stupid arguments about issues on which there has been hundreds of pages of discussion pisses him off? Presto! That's what you do. And you hope that he responds by bashing you. And than you call in for backup. Of course this tactic will also get you kicked off the article, but you don't care; in chess one sacrifices a pawn for a knight. How does the call for back up work? It's similar to the way that the Cabal operate, and so I quote: "What typically happens: One cabal member picks an edit war on their enemies, and sends their spam to the mailing list to call for backup. Then, all the cabal members come and edit war, making one or two reverts each. The cabal then concentrates stalking, harassment against their enemies until said enemy is provoked into doing/saying something bad."

Of course this requires for me to get all emotional and be provoked. Not happening. And I'll explain why later, but for now, let's look at the evidence:

1. We all know that I am passionate about the title, and that the title is a non-issue. Thus talking about changing the title, would be provoking me over a non-issue. Enter Staberinde: I think it is a bit early for new move request, I would wait until 2010. Although its pretty obvious that despite wikipedia's promotion of current fringe title it still fails google books=2 scholar=14 in competition with title like "August War" google books=13 scholar=146 or "Russo-Georgian War" google books=6 scholar=59. Just moving article away from current fringe title is horrible pain, because there is always notable bunch of editors that will rush to its defence and accept no alternatives.--Staberinde (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC) What is the purpose of said statement? Warn about another battle over the title in 2010, diss the current editors and ramble something about Google Books? How does the statement contribute to the article? It doesn't.

2. Stealing my argument and trying to pervert it: Re: "Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming." That's exactly what I have argued ever since I joined this title dispute here, because this is what[REDACTED] is currently doing by using title that is clearly used only relatively small minority of reliable sources, while there are clearly several more popular titles in use. Really? Where have you argued that before Staberinde? Can I get a link? Or was this another provocation? Because if Wikipedians cannot set precedence for war naming, and naming a war via Google Hits is setting precedence, than your argument falls apart.

3. Sneak attack: in order to use something against me in the Cabal Evidence, Staberinde decided to ask a question here, without even bothering to mention that he'll use that against me in the Cabal Evidence section: "I'm just asking a friendly question, I won't turn this around at all!" Riiight. Here's the question: Third, these are all statements of anonymous[REDACTED] editor, you need to provide a "reliable source" that backs up your claims about war naming, especially that claim about "agressor-defender format" (I have been asking a source to that for months). And my answer is: 'You have? I think I posted this link multiple times, don't know how you missed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/Lists_of_wars.' Staberinde then runs into the Arbitration via the Cabal and posts: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Statement_by_Staberinde And than gets his butt kicked in debating: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Statement_by_Staberinde.

Of note, is that Staberinde is so desperate to provoke me, that he actually brought up accusations against my canvassing, which were discredited several months ago. What was the point of bringing that up? Other than to provoke me? But that desperation didn't provoke me. Instead it cracked me up. But Staberinde learned what provoked me: just as any human being, I am provoked when someone forces me to make the same argument, over, and over, and over again, by making the stupidest possible counterarguments on Earth.

4. Staberinde's Rebuttal: WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CIRCULAR.--Staberinde (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a lot of WP's. Did you know that calling the Vietnam War, the Vietnam War, without citing it was original research? Neither did I, but apparently Staberinde does! I always thought that citing the First and Second Chechen Wars as the First and Second Chechen War was reliable; not to Staberinde. He wants a reliable source behind that! As per Circular, I post a Misplaced Pages List to prove my point, that was taken from a multitude of sources. I didn't post a Misplaced Pages Article, I posted a Misplaced Pages list. Too bad Staberinde missed that. Nor can WP:SYNTH be applied, because what I said, was that all post Soviet Wars were named after the locations that they were fought in, which is a fact. If Staberinde carefully read WP:SYNTH, especially the example, he would learn that it forbade opinions, not facts. Forbidding facts is kinda silly.

Summarizing: the "Kamikaze" tactic works like this: you provoke an editor who knows how to debate and wins most of his battles in an article, and hope that he responds, eventually, to your provocations. Then you two engage in a Flame War, and than are both forced to leave the article, hence the "Kamikaze" name. For Staberinde's hilarious provocations, (although the last one was good) see above.

Why it failed: Usually the people who employ dirty tactics, cannot think properly. Did it ever occur to you that an editor with my level of experience, actually knows all of these tactics? And simply chooses not to use them? I gotta admit, I started responding to that last post of yours, Staberinde, and then went: "oh wait, this IS the Kamikaze Tactic".

Statement to the other side: I am tired of you using these tactics. I won't hesitate to expose anymore of these tactics, the minute I see them. So don't use them.

Internet Access: $40 Taking Day off of Work to edit Wiki: $300 Getting busted using the Kamikaze Tactic and Having the Bust e-mailed to most Russians: PRICELESS!!!

For everything else, there's HW Card ;) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Abkhazia articles
• Top-importance Abkhazia articles
• WikiProject Abkhazia articles
• B-Class Georgia (country) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (country) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Top-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles