Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:37, 3 October 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.

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.

Conclusive evidences

I propose to remove the following sentence from the Evening of 7 August section:

"However, no conclusive evidence has been presented by Georgia or its Western allies that Russia was invading the country before the Georgian attack (the Russians claim it was simply a routine logistics train or troop rotation, however the troop movement occured at night, which was prohibited by the agreements regulating the status of Russian peacekeepers) or that the situation for Georgians in the Ossetian zone was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary, and the Georgian claim has received little support from Georgia's allies, the US and NATO."

The sentence adds nothing to the article, it is outdated and last but not least, it is false. There are currently 6 Russian and 1 Georgian sources cited after the previous sentence, confirming the move of Russian troops over the international Russian-Georgian border before the Georgian Army began its action in South Ossetia. Somebody can argue that the intercepted calls provided by Georgia aren't credible enough, but even Russia didn't put this evidence into question - Russia explained that the move was part of routine logistics or troop rotation, which of course wasn't supposed to happen during the night and just 2 months after the previous rotation took place (in May), as normally such rotations were agreed to happen every 6 months and in accordance with all sides (which didn't happen neither), etc.

As to the second part, you can refer to the last sentences of David J. Smith's chapter in The Guns of August 2008 - Russia's War in Georgia book (p.142):

"The bottom line is that Georgia reacted to Russia's escalation as any Western democracy would have done, using diplomatic means to lodge protests at every step. It sought the help of friends. It used international organizations. It became savvier about public relations. It put forward peace proposals for the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that should at least have been taken up as points of departure for negociations.

Really? What were these proposals? For Ossetians to pack up and leave? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's what you learned from your credible Russian News in the U.S., but instead it is what the fascist Russian puppet Kokoity told to Georgians. Let me enlighten you a bit and show you what you've asked for - the Georgian proposals.

Here's one proposal of Saakashvili to Abkhazia, made on 28 March 2008:

• Free economic zone in Ochamchire and Gali;
• Abkhaz representation in all bodies of the Georgian central authorities;
• The position of vice-president of Georgia;
• The right to veto all those decisions by the central authorities which concern or will concern their constitutional status, as well as all important preconditions for saving and developing their culture, language and ethnicity.

Mind to tell me at least one autonomous entity in the world which has such privileges? Some of the Russian Republics probably?...

Here's another proposal of Misha made in a televised broadcast to Abkhazians and South Ossetians, on 29 April 2008:

"Today’s Georgia is offering you calm and protection, which you lack so much, Today’s Georgia is offering you life without gangs and criminal authorities; today’s Georgia is offering you life without corruption, wherein no one will ever be able to extort bribes from you, or shares from your businesses; today’s Georgia is offering you opportunities for free and legal business activities, wherein no one will be able to restrict your initiative; we are offering you much better healthcare and education systems; today’s Georgia is offering you real freedom of choice, wherein no one will force you to accept citizenship of this or that country and where you will not be arrested because you want to elect your country’s parliament and president; today’s Georgia is offering an open economy and borders, law and order."

There's an entire chapter in the book mentioned above called "The Saakashvili Administration’s Reaction to Russian Policies Before the 2008 War" by David Smith, which describes in detail what did Georgia before the war. Read it, you will learn interesting things you obviously don't know by now. Kouber (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they just don't beleive Georgia anymore, or just detest it so much that they want not to hear anything about entering Georgia. Knowing some Abkhaz people, I'd say both statements are right. FeelSunny (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that the August 2008 war was neither provoked nor a product of miscalculation. It was initiated and waged by Russia for well-articulated geopolitical reasons. Georgia behaved diplomatically - perhaps too long."

It wasn't a product of miscalculation? Oh boy. My turn to have fun: CNN, Newsweek, Washington Times, BBC, LA Times, Der Spiegel, Open Democracy, CFR, Haaretz, Reuters, Wired, CS Monitor, Japan Times, Telegraph, Times Online, CDI, Global Research, New York Times, Washington Post, antiwar.org, eurasianet.org, US News and World Report, http://www.google.com/#q=Saakashvili+miscalculation&hl=en&start=0&sa=N&fp=fd7d05ccb38cbf27 - I got tired after the first five pages, but they all say the same exact thing: "Saakasvhili miscalculated". Thank you for confirming that Svante Cornell is on crack. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That is Smith's personal conclusion, yes, and since he made that conclusion based on well sourced evidences, that means that there are "conclusive evidences". Kouber (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kouber, do you just skip arguments that you don't like? Look up. I've quoted several dozen sources, and I can quote more, to discredit Smith's personal conclusion. Seriously, you ignoring arguments that you don't like just won't fly here. Look up. Look at the two dozen sources saying that Smith was wrong. Even the UK said that Georgia miscalculated. Even CNN admitted it. That book is beyond dishonest journalism, it's just pure fiction! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

HW007, I am not skipping your arguments, but you need to face the fact that normally there is more than one point of view on some topics, and there are a lot of arguments standing behind those. LokiiT just raised the keyword here: "conclusive". How conclusive is something depends on the person making the conclusion, it is very relative term. For Smith, and dozens of professors, senators, and a big audience of ordinary people, there are conclusive evidences. Thus by stating that "no conclusive evidence has been presented", would mean that none of these people exist, which of course isn't true. That is one of the reasons behind my insistance to remove that sentence from our article. Kouber (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusive evidence, is evidence that is widely accepted. Dozens of professors is not conclusive evidence. I can find dozens of professors who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. There are over a 1,000,000 professors. Dozens just doesn't cut it. As for Senators, again, maybe a fringe lobby group. There were also Senators congratulating Birthers or people believing that Obama wasn't born in the US. You're taking a miniscule sample of people, less then .1 percent, and arguing against the other 99.9% of the population. This isn't called "presenting another viewpoint". It's called "hiring a fringe group to promote one's political views that have been proven to be dead wrong". I mean come on, CNN and UK's government follow Russia's views on the war? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, would you please find me dozens of professors "who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old"?... Or can you prove that 99.9% of the population believe the Russian version of events? Have you counted them? Was there an election held on the issue?... Oh I forgot, "Russia is a Great Power", so the rest of the population doesn't matter, it is important what the Russians think, right? But I'd agree even if you can find me 99.9% of the Russian population agreeing with your arguments. Have you seen this, for example? There it appears that 76% of the people who called, believe that Russia is responsible for the war, 82% - that there was no genocide, 81% - that Russia was the aggressor (and according to all international laws indeed Russia was the aggressor in this war)... It's good to back your words HW007, otherwise it would appear that you're loosing your time, my time and the time of many other wikipedians. Kouber (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kouber - when you are arguing, always keep in mind what you are arguing about. The 99.9% argument was towards Saakasvhili committing a blunder. Yes, 99.9% of reports that I've read stated that Saakashvili committed a blunder. That's what the 99.9% number refers to. It's hilarious how you go all dramatic and forget what the actual argument was about. Try remembering next time. Even those who believe that Russia was the aggressor, also believe that Saakashvili committed a blunder. So indeed, if you change up the argument, my numbers to the changed argument won't work. CNN called Russia the aggressors and continues to do so. CNN is also still looking for WMDs in Iraq. However, even CNN confirmed that Saakashvili committed a blunder. Seriously, stop arguing. You're now changing my entire claim, and arguing that after you changed it, my claim won't work. Well duh! If you change the original claim, the changed claim won't work. Nor will it be my claim. And it's spelled losing, not loosing, as in Kouber is losing, so he must change what the actual argument was about, yet leave my numbers unchanged. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

HW007, the sentence in question isn't saying that "no conclusive evidence has been presented that Misha didn't commit a blunder", it is about "Russia invading the country" - we are discussing exactly that, so I guess you didn't get right my point. Kouber (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That means that there is "conclusive evidence that Russia was invading the country... and that the situation ... was so dire that a large-scale military attack was necessary", which means that the entire sentence is obsolete and thus useless. Kouber (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My argument was that the source is extremely poor: "The reality is that the August 2008 war was neither provoked nor a product of miscalculation. It was initiated and waged by Russia for well-articulated geopolitical reasons. Georgia behaved diplomatically - perhaps too long." That's your source. I found conclusive evidence that the war was indeed a product of Saakashvili's miscalculation. Blunder = severe miscalculation. So that means that the entire sentence, the one that you are basing your arguments are, is obsolete, and thus, useless. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question: if Russia was so mean and evil, why didn't the Russians take Tbilisi? They had at the very least 4 to 1 odds. Aside from massive civilian casualties, I don't see anything stopping the Russians. Could it be, judging that Russia's attack destroyed 90% of Georgia's military infrastructure and under 5% of Georgia's civilian infrastructure, that Russia was merely responding to an attack and keeping civilian casualties low? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is raised in the book too and it is well analysed, I am not going to copy/paste entire chapters for you. It is only $17, just get it. You can also refer to the sources, so you can judge for yourself whether to trust them or not. Kouber (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Already $17? Damn the price just keeps on dropping. FeelSunny - I told you it'd be 99 cents soon. Umm, Kouber - in America, we don't take John McCain seriously. Not after his statement of "100 years in Iraq". The book is crap, but it is currently setting a record, for a book that's rapidly dropping in price. It will be the fastest book to go from $70 to a buck, but I don't think that's a good thing. Anyways, if you have arguments, present them. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support removing the sentence. However, instead of sourcing this article with blatant propagandist fiction, such as the book you've mentioned, why don't wait for the EU commission to release their findings before we start implicating any one side? The report is due by the end of September, it isn't that long to wait.--98.232.98.144 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe get an actual username before making controversial edits? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear 98.232.98.144, please dont be scared away by HistoricWarrior. Seems he likes biting new editors, having a username is in no way a requirement for editing here. --Xeeron (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No I have a habit of requiring people to actually debate controversial edits instead of placing them into the article. And having a username makes a debate that much easier. I do remember a certain user attacking a pro-Russian IP a few months ago, shall I get the link where you did so, Xeeron? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how "no conclusive evidence" would be obsolete info. It was confirmed by BBC again just a few weeks ago. And I'm not sure how that article in Cornell's book would have any effect on this. Speking of Cornell's book, it's interesting to take a look at the list of its writers. Illarionov, Felgenhauer, Paul Goble... Did Mr Cornell just order a chapter from each of the most fiercely anti-Russian authors out there? And to think of that this is the first and only book about the war that has come out yet. We must be seeing the anti-Russian lobby in action here. Offliner (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, our sentence says that "no conclusive evidence has been presented by Georgia or its Western allies". The point is that there are such evidences presented by both Georgia and by its Western allies. Cornell's book, for example, represents such a conclusive study. I.e. our article is raising the exceptional claim that something doesn't exist, while in reality it exists. I am not pretending whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, etc. but it exists. That's why I think the whole sentence needs removal.

The BBC article is about Georgian claims concerning Russian "premeditated" and "violent climax of policies pursued by Russia against Georgia over many years" and also the "large-scale Russian invasion". But we cite none of these claims in the article, hence the point that "the claim has received little support from Georgia's allies, the US and Nato" is a bit popped out of context. Our article says only that parts of 58th Russian Army moved to South Ossetia prior to the Georgian attack, which is not questioned even by Russia.

Btw, I've read the book that our dear Anonymous called "blatant propagandist fiction", and I'd recommend it to everybody. It contains well sourced information and analysis of why the war broke out, Russian-Georgian relations, Georgian history, European security in general, etc. and it isn't so biased, as you might probably think. Give it a try, before throwing it into one or another category. Kouber (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The key word here is conclusive. There is no conclusive evidence. That is a fact not up for debate at this point. As far as this book cited goes, I don't think it deserves a chance when you consider who wrote it. It's not like these writers are unheard of. We know their opinions and their biases already. Why waist our time? That'd be like a libertarian recommending an Ayn Rand book to a socialist and saying "give it a chance, it's not as biased against socialism as you think!" Except this is even worse because it's about an ultimate truth (and the skewing thereof) rather than subjective philosophical and ideological differences.LokiiT (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I explained above, every fact in the book is sourced, so you can just check the source and judge it for yourself. The book is not introducing new facts, it is just gathering sourced evidences together. A conclusion is reached based on these evidences. Kouber (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? As poorly sourced as ISDP? Where it said "according to a well known Moscow military historian" but the historian was so well known that they didn't need to mention his name? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's Kouber - how's your Army/Air Force doing? Same branch too right? I'm not anonymous, I have never signed off as anonymous. If you're going to call me out, have the guts to type my name. Also, Michael Moore has a bet going that if anyone can find a single incorrect fact in his movies, that person will get $10,000. That's $10,000 per fact. I wonder, is Mr. Svante Cornell up for the same deal? For every fact I find in that book, that any average person will admit is dead wrong, I get $10,000. If anyone is willing to take me up on that offer, I will throughoutly discredit the book. Any takers? Also, here's another funny thing: Georgians have outnumbered Russians in South Ossetia, yet in the ISDP paper Svante Cornell assures us all that the Russians are outnumbering Georgians two to one. Did Mr. Svante Cornell remove that fiction from the book? And in his analysis, did Mr. Svante Cornell discuss British Imperial Policy? Stalinization? Perhaps the 1920's Georgian-Ossetian War where there was actual genocide? Cause if he didn't, the book's a joke. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another fun fact: Georgian History is intertwined with the history of the Caucasian Region much more so, than Georgia's history with Europe. And Georgia's a threat to European Security? No, no, wait, Russia's actions in Georgia is a threat to European Security, right? Because Russians are drinking Red Bull and getting wings, and doing a flank attack from Georgia to Europe, right? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Boys, discussions aside, I thought the sentence in question was from a reliable source? HW007 made 1001 example of other well reliable sources that say it was a miscalculation by the Georgian president. Do we have sources as reliable as those presented that say Russia attacked first and made Saakashvili start the defencive operation, as he claims? Kouber, do you have these sources? FeelSunny (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is composed from reliable sources, yes, but it has nothing to do with the previous one, i.e. the sentence is denying that "Russia was invading the country", but the previous sentence isn't claiming that "Russia is invading the country", instead, it is just saying that "parts of 58th Army went to South Ossetia before the Georgian attack", which Russia didn't deny and which is confirmed by many non-Georgian sources! That is the point - the way it is now one can get easily confused. Furthermore, as I already explained, we use the part from the BBC article that "the Georgian claim has received little support". But which claim?... And why Georgian?... It seems completely out of context. It wouldn't be if we put a sentence descibing the Georgian claims before it, but I don't think we need to do that either. Kouber (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Previous sentence says just what Georgian president wants us to beleive, exactly this: According to Georgian intelligence and several Russian sources, parts of 58th Russian Army moved to South Ossetian territory through the Roki Tunnel before the Georgian attack. It is disproved by the next sentence, with sources. The logic is clear, and it follows sources' articles' logic. FeelSunny (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That would mean that the Georgian president influenced a lot Russian medias, Russian soldiers and Sergey Bagapsh personally, which sounds ridiculous. Neither of the three sources used in the sentence do not disprove the move of parts of 58th Russian Army. That's the whole point - we do not present Georgian claims of "Russia invading the country", hence we don't need a sentence to disprove it. Why don't we put also a sentence saying that "no conslusive evidence has been presented that Russia used nuclear weapons" then?!... The sentence is trying to disprove something that is missing in our article, which can possibly confuse the readers.

Actually the Russian Media that claimed Parts of the 58th Army moved into South Ossetia turned out to be soldiers boasting and getting the date wrong. The exact quote was "the entire 58th Army moved into South Ossetia". Riiight. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, even Russia didn't deny the move of its 58th Army. Russia explained that it is rotational move, and by doing so it confirmed that indeed the move occured. Kouber (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, there's a difference between CIS approved Peacekeepers and Russian Infantry. The latter have those thingies called tanks. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So, according to your logic, as long as the troops don't have tanks, they're considered peacekeepers? Nice logic HW007, but unfortunately you're (once again) wrong. The peacekeepers are agreed by international organisations and they're given a mandate, and last but not least their size is limited. The Sochi agreements specifically noted that each side (Russia, South Ossetia and Georgia) had the right of 500 peacekeepers present, but Kulakhmetov stated that "there're were 1700 peacekeepers present and they weren't enough". How many of the so called "peacekeepers without tanks" would be enough in your opinion HW007? Or just because "Russia is a great power" it wasn't expected to respect international agreements (and international borders)? Kouber (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kouber, stop. Peacekeepers are those who have a legal mandate to be peacekeeping. For the retards who cannot tell peacekeepers apart from infantry, I have explained that infantry has tanks supporting, whereas peacekeepers do not. How anyone could have understood that differently, is beyond me, but you are clearly unique. Russia is expected to respect international agreements; any great power is expected to respect them. However being a small country doesn't give you the right to shell you citizens with Grads either. Also, newsflash: I'm not Kulakhmetov. Stop making stuff up about me. Stop telling others what my logic is, because you clearly don't get my logic. And stop going on your little neutralize HW007 mission. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Being a small country doesn't give you the right to shell you citizens with Grads", does that mean that "being a big country" grants you that right? Or does that deny the right to fight armed separatists on your territory?... It is strange how 50 000 civilians killed in Chechnya don't matter, but 162 killed (the majority of them being armed men) represent a legitimate reason to invade, occupy and cut to pieces another country... Kouber (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Kouber - if you actually read what I said earlier, "Russia is expected to respect international agreements" you wouldn't be asking those silly questions. Also, it was 350 killed, 162 civilians, the rest militia. And it's not just the 162 killed number. It's the fact that Saakashvili shelled Tskhinvali with Grads, and the casualties would have been much greater had Russia not intervened, the fact that Saakashvili attacked Russian peacekeepers without any provocation from the latter, and the fact that Saakashvili tried taking Roki Tunnel. Those facts are what gave Russia the right to launch a counter-attack. Your silly little claim Kouber of "I only murdered 162 men, women and children, but if I say most of them were military, even though that's not true, I can still go unpunished, right?" Reality doesn't work that way. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this 350 killed number from. Bastrykin concluded that the total number of people killed is 162, but perhaps he's wrong, as Famous Wikipedian HistoricWarrior007 is better investigator than him.

350 was reported by the Government of the Republic of South Ossetia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Russia also shelled Tskhinvali with Grads, far more extensively than Georgia did, and performed aerial bombardments of the city for three consecutive days. Not to mention Iskander and Tochka-U. And yes, thanks to Russia's intervention 20000 people cannot return to their homes now and dozen of villages have been demolished... very humanitarian, bravo Russia.

That is so awesome! According to HRW, 15,000 civilians fled, as a result of Georgia's attack, but 20,000 cannot return. Bravo Russia - you just created 5,000 civilian refugees out of thin air! Interestingly enough, a UK report stated that 17,500 Georgians were in South Ossetia, and HRW stated that 15,000 fled. That leaves 2,500 Georgians in South Ossetia. I have no idea where you are getting the 20,000 number from. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As to the Russian "innocent peacekeepers", you can refer to this. Oleg Galavanov corrected Ossetian artillery fire from his peacekeeping observation post for hours, before he was shot down. Russian peacekeepers were given orders to "not allow Georgians to enter the city", etc. etc. But you're right, there were no provocations at all, right!?... Kouber (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not allowing Georgians to return is an issue that should be tried in courts, not decided by military force. There may have been provocations, but nothing came even close to a full scale attack that Saakashvili launched. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There are Russian Sources confirming this? Oh right, that was the soldiers boasting that the entire 58th Army moved into South Ossetia. Too bad it doesn't adhere to reality. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can look at Vesti, for just an example. At 2:42 you can see Sergey Bagapsh explaining after the security council of Abkhazia (which took place on 7 August around 10 a.m.): "Я говорил с президентом Южной Осетии. Там сейчас более-менее стабилизировано. Туда вошел батальон Северо-Кавказского округа. Все вооруженные силы привести в боевую готовность". I guess you don't need a translation from Russian to understand it, do you? Kouber (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it a batallion of peacekeepers or regular army? According to Georgians, and this source, they saw peacekeepers: "Министерство иностранных дел Грузии обвиняет Россию, в "подстрекательстве сепаратистов" и предлагает убрать российских миротворцев." So Georgians saw peacekeepers, not army. Why do you beleive that "батальон Северо-Кавказского округа" Bagapsh spoke about were army, not peacekeepers? FeelSunny (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Georgians didn't "saw peacekeepers", they were proposing (note the present continuous tense, please) to replace the Russian peacekeepers (or piecekeepers) with international ones for some time (from March), as they wanted to replace the JCC format with a more fair one. This sentence isn't related to Bagapsh' statement, but is representing the willing of Georgia concerning the format of the peacekeepers. Once again, Russia didn't deny its move, so my arguments still stay. Kouber (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying "our way or no way" doesn't exactly demonstrate Georgia's willingness. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if what is published here is true, that was just a bravado talk. Just the talk of Bagapsh talking about talking to Kokoity. Statements of two civilians which were being heavily discredited by many people, including you Kober. Would you really buy that talk from the guys who said that 2000 Ossetians died in the first hours of the Georgian attack? Do you think that Russian military would keep these two highly corrupt officials in the loop? Are you claiming that Russian intelligence just let these guys spill sensitive information to the left and to the right? That is as far from being a conclusive evidence as you can get. In fact there is a term for such "evidence", in the courts it is called "hearsay".(Igny (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

To get back to the point: other than Kouber's peirsonal opinion, we have not been presented any reliable sources claiming there are proofs to the Georgian statements Russia was invading Georgia before Georgia invaded South Ossetia. But we have seen many reliable (international, respected, and to a large degree pro-Georgian, in general) sources, claiming Georgian president just went postal in August, 2008. That is actually the only result of all this discussion by now. The sentence in question has passed the test, I beleive. FeelSunny (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again (I guess I have to repeat it over and over again, until you finally pay some attention to it):

1. Russia didn't deny that information (that parts of 58th Army crossed the Roki tunnel early on the 7th) in any way, but instead confirmed them (indirectly), by stating that it is a routine logistics troop rotation.
2. None of the three sources (, , ) used to compose the sentence in question is denying this information in any way.
3. Nowhere in our article we don't state that Russia was invading the country. Then why should we put a sentence denying this, and not put a sentence denying Russian use of nuclear weapons for example, or any other non-existent claim?

Can you try to comment the points above, please? Thank you. Kouber (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Russia did not deny the information Earth is flat, so what? Earth is flat or it's just Russia lies again, man? Seriously, how did Russia confirmed 58th army entering Georgia, Kouber? Where? Was it about peacekeepers rotation or army rotation? Can you give reliable sources that say parts of Russian 58th army were there and were undergoing any "routine rotation" on August 7th? Do you understand that what you say means that parts of 58th army were there for some time and nobody just saw them? Because you can only make rotation of an army which is already there?
2. None of three sources denies the information Earth is flat, so what? NYT claims: Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression. Etc., etc. This has nothing to do with what you call Russian 58th army invasion. They just say Georgia lies. And we just repeat they say Georgia lies, that simple. Do not start OR sessions on this, trying to dispute sources with your own words.
3. On Russia invading Georgia and why it is not there in the article: A year ago today, Russia's 58th Army crossed over Georgia's internationally recognised borders. Thus began what the evidence shows was a long-planned invasion aimed at toppling my government and increasing Moscow's control over our region. A year later, the results are not what the Kremlin expected. (published on 6 August, 2009) These words are not there just because nobody wants to kick this looser for fun once again here. But I may add this into the article, if it would make life easier for you. FeelSunny (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I love how people are still pretending that Russia couldn't have taken Tbilisi if they wanted to. Or that Russia couldn't topple or take out Saakashvili. It's not like the Russians had four Iskander launchers in range of Saakashvili's exact location; oh wait, they did. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

1. As I already explained, peacekeepers rotations, according to the Sochi agreements, aren't expected to happen during the night, two months after the previous rotation took place and without informing everybody in advance. That means that those troops weren't legitimate peacekeepers, according to the signed agreements, which means that they weren't peacekeepers at all, if we agree on what the term peacekeepers mean.
2. These Georgian assertions have been put into question. That's all, we're still waiting for the EU investigation to give us more details. The thing is that those sources aren't denying the physical move of Russian troops, they're about responsibility issues and justifications of Georgian military actions.
3. I would be happier if our article becomes better and more consistent and there are no sentences composed by popping words out of their context. Either we have to add Georgian claims, and the sentence in question should follow as a denial, or we just have to remove the sentence. IMHO the latter would be better. After all we're trying to shorten the article, anyway. Kouber (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Peacekeeping rotations aren't expected to happen during the night? Source? Also, since the Georgian peacekeepers left, who were they supposed to inform? They saw Georgian peacekeepers leave, they saw Georgian civilians leaving, a rotation took place. And is there a limit on rotations in the Sochi Agreements? I.e. only one rotation every six months? And why didn't the OSCE report mention anything about Russia breaking the terms? Your claim sounds more like a conspiracy theory. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Russians peacekeepers do not have tanks supporting them. Russian infantry do. It's not that hard to tell the difference between the two. If Georgia felt that Russia was violating the peacekeeping terms, (although no western satellite data shows Russia violating said terms) then the proper response was to file a complaint with the United Nations, not launch a disastrous attack, get their butts kicked, and then make stuff up. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove sources that quote out of context too? Or editors that argue that ground troops really mean air force? This article isn't Saakashvili's mouthpiece. We don't add claims unless they're backed up by actual evidence. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually disagree, Kouber, with every of the three points you are trying to prove. But to save my time, may I just reply to the third one? I think we should add Micha's words then, if you want more consistent a paragraph. Because all this media war was, actually, about this Georgian president playing a little innocent girl for about a year now, crying about being invaded by a big bad bear. The result is that even his closest friends do not want to have much in common with the current Georgian government. So we may well insert all those hysteric statements of the first days after the blietzkrieg failed. And, yes, the NYT article in question is calling those Micha's accusations a bullshit. And, yes, it is a reliable source.FeelSunny (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

@HistoricWarrior007: You can refer to JCC Protocol #38, Annex #1 (8th page): "Peacekeepers rotations must happen not more frequently than once every 6 months (and once every 3 months for Georgian peacekeepers)... The rotation process must happen during 3 days, in the daylight, between 7 a.m. and 18 p.m... A rotation plan should be presented at least one month before it.". This planned rotation of Russian peacekeepers took place between 28 and 31 May 2008. Thus, the move of Russian troops at around 3:30 a.m. (during the night) on 7 August through an international border is illegal and cannot be considered a rotation, according to the agreement above. Georgian peacekeepers left the JPKF Headquarters at 2:42 p.m., or some 11 hours later, so Georgians were still present there when Russia moved its troops.

Also, there were many international reactions to Russian violations and provocative behaviour before the war, but Russia paid little attention to them.

Nobody's claiming that "ground troops really mean air force", so you can stop repeating it, thank you. The compound term "troops", however, could mean air forces. Kouber (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize Kouber, I will quote you as saying "troops could mean air forces" from now on. Also, that link is horrendous, it is edited in such a manner as to make Russia look like the bad guy. Oh wait, it's from the Georgian Government, that explains it. Also, illegal movements of peacekeepers still do not justify an invasion. You appeal that decision to the ICJ, you don't use your troops, then have said troops, and air forces, (since those are the same to you Kouber) whine about Russia being bad after you get your butts handed to you in combat. Did I get your "troops and air forces" quote correctly this time? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What invasion are you talking about? South Ossetia is (and on 7 August 2008 was indisputably) part of Georgia. Georgia had the right to move its troops around its own territory, just like Russia had the right to do so. Do you call the massing of Russian troops in North Ossetia an invasion? No. Simply because North Ossetia is part of Russia. South Ossetia, however, isn't part of Russia, thus Russia hadn't the legitimate right to move its troops there. There's no such thing as "illegal movements of peacekeepers" - either the move is legal and the troops represent legitimate peacekeeprs, either it is illegal and these aren't peacekeepers.

Concerning the documents, the JCC protocols are scanned from the originals, with their signatures, etc. Here's a list with other peace format documents, in case you're interested. As to the document with international reactions, I can find you a dozen more if you like. There were a lot of diplomatic efforts made by the Georgian government and there were also international reactions to Russian provocations and military buildup. None of these, however, had any influence on Russia. Kouber (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that if people are part of your country De Jure, despite their De Facto independence, it's ok to shell them with missiles? Newsflash - reality's different. And those documents that are "scanned" from the originals, are heavily edited. I've read the original OSCE Report - it came out as pro-Russian. However after it was "scanned" by the Georgian government, as a result of said Pravda-style "scanning" it "magically" became pro-Georgian. I guess it must be Saakashvili's "magic scanner". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

@FeelSunny: I don't see how inserting "hysteric statements" (such as "2000 being killed", "Georgia committing a genocide", "Tskhinvali not existing as a city no more", etc.) can improve the article. Neither I understand why do we need denial of statements that doesn't exist. However, if we put a denial of something we need to put that thing as well, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense and could possibly lead to confusion. Kouber (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

2000 being killed also came from CNN, as in "Russia invades Georgia. 2000 civilian casualties result". That's not just a Russian quote. And Tskhinvali was pounded during the war; keep in mind that the civilian population of Tskhinvali was most likely, under 10,000 when the Georgian attack came, so killing 1.64% (164 people) is still pretty damn bad. That's similar to what happened during the Siege of Leningrad and Nazi attacks. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is bad when poeple are dying. As to CNN, it was simply citing the lies of Churkin, which probably listened to the lies of Vyacheslav Kovalenko. The latter stated on 9 August 2008 that there're "at least 2000 killed" and that "the city of Tskhinvali doesn't exist no more" - "Города Цхинвали больше не существует. Его просто нет. Он уничтожен грузинскими военными". WTF?... You can refer to UNOSAT satellite pictures to see that the damage caused on surrounding Georgian villages is much bigger than the one caused on Tskhinvali, which once again puts the humanitarian justification of Russia into question. Kouber (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

CNN was simply citing the lies of Churkin? CNN is a pro-Russian source?! Kouber - how do you expect anyone to take you seriously after that comment? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, normally when Russian Ambassador makes a statement in the UN, especially when his country is invading another country, member of the UN, his statements are cited by the medias. CNN just cited Churkin: "Russia said at least 2,000 people have been killed in South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali". This lie didn't came from CNN, as CNN made it perfectly clear who made the claim - Russia.

That citation was made on August 11th, the one I quoted was made three days earlier, on August 8th. Either way, I expect journalists to actually do research, and realize, that if there are only 10,000 people in Tskhinvali, and the city wasn't captured, 20% of the civilian population cannot be killed off by an invading army, in a city that has fortifications, as that has never happened in history of warfare. I apologize for requiring journalists to actually do research, instead of blindly quoting Georgian/Russian sources. I will strive to become a mindless robot that cites Illarionov, Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell from now on. I am also known to be sarcastic. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Back on the topic. As you all guys insist on keeping the denial of a claim, I would feel free to insert the claim itself, in order to make the article consistent and not to confuse our readers, although I still believe that we need to reduce such claims-denials to a minimum. Thank you. Kouber (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we deny the inclusion of fiction in this article. We actually want valid facts, not fringe theories. This article is already a mouthpiece for parts of the fringe theories, such as Borisov's quote, which actually breaks WP:Fringe, or Svante Cornell's views. Your sources either come from Neocon or Neocon sponsored groups, or people who hate Putin and/or Russia. Our sources come from the rest of Planet Earth. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Putin must read your words HistoricWarrior007, I bet he doesn't know that the entire Planet Earth admires him (except some veeery bad neocon guys, of course). And, no, the fictitious claims made in this war indeed came primarily from his administration, not to mention that the Georgian-Ossetian relations started to worsen exactly after he came to power. A coincidence?... Yeah, right. Also, based on your continuous citing of Svante Cornell, which you desperately tried to disprove so poorly in the past, I believe you listened to my advice - to learn how to use dictionaries. Oh, let me guess - your new favourite word is "fringe", isn't it? Kouber (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said "everybody loves Putin". My argument was that Neocon Propaganda, such as that written by Svante Cornell and Company is a fringe view. I have quoted, in earlier statements, many people who disagreed with Putin. For instance I've quoted the US Ambassador as saying "Russia had to respond but they went too far". I quoted Nicolas Sarkozy as speaking out against Putin "holding Saakashvili by the balls". That would've been a difficult task, hard to hold someone by such tiny handles. I've pointed out, or I think I might have, when MSNBC disagreed with Putin. I have accepted the fact that 150 million in property damage of civilian homes wasn't vital to victory, another anti-Putin fact.

What I disagree with are quotes of sheer stupidity. For instance Svante Cornell's claim that Russia won due to sheer numbers, whereas in reality Georgian forces in South Ossetia outnumber Russian forces, until the former were routed. With Svante Cornell's statement of how Russians have continuosly taken out Georgian homes, via continuos firing, which never took place. With Pavel Felgenhauer's statement that the war was planned in April, and no evidence offered. When I asked to see a pro-Russian source on Siegel's quote, I was told to "trust in the wisdom of the New York Times" - the newspaper that raised panic in the US via claiming that there are WMDs in Iraq and Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda. I repeatedly kept on asking for a primary source, and an edit-war ensued instead.

And than there's Svante Cornell's fiction, with the book's premise being that Saakashvili acted "too diplomatically for his own good" and statements that he "didn't commit a blunder". Riiight. Attacking a well prepared Russian Peacekeeping Force on De Facto Russian soil, with high quality Russian Army units standing on alert a few miles away, without leaving a single unit in reserve, is not a blunder? Or wait, I get it, that's a diplomatic action. It's called "agressive negotiations". When Georgia shoots civilians it's "to preserve territorrial integrity", when Russia shoots the military that's shooting said civilians, that's called "violation of international law".

Those are the sources I'm fed up with. It's bad for America, because now there's no superior pressure that the US can apply against Russia; the US Media that so many Russians trusted, has taken that trust and dumped it. Over what? What was the gain? It's sucks for the average Russian, because now, where does he/she go for news, to get another perspective? Not CNN, not Fox News, not Sky News, that's for sure. It sucks for the average American too, because we also lost trust in the media, at least regarding Russia. And the media knows it, that's why now Russia is only mentioned in passing, very briefly, and usually, negatively. It sucks for Obama, the man I voted for, (granted it wasn't a tough choice after McCain's 10,000 year in Iraq quote and Palin as a pick), but it sucks for Obama, because he needs Russia's support in Afghanistan, and it's waning. The US War in Afghanistan isn't "the boy who cried wolf" like the US War in Iraq is, but Russia might lose trust altogether. Not to mention that Medvedev is as good as it gets for the US, because any other leader, or a person who can take the presidency in Russia, is more Anti-US than Medvedev. BTW, his name is Medvedev, not Med, just an FYI for the ignorant ones.

But to Neocon media outlets, none of that matters. The media is the Neocons' last weapon. They need the Americans to be scared, so they'll be inventing new ways for Americans to be scared, and what better country to play bogeyman, than Russia, the ebil Empire that's coming back *insert evil music here*? It's the exact same scare propagated by the Neocons in terms of the War in Iraq, it's identical! With scared Americans you can invade other countries, neglect vital infrastructure, deregulate loans, and turn one's fellow countrymen into wage slaves. The thing that annoys me the most, is that the exact same outlets that mislead Americans to believe that WMDs are in Iraq, are doing it again, turning Russia into a ebil bogeyman. If you don't believe me, here's the peice by Felgenhauer about Iraq that I cited earlier, where the summary is: "If you don't invade Iraq or support the invasion, you are appeasing Hitler!" http://www.cdi.org/russia/244-4.cfm And in a similar manner, Svante Cornell uses scare tactics to goad the US into a Cold War with Russia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/17/russia-georgia-obama Except Svante Cornell isn't so subtle about his scare tactics, he likes to hit it right on: "The move served to kill the last remaining international organisation...stage provocations against its small neighbour with impunity... to undermine western interests in Europe and Eurasia...The August war generated fear and horror across much of Europe, and pledges of aid and support to Georgia were swift to follow...Many scholars have now shown that Russia's invasion of Georgia was long in the planning (just like the many "intelligence reports" that showed WMDs in Iraq, the many "scholars" are not named)...there is little doubt Moscow provoked the conflict to bully its neighbours into submission...Simply put, Moscow has not finished its job. (A brazen lie, culminating fear provocations, so typical of Neocon tactics. Russia wants a stable Caucasian Region, not a destablized one, they're happy with the status quo and want to keep it. Considering the job of pacifying the Caucasian Region was accomplished, it's kinda hard to pretened that the job, that was accomplished, wasn't finished, but Neocons are Neocons.) Kill, stage provocations, undermine, fear and horror.

Those are wonderful adjectives to use. Let me try: "Svante Cornell wants to kill the relationship between the Russian and American armies in Afghanistan. With his anti-Russian articles, he calls on President Barack Obama to stage provacations against Russia, and to undermine the joint efforts against Al Qaeda. Svante Cornell's articles are written to spread a false sense of fear and horror against Russia, for fear that Russia might deprive his oil company of business, and horror that he might actually have to work for a living like the rest of us". How did I do? At least I was honest. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we went too far off the topic. My initial proposal was to remove useless claim denials, not to include new things. That proposal, however, wasn't accepted so far.

Nevertheless, I propose you read the last book of Cornell. The words you're questioning concerning miscalculation are part of a conclusion of an entire chapter (by David J. Smith). The meaning of that sentence was not to deny Saakashvili's possible wrong decisions, but to point out the main reason for the war - Russian political decisions taken long before the war erupted. In another chapter (by another author) of the same book, for example, Saakashvili's actions are described as possibly foolish, but definitely not criminal, etc. The book is rich in different analysises and points of view.

I'd skip your de facto Russian soil and other fictitious fantasies without any comment. Kouber (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a fictitious comment. South Ossetia was always De Facto Russian soil, or at least parts of the country were. No one denies that, except you and a few others of similar analytical capabilities. As to the book, I'm reminded of a quote by Stephen Colbert: "Fox news always gives you two sides, the President's (George Bush's) and the Vice President's (Dick Cheney's)". It's similar to Cornell's book which gives similar analysis, ranging from Saakashvili's to Yushenko's. Shelling your own civilians with BM-21 Grad missiles is not criminal?! So if I'm the government of whereever it is that you live, I get to shell your house with rockets all day? And get away with it, as long as I brand you a rebel and have strong support? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reneem, Please Discuss Your Edits

First, Georgia didn't have 17,000 men. They had up to 17,000 men. The number is 12,000 to 16,000 men in South Ossetia and 1,000 men in Abkhazia. Second, titles are capitalized. Third, we do not talk about bombing runs in the Order of Battle. As I've argued earlier, the total number was up to 10,000 soldiers, and as such cannot be 11,700 soldiers. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss your edits they will be undone. Also, we don't cite Misplaced Pages as proof. The Georgian soldiers were up to 16,000 in South Ossetia. The Russian soldiers were up to 10,000. The Ossetian soldiers were up to 3,000. We don't know the exact composition of the troops, because neither country has published that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please bring sources for your edits

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=314480417&oldid=313933401

A ton of unsourced additions. Please add sources. --Xeeron (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the information he is adding seems correct. The sources he seems to be using are elsewhere in the article. Looks like this user just doesn't know how to use inline citations. Offliner (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might be correct, or it might be taken from some unrelable webblog. The problem is that Reneem has been adding unsourced content for over a year now and he seems unable or unwilling to change. I hate undoing edits that could be legit, but if these edits stay and are forgotten, it becomes even harder to check whether they are legit. --Xeeron (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reneem has been warned repeatedly. His edits aren't against NPOV, but they're unsourced, and that is his only problem. So at this point, I think anyone can remove them. Speaking of sources, September is almost up, what do we do with the EU-Commission? Bump it back again? http://en.wikipedia.org/2008_South_Ossetia_war#EU_investigation_commission HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not kidding. Once September expires, I'm deleting that section. I don't want the article to have outdated sources. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with this report? Is it coming out or not? Any news? LokiiT (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It comes out on the last day of September. Offliner (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the quick response. LokiiT (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

=Before Placing Pictures, make sure they are ok to use!

Like Totally! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Colchicum

You claim that there is no way that Venezuela's recognition comes as a result of the war. I differ. When Russians recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Independent Republics, Medvedev was crystal clear that the main reason was Saakashvili's attack. So tell me Colchicum, do you honestly believe that had Russia not recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia, miraculously Venezuela would? Venezuela's recognition stems from Russia's recognition, which is a direct result of the war. Had there been no war, there would be no Russian recognition. Had there been no Russian recognition, there would be no Venezuelan recognition. There's a clear and direct chain of events here, where one can say that, had there been no war, there would be no Venezuelan recognition. Hence Venezuelan recognition is a direct result, via a chain of direct events, that were all started by Saakashvili's failed attack on August 7, 2008. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This may be Very Interesting, but your source doesn't support your claim and I am not interested in sharing our beliefs. Colchicum (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, please don't make us prove the obvious: unless Saakashvili started the war on August, 7, 2008, noone would have recognized SO and A by now. Please see the source that links the two. FeelSunny (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is as obvious that if not for August 1914, the history would be vastly different, so what? Is that a reason to pollute infoboxes with garbage? By the way, the source you guys use doesn't support your claim at all. Have you seen the edit you are defending? Well, let the facts speak for themselves. Also beware of looking ridiculous in advance with that "started the war" story, for the report is forthcoming. Colchicum (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As to Xinhua, it doesn't link the two either. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy on your part, not Xinhua's. Colchicum (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are you going with the 1914 story? If you have 6 Empires, all wanting land, you are going to have a World War between them, sooner or later. I have stated two direct facts. Let's try this again: Fact #1: Russia recognized South Ossetia as a result of the 2008 South Ossetia War. Fact #2: Venezuela would not have recognized South Ossetia, had Russia not recognized South Ossetia. Legal inference: Venezuela recognized South Ossetia, as a result of Russia's actions. Why is this so complicated to follow? I mean you are asking me to prove that 2 + 2 = 2 * 2. Here, I'll do a timeline that's been accepted by everyone:

August 7, 2008: Saakashvili moves his troops into South Ossetia; August 16, 2008: 2008 South Ossetia War ends in a major victory for Russia; August 26, 2008: Russia recognizes South Ossetia's Independence; September 5, 2008: Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia; September 10, 2009: Venezuela recognizes South Ossetia.

Now that timeline is accepted by everyone. Your claim Colchicum, states that the latter event in the timeline is unrelated to the two preceding events. Common sense argues otherwise. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I must add that this direct chain of events seems completely logical to me and this source backs it up. Therefore, I agree with HistoricWarrior and FeelSunny. Colchicum, just re-examine this source and think about it, and you'll utimately come to the same logical conclusion. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So if any other country recognizes South-Ossetia and Abkhazia in future they will be all piled up there? You can build up massive chain of events with that logic but infobox is not really a proper place to explain whole aftermath of conflict to every last detail. I dont see Kosovo's declaration of independence and 63 states that have recognized it in infobox of Kosovo War, although we could build very realistic chain of events there too.--Staberinde (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I get to argue with 100% of the facts on my side! This never happened before! Will I win? Kosovo wasn't recognized as a result of the Kosovo War. It was recognized as a result of the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, and recognized incorrectly, but I'll let the ICJ tackle that matter. If you'd actually bother to read the article on the Kosovo War, you'd notice that it ended on July 11th, 1999. The first recognition of Kosovo came from Afghanistan, a country deeply interested in the affairs of Europe, and under no influence from the Bush Administration, on February 18th, 2008. In addition there is no direct link between Kosovo War and the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. South Ossetia declared independence in relation to the 1991-1992 South Ossetia War, but this call was ignored by the International Community, that deeply cared about the Caucasian Region and wasn't more interested in stealing Russian oil reserves, or those belonging to the five CIS Stans. Just as in the Kosovo War, there is no direct link between the 1991-1992 South Ossetia War, and the international recognition of South Ossetia. (The parts in italic are written in an extremely sarcastic tone.)

Now going back to the 2008 South Ossetia War; the result of the war was Russia's Recognition. Unlike the Kosovo War, or the 1991-1992 South Ossetia War, the result here was direct. Russia clearly stated that the recognition came as a result of Saakashvili's actions on August 7th and throughout the war. Venezuela stated that they are recognizing South Ossetia "jointly ". When you recognize a country jointly, that means you agree with the others' actions and reasoning, but you needed a bit more time to study the issue. A year isn't that much when it come to International Recognition; Luxembourg, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are still working out their differences over the Benes Decrees. Russia recognized South Ossetia as a result of the 2008 South Ossetia War. Venezuela agrees with Russia's reasoning. Thus Venezuela recognized South Ossetia as a result of the 2008 South Ossetia War. Ergo, the Kosovo War example fails, as there is no direct link. First you have the Kosovo War, then there's an attempt at compromise, with Thaci doing everything to kill that attempt, then, as a result of no compromise, Kosovo declares independence. In our case, independence was already declared. A war has already been fought, yet no International Recognition came. Then there was a war. Right after the war, as a direct result, there was International Recognition. Come on guys, this isn't rocket science! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is amusing. Well, I knew that using Kosovo as example may bring some ramble that mostly ignores my main point, but this even surpasses my expectations. My previous comment here consisted of 3 sentences, you gave 2 paragraph reply to last and least importnant one, while ignoring first 2 ones.--Staberinde (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, your first one was very silly. If 63 countries recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I'm sure we can have some form of regional grouping, or cite the most important ones, and link the rest to a newly created article. Your first point deals with technicalities; we are able to handle technical edits as Misplaced Pages editors. It's a lot easier to do Wiki-Programming, especially under the Wiki-Templates, than it is to come to an NPOV conclusion. Furthermore, I have clearly stated that the placement of the recognitions was valid, via a single direct link. There is no mass chain of events. Georgia moves troops into South Ossetia and loses, Russia recognizes South Ossetia as a result of the war and the war's victory, Venezuela recognizes South Ossetia as a result of South Ossetia's victory in the war and Russia's recognition.

The reason that you are able to produce no more than two-three sentences, is because 100% of the facts are on my side, which leaves you scrambling to find an irrelevant fact, question simple technical issues, and make comments without logic. Of course my comments will be longer, as it's very, very easy to write long comments, with 100% of the facts on your side. In addition, at this point, people are e-mailing me that they're reading the section for sheer amusement purposes, so I do put in a bit of, shall we say, fun. I mean you're linking an irrelevant war, a technical issue and a non existent, indirect chain of events. A direct chain of events is where, as a result of a single event, nothing but a supernatural act or that of supreme human error, could interrupt the chain. An indirect chain is where events can go either way. There's a huge difference of ten day recognition after the war, and ten year recognition after the war. There are such things as "joint recognition" - i.e. a recognition as a result of the initial recognition's justification that are directly linked, and "simple recognition" - where countries make the call, not for the same reason as the initial recognizing country, but for their own purposes.

Sure you could construct a chain of the Kosovo War, but had Howard Dean won the Democratic nomination, Kosovo would've gotten didly squat, whoopsie, there goes your chain. In our case, the link is direct. Once August 7th through August 16th occurred, the way they occurred, there is virtually nothing, save a supernatural event or a supreme and grave human error, (Bush launching nukes) that would prevent Russia from recognizing South Ossetia. Furthermore, had Russia not recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia, no other country would. So yes, there's a single, direct link, which qualifies as the reason for the future recognitions being a direct result of the 2008 South Ossetia War, provided that recognition is done "jointly" with Russia's recognition, as Venezuela's was, and we have Chavez's quote on that! Sorry about the three paragraphs, that took me a whopping ten minutes to type. Straberinde, arguments are simple: first get more than zero percent of the facts on your side, then argue. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding onto what HistoricWarrior said, if that was your main point, Staberinde, it just goes to show how few facts and technical details support your argument. It just seems logical to arrange things in this sort of manner. Remember, resistance to logic is futile... My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reneem

Yes, I know there were 600 peacekeepers. There were also an addition 500 peacekeepers from the South Ossetian Force, making their number 3,000 total. But this information belongs in the Order of Battle, not in the infobox. And also 300 men from Battalions Vostok and Zapad fought. And 200 men from the 104th. And 1700 total from the 135th. But that information doesn't belong in the infobox. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Permanent edit-warring

Guys, I've watched this as an uninvolved administrator from a distance now for several weeks. The editing situation in this article is absolutely unacceptable. For as long as I've been able to follow, more or less throughout this whole year, there has been hardly a single day where the same small group of editors has not been revert-warring against each other on this article. I strongly suggest you agree on something like an editing moratorium for a while and instead sit down together to work out why it is that this toxic situation persists, and what to do against it. If this doesn't soon improve radically, I am thinking to remove the lot of you from this article for good, on both sides of the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator watching the article, you may be interested in the discussion about the group of users, some of whom seem to be active in editwarring in this article. The case is now being investigated by the arbcom. possibly the discussion would help you to understand why the heat level in the article is quite high.FeelSunny (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that case, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I recall your time here as an "uninvolved editor", trying to take away parts of the MDB from the analysis, using mysterious Misplaced Pages Policies, that later turned out not to exist. "Surprisingly", the parts you were trying to take away, just happened to be pro-Russian. Also, the current "edit-warring" in this article, compared to what it used to be, is laughable at best. In terms of Reneem, most of his edits get reverted, because he doesn't follow Misplaced Pages's etiquette, doesn't cite sources for the most part, and places what should be in the ORBAT only, in the general infobox. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Fut.Perf., do I understand it right you're going to substitute Biophys et al. here while the arbcom is considering it's decision?FeelSunny (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course if that's the case, the irony here is quite superb! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, FeelSunny, I will not take up the role of Biophys et al. Unlike them, I have no intention of editing this article, and will work in a purely administrative capacity. Also, I am as neutral about this conflict as any you'll find on this project. My one brief moment of involvement here, several months ago, concerned a mere technical detail of formatting; that does not bar me from acting as an uninvolved administrator. However, that little episode did play its small role in forming my opinion about the overall toxic nature of the situation here, and the reaction of you two guys just now has done little to change this opinion. Frankly, I believe this article will only be able to breathe once the whole cast of its regular editors is removed from it. Do something to convince me of the opposite, because otherwise that's exactly what's going to happen quite soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your previous edits, you cannot possibly be neutral on this issue. I have to get going, RL stuff, but I will get these edits later on. Suffice it to say, you thought that the Moscow Defense Brief offered was pro-Russian POV. So don't even bother making the "I'm neutral, here to stop the edit-wars" argument here. Also, there are no edit-wars at the moment, and the only possible one I see, is when the EU report comes out. Don't worry, I'll ensure that it's quoted verbatim. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Nixeagle tried full-protecting the article once, but it didn't help. The reason for most of the edit warring has been that there are many different versions of truth, about who is to blame for the war, etc. The different version and the editors supporting them have been fighting each other in the article. On 31 September a major EU investigation about the controversial aspects of the war will be released, which I hope will stop most of this, since I think most of the editors here will accept its results. Offliner (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: first off, there is no edit-war going on. Reverting Reneem is one thing that Xeeron and I agree upon. This isn't new, nor does this Constitute edit-warring. Reneem's edits aren't POVed, they are just done improperly, i.e. not per Misplaced Pages's rules; for instance placing information under the overall heading, vs. the subsection heading. Reneem isn't an experienced Wiki User; sometimes he vandalizes articles, but those are the result of Reneem's newbie mistakes, not his will to edit-war, or to vandalize Misplaced Pages. As an appropriate punishment, I have undone his edits, but haven't taken it up for further punishment, as that is unnecessary in my opinion. An edit-war usually result when a POV is in dispute, and two editors, or groups of editors, are going at it. The only thing here, is that instead of creating proper subsections, instead of using proper subsections, Reneem places it in the general infobox. That's not a blatant POV edit-war. In fact, there's no edit-war here. If anyone has actually been paying attention, the only thing that's "in dispute", is whether or not to include pictures of dead soldiers, a "dispute" that was decided earlier! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: what I do find interesting, is that right after FeelSunny started commenting on the Eastern European Discussion group, an admin, who is part of said group, shows up here, and threatens FeelSunny in the interest of preventing a non-existent edit war. Said person never even edited the article, except to show his "breadth of knowledge" by claiming that Moscow Defense Brief is a pro-Russian POV. Said person also, miraculously happens to be on that list: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Involved_parties. This looks like someone from a group, despite being busted, still hasn't learn their lesson, and continues with the cabal-like tactics, to drive editors, who dare to comment on what they perceive as injustice, from that discussion and from this article. I find this unacceptable. If this continues, another appeal to ArbCom is guaranteed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And this admin basically warns us all to leave his internets, or he would block everybody around. Cool.FeelSunny (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Stay away from my Internets! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfga4bFIUoc HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think I was part of that e-mail list, you are mistaken: I am only listed as a party to that case because I incidentally helped bust the list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So how does it change the nature of your threats on this page? Frankly, I do not understand your reasons behind this post about "removing" established editors in "casts" from the article. Unwelcoming attitude towards an admin that is on the mailing list, and still comes to this very controversial article (which has come to a very fragile peace in the last several months) and starts talking about some "situation in the article" that is being "unacceptable" (what is unacceptable? for whom? why? have you consulted the history page? have you compared it to the current "unacceptable" situation? what do you want to acheive by starting such a discussion?) - this unwelcoming attitude can hardly be a reason for threatening anyone. Not to say such threats would most probably not frighten anyone, and messages of such nature would most probably not make anyone more cooperative.FeelSunny (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you still repeating that untruth about me being on that mailing list? I just told you I wasn't. And what is unacceptable about the situation here is the level of edit-warring, quite simple. I'm still in the process of trying to work out who bears the largest share of responsibility for it, but I note that the very editor who was so loudly claiming there was no edit-war here was busy continuing the same type of edit-war against the same opponents just on the neighbouring article only yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, my bad English, I intended to say "a party in the mailing list case". On the "neighbouring article" - perhaps we can alter the wording and call the "neighbouring article" a "POV fork" instead? And perhaps removal of this POV fork was denied by the coordinated actions of the group of users in mailing list, which you are not in? Have you asked yourself these questions? Why do you not want to wait for the arbcom's decision on the group's activity before coming to a (possibly) affected article proposing strong measures? Yet one question - why do you need to come to this article with accusations, when the problem turns out to be in the "neighbouring" one? Again, is there an editwarring going on here right now? Please could you give recent examples? For you have come to the talkpage of the 2008 South Ossetia war, not the Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia. Your logic completely evades me, Future Perfect at Sunrise.FeelSunny (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to emphasise Offliner's point above: The previous full block of the article did not help at all. And despite the high occurance of reverts, this article has been constantly and considerably improved over the last months. Most contentious points that were heavily reverted have since settled down in a version acceptable to both sides (let me point to , where the lastest "edit war" occured, which now seems to have found a stable version). Furthermore, if you compare the edits of "regular" editors with those of "non-regular" editors at this page, you will find that those by non-regular editors are as bad or at times worse in terms of NPOV. The main issue at hand is improving the civility of the talk page discussions such that the talk page becomes an avenue of improving the article again. --Xeeron (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier. And Xeeron is correct, in my opinion. "The main issue at hand is improving the civility of the talk page discussions such that the talk page becomes an avenue of improving the article again." Full page protections, blocking editors, etc. are unnecessary as there is little evidence that either revert- or edit-warring is occurring. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree in part, and disagree in part. User:NixEagle was correct to block this page, twice, as it enabled a cool down period and better editing. However, I agree with Laurinavicius, that, unless people are part of a secret cabal or are being paid to edit Misplaced Pages, in groups, via certain special interests, there is no point in blocking users prior to going to ADR. As per civility, you have to realize that this is a heated article, where mistakes and harsh edits will be made, that's the nature of writing about a recent war that was improperly portrayed by the mass media, Russian as well as Western, although CNN, New York Times and Rupert Murdoch owned media get the gold by far, in that department. And the dumbest awards go out to Svante Cornell and Pavluysha Felgenhauer, who predicted that the war will be a tough one for Russia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I need to take back the part about the latest edit war I linked above, seems the direct quote is not the stable version yet. --Xeeron (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The direct quote is an interpretation, that is being used, because you are pretending that Russia recognized South Ossetia, nor as a result of Georgia's attacked, but as a result of South Ossetia's inquiry to be recognized. When I asked you why the earlier inquiries were rejected, instead of answering the question, you hid behind a direct quote from a source that you like; however the source was an interpretation, not the original. You seriously think that, had there been no war, Russia would've still recognized South Ossetia? Because that's the argument you are making, hiding behind a quote. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. An administrator is threatening to block a group of users who are almost entirely responsible for the article in its current form, simply because of the unavoidable fact that the topic is controversial and there are parties on both sides who are adamant that the article stay neutral from their view? So what would you rather, one person or one group with coinciding views to edit it to their liking with no disruptions? Your logic is incomprehensible to me. There's no such thing as a neutral editor. It's important that there are disputes and arguments, as that's the only way neutral articles on controversial subjects can exist on wikipedia - compromise by both opposing sides.

The worst articles on wikipedia are those of controversial subjects in which like-minded editors have free reign. Have you actually taken a look at some of the articles the people on that mailing list edited that didn't get any opposition?LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps another "stellar" quote for Felgenhauer, the very person who Future Perfect's actions can bring into this article again, is in order: Now, the Russians are back in Afghanistan in force. "We never left," said Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based military analyst. "Officially, Russia is not involved. Unofficially, it is". So perhaps someone can show me proof of Russia being in Afghanistan in 1997? 1996? 1995? Also, if Russia was involved in Afghanistan, even unofficially, it would be all over the press. Russia is just providing logistical support to US forces in Afghanistan, a fact that was all over the press. There may have been some arguments that Russian Special Forces might be in Afghanistan; but then again, I can make an argument that Russian Special Forces are in any country. Felgenhauer has not a centilla of evidence to back up his conspiracy theory.

Another quote, from Hahn, lest we forget: Felgenhauer’s reliance on the conspiracy theories surrounding the Chechen jihadists’ long-planned invasion of Dagestan in 1999 further undermine his interpretation. The Russian did not need to goad jihadists like Shamil Basaev and global jihadist and al Qaeda operative Khattab to attack Dagestan. The Chechen and foreign jihadists had been conspiring with Dagestan jihadists’ for well over a year to establish an Islamic jamaat/caliphate in several Dagestani villages and months before their attack were declaring their intention to do so. The same conspiratorial approach surrounds that period’s Moscow and Volgadonsk apartment bombings, for which both Basaev and Khattab took responsibility by acknowledging that Dagestanis had carried it out.

The Dagestan War was the trigger for the Second Chechen War. In order to pull the trigger, you actually need a gun, unless you're Pavel Felgenhauer. He can read Putin's mind and know that Putin will attack. The above-mentioned conspiracy theory was orchestrated by Boris Berezovsky, a notorious anti-Russia hack. Knowing full well that he cannot win an honest election in Russia, Berezovski suggested a Revolution, to bring his majesty to power. It is said that, in contrast to Russian entrepreneurs such as Vladimir Gusinsky, Berezovsky did not enrich any of the enterprises with which he became involved or took over (e.g. Sibneft, ORT, the car dealership Avtovaz, Omsk Oil Refinery, National Sports Fund, and aluminum smelters Bratsk, Krasnoyarsk, and Novokuznetsk), but instead drained them of cash. http://www.scribd.com/doc/13835442/The-Russian-Kleptocracy-and-Rise-of-International-Organized-Crime-by-Johanna-Granville

Clearly, users who use the talkpage to discredit such pests, must be banned from the article, so that the Moscow Defense Brief quotes get shortened, and the Felgenhauers are edited into the article. If you cannot beat them at honest debates on the talkpage, ban them. Good tactics, user:Future Perfect at Sunrise. But the rest of us would prefer to edit this page without interference, and if we need help, we will go to ADR first, that's been the consensus here, for over a year. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting link

Now that Xeeron was kind enough to offer us all the Jamestown Organization's side of the story, let's get the story of the actual people being present there, and not those critiquing form afar: http://cominf.org/en/archive/all/2008/8/8. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Note on Roy Allison

I think it's interesting how he calls Russia's Operation "Coerce Georgia to Peace" whereas the real name was "Force Georgia to Peace". Interesting, and totally "NPOV" verb change there. And Roy Allison publishes books with a certain Svante Cornell. Also, he's the same guy who said something about Russia and US not cooperating on Afghanistan, and I've yet to find Reality backing up that assertion. Thoughts? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No special thoughts, really. This thing is called variation of language, more precise - a lexical variation.

You can have a "charged" question, charged with a certain presupposition, like "Have you quit smoking so much when you're high on crack?" (double charged question here,I know:)).

There are also charged words. Another language level, same sh*t, basically:) You can say "separatists", or "insurgents", or "freedom fighters", or "extremist fanatics", or "mujaheddin". And every word will depict one and the same group. And each word here would have different presuppositions. Anyone would support "freedom fighters", but who would like to send Stingers to "extremist fanatics"? Guess when would the Western press cease calling mujaheddin "freedom fighters"?:) Right:))

There is enough information on how media use variation on Misplaced Pages. For example, one may start here, here, here, or here. FeelSunny (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

CASULTIES !!!!

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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• The later stage of the Russian attack was disproportionate and unjustified
• Ethnic cleansing of Georgians took place, but Russia cannot be held responsible

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)

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. 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)

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)

Shortening the intro

I propose we cut this from the intro:

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

This is actually not about the 2008 SO war, and the intro is too large as it is. Plus, we have this information in the "prelude" section in the beginning of the article.FeelSunny (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to summarize the background material in the lead as well. Maybe there is a shorter way to write all this, but for now I would leave that paragraph be. I don't think the intro itself is too large yet. But some parts of it are clumsy (especially the quoted paragraph) and should be rewritten eventually. Offliner (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Article split and reduction

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

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

"

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

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

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

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

Passport issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing Reuters facts

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

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

• 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