S.Ossetia says over 1,000 dead after Georgian attack
captain.
MOSCOW, August 8 (RIA Novosti) - Over 1,000 civilians have been killed as
the result of an attack by Georgia on the capital of its breakaway republic
of South Ossetia, the North Ossetian nationalities minister said Friday.
"According to the South Ossetian information and press committee, the number
of fatalities is estimated, according to preliminary information, at over
1,000," Teimuraz Kasayev said.
North Ossetia is part of Russia.
Georgia launched a major offensive early Friday morning using tanks, combat
aircraft, heavy artillery and infantry.
Earlier Colonel Igor Konashenkov, an aide to the commander of the Russian
Ground Forces, said about 10 Russian peacekeepers were killed and 30 wounded
in the conflict zone.
The Russian Transportation Ministry's press service said Friday that Moscow
would cut air links with Tbilisi.
Georgian military forces have begun retreating from the capital, Tskhinvali,
the South Ossetian information and press committee said.
"Using grenade launchers [South] Ossetian local defense forces are
destroying Georgian tanks. According to eyewitnesses they [the tanks] are on
fire throughout the city," the committee said in a statement.
The statement also said that most of the city had been devastated by the
Georgian military attack, which left the hospital destroyed and the
republic's university on fire.
Andrzej Adam Filip
> S.Ossetia says over 1,000 dead after Georgian attack
>
> MOSCOW, August 8 (RIA Novosti) - Over 1,000 civilians have been killed as
> the result of an attack by Georgia on the capital of its breakaway republic
> of South Ossetia, the North Ossetian nationalities minister said Friday.
>
> "According to the South Ossetian information and press committee, the number
> of fatalities is estimated, according to preliminary information, at over
> 1,000," Teimuraz Kasayev said.
> [...]
Have they cared to provide names of the killed civilians?
Without *public* list of names I am inclined to treat it as a propaganda.
--
[pl>en Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : an...@priv.onet.pl : an...@xl.wp.pl
"If Diet Coke did not exist it would have been necessary to invent it."
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Dmitry
> Without *public* list of names I am inclined to treat it as a propaganda.
It could be. Yet, this is the recent history of the conflict (from
wiki):
"The influential South Ossetian Popular Front (Ademon Nykhas) was
created in 1988. On 10 November 1989, the South Ossetian regional
council asked the Georgian Supreme Soviet for the region to be
upgraded to that of "autonomous republic". In 1989 the Georgian
Supreme Soviet established Georgian as the principal language
countrywide.[15]
The Georgian Supreme Soviet adopted a law barring regional parties in
summer 1990. This was interpreted by Ossetians as a move against
Ademon Nykhas and led to Ossetians proclaiming South Ossetia a Soviet
Democratic Republic[17], fully sovereign within the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR). Ossetians boycotted subsequent Georgian
parliamentary elections and held their own contest in December. The
Georgian government headed by Zviad Gamsakhurdia declared this
election illegitimate and abolished South Ossetia's autonomous status
altogether on 11 December, 1990.[15]
Violent conflict broke out towards the end of 1991 during which many
South Ossetian villages were attacked and burned down as were Georgian
houses and schools in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. As a
result, approximately 1,000 died and about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians
fled the territory and Georgia proper, most across the border into
North Ossetia. A further 23,000 ethnic Georgians fled South Ossetia
and settled in other parts of Georgia.[18] Many South Ossetians were
resettled in uninhabited areas of North Ossetia from which the Ingush
had been expelled by Stalin in 1944, leading to conflicts between
Ossetians and Ingush over the right of residence in former Ingush
territory."
Wouldn't it be better to give them independence in the first place? I
can't recall any significant independence movement in Georgia proper
in the late 80's, nothing like we had in Baltic states. They got
their independence mainly by default, like Belarus and Tajikistan
did. Perhaps that's why they didn't have a concept of
independence.....situation in Abkhazia is not much different from
Khussar Iryston.
Many have predicted that there will be a follow up from "Kosovo" in
one place or another, most mentioned Transdniestria and Abkhazia, but
it happened in South Osetia first. I think by now everyone concerned
knows that "russkie" help is available. More interesting is that it
is very unlikely that any other party can put any significant pressure
on Russia. Bush is enjoying his stay in China and his international
political credibility has literally gone, mainly due to his war on
Iraq. Other American politicians are preoccupied with their domestic
issues, such as problems with economy, and of course forthcoming
elections. EU won't do much as it is dependent on Russian oil/gas.
Who else is going to raise their voice? China, who won't let Tibet
go, will keep quiet despite the common issue; they have "Olympic"
games on the run. Osama Bin Laden has no interest in this either.
Besides, now Russia has a "Kosovo" card for debates. Georgia has no
military capability to wrestle with Russia and NATO is not going to
step in either. There are other small things, like recent unrest in
Georgia proper and the government actions shown on news channels all
over the world. It was also interesting to hear Georgian president
saying that Georgia is the most developed democracy out of all ex-
Soviet Republics on BBC this morning. I can't see where Saakashvili
is going to get his support from; he may as well join scb and get few
cheers to build his confidence. I completely lost this guy when he
said: “it is not about Georgia, it is about Europe” on BBC – appealing
for military assistance through news channels???
Simultaneously it gives Medvedev a good chance to say to the people of
“russkieland”: “I am as good as Vladimir Vladimirovich”. And most
people in Russia will love him for that. So it is an easy political
gain for him.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
[deletions]
> Wouldn't it be better to give them independence in the first place? I
> can't recall any significant independence movement in Georgia proper
> in the late 80's, nothing like we had in Baltic states. They got
> their independence mainly by default, like Belarus and Tajikistan
> did. Perhaps that's why they didn't have a concept of
> independence.....situation in Abkhazia is not much different from
> Khussar Iryston.
Though there were profound differences between the Baltic movements
and the Transcaucasian movements -- one of which was the separatist
movements (especially in Abkhazia), another of which was disunity
among the Georgian leaders, and a third being the timing and extent of
the violence against the movement in Georgia -- you cannot say that
there was no significant independence movement in Georgia in the late
1980s.
In fact, there was a national movement already in 1978, defending the
status of the language with some success --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Georgian_demonstrations
A large demonstration on 9 April 1989 was attacked --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_9_tragedy
> Simultaneously it gives Medvedev a good chance to say to the people of
> “russkieland”: “I am as good as Vladimir Vladimirovich”. And most
> people in Russia will love him for that. So it is an easy political
> gain for him.
It has already been a significant indicator of the fact that Medvedev
is not in charge.
"The conflict in Georgia also appeared to suggest the limits of the
power of President Dmitri A. Medvedev, Mr. Putin’s hand-picked
successor. During the day, it was Mr. Putin’s stern statements from
China, where he was visiting the opening of the Olympic Games, that
appeared to define Russia’s position.
"But Mr. Medvedev made a public statement as well, making it unclear
who was directing Russia’s military operations. Officially, that
authority rests with Mr. Medvedev, and foreign policy is outside Mr.
Putin’s portfolio.
“'The war in Ossetia instantly showed the idiocy of our state
management'', said a commentator on the liberal radio station, Ekho
Moskvy. 'Who is in charge — Putin or Medvedev?'”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/world/europe/09georgia.html?hp
Regards,
/P
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
;snip]
> Georgia has no
> military capability to wrestle with Russia
Pavel Felgenhauer would disagree.
"Russia has made a choice that will drag it into a prolonged and
difficult war because mountains form a barrier between the region and
Russia, leaving only a one-road pass, closed off in the winter.
"It's a logistical nightmare to try to take South Ossetia back from
Georgia's quite good military," Felgenhauer said. "Massive Russian
intervention may turn out to be costly, not only in terms of human
costs ... it could be politically devastating for Russia's standing
and economy."
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3548662,00.html
/P
Andrzej Adam Filip
> On 9 Aug., 06:34, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> ;snip]
>
>> Georgia has no
>> military capability to wrestle with Russia
>
> Pavel Felgenhauer would disagree.
>
> "Russia has made a choice that will drag it into a prolonged and
> difficult war because mountains form a barrier between the region and
> Russia, leaving only a one-road pass, closed off in the winter.
As the last resort they can use air-lift.
Airlift can deliver a lot when (high) costs are not important:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade
> "It's a logistical nightmare to try to take South Ossetia back from
> Georgia's quite good military," Felgenhauer said. "Massive Russian
> intervention may turn out to be costly, not only in terms of human
> costs ... it could be politically devastating for Russia's standing
> and economy."
>
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3548662,00.html
>
> /P
>
> http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
As I understand Georgia "recaptured" *part* of South Ossetia.
From political perspective allowing Georgia to keep *PART* of South
Ossetia captured after *military attack by Georgia* may be a good way
to block Georgia's NATO aspirations (*warm* peace).
A good strategy for Russia may be:
a) keeping Georgia out of NATO
b) forcing Georgia into "arms race" *deadly* for Georgia's economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
Rank Country Military expenditures GDP% Date of information
1 North Korea 22.90% 2003 est.
2 Georgia 15.90% 2007 est
--
[pl>en Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : an...@priv.onet.pl : an...@xl.wp.pl
"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears."
-- The League of Sadistic Telepaths
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> Rank Country Military expenditures GDP% Date of information
> 1 North Korea 22.90% 2003 est.
> 2 Georgia 15.90% 2007 est
>
> --
> "A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears."
> -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths
I'm not sure whether it matters to NATO what the situation is -- just
having a situation is enough to derail MAP, I think.
Vladimir Socor at EDM (excerpted for educational purposes only):
----------------------
The goals behind Moscow’s operation are threefold, each with its own
time frame. The immediate goal is to re-establish the authority of
Russian-controlled negotiating and “peacekeeping” formats. By firing
on Georgian positions unremittingly and escalating the intensity of
the fire with every passing day, Moscow hopes to force Georgia to turn
to those Russian-controlled formats to relieve the pressure.
Furthermore, Moscow wants to force Tbilisi to acknowledge a leading
Russian role as “guarantor” of an eventual political settlement.
Moscow’s next goal, on a timeframe overlapping with the first, is to
capture Georgian-controlled villages in South Ossetia. The pattern of
attacks since August 6 indicate the intent to reduce the Sanakoyev
administration’s territory to insignificance or even remove it from
South Ossetia altogether. If successful, this undertaking may well be
replicated in upper Abkhazia by Russian and proxy forces attempting to
evict authorities loyal to Tbilisi.
The strategic political goal is to dissuade NATO from approving a
membership action plan (MAP) for Georgia at the alliance’s December
2008 or April 2009 meetings. More immediately, Moscow seeks to derail
the North Atlantic Council’s assessment visit to Georgia, scheduled
for September, or at least to influence the visit’s assessment about
Georgia’s eligibility for a MAP. Since NATO’s “Russia-Firsters” insist
that unresolved conflicts disqualify Georgia from a MAP, Russia seeks
to demonstrate that those conflicts are indeed unresolved. NATO’s
failure to approve a Georgian MAP at the April 2008 summit emboldened
Russia to escalate military operations against Georgia.
Moscow also seeks to bleed Georgia economically through protracted
military operations. Russia can not tolerate the successful economic
performance of a Western-oriented government on Russia’s border.
Aware, furthermore, that Georgia’s government is accountable to public
opinion, Moscow seeks to force the government to choose between
yielding at the risk of a domestic backlash or, alternatively,
fighting back in a costly confrontation
Resemblances with the Russian interventions in the early 1990s in
Transnistria and Abkhazia are unmistakable. In that scenario, the
Russian media create a hysterical, brink-of-war atmosphere, portraying
the small country targeted for attack as a dangerous aggressor.
Russian-armed proxy troops, already in place on the target country’s
territory, attack localities and seats of authority. Cossacks and
North Caucasus “volunteers” are sent in. Russian officials can claim
that the attackers act on their own, outside Moscow’s control. Russian
military intelligence coordinates the operation, while air and ground
forces provide cover and would intervene directly if the target
country defends itself. In the final stage of this scenario, Russian
“peacekeepers” perpetuate the gains achieved on the ground. Throughout
the crisis, most Western governments are confused and react
irrelevantly by urging restraint on “both sides,” ultimately
tolerating the Russian faits accomplis.
That scenario started unfolding in South Ossetia in late July. By
August 6 and 7, heavily armed proxy troops opened fire on Georgian
villages, while the secessionist authorities refused to talk with
Tbilisi. The attacking forces began destroying the transmission
antennae of Georgian mobile telephone systems. Arms and paramilitary
groups poured in from Russia to South Ossetia through the Russian-
controlled Roki tunnel. Russian officials in Georgia claimed that the
attacking forces were out of Russia’s control. Officials in Moscow,
meanwhile, justified the attacks directly and indirectly by accusing
Georgia of aggression (Interfax, Itar-Tass, Russian Television, August
4-7).
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373298
-------------------------------
Regards,
/P
MTRP™
> Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> > Peteris Cedrins wrote:
> > > Dmitry wrote:
> > >> Georgia has no military capability to wrestle with Russia
> > > Pavel Felgenhauer would disagree.
> > > "Russia has made a choice that will drag it into a prolonged and
> > > difficult war because mountains form a barrier between the region and
> > > Russia, leaving only a one-road pass, closed off in the winter.
> > > Georgia's quite good military," Felgenhauer said. "Massive Russian
> > > intervention may turn out to be costly, not only in terms of human
> > > costs ... it could be politically devastating for Russia's standing
> > > and economy."
> > > http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3548662,00.html
> > From political perspective allowing Georgia to keep *PART* of South
> > Ossetia captured after *military attack by Georgia* may be a good way
> > to block Georgia's NATO aspirations (*warm* peace).
> > A good strategy for Russia may be:
> > a) keeping Georgia out of NATO
> > b) forcing Georgia into "arms race" *deadly* for Georgia's economy
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditur...
> > Rank Country Military expenditures GDP% Date of information
> > 1 North Korea 22.90% 2003 est.
> > 2 Georgia 15.90% 2007 est
> time frame. [flush]
> That scenario started unfolding in South Ossetia in late July. By
> August 6 and 7, heavily armed proxy troops opened fire on Georgian
> villages, while the secessionist authorities refused to talk with
> Tbilisi. The attacking forces began destroying the transmission
> antennae of Georgian mobile telephone systems. Arms and paramilitary
> groups poured in from Russia to South Ossetia through the Russian-
> controlled Roki tunnel. Russian officials in Georgia claimed that the
> meanwhile, justified the attacks directly and indirectly by accusing
> Georgia of aggression (Interfax, Itar-Tass, Russian Television, August
> 4-7).
> http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373298
lol(ing)@felgenhauer_and_socor. Felgen = troll, Socor = liar (re:
heavily armed "proxy" troops opened fire on Georgian villages). All
sane sources reported that right on the Olymipic Day heavily armed (US-
proxy) Georgian troops opened fire and totally destroyed S. Ossetian
main city (whatever the name). Reportedly in the meantime Russian
heavily armed troops pushed them back though ... little wonder, given
that Georgians used to be (in)famous Lubyanka butchers, but lousy
fighters - they are no Chechens! But look, Petya, even Dropoutski
knows that Russian two-fold scenario is quite different. Their first
goal is to nuke Gori (where Stalin was born) and the second to nuke
Riga (ya know what I mean - the riflemen). Cuz nowadays the Russians
are being inspired by the Holy Bible (hint: Sodom and Gomorrah).
Dmitry
wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 06:34, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> ;snip]
>
> > Georgia has no
> > military capability to wrestle with Russia
>
> Pavel Felgenhauer would disagree.
>
> "Russia has made a choice that will drag it into a prolonged and
> difficult war because mountains form a barrier between the region and
> Russia, leaving only a one-road pass, closed off in the winter.
>
> "It's a logistical nightmare to try to take South Ossetia back from
> Georgia's quite good military," Felgenhauer said. "Massive Russian
> intervention may turn out to be costly, not only in terms of human
> costs ... it could be politically devastating for Russia's standing
> and economy."
This is predicting Iraq/Afghanistan/Chechnya scenario. There is,
however, a difference - Osetian population is not likely to support
Georgian military operations. The time will show of course, but I
don't think that Osetia will be another Vietnam. Putin/Medvedev
aren't stupid and the conflict has been going for many years now, I'm
sure they had enough time to figure out the details.
Dmitry
wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 06:34, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> [deletions]
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to give them independence in the first place? I
> > can't recall any significant independence movement in Georgia proper
> > in the late 80's, nothing like we had in Baltic states. They got
> > their independence mainly by default, like Belarus and Tajikistan
> > did. Perhaps that's why they didn't have a concept of
> > independence.....situation in Abkhazia is not much different from
> > Khussar Iryston.
>
> Though there were profound differences between the Baltic movements
> and the Transcaucasian movements -- one of which was the separatist
> movements (especially in Abkhazia), another of which was disunity
> among the Georgian leaders, and a third being the timing and extent of
> the violence against the movement in Georgia -- you cannot say that
> there was no significant independence movement in Georgia in the late
> 1980s.
>
> In fact, there was a national movement already in 1978, defending the
> status of the language with some success --
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Georgian_demonstrations
>
> A large demonstration on 9 April 1989 was attacked
You're right, I completely forgot about the events in Georgia in 89.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_9_tragedy
>
> > Simultaneously it gives Medvedev a good chance to say to the people of
> > "russkieland": "I am as good as Vladimir Vladimirovich". And most
> > people in Russia will love him for that. So it is an easy political
> > gain for him.
>
> It has already been a significant indicator of the fact that Medvedev
> is not in charge.
>
> "The conflict in Georgia also appeared to suggest the limits of the
> power of President Dmitri A. Medvedev, Mr. Putin's hand-picked
> successor. During the day, it was Mr. Putin's stern statements from
> China, where he was visiting the opening of the Olympic Games, that
> appeared to define Russia's position.
>
> "But Mr. Medvedev made a public statement as well, making it unclear
> who was directing Russia's military operations. Officially, that
> authority rests with Mr. Medvedev, and foreign policy is outside Mr.
> Putin's portfolio.
>
> "'The war in Ossetia instantly showed the idiocy of our state
> management'', said a commentator on the liberal radio station, Ekho
> Moskvy. 'Who is in charge -- Putin or Medvedev?'"
That is another matter, but Medvedev knows that his domestic
popularity is very much dependent on standing side by side with
Putin. 80% of Russian voters elected him because Putin nominated him.
Dmitry
NATO is not going to suddenly accept Georgia in the organisation,
particularly when it is in war with Russia (as Saakashvili recently
anounced).
> b) forcing Georgia into "arms race" *deadly* for Georgia's economy
It is hard to see anyone selling many arms to Georgia in current
situation. Bush and Medvedev have already exchanged their opinions
and it doesn't seem that Russia is going to settle on any less than
Georgians to pull out of South Osetia (similar to NATO vs Serbia
scenario).
Yorkshire Pud
> S.Ossetia says over 1,000 dead after Georgian attack
>
> MOSCOW, August 8 (RIA Novosti) - Over 1,000 civilians have been killed as
> the result of an attack by Georgia on the capital of its breakaway republic
> of South Ossetia, the North Ossetian nationalities minister said Friday.
In exactly the same way that Saddam went into Kuwait.
Andrzej Adam Filip
> On 9 Aug, 08:42, Andrzej Adam Filip <a...@polbox.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> As I understand Georgia "recaptured" *part* of South Ossetia.
>> From political perspective allowing Georgia to keep *PART* of South
>> Ossetia captured after *military attack by Georgia* may be a good way
>> to block Georgia's NATO aspirations (*warm* peace).
>>
>> A good strategy for Russia may be:
>> a) keeping Georgia out of NATO
>
> NATO is not going to suddenly accept Georgia in the organisation,
> particularly when it is in war with Russia (as Saakashvili recently
> anounced).
Smart leaders know how to put a new face a the topmost figurehead :-)
>> b) forcing Georgia into "arms race" *deadly* for Georgia's economy
>
> It is hard to see anyone selling many arms to Georgia in current
> situation. Bush and Medvedev have already exchanged their opinions
> and it doesn't seem that Russia is going to settle on any less than
> Georgians to pull out of South Osetia (similar to NATO vs Serbia
> scenario).
Fast "hostile take-over" by Georgia is almost for sure out.
I would not expect fast definitive solutions of "the issue".
--
[pl>en Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : an...@priv.onet.pl : an...@xl.wp.pl
I called my parents the other night, but I forgot about the time difference.
They're still living in the fifties.
-- Strange de Jim
newsN...@as-mail.cjb.net
...that US & EU went to Kosovo