Georgia

[KimyReizeger]

That's still a much further encroachment into the country than was necessary. It's understandable that such an action could be seen as disproportionate.

.

Disproportionate in comparison to, say, the unprovoked Georgian attack on South Ossetia? Slightly hypocritical of the Georgian president and US administration to denounce the Russians as simple, black-and-white 'evil' when it was Georgia's initial attack that gave rise to Russia's actions.

[framheim]

Disproportionate in comparison to, say, the unprovoked Georgian attack on South Ossetia? Slightly hypocritical of the Georgian president and US administration to denounce the Russians as simple, black-and-white 'evil' when it was Georgia's initial attack that gave rise to Russia's actions.

it was provoked wasn't it? as far as i was aware the south osseetians haven't just been sitting around hoping to become independent. they had recently shelled georgian positions or did i just imagine i'd read that somewhere(this is highly possible, i've been awfully tired recently).

but i think the consensus is that the retaliatory assault was pretty extreme and the behaviour of some of the georgian troops questionable.

[KimyReizeger]

I certainly haven't read that, and it sounds like a fairly important detail, the kind of which would be repeated over and over were it true. Possibly a rumour or something? As far as I'm aware, the Georgians marched into SO in an attempt to consolidate a flaky position there.

[all_his_engines]

I certainly haven't read that, and it sounds like a fairly important detail, the kind of which would be repeated over and over were it true. Possibly a rumour or something? As far as I'm aware, the Georgians marched into SO in an attempt to consolidate a flaky position there.

Of course, far be it from the British press to omit important details.

[KimyReizeger]

Of course, far be it from the British press to omit important details.

Presumably you know better then?

[Cloud]

Presumably you know better then?

I don't think anyone does know better, this is the thing. The BBC reported that Georgia invaded after low level tit for tat attacks between the Ossetians and Georgians - so it may be that Saakashvili thought he'd be able to use the Olympics as pretext to get away with an invasion, particularly at a time when national pride would be running high.

People are asking questions about Saakashvili's mental health though - did he seriously expect Russia to stand back and do nothing?

I think the only thing that's certain is that he's lost South Ossetia to Russia now.

[KimyReizeger]

I don't think anyone does know better, this is the thing. The BBC reported that Georgia invaded after low level tit for tat attacks between the Ossetians and Georgians - so it may be that Saakashvili thought he'd be able to use the Olympics as pretext to get away with an invasion, particularly at a time when national pride would be running high.

People are asking questions about Saakashvili's mental health though - did he seriously expect Russia to stand back and do nothing?

I think the only thing that's certain is that he's lost South Ossetia to Russia now.

He possibly thought the West would do more, despite his war being an unjustified, pointless waste of human life.

[Panda Strong]

What a mess this situation is! Georgia are to blame, really. Their terribly planned misadventure has come fully circle, stopping on the way to fill up on gas. Russia are being pretty cocky though. They signed that thing to say they'd remove their forces immediately and while i'm no military expert; from what i've seen / heard...that's not happening. I suppose there's little incentive on Russia's part? I mean, what will actually happen if they don't? Hearing the French foreign secretary earlier, he doesn't seem to have any idea either. NATO is a joke, and has been for aggeeessss.

[all_his_engines]

Presumably you know better then?

For me, it's clear that the BBC is not 100% reliable as an unbiased news source. I've seen coverage of British headlines on American TV that includes many elements omitted from BBC coverage of the same events. Also, look at the stories on many world news items from the BBC and comprare them to the same stories on Al-Jazeera. There are often discrepancies which do not cast BBC reporting in a trustworthy light. Of course I don't know better, I've never even been to Georgia! My point is that we should question the veracity of every new source, precisely because we can't be there.

My objection to what I perceive as disproportionate violence is a moral one, not a utilitarian one. A powerful, well-equipped army should not base it's level of retaliation on the transgressions of it's opponents and use them as a benchmark to be surpassed. They should look to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve the situation. Sometimes the minimum required is a little, sometimes it's a lot. But anything beyond it is merely bloody-minded sabre-rattling.

[KimyReizeger]

For me, it's clear that the BBC is not 100% reliable as an unbiased news source. I've seen coverage of British headlines on American TV that includes many elements omitted from BBC coverage of the same events. Also, look at the stories on many world news items from the BBC and comprare them to the same stories on Al-Jazeera. There are often discrepancies which do not cast BBC reporting in a trustworthy light. Of course I don't know better, I've never even been to Georgia! My point is that we should question the veracity of every new source, precisely because we can't be there.

.

Of course I don't believe everything I read, and of course I know news is often, if not always, selective. However, considering Britain appear to be taking a more hard-line stance towards Russia than, for example, Germany who criticised the US in its portrayal of Russia, I'd expect the British press more likely to emphasize a South Ossetia provocation as a reason for the Georgian attack than play it down. There's no point in sitting about making up theories off the top of our heads, rather than analysing the news and getting a balanced sense of whats happened.

A powerful, well-equipped army should not base it's level of retaliation on the transgressions of it's opponents and use them as a benchmark to be surpassed. They should look to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve the situation.

But the fact is Russia were never simply protecting South Ossetia, therefore you can't really base the proportion argument along these lines.