Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[reed11b]

It appears by following the mainstream press, that Georgia intiated the conflict with a heavy bombardment of a civilian city and the Russians responded. It is hard to be sympathetic to the Georgians based on this, but there seems to be some sympathy for them within the community. What am I missing?
Reed

[kaur]

reed11b asked:

What am I missing?

The covering of conflict by Western and Russian media has been very poor. Biased. If we talk about the beginning of attack, I have seen only 1 scene that shows Grad shooting in the middle of darkness. Russian TV says that this is Georgian one. Maybe this is Russian one or Ossetian one? Should we call NSA?

Due to the cyber attack Georgian MFA is sprading their info via blog and not their official site.

http://georgiamfa.blogspot.com/

[jmm99]

here is the Times' crystal ball

From The Sunday Times
August 10, 2008

‘Bodies are lying everywhere. It’s hell’

Mark Franchetti, Moscow
.......
Why does South Ossetia want to break away?

Most of its people speak their own language and feel closer to the Russians than the Georgians. They say they were absorbed into Georgia after the fall of the old Soviet Union. The 70,000 South Ossetians want independence – just like Kosovo, the breakaway Serbian province.

Why are the Georgians so upset about South Ossetia?

Because they see it as a Russian outpost funded largely from Moscow, and where most people carry Russian passports.

Why has Georgia’s president chosen to raise the issue now?

Because he thought everyone was focused on the Olympics and the Russians would hesitate to respond with force.

Why has Russia been willing to go to war?

The Kremlin is angry about western, particularly American military support for Georgia, its desire to join Nato and US plans for a missile defence shield in Europe.

Will anyone else intervene?

Unlikely, western armies are busy and the prospect of taking on Russia is not enticing.

What happens next?

The Georgians will back down looking like the bad guys. Both sides will go back to hating each other. Result: Russia 1, Georgia 0.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4493620.ece

Based on the CNN interview of Georgia's president (about an hour ago), the Times' end result may have some validity. He mentioned Czech 1968; I was thinking Hungary 1956 (when VOA & RFE made very sad listening).

PS:

from Wildcat
I knew I should have studied Russian in college...

I did (2 yrs), but 45 years ago. The month before 2nd year ended, our prof handed out a little Russian book (2nd grade reader), saying: "Now, for the rest of the course, you will learn how little Russian you know."

Helps to transliterate the Cyrillic and read Fuch's useful map - beyond that, I'm hopeless.

[Stevely]

It appears by following the mainstream press, that Georgia intiated the conflict with a heavy bombardment of a civilian city and the Russians responded. It is hard to be sympathetic to the Georgians based on this, but there seems to be some sympathy for them within the community. What am I missing?
Reed

Because this has been going on for some time, the Russians have been stirring the pot and IMO goading the Georgians into an action like this. The South Ossetians are armed, trained and sometime lead by Russian military (same as the Abkhazians) and lately, there have been cross-border incidents into Georgia. I think the Georgians had enough, but then badly miscalculated and thought they could settle things on the ground faster than the Russians could sort them out?

I am certain the Russians had plans for this months, if not years, in advance. There have been a steady stream of provocations over the last several months, that of course do not make the front page.

That's my take, and why I don't think it is a simple case of the Georgians being the bad guys.