Over 70% of South Ossetias population identifies as having 'Russian' heritage, and hold Russian passports, native Georgians are the minorities.
Actually your first claim is not true. Ossetians have a culture and heritage distinctive and separate from that of the Russians and neither they nor the Russians consider them to be Russian. Ethnic groups in that area are extremely ethnocentric and would never simply throw over their own for another, nor would they be welcome to by the Russians who consider their own ethnicity to be superior to all others in the region.
I know nothing about what passports Ossetians my hold, but believe you are referring to the Wikipedia quote:
By August 2008 more than 70% of the South Ossetia citizens had Russian citizenship.
Even Wikipedia states that there is no citation for this claim and that one is needed. Perhaps you have one? I would be most grateful indeed.
The fact that native Georgians are the minority in the region does not take away from the fact that there are no ethnic Russians in the region or that South Ossetia has belonged to Georgia since the Russian Revolution and remains a province of Georgia in the eyes of the international community.
The fact that the vast majority of South Ossetians and have infact sought to declare independence from Georgia constitutes a sovereignty crisis. Georgia has no legitimate claim over a people who do not recognise the Georgian state as sovereign over their territory, your proposal amounts to the nullification of South Ossetian self determination in the name of Georgian grandeur.
I agree that the desire of South Ossetians to break away from Georgia does indeed constitute a crisis. But an internal crisis which the EU has been encouraging both sides to resolve through negotiations. Russia's fanning of the flames by arming militants and its recent activities this past week are illegal and were unjustified, and only served to make matters worse by inflaming passions and anger on all sides even more, thus hardening positions and making a negotiated solution that much more difficult, if not close to impossible.
Your second statement says one thing with which I agree and one with which I absolutely do not agree.
Please try and remember that over one hundred years ago, there was a large segment of the United States which did not recognise the "state as sovereign over their territory" as well. We all know how that went for them. While I am a strong believer in a people's right to self-determination (I was in favour of Kosovo's independence, for example), there are ways in which such a determination may be expressed, and the South Ossetians have gone about it in entirely illegitimate and illegal ways.
The EU and the Council of Europe have set out easy to understand guidelines on how they would like to see this issue resolved. The South Ossetians and the Russians have refused to acknowledge this, and insist upon their own back-door underhanded tactics to achieve what they want.
The referendum they held was not observed by any independent monitors and so the results, as far as anyone can tell could very easily have been inflated. If one wishes to be recognised by the international community, one must follow international laws and norms. South Ossetia is not as big and powerful as Russia and so, unlike Russia cannot get away with flouting international laws.
You would normally expect someone at war to wait at the border for the enemy to send military units over at their leisure? I would have thought that in a state of war the proper course of action is to neutralise the enemies military and economic infrastructure thereby inhibiting their ability to continue the fight, do you not assign Georgia any responsibility for their actions and the consequences?
What you are describing is a pre-emptive war, something that has obviously worked so well for the Americans in Iraq, I can see why you would advocate for it.
Georgia and Russia were not in a state of war before the hostilities of 8 August began, so I do not understand the point you are trying to make here.
In answer to your last question, I of course do assign Georgia responsibility for their actions in South Ossetia. My contention, however, is that the matter should have remained an internal matter between Georgia and its rebellious province with NO interference from Russia. Sadly, however, that was not to be.
According to Globalsecurity.org:
Russia is seeking this confrontation, to provide an appropriate context for a resumption of spending on military hardware, which ended with the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Russia has opposed NATO membership for Georgia. Georgia's application for NATO membership was deferred in April 2008 due to the unresolved conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. By exacerbating these conflicts, Russia renders Georgia an un-appetising candidate for NATO membership. A decisive defeat for Georgia could also be seen as a defeat for the United States, and result in diminished American influence in the region.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/south-ossetia.htm
Another interesting quote from the same site:
According to Aslan Doukaev, the director of RFE/RL's North Caucasus Service, "For years, Russia has made repeated attempts to provoke Georgia into taking military action against its breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Behind that plan was a basic belief that a Georgian crackdown on these regions -- which was bound to cause destruction, civilian casualties, and an exodus of refugees -- would discredit Tbilisi in the eyes of its Western backers and cast permanent doubts on its aspirations to join NATO and the European Union. ... The Georgians finally obliged last week. .... Putin's statement on August 9 that the fighting in South Ossetia virtually demolished in Russia's eyes any claim Georgia formally had to the region, and that "a return to the status quo" is now impossible may backfire as it exposes Russia to charges of land grabbing and abetting separatism."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/south-ossetia-9.htm
Im sorry but how did Iraq pose a clear and present danger to American national security? It is absurd to think that the American government was legitimately under the impression that Iraq had a)WMD's and b)a delivery capability constituting a threat to America proper, and yet be willing to stage a ground invasion of a country with such a capability, known for the instability of its leader. The risk of such a venture would seem far too high in terms of relative gains for a realist country such as America, unless of course one takes into account the national interest of securing oil reserves.
Firstly, please read my statement again. I did say that I no further believed in the "justification" for the invasion of Iraq than you do. However, you apply far too much armchair logic to the realities of war and ego, the most dangerous of combinations.
America had and has superior fire-power over Iraq, even if there were WMD's. The fact is that the US thought they had the intelligence as to where these weapons could be found, and through their initial "shock and awe" campaigns ("bunker-busting bombs, etc.) had intended to immediately knock these out of commission thereby leaving Iraq with a conventional force only, and one which the Americans were quite confident could be overrun in no time. Peace on Earth, good will towards men by Christmas. Only not so much...
And anyone who believes that oil did not play a huge part in the decision to invade Iraq is just plain silly. The Bush Administration thought Saddam and Iraq would be easy pickings. They simply did not count on the other 28 million people living in Iraq wanting to have something to say about it.
If you would be kind enough to address my balance of power post above, particularly the notion that it is the very revival of the ballistic missile net plans that seems to have resparked russian aggression, it would be appreciated.
Let me see if I have got this correct.
Poor little Russia was just sitting around, minding its own business until mean ol' Bush came and made some suggestions about building some missiles in Europe and THEN Russia became aggressive? Is that your position?
My dear fellow, internal disputes and other issues within Russia have been driving their quixotic foreign policy from the very beginning.
From a November 2007 article:
Russia's foreign policy assertiveness, funded by revenues from natural resources, makes many believe that a new energy empire is on the rise. The country today is ruled by post-Soviet security and military elites that have internalized the jingoistic values of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. These elites view the outside world almost exclusively through the lens of economic and military might. They also use foreign policy as a tool to buttress domestic sup*port and to foster a perception that Russia is sur*rounded by enemies at a time when its democratic legitimacy is deteriorating.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/bg2084.cfm
A more recent article from June of 2008:
Despite its diminished status following the Soviet breakup in 1991, Russia alone possesses weapons that can destroy the United States, a military-industrial complex nearly America's equal in exporting arms, vast quantities of questionably secured nuclear materials sought by terrorists and the planet's largest oil and natural gas reserves. It also remains the world's largest territorial country, pivotally situated in the West and the East, at the crossroads of colliding civilizations, with strategic capabilities from Europe, Iran and other Middle East nations to North Korea, China, India, Afghanistan and even Latin America. All things considered, our national security may depend more on Russia than Russia's does on us.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080714/cohen
Does this really sound to you like the benign gentle giant who was only awakened by a misstep on the part of the US? I think not.
Reference? Last count of which I was aware Russia was claiming over 2000 civilian casualties in South Ossetia at the hands of Georgia missile batteries, and Georgia was only claiming 200 Georgian civilian casualties. Given Sakashvili's much earlier political promises to the Georgian people, that they would "necessarily spread a wave of freedom and democracy" to regions that had declared themselves independent from Georgia seems to fit the story that Georgia is the primary aggressor.
http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/depeches.php?idp=402&PHPSESSID=df4e939cd1a29e87f8be61d25abd8f74
This is too simplistic and one would have to understand the internal conflict between South Ossetia and the Georgian government to fully understand Sakashvili's motivations in what he did. But that still does not justify outside intervention on the part of Russia, which still sees Georgia as a Soviet "client-state", despite the fact that it has been independent for over twenty years.
As for the numbers you are claiming, I will return again to Globalsecurity.org:
Russian officials and Russian commentators have magnified the significance of this conflict to a scale greatly exceeding Western perceptions. While the full extent of the fighting is unclear, Russian reports of thousands dead and massive destruction cannot be reconciled with available anecdotal evidence of vastly less death and destruction.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/south-ossetia.htm
It is far too early to know for sure, and any claims made by either side are purely for propaganda purposes.
To be frank I dont see how Georgian history serves to legitimise their claims to territorial sovereignty. They are infact a breakaway republic, having amalgamated themselves into the USSR and subsequently breaking away, to not recognise that fact is to take account of only the convenient parts of history. However that aside, its previous occupation of such lands does not infer a right to occupy them in the present day, just as it would not be right for England to claim sovereignty over America because for a significant period of history they owned much of it. What is germane is the current geopolitics of the region, foremost South Ossetias declaration of independence.
You continue to refer to Georgia as a breakaway republic which indicates to me that you are unaware of the subtle implication of illegitimacy in the term. Georgia as a kingdom was illegally annexed by the Tsar of Russia in 1801 and again illegally annexed as an independent democratic republic by the Soviet Union in 1921.
None of these annexations was ever legitimate, although by virtue of Russia's strength and power, they were granted de facto legitimacy. Georgia's subsequent independence, however, was fully legitimate and was supported both by the Georgians themselves and by virtue of the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. Their subsequent participation in the CIS as an independent state further solidifies that legitimacy. So calling Georgia a breakaway republic is a misnomer.
Your comparison, yet again, does not correlate with the issue at hand. I do not deny that Georgia has no more right to South Ossetia than the South Ossetians wish to grant them. But this is a matter which must be worked out between the two sides with no outside interference. I wish I could understand why you have such a problem with that...
