Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 12

2008 South Ossetia War
Location	Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia
Result	Russian and separatist victory.; ; Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent republics.;

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

CYBERATTACKS on the Cyberattacks and censorship section

Why do I have to redo the NYT reference by a Pulitzer winning writer every day? It keeps getting what I believed is vandalized. This last paragraph is very POV. A warning banner needs to be placed over the last paragraph and the vandalism has to stop. Frankly, I'm tired of spending so much time on peoples attempts to put their POV in this section and wreck anything that goes against it. Isn't Wikipedia suppose to be NPOV? Both sides need to be presented. It is not polite to delete or minimize valid sources. Jason3777 (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

US Embassy in Moscow: Kommersant did inaccurately translate US Ambassador's comments

Archive Section "US Govt now says Russia's first move legitimate" [[1]]

The trend was already predictable as I wrote above: If the interviewed person (an U.S. Govt. official) would say this above mentioned English-Russian-English translation is a misinterpretation or fake or was not authorized by him then the source/translation is without any value. Once more kommersant on its English website did not choose words/phrase in its interview summary that are identical or only similar with/to justified or legitimate. Very probably the interview was conducted in English.

Ambassador Beyrle Interview in Kommersant

In an interview in Kommersant published August 22, Ambassador Beyrle was quoted as saying that the Russian reaction to attacks on its peacekeeping forces was "completely justified." This is an inaccurate translation of Ambassador Beyrle's comments. As we have stated repeatedly, Russia's use of force in Georgia has been disproportionate, and we call on Russia to respect its obligation to withdraw its forces from Georgian territory in accordance with the ceasefire agreement.[[2]] - Elysander (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Article corrected not to use "completely justified". Embassy hasn't objected to Russian text, so more careful translations have to be used. Embassy hasn't complained about "legitimate" or "well grounded" Anatoly.bourov (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ... obviously it doesn't make any sense to use any unauthorized translations til this date to underline an official US position. The only "legitimate" source can only be the complete interview in English and Russian authorized by the interviewed official (!). Til now i cannot see such a version but only an obviously corrupted Russian version which is spread via an additional unauthorized English translation. Elysander (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RE "The only "legitimate" source can only be the complete interview in English and Russian authorized by the interviewed official (!)" Please provide a reference for this statement. The guidelines of WP:RS say nothing of the sort. The text in question uses Globe and Mail, and IHT as sources, which fully qualify as WP:RS. As far as Embassy objections, they are clearly directed at the verbiage of "completely justified" and leaving out the rest of the sentiment Both IHT and Globe and Mail pieces did not use the "completely justified" language and did include condemnation of the activities following the initial response, which is what the Embassy insisted should not be omitted. Please discontinue removing relevant and well-referenced material.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RE "but only an obviously corrupted Russian version" -- this is POV. Russian text is still being linked on [3] . The quote still belongs as a valid international reaction, as reported by reliable sources.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Beyrle did give this interview as US Ambassador. To quote this interview or parts of it as official US statement you need a definitely authorized original text (and its translation). Once more: kommersant's own long summary of this interview in English use neither "legitimate" nor " well grounded". Elysander (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

please reference "To quote this interview or parts of it as official US statement you need a definitely authorized original text (and its translation)". Right now it sounds like POV. the sources are clearly reliable, and nowhere does article claim the translation (and even position) is official.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

as far as kommersant's summary -- it is irrelevant. Both Globe and Mail and IHT were clearly working off the full Russian text using actual quotes from the ambassador. If the quality of translation is good enough for them to put into print (and I am sure they were scrutinized), they should be good enough for WP.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should be kommersant's own summary irrelevant? G&M and IHT are using an obviously anyway corrupted Russian translation which by whom was translated to English. You don´t still understand the hint of biophys in the archive section. The two secondary sources who are dependent from only one certain source are not more up to date. I am expecting an administrator's decision. Elysander (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the "hint" you refer to? that I should stop supporting my point with reliable sources? The two secondary sources used the exact full US embassy-authorized text of the interview, and performed independant internal translation, making this a relevant, referenced point to be indcluded.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as your claims that "you need a definitely authorized original text", is the Economist the official publication of the Council of Europe or the Swedish goverment?Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ... pure nonsense! 1) I did quote the Swedish government which released on its own website an official statement in English. Regarding Paul Bildt's concrete remarks you can find dozens of sources. He did express his own view in public and his profession is not a postman in Kansas. ;) 2) Generally said - all translations are interpretations. Therefore needs an official document or statement if translated an authorization by the author. We don't exactly know whether kommersant did accurately translate Beyrle's complete interview into Russian ; and it does exist (probably only) one "private" translation from Russian to English. This strange English-Russian-English transfer implies we have til now neither a definitely authorized Russian version nor a definitely authorized English version. Elysander (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Elysander: I see that you've resorted to continually vandalizing the page without any new comments. You also claim that you have requested administrative arbitration, please refrain from further vandalism. As far as your claim of sources being outdated, the objection of US embassy to the use of "completely justified" verbiage has already been addressed in the article, the embassy still stands behind the rest of the text. If you have references to new translations of the same text, please include them in the article. Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As i said an administrator should decide whether outdated sources can overrule the momentum of a corrupted text. Elysander (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I did request for a "3rd Opinion" [[4]] hours ago Elysander (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, an administrator should clearly see that there is no reference to the "corrupted text". The only "corrupted text" as objected to by the embassy is "completely justified". No verbiage of "completely justified" was ever used either in the article or in any of the references. Please allow the administrator to see the page with the references included as it stands now.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Surviving Georgian CG vessels

The following picture Image:080824-N-4044H-012.jpg shows a surviving patrol boat of the Georgian Coat Guard. Photo by US Navy. Sv1xv (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gori, Georgia

Could somebody take care of the article Gori, Georgia? The Russian user SkyBon vandalizes it, removing the Human Rights Watch report on cluster bombing without explaining her/his reasoning on the discussion page. I'm getting weary of fighting with her/him.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I will take care too. I could read there following edit comment:

SkyBon (Talk | contribs).. (YOU stop and YOU go to discussion page, mr. georgian and pro-fashist) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysander (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No cluster bombing here.^{[citation needed]} Магистер (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cluster bombing here and elsewhere too. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aug. 25 update

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19290 The Georgian police and Ossetian militias are on the verge of a new confrontation over the Akhalgori municipality which had not been a part of the "conflict zone" before the August war. Please help update the article. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

... Neither was gori... at this point, Not part of the Ossetia Conflict zone means nothing.--Jakezing (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing source for Estonia hosting the web page of Georgian Foreign Ministery

is here: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/081208-estonia-poland-help-georgia-fight.html Could anybody with permission to the article, add it? Thanks, Erikupoeg (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Illythr (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Civilian death toll in the infobox

"Georgian President Saakashvili estimated 1,500 killed" - I think there's some confusion in the source. Saakashvili has never claimed such a high death toll. It was the Putin-Kokoity version.--Kober^Talk 05:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that number quoted in "The Australian" newspaper immediately after the South Ossetian's alleged Georgia killed 1,400 killed. I also then saw the Foreign Editor for "The Australian" asked questions on a the "Australian broadcasting corporation" television station regarding the war in Georgia and he was clearly heavily biased towards the US line on this conflict. While the war was still ongoing he said outright that Russia was going to take all of Georgia and occupy it and even made the allegation that Russia clearly demonstrated why the US should be the world police. Which brings me to my next point:

In the humanitarian section of the article under the heading Georgians is this little snippet of information. Source 154 is "The Australian" again and its article basically reports on what the New York Times is saying about the war. However they are taking their own slant on it. For example, they state that Russia moved 'tactical missile launchers into Tskhinvali' ... 'putting the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, within their striking range'. The entire pretense for the article it seems is to make the readers think Russia is poising itself aggressively. Yet the missiles they mention in the article can safely hit Tbilisi from Russian territory and are considered short range by Russian standards. This is highly POV and while I realise that wikipedia reports in a "he said, she said" manner in cases like this ... it has not being done in this case. The writer has quoted a single figure which was indirectly reported in the source and made the allegation on their own that the vast majority are ethnic Georgians. This is currently disputed fact as figures for total refugees vary from organisation to organisation and indeed from ethnicity to ethnicity.

"Most refugees in the conflict are ethnic Georgians. Before the war started, one estimate of the population of Georgians living in South Ossetia was 18,000 people, or one quarter of the population of the break-away republic.[151] On 15 August UNHCR said that up to 15,000 ethnic Georgians have fled into the other parts of Georgia from South Ossetia.[152] In addition, as of 15 August, some 73,000 people were displaced in Georgia proper (most of them from the city Gori); many also fled from Abkhazia.[13] Most had no possessions with them, save for the clothes they were wearing when they fled, and were crammed into makeshift centres without even basic amenities.[153] By 19 August the UNHCR figure of the displaced persons rose to 158,000, the vast majority of them ethnic Georgians.[154]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

It would probably be a good idea to remove US and UA from the participants list, as this was not confirmed even by Russian officials (according to the sources presented). Also, can someone explain to me, why Ossetian reservists are included in the total head count, but the Georgian ones aren't? Is there a silent "seen any action" criterion in there or something? --Illythr (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In forces they should listed, Georgia did not confirm, but neither USA nor Ukraine denied. How would they admit to using mercenaries, in this case? Of course they don't confirm... but their is testimony and news report which testifies to what has been added with careful consideration.--Tananka (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Better question: How this stuff ("European Tribune") landed there in the first place - and how long it was there? Actually, only few thousand Georgian troops has "seen any action", unless by "action" one means "witnessing bombing by Russian aircraft". Another question: why ONLY the Russian regular ground troops in Georgia counted - and not seaman, airmen, rear troops just across the border in Russia, or the irregulars such as "Cossack" or North Ossetian volunteers? It is unknown how many of the Georgian and Abkhaz reservists have seen any "action" (Georgian army/state also being largely paralized after the few first days), but certainly most of Ossetian did (at least by being armed while being "refugees" in Russia, then following Russian columns and pillaging after ceasefire, or doing other such war heroics). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The European Tribune article, clearly refers to Russia Today, it is completely verifiable as to what is referred to. But if it needs to be changed, then the Inner city journal refers to both reports as well. The wording can be changed, and "unconfirmed" or "alleged" if it's not NPOV enough as is. Otherwise it can be transferred to the body of the article and mentioned in more detail. --Tananka (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox is not a place for what Russia's TV claimed Today (per Kokoity/disinform.ru?) to heat the anti-American hysteria in the society. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's enough vandalism! The comment was just deleted, and no edit summary was given. Nor any explanation offered on the talk page! It is sourced reliably, "Inner City Journal" by a journalist who's reporting from the UN. It is perfectly verifiable. If no proper argument is given against including it, then it will be added as it deserves to be.--Tananka (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What comment? "Inner City Journal" being what? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Inner City Press (not journal, excuse me):

"On Ossetia, Denials by Khalilzad of Foreign Fighters, by Yerevan of Russian Planes in Armenian Bases

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: New/* Infobox */ allegeds Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, August 11 -- Propaganda or underground truth, on the sidelines of conflict in South Ossetia, Russian media has been reporting that foreign fighters, including Americans, were found among the dead in Tskhinvali. Russia Today quoted South Ossetia's Eduard Kokoity that "Ukrainians and mercenaries from the Baltics as well as nationals from other countries were involved in the fighting, as 'foreigners have been found among their bodies.'" South Ossetia's envoy to Russia was quoted that "in yesterday's most recent tank attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians. Two unidentified bodies found today... Americans... who were probably either mercenaries or instructors in the Georgian armed forces.""
So, what was the reason for deleting it? --Tananka (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Check it out: Inner City Press--Tananka (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. So, el presidente Comrade Kokoity said "unidentified bodies" found "today" (2 weeks ago) were "Americans" (nothing about those "unidentified indentified Americans" since then, of course), and the Russian state TV said some enemy soldiers were "supposedly" Ukrainians (ditto), so the USA and Ukraine are now sides in the conflict. You're right, I'm sorry, please forgive for being such a bastard and deleting your "comments" in the article. Also lol. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm and offensive language have no place on this (or any other) talk page.

These are allegations, true. However a lot of information published from reliable sources are based on allegations and first hand witnesses. Condidering the allegation is published by a reliable source, IMHO, it should be considered noteworthy. It is hard to deny testimony from a first hand witness on TV over seeing two dead bodies with USA flag patches on their arms along with a statement over the same matter by a high ranking official, as being valid. It would be a shame to end up with an incomplete and biased article on the subject. The additions should be better worded to make it clear they are allegations, yes. But should they be dismissed altogether? Isn't it better to just edit the wording instead of just deleting the whole addition someone made?--Tananka (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Saakashvili’s Account of Events that Led to Conflict

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19282 I understand that this account comes from one of the belligerent parties, but it is still a useful source to reconstruct the Georgia government's vision of the sequence of events that led to the Russian invasion of 2008. In this televised address, Saakashvili follows the 2004-2008 timeline and recalls some details of his relations with Putin.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A neutral account by IWPR journalists and editors --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an excellent source on the beginnings of the conflict from Michael Trotten. http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php It provides a lot of information on the background of the conflict which may or not be relevant here, but more importantly it discusses how the war began. The article makes the point that the conflict began with a Russian invasion of Georgia and that the Georgian military entering South Ossetia was simply troops passing through on route to intercept the Russian invasion and not as an actual invasion of South Ossetia by the Georgians. It provides more information for the timeline as well as a perspective that will flesh out how the war began and Saakashvili’s role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.199.50 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reports about looting of Georgian villages in South Ossetia

An article in Moscow Times describes what's happening to the Georgian villages in South Ossetia [5]. I personally met refugees from that village. They had fled from it while Russian planes were bombing it. They had to leave everything and fled in the clothes they were wearing at the moment. And now everything they had have been burned or stolen. Narking (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia is attempting to empty South Ossetia of Georgians - Alexander Stubb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7581282.stm Stubb's account of ethnic cleansing. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe time to start a section about the ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia. And by the way I wonder if Medvedev meant this ethnic cleansing? Narking (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Attempting"? They did, and now brag about it - like here the "president" Kokoity: [6] --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ossetians indeed have burned some empty villages - the ones that have peen used as staging areas of georgian offensive. Local population there was in fact evacuated by georgian army before war (same thing happened in Abkhazia)! But nobody ousted georgian civilians out of other villages not involved in the the conflict (but many civilians have left anyway because of devastation). There are, however, some reports about suspicious georgian police activity in some distant villages - ossetians suspect there are infiltrating army units disguised as policemen. 195.218.210.138 (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Observers from HRW and OSCE have different opinion than you, Mr. 195.218.210.138. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Georgians were not evacuated before the war, they fled when Russians were bombing them. Narking (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgians definitely WERE evacuated, reporters traveling onto Tskhinval with russian column found absolutely empty georgian villages, with only a few old obstinate people who voluntarily did not leave. These grannies told them georgian troops sent all villagers into Georgia Proper days before, because they wanted villages (mostly sitting on the heights around Tskhinval) as staging areas and artillery positions. It was on TV on august 9th IIRC. Another evidence of georgian cold-headed preplanned invasion. 195.218.211.18 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, they all say it's Ossetian iregulars, not the Russian army.Freepsbane (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They're Russian irregulars - they're Russian citiziens supported by the Russian army and government. Many of them even came from Russia (as did most of "South Ossetian government"[7]) and the regular/federal military is responsible for their local militias' actions (see the case of Veselin Šljivančanin, for example). In any case, BBC/OSCE is talking about lorries belonging to the Russian emergency ministry forces. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Kokoity said: "we burned to the ground all Georgian towns and villages in South Ossetia". According to a human rights organization,

“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...[8]

Biophys (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

NO, he did NOT say anything like this in Kommersant! What he said is practically the same i wrote up here: "we burned already-empty villages which were used as staging areas and bases for georgian aggression"! And second quotation does not even belong to Kokoity, but some anonymous "ossetian officer"! So stop SPREADING LIES here! Truth is, georgians themselves turned these villages into legitimate targets. 195.218.211.25 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we create an article Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia? Biophys (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not, we can always do with more anti-Russian NPOV propaganda on WP. I'm sure that certain editors are up for that challenge with plenty of (US-government funded) resources available for content purposes. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well how better is the Kremlin funded propaganda resources? The page will be created after enough references are compiled from OSCE declarations and actual findings by Human Rights Watch (i guess they are also CIA funded anti-Russian/Putin club). Thanks for a good laugh. Iberieli (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with you, Iberieli? Everything that does not comply with the Kremlin's vision is U.S. funded and fabricated by the Western imperialists and their agents in the legitimate spehers of Russian infuence. Did not you know that? --Kober^Talk 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you meant Russavia but not Ibrieli's irony. But yes ... some people are storming "back in the U.S.S.R."; it works and sounds like 1956 and 1968. Elysander (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny that 1968 is being used as a reference by some editors, when said country involved in 1968 is in support of Russian actions, and has actually dismissed references of comparison to 1968. But great to see that comparison being used on talk pages. And as to my above comments, US propaganda is no better than Russian propaganda, but the problem is, is that some editors will start their attack articles by totally ignoring WP:NPOV and without presenting all sides of an issue. It's my opinion that if one can't insert neutral information (i.e. by providing all sides of a story) into WP articles then they are no better than the propagandists that they try to demonise. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not very probable that the overwhelming majority of Hungarians, Czechs or Slovakians are funny watching the (Sowjet-)Russian intervention in the SouthKaukasus. Check public opinion and medias in H/CZ/SK and you will find: they are drawing parallels between 1956/68 and 2008 - not only few so-called "anti-Russian" editors. The topic is breaking international law by Russian government. Elysander (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, I hope you all have sources that international law has been ignored and broken by the Russian government. If not, this is all moot. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad luck for you ;) Putin .. sorry .. Medvedev did it again: Violation of international law. Elysander (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And I am sure that the people of Serbia are whatching the conflict and wonderinig why were our boarders not respected. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]]

And I am sure that some Serbians are asking themselves why Russia did give up its besides theoretical demand for Serbia's territorial integrity by its "activities" today. ;) Elysander (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the unsubstantiated accusations of "anti-Russian propaganda" by Russavia are inappropriate and against WP:CIV.Biophys (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the Kosovars -did- get the hell out of Serbia. They just took their country with them. Wasn't that what Milosevic et al wanted in the first place? 128.153.195.195 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft losses

Could someone with good sources create the article Aircraft losses in the 2008 South Ossetia war? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we really neeed an article for that? IMO a section would be more than sufficient.

Unless we want to detail the each plane's last minutes...

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia's recognition

This may be the gene... Anyway, is a recognition race - like the case of Kosovo - likely to follow? Belarus and Cuba might recognize later in the day? And no words from the poor Serbians back in Belgrade.... --Hapsala (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to text of President's statment

http://www.kremlin.ru/appears/2008/08/26/1445_type63374type82634_205744.shtml (Russian) http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/1543_type82912_205752.shtml (English)

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouln't be surprised if Belarussian President Lukashenko also recognizes South Ossetia within the next couple of hours. His foreign policy is 100 percent controlled by the Kremlin.

You are wrong. It's enough of russian recognition. And there is a similar case in so called "international law": Turkey and Cyprus. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. But the Russian might as well be using this as a respons of the Kosovar recognition, and in that case the world has been rather devided in US/EU/Nato supporters (pro indepence) vs. supporters of the Russo-Serbian line (pro Serbian integrity). The puzzling thing is that the Russian decision to recognize the breakaway republics also may go against Russia's long term geopolitical interests. So I'm likewise surprized that the Russian took the decision so rapidly. --Hapsala (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But this seemingly rapid decision is the last sign in a chain of signs that Russia planned this invasion well in advance. Naturally other Russian satellites and dependent states will follow and some strange "superdemocrats" like Lukashenko, Castro, Chavez etc. :)) .. Sorry .. i did forget Hamas;) Elysander (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be intresting to look up what was the Russian argument in the case of Kosovo, obviously Russia is no longer following a "pro integrity" "pro internationally recognized borders" line. Will they recognize Kosovo or just throw out all their arguments and say "we recognize when we feel like it". However the reccognition should be covered at length in the article now it's clear that this was the Russian "endgame" and the ultimate goal of the Russian attack. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

President Medvedev, in an exclusive interview with Russia Today network, refers explicitly to the Kosovo case when asked if Russia violated international law. Since Kosovo was claimed to be a uniqe case, so is Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Medvedev says. The argument seems pretty hollow, and the Serbs might not be so impressed by Russia's U-turn. --Hapsala (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

U provide good WP:OR, but its not for this article.--A20080819 (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New Information

Should any of this be added?

Defying Russia, an American warship that brought humanitarian aid to Georgia was expected to arrive Wednesday in this nervous Black Sea port that's being watched over by Russian soldiers, Georgian officials said.

The move would put U.S. military assets within close range of Russian forces for the first time since the Georgian conflict began, potentially setting up a confrontation with Moscow, the dominant naval power in the Black Sea.

the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Nogovitsyn as saying that Russian forces in the Black Sea might carry out searches of cargo ships "with the goal of preventing diversions and provocations." [9]

Russian and United States warships engage in a standoff outside the Georgian port of Poti, which Russian troops occupied in the August 7-12 war, and as NATO is reported to be boosting its naval presence in the Black Sea. [10]

The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has urged the West to take immediate action against Moscow after accusing Russian forces of moving their artillery to within range of the capital city Tbilisi.

Just hours before Russia escalated the crisis by recognising the independence of two separatist Georgian provinces, Mr Saakashvili said Russian forces had advanced to the strategic Akhalgori heights 10 miles from Tbilisi.

He warned that Georgia would respond with force if its capital was attacked and told the West to act more forcefully against Russian aggression.

The Russian cruise ship the Moskva, which had been deployed off the Georgian coastline during the five-day war, was seen leaving the Crimean naval base of Sevastopol, headquarters of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

Early reports indicated that the Moskva was sailing south, possibly towards Poti - " raising the possibility of a naval face-off between the United States and Russia for the first time since the Cold War. [11]

Russian Armed Forces General Staff is perplexed with the recent intense activity of NATO's navy in the Black Sea waters, deputy chief of the General Staff Anatoly Nogovitsyn told journalists today. He reiterated that there were nine NATO warships in the Black Sea off the coast of Georgia on Monday, adding that the General Staff had learned at 11:30 p.m. yesterday that another US frigate had already passed the Bosporus. Furthermore, Nogovitsyn pointed out that he had information about eight more NATO warships expected arrival in the region. [12]

Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Tuesday rejected Russia's recognition of two breakaway regions of Georgia and called for an international coalition to counter it.

"I am holding talks today with international partners and will be visiting Ukraine tomorrow to ensure the widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia," he added. [13] JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Some more:

Russia's envoy to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, compared the tension between Russia and the west to the eve of the first world war, saying a new freeze in relations was inevitable.

"The current atmosphere reminds me of the situation in Europe in 1914 ... when because of one terrorist, leading world powers clashed," Rogozin told the RBK Daily business newspaper. "I hope Mikheil Saakashvili [the president of Georgia] will not go down in history as a new Gavrilo Princip." He was referring to the assassin of the Austro-Hungarian archduke Franz Ferdinand. [14] JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is notable, but you have to summarize everything very briefly. There is a growing confrontation between the Russian Federation and the rest of the world...Biophys (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak no. By all means put in the portions that refer to the international situation, but not to events that have yet to happen. Moer over some of this appears to be poorley researched (the Moskova is nbot a cruise ship, it's an ASW cruiser). Also there seems to be an odd mixing of past, present and future tense to elemts of the above.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Six-point peace plan

Text of the section about the exact text is not correct and has no references. Original one wich announced in public statments was follow.

Joint Press Statement following Negotiations with French President Nicolas Sarkozy August 12, 2008 The Kremlin, Moscow

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: ...

One. Do not resort to the use of force.
Two. The absolute cessation of all hostilities.
Three. Free access to humanitarian assistance.
Four. The Armed Forces of Georgia must withdraw to their permanent positions.
Five. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation must withdraw to the line where they were stationed prior to the beginning of hostilities. Prior to the establishment of international mechanisms the Russian peacekeeping forces will take additional security measures.
Six. An international debate on the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and ways to ensure their lasting security will take place.

...

PRESIDENT OF FRANCE NICHOLAS SARKOZY (as translated): ...

The first principle is not to resort to force. Of course, our discussions did not resolve every single point. We tried to draft a brief document that opens the road to an agreement.
The second principle is complete cessation of hostilities. At the moment we are still talking about a temporary ceasefire. This ceasefire could become permanent if Bernard Kouchner and I convince Georgia to sign this document today.
Third – ensuring free access to humanitarian aid. You know that there are many refugees there now and they need help.
Fourth – the withdrawal of Georgian Armed Forces to their permanent bases.
Fifth – Russia’s Armed Forces will withdraw to the line where they were stationed prior to the start of hostilities. Until such time as international mechanisms are established the Russian peacekeeping forces (the Russian Armed Forces present in South Ossetia under OSCE mandate) will take additional security measures. We will discuss with President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili the measures to be taken until confidence between Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians can be restored.
Finally, sixth – international discussion will begin on the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and ways to ensure their lasting security.

The official text in Russian http://www.kremlin.ru/appears/2008/08/12/2004_type63374type63377type63380type82634_205199.shtml in English http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/12/2100_type82912type82914type82915_205208.shtml

--Niggle (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting differences. "We will discuss with President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili the measures to be taken..." is only in the Sarkozy statement. -- megA (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The sixth point has been rejected Saakashvili and signed in the changed form: no discussion, no debate. Магистер (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Captured Equipment

Russia took 44 Georgian tanks, captured by Russian peacekeepers in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, announced August 16 the Assistant Russian Army CINC colonel Igor Konashenkov.

According to him, during Georgian-Ossetian conflict Russian peacekeepers captured 65 tanks of Georgian army. As stated by Konashenkov, more than 20 captured tanks were destroyed because they were either defective or of old versions. Also Konashenkov told that the Russian army succeeded in capturing several dozen other armoured units, including five air defense complexes “Osa”, 15 infantry fighting vehicles BMP-2, D-30 guns, as well as Czech-made self-propelled artillery vehicles and U.S. armoured vehicles. According to him, mostly seized equipment produced and refined in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, earlier it was reported that during the retreat of the Georgian military left in hangars and warehouses at a military base near the town of Gori in the north Georgia 15 tanks, armoured vehicles and dozens of artillery shells and missiles. Part of ammunition was destroyed, and the part taken out of Georgia.

http://forum.warfare.ru/special/2008/08/16/russia-captured-a-fifth-part-of-the-georgian-tanks/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiReFTW (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the "humanitarian mission" started?

The list of NATO's warships situated in Black Sea right now. All of them are full of baby food and care supplies, bottled water, and milk!!!

USS McFaul (DDG-74) (US Navy)
Almirante Juan de Borbón (F102) (Spanish Navy)
Bremen class frigate Lübeck (German Navy)
ORP Generał Kazimierz Pułaski (Polish Navy)
USCGC Dallas (WHEC-716) (US Navy)
USS Taylor (FFG-50) (US Navy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.173.10 (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Unnamed four Turkish ships (Turkish Navy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/europeCrisis/idUSLP442126 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.173.10 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/20/navy.georgia.aid/index.html

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/25/ships/

http://www.nato.int/shape/news/2008/08/080821a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.173.10 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/21/russia.nato They are "conducting a pre-planned routine visit to the Black Sea region to interact and exercise with our Nato partners Romania and Bulgaria, which is an important feature of our routine planning," Vice-Admiral Pim Bedet, the deputy commander at the allied maritime headquarters in Northwood, England, said.

Who else?!!

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

that puts things into perspective, warships on "humanitarian mission". We'll see.--Tananka (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The results of NATO-lead "humanitarian mission" in Afganistan. In Iraq. Who will next? --195.98.173.10 (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The invasion of Iraq and the intervention in "Afganistan"(sic) were not the US military's "humanitarian missions" - the post-tsunami aid was, for example, as were the food airdops over Bosnia. "Who will next"? Whoever will be hit by a natural or a man-made disaster, I guess. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Arguably war IS a man-made disaster. The only problem is that real "humanitarian missions" are supposed to happen AFTER it rather than before. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you say the actual Russo-Georgian war is yet to come? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's never going to happen, my friend. I think it was obvious for anyone with brain that Georgia had 0% chance of winning whatever they started. What you've seen here is a ~20-day farce or provocation(Georgia provoking Russia), call it whatever you want. The part of it I hate is that lots of people died for some questionable profit. That's no way to make business. But we may still get to see Georgia wiped off the face of the Earth by some short-range nuclear missiles, I'm pretty sure this world contains enough high-ranked idiots(on both sides) who have forgotten the fears of the Cold War. Do you like this perspective? (Not a forum, I know) 68.151.34.161 (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What "perspective"? I guess you just never heard about the US military's humanitarian operations, but this is only your problem. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain & dog your sarcasm is not helpful. 195.. mentions the NATO-lead "humanitarian mission" as the war of ISAF against Taliban is sold in the Dutch parliament. In your US-centric bias you changed it in US "humanitarian missions". Otto (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The presence of these warships must also be seen in light of the fact that the Russian navy within the timeframe of less than one week has deployed its flagship, the Admiral Kuznetsov (which is specifically classified so as to circumvent the Montreux agreement which bans aircraft carriers traversing the Dardanelles), to the Russian port in Tartus, Syria[15] and upon arrival there transferred its command (along with that of other Russian warships in the Mediterranean) to the Russian Black Sea Fleet Command[16]. __meco (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these Articles mention the Dardenels, or any attempt to move the Admiral Kuznetsov thru them (or any redefinition of the ships nature). Indead they seem to make it clear that the Admiral Kuznetsov is to be based in Syria.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]]

The Admiral Kuznetsov article gives details on its peculiar designation and the background for it. I disagree with your impression that because Syria is the immediate port, there is no likelyhood that the Kuznetsov will be deployed later to the Black Sea. This is pure speculation in any case. What we know now is that the entire Russian Mediatteranean Fleet, including the newly-arrived Admiral Kuznetsov has been transferred to the Black Sea Fleet Command. __meco (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Although the Wiki Article states (which by the way is not RS) this is the reason the source the article (as does the Wiki article) uses makes it clear there are a number of reasons for this designition (aircraft-carrying cruiser). There is no indications in either the Wiki article or the source article that the designition is Specificly designed to circumvent the Montreux agreement (it actualy says it allows then to do it, not that it was the idea in the first place, and makes it clear that there are doctrinal resons for this designition).

The sources you gave are the ones that seem to say (and certainly do not say that the ship will leave Tartus) that the US and Israle are concerned about this deployment as it threatens the Western Med, no mention is made of Georgia. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]]

I think NATO preparing a "humanitarian operation" in Iran, one hundred tomahawks filled with baby nutrition and fueled with milk. If ships will not be used to fire, they will be used by politicans to push on Iran gov. threaten it from the South and North. 86.102.40.47 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of beginning

"early in the morning of 7 August 2008"? I thought, it was 8 August. Or, maybe, it is better to set the date of 1 August, when the escalation of conflict really have begun. 89.178.154.234 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Mike

Yes, you are right there were no full scale war going on there early in the morning of 7 August. I was in the area that day and can confirm that. But I did see several armoured vehicles going in the direction of South Ossetia in the afternoon of August 7. Narking (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean russian or georgian armoured vehicles? 89.178.155.184 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Mike

Missing parts.

The begining of the article is still did'nt mentioning attack and occupation on Tshinvali and Russian peacemakers base by Georgias forces. This is a very important fact! Where and why acctualy "Interests" section dissappear? Many sides hase their own interests here and they should be mentioned.--Oleg Str (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC) And Abkhazian/Osetians orders of battle seems to be removed (may be Im wrong here). Like Georgia is in war with Russia only.--Oleg Str (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Only "Puppet States" like the Tiso-Regime and centres of the organized Russian criminality. Best example: Kokoity Elysander (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Puppet States" like Kosovo...--A20080819 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added. But some users will try to delete it infos.--A20080819 (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

UN Security Council topics

«But at the outbreak of violence, Russia had tried to have the United Nations Security Council issue a statement calling on Georgia and South Ossetia to immediately lay down weapons. However, Washington was disinterested.»[17] Add to timeline section,pls.--U-ser (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

Possible sanctions on Russia by the European Union [18]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Medvedev's advisers

I thought Medvedev would stop short of recognizing after yesterday's political show in the two chamber Federation assembly. But he didn't. The decision seems amazingly ill prepared and leaves Medvedev with a legacy he'd probably better be without. So my qestion is: Does Medvedev rely on exactly the same team of advisers as Putin did? Or did Putin de facto take with him the foreign policy to the Moscow White House? Is this the first hint of the expected power struggle between Putin and Medvedev - or is Medvedev just a puppet, temporary in charge till Putin can regain the office of President of Russia? 217.21.232.237 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, in the west, there were lots of stories like that during the election campaign. But, remember - a possible power struggle between the Putin camp and the Medvedev camp is similar to the war between Russia and Georgia. Putin didn't retire to the office of PM, but is likely using it as a way to make a great comeback. That's the main reason why he hand-picked Medvedev as his successor (and future intended predessessor). --Hapsala (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The ships in Black sea - was the best way to a recognition of independence of Abkhazia and Ossetia. Магистер (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And what are your suggestions regarding this article? )) Alæxis_¿question? 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do people seriously think Medvedev is anything but Putin's puppet? It's been clear from zero hour that Vladimir Putin is pulling the strings here. 128.153.195.195 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Alæxis_¿question? 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

However this discussion may have a relevance to the article, for example if there is consensus that Medvedev really IS Putin's puppet it would be obscene to put the puppet into the infobox as "commander" and not the puppetmaster. Hobartimus (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This puppet obsession is getting as contumelious as impertinent especially after Alexis' remark seems to be disparaged. Would the users from USA feel comfortable if the Slavic users start to discuss whose puppet Saakashvili and McCain are? Being committed to the governmental policy and the development of the predecessor does not mean that one is his puppet, otherwise you should admit that Japan has been ruled by puppets for the last 63 years (Liberal-Democratic party)! All this (UNSOURCED ! ) speculations are sheer and trite loquacity. Bogorm (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin is for sure still Russia's de facto No. 1. As well, notably absent from the public limelight... --Hapsala (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Medyedev is the president of russia and has stated numerous times in front of russian audiences that he is not putin.

Whether Medvedev is a puppet or not is irrelevant; how do you really prove that he is or that he isn't? Simple consensus you could argue would replace it, but how do you prove consensus? If you argue for or against its opinion and doesn't belong here. This is a encyclopedia. The Russians say that Medvedev is calling the shots, so you stay neutral and say that the Russians say Medvedev is calling the shots..

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.28.245 (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch as a source

Although I think that HRW is often a good source, in this article I think we need some sort of disclaimer. HRW receives substantial funding from George Soros, who also serves on the board of HRW/Americas. Soros was also the principal funder of the Rose Revolution, so I would expect HRW to be biased in favor of Georgia in this conflict. We should note the possible conflict of interest in the article. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Original Research can be no basis for any edit to the article. If a majority of reliable sources agree that HRW is biased then it could be discussed (not here but in the HRW article which is linked from here long discussion about HRW is not the topic of this article). Hobartimus (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an exception, actually. Ottre (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an exception and it's not OR -- Niels Gade linked to the appropriate articles which are themselves referenced. Some sort of disclaimer should be added to this article. Banaticus (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps all non-factual, opinionated statements should just be removed then. There's an obvious conflict of interest here, and while I'm against disclaimers, I'm also against politically motivated human rights accusations. LokiiT (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to the AN. Ottre (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the sources which say that HRW is biased in favor of Georgia. In fact, Georgia has always received its share of criticism from HRW.--Kober^Talk 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My involvement is with this article, not human rights in Georgia. I do follow politics in the region (Armenia) though. Ottre (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source for the source's bias in this topic, then it might be appropriate to add. It would not be appropriate to add it based on an editor's expectation that they are biased. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch has been accused of having bias by various parties. American neoconservatives accused it of having anti-America bias, while others like Michael Barker accused it of having pro-America bias. Even if it is biased, we have nothing to do because per WP:RS, it is a reliable source. But in case of any exceptional claim which is not backed by any other independent source, it should be attributed that the claim is made by the Human Rights Watch. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

'Ossetians attacked first on August 6'

Michael J. Totten accuses the South Ossetians of attacking first on August 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.120.32 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This publication is served with the illustrations proving that it - propaganda. Магистер (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted that link for discussion because I was curious how much of it might be true and this seems like the place to discuss it. Michael J. Totten has a reputation for independent reporting, he doesn't seem like a propagandist to me. Convince me? Sobesurfski (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This has already been posted above. The account provided by Captain right nearby actually disproves this one (the bridges thing, a few other moments). It also has the classic conspiracy theory makeup of "everyone believes...everyone is wrong," "we know the truth," plus the main theme of Georgian forces moving not on Tskhinvali, but actually to the Roki tunnel speaking about the "restoration of constitutional order" at the time, is pretty weak, shelling and all. I suspect it might evolve into the official Georgian version of events, at which point the article will have to be updated with it. But for now, this is a pretty one-sided analysis. I mean, anything that's called "The Truth About..." rings of propaganda right from the start. --Illythr (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like good old wisdom >> A key tool that the Soviet Union used to keep its empire together, .... was pitting ethnic groups against one another. They did this extremely skillfully in the sense that they never generated ethnic wars within their own territory. But when the Soviet Union collapsed it became an essential Russian policy to weaken the states on its periphery by activating the ethnic fuses they planted. Totten's witnesses are Thomas Goltz and Patrick Worms. Wait and see & drink a cup tea! But time is running against Russia's version. Elysander (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the key policy was denationalization and the imposing of a global Soviet identity in place of the ethnic ones. Crimea remains a big hole in the "Russian imperialism is the root of all evil" logic regarding the frozen conflicts. But hey, this page really isn't the place to discuss these things. WP:FORUM and all... --Illythr (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is the place to discuss whether or not that's an verifiable citation for the account of who started the conflict. Right? I don't see anything that impeaches Michael J Totten's testimony. But I also don't see anything else to back it up. Sobesurfski (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the account of Saakashvili (provided in the same section above) is a better source for representing the official Georgian position. --Illythr (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael J. Totten does not claim to represent the official Georgian position. He claims to be an independent reporter. Sobesurfski (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, give an example of difference of his position and official Georgian position. Магистер (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If he verily claimed that then this would be derisible - in the article about him he is described as a liberal propagandist of the Iraq war, the correct Russian word for such kind of persons is демшиза and they can be anything but independent. (I recollect the word puppet from above...) Bogorm (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism here

Example: this is description in edit summary: «RussiaToday is not a reliable source per their site they exist to "present the Russian point of view"». But ".ge" and US-funded sources is "reliable" here. Vandalism on this page, because no integrity. See Wikipedia:Vandalism: «Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.». Try to follow rules.--U-ser (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You know, I noticed that accusations of vandalism are a telltale trait of many POV-pushers... It probably stems from the fact that they consider their own point of view as absolutely crucial and any opposition to it - disruption - not of their POV-pushing, but of Wikipedia itself. On topic - as long as things are attributed to their sources, reliability isn't a problem until someone tries to present opinions, claims or analysis stated in those sources as incontrovertible facts. --Illythr (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Another peace of vandalism is that someone is removing text about attack on peacemakers base. Sure this simple fact makes Georgians liiks like agressors, but it true and they are.--Oleg Str (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User who reverted my info about Russias peacemakers base sad, that this info shouldn't be in the begining as it is a detail. I can agree on this patrialy. If there is no need to specify number of losses peacemakers take, than fact of attack itself is very important, because its make Russia involved immidiatly. There are enough times a offered here to put this info in text. Nbdy answered. After this reverting text repeatedly w\o discussing it here is not nice.--Oleg Str (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your last revert [19] commented as Would you like to discuss it first on a talk page in "Vandalism" before you will remove "POV" info about Georgias agression against peacemekares again? - please describe your revert and your comment more. --windyhead (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At last duscussion of this point begins. It's simple. Georgians attacked not only Ossethians, but attacked peacemakers base too. That is the text I want to add to the head of the page. The reason is simple. In the head there are summary about the war and how it begins. And most important fact are listed there. I hope that list of all sides of the war is considered important? And reasons /in brief form/ why war started, why some are involved at this war is important too. Plus to this - accordingly to Putin it is possibly /not verified/ the first case when state ordered to attack internationaly approved UN peacmakers. So it is kind of historycal "event". Then it's clear answer why Russia gets involved in this conflict so fast. We need so say this, cos Russias influence on the conflicts flow is very important. Then Russias reasoning is important for the conflict /and so for the article/ too. How do you think if there were American peacemakers and Georgia attacked them too and America decide to start war this wouldn't worth of mentioning?--Oleg Str (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It must be added, all sourced info should be mentioned there is no reason to dismiss reports for any reason. It is a clear

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view."

Please restore the addition immediately... If people keep on deleting referenced additions to suit their point of view, then wikipedia is going to be a very shallow and incomplete encyclopeadia. Please everyone read the policy again. What should be done is improve upon NPOV in conveying referenced material, not counter-constructive deletion.--Tananka (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What a stupid edit war ! The GUS Peacekeepers in Southossetia were Georgians,Ossetians and Russians - not only Russians. But all these so-called "peacekeepers" were often active/passive part of the conflict over the last years and neglect their primary duties. Georgians claim own "peacekeepers" were killed before, Russians did the same at August 7th/8th and so on. Such infos don't belong in article's "header". Elysander (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of Georgian peacekeepers being attacked and killed as were the Russian ones. Would you provide some sources therefor. As requested, I added the info about the killed peacekeepers with the appropriate source in the humanitarian section. Bogorm (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a little edit under the "Combatants" subject

Someone, or more accurately, several people wrote: "The Americans were training Georgia's forces to use the U.S. military's M-4 rifles. However, when fighting broke out the Georgians went back to the Soviet AK-47, the only weapon they trusted. They appeared incapable of firing single shots, letting off bursts of automatic fire, which is wildly inaccurate and wastes ammunition. The U.S. military training program has been interrupted and critically damaged by the war. The Georgian army has been dealt a harsh blow."

Now that's probably true in some respects; fully automatic fire is generally accepted militarily as indicative of a band of rabble than soldiers, but how do you verify that? Its like some arm-chair general had listened to reports and saw footage of Georgian soldiers shooting at full auto and thinking he could accurately assess Georgian military capability upon that. By all means they could have just been showing off for reporters. Also, "They appeared" seems highly inappropriate for the kind of reporting and documenting featured in Wikipedia. And where it is written: "The Americans were training Georgia's forces to use the U.S. military's M-4 rifles. However, when fighting broke out the Georgians went back to the Soviet AK-47, the only weapon they trusted." also needs cleaning. It is kind of irrelevant to the greater topic at hand. I have the same issue with "The Georgian army has been dealt a harsh blow." That seems very true from what the sources say but you don't have to write it that way; this isn't a novel or an ordinary book, this is a wikipedia article, and should sound like an encyclopedia article. As for "The U.S. military training program has been interrupted and critically damaged by the war." it just doesn't seem to fit in with anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.37.89 (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, NATO training involvement and such should be written in a concise manner, geared towards the general topic at hand.--Tananka (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

End of the war

I think we should add the end of the war date in the infobox. What do you think??? Taamu (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is highly exigent. What date should we opt for - when President Medvedev declared the end of the military actions (12 August) or when the Russian troops actually left Georgia altogether (23 August)? Bogorm (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The war is not over. The ceasefire is precarious and as Pres. Sarkozy, the mediator in the Russia-Georgian conflict, says, Russia clearly violates the truce accord.--Kober^Talk 08:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is precarious or not is not our concern, but insead whether there is any truce or not and the fact is that there is! Besides, President Sarkozy is not a neutral instance and I would recommend strongly to refrain from Westernised POV, since three Wikipedias disagree with you - the Russian (war ended on 12. August), Chinese (the same) and Serbian (13 Aug.). Since I do not think English Wikipedia should be influenced howsoever by the stance of countries involved in the conflict (Georgia, NATO, Russia) and in case you are reluctant to accept the straightforward unambiguous declaration of the end of the military actions by the President as the end fearing its Russian origin, I think we should revere the Chinese and Serbian variants since none of the two countries has any interests in the region unlike the NATO member states. Therefore I retract my proposal for 23. Aug, stick firmly by the 12/13 and urge strongly it to be ultimately written as the end of the war. Bogorm (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please note that wikipedia is not a reliable source. And one-sided declaration of the end of military actions is just it - the declaration of the end of military actions. Unless reliable source about end-of-war date provided, adding any date is against wikipedia rules. --windyhead (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm , maybe it's better mention that the war is not in process? Kober, what do you propose? Wait untill Russia/SO/Abkhazia and Georgia conclude a peace treaty? Taamu (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the last facetous and paranoic proposal be accepted in order to pander to POV demands from circles expressing impartial positions of NATO member states + Georgia, maybe we should declare Russia in war with Japan, should not we? Well, far from the jocose I do not consider peace treaty a conditio sine qua non and insist on accepting the layout in the Serbian and Chinese Wikipedia since none of the countries has a POV stance in this conflict. Would the users who are adverse to my proposition for 12/13 Aug, elucidate and expound with arguments their reluctance, if any left? Bogorm (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(To Taamu) Да, Taamu, я вполне согласен, что война уже не длится, но ведь этим самым следует объявить когда она закончилась. И по-моему это именно день объявления конца военных действий, когда российские и грузинские войска перестали стрелять друг на друга. И я действительно не понимаю почему здесь объясняют насколько хрупко перемирие согласно Саркози, когда оно на самом деле уже есть?! Это чушь и никто на никого не стреляет уже несколько недель! Bogorm (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was English Wikipedia and not the Russian. Narking (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when does a truce end a war? If we call it a war, then it ends with a peace agreement and nothing else. -- megA (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And here is a machine translation, (since the OP didn't bother) for those interested: "Yes, Taamu, I quite agree, that war does not last any more, but in fact this most should declare when it has ended. And in my opinion it put announcements of the end of military actions when the Russian and Georgian armies have ceased to shoot against each other. And I really do not understand why here explain the armistice according to Sarkozy when it actually already is is how much fragile?! It is bosh and anybody on shoots nobody some weeks!" -- megA (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The rendering of "этим самым" with this most is verily exhilarating. The "when" clause is perplexed... The third sentence is completely messed up because of not proper handling of "насколько" as is the rendering of the negation in the last.... I was referring to my Russian collocutor, thence in Russian. And this mechanical translations, they are such surrogates. Bogorm (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(To megA) Es ist immer wertoller, eine kulturell nicht wegzudenkende Sprache wie die Russische zu erlernen, als auf mechanisches Übersetzen angewiesen zu sein. Jedenfalls danke für ihre Bemühung, das Gespräch in Englisch wiederzugeben, auch wenn wegen des Programms das Ergebnis bedauernswert ist. Bogorm (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you learnt your lesson and post in English in the future. If you want to send personal messages, use the User talk pages. -- megA (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Darf ich Sie doch nicht auf Deutsch ansrechen? Ist doch den Benutzern mit irgendeiner Regel verwehrt, sich aneinander in ihrer beliebigen Sprache zu wenden? Z. B. Sie sind Deutsche, ich Bulgare und wenn ich Deutsch beherrsche, wozu soll ich in einer für uns beide fremden Sprache schreiben? In der Lateinischen Wikipedia darf man in der Duskussion in jeder Sprache schreiben, nur im Mainspace auf Latein, sieht es doch hier nicht genauso aus? Bogorm (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand German as well, but it doesn't mean I'm going to write in German here. If everyone should understand the discussions the language must be English. It would be chaos here if everyone started to write in their own language. Narking (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit curt. You can send me personal messages in any language we both understand, but that's what the User Talk pages are for. Here, we discuss the improvement of this article, and foreign languages would exclude everyone else from the discussion. My machine translation just showed what people will see when they try to read your post using translation robots. -- megA (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm, you see, there are lots of persons who insist on the fact that the war is not over. I don't know what sort of data they are guided by? Do we need to take into account Russian peacekeepers in Georgia or how West calles them "invaders". If they stay there, does it mean that it is still a war... I don't know. I guess we need the ending date. Maybe (as you already mentioned) August 23? Taamu (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already written about Georgian forces firing at the peacekeepers whom the Georgians themselves had invoked to South Osetia and Abkhasia. I did not know about the West calling the peacekeepers invaders, if you have the source, that would be worth mentioning of course. But I have written too (same edit) Alexander Lukashenko's memory about Georgians praying on a СНГ meeting for the advent of the peacekeepers and if the West calls them invaders, then it follows that Georgians invited the invaders of their own country, which sounds extremely fatuous. I thought that only some Western states had defamed only the Russian army as invaders (Czech Republik for example welcoming and fully supporting the Russian (re)action)... Bogorm (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm:Da es hier die englische Wikipedia ist, und viele Besucher hier Deutsch, Russisch usw nicht kennen, ist es unhöflich, sie aus der Diskussion auszuschließen.

About the end of the war - I don't know: the Korean war, for example, doesn't have an end date, even though the Cold war, of which it is part of, is long over. On the other hand, World war II is considered over, although no peace treaty was signed between Japan and USSR (due to the Kuril island dispute) and one can consider that Russia and Japan are still formally at war. --Illythr (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The WWII has an ending date, despite the fact that Russia and Japan are still at war (de jure). First of all, we have to make up the conclusion on the issue concerning what date do we want to see as the "end of the war date". Is it a "six point peace plan" date / a Russian withdrawal from Georgia date/ or it is something else? P.S. If the war wasn't even declared how can we call it an end of the war? Taamu (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought too about the example of Japan and Russia and agree with Taamu... Irrefutably there would not be sensible if anyone began to state that WWII were not over, the same applies for this one because of the cessation of military activities.

(To Taamu) Well, although 23 August is late I would accede with you about the date, since it is urgently needed to insert the conclusion of the military activities.

(To all) Does anyone have any (stringent) misgivings about propounding 23 August for the date when the war ended? Since the case resembles forsooth the South Korean and the WWII one, we should probably write "till 23 Aug, when Russian forces retired from Georgia", ok? Bogorm (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I think we can put August 23 with a footnote that this is a date of the withdrawal of Russian troops. Taamu (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Aug. 23 is the Russian announced date of planned withdrawal. Nothing more. Russian troops continue to occupy several areas beyond the conflict zones. Documented looting, ethnic cleasning, occassional shootouts and hostage-taking continues to this day. France, the mediator in this conflict and Russia's principal Western partner, says only 2 of those 6 points have so far been fulfilled.[20] --Kober^Talk 11:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, two and exactly these two which we need in order to recognise the war to be over. In your source stays that the third is providing humanitarian assistance and I do not fathom how this is related to the state of war. For the refugees of the South Korean war the hum. ass. has surely not come with the armistice, but it is the commonly accepted date for the conclusion of the war. Bogorm (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's called WP:OR. No one in the world considers this war to be over until the Russians continue to occupy the areas at least beyond Ab and SO. In any case, our interpretations are irrelevant here. Decades have passed since the Korean war and the date of its end is a scholarly consensus among historians. AFAIK, no such consensus exists in the case of the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. Try to find credible sources which would say that this war ended on August 23, 2008.--Kober^Talk 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russian troops continue to occupy several areas beyond the conflict zones." (??!) - would you provide some source for this assertion which does not stem from Georgian or any NATO member's news agency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogorm (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Would you provide some non-Russian sources claiming that the Russian troops are completely withdrawn? Lavrov himself says that the Russians continue to occupy Georgia proper.

"Now with South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence already recognized by Russia, we have no intention of maintaining our peacekeepers outside those republics [on Georgia proper] forever,” Lavrov told journalists in the capital of Tajikistan, Dushanbe, on August 27."[21]--Kober^Talk 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No one in the world considers this war to be over until the Russians continue to occupy the areas at least beyond Ab and SO. FYI Israel captured the Golan Heights during the Six Days War (June 5, 1967 – June 10, 1967). This war has an ending date, despite the fact that Israel still controls the Golan Heights. Taamu (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself: decades have passed since the Korean and SDW wars and their ending dates are a scholarly consensus among historians. Do you know about similar consensus regarding the 2008 South Ossetia war? If yes, please provide sources. Otherwise, your interpretations and doubtful parallels with other conflicts qualify as WP:OR.--Kober^Talk 12:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The war ended at 12 August 2008 since from that date there was a cease fire. There is still a political conflict, but not a military one. The rethoric of Kober is misleading. Otto (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is. Additionally, it is unsourced. (To Taamu) No, the analogy with Israel is improper because of the misleading - since there is no Russian soldier on Georgian soil and you should not have trusted Kober's unsourced claims. The unambiguous refutation of his statement is to be found here(24 Aug, no Russian source, no NATO member state source in order to prevent POV!, although I could find it in French too, of course...): Sarkozy welcomes Russia keeping its promise for withdrawing all troops from Georgia! Bogorm (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the confutation of Kerbon's claims about Russian troops in Georgia I would urge him to disclose any other (sourced) arguments, if he has some, in order to elucidate wherefore is the date 23 Aug not to be written. Bogorm (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. Ceasefire does not mean the end of the war. Your rhetoric is not relevant. Please provide credible sources which would say that the war ended on Aug. 12. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 12:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid misleadings and obfuscations. Bogorm (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(To Kober) one more thing - after the last source it is undeniable that th fifth demand from the 6 has been fulfilled together with the first two you mentioned. Bogorm (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Military forces who haven’t pulled back to where they were before the outbreak of hostilities must move without delay,” he said, not mentioning that he’d given in to Russian demands for a “security zone” inside Georgia proper, and agreed to “special operations” by the Russians in Georgia after the ceasefire."[22].

FYI, Wikipedia does not ban what you call "news sources from NATO." Prejudices towards the West or East have no room in what is supposed to be encyclopedia.--Kober^Talk 12:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"С.Лавров также подчеркнул, что Россия не намерена навсегда сохранять свои миротворческие силы за пределами Южной Осетии и Абхазии."27.08.200

"Lavrov also emphasized that Russia is not going to permanently keep its peacekeeping forces beyond SO and Abkhazia." "..is not going" does not mean that they have already left, right?--Kober^Talk 12:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Russian military on Friday completed the withdrawal of its troops from Georgia as specified in a French-brokered peace agreement."(news from 24 Aug of Press TV, source above). What source are irishtimes, I could not find a Wikipedia article about them, are they reliable? I remind you of your demand for a non-Russian source claiming that the troops are not pulled back, which I fulfilled. Now I demand a statement and please consider that NATO has interests in the region and claims stemming therefrom are to be dealt with cautiously (except the Czech position quoted above). I understand Russian, thanks for the translation anyway. We are not talking about peacekeepers with a mandate of the ONU, but of the forces of the Russian Federation - and they are outside Georgia since 22 August according to Press TV! Bogorm (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

its troops, not its peacekeepers. Bogorm (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you did not know, Russia considers all of its troops in Georgia to be "peacekeeepers."--Kober^Talk 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Is the Iranian government-funded Press TV more reliable than the Irish Times? --Kober^Talk 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! It's just your POV. Please provide the source to your statement. Russia never considers her troops as peacekeepers. As I understood you have nothing to propose.

To Bogorm. Thank you for the reference. Taamu (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for very productive posts, but I fail to see either your "proposals" or your sources.--Kober^Talk 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(To Kober) Well, I found the article about your source. Press TV is irrefutably reliable since it is a renowned media and it is neutral in topics not regarding the Iranian nuclear programme such as this one. Besides, Iran has no common border with Georgia and cannot be accused of lacking impartiality (consider that NATO has common frontier with Georgia). Military forces who haven’t pulled back - this can apply to proper Russian troops who have not left SO or Abkhasia (as you know, there had been no Russian troops in both republics, only peacekeepers, until 8 August), although this is too dubitable that there are any such cases - please do not distort the source - nowhere is it written "who have not pulled back from Georgian soil" and I am pretty sure that you will be unable to find such claims!

"Russia considers all of its troops in Georgia to be peacekeeepers" - this statement is a blatant POV which I shall disregard until it is provided with some reliable source. The peacekeepers are in South Osetia and Abkhasia at the request of Georgia(по просьбе грузинского Президента были направлены миротворцы)! Bogorm (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"I fail to see either your "proposals" or your sources" - I am really flabbergasted at this sentence since I quoted you the Belorussian President who has a vivid memory of the conflict for 14 years and Press TV. I fail to see how yout Irish source is related to the Georgian soil, which we are talking of. Bogorm (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kober, I'd like to argue with you, because I guess you are an intelligent person and you are too NATO-oriented; but unfortunately it's not a forum. I'll be glad if you try to help me (us) with my request. Taamu (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Источник в Министерстве обороны России сообщил, что Гори начали покидать тыловые части российских миротворцев. «В соответствии с графиком, первыми покидают Гори тыловые части, затем пойдут подразделения второго эшелона, далее – передний край», – сказал он. По его словам, в настоящее время в районе Гори оборудованы миротворческие посты, обеспечивающие безопасность в районе, передает "Газета.ру".[23]

Миротворческие посты были оборудованы и в грузинском порту Поти. [24]

As you can see even the occupying troops in Gori and Poti are referred to by the Russian government as "peacekeepers."--Kober^Talk 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. But still... even if you are right... Russia hasn't ever declared that all her troops are peacekeepers. The source doesn't tell a thing about it. Taamu (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"I fail to see either your "proposals" or your sources" - I was not referring to you.

"Russian forces swept the Georgian army out of the rebel region and are still occupying some areas of Georgia proper."Reuters India. Aug 28, 2008.

"In addition, Russian troops have established checkpoints on the northern approach to the city [Poti] and a US ship docking there could have been seen as a direct challenge... Many of the Russian forces that drove deep into Georgia after fighting broke out on August 7 in South Ossetia have pulled back, but hundreds are estimated to still be manning checkpoints that Russia calls "security zones inside Georgia.Al Jazeera. August 27, 2008--Kober^Talk 13:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

From the very same Press TV: "US ship bypasses Russian forces in Poti" 27 Aug 2008.--Kober^Talk 13:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

From the very same Irish times: "he(Sarkozy) had given in to Russian demands for a “security zone” inside Georgia proper, and agreed to “special operations” by the Russians in Georgia after the ceasefire."[25] Bogorm (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A classic manipulation of a source as often by Bogorm >> The original text in IT: Military forces who haven’t pulled back to where they were before the outbreak of hostilities must move without delay,” he said, not mentioning that he’d given in to Russian demands for a “security zone” inside Georgia proper, and agreed to “special operations” by the Russians in Georgia after the ceasefire. First sentence by Sarkozy , the next is a commentary by IT . BTW: Press TV is on the same level as "russia today": state-controlled. Elysander (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Elysander has been involved in numerous as defamatory as anti-Russian Argumenta ad hominem as is evident from his talk page and I shall disregard this rootless accusation as the consecutive contumely. Bogorm (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The manipulation of the source (Irish Times) above is obvious. Someone did only quote one selected part of a certain sentence to suggest that Sarkozy "had given in to Russian demands.." In reality the selected part is a journalistic interpretation. Elysander (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russian troops will patrol the Georgian Black Sea port of Poti... Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn said. "Poti is outside of the security zone, but that does not mean we will sit behind a fence watching them riding around in Hummers."Rian. 23 August 2008.--Kober^Talk 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Its small nonsense phrase. Georgian side has made more amount of nonsense claims.--U-ser (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kober. If one holds position that "war is over", the result of this war is "partial occupation of Georgia". But it is not over as a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

War ongoing is POV now. Should we put that to the Korean War?? I'm putting a POV tag --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with TheFEARgod. Taamu (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. The POV tag is bound to remain until the conclusion of the war is written as 12 or 23 August as it is in Chinese, Serbian and Spanish Wikipedia. Bogorm (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What if someone launches an attack tomorrow. Will that then be a completely new war? I say it's to early to call this war over. -- megA (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As User:Kober sais, Wikipedia is not a crystall ball, "what if" does not sound stringent. Bogorm (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant. It's a question of terminology. If you close this one because of a more than uncertain truce, will we have Ossetia war XII in October? -- megA (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kober. Still on alert! Russian sources claim that Georgians are infiltrating SO again ;) Georgians claim other strange things ;) Occupation forces still deep in central Georgia etc. Elysander (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion Kober is violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. As is obvious and he admits the ceasefire is in effect. That means the war is over or at least indefinetely suspended. Since the Georgian military infrastructure has been destroyed a restart of the war in the near future is all but impossible. Kober is continuing a war on wikipedia which has been concluded in the real world. He is abusing Wikipedia as a playground for wargames. This is a problem I have been confronted with before. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Otto (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The impression of the discussion leads me to the same conclusion and I assent thereto. Bogorm (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

UN events not enough

before 08/08: «But at the outbreak of violence, Russia had tried to have the United Nations Security Council issue a statement calling on Georgia and South Ossetia to immediately lay down weapons. However, Washington was disinterested.»[26] Add to timeline section.--A20080819 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Tskhinvaly ruins

I think it would be fair to put here the pictures of Tskhinvaly having been shelled by georgian missile artilery systems, heavy artilery, and bombed by aviation during the august, 7-8 night. Those can be taken here: http://www.vesti.ru/photo.html?num=13&id=200948 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleks.fidela (talk • contribs) 12:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope - they're copyrighted by Russian news agencies. --Illythr (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait for truly free licensed photos.--U-ser (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

SCO endorsement???

Simply have a look at the map in "international recognition of the independence of SO and Abkhazia" and you will see a clear discrepancy. Most SCO members are neutral on this issue.Schpnhr (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No endorsement! Only the usual manipulations by some editors. The text of SCO's final declaration doesn't underline or support Russia's position. Bad & not expected surprise for Medvedev - SCO Fails to Back Russia Over Georgia - [[27]] - Elysander (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The map relies on original research/personal interpretation. It should be removed or changed so that only countries which have recognized them are colored. The maps author has already been blocked for revert warring to keep it in the article, but I don't want to be blocked myself by removing it again.

Elysander, to quote an AFP article, "A statement released by the six nations at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit voiced support for Russia's "active role" in "assisting in peace and cooperation in the region". They didn't recognize the regions, no, but they still supported Russia's position nonetheless. LokiiT (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry .. it is nonsense and again source manipulation! Only one sweet & unsubstantial sentence to make Medevedev not more sadder than he is - not more. SCO doesn't support Russia's recognition policy and its policy of changing borders and establishing occupation zones. Keyword in the final declaration is "Territory's integrity"(respect for every country's territorial integrity) Indeed a very surprising declaration. Elysander (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, please ponder a bit that not all statements supporting straightforward and unambiguously the Russian actions as ШОС's (上海合作组织's) are manipulations. What do you think of this: "SCO backs Moscow against West"[28] - the support is thence incontestable and the Turkish source is to be dealt with extremely circumspectly - yonder country is a NATO participant and this organisation has its interests in the region. Bogorm (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"its policy of changing borders" - this is already jocose - if you do not know, the borders had been changed in 1991 because Ossetians are yearning for their independence ever since and Russia was then too preoccupied with itself and hardly was interested therein. In the case of Kosovo the impetus is a foreign intervention, since until 1999 there was no (succussful) effort of creating a separate state but it was imposed on Serbia during the 1999 incursion. That is the extolled difference between Kosovo and Metokhia's case and SO's - the first is imposed from outwards, the second is the popular will and not the result of any incursion. Bogorm (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

the second is the popular will of depopulated regions after expelling some 100000s inhabitants from their soil. And the expelling goes on a la Kokoity. Europe 2008! Elysander (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is the sentiment naturally emerging in civil Ossetians after being indiscriminately fired at together with the peacekeepers. And probably Kokoity has slaughtered 1492 Ossetians? And the xpulsion is of 200 000 Ossetians and is committed by Georgian forces. Bogorm (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but this is on the International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia_independence page: "A joint declaration was issued at the August 28, 2008 SCO Dushanbe summit and signed by the leaders of all six full members, most notably Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The communique denounces force as a means to solve international problems, called for respect for every country's territorial integrity and expressed concern over the tense situation, and called upon both parties to solve the ongoing South Ossetia conflict through peaceful dialogue. ([29])" Isn't that a discrepancy? -- megA (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And note that China didn't support Russia but "expressed concern over the latest developments of the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We understand the complicated history and reality of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia issue. In the meantime, in light of our consistent principle and position on issues alike, we hope to see relevant parties resolve the issue properly through dialogue and consultation." Narking (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

However you want to interpret it, and analysts seemed divided on that, the fact remains that all SCO members, including China, signed a statement saying they "support the active role of Russia in assisting peace and cooperation in the region."[30] Notice the word "support" in the wording? There is nothing wrong with the sentence and its wording does not need to be changed. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Territory's integrity" with long ethnic conflict VS "Self-determination#The UN Charter"--U-ser (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A joint declaration was issued at the August 28, 2008 SCO Dushanbe summit and signed by the leaders of all six full members, most notably Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The communique denounces force as a means to solve international problems, expressed concern over the tense situation, and called upon both parties to solve the ongoing South Ossetia conflict through peaceful dialogue. The heads have agreed to the six-point plan which was established in Moscow (August 12) and have expressed support to Russia. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/28/content_9730813.htm It's only the media view. Let's wait on original text of joint declaration. --Niggle (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wag the dog version?

Putin has accused the US of provoking the War for US election aims

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It only the philosophical assumption.--U-ser (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it tells us much more about Putin than about the war. Colchicum (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. One can place this to article Putin or "foreign relations of Russia".Biophys (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin forgot to say about the war in Chechnya before his election in 2000. 89.178.157.8 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Mike

Next film like Fahrenheit 9/11 will be Kelvin 8/8. Directed by Michael Moore, written by Vladimir Putin, starring the President of the USA John McCain. --Niggle (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

И Вы действительно надеетесь, что Маккейн станет следующим президентом США? Если бы я рассказал короче каким его описывает Михаил Леонтьев, волосы стали бы дыбом при мысли о таком будущем. Bogorm (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Не имеет значения какой у них будет президент, как они были марионетками так и останутся. Also, next time in English, please. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin said US is taking opportunity of Georgia situation for domestic election purpose

This should be mentioned [31]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

cargo by mil.

Add to timeline: Night 2008-08-14: USA delivered first cargo (as USA claimed its humanitarian aid) by using military transports Air Force Completes First Georgia Humanitarian Aid Mission--U-ser (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Impact on international trade

I think a separate section titled "Impact on international trade" should be created. Nineteen US poultry producers barred from exporting their products to Russia. [32] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some more references [33][34][35][36]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin said it had nothing to do with this conflict and was due to sanitary regulations. LokiiT (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin surely has humour. Narking (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not the matter. Russia has bans on suspicious meat from Poland too and in South Korea there are mass demonstrations against imports of the same poultry meat from the USA. Do you think the former South Korean President who had imposed the ban (before the current one lifted it) on the dubious poultry stuff has had humour too? Bogorm (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea to create such article. See also 2006 Russian ban of Moldovan and Georgian wines. They earlier also banned mineral water borzomi from Georgia. Russian government always does that.Biophys (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even most Russians understand it's politically motivated bans and not because of "sanitary regulations". And by the way both Borjomi and Georgian wine are very tasty which the Russians since some time haven't been able to drink due to Putin's policy. Narking (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And can Swedish people enjoy Abkhazian wine or tangerines? :) Alæxis_¿question? 07:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't enjoy Georgian wine here either since no-one is importing it here. But I did enjoy it while there some weeks ago. But in Russia it was very common with Georgian wine and mineral water just some years ago so I have been drinking it there too. Luckily they still have it in Ukraine. Narking (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there the comparison of Russia to Nazi Germany?

"Using the excuse of purported attacks on its citizens, similarly to Nazi Germany accusations against Poland in Operation Himmler, Russia launched a massive invasion of Georgia occupying about 1/3 of the country."

What purpose does that serve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.58.25 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't touch - this is a GOOD propaganda. Магистер (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Swedish foreign minister made a similar comparsion citing the reason for invasion was the same in both cases, protection of citizens living in the other country. Hobartimus (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, same could be said about the Invasion of Grenada.(Igny (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

No propaganda is supposed to be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.40.240.137 (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if Swedish Government compared Russia to Nazi - it is there opinion, it is attributed and not represented as fact. If Putin compared Saakashvili to Hitler it is his opinion and may also be represented in the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(a little swerving concerning Nazi comparisons) Actually Robert Gabriel Mugabe has compared Bush and T. Blair to Hitler. [37] Bogorm (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Populism;) Nazi Swedish (in the past) make funny comparison.--A20080819 (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's so called "genetic memory" :-).--Oleg Str (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Nazi Swedish? Sweden was never allied with Nazi Germany like for example Soviet Union, which is something most Russians don't remember when they accuse others like Swedes and Ukrainians. Narking (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen (A20080819 and Oleg Str), don't you think you are a bit over the line, expressions like "nazi swedish" and suggestion that one's nationality has something to do with "genetic (nazi?) memory" leave at least for me very uncomfortable feeling? I do understand your viewpoint to the whole matter, but that kind of rhetoric isn't really tolerable. And don't even bother to start with "but he (Swedish foreign minister) said it first..", you're not in a kindergarten! Ptrt (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's law never gets old, I guess. Too bad we can't extend the Digwuren restrictions off-wiki... --Illythr (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia and Rissia called for international investigation

Statement by Georgia's foreign ministry: [38]

“

It is time to establish the truth about the crimes committed before and during Russia's invasion of Georgia. The government of Georgia therefore urges the international community to establish an independent international commission to study and assess the events that preceded this military conflict; to investigate all claims of the violation of human rights as well as international humanitarian law.

”

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nil sub sole novum - the Russian prosecutor first said that Saakashvili's misdeeds against Russian and Ossetian civilians are to be prosecuted by the Hague tribunal. Bogorm (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russia tests ICBM that beats anti-ballistic missile"

This should be mentioned in the Military situation in the Black Sea section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

News articles are saying that according to Russia, the increase in NATO ships is related, so their inclusion is justified. But nothing in this article says refers to the war/tensions, so it would be OR. Sijo Ripa (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename section to "Military Demonstrations"...--A20080819 (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: decisive Russian victory

Is there some reason why the "result" of the battle is not clearly written? In analogy with all other pages about battles, e.g. Battle of Austerlitz, it should say "Decisive Russian victory". Anything else is POV propagation of fog. --Lumidek (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But without decisive. It goes only in battles not wars.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. this was an obvious Russian victory. Georgia's goals of wrestling back control of the two (former) republics failed completely. Russia repelled Georgia's army, had complete control of the air, then ran unopposed in undisputed Georgian territory, took over military bases and ports and continued to destroy Georgian weapons caches. To solidify Russia's victory into actual strategic benefits, Moscow then recognized the two regions as independent. Georgia's goals in S. Ossetia and Abhkazia, whatever they may have been, are irrelevant now. They will never regain control of them again.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support The result of this conflict is clearly Russian victory. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When two people start fighting eachother, both have already lost. In a war, only the financiers win. It is clear that Russia had to intervene and restore the Peace that they were responsible for under Peacekeeping agreements. They completed their mission rapidly and effectively, while making provisions for preventing subversive tactics. Georgia pulled Russia into a conflict, and if that was it's purpose, it also succeeded of course. What is the aim here? Cui Bono? I am afraid that is still a matter of opinion. The gravity of the situation and the ill will at hand would probably do well to not being underestimated, whichever it's source and aims may be. --Tananka (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the goal of the Russians here? Hobartimus (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To fulfill their peacekeeping mission.

following useless comment is in the way please ignore.

ROFL ;) Elysander (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place ridicule, thank you. Goodbye.--Tananka (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - the victory lies at least in the fact that before the war the Georgians had been controlling the Kodory valley, but now the whole of Abkhasia is under Bagapsh's rule and because much of the Georgian military strength has been diminished by the Russians while on Georgian soil. Bogorm (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This is war, not a battle. The result is not a "victory", but the partial occupation of Georgia.Biophys (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Opposition. "partial occupation of Georgia" is the best term when looking at matters from a objective perspective. Georgia and the vast majority of countries still recognize those as part of Georgia after all.[Though now those parts are according to Russia "independent countries". And those countries (or more likely the puppet governments set up by the Russians) seem to have asked for Russian military bases on their territory. This reminds me of how countries were added to the Soviet Union, first some "friendly" military bases and then a 99.9% vote to join up with the Union.] ExtraxiTerra (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I'm not understanding your arguments here. This isn't a straw poll, and a decision is made based on valid arguments, not votes. I think you should clarify what you mean, because you can't really be implying that wars don't have losers and victors? I mean, that makes no sense. Also, we don't know that Russia plans on camping out permanently in Georgia proper, so "partial occupation of Georgia" is POV. Claiming that S. Ossetia and Abkhazia are still part of Georgia would be anti-Russia POV. The "result" and "location" sections should be made like this (below):--71.112.145.102 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Not only has Georgia lost control over its footholds in Ossetia and Abkhazia, but it has also had its key military Strongholds in Gori, Senaki and Poti destroyed with the last two facing long-term Russo/Abkaz occupation. Independent military analysts such as Stratfor believe that the Georgian Airforce, Navy and Armored forces along with radar and command and control infrastructure have been essentially destroyed. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Freepsbane (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your professional treatment of my humble suggestion. I was overwhelmed a bit like the Georgian troops were overwhelmed by the Russian army. :-) --Lumidek (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fighters operating under US flag, or how not to delete additions, respect NPOV while seeking concensus.

This was reported by Russia Today, interviewing first-hand source. Then further confirmed. All sourtce are there. Infowars is not doing original research. Please check references and discuss on the discussion page before deleting anything entirely. Edits are welcome must they must be done in NPOV manner with a balanced set of views in the article for comparrisson. Be costructive, not destructive. If more published sources that are referred to in the reference should be added, please do so. Respect 3RR please.--Tananka (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And again an editor edits in such a manner that what's written does not reflect what is published. Yes they are allegedly US soldiers operating for NATO, or mercenaries from a private firm. Maybe the editor will have the decency to discuss this matter instead of edit warring.--Tananka (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the first hand source was Eduard Kokoity and it's strange the news came more than two weeks ago and yet no other proof of the existence of these "mercenaries from the Baltics as well as nationals from other countries" has showed up since then. If they did have captured any mercenaries I'm sure they would have showed them for the world press by now. So until then I guess we have to wait with the inclusion of Americans and Ukrainians in the infobox. Narking (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this one-sided "2 men" nonsense should not be in a table on top, it is more appropriate in a section about information war propaganda --windyhead (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

As you state this was reported by Russia Today and "sources are there", please provide diff with your edit where you support your information with reference to Russia Today.
Since you reverted my removal of references to infowars, please prove it is a reliable source accurding to WP:RS
Please explain your removal of "According to S. Ossetia", as it is what source says and no other side is supporting these claims

--windyhead (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so let's see, "According to S. Ossetia" is added. It is not S. Ossetia, when a person gives testimony on TV, that person is not the government... But "alleged" makes it clear they are allegations, in respect of consensus and NPOV, does it not?--Tananka (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today quoted South Ossetia's Eduard Kokoity that ... - this is quote from the source. Let's stick to what the source says. --windyhead (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

US flag is removed, hmmmm. Well that is there because of the soldiers (or mercenaries) wearing US flag. They would wear US flag in light of international law issues, this is a possibility in the case of mercenary operations which would be a problematic state of affairs.--Tananka (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

soldiers (or mercenaries) wearing US flag - please cite the source confirming this --windyhead (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And the source for the Ukrainians is South Ossetia's envoy to Russia who was quoted "in yesterday's most recent tank attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians." Doesn't seem to be that much of proof of their existence. Narking (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Person's testimony on Russia Today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLFWxGXGCBg at 10:30
US: "Russia Today quoted South Ossetia's Eduard Kokoity that "Ukrainians and mercenaries from the Baltics as well as nationals from other countries were involved in the fighting, as 'foreigners have been found among their bodies.'" South Ossetia's envoy to Russia was quoted that "in yesterday's most recent tank attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians. Two unidentified bodies found today... Americans... who were probably either mercenaries or instructors in the Georgian armed forces." - Inner City Press
Russian sources have confirmed these claims. http://kommersant.com/p-13081/mercenaries_Georgia_U.S._instructor
Published material on infowars is reliable, as it refers entirely to published material. Read the article and according to WP:RS "How reliable a source is depends on context." "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose. Tertiary sources — compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources — may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." Alex Jones was invited to give interviews on many mainstream media and is recognised as an investigative journalist of reliability. If you need reference to that it can also be provided.--Tananka (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"unnamed source said" - see your reference http://kommersant.com/p-13081/mercenaries_Georgia_U.S._instructor. And this is an "exceptional claim". We do not need this per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is entirely POV. Who is we? --Tananka (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

a high-ranked officer of Russia’s military intelligence. --Tananka (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones is not "recognised as an investigative journalist of reliability". I bet you don't even know who he is. Ostap 02:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do know who he is, but you must read the infowars article first anyhow. If you want to make a judgement over reliability or verifiability in the referenced articles. Mr. Jones was invited only yesterday to give an interview on Russia Today. And his title was given as "investigative journalist". He has been invited on mainstream media various times. But again, you must check the article and it's quotes of reliable media. Again it is perfectly reliable based on the general standards as far as this matter is concerned. Again you must explain why you hold that POV first for consideration? Many other sources are supplied, so this is not about a reference source. Is it? Because the whole thing was deleted instead of fixing the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tananka (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

By placing these claims in the box of the article (as they are right now), we misrepresent claims as facts. Actually, these are not facts. For example, "Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the UN, claimed that there were 127 Pentagon advisors working in Georgia" [39] according to cited source. First, this is claim by an official representative of a combatant's side (one could even say the "aggressor side"). Second, these 127 people are not necessarily combatants. If they are not combatants, they do not belong to the box.Biophys (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't write "Unknown number of alleged Ukrainians" and present it in the infobox. That is simply ridiculous. Ostap 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then why not just delete "Unknown number of alleged" instead of deleting everything. To actually delete the whole thing is very much a POV decision the referenced and verifiable sources in this case. --Tananka (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So let us start over again, but this time before editing references must be followed and verified. Then a point may be disagreed with and an edit made to better present the essentially relevant material that is given. Deleting of sections will not do. Come on this is a lot more constructive and enriching. While being much closer to Wikipedia Policy. :) Let the debate begin....--Tananka (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

None of these allegations and fairy tale numbers belong in the infobox. Putting them in there is just an excuse for POV pushers and nationalists to portray the evil US as the instigator. In fact, I don't think any of these allegations belong in the article at all. Georgian president denied all of them. Some are just so ridiculous: "unknown number of alleged tank crews". About a week ago, all these mercenary allegations ("black soldiers" "Ukrainians in tanks" etc) were removed from the article. And Alex Jones is not a reliable source. And since when do military advisors get listed under the strength section in the infobox? Ostap 05:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"fairy tale", in this conflict they are reliable sources, just like any other reliable source. Each person can decide for themselves on the weight of these claims by reading referenced, and referenced from there to other sources. All boiling down to what is commonly known as reliable sources and published media. The infowars (or Alex Jones) article is just referencing media sources and research by a scholar that investigated mercenaries and explains about contemporary mercenaries. It does not really matter if they were removed from the article before, as they are valid. Just as any other reliable source. Again: it is a personal matter as to what weight is given to referenced material while reading the article. It's like comparing CNN and RIA Novosti. BTW Georgia has hired PR groups that are extreemly active on the internet. So be prepared for vandalism on the web and media in general, company is based in Brussels.--Tananka (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. You write that there were 2500 to 3000 mercenaries. The source given says that this is according to "an unnamed source". You are deliberately misrepresenting the source. We can't post allegations made by unnamed sources as fact. Actually, all of your sources are like this. The source for the Ukrainians in tanks is Eduard Kokoity. yeah, hes really reliable. And yet you portray it as fact. none of this belongs in the infobox. Ostap 05:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't call civil georgia sources rubbish or ridiculous. Please desist. Yes it is an unnamed source, it is from the media that published it. But it is not just any source, is it? We cannot just pick and match incomplete info. Read again, there is more detail on the source in the article. The weight of that media supports it. Please read policy again on reliable sources.--Tananka (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the alleged mercenaries and instructors from infobox to the "Georgian order of battle". Presence of a significant number of foreign mercenaries is not an unquestionable fact (and even not a mainstream theory), thus it should not be in the infobox yet. The section on foreign fighters can be elaborated with Putin statement, foreign passports allegedly found, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Even there were REALLY, srsly, for real, even 60 million mercenaries (or volunteers) from USA, Ukraine, Estonia, Third Reich, and Airstrip One, no countries should be added unless they were sent by the governments. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian 58th Army started moving to Roki Tunnel on 4th August 2008, before Georgian incursion into Ossetia

The following article (from 6 August 2008, before the Georgian incursion on the 8th) states (from a Czech site) states that the Russian 58th Army started moving to Roki Tunnel on 4th August 2008. The reference is:

http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=281&NrSection=1&NrArticle=19821

This reference and text was removed by Taamu (I believe he is an Ossetian/Russian) as he said:

"The reference doesn't say a word about the Russian movement on 04/08"

In fact the article does mention the movement in paragraph 7 (somewhat further down the page). Here is an excerpt from that paragraph: "At the same time, it has been reported that five battalions of Russia's 58th Army are approaching the Roki tunnel [linking South Ossetia with North Ossetia]."

Seems pretty clear cut to me that the removal of this reference for the reason he gives is completely unwarranted. [StaubSauger] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.221.19 (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Who reported??? I can find thousands of articles that say "it is reported..." / "it is believed..." / "they say...". Wikipedia requires reliable sources. P.S. My background shoudln't be taken into account. Taamu (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. At the same time, it has been reported that five battalions of Russia's 58th Army are approaching the Roki tunnel [linking South Ossetia with North Ossetia]. At what time? At 5 o'clock? At night? Taamu (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The source for his reference appears to be the BBC, which is a pretty reliable news source. This should be restored. Right now, the whole article reads like Russian propaganda, which is about as far from Wikipedia's ideals as possible. Warren Dew (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
203.97.221.19 (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Who reported? => Transition Online (Czech), from BBC monitoring. BBC Monitoring is a payment news service so I cannot get the individuals name. The referenced information then stands on the credibility of BBC Monitoring. If you can prove that they are not a credible source then I'll agree to the removal of that text.

My background shouldn't be taken into account. => You are completely correct about that *provided* you are performing unbiased editing. The fact that you summarily deleted the referenced entry without providing a counter-reference to dispute it brings into question your neutrality. If you cannot counter the reported fact with another reference to disprove it then you should not remove it. If you can prove a counter-reference to the one I have provided then I am happy to have the entry removed (my point is, if you do your proper homework then I will consent to removal, regardless of any background or point-of-view).

At what time? At 5 o'clock? At night? => I cannot provide this fact as it not reported in the article. However, the entry on the wiki page says "4 August 2008" without attempting to be more explicit. A more precise timing is not required as no other event is reported on that date. Not being able to provide a down-to-the-second timing does not make the section invalid, and is certainly not a reason for a referenced statement to be summarily deleted. Giving this spurious argument as a reason for deletion raises questions regarding your particular journalistic neutrality - I understand you do not like this referenced fact, but you should not be finding irrelevant reasons for deletion.

Please note all I am trying to do is add a referenced time to a confusing sequence of events. I have *not* stated when the 58th Army entered the Roki Tunnel as that is not known (except by the Russian Army, and they have not responded to European requests for this information, so I will certainly not put this unknown on any page). All we can do is put reported events on the page and let the reader decide what really went on. Censoring referenced information you don't like is against the wikipedia rules.

I recommend you register for an account, use the watch list tools, and start cleaning the article up. Oh, and you might want to use colons (:) to indent your comments so we can follow the flow better. Good luck! Warren Dew (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

invasion of South Ossetia.

the article states that "Ongoing occasional skirmishes escalated to a war early in the morning[not in citation given] of 8 August, 2008, with an attack by Georgia into the break-away region of South Ossetia.[19][20]"

Both citations [19][20]are from America.gov. Bureau of International Information Programs. I doubt the neutrality of this source as it is published by the US government. I would like to contribute other sources which is from Telegraph.co.uk which is a British publication.

the link is as follow,

[40]

another source is from abc.net.au, which is an Australian news source

[41]

Both sources state that Georgia first sent troop into the region of South Ossetia, then Russia responded by sending troops. Russia needed to act as it was a party to Joint Control Commission for Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Resolution as peacekeeper of the region of South Ossetia.

see passage from [42]

"Russia, which had provided support to the separatists and acted as a peacekeeper in the province, responded to Georgia's invasion by pouring troops and tanks south through the Caucasus mountains into South Ossetia to drive back the Georgians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clageo (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The US government source says that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first. I think all sides agree with that much. Menrunningpast (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how either of those sources are more reliable: "Bryza recently returned from Tbilisi, Georgia, where he acted as a U.S. special envoy to help support the Georgian government as it faced Russia’s August 8 military incursion." Unless you dispute that "... Georgia attacked South Ossettia, late August 7" and "Russia responsed militarily to the Georgian offensive the next day" as misrepresentative language, I think the sources establish that recent conflict, August 1-7, escalated to war in the morning of August 8. They directly quote the government's strategic interests in the region (in saying "direct military conflict" began August 8) and explain the points of escalation. Ottre (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong - Georgian side does not.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

Regional expert, German native, and former European Commission official Patrick Worms was recently hired by the Georgian government as a media advisor, and he explained to me exactly what happened when I met him in downtown Tbilisi. You should always be careful with the version of events told by someone on government payroll even when the government is as friendly and democratic as Georgia's. I was lucky, though, that another regional expert, author and academic Thomas Goltz, was present during Worms' briefing to me and signed off on it as completely accurate aside from one tiny quibble.

Goltz has been writing about the Caucasus region for almost 20 years, and he isn't on Georgian government payroll. He earns his living from the University of Montana and from the sales of his books Azerbaijan Diary, Georgia Diary and Chechnya Diary. Goltz experienced these three Caucasus republics at their absolute worst, and he knows the players and the events better than just about anyone. Every journalist in Tbilisi seeks him out as the old hand who knows more than the rest of us put together, and he wanted to hear Patrick Worms' spiel to reporters in part to ensure its accuracy.

(...) - rather long article

"On the evening of the 7th, the Ossetians launch an all-out barrage focused on Georgian villages, not on Georgian positions. Remember, these Georgian villages inside South Ossetia the Georgians have mostly evacuated those villages, and three of them are completely pulverized. That evening, the 7th, the president gets information that a large Russian column is on the move. Later that evening, somebody sees those vehicles emerging from the Roki tunnel [into Georgia from Russia]. Then a little bit later, somebody else sees them. That's three confirmations. It was time to act.

"What they had in the area was peacekeeping stuff, not stuff for fighting a war. They had to stop that column, and they had to stop it for two reasons. It's a pretty steep valley. If they could stop the Russians there, they would be stuck in the tunnel and they couldn't send the rest of their army through. So they did two things. The first thing they did, and it happened at roughly the same time, they tried to get through [South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali, and that's when everybody says Saakashvili started the war. It wasn't about taking Ossetia back, it was about fighting their way through that town to get onto that road to slow the Russian advance. The second thing they did, they dropped a group of paratroopers to destroy a bridge. They got wiped out, but first they managed to destroy the bridge and about 15 Russian vehicles.

"The Georgians will tell you that they estimate that these two actions together slowed the Russian advance by 24 to 48 hours. That is what the world considered to be Misha's game. And you know why the world considers it that? Because here in South Ossetia was the head of the peacekeeping troops. He hasn't been in Iraq, he's a peacekeeper. What have they been told for the last four years? They lived in a failed state, then there was the Rose Revolution it wasn't perfect but, damn, now there's electricity, there's jobs, roads have been fixed - and what the Georgians have had drummed into them is that Georgia is now a constitutional state, a state of law and order. And everybody here knows that Ossetia is a gangster's smuggler's paradise. The whole world knows it, but here they know it particularly well. The peacekeepers had a military objective, and the first rule of warfare when you're talking to the media is not to reveal to your enemy what you're going to do. So they weren't going to blather into a microphone and say well, actually, I'm trying to go through Tskhinvali in order to stop the Russians. So what did he say instead? I'm here to restore constitutional order in South Ossetia. And that's it. With that, Georgia lost the propaganda war and the world believes Saakashvili started it. And the rest of the story...you know."[43] (<- "someone" apparently hacked and deleted his website, so use google cache if needed)

--84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Mikheil Saakashvili himself wrote:

Russia’s campaign to redraw the map of Europe is based on the propagation of misinformation. On Wednesday on this page, Mr Medvedev asserted that Georgia attacked South Ossetia. In fact, our forces entered the conflict zone after Russia rolled its tanks on to our soil, passing through the Roki tunnel into South Ossetia, Georgia.[44]

--84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)