Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

"Volunteers" entered S. Ossetia prior to Georgian Advance

Volunteers arriving in South Ossetia - president's envoy 65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

President of EU member country calls to end talks on treaty with Russia and calls partnership with it a mistake

Estonian president called for end of talks to have a treaty with Russia in regards to cooperation and called idea of partnership with Russia a mistake[1] --Molobo (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That is all very nice and well for the Estonian president, but I cannot help noting that a) they did not a single flick of the wrist to stop the fighting and especially b) the ceasefire accord (in the preparation of which the 4 countries were completely sidelined I think) is apparently the first ceasefire accord in the history of the Ossetian conflict in which a term like "preservation of Georgia's teritorial integrity" does not appear. That, I think, if correct is really notable, because as opposed to those 4 countries being anti-Russian it represents a stark change from how things were in the past.

If correct, it means that the EU's priority was to get a ceasefire even if this meant risking that Georgia will be chopped up eventually. I mean, formally chopped up.

If correct, this also gives an assessment of the state of the Georgian state apparatus. Would they sign what may well turn out to be their countrie's (as they define it) death sentence if they had any other choice?

This is not a good development. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What else is new out of the mouths of one of the Axis of Hatred presidents? Anyway, it's not relevant to the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevent as it is consequence of Russian invasion. As to neutrality most sources aren't neutral, they are to be presented in neutral way though.--Molobo (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IT's relevant if the EU decides to cut off ties with Russia as a result of the conflict (note invasion not used) because the esteemed Estonian president feels this way about Russia regardless of any conflict in Ossetia, and has gone on the record in the past on the issue. Frankly, it's a whole lot of mouthing off being done, like a broken record in that regard. It's not relevant to this conflict unless something comes of it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand. These 4 politicians are making noble statements of commitment, but I am not at all sure whether the EU and the NATO is gonna follow through. The problems Eastern Europe has with Russia are not unjustified, but unfortunately for these 4 countries, they are problems the rest of Europe cannot really understand. That these guys go there and to this in the first place indicates a deep rift going through EU and NATO, and/or that they are willing to force the hand of their allies. Forcing some other guy's hand without need is not a good thing. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record-UK has strongly sided with the opinion of those countries.Likewsie US President praised this mission.--Molobo (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Economical

Pls, update RTS index.--Butter-club (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ITN tag

On 12 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) 2008 South Ossetia war, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

To everyone that's done work on the article...here. There's just so many edits to the page its mindboggling. Feel free to copypaste to your talk page. --Spencer^T♦^C 21:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree194.116.199.218 (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV non respected

In the first section nammed "Summary", the sentence : “In the early 2000s, it was reported that 95% of the native population in South Ossetia adopted Russian citizenship.[26]” is sourced with a russian newspaper website and appears to me to be false. At least it must be written : "Russia reported that..." or "Russia claims that...".

Can an administrator protect this article, can you protect it from propaganda (from both side..) ? thanks. MaCRoEco (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also feel that the following paragraph is biased: "On August 8, 2008, Russia sent troops across the Georgian border to South Ossetia to stop Georgia’s massive offensive against its breakaway territory in which some 2,000 civilians (at least 1000 [29] ) and about 20 Russian peacekeepers were killed. In five days of fighting the Russian forces recaptured the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory.[30] Georgia retreated from its offensive in South Ossetia, then claimed to be defending itself against "Russian aggression."[31] Russia responded to the charge in the United Nations, saying Georgia had started the war by conducting a military operation against South Ossetia.[23]" Popersman (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"On August 8, 2008, Russia sent troops across the Georgian border to South Ossetia (to stop Georgia’s massive offensive against its breakaway territory). In five days of fighting the Russian forces (recaptured) the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory."

The sections in parenthesis still strike me as non-neutral, and use of the word "recaptured" implies that Tshkinvali was taken from the Russians by the Georgians and then "recaptured" by the Russians, which is of course not the case. It should read "Captured".

Scrolling reference box

I've seen on other articles references put in a scrolling box to save space. I don't know how to do it but may I suggest doing it here, 313 references and growing is too many to display at once. Terlob (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statement?

"Neither state has been diplomatically recognised by any member of the United Nations."

What about Russia? --Calibas (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no embassies. Ru magister (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia has not formally recognized either South Ossetia or Abkhazia as independent states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.12.114 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

2008 South Ossetia war → ? — I believe that the name of this article should be changed, because the current name-2008 South Ossetia War-implies that combat is restricted to South Ossetia, which is inaccurate, and could be considered misleading. In previous discussions, some have stated that we should wait until after the war is concluded before selecting a new name. I understand the reasoning behind that argument, but I believe a provisional name, at least, should be inserted that is more reflective of the suituation in Georgia. I personally believe the new name should be 2008 War in Georgia, as no side is discriminated against in the title, which has been a concern about the proposed "Russia-Georgia War 2008" new name (South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not listed), and all of the fight is happening within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia. Any other suggestions are welcome, obviously.— 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been won over by the argument that we should wait until after the war is concluded before changing the name of this article. As a result, I would like to withdraw my request for a move. I am personally pleased that there is a large amount of support for the title to be changed eventually. I would like to thank those for who have inputed into this discussion. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Since this discussion does not involve an original suggestion for a name, but instead is a discussion to find a number of suggestions, and then draw a consensus on one, please could you state "support" followed by the new name you would like to see this article have, if you support the article being renamed. Thank you in advance. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose any change of name; we have discussed this repeatedly. Until the rest of the English-speaking world decides what to call this, we should not move it; when they have, we should adopt that name. It's not our business to make up a name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would especially regret capitalizing War until we move to whatever the world winds up calling this. The present title is not a proper name; that's a good thing, until this war has a generally accepted name. I would consider a move to a name, like 2008 war over South Ossetia which would make this distinction clearer; although I think any move now more trouble than it is worth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Support for ~~2008 war in Georgia~~ 2008 War in Georgia I agree that it should not be "our business to make up a name". A new title of this article would merely be provisional, until a common name for the conflict is being used by the English-speaking world, which this article can then adopt. For now, I believe we should have a title that is better reflective of what is happening in Georgia, including the fact that the war has extended outside of South Ossetia (Abkhazia is quite a notable conflict zone atm).86.146.241.248 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose any move now I have become convinced by an argument against my proposal, and I now believe that we should wait until after the war is concluded before changing the name of the article. I still believe the name should be changed, but not at this time. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Support for Georgio-Russian War or Russo-Georgian War (what sounds best?) because the overarching topic of this article is the fact that Russia intervened and the following open war between Georgian military and Russian military. It is POV to call Georgia's efforts to recapture South Ossetia a war, hence Georgia's first moves internally in Georgia can't necessarily be called a "war in Georgia". A non-related example: It wouldn't be right to call Nazi Germany's WWII invasion of the Soviet Union "War in the Soviet Union" just because two separatist Soviet provinces sympathised with Hitler. If this proposal doesn't win, I support "2008 War in Georgia" - SSJ ☎ 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets wait a little bit to see how historians would name the conflict. Meanwhile I would prefer the current name. It is much more descriptive (we already have 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis) and mostly correct as the main events were related to the SO Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose for reasons already discussed hudreds of times. Seriously, when you people stop suggesting "Georgia-Russia War"? I'm happy and all that your media presents everything to you like it was an agression by Russia, but that's obvious POV. It's not even a matter of how people call this conflict, it's a matter of being neutral. Calling this "Georgia-Russia War" means taking Georgian side and agreeing that Russia was the agressor, because the Russian side says there was no war between Russia and Georgia and this was a peacekeeping operation. If you do not understand this, let's rename this article to "2008 Russian peacekeeping operation in Georgia". Clever idea, huh? You're suggesting the same, just for the other side. -- 81.195.12.123 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be opposing the idea that this article should be called Russia-Georgia War, instead of the concept itself that the name should be changed. You may support a name that you would like to see, such as "2008 Russian peacekeeping operation in Georgia". 86.146.241.248 (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There were examples of good, descriptive and neutral, titles, like "2008 armed conflict in Georgia", but to me it seems like there's no real need to change the name, since there's no clear info yet about how did the war really progress (heck, they don't even agree on who did occupy what, Georgians were once crying that "most of the Georgia is under Russian control" while ours insisted that they did not leave Ossetian region at all. Both sides lied, of course). -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

'RENAME It was as in Abkhazia as in South Ossetia (two fronts) - and all of Georgia was bombed. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would like the name changed, please specify what you would like the new title of the article to be. Thank you in advance.86.146.241.248 (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose and can we have a moratorium?. We seem to be discussing this on a daily basis if not more often. There is no consensus in the press, as of yet, as to what to call this conflict. There is no reason to believe that one won't evolve over the next few weeks. There is no hurry to find another name. In any event, the war clearly was over the status of South Ossetia, regardless of who the belligerents were nor where the battles were fought. As an example, a goodly part of the Vietnam War was fought outside Vietnam. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The flashpoint for this conflict as well as its main focus of operation was the South Ossetian region. Conflicts are commonly named after the region the conflict is over, not just an overarcing term to describe all regions involved. Both the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are named so despite involving actions and operations outside of the territorial boundaries of those countries. Any rename at this point would be bureaucratic, and should be held off until multiple reliable media sources have settled on a name for the conflict. 60.241.179.28 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The war is about South Ossetia more than anything else. It was the region where Georgia has done ethnic cleansing. Mrcatzilla (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. Changing the name is definitely POV. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. We should wait and see what the mainstream press calls it-I'm sure something will come up within the next month. Alphabravo11 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

What is the press calling it? It's not up to Wikipedia to name the wars. --Calibas (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Any additional comments:

All this name change rubbish! Let us take some perspective here - we are writing a fairly rapid response as-live report on an ongoing armed conflict. There will be ample time to review such things as the article title through the eyes of history, rather than spending far too long on one issue. Let us look at other Wiki articles, for some context and comparison. It would seem the English Wiki is not alone in choosing this name. I urge you to keep with the article in focus, rather than continous chatter about its title.

German Wiki:Südossetischer Krieg 2008

Estonian Wiki:2008. aasta Lõuna-Osseetia sõda

French Wiki:Guerre d'Ossétie du Sud de 2008

Polish Wiki:II wojna w Osetii Południowej

This is mainly because most of them were translated from another wiki. Colchicum (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

doktorb _words^deeds 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is circular and maddening. On pl wiki, which is used above to partly justify keeping the article misnamed, I was reverted after implementing someone else's sugestion of konflikt zbrojny w Gruzji 2008 (2008 armed conflict in Georgia) because all the other Wikipedias have it like so, so why don't we? and besides, that my rename was OR. The reverting editor with pretentions to geographic expertise above and beyond that o a mortal Wikipedian :) reverted to a name of his own choosing, quoted above, which IMHO is OR, and while at it, not so expertly belies the historical war between Georgians and South Ossetians (war no. 0?, war no. -1? :)) that happened for two years before WWII, about which we have an article, but the pl Wiki doesn't. Now we have this circular argument. Absurd. Clearly, this is not a declared war, or even a de facto war, between two unified commands. It is a free-for-all, which is happening disjointedly albeit militarily (armed conflict) this year (2008) within the confines of (including the territorial waters' sinking of a Georgian vessel by Russian Navy) of one recognized internationally state (Georgia). Not South Ossetia. What name, I ask you, reflects this fact and the article's content most NPOV? --Mareklug ^talk 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the fact that the war is ongoing means that we can't select a title that is more reflective of what is going on in Georgia. The fighting has extended outside of South Ossetia, and I believe the name of the article should reflect that. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings and haven't read all the discussion, but if we have to choose between titles;

I think we should use the term "war" rather than "armed conflict"
Write the title capitalised (like "World War II")
Say "Russo-Georgian" rather than "Russian-Georgian".

~:- SSJ ☎ 23:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on your suggestion about capitalizing "war", I have adjusted my vote. Thank you for stating your idea. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree on Russo-Georgian War as it follows past precedent. For example the Russo-Swedish War, Russo-Japanese War, and Russo-Turkish War among many others. XavierGreen (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In all those instances war was declared and both sides engaged almost all available resources to fight on and over large stretches of territory. In the current instance there was no war declared, the conflict is contained to the border regions of Abkhazia, Ossetia, and Georgia, and only small portions of the Russian and Georgian armies have been engaged (look at the tiny losses for example). In addition - that would completely ignore the centrality of the secessionist republics to the conflict (would the Abkhazians and Ossetians be the Russians or the Georgians in the "Russo-Georgian War"??) 209.6.213.24 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, folks

You don't need to use this talk page to document every bit of news you find, every opinion you have, and every little change you make to the article. If you have a question, check the archives to see if it's been asked. If you have a proposal, check the archives to see if it's been proposed. Chances are it has been. Yes, it's annoying searching archives... so quit necessitating more of them. If it's not directly related to the article—the article, mind you, not just the subject—then take it to your user talk page. If you have a reliable source, make the change. If someone reverts you, then discuss it.

We already have an article; we don't need to make a duplicate version on the talk page by discussing every single edit. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC

Thx. The wrapup I was waiting for.

Have fun guys, it has been a pleasure. Now back to the actual work... butterflies. Ah, butterflies! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section proposal regarding the invasion

Now the the invasion of Georgia is over there is an Aftermath section which would be usefull. All the below can be sourced

We could include consequences of the invasion:

Peace proposal by EU and its points.
Call by the EU countries for international force led by EU in Caucasus.
Ukraine suggesting closing access to Black Sea Fleet and new treaty on its location.
USA proposing to move ships to Black Sea.
Proposal to throw Russia out of G8.
More likelyhood of ABM shield being build suggested by Poland's government.
Closer cooperation of Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia and Poland in defence against Russian encroachment attempts.
Calls to end any treaty with Russia by EU and ending of the idea of partnership.
Boycott of Sochi Games.
Canceling WTO access for Russia.
Georgia taking Russia to International Court of Justice after atrocities comitted by Russian invasion force.
Russia reaffirming it's control over the Caucasus region.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia even less likely to return to Georgia in foreseeable future etc.
Special discussion meeting by Ukraine and NATO

--Molobo (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss how to phrase and source this. --Molobo (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Phrase it how you want. Others will change it as necessary.

How to source it can be found at WP:CITE. Nothing to discuss here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we add in:

Investigation into claims of genocide committed by the Georgians
Russia preventing evidence to have Saakashvili indicted for war crimes
The absolute idiocy of people calling for a boycott of the Sochi Olympics which are how many years away??!?!?!?!??
Russia stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus as a deterrent to Poland hosting any ABM shield
Russia re-affirming the treaty with Ukraine on basing the Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol
If Ukraine pushes, the possibility that sovereignty of Crimea to become a hot topic

There's more, just to balance out the POV a bit. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding unhinged Russian ultranationalist rhetoric does not "balance out the POV", it makes the article a joke. Please take this seriously. Ostap 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, such section would be good. But there is a problem. Your list includes a lot of talk and "proposals", but nothing has been decided yet. We are falling in recentism here. A lot of things will be different tomorrow.Biophys (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Any more a joke than talk of Russian atrocities? And notice that I, an Australian of English-heritage (so there to the brainwashed anon below), so there is no Russian ultra-nationalism on my part. I do have a problem with pro-this and that trying to bring in their own point of view into the article, points of view such as above. And my ultranationalist rhetoric whilst my thoughts, are also the thoughts of many strategic analysts. It seems to me that many are just pissed that Russia on this occasion has fought a better campaign; the media campaign; that is undisputable. For perhaps the first time ever the EU is split on issues regarding Russia and its foreign relations and the US has basically become sidelined in the entire process (demanding this and that, and being totally ignored by the Russians). Perhaps people should start reading more in-depth strategic analyst reports rather than media which is simply rehashing propaganda from both sides. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You can easily say the Tactical victory was a Diplomatic loss. To the above Tsarist

Investigation into claims of genocide committed by the Russians.
Georgians presenting evidence to have Putin indicted for war crimes.
Russians violating the Cease-fire and international Law causing a loss of international standing
What the hell are the Sochi Games, Oh wait I don't care or wish to ever care .
Russia stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus as a deterrent to Poland hosting any ABM shield. Then only to have your Russian weapons fall apart a year latter because their made like crap & backward like your peasant potato growing middle ages country and then your economy collapses again after another failed arms race against the West.
If Ukraine pushes, the possibility that sovereignty of Crimea to become a hot topic, then you get invaded by all your past territories because they all think your malice expansionist bully.

There's more because I am not brain washed by a government controlled press. I also don't do any Kiddie BS like the 'OL switch-a-roo when trying to convince someone of my side of the story( It's quite pathetic that copying a bunch of kiddies and thinking its fooling us, if your going emulate our culture do it right). I only have to contend with left or right leaning press. IF we see bombs parts with NATO or the USA written on it you better get out your pitch fork and get back to your government controlled farm so you can be safe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.64.87 (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell , I agree on some points.24.0.64.87 (talk)

The End

Today serious hostilities ended and the ceasefire agreement was signed by both sides. As a result, I put in today's date as the end of the conflict. The result is the ceasefire agreement signed by both sides, which essentially restored the status quo ante bellum. TSO1D (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its way to soon to officially call the war over. Prime minster Putin announced it would not stop until President Mikheil Saakashvili was removed for 'war crimes'. Yet a half hour later the President of the Russian Federation announced it has signed a cease-fire agreement sponsored by the European Union, but immediately bombed the Georgian city of Gori once more until all known incidents of fighting stopped abruptly and the Russian invasion force halted it's advance into Georgia.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

The problem though is that there is no neutral version, keeping the old version (i.e. "conflict ongoing") is not just a placeholder, it actually suggests that the conflict is still taking place. However at this point virtually all new sources have announced the end of the war based on the ceasefire, and there are no reports of ongoing fighting. Of course the situation may yet change, but at this point I think this is the most accurate representation. TSO1D (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment in "Result"Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly too soon to declare the conflict over. Russia is on soil internationally recognized as Georgian and the last I heard sporadic fighting at least was still occurring. If war is an extension of diplomacy then so too is diplomacy an extension of war, so let us see how the current diplomatic phase of the conflict is played out before declaring it over. I pray that no more blood will be shed, but I am not confident that Russia and Georgia can agree on how to handle South Ossetia and Akhazia. Christiangoth (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a link that says Georgia and Russia both actually signed a peace agreement? the_paccagnellan (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Signed or Unsigned since the acceptance of the ceasefire Russian tanks have moved within 12 miles of Tbilisi.24.0.64.87 (talk)

Result

I think it is clear to everyone that Moscow accomplished all of its military goals. They retook S. Ossetia from Georgian troops, they suffered comparatively minimal losses and had total domination of airspace. Georgian goals, obviously, have not been met. Their military has suffered an embarrassing defeat. I think the "result" needs to reflect this.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Russians accomplished their "goals" two days ago and I think a lot of people would agree/disagree. However untill the actions of BOTH sides have undergone a UN enquiry we won't know how this'll end up. Georgia could be found guilty of humanitarian crimes and so could Russia and the fallout from that could change the end result. Also there is the little question of the South Ossetian independance or lack there of and Abkhazia too for that matter. Just because bullets aren't flying doesn't mean this is over and it would be irresponsible of us to stop working on this article just because the fighting stopped.Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think we should wait until there's some sign things have truly subsided and we know exactly what the result is.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not change "Result" to "Ceasefire, see below for details"? And set internal anchor link from in-text discussion to "below"? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Article from Times on the same matter: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece 91.203.158.165 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have many reports that Russia violated the cease-fire today and sacked the city of Gori and are heading toward the Capital, annexed military supplies at a Georgian base, and fired on or returned fire on the Georgian army.

Additionally a American journalist has been wounded and two others killed in a cross fire, while Abkahzian troops advanced into Georgian territory, Russia denies all these claims though.

The war is still ongoing unfortunately, in my option.

Sorry, i keep forgeting to sign it.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade rat

Georgia's Interests -- Strategic concerns?

In talking with some friends, someone told me that one of Georgia's primary concerns about S. Ossetia is that it has a militarily strategic position in the mountains separating Georgia from Russian. According to this person, one of the few tunnels through the mountains between Russian and Georgia opens into S. Ossetia. By controlling S. Ossetia, Georgia (or Russian) is able to better control access to that passage. I haven't been able to verify whether this is true or not, but if it is I think it's an interesting strategic interest worth including in the article if it can be documented. croll (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Roki Tunnel. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't check this!

I'm currently at work and our websense blocks me from news sites. I was just listening to jjj radio here in Australia. They had a report on "Georgian claims of Russian ethnic cleansing" and I figured this was the same tired old back and forth accusation we've been hearing, but then I heard this interview on there with the Georgian President, and I quote: " We have confirmed reports of the Russians carrying out ethnic cleansing within Georgian territories as well as Russian internment camps outside of the South Ossetian capital, where they have been performing ethnic cleansing and executions". Now I'm not sure if this is propaganda but true or not these Georgian claims are usefull to this article. Please can somone look into this because I'm stuck at work.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia Files Ethnic Cleansing Case Against Russian Federation at International Court of Justice. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! No mention of "Internment camps" but the bit about the hundreds of thousands of people not allowed to return to their homes is an interesting accusation.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Pitty I'm not allowed to upload the pictures of attacked civilian targets and bombed hospital and university building in Gori.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC has also reported on looting, burning, and armed robbery in Gori, committed by South Ossetian irregulars and civilians following the Russian army. I can't find any documentation on this except hearsay. Obviously, this is inflammatory and needs to be substantiated. --67.163.163.28 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Can someone explain to me kindly what is picture of Russian Army in Bosnia[[2]] doing in this article? Request removal. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since we have no pic of the Russian army in Georgia, someone thought that having a pic of any Russian army members in any place is more important than having no pic at all, so they added one from Bosnia, and I think they did a good thing since the pic adds value to the article and the image caption clearly explains it's from Bosnia. NerdyNSK (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline section

The timeline section was massively cut because the article was too long with it all in. However, the section is now far too short, unreferenced, and grammatically incorrect. A compromise between the earlier and current versions is obviously necessary. Superm401 - Talk 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has again become heavily tilted towards Russian POV. It seems while Georgian towns are being bombed (and the bombs are still falling in spite of Sarkozy-mediated ceasfire), some of Wikipedia editors try to contribute to the Kremlin propaganda warfare. Back to the hostilities subject, I think the Georgian Foreign Ministry's map of Russian attack [3] can be used to create more or less credible map for Wikipedia. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Georgia version of timeline. can be used to balance the article. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry 93.177.151.101 but it sounded like you just implied that we're all pro russia and that the fighting continues. I know I'm not pro Russian but if you have evidence that "bombs are still falling in spite of sarkozy-mediated ceasefire" then by all means provide that evidence otherwise it would seem your words carried absolutely NO merit whatsoever.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I said "some of Wikipedia editors", not ALL. For the evidence of continuing violence, please see the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website[4]. I'm just back from Gori to Tbilisi and I know what I'm talking about.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This report is dated 12th Aug, today is the 13th. It is curious however that there is no mention of the ceasefire at all. I was winding you up a bit with the "pro russia thing" :). We need this report from an outside source though. As far as the international community are concerned there is a CURRENT ceasefire agreement and the fighting has stopped. If it is as you say then we need a reliable source and please don't be offended when I say that the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, unfortunately is not enough for the purpose of this article. If you truly are in Georgia please stay safe and under no circumstances should you try to personally obtain footage as proof for the purposes of this article, it's not worth the risk. Perhaps it would be prudent to get out of the area.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

References

When people update the references can they check to see what it comes out as? The references section is a mess! I'm going to try and clean it up a bit, but someone else can do a better job on #12, 13, 48, 88, 89, 143, 144, 145. Lihaas (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from user about video: the peace aggreement

A user commented in my video on this wikipedia article: " I think in this article they missed that part that Georgia and S.Ossetia made an agreement (in ealy 90s) not to attack each other and allow Russian to be peacekeepers on their border to prevent any conflict. On August 8th Georgia attacked peacekeepers and neaby villages and city of Tchenvally. Then Russia responded and.. so on.."

so, should that be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Source? Citation? Opinion? please provide some more info on this, I did hear about the agreement between Abkhazia and Georgia in the 90'sAndrew's Concience (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See 1991–1992 South Ossetia War. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Gori requested

Bombing of the residential district, and later the cluster bombing of the demilitarized (and mostly abandoned by residents, too) city that killed the Dutch journalist and several other people after the Georgian army completely withdrew from the city. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think such an article would be a political battleground between those alleging Russian targeting of civilians and those trying to minimize or deny such allegations. The minimizers and deniers would come in because the rationale for the creation of the article would be of dubious neutrality in the first place. I believe it would be an unnecessary antagonizing of Russia-sympathetic editors. The facts can surely be reported without a speciality article like that.Bdell555 (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Learn to read - before writing

The US defense official said about 8,000 to 10,000 Russian troops have moved into South Ossetia.

It does NOT mean there are "8,000-10,000 Russian soldiers". It means there 8,000-10,000 additional (invasion) Russian soldiers in South Ossetia, ONLY - in addition to thousands formal (former) pecekeepers, and thousands of reinforments to Abkhazia (5,000-6,000 offically, I think), and also further thousands in the Navy and Air Force.

Jesus. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why that phrase was put in after the 'thousands of other troops entering Georgia'. Learn to read before editing, damn.

Table

Sides at the beginning of the conflict:

	Georgia	South Ossetia	Russia
Army	30,000^[1]	3,000^[2]	100,000 in the region^[1]
Tanks	200^[1]	87^[2]	620 in the region^[1]
Aircraft	9^[3]	0^[2]	320 in the region^[1]

This is not including Abkhazia and not really needed now, as it should be about troops involved in Georgia and including reservists and volunteers. Moved here so anyone would use it for something if needed, or maybe change and update or hwatever. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, it's possibly incorrect: "Georgia has 230 tanks and 12 combat aircraft."[5] --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More correct information here: http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/08/08/forces/ . Магистер (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an information about Russian loses and causualities according to Georgia

I have an information about Russian loses and causualities according to Georgia. They were stated by Georgian National security council. So, Russia lost abot 400 persons of military stuff and 21 air crafts (planes and helicopters). Put this information on.

400 "persons of military stuff", I'll get right on that. LokiiT (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LINKZ PLZ. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. role, Energy transport

It seems key elements of this conflict are missing. I don't know where they belong -- a timeline, background, context, significance section?

First would be U.S. physical support for Georgia, specifically returning 2,000 Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia to fight, August 11.

Here are some of many links

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=5548608&page=1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080811/wl_mideast_afp/georgiarussiaunrestustroops_080811180651 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia8?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/airforce_georgian_airlift_081108w/ http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_georgia_flyinghome_081008/

And these links noting U.S. Georgia joint military exercises the weeks before the conflict: July 15, 1,000 U.S. troops started a three week long military exercises with the Georgians.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1556589920080715 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/15/europe/EU-GEN-Georgia-US-Military.php

Next would be U.S. Russian rivalry over energy transportation through Georgia.

The BBC notes in its Georgia country profile “Moscow's key rival, the US has a major interest in security and stability in the country, having invested heavily in an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan via Georgia to Turkey. The Georgian armed forces have been receiving US training and support.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102477.stm

The Associate Press asserts “A U.S.-backed oil pipeline runs through Georgia, allowing the West to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil while bypassing Russia and Iran.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/09/MNDG127U55.DTL

James Traub in the New York Times, also notes the key role energy transport plays in Russian U.S. differences. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

U.S. Russian conflicts over energy transport is similarly emphasized by the Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag02.html

Seems about half the reports on the fighting mention the pipeline -- lots of discussion of whether Russia bombed or tried and missed the pipeline etc.

I put these in discussion so as not to interfere with anyone's work so far —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjpro (talk • contribs) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The US role in returning troops from Iraq is covered under combatants with the source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/08/airforce_georgian_airlift_081108w/ --Josephdurnal (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

July 31 was ended "Immediate Response" NATO training at Vaziani Military Base (near Tbilisi), with 1000 US military specialists (from United States Army Europe, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1st Battalion 121 Infantry Regiment Georgian National Guard (Atlanta, Georgia) and 5045th General Support Unit.) Ru magister (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The US will use military aircraft and naval forces to deliver humanitarian aid to the region. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7559252.stm I can't confirm weather Russia has assured safe passage, will the flights be escorted by US fighters? Will the ships be war ships or support ships? --Josephdurnal (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph. Must have lost it in the shuffle. I think the U.S. role could be made clearer, seems a little buried. The pipeline needs to be cited in the article. Here is another link: Mainstream German media interview with U.S. “pipeline negotiator” about role of oil pipeline in the war and U.S. Russian rivalry http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,571855,00.html This is another good link from Der Spiegel in which various news outlets comment on the war and oil – each outlet’s political position is identified. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,571291,00.html Where do you (or anyone else) think this belongs? Adjpro (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact the US military aircraft are flying in and out of the conflict zone amazes me. Russia claims air superiority, yet C-17s, an unarmed cargo plane, were allowed to deliver troops and equipment. It just doesn't make any sense, there has to be more to it! -- I'm not so well versed on the pipeline stuff. Obviously, access to energy is high on the priority list for the US. --Josephdurnal (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Russians must have made a decision not to get directly involved with the U.S. Der Spiegel’s headline is “proxy war,” by which they mean the West supporting the fight against Russia through Georgia, but this does not really comment on Russia’s acceptance of this arrangement. Being Wikipedia we have to wait for another media outlet to analyze this point. I was looking over the Causes section of the WWI Wikipedia entry and it seems the current war also needs a section on causes, though, of course, it would be less authoritative. It seems that some of the same categories could be useful. Right now the Background section with Georgian, Russian, and South Ossetian “Interests” limits the focus to national conflicts rather than opening it to larger economic and political issues.

Here are the causes from the WWI Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wwi 1 Causes 1.1 Arms race 1.2 Plans, distrust, and mobilization 1.3 Militarism and autocracy 1.4 Balance of power 1.5 Economic imperialism 1.6 Trade barriers 1.7 Ethnic and political rivalries

Maybe this entry could be a model in other ways: Rearrange the existing entry to have a Chronology section, and (soon) War Crimes, Technology, Opposition to the war, Literature sections. There are Wikipedia models for organization of a war entry, right now this one is too disorganized. Adjpro (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The war

Is it just me, or has the war been taken out of this article altogether? The article is 74kB long, yet it jumps straight from "Background" to "Peace plan". Scolaire (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the move of the war's details is somewhat confusing, especially for someone who's been following the article daily.

Also unclear is what the status (as of August 13) of the conflict really is. There are mentions of "ceasefires" and the "peace plan," but I have not yet seen anywhere that both sides have agreed to any particular version of the plan. Does anyone have information regarding this? the_paccagnellan (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my main point is, why call it "2008 South Ossetia war" if it's about anything and everything except the war? Scolaire (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya I liked the daily updates here too. 129.42.208.183 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I put some tags

They're explained in the hidden text next to them. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The information about military budget of Georgia reported by Georgian sources was deleted from article

There was no discussion about it, only opinion that it's POW, because we need information about percantage of Russian military budget to Russian GDP. But it doesn't mean that we must delete sources and information: it means we need information about Russia.

Such information indicate who planned the war costs. We knowthat the groth of Geprgian military budget was from 0,5 % GDP (2005) up to 6 % GDP (2008). Why is it POW? Because it's indicate real planns of "small peacefull young democrasy" wich under pressure of "coward Red Bear"??? --195.98.173.10 (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The words you're looking for are POV and democracy. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My IP 195.98.173.10 Let's add section in Bacground like "Military Budgets of sides" where we must compare financial preparation of Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia? I suppose that all sides made the War, and a lot of "helpers" prepared the WAR (USA and Israel instructors and weapon on Georgian side; Russian instructors and weapon on Ossetian and Abkhazian side. All of us are guilty). But show us (I'm Russian) the sign of neutrality - let's describe it in the article. Sorry for spelling, grammar and punctuation. --Niggle (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually when a country is threatened by a larger neighbour over the course of several years, it increases military spending to ptotect itself in the event of an invasion (Another example is Israel and the Arab powers during the Cold War). You seem to be implying that a small country like Georgia increased its military spending so it could attack Russia. I don't think any national leader in Eastern Europe could possibly be stupid enough to do this, seeing as there is no chance any Eastern European country could stand up to the Russian military... 66.241.139.254 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel had a better equipped (and thus better funded) army in the first place. And what's another example? Did Poland create a huge military prior to the invasion by Germany? - I think the assertion that countries with larger neighbors increase their military expenditures is unfounded; in fact, the opposite occurs (see Finlandization). Saakashvilli was elected on the platform to reattach Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgia, so it's quite logical that the increase in the military budget was for that purpose, and obviously not to attack Russia.209.6.213.24 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A large amount of this article has been deleted

The detailed desciption of how this war started and it's progress day by day, with sources appears to have been deleted. This is unfortunate since some crucial information, like the run-up to the War has been lost as a consequence Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah it was moved to the Timeline article. Forget this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers (talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, why call it "2008 South Ossetia war" if it's about anything and everything except the war? Scolaire (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see now that the "Summary" section is a summary of the original article (now the "timeline" article). Would it not make more sense to put it after the "Background" section and before the "peace plan" section, where it fits chronologically? Scolaire (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: Russian warkeepers resume advance into Georgia - reports

Villages in Georgia were being burned and looted as Russian tanks followed by "irregulars" advanced from the breakaway province of South Ossetia, eyewitnesses said today.
"People are fleeing, there is a mood of absolute panic. The idea there is a ceasefire is ridiculous," Luke Harding, guardian.co.uk's correspondent said.

Georgian villages burned and looted as Russian tanks advance August 13 2008 11:40 BST --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sunset for international law as we know it

This conflict might have set a new president for international law. As of now, it's obviously OK to set up "peacekeeping forces" in a foreign territory for an indefinite time, OK to hand out passports to people you are going to "protect", OK - as long as you are aggressive enough (and have a permanent veto in the UNSC... USA let Georgia down, and one might wonder what kind of future there is for that country... Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler have so much in common, and the latter would probably have been proud of his successor... 213.50.111.114 (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cough... 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ...cough...-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if Putin and Hitler have so much in common... But, the geopolitical consequenses are interesting and should perhaps be observed in the article in some way. --Hapsala (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the peacekeeping forces, they were there according to UN resolutions of 1994. I quote one of them:

2. Notes with satisfaction the beginning of Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) assistance in the zone of conflict, in response to the request of the parties, on the basis of the 14 May 1994 Agreement on a Cease-fire and Separation of Forces (S/1994/583, Annex I), in continued coordination with the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), and on the basis of further coordinating arrangements with UNOMIG to be agreed by the time of the Council's consideration of the Secretary-General's recommendations on the expansion of UNOMIG. (Resolution 934, June 30th 1994)

Together with UNOMIG observers, their mission was to ensure stability in Abchazia and later in Ossetia. As for the Ossetian side, the peacekeeping forces consisted of contributions from all three parties (Russia, Georgia, South ossetia).

Besides, putting a peace-keeping force on foreign territory for an indefinite amount of time is one of the most prominent characteristics of UN and NATO anyway. Ever since the formation of such international councils and organizations they have intervened in unstable (and sometimes stable too) regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.168.192 (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one word: Kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadimkaa (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but will Russia recognize Kosovo now? Not so likely, is it? --Hapsala (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But EU and USA does. It seems interesting that now they forgot about their own principles. Still Russia did not recognized officially S.Ossetia as an independent state.

The word you're looking for is precedent. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

... or Prime Minister. ;D Hapsala (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The UN, like it's predecesser; The League of Nations, Is really bad at it's job, "Keeping Peace And Preventing War". Several Resolutions Created war.--Jakezing (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

People! Kosavo is in a completely different set of circumstances- NATO had warned Serbia for a long time before the air campaign- but they where believed to have massacred 500,000 Albanians (later to be found at a lower number)

Russia had a pre-set invasion that invaded Georgia about 8 hours after Georgia crossed into South Ossetia- they gave no warning or anything its completely different.

And even so, two wrongs do not make a right.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Also, who gives a rat's hindquarters about international law. Also those peacekeepers that were there indefinetly were on UN (idiots) orders.

Westerrn weapons

Describing RM-70 or DANA as "western weapons" is totally incorrect, for one RM-70 was found in the inventories of most warsaw patch nations during cold war, ie DDR so on and actually uses the launcher from SOVIET BM-21 Grad system, so on. Somebody correct this please. All in all Slavic nations arent "western" no matter how much they are members of NATO or EU.

matter. no matter for classical fascists only. --Ieee2008 (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Times about Georgian PR-victory with juggling of the facts

Tony Halpin and Roger Boyes. August, 13 article. Translation to the Russian.

"... Когда в Тбилиси нахлынули иностранные корреспонденты, команда бельгийских пиарщиков начала остроумную операцию по оповещению их с помощью электронной почты о так называемых агрессивных действиях России и о реакции правительства Грузии. Например, в воскресенье было разослано больше 20 писем, подтверждающих слова Грузии о российском вторжении.

Часть сведений, содержавшихся в них, оказалась явным преувеличением - как, например, утверждения об 'интенсивных бомбардировках Тбилиси' российскими самолетами, или о захвате Гори российскими войсками - но культура круглосуточных новостей заставила многие организации повторить их без независимой проверки".

http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/243210.html --Niggle (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia loses the fight with Russia, but manages to win the PR war ... As foreign correspondents poured into Tbilisi a team of Belgian PR advisers launched a slick operation to keep them updated with e-mail alerts detailing the latest alleged aggressions by Russia and the Georgian Government’s reaction. On Sunday, for example, more than 20 e-mails went out to shape Georgia’s message that Russia had launched an invasion.

Some of the claims veered into outright exaggeration – such as stating that Russian jets were “intensively bombing Tbilisi” or that Russian troops had taken Gori – but the 24-hour news culture meant that many organisations repeated them without independent verification. ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4518254.ece

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interests

I think that also a part about not identified interests should appear. Even if it will be empty, because using hands of others is not new in wars.

War is always an interest of parties who sell military technique and who invest highly in this armament. We can find easily that US military assistance 2002 for Georgia was 31 889 000 USD. And Georgia bought a lot of military goods and services from Israel, Ukraine, etc.

Another moment: parties who want to weaken a competitor may be interested in his problems inside country. One of possible things may be already mentioned interests of Russia competeing with NATO in the region. Other possible things: most different Caucasian peoples (regarded often as hot tempered persons in the context of the former USSR) live spread in the whole Russia, many have important place in small local business of vegetable markets. Fightings between them and reactions of skinheads may complicated heavily interior order of Russia. Ruin of Russia as multicultural state can be profitable for those who had losses with arrest of Khodorkhovsky and similar as access to natural resources of Russia may be facilitated. Who has the best appetite for that in our world with changing climate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eglekuc (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanud up Vladimir Shamanov

But is he for sure the new commander in Georgia now? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Renewed Offensive?

CNN is reporting that Russian tanks have entered Georgia again. A journalist comfirmed this. When questioned where they were heading they said "to Tblisi". Here is the link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/georgia_russia Attilavolciak07 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gori is being devastated, BBC reports. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rhetorical Question? Well, good-bye independent Georgia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a load of bs. It's a soldier joking around and a journalist thriving for a sensation. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this in the article yet? Attilavolciak07 (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if any journalist does have a camera or something? Where is photo and videos? According to

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia [6] Russian troops entering Gori every day:

11 August 20:30 Russian Army took Gori and cut main highway connecting Western and Eastern parts of the country.
13 August 10:20 According to the local sources, Russian troops have entered Gori.

86.102.43.111 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They were in fact heading FROM Tbilisi. This was an army retreat operation. I guess somebody maybe tried to joke and said that they were going to Tbilisi. Georgians these day are not so brave... or just trying to PR themselves as usual.

http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/explain/ -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

CLEANUP and COPY EDIT!

Seriosuly. I took a look at "Summary" section, and it's total crap:

The Telegraph reporters, in Gori on the 12th, did not see any Russian troops in the city.

What --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, today is 13 Aug, and Gori is overrun and ethnically cleansed.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

facts of ethnic cleansing of Georgian civilians confirmed by the US diplomat. [7] This should definitely be mentioned in the article. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If Gori was ethnically cleansed, there would be nobody left there at all - they are all Georgians. Also, there's no proof, the link you showed us says "they will investigate". I hardly find the information credible coming from a .ge --Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph story cited says Despite Georgian government claims to the contrary, there were no Russian troops in the town on the 12th. There was a longer story, cited on this talk page, saying that the Georgian troops and civilians left and no Russian troops were seen at all. The situation today is another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not "The Telegraph" but "The Daily Telegraph", and actually "media reports". AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO KNOWS HOW TO WRITE WIKIPEDIA? In 2 days when I was not here, no one even updated infobox. Just wow. And almost all of references are shitty (no sources, no dates - practically only these I put have them). DO IT RIGHT OR NOT AT ALL. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the most serious factual complaint on Gori the colloquial form of the paper's name, which is conventional in English? The longer account is here, from 17:25 London time on the 12th. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "ethnical cleansing", as that is the term that does not appear in the BBC report. It does, however, reconfirm that the Russian forces are still pushing forward their military campaign despite what they say. So this should be added. Also, following the removal of detailed description of warfare timeline, the Wikipedia information has become seriously Russian-POV oriented, presented disputable facts I read for the first time, mostly Russian accusations against Georgia.

There is some info left about Georgia but just look at the "South Osetia" part, it has three times more information from Russian government controlled information sources than about Georgia. Also, the form in which Russian side of view is presented is mostly "There has been", "A witness has saw" while information Georgia presents is shown as "Georgia claims that", "Alleges that" etc. Basically if I would be Russian KGB member I wouldn't mind the currently presented information much.

There have been many international media confirmations and video footages with Russians bombing Georgia outside the disputed regions... could somebody put that all back up on page? Ghanopala (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for making the Bombing of Gori article here (there was no battle) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Bombing_of_Gori_requested. No was interested, so I guess I'll do it myself. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do add information on the bombing of Gori here. That does not appear to be in dispute between the two Governments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What? In any case, the summary section is still shit, as is the most of the rest of article. A shitty job. Really. But, actually representative of the "quality" of Wikipedia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What is this site search supposed to prove? Notability? We do have other bombing articles; but Gori is not yet Nagasaki: Is there an article's worth of material available? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are at least dozens if not hundreds of "Bombing of" articles. I gave you a link and you found only Nagasaki? There even many about artillery strikes. The bombing of Gori and the images of the aftermath was probably the biggest media event of the war in the Western world as of now, bar "war started". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation for downed russian planes

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/ukrainians/ 3 Su-25 and Tu-22 BTW, there were 2 other sources for that, but someone deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.169.5 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian newly-registered troll changing what I and others write

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=231663565&oldid=231663501
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=prev&oldid=231634796

Block requested, kthx. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tanks south of Gori

Please note that there are at least two versions of the AP story about their reporter talking to Russians south of Gori; one says "armored vehicles", the other says "tanks". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They are similar for not experts.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/33/holmogorow.6/0_18cf4_b990691_orig (near Gori). Магистер (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures in the Article

Why are all the pictures of either Georgian military or protests in Georgia? We should also include photos of public demonstrations in Russia against the Georgian aggression and the such to be politically neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.151.88 (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving two psychopaths bullhorns and letting them scream at each other is not aiding neutrality just because they are equally loud.

Russian tanks heading towards Tbilisi?

The Times are reporting that an "armoured column" of at least 100 vehicles is heading towards Tbilisi. The BBC confirms this. I'm going to add this to the article summary, barring any objections? J.F.Bargh (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, since I'm a new user I can't. Perhaps someone else would care to? J.F.Bargh (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LETA reports that Georgian ministry of internal affairs says that tanks are not headed for Tbilisi, they are refering to Reuters, but I can't find anything on their page about this, could someone please check ? ~~Xil (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article itself reports a Georgian minister as saying tanks are not headed towards Tbilisi, but I don't know if we should necessarily take his/her word on the matter. In addition to being a member of government on the side of one of the combatants, he/she may be misinformed or deliberately hiding the truth. The Times is reporting a first-hand account from one of their journalists, and the BBC is quoting Saakashvili. I think we should consider adding it to the article. J.F.Bargh (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The GEORGIANS are more likely to play up the extent of the Russian advance than play it down, it order to make Russia's actions appear more aggressive, especially given the background of a supposed cease-fire. So while there are plenty of reasons to suspect the Georgian govt might exaggerate at times, it doesn't make any sense to contend that the Russians are on their way to Tbilisi here when a Georgian offical says they are not.Bdell555 (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the BBC say more than "armoured convoy"? I don't see it. They do assert a Georgian force, going the other way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot one thing - Georgians panicked and fled Gori when Georgia said Russians are going there - so when the Russians DID there, all they found was the moderately bombed and absolutely abandoned city, and the road on Tbilisi full of abandoned Georgian military hardware (and some destroyed by airstrikes, but mostly abandoned), and no resistance. It was a major rout (check this out). So, they may be trying to not start this panic again, while they try to make the world stop warkeepers (while they can always say "the Russians are coming!" to the diplomats and not to the public). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The article says "A convoy of Russian vehicles has been seen on the road to Georgia's capital". J.F.Bargh (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem likely. But, again, it is a Georgian minister speaking and as a representative of one of the combatants we shouldn't necessarily take his or her word on what is happening. Especially given that The Times is saying that one of its reporters is witnessing the convoy moving towards Tbilisi. J.F.Bargh (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the Times now has a story dated 13:41 UTC that "A column of 70 Russian military vehicles, including military trucks with anti-aircraft guns and artillery as well as armoured personnel carriers, sped down the road to Tbilisi fluttering Russian flags." But the thing is, I think we should try and get this story corrobated by the Guardian, AP, Sky News, or some other group with reports on the ground in the area. Because otherwise "down the road to Tbilisi" implies Tbilisi should brace for attack and is alarmism is on Wikipedia's part. Perhaps the column is going somewhere else. Also, something that is developing on an hourly basis should probably go into the "Timeline" article as opposed to the main one, until it's importance is settled.Bdell555 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The tanks may be on road that (among other posible destinations) leads to Tbilisi, but that dosen't mean they are going to the city, given contradicting reports it would be OR to say they will attack Tbilisi, wait until they acctualy are there (or elsewhere). My afore mentioned source says 60 viecheles including tanks ~~Xil (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we say that the tanks are going to attack Tbilisi, just that they are moving in its direction, as per the first-hand account of The Times journalist. J.F.Bargh (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant - if tanks enter Tbilisi it could cause panic even if they don't open fire, that is a sort of attack any way. I think they will reach their destination soon enough - mentioning Tbilisi would suggest they are going there even if you don't say so, but if you realy want to mention it, perhaps say that there are reports that they are headed to Tbilisi, but Georgians denied it ? ~~Xil (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They blocked road between Tbilisi and South Ossetia somewhere otside Gori, I think those ar the same tanks ~~Xil (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the Georgians confirm that. A big reason we shouldn't say Russians are headed towards Tbilisi is that BOTH sides of the conflict say the Tbilisi is not under imminent threat.Bdell555 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is completely confusing again. Are there Russian troops in Gori or not? From the Times: In particular, Moscow denied Georgian claims that 50 of its tanks were in Gori, the Georgian city near the Ossential border. The city had been abandoned by its authorities who had fled, said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian General Staff. "We cannot find anyone. How they were evacuated and what happened there is a mystery to us," he said. --> So they claim they have no troops in Gori, but then again, they say that they can't find anyone in Gori? That doesn't work. [8] -- DanteRay (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So is the real world. Presumably some non-governmental source will get into Gori eventually. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Today I read an article of the German newspaper "Bild" (Germany's largest news paper), they actually have 2 journalists in Gori (they have even some photographs of Gori), and they say that there are people in the city but only old ones (They called it "ghost town of the old men"). [9] On the bottom, there is gallery ("Fotogalerie"). They also say that around noon (when there was actually ceasefire) they saw helicopters attacking some villages around Gori and burning fields. -- DanteRay (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"An AFP reporter saw Russian troops shouting: "Tbilisi, Tbilisi" but their destination was unclear." Jesus, people, press, everyone... --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can some one who has English source see were those tanks are now and chage this and timline articles accordingly ?

P.S. It is imposible that everyone has left - there are people even in Cernobyl~~Xil (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This one says the tanks "had come to a halt before turning round and heading back to Gori." http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/2008813153517926662.html Stent123 (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph says that the Russian convoy is being "pursued by a large contingent of the world's media", so it sounds like a bit of a circus. I suggest we sit back a bit as opposed to jumping on very minute-by-minute report on where the Russians are going from the media. The larger story is what's happening in the villages around Gori.Bdell555 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You think they are there to distract media ? My concern mainly was that timeline article was telling about media reports that tanks are headed for Tbilisi it has been changed by now. I guess, since they didn't stay to block the road, this article can stay as it is, untill it is clear what they are doing ~~Xil (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian buildup?

From the article,

Russia moved its 58th Army next to the border and day later russian ambassador Yuri Popov warned that Russia will intervene if conflict erupts. ^[4]^[5]

The reference itself says

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).

This actually contradicts this report which says

But the (Pentagon) official said there was no obvious buildup of Russian forces along the border that signaled an intention to invade.

So I suggest correcting or rephrasing that statement accordingly.(Igny (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

So, you think that part of 58th army just teleported from somewhere to help South ossetians at battle of Tskhinvali? btw even Russians doesn't have power to invade Georgia even if they wanted... it needs lot more manpower than what they have right now in Georgia --Zache (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also this this report confirmed:

Georgian officials said Russian troops had moved out of South Ossetia into Georgia proper, occupying the city of Gori while Georgian troops were retreating to the capital. But US defense officials said they were unable to corroborate the Georgian claims.

"We don't see anything that supports they are in Gori," said a defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't know why the Georgians are saying that." --195.98.173.10 (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My IP is 195.98.173.10 Georgians are better in words, than in swords. --Niggle (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, anyway there is now lot of news about Russians AROUND Gori. See this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zache (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Replace Force Strength Comparison Table

Hello, I am a new user. This is my first discussion post (at least I think this is supposed to be a discussion post).

I was reading this article earlier this morning and it had a small table comparing both sides in terms of force strength levels. It had 2 columns with the Russians and separatists on column 2 and the Georgians on column 1. The first line had total number of available troops for both sides. The second had total number of tanks, third had the number of aircraft. There might have been 1 or 2 more rows, I can't remember. Reading this table made it easy to understand how each side compared.

Whoever removed this small table, could you put it back? Thanks. Mr-Encyclopedia-Man (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pulling Out

Russian troops are apprently pulling out http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia Attilavolciak07 (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

BS, don't trust yahoo, or CNN, for all we know they could be going towards the capital. --Jakezing (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to check on Al Jazeera periodically. They seem to have rather comprehensive coverage and their clientele does have little stakes in this war, so they do not benefit fom tweaking things or showing footage of ruins in one town, claiming it to be from another ;-)

Basically the stance of Al J is "you both suck". They will go at lengths to report on the destruction caused by either side. Of course, it's Russia now, as Georgia hardly has usable forces left... and what they have is holding position where the Russians hopefully will never go. Idiots, what a disgusting way to waste an easy victory. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

¤Yahoo doesn't really do the reporting, they host articles posted by various news organizations. This article is from AP. If you wish to keep track of this conflict, use Yahoo's "Full Coverage: Georgia" page [10]. This page is updated often and has posts from AP, Reuters, etc... Also, the AP article only mentioned "2 towns", meaning the Russians could simply be moving on. BTW, I recommend against including Yahoo news articles in the citation section of Wiki. Yahoo news article URL's only last 30 days, then they expire. --Mr-Encyclopedia-Man (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just found it and thought it would worth noting. Attilavolciak07 (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Civil.ge reopened

The Georgian news agency (fonded by EU) which was hacked by Russian FSB is back and fully operational. Please consult references from that site, there are too many Russian propaganda references which make this article more unbalanced. [11] Iberieli (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts in the Former Soviet Union

that part of this page is highly inaccurate, as it fails to meation the conficts in Moldava, or in Central Asia, and that has to change.

What conflict in Moldova? If you refer to Transnistria, it is a non-recognized state, and it does not have a border with Russia. It does have a border with Ukraine, but, Ukraine has proved to be quite hostile towards Russia in the recent Georgian conflict. Transnistria is just a case of partial occupation by a country of another country, against all internal and international laws. It is just a spine in NATO's back, just enough so that Moldova can't join NATO or the EU. It will be solved... Qubix 82.208.174.72 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-official reactions...

...are notably missing from this article. Personally, public opinion in Russia would interest me the most. Russian Wikipedia article has a section on some non-government views in Russia, see #A comparison to the Russian Wikipedia (translation). GregorB (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian media and public information are controlled, including internet. Right it is impossible to know what public tells and knows. But the media due influence a lot of nationalism there. Of course the propaganda is more subtle then in Soviet times and to make it credible they allow controlled criticism of government to make media look credible.--Molobo (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian media and public information is not controlled (basically). Media sites just try to save or increase audience. You can visit any site depending on your preferences. For example, you can visit russophobic site grani.ru. --Butter-club (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Estonian Public Broadcasting company cites a very recent research done by Levada-Center (http://www.levada.ru/eng/opisanie.html, concidered relatively reliable by analysts) in Russia (1600 people), that 33% of respondents think that SO and Abhasia shoud be incorporated in to Russia, 26% think that the separatistic region should become independent, and 11% of russians think that those regions should be part of Georgia; the non-response rate was 30%. The Estonian page: http://uudised.err.ee/index.php?06131750 (in Estonian), I could not find the original source (Levada-Centre's report). However, this [page] sports different figures, and [this source]too, now. Search "Levada" and "poll" from Google News. 213.35.176.54 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Estonia is not neutral in the given theme. To save WP:NPOV.--93.80.187.11 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But who is? Russia? A better argument is that a direct link is preferable if can be found. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely Molobo jests when he/she claims that Russian media and internet is controlled? The Russian internet is a free for all, and needless to say, in this conflict there was one country which blocked internet content on a wholesale basis; guess which country that was? It wasn't Russia that's for sure. Additionally, in regards to media, it isn't controlled as much as what people tend to think (and believe from propaganda) - there are many media outlets which are critical of many of the government institutions and officials. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all the Russian Internet is under strict control of the FSB. Nobody permitted to write his opinion without a sanction of the local FSB-officer. Those who breaks this rule were executed by shooting or feed to polar bears. There are also a special mind control brigades that track peoples thoughts. If you are not loyal to Medvedev you can find yourself in one of the Siberian secret concentration camps or uranium mine. The most hard-to-deal Russian dissidents becomes the victims of the Battle Tripod belonged to Putin himself.

Web brigades. Also Reporters Without Borders put Russia at 144th place in the World Press Freedom Index from a list of 169 countries. --Molobo (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In Russia people make donations and collect assistance for the aggrieved civilians of Ossetia. Ru magister (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And how does this connect to the information here ? As Carl Bildt noted such justifications were used in 1939 and 1938 by Germany.--Molobo (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Web brigades" in Russia are basically the same as "Think Tanks" in the West. No difference. 77.28.215.83 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference though. We actually know "think tanks" exist and actively see their propagan..er, I mean, objective obligations to the truth.LokiiT (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Published 18 July 2008-Polish newspaper reports "Georgia will be invaded by Russia next month".

[12]

Information published on 18th July 2008 that Chechen seperatists revealed they intercepted Russian plan to invade Georgia in August. The attack will be between 20 and 10 September using Kodori and Cchinwal. The plan was made and authorised by Putin. Reports movement of 8,000 soldiers to border with Georgia. --Molobo (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chechen separatists are responsible for Beslan school hostage crisis, Russian aircraft bombing and other terrorism acts. Sure, they are trustable source of information about Russia. -- Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was responsible for Holocaust yet it revealed Katyn Massacre. The atrocities of one side do not cancel its ability to report on opponents(likewise Soviet Union had Gulags but liberated Auschwitz...of course murdering later some of the inmates like Wladyslaw Pilecki). The fact they reported plans to invade Georgia one month before the actual invasion started is notable. There could have been doubts if they claimed it today, but they claimed it a month before the actual invasion.--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have an idea how frequently or infrequently claims that Russia will invade so-and-so are made by organizations as large as this separatist organization? This could well be true, but another possibility is that they had bad or no intel, yet were right by chance. The prediction is not significant if there is always someone claiming that Russia will invade Georgia next month, so how often are claims of this nature made? Christiangoth (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Molobo, the case for Russian plans to invade Georgia are hearsay unless grounded evidence is provided. It is a common fact that the Baltic states, Poland and the Chechen rebels are engulfed with hatred towards Russia and can easily lie just for the sake of making evil to it. Pglukhov (talk)

The prediction is notable. Note that they are now two sourced statements regarding that the invasion was planned. --Molobo (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you find it notable but post hoc ergo propter hoc is not permissible. What to ask: a) how often were such predictions given? b) How often were they wrong?

It's like the guys who for the last 4 years have been predicting the "USrael attack on Iran". If that happens (especially now, I doubt so) they will go screaming "Predicted it! Predicted it!". But they did shit. They simply stated something that has a fair chance of being correct by sheer chance' and not because it is such a good analysis or based on facts or whatnot.

I also advise you to think about the conuter-claims about the planned US attack on S Ossetia, Abkhazia and perhaps Russia herself that, for the sake of maintaining NPOV, our "dear" Russian "readership" will doubtlessly introduce. The national bolsheviks (a scary bunch if there ever was one) have been "predicting" that Georgia will try to retake S Ossetia by force on that-and-that date ever since Georgia lost it, that they get help from the US, Israel... the usual suspects.

That is why I was so outspoken against dubious sources in the "Tskhinvali Destroyed... Or Is It?!" discussion above. Eventually this will lead to overdue emphasis on the opposing lunatic fringe views.

A better point might be the general untrustworthiness of a party at war with Russia themselves. In any case, no, the plan was drawn up in a 2001 computer game, according to Chechen separatist sources.

Anyways: you show me yours I show you mine. (Novosty - currently down again.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict a clash of military forces in the Caucasus. Some guys argue that the "Zionist-Neocon conspiracy" had been planning this since they set up their "stooge Saakashvili" in the first place. I think we both agree what to think of that.

The difference to 1939 is: there were border clashes and mutual provocations between Poland and the Reich, but Poland did NOT auf unserem eigenen Territorium auch mit bereits regulären Soldaten geschossen. The Nazis had to fabricate this. The Gerogia situation is like a guy turning into a one-way road in the wrong direction and colliding with a speeding lorry he knew was coming along and blaming the lorry driver for the accident because he was speeding. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand your German. However your personal theories are interesting the bottom line we have two sourced statements that Russia planed the invasion. If some source disagrees we can add on that. Of course the statments must be presented as view of the source not as truth.--Molobo (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The German - it's Hitlers announcement of the "Polish invasion", literally: but Poland did not "fire on our own territory also with regular forces already" (the orignal is more ungrammatical if anything)

Essentially: open up the argument to Chechnyan rebel sources and you will at the same time, under the guise of NPOV, open it up to such things (<- you might take care not to eat or drink while reading this.) It's easy to anticipate whom readers will believe more: a distinguished Canadian professor or a throatslitting Wahhabi bush-fighter.

And that's the problem: once you allow one conspiracy theory in, it is very hard to keep any of them out. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to hear it being labeled conspiracy theory. Likewise Nazi Germany did terrible things-yet it was right on Katyn Massacre. The report has been widely circulated is notable and now being again confirmed as US officials claim indeed Russia planned this. As explained below all needs to be put in neutral light. That report was published by Chechnya independence movement should be named, that it was circulated in reliable press, and that now US officials claim Russia indeed planned the invasion earlier.--Molobo (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, there's one thing I've got to ask. If the Russians planned it, why was it introduced by an American author (granted, one who has sometimes freaky analytical abilities) in an American video game? Does that sound even a little bit strange to anyone else? Ringlhach (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is crap. That's why I put it up; to show the lowness to which the name-calling is sinking now the shooting is over. Anyways, the reading of history books on the birthing pains of the CIS is strongly encouraged. They have been at each other's throats since 15 years, and they have seriously begun to gear up for something like this for the last 2 years. When was the last time Russian forces were not in the region in numbers and on alert? And when was the last time Saakashvili lowered his defense budget substantially? (Did he ever?)

The Red Storm thing is one of the classics. The "anti-NWO" scene, those guys who believe the world is Hollywood and Fox News rolled in a ball and flattened out to a large disk orbited by the sun love that stuff. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the relevancy of these articles. Here's why: firstly, such statements are words only and are not backed by any facts, i.e. there were no military plans published or anything factually proving that Russia was preparing for war. Secondly, all these statements are mentioned postfactum. Here's a good question: if all was known why nothing was done? Brits + Americans + Georgians are allies. Thirdly, the numbers and dates are extremely off. All this makes me question credibility of these sources. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin's former aide Andrey Illarionov also says that the Russian military elite were prepared to make use of any provocation in the region as a pretext to invade Georgia. He refers to the conflict as a "brilliantly staged provocative war" and draws some parallels with Shamil Basaev's infamous raid into Daghestan and Putin's destructive response in Ichkeria.(in Russian; Ekho Moskvy interview). --93.177.151.101 (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Secondly, all these statements are mentioned postfactum." Do we agree on the calendar order? Published July 18. July 18 precedes August 7. So, no - not post factum. The dates are also not very much off. The original source may be this piece from kavkazcenter, from July 6. Of course kavkazcenter is heavily POV, together with phrases like "Caucasus Emirate", so it needs to be treated with caution. It does not mean they made this one up, though. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly why I wrote "mentioned" rather than published. We agree on the calendar order, however you don't answer my main question: if all was known why nothing was done? The only logical answer would be that these sources were considered not reliable by the decision makers. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you differentiate mentioning from publishing then - mentioned where? Here? Things on Wikipedia are usually mentioned post factum. I am not sure what your point is.
As to your other question: who are we to judge that nothing was done? I have no access to diplomatic or military archives. But if a plan is revealed it is usually not carried out unmodified. And the Georgian move into South Ossetia could even be interpreted as a failed preemptive action resulting from such knowledge (if they would have secured the Roki Tunel, the strategic situation might be quite different). Or maybe this information has been neglected. Or maybe the report was a lucky guess. But all of this is delving into original research. What we have here are two media reports on the topic: kavkazcenter and a Polish newspaper (German owned, if that matters). Let's the readers decide what to make of these claims.
Also, someone has just removed from this talk page a link to an official NATO statement from June 3. An earlier NATO statement on Abkhazia and South Ossetia is from April 16. This is of course diplomatic language, but shows similar underlying concerns, which in all probability were based on actual intelligence. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned by the other Mass Media of course. Such important information did not appear anywhere except those two sources. Just compare it to the current abundance of info.
Well, again, no Mass Media mentioning that something was done. Georgia may had well stated that they act as preemptive against possible Russian aggression, yet they chose not to do so.
It was me who deleted it, because that statement is: 1. Vague, 2. Old, 3. Says nothing about military, only about Russia establishing "legal links" with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I don't think we're supposed to just post on this page anything that happened there prior to the conflict, especially that old. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Information warfare

[13] A very good source, we could make good use of this Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article: (Information warfare

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin accused foreign media of pro-Georgian bias in their coverage of the ongoing conflict between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia. "We want television screens in the West to be showing not only Russian tanks, and texts saying Russia is at war in South Ossetia and with Georgia, but also to be showing the suffering of the Ossetian people, the murdered elderly people and children, the destroyed towns of South Ossetia, and [regional capital] Tskhinvali. This would be an objective way of presenting the material," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said. Current Western media coverage of the events in the separatist republic is "a politically motivated version, to put it mildly," he said.[256]

On August 11, 2008, the Russia Today TV channel accused CNN of presenting video footage made by Russia Today in South Ossetia as pictures of bombed Gori.[257]

Cyberattacks and censorship)

Seems one sided and rather Russian bias. I know there are plenty of links to the opposing view.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't find it now, but I saw the CNN video where they indeed showed Tshinvali footage while saying 'Russians bombed Gori'. Georgian and Russian media are both biased, obviously, but Western media doesn't always stay objective. 209.6.213.24 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of the press in Russia 65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Secessionist Government/Republic issue. Why Secessionist is POV.

Reffering to the South Ossetians and Abkhazia government as 'Successionists' is pro-Georgian POV and incorrect. Russ It is not normal to refer to a country as Successionists unless they are fighting their initial war to secede from a larger country. In this instance, this is incorrect, since this is NOT the first conflict that these countries have been involved in. Hence they are not Successionists or a Successionist government.

This is not a POV statement, since on the same principle we should still refer to the USA as the Successionist government of the USA, due to the fact they faught a past war to suceed from Britain. We do not do so, hence it is both POV and incorrect to refer to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Successionist governments. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the fulcrum here is "international recognition".65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So why not add internationally unrecognised (which is no longer really true) rather than successionist government? Both are equally long and one is factual (or at least it was) rather than blatently POV like successionist. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

However, this does make a rather long title. Republic of South Ossetia (internationally unrecognised). But it is no secret anyway given it clearly says so on it's own page. Also, past references to South Ossetia/Abygazia do not use the term 'seperatist government'. Including the page of the offending entity and the first Ossetian War, when the term 'seperatist' would actually be accurate. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Who recognizes either Abkhazia or South Ossetia as an independent country? Both territories are considered to be territories or provinces inside of Georgia, if not governed by Georgia, but everyone in the international community, even Russia recognizes this. Do they want to be part of Georgia? Of course not, but technically they are, therefore they are secessionist. Kosovo? Also secessionist. (p.s. "succession" isn't the word you're trying to use)

As far as I'm concerned, until they're recognized by somebody (meaning the national government of a third-party nation, or a group of nations i.e. the UN, AU, ASEAN, EU... you get the drift), they're secessionist. I think Taiwan is probably the best example here. As far as I know, the People's Republic of China calls it "China's Taiwan province" (when they bother to mention the island), and the Republic of China was one of the founding members of the UN. We might be able to get clarification here. Ringlhach (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was it changed to "The 2008 South Ossetia war started on August 7, 2008, involving Georgia, the unrecognised republic of South Ossetia, the unrecognised republic of Abkhazia, and the Russian Federation." ???!!!??? I saw no consensus to allow this, if anything I count the prevailing balance to keep the term 'seperatist'. Is editing not built on consensus?? I am OPPOSED to the use of 'unrecognised republic of XXXXXXXXXX' please revert as consensus clearly prevails. Thank you. Jmedinacorona (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia base it's definitions on the in my opinion 'Emporer has no Clothes' game of international unrecognition, rather than the actual facts of the matter. The actual facts of the matter (ie de-facto or 'in fact') are that those countries have not been de-facto Seccesionists for 16 years, because de-facto they have been independant for that long.

The position that De-Jure they are part of Georgia, is a POV position since the idea that De-Jure status stems from International recognition rather than de-facto reality is itself a POV, one which is not universally recognised, for instance by myself and obviously not by South Ossetia and Abkhazia either.

Since the definition of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians in this war as successionists is not a de-facto definition but a definition that is based upon a POV which elevates international recognition to the status of final legal arbiter and one which tacitly recognises the Georgian claim to those areas as valid, it is actually NPOV to describe them as 'unrecognised Republics' as opposed to 'successionist governments', since that is a factual statement (even if arguably they are now effectively recognised by Russia) as opposed to a POV statement based upon a particular legal theory of national independance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Secessionist" ("Sucessionist" does not exist) is not a POV term, as it merely states that one entity wants to secede from another it priorly was a part of. It does not implicate that the secession is justified or not, right or wrong or whatever.

That both regions were part of the Georgian state at least until 1990, there is no disagreement about this fact. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. It is problematic to merely present the two republics of S.Ossetia and Abchasia as parties of the conflict without indicating Georgia's claim to these territories. Both parties claim to have these territories on their sides.

And no, it doesn't really make a difference in that regard whether anyway recognises these entities. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the "Georgian state" did not exist until 1990. And the South Ossetian declaration of independence from Georgia (then a Soviet Socialist Republic) dates back to 1989, when it had the right, by the constitution of the Soviet Union, to secede from the Georgian SSR, which it did, although this wasn't recognized by anyone in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union. 209.6.213.24 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

However the Succesionist status normally ends when the nation has successfully gained it's independance from the country. I completely support the status of Succesionist for the last Ossetian war as NPOV, but not this one, since now South Ossetia is independant. For instance, we don't normally refer to the USA as 'the successionist government of the USA'.

Successionist in THIS War is a POV term, since South Ossetia/Abkhazia are no longer trying to secede from Georgia, they are already independant, just internationally unrecognised. The claim that they are still part of Georgia and trying to 'secede' from Georgia in this war is Georgian POV definately. Since the claim that de-jure South Ossetia is part of Georgia, is itself a POV position based upon a particular legal theory of independance.

It has nothing to do with Seccesionist being 'bad' or 'good' it's just in this particular War it is not factually accurate, except if you accept the Georgian POV or a particular disputed legal theory of independance. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If tomorrow the Chinese attacked Taiwan and the wikipedia article referred to them as seccessionists due to their lack of international recognition there would be massive POV claims and Wikipedia would lose face yet again as a neutral encyclopedia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have both had independence since 1992 even if their governments were too insignificant to recieve recognition. I'm Australian and I knew that a year ago. Hell I even read an SBS world fact book entry on these provinces (note not Georgia) which described their struggle for independence. Was all very confusing but the fact that a book that had a list of each small independent territory listed these as separate entries then is enough evidence to point out that their war of seccession has ended and that this is a war between independent entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that South Ossetia is as successionist as Taiwan. South Ossetia has never agreed to be part of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union.98.204.199.179 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To break away from a country is to "secede" from it. The process is "secession" and those who undertake it are "secessionists". "Succession" is the replacement of one by another according to an orderly progression; the prince succeeds the king, or the vice president succeeds to the presidency. The prince and his secessionists secede from the kingdom until the king dies and the prince succeeds the throne according the order of succession. That said, doesn't South Ossetia want to join with North Ossetia as part of Russia? That's not exactly secession. The situation is analogous to that of Bosnia; as soon as Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia, the Republika Srpska seceded from Bosnia because they wanted not to have seceded in the first place. Surprisingly, it led to conflict. --67.163.163.28 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if South Ossetia initially aimed to join up with North Ossetia as part of Russia. I'm pretty sure they want to be Independant rather than annexed by Russia, although they are very pro-Russian and have a close ties to Russia, which are going to get even closer by looks of things (if that were even possible).

I would demand some actual source from the South Ossetian government itself about it's intentions to join Russia before I would consider that a founded statement. Basically, I know of no statement in which the 'present' South Ossetian government actually states it's intent to become an official part of Russia.

Basically, does the actual South Ossetian government actually state it's intention to join with Russia? Or is this an unsubstantiated media rumour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of Cliffracers (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it already had. 95% of the populous hold Russian passports? Jmedinacorona (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that they were offered such passports by the Russian government, given the regions economic dependance upon North Ossetia and probably more cynically so they would have a Casus Belli in case of this happening to defend 'Russian citizens'.

However a Customs Union does not mean the country has been annexed by another country or intends to be annexed. Is there any evidence that the South Ossetian government intends to place itself formally under Russian rule? I'm not saying that this is an unlikely possibility in the future, I just wish to know what the claims basis is, if there is any. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Until the secession has been finalized, it is still a secession. De Facto independence for any number of years is irrelevant, as the territories in question were never formally admitted to constitute a separate nation or separate nations, by either the international community, the existing sovereign state in question, or the neighboring regional sovereign states. If it is POV to use international recognition as a guideline for determining a state's status, what guideline do those who object to the term "Secession" suggest?

However the seccession has indeed been finalised in 1992, in that the initial attempt to seperate South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia was successful. In that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were able to win the first war against Georgia and Georgia was forced to withdraw from those areas.

The guideline that we suggest is actual de-facto existance and having managed to survive the initial war that the former controller of those territories has launched to reclaim them. That is to say, successfully seperated from the original State without bieng reconquered.

International recognition is irrelavant to the actual material existance of a state and their de-facto non-seperatistness (is that a word?), because as the saying goes.

The Emporer does in fact have no Clothes. Whether the existance of an independant state is recognised by a bunch of self-interested and not exactly unbiased foreign states who won't recognise independance unless it suits them, is irrelavant as to whether a country actually exists or not. Basically, the Emporer is naked whether everyone denies this is so or not.

And finally, to call them Seperatists, is to tacitly recognise the Georgian claims in this war, which is simply blatent POV. To call them unrecognised states is simply NPOV and factual, since it allows the reader to arrive at his own conclusions based upon their own theory of such things. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace plan by France or EU?

Even though French polticians brokered the peace plan, they did so in the capacity of EU-representatives if I'm not mistaken. If I'm right, I think that this is insufficiently reflected in the section on the peace plan. --Jeroenm (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

France's government holds the presidency of the European Union and acts as the EU's government. That is the end of the story; french diplomats act on behalf of the European Union, not in national interest. Sarcozy has consulted the European Council (national leaders). Officially, the European Union has brokered the plan, not France which happens to lead the EU at this moment. - SSJ ☎ 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the peace envoy was a joint EU-OSCE mission; France should not get all the credit...

http://www.formin.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=134794&nodeid=15145&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Stubb+voices+optimism+over+Georgia+deal/1135238548262

-Mimu Bunnylin 213.159.245.167 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Could the part about the EU peace plan be reworded? Its currently.. "Later on the same day (August 12), Russian president Dmitry Medvedev met the President-in-Office of the European Union, Nicolas Sarkozy, and approved a six-point peace plan." Would it not sound better to say something like..

"Later on the same day (August 12) Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met the French President Nicholas Sarkozy acting in his role as the current President of the council of the European Union. "

I agree the fact Sarkozy was there on behalf of the EU should be included as it played a vital role but the statement should still include the fact he is the French president aswell.

4:30pm BST, 13th of August.

Please someone try to find the agreed text of "six-step plan" and correct the last point of it (where "the status discussion" was replaced with something like "international guarantees of Secure state in Osetia and Abkhazia") Whoever (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

American soldier captured by Russian Army in Georgia.

http://life.ru/media/images/0808/1089004bdb5d4840f5b325ba767bfd20.jpg

American soldier captured by Russian Army in Georgia.

No captured soldiers in this war. Ru magister (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That picture is completely uninformative. Could have just as easily have been taking in the the state of Georgia as by Russian troops in the country of Georgia. croll (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! But it's quite informative. The white symbol, I know NATO uses them. The shadow of green-olive can also be compared. Structure might be side of truck, the pattern on it might be characteristic.

He does not look like a captured soldier to me.

Even so, unlikely but possible that some US trainer got lost around Gori and was picked up by Russians. But mind you, they are legitmiately there, so without catching one with one with a smoking gun (which won't happen) there is no real point. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

to lose one's way in broad daylight. --Ieee2008 (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I love the Russian racism in all of this chasing of a "negro" ghosts in Georgia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its interesting that the notations about the US soldier that the Russian's claimed they'd captured on the 10th have all mysteriously disappeared along with the sources ... they stated they captured him in South Ossetia and he was en-route to a prison for investigation and that he held US citizenship. Might look into who deleted that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 11:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No captured soldiers in this small military mission. Ru magister (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"No captured soldiers in this war." "No captured soldiers in this small military mission." Perhaps his name is a typo, and should actually be spelled Ru Minister... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i seriously doubt the united states would be dumb enough to let its personnel into the fighting, unless it was doing some secret mission recon or something.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Atrocity stories

The last paragraph of "Humanitarian impact" subsection "South Ossetia" is a series of atrocity stories of murders by Georgian forces, sourced to the Russian press: civilians gunned down in basements, little old ladies are run over intentionally by tanks, numerous incidents of people herded into buildings and the buildings burned down.If the Georgian press or government spokesmen, or international press have issued any denials, these should be included in the section. War crimes are all too common, but so are false lurid atrocity stories in wartime, and the section seems POV. Edison (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not POV. Ru magister (talk)

russian man says is not POV must be true!

I believe you are right, the Russian press (to my knowledge) is state-run and so would naturally emite what could be perceived as propaganda. I believe it is far, far to soon to allege war crimes (for either side) unless witnessed by independent sources. Georgian and Russian sources are completely unreliable- both will allege things- perhaps not lying but that is called fog of war. It won be until the war is over and the UN comes in that we can really begin to understand if any war crimes took place.

Therefore i suggest we do not put anything unless confirmed by independent sources based on independent eye witnesses. I believe it will prove to be far more accurate once everything is found out and will not play into the propaganda war.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Man, Ru magister is the best the KGB (sorry, FSB) could come up with? I guess they aren't that concerned about wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Added an NPOV tag - Edison's description precisely summarizes the situation. aristotle1990 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

Here is a map showing the movement of Russian troops, the different battles and attacks. It could be added to the article. -- DanteRay (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you put this forward yesterday? Or one very much like it? It was decided not to use it for some reason if memory serves. I don't know why it looks alright to me.Andrew's Concience (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I changed it according to the suggestions of the other users. So, this is not the same version anymore. -- DanteRay (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Maybe it would be better placed in the timeline of events page?Andrew's Concience (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the Bombardment of BTC in the article, so what is it doing on the map? 68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that being very useful because there is a major misconception going around that Russia made the first moves in their entirety and this map doesn't show the movement of Georgian troops that occured before Saturday so its not very useful at dispelling that misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 11:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be part of a series of maps showing troop movements. No single map can coherently show the movements of both sides through the course of a conflict, even one as (hopefully) "brief" as this. IMO, by itself, that's no reason not to include this map, but it is a reaosn to see the inclusion of others. croll (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russians in Gori?

Yes, Russian are in Gori to feed people (http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/feed/) and to maintain law and order (i.e. preventing crime, looting etc) as Gori left by Georgian authorities and Georgian police and is uncontrolled now (http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=27084). There is an agreement between Georgia and Russia, on Aug 14 Georgian police is going to return to Gori, so Russian will leave it (http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/14/gori/, http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=27124). Sorry, news are in Russian only Enerjazzer (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The AP is reporting that Georgia is claiming that Russian forces have entered Gori. [14] JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gori is being plundered. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More here. [15] JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

However journalists in Gori, 15 miles (24km) over the South Ossetian border into Georgia, said they had seen no Russian tanks[16] More "false alarms"? They've already falsely accused Russia of invading Gori once..why would they do it again? LokiiT (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing from that article that just boggles my mind.. Saakashvili also accused Russia of the "carpet bombardment" of Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's capital, and setting up internment camps for residents there and the other separatist territory, Abkhazia. ...wtf? LokiiT (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its because the Western press is listening to him, particularly in the USA and Australia. Organisations like AP and Reuters are being fairly independent about this but I've seen claims made by South Ossetian's against Georgians reported in the Australian press as claims made by Georgia gainst Russia. For example, the initial claim that 1,400 civilians were killed by the Georgian military was repeated by "The Australian" newspaper and "news.com.au" but instead of the original claim it was as closely as I recall "The Russian invasion had caused 1,400 civilian casualties by Friday".

Saba Tsitsikashvili, a local journalist in Gori, said Russian troops had occupied the main road on the edge of the city, but had not moved towards the centre. "People are in panic. This road where the troops are is about 2km from the centre, she said.", Guardian (11.8..

Finnish news agency STT writes in Iltalehti next (by guy whois in Gori), rough translation: "locals say that there is going on looting by unknown people with uniforms". Another one: "Terhi Hakala (head of the Finlands Etyj operation in Georgia) confirms that there is Russians in Gori and part of it is going towards Tblisi" I guess that she means this convoy (guardian).

Guardian has also news about looting and russians that they have troops near Gori (or least had). (this is pretty much same as in that CNN news above ). --Zache (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian military checkpoint about 5 to 10 km from the city. Tanks, APCs, fuel trucks. ERR 13.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.113.230 (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about 'protect' them? They sacked the city! haven't you seen the video and reports from Fox and Sky news?

75.179.172.189 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

Why are we to beleive the Fox and the Sky? Russian Army might lack discipline, but not to the point of outright looting; there may be looting by some Ossetian guerillas. However.. please give the links to the Fox and Sky reports, I'd like to read. --CopperKettle (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties in the box are from August 10 - UPDATE PLZ

Georgian for sure changed (I heard 160 killed). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

175, unfortunately.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Source and I'll update. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Russian military, about 200 bodies of Georgian soldiers was collected near Tskhinvali. Магистер (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, anyone find sources and update (also for the Russian alliance and civilians), cause I'm going now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When did Russia "confirm" that 74 soldiers were killed? The latest confirmation was 21, 74 seems like a huge increase in the number reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually about two week is needed for Russian military bureaucracy. Ru magister (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"...said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff.

Nogovitsyn said the conflict had killed 74 Russian troops, wounded 171 and left 19 missing in action. Officials have estimated at least 2,000 civilians were killed in South Ossetia." From CNN [17] 66.241.139.254 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone edit the casualties section. It depicts false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by What Max (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Now there is only a false information. None have correct information. Магистер (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

!!! Even worse now. The "Russian estimates: ~4,000 dead[15]" sounds wrong and cites a dead link. Kilternkafuffle (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The link isnt dead.. near the end of the page "Anatoly Nogovitsin, the deputy chief of staff, said at a news conference on August 13, that although no verified data was available, but “I’ve heard Georgia has lost 4,000 men.”"

There should be more data regarding lost military equipment,

Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia article needs to be updated

Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia was just destroyed in the war, CNN showed Abkhazians taking down Georgian flag from the administrative building. Women and children fled at once (under fire), while the men (formal forces and ad-hoc tribal militia) remained and many were killed before they retreated with the Georgian army.

Same with the Georgian villages in South Ossetia, which were heavily bombed and the government (and witnesses according to media reports) say then brutally pacified by the Russian Army after government forces withdrew. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just put a PROD template on the govt of the autonomous republic of abhazia article. I was one of the main contributors to it. This government was never really all that notable and it is as you said now destroyed so I propose deletion of this article as looking back it was never really a notable government. If things change we can recreate the article. We can still make mention that this government at one time existed in the Abkhazia article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, do we know for a fact that Russia is not going to give back areas of South Ossetia that were Georgia controlled? My understanding is that the ceasefire calls for a status quo ante bellum. Abkhazia is a different situation as the Abkhaz forces are sort of not party to the cease fire agreement and they seemed to have done most of the heavy lifting in Abkhazia.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture with Georgians "trying to expell anti-Russian rebels durign the Second Chechen war"

This picture is not relevant at all to the current events!

Georgia is near Chechnya. Georgia supported terrorism in Chechnya by training, transport and so on.--Butter-club (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia did what? (Non-existing) Links plz. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

they is crazy genocider terrorist russian putin man tell me on tv must be true tv no lie state no lie -unsigned non englisher-

im sorry 1, sign your posts, 2, english? Your saying the tv dosn't lie? You my freind are a imbecile then.--Jakezing (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Butter-club, maybe you are right but this picture portrays Georgians during the second Chechen war. Deleted.

You, my friend, don't understand what trolling is 66.241.139.254 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not about trolling. The use of that picture is ungrounded as it does not reflect the main topic of the article.

I was replying to Jakezing --66.241.139.254 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm ...

"An Associated Press correspondent saw and spoke with Russian vehicles south of Gori, heading beyond the city."

So he actually spoke with vehicles ... that's pretty poor English. -- DanteRay (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But not as bad as On August 12 one shelling, which hitted outside a press centre of western reporters in Gori, killed dutch TV-channel RTL's cameraman and wounded its journalist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus ... sometimes it's really amazing how many mistakes you can put in one single sentence. -- DanteRay (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, editing is really shiity - I wonder if some mods would close this article for Wikipedia's "anyone" bar for few editors who proved to make good additions. (After applying and then checking their input before the green light.) Probably not. ~~Or am I just taking war too seriously?~~ (No, as I just recalled the Russian hacker attacks and how seriously Russia takes the cyberwarfare.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Took out both; speaking with vehicles is a fairly transparent metaphor, but there's no need for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Russians have vehicles like KITT ;) -- DanteRay (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russians have a Huge Human-Like Battle Robots! Магистер (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is barely one week old, let one year pass by then we will have a good article. Besides we have non-english speakers editing this article, this is an immense privilege to Wikipedia/English, I wished someone did the same to Wikipedia/Portuguese. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

HRW confirmed ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia by the rebels and warkeepers (AFP)

The Human Rights Watch group said its researchers in South Ossetia had on Tuesday "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians."[18]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Report:

Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted

(Java, August 13, 2008) � Human Rights Watch researchers in South Ossetia on August 12, 2008, saw ethnic Georgian villages still burning from fires set by South Ossetian militias, witnessed looting by the militias, and learned firsthand of the plight of ethnic Ossetian villagers who had fled Georgian soldiers during the Georgian-Russian conflict over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire. [snip - read yourself]

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment, eh? Maybe the pro-Russian editors say something about valiant Russian peacekeepers peacestruggling to end the Georgian genocide and how foreign advisors in Georgia are juggling the facts to make it look bad? SERIOUSLY NOW, someone use it prominently in the article, as it's the first confimation of massive war crimes (there's also some about the plight of South Ossetians, whose men joined the bands of militiamen who are now rampaging through the region, so you can comnpare it with wild the Russian claims of the last few days). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no... the Human Rights Watch never even mentioned the expression ethnic cleasing. But you Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog, not only you did mention it you also confirmed it. Amazing!!!

Soon you might label the whole thing as a genocide. That's a war and wars cause destruction and suffering.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Systematic burning of villages (purely on their ethnic basis only - that is, bands of Russia-supported paramilitaries looting and then burning Georgian minority villages in South Ossetia) outside combat is not ethnic cleansing? So, what is it is? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait till someone says it is. That shouldn't take long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait till who says what? Btw, the same thing is being reported by government and media in Abkhazia and in the Gori area. Georgian gvt also said "internemnt camps" are being created in the occupied territory - google "filtration camps" to learn what it meant in Chechnya... --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Says it's ethnic cleansing, which it may well be. I note that the same article ends with accounts of robbery and violence by Georgians against Ossetians, ending in mass flight - let us not call that ethnic cleansing prematurely either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Who said it was "systematic" and "outside combat"? Once again you did...That's a war zone. You can paint this situation any way you want basically, but don't make claims in behalf of the the Human Rights Watch.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what you get when you start a war. Say thanks to those people who decided to attack Tskhinvali. Because it was exactly like that in Tskhinvali that night. Only without the support of international community and without any hope to survive. Georgians has the whole world supporting them, Osettians had nobody on their side except for Russia. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the HRW report linked above? Or maybe you do not see any difference between checking IDs, searching homes and warnings: 'tell your men not to open fire' vs. setting whole villages ablaze. 132.68.72.110 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Between what and what? Did you even bother to look at what's with Tskhinvali? I know your media does not really show destroyed Ossetian villages, they prefer to show Georgian ones. But just so you know, the city is levelled to the ground. During the night of August 8th there were those who had their mobile phones with them, and there's a bunch of ICQ logs - go search for them in Russian LJ - describing the massacre in Tskhinvali. Many of them were killed during that night. How in the hell is this "checking ids" and "warnings"? Why do you eat whatever your media feeds to you and do not even try to check something by yourselves? -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I did bother to look at what's with Tskhinvali, apparently unlike you. [19][20] A city levelled to the ground, eh? Colchicum (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And how do you call this? A birthday party? -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let alone the fact that Tskhinvali is not a city. A town at best. Colchicum (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Destroyed by the systematic action of looting/burning (aka "peacekeeping") or maybe destroyed by the combat including Russian artillery fire and bombing (aka "genocide")? Hey, ever heard of Grozny? You call LJ sources, but HRW "your media". This is awesome.--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you have a problem differentiating South Ossetians and Russians. What's the matter, they're all the same, right? Peacekeeping, Ossetians, Russians - throw everything in. Who cares!
"Destroyed by Russian bombing" - that's what you've read in your press. Go read ICQ logs and eyewitness stories. They're the truth. It's laughable to say that HRW is more reliable than the people who live there. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Looks like you have a problem differentiating South Ossetians and Russians." - no, this what Russia does ("Russian citiziens" BS). "Go read ICQ logs" - are you serious? You can't possibly be. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's you who mix "peacekeepers" with South Ossetians. Are you doing this intentionally, or do you simply not understand the difference? Maybe you're from USA's Web Brigade, huh?
And yes, of course eyewitness stories are far more valuable than lies you and I read in our media. I'm wondering if you're serious when insisting on opposite. I thought this war where everybody and their brother lied in the media should have taught us all how trustworthy the media sources are. -- 78.107.85.14 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1) HRW is not "our media". 2) If you show me alleged "ICQ logs" and I'll show you "ICQ logs" telling the EXACTLY opposite things, what then? Btw, OSCE just went to check the reports of the capaign of looting/burning/killing/kidnapping around Gori. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For EconomistBR

In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire.

Not systematic?

Human Rights Watch researchers also saw armed Ossetian militia members in camouflage fatigues taking household items � furniture, television sets, heaters, suitcases, carpets, and blankets � out of houses in the village of Nizhnie Achaveti and loading them into their trucks

Is this what ypou called "combat in war zone"?

He said members of the South Ossetian militia came to his house on August 11, and tried to take away some household items. When he protested, they set the house on fire and left. The man said he had no food or drinking water; his hands were burned and hair was singed

Maybe this is combat?

In the village of Kekhvi, many houses were set on fire between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm on August 12 � they were ablaze as Human Rights Watch researchers moved along the road. Two elderly women from Kekhvi were weeping as they told Human Rights Watch about what happened in the village. One of them explained that the members of South Ossetian militias passed by the village and stopped at her house and �threw something� that set it on fire.

Combat yet?

A representative of the local administration in the town of Java told Human Rights Watch that the authorities had arrested two men who were looting the ethnic Georgian villages, but was adamant that they were not members of the South Ossetian militias. His colleague, however, said, �Isn�t that what they [Georgians] have been doing to us? These old people shouldn�t be complaining � they should be happy they weren�t killed.�

Not strategy?

International humanitarian law applicable to the fighting between South Ossetian militias and Georgian forces prohibits attacks on civilian property, as well as looting or pillaging. Individuals, including commanders, participating in the deliberate or reckless destruction or looting of civilian property are responsible for war crimes. International humanitarian law also prohibits �acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.�"

Not war crime?

No Georgians left in South Ossetia beyond few old people "with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go".

I guess it's "not ethnic cleansing" - actually, it's peacekeeping operation. Thank you Wikipedia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_Villages History teaches wisdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.162.145.242 (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog

You determined that there is "ethnic cleansing" going on in Georgia not the Human Rights Watch. You wrongly made that claim in behalf of the Human Rights Watch.

You also chose to denounce the "Systematic burning of villages outside combat" by the Russians, but again, the HRW never said that you chose to conclude that out of the HRW report.

Since you weren't satisfied, you decided to qualify the Russian counter-attack as a "Georgian genocide". This on top of a "ethnic cleansing" accusation that no one but YOU confirmed.

That's crazy.

You have the right to interpret that report as you want but NEVER pretend that the HRW said so. The HRW is impartial and as of now it is in total disagreement with you.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 01:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talion

"He told Human Rights Watch that the vast majority of the residents, including his family, fled the village when active fighting between Georgian forces and South Ossetian militias broke out on August 8, but he decided to stay to look after the cattle. He said members of the South Ossetian militia came to his house on August 11, and tried to take away some household items. When he protested, they set the house on fire and left. The man said he had no food or drinking water; his hands were burned and hair was singed � apparently as he was unsuccessfully trying to extinguish the fire � and he appeared to be in a state of shock. He said that there were about five to ten elderly and sick people left in the village, all in a similar desperate condition, and many of the houses were burned."

Is this statement mean that after destruction of Tskhinvali and 8-10 Ossetian villages (August, 7-8), Ossetians revenghe on property in Georgians villages without killing of somebody??? I'm not shure it's possible. Do you have any relatives or other peoples who from Caucasus? What do you know about blood feuds/vendetta tradition? I'm Russian. I was born in Sibiria, but now I study in Moscow. My grandfather was from [Avar|Caucasian Avars] (he died 2005), my mother was born in Dagestan. I only know that for deaths of my neighbors or my relatives i will find out person who did that, and kill him. It so called "The Law of the Highlanders". Talion. Do you remember Vitaly Kaloyev case? And I only know that Saakashvili will be punished.

So I don't trust to any statements that for the life of people in Tskhinvali Ossetians take only property of Georgians. And it means that after this actions of the Georgians, South Ossetia will NEVER forget and NEVER forgive Georgia. --Niggle (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaand where's any confirmation of "destruction of Tskhinvali" (by the systematic Georgian action and not in combat or even by the Russian bombing that evicted them) and "8-10 Ossetian villages"? The fact is that South Ossetia was just ethnic cleansed, like Abkhazia was in the 1990s on much greater scale.--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

to you is quite enough of statements in media to accuse Ossetians in ethnic cleansed. To them (to people who are there) is quite enough to know from neighbors that it really was done by Georgians. They will not wait decision of UN Security Council or HRW report or Court decision. You are really don't know essence of situation and the value of links between us. That's why you don't understand the reasons of the Georgians fear. --Niggle (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here you go Captain. "'Colonel Konashenko said: "The Georgians could not get tanks through these narrow streets. So first they turned it to ruins with a Grad attack and tried to punch through here to the centre of the city. There was heavy fighting in the streets. I think more than 500 bodies were pulled out of this part of town." Asked if there had been atrocities against civilians the Colonel replied: "I personally saw one man beheaded lying in the street and others say they witnessed civilians who had been finished off with a shot to the back of the head." LokiiT (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this Russian colonel asserting that shelling a street makes it any wider? Or less filled with rubble? Or less riddled? 132.68.248.44 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's say your depiction of vendetta mentality applies fully here. Applying this reasoning causes you to disregard HRW report of Ossetian looting and burning, because that would not be violent enough ("Ossetians revenghe on property in Georgians villages without killing of somebody??? I'm not shure it's possible."). But do you notice that this reasoning can be reversed? If the "revenge" is "only" looting... Does it not make you wonder about the truth of the Ossetian/Russian official claims of genocide in Tskhinvali? I have to admit I consider HRW a more neutral source here. Also, something being part of vendetta does not make it any less of a crime, I am sure we agree on that. 132.68.248.44 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok

What, Is Going On? Yahoo is showing they took gori and renewed offensive, and, what does russia say today? Honestly, i say this:

wait until we have proof from both sides or visual proof that they are somewhere/doing something, standard sourcing is creating havok and not working.

Take all events pertaining to this war off the main page, every day we keep updating whats happening on it, when honestly, we don't know. --Jakezing (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"what does russia say today?" Russia Today says the same bullshit as always. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Videos of Russian troops in Gori probably exists or will shortly. A Russian convoy left towards Tbilisi, apparently for psychological reasons as they turned and heded backl after some time apparently without firing a shot. Russian troops are present at Poti and have supposedly sunk 6 Georgian Navy craft. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today is FSB financed News Agency and it should not be used as a reliable source. Again, there is no such thing as Free Media in Russia and taking sources from the conflicting side is not suitable for NPOV quality. Iberieli (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One of Russia Today's reporters resigned because reports he was filing were not broadcast if they did not picture Russian actions favourably.Bdell555 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell, source on that please? Russia Today is good for getting the Russian point of view, something that this article can't do without. LokiiT (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

US or Non-Russian/Georgian Soldiers

The claim to foreign soldiers being killed or captured in this section does not seem to be credible at this point. Interesting, yes, but I can't imagine it would have been this ignored by diverse media outlets. Well, maybe I can believe it, but barring verification of the story, or allegations of a cover up, I think it should be removed. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was reinstated. Should we REALLY have this stuff? I think it's just veeeery ham-fisted propaganda (silly claims of "negros" and not even images of them) with yes, no repeating in the western media. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove it for sure. Ostap 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it again. If this goes back into the article, it has to at least be in a different section. The majority of the Georgian order of battle section should not be about rumored mercenaries that have not been reported by media outside of Russia, let alone verified by the Russian media. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong information

Some idiot posted that 74 russian soldiers killed with no SOURCE to confirm it just CNN ( american propaganda chanell ) it is unacceptable the russians official claim is 21 soldiers , and someone also changed georgian soldiers killed to 54 even though they admited of lossing over 200 few days ago, some people are obviusly double standard and wan't to make georgia look good ignoring the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiReFTW (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

and we can trust georgia?--Jakezing (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The info is from Russian deputy chief of staff http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558399.stm

Now too early for the official information from Russian military. Will be more than 100 russian soldiers killed. Магистер (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares for your Russian propaganda here, for the neutral users, please consult western references and not Kremlin FSB censored Media. Dont forget, there is no such thing as Free Media in Russia. Iberieli (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually CNN didn't state this they quoted the RUSSIAN Deputy Chief of Staff, who is obviously spewing out "American propaganda" because he wants to make his own country look bad, right? --66.241.139.254 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They know it better, than Russian military? Hmm... You the dreamer. Магистер (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they don't. Which is why the official casualty figure comes from the RUSSIAN MILITARY, it wasn't made up by CNN --66.241.139.254 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Ministry of Defence link [21] confirms 74/171/19 numbers. --Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the preliminary (not complete) data. Магистер (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia:English become Wikipedia:Russian?? Did I miss the merger? Jmedinacorona (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Приглашаем Вас на страницы Русской Википедии!!! Добро пожаловать!!! Правьте смело!!! Do you need the translation or any help, dude? --195.98.173.10 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо за приглашение, но мне очень жаль говорить я не мог способствовать как грубо, не-нейтрального POV в языке я ни читать, писать, ни говорить! С уважением Частные смело! :)))Jmedinacorona (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope google translate did that correctly and I didn't unknowingly renounce my nationality and join a I Love Daisies advocacy group! hehe Jmedinacorona (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, never use "google translate" again, heh. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the war

Just yesterday it had over 300 sources, several pages of text detailed information, and today about 160 sources only and most of the text deleted the article? What happened why was the article butchered like this? I could find no discussion on the talk page about this, did I miss something? Hobartimus (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Article were splitted and detailed timeline stuff can be found [here. --Zache (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a shorter version of the time line should be also included in this article. See Timeline of the Beslan school hostage crisis as an example.Biophys (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I suggest putting back a short summary to the main article just too much is missing right now. Hobartimus (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This must be done, and the links to the page with the timeline of the conflict should be inserted in

several places, because otherwise article becomes biased.

There is summary section in main article. There used to be also short and awful timeline section, so it combined with summary-section which already had relevant content. --Zache (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There must be an item in the contents. Because now it looks like this

   * 2.1 South Ossetian interests
   * 2.2 Georgian interests
   * 2.3 Russian interests

   * 3.1 Demands to end conflict
   * 3.2 Ceasefire

Article is big, and it is very difficult to find quickly information about the beginning of the war: who provoked the conflict, who started the fire first. There must be a direct link in the contents menu to the timeline section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.140.229 (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently I see no link to the main timeline article in this article, so I am adding a link to this article. Christiangoth (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me. It seems to have already been added by some other benevolent user. Christiangoth (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Things what shoudl be updated or added to timeline:

There is no mention about Russian airstrike campage at beginning of the war (which ruined Georgias defence).
In port of Poti were sinked some military boats.
What happened South Ossetian Georgian Villages (about 1/3)?
looting

--Zache (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we shoud add America's interest - it is trying to be an active player in the region. It is teaching Saakashvili ^-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Str (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Preparation for war

Article contains not enough information about preparation for war. For example, remember reconnaissance-UAV ?--Woozeefy (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hermes 450 --Woozeefy (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Video: youtube--Woozeefy (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Already is in 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis--Woozeefy (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

Ukraine's President has reportedly decreed that Russian vessels blockading Georgia must ask Ukraine's permission to return to Crimean ports. This strikes me as an important development, since it could create a notable confrontation if Moscow does not comply. But in which section should we address developments that might expand the war beyond Georgia?Bdell555 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This should and be included in the article and added to the "Reactions to the conflict" section. Victor Yuschenko is continuing restrictions on the Russians fleet more and more.[22] Ukraine has also supplied weapons to Georgia in the conflict. [23] Now Ukraine may even face a major conflict with Russia. [24] There should be a whole subsection about Ukraine. --Boguslav M 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone is repeatedly removing the picture of the Georgian soldiers

At the same time, picture of the Russian soldiers is not being removed. (And I guess shouldn't be, too, because why?) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia in other place of the world. But Chechnya is near. (I do not have rights for editing)--Woozeefy (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly removed that picture because I believe it is not releveant to the current article. Ground: the picture portrays Georgians during the second Chechen war. Secondly, there is no evidence that they are indeed fighting the Chechen rebels. Chechens + Second Chechen war = no relevance. However, I would suggest changing the comments to simply "Georgian troops" or "Georgian troops were trained by American instructors and have an American-made uniform." Your comments? --Supernova (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone ever said they are "fighting"? Uploader said they are training. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And, uh, Chechens = relevance. Former Chechen rebels-turned-Russian-soldiers now ravage Georgia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That explanation should be nearby in the article. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. But I still believe that the comment of the picture should be geared to the article. It is posted in the section "Georgian order of battle". I would suggest a short comment: "Georgian troops at a military training with American instructors". Again, any references to the Chechens are not relevant and the allegations that "the Chechens are now looting in Georgia" are rumours unless any reasonable source of information is provided. --Supernova (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Humanitarian impact in Georgia

This section remains extremely small. The following sources should be added:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia6 "Georgian villages burned and looted as Russian tanks advance"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/georgia_russia "Russian troops and paramilitaries rolled into the strategic Georgian city of Gori on Wednesday, apparently violating a truce designed to end the conflict that has uprooted tens of thousands and scarred the Georgian landscape."

This paragraph should also be moved from the South Ossetia section to the Georgia one:

"According to reports in the Russian Novye Izvestiya, the UK Guardian, and Sky News, Ossetian irregulars were looting and burning Georgian villages in South Ossetia and near Gori on August 13.[90][91][92] Human Rights Watch said their researchers "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians". The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be “decisive and tough” measures taken against looters.[93]"

aristotle1990 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. Do it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, should be, but instead people care more about the claims of some bloggers(!) about "pro-Georgian bias in the world" than about confirmed news of militiamen burning villages. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"These men were killers"Bdell555 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "caring" more about one or the other, but of presenting a full picture of what has been reported in reliable sources. You maybe be right about the "bias" section but I would have preferred to expand and correct it rather than to delete it. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to edit this article (this talk page is superb news source :) ), but maybe consider including aid in Georgia section as well - several countries are giving them help (I know for sure that Latvia has already sent humanitarian aid /reportedly 4 tons of bandages and artifical blood/ and money, also heard that other Baltic States and USA is going to provide humanitarian aid and suspect other countries and organizations also are going to, so...) ~~Xil (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I just added information about German, Canadian, French, Spanish, Latvian, Lithuania, Estonian, and Polish aid:

Canada has pledged $1 million in aid, Germany $1.5 million. According to its foreign ministry, France will send "30 metric tons of supplies." ^[6]^[7] Spain is working with the Red Cross to help refugees, and has contributed half a million euros in aid.^[8]

Latvia has sent to Georgia "A cargo of humanitarian aid of medical items from state reserves consisting of 4,000 containers of blood products and 20,000 gauze bandages to the value of 20,000 lats was sent to Georgia on 12 August. In addition, the Government allocated 100,000 lats from contingency resources to assist Georgia in overcoming the consequences of the war. The money will be utilised according to current exigencies and on the basis of the information provided by Georgia about its needs in the course of rendering crisis relief."^[9] Lithuania has thus far given to Georgia 86,000 euros' worth of aid in sleeping bags and medical supplies.^[10] Estonia and Poland have sent, in addition to humanitarian aid, computer experts to fend off cyberattacks.^[11]

(I am pasting what I wrote here because I am aware that there are continued edit-wars, some of which may be government-sponsored.)

aristotle1990 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the section. I think it is now substantially better and more comprehensive.

"Georgia claimed Russia had bombed airfields and civil and economic infrastructure, including the Black Sea port of Poti. Between eight and eleven Russian jets reportedly hit container tanks and a shipbuilding plant at the port.[96][97] The BBC reported that "In one air strike the pilot missed the intended military base, instead hitting two apartment blocks" in Gori, and the reporters "saw injured civilians being pulled from the buildings."[98] Regarding this incident SkyNews reported that "a military installation had been hit in Gori and surrounding residential apartments had been badly damaged."[99] Journalists referred to the situation in Gori as "chaotic".[98] Georgia has alleged that Russia is committing ethnic cleansing against ethnic Georgians.[100]

Reuters reported an attack on the civilian Tbilisi International Airport, though Russia claims this is misinformation.[101][102] Georgian State Minister for Reintegration, Temur Iakobashvili also denied this, stating, "There was no attack on the airport in Tbilisi. It was a factory that produces combat airplanes."[103]

According to reports in the Russian Novye Izvestiya, the UK Guardian, and Sky News, Ossetian irregulars were looting and burning Georgian villages in South Ossetia and near Gori on August 13.[104][105][106] Human Rights Watch said their researchers "witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians". British journalist Andrew Wilson (of the London Times) reports that he was assaulted and almost killed by Ossetian fighters.[107] The Russian Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev said there would be “decisive and tough” measures taken against looters.[108]

Witnesses report the burning and destruction of Georgian villages (especially around Gori) as Russian troops retreat, mostly by South Ossetians. A "BBC reporter in Gori reported that Russians tanks were in the streets as their South Ossetian separatist allies seized Georgian cars, looted Georgian homes and then set some homes ablaze." Georgian officials say that Gori was targeted for looting and attacks on both military and civilian sites, which may be in violation of a ceasefire agreement.[109][110]"

aristotle1990 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also becoming increasingly worried at the profusion of Russian media sources for controversial topics. The article has effectively been spammed with links to Russian websites, which in tone and substance display a clear pro-Russian bias. aristotle1990 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Senaki

The Russians passed through on the 11th, departed, and are there again on the thirteenth. So the New York Times, who were there. [25]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Aide and Accusations they encouraged Georgia to attack S. Ossetia

In case you guys missed this. I'm not going to get involved in this article but I think you all should be tracking this story about Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser having been a lobbyist for the govt of Georgia who's brought McCain over there. Wash Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated press, another Wash Post.

Three articles state or infer McCain promoted all this:

Politico.com's accusations McCain and assumedly Scheunemann actually encouraged Georgia to bomb the heck out of S. Ossetia.The article on the topic, says in part:

McCain, who publicly confronted Putin in Munich last year, may be the most visible — and now potentially influential — American antagonist of Russia. What remains to be seen is whether the endgame to the Georgia crisis makes McCain seem prophetic or headstrong and whether his muscular rhetoric plays a role in defining for voters the kind of commander in chief he would be....To critics, McCain’s stance is grandstanding with little effect beyond riling a nuclear power. ...McCain has led the harsh denunciations of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, though neither he nor any other leader has suggested that the West has any real way to blunt Moscow’s ultimate intentions. He’s also faced the accusation that his encouragement of Georgia’s dramatic defiance of Russia helped trigger the crisis. (A McCain aide dismissed that notion, saying Russia’s provocations forced Georgia’s response.)

Robert Scheer, SF Gate, Georgia War a Neocon election ploy
CBS: Getting Georgia's war on Carol Moore 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

- Duly noted; but this is a footnote to McCain's remarks, which aren't here. There should be an article on the broader diplomacy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything McCain and Obama say or do can be seen as nothing more than an attempt boost their own popularity. LokiiT (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MORE just to keep on top of this as relevant info breaks:

NY Times - McCain to Send His Wingmen to Georgia - he also denies he encouraged the war.
NY Times: In Split Role, McCain Adviser Is Sometimes a Lobbyist
Reuters: Quotes by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili including complains that McCain is just words and not actions. (What other revelations might follow?) Carol Moore 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

War Ongoing

So the war isn't over yet? The Russians said no provocations will go unanswered.Yuhi33 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The war did not end. its was halted as a ceassfire argument, not a total cessation of all hostilities for now til the end of time. get it stragt. Smith Jones (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A cease-fire just means that you stop fighting, the war isn't over until russia crushs georgia, or whatever its goal is, or russia stop fighting and a peace is formed. Essentialy a cease-fire is still war, which is why the korean war is 50 years long.--Jakezing (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Righst report

Human Rights report just came out, please include this in the aticle: HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT: Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted [26], "The remaining residents of these destroyed ethnic Georgian villages are facing desperate conditions, with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go. "Tanya Lokshina, researcher in the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch." Iberieli (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is ethnic cleansing. All ethnic Georgians will be evicted from the South Ossetia and Kodori Gorge, just as it happened in Abkhasia.Biophys (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, we know already. However, many Wikipedia editors care more about what the Russian Minister says and even what some "9/11 thruther" dude thinks about the world response than about the confirmation of the persecution of Georgians - hey, it's "probably bias too". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any pro-Russia editors as of late. All I see is you same few bitching and moaning about non-existent bias in this article while trying to remove the Russian POV completely, and succeeding, which is proof that there are more anti-Russians editing this article than neutral or pro-Russian editors. And I don't see HRW calling it ethnic cleansing. In fact they didn't even report on any deaths, did they? LokiiT (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about you - and your pushing of the "bitching and moaning about non-existent bias" (by the Russian Minister, Russian world-propaganda TV, a "blogger", and the guy who actually believes "Jews Did WTC"). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? .... can we stay on topic here? Where does HRW say there was ethnic cleansing? Where do they say that South Ossetians murdered Georgians at all? The human conditions of the Georgian villages look similar to the earlier HRW report on what the Georgians did to South Ossetia (no food, water or medical supplies, hiding in basements etc..) LokiiT (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that, now I know what Ethnic cleansing is! No, seriously, if the South Ossetians are guilty of Ethnic cleansing then so is Georgia. My guess is that neither of them are, but you'll probably accuse me of being a Russian patriot for taking a neutral stance like that. Russia is Satan, after all, and so are their allies. LokiiT (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They call me Captain Obvious not without reason. "No, seriously, if the South Ossetians are guilty of Ethnic cleansing then so is Georgia." So, what territory Georgia systematically emptied of a minority/majority/any ethnic group? Village burning is ensuring Georgians won't get back there. See what Abkhazians did to the Georgian majority(!) in Abkhazia through the 1990s. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about the 20-30,000 Ossetians from Tskhinvali who were forced from their homes and fled to Russia? I guess destroying a city with tanks doesn't count, they have to be burned down. LokiiT (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about the more than 50,000 Georgians from Gori who were forced from their homes and fled to Tbilisi? I guess destroying a city with bombs doesn't count, so this why I meant "village burning" and not merely war. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rights group confirms reports of abuses by both sides in South Ossetia http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hu5kLlyMAmxUFutHnkRPqmeGregg

Russia exaggerating South Ossetian death toll, says human rights group http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Adjpro (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch says it has witnessed South Ossetian fighters looting ethnic Georgians' houses and has recorded multiple accounts of Georgian militias intimidating ethnic Ossetians.

Oh boy, you mean to tell me that both sides were greatly exaggerated into being the forces of Satan? Excuse my sarcasm. LokiiT (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the terms "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" are getting tossed around a bit too freely by both sides, as far as I'm concerned. Looting is not the same as ethnic cleansing, and firing batteries of rockets into a city is not the same as genocide. Both are contemptible and deplorable behavior -- and should be accurately reported in the article -- but neither amounts to the systemic annihilation of a people. Maybe if we stop tossing around those words quite so much and back off from the sarcasm a bit, there can be a little less bickering and a little more constructive editing of the article, including accurate representation of casualties and propaganda that was or is being peddled by both sides. croll (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, trying to pass the HRW report as confirmation of "ethnic cleansing" against Georgians is wrong and IMO dishonest.

The HRW would only make such a grave accusation backed up by overwhelming evidence proving so and not because it found some villages looted and on fire.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conflict" rather then "war"

I think that this article should be renamed "South Ossetia Conflict" instead of "South Ossetia War". Althought this might seem to be getting too deep into symmentics, I believe that the use of "war" creates bias. As this is a current event, this conflict may in the future become a war however at the preset time I would not classify it as such. Let me know what people think about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaketaylor88 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK- let's rename all "wars" to conflict !! This has been discussed before --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian–Ossetian conflict is an another (related) article. This one should be rather called along the lines of "Georgian War". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They called the "Cold War" a war a nobody fired a shot, so "war" isn't necessarily inappropriate even if the physical violence was limited.Bdell555 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody fired a shot? What was Viet Nam? Korea? Afghanistan? All of those were proxy wars involving both superpowers. LokiiT (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually lots of shots were fired in the Cold War. (And this one may be well the first war of Cold War II.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Techniqly, the US hasn't been in a war since WW2. And it wont be cold war 2, the colrd war had alot behind it, including how anti communist the US was, with more important matters that don't exist now.--Jakezing (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Georgian–Ossetian conflict refers to the ethno-political conflict in Georgia's former autonomous region of South Ossetia, which evolved in 1989 and developed into a civil war", tells Georgian–Ossetian conflict. It should be renamed to "war" as suggested by Captain. Many millions died during wars of the "Cold war". The misleading word here is "Cold".Biophys (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO the term "war" perfectly defines the present situation. Calling it "conflict" would be an understatement.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

USA in infobox??

Should the USA be included in the infobox, due to there "humanitarian Efforts", which are run by the US Military? -Marcusmax (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They're not pat of the armed conflict. Supplies do not equal military forces. LokiiT (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Combat --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hmm..

TBILISI (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's pledge to send aid to Georgia means that the U.S. military will take control of the ex-Soviet state's ports and airports, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said on Wednesday. "You have heard the statement by the U.S. president that the United States is starting a military-humanitarian operation in Georgia," Saakashvili said in a television address. "It means that Georgian ports and airports will be taken under the control of the U.S. defense ministry in order to conduct humanitarian and other missions. This is a very important statement for easing tension."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/13/AR2008081302202.html

"a military-humanitarian operation" complicates which is which

Adjpro (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about when the US airlifted those 800 Georgian soldiers plus supplies? That seems like a military action (regardless of the reasoning behind it). Christiangoth (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably US soldiers delivering aid (what they often do around the world in disaster and conflict zones). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose adding USA in info box. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Adding USA to the infobox makes no sense. I pray we never have to.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We should not include this until it happens; and the US position is that it will not happen. (This means about as much as the Russian and Georgian official positions, but still...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. When the U.S. delivers aid to other countries in the form of food, medicine, whatever, it is (to my knowledge) always done by the Air Force's strategic airlift and/or National Guard. It may be a function performed by the military, but it is fundamentally a humanitarian aid mission, not a military one, and adding the US to the list of combatants would be grossly misleading and contrary to the intent of that part of the infobox. croll (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HRW on the Russian "genocide" lies and their consequences

"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful. Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."

"The torching of houses in these [Georgian] villages is in some ways a result of the massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the scale of casualties. That is then used to justify retribution."

"[At the Tskhinvali hospital] 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue. Russian and South Ossetian officials have claimed that 1,400 people were killed in the first day of fighting, mostly in Tskhinvali."

"By day five of a conflict one normally expects that there is some kind of list of the dead and injured, or at least an indication of their age and gender. But here there is no information. Absolutely nothing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We gotta find some way to blame other peoples actions on those commies! LokiiT (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Georgians call Russians "Bolshevists" for some reason. Maybe because of what happened in 1921. Who's "we"? Some western/Russian/international human rights conspiracy? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The most evil "Russian" of all time was in fact a Georgian, I don't think they have any right complaining about their oppressive Soviet history. LokiiT (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian turned Russian imperialist. Living in Moscow, speaking in Russian. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So what's your point? Georgia produced one of the biggest mass murders of all time. it's not like he could have "accomplished" anything out of Georgia. This conversation is boring me, you apologists need to get some new material or at least pretend to be neutral. LokiiT (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And he was half-Ossetian. What's YOUR point, and of your stupid "We gotta find some way to blame other peoples actions on those commies!" comment? What "apologist material" did you mean? What would be "neutral" without "pretending"? Please, tell me. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And what about when the Georgian president claimed Russia had taken over Gori and was advancing on the capitol? What about his genocide accusations? "I am directly accusing the Russians of genocide" ... more balanced western media. LokiiT (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what about it? What consequences? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what consequences festering hatred towards a country based on lies can have. Clearly you see no problem with that, but history does. I feel sorry for Russians living in the Baltic states right now, I'd hate to be them. LokiiT (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you say their houses are going to burn like during the pogroms of Georgians in Georgia by Russia's irregulars? Tell me also, will Russia call "genocide" and invade, too? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No you're right. Lying about genocide is fine when Georgians do it. They're so small and helpless and democratic. LokiiT (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic here? Arguments should be for or against inclusion of particular material. That means they address questions like whether the source is reliable, whether there is undue weight, etc.Bdell555 (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian casualties are not exaggerated. They say less than 200 killed - it's more probably (way) too low than too high. And the Russian "genocide" claim was first and never ceased. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this information has been added to the article. Ostap 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Added. aristotle1990 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ossetians are a distinct Iranian ethnic group. Iranians is not humans for western HRW. And do u understand result after blitzkrieg, after using Georgian multiple-launch rocket system (MRLS) 08/08/2008 at night? You saw volley MLRS? So statistic quite realistic. --Woozeefy (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All Western media representatives, to my knowledge, were stationed in Tbilisi and Gori and could only report second-hand about Tskhinvali. I find it amusing, that all their claims continue circulating even after being disproved, while reports from Tskhinvali are blanketly discarded as propaganda. If a tree falls in a forest and CNN is not around to hear it, does it make a sound? Gleb (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This report comes from people in Tskhinvali. I might add that the Russians were not letting foreign journalists into South Ossetia for several days, from either the north or the south, so what were they supposed to do?Bdell555 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The report elaborates on lootings in neighboring villages, which is a problem but a different problem. It also admits lack of concrete information on Tskhinvali casualties, which is not surprising. In every disaster people initially work with estimates. It appears that Tskhinvali central hospital was largely non-existent as of August 8. I was not aware of foreign journalists not being allowed into South Ossetia. Do you have a link? Gleb (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They are based in Tskhinvali; they went outside Tskhinvali to see what's going on. I could go and track down cites about journalists being turned back but I didn't record them. Anything I put into an article, of course, I'll provide a source for.Bdell555 (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A problem with the Russian "estimates", is that the number of deaths they claim don't make sense compared to the number of wounded. There would be far more wounded if there were so many deaths. HRW explains this in another source.Bdell555 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As reported by Russian Ministry of Defence via RIA on 08/08, Georgian military are finishing off wounded peacekeepers and civilians. This would explain disproportionate numbers. Source is in Russian: http://www.rian.ru/defense_safety/20080808/150205875.html Also, there is no shortage of photos of scorched bodies consistent with use of MRLs in populated areas. Gleb (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And you know that the scorched bodies are not the crews of the scorched tanks, right? Anyway (yes, you guessed) NOT A FORUM etc. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How does NOT A FORUM apply to citing a valid source containing information relevant to the topic - HRW on genocide? Gleb (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a very different problem - as far as I know, the Georgian army was not followed by horders of armed looters. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Iranians is not humans for western HRW" Good sir, you are very wrong. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if I can trust human rights watch. "Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived anti-Western, anti-China, and anti-Israel bias while others have criticized it for having a pro-Western and pro-Israel bias. According to a report in the Egyptian press, "the government often accuses human rights groups [including Human Rights Watch] of importing a Western agenda that offends local religious and cultural values."[10]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch#cite_note-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by What Max (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually, when someone reports something unflattering about a country's activities, that country denounces the reporter as having a bias. Given that HRW has been accused of having both a pro- and anti- Western bias (accusations that are mutually exclusive), I think that probably means they're pretty fair in their reporting. croll (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

About 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment

The 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment of VDV (Russian: 45-й гвардейский отдельный разведывательный полк ВДВ) is under direct subordination of VDV Command and in structure of VDV (see his history and COA for example, on [27](in Russian) and VDV-structure at [28](in Russian)). It is under GRU operational subordination only. Alex Spade (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What now?

Which section is marked for the new events of the conflict? Where should the events after the ceasefire be put into?

Roughly speaking, current events are at the end of "Summary" and at Timeline of the 2008 South Ossetia war. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not obvious from the main page.

Would you consider putting a link in the main article to the specific section of the "timeline" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligraf (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just renamed the section "Timeline of events" to more closely match the subsidiary article's title. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos from South Ossetia

Here you go. They're copyrighted, but nevertheless interesting.

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551#551

Talk about evil Russians bombing the single building in Gori and peaceful Saakashvili with his democratic regime "suggesting to lay weapons". These were taken while travelling from Vladikavkaz through Java and to Tskhinvali. This is not something your news channels will show to you. Instead they'll stick with the same single bombed building in Gori. -- 81.195.27.134 (talk)

By the way, the writings on the tank say "Chechnya", "Chechnya", "Chechnya", then "Jamadarians" (dunno what's this) and "422 east, Chechnya". Apparently, the tank belongs to Chechen divisions -- 81.195.27.134 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The inhumanity shown in a lot of those pictures of bodies just left along the side of the road is awful. This photo [29] especially upset me because it appears as if someone threw a tree branch on the burning body for amusement?? I almost vomited. I pray to God that he give these poor souls a peaceful rest.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is war and they're not a burial squad. There's nothing you can do to the dead, but you can protected the ones who are still alive. -- 81.195.27.134 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To use a joke from red vs blue "All we have is pistols and rifles"--Jakezing (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"By the way, the writings on the tank say "Chechnya", "Chechnya", "Chechnya", then "Jamadarians" (dunno what's this)"

It means they're Yamadayevtsy - the men of Sulim Yamadayev, a Chechen warlord (and Hero of Russia) now federally wanted in Russia. (sic) Btw, Tskhinvali was also hit by Russian artillery fire and especially air power. If you want to see how the Russian Army (and specifically, the 58th Army) behaves during combat in a city full of "Russian citziens", see the pictures from Grozny. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, NOT A FORUM. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh shut up already--Jakezing (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This terrible war

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7 at the Reference desk.

I think that the really bad thing about the war is that the so called world community does not care about Georgia. If USA is really the "defender of liberty", it should give Russia, say, 24 hours to leave Georgia, just like Serbia had to leave Kosovo during the war there. Instead, Russia has been given a blanc card to continue with an extended "peacekeeping" operation on foreign soil - and Georgia has to promise never to defend itself against Russia in the future. Since Russia wont accept an international peacekeeping mission, the rest of the world gives Russia a nod to take care of the problem´. Technically, Georgia is not a sovereign country anymore. Lotta2 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When the war is over, there should be a section called "aftermath" dealing with issues such as sovereignty and implications on international law. Right now, it seems a bit premature to speculate. --Hapsala (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

USA have no right to break peacekeeping operation of any other country. If USA do this, it will not be "defender of liberty", but fighter against liberty. Магистер (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Frontpage sentence

"Russia calls an end to its military offensive in Georgia and agrees to a European Union plan for a ceasefire and peace talks, amid reports of more fighting around the city of Gori."

Looting, wanton destruction and murder is not "fighting". Of the fighting there's little and not with regular Georgian army. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't talk about the frontpage here. Naurmacil (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do report about anything too, but this will be reason for nothing. Магистер (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the captain's point was that the Main Page sentence does NOT reflect the information we have been receivingAndrew's Concience (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We have been receiving information that someone has received reports? Магистер (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Russian columns drive back and forth, loot Georgia, burn villages, but the Georgians were not provoked so far so it's not "fighting". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You forget about Ossetian army and Ossetian "volunteers".Магистер (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To "fighting" two sides are needed. Reports of any "fighting" are few, like "Russia claims to shoot down UAVs". Georgians are now probably wary to not get provoked again, so the Russia would not say they "broke ceasefire" and resume whatever they are planning to do now. Anyway, give me reports of fighting or let's make this into something along the lines of the "reports by of widespread looting and wanton destruction by pro-Russian irregular forces". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russian columns drive back and forth, loot Georgia, burn villages" - by "Russian columns" you mean regular Russian army, right? So you found sources proving Russian regular army forces "loot Georgia, burn villages"? If so, please share. Thanks. Enerjazzer (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and The Guardian says there's no fighting because... there's practically no one left to fight on the Georgian side.

For most of the day there was no sign of the Georgian army. After five days of ferocious bombardment by Russian warplanes, it appears not to exist. With rumours swirling of an imminent Russian attack on Tbilisi, however, Georgia mustered a platoon of 50 soldiers, who took up positions 10 miles down the road from where the Russians appeared to have parked up for the night. (Amid promise of peace, Georgians live in terror · Russian militia accused of orgies of looting and rape)

Unless "a new partisan war against the Russians" starts. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A FORUM

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War/Archive 7 at the Reference desk.

I was nice and didn't delete, instead posted "THIS IS NOT A FORUM" message.

This is what user Naurmacil did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=edit&undoafter=231793571&undo=231793752

Deletion of my friendly message with the comment: This is not a forum for This is not a forum comments. Be contributive, or fuck off

MODS: please take care of him. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Obvious, could you, please, stop whining and be objective?

You seem to behave EXACTLY like your role model, Mr. Saakashvili: first start the fight, and then whine till someone maybe helps you. So far, I'm tired of your crap that is more about your very biased opinion of the conflict rather than the quality of the article. (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Poligraf, please do not apply the word "whine" to the action of a person. You may think it is a right word, but it does not help this discussion if you state something which may inflame the other party, as that might lead to this discussion becoming extremely unproductive. I do not know if Captain Obvious has been trying to insert a bised point-of-view into this article. If he has, then he should be told not to continue doing that. However, Captain Obvious is right in stating that this talk page is not a forum. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of 2008 South Ossetia war. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

I'd delete all this discussion, but instead I just reminded you - and I've got "fuck off" in return while deleting my reminder. And you whine about what now? You surely have no opinion, right? And analyzed my actual contributions to the article, right? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have said to Poligraf, please do not say something which might inflame the other party, such as "You surely have no opinion, right?", as that might cause this discussion to become extremely unproductive. You were right to state that this talk page is not a forum, and I hope the discussion will now end, as a result. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think qa good reading of WP: Civil Would help you all.--Jakezing (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

according to X media, 'allegedly'...

This is grammatically redundant. If a reporter reports something, and Wikipedia says that the reporter reported that as opposed to just stating whatever was reported as a fact, it's already clear to the reader that the claim isn't any stronger that the reporter's reporting. Adding "allegedly" one top of that doesn't change the truth status of the claim. Wikipedia isn't saying the claim is necessarily true when it says "Y media said something happened". To change that to "Y media said allegedly something happened" is to simply add a redundant word. Wikipedia is not claiming the reports are true or have been proven true when "allegedly" is not added on top.Bdell555 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

bdell555,

regarding three reverts.. i hav not violated 3rr so far otherwise i would not be able to type this

regarding redundancy, repeating the same georgian point of view using american and british while also including "unreliability" issues makes the whole part redundant..anyway why repeat the same lines with the same point repeatedly? why cant you form a single sentence and give all citations continuously ..or instead you can adopt my suggeation to use a single line "russia and georgia traded charges of genocide and looting" which would suffice...

else please note that including such blatantly biased text like 'ossetian looters', 'killed by ossetian'...by an editor 'without any contribition by him / her to wikify it to neutrality' constitutes cheap plagiarism..

please know that using capitals in all words in all (most) edit summaries is not wiki policy..please check wiki guidelines.. so stop abusing me using lies (abt violating 3rr)...Cityvalyu (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see you violated 3RR. I said that was 3 reverts. A violation requires 4, and getting banned isn't automatic anyway unless an admin notices it and decides to take adtion. All text was attributed, as far as I could see, and if it wasn't you weren't correcting that but doing something else.Bdell555 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that if the media have reported something as "allegedly" then we should as well. However we should not put words into someone's mouth and if someone reports something as fact, then obviously should not say they have reported it as allegedly Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Financial Market Reaction section

I recommend removing the information on the Russian stock market and currency drop last Friday. It is not clear that this was due to the war and could have mostly been due to the 5% drop in the price of oil. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Ostap 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On to Tbilisi?

So why exactly do we need the entire AP report about the convoy east of Gori? It's disproportionate when we have given one paragraph to each day before, and the convoy hasn't actually gone to Tbilisi. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling Reference Box

I tried to add a scrolling box to the reference section in order to reduce the page size and condense for easier reading. However, it looked great in the edit review but when I tried to save it I got this message:

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. If you did not add the link yourself, it most likely was added by another editor before being blacklisted. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted link before you can save your edit. If you are attempting a section edit, note that this block may even be due to blacklisted links in other sections. If you need help removing the blacklisted link, post a message at Wikipedia:Help desk. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page.

The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: overflow auto height Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.

Anyone have any ideas why? I checked the blacklist's on wiki but couldn't find anything there.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS deprecates scrolling boxes. Unexpected results like this are one reason why. I have no idea which link is blacklisted, if any; the whole result might be server overflow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been talk of bad ref links all over this article. Maybe when you loaded the scroll box wiki picked one or more of them up. Heaps of ppl have been asking for ref links to be cleaned up, which I guess you were doing so kudos for that.Andrew's Concience (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AHH! Thx but alas it looks like it will continue to fail because I just read the WP:MOS and they do indeed discourage scrollboxes :( Looked good in the edit preview though :)--Jmedinacorona (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of terms?

Looking through the article, I see a lot of terms like : "South Ossetian Troops", "Abkhazian troops" and I'm sure I saw earlier "South Ossetian Army".

The Issue I see here is IF South Ossetia & Abkhazia are in fact "regions" of Georgian administation. How then did the come by their own "Army" & "Troops" OR are these some sort of millia?

Surely if we were to recognise the Independance of these regions they could have their own militaries, but in the INFO BOX it says : (Unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia & (Unrecognized) Republic of Abkhazia. So that means that this article doesn't recognize their independence, which could be argued is POV. Alternatively if we remove "Unrecognized" then we have a POV issue also.

I didn't change these things because I didn't want to start an edit war or anything but some consensus would be helpfull.

Do we: Recognize the Independence of S.O and Abkhazia (Not what Wikipedia is for) Do we: Refuse to recognize the Independance of S.O and Abkhazia (Same problem) Or do we: Leave it ambiguous. ie. just, South Ossetia. and just, Abkazia.Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The two mentioned regions remained de-facto independent for almost 20 years; there's an ample time to make an army, irrespective of the fact of official recognition. For example, the Kosovo Liberation Army was (and is) called that despite the fact that Kosovo is still not recognised by many countries and Serbia still considers it a part of its own territory. CopperKettle (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough I'll leave troops as troops and armies as armies. Any thoughts on how we should word the Independance or lack thereof. I was thinking, as stated above just, South Ossetia & Abkhazia.Andrew's Concience (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should leave the point of independence an ambiguous one, that is, until there's a stamp from some UN official on some UN resolution. As of now, even Russia, as far as I know, does not recognise them as independent states. CopperKettle (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A region/province/whatever can be a belligerent without being a nation. Such belligerents typically have troops. If uniformed, organized and officered, those troops can be termed "soldiers" and have status as such under the Geneva Conventions, all without anyone's recognizing the independence of the entity that fields them. If a belligerent fielded troops in corps strength with tank, artillery and air support, I would call it an "army" because of their capability, not out of any legal status. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll change the info box to reflect wikipedia's NPOV policy and leave the rest. As soon as someone reads the introduction they're gonna get the picture. Saying (Unrecognized) Republic of South Ossetia seems a bit convoluted to me (perhaps even weasel words).Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

sigh*...... Or I won't because the page is protected :). Can someone pls change it 4 me.Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

I have seen several people suggest an aftermath section. Today on BBC New there was an analysis of the conflict by Paul Reynolds I wrote this summary of the article and would like to add it to the article:

BBC News analysis Paul Reynolds considers Russia, Vladimir Putin, the South Ossetias, and 'Old Europe' as the clear winners in the recent conflict. Stating that Russia has sent a "clear signal about its readiness to assert itself" and that Germany and France will feel validated in their concern about admitting Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Mr Reynolds identified the losers as the casualties of the conflict, Mikheil Saakashvili, the truth, and 'the West'. With the United States and United Kingdom claiming that Mr. Saakashvili was cautioned to exercise restraint in the build up to the conflict the West suffers from both an ally losing a conflict and the ally disregarding advice.[30]

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia so I didn't want to be bold and just add it sense it is a touchy issue. Also, it might be to soon to add an aftermath section. Joseph Godwin (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i think it's too soon to say it's over. We're still getting, albeit unconfirmed reports that there is still violence being carried out in the region despite the ceasefire. I think even if it is over, aftermath should at least wait till the U.N enquiryAndrew's Concience (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this really isn't the touchy part. aristotle1990 (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is too soon as well. IMO the actual aftermath of this conflict is months if not years away. The West is still thinking about which sort of punishment Russia should suffer for these actions.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the frame of mind of mountain peoples, I'm sure the final end of this conflict is generations away, and was pushed decades further by the Saakhashvili's barrage of a city on the eve of the Olympic Games, just after the promise of peace. Such feats will be remembered and enmities might run for generations. The hysteria in Western media just adds another splash of dirt to this dirty war. --CopperKettle (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording at the beginning

I quote from the beginning:

..During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali...

how come there's no mention of the massive artillery-and-rocket shelling leading to the near-almost-destroyed city? Was there a discussion on this? This should be mentioned, because the soft wording is clearly misleading. If there's a disagreement, the disagreement should be noted, but without the mention of a massive (albeit from some points of view) attack on the city the beginning of the article, as it seems to me, is skewed in favor of Georgia.

--CopperKettle (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I propose this:

During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction(?, but were later disputed in a number of sources?).

I am sure that a statement like this, giving a clear snapshot of Russian perception of the pivotal moment, should be in the beginning of the article, if our aim is to present a balanced view on the conflict. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I support that. Mrcatzilla (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mrcatzilla; I'll wait for more comments. I'm not for a second succumb to our dear propaganda machine which is in a full swing now on Russian channels, but for the first time in my life I see the Western propaganda building up to the extent that reminds me of ours, and that should be fixed. --CopperKettle (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about? During the night and early morning Georgia, Reportedly launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction(?, but were later disputed in a number of sources?).

. Just to keep objectivity and avoid conflict on the talk page :).Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was no arguing about the fact that Georgia did launch an offensive. It has a right to fight for its territory, but not with just any means, and that is my aim here. My edit is aimed at bringing the ordinary-Russian-citizen's perception more into focus. As I see it, even the Second Chechen War, which was conducted as a reaction on direct incursions into our territory and on the Russian multiple-story buildings blown up, was supported less widely than the current operations of our army. And this is partly because the Western-oriented folks, including yours truly, see the clearly stilted reports on their favorite channels like BBC, CNN, etc. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reportedly" is redundant. It's implied for everything else. I agree with CopperKettle. It's supported by multiple sources already referenced by the article. It's also in the linked Timeline article.Gleb (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's no objections for several hours, feel free to add the proposed text into the intro, as I might be absent. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

REPORTEDLY??? Enough of this verbiage! It should be During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali. And this is not POV, this is facts. KNewman (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another variant:

During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[23] The heavy shelling laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis which, according to Russian government sources, amounted to genocide; the news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction, but the extent of civilian casualties was later disputed (?heavily disputed, the alleged extent was criticized by, etc.?) by the number of sources.

--CopperKettle (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, but the point is the Georgians claim that the Russians "carpet bombed Tskhinvali" and while I personally believe this to be untrue. As long as there is a shadow of a doubt we can't refute EITHER claim. The ordinary-Russian-perception OR the ordinary-Georgian OR the ordinary Martian perceptions have no place in an Encyclopedia. If this was a News article, sure, but it's not. By using citations and sources we retain objectivity and "ideally" a neutral stance on any issue. Be it the colour of the sky or whether the holocaust really happened. It sucks sometimes but I believe it's what makes wikipedia truly great.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There were no significant Russian troops near Tskhinvali at that time. "Carpet bombing" by Russians may or may not have taken place and, given reliable sources should be mentioned, but putting it here would break the flow. Gleb (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

... The news of the shelling were extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction. The extent of civilian casualties was later disputed by the number of sources. (same in separate sentences) would be easier to read IMO.Gleb (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew, we must abstain from any newsy hype. But the sad fact is, the beginning as it stands now reflects the, let's say, "ordinary American's" perception, and we either dilute it with the Russian, which is by the way corroborated by a vast number of sources (and we might drop in the Georgians' objections for the better stew), or leave the intro of the article as it is, skipping the pivotal moment, the merciless wiping out of a city, which is linked to the start of the war in the minds of tens of millions. I'm not proposing to add this words in the news fashion, as you noticed, and the wording is deliberately neutral: "according to Russian government sources" - and a reference might be added to some gov.ru site; "the extent was disputed" - this we could ramp up to "the extent was disputed, and, by some Georgians' claims, the bulk of the shelling itself was from the Russian side", though I do beleive this is preposterous; there might have been Russian-inspired provocations, but an all-out shelling from the Russian side would have been uncovered by now, it such a grisly thing could have happened. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew! Just look at that I've just read in the intro of the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[15] Blair said the actual trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.[16]

If the Wikipedia comminity found it right to place these alleged reasons in the second paragraph, why don't we place the alleged reasons of Russian military operation in the third paragraph here? You say " As long as there is a shadow of a doubt.." but in the case of the Bush&Blair's proposed reasons there is not only a shadow, there is a heavy raincloud of a doubt, and the cloud is unlikely to dissolve. Nevertheless, the clause was rightly put in the beginning, as it focuses the attention on the pivotal reasons for the US invasion into Iraq. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

CopperKettle, you're being perfectly reasonable about it and the only reason I'm nay-sayin is because I believe that your edit deserves mention. However if you add that in the way it is I fear that those "ordinary Americans" :) are gonna wake up in a few hours, see your edit, and revert it. I don't want that and neither do you. I'm not opposed to adding the content you propose.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If they revert it in spite of this discussion and our mutual agreement, and despite there being no substantial counter-arguments, this would amount to vandalism, and the administrators might be brought in for help. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have a problem now with the Iraq precedent, good find. I support your changes go for it.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanx! I do repeat that I try to be neutral, and personally I'm all for the heavy UN involvement, with Russia, US, and Georgia to be forbidden to play this dirty game. I'll go on and try to add the proposed text. --CopperKettle (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done; fix my English if you find any mistakes in style or grammar. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me, well written, in context. Not that I could have fixed it if it wasn't I still have a red name tag and the page is protected :(Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Red nametag? No problem, just start a page and fill it to the brim with preposterous userboxes. (0: --CopperKettle (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

CopperKettle, in your wording the "heavy shelling" and "humanitarian crisis" due to the initial advance of Georgian army into Tskhinvali are presented as facts, while they are among the things that are "according to Russian (government) sources". An increasing number of other reports disputes the extent of the initial destruction, as you rightly say yourself. Notice that the Iraqi War example you give starts with "according to", which makes it clear from the beginnig that these were the official US/British reasons given at the time. Your version presents the alleged heavy demolition of the city by the Georgians as a fact. If you want to follow the Iraqi War article, it would rather be something like:

During the night and early morning Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[39] According to Russian sources there was such a heavy shelling that it laid the city in ruins, causing a humanitarian crisis. The news of the shelling was extensively covered by Russian media and served as a pretext for the following military reaction and Russia threatened to respond to defend South Ossetians against "a genocide by Georgian forces."[40][16] The extent of civilian casualties was later disputed in a number of sources.[41]

(This is based both on your original suggestion and the current version.) What do you say? 132.68.72.110 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine, in the view of the recent Human Rights Watch report. I agree. --CopperKettle (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, according to the Collins dictionary pretext is 'a fictitious reason given in order to conceal the real one'. Since we don't know the real reason of the Russian reaction it would be better to reword this passage. Alæxis_¿question? 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like "The Russian government's stated justification for entering Georgian territory was to protect its own citizens and to prevent "a genocide by Georgian forces" from this version. Alæxis_¿question? 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker so I do not know whether the "pretext" has a negative connotation in current usage. If you think so, then I agree to the change. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see that change myself in light of the HRW report. However, Alaexis is correct that "pretext" connotes a false or fictitious rationale. "Stated justification" would be better, IMO. croll (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e (in Polish) Kościński, Piotr (9 August 2008). "W ewentualnej wojnie z Rosją Gruzini nie są na straconej pozycji". Rzeczpospolita. Retrieved 2008-08-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference rasstanovka_sil was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Georgia: Russia fighting a 'war' in South Ossetia". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-08-11.
^ BBC,2008-08-06,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7543099.stm Russia vows to defend S Ossetia
^ BBC Monitoring, 2008-08-04, [Talking Through Gritted Teeth]
^ http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=25f678db-ebf2-45e6-a15f-16deab37b17d
^ http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/08/11/6414241-ap.html
^ http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/ONIN-7HFRBN?OpenDocument
^ http://www.am.gov.lv/en/news/press-releases/2008/Ausust/12-4/
^ http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/baltics_cis/?doc=4079
^ http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9112399&source=rss_news50

[gruzini-1] (in Polish) Kościński, Piotr (9 August 2008). "W ewentualnej wojnie z Rosją Gruzini nie są na straconej pozycji". Rzeczpospolita. Retrieved 2008-08-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[rasstanovka_sil-2] Cite error: The named reference rasstanovka_sil was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[telegraph_war20080808-3] "Georgia: Russia fighting a 'war' in South Ossetia". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-08-11.

[4] BBC,2008-08-06,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7543099.stm Russia vows to defend S Ossetia

[5] BBC Monitoring, 2008-08-04, [Talking Through Gritted Teeth]

[6] ttp://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=25f678db-ebf2-45e6-a15f-16deab37b17d

[7] ttp://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/08/11/6414241-ap.html

[8] ttp://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/ONIN-7HFRBN?OpenDocument

[9] ttp://www.am.gov.lv/en/news/press-releases/2008/Ausust/12-4/

[10] ttp://www.baltic-course.com/eng/baltics_cis/?doc=4079

[11] ttp://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9112399&source=rss_news50

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]