Abkhazia and South Ossetia are independent states now! Poland reaction?

Russia is no saint, that it is helping S.Ossetia purely out of self-interest is fine since S.Ossetia welcomes this helps and it helps to secure their independence. That Russia was reckless, or rather, careless about killing innocents is another matter entirely, a separate debate. I think Russia should be condemned for not minimalizing casualties. So should Georgia. The Georgian President comes off the worst in this entire fiasco. He's a complete madman for trying to conquer this province.

Can't you see me??? :)

You know I read German press and I'd say that left side of their political scene doesn't want to see dangerous changes on east right side shows some proper reactions (Merkel) still ... it is hard to behave in different way when western journalists get killed by russian snipers. Generaly Europe is weak an doesn't have one stance (as usual)

France has been humiliated, Russians showed them total disrespect. Europe is toothless. BB represents German pagans lets leave it ;). IMO now Ukraine is going to be in troubles but it is not so easy to beat them, so we are going to see big political game there.

I don't know much about this conflict, but from the facts I've gathered online, here are my reactions to this man's speech. Again I don't claim to know it all, so is youdisagree that's cool, just explain why, school me, don't trash me.

You can get the full text of his speech here:
nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/europe/27saakashvili.html


1.Russia is hardly annexing the entire nation of Georgia by formally recognizing two breakaway provinces.

2. by launching a military offensive against SO, which was not in self-defense, President Saakashvili violated international law. He also Violated a 1992 ceasefire.

3. There has been no peace, stability, or order in the past 60 years!!!


The rulers of both provinces welcome Russias help, however self-interested it may be, Russia's help is also welcomed by all those who voted for independence and self-rule.


What about the integrity of those very provinces Georgia attacked, they are full of real people who have carried out a real struggle for independence and self-rule. their concerns, and their desire to NOT be attacked by Georgia trump all others.


They've successfully broke away from Georgia so this is no longer relevant. We know that they were once part of Georgia, but the fact that they've managed to secede and set up their own governments, forming their own alliances is the issue. The issue now is whether Georgia can suddenly re-conquer in a military campaign them so many years after the fact.


this is an extraordinary statement. ON August 08(?) Georgia used violence in a direct military aggression against South Ossetia. the Ethnic cleansing charge is hyperbole. And again, Russia was merely defending the self-drawn borders of South Ossetia.


This is where Russian actions may begin to bear some criticism, however,, it seems tactically sound from a military perspective to secure the area by keeping troops posted.


The ordeal of Georgians (and of russians) in these provinces is a serious concern,and is one of the many issues confronting South Ossetia. This has little bearing on the recognition of South Ossetian independence.

If the people were inclined to take the passports and adopt russian citizenship, then what's the problem? There's also the possibility that many of these passports are counterfeits made by the South Ossetians themselves.


Again the charge of ethnic cleansing is hyperbole even though it may contain some truth. This is a serious allegation, I won't claim to knwo anything about it.


If Georgia was the first to attack the breakaway province, how does that make Russia the aggressor?


Isn't it a normal function of sovereignty to recognize whomever you want as an independent state?


Well a revolution is a revolution, so if part of a country secedes from the rest, an immediate struggle may ensue, but once the fighting stops, I believe the lines are drawn. Major fighting ended in South ossetia and during this time it ruled itself autonomously, I believe the lines have been drawn, Georgia lost,and the extent of its sovereignty has been diminished.


Didn't the seperatists in the breakaway provinces achieve this themselves of their own will? So it isn't really a case of Russia dismembering Georgia is it?

I


hyperbole.

May I trash idiot Saakashvili?

:)

Definitely one "a" to much this man has...

Happy people! :)

spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34620-8.html

...nice flags!

rferl.org/content/Article/1189525.html

so, will russia now recognise kosovo??

Fact is only one country has recognised those separating republics. Ironically it is a country occupying those republics. So, it is rather annexation of Georgian territories. Nothing good to any part in such ridiculous situation. Independence can not be gained such brutal way in modern world.

It's enough, we need new resorts on the coastline of Black Sea. "De jure" these republics are independent states now, so nobody can accuse us that we annexed them.Moreover we have additional strip of friendly land around Sochi. Welcome to Olympic Games in 2014!

New resorts on the coastline of the Black Sea? What? Why? Old Russian imperialism again, as if ur country isn't big enough as it is

It never stopped.

do you mean commonwealth games??

the olympic games are every 4 years, 2008...2012...2016

so, will russia now recognise kosovo since they are in the habit of recognising independent states??

Why should they? These are two different cases.

why shouldnt they??

seriously, how are they different?

abkhazia and south ossetia are aligned with russia and kosovo isnt, that is the only difference.

what is good for the goose is good for the gander!!!!

I do not claim to know all the details here, but IMHO it is a bad move, or at least a bit disengenuous, for Russia to "recognize" the two only AFTER invading them. It is also not ridiculous for Saakashvili to believe Russia means or meant to annex Georgia. Until *after* they invaded, S. Ossetia was at least officially, part of Georgia. It also bears pointing out that if simply freeing a portion of Georgia from Georgians and putting Russians in control of it were the only goal, why did Russia's army continue onward instead of fortifying the border and drawing a line, so to speak?

Georgia may be viewed as having started it by some (I'm not really sure-the squabbling with S. Ossetia has been ongoing, apparently) but Russia responded to "excessive force" by the Georgians with even MORE excessive force. Georgians nor Russians are IMHO evil, but from my POV it looks like the schoolyard scenario of two small children arguing over which side of the sandbox they have, only to have a full grown man take sides with one, beat the @#$ out of the other, then take the whole thing for himself. Russia has always been good at the chess game, now is no different.

I hear the Kuznetsov sailed...and I know Putin would LOVE to have some new ports, and control the supply to one of the few potential alternatives for Russian oil to Europe.

Nothing like taking over a competitor. It works that way in businesses, too.

John P.

Oh Jeez.. you know we can't get involved in the Georgian thing. Russians, excessive?? Really? Imagine that.. In the end it's just sabre rattling anyway. They move toward the Ukraine, maybe that's different ( is it probably inevitable??). I can't believe Joe Biden even mentioned Georgia in his speech. You pick your battles in life -- this one isn't ours. This policeman act we're doing.. It's beyond ridiculous.

This is exactly how the British fell, rushing to every brush fire, skirmish. It costs money to do these things. Money the middle class does not have.

I know my words might sound biassed on the issue, so I should point it out I feel very sceptical of the Russian GV step recognizing two regions and I can't say I like it.

Now answering your question...
The distinctions are as follows:

1) Abhasians and Ossetians have always lived on that land and developed as folks there.
Albanians mostly advisebly inhabited Kosovo territory in the last century (Tito).
2) Kosovo has always been a cradle of Serbian religion and culture.
Abhasia or South Ossetia couldn't be the cradles since they were forcibly annexed to Georgian Socialist Republic by Stalin in the last century and hadn't had common culture before.

3) Albanians were first who started to oppress native population on their own land.
Georgians has tried for three times to annex SO. First genocide was in 1920 (4143 casualties), second in 1991 (about 2000), third nowadays (about 2000).

These are only three. There may be more sure...

fair enough, i am impartial observer in this political game of tit for tat between the states and ruskies.

i do however feel that if hypothetically abkhazia and south ossetia were annexed by the ruskies then they would not be recognising the independence of these two states.

Let's face it; the words "Russia" and "liberation" do not look good or heart warming in the same sentence.

True. How our politicians say "the fact of recognizing these two regions is a best proof to the West on that we're not going to annex them". Well... I hope that was candid.

Who is saying for us to get involved(?) I don't think it's come to that yet, as things are calming down apparently. It bears watching-and just because Russia (or China or...) is big doesn't mean it's never worthwhile to fight. I do agree it is best to choose one's battles, however sometimes the decision shouldn't be made on the size of the adversary but over what is to be gained/lost by either action or inaction.

I just said I think it disengenuous to "recognize" the freedom of portions of another country only *after* you had invaded them. Kindof like if we recognized Qebec as an independent nation *after* attacking Canada, occupying Qebec and marching toward Montreal.

It's the principle of the thing.

John P.

Today Russia may appear powerful yet long term look at the damage done.

"The Abkhaz and Ossetian populations have not been threatened with anything remotely approaching "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" by the Georgians. If anything, the danger is in the other direction, with ethnic Georgians fleeing both regions to escape the Russians and the Russian-armed secessionists."

"As for rewriting the international rules, that will not be done unilaterally, with Russia mistrusted and disliked."

charter97.org/en/news/2008/8/27/9507

I think the West under the leadership of the US lost much more...

They promised Georgia support and NATO-membership but left Saakashvili hang out to dry as pushes came to shove and Nato- or even now EU membership is not on the agenda anymore (forget about diplomatically niceties).

Russia did what it thought was right and the West just *********** was all!

People will remember that most...

Right for Russia. As they are monopilize energy supply. This is not just directed toward the west but all of Europe.

What is wrong with it? Do you accuse us for having oils and gas?

Personally I see nothing wrong with it. Good for Russia. The only reason it concerns me is it would seem Putin wants Russia to control ALL the oil and gas. Which would be a de facto move to control Europe (again) this time through its fuel supply.

It would be the same if Russia or America or Britain etc. wanted to control all the food supply. It is a method of control that requires not a single shot fired, while still technically enslaving those nations which rely on those resources.

John P.

Nothing personal, just a buisiness. That is what you have taught us in 90-th.

Anyone that cannot see this is not looking. As many are saying this has everything to do with USA's needs are not looking at what effect this will have on Europe.

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"Any doubt as to Russia's goals in Georgia has vanished into thin air. By recognizing the Georgian territories Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, against international law, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has made Moscow's intention clear: The Russian government wants to change the map of Europe by violence."

"This war never had much to do with South Ossetia, much less with Georgia. Moscow wants to use this invasion -- which it has prepared for years -- to rebuild its imperium, to expand its control over Europe's energy reserves, and to punish anyone who believes that democracy should bloom along Russia's borders. For Europe this is reason enough to worry."

spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,574968,00.html

Russia is setting a bad precedent...It would have been enough to have a strong military presence in both areas...The thinking probably was that with the status of Kosovo a 'fait accompli', why not?...and there is certainly a justification, but why press this issue now?