Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/index.php)
-   South Ossetian Conflict (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=306)
-   -   EU report: Georgian attack started war with Russia (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83835)

ThereIsOnlyWar 03 Oct 09 22:32

EU report: Georgian attack started war with Russia
 
Not sure if people are still following this, but I figured some might find this interesting.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...6etqQD9B1N8381

Or, for those who prefer a bit more gloating in their news pieces:

http://exiledonline.com/the-czar-of-...mes-toldja-so/

Anyway, enjoy.

Erkki 04 Oct 09 09:02

The report itself.

http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html

xiong 04 Oct 09 12:03

With this report finally out, I believe this South Ossetian Conflict sub-forum should be removed from Current Events.

craven 04 Oct 09 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erkki (Post 1324273)

thanks for the report Erkki been looking for it.

btw did the report change anyones mind or present any new evidence.
Or glaring errors.

Widow Maker 05 Oct 09 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by xiong (Post 1324346)
With this report finally out, I believe this South Ossetian Conflict sub-forum should be removed from Current Events.

Any recommendation for a history section to put it in?

stalin 06 Oct 09 02:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by xiong (Post 1324346)
this South Ossetian Conflict sub-forum should be removed

- i second that .

pp(est) 07 Oct 09 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by craven (Post 1324525)
thanks for the report Erkki been looking for it.

btw did the report change anyones mind or present any new evidence.
Or glaring errors.

Not really. Unfortunately they didn't do much independent research as I was hoping. It looks like they just gathered material from the sides and interviewed some higher officials. I was expecting for a more hands on approach with witness interviews and more access to actual intel material (I guess the latter was an unreasonable expectation, as I doubt neither side is willing to disclose anything that might jeopardize future operations).

AP for example did not include the qualifier present in the report that the shelling would have been legal if it was found that SO was bombarding the villages or that Russian troops had in fact initiated the invasion. Two critical facts which they say they don't have sufficient information to determine. Other such important questions left unanswered is whether Georgians attacked the Russian troops in SO first or vice versa.

The report is a good collection of claims made by both sides and the relevant legal arguments. Thanks Erkki for digging it up.

xiong 09 Oct 09 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Widow Maker (Post 1325408)
Any recommendation for a history section to put it in?

Sorry, no idea. Let the moders decide. Maybe create something like Post-Cold War conflicts in Europe?

craven 10 Oct 09 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp(est) (Post 1326717)
Not really. Unfortunately they didn't do much independent research as I was hoping. It looks like they just gathered material from the sides and interviewed some higher officials. I was expecting for a more hands on approach with witness interviews and more access to actual intel material (I guess the latter was an unreasonable expectation, as I doubt neither side is willing to disclose anything that might jeopardize future operations).

AP for example did not include the qualifier present in the report that the shelling would have been legal if it was found that SO was bombarding the villages or that Russian troops had in fact initiated the invasion. Two critical facts which they say they don't have sufficient information to determine. Other such important questions left unanswered is whether Georgians attacked the Russian troops in SO first or vice versa.

The report is a good collection of claims made by both sides and the relevant legal arguments. Thanks Erkki for digging it up.

I agree about the independent research.
The things I got from this is the Russians fail to keep the peace ie shelling of Georgia and then failed to prevent the seperatist from committing bad acts after repelling Georgian forces.

Everything else it pretty convoluted. Although I did find the stuff about how Russia was violating international laws with passports and such interesting since I never knew half of those things were laws. (btw that not russian bashing there I just found all the rules and justisfications interesting.)

I also think they did a decent job of trying to raise the bar for charges of genocide which I see thrown around way to much.


Once again thanks Erikki

xiong 13 Oct 09 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by craven (Post 1329352)
I agree about the independent research.
The things I got from this is the Russians fail to keep the peace ie shelling of Georgia and then failed to prevent the seperatist from committing bad acts after repelling Georgian forces.

Everything else it pretty convoluted. Although I did find the stuff about how Russia was violating international laws with passports and such interesting since I never knew half of those things were laws. (btw that not russian bashing there I just found all the rules and justisfications interesting.)

I also think they did a decent job of trying to raise the bar for charges of genocide which I see thrown around way to much.


Once again thanks Erikki

From your post it looks like you were specifically looking for evidence against Russia. "Whoever looks for something, will always find something" as a Russian proverb goes.

For example, the shelling was certainly two-way (S.O -> G and G -> S.O.). How was the joint (mind you) peacekeeping force stationed in S.O. meant to prevent shelling from G.?

craven 13 Oct 09 20:39

No most of the stuff against Russia I just wrote off to nit picking I did not see a lot of stuff against Georgia in the Report that can not be considered nit picking.

The shelling as I understand came mainly from the Ossetians with replies from Georgia. So if Russia would of stoped the shelling from the Ossetian then Georgia would not shelled Ossetia. That my understanding of situation. In general I think the Russian peace keepers should not of been there and Russia allowed Georgia to deal with a internal issue as it saw fit as Russia did in Chechnya.


The failure of the Russian army to try and protect all civilians no matter there back ground was a major failure on their part after invading. If they did protect ethinic Georgians I did not see it in the report.

stalin 14 Oct 09 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by craven (Post 1331771)
if Russia would of stoped the shelling from the Ossetian then Georgia would not shelled Ossetia

- and you think the Ossetians would have stopped there shelling if told to ?

craven 14 Oct 09 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by stalin (Post 1332568)
- and you think the Ossetians would have stopped there shelling if told to ?


I thought that was the job of the peace keeper to prevent violence. So tell them or jail and hand them over to the courts.

Erkki 14 Oct 09 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by craven (Post 1332589)

I thought that was the job of the peace keeper to prevent violence. So tell them or jail and hand them over to the courts.

Hmm what was the Georgian part of the Peace keepers doing?
Strangely I havenīt heard to much about them, maybe I just didnīt listen well enough. And honestly... I havenīt read the entire report yet, is there any comments made by them in there?

stalin 15 Oct 09 07:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by craven (Post 1332589)
tell them or jail and hand them over to the courts

- they undoubtedly would do so, had the Georgians not attacked in return.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:48.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.