View Single Post
  #7  
Old 07 Oct 09, 14:23
pp(est)'s Avatar
pp(est) pp(est) is offline
Major General
Estonia
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Estland/Fennia
Posts: 2,744
pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200] pp(est) is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by craven View Post
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.
Reply With Quote