Talk:Russo-Georgian War

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

• Be neutral (scrupulously so)
• Be verifiable.
• Be bold
• Be collaborative

Don't

• Don't complain about the title. We've been over this and this page is staying at this location for now.
• Don't be original.
• Don't edit war
• Don't soapbox.
• Don't randomly stick tags everywhere. {{sofixit}}, if you please.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

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)

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)

"Volunteers" entered S. Ossetia prior to Georgian Advance

Volunteers arriving in South Ossetia - president's envoy65.68.1.90 (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)

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

[2]

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)

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-076e.html

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)

Information warfare

[3] 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)

Freedom of the press in Russia65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:20, 12 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)

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)

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)

The Successionist Government/Republic issue. Why Successionist 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)

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)

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)

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-all the below are proposals that will be sourced, add special meeting with NATO and Ukraine this week arranged by Polish FM

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.
• 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 onlt 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.

• Time will tell , I agree on some points.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.64.87 (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pictures

Can someone explain to me kindly what is picture of Russian Army in Bosnia[[4]] 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 [5] 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[6]. 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)

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)

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)

Russians in Gori?

The AP is reporting that Georgia is claiming that Russian forces have entered Gori. [7] 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. [8] 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[9] 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".

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)

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)

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.

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)

Table

Sides at the beginning of the conflict:

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

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."[10] --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:08, 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [11] 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)

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. [12] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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))

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)