Talk:Russo-Georgian War

Casualty Figures

For the casualty number for South Ossetia, there needs to be some form of citation. Where was this "estimate" found anyway?

Secondly, the Russian casualties should be 51 dead:

Here is a link for a list of individuals killed. http://www.army.lv/?s=2550&id=4146

I think casualties should simply be put as "unknown" since casualty numbers provided by either side cannot be confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.62.73.52 (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing how the Russian figures keep going down. Perhaps we should put up the Georgian estimate on the subject, it's probably a closer reflection of reality than whatever lies the Russians are putting out this week. Does anyone here seriously believe the (wildly fluctuating) Russian figures are based in reality? 66.66.154.162 (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing how an anonimous IP may just come and start a discussion like this one. It takes a long conversation to get to the facts with matters like this, but how can one talk to an anonimous IP? FeelSunny (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The so called "official" statet numbers of casulties is redicilous. The losses amongst the russian army are much higher. I can definitly confirm that. I know what I am talking about. It is insane, that small number of fallen russian stated here, that is insane, what the Kremlin tries to make. Soon or later real numbers will appear, but I have the same opinion. Casulties should be written as "unknown" for the russian army. We lost more. My uncle ,who at least is a lieutenant was ordered in the near of the conflict zone. He said, they fear to have lost more 165 soldiers alone in the outskirts of Tskhinvali after heavy fightings against georgian special forces and it didn't stop until air support. He also added, "those useless guys where qiuckly overwhelmed. We found hundreds of their corpses in the nearby villages". I think he meant Ossetian fighter. Also, the georgians lost more than that few 144 men. Our air force bombed the hell out of them.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.46.82 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To do

I'd like to invite everyone to express what they think should be improved in each of the chapters. I think it would be very useful if everyone would express their opinion (concisely) below! Offliner (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lead

Perhaps the best part of the article. Should probably be kept stable.

• Background

Perhaps include more information on geopolitics, Georgia's willingness to join NATO, and what Russia thinks of that. We could also expand on the US-Georgian relations a bit.

• Prelude to war

Seems a bit too long. We could drop at least one of the incidents.

• Events of August 7

No complaints. The last 5 sentences provide a summary of the material in "Discussion..." Ensuring that the summary is balanced is not easy.

• Battle of Tskhinvali

Perhaps one or two sentences could be trimmed away.

• Bombing and occupation of Gori

The last sentence ("The occupation lasted until August 22") seems a bit laconic and should be expanded.

I am concerned about the balance here. I think that both this chapter and "Battle of Tskhinvali" should include small summaries about the "humanitarian violations" which occured during those phases. But those summaries should each have equal length to be balanced. Currently, this chapter (bombing of Gori) has much more space devoted to humanitarian violations by Russians/Ossetians than Battle of Tskhinvali has to violations commited by the Georgians. The former has about 6 sentences while the latter has 4 (and the sentences in the former are also much longer.) For example, bombing of Gori has a statement on the Ossetian militias killing civilians, etc., but Battle of Tskhinvali doesn't have a statement on the BBC's findings that the Georgians tanks fired on appartment basements. Does anyone else think this is a problem? Offliner (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you counting? I see 8 sentences in the Tskhinvali part mentioning civilian casualties or civilian buildings and 10 in the part on Gori. In my opinion, there is simply much less of a military story in Gori, so little else can be said. Also, Tskhinvali was never occupied for a period long enough to make allowing/forbidding humanitarian relief an issue, while that was the case for Gori, adding to the number of sentences there. --Xeeron (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. And looks like basement sentence was there already too, I just missed it. But even when taken account that the occupation of Gori was longer like you said, I still feel there is a slight misbalance. "There's not much else to be said" is no excuse to leave the descriptions of Russian/Ossetian atrocities a bit longer; both descriptions should be equally long at this point in my opinion. Offliner (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Abkhazian front

It's very strange that one of the important war actions doesn't still take place in main article: the Russian landing operation on Georgian coast. Elysander (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that an active experienced contributor has some difficulties expanding this section of the article by looking up the references for the missing information. (Igny (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

• Occupation of Poti

The last two could probably be combined (they were part of the same "front" after all?)

• Six-point peace plan

Have the extra 100 OSCE observers been sent yet?

• Russian withdrawal

Could use some work on the wording. Also, exactly how many Russian troops were left in the regions?

• Post-conflict incidents

I guess this is important enough, but I'm worried we are giving too much space to the deaths of those few people.

• Casualties

I think this chapter is probably a good idea. But it definitely needs to be sourced.

• Humanitarian impact

This probably requires most work of all. Could be trimmed by perhaps 50%. Remove obsolete statements and leave only statements made by neutral third parties.

Looks like mainstream medias from NATO countries, or Russia, or Georgia all should be considered non-neutral after the prolonged information war that followed the conflict. NGOs are also biased. We may rely on numbers, that come from several different sources, but no analytics is neutral.FeelSunny (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While noone will ever be perfectly neutral, there are different shades of grey. Russian and Georgian sources should obviously not be trusted on their own, since they are the combatants (and thus have a reason to lie about the casualties). Western media could possibly be biased, but there is much less of an incentive to misstate the numbers. Finally, organisations such as HRW or the UNO can be expected to be almost perfectly neutral. --Xeeron (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the August report from the HRW is far from being neutral. Neither I find the very organization neutral. It is U.S. based. It is U.S. funded. It employs former U.S. military officer (BTW the one that helped to bomb Serbia) for studying Georgian attack. I do not find this neutral, as I do not find US position neutral in this war. I may discuss the discource HRW uses in the report and prove it is a very pro-Georgian document. I think though, international NGOs like Amnesty International or UN agencies are quite neutral.FeelSunny (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So, any ideas on how to proceed with this chapter? The main goal is to summarize the content of the chapter. Offliner (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should give two versions of misbehaviour during the war, one for both side. Then give all refugee numbers provided by the sides, clearly stating who has left (Ossetians or Georgians).FeelSunny (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea. Offliner (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Infrastructure damage

Seems a bit long.

• Discyssion about responsibility for the war and starting it
• International reaction
• Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia
• Judicial reaction
• Cyberattacks
• Censorship of the media

Are those Russian websites still blocked in Georgia?

• NATO ships in the Black Sea

Are those ships still there?

Hard to find information on this, but the source I just added seems to confirm (indirectly) that some US ships are still there. Offliner (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This[1] definitely seems to confirm that NATO ships were still there in November. And because this[2] still talks about US ships in the Black Sea, and doesn't say the ships have been withdrawn, I think we can safely conclude that the ships are still there. Offliner (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A little bit strange perspective! ;) There are always NATO ships in the Black Sea! Bulgaria, Romania & Turkey are NATO members. Turkey alone permits the transit of (Non) Black Sea Countries' warships through the Straits toward Black and Mediterranean Sea under the conditions of the Montreux Convention. Elysander (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you understand already that we are talking about the additional NATO ships deployed there in response to the war. Offliner (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did only read: NATO ships were still there in November. And i say there are always NATO ships in the Black Sea. Warships of NATO Non Black Sea countries were in the Black Sea before the Russo-Georgian War and they will be there after this war inside the limitations given by Montreux Convention. Sometimes they made friendship visits in Russian ports til the war too. But today Russian state media and its fellow travellers talking about a response to the war. ; - Elysander (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that section is that it is basically reporting on 2 different things: 1. US ships being in the black sea 2. That leading to "fears of a military confrontation" (for the lack of better wording) between russian and US navies there. For 1. as well as 2. we have good sources for the time of the war. Regarding present day, the rian article is not really useful for 2., since it is (being an outspoken opinion piece) rather a primary than a secondary source. I found this source which is both more detailed and also a secondary one with respect to 2. --Xeeron (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Military equipment and analysis

Personally I would still expand the analysis part a bit.

• Georgian order of battle
• Military instructors and alleged use of foreign mercenaries

Russian prosecutor spoke few weeks ago about a "very small number" but didn't say any figures ... except the usual hoax: " a Latvian female sniper" :))) -

• Russian-South-Ossetian and Russian-Abkhazian order of battle

Considering the lead is arguably neutral unbiased and overall good quality, may be we should remove the tag of neutrality, and possibly tag some sections rather than the whole article. (Igny (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Is a "separatist" the correct term for countries, that breaked away 17 years ago, have army and constitution? How about de-facto independency?--93.80.103.81 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas also has constitution and militia. If it decides to break away from USA, it will be considered a separatist state (not a country). I do not see anything wrong with the term. (Igny (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Unless, say, Mexico recognizes it as an independent country.FeelSunny (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with most of the list above, so I'll simply comment on the cases where I don't:

• Post-conflict incidents, while important, do not fall under the scope of this article, especially since there is another article that fits the bill
• Casualties: Why does this need to be separate from the infobox? Unless there is a good reason to descibe the casualties in detail, I don't see the reason for this section to exist. --Xeeron (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a good idea to have additional information about the casualtes, where they occured, etc. It gives the reader a better picture about the fighting and how it went, expanding on the main narrative about the active stage of the war. One day, I hope we will also have more numbers about equipment losses, and when that happens we can put them in that chapter. About the post-conflict incidents, I guess you're right. We could probably remove that chapter. Offliner (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Casualties ... I am surprised to see this bad joke still in article. This subsection should be removed. What is "official" can be read in the infobox ( with references!!) . What remains is a collection of hearsay, rumours etc. - but without any references too. IMO both sides seemed to make an unofficial "agreement" not to reveal the real extent of losses but these estimations don't belong to article today - as happens now with Reneem's speculations. If we are getting reliable sources which contradict the official figures it's time to reinsert casualities. Elysander (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What recognition means? What changes?

1. I think we should check the international law onrecognition and find what does Russian recognition of SO leaglly changes, what does NATO states recognition of Kosovo legally changes. I mean, not just the Times editorial board thoughts, but the real international conventions on the matter created by international community. Maybe check some international conference, safety, or post WWII conferenses, I don't know.
2. We should check the international law definition of independence and give it in the WP. WP does not give one yet.FeelSunny (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What is "international law" for you? It is not like there is an "world state" that makes laws for everyone, so you got to be more specific. --Xeeron (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I think about when I say "international law": Public international lawFeelSunny (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename

So far every effort at making the necessary rename has gotten bogged down in ridiculous disputes, but I think now there's a title which doesn't have much for people to object to finally. There is now only one name being used that gets more than a few hundred current articles and that's August War. Since this makes no reference to russia or Georgia there probably won't be any neutrality issues. Whether this ends up being the title of choice or not "August War" is presently a far more suitable title for the article than the one in use now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"August War" doesn't sound very descriptive. If someone (who has no idea what the war is called) want's to look it up in Wikipedia, it is unlikely that he will type "August War" into the search box. I'd keep the old name for now. Offliner (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As other people pointed out before me, the search box is not an issue, since we would have a redirect for all names that person might sensibly type in. It is about which name is a good title for the article. ::Hmmm, do I have the stamina for this discussion right now??:: --Xeeron (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google News results sound to me more like "the war fought in August" than "The August War," although it's hard to be entirely sure when dealing with the telegraphic style of speech normally used by journalists. I think the conflict is too recent to have acquired a proper name, as opposed to a 'taxonomic' one like that which we're currently using. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For christ's sake, Devil's Advocate, will you ever rest in peace?? =) Well, actually i wouldn't have objected to "August war", but... honestly, Advocate, it IS not very descriptive. Do you really see so much of a problem in current title as to warrant this change? :: (pre-doom near-apocalyptic hi-tech robotic calm female voice) Warning! Warning! Article rename attempt detected. Attempt Liquidation Teams - advance to your posts. Everyone else - duck and cover - i repeat - DUCK and COVER! =) :: 212.192.164.14 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

August war has the advantage of being perfectly POV neutral. However, it is not very descriptive (but the current title fails here as well, not mentioning the fighting in Abkhazia, Georgia proper and the Black Sea). All of that is only a secondary concern for me though: My opinion is still that we should use the most common name for the article. --Xeeron (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"August war has the advantage of being perfectly POV neutral." I agree, Xeeron. What concerns me, though, is that after this rename someone might come, see it, and say "August war is just plain dumb, let's rename to next popular title aka War in Georgia..." and the bottle with evil genie of tedious rename discussion will be uncorked again. I have the stamina, but i'd prefer not reliving this traumatic experience.

But hell with it. I say (WEAK OPPOSE). I still think that this rename is, at least, unnecessary, and i urge everyone else to think twice before agreeing with it. But all i require for saying "agree" is following conditions to be met:

1. Popularity of "August War" must be proven. Google and Google News stats must be provided here along with links, which generated them, and they must show significant advantage over current title.
2. The rename itself must occur not earlier than 4 weeks after all editors express their agreement. If someone else has something against renaming from "South Ossetia war" i want them to have their chance.

What do you think about that, guys? 212.192.164.14 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as the current name is 1) in line with what happened (main conflict zone), 2) ferlects numerous sources (next to noone adresses the "August war") and 3) is easy to find. FeelSunny (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia was merely the first attack, as there was also Abkhazia which, frankly, was the more serious loss to Tblisi. Even if it wasn't, S. Ossetia is only half the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.36.175 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Another rename thread. What're we on, 100 pages now? Let's recap here: most of the fighting occurred on South Ossetian Soil. The Battle of Tskhinvali eclipsed the other battles. Georgia's unprovoked attack was against South Ossetia. It was Georgia's attack on Tskhinvali, on the Russian Base and on the Roki Tunnel which provoked the response. All three were located in South Ossetia. Furthermore, the Second Chechen War involved Dagestan, but I have yet to see anyone complain about that name not mentioning Dagestan. And Xeeron, you and I had a discussion on how the Black Sea incident didn't occur, and now you shift gears and saying it did occur? Your previous quote was that it may have occurred. You don't get to name wars on what may have occurred. As for Georgia losing Abkhazia, isn't the loss of its entire army more damaging to Georgia then the loss of Abkhazia? Not to mention that Georgia lost the Kodori Valley in this war, it lost Abkhazia a while ago. 68.165.18.113 (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian impact

This chapter is still in timeline form, and almost all of it's statements were useful at the time but are obsolete now. I don't think there is that much essential stuff to keep. Offliner (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of the (in my opinion) obsolete stuff from the chapter, leaving only two statements from HRW and Amnesty. All of the removed stuff can still be found in Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Clear Field

I think we should start a separate article about Georgian plan of war itself. Describing timing, goals, giving the information on when did Georgian authorities start planning etc. In light of many speculations that the war itself was started/ provoked by Russians, one should know, for example, for how long did the Clear Field plan existed, and what was the initial scheme of war, as planned by Georgians. FeelSunny (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, be bold and create the article, be prepared to defend it though. But I think it should not be a problem considering this discussion. (Igny (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC))