Talk:Russo-Georgian War

Naval Blockade ??

While the map graphic at the beginning of the article is very nicely done, there is absolutely no factual material cited anywhere in the article that indicates that such a blockade ever occurred. In the interest of accuracy the initial map graphic should be amended to REMOVE the indication of a naval blockade. Федоров (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. Perhaps you can provide us with an altered map that doesn't show the blockade; I'd also like to give time to anyone willing to rebut the statement that there was no blockade, by finding an article from a credible source that the blockade existed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CASUALTIES !!!!

SOURCE: [1]

Please fix it !

The report

• Here it is.
• Georgia 'started unjustified war' - BBC Offliner (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some interesting points I noticed (these are mostly from the "Use of force" section in volume II):

• There was an abstract danger that Russia might carry out its threats to use force, but there was no concrete danger of an imminent attack.
• There is no evidence of a prior Russian invasion
• There is no evidence of illegal Russian troops being present in South Ossetia before the Georgian attack, although a minor amount of non-peacekeepers was probably present
• Georgia's immediate spot-on reactions to South Ossetian fire were justified
• There is convincing evidence that the Georgian offensive was not meant only as a defensive action
• The attacks from the South Ossetian side during early August cannot justify the massive Georgian attack
• The Georgian attack was unjustified per international law
• The initial Russian response was justified
• The later stage of the Russian attack was disproportionate and unjustified
• Ethnic cleansing of Georgians took place, but Russia cannot be held responsible

The report also contains good info about the military action. However, this seems to based on the same sources we are already using in the article. But one could think that the authors only picked sources they trusted in and that were consistent with other findings. Should we give the "Military events of 2008" section in volume II more weight than to other sources?

Here's some info about troop levels, for example:

• 10,000-11,000 Georgian troops took part in the Georgian offensive
• 12,000 Russian troops were deployed on the eastern front (South Ossetia and beyond) during the crisis
• Up to 15,000 Russian troops were deployed in Abkhazia on total. Overall number of Russian troops moved into Georgia in August amounted to 25,000-30,000

The report also contains a large amount of material on the history of the conflict. I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure we can use this as an additional source for the background section.

Any thoughts on the report and on how to use it? Offliner (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This ambassador was educated in Russia and is from the EU, who have an interest in undermining America. Do you really expect these people to have an unbiased opinion in these regards? 67.162.148.7 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Logical conclusion is that, to have an unbiased opinion, you have to be from the USA? Pity you don't have an account yet, for we should know when we talk with you next time:)FeelSunny (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Spiegel article from a few months ago was spot on, despite all the attacks on the author's credibility by certain editors here. But patients have payed off. Now that we have perhaps one of the most credible and well-rounded reports on the war available to date, we should make good use of it. I think it should be used as a main/overriding source so we can trim down the number of references in the article and just make the overall picture more consistent and less confusing. LokiiT (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still reading and examining it. It seems to be a very credible work we all were waiting for, but honestly speaking I was expecting a bit more (concerning details). Just a side note - it is citing both Pavel Felgenhauer and the book "The Guns of August: Russia's War in Georgia", which means that the military experts behind the report are considering both a reliable source. Kouber (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally "citing" does not equal "considering the source reliable". Besides, there are levels of reliability. The source may be reliable for it is demonstrating Felgenhauer's position and may rightfully belong to his own article. However it may not be considered reliable on a wide range of other topics, I do not think biology articles should start citing Felgenhauer any time soon and neither military history/politics. (Igny (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Kouber - Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell claimed that Russia cajoled Georgia into the war. The EU Report states that Saakashvili's attack was uncalled for. Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell claimed that Russia couldn't remove Saakashvili from power, militarily. The EU Report points out the total rout of the Georgian forces. Yeah, the report cites Felgenhauer and Svante Cornell. And then discredits them. Mere citation doesn't mean they're important sources. Gordon Hahn cited Pavel Felgenhauer, only to completely discredit him; Felgenhauer replied with Ad Hominem. Mark Ames cited Felgenhauer, and then showed how much of a joke Pavluysha Felgenhauer really was. Citation doesn't equate to being an important source, and if you think it does...oh riiight, you think that army still = air force, nevermind. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Guideline for citing the report - I believe that we should only cite the report's conclusions, rather than the report's interpretation of other writings on the war. The report is massive, and citing something outside of the conclusion, is likely to generate an edit-war, what do we cite, vs. what do we not cite. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are the right person to establish guidelines for editing this article. The report itself is based on the analysis of numerous sources which are listed in its third part. If the report is reliable, then its assessment of its own sources and the conclusions drawn from them are supposed to be reliable, no? --Kober^Talk 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The conclusions are reliable. That's what we are quoting. What you are suggesting, will end up in another edit-war. I am trying to prevent said edit war, before it starts. You however want to try edit-warring first, and asking questions later. So I'll reiterate: the report contains hundreds of pages. If one misquotes the report, and sources were certainly misquoted in this article previously, that will lead to numerous battles, as to what to include, or what to not include. People are interested in conclusions, i.e. what happened. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of analysis. Furthermore, I am suggesting that we use all conclusions, those beneficial to Russia, and those beneficial to Georgia. Do you not trust the article Kober? Because if you trust the article, then post the conclusions. If you don't trust it, dispute its credibility, and good luck with that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is too restricting. Yes, the timeline in the "use of force" section uses third-party sources, for example. But my gut feeling is still that this timeline is more reliable than anything we had before, since it represents the best understanding of the authors. I'd like to rewrite the material about the military action to be more clear and informative, and this is possible with the information in the report. Offliner (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem that it might run into, is that certain Wikipedians will quote what this article concluded about the HRW, which is different, then what the HRW concluded the HRW said. Personally, I believe that the HRW is the best source on what the HRW said. What I am saying, is that if we have the HRW's views on HRW, we don't need the EU Commission's views on the HRW. The same should be said for every other article. If you want to rewrite the military section, then the report, in the third part, cites all of the articles that it used. You can just use these same articles, rather then the EU Commission's conclusion about these articles, to rewrite the military section. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Our Georgiaphobes probably missed the part of the report which mentions Russia's role in escalating the tensions as well as the presence of "some" non-peacekeeping Russian forces and the influx of volunteers and mercenaries from the North Caucasus (sic) just before 07/08/08.--Kober^Talk 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Saakshvili's claim was BTRs/APCs, light infantry and heavy infantry, i.e. people with flame-throwers, grenade-launchers, etc. There were only reports of light infantry. No one is disputing that there was an influx of light infantry prior to the war. Now Kober, being the stellar military historian you are, please explain, how does one attack Georgia's 191 T-72 tanks with Light Infantry? In other words, there was an influx of Light Infantry, possibly snipers. However, Light Infantry by itself is not an attacking unit, unless your country doesn't have anything else. Light Infantry, less then 500 men, posed no threat to Georgia. If 500 men of light infantry pose a threat to your country, then I'm sorry, but your country's military needs to be improved. 500 light infantry vs. 191 T-72s? If you aren't laughing by now.... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What an impudent statement is that?! What more should Georgia have accepted before reacting? A Russian military parade in Tbilisi probably?... Kouber (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Up to 500, most likely 100-300 light infantry without heavy armament in Tskhinval, somehow becomes a war parade in Tbilisi? Last time I checked, you need tanks for a war parade. But then there's Kouber's version....

Guys, stop elaborating on Heidi's words. She only said Geargia started and Russia overreacted. That's the two main points of the report, and we all know that.FeelSunny (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all I want to put into the article. I love that summary, because it's honest. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect you to understand my allegory. Still, I doubt you would accept as something normal the eventual movement of Georgian troops into Russia, violation of Russian air-space by Georgian air-planes, deployment of Georgian transport troops into North Ossetia, establishment of official ties between Georgia and Chechnya, for example, etc.

Anyhow, the report is saying much more than these two points. For example, it reveals the official Russian version, that the Russian armed forces entered South Ossetia on 8 August 2008 at 14:30, which is ridiculous, as the first Russian aerial bombardment occurred reportedly at 9:45 a.m. on 8 August near the village of Shavshvebi, on the highway between Poti and Tbilisi. Hence, I am getting the impression that the mission of Russia, regarding this report, was rather fact-hiding. Kouber (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Kouber - by saying Russia's forces entered, if you read it, it says through the Roki Tunnel. You are more then welcome to take an airplane, and try to fly it through the Roki Tunnel. In fact, I'd even recommend that someone provide you with an airplane. And your allegory fails, because in this war, both the Ossetians and the Chechens, (220 Chechens officially) fought on Russia's side. You actually have to be invited, in order to establish bi-lateral ties, hence the term, bi-lateral. But it seems that someone's confusing army with air force again ;) Thankfully the report pointed out it was through the Roki Tunnel, apparently anticipating.... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Russian version of events, presented in the report, says exactly what I wrote above: "Russian armed forces entered South Ossetia on 8 August 2008". You're welcome now to claim once again that the air-forces aren't part of the armed forces. It would be funny to read these things again. Kouber (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dearest Kouber, avoiding the main argument, while hilarious, is still not considered as refuting it. Now, try again, and this time actually focus on the main point that I made: here's a hint - it involves the Roki Tunnel. As for your counter-argument, the report was referring to Russian army forces, which was blatantly obvious to any reader. Not Russian Armed forces. Army is a part of the, armed forces, but it's not the entire armed forces. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

shortening of responsibility section

Unfortunately, I don't have much time atm (they took their time releasing the report in "september"), but I still plan on drastically shorten that section, mostly by taking out the "analysts" section out. This report is neutral and pretty much sums up the opinions, so we don't need the assorted others anymore outside of one or two summary sentences. --Xeeron (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest dropping "politicians" and "georgian intelligence" as well. Also the "combatants positions" section can be shortened as well. Of course, everything should be copied over to the Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war subsarticle before removal. Offliner (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the first thing we need to do is making thumbs of pictures. That would make the page load much faster.FeelSunny (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the section on the EU to include all important points, added two sentences that were (as far as I saw) not mentioned in the EU report and ditched all the unnecessary and redundant rest. --Xeeron (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the shortened version was good, except that I'd like Georgia's war preparations mentioned too (a point raised by Antonenko and Spiegel, whose opinions were removed.) Offliner (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be viewing the report as if it were a Deity. Other analysts should also be mentioned. I mean you guys are like "the report came out, nothing else matters anymore!" It's just a single report, that's certainly credible; but it's not something that speaks for everyone else, or can sum up the opinions of everyone else. We need to give the reader the option to see what all analysts think, not just what one of them thinks. Seriously, enough with the worshiping of the EU Report. It's just a report, not a Deity. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The EU report is the most credible and neutral source we have. There is no room for the opinion of every analyst under the sun. All the opinions would still be present in Responsibility for the 2008 South Ossetia war. Offliner (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that this article is called the 2008 South Ossetia War, not The EU Report's Most Credible and Neutral Stance on the 2008 South Ossetia War. If you want to start the latter, please do so. We do not have every analyst under the sun, we just have the ones that we spent pages on pages including. What is going on here? Did I miss the part where Jesus handed us the EU Report or something? And if later another report comes out, disproving the EU Report, or parts thereof, what then? If you want to turn this article into EU Report worshiping, then my time here has expired. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to remind you that the HRW wording on the "ethnic cleansing" was this: Human Rights Watch: "Instead of protecting civilians, Russian forces allowed South Ossetian forces who followed in their path to engage in wanton and wide-scale pillage and burning of Georgian homes and to kill, beat, rape, and threaten civilians," said Denber. "Such deliberate attacks are war crimes, and if committed as part of a widespread or systematic pattern, they may be prosecuted as a crime against humanity." However, also according to the HRW, 15,000 of 17,500 Georgians have left South Ossetia prior to the arrival of the Russian soldiers. Your infallible and o worshipful report turned the HRW's stance, described above, into this: "The facts of ethnic cleansing against the Georgian populace in South Ossetia have been confirmed by the Human Rights Watch". Now I may not be an expert on the English Language, but did the o worshipful report just throw out the word if?

A story comes to mind: A powerful Greek city state sent a message to Laconia: "Continue to act as you are acting, and we will come into your houses and destroy all of your crops if our army gets to your homes". The Laconic response was "if". That word is crucially important. And that is just one of the errors made by the EU Report. It was written by a human being, and human beings make errors. This is why you are allowed jury trials, with a selection of not one of the "most credible and neutral [jurors] we have"; instead you have 12 of your peers to make the judgment. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On citing the EU report

Could you please cite the relevant volume/page number with each different citation? Citing a random sentence to a thousand+ page report without a page number makes it really time consuming for anyone who wants to double check the entry. LokiiT (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur and I shall do so from now on too! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't as I will give direct citations, i.e. word for word. Then it could be easily ctrl-f-ed in the text.FeelSunny (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For those who didn't see it the first time:

Reneem, that includes you. We have the 10,000 number, because it is cited by multiple sources. Your blog cites estimates, whereas we have exact numbers, from later dates. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we update the troop numbers based on the EU report:

• 10,000-11,000 Georgian troops took part in the Georgian offensive
• 12,000 Russian troops were deployed on the eastern front (South Ossetia and beyond) during the crisis
• Up to 15,000 Russian troops were deployed in Abkhazia on total. Overall number of Russian troops moved into Georgia in August amounted to 25,000-30,000

Looks like Cornell was totally wrong with his claim "In South Ossetia, Russians outnumbered the Georgians 2 to 1". I don't have time to make this edit right now; maybe someone else wants to do it? Offliner (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd dispute those numbers; first off it's the Caucasian Front, not the Eastern Front, which is Russia's case would be Kamchatka :P Also, even at 11,000 - that figure is still a bit too small for Georgian troops, considering they had four infantry brigades (minus 2,000 in Iraq), at least one artillery brigade, special forces, and the separate tank battalion sent into action. The 11,000 figure might be more accurate for Georgian forces that entered the outskirts of Tskhinval, but not for the whole front. As for the 12,000 number, is that for all of Georgia? If so, that's also too small, considering that parts of the 20th motorized rifle division, elements of the 131st brigade, 2 battalions of Black Sea Fleet Marines, etc. I think the estimates we currently have are fine. Additionally, the report admitted that it didn't have access to satellite data, which is one of the best ways to determine the number of troops. You cannot spot individual troops, but you can spot battalions, and you usually know that a battalion has anywhere from 100-600 troops depending on its type. Additionally, the Russians only sent in Contract Soldiers, and not a lot of special forces. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

11,000 is the number of troops taking part in the Georgian offensive. This is different from what the Georgians had deployed near the conflict zone (up to 16,000 according to MDB) -- not all Georgian troops took part in the attack. As for the Russian 12,000 number, no, it's not for the whole of Georgia like I said above. I really think these numbers are much better than the current estimates used (which are very vague numbers). Offliner (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the question is, should we give the overall deployment number (10k-16k) for Georgia, or the number or troops who took part in the offensive (10k-11k) or maybe both numbers? For the Russian numbers, I think these are much better than the current ones (10k in SO and 9k in A), which are really vague. Offliner (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well one of the things to consider, is do you include the Georgian Artillery, such as "Dana" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152mm_SpGH_DANA#Ammunition and "Grad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad, and other such units, with ranges from 18 kilometers (in the case of "Dana") or 40 kilometers (in the case of "Grad"), where the artillery was used against Ossetian civilians, militia and military, as well as Russian military, in the Battle of Tskhinval(i) but didn't enter the city's outskirts, nor has been counter-attacked, except by Russo-Ossetian artillery, Russian Air Force, and Russian Special Forces, but outside of Tskhinval(i). Whether to include the artillery brigade(s) or not is a serious question, as you are talking about estimates ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 men. (A Georgian Artillery Brigade is roughly 1,500 men and the Georgian Army reports having two such brigades.) "Grad" and "Dana" are but two examples. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that, well here's the Georgian current Orbat:

1st Infantry Brigade - located in Gori tank + arty bats fought 2nd Infantry Brigade - located in Senaki covered 3rd Infantry Brigade - located in Kutaisi fought 4th Infantry Brigade - located in Vaziani fought 5th Infantry Brigade - located in Khelvachauri (temporary distribution place) and Khoni was in Kodori 1st Artillery Brigade - located in Vaziani covered 2nd Artillery Brigade - located in Khoni fought Separate Combat-Engineering Battalion - located in Tbilisi (temporary distribution place) parts of it fought Separate Light Infantry Battalion - located in Adlia fought Separate Anti-aircraft-Rocket-Artillery Battalion - located in Kutaisi covered Separate Communication Battalion - located in Saguramo covered Separate Technical Reconnaissance Battalion - located in Kobuleti fought Separate Medical Battalion - located in Saguramo extracted the wounded Separate Tank Battalion - located in Gori - fought Georgian Special Forces - location classified, during war located at Gori, Poti, Senaki - fought

The strength of Land Forces is 20 548 from which 2 176 are officers, 18 356 sergeants/corporals (contracting) and 16 civilians.

For the sake of staying on topic I won't focus too much on the 16 civilians performing military duty and hoping for civilian protection, but I don't think you're allowed to call men in uniform, civilians. Anyways if you add the Independent Tank Battalion at Gori to that ORBAT, and subtract 2,000 men from the first Infantry Brigade, you'd have the forces that were available to fight in the Battle of Tskhinval(i). Elements of the 1st, as well as the 3rd, 4th, 2nd arty, CE Bat, LI Bat, Recce Bat, and possibly 1st Art and the rest of the "separate" units. Furthermore, how do you take into account those that covered the attack? On the Russian side there are problems as well; 70th and 71st didn't take part in the Battle of Tskhinval(i), but their actions helped rout the Georgian Army and save Tskhinval(i), as the Georgians were forced to reform under fire and outmaneuver the Russian army, an impossible feat. Furthermore the 104th and 234th neutralized Georgian artillery, thus preventing it from firing on Tskhinval(i), but took no part in the battle. The Russian maneuvers also forced Georgia's Air Force to conduct bombing strikes against them, and thus away from Tskhinval(i). All of these events described above, that affected the Battle of Tskhinval(i), cannot be included under the classical approach. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussing CAST

Well since someone was polite enough to place a "Dubious/Discuss" tag next to CAST, I think an argument is necessary as to why the Moscow Defense Brief is neutral.

First, the magazine does not tow the Kremlin line; remember the statement that "no new weapons were tested during this war" made by the Kremlin? Then what the heck was the was the Iskander? From the MDB: Moreover, the Russian Army launched 15 Tochka-U (SS-21) short-range ballistic missiles against military targets and a few new Iskander (SS-26) short-range theater ballistic missiles. The MDB later went on to to find that two Iskander missiles were launched, and hit the Georgian Tank Battalion at Gori. This is further confirmed by the fact that before the 2008 South Ossetia War, Georgia had a tank battalion in their ORBAT, and now they don't.

Second, the magazine does not tow the Georgian line; it calls Saakashvili's acts into question from the get-go: In the end, Saakashvili seems to have become the victim of his own militaristic self-advertising, convinced that the new Georgian military machine was sufficiently effective, capable, and powerful to impose a final solution on the rebellious autonomous regions. The temptation to use his pretty toy soldiers became increasingly hard to resist; indeed, overwhelming, when he launched upon his fateful military adventure in South Ossetia in August.

Third, the magazine ignores the Western and Russian Press, and actually tells us what happened, citing a few actual experts.

Fourth, gives us the actual number of the men who fought: The attack on South Ossetia was not spontaneous. Over the course of several days in early August, the Georgians appear to have secretly concentrated a significant number of troops and equipment (the full 2th, 3th and 4th Infantry Brigades, the Artillery Brigade, the elements of the 1th Infantry Brigade, the separate Gori Tank Batallion – total the nine light infantry and five tank battalions, up to eight artillery battalions – plus special forces and Ministry of the Internal Affairs troops – all in all, up to 16,000 men) in the Georgian enclaves in the South Ossetian conflict zone, under cover of providing support for the exchange of fire with Ossetian formations. On August 7, at about 22:00, the Georgians began a massive artillery bombardment of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, and by dawn the next day began an attack aimed at capturing Tskhinvali and the rest of the territory of South Ossetia. By 08:00 on August 8, Georgian infantry and tanks had entered Tskhinvali and engaged in a fierce battle with Ossetian forces and the Russian peacekeeping battalion stationed in the city.

In these conditions, on the morning of August 8, the Russian Government, headed by Vladimir Putin and Dmitriy Medvedev, decided to conduct an operation to prevent the seizure by Georgia of South Ossetia, characterized as a "peace enforcement" mission. Later that day, three tactical battalion groups from the 135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division (based in Vladikavkaz) of the 58th Army of the North Caucasus Military District were deployed in battle formation to Java and Gufta, and by the end of the day had cleared the roads and heights around Kverneti, Tbeti, and Dzari districts, and as far as the western edge of Tskhinvali. Russian Air Force also took action."

Fifth, it annihilates morons like Felgenhauer in the very fist paragraph: Initially, Georgia's attack on the capital of the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia on August 8, 2008, seemed like it would lead to yet another bloody, drawn out Caucasus war. However, the quick, energetic, and sustained intervention of Russia (the guarantor of peace in South Ossetia since 1992) escalated by August 11 into a powerful blitzkrieg against Georgia proper. Commentators who until recently described the Georgian Army as the “best” in the post-Soviet space were at a loss for words.

Sixth, it has no ties to the Kremlin, but has ties to real experts working in the Russian military, as is evident by the quickness of the publication, and the correct number presented. It also correctly predicted Georgia's casualties at slightly over 2,000. Furthermore, while the EU Report that is paraded around didn't have access to satellite data, the accuracy of the MDB - shows that they did have the data. Furthermore, the MDB was cited by Western and Russian sources alike, as an expert account.

Seventh, no arguments were presented, by either side, to show the MDB as a biased source.

I hereby move to have the (dubious/discuss) tag removed from the MDB. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

According to BBC, CAST is a respected research organization.[2] MDB has also been quoted in almost all academic papers about the war. This is enough for me to prove that it's a reliable journal. Offliner (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Over the course of several days in early August, the Georgians appear to have secretly concentrated a significant number of troops and equipmen" - did any reliable source confirm this? Taliavini report states movement of georgian troops started on 7th of August. (well, actually neither georgian base is too far from the conflict zone, to move it in advance)/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.105.25 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that when several brigades come to considerably small bases to launch an attack days later, that could well be named "concentrating".FeelSunny (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When you group most of your artillery into two tactical formations, when you mass half of your working tanks on the border, when said artillery formations have targets close to one another, and when you mass at least a third of your army to attack an entity, that's called "concentrating". When you also preach peace, call for ceasefire, and blame the other side for "concentrating", that's called trying to trick the International Community to overlook your real intentions - that means that you are trying to, or appearing to, do it in secret. The beauty of history is that you cannot argue against facts. I found that simply knowing history, and having most of the facts on my side, enables me to win debates. Oh no! I just gave away my formula! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't anwer my question, is there any independent report, confirming massive georgian troops movement PRIOR to 7th of Autust? Doesn't Taliavini's report state that georgian troops started movement only on 7th of August? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.49.17 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. MDB, IISS, Spiegel and Antonenko, for example. You will find these in the article. Offliner (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Critique of the EU Report - I said I'd do it and I am doing it

The guideline for Wikipedia is Verifiability, not NPOV. However, another guideline is the be as NPOV as possible.

As such, I think that, while the EU Report should definitely be cited, it shouldn't be treated as "Holier than thou". As such, the remedies that I am proposing include:

• Citing the actual report, not the scratch paper (Volume II) or the notes (Volume III)
• If there is a conflict amongst editors on what's NPOV, the report should be cited verbatim
• A summary of the report is to be included, i.e. Georgia started the war, Russia responded disproportionately
• A critique of the sources used by the report; this is necessary, because, while the report presents itself as independent, this is not the case.
• The report should not be used to cite other sources, such as the HRW, when the HRW directly states the opposite.

Point #1:

The Report itself concludes that Volumes II and III aren't authoritative, and that all of the necessary data is in volume I, as has been previously pointed out: "This volume contains a selection of contributions by experts in the military, legal, humanitarian, human rights, political and historical fields. They were critically reviewed by the fact-finding mission, and constitute the basis for this Report on the Conflict in Georgia. The elaboration, findings and opinions expressed in these texts [Volumes II and III] do not necessarily reflect the views of the mission. In this regard, the views and findings as laid out in Volume I shall be considered as authoritative".

This is on page 1 of the report. The bolded part means that conclusions of the Report cannot come from Volumes II and III, as conclusions always reflect the views of the writer, or the mission. The Report's argument for not citing Volumes II and III of itself are crystal clear, and we cannot, as good Wikipedians, attribute to the report that, which is does not say; we aren't the New York Times.

The other three points are going to be lumped together:

The Report instantly establishes “unbiased sources”: All EU Governments, (with Sweden/Norway/Poland/Baltic States/UK being rabidly anti-Russian, France and Germany being in the middle, and Italy being pro-Russia, so 7 anti-Russian, 2 middle of the road, 1 pro-Russian, the rest not caring) NATO (yeah, they’re the people providing direct aid to Georgia, (flying in the soldiers) I wonder which side they’ll take), US and Ukraine (as if the report needs more anti-Russian sources) OSCE (neutral) Council of Europe (anti-Russian), and ICRC (neutral by definition and in reality). So 11 anti-Russian Sources, 4 neutral sources and 1 pro-Russian source. So far, so good. (Page 7). This is called “neutral analysis”.

The Report continues to look at “unbiased” declarations: “The House of Lords (anti-Russian), US Congress (anti-Russian), Parliaments of Georgia and Ukraine (anti-Russian), 4 neutral NGOs, and I don’t know that much about ICG. Why not Russia, Belarus, Italy, France, Germany? Are they not European enough? Did they not publish any statements/documents?

The Report admits that it’s just a report, not Holy or anything: “In summary, it should be noted that the factual basis thus established may be considered as ADEQUATE (i.e. not good, not Deity-like) for the purpose of fact-finding, but not for any other purposes.

The Report furthermore has a legal disclaimer, saying that the report is incomplete, and only has the data it was presented to it, or that it was able to collect; it is not a “Final Report”, thus it cannot be treated as a final report.

Furthermore, the Report believes that it is a “starting point”. In other words, don’t worry, there’s more to come, including the military data.

Nevertheless, the Report is well-written. Unfortunately, it completely ignores the Ossetian side of the story, as well as the Abkhaz side, and this should be mentioned.

The Report believes that the overwhelming theory in terms of the creation of New States is Uti Possidetis. However the Report fails to note that Uti Possidetis has itself been in existence for less then twenty years. In short it was/is a legal fiction imposed on the World, during the twenty years when US had the leading role. This is no longer the case, as the World is becoming more and more multi-lateral. The US must now accede to Russia’s and China’s opinions on Iran; case in point: the theory of Uti Possidetis is a youthful theory, that hasn’t even been dominant for twenty years. To portray such a theory as the final say on International Law, is to misinterpret the potential evolution of International Law, which is itself, less than a century old. (UN was created in 1946.) Not to mention the coming into existence of the state of Eritrea, directly contradicts Uti Possidetis, and Eritrea is a UN member. Whoopsie. The Report also believes, wrongly, that Yeltsin’s decisions bind Medvedev’s decisions. Russia’s actions on Kosovo cannot bind Russia's actions on South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other De Facto Independent Regions. Serbia may argue that Kosovo and South Ossetia are unique cases; Russia doesn't have to. But since this article is on the 2008 South Ossetia War, not International Recognition...blah blah politics, I won't belabor that point further, unless I am called on to do so. Uti Possidetis has no place in this article, albeit it may have a place in one or two of the child articles.

The Report believes that Former Soviet Citizenship isn’t grounds to receive Russian Citizenship if one is domiciled in Georgia. However, as Russia has accepted the responsibilities of the USSR, (including debts of the USSR,) Russia also has access to the privileges of the USSR, such as granting all former Soviet Citizens, Russian Citizenship. If countries do not recognize Dual Citizenship, then it is upto the person to decide which country he or she wants to be a citizen of, not upto the state. No state can bind a person to become their citizen, and only their citizen can agree to the demand voluntarily. In other words, whether citizenship is a justification for warfare or not, is still in question; however if the Russian attorneys/PR people were as good as the Russian military, they would've figured out that Georgia's denial of a safety corridor for Russian civilians, (Russian citizens visiting Ossetia) was yet another reason for a Casus Belli. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the introduction paragraphs: (proposed edits in Italics, explanations below, citations taken out, my numbers place in

The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Russia–Georgia War, was an armed conflict in August 2008 between Georgia on one side, and South Ossetia, Russia and Abkhazia on the other.[1]

The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians left most of South Ossetia under de-facto control of a Russian-backed, internationally unrecognised government. Some ethnic Georgian-inhabited parts of South Ossetia remained under the control of Georgia. A similar situation existed in Abkhazia after the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). The increasing tensions escalated during the summer months of 2008. [2]

On August 5th, Russia warned Georgia that it will defend South Ossetia in the case of an attack. [cite BBC] [*] During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military attack against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reconquer the territory. The following day, Russia reacted by deploying combat troops in South Ossetia and launching bombing raids into Georgia Proper. Russian and Ossetian troops clashed with Georgian troops in the three-day Battle of Tskhinvali, the main battle of the war. Russian naval forces blocked Georgia's coast and landed ground forces and paratroopers on the Georgian coast. On 9 August Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge, held by Georgia. After five days of heavy fighting, the Georgian forces were routed, enabling the Russian troops entered Georgia Proper, occupying the cities of Poti and Gori among others. [3]

After mediation by the French presidency of the European Union, the parties reached a preliminary ceasefire agreement on 12 August, signed by Georgia on 15 August in Tbilisi and by Russia on 16 August in Moscow. On 12 August, President Medvedev had already ordered a halt to Russian military operations, but fighting did not stop immediately. After the signing of the ceasefire Russia pulled most of its troops out of uncontested Georgia and established buffer zones around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which led to the creation of check-points in Georgia's interior (Poti, Senaki, Perevi). [4]

On 26 August 2008 Russia recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia completed its withdrawal from Georgia Proper on 8 October, but as of 2009[update] Russian troops remain stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia under bilateral agreements with the corresponding governments. However, according to a number of European and US sources, Russia has not fully complied with the peace agreement because Georgia lost control over some of the territories. [5]

A number of incidents occurred in both conflict zones in the months after the war ended. As of 2009[update] tensions between the belligerents remain high.

1. On the one hand you mention the country informally - Georgia. On the other you mention the country formally, Russian Federation, and the regions/countries as if they're non-existent; however, even Georgia concedes that Abkhazia is a province, and South is an autonomous republic. Need to be consistent.

2. Basic grammar

3. According to Military Historiography, if there are military forces of opposing countries in the region - it's contested! Additionally, you don't have to state that Russian entered Georgia Proper every time. We get it, Russians overreacted, this isn't contested by anyone; then again, who wouldn't overreact if their countrymen came under attack, and North Ossetia is a part of Russia. And the Georgian forces were routed - this is obvious, they weren't ejected and performing a tactical retreat, they were running back to Tbilisi.

4. Again, you don't have to say "in Georgia every time". As to by whom - come on - it's by Russia, that should be obvious from the text.

5. Whose sources? I had to fix that.

Additionally:

• I believe that it's important to place that sentence in, due to the current climate created by certain media outlets, who believe that Russia counter-attacked without warning, and that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to the proposed changes, but I'd rather 1) include the sentence about PK format in the first paragraph, and 2) wait until the Easter European mailing list case is closed, so that every interested editor could participate.FeelSunny (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by 1? Also, the Caballites have been editing articles, they haven't taken a break, they've been doing it all throughout the trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&action=history HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)