Talk:Russo-Georgian War

the worst article on wiki by a mile

so biased and badly written you wouldnt believe it was protected and allowed to exist in its current state. So pov and anti-russian its laughable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:201:E700:6D5E:80C2:F710:4224 (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but you have to admit it's a good laughing material. The fact that this article is allowed to exist in current form is a true testament to Wikipedia deficiencies - where objectivity is basically one person's opinion. I like how Library of US Congress is used as a source of "poor Georgians were only defending themselves from Ossetians attacking them" while there are countless sources claiming the attack was unprovoked. But hey, let's trust American Congress, they sure look to be reasonable people and they always tell the truth.

Text removed from lede

[1]

This seems premature to me. The linked source begins with "Georgia accuses Russia ...", which makes it seem like an accusation, not an assertion of fact. The source goes on to say Georgia is accusing Russia of violating international law, which is not the same as the ceasefire agreement. In fact looking at the ceasefire agreement in this article I am not sure what clause Russia is violating here. The source might be cited for a different claim but it doesn't really back up this one. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The statement you quote in your comment comes from the headline; however the article content justifies the edits you deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your response is too brief for me to understand what you are saying. In fact you've not answered the objections (e.g. what exact clause in the ceasefire agreement is being violated?) at all. Note also that you are reverting two of my edits, the second one of which has nothing to do with the quoted source. Banedon (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That the Russian military buildup in the disputed territories violates the ceasefire agreement is not only Georgia's position. "I am not sure" is not an argument. Also, you removed Medvedev's very important quote without any explanation.--Kober^Talk 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The linked article does not claim a Russian military buildup in the disputed territories. Removing Medvedev's quote is explained in the edit summary [2]. Banedon (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page under discussion says "The Russian military has, since the war, increased its presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia...". The source cited for this says that Russian troops have erected "new ’border’ markings several hundred metres deeper into disputed region", thus increasing the area under Russian occupation. The source talks about individual farmers losing their fields, and about the increase in Russian-occupied territory including part of a pipeline.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Increasing the area under occupation isn't the same as the Russian military increasing its presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The latter implies a military buildup (more boots on the ground, more hardware, etc), which is not implied by the former. The current text also says it is in violation of the ceasefire agreement, which is not evident since it is unclear which clause is being broken. Can you explicitly cite the clause that is being broken, or provide a source that claims the same? Banedon (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You are not answering the objections raised, but you are reverting [3]. I'm bringing this to DR/N, please comment [4]. Banedon (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Two editors objected to your removal of Medvedev's quotation. The only explanation you gave for removing it was that you did not think it necessary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As regards the sentence "The Russian military has, since the war, increased its presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia...", would you prefer it to say "The Russian military has, since the war, increased its area of occupation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia..."? I am sure you will agree that this is supported by the cited source. If you do not like that, then by all means suggest a different form of words, providing that it is supported by the cited source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure "occupation" is the correct term here. The Georgian politics of forced assimilation put Abkhasz and Ossetians at cutthroats with Tbilisi, and Russia merely jumped at the opportunity to "protect" the discriminated minorities. The rise of rabid nationalism was amazing in post-Soviet states once the Soviet clamp-down was off. The Baltic States were lucky to be the first to jump off the train and now it is too late for Russia to play the Russian card there, despite the local Russophobia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because Medvedev's quotation is not necessary. It's effectively given in the immediate preceding sentence. What is given in the quotation that is not obvious from "NATO would have admitted former Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia"? I suppose the location of where Medvedev gave the speech is removed in that case, but that is obviously not important. Why is it that you think the quote is necessary? As for the other objection, that is better but still inaccurate. The article does not say the Russian military has increased its area of occupation. I can accept "Russia has, since the war, increased its area of occupation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia" without mention of violating the 2008 ceasefire agreement, unless there is some source that elaborates on how the agreement is being violated.

@Staszek Lem - "Occupation" should be correct, since it's used in multiple sources (see the last paragraph of [5]). Banedon (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually on second thoughts I think "area of occupation" is a clunky phrase that should be replaced with something like "self-declared border". Banedon (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, see Occupied territories of Georgia, where the issue is handled. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Banedon: Actually, Medvedev's quote is quite necessary, because it is a rare case when Russia and the West have the same judgement on the conflict. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. The quote in full is "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated in November 2011 that NATO would have admitted former Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia. "If you ... had faltered back in 2008, the geopolitical situation would be different now," Medvedev said to the soldiers of a Vladikavkaz military base." The question I have is, what is in the italicized text that is not in the preceding sentence? The judgment of the West on the conflict is not in the sentence. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia violated the fifth principle of the ceasefire agreement. The document legally obliged Russia to withdraw troops to the pre-war positions.

This paper explains that Russia illegally invaded Georgia and occupied the Georgian regions in violation of the ceasefire agreement. It explains the significance of Medvedev's statements. http://www.fhs.se/Documents/Externwebben/forskning/Forskningsprojekt/Statsvet/Forbe/US-RussianRelationsKarlsson160912Def.pdf Canome (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The source cited (Guardian) does not say the Russian military is expanding its borders, and so does not back up the assertion that the ceasefire agreement is being violated. As for the link: I do not see the relevance here. Please answer this question: what is in the italicized text that is not in the preceding sentence? Banedon (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the cited source states that Russian military is expanding the borders. The creeping annexation and Russia's "borderization" policy is reported in the source. "Russia has occupied the two regions since 2008 in violation of an internationally agreed ceasefire following its brief war with Georgia." "Instead, Moscow has further entrenched in South Ossetia and Abkhazia."

Medvedev's italicized text proves the point of the preceding sentence. It is very important statement showing war goal of Russia.

I'm going to restore the text mentioning evidence Russia was guilty because it provides historical context. Remember the shelling of Mainila. The Soviet Union told the world that Finland was responsible for initiating hostilities. Later, the evidence showed that the Soviet Union was actually responsible. Canome (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough about the first bit - using different text though for subtle reasons. Russia's military is presumably acting with the consent of the Russian government, so there's no need to use "Russian military". Also 'increased its presence' has the implication of there being more soldiers / weapons etc on the ground, which is not the case here.

About Medvedev's italicized text: I don't see how this "proves the point" of the preceding sentence. It is already in the preceding sentence. Medvedev's italicized quote can be summarized as saying that if Russia had not invaded Georgia, Georgia would have been admitted into NATO - but that's exactly what the preceding sentence says. As it is, the sentence is saying something similar to "10 people died in this accident. Slightly less than a dozen people died in this accident". These two sentences say the same thing, so given the first, the second is not necessary.

Finally about the text you restored: I do not agree. Remember, there is a whole Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article, and responsibility is disputed. Giving only one side is a violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the section is on the media war. Arguing that Russia is responsible in a section on the media war is a violation of WP:COATTRACK. Banedon (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No territory has been added to Abkhazia since August 2008. Only South Ossetia has been expanding. There must have been troop rotations to Abkhazia and South Ossetia since the war.

Disputed by who? Russia? Portrayal of victims as aggressors has been the main idea behind the military information campaigns. The Russian government says that Russian troops only acted after the Georgian attack on 8 August, but the evidence presented in the Russian media says that South Ossetian leader Kokoity reported to Abkhaz leader Bagapsh the entry of Russian troops into South Ossetia on 7 August. There is no way that pro-Russian separatist would libel his patron. The evidence proves that Russian troops acted before the Georgian attack on 8 August. Canome (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit to the section on the "media and cyber war", it is relevant whether the "international information campaign" was truthful or not. This tells us about the nature of the information campaign.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't understand the point behind the first paragraph. As for the second paragraph, sure it's disputed. The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article doesn't say that Russia is responsible and that's the end of the story. Sections such as this or this clearly assign the blame for starting the war to Georgia, and they are not Russian sources either. As long as there is dispute on who is responsible we cannot claim that it's the truth. I am going to tag the article for NPOV. Banedon (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more useful to tag the sections you object to?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article says that Russia was preparing for the war and ordered Ossetian separatists to shell Georgian villages. When Georgia responded to the Ossetian attack, Russia claimed that Georgia launched unprovoked attack on Russian citizens. The article presents evidence that Russian troops were already acting against Georgia before Georgian takeover of Tskhinvali. The statements of two former OSCE monitors were dismissed by the OSCE. One of former monitors had apparent conflict of interest. He was friends with suspected KGB agent. The European report criticized Russian actions. However, the report was dismissed. Putin stated that Russia was training Ossetian separatists for the war with Georgia. Canome (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to call strong NPOV on that. If it were unequivocal that Russia is responsible for the war, the responsibility article would be a lot shorter. We can move this to a RfC if you like, or take it to DR/N. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Medvedev's italicized quote is partially present in the preceding sentence. However, the italicized quote emphasized the geopolitical impact of the war. The evidence in the Russian media undermines the truthfulness of the information warfare painting Georgia as an aggressive country. If Georgia had been actually guilty for starting the war, then Russia would not have to wage the information campaign portraying Georgia as the aggressor. Everyone would accept it.

This discussion is not the best place to prove guilt or innocence of Russia. Many arguments were presented against the removal of some relevant statements. I have no dog in this fight. I'm not going to participate in the never ending dispute. Canome (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

In the same way, if Russia had been actually guilty for starting the war, then Georgia would not have to wage the information campaign portraying Russia as the aggressor. Everyone would accept it.

If you are not going to participate in dispute resolution then I suppose I'll just edit the article. Will give it a week to see if anyone else objects. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if you waited to see if anyone agreed with you. So far, nobody does, and two people have stated their disagreement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Depends on which edit you are referring to.

1. 'Russia has, since the war, occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia in violation of the ceasefire agreement of August 2008.' - I consider this one resolved.
2. '"If you ... had faltered back in 2008, the geopolitical situation would be different now," Medvedev told the officers of a Vladikavkaz military base.' - I do not consider this resolved, but it's minor and I do not think it's worth pursuing.
3. 'According to political scientist Svante Cornell, the Kremlin spent millions in an international information campaign to blame Georgia for the war; however there is abundant evidence, including some in Russian media, that Russia actually started the war.' - this is not resolved.

Also, as mentioned, I am waiting. Banedon (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Combining forms that cannot stand on their own, such as 'Russo', take a hyphen, whereas regular adjectives take an en dash. See MOS:DASH. (non-admin closure) RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Russo-Georgian War → Russo–Georgian War – As seen with Soviet–Afghan War, Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, etc., en dash is the correct form. RadiculousJ (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think combining forms such as "Russo-" are specifically preferred with hyphen instead of en dash; en dash is used when the two components are parallel, as they are in those other examples. See the Franco-British rivalry example at MOS:DASH. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @RadiculousJ and Dicklyon: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

EU Report

I checked the archives and found no consensus that the BBC and Der Spiegel articles were not allowed. Since the publishers of these respected journals think the story is relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't. – [6] – per WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

European Union – On 30 September 2009, the EU–sponsored Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia stated that, while preceded by months of mutual provocations, "open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008. – "Georgia 'started unjustified war'". BBC News. 30 September 2009. – "EU Report: Independent Experts Blame Georgia for South Ossetia War". Der Spiegel. 21 September 2009.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of your edits from many editors means no consensus [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I found this discussion in the archives [16], where editors were against insertion of your pictures and text. The European-sponsored report is currently condemned. I think that citing the Munich Agreement there [17] is irrelevant. Canome (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Canome: Please can you provide reliable sources to back up your statement that the "European-sponsored report is currently condemned". An assertion by a Georgian-POV Wikipedia editor in the talk page archive does not count. Nor does an assertion by Saakashvili.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Which one is Georgian-POV editor? I can't comment on Saakashvili's position. Did Saakashvili comment in the talk page archive? I read the comment left by anonymous editor. This Russo-Georgian War article provides more recent sources which disagree with the EU-published report. The EU 2015 report [18] says that Russia attacked Georgia and Europe appeased to Russia. The 2015 report does not say that Georgia attacked Russia. The 2009 report can be considered as a form of appeasement. The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article says that the report was criticized and some of its contents were questioned. Canome (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 35#Misleading lede, in which UA Victory responded to an unsigned comment by Mitochondrial Eve.[19], explaining why information from the 2009 EU report should "not be a substantial reason for a complete overhaul, because some new researches have been published since 2009."

UA Victory cited an European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) article dated 2015, which said: "The very limited Russian information operation were effective in influencing Western (particularly German) public opinion, which soon tilted towards the Russian version of the events. Lines of Russian disinformation even penetrated the EU's own final report, which overplayed the significance of US support and military assistance to Georgia."
By "EU's own final report" is meant the 2009 report, which is linked to in both the original and my quotation of it.

I believe that Saakashvili disagreed with the 2009 EU report, but I cannot find a reference.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The neutrality/reliability of the 2009 report is indeed disputed. Wikipedia should not present some controversial statements of such reports as undisputed facts. The Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War article neutrally presents many conclusions reached by the EU-sponsored commission. Tobby72 inserted a single controversial statement here, which conveyed the message that Georgia was responsible for initiating hostilities. That statement contradicted the page 50 of this paper [20] I had recently read. I read in the talk page archive that the 2009 EU report said that there was "no way to assign overall responsibility for the conflict to one side alone." The article on responsibility also explains the controversy caused by some statements of the 2009 report. I agree with Banedon that the article on responsibility is the best place for the 2009 EU report. The article on responsibility also mentions other reports.

I believe that recent EU documents on Russia don't reference the 2009 report. Everyone can change their position. The position of the 2015 EU report on Russia [21] is different from 2009. The 2015 EU document acknowledges that the EU was appeasing Russia following the war. This comes straight from the horse's mouth. How reliable is the 2009 report written in that appeasement period? If the EU had put the blame for initiating hostilities on Russia, the EU would have to impose sanctions on Russia. My point is that the 2009 report is not the final verdict on the war. Canome (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Canome's arguments. --g. balaxaZe★ 20:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Canome:. I don't see how the link you posted "acknowledges that the EU was appeasing Russia". Can you please explain? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Page 3/7 of the link, point B, it says " the EU opted for an increased cooperation model as a way to appease Russia". On the other hand I don't see how this is relevant to the current article. Banedon (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a draft document that does not appear to refer to the 2009 "Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia". Furthermore, any mention of "appeasement" does not appear in the final text at all (I believe it's here [22]). This final draft also does not refer to the 2009 IIFFMCG document. So, how can we possibly say that the EU has repudiated this report? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of previous edits does not mean this edit is also rejected. I'm also still waiting for your response to the above PoV objection. Banedon (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Canome: The 2009 report does not say that Georgia attacked Russia. The report says that Georgia attacked Tskhinvali (in South Ossetia) and the surrounding areas. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the EU "reaction" because, on reading the section again, it's not a reaction. The other leaders responded immediately after the attack (in 2008) while the EU report was in 2009. It was also aimed at determining the events that led to beginning of hostilities, not a critique on whether's Russia's actions were right or wrong. The content is fine in the article on responsibility, or in an appropriate section here, but not this one. Banedon (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)