Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Georgian War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.190.166.173 (talk) at 20:12, 8 August 2008 (→"voluntary 429th Cossack division"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Military info

Russian North-Caucasian military region have more then 100 thousands solders. 620 tanks, 200 APC, 875 Artitllery units Airforces 60 Su24, 100 Mig 29, 100 Su 25, 40 L-39 and 30 Su24MP, and 75 Mi24

South ossetia have 87 T72 and T55, 95 Art units (include 72 howitzers), 180 APC, no warplanes, 3 Mi8 (transport) 5 thousand solders and 15 thousands in reserve

Georgian army have 29 thousands solders (100 thousands in mobilisation) 165 tanks (T-72 and T-55), 180 APC, more then 200 art. units, 180 mortars 10 Su-25KM, 2 Su 25Ub, 6 L-39, 9 L-29. 28 Mi's helecopters (at least 3 Mi24), 6 Bell-212, and 6 UH-1H (presented by USA)

Taken from http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/08/08/forces/

93.92.202.124 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The merge

Wait with it. Wait to the end of the latest war for the merge. To obscure right now. Apperently, this is not just another part of the conflict but a real war. Just wait. We could always do it later.

OK. But I spotted seriois POV issues in the article. For example, Georgia could not declare war on SO as it not a separate country. Georgia said it was conducting an operation "to restore a constitutional order."--KoberTalk 22:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources agree that South Ossetia is a de-facto independent state. I dont known Georgian, and unfortinately since the war started my Ossetian friends are unreachable so they cant give and translate for me the Ossetian sources. That might explaine the POV, I use reliable sources but they are all Russian. And as a Georgian friend of mine told me there is heavy cencorship on the events in Georgia itself so there are no Georgian sources that could tell us more then we already told. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
South Ossetia has not been recognized by anybody, so it is a civil war. JoshNarins (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

biased Russian sources

Biased Russian sources should not be used, because they are merely quoting South Ossetian terrorists reports, ignoring official Georgian side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.1.129 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So South Ossetians are "terrorists", while Chechnyans are "freedom fighters"/"separatists"? Hmmkay. Anyway, both sides are present in the article currently. Esn (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
South Ossetians are not "terrorists". They are peaceful and hard-working people who became victims to their leadership's ploys. Anyway, you did a good job on the article. Now it is more neutral and balanced.--KoberTalk 05:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really do very much; mainly I just added back some info that had been deleted before, cleaned up the references to look a little neater, checked some of the news agencies reporting on the story and added a few more news. I don't think I have time to do anything major, so I hope others will continue the work. Esn (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Back on the Russian sources by 24.185.1.129, both those and the Georgian sources need to be taken with a grain of salt. At this point the most reliable is international media from netural countries with presence on the ground. (such as CNN, Fox, BBC.) Jon (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct: the media sources of NATO countries, such as listed above "CNN, Fox, BBC" can not be referred to as the sources from "neutral countries", because they support Georgia, following American directives. And this is the point outlined by Russian representative in NATO Rogozin who warned NATO countries and asked them to moderate pro-Georgian propaganda in their media sources: http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/08/note/ --Victor V V (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that the BBC, CNN, etc are "following American directives"? By the very definition of the phrase, CNN, the BBC, etc are media from Neutral Countries because they are media sources in countries that ARE neutral!!! (Unless you know something I don't, NATO is not at war with Russia).SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: off-topic chatter removed.) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

biased western sources should not be used as well. CNN is totally POV. I think all the sources should be mentioned while stating to whom the statement belongs. There is information/bias war ongoing at the moment between West and Russia. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Ezzex (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current event tag

I've added the "current event" tag back in because this seems like one of the most important events right now internationally. If an escalating war involving a nuclear power isn't a "current event", what is? Esn (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "current event" is a Wikipedia article which is being editted a couple of hundred times per day due to being a current event. I don't think this qualifies. —Nightstallion 08:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the morning and there have been over 50 edits. I think it's well on track. Esn (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Okay, you may be right. —Nightstallion 10:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR regarding Russia's involvement

Concerning this edit, is it really WP:OR if the Georgian president says that Russia is involved, and if Putin says that "retaliatory actions will be taken"? Esn (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgian president or officials can say whatever they want, they are contradicted by Russian officials say that they are trying to keep the peace, not taking sides.--Miyokan (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source. "But Putin, the former Russian president who is now its influential prime minister, condemned Georgia's "aggressive actions" and said his country would have to retaliate." Esn (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The video footages clearly showed the destroyed buildings in the Goergian towns and Russian jets flying over them. These incidents were also reported by EuroNews. --KoberTalk 09:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have links, Kober? Esn (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They may very well have been destroyed by Russian jets, but what matters is what side they are on, and Russia has said that they are not taking sides, despite what Georgian officials say. Your logic goes "Russia attacked them so therefore they are with the South Ossetia", which is a classic case of WP:SYNTH.--Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Putin's comments about "retaliation" are clear enough. However, I wouldn't object to waiting until more clear information is available. Esn (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can add "Russia (according to Georgia sources)" --windyhead (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Miyokan: where/when exactly has Russia said that they're not taking sides? Is that sourced? Esn (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a late-night statement, appealed for efforts to prevent huge bloodshed. "It is not too late to avert massive bloodshed and new victims," it said. "Russia will continue efforts to avert the bloodshed and restore peace in South Ossetia.[1]--Miyokan (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that doesn't mean that they're not taking sides. The Georgians are saying the same thing, right? "restore constitutional order", "Despite our call for peace and a unilateral cease-fire", etc. Esn (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News: unnamed number of Russian peace-keeper casualties: [2] Esn (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian involvement

Interesting video

The source (life.ru) is by no means reliable (I haven't heard about it until today) but the video is interesting. Furthermore it's written there that:

So, according to this source, a column of armed forces (including tanks, APCs, howitzers and Grad systems) under Russian flag moves by the Transkam towards Tskhinvali. Alæxis¿question? 10:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I damn hope it's true. We never left friends alone in times of trouble. Actualy, usualy it's reliable. But every monday and friday it has news like "Alla Pugachova died", "Ksenia Sabchak was fucked by aliens". As long as it doesn't come to showbiz it's reliable. They have a problem of lack of information. For example, Russia yesterday said they will sent peacekeepers to stop the war. So are those tanks are those peace keepers or are they taking Ossetian side? Check more sites on this one. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another source for info here, but I don't know how reliable that site is either. Esn (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Echo of Moscow a column of our forces entered Tskhinvali. That's rather reliable source. Alæxis¿question? 12:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberwarfare

Ossetian source claims ([3]) that Ossetian sites (http://osinform.ru/, http://cominf.org/) are under DDOS attacks now. I think this should be mentioned in the article.

Btw, I have now problems accessing Rustavi 2 site ([4]). Please try to go to this site and write whether you have succeeded. Alæxis¿question? 10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I havent it gave me a white page saying I'm not permitted to enter it, like a hardcore porn site or something. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten there finally. Probably it's just that too much people try to do it at the same time... Alæxis¿question? 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main page works, as does the American server, but the Georgian server doesn't. Esn (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I can't access those two sites that you first mentioned. We need a reliable source about this in order to add it, though. Esn (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source about it. I think we can safely write that 'according to the Ossetian side ...' Alæxis¿question? 11:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa

Made a mistake trying to insert info that was already cited in the article. Just getting back into the swing of Wiki'ing again. Petercorless (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semiblock

Please block this article from anonymous users. --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am registered byt i cant edit the article, why is that? (wanted to add that the US is sending an envoy as reported here --Frodoqui 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

click the lock icon at the top of the article, there is an explanation --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i see, it's because i am not yet "autoconfirmed", thanks! --Frodoqui (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Georgians falling back

The information from Russian media about Georgian Military falling back from Tskhinvali is probably false, and not yet confirmed by any other medias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markuspint (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we'll say "it was reported by Russian media" until other sources come up. Esn (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Media in English language is slow, so we use Russian media (I know Russian slightly, but I don't know Georgian, that's why I used Russian sources). --Alexander Widefield (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Channel One apparently has video of Russian tanks in Tskhinvali: [5] Esn (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markuspint (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put this on the Wikipedia main page already!

Support the motion here. Esn (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

It's not clear that this is a "war" per se yet. (Georgia's president declined to explicitly say the two countries were at war. [6]) Is there some more neutral name for the article we could pick? I ask because it would be nice to put this in {{In the news}}, but I think the title might be controversial. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia has been saying that they have only peaceful intentions from the beginning. (Although, are wars even declared anymore?) Georgia said that they would consider it an act of war if Russia entered. And they have. So it would seem to be "war" by their definition. Esn (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, a number of news organizations have already said that war has broken out. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Esn (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are calling this a war which is enough to classify it as one here. History is full of occurances in which neither side bothered to actualy declare war because the fighting had already started. Jon (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, were the Gulf Wars ever formally declared, for example? -- megA (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peacekeeping

Watch out for that "Russian peacekeeping" violates WP:NPOV. --76.19.149.244 (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's their job description, not POV. Esn (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, mostly it just reads kind of strange; calls in mind Civ 2 under Democracy owning the UN world wonder you could declare yourself Peacekeeping to get around the normal prohibition against declaring war . Jon (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Peacekeepers"

Stop pushing badly written, unsourced, broken English stuff.

This is really silly. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is sily is: 1. Calling peacekeppers sildiers. 2. The cause of the war is much more complicated. This time Georgia started it, Ossetians waited for the peace talks. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirotvortsy ARE soldiers. Russian Army active duty soldiers. They are NOT United Nations troops.

Not to mention that "more than 10" is not "10" and "about 30" is not "30". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude mirotvortsi is peacekeepers in Russian. They have a mandate from the UN. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "sildiers", though. Srsly: Please come back when you learn some English. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Soldiers". When you write fast you make mistakes. The CIS sent those peacepeople, not Russia. See what the president of Kazakhstan said in Pekin. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were sent by CIS not Russia. See leader of Kazakhstan in Pekin. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't resort to ad hominen to win your argument, please. "mirotvortsi" is "peacekeepers" in Russian. Esn (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright but they are still soldiers, with ammo, and so on. They are not UN peacekeepers. "mirotvortsi" is just how Russia sources call them. --windyhead (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirotvortsi in not only in Russian, Russia also understands it's very differently (than your standard Blue Helmets from the UN). For Russia they defend "Russian citiziens" (whom they gave passports AFTER the secession). For Georgia they are Russian occupational troops defending a de facto annexation of the region by Russia - and now invaders ("150 armoured vehicles" crossing the official border). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the CIS decided to sent the soldiers. If they would want, Tbilisi would already be pizza. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually the CIS decided to sent the soldiers." You're right about "soldiers" (at least), but they are only Russian soldiers and commanded by only Russian commanders (and that, say, Georgia is in CIS but want them out, and out of their own territory). I don't know know what you meant by "If they would want, Tbilisi would already be pizza.", though, so please eleaborate? (Mirotvortsi "turning Tbilisi into pizza"? Is this what "peacekeepers" do?) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources call the killed Russians "peacekeepers", not soldiers. When the sources start talking about "soldiers", then we can call them soldiers. Offliner (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No wai. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Way!. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood When the sources start talking about "soldiers", then we can call them soldiers. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clearly written they are Russian soldiers (with heavy weapons and combat aircraft) on what Russia and some of their allies call a peacekeeping mission to "defend the Russia's citiziens" - and not the Russian UN peacekeeping troops sent into a random region by United Nations. For the uninformed reader who would think otherwise. Plus, they just apparently crossed the official international border in a large number with tanks - and if true, this is an invasion (just as Georgians apparently also invade their own breakway territory). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking like a UN Peacekeeper and a Russian Peacekeeper are somehow different. UN Peacekeepers carried guns and bullets and were real soldiers trained to kill just like any soldiers. Peacekeepers ARE soldiers. They are the same thing. Just ask the Canadians who fought at Medak Pocket...stop making asinine comparisons. A peacekeeper is a soldier, full stop. Every peacekeeper is a soldier, but not every soldier is a peacekeeper, it is only one type of mission on which he may be employed.139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UN is a much bigger organ than Russia whose words aren't better than those of Georgia. If they are peacekeepers or not, it's best to ommit that here because it carries a moral judgement. "Peace" is the problem. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an armed conflict, if one side (or the other) sends fighting soldiers into battle, you cannot possibly call them "peacekeepers". There is no "peace" that is "kept" that way. Peacekeepers don't fight unless they have to defend their own life. -- megA (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are being silly. Russian soldiers are peackeepers because they have a legal mandate to be there. They are in South Ossetia based on the provisions of the treaty that ended the first South Ossetian war and which Georgia signed herself. Not all Russian soldiers in South Ossetia are neccesarily peackeepers, but those that were there already when the conflict flared up are legally peackeepers.

Why it's not on frontpage?

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Now lets find someone to answer. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is now.--Southeastern Everglades (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, why is it not getting the coverage it deserves in the media? Answer: Because of the Olympics! Hmmm... what's more important to report on? War breaking out in Europe, or the olympics? Unfortunately, we now know the answer.SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Russian tanks enter South Ossetia" is the main story on BBC News and "Georgia 'under attack' as Russian tanks roll in" on CNN. Well, even Al-Jazeera has "Russian tanks enter South Ossetia". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
News on CNN is terrible, i think. They're obviously not 'neutral'. Just a remark. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This morning (US time) CNN was primarily covering the war as opposed to the olympics. I don't know about the other stations. The few minutes I watched seemed pro Georgian since they were intervewing the Georgian president but I didn't stick around long enough to see if they were planning on intervewing someone from Russia or not. Jon (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NATO Reaction

From NATO's Official Website:

"Statement by the NATO Secretary General on events in South Ossetia

The NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is seriously concerned about the events that are taking place in the Georgian region of South Ossetia and said that the Alliance is closely following the situation. The Secretary General calls on all sides for an immediate end of the armed clashes and direct talks between the parties"

Source: Statement by the NATO Secretary General on events in South Ossetia LCpl (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"voluntary 429th Cossack division"

I wonder what with the other 428 voluntary Cossack divisions.

Is this a comedy relief or something? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly not. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 428 divsions are mostly not, or is the comedy mostly not? What is happening with the 146th and the 317th Cossack divisions? Should we really post every clown's statement? (hint-hint) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These Cossack divisions is unimportant at this moment. They're something like small patriotic groups. Not comedy, but mostly useless in real battle imho. (Not to mention they will get to Georgia in not less than a month) Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't say so. They are constantly trained, they are strong. If they want they will be in Tbilisi in 12 hours, just sent them an invitation. If they'll really like it, they'll take it with them home. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're training - for a minute - with Shashkas, horses and old rifles. I doubt they can make it to Tbilisi in 12 hours, at least without getting dropped from heavy bomber. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In russian wiki, there are Don Cossack voluntary fighters listed as part of the Ossetian side: 23px Донское Войско (добровольцы)90.190.166.173 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence about Russian troops in the introduction

Chystal has removed the sentence I added in the introduction about the presence of Russian troops. The explanation doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what the wording should be, but I am sure that the fact that Russian troops are directly involved is a big part of the importance of the subject. Therefore we need a sentence on it in the article lead; what do others think? -- SCZenz (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When they rally do something then we enter it. And the brakeaway, well, just for the record de-facto they are independent and even Georgia calls them Breakaway (they use more words but those are censored). Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no sense. Russian troops have crossed the border and are occupying territory, and it's big international news because of that. Therefore it ought to be in the article lead. I'm not tied to the wording, but leaving it out as though it's somehow unimportant hurts the article. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. Even the frontpage says "Russian troops move across the border as Georgian military forces enter the breakaway republic of South Ossetia." --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's true I have seen it on the News. What i do think is the Russia have yet done anything to enter the intruduction. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their tanks are occupying territory that is recognized, by most of the world's countries, as belonging to Georgia. Without taking a point of view on whose territory it is, the magnitude of the conflict is remarkable. That's why the fact is getting top billing on all news sources, and that makes it notable. I'll restore at least a brief sentence on the Russian presence unless you can explain your views with something other than "they haven't done anything yet"—they have done something, they crossed what most countries recognize as a border. With tanks. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this. Mentioning presence is ok. Kuroki Kaze (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. So, if it was late 1999 and the Georgian Army just crossed the border with Chechnya while talking about defending Chechens from Russia, and the Georgian soldiers are dying from the Russian attacks, and Russia says Georgia is involved in the fighting, what else they would have to do else to get important? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those were peace keepers not soldiers, and they were mentioned in the casualeties. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Georgia says it was invaded by armoured columns (and that's what the Russian TV showed, too) and even that Russian waplanes are bombing Georgian territory while "specifically targeting civilian population" in "the worst nightmare one can encounter", nothing about "peacekeeping troops" or what not. Please see what peacekeeping is (as opposed to "peacemaking"). And you didn't really answer my question. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I NPOVed this phrase a little (allegedly to protect Ossetians who hold Russian passports). Main question is about the casus belli for intervention by Russia. Remeber that Hitler justified his occupation of the Sudetenland by his desire to protect ethnic Germans who formed a majority of the population there. In that case however, these people are not "ethnic Russians", but simply people who hold Russian passports given to them only recently. Older people there also receive official pensions (money) from Russian government.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any problems with that, please discuss it here instead of continue your reverts.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian peacekeepers" - do they have a name?

So we can say "[acronym] troops" or whatever.

Also, I'd prefer "Russian troops" (because they are Russian troops and the rest - "peacekeepers" or "occupiers" - is POV). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Peacekeepers" should seriously be replaced by something else. Not only in Georgia, but also in the west they have often expressed their dissatisfaction about russian presence here. A term like that carries a moral judgement and fails wp:npov. - Pieter_v (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now maybe I don't know as much fancy lingo as some people, but what the hell does Russian ex officio troops mean, exactly?SpudHawg948 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The battalion of Russian troops deployed in South Ossetia through peaceful arrangements between the sides to the conflict. Under these treaties, the Russian soldiers performing a peacekeeping mission in the conflict zone. It is therefore reasonable to call them peacekeepers, with Georgian point of view recorded in a footnote.
This is correct. There were also Georgian peacekeepers, and one other country. JoshNarins (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise becomes unclear whether the Russian invasion can be a question, because in the article written that the Russian forces already present in South Ossetia before the conflict. --Eraser (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Russkies entitled to deploy new "peacekeeping" troops at their own discretion? This is the problem. Colchicum (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as

Russia obviously considers it their right to invade countries that had once been part of the U.S.S.R. in order to "back up" ethnic Russians. This is the problem. All of the countries that used to be part of the U.S.S.R. are being bullied by this military "Right" of Russia.65.68.1.90 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ossetians are not "ethnic Russians".Biophys (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia has a mandate under OSCE Mission to Ossetia to maintain what is called a "peacekeeping" force there. Here's a reference: http://www.osce.org/georgia/22955.html 97.104.12.80 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The monitors patrol independently and in co-operation with the tripartite JPKF (comprising one battalion each of Georgian, North Ossetian and Russian peacekeepers, under Russian command and joint supervision by the JCC)." Repeat, one battalion. Colchicum (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all the other forces cannot be called peacekeepers. We don't know the strength of Russian troops that moved to SO though. Alæxis¿question? 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the battalion under the command of Marat Kulakhmetov, is the peacekeeping forces, so the text of the article must be edited. Units of the 58th Army, arrived in South Ossetia, can be called the invasion forces (Georgian POV) or reinforcement for peacekeeping contingent (Russian POV). --Eraser (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace."[1] Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development."

So, are they now "peacekeeping" (UN-definition, not Russia's) or not? If not, they are not "peacekeepers". By this I meant the "peackeeping battalions", because the "reinforcement" are obviosuly not. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other dispute regarding existing content here

THIS is war room so let's argue here instead of edi-warring over war Okay? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article name

Since South Ossetia is NOT a recognized nation, and is indeed officially part of Georgia, shouldn't this article be named Civil War in Georgia? Kingturtle (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have'nt seen a single source that uses such name. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. At this time, the Russian military involvement is quite evident, so there seems to be a Russian-Georgian war.--Darius (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it notable is that the Russian military has rolled in. CNN is currently calling it a "Russian invasion", but I think that it may be too early to go down that road. The title should indicate that the major players in this are the Georgians and Russians. --Elliskev 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, the military activities have extended far beyond South Ossetia. Russian jets flew from Armenia and bombed the areas in south Georgia - Marneuli and Bolnisi where the military airfields are located. I saw one Russian SU downed by the Georgian air defense forces near Gori, Georgia. I captured a photo, but lost my camera when escaping shelling. Reports coming from the locals also say that Georgians are in almost complete control of Tskhinvali and the Russian columns heading through Roki Tunnel suffered heavy losses. Russia also announced an air blockade of Georgia. This is a full-scale invasion; Georgian troops are recalled from Iraq and thousands of Georgians are volunteering in the army. You can find a regularly updating news at http://www.civil.ge/ and http://www.interpressnews.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG (you can use free username and password that appears in the yellow banner). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.151.101 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these websites are run by the international NGOs with their base in Georgia. The Georgian gov't has nothing to do with these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.151.101 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Darfur is not a country. So, "is not country just like Darfur" if you want. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Russia 'invades' Georgia as South Ossetia descends towards war" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2524550/Russia-invades-Georgia-as-South-Ossetia-descends-towards-war.html - Pieter_v (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Russians suffered heavy losses". Ha-ha, man, who believe in this bullshit? Russian jets in Armenia - wow, cool, why not in Iraq? And this downed SU - are you sure it wasn't Georgian? :))) --81.91.48.15 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mikhail Saakashvili Russian forces are attacking its civilian population.[12] - Pieter_v (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And according to George W. Bush Saddam Hussein made a nuclear weapon --81.91.48.15 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All official Georgian sources are totally POV and clearly anti-Russian --81.91.48.15 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same goes for Russian sources concerning Georgia. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Georgia's gamble to retake South Ossetia by surprise while everyone was watching the Olympics has turned out to be a disaster. It's interesting to see how the Georgian president is furiously backpedaling now. And by the way, Pieter V, why am I not surprised to see you here? Everyone is aware of your blatant Russophobia, but if you're going to contribute to this article at least try to be serious. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am? I'm just interested in conflict. It looks like you're the one whose biased. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who defends Chechen terrorists who kill children and innocent civilians...yes, you are biased. LokiiT (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't, you on the other hand clearly show how biased yourself by calling chechens "terrorists" and ossetians "peacekeepers". Also I've warned you that personal attacks are not allowed and you can get blocked for them. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, people. Sooner or later we will know the truth. In the meantime, let us write down all the information in the article - and from the pro-Russian and pro-Georgian sources. --Eraser (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So people who hold schools hostage and kill children for political gain aren't terrorists? You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I. Calling someone biased isn't a personal attack. If you continue with that accusation you'll be blocked yourself.LokiiT (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes those people were terrorists, but they don't represent all Chechens. Only a racist would believe that. Also, fyi, Russians killed many more Children. - Pieter_v (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never once said that all Chechens are terrorists. All those who support such terrorist acts are though. And you need to learn the difference between cold blooded murder and unintended collateral damage. LokiiT (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree that based on the third-party (not Russian or Georgian) sources that this is a conflict between Russia and Georgia? If so, despite South Ossetia being the obvious casus belli, is it reasonable to move this article to something along the lines of 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict or 2008 Russo-Georgian war, regardless of blame? --Elliskev 19:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit of a different concern with the article name, "War in South Ossetia". From what I read there have been attacks outside South Ossetia. So the article discusses attacks in these border towns like Kareli and Marneuli near Tiblisi, which are not "in South Ossetia". Because of that, I think the name needs to be more location neutral, like "South Ossetia War" or "2008 Georgia-South Ossetia conflict".--Patrick Ѻ 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Just stumbled upon this article looking for more information. Is there an available map like the ones commonly found on Wikipedia? The region in grey and the highlighted version in green, or something like that. Anything better than the black-and-white present one. It's not very informative. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.80.65 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be pretty simple for someone wanting to add colors to do so, you might need to be logged in though for posting images. Just avoid color combos known to have color blindness issues as well as color combos that appear to favor one side over the other. Jon (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Times

Since this is an event on earth (as opposed to outer space), local time zones are prefered with UTC in ()s. So as part of the wikification process to Aug 8th (and also later portions of the previous section), the times should be changed to the local timezone for South Ossetia. (Hopefully the combatants are in agrement on what timezone should apply to South Ossetia.) Jon (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as I know. SO uses +3 while Georgia uses +4 :) Alæxis¿question? 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of problems with the underlaying Georgia & South Ossetia articles though is they are stating raw UTCs without offical timezone names and also don't explictly state weather or not they observe daylight savings time. If they observe daylight savings time, and raw UTC is being stated it could just be that the more commonly edited article had the UTC corrected to reflect daylight savings time but the other didn't. Jon (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SO is in the Moscow time zone (and thus dst is observed there). Alæxis¿question? 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian equipment

I'd really like to add info about the Russian equipment which is in South Ossetia now. According to sources 58th Army and the 4th Air Army are "there." Does this mean they have all the equipment listed in the wikipedia articles of those units with them? Is it safe to add those to the article? Offliner (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources

Dear wikieditors, please do not remove important information which is sourced by Russian or Georgian-language sources. Biased as they are, they present the most immediate sources of information, being closer to the conflict than Western sources. I really understand that most of you cannot read Russian, but you may use http://translate.google.com to get a good idea of what Russian-language article is saying. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

Own official, okay? Like what Georgia says about Georgian. AND SOURCED. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information sources as references

The article is based mostly on Russian official statements and Russian news services. Therefore the article can not be taken very seriously unless the balance of sources and accuracy is increased significantly. I´m concerned about the neutrality-realistic-informational presentation of this article.Karabinier (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Russian users also far outnumber Georgian users here. A neutrality tag would be fitting at the moment. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of the Georgian POV in the article. Most of the presidents statements are mentioned, and most sources used in this article are Western (BBC, Google, Yahoo, IHT etc..) LokiiT (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberwar section

Please add something on Russian cyberattacks on Georgian government websites. Minsitry of Foreign Affaris website http://www.mfa.gov.ge/ was first to be attacked. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it atacked if i enter it without problems? Bring a reference and we have a deal. It's me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mfa.gov.ge/ is professionally hacked (contains nothing but a collage of the pictures of Saakashvili mixed with the pictures of Hitler). Why are you lieing now, Mr. liar? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now i see it, hhh god they do look alike!!! It's me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's me, i brought the stuff, are you the same person as User:Chrystal Blue Moon?
Not that i know so, are you him? It's me, i brought the stuff (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Russian-speakers can read a very interesting opinion [13]. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please do something about the troll. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian aircrafts from Armenia

According to several sources two bombs were dropped on Vaziani military base. And they report that the aircraft that bombed Vaziani base had taken off from the territory of Russian army’s 102nd base in Gumru, Armenia. [14] This fact should be taken into consideration and placed in the article. Baku87 (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another source by topix.com they also state that Russian aircrafts from the military base in Armenia were used in a attack. See [Topix.com] Baku87 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another time/date question

Under "International organizations", it says "European Union - On August 9, Nicolas Sarkozy ... announced" - but the Le Monde article linked to is clearly dated August 8. The first time given there is 19h28 (presumably French time), in which case surely it would be before midnight even in Georgia. Loganberry (Talk) 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page semi-protected if it is on the front page?

Isn't this against standard Wikipedia procedures? I think outside users would have a lot of specific knowledge to add here. Tfine80 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: mostly because banned user User:M.V.E.i. is running around with sockpuppets: secondly because this is a highly controversial topic and I don't want a flood of anons turning the page into a complete mess of nationalist dogfights. If anons have something constructive to contribute they can do so here on the talk page. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are likely hundreds of anonymous users around the world capable of adding to this critical article. They are very unlikely to use the talk pages. It is important that the article not be blocked simply because of one user. Dealing with nationalism is inevitable on these sorts of pages and it simply needs to be watched closely. Tfine80 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. This is a very similar situation to what we had when Kosovo declared independence. It was agreed at the time to keep the main page locked down and let anons post on the talk. It's not so hard to find. This is an equally contentious topic, possibly more so. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The knee-jerk reaction to block may have occurred with Kosovo, but it is not something that is consistent with long-time Wikipedia traditions. Before this recent practice became common, we were frequently able to manage these sorts of episodes, and the articles benefited enormously because of the outside contributions and error-checking. Many Russians and Caucasus folks may want to contribute to the English Wikipedia for the first time. We should not be so unwelcoming, and not all of them will incorporate biased nationalism. Tfine80 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan's reaction

Azerbaijani governmential officials have repeatedly supported Georgia in this matter, here is a quote by the spokesman for Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry:

Azerbaijan recognizes the territorial integrity of Georgia and the conflict should be settled on the basis of this very principle. He also said that in line with international law Georgia has a right to restore its territorial integrity and the UN charter is a proof of it. Georgia's actions comply with international law.

Thats whats been said from the Azerbaijani side Baku87 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Azerbaijan's reaction to the list. In the future, feel free to be bold and edit it in yourself. :) Kingnavland (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I mistakenly thought the article was fully protected, thanks for your aid Baku87 (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the start of the war

Shouldn't it be the time when massive hostilities started, that is on August 7, the date of "Georgian operation begins"? I can't take "sniper war" seriously - I never heard of such thing, it's "incidents" not "war". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish support to Georgian gov't

Turkey has, according to Reuters, agreed to supply electricity over and above the usual Georgian requirements. This is in response to a Georgian request. Worthy of addition to the section on Turkish reaction to the crisis? Source:http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL86733520080808Thuycidides the Younger (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Response

I noticed in the "Reactions" section that we've noted John McCain's response to the events, but not Obama's. We should include either both or neither of them.

You are correct, I was just on my way to edit in the Obama statement. Kingnavland (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War&oldid=230680667"