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 FiReFTW (talk | contribs) at 11:51, 27 August 2008 (→Captured Equipment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

Don't

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

POW's

Will someone edit the casualties section of the infobox, it should be put in the Russian part of the casualties section 19 missing (5 captured[1]), as the reference I provided confirms that 5 soldiers or pilots were captured, also the given reference and plus this one [1] confirm that 15 georgian soldiers were captured during the conflict in South Ossetia and another 22 were captured today in Poti so it should be put in the georgian casualty section something like this: 215 soldiers killed, 300 missing and 37 captured, based on these two references. Will anyone make this edit?

== Number of Casulties ==--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia states 65 dead russians, 121 wounded 8 tanks and 2 aircrafts lost. They state, 4000 ( of 2000 georgian soldiers who took part in the operations ) were killed.

Of course, much more than 2000 georgian troops were commited - even reservists saw some action (mostly being bombed while moving as reinforcements out of Gori). 195.218.210.190 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocki tunnel, Georgian Battalion shot the whole ammunition at every russian tank that left :the tunnel, at least, 12 destroyed. ( crew: 48 dead ), before leaving

Stupid lies, both ends of Roki tunnel are being heavily guarded all the time, and were never challenged. 195.218.210.190 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the protection of the Roki tunnel was the more important task for ossetians than the defence of their own capital. "Unofficial" picture of that war shows, that the most part of ossetian forces was used to stop georgians whose went in the direction of this tunnel, so in Tskhinval (it's the ossetian name, Tskhinvali - the georgian one... And what name should we use?..), the second target of georgian forces, defence forces have been presented mainly by ossetian militia (russian term "opolchenie") and peacekeepers. (Pubkjre (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
that "-i" is nominative case ending in georgian language. Ossetians don't use it. On russian maps, however, it can be spelled either way. 195.218.210.138 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Not "stupid lies", but artillery. The Russians also suffered losses as they came through the Roki Tunnel, which connects South Ossetia to the neighboring region of North Ossetia in Russia proper. Russian national security analysts said there was no air cover to protect Moscow’s forces in their first minutes outside the safety of the mountain tunnel. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17military.html?em=&pagewanted=print Georgian artillery was surpressed by the heavy bombing only later. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but speculation w/o any specific details and specific references in this article. And artillery "hitting every tank" with indirect fire is definitely stupid. 195.218.210.138 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kodori heights, georgian regiment held every position against 5 russo-abkhaz attacks before retreating back to Tbilisi. 584 abkhaz dead, 96 russian dead. 1 Grad destroyed, 12 armored vehicles destroyed ( crew: at least 24 dead )

Abkhaz losses - 1 dead, 1 wounded. Georgian losses also presumed to be small - they fled the area without hardly any fight after their main ammo depot was destroyed by abkhaz artillery. Russian troops didn't participate. 195.218.210.190 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, abkhazian side claims that all military operations, include air strikes, in Kodori were performed only by abkhazian forces, without russians. Sometimes georgians claims that russians bombs Kodori, after that abkhazians officials says that those air strikes were done by abkhazian air forces. I think that it's possible to found sources with such abkhazian claims... (Pubkjre (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Gurja, GRU elite special forces knocked out when engaged and ambushed by georgian :commandos Casulties: 45 of 80 russian dead, 2 georgian commandos.

Another fantasy with no proof whatsoever. There is, however, a video of 22 corpses of georgian commandos rotting in some forest area near Tskhinval. Georgian government was offered to retrieve them after the ceasefire, but gave no answer. 195.218.210.190 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for 12 villages around Tskhinvali, heavy fights, high losses on both sides. Casulties: 125 georgian, 145 russian. ( Disadvantage for russian forces )

Russian column passed georgian villages unopposed all the way to Tskhinval. The only somewhat stiff resistance was met around Zemo-Nicozi. 195.218.210.190 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st battle of Tskhinvali: Georgian artillery destroyed ossetian positions around the capitol, :200-1000 ossetian dead, Ossetian tanks and armor do not exist anymore. Georgian troops :enter the city, loosing 4 T-72 MBT's. Heavy fights in the city. 45 georgian dead 3 tanks lost, 300 ossetian dead 8 tanks given up, 18 :russian peacekeepers dead 150 wounded, retreat of Russo-Ossetian Forces.

Ossetians didn't have any tanks in Tskhinval. And before the fight, all of ossetian armor was kept locked by peacekeepers, as previous agreements dictate. 195.218.210.190 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2st battle of Tskhinvali: Russia advances against Tskhinvali, Georgian positions repell 7 attacks destroying 8 russian T-72 MBT's ( crew: 32 dead ) and killing 36 russians . Russian Air Force bombs armor and positions in Tskhinvali. 18 dead georgians. Georgia leaves Tskhinvali because of heavy bombardement and ceasefire agreement.

8 russian T-72 MBTs carry 24 crew members, not 32. I.e. crew of T-72 is only 3 men, not 4 ones like in many other MBTs. So, a source for such information is at least "strange". (Pubkjre (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, this kid is totally unaware of even such basic facts, and still tries to fool us adults here :) 195.218.210.190 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Air Force 7 days bombardament kills 42 georgian soldiers and destroys up to 20 :tanks and armor in Georgia. Georgian Special Forces and Units shoot down 22 russian SU-24/SU-25/MiG-29 and one Tu-22 with Stingers and light AA systems. Heavy AA batteries ( like S-120 ) were never used in this 7 days.

The entire "war" lasted only 5 days. Besides, last georgian radar was knocked out on the third night. 195.218.210.190 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gori: 1000 russian airborne troops try to take Gori by surpirse attack from sky. Operation failed. Number of Casulties unknown, Georgians still controlled the city. Russian armor advances from Tskhinvali to Gori. Georgian troops leave the city to show the rest of :the world, what are the true interests of Putin. Taking over whole Caucasia.

Battle of Gori: georgian troops see their Magnificient Supreme Commander scared of some unknown threat (a ghost perhaps?), panic and run all the way to Tbilisi, leaving huge stockpiles of weapons and abandoned vehicles behind them. :) Russian air force spared their sore asses because fleeing troops mixed with refugees on the road. 195.218.210.190 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the ceasefire agreement a convoy of georgian soldiers and special units were :ambushed by russian tanks and armors, leaving 18 dead georgians and 3 destroyed georgian :Toyota SF jeeps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, and what are the sources you used? Alæxis¿question? 11:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as of now, no sources are available for such details. But what ComanL wrote here largely coincides with my own sources among the Georgian military and Russian journalists. There are some other things I would like to add to the description of the Russia-Georgia war, but I can not obviously provide published sources. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above estimate of 444 (assuming all downed Russian pilots as well as the "1000 airborne troops over Gori" survived) exceeds the official Georgian estimate of 400, so a source would be most interesting to see. It would also be nice to trace the Russian claim of 4000 Georgian casualties to a Russian source. --Illythr (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Still, I see too many POVs "Georgian troops leave the city to show the rest of :the world, what are the true interests of Putin. Taking over whole Caucasia" "Georgia leaves Tskhinvali because of heavy bombardement and ceasefire agreement" and not a single reliable source. Also, I see the user having a pro-georgian POV in some articles. It would be interesting if it could be proven, though--Jaimevelasco (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see these problems but as long as no references whatsoever are provided there's no point in arguing about them. Alæxis¿question? 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see CormanL's sources. However, his "inside sources" seem to mesh with rumors of something of a Russian military debacle that I've heard (along the lines of thirty Russian armored vehicles destroyed and hundreds dead in the first day of fighting alone) and their reluctance to advance on Tblisi outright. One would think that if the Russian military was up to the task of overthrowing the Georgian government they would have done so. What, do any of us here seriously think world public opinion will stop an army in its tracks? 66.66.154.162 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same Reason US led forces did not advance on Baghdad after the Gulf war: the Georgian Regime is already unstable and the Armenian population in the south is agitating for independence. It seems Moscow calculates that it only needs to wait for a new pro-Russian Govt to take power. As for the War itself the Russians did suffer significant casualties in the Initial attack mostly due to the fact that the “peacekeepers” were light infantry unsuited for frontline combat. Combat effectively ended by the third day, with Russian forces and allies Seizing key Georgian bases in Gori, Poti and Senaki and subsequently destroying all remaining Georgian military assets. It seems that the Russians simply plan to cary out a Serbian scenario and encourage the Georgian government to collapse rather than storming Tbilisi and Facing bloody Urban warfare. As for the losses Georgian and international media have only shown wreckage belonging to four planes and I simply don’t find the Georgian Gov’t who was making outlandish “Bagdad bob” like claims of Victory at Roki Tunnel to be a credible source. Freepsbane (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshit. This war has no resemblance whatsoever to Desert Storm. Given the generally abysmal combat performance of Russian forces in the war (I do not ever recall them having captured a Georgian position by force of arms, only occupying abandoned positions - and their "air superiority" seems to have been largely ineffective) it stands to reason that they would be leery of advancing on Tblisi where essentially the entire Georgian military had dug in almost entirely intact in both personnel and heavy equipment (the Russians appear to have captured or destroyed very little of their stuff). The Georgians appear to have made a very sound move by withdrawing and concentrating their forces to fight a decisive battle at Tblisi subsequent to their initial failure to stop the Russians at the border. The Russians may be able to beat their chests and let their militia dogs run wild but they sure as hell will not overthrow the Georgian government or keep it out of NATO or the EU at this point. Their troops would be slaughtered like cattle in Tblisi. 128.153.195.109 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against all your unsupported claims, with no sources whatsoever, I can only point to the numerous media that went from Tblisi to Gori and claimed that they found no georgian forces anywhere on sight. Only empty or looted georgian tanks. If Russia had wanted to go to Tblisi, they would have found no opposition. "Georgians were witnessed by the Telegraph in a full scale disorganised and panicked retreat from Gori" [Georgia: Russia fighting on several fronts as Georgian troops withdraw to defend Tbilisi] And about the abysmal performance of the russians, well, they just won the war, retook Tskhinvali, occupied part of Georgia, destroyed one of the main georgian bases, in Gori, occupied Poti... It wasn't a fair fight, btw. The air superiority of the russians was eventually overwhelming. At least that's my POV. --Jaimevelasco (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American reconnaisance did not find a single Japanese military position on the entire island of Okinawa before we invaded. Concealment is a basic principle of warfare and the Georgians appear to have been practicing it. Defensive works that can be observed by media in a situation where the enemy possesses air superiority are worse than useless, they are a waste of soldiers and equipment and effectively hand propaganda victories to the enemy. If the Russians had advanced they would have found no opposition until they walked into an ambush and were massacred.

I tend not to take most media outlets very seriously when warfare comes up - a 24-hour news cycle means their judgement on current events is generally hasty at best and laughable at worst. These are the same people who declared that the offensive against the Sadrists back in March was a complete failure a few days before they effectively surrendered. Accurate information has to be derived from -facts- reported by the media, not their generally uninformed opinions on the subject.

In this case the facts are that Georgian troops retreated to Tblisi (I saw no real evidence of a disorganized rout - one traffic accident and a few pieces of abandoned artillery do not a rout make) from all across the country and seem to have dropped off the radar screen. There are two possibilities arising from this, either that the Georgian military has disbanded itself a-la Iraq 2003 or that they have established a defensive plan with proper operational security. I believe any rational analysis of the situation over the last couple of weeks leads to the latter conclusion. 128.153.195.195 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare an empty island where the japanese had plenty of time to prepare and to hide, to a small country with plenty of people or civilians. You just can't hide a whole army for days, almost weeks. The number of tanks the russians claim to have taken is about 55. I don't have to believe their words, but the words "routed" and "full scale disorganised and panicked retreat from Gori" are not mine. Maybe it's actually all a plan. Maybe the georgians let the russians enter Georgia and Gori all as part of a huge plan that would allow the georgians to wipe out the russians. But common sense says that the most obvious solution is the truth. That the georgian army was suffered too heavy loses. If they still had some army left, they could have done something, like parade around as they occupy gori again after the cease fire, or to put some pressure behind the russians to make them leave faster. Right now the ones going around the former occupied territory are not the georgian army but the georgian police. The russians for days were getting closer to Tblisi, then leaving again. Nobody saw any unir of georgian military in their way.--Jaimevelasco (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Georgians (only a small part of the army commited to the fighting in SO) wiped out the floor with Ossetians/Russians during their initial offensive due to their enemy's lack of night vision equipment. Later, they hit Russians exiting the tunnel, ambushed and destroyed the first column in the city (including wounding of the overall Russian commander!) and managed to bring down one huge bomber and at least 3 other aircraft. Then the Russians finally managed to silence the Georgia's air defenses and proceeded to bomb the crap out of their forces in SO, resulting in a withdrawal to Gori first and then a panicky rout to Tbilisi - followed by a ceasefire (and massive looting and systematical destruction of Georgian military and civilian property, largely based on the infamous point 5 of the French-made treaty). I didn't read any analysis on what happened in Abkhazia yet. (sources: NYT: Russians Melded Old-School Blitz With Modern Military Tactics, AP: US trainers say Georgian troops weren't ready, AFP: Blown away: Georgian troops say air superiority won war, The Times: Russian fighting machine is showing its age, say military analysts) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those reports say the opposite of what you claim. Nothing at all about "Wiping Floors" in Osset, or a column destroyed in Roki, just a bit about Shrapnel from small arms hitting the Lt.Gen and the reporters. The Reason why the initial Georgian attack overran defensive lines was due to the fact that the Ossetian rebels and Russian peacekeepers were Light Infantry: in other words they were nonmechanised infantry that lacked anti-armor Assets. After the Regular 58th entered the battle the engagements were totally one sided following a pattern similar to the Persian Gulf war (Kuwait)As the links you gave all say. Typing down claims that have nothing to do with the content and have soapbox claims such as having downed a “huge bomber” (A older Tu-22 used for recon) and having “wiped out the floor” simply don’t belong in Wikipedia; The fact that a commander was wounded by shrapnel when he had (foolishly) strayed outside the protection of his armor, Should not be given the Baghdad Bob treatment and somehow be interpreted into the (absurd) idea that a whole colum of T-80 tanks was wiped out. If such would have been accomplished it certainly would have been possible for Georgia to collapse the tunnel and cut of the invasion route. As we all know that didn’t happen, Georgian defensive lines collapsed by the 11th and Georgian forces abandoned expensive equipment in Gori and Senaki while retreating to the capital. Subsequently Russian, Abkhazian and Ossetian forces occupied former Georgian strongholds where the Ossets then reportedly proceeded to loot. Clearly having your logistical headquarters (Gori ) be seized along with your Naval headquarters (Poti) and a key airbase (Senaki) in one week of fighting is not a sign of victory. Freepsbane (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Freepsbane, I'm not ComanL. As of your thesis: Ossetians/Russians were totally owned at first, as the Georgians sized most of what their enemy claim is their capital city in just few hours (and due to the enemy's lack of night-vision equipment, not having less tanks - having more tanks in a city is a disputable adventage anyway, more like targets for the rooftop/basement RPG gunners like the Russians themselves learned in Grozny). Russian tanks were hardly all T-80s (or even T-72s) and their vehicles were in a bad mechanical shape (many simply broke down on the roads). Tu-22M actually is a "huge bomber" (AKA strategic bomber). Btw, another analitic article I forgot: War reveals Russia's military might and weakness (by AP). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the Link You Gave cites no Observers or sources, it fails Verifiability criteria(one could make the same story about Our tanks in mosul with such standards) also note these are the same analists who predicted back on the 8th that this would turn out to be some sort or Russian version of the Lebanon war. As for your comment on the 22 you misunderstood my point; the Tu-22 used was a Recon aircraft (It's not very large, Smaler than a 160, and cost wise it’s far less expensive than a modern bomber such as the SU-34), and it’s loss is hardly significant (we lost 2 aircraft in the first night of the Gulf War). No western Media has actually ever claimed or validated the Roki story ; I doubt you can find a main stream source on either of your tank claims.(The 58th ‘s tanks are actually in beter shape than Our M1’s due to the favorable environment and low usage hours). And yes I don’t count five hundred lightly armed Russian Peacekeepers (who are nominally impartial) suffering fifteen casualties during the initial offensive to be part of the battle proper.Yes my point was that we must use sources that keep with Wikipedia’s verifiability standards, unsupported claims of smashing a convoy of MBTs simply won’t belong here especially because MS media has never shown any images or placed direct claims of it. And yes Russia did not use any armored vehicles older than a T-72 or BMP2 for this op(a significant portion of the tank’s were comprised of T-80s). It’s best for these rumors to wait and see if any evidence is provided before moving.Freepsbane (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Dead But Very Alive Link And Most Likely By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV – Aug 18, 2008 MOSCOW (AP), Citing Anatoly Nogovitsyn Among Others. Russian eyewitness reporters (embedded to the Russian forces!) on the shape of the Russian equipment and the Georgian fire[2]/[3] and the commander's column ambush (I believe posted before his wounding was officially confirmed).[4]/[5] Russian casualties are actually unknown, unless you take the Russian official statements and figures seriously. What is "MS media", is this something like MS Windows? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, the initial link was unavalible. Still Anatoly Nogovitsyn said nothing about tank faliures. As for the commander, we’ve already noted that he traveled away from his convoy and exposed himself to fire. Nothing is mentioned about some sort of bloodbath where the Tanks are all destroyed. About taking the official statements seriously yes, they overall match up with the reality on the ground and are in line with what we took during the 1st Gulf while the Georgian claims simply are incredulous; had they managed to cause as much damage as they claimed their lines would likely have held at Gori: the level of demoralization by that point is indicative of a total rout. The fact is Georgia never had much of a chance for ground combat on even footing, due to Russian Air superiority. Freepsbane (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above and stop Capitalizing words Randomly. I actually used the word "rout" (as in "panicky rout"), so learn to read, too. Yes, Russia eventually won - by overhelming numbers, but most of all by the air dominance. Also the fact that the most capable units of the Georgian army were trained in the counterinsurgency for Iraq/Afghanistan (and 2,000 of those were actually in Iraq), not holding territory against the Soviet-style massed combined arms offensive - and invested too much into artillery instead of AA systems. (At least they had UAVs and night-vision, which the Russians still lacked.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll take more time to proofread my talk posts if you act more civil. Terms such as “eventually” and “overwhelming numbers” are in themselves biased and don’t fit in a five day war where numerically speaking the ground forces were relatively even. Yes I agree the Georgian order of battle was designed for combat against lightly armored rebels and irregulars, not a major military power. But I’ve seen no sources on the infrared issue, and UAV’s themselves became useless after day3 due to the loss of Radar and communications.Freepsbane (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a reliable source? Again, i see nothing except speculation and no specific references! And Times article has some nice factual errors as well. 195.218.210.138 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get an account, then tell what do you think is "RELIABLE SOURCE (!!!!!111!!11)". Oh wait, I don't care about your opinion. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The column with the commander has been destroyed, yes, 9 August 2008, but the russian operation in Ossetia starts 8 August 2008, and the column with the commander has been destroyed near the city, but not in the city. Also it was not a first column, because russians were near Tskhinval (an ossetian name)/Tskhinvali (the georgian one) in the first day of the operation. (sources: Crew of TV channel "Vesti" came under fire, The commander of 58th army is wounded in South Ossetia) Also, the information about battles near the tunnel usually available only in georgian sources, and in analytic publications (and what about the sources used in those publications?..) (Pubkjre (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
According to reporters who traveled with that column (yesterday's TV), it wasn't even remotely "destroyed". Mainly thanks to stupid move of the georgian group (whether they were trained commandos or just stray soldiers) - they began shooting at aforementioned reporters instead of real threat. Incidentally, army commander travelled with these reporters at the moment. 195.218.210.138 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of debating who beat who here, I would suggest to use all these sources to update the casualties section of the infobox: 1) the latest official figure of missing Georgian soldiers is currently at 70, not 300. 2) Replace Nogovitsyn's "...I heard they lost 4000" (which I can't seem to find anywhere other than in Civil Georgia - in Russian sources the guy mainly says that "it's hard to tell...") with the 400 figure by that independent Georgian analyst, lacking a more official Russian estimate. --Illythr (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do it. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I grabbed a Civil Georgia source for the official Georgian estimate instead. Better that way. Once an official Russian estimate for Georgian casualties is located, it should be inserted instead of the "independent Georgian" one. --Illythr (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

It would probably be a good idea to remove US and UA from the participants list, as this was not confirmed even by Russian officials (according to the sources presented). Also, can someone explain to me, why Ossetian reservists are included in the total head count, but the Georgian ones aren't? Is there a silent "seen any action" criterion in there or something? --Illythr (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In forces they should listed, Georgia did not confirm, but neither USA nor Ukraine denied. How would they admit to using mercenaries, in this case? Of course they don't confirm... but their is testimony and news report which testifies to what has been added with careful consideration.--Tananka (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better question: How this stuff ("European Tribune") landed there in the first place - and how long it was there? Actually, only few thousand Georgian troops has "seen any action", unless by "action" one means "witnessing bombing by Russian aircraft". Another question: why ONLY the Russian regular ground troops in Georgia counted - and not seaman, airmen, rear troops just across the border in Russia, or the irregulars such as "Cossack" or North Ossetian volunteers? It is unknown how many of the Georgian and Abkhaz reservists have seen any "action" (Georgian army/state also being largely paralized after the few first days), but certainly most of Ossetian did (at least by being armed while being "refugees" in Russia, then following Russian columns and pillaging after ceasefire, or doing other such war heroics). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The European Tribune article, clearly refers to Russia Today, it is completely verifiable as to what is referred to. But if it needs to be changed, then the Inner city journal refers to both reports as well. The wording can be changed, and "unconfirmed" or "alleged" if it's not NPOV enough as is. Otherwise it can be transferred to the body of the article and mentioned in more detail. --Tananka (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox is not a place for what Russia's TV claimed Today (per Kokoity/disinform.ru?) to heat the anti-American hysteria in the society. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough vandalism! The comment was just deleted, and no edit summary was given. Nor any explanation offered on the talk page! It is sourced reliably, "Inner City Journal" by a journalist who's reporting from the UN. It is perfectly verifiable. If no proper argument is given against including it, then it will be added as it deserves to be.--Tananka (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What comment? "Inner City Journal" being what? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inner City Press (not journal, excuse me):

"On Ossetia, Denials by Khalilzad of Foreign Fighters, by Yerevan of Russian Planes in Armenian Bases

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: New/* Infobox */ allegeds Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, August 11 -- Propaganda or underground truth, on the sidelines of conflict in South Ossetia, Russian media has been reporting that foreign fighters, including Americans, were found among the dead in Tskhinvali. Russia Today quoted South Ossetia's Eduard Kokoity that "Ukrainians and mercenaries from the Baltics as well as nationals from other countries were involved in the fighting, as 'foreigners have been found among their bodies.'" South Ossetia's envoy to Russia was quoted that "in yesterday's most recent tank attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians. Two unidentified bodies found today... Americans... who were probably either mercenaries or instructors in the Georgian armed forces.""
So, what was the reason for deleting it? --Tananka (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. So, el presidente Comrade Kokoity said "unidentified bodies" found "today" (2 weeks ago) were "Americans" (nothing about those "unidentified indentified Americans" since then, of course), and the Russian state TV said some enemy soldiers were "supposedly" Ukrainians (ditto), so the USA and Ukraine are now sides in the conflict. You're right, I'm sorry, please forgive for being such a bastard and deleting your "comments" in the article. Also lol. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sarcasm and offensive language have no place on this (or any other) talk page.


These are allegations, true. However a lot of information published from reliable sources are based on allegations and first hand witnesses. Condidering the allegation is published by a reliable source, IMHO, it should be considered noteworthy. It is hard to deny testimony from a first hand witness on TV over seeing two dead bodies with USA flag patches on their arms along with a statement over the same matter by a high ranking official, as being valid. It would be a shame to end up with an incomplete and biased article on the subject. The additions should be better worded to make it clear they are allegations, yes. But should they be dismissed altogether? Isn't it better to just edit the wording instead of just deleting the whole addition someone made?--Tananka (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saakashvili’s Account of Events that Led to Conflict

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19282 I understand that this account comes from one of the belligerent parties, but it is still a useful source to reconstruct the Georgia government's vision of the sequence of events that led to the Russian invasion of 2008. In this televised address, Saakashvili follows the 2004-2008 timeline and recalls some details of his relations with Putin.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral account by IWPR journalists and editors --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Here is an excellent source on the beginnings of the conflict from Michael Trotten. http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php It provides a lot of information on the background of the conflict which may or not be relevant here, but more importantly it discusses how the war began. The article makes the point that the conflict began with a Russian invasion of Georgia and that the Georgian military entering South Ossetia was simply troops passing through on route to intercept the Russian invasion and not as an actual invasion of South Ossetia by the Georgians. It provides more information for the timeline as well as a perspective that will flesh out how the war began and Saakashvili’s role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.199.50 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reports about looting of Georgian villages in South Ossetia

An article in Moscow Times describes what's happening to the Georgian villages in South Ossetia [6]. I personally met refugees from that village. They had fled from it while Russian planes were bombing it. They had to leave everything and fled in the clothes they were wearing at the moment. And now everything they had have been burned or stolen. Narking (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is attempting to empty South Ossetia of Georgians - Alexander Stubb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7581282.stm Stubb's account of ethnic cleansing. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe time to start a section about the ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia. And by the way I wonder if Medvedev meant this ethnic cleansing? Narking (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Attempting"? They did, and now brag about it - like here the "president" Kokoity: [7] --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ossetians indeed have burned some empty villages - the ones that have peen used as staging areas of georgian offensive. Local population there was in fact evacuated by georgian army before war (same thing happened in Abkhazia)! But nobody ousted georgian civilians out of other villages not involved in the the conflict (but many civilians have left anyway because of devastation). There are, however, some reports about suspicious georgian police activity in some distant villages - ossetians suspect there are infiltrating army units disguised as policemen. 195.218.210.138 (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observers from HRW and OSCE have different opinion than you, Mr. 195.218.210.138. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Georgians were not evacuated before the war, they fled when Russians were bombing them. Narking (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Georgians definitely WERE evacuated, reporters traveling onto Tskhinval with russian column found absolutely empty georgian villages, with only a few old obstinate people who voluntarily did not leave. These grannies told them georgian troops sent all villagers into Georgia Proper days before, because they wanted villages (mostly sitting on the heights around Tskhinval) as staging areas and artillery positions. It was on TV on august 9th IIRC. Another evidence of georgian cold-headed preplanned invasion. 195.218.211.18 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, they all say it's Ossetian iregulars, not the Russian army.Freepsbane (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're Russian irregulars - they're Russian citiziens supported by the Russian army and government. Many of them even came from Russia (as did most of "South Ossetian government"[8]) and the regular/federal military is responsible for their local militias' actions (see the case of Veselin Šljivančanin, for example). In any case, BBC/OSCE is talking about lorries belonging to the Russian emergency ministry forces. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kokoity said: "we burned to the ground all Georgian towns and villages in South Ossetia". According to a human rights organization,

“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...[9]

Biophys (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, he did NOT say anything like this in Kommersant! What he said is practically the same i wrote up here: "we burned already-empty villages which were used as staging areas and bases for georgian aggression"! And second quotation does not even belong to Kokoity, but some anonymous "ossetian officer"! So stop SPREADING LIES here! Truth is, georgians themselves turned these villages into legitimate targets. 195.218.211.25 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we create an article Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia? Biophys (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not, we can always do with more anti-Russian NPOV propaganda on WP. I'm sure that certain editors are up for that challenge with plenty of (US-government funded) resources available for content purposes. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well how better is the Kremlin funded propaganda resources? The page will be created after enough references are compiled from OSCE declarations and actual findings by Human Rights Watch (i guess they are also CIA funded anti-Russian/Putin club). Thanks for a good laugh. Iberieli (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with you, Iberieli? Everything that does not comply with the Kremlin's vision is U.S. funded and fabricated by the Western imperialists and their agents in the legitimate spehers of Russian infuence. Did not you know that? --KoberTalk 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you meant Russavia but not Ibrieli's irony. But yes ... some people are storming "back in the U.S.S.R."; it works and sounds like 1956 and 1968. Elysander (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that 1968 is being used as a reference by some editors, when said country involved in 1968 is in support of Russian actions, and has actually dismissed references of comparison to 1968. But great to see that comparison being used on talk pages. And as to my above comments, US propaganda is no better than Russian propaganda, but the problem is, is that some editors will start their attack articles by totally ignoring WP:NPOV and without presenting all sides of an issue. It's my opinion that if one can't insert neutral information (i.e. by providing all sides of a story) into WP articles then they are no better than the propagandists that they try to demonise. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 07:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very probable that the overwhelming majority of Hungarians, Czechs or Slovakians are funny watching the (Sowjet-)Russian intervention in the SouthKaukasus. Check public opinion and medias in H/CZ/SK and you will find: they are drawing parallels between 1956/68 and 2008 - not only few so-called "anti-Russian" editors. The topic is breaking international law by Russian government. Elysander (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I hope you all have sources that international law has been ignored and broken by the Russian government. If not, this is all moot. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad luck for you ;) Putin .. sorry .. Medvedev did it again: Violation of international law. Elysander (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am sure that the people of Serbia are whatching the conflict and wonderinig why were our boarders not respected. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

And I am sure that some Serbians are asking themselves why Russia did give up its besides theoretical demand for Serbia's territorial integrity by its "activities" today. ;) Elysander (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the unsubstantiated accusations of "anti-Russian propaganda" by Russavia are inappropriate and against WP:CIV.Biophys (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the Kosovars -did- get the hell out of Serbia. They just took their country with them. Wasn't that what Milosevic et al wanted in the first place? 128.153.195.195 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the "humanitarian mission" started?

The list of NATO's warships situated in Black Sea right now.

Who else?!!

All of them are full of baby food and care supplies, bottled water, and milk!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/europeCrisis/idUSLP442126 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.173.10 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/20/navy.georgia.aid/index.html

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/08/25/ships/

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that puts things into perspective, warships on "humanitarian mission". We'll see.--Tananka (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The results of NATO-lead "humanitarian mission" in Afganistan. In Iraq. Who will next? --195.98.173.10 (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The invasion of Iraq and the intervention in "Afganistan"(sic) were not the US military's "humanitarian missions" - the post-tsunami aid was, for example, as were the food airdops over Bosnia. "Who will next"? Whoever will be hit by a natural or a man-made disaster, I guess. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably war IS a man-made disaster. The only problem is that real "humanitarian missions" are supposed to happen AFTER it rather than before. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you say the actual Russo-Georgian war is yet to come? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What "perspective"? I guess you just never heard about the US military's humanitarian operations, but this is only your problem. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Captain & dog your sarcasm is not helpful. 195.. mentions the NATO-lead "humanitarian mission" as the war of ISAF against Taliban is sold in the Dutch parliament. In your US-centric bias you changed it in US "humanitarian missions". Otto (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of these warships must also be seen in light of the fact that the Russian navy within the timeframe of less than one week has deployed its flagship, the Admiral Kuznetsov (which is specifically classified so as to circumvent the Montreux agreement which bans aircraft carriers traversing the Dardanelles), to the Russian port in Tartus, Syria[10] and upon arrival there transferred its command (along with that of other Russian warships in the Mediterranean) to the Russian Black Sea Fleet Command[11]. __meco (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these Articles mention the Dardenels, or any attempt to move the Admiral Kuznetsov thru them (or any redefinition of the ships nature). Indead they seem to make it clear that the Admiral Kuznetsov is to be based in Syria.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
The Admiral Kuznetsov article gives details on its peculiar designation and the background for it. I disagree with your impression that because Syria is the immediate port, there is no likelyhood that the Kuznetsov will be deployed later to the Black Sea. This is pure speculation in any case. What we know now is that the entire Russian Mediatteranean Fleet, including the newly-arrived Admiral Kuznetsov has been transferred to the Black Sea Fleet Command. __meco (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Although the Wiki Article states (which by the way is not RS) this is the reason the source the article (as does the Wiki article) uses makes it clear there are a number of reasons for this designition (aircraft-carrying cruiser). There is no indications in either the Wiki article or the source article that the designition is Specificly designed to circumvent the Montreux agreement (it actualy says it allows then to do it, not that it was the idea in the first place, and makes it clear that there are doctrinal resons for this designition).
The sources you gave are the ones that seem to say (and certainly do not say that the ship will leave Tartus) that the US and Israle are concerned about this deployment as it threatens the Western Med, no mention is made of Georgia. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
I think NATO preparing a "humanitarian operation" in Iran, one hundred tomahawks filled with baby nutrition and fueled with milk. If ships will not be used to fire, they will be used by politicans to push on Iran gov. threaten it from the South and North. 86.102.40.47 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft losses

Could someone with good sources create the article Aircraft losses in the 2008 South Ossetia war? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really neeed an article for that? IMO a section would be more than sufficient.
Unless we want to detail the each plane's last minutes...
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing parts.

The begining of the article is still did'nt mentioning attack and occupation on Tshinvali and Russian peacemakers base by Georgias forces. This is a very important fact! Where and why acctualy "Interests" section dissappear? Many sides hase their own interests here and they should be mentioned.--Oleg Str (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC) And Abkhazian/Osetians orders of battle seems to be removed (may be Im wrong here). Like Georgia is in war with Russia only.--Oleg Str (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only "Puppet States" like the Tiso-Regime and centres of the organized Russian criminality. Best example: Kokoity Elysander (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Puppet States" like Kosovo...--A20080819 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's recognition

This may be the gene... Anyway, is a recognition race - like the case of Kosovo - likely to follow? Belarus and Cuba might recognize later in the day? And no words from the poor Serbians back in Belgrade.... --Hapsala (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to text of President's statment

http://www.kremlin.ru/appears/2008/08/26/1445_type63374type82634_205744.shtml (Russian) http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/1543_type82912_205752.shtml (English)

--195.98.173.10 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouln't be surprised if Belarussian President Lukashenko also recognizes South Ossetia within the next couple of hours. His foreign policy is 100 percent controlled by the Kremlin.
You are wrong. It's enough of russian recognition. And there is a similar case in so called "international law": Turkey and Cyprus. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. But the Russian might as well be using this as a respons of the Kosovar recognition, and in that case the world has been rather devided in US/EU/Nato supporters (pro indepence) vs. supporters of the Russo-Serbian line (pro Serbian integrity). The puzzling thing is that the Russian decision to recognize the breakaway republics also may go against Russia's long term geopolitical interests. So I'm likewise surprized that the Russian took the decision so rapidly. --Hapsala (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this seemingly rapid decision is the last sign in a chain of signs that Russia planned this invasion well in advance. Naturally other Russian satellites and dependent states will follow and some strange "superdemocrats" like Lukashenko, Castro, Chavez etc. :)) .. Sorry .. i did forget Hamas;) Elysander (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be intresting to look up what was the Russian argument in the case of Kosovo, obviously Russia is no longer following a "pro integrity" "pro internationally recognized borders" line. Will they recognize Kosovo or just throw out all their arguments and say "we recognize when we feel like it". However the reccognition should be covered at length in the article now it's clear that this was the Russian "endgame" and the ultimate goal of the Russian attack. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
President Medvedev, in an exclusive interview with Russia Today network, refers explicitly to the Kosovo case when asked if Russia violated international law. Since Kosovo was claimed to be a uniqe case, so is Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Medvedev says. The argument seems pretty hollow, and the Serbs might not be so impressed by Russia's U-turn. --Hapsala (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
U provide good WP:OR, but its not for this article.--A20080819 (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Information

Should any of this be added?

Defying Russia, an American warship that brought humanitarian aid to Georgia was expected to arrive Wednesday in this nervous Black Sea port that's being watched over by Russian soldiers, Georgian officials said.

The move would put U.S. military assets within close range of Russian forces for the first time since the Georgian conflict began, potentially setting up a confrontation with Moscow, the dominant naval power in the Black Sea.

the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Nogovitsyn as saying that Russian forces in the Black Sea might carry out searches of cargo ships "with the goal of preventing diversions and provocations." [12]

Russian and United States warships engage in a standoff outside the Georgian port of Poti, which Russian troops occupied in the August 7-12 war, and as NATO is reported to be boosting its naval presence in the Black Sea. [13]

The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has urged the West to take immediate action against Moscow after accusing Russian forces of moving their artillery to within range of the capital city Tbilisi.

Just hours before Russia escalated the crisis by recognising the independence of two separatist Georgian provinces, Mr Saakashvili said Russian forces had advanced to the strategic Akhalgori heights 10 miles from Tbilisi.

He warned that Georgia would respond with force if its capital was attacked and told the West to act more forcefully against Russian aggression.

The Russian cruise ship the Moskva, which had been deployed off the Georgian coastline during the five-day war, was seen leaving the Crimean naval base of Sevastopol, headquarters of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

Early reports indicated that the Moskva was sailing south, possibly towards Poti - " raising the possibility of a naval face-off between the United States and Russia for the first time since the Cold War. [14]

Russian Armed Forces General Staff is perplexed with the recent intense activity of NATO's navy in the Black Sea waters, deputy chief of the General Staff Anatoly Nogovitsyn told journalists today. He reiterated that there were nine NATO warships in the Black Sea off the coast of Georgia on Monday, adding that the General Staff had learned at 11:30 p.m. yesterday that another US frigate had already passed the Bosporus. Furthermore, Nogovitsyn pointed out that he had information about eight more NATO warships expected arrival in the region. [15]

Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Tuesday rejected Russia's recognition of two breakaway regions of Georgia and called for an international coalition to counter it.

"I am holding talks today with international partners and will be visiting Ukraine tomorrow to ensure the widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia," he added. [16] JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

Russia's envoy to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, compared the tension between Russia and the west to the eve of the first world war, saying a new freeze in relations was inevitable.

"The current atmosphere reminds me of the situation in Europe in 1914 ... when because of one terrorist, leading world powers clashed," Rogozin told the RBK Daily business newspaper. "I hope Mikheil Saakashvili [the president of Georgia] will not go down in history as a new Gavrilo Princip." He was referring to the assassin of the Austro-Hungarian archduke Franz Ferdinand. [17] JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is notable, but you have to summarize everything very briefly. There is a growing confrontation between the Russian Federation and the rest of the world...Biophys (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Weak no. By all means put in the portions that refer to the international situation, but not to events that have yet to happen. Moer over some of this appears to be poorley researched (the Moskova is nbot a cruise ship, it's an ASW cruiser). Also there seems to be an odd mixing of past, present and future tense to elemts of the above.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Medvedev's advisers

I thought Medvedev would stop short of recognizing after yesterday's political show in the two chamber Federation assembly. But he didn't. The decision seems amazingly ill prepared and leaves Medvedev with a legacy he'd probably better be without. So my qestion is: Does Medvedev rely on exactly the same team of advisers as Putin did? Or did Putin de facto take with him the foreign policy to the Moscow White House? Is this the first hint of the expected power struggle between Putin and Medvedev - or is Medvedev just a puppet, temporary in charge till Putin can regain the office of President of Russia? 217.21.232.237 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, in the west, there were lots of stories like that during the election campaign. But, remember - a possible power struggle between the Putin camp and the Medvedev camp is similar to the war between Russia and Georgia. Putin didn't retire to the office of PM, but is likely using it as a way to make a great comeback. That's the main reason why he hand-picked Medvedev as his successor (and future intended predessessor). --Hapsala (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ships in Black sea - was the best way to a recognition of independence of Abkhazia and Ossetia. Магистер (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what are your suggestions regarding this article? )) Alæxis¿question? 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do people seriously think Medvedev is anything but Putin's puppet? It's been clear from zero hour that Vladimir Putin is pulling the strings here. 128.153.195.195 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM. Alæxis¿question? 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However this discussion may have a relevance to the article, for example if there is consensus that Medvedev really IS Putin's puppet it would be obscene to put the puppet into the infobox as "commander" and not the puppetmaster. Hobartimus (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Putin is for sure still Russia's de facto No. 1. As well, notably absent from the public limelight... --Hapsala (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Watch as a source

Although I think that HRW is often a good source, in this article I think we need some sort of disclaimer. HRW receives substantial funding from George Soros, who also serves on the board of HRW/Americas. Soros was also the principal funder of the Rose Revolution, so I would expect HRW to be biased in favor of Georgia in this conflict. We should note the possible conflict of interest in the article. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Original Research can be no basis for any edit to the article. If a majority of reliable sources agree that HRW is biased then it could be discussed (not here but in the HRW article which is linked from here long discussion about HRW is not the topic of this article). Hobartimus (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an exception, actually. Ottre (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an exception and it's not OR -- Niels Gade linked to the appropriate articles which are themselves referenced. Some sort of disclaimer should be added to this article. Banaticus (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six-point peace plan

Text of the section about the exact text is not correct and has no references. Original one wich announced in public statments was follow.

Joint Press Statement following Negotiations with French President Nicolas Sarkozy August 12, 2008 The Kremlin, Moscow

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: ...

  • One. Do not resort to the use of force.
  • Two. The absolute cessation of all hostilities.
  • Three. Free access to humanitarian assistance.
  • Four. The Armed Forces of Georgia must withdraw to their permanent positions.
  • Five. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation must withdraw to the line where they were stationed prior to the beginning of hostilities. Prior to the establishment of international mechanisms the Russian peacekeeping forces will take additional security measures.
  • Six. An international debate on the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and ways to ensure their lasting security will take place.

...

PRESIDENT OF FRANCE NICHOLAS SARKOZY (as translated): ...

  • The first principle is not to resort to force. Of course, our discussions did not resolve every single point. We tried to draft a brief document that opens the road to an agreement.
  • The second principle is complete cessation of hostilities. At the moment we are still talking about a temporary ceasefire. This ceasefire could become permanent if Bernard Kouchner and I convince Georgia to sign this document today.
  • Third – ensuring free access to humanitarian aid. You know that there are many refugees there now and they need help.
  • Fourth – the withdrawal of Georgian Armed Forces to their permanent bases.
  • Fifth – Russia’s Armed Forces will withdraw to the line where they were stationed prior to the start of hostilities. Until such time as international mechanisms are established the Russian peacekeeping forces (the Russian Armed Forces present in South Ossetia under OSCE mandate) will take additional security measures. We will discuss with President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili the measures to be taken until confidence between Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians can be restored.
  • Finally, sixth – international discussion will begin on the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and ways to ensure their lasting security.

The official text in Russian http://www.kremlin.ru/appears/2008/08/12/2004_type63374type63377type63380type82634_205199.shtml in English http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/12/2100_type82912type82914type82915_205208.shtml

--Niggle (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting differences. "We will discuss with President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili the measures to be taken..." is only in the Sarkozy statement. -- megA (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sixth point has been rejected Saakashvili and signed in the changed form: no discussion, no debate. Магистер (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captured Equipment

Russia took 44 Georgian tanks, captured by Russian peacekeepers in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, announced August 16 the Assistant Russian Army CINC colonel Igor Konashenkov.

According to him, during Georgian-Ossetian conflict Russian peacekeepers captured 65 tanks of Georgian army. As stated by Konashenkov, more than 20 captured tanks were destroyed because they were either defective or of old versions. Also Konashenkov told that the Russian army succeeded in capturing several dozen other armoured units, including five air defense complexes “Osa”, 15 infantry fighting vehicles BMP-2, D-30 guns, as well as Czech-made self-propelled artillery vehicles and U.S. armoured vehicles. According to him, mostly seized equipment produced and refined in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, earlier it was reported that during the retreat of the Georgian military left in hangars and warehouses at a military base near the town of Gori in the north Georgia 15 tanks, armoured vehicles and dozens of artillery shells and missiles. Part of ammunition was destroyed, and the part taken out of Georgia.



http://forum.warfare.ru/special/2008/08/16/russia-captured-a-fifth-part-of-the-georgian-tanks/

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7570949.stm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Georgian_War&oldid=234548257"