Talk:Russo-Georgian War

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

• Be neutral (scrupulously so)
• Be verifiable.
• Be collaborative

Don't

• Don't be original.
• Don't edit war
• Don't soapbox.
• Don't randomly stick tags everywhere. {{sofixit}}, if you please.

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

PLEASE REMOVE THE PROPAGANDA PHOTOGRAPH FROM GORI ("Civilian targets bombed by Russia")

I suggest removing the photograph purpotedly showing 'Russia's intentional bombing of civilian targets in Gori' (picture on the very top).

The appartments were located in the immediate vicinity to a Georgian military base in Gori targeted by Russian air-force and did indeed suffer some collateral damage (presumably from secondary explosion of destroyed ammunition depos?).

IMPORTANTLY: While many of the inhabitants were innocent civilians, these appartments beside the base are actually owned by Georgia's army soldiers and officers, who rent them out to civilians.

The same few houses were then photographed from different angles, and their photographs spread around the world as an evidence of Russia's wide-scale targeting of civilian infrastructure.

I believe the extent of collateral damage suffered by the civilians (renting appartments owned by Georgian military men) shows actually a reasonable restraint by Russian military and the collateral damage and casulaties are much smaller than the one inflicted by US bombing of civilian targets in Afghanistan, Iraq or Yugoslavia.

(SOURCE: According to a on-ground observation in Gori by a team "People in Need"/Clovek v Tisni, a respected humanitarian NGO from the Czech Republic with many years of track record from operations in Chechnya and other Caucasus crises - which made them unpopular and eventually banned by the Russian government. Photographs and reporting from Gori on http://blog.aktualne.centrum.cz/blogy/roman-stank.php?itemid=4339)

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), 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 Casualties ==--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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ehm, and what are the sources you used? Alæxis_¿question? 11:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, you can hide a whole army for weeks at a time in a small European country while conducting combat operations. It's not even that difficult. See Kosovo War. Given the combination of piss-poor intelligence-gathering capabilities on the Russian side and the fact that Western journalists are not out breaking brush looking for camouflaged Georgian positions, I find it unremarkable that the Georgians have maintained operational security in this case. In any event Western journalists are unanimous that there is in fact a high level of Georgian military activity in and around Tblisi and that Russian probes towards the capital (obvious attempts to determine the extent of Georgian defenses by reconnaisance in force) have been responded to by Georgian troops publicly moving out and blocking the roads before the Russians could get close to Tblisi, so that part of your thesis doesn't hold water.

Your attempt to use Occam's Razor is laughable. The Georgians suffered about a hundred dead out of a full-time army of 10,000 and minor equipment losses, mostly in the form of obsolete and unreliable Soviet vehicles. You're telling me they're out of the fight? Occam's Razor dictates that something's going on here behind the convenient story of a Georgian "defeat". I think the Russians know very well that their short, victorious war will turn into a fiasco if they push too hard. 128.153.195.195 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor says the most obvious answer is usually the correct one. You are saying that just because the russian army took Senaki, Poti, sinking some ships, part of Georgia, and Gori, while the georgian army "IN panic and utter confusion, the Georgian army fled the town of Gori last night, chased by a seemingly invisible Russian advance. As has so often been the case in this short but brutal war, this was pure chaos" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2542751/Georgia-Chaos-and-panic-as-people-flee-the-Russian-advance.html, just because the president of Georgia has been forced to sign a document he didn't want to (he had to be convinced), just because the russians took at least 65 T-72 SIM-1 (i'm not counting if they found anything on the abandoned military bases, there is a report from Russia they found 15 more in Gori) and some other military hardware http://sp.rian.ru/onlinenews/20080820/116157778.html http://forum.warfare.ru/special/2008/08/16/russia-captured-a-fifth-part-of-the-georgian-tanks/ http://sp.rian.ru/onlinenews/20080819/116133327.html, it doesn't really mean Georgia has been defeated. Hell, they were about to win!

"Occam's Razor dictates that something's going on here behind the convenient story of a Georgian "defeat"." You know you could at least provide some sources to show that the georgians were about to wipe out the floor with the russians, since for some people, it seems like, you know, the georgians lost. No offense.

I still think it's a pity the georgians lost, though. --Jaimevelasco (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're basing your opinion of a Russian victory on a combination of a newspaper that has printed Iraqi insurgent propaganda in the past (after their reporting during the Iraqi offensive in Basra I no longer consider the Telegraph to be a reliable source), Saakashvilli justifiably wanting to a continue the conflict and beat on the Russians to the point that they would not hang around occupying half his country, and Russian lies? No Russian source is reliable here. They have provided photographic documentation of perhaps ten or twelve "captured" T-72s (which could have easily been drawn from all those T-72s of the exact same make and model the Russians have on hand), about as many BMPs and a couple of unmistakably Georgian vehicles (which were completely destroyed or had been previously verified photographically as having broken down). It's called critical thinking. See through the propaganda.

If you want my sources? Look at the casualty box. Then look at the list of Georgian units actually committed to the fighting. One brigade of five. Georgian casualties were low and few of their units actually engaged. This makes Russian claims of huge amounts of captured Georgian tanks doubly ridiculous - the Georgians only -have- eighty or so T-72s. Ergo, they prepared to fight a decisive battle at Tblisi and the Russians blinked and agreed to an advantageous ceasefire rather than see their short, victorious war turn into another Chechen debacle from biting off more than they could chew. CarbonArmor (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that the russian have not won. Wow, I think most people would say that they won. Can you provide ANY source saying that the russians lost? Can you provide ANY source saying that the georgians were about to win? I have shown my sources. If Saakashvilli had enough forces left, why did he agree to the ceasefire? Maybe you don't agree with the russians, but their claims are unoopposed. Again, just because an army hasn't suffered losses, it doesn't mean they are ready to fight.

Just because the casualties are low it doesn't mean they aren't defeated. The georgian army had 37.000 soldiers, and the reservist were about 100.000. But you don't need to kill everybody to win. Georgia had about 230 tanks at the beginning of the war(sources at the spanish wikipedia), how many do they have left? The russians defeated two brigades, pludered at least two military bases. That sounds as a lot of tanks to me. The russians claim to have taken at least 64 tanks. Are the georgians contesting that? How many planes do the georgians have left? Because from my POV, the georgian air force was destroyed. Or at least they are nowhere to be seen. "The 1st and 2nd Infantry Brigades along with the Independent Tank Battalion and most of the front line artillery units are no longer combat capable. There have been very significant losses in weapons, ammunition stocks and damage done to the military infrastructure" http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/5133257/ "2nd Brigade - Suffered heavy losses in the Battle of the Kodori Valley" "4th Brigade - Most powerful of Georgia's Brigades. Spearheaded the attack onto South Ossetia. Suffered heavy loses in men and equipment"

Do you have ANY source that says that the georgians were prepared to fight a "decisive battle at Tblisi" ANY at all? Do you have ANY source that proves that the georgian army had enough strength left to DEFEAT the russians, that they would't break down like it happened in South Ossetia, Gori...? Pick western media, georgian media, whatever you want. But stop making claims how they would fight "a decisive victory" without a single source. --Jaimevelasco (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So even by believing every lie told by Russian propaganda, the Georgians have three full brigades in combat condition (likely four, as the Georgians suffered no losses in Kodori) deployed in and around Tblisi and a further fifth that is in the process of reorganizing and which suffered minimal confirmed casualties. And you're telling me the Russians are not fully cognizant that attacking Tblisi would be walking to their deaths? Give me a break, this discussion is over. You just conceded regardless of your rhetoric otherwise.

And about unrefuted Russian claims: the Georgians have consistently kept their mouths professionally shut throughout this conflict rather than spout off like the increasingly-comical Russians. The Russian claims are facially ridiculous and no refutation is needed, nor should the Georgians feel obliged to give the Russians a real damage report by giving one. CarbonArmor (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I’d hardly call Western news friendly to Tbilisi Russian propaganda. In general most analysts, includining ones comprised of retired US officers such as Stratfor agree in the fact that the Georgian Air, armor and Sea forces are defunct at this point. The Georgians would never have retreated from Senaki the main airbase , along with Gori their logistical headquarters leaving all of their armor and ammunition to be seized by the ossets , and allowing the bear to seize Georgia’s main road if the situation were not dire. Georgia’s three mechanized infantry brigades have been defunct as of the twelfth. with the two functional brigades comprised of non-mechanized infantry that were not involved in Ossetia campaign. And while you did point out that Georgia’s Kodori forces retreated with minimal combat, you didn’t note that the Georgian’s abandoned their equipment in a disorganized retreat that followed the loss of Gori and its command and control functions. Further evidence that the Georgian army was defunct would be the fact that the weeks subsequent to the war saw Russian forces moving freely thorough Georgia, systematically destroying Georgian equipment and scuttling the surviving craft of the Georgia Navy in Poti. During this time the only opposition the Russians faced came from local police forces. Furthermore CarbonArmor it’s not an accepted practice in Wikipedia to go around around accusing, organisatons or individuals of treason as you have. Try to be more civil in the future.Freepsbane (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And lastly, I'll say CarbonArmor that you still fail to provide any sources to back your claims that the georgian army was still combat ready and prepared to defeat the russians in Tblisi. Every report, western or russians, agrees on the fact that the georgians suffered a heavy defeat. If you have any sources show us, and stop giving us your totally unsupported POV.--Jaimevelasco (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My POV is entirely supported by sources already available and by any low-level knowledge of military operations. Every reliable report is unanimous on the fact that relatively little combat actually took place and only a small amount of Georgian military equipment was lost and that the Georgian military is therefore almost completely intact and has withdrawn to Tblisi to fight a decisive battle at the capital rather than allow themselves to be overwhelmed piecemeal in the countryside. The facts underlying this interpretation of events are in the article, so I don't get why you're demanding sourcing. Rather than ask -me- for sources, I ask you two to provide assessments of the Georgian military's combat capability to support your views that DO NOT rely on Russian sources, which are universally unreliable.

I don't get your later line of accusation, Freepsbane. The Telegraph at one point printed Iraqi insurgent propaganda without basic fact-checking with Baghdad during the offensive against the Sadrists this March. It is not treasonous for a Western newspaper to print lies distributed by the enemy, it just compromises their journalistic integrity and ergo the Telegraph is not a reliable source. CarbonArmor (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Where do you see "overwhelming numbers"? Air force, yes. But much less ground troops - 9 to 12 thousands during the course of the conflict (and twice less AFVs). The number of abkhaz/ossetian troops involved is unclear and highly debatable. 195.218.211.5 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Snobism won't help you in your problems. Anybody can suck such fantasies out of his thumb - without any REAL references, any article is not just "unreliable" source, it's not a "source" at all! 195.218.211.5 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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))

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)

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)

Do it. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Result: decisive Russian victory

Is there some reason why the "result" of the battle is not clearly written? In analogy with all other pages about battles, e.g. Battle of Austerlitz, it should say "Decisive Russian victory". Anything else is POV propagation of fog. --Lumidek (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But without decisive. It goes only in battles not wars.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. this was an obvious Russian victory. Georgia's goals of wrestling back control of the two (former) republics failed completely. Russia repelled Georgia's army, had complete control of the air, then ran unopposed in undisputed Georgian territory, took over military bases and ports and continued to destroy Georgian weapons caches. To solidify Russia's victory into actual strategic benefits, Moscow then recognized the two regions as independent. Georgia's goals in S. Ossetia and Abhkazia, whatever they may have been, are irrelevant now. They will never regain control of them again.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support The result of this conflict is clearly Russian victory. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When two people start fighting eachother, both have already lost. In a war, only the financiers win. It is clear that Russia had to intervene and restore the Peace that they were responsible for under Peacekeeping agreements. They completed their mission rapidly and effectively, while making provisions for preventing subversive tactics. Georgia pulled Russia into a conflict, and if that was it's purpose, it also succeeded of course. What is the aim here? Cui Bono? I am afraid that is still a matter of opinion. The gravity of the situation and the ill will at hand would probably do well to not being underestimated, whichever it's source and aims may be. --Tananka (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the goal of the Russians here? Hobartimus (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• To fulfill their peacekeeping mission.

• following useless comment is in the way please ignore.

ROFL ;) Elysander (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is no place ridicule, thank you. Goodbye.--Tananka (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - the victory lies at least in the fact that before the war the Georgians had been controlling the Kodory valley, but now the whole of Abkhasia is under Bagapsh's rule and because much of the Georgian military strength has been diminished by the Russians while on Georgian soil. Bogorm (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is war, not a battle. The result is not a "victory", but the partial occupation of Georgia.Biophys (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Opposition. "partial occupation of Georgia" is the best term when looking at matters from a objective perspective. Georgia and the vast majority of countries still recognize those as part of Georgia after all.[Though now those parts are according to Russia "independent countries". And those countries (or more likely the puppet governments set up by the Russians) seem to have asked for Russian military bases on their territory. This reminds me of how countries were added to the Soviet Union, first some "friendly" military bases and then a 99.9% vote to join up with the Union.] ExtraxiTerra (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I'm not understanding your arguments here. This isn't a straw poll, and a decision is made based on valid arguments, not votes. I think you should clarify what you mean, because you can't really be implying that wars don't have losers and victors? I mean, that makes no sense. Also, we don't know that Russia plans on camping out permanently in Georgia proper, so "partial occupation of Georgia" is POV. Claiming that S. Ossetia and Abkhazia are still part of Georgia would be anti-Russia POV. The "result" and "location" sections should be made like this (below):--71.112.145.102 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War
Location Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia Result Russian and separatist victory. Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent republics.

Support Not only has Georgia lost control over its footholds in Ossetia and Abkhazia, but it has also had its key military Strongholds in Gori, Senaki and Poti destroyed with the last two facing long-term Russo/Abkaz occupation. Independent military analysts such as Stratfor believe that the Georgian Airforce, Navy and Armored forces along with radar and command and control infrastructure have been essentially destroyed. Freepsbane (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your professional treatment of my humble suggestion. I was overwhelmed a bit like the Georgian troops were overwhelmed by the Russian army. :-) --Lumidek (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fighters operating under US flag, or how not to delete additions, respect NPOV while seeking concensus.

This was reported by Russia Today, interviewing first-hand source. Then further confirmed. All sourtce are there. Infowars is not doing original research. Please check references and discuss on the discussion page before deleting anything entirely. Edits are welcome must they must be done in NPOV manner with a balanced set of views in the article for comparrisson. Be costructive, not destructive. If more published sources that are referred to in the reference should be added, please do so. Respect 3RR please.--Tananka (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And again an editor edits in such a manner that what's written does not reflect what is published. Yes they are allegedly US soldiers operating for NATO, or mercenaries from a private firm. Maybe the editor will have the decency to discuss this matter instead of edit warring.--Tananka (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the first hand source was Eduard Kokoity and it's strange the news came more than two weeks ago and yet no other proof of the existence of these "mercenaries from the Baltics as well as nationals from other countries" has showed up since then. If they did have captured any mercenaries I'm sure they would have showed them for the world press by now. So until then I guess we have to wait with the inclusion of Americans and Ukrainians in the infobox. Narking (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this one-sided "2 men" nonsense should not be in a table on top, it is more appropriate in a section about information war propaganda --windyhead (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

• As you state this was reported by Russia Today and "sources are there", please provide diff with your edit where you support your information with reference to Russia Today.
• Since you reverted my removal of references to infowars, please prove it is a reliable source accurding to WP:RS
• Please explain your removal of "According to S. Ossetia", as it is what source says and no other side is supporting these claims

--windyhead (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so let's see, "According to S. Ossetia" is added. It is not S. Ossetia, when a person gives testimony on TV, that person is not the government... But "alleged" makes it clear they are allegations, in respect of consensus and NPOV, does it not?--Tananka (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today quoted South Ossetia's Eduard Kokoity that ... - this is quote from the source. Let's stick to what the source says. --windyhead (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

US flag is removed, hmmmm. Well that is there because of the soldiers (or mercenaries) wearing US flag. They would wear US flag in light of international law issues, this is a possibility in the case of mercenary operations which would be a problematic state of affairs.--Tananka (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

soldiers (or mercenaries) wearing US flag - please cite the source confirming this --windyhead (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And the source for the Ukrainians is South Ossetia's envoy to Russia who was quoted "in yesterday's most recent tank attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians." Doesn't seem to be that much of proof of their existence. Narking (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Person's testimony on Russia Today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLFWxGXGCBg at 10:30
• US: "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." - Inner City Press
• Russian sources have confirmed these claims. http://kommersant.com/p-13081/mercenaries_Georgia_U.S._instructor
• Published material on infowars is reliable, as it refers entirely to published material. Read the article and according to WP:RS "How reliable a source is depends on context." "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose. Tertiary sources — compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources — may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." Alex Jones was invited to give interviews on many mainstream media and is recognised as an investigative journalist of reliability. If you need reference to that it can also be provided.--Tananka (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"unnamed source said" - see your reference http://kommersant.com/p-13081/mercenaries_Georgia_U.S._instructor. And this is an "exceptional claim". We do not need this per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is entirely POV. Who is we? --Tananka (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• a high-ranked officer of Russia’s military intelligence. --Tananka (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones is not "recognised as an investigative journalist of reliability". I bet you don't even know who he is. Ostap 02:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I do know who he is, but you must read the infowars article first anyhow. If you want to make a judgement over reliability or verifiability in the referenced articles. Mr. Jones was invited only yesterday to give an interview on Russia Today. And his title was given as "investigative journalist". He has been invited on mainstream media various times. But again, you must check the article and it's quotes of reliable media. Again it is perfectly reliable based on the general standards as far as this matter is concerned. Again you must explain why you hold that POV first for consideration? Many other sources are supplied, so this is not about a reference source. Is it? Because the whole thing was deleted instead of fixing the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tananka (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

By placing these claims in the box of the article (as they are right now), we misrepresent claims as facts. Actually, these are not facts. For example, "Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the UN, claimed that there were 127 Pentagon advisors working in Georgia" [6] according to cited source. First, this is claim by an official representative of a combatant's side (one could even say the "aggressor side"). Second, these 127 people are not necessarily combatants. If they are not combatants, they do not belong to the box.Biophys (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't write "Unknown number of alleged Ukrainians" and present it in the infobox. That is simply ridiculous. Ostap 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then why not just delete "Unknown number of alleged" instead of deleting everything. To actually delete the whole thing is very much a POV decision the referenced and verifiable sources in this case. --Tananka (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• So let us start over again, but this time before editing references must be followed and verified. Then a point may be disagreed with and an edit made to better present the essentially relevant material that is given. Deleting of sections will not do. Come on this is a lot more constructive and enriching. While being much closer to Wikipedia Policy.  :) Let the debate begin....--Tananka (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

None of these allegations and fairy tale numbers belong in the infobox. Putting them in there is just an excuse for POV pushers and nationalists to portray the evil US as the instigator. In fact, I don't think any of these allegations belong in the article at all. Georgian president denied all of them. Some are just so ridiculous: "unknown number of alleged tank crews". About a week ago, all these mercenary allegations ("black soldiers" "Ukrainians in tanks" etc) were removed from the article. And Alex Jones is not a reliable source. And since when do military advisors get listed under the strength section in the infobox? Ostap 05:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"fairy tale", in this conflict they are reliable sources, just like any other reliable source. Each person can decide for themselves on the weight of these claims by reading referenced, and referenced from there to other sources. All boiling down to what is commonly known as reliable sources and published media. The infowars (or Alex Jones) article is just referencing media sources and research by a scholar that investigated mercenaries and explains about contemporary mercenaries. It does not really matter if they were removed from the article before, as they are valid. Just as any other reliable source. Again: it is a personal matter as to what weight is given to referenced material while reading the article. It's like comparing CNN and RIA Novosti. BTW Georgia has hired PR groups that are extreemly active on the internet. So be prepared for vandalism on the web and media in general, company is based in Brussels.--Tananka (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. You write that there were 2500 to 3000 mercenaries. The source given says that this is according to "an unnamed source". You are deliberately misrepresenting the source. We can't post allegations made by unnamed sources as fact. Actually, all of your sources are like this. The source for the Ukrainians in tanks is Eduard Kokoity. yeah, hes really reliable. And yet you portray it as fact. none of this belongs in the infobox. Ostap 05:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't call civil georgia sources rubbish or ridiculous. Please desist. Yes it is an unnamed source, it is from the media that published it. But it is not just any source, is it? We cannot just pick and match incomplete info. Read again, there is more detail on the source in the article. The weight of that media supports it. Please read policy again on reliable sources.--Tananka (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the alleged mercenaries and instructors from infobox to the "Georgian order of battle". Presence of a significant number of foreign mercenaries is not an unquestionable fact (and even not a mainstream theory), thus it should not be in the infobox yet. The section on foreign fighters can be elaborated with Putin statement, foreign passports allegedly found, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Even there were REALLY, srsly, for real, even 60 million mercenaries (or volunteers) from USA, Ukraine, Estonia, Third Reich, and Airstrip One, no countries should be added unless they were sent by the governments. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian 58th Army started moving to Roki Tunnel on 4th August 2008, before Georgian incursion into Ossetia

The following article (from 6 August 2008, before the Georgian incursion on the 8th) states (from a Czech site) states that the Russian 58th Army started moving to Roki Tunnel on 4th August 2008. The reference is:

http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=281&NrSection=1&NrArticle=19821

This reference and text was removed by Taamu (I believe he is an Ossetian/Russian) as he said:

"The reference doesn't say a word about the Russian movement on 04/08"

In fact the article does mention the movement in paragraph 7 (somewhat further down the page). Here is an excerpt from that paragraph: "At the same time, it has been reported that five battalions of Russia's 58th Army are approaching the Roki tunnel [linking South Ossetia with North Ossetia]."

Seems pretty clear cut to me that the removal of this reference for the reason he gives is completely unwarranted. [StaubSauger] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.221.19 (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Who reported??? I can find thousands of articles that say "it is reported..." / "it is believed..." / "they say...". Wikipedia requires reliable sources. P.S. My background shoudln't be taken into account. Taamu (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. At the same time, it has been reported that five battalions of Russia's 58th Army are approaching the Roki tunnel [linking South Ossetia with North Ossetia]. At what time? At 5 o'clock? At night? Taamu (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The source for his reference appears to be the BBC, which is a pretty reliable news source. This should be restored. Right now, the whole article reads like Russian propaganda, which is about as far from Wikipedia's ideals as possible. Warren Dew (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
203.97.221.19 (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Who reported? => Transition Online (Czech), from BBC monitoring. BBC Monitoring is a payment news service so I cannot get the individuals name. The referenced information then stands on the credibility of BBC Monitoring. If you can prove that they are not a credible source then I'll agree to the removal of that text.

My background shouldn't be taken into account. => You are completely correct about that *provided* you are performing unbiased editing. The fact that you summarily deleted the referenced entry without providing a counter-reference to dispute it brings into question your neutrality. If you cannot counter the reported fact with another reference to disprove it then you should not remove it. If you can prove a counter-reference to the one I have provided then I am happy to have the entry removed (my point is, if you do your proper homework then I will consent to removal, regardless of any background or point-of-view).

At what time? At 5 o'clock? At night? => I cannot provide this fact as it not reported in the article. However, the entry on the wiki page says "4 August 2008" without attempting to be more explicit. A more precise timing is not required as no other event is reported on that date. Not being able to provide a down-to-the-second timing does not make the section invalid, and is certainly not a reason for a referenced statement to be summarily deleted. Giving this spurious argument as a reason for deletion raises questions regarding your particular journalistic neutrality - I understand you do not like this referenced fact, but you should not be finding irrelevant reasons for deletion.

Please note all I am trying to do is add a referenced time to a confusing sequence of events. I have *not* stated when the 58th Army entered the Roki Tunnel as that is not known (except by the Russian Army, and they have not responded to European requests for this information, so I will certainly not put this unknown on any page). All we can do is put reported events on the page and let the reader decide what really went on. Censoring referenced information you don't like is against the wikipedia rules.

I recommend you register for an account, use the watch list tools, and start cleaning the article up. Oh, and you might want to use colons (:) to indent your comments so we can follow the flow better. Good luck! Warren Dew (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

invasion of South Ossetia.

the article states that "Ongoing occasional skirmishes escalated to a war early in the morning[not in citation given] of 8 August, 2008, with an attack by Georgia into the break-away region of South Ossetia.[19][20]"

Both citations [19][20]are from America.gov. Bureau of International Information Programs. I doubt the neutrality of this source as it is published by the US government. I would like to contribute other sources which is from Telegraph.co.uk which is a British publication.

the link is as follow,

[7]

another source is from abc.net.au, which is an Australian news source

[8]

Both sources state that Georgia first sent troop into the region of South Ossetia, then Russia responded by sending troops. Russia needed to act as it was a party to Joint Control Commission for Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Resolution as peacekeeper of the region of South Ossetia.

see passage from [9]

"Russia, which had provided support to the separatists and acted as a peacekeeper in the province, responded to Georgia's invasion by pouring troops and tanks south through the Caucasus mountains into South Ossetia to drive back the Georgians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clageo (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The US government source says that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first. I think all sides agree with that much. Menrunningpast (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how either of those sources are more reliable: "Bryza recently returned from Tbilisi, Georgia, where he acted as a U.S. special envoy to help support the Georgian government as it faced Russia’s August 8 military incursion." Unless you dispute that "... Georgia attacked South Ossettia, late August 7" and "Russia responsed militarily to the Georgian offensive the next day" as misrepresentative language, I think the sources establish that recent conflict, August 1-7, escalated to war in the morning of August 8. They directly quote the government's strategic interests in the region (in saying "direct military conflict" began August 8) and explain the points of escalation. Ottre (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong - Georgian side does not.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

Regional expert, German native, and former European Commission official Patrick Worms was recently hired by the Georgian government as a media advisor, and he explained to me exactly what happened when I met him in downtown Tbilisi. You should always be careful with the version of events told by someone on government payroll even when the government is as friendly and democratic as Georgia's. I was lucky, though, that another regional expert, author and academic Thomas Goltz, was present during Worms' briefing to me and signed off on it as completely accurate aside from one tiny quibble.

Goltz has been writing about the Caucasus region for almost 20 years, and he isn't on Georgian government payroll. He earns his living from the University of Montana and from the sales of his books Azerbaijan Diary, Georgia Diary and Chechnya Diary. Goltz experienced these three Caucasus republics at their absolute worst, and he knows the players and the events better than just about anyone. Every journalist in Tbilisi seeks him out as the old hand who knows more than the rest of us put together, and he wanted to hear Patrick Worms' spiel to reporters in part to ensure its accuracy.

(...) - rather long article

"On the evening of the 7th, the Ossetians launch an all-out barrage focused on Georgian villages, not on Georgian positions. Remember, these Georgian villages inside South Ossetia ­ the Georgians have mostly evacuated those villages, and three of them are completely pulverized. That evening, the 7th, the president gets information that a large Russian column is on the move. Later that evening, somebody sees those vehicles emerging from the Roki tunnel [into Georgia from Russia]. Then a little bit later, somebody else sees them. That's three confirmations. It was time to act.

"What they had in the area was peacekeeping stuff, not stuff for fighting a war. They had to stop that column, and they had to stop it for two reasons. It's a pretty steep valley. If they could stop the Russians there, they would be stuck in the tunnel and they couldn't send the rest of their army through. So they did two things. The first thing they did, and it happened at roughly the same time, they tried to get through [South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali, and that's when everybody says Saakashvili started the war. It wasn't about taking Ossetia back, it was about fighting their way through that town to get onto that road to slow the Russian advance. The second thing they did, they dropped a group of paratroopers to destroy a bridge. They got wiped out, but first they managed to destroy the bridge and about 15 Russian vehicles.

"The Georgians will tell you that they estimate that these two actions together slowed the Russian advance by 24 to 48 hours. That is what the world considered to be Misha's game. And you know why the world considers it that? Because here in South Ossetia was the head of the peacekeeping troops. He hasn't been in Iraq, he's a peacekeeper. What have they been told for the last four years? They lived in a failed state, then there was the Rose Revolution ­it wasn't perfect but, damn, now there's electricity, there's jobs, roads have been fixed ­- and what the Georgians have had drummed into them is that Georgia is now a constitutional state, a state of law and order. And everybody here knows that Ossetia is a gangster's smuggler's paradise. The whole world knows it, but here they know it particularly well. The peacekeepers had a military objective, and the first rule of warfare when you're talking to the media is not to reveal to your enemy what you're going to do. So they weren't going to blather into a microphone and say well, actually, I'm trying to go through Tskhinvali in order to stop the Russians. So what did he say instead? I'm here to restore constitutional order in South Ossetia. And that's it. With that, Georgia lost the propaganda war and the world believes Saakashvili started it. And the rest of the story...you know."[10] (<- "someone" apparently hacked and deleted his website, so use google cache if needed)

--84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Mikheil Saakashvili himself wrote:

Russia’s campaign to redraw the map of Europe is based on the propagation of misinformation. On Wednesday on this page, Mr Medvedev asserted that Georgia attacked South Ossetia. In fact, our forces entered the conflict zone after Russia rolled its tanks on to our soil, passing through the Roki tunnel into South Ossetia, Georgia.[11]

--84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

global process

• Pentagon support Taiwan separatism - [12]--U-ser (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a significant piece of news, and was expected, but unrelated to this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is related! See the double-sidedness of the US? They want Georgia's integrity, but not China's. --Mrcatzilla (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia wants Serbia's integrity, but not Georgia's. Round, round, round we go. Menrunningpast (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am agree with Mrcatzilla regarding US hypocrisy. For example, US is "concerned" about Georgia, but they themselves invaded Iraq with false pretext. But this news piece does not belong in this article because it does not mention anything about Georgia crisis, instead it should be mentioned in the article Foreign relations of the United States. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"South Ossetia War"?

Isnt this just a Russian propaganda phrase intended to draw attention away from the wider invasion of Georgia? Ive actually never heard this name used before, even on the BBC. 86.10.0.187 (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Already discussed to death. Search archives. Anything else would be tendencious. See Kosovo War, Gulf War, Bosnian War, etc. Gleb (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming discussion you can participate in [13] Hobartimus (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is Russian propaganda and non-encyclopedic title please see and contribute hereBiophys (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia seeks to merge with Russia

[14][15]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this too:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the region's leader, Eduard Kokoity, discussed the future of South Ossetia earlier this week in Moscow, South Ossetian parliamentary speaker Znaur Gassiyev said.

Russia will absorb South Ossetia "in several years" or earlier, a position was "firmly stated by both leaders," Gassiyev said in Tskhinvali, the provincial capital.[16] Menrunningpast (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the reported sniper fire on August 1 in the timeline?

Censoring this information on the basis that it came from Russians and S.O.'s is misleading. At the very least, publish the information and then publish any relevant denials.

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18871

"According to the Russian command of the peacekeeping forces in the conflict zone, one South Ossetian militiaman was killed by a sniper located in a Georgian police post close to the village of Prisi at about 6:17pm local time on August 1.

The Russian peacekeepers also reported that snipers, starting from about 9pm local time on August 1, killed at least three people in Tskhinvali. The Russian peacekeeping command also reported late on August 1 that Tskhinvali also came under mortar fire from the Georgian villages of Ergneti and Zemo Nikozi, which are close to the breakaway region’s capital." Xchange (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is not censoring. For example, in Russian article we created the special part named "Sniper war" to divide the incidents on 1-7 August and the main part of the war (which began from attack on Tskhinvali). I agree, it is artificial a little bit, but most of users (as tv and press) prefer this version. Mischa G (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• But if you ask my opinion - I agree with you, the war began earlier. Mischa G (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. My main concern is that the article left the impression that the S.O.s arbitrarily started shelling Georgia. I don't know exactly how this fighting started, but that explanation seems highly improbable. I hope that someone can find & post more information on the "sniper war." This seems particularly relevant to confirming or denying Putin's suggestions in the Aug 28 CNN interview.Xchange (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think, nobody knows, who began the "sniper war". From 1992 all these years both sides provoked each other. It is not a conflict between Georgia and Ossetia, but it is a conflict between US and Russia. Maybe Russia began this war, maybe US; it was good for both sides - Russia at least takes Ossetia as a result, McCain takes points on US elections. Mischa G (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Spacing

I cannot get the text of the background section to stop sitting on top of the three blue boxes. Is it just my browser? Can anyone help? Orthorhombic (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Death from above (HRW/UNOSAT)

Georgian villages in North Ossetia:

• In Tamarasheni, UNOSAT’s experts counted a total of 177 buildings destroyed or severely damaged, accounting for almost all of the buildings in the town.
• In Kvemo Achabeti, there are 87 destroyed and 28 severely damaged buildings (115 total).
• In Zemo Achabeti, 56 destroyed and 21 severely damaged buildings (77 total).
• In Kurta, 123 destroyed and 21 severely damaged buildings (144 total).
• In Kekhvi, 109 destroyed and 44 severely damaged buildings (153 total).
• In Kemerti, 58 destroyed and 20 severely damaged buildings (78 total).
• In Dzartsemi, 29 destroyed and 10 severely damaged buildings (39 total).

The Goergian villages around Gori, Gori itself (the city), Upper Kodori, etc NOT counted.

And how much of destruction really in Tskhinvali? Only 98 buildings likely destroyed and 37 likely severely damaged (135 total).

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/28/georgi19712.htm

I'm pretty sure one can use these images, too. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, someone update the articles on these villages (the two who had them), as they were just burned down. (For example, Tamarasheni article has "The museum was severely damaged, on July 23, 1997, in a blast allegedly organized by local Ossetian nationalists." Now it's more like "The entire village was almost totally destroyed, in August 2008, by local Ossetian nationalists Russian and pro-Russian forces.") --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Where have you found the number of destroyed buildings in Tskhinvali? I couldn't locate it there... Alæxis_¿question? 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.hrw.org/features/georgia/satellite/UNOSAT_Damage_Atlas_Tskhinvali_Highres.pdf --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not quite. Two lower maps correspond to Tskhinvali so there are 81+98=179 destroyed buildings and 37+18=55 severely damaged ones. Alæxis_¿question? 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Still several times less than in the neighbouring Georgian villages only - not even counting in and around Gori and elswhere (guess the next report will deal with those). Guess it goes to the "Infrastructure damage" and "Humanitarian impact" sections, as well as the articles about the settlements. Bye. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed the opposite. Btw, then we should not forget Khetagurovo and other Ossetian villages of Tskhinaval and Znaur districts. Alæxis_¿question? 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to prove? Show me the number of homes that were destroyed, the number of facilities such as school, government and medical buildings. The number of people who actually lost their lives, because as far as I've read, the ones looting and burning down houses didn't kill the house owners, let alone in the night while they slept. Fox news might be interested in comparing a destroyed apartment building that housed a hundred people, or a kindergarten that educated thousands of children to a tiny hut that housed two and call that an equal amount of destruction, but as far as this article is concerned, what relevance does such a useless comparison have? LokiiT (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't kill? There are plenty of reports of the paramiliaries killing people randomly (apparently not on the "Balkan scale", though - the reporter witnessed the bodies, btw). Most of civilians in the town were evacuated, most of the men who remained were in militia. Russia claimed the town was "totally destroyed". It wasn't (it was a lie), but actually the Georgian villages were totally destroyed later (while the Russian "peacekeepers" looked on, after bombing and shelling these villages so the Georgian would withdraw AND the militiamen would move in). Btw: Russia also said it is investigating "genocide of 133 Russian citziens" in the town - I wonder why they won't investigate "genocide of thousands Russian citiziens" in Grozny, or let's say, the systematic murder of about 250 people in Samashki, once a huge scandal? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a beautiful quote about what the Russian government think about doing "genocide" on Russian citiziens when there's "firing" going on: "What the Russians did in Samashki is what the Germans did to us throughout the war," the weekly Moscow News said in one of many recent editorials in Russian newspapers condemning the killings. "But Russians did this to their own people. And that is unforgivable. What happened in Samashki during those days has only one definition," the paper concluded. "Genocide." (...) "This is warfare," said Gen. Anatoly S. Kulikov, the commander of Russian forces in Chechnya, at a news conference last week. "They fired at us. We did not fire first. It is true that 120 residents died, but they were people who resisted us and fought us."[17] It was 13 years ago, so I guess all guilty of this "genocide" (like Mr. Kulikov) are already - and still - in Russian prisons, am I right? Or maybe is the right of commiting "genocide" of Russians (and non-Russians) only reserved for Russians, and this is heroic, while it's a crime for anyone else? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, Tskhinvali is a town with apartment buildings so it's probably not fair to compare just the numbers of destroyed houses. Alæxis_¿question? 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Significant (visible from air) damage is practically only on small houses in the town. The both apartemnt building districts - on the east and south - are almost untouched, with one heavily damaged and one destroyed building. (And I remember looking at Grozny through Google Map few years ago, and whole parts of the city were LITERALLY leveled - just rubble or even entirely empty space with outlines of structures. Guess you can see Tskhinvali too.) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ryzhenkova_Solidarnost_3.jpg - School in Tshinvali; this is "undamaged" building for satellite. This is un-leveled building. Магистер (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very slight damage - broken windows, not even any hole in the brick wall (only a fragment of plasterwork fell); there are undamaged walls, doors, even curtains in the window. I'll show you some pictures from Grozny, so you'd compare (apartment blocks, okay? huge concrete structures, hard to smash, so it's not like "a straight shell"): [18] [19] [20] (now, it's a hole!) [21] [22] (quite an impressive "hole", too) [23] [24] [25] (it was a school I believe) [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] - ANYTHING like this in Tshinvali? (And who was found guilty for the Grozny's "genocide of Russian citiziens"?) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia did not have such power. Shevarnadze's slogan "Georgia - for Georgians" is a pure nazism. Магистер (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

About half or so of destroyed buildings are actually in one small section of the town- probably this former Jewish quarter, or maybe the government district. There's also another cluster of destruction in northern-west part of the town and another in the central part, but not so concentrated. If you want, you can zoom at Google and check the every building hit, but for me it's practically all small houses. Btw, several Goergian houses are still burning when the photos are being taken. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we really need a section about the Ethnic cleansing now. Narking (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, did I read that right, that's "Only 98 buildings likely destroyed"??? Since when 98 destroyed buildings is NOT enough for something or SOMEONE? Are you suggesting there should be MORE? Please watch what you are writing.68.151.34.161 (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am rather suggesting that the Russians lied about the complete destruction of the town first, and also later while saying that over 700 buildings were completely destroyed, while only 179 seem to be destroyed according to the UN sattelite imagery experts. (Or maybe they counted the Georgian villages too? I don't think there are "more than 7,000" buildings in Tskhinvali.) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This was not interesting for HWR. Магистер (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"we should not forget Khetagurovo" - great, Russian unconfirmed (after 3 weeks!) /otherwise already forgotten propaganda stories/fairy tales in the Khetagurovo article, while Tamarasheni article has no word about being wiped out. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Most georgian villages around Tskhinval were legal targets: they were empty (population evacuated by georgians themselves before 8.08), and they were used for staging areas and artillery positions. So, one can't compare destruction (as a result of armed forces battling each other) of empty villages to merciless bombardment of the sleeping city! 195.218.210.146 (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Most ossetian houses in Tskhinvali were legal targets: they were empty (population evacuated by ossetians themselves before 8.08), and they were used for staging areas and artillery/machine gun/RPG positions. So, one can't compare destruction (as a result of armed forces battling each other) of empty town to merciless ethnic cleanisng after the ceasefire! Also "Tskhinval" is not a "city" and never was. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The truth is between your opinions, as usual. Mischa G (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just used his own statement to demonstrate something to him. But still, the point is that the rebels and the irregulars didn't cease attacks on noncomabants in North Ossetia and beyond after the ceasefire (and under the watch of the self-declared "peacekeepers", who at the very least did nothing to stop it - if not outright encouraged or even joined them). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The self-declared "peacekeepers", who at the very least did nothing to stop such events, available not only in Ossetia, but, for example, but not only, in Kosovo too (is case of "unfriendly" actions of albanian population against serbian one). So, "vae victis!" is a very, very old principle... (Pubkjre (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

Complete miss. Kosovo - self-declared "Russian peackeepers" (again) got there before NATO(!) and remained there until 2003 or so. NATO forces did not invade Serbia proper after the ceasefire and the Albanian irregulars trailing behind them did not pillage, say, Novi Sad - they also did not invade (or actually even bomb) Montenegro so they would secede from the new Yugoslavia already in 1999, because it was actually "Kosovo War" and nothing else. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The truth is out of both opinions... Most georgian villages around Tskhinval(i) really were legal targets in war time _if_ artillery positions were there. Georgian side must not use those positions until civilians were evacuated, or must not to place such positions in and near those villages. And, by conventions, those villages can not be legal targets after the end of military actions... Also, there are no reliable information about the time when georgian civilians leaved their villages - before the war or during it.

But ossetians had not heavy weapons in Tskhinval(i), so objects in those town could be used against georgians only if georgians came into the town (unlike artillery positions in georgian villages, whose could be used to bombard Tskhinval(i)). If georgians wanted to start combat in Tskhinval(i), the conventional way was to allow ossetian civilians to leave the town. After that, houses in Tskhinvali would be legal targets. BUT. Ossetian civilians were not evacuated from the town! Also it's reported that georgians fires to civilians whose tried to escape from Tskhinval(i). (please note that there are only two roads from Tskhinval(i) to other part of S.Ossetia - one of them go through georgian villages and was blocked long before the events, the other road go around those villages, but it has been reported that it was under fire of georgian artillery) (Pubkjre (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

According to Georgia, the rebels broke the truce by firing not just artillery, but heavy artillery (120 mm pieces that they were not supposed to have there in first place, according to the 1990s truce - but they had) and killing 10 Georgian peacekeepers and civilians in the villages. Ossetians evacuated their civilians, that is children, women and old people (leaving a very large militia, of course, which means masses of male "civilians" ready to take arms and don some kind of uniform at any time, which they did), they also brought volunteers from Russia. In short, they were fully prepared and the "civilians" left were mostly militiamen. The evacuation was not secret, it was totally official: "Women, children and old men remove from several villages of Znaursky area and Tskhinvali. Evacuation has begun on August, 2nd 2008г., informs RIA Novosti news agency." (August 5th, 2008) At the same time, Georgian villages would be never (NEVER) be a "legal targets" for pillage by the Ossetian marauders AKA militiamen, because looting and arson of civilian property is a war crime (as is hostage taking, not to mention murder). The whole point is the Georgian villages were destroyed mostly in the attacks outside combat (and in great part even after the ceasefire). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

-- Utruk (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I would like to highlight following facts.

1. The images available for download from HRW cannot be considered as "high detailed" as declared on HRW site. Google Map provides maps both in higher resolution and image quality.
2. Images provided by UNOSAT in PDF documents have very bad quality (resoultion) and pretty high compression level.
3. Source of analyzis of images is U.S. Departament of State - HIU. U.S. Dept. of Statie is interested party.
4. There are ground photos which prove either low quality or bias of analysis. For example peacekeepers barraks were destroyed, however in the report from UNOSAT they are marked as intact. http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/k/r/krig42/IMG_0248.jpg
5. There are no satellite high resolution images (at least of Google Maps quality) of damages of Tskhinvali available in the public access, therefore entrie satellite analysis is not verifiable.

I suggest to exclude this text "On August 29, Human Rights Watch published a report showing satellite images released by the UN program UNOSAT, said to indicate that widespread torching of ethnic Georgian villages inside South Ossetia has been carried out by Russian and Ossetian militias.[29]" I think this phrase should be removed as it give reader false impression that Tskhinvali wasn't/or barely damaged and the Georgian villages the only side that suffer damage. Material for this report looks biased, unreliable and created by interested party.

"The new satellite images, taken by a commercial satellite on August 19, were analyzed by experts of the Geneva-based UNOSAT program, which is part of the UN Institute for Training and Research and produces satellite-derived mapping in support of UN agencies and the international humanitarian community. UNOSAT experts identified visible structures on the images that were likely to have been either destroyed or severely damaged. The expert analysis indicates clear patterns of destruction that are consistent with the evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch researchers working in the region." --84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is already time to create article Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Ossetia? Biophys (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In Ossetia? It's elsewhere in Goergia too, and it is continuing even as we talk. "The United Nations refugee agency on August 29 said thousands of people living near the administrative border dividing Georgia and its breakaway region of South Ossetia are fleeing towns and villages amid reports of incursions by Ossetian militias."[35] Btw, according to what I know, there is still no ethnic violence directed AGAINST Ossetians (in case if someone 'missed the news' - tens of thousands of Gerogia's Ossetians live outside NO). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of sourced text

The entire "Time line" section and many other segments of text have been deleted by User:Orthorhombic without justification and discussion. Sorry, I have to revert these changes. Please discuss such deletions here.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion. The timeline is very important and should be on the main page rather than on a separate page.Xchange (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is still to long

I suggest removing the section "Military situation in the Black Sea" completely. A small summary of it can be moved to either Humanitarian response to the 2008 South Ossetia war (where some parts are already mentioned) or to the subsection "International reactions".

Rationale: Since NATO is not a belligerent, listing individual nato ships is not needed. In the (hopefully very unlikely) case that NATO enters war with Russia, they could be added back in. --Xeeron (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Some NATO statments started from "where are only 3 ships there" (August, 13-16), then "only 5 ships", now it's true that where are 10 ships. And it's not "humanitarian operation".

If we write something like "a growing number of NATO ships have entered the black sea with the stated purpose of delivering humanitarian aid to Georgia. Russia claims that weapons are delivered." we do not have to keep track of the number and reduce an unneeded subsection to two sentences. --Xeeron (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer to me - are NATO ships standing without weapon when they "have delivered bottled milk"? Coldn't they use radars? Operational range of Tomahawks missiles is 2500-2800 km (depends on modification). So NATO has alredy entered. --195.98.173.10 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Our descendants (if they will alive) should know the name of warship had started The Last War. 2500 km is quite enough to attack Iran from the Black Sea area. It's not another user: my IP is 195.98.173.10 --Niggle (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

ITT: paranoid ravings. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply Romania, Bulgaria & Turkey are NATO members ... the Black Sea doesn't belong to Russia; maybe Russia should invade the Black Sea  :)) Elysander (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Black Sea doesn't belong to USA, Spain, Deutschland, Poland. maybe USA, Spain, Deutschland, Poland should invade the Black Sea  :( How many ships from Romania, Bulgaria have this NATO group? ZERO. How many US Navy? 3+1. +1 is so called 'Polish ship' it was transfered in 2000 from Us Navy to Poland. --Niggle (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"so called 'Polish ship'"? Do you mean it's those black Americans again, only this time dressed-up as Poles? Maybe there the mythical Ukrainian tank crews ready to storm the beaches also hidden there. The ships are only delivering aid through the inner-Georgian and international waters, it's not like the Russian paratroopers in 1999 who suddenly seized an airfield in deep in Kosovo and almost sparked WW3 (there was an order to attack them already issued). Stop being paranoid, and the place for this is in Humanitarian response to the 2008 South Ossetia war anyway. (Which I guess should also include the Russians stopping UN aid to reach Gori area and EU aid to reach North Ossetia.) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this mostly belongs to "humanitarian response", but can also be briefly described here - as a humanitarian response rather than beginning of WW III.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Assured Delivery (the horror!) --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop scoffing please. Nobody wants new war (I hope, you too). Mischa G (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Xeeron, I agree that the names of the ships are redundant. The overall increase in ships is nevertheless considered by Russia to be a (non-humanitarian) reaction by NATO on the war. The presence of the ships has also taken up quite some space in both Western and Russian media. So the section, maybe shortened, but should be kept. Sijo Ripa (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

15 August

Who wrote this date? If you mean the "Medvedev-Sarkozy" agreements, the definitive signing of it was on 16 August. Mischa G (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask the proponent of this date about the same(wherefore 15. Aug. ??? ) - a preceding discussion about the end is to be found here - methinks that the most appropriate date is 12. August as in the Spanish, Chinese and Serbian Wikipedia(in the last 13. Aug), when President Medvedev proclaimed the end of military actions. Is a vote necessary in order to opt more decisevely for the convenient date? Bogorm (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia says "12 August (16 August)" - the most neutral variant, imho. Mischa G (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(to Mischa G) Да, я доверяюсь прежде всего именно ей, но не упомянул, потому что боялся, что инакомыслящие сочтут это за пристрастность, да и убедительнее стало бы, если можно показать им, что не только россияне цепляются за эту (единственно) приемлемую дату. Bogorm (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Да чего боятся, по-моему, даты очевидные (если уж по умолчанию считать войну законченной). Пусть кто-то попробует оспорить ) Mischa G (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Исправьте пожалуйста даты на вариант в русской википедии, снабдив их аналогичными ссылками. Кому не нравится, пусть ищет другие ссылки. Mischa G (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OSCE says Georgia responsible for conflict

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,575396,00.html http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1427854.php/Spiegel_OSCE_observers_fault_Georgians_in_conflict

"Hamburg - European observers have faulted Georgia in this month's Caucasus conflict, saying it made elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday.

In a report to appear in its Monday edition, it said officials of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had said acts by the Georgian government had contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia.

Spiegel said OSCE military observers in the Caucasus had described preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia.

The onslaught had begun before Russian armoured vehicles entered a southbound tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains to South Ossetia.

It said the OSCE report also described suspected war crimes by the Georgians, including the Georgians ordering attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to obtain an original OSCE report. Journalistic speculations are doubtful.--Kober^Talk 18:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

spiegal is the biggest magazine in all of europe, theyre not making it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycashnin (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you see any such report here?--Kober^Talk 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

are you saying that the biggest magazine in europe is making it up or lying? wikipedia doesnt require to use a organisations official website for reporting on its statements. i see you are from georgia, and i understand that you dont like this news, but it is the truth.