Talk:Caucasus 2009

Russia: History / Military / Politics and law Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

To Taamu

"Georgia launched a military operation not only against separatists..." True, the Russian special force unit masked as N. Ossetian "volunteers" and introduced in the city was also destroyed on Aug. 7-8, but they still fought on the separatist side. So, what's the problem? --Kober^Talk 14:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you call the Georgian aggression "a war against separatists". So, you say that those who were killed in SO (children, women, old men) are separatists. Right? That's a POV. Taamu (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you sure that Georgia launched a military operation against "children, women, old men"? Civilians died because the separatists military installations were in the immediate neighborhood of the densly-populated living quarter of Tskhinvali. --Kober^Talk 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've said it yourself, how can it be a war against separatists when children, women, old men were dying? It was a war against those who didn't support Georgian government. Taamu (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV, apparently shaped under the influence of Putinite black legends about 2,000 killed in an hour, burned-alive-in-church pregnant Ossetian women and eaten babies. Unfortunately a great number of civilians died, but that does not mean that Georgia declared war on civilians or Ossetians in general. Othewise, we would have observed ethnically cleansed Ossetians in Tbilisi, Pankisi, Kakheti and Imereti where they continue peaceful cohabitation with Georgians. On the other hand, Georgians were completely and ruthlessly ethnically cleansed under the Russian military control of the South Ossetian territory. If you claim that civilian casualties in Tskhinvali was a result Georgia's intention to destroy those "who didn't support Georgian government", then the bulldozered Georgian settlements and targeted civilian areas in Gori were not part of the Russian "military response", but a war against Georgians and those "who didn't support Russian government" and this also should be reflected in the 2008 war-related articles.--Kober^Talk 15:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, the question is not about the Ossetians who live in Tbilisi and the Russian "military response", I don't want to discuss Ossetian safe and happy life in Imereti or in Mtskheta-Mtianeti. The question is about people who live in SO, that's 2 different things. I'm trying to say that Georgia launched a military operation against the Russian-backed separatists in South Ossetia is POV. Taamu (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say, but you have failed to provide a solid basis for your rationale. Georgia launched an operation against the separatists. Civilians do die in any confrontations of this scale.--Kober^Talk 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more proper to say that Georgia "launched an attack against the Republic of South Ossetia", not just "against separatists." Everyone who starts a war will claim that they are only attacking the bad guys, not the good ones. Note that we don't write On December 7, 1941, the Japanese army launched an attack against the American imperialists in Hawaii either. Instead, we simply write: On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked the USA. We should do the same here. Offliner (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a relevant comparison. Japan and the US were two sovereign nations with mutual recognition. In the SO case the fighting was between the central gov't and a rebel region supported from outside.--Kober^Talk 10:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition has nothing to do with this. South Ossetia was a separate, de facto independent political entity. We should use the simplest possible expression. Offliner (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so. South Ossetia was also a provisional administrative entity under full de facto and de jure Georgian control.--Kober^Talk 10:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. I haven't seen a single source using the expression "Georgia attacked separatists in South Ossetia." Almost all sources simply say "Georgia attacked South Ossetia." That is what we should use here as well. Besides, "Georgia attacked the separatists in South Ossetia" is simply incorrect. They used Grad missile launchers - an extremely indiscriminate weapon. Many civilians died in the attack. Thus, Georgia attacked them as well, not just "separatists." Offliner (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very weak argument. Do you really need sources for the fact that Georgian army moved into the separatist-controlled parts of South Ossetia, not, say, against Tamarasheni and Nikozi? Here's "a single source" for you: "This past Thursday and Friday, Georgia attacked the separatist capital Tskhinvali with artillery to suppress fire."[1]. Another one: "Georgia attacked the rebel region of South Ossetia".[2]. See no need in further searching throught the net.--Kober^Talk 11:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which straw man are you argumenting against? You inserted: "against the Russian-backed separatists in South Ossetia" - I said this is not good. "Georgia attacked the rebel region of South Ossetia" is OK to me. Offliner (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caucasus 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707031303/http://world.globaltimes.cn/europe/2009-06/440969.html to http://world.globaltimes.cn/europe/2009-06/440969.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]