Misplaced Pages

Talk:Russo-Georgian War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:53, 28 August 2022 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive 36) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:34, 26 December 2024 edit undo2600:1011:b17c:f26c:4c0c:7d13:537b:80c9 (talk) →Classification as part of second cold war: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic 
(34 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|class=GA|level=5|topic=History}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long}}
{{British English|date=September 2010}} {{British English|date=September 2010}}
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory

|itndate=12 August 2008
|itn2date=1 October 2009

|action1=WPR |action1=WPR
|action1date=4 March 2010 |action1date=4 March 2010
Line 48: Line 44:
|currentstatus=GA |currentstatus=GA
|topic=Warfare |topic=Warfare
|itn1date=1 October 2009
|itn2date=12 August 2008
|otd1date=2014-08-07|otd1oldid=620211455
|otd2date=2016-08-07|otd2oldid=733210866
|otd3date=2018-08-07|otd3oldid=853860158
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis|date=13 June 2014}} {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis|date=13 June 2014}}
{{WikiProject Abkhazia|class=GA|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Abkhazia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Ossetia|class=GA|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Ossetia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|class=GA|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Georgia (country)|class=GA|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Georgia (country)|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=GA|importance=Top|hist=yes|pol=yes|mil=yes}} {{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|hist=yes|pol=yes|mil=yes}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=GA|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Russian=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}} {{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Russian=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
}} }}
Line 65: Line 66:
|counter = 36 |counter = 36
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Russo-Georgian War/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2014-08-07|oldid1=620211455|date2=2016-08-07|oldid2=733210866|date3=2018-08-07|oldid3=853860158}}
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=15|auto=yes|search=yes|index=/Archive index}}


== Here we go again == == Horribly cited and politically charged ==

Due to the invasion of the Eastern European Nation of Ukraine by Russian Federation (a unilateral act of a UN Nation which received widespread world condemnation in 2022), we did go back to Russia and the Nation of Georgia in 2008. Russia legislature (the Duma) used the same "Russian-backed separatist provinces" as does this wikipedia to claim it did not violate Georgia's sovereign borders, called Georgia's regional governments rebel entities of theirs (large Russian country), and continues to claim that Georgia is not an independent Nation similar to their claims to new US ambassadors that Ukraine is not a separate Nation. Regretfully, we also detoured to Russia and Chechyna, and atrocities at the city of Grozny.
The first section is like edited by Saakashvili himself. Putting blame on the one side of the war, while completely trying to protect the other, citing mostly media sources and articles that have questionable impartiality to say the least.
] (]) 16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)JARacino] (]) 16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I would edit it myself if I knew how, using both credible sources and media sources.

Most notably the section

''"in 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area. Intensifying artillery attacks by the South Ossetian separtists broke a ]. To put an end to these attacks, Georgian army units were sent into the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August and took control of most of ], a separatist stronghold, within hours. Some Russian troops had illicitly crossed the ] through the ] and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the Georgian military response. Russia falsely accused Georgia of committing "]" and "aggression against South Ossetia"."''

The language, amateur level of wording showing horrible bias, the information's one-sidedness, even the questionable events not being treated as such and presented as undisputed facts......


I would heavily edit this very important section with sources such as the EU independent fact-finding mission, UK Parliament report, even US officials, as well as more credible, established political scientist/authors.


Not understanding how someone can say there were "no issues" with including that controversial line from EU report when this talk page shows that is exactly what the issue was all along. Huge multi hundred page report say many contradictory things, privileging one line that Russia likes to hear over hundreds others is very undue. Please let not hide behind this RFC, which apparently was not even formulated correctly and also from what I see did not provide grounds for including this undue single liner from the report. The EU report itself implies focusing on this is undue, in their own words:
{{talkquote|"This Report shows that any explanation of the origins of the conflict cannot focus
solely on the artillery attack on Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August" }}


Despite this from report writers themselves, it seem we keep going in the direction of making that one line about artillery attack a centerpiece, which seem undue.--] (]) 23:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC) I have Masters degree in political science and international affairs from an American (US) university and I find this horrendous. ] (]) 03:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


:I agree that the current version is biased. This issue was discussed extensively, you can read the last RfC ]. You can edit the article yourself per ] or propose changes here at the talk page. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
{{collapse|
::I see. Sorry I'm new here. Came to the page for something else, stumbled on this gem ] (]) 20:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
::Also, to remind everyone, a month ago I say this:
:] Welcome to literally any page involving Russia nowadays ] (]) 03:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
{{talkquote|"Call me supisicous but look like war anniversary is coming up, and there is effort to whitewash established noncontroversial content on this article to make it more Kremlin-friendly, there is no other explanation for cherry picking multi-hundred page report".}}
::Anniversary is here and right on time, down to the minute, one liner from multi hundred page EU report suddenly make appearance again. Surprise. Does not body care about this aside from me?--] (]) 22:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Are you casting aspersions again? ] (]) 22:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
::::please do not taunt me like this, this is not my imagination. EU report itself says focusing on that one line is undue--] (]) 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::I am not taunting you. You can explain why you think something is undue and shouldn't belong in an article, without baselessly calling the edits of other editors as pro-Kremlin whitewashing efforts planned in time for an anniversary. ] (]) 22:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::Also please follow the talk page guidelines on editing your own comments (]) after someone has replied to them. ] (]) 22:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I apologize if I once again offend someone, but is not timing noteworthy? I just couldn't help observe how it came like prophecy. I should not even be talking here any more, it is becoming too much...too stressful--] (]) 22:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Such timing is not evidence of planned off-wiki coordinated efforts or whatever. Just take it easy and avoid making such comments, thanks. ] (]) 22:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)}}


== This is a joke ==
: To address concerns about cherrypicking things from the report I'm using quotes from the Telegraph and not the report itself. All the concerns were from you and other users saw no problems with it, apart from using volume 1 instead of volume 2. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
: Now the article mentions both South Ossetian shelling and the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali when discussing how the conflict started. Mentioning only the former would fail ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
::1.) So if newspapers make a sensationalist claim, base on single line in a very long report, that gives us the right to privilege that secondhand information over the original report, which itself warns not to focus too much on that single line? When original source itself warns not to focus on that one line, it is ok for secondary source to make big deal about it and for us to make it a centerpiece? I see how you are trying circumvent this issue based on technicality (that you are not citing the original report itself, you just citing someone who cited it), but this is just technicality, does not change substance of my concern that this is undue.
::2.) Others not commenting on merits of this specific line, partly because some did not seem to understand what you were asking, is not same as "saw no problems" with it. Also I'm bit offended how you say "all concern were from you", as if that make valid claim invalid because they were "just" from unimportant person like me.
::3.) Adding this one line is not essential to explain how the conflict started, so don't imply that. Text already make clear Georgia launch offensive after shelling and then Russia responded. If that aspect was omitted entirely then that would be one sided but it isn't, it is explain sufficiently.--] (]) 09:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
::: Re 1, if the Telegraph is making a sensationalist claim, then RFE/RL saying that the Osstian forces broke the ceasefire is also a sensationalist claim. You can't say it just about the statements you don't like. It's not undue, it's prominent in the report itself and has been covered by reliable sources.
::: Re 2. and 3. feel free to initiate an RfC with a better-worded question. ]<sub>]</sub> 10:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
::::1) The notion that you can substitute the actual EU report with a newspaper article (especially with the aim of deflecting responsibility for cherry picking) is entirely new and does not seem to been covered in RfC at all, where the only feedback talks about the EU report itself. You are introducing a very novel approach which was not covered in RfC and honestly seem like a trick to me, a technicality
::::2) RFE/RL is not a fair comparison because that article does not stand on its own and is supported by a non-media source from a research organization. Also it concerns something entirely different and is not same as cherry picking one line out of a hundred page primary source. As stated above EU report not explicitly mentioning break of ceasefire by SO is not same as refuting claims by others who think so, another reason why this comparison does not make sense. Not only all of this was not questioned during RfC when there was opportunity but in fact one of the responses you got was this: "...at any rate, the preponderance of historical evidence would make me trust a Georgian claim over a Russian one", and recent edits are definitely not in spirit of that.
::::3)The way introduction appeared before this summer was a very stable version that seemed to be like this for many months as far as I can tell. So why should I initiate RfC when you are the one who want to change established status quo and introduce this new controversial information that has been controversial all along judging by past history of this page. --] (]) 12:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
::::: None of the sources being discussed is Russian (or Georgian for that matter). The attack on Tskhinvali is the first thing that is said in the report about the course of the war (volume 1, p. 10 The Conflict in Georgia in August 2008). It has been cited by multiple reliable sources like , and in addition to the Telegraph article. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::of courrse it was cited because that one line made the biggest splash but we also consider original report and its context, including the disclaimer authors felt the need to make (probably as attempt at moderating overreaction). But none of this addressed my issue with your unusual approach, which is to cite somebody else's citation as a way of deflecting responsibility of cherry picking. This was outside scope of RfC and not discussed at all and again is a technicality that does not improve anything.--] (]) 13:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::: This is a legitimate way to gauge notability, considering that it's a relatively long document. If something is said in the beginning of the report AND cited by multiple reliable sources chances are it's notable. ]<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::you need to cease adding this controversial content before discussion is concluded. whether one newspaper cherry pick that single line or several is not important, what is relevant is that its cherry picking of a single line from a long report and ''you admitted'' you want to deflect responsibility for cherry picking by not citing the report directly. And to say one more time, at no point did your RfC ask if including this one line like this was due or undue, so please we need to stop using recent RfC as cover for these changes. Other changes you made were ok, but this one line completely not covered in RfC, which by the way you were told was formulated very poor and confusing way.--] (]) 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: Okay, let's have another RfC. Re cherrypicking, I think you misunderstand how it works. I did not deflect any responsibility and did not admit to it. My point is that I'm '''not''' cherrypicking as other reliable sources also find this part of the report noteworthy. ] says "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." In this case the view that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali is the beginning of the large-scale hostilities is well represented in reliable sources and therefore should be included, ''alongside'' the claims of South Ossetian breaking the ceasefire before that. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you not content with current version, which includes most of your additions. For example, look at this sentence "Other sources say that there was no armed attack by Russia before the ''Georgian invasion'' and that the Georgian claims of large-scale presence of Russian troops in South Ossetia could not be substantiated." The fact that it uses "Georgian invasion" is very strong wording and makes clear different viewpoint, I think you should leave at that because inserting anything more is simply tilting things too much in way that is undue. Considering report itself says that "any explanation of the origins of the conflict cannot focus solely on the artillery attack on Tskhinvali", showcasing that as definitive proof of when "open hostilities" began is questionable and undue. Current version based on your addition seem the most reasonable and sustainable. --] (]) 09:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
: I think that the NPOV description of the lead-up to the war should mention all the events: 2004 clashes in SO, re-militarisation of the Kodori Gorge by Georgia in 2006 (a violation of the Moscow ceasefire agreement!), shelling of Georgian villages by SO heavy artillery in the beginning of August 2008 and the attack on Tskhinvali. It doesn't mean that all of these are of equal importance and should be mentioned in the lede, but now the shelling by SO forces in the beginning of August has undue weight. Adding a statement that large-scale hostilities started with the attack on Tskhinvali would make it more balanced. Actually some of the sources use a much stronger language like "Georgia 'triggered' war with Russia, EU investigation finds." ]<sub>]</sub> 10:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


Ridiculous, state sponsored propaganda is rife on this site
== Prelude Section - Image Legend ==
America's butcher in Georgia and Odessa started this conflict, but who cares about facts on a site that can be commandeered by agents of American foreign policy


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-georgia-russia-report-idUSTRE58T4MO20090930 ] (]) 22:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
In the Prelude section, April-July 2008, there is an image for "Situation in Georgia before the war." The legend for the image could be improved:
a. the green area of the map does not have a legend description,
b. the grey legend item does not appear in the map,
c. the word "zone" in the legend does not fit within the border of the image,
d. the conflict areas circled by thin blue lines, are poorly contrasted with the river blue lines and the sea edge blue lines.
] (]) 13:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


:I don't think linking to the "Tagliavini Report" says as much as you want it to. It specifically notes the shelling Georgian towns of Russian backed separatists as early as August 1st (and other incidents). Saying Georgia started the war is a stretch, or at least a very poor representation of what actually happened.
: the legend is fine, except a) the green is missing. That might be added to the description as being controlled by breakaways. b) What you call "grey" is not grey. It is simply the blue line. The area in the map within the blue line (RWZ zone) covers the area of three background colours as it overlaps these. That entire area is (was) the RWZ zone. c) I can check into that if that can be improved. d) I think this is an externally sourced image, but I see it is in SVG vector file. Maybe I can change the blue line, but I suspect it is still a flat image. (Can't judge from phone) ] (]) 18:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
:There's even a Wiki page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-Georgian_War. Check out the section for the UN report you linked.
:: @ ], as you explicitly demand in the wikimedia file no one is allowed to edit your upload, please be reminded about this request / feedback, and please respond appropriately.... Thanks! (first time I see this kind of construction, but alas, I guess open source is not that open source anymore..) --] (]) 13:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
:> "... no way to assign overall responsibility for the conflict to one side alone."
:Also, I'm not sure how much we should trust your objectivity if you're using language like "America's butcher", not even in quotes like it's some well known label. ] (]) 07:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::I am sure that he believes that Russia invaded Ukraine for denazification. ] (]) 08:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


== Blatant lies in the article and distortion of facts. ==


In particular, the article contains the assertion that the act of aggression came from the Russian side. And cited as sources
only links to articles in biased media, and not a single INDEPENDENT source. In the meantime, as in the very first days of the conflict, an independent commission was created, which unequivocally recognized the guilt of Georgia: the military used cluster munitions to bomb civilians in Tskhinval. Links:
http://www.weaponslaw.org/cases/ceu-iiffmcg-report-2009
https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/IIFFMCG_Volume_I2.pdf
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (September 2009). — Volume I. Архивная копия от 5 марта 2016 на Wayback Machine — The Conflict in Georgia in August 2008. — P. 11. — «The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia, yet it was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents.»


I agree. A very one-sided article. Mr Saakashvili was a bit of a hot-head who became overly-emboldened and the Bush people couldn't keep him in check. Hence the 'war'. It's disappointing that we can no longer have some objectivity on these matters. More recent events in the Ukraine have likely made it that way. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
In addition, Russian peacekeeping forces were stationed on the territory of South Ossetia. They were there with the PERMISSION OF BOTH PARTIES (Georgia and South Ossetia) in order to stop and prevent bloodshed. The locations of these units were also subjected to shelling from Georgia. To which Russia was obliged to respond, which was done.
Blatant lies in the article and distortion of facts. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Two sentences not supported by the source. Cannot edit to correct for some reason. ==


The following sentences: " Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Yuri Baluyevsky said on 11 April that Russia would carry out "steps of a different nature" in addition to military action to block NATO membership of former Soviet republics. General Baluyevsky admitted in 2012 that after President Putin had decided to attack Georgia prior to the May 2008 inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as president of Russia, a military action was planned and explicit orders were issued in advance before August 2008. Russia aimed to stop Georgia's accession to NATO and also to bring about a "regime change"."
== “Comrade Georgians, learn military science in a real way. We'll come and check it out!" ==


Are not supported by the provided reference. A search for the name Yuri does not show any reference to this Russian officer. The name "Baluyevsky" does not appear in the source material at all. This is clearly a fabrication.] (]) 05:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
:Further to this, he was not even the Chief of Staff at the dates mentioned, according to a quick check of the Wiki article about him. You'd assume Misplaced Pages would at least get that fact correct, but I did not check if that was also based on a fabricated source.] (]) 05:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you're saying that they are not supported by sources. Two sources are provided: Reuters article and Van Herpen's book. I've added a clarification to the article that Baluyevski no longer was the chief of staff in 2008. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Now that I dug deeper into it and found some inconsistencies. I'll try to demonstrate them as succinctly as possible. The article says
{{cquote|General Baluyevsky said in 2012 that after President Putin had decided to attack Georgia prior to the May 2008 inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as president of Russia, a military action was planned and explicit orders were issued in advance before August 2008. Russia aimed to stop Georgia's accession to NATO and also to bring about a "regime change".}}
The is referenced to Van Herpen's book ''Putin's wars : the rise of Russia's new imperialism'', pp. 233-235. Indeed he says {{tquote|According to ... Baluevsky ... "a decision to invade Georgia was made by Putin before... May 2008"}}. He doesn't mention NATO or regime change though. Van Herpen references the Russian/South Ossetian film ''8 August 2008. The Lost Day'' in which Baluevsky supposedly made these statements (this is supposed to be a direct quote). The problem is that he never says these words. The closest thing he does say (at 14:34) is {{tquote|The decision was taken earlier by Putin regarding the possible actions of the Russian Armed Forces, to give the order to respond after the first shell or bomb falls (Решение было принято на возможные действия российских ВС ещё ВВП, с первым падением снаряда, бомбы, давать команду на применение ответных действий)}} (he's a bit rambling). So the plans Baluevsky describes are about the response to a Georgian attack. This makes a lot of sense given that this was the official Russian position from the very beginning and the film is a pre-election pro-Putin propaganda. In the film the narrator says it himself at 7:30.


Of course the video itself is a primary source and Van Herpen is an expert who is entitled to interpret it the way he sees fit. However we have other sources which noted that Baluevsky was talking about the plans how to respond to a Georgian attack: {{tq|The documentary ... lauds ... Vladimir Putin as playing a decisive role in preparing a plan to repel Georgia and then ordering its execution}} , , .
RUS Знаменитая надпись - «Товарищи грузины, учитесь военному делу настоящим образом. Приедем - проверим!» 71 гвардейский мотострелковый полк


Obviously this doesn't *prove* that only the response was planned. I'll try to update the article following WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
ENG (Google tranlate) The famous inscription - “Comrade Georgians, learn military science in a real way. We'll come and check it out!" 71st Guards Motor Rifle Regiment


== "...The first European war of the 21st century." ==
https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B8+%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B+%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8C+%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%83+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%83&lr=29420


The last line of the opening paragraph is; "It is regarded as the first European war of the 21st century." But what about the ]? Any thoughts on that? ] (]) 04:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?q=jdfhbob+uhepbys+exbntcm+djttyjve+ltke&source=hp&ei=B3gKY-HbM7-FwPAPqr2gqAo&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYwqGF4k3qXFxnnRg6X1gTGajKnoJkHCv&ved=0ahUKEwih-5bw5-f5AhW_AhAIHaoeCKUQ4dUDCAc&uact=5&oq=jdfhbob+uhepbys+exbntcm+djttyjve+ltke&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgAEA0yBAgAEA0yBggAEB4QFjoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBENEDOgUIABCABDoLCAAQgAQQChABECo6CQguEIAEEAoQAToJCAAQgAQQChABOgUILhCABDoHCAAQgAQQCjoGCC4QChAqOgcILhDUAhAKOgQILhAKOgoILhDHARDRAxAKOgoILhCABBDUAhAKOgYIABAeEAo6CAgAEB4QBRAKOgQILhANOgYIABAeEA06CAgAEB4QDRAFOgwIABAeEA8QDRAFEAo6CAgAEB4QCBANOgcIIRCgARAKUABYwE5gi1FoAHAAeAGAAeoIiAHySZIBDzAuMTEuMTkuNC42LTEuMZgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz


== Classification as part of second cold war ==
Please add to the text of the article.


--] (]) 20:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC) This conflict should be considered as a proxy in the second cold war ] (]) 20:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:34, 26 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Georgian War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good articleRusso-Georgian War has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 4, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
May 20, 2014WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
November 21, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
December 4, 2014Good article nomineeListed
February 28, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 26, 2015Good article nomineeListed
September 13, 2016Good article reassessmentKept
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 1, 2009, and August 12, 2008.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 7, 2014, August 7, 2016, and August 7, 2018.
Current status: Good article
This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 13 June 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconAbkhazia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbkhaziaWikipedia:WikiProject AbkhaziaTemplate:WikiProject AbkhaziaAbkhazia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconOssetia (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia
WikiProject iconLimited recognition Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGeorgia (country) Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country)
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Military / Politics and law Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force

Horribly cited and politically charged

The first section is like edited by Saakashvili himself. Putting blame on the one side of the war, while completely trying to protect the other, citing mostly media sources and articles that have questionable impartiality to say the least.

I would edit it myself if I knew how, using both credible sources and media sources.

Most notably the section

"in 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area. Intensifying artillery attacks by the South Ossetian separtists broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement. To put an end to these attacks, Georgian army units were sent into the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August and took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, within hours. Some Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Georgia–Russia border through the Roki Tunnel and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the Georgian military response. Russia falsely accused Georgia of committing "genocide" and "aggression against South Ossetia"."

The language, amateur level of wording showing horrible bias, the information's one-sidedness, even the questionable events not being treated as such and presented as undisputed facts......


I would heavily edit this very important section with sources such as the EU independent fact-finding mission, UK Parliament report, even US officials, as well as more credible, established political scientist/authors.


I have Masters degree in political science and international affairs from an American (US) university and I find this horrendous. Ghar93 (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is biased. This issue was discussed extensively, you can read the last RfC here. You can edit the article yourself per WP:BOLD or propose changes here at the talk page. Alaexis¿question? 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I see. Sorry I'm new here. Came to the page for something else, stumbled on this gem 141.136.89.95 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ghar93 Welcome to literally any page involving Russia nowadays 89.113.102.17 (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a joke

Ridiculous, state sponsored propaganda is rife on this site America's butcher in Georgia and Odessa started this conflict, but who cares about facts on a site that can be commandeered by agents of American foreign policy

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-georgia-russia-report-idUSTRE58T4MO20090930 2A02:C7F:5D32:DE00:586D:615E:AE69:E210 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think linking to the "Tagliavini Report" says as much as you want it to. It specifically notes the shelling Georgian towns of Russian backed separatists as early as August 1st (and other incidents). Saying Georgia started the war is a stretch, or at least a very poor representation of what actually happened.
There's even a Wiki page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-Georgian_War. Check out the section for the UN report you linked.
> "... no way to assign overall responsibility for the conflict to one side alone."
Also, I'm not sure how much we should trust your objectivity if you're using language like "America's butcher", not even in quotes like it's some well known label. 220.245.142.188 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I am sure that he believes that Russia invaded Ukraine for denazification. 213.200.15.17 (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


I agree. A very one-sided article. Mr Saakashvili was a bit of a hot-head who became overly-emboldened and the Bush people couldn't keep him in check. Hence the 'war'. It's disappointing that we can no longer have some objectivity on these matters. More recent events in the Ukraine have likely made it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:503:5F01:98FE:F8F0:EF2E:1831 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Two sentences not supported by the source. Cannot edit to correct for some reason.

The following sentences: " Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Yuri Baluyevsky said on 11 April that Russia would carry out "steps of a different nature" in addition to military action to block NATO membership of former Soviet republics. General Baluyevsky admitted in 2012 that after President Putin had decided to attack Georgia prior to the May 2008 inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as president of Russia, a military action was planned and explicit orders were issued in advance before August 2008. Russia aimed to stop Georgia's accession to NATO and also to bring about a "regime change"."

Are not supported by the provided reference. A search for the name Yuri does not show any reference to this Russian officer. The name "Baluyevsky" does not appear in the source material at all. This is clearly a fabrication.122.150.92.52 (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Further to this, he was not even the Chief of Staff at the dates mentioned, according to a quick check of the Wiki article about him. You'd assume Misplaced Pages would at least get that fact correct, but I did not check if that was also based on a fabricated source.122.150.92.52 (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're saying that they are not supported by sources. Two sources are provided: Reuters article and Van Herpen's book. I've added a clarification to the article that Baluyevski no longer was the chief of staff in 2008. Alaexis¿question? 09:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that I dug deeper into it and found some inconsistencies. I'll try to demonstrate them as succinctly as possible. The article says

“ General Baluyevsky said in 2012 that after President Putin had decided to attack Georgia prior to the May 2008 inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as president of Russia, a military action was planned and explicit orders were issued in advance before August 2008. Russia aimed to stop Georgia's accession to NATO and also to bring about a "regime change". ”

The is referenced to Van Herpen's book Putin's wars : the rise of Russia's new imperialism, pp. 233-235. Indeed he says According to ... Baluevsky ... "a decision to invade Georgia was made by Putin before... May 2008". He doesn't mention NATO or regime change though. Van Herpen references the Russian/South Ossetian film 8 August 2008. The Lost Day in which Baluevsky supposedly made these statements (this is supposed to be a direct quote). The problem is that he never says these words. The closest thing he does say (at 14:34) is The decision was taken earlier by Putin regarding the possible actions of the Russian Armed Forces, to give the order to respond after the first shell or bomb falls (Решение было принято на возможные действия российских ВС ещё ВВП, с первым падением снаряда, бомбы, давать команду на применение ответных действий) (he's a bit rambling). So the plans Baluevsky describes are about the response to a Georgian attack. This makes a lot of sense given that this was the official Russian position from the very beginning and the film is a pre-election pro-Putin propaganda. In the film the narrator says it himself at 7:30.

Of course the video itself is a primary source and Van Herpen is an expert who is entitled to interpret it the way he sees fit. However we have other sources which noted that Baluevsky was talking about the plans how to respond to a Georgian attack: The documentary ... lauds ... Vladimir Putin as playing a decisive role in preparing a plan to repel Georgia and then ordering its execution Harvard Kennedy School, Lenta.ru (pre-2014), Geopolitika.lt.

Obviously this doesn't *prove* that only the response was planned. I'll try to update the article following WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Alaexis¿question? 12:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"...The first European war of the 21st century."

The last line of the opening paragraph is; "It is regarded as the first European war of the 21st century." But what about the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia? Any thoughts on that? Bajaria (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Classification as part of second cold war

This conflict should be considered as a proxy in the second cold war 2600:1011:B17C:F26C:4C0C:7D13:537B:80C9 (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: