Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:06, 13 August 2008

Template:Moveoptions

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abkhazia Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Ossetia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OssetiaWikipedia:WikiProject OssetiaTemplate:WikiProject OssetiaOssetia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (country) Top‑importance This 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) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

A news item involving Russo-Georgian War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 August 2008.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Georgian War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Georgian War at the Reference desk.

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.

What to do and what not to do on this article

Do

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

Don't

• Don't complain about the title. We've been over this and this page is staying at this location for now.
• 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.

And how does this connect to the information here ? As Carl Bildt noted such justifications were used in 1939 and 1938 by Germany.--Molobo (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Volunteers" entered S. Ossetia prior to Georgian Advance

Volunteers arriving in South Ossetia - president's envoy65.68.1.90 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

President of EU member country calls to end talks on treaty with Russia and calls partnership with it a mistake

Estonian president called for end of talks to have a treaty with Russia in regards to cooperation and called idea of partnership with Russia a mistake --Molobo (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That is all very nice and well for the Estonian president, but I cannot help noting that a) they did not a single flick of the wrist to stop the fighting and especially b) the ceasefire accord (in the preparation of which the 4 countries were completely sidelined I think) is apparently the first ceasefire accord in the history of the Ossetian conflict in which a term like "preservation of Georgia's teritorial integrity" does not appear. That, I think, if correct is really notable, because as opposed to those 4 countries being anti-Russian it represents a stark change from how things were in the past.

If correct, it means that the EU's priority was to get a ceasefire even if this meant risking that Georgia will be chopped up eventually. I mean, formally chopped up.

If correct, this also gives an assessment of the state of the Georgian state apparatus. Would they sign what may well turn out to be their countrie's (as they define it) death sentence if they had any other choice?

This is not a good development. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What else is new out of the mouths of one of the Axis of Hatred presidents? Anyway, it's not relevant to the article. --Russavia 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevent as it is consequence of Russian invasion. As to neutrality most sources aren't neutral, they are to be presented in neutral way though.--Molobo (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IT's relevant if the EU decides to cut off ties with Russia as a result of the conflict (note invasion not used) because the esteemed Estonian president feels this way about Russia regardless of any conflict in Ossetia, and has gone on the record in the past on the issue. Frankly, it's a whole lot of mouthing off being done, like a broken record in that regard. It's not relevant to this conflict unless something comes of it. --Russavia 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand. These 4 politicians are making noble statements of commitment, but I am not at all sure whether the EU and the NATO is gonna follow through. The problems Eastern Europe has with Russia are not unjustified, but unfortunately for these 4 countries, they are problems the rest of Europe cannot really understand. That these guys go there and to this in the first place indicates a deep rift going through EU and NATO, and/or that they are willing to force the hand of their allies. Forcing some other guy's hand without need is not a good thing. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record-UK has strongly sided with the opinion of those countries.Likewsie US President praised this mission.--Molobo (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Economical

Pls, update RTS index.--Butter-club (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Published 18 July 2008-Polish newspaper reports "Georgia will be invaded by Russia next month".

Information published on 18th July 2008 that Chechen seperatists revealed they intercepted Russian plan to invade Georgia in August. The attack will be between 20 and 10 September using Kodori and Cchinwal. The plan was made and authorised by Putin. Reports movement of 8,000 soldiers to border with Georgia. --Molobo (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chechen separatists are responsible for Beslan school hostage crisis, Russian aircraft bombing and other terrorism acts. Sure, they are trustable source of information about Russia. -- Anton Gutsunaev (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was responsible for Holocaust yet it revealed Katyn Massacre. The atrocities of one side do not cancel its ability to report on opponents(likewise Soviet Union had Gulags but liberated Auschwitz...of course murdering later some of the inmates like Wladyslaw Pilecki). The fact they reported plans to invade Georgia one month before the actual invasion started is notable. There could have been doubts if they claimed it today, but they claimed it a month before the actual invasion.--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have an idea how frequently or infrequently claims that Russia will invade so-and-so are made by organizations as large as this separatist organization? This could well be true, but another possibility is that they had bad or no intel, yet were right by chance. The prediction is not significant if there is always someone claiming that Russia will invade Georgia next month, so how often are claims of this nature made? Christiangoth (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The prediction is notable. Note that they are now two sourced statements regarding that the invasion was planned. --Molobo (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you find it notable but post hoc ergo propter hoc is not permissible. What to ask: a) how often were such predictions given? b) How often were they wrong?

It's like the guys who for the last 4 years have been predicting the "USrael attack on Iran". If that happens (especially now, I doubt so) they will go screaming "Predicted it! Predicted it!". But they did shit. They simply stated something that has a fair chance of being correct by sheer chance' and not because it is such a good analysis or based on facts or whatnot.

I also advise you to think about the conuter-claims about the planned US attack on S Ossetia, Abkhazia and perhaps Russia herself that, for the sake of maintaining NPOV, our "dear" Russian "readership" will doubtlessly introduce. The national bolsheviks (a scary bunch if there ever was one) have been "predicting" that Georgia will try to retake S Ossetia by force on that-and-that date ever since Georgia lost it, that they get help from the US, Israel... the usual suspects.

That is why I was so outspoken against dubious sources in the "Tskhinvali Destroyed... Or Is It?!" discussion above. Eventually this will lead to overdue emphasis on the opposing lunatic fringe views.

A better point might be the general untrustworthiness of a party at war with Russia themselves. In any case, no, the plan was drawn up in a 2001 computer game, according to Chechen separatist sources.

Anyways: you show me yours I show you mine. (Novosty - currently down again.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict a clash of military forces in the Caucasus. Some guys argue that the "Zionist-Neocon conspiracy" had been planning this since they set up their "stooge Saakashvili" in the first place. I think we both agree what to think of that.

The difference to 1939 is: there were border clashes and mutual provocations between Poland and the Reich, but Poland did NOT auf unserem eigenen Territorium auch mit bereits regulären Soldaten geschossen. The Nazis had to fabricate this. The Gerogia situation is like a guy turning into a one-way road in the wrong direction and colliding with a speeding lorry he knew was coming along and blaming the lorry driver for the accident because he was speeding. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand your German. However your personal theories are interesting the bottom line we have two sourced statements that Russia planed the invasion. If some source disagrees we can add on that. Of course the statments must be presented as view of the source not as truth.--Molobo (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The German - it's Hitlers announcement of the "Polish invasion", literally: but Poland did not "fire on our own territory also with regular forces already" (the orignal is more ungrammatical if anything)

Essentially: open up the argument to Chechnyan rebel sources and you will at the same time, under the guise of NPOV, open it up to such things (<- you might take care not to eat or drink while reading this.) It's easy to anticipate whom readers will believe more: a distinguished Canadian professor or a throatslitting Wahhabi bush-fighter.

And that's the problem: once you allow one conspiracy theory in, it is very hard to keep any of them out. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to hear it being labeled conspiracy theory. Likewise Nazi Germany did terrible things-yet it was right on Katyn Massacre. The report has been widely circulated is notable and now being again confirmed as US officials claim indeed Russia planned this. As explained below all needs to be put in neutral light. That report was published by Chechnya independence movement should be named, that it was circulated in reliable press, and that now US officials claim Russia indeed planned the invasion earlier.--Molobo (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, there's one thing I've got to ask. If the Russians planned it, why was it introduced by an American author (granted, one who has sometimes freaky analytical abilities) in an American video game? Does that sound even a little bit strange to anyone else? Ringlhach (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is crap. That's why I put it up; to show the lowness to which the name-calling is sinking now the shooting is over. Anyways, the reading of history books on the birthing pains of the CIS is strongly encouraged. They have been at each other's throats since 15 years, and they have seriously begun to gear up for something like this for the last 2 years. When was the last time Russian forces were not in the region in numbers and on alert? And when was the last time Saakashvili lowered his defense budget substantially? (Did he ever?)

The Red Storm thing is one of the classics. The "anti-NWO" scene, those guys who believe the world is Hollywood and Fox News rolled in a ball and flattened out to a large disk orbited by the sun love that stuff. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ITN tag

On 12 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) 2008 South Ossetia war, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

To everyone that's done work on the article...here. There's just so many edits to the page its mindboggling. Feel free to copypaste to your talk page. --Spencer 21:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree194.116.199.218 (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Information warfare

A very good source, we could make good use of this Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article: (Information warfare

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin accused foreign media of pro-Georgian bias in their coverage of the ongoing conflict between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia. "We want television screens in the West to be showing not only Russian tanks, and texts saying Russia is at war in South Ossetia and with Georgia, but also to be showing the suffering of the Ossetian people, the murdered elderly people and children, the destroyed towns of South Ossetia, and Tskhinvali. This would be an objective way of presenting the material," Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said. Current Western media coverage of the events in the separatist republic is "a politically motivated version, to put it mildly," he said.

On August 11, 2008, the Russia Today TV channel accused CNN of presenting video footage made by Russia Today in South Ossetia as pictures of bombed Gori.

Cyberattacks and censorship)

Seems one sided and rather Russian bias. I know there are plenty of links to the opposing view.65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of the press in Russia65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV non respected

In the first section nammed "Summary", the sentence : “In the early 2000s, it was reported that 95% of the native population in South Ossetia adopted Russian citizenship.” is sourced with a russian newspaper website and appears to me to be false. At least it must be written : "Russia reported that..." or "Russia claims that...".

Can an administrator protect this article, can you protect it from propaganda (from both side..) ? thanks. MaCRoEco (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also feel that the following paragraph is biased: "On August 8, 2008, Russia sent troops across the Georgian border to South Ossetia to stop Georgia’s massive offensive against its breakaway territory in which some 2,000 civilians (at least 1000 ) and about 20 Russian peacekeepers were killed. In five days of fighting the Russian forces recaptured the regional capital Tskhinvali, pushed back Georgian troops, and largely destroyed Georgia’s military infrastructure in airstrikes deep inside its territory. Georgia retreated from its offensive in South Ossetia, then claimed to be defending itself against "Russian aggression." Russia responded to the charge in the United Nations, saying Georgia had started the war by conducting a military operation against South Ossetia." Popersman (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling reference box

I've seen on other articles references put in a scrolling box to save space. I don't know how to do it but may I suggest doing it here, 313 references and growing is too many to display at once. Terlob (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statement?

"Neither state has been diplomatically recognised by any member of the United Nations."

What about Russia? --Calibas (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no embassies. Ru magister (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia has not formally recognized either South Ossetia or Abkhazia as independent states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.12.114 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

2008 South Ossetia war → ? — I believe that the name of this article should be changed, because the current name-2008 South Ossetia War-implies that combat is restricted to South Ossetia, which is inaccurate, and could be considered misleading. In previous discussions, some have stated that we should wait until after the war is concluded before selecting a new name. I understand the reasoning behind that argument, but I believe a provisional name, at least, should be inserted that is more reflective of the suituation in Georgia. I personally believe the new name should be 2008 War in Georgia, as no side is discriminated against in the title, which has been a concern about the proposed "Russia-Georgia War 2008" new name (South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not listed), and all of the fight is happening within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia. Any other suggestions are welcome, obviously.— 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

Since this discussion does not involve an original suggestion for a name, but instead is a discussion to find a number of suggestions, and then draw a consensus on one, please could you state "support" followed by the new name you would like to see this article have, if you support the article being renamed. Thank you in advance. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose any change of name; we have discussed this repeatedly. Until the rest of the English-speaking world decides what to call this, we should not move it; when they have, we should adopt that name. It's not our business to make up a name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support for 2008 war in Georgia 2008 War in Georgia I agree that it should not be "our business to make up a name". A new title of this article would merely be provisional, until a common name for the conflict is being used by the English-speaking world, which this article can then adopt. For now, I believe we should have a title that is better reflective of what is happening in Georgia, including the fact that the war has extended outside of South Ossetia (Abkhazia is quite a notable conflict zone atm).86.146.241.248 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support for Georgio-Russian War or Russo-Georgian War (what sounds best?) because the overarching topic of this article is the fact that Russia intervened and the following open war between Georgian military and Russian military. It is POV to call Georgia's efforts to recapture South Ossetia a war, hence Georgia's first moves internally in Georgia can't necessarily be called a "war in Georgia". A non-related example: It wouldn't be right to call Nazi Germany's WWII invasion of the Soviet Union "War in the Soviet Union" just because two separatist Soviet provinces sympathised with Hitler. If this proposal doesn't win, I support "2008 War in Georgia" - SSJ ☎ 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Lets wait a little bit to see how historians would name the conflict. Meanwhile I would prefer the current name. It is much more descriptive (we already have 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis) and mostly correct as the main events were related to the SO Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• What is the press calling it? It's not up to Misplaced Pages to name the wars. --Calibas (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Any additional comments:

All this name change rubbish! Let us take some perspective here - we are writing a fairly rapid response as-live report on an ongoing armed conflict. There will be ample time to review such things as the article title through the eyes of history, rather than spending far too long on one issue. Let us look at other Wiki articles, for some context and comparison. It would seem the English Wiki is not alone in choosing this name. I urge you to keep with the article in focus, rather than continous chatter about its title.

German Wiki:Südossetischer Krieg 2008

Estonian Wiki:2008. aasta Lõuna-Osseetia sõda

French Wiki:Guerre d'Ossétie du Sud de 2008

Polish Wiki:II wojna w Osetii Południowej

This is mainly because most of them were translated from another wiki. Colchicum (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

doktorb _words 22:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is circular and maddening. On pl wiki, which is used above to partly justify keeping the article misnamed, I was reverted after implementing someone else's sugestion of konflikt zbrojny w Gruzji 2008 (2008 armed conflict in Georgia) because all the other Wikipedias have it like so, so why don't we? and besides, that my rename was OR. The reverting editor with pretentions to geographic expertise above and beyond that o a mortal Wikipedian :) reverted to a name of his own choosing, quoted above, which IMHO is OR, and while at it, not so expertly belies the historical war between Georgians and South Ossetians (war no. 0?, war no. -1? :)) that happened for two years before WWII, about which we have an article, but the pl Wiki doesn't. Now we have this circular argument. Absurd. Clearly, this is not a declared war, or even a de facto war, between two unified commands. It is a free-for-all, which is happening disjointedly albeit militarily (armed conflict) this year (2008) within the confines of (including the territorial waters' sinking of a Georgian vessel by Russian Navy) of one recognized internationally state (Georgia). Not South Ossetia. What name, I ask you, reflects this fact and the article's content most NPOV? --Mareklug 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the fact that the war is ongoing means that we can't select a title that is more reflective of what is going on in Georgia. The fighting has extended outside of South Ossetia, and I believe the name of the article should reflect that. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings and haven't read all the discussion, but if we have to choose between titles;

• I think we should use the term "war" rather than "armed conflict"
• Write the title capitalised (like "World War II")
• Say "Russo-Georgian" rather than "Russian-Georgian".

~:- SSJ ☎ 23:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on your suggestion about capitalizing "war", I have adjusted my vote. Thank you for stating your idea. 86.146.241.248 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Successionist Government/Republic issue. Why Successionist is POV.

Reffering to the South Ossetians and Abkhazia government as 'Successionists' is pro-Georgian POV and incorrect.

It is not normal to refer to a country as Successionists unless they are fighting their initial war to secede from a larger country. In this instance, this is incorrect, since this is NOT the first conflict that these countries have been involved in. Hence they are not Successionists or a Successionist government.

This is not a POV statement, since on the same principle we should still refer to the USA as the Successionist government of the USA, due to the fact they faught a past war to suceed from Britain. We do not do so, hence it is both POV and incorrect to refer to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Successionist governments. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the fulcrum here is "international recognition".65.68.1.90 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So why not add internationally unrecognised (which is no longer really true) rather than successionist government? Both are equally long and one is factual (or at least it was) rather than blatently POV like successionist. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

However, this does make a rather long title. Republic of South Ossetia (internationally unrecognised). But it is no secret anyway given it clearly says so on it's own page. Also, past references to South Ossetia/Abygazia do not use the term 'seperatist government'. Including the page of the offending entity and the first Ossetian War, when the term 'seperatist' would actually be accurate. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Who recognizes either Abkhazia or South Ossetia as an independent country? Both territories are considered to be territories or provinces inside of Georgia, if not governed by Georgia, but everyone in the international community, even Russia recognizes this. Do they want to be part of Georgia? Of course not, but technically they are, therefore they are secessionist. Kosovo? Also secessionist. (p.s. "succession" isn't the word you're trying to use)

As far as I'm concerned, until they're recognized by somebody (meaning the national government of a third-party nation, or a group of nations i.e. the UN, AU, ASEAN, EU... you get the drift), they're secessionist. I think Taiwan is probably the best example here. As far as I know, the People's Republic of China calls it "China's Taiwan province" (when they bother to mention the island), and the Republic of China was one of the founding members of the UN. We might be able to get clarification here. Ringlhach (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace plan by France or EU?

Even though French polticians brokered the peace plan, they did so in the capacity of EU-representatives if I'm not mistaken. If I'm right, I think that this is insufficiently reflected in the section on the peace plan. --Jeroenm (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

France's government holds the presidency of the European Union and acts as the EU's government. That is the end of the story; french diplomats act on behalf of the European Union, not in national interest. Sarcozy has consulted the European Council (national leaders). Officially, the European Union has brokered the plan, not France which happens to lead the EU at this moment. - SSJ ☎ 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the peace envoy was a joint EU-OSCE mission; France should not get all the credit...

http://www.formin.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=134794&nodeid=15145&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Stubb+voices+optimism+over+Georgia+deal/1135238548262

-Mimu Bunnylin 213.159.245.167 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, folks

You don't need to use this talk page to document every bit of news you find, every opinion you have, and every little change you make to the article. If you have a question, check the archives to see if it's been asked. If you have a proposal, check the archives to see if it's been proposed. Chances are it has been. Yes, it's annoying searching archives... so quit necessitating more of them. If it's not directly related to the article—the article, mind you, not just the subject—then take it to your user talk page. If you have a reliable source, make the change. If someone reverts you, then discuss it. We already have an article; we don't need to make a duplicate version on the talk page by discussing every single edit. Kafziel 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC

Thx. The wrapup I was waiting for.

Have fun guys, it has been a pleasure. Now back to the actual work... butterflies. Ah, butterflies! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath-all the below are proposals that will be sourced, add special meeting with NATO and Ukraine this week arranged by Polish FM

Aftermath section proposal regarding the invasion

Now the the invasion of Georgia is over there is an Aftermath section which would be usefull. All the below can be sourced

We could include consequences of the invasion:

• Peace proposal by EU and its points.
• Call by the EU countries for international force led by EU in Caucasus.
• Ukraine suggesting closing access to Black Sea Fleet and new treaty on its location.
• USA proposing to move ships to Black Sea.
• Proposal to throw Russia out of G8.
• More likelyhood of ABM shield being build suggested by Poland's government.
• Closer cooperation of Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia and Poland in defence against Russian encroachment attempts.
• Calls to end any treaty with Russia by EU and ending of the idea of partnership.
• Boycott of Sochi Games.
• Canceling WTO access for Russia.
• Georgia taking Russia to International Court of Justice after atrocities comitted by Russian invasion force.
• Russia reaffirming it's control over the Caucasus region.
• South Ossetia and Abkhazia even less likely to return to Georgia in foreseeable future etc.
• Special discussion meeting by Ukraine and NATO

--Molobo (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss how to phrase and source this. --Molobo (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Phrase it how you want. Others will change it as necessary.

How to source it can be found at WP:CITE. Nothing to discuss here. Kafziel 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we add in:

• Investigation into claims of genocide committed by the Georgians
• Russia preventing evidence to have Saakashvili indicted for war crimes
• The absolute idiocy of people calling for a boycott of the Sochi Olympics which are how many years away??!?!?!?!??
• Russia stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus as a deterrent to Poland hosting any ABM shield
• Russia re-affirming the treaty with Ukraine on basing the Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol
• If Ukraine pushes, the possibility that sovereignty of Crimea to become a hot topic

There's more, just to balance out the POV a bit. --Russavia 00:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding unhinged Russian ultranationalist rhetoric does not "balance out the POV", it makes the article a joke. Please take this seriously. Ostap 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, such section would be good. But there is a problem. Your list includes a lot of talk and "proposals", but nothing has been decided yet. We are falling in recentism here. A lot of things will be different tomorrow.Biophys (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Any more a joke than talk of Russian atrocities? And notice that I, an Australian of English-heritage (so there to the brainwashed anon below), so there is no Russian ultra-nationalism on my part. I do have a problem with pro-this and that trying to bring in their own point of view into the article, points of view such as above. And my ultranationalist rhetoric whilst my thoughts, are also the thoughts of many strategic analysts. It seems to me that many are just pissed that Russia on this occasion has fought a better campaign; the media campaign; that is undisputable. For perhaps the first time ever the EU is split on issues regarding Russia and its foreign relations and the US has basically become sidelined in the entire process (demanding this and that, and being totally ignored by the Russians). Perhaps people should start reading more in-depth strategic analyst reports rather than media which is simply rehashing propaganda from both sides. --Russavia 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You can easily say the Tactical victory was a Diplomatic loss. To the above Tsarist

• Investigation into claims of genocide committed by the Russians.
• Georgians presenting evidence to have Putin indicted for war crimes.
• What the hell are the Sochi Games, Oh wait I don't care or wish to ever care .
• Russia stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus as a deterrent to Poland hosting any ABM shield. The Russian weapons falls apart a year latter because their made like crap and then economy collapse again after another failed arms race against the West.
• If Ukraine pushes, the possibility that sovereignty of Crimea to become a hot topic, then you get invaded by all your past territories because they all think your malice expansionist bully.

There's more because I am not brain washed by a government control press. I only have to contend with left or right leaning press. IF we see bombs parts with NATO or the USA written on it you better get out your pitch fork and get back to your government controlled farm so you can be safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.64.87 (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The End

Today serious hostilities ended and the ceasefire agreement was signed by both sides. As a result, I put in today's date as the end of the conflict. The result is the ceasefire agreement signed by both sides, which essentially restored the status quo ante bellum. TSO1D (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its way to soon to officially call the war over. Prime minster Putin announced it would not stop until President Mikheil Saakashvili was removed for 'war crimes'. Yet a half hour later the President of the Russian Federation announced it has signed a cease-fire agreement sponsored by the European Union, but immediately bombed the Georgian city of Gori once more until all known incidents of fighting stopped abruptly and the Russian invasion force halted it's advance into Georgia.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat

The problem though is that there is no neutral version, keeping the old version (i.e. "conflict ongoing") is not just a placeholder, it actually suggests that the conflict is still taking place. However at this point virtually all new sources have announced the end of the war based on the ceasefire, and there are no reports of ongoing fighting. Of course the situation may yet change, but at this point I think this is the most accurate representation. TSO1D (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment in "Result"Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly too soon to declare the conflict over. Russia is on soil internationally recognized as Georgian and the last I heard sporadic fighting at least was still occurring. If war is an extension of diplomacy then so too is diplomacy an extension of war, so let us see how the current diplomatic phase of the conflict is played out before declaring it over. I pray that no more blood will be shed, but I am not confident that Russia and Georgia can agree on how to handle South Ossetia and Akhazia. Christiangoth (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Result

I think it is clear to everyone that Moscow accomplished all of its military goals. They retook S. Ossetia from Georgian troops, they suffered comparatively minimal losses and had total domination of airspace. Georgian goals, obviously, have not been met. Their military has suffered an embarrassing defeat. I think the "result" needs to reflect this.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Russians accomplished their "goals" two days ago and I think a lot of people would agree/disagree. However untill the actions of BOTH sides have undergone a UN enquiry we won't know how this'll end up. Georgia could be found guilty of humanitarian crimes and so could Russia and the fallout from that could change the end result. Also there is the little question of the South Ossetian independance or lack there of and Abkhazia too for that matter. Just because bullets aren't flying doesn't mean this is over and it would be irresponsible of us to stop working on this article just because the fighting stopped.Andrew's Concience (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think we should wait until there's some sign things have truly subsided and we know exactly what the result is.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not change "Result" to "Ceasefire, see below for details"? And set internal anchor link from in-text discussion to "below"? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

American soldier captured by Russian Army in Georgia.

http://life.ru/media/images/0808/1089004bdb5d4840f5b325ba767bfd20.jpg

American soldier captured by Russian Army in Georgia.

No captured soldiers in this war. Ru magister (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That picture is completely uninformative. Could have just as easily have been taking in the the state of Georgia as by Russian troops in the country of Georgia. croll (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! But it's quite informative. The white symbol, I know NATO uses them. The shadow of green-olive can also be compared. Structure might be side of truck, the pattern on it might be characteristic.

He does not look like a captured soldier to me.

Even so, unlikely but possible that some US trainer got lost around Gori and was picked up by Russians. But mind you, they are legitmiately there, so without catching one with one with a smoking gun (which won't happen) there is no real point. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia's Interests -- Strategic concerns?

In talking with some friends, someone told me that one of Georgia's primary concerns about S. Ossetia is that it has a militarily strategic position in the mountains separating Georgia from Russian. According to this person, one of the few tunnels through the mountains between Russian and Georgia opens into S. Ossetia. By controlling S. Ossetia, Georgia (or Russian) is able to better control access to that passage. I haven't been able to verify whether this is true or not, but if it is I think it's an interesting strategic interest worth including in the article if it can be documented. croll (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Roki Tunnel. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Atrocity stories

The last paragraph of "Humanitarian impact" subsection "South Ossetia" is a series of atrocity stories of murders by Georgian forces, sourced to the Russian press: civilians gunned down in basements, little old ladies are run over intentionally by tanks, numerous incidents of people herded into buildings and the buildings burned down.If the Georgian press or government spokesmen, or international press have issued any denials, these should be included in the section. War crimes are all too common, but so are false lurid atrocity stories in wartime, and the section seems POV. Edison (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't check this!

I'm currently at work and our websense blocks me from news sites. I was just listening to jjj radio here in Australia. They had a report on "Georgian claims of Russian ethnic cleansing" and I figured this was the same tired old back and forth accusation we've been hearing, but then I heard this interview on there with the Georgian President, and I quote: " We have confirmed reports of the Russians carrying out ethnic cleansing within Georgian territories as well as Russian internment camps outside of the South Ossetian capital, where they have been performing ethnic cleansing and executions". Now I'm not sure if this is propaganda but true or not these Georgian claims are usefull to this article. Please can somone look into this because I'm stuck at work.Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia Files Ethnic Cleansing Case Against Russian Federation at International Court of Justice. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! No mention of "Internment camps" but the bit about the hundreds of thousands of people not allowed to return to their homes is an interesting accusation.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Pitty I'm not allowed to upload the pictures of attacked civilian targets and bombed hospital and university building in Gori.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Can someone explain to me kindly what is picture of Russian Army in Bosnia] doing in this article? Request removal. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline section

The timeline section was massively cut because the article was too long with it all in. However, the section is now far too short, unreferenced, and grammatically incorrect. A compromise between the earlier and current versions is obviously necessary. Superm401 - Talk 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has again become heavily tilted towards Russian POV. It seems while Georgian towns are being bombed (and the bombs are still falling in spite of Sarkozy-mediated ceasfire), some of Misplaced Pages editors try to contribute to the Kremlin propaganda warfare. Back to the hostilities subject, I think the Georgian Foreign Ministry's map of Russian attack can be used to create more or less credible map for Misplaced Pages. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Georgia version of timeline. can be used to balance the article. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry 93.177.151.101 but it sounded like you just implied that we're all pro russia and that the fighting continues. I know I'm not pro Russian but if you have evidence that "bombs are still falling in spite of sarkozy-mediated ceasefire" then by all means provide that evidence otherwise it would seem your words carried absolutely NO merit whatsoever.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I said "some of Misplaced Pages editors", not ALL. For the evidence of continuing violence, please see the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. I'm just back from Gori to Tbilisi and I know what I'm talking about.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This report is dated 12th Aug, today is the 13th. It is curious however that there is no mention of the ceasefire at all. I was winding you up a bit with the "pro russia thing" :). We need this report from an outside source though. As far as the international community are concerned there is a CURRENT ceasefire agreement and the fighting has stopped. If it is as you say then we need a reliable source and please don't be offended when I say that the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, unfortunately is not enough for the purpose of this article. If you truly are in Georgia please stay safe and under no circumstances should you try to personally obtain footage as proof for the purposes of this article, it's not worth the risk. Perhaps it would be prudent to get out of the area.Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

References

When people update the references can they check to see what it comes out as? The references section is a mess! I'm going to try and clean it up a bit, but someone else can do a better job on #12, 13, 48, 88, 89, 143, 144, 145. Lihaas (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

Here is a map showing the movement of Russian troops, the different battles and attacks. It could be added to the article. -- DanteRay (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Abkhazia articles
• Top-importance Abkhazia articles
• WikiProject Abkhazia articles
• B-Class Georgia (country) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (country) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Top-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics