Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BalkanWalker (talk | contribs) at 09:58, 27 August 2008 (→South Ossetia & Abkhazia = Kosovo???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia at the Reference desk.

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

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. Abkhazia High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (country) High‑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) High This article has been rated as High-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 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 August 2008.

Recognition

Do I need to provide a reference for the fact that SO and Abkhazia recognise one another if it's clear that they do. Taamu (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair assumption that they do recognise each other, but it's not a guaranteed certainty. Yes, a reference should be provided for this, and for all other facts on the page.

If the Kosovo situation is anything to go by, this is going to become a contentious article. Best to be above board and declare everything, however seemingly obvious. Bazonka (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone has fixed it. Taamu (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Role of Austria

Austrias statement yesterday was that it does not accept Abchasia and S. Ossetia as independent states. So Austria is not shown as a "red state" in the picture. Furthermore this is brisant, because Austria was one of the first states which said that the Cosovo should be independent of Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.128.9 (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR

Someone keeps adding Nagorno-Karabakh to the unrecognized entities which recognize the "independence" of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. However, the cited source does not support this claim.--Kober 14:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Individual reactions

Would not be it reasonable to add individual reactions of prominent politicians or other celebrities to the event? For example, the popular Russian politician and the State Duma Vice-Speaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky contemplates "how these republics should be used" by Russia, while Chechen human rights activists consider Medvedev's move a step forward to the independence of Chechnya. --Kober 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Mr.Zhirinovsky has an influence to the foreign affairs of Russia. For example, he often says that Northern Kazakhstan should be the Russian territory, but nevertheless, Russia never claimed this territory.Nilenbert (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

New title

International recognition to Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence

What's that supposed to mean? --Kober 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably it was intended to be a paralel of International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence but there the word is reaction, not recognition. In any case, the title will have to be polished. But for the time being, leave it like that. --Tone 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a really misleading title. Both territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are currently occupied by Russian military forces. That is how they "independent". This should be "International reaction..." or "Russian recognition".Biophys (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts: "International reaction to..." mirrors the Kosovo article, and as such gets my vote. "Russian recognition of..." has too narrow a scope. "International recognition to..." is poor grammar, and so should not be used. "International recognition of..." is OK. Bazonka (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There clearly is no international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence. Quite to the contrary, every nation besides Russia and Belarus has promised to not recognize Abhakazia and South Ossetia independence. Until and unless there is significant recognition, this article should be renamed "International reaction to..." DOSGuy (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Does not Nagorno-Karabakh also recognise Abkhazia/South Ossetia as independant, according to the List of unrecognized countries article? Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Hall (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The specific reference in that article does not say so. Find a better reference... --Tone 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus

The Belarusian officials have not yet made any official statement. The oponion of individual members of parliament cannot be classified under States that have declared intent to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--Kober 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus has non-partisan parliament so yes it can be.--Avala (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "non-partisan parliament"? --Kober 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It means that none of the MPs are representing any political party. Most of the elected members in the upper house come from civil society organizations, labour collectives and public associations in their jurisdiction. And in the lower house 98/110 are independent. --Avala (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless how the composition of the Belarussian parliament is determined, the opinions of several MP do not justify putting Belarus into the section "States that have declared intent to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia". Gugganij (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarus hasn't declared its position so far. Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refrains from commenting upon this issue despite Russian ambassador's insistent demands. You shouldn't be misled by individual opinions of MPs who have very little influence in Belarus. DannieVG (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section as a couple of MPs does not equal declaration of intent stated clearly by either President or Foreign Affairs of Belarus that indepedence will be recognised. It is quite possible that Belarus could, but until such time as official intent is declared; not the opinion of some MPs, the section should stay removed. --Russavia 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked both the websites of the Belarusian President and MFA, no statement yet from either. While not part of this topic, Japan hasn't explicitly said no about recognition, but they support the territorial boundaries of Georgia before the conflict began. User:Zscout370 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

British English

I suggest that we use British English in this article because Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Russia (the main parties involved) are all European, and British English is the English used in Europe, therefore makes sense to use British English. Agree? Ijanderson (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, they're sort of European, sort of Asian. But anyway, I agree that British English is most appropriate - it's certainly more of a European than American situation. Bazonka (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. More people speak American English. More WP users come from North America. Also the USA government has played a bigger role in supporting the Georgian government than anyone else. Also this notion that British English = European English is WP:OR. There is no evidence to suggest that non-British Europeans prefer British Enlgish to American English. Saakashvili speaks great American English after all. --Tocino 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the number of people who speak either dialect, I think people who will find interest in this article are more likely to come from outside the US, so under the "democratic" argument of number of users, this article should be in British English. My apologies to the Americans who do take interest in world history and politics. Resparza (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So because more wiki users speak American English all articles have to be in American English. Thats racist. Ijanderson (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude no one speaks British English but the British themselves. Kostan1 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway this is a European thing and the majority of European wikipedians speak British English, not American English. Also to Kostan1, the entire British Commonwealth speaks British English as well as Ireland and Malta. This is way over 25% of English speakers. Ijanderson (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really worth arguing about. (Ijanderson - I think you'll find the Irish speak Irish English - similar to British English but not the same.) The -ize suffix (i.e. recognize) is perfectly acceptable in Britain, although most Britons prefer -ise. It's unlikely this article will refer to "colo(u)r" or "valo(u)r" etc. As an Englishman I would obviously prefer British English - but in short, I don't really care. In an article like this it's not that important. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong on multiple fronts, Ij. Canada, which is a member of the archaic British Commonwealth organization, speaks American English. Also there is no evidence to suggest that non-British Europeans prefer British English over American English. In fact, I would wager that Eastern Europeans overwhemingly prefer American English to British English. --Tocino 18:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, actually Canadians speak Canadian English which is half-way between the two. Bazonka (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets compromise then, lets use Canadian English in this article which is half way between British and American related articles ? Ijanderson (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadians spell recognize and organization with z's. --Tocino 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Russian, from Russia, and I can ashure you, British English is a language of aliens. We don't understand it, it's just weird. Europeans speak American English. Kostan1 (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Then how come Russia today, France 24, euronews, Al Jazera all use British English on their English versions of the news programs not American English. Turn on Russia Today English now and you will see that they spell Recognise with an S not a Z making it British not American English. Ijanderson (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's a poll I'm for British English :) Alæxis_¿question? 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll use British English when I can, but if I screw up, people can correct it. User:Zscout370 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard wikipedia i'v seen is to use british english. Saying british english is "lesser" is ethnocentric,. and just racist, so is saying nobody speaks it.--Jakezing (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kostan just cracked me up with his joke...everybody speaks American English? Whatever bud!

Norum (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we just use Standard English? Just a thought... MethMan47 (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:MOS#National_varieties_of_English

By my reading none of the special cases apply, so we are left with "Which one was used first." "Recognize" has been used from the first editor, and is in use now - let's stick with American English. Smallbones (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Recognize" is not an Americanism; it is the recommended spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary on etymological grounds. -- Evertype·✆ 07:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So based on people's comments above, it looks like the sensible compromise is to use British English, with the -ize variant, which is acceptable but less popular in the UK. Bazonka (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

I think it's a bit early to show a map of all the countries that recognise. Perhaps when there's more than one it'll be more appropriate. Besides which, Kaliningrad needs to be coloured in. Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I made a nicer more detailed map which should be used for the time being until and if there are more recognitions. Then we should switch to Kosovo or Taiwan like map.--Avala (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the old map better. There is too much grey area in this new map. For example, while most of the countries listed have reacted negatively, not many of them have explicitly said that they will not recognize, yet they are all colored in as red countries that said they won't recognize. Like Serbia for instance. They said nothing about Abkhazia or South Ossetia, just that they don't like unilateral moves, yet they are colored in as red. --Tocino 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If serbia recognizes the break-aways, then they are hypocrites.--Jakezing (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All western countries (USA and its minnows) are therefore hypocrites. 99.234.28.230 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are.70.72.160.143 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria is not a de facto state - please stop listing it as such

A state, in the de facto sense of that term, has borders, control over its territory, and some recognition. Transnistria has no recognition internally, save from Abkhazia and South Ossetia , who because of their own disputed status, ought not count until/unless they achieve greater recognition. Transnistira should be listed as a separatist movement or as a region striving for more autonomy/independence - not as 'other state.' 141.166.241.22 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are totally wrong. Please read the article about De facto. --Tocino 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria is as good as gone for Moldova despite no recognition. It is de facto independent Ijanderson (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

While the term de facto may be used for Transnistria, it is more honest and more accurate to refer to it as a region striving for more independence. I know Tocino is a pro-Russian POV and won't care about such accuracy, but if Transnistria is to be viewed as a de facto state, should we view Chechnya as the same if separatists there oust Russia in a year or two? A state should have a modicum of international recognition before it is listed as a state. Otherwise, we may as well list Sealand under 'other states.' 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if separatists oust Russia sometime from Chechnya it'll be de facto independent. In fact it was de facto independent in 1996-2000. Please look in the article about Transnistria for the references confirming its de facto independence. Alæxis_¿question? 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't my point so much as that it should not be listed as 'other states.' Well that and that Tocino would probably support a double standard. The term 'other state' should be reserved for countries like the Vatican City, which is not in the UN, and a few semi-recognized countries like the Republic of China (Taiwan), Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and Kosovo. It is not reasonable to group these countries with Transnistria, which enjoys absolutely no recognition, save from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PO Pusher

This user:Tocino is a blunt POV pusher, who keep deleting the map which doe snot suit his bias and POV. I ask other users to rv his POV deletions because I can no longer do so due to 3RR rule. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

tell me about it Ijanderson (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed 141.166.241.22 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The map shows Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Georgian territories which is a violation of NPOV. --Tocino 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, 191 sovereign UN nations recognise them as Georgian territories, so does the UN, EU, NATO and all international oraganisations. Showing them as separate is gross violation of NPOV. Also Georgia claims them as part of their territory which is de jure true. Ijanderson (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming 191 states are better than 3 states which is a gross violation of NPOV. --Tocino 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli, personal insults to Tocino are not helpful and are violation of WP rules. And Tocino even the Russian state TV admitted today that there is a long road to full fledged independence which is reached only once these regions get recognized by the UN. It's a simple thing that law is above power which keeps world powers from bullying the whole world (at least legally as they do it anyway).--Avala (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully here. Alæxis_¿question? 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli did not personally insult Tocino. Ijanderson (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was Tocino who resorted to personal attacks in a highly inflammatory edit summary.--Kober 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Iberieli called me a "POV pusher", while I simply called him a "Georgian". I'll let everyone else decide which is the insult here. --Tocino 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yes I agree here. "Georgian" is not an insult of any kind.--Avala (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is Belarus light blue on the map? The reaction of several members of their parliament doesn't conut as a formal intent. They are not entitled to speak on behalf of Belarus. Colchicum (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I raised the issue above - to no avail, however. --Kober 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, the sad fact is, you ARE a POV pusher. The Kosovo page alone shows this.--Jakezing (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Declarations

Please clarify in the introduction when Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared independence (like it is done at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence). Some uninformed readers may get the wrong impression that they have done that very recently, and this is not the case AFAIK. Colchicum (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Now is it a good idea to put recognition of Abkhazia and recognition of S. Ossetia toghether in one article? They are independent of each other after all, and it is in principle possible that some states will recognize only one of them. Maybe we should make separate setions for now. Colchicum (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If that happens we will but at the moment it doesn't seem probable that one will get recognition and the other one will not.--Avala (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I wish we had International recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on Misplaced Pages :) Colchicum (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I hate the double standarts of the west, what is it "territorial intergity" crap? Every nation has the right to be independent on it's land, unless it doesn't want to. Kostan1 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We call that anarchy son, --Jakezing (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you were consistent and had the same feeling towards Kosovo. Colchicum (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Oh, im sorry for having my own veiws, i like kosovo, nice name, but these regions are under a vastly different situation, that and we cant have every "nation" wanting to be independant, that'd be pure anarchy--Jakezing (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking to Kostan1. I have reservations concerning S. Ossetia and especially Abkhazia myself because a large percentage of their population were driven away as refugees. However, I disagree about anarchy, independence is not always a cake sweet enough, there wouldn't be too many "nations" willing to chose this way, don't worry. You probably wouldn't like to get visas to visit your friends across the street or the nearest supermarket, right? Well, other people are not different. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Every nation living in a certain region can have freedom, that's not anarchy but the right to be free on your land. Kosovo is different, because unlike Ossetia which is the native home of the Ossetians, and Abkhazia who had the Abkhazian kingdom before Georgia was invented, Kosovo HISTORICALY belongs to Serbia, and used to be the heart of the land. The Turks expelled the Serbs from their land Kosovo, I remind you. Kostan1 (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, go read some books. Colchicum (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should remain in one single article since this was a simultaneous act by Russia. If some countries recognize only one, seemingly unlikely, then we can change the structure of the article to account for this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not at all improbable that no other country will recognize either of them, so yes, I agree. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria Reaction

"Bulgaria once again re-iterates its unconditional support for the independence, sovereignty and internationally recognised borders."

This does not seem to be a complete sentence. I'm not really sure what is trying to be said here. Should the "the" be deleted? Should "of Georgia" be added at the end? 71.225.97.173 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

The fact that Kosovo is on this list doesn't bother me, but if all statements from Kosovo are denoted with (citation needed) tags, then they must be removed until a source is found for both statements. User:Zscout370 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovo section is terribly written. It definately needs to be rewritten and referenced; if someone wanted to be really bold, they could remove it altogether until it was fixed. M.Nelson (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Did so, still keeps coming back . User:Zscout370 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But, why do some editors consider Kosovo's position "unncessary"? --Hapsala (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I only removed it because both of the statements contained the citation needed tags. If you have a source for the Kosovo statement from the Kosovar Government, then it can go back in. User:Zscout370 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of the article

Current title is "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence", but practically all comments are about Russia's unilateral decision of recognition, so how about: "International respons to Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence"? --Hapsala (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To long and ultimatly wont be the focus--Jakezing (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, if another place other than Russia recognizes, we will have to move it back here. User:Zscout370 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well some of the reactions in the Kosovo article are also condemning the recognition by the West. For now we don't know whether Russia will be the only country to recognize. Belarus may recognize, Armenia as well, not to mention Cuba where Raul Castro pretty much outright stated Georgia didn't have a claim to South Ossetia. You have several countries which have vigorously backed Russia's actions up to now and they may continue to do so. For now let's see how things play out.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenia will hardly recognize, as Georgia is an important neighbor for Armenia. Cuba, Venezuela -- sure, but who cares. Many of the CIS countries haven't recognized Kosovo not because they are aligned with Russia but for their own reasons. Colchicum (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The US and their allies screwed Georgia with Kosovo.-- Ευπάτωρ 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume what Armenia will or will not do. As far as not caring about Venezuela and Cuba there are several Latin American countries which would care.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NATO Flag?

Isn't there a tiny NATO flag graphic that can be used where applicable for the "International organisations membership" column? 71.225.97.173 (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is copyrighted. Colchicum (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What a pain. Oh, well. 71.225.97.173 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Awful Organization

Why are countries that do not recognize the two regions as independent grouped with those who haven't made a decision? Whoever came up with this idea is an idiot. The page should be divided into recognizes independence, doesn't, and nuetral. Duh. 5:15 00:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - How would you differentiate neutral from your other two categories? How are neutral countries different from other non-recognizing states? The page should remain divided between those that recognize (presently just Russia) and those that don't. There is no neutral: you either do or don't. If there should be a third category than it should be for states that have officially declared an intent to recognize but who have not yet done so. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well isn't the reaction of the US (essentially condemning the move) and say Australia (AFAIK not doing anything) different? 5:15 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to recognition, no there is no difference - neither country recognizes. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please maintain a civil tone, Five Fifteen. 71.225.97.173 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

moved

I moved the article to what worked out for Kosovo for the sake of consistency. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It was moved back, because the declaration happened years ago, but the recognition only just happened a day or two ago. Plus, there is a discussion about the moving of the article a few topics above. User:Zscout370 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Banners

Can somebody please "nest" the WikiProject banners? It saves space. BalkanFever 04:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Geologik (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia & Abkhazia = Kosovo???

The strange thing about all that stuff is that speaking in strict terms, Kosovo and South Ossetia/Abkhazia cannot be put exactly on the same plate.

First of all, the frozen conflicts of both Georgian SSR regions began almost one decade before the Kosovo War. Second, the mode of military intervention was different -- the case of South Ossetia/Abkhazia being maily backed by Russia during all these years, and teh Kosovo case being first backed by the Kosovo Liberation Army, then NATO, then UN, then the EU.

Third, in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, most of the population that stayed in these places after 1994 received Russian propiskas. In Kosovo, most residents never received Albanian citizenship -- first they were Yugoslavs, then received UNMIK-transitory documnets, and now the Kosovar passports.

And fourth, at least clearly in the case of South Ossetia, there is no true drive for independence as a fully-fledged nation-state, but the transfer from one nation to other -- from being part of Georgia to being part of Russia. And the case of Abkhazia is pretty unclear -- there will be an Abkhazian army, navy, air force, foreign affairs, threasury, popular-elected parliament, president, premier, constitution, civil law, monetary system, customs separated from the Russian Federation? Well, it seems very unlikely, by now. Kosovo, at least since the establishment of UNMIK, officially never wanted to join Albania, and Albania never wanted to annex Kosovo or take care of Kosovar affairs. The goal of Kosovo authorities is to establish an independent nation-state with its own police, defense and foreign affairs.

So, it seems like the separatist Caucasian territories are in fact different in geopolitical terms from Kosovo. But this article seems by now an exact carbon-copy of the Kosovo independence one.--BalkanWalker (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Abkhazia articles
• High-importance Abkhazia articles
• WikiProject Abkhazia articles
• Start-Class Georgia (country) articles
• High-importance Georgia (country) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (country) articles
• Start-Class International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles