Latynina on Europe’s New Munich

Yulia Latynina, writing in the Moscow Times (if you read Russian, there is a longer version of this article posted on Yezhedevny Zhurnal):

It may seem strange that I am writing about the 2009 report by the European Union fact-finding commission on the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war since it was published a year ago.

But the report is still very important today — in some sense, even more important than the war itself. The report, which was lead by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, is a blatant appeasement to Russia — a new Munich Agreement of sorts.

If you build policy and the economy on lies and self-deception, if you sincerely believe that you are the defender of freedom but out of fear and indifference you appease a dictatorship, and if you sincerely believe that you have a market economy despite having long ago sunk into debt and micromanaging the economy, the eventual consequences will be catastrophic.

To be honest, I was shocked by the report. My first thoughts after reading it were: “Europe has gone into retirement” and “Europe is no more.” Now one year later, Europe is falling apart.

According to the report, the Russia-Georgia war started when Georgia attacked Tskhinvali.

I was immediately reminded of a similar event in history. Before Finland declared war on the Soviet Union in 1941, there was one “small event” that triggered Finland’s declaration: The Red Army bombed dozens of Finnish settlements without ever declaring war. I have a question for Tagliavini: Is she certain that the start of the 1941-44 “Continuation War” between Russia and Finland should be considered from the moment that Finland declared war? What about all of the Russian provocations that preceded the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali?

Tagliavini has created nothing short of a revolution in global politics by introducing a new definition of war. It now turns out that wars are started by those who respond to the actions of aggressors. So, when the Red Army dropped bombs on Helsinki, that wasn’t war. But when Finland responded, it qualified as war.

The Tagliavini report was not complicity. It was cowardice in the face of an international bully. That cowardice by itself would not have been so bad had it not come from someone claiming to act as an arbiter in world affairs and as the voice of global conscience.

It turns out that it doesn’t necessarily take bribes to corrupt someone’s conscience. The prevailing motive in the report was to avoid at all costs spoiling relations with Russia by pointing out the Kremlin’s injustices and to heap most of the blame on Georgia, a country of far less importance to the international community.

The same thing is happening with the European economy. It is not just Greece or the euro that is coming apart at the seams. We are witnessing the unraveling of the whole philosophy of European bureaucratic socialism, which by some unfortunate misunderstanding considers itself a democracy.

Tagliavini, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor-cum-Gazprom PR agent Gerhard Schröder did not build Europe. It was built by their fathers and grandfathers following the end of World War II. At that time, Western Europe was an alternative to the Soviet Union — an alternative to slavery and tyranny. Post-World War II Europe symbolized the importance of never again signing a Munich Agreement with a dictator.

But it took only a few short years after the collapse of the Soviet Union for European bureaucrats to completely undo the Europe that their predecessors built. In that sense, Tagliavini’s report and the fall of the euro are just two sides of the same coin.

112 responses to “Latynina on Europe’s New Munich

  1. Very bad time for the US to have a muslim for president. The only hope is for the conservative right wing to take over America

    • Vote Jeb Bush for President next time.

    • Muslims I don’t care about as long as they aren’t the head-choppy and/or Sharia type, and I doubt Obama is one (take a look at how long he listened to Wright and co), but it is indeed a damn poor situation.

  2. Take a look around your community, Ron. Times they’re a-changing and a Muslim for president is a sure sign of this. In the nation of color like the US it’s OK and can’t be stopped.
    On the other hand America is doomed with Christian conservative right wing idiocy under the Israeli guidance. Take Bush as a model sample of a US idiot making no difference between Austria and Australia, OPEC and NATO. My warmest congrats to all US ‘patriots” on this behalf (on the US way of degrading from Thomas Jefferson to G.W.B.)…

    • @It is not just Greece

      Oh, and Hoare had a brilliant piece on Greece too in February:

      http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/greece-must-reform-politically-as-well-as-economically/

      Yet in one sense, the Greeks are right, and the EU must bear some of the responsibility for the Greek financial mess. It is, after all, the EU which has been subsidising Greek profligacy for the past three decades, although Greece’s public sector corruption, high levels of tax evasion, overblown bureaucracy and low retirement age have been no secret. The EU is like the mother who spoils her child rotten, then must suffer its ingratitude and tantrums when it doesn’t have every one of its demands met. Ultimately, the mother does bear responsibility if her child is a spoilt brat who doesn’t respect her. Greece’s current anti-German tantrum is not an isolated quirk; the country is a veritable hotbed of anti-Western nationalism, even descending into terrorism, as the brilliant Greek journalist Takis Michas has described. The paradox of why a country that has received so much from the West – from huge EU subsidies, through military protection against the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War to diplomatic support over Cyprus and Macedonia – should be so awash with anti-Western sentiment may not be such a paradox after all: it is a case of biting the hand that feeds.

      While Greece’s EU-encouraged financial irresponsibility is now being widely remarked upon, it is less frequently noted that Greek irresponsibility, and EU encouragement of this irresponsibility, extend beyond the economic sphere. Greece has been found by the European Court of Human Rights to be in breach of the human rights of both its ethnic Macedonian and its Turkish minorities, but it continues to defy the Court’s rulings without incurring any penalties from the EU. Greece was the most enthusiastic ally of the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s; it helped to undermine the UN’s 2004 Annan Plan to reunify Cyprus; it is one of only five EU members that has broken ranks over the issue of Kosova’s international recognition (and the only one that cannot justify this through reference to its own fears of separatism); and, most dangerously of all, it is vetoing the neighbouring Republic of Macedonia’s attempts to join both NATO and the EU, on account of its nationalistic hostility to Macedonia’s use of its own name.

      On the other hand, according to October 2009 figures, Greece is currently contributing only 15 troops to NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, as against 165 from Macedonia – a non-member with one fifth of Greece’s population; 175 from Georgia; 255 from Albania; 295 from Croatia; 540 from Bulgaria; 945 from Romania; and 1,755 from Turkey. It would appear that those Balkan countries that were on the wrong side in the Cold War are somewhat readier to contribute to the Western alliance’s military efforts today than the only Balkan Christian country which enjoyed NATO protection during the Cold War, although Turkey appears readier to contribute too, despite being predominantly Muslim.

      We can sum up the terms of the relationship between Greece and the rest of NATO and the EU as follows. We defend Greece’s security; we fund Greece’s prosperity with massive subsidies; and we give Greece unwarranted diplomatic support vis-a-vis Macedonia and Cyprus. Greece pursues policies that destabilise the EU economically and South East Europe politically, while making the minimum possible contribution to the security of the democratic world. And the Greek political and intellectual classes complain endlessly about the evils of Germany, the US and Western imperialism in general.

    • Oh puhleaze. No matter how hard you blow, you can’t change the fact that Bush most certainly could distinguish between our enemies and allies and awarded them appropriately (see his response to OPEC versus his response to NATO).

      And this is the first time I’ve seen a pro-Obama crackpot take the allegation that he is a crypto-Muslim as a POSITIVE.

  3. People who did not like Bush can never explain why??

  4. As a result of 9-11 Bush created a functioning democracy in the middle east and shoved it up Islams nose. Islam is destabilized and will never be the same. This is called pay back, baby.

    • Ron

      What the hell has 9/11 have to do with Iraq? How was Iraq involved with 9/11?

      • Let’s see here: financial ties to AQ and its subsidies (see the Army of Muhummad), violations of the Gulf War ceasefire, and general support for terrorists (see Abu Nidal).

        • Yes, enough is enough. The country can not have an open enemy at it’s borders, that’s just a matter of security of all we love.

    • Oh my, Warren, do you really think the Iraqis were not behind the 9/11 and did not deserve a working democracy?

      The pay back to Islam has been deadly!

  5. In addition Bush found 550 tons of yellow cake in Iraq an sold it to the Canadians. It may have saved the world. Bush did lots of things and never took credit.

  6. Bush hauled thousands of Iraq leaders off to Romania and gave them an education in democracy.

    On one occasion a truck load of Iraq soldiers were whistling at some girls. An Iraq officer rushed up to the truck and yelled at the soldiers. He yelled, “We are an institution”. “We do not whistle at girls”.

    So don’t tell me that Bush didn’t pull off something big in Iraq.

    • Ron, you’re cool:) Seriously, I wished there were at least 5 such people being born in the States each year…

  7. @According to the report, the Russia-Georgia war started when Georgia attacked Tskhinvali.

    Geez, Yulia also did not REALLY read the report.

    Actually, the report claims quite opposite. Let me quote M.A. Hoare:

    1) The report acknowledges the massive and sustained provocations to which Georgia had been subjected by Russia in the period preceding the conflict. Among these, ‘The mass conferral of Russian citizenship to Georgian nationals and the provision of passports on a massive scale on Georgian territory, including its breakaway provinces, without the consent of the Georgian Government runs against the principles of good neighbourliness and constitutes an open challenge to Georgian sovereignty and an interference in the internal affairs of Georgia’ (p. 18). Furthermore, ‘The decision by the Russian Federation to withdraw the 1996 CIS restrictions on Abkhazia (March 2008) and to authorise direct relations with the Abkhaz and South Ossetian sides in a number of fields (April 2008), added another dimension to an already complex situation in the area’ (p. 31).

    2) The report acknowledges that the Georgian offensive did not come out of the blue, but in the context of escalating military preparations and activities by both sides over the preceding months, involving exchanges of fire and explosions on both sides of the front lines, so that the ‘ever-mounting tensions in the conflict zone were approaching the level of open military confrontation’ and ‘the stage seemed all set for a military conflict’ (pp. 18-19).

    3) The report states that although ‘[t]he Mission is not in a position to consider as sufficiently substantiated the Georgian claim concerning a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before 8 August 2008′, nevertheless it does not reject the claim; on the contrary, it lists several pieces of evidence that lend weight to Georgia’s accusations of a preparatory Russian military build-up prior to the war, including ‘the provision by the Russian side of training and military equipment to South Ossetian and Abkhaz forces prior to the August 2008 conflict’; ‘an influx of volunteers or mercenaries from the territory of the Russian Federation to South Ossetia through the Roki tunnel and over the Caucasus range in early August, as well as the presence of some Russian forces in South Ossetia, other than the Russian JPKF battalion, prior to 14.30 hours on 8 August 2008′; and the fact that ‘it seems that the Russian air force started its operations against Georgian targets, including those outside South Ossetian military boundaries, already in the morning of 8 August, i.e. prior to the time given in the Russian official information’ (p. 20).

    4) The Report rejects Moscow’s claim that it was waging a defensive or legal war in Georgia. It notes that ‘much of the Russian action went far beyond the reasonable limits of defence’; that Russia’s actions ‘cannot be regarded as even remotely commensurate with the threat to Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia’; that Russia’s ‘continued destruction that came after the ceasefire agreement was not justifiable by any means’; and that ‘the Russian military action outside South Ossetia was essentially conducted in violation of international law’. It therefore concludes that ‘insofar as such extended Russian military action reaching out into Georgia was conducted in violation of international law, Georgian military forces were acting in legitimate self-defence under article 51 of the UN Charter.’ Consequently, ‘In a matter of a very few days, the pattern of legitimate and illegitimate miliary action had thus turned around between the two main actors Georgia and Russia’. The report notes in addition that the second front against Georgia opened by the Russians and Abkhazians in Abkhazia was ‘not justified under international law’ (pp. 23-25).

    5) The Report rejects any possible justification of the Russian intervention in Georgia on humanitarian grounds, both because ‘Russia in particular has consistently and persistently objected to any justification of the NATO Kosovo intervention on humanitarian grounds’ and ‘can therefore not rely on this putative title to justify its own intervention on Georgian territory’, and because ‘as a directly neighbouring state, Russia has important political and other interests of its own in South Ossetia and the region. In such a constellation, a humanitarian intervention is not recognised at all’ (p. 24).

    6) The report categorically rejects Russian claims that Georgia committed genocide against South Ossetian civilians: ‘After having carefully reviewed the facts in the light of the relevant law, the Mission concludes that to the best of its knowledge allegations of genocide committed by the Georgian side in the context of the August 2008 conflict and its aftermath are neither founded in law nor substantiated by factual evidence’ (pp. 26-27). It notes that the total number of South Ossetian civilian casualties in the whole of the August 2008 conflict was only 162, not the two thousand initially claimed by Moscow (p. 21).

    7) Conversely, the Report attributed the worst and most systematic atrocities to the South Ossetian side: ‘With regard to allegations of ethnic cleansing committed by South Ossetian forces or irregular armed groups, however, the Mission found patterns of forced displacements of ethnic Georgians who had remained in their homes after the onset of hostilities. In addition, there was evidence of systematic looting and destruction of ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia. Consequently, several elements suggest the conclusion that ethnic cleansing was indeed practiced against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia both during and after the August 2008 conflict’ (p. 27).

    8 ) Finally, the Report condemns Russia’s recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as contrary to international law: ‘South Ossetia did not have a right to secede from Georgia, and the same holds true for Abkhazia for much of the same reasons. Recognition of breakaway entities such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia by a third country is consequently contrary to international law in terms of an unlawful interference in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the affected country, which is Georgia’ (p. 17).

    Far from blaming the Georgian side for the conflict, the Report ends with a conclusion that most reasonable friends of Georgia could readily endorse: ‘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 and on what then developed into the questionable Georgian offensive in South Ossetia and the Russian military action. The evaluation also has to cover the run-up to the war during the years before and the mounting tensions in the months and weeks immediately preceding the outbreak of hostilities. It must also take into account years of provocations, mutual accusations, military and political threats and acts of violence both inside and outside the conflict zone. It has to consider, too, the impact of a great power’s coercive politics and diplomacy against a small and insubordinate neighbour, together with the small neighbour’s penchant for overplaying its hand and acting in the heat of the moment without careful consideration of the final outcome, not to mention its fear that it might permanently lose important parts of its territory through creeping annexation’ (p. 31).

    http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/the-eu-and-the-georgian-war-saying-everyone-is-to-blame-isnt-good-enough/

    • And I guess the most important thing is this:

      “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 and on what then developed into the questionable Georgian offensive in South Ossetia and the Russian military action.”

      Because this was the issue which was commonly misunderstood by just about everyone. Including mass media and their idiotic headlines, the Georgian govt, and now Latynina too (who should know better).

      Also, they actually couldn’t even say who fired the first shot in the international conflict, Russians or Georgians. The Russian version of an unprovoked attack on the Russian battalion simply couldn’t be verified. (Georgians firing on the South Ossetians doesn’t count here, because they were “Russians” unlawfully, and the irregular Russian forces were there also illegally.)

      The whole report is quite big, but full of really Russia-damning stuff. I think my favourite is when they analyze the various ridiculous Russian “genocide” silyness (complete with direct quotes) with totally straight face, only to conclude it was all just a huge pile of bull**** (wording this a bit more diplomatically of course).

      They do such demolition also with other propaganda lies, such as when reviewing the stated reasons (“Georgian terrorism” and what not) for the completely unprovoked Russian aggression from the quasi-state of Abkhazia (deemed illegaly supported and recognised, just like in the case of SO).

      • Oh boy, quote mining. Funsies.

        “There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was justifiable under international law. It was not. […] It follows from the illegal character of the Georgian military
        assault that South Ossetian defensive action in response did conform to international law in
        terms of legitimate self-defence.”

        “At least as far as the initial phase of the conflict is concerned, an additional legal question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified. Again the answer is in the negative. There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation. Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August could not be substantiated by the Mission. It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack, in spite of certain elements and equipment having been made readily available. There is also no evidence to support any claims that Russian peacekeeping units in South Ossetia were in flagrant breach of their obligations under relevant international agreements such as the Sochi Agreement and thus may have forfeited their international legal status. Consequently, the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in
        Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law.”

  8. They’d better start yet another ” a fact finding commission” in the the European Union as for WMD found in Iraq and the US Blackwater experts on human rights and US style Nazi blackwaterboarding democracy with its mobile torture equipment.
    ——————————

    “… because ‘Russia in particular has consistently and persistently objected to any justification of the NATO Kosovo intervention on humanitarian grounds’ and ‘can therefore not rely on this putative title to justify its own intervention on Georgian territory’, and because ‘as a directly neighbouring state, Russia has important political and other interests of its own in South Ossetia and the region. In such a constellation, a humanitarian intervention is not recognised at all”
    —————————–

    Nothing but EU/US made Nazi verbal trash as ever. Sort of US propaganda sadism meant for idiots like themselves. I can present here a long list of US ‘intervention on humanitarian grounds’ down the last two centures in Africa, Asia and Latin America along with the list of US made freedom loving “democrats” like Pinochet, Mobutu, Stresner and Somoza to name a few.
    The United States of America is a Nazi nation by its design established on the stolen land and genocide/ethnic cleansing satanic rituals with Geronimo’s skull still kept in the satanic temple of “Skull and Bones” at Yale University.
    Putin is but a kid of 10.

    • Mr. Ouch, where are you? You frequently asked me to provide proof about Russians spreading anti-American hatred. Is this message good enough to convince you?

      How do you like “a Nazi nation by its design?” I take it to mean George Washington was a secret Hitler admirer. Or maybe “propaganda sadism” or “satanic rituals” are more convincing?

    • Oh puhleaze. For one, we’ve already found WMD (see degraded Chemical weapons and yellowcake). And the Nazis shunned waterboarding as being too “gentle.”

      • Voice of Reason

        Yes, Turtler, lots of WMDs! Here is Bush describing them:

        http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/bush.wmd.jokes/index.html

        WASHINGTON (CNN) — What was meant by President Bush to be a joke about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has brought little laughter to some Americans.

        During the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner this week, Bush presented a slide show of quirky photographs from inside the White House. In one, the president is looking under furniture in the Oval Office.

        “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere,” Bush joked. “Nope, no weapons over there … maybe under here?” (Bush pokes fun at himself at dinner)

        Democrats have seized on the matter, calling it astonishingly insensitive when Americans have died for their country in Iraq while the search for WMD has turned up nothing.

        The administration had cited the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons program as one of the primary reasons for the need for war.

        “This is a very serious issue. We’ve lost hundreds of troops, as you know, over there. Let’s not be laughing about not being able to find weapons of mass destruction. … We certainly should not be making light of the situation.”

        McAuliffe’s Republican counterpart, Ed Gillespie, responded by saying people need to lighten up, that the president made the comment in jest.

        He noted that the correspondents at the dinner laughed when the president made the remark.

        “There is a long-standing tradition of the president making light of serious matters and self-deprecating humor” at the dinner, he said.

        “The people in the room obviously saw the humor in it at that moment.”

        A non-scientific poll by CNN.com showed 54 percent of the more than 200,000 respondents felt Bush crossed the line.

        A majority of CNN viewers who have responded by e-mail also said they were offended.

        “Seeing our president joke about WMDs at a comedy function was terrible. How can a thinking, caring human being joke about the lie that led to body bags and broken young men and women? I was appalled,” wrote Fran in Burlington, Massachusetts.

    • Voice of Reason

      Turtler: For one, we’ve already found WMD (see degraded Chemical weapons and yellowcake

      Chemical weapons?! The Bush administration and Powell in his UN speech repeatedly told us that they had irrefutable CIA proof that Saddam had huge nuclear weapons.

      Yellowcake? Thanks for bringing it up:

      http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html#ixzz0nPNoVEQd

      Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road

      Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush’s claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.

      So, the White House is not contesting the fact that the President made a false claim — merely whether he, or those who prepared his speech, knew at the time that it was false. And holding the line forces White House press secretary Ari Fleischer into a rhetorical dance that can only be called Clintonesque: conceding on the one hand that the claim made by the President was based on forged evidence that Iraq had tried to buy “yellow cake” refined uranium from Niger, but at the same time maintaining that “I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President’s broader statement.”

      While the Bush administration may have been sweating, just a little during the past two months, over the absence of WMD finds in Iraq, a majority of Americans appear willing to believe that going to war was justified even if no such weapons are ever found. Across the Atlantic, however, Bush’s closest ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair, is being roasted daily by Britain’s media and legislature, some of the fiercest attacks coming from within his own party.

      The fact that Blair’s and Bush’s governments face parallel but separate inquires from their own legislatures operates, in some ways, like the police tactic of interrogating suspects separately in the hope of finding discrepancies in their testimony. The U.S., for example, started a lot earlier than the British conceding that actual weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq.

      Even more damning are reports that CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false.

      Ambassador Wilson claims his inquiry was initiated by a request from Dick Cheney’s office to check out the allegation. So presumably, Wilson’s findings will have been reported back there. If so, the former ambassador is not the only one who will want to know what they, and other top officials, made of, and more importantly did with his information.

      —————-

      So, even bush admitted that the yellowcake accusations were falsifications, but you still believe them anyway, Turtler?!

  9. Ron you are an idiot, no wonder the US is such a woeful economic and strategic state with cretins like you. You are as bigoted and stupid as the Russian racist nationalist knuckle draggers I hate so much.

    America’s aggression and sadistic occupation of Iraq has humiliated and disgraced America. Because of Iraq the US can do nothing about Russia’s imperial ambitions and conduct.

    Where was tough guy Dubya when Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008?

    What the did the US do when North Korea detonated two nuclear bombs in Oct 2006 and May 2009? Nothing! That’s what! Now North Korea has sunk a South Korean ship in April, North Korea continues to fire its ballistic missiles. When it comes to North Korea, the US is all talk and no action.

    Europe has indeed been divided by France, Germany and Italy who have all collaborated with Russia at the expense of Eastern Europe.

    Now Greece is looking for help from Russia, in its hour of need.

    When it comes to Russia, the US will do nothing, the Europeans and above all the Russians know this.

    • Ron’s cool. Leave him alone!

    • Ah, so fool proves identity by accusing others of being foolish. Wonderful. Let me guess: you’re one of the lovely “52%”, ja? No wonder the US is in trouble.

      Firstly, “sadistic occupation?” Um, have you ever STUDIED what Saddam did, guv’ner?

      Secondly, how has it humiliated and disgraced the US? It has not been an easy road, but the insurgency has suffered considerable damage and Iraq has enjoyed its first truly free Democratic elections in its history.

      And if we wanted to react to Russian aggression badly enough, we could using our forces deployed ELSEWHERE. Novel idea, ja?

      As for “Dubya” and Georgia, he was in Washington condemning the Russians and flying a tripwire to Tiblisi to prevent the Russians from overrunning Georgia entirely. However, that is about all he COULD do what with fools like you even WITHOUT Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly considering that Georgia was not a member of NATO or another nation we had a promise to forcefully defend. So that was about all we COULD do unless you fancied kicking the bear in the snout and risking the world’s first nuclear war.

      And the reason we haven’t acted more strongly regarding the NorKs is because South Korea’s go ahead is needed, and Seoul has been expending copious amounts of energy trying to believe that North Korea is anything but a psychotic despotism bent on the South’s annihilation and blackmailing large segments of the Pacific Rim to support itself. And this is before we talk about getting China to stop propping Kim up long enough for us to actually do anything about it. And even considering THAT we STILL managed to get the NorKs to demolish their reactor. And when was rebuilding started? After Obama won the election.

      So you were saying?

      • Voice of Reason

        TUrtler: “Firstly, “sadistic occupation?” Um, have you ever STUDIED what Saddam did, guv’ner?

        I did. Here is by far the biggest and most commonly heard crime:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

        On 16 March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more. (see Halabja poison gas attack)[39]
        —————–

        You wouldn’t want to tell us that this gas attack was the reason why USA invaded Iraq in 2003, would you? Yes, after it turned out that Iraq had no WMDs, Bush apologists came up with this excuse for the 2003 invasion. But truly, do you honestly believe that USA patiently waited for 15 years to defend the Kurdish victims?! FYI, Saddam lost control over Kurdistan back in 1990.

        And keep in mind that back in 1988, when Saddam gassed this village, he was USA’s ally, and the US government made no complaint whatsoever and remained Saddam’s ally, until the day when Saddam occupied Kuwait, endangering the profits of US oil companies and turning USA from Saddam’s ally to Saddam’s enemy.

        Here are the pictures of two best friends: Saddam and Rumsfiled:

        and

        Andrew would say that they make one happy and loving couple, while Robert would call them “BFFs” (well, almost forever)

        • @FYI, Saddam lost control over Kurdistan back in 1990

          In 1991. As in after losing the Gulf War.

          http://www.niqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=75&id=2173&lang=0

          @And keep in mind that back in 1988, when Saddam gassed this village,

          This town.

          He gassed scores of villages, and otherwise destroyed 4,000 during the Operation Anfal.

          @and the US government made no complaint whatsoever and remained Saddam’s ally

          Because the Soviet Union made a lot of complaints and ceased to be Saddam’s ally.

          (Even in 1990 Saddam believed the Soviets would protect him from America. He refused to understand the Cold War just fizzled out, and the Soviets were no longer important as they were and had a lot of problems on their own.)

          • “Because the Soviet Union made a lot of complaints and ceased to be Saddam’s ally.” –

            and you, of course, again have plenty sources available to prove there was an alliance?

  10. Voice of Reason

    Those, who want to know why Latynia and Robert are so busily trying to put their spin on the Report, should watch the speech that summarizes the Report findings:

    [video src="http://coenews.coe.int/vod/20100428_03_e.wmv" /]

    The first 12 minutes of this speech are devoted to introduction and generalities, the most interesting of which was to point out how both sides try to spin the Report: “The conflicting parties have reacted in overwhelming majority in a moderate way; although we, unfortunately, could observe some rather selective reading – I mean each party presenting those parts of the report, which were to their liking. “Those who were involved in the conflict were usually focusing only on their own truth; they were hardly ever sufficiently prepared to look at a truth of the others,” Tagliavini said.

    The actual blame assignment starts at around minute 12 or so:

    12:30 Let me start with the answer to the question, which in the past has been asked most frequently. In the mission’s view, it was Georgia, which triggered off the war, when it attacked Tskhinvali with heavy artillery on the night of 7 to 8 of August, 2008,” she said. “None of the explanations, given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack, landed valid explanation. In particular, to the best of the mission’s knowledge, there was no massive Russian military invasion underway, which had to be stopped by Georgian military forces shelling Tskhinvali.”

    Having started by stating it main result – that it was Georgia that started the war -, Tagliavini reminded that both Georgia and Russia were responsible for constant skirmishes and incidents in the months and years prior:

    15:00 “This said, It needs to be stressed, that the Georgian attack against Tskhinvali on the 7 to 8 of August, 2008 was by no means an isolated event. It was the culminating point of months and years of mounting tension, of armed incidents, and steadily deteriorating situation. All sides to the conflict bear responsibility for these evermore serious developments… years of provocations, mutual accusations, military and political threats and acts violence both inside and outside the conflict zones

    In order to balance here view that Georgia bears the main responsibility, Tagliavini pointed out that Russia too is not blameless and also violated some international laws. She gives 3 (three) such violations:

    While the onus of having actually triggered off the war lies with Georgia, the Russian side too carries the blame for substantial violations of international law. “These include, 1) even prior to the armed conflict, the mass conferral of Russian citizenship to a majority of the population living in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia. 2) It also includes in terms of an additional violation of international law the military action by the Russian armed forces on Georgian territory far beyond the needs of a proportionate defense of Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinvali what come under Georgian attack. 3)In addition, the Russian recognition of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states must be considered as being not valid in the context of international law and as violations of Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty,” Tagliavini said.

    Let me comment on these three accusations:

    1) The accusation about Russia violating international law by giving citizenship to Ossetians/Abkhazians, seems totally invalid. First of all, international law leaves it up to individual nations to decide whom to accept as new citizens. Second, the Russian law back from the early 1990s says that any citizen of the USSR and his children had the full right to choose the Russian citizenship for him and his descendants. Thus, any Ossetian and Abkhazian, who had never voluntarily chosen Georgian or other citizenship, has the constitutional right to be a Russian citizen.

    2) When repelling foreign aggression, nobody ever stops at the border. In order to make sure the aggressor won’t counter-attack, you need to drive him deep into his territory first. That’s what Israel does in every Arab-Israeli war, and that’s what Russia did. But unlike Israel, Russia withdrew back from all occupied Georgian territory almost immediately, in a matter of days.

    3) From the legal point of view, Russia’s recognition of Ossetia and Abkhazia is NOT a crime. Moreover, this recognition is no different from the West’s recognition of Kosovo as an independent state, which too must be considered as being not valid in the context of international law and as violations of Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty“. In fact, back when this illegal recognition happened, Russia warned that this would set a definite precedent for Ossetia and Abkhazia.

    Finally, only one of these three happened before the Georgian attack on Tskhinval. And this was the peaceful conferral of citizenship on Ossetians. Thus, Georgia cannot claim that this conferral of citizenship is a valid excuse for the Georgian assault on Tskhinval.

    So, clearly, the Report’s authors put the main blame for aggression and violations of international laws on Georgia.

    • Voice of Reason

      [video src="http://coenews.coe.int/vod/20100428_03_e.wmv" /]

    • Now Voice Of Retardation, we all know you have reading comprehension problems, however the report stated categorically that:

      1. Russian mass conferral of citizenship on citizens of Georgia was illegal

      2. Russian military actions were illegal and excessive

      3. All Russian attempts to justify their military actions were illegal and had no basis in international law

      4. Russia is still in breach of the ceasefire that it signed, it controls large areas that were under Georgian government control, such as Khodori, and Akhalgori, and is also directly responsible for the horrific ethnic cleansing carried out against Georgian civilians in the provinces.

      I mean ReTaRd, try reading the report, it is extremely damning of Russia.

      III. No justification of the use of force as self-defence

      3. Necessity and proportionality

      In order to be deemed a lawful act of self-defence, the Russian military reaction to the attack of its military base had to be necessary and proportionate.154 Whether a military reaction is necessary and proportionate in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter depends on the facts of the particular case.

      d) Conclusions: Lack of necessity and proportionality

      As an act of self-defence against the attack on the Russian military bases, the only admissible objective of the Russian reaction was to eliminate the Georgian threat for its own
      peacekeepers. The expulsion of the Georgian forces from South Ossetia, and the defence of South Ossetia as a whole was not a legitimate objective for Russia, because Russia could not rely on collective self-defence in favour of South Ossetia, as will be shown below. The admissible Russian objective was therefore limited.

      The military reaction of Russia went beyond the repulsion of the Georgian armed attack on the Russian bases and was thus not necessary. Russia mainly targeted military objectives, and at least some of the targeted military objectives were related to the Georgian attack in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, Russian military support for the use of force by Abkhazia against Georgia cannot be justified in this context. The bombing of large parts of the upper Kodori Valley was in no relation to any potential threat for the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia
      The same applies to the posting of the ships in the Black Sea. An impartial observer, putting himself in the place of Russia, would not have qualified the Russian reaction as reasonably related to the objective of halting the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia.

      The means employed by Russia were not in a reasonable relationship to the only permissible
      objective, which was to eliminate the threat for Russian peacekeepers. In any case, much of the destruction (see Chapter 5 “Military Events in 2008”) after the conclusion of the ceasefire agreement is not justifiable by any means. According to international law, the Russian military action taken as a whole was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia.

      IV. No justification of Russian use of force as fulfilment of the peacekeeping mission

      Russia claimed that both the peacekeeping units and the further reinforcing units “continued to carry out their peacekeeping mission until the European Union Monitoring Mission was deployed in accordance with the “Medvedev Sarkozy” agreements (…).”173
      As explained above, peacekeeping units are defensive in nature. They have to be neutral and must not take sides with either of the conflicting parties. They are normally equipped only with light weapons for self-defence; their number is clearly limited.
      ….
      These provisions show that any unilateral support for one of the conflicting parties cannot be justified as a peacekeeping mission. Furthermore, it is not possible to combine a peacekeeping task and a military action based on self-defence. The status of a victim of an armed attack is incompatible with the neutral status of a peacekeeper. Whoever is drawn into a conflict can no longer act as peacekeeper.174 The peacekeeping mission was limited to a small number of lightly armed troops which could not be reinforced or replaced by heavily armed “fresh reinforcement units”. Greater use of force was not only against the spirit of the Sochi
      Agreement, but also against the very idea of peacekeeping.

      Conclusion: Russia could not justify its use of force as a mere reinforcement and fulfilment of its peacekeeping mission.

      V. No justification of the use of force by invitation of the South Ossetian authorities

      Russia argued that it intervened with military means “following a request from the government of South Ossetia”.175 It is very controversial whether such an invitation is in principle apt to legalize an intervention.

      3. No valid invitation by South Ossetia

      One argument against the permissibility of an invitation extended to Russia by South Ossetia is that even if this political entity has a right to self-determination, it is not entitled to use force to exercise this right. Military force is never admissible as a means to carry out a claim to self-determination, including internal self-determination. There is no support in state practice for the right to use force to attain self determination outside the context of decolonization or illegal occupation.

      Still less is there support by states for the right of ethnic groups to use force to secede from existing states.184 This means that the use of force by secessionist groups is in any case illegal under international law, even assuming that a right to secede exists. The general rule is that South Ossetian authorities and armed forces were not themselves entitled to use force in order to attain self-determination. This also means that a secessionist party cannot validly invite a foreign state to use force against the army of the metropolitan state.
      In any case, even if one were to accept the academic opinion that the South Ossetian
      authorities were in principle competent to invite the Russian intervention on the grounds of
      the international right to (internal) self-determination, they were not competent to authorize intervention in the whole of Georgia. The use of force within the territory of Georgia beyond the administrative boundaries of South Ossetia cannot be justified by “invitation”, whatever position is taken in the doctrinal debate.

      4. Discussion and conclusions: no permissible invitation by South Ossetia

      The doctrine of positive equality, even if it is limited to situations of stable territorial control,
      condones the escalation of military force and is therefore not in conformity with the objectives and principles of the United Nations. It is very open to abuse.
      In contrast, the legal solution to prohibit intervention in a civil war or a war of secession (doctrine of negative equality) is prudent from a policy perspective, because it removes the pretext of “invitation” relied on by third states in order to camouflage interventions motivated by their own policy objectives. This solution is also more operational and practical than the contrary one, because it relieves lawyers of the difficult task of identifying and proving a valid invitation. Finally, state practice rather seems to confirm the legal solution. In many historical cases, states have condemned and declared inadmissible interventions supposedly conducted upon invitation.
      To conclude, both under the doctrine of asymmetry and under the new doctrine of negative equality concerning intervention in a civil war, the South Ossetian authorities could not validly invite Russia to support them by military means. This conclusion is corroborated by the argument that secession may never be lawfully carried out by military means, even if it
      were justified under exceptional circumstances, which is not the case here. And if the seceding party is prohibited from the use of force, it must also be prohibited from inviting third states to use military force. This means that the use of force by Russian troops in the territory under control of South Ossetian armed forces and authorities was not justified by the invitation.

      VI. No justification of the use of force by collective self-defence

      The conclusion is that, although South Ossetia could rely on unilateral self-defence in order to
      repel Georgian attacks, collective self-defence was not allowed.

      3. Necessity and proportionality
      Even if it were admitted that collective self defence was possible in favour of South Ossetia,
      Russian collective self-defence would still have to be necessary and proportionate. Proportionality means a reasonable and fair relationship between the means employed and the objective pursued.192
      The Russian objective in pursuing collective self-defence in protection of South Ossetia differed from the objective to defend its own peacekeepers in individual self-defence. The
      legitimate objective of collective self-defence was to bring to a halt the Georgian attack on
      South Ossetia. However, according to the criteria and factors set out above, the Russian
      reaction was disproportionate to this objective as well.

      4. Conclusions
      Russian military activities against the Georgian military forces were not justified as collective
      self-defence under international law.

      VII. No justification of the use of force as “humanitarian intervention”

      Moreover, Russia has consistently and persistently objected to the justification of NATO’s Kosovo intervention as a humanitarian intervention. It is therefore estopped from invoking this very justification for its own intervention. And as a directly neighbouring state, Russia has geostrategic interests in South Ossetia. In such a constellation with dominant geostrategic considerations, humanitarian interventions are not permitted.197

      Even some proponents of a right to humanitarian intervention admit that one condition of the legality of such an intervention would be a collective action, based on deliberations among a group of states, such as within NATO.198 A unilateral intervention decided upon by one single state would not meet this procedural criterion of legality.

      To conclude, the Russian use of force cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.

      VIII. No justification of the use of force as action to rescue and protect nationals abroad

      5. Application to this specific case
      Even if it were accepted that a Georgian attack on Russian citizens were in principle apt to
      constitute a case of self-defence, the legal conditions for self-defence were not met in the case at hand.
      First of all, the Russian intervention in Georgia was not limited to a “Blitz”-type action and was not solely focused on rescuing and evacuating Russian citizens. Its intensity surpassed the minimum threshold of intensity required by Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter. It cannot be said that the military action was not “directed against the territorial integrity or political independence” of Georgia, because it did support the territorial separation of South Ossetia.

      Furthermore, a distinction must be drawn between those citizens who have possessed Russian citizenship for a long time, and those citizens who have only recently acquired Russian citizenship in the course of the broad Russian policy to confer Russian nationality in a
      simplified procedure (see Chapter 3 “Related Legal Issues”). With regard to this latter group of “new” Russians, it seems abusive to rely on their need for protection as a reason for
      intervention, because Russia itself has created this reason for intervention through its own policy
      .212 This is especially the case if an effective or genuine link between Russia and those new citizens is lacking. Although the conferral of citizenship and nationality lies in the
      domaine reservé of states, citizenship will be recognized by international law for the purpose
      of diplomatic protection only if there is a sufficiently genuine link between the persons
      concerned and the state. Put differently, a state is entitled to exercise diplomatic protection
      only for those “genuine” citizens. The ICJ has in the Nottebohm case described the genuine link “with regard to the exercise of protection” as follows: preference must be given “to the real and effective nationality, that which accorded with the facts that based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the States whose nationality is involved.
      Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to
      the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there
      are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his family ties, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc.” 213
      This rather strict requirement also applies to other types of protective activity abroad,
      including military protection.214 Because this type of protective action is – contrary to
      diplomatic action – controversial in itself, the requirements concerning the relationship
      between the protecting state and the protected persons must arguably be even closer. With
      regard to most citizens living in South Ossetia, a genuine link in the sense just described is
      obviously lacking (see above Chapter 3 “Related Legal Issues”).

      In conclusion, the Russian intervention in Georgia cannot be justified as a rescue operation for Russian nationals in Georgia.

      Part 5: Use of force in Abkhazia

      II. Legal qualification of the Abkhaz and Russian offensive: violation of the prohibition of the use of force and armed attack on Georgia

      As explained in Chapter 3, Abkhazia is a state like entity. The prohibition of the use of force is applicable. This is also explicitly confirmed by the 1994 Moscow Agreement (Agreement on a ceasefire and separation of forces) which states: “The parties shall scrupulously observe the ceasefire on land, at sea and in the air and shall refrain from all military operations against beach other.“219

      Although there was no clear ceasefire line in the Kodori Valley, the upper Kodori Valley did not belong to Abkhaz-controlled territory under the provisions of the Moscow Agreement.
      The attack on the upper Kodori Valley by Abkhaz troops supported by paratroopers must
      therefore be qualified as use of force prohibited by Art. 2(4) of the Charter and moreover as
      an “armed attack” on Georgia in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter
      .220

      III. Legal qualification of the Georgian operation: self-defence

      The military operation in the upper Kodori Valley was, for the reasons just explained, an
      armed attack on Georgia. The use of force by Georgia was justified as self-defence.

      IV. No justification of the Abkhaz and Russian use of force against Georgia

      Only in the event of an armed attack
      by Georgia (which was not present, as will be shown), could Abkhazia have relied on selfdefence.

      Russian involvement could not be justified as collective self-defence in favour of Abkhazia,
      because third-party involvement in an internal military conflict in support of the seceding
      party is not allowed for the reasons explained above.

      2. No previous “armed attack” by Georgia
      a) No Georgian military operation in the Kodori Valley by Georgia

      Abkhazia argues that it had to “liberate” the Kodori Valley. This refers to a Georgian operation or military occupation of Abkhaz territory. Such action might qualify as “aggression” in the sense of Art. 3(a) Resolution 3314, and therefore also as an armed attack
      in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter.
      Yet, even if Abkhazia shows all characteristics of a state-like entity, it had no right to secession under international law (see Chapter 3 “Related Legal Issues”). Abkhazia had no legal title to that territory. This also follows from the Moscow Agreement under which the
      Kodori Valley falls outside the jurisdiction of Abkhazia.

      Conclusions: For these reasons, the presence of Georgian police or military in the Kodori
      Valley cannot be considered as an armed attack on Abkhazia.

      4. Conclusion
      The use of force by Abkhazia was not justified under international law and was thus illegal.
      The same applies to the Russian support for Abkhaz use of force.

      Here are the main findings under IHL and HRL:

      • Allegations of genocide against Ossetians are not substantiated by evidence.

      • There is serious and concurring evidence to indicate that ethnic cleansing has been committed against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia, through forced displacement and the destruction of property.

      • Very serious violations of IHL and HRL were committed by South Ossetian forces, armed groups and individuals after the cease-fire.

      • More specifically, violations include indiscriminate attacks and a lack of precautions by Georgia and Russia; a widespread campaign of looting and burning of ethnic Georgian villages by South Ossetia, as well as ill treatment, beating, hostage-taking and arbitrary arrests; and the failure by Russia to prevent or stop violations by South Ossetian forces and armed groups and individuals, after the cease-fire, in the buffer zone and in South Ossetia.

      • The situation of the ethnic Georgians in the Gali District following the conflict and still at
      the time of writing this Report gives cause for serious concern under HRL.

      • The situation of the ethnic Georgians in the Akhalgori region also raises serious concerns,
      as many continue to leave this region at the time of writing.

      • Issues relating to insecurity and the destruction of property are key obstacles to the return
      of displaced persons, in particular the return of ethnic Georgians to South Ossetia.

      • The only problem with you citing the selected parts of Tagliavini’s comission report is that the girls says:

        Russia did not start the war, Georgia did.

        Russia did not provoke Georgia to shell Tskhinvali with heavy artillery.

        Russia did not provoke Georgia to kill Russian peacekeepers legally staying in the region.

        • However Dim-itry, the report does say that the Ossetians were making attacks upon the Georgians, it also says that the Georgians had the right to retaliate, but that their retaliation should have been “proportional”.

          As for killing peacekeepers, well as the report clearly states, Russia gave no evidence that any of it’s peacekeepers had been killed.

          The Russian soldiers invading internationally recognised Georgian territory were not classed as peacekeepers, and as the report clearly states were legitimate targets.

          So moron, if you can read the report, note that it says the EVERY SINGLE ONE of Russia’s actions were and are illegal.

          • The report says, to put it shortly:

            1) Georgia started the war bombarding Tskhinvali.

            2) It wasn’t lady-like for Georgia to start the war by no means.

            3) None of those means were ever presented to the chaps anyway.

            4) It was ok for Russia to fight back, but,..

            5) She went a little bit too much ballistic during the second part of the event.

            6) Both sides were wrong, in their own way.

            This report is really neutral, balanced, and thoughtful, let me say.

            Latynina, as usual, claims otherwise.

            • No, the report says:

              1. It was OK for Georgia to retaliate militarily, but with “less force”, it was the use of “disproportionate” force that made the Georgian action unjustified.

              2. All of Russia’s actions were illegal, all of the reasons given for Russian intervention were illegal and could not be used to justify Russian actions. This includes the initial action in South Ossetia, Russia had no right to introduce “additional” forces (ie. invade)

              3. Russia had NO RIGHT to intervene on behalf of the separatists, and all of Russia’s actions were an aggression against Georgia which breached the UN charter.

              • “It was OK for Georgia to retaliate militarily, but with “less force””

                lie.

                “All of Russia’s actions were illegal, all of the reasons given for Russian intervention were illegal ”

                lie.

                “all of Russia’s actions were an aggression against Georgia which breached the UN charter”

                lie.

                You should stop using Imedi as your primary window to the world.

                • No, read the report dima dickhead.

                  IV. Conclusions: no self-defence by Georgia beyond on-the-spot reactions

                  To the extent that the attacks on Georgian villages, police and peacekeepers were conducted by South Ossetian militia, self-defence in the form of on-the-spot reactions by Georgian troops was necessary and proportionate and thus justified under international law.

                  On the other hand, the offensive that started on 7 August, even if it were deemed necessary,
                  was not proportionate to the only permissible aim, the defence against the on-going attacks from South Ossetia.

                  Also, read above:

                  The means employed by Russia were not in a reasonable relationship to the only permissible objective, which was to eliminate the threat for Russian peacekeepers. In any case, much of the destruction (see Chapter 5 “Military Events in 2008”) after the conclusion of the ceasefire agreement is not justifiable by any means. According to international law, the Russian military action taken as a whole was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia.

                  IV. No justification of Russian use of force as fulfilment of the peacekeeping mission

                  Conclusion: Russia could not justify its use of force as a mere reinforcement and fulfilment of its peacekeeping mission.

                  To conclude, both under the doctrine of asymmetry and under the new doctrine of negative equality concerning intervention in a civil war, the South Ossetian authorities could not validly invite Russia to support them by military means. This conclusion is corroborated by the argument that secession may never be lawfully carried out by military means, even if it
                  were justified under exceptional circumstances, which is not the case here. And if the seceding party is prohibited from the use of force, it must also be prohibited from inviting third states to use military force. This means that the use of force by Russian troops in the territory under control of South Ossetian armed forces and authorities was not justified by the invitation

                  The conclusion is that, although South Ossetia could rely on unilateral self-defence in order to
                  repel Georgian attacks, collective self-defence was not allowed.

                  3. Necessity and proportionality
                  Even if it were admitted that collective self defence was possible in favour of South Ossetia,
                  Russian collective self-defence would still have to be necessary and proportionate. Proportionality means a reasonable and fair relationship between the means employed and the objective pursued.192
                  The Russian objective in pursuing collective self-defence in protection of South Ossetia differed from the objective to defend its own peacekeepers in individual self-defence. The
                  legitimate objective of collective self-defence was to bring to a halt the Georgian attack on
                  South Ossetia. However, according to the criteria and factors set out above, the Russian
                  reaction was disproportionate to this objective as well.

                  4. Conclusions
                  Russian military activities against the Georgian military forces were not justified as collective
                  self-defence under international law.

                  To conclude, the Russian use of force cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.

                  In conclusion, the Russian intervention in Georgia cannot be justified as a rescue operation for Russian nationals in Georgia.

                  4. Conclusion
                  The use of force by Abkhazia was not justified under international law and was thus illegal.
                  The same applies to the Russian support for Abkhaz use of force.

                  So peabrain, try reading the report.

                  I mean, we can all see that your intellect is limited, like most juvenile Russians, but come on, try and avoid using RTV1 and the like as your window on the world.

        • Voice of Reason

          Let’s repeat the Commissions conclusions sumary:

          Let me start with the answer to the question, which in the past has been asked most frequently. In the mission’s view, it was Georgia, which triggered off the war, when it attacked Tskhinvali with heavy artillery on the night of 7 to 8 of August, 2008. None of the explanations, given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack, landed valid explanation. In particular, to the best of the mission’s knowledge, there was no massive Russian military invasion underway, which had to be stopped by Georgian military forces shelling Tskhinvali.”

          ““While the onus of having actually triggered off the war lies with Georgia, the Russian side too carries the blame

          Do you agree with this summary of the Report, Andrew?

          • No, I’m sure our little Georgian boy beleives the lady has summed the report badly.

            Saakashvili tells so.

  11. Voice of Reason

    Further comment:

    The Russian Federation is the legal and official successor of the Soviet Union. Thus, it is obligated to accept any Soviet citizen as its own citizen, unless the latter had voluntarily chosen a different citizenship.

    • So therefore Russia is also the party legally responsible for Soviet era oppressions and mass murder.

      Thanks ReTaRd.

      • Voice of Reason

        Of course not. According to you, Georgia is not responsible even for the actions of its own first President – Gamsakhurdia – less than 20 years ago.

        You even tell us that Saakashvili is no longer responsible for his own brutal anti-opposition actions two years ago.

        So, how can Russia be responsible for anything that happened more than 60 years ago?

        • Well, you just said they were the legal successors to the Soviet Union, can’t take the good without the bad ReTaRd, and it was Russia that benefited from its Evil Empire, and its subject states that suffered the most.

          And it is Russia and retarded Russians such as yourself that glorify the soviet past, venerating Stalin and his achievements.

          I have never said Saakashvili is not responsible for his actions of 2 years ago, however there is far more repression of legitimate and peaceful protest in Russia than there ever was in Georgia.

          In addition, Saakashvili has learned from his mistakes, something Russian fools such as yourself seem incapable of.

          Regards Gamsakhurdia, the Georgians got rid of him themselves, and his crimes (such as they were) were still far less than those committed by your beloved mass murderers, the Serbs, Russians, Abkhaz, Ossetians, and especially the arch ethnic cleansers of the 90’s, the Armenians (amazing how you support so many war criminals ReTaRd)

          • “it was Russia that benefited from its Evil Empire, and its subject states that suffered the most” – tell me one thing: did Russia or “subject states” during the 70 years of USSR received more money from the Union’s budget per anima? You’re talking about “evil empire”, so remember the British Empire and compare.

            “Regards Gamsakhurdia, the Georgians got rid of him themselves” – they have yet rid of every president they elected, now they’ve elected the third one. Every next president started a new war with people he beleived to be citizens of Georgia. Wonder why?

            • Voice of Reason

              “Regards Gamsakhurdia, the Georgians got rid of him themselves” – they have yet rid of every president they elected, now they’ve elected the third one. Every next president started a new war with people he beleived to be citizens of Georgia. Wonder why?

              Why? That’s easy. Because this way they can always deny their past crimes: “We didn’t do this! Gamsakhurdia did this all on his own! But Shevardnadze threw him out with the help of Rusisan troops in a bloody civil war! So we are not responsible for out freely elected President Gamasakhurdia! What? Are we then responsible for Shevardnadze? No! We threw him out too! In a revolution! And we chose the Gamsakhurdia-loving Saakashvili! What? Take responsibility ofr Saakashvili and his brutality towards opposition and aggression against Ossetia? But he does this only every 3 years or so. In-between brutalities he is a democrat! And in any case, we shall throw him out in another conflict, and that way we won’t be responsible for his actions either. We are innocent. We don’t commit any crimes. Only our democratically elected but insane presidents commit crimes without our knowledge or participation! We want Ossetia and Abkhazia back! We won’t exterminate them more frequently than every 3 years. We promise! And we want Russia to take full responsibility for what our Georgian-born monster Stalin had done to the Russians 70 years ago!”

              • They have ousted Yuschenko, Bakiev, Bush… I hope that at least Saakashvili stays in power. We have yet too much popcorn left here in Russia:D

              • Now ReTaRd,

                Stalin is glorified even today by the Russian people and the Russian state, who wre his trigger men?

                Russians

                Who glorify him to this day?

                Russians

                So, if you want Georgians to take responsibility for Gamsakhurdia, lets hear you take responsibility for Stalin, the Great Russian Leader.

                Come on ReTaRd, follow your own logic here.

                • Voice of Reason

                  Andrew,
                  Is that big Stalin monument still standing in Gori, Georgia, despite Saakashvili’s solemn promises to get rid of it?

                  What happened? Is Saakashvili too busy desecrating and blowing up memorials to the fallen Georgian heroes who defeated the Nazis?

                  • Well, at least they are not putting up new monuments to Stalin, unlike you Russians.

                    Moscow Metro,
                    Volgograd Stalin Museum,
                    Various statues and busts in North Ossetia and other Russian regions.

                    Nice try ReTaRd, but the simple fact of the matter is Stalin is a great hero in Russia.

                  • Voice of Reason

                    Wait, Andrew,

                    Are you telling us that the Stalin’s statue has never been removed from Gori?! Is it still there?

                    How can it be? You told us that it is not there anymore:

                    Andrew // September 13, 2009 at 11:47 am
                    Stalin is despised here (they have removed the statue from Gori)

                    What was that? Yet another cheap lie, Andrew?

                    • Well, the article I at the time stated the government was to remove the statue.

                      I feely admit that it has not been done yet, and did so some time ago.

                      However, why can’t you admit that your fellow Russians adore Stalin, venerate him, and consider him one of the greatest Russians of all time, by the waym his father was an Ossetian, and there are many statues of him in Ossetia (north and south), and in fact the Ossetian occupiers of the Georgian town of Akhalgori have changes its name to Stalingori in honour of the “great son of the Ossetian people”

                      So now how about you follow your own logic, and admit that it is Russia that is responsible for Stalins crimes, after all, you scum worship him, not the Georgians.

                      St.Petersburg bus lauding Stalin
                      Moscow Metro “ode to Stalin” recently placed in renovated Metro
                      Volgograd “Stalin – Hero defender and Leader of Russia” museum opened in 2006
                      Various statues and busts of Stalin erected around Russia.

                      Lets see, and in Georgia in the last 60 years……nothing.

                      Try again Voice of Treason, your demagoguery is getting a bit tired, as are your lies.

                    • Voice of Reason

                      Andrew wrote: “ Well, the article I at the time stated the government was to remove the statue.

                      Yes, to remove. In the future. But you lied to us that it removed it.

                      Do you know the difference between the past and the future? Of course you do. You just can’t restrain yourself from lying. You are a pathological liar, Andrew.

                    • Now RTR, just correct me if I am wrong, but there have been no new statues or memorials to Stalin in Georgia since 1956, and all but one have been removed.

                      Meanwhile in your beloved Russia, he is venerated, adored, worshiped, and loved by Russians, being described as the 3rd greatest Russian of all time (he is not very popular at all with Georgians), Stalin is venerated in the Moscow metro thanks to restoration work, venerated in the new Museum to his glory in Volgograd, there are dozens of new statues, busts, and memorials to him in Russia which have been erected in the last 5 years, and then there is the new “Stalin, hero defender of Russia” bus in St.Petersburg, all the posters of him in Moscow, etc,etc,etc.

                      So, lest just recap.

                      Russians loveStalin

                      Georgians don’t.

                    • Andrew, once a (ga-) liar, always a liar.

                    • Andrew, once a liar, always a liar.

              • And what exactly the “Georgian-born monster Stalin had done to the Russians 70 years ago” they now just love him so much? Including you pal Eugenics, who just can’t shut up about this Stalinbus that he presumably helped to create, and compares him with Bill Gates?

                Btw Stalin was Russian-born, there was no Georgia in 1878. And after Georgia declared independence, Stalin and the rest of the Russian Bolsheviks brought them back under Moscow rule in military conquest by the Soviet Russia (with thousands of people killed and an exodus of thousands of refugees).

                • 70 years ago was 1940. I really wonder what excactly happened “to the Russians” on this date because of Stalin that have left you allegedly traumatized so much.

                  Surely you don’t mean the Katyn massacres of captured Allied soldiers, or the Baltic deportations of civilians?

                • Voice of Reason

                  Robert wrote: “And what exactly the “Georgian-born monster Stalin had done to the Russians 70 years ago” they now just love him so much?

                  Despite massive disinformation campaign in the West, the Russian people and its rulers fully recognize the horrible crimes committed by Stalin, although some want to tell the hisotrical truth that Stalin commanded the Red Army that defeated the Nazis.. Here are some quotes:

                  “It is impossible to imagine the scale of the terror inflicted on the people of our country,” Medvedev said in his video blog on Oct. 30, the day commemorating the victims of Stalinist repression. “I am convinced that no national development, no success, no ambitions can be achieved at the price of human suffering and death.”

                  http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3072723020071030

                  Putin honors Stalin victims 70 years after terror
                  Reuters – October 39, 2007

                  Russian President Vladimir Putin paid his respects on Tuesday to millions of people killed under Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and called for the country to unite to prevent a repeat of its tragic past. Putin marked Russia’s annual day of remembrance for the victims of Stalin’s purges with a visit to Butovo, where tens of thousands of people were executed. “We know very well that 1937 was the peak of the purges but this year was well prepared by years of cruelty,” Putin said beside a mass grave after laying flowers at a memorial. Putin said such tragedies “happen when empty ideas are put above fundamental values, values of human life, of rights and freedom.”

                  “Hundreds of thousands, millions of people were killed and sent to camps, shot and tortured,” he said. “These were people with their own ideas which they were unafraid of speaking out about. They were the cream of the nation.” “There was even a complete theatrical troupe from the Baltics massacred here,” Deacon Dmitry, a priest at the site, said.

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7069530.stm
                  In pictures: Putin laments Stalin purges

                  http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-10/2007-10-30-voa52.cfm?m
                  Putin Commemorates Victims of Soviet Repression
                  Voice Of America
                  Russian President Vladimir Putin has commemorated more than 20,000 people executed at a Moscow killing field during the height of Stalinist terror in 1937 to 1938. Mr. Putin said those who perished included the Soviet Union’s most outspoken and effective people. President Putin laid flowers at a cross erected in memory of more than 20,000 people shot at the Butovo firing range. Mr. Putin said Russians should do their best to remember the tragedy, which occurred in 1937 and 1938. The Russian leader says millions of people were destroyed, shot, sent to labor camps, and tortured.

                  http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-71650326.html

                  Putin Signs Repression Payback Bill

                  Associated Press, February 2003

                  Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a bill providing additional government pensions and other privileges to children of victims of Soviet-era political repression. The new law gives people whose parents were subjected to
                  political repression while they were minors the same rights as other repression victims, the presidential press service said Monday in a statement.
                  ————————–

                  Putin said: “There was repression. This is a fact. Millions of our citizens suffered from this. And this way of running a state, to achieve a result, is not acceptable. It is impossible. Certainly, in this period we encountered not only a cult of personality,but a massive crime against our own people. This is also a fact. And we must not forget this.”

                  http://www.izvestia.ru/news/news215132?print

                  “Gulag Archipelago” becomes mandatory in the school curriculum

                  In September 2009, the Education ministry of Russia announced that Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago”, a book once banned in the Soviet Union for the detailed account on the system of prison camps GULAG became the required reading for Russian high-school students.

                  Prior to that, Russian students studied Solzhenitsyn’s short story “Matryonin dvor” and the famous novella One Day of Ivan Denisovich [for which Solzenitsyn received his Nobel Prize], a detailed account of a single day in the life of a GULAG prisoner. Its publication in the November issue of the journal “New World” in 1962 was a bombshell.

                  As for the “Gulag Archipelago”, it had previously been taught in high only on a voluntary basis. Now, after turning the novel into the federal component of state educational standards of secondary education, the study of the materials from this novel becomes mandatory for all Russian high school students. According to ITAR-TASS, Vladimir Putin decided to do this after his meeting with the author’s widow Natalya Solzhenitsyn on July 28.

                  • @Despite massive disinformation campaign in the West, the Russian people and its rulers fully recognize the horrible crimes committed by Stalin, although some want to tell the hisotrical truth that Stalin commanded the Red Army that defeated the Nazis..

                    Stalin gutted the Red Army just before the war (by shooting or imprisoning most of the officers) and is directly reponsible for many of the defeats and avoidable losses but not for a single victory. If you think otherwise, you’re a Retarded Typical Russian. Oh wait, you are.

                    And this was not surprising at all, because Stalin was also personally responsible for the Red Army defeat in the 1920 war against Poland. Oh, and he even had the very creator and original commander (actual and quite genial, and not a backseat driver of “no retreat or you’ll families will be shot” type, which of course always worked wonders and not disasters at all) of the Red Army murdered in exile with a pick axe to the head.

                  • So, that is why the Russian state continues to venerate him, and the Russian people worship him?

                    Once again.

                    Public adoration of Stalin, in the placing of posters venerating Stalin in museums and other public buildings for the VE celebrations.

                    For the Record
                    06 May 2010
                    City Hall put up small posters of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin around Moscow on Wednesday despite an outcry from some officials and rights activists over efforts to rehabilitate him. The images form part of celebrations the city is preparing for the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II on May 9. (Reuters)

                    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/for-the-record/405487.html

                    A bus adorned with Stalin and praise to him in St.Petersburg, not to mention that anti-Stalin posters are not allowed by the authorities.

                    Stalin Ads Allowed In St. Petersburg, Anti-Stalin Ads Not
                    http://www.rferl.org/content/Stalin_Ads_Allowed_In_St_Petersburg_AntiStalin_Ads_Not/2033620.html

                    Then there is the “Ode to Stalin” in the Moscow Metro

                    Moscow Metro Ode to a Brutal Dictator

                    In late August a stone was unveiled at the Kurskaya Circle Line Metro Station in Moscow. It carries the words: “Stalin brought us up – to be true to the people. He inspired us to labour and to heroism!”. The words are from Sergei Mikhalkov’s version of the national anthem, and were removed after Stalin was denounced back in 1956. They have been reinstated, and if anybody should think that this is merely aimed at adding historical authenticity, I would politely recommend considering how they would react if similar words appear in the Berlin metro glorifying Hitler. For many of us, whose relatives were murdered by Stalin’s regime, glorification of the dictator is deeply offensive. It also reflects a profoundly disturbing development in the country.
                    The persistent attempts by Russia’s leaders to accuse neighbouring countries of “rehabilitating Nazism”, to shout about an alleged denial of the Soviet role in defeating Hitler, as well as the creation of a History Commission to fight “falsification of history”, are not only a defensive response to anniversaries of Stalin’s initial pact with Hitler. The tendency to whitewash Stalin, present him as an “effective manager” and avoid or try to somehow minimize the millions of victims of the Terror, Holodomor, collectivization, deportations and the labour camps has been gathering momentum for a few years. It reached school textbooks in 2007, and it is important to note that the quite extraordinary mangling of history by at least one representative of the History Commission, Natalya Narochnitskaya, is echoed in the version of history fed children in Fillipov’s guide to teachers of history.
                    It is not clear whether Moscow’s Mayor Yury Luzkhov was involved in this latest shameful demonstration of moral atrophy and profound disrespect for the victims of Stalinism and their families. He can, however, and must be made to understand that the ode to a murderous butcher must be removed.

                    Halya Coynash
                    Kharkiv Human Rights Group

                    http://eng.maidanua.org/node/1007

                    Re-Stalinization of a Moscow Subway Station

                    MOSCOW — A central Moscow subway station reopened this week after a painstaking, yearlong restoration of its initial Stalin-era luster, complete with gilt-trimmed words of praise to the Soviet dictator spelled out around the vestibule’s rotunda that add new fuel to debate about his role in Russian history.
                    …….
                    One afternoon this week at the Kurskaya subway station, one of Moscow’s busiest, many commuters’ heads turned to catch both the grandness of the renovation and the words of the Soviet anthem as it was sung under Stalin when the station opened in 1950: “Stalin reared us — on loyalty to the people. He inspired us to labor and to heroism.”
                    ………..
                    Human rights advocates and opposition politicians, meanwhile, raised the alarm that the aesthetic glorification of Stalin at the Kurskaya station signaled a broader rehabilitation of the dictator.

                    “This is the restoration of the Stalinist myth,” Arseny Roginsky, chairman of the organization Memorial that arose in the 1980s to catalog Soviet crimes, said in a telephone interview. “This Stalin myth is very dangerous, and it is being restored in this very simple and blunt manner, under the pretext of restoring architecture of the first half of the 20th century.”
                    ………
                    Among other elements that had been removed from the Kurskaya station and now restored are a medallion in honor of the defense of Stalingrad — changed, in the interests of de-Stalinization, to read “in the defense of Volgograd” — and a small engraving with the war cry “for the Motherland, for Stalin.”

                    Mikhail Alimov, 55, an off-duty military officer passing through the station surveyed the results with satisfaction. “Even in France, in Paris they have a station called Stalingrad,” he said. “To our shame we don’t have this. This is also our history. Even Parisians honor our feat.” His wife, Natalia, a doctor, expressed regret that the bust of Stalin had not been found. “The bust should also be here,” she said.

                    Under Mr. Putin, now the prime minister, the picture about Stalin has become less clear cut than it was as Communism crumbled 20 years ago. He has endorsed a manual for history teachers that portrays Stalin as an effective crisis manager who industrialized the Soviet Union and led it to victory against Hitler. He has also supported the teaching of “The Gulag Archipelago” in schools, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s epic work about Stalinist prison camps and repression.

                    Mr. Solzhenitsyn’s widow, Natalya, after a meeting with Mr. Putin last month to mark the one-year anniversary of the writer’s death, said she had told him that would cause confusion. “It’s absurd on the one hand to study Solzhenitsyn’s ‘Gulag Archipelago’ in schools and on the other hand to tell children that Stalin was an effective manager,” she said in an interview with Vremya Novostei.

                    Mr. Putin has sought to unite czarist, Soviet and post-Soviet elements of Russian history in a seamless narrative.

                    That effort was reflected in the comments one could hear at Kurskaya station.

                    “I’m stunned that they left these words,” said Yelena Butovskaya, 55, a movie theater director visiting from Tula, spinning around with a smile. “You know how it’s become fashionable somehow now to cross out our past, everything that happened. But it’s impossible to say that there was no Stalin, no Lenin and no October Revolution. And I’m glad that in restoring this architecturally, they left the inscription that was there initially, as an homage to history. I like it. I’m happy.”

                    Denis Vyaznikov, 15, pumped his fist when he saw the ode to Stalin. “I think this is truly the right thing because in these words there is a kind of pride for our country,” he said.

                    But Mr. Roginsky of Memorial said such sentiment was dangerous. Today’s leaders, he said, “don’t actually want Stalin himself,” but “the genie has been let out of the bottle.” Whoever permitted the inscription to be restored, he said, “was certain that he is doing the right thing.”

                    Then there is the new memorial museum to the Russian Hero Stalin in Volgograd.

                    Stalin museum is ‘an insult to millions sent to death in Gulag’
                    By Andrew Osborn in Moscow

                    The project is being financed by local businessmen but will controversially enjoy pride of place in the official complex that commemorates the epic Second World War Battle of Stalingrad.

                    The museum will display a writing set owned by the dictator, copies of his historic musings, a mock-up of his Kremlin office, a Madame Tussauds-style wax representation of him and medals, photographs and busts.

                    Svetlana Argatseva, the museum’s curator, said she felt the project was justified. “In France, people regard Napoleon and indeed the rest of their history with respect. We need to look at our history in the same way.”
                    …….
                    Ironically, however, though the former dictator appears to be enjoying a mini-revival. Actors playing “Uncle Joe” are in serious demand as TV and theatrical productions about the Stalin era flourish and the modern-day Communist party says his crimes were “exaggerated”.

                    Between 30 and 40 per cent of poll respondents regularly rate Stalin’s achievements as “positive” and a survey last year named him the most revered Communist leader the USSR produced. Admirers cite his turning the Soviet Union into a superpower, the country’s defeat of fascism and the “order” he enforced. According to Mr Gorbachev, Russia is going through a dangerous period.

                    “We can see what was seen in the 1930s even now,” he said earlier this week. “Portraits of Stalin and a renaissance of Stalinism can be observed in the mass media and in theatres. Some attempts are being made to preserve Stalinism and this is very serious.”

                    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/stalin-museum-is-an-insult-to-millions-sent-to-death-in-gulag-466911.html

                    See Voice of Retardation, actions speak louder than words.

                    Putin is rehabilitating Stalin, and decent Russians worry about it, but not you, you applaud.

                  • Why Russia is putting Stalin back on to his pedestal

                    By Nick Allen in Moscow
                    Published: 12:05AM BST 20 Apr 2005

                    The cult of Joseph Stalin, once worshipped as a near deity but later reviled as one of history’s worst monsters, is enjoying a revival across Russia and beyond.
                    To the dismay of many, proposals to erect new monuments to the tyrant for what apologists see as his “outstanding” war leadership have won support from figures close to President Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin.

                    A shiny effigy of the Communist dictator in a prominent position might even put uppity foreign powers in their place, said one senior politician.
                    “They never miss a chance in the West to rewrite history and diminish our country’s role in the victory over fascism, so that’s even more reason not to forget Stalin now,” said Lyubov Slizka, a parliamentary vice-speaker.

                    While usually couched in terms of admiration for his part in defeating the Nazis 60 years ago, the language of the campaign to rehabilitate the dictator suggests a more sinister interpretation, liberals fear.
                    Under this theory, the Kremlin is seeking a return to Stalinist xenophobia, “discipline” and veneration of the state, if not the out and out terror that sent millions to perish in the gulag.

                    Stalin’s first prominent statue in modern times was to have risen in the Crimea, seated with Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt at the Yalta palace, where the three leaders carved up post-war Europe in 1945.
                    But a change in Ukraine’s leadership last year and protests by Stalin’s surviving victims forced its sculptor, Zurab Tsereteli, to find a new home for the trio in the Russian city of Volgograd, the former Stalingrad.
                    Elsewhere, and largely unnoticed, a handful of villages have already put up small Stalin memorials of their own over the past two years.
                    Plans have also been mooted for a huge monument near the Russian city of Kursk, site of the biggest tank battle in history, that would also include Marshal Zhukov “to balance the ideological composition”, the region’s governor said.

                    Officials in Moscow have insisted that no statues of the dictator will appear in the Russian capital. But his name resurfaced last year when a Kremlin memorial plaque to “Volgograd” was replaced with one to “Stalingrad”.
                    That city was renamed Volgograd in 1961. Since then, veterans’ associations and the Communist Party have lobbied to have the name change revoked, citing the importance of its victory over Hitler’s armies in 1943.

                    Floral tributes still abound at his bust by the Kremlin wall while millions of Russians revere his legacy to this day.
                    In a nationwide poll published before Stalin’s birthday last December, 29 per cent of respondents credited him with the Soviet Union’s survival and victory in World War Two, despite compelling evidence that his tactical misjudgments nearly proved disastrous.
                    A further 21 per cent saw Stalin as a “wise leader” who built a “mighty, flourishing” country. And 16 per cent said only a similar figure could restore order in today’s Russia.

                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1488271/Why-Russia-is-putting-Stalin-back-on-to-his-pedestal.html

            • @they have yet rid of every president they elected

              Maybe you should try this sometimes.

              You know, I think it’s just hilarious when the Russians love to cry how they suffered oh-so-much under Yeltsin. And then the same Russians say how they hated when the Chechens rid themselves of the allegedly hated Yeltsin and his goons in uniform.

              If this was REALLY as bad as you think it was (millions dead and what not, of course you’re dying out just all the time but never mind), you know what? You should have 1) respect the Chechens for taking a stand 2) take their example and do with the Kremlin what they did with the Grozny “government house” in August 1996 (that is burn it down and shoot every bastard trying to escape).

              But nooo, you just have to be the Russians, with either a fatalistic slave or a happy slave (currently) mentality. Slava Rassiyi!

              • Looks like you’re teaching Russians a revolution.

                Silly boy:D

                • Ah, the most recent Russian revolution, headed by an ethnic Chechen of all people (Ruslan Khasbulatov). Extenguished quickly after just one (double) massacre in Moscow by Yeltsin’s loyalists. Oh-so impressive.

                  (And this killed just how many people? Even less than the “genocide in South Ossetia”? Or actually many more? Figures I heard vary so much I honestly have no idea, do you?)

                  You know what? When “the federals” shelled the Grozny parliament (and everything else), it just made them more pissed.

                  Also congratulations to have the brave troops ready to open fire at civilians even in their own capital city. Or gas them to death there, for that matter.

          • Voice of Reason

            Andrew wrote: “Regards Gamsakhurdia, the Georgians got rid of him themselves

            Not themselves. The Russian army helped a lot.

            But Russians did get rid of Soviets and Communists themselves back in 1991 not only for themselves but for Georgia and the other ex-USSR republics.

            and his crimes (such as they were) were still far less

            Well, when Georgia accepts full responsibility for the actions of its fascist President Gamsakhurdia which drove S. Ossetia and Abkhaiza away, and gets rid of Saakashvili who rehabilitated Gamsakhurdia and named a major Tbilisi city after him exactly one day after coming to power – then Russia too will accept full responsibility for everything its leaders have done in the same period of the last 20 year since its independence from Soviets.

            • Actually dimwit, the Latvians and Georgians started the process and got rid of the communists by themselves starting in 1989 or so.

              You Russians fought pretty hard to keep communism, at least you glorify it enough to make us think you miss it.

              • Andrew, cutie, that were Russians and, actually, mostly Russians, that got rid of communism. But it’s more than enough for a pretty boy like you to know the very words “Russian” and commies to be the cutest chub around:D

                • Sorry, wrong again.

                  Georgia and Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia elected anti-communist governments before Russia did.

                  Try again Dumitry.

                  • Er, cutie, when did they free themselves from the evil communists? Say, in the 60ies? Why/ why not?

                    Continue to think this thought, and eventually you’ll come to a right conclusion:D

                    • In 1989-90. Moscow used the loyal OMON forces and sent OSNAZ and Russian paratroopers, who have murdered dozens of people, but failed in their task.

                      Btw, Dudayev (then a nuclear bomber air base commander) was quite crucial in securing the independence of Estonia.

                    • I knew you’ll fail.

            • @the actions of its fascist President Gamsakhurdia which drove S. Ossetia and Abkhaiza away

              Yeah. “Abkhaiza” which fought together with the Zviadists (and Dudayev’s volunteers, and remember Gamsakhurdia was even buried in Grozny) against Shevardnadze.

              • Er, Abkhazians fighting alongside the ousted Gamsakhurdia against Shevardnadze,

                – because Shevardnadze wanted to cleanse all Abkhazians, you forgot to add?

                • Oh, becuase it was really Shevardnadze now? Yesterday RTR claimed it was Gamsakhurdia (and Shevy was “helped a lot by Russian Army”). Are you sure it was not Saakashvili in a time machine?

                  • Sorry, dude, he was wrong abt Shevy and Abkhazians.

                    In reality:

                    Gamsa (may we call the Shevy’s adversary such?:)) killed Ossetians in 1991-92.

                    Shevy killed Abkhazians in 1992-1993.

                    Saaka killed Ossetians in 2004-2008.

                    Which nation is next, what’s your bet? Wrong, none, both have quited Georgia now.

                    • Heard this, RTR? Your new BFF after Nikita Goebbels has mysteriously vanished just claimed you were “wrong”, and it was the former foreign minister of the Soviet Union the “fascist President” in question. How do you feel now?

                    • Bobby, people over 18 usually do not take offence when someone claims he was wrong, if he really was.

                      But about the president of Georgia wishing to create a “Georgia for Georgians” – he was absolutely right, and you are wrong.

                      That was Gamsakhurdia.

                      I hope that you’re old enough to accept it too.

                    • Voice of Reason

                      Robert,

                      I have noticed that you have started referring to every non-Russophobe here as my BFF.

                      I know that it is your NKVD nature to lump all opponents together and to accuse them of conspiracies, but if you don’t stop this childhood practice – you too are getting BFFs from me: Bohdan, Georg, Andrew and the various Chechen and Islamic “freedom-fighters” who come here to promise new terrorist acts.

                • No, the Georgians did not want to ethnic cleanse the Abkhazians away.

                  However, the Apsu and Russians wanted to (and did) ethnic cleanse the Georgians away.

                  Try again Dimbo.

                  • I have talked to the Amnesty International and it says you’re a dumbass.

                    Свидетельство Зарандия Александра, 1950 г.р., абхаза, проживающего в г. Очамчыра:

                    28 августа 1992 г. мой шурин, 33-х летний Беслан Тарба и его сосед – мегрел поехали из г. Очамчыра в с. Моква. Позже оказалось, что в тот день в этом селе грузинские гвардейцы грабили жителей и сжигали их дома. На обратном пути шурина и его соседа остановили 18 гвардейцев. Узнав, что Беслан абхаз они прострелили ему ногу из автомата, затем ногой выбили глаз, две пули выпустили в живот, затем добили выстрелом в ухо. Мегрелу гвардейцы прострелили ногу только за то, что он был с абхазом.

                    Свидетельство Ториа Георгия, 1924 г.р., абхаза, жителя с.Тамыш Очамчырского района:
                    19 октября грузинские гвардейцы поймали меня на сельской дороге, взяли в штаб. Допрашивали: “Где сыновья?” Избили, причем били прикладом автомата в лицо, между глаз, в результате чего я перестал видеть левым глазом. В тот же день меня отпустили, я ушел в соседнее село. Мой дом был сожжен в начале февраля.

                    Свидетельство Гелина Владлена, сотрудника миротворческой миссии “Омега”:
                    2 марта 1993 года должен был состояться обмен: грузинская сторона должна была передать живых пленных, абхазская – тела погибших во время боя в с. Меркула Очамчырского района, всего шесть трупов. Перед обменом грузинские гвардейцы расстреляли абхазских пленных: Адлейба Тамаза, Зарандия, Жукова Сашу, Курскую Ирину, Адлейба Рудика, Акаба Игоря, Турнанба Отара. Тела их были изувечены. И. Курская – медсестра – попала в плен легко раненной. У нее были вырезаны груди, женские органы, горло перерезано. Один из трупов не смогли опознать, настолько он был изувечен.

                    Свидетельство Папаскири Тины, 1941 г.р., абхазки, матери 5 -х детей, проживающей в с. Цхенцкар Очамчырского района:

                    С 17 августа находиться в нашем селе было опасно для жизни. Я со своими детьми ночевала в соседнем селе, а днем приходила к себе домой, следила за домом. Несколько раз приходили грузинские гвардейцы, которые унесли все, что было в доме. 3 ноября мой муж шел по сельской улице и был убит выстрелом из грузинского танка. Увидев это, я схватила своего младшего сына и побежала в лес, грузинские гвардейцы долго стреляли нам в след. Через некоторое время мы тайком забрали тело моего мужа. Гвардейцами были угнаны наши коровы, а кур просто перестреляли.

                    Свидетельство Саакян Азнифы Левоновны, 1961 г.р., армянки, проживавшей в с. Лабра Очамчырского района:

                    На третий день войны грузинские гвардейцы подъехали к нашей деревне на танках. Мы решили перекрыть дороги в село, чтобы нас солдаты не беспокоили. Но они заявили, что мы, армяне, поддерживаем абхазов и что они нам устроят второй Карабах и никто не уйдет живым. Они ворвались в село. Первым домом, куда они вошли, был дом Кейян Мисака. Они там все переломали, наиболее ценные вещи забрали с собой, подогнав грузовую машину “КАМАЗ”. В декабре 1992 года они убили мою свекровь Сару Айрапетян (65 лет) в своем доме.

                    These above are a witnesses’ words. Four of the many more available.

                    “My house was burned”, “They have beaten me with a buttstock to head, and asked, where are your kids? I now can not see with my left eye”, “After getting to know that he is Abkhazian, Georgian national guards shot him in the foot, beaten him in the eyes with their boots, then twice shot him in the stomach, and finished him with a shot in the head”. “Georgian national guardsmen looted the villagers there and burned their houses”, “My husband was killed by a shot. After seeing this, I took my baby and run to the forest. Georgian national guards have shoot in our direction for a long time“. “Before the negotiated change, Georgians have killed the Abkhazian captives”. “A medic, was captured with a light wound, had her breasts cut off, her feminine organs too, and her throat was cut“. “They told us we, Armenians, support Abkhaz, and they are going to give us villagers a second Karabakh. That noone would escape alive.”

                    • Try again Dimbo,

                      The Ethnic Cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia was conducted in Abkhazia during the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict of 1991-93. Between 10,000 to 30,000 ethnic Georgians were killed by the Abkhaz separatists, foreign mercenaries, and allegedly by Russian Federation forces.

                      Introduction
                      The number of civilian casualties lost without trace in this ethnic cleansing was between 10,000 to 30,000, to say nothing of those who were wounded, tortured, raped and robbed. 240,000 were exiled from their homes, and 30,000 Russians, 25,000 Abkhaz, Armenians, Greeks and other nationalities became refugees. More than 20,000 houses, Georgian schools, kindergartens, cultural centers, churches, hospitals and historical monuments were burned down or looted. The ethnic cleansing also affected Greeks, Jews, Ukrainians, Russians and other people living in the territory of Abkhazia.

                      After the end of the war, the government of Georgia, Hague War Crimes Tribunal, United Nations and OSCE, as well as the refugees themselves, began to investigate and gather facts about the genocide, ethnic cleansing and deportation which had occurred. In 1996 the OSCE officially recognized ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia.

                      On March 2006, the Hague War Crimes Tribunal announced that it had reviewed all the documents submitted by the Georgians. After a full-scale investigation, the Tribunal concluded that it would prosecute and start hearings against the campaign of ethnic cleansing and terror inflicted on ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia.

                      Reports of atrocities are still reaching the international community (especially the United Nations) from the Gali region. According to UN observers, the situation there is alarming.

                      “A terrible find has been made by the local residents of the mountains of Abkhazia (Georgian Rep), near the spot where clashes with the sea-born landing troops (attempting to cut the Ochamchire-Sokhumi highway) had taken place..Pieces of a human body were hanging on long wires from tree..Those were remains of two skinned Georgian men..It is not only soldiers that are killed. In the same woods, near one village there was found a corpse of a pregnant Georgian women. She had been raped and disemboweled.”Dmitry Kholodov, Moscow journalist covering the Conflict, 1992

                      Facts of ethnic cleansing (1992-1993)

                      Following are few examples taken from the Helsinki Human Rights Watch Reports and documentation submitted for the review to United Nations and Hague War Crimes Tribunal.

                      Gagra

                      Hundreds of Georgians were annihilated in the Gagra stadium. Among others, Mikheil Jincharadze, Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia, was executed. The mutilated corpses of Georgians were taken to the city dump and covered with garbage. The Abkhaz separatists killed people of other nationalities as well, including those who tried to protect Georgians. After the city was seized, the streets were covered with bodies. Separatists destroyed the Baramidze, Chkhetia, Baramia, Gvazava, Dzidziguri, Absandze, Shonia, and Kutsia families, as well as many others. In the village of Leselidze, 50 people were executed by hanging.
                      Gudauta

                      About 5,000 Georgian inhabitants of the villages of Akhali Sopeli, Eshera, Likhni and Otkhara in the Gudauta Region were expelled from their homes. Abkhaz separatists are said to have cut out the heart of 70-year-old Indiko Grdzelidze from Akhalsopeli, killed and burned the body of Boris Topuria, executed Elguja Maisuradze, killed a husband and wife named Nadareishvili in their own bedroom, and tied 65-year-old Nikoloz Kvabziradze behind a tractor to kill him.

                      Seven people were killed in Akhali Sopeli on July 28, 1993, among them 15-year-old Zaza Tesheli and his grandmother Vatse Pakeliani. From July 27 to September 16, Abkhaz separatists killed 40 people and burned down 2,500 houses. Kato and Margarita Khvistani, 10-year-old Tamuna Kikvadze, Givi Kikvadze, Irodi Margiani, Givi and Dzadzu Kokchiani, A. Kaldani, M. Khardziani, I. Khvibliani and many others were killed in Bzibi on July 30.

                      Sukhumi

                      Having captured Sukhumi, separatists executed a Georgian member of Parliament, the Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers of Abkhazia Zhiuli Shartava, Chief of Staff of the State Chancellery Jumber Betashvili, and staff members of the State Chancellery: V. Gegelashvili, A. Shengelia, R. Eshba, Sukhumi’s Mayor Guram Gabiskiria, and security officers. The former Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers, S. Saakian, was also executed. Same day close to 400 civilians were killed in the park of Sukhumi.

                      The massacres continued after the fall of Sukhumi for about two week. Georgians who have failed to flee the city have been hiding in abandoned apartment buildings and house basements. Upon discovery by the militants, they were killed on the spot. One of the most brutal massacres of the war were committed during this period. Video materials show 5 year old child being brutally killed by Abkhaz militant in front of his mother on the streets of Sukhumi. Abkhaz nationals were also targeted during the Sukhumi massacres. Anyone who have tried to hide a Georgian refugee or helped in any way was condemned and killed. “Temur Kutarba, an Abhazian, was killed by an Adighe Soldier in front of his children, for not being an active in killing Georgians. V. Vadakaria, 23 and his Abhazian friend, who tried to defend him, both were killed.””Eye Witness account, UN observers report, 1994

                      The separatists also tortured and executed well-known doctors Shota Jgamadze, Zelimkhan Danelia, Vera Kholbaia and her husband A. Kvaratskhelia, A. Sichinava, and P. Sichinava; cut the throat of N. Dgebuadze in the presence of his father; killed the 60-year-old Kote Sigua and his son, 40-year-old Nodar, in their home (1993); and executed Lado Uridia (November 1993) and 50-year-old Tsiala Kuprava (December 1993).
                      Russian journalist Dmitry Kholodov witnessed the massacre and wrote couple of reports from Sukhumi

                      After subjecting them to torture, the separatists executed V. and L. Rukhaia, M. Kvantaliani (an invalid), two sisters surnamed Kholbaia, and an 80-year-old woman named Berulava and her grandson I. Tyurin. They raped and executed M. Matitaishvili. R. Shubladze and G. Kvashilava were executed in their homes

                      Gulripshi

                      In Gulripshi, the separatists executed 65-year-old B. Bendeliani and 67-year-old Maro Tsotseria from the village of Kashtaki, and 50-year-old M. Abkhazava from the village of Merkheuli (September 1993). 91 peaceful civilians were executed in Babushera (September 1993), and brothers Otar and Giorgi Davitaia (67 and 68 years old, respectively) from the village of Merkheuli were executed (October 1993). Father and son Arisi and Omar Darsania from the village of Pshapi were killed together (October 1993). David and Tsutsa Tsotsonava (80 and 75 years old, respectively), the parents of A. Tsotsonava, the member of Parliament of Georgia, were concealed in the house of their Russian neighbor V. Senikov in the village of Machara; all three, plus Senikov’s wife, were executed together and separatists burnt the bodies. Boeviks killed 55-year-old Vardo Kveteladze. 400 Georgians — women, children and elders — became the victims of hunger and cold as they sought to escape through the Kodori gorge. In the village of Babushera, separatists robbed the house of Ipolite Gabelia (87 years old and invalid), then killed him in his house (October 1993). After having his golden teeth pulled out, Akaki Todua was killed (Babushera, October 1993). The father of Georgian fighter E. Bagashvili was tortured and shot. In the village of Dranda, the parents of 15-year-old A. Gobedjishvili witnessed the execution of their son; afterward the separatists killed them as well (October 1993). M. Tsaava, 75 years old and the mother of ten children, was tied to a hayrack and burned. R. Cholaria was killed in front of his Abkhazian wife and three children.
                      Ochamchire

                      “The Abkhazian separatist group captured sisters — Eka Jvania (17 years old) and Marina Jvania (14 years old), Leila Samushia and others in village Pshadi. They undressed them in front of their parents and neighbors, and raped them. After this the Abkhazians executed all of them by shooting.”Report by Human Rights Watch Helsinki, March 1995

                      More than 400 Georgians were tortured and then executed in the stadium of Akhaldaba. Most of the victims were slaughtered. The others were beheaded or burned alive. Schoolchildren and teenagers were first raped and then murdered. The Abkhaz fighters and mercenaries organized concentration camp conditions, raping and abusing children and women during 25 days. 44 Georgian war prisoners were executed by driving over them with tanks. In the village of Kochara, the biggest Georgian village in the Ochamchire region with 5340 Georgian inhabitants, 235 peaceful residents were killed and more than 1000 houses were burned. Almost every Georgian family lost 3 or 4 members; some were eliminated completely. Many women and children were raped in Tkvarcheli.

                      Post-war period
                      Georgian refugees from Abkhazia

                      The ethnic cleansing and genocide against ethnic Georgians is described in the conclusions of the State Commission. The conclusion states that documents are based upon the evidence of 15,000 witnesses and immediate participants, as well as collected evidence (photos, videotapes and others). The Office possesses a tenth of the volumes of investigation documents. The conclusions submitted by the Commission are concentrated on the following topics: criminal ideology of separatists to annihilate the Georgian population; political, social and cultural rights of Abkhaz nationals at the outset of the conflict; legal and military plans of preparation for realization of the task of “Abkhazia without Georgians”; military conflict; crime rate; annihilation of ethnic Georgian political leaders, eminent representatives of culture, education and the health-care system in Abkhazia; execution of peaceful Georgian residents; forced deportation of the Georgian population; attacks to ambulance vehicles with the Red Cross logo, hospitals and medical personnel; destruction of Georgian historical and cultural monuments; bombardment and devastation of cities and villages, incineration of houses and state buildings with people inside; resistance to the return of refugees and terror against voluntarily returned native dwellers.
                      12 anniversary of ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia which was held in Tbilisi in 2005. One of the visitors of the gallery recognized her dead son on the photograph

                      According to the conclusions “the crime was in preparation for a long time.” The mass media of Abkhazia, political leaders and scientists inspired in the young Abkhaz a hatred of “Georgian occupants”, breeding strife and the desire for a time when Abkhazia would no longer have Georgians. As a minority in multi-national Abkhazia, and recognizing it would be impossible to secede from Georgia by democratic means, separatists began to conduct mass atrocities against the Georgian population from the very beginning of the conflict. Assisted by warmongers and associates, and backed by outside mercenaries (Confederation of North Caucasian Republics), who represented more than twice the number of Abkhaz formations, separatists started the genocide against Georgians. Among the tactics used by the separatists were bombardment of residential areas; mass annihilation of Georgians; torture, rape and burning the people alive; devastation of medical institutions, cities and villages; and destruction of historical and cultural monuments which proved aboriginal affiliation of Georgians in the territory. “The international community (UN, OSCE, CIS, Euro-parliament) condemned the facts of ethnic cleansing.”

                      http://en.allexperts.com/e/e/et/ethnic_cleansing_of_georgians_in_abkhazia.htm

            • What do I hear, a major street in Tbilisi is called after the author of “Georgia for Georgians” slogan?

              Now that’s a democracy:D

              • What do I hear, a street in Moscow is called after the author of “kill as many Russians as you can” slogan?

                Now that’s a managed democracy:D

                • This time you’re right, and most Russians dislike it too. But tell me, do you have the guts to accept it that Gamsakhurdia street is a shame?

                  • I don’t really understand your hypothetical question. Even as Gamsakhurdia never called on the Georgians to “kill as many Ossetians as you can” or anything like that, there’s just no street dedicated to him anywhere in South Ossetia (nor in North Ossetia).

                    Meanwhile, Russia has hundreds and thousands of streets and even whole villages, towns and cities named after the actual butchers of various minorities and even of ethnic Russians (Kadyrov is just one example).

                    For example, there used to be a Lenin Street in just in about every settlement (usually the main street), and I don’t think they renamed it in majority of cases. They renamed it in Grozny – it’s now called Putin Street, named after the man who had the city completely razed.

                    • You know, I am really starting to think your answer is very typical of the Westerner.

                      Sad, but too many of your type just can not – ever – say they were wrong.

                      Perhaps, that’s cultural (a winner culture?), perhaps, that’s just psychological (Oedipus complex of being a good boy?).

            • Voice of reason wrote;

              But Russians did get rid of Soviets and Communists themselves back in 1991 not only for themselves but for Georgia and the other ex-USSR republics.

              comment;

              No dear, Russians were put on their knees by the America’s economic and military might – so don’t flatter yourselves – YOU WERE FEFEATED BY AMERICANS NEVER FORGET IT….

  12. Warren:

    Instead of going ballistic with me why not pick a fight with all of those purple fingers and with those who stayed in line to vote when their own blood was spilling on the sidewalk.

    You talk generalities while I talk specifics such as a long trial ending in a monster being hanged by the neck.

    Suddenly there is a new, apparently viable democracy right in the middle of Islam.

    Turkey refused passage of our troops and paid the price because now the hated Kurds have their own country. Bush paid Turkey back in spades.

    Argue it directly. There was no yellowcake covered up by the media, new oil is not flowing into world markets, Rivqa did not turn christian, Iran has not been destablized, Islam is not seething with new ideas, etc.

    I am talking a freedom fight against a monsterous religion like in the old days when we finally got the catholic church by the neck and made them behave.

    All you have is your strange little negative attitude towards Bush. The left grows more frantic by the day about a people willing to die fighting for their freedom and you lefties hoping they will fail.

  13. Voice of Reason

    Andrew, it has been quite weird to see you on a constant hunt for imaginary gays and pedophiles. You even recently proclaimed that I am gay, although LR mercifully deleted your post after I gave you a whipping in response. But still all this preoccupation with finding gays, as in:

    Andrew // January 16, 2010 at 5:08 am
    Medvedev obviously enjouys having another mans hand up his arse…..So you deny Putin is a paedophile despite film evidence of him kissing a boy on the stomach in public? Well I do think that Medvedev and Putin have a passive active relationship. As shown by their somewhat “intense” relationship…
    However Russia does have a long and proud tradition of homosexual behaviour… the MBLA… There are a lot more about the wonders of gay life in Russia… you are the one who defends Putins pederastic tendencies.. Medieval Russia was apparently very tolerant of homosexuality…

    You are also preoccupied with butt-plugs:

    Andrew // September 12, 2009 at 4:46 am
    Try watching it butt-plug, or are you too busy molesting little boys (a common habit for both Greeks and Russians)?… more realisticly called butt-plug
    from now on… Once again butt-plug…

    But today, while reading old posts on Abkhazia I found your explanation why you are so preoccupied with insulting others with “gayness” insults:

    Glenn // May 14, 2009 at 9:24 am
    Andrew, are you gay?

    Andrew // May 14, 2009 at 9:29 am
    I suspect you are the gay one (usually people insult others with what they fear in themselves).

    Thanks for admitting that you fear homosexuality and pedophilia in yourself, Andrew.

    • I’d call it Andrew “hates it” in gimself rather than “fear it” in himself.

      And I watch Euronews showing veterans arriving at railway stations Moscow and St.Peterburg to participate in the two parades. And they are heroes.

  14. Voice of Reason

    Andrew wrote: “[Red Army veterans] are no different to the Nazi veterans.

    So, Andrew, you consider the Soviet veterans of World War 2 to be like Nazis?

    Andrew // December 21, 2009 at 5:53 pm
    BTW, in WW2 Georgia lost over 300,000 men from 700,000 who went to the front, out of a population of around 4,000,000.

    And they are all like Nazis?! All 700 000 of them? Is that why Saakashvili is so tenderly and lovingly protecting the Stalin’s statue in Gori, while blowing up huge memorials to the Georgian veterans of World War 2?

    How does it work? Why would Georgian heroes, who defeated Nazi Germany, are considered to be much worse than Stalin? Why did Saakashvili rush to blow up this monument for his own birthday, to the anti-Nazi heroes that he even killed two people as “collateral damage”?

    Andrew // December 21, 2009 at 5:53 pm
    Yes, two people died (mother and child) when a pieve of concrete from the memorial struck their house.

    Andrew // December 22, 2009 at 8:41 am
    The monument was to GEORGIAN soldiers who died in WW2, around 300,000 of them, whose contribution would have been significant regardless of wether they served in a separate national army or as part of a larger force.

    Kate // December 23, 2009 at 6:24 am
    But this monument was the monument dedicaited to all Georgians who fell fighting against the Nazis as I understand? Why was it demolished?? It makes no sense to me? Do this soldier not deserve credit for fighting against the Nazis?!

    Indeed, why did Saakashvili blow up the Memorial to all Georgians who fell fighting against the Nazis? And why is he keeping the Stalin’s monument proudly standing in the center of Gori? Clearly, Saakashvili feels much more sorry for the Nazis who lost WW2, than for the victims of Stalin’s repressions.

    • “Kate // December 23, 2009 at 6:24 am
      But this monument was the monument dedicaited to all Georgians who fell fighting against the Nazis as I understand? Why was it demolished?? It makes no sense to me? Do this soldier not deserve credit for fighting against the Nazis?! ”

      No, like Andrew said above, all those Georgian veterans are equal to Nazis.

    • Actually Voice Of Retardation, I was describing Russian veterans.

      Especially those from the Chechen wars and Georgia 2008

      • Voice of Reason

        We are talking about the parade of veterans of World War 2.

        And you didn’t explain to us why Saakashvili loves the statue to Stalin but hates the Georgian heroes who defeated the Nazis. Why did he blow up the Memorial as a present for his own birthday? Is he still upset that the Nazis lost?

      • Voice of Reason

        Andrew,

        Are you saying that Russian WW2 veterans are like Nazis?

  15. @I know that it is your NKVD nature to lump all opponents together and to accuse them of conspiracies, but if you don’t stop this childhood practice – you too are getting BFFs from me: Bohdan, Georg, Andrew and the various Chechen and Islamic “freedom-fighters” who come here to promise new terrorist acts.

    And I know it is your SS nature to be too stupid or just pretend to fail to notice how “the various Chechen and Islamic “freedom-fighters” who come here to promise new terrorist acts” is really just one guy under various nicknames (something like you) and I’m making fun of him all the time while laughing at his death threats directed at me.

    • Voice of Reason

      Robert wrote: “Heard this, RTR? Your new BFF after Nikita Goebbels…

      You have the mentality of a 7 year old, Robert.

      • Well, you have the mentality of a mongoloid 2 year old, so I will take Roberts opinions over yours any day.

        Really VOR, you are pathetic.

      • Voice of Reason

        Andrew // September 13, 2009 at 11:47 am
        Stalin is despised here (they have removed the statue from Gori)

        Andrew // May 8, 2010 at 6:47 am
        Well, the article I at the time stated the government was to remove the statue. I feely admit that it has not been done yet

        Voice of Reason // May 8, 2010 at 7:40 am
        Yes, to remove. In the future. Do you know the difference between the past and the future?

        Andrew // May 9, 2010 at 5:48 am
        Well, you have the mentality of a mongoloid 2 year old. Really VOR, you are pathetic.

        At least I can tell the past from the future, Andrew. And reality from fantasies.

  16. Dmitry, I wonder why did you just respond to yourself with the following message: “I knew you’ll fail.”?

  17. VOR:

    The 550 tons of yellowcake was real enough. Bush just was not the kind of guy who would bother to defend himself against the parasites.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s