Georgian Independence

[Kuri Näkk]

Indeed, it is weird conspiracy time. Hagen is a covert Georgian agent because he has openly worked as Georgian PR agent and openly supports Georgian view of history in his writings. How covert is that?

As why he is doing it: many people who write propaganda actually believe in it, at least the core of the claims. Thus, in their opinion they are not even writing propaganda. For instance:

But when the South Osetia War happened (which you may recall happened because Georgia attacked Russia having been apparently promised by John McCain that Bush's America would back them despite that being completely insane), the dotmeister turned to writing anti-Russian propaganda about how bad the Russians were and how important it was for NATO to start World War 3 to protect Georgian territorial claims on South Osetia and Abkhaz.

This is a pure piece of propaganda. You recall Georgia attacking Russia? You think that South Osetia and Abkhaz are not part of Georgia, Georgia only has territorial claims on the territories? What, like Alaska is truly a Russian territory and US only has territorial claims on it? Which planet do you live on? The lack of proper response - and I do not mean military response- by Western leadership to Russian aggression against Georgia and the resulting de facto annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia is almost certainly one of the main causes for Russian annexation of Crimea and their current aggression in Eastern Ukraine. We are indeed moving closer to the WW III, step by step. Thank you for your contribution Frank.

[Username17]

Dude, South Osetia declared and got defacto independence in 1992. In 2008, Georgia attempted to reverse that by force. They failed. The west didn't fail to do anything in 2008 that they hadn't already refused to do in 1991. The people of South Osetia already chose to be "not in Georgia" nearly twenty years before the 2008 war.

Russia obviously has been in more of a fighting mood than it has been in a while, but I think that has more to do with one of their puppet regimes having a coup. Remember that the west has no official interest at all in Ukraine's sovereignty. They are not a NATO country, and technically their battles are their own. Just like all the other frozen conflict zones in the former Soviet Bloc. Of which there are a lot.

Don't expect NATO troops to support Moldovan claims on Transdnistr either.

-Username17

[Kuri Näkk]

Dude, South Osetia declared and got defacto independence in 1992. In 2008, Georgia attempted to reverse that by force. They failed. The west didn't fail to do anything in 2008 that they hadn't already refused to do in 1991. The people of South Osetia already chose to be "not in Georgia" nearly twenty years before the 2008 war.

Dude, this is complete bullshit. But this is also political bullshit. So I refrain from any further comments here - feel free to start a thread in MPSIMS if you wish to see your ludicrous claims to be refuted.

---- edit: spelling

[DSMatticus]

That is not bullshit. That is incontrovertibly what fucking happened. South Ossetia has not been under control of the Georgian government since 1992, and in the mid-2000's some Georgian politicians declared they were going to fix that, peacefully or otherwise, and after that some Russian politicians declared they were going to stop treating South Ossetia like it was in a statehood limbo of neither being a part of Georgia nor being independent. Predictably, tension and violence in the region escalated over the next few years until finally shit hit the fan in the 2008.

Now, basically everyone involved in that conflict were "the bad guys." Ossetians murdered Georgian civilians and did a bunch of other shady bullshit, Georgians murdered Ossetian civilians and did a bunch of other shady bullshit, and Russia is Russia. But it is a fact that after ten to fifteen fucking years of peaceful separation Georgian claims on South Ossetia are pretty fucking weak. Maybe the divorce wasn't formal, but that's a long fucking time living apart to think you're still married.

[Username17]

It is very weird to me that people consider it a political issue whether or not the South Osetia war of 1991-1992 occurred. I am totally down with people having political opions on who was most wrong or what should have happened. But the fact that it did happen is not, or at least should not be a political issue. This is like moon landing denialism.

-Username17

[erik]

Dude, this is complete bullshit. But this is also political bullshit. So I refrain from any further comments here - feel free to start a thread in MPSIMS if you wish to see your ludicrous claims to be refuted.

It's about a game designer... and a game he's designed. I think this forum fits.

[Longes]

It is very weird to me that people consider it a political issue whether or not the South Osetia war of 1991-1992 occurred. I am totally down with people having political opions on who was most wrong or what should have happened. But the fact that it did happen is not, or at least should not be a political issue. This is like moon landing denialism.

-Username17

You clearly don't read enough reddit.

[Kuri Näkk]

It is very weird to me that people consider it a political issue whether or not the South Osetia war of 1991-1992 occurred. I am totally down with people having political opions on who was most wrong or what should have happened. But the fact that it did happen is not, or at least should not be a political issue. This is like moon landing denialism.

Nobody has denied that violent conflicts occurred. Call them wars if you like. Such conflicts took place in many areas of former USSR after its collapse. Georgian government was able to insert control on some areas and failed in others like Abkhazia. They failed largely because Russia actively supported the other side. Not out of some sympathy for Caucasian ethnic minorities: Russia mercilessly crushed all similar separatist movements within their borders. I should say 'attempted to crush' because Russian government actually failed in some cases, like Chechenia. These breakaway regions declared independence but were not recognized by the world community. Russia resumed their attack on the Chechens in 1999 and crushed them. Do you consider it an attack on Georgia? No? Then why do you think that Georgia attacked Russia in 2008 when it tried to crush the rebels in South Ossetia? Is it because the South Ossetian rebels were Russian puppets? Are you one of those people who thinks that Russia can do whatever it wants in the former republics of USSR and any attempt of these states to counter the efforts is violation of Russia's inalienable rights and aggression against them? Also, it is undeniable fact that Russia intervened immediately in the 2008 conflict and attacked Georgians in South Ossetia and elsewhere on the territory of Georgia. In short, your recollection that Georgia attacked Russia is complete bullshit.

Your claim that Georgians wanted a large scale conflict with Russia is ludicrous. Are you really suggesting that Georgians were so stupid to think that US with no significant military presence in the area could have done anything against determined invasion by Russia? Georgians were fed up with the situation and hoped to catch Russia off guard but fell into trap. The speed and scale of the Russian invasion came as a complete shock to Georgians and it strongly suggests that it was all pre-planned. Later they begged for military help because Russians just scared shit out of them and unlike the West they do not believe that Russia will abide any agreement without credible military threat.

The Western leadership failed. Not because they did not support the Georgian government in their ill-conceived attempt to establish control in South Ossetia. They failed because they did not adequately support Georgia against Russian direct aggression. Sarkozy negotiate peace but the West did virtually nothing to ensure that the Russia actually kept the terms (it did not). Among other things Russia has de facto annexed the areas. Despite this the West very quickly returned to business as usual. Actually more than that: recall, for instance, the Obama’s so called ‘restart’. As the consequence, the Putin and his cronies were emboldened and felt secure enough to launch their aggression in Ukraine when their friend was toppled there.

[Username17]

It is very weird to me that people consider it a political issue whether or not the South Osetia war of 1991-1992 occurred. I am totally down with people having political opions on who was most wrong or what should have happened. But the fact that it did happen is not, or at least should not be a political issue. This is like moon landing denialism.

Nobody has denied that violent conflicts occurred. Call them wars if you like. Such conflicts took place in many areas of former USSR after its collapse. Georgian government was able to insert control on some areas and failed in others like Abkhazia. They failed largely because Russia actively supported the other side. Not out of some sympathy for Caucasian ethnic minorities: Russia mercilessly crushed all similar separatist movements within their borders. I should say 'attempted to crush' because Russian government actually failed in some cases, like Chechenia. These breakaway regions declared independence but were not recognized by the world community. Russia resumed their attack on the Chechens in 1999 and crushed them. Do you consider it an attack on Georgia? No? Then why do you think that Georgia attacked Russia in 2008 when it tried to crush the rebels in South Ossetia? Is it because the South Ossetian rebels were Russian puppets? Are you one of those people who thinks that Russia can do whatever it wants in the former republics of USSR and any attempt of these states to counter the efforts is violation of Russia's inalienable rights and aggression against them? Also, it is undeniable fact that Russia intervened immediately in the 2008 conflict and attacked Georgians in South Ossetia and elsewhere on the territory of Georgia. In short, your recollection that Georgia attacked Russia is complete bullshit.

Your claim that Georgians wanted a large scale conflict with Russia is ludicrous. Are you really suggesting that Georgians were so stupid to think that US with no significant military presence in the area could have done anything against determined invasion by Russia? Georgians were fed up with the situation and hoped to catch Russia off guard but fell into trap. The speed and scale of the Russian invasion came as a complete shock to Georgians and it strongly suggests that it was all pre-planned. Later they begged for military help because Russians just scared shit out of them and unlike the West they do not believe that Russia will abide any agreement without credible military threat.

The Western leadership failed. Not because they did not support the Georgian government in their ill-conceived attempt to establish control in South Ossetia. They failed because they did not adequately support Georgia against Russian direct aggression. Sarkozy negotiate peace but the West did virtually nothing to ensure that the Russia actually kept the terms (it did not). Among other things Russia has de facto annexed the areas. Despite this the West very quickly returned to business as usual. Actually more than that: recall, for instance, the Obama’s so called ‘restart’. As the consequence, the Putin and his cronies were emboldened and felt secure enough to launch their aggression in Ukraine when their friend was toppled there.

These claims are so absurd that I'm going to have to go back to the beginning to some core concepts because your whole worldview is epistemologically bullshit.

First of all, there is no principle by which we support one group's desire for a border over another's. There has never been one, and there's never going to be one. Woodrow Wilson thought he had a good idea going with the right of nations to self determination, but that turned out to be horse pucky because there are too many nations, they are all way too intermingled, and each person's identity is a fluid and changeable thing. The people in Osetia do not want to be in Georgia, and the people in Tiblisi want Georgia to include South Osetia, and there are more people in Tiblisi than in South Osetia, so if you count both groups' votes it is democratically determined that South Osetia is part of Georgia, and if you only count the votes of South Osetians it is democratically determined that it is not.

And there is no principle by which to choose one or the other. Vietnam is separate from China because we only count the will of Vietnamese on that matter (despite there being more Chinese), but the Confederated States of America are included in the United States of America because we count the voices of the people all over the US. Why? Because reasons. Reasons that have nothing to do with any guiding principles about whether it is right for one group of people to have to abide by the will of another. We choose to support the majority's will to dominate or the minority's will to rebel on an ad hoc basis based on other considerations entirely.

The fact that Russia supports some groups of secessionists in countries near to its borders and mercilessly crushes other groups of secessionists inside its borders is not some sort of gotcha. It's not hypocrisy. It's just how things work. It's how things always work for every country. There are secessionists all over the world, and you support some, condemn others, and give zero shits one way or the other about the rest. And so does everyone else, they just have a different list than you do.

As for Georgia falling into a "trap" set by Russia, that's a joke, right? Russia is a major power, the second most powerful army in the world. It would be very strange if they couldn't respond to a military situation on their border. Russia was known to support the South Osetians in their position as a defacto-independent state, and had peacekeeper soldiers in South Osetia. Once they had been fired upon, what kind of blithering idiot do you have to be to think that Russia wouldn't respond in force? Sure, they might decide for diplomatic reasons to brush it off, but if they have no particular love for the government of the country involved, they are well within their rights to bomb Tiblisi. And it was bizarre and foolish of saakashvili to expect any other outcome.

But let's get to the West in this. No. The West didn't "fail" in the Second South Osetia War, because it had no goals in the Second South Osetia War. You might as well accuse Colombia or South Africa of having failed in the Second South Osetia War. It was a minor war in between two countries outside their sphere of influence and the result was pretty much the status quo ante-bellum. South Osetia had defacto independence in 1992, 16 years later the Russo-Georgia war merely confirmed it.

Basically you're committing and recommitting a category error over and over again. You think that just because you want Georgia to control South Osetia that it is somehow morally important that this happen. But it's not. No one outside that area actually gives two shits about whether South Osetia is ruled from Tbilisi or Moscow or subject to self rule. It just. Doesn't. Matter. The only thing that matters is realpolitik. And the realpolitik of the situation is that Russia had troops in South Osetia to "keep the peace" and Georgia sent in their own troops to break the peace. And the fact that Georgians were surprised that Russia's army is much larger, more powerful, and better organized than their own is just fucking sad.

-Username17

[ishy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the second war was in 2004 right? The 2008 one is the third war?

[name_here]

Honestly, not anticipating Russian intervention at all is stupider than expecting military support from the West. Russia made it pretty clear whose side they were on. And if the Russian military is even vaguely competent, they'd already have a plan on file for the war whether or not they wanted it to happen. Because it was something that was very likely to come up.

Meanwhile, even though NATO has no presence in the region, NATO does have enough military power to fight Russia and either win or force nuclear escalation, so Russia would likely back down if they believed NATO actually would intervene. And while NATO doesn't have a specific stake, they would be happy to see Russia lose power and influence. But it's simply not important enough to NATO for them to actually be willing to start a potentially nuclear war over, and everyone knows that. Still, especially under the Bush administration, I could see someone believing that the US would deploy troops to the region and get Russia to back off.

Ukraine matters more to NATO for economic and geographic reasons, so they're willing to do more there. But Ukraine isn't actually a NATO member and they're under no actual obligation to do anything. NATO members have deployed more troops to former Soviet republics actually in NATO, to make clear that they are willing to fight if member nations are attacked.

The UN may technically be supposed to do something, but both Russia and the US have Security Council vetoes.

[DSMatticus]

Look, there is basically never a time in anyone's life when South Ossetia was a proper part of Georgia. It was an autonomous oblast within Georgia's borders from 1922 until 1990. In 1989 South Ossetia asked Georgia for permission to break away entirely and become its own autonomous republic. Instead of doing that, in 1990 Georgia unilaterally revoked South Ossetia's status as an autonomous oblast. Georgian claims on South Ossetia are exactly as bullshit (if not more so) than Russian "peacekeeping." Because Georgia didn't have any fucking claim to control over South Ossetia until it made one in 1990 and started a fucking war over it.

Bitching about Russian annexation when the other side are a bunch of Georgian nationalists who one-sidedly declared they were going to end South Ossetia's almost seven decades of autonomy is just "I am a nationalist shill and the tribes I like can do no wrong" bullshit. No.

[Kuri Näkk]

Basically you're committing and recommitting a category error over and over again. You think that just because you want Georgia to control South Osetia that it is somehow morally important that this happen. But it's not. No one outside that area actually gives two shits about whether South Osetia is ruled from Tbilisi or Moscow or subject to self rule. It just. Doesn't. Matter. The only thing that matters is realpolitik.

Basically you are constructing that strawman over and over again. Please quote just one instance where I claim that it is morally important for Georgia to control South Ossetia for whatever reasons.

You also contradict yourself. If you claim that South Ossetia was de facto independent then you essentially recognize that de jure independence also has a meaning. If you do not give a shit about de jure and the integrity of the territories of states then it is just stupid to talk about the independence of South Ossetia – according to your realpolitik it was part of Russia because Russians controlled it. Moreover, your claim that the local population decided to not live in Georgia but in South Ossetia is just laughably naive from the viewpoint of your extreme realpolitik.

The fact that Russia supports some groups of secessionists in countries near to its borders and mercilessly crushes other groups of secessionists inside its borders is not some sort of gotcha. It's not hypocrisy. It's just how things work.

Not hypocrisy, are you joking? Obviously you have no clue what the Russians claimed doing in South Ossetia vs what they claimed doing in Chechenia. This is how things work and this is also a great example of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is essential tool in realpolitik and Russians are the masters of hypocrisy. I tried to describe the situation as it was, no gotchas intended.

As for Georgia falling into a "trap" set by Russia, that's a joke, right? Russia is a major power, the second most powerful army in the world. It would be very strange if they couldn't respond to a military situation on their border. Russia was known to support the South Osetians in their position as a defacto-independent state, and had peacekeeper soldiers in South Osetia. Once they had been fired upon, what kind of blithering idiot do you have to be to think that Russia wouldn't respond in force? Sure, they might decide for diplomatic reasons to brush it off, but if they have no particular love for the government of the country involved, they are well within their rights to bomb Tiblisi. And it was bizarre and foolish of saakashvili to expect any other outcome.

Georgian actions strike you as bizarre but instead of admitting that it is so because you do not know enough you explain the situation away with foolishness of Georgian government and conspiracy theories about Bush administration making absurd promises. It took you seconds to realize that Russia would respond militarily, yet you have the arrogance to think that the Georgian government could not see it coming. What blithering idiot you have to be to think that? The question was not whether Russia responds, the question was how fast and how hard. In retrospect everybody is a genius. Back in 2008 few expected that Russia would react so forcibly and so brazenly just like few expected early 2014 that Putin would actually annex Crimea and invade Eastern Ukraine.

But let's get to the West in this. No. The West didn't "fail" in the Second South Osetia War, because it had no goals in the Second South Osetia War. You might as well accuse Colombia or South Africa of having failed in the Second South Osetia War. It was a minor war in between two countries outside their sphere of influence and the result was pretty much the status quo ante-bellum. South Osetia had defacto independence in 1992, 16 years later the Russo-Georgia war merely confirmed it.

International relations are not actually built on raw realpolitik alone. They also are based on customs and agreements, like Helsinki Accords. These agreements are sometimes upheld for idealistic reasons but more often due to self-interest. Many western powers – basically all of them with the possible exception of US – would feel insecure if invasions could be started under absolutely any pretext. The realpolitik reason of the failure of the West consists in not understanding the true ambition of Russia, which is basically tearing down the old system of accepted behaviour so they can emerge as a world superpower. Because the West did not give shit about the minor war in a periphery it now faces much more serious crisis in Ukraine.

You could have said that Georgia provoked Russia into attacking. This would be a controversial statement but at least it would not be obviously false. However, you said that it ‘may be recalled that Georgia attacked Russia’ which at best is a misleading statement but more accurately just a form of propaganda. Are you a covert agent of Russia? *sarcasm* Georgia never attacked Russia - South Ossetia is not Russia. However, Russian military actually invaded Georgia: not only the “independent” South Ossetia but also other parts of Georgia.

[Kuri Näkk]

Honestly, not anticipating Russian intervention at all is stupider than expecting military support from the West. Russia made it pretty clear whose side they were on. And if the Russian military is even vaguely competent, they'd already have a plan on file for the war whether or not they wanted it to happen. Because it was something that was very likely to come up.

Of course Georgia expected intervention but I do not think they expected full scale invasion. Also, I did not mean general contingency plan. I meant planning the specific operation: provoking the Georgians, having the regular units combat ready for invasion, inviting the Russian journalist to the scene in advance etc.

Look, there is basically never a time in anyone's life when South Ossetia was a proper part of Georgia. It was an autonomous oblast within Georgia's borders from 1922 until 1990. /../ Bitching about Russian annexation when the other side are a bunch of Georgian nationalists who one-sidedly declared they were going to end South Ossetia's almost seven decades of autonomy is just "I am a nationalist shill and the tribes I like can do no wrong" bullshit. No.

You probably think that 70 years of autonomy was under some democratic rule. I also guess that you live in US and cannot comprehend that 100 years is nothing in the Caucasian region. Look, the ethnic conflicts in the region were and are tragedy. I have sympathy for all the "tribes". I have zero sympathy for imperialist Russia who does not give a shit about the local ethnic groups. Stop being Kremlin’s apologist.

[DSMatticus]

I also guess that you live in US and cannot comprehend that 100 years is nothing in the Caucasian region.

A hundred years is not nothing in any region on this planet. It's four generations of people. 1922 is before World War II. What, are you going to tell us that the USSR had a casus belli against Germany right up until the day it dissolved because Hitler invaded in 1941? Of course fucking not. You can beat your dick to the region's rich history if you want, but you have to actually live in the modern world.

I have zero sympathy for imperialist Russia who does not give a shit about the local ethnic groups. Stop being Kremlin’s apologist.

You are being a dumbass. Whether or not Russia is a corrupt bunch of assholes has exactly zero things to do with whether or not the Georgian claims on South Ossetia are justified or reasonable. Telling you to stop spewing Georgian nationalist bullshit is not Russian apologetics. You are saying bullshit, and being called on that bullshit, and trying to distract from being called on that bullshit by shouting "yeah, but the Russian government is a bunch of dicks." Yes, yes they are a bunch of dicks. And so is the Georgian government. Glad that's settled. You can shut up now.

[tussock]

The question was not whether Russia responds, the question was how fast and how hard. In retrospect everybody is a genius. Back in 2008 few expected that Russia would react so forcibly and so brazenly just like few expected early 2014 that Putin would actually annex Crimea and invade Eastern Ukraine.

Few? Which few? I understand Adolf Hitler failed to expect Russia to respond, despite the warnings of his generals. Napoleon failed to expect Russia to respond. But the US in Afghanistan in the 80's totally just expected Russia to come in whole hog with everything they had to some bullshit little provocation on their border. I think since 1943 everyone sort of understands that Russia is going to respond as hard and as fast as they can to pretty much everything that happens on their borders, even if doing so hurts them politically. There was the whole cold war thing, the Iron Curtain. You might have heard of it.

Maybe the Chechen war confused everyone down in Georgia, they think Russia didn't win? What Russia did there was ugly and cruel and inspired a long guerrilla war with quite a few terrorist reprisals, but they certainly used a lot of force with their army, and very quickly controlled everything of note.

Really, your country invaded a tiny state on Russia's border which Russia had an agreement to militarily defend. It's be like if Venezuela invaded Peurto Rico and didn't expect the United States of America to do anything much. Being surprised to find the US Marines taking over all their port facilities a few days later, and wondering why China doesn't just stop them doing that, despite China being on the other side of the planet and very busily and loudly not giving a shit.

Then ranting on the internet almost a decade later about what a shitty country the United States is, and how no one could have expected them to uphold the military treaties they'd signed with their immediate neighbours. It's just weird, man. It was weird at the time, and it's weird now. I thought Georgia got off very lightly, and Russia showed surprising restraint.

[DrPraetor]

First of all, there is no principle by which we support one group's desire for a border over another's. There has never been one, and there's never going to be one. Woodrow Wilson thought he had a good idea going with the right of nations to self determination, but that turned out to be horse pucky because there are too many nations, they are all way too intermingled, and each person's identity is a fluid and changeable thing. The people in Osetia do not want to be in Georgia, and the people in Tiblisi want Georgia to include South Osetia, and there are more people in Tiblisi than in South Osetia, so if you count both groups' votes it is democratically determined that South Osetia is part of Georgia, and if you only count the votes of South Osetians it is democratically determined that it is not.

And there is no principle by which to choose one or the other.

Sure there is; you can support the right of self-determination for each individual person in whatever community they may live, leading to the dissolution of nation states into transitory pacts. This would mean that South Osetia would be part of Russia and so would most of eastern Ukraine, while Chechnya would be a bullshit Caucuses country as per the wishes of the majority of the population. If people change their minds later, the borders move accordingly.

You are right that almost no-one actually supports this - in particular, the powerful do not adhere to any principles at all except the rabid promotion of their self-interest, but the principle exists.

The principle that everyone has to be a part of whatever empire has historically held their land also exists (the related principle, "you are a peasant and I own you", also exists), and is theoretically enshrined in various international agreements, which recognize the "rights" of states or nations rather than of actual flesh and blood people.

[Kaelik]

Sure there is; you can support the right of self-determination for each individual person in whatever community they may live, leading to the dissolution of nation states into transitory pacts. This would mean that South Osetia would be part of Russia and so would most of eastern Ukraine, while Chechnya would be a bullshit Caucuses country as per the wishes of the majority of the population. If people change their minds later, the borders move accordingly.

So what you are saying is that on a moments notice any person could for any reason declare themselves to be a new country with no laws against pulling the trigger on a gun, and then they could shoot someone right next to them, and have not committed a crime according to any country, and then be able to go back into some collective that actually has a police force, and declare themselves protected (until someone else secedes on a personal level and kills them).

You are a fucking idiot. That concept doesn't even exist and has never been hypothesized by anyone until this moment because anyone with half a fucking brain would realize that any system which incentivizes each individual minority group to secede from progressively smaller minorities until each person is their own nation and no nation has a police force is really just fucking anarchy.

[Username17]

That concept doesn't even exist and has never been hypothesized by anyone until this moment because anyone with half a fucking brain would realize that any system which incentivizes each individual minority group to secede from progressively smaller minorities until each person is their own nation and no nation has a police force is really just fucking anarchy.

No, he's right. Free Association Anarchists are totally a thing. A crazy, crazy thing.

-Username17

[Pixels]

Some people have attempted to claim personal sovereignty before in the US. It has yet to turn out well.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Relevent Oglaf. [NSFW]

[Maj]

Sovereign Citizens are considered the greatest terrorist threat to the US. And they're just fine - Cliven Bundy mostly won. He's still illegally grazing.

[Kaelik]

Sovereign Citizens are considered the greatest terrorist threat to the US. And they're just fine - Cliven Bundy mostly won. He's still illegally grazing.

Sovereign Citizens go to jail at a distinctly higher rate than the average person. Probably because of that whole "thinking they can break the law without breaking the law" thing, and the fact that it basically never works for them. They waste a lot of court resources with tons of stupid appeals and stupid filings, but they don't actually win any cases, so not sure how you can say that declaring themselves immune from the law is working.

[Kuri Näkk]

You are being a dumbass. Whether or not Russia is a corrupt bunch of assholes has exactly zero things to do with whether or not the Georgian claims on South Ossetia are justified or reasonable. Telling you to stop spewing Georgian nationalist bullshit is not Russian apologetics. You are saying bullshit, and being called on that bullshit, and trying to distract from being called on that bullshit by shouting "yeah, but the Russian government is a bunch of dicks." Yes, yes they are a bunch of dicks. And so is the Georgian government. Glad that's settled. You can shut up now.

As far as I can tell some people misunderstood my point and some, like you, just rant. Let me spell it out for you, idiot. If I say that I have sympathy for ethnic minorities in Georgia it fucking means I do not support Georgian nationalism at the expense of ethnic minorities. Many groups live in Georgia, some claims on land go back thousand years and all this complexity is very much part of the modern world. However, telling me to not ‘bitch about Russian annexation’ of the territories of these ethnic minorities is basically spewing Russian nationalist bullshit. In your hatred of Georgian nationalism you completely overlook Russian ultra-nationalism, which is the main cause of many of the conflicts in former USSR. Unlike Georgians Russians actually invade other states under the pretext of protecting Russians.

Few? Which few? I understand Adolf Hitler failed to expect Russia to respond, despite the warnings of his generals. Napoleon failed to expect Russia to respond. I think since 1943 everyone sort of understands that Russia is going to respond as hard and as fast as they can to pretty much everything that happens on their borders, even if doing so hurts them politically. There was the whole cold war thing, the Iron Curtain. You might have heard of it.

Your arrogant ignorance is funny, honestly. It is plain obvious that Hitler did not expect Russia to respond – that is why he started the invasion with a few million soldiers etc. I especially like your reference to 1943. I suppose that this could be the magic year when people in US took notice of USSR.

Really, your country invaded a tiny state on Russia's border which Russia had an agreement to militarily defend. It's be like if Venezuela invaded Peurto Rico and didn't expect the United States of America to do anything much. Being surprised to find the US Marines taking over all their port facilities a few days later, and wondering why China doesn't just stop them doing that, despite China being on the other side of the planet and very busily and loudly not giving a shit.

MY country invaded a tiny STATE? WTF are you smoking?

Then ranting on the internet almost a decade later about what a shitty country the United States is, and how no one could have expected them to uphold the military treaties they'd signed with their immediate neighbours. It's just weird, man. It was weird at the time, and it's weird now. I thought Georgia got off very lightly, and Russia showed surprising restraint.

You are a little confused who is doing the ranting. You are very confused about what happened in Georgia in 2008. At least I guess now the reason for your childish outburst. I suppose you think that I am some Georgian nationalist who hates your beloved motherland. Relax, I am not and I do not. I live in Northern Europe, which is part of the West by modern standards.

[DSMatticus]

In your hatred of Georgian nationalism you completely overlook Russian ultra-nationalism, which is the main cause of many of the conflicts in former USSR. Unlike Georgians Russians actually invade other states under the pretext of protecting Russians.

Look, there is basically never a time in anyone's life when South Ossetia was a proper part of Georgia. It was an autonomous oblast within Georgia's borders from 1922 until 1990. In 1989 South Ossetia asked Georgia for permission to break away entirely and become its own autonomous republic. Instead of doing that, in 1990 Georgia unilaterally revoked South Ossetia's status as an autonomous oblast. Georgian claims on South Ossetia are exactly as bullshit (if not more so) than Russian "peacekeeping." Because Georgia didn't have any fucking claim to control over South Ossetia until it made one in 1990 and started a fucking war over it.

You are a fucking dumbass and lrn2timeline.

1922-1990: South Ossetia is an autonomous oblast within Georgia's borders.
1990-92: Georgia unilaterally declares "no, you aren't" and attempts to seize South Ossetia by force.
1990-92: Russia provides training, equipment, support, and maybe even military forces to the South Ossetians.
1992: Georgia gets fucking wrecked. A treaty is signd which includes Russia and brings in Russian peacekeeping forces. South Ossetia gets put into statehood limbo, where it is neither a part of Georgia nor recognized as an independent state.
2004: Georgia unilaterally declares "South Ossetia is still our's, you know." Queue four years of increasing tensions and violence.
2008: Georgia attempts to seize South Ossetia by force. Again. Russian boots are literally already on the fucking ground because of the 1992 treaty which Georgia signed.
2008: Georgia gets fucking wrecked. Again.

There is no way to rewrite history such that Georgia didn't start two wars of conquest and lose both of them. Yes, it's unfortunate that South Ossetia needed Russia to defend its independence. Yes, it's unfortunate that Russian peacekeeping is actually a blatant influence grab. But here's a brilliant fucking idea; if people are tired of Russian forces marching into their countries to defend the autonomy of their ethnic minorities, stop shitting all over your ethnic minorities and then trying to make them eat it at gunpoint! Because as long as you are doing that, you will always be the bad guys. Because that is not just nationalist assholery, it makes you the aggressor in the conflict, and if you'd stop being the aggressor Russia would not have the same pretexts for its territory grabbing assholery.

Remember how you, Kuri Nakk, started this conversation? You know, claiming Georgia hadn't attacked Russia and instead had only been attempting to reassert control over its own territories? That's fucking bullshit, because South Ossetia has been autonomous since 1922; "South Ossetia is a part of Georgia" is actually very dubious fucking claim. That's fucking bullshit, because in 1992 Georgia signed a treaty giving Russian forces permission to keep the peace in South Ossetia; yes, trying to break the peace in South Ossetia by conquering it is attacking Russia.

No one has misunderstood you. You just an annoying brat who doesn't want to eat his veggies. Eat your fucking veggies! "Vroooom, here comes the airplane! Georgian nationalist bullshit is responsible for both of those wars! Vroooom! Open wide!"