The situation with South Ossetia and Abkhazia is very different than that of the Ukraine. Georgia initiated the attack. There were Russian peacekeepers that observed the attacks by Georgia and deaths of innocent citizens. Now I suppose the idea of 'innocent citizen' is debated in Georgia, but, that is politics and sovereignty and NOT a matter of war.
By Charles King
Few people (click here) believed that the fact-finding investigation into the 2008 Russia-Georgia war by the European Union -- which released its final report on September 30 -- would reveal new facts. But the report does confirm that Georgia acted irresponsibly in attempting to reconquer the secessionist region of South Ossetia by force, and that Russia acted irresponsibly in militarily intervening to prevent Georgia from overrunning South Ossetian militias and Russian peacekeepers. Yet in declaring a plague on all the houses involved in the five-day war, the EU report misses an opportunity to outline how the long-running territorial disputes of the Caucasus might be best resolved....
The report criticizes Russia as well, but, something had to stop Georgia. There were 1000 people dead due to Georgia's attack alone.
No US Congressman should dismiss the fact Georgia acted first and this in no way can be measured against the events in the Ukraine. It is completely different. The Ukraine is holding early presidential elections in May and that was agreed to before the former president abandoned his country.
The Ukraine has to establish it's sovereignty without question in the reality that exists today and in anticipated elections in May. That wasn't what occurred in Georgia.
No USA Congressman can make up their own facts.
...the report concludes that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali (especially the use of multiple rocket-launcher systems) had no legal justification, and that “there was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation.”...
...Russia, meanwhile, might have had some justification for protecting its peacekeepers in South Ossetia, but any military action beyond that was deemed unjustified and disproportionate....
...The EU mission’s most surprising conclusion is that the South Ossetian military, in responding to Georgian attacks, “did conform to international law in terms of legitimate self-defense.” This statement equates South Ossetia’s legal status with that of both Russia and Georgia, since it does not distinguish the South Ossetian irregulars’ use of force from that of the Russian and Georgian militaries. This will come as a surprise not only to Georgia but to any country -- including Russia -- facing an armed secessionist movement....
The fact South Ossetia had organized it's own military was a clear indication it believed Georgia was clearly a threat. The people of South Ossetia had a right to live.
In the case of the Crimea and the Ukraine, there is no clear indication there was a separatist movement. Quite the contrary, the Ukraine and the Crimea were enjoying the fact they shared the same president. At this point, the Crimea is welcome to form a political party as there are elections in May. The deaths this time was carried out by Ukrainian police and in no location within the Crimea.
In the case of the Ukraine and the Crimea it would appear any interference with sovereignty is an overreach by Russia. I would think Russia would rather begin better relations with the Ukraine than inflame differences. There has been no threat to the people of the Crimea and/or any Russia leases to justify any actions, even in exercises. Currently, there is no treaty known to any other nation that exists between the Ukraine and Russia that would exonerate Russia from any invasion into the sovereignty of the Ukraine, be it the land, sea or air space. The Ukraine presents no threat to Russia's interests.
The international community has correctly treated many territorial disputes, from Kosovo to East Timor, as open-ended affairs, keeping independence, shared sovereignty, and other creative forms of governance fully on the table as potential outcomes. In the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia before August 2008, however, Western governments unquestionably adopted Georgia’s position in these disputes, making little effort to see things in more nuanced, multifaceted ways; this approach helped push the Saakashvili government into believing that it could claw back South Ossetia in a quick war....
Basically, The West took an aggressive position that was unilateral and has based even current relationships with Georgia to their own interests rather than the truth. Here again, The West has no right to their own facts.
By Charles King
Few people (click here) believed that the fact-finding investigation into the 2008 Russia-Georgia war by the European Union -- which released its final report on September 30 -- would reveal new facts. But the report does confirm that Georgia acted irresponsibly in attempting to reconquer the secessionist region of South Ossetia by force, and that Russia acted irresponsibly in militarily intervening to prevent Georgia from overrunning South Ossetian militias and Russian peacekeepers. Yet in declaring a plague on all the houses involved in the five-day war, the EU report misses an opportunity to outline how the long-running territorial disputes of the Caucasus might be best resolved....
The report criticizes Russia as well, but, something had to stop Georgia. There were 1000 people dead due to Georgia's attack alone.
No US Congressman should dismiss the fact Georgia acted first and this in no way can be measured against the events in the Ukraine. It is completely different. The Ukraine is holding early presidential elections in May and that was agreed to before the former president abandoned his country.
The Ukraine has to establish it's sovereignty without question in the reality that exists today and in anticipated elections in May. That wasn't what occurred in Georgia.
No USA Congressman can make up their own facts.
...the report concludes that the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali (especially the use of multiple rocket-launcher systems) had no legal justification, and that “there was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation.”...
...Russia, meanwhile, might have had some justification for protecting its peacekeepers in South Ossetia, but any military action beyond that was deemed unjustified and disproportionate....
...The EU mission’s most surprising conclusion is that the South Ossetian military, in responding to Georgian attacks, “did conform to international law in terms of legitimate self-defense.” This statement equates South Ossetia’s legal status with that of both Russia and Georgia, since it does not distinguish the South Ossetian irregulars’ use of force from that of the Russian and Georgian militaries. This will come as a surprise not only to Georgia but to any country -- including Russia -- facing an armed secessionist movement....
The fact South Ossetia had organized it's own military was a clear indication it believed Georgia was clearly a threat. The people of South Ossetia had a right to live.
In the case of the Crimea and the Ukraine, there is no clear indication there was a separatist movement. Quite the contrary, the Ukraine and the Crimea were enjoying the fact they shared the same president. At this point, the Crimea is welcome to form a political party as there are elections in May. The deaths this time was carried out by Ukrainian police and in no location within the Crimea.
In the case of the Ukraine and the Crimea it would appear any interference with sovereignty is an overreach by Russia. I would think Russia would rather begin better relations with the Ukraine than inflame differences. There has been no threat to the people of the Crimea and/or any Russia leases to justify any actions, even in exercises. Currently, there is no treaty known to any other nation that exists between the Ukraine and Russia that would exonerate Russia from any invasion into the sovereignty of the Ukraine, be it the land, sea or air space. The Ukraine presents no threat to Russia's interests.
The international community has correctly treated many territorial disputes, from Kosovo to East Timor, as open-ended affairs, keeping independence, shared sovereignty, and other creative forms of governance fully on the table as potential outcomes. In the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia before August 2008, however, Western governments unquestionably adopted Georgia’s position in these disputes, making little effort to see things in more nuanced, multifaceted ways; this approach helped push the Saakashvili government into believing that it could claw back South Ossetia in a quick war....
Basically, The West took an aggressive position that was unilateral and has based even current relationships with Georgia to their own interests rather than the truth. Here again, The West has no right to their own facts.
