You wholly ignore what happened in South Ossetia in 2008 where the West was the aggressor whether the handlers and friends of Sakaashvilli wanted him to be so stupid or not to launch a military assault of such magnitude that forced the Russian severe response.
Please, explain how “the West”, as opposed to Georgia or South Ossetian separatists, was the aggressor in the Russo-Georgian War.
The West was the aggressor? What do you base that on?
I’ll let Captain Amazing answer for himself, but a quick skim shows this:
Sorry for the formatting weirdness…cutting and pasting from that PDF wasn’t working well. At any rate, It’s pages 430-434ish. Not sure if that’s what CA was talking about.
Sakaashvilli attacked Russian troops in 2008 as they were on the path to NATO membership. NATO lowered their standards quite low to allow Georgia and Ukraine get as close as they got to joining NATO as they did in 2008.
While you seem to be using the report as proof that Georgia was in the wrong, a close reading blames Russia for much of the violence too:
You happy now? Will you finally stop using Iraq as an excuse for Russian actions in Crimea? Will you finally stop justifying Russian actions in Georgia just because the initial aggression was carried out by Georgian troops? I bet not…
EDIT: Just seen that XT did a similar job. I’m not sure why we bother to be honest
Russia wants free reign over the former non-Russian USSR region, and as much of the former Warsaw Pact as they can get. They know NATO isn’t going to initiate an attack on Russia proper. What they’re afraid of is not being able to project force into non-Russian areas.
Well, tough latkes if they can’t. Had they been a better neighbor in the past, those countries wouldn’t be so deathly afraid of them. If I were living in one of them, I’d want to distance our country from Russia as much as possible.
And the idea that there are Russians living in other countries is a smoke screen. The “Russian Speakers” in Ukraine are Ukrainian, not Russian. If Russia has expats living in Ukraine that it is worried about, then Russia can recall them.
[QUOTE=Batistuta]
EDIT: Just seen that XT did a similar job. I’m not sure why we bother to be honest
[/QUOTE]
The idea is to fight ignorance and have a discussion. We aren’t really trying to fight NFBW’s ignorance. He’s set in his mind and there is no real debate with him. Even leaving his odd view point and posting style and weird fixations, there just isn’t anything to debate with him. However, there are a lot of lurkers who are watching and reading the discussion. Some of them don’t know what’s going on, or are on the fence…or just don’t know anything about the situation at all but are interested enough to slog through pages and pages of drak to find a few nuggets. That’s the target audience for your replies. 
“As close as they got” was not even starting yet on the multi-year, extensive process that is the Membership Action Plan.
Fair enough, I guess it’s all worth it then 
When an EU commissioned report establishes (had to admit) the ‘fact’ that Georgia launched the attack prior to any start of a Russian invasion, then it is obvious to any objective and unbiased observer that Russia had an inherent right to self defense plus it became Russia’s perogative to retaliate in whatever way they chose. Russis chose to destroy much of Georgia’s military assets as possibke. Any nation would have done the same.
Are you saying Russia was not justified to respond because an opinion paid for by the EU thinks they went too far.
If you do you undermine the current argument that Russis has nothing to fear from NATO expansion because of EU bias that Russua had really no justification to protect their troops from attack by some hot headed fool who managed to be able to order an attack as Sakaashvilli did.
From a Russian perspective the entire West and EU are mad.
When Georgia attacked Russian troops first they deserved to suffer the consequences of being obliterated in response.
And The EU Report could not lie and say that Russia invaded Georgis first. That is all we needed to know.
Russua has plenty of Reasons to fear NATO expansion because it entertains countries with nuts as leaders to be members.
Oh dear. Just a few weeks between one post and the other.:rolleyes:
It is the truth that Georgia attacked first. That is the significance of the EU Commission’s finding. They could not perpetuate the West’s year long lie about which side started it. I don’t believe the EU Commission was base up of un-biased imiartual objective experts who could determine fairly what the Russian response should have been to a deadly attack on Russian troops.
The truth is that Russia responded to an attack on its military personel. If we want an opinion of how far the Russian response should have gone, there needs to be a Russian oersowctive on that.
My view is that Russia had an inherent right to self-defense and it was up to them, once one Russian soldier or civilian was killed by Georgian cowards that fired those rockets at civilian targets, to react in a defensive and punitive strike.
If you think that Russia was obliged to take out only the artillery and tanks that were killing innocent civilians and turned around and gone home, it is a very good indication that Russia can never be right about anythin? With so many in the west thinking like that its no wonder Russia does what it does.
Your expectation that Russia should have limited its response to a murderous attack by a wanna-be-NATO member, so as to please an EU Commission is absurd.
The truth is that Georgia started it and lied after they got their ass kicked and that fact was confirmed by the EU in its investigation.
Have you found the door, a stone and a rose yet? Choo-choo…choo-choo…choo-choo…and that is the truth. Keep on chugging, NFBW.
I love it. My favorite part of the Dark Tower series is that “essay”.
So the record is clear - it is ok for the US to attack another nation - topple its government when there was no threat or hostile act being committed by the regime at the time of the invasion. But for Russia to respond to a hostile attack on its military forces and the civilians they were there to protect, is required to have acted with restraint and extremely limited defensive military response and respect for the aggressor nation’s soverign integrity and right to murder people at will. I see.
Yes, that’s exactly what he said.
You’re sure you’re not a fan of Said El-Saahaaf?
Who said? I am talking about the commissioners hired by the EU that found Russia to have responded to an attack by Georgia but went too far in the five day defensive and retaliatory response.
Compared to other invasions Russia’s response was indeed quite restrained.
So basically the part of the report you agree with documents the “TRUTH” and the rest is Western propaganda bullshit.
No. That is a pathetic interpretation of what I’ve said. Georgia insisted all along that Russia began to invaded and Georgia reacted. Having the EU find that Georgia lied about that critical point is signifucant and confirms Russia’s original version of what happened. Beyond that fact, the rest is opinion. And it is not fair and balanced opinion because Russia is not represented in the Commussion for its opinion.
But the truth could not be disguised in a EU commissioned report about who attacked first.