I think you are mistaking an island for a guess “dot”. But everyone knows Ukraine is in Greenland. Or Australia.
Yes I cited the part where they said both sides were to blame for the escalation that led to the outbreak of war. Therefore if the EU commissioned report is what you base all claims that Russia alone escalated the events that led to war you are in error.
(A) The first fact is that Russia did not start the five day war in 2008, so there is no way XT’s CNN dude could be right.
(B) The second fact is that XT’s CNN dude used a word that included the 2008 war with the Chechyen wars as far as Russia starting them in order to resolve domestic problems. That word is ‘tradition’. He said there now is a Russian ‘tradition’ of starting wars for that domestic political purpose.
(C) The third fact is that there is no way to state that the people of Russia responded with a bump of approval of Medvedev in August 2008 because he ordered an invasion of Georgia beyond what was necessary and justified to stop the Georgian massive attack. His approval would normally get a bump just for the fact that Russuan soldiers were being attacked and killed and wounded.
(D) Another fact is that the NY Times you cite did not refer to what made Medvedev popular in 2008 as the Russian invasion of Georgia. They correctly referred to the entire ‘event’ which is inclusive of the fact that Russia was attacked and Russia justifiably responded in self-defense by invading Georgia. The NY Times did not express any biased judgement that there is a ‘tradition’ of starting wars by Russian leaderd to cover up domestic problems.
On 04-02-2014 at 01:31 PM Batistuta Posted this cite from the EU Commission Report: “Based on the foregoing, all parties to the Georgian conflict share responsibility for crisis escalation.”
Yet you have not incorporated that information into your argument.
:smack: Not only have I not said that Russia alone bore responsibility, I’ve explicitly said the opposite of that:
Seriously, pal, when you attempt to address other posters’ argument, you are wrong about what they are saying about 90% of the time. It’s a real problem. Maybe re-read previous posts before replying? Maybe assume the most moderate interpretation, instead of the most extreme? Try something different, please.
Again, there’s more than one way to start a war.
Put it this way: if Russian leaders were interested in an armed conflict to goose their popularity, but didn’t want to fire the first shot, their best bet would be to behave exactly as they did with regard to Georgia, to try and provoke an attack that would kill or wound their troops in the crossfire; said troops thus serving nicely as a tripwire.
It said:
And that EU report quote you’ve bandied about repeatedly without explanation was:
All bolding mine. So, per that article, it was the invasion, not the immediate reaction to defend the peacekeeping troops, that Medvedev reminisced on television about every year. So, it at least seems to Medvedev that it was the invasion that made him beloved.
That’s what I’m saying, except you are unable or unwilling to understand it.
I wonder how many were from Russia? Anyway, I think events in the last few years have clearly shown that protests grow with discontent. This protest is aggressive, but puny.
Has the protest grown yet or is it just more violent?
How does the belief that Germany lost WWI because of citizens of various ethnic groups and political ideologies have anything to do with what I said?
In this quoted passage you essentially say these countries are an unsolvable mess and propose a solution that will never work. Yet it is obvious that the whole mess can be put back together again by respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine. That’s all that is necessary. If there is a real push from within the country to be more federal or to secede then it will reveal itself. It won’t need Russian troops and spies helping it along.
On 04-08-2014 at 12:48 PM** I wrote:** (A) The first fact is that Russia did not start the five day war in 2008, so there is no way XT’s CNN dude could be right.
On 04-08-2014 at 12:00 AM Human Action wrote: “There’s more than one way to start a war. There’s firing the first shot, and then there’s doing everything you can to get the other guy to fire the first shot.”
On 04-08-2014 at 02:25 PM Human Action wrote: “Again, there’s more than one way to start a war.”
The fact remains that Georgia ‘fired the first shot’ and that is how they ‘started the 2008 five day war’ as was confirmed by the EU Commission.
Question for Human Action: When you wrote, *“there’s more than one way to start a war” * is it your intent to convey that it is your opinion that Russia ‘started the war’ and therefore Georgia did not start the war?
For Christ’s sake use your imagination. There is of course more than one way to start a war. Just drop this. Why don’t you talk about whether the violent takeover of government buildings by pro-Russian demonstrators is more, less or equally as bad as the Kiev overthrow.
The EU spent $15 million to investigate the 2008 Russia/Georgia FIVE DAY WAR. They found that Georgia ‘started it’. Of course there are many ways that Georgia could have started a war. But they did it the way they did it.
I’ve asked Human Action if that line the way you just put it, "more than one way to start a war" is intended to convey that Russia started the war.
Is that what you think? If so why not say so, and let’s let Human Action answer the question.
I do not wish to fail to understand why Human Action repeats a point that is not really relevant to the discussion. Anyone that has read the EU Commission report knows that Georgia started the 2008 Five Day War.
If Human Action or you, think Russia started the 2008 Five Day War, then why not just come out and say it. Why beat around the bush?
Why did you capitalize 5 day war?
And that remains true…see the Mexican-American War, for instance. The Mexicans fired the first shots; the question of who started the war isn’t so simple, and the U.S. was, at best, equally to blame. The world can be complicated that way.
I have never disputed that, making your repetition of it all the more puzzling.
They both, and South Ossetia, started the war. War, like success, can have many fathers (World War One is another example). Again, read the report, it’s all in there. Russia didn’t behave like peacekeepers trying to prevent a war, they behaved like a nation trying to provoke a conflict that they knew they’d win (and had carefully prepared for), so as to achieve their policy aims in the region.
This is indeed an extended hijack, albeit one that originated with an article about the Crimean crisis, and I apologize for my role in it. I’ll wrap it up shortly.
But you say that you ‘never disputed this’:
It can be said that Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia ‘escalated the crisis’… but it is false to say that all three ‘started the war’. Only one was found to have started the war. That is a fact.
By which I meant that the Georgians had fired the first shots. I can see how that’d be unclear, since your sentence had two parts.
My Lord, this is a Mobius strip…the above is true only if one accepts that the sole yardstick for war-startin’ is firing the first shots. As my examples of the Mexican-American War and World War One (to which I’ll add the Six-Day War) make clear, that premise is a false one.
You know what, NotfooledbyW how about this - by way of wrapping up this tangent, I propose the following:
If you can quote the EU report saying that Georgia and only Georgia started the war - not Georgia attacked on the evening of August 7, but Georgia started the war, those words - I’ll concede this increasingly circular hijack and we can return to the regularly scheduled thread.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
The EU spent $15 million to investigate the 2008 Russia/Georgia FIVE DAY WAR. They found that Georgia ‘started it’. Of course there are many ways that Georgia could have started a war. But they did it the way they did it.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent! Cite the relevant page and quote the relevant passage and you win the internet!
And he has explained, at length, exactly what he meant. I clearly understood what he said. I’m pretty sure EVERYONE did…except you, for some odd reason.
He has. Several times. In several ways. You simply aren’t grasping his answer, either deliberately or because you don’t get it. It’s hard to tell which, to be perfectly honest with you.
Why don’t you take his advice and wrap this hijack of the thread up. Simply cite the relevant page of the EU report and quote the passage that says what you claim it says. It’s really that easy. But you won’t because these sorts of hijacks are what you do in threads like this. Repeatedly.
I’ve skimmed it and I didn’t see where it says what you claim. My own reading of it (and the part I fucking quoted for you up thread) seemed to indicate that the blame for the ‘war’ was distributed to all of the major combatants, with Russia coming in for their share as well. But, you can resolve this easily by fucking quoting the passage that says what you claim it says. Which page was it on? I mean, since ‘anyone’ who has read the thing will see it, then show us.
He hasn’t. He’s been clear in his answer to your loopy, wandering text. With more patience than I have, that’s for sure. And I think that pretty much everyone else is easily able to understand his point, since he’s made it in at least a half a dozen different ways that I’ve seen so far…probably more.
In this case it is true and it truly matters who fired the first shots because the EU Commission determined that Russia was justified to send its army and air force into Georgia in order to ‘defend’ the Russian peacekeepers who were under attack.
Medvedev’s popularity would go up tremendously to take defensive military action after Russian troops have been killed by foreign aggression.
You, in no factual way are entitled to presume and assert that Russian public opinion to support Medvedev after Russia had been attacked **was solely or primarily because **he went further across the proverbial proportionality line that was set by the EU in the EU’s ‘difficult’ judgment. It is a bogus conclusion to make.
And your argument in defense of XT’s CNN dude is a farce because that dude’s point was that Russia ‘started the war’ and that it is now a tradition of starting wars to cover up domestic problems. You do not recognize that dude’s use of the word ‘tradition’. His point about ‘tradition’ that he was applying to Crimea using the term ‘aggression’ does not make sense in the context of your watered-down version that ‘all three started it’… all are at fault … to the point that no one is at fault.
Do you accept that Russia was justified to invade Georgia **in order to stop **Russian military personnel from being killed by the massive artillery and tank assault on South Ossetia?
So, that would be a no…you don’t have a cite with a page number and a quote to back up your assertions. Got it. I’ll just keep repeating this every…fucking…time…you post something on this subject that is NOT a quote with a page number to back up your assertion.
You are in error. Human Action has just answered my question that it is his opinion that Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia all started the war. That is false. But Human Action has not explained the ‘triple blame’ theory ‘at length’ until after I asked the question.
On 04-03-2014 at 10:58 PM Human Action wrote,
The truth is that the question of who started the WAR is very simple and the answer is very simple. It was Georgia.
What Human Action was talking about on 04-03-2014 at 10:58 PM is the ‘series of events’ that escalated into Georgia’s invasion. And Human Action is wrong to pin that on Medvedev plotting in Moscow to bait Sakaashvilli into going on a stupid murderous rampage sending his army and rockets into South Ossetia. The EU Commission determined that all sides shared blame in the series of events’ that escalated into full blown war on August 8 2008 which was the result of Georgia’s full scale invasion that started the war on August 7, 2008.
So, that would be a no…you don’t have a cite with a page number and a quote to back up your assertions. Got it. I’ll just keep repeating this every…fucking…time…you post something on this subject that is NOT a quote with a page number to back up your assertion.
Part 2: Use of force by Georgia
A. Use of force by Georgia against South Ossetia
I. Facts
It is not contested that the Georgian armed forces **started an armed offensive in South Ossetia **on the basis of President Saakashvili’s order given on 7 August 2008 at 23.35.38
The EU report talks much about the 'armed engagement between Russian and Georgian forces as the WAR.
The EU report determines that Russia was justified to launch a counter-offensive… and invade the territory of Georgia to defend its peacekeepers and South Ossetian civilians.
Actually the EU report also cites Sakaashvilli’s order to START a ‘defensive’ operation which the EU report shoots down as far as being defensive. But the start of the operation coincides with the FACTS of Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia:
Russia denied it and dates the time of the start of the counter-attack:
The War Started: On 7 August at 23.35 hours Georgian artillery units **began firing **smoke bombs and, subsequently, at 23.50 hours, **opened fire **on both fixed and moving targets of the “enemy forces” on the territory of South Ossetia.
According to the Russians: the Russian air force and artillery started their attacks on Georgian targets at 14.30 on 8 August,
According to the EU report Russian fighter Jets attacked Georgian targets some time prior to 14.30 on 8 August and they described it as ‘early’ morning.
Well, to be fair to me, I have evidence for that conclusion, which I’ve already presented: Medvedev took to the airwaves every year to reminisce about the tough, solitary decision to send Russian forces into Georgia. Naturally, the other decision he could have made would be to repulse the immediate attack, and then stop. So, at least in Medvedev’s own opinion, his accomplishment was to not stop there, but instead invade Georgia.
Yes, it makes sense, because it’s absurd to say that three nations (or enclaves) being at fault means none of them are at fault. Aren’t you a parent? Please tell me you don’t apply that reasoning to your kids.
Only to the limits of the Caroline test. That said, the proportionality or lack thereof of the Russian response isn’t part of my argument, which only concerns Russian actions before August 7th.
See, that’s “Georgia attacked on the evening of August 7”, which is what I said I didn’t want.
Also, the report characterizes the pre-August 7th attacks as:
So, no, it doesn’t refer to the period of August 7th-16th as the entirety of the war.
And, it refers to the August 7th as an escalation of hostilities, as it wasn’t a attack out of the blue, but the latest in a series of incidents:
Now, consider these conclusions from the report:
There is no reasonable reading of the report that allows one to come away with the conclusion that:
…which is why you can’t find a quote to support it. Wars don’t spring fully-formed from the skull of Zeus, and this one was no exception.
And, as a bonus, to support my claim that Russia’s actions were consistent with trying to achieve policy goals, and not acting as peacekeepers trying to prevent armed violence: