Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Alien Space Bats]

Horseshit.

NATO's membership saw in the alliance a framework for maintaining European peace and security. The absence of a veto by any of its principal members made it more flexible and more capable as well.

Or, maybe, NATO has retained its original purpose(s) without changing and "adapting"? Namely - to serve as the extension of the American Hegemony and to be an alliance that still saw Russia as its potential enemy?

Or maybe you're just making shit up, the way RT makes shit up and then, when they get called on it, try and weasel out of it by saying that they're "just asking the questions that need to be asked".

In the wake of the Cold War, the one place Europe did not want to go was back into its past ― a past in which petty national rivalries and territorial disputes created an endless cycle of intrigue and war. Uniting all of Europe in a single alliance (NATO) and as members of a single customs union (the EU) seemed to be the best way of keeping Frenchmen, Germans, Britons, Poles, Spaniards, and Italians from falling on each others' throats.

Yes! Because poor Europeans need USA wise guidance, or they will be at each other's throats! Oh, and they need a common enemy, yes!

Because Europeans couldn't have chosen to remain in NATO on their own; no, their decision to remain within the Atlantic Alliance must've been the result of a secret CIA/Wall Street plot.

And it's not like the Alliance can make collective decisions in their mutual interest. Oh, no! They're all under Washington's control, little mindless zombies led along as foot soldiers in the struggle for global domination by the Amerikan Reich.

<pause>

I hope it's beginning to sink in just how ridiculous your thinking is on all of this...

Russia has no desire to "dominate Europe". These fine things - spheres of influence - whether you believe in them or not, preclude Russia from doing that.

Actually, if the US withdrew from Europe as you Russians would prefer, wouldn't that effectively give Russia all the leverage it needed to dominate the continent militarily? It would, after all, be the largest, most populous, and best armed nation on the continent...

No, your questions are idiotic. To conclude that NATO's continued existence is "proof" of an anti-Russian conspiracy is, as I said once before, horseshit. NATO exists as a body to bring Europe together into a single collective security organization for the purpose of noting, addressing, and solving mutual security problems through collaborative action. It doesn't have to be "against" ANYONE; it just has to be there to observe, respond, and solve common problems.

I mean, your position is like saying that now that World War II is over, we no longer need the United Nations. Fucking seriously?!?!?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Do you even know what that means?

"You too".
"Why criticise NATO? What about Russian-led CSTO!?" Is a textbook example of Tu Quoque.
Are you done, or do you have more redundant questions?

That's not actually an example of tu quoque because NATOs existence isn't being argued as legitimate because of CSTO, it's being pointed out that condemning NATOs existence also requires a condemnation of CSTOs existence in order to retain a logically consistent argument.

[Jinwoy]

"You too".
"Why criticise NATO? What about Russian-led CSTO!?" Is a textbook example of Tu Quoque.
Are you done, or do you have more redundant questions?

That's not actually an example of tu quoque because NATOs existence isn't being argued as legitimate because of CSTO, it's being pointed out that condemning NATOs existence also requires a condemnation of CSTOs existence in order to retain a logically consistent argument.

conceded

[Costa Fierro]

Lyt, see the word "modernization" in your earlier post? Stuff gets old. It gets replaced.

Apparently Russia is the only country in Eastern Europe to Modernize its military.

Well, in the former USSR it sort of is anyway. Even countries like Belarus have retired very capable aircraft like the Su-27.

[Shofercia]

I know, all those atheists on NSG who talk about nothing but religion are secretly funded by the atheist cabal... /sarcasm

Most of them post on all kinds of topics. Lyt only has one.

Maybe this is the only topic that interests him? Maybe he's not as knowledgeble about other topics, as he is on this one? Honestly, those types of accusations should've died with the Salem Trials.

Kyrgyzstan migrated to Europe recently? Damn, I didn't realize that countries can migrate.

yeah, its pretty cool. you should talk to cartalucci about it. he thinks that kyrgyzstan moved to somewhere near the baltic sea

In which post did he express those thoughts?

By going all Boer War on Russia's ally, the Serbs, over Kosovo? By supporting one Color Revolution after another near Russia's borders? By claiming that Yeltsin's elections were democratic, whereas Putin's weren't? By supporting rapid privatization, which led to the rise of Gangster Capitalism in Russia? By supporting economic thugs like Khodorkovsky, who would've sold Russia out for profits? By helping Saakashvili attempt to destabilize the Caucasian Region shortly after the blood of thousands of Russians barely patched it up? My, my, my, what "noble" attempts.




I got it!

Cut the Color Revolution nonsense out. The Orange Revolution in 2004 occurred because of a corruption scandal and unfair elections. Can Ukrainian citizens not protest? Can their Supreme Court not rule elections fraudulent?

Sure they can protest. They can protest all they want. I didn't say a word about protests by Ukrainian citizens in that post. I said that US supported protests which were anti-Russian in nature. That's true. First in 2003 in Georgia, then in 2004 in Ukraine. When Georgia attacked South Ossetia in 2004, US was suddenly silent, thus showing quite a bit of bias - supporting anti-Russian anti-corruption protests, but not caring too much about Saakashvili's 2004 invasion. US proceeded to assist Saakashvili in his military build up to attack a Russia Peacekeeping Base, which he did, just as the Chinese Olympics were about to start in 2008. He had help from Yushenko. Care to guess who one of Yushenko's aids was? Petro Poroshenko, who was mired in his own corruption scandal, one which the US boldly ignored. As thus, pro-Russian anti-corruption protests were ignored by the US. Anti-Russian anti-corruption protests in Ukraine were supported by the US, with taxpayer dollars through USAID.

After the Republicans ended up with a huge debacle in 2008, so bad that the French were the most reasonable negotiators, the Democrats decided to try again by supporting Poroshenko's rise to power, financially and diplomatically.

When the revolution came to Ukraine, neo-fascists played a front-center role in overthrowing the country’s president. But the real political power rests with Ukraine’s pro-western neoliberals. Political figures like Oleh Rybachuk, long a favorite of the State Department, DC neocons, EU, and NATO—and the right-hand man to Orange Revolution leader Viktor Yushchenko.

http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omid ... ents-show/

"The Orange Revolution was a miracle, a massive peaceful protest that worked. We want to do that again and we think we will."

US was funding a repeat of the Orange Revolution, the one that brought Yushenko to power, a leader who was so disastrous for Ukrainians, that he lost in the primaries as an incumbent. Rybachuk wanted a repeat, and US funded said repeat, a repeat of the same scenario where Ukraine wanted Georgia to destabilize the Caucasus, selling them T-72s by the dozens.

Detailed financial records reviewed by Pando (and embedded below) also show Omidyar Network covered costs for the expansion of Rybachuk’s anti-Yanukovych campaign, “Chesno” (“Honestly”), into regional cities including Poltava, Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Ternopil, Sumy, and elsewhere, mostly in the Ukrainian-speaking west and center.

And this was done by the Obama Administration. To make matters even worse, the only figure of Nuland's trio who could not have come to power without USAID, was Oleh Tihnyabok - the most radical leader out of the trio.

So please cut the crap about how US was trying to integrate Russia into the Western system. US was doing whatever the fuck American lobbyists wanted, and Russia was going to be punished if Russia didn't sit back and take what American Lobbyists, as opposed to American People, dished out, lobbyists including Neoconservatives and Neoliberals.

[Shofercia]

"Defensive Alliance" against whom? First 40 years of its existince it was against USSR. USSR is gone, why not NATO?

The mere existence of it supplants and undermines UN and its job of peacekeeping.

Horseshit.

NATO's membership saw in the alliance a framework for maintaining European peace and security. The absence of a veto by any of its principal members made it more flexible and more capable as well.

In the wake of the Cold War, the one place Europe did not want to go was back into its past ― a past in which petty national rivalries and territorial disputes created an endless cycle of intrigue and war. Uniting all of Europe in a single alliance (NATO) and as members of a single customs union (the EU) seemed to be the best way of keeping Frenchmen, Germans, Britons, Poles, Spaniards, and Italians from falling on each others' throats.

And that whining you hear emanating from Moscow? Why, it's the bitching attributable to the fact that the world didn't revert to 19th Century form, allowing Russia to dominate Europe ― as Russians think they deserve to do.

Russia needs to give up on the notion of having a "sphere of influence" and just get on with the business of living at peace with the rest of the world ― and its European neighbors in particular.

tl&dr: Sometimes things that begin with one purpose are found to have another. Imagine that...

Russia dominating Europe? And only America can stop that? Damn, "good" to see America's Manifest Destiny thought process is still in effect. I doubt anyone would accuse me of being anti-Russian Armed Forces, and yet, thinking that the Russian Armed Forces would defeat the German ones, on German soil, is laughable at best. Or do you think that Germany's armed forces would courteously move to Polish soil if Russia invades? Perhaps French soil? You know what else is laughable? The trio of Baltic idiotic presidents actually thinking that doubling military spending will do anything, aside from wasting money. It won't. But Russia doesn't want the Baltics, because the conquest of the Baltics would lead to a conflict with Germany, France, Italy, etc, conflict that Russians do not want. Russian-dominated Europe is simply a scare, nothing more. I'm willing to bet you, that if I asked Europeans who don't pay attention to pro-US media in Europe, which was a bigger problem, Grexit and the Euro vs Ukraine and Russia - they'll say the former.

[Shofercia]

Oh! I get it! "New Europe" can entertain its paronoia, suspicions and intolerances - but not Russia! Even Yeltsin's Russia was to threatinging for them - this is what you are trying to say? Russia should... what were ASB's words?



and, most importantly:



His words - not mine!

You know what's bloody hilarious:

However current Russian leadership has made it clear that Russia does not plan to join the alliance, preferring to keep cooperation on a lower level now. The Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, is quoted as saying "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power," although he said that Russia did not rule out membership at some point in the future.[13] In March 2000 president Vladimir Putin, in interview to British television said Russia could once join NATO.[31]

The Rogozin quote is probably from post-2008. The Putin quote is from pre-2008. What a difference a year makes! Between 2003 and 2008, the relationship between Russia and NATO declined drastically, making Russian NATO membership almost impossible.

Snip all this shit

See Lyt, the difference between 1990's Russia and 1990's Poland is one of them was controlled by the other for the past 50 years and had no say in anything. Wanna take a guess at which one it was?

Russia's paranoia is baseless and frankly retarded. If the west wanted to wipe out Russia in the 1990's Bush or Clinton would have just hit the big red button and that would have been the end of that. The former Warsaw Pact states gravitated towards NATO because guess what? They liked the west more than Russia, it's as simple as that. You never answered my question (I am used to that by now though), but would you have bitched about it so much if say, Poland and Romania wanted an alliance with Russia after the Cold War ended?

Russian Nukes are also functional... please don't make anymore posts like that one.

[Roski]

You know what's bloody hilarious:

However current Russian leadership has made it clear that Russia does not plan to join the alliance, preferring to keep cooperation on a lower level now. The Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, is quoted as saying "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power," although he said that Russia did not rule out membership at some point in the future.[13] In March 2000 president Vladimir Putin, in interview to British television said Russia could once join NATO.[31]

The Rogozin quote is probably from post-2008. The Putin quote is from pre-2008. What a difference a year makes! Between 2003 and 2008, the relationship between Russia and NATO declined drastically, making Russian NATO membership almost impossible.

See Lyt, the difference between 1990's Russia and 1990's Poland is one of them was controlled by the other for the past 50 years and had no say in anything. Wanna take a guess at which one it was?

Russia's paranoia is baseless and frankly retarded. If the west wanted to wipe out Russia in the 1990's Bush or Clinton would have just hit the big red button and that would have been the end of that. The former Warsaw Pact states gravitated towards NATO because guess what? They liked the west more than Russia, it's as simple as that. You never answered my question (I am used to that by now though), but would you have bitched about it so much if say, Poland and Romania wanted an alliance with Russia after the Cold War ended?

Russian Nukes are also functional... please don't make anymore posts like that one.

As of now, Russia couldn't join if it wanted (active territorial disputes)

Niether could Ukraine or Georgia

[Saiwania]

When Georgia attacked South Ossetia in 2004, US was suddenly silent, thus showing quite a bit of bias - supporting anti-Russian anti-corruption protests, but not caring too much about Saakashvili's 2004 invasion.

Georgia attacking either Abkhazia or South Ossetia is an internal Georgian matter. No different than Russia asserting control over Chechnya. It is wrong for Georgia to attempt to seize back control over portions of its territory that are trying to separate, but it is right for Russia to do the same over their territory?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Russian Nukes are also functional... please don't make anymore posts like that one.

And where exactly did I imply they weren't?

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

Horseshit.

NATO's membership saw in the alliance a framework for maintaining European peace and security. The absence of a veto by any of its principal members made it more flexible and more capable as well.

In the wake of the Cold War, the one place Europe did not want to go was back into its past ― a past in which petty national rivalries and territorial disputes created an endless cycle of intrigue and war. Uniting all of Europe in a single alliance (NATO) and as members of a single customs union (the EU) seemed to be the best way of keeping Frenchmen, Germans, Britons, Poles, Spaniards, and Italians from falling on each others' throats.

And that whining you hear emanating from Moscow? Why, it's the bitching attributable to the fact that the world didn't revert to 19th Century form, allowing Russia to dominate Europe ― as Russians think they deserve to do.

Russia needs to give up on the notion of having a "sphere of influence" and just get on with the business of living at peace with the rest of the world ― and its European neighbors in particular.

tl&dr: Sometimes things that begin with one purpose are found to have another. Imagine that...

Russia dominating Europe? And only America can stop that? Damn, "good" to see America's Manifest Destiny thought process is still in effect. I doubt anyone would accuse me of being anti-Russian Armed Forces, and yet, thinking that the Russian Armed Forces would defeat the German ones, on German soil, is laughable at best. Or do you think that Germany's armed forces would courteously move to Polish soil if Russia invades? Perhaps French soil? You know what else is laughable? The trio of Baltic idiotic presidents actually thinking that doubling military spending will do anything, aside from wasting money. It won't. But Russia doesn't want the Baltics, because the conquest of the Baltics would lead to a conflict with Germany, France, Italy, etc, conflict that Russians do not want. Russian-dominated Europe is simply a scare, nothing more. I'm willing to bet you, that if I asked Europeans who don't pay attention to pro-US media in Europe, which was a bigger problem, Grexit and the Euro vs Ukraine and Russia - they'll say the former.

Greece is an old ballad going on for quite a long time and it's getting less attention every day . I don't think Russia can invade Europe, even if they wanted to. Russia's Armed Forces are the most corrupt forces in Europe and equipment gets stolen from barracks almsot every day, while their prehistorical equipment is starting to rot.
I generally don't know much of Russia's main doctrine, but I suppose the West has a better one.
Russia needs to stop trying to hide behind a ragged USSR cape and realise that it isn't and it will never be as strong as Soviet Union was.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

When Georgia attacked South Ossetia in 2004, US was suddenly silent, thus showing quite a bit of bias - supporting anti-Russian anti-corruption protests, but not caring too much about Saakashvili's 2004 invasion.

Georgia attacking either Abkhazia or South Ossetia is an internal Georgian matter. No different than Russia asserting control over Chechnya. It is wrong for Georgia to attempt to seize back control over portions of its territory that are trying to separate, but it is right for Russia to do the same over their territory?

According to Russia, Ukraine and Georgia are 'Case Kosovo' as the Ukranian army and the Georgian one were genociding Russian people in Ukraine and Georgia.

[Respawn]

pro-US media in Europe

hmmmmmm

do elaborate and please provide examples where appropriate.

[Shofercia]

When Georgia attacked South Ossetia in 2004, US was suddenly silent, thus showing quite a bit of bias - supporting anti-Russian anti-corruption protests, but not caring too much about Saakashvili's 2004 invasion.

Georgia attacking either Abkhazia or South Ossetia is an internal Georgian matter. No different than Russia asserting control over Chechnya. It is wrong for Georgia to attempt to seize back control over portions of its territory that are trying to separate, but it is right for Russia to do the same over their territory?

*sighs*

How many times do I have to repeat the basics? A billion? A trillion? A zillion? The Second Chechen War started after the de facto independent Chechnya was taken over by Wahhabi Radicals and attacked Dagestan, a de facto and de jure part of Russia. The Ossetian War started when Saakashvili shelled Tskhinvali, including the JKPF Peacekeeping Base, killing Russian Peacekeepers. If you would've bothered to read the EU Report written by the Swiss, it said that Georgia started unjustified war and Russia overreacted. The Swiss report didn't question Russia's right to react; that it conceded. And yeah, seizing a territory from Wahhabi Terrorists, be it IIPB or ISIS, is different than seizing territory from peaceful civilians. That's why it's one thing to support the Kurdish Kobane Campaign, including the counterattack, and another to support the Invasion of Iraq.

Russian Nukes are also functional... please don't make anymore posts like that one.

And where exactly did I imply they weren't?

I figured that if you'd realize that Russia's nukes are functional, you'd realize that actually nuking Russia wouldn't be a valid solution for those who wanted to destroy Russia, since that would also lead to their own destruction.

Russia dominating Europe? And only America can stop that? Damn, "good" to see America's Manifest Destiny thought process is still in effect. I doubt anyone would accuse me of being anti-Russian Armed Forces, and yet, thinking that the Russian Armed Forces would defeat the German ones, on German soil, is laughable at best. Or do you think that Germany's armed forces would courteously move to Polish soil if Russia invades? Perhaps French soil? You know what else is laughable? The trio of Baltic idiotic presidents actually thinking that doubling military spending will do anything, aside from wasting money. It won't. But Russia doesn't want the Baltics, because the conquest of the Baltics would lead to a conflict with Germany, France, Italy, etc, conflict that Russians do not want. Russian-dominated Europe is simply a scare, nothing more. I'm willing to bet you, that if I asked Europeans who don't pay attention to pro-US media in Europe, which was a bigger problem, Grexit and the Euro vs Ukraine and Russia - they'll say the former.

Greece is an old ballad going on for quite a long time and it's getting less attention every day . I don't think Russia can invade Europe, even if they wanted to. Russia's Armed Forces are the most corrupt forces in Europe and equipment gets stolen from barracks almsot every day, while their prehistorical equipment is starting to rot.
I generally don't know much of Russia's main doctrine, but I suppose the West has a better one.
Russia needs to stop trying to hide behind a ragged USSR cape and realise that it isn't and it will never be as strong as Soviet Union was.

First, Greece is very much in the news; second, Russian can easily take over the Baltics; Russia's also a part of Europe. Third, do you actually have a legitimate criteria about corruption of European armed forces, or is that statement originating from you ass? Fourth, different countries have different armed forces doctrines, and if you don't know, don't suppose. Fifth, Russia isn't trying to hide behind the USSR cape: "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains." - Vladimir Putin

pro-US media in Europe

hmmmmmm

do elaborate and please provide examples where appropriate.

Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe. Official press releases originating from the governments of UK, Poland & Baltics; they might as well call themselves the "Coalition of pro-US bitches in the EU" - it'd at least be honest. The "current government" of Ukraine in Kiev. Pretty much anyone who called French - wimps - for negotiating peace between Russia & Georgia around August 16th.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And where exactly did I imply they weren't?

I figured that if you'd realize that Russia's nukes are functional, you'd realize that actually nuking Russia wouldn't be a valid solution for those who wanted to destroy Russia, since that would also lead to their own destruction.

It's an entirely valid solution, Russia would be destroyed. I never said we wouldn't get hurt back in the process.

Plus Bill would be busy with Monica, he wouldn't care about the retaliation

[Shofercia]

I figured that if you'd realize that Russia's nukes are functional, you'd realize that actually nuking Russia wouldn't be a valid solution for those who wanted to destroy Russia, since that would also lead to their own destruction.

It's an entirely valid solution, Russia would be destroyed. I never said we wouldn't get hurt back in the process.

Plus Bill would be busy with Monica, he wouldn't care about the retaliation

It's invalid because sane people in the US military aren't going to let it happen, much like that Brit General giving Billy the idiot the finger when Billy wanted to attack a VDV column in Kosovo. Maybe it wasn't Billy, maybe it was Wes Clark. One of those two idiots.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's an entirely valid solution, Russia would be destroyed. I never said we wouldn't get hurt back in the process.

Plus Bill would be busy with Monica, he wouldn't care about the retaliation

It's invalid because sane people in the US military aren't going to let it happen, much like that Brit General giving Billy the idiot the finger when Billy wanted to attack a VDV column in Kosovo. Maybe it wasn't Billy, maybe it was Wes Clark. One of those two idiots.

You're implying that people that want to wipe a nation of 143 million people off the map are sane to begin with, there's your first mistake

And you're thinking of Clark.

[Shofercia]

It's invalid because sane people in the US military aren't going to let it happen, much like that Brit General giving Billy the idiot the finger when Billy wanted to attack a VDV column in Kosovo. Maybe it wasn't Billy, maybe it was Wes Clark. One of those two idiots.

You're implying that people that want to wipe a nation of 143 million people off the map are sane to begin with, there's your first mistake

And you're thinking of Clark.

I don't think that it's sane to place a corrupt chocolate king as a head of a disintegrating country that's been mismanaged for decades and has a rebellion on it's hands either. I think that's a tad insane.

[West Aurelia]

The Rogozin quote is probably from post-2008. The Putin quote is from pre-2008. What a difference a year makes! Between 2003 and 2008, the relationship between Russia and NATO declined drastically, making Russian NATO membership almost impossible.




Russian Nukes are also functional... please don't make anymore posts like that one.

As of now, Russia couldn't join if it wanted (active territorial disputes)

Niether could Ukraine or Georgia

Is this actually true? The US and Canada have territorial disputes with each other.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You're implying that people that want to wipe a nation of 143 million people off the map are sane to begin with, there's your first mistake

And you're thinking of Clark.

I don't think that it's sane to place a corrupt chocolate king as a head of a disintegrating country that's been mismanaged for decades and has a rebellion on it's hands either. I think that's a tad insane.

I wouldn't say insane, certainly a shitty choice but it's not like Ukraine has many good options. He's much better than anyone from Right Sector or Svoboda.

Of course this is eastern Europe so it would be pretty rare to find a non-corrupt generally good person to put into power, so you might as well go with one of the less shitty options.

[Washington Resistance Army]

As of now, Russia couldn't join if it wanted (active territorial disputes)

Niether could Ukraine or Georgia

Is this actually true? The US and Canada have territorial disputes with each other.

On paper it's true, but a number of NATO members have territorial disputes.

[Ainin]

second, Russian can easily take over the Baltics;

Obviously.

Holding them is the difficult part.

[Saiwania]

How many times do I have to repeat the basics? A billion? A trillion? A zillion? The Second Chechen War started after the de facto independent Chechnya was taken over by Wahhabi Radicals and attacked Dagestan, a de facto and de jure part of Russia. The Ossetian War started when Saakashvili shelled Tskhinvali, including the JKPF Peacekeeping Base, killing Russian Peacekeepers. If you would've bothered to read the EU Report written by the Swiss, it said that Georgia started unjustified war and Russia overreacted. The Swiss report didn't question Russia's right to react; that it conceded. And yeah, seizing a territory from Wahhabi Terrorists, be it IIPB or ISIS, is different than seizing territory from peaceful civilians. That's why it's one thing to support the Kurdish Kobane Campaign, including the counterattack, and another to support the Invasion of Iraq.

The point still stands, if any province of Russia were to ever rebel and attempt to separate, Russia would be allowed to reassert control over it with no blatant foreign intervention as a world power.

If Russia was ever weak enough to have its nuclear and conventional deterrents reduced to irrelevancy, that would open the door to the US or another country intervening against Russia to the same extent that Russia intervened against Georgia. Maybe the Russian peacekeepers should have left if Russia knew Georgia was unstable and would be in a state of civil war? The US isn't going to invade Spain for example, if a US base got damaged by the Spanish military rooting out Basque separatists and the US base was just collateral damage that was in the way.

[United Marxist Nations]

How many times do I have to repeat the basics? A billion? A trillion? A zillion? The Second Chechen War started after the de facto independent Chechnya was taken over by Wahhabi Radicals and attacked Dagestan, a de facto and de jure part of Russia. The Ossetian War started when Saakashvili shelled Tskhinvali, including the JKPF Peacekeeping Base, killing Russian Peacekeepers. If you would've bothered to read the EU Report written by the Swiss, it said that Georgia started unjustified war and Russia overreacted. The Swiss report didn't question Russia's right to react; that it conceded. And yeah, seizing a territory from Wahhabi Terrorists, be it IIPB or ISIS, is different than seizing territory from peaceful civilians. That's why it's one thing to support the Kurdish Kobane Campaign, including the counterattack, and another to support the Invasion of Iraq.

The point still stands, if any province of Russia were to ever rebel and attempt to separate, Russia would be allowed to reassert control over it with no blatant foreign intervention as a world power.

If Russia was ever weak enough to have its nuclear and conventional deterrents reduced to irrelevancy, that would open the door to the US or another country intervening against Russia to the same extent that Russia intervened against Georgia. Maybe the Russian peacekeepers should have left if Russia knew Georgia was unstable and would be in a state of civil war? The US isn't going to invade Spain for example, if a US base got damaged by the Spanish military rooting out Basque separatists and the US base was just collateral damage that was in the way.

It hadn't been in a state of civil war; South Ossetia had been independent since winning its war of independence in 1992.

[Saiwania]

It hadn't been in a state of civil war; South Ossetia had been independent since winning its war of independence in 1992.

Why hasn't South Ossetia been on any official map then? The majority of the world has kept recognizing it as apart of Georgia. If South Ossetia is strong enough to maintain independence on its own, then the world would recognize it, as it has with East Timor against Indonesia.