South Ossetia announces referendum in 2016 to join Russia

[Europa Unita]

http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/35135/



So, NSG, it's happening. After decades of de facto independence and eight years of Russian diplomatic recognition, they will hold a referendum on a merger with Russia. So, what do our contemporary thinkers of Nation States General think? Is the Westphalian idea of states being inherently tied to recognized borders is outdated? Is territorial integrity an inviolable end in and on itself? Is this another instance of Russian imperialism™ and if so, do we need our morality-driven crusaders from NATO to save us from the archetypal Russian bad guys? Are there reasons to believe the people of South Ossetia may legitimately desire to become part of the Russian Federation? Comment below.

I'm confused. Why would anyone want to be a part of Putin's Russia when given the option to not be?

Because most of Russia's neighbour states aren't much better. A club of shitholes (with exceptions like Finland and the Baltics).

On the topic: Despite OP's blatant and uneducated anti-Americanism and implication that Russian imperialism doesn't exist (without giving any reasons why), if the South Ossetians think they are better off as part of Russia and vote for it, I guess nobody can hinder them (definitely not Georgia, they physically can't). NATO won't do something against under any circumstances.

I hope Russia will let UN observers in (they weren't exactly keen to do that at other occasions).

[Shofercia]

Operation Ring spilled over into the Nagorno-Karabakh War, which spilled over into the Ossetian and Abkhaz Wars, which spilled over into the Dagestan and Second Chechen Wars. So there was some risk. And Russia did not need to take any risk whatsoever by giving Georgia's armed forces a quality beatdown. The risk of a diplomatic fallout of beating down an army that attacked you was going to be much less than the risk of Caucasus Reignition. Even if you look at it from a simple risk assessment point, it makes sense.

But this isn't Operation Ring, in any sense. Those wars weren't in existence in 2008, and there was generally much less risk of incitement.

But its not justified under the 'we had to prevent another Operation Ring' defence. At some point in the intervention, Russia went beyond that to simply attack Georgia, and so its actions are not entirely defensible under this assessment.

Those wars weren't in existence, at least not massively, until Operation Ring. Nagorno-Karabakh was brewing, but it could've been s topped, thus stopping all the other wars. And I think we'll have to agree to disagree as to the second phase.

Then why are you blaming me for using it?

I was pointing out the flaws of suing this line of rhetoric/defence.

But I'm only using it as far as a single region is concerned, as it relates to that region.

Ahhh, okkk, and has my criticism of Putin's Civil Rights stance changed?

Nope. But it seems entirely secondary to your defence of him for literally anything else. As in, you have criticisms, sure, but never to the point that this undermines your rock solid support for Putin and his path for Russia.

Name someone better who can realistically come to power without massive violence. And don't say Medvedev, I'll just laugh.

Saying "no America, you cannot bomb another country yet again without a plan on how to clean up your mess" = provoking a pointless spat with the West? Damn, now I know where you stand.

Yes, because Russia wouldn't have done it for this reason - it doesn't care whether the US creates another mess for itself or not. It would however, have thrown itself into the way of the west, which is a spat, and is out of its way, considering its ties to Gaddafi were fairly limited.

Had I been in charge of Russia, I would've done it for that exact reason. And that would've made me/Russia more popular with the African Union. Not to mention that Obama admitted that going to war in Libya without a contingency plan, was a mistake.

Going back to Napki's point, I don't see how my constant defense of Russia in the Caucasus suddenly makes me an evil authoritarian.

[Shofercia]

If Putin deliberately denies a Referendum for the People of Donetsk/Lugansk, of course I'd criticize him for that.

That's the thing though, he'd never be stupid enough to flatly deny it like that. He'd obfuscate, or de facto ensure it can't happen, or only allow Russian observers, or Russian supportive residents of Donestk to return. Its harder to pin such actions to him directly, especially since no objective information comes out of there.

If he's the only one who's standing in the way of a fair Referendum, the only obstacle, I'll criticize him for it, irrespective how much he tries to obfuscate it.

The Kurds and the SAA came to an agreement. Other assorted terrorists will get their butts kicked once ISIS is removed. And that would mean that the Kurds and SAA will have enough to overpower the FSA or get them to accept autonomy. Syria stays united, but becomes more autonomous than it was before the Civil War.

The kurds have already claimed more territory than is actually Kurdish and wanted that to be independent, not autonomous. So no guaranteed that they'd settle for autonomy. They also aren't about to try and overpower the FSA any time soon, so this is just the SAA, who, if controlling former ISIS territories, will be more spread out, and have generally lacked the strength to force such a settlement on the rebels in the past, even when their forces were less degraded and more numerous. Not to mention ISIS plans to conduct guerrilla operations, so its not entirely out of the game.

I think that this only works under the assumption of war weariness of all other parties, and there is no inclination of this happening just yet, espcially with the Gulf and Turkey funding the FSA.

You must've missed it. The Russians got the SAA and the Kurds to negotiate for autonomy. And obviously ISIS has to be defeated for this to work.

Fair warning Shof, I will be retiring now. I may continue this later, but don't necessarily expect a reply.

Tis fair

[Shofercia]

Yes, he upgraded the military in order to attack South Ossetia. The article clearly states that Saakashvili wanted to use the closure of the black market as a means to an end, in an attempt to subjugate South Ossetia under Tbilisi's rule. And you're right, you don't know about military tactics at all. Furthermore, you've brought out the pensions claim for quite a while, and yet, we know that Gorbachev paid pensions of Armenians and then attempted to ethnically cleanse them.

So far we have: Saakashvili coming to power and calling for the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity from the get go. Saakashvili launching an assault to allegedly close a black market, but in reality to subjugate South Ossetia. After the assault failed, Saakashvili spent up to 9% of Georgia's GDP on the military. Saakashvili was the first to launch a major, unjustified assault on August 7th. Saakashvili used rocket launchers and dana howitzers against highly populated civilian areas. So if, hypothetically, I was to pay your pension, and launch a mortar round at your house while you sleep?

Probably, but as it is it was just the shutting down of illegal trade with a small assault and the establishment of several police posts within South Ossetia.

I bring up the pensions again because you refuse to acknowledge their implications. Obviously the Gorbachev comparison makes no sense, I don't need to explain that to you.

And Saakashvili's coming to power was also devoid of ethnocentric rhetoric as I showed before.

Let's try to sum it up. You say Saakashvili was trying to commit ethnic cleansing because: the assault on South Ossetia was given a name that suggests ethnic cleansing, and large areas of Tshkinvali were destroyed during the course of the assault. Yes?

I say he didn't because: there was a lack of the kind of ethnocentric ideology necessary to motivate ethnic cleansing, Georgian forces didn't clear out undefended villages as is typical in ethnic cleansing, and committing ethnic cleansing was equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot as it would have discredited Saakashvili (much more than he was).

No, it wasn't just shutting down a black market, it was using that as a ploy to start curtailing the de facto independence of South Ossetia. The Gorbachev factoid was there to prove that paying pensions doesn't mean that a leader won't attempt/commit ethnic cleansing.

And I think I summed it up already: Saakashvili coming to power and calling for the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity from the get go. Saakashvili launching an assault to allegedly close a black market, but in reality to subjugate South Ossetia. After the assault failed, Saakashvili spent up to 9% of Georgia's GDP on the military. Saakashvili was the first to launch a major, unjustified assault on August 7th. Saakashvili used rocket launchers and dana howitzers against highly populated civilian areas.

I don't see how you can sum it up anyless, without making it lose some meaning.

Operation Ring spilled over into the Nagorno-Karabakh War, which spilled over into the Ossetian and Abkhaz Wars, which spilled over into the Dagestan and Second Chechen Wars. So there was some risk. And Russia did not need to take any risk whatsoever by giving Georgia's armed forces a quality beatdown. The risk of a diplomatic fallout of beating down an army that attacked you was going to be much less than the risk of Caucasus Reignition. Even if you look at it from a simple risk assessment point, it makes sense.

All of that occurred during a very volatile period in the Caucasus. It isn't normal to have ethnic nationalism running high as it did when the Soviet Union collapsed.

It isn't normal to have ethnic nationalism as high as it was/is in the Caucasus.

[Geilinor]

I bring up the pensions again because you refuse to acknowledge their implications. Obviously the Gorbachev comparison makes no sense, I don't need to explain that to you.

And Saakashvili's coming to power was also devoid of ethnocentric rhetoric as I showed before.

Let's try to sum it up. You say Saakashvili was trying to commit ethnic cleansing because: the assault on South Ossetia was given a name that suggests ethnic cleansing, and large areas of Tshkinvali were destroyed during the course of the assault. Yes?

I say he didn't because: there was a lack of the kind of ethnocentric ideology necessary to motivate ethnic cleansing, Georgian forces didn't clear out undefended villages as is typical in ethnic cleansing, and committing ethnic cleansing was equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot as it would have discredited Saakashvili (much more than he was).

No, it wasn't just shutting down a black market, it was using that as a ploy to start curtailing the de facto independence of South Ossetia. The Gorbachev factoid was there to prove that paying pensions doesn't mean that a leader won't attempt/commit ethnic cleansing.

And I think I summed it up already: Saakashvili coming to power and calling for the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity from the get go. Saakashvili launching an assault to allegedly close a black market, but in reality to subjugate South Ossetia. After the assault failed, Saakashvili spent up to 9% of Georgia's GDP on the military. Saakashvili was the first to launch a major, unjustified assault on August 7th. Saakashvili used rocket launchers and dana howitzers against highly populated civilian areas.

I don't see how you can sum it up anyless, without making it lose some meaning.
[/quote]
You have no actual evidence of his intentions being to subjugate South Ossetia.

[Shofercia]

No, it wasn't just shutting down a black market, it was using that as a ploy to start curtailing the de facto independence of South Ossetia. The Gorbachev factoid was there to prove that paying pensions doesn't mean that a leader won't attempt/commit ethnic cleansing.

And I think I summed it up already: Saakashvili coming to power and calling for the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity from the get go. Saakashvili launching an assault to allegedly close a black market, but in reality to subjugate South Ossetia. After the assault failed, Saakashvili spent up to 9% of Georgia's GDP on the military. Saakashvili was the first to launch a major, unjustified assault on August 7th. Saakashvili used rocket launchers and dana howitzers against highly populated civilian areas.

I don't see how you can sum it up anyless, without making it lose some meaning.

You have no actual evidence of his intentions being to subjugate South Ossetia.

Aside from Saakashvili setting the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity as a top priority and the Ossetians wanting to live as they lived before he came to power... there was also the build up, the actual invasion, those things.

[Mugrul]

Probably, but as it is it was just the shutting down of illegal trade with a small assault and the establishment of several police posts within South Ossetia.

I bring up the pensions again because you refuse to acknowledge their implications. Obviously the Gorbachev comparison makes no sense, I don't need to explain that to you.

And Saakashvili's coming to power was also devoid of ethnocentric rhetoric as I showed before.

Let's try to sum it up. You say Saakashvili was trying to commit ethnic cleansing because: the assault on South Ossetia was given a name that suggests ethnic cleansing, and large areas of Tshkinvali were destroyed during the course of the assault. Yes?

I say he didn't because: there was a lack of the kind of ethnocentric ideology necessary to motivate ethnic cleansing, Georgian forces didn't clear out undefended villages as is typical in ethnic cleansing, and committing ethnic cleansing was equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot as it would have discredited Saakashvili (much more than he was).

No, it wasn't just shutting down a black market, it was using that as a ploy to start curtailing the de facto independence of South Ossetia. The Gorbachev factoid was there to prove that paying pensions doesn't mean that a leader won't attempt/commit ethnic cleansing.

And I think I summed it up already: Saakashvili coming to power and calling for the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity from the get go. Saakashvili launching an assault to allegedly close a black market, but in reality to subjugate South Ossetia. After the assault failed, Saakashvili spent up to 9% of Georgia's GDP on the military. Saakashvili was the first to launch a major, unjustified assault on August 7th. Saakashvili used rocket launchers and dana howitzers against highly populated civilian areas.

I don't see how you can sum it up anyless, without making it lose some meaning.

There was more to it than simply curtailing illegal trade, of course. But in action it didn't go further than that. Georgia had the right to control what entered it's borders even if doing so had other implications is what I'm trying to say.

Armenians were entitled to pensions as they were Soviet citizens. Gorbachev didn't care about whether they received these pensions or not, he wasn't interested in messing with them further if it didn't benefit him in some way. Whereas the provision of pensions to the South Ossetians was an attempt at reconciliation, not customary law. No'one expected the Georgian government to pay pensions to people who no longer considered themselves to be living in a part of Georgia. And it wasn't just pensions btw.

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/georgia0109web.pdf

Saakashvili’s government also initiated economic and cultural projects, including an Ossetian-language television station, pensions, free fertilizer, and humanitarian aid.12

Though your timeline tells us little when it comes to evaluating Saakashvili's alleged ethnic cleansing attempt. Again, militarism is not ethnic cleansing.

It isn't normal to have ethnic nationalism as high as it was/is in the Caucasus.

Maybe it's still like that or worse in Armenia/Azerbaijan, but certainly not the entire Caucasus.

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

Probably, but as it is it was just the shutting down of illegal trade with a small assault and the establishment of several police posts within South Ossetia.

I bring up the pensions again because you refuse to acknowledge their implications. Obviously the Gorbachev comparison makes no sense, I don't need to explain that to you.

And Saakashvili's coming to power was also devoid of ethnocentric rhetoric as I showed before.

Let's try to sum it up. You say Saakashvili was trying to commit ethnic cleansing because: the assault on South Ossetia was given a name that suggests ethnic cleansing, and large areas of Tshkinvali were destroyed during the course of the assault. Yes?

I say he didn't because: there was a lack of the kind of ethnocentric ideology necessary to motivate ethnic cleansing, Georgian forces didn't clear out undefended villages as is typical in ethnic cleansing, and committing ethnic cleansing was equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot as it would have discredited Saakashvili (much more than he was).

No, it wasn't just shutting down a black market, it was using that as a ploy to start curtailing the de facto independence of South Ossetia. The Gorbachev factoid was there to prove that paying pensions doesn't mean that a leader won't attempt/commit ethnic cleansing.

And I think I summed it up already: Saakashvili coming to power and calling for the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity from the get go. Saakashvili launching an assault to allegedly close a black market, but in reality to subjugate South Ossetia. After the assault failed, Saakashvili spent up to 9% of Georgia's GDP on the military. Saakashvili was the first to launch a major, unjustified assault on August 7th. Saakashvili used rocket launchers and dana howitzers against highly populated civilian areas.

I don't see how you can sum it up anyless, without making it lose some meaning.

All of that occurred during a very volatile period in the Caucasus. It isn't normal to have ethnic nationalism running high as it did when the Soviet Union collapsed.

It isn't normal to have ethnic nationalism as high as it was/is in the Caucasus.

If you think that the Caucasus is extreme in ethnic nationalism, then look at the Balkans...

[Shofercia]

No, it wasn't just shutting down a black market, it was using that as a ploy to start curtailing the de facto independence of South Ossetia. The Gorbachev factoid was there to prove that paying pensions doesn't mean that a leader won't attempt/commit ethnic cleansing.

And I think I summed it up already: Saakashvili coming to power and calling for the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity from the get go. Saakashvili launching an assault to allegedly close a black market, but in reality to subjugate South Ossetia. After the assault failed, Saakashvili spent up to 9% of Georgia's GDP on the military. Saakashvili was the first to launch a major, unjustified assault on August 7th. Saakashvili used rocket launchers and dana howitzers against highly populated civilian areas.

I don't see how you can sum it up anyless, without making it lose some meaning.

There was more to it than simply curtailing illegal trade, of course. But in action it didn't go further than that. Georgia had the right to control what entered it's borders even if doing so had other implications is what I'm trying to say.

Armenians were entitled to pensions as they were Soviet citizens. Gorbachev didn't care about whether they received these pensions or not, he wasn't interested in messing with them further if it didn't benefit him in some way. Whereas the provision of pensions to the South Ossetians was an attempt at reconciliation, not customary law. No'one expected the Georgian government to pay pensions to people who no longer considered themselves to be living in a part of Georgia. And it wasn't just pensions btw.

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/georgia0109web.pdf

Saakashvili’s government also initiated economic and cultural projects, including an Ossetian-language television station, pensions, free fertilizer, and humanitarian aid.12

Though your timeline tells us little when it comes to evaluating Saakashvili's alleged ethnic cleansing attempt. Again, militarism is not ethnic cleansing.

It isn't normal to have ethnic nationalism as high as it was/is in the Caucasus.

Maybe it's still like that or worse in Armenia/Azerbaijan, but certainly not the entire Caucasus.

Your persistence is certainly commendable, but I've already explained to you why I think he attempted ethnic cleansing numerous times, his pension and fertilizer plans notwithstanding. The reason that he didn't escalate in 2004 is because he couldn't, and if he did, he'd get his ass kicked, just like he did in 2008. And it's not normal to have ethnic nationalism be as high as it is in the Caucasus. It's certainly not as high in most regions of the Russian Federation.

If you think that the Caucasus is extreme in ethnic nationalism, then look at the Balkans...

That's like saying "if you think that Blake Griffin is tall look at Kareem Abdul Jabbar!"