Separating fact from fiction
| 16:54 UK time, Friday, 15 August 2008
Over the past week, two battles have been fought on the borders of Georgia and South Ossetia; a military campaign, and a fight for the airwaves. In both, the BBC has found itself in the middle.
Last week, a BBC team was filming near the Georgian town of Gori when a Russian fighter jet opened fire on them. My colleagues were lucky - others have been less so. Five news staff - four journalists and a driver - have been killed since the fighting erupted. Others have been threatened and robbed at gunpoint by paramilitaries. War is a dangerous business.
The battle for public opinion has been just as intense. In the early hours of Tuesday morning, viewers to BBC World News - including those up late in the UK - were treated to the extraordinary sight of my colleague Nik Gowing conducting a live interview with Georgian President Saakashvili in his war room during World News America.
The President, "Dad's-Army" style, used a pen to point to a map detailing the latest Russian advance - and this at 3am in the morning in Tbilisi! It's one of around half a dozen interviews President Saakashvili has done with the BBC in the past seven days.
For the BBC to have access to someone so influential, as a key moment, is of course vital to our storytelling. But that level of access also carries with it an inherent danger. We need to ensure balanced coverage. Fortunately, during the past week, the BBC has had interviews with the Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, the deputy Prime Minister, Mr Ivanov and yesterday, viewers to BBC One were treated to a live interview with a Russian General speaking fluent English, sitting in our studio in Moscow. Another first.
But war, is not only dangerous, it's also dirty. Separating fact from fiction is hard - but it's vital. On 10 August, Russia's English language news channel Russia Today, reported that the death toll in South Ossetia had reached 2,000. While the BBC has Matthew Collin permanently based in Tbilisi - and we were quickly able to reinforce him with colleagues from Moscow and London - getting access to South Ossetia has proved more difficult.
Yesterday colleagues from Danish and Canadian broadcasters were robbed close to the border. It's not been safe enough to travel from Tbilisi to the town of Tskhinvali in South Ossetia, the scene, say the Russians of destructuction at the hands of the Georgians. Not until Wednesday - six days after the first shots were fired - was a BBC team able to get in to see what had happened for themselves, and then only in the company of Russian officials. It's clear there's been great suffering in both Georgia and South Ossetia, but it's proved impossible for us to verify that figure of 2,000 dead.
And for people, like journalists, who deal in facts, that means war is dangerous, dirty...and frustrating.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~24~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The west is largely brainwashed with the US way of waging war where civilian deaths are few and accidental, and the US military are really nice guys who are polite and only fire if absolutely needed. The US also, generally, spends days if not weeks, bombing in areas where very few reporters can get too and so we are led to believe that only the enemy are killed. I doubt that the truth is anything like that. What we see in the Russian attack is war as it is really is..
The worst part of this whole event outside of the fighting, has been the comments from the US administration. I have been stunned by some of the things that Bush and Rice has said. Are they SERIOUS? Do they really believe that everything that the US has done over the last 20 years is so righteous and correct that they truly believe they can criticize Russia?
Complain about this comment
I am neither pro Russia or Georgia,i am sure always with any dispute,there is six of these and half dozen of the other,i have been well informed with six of these by BBC ,but for the other half a dozen i had to watch Russia Today and Presstv.
My question is ;Should i in future for other isues watch the mentioned TV for the other Half a Dozen ?
And if that is the case should you change your name from British Broadcasting Corprations to Bias Broadcasting Corprations ?
Sam Fairplay
Complain about this comment
While I have seen an awful lot of analysis and criticism of Russia throughout our news, I have seen almost no critique of the actions of Georgia that triggered the conflict. Why are we so convinced of the righteousness of a country that moved to militarily subjugate a pratically autonomous province where referendums had shown that the overwhelming majority of the population favoured independence? While Russia's reaction was huge and disproportionate, it seems that the Georgian government was involved in an opportunistic power-grab in the area through military subjugation in the hope that it could get away with it. Maybe they thought Russia wouldn't be up for confrontation. Maybe they thought that they had enough powerful friends who would bail them out if they got into trouble.
Nobody is clean in this conflict. Georgia and Russia are playing silly power games, and as usual in such incidents, it's the people who get caught up in the middle of it and suffer.
But then, it is of course all Russia's fault. They are after all our bad-guys of the moment, what with all the Litvinenko business. Nobody is asking, "What the hell was Georgia playing at?"
Complain about this comment
Sometimes reading these comments, you get the impression that the BBC is a monolithic, perpetually one-sided organisation, and I'm sure you'll get plenty of abuse on this particular issue, so just let me say thanks! As far I as can tell, the BBC has been as impartial as ever, and the standard of reported has been typically high. Keep it up!
Complain about this comment
I was waiting to hear from you Jon as you are the one who lead all this coverage, really you are all doing a great job there, with the presence of Gavin Hewitt, Lyse, Nik, and all the others..
Keep it up guys, I was wishing to hear more of the behind the scenes details on the crews and how you take the decisions by sending Gavin, Nik, and the rest of the teams.
Hope to hear from you again soon with more talk that puts us in your editorial offices and thinking :D
Complain about this comment
Separating fact from fiction in this matter is indeed difficult. Unfortunately the media in the west and in Georgia does not seem objective. Probably it is not objective in Russia either. Even the BBC does not seem entirely objective.
But it does seem certain that Georgia began this affair by completely illegal airborne attacks together with ground based multi rocket launcher attacks on Ossetian civilians and others in Tskhinvali.
I address the following point to Jon Williams, other bloggers, and other members of the BBC. On Radio 4 news early this morning there was a report from a member of a Western humanitarian organisation who had examined the evidence in Tskhinvali and reported very many deaths as the result of the illegal use of rocket launchers against a largely civilian Ossetian population. This report seems to have been suppressed and excluded from later BBC news programmes. Why? Please could the BBC respond, and give full details of this report and its source on this blog? A response by any other bloggers who heard it would also be useful.
Complain about this comment
"We need to ensure balanced coverage."
Yes balance would be nice. That would for example involve suggesting the US military acts brutally, not just the Russian military as the BBC has done in the past e.g.
"Media coverage of the recent conflict is also far more restricted. That means the Russian military is free to act with much greater brutality."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1292799.stm
With regards to the current conflict...
The presenter on Newsnight (11/08/2008) said...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00czhc4/
"The Russians are calling it a peace enforcement operation, it's the kind of Newspeak that would make George Orwell proud."
It's funny because I don't recall the BBC ever talking about US operations in the same way. When was the last time the BBC called the phrase"Winning Hearts and Minds" Newspeak?
Can we expect the BBC in future to suggest that US or UK official statements/justifications for war are Orwellian Newspeak or is this kind of analysis solely reserved for official enemies such as Russia?
This is far from the only example of the "gloves coming off" when it comes to reporting on official enemies. For example, compare the clinical and dispassionate BBC reporting on the US assault on Fallujah with this BBC report on the Russian assault on Grozy in 1999 (very similar situations).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/668080.stm
"I had already witnessed the consequences of Russia's pitiless bombardment of its own citizens."
"Grozny was once a city of half a million people. Now it is torn down, crushed and violated."
"Of the hundreds of thousands of people who once lived here, but a handful remain, eking out a perilous existence in the fetid basements of crumbling housing blocs."
"It is thought as many as 40,000 people may have still been in the city at the height of the inferno. How many of them were incinerated, crushed by falling masonry or shredded by shrapnel nobody yet knows. "
"Moscow excused itself the trouble of worrying about such details by equating those who stayed on with terrorists. "
"But it was no choice at all. Many were too old, too sick or too weak to move. Some never saw the leaflets telling them to leave and others did not want to go. Grozny was their only home."
"Why should they go? By what right was the Russian army forcing them from their homes? So Russia could destroy what it itself dismissed as a handful of terrorists?"
Complain about this comment
If the BBC really believes its coverage of the conflict has been impartial, then there is no hope.
Complain about this comment
BBC is doing an admirable job of covering the Ossetian War. Where I am domiciled, I am used to the managed domestic and foreign political news spew out by local print and broadcast mdia. BBC is a refreshing source of information.
Do not underestimate your audience, we know politicos being politicos will only make self-serving utterances to suit their aggendas.
Based on your reports, there is no problem in picking out the hypocrisies from USA Bush and Rice statements. I even feel aghast at the 'grandstanding' posture of Saakashvili, (in his own words), a self-appointed Western democracies' foil to Russian Imperialism. And the very partisan and hysterical Georgian citizens can only goad Saakashvili further into stubbornness.
Ossetians' insistence in rejecting Georgian dominance reminds me of the sympathy and empathy I felt for East Timorese fight for independence.
Russia looks bewildered in trying to manage yet another border row which resulted from a hurried and chaotic break-up of the old Soviet Union. After decades of Russian domination, the affected smaller nations like Georgia, Poland, etc are looking more vengeful then thoughtful in managing their relationships with Russia.
You got to be in the thick of the situation just to bring out the news from it. My best wishes to your reporters.
Complain about this comment
So it was impossible to get reports from the other side - from torn down Ossetia? Is that why you put footages from destroyed Tshinvaly when ran reports about brutal bombings of Gori. And in the end it appeared that you got footage of the only building in Gori which appeared to be damaged?
Yeah, keep it up guys - we love you anyway. At least you’re funny.
Complain about this comment
minoan1:
maybe because that news is still speculative and there is no information about battle itself? Destruction of the city probably came from Georgia answering to the fire of separatists, which, surprise, surprise, used peaceful citizens as cover! (Wow, where we have seen it?) There is NO evidence about deliberately violent action from Georgians. However, there are LOT of independent evidence about violence from separatists and Russian army in Georgia.
I know lot of people in Western field feels like doubting any step of their governments and media, however Russia has lost any credibility, because there is no independent media (all media is owned by government or government owned entities), and military answer already says that they will justify with any lies what they have done. Believe me, Georgian solders probably have done some war crimes (as in any war), and it should be aim of any investigation, but in this conflict, I have strong opinion that Russia is a bully and South Osettians are just pocket puppies.
StevenJMUK:
Just wow. You clearly have no slightest idea about what truly Russian army brutality means. US army is children garden comparing to that. Russia claimed that it does "peacekeeping operation" while openly violent acts again peaceful citizenship came in from INDEPENDENT sources. Add South Osettians coming with their so called 'blood revange' and you get complete picture what it means. And comparing US in Iraq and Russia in Chechnya is very long stretch, because, well, it is different.
StevieT28: Yawn. If they really wanted independence, they would already got it, period. 18 years aren't too much for illegal regime? Their referendums were illegal, and there were too many serious reports about denying Georgians to take active participation in them. And now they clean all Georgians out of South Osetia, as they did already in Abkhazia. In fact, they are too few to be serious independent, so all Russia wants is to annex this territories. They don't care about Osettians (North Osetia, which is in Russia, is crippled with corruption, low income, education, and crime), they just want these territories as safe guards that no one bypasses them in big East - West road.
Anyway, I am not surprised that there is so big amount of negative comments on Georgia on BBC, because there are strange surge of "all-in-favor-for-Russia" commentators all over the world. This is so many people are delusioned or it is just part of invisible army - hard to say. Anyway, it is interesting feature.
Complain about this comment
dr_horse: Hmmm, what should be impartial coverage then? :) Saying that Saakashvilli is a Hitler? :)
Complain about this comment
No one seems to be pointing out that this problem begins and ends with the Russians. They involved themselves in the internal affairs of Georgia and stoked the fires of separaticm in these two break away regions. If not for Russian interference these regions would have been absorbed peacefully into the Georgian political landscape.
Secondly, the Russians claim they are peace keepers, but please tell me what peace keepers take up sides. The Russians are now fighting against the Georgian on the side of these separatists. They can't be peace keepers if they aren't trusted by either side and should be asked by the UN to step aside for true peace keepers.
Lastly, isn't it obvious that the Russians are focusing on a port in the Black Sea? They have a port in the Ukraine, but the Ukrainians want the Russian and their port out of there country. The Russians have ignored calls by the Ukrainian leader to not use their ports. They also want to control the oil pipelines to the Black Sea.
It is all so very obvious what the Russians are up to and sadly I think the Europeans will roll over and let them take control of parts of Georgia because Europe needs Russian oil. The Europeans sat back once and watched Russia march into Eastern Europe and did nothing is that what we can expect from Europe again?
I hope the free world stands together and give a collective NO to the Russians.
Complain about this comment
The BBC coverage could be called everything but unbiased.
There is no getting away from it, the BBC has become a tool of foreign policy and impartiality is not something which can be expected from such an institution.
Complain about this comment
"Based on your reports, there is no problem in picking out the hypocrisies from USA Bush and Rice statements"
I have yet to find any main western media going into detail on the USA hypocrisies. It is not being reported on at all.
"It is all so very obvious what the Russians are up to and sadly I think the Europeans will roll over and let them take control of parts of Georgia because Europe needs Russian oil."
It is so obvious what the USA are up to in regards to Iraq and I think the Europeans will over and let them take control of parts of Iraq because Europe needs Iraqi oil.
Regardless, what exactly do you want Europe to do about it?
Complain about this comment
Very nice how the first comment from "usdeeper" is centered around hatred for the US soldiers in Iraq attacking terrorists who target civilians.I thought this story was about Russia Invading Georgia? Its so funny how this person calls the West brainwashed when they cannot even stay on topic without criticizing another war instead. Funny how this Russian cannot even contemplate that his country invaded a tiny country that had not even least of a threat to it,overlooking the bullying and killing which has outreached the death level of Iraq on a per day basis.Not to mention the total useless need for invasion.I conclude this person is far more brainwashed than anyone he calls such and has far too much time defending this sickening powertrip shown by powergreedy bunch of inhuman communists.
Complain about this comment
The statements of Georgian President Saakasvili are definitely not reliable statements of fact. He seems to be grasping at straws in his attempts to get the West to intervene.
This is not, however, carefully planned propaganda; more like a desparate reaction to events. He's not setting out to lie, he's just not waiting for confirmation of the stories he is hearing.
Russian propaganda is far more insidious. Whilst no serious observer could describe the Tskinvali attack as genocide, this "Cassus Belli" was all over the Russian media within hours of the conflict igniting, together with its suspiciously rounded numbers of casualties.
I lived through the tail end of the cold war and have spent many years observing another Russian-sponsored enclave in Transnistria, Moldova. My experience in both of these conflicts was and is that the Russian leadership is masterful in twisting the truth to their ends, turning black into white and night into day (a charge they mischievously lay at Saakasvili's feet to deflect it from themselves).
We simply cannot trust what they say without deep and independent verification.
Complain about this comment
What can I say? You are liars or just puppets in the USA hands. You don't think about people lives.
Complain about this comment
I am normally a great admirer of the BBCs impartiality and professionalism, but, alas, I feel thay you very critical of Russia and spend little time criticising Georgia, whom everyone agrees are the intial agressors. I wish you would properly investigate the initial attack and killings of peacekeepers and civilians by the Georgians and call for support for the South Ossetians whom everyone believes are morally justified in seeking independence. Please start criticising the real agressors - Georgia.
Complain about this comment
It does seem that the propaganda war is being carried to this blog. Blatant hypocrisy from the Russians: attempting to justify their invasion of Georgia by saying "Well, the US did it first in Iraq!". Need I remind the Russians of Afghanistan and Chechnya?
The way we see it in the west is this: Russia is turning back into the USSR under the tutelage of that old KGB agent Putin, and his cadre of hand picked minions. They seek to rebuild this artificial federation of states by invading nearby states.
Georgia, on the other hand, seems like it is trying to take back Georgian territory from Russian paid separatists. Here in the United States, we fought a Civil War over separatists. I think we are likely to side with the Georgians, especially since they seem to be much less corrupt and much more democratic than the Russians. And a hell of a lot friendlier.
As for the Europeans: they will continue to advance policies of appeasement (be placating and weak as they have been since before WWII.) It's back to the days of Brown and Sarkozy (vs Chamberlain and Deladier) placating the current European strongman/dictator (Putin's puppet) Dmitry Medvedev (vs Adolf Hitler).
As for the Americans, of which I am one, our current administration has no moral high ground on much of anything, but the American people are not going to walk away, given our memories of German and Russian aggression last century, from this latest bit of muscle flexing by the Russians.
Well, on second thought, if the Russians offer the US favorable oil contracts for the next 30 years, maybe we'll reconsider our position. Hmmm, Bushie, have you thought of that?
Complain about this comment
No.15
to usdeeper
I do not need the Western Media to tell me about the 'hypocrisiies". I just use my South East Asian brain.
Complain about this comment
This is a good article. As I research more about this issue, it becomes apparent how immediately the various politicians start spinning their 'accounts of events' in a way that supports their agendas. It is very frustrating, you really do have to go to several places, including sources in Russia, to get a balanced picture.
An interesting aspect is Georgia being portrayed as a 'budding democracy' when we find news of dissent and protests being squashed there, and hear that this latest flare up is due largely to the Georgian Army's apparently brutal action against what are supposed to be the citizenry they are protecting! And, the 'breakaway regions' held *democratic* referendum to separate from Georgia.
Meanwhile, what happened to Russia's status as 'budding democracy'? Seems like the elections they had there last were at least as valid as those in the US, whose media is largely echoing the Bush rhetoric.
Clearly Russia is neither black hearted bad guy nor archangelic 'peace guarantor'. Neither is the Georgian governmentl blameless lambies-- 'supporting' an ally doesn't mean ignoring their blunders and brutality.
Nonetheless, the EU and US need to work with them both with the larger vision of a better future for the world in mind. Let's hope the US is saying more meaningful things in private than the rhetoric in public.
Complain about this comment
On another forum one "pro-Russian" blogger stated that Georgia was being funded by "the Jews".
That pretty much sums up the Russian rhetoric right now. The evil USA and the Jews. We should treat Russia for what it really is, a descendent of 1930's Germany. Just because they were victims then, doesn't mean they've not become what they hated.
Complain about this comment
As a US citizen, I agree with Samkaz. For a while I really liked the BBC news but am really disappointed with the increase in their bias reporting (and lack of information). Trust me, we get enough of that in America. Im hoping the British will be smarter than that.
They mention nothing of the significance of the pipeline running thru Georgia that is of interest to both the US and the EU. If you really want to know the TRUTH of this conflict, look-up the significance of that pipeline. Thats whats of strategic interest to these countries (and of course, more power).
When quoting President Bush, doesnt the BBC see the clear contradiction in his statements?? Because if the majority of the American people can now see he's full of crap, its strange that the BBC still speaks of Bush as if he's someone to be taken serious and has some credibility.
I did notice, however, that this particular article is pointing out (very faintly) the dirty actions of both Georgia and Russia in the "civilian kills" dept..
In the end, the Georgian, US, European Union, and Russian Governments can give a crap less about the civilians (who are caught in the middle of these power struggles), their main care is power. The civilian deaths are simply a bridge/excuse to power. Either way, the Human Ego wins.
Complain about this comment
Will “separating facts from fiction” put us closer to the truth?
How much do we know about this conflict from BBC? Do we know why two small nations in Georgia reject the Georgian government from the beginning of 90s? Did BBC bother to tell us? Do we know why the Georgian military wanted to destroy a town of Tskhinvali in South Ossetia?
And how democratic is a government that was not elected by two nations in its own country or that bombed their citizens? Does pro-western orientation of any government make it democratic? (Has President Pervez Musharaff become a democrat at last?)
We did see destruction in the Georgian town of Gori, but have we seen reports from Tskhinvali on BBC? We had to watch Euro news to see that.
So, how much of “balanced coverage” have we got?
Complain about this comment
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn who died last week mentioned ina pravda interview in 2006
"Though it is clear that present-day Russia poses no threat to it, NATO is methodically and persistently building up its military machine into the east of Europe and surrounding Russia from the south"
So when the US state department fellow leader of Georgia decides to attack the Russian populated semi-autonomous Ossetia it is not really a suprise to many of us. After all this is the Georgia who sent troops to Iraq as part of the coalition of the willing and which has been described as the 'second Georgia in america'.
The BBC's coverage during this whole escapade has been its usual propoganda.
I have seen no mention of the captured US delivered weapons arsenal, I am guessing the m-40 sniper rifle is 'humanitarian aid.
There also seems to have been a constant repeat of GWB and his warning to Russia about attacking democratic nations, which I guess is going to make the democratic leader of Iran sleep happier as half the US fleet heads towards his couintry
My favourite piece of bbc 'news' was your news24 correspondant Lyse Doucet reporting that Russia had attacked Abkhazia by sending troops into that breakaway republic, this was soon contradicted by another bbc reporter saying that the russians were protecting their own nationals in that area.
Left hand/right hand no communication.
The only thing the BBC has told me about this whole dispute is that they want us to blame Russia and have sympathy for the Georgians.
As a final note Aleksander Solzhenitsyn praised Putin for his attempt to restore and protect Russias soverignty. James
Rogers of the BBC stated, "there was significant irony in the fierce critic of Soviet repression being hailed by a former senior officer of the KGB.
I think the Irony is that the BBC spend a few days praising the man for telling the world about Stalins Russia, then forget to mention his comments regarding present day Russia and the UN/Wests attempts to provoke war with them.
In fact its not ironic at all, its just plain old propoganda
Complain about this comment
dctomlinson, is this the same weak and placating europe that was fighting germany in ww2 from 1939, whilst the us was kind enough to give us loans with hugely inflated interest? back on topic, i think both sides have problems that need addressing with their conduct in this conflict, although i agree with most posters that the bbc does not seem to understand this
Complain about this comment
Dear dctomlinson
You are missing the point ,my disappointment is with so called free media,they keep telling us that they are impartial but i have not seen any evidence of that,they are as impartial as media in dictatorial countries,but the so called free media of the west are much much smarter the way the present them self to the public and even sometimes a cynic like me believe them,they don't lie to us but they don't tell us all the truth either.
Let me just tell you one example:
when the US ambassador to UN on the BBC news making a comment about Russia wants a regime change in Georgia ,i could not believe he was saying that ,doesn't he know the American politics ?they been doing that as long as i remember,1953 iran they got rid of Dr Mossadegh who was democratically elected government and so many more since ,but no media has reminded USA that is fat coming from them, but anything to do with countries such as: Russia ,China,Iran Arabs and Muslims they are a fare game to go for.
When the so called free media treat America and Israel the same as those countries above then i believe you are impartial.
I hope you get my point , i am not pro anybody or anti anybody
I am pro justice and fairness for everyone and i anty double standard.
Complain about this comment
To say that the UN/West is attempting to provoke war with Russia is an agenda-serving mischaracterization.
There is nothing to gain from any kind of war with Russia, and in fact a prosperous and stable Russia is the best thing for all involved.
But that prosperity needn't be acheived by blocking others' attempts to acheive it.
The observation about pipelines is important. Who gets what revenue from which pipelines is at the centerpiece of these conflicts. The Western-bound oil flow from the Central Asian fields is what the West is trying to protect.
In the larger Russia-West dialogue, there are two thorny issues: the flow of oil from Central Asia, and Iran. The more oil that Russia can ship through it's pipelines from the Caspian region, the better for it. Meanwhile, in order to open up the possibility of Western consumption, Kazahkstan made a significant investment in the Georgian terminal at Batumi.
By making the Trans-Georgian routes of oil seem more fragile, the Russians become the 'more reliable shippers'.
Russia is being very successful in acheiving a high degree of control over the flow of Central Asian oil-- on those terms, clearly their 'Oilman President' is beating the US' 'Oilman President'.
The money spent, and principles cast aside, in the protection of sources of oil vs. applying money to alternative energy technologies while retaining those principles would be an interesting subject to hear reportage on: how many solar installations can be built for the price of a day's war in Iraq?
Complain about this comment
Tell me please
Who from normal people will give the order to attack the city with children and wemen of his own country ?!!!
Saakashvilli told on local TV that Georgia are ready for negotiations with part of “his” country Osetia and you (people that were in this city) can sleep in peace . It was on Thursday .
And after few hours at 00 on Friday night he ordered to bomb the city Chinvalli the capital of Osetia !!!
I ask you one more time WHO CAN DO THIS ?!!!
Could you inmagine this ?!
Complain about this comment
The Beeb's doing quite a good job; CNN's doing it better. There is no 'impartiality' to be had at any price, in any conflict. The Russians are, however, tainted by their past record. The behaviour of their occupying troops in Germany, Hungary, Afghanistan and Chechyna makes the American 'scandals' look like the vicar's tea party. We can see it happening again in Georgia. Whatever the US's faults in combat, its forces have never included rape, robbery, mass destruction after occupation and general pillage in their military repertoire to the extent that the Russians have. To those who wish to point out parallels between Georgia and Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other countries, please consider the suffering and betrayal 'old Europe' has already experienced at Russian hands before you draw conclusions. Whoever started this particular spat, there can be no doubt that the Russians are exploiting the situation in a way unchanged since Czarist, let alone communist, days. What's different is press access. Since Viet Nam, the media have had their part to play in every conflict and their penetration increases with every country that embraces democracy. To accuse the Beeb (or any other broadcaster) of bias is nonsense. They're just on our side, most of the time, that's all.
Complain about this comment
"We need to ensure balanced coverage"
Now you made me laugh! The BBC has never ensured balanced coverage. Not now, not during the Iraqi invasion, not during NATO's bombing on Serbia and Kosovo... Never!
It has always worked as an apparatus of state propaganda, brainwashing viewers with all sort of selected images, biased footing, and even faked reports (I still remember an alleged massacre in farm in Kosovo, which disappeared from the screens next day, for it was a crude mise en scene...).
Showing Saakashvili so many times makes it apparent. As if the British government and the BBC needed to persuade the public into believing Saakashvili's hoax: No, the truth of the matter is that he perpetrated an ominous crime against peace with treachery and at the Olympic night, and for all unheard-of Bush show on sovereignty (Kosovo?), and invasion (Iraq?), what is done cannot be undone.
Now we'll see if Saakashvili is tried in an international court. Perhaps if the BBC reported fairly there is a chance. Not so as a propaganda tool.
Complain about this comment
Virtually all mainstream media outlets - including the BBC and those in Russia - have done a woeful job of remaining impartial. I expected no better from Fox, CNN and NTV in Russia, but the BBC also seems to have also just become another banal, biased voice in the bunch recently.
Thankfully YouTube seems to remain fairly democratic and perhaps it will soon render mainstream editorial obsolete if they don't pick up their act.
Despite this, problems may even exist there. Yesterday there was a tremendously popular video of a FOX interview with a 12 year old American girl who was caught in the initial Georgian attack, but escaped to confirm it's brutality and live on air she thanked the Russian troops for intervening to rescue her and her aunt (FOX cuts the interview short).
The video received 126 000 hits in the first half an hour of posting, but is now mysteriously difficult to find on YouTube. A Russian station featured it on their nightly news earlier tonight and claim Google have removed normal search functions for this video. (Try searching yourself). Luckily, others have since re-posted it.
Just goes to show, in the midst of all the hypocritical ranting in Beijing, the Western media too has it's own interests and bias.
Complain about this comment
You're doing a great job BBC. Ignore the hand-wringers who seem to believe the Kremlin's state-run propaganda machine is more credible.
Complain about this comment
years ago when i was young and naive I believed what i read in "news" outlets such as BBC. I know better now your and meny others so called "news" outlets are nothing but a complete sham designed to function purely as a propaganda tool of your puppet masters. i will not even attempt elaborate the countless occasions we you have not even tried to cover up your footprint these are many people here exposing you alredy already.
Complain about this comment
I find it odd that no one has yet mentioned Kosovo. Why is it that the west cheered the breakaway of Kosovo from Serbia, yet supports Georgia in trying to prevent South Ossetia breaking away?
Why did Russia crush Chechnya yet support South Ossetia?
Everyone is a hypocrite and BBC reporting is no exception. Thank ggodness for satellite TV. By watching the BBC, CNN, and Russia today one can plot a path through what may really be happening there.
Complain about this comment
If the Russians wish to regain the moral high ground let us see evidence of the 2000 dead South Ossetians they claim to be the justification for annexing South Ossetia and Azbkhazia?
Otherwise, the only visible justification for the Russian disturbingly unnecessary use of excessive force is the destruction of Tskhinvali which is just as much likely to be caused by Russian munitions as it it by the stupid miltary adventure of the Georgians.
As it happens, the propaganda war has now been lost by Russia and the Georgians have won a phyrric victory.
All the anti-american cynical rhetoric within some of the previous comments is simply garbage and displays the mentality of some very sick minds or infantile naivety. The sort of minds that somehow existed in 1938/1939 and justified Hilter's annexation of Czechslovakia and the invasion of Poland leading up to World War II.
With historians able to access German War Papers, we now know that the Germans not only pre-planned Czechoslavakia and the invasion of Poland but the German war-planners even thought Germany could get away with invading Poland in 1939 with the connivance of the USSR (Russia) and avoid World War by dividing Poland in half.
The anti-US rhetoric in some of the comments responding to this blog item would be tantamount to condoning Hitler and calling the British and French reaction to those events back then hypocritical. Surely no one other than a neo-fascist or gullible child would think like that?
What truly amazes me is some of the comments are from (apparently) US citizens who declaim their President when the first State to mention nuclear reaction was Russia threatening the nuclear targetting of Poland. If I were American I would want my President to act very tough with Russia as the ballistic missiles that Russia has are aimed at the US already!
Someone has to walk tall and face down the Russians or the Russian bullyboy tactics will be a calamity we shall all come to regret. I applaud the current US administration for doing just that.
Complain about this comment
Here is a example how russian soldiers treat civilians at Georgia
http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=gONOzTOO-6o
Thats "peace keeping" ?
Who is still thinking that US peace keeping is that same what russia is doing in Georgia
For me that's exactly same scenario that russia used before at early 1990 at Abkhazia.
If russia is a side in this conflict how it could be that they pretend to be peace keepers?
And one more thing separatist from south osetia started this conflict, there was serval attacks on Georgian civilians at 6th of August around city of Cchinwali (with approval from russian peace keepers) Georgian forces involed in this conflict at 7th of august but all west-european news agencies are keep sending just russian version of this scenario why ?
The next step of russia will be creation of new pro-russia goverment for Georgia so they need to destroy goverment of Saakashvili first and thats what they doing now.
US are bringing opportunity to make a proper democracy for Iraq.
And what exactly russia have to offer for Georgia?
Complain about this comment
I am Russian living in St Petersburg.I was really shocked by all anti-Russian propaganda launched by the Western massmedia "regarding" the conflict in Georgia.Honestly it doesnt appear to me it was regarding the current situation in Georgia itself...Someone needs to have Russia as enemy again..I wonder who and what for..It is a fact that Georgia started bombing S.Ossetia who called for help to Russia and unleashed the war.Why Western reporters put so much one-sided information not based on all the facts in their reports?The answer is:someone needs it and PAYS it.I came to the BBC site to see comments and to get to know the opinions of British and American people,not those of their politicians.I am very nicely surprised that there are so many intelligent people over there (although there are many brainwashed by anti-russian propaganda as well) who are still able to see the truth even through the thick layer of hipocricy and partial one-sided information!Thank you!
Complain about this comment
I think Russia is a country which can be responsible for decisions /
Russia is not USSR /
West should forget the USSR
But US think about the cold war
In Pekin Bush told to mr.Putin , that
nobody needs war in Georgia !
We saw it / trained by US soldiers atacked children with wemen !
And now Bush told that
Nobody wants the Cold War
Do you understand what does it mean ?
It's interesting but this conflict help to understand the tactic of Bush /
He told things that he want to do BUT use special method , he told it like
...we don't want to do ...
But actually does the opposite what he was saing !!!
And exactly the same tactic uses Saakashvi
During this days ALL what he was saying he was saying about he was doing !!!
The more opposite he told - more dificult to us to understand what is going on !!!
US administration teachs him how to make idi -ots from us !!!
Complain about this comment
I am very happy with the coverage of the BBC during the continuing trouble in Georgia...
Complain about this comment
Jon:
I would like to thank the BBC for sending your excellent [all of them are]!
*Nik Gowing
*Gavin Hewitt
*Lyse Doucet
*Matthew Collin
and all of the others, who i have not mentioned...
including the staff in london.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
everyone here complaining how biased the BBC supposedly is should try watching CNN sometime ... THEN you will see bias at a ridiculous level
i personally think that the bbc is, for the most part, good for unbiased coverage
Complain about this comment
uglybag:
You are completely right, the difference in attitude in the west between the Kosovo/Serbia issue and the Georgia/S. Ossetia issue is incredibly hypocritical.
Complain about this comment
This conflict shown that west will do everything to protect themselves (US)
They don't care about Europe .
They don't care about small nations if they disturb them !
They do not care about Osetians !
We , people in Europe should clearly see it!
If we don't we will be splited /
and "enemies" will be made by US /
Split and manage !
Complain about this comment
Any claim of unbiased reporting from any news organization is a fantasy: it is always influenced by ideology, religions, commercial and personal interest, consciously or sub-consciously. The government reactions from Bush and the gangs to this conflict is in the interest of neither justice nor peace, but their own. Otherwise they would not have poured oil to the fire.
Complain about this comment
To Zgr3doo:
You are saying:"Us are bringing opportunity to make a proper democrazy for Iraq.And what exactly Russia have to offer for Georgia?"
Is US establishing a democracy in Iraq?Are you SERIOUS?It is hard to believe someone still thinks like this.It is impossible to establish a democracy when your country is conquered and fully under American control.
What US has to offer to Georgia is the same what they offered to Iraq.. And no doubt Saakashvili is not only in tight connections with Washington (By the way he got his education in the US and lived there for many years),but he fullfills the contract he has with Washington.
Complain about this comment
Fact or fiction? I watched coverage of the incident described in the second paragraph by a Greek film crew. They said it was striking that there was no sound of aircraft before the explosion. How do we know that this was a Russian attack. Gori was meant to have been destroyed and yet the same film crew found it difficult to find ANY damage apart from broken glass and of course the damage in the main square.
Remember the attack on the market in Sarajevo in the Bosnian war? At the time everyone assumed Bosnian Serbs were responsible and they were castigated. Much later and after a careful investigation by (I believe) the British Army the conclusion was that in the balance of probablities the round was fired from Muslim positions.
Complain about this comment
Just wanted to say THANK YOU to people in the US and UK who despite all this wave of anti-Russian sentiment and incredible hypocricy have wisdom and common sense to see that there should be the other side of the story. Hatred only produces more hatred and people like Putin or Saakashvili benefit from it, because they have bodybags to fill. Don't be part of this machine. Today I read from Saakashvili's latest that Russians are "cold-blooded killers" and "barbarians" - he said that Georgia was now "looking evil directly in the eye". I'm Russian and I am NOT a barbarian. And my eyes are kind of normal blue color...
Complain about this comment
Evil Russia. Rampaging Russia.
That's how the Western oligarch or government controlled media describes Russia, condoning a genocide being waged by a Western puppet dictator.
The Georgians have massacred 2.5% of the South Ossetian people in less than 2 days and left almost 30% homeless. Russia has taken in over 14,000 of the 80,000 Ossetans into North Ossetia and set up hospitals and camps for them. Thousands more stream out daily. Just this Sunday, 2,000 arrived on Russian buses and trucks.
Russia has also freed the destroyed necropolis of Tkhinvalli, where bodies of women and children will be getting dug up for the next half year. Russia has also created a corridor for evacuation of wounded civilians, something the Georgians physically denied through artillery and sniper fire (even as they promised to honor the Red Cross' request).
Russia's airforce has brought in giant hospital planes, set up a large hospital in Tskhinvalli and two more are on the way. There is also a call for up to a dozen surgeons specializing in child injuries. Humanitarian aid is also flowing in.
And what has the "humanitarian" American response been? It has been an official call by the Bush criminal regime, for the Saviors of Ossessia to leave and allow the Bush vassal Saakashvilli to finish his American funded Genocide. This of course is no different than the US backing of Croatian vassals genociding Serbs in Kraina or Albanian vassals genociding Serbs in Kosovo.
Shame on you America and shame on your people for tolerating such criminals in power. This will never be forgotten.
Complain about this comment
Do I see too many conspiracies?
1) Bush wants McCain to win the next presidential election .
2) Russia is the old enemy.
3) The USA has 1000 advisors in Georigia 'helping' their USA - educated President ( along with 1000 Israelis).
4) McCain may well be losing to Obama.
5) A Republican response to a Russian problem may well be a vote winner compared to a more measured Democrat response.
6) Stir up a problem in Georgia, act and talk 'righteously' and wait for a Republican victory come November.
Or am I too paranoid?
Complain about this comment
Jon:
it is nice that the russian general, was talking to the bbc in english via, the bbc moscow bureaux.....
Complain about this comment
to serpentdanslherbe:
It is obvious!!I
It is a well-known black PR trick "creating an enemy".It helps making people in your country scare of "the dangerous world outside" when only a strong "leader"can protect them from "agressors".
It is so sad to realise that everything is paid!!
Complain about this comment
Russia has changed. It is not the same Russia that allowed ‘Iraq’ to happen. Bush on the other hand has not changed. The US President, known for his lies and deception faces a different and unexpected Russia.
Bush instigated Georgian conflict without realizing the immaturity of the Georgian leadership. Georgia committed ‘Saddam like’ atrocities on the minorities.
the American neo-cons are now afraid to face the Russian Military. What they did in Iraq cannot be repeated in Georgia because they face Russian Military and a confrontation with them will not be easy. It was one thing to bully an already weakend and sub-par Iraqi Republican Army, but to face the Russian Military is a different ball game.
Russia could not even think of taking military action in Georgia because majority of American Military resources are spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush said the United States stands "with the people of Georgia and their democratically elected government." He said the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity "must be respected."
"We will not cast them aside," he said.
Bush said Russia's invasion of Georgia in recent days has "damaged its credibility."
The problem is that American have NO credibility whatsoever to talk about ANYONELSE credibility after what Bush did in Iraq.
Blatant aggression is not world diplomacy. But the ‘cowboy’ American President has set the standard for ‘Might is Right’ policies and precedences.
Kicking Russians out of G8 or encompassing Georgia and Ukraine in NATO will not solve the problem. Americans with common sense must understand that Bush has demolished all respects for America in the world. ‘Bomb bomb bomb’ strategy of Bush-McCain against small countries like Iraq can go so far. But when the real challenge comes from countries like China or Russia, it is a different ball game.
Complain about this comment
Of course the BBC acted and still does in a biased way against Russia. It acted like the Georgian President's propaganda outlet. Time and time again I saw the man speaking flawless English , saying the opposite of what had actually happened and I'm sure quite deliberately being allowed to get away with it. (Incidentally I believe that Saakashvili will be tried in some court in the future)
For some reasons more than once it picked on a photo or quotation of suffering South Osettians in a paragraph or statement showing that the Georgians were suffering at the hands of the British. And as has been pointed out it picked out one block of flats which was hit when the Russians bombed an army base very near to South Osettia and proceeded to show it repeatedly ad nauseam.
For an institution like the BBC biased info is very dangerous in the internet age. For example I watch live internet TV on www.russiatoday.ru very sharp and clear and I believe, although biased, less so than the BBC . I am tempted not to watch the BBC anymore.
Without diverting from the topic I also believe that the BBC adheres to a sort of Politically Correct morality with its own Commandments. This morality is completely unknown to the non anglo-saxon world (these anglo-saxon countries incidentally might cease to be anglo-saxon because of the new morality) The PC Commnaments include "Do not criticize Moslems, Mohammed, Islam, Jews, blacks." And " By all means criticize and make fun of Christianity, Christians, Christ, Greeks, Italians, Germans, Spanish, Poles and
Russians.
As a Southern European my advice to Russians is not to feel despondent. After all the BRIC nations is where the action is, they have virile and successful leaders whereas the US will get one of two jokers as a president and the BBC, for all I know, might become, another little jewel in India's crown
C
Complain about this comment
Thats interesting !!!
Now it's clear Who is mr. Saakashvilli and
Who is Bush
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI9jEMiUfFs
This is the real story !!!
Everybody should see this !!!
Complain about this comment
DOWN WITH CRIMINAL WESTERN IMPERIALIST GANGSTERS and THEIR STOOGES.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has consistently misrepresented the Russian position, whilst believing every lie uttered by President Sucko of Georgia.
The BBC has never mentioned in its broadcasts that the US Government has paid for every last penny of the Georgian military operation, and has 130 "advisors" embedded in the Georgian Army at present.
Today the BBC claimed that Russian units are "deep within Georgia". That's a stinking BBC lie. Gori - by your own admission - is 10 miles from the border, and remains the ONLY place where Russia has troops. That's because it's the main ammo-dump for the genocidal maniac who (remember? no, the BBC *don't* remember, or want to!) who BEGAN this conflict by a *rocket attack* on a civilian target!!
As usual the BBC is deep in the pockets of the yanks, and you want to know why??
http://www.bbcamerica.com
That's why. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Complain about this comment
I think BBC has been a pawn of Russian propaganda when it came to this conflict. When I read AP and other new sources they clearly show the disproportionate force that Russia used on this tiny country.
For months before this attack, Russians had violated Georgian airspace proved in a video, and cyberattacked the tiny country. Also, the rapid response by Russian forces gives an impression of a well thought out plan before the war started.
One more bone to pick with BBC, how come you don't talk about Russians pillaging cities, barracks, and destroying Georgians airfield and harbors. Russians continuely went close to Tbilisi vicinity to spread panic, humiliating the country even more.
Why doesn't BBC talk about Russians disliking the Georgian President that this war might be a possible way to get rid of Georgian opposition? Or Russia wanting to destroy the infrastructure of Georgia as a punishment for the friendship with US? Georgia was never a threat to Russia, its too tiny to do anything, but pounding them to obedience is the only way Russian leaders know how to rule.
Maybe there's a reason Russians don't let the media in their territory, probably so that you can never prove that 2000 people died but after they fabricate them they send it straight to naive BBC.
Complain about this comment
This week's Jewish Chronicle reports that 'close to 600 Israeli citizens ... were flown out on Tuesday on three specially chartered planes of El Al and Georgian Airlines' and that 'until recently, Israel has been selling arms and military training to the Georgian army'.
As in so many other conflicts around the world, one might usefully ask what was Israel doing there, thousands of miles away from the Middle East and what part did she and/or her armaments play in Georgia's decision to confront Russia.
Israel's political role in many countries, is one that needs examination.
Complain about this comment
airspace86
Are you telling us that when the USA invaded Iraq the force they used was proportiond and it is ok for America but no one else.
Complain about this comment
dctomlinson writes:
>Well, on second thought, if the Russians
>offer the US favorable oil contracts for the
>next 30 years, maybe we'll reconsider our
>position.
Well, my dear, about 2008 years ago this would be just 30 silver pieces. Inflation, I reckon...
Complain about this comment
Dear BBC
If you care to read all the people who have contributed to this blog,all we want from you is to stop taking side ,the only side you should take is the side of the public.
we want from you the truth and facts about which ever confilicts or issues,equally proportiond.
stop being a me too news agencey,and start thinking outside the box,we the public deserve better from you,on this note i wish you all the best.
Complain about this comment
To all those critical of the BBC, I don't think anybody seriously imagines the BBC is perfect or unbiased, but they are the height of perfection and neutrality compared to virtually all other media sources. They have a long way to go, but what they have done is impressive, and true neutrality would involve barging blindly into the middle of battles and secure zones. I prefer to see news reporters breathing, and I think the BBC would agree with that. However, if you think more "at the scene" information would be valuable, they would probably be happy to accept the donation of heavily armoured carriers, spy satellites and surplus SIGINT technology.
As for the war, both sides have done really stupid things that have senselessly cost the lives of innocents. Both sides have violated ceasefires at one time or another, for their own gain. Both sides have conducted information wars and acts of cyberterror against non-combatants. Both sides know that the patches of dirt they are fighting over are not the reason for the war, that this is a war of pride and ego, not resources. And both sides know that their leaders aren't the ones in charge - they have no authority except to rubber-stamp the edicts of the egos really running the show.
What will finish this war? Bad blood means it'll finish only if Russia does attack Poland - they won't want to fight on two fronts, as that's generally a bad idea. I would put the odds of such an invasion at 50%, given the current atmosphere.
Complain about this comment
2 pdlodge and others who seem to be not hopeless cases like dctomlinson, thinking though:
>You're doing a great job BBC. Ignore the >hand-wringers who seem to believe the >Kremlin's state-run propaganda machine is >more credible
Well, people, I regret to disappoint you... I have lived in the USSR long enough to learn how to see through the propaganda machine. I have also lived in what you think is "free democratic world" long enough (more than a decade) to fully experience its propaganda machine, too. It is in every respect as mighty and vicious as the one I used to hate back 20 years ago.
BBC, though, is a puzzling case: it is paid by UK taxpayers and should be independent of the UK government by the UK constitution. Why does then it function similarly to the US commercial channels, which feed their "target audiences" whatever those like to see so as to increase the # of viewers and, correspondingly, ad revenue? Frankly, I do not know the answer. I would like just to add a brief (and one of many) illustration here.
Aug 13, 9pm. I am watching russian TV1 (which thanks God is not yet forbidden in a free country). Foreign minister Lavrov explains at a press conference that columns of russian military are going to unguarded georgian military bases near Gori and Zugdidi to dispose of unsecured ammunition dumps left behind by georgian army. Note, this is 9pm russian news program, which was broadcast in russia 8 hours ago.
An hour later, 10pm, switch to CNN. They show these same columns moving in the direction of these military bases as Lavrov just explained, and Anderson Cooper reiterating the question of the reporter on the scene: "where are they going? why are they going? we don't know..."
An hour later, 11pm, - swithch to BBC world news. Now BBC correspondent shows the same columns and asks the same questions. He even asks this question of a truck driver - he tells "we just go, go, go...". BBC commentator leaves audience with the same question" where are they going? why?"
Well, Jon, it seems indeed hard to get hold of facts from russian side. You have to sort of listen to what they say at a press conference - life threatening experience :)
Complain about this comment
I apologize to everybody if I have annoyed you - here is the 3d comment I post this eve, but this is the last one. It is about causes of armed conflict escalation and this "disproportionate use of force" cliche.
Forget everything else - I am not buying 2000 dead civilians etc propaganda (although there has likely been more than few dousains). Just think of a russian batallion, which was stationed there in South Ossetia (under a formal US mandate, BTW), and which was attacked on Mr. Saakashvili's orders by a vastly superiour and outnumbering georgian army, using heavy armor and artillery and sustained more than 10 killed and more than 100 wounded. Russian soldiers were following their orders, holding to their position. Consider just this fact alone. Now, imagine, God forbid, Cuban army would undertake such venture in Guantanamo. Or North Korea in the demilitarized zone on South. What woud be the "proportionate" response? Killing a dousain of theirs and wounding another hundred? No, the proportionate response would be dispossessing them of a military capability to afford this in the future, if possible. This is exactly what russians did in Georgia.
If a policeman is attacked with a knife, should he have to respond also with knife because it would be "disproportional" to us a gun?
Complain about this comment
Samkaz, America was founded with guaranteed fundamental human rights, and is a thriving democracy. You can name some isolated cases otherwise and I'll name them with you, but don't think for a minute US does not recognize a disproportionate force used by a brutal country upon a tiny country. Call the evil by its name! Russia does not have the same standing as America does. A country that has for years suppressed its own people, controlled the media, blackmailed his neighbors, and distributed all the country's wealth to few oligarchs, will never ever have the same integrity that US has.
So call US hypocrite but don't deny justice from poor Georgians who were abused unnecessarily to achieve Russian's dirty plan for its neighbors.
anything that happens in the world is blamed on Americans and Jews. America was scrutinized and scorned for so long about Iraq, its getting a little bit annoying. Nevertheless I'll fight for your right to say it. But please when Russia does the same don't spend your energy on hating US, but condemn Russia justly, just as you did with US. Just like US deserves criticism, Russia deserves it and deserves a lot of it NOW.
So BBC can emphasize all it wants that Georgia started all this, but if it was intelligent enough and solve the puzzle, it would understand that it was all Russia's game and trap. Maybe looking at the broader perspective wouldn't hurt, and I think it's a big part of giving an unbiased report.
Complain about this comment
The initial investigation by Human Rights Watch of deaths in Tskhnivali during the war quotes a doctor at the only hospital saying that they have processed 44 bodies, including military personnel.
The Russian leadership has lied to the world and to its own people about the event that triggered their intervention.
Russia has also lied about the refugee crisis in N Ossetia by maintaining that there were 30,000 refugees. According to HRW, quoting Russian records, just over 24,000 S Ossetians sought refuge in N Ossetia on the first day of the conflict. Over 11,000 of these returned to S Ossetia a day later, following the Russian tanks and keen to participate in the conflict. Only 13,000 remained as at the date of the HRW visit.
Complain about this comment
airspace86,
You are probably wasting your time. People believe what they want to believe and anything else they hear or see is propaganda.
Even during World War II when Hitler and Germany had conquered half of Europe there were Vichy Frenchmen and apologists all around the world suggesting that Hitler and the Germans were on the side of right and Great Britain and Churchill were the warmongers.
Even in 1939 the Russians agreed by Treaty with the Germans to divide Poland in the event of warlike complications knowing full well that Germany had every intention of warlike complications.
The Russians were cynical about freedom and democracy then and they are as cynical about democracy and freedom now.
Despite all the puerile rhetoric from the anti-Americans who seem to crawl out of the woodwork when given opportunities such as this Blog entry . . . I for one am willing to stand up and say Thank God for the Americans.
Europe is a hopeless case but Europe needs America far more than it likes to admit and most Europeans who form the silent majority in Europe are glad to be allied with the USA through NATO.
Somebody has to walk tall and tell to a bully to leave off or face the consequences.
Anything else is just simply cowardice or an exercise in futility believing that a bully will simply go away.
Complain about this comment
I will stay away from the actual conflict and comment on the news coverage.
Journalists have again driven into the middle of a war and been surprised when they got shot at.
Is it surprising?
Notably there is no talk of prosecuting Russian soldiers for war crimes for shooting reporters who drive in front of them in the middle of a battle. This contrasts markedly with the criticism of US troops who shot the ITN reporters in the middle of a fire fight in the Iraq war. Likewise when an Israeli tank round killed a reporter in Gaza. On both occassions the media labelled it as a 'war crime' and called for criminal prosecutions.
Should you be more critical of US or Israeli troops who kill reporters? Is this saying that different armies operate on different laws and conventions of war?
I think the reporters are very brave and dedicated. But this is obviously dangerous and at they do it at their own risk.
Complain about this comment
people about us nobody believes journalists
I am looking for Internet access
Deceiving the World with Pictures:
http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/08/deceiving_the_world_with_pictu.html
Complain about this comment
Hello West. I’m Russian. I take hard the war. Sure you know what the truth democracy is much better, Russians probably are not able to understand the democracy. So I hope you could explain me some issues. Please correct me: an article is impartial if it describes different sides. An article is partial if one of the side has got priority description. Let’s look to today’s article “Russia 'will abide by ceasefire'” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7564776.stm. I counted how many times different persons are cited:
Saakashvilli 5
Bush 6
Rice 4
Lavrov 2
Medvedev 2
UN officials 2
EU officials 1
Georgian officials 1
Russian officials 0
You may see that there are 2 citings from Russia side and 19 citings of the contrary side. I hope there is at least one article on BBC which contains more facts from Russian sources and more opinions from Russia than from Georgian+US.
The next thing I’d like to mention is an informational leak in this article and btw in all the articles on BBC. The night before Russia sends its troops into South Ossetia there was a UN Security Council session in New York. The session was called by initiatve of Russia in order to call Georgia to stop the fire. The result was a silence.
In this connection, I rewrote 2 paragraphs of the article in order to increase reliability. Could you please tell me my mistakes in facts. Initial text is enclosed with brackets.
---------------------------------------
[The crisis began on 7 August, when ] Georgia started operation ‘reconstruction of constitutional order’ (as Georgian officials said), [Georgian forces launched a surprise attack to regain control of South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since the end of a civil (ethnic) war in 1992. ]
Georgian heavy artillery fire on S.Ossetia capital Tshinvally and assaults Russian peacekeepers camp. Russian officials said 10 peacekeepers were killed. The same night, UN Security Council had a session by Russia’a initiative. But Security Council did not appeal Georgia to stop the fire.
[In response to the Georgian assault, Moscow sent armoured units across the border into South Ossetia to intervene.] While Russian troops was moving to Tshinvally, Security Council had the second session but without any result again.
------------------------------------
I’ll be grateful for any constructive comments. Because I’m Russian, I know very well what the propaganda is. This is why I search many different informational sources. This is why I prefer facts to opinions. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Just to add to what Egor_Ny was saying,
when the russians got to the base near gori they found an arsenal of US made weapons.
Anyone who thinks that there was no connections between georgia and the US/Nato before this week has to have been living with there head buried in the sand or has been purely relying on the BBC for the recent history.
This whole thing is a set up from start to finish. Georgia provokes the russians into action, knowing that Uncle sam and friends can then denounce the russians for an unprovoked attack on a soveriegn nation and send more of their troops and weapons of war into the region.
Lets remember before this we had the US training the georgian army and now we have a 'legitimizing' of the need for the US missile defense shield around Russia.
From reading this blog the BBC has done their propoganda job very well.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry for a mistake in my previous comment, there should be '4' instead of '2':
You may see that there are 4 citings from Russia side and 19 citings of the contrary side.
Complain about this comment
International Court of Justice set hearing of the case of Russia's military actions during the war in Hague September 8.
This information was published several hours ago in Russia. It is not published yet neither on BBC nor on CNN.
Complain about this comment
Alla_Moscow @73 and umpteen times after that!
Great news abot the citings.
It means the west is winning the propaganda war and Russia is coming a distant second.
I guess your missing 2000 South Ossetian corpses are the main Russian problem! Without the evidence to show the world Russian propaganda just looks like "smoke and mirrors" and the puerile excuse it was to be used in first place. The Russian ability to mobilise the military so incredibly quickly and venture into Georgian territory as an invasion force was not only astounding but actually means the Russian were ready to enter Georgian territory BEFORE the Georgian attempt to enter South Ossetia.
This link is to Human Rights Group challenges Russian Casualty Figures . . . . .44 bodies in the morgue and less than 300 wounded does not even start to appoach even the revised figure of 1600 deaths alleged by Russia to have been inflicted by the Georgians. I trust this article because it is equally critical of the Georgians but Russia cannot be excused from using excessive force ( and not like a police gun versus a mugger's knife but more like a tank versus a knife for those people stupid enough to try and draw any analogy of the use of necessary force!) nor can they be excused from lying to the world about their real motives for attacking Georgia.
I'll believe the BBC reporting much more than I would any 'truth' emanating from Russia - Russian truth is just sheer hypocracy!
Complain about this comment
President Dmitry Medvedev stated that his country's goal was "to force the Georgian side to peace", and that he "must protect lives and the dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are."
Quote from Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko, Russian Passport holder resident in London, England, "......". Killed 23 November 2006 by polonium-210 radiation poisoning administered courtesy of the Russian KGB in London.
Question. Can anyone else spot the Russian hypocracy?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus. Thank you for the reponse.
From your post I see you affirms bbc publishes propagandistic articles informational leaks. I see you prefer bbc's propaganda to Russian propaganda. That's ok.
propaganda = desinformation + emotions
Me too, I think, Russia was ready. Secret service had worked well.
About 2000 civilians - I don't have the facts. I don't beleive to 2000. But that HRG report is not final yet.
The article you referred contains and other important fragments as well:
"We are very clear that some of the weapons fired by the Georgians are unacceptable under international law," she said.
"The use of the Grad rocket launcher in urban areas is indiscriminate by nature and a breach of human rights law. Several rooms of the hospital were hit by Grads."
I find infowars.com contains more truth than bbc. But I don't beleive them completely as well.
Complain about this comment
Alla_Moscow @ 79
You forgot to mention a quote just few more lines on:
"We saw looting with our own eyes, they were taking household items, loading electric heaters, bicycles and carpets."
I'm sure you read it but just forgot to mention that item as you saw the value of highlighting the Georgian misdeeds. Just oversight I am sure. Or perhaps you were just teasing us?
Perhaps, desire to apportion blame to the Georgians is why Russians perhaps see their own actions with rose-tinted spectacles?
The problem with propaganda is that if people are fed enough drivel and puerile nonsense they start to believe it is true. The only escape is choice and where people CAN make a choice they generally migrate to listen and watch news reported by the organisation or country they have most faith in. BBC Free Press is winning the argument and free people throughout the world will prefer BBC reporting to Russian bulletins leaving Russians to be isolated and seen as pariahs. It was Russia's choice to go this route.
The fact is that the Russian's claimed that 2000 South Ossetian deaths were caused by Georgian troops yet, after the Georgians were forced into a retreat, the Russians have marauded at will inside Georgia destroying buildings and infrastructure (including today, the main east-west railway bridge) up to and including the day after Mevdev had agreed the Truce with Georgia . . . . that is indiscipline on a grand scale and the evidence from Tskhinvali collected by Human Right Watch on the ground PLUS their evidence gathered of atrocities commited in Georgian territory in the past couple of days will provide the prima facie case that Georgian claims for crimes against humanity by Russia will be be having heard at the International Court of Justice on 8-10 September.
If we can agree that you don't trust the BBC but I don't trust Russian propaganda, we start to make an understanding. If we can both trust Reuters then we can see that neither Georgia nor Russia have behaved very well in this international crisis.
I think we can safely say that Georgia has pretty much been punished by Russia for the atrocities that Russia feels Georgia has been responsible for. How would you like to see your country now punished for the use of excessive force, allowing the uncontrolled looting of Tskhinvali and probably the unnecessry deaths of journalists and other innocents well within Georgian territory?
I am sure you agree that Russia has been as equally overzealous as perhaps the Georgians were and two wrongs do not make a right!
Of course, I don't expect Russia to shoulder any such blame whatsoever! Russians are all innocent angels and just like the Germans of 1939, when Germany invaded Poland on the pretext of the "Gleiwitz incident" (secure in the knowledge that they had USSR/Russian permission to do so despite a Russian-Polish Treaty of Mutual Defence).
The Germans were only reacting to Polish aggression was the propaganda story. Just a few weeks later the USSR/Russia also invaded Poland to carve Poland in two and destroy even the name of Poland.
Russia plays the blame game just like the Germans of 1939 but it is all lies, smoke, mirrors and subterfuge. You believe that Russia is right; I think that Russia has become a State-led Economy and your leaders are nationalist bullies who will lead Russians to their ruin - just as Hitler and his cronies did to their beloved Third Reich in 1945.
Complain about this comment
To the Russians who have commented on this board, thanks: as long as we're willing to ask questions-- and especially as long as we're willing to make each other chuckle a bit-- we'll get to the kernel of truth.
I still think the BBC has very useful coverage, for the simple reason that the British have less of a direct vested interest in what's going on, and as part of the EU they can let us know what the thinking is in that region.
Because, clearly, the rhetoric of Georgian leaders is inflammatory, obfuscating and self-serving, the rhetoric of US leaders lacks credibility, is agenda driven and formulaic, and the rhetoric of Russian leaders is obfuscatory camouflage and crowd-pleasing bombast.
Somebody said 'if I were an American, I'd want my leadership to act...'. Actually, I don't want my leadership to act unless absolutely necessary. I want them to be keenly discerning, to speak effectively and truthfully, and to plan with extraordinary insight-- like the eagle, understanding the situation from far above with acute focus, swooping in accurate fury and effect only when really needed. Which, obviously, has not happened here.
I think I speak for many, many Americans if not the majority, when I say we are sick and tired of myopic, feuding hillbillies (whether they be hill-dwelling, valley-dwelling or desert-dwelling) and their idiotic, interminable ethnic grudges, and that we perceive this as just another flavor of that.
Russia needs to get back to their #1 priority, the establishment of a non-corrupt and effective economic atmosphere. The West needs to get back to their #1 priority, establishing the next generation of economically viable, eco-friendly, renewable energy technology.
Yes, it is frustrating. How about put a huge iron pot-lid on these idiotic feuding hillbillies? Clearly they should not be allowed to travel into the civilized world.
Then lift up sometime later and blow away the ashes of their stupidity.
Yes, I am frustrated.
Complain about this comment
mechanoidMike @ 81
That is the kind of isolationist drivel that meant that in two previous World Wars America came late into the battle to defend the world against bully regimes.
The power to avoid all this confrontation lies entirely with Russia but if there is to be continued confrontation then all your whispering in the dark, "I am not afraid of the dark" will not protect you.
If you think, were Russia to continue along this recent 19th/early 20th Century path to European Domination of the democratic nations that adjoin Russia, that America will not get involved then you are extremely ill-informed.
The fact is, that as of yesterday, Poland realised it had more to lose by not having American support and, heaven forbid that Poland is attacked and calls upon it's allies to assist it under the Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, all NATO members must put forward immediate response - this includes the USA.
Unlike the previous two World Wars where the USA's biggest enemy on your soil was the dreadfully mistreated US citizens of Japanese descent - The US has never been and was not then seriously at risk of invasion or real attack.
Wake and smell the coffee my peacenik friend - the first you're going to know of death is when Russia sends you some "pleasant surprises" as Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, a top Russian officer, highlighted Russia's anger with the Interceptor Missile system that will be deployed in Poland, saying that Poland was now at risk of attack, perhaps with nuclear weapons. If you don't think that NATO will respond with massive nuclear reply to such attack, I am feeling somewhat sorry for your naivety as the Russian Ballistic Missiles are already trained on the USA.
Of course, while you carry on feeling holier than thou you can sun yourself and have that healthy tan you've always wanted but the Geiger counter next to you might be a bit noisy and I think the 'green' agenda you suggest the "West" and it's hillbillies should follow will have a lot of ground to make up!
In the two World Wars of the 20th Century, Europe was very frustrated with American isolationism. Unfortunately, isolationism will not protect America this time around. You're as likely to be burnt toast as the rest of us.
on the other hand appeasement and a desire to not get involved is merely being someone who feeds a crocodile with meat hoping that they will be the last to be eaten. (As Winston Churchill quite rightly told the world after the disgraceful Munich Agrrement of 1938 - ceding the most democratic country of Europe at that time into the Third Reich without the Czechoslovakians even having a say!)
Unfortunately, I don't think America can afford to take that view in the realpolitik of today. Americans can be radiated just as easily as Europeans.
Best, we all exert political pressure on Russia to pull away from use of extraordinarily excessive military force as it has used in the past week and returns to dialogue, discussion and profitable agreement with Europe and America.
Otherwise, your frustration with me and my 'kind' will only be a hollow echo of my frustration with stupid people who think the world is some kind of hippy festival with everyone wearing flowers in their hair. If we are alive. Doh!!
Complain about this comment
Few other points for people whose brains are willing to think. There are two important issues raised by the BBC and other media coveraget of this war.
(i) The question of journalist's ethics, requiring to deliver thuthful information. Basically, this was totally discarded by most of commercial "western media" as well as bythe BBC.
This could be highlighted by the BBC and others showing Saakashvili's erroneous statemetnts such as "russians bombed Tbilisi International Airport", "russians bombed oil pipelines", "russian army is deliberately targeting civilians", most of which were later independently verified to be untrue. Now, in the US if a paper publishes a statement of that nature, it has to provide readership with its official denounciation later on - usually, it is just a brief disclaimer of the sort "those things that we have informed you of earlier appeared to be incorrect". Why have not BBC delivered such "retractions" of information it provided, which appeared to be incorrect? At least on the web site? Perhaps, it would be useful to have an "information follow-up" disclaimer section of BBC website, which would summarize all such "retractions"? It seems to be BBC's obligation to address in this way all the info they feed us with. Reader's access to these "retractions" would enable easy evaluation of the credibility of the source(s) of information and therefore reduce the impact of propaganda on our bombarded brains.
(ii) BBC certainly failed to provide access to important relevant information. Perhaps, most outstanding is omission of UNSC transcript No. 3 from July, 18 available on www.securitycouncilreport.org, its discussion on http://www.innercitypress.com/un1geokos070808.html is also quite enlightening.
Very relevant factual information of the events preceeding present conflict can be found on the Georgian site civil.ge,
http://www.civilgeorgia.ge/eng/article.php?id=17362
http://www.civilgeorgia.ge/eng/article.php?id=18730
http://www.civilgeorgia.ge/eng/article.php?id=18728
Not only has BBC failed to deliver this relevant background information, it has also missed (deliberately?) the chance to request the relevant current information from the UK and US military available via modern satellite imagery - such as the scale of destruction of civil and military infrastructure in Georgia and South Ossetia, russian troop numbers in Georgia, etc. - plain numbers and facts, which would substantiate (or not) claims made from either side. Note, Jon, that providing this information coverage would not put your correspondents in harms way (in USSR, though, this would jeopardise their careers -unbiased info might be against the "party line").
(iii) As for opinion coverage - I think many people have addressed this before. I am only wondering, why have not BBC interviewed (or at list cited from the interviews others did) people knowledgeable about the issues of this conflict - former Georgian president and Saakashvi's mentor Shevardnadze, or Nobel Prize winner Gorbachov? These old people certainly have nothing to gain by lying and twisting the facts?
Complain about this comment
Paul Reynolds' piece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562611.stm
is outrageous. Whereas another BBC report qualifies the allegations of Georgian refugees as unverified, the allegations of Ossetian refugees are "evidence" for Reynolds. He also takes a select quote from Human Rights Watch to argue that the Russians are victims of a "propaganda war". Never mind that Tom Parfitt of the Guardian quotes Human Rights Watch's Anna Neistat as saying "The torching of houses in these [Georgian] villages is in some ways a result of the massive Russia propaganda machine which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the casualties. That is then used to justify retribution."
According to Reynolds, "The Bush administration appears to be" behind the "mud" being thrown at Moscow and THIS ISN'T EVEN MARKED AS OPINION/EDITORIAL?
BBC editors should read this post by the editors of the Washington Post and have a big re-think about their coverage of this war:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503319.html
Complain about this comment
"The Russians are calling it a peace enforcement operation, it's the kind of Newspeak that would make George Orwell proud."
Well, russians seem to have picked apart georgian army's military ability to wage war for quite some time to come. This certainly is a factor enforcing future peace, not war.
Now, there are sinister villains there in Kremlin who want to occupy Georgia? Please, turn on your brain - we have seen on TV that over the last several days after russians declared end of fighting with georgian army they were freely moving aroung Georgia. Would there be sinister plan to occupy this country and/or militarily topple Saakashvili - they would have done so some time ago. If they are real villains, they would not even care that Georgian Commander in Chief moved the remains of the georgian troops and armor into his heavily populated capital city. Real villains and war criminals do not care of collateral. Apparently, russians don't want to do this. As I see it, their goal is indeed to just cripple Saakashvili's military capabilities so that he can't repeat his order of Aug. 7.
On another note - I am extremely curious what is the real number of russian troops and armor in Georgia. US and UK military certaiinly have rather accurate estimates (I am sure their satellite imageryprovided better estimate than simply "disproportional").
Jon, BBC - please, interview your British/"west's" military people, provide British and other people with an access to this information!!!
Complain about this comment
To bdell555 et al
People, PLEASE, do you have BRAINS to think of what you say:
>massive Russia propaganda machine
which constantly repeats claims of genocide and exaggerates the casualties. That is then used to justify retribution.
Man, do you really think they were just sitting there in SO watching that massive russian propaganda on their plasma TVs and then started rampaging georgian villages after seeing news cast? They have no TV's! Could you perhaps admit that it is you who is brainwashed by massive propaganda coming out of your 60" plasma or LCD?
Complain about this comment
The Russian Propaganda Machine is targetted at the domestic Russian audience, many of whom do enjoy the benefits of 21st Century living including watching bulletins that justify incursion into a sovereign state tainted with Kremlin propoganda. Russian propaganda reminds me of the KISS principle - to target it at an audience, propaganda must be delivered by Keeping It Simple for the Stupid! I'm sure Russians can cope with understanding that. The South Ossetians don't need to be misled - they already think Russia is wonderful.
I am sure the Russians have lapped up the propaganda but they are mere pawns in the Kremlin stategy.
Maybe there are so many Russian citizens who realise that the Kremlin news is lies and more lies so they visit the BBC website to see what people in the West actually think of their bullying and threatening military marauding around Georgia after the Peace Accord has been signed.
I think many Western Governments will be extremely sceptical of any Russian withdrawal from Georgia until it happens and even if Russian forces do return to the pre-incursion baseline, Russia's credibility as a trustworthy partner of the West has been seriously jeopardised.
I think Russia can now, for the immediate future, forget being a member of G8 which will revert to G7 and travel facilities to the West will become much harder to obtain for Russian Diplomats and Goverment officials.
All this brought down upon the heads of Russian Citizens by a bullying and threatening Russian Government and Military.
The Russian military have been utterly stupid and utterly contemptible in their brutality of the Georgians!
Complain about this comment
Egor, they most certainly got the word out, they even got that "figure of 2000 dead" that Jon Williams is wringing his hands about on FOX!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
Complain about this comment
to bdell555, post #88:
Please, read my post #67.
As for #85 - I would like to emphasize, if you have not understood. It is not somebody's opinion(s) and/or unsubstantiated claims that we the people need to know. It is the cool numbers. The real numbers. Official numbers, be it even reliable estimates of US/UK military. Satellite pictures taken by their military satellites. Things to make my own opinion, not relying on that of the "talking heads".
There is no point of bitching about the # of civilian casualties - I believe that russian "official" number of 1,600 was an estimate of a KGB analyst(s) based on what he(they) knew of the situation, most probably exxagerated, and in no way reliable. And there will be no reliable numbers for some time to come - although I hope they will eventually come out. In fact, the exact number does not really matter - I ahgain would like to refer you to #67, and #85. Be it couple of dousains, couple of hundreds or couple of thousands, given the indiscriminate nature of targeting city with GRADs (do you understand what GRAD is and how it performs, BTW?) shown on BBC on Thursday's eve as a backgroung to Saakashvili's statement that he is conducting a police operation (here BBC was indeed quite bold and informative), even a douzen of civilian victims is certainly enough to indict him in Hague. Arguing that "others (Putin/russians, or some argue Bush/Blair and their troops) behave the same way" is of no value. Argument that a criminal should not be indicted because others are still on the loose is total rubbish.
Complain about this comment
see lunar eclipse... right now
Complain about this comment
Egor, do you understand what a cluster bomb is and how it performs?
http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2008/08/14/georgi19625.htm
I gave you a link there, to the Washington Post, that might help you with your "need to know the numbers". It refers to a WSJ story http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121874784363742015.html
and a HRW report
http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm
that discuss the numbers.
In any case, my problem isn't with you. It's with editors like Reynolds who, while an Ossetian refugee's allegation of "2000 killed" is going out over FOX, practically the citadel of conservative American mass media, is reporting the "news" that Russia has "los[t] the propaganda war"!
While Reynolds takes Georgia's fledgling communications to task for daring to draw analogies with Prague in 1968 or Budapest in 1956 ("The comparisons did not fit the facts"), the global edition of the New York Times says that today "Russian armor ... travel[ed] nearly to the edge of the Georgian capital", a move that "opened a new security vacuum between Gori and [Igoeti], creating fresh targets" for "looters and armed gangs in uniform - many of them apparently Ossetians, Chechens and Cossacks - [who] have operated behind the army's path, ransacking villages..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/16/europe/16military.php
Complain about this comment
The Russian "peacekeepers" failed to pervent attacks on Georgian villages from within Ossetia. Russia also shot down Georgian reconnaissance aircraft - as show on this web site last month and yet the BBC has taken the (unfair in my view) position that the Georgians "started" this conflict. This is untrue, and without going back to the 13th century for the roots of "who started what" it does seem that more reference should be made to the abuse by Russia of its "peacekeeping" mandate in Ossetia. Why are the Russian government representatives not challenged on this point when interviewed by the BBC? Have they insisted on this question not being to to them if they are to accept interviews on the BBC? A Russian regime that states it will be justified in mounting a nuclear attack because of the deployment of a defensive shield in Poland must surely have demonstrated to all but the most naive that this Putin led junte has retained the same aggressive, intolerant, self-serving agenda toward its neighbours that has coloured its foreignh policy for generations. The time is at hand for Europe and the US to show greater resolve and give Moscow a precise time and date by which to get out of Georgia. If that time frame is not honoured NATO should (as an opening position) offer forces to Georgia in order to retake their sea port. Putin leads a totalitarian junte that knows to well the West has grown "lazy and fat" - like the Romans in the latter days or their Empire - and that we fear confrontation with Russia. Is our way of life worth defending, and is democracy worth defending on the borders of Russia or only west of the old Iron Curtain?
Complain about this comment
While Jon Williams is throwing his hands up about the "impossibility" of debunking the "figure of 2,000 dead", it's gone viral on Youtube courtesy of the FOX clip (abetted by allegations of FOX censorship) and is presently raging through the blogosphere like Ossetians through Georgian villages.
I suppose the western MSM's abandonment of its gatekeeper role is a fitting parallel to the role the west has played concerning the gates to Georgia.
Complain about this comment
Hi everyone. Despite all its biases remember at least the bbc is offering us this opportunity to discuss the news live, which is commendable. And it is good to hear all of you, a group of respectable and educated adults discuss it. I'll be honest with you, ive never been Georgia or South Ossetia, and the nearest ive ever got to Russia is my old college teacher.
But something isnt right here. Each side blames the other with the conviction of honesty and righteoussness which immediately makes me suspect...
Complain about this comment
to KGM1957:
Man, big brother does indeed control your brain! Read what you write:
>The Russian "peacekeepers" failed to pervent attacks on Georgian villages from within Ossetia.
Be real - remember when and whom did you get this information from, then answer to your question:
>Why are the Russian government representatives not challenged on this point when interviewed by the BBC?
may become clear. Remember, all incidents prior to this escalation, including all downing of their reconnaissance drones, Georgia was formally filing with the UN Security Council. UNSC records are available from their website, one that might be of interest to you is #3 of July 18. The only attacks they reported were explosions in Abkhasia, which abkhazs actually blamed on georgians. No independant international observers (including OSCE observers present there) ever verified those allegations you mention. This perhaps is the reason BBC chose not to confront russian officials on this issue.
Incidentally, russian TV1 has shown an interview with the OSCE observer (english speaker - perhaps dutch) from Tskhinvali, whose partner was killed and who unambiguously attributed the attack. BBC would serve its public well by interviewing the guy - he is a first hand witness.
Punchline: believe only facts and numbers (such as satellite imagery, which certainly exists but is notably absent!!!). Refer to official statements and transcripts in original and in their entirety. Speculations by talking heads and even more those "political think tank analysts" are useless and dangerous.
Complain about this comment
3rd party involvement. You know i wouldnt put it past hidden elements of the special forces to have had a steering role behind the scenes in this conflict. Thus prompting regional instability and fueling international strife and animosity IMO.
Complain about this comment
After reading "a dirty little war" in today's (17 August) Guardian/Observer, it's as if the Guardian and the BBC must be covering different wars.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately the days the BBC could be relied upon for factual and neutral comment are long gone.
Whilst there are still a few journalists working for the Corporation upon whose word I would rely it is clear that there is a general bias towards what the UK Government would wish the BBC to show and say, and rather less of what the world would wish it to say.
In my opinion the current conflict has been better reported elsewhere than on the BBC - even Channel Five managed to get nearer the knuckle than the BBC appear to have done.
BBC News needs a good clear out and a return to the days when it didn't matter who seemed to be "right" or "wrong", only that the British public could be trusted to look at the facts, the evidence and make their own judgments accordingly.
Complain about this comment
Guys, please see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI9jEMiUfFs
The Information is filtered totally. The only one side is showing portraying Saakashvili as a victim.
Please, look how this hero eats his tie. Is it mentally stable person?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49wOzZdWWYM
Complain about this comment
alexdol @99
And a talking head in this first video clip you seem to gleefully want us to view is unbiased 'evidence' of atrocities against South Ossettians?
I could make a video clip of me saying I had been to the moon. It would not make it so.
Until the Russians produce unfettered journalist access to the mass graves of the 2000 or 1600 (or whetever) South Ossettian dead then the Russians have a fundamental weakness in their justification for war.
Human Rights Watch on the ground in South Ossettia say the Death Toll was 44 and Casualties were 237 (mainly military):Human Rights Watch questions Russian figures
Both sides lie and do dreadful things during conflicts but the South Ossetians and the Russian would appear to be the bigger liars at the moment.
Complain about this comment
After the completely disproportionate balance in BBC reporting from the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict (apparently a Little England approach which only treats foreign reports seriously if they are in English) may I recommend an illuminating video reporting in excellent English on the Moscow News channel - (not propaganda, straight reporting) on the aftermath of the Georgian attack on the capital city of South Ossetia:
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29082/video
The BBC certainly showed one brief report from Sara Rainsford on the destruction in Ossetia but devoted repeated reports to the 'horror' in Gory, where an apartment-block was damaged and there may have been a dozen casualties as result of Russian attacks. The attack on the South Ossetian capital was far different, only comparable to the terror-raids used by the Nazis on Warsaw
and many other European cities (or indeed to the American shock and awe attack on Baghdad), in the hope of killing or driving out the population.The crime committed was on a level with or worse than the Serbian attacks on Serebrenica or Sarajevo.
I write as a moderate Conservative Englishman sickened by the biased response of the Americans and, to their shame, of the British Foreign Office and David Cameron. If they want a new cold war for their own reasons, as seems likely, they will probably get it - but everyone will suffer.
Complain about this comment
Besides the lost lives, there is one more victim in this war- the Western media's reputation for being objective, inbiased and independent. Saakashvilli was acting like a member of the teams of western reporters covering the war. Non-stop interviews, feeding the viewers unopposedly with misinformation, vast exaggerations of what's going on in Georgia and instead to question the credibility of his "first-hand reports" which in 90 per cent of the cases proved to be a pack of lies, the Western journalists looked awestruck at the Georgian 'hero'. They present him as a leader of a democratic country, ' the beacon of democracy' as the US officials refer to Georgia. Haven't they heard that the main political opponent of Saakashvilli was put in prison and now is in exile in France? Haven't they heard of Saakashvilli's crackdown on Georgian opposition last January? Haven't they heard of the state-controlled media and that all sources providing alternative view points on the conflict were cut off right at the beginning of the war? Georgia is everything but a democratic country. But that doesn't matter, does it? What counts is that it's pro-western and so servile to name a street after the US president George Bush!???
Complain about this comment
wornich at 101
As you are a "moderate Conservative Englishman" I wonder if you would have been in the support of Neville Chamberlain at the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938 when a small sovereign state was under severe duress from a larger, militaristic nation wanting to 'protect' it's ethnic brothers and sisters in enclaves within that smaller country?
You can wring your hands in sanctimonious horror at a larger nation being incredibly aggressive towards a smaller nation OR you can stand up for what is right and say that A big nation must not bully smaller adjacent sovereign nations.
The alternative is that you appease the aggressor nation and just put off the day when that aggressor nation wants a little bit more and then a little bit more and there comes a time when it is your turn to be dominated and your freedoms are given away.
Complain about this comment
More from Paul Reynolds at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm
"It was not hard for Russia to justify its intervention. It simply stated that its citizens were not only at risk but under attack."
So, according to the BBC, it would "not be hard for Russia to justify" an invasion of any and all of the Baltic States and Ukraine!
Justify to whom? To us? To the BBC? If it's "justify to itself" why doesn't it say that?
Is there anything against that argument, like the remarks of Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt?
"We did not accept military intervention by Milosevic's Serbia in other former Yugoslav states on the grounds of protecting Serbian passport holders. And we have reason to remember how Hitler used this very doctrine little more than half a century ago to undermine and attack substantial parts of central Europe"
No. Instead, in the same piece, we see Reynolds write
"the neo-conservatives ... who see Georgia (and Ukraine) as flag bearers for freedom which must be supported...
Against that is the argument..."
Reynolds doesn't miss the chance to inform readers of the counter-argument to "neo-con" appeals to "freedom" but treats a self-interested Russian casus belli uncritically.
Again, the piece is not labelled opinion or editorial. Reynolds name is given, but the wire services name their correspondents as well. Is everything out of Reuters and AP with a name editorial?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus at 103
The Czechs had not launched an all-out attack on a German city killing many civilians and effectively destroying the city, as Georgia has done.
Small countries have no more right than large ones to to destroy human life,killing even their own citizens in the city they attack.
The Georgian attack was extraordinarily stupid, unless they believed Russia would do nothing and just wring its hands, or that the United States would join in the war.
Complain about this comment
In another Reynolds piece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557915.stm
"... the West needs to acknowledge that the Russians did have a case. It needs to explain why it helped Kosovo but questioned Russia's right to help South Ossetia"
It has been explained! See Deutsche Welle's interview with legal experts:
"Not Another Kosovo"
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3556349,00.html
See also the New York Times on the question of "Is This Different Than Kosovo?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/europe/12georgiaqanda.html
I might add that NATO's air only campaign was hardly as disproportionate a response as Russia's.
Why do I always have to go to other sources to get the other side of the story?
Complain about this comment
Yesterday I watched BBC hardtalk with russian deputy PM Ivanov. At some point we were so close to getting at least one real number out to the public - that of civilian casualties in Georgia outside South Ossetia, i.e. the unfamous "collateral" of russian military operation. According to Ivanov it apparently was low - he challenged the host to spell the number. BBC host did not. Why? Whatever the number is, - it is out there, they know it, and no matter whose view and stand it supports this number provides vital information to the viewers.
I wonder if Jon really reads these comments. If so, then my last plea.
Jon,
PLEASE, provide us, the people of the world, with relevant facts and numbers. We need those much more than judgements and opinions of those "talking heads". We, the people, will be able to judge the events for ourselves.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps I'm being unfair in singling out Paul Reynolds. Let's look at what BBC News says without an author byline:
"Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agree to observe a ceasefire ...
Hours later, Georgian forces launch a surprise attack..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551576.stm
Why is it that it is in the New York Times and not the BBC that I read:
"Russia held a major ground exercise in July just north of Georgia’s border, called Caucasus 2008, that played out a chain of events like the one carried out over recent days.
“This exercise was exactly what they executed in Georgia just a few weeks later,” said Dale Herspring, an expert on Russian military affairs at Kansas State University. “This exercise was a complete dress rehearsal.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17military.html
Russian media reported on August FIFTH that
"Volunteers are arriving in South Ossetia
to offer help in the event of Georgian aggression"
http://www.interfax.com/3/416284/news.aspx
Why hasn't the BBC reported this background? Because the Georgian attack was a "surprise"! The background is the clear blue sky of peace and harmony from which Georgian aggression burst forth!
And this just "hours" after a "ceasefire"! Does the reader appreciate the perfidy here? Better make sure of that: the BBC immediately adds that "South Ossetian rebel leader Eduard Kokoity accuses Georgia of a perfidious and base step'". I suppose tomorrow the BBC will be quoting South Ossetia's accusation that the "Georgian fascists’ atrocities ... outshone those of World War II Nazis."
http://osinform.ru/news/7677-spasite-malyjj-narod-ot-unichtozhenija.html
Someone should write "surprise" on a piece of paper and pin it next to Reynold's "evidence" on a bulletin board in the editorial room under the title of "We Called It!".
Complain about this comment
wormich @ 105
You wrote, "The Czechs had not launched an all-out attack on a German city killing many civilians and effectively destroying the city, as Georgia has done.
". I am sorry but when did Georgia launch an all-out-attack on a Russian city?
If you mean Tskhinvali, that is not Russian, it is a city in the sovereign territory of Georgia.
As far as we actually know Human Rights Watch can only confirm 44 dead and 237 wounded after Georgian troops had withdrawn.
The damage to the infrastructure of Tskhinvali whilst being attacked (first by Georgian Troops and then, when the Georgian troops had taken control, by Russian troops) is going to be caused by munitions from both Georgia and Russia military forces and South Ossetian irregulars. No one is able to say it was one side or another who caused the most damage and to try to blame it on one side or another is puerile and crass stupidity.
Nevertheless, you have not answered my original question: As a "moderate Conservative Englishman" are you prepared to see a Georgia invaded, occupied and dismantled by Russia?
I'm not asking you to give me excuses as to why Russia has invaded Georgia - everyone reading this blog entry's comments and watching the news in Russia or in the rest of the world will have heard the Russian excuse of "protecting their citizens".
I just wondered, as you are a "moderate Conservative Englishman", whether you think it is right for a big country like Russia to be able to enter Georgian territory and stay there - effectively having destroyed everything from boats, trains, building and rail infrastructure.
Is being a "moderate Conservative Englishman" an indication that English Conservatives support invasions or, if not invasion, wish to appease the Russians and cede them South Ossetia (and possibly even Abkhazia as well) - just like Neville Chamberlain agreed to do with the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in 1938 . . . only to see the remainder of Czechoslovakia overrun 6 months later.
Would you, as a modern "moderate Conservative Englishman" have found that unacceptable and supported Neville Chamberlain's subsequent treaty with Poland that meant that when Poland was invaded in 1939, Britain was committed to war and the start of World War II when Germany invaded Poland.
How will you feel as a modern day "moderate Conservative Englishman", should there be an attack on the Ukraine by Russia when the Ukraine refuses to renew the Lease on The Crimea and Sevastopol in 2015 or for some other reason prior to that date? How will you feel if NATO agree membership of NATO by Ukraine before long (just as Neville Chamberlain treated with Poland in 1939 when the scales of being a pacifist fell from his eyes.).
Has the calibre of Englishmen changed from the 1930s to be so forgiving in today's climate of fear? Do the English no longer have the moral fibre to maintain their reputation as champions of freedom and democracy in this modern age? Are the English now cowards compared to their grandparents who fought to free Europe from tyranny even though they had not been invaded themselves?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, thanks for your response. No, I don’t think the comments maid by Ossettian girl on Fox TV were “unbiased” as it’s difficult to be unbiased towards people who bombed you.
What I meant was their opinion wasn’t accepted at all. It was very visible. How you can give balanced information without listening to other opinions, sides, etc?
What we can see it’s 24/7 Saakashvili.
Another video with Saakashvili eating his tie could raise question - to what individual US gave tons of modern sophisticated weapons that can kill thousands. Was it responsible?
Then, probably Russians are right destroying all that weapons now before to leave.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus 109
Menedemus was a rhetorician and sophist, who, like sophists generally, used words
to disguise the truth, to use half-truths to persuade his hearers that black is white
and evil is good, that the aggressor is the victim. An appropriate pseudonym.
Complain about this comment
alexdol @110
Please do tell me your not stupid enough to not see the splice in the video where it has been edited and added in the eating of the red tie?
No, I can't believe anyone is that stupid so your just teasing us I am sure!
Complain about this comment
wornich @111
Very poetic I am sure but if that is all that the English are good for - just meaningless words - then heaven help Eastern Europe and heaven help your country in due course.
Do you prefer not to answer my question?
Or is it that you cannot answer questions as you have no answers and so resort to sarcasm which is the lowest form of wit!
Complain about this comment
I might start watching BBC again after I see at LEAST ONE REPORT from South Ossetia, particularly from Tskhinvali, which is opened for reporters. You keep showing Gori with ONE building bloc destroyed in bombing, and you do not have any reports from Tskhinvali, which is 70% destroyed. If anyone thinks they can hide what the Georgian army was doing there, then they are very wrong. Ossetians are human beings as Georgians, and suffered most in this conflict.
It is pretty tiring to watch Russian tanks rolling, and if it is what you think you should be doing - chasing Russian tanks across Georgia, then there is no hope for your channel, which I used to respect for professionalism and impartiality.
This is pretty much over now, and your reputation in my eyes is shattered. BBC will never again be a trusted source oof information.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has Sarah Rainsford in South Ossetia and she has "no way to investigate...".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558619.stm
yet the UK Times reports events that that, if anything, are even more horrific than the Guardian reports:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4545980.ece
Complain about this comment
And compare Sarah Rainsford's "I can't determine much of anything except that Ossetians here are furious with Georgia" with what this McClatchy reporter in Tskhinvali has to say:
http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/752960-p2.html
Complain about this comment
Much of what I have said has already been said. Yes, Russia is at fault for much, but the Georgians were the aggressors. Yes, the BBC is biased, but compared to the American media, they are far more neutral, and more in-depth.
One final note: regardless of which side you're on regarding this, most people in the US (and the UK too?) don't care either way. They're too busy with celebrity stuff to care about things like this, which is a shame.
Complain about this comment
"it's proved impossible for us to verify that figure of 2,000 dead."
And because no one is debunking this:
"Last week, until orders came from Moscow to rein them in, the Russian troops occupying Georgian territory either did little to stop the irregulars from looting or committing atrocities or actively encouraged them.
Manning a checkpoint outside the Georgian town of Kaspi, 25 miles southeast of Gori, four young Chechen soldiers admitted that their South Ossetian allies had carried out reprisals against Georgian civilians - but insisted they were justified.
'Do you know what the Georgians did in Tskhinvali,' demanded one fighter, who identified himself as Sulim. 'They killed 2,000 people. Georgians were crushing small children with their tanks.'
...
Russian propaganda has been so convincing that not even the few independent media outlets that normally criticise the Kremlin in Russia have spoken out against the Georgia war.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2575214/Georgia-Russian-military-entrench-themselves-deeper.html
Paul Reynolds called the allegations of Ossetians "evidence"! If someone at the BBC says, "Reynolds was referring to the physical damage to the city," see this:
http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/752960.html
Reynolds needs to issue a retraction concerning his Friday "Russians losing propaganda war" piece unless he intends to abandon all MSM credibility and become an "alternative" news source. While Moscow was spreading a horribly malicious lie in "2000 killed", Reynolds was painting Moscow as a victim of a "mud" throwing "Bush administration" "media game".
The contrast with the courage of the Washington Post editors ("assertions of the Russian leadership that have proved contrary to fact continue to circulate") could not be more stark.
The BBC's reputation for fact checking is going to go out the window for good unless there is an explanation for why Reynolds did not call Human Rights Watch to confirm that using their report to advance the thesis he intended to advance was not a misuse of their material.
And to call Ossetian allegations "evidence" while Georgian allegations are "difficult to verify", all I can say is shame on you BBC!
Complain about this comment
While the Washington Post is telling Americans to beware of Moscow's "mythmaking", the BBC seems committed to the spreading of Moscow's talking points because of the "need to ensure balanced coverage."
Viewers of BBC One "were treated to a live interview with a Russian General" trumpets Jon Williams.
Are we going to be "treated to a live interview" with a 9/11 Truther next? How about someone alleging the moon landing was a hoax?
Anybody else see a problem with the idea of giving equal time to those creating the smoke and those blowing it away?
If you won't make a judgment, you won't make news! Or you'll make non-news, like airing propaganda or fringe theories. Your are (supposed to be) the MSM! Playing gatekeeper over what gets covered and what doesn't is your job! Non-dissident Russian sources are about as reliable as the blogosphere, if that.
I was in Georgia last October, including Poti and Gori, as well as in Transdniestr, an area analogous to South Ossetia. I was also in Russia the October before that. Without discriminating against any individual Russian, there is a gangster mentality there that does not exist to the same extent in a more western-sympathetic culture like Georgia and the people who understood that going into this "diry little war" could see through the fog into what was happening to a far greater degree than those who refused to acknowledge such a thing because their liberal idealism precluded them from any prejudices.
The chickens of living in terror about a premature rush to judgment have now come home to roost, with the BBC reduced to reporting "the picture's quite foggy".
The conservative papers didn't fall for this because they aren't so daintily scrupulous. But the Guardian isn't especially conservative and didn't fall for this either. Why? Because their humanitarianism, or at least Luke Harding's, appreciated that Russia was less of a force for human rights than Georgia despite all of Georgia's many faults and whether that was prejudiced or not was largely a question for academics. What the Guardian was interested in was what was coming down the pipe for the little people.
In the mean time, Paul Reynolds et al were obsessed with identifying the -isms at work like the "neo con" agenda, as if that would explain it all.
Well, guess what, there's no PNAC master plan driving history here after all. It's not so complicated and never was. It's plain old national power in this case, and it's high time the BBC stood up and spoke truth to that power.
Complain about this comment
The Bush regime has been provoking the Russians for a return to cold war tensions for several years. They seem to be succeeding in this regard. The Amerikans have quietly equipped the Georgian military and then encourged Georgia's President Saakashvili (and Amerikan $tooge) to send the Georgian military into South Ossetia. A lot of people were killed. Only then did the "evil Russians" (according to FOX newes) invade.
There is a fire in South Ossetia, but it was not the Russians who lit the match. Meanwhile... here at "home" CNN has seeded the airwaves with propagan-duh implying that Barack "Hussein" Obama is the anti-KKKrist and from one pundit, a "communist sympathizer." I can't believe how bizarre thing have become since George W. Bush was $ellected in 2000 (and re-$ellected) in 2004.
I shall leave you with this. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. And there is much madness in Amerika. Europeans beware! The Russians are probably not to be completely trusted... but the Amerikans are totally INSANE.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus 112
Your command of English is less than you believe.
You clearly do not know the meaning of 'poetic' 'sarcasm' or 'sophist'.
In plain English the pro-Georgian interlocutors are lying through their teeth.
Complain about this comment
"From 1945 to the end of the century, the united states attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign goverments, and to crush more than 30 populist-national movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the us caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair" Quote from William Blum's book "Rogue state". The russians didn't attack the georgians in the first place, the georgians took the russians based in ossetia by suprise a sneek attack if you like. The georgians murdered over 2,000 russian passport holders, what is russia supposed to do just sit back and let this happen. The western media have made a shambles at getting the correct story out to the rest of the world and have let russia down and the russian people. At this point in time the us are encircling russia with Missile shields going under the guise of protecting western allies against rogue states like iran. I think this is just another way backing russia into a corner because russia has just found oil reserves that dwarf the middle east reserves. We really could be heading for nuclear war if America keeps turning the rest of the world against Russia.
Complain about this comment
Nobody is asking, "What the hell was Georgia playing at?"
-----------
Rubbish, I have read good balanced reports highlighting the problems and positions of both sides here on the BBC site.
Yet again though people choose to not let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Complain about this comment
womich@ 121
You are not so moderate womich as your bias is visible for the world to see.
I doubt your credentials as being "Conservative" as voting Conservative is not the same as being Conservative.
Perhaps you are not an Englishman by birth either? That may explain your unwillingness to answer what was a very simple question "Do you support an aggressor nation invading a smaller neighbour with extraordinarily overwhelming force or appeasing such an aggressor nation by allowing it to annexe part of the smaller neighbour?"
If you were a true Englishman, I think you would not be trying to justify Russia's behaviour but like your Conservative Leader be demanding they withdraw now and in accordance with their peace agreement undertaken.
Trying to battle me with your paltry wit (and very innaccurate description of my namesake's School of Philosohy) which I kindly called 'poetic' is pathetic.
If you really are English and that is all that the English can do - talk clever, slyly avoid giving answers, and only support the victor then the English have become weak and effete. Your avoidance of answering a simple question does nothing for your integrity!
Complain about this comment
Meledemus 124
If you look at your Latin dictionary you will see that Meledemus was a rhetorician - though there were others also called Meledemus.
Perhaps you should take more care in the spelling of your riposte.
No doubt you would say that Guernica provoked the Nazis.
You talk about the victor so Georgia was defeated - an appropiate punishment for the crime of devastating a defenceless city after your autocratic president declared a cease fire the night before. Russia has agreed to withdraw but that does not in any way change Georgia's culpability.
Are you a Georgian or a fellow-traveller?
Are you proud of your great compatriot, Stalin? I also can ask irrelevant questions.
My family have been English for a thousand years. Magna est veritas et praevalebit.
Complain about this comment
"The Bush regime has been provoking the Russians for a return to cold war tensions for several years. They seem to be succeeding in this regard. The Amerikans have quietly equipped the Georgian military and then encourged Georgia's President Saakashvili"
Just like the US armed the Iraqi's then ecouraged them to invade Iran?
If thats the case then why was both the Georgian and Iraqi armies almost exclusively equipped with ex-soviet tanks and guns!
I haven't seen any Georgian M1A1 tanks yet. Why aren't the Georgian F16's and F18's blasting Russian Migs out of the sky?
Its very 'quiet' rearming- so quiet no-one seems to have seen any of these alleged US (or israeli) weapons yet.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, you do not discuss facts, but you discuss motives of your interlocutors. You condemn them in their motives. Your speech is emotional and showy. There is no sense to discuss anything with you.
Now, so do I. You agreed implicitly that August 7 Georgia performed a war crime. But you are afraid to confess it explicitly because Georgia is an enemy of your enemy. You said you select a lie to believe to.
"Do you support an aggressor nation invading a smaller neighbour with extraordinarily overwhelming force ?" - Yes, you support Georgia, which attacked S.Ossetia. Yes, you support US, which attacked Iraq. Yes, you are a democrat which divides the world for democrats and infidels and certainly "infidels must die."
Complain about this comment
"Do you support an aggressor nation invading a smaller neighbour with extraordinarily overwhelming force ?" - Yes, you support Georgia, which attacked S.Ossetia."
Bad news for you Alla_Moscow. Only in Russia is S.Ossetia considered a 'smaller neighbour'. Legally S.Ossetia is part of Georgia, until the UN decides otherwise.
I support the right for all people to have self-determination which is why I support a British Falkland islands, a British Ulster, a Tibetan Tibet and an independent Kosova. S.Ossetia SHOULD be allowed its independence if the majority of Ossetians wish it, but until it holds a referendum under UN supervision it is legally Georgian.
Complain about this comment
womich @ 175
All you respond with is critiscism of my pseudonym, my use of English and typographical errors - you should be ashamed of yourself as it simply shows your own insecurities.
My nationality is irrelevant. You were the commentatator who said that "... as a moderate Conservative Englishman sickened by the biased response of the Americans and, to their shame, of the British Foreign Office and David Cameron.
Why do you not answer the question I originally posted at #103?
"As you are a "moderate Conservative Englishman" I wonder if you would have been in the support of Neville Chamberlain at the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938 when a small sovereign state was under severe duress from a larger, militaristic nation wanting to 'protect' it's ethnic brothers and sisters in enclaves within that smaller country?"
You must think that being Conservative and English is relevant. If I accept that, then please extend me the courtesy of answering the question.
It's not irrelevant as it would seem to be the intent of Russia to ensure that South Ossetia and Abkhazia never return to sovereign control of Georgia. There is even doubt that Russia actually intends to withdraw form the areas of Georgia it has occupied.
Perhaps you think that Georgia should just simply disappear off the map? That Georgia has no sovereign rights in South Ossetia or Abkhazia and these should be annexed to Russia?
Your avoidance of my question is ignorant and ill befits your forefathers who must have been involved in World War II and fought alongside their fellow English to preserve freedom and democracy.
Whatever the wrongs that Georgia did on 8th August does that mean that all Georgians should forgo their liberty and their fledgling democracy? Would you not fight to help them protect those freedoms?
Complain about this comment
Alla_Moscow @127
Thank you for the courtesy of at least trying to answer my question.
If Georgia committed any war crimes the perpertrators should be brought before the International Cout of Justice and action taken.
Please do not assume that I deny any crimes by Georgia - I do not know the facts of war crimes by Georgia OR Russia at this time and I am not so hasty as many in this commentary to attach blame for war crimes to either or both sides.
Please, also, do not assume that I support the US invasion of Iraq. I have never alluded to that opinion and you do me an injustice by assuming that that is my opinion.
Whether the South Ossetians like it or not their enclave in South Ossetia is still sovereign Georgian territory - that is a legal fact.
Practically, South Ossetia has been in rebellion since 1992 and preceding 8 August there had been hostile activities between Georgia and the South Ossetian rebels.
Now, assuming that Georgia did use overwhelming force to go into Tskhinvali ( And I do not know if they did or did not - I was not there!) they were actually lawfully authorised to respond to rebellious hostile activity in international law. Whether they were stupid, gullible and entrapped into making such an unwise move will eventually be understood . . . . I think they were enticed in to entering South Ossetia.
On the other hand Russia has invaded South Ossetia and Georgia proper and there are doubts that Russian forces even intend to withdraw back to their jump-off position of 8 August
as required by the Ceasefire Agrreement signed by Georgia and by Russia.
If Russia annexes South Ossetia and Abkhazia or even refuses to retreat from Georgian Territory they will be entirely wrong in International Law and they will be the Aggressor Nation of which my question was asked.
Complain about this comment
Hi yall. I think that Georgias president is a crook. He is a whinge-bag and doesnt realise that when he 'sends the troops in' there is bound to be repecussions. Also on another note, Sophia was the god of wisdom hence sophists are truth-sayers and not some decieving deviant liars, an earlier blogger has made them out to be!
Complain about this comment
Menedemus 129
Now you have admitted that Georgia did wrongs on 8 August we are making progress.
My original posting was about the lies and misrepresentations that sought to show Russia as the initiator of the conflict.
If the Russians withdraw as they have undertaken then the threat to Georgia is removed and the hate-fest against Russia is unjustified.
If the Russians now in fact invade Georgia and capture Tbilisi that would be a quite different situation and the international community including Britain would be rightly opposed to it.
As for the 'fledgling democracy' Georgia is at the moment more an autocracy than a democracy with the suppression of non-Georgian television, close control of the media and crushing of the legitimate opposition. Georgia needs to reform itself, recognise its guilt and stop whinging.
You have not answered my questions. Are you an American?
Complain about this comment
Wornich @ 132
No, I am not American. Thank you for being less hostile.
However, you still have not really answered my question viz a viz #103 (please see my last paragraph of this comment for relevance).
You add conditions to your approval of Great Britain opposing Russia, i.e. "If the Russians now in fact invade Georgia and capture Tbilisi "
They are dug in 32km (20 miles) from Tbilisi and, at 2 hours after the expected (but very much overdue) withdrawal of Russian Armed Forces, there is still no sign of withdrawal as required by the Ceasefire Agrrement that Russia has signed.
Why does Tbilisi have to be captured for you to then give support to the West opposing Russia?
Is not Georgia invaded? South Ossetia has seized self-autonomy - it is still sovereign Georgian Territory. Are the Russian troops not dug in inside Georgia proper?
Do you support Russia effectively annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia by staying there and effectively denying Georgian troops their previous right to be there or, to appease Russia, would you cede Russia the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
Complain about this comment
In addition to #133
Oh, and neither am I a Georgian or fellow traveller (whatever you mean by that?).
Complain about this comment
If we can't even discuss 9/11 objectively, how are we ever going to unravel something that is thousands of miles away with real-time, rival viewpoints!?
9/11: Apparent foreknowledge! hijackers: are we sure we've identified them? No jet intercepts? Improbable and largely unexplained building collapses? Fake evidence pointing to OBL!!!
See what I mean?
Complain about this comment
"If we can't even discuss 9/11 objectively, how are we ever going to unravel something that is thousands of miles away with real-time, rival viewpoints!?"
precisely because it IS happening in real time... if you want to see whats happening send a team of journalists to georgia and tell them to find out whats happening.
I presume your 'objective' discussion of 9/11 has 'objectively' decided it was an inside job? Very 'objective'......
Complain about this comment
Menedemus 133
The answer to your final question is Yes.
Georgia's treatment of the South Ossetians means that the population could in no circumstances be returned to control by a government which has massacred them.
The de facto independence of South Ossetia dates from the chaos following the collapse of the Soviet Union. If the justification for Kosovo's independence was that the Albanian citizens had been terrorised and massacred by the Serbian government, the South Ossetians have equally strong justification for being independent of Georgia.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @ 82
At this point, the Russians have kept saying they're leaving, but are fortifying various postions in undisputed regions of Georgia.
Georgians who have borne the brunt of the Russian reprisal have started to blame the Georgian action in S. Ossetia for their suffering, blamed Russia for inciting the S. Ossetians against them to begin with, and blame S. Ossetian militiamen who are armed by the Russians.
It *is* seeming more likely that the Russians actively incited the separatists to pick, pick, pick at the Georgians, knowing the Georgians were apt to cross a line that would justify a Russian reaction. A question might be where were BBC, CNN, et al when all of this was ramping up.
Maybe I am an isolationist peacenik, but I prefer (like that matters, but anyway...) the US not to become embroiled in things that we don't understand well enough, and we don't understand what causes these pockets of ethnic groups to be so willing to murder one another and loot each others' towns as soon as the clear opportunity arises. I truly don't want Georgians, or Ossetians, or Abkhazians to be suffering any more than anyone else, but they sure seem to enjoy inflicting it on one another, and you seem to propone leaping in the fray, picking either Hatfield or McCoy.
What does it benefit countries like the US and Russia to become embroiled in this? The wise course for Russia would seem to be what they are saying they are planning, quickly establishing peace in the region and then turning it over to an international contingent of peacekeepers.
Is Russia suddenly afraid of something else that causes them to fortify this portion of their souther border? What is it?
You're correct to point out that the US hasn't had to worry overmuch in the last century about being attacked directly-- aside from the Cuban missile crisis, ballistic missile submarines, and suicidal terrorists-- certainly not the wholesale invasion. And yes, holier than thou often comes easy in this remote spot. It also seems like fewer and fewer are even taking a stab at 'holy' nowadays.
Complain about this comment
See these Human Rights Watch reports and then explain to me why the BBC's Sarah Rainsford spends the majority of her reporting relaying to us the claims of Ossetians:
http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2008/08/16/georgi19630.htm
http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2008/08/17/georgi19633.htm
http://www.hrw.org/photos/2008/georgia0808/
Complain about this comment
#137 "Georgia's treatment of the South Ossetians means that the population could in no circumstances be returned to control by a government which has massacred them."
The Russians claim 2000 S.ossetians have been killed. The Georgians claim 44 dead.
44 dead is less than 7/7, less than the average football stadium crush and FAR less than Tianemmen square, the Peterloo massacre or the race riots that swept several US cities after martin luther king was shot. Its tens if not hundreds of thousands less than died after culloden or the Spanish civil war etc.
Once a body has had a tank drive over it its very hard to tell if it was killed by a Russian or Georgian bullet and 44 dead S.Ossettians (or even 2000) in exchange for a whole country seems a VERY good deal for Russia.
Complain about this comment
womich @ 137
Thank you for your unequivocal answer.
But your evidence of "a government which has massacred them." is?
I do not condone the stupity of allowing Georgian Troops to attack Tskhinvali but there has been no physical evidence presented of deaths that approach massacre figures. The most reliable independent research so far is 44 South Ossetian dead civilians identified by Human Rights Watch. Conversely, as of today the same organisation has counted 170 dead Georgian bodies within Georgia proper.
In an area stretching up into Mother Russia, truth is never what is said but must be seen. Neither you nor I have been there whilst this crisis has developed. I just firmly believe that Russia has invaded Georgia proper and, I hope I am wrong, but I think they are going to stay as long as it takes to be given a propagandist excuse to conquer the rest of Georgia.
What I would not do is assume, because Georgia was stupid and wrong, that does not mean that either the South Ossetians or the Russians were right either.
What I object to is that anyone should jump to the conclusion that this is ALL Georgia's fault and, therefore, they are to blame so they must lose everything - their independence, their freedom of movement, part of their Sovereign territory (including Azbkhazia where they did not make an assault!) and their democracy (and English Parliamentary Democracy is that good?) with all it's warts just because people such as yourself presume that the Georgian's massacredSouth Ossetians without evidence to support the use of that term or misuse it deliberately to express their view.
That I find the Russian activities obscene and that is why I support your Conservative Leader going to Georgia in support of the Georgians and publicly demanding the Russians withdraw in line with their signed Ceasefire Agreement with France and Georgia.
Complain about this comment
126 .
peter I would point out that as an ex soviet country there were probably a few tanks left behind at the end of the cold war.
then also I suppose the russians could have been selling them new tanks.
Complain about this comment
According to Wikipedia (which is usually pretty good) the Georgians only have T-72's (and all the ones I've seen are certainly late model T-72's). Thats a 25 year old tank. The Russian army seems to be using very late model T-80's with reactive armour or T-90's without. A generation more advanced than the stuff the Georgians are fielding and doubtless in much better working order.
What I HAVEN'T seen is any US or Israeli armour.... or aircraft, or missiles, or small arms or so much as an american hand grenade despite all the claims that the US and Israel are arming Georgia
Complain about this comment
mechnaoidMike @ 138
You wrote, "Is Russia suddenly afraid of something else that causes them to fortify this portion of their souther(n) border? What is it?
Let me run some ideas of what Russia might object to:
1. The US working with the Georgians to improve their lot with financial aid and political support (The US has promoted that Georgia should be given membership of NATO!)
2. The future possibility of Georgia ever becoming a NATO member
3. The fact that (apart from the Baltic Nations who have joined NATO) Georgia would have been the first sizeable country within Russia's "Near Abroad" being unable to be influenced by Russian domination because they had joined NATO.
The other thing that, strategically, might make the Russians want to dominate and control Georgia is the existence of 1 Gas and 2 Oil Pipelines that run East-to-West through Georgia and into Turkey. In the event of complications between Europe and Russia - Russia can effectively close down this supply IF they control Georgia!
Many people blame George Bush for invading Iraq and quote oil as America's motive for doing so. That may be so. The US President has to look after US interests first and foremost - I am no hypocrite that I blame the US but I don't have to support their actions either as the given motive of nuclear and biological threat was found to be untrue.
If Europe is starved of oil and gas then Europe has little choice but to engage in the same sort of power games as America. Europe has to look after it's interests first and foremost too.
Russia is an Autocracy that operates a State-led Economy. With a confident leadership, a modernising army and the willpower and financila reserves necessary to do so they can switch of the light and power in Europe. To ensure this capability they need control of (or dominated to their will) a compliant Georgia.
I await real evidence of Russian troops being withdrawn from Georgia back to their original jump-off positions very soon. Otherwise I fear that the West will have to do something that none of us will like - start to confront Russia or succumb.
Complain about this comment
When journalists on News Programmes return to reporting News, rather than commenting and analysing, then you can expect balanced unbiased reporting.
By adding comment and analysis from people who are employed by the BBC or who are paid consultants you end up with imbalance, even if you present an equal number from both sides.
Journalism should be based on reporting facts, not speculation on future repercussions, or possible motives and especially not "what if...."
This conflict has been reported in a very imbalanced way from all sides, but as a previous correspondent mentioned, readers/watchers/listeners of the BBC should not have to rely on outside sources to find the counterweight
Complain about this comment
kamensk @ 145
That is a very laudable sentiment.
Reporting facts is one thing and should be interpreted by the reader/listener/viewer.
However, we live in a complex world where one person's fact is another person's lie. The current Russian-Georgia Crisis is a prime example.
A "Fact" bandied about very early on and reported by Russian media was that the Georgians had massacred 2000 people.
Russia subesequently downgraded this figure to 1600.
On the other hand Human Rights Watch on the ground in Tskhinvali consulted with the local hospital and medical Doctors and from their observations report that only 44 bodies had been recovered from Tskhinvali.
Would Russia report both figures and let individual Russians make up their own mind? The Western media has tried to do this.
However, reporting needs analysis from experts to explain why there is a huge discrepancy between the 1600 bodies claimed by Russia and 44 observed by the very, very independent Human Rights Watch group.
The discrepancy has been discussed to death in this commentary but none of us are 'experts' and the bottom line is that no one has been shown the 1600 bodies - neither the Russians nor the West have been given access to a mass grave or lines of body bags so where are they? They are not buried under rubble because the photographs and videos of Tskhinvali do show munition damage but not the extensive damage that was initially reported by Russian media.
The first casualty of war is the truth and that is no more true in this conflict than any conflict before now.
So I have to disagree with you and, although I want facts (and not talking heads or archive film that means nothing!) I also want expert analysis to explain why Russia would say there were 2000 and then 1600 bodies as compared to 44 actual bodies being counted by Human Rights Watch. Otherwise, I am drawn to believe that Russia was lying to suit it's own purposes and hidding real reasons for invading Georgian territory.
Complain about this comment
kemensk, #145: In warfare, the first casualty is
truth. The Russians have not let western journalists
into most areas which they have occupied, so
we can't blame the BBC if they are unable to
verify Russian claims as to civilian casualties.
Complain about this comment
This is for everyone who wants to see another side to it
http://blog.chaparin.com/2008/08/17
Menedemus:
Please be objective and make your judgements based on all the facts..Watch the video how Georgians are attacking S.Ossetia and listen to what an American citizen saying who happened to be in the conflict zone.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7549035.stm
second picture
peter there is a guy on the tank on the right of the photo.
What gun is he carrying?
It looks american to me.
Not that anyone behaved too well over this. I would hate to let Russia off the hook just because they behaved like the US or Israel.
That's a sorry excuse.
Complain about this comment
Katya @148
Thank you for asking me to be objective. I always try to be.
I went to your link to look at what it was you wanted me to see.
First of all I noted that the website has a sponsored link to Nashi (Ours) so I looked at the Wikipedia for the description and analysis of Nashi: Nashi (Ours).
Nashi ('Youth Movement "Ours!"') is a government-funded youth movement in Russia. It positions itself as a democratic anti-fascist movement. Its creation was encouraged by senior figures in the Russian Presidential administration, and by late 2007, it grew in size to some 120,000 members aged between 17 and 25.
The organization is seen by most Russian liberals as Russian President Vladimir Putin's version of the Soviet Komsomol. Some commentators in the West have likened it to the Hitler Youth. I have no view on Nashi (Ours) but others might be able to draw inference as to the purpose behind the website.
I watched the first video which was a talking head and read the translation. I noted the martial music at the beginning and end of the clip - very reminiscent of NAZI Propaganda newsreels of the World War II years. The girl in the video had not a lot to say but she was very attractive - that’s not you is it?
I watched the second video clip. It seems to be a series of more talking heads? I again noted the martial music at beginning and end? It was awesome especially the multi-rocket launcher displayed on the banner.
I then saw the BBC News Clip which shows the launch of the GRAD Rockets.
I noticed it contained the spliced-in video addition of the Georgian President supposedly eating his red tie which is such a bad dub you can actually see the splice. Unfortunately, doctored video lose credibility but I'll forgive that to heed your point and try to continue to be objective.
First of all I fully accept and have never denied that Georgia attacked South Ossetia.
I would suggest that South Ossetia is sovereign Georgian Territory but I would not condone the use of unnecessary force to bring the breakaway enclave to heel.
I do not know where the rockets were destined but the Human Right Watch people do say that at least 10 GRAD rockets hit the Tskhinvali Hospital. That would be indiscriminate and wrong.
Unless I am given other information, I will assume that the Hospital damage is on the south side of the hospital building and, therefore, incoming from Georgia. I am sure this will be clarified by 'experts' in due course. Heaven forbid the rocket pock marks are on the north facing side of the hospital building.
I think I have already posted the link to the Human Rights Watch report a couple of times that puts the death toll at 44 civilians and also mentions the GRAD rocket attacks by Georgia as being indiscriminate AND also describes drunken Chechens, South Ossetians and other irregulars burning and looting at will.
So I have looked at your link and been as objective as I can when viewing the contents.
I do not think any worse of Georgia. I already thought they were stupid to assault South Ossetia but then I was not there before the 7th August so have no idea what provoked the Georgian Assault on the enclave in the first place.
On the other hand, is my opinion in anyway changed about Russian using deliberately pre-planned extraordinarily overwhelming force to enter Georgia's territory and then gone further than necessary to bully a small nation bordering it's territory? No.
Two wrongs do not make a right and Russia is equally guilty of excessive force as Georgia. In fact it increasingly looks like Georgia's infrastructure is being systematically being destroyed and that is a genocidal war crime against humanity.
So what exactly has this constructed web page done?
Well, for people who want to believe Russia is on the side of Angels it will be like manna from heaven. For realists and pragmatists it achieves very little. There are no facts as such as the Grad Rocket launchers could have been pointing anywhere for all the viewer would know? I will accept that they were pointed towards South Ossetian territory but GRADs are not a banned weapon of war so I'm not sure what conclusion you want me to draw from seeing the images?
Complain about this comment
Hi guys, i am feeling slighty miffed that my earlier post was censored cos i 'insulted the president of Georgia. Anyway, i was also making the point, in responce to an earlier comment, that sophists were actually forerunning philosphers, scholars in the pursuit of factually correct wisdom. In the name of their god Sophia. This is a fact that i suppose not alot of you knew, least of all the bbc censors, and i just wanted to fill you all in.
Complain about this comment
A very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph at 7.12pm this evening:
Dimitry Medvev vows further retribution
Condaleeza Rice has called an extraordinary meeting with NATO for Tuesday.
I'm off to Spain tomorrow. I hope you are all here when I get back . . . . somehow the Cuban Missile Crisis is starting to look like child's play compared to this development!
It does not look like the Russians ever intended to withdraw from Georgia so a Ceasefire signed by Russia is not worth the paper it is written upon.
I hope no one is going to tell me the Georgians deserve more punishment?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus:
I have a feeling you are here at this blog first of all to exercise your sophistic rhetoric as someone above has already acused of..
Don't worry you will get the more concrete and OFFICIAL ( not the preliminary ones) figures from UN (which has not finished its work on it)about the number of deads after Georgian assault in the middle of the night on SIVILIANS in S.Ossetia.
The information on the link I gave you is not widely-spread official information about the conflict in Russia.I saw this link in an american forum and an american was reffering to it (in one of the forums at www.abcnews.com,in the comments to the Gates comments on Russia).I had the same thoughts expressed in that link much earlier.What I read there and saw just repeats them.
As to Russia dismantling Georgian weapons and coming deep in Georgia it is no wonder..After what Saakashvili did..,being sure that bombing sleeping civilians in the middle of the night is quite OK(NO MATTER HOW MANY,even if it were JUST 1 person) for a "democratic"(fully American funded)ruling of the country..Russia had no choice but doing it,making sure he will not repeat his attemts and is no longer a threat both for S.Ossetia and Russian borders (if US decides to use him for this purpose)which lay pretty close.
Complain about this comment
waqqar2054 @151
I saw your original post. It's okay though. I know who Menedemus was and his School of Philosophy but your information is good information to share with everyone as my pseudonym was not just plucked out of the air for the sake of it!
Menedemus was a Sophist in the ancient greek world and was both rhetoric and philosophical in style.
Sophism derives from the Ancient Greek sophistes, meaning "wise-ist", one who "does" wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom
He was a student of Plato and then Stilpo. He preferred Stilpo's philosophy of elevated sentiment with gentleness and patience.
I wish that gentleness and patience will survive the next few days, weeks and months but I am becoming very fearful of the consequences of the path that Russia is taking.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus,
You are asking really good question, hard hitting. However I might have few comments on your initial position. You start with presumption, that Russia is a bully-ish state that uses shameless propaganda to sell its actions to the world. My comments to this presumptions are:
1) There is no prove of the fact that the Russia is any more bullying then any other country with similar economic/military capabilities. Can anybody tell me why Russia should be regarded a bigger bully then China, USA….?
2) To answer the question: Stop or appease bully? If you are
a) willing to fight
b) willing to take responsibility for the underlying problem
then stop him.
Being specific – West may be capable of fighting Russia, but is West willing also to take responsibility for resolving Ossetia-Georgia relationship of hate and revenge killing? I doubt. So West has to find other solution then confrontation. By its actions Russia took it on itself to solve it.
3) Comparison with Munich 1938 is misleading – the end goal of Hitler was world dominance. And ethnic Germans in border regions themselves were perpetrators of atrocities towards Czech, and Czech just fled for their lives.
4) Death toll question: 2000 is estimate. Pre-conflict population of Tskhinvali was 36000. I think anybody can estimate the death toll in bombardment of densely populated urban area. Taking into account explosive power of shells, number of ammunition rounds fired, etc…You may call 2000 a propaganda number, but the same time I will call a propaganda number 44 of dead bodies in the morgue (and mostly military too?). Insisting on 44 death, what do you want to prove? Georgians using high precision weapons targeting only military targets?
That is “shameless” propaganda. Have you seen “GRAD” in action? Curious, does the 44 bodies also include medical personal killed in hospital? Howmany under the rubble?
Whatever the final 'proven' figure turns to be, it will be HUGE in comparison to population. God have mercy.
Opinions, please….
Complain about this comment
Katya @ 153
You asked me to see the link and comment objectively upon it.
I am not so sure you are approaching this discussion with the same degree of objectivity.
I fully agree that 44 dead civilians is 44 too many but the same Human Rights Watch Group have counted 170 dead Georgian Civilians.
If the be-all-and-end-all of Russian aggression is simply retribution (as you seem to be implying) then heaven help the Georgians - they have already lost 4 times as many innocent civilians as the South Ossetians.
When does Russian 'punishment' become genocidal retribution? Fairly soon if the rhetoric coming from Dimitry Medvev is to be believed.
Is Russia seriously intent on a World War? I hope not.
That is where this is heading and it is Russia who can pull back and obey the terms of the agreed ceasefire or carry on the path to all our mutually assured destruction as world war III must inevitably involve nuclear weapons.
I hope the Russians choose peace. They would certainly be wrong to assume that the West is decadent or that the West will let Russia perform any more retribution in Georgia or Ukraine.
Please do not think that NATO is inneffective, it's policy to deal with a threat of any kind from the USSR (or Russia as is) was mothballed but training was and always has been targetted at these sort of events that are unfolding.
NATO is designed to operate automatically as a purely military organisation as soon as any one NATO country invokes Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.
There is no political decision after that except for the President of the United States to give authority to use All nuclear weapons at NATOs disposal including those 'under the control of' of trusted militaries within the Alliance'. The President of France retains a separate authority over the French nuclear arsenal. The United Kingdom nuclear arsenal is automatically released to NATO shoul the US President authorise nuclear war.
Mutually assured destruction because of South Ossetians who were only given Russian passports 5 years ago seems to me to be a battle for legitimacy that Russia cannot win!
But it is for Russia to back away from further confrontation otherwise confrontation with the West is going to become inevitable and then God help us all!
I sincerely hope Russia chooses Peace.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus:
I were offering to you to watch several video clips in the link provided coming AFTER the clip "Saakashvili' eating tie" including the opinion of an american citizen who happened to be in the conflict zone.
I understand you don't understand Russian,so you are calling people talking their opinions in Russian as "talking heads'.One of them,who is a head of informational centre of Caucasus is saying that NO Western news agency applied to them for any help or information except one.
For people who want to see a different side to the conflict:
www.russiatoday.ru
(an English-language channel)
with OFFICIAL Russian view on the situation.
Menedemus:
If you say again,it is all funded by Russian government,don't be fooled that what you see and read in Western media regarding politics is not all funded by their governments.
As to the Sophist shool of rhetoric (follower of which you consider yourself)you are VERY right...as according to you"they were making business out of wisdom"..I am not sure if you are making business of your rhetoric..Hhhmm,but who knows?;-)But you defintely get pleasure of proving everyone else iWRONG n this blog,what everyone can see here.Isn't it more about your ego and not politics at all?
Complain about this comment
Katya @ 157
Think what you like but I do look at the facts but fact are not one person taking to a camera or talking to someone just off camera. That is opinion and conjecture. It proves nothing.
Your belief is that Russia is entitled to invade the sovereign territory of another nation that has no chance of withstanding the might of the Russian Miltary BECAUSE 1 South Ossetian or as many as 2000 South Ossetians were killed.
You then scour the internet to find evidence to support your belief and when you do you parade it as if it proved anything and everything.
It doesn't (and your evidence didn't) prove anything. You asked me to be objective and I was. You seem to lack the ability to be objective yourself and are resorting to insulting me. I have not insulted you, why do you write me with such discourtesy.
Your opinion is yours and I write nothing but my own opinion. We are entitled to disagree but there is no need for you to insult me because my opinion is different.
The world is not made up of people who think that Russia is at liberty to invade other countries - that is a behaviour from the 19th century. If Russia pursues it's current course of action then conflict must occur.
The world accepts that Georgia was stupid to attack the South Ossetians despite whatever provacation was being made by South Ossetians towards the Georgians. The Georgians have reaped the consequences of their folly.
But, if you think that Russia is now justified in ignoring the terms of the Ceasefire Agreement to bring further retribution upon Georgia then we must fundamentally disagree.
At some stage Russia will be confronted with an ultimatum. To adhere to the signed ceasefire agreement and withdraw from Georgia or face the consequences.
If Russia wishes to challenge the West (united together) then as soon as Russia strikes at any one NATO country whilst NATO is coming to support Georgia (or the Ukraine) then we are at War.
This war will be the fault of Russia and not the fault of Georgia. That is my opinion and I am entitled to have that opinion!
Complain about this comment
At this point, the S. Ossetian government has indicated 'international observers' will not be allowed in that territory, which indicates that Western press will not be allowed to report what they see. Doesn't seem in their best interest: nothing they say can be corroborated at this point. Nor the Russians', as far as opinions re: coverage or additional information, disillusionment and suspicion has settled in.
Clearly it's up to Russia to impress us all with their performance as impartial peacekeepers, and it's difficult to do that without credible press coverage.
You have to give at least a grain of thought and some consideration to the Russian perspective-- to some extent, Georgia has been to Russia as Cuba is to the US: irritating.
If the US President says Cuba is an irritant and their leader is a nut, it's another fine summer day. If the Russian President says Georgia is an irritant and their leader is a nut, we're on the brink of destruction.
Again, sorry: not to make light of the people who have been killed, injured and displaced in this conflict. Accuracy of casualty estimates aside, and whatever strategic posturing leading up to this aside, if the Russian action was disproportionate, it seem clear from all accounts that so too was the Georgian attack.
If the rest of the world is truly concerned about peace in the region, the two sides need to adhere to the peace agreement and hopefully all will work towards cooperative and constructive resolutions.
Sorry to be such a peacenik, I know it's not as interesting a proposed news story ending as WWIII.
Complain about this comment
Ladies and Gentlemen, there has been lot of Russia vs Georgia vs NATO discussions.
May I ask your opinion on the following:
Territorial integrity of Georgia is important. Fact. BUT what the hell should / could be done with the fact that South Ossetian people will NOT even talk to Georgians now, and would consider any suggestion of common existence in Georgia as personal offence?
MechanoidMike correctly noted that Ossetians will not allow international observers, much less the international peacekeepers. Wonder why? After seeing what was said in international media, which were in its majority clearly biased towards Georgia, how any South Ossetian can trust that these observers would be impartial? After the anti-russian pro-georgian campaign some media are waging all those international observers would be considered as western spies, and would require Russian military escort just to avoid being killed. And what I read from Ukrainian 'Inter' TV reporter who happened to be at the Ossetian side when it all started, those international (non-russian) observers who have already been there left few hours before attack, leaving only 180 man strong Russian peacekeeper unit holding up 48 hours the Georgian attack from the south of Tskhinvali. After this, how can you expect more international observers will be let in? Given Ukrainian anti-russian mood I tend to trust this account.
So, please, Your opinions, what can be done to resolve the underlying Ossetia vs Georgia problem? Can anybody from BBC help out?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus:
At www.russiatoday.ru there are many facts you can also get informed of...
I entered this blog with the need to say that there are always 2 sides of the medal..and one-sided presentation of the situation with quick judgements and quick painting ones in black and others in white,such a presentation of the situation which is much more complex and has 1000 years roots,not forgetting neither the fact that S.Ossetia and Russia had also signed in 90s agreement of Russian military protection in case if Georgia reattacks S.Ossetia which has its sovereignity within Georgia. .. followed by agressive anti-Russian propaganda not only regarding this conflict,but now it is been conducted also in general...made me and many people not only in Russia,but in many places in the world SHOCKED...That was my message!
Menedemus:If you feel like insulted,I didn't mean it at all.I was just sharing with you the feeling I had after having read all your numerous posts here.Maybe I have been a little sarcastic,sorry for that!
Complain about this comment
I depend on the BBC World News for all my accurate news. NPR is still too dependent on government funding to be accurate. The Neocons still have a strangle hold on the Arts and new has become an art.
At least your news reporters don't seem to be endangered like the reportes from Al Jazeera. We expect action in a war zone but not deliberate assassinations.
The Georgian War is a perfect propaganda tool: David against Goliaith, if it is to be believed, more like a fool on an errand. Now that foolishness has caused people to loose their lives and property.
When leaders call for war and spread rumors about war, do they ever stop to think that people dies; that soldiers do not fall, they dies; that they are not fallen heros: They are loved ones; they are someone's child, father, son and/or daughter. All this propaganda about the honor of serving and dying for one's country is crap. These brave leaders who hide in the capitals of the world need to come out like Ceasars of old and fight their own battles.
Complain about this comment
Kudos to the BBC for your coverage of the Georgia crisis: although this is certainly an international tragedy, it's been a real moment for the BBC to show off the quality and breadth of its newsgathering capabilities. I'm a huge fan of World Service and have found the BBC's quality VASTLY superior to anything even remotely "comparable" in the United States. The interview with Mikhail Saakashvili was, for all its importance, simply one more in a line of accomplishments for the BBC news service.
On behalf of "thinking Americans" (not FOX or CNN sheeple), a heartfelt "Thank you" to the BBC for your dedication and hard work to the stories and issues that matter.
Complain about this comment
#155 "Death toll question: 2000 is estimate. Pre-conflict population of Tskhinvali was 36000. I think anybody can estimate the death toll in bombardment of densely populated urban area. Taking into account explosive power of shells, number of ammunition rounds fired, etc"
No. Anyone can GUESS the death toll. I've actually been shelled and I'm not going to estimate because I don't know the number of shells fired, the calibre, the type of ammunition (big difference between HE and AP) or the strength of the local buildings... and thats before you factor in sheer bad luck like a single shell going down an air vent into a basement etc.
The only way to tell the death toll is to count bodies.
Complain about this comment
#164 I agree. It might be GUESS, and by no means I do not wish to discount your experience. But for the sake of objectiveness, let me present this argument:
Normally is pretty easy to get military causalities because army is organized.
Civilians in urban area are not organized and no-one has an exact record how many has been there. Therefore causalities figure is a guess. I agree.
BUT: Let's say there was an earthquake in that region (and they do get earthquakes there). Every news bulletin right after the word gets out will have a figure 'guessing' the causality toll.
NOW: my argument is - In the case of the earthquake, why do we not question the figure given in the news? Why we do not suspect the local authorities of inflating the figure x-times to get more sympathy and aid from the world?
Can anybode tell me how the indiscriminate shelling of densly populated urban area differs (from the human life loss point of view) from the earthquake?
So why do we try to downplay the death toll this time? WHY? Where is objectivness here? Or are we more sympathetic with victim of earthquake then with the vicitim of bombardment?
We all applaud BBC for striving for balanced coverage, which really exceeds majority of other English speaking media, but from what I read here regardless BBC's effort our minds are already set and it appears no coverage, no matter how objective, will change this. And that's pity.
Complain about this comment
"Can anybode tell me how the indiscriminate shelling of densly populated urban area differs (from the human life loss point of view) from the earthquake?"
Because one is a terrible catastrophe that we can do nothing about and the other is mass murder? No-one is to blame in an earthquake unless you believe in God, but someone is certainly to blame for this situation in georgia and hopefully they'll end up in court for it (or at the end of a rope)
Randomly guessing the death toll of a conflict is one of the most obscene ideas I've ever heard. Are you seriously suggesting we should just decide that the US killed 1 billion in Iraq and 3 men died on 9/11 and base policy and criminal investigations accordingly?
Apparently the Gerogians used Grad rockets- I know them as BM-21's. They're an area weapon firing bomblets, not proper tube artillery firing shells. A decent concrete wall with give you 100% protection from a BM-21 unless its gas equipped. Unless those bomblets fell on a crowded market place 44 sounds a plausible death toll. Its also worth pointing out that the Russians own far more BM-21's than Georgia and all the unexploded bomblets will have been made in the same factory.
Complain about this comment
In the United States the most critical political implications of the Russian intrusion into Georgia may relate to the presidential campaign. As per usual John McCain is quick to recommend a more warlike policy where the US essentially stands alone in confronting any crisis. I think a rejoinder to the Republicans' idea that Obama is somewhat Messianic is to point out McCain's tendency to become a bit Napoleonic. John McCain reserves his nastiest criticisms for Obama's common sense realization that Iraqis ultimately have to work out their own governance and that while the surge which McCain recommended has helped improve security in Iraq it hasn't brought the Iraqis closer to political reconciliation. He says that Obama advocates surrender in Iraq and Obama will dishonor the sacrifices of our soldiers by withdrawing hastily. If John McCain becomes President I think he will have too many opportunities to paint us into a corner militarily, place us on a war footing, and fail to bring other nations to our side. Maybe an underlying reason for evangelicals to prefer McCain is that he will help to bring about the end times more readily than Obama.
Complain about this comment
#166 Re BM21s - I know it as RM-70 and I have never been on the wrong side of the fireing line. And I would never wish to be.
Steel re-inforced concrete wall may give you some protection there, but that's not the case of usual brick wall or standard timber bean roof, disregarding the fire that follows on many occasions.
So unless Tskhinvalians live in bunkers they would be exposed and their best bet was to flee, or head to the basement to get extra layer of wall.
I do not think we should take 2000 as base for criminal prosecution, though I doubt regardless the material Russian investigators will collect anyone will ever be prosecuted for it.
And Ossetians will most likely never wait for the verdict either. I have read of georgian tank crew being beaten to death by ossetians after hitting and destroying car with children. This is justice the Caucasus way.
The guilty one here is, i believe, the one who put these two nations on collision course like that at the first place (why is Ossetia part of Georgia now?) and those unwiling to recognize and respect national differencies and insisted on homogenous nation.
Complain about this comment
Hiya everyone.
I don't trust either side in this conflict. They really should lay down their arms and retreat.
I know that there is alot more to it then that, but I don't even want to talk about it now.
Back to Greek philosophy, back at college my very knowledgable teacher told us that Sophia was an ancient god of wisdom. There were actually a few mentions of her in the early Christian writings, as dug up in the dead sea scrolls for instance. She has however been swept away with the obliterative modern and crushing didatic of modern religion and Christianity.
I appreciate that it is the going thing to believe in one god, as in only this and not that. But In the spirit of the matter lets just open our hearts a little bit. I am a strong Christian and also a Buddhist to any of you who might know what that means.
Ok peace everyone.
Complain about this comment
#168. I had Yugoslav mortars land metres away from me and a 2 foot slit trench in sandy soil prevented any damage (apart from some slight hearing loss). In all probability about 8 or 12 shells landed near me but I truly believed it was hundreds at the time. Its an indescribably horrible experience and you can't trust the account of anyone who's experienced it... the human brain just can't rationally cope with the terror.
The bomblets from rockets are generally less damaging even than mortars- they're often filled with ball bearings that cause terrible wounds, but are easily stopped by any wall- a few inches of pine will stop one. 18" of water will stop a machine gun bullet dead. You don't need bunkers. if Georgia had used 155mm howitzers they WOULD have smashed through apartment blocks and done terrible damage, but no-one has claimed that. I suspect the rockets were deliberately chosen as terror weapons that would scare the hell out of the victims but not kill too many.
In any case an independent body has counted 44 bodies. Its a FACT that at least 44 died. 2000 MAY have died, but its really just a guess and you don't launch wars based on guesses. I wonder how many westerners smuggly backing Russia would approve Bush bombing Iran because he 'reckoned' they had a nuke. Not many.
Complain about this comment
I would very much like to see a clip of this coverage.
Complain about this comment
"The guilty one here is, i believe, the one who put these two nations on collision course like that at the first place (why is Ossetia part of Georgia now?) and those unwiling to recognize and respect national differencies and insisted on homogenous nation."
That would be Stalin and he's guilty of far worse than that. He was a Georgian but he was voted the greatest Russian of all time by Russians last week because of his rabid Russian-nationalism. Both Georgia and Russia should share equal blame for his mania. He made South Ossetia part of Georgia, not Russia in the 30's.. He also trashed Ukraine and killed millions by stealing the harvest, so I wouldn't blame Kiev if they started planting minefields along the border with Russia... especially as the Russians are getting militant about the black sea fleet agaibn.
Complain about this comment
#170 I'm glad not having your experience. I have seen it only at shooting range.
And Georgians do have Howitzers too, we (Czechs) have sold them quite few.
Also I'm not backing Russia, I just feel that any war is bad and that the life in Caucasus is hard on its own, and the additional suffering is totally needless.
What bugs me most on the figure 44 is that this is used by some to push the propaganda phrases of disproportionate response, quoting Georgian causalities that stand at around 170 being 4x higher.
(btw, even use of small handgun against unarmed person is disproportionate)
Any number is bad, and I cannot imagine why it is so easy to downplay the suffering to promote the politics.
And judging from eyewitness account (Ukrainian journalist Ruslan Yarmolyuk, I can read Russian [http://www.ua-reporter.com/novosti/36025] , but there is also Google translator, bit flaky, but conveys the main meaning at:
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http://www.ua-reporter.com/novosti/36025&hl=&ie=UTF8&tl=&sl=ru and I tend to trust this account) the destruction was hard.
Complain about this comment
#173. Thats rather my point. As with any nation that has a soviet mentality to its armed forces Georgia has very impressive artillery, yet they decided to use rockets. Not the choice of an army that REALLY wanted to flatten a town. You only have to see what the Russians did to Grozny to realise what could have been done.
I didn't know some of their guns were Czech made but that doesn't suprise me. You guys make very high grade weapons (and thats a compliment, not a criticism).
I agree that using artillery against civilians is hardly proportionate, but the Georgian army seems 4th rate so it doesn't suprise me. Street fighting is hard for proper soldiers, never mind under-equipped conscripts. That said the South Ossetians don't seem 'unarmed'- the militias that have suddenly appeared seem as well equipped as any force in the former Yugoslavia.
You reckon the Georgians are downplaying the figures. I reckon the Russians are multiplying them exponentially. The truth is probably in the middle somewhere, although as both sides use the same weapons you'll never prove who killed who.
Complain about this comment
"Georgian army seems 4th rate"
Mr Saakashvili would not agree, I'm afraid, he expressed his opinion that Georgian army was best trained and prepared in the region, and possibly he was right.
I totally agree with you.
I'd really like to hope that Georgians wanted to scare rather then kill and it just got out of their hand...
I'd really like to hope that people learned from previous wars and would exercise restraint, although I doubt it....
Just for completeness, I realized that Russians too have been quite restrained in this conflict.
There was an emergency UN Security Council meeting where Russia requested UN action to keep peace, which took place about 4 hours before the
tanks rolled in over the border to Georgia. Same as calls made by UN, USA, EU, ... for halting the military action, which were issued still before large scale
Russian involvement, so they were meant mainly to Georgians and Ossetians, I presume. No one listened.
What I cannot get is why on 7th August MR'Saakashvili declared ceasfire to enable next round of talks if order for the night time attack must already been given?
And contrary to many ordinary people wishes Russians did not go all the way to take the Tbilisi.
So it appears that Russia under Mr. Medvedev is trying to play fair too.
I think that there are 2 things I have learned from this:
1) You do not throw military challenges on any country, especially not on a superpower. Russia was ready and did not take this lightly,
but even peaceful British government had to respond to challenge thrown by Argentina in 1982.
I think Russians are set to humiliate Georgia for this. And there is not much that can be done about this, because
clear oppositions to Russia in this point means supporting Georgian actions and approach, which I do not find correct either.
Ideally this incident should not have happened at all.
2) You do not send tanks and rockets onto citizens of your own country. I think this clearly sends message that these citizens are dispensable,
which is not best foundation for further talks of integration.
Complain about this comment
the problem is stanhj is South Ossetia Georgia or Russia because your point 2 'citizens of your own country' contradicts point 1 'provoking Russia'. Either the South Ossetians are Russian or they're Georgian.. they can't be both.
As for Russia asking the UN for peacekeepers 4 hours before the tanks rolled... what a joke! Where exactly did they expect the UN to get peacekeepers from in under 4 hours? From personal experience if the Russians had 150 tanks moving over the border that quickly they'd been preparing for this for weeks. To get 150 tracked vehicles onto a battlefield needs 1000 wheeled vehicles behind them.
Saying Russia generously didn't take Tblisisi like saying how lucky japan was that the peace loving Americans only nuked Hiroshima and Nagaski and not Tokyo and Kyoto too.
Mr Saakashvili may think he has a superb army but he's wrong and the russians are proving it daily. His equipment is a generation behind that of the Russians and he hasn't had the 2 chechen wars to get his troops ready for combat.
Complain about this comment
> usdeeper and russophiles
Yes, they are DEAD SERIOUS, dear Sir/Madam. There is no other army in the world so ruthless and brutal like Russia's. Ambitions of their leaders have no comparison. Russia do not have allies, they have slaves only. If you have no first hand knowledge of that, stop comparing ( search for pictures on war in Cechnya). Ask anybody from any Russia's neighbouring country or Central Europe, they'll tell you the truth about "peacekeeping" of Russians or false pretence of defending their nationals in neighbouring countries. Same scenario was used time and again in 1920,1940, 1990 and now.
You have to see this process in the perspective. Georgia is just one little step in the big game of Russia. They don't even deny that, and send allarming messages to Poland, Czech. Naivety and shortsighted practicality of France and Germany selling others for cheap oils and gas might cost Europe dearly. It is not that they cannot survive without Central and Eastern European countries. It is all about that nice feeling of having arrogant, ruthless and aggresive enemy on your doorstep ready to move in with their tanks at any moment. I wish you sympathised with those that expierence this every moment.
Yet another Europe's divission is taking place in front of your eyes. Just like in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact signed on September 28, 1939 between Germany and and so called Communist Soviet Union (= Russia + all by then annexed counties with no rights or influence whatsoever). The Pact allowed Germany to invade Poland on 1 September 1939. Among the provisions in a secret protocol attached to the Treaty was the establishment of a Soviet Sphere of Influence in Eastern Europe. Under threats of military intervention, the Baltic states were compelled to sign treaties of "mutual assistance," which for all intents and purposes meant that they had become military and political dependents of the USSR (= Russia + their slaves).
So, guys, history repeats itself with slightly changed actors. However, one of them at the core remains the same, as well as their scenario of military occupation . Shame on us, Europeans!
Complain about this comment
"Saying Russia generously didn't take Tblisisi like saying how lucky japan was that the peace loving Americans only nuked Hiroshima and Nagaski and not Tokyo and Kyoto too."
I'm not praising or jutifying anybody, and this is a clear example that things could go always even worser.
I think it is obvious that Mr. Saakashvili overestimated his army and also support he can get. He could go on doing what he's been doing for 4 years by now and he could possibly get to his goal. Instead he decided openly challenge Russia and overshot.
My point is that the problem remains.
a)S. Ossetia is de iure part of Georgia and international community intends to keep it this way, so the Georgia should treat them as Georgian citizens. So they should not really throw rockets at them if the plan is to keep them as Georgian citizens in the future.
b) S.Ossetians used to have Soviet passports and they got option to exchange this passport for Russian, but Russia do not recognize S.Ossetia as independent, nor claims it as part of Russia, so they are sort of 2nd class Russians, good only for political games.
The problem remains till S.Ossetians will not become 1st class citizens of some sovereign country, being it S.Ossetia, Georgia or Russia. Which one it will be future will tell.
Complain about this comment
russia brutally suppressed chechnya's drive for independence in the 90's. but georgia is not allowed to do the same in less brutal way. well, russia will loose eventually lots of regions then, not only chechnya, but dagestan. ingushetia, tatarstan, bashkortostan, buryatia, saha-yakutia and others. nato must send troops to georgia, otherwise russians will not get out of georgia. american troops already engaged too much in iraq and afghanistan, but other countries like turkey, poland, britain, germany, france, italy, romania and others can send their troops to georgia.
Complain about this comment
I find the BBC's bias in favour of Georgia extremely alarming. We need to make it clear that Georgia cannot join NATO and drag us into futile conflicts with Russia.
Complain about this comment
Hi, ive remained impartial as good practice to this point. But now the floodwaters are coming in the rats really are jumping ship. Look, Georgia invaded and attacked S Ossetia. Russia has responded by sending in a securing force. There has been pillaging by paramilitaries Not Russian, which has done most of the real damage. These are the facts as displayed by the bbc. The question we need to ask ourselves is this; who would do this to those civilians? Not Russians, nor Georgians. So there is a third element
Complain about this comment
There is one more thing that bugs me about this incident, is repetition of the situation my country (Czechoslovakia) had experienced too in recent history. If we are talking about separating fact from fiction, I must mention it.
In today’s press conference David Miliband again reiterated the commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders.
Yet again there is a small country/territory whose fate is being decided by global players without considering the country’s desire or hearing it’s opinion.
And that is very sensitive point in my country. In 1938 Czechs were determined to fight Germans, but Munich agreement forbade that, sealing our fate without considering our desire or opinion. Now everybody is concerned about what will happen to Georgia, but I did not hear anybody being worried what will happen to South Ossetia, what is their preference, what will be future of its people?
Caucasus region is home to dozens of small ethnical groups, and Georgia is a good example. Andrei Sakharov once described Georgia as small empire, not un-similar to the Soviet Union itself. And likewise that any attempt of top-down consolidation would result in bottom-up fragmentation. Obviously he was right. Have we not learned anything yet?
Complain about this comment
There is so much hypocrisy going on here: we need good reporting from the Beeb.
If we accept the Georgian view that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of its territory, then by invading Georgia attacked its own citizens.
I seem to recall that one reason given for the invasion of Iraq (retrospectively, after the WMD had not been found - thanks Tony) was that a monster who attacked his own people deserved to be deposed. How dare Bush criticise Russia?
Thankfully, Brown has been unnaturally silent: perhaps he at least has a sense of irony.
Complain about this comment
#182. Munich wasn't really Britains finest moment was it? I have no doubt that the Czechs WOULD have defended themselves and done a fine job, but what do you think the ultimate outcome would have been? The Polish army fought with great courage and skill and were wiped out in a couple of weeks...... then the Russians executed every surviving officer they could get hold of in the Katyn forest.
I think we SHOULD ask the South Ossetians what they want, but at the same time we shouldn't be dragged into trying to secure any unrealistic fantasies by any side. South Ossetia is not a viable independent country and if we're talking about 1938 is going to continue to be a sort of 'Sudentanland' or 'Danzig corridor' regardless of where the border lines are drawn.
As with your nation Britain can no more stop Russia doing what it wants than we could have stopped Hitler in 1938.
Complain about this comment
I would never believe the BBC would be impartial but you should have seen the report on Fox TV, it was sickening and so one sided and I would have called it border line warmongering!
Complain about this comment
#184 well, we would go down as Poland would, and there would be great loss of life, so from pragmatic point of view was better to give up w/o fight, which was not our proudest moment too....
And you are absolutely right about south Ossetia - they are not in position to be a viable independent country. What I believe is that in the current situation there should not be talks between 3 sides (Russia, Georgia and West [USA and EU]) but four sides, including South Ossetia. They are victims here too, and they should have right to express their wishes.
The difference to Munich here is that South Ossetia have no objection against Russia and will actually welcome the option to join Russia and their ethnic kins in North Ossetia. That is the major difference here with situation in 1938. Czech were absolutely positive that they do not want to do anything with German then, while now South ossetians are de facto Russian citizens and want to stay that way. And by the way, it was Soviet Russia who offered direct military assistence against Hitler in 1938, but at that time they were not trusted, so president Benes rejected this offer.
If there is any parallel with Munich 1938, from my point of view based on my nation historic experience) is that big players in world politics are pushing (by insisting on integrity of Georgian territory) small nation like S.Ossetia into something the small nation, from depth of their hart, does not want. I hope USA and EU can be proud of it still in few years time. I believe that S.Ossetians should have their opinion and desire heard during the talks on future of Georgia.
I'm not promoting Russian territorial ambitions, and I might be concerned if they start to strech westwards, but each case has to be considered individually and there is no universal template that would fit every situation that appears. And people, including politicians, should be aware of this, and do not fall into old cliches.
I think in case of Munich, if Czech have fought, it will bring damage from bombardment, Prague would have been destroyed and we may end up as Poland, but it would be our destiny and our proud moment. After giving up we had to look for heroes elsewhere to preserve the nation's identity.
Complain about this comment
And there is one more thing I'd like to add. Please, let's us not forget that this is after all about S.Ossetia and Georgia in first place, all others have just geo-political interest in gains to be made from particular outcome.
In Caucauses there have always been lot of small kingdoms based on ethnic principle, who joined into small or big empires according to conquest or conqueror of the day.
And after all we have to give them chance to sort it out for themselves. Can NATO or UN send yet some 400-500 soldiers to keep peace? Where does it end? Should more soldiers go Abkhazia? or other places? We (Czech) don't have that many field hospitals and trained specialist to put one to every trouble spot in the world!
So either we allow this situation to be solved by means of conquest, as it was case for all known history, or being 21st century, we ask people what they want and make some compromise acceptible for all.
Complain about this comment
The NATO troops will go down like a lead balloon with Russia! Russia's major problem with Georgia was the threat of it joining NATO so thats maybe not a good idea. Equally UN troops are a nice idea in principle, but in practice are useless. You either get 10th rate 3rd world troops who can barely defend themselves or you get decent UK/German/US soldiers etc who COULD take on ten times their own numbers but are hamstrung by rules of engagement that prevent them doing anything but watch murder happening. I speak from 1st hand experience.
Regarding 1938 its probably as well you didn't take Russia's aid. Hitler would have had the western half of your country, stalin the east and your officer corp would have ended up in the ground (as happened at Katyn). I personally believe that WW2 only started the way it did at least, because the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty allowed Hitler to invade Poland without fear of starting a war with Russia until he was ready for it.
Complain about this comment
I agree.
appologies for off-topic:
I have been watching today the signing act of US missile base in Poland.
Poland and Russia have long history of fighting each other, that started in 12th century or so and seems it is never going to end. Especially when Poland requested Patriot interceptor missiles installation.
Curious as it migth be Czechs did fought against Russia only once in the end of 13th century when Czech king took part in crusade.
There might have been Czechs in Austrian army stationed in Poland in 19th century, but at that time the political mood was more likely to align with Russia against Austria-Hungary then to fight them, same as in WW1. There has been wide desertion of Czech soldiers in WW1 to Russian side.
in WW2 there has been Czech army unit fighting Germans since 1943 alongside Red Army, so Czech - Russian relationship was quite different then say Poland - Russia.
These days Czech may not like Russians because they were the last ones meddling with our life, but if we are to be honest, all what we can blame them for was the russian presence in Czech after 1968 just enabled certain Czechs to keep power, and all the bad stuff was actually done to Czech by Czechs. These guys allways could have said no, like Tito. But they did not, because they were just oportunists. And we blame Russians for it. well....
Complain about this comment
To be fair there were plenty of Poles in the red army too. The 1st and 2nd Polish armies under Zhukov (polish men, soviet officers) spearheaded the assault on Germany and took very heavy casualties doing it. The first T34 to the brandenburg gate had a double headed eagle on it.
I've a lot of respect for the poles, czechs and Tito's mob and even for the average Russian soldier. When i criticise 'Russia' I should actually say 'the Kremlin' as I've no problem with normal Russians.
Equally I've no problem with poland getting patriots either and neither should the kremlin. Its a purely defensive weapon that will only cause trouble to Russia if Russian aircraft enter Polish airspace.
Complain about this comment
Hi people!
Just compare:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572635.stm
and
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29271
Is it just mistake?
I've checked some other sources in Russian and they prove the information from RussiaToday, but nowhere I found figure "133". Where are the sources of BBC?I just want to know the truth!!!
Complain about this comment
firstly I would like to know where the BBC get the pictures from that they have been using, they should check the sources. A lot of the pictures have been shown to be falsifications and have been set up.
Secondly why has there been Russian media following the whole conflict from the Ossetian side and western media has not been allowed near, is this because of a language barrier ? or is it you need to get better fixers. A Russian reporter followed the battles on the front line, he made a point that the other media people were cowards and wouldnt go there he shared his pictures and footage, this footage was then used showing damage in the wrong city.
The russians are accused of exaggerating the amount of casualties, ah we have caught them out lying, surely if an estimate of 1600 people being killed is reduced to a much lower figure thats a good thing not a bad thing. I believe that russia is well within its rights to attack a country that kills its own peace keepers, that in itself is justification for their actions. I also think that attacking into georgia proper was a normal thing to do, when fighting a war you attack the supply lines of the enemy thats what they did, its military doctrine. If you punch somebody you dont wait for them to get back up.
The only russian propaganda ive seen is the kind which shows the western media which im sorry to say includes the bbc to be using false information, misleading people, and not showing the correct opinion that people have. I dont watch much russian tv my russian isnt amazing so i dont trust it, but when i see obvious warmongering on american fox network in english unedited on russian tv i think it goes a bit far. As far as i know the Russian media has had decades of bending the pravda as it were and are good at it, maybe the western media should take some lessons from them and not get caught in the act.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym @128
1. There were already 2(!) referendums for independence in S.Ossetia, but UN did not want to hear about the results twice. Becuase Europe filters the information. It hears what it wants and does not hear otherwise.
2. Have you ever been in S.Ossetia or Abhazia? Have you ever talk with real people there? (I have) They are included into Georgia de jure. They are not de facto. This is why Georgia started its aggression.
Georgia had a perfect possibility to include SO and A de facto (!) by investing their economics, showing a will for peace. But Georgia prefered to investigate its armed forces. Why?
Do you remember ethnic wars of 1990-92 in Georgia? Now again Georgians attacked other nation - no matter for Europeans, of course. Poles, Czechs, Hungarians killed Germans (living amid them) by thousands after World War II. Poles even sent Germans into Polish concentration camps. That's ok for Europeans to kill people of another nation in the own territory. Georgians are normal European, certainly.
Remember Serbian safaris when peacekeepers did not saved civilians.
I see, policy is a dirty thing. And it's a dirty thing to declare Georgia a victim.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Menedemus @80
I don't think Russians are angels (I see them everyday). I see Russia has a strategical interest in S.O. Also I see a strategical interest in Georgia in U.S. If we talk about strategical interests then the root of the problem lays in US expansion. US is an important player in this war.
I don't think there is a democracy in Georgia where Saakashvily got 96%, then he suppresses the oppositions, closed mass media and re-made election.
I don't think there is at least one good side.
Your comparison with 1939 is unequal. August 7 at night, Georgia started an operation 'reconstruction of constitutional order' from bombing a city.
Using heavy artillery against a civilian object is a war crime (by definition). Also killing peacekeepers is a war crime. UN was holding silence. Where is a right side? Some time ago I believed Europe is always right. Europe was an example for me. Now I regret I'm living this planet of liars.
Complain about this comment
Comparing the Russians to the Nazis is a disgrace to the millions of russians who died fighting them, everytime i hear this it makes me feel sick.
"Also killing peacekeepers is a war crime. UN was holding silence"
This is what makes me angry what was the point of having UN backed peace keepers there in the first place if the UN wont support them with actions. If it was american peace keepers and the story was the other way round the whole of Georgia would be smoldering now. If the UN had made some kind of intervention when it had the chance then this may never of happened or at least with less blood shed, maybe its the UN who are war criminals. Because instead of acting they just stood there and watched.
Its not just the bloodshed in the city thats the problem its the outlying villages that were completely flattened these place dont have concrete walls the houses are made of wood. Are people counting the dead bodies there also. The americans/ Iraqis hung a guy not so long ago for obliterating villages with innocent people.
With the accusations of war crimes, who is culpable? who can be tried? while the west backs Georgia saakashvili cant be, and try and extradite a russian citizen it wont happen, the brits found that out didnt they.
Complain about this comment
I was greatly disappointed to find the article “Uncovering truth about Georgia conflict”, by Stephanie Holmes, to be a clear example of propaganda, not information. The contents is in sharp contrast to the title, and any serious reader can see this.
Here are some of my reasons:
1. There are 2 photos (Picture 1. “Residential buildings were hit during the conflict”; Picture 2. “Russian forces have been accused of using cluster bombs”), and both lack information about the towns/villages, where those terrible devastations took place. Only an outright anti-Russian bias can explain this, since both photos were apparently taken in Tskhinvali and depict results of the Georgian assault (I saw practically the same in Russian reports, or on Reuters). So, having no matching signs of war devastations from the “Georgia proper”, the BBC simply hides the true and full information.
2. The phrase: “Russian prosecutors have announced they are opening criminal cases into the deaths of 133 civilians who they say were killed by Georgian forces. Initially, however, Russia suggested more than 1,500 people had died in the conflict.” It makes the reader to think that thee are (or at least thee are already found) only 133 civilians dead in South Ossetia, instead of the announced 1,500 killed. But in the same short peace of information from the Russian authorities it was also said that those 133 dead were already formally buried by relatives, while yet unknown, but large amount of dead civilians were still temporary buried in the gardens and off the streets of Tskhinvali, and the latter could be counted only after formal procedures of establishing their personalities and reburials take place. Again a clear sign of biased propaganda, aimed at strengthening anti-Russian feelings among less attentive readers.
I can only say that this article, thanks God, is a rear case of openly biased and unprofessional reports on the BBC site.
Complain about this comment
Russia launched into this war on the basis of a preposterous accusation - the 'genocide' of 1,600 South Ossetian civilians in Tskhnivali.
Now even the Russians are admitting that they are only able to document 134 deaths in all of S. Ossetia. At these levels, any military activity outside the confines of S Ossetia was completely unjustified.
If the Russian government has any honour, then
1. It should immediately withdraw all of its military personnel and hardware from Georgia. Not tomorrow. Today. There was no excuse for the invasion and there is no excuse for continuing occupation.
2. Russia should commit to paying reparations for all the unnecessary damage it has caused to Georgian infrastructure (e.g. the sinking of coastguard ships at anchor in Poti)
3. The President or Prime Minister of Russia should make a formal televised apology to his citizens for the Government's dishonesty. The damage that the initial propaganda did to Russian attitudes needs to be unwound.
4. International investigators should be given free access to all of Georgia so that the truth can be established once and for all. Russian, Georgian and separatist administrations need to cooperate and hand over any commanders or leaders who have a criminal case to answer.
5. International peacekeeping forces should be put in place in S Ossetia and Abkhazia so that Georgians can return to their homes in those regions whilst ensuring the protection of Ossetians and Abkhazians.
Complain about this comment
Hey punctdevedere;
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
Georgia started this damned conflict by invading and attacking the south ossetians first.
Russia responded by sending in peace keeping troops to secure the area.
Now everyone is blaming the Russians for the damage and telling them to get out, where the villiagers in south ossetia have made it clear that the Russian soldiers were civilized in their passing, and that it has been the armed militias who have done the killings.
Next time you want to post I suggest that you get your facts straight!!
Complain about this comment
I am amazed by the US application of double standards between this dispute and that of Kosovo.
I am also stunned by the US regime's blind support for Stalinist policies.
After all both Abkhazia and Ossetia were subsummed into Georgia as a result of a policy directed by Stalin and inacted by Lavrenti Beria in the 30s.
So its kind of ironic that the government of "The Land of the Free" should so unthinkly follow the path set out by that murderous pair.
What's really tragic is that the US administration would not accept or understand their contradictory stance.
Complain about this comment
I'm also fed up with reading articles and posts by people who want to characterise the Russian position as that of a Soviet state.
Russia is without doubt probably the most capitalist state in the world. The Russian government's protectionist policies; if they can be called that, are concerned with the correct management of the country's resources. I think its absolutely right the Russia government wants to control the extraction of these resources.
Pretty much of the rest of the economy is a "Free for all".
The point is that its flabby thinking to state that its just the clock being turned back.
The people who do this I believe have no real experience of modern Russia, of the people and of conducting business there.
Complain about this comment
#198
"1. It should immediately withdraw all of its military personnel and hardware from Georgia. Not tomorrow. Today. There was no excuse for the invasion and there is no excuse for continuing occupation."
Russian will withdraw eventually. I don't see any viable case they would want to stay in 'ethnic Georgia' region. But as any responsible country with honour they should ensure that withdrawal is orderly and that Georgian police will take control over the area. There is so much ammunition left behind so guess what will happen if this get's to hands of people bent on revenge.
I read interesting news headline: 'S.Ossetian villagers captured 2 Georgian soldiers with tank.' The headline is ambiguous in detail who had the tank, if it was Georgians or the villagers, but anyway the tank already was or is in hands of those villagers.....
"2. Russia should commit to paying reparations for all the unnecessary damage it has caused to Georgian infrastructure (e.g. the sinking of coastguard ships at anchor in Poti)"
Right, mb. there was no direct threat posed by the coastguard ships, but if you do this strong claim, should not you also call on the US to commit the same way to restore the infrustructure not only in area inhabited by ethnic Georgians but also in S.Ossetia? The damage to Tskhinvali was also absolutely unnecessary. I wonder how the international aid delivered there is distributed and if it all lands in Tbilisi airport, how much will get to S.Ossetia.
"3. The President or Prime Minister of Russia should make a formal televised apology to his citizens for the Government's dishonesty. The damage that the initial propaganda did to Russian attitudes needs to be unwound."
Judging from the Russian language news available online, Russian people are best informed of the facts from all sides of the conflict, and had long time to make their mind. Don't forget the conflict is now nearly 20 years old and there has been all reported about it, with many people questioning the events. I see here return to old Cold-war-style propaganda on both sides, but Western side is leading by many points in this regard. It is only Russians who have enough access and independent news media to provide balanced coverage.
"4. International investigators should be given free access to all of Georgia so that the truth can be established once and for all. Russian, Georgian and separatist administrations need to cooperate and hand over any commanders or leaders who have a criminal case to answer."
Indeed. However hold on you anger. War is dirty business, and when you point finger on someone, there are usually 3 fingers pointing back onto you. I wonder what they would find? Border skirmishes were well documented already from before. Use of heavy artillery to shell Tshinkvali as reported by human right organizations? Georgians are also alleged to finish-off wounded Russian soldiers. I believe there may be few Russian families who would want to have this allegation investigated too.
"5. International peacekeeping forces should be put in place in S Ossetia and Abkhazia so that Georgians can return to their homes in those regions whilst ensuring the protection of Ossetians and Abkhazians."
International UN backed peacekeepers have been there, but they were reported to be leaving in hurry just few hours before the first attack. Only Russian part of peacekeepers stayed to do what they were meant to do: protect S.Ossetians against Georgian attack. Don't you have a better suggestion? read post #188
Complain about this comment
Hi people, what allamoscow and nickolay said was especially curt and relevant imo. Call me an old fashioned soviet but i actually used to support the ideals of old russia despite the evil stalin!
Complain about this comment
The amount of access granted to a foreign media is indeed impressive. But why did he choose the BBC? Simply, the BBC gives favourable coverage to 'allies' of the USA.
In the UK, it was illegal to broadcast speeches by Jerry Adams, with voice-overs used. However, when the Kosovan conflict started, the BBC spoke daily to the head of the Kosovan Liberation Front - a terrorist organisation. It reported anything he said as fact, yet the mass graves have never been found. Why? Serbia has close political and cultural ties to Russia. Hence any atrocity by a Serbian is a war crime, any by a Croatian/Bosnian etc is just the price of war.
The BBC only covers Iraq or Afghanistan when a British soldier dies. Why? Terrorist attacks and murders are still everyday events in Iraq, and as SKY found out when sending a reporter into the mountains of Hellmansland; Afghanis have not seen a single NATO soldier, or in fact any white person since the Russian withdrawal. So much for bringing freedom and security. The BBC does not want us to remember that we have blighted the daily lives of citizens in these 2 countries, and that their lives are no better now than they were under Hussein or the Taleban.
Georgia has been violating the rights of South Ossetians for months, and Russia has been voicing its concerns at the UN. The UN would not act, so finally they did. They did not overthrow the government, unlike the usa and uk in both Iraq and Aghanistan.
As for freedom of the press and impartiality - are Al-Jazeera allowed back into Iraq yet? Has the US bombed any more Al-Jazeera offices? Only free to broadcast if you spout propaganda, not the truth.
Complain about this comment
ISRAEL IS GOING TO LISTEN, WHEN I SPEAK. HERE ME O PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. ISRAEL WILL, BEGIN TO MAKE PEACE WITH THE ARAB WORLD. ISRAEL SHALL, EXTEND AN OLIVE BRANCH TO ALL THE ARAB COUNTRIES. ISRAEL MUST, BECOME THE HUMBLE MEDIATOR FOR THE SAKE OF ALL MANKIND. ISRAEL SHOULD, MAKE PEACE WITH THE PALISTINIAN PEOPLE AND GIVE THEM "RESERVE STATUS" LIKE CANADIAN INDIANS. Godspeed Swift [Personal details removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
I've been wondering about this.
Mr Ivanov claimed on the BBC's Hardtalk that thousands had been killed by the Georgians, and for this reason it was necessary for the Russians to invade Georgia. But there has been no subsequent corroboration of this.
SO what is the truth?
Complain about this comment
Jon Williams:
Thanks for the BBC and the platforms...for the excellent coverage and reportage during the wars in Georgia (and Russia)....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS