Did Russia shoot first?

[DimeBagHo]

This report from Michael Totten provides a useful background on the recent history (since the collapse of the USSR) of the Russian/Georgian conflict. It also provides evidence that Russia attacked Georgia first - before Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia.

TBILISI, GEORGIA – Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

Regional expert, German native, and former European Commission official Patrick Worms was recently hired by the Georgian government as a media advisor, and he explained to me exactly what happened when I met him in downtown Tbilisi. You should always be careful with the version of events told by someone on government payroll even when the government is as friendly and democratic as Georgia's. I was lucky, though, that another regional expert, author and academic Thomas Goltz, was present during Worms' briefing to me and signed off on it as completely accurate aside from one tiny quibble.

...

It's worth reading the whole thing. You are unlikely to find a more objective, or better informed observer than Totten.

[Viking Prince]

So who is Michael Totten and why should I read his stuff? Checked wiki -- no real bio. All I know is that he blogs and has at least one free lance article in 5 or 6 publications.

Never heard of him, just want to know.

[illyrius]

So who is Michael Totten and why should I read his stuff? Checked wiki -- no real bio. All I know is that he blogs and has at least one free lance article in 5 or 6 publications.

Never heard of him, just want to know.

Well i don't care about him. But his story has a lot of meaning, that can be more than true.

[DimeBagHo]

So who is Michael Totten and why should I read his stuff? Checked wiki -- no real bio. All I know is that he blogs and has at least one free lance article in 5 or 6 publications.

Never heard of him, just want to know.

He's a freelance journalist who has spent years traveling in, and reporting from, locations all over the middle east. He has been published in a lot of different places - most notably the Wall Street Journal.

[Viking Prince]

He's a freelance journalist who has spent years traveling in, and reporting from, locations all over the middle east. He has been published in a lot of different places - most notably the Wall Street Journal.

But who is he? He did not suddenly appear as a freelancer in the middle east. He has a history. What is it.

My point is -- when people blog (either from the middle east or their bedroom in New Jersey) they still need a history for credibility.

Blogs tend to lack attributed sources, statistics, and other nece4ssary elements that a publication such as the NY Times requires before publication. Why waste time reading this without the necessary support for the statements? That make Mr. Totten no differant than my posting here on the forum.

[DimeBagHo]

Blogs tend to lack attributed sources, statistics, and other nece4ssary elements that a publication such as the NY Times requires before publication. Why waste time reading this without the necessary support for the statements? That make Mr. Totten no differant than my posting here on the forum.

Attributions only matter if there are unnamed sources in the story - the assumption is that the editors know who the sources are and can vouch for their credibility. In this case the sources are all named so you can judge their credibility for yourself.

If you are looking for an official stamp of approval for Totten himself I don't see how you could do better than the WSJ. They have a much better reputation for reliability than the NYT.

Rapax: I'm sure the propaganda posters were included for entertainment value. People in the US find that stuff hilariously funny.

[corpse helvetica]

Again, it is confirmed that russians acted very quickly. And those were TANKS, what appeared very quickly. Realistically, you can't hold your army in "full alert" mode for long. Imagine, first, alarm, soldiers take positions in their places, then tanks have to leave from base, then in column form move towards destination point, in column tanks can't move very quickly anyway.
So how many hours before tanks actually reached where they had to, were given orders to soldiers ?

Do you really think that all this planning was solely dependant on Saakashvili actions?

[Rapax]

Rapax: I'm sure the propaganda posters were included for entertainment value. People in the US usually find that stuff hilariously funny.

Maybe, but I find that "too innocent" an explanation. This article isn't about funny posters, it's about a political point and when you pepper it with propaganda posters, it distracts from the point, just as pictures of how beautiful and pictoresque Tbilisi is do.

[jimmy spong]

didnt osetians shoot 1st ?

[Rapax]

didnt osetians shoot 1st ?

Well most of them have russian passports, so technically...

Anyway, that article hardly makes the impression of an unbiased account, the whole setup alone. I mean, it's nice they brought in another expert to "sign off" the story, but do you seriously want Georgia's media adviser explain to you who's wrong?:hmmm:
Nevermind how they spiced it up with some lovely scenic shots of Tbilisi with the odd anti-russian propaganda poster thrown in. Nice.

[Applesmack]

didnt osetians shoot 1st ?

South Ossetia has denied provoking the conflict. Georgia is just lying again...Like it always had throughout this whole conflict

[jimmy spong]

people say that georgian tried to copy the operation "storm" and "flash" that croatian did in republic of krajina 199sth , but obviously they failed

[Panzerbear]

This report from Michael Totten provides a useful background on the recent history (since the collapse of the USSR) of the Russian/Georgian conflict. It also provides evidence that Russia attacked Georgia first - before Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia.

It's worth reading the whole thing. You are unlikely to find a more objective, or better informed observer than Totten.

complete nonsense. and this topic has been beaten to death already.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=186608&page=2 (starting post #34)

Again, it is confirmed that russians acted very quickly. And those were TANKS, what appeared very quickly.

what a shocker. with amount of troops stationed in Chechnya and Ingushetia right now, which is NEXT DOOR, it all might look very good indeed.

Realistically, you can't hold your army in "full alert" mode for long. Imagine, first, alarm, soldiers take positions in their places, then tanks have to leave from base, then in column form move towards destination point, in column tanks can't move very quickly anyway.
So how many hours before tanks actually reached where they had to, were given orders to soldiers ?

6-7 hours, as far as I understood. they were on march for less than 2 hours, if thats what you're asking. there is a direct highway from Northern Ossetia to Tskhinvali.

[corpse helvetica]

complete nonsense. and this topic has been beaten to death already.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=186608&page=2 (starting post #34)



what a shocker. with amount of troops stationed in Chechnya and Ingushetia right now, which is NEXT DOOR, it all might look very good indeed.



6-7 hours, as far as I understood. they were on march for less than 2 hours, if thats what you're asking. there is a direct highway from Northern Ossetia to Tskhinvali.

Nice. So generals sent tanks in the pass just hoping maybe Saakashvili gives them excuse to attack?

[Panzerbear]

Nice. So generals sent tanks in the pass just hoping maybe Saakashvili gives them excuse to attack?

you problem is that there is no evidence for it, besides Georgian ministry of truth .

[corpse helvetica]

you problem is that there is no evidence for it, besides Georgian ministry of truth .

you did not answer to my question...

This was was a predetermined one. The moment the Americans recognised Kosovo, this war was already over. To every action there is an equal reaction and Russia at any rate intended to prove just that. Saakhasvili just gave them their war on a silver plate.

I disagree with you. According to your logic, Putin held his breath and prayed that Kossovo will be recognized by west as independent. Kosovo is not center of the world and Russian's foreign policy is not dictated of actions in Kosovo.

Kremlin used Kosovo as handful excuse, that's all.

P.S I think , Serbs learned bitter lesson: never trust Kremlin! ( I'm not russophobe, I'm kremlinophobe).

[Mythos]

It seems to be based almost solely on the opinion of a man employed by the Georgian government. I have trouble accepting this as objective. It doesn't seem there are any solid evidence either. Also, the use of those propaganda posters seems highly dubious. I mean, look at the one with the Russian vampire eating up Georgia. See what is written on its cap? SS? Imagine the nerve. If it wasn't for Russian soldiers Georgians would have been exterminated by now.

[DimeBagHo]

Here's the personal background information given for Thomas Goltz by the The University of Montana:

Thomas Goltz has written news, features and OpEds for most leading US publications, ranging from the New York Times, Los Angles Times, Wall Street Journal and, Washington Post to The Nation on the Left and even Soldier of Fortune on the Right. His Azerbaijan Diary (M.E. Sharpe 1998/99) has been hailed as ‘essential reading for all post-Sovietologists.’ The second book in his post-Soviet triptych on the Caucasus was Chechnya Diary, published by St Martin’s Press/Tom Dunne in September 2003. The third and last book in the series is Georgia Diary, also published by M.E. Sharpe in May 2006. A memoir about his days as an itinerate actor in Africa in the late 1970s will be issued as Assassinating Shakespeare, by Saqi Books, London in 2006. A graduate with an MA in Middle East Studies from New York University in 1985, Goltz is fluent or functional in German, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Russian and Arabic.

He has worked as a lecturer on the Caucasus region at leading universities including Berkeley, Chicago, Georgetown, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Kentucky, London School of Economics, Michigan, Montana, Northwestern, Princeton, Oxford, Kentucky, Tulsa, Washington and Wisconsin; CIA, Department of Defense, US Air Force Special Forces academy and US State Department School as well as speaker at over 20 chapters of American Committees on Foreign Relations and World Affairs Councils throughout the USA.

In 2005 he was appointed Visiting Scholar in the newly created Central and Southwest Asia Studies Program at the University of Montana in Missoula, where he is currently teaching a class on the post-Soviet Caucasus through the Geography Department. Born in Japan in 1954, he grew up in the US state of North Dakota, and has been a Montana resident since 1978.

[The Cobra]

Did Russia shoot first ?
I don't think so.

[attilavolciak07]

Russia got into the fray late I wouldn't say they fired first.