Czech president rejects 1968 comparison

[Grumpy Fogey]

The Czech president (one of the few EU leaders to have accepted the result of the Irish referendum on Lisbon), has again taken a principled stance on the current conflict in the Caucasus and has rejected the suggestion that there is any parallel between the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Russia's defence of South Ossetia:

"This cannot be compared. At the time, Czechoslovakia did not attack the Subcarpathian Rus, the invasion was not a reaction to our attack. Dubcek was no Saakashvili," Klaus points out.

Subcarpathian Rus (also known as Ruthenia) was a Ukrainian-majority region in pre-World War II Czechoslovakia that became part of Ukraine after 1945.

President Klaus also made the following observation:

"In Kosovo's separation Russia gained a strong justification for its intervention and I'm afraid that we will tackle the precedent's consequences for a long time to come, and not only in the Caucasus,"

For details of Klaus's interview, see:
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282

[Jargongrad]

Finally a sensible bloke who can make his own mind up about things without believing western rhetoric. No doubt western media won't give him as much coverage as he probably deserves.

[Thranduil]

The Czech president (one of the few EU leaders to have accepted the result of the Irish referendum on Lisbon), has again taken a principled stance on the current conflict in the Caucusus and has reject the suggestion that there is any parallel between the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Russia's defence of South Ossetia:

"This cannot be compared. At the time, Czechoslovakia did not attack the Subcarpathian Rus, the invasion was not a reaction to our attack. Dubcek was no Saakashvili," Klaus points out.

Subcarpathian Rus (also known as Ruthenia) was a Ukrainian-majority region in pre-World War II Czechoslovakia that became part of Ukraine after 1945.

For details of Klaus's interview, see:
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282

There is no excuse for Russian soldiers to be on Georgian soil outside of the two breakaway regions - it cannot be justified. Saakashvilli erred in falling into a Russian trap but if the Russians had any genuine concern solely for the people of those regions they should have restricted their fighting to those places (and perhaps retaliated using jets and missiles against proven sources of long range fire into the regions - but retaliation only). So Putin is at least as guilty as Saakashvilli. I would hazard a guess and say that there are a far greater number of civilian Georgian dead than on the other side and more indivudal incidents of war crimes because Russia has no qualms about doing this (Chechnya) and their army is poorly disciplined and because they have won - winners tend to do worse than losers in wars because war is itself an exercise in human aggression, cruelty and domination - you do more harm through winning and when you have won you don't necessarily stop.

This is one example were it would be best if we could summon a mountain range up from the Earth to separate Russia from Georgia, something Himalayan would be required. There are going to be tensions and paranoia there for a long, long time. All the world's troublespot regions arose on the planes where empires trod and where they met other empires, from Kashmir to Israel/Palestine and Armenia-Azerbaijan, Georgia and Northern Ireland. This clash of imperial tectonic plates is still taking place today in places like Georgia-Russia and Iraq. Sad is the mess they leave behind them.

[cHeal]

The Czech president (one of the few EU leaders to have accepted the result of the Irish referendum on Lisbon), has again taken a principled stance on the current conflict in the Caucusus and has reject the suggestion that there is any parallel between the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Russia's defence of South Ossetia:

"This cannot be compared. At the time, Czechoslovakia did not attack the Subcarpathian Rus, the invasion was not a reaction to our attack. Dubcek was no Saakashvili," Klaus points out.

Subcarpathian Rus (also known as Ruthenia) was a Ukrainian-majority region in pre-World War II Czechoslovakia that became part of Ukraine after 1945.

For details of Klaus's interview, see:
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282

There is no excuse for Russian soldiers to be on Georgian soil outside of the two breakaway regions

Why? What's the big deal with Russia moving forces into Georgia? I don't see how that makes any difference whatsoever, they are not trying to annex Georgia, thus I don't see what's so wrong with having ground forces in Georgia, to beat back the Georgian military, who knows, maybe they had to enter Georgia to rout some georgian military which was attacking their positions in SO. To say they have no excuse is complete rubbish. Georgia is lucky to be left with a country and a military after this farce. What the hell were they thinking!

[Grumpy Fogey]

There is no excuse for Russian soldiers to be on Georgian soil outside of the two breakaway regions - it cannot be justified.

Er, the 'excuse' is that the Georgian army attacked them.

It was only today that the Harvard-trained hospital bomber in Tbilisi was finally persuaded to sign up to the settlement terms proposed by President Sarkozy and I don't see how anyone could have expected Russia to withdraw unilaterally without first securing binding commitments from Georgia that there would be no repetition of the attack on South Ossetia.

Of course, now that the peace agreement has been signed by the Georgians, Russian forces ought to withdraw to positions within South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If they are still present outside those areas 48 hours from now, I'll post a strongly worded message of protest here.

[Thranduil]

Why? What's the big deal with Russia moving forces into Georgia? I don't see how that makes any difference whatsoever, they are not trying to annex Georgia, thus I don't see what's so wrong with having ground forces in Georgia, to beat back the Georgian military, who knows, maybe they had to enter Georgia to rout some georgian military which was attacking their positions in SO. To say they have no excuse is complete rubbish. Georgia is lucky to be left with a country and a military after this farce. What the hell were they thinking!

Well then you wouldn't see any harm with one country violating another's territorial sovereignty and are much worse than Saakashvilli - who only attacked a region regarded as a part of Georgia by the UN and most countries in the world.

Er, the 'excuse' is that the Georgian army attacked them.

Georgia invaded sovereign Russian territory!? When?

[Vega1447]

There is no excuse for Russian soldiers to be on Georgian soil outside of the two breakaway regions - it cannot be justified.

Er, the 'excuse' is that the Georgian army attacked them.

[color=#0000BF]The Georgian army attacked S Ossetia - not clear whether in response to "provocations" or in cold blood.
What suggests the former is that Georgia (i think Lara Marlowe pointed this out) made no attempt to block the (?) Roki tunnel through mountains that separate Georgian S Osseta from Russian N Ossetia.. If Georgia had blocked the tunnel, the Russian army would have found it difficult to bring the hundreds of tanks that so quickly defeated the Georgians.

This suggests to me that the attack on Tskhinvali was either a hot-headed response to "provocations" or a piece of lunacy. Again, the former seems more likely.
[/color]
Of course, now that the peace agreement has been signed by the Georgians, Russian forces ought to withdraw to positions within South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

[color=#0000BF]Read the small print - today's IT frontpage piece by Marlowe mentions Clause 5 of Sarkozy's ceasefire agreement - gives Russia right to deploy troops in "peacekeeping role" outside S O and Abkhazia - ie *in* Georgia proper.[/color]
If they are still present outside those areas 48 hours from now, I'll post a strongly worded message of protest here.

[color=#0000BF]Ah Jays, downt do that - at least take some time out to simmer down before doing anything so rash..[/color]

[Grumpy Fogey]

you ... are much worse than Saakashvilli - who only attacked a region regarded as a part of Georgia by the UN and most countries in the world.

Northern Cyprus is regarded as a part of Cyprus 'by the UN and most countries in the world'; Taiwan is regarded as a part of China 'by the UN and most countries in the world'; the Golan heights are regarded as a part of Syria 'by the UN and most countries in the world'; Kosovo is regarded as a part of Serbia 'by the UN and most countries in the world'.

Now just imagine the howls of outrage, horror, indignation that would rise from the western media if Cyprus, China, Syria or Serbia attacked across the current de facto borders to recover their occupied territories! Imagine the chortles of glee from 'western' commentators as the cluster bombs began to rain down on Belgrade and Damascus (Cyprus would be a problem - too many western tourists there, so the Turks would be urged to 'show restraint' - i.e. use ground forces only; China would be a really big problem - they have nuclear weapons and might retaliate).

But in the present case, as the aggressor is a US ally with a deranged harvard-educated neo-con hospital bomber as its president, the western media has wall-to-wall denunciations of Russia for repulsing a criminal attack on its own peacekeepers and on a small nationality with which it has close historic and political ties.

[essexboy]

you ... are much worse than Saakashvilli - who only attacked a region regarded as a part of Georgia by the UN and most countries in the world.

Northern Cyprus is regarded as a part of Cyprus 'by the UN and most countries in the world'; Taiwan is regarded as a part of China 'by the UN and most countries in the world'; the Golan heights are regarded as a part of Syria 'by the UN and most countries in the world'; Kosovo is regarded as a part of Serbia 'by the UN and most countries in the world'.

Now just imagine the howls of outrage, horror, indignation that would rise from the western media if Cyprus, China, Syria or Serbia attacked across the current de facto borders to recover their occupied territories! Imagine the chortles of glee from 'western' commentators as the cluster bombs began to rain down on Belgrade and Damascus (Cyprus would be a problem - too many western tourists there, so the Turks would be urged to 'show restraint' - i.e. use ground forces only; China would be a really big problem - they have nuclear weapons and might retaliate).

But in the present case, as the aggressor is a US ally with a deranged harvard-educated neo-con hospital bomber as its president, the western media has wall-to-wall denunciations of Russia for repulsing a criminal attack on its own peacekeepers and on a small nationality with which it has close historic and political ties.

What is your view on Chechyna or should I say the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria?

[Grumpy Fogey]

[color=#0000BF]The Georgian army attacked S Ossetia - not clear whether in response to "provocations" or in cold blood.
What suggests the former is that Georgia (i think Lara Marlowe pointed this out) made no attempt to block the (?) Roki tunnel through mountains that separate Georgian S Osseta from Russian N Ossetia.. If Georgia had blocked the tunnel, the Russian army would have found it difficult to bring the hundreds of tanks that so quickly defeated the Georgians.

This suggests to me that the attack on Tskhinvali was either a hot-headed response to "provocations" or a piece of lunacy. Again, the former seems more likely.
[/color]

Tskhinvali is right on the border, the Roki tunnel is in the north of South Ossetia. As the Georgians failed to defeat the Ossetian militia and the few Russian peacekeepers defending Tskhinvali, they were hardly going to be able to get to the tunnel. Even if they had blocked it, the success would have been short-lived: the Russian army could have pushed eastwards from Abkhazia as far as South Ossetia.

Georgia's only chance of winning this insane gamble - a very, very slight chance, but still a chance - was that Russia would decide not to fight because it might damage relations with the 'west'. If Putin and Medvedev really had been that spineless, a blockade or otherwise of the Roki tunnel would have made no real difference.

The reality is that this was 'a piece of lunacy' - right up there alongside Saddam's annexation of Kuwait or Nicos Samson's coup d'état against Makarios. It takes us out of the realm of politics and into the realm of psychiatry.

In fairness, most of the Georgian military seems to understand this: they have shown as much willingness to die for Saakashvilli as the Italian army had to die for Mussolini in WW II.