Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 26 August 2008 | 454, 1034 (2008) | doi:10.1038/4541034a
News
Georgian science pays price of conflict
Conflict with Russia puts reforms in jeopardy.
The brief war in Georgia has paralysed research throughout the country, halting a promising resurgence in science there.
Seventy-two research projects have been stopped as a result of the Russian–Georgian conflict that erupted this month, says Natia Jokhadze, director of the Georgia National Science Foundation (GNSF) in Tbilisi.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Thanks Nature and Mr. Schiermeier for this article. I have been curious about the disruption to Georgian projects. However if I were to begin commenting I'm afraid my diatribe would be much longer than the story itself.
If I will start to comment this story I think it will take more than 2 pages. "Russian occupation of half of our country" - Russia don't need this! Don't be so scared Mr.Lordkipanidze. Our country fights only for people which your country tried to slaughter while they were asleep. And we both know that it was real reason of this conflict. Conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia (not Russia). What can I say to author of this material: Didn't you try to find out what Georgia did to lots of sightseeing and monuments of architecture and reserved areas in South Ossetia? Which of them could be destroyed if Russia couldn't stop this war between people of Georgia? I'm against this conflict, I'm against demolitions in ANY country. But policymakers don't think about it! Let's pray for that people and treasures which WE ALL lost... and choose another government...
Science is closely connected to the politics, but I am disappointed that even Nature became arena for a political battle. To take the one side in that conflict for scientific-minded person means to become an ordinary-minded. Be suspicious not only for Russian info agencies, but also for any other.
I am shocked to read the same one-side point of view making the Russians the bad and the Georgians the good. Georgia started the war though it was warned NOT to do it. Now we talk about democracy and blah, blah when we know that the Georgian president was eliminating the opposition and was warned by the US against that. He started the problem, bombing innocent people. What did he expect? Nature should also publish about the terror suffered by the South Ossetians and even the Georgian soldiers that said they were cheated and sent to a war they did not know. Please, we are scientists and need to see the two sides of the coin. Hugo Arias-Pulido, PhD
Not much to add to the above comments. Except that science is, of course, no less biased than the rest of society. So it may come as no surprise that even an established scientific journal is doing what other established institutions are doing as well: just toe the party line. If you want to see the losses of the other side of the conflict being deplored by an established journal, just wait until after certain governments have decided that yesterday's friend is no longer useful to them, and, therefore, is today's foe (and to be thrown under the bus). THEN (and only then) you'll get a nice U-turn in reporting - precisely because the party line will have changed. It's called synchronization! Anything else wouldn't be particularly healthy for an editor's career. Just like in real life, guys!
Russia is the aggressor and must pay for it. The Russian propaganda has faded and a clear picture has arisen. We have learned that Russia prepared these attacks for months ahead from two sides: Abkhazia and South-Ossetia. Russia concentrated her troops at the Georgian border. Then they began bombing Georgian villages with heavy artillery in order to provoke Georgia. When Georgia responded, the Russians attacked immediately with all military power. To bring up such a massive army (by Russian estimation over 25,000 soldiers, 1200 tanks, artillery, etc) necessitates many months. Moreover, while occupying Georgia, they killed innocent people and plundered houses throughout the country. I believe this Russian aggressive policy is a danger for the whole world. Y.Marchev
It's amazing how some people "competently" comment on issues that they have only heard by rumor. You don't need to be a scientist to notice that Russia planned this whole thing a long time ago. They don't care about South Ossetia or Abkhazia, or anybody else for that matter. What about Chechnia? Do you know that several thousands of Chechens died in two wars with Russia and at most 130 people died in Ossetia? Do you know that hundreds of Georgians were killed and 200,000 became refugees from these regions as a result of war in 90s that was backed by Russia? Can you tell me why Russia cares so much about Ossetia and drowns in blood Chechnia's aspiration for independence? They just want to restore USSR and Georgia is against it. Russia's actions in Georgia don't have any justification whatsoever unless you are brainwashed by Russian propaganda.
As I see everybody has its own truth (not point of view, because our point of view forms mass-media of our countries). But I agree that "Nature" can't be place for battles, especially political. I think science journals like "Nature" can't publish materials which talk from one point of view.
Mr. Saakashvili risked the resurgent economy and well-being of his coutry and his people by launching the assault on the small folk of South Ossetia. All we are witnessing right now are just the consequences of that irresponsible move. As for the view that Russia planned this war in advance, this sounds highly unlikely. The concentration of armored vehicles and military personnel would not have gone unnoticed by the Georgian and American intelligence and in that case all the mass-media would have been flaring with appropriate reports and sattelite shots. Further, considering the fact the Georgians always fled the battlefield leaving their weapons behind whenever Russians came in sight, do you really think that Mr. Saakashvili would have started his offense on South Ossetia? The obvious answer is "no", he knew that Russia did not have large amount of troops on the borders and that is what he counted on - that Russia would not dare to engage into a fight, because the few units of the 58th army that Russia had close to South Ossetia would not be sufficient to beat the Georgians back and the deployment of a large army would take considerable time. However, it was a huge miscalculation on the side of Mr. Saakashvili - the mobile Russian group composed from several units within the 58th army decided to take their chances and proved to be fast and efficient enough, contrary to the hopes of Mr. Saakashvili, to end the siege of Tshinvali by Georgians (during which more than 1000 Ossetian civilians were killed as a result of Georgian shelling of the city). During this operation the Russian troops were comparable and even slightly outnumbered by the Georgians. What followed was aimed at crippling of the Georgian military installations and not personnel to avoid further offensives, and hence at reducing the number of casualties (on both sides). Sounds reasonable as long as you are in the middle of a war.
In response to Jeremiah Sholtz: 1. Of course, Saakashvili knew that there was concentration of Russian military personnel and armored vehicles at the border. He begged the US and European countries to react but they ignored him saying that he was exaggerating. Don't ask, why? 2. There is absolutely no evidence that more than 133 Ossetians died in Tskhinvali. Most of the population was evacuated from the city several days before the war started. Any guesses, why? 3. Tskhinvali has been bombed from the air for 4 days non-stop. Georgians did not have sufficient air forces to do that. If you think that every country is under the propaganda of that country's mass media, stop rhetoric and speculating, go to Georgia and I promise, you'll change your opinion, you'll be embarrassed and shocked. Ethnic cleansing of Georgians is still going on there, right at this moment, right on their territory. Attention to those who never lived in the USSR, you have no idea what that is, please, don't help the Russian government restore it. With your wrong comments you are serving the wrong cause.
The comments here give me the impression that some people try not to understand the reality but to justify Russia?s aggression. First of all, look at the map, ALL COUNTRIES located around Russia wrote their history with blood and tears. As to Georgia alone, just in the last century the greatest terrorist in history, Vladimir Lenin, signed a non-invasion agreement with Georgia. However, 3 months later he attacked Georgia and after a brutal war and rampage, the country was occupied. In 1990 Georgia was the first country which broke with the USSR and took course to freedom and democracy. Therefore Russia prepared for the revenge. The Russian minister of foreign affair, Lavrov, confirmed that the end-goal of the recent invasion was a coup d?état. Before this aggression, president Saakashvili warned the world that Russia was intensely preparing the invasion, but the world reacted skeptically. Even in Russia, politicians and experts warned there would be a war in August. Since last spring information about accumulation of Russian forces and weapons in both Abkhazia and South-Ossetia increased dramatically. However, the world ignored these facts and thus instigated the Russian aggression. Please read this morning ?Russia's Delusion? (The Washington Post), Reckless Russia (the Times, UK), ?Russia Is Brazen, Europe Weak? (The Wall Street Journal), and see this http://sosgeorgia.org/category/multimedia-center/photos/. Russia is the threat to the world !
In response to Manana Gagua: You are quite right, I have been quite embarassed and appaled all this time, however, my shock is rather caused the amount of inconsistent and self-contradictory information emanating from Mr. Saakashvili. He can tell whatever pleases him now, but on the 7th of August it was him who gave an order to shell Tshinvali despite his promises of the cease-fire, leading to the death toll among the Ossetian civilian population exceeding 2000 (the 130 killed Ossetians you're referring to is a blatantly ridiculous number , considering the Georgian heavy artillery and tanks firing heavily at Ossetians armed merely with automatic rifles). Furthermore, as I already wrote, it does not stand to reason to suppose that Mr. Saakashvili decided to attack Tshinvali if he knew that Russian troops were coming there. Considering the fact that Georgians realized the futility of fighting the regular Russian forces it just does not make sense that Mr. Saakashvili wanted to initiate an offensive war, which is much more severe in terms of possible casualties among the personnel. On another matter, as far as I can tell, so far Russia indicated no intention whatsoever to restore the USSR despite the hysterical statements of Mr. Saakashvili. All that Russians did was executing the job there were in there for - to avoid destruction of one folk by another. And in this case that was Georgian troops trying to eradicate the Ossetians on the Mr. Saakashvili's order. Also, it is pretty hard to believe that Russians conduct any ethnic cleansing in Georgia. However, I can imagine that there are some people out there who do have hard feeling about Georgians. The Ossetian population has become considerably smaller thanks to the Georgian offensive on South Ossetia. It is better to watch all these events from a distance - this way you can try to sift through the media propaganda. And I start to have a feeling that the Georgian propaganda is the most cynical.
In response to Manana Gagua: In case you do not follow the news, Russia along with South Ossetia and Abkhazia indicated no plans or future intentions to merge. I guess the crucial question here is how legitimate it is that Georgia claims the republics to be its territory. And the answer here is not obvious at all, given that these autonomies segregated from Georgia practically at the same time as Georgia did from the USSR, around 1990. Two polls were conducted in these republics, in 1992 and in 2006, both confirming the wish of South Ossetia to be independent of Georgia. And, even if it is formally justifiable, Mr. Saakashvili, being a self-proclaimed democrat, had absolutely no moral right to order the massacre in Tshinvali resulting in the disaster in South Ossetia and Georgia. He is the person that has been ruthless enough to sacrifice his people for his political ambitions. Good reading on the subject: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4525885.ece,
In response to Yolanda Marchev: I have just two questions: do you think that the Georgian massacre of Ossetians in Tshinvali was justified? how's South Ossetia different from Kosovo?
There was no massacre in Tskhinvali. People were evacuated from dangerous zones before Russian/Ossetian forces began the bombardment of Georgian villages. Therefore there were merely 47 civilians dead and if including fighting aggressors ? 133 total. It was confirmed by different sources. Today?s press says again: ?Yet by the count of an official Russian commission, the Ossetian dead numbered 133. In contrast, independent human rights groups have reported that Georgian villages both in and outside Ossetia have been subject to a violent ethnic cleansing campaign, and that thousands of civilians have been killed or driven from their homes by the Russian military offensive?. I strongly suggest to follow only information produced by the civilized countries and not by Russian propaganda. Russia is the threat to the world !
Dear Mr. Sholtz, you seem to be an intelligent person, I thought you simply had wrong imformation and this was the reason you were blaming Georgia. Now I see that you are just "blind" to the truth and no matter what facts and arguments the civilized world (not me) provides for your observation, you won't change your opinion. Well, who am I to continue arguing, I give up, I have better things to do than to waste time with you. I'm sure, the justice will prevail and you will know you were wrong.
Who has the right to decide who is civilized and who is not? Could it be there is some ethnic discrimination at work? Here are somewhat different Facts and Arguments from the Civilized World (but better decide for yourself if the magazines/authors are barbarians): "A report in the latest edition of 'Der Spiegel' (a German political magazine) entitled ?Chronology of a Tragedy? makes very clear that the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia had been planned long before and in close collaboration with Washington. The chronology begins with Saakashvili?s election as president following the US-sponsored Rose Revolution at the end of 2003. Immediately after his election, Saakashvili pledged to return South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgian control. Plans for a military intervention in the two regions had already been drawn up in 2006. At the end of April of this year, following renewed tensions on the border between Abkhazia and Russia, Saakashvili ordered the concentration of 12,000 Georgian troops at the military base of Senaki, close to Abkhazia. Saakashvili maintains that he discussed his plans for a military offensive at a dinner with Condoleezza Rice held during her trip to Georgia last July, and was assured of US support. A few days later, on July 15, Georgian forces took part in an extensive military exercise (Direct Answer 2008) together with 1,000 US troops in a region to the south of the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. The 'Der Spiegel' report then states: ?At the end of the large-scale manoeuvres, something astonishing took place on the Georgian side, under the eyes of American military advisors. Instead of sending parts of his army back to barracks, President Saakashvili sent them in the direction of South Ossetia.? The report continues: ?On August 3, the Russian foreign ministry issued a final warning: an ?extensive military conflict? was imminent... Saakashvili?s plans for an invasion were long completed. A first draft, drawn up in 2006... anticipated that it would be possible to capture all important positions within a space of 15 hours.? Since the rout of Georgian forces by Russian troops in the five-day war earlier this month, the US has continued to ratchet up tensions with Russia. The most significant escalation was the signing of an agreement with Warsaw to establish a permanent US military presence in Poland as part of missile defence installation?a development that will put US troops within 150 miles of Russian territory." (From wsws.org) Self-congratulations to all of us living in the "Civilized World". Ask Rumsfeld about it, he invented 'shock and awe', so he MUST be competent.
In response to Norbert Lutz. This is what I found in your mentioned Der Spiegel (s. below). I hope it?s clear. Russia is the threat to the world ! ?Twelve days after the NATO summit, Putin issued an order to upgrade Russia's relations with the separatist regimes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia almost to the point of recognition. On April 20, a Russian fighter jet shot down a Georgian reconnaissance drone over Abkhazia. According to observations by the International Crisis Group, Saakashvili then assembled 12,000 Georgian soldiers at the extremely well-fortified Senaki military base. It was still a good three months before the outbreak of hostilities. In May and June, Moscow sent additional troops to the separatist regions, allegedly for "humanitarian purposes." They included 500 paratroopers and a maintenance team of 400 men, which arrived in Abkhazia on May 31 to repair segments of a railroad south of the capital Sukhumi. The work was necessary to prepare for transporting tanks and heavy military equipment.?
Check this out: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php
In response to Yolanda Marchev and Manana Gagua: Since this discussion is taking place in the Nature's forum, I figure that everybody here cherishes the rational approach to interpreting any events. Therefore, please let me decide for myself, what is the "right cause" and what is not, based on the information analysis. Since all sides (Georgia, Russia, US) are obviously leading an information war, one has to be careful when processing the data and statements and try to evaluate how credible and consistent that information on each side is. The Georgian version of the story raises a lot of questions, which I tried to raise here. Unfortunately, you preferred not to answer them, but to bath me in a rain of accusations of emotional character that have no relevance to understanding what is going on in the conflict region. Switching to the emotional side usually demonstrates lack of rational arguments. Hence, I take that as an indication that you do not have any plausible answer to these questions. Let me reiterate some of them: First of all, why did Saakashvili launched an offensive on Tshinvali if the Russian tanks were really accumulated on the border and the following events showed that Georgian troops avoided combat with Russian regular forces? Somehow it does not make sense. Secondly, the body count you're referring to (without mentioning the source), 133 men dead is highly unlikely considering the heavy Georgian fire Tshinvali was under. It is a fact that the peacekeeping Russian corps did not have any artillery or warplanes, only a few personnel carriers and automatic rifles. Therefore, your claim that the Russians and Ossetians started this war by barraging the Georgian villages is beneath any criticism. Rather, judging by the witnesses' recollections, the Georgian part of the personnel left the peacekeeping corps consisting of Georgians/Ossetians/Russians on different specious pretexts an hour before the Georgian artillery shelling of Tshinvali started, despite the cease-fire promised by Mr. Saakashvili (see http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,574516,00.html , I hope German magazine qualifies for a "civilized" source of information in your classification? ). Further, your claims of the ethnic cleansing conducted by Russians aimed at Georgians sound really bizarre. As far as I know, there are around 1 mln. Georgians (compare that to 5 mln. Georgians living in Georgia itself) serenely living in Russia, profiting from the Russia's soaring economy and supporting relatives in Georgia through money transfers (comparable to a sizeable fraction of Georgia's GDP). I find it somehow hard to believe that whereas Russians enjoy such friendly relationships with Georgians within Russia, Russians would strive to wipe Georgians out outside of it. The above questions which fail to fit in the Georgian picture of the conflict are just an example of how inconsistent and confusing that picture is.
In response to Yolanda Marchev and Manana Gagua (contd.) : Having seen how dubious is the Georgian version of the conflict, let us hear what Russians have to say. I already mentioned that point of view, here I will briefly repeat it. Knowing that Russians didn't have a big mobile army within reach of Tsinhvali, that the peacekeeping forces along with Ossetians possessed only a few armored vehicles and were armed with only automatic rifles, Mr. Saakashvili issues an order to initiate the offensive on Tshinvali. The offensive is preceded by dense artillery shelling of the city from the Georgian side. Since there has not not been a hint that the Georgians were planning an attack (recall that a few hours prior to those events Mr. Saakashvili proclaimed a cease-fire), no civilians were evacuated (see the article in Spiegel, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,574516,00.html). The artillery fire was chased by air bombardments and then Georgian infantry reinforced by tanks entered the city of Tshinvali. Due to the lack of anti-tank weapons on the side of Ossetians and Russians, Georgian tanks inflicted additional losses on the Ossetian militants and the civilians (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLoBckWl-dg&feature=related). Now, considering such all this, the death toll in Tshinvali after the Georgian offensive of around 2000 people cited by the Russians (South Ossetia's Internal Ministry latest body count cites 1962 dead) sounds more reasonable. Since Georgia de-facto directly attacked Russian military forces and Russian citizens (many of South Ossetians have also Russian citizenship) and Russia's calls to the US and EU to stop the violence initiated by the Georgian side with diplomatic means went unanswered, Russia was left with nothing more but acting on its own. It relocated some of the most mobile units of the 58th army to Tshinvali when the Ossetian resistance was already subsiding due to the fact that one cannot fight a tank with an automatic rifle. The Russian front units that came to rescue Tshinvali from the Roki tunnel managed to free the city and launch a counter attack to prevent further artillery fire from the Georgian side leading to new casualties. In the course of this advance, Russian troops proceeded to destroy military facilities on the Georgian territory as well, to check additional potential Georgian attacks. Unlike the Georgian version, this picture is credible, has rational explanation, and DOES make sense. And exactly because I am not "blind", I can see it and hope that you can see it too. Now, I will ask the same question I already did: how is that different from Kosovo?
In response to Jeremiah Sholtz. I?m surprised, you didn?t read the articles I recommended you. It looks like you don?t want to know the truth. Is it your task just to back Russia?s aggression? Every day we watch more and more evidence of Russia?s threat to the world through their politicians and military machine. But you don?t want to see it. Take the last chance and read this (EDM, August 8): ?As anticipated (see EDM, July 11, August 4) Moscow has initiated an offensive military operation by proxy against Georgia in South Ossetia. Although the blow had been expected in upper Abkhazia and may yet materialize there, Russia shifted the direction of attack to the South Ossetian front. The brazen attacks during the night of August 7 to 8 in South Ossetia left Tbilisi with no choice but to respond. Continuing Georgian unilateral restraint would have resulted in irreparable human, territorial, and political losses. Moscow?s military and propaganda operation bears the hallmarks of its blitzkriegs in Transnistria in 1992 and Abkhazia in 1993. Georgia?s defensive response in South Ossetia since August 8 is legally within the country?s rights under international law and militarily commensurate with the attacks. Russia usually stages military incidents in Georgia in August, while European officials take their vacations. This year, however, the operations are systematic, lengthier, and considerably higher on the ladder of escalation than in previous years. After concentrating supplementary forces in Abkhazia during the spring and expanding its military infrastructure there in early summer, Moscow switched on the escalation process in South Ossetia.?
I remember an article written a few months ago explaining that KGB has been adapted to the modern realities. As you all know, Russia?s media are totally under KGB control, but Putin decided to control also the internet. There were created groups which day and night watch comments in the internet. Their only task is to protect Putin?s policy and Russia?s interest. Under fake names they participate in discussions and write their comments. However, they don?t use logic and common sense. They manipulate with facts, they falsify sources, and try to justify any Russia?s action. Usually just the same person works under many different names, different genders, different countries, and tries to create an impression that he/she has strong supporters from around the world of people with different status. They were caught on facts that they use even the same sentences, the same arguments, and always false facts in different places. Russia is the threat to the world !
This is so simple, it does not need so much arguments. Russians are still missing very much Soviet Union. They are trying to restore it. Putin, in front of the whole world, declared that collapse of Soviet Union was biggest geo-political catastrophe. So his main goal is to correct this "catastrophe". Dearest Jeremiah Sholtz, understanding so "well" why Russians started this war against totally independent country Georgia, how could you explain these words of former KGB general Mr. Putin?
I don?t think that defending Ossetians need burning Georgian national parks and forests. I don?t think that defending Ossetians need to steel toilets, vodka and wine by Russian soldiers from Georgian houses (documental materials exist in case someone wants to see them instead of making general statements without trying to understand deeply the real truth). Without knowing what the Soviet Union was, without knowing what Georgia and other former soviet countries went through to gain indipendence (fighting with Russia), it's very hard to understand what is going on now in Georgia.
To Jeremiah Sholtz. Mr. Sholz: Earlier in your response to Manana Gagua you stated: "In case you do not follow the news, Russia along with South Ossetia and Abkhazia indicated no plans or future intentions to merge." I'm now quoting today's cnn.com article: "South Ossetian parliamentary speaker Znaur Gassiyev said Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the region's leader, Eduard Kokoity, discussed the future of South Ossetia earlier this week in Moscow. Gassiyev said Russia will absorb South Ossetia "in several years" or earlier. That position was "firmly stated by both leaders," he said in Tskhinvali, the provincial capital. Mr. Sholz, do you still believe there was never a plan to absorb South Ossetia into Russia? You clearly are not familiar with the history of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict and Russia's role in it. And by the way, in case you didn't know it, the name South Ossetia did not exist before 1922. Instead this region was called by its historical Georgian name of "Samachablo." South Ossetian people migrated to the Georgian region of Samachablo from their historical homeland of North Ossetia, or the only Ossetia there ever existed before the communists renamed Samachablo into South Ossetia and without any legal justification granted this region autonomous status.
It is very interesting why Jeramiah Sholtz does not want to read the articles which Yolanda Marchev suggested. Is he afraid he would need to modify his conclusions if he looked at the situation from another perspective? Regardless of the subterfuge, sooner or later the majority of the world public will see what Yolanda sees. Russia is the threat to the world. Posted by: N.M.
It's unbelievable that anyone who does not have special interest for Russia, can justify their aggression in the indepenedent country. Maia T
I thought it was obvious to everyone (except Russians of course because they are always lied and misled by their government) that Russia fought against the freedom in Georgia. I agree to Yolanda Marchev: Russia is the threat to the world.
The Beslan school crisis-at least 334 persons were killed (September 1, 2004) The Nord-Ost siege - 170 person poisoned (October 23-26, 2002) The K-141 Kursk- crew of 118 died (August 12, 2000) This is just a short list. Do you really want me to continue how Russian government treats their OWN CITISENS? Renee Laplante, NY
There's so much feedback on my words that I'll have to be brief in responding to all of you. So, here we go: to the comment by Yolanda Marchev of 29th of August: I am sorry, I do not know what EDM stands for, but I am inclined to trust the reputable German (they do seem to be trying to be impartial and objective) political magazine Der Spiegel in reconstruction of the events. The one report was already cited by Norbert Lutz, the most recent one was stating that the OSCE observers that investigate the case right now also found out that it was Georgia who started to shell the city of Tshinvali before the Russians entered the Roki tunnel. Since the Georgian artillery fire began when the South Ossetian civilians went to sleep calmed by the promises of ceasefire on the Georgian side and were unprepared for anything like it, the death toll turned out to be very high, just as I said. Finally, if you do not want to trust any media, a buddy of mine, Stanislav Bernwald, about a week ago returned from Tshinvali, where he worked as a war reporter and had a chance to talk to the locals face to face. You would not believe how terrifying those accounts were. Georgian tanks chasing and smashing cars with Ossetian families trying to escape from Tshinvali, a tank rolling over a father carrying his daughter, etc. The Ossetians had a firm impression that the Georgians were detirmined to get them all, no matter how small or big they were. If you know people from Caucas mountains, you can understand how vengeful South Ossetians felt towards Georgians after such heinous crimes. According to the Russians, they preferred not to expose the Georgian pow's to the Ossetians, for it would have meant sure death to the Georgians. Yes, they looted and burned some Georgian villages but it is a small wonder considering how tempered people in that region are and how they felt after what Georgians did to them. According the witness' reports Russian soldiers were trying to hold Ossetians in check while being on the Georgian territory but obviously it was not possible to have a complete control over that. Now, of course there's lots of all kinds of media giving contradictory information that you seem to be so fond of. However, it is our job to filter out all the noise and deduce the trend, which should be at least be consistent and plausible. In this respect the Russians have much more credible explanation for what has happened, the one that I described in my previous messages. At the same time, the Georgians have much more inconsistent interpretation that raises a quite large number of questions that I mentioned and you were not able to answer. Your attempts to switch the subject to the general unsubstantiated assumptions of Russia's lingering imperial ambitions sounds more like a propaganda exercise and deliberate confusion of facts. No, Russia did not start the war with Georgia, it was Georgia who assaulted the sleeping Tshinvali and who declared the war on South Ossetia over the phone, a well-known fact. And just because Russia spent so much time in trying to stop the massacre in Tshinvali using the diplomatic means, so many Ossetian civilians were killed before Russia resorted to the direct action. Russia protected its own citizens that Georgia were murdering. I said this a couple of times already and I like such a sane and well-reasoned position much more than your meaningless screaming about Russia wanting to restore the Soviet Union. Russia seems to be doing much better without the segregated republics and respects their borders, there is no reason to doubt that. In this context the South Ossetia and Abkhazia republics is a totally different story. The people in these republics voted for independence from Georgia (btw, are you aware that South Ossetia, Georgia, and Abkhazia used to be independent states before the Russian empire?) and their status had been undetermined practically since they segregated from Russia simultaneously with Georgia, in the early 90s, the situation Russia was calling to the world for help in resolving. And just because the rest of the world preferred not to notice that, with the advent of the ill-tempered US puppet Mr. Saakashwili the situation blew up.
To Anayde Galustyan: if I may ask you to follow my previous messages, you can see that it wasn't Russians who burnt houses and looted in Georgia, it was Ossetians full of rage after Georgian soldiers tried to exterminate them. As far I as read, Russian soldiers just tried to mitigate the Ossetians and prevent them from doing that. As for Russia wanting to devour the former Soviet republics, it does not seem to be the case. Russia is doing much better without them. You have to view the particular conflict in question without making such ill-generalized assumptions. I suspect that some of the former Soviet republics are just trying to attract some political attention suffering so far due to lack of it.
To Maya K: At the time of my posting the intention of South Ossetia haven't made it to the news. Now it is clear that South Ossetia wants to join Russia whereas Abkhazia prefers to remain independent. In both cases it has been a choice of free people. As for the historical aspect: Ossetia, Georgia, and Abkhazia used to be independent states. In the middle of the 18th century Ossetia voluntarily joined the expanding Russian Empire first, than Georgia entered the Russian emprire in the beginning of the 19th century (seeking protection from the Turkish pressure), followed by Abkhaizia. Then, in the middle of the 19th century, Ossetia was cut in two, the southern part was given to Georgian part of the Russian empire, while the northern part of Ossetia remained in Russian part of the empire. Despite the attempts of Ossetia to join Russia during the turmoil after the first world war, Stalin, an ethnic Georgian, gave South Ossetia and Abkhazia to the newly formed Georgian republic. However, these republics managed to remain autonomous within Georgia. As far as I know, according to the constitution of Soviet Union any republic that wishes to leave the Soviet Union must conduct vote in any autonomous republic that it contains, confirming such wish. When Georgia segregated from the Soviet Union, no such vote was administered and two following votes in 1992 and 2006 showed that the population of South Ossetia and Abkhazia wants to remain independent from Georgia. Period.
To Nana Maraneli: Oh, no-no, I read them allright, in fact, I have seen them before. As I said, there is so much information out there that one has to filter it out and see what both sides have to say. In my previous messages I tried to summarize what the Georgian side could offer as an explanation and found it inconsistent and confusing. On the other hand, the Russian view is reasonable and credible. The attempts of such a paranoid generalization as to the possibility of Russia's revival of the Soviet Union are aimed at directing attention from the real facts. Meanwhile, one has to analyze this particular conflict in itself.
To Maia T : that is exactly the reason why I am so surprised to see how Georgians are not able to scale down their own arguments against Russia to the situation with South Ossetia. It was "big" Georgia who started the war against the small de-facto independent South Ossetia. When speaking on behalf of the "whole world" or "civilized world", I think you're excercising wishful thinking rather than tbe real state of the matters. No one from the people here or from the references given by them could answer the questions raised by me in connection with the Georgian version of the events, which is highly disturbing.
To Eka M: "the freedom in Georgia" meant by Mr. Saakashvili sounds more like "Georgia free of South Ossetians and Abkhazians".
To Renee Laplante: yeah, yeah, Russians have a bad record of executing rescue operations, whether due to terrorists or accidents (or wars). Probably, the most notorious example is the WWII, where Russia saved the world and many ethnicities from complete extermination by the Nazi Germany but lost an awful lot of its people. They did, however, try to do their best, it is just "their best" has not been very efficient. However, under no circumstances does this mean that they should not have done it, for many more people would have died in those events. Judging by the witnesses' accounts how Georgian tanks were chasing civilians in Tshinvali, it could have been many more than 2000 people dead. Would you have liked it more?
It impressed me (and disappointed me)to see the way a scientific journal like Nature published this extremely one-sided article. As scientists we suppose to be objective, and it would be nice and practical if we could do the same in another areas, specially politics. However, the passion of defending whatever we believe, instead of whatever is closer to the truth, is blurring all the discussions here. It takes time and effort to find and analyze different sources, but little by little the results explain the facts in a much reasonable way. Please, stop writing the senseless-apocalyptic phrase: "Russia is a threat to the world", because it is not. In fact, people with a passionate-aggressive behavior are a really threat to the world. Thanks Jeremiah Sholtz for your information. Peace to everyone.
To Jeremiah Sholtz. This is clearly an attempt to rewrite or falsify history. I'd like to know what historical sources you consulted before writing the above falsehood regarding splitting of the two Ossetias in the 19th century? The truth is that the current territory of North Ossetia is the only true historical Ossetia. On the other hand, Samachablo (or as it's now called South Ossetia), had always been part of Georgia. The fact that entire Georgia (including Samachablo or what is now South Ossetia) was forcibly incorporated within the Russian Empire in 1801 is not being disputed of course.
To the ?experts? on Russia- Georgia conflict: I was amused by the non-professional and superficial conclusions and assumptions of the experts such as Arias-Pulio, Jeremiah Sholtz, etc. (too much spare time for writing humongous paragraphs, are not you supposed to get busy with experiments in the lab?), based on the web surfing and rumors, false numbers and superficial descriptions of military operations and political events. I was wondering, if these people had read a single book on the history of the region, can they actually find these places and cities on the map, did they read the reports from the human rights organizations and international observers? I just hope that they have a little more professional approach in the areas of their studies (science?) and that they check the facts thoroughly before making such generalized conclusions on the issues that they don?t really know about.
To Tamara Roitbak: Again, you're not saying anything concrete except vague references to incompetence of supposedly anybody else than Georgians. Apparently, in your world they just cannot be wrong. Meanwhile, if you had any idea of how complicated the Caucasus region is, you would know that every side in any historical event used to always have its own interpertation, to figure out what really happened you can only try to analyze the whole bulk of information and try to find a consistent explanation. That is what I have attempted. And found that the Russian explanation is quite reasonable, while the Georgian one is based only on unfounded claims, which failed to be substantiated by any evidence. In a recent article in "Der Spiegel" there was a report of the OSCE mission (is that what you call "international observers"?) investigating the conflict, citing that the Georgia started all of it, by bombing the sleeping city of Tshinval. And, here's an excerpt from today's article in New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/world/europe/03georgia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1): "The information to date suggests that from the beginning of the war to its end, Georgia, which wants to join NATO, fought the war in a manner that undermined its efforts at presenting itself as a potentially serious military partner or power. After the Russian columns arrived through the Roki Tunnel, and the battle swung quickly into Russia?s favor, Georgia said its attack had been necessary to stop a Russian attack that already had been under way. To date, however, there has been no independent evidence, beyond Georgia?s insistence that its version is true, that Russian forces were attacking before the Georgian barrages."
Here's a larger quote from the same article in New York Times: " In the field, there is evidence from an extensive set of witnesses that within 30 minutes of Mr. Saakashvili?s order, Georgia?s military began pounding civilian sections of the city of Tskhinvali, as well as a Russian peacekeeping base there, with heavy barrages of rocket and artillery fire. The barrages all but ensured a Russian military response, several diplomats, military officers and witnesses said. After the Russian columns arrived through the Roki Tunnel, and the battle swung quickly into Russia?s favor, Georgia said its attack had been necessary to stop a Russian attack that already had been under way. To date, however, there has been no independent evidence, beyond Georgia?s insistence that its version is true, that Russian forces were attacking before the Georgian barrages."
Mr. Sholtz, I am amazed that after so many arguments and discussion your opinion has not changed a bit and you still maintain your original line blaming Georgians. Well, you are wrong and it's universally accepted that Russians planned this war long ago, months, years, decades ago (the occupation of Georgia under similar scenario occured several times in the past and the internet is full of documents to prove this). Their intention is not to protect their citizens but to claim that they are a superpower in the region and potentially in the world; they want to own all gas and oil pipelines so that they could turn them on and off as they wish. Now, let me ask another question, suppose, Georgians were trapped and provoked "poor Russians" to rush and defend their citizens majorirty of whom were not even in Tskhinvali (you don't seem to understand this either), why did not they stay in Ossetia or go back to Russia after they accomplished their "noble" mission? Why are they still on the Georgian territory that is kilometers away from the conflict zone? Why are they still burning, destroying, looting, building useless constructions even though nobody except the peaceful demonstrants opposes them? I'm sure, you won't be lost and answer this question but no matter what you say you won't achieve your goal because everybody noticed that you don't behave as a scientist who reads Nature articles in spare time, you leave an impression of a KGB agent who gets paid for misleading the readers of the magazine. What's your real name, Ivanov, Petrov or Pavlov?
You know, Jeremiah, I will not participate in your discussions any more, because it seems to me that you really need (for some reason) to keep it going to put out there maximum information incriminating Georgian side. I think we better go back to science and you go back to the web surfing and information gathering - I also suspect that this is your main job.
P.S. One more thing Mr. Sholtz. In addition to your deep knowledge of Caucasus region: the name of the city is Tskhinvali, not Tshinval - you accidentally wrote it in a Russian manner. You see, Tbilisi, Tskhinvali, Gori, Sokhumi, Sochi - those are all Georgian names and historically Georgian places.
To M. Gagua and T. Roitbak: Are you always so aggressive when somebody thinks in a different way? As in science, there are different ways to see the problems (or conflicts, in this case). Why don't you try to get more support to your ideas instead of blaming another's points of view? (BTW, that's also working in science). Otherwise, you are just not scientists. If Mr. Sholtz is a KGB agent, so who are you? CIA agents? C'mon, stop that. Now, the point is how Russia, Georgia, and another countries in the region are finally going to solve this conflict, for good.
To Roberto Lopez: you are absolutely right, I want to hear more how to solve the problem, because it has to be solved. My suggestion is: Russians have to leave Georgia immediately, Georgia has to sort out issues with Ossetians and Abkhazians with the help of international peacekeepers who will act according to international laws and regulations and won't take sides. There has to be referendum held for all the residents of these regions, including those who has been displaced during the conflict since 90s. All kinds of benefits and broad protection of human rights (BTW, Georgia was offering all this before the war but they refused under Russia's pressure) should be encouraged, keeping in mind that minorities (ossetians) have not suffered nearly as much in this conflict as majority (Georgians) of the population. And no, I'm not a CIA agent and probably Mr. Sholtz is not a KGB agent but is not it strange that he does not stop digging the dirt and finding the prove that Georgians are wrong? It's not just the different opinion, it is stubbornness that does not help anybody and anything. Is not it better to suggest something constructive, some solutions that would help to stop this misery? And no, I'm not a Nobel award winner scientist either, I'm a very low key Georgian who simply works in research, but who hates violence, war, bloodshed, whose relatives died while escaping Abkhazia in 90s. They escaped because Abkhazs and Chechens with the support of Russians were playing the ball with Georgians heads at the stadium in Sukhumi. It makes me sick to see how Mr. Sholtz tries to present the picture based on very few publications supporting only Russians and totally ignores thousands of publications supporting the other side. All sides suffer equally in this mess and please, help if you can, not just irritate the people who have gone through terrible times, with your useless rhetoric. If nothing else, can't you see who else is on Russians side - Hamas, Hezbollah, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and others like them? Sorry, if you think that I have been agressive, but you have to agree that I have every reason to be.
Dear Mr. Sholtz (or Lutz, maybe?)! Are all these your real names? The style and inspiration is suspiciously identical. I am sure your real name is neither, but that is your own business. By the way, who are you? Obviously not a Georgian and something tells me, not even a Russian. So, why do you care so passionately? Are you a neutral person on the quest for the truth for the sake of an international community? Then why are you so biased? To be frank with you, from the beginning I took your comments seriously and got an urge to respond in a serious manner: I went through some articles, looked into history books again, and even studied the ?Statement of the International Law Institute? and so on, in order to be responsible for my own words. But you know I realized afterwards (and I completely agree with Ms. Gagua on this) it is not worth wasting time. In my opinion, debating is sensible with someone who, even opposed to you, is really interested in certain issue. With you, it is so obvious. Seriously, who are you? Why are you so oblivious to the call of others (not only Georgians!) ? to look at some other sources too, not to ignore, and not to refuse to hear the other opinions and other sources. For instance, even Russians themselves could no longer go with the initial number of killed thousands! However, you capriciously keep insisting on 1000, even 2000! I am not saying even 140 deaths is lesser tragedy for all of us. God forbid, and may their souls rest in peace! It once again illustrates your prejudice. I can see - you are a man of the principle and no way, you do not want to learn, or hear, or know anything. You are surprisingly persistent. Why do you devote this much time to this matter? Is this your fulltime job? May I suggest something, my dear Mr. X? Could you please be so kind to direct your time and fervour to the Russian history? Even in repeatedly falsified stories you might find some kind of clue to our ? and regrettably others? too ? centuries old ordeal. We, Georgians and citizens of other occupied countries, knew all along what the Russia?s intentions were. Always. Now an entire world saw the grizzly bear coming out of woods. Even some Russians saw. Alas, insignificant amount of them but it is encouraging nonetheless and we especially appreciate their support. However, Putin?s Russia does not need such black sheep. Putin?s Russia prefers the bloodthirsty, starving, brainwashed zombies like those he has sent to ravage Georgia. But no matter how much you ( I mean all of YOU) try to fabricate a new lies and strangle the truth, it?s not up to you. Not any more. You have to make peace with that. The only thing that comes to my mind at this moment is: ?Farewell unwashed Russia!? And please don?t accuse me of xenophobia. Russian Lermontov said so. I would just add: This time forever! At the last EU summit one of the Foreign Ministers has said ominously: ?The holidays from history have ended?. So true in case of Russian hypocritical short-term ?democracy?. Forgive me for my lengthy and emotional letter ? apparently you do not like emotional comments. But we can not do it any other way ? emotion is always involved when you really care. You can?t keep a straight face when it hurts so badly. Dear Mr. Who ever you are! Please mind your own business and we will mind ours. I promise, we will never ever bother you again. Respectfully, Irina Topouria P.S. As Ms. Roitbak has pointed out already, the name is Tskhinvali ? something tells me you only get verbal instructions, otherwise you would have got the spelling right.
To I. Topouria: No, no, no...you should not comment on this discussion. You are not emotional or respectful at all, you are aggressive. Please do not put your xenophobic rage on our discussion. Take a rest and try to be in peace with yourself. To M. Gagua: Thanks for your reply. Although I am not an expert on Russian or Georgian history, I am very interested in understanding this conflict. I hope we can discuss spite of our differences. I am trying not to take a side on this conflict, however I have to confess that if I have to, I will take a little more the Russian side. I agree with you in the fact that Russia has to step back, but only if its citizens are not threatened anymore. I have the hope that someday a real and objective international law will rule this type of situations. However, it is too naive to believe that international peacekeepers are not taking sides on this. At least, not all of them. Many international organizations for human rights, laws and welfare have been supported (or threatened) to show a beneficial side for the supporters. I belonged to one organization and I left it for this reason. So, I am just saying let's be careful even when ideas and information come from a "noble cause". I am very sad to read what happened with your relatives. I also hate violence and war. You have your own right to hate Russians for this, but I recommend you to understand (or at least try) why had Russia taken some of its decisions. Of course Russia made huge mistakes in the past, but also protected the region when it was necessary. Russia is strong, and that is why countries like US need to back this power. To me, a good start for Georgia is not accepting US military or economic aid. I believe this can be regionally solved without US or EU interests.
To Roberto Lopez. You are entitled to your own opinion, obviously, but it's a little surprising and repetitive how you brand I. Topuria, M. Gagua, T. Roytbak and others who express their opinions against Russia as being aggressive. These people seem to speak from their personal experiences, and are not making allegations based on hearsay or few unsubstantiated articles. On the other hand, despite claiming that you are no expert on Russian history, you are more than willing to forgive Russia for its "mistakes in the past." May I ask what gives you reason to believe that Russia will not commit the same mistakes again? Your suggestion that Georgia refuse US aid and start negotiation regionally seems naive at best. Georgia has been trying to resolve South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts with Russia for almost 16 years. The fact remains that before the August 2008 events, more than 300,000 Georgians who were displaced during the ethnic cleansing of 1990-s, were still unable to return to either South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Meanwhile, South Ossetians and Abkhazians in those two regions had Russian passports distributed to them years before Russia even recognized their independence. You don't have to be an expert in Russian history to recognize the illegality of or real motive behind Russia's distributing passports to the citizens of Georgia, do you? So, Mr. Lopez, while I appreciate your suggestions, as someone who knows a little more about the history of this conflict, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Sorry! Maya K
To Roberto Lopez: I do not think that we should impose the limitations and decide who and when will enter the discussion, the NATURE says anybody can. By the way, have you heard from Jeremiah Scholtz? Why did he disappear? Is his heart broken? Or maybe you rotate shifts? (no offence, if you don?t, just consider this a joke. If you do ? then no, no, no, you should not comment on this discussion anymore).
To Maya K: I do not think a comment is aggressive just because it is against Russia, I think it is aggressive when people try to insult the others: "are not you supposed to get busy with experiments?" (T. Roitbak), "you don't behave as a scientist" (M Gagua), "you leave an impression of a KGB agent who gets paid for misleading the readers of the magazine" (M Gagua), "go back to science" (T. Roitbak), "you only get verbal instructions" (I. Topouria) or "Dear Mr. Who ever you are! Please mind your own business and we will mind ours" (I. Topouria). I don't think this is the way to comment here. Yes, in fact we disagree, but it does not mean that I am against Georgia. Why do you really thing Russia distributed passports to Georgians? (their citizens in that time) I hope for a solution to this long conflict (for both Russians and Georgians), but we know it is not easy. Georgia will pay a huge price in the future if it now accepts US military help, and South Ossetians and Abkhazians wont have the opportunity to be really independent. To T. Roitbak: I know anybody can discuss here, but I don't think verbal aggression should be the way, that's all. And, no, I am not Mr. Sholtz. Obviously, he knows more about this than I do. Nice joke tho! I am also surprised that he disappeared.
Me again, sorry, but I am actually not surprised that Mr. Sholtz disappeared from this discussion after all the insults against him (not only his comments). I just think the discussion would be nicer having different points of view.
To Roberto Lopez. I'm impressed that you want to get to the core of the issue and want to solve the problem locally. I agree with you that it could be solved without any economic intervention from EU or US (military intervention is excluded from either side), provided Russia pulls out from the occupied regions. Yes, It's noble of Russia to defend its citizens, but what about the Georgian citizens living in the same region? Who will defend them? How come there are so many Russian citizens in South Ossetia and Abkhazia since mid 90-ies and on what legal grounds did they become Russian citizens on the Georgian territory? How would Russia react if other countries like France, Germany, or US distributed their countries' citizenship to the population of Chechnya or Dagestan or Ingushetia against Russia's wishes? If the US decided to grant its citizenship to the population of Mexico, how many Mexicans do you think would accept? I think far more than the Ossetians living in the South Ossetia region of Georgia. Posted by Maya Garland
To Roberto Lopez. The above comment is from Maya Garland, who is a friend of mine. She asked me to post this on her behalf since she has no subscription to Nature News and could not post the comment herself.
To Roberto Lopez. And now my response to your comment: I still think it's surprising that you are so quick to see aggressiveness in the above-quoted comments, yet you don't seem to recognize Russia's aggressiveness in either illegally distributing passports to the citizens of another country or in provoking confrontation in South Ossetia so that Russia could then justify defending its "citizens." You also mention that South Ossetia will not have a real chance to become independent. South Ossetians do not want to become independent. They want to unite with North Ossetia and be a part of Russia, the fact which they don't exactly try to hide. Unfortunately they want to do this at the expense of Georgian people and at the expense of a historical Georgian territory. Sadly Ossetians have a history of being rewarded by Russia for their loyalty. Both in the 19th and 20th centuries they were able to misappropriate a chunk of Ingush territories with the help of Russia. By the way, North Ossetian capital Vladikavkaz (which incidentally means "rule the Caucasus" was an Ingush village of Zaur). My suggestion is to read more about this conflict too, since you seem to be so interested in Russia and the Caucasus region. So, Mr. Lopez, although I appreciate your thoughts on the Georgian-Russian conflict, I have disagree with you once again.
Mr. Lopez, I?m still determined to ?convert? you (less likely Mr. Sholtz) although I realize it won?t be easy. I understood today why you are on Russia?s side, just because you don?t like USA. You mentioned this in your comment. But what do you want us to do? You can?t just play ?Cool?, when your country of 4.5 million is just a little dot on the world map. We have learned in a hard way that Russia is not a reliable partner. It possesses ?very useful buttons? in all countries in its backyard and presses them any time and anywhere when considers it appropriate. For example, Russia turns off the gas or blows the electricity carriers in winter, or decides to ?protect? its citizens in other countries even though its own real citizens are dying of hunger and drinking problems. It explodes houses in Russia to blame Chechens and justify the war in Chechnia. It releases the toxic gas against Chechen terrorists and kills hundreds of its own citizens (Nord-Ost tragedy), or launches an unnecessary attack against terrorists and kills hundreds of schoolchildren (Beslan tragedy in North Ossetia, BTW, then tries to prove that the terrorists were Georgians). After similar ?heroic? acts Russian presidents claim that they just love the citizens of that ?victim? country, it?s just the government they despise. Don?t you agree Russia does not have anything to do with election of other countries? governments? Is not it up to them who to elect? You admitted that you are not expert in Russia. Then there is more reason to believe those who are not only experts in Russia but actual participants in its history since 1798, I mean Georgians. It is the year that every Georgian curses now because it really trapped us in the worst possible situation. Russians often refer that they saved us from Muslim invaders and we are so ungrateful, we want to abandon Russia and join NATO? I?ll try to answer this question for anybody who?s curious about this. It?s true that we fought myriads of invaders throughout our history and that goes back to B.C. We had so many enemies because of our attractive geopolitical location and natural resources (not oil, unfortunately). We somehow survived when the world was much tougher and we would have survived without Russia in today?s civilized world. Unfortunately, we are tiny country and we have to rely on somebody?s help as I mentioned above. Since Russia proved to be unreliable, we turned to US and Europe. Let us try to write our history, do it our way, if we discover that USA and Europe are as unreliable as Russia, who knows, we may turn to Australia for help. Who are Russians to recommend us what to do? I don?t know whether it is by accident but the Russian word for Georgia is Gruzia and it means a ?burden?. If we are a burden, why don?t they let us choose our way? But the problem is, it just the opposite. The American writer John Steinbeck travelled in Soviet Union in 20th century and he wrote a book ?A Russian Journal?, in which he mentions that when Russians want to show how cool they are, they say that they travelled in Georgia many times or that they have a lot of friends there. He also writes that many Russian writers and artists consider if there is a paradise in the world, it should resemble Georgia. Not only because it?s beautiful naturally but because it has very warm, hospitable people. The Georgian will take off the last shirt to please the guest. It?s just the opposite in Russia. That?s one of the reasons why they don?t want let us go (of course, along with controlling pipelines and spheres of influence). As to Ossetians and Abkhazians, we would have solved all our problems with them if Russians did not interfere. You know that we have 500,000 Azerbaijanis and 600,000 Armenians in Georgia and Russia distributes Russian passports to them right now and when time comes, it will the appropriate ?button?? I wish, you could understand Russian, then I would recommend you to listen to Sergei Yakovlev, a true Russian democrat who says that Russia?s behavior in Georgia or other countries does not have any justification. He says it?s unacceptable that in Russia it?s quite difficult to get a citizenship for foreigners and in Abkhazia and Ossetia it?s enough to sneeze and you are a citizen. Are you still surprised why we don?t want to be under the Russian ?democracy?? If the world follows their logic, we would get independent Chinatowns in almost all big American cities, or Maya K?s example about Mexicans is a perfect fit here. Mr. Lopez, the best way to prove all I said is to go to Georgia and Russia and check everything on your own. I?m sure, you would understand me better.
Dear Comrades! Apparently, you have a whole gang out there ?thinking? in perfect unison! Finally, you have spoken up aloud the reason you keep this debate on going. You (whenever I write YOU I mean all of you) say?Russia is strong, and that is why countries like US need to back this power. To me a good start for Georgia is not accepting US military or economic aid. I believe this can be regionally solved without US or EU interests.? Is that so Mr. Who ever you are? O, how stupid of us Georgians, Americans, EU, and all together not to think through such a simple thing! Of course, all we need is to accept the Russians condition and in no time, we will find ourselves in eternal paradise, just like the one we lived in for 70 years! Lucky us, we are getting the second chance! But you know what, dear comrades? On the second thought: No, thank you. Even the Russian government with its bluntness, understands that. That is why they are so desperate. Then you go even further: ?Georgia will pay a huge price in the future if it now accepts US military help.? And you want us believe that these words, you wrote, are on your own behalf? You take liberty threatening an entire country now? Please do not tempt me to name all this by the name it deserves ? I know you are sensitive to harsh words. On other hand what a relief! After this disclosure your mission is accomplished ? we got it, now we know what is that you propagandize so desperately. Actually, it was clear as daylight from the very beginning. Only one thing concerns me now: Are you sure your superiors would like slipping out of their big secret? Are you sure you are not getting a good caning? Of course not! I?m certain you would not do such miscalculated move on your own. I hope they got tired. Them too. And I really hope after this disclosure follows the closure. I rest my case. Respectfully I. Topouria
To Maya K: Thanks for your reply again. At least, I agree with your friend about US or EU intervention. About the Russian citizenship, it is a tricky point. If it was offered after their separation from the Soviet Union, why did South Ossetians or Abkhazians accept the citizenship? Were they forced to? Or did it represent an advantage? Will these sensitive populations accept any passport in exchange for protection? (Although we know it is very unlikely that US or EU offer that). About Mexicans, well, in early 90s as part of a NGO based in California, we were evaluating the cultural impact of a group of Mexicans using US passports (not only in California but some of them moved back to Mexico). They all agree that the acceptance of the passport represented only a better opportunity for a job or study, but they also agree that it did not represent any cultural challenge (the original reason for this study was to determine the reasons why the Mexican community in California, even with US passport, was not fully integrated in society). Regarding to South Ossetia, you wrote they want to be part of Russia, together with North Ossetia. Which part of the population wants to join Russia and which wants to stay Georgian? (The ones with Russian passports and the ones without Russian passports, maybe). What could be the best way to negotiate this? If you were, in fact, Georgian, it would be interesting for me to know your opinion. I am currently reading (very carefully, yes) about the conflict, but I am more interested in the ways the conflict could be solved at present and the impact of the conflict on civilians (Russians, Georgians, etc.). However, it is very useful also at this point to discuss historical events. Maybe we will disagree again.
To M. Gagua: Thanks for trying to convert me! But, indeed, it won?t be easy (or ask the Protestants and Mormons coming to my house every week! joking?). Nice try anyway. Yes, I am not an expert in the conflict, but it does not mean I have to believe what everybody says (which is quite your opinion). I am not completely in the Russian or Georgian side, my ignorance allows me that. You pointed that I do not like USA. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is completely not true. Although most of my humanitarian work was done in Europe (including Russia), I went sometimes to US to support works, mainly in California. There, I had the opportunity to interact with many American organizations interested in humanitarian issues and in decreasing the negative impact of some US policies by addressing humanitarian needs (refugees, internally displaced persons in Iraq, etc.). I had a wonderful experience there, and I learned that the bad image of Americans around the world is biased often enough. I do not agree with many US policies, but it does not mean I do not like the entire country because of that. I hope you can understand that. Moreover, if you think US could be a more ?reliable? partner than Russia; I don?t think so. US not only possess now all the useful ?buttons?, but also are currently pressing them according to their needs, even far away from its territory (If fact US, but not Russia, have many things to do with elections in many other countries). Of course, Russian policies have not being the best (regarding to human rights), but in many cases they were not considered beyond the sovereignty (turning off gas, electricity, trade limitations, etc). You said ?Who are Russians to recommend us what to do?? so do you prefer US to say what to do? I understand if Georgia does not want to be under the Russian democracy, but the means are important. Although I have not opportunity to visit Georgia, I believe is a beautiful country (with no oil). But, why are US now interested in helping? You said, geopolitical location. Be aware, US play chess very well using the small.
To M. Gagua: And once again, information about Russian attacks and even military bases has been biased not only by mass media but also (and unfortunately) by humanitarian organizations - For example, in 2005, after returning from Russia, my team was asked to attend an international conference in Washington. During our spare time, we were interviewed many times about our work in Russia (we came back because of new policies on NGOs made by Putin as a consequence of NGOs tied to political work). The interviews were edited, showing that Russia was attacking NGOs (not true by the way). We were asked many times to be careful about the information we were given (practically forced to lie). We did not lie, but we got edited (a radio version, similar to what happened in the video of the South Ossetian girl presented in Fox channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5SU8bmCdnk). Days later, US news showed a short documental about the threat of Russia against NGOs. Of course, I am not saying all the information about Georgian conflict is false, or that many things did not happen in Georgia. But it seems to me that, once again, there are many lies too. Be aware of the information you receive in your own country. Sometimes people far from the conflict can help with a fresh perspective. So, let?s just be careful because all these conflicts are a big game, where the small and the weak have not opportunity to survive without causalities.
To M. Gagua: PS. I also believe in the hospitality of Georgian people, but it is completely not the opposite in Russia. I had an awesome experience there, and people were extremely kind (we got food, vodka, clothes, whatever we need at any moment). I think Russians and Georgians are the same in this regard (in a good way) and many others. It seems to me a bad idea to fight between brothers, because you are all brothers.
To Roberto Lopez. An interesting article about dual citizenships, distributing passports to the citizens of another country, etc. I highly recommend! http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7467&Itemid=130
Mr. Lopez, I have a feeling that I somewhat succeeded in "converting" you, since you are not that adamant in your statements and you try to learn more about the conflict and involved sides. I appreciate that. Now, let me make brief comments on your points. 1. Your example about the Mexicans holding the US passports is totally irrelevant and I'll explain, why: those are MEXICANS who live in the USA and hold US passports. If they go back to Mexica, they don't take US land with them. We are talking about OSSETIANS who live in GEORGIA but RUSSIA gives them RUSSIAN passports. That would have been OK, if they have not decided that they want join RUSSIA but they want take GEORGIAN land with them. Did you notice the difference? The same with Abkhazians, although they lived in Georgia forever together with Georgians and Ossetians started arriving in 16th century from their native country - North Ossetia. Is not it logical, if they don't like Georgia, they should return to Russia or North Ossetia? 2. I pointed out several times before that Russia does not care about either of this regions and their protection, it just uses them for own purposes. Maybe you read or heard that after the events in Georgia the small caucasian regions within Russian federation request independence from Russia but who listens to them? Their request is weak right now but even if they really decide to demand treatment equal to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia will arrange another "Chechnia" in all of them. Several opposition journalists have been killed there just last week. 3. Yes, all powerful countries, including USA have their own agenda and small countries like Georgia don't have any other choice rather than squeeze on their agenda and "benefit" a little bit. There was no space for Georgia on Russia's agenda, so, we try USA. 3. The term "Russian democracy" is absolutely controversial, such thing does not exist under the current regime. When I'm talking about Russians, I mean this government, Duma and military machine and not all Russians. I have a lot of Russian friends who are really upset and embarassed for what Russia did in Georgia and apologize from the bottom of their heart. Many Russians condemn Putin and Medvedev, you would be surprised if you listened to them. You can find their articles and interviews in the internet. 4. In the end, I will argue that there is no comparison between Georgian and Russian hospitality and many Russians will agree. Sorry, if I'm not objective on this one, I'm Georgian, you know. :)
To Maya K: I will check the link as soon as I have time. Thanks!
To M. Gagua: The fact that I want to learn more about the conflict does not mean you converted me, because I am definitely not on your side, maybe it means I am just interested. But feel free to think so :) When I pointed the situation about Mexicans, it was in order to show some of the arising problems when dealing with dual citizenships, especially when part of the population is not fully recognized inside the community. Interestingly, in some regions in US, for example, sizable Mexican-descent population is dating to the period before the US annexation of the state. Of course I know the problem is different in South Ossetia. But again the questions: Why did Georgians accept Russian citizenship? What was the real benefit? Why did Georgian government allow this? What percentage of the population has dual citizenship? The problem now is their claim for independence, but interestingly, the dual citizenship allows them to be protected by Russian government and also to claim Georgian territory as Georgians. I understand it is a hard piece to bite by Georgians. Nobody wants to give up such a beautiful part of the territory, and it seems mandatory to get a patriotic position against Russia to afford this. But what exists behind the patriotic curtain could be worse than the current consequences of the conflict: a geopolitical strategy. US play the card for help, Georgian government plays the card of patriotism and Georgians have no other choice that playing anti-Russia. What could be the real business between Georgia and US? (The term "US democracy" is absolutely controversial to me, btw). Now in the era of independence, small countries without resources want to be protected by strong ones while others prefer to confront their independence (sometimes supported by a strong one as well). From my experience, I can suggest again that accepting the strong burden of US support cannot be good for Georgia. It has been demonstrated in other countries. Even if this is a long historical problem, there should be another way to negotiate this without blood. Yes, I am a ridiculous optimistic, and that is what kept me going during my activist work. So, instead of fighting about territory, killing each other for another?s profit. Better negotiate this regionally (I insist) and start a new era where the contest will rather be the hospitality of the citizens :)
Dear Mr. Lopez, this is probably my last message to you. Seems that none of us will change our opinion, that?s fine, million people can have million opinions but meanwhile the truth is only one and in this case it?s on my side. My points: 1. I absolutely agree that every country should solve internal problems itself and should not allow others to interfere. Does Russia understand this? No. Americans have not interfered with our problems with Ossetia and Abkhazia before the war but they had to interfer to stop the war because nobody, except Russians, needed another Kosovo for Georgia. 2. Why did Ossetians accept Russian passports? Let?s find out by comparing Georgia and Russia. There are hundreds of different nationalities who lived in Georgia forever; we never had any conflicts with anybody. These are Russians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Greeks, Kurds, Jews, Chechens and Turks, now Chinese, African-Americans and others. We never had any Pogroms against Jews; we have 40,000 Ossetians who don?t mind living on Georgian territory (there are 60,000 Ossetians in South Ossetia) without any fear that somebody will violate their rights. We gladly accepted Armenians after Turkish genocide and Chechen refugees after the Russian war. Russia, on the other side, is really anti-Semitic country and is famous with its pogroms. Everybody knows about Russia?s hatred of all Caucasians, I mean the people who live in Caucasus. Two years ago Georgians were extradited from Russia in cargo planes and they left behind everything they owned, they were humiliated, scared, few died during the process. Have you ever heard about Skinheads? They are neo-fascists who are famous for their xenophobia and brutally kill the foreigners whenever and wherever they have a chance. You can search their famous clips on Youtube.com and what is shocking, the government backs them. Georgia under the current president achieved the progress unheard in Former Soviet countries. It has become democratic, prosperous country where there were very favorable conditions for the business. We fought corruption as nobody in the region and jumped very high in the list of not-corrupt countries. Russia has become rich because of its oil but its business is very dirty and does not stand any audit. The business circles were concerned about this before Georgia war and many wanted to withdraw from Russia. Russian can?t possibly give Ossetians and Abkhazians what we could give them. Our president before the war offered them broad autonomy, with protection of human rights, free economic zone, and their representatives with the power of veto in our government, etc. but they did not even want to listen. Why? Because Russia was confusing their minds, I mean the governments? mind, because there are people in these regions who understand that it?s a suicidal for them to join Russia, they won?t exist as nations in less than hundred years. 3. No democracy is perfect but believe me, there is no comparison between Russian and American democracies. I know, because I lived long enough in Soviet Union and I live in the USA for ten years. On the scale of democracy from 1 to 10 if America rates 5, Russia rates minus 100. I bet, you never heard the names just from the recent past of Russia ? Litvinenko, Politkovskaia, Khodorkovsky, Nord-ost, Beslan, what about the buildings that Russian special services blew up to blame Chechens, Russian submarine that could not be saved because the Russian government did not allow it? These are only few that come on mind instantly, I would continue but it does not make sense, too much for you. Please, don?t insist on something that is absolutely wrong. 4. We are not killing anybody, right now they are killing us and what do you suggest, we surrender without fighting? Sorry, but no, we won?t do that. I mean, we can?t militarily fight Russia simply because it?s a big country and we are tiny but we will do everything to prove that we are right. That?s why we need help from USA, EU, NATO, UN, OSCE, HRW and whoever else is there and you will be surprised, all of them are on our side. How many of them have geopolitical interests in Georgia? Now, who?s on Russia?s side? Again, all dictators, autocrats, ridiculous establishments without any decent values. If you choose to be in that group, well, it?s your right. And don't say that I'm aggressive, then you are dumb. I have to tell you good bye, because if somebody does not want to see something so obvious, there is nothing that will forces him to see. Wish you all the best, Mr. Lopez. Don?t bother to answer; I won?t check this site anymore.
To Roberto Lopez. You keep asking why Georgians accepted Russian passports in South Ossetia. it was not Georgians, but South Ossetians who accepted Russian passports in South Ossetia (the same with Abkhazians in Abkhazia). By the way, as far as I know, Russians tried to distribute their passports to South Ossetians living in Georgia proper, in and around the town of Gori too, but they refused. As for your question why the Georgian government allowed this? The Georgian government tried repeatedly to resolve this issue peacefully with Russia, but Russia refused to engage in any kind of constructive dialog. In addition, the Georgian government lodged numerous complaints about the illegality of Russia's actions with international organizations. Please see just one example of this from as far back as 2003 (http://www.georgiaemb.org/DisplayDoc.asp?id=10). And it was precisely the fear of escalating this conflict into a military one that prevented the Georgian side from taking any firm actions. As far as your insistence to solve the problem regionally, once again I'm afraid it's futile, naive and unrealistic.
Special Thanks to nature for this wonderful article
good one
good article
really good
good article