Russian Invasion of Georgia Weighs Heavily on Ilham Aliyev's Mind

Dxbmxss Russians .....are Shxteater...........Russians mxtherfxcker.............

Brilliant Analysis...

Georgia invaded
South ossetia and the Russians protected them, unlike the jerky NATO who didn't protect unarmed civilians in Serbia. armed, encouraged and sanctioned by the wonderful west Georgia attacked a Russian protectorate and the russians responded.

Good for them. And too bad if the hypocritical people of the west who have been fed propoganda by their media are too stupid to understand the truth of what happened. there are tens of thousands of South Ossetians who are eternally grateful to the Russians for saving them from the Genocidal policies of the west.

Certainly, it weighs heavily on his pea brain.
It would bother anybody, if they got their butts kicked.

Stefanya wrote:

Georgia invaded
South ossetia and the Russians protected them

Sources who say this is true: Russian News Media, Russian Government.

Sources who say that Russia invaded Georgia and that Georgia was responding to an actual invasion, and Russia wasn't "protecting" anything except it's own interests: IIFFMCG, NATO resolutions, US senate, consortium of majority of European countries, Wikileaks, Georgia government.

If nothing else, read the "fault" part in IIFFMCG and couple of docs from US Embassy in Tbilisi (Wikileaks). Knowledge is power. Ignorance and unquestionable acceptance of propaganda is subhuman.

Yo Wassap wrote:

<quoted text>
Sources who say this is true: Russian News Media, Russian Government.

European Union said that after their investigation. So today everybody know that. Even you. Even Georgian nation.

coolncrazy wrote:

<quoted text>
European Union said that after their investigation. So today everybody know that. Even you. Even Georgian nation.

Correction. Russian News Media said that European Union said that. Read the IIFFMCG...- http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html
or Wikileaks - http://www.stoprussia.org/2010/11/29/us-embas...
- http://www.stoprussia.org/2010/12/02/wikileak...
- http://www.stoprussia.org/2010/11/29/separati...
- http://www.stoprussia.org/2010/11/29/us-embas...

Yo Wassap wrote:

<quoted text>
Correction. Russian News Media said that European Union said that. Read the IIFFMCG...
or Wikileaks

I see no reason even go to such trash websites paid by Georgian government, such as this your "stoprussia".
I gave you the link about Wiki leaks on respectable website of The New York Times. You can find the same information in the most of respectable Western media.

Yo Wassap wrote:

<quoted text>Correction. Russian News Media said that European Union said that. Read the IIFFMCG...- http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html
or Wikileaks - http://www.stoprussia.org/2010/11/29/us-embas...
- http://www.stoprussia.org/2010/12/02/wikileak...
- http://www.stoprussia.org/2010/11/29/separati...
- http://www.stoprussia.org/2010/11/29/us-embas...

Read the actual document here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34618.pdf

It's not a big secret. It clearly states that Georgia was not justified in any way to initiate the conflict.

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the actual document here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34618.pdf
It's not a big secret. It clearly states that Georgia was not justified in any way to initiate the conflict.

If you read the top of page 4 of your document, it shows how Russia was doing invasion drills of Georgia several weeks before Russia actually invaded on August 8, 2008. Georgia knew that and despite having its back to the wall, fought back.

How did the Russians get away with invading Georgia? You would think someone in Florida would have noticed what was happening.

AbeUG wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read the top of page 4 of your document, it shows how Russia was doing invasion drills of Georgia several weeks before Russia actually invaded on August 8, 2008.

You are illogical in thinking that this suggests anything in regards to aggressive Russian plans at the time. The US does training near potential conflict zones all the time after all.

StopRussia has a collection of WikiLeaks documents. Almost copy/pastes, and I rather use this than go and look up every single wikileaks document for your convenience. Also, IIFFMCG > Congressional Research Service. And New York Times, just like Washington Post, have been known to write sort of "questionable" articles that makes one think how much the author was paid, and I prefer to go to the actual sources, and not News Media, for my information.

If YOU read the IIFFMCG it clearly states that Russia was not conducting "drills" near the zones, it was, for YEARS, arming mercenaries, bringing in equipment, attacking Georgian villages, using "peacekeepers" for offensive purposes, etc.
The "war" did not simply start with 1 attack from Georgian side. Russians started attacking Georgian and civilian points in early July (like once a week) and stepped it up in Aug 6 when they started bringing in Russian troops through the tunnel (for obvious purposes). Both Wikileaks documents, Georgian Intelligence raw evidence (phone call intercepts, video footage, satellite) attest to this. Georgia responded to the many attacks on Aug 8 after Russian troops were and tanks were close to Tskinvali, and Georgia attacked specifically those extra Russian troops...

I'm not going to pretend exactly what the reasons were for everything, but I believe I know more than an average person and I know WHY Russia did what it did and why Georgia responded that way. I don't want to waste anyone's time if the only people disagreeing with me won't even look at the evidence...

AbeUG wrote:

<quoted text>If you read the top of page 4 of your document, it shows how Russia was doing invasion drills of Georgia several weeks before Russia actually invaded on August 8, 2008. Georgia knew that and despite having its back to the wall, fought back.

We can speculate and it is possible that Georgia was "goated" into it by Russia but it still doesn't justify Georgia taking the bate.

I do not wish to paint a positive picture of Putin & Co but in this case facts are facts...

if you take time to read this article which you comment, you'll realise that here is what it is about - quotation from the article :

"Meanwhile, the government controlled media of Azerbaijan
started a campaign against the US and its policy in the region. For
example, recently one of the government newspapers - the newspaper
`Azerbaijan' published an article accusing the US of occupying
countries under the guise of democracy and saying that all democrats
in those countries are agents of the US."

--------
very interesting, by the way, looks like Azerbaijan is fed up with US politicas in the region....

Yo Wassap wrote:

StopRussia has a collection of WikiLeaks documents. Almost copy/pastes, and I rather use this than go and look up every single wikileaks document for your convenience. Also, IIFFMCG > Congressional Research Service. And New York Times, just like Washington Post, have been known to write sort of "questionable" articles that makes one think how much the author was paid, and I prefer to go to the actual sources, and not News Media, for my information.
If YOU read the IIFFMCG it clearly states that Russia was not conducting "drills" near the zones, it was, for YEARS, arming mercenaries, bringing in equipment, attacking Georgian villages, using "peacekeepers" for offensive purposes, etc.
The "war" did not simply start with 1 attack from Georgian side. Russians started attacking Georgian and civilian points in early July (like once a week) and stepped it up in Aug 6 when they started bringing in Russian troops through the tunnel (for obvious purposes). Both Wikileaks documents, Georgian Intelligence raw evidence (phone call intercepts, video footage, satellite) attest to this. Georgia responded to the many attacks on Aug 8 after Russian troops were and tanks were close to Tskinvali, and Georgia attacked specifically those extra Russian troops...
I'm not going to pretend exactly what the reasons were for everything, but I believe I know more than an average person and I know WHY Russia did what it did and why Georgia responded that way. I don't want to waste anyone's time if the only people disagreeing with me won't even look at the evidence...

you know that Wikipeaks are leaks from diplomatic circles - so it is just gossips and press reviews of local papers - real data may be founf in EU report which summarised results obtained by EU inspektors exactly "on the field" and from reAL "EYE WITNESSES" - THE REPORT (WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN iNTERNET)- STATES THAT IT WAS GEORGIA WHO STARTED ILLEGAL WAR , BIT RUSSIANS AND OSSETIANS HAD LEGITIMATE RIGHT FOR MILITARY RESPONSE - Russia is only critisised for "overreacting" there...I think one day Saakashvilli will be brought to the court for his war crimes and military agression against disputed territory under EU (OSCE) and UN peacekeeping mandate.

seriously, stop quoting Russian Media sources...
IIFFMCG does not state that, I read that part and it said something about the 1991 war never really ending, 2008 war not being a separate war, Georgia to blame for using force against separatists (because there were some separatists in the mainly Russian forces in the region)(and hence, Georgia to blame for "South Osetia - Georgia" war, which lasted about 10 minutes before Russia started attacking) and Russia to blame for starting Russia-Georgia war and invading a country.
It states that Russia was technically right in protecting it's peacekeepers but it also states that those peacekeepers weren't really peacekeepers in the first place... and even if Russia was "protecting" it's "peacekeepers," and if that was their excuse, the force they used was vastly excessive.

What you posted up there is Russian Media's version - aka - grossly butchered and patched together account to make Russia seem like a good guy

Quotes from the EU report:

There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia was justifiable under international law. It was not.

None of the explanations given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack lend it a valid explanation.

There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation. Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive could not be substantiated by the mission. It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack.

There seems to be little doubt that if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, Russia had the right to defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of force for defensive purposes during the first phase of the conflict would be legal.

Although it should be admitted that it is not easy to decide where the line must be drawn, it seems, however, that much of the Russian military action went far beyond the reasonable limits of defence.

Yo Wassap wrote:

seriously, stop quoting Russian Media sources...

That is not a Russian media, but the EU report. You can also see the respected Western media sources, such as what I given above (BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian etc.)- it's quoted there too. Instead of that you're trying to use this Georgian propaganda websites that nobody will even read.

May I add my website ?
It says, Georgy-porgy got their butts kicked, but still are asking for more.