Published on August 28, 2008 By Artysim In Politics

All stories have two sides. Very rarely in life will you ever find a cut and dry case of "good vs evil" though by all means, from time to time this does indeed occur.

In the case of the conflict between Georgia and Russia, constantly Russia has been painted as an evil aggressor who inexplicably attacked a smaller nation. That is the side of the story that the west has told. But let us now consider the other side of the story- the following are the words of Dmitry Medvedev, the president of Russia.

Not surprisingly, the following words have not been run by too many mainstream western outlets, yet they fall over themselves to broadcast the speeches of the Georgian Saakashvili.

Why I had to Recognise Georgia's Breakaway Regions

By Dmitri Medvedev

27/08/08 "Financial Times" -- - On Tuesday Russia recognised the independence of the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It was not a step taken lightly, or without full consideration of the consequences. But all possible outcomes had to be weighed against a sober understanding of the situation - the histories of the Abkhaz and Ossetian peoples, their freely expressed desire for independence, the tragic events of the past weeks and inter­national precedents for such a move.

Not all of the world’s nations have their own statehood. Many exist happily within boundaries shared with other nations. The Russian Federation is an example of largely harmonious coexistence by many dozens of nations and nationalities. But some nations find it impossible to live under the tutelage of another. Relations between nations living “under one roof” need to be handled with the utmost sensitivity.

After the collapse of communism, Russia reconciled itself to the “loss” of 14 former Soviet republics, which became states in their own right, even though some 25m Russians were left stranded in countries no longer their own. Some of those nations were un­able to treat their own minorities with the respect they deserved. Georgia immediately stripped its “autonomous regions” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia of their autonomy.

Can you imagine what it was like for the Abkhaz people to have their university in Sukhumi closed down by the Tbilisi government on the grounds that they allegedly had no proper language or history or culture and so did not need a university? The newly independent Georgia inflicted a vicious war on its minority nations, displacing thousands of people and sowing seeds of discontent that could only grow. These were tinderboxes, right on Russia’s doorstep, which Russian peacekeepers strove to keep from igniting.

But the west, ignoring the delicacy of the situation, unwittingly (or wittingly) fed the hopes of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians for freedom. They clasped to their bosom a Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, whose first move was to crush the autonomy of another region, Adjaria, and made no secret of his intention to squash the Ossetians and Abkhazians.

Meanwhile, ignoring Russia’s warnings, western countries rushed to recognise Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence from Serbia

. We argued consistently that it would be impossible, after that, to tell the Abkhazians and Ossetians (and dozens of other groups around the world) that what was good for the Kosovo Albanians was not good for them. In international relations, you cannot have one rule for some and another rule for others.

Seeing the warning signs, we persistently tried to persuade the Georgians to sign an agreement on the non-use of force with the Ossetians and Abkhazians. Mr Saakashvili refused. On the night of August 7-8 we found out why.
Only a madman could have taken such a gamble. Did he believe Russia would stand idly by as he launched an all-out assault on the sleeping city of Tskhinvali, murdering hundreds of peaceful civilians, most of them Russian citizens? Did he believe Russia would stand by as his “peacekeeping” troops fired on Russian comrades with whom they were supposed to be preventing trouble in South Ossetia?

Russia had no option but to crush the attack to save lives. This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory. Our troops entered Georgia to destroy bases from which the attack was launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples - not when Mr Saakashvili continued (with the complicity and encouragement of the US and some other Nato members) to talk of rearming his forces and reclaiming “Georgian territory”. The presidents of the two republics appealed to Russia to recognise their independence.

A heavy decision weighed on my shoulders. Taking into account the freely expressed views of the Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples, and based on the principles of the United Nations charter and other documents of international law, I signed a decree on the Russian Federation’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I sincerely hope that the Georgian people, to whom we feel historic friendship and sympathy, will one day have leaders they deserve, who care about their country and who develop mutually respectful relations with all the peoples in the Caucasus. Russia is ready to support the achievement of such a goal.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 29, 2008

They signed a cease fire then continued to destroy infrastructure, take prisoners, and occupy a sovereign nation. It took them 2 days to invade and well over a week to disengage and pull out (I'm not sure, they might still have troops in Georgia). All while lying to the West about their actions. They basically annexed portions of a nation without international approval. What side of the story is that? Poor Russia. We can all pick up English versions of their state-controlled media if we need to see the "Russian Side" of the story. Me, I'll look at the facts on the ground (Georgia has it's share of blame too, for being tricked into exactly what the Russians wanted them to do), I'm not really interested in the what the sympathizers from either side have to say on the issue.

on Aug 29, 2008

I am glad you said "Russia's side of the story".  There are 2 sides.  But unfortunately, Russia's does not appear altruistic, just imperialistic.

on Aug 29, 2008

It took them 2 days to invade and well over a week to disengage and pull out

Funny, how long after the invasion of Iraq did it take for U.S forces to leave? Oh wait, they're still their!!!

They basically annexed portions of a nation without international approval.

Yeah, and we did the same thing with Kosovo in the 90's! That's the whole point of this speech. You cannot have an international rule that applies to one group but not another!

Me, I'll look at the facts on the ground

Interesting, so, what exactly do you think those facts are??? Where exactly did Georgia get their massive amounts of heavy offensive weaponry and training, which they then used to wage an offensive, unnecessary war?

 

 

on Aug 29, 2008

Funny, how long after the invasion of Iraq did it take for U.S forces to leave? Oh wait, they're still their!!!

Typical, Iraq and the US have nothing to do with this war, but people like you can't avoid crying about it still. You are smarter than this Artysim so why do you make ignorant comments like this? We did not sign a cease fire agreement that we broke and continued to stay in Iraq, yet Saddam did break a cease fire agreement when he fired on US planes but I don't see you crying about that.

But what can I expect from a person who will side with Russia just to continue to dislike anything American. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

Russia's side of the story

I'm curious, when you form an opinion about topic X, do you look at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion or do you only look at only one side of the store or issue? I ask because I have to wonder why you believe others only have 1-sided opinions (as if we only look at one side of the story and automaically accept that as truth) as oppose to thinking people look at both sides and chosing to have an opposing opinion to yours.

Example: I am a Conservative Republican, I don't pick a candidate because he is a Conservative or a Republican, I pick a candidate based on what they believe in that matches my beliefs as close as possible. It just so happens that a Conservative and/or Republican usually fits the bill.

on Aug 29, 2008

I'm curious, when you form an opinion about topic X, do you look at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion or do you only look at only one side of the store or issue?

Charles, this is the whole point of my article. Our entire media has only been broadcasting one side of the story, that being the supposed "victim" of Georgia. In this article I am presenting the other side that hasn't been given much of a voice in our media! So, in answer to your question, yes I do look at both sides. Since our media is so biased to give no voice to the Russian side other than to paint them as callous agressors, all I have done here is re-post the words of the Russian President, unaltered.

Typical, Iraq and the US have nothing to do with this war, but people like you can't avoid crying about it still. You are smarter than this Artysim so why do you make ignorant comments like this?

I make ridiculous comments like that in response to other ridiculous arguments. Nitrocruiser was criticizing Russia for staying in country a whole 5 days after their counter-attack against Georgia succeeded. I was merely pointing out that the U.S can't criticize Russia for doing this as they've done the exact same thing many times over throughout history!

on Aug 29, 2008

Only a madman could have taken such a gamble. Did he believe Russia would stand idly by as he launched an all-out assault on the sleeping city of Tskhinvali, murdering hundreds of peaceful civilians, most of them Russian citizens?

Funny how Russia fails to state that they just got done making those "Russian Citizens" Citizens.

The Congressional Research Service: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34618.pdf  states that the Russians have been granting citizenship to another countries citizens.  This is only one link, but I have heard this many times.

The Russians have been arming and funding the separatist for years.  Now they are offering citizenship and a welfare state in exchange for revolt?  No wonder Georgia had to make a move.  It is so interesting how Russia is more then willing to justify crushing Chechen separatist and then oppose Georgia for doing the same thing.

There is blame on both sides here, but Russia was the bigger bully.

on Aug 29, 2008

Charles, this is the whole point of my article. Our entire media has only been broadcasting one side of the story, that being the supposed "victim" of Georgia. In this article I am presenting the other side that hasn't been given much of a voice in our media! So, in answer to your question, yes I do look at both sides. Since our media is so biased to give no voice to the Russian side other than to paint them as callous agressors, all I have done here is re-post the words of the Russian President, unaltered.

Actually the point of your article was to defend Russia because the US is against their actions. Had we been backing Russia you would have been crying "Poor Georgia" because time and again you have proven that contradiction is your way of entertainment. There has been plenty of "Russia's side of the story" stories out there. The problem is no one believes the BS.

If you do look at both sides, as you claim, then you need to stop assuming no one else does siomply because their opinion is different from yours. Did it ever occure to you that some people may actually believe Georgia is the real victim here not because the Media portrays it this way? I have a personal issue with people who can't accpet opposing opinions that could be based on research and simply dismissing it as bias just because you assume they don't get "the rest of the story" (thanks Steve Harvey).

I make ridiculous comments like that in response to other ridiculous arguments. Nitrocruiser was criticizing Russia for staying in country a whole 5 days after their counter-attack against Georgia succeeded. I was merely pointing out that the U.S can't criticize Russia for doing this as they've done the exact same thing many times over throughout history!

So rather than be the better man you chose to stoop to other peoples levels? Keep in mind my friend that the US did not go into Iraq by simply crossing a border and dropping bombs and shooting guns at anything and everything as a surprise. We warned Saddam, we went to the US, we waited and waiuted and waited and when we saw little or no results, we took matters into our own hands when we saw a person deliberately attacking US airplanes and failing to prove he destroyed this WMD's and not allowing the inspectors to do their jobs. We did not go into Iraq guns ablazing, killing innocent people left and right on purpose so don't you dare compare us to Russia who did go in guns ablazing without even bothering to ask the UN for permission and on top of that be so hypocritical as to sigh a treaty they never intended to honor. You all bitched how the US killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and don't hesitate to bring up those Georgia killed yet I don't hear a single peep on how Russia killed innocent people during their short campaign. It amazes me the hypocrisy that grows on this planet. Sometimes debates are worthless when arguing against people who like to pick and chose who gets to break the rules without punishment and who doesn't.

on Aug 29, 2008

          Well multiple people are right here.

       First of all, it's ok for Artysim to post an opinion that is not reported in traditional Western media.  There is nothing wrong with that.  That said, it is best for everyone to take President Medvedev's opinion with a grain of salt, just like I take President Saakashvili's opinion with a grain of salt (which has been reported again and again in Western media).

       The whole Russian-Georgian War is a terrible travesty, but nonetheless quite interesting and illuminating.  First, it must be said that Saakashvili made a VERY stupid move.  To bomb the hell out of Tshinavali in South Ossetia and kill 8 Russian "peacekeepers" (actually occupiers in all but name) is a really really stupid move and is bound to cause a Russian response.  Furthermore, Saakashvili must have been smart enough to realize that PM Vladimir Putin hates his guts and has been looking for an excuse to punish Georgia for a long long time.  It is even morally reprehensible that Saakashvili killed hundreds of South Ossetians in this attack. 

        All of this said, however, the Russian response was just as wrong and reprehensible, the bombing and ravaging of the cities of Gori and Poti in internationally-recognized Georgian territory.  It has been widely-known by many Russian experts and academics that these "independent nations" of South Ossetia, Abhazia, Transdniestria are also all de-facto Russian territories, all occupied by either Russian troops on a "peacekeeping" mission or by Russian surrogates. Thus, the recognition of these "nations" is nothing but a ploy from Moscow to firmly recover their "near-abroad."  Heck, NORTH Ossetia is even apart of Russia! 

        But now the question is not who was at fault.  The question is what do we do or not do to respond to a resurgent and aggressive Russia which has proven it is willing to take hostile action to claim back their "near-abroad."  For me personally this is a very important issue.  Just last semester, I lived in Tartu, Estonia, a city which was just 60 miles from the Russian border and 60 miles from a Russian infantry brigade at Pskov.  Estonia has already been threatened by Russia again and again and suffered a cyber attack which was perpetuated by Russian citizens, probably with support from the Russian government.  Estonia and its Baltic neighbors, Latvia and Lithuania are developing countries, apart of the EU, and staunch US allies.  Russia cannot be allowed to exercise control over this part of Eastern Europe. 

        So the big question is not who was at fault (I blame Saakashvili's stupidity in the face of a clear and very dangerous Russian threat), but rather the question is What is going to be the United States' response to a resurgent, militaristic Russia?  Even if Russia itself is a country which over a long term period is still going to hell, what is going to be our response in the short term?

on Aug 30, 2008

Nice to see the other side getting a bit of attention, even if I don't agree with it. The problem I have with the conflict is how so many people seem willing to jump onto a bandwagon of 'this side was right, this side was wrong'. Actually, both sides in this seem to be in the wrong - I mean what sort of idiot would look to antagonise Russia in such a way as the Georgian leader did? It was bound to cause a response, and in thise case that response was a Russian overreaction in the form of an invasion. I can understand why the western leaders want to paint it in stark black+white terms (since it increases pressure on the Russians, which is about all they can do), but it is foolish to aboslve the georgians of any fault in this conflict.

on Aug 30, 2008

I mean what sort of idiot would look to antagonise Russia in such a way as the Georgian leader did?

The world, and history is full of examples of people making mistakes based on mis-assumptions.  This is but the latest.  Georgia - rightly or wrongly  - assumed sovereign integrity of their nation, and that Russia was too busy and toothless to care.  Russia was and is still working under the old Warsaw Pack mentality.  Georgia's leader may be an idiot for provoking Russia, but in the end, I think Russia is going to be shown to be just as big an idiot for being provoked.

Wanting is not always the same as having.

on Sep 04, 2008

True Russia signed a ceasefire and flouted it, but this is bloody mindedness because the war was started by Georgia who were sitting at the table with the breakaway regions talking about peace and then sneak-attacked at night.

 

I don't care who you are, you don't sneak-attack targets right inside civilian settlements with uncontrolled fire (i.e. Mortars) while you're at the peace table. It's the equivilant of the backstabbing of Native Americans by English and French settlers.

 

I dislike Russia but I was strongly pro-Russia in this war while they were simply freeing South Ossetia and Abhkazia. These guys have made it clear they don't want to be Georgian and America has always played the 'self-determination card' ever since Woodrow Wilson decided to weaken the Austrian and British empires.

 

The moment Russia went into Georgian territory, that's when they overstepped the mark. Georgia started the problem based on a mis-assumption that being friends with Europe and America would protect it against Russia. The reality is that a nuclear nation can push it as hard as they like short of invading a member of NATO.

on Sep 04, 2008

Anyone see Gorbachev's take on it? Have a read. 

~Zoo

on Sep 04, 2008

I'm Khamul89 and I approve the above link

 

It's a very interesting take on the situation, and one people should take seriously. The way Russia is portrayed there, however, is like Boxer the horse from Animal Farm - much too innocent a portrayal.

on Sep 05, 2008

is like Boxer the horse from Animal Farm - much too innocent a portrayal

And I dont see Medvedev marching off peacefully to a glue factory.

on Sep 06, 2008

Actually the point of your article was to defend Russia because the US is against their actions.

Uh, no numbskull. I merely copied the words of the Russian President for the good folks here to read into their own consideration, without condoning them. That was the whole point of my article. As I've stated twice now.

time and again you have proven that contradiction is your way of entertainment. There has been plenty of "Russia's side of the story" stories out there. The problem is no one believes the BS.

Okay, please point me to them. Please show me the CBS or CNN or ABC articles actually giving unbiased consideration of the Russian side?

2 Pages1 2