Does the BBC have it wrong that Georgia tried first to retake Russian-backed Ossetia or is US news right?

Question

From BBC News:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the US of provoking the conflict in Georgia, possibly for domestic election purposes.

Mr Putin told CNN US citizens were "in the area" during the conflict over South Ossetia and were "taking direct orders from their leaders".

He said his defense officials had told him the provocation was to benefit one of the US presidential candidates.

The White House dismissed the allegations as "not rational".

Georgia tried to retake the Russian-backed separatist region of South Ossetia this month by force after a series of clashes.

Russian forces subsequently launched a counter-attack and the conflict ended with the ejection of Georgian troops from both South Ossetia and another rebel region, Abkhazia, and an EU-brokered ceasefire

Answer 1

The BBC is right on that one - as is most of the rest of the worlds mainstream media's initial reporting, a matter of record.  Those first reports were correct, but have been subsequently 'forgotten'.

Here's what the available evidence says about the whole situation...

Publicly available information is as follows:

1.  Eduard Shevardnadze was ousted in a coup in the Rose revolution, almost certainly the CIA would have had prior knowledge if not direct involvement in such an action to influence the outcome - that much is clear from any reading of contemporary history...

2.  After all, he was 'coincidentally' replaced by a more Western leaning individual, Saakashvili, but one with dictatorial tendencies, of which more later.  

3.  After the arrival of Saakashvili the US started supplying arms - vast amounts over the following few years - and within the last 2-3 months this of this year, that was followed by the arrival of 1,500 US special forces 'advisors' - a number far more than the entire UK special forces, a huge number for such a country of 4.5 million!  Some 500 or so Israeli SF troops have also been said to been sent in recent months - coincidentally just before the attack by Georgia on its breakaway republics.

4.  Those republics previously held internationally monitored votes with huge turnouts (verified at over 90%, in which some 95% of the population voted for independence - from Georgia).  

5.  As Saakashvili is backed by the West (he was visited recently by Condi Rice, just days before the attacks, again a matter of some coincidence given the subsequent attack on the breakaway republics!) it is absolutely unthinkable that he would attack these areas, which of course retained Russian peacekeepers since 1992, without Western (i.e. US) backing and encouragement... they are after all receiving considerable US military aid in terms of materiel and manpower / training and US forces were on scene!

6.  A letter to US Secretary David Kramer by human rights watch illustrates that US-backed Saakashvili, has an abysmal human rights record including mass arrests, violation of the legal due process, torture and reduction of the age of criminal responsibility - to 12 years of age! - which begs the question as to WHY we are backing a man who is prepared to torture 12 year old children:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/25/a...

Of course this may all be pure coincidence, but the timing and roll out of events suggests otherwise... and Putin's reaction (furiously waving his finger at George Bush as he returned home from the Olympics - cynical timing eh? - after the GEORGIAN attack using Multi Launch Rocket Systems against civilian areas, manned by Russian peacekeepers) suggests that US citizens are not being fed the real story.

So to summarise Saakashvili is OUR man, HE started the war by attacking civilian areas and it is VERY unlikely he did this without clearing it first with his backers.

Make your own mind up, but I am less inclined to believe in coincidence than I used to be.  Anyone interested in the real US foreign policy should read Rogue State by ex-State Department officer William Blum - it makes sobering reading and is based entirely on officially released US and UN documents.

Answer 2

BBC is right.

Answer 3

US News is right.  The land belongs to Georgia.  The problem is that the people are now a majority Russian.  

Kosovo declared independence 17 FEB 08 because they wanted self rule.  And who could blame them, the Serbs tried to annihilate them off the earth.  Russia backed the Serbs, saying that just because Kosovo is majority Albanian doesn't mean the territorial integrity of Serbia should be ignored.  

Well, Ossetia belongs to Georgia, but the people there are majority Russian so Russia naturally backs them and will do anything to make those that support Georgia look bad.  Strange how their tune has changed.

Answer 4

Technically, BBC was merely reporting Putin's statement.

Of course, they did report it in a way that made it look like Putin was right.

That is the difference between bias & outright lies.

Answer 5

as bias as the bbc is they are a lot more truthful and reliable than any us news source

Answer 6

The BBC is correct.  Georgia made the first move and Russia retaliated, a bit too quickly so i'm guessing either Russia goaded them or they knew well in advance and didnt even try to frighten Georgia out of it by saying they knew and had the Russia army poised for a counter attack.

Either way Russia wanted the conflict as a way of postering against the EU and US.  Georgia's president though is a bit of a k**b for trying to take back South Ossetia by force.

Answer 7

BBC is right

Answer 8

Us news is right Ossetia is legally part of Georgia how can you retake your own land?......Georgia was cracking down on rebels within its own borders there were within their right Russia is way out of line... How would the world react if American took Qubec in Canada gave all of them citizenships and gave their rebals weapons than Canada tries to retake the provance and America invades would the world take it than? so why are we lettin the Russians gettin away with it...