How is the Georgia south ossetia crisis any different from the serbia kossovo one?

Question

to me they both look the same yet suddenly now were all about respecting territorial integrity...

Answer 1

The main difference was that the Serbian government was promoting a policy of ethnic cleansing at the time NATO intervened.

But yes, you are right. Overall the difference is not that great. In both cases following the collapse of two large artificial states (the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia), all the former constituent republics declared independence.

Certain provinces within some of these new states erupted into ethnic disputes. Serbia had Kosovo, Georgia had Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Azerbaijan had Nagorno-Karaback, etc.

The independence of Kosovo is a rather delicate matter. I'm not sure it was the right decision. You could actually argue better for Abkhazian independence, since the nation has a long history as an independent kingdom dating back to 700 with a unique ethnic group. Kosovo on the other hand was an Albanian enclave within Serbian territory, and has historically always been a part of the Serbian kingdom.

But that said, Russia is only symbolically declaring them independent. Much like Turkey's occupation of northern Cyprus, they are simply annexing territory.

NATO, on the other hand, is not seeking to annex Kosovo. They were merely forced to find some sort of half-baked solution to a problem they just wished would just go away.

Answer 2

Meantime, there is a real holocaust going on in Africa....

Answer 3

I agree but I guess Bush is stretched a little  thin, what with Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-war people now seem to forget that Clinton did the same d**n thing in Serbia and Kosovo. And, yes it IS the same thing. He stuck his nose in where it wasn't needed or wanted. Somehow liberals, especially the press, forget this, or ignore it entirely.Also, to Ian B: Let's say Iraq had sent a call to us to ask us to help them; they still would have had oil. would you have ignored their call for that reason? There has been no oil harvested from Iraq as a result of this war. I'm not in favor of this war, but knee-jerk "oil" monkeys need to grow up.

Answer 4

1. NATO exercised a number of diplomatic options before invading.

2. Milosivec was actually committing genocide.

3. Many nations were involved.

4. There are no oil/gas pipelines in Yugoslavia.

EDIT:

Christopher, are you suggesting that Russia did this just to protect the Ossetian and Abkhazian micronationalities? These enclaves will be brought into Russian control now, not gain independence like Kosovo. They are being exploited to challenge Georgian sovereignty, in reaction to Georgia dealing irresponsibly with its OWN breakaway regions within its OWN internationally-recognized borders.

In the case of Kosovo, Milosevic was committing genocide outside his borders and the US intervened after asking for endorsement from the UN General Assembly and Security Council. Did Russia ask for permission to intervene on behalf of these supposedly discrimated against micronationalities?

If the Russians are going to claim they are breaking out of NATO "encirclement," they must justify how recent actions to curb progress in Zimbabwe and recent challenges to the sovereignty of Poland and Ukraine are part of their plan. Instead it should be viewed as an imperialist move to strengthen their influence over Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and not allow the EU to get oil/gas from the Caspian around Russia, as Russia's main advantage is control of immense natural resources.

Iraq is a terrible comparison and off topic. I don't believe it was an oil war, but rather it was justified with bad intelligence by a group of yes men. It would be viewed as a success if we had not dismissed the Iraqi military and hadn't screwed up at lower levels in the State Department and agencies.

The bottom line is, how does intervening in Kosovo give the US access to natural resources or some other sort of geopolitical advantage. The answer is that it doesn't.