Russian invasion of Georgia?

Question

As you all know Russia has invaded Georgia. In 2003, we invaded Iraq under pretenses that it had WMDs. No WMDs were found and our reason was changed to removing Saddam from power and giving him a trial. So then we gave him a "trial" and he was hanged (against Int'l law, UN did nothing.) We have also had our forces there just over 5 years now. In Georgia, South Ossetia wants reunification with North Ossetia, which is in Russia. Russian peacekeepers were killed in the region after Georgia attacked them. Doesn't that make the Russian invasion of Georgia more justified than the American invasion of Iraq?

Answer 1

The Russian armies now are in S Ossetias And further they will not go! We not aggressors we defenders of the peace population.

Answer 2

I think that in order to anwer the question of who is more justified than the other, we need to re-examine the psyche and motivation of the Eurasian 'Great powers' (namely, Russia and China). The thing is, Russia continues to see all of the breakaway republics and former Warsaw Pact members as a part of its sphere of influence/client states. So when this upstart, unruly little nation like Georgia (which was absorbed by the Soviet Union in the 1920's before declaring independence some 70 years later) began killing its soldiers, the protocol is to send in a massive, punitive expeditionary force and teach the Georgians a lesson they'll never forget. So if I were the Russian general directing this invasion, my objective would be to 1) annihilate the Georgian ground, air and naval forces through the use of overwhelming firepower, 2) devastate the country's entire economic infrastructure by bombing indiscriminately, 3)  destabilize the government by removing the country's security apparatus and encourage uprising in other regions. Then, just as this little nation is brought to the brink of collapse, I would call for a ceasefire, demand some minor reparation and quickly withdraw my troops before some sort of effective guerrilla movement can be formed by what's left of the population. In the aftermath, the much humbled and severely emasculated Georgian leadership would tone down its anti-Moscow stance, led Ossetia do what ever it wants, and probably never dare to cross path with Russia again. Note that the Chinese, to a certain extent, tried to follow this policy with Vietnam and India. It was successful with India in the 60's, but Vietnamese managed to beat back the invasion force in the 70's, much to Beijing's embarassment (though I don't think the Goergian will have as much luck as the Vietnamese).

So taken in this context, it's clear that the American invasion of Iraq has a different connotation entirely. The US was not interested in punishing Iraq (the Iraqi didn't do anything!). It wanted to occupy the country and rebuild it in its own, twisted, utopian image (can we say God complex?). Unlike Russia, Nation building has always been the US policy since the end of World War 2, and will always continue to be in the future.

So, we get back to the question of which action more 'justifiable' than the others? Well, my answer is neither. If your country's territory was not physically under attack by another nation (or at least, you don't have hard, credible evidence that this was the case), then you can't attack another country back and claim self-defense, at least that's not how one behaves in the modern, civilized world. Economic sanction and diplomatic pressure is generally the way to go. So it follows from this logic that the Russians had no rights to wreak havoc on Georgia just because it 'felt' that it was being slighted. At the same time, the US had no rights to topple the Iraqi government and execute Saddam just because it didn't like the way he ran his country. In sum, both countries are equally guilty of committing the same crime of 1) violating another country's sovereignty and 2) causing the death of thousands of civilians for no good reason other than to prop up their ego and self-interest.

To be fair though, President Bush did warn the Georgian president several times not cross path with Russia, so war could have potentially been averted if Georgia had listened. The Iraqis never have that luxury...

<EDIT> LT. Jesus brought up a good point about Russia wanting to protect its citizens, and argues that on that premise, their action must therefore be justifiable (at least within the first phase of the conflict). However, given that the Georgian were not exactly committing genocide against Russian civilians, the normal protocol would have been to immediately issue some sort of public condemnation on Georgia's action and demand that the people responsible are punished. If that didn't work, then, Russia should bring up the matter to the UN and get them to arrange a safe passage for its citizens and peace keepers back to the Russian border (where a refugee camp will be set up). If all that should fail and more Russian citizens and peacekeepers continue to get killed, only then would Russia be justified in mounting a limited 'rescue operation' in the name of extracting its citizens and soldiers from the disputed area. However, Russia have conveniently decided to skip all these steps and simply bombed everything in their path. The scale of their retaliation is so massively disproportionate that it seems like they're bent on destroying Georgia itself. So in my opinion, their actions are not justifiable as an invasion of any kind should have been the last resort, not the first. The Russian's motive is to teach the Georgians a lesson they'll never forget... and that they did.

Regardless of which side is justified, the Georgian government is now suing for peace. Their military is hopelessly outgunned and outmatched. The country's only salvation at this point is to pressure the US to come to its rescue.

Answer 3

Something that some of us from younger nations don't realize or are forgetting is that there is a lot of history involved with some of these decisions. I'm not saying I think it's right that people are invading, but until the beginning of the 20th century with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and later WW1 and the League of Nations (UN now), Eastern European countries didn't have clearly defined lines. There was a lot of slop over - you would have a predominantly Greek village in Turkey or Russians living in Serbia or Bulgaria. Kosovo has long been a Serbian region, has many religious and historic sites there that are precious to Serbian people and is currently being over-run by Albanians who are destroying the sites in an effort to erase that history. There are Russians in Georgia not only because they used to be governed by Russia  (absorbed if you want) but because historically that is where these families have always lived.

Countries (including the UN) should leave other countries to work out their own problems unless there really is a terrible thing going on and they are being asked (RWANDA) to help. Whenever other countries interfere there is usually some kind of obligation lingering which often leads to exploitation ("Don't you remember how you needed our help? Don't you kind of owe us mineral rights in your country?").

It would be nice to believe the interfering country has benevolent and benign intentions but in this day and age (probably most of history) there are usually power positioning and greed as motivational factors.

Of course it does sound like a little dog picking a fight with a big dog in this situation, always stupid, asking for trouble, you might get it.

Oh, and yes, our leaders are being hypocritical.

Answer 4

Both unjustified.

Answer 5

You'd make a good attorney, cherry-picking your facts like that and sliding in a half-truth on the side. If you look at the facts in a little more depth, it's a lot less clear; and if you don't confuse the justifications of nations with personal-level ethics, it's even less clear.

Answer 6

The USA had "break away states" in 1861 and insisted it had the right to keep them within the fold. So it had the Civil War.  No one sent troops into the USA to help either side.

Russian has problems with a "break away state" called Chechen and is insisting they stay within the fold. Another internal war.   No one sent troops into Russia to help either side.

The situation in Georgia is no different. They have one small area called Ossetia that wants to break away and Georgia wants them to remain in the fold. An internal war.   No one should be sending troops in to help either side.  

The problem is many in that area are "Russian" and Russia feels it has the right to "protect" them. This is the same kind of argument Hitler used when he moved into Czechoslovakia, saying he was protecting Germans.   So in both cases,  the Germans and now the Russians are sending troops in.  

This is just Russian trying to grab some land just like the Germans. An attempt to recreate the great "Russian Empire."   It is pretty transparent.

Russia is dead wrong on this and needs to butt out.

Answer 7

ok ok. lol. no offence man but u have not analysed this deep enough. ok here are the fact. btw im canadian so im just speaking out of obsevation. yes its true the US claimed Iraq had wmds, and never found any, so their invasion wasnt justified, well at least they got rid of sadam, so thats a good thing. and for the record, it wasnt the US or American officials that killed sadam. it was the appointed democratic gorvernment of iraq that tried Sadam under Iraqui law and had him hanged under iraqui law, which has nothing to do with international law and out of the jurisdiction of the UN as the death penalty is legal in iraq (sadly). Ok. so the whole conflict with Russia and Gerogia. Ok here are the facts. Georgia is a former state of the soviet union, and South Osseitia (SO) is a region in Georgia. ok but the problem with Georgia and SO is that SO wants independence from Georgia, its like imagining an US state wanted to leave the United States to enter mexico or Canada. ok? And well SO and Georgia have been on conflict because of it, because SO is in the jurisdicition of Georgia, but theya re separatists. so what happeend? Russia had peace keepers deployed to the region so that there would be no more conflicts between Georgia and SO. ok now on august the 8th Georgia attacked SO to stop them from leaving because technically on paper SO is part of Georgia and Georgia was just bringing order to the region and bring it back under its power. the problem is that SO is highly populated with Russian citizens who hold Russian passports ok, and well when Georgia attacked. 15 russian peace keepers were killed and others injured injured, and of course a lot of Russian citizens were killed/injured. SO what the russia do? russia decided to aid SO and attacked the Georgian forces in the region. that is completely justified , the russian retaliation to save it's peace keepers and citizens. ok so georgian tropps were pushed back from SO thats a good thing.., but what is the problem now? the problem is that Russia did not just stop there. they are now invading Georgia itself... no longer has anything to do with SO. THAT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. Russia attacked in order to defend SO, they were there as defenders but now turned into attacked and Invaders as they are attacking Georgian cities and towns that are far from SO , and out of the conflict zone, and of course have no relevance in the conflict. The first russian strike to aid SO was justifeid, but their further invasion into Georgia territory is not. So what happens now? Georgia went from an offensive position to a defensive trying to fend off the Russian forces entering Georgian Soil.. and Russia is attacking Georgia soil with no justification... the conflict was about SO, not invading Georgia.. and Gerogia didnt attack Russia, they just attacked SO to bring their political power back and end the rebellion and drive out the separatist. It would be like the quebec separatist getting power in quebec and taking arms againts canada to liberate themselves, and canada decided to take military action to supress the rebellion, and France getting involded and attacking Canada to defend quebec.. but after Quebec was secured france would keep attacking Canadian soil. And unno, my leader didnt support ur invasion of Iraq haha, not many did. and it is not hypocrisy that we the west are condeming the invasion of Georgia by Russian Forces. matter of fact the peacekeepers in SO shouldnt even have been Russian, as that is just a signt of provokation by the Russians and a matter of interest. they should have been from another 3rd party country, and there have been reports that Russians have been flying jets over SO and Georgia. I am not pro Georgian, but the facts are the facts.. Russia did well by defending SO and fending off the Georgia army.. but they should have stop there and commenced peace talks.. make a perimeted across the SO boarder.. not invader further into Georgia and bomb their capital and major cities.. It cant be denied either that Putin would love to see the Old Soviet Union restored.. and of course the west cant do anything and hasnt yet done anything out of fear that western interfence could scalate this conflict into a bigger war.. a world war.. Hope the UN actually does something to stop this.. and not let it turn into a ww3

Answer 8

ok... well mr know it all.... first of all iraq is not a democratic nation..... and it never wanted to join any democratic states aaaaand let us not forget iraq was never part of the U.S......... georgia... wanted to join NATO.... used to be part of russia and it looks like russia just found a reason to invade......Russia is just afraid that georgia, the strong ally of the U.S., georgia, will threaten russians power in that region and i said.... russia just found a reason to invade..

Answer 9

You've just hit the nail right on the head. Russia got the legitimate reasons to take military actions. After all, it has to protect its own citizens (the vast majority of people living in Osetta holds Russian passports) and these people had been surrounded and attacked by the Georgian military forces.

This fact is known to the west. Did any one ever wonder why the US, Britain and the EU never issued any statement of condemnation against the Russian military actions?. This is because they know that Russia got the right to do what it did. The only statement that they could give is a statement of concern about the situation and a call on both Georgia and Russia to cease hostilities and start diplomatic discussions to avoid the situation escalating into a wider conflict.

Answer 10

UN did nothing! ha thats no surprise! after WWII they said "NEVER AGAIN" in reference to the holocaust and look at rwanda, darfur, the bosnia-serbia conflict! ha the UN really stands for the Useless Nations. S Ossetia is still part of Georgia, if the want indepence they should fight for it..not have russians bomb the shazam outta it. Saddam deserved death, well worse actually. you cant justify what the russians did. iraq wasnt too great either though... other countries should just not get involved on any aspect..