Why do some news networks call the skirmish between Georgia and Russia a war?

Question

I graduated in political science and history about a decade ago. My emphasis was on international relations. Anyways, this conflict is not a war. It is a minor skirmish in which Russia reclaimed old territory. It was nothing more than a strategic military maneuver. I feel 95% confident that it will not lead to anymore military conflicts in that region in the near future. In short, it is simply a bunch of posturing and barking. The leader of Georgia tried his best to play the sympathy card by going on all of the media outlets, but the most he got in return was a quiet vote of confidence from the U.S. and some humanitarian aid. Don't get me wrong. Plenty of lives were lost in the conflict. But it was not a full blown war. Russia will pull out of certain areas in Georgia and will remain in others and that will be that. And they'll do it slowly and cautiously.

Answer 1

I think the people of South Ossetia have been forgotten in all the hysteria .

It is not disputed by anyone that Georgia made a massive attack on the people of South Ossetia killing some Russian citizens who lived there.

Russia merely invaded to put a stop to this

Answer 2

Without reading your paragraph and just the question, its simple,

They call it war because it creates panic within the populace, and infact = more ratings for their news programs.

Answer 3

What difference does it make what they call it? Is there some yardstick they have to measure by about what to call them? But it certainly wasn't a tea party no matter what they call it.

Answer 4

Anytime uniformed military forces of two countries clash, the media are going to term it a war.  Makes sense for those with limited headline space, you know?

Moreover, I am unclear about whether there was any formal declaration of hostilities in this case.  If there was, one might be in the right to refer to it as a war, even if there were no casualties.  Remember in the first months after Germany invaded Poland, the British and French dug in, but did very little to attack Germany.  That was still war, wasn't it?

I suppose what I'm asking is what your definition of war is?  Is it legalistic?  Or is there some practical level at which enough people are killed or enough forces are committed to make it a war rather than a conflict?  If that's the case, when did the American War of Independence become a war?  At Lexington?  At Concord?  Or at Breed's (Bunker) Hill?  

Answer 5

I agree with you, all this thing has been blown out of proportion. I do not support the Russian, mmhhh,  intervention? on Georgia's borders, but, I understand their reaction. Besides, it's all about double standards, isn't it?; NATO militarily intervened against Serbia some years ago supporting the breakaway county, or territory of Kosovo (it wasn't even a republic within Former Yugoslavia but a Serbian province) and it was called a "humanitarian intervention". Russia intervenes against Georgia in support of the breakaway so-called republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (right after a military onslaught launched by Georgian Forces) and it's called a "Russian aggression" and  the world goes mad about it.

Sure it is an aggression. As was NATO's. I suppose bottom line is that from our perspective we are the good guys and the Russians are the bad guys. Oh, well, this and that Georgia is pretty strategic, by the way.  

Quid pro quo. In other words, that's the way you want it NATO? That's the way you get it.

And there goes Condy, fiercely predicating that the territorial integrity of Georgia needs to be respected.  

Answer 6

They call it a war so the story will attract more attention which means more money for the media.