Why not allow South Ossetia and Abkhazia to join Russia?

Question

That'd be a quick end to the conflict, Georgia wouln't have no reason to wage war on others.

This seems to be what people in those regions want, so put it to a voting referendum, what's the problem?

Answer 1

how do u associate this situation with US at all?

abkhazia and ossetia were never a part of georgia at all.. they joined ussr BEFORE georgia did and when ussr collapsed, they didnt wish to be the part of georgia, so technically they NEVER AT ALL wished to b related with georgia in any way at all, but they were forced for these 16 yrs

Answer 2

uh remember a few years back there was a thing with South Carolina?and a few other states.

if only Berkley would secede from the union!!!

Answer 3

Russia can't have intentions to absorb Georgia. NATO won't allow this. Putin needs to travel to deal with his bank accounts. The last thing he needs is isolation.

There were a number of referendums with 100% vote to be independent. It's real. You saw in the news the refugees all ran to Russia. In Georgia they wouldn't be running long.

It's all funny about Georgian democracy. Half of them anyway live in Moscow. Georgian equivalent to sworn mafioso are most numerous and influential in Russian organized crime.  In Georgia they simply rule the country.

Answer 4

Just like for the USA, you can never accept the official reason given for doing anything -especially for taking over a country. You can go back as far back in history as you like and you won't find very many examples where the true reasons for war are provided.

It would be naive to believe that Russia has invaded Georgia just to protect/free/absorb South Ossetia. The purpose is clear - to gain control of a highly strategic oil pipeline and a warm water port. This is a chess game and Putin's people are thinking many moves ahead. Control of this port and pipeline will position a future Russia to tip the balance of power as it pertains to fossil fuel delivery.

We've been seeing signs that the Soviet Union is making a come-back for years now. Putin has drawn all of his moves, decisions, and policies from the old Soviet play book. This is just another step in that direction and it is irresponsible to suggest that the annexing of an ex-soviet satellite state (that's what they're doing, regardless what they call it) is being done to protect an ethnic minority.

Answer 5

US plans for the Caucasus and Central Asia

The third and most important question behind the present war is the long-standing US policy that aims to encircle and isolate Russia. Even in the 90s, when the US was supposedly on good terms with the Yeltsin administration and Strobe Talbott's friendship policy was running high, the US strove to encircle Russia through a web of alliances in what is known as Russia's "near abroad". The establishment of the Partnership for Peace alliance, the waiting room for NATO, and the subsequent expansion of NATO to former Soviet republics and Eastern Eurpoean countries were only the most salient dimension. GUUAM was the name given to the loose web of alliances that the US entertained with Russia's southern and eastern neighbours, Georgia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan (no longer part of the web), Azerbaijan and Moldova. The Afghanistan war, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the "war on terror", was devised to penetrate former Soviet Central Asia, where thanks to the war the US established, for the first time in modern history for a Western power, military bases. Putin's acquiesence to Bush's post-9/11 policies with the aim of covering up his own dirty war in Chechnya was as stupid as Stalin's reliance on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in order to protect the Soviet Union from n**i aggression.

This political conflict between the US and Russia is thus the real stake of the war over miniscule South Ossetia. US ambitions regarding the oil and natural gas of the Caucasus and Central Asia in addition to that of the Middle East is the economic basis of this tug-of-war between the US and Russia. The US desires to deprive Russia of the benefits of these regional riches, a policy symbolised by the Baku-Tblissi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline. Behind this is the US strategic aim of keeping Russia and China down as contending superpowers in the 21st century. This self-serving policy of US imperialism has borne its first product, leading to a situation where a tiny conflict has led to a conflagration that threatens the region and the world.

Socialists around the world should condemn the adventurist policy of Saakashvili and demand the immediate withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia. Bush's argument regarding the "territorial integrity of the sovereign nation of Georgia" is not valid even from a legalistic point of view, since the 1992 ceasefire established de facto autonomy for South Ossetia, sanctioned internationally through the appointment of a peace mission headed by Russian troops. Much more important than any legal considerations are the facts of the right to self-determination of the Ossets and the Abhaz, the reactionary adventurism of Saakashvili, and the imperialist aims of the US in the region. To see the Russian-Georgian war over South Ossetia as one between a historically dominant big nation (the Russians) and a historically oppressed small nation (Georgia) is to misconceive its real import. This is a proxy war, where the proxy (Saakashvili's Georgia) has made a rash move without the consent of the real culprit, US imperialism. Hence Georgia has engaged in an unjust war and should withdraw.

Answer 6

Yeah, and give the Sudetland and Rhineland back to Germany!.... doh!, wrong war.

Answer 7

May be but this will allow a lot of people to speculate about russian expansion, so Russia will vote for the independence of these countries and already officially said that it will support the decsion will be made on the referendum.

Also Georgia say that it won't agree for S.Ossetia and Abkhazia to be independent. They say that it is "their land" that must be taken at all costs.

I don't know exactly but according to UN, the independence can be given to the nations survived genocide or mass slaughter.

So technically the independence can be granted without Georgia approvement in case the above facts will be proved.

Answer 8

Yes one can put it that way. However in today's complex politics there are incentives for not doing just that. Why annex both places when you can use them as a front or an excuse for a future conflict? That would be in the mindset of the Russians whereas for Georgians they are stuck in a bad position. Russia will always want a reason to beat its neighbors into obedience so by allowing both breakaway to remain in Georgian 'autonomy regions" and its citizens holding Russian passport it will give Russia another excuse to intervene incase Georgia, for some moral reasons, decide to go for it again and try to takeover both regions. In Russia's mindset it doesn't need to annex both regions because they are in someway "Russia" already...just not officially.

Answer 9

Based on my understanding that would be like the US just letting Texas and Arizona join Mexico.  Why would a country let a part of themselves join another country?  Especially if the part that wants to leave has something like oil in its ground.  

Answer 10

Why?  Do You really think just because people wants it and they vote for it then they get it.  Where do you think they are?  Only in the USA, something that democratic process will ever come close to ever happening.  Wake up and smell the coffee will yah!  Voting referendum geez you are funny.