2008 Ossetia War

[Nox]

Do you see it as an act of Russian imperialism?

Or do you see it as Russia freeing an oppressed minority from Georgia? (if they were oppressed at all, which I don't know)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Imperialism is what I see it as....I am not sure how they are liberating people if they are placing them under the rule of a group which is loyal to their interests.

[thesadmafioso]

If I recall correctly, Georgia invaded South Ossetia before the Russians became involved. The Russians were actually welcomed with open arms when they drove the Georgians back by many in the region.

Additionally, the Russian forces did retreat from Georgia after a few weeks when they easily could of toppled the entire nation. If it were a true act of imperialism, I would think they would of acted in a more aggressive manner than they did.

If anything, this situation falls more under the category of American imperialism, as Georgia has increasingly been developing closer ties to NATO. Though at the same time, I would hardly justify the Russian action as being truly defensible. They were merely preserving their geopolitical interests in the region by defending a state which was allied with itself. The fact that they were combating the expansion of NATO does not provide them with absolute cover for their actions, as their intent was still that of a capitalist state.

[scarletghoul]

Inter-imperialist rivalry between US/NATO (with its client state georgia) and Russia (which had lost control of georgia but kept influence over abkhazia and south ossetia...). At the same time afaik the ossetians and abkhazians are distinct national communities who had been denied their right to self-determination (+ independence) by georgia. So really there is a national liberation side but also an imperialist side to things.. while its good the the independence from georgia has been achieved, we should be under no illusions about russia being great liberators lol.

i guess its like kosovo; a national liberation struggle which has become a game for imperialists .. the coverage of the ossetia + abkhazia on RT is very similar to the coverage of kosovo on the BBC..

[piet11111]

Well Georgia was firing at south ossetian villages with Bm-21 grad rocket artillery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUe5n9B1QWY&feature=related

Russia acted because many south ossetians hold Russian passports and thus are Russian citizens (did russia give them these passports just so they can act in case of Georgian violence ? maybe)


But the fact is that there where many small skirmishes between south ossetia and the Russian peace keeping mission and the Georgian army but the trigger for the war was Georgian rocket attacks.

There are many in the west that say Russia was ready for this war based on the short time it took them to get massive troop movements into Ossetia but the fact is that Russia has a large military base close to the area and where in driving distance from the war.
Take this wiki detailing many of Russia's shortcoming in the conflict and you can see that they used old obsolete equipment

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#Russia If Russia was planning for a war they would have used better equipment.

[Jose Gracchus]

Its called inter-imperialist war. Two major imperial powers came to loggerheads where one power (Russia) sponsored a secessionist movement in an ethnic enclave (South Ossetia) on its border, within a client state (Georgia) of the other power (U.S.), in the broader context of Russia considering Georgia to be within its traditional imperial sphere of influence. Russia went to war to defend its imperial prerogatives, and the American client regime in Tbilisi fought it best they could.

[Iron Felix]

NATO(read: America) trains Georgian commandos, Georgian commandos attempt to commit ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia, Russia intervenes. Literal ethnic cleansing. This war also scared Ukraine(And Georgia, but NATO was the one reconsidering them and not the other way) into reconsidering their NATO membership bid so I like that.

But this doesn't mean I support Russian Imperialism. I would gladly kill every dog responsible for the Chechen Wars. Now this was real ethnic cleansing as well, but we were the ones doing it.

[Psy]

Its called inter-imperialist war. Two major imperial powers came to loggerheads where one power (Russia) sponsored a secessionist movement in an ethnic enclave (South Ossetia) on its border, within a client state (Georgia) of the other power (U.S.), in the broader context of Russia considering Georgia to be within its traditional imperial sphere of influence. Russia went to war to defend its imperial prerogatives, and the American client regime in Tbilisi fought it best they could.

Russia went to war because Georgian troops attacked Russian troops in South Ossetia thus Russia had no choice in the matter, the Russian military had to counter-attack to defend its own forces trapped in South Ossetia.

You should be asking what NATO and Russian troops were doing there in the first place as Russia military protecting Russian troops by clobbering the attacker in itself is not imperialist.

[Jose Gracchus]

Do you contend that the Russian Federation is not an imperialist power (though admittedly, a quite weak and short-reached one, relative to the U.S. and its loyal clique [NATO])? Do you think what makes a war 'imperialist' is the bourgeois 'legality' or 'legitimacy' of it, or the fact that fundamentally, you're dealing with decidedly imperialist bourgeois states and their associated states grouped into spheres of influence, decking it out in what is more-or-less perceived as a zero sum game?

Chomsky and liberals can discuss the 'legitimacy' of the South Ossetian war. All I know is class analysis tells me its a squabble between two imperialist powers with about zero wiggle room for historically progressive outcomes or possibilities.

[Psy]

Do you contend that the Russian Federation is not an imperialist power (though admittedly, a quite weak and short-reached one, relative to the U.S. and its loyal clique [NATO])? Do you think what makes a war 'imperialist' is the bourgeois 'legality' or 'legitimacy' of it, or the fact that fundamentally, you're dealing with decidedly imperialist bourgeois states and their associated states grouped into spheres of influence, decking it out in what is more-or-less perceived as a zero sum game?

Chomsky and liberals can discuss the 'legitimacy' of the South Ossetian war. All I know is class analysis tells me its a squabble between two imperialist powers with about zero wiggle room for historically progressive outcomes or possibilities.

Again you should be asking what Russian troops were doing there in the first place as that is where you'd find the imperialism on Russia's part. When Georgia attacked Russian forces how you expect the Russian military to react? From the point of view of the Russian military Georgian forces was attacking Russian forces thus the only logical response was to totally destroy the Georgian army and take away Georgia's means to attack Russian troops and that this was logically nothing but self-defense on Russia's part as Georgia was the aggressor in the conflict.

Think it this way what did Russia get out of the war? Nothing but the stats-quo, for all the military might Russia unleashed on Georgia they demanding nothing new form Georgia, it was just Russia reminding Georgia that if they mess with the bull, they'd get the horns.

[Jose Gracchus]

So you're a social patriot, who, like the SPD who sided with the 'better' imperialists against the more 'barbaric' ones, instead of recognizing that imperialism is a fundamental facet of the capitalist mode of production becoming a globalized system, and that it is an economic relation between core and periphery states. The victory of either imperialist power in an inter-imperialist war holds no promise for the working class.

[Wanted Man]

NATO puppet government gathered up the courage to try and "restore order" in a separatist region; ended up with egg on its face. Also allowed for hilarious exposure of hypocrisy when comparing international responses between the South Ossetia and Kosovo situations.

Of course, if you point any of this out, some Revleft authority will inform you that this is "bourgeois" and "supporting Russia" or something like that.

[Psy]

So you're a social patriot, who, like the SPD who sided with the 'better' imperialists against the more 'barbaric' ones, instead of recognizing that imperialism is a fundamental facet of the capitalist mode of production becoming a globalized system, and that it is an economic relation between core and periphery states. The victory of either imperialist power in an inter-imperialist war holds no promise for the working class.
Russia has imperialist interest in Georgia yet those interests played no role in the conflict as ruling class was still trying to figure out what was going on when the Russian military started counter-attacking as the Russian military was just reacting to being attacked, in that moment the Russian military didn't care about the capitalist mode of production and all they cared about was giving the Georgian army such a beating they would stop being a threat to the Russian military, in other words the Russian military at the time was primarily concerned with its own interest rather then that of their capitalist masters.

[RedTrackWorker]

If anything, this situation falls more under the category of American imperialism, as Georgia has increasingly been developing closer ties to NATO. Though at the same time, I would hardly justify the Russian action as being truly defensible. They were merely preserving their geopolitical interests in the region by defending a state which was allied with itself. The fact that they were combating the expansion of NATO does not provide them with absolute cover for their actions, as their intent was still that of a capitalist state.

An imperialist country (Russia) invading an oppressed country (Georgia) is more like a case of American imperialism? Yes, Georgia wanted to ally closely with the U.S. and the U.S. wanted to use it--but what happened concretely was a "big" power establishing greater control over a "small" power--and it was Russia doing the subjugating, not the U.S. So while I agree that it reflect inter-imperialist rivalry, I do not see how the conflict was reduced to a conflict between Russia and the U.S.

See the LRP statement at http://lrp-cofi.org/statements/russia-georgia_war.html.

[Wanted Man]

See the LRP statement at http://lrp-cofi.org/statements/russia-georgia_war.html.

Wow, that's pretty amusing even by the standards of usual confused statements by leftist sects about current events that they have no influence on. The LRP actually manages to call for several completely different and even mutually exclusive things. Is this LRP a real group or is this satire?

[RedTrackWorker]

Wow, that's pretty amusing even by the standards of usual confused statements by leftist sects about current events that they have no influence on. The LRP actually manages to call for several completely different and even mutually exclusive things. Is this LRP a real group or is this satire?

Go on, explain what you mean.

[Aspiring Humanist]

South Ossetians(sp?) wanted to be free from Georgia, and they accepted help from the Russians so who can condemn self determination?

[Rafiq]

So is it being implyed the RF invaded a nation for interests beyond economic, or political interest? For ethical purposes? It is a false notion, then.


Obviously it is imperialism.

[thesadmafioso]

An imperialist country (Russia) invading an oppressed country (Georgia) is more like a case of American imperialism? Yes, Georgia wanted to ally closely with the U.S. and the U.S. wanted to use it--but what happened concretely was a "big" power establishing greater control over a "small" power--and it was Russia doing the subjugating, not the U.S. So while I agree that it reflect inter-imperialist rivalry, I do not see how the conflict was reduced to a conflict between Russia and the U.S.

See the LRP statement at http://lrp-cofi.org/statements/russia-georgia_war.html.

What?

Russia only invaded Georgia after Georgia (with a healthy dose of NATO support) had attacked South Ossetia. Even then, they pulled after an incredibly brief operation in the region. I don't doubt they had geopolitical interests in intervening, nor do I support their actions, but at the same time I think it crude to apply such an undeveloped dichotomy to this question. The Russian Federation is presided over by a bourgeoisie state and it deserves no backing from any proper revolutionary, but that is not to say we should go running into the arms of Georgia and the US because of such, as the same conditions apply to the content of their societies.

The point here being that the Russian response to this matter was perfectly predictable, and it hardly can be viewed as an aggressive move classifiable as outright imperialism.

[Psy]

So is it being implyed the RF invaded a nation for interests beyond economic, or political interest? For ethical purposes? It is a false notion, then.


Obviously it is imperialism.
Out of purely reactionary reasons in the military reacting to being attacked. Yes the Russian military was deployed in S. Ossieta and Abkhazia for long term imperialist aims of the Russian ruling class, yet the counter-attack in the war was nothing but a knee jerk reaction of the Russian military.

[PhoenixAsh]

IMO this was a war between two burgeoisie nations who want to establish regional dominance over a territory...for whatever concrete interests that serves: strategical, economical, trade, political etc.

There is nothing humanitarian about this was...eventhough SO clearly favors Russia over Georgia and directly asked for their intervention.

I think SO has a right to self determination.

Neither Georgia nor Russia nor SO itself however operate based on any revolutionary notion.

[Myaskovsky]

Sakaashvili needed a little war to deflect attention from the fact that he is immensely unpopular and fast becoming a despot, in spite of his rhetoric about the "beautiful little democracy" of Georgia. Mistakenly, he thought his NATO buddies who had previously been dangling the carrot of NATO membership would back him up. Wrong. In spite of the propaganda, international law was on the side of the Russian Federation. The Russian army basically drove the Georgian army out of Ossetia, sent a few tanks into Georgian territory and then withdrew.

[Luís Henrique]

Imperialist or not, the Russian aim in this war was not to establish control over Georgia, and only marginally to reassert control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Its fundamental goal was to send a clear message to both Georgia and NATO that the former wasn't going to be a member of the latter in any foreseeable future.

In this sence, it was a remarkable victory for Russia, and a humiliating defeat for NATO.

Luís Henrique

[kashkin]

IIRC, there are videos of Georgian troops shooting at apartments in Ossetia. That said, it is basically a war between two imperialist powers: Russia who wants to show that it is still powerful after the fall of the USSR, and NATO via Georgia.

[Vendetta]

Neither Georgia nor Russia nor SO itself however operate based on any revolutionary notion.

Wait, was that a question?