Comments:Georgian President declares country is in 'state of war'

It is HEAVILY disputed who was the agressor in the days leading to this war. Ask yourselves these questions,

1. Who will have long-term gain from this war ?

2. Why would a nation of 8 million attack a region(of their own country) supported by a nation of 140 million?

3. What resources does the disputed region possess that might be of interest ?


 * This is demagogy. These are double standards. The same three questions might be asked about Kosovo peacekeeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.40.15.48 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As a final note, I, as a Scandinavian, would like to add that the Russias explanation of why they got involved in the conflict (Vladimir Putin said that he could not stand on the sidelines and watch russian citicens get killed, and that the wanted to help the people of a disputed region) was given when they invaded Finland in 1939.

Quote:Christian Waselius, student, department of History, University of Helsinki, Finland (14th January, 2002)

In the article written by Mr. Tarnovsky it is said that "Finnish troops attacked Soviet territory with artillery fire" on November 26th 1939. This incident that happened in the small village Mainila, was made by Soviet troops and put up as a reason for the Red Army to attack Finland. Finnish frontier guards also recognized the explosions on the Soviet side of the border. For that time being, the closest Finnish artillery guns were placed so far away from Mainila that it would have been impossible to reach the place with artillery gun fire. Finland´s government wanted to negotiate and asked for a withdrawal of the troops on both sides of the border. The soviet Foreign Minister Mr. Molotov cut off all diplomatic connections with Finland and the Red Army attacked Finland on November 30th 1939. The Soviet Union officially apologized for the provocative artillery act in 1990.


 * I think it is pretty clear that both sides are the aggressor here. Georgia thought that the US would back it up. As soon as the US said it wouldn't support Georgia over Russia in this instance, Georgia started withdrawing troops and called for a ceasefire. Georgia wanted the land. Russia, on the other hand, wanted the land. Totally different motivations, as you can see:P. The leaders of both those countries need to be locked in a small room for several years and beaten with pointy sticks 5 times a day. Gopher65talk 17:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this "pretty clear" ?, Would you personally "assume" the backing of the US when starting a military conflict with a superpower? :). Something is strange about the mainstream medias reporting of this case. In the future, we will know what the real intentins are. I would not be amazed if georgia is under complete Russian occupation in a couple of months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.173.243 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The government of Georgia is pro-US and has been for a long time. Russia has been trying to squeeze Georgia and take back provinces piecemeal for quite some time. The US does not want this to happen, thus they have been giving huge amounts of military support to Georgia, including, but not limited to, trying to get Georgia into NATO. If Georgia had made it into NATO a few months back then we would be in the middle of a World War right now. The Georgian president assumed that the US would continue the unequivocal military support that has given Georgia in the past, but the US is busy right now, and it needs Russia onside for some of the things it is trying to do (like squeezing Iran into dust). Therefore the US made a political decision not to give indirect military aid to Georgia during this war. This made it impossible for Georgia to fight, so they've essentially unilaterally declared peace now. Pretty simple:P. Russia won. Gopher65talk 17:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why, why, why?
Remember Kosovo? Independence, independence!! from the Evil serbs, with more US flags than kosovar ones... One of the things the russians asked in return was South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are very, but very similar... All of them declared independence from the countries they were part of. The majority of the population in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia are russians, and, like Kosovo, they had their referendums for independence.

Like the US in Kosovo, Russia has increased their presence (military, political and economical) in both of those regions, because "international policy" decided it would be so. What happens is, that US elections are very, very near, and the resolution of this issue has "some" urgency, in order to avoid putting this on the shoulders of the new US president, and also, to avoid worsening the image of a USA led by him.

You must understand this... If you get something, you MUST give something back. This is what happened. Regarding Kosovo, the US and the UK didn't care about international laws. They wanted territory. The russians are doing the same.

That's how it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.117.52 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)