Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What a remarkable piece of writing in Putin's Editorial at the NYT [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)166. And by that standard, the USA could send in troops to Syria and 'not be the aggressor'
and could launch cruise missiles at Damascus and 'not begin' anything. The Georgian government attacked some rebels inside Georgia; Russia attacked Georgia in response.
On the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, a sustained Georgian artillery attack struck the
town of Tskhinvali. Other movements of the Georgian armed forces targeting Tskhinvali
and the surrounding areas were under way, and soon the fighting involved Russian, South
Ossetian and Abkhaz military units and armed elements. It did not take long, however,
before the Georgian advance into South Ossetia was stopped. In a counter-movement,
Russian armed forces, covered by air strikes and by elements of its Black Sea fleet,
penetrated deep into Georgia, cutting across the countrys main east-west road, reaching
the port of Poti and stopping short of Georgias capital city, Tbilisi. The confrontation
developed into a combined inter-state and intra-state conflict, opposing Georgian and
Russian forces at one level of confrontation as well as South Ossetians together with
Abkhaz fighters and the Georgians at another. Such a combination of conflicts going on at
different levels is particularly prone to violations of International Humanitarian Law and
Human Rights Law. This is indeed what happened, and many of these instances were due
to the action of irregular armed groups on the South Ossetian side that would not or could
not be adequately controlled by regular Russian armed forces. Then another theatre of
hostility opened on the western flank, where Abkhaz forces supported by Russian forces
took the upper Kodori Valley, meeting with little Georgian resistance. After five days of
fighting, a ceasefire agreement was negotiated on 12 August 2008 between Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, the latter acting on behalf of the European Union. An implementation
agreement followed on 8 September 2008, again largely due to the persistent efforts of the
French President. This successful political action stood in contrast to the failure of the
international community, including the UN Security Council, to act swiftly and resolutely
enough in order to control the ever-mounting tensions prior the outbreak of armed conflict.
Since then, however, with the exception of the establishment of an EU Monitoring Mission
(EUMM) and the Geneva talks, almost no progress has been made in the difficult process
of establishing peace and stability in the region. The situation remains tense and volatile,
and there are many who fear a resumption of hostilities.
...
It is true that a number of contentious legal issues resulting from the break-up of
the Soviet Union also played their part in setting the stage for the armed conflict that was
to follow in August 2008. The issue of self-determination of South Ossetians and Abkhaz
as well as their right to unilateral secession from Georgia are two legal issues related to the
conflict. Both South Ossetians and Abkhaz consider their right to self-determination as the
legal basis for their quest for sovereignty and independence of the respective territories.
However, international law does not recognise a right to unilaterally create a new state
based on the principle of self-determination outside the colonial context and apartheid. An
extraordinary acceptance to secede under extreme conditions such as genocide has so far
not found general acceptance. As will be shown later, in the case of the conflict in August
2008 and the ensuing recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Mission has found
that genocide did not take place. Furthermore, much of international state practice and the
explicit views of major powers such as Russia in the Kosovo case stand against it. This
applies also to a process of dismemberment of a state, as might be discussed with regard to
Georgia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. According to the overwhelmingly
accepted uti possidetis principle, only former constituent republics such as Georgia but not
territorial sub-units such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia are granted independence in case of
dismemberment of a larger entity such as the former Soviet Union. Hence, South Ossetia
did not have a right to secede from Georgia, and the same holds true for Abkhazia for
much of the same reasons. Recognition of breakaway entities such as Abkhazia and South
Ossetia by a third country is consequently contrary to international law in terms of an
unlawful interference in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the affected country,
which is Georgia. It runs against Principle I of the Helsinki Final Act which states the
participating States will respect each others sovereign equality and individuality as well as
all the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in particular the
right of every State to juridical equality, to territorial integrity and to freedom and political
independence.
http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_I.pdf
town of Tskhinvali. Other movements of the Georgian armed forces targeting Tskhinvali
and the surrounding areas were under way, and soon the fighting involved Russian, South
Ossetian and Abkhaz military units and armed elements. It did not take long, however,
before the Georgian advance into South Ossetia was stopped. In a counter-movement,
Russian armed forces, covered by air strikes and by elements of its Black Sea fleet,
penetrated deep into Georgia, cutting across the countrys main east-west road, reaching
the port of Poti and stopping short of Georgias capital city, Tbilisi. The confrontation
developed into a combined inter-state and intra-state conflict, opposing Georgian and
Russian forces at one level of confrontation as well as South Ossetians together with
Abkhaz fighters and the Georgians at another. Such a combination of conflicts going on at
different levels is particularly prone to violations of International Humanitarian Law and
Human Rights Law. This is indeed what happened, and many of these instances were due
to the action of irregular armed groups on the South Ossetian side that would not or could
not be adequately controlled by regular Russian armed forces. Then another theatre of
hostility opened on the western flank, where Abkhaz forces supported by Russian forces
took the upper Kodori Valley, meeting with little Georgian resistance. After five days of
fighting, a ceasefire agreement was negotiated on 12 August 2008 between Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, the latter acting on behalf of the European Union. An implementation
agreement followed on 8 September 2008, again largely due to the persistent efforts of the
French President. This successful political action stood in contrast to the failure of the
international community, including the UN Security Council, to act swiftly and resolutely
enough in order to control the ever-mounting tensions prior the outbreak of armed conflict.
Since then, however, with the exception of the establishment of an EU Monitoring Mission
(EUMM) and the Geneva talks, almost no progress has been made in the difficult process
of establishing peace and stability in the region. The situation remains tense and volatile,
and there are many who fear a resumption of hostilities.
...
It is true that a number of contentious legal issues resulting from the break-up of
the Soviet Union also played their part in setting the stage for the armed conflict that was
to follow in August 2008. The issue of self-determination of South Ossetians and Abkhaz
as well as their right to unilateral secession from Georgia are two legal issues related to the
conflict. Both South Ossetians and Abkhaz consider their right to self-determination as the
legal basis for their quest for sovereignty and independence of the respective territories.
However, international law does not recognise a right to unilaterally create a new state
based on the principle of self-determination outside the colonial context and apartheid. An
extraordinary acceptance to secede under extreme conditions such as genocide has so far
not found general acceptance. As will be shown later, in the case of the conflict in August
2008 and the ensuing recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Mission has found
that genocide did not take place. Furthermore, much of international state practice and the
explicit views of major powers such as Russia in the Kosovo case stand against it. This
applies also to a process of dismemberment of a state, as might be discussed with regard to
Georgia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. According to the overwhelmingly
accepted uti possidetis principle, only former constituent republics such as Georgia but not
territorial sub-units such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia are granted independence in case of
dismemberment of a larger entity such as the former Soviet Union. Hence, South Ossetia
did not have a right to secede from Georgia, and the same holds true for Abkhazia for
much of the same reasons. Recognition of breakaway entities such as Abkhazia and South
Ossetia by a third country is consequently contrary to international law in terms of an
unlawful interference in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the affected country,
which is Georgia. It runs against Principle I of the Helsinki Final Act which states the
participating States will respect each others sovereign equality and individuality as well as
all the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in particular the
right of every State to juridical equality, to territorial integrity and to freedom and political
independence.
http://www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_Volume_I.pdf
Tskhinvali is, of course, in South Ossetia in Georgia.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
191 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What a remarkable piece of writing in Putin's Editorial at the NYT [View all]
nadinbrzezinski
Sep 2013
OP
Oh that Putin, who jails journalists and LGBT - but who cares today? He writes so great!!!
CakeGrrl
Sep 2013
#3
It is nice when people do nuance and critical thinking instead of black and white. nt
Mojorabbit
Sep 2013
#187
Technically, I think his is the country that might have vetoed the resolution that
DLnyc
Sep 2013
#8
Yes, Yes, use the system my and the other democracy loving country of China continually throw
Fla Dem
Sep 2013
#104
Please don't let us catch you complaining about authoritarianism, mmkay? Nt
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#21
difference is that Obama isn't out there opposing gun control the way Putin pushes anti Gay
JI7
Sep 2013
#48
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!! "TRUST"! "ADMIRATION"! "WEEPY SLOBBERY LOVE"!
sibelian
Sep 2013
#52
And now, he's gonna 'work' for this exceptional goal of ridding his beloved a$$had of
Amonester
Sep 2013
#34
That is indeed high praise coming from an expert writer such as yourself
Pretzel_Warrior
Sep 2013
#36
unless the draft got lost under 3 meters of hail so it could bever be delivered to the NYT...
dionysus
Sep 2013
#159
Actually, there really were a lot of freedom-fighters escaping from religious and political
JDPriestly
Sep 2013
#49
one can only get caught making shit up about themselves so many times before they become a complete
dionysus
Sep 2013
#186
With all it's defects, the veto was a product of the failure of the League of Nations.
nadinbrzezinski
Sep 2013
#141
I find it amazing how very nasty some on DU can be when one of us simply states his/her opinion
emsimon33
Sep 2013
#80
Russia's use of force against Georgia 5 years ago would meet Putin's definition of an act of
pampango
Sep 2013
#83
The Georgian president provoked the attacks and was a buddy of the neocons nt
soundsgreat
Sep 2013
#91
Even so, the Russian response using force meets Putin's definition of an act of aggression.
pampango
Sep 2013
#93
I understand that Russia did not start it. My point is that Russia's military response meets Putin's
pampango
Sep 2013
#107
And by that standard, the USA could send in troops to Syria and 'not be the aggressor'
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2013
#166
cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
Martin Eden
Sep 2013
#85
How you think you can be taken seriously with a post like that is astounding.
go west young man
Sep 2013
#106
well, you used to just say people were incapable of comprehending your brilliance
ProdigalJunkMail
Sep 2013
#182
I have lived in four countries and spent copious amounts of time in a half dozen more
Number23
Sep 2013
#111
Putin: A Gentleman, A Scholar, A Peaceful Man, Who Only Wants Wants What's Best for Everybody!
Skraxx
Sep 2013
#121
He makes some good points, but the "false flag" accusation ruins the entire article IMO.
DanTex
Sep 2013
#149