• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Russian forces enter Georgia

F

Foxblade

Guest
I read about this on my phone during guard duty (lol). I dont exactly understand the story going on here.

I hope we dont get pulled into this conflict although I wouldnt doubt it.
 
man life gets fucked and more fucked every year!
 

Rofu

Der Brandfuchs
It's kinda hard to invade you're own country too. South Ossetia is not a country. It's a breakaway province, it acts like it is it's own country, but in fact they aren't. And I didn't say that they didn't need to be a country to have Allies, Russia was a peacekeeping force in South Ossetia, but now when the Georgians try to bring the region under control, they get caught in the crossfire and take a stance. That's at least how I've interpreted how Russia is involved here.

Oh please - Kosova, anyone?

Greetings,

-Rofu
 

eternal_flare

voice of guilmon!
Russia is being too desperate...it just needs to wait for a good excuse, the same way as US did.
 
I

Ishnuvalok

Guest
Oh please - Kosova, anyone?

Greetings,

-Rofu

Well, Kosovo (not Kosova, Kosovo) was recognized by many members of the United Nations, and was allowed to become a republic, unlike South Ossetia.
 

Rofu

Der Brandfuchs
Well, Kosovo (not Kosova, Kosovo) was recognized by many members of the United Nations, and was allowed to become a republic, unlike South Ossetia.

Oh, we are messing up the time frames, aren't we?
When NATO forces attacked Yugoslavia in 1999, not a single nation had recognized Kosovo as a nation, indepedent state, or whatever. The declaration of independence of February 17th 2008 - much later - was ever since only recognized by 45 of 192 members of the UN, among them mostly those who had directly or indirectly supported the war against Serbia, are allied with those countries or are their "satellites".
Based on that logic, South Ossetia would be as much legitimate to request and receive support as Kosovo was.

'Sides, the Russian Federation has directly linked its stance in the Ossetian question to the outcome of the Kosovo debate - If Kosovo achieves a total recognition of its independence, South Ossetia will be recognized by the Russians.

As for the name:
Kosova is the Albanian name, Kosovo Serbian.
Technically the name could be considered Serbian either way though, since the Albanian merely is an adaptation of the Serbian "belonging to the blackbird".
I will go with your preference from now on.


Greetings,

-Rofu
 
I

Ishnuvalok

Guest
Oh, we are messing up the time frames, aren't we?
When NATO forces attacked Yugoslavia in 1999, not a single nation had recognized Kosovo as a nation, indepedent state, or whatever. The declaration of independence of February 17th 2008 - much later - was ever since only recognized by 45 of 192 members of the UN, among them mostly those who had directly or indirectly supported the war against Serbia, are allied with those countries or are their "satellites".
Based on that logic, South Ossetia would be as much legitimate to request and receive support as Kosovo was.

My mistake then. Anyway, it seems that this conflict could turn into another war like the one in Yugoslavia.
 

Rofu

Der Brandfuchs
Great, propaganda. I'm not even going to watch this, as I don't like to waste my time.


That's a brilliant maneuver!
You dismiss whatever reason he might offer by providing the link, utilizing the fact that any other such reference, be it whatever, can also be described as propaganda since the term's definition is highly ambivalent, AND avoid going into further detail so you'd not get into the situation of having to provide evidence of your own!

Thou shalt be my god, from now on and forever!


-Rofu

PS: I think I am with the Russians on this one.
 

Azure

100% organic vegan hubbas
That's a brilliant maneuver!
You dismiss whatever reason he might offer by providing the link, utilizing the fact that any other such reference, be it whatever, can also be described as propaganda since the term's definition is highly ambivalent, AND avoid going into further detail so you'd not get into the situation of having to provide evidence of your own!

Thou shalt be my god, from now on and forever!


-Rofu

PS: I think I am with the Russians on this one.
How convenient, I truly saw that. Also, I've provided plenty of evidence in other threads. And propaganda is relative, yeah, but do you really think I believe, without any REAL proof, what's in that video?

Thou shalt be and alt account now and forever. This is really transparent.
 

Rofu

Der Brandfuchs
How convenient, I truly saw that.

As you have foreseen this response, I take it you have been preparing a daring argumentation behind the scene, which only initially seems so... You will find the words.
Now, enlighten me, please.

Also, I've provided plenty of evidence in other threads.

I must have missed them in the sheer mass of South-Ossetian threads which have emerged here. Mind to link me?

And propaganda is relative, yeah, but do you really think I believe, without any REAL proof, what's in that video?

The point is that you'd not know without watching it, so that you can not use it as basis for further arguing (unless you would watch it). To do so anyways implies that there is no serious intention to actually discuss the matter but to, in turn, propagate your own views.

And so, this is indeed...

... really transparent.

Quod erat demonsdrandum.

Greetings,

-Rofu
 

Azure

100% organic vegan hubbas
As you have foreseen this response, I take it you have been preparing a daring argumentation behind the scene, which only initially seems so... You will find the words.
Now, enlighten me, please.
And where is your daring argumentation? You've said naught but things about Kosovo, and not a word about WHY you support Russia.


I must have missed them in the sheer mass of South-Ossetian threads which have emerged here. Mind to link me?
Do your own research.


The point is that you'd not know without watching it, so that you can not use it as basis for further arguing (unless you would watch it). To do so anyways implies that there is no serious intention to actually discuss the matter but to, in turn, propagate your own views.
Same with you. I don't indulge in ridiculous fallacies like that video, as I have all the facts I'll need right here on the internet, for my OWN interpretation. And the facts are these. Russia is attacking a soverign nation that is attempting to bring one of it's provinces back under control. They have bombed and killed many citizens, some in GEORGIA as well. They have myriad political aspirations, including the installation of a pro Russian president. And they were savvy enough to have Sashikiilvi(sp?) to make the first move, when in fact, he was pretty much forced too. This is blatant Iron Curtainism, and the fact that you support a dictatorship with such poorly veiled ambitions makes it clear to me that you are easily taken by such, propaganda.

And so, this is indeed...



Quod erat demonsdrandum.

Greetings,

-Rofu
How clever, you know some latin, you want me to type in WingDings next?
 

Rofu

Der Brandfuchs
And where is your daring argumentation? You've said naught but things about Kosovo, and not a word about WHY you support Russia.

At this point, it should be noted that I also did not claim my position is self-evident, nor that I would have foreseen your argumentation. But on with the matter...

Do your own research.

Of your arguments? A little lazy, aren't we?

At the very least, a quick overview of your arguments would be nice, so I could address them at all.

Same with you. I don't indulge in ridiculous fallacies like that video, ...

Which you don't know.

... as I have all the facts I'll need right here on the internet, for my OWN interpretation.

Such as said video.

And the facts are these.

I thought we were just talking about interpretations of yours.

Russia is attacking a soverign nation that is attempting to bring one of it's provinces back under control. They have bombed and killed many citizens, some in GEORGIA as well.

Replace Russia by NATO and GEORGIA by Serbia, and there we are.
Still wondering why I am drawing up a comparison to Kosovo?
I am doing so to exemplify the general workings of intervention policy, and the fact that, however it may be the very same thing, "black-white" (as Orwell referred to it) enables the people to see it as legitimate when it's them who do it, whilst as nearly demonic when others use the same means.

They have myriad political aspirations, including the installation of a pro Russian president.

Presumption.

Of course, such practices are common.
i.e. Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan

And they were savvy enough to have Sashikiilvi(sp?) to make the first move, when in fact, he was pretty much forced too.

*Gasp!* These brutes! They actually waited until they were attacked, just to make it look like as if they were defending themselves!
But how did they force President Saakaschwili (assuming that's whom you are trying to talk about) to play into their hands, exactly?

This is blatant Iron Curtainism, ...

Isn't the historical phenomena usually referred to as the "Iron Curtain" the propagandist epitome of the tendency of one nation or group of nations to close their border and limit transit and trade to the absolute minimum to avoid cultural exchange and economical dependency with/from the perceived enemy? How does this apply here?
I mean, it sounds nice and all, since we are talking about Russia and some people haven't learned anything in the past 20 years, but... really, what does it have to do with this war?

... and the fact that you support a dictatorship with such poorly veiled ambitions makes it clear to me that you are easily taken by such, propaganda.

Trying to dismiss me in the same way as you dismissed the youtube-video posted by our Russian cheetah-friend? A simple loop-argument "Because you disagree, you are wrong - this we hold self-evident!".
Now, that's not nice, I am a living being.

Also, I would then ask you which country nowadays is not to be considered a "dictatorship with such poorly veiled ambitions".

As for Russia being a dictatorship: The Russian Federation employs a political system which actually places less power in a single individual than the United States of America do (which is a presidential republic, in contrast to the semi-presidential republic of Russia), a prime definition of dictatorship being the influence individuals hold unbound by public vote or opinion.

As for "poorly veiled ambitions": I believe I have presented it clearly that the general situation in Georgia and Serbia is at the very least comparable de facto, any actual moral evaluations aside (advanced subjectivism is nothing for this debate). I am sure you are aware that this is not the only example I could provide.

How clever, you know some latin, you want me to type in WingDings next?

I have read Schopenhauer, too. You are already dead. ~.^

In general, I am with the Russians here for two reasons:

No. 1:
I despise Georgian domestic politics. Since the change of the constitution in 2004, the president has the authority to block decisions of the parliament, even disband the parliament if it does not agree with the state budget for the third time in a row. If the parliament does not accept the government, which the president appoints, within 6 months after his election, he may just instate it. Since 2004 there have been numerous protests against the government which have been put down violently by the police. Specifically the oppression of left-wing movements is something common. Then, there is the issue of torture; Georgia is one of those countries specifically fond of this recently. Amnesty International had recorded about 600 cases between the end of 2003 and 2004, mostly conducted with stun guns, suffocation simulations and threats against family and loved ones.

No. 2:
The area is vital for the Russian Federation (Black Sea Pipeline). The presence of western troops there would be a direct threat to Russia's economical independence, or at the very least, perceived as such. Therefor, any development that leads in that direction has to be avoided. If that means to sacrifice a country which isn't specifically fond of human rights to begin with and is a coalition member, so be it. I respect the Russian interest in self-preservation and recognize their economical, political and military might.

Greetings,

-Rofu
 

Azure

100% organic vegan hubbas
Words, and then this...

The area is vital for the Russian Federation (Black Sea Pipeline). The presence of western troops there would be a direct threat to Russia's economical independence, or at the very least, perceived as such. Therefor, any development that leads in that direction has to be avoided. If that means to sacrifice a country which isn't specifically fond of human rights to begin with and is a coalition member, so be it. I respect the Russian interest in self-preservation and recognize their economical, political and military might.

Greetings,

-Rofu
You said it all right there, bud. This is a war for economic and political gain, when you boil it right down. Thanks for making my argument for me :).
 

Rofu

Der Brandfuchs
You said it all right there, bud. This is a war for economic and political gain, when you boil it right down. Thanks for making my argument for me :).

Look who's trying to get out easy by pulling Schopenhauer Trick 14! =D

Every single war, without exception, has an economic and political component, on both sides of the conflict.

Are you assuming that everybody else here is illiterate enough to not notice that I have drawn this conclusion myself there and before, and that, on the other paw, it has nothing to do with your previous contributions?

Don't be so keyboard-lazy, give us a point of your own now!

Greetings,

-Rofu
 

Thatch

Still not at 10k posts
No. 2:
The area is vital for the Russian Federation (Black Sea Pipeline). The presence of western troops there would be a direct threat to Russia's economical independence, or at the very least, perceived as such. Therefor, any development that leads in that direction has to be avoided. If that means to sacrifice a country which isn't specifically fond of human rights to begin with and is a coalition member, so be it. I respect the Russian interest in self-preservation and recognize their economical, political and military might.

Greetings,

-Rofu

I wouldn't concentrate so much on the pipeline, it's only a secondary matter, as on the political statement that whatever happens in the region is Russia's buisness. They want to keep the former USSR teritories still uder their influence, it's no mystery. Georgia wants to be a part of the western world, that is why Russia tries to view Georgia as the bad guy. And even though Russia is far from being a saint, Georgia isn't without guilt too. They on the other do the same with Osetia, which only makes the russian claims somewhat more justified.
I do not support Russia, but Georgia gave them the opportunity to be the 'liberators', so they brought it on themselves. And they will feel it.
 

Rofu

Der Brandfuchs
I personally chose the priorities for myself as I did, because the pipeline, unlike the claim of a sphere of interest based on historical borders, is a matter of economical need.
Of course, would Russia tolerate western forces in its declared sphere of influence, it would look like a display of weakness, in and of itself - not very desirable, either.
I should put some thought into this specific question, indeed.

Greetings,

-Rofu
 

Snowden

New Member
Russia is over-reacting now I guess .. they invaded Georgia while Georgian soldiers were still in South Ossetia.

"On Monday afternoon, Russian troops invaded Georgia from the western separatist province of Abkhazia while most Georgian forces were in the central region around South Ossetia."
 
Last edited:

Azure

100% organic vegan hubbas
Russia is over-reacting now I guess .. they invaded Georgia while Georgian soldiers were still in South Ossetia.

"On Monday afternoon, Russian troops invaded Georgia from the western separatist province of Abkhazia while most Georgian forces were in the central region around South Ossetia."
Predictable. It's all about their little regional games. Russia isn't interested in liberating anything, just controling things. They're still pretty pissed aboiut their little Soviet balls being clipped after the Cold War, and this is payback, plain and simple. Also, Rofu, I made my point. Russia is blatantly attacking a country that is not their business, for economic, political, and regional gains. Don't try to blow me over with that silly humanitarian huff puffery, you know the drill, and you blew yourself over with that statement about the pipeline. I pulled such a trick, so you call it, becuase it is the plain truth. Come up with something besides calling me some sort of stereotype.
 

Spotty_the_cheetah

Another one...
They're still pretty pissed aboiut their little Soviet balls being clipped after the Cold War, and this is payback, plain and simple.

b5eba440af948a98b4.jpg


Stereotypes power in action...
 

Spotty_the_cheetah

Another one...
Also, dude, I know as to solve our dispute. I'll buy to you the ticket aboard the plane to Georgia and you will look that there occurs, and also you will visit Ossetia. Thus you can speak about something, but having real proofs.
But remember, there is such concept as information war. When nobody knows it that actually occurs. Therefore having visited there you can estimate real conditions. Fairly, I dont really know what really occurs there. But you did not think that the western mass-media too could deform the information? In fact Russia for America - the natural competitor, they will use any opportunity to show us as villains.
 
Last edited:

Rofu

Der Brandfuchs
Russia is over-reacting now I guess .. they invaded Georgia while Georgian soldiers were still in South Ossetia.

"On Monday afternoon, Russian troops invaded Georgia from the western separatist province of Abkhazia while most Georgian forces were in the central region around South Ossetia."

I thought we were talking about war all the time.
Once you are in it, you try to win.

Russia isn't interested in liberating anything, just controling things.

Forgive me, but how do you tell the difference with so much confidence?

Also, Rofu, I made my point. Russia is blatantly attacking a country that is not their business, for economic, political, and regional gains. Don't try to blow me over with that silly humanitarian huff puffery, you know the drill, and you blew yourself over with that statement about the pipeline. I pulled such a trick, so you call it, becuase it is the plain truth. Come up with something besides calling me some sort of stereotype.

I do understand that you are avoiding to respond to what I wrote to keep up appearances, and that's fine, really, I understand the sentiment. It's hard to argue when you don't even understand the motivation of your interlocutor.

But you really shouldn't just act this out as if I would be one of those petty liberals and only bring up the arguments to which you already have the answer worked out. I mean, what would my point have been that this "blew me over", as you put it - It doesn't even relate.
In the spirit of this, just one more question before I leave you to lick your wounds: What silly humanitarian huff puffery (nice term, really) of mine do you refer to? I couldn't recall anything I said being deserving of such a... creative description.

Oh, and "blatantly attacking" doesn't work when your forces are under attack first. Remember? You have already pointed out that the Russians were "savvy enough" to avoid that.

Greetings,

-Rofu
 

Azure

100% organic vegan hubbas
I thought we were talking about war all the time.
Once you are in it, you try to win.



Forgive me, but how do you tell the difference with so much confidence?
It's pretty obvious from over here. Russia has a long history of humanitarian violations, and is pretty easily percieved as such. They have little concern for their so called citizens. Thus, i have no choice but to believe the opposite.
I do understand that you are avoiding to respond to what I wrote to keep up appearances, and that's fine, really, I understand the sentiment. It's hard to argue when you don't even understand the motivation of your interlocutor.
You motivation is pretty clear to me. You believe Russia is right in this, I believe they are wrong. What other motives would you possess?
But you really shouldn't just act this out as if I would be one of those petty liberals and only bring up the arguments to which you already have the answer worked out. I mean, what would my point have been that this "blew me over", as you put it - It doesn't even relate.
In the spirit of this, just one more question before I leave you to lick your wounds: What silly humanitarian huff puffery (nice term, really) of mine do you refer to? I couldn't recall anything I said being deserving of such a... creative description.
What is your point? You attempted to demonize a country and paint the other as some sort of liberator, and used humanitarian concerns to justify their invasion, when in fact, they have no sort of motivation. They are more concerned about their oil, and their control. That's why I called it Huff Puffery, because thats what it is. Also, how trite of you, lick my wounds indeed.

Oh, and "blatantly attacking" doesn't work when your forces are under attack first. Remember? You have already pointed out that the Russians were "savvy enough" to avoid that.
Indeed, which makes them the main instigators. Careful observation of facts will bring this to light however.
 
Top