Comments:Russian troops advance into Georgia, violating truce

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Newscaster
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

The Russians basically agreed to a ceasefire, but then just threw it out the window after opportunity struck, and violated the territory of a sovereign nation. I am, however, surprised that the Georgian military retreated from Gori to Tbilisi. They could have given the Russians a great street fight and inflicted heavy casualties, but instead they just ran. Saakashvili will soon need a new tie....--Newscaster (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Georgia's humiliation...Reply

The day before this, mr. Saakashvili spoke to a crowd, on live TV that they had defeated the Evil Russians... So, the russians, today, made a demonstration of power... They cruised slowly along georgian roads, for all georgians to see, without any resistance.

Oh, I forgot... the russian convoy, just before arriving Tbilissi, turned back and headed home. This was just humiliation with a bit of provocation.


Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has stated that he thinks the Western response to this situation has been inadequate.

Well, boohoo. How is it my problem that some goofy little nation that isn't even part of NATO has come under attack for aggressing Russia? If you want to lead an unilateral security policy against Russia, you better damn well be prepared to deal unilaterally with the consequences. -- 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

when i watch his speech he said Georgia will not be defeated.--KDP3 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Of course he did... That's why the russians made a military parade inside his country. "If you won, if you drove us back, what the hell are we doing in here?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Georgia was trying really hard to join NATO for some time now. Int19h (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Had they been in NATO already, Russia would not invade them. Lysy (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about Georgia's policy for military service, but they obviously needed an anti-occupation policy, meaning you train a very large number of ordinary civilians as snipers. Nyarlathotep (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hoho! Maby they will join O*s*a*m*a b*i*n L*a*d*e*n. /s (Or is that satire? Osama was a part of CIA:s war against Russia in Afganistan. Osama last years organising 'anti-occupation policy' in Iraq and... Afganistan. Damn. This start to be too complicated for my small brain.) *goes somewhere else* international (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, asymmetric warfare techniques are quite effective at preventing occupation. Swiss have ben doing this forever. Small nations sharing a border with large aggressive nations should normally have mandatory military service and keep their population armed. It looks like Georgia has a voluntary national guard, not a mandatory one. Nyarlathotep (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A buddy of mine who visited Georgia says that their unofficial military recruitment policy = if 1) recruitment party sees you on street and 2) you don't have $50 on you (that's 50 American, natch), then you're in. Of course, that was a few years ago (not to mention the moral equivalent of what some guy told me in a bar). But if that's the case, you could see why they didn't put up a better showing against the Russians. Not that tiny postage stamp country vs. former superpower could go much differently. 00:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

We did not need this, and by we, I mean the world. Is Russia trying to go to war with the U.S.?--MasterRyu (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is typical of the Russian state since Putin came to power to say one thing;that its actions are purely defensive -i.e.protecting Russina citizens,whilst doing another.Not only are most of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians not ethnically Russian ( rather conveniently administrative Russians by virtue of extension of passport priveleges) but Russia is a relative new comer to this region since ."The Great Game"imperialist push by Russia into this part of the world started from the beginning of the nineteenth century.Russia is merely engaging in a neo-Czarist imperialism, by engaging in a "they started it mantra"to deny that they are their pushing their own agenda- way beyond just occupying South Ossetia.How much respect do they have for self-dtermination of small ethnic groups ; ask the Chechyens.Putin must remember that the rest ofthe world has access to multiple sources of information and can see right through his lies ,no matter how syncophantic the Rusian public is, deprived of a true free press.Beware the Baltics where so called "standing up"byPutin for ethnic Russians (actually colonialist invaders) will be used as a pretext for further violations of sovereignty.Remember Hitler and the Sudeten Germans! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.schon (talkcontribs) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply