KGBMan:

can't understand that. US has a history of attacking first, sometimes with little or no reason at all.

Only wars it thinks it can win with very few losses.  Lord knows, that's not always the case, but these are miscalculations.  Here - its obvious. US has never done anything so obviously dangerous.  

KGBMan:

Russia on another hand , has next to nothing in this category.

Again, your perception is not common.  To be more exact, it does not exist outside of the Kremlin..  You can see that, can't you?

KGBMan:

US populaton will do what it's told, like it always does. They simply don;t know anything about outside word.
Examples of Serbia and Iraq are perfect examples of how population can be made believe anything .

Like I wrote to pps, both of these wars carried no personal sacarifices on the parts of the vast majority of those who supported each of them.  They presented no threat to US civilians at home.  This has always been the decisionmaker in US thinking... the public weighs it most heavily.  I would say more than any other consideration.  

Ok, let's compare than.
Prior to WWII US was perfectly fine with USSR and was actively helping rebuild the country.
Isolationism was very popular and one vote away from becoming a state policy.
All eyes were on neighbors and all aggressions were confined to it's own part of the globe.

Today, US officialy names the whole world it's interests territory.
It has bases through the world, mingles in almost every conflict and has started way more wars that prior to 1941.

I see a huge difference here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

Yes, US moral principles are very flexible, I know. We have to be thankfull that US kills only 1000 babies a year, instead of 1000000 ... ya, I know.

I AM thankful. Ideally, having spent the last century in confronting fascism, communism, and now, lord help us, islamo-fascism, zero dead babies would be ideal.  but then someone else would have to do the work.. France maybe..

Egor:

KGBMan:

can't understand that. US has a history of attacking first, sometimes with little or no reason at all.

Only wars it thinks it can win with very few losses.  Lord knows, that's not always the case, but these are miscalculations.  Here - its obvious. US has never done anything so obviously dangerous. 

Ok, so we agree - US pattern of behavior is more aggressive historically. great. 

KGBMan:

Russia on another hand , has next to nothing in this category.

Again, your perception is not common.  To be more exact, it does not exist outside of the Kremlin..  You can see that, can't you?

It's not my perception, it's historical facts.
If western population doesn't know the facts, it's their own damn fault.

KGBMan:

US populaton will do what it's told, like it always does. They simply don;t know anything about outside word.
Examples of Serbia and Iraq are perfect examples of how population can be made believe anything .

Like I wrote to pps, both of these wars carried no personal sacarifices on the parts of the vast majority of those who supported each of them.  They presented no threat to US civilians at home.  This has always been the decisionmaker in US thinking... the public weighs it most heavily.  I would say more than any other consideration.  

Yes, and new war with Russia will carry same kind of risks, if missile "defense" systems will continue to be deployed around Russia and if NATO bases will continue to advance closer to it's territory.
US never starts wars it doesn't think it can will.
They are not ready for this war, but they trying to be, very hard.
That's what so scary about US policies towards Russia.

Ok, let's compare than.
Prior to WWII US was perfectly fine with USSR and was actively helping rebuild the country.
Isolationism was very popular and one vote away from becoming a state policy.
All eyes were on neighbors and all aggressions were confined to it's own part of the globe.

Today, US officialy names the whole world it's interests territory.
It has bases through the world, mingles in almost every conflict and has started way more wars that prior to 1941.

I see a huge difference here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

Excactly

Yes, US moral principles are very flexible, I know. We have to be thankfull that US kills only 1000 babies a year, instead of 1000000 ... ya, I know.

I AM thankful. Ideally, having spent the last century in confronting fascism, communism, and now, lord help us, islamo-fascism, zero dead babies would be ideal.  but then someone else would have to do the work.. France maybe..

 

You mean riping the fruits from someone else's confrontation with fashizm, then supporting more US friendly versions of fashizm in Chili and other places, saving countless nazi war criminals for own usage, building whole Space program using nazi criminal ? Right ?

Supporting dictarships and death squads ?

Have you ever though that if US wasn't showing it's nose into every hell hole on the planet, than maybe less babies would have died ?

I'm scared of people who say, "yeah, we kill babies, but we could kill more, so be thankfull we don't" ..... really scary. But typical anglo-saxon way of thinking.... "бремя белого человека" нах....

KGBMan:

I'm scared of people who say, "yeah, we kill babies, but we could kill more, so be thankfull we don't" ..... really scary. But typical anglo-saxon way of thinking.... "бремя белого человека" нах....

Ой, не надо ля-ля, Гебист.  Не маленькие уже, ей богу.  Нельзя в вакууме смотреть, СССР младенцев не одного не задели сражаясь за свои выдуманные интересы?  Про Африку с Азией вообще молчу - ордена им всем по защите детей.  Одни саксоны цивилизацию срамят перед всей галактикой.

Другое дело, что иногда интересы этого не стОят.  А иногда стОят.  Это уже вопросы посложнее, моё отношение ты знаешь, я вообще без пяти минут пацифист.  Не бойся меня так :)  За всё жизнь не одного младенца не тронул.  Честно.

Но из людей идиотов строить, я не собираюсь.  Тем, за что погибали младенцы, мы все пользовались и там и здесь..  так что..

KGBMan:

Egor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

Excactly

ну ты хоть бы кликнул.. 

you said:

Just compare what America was prior to WWII and today and you'll see a huge different in policies, government and people and their opinions.
You cannot compare country on the verge of isolationism with country that bombs people left and right for no particular reason.

Isolationism was very popular and one vote away from becoming a state policy.
All eyes were on neighbors and all aggressions were confined to it's own part of the globe.

Reality:

1900 – China. May 24 to September 28. Boxer Rebellion American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer rising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened.^[RL30172]

1901 – Colombia (State of Panama). November 20 to December 4. Panamanian Revolution US forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.^[RL30172]

1902 – Colombia. - April 16 to 23. US forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.^[RL30172]

1902 – Colombia (State of Panama). September 17 to November 18. The United States placed armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops.^[RL30172]

1903 – Honduras. March 23 to 30 or 31. US forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortes during a period of revolutionary activity.^[RL30172]

1903 – Dominican Republic. March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.^[RL30172]

1903 – Syria. September 7 to 12. US forces protected the American consulate in Beirut when a local Moslem uprising was feared.^[RL30172]

1903-04 – Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Twenty-five marines were sent to Abyssinia to protect the US Consul General while he negotiated a treaty.^[RL30172]

1903-14 – Panama. US forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914 to guard American interests.^[RL30172]

1904 – Dominican Republic. January 2 to February 11. American and British naval forces established an area in which no fighting would be allowed and protected American interests in Puerto Plata and Sosua and Santo Domingo City during revolutionary fighting.^[RL30172]

1904 – Tangier, Morocco. "We want either Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." A squadron demonstrated to force release of a kidnapped American. Marines were landed to protect the consul general.^[RL30172]

1904 – Panama. November 17 to 24. U.S forces protected American lives and property at Ancon at the time of a threatened insurrection.^[RL30172]

1904-05 -- Korea. - January 5, 1904, to November 11, 1905. A guard of Marines was sent to protect the American legation in Seoul during the Russo-Japanese War.^[RL30172]

1906-09 -- Cuba. - September 1906 to January 23, 1909. US forces sought to protect interests and re-establish a government after revolutionary activity.^[RL30172]

1907 -- Honduras. - March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortes, San Pedro Sula, Laguna and Choloma.^[RL30172]

1910 -- Nicaragua. - May 19 to September 4, 1910. Occupation of Nicaragua US forces protected American interests at Bluefields.^[RL30172]

[

1911 -- Honduras. - January 26. American naval detachments were landed to protect American lives and interests during a civil war in Honduras.^[RL30172]

1911 -- China. As the Tongmenghui-led Xinhai Revolution approached, in October an ensign and 10 men tried to enter Wuchang to rescue missionaries but retired on being warned away, and a small landing force guarded American private property and consulate at Hankow. Marines were deployed in November to guard the cable stations at Shanghai; landing forces were sent for protection in Nanking, Chinkiang, Taku and elsewhere.^[RL30172]

1912 -- Honduras. A small force landed to prevent seizure by the government of an American-owned railroad at Puerto Cortes. The forces were withdrawn after the United States disapproved the action.^[RL30172]

1912 -- Panama. Troops, on request of both political parties, supervised elections outside the Panama Canal Zone.^[RL30172]

1912 -- Cuba, June 5 to August 5. U.S. forces protected American interests in the province of Oriente and in Havana.^[RL30172]

1912 -- China. - August 24 to 26, on Kentucky Island, and August 26 to 30 at Camp Nicholson. US forces protected Americans and American interests during the Xinhai Revolution.^[RL30172]

1912 -- Turkey. - November 18 to December 3. U.S. forces guarded the American legation at Constantinople during the First Balkan War^[RL30172]

1912-25 -- Nicaragua. - August to November 1912. U.S. forces protected American interests during an attempted revolution. A small force, serving as a legation guard and seeking to promote peace and stability, remained until August 5, 1925.^[RL30172]

1912-41 -- China. The disorders which began with the overthrow of the dynasty during Kuomintang rebellion in 1912, which were redirected by the invasion of China by Japan, led to demonstrations and landing parties for the protection of US interests in China continuously and at many points from 1912 on to 1941. The guard at Peking and along the route to the sea was maintained until 1941. In 1927, the United States had 5,670 troops ashore in China and 44 naval vessels in its waters. In 1933 the United States had 3,027 armed men ashore. The protective action was generally based on treaties with China concluded from 1858 to 1901.^[RL30172]

1913 -- Mexico. - September 5 to 7. A few marines landed at Ciaris Estero to aid in evacuating American citizens and others from the Yaqui Valley, made dangerous for foreigners by civil strife.^[RL30172]

1914 -- Haiti. - January 29 to February 9, February 20 to 21, October 19. Intermittently US naval forces protected American nationals in a time of rioting and revolution.^[RL30172] The specific order from the Secretary of the Navy to the invasion commander, Admiral William Deville Bundy, was to "protect American and foreign" interests.^{[citation needed]}

1914 -- Dominican Republic. - June and July. During a revolutionary movement, United States naval forces by gunfire stopped the bombardment of Puerto Plata, and by threat of force maintained Santo Domingo City as a neutral zone.^[RL30172]

1914-17 -- Mexico. Tampico Affair led to Occupation of Veracruz, Mexico. Undeclared Mexican--American hostilities followed the Tampico affair and Villa's raids . Also Pancho Villa Expedition) -- an abortive military operation conducted by the United States Army against the military forces of Francisco "Pancho" Villa from 1916 to 1917 and included capture of Vera Cruz. On March 19, 1915 on orders from President Woodrow Wilson, and with tacit consent by Venustiano Carranza General John J. Pershing led an invasion force of 10,000 men into Mexico to capture Villa.^[RL30172]

1915-34 -- Haiti. - July 28, 1915, to August 15, 1934. United States occupation of Haiti 1915-1934 US forces maintained order during a period of chronic political instability.^[RL30172] During the initial entrance into Haiti, the specific order from the Secretary of the Navy to the invasion commander, Admiral William Deville Bundy, was to "protect American and foreign" interests.^{[citation needed]}

1916 -- China. American forces landed to quell a riot taking place on American property in Nanking.^[RL30172]

1916-24 -- Dominican Republic. - May 1916 to September 1924. Occupation of the Dominican Republic American naval forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.^[RL30172]

1917 -- China. American troops were landed at Chungking to protect American lives during a political crisis.^[RL30172]

1917-18 -- World War I. On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war with Germany and on December 7, 1917, with Austria-Hungary. Entrance of the United States into the war was precipitated by Germany's submarine warfare against neutral shipping.^[RL30172]

1917-22 -- Cuba. US forces protected American interests during insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions. Most of the United States armed forces left Cuba by August 1919, but two companies remained at Camaguey until February 1922.^[RL30172]

1918-19 -- Mexico. After withdrawal of the Pershing expedition, US troops entered Mexico in pursuit of bandits at least three times in 1918 and six times in 1919. In August 1918 American and Mexican troops fought at Nogales, due to a crime committed by three drunk American soldiers.^[RL30172]

1918-20 -- Panama. US forces were used for police duty according to treaty stipulations, at Chiriqui, during election disturbances and subsequent unrest.^[RL30172]

1918-20 -- Soviet Union. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the western front. A joint proclamation of emergency government and neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French, and Czech commanders in July. In August 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and remained until June 1919. These operations were in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Czarist or Kerensky elements. ^[RL30172] For details, see the American Expeditionary Force Siberia and the American Expeditionary Force North Russia.

1919 -- Dalmatia (Croatia). US forces were landed at Trau at the request of Italian authorities to police order between the Italians and Serbs.^[RL30172]

1919 -- Turkey. Marines from the USS Arizona were landed to guard the US Consulate during the Greek occupation of Constantinople.^[RL30172]

1919 -- Honduras. - September 8 to 12. A landing force was sent ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution.^[RL30172]

[

1920 -- China. - March 14. A landing force was sent ashore for a few hours to protect lives during a disturbance at Kiukiang.^[RL30172]

1920 -- Guatemala. - April 9 to 27. US forces protected the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala.^[RL30172]

1920-22 -- Russia (Siberia). - February 16, 1920, to November 19, 1922. A Marine guard was sent to protect the United States radio station and property on Russian Island, Bay of Vladivostok.^[RL30172]

1921 -- Panama - Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.^[RL30172]

1922 -- Turkey. - September and October. A landing force was sent ashore with consent of both Greek and Turkish authorities, to protect American lives and property when the Turkish nationalists entered İzmir (Smyrna.^[RL30172]

1922-23 -- China. Between April 1922 and November 1923, Marines were landed five times to protect Americans during periods of unrest.^[RL30172]

1924 -- Honduras. - February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. U.S. forces protected American lives and interests during election hostilities.^[RL30172]

1924 -- China. - September. Marines were landed to protect Americans and other foreigners in Shanghai during Chinese factional hostilities.^[RL30172]

1925 -- China. - January 15 to August 29. Fighting of Chinese factions accompanied by riots and demonstrations in Shanghai brought the landing of American forces to protect lives and property in the International Settlement.^[RL30172]

1925 -- Honduras. - April 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.^[RL30172]

1925 -- Panama. - October 12 to 23. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests. ^[RL30172]

1926-33 -- Nicaragua. - May 7 to June 5, 1926; August 27, 1926, to January 3, 1933. The coup d'état of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American marines to protect the interests of the United States. United States forces came and went intermittently until January 3, 1933.^[RL30172]

1926 -- China. - August and September. The Nationalist attack on Hankow brought the landing of American naval forces to protect American citizens. A small guard was maintained at the consulate general even after September 16, when the rest of the forces were withdrawn. Likewise, when Nationalist forces captured Kiukiang, naval forces were landed for the protection of foreigners November 4 to 6.^[RL30172]

1927 -- China. - February. Fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and marines to be increased. In March a naval guard was stationed at American consulate at Nanking after Nationalist forces captured the city. American and British destroyers later used shell fire to protect Americans and other foreigners. Subsequently additional forces of marines and naval forces were stationed in the vicinity of Shanghai and Tientsin.^[RL30172]

[

1932 -- China. American forces were landed to protect American interests during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai.^[RL30172]

1933 -- Cuba. During a revolution against President Gerardo Machado naval forces demonstrated but no landing was made.^[RL30172]

1934 -- China. Marines landed at Foochow to protect the American Consulate

Egor:

No one is paying for this, and if some sado-masochistic generation eventually does, it certainly is not a shirt off the back of any individual who supported this war.  No one reasons this way. 

Let me introduce you to the sadomasochistic generation:

They could have lowered the taxes more and not pay for the war

They could have funded renewable energy program instead of the war

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs?location_type=1&state=13&program=577&tradeoff_item_item=371&submit_tradeoffs=Get+Trade+Off

Instead they borrow money from China and other countries and fund the war thus putting pressure on the dollar and letting their economy to be impacted and inflation eat up a bit of money from those who has them. Or maybe somebody offshore would take some additional jobs here simply because that someone can charge a lower rate because his taxes are not so high.

So don’t take me wrong, someone is paying for this.

From Spiegel:

____________________

ID SAAKASHVILI LIE?

The West Begins to Doubt Georgian Leader

By SPIEGEL Staff

Five weeks after the war in the Caucasus the mood is shifting against Georgian President Saakashvili. Some Western intelligence reports have undermined Tbilisi's version of events, and there are now calls on both sides of the Atlantic for an independent investigation.

 

AP

Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili visits Gori last week.

Hillary Clinton looks tired. It is Tuesday of last week as she sits, exhausted, in the United States Senate. Even her outfit, a beige blazer over a black T-shirt, looks washed out.

 

Gone is the glamour of the Democratic Convention in Denver, where the party nominated Barack Obama as its presidential candidate, and gone is the dream of her own presidential candidacy in 2008. Instead, it's back to business as usual for Clinton. The Senate Armed Service Committee is in session, discussing the conflict between Russia and its tiny neighbor, Georgia.

Clinton speaks late in the debate. Even her voice sounds tired. But politically she is still her old self, and she cuts right to the chase.

"Did we embolden the Georgians in any way" to use military force? she asks the members of the committee. Did the Bush administration really warn Moscow and Georgia sufficiently about the consequences of a war? And how could it be that the United States was so taken by surprise by this outbreak of hostilities? These questions, says Clinton, should be examined by a US commission, which should "in the first place determine the actual facts."

 

FROM THE MAGAZINE

Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication.

Although Clinton speaks for only a few minutes, her words show that the mood toward Georgia is shifting in the United States.

 

For Americans, wasn't this war in the faraway Caucasus -- over there in the Old World -- nothing but a struggle between a giant, expansionist country and a small, democratic nation it was seeking to subjugate? And wasn't Georgia attacked merely "because we want to be free," as President Mikhail Saakashvili was saying in front of CNN's cameras almost hourly?

"Today, we are all Georgians," Republican presidential candidate John McCain declared. The neoconservative commentator Robert Kagan compared the Russian action with the ***' 1938 invasion of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. And in a meeting with US Vice President Richard Cheney, Saakashvili was assured of Washington's support for his most fervent wish: admission to NATO.

But now, five weeks after the end of the war in the Caucasus, the winds have shifted in America. Even Washington is beginning to suspect that Saakashvili, a friend and ally, could in fact be a gambler -- someone who triggered the bloody five-day war and then told the West bold-faced lies. "The concerns about Russia have remained," says Paul Sanders, an expert on Russia and the director of the conservative Nixon Center in Washington. His words reflect the continuing Western assessment that Russia's military act of revenge against the tiny Caucasus nation Georgia was disproportionate, that Moscow violated international law by recognizing the separatist republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and, finally, that it used Georgia as a vehicle to showcase its imperial renaissance.

 

RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS

• Russia and the West: The Cold Peace (09/01/2008)

• Interview with Former Secretary of State Albright:'The Russians Have Crossed a Red Line'(09/01/2008)

• Georgian Tanks vs. Ossetian Teenagers: The Story of Tskhinvali's Resistance(08/26/2008)

• Road to War in Georgia: The Chronicle of a Caucasian Tragedy(08/25/2008)

But then Saunders qualifies his statement: "More and more people are realizing that there are two sides in this conflict, and that Georgia was not as much a victim as a willing participant." Members of US President George W. Bush's administration, too, are reconsidering their position. Georgia "marched into the South Ossetian capital" after a series of provocations, says Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried.

 

Does this suggest that America's pronouncements of solidarity with Saakashvili were just as premature as those of the Europeans? British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had called for a "radical" review of relations with Moscow, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt decried what he called a violation of international law, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel promised Georgia that, at some point, it would "become a member of NATO, if it so wishes."

But now the volume is being turned down on the anti-Moscow rhetoric. Last week German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier publicly called for clarification on the question of who is to blame for the Caucasus war. "We do need to know more about who bears what portion of the responsibility for the military escalation and to what extent," Steinmeier told a meeting of Germany's more than 200 ambassadors in Berlin. The European Union, he said, must now "define our relations with the parties to the conflict for the medium and long term," and that the time has come to have concrete information.

Which Side Launched the First Strikes?

Much depends on the clarification of this question of blame. After this war, the West must ask itself whether it truly wants to accept a country like Georgia into NATO, especially if this means having to intervene militarily in the Caucasus if a similar conflict arises. And what sort of partnership should it seek in the future with Russia, which, for the first time, has now become as insistent as the United States on protecting its spheres of influence?

The attempt to reconstruct the five-day war in August continues to revolve around one key question: Which side was the first to launch military strikes? Information coming from NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) now paints a different picture than the one that prevailed during the first days of the battle for the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali -- and is fueling the doubts of Western politicians.

 

AFP

Georgian troops fire rockets at South Ossetian separatist troops on Aug. 8.

The Georgian government continues to maintain that the war began on Thursday, Aug. 7, at 11:30 p.m. According to its account, it was at this time that it received several intelligence reports that approximately 150 Russian army vehicles had entered Georgian territory, in the separatist republic of South Ossetia, through the Roki Tunnel, which passes under the main Caucasus ridge. Their objective, say the Georgians, was Tskhinvali, and additional military columns followed beginning at 3 a.m.

 

"We wanted to stop the Russian troops before they could reach Georgian villages," Saakashvili told SPIEGEL recently, explaining the marching orders that were given to his army. "When our tanks moved toward Tskhinvali, the Russians bombed the city. They were the ones -- not us -- who reduced Tskhinvali to rubble." But reports by the OSCE describe a different situation in those critical hours.

The OSCE maintains a mission in South Ossetia, which was caught between the fronts when the war erupted. According to a so-called spot report that OSCE officials wrote at 11 a.m. Georgian time on Aug. 8: "Shortly before midnight, central Tskhinvali came under heavy fire and shelling, with some of it presumably coming from launching pads and artillery stationed outside the conflict zone. The Tskhinvali office of the mission was hit, and the three remaining international employees sought shelter in the basement."

Spot reports are sent regularly to the Vienna offices of the 56 OSCE member states. The Aug. 8 report is kept neutral, a reflection of the fact that both Georgia and Russia are members of the organization, so that the information it contains is initially absent of any value judgments. Instead, it merely identifies where the Russians violated Georgian airspace or where the Georgians occupied South Ossetian villages, for example.

As SPIEGEL has learned, NATO had already hazarded a far more definitive conclusion at the time. Its International Military Staff (IMS), which does the preparatory work for the Military Committee, the highest-ranking military body in the alliance, quickly evaluated the existing material. The Military Committee includes officers from all 26 member states.

At noon on Aug. 8, the NATO experts could not have deduced the full scope of the Russian advance, which Saakashvili later described as an attack, while Moscow called it an operation to "secure the peace." Nevertheless, they were already issuing internal warnings that, in light of initial Russian attacks with warplanes and short-range missiles, Moscow was not expected to remain passive.

 Part 2: Georgia's Calculated Offensive

One thing was already clear to the officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels: They thought that the Georgians had started the conflict and that their actions were more calculated than pure self-defense or a response to Russian provocation. In fact, the NATO officers believed that the Georgian attack was a calculated offensive against South Ossetian positions to create the facts on the ground, and they coolly treated the exchanges of fire in the preceding days as minor events. Even more clearly, NATO officials believed, looking back, that by no means could these skirmishes be seen as justification for Georgian war preparations.

 

DPA

Russian soldiers in South Ossetia, Aug. 10.

The NATO experts did not question the Georgian claim that the Russians had provoked them by sending their troops through the Roki Tunnel. But their evaluation of the facts was dominated by skepticism that these were the true reasons for Saakashvili's actions.

 

The details that Western intelligence agencies extracted from their signal intelligence agree with NATO's assessments. According to this intelligence information, the Georgians amassed roughly 12,000 troops on the border with South Ossetia on the morning of Aug. 7. Seventy-five tanks and armored personnel carriers -- a third of the Georgian military's arsenal -- were assembled near Gori. Saakashvili's plan, apparently, was to advance to the Roki Tunnel in a 15-hour blitzkrieg and close the eye of the needle between the northern and southern Caucasus regions, effectively cutting off South Ossetia from Russia.

At 10:35 p.m. on Aug. 7, less than an hour before Russian tanks entered the Roki Tunnel, according to Saakashvili, Georgian forces began their artillery assault on Tskhinvali. The Georgians used 27 rocket launchers, including 152-millimeter guns, as well as cluster bombs. Three brigades began the nighttime assault.

The intelligence agencies were monitoring the Russian calls for help on the airwaves. The 58th Army, part of which was stationed in North Ossetia, was apparently not ready for combat, at least not during that first night.

 

RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS

• Russia and the West: The Cold Peace (09/01/2008)

• Interview with Former Secretary of State Albright:'The Russians Have Crossed a Red Line'(09/01/2008)

• Georgian Tanks vs. Ossetian Teenagers: The Story of Tskhinvali's Resistance(08/26/2008)

• Road to War in Georgia: The Chronicle of a Caucasian Tragedy(08/25/2008)

The Georgian army, on the other hand, consisted primarily of infantry groups, which were forced to travel along major roads. It soon became bogged down and was unable to move past Tskhinvali. Western intelligence learned that the Georgians were experiencing "handling problems" with their weapons. The implication was that the Georgians were not fighting well.

 

The intelligence agencies conclude that the Russian army did not begin firing until 7:30 a.m. on Aug. 8, when it launched an SS-21 short-range ballistic missile on the city of Borzhomi, southwest of Gori. The missile apparently hit military and government bunker positions. Russian warplanes began their first attacks on the Georgian army a short time later. Suddenly the airwaves came to life, as did the Russian army.

Russian troops from North Ossetia did not begin marching through the Roki Tunnel until roughly 11 a.m. This sequence of events is now seen as evidence that Moscow did not act offensively, but merely reacted. Additional SS-21s were later moved to the south. The Russians deployed 5,500 troops to Gori and 7,000 to the border between Georgia and its second separatist region, Abkhazia.

Calls in Europe for International Investigation

Wolfgang Richter, a colonel with Germany's General Staff and a senior military advisor to the German OSCE mission, is another expert on the situation. Richter, who was in Tbilisi at the time, confirms that the Georgians had already amassed troops on the border with South Ossetia in July. In a closed-door session in Berlin last Wednesday, he told German Defense Minister Franz-Josef Jung and the leading members of the foreign and defense committees in the German parliament that the Georgians had, to some extent, "lied" about troop movements. Richter said that he could find no evidence to support Saakashvili's claims that the Russians had marched into the Roki Tunnel before Tbilisi gave its orders to attack, but that he could not rule them out. For some members of parliament, his statements sounded like an endorsement of the Russian interpretation. "He left no room for interpretation," one of the committee members concluded. "It is clear that there was more responsibility on the Georgian than the Russian side," another committee member said.

On the strength of all these reports, it was clear to Western observers who had ignited the South Ossetian powder keg. In the heat of battle, the analysts understandably did not take into account the background to the conflict, which includes years of Russian provocation of Tbilisi.

 

DER SPIEGEL

South Ossetia

But now it is high time for the European Union to address the reasons behind the war. Moscow has been baffled by the Europeans' refusal to condemn Saakashvili's assault on Tskhinvali and the insistence on pointing the finger at Russia instead. The Europeans, a diplomat with the Russian Foreign Ministry complained, apparently lack the "courage to stand up to Washington and its allies in Tbilisi."

 

At an informal meeting in the southern French city of Avignon two weekends ago, Europe's foreign ministers called for "an international investigation" into the conflict. The logic of that decision was that anyone who hopes to mediate should not be biased in evaluating what happened in the Caucasus. Apparently even the foreign ministers of Great Britain, Sweden, the Baltic States and other Eastern European countries agreed. Before the Avignon meeting, they had advocated a tough stance toward Moscow and more solidarity with Tbilisi -- irrespective of the facts.

The 27 foreign ministers plan to adopt a formal resolution at the beginning of this week calling for an investigation. But the question of who would be in charge of such a delicate mission remains completely unanswered: the United Nations, the OSCE, non-governmental organizations, academics -- or a combination of all of these groups? Only one thing is clear: The EU itself has no intention of taking on the issue. Europeans fear that this would only widen the gap between hardliners and those advocating cautious reconciliation with Moscow.

Saakashvili, the choleric ruler of Tbilisi, is following the shift in opinions in the West with growing unease. He reiterates his version of the attack on Georgia in daily television appearances, an international PR firm is constantly inundating the Western media with carefully selected material, and Tbilisi is already taking its case to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, where it accuses the Russians of "ethnic cleansing."

But Saakashvili is no longer as confident in his allies' support. Ahead of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's visit to Tbilisi this week, Saakashvili called upon the Western alliance to show its resolve, noting that a display of weakness toward Moscow would lead to "a never-ending story of Russian aggression."

Is Saakashvili Already Dead Politically?

The Georgian president is also coming under pressure in his own country, as the united front that developed during the Russian invasion crumbles. Those who have long criticized Saakashvili and his senior staff as an "authoritarian regime" are speaking out once again. Back in December 2007, Georgy Khaindrava, a former minister for conflict resolution who was dismissed in 2006, told SPIEGEL that Saakashvili and his circle are people "for whom power is everything." A few weeks earlier, Saakashvili had deployed special police forces in Tbilisi, where the opposition had staged large demonstrations, and declared a state of emergency. At the time, Khaindrava expressed concerns that Saakashvili could soon attempt to bolster his weakened image with a "small, victorious war" -- against South Ossetia.

In May 2006, former Foreign Minister Salomé Surabishvili had already cautioned against her former boss's actions. The "enormous arms buildup" he had engaged in made "no sense," Surabishvili said, adding that it created the impression that he planned to resolve the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia militarily.

Last week, the heads of Georgia's two major political parties called for Saakashvili's resignation and the establishment of a "government that is neither pro-Russian nor pro-American, but pro-Georgian." In Moscow, former Georgian Deputy Interior Minister Temur Khachishzili, who spent years in prison for attempting to assassinate Saakashvili's predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze, is drumming up support for a change of government back home among the more than one million Georgians living in Russia.

 

NEWSLETTER

Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In-Box everyday.

Is Saakashvili, who only five weeks ago had gained the West's sympathy as the victim of a Russian invasion, already dead politically? Last week he received support from an unexpected source, theRed Star, a newspaper published by the Russian Defense Ministry. The paper published remarks by an officer of the 58th Army, which Moscow has since denied. Nevertheless, the officer, ironically enough, fueled doubts as to the conclusion, by Western intelligence agencies and NATO, that Russian army units had not reached Tskhinvali until Aug. 9.

 

In the Red Star account, Captain Denis Sidristy, the commander of a company of the 135th Motorized Infantry Regiment, describes how he and his unit were already in the Roki Tunnel, on their way to Tskhinvali, in the night preceding Aug. 8. Did Moscow's invasion begin earlier than the Russians have admitted, after all?

Last week, Moscow investigators also conceded, for the first time, that the number of civilian casualties of the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali was not 2,000, as Russian officials have repeatedly claimed, but 134.

When asked about the account in the Red Star, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry told SPIEGEL that it was the result of a technical error. Moreover, the spokesman said, the official in question had been wounded and therefore "could no longer remember the situation clearly."

Last Friday Captain Sidristy, since decorated with the Russian defense ministry's order of bravery, was given a second opportunity to describe his version of the events to the Red Star. His unit, he said in his revised version, had advanced on Tskhinvali somewhat later than he had told the paper the first time.

As it appears, it is still difficult to separate truth and lies about the brief war in the Caucasus.

RALF BESTE, UWE KLUSSMANN, CORDULA MEYER, CHRISTIAN NEEF, MATTHIAS SCHEEP, HANS-JÜRGEN SCHLAMP, HOLGER STARK

Well, Spiegel says it too. Through all the noise it should be clear by now that Russia was obviousely preparing for this war. A Georgian attack was a pretext to launch a punitive (as oppose to regime-changing) campaign on Georgia. All the talk of genocide, thousands of casualties and "verolomnoe napadenie" was a smokescreen. It worked internally in Russia with almost total government domination of the media. It did not work as well in the West. It did not work at all in the West’s political circles fed up with our American good ol’ bullshit about freedom. Hopefully it does not work anymore on this forum.