Georgia started South Ossetian war – EU report
Published: 01 October, 2009, 14:20
Edited: 01 October, 2010, 19:05
TAGS: Conflict, Georgia, Ossetian War
Georgia is responsible for unleashing the Five-Day War in the Caucasus last August, says an investigative report carried out by the EU.
The report was commissioned by the Council of the European Union. More than 30 European military, history and legal specialists – headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini – compiled the document. The group concluded that it was Georgia who fired the first shot and the opening attack was not justifiable under international law.
"In the opinion of the mission, Georgia provoked the war when it attacked Tskhinvali early on August 8, using heavy artillery," Commission chief Heidi Tagliavini said during the presentation of the report, Interfax news agency reports.
______________________________________________
Read the full Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia: Volume I; Volume II; Volume III
______________________________________________
The report is huge, made up of three volumes which make up more than a thousand pages in total. Russia’s envoy to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov received the document personally from Heidi Tagliavini and says he is satisfied with it.
“The part I managed to see already is unequivocal. It’s unequivocal on the main issue – who started the war,” Vladimir Chizhov told RT.When asked whether the report was a victory for Russia, Chizhov said “no, it’s been a victory for common sense.”
“I think this is more important for those who still might not have a clear picture of the events in that sense,” Russian official added.
From the very beginning of the war Russia was blaming Georgia to be an aggressor. And while Georgia was shelling Tskhinval the western media was bombarding Moscow with criticism for what they called a Russian invasion.
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia
The report says that Russia was preparing for a possible conflict in the region and the war followed “long periods of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents” between Russia and Georgia.
Russia’s actions have been qualified as a response to the Georgian military operation. At the same time, the commission says that Russia used excessive force, which led to the conflict spreading outside South Ossetia to Georgia.
Considerable military support in terms of equipment and to some extent also training was equally provided by a number of other countries led by Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Israel …, all of them 16 adding to the new military strength of Georgia, which was proudly displayed on suitable occasions such as National Day parades."
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia
The commission is reportedly “satisfied with the level of cooperation with all the sides involved in the conflict.”
Mixed reactions
South Ossetia’s President Eduard Kokoity believes the assessment contained in the report is belated but essential. At the same time he has said that the EU has double standards in regards to the Caucasus.
“Double standard policies are still there. Some are claiming that Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia do not let EU observers into South Ossetia. European organizations should draw conclusions from last year’s aggression as their lack of action contributed to it. Their connivance and criminal involvement in Georgia’s armament put Georgia on a warpath. So, attempts to shift responsibility to Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia won’t hold,” stated Eduard Kokoity.
He noted, though, that these attitudes are now changing.
Abkhazia has shown less optimism. Its Foreign Minister Sergey Shamba has said the report is unlikely to help in settling the situation in the Caucasus. He called the commission’s conclusions “important” but said that European policies are “dependent on the US, which fully supports Saakashvili.”
Russia has welcomed the conclusion made by the European Commission, the Russian President's Press Attaché Natalya Timakova told journalists.
“If the commission has admitted that Georgia first initiated military action, which is what the Russian side has repeatedly and constantly said since the beginning of the conflict, we can only welcome such a conclusion,” Timakova said.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry is also positive about the report, but nevertheless finds some of its parts to be ambiguous.
“A number of unclear and ambiguous phrases, as we see it, reflects still remaining politicized approaches from the European Union states to the events of August 2008 and its aftermath,” the official statement says.
Meanwhile Georgia doesn’t want to face the conclusions made in the report.
“It’s not said anywhere in this report that Georgia started this war,” insists Reintegration Minister Temur Yakobashvili, before adding that they haven’t fully studied the report yet.
“We also don’t agree that the Georgian side used excessive force at the beginning of the military conflict,” he said. “We consider that Russia behaved as an aggressor, as it was its military that invaded the Tskhinval region.”
01.10.2009, 13:07
“It’s hard for normal journalists to work in today’s Georgia”Gudadze’s story is not an isolated case, according to deputy editor-in-chief of Independent Military Review Viktor Litovkin. Normal journalists find it hard to work in today’s Georgia, Litovkin told RT in an interview. |
01.10.2009, 14:45
1 comment
PACE confirms Russian delegation’s powersThe Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has voted in favor of confirming Russia’s delegation’s powers. Russia called the decision “a triumph of common sense”. |
MEJanssen, Bianca, Correct, Russia certainly had all the rights to act in the military way we did and there is an argument that we had a right to go further. If any argument could be leveled at Russia, it is that we acted with too much restraint. The Georgians attacked both our Peacekeepers and South Ossetian civilians. This was a war crime. Russia responded by engaging the enemy. That engagement changed the definition of the conflict and the terms of reference. It can be argued that we entered into a full scale war or it can be argued that Russia was acting in a localized military campaign. But what it cannot be argued is that the only scope for the Russian continuing actions was to protect its peacekeepers. This is utter nonsense and a gross distortion. Russia once it entered the theater owed a duty of care to the local population and its service personnel. That duty of care governed by international legal principles, meant that Russia took on the responsibility for ending military threats upon them. Not to do so would have been a gross breach of the duty owed to them under international law. Russia therefore discharged its duties by striking offensive and threatening assets within Georgia. Georgia was making use of Aircraft, Artillery, rockets and assorted supporting ground forces. Russia acted to suppress the air defenses and drive out the enemy to establish a buffer zone. These were the minimum requirements to re-establish a controlled safe environment to discharge Russia's obligations. Russia under full agreement undertook security duties until an international team was established in the 'buffer zones' and continued to remove the threatening military equipment still eisting. Russia again had to do this, as to do otherwise would be negligent and a breach of the duty it owed until international replacements took their place in the 'buffer zones'. The activity of the Russian federation was both necessary and sufficient to discharge its obligations.
Georgia declared war on Russia last year when it killed Russian peacekeepers in a sneak attack. Russia had every right to destroy Georgian weapons after that, in order to "pull the teeth" of its enemy. The map on Spiegel's website last year, showing the battles, was very instructive. Almost all of them were at military bases, where Russians either took equipment or destroyed it to prevent Georgians from "playing with matches" again. I thought the Russian military acted in a restrained manner. If it had been me that was attacked, I might have been a little more excitable. Saakashvili would not have a presidential palace today, for one thing.
I don’t think people who type comments here have thought a bit. How can a small country attack a giant one? Is there any logic? I don’t think so. The thing people miss completely is that Russia was willing to engage in war with Georgia and is still willing even though has no reason. Can you withstand millions of Russian troops with a few thousand? No. Think people, think, what is wrong with you? What has Georgia to do with Russia? Nothing! Georgia has no oil, no gas, nothing at all, only people. Georgia is no longer a candidate for NATO membership. What else do you want? It tried once, tried twice, NATO said NO.