I distinctly remember the Russian government warning of a military build-up in Georgia in the Spring of 2008 - but these warnings seemed to be ignored by the international community at large, who then acted surprised when hostilities commenced. It is fairly obvious that, in the face of the military build-up they warned of, Russia would prepare to counter any threat to their territory or citizens and explains why Russian forces were available to the north of Georgia. It is hardly surprising that Russian forces would aim to neutralise the forces that had been used against their own peace-keepers and civilians in South Ossetia. Had this been a US response, the military, transport and communication infrastructure of Georgia would have been obliterated. along with the centres of government. I suspect that the EU and NATO would like to forget about the whole thing. One thing is certain - Georgia won't be part of NATO with the current government in power - and probably not for the forseeable future. What NATO country wants to be dragged into a conflict with Russia because of the stupidity of one man in Georgia?

I said it all along. Thanks to the impartial and truthful reporting from RT! News you can trust.

That Georgia started the war with its evil attack on South Ossetia, shelling people in their beds is well known and an established fact. That the western media lied about it all as a coordinated media operation is also a fact. That the US coordinate the battle efforts alongside Ukraine is also a well known fact. That Israel knowingly supplied armaments is also a well known fact. These facts stand on their own. They don't need any reference to a Swiss cheese report - full of holes, linked together with a creamy EU political smelly structure. This 'report' is a disgrace, it is just a politically crafted anti Russian 'document' playing the old games of increase scope until you can find something to complain about, be selective with facts and try to claim legal authority, when nones exists..... Russia should ignore it completely and treat it with the contempt it deserves. It is a huge mistake to give this work of Swiss fiction any credance whatsoever. The game is one of a lobster, try to give you bait, then hope you will climb in the pot. It would be interesting to read a report on Serbia or Afghanistan or Iraq using the same EU 'methodology',. a 'methodology' where you fit selective facts, opinions and law to the outcome you want, to the extent that you even only commission the reports and evidence you want. If we accept this academic drivel, god help us! and every one else on planet earth! Russia was absolutely correct to respond to the Georgian attack. Russia was absolutely correct to take out all threatening assets and C&C structures. That is what war is. Start it and you will get a response, that response will be military. Russia tried to go to the UN SC to get a resolution, the western conspiritors including EU members blocked it. The Russian people know Russia was 100% right in everything it did in Georgia. We are behind the Action all the way, we are also behind not accepting this report in any way. I hope Medvedev will make this clear!

Georgia is the most dangerous flashpoint in Russia’s tense relations with the West. The Bible says: “At the appointed time [the king of the north = Russia] will return [will regain the influence, which it lost after the break-up of the Soviet Union] and come into the south [many indicate that this might be Georgia], but it will not be as the former [1921] or as the latter [2008]. For shall come against him the dwellers of coastlands of Kittim [the West], and he will be humbled, and will return.” (Daniel 11:29,30a) At that time, peace will be taken from the earth and the “great sword” – nuclear sword – will be used. (Revelation 6:4) However, it will be neither the great tribulation nor “the end of the world” (Armageddon). As Jesus foretold, that will be “the beginning of birth pains”. (Mathew 24:7,8)

Hmm, according to the BBC, the report blames both sides. I have not read the report but wonder which side I should believe? I wonder why RT never mentions the ethnic cleansing inflicted on Georgians in South Ossetia last year?

My comment is more on the fact about the use of excessive force from Russia. The point of using our forces in coordination is to integrate the battlefield and reduce human loss on our size. Did they expect us to send a small force to counter the Georgian advance? Did they want more of our men to die to make it seem more fair? If that's the case, where is the report on any of the middle east conflicts? They are trying to recoup the PR image of the West. Shameful.

You are 100% right Count Cash!It is to little and to late..In less then 24 hours was clear that Georgia(and other states)are to blame for starting war.Western press keep lying about reasons almost a whole year..Georgia didn't act alone-the same states form NATO-EU-USA-Israel, who committed war crimes and genocide in Serbia,Iraq and Afghanistan are behind!It was a proxy war wage by West against Russia.Russia show one more time(as always in past history)that will react and protect herself against anybody when is attacked! West wage in the past 43 open wars which last more than 200(plus) years against Russia and lost all of them!This report is a sand in the eyes-it was better to never come out!They forgot main thing-to accuse Saakashvili for war crimes against civil population and ask for his arrest!West is simple not able to become honest, and change their tune..World haven't a peace today just because of west!Russia simple in my opinion can not wait as always(it cost them a lot in the past) and shall complete wipe out forever any future aggressor state-as example for the rest! So when they like to gamble-they will know what the real bet is from now on!Honest to be-how many times someone can forgive...Thank you..

How extensive is its report on US/Israel helping planning the assault? US and Britain’s veto of an emergency ceasefire Russian resolution brought forth by Russia at the UN Security counsel before they sent in troops as a response obviously had an impact on the developments of the war. Does it mention Georgian intelligence trying to set up a terror cell in Ingushetia, recruiting Georgians in the Russian army, Polish rockets to Chechen militants, MPRI training Georgian forces in sabotage techniques, etc. What about foreign mercenaries from US and Ukraine was that true? I don't understand the criticism of it not being confined to Ossetia when the rockets for the initial bombardment were stationed outside of S Ossetia and reinforcements for the troops for the assault were coming from other areas of Georgia. @Rory Gallivan I think that was counter response from militias who Georgian forces were using bordering Georgian villages as a cover.

Some of you seem to forgetting that: "The report states that while Russia's initial actions in fighting back against attacks on its personnel in South Ossetia were justified, its subsequent actions, in pushing far into Georgia proper "went far beyond the reasonable limits of defence" and was "in violation of international law". "Furthermore, continued destruction which came after the ceasefire agreement was not justifiable by any means." So both parties share some of the blame, though most lies with Georgia.

How extensive is its report on US/Israel helping planning the assault? US and Britain’s veto of an emergency ceasefire Russian resolution brought forth by Russia at the UN Security counsel before they sent in troops as a response obviously had an impact on the developments of the war. Does it mention Georgian intelligence trying to set up a terror cell in Ingushetia, recruiting Georgians in the Russian army, Polish rockets to Chechen militants, MPRI training Georgian forces in sabotage techniques, etc. What about foreign mercenaries from US and Ukraine was that true? I don't understand the criticism of it not being confined to Ossetia when the rockets for the initial bombardment were stationed outside of S Ossetia and reinforcements for the troops for the assault were coming from other areas of Georgia. @Rory Gallivan I think that was counter response from militias who Georgian forces were using bordering Georgian villages as a cover.

Daniel - What you are forgetting is that this report is a load of drivel, it is just a western tool. So referencing it as you do is pointless and has no authority whatsoever. This is the classic western way, write your own materials with your western 'historians', 'military' specialists and 'lawyers'. Then try to claim it as fact. No Daniel the report is just the standard EU political tripe, all reference to is is meaningless. I challenge the experts to allow me to take them into Afghanistan. I know it well, I will put them in a village with Taliban all around, then I will ask them to only use force within the village to repel any attacks. I will then leave (I value my life) and come back with metal caskets to collect their remains in a few days, I will even put the caskets together, so that at least the same head is with the same body.. The only fact you could militarily preen from this report, is that there were no 'military' experts contributing. The same for historians and lawyers.

Perhaps, it would serve as a reminder to the rest of the world. If Russia is attacked, we WILL fight back. So many of our ancestors died for our country in so many wars of the past that our land itself is soaked with their blood. We will always cling to this land till the last drop of blood, until at least a single man or woman remains we will not give up. Hitler understood that - he was planning to wipe all of us out. Except he didn't realize, that he wasn't just fighting Red Army. He was fighting a whole nation that simply has no concept of "giving up". It is something deeper than idea or a thought, it is subconsious, it is in the blood. Other countries can push our nation all they want, but when our land is threatened - may God have mercy on our enemies, for we shall have none.

I don't see how the EU can have an unbiased report when most are anti-Russian and worked hand and glove with the Georgian government. This is the same EU that got Italian Scramaelo (don't know if that is the proper spelling) and Litvenenko whose boss Berezovsky is one of the worlds biggest crime boss to report on the FSB to the European parliament boss involved and connected to organised crime and the intelligence community. Scaramelo was arrested about a month later by Italian authorities for weapons smuggling. @Daniel But again the logistical base/hubs for the assault, barracks that provided reinforcements for the Georgian push into South Ossetia, the port that was shipping in reinforcements and weapons from Ukraine and tactical intelligence command centre in other areas of Georgia. The idea that Georgia can start a war and dictate the terms to where it is fought is pretty ridicules. That same week or a week after US force launched an air strike on civil villages in Syria on the border claiming terrorists where using it as a hub to launch attacks and transit fighters into Iraq without consulting the Syrian authorities although there was no evidence of this.

Johnx - maybe this explains why the report doesn't cover the key issues Military Experts Gen. (ret.) Gilles GALLET – France Lieutenant-General (ret.) Christophe KECKEIS – Switzerland Colonel (ret.) Christopher LANGTON – United Kingdom Colonel (SG) Wolfgang RICHTER – Germany Air Commodore (ret.) Philip J. WILKINSON – United Kingdom Legal Experts Dr Théo BOUTRUCHE – France Mr René KOSIRNIK – Switzerland Prof. Otto LUCHTERHANDT – Germany Prof. Angelika NUSSBERGER – Germany Prof. Anne PETERS – Germany Dr Nikolas STÜRCHLER – Switzerland Historians Mr Wojciech GÓRECKI – Poland Dr Uwe HALBACH – Germany Prof. Luigi MAGAROTTO – Italy Political Analysts Prof. Bruno COPPIETERS – Belgium Ms Céline FRANCIS – Belgium Dr Jörg HIMMELREICH – Germany Mr Dennis SAMMUT – United Kingdom Dr Marian STASZEWSKI - Poland And some other major political NGO groups, yes you guessed it Banking International and the Banking Rights Watch. Count the countries above to get the International Independent 'unbiased' flavor of the report. Does it represent the composition of the UN? Does it have Asian representatives? Anyone from South America? Anyone from Africa? Ok widespread throughout the EU? So for an international report, how many countries are there representatives from? Lucky number for some! How many are serving military officers? How many are serving anything? Was it a wide perceptive on law, outside European interpretation?

I believe that Russia did not go far enough in insuring that Georgia will not be in position to do it again. Russia has pulled out much too quickly, giving Sarkozy his undeserved success. Since Britain on behalf of US and France vetoed UN SC resolution that would have stopped the aggression, they all bear the responsibility for the outcome. However, Russia should have stayed on the territory of Georgia proper much longer. This would have necessitate some concessions on behalf of Georgia. Commerce and transportation would have been affected, bringing to Saakashvili the consequences of his adventure closer home. As it turned out, he did not have to eat any crow. This is why he can continue to defy the reality, as his friends will never contradict him. Forget the report. It is already forgotten in Europe. Gives Russia the satisfaction of being right, but gives Saakashvilli all the practical benefits. He still gets the help with the military, continues with the profit-making enterprise of infiltrating professional "extremists" into Caucasus, continues to cause provocations and nervousness along the borders with the new entities, and continues with this agenda through various international bodies. And in all this, he gets the money, equipment and political backing. No, talking to the West is still like talking to a robot. It does all the talking, and is incapable of hearing.

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.

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.