Correcting historic injustice is usually pretty messy. I’m not looking for Russia to be hurt, I’m looking for it to be broken up so it can no longer wage the wars of conquest it has consistently engaged in as well as giving the ethnic minorities that imperial Russia and the USSR oppressed the self determination they deserve. There would have been no wars in the caucuses in the 90’s if not for Russian imperialism.
You mentioned the invasion of Georgia, and it seems from the context like you believe it to be an injust invasion. Is this correct? Do you believe Georgia is entitled to the land it lost?
Which time? When the Bolsheviks ousted a democratic government in 1921? When the Red Army crushed protests in 1989?
I get your implied point that Ossetians and Abkhazians did not feel included in the Georgian nationalist government that took over after independence, but I also think that Russia crafted the conditions that created this problem in the first place and intervention from them was not the solution.
But is this not irrelevant? It seems to me that you believe that North Ossetia should be independent, despite the fact that Ossetians do not want independence from Russia, and South Ossetia should not be independent, despite the fact that South Ossetians would rather not be a part of Georgia.
I believe in self determination, so I don’t have a problem with any group deciding they want to be Russian in a free and fair election. That said, I find that Russia’s involvement in the Caucuses has been wholly self serving.
I cannot prove or disprove a negative, so I’m not going to touch your second point.
Georgian nationalism was so fervent at the fall of the USSR because of Russian oppression. They haven’t done anything to clean up the mess they created because frozen conflict on their borders is beneficial to Russia.
Correcting historic injustice is usually pretty messy. I’m not looking for Russia to be hurt, I’m looking for it to be broken up so it can no longer wage the wars of conquest it has consistently engaged in as well as giving the ethnic minorities that imperial Russia and the USSR oppressed the self determination they deserve. There would have been no wars in the caucuses in the 90’s if not for Russian imperialism.
You mentioned the invasion of Georgia, and it seems from the context like you believe it to be an injust invasion. Is this correct? Do you believe Georgia is entitled to the land it lost?
Which time? When the Bolsheviks ousted a democratic government in 1921? When the Red Army crushed protests in 1989?
I get your implied point that Ossetians and Abkhazians did not feel included in the Georgian nationalist government that took over after independence, but I also think that Russia crafted the conditions that created this problem in the first place and intervention from them was not the solution.
But is this not irrelevant? It seems to me that you believe that North Ossetia should be independent, despite the fact that Ossetians do not want independence from Russia, and South Ossetia should not be independent, despite the fact that South Ossetians would rather not be a part of Georgia.
I believe in self determination, so I don’t have a problem with any group deciding they want to be Russian in a free and fair election. That said, I find that Russia’s involvement in the Caucuses has been wholly self serving.
Well, I believe that without Russia, Russian Caucasus will be a worse place overall, and will also have a few wars.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are also worse off than they would be had they remained in Georgia.
It seems to me that this sort of nationalism is counterproductive.
There are already wars in the Russian caucuses.
I cannot prove or disprove a negative, so I’m not going to touch your second point.
Georgian nationalism was so fervent at the fall of the USSR because of Russian oppression. They haven’t done anything to clean up the mess they created because frozen conflict on their borders is beneficial to Russia.
There are no wars now.
The wars happened when the central government was too weak to deal with them, which supports my point somewhat.