Talk:War in Abkhazia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

[edit] Reworking the Russian role section

As I'd promised I've written it anew. I want to point out that:

1. all the facts that had been there stayed. I've shortened a bit Georgian Parliament declarations but imho it's not a very big deal.

2. All the new facts were taken from the HRW report (VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR AND RUSSIA'S ROLE IN THE CONFLICT - http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/georgia/georgia953.pdf)

Finally I don't claim it's a comprehensive review of the issue and more facts may have to be added in future. Alaexis 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I agree that the HRW report is a good source, but it is outdated and not very comprehensive. It also lacks political analysis due to quite understandable reasons. I've got a collection of many citations from the Western scholarly works on this particular issue. Unfortunately, I have very limited time right now, but I'll add more info a bit later. Also, there has always been a strong suspicion that Russia exploited the Abkhazian war to force Georgia into the CIS and to achieve the ligitimization of the Russian military presence in Georgia (Soviet/Russian bases had officially been declared as occupational in 1991). Once referenced, this should also be mentioned in the article. It was a critical point in the contemporary Russo-Georgian relations. --Kober^Talk 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Georgia's entry into the CIS has more to do with the civil war than with Georgian-Abkhaz war afaik. I don't know whether it should be added here also. Some political analysis is of course needed. I think that more global things should go to Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict article (or else I don't understand why it was created) Alaexis 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kober is correct. Shevardnadze forced his government to sign the CIS agreement soon after fall of Sukhumi. Georgian membership in CIS was determined all due to Abkhaz conflict. Ldingley 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name?

War in Abkhazia sounds rather informal, thus I propose this article be moved to Georgian-Abkhaz war (analogous to Georgian-Abkhaz conflict). sephia karta 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

warmish agree Alaexis 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Georgian-Abkhaz war sounds as if it was a war between the two separate countries - Georgia and Abkhazia - and ignores the fact the North Caucasian confederation and Russia were involved much more heavily than the ethnic Abkhaz fighters. Better move it to War of Abkhazia or Abkhazian War. We have War of Transnistria, not Moldovan-Transnistrian war; Nagorno-Karabakh War, not Azerbaijan-Karabakh war.--Kober^Talk 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex, the UNPO itself is a controversial organization and its accounts are entirely based upon the information provided by its members (Abkhaz separatists in this case). If you have a BBC link on Karkarashvili's statement, please provide. Your addition is POV and more importantly, it is not veryfiable. --Kober^Talk 11:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cannot provide a link to BBC monitoring archive itself as it's a paid content. So I've given a link to the 'Conciliation Resources' site. Alaexis 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that your source says exactly what you claim in the article? It's really a pity that I have to verify all your edits in your own references. --Kober^Talk 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose like Kober --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karkarashvili

Yes, you are right. I've just remembered there was one of his expressions on that site and haven't checked which one. I'll try to find a source for another one when I have time. Alaexis 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)