08.08.08 – The Five-Day War

The short-term military conflict between Russia and Georgia started on August 8, 2008 after Georgian forces launched an attack against the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia and a contingent of Russian peacekeepers who remained in the region on a license from the Commonwealth of Independent States political bloc. Russia’s military intervened to defend civilians and peacekeepers, repelled the Georgian aggressors, but did not advance further into Georgia’s territory.

The evidence collected by the Russian investigators, as well as the scale of the attack and the earlier Tbilisi directed propaganda campaign, provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the military action had been “planned and organized directly” by the highest political and military officials of Georgia.

According to the classified documents exposed by WikiLeaks the US diplomats in Georgia knew Tbilisi concentrated military force prior to the war over South Ossetia in 2008.

An international report into the causes of the Russian-Georgian war in August 2008 accuses Georgia of starting the hostilities.

5-days war
Georgian troops

The Tagliavini Report, more formally the report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG), was issued at the end of September 2009, following an exhaustive inquiry into the background of the August 2008 war between Georgia and Russia. It was the first time that the European Union set up a Fact-Finding Mission as a political and diplomatic follow-up to a conflict. The report was limited to establishing facts, and from the very outset, the Mission expressed its belief that there can be no peace in the South Caucasus until a common understanding of the facts is not achieved.

The Swiss officials presented the 1,200-page report to a select gathering of international diplomats. Heidi Tagliavini, the head of the IIFFMCG told representatives from Georgia, Russia, the European Union, the United Nations, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that the report was a collection of objective findings, and it leaves others to interpret those facts.

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply