ryanj
Will Russia assume control of Abkhazia by the end of August?
For the reasons stated in Comment 15, this question cannot be settled objectively. "Control" can equally mean "annexation" or "determining the fate of" in this question. Remember that although semi-autonomous, Abkhazia is internationally recognized as being part of Georgia. For the Russians to recognize today the independence of the 2 provinces is both a renouncing of control (re: the Abkhazians) and an asserting of control (re: Georgia and the rest of the world). In other words, Russia must be sufficiently in control of the 2 provinces in order to grant them independence (which renounces "control"). The latter part of http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/765627.html makes clear that independence is a crucial step in integrating the province into Russia. And as the Georgian President makes clear in this recent interview, "The Russians already controlled South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that wasn’t their purpose, it was to kill Georgia’s independence and they didn’t succeed in that." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/894f82ce-7207-11dd-a44a-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1
This last point is the most telling. There were at least 3000 Russian "peacekeepers" in Abkhazia prior to the current "war", by invitation of the rebels (who wish to join Russia). There was no new "control" for the Russians to assume -- at stake was the total loss of any control by the Georgians. But this was not the question which was asked.
Background:
Abkhazia is located on the Black Sea and may be a prime area for an amphibious invasion to annex Abkhazia. Of striking significance is the fact that Russia's Black Sea Fleet is now moving to sit off the Abkhazia coast. The Russians are saying the movement is due to Russia's need to "protect their civilians."
Reports of Russian aircraft bombing Georgian installations in Abkhazia are also coming in, as well as increased attacks in Abkhazia from Separatists.
Settlement details:As reported by a major mainstream news source. For yes settlement Russia would have to assume control of the province, and it would have to be reported as such. If by the end of August significant fighting is still occurring in the region, and Russia hasn't secured Abkhazia, the market will settle as no.
| Yes |
| |||
| No |
|
- Activity: H$152,833 |
- Predictions: 156 |
Comments: 15
Suspend date: Sun 31st Aug 2008 11:59pm PST
Initial likelihoods: Yes: 30%
Action history:
ryanj 
dragonfangxl
: Russia has control of Abkhazia 
infernalmachine![[Power User]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_superuser.gif "This user is a super user"){kind=icon}
: Question suspended pending decision regarding its clarity. infernalmachine: For the reasons stated in Comment 15, this question cannot be settled objectively. "Control" can equally mean "annexation" or "determining the fate of" in this question. Remember that although semi-autonomous, Abkhazia is internationally recognized as being part of Georgia. For the Russians to recognize today the independence of the 2 provinces is both a renouncing of control (re: the Abkhazians) and an asserting of control (re: Georgia and the rest of the world). In other words, Russia must be sufficiently in control of the 2 provinces in order to grant them independence (which renounces "control"). The latter part of http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/765627.html makes clear that independence is a crucial step in integrating the province into Russia. And as the Georgian President makes clear in this recent interview, "The Russians already controlled South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that wasn’t their purpose, it was to kill Georgia’s independence and they didn’t succeed in that." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/894f82ce-7207-11dd-a44a-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1
This last point is the most telling. There were at least 3000 Russian "peacekeepers" in Abkhazia prior to the current "war", by invitation of the rebels (who wish to join Russia). There was no new "control" for the Russians to assume -- at stake was the total loss of any control by the Georgians. But this was not the question which was asked.
Suspend date: Sun 31st Aug 2008 11:59pm PST details 
Get widget!Predictions (156)
cognos
predicted Yes (H$1,000 at 11%)
aleksejenko
keyeshoveden
predicted No (H$1,000 at 80%)Comments (15)
Stake virtual dollars on the outcomes of real news stories! Win more if you're right and climb the leaderboards Learn more...
Related News 
This news is selected automatically based on the question, its background, options and tags
Related Tags
Ryan
The US took out the first of the Axis of Evil.
Hey China, wanna be a big boy, you take care of Pyongyang.
And Russia, you get Iran, and the southern port you've always wanted. Not to mention, more oil.
I mean: Is it necessary that russia lets some troops staying there after winning to settle as yes?
Admitidly they did set it off however that was not a big enough reason for the huge invasion russian did. It was merley a excuse for something that has been brewing long before the sepratists in south ossetaria had been there. As a US general said (roughly) "The assault was beautfilly preformed. Land, Air, Navy all coordinated as one. This was an invasion that must have been 6 or 7 months in the making."
You are right that the conflict has been brewing for months now, especially after the UAV shoot downs two months ago, but the Georgians actually thought they could take back South Ossetia, it was a major blunder in risk management. You have to admit though that the Georgians have been playing the information warfare game well, Georgia's president has been on CNN almost every night pleading for help and talking of genocide. Not that it helped though....
Ryan
Azerbaijan next.
Then who?
Those Russians really like the oil business now. Iran would accomplish both.
I have also read that the reason the Georgians went into S. Ossetia was closely-related to the failure of talks that were happening between Rusia, Georgia, and the 2 provinces. Why did the talks fail? Well partially because (and I'm not kidding you here) the Russian envoy's car got a flat tire.
Hmmn. I've been suspicious of this whole "the Georgian invasion of S. Ossetia" caused all this since seeing Putin half-smiling at the Olympics Opening Ceremony as the news broke that the Russians had gone into South Ossetia. Especially now that Russia is about to recognize the independence (from Georgia) of the two provinces in the next few days. This is the other shoe dropping from the recognition of Kosovo earlier this year, which the Russians opposed.
The No side seems to be reading the term "assume control" as meaning something on the order of annexation by Russia (which is of course extremely unlikely, especially given they are to begin debating granting independence to the two regions today), while the other viewpoint takes the settlement details to be saying that if media reports are generally saying that Russia controls Abkhazia (given that fighting has apparently ceased), which they have been saying quite frequently for the past week, then this will settle as Yes.
Given so many wagers on both sides, it may not really be possible to clarify this question without changing its apparent meaning to the detriment of half of its bettors, so as to necessitate refunding half the 100+ open wagers. So I am currently leaning toward a void, but will first consult with my fellow admins on this.
Please log in or join to add a comment