Jeremy Corbyn: Britain’s new leader of the Labour Party

Anti-Media: Jeremy Corbyn wins in Landslide Victory.

That's interesting. A fluke or a sign of the times?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think people in Europe are tired of the US puppets leading the established parties everywhere in Europe, and will increasingly support non-mainstream (which means non-US) candidates as well as parties.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you two jackalopes realize he is essentially a british bernie sanders right? but than given both your track records on understanding history probably not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well obviously you believe many things which are not true. What makes you think the Labour Party isn't main stream? And where is your evidence of this puppetry?

 

My point was that it does not matter what he is. He may be Nazi, Commie, Islamist, whatever, being anti-US gives him a chance.

I do not claim, by the way, that there are anti-US majorities in Europe. My point is different: All the establishment parties are pro-US, and anti-US people have no political representation. But their numbers are rising. In particular, all those who have a problem with the anti-Russian sanctions (as well as the Russian counter-sanctions) recognize that this is a consequence of the leaders being US-vassals, instead of politicians caring about the interests of their own states. They want politicians who will stop the sanctions - but they have no choice in the establishment.

So, new players have a chance, because there is an already large group - at least large enough to master various 5% or so limits in elections - which does not want to support the actual establishment, not only those in actually in power, but also the established opposition.

Of course, Labor in itself is mainstream, but this particular person does not seem to be mainstream. At least, he does not support the US policy, quite different from Blair at all, who were US poodles of the worst case.

 

what is it about libertarianism that makes its followers so stupid. ok he's a little nuts and conspiracy toward the us but his support has nothing to do with being anti us and anti nato and do to his socialist views.

 

Maybe Labour voters saw the exciting changes occurring in Venezuela and wanted a taste of it back home. Or maybe they feel that the lack of Russian mafiosi touring London is crippling the economy and it would be in their personal interests to reverse this trend, rather than pandering to America's foolish efforts to confront shameless criminals. Whatever reasons they may have for dusting off this old mummy and putting him up to the vote, we can at least be certain of one constant which has always stood the test of time: to this day, commies are still compulsively obsessed with choo choo trains.

 

I think you are equating friendship and mutual interest with puppetry. The US and its European allies have a host of mutual interests. NATO is a reflection of one of those mutual interests. Russia poses a greater threat to Europe than to the US. European states are Russia's neighbors and some of them have been subservient Russian client states in the not too distant past and fear reverting back to a subservient Russian client state. That doesn't make those states US puppets.

Yeah, some European countries are home to some special interests which have significant economic ties to and investments in Russia (i.e. The United Kingdom and The Netherlands). So yes, the sanctions adversely affect those countries. But WWIII or an economic disruption of Europe brought about by Russian invasions would be a greater threat and a greater economic disruption. And most European states understand that.

 

No. It is an open secret that there is not much love to US even among the politicians, but a lot of material for blackmail of the EU politicians.

In the case of the Ukraine, the situation is quite obvious. The US supported openly fascist gangs against a democratically elected president, after this started a civil war there. The EU did not want to start any sanctions, but has done it because of quite open US pressure. Of course, there are Nazis in powerful position in the Baltikum, and they, of course, support anything directed against Russia simply because of their national hatred. So, there are such Nazis, out of their personal beliefs, not because they are US puppets. But this is the Baltikum, and, in part, Poland. But certainly not Germany or France.

Of course, and that's why they want to live in peace with Russia, and not start a new Cold War. It is the US which is interested in Cold War II, because this weakens Eurasia, all parts of it, more than the US.

The genial move of the former German Kanzler Schroeder - the North Stream pipeline - looks stupid from economical point of view, why making a pipeline in the water, not through the Baltikum and Poland, who also would need some gas? The point was political. This makes the gas transport to Germany independent of political games of the US and their baltic puppets. And this is something even Merkel (much more pro-US than Schroeder, but everybody thinks that this is because their Stasi (German communist security service) dossier is in US hands) has understood. So, actually they have signed the documents about the expansion of North Stream.

 

Ah, I think you have been drinking too much vodka comrade.

Except that isn't even close to the truth. It's what Putin and his supporters have told the world in order to justify their invasion and occupation of a neighboring state. And Ukraine wasn't Putin's first victim. He did the same thing in Georgia. Ukraine is merely his latest victim. It's a pattern of agression last seen in Europe when Hitler invaded and annexed neighboring states using identical excuses.

Well the world wants to live in peace, Russia and China excepted, and respect international laws and conventions. But your Mother Russia doesn't. Your beloved Mother Putin laid the foundation for another cold war when he invaded and annexed portions of Georgia followed by Ukraine using the same excuses Russia's former ally, Nazi Germany, used when it invaded and annexed neighboring states prior to WWII.

Unfortunately, for you and your beloved Putin, the world has learned the lessons of WWII. Appeasement of fascist dictators doesn't work. That's why the people of the EU have been and remain solid in their support of economic sanctions against Mother Russia (i.e. Putin).

Hmm, sounds like an interesting trip you are experiencing.

 

LOL, it was Georgia who has attacked South Ossetia, a fact which has been accepted even by the OSCE who has considered the evidence. The Russian troops have been in South Ossetia as peacemakers, based on a ceasefire between South-Ossetian separatists and Georgia long before. So, Georgia has violated the ceasefire, and the Russian troops have then made their job. Today the line of ceasefire is the former border of South Ossetia from Soviet times. The former Soviet time border line was also reestablished for Abchasia.

In above cases, the separatists have started their independence movements immediately after the end of the USSR, and have been able to reach their independence by their own military means, and these wars were, essentially, finished by ceasefire agreements.

Your other repetitions of NATO propaganda are too boring to be answered.

 

Well, no it was Mother Russia whose troops invaded and annexed portions of Georgia using the same excuses Nazi's used when they too invaded and annexed neighboring states. YOU shouldn't believe everything Mother Putin tells you. You should get out more.

 

In this case, it is sufficient for me to believe what the European Union tells.

Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_09_09_iiffmgc_report.pdf

Something about the history, and about the role of the US:

 

Well, you are being more than a little disingenuous. Below is the conclusion from the report, the part you left out.

"Finally, the Russian Federation invoked the need to protect its own citizens living in South Ossetia. Under Article 61 (2) of the Russian constitution “the Russian Federation guarantees its citizens defence and patronage beyond its boundaries”. It is also true that since 1945, numerous states have led military actions by pointing to the need to protect their own nationals abroad. In many cases the legality of these actions was disputed. There is no customary law allowing such actions. If at all, such actions should be limited in scope 25 and duration and exclusively focused on rescuing and evacuating nationals. In the case at hand, the action was not solely and exclusively focused on rescuing and evacuating Russian citizens, but largely surpassed this threshold by embarking upon extended military operations over large parts of Georgia. Consequently, it must be concluded that the Russian military action outside South Ossetia was essentially conducted in violation of international law." (page 24) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_09_09_iiffmgc_report.pdf

The bottom line, Russia's invasion, occupation and annexation of portions of Georgia was found to be illegal. That is one of the many facts you are attempting to avoid.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Two, an agreement reached after the collapse of the Soviet Union which occurred more than a decade prior is interesting, but it really isn't relevant, nor is Georgia's military spending relevant. Russia has increased its military spending under Putin's reign. Georgia like other former Soviet vassal states intended to seen membership in NATO. That was one reason why Russia Putin invaded Georgia. Georgia was the template Putin used when he invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Based on Russia's military spending, I'd say Russia's neighbors would be smart to increase their military spending too.


Yes the US supported Georgia. The US supports many states, including Mother Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed the US provided Mother Russia with a lot of aid and assistance, including military aid. Who do you think has and continues to fund the Russian space program? Prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine the US provided Mother Russia with nearly a 100 million dollars a year in aid. But that isn't cause for, nor does it make Russia's invasion and annexation of neighboring states legal or just.

 

So, the EU has also found something from the Russian side they think violated international law. So what? The really important point is who was the aggressor. That one will, after the aggression has started, also fight the aggressor in his own country is natural.

Moreover, this was temporary. Actually, there are no Russian troops in Georgia, but only in the independent republics.

Feel free to ignore whatever you don't like. The point remains, it was Georgia, supported by the US, who has violated the ceasefire and started the war. The South Ossetians have had the right to defend themself, the Russian peacekeepers too. These facts are so obvious that even for the EU it was too obvious to deny this.

 

Yeah, that small thingy where Russia illegally invaded and annexed portions of Georgia.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, that small thingy. If Mother Putin had respected the territorial integrity of Georgia as he should have, then the other incident would not have occurred. The relevant fact here is Russia illegally invaded, occupied and annexed portions of Georgia. Unfortunately for you and those of your ilk, world leaders know Ukraine wasn't the first time Mother Putin illegally invaded and annexed portions of neighboring states.

Moreover, this was temporary. Actually, there are no Russian troops in Georgia, but only in the independent republics. [/QUOTE]

Actually, it wasn't temporary and there are to his day Russian troops present in the region.

"Occupied territories of Georgia (Georgian: საქართველოს ოკუპირებული ტერიტორიები) are the territories occupied by Russiaafter the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. They consist of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose status is a matter of international dispute.

After the war, Russian military bases were established in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia does not allow the European Union Monitoring Mission to enter either Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The Russian government, along with four others, recognises Abkhazia and South Ossetia as sovereign states, and it has signed agreements with the de facto administrations of both to integrate them militarily and economically into Russia. Russian troops have started the process of demarcation (also known as "borderization") near South Ossetia-Georgia administrative boundary line and meanwhile gradually advancing the occupation line inside Georgia to enlarge the Russian-held territory.

Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are widely recognised as integral parts of the Republic of Georgia. The Georgian "Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia", adopted in 2008, criminalises entry into Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the Russian side. Such entry is prosecutable by the Georgian authorities. The Georgian law also prohibits any economic and financial activities. Georgia and major part of international community (the US, the EU, NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe) consider Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which make up 20% of Georgia's land area, to be occupied territories and have condemned Russian military presence there." Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_territories_of_Georgia

Russia annexed portions of Georgia this year when Russia created the "Treaty of Alliance and Integration".

"Russia and South Ossetia have ironed out final details of a “Treaty of Alliance and Integration.” The treaty was drafted in December 2014 and on January 31, 2015 Georgian news agencies reported that the leader of South Ossetia, Leonid Tibilov, had sent the finalized document back to Moscow. On February 18th Russia and South Ossetia signed a precursor to this treaty, called the “treaty on the state border.” According to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the broader treaty is still under consideration, but “the approval process won’t take long.” http://www.fpri.org/articles/2015/02/russias-quiet-annexation-south-ossetia

Well here is the problem for you. Your point is fallacious. And it isn't relevant. The US also supported Mother Russia until Mother Putin began invading and annexing smaller neighboring states. Georgia may have violated a cease fire, but there would not have been a need for a cease fire if Mother Putin had not invaded Georgia and fomented civil unrest. What you and your beloved Mother Putin have done is analogous to tripping a kid and then blaming him and everyone else for letting him fall. Unfortunately for you and Mother Putin, the world is a little smarter than that.

Here is another unpleasant fact for you South Ossetians are Georgians. South Ossetia wasn't an independent nation. They are not as you and mother Putin would have the world believe an independent nation. And Russia has repeatedly denied European monitors access to the region. Gee, I wonder why.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Unfortunately for you the facts are not what you say they are. You have selectively cherry one or two facts and misrepresented them. That is a fact. The EU has condemned Russia for its aggression in Georgia and Ukraine and some EU member states have publicly noted how similar those acts of aggression were to those of Nazi Germany which became the basis for WWII. The only on ignoring fact and reason here is you.

 

With the small difference that these "annexed portions" have never be controlled by the military of Georgia. The separation of Georgia from former Soviet Union happened at the same time as the separation of these parts from Georgia.

Repeating lies does not make them true. The separatist wars after the end of the USSR have not been invasions by Russia. Instead, Russia had some time rather good relations with Georgia and supported it even in some other internal fights. So it was rather natural that for the ceasefire with Abchasia and South Ossetia the Russians were accepted by all sides as neutral peacekeeping force. If you name this peacekeeping forces occupation you are completely off.

To name them occupied is nonsense, given that they are there by invitation of the guys who had the power there already before 2008. Except if you would name, say, Germany occupied by US troops. If some Georgia disputes the independence of Abchasia and South Osetia, which it has not controlled even without Russian troops being there, nobody cares.

A natural thing. These states are afraid of future military attacks by Georgia, so it is quite natural that they try to get support of Russia and want to have Russian military bases.

These states do not allow the European Union Monitoring Mission to enter. No wonder if Europe does not diplomatically recognize these states that they do not cooperate with Europe. Would you, as a leader of some state, allow some guys from states which do not recognize your state to enter?

LOL. Learn the elementary facts. The civil wars in South Ossetia and Abkhasia have been in the early 1990s. Peacekeepers came to South Ossetia came after the Sochi agreement 1992. War in Abkhazia was from 1992 to 1993. In December 1993, an official ceasefire was signed by Georgian and Abkhaz leaders under the aegis of the UN and with Russia as intermediary. In June 1994, CIS peacekeeping forces comprising only the Russian soldiers were deployed along the administrative border between Abkhazia and the remaining Georgia. Russia was more or less neutral in these wars. The question what former Soviet troops in this region have done is a different and subtle one - the central power was far away, and local ethnis Russians as well as Armenians have supported the separatists, no wonder that ethnic Russians in the Army had supported them too. But this was not official Russian policy. In 1995 there was even an economic blockade of Abkhasia by Russia.

Putin became president 2000. Before, US friend Yeltsin was the president, and mafiosi like Beresowski and Chodorkowski had the real power.

LOL. Ossetins are a quite old nation. The ossetian language belongs to the iranian group, has nothing to do with georgian language. Ossetia was a long time an independent nation. Then it became part of Russia. Requests of Georgians (which also became part of Russia) to get power over South Ossetia have been rejected by the Tsar. For a simple pragmatical reason, by the way: It was clear that the Ossetins would never follow a Georgian ruler, and he was not interested to send every day troops to enforce this. South Ossetia became part of Georgia only in Soviet time, where this was, essentially, only an administrative subdivision, which had nothing to do with nations or so. So, the whole Georgian claim is based on artificial anti-nationalist communist administrative subdivisions, nothing more.

The Ossetins have declared their independence immediately after the end of USSR, and defended it de facto in the civil war which ended 1992.

 

There are so many lies in this thread.

Or was it South Ossetia that attacked Georgia? It was Ossetians that first attacked Georgia by bombing.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080920...uid=f2b40164-cfea-11dc-9309-0000779fd2ac.html
Then they shelled Georgia with heavy artillery: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB121884450978145997
To be more specific, they shelled civilians and this was admitted by independent Russian researcher: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/19/georgia-russia-eu-media-inquiry
Even the Russian peacekeeper admitted that it was Ossetians that broke the ceasefire: http://www.rferl.org/content/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_Of_Georgian_Villages/1349256.html

So why did Ossetians attack? Russian military expert Felgenhauer explains Ossetians intentionally provoked Georgia to react. Because Russia wanted to gain legal pretext and to spin Georgia's retaliation as aggression. http://web.archive.org/web/20080809134226/http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373294
Curiously enough, it was Felgenhauer that predicted in June 2008 that Vladimir Putin would start the war against Georgia in August 2008. http://www.apsny.ge/news/1213985330.php

If you are not Russian, then you should know that EU report was infiltrated by the Russian propaganda and it was condemned by many scholars for its conclusions.

"The very limited Russian information operation were effective in influencing Western (particularly German) public opinion, which soon tilted towards the Russian version of the events. Lines of Russian disinformation even penetrated the EU's own final report, which overplayed the significance of US support and military assistance to Georgia." http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_in_the_shadow_of_ukraine_seven_years_on_from_russian_3086

The Russian researchers also condemned it: "A war, it turns out, is begun by he [sic] who responds to the actions of an aggressor [...]. So when Ossetian 'volunteers' burn Georgian villages - that is not a war. But if they [the Georgians] respond to this, then here you, accursed ones, have started a war. Following the logic of the Tagliavini commission, the Georgians ought not to have responded. Even if Russian tanks had reached Tbilisi, and the Georgians had responded, they, the swine, would have started a war. The logic is irreproachable: if the Georgians had not responded, there would have been no war." https://books.google.com/books?id=zTpKOZciSIMC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98

"It seems clear that Russia had been preparing for this war for years, and deliberately provoked Georgia through the shooting and shelling of Georgian-controlled villages in South Ossetia." http://www.turkishpolicy.com/dosyal..._of_the_Caucasus_A_Decade_of_Perspectives.pdf

Even the state owned Russian TV reported that Russian battalion of the North Caucasus Military district entered South Ossetia before the Georgians reacted. http://web.archive.org/web/20120523...ticle/moscow-claims-media-war-win/372391.html

Well, in 1992-2008 Georgia did actually control 51% of South Ossetia prior to the 2008 Russian invasion.
http://www.webcitation.org/5a2Sg0FSE

As for Abkhazia, Georgia became the UN member one month before the war in Abkhazia broke out.
However, Abkhaz minority gained their control of parts of Abkhazia through an ethnic cleansing of Georgians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia

International recognition does matter. When the occupation took place, the territories were then recognised as Georgian even by Russia.
http://rus-atlas.ru/map827672_0_0.htm

By your logic, ethnic Chinese in the US can wage insurgency and then ask China to occupy the chinatowns. Then PRC can argue that it does not occupy the US soil.

The problem is that present-day South Ossetia has never been part of Ossetia. Present-day North Ossetia was actually called Ossetia before the 20th century. Ossetian people are indigenous to present-day North Ossetia and migrated to the South Caucasus only several centuries ago, settled the Georgian lands and became the subjects of the Georgian nobility and kings. However, in the 20th century ethnic Ossetians living in central Georgia were encouraged by the Russians to wage insurgency and confiscate the lands that belonged to their Georgian masters. After 1921, the Bolsheviks awarded ethnic Ossetians in the South Caucasus their own territory, called South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast, for their help in the invasion of Georgia in 1921. Before 1922, there never had been any Ossetian political entity, be it principality, kingdom, region or republic, in the South Caucasus.

Now, let's review the territorial evolution of the Caucasus before the 20th century.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:87EarlyBagratid884-962.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bagratid_Armenia,_962-1064.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:105ByzantExpan3-966-1064.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Caucasus_1124_AC_en_alt.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...r_dissolution_as_a_unified_state,_1490_AD.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khartli-Kakheti.svg
http://conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/geor_1810.JPG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Caucasus_War_(1809-1817)_by_Anosov.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:..._Caucasian_Provinces_Of_Russia._1856_(BB).jpg
http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/The Caucasus/transcaucasus_1917.jpg
http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/arm_geor_war/map 2.gif
http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/sovetizacia_1921_1.jpg

The first time we see South Ossetia.
http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/abkhazia/Czerwon_E_files/image013.jpg

 

There was low level fighting over a quite long time before. And, as usual for such low level fighting, one does not have a real chance to find out who has started this. There is, by the way, no day without ceasefire violations actually in the Donbass.

What is relevant, and what I care about, was the full scale attack by the Georgian army which started the real war.

The "Russian military expert Felgenhauer" meme is quite funny. There are a lot of Russians ready to claim whatever the West likes. To name them "military experts" is cheap. The Russian nationalists see even a whole "fifth column" of the West having strong position even in the Kreml. But this guy is simply a biolog and journalist, Wiki mentions his cooperation with the Jamestown Foundation, IOW paid by US conservatives.

Predictable. The only thing I really wonder about is how such a report could have been published at all.

It was a quite horrible civil war with ethnic cleansing on above sides, with the Chechen fundamentalist Schamil Bassajew on Abkhasian side responsible for many horrible things. Fighting this guy Bassajew after he has attacked another Russian province and winning this war was the first thing done by Putin.

By my logic, states are simply the most powerful mafia gang in a given territory. So they can do, and really do, whatever they can reach by their military means and get away with. Everything else is political propaganda. Of course, international regognition does matter - in the power games between the states. If a state is not recognized, that means, nobody cares if a war against this state is started.

In the past, there was some reasonable standard of international law, but it has become worthless today. For a simple reason - the US does not care about international law at all. They get away with it, because they are an empire with almost half of the worlds military spending. But, even if they were able to get away with it, it has consequences. Namely, any accusations of others for doing similar things have lost all their moral value. Laws have a moral force only if they are equal laws, obligatory for some Liechtenstein as well as for the US, and this this moral force has disappeared.

The last nail (and decisive one for the Russians) was the Kosovo war. After this, "European values" were reduced to a propaganda phrase, taken seriously only by Western sheeple, but despised as cheap propaganda by the rest of the World.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alania_10_12.png

 

Low-level fighting involved small-scale arms such as Kalashnikov rifles.

Nobody considers the use of the heavy artillery as low-level fighting. It is an act of war. Hell, the Soviet army shelled themselves to justify the aggression against Finland. But it's not unknown who fired the first artillery salvo in 2008. The sources clearly state that Ossetians did. Even the Russian peacekeeper admitted that Ossetians broke the ceasefire by shelling Georgian civilians with the heavy artillery.

So Ossetians have the right to attack Georgia, but Georgia does not have the right to respond? I'm pretty sure if Chechen separatists had shelled the Russian settlements or military across the border, Putin would raze Grozny in less than a day.

You are just parroting the Russian propaganda that Georgia somehow provoked Russia.

Not everyone agrees with you. Currently many scholars consider the shelling of the Georgian villages as the starting point of the war. The fact is that Ossetians provoked Georgia to retaliate and the Russian propaganda spinned the Georgian retaliation as an act of unprovoked aggression against the peaceful Russian citizens and used as pretext for full-scale invasion.
There is evidence that Russia had already invaded before Georgia responded. Invasion is an act of war.

But his predictions came true. He is quite renowned in his field. So what that he had biological education? Not every renowned actor has a formal education. He is way more credible than Putin.

This very interesting documentary includes video footage of Ossetian shelling at 17:39.
At 18:41 and 49:51 pro-Kremlin journalist explains how Russian journalists waged the war against Georgia to discredit the enemy.

The EU commission was funded by Germany and back then Germany was the largest trading partner of Russia. If they had published the report more critical of Russia, then Germany would have to impose sanctions on Russia.

I've never heard of any ethnic cleansing committed by Georgians in Abkhazia. The UN General Assembly regularly adopts resolutions calling for the return of Georgians to Abkhazia. If there had been any ethnic cleansing by Georgians, then Russia would gladly propagate such fact.

Any wrongdoing by the US does not make Russia's actions right.

The map is by Ossetian author. You blindly accept this map as reliable source, but Wikipedia has three other maps by neutral historians depicting the same period.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:87EarlyBagratid884-962.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bagratid_Armenia,_962-1064.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:105ByzantExpan3-966-1064.png

Why the contradiction? The author probably had the irredentist bias and tried to depict his homeland bigger than it actually was. Even if the map was true, it doesn't mean that Ossetians are indigenous to the South Caucasus. It could mean that some territory was conquered and administered by the Ossetians. Poznan was part of the German Empire a century ago, but that doesn't mean Germans are indigenous population of Posen.

Russian historians don't agree with your map's POV. One of them states that there is no evidence that would prove that Ossetians are indigenous to modern-day South Ossetia: https://books.google.com/books?id=6fczAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119

Do you think this map shows the actual territory of Germany in 2007: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=183730&stc=1&d=1345914328
I don't think so. Even the Turkish nationalist can draw the map of Germany, where Turkish-majority areas would be separated from the rest of Germany and claim that Turks are indigenous people in those areas and Germans are just oppressing them.