An illegal military attack by Georgia on its breakaway region of South Ossetia triggered last year’s war with Russia, an international report said yesterday.

Russia was also guilty of breaking international law by invading deep into Georgian territory in response to the attack, the European Union-backed investigation into the causes of the five-day conflict concluded.

The report deals a severe blow to Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili, who has repeatedly argued that he ordered troops into South Ossetia as a defensive action in response to a Russian invasion. Moscow insisted that it sent forces to South Ossetia to repel a Georgian attack.

The nine-month inquiry led by a Swiss diplomat, Heidi Tagliavini, said that the war was triggered by “a large-scale Georgian military operation” against the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali late on August 7, adding: “Operations started with a massive Georgian artillery attack.”

Ms Tagliavini said in a written statement: “None of the explanations given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack lend it a valid explanation.”

Her inquiry rejected as not “sufficiently substantiated” Georgian claims of a Russian incursion into South Ossetia prior to the outbreak of the war. But it noted “an influx of volunteers or mercenaries” into South Ossetia from Russia and said that some Russian troops were in the war zone earlier than the Kremlin had claimed.

The Russian air force also bombed targets in Georgia hours before Moscow said that it had begun military operations at 2.30pm on August 8.

The inquiry concluded: “There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was justifiable under international law. It was not.

“It follows from the illegal character of the Georgian military assault that South Ossetian defensive action in response did conform to international law in terms of legitimate self-defence.”

The report said that there was also no justification for Georgian attacks on Russian peacekeeping forces based in South Ossetia. It went on: “There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation. Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August could not be substantiated. It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack.

“Consequently, the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law.”

The inquiry condemned Russia’s response to the fighting, however, as going “far beyond the reasonable limits of defence”. It said that the Kremlin broke international law in justifying its actions and in recognising South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia’s other breakaway region, as independent states after the war.

Initial Russian defensive actions in South Ossetia were legal, but subsequent military occupation of large parts of Georgia – tanks came within 25 miles of the capital Tbilisi – was not “even remotely commensurate” with the threat posed to its peacekeepers.

Russia’s invasion broke international law and continued destruction of Georgian territory after a ceasefire negotiated by President Sarkozy of France “was not justifiable by any means”. The report added: “In a matter of a very few days, the pattern of legitimate and illegitimate military action had thus turned around between the two main actors Georgia and Russia… It must be concluded that the Russian military action outside South Ossetia was essentially conducted in violation of international law.”

The report rejected the Kremlin’s assertion that it had acted in defence of Russian citizens in South Ossetia, most of whom hold Russian passports. It said that people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia remained Georgian citizens under international law and it condemned Russia’s “passportisation” policy as “an open challenge to Georgian sovereignty and an interference in the internal affairs of Georgia”.

The inquiry described Russian claims that Georgia was committing “genocide” against South Ossetians as “neither founded in law nor substantiated by factual evidence”. It noted that Russia reduced to 162 its initial claim that 2,000 South Ossetians had been killed by Georgian troops.

It accused Georgian and Russian soldiers as well as South Ossetian militias of committing atrocities that amounted to “war crimes”. But the similarity of weapons used by all sides made it difficult to attribute responsibility for particular acts.

The report condemned Russia for failing to control South Ossetian irregulars who it said were guilty of ethnic cleansing of Georgian villagers from their homes in the conflict zone. Georgia’s use of Grad missiles and cluster munitions in its night attack on Tskhinvali amounted to “indiscriminate attacks” on the civilian population.

While Georgia’s attack on Tskhinvali marked the start of the war, the inquiry said that it “was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents” involving Russia and separatist leaders in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Assessments of the war had to consider “a great power’s coercive politics and diplomacy against a small and insubordinate neighbour, together with the small neighbour’s penchant for overplaying its hand and acting in the heat of the moment without careful consideration of the final outcome”.

The Kremlin welcomed the report. Vladimir Chizhov, Russia’s ambassador to the EU, said: “It confirms what we’ve know all along – who started the war and who bears responsibility.”

Georgia insisted that the inquiry proved that Moscow had been plotting a war for a long time. Temuri Yakobashvili, Georgia’s Minister for Reintegration, said: “The report proves that Russia was all the time preparing this war and August 7 and 8 were the culmination. The report is not about who started the war; the war did not start on August 7 or 8.”

The inquiry said that Georgia reported 228 civilians killed and 184 soldiers dead or missing in the war. Russia said that 64 of its troops died and 162 South Ossetian civilians.

More than 100,000 people became refugees during the conflict. Several thousand South Ossetians remain homeless and some 25,000 Georgians have been unable to return to South Ossetia. By Tony Halpin, The Times.

A resurgent dispute over an Indian state that China claims as its own is threatening to explode into a bloodier fight. There is perhaps no country more feared and less understood in India than China. In recent weeks Delhi newspapers and television have been awash with stories about the People’s Liberation Army crossing the Himalayas to daub rocks with Chinese characters, making daredevil helicopter raids to drop (stale) tinned food on hapless farmers and trading fire with Indian soldiers.

India’s Kashmir state government, apparently, said its territory was being taken “inch by inch” through such incursions. Ominously, authorities last week in Kolkata impounded a plane carrying arms from the Middle East to China.

While the foreign ministries in both countries play down the reports, there are concerns that left unchecked, things could spiral out of control.

The spat began in June. Chinese bloggers vented their fury when India abruptly announced that it would be sending 60,000 troops to bolster tens of thousands of soldiers to Arunachal Pradesh – an Indian state that Beijing claims as its own. One online poll in China claimed that 90% of respondents thought Delhi’s actions posed a “threat”.

At the heart of this dispute lies the Tibetan question. Historically, China says Arunachal Pradesh’s 35,000 square miles was part of “outer Tibet”. In a short bloody war, Chinese troops overran Indian positions in the Himalayas in 1962 before retreating. Since then the two sides have tried to discuss their way out of a problem. More than dozen rounds of talks have yielded little.

For years the dispute has rumbled on, attracting little international attention. However, that changed this summer with the arrival of fresh troops – and an Indian airforce squadron of advanced fighters – which analysts say were needed to cope with China’s rising military might, especially in Tibet.

The Indian defence magazine Force points out that the PLA could mobilise four divisions – about 50,000 men – in 24 hours to the Sino-Indian border. “Awesome military projection capability by any standards,” says the magazine in its latest edition.

To get a taste of how difficult things might be for India, in a diplomatic first, China “internationalised” the issue of Arunachal Pradesh, highlighting its disputed status in July. Beijing formally objected to a $60m loan for India because it would fund irrigation projects in Arunachal Pradesh. Although the loan was later approved, Chinese experts say there is still “room to change” the project.

Arunachal Pradesh has been slowly integrated into the Indian state since Delhi sent troops in 1950 carrying papers signed by the Tibetan government in Lhasa, which transferred 35,000 square miles of the Himalayas to India. Beijing rejects Delhi’s claim, saying the region was subject to a crafty piece of real estate theft by British imperialists in 1914 when China was in chaos.

A solution has always been in sight: Beijing relinquishes its claim to Arunachal Pradesh and Delhi gives up its demand for 15,000 square miles of stragetically important Chinese-held mountainous land bordering Kashmir.

But Arunachal Pradesh for China is not just a territorial issue but an existential one. The state is home to the town of Tawang, birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama, where Tibetan Buddhism’s biggest monastery, after the Potala palace in Lhasa, sits.

Tawang is also the repository of perhaps the last vestige of a Tibet submerged by China’s rise – sustaining the idea of religious freedom for the diaspora and keeping alive a centuries-old culture and language. In conversation, the Monpa people who dominate the local area will tell visitors that Tawang could be Tibetan Buddhism’s new Rome, a base from where to spread the faith.

China is alarmed by such talk. Beijing sees Tawang not as a place of serenity but as a spiritual spy camp – ultimately challenging the ruling Communist party’s control in Tibet. These feelings were heightened when the Indian government said this week it would allow the Dalai Lama to travel to Tawang, adding he was “free to go anywhere in India”.

The present Tibetan leader has not been a regular visitor to the town. He passed through when he fled Tibet in 1959 but he has only been allowed back twice since: once in 1982 and then again 2003. This time around he will open a hospital he funded.

The Indian backing to the Dalai Lama comes at a critical time. The Obama administration said this week that the president would not meet the Tibetan leader during his upcoming trip to Washington – a break with tradition. George Bush and Bill Clinton met the Dalai Lama when he arrived in the American capital. Afraid that the White House was now kowtowing to Beijing before the president’s visit this November to China, Tibet’s government in exile openly said even the US was now “appeasing” China. This is a breakthrough for China – which is unafraid of criticising any head of state for meeting the Dalai Lama, who they see as a man determined to “split the motherland”. So far 170 countries out of 193 in the United Nations have acceded to China’s demands.

This leaves India in a difficult, lonely position. It already sees Chinese ports and military bases strung across the Indian Ocean – the so called “string of pearls” strategy designed to check Indian influence in its backyard. Delhi has been outbid for vital oil and gas resources by its bigger, richer neighbour. On most measures of hard power – number of nuclear weapons, economic size, population – India lags behind.

China is not afraid to flex its muscles: it blocked India’s bid for a UN security council place and tried to shoot down a groundbreaking US-India nuclear deal.

Delhi says it is in the nature of development for the two large Asian nations to compete and co-operate for resources, cash and technology. China is India’s largest trading partner, with two-way trade volumes crossing $50bn in 2008. The two countries, which are both home to millions of poor people, have worked together in trade and climate change – fending off advances from the advanced nations.

For both, Tibet makes it easier to be antagonists rather than collaborators. Unless both manage to work together to resolve their differences there is a chance the two populations will get bogged down in adversarial nationalism. The media war could then explode into bloodier conflict on the roof of the world. By Randeep Ramesh, The Guardian.