View Full Version : Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 16:27
It appears that the Russian army has now invaded undisputed Georgian territory (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7554507.stm) from Abkhazia.
And Mr Saakashvili has had a small taste of what he has got his countrymen into.
Have any of our US colleagues got better clarity on what the Vice-President meant by "Russian aggression will not go unanswered"?
So I guess the statements that Russia was pulling out were fallacious. If Russia knows that they can invade Georgia with impunity and carve out new land - they will do just that. I am really disappointed that we haven't dropped the hammer. The Bush administration has made the world less safe through its inaction.
Hosakawa Tito
08-11-2008, 16:28
It's all quite ambiguous at the moment. Though I can't imagine any actions but diplomatic ones.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usrussia11-2008aug11,0,5822616,full.story
Tricky Dick Chaney may be feeling froggy, but he lives in a fantasy world inside some bunker half the time.
White House deputy national security advisor James Jeffrey offered a more sanguine tone during the news briefing in Beijing, telling reporters that the Russians had informally provided an indication that, with a Georgian troop withdrawal and other steps, "this situation could be resolved peacefully. So . . . they have held that door open."
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 16:31
Russia is going to try to kill or capture Saakashvili. They are going for regime change. What is the matter with the west?
Conradus
08-11-2008, 17:54
The last thing we Euro's want is an all-out war between Russia and the USA.
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 17:59
The last thing we Euro's want is an all-out war between Russia and the USA.
Europeans take a bizarre interest in their own defense. I'm not talking about American action only - I'm talking NATO. Is it up to the U.S. alone to defend democratic European nations? Are you just bystanders?
HoreTore
08-11-2008, 18:00
We like sorting out stuff diplomatically ~;)
Banquo's Ghost
08-11-2008, 18:02
What is the matter with the west?
I expect they don't wish to fall victim to one of Vizzini's classic blunders (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU).
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 18:02
We like sorting out stuff diplomatically ~;)
Riiiight. What European military conflict that has already started getting violent has ever been sorted out with words?
This is getting on my nerves. Georgia has/had the 3rd largest troop deployment in Iraq between the US and the UK. They are great ally and were close to becoming a member of NATO. I'm going to be a bit ticked at my government if we stand by and let the country of Georgia collapse to the Russians.
HoreTore
08-11-2008, 18:05
Riiiight. What European military conflict that has already started getting violent has ever been sorted out with words?
Northern Ireland?
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 18:09
Northern Ireland?
Okay you win. Is this situation similar?
Divinus Arma
08-11-2008, 18:17
The last thing we Euro's want is an all-out war between Russia and the USA.
The last thing we Americans want is an all-out war between Russia and the US. :dizzy2:
I don't have all of my information here yet, but I'm on the fence as to who is in the right. I am certainly not going to side with Georgia just because it is an ally. If Georgia instigated this, then I have to favor Russia. That said, Russian escalation into Democratic Georgia with the intention of regime change of a democratically elected president is mighty disturbing.
This is quite a crisis with some very grave implications for international stability.
Edit: One last note. It seems to me that Russia's entire purpose here is to demonstrate its power and its anger at the west for encroachment into its territory.
Adrian II
08-11-2008, 18:23
And Mr Saakashvili has had a small taste of what he has got his countrymen into.And what he had got the Ossetians into, it appears. The stories of the Ossetian refugees who fled into Russia are pretty harrowing. It is hard to say how much of all that is true, but the fact that they fled their homes and cities during last weeks' Georgian attack, and the many concurring stories about Georgian troops firing artillety shells and sniping at the refugee columns, point to some serious issues.
Mr Saakashvili may have been elected democratically on a very chauvinist platform, but it does not give him the right to act so heavy-handedly against minorities, and doing so under the eyes of the Russian troops in the province was not constructive, to put it diplomatically.
It would be helpful though if Nato started flying in (token) forces into the Turkish border area with Georgia, in order to prepare the ground (and public opinion) for possible larger deployments to that area, provided of course that Turkey would allow it - just in case the Russians decide that taking Tbilisi would be a good idea after all, which I am sure they realize would cause a major international crisis.
Kagemusha
08-11-2008, 18:30
As much i would like to side with Georgia, the fact is that Georgia broke the cease fire and is not even disputing it, which gives Russia a casus belli. Now the job for the west is to pressure Russia into negotiating table and prevent Russia from over running the entire Georgia. In poker terms, Georgia tried to bluff Russia into submission, but Russia called the cards. I dont think either side of this conflict has clean intentions, both are trying to strengthen their position in the area.
It was bad move from Georgia to think that Russia would be so fearful of west that it would just let Georgia do what it wants. From Russian perspective, such move would have been disastrous to the Government, showing weakness towards the west. Georgia should not have put Russian government into a position, where it had no other options then using force.
Now its the job for rest of the world to pressure Russia, so it cant use this pretext to destroy the independency of Georgia.
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 18:32
And what he had got the Ossetians into, it appears. The stories of the Ossetian refugees who fled into Russia are pretty harrowing. It is hard to say how much of all that is true, but the fact that they fled their homes and cities during last weeks' Georgian attack, and the many concurring stories about Georgian troops firing artillety shells and sniping at the refugee columns, point to some serious issues.
Mr Saakashvili may have been elected democratically on a very chauvinist platform, but it does not give him the right to act so heavy-handedly against minorities, and doing so under the eyes of the Russian troops in the province was not constructive, to put it diplomatically.
It would be helpful though if Nato started flying in (token) forces into the Turkish border area with Georgia, in order to prepare the ground (and public opinion) for possible larger deployments to that area, provided of course that Turkey would allow it - just in case the Russians decide that taking Tbilisi would be a good idea after all, which I am sure they realize would cause a major international crisis.
That's all I'm after - some NATO response.
Georgia has a pretty good record of minority relations. The city of Gori withing greater Georgia is predominantly Ossetian, I believe and there haven't been any issues there. Where are you reading about the Ossetian refugee experience? I haven't found much on that.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 18:34
Russia has moved forces into Georgian lands, as confirmed. It's interesting how the situation is developing. According to the Russians they have moved in to counter a Georgian counterattack, and I haven't seen a Georgian denial of this. However, Georgians claim Russia has captured Gori, which Russia denies. We'll see who is speaking the truth there.
And what he had got the Ossetians into, it appears. The stories of the Ossetian refugees who fled into Russia are pretty harrowing. It is hard to say how much of all that is true, but the fact that they fled their homes and cities during last weeks' Georgian attack, and the many concurring stories about Georgian troops firing artillety shells and sniping at the refugee columns, point to some serious issues.
Mr Saakashvili may have been elected democratically on a very chauvinist platform, but it does not give him the right to act so heavy-handedly against minorities, and doing so under the eyes of the Russian troops in the province was not constructive, to put it diplomatically.
It would be helpful though if Nato started flying in (token) forces into the Turkish border area with Georgia, in order to prepare the ground (and public opinion) for possible larger deployments to that area, provided of course that Turkey would allow it - just in case the Russians decide that taking Tbilisi would be a good idea after all, which I am sure they realize would cause a major international crisis.
Good post Adrian. :bow:
Russia has moved forces into Georgian lands, as confirmed. It's interesting how the situation is developing. According to the Russians they have moved in to counter a Georgian counterattack, and I haven't seen a Georgian denial of this. However, Georgians claim Russia has captured Gori, which Russia denies. We'll see who is speaking the truth there.
Good post Adrian. :bow:
You still think the Russians are noble peacekeepers? Are they still trying to protect Russian citizens (you know, the one's who got the citizenship from the Russians)?
You know, I'm surprised you still won't admit that Russia is doing this for no one but themselves. I'm glad Georgia is trying to push the Russians out of their land.
Originally Posted by HoreTore: "Northern Ireland?"
Okay you win. Is this situation similar?
he isn't really right at all.
it was never a shooting war between state actors.
we broke their will to continue fighting by utterly infiltrating them via every human and technical means available, to the point where if they planned an assassination there were SAS waiting to slot them, if they went to pick up an arms cache it was possibly booby-trapped, if they went looking for moles we served them up one of their own to execute whilst leaving our spies ever further up in the ranks of the IRA.
they came to the peace table on their knees!
Kagemusha
08-11-2008, 19:16
Originally Posted by HoreTore: "Northern Ireland?"
he isn't really right at all.
it was never a shooting war between state actors.
we broke their will to continue by utterly infiltrating them by every human and technical means to the point where if they planned a assassination there were SAS waiting to slot them, if they went to pick up an arms cache it was possibly booby-trapped, if they went looking for moles we served them up one of their own to execute whilst leaving our spies ever further up in the ranks of the IRA.
they came to the peace table on their knees!
So you are proud what Britain has done in Northern Ireland? You think they rose against you just for fun, without any reasons?
Adrian II
08-11-2008, 19:20
You still think the Russians are noble peacekeepers? Are they still trying to protect Russian citizens (you know, the one's who got the citizenship from the Russians)?
You know, I'm surprised you still won't admit that Russia is doing this for no one but themselves. I'm glad Georgia is trying to push the Russians out of their land.Of course it's Russian power politics, that's a no-brainer. And in a sense it is a response to Nato power politics with regard to Kosovo.
If you think Nato should once again react from a power perspective alone, you are misguided. We would make the same mistake as in Kosovo and invite further trouble down the road. Nato is not being attacked here. Georgia is, and it partly has itself to blame.
Nato should hold itself to standards of legality and legitimacy. Both parties in this war are clearly wrong in most of their actions and demands. Which is why we are trying to sort out these issues in this forum, with an eye to deciding which solution would be just and what actions would bring it about. There is not much more we can do, is there?
Banquo's Ghost
08-11-2008, 19:26
Originally Posted by HoreTore: "Northern Ireland?"
he isn't really right at all.
it was never a shooting war between state actors.
we broke their will to continue fighting by utterly infiltrating them via every human and technical means available, to the point where if they planned an assassination there were SAS waiting to slot them, if they went to pick up an arms cache it was possibly booby-trapped, if they went looking for moles we served them up one of their own to execute whilst leaving our spies ever further up in the ranks of the IRA.
they came to the peace table on their knees!
I don't wish to derail the thread, but that's bollox. (If you want to explore it further, please start a new thread and I will discuss with you, subject to the constraints of the Official Secrets Act).
Banquo's Ghost
08-11-2008, 19:37
And what he had got the Ossetians into, it appears. The stories of the Ossetian refugees who fled into Russia are pretty harrowing. It is hard to say how much of all that is true, but the fact that they fled their homes and cities during last weeks' Georgian attack, and the many concurring stories about Georgian troops firing artillety shells and sniping at the refugee columns, point to some serious issues.
Mr Saakashvili may have been elected democratically on a very chauvinist platform, but it does not give him the right to act so heavy-handedly against minorities, and doing so under the eyes of the Russian troops in the province was not constructive, to put it diplomatically.
It would be helpful though if Nato started flying in (token) forces into the Turkish border area with Georgia, in order to prepare the ground (and public opinion) for possible larger deployments to that area, provided of course that Turkey would allow it - just in case the Russians decide that taking Tbilisi would be a good idea after all, which I am sure they realize would cause a major international crisis.
That is a good post. However, the British Channel 4 news has just broadcast some film of Russian "peacekeepers" attacking Georgian forces in South Ossetia a week before this conflict started. There is also little doubt that the Georgians behaved extremely badly towards the Ossetians in their attacks - trying to follow Putin's Chechen example perhaps?
Saakashvili has behaved in a cretinous manner, but that still doesn't give the Russians the right to violate international borders. Given the nationalism that is fuelling Russian dreams of regaining superpower status, I seriously doubt they will take any notice of NATO troops other than as a red rag. Putin knows they would be merely for show.
Unless... President Bush is sounding more and more like our own TuffStuff. His statements would normally be dismissed as posturing except that - it's President Bush.
:hide:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 19:42
(you know, the one's who got the citizenship from the Russians)?
That's how you'd normally get Russian citizenship, from the Russians. ~;)
You know, I'm surprised you still won't admit that Russia is doing this for no one but themselves. I'm glad Georgia is trying to push the Russians out of their land.
I have said that - Russia is protecting their interests in the region. Big surprise. Doesn't mean they're completely in the wrong.
That is a good post. However, the British Channel 4 news has just broadcast some film of Russian "peacekeepers" attacking Georgian forces in South Ossetia a week before this conflict started. There is also little doubt that the Georgians behaved extremely badly towards the Ossetians in their attacks - trying to follow Putin's Chechen example perhaps?
Russians, Ossetians, and Georgians, to my knowledge, were having some minor conflict before this round started. This round was started by the Georgians after they violated the ceasefire that halted the last round.
That's how you'd normally get Russian citizenship, from the Russians. ~;)
I have said that - Russia is protecting their interests in the region. Big surprise. Doesn't mean they're completely in the wrong.
Yes, Russia is protecting it's own interests....by invading Georgia......
That is a good post. However, the British Channel 4 news has just broadcast some film of Russian "peacekeepers" attacking Georgian forces in South Ossetia a week before this conflict started. There is also little doubt that the Georgians behaved extremely badly towards the Ossetians in their attacks - trying to follow Putin's Chechen example perhaps?
Saakashvili has behaved in a cretinous manner, but that still doesn't give the Russians the right to violate international borders. Given the nationalism that is fuelling Russian dreams of regaining superpower status, I seriously doubt they will take any notice of NATO troops other than as a red rag. Putin knows they would be merely for show.
Unless... President Bush is sounding more and more like our own TuffStuff. His statements would normally be dismissed as posturing except that - it's President Bush.
:hide:
not to criticise the rest of the post, i agree with it, but another way of phrasing the final sentence might be; that GWB is sincere in his stated desire, and firm in his intention, to see an end to russia's overreaction to georgia's foolish offensive?
You still think the Russians are noble peacekeepers? Are they still trying to protect Russian citizens (you know, the one's who got the citizenship from the Russians)?
You know, I'm surprised you still won't admit that Russia is doing this for no one but themselves. I'm glad Georgia is trying to push the Russians out of their land.
You know, there is another country that invaded a country far away that had no citizens of the first country, saying this other country had weapons of mass destruction. Turned out that was a blatant lie but that country is still occupying the other country and now it thinks it can complain about Russia doing a counter attack after Georgia shelled (that means shot at and likely killed, just to make that clear) russian citizens in a disputed province, keep in mind those people accepted the russian citizenship, unless you can find me a source saying they were forced to take it at gunpoint.
I do not really care what alignment you have but if you break a ceasefire, you're just asking for trouble and Georgia gets that trouble now. It's just too bad that there may be georgians/ossetians who did not want any of this but get fired at anyway, though my usual advice for them is get the hell out of there and come back when it's over.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 19:59
Yes, Russia is protecting it's own interests....by invading Georgia......
Protecting its own interests...by defending South Ossetia...
Protecting its own interests...by defending South Ossetia...
You honestly call what they're doing "defending South Ossetia"?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 20:03
You honestly call what they're doing "defending South Ossetia"?
Well, yes, it's rather obvious that that is what's going on right now. You may remember the part where Georgia attacked South Ossetia, as Husar outlined in the excellent post above mine.
Devastatin Dave
08-11-2008, 20:04
Also, I'm not sure why people in this thread think that shelling a civilian population is a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with rebels.
Are you kidding? Several here get in this thread get a boner if anyone ever mentions what NATO did to the Serbs. We bombed civilian Serbs in that conflict like a bad Dresden reenactment. Personally, I'm just waiting for the strongly worded statement from the UN. That'll show 'em!!!:beam:
Protecting its own interests...by defending South Ossetia...
That is no longer the case. It is now an outright war of aggression against Georgia. Had the Russians stayed within the confines of South Ossetia, your argument would have been true, but that has now changed. One thing to remember is that this war will most certainly not go unnoticed by other neighbors of Russia, and *they* in turn will be far more receptive towards the idea of joining NATO ASAP. Ukraine is pretty much a done deal at this point. Others may follow, maybe even the central asian republics.
Well, yes, it's rather obvious that that is what's going on right now. You may remember the part where Georgia attacked South Ossetia, as Husar outlined in the excellent post above mine.
Yes, that's why they are attacking Georgian forces and installations outside said zone.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 20:15
Yes, that's why they are attacking Georgian forces and installations outside said zone.
To destroy Georgia's military capacity, for whatever reason. That's what you do in a war.
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 20:21
Banquo - what have I been calling for? Some NATO response. I'm not calling for war or a NATO intervention on the side of Georgia. I'm calling for something similar to what Adrian has called for PLUS the eventual inclusion of Georgia into NATO.
This has been the agenda of most western states AND Georgia. The conflict has become more widespread through doing nothing and more lives have been affected. A NATO presence in Turkey with the intent on moving in as Peacekeepers may give the conflict a much needed ceasefire. Russia would realize that the stakes were increasing and might be more likely to fall back into Ossetia and Abkhazia - since they have already realized their objectives.
In the ceasefire, if NATO would be too difficult to deal with for the Russians in the short term, their mere presence would serve as a great bargaining chip for the U.N. to use to permanently draw down the conflict through negotiating a UN peacekeeping mission. In the end, all we would have done was put NATO troops in a participating member nation with possibilities.
Do I sound like an ultra-nationalist hothead here?
Rhyfelwyr
08-11-2008, 20:23
Noticed on the news tonight there was a video of Russian-backed rebels firing against Georgian positions one week before the main conflict arose. Although I'm not sure of its reliability, this would appear to show that Russia has agitated Georgia into reacting.
Devastatin Dave
08-11-2008, 20:25
.
Do I sound like an ultra-nationalist hothead here?
No, but in the "Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away" land, you're a Nazi.:laugh4:
Kagemusha
08-11-2008, 20:31
No, but in the "Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away" land, you're a Nazi.:laugh4:
Escalating the crisis with a nuclear power is sure a smart idea. Russia is no Serbia. Georgia gave Russia casus belli with its own actions, braking the ceasefire and how much as you might like it, Russia has muscle enough in its nuclear arsenal that will prevent anyone from beating it to submission and they know it. So negotiations are the only way, otherwise soon Georgia will have a puppet government planted by the Russia once they have over run Georgia.
No, but in the "Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away" land, you're a Nazi.:laugh4:
The word "Nazi" should be replaced with "person with a different outlook" and all guns should be replaced with walkie-talkies.
To destroy Georgia's military capacity, for whatever reason. That's what you do in a war.
War? The Russian invasion of Georgia was said to protect the "Russian" (I still laugh at that because Russia pretty much gave citizenship to people living in Georgia and called them Russians), not to go to war with Georgia and topple the government although anyone can see this seems to be their goal.
Edit: Can you explain the massing of Russian troops at the border of Georgia months before the invasion?
I'm having a hard time why people refuse to see what Russia is really trying to do.
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 20:50
Here is Denis MacShane on the situation with Russia.
Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/11/do1104.xml)
Georgia: We must unite to resist Russian aggression
By Denis MacShane
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/08/2008
At least when Russian tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia exactly 40 years ago they did not shoot to kill. Nor did Russian planes bomb civilians or fly low over European cities to terrify inhabitants. And the Russian invasion of a nominally sovereign republic was covered by finding some local Czech communists who signed a Kremlin-drafted agreement in captivity.
Czechoslovakia was once described by a Conservative prime minister as "a faraway country of which we know nothing". Many may feel similarly about Georgia. But the frontiers of today's Europe now stretch to the Black Sea. Britain's energy supplies depend on a narrow pipeline stretching from Azerbaijan, across Georgia, to Turkey.
The failure of foreign policy in the 1990s led to a million or more people from Balkan states flooding into northern Europe as asylum seekers, many heading for our shores. As jihadist Islamism seeks new terrorism bases further east, Britain's security now requires engagement in the troubled arc of instability from eastern Turkey to the states of the Caucasus and all the countries ending in "stan".
Into this stewpot, Vladimir Putin has dropped - literally - a bombshell. By ordering a full-scale military invasion of Georgia, he has revealed the true face of his autocratic rule. By flying in person to the scene as if he was field commander-in-chief, he is showing the world that Russia will revert to being a military power willing to bully and threaten its neighbours.
advertisement
Two months ago, I asked Russia's EU ambassador who was in charge of Russia's foreign and defence policy. After a moment's hesitation, he replied: "The constitutional position is clear. It is the president of Russia." One can only feel sorry for the hapless Dimitri Medvedev, the placeman installed as president by Putin, who stepped down to the theoretically inferior position of prime minister. Like Stalin, who never had a grander title than general secretary of the Communist party, we now see a Russian voshd - chief - totally in charge. Poor Medvedev promised Russian support at the G8 for strong UN language on Zimbabwe, only to be disowned on his return to Moscow. Again today, Putin shows who is running Russia.
To be sure, the efforts of the democratically elected government in Tbilisi to establish its control over all of its territory was clumsy. South Ossetia has been promised full autonomy with respect for its Russian culture and languages - the same as, say, a Catalonia in Spain, or the French-speaking cantons of Switzerland. But this was not acceptable to the Kremlin, which has a group of corrupt cronies in place in South Ossetia.
Nor will this crisis remain on Russia's south-eastern flank. Putin does not fully accept the sovereignty of the Baltic states, with sizeable Russian minorities who arrived there after Stalin snuffed out the independence of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1939. Russia has already launched a cyber-war that shut down Estonia's government and economic life for 24 hours. Putin has also demanded a Russian corridor across Lithuanian territory to the ex-Soviet enclave of Königsberg, where Kant wrote his theory of perpetual peace.
Now called Kaliningrad, the former Prussian city was host to an infamous meeting of Putin, Chirac and Schröder at which they mocked Tony Blair's support for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. It was in Kaliningrad that Putin offered a job to Schröder as boss of the company building an oil pipeline in the Baltic to bypass the cheaper land route over Poland. Swedish diplomats worry that, once it is built, the Russians will exercise security oversight over the pipeline and turn the Baltic Sea into a zone of naval confrontation.
Russia has never accepted the loss of the old Soviet empire. Like British Right-wingers who dream of the days when the Union flag fluttered over parts of the world where English was spoken, the Russians still feel the loss of status when the end of communism forced the Kremlin to disgorge the Baltic states, Ukraine and Georgia.
Russia under Putin has energy wealth and thus the money to spend on arms and aggressive foreign policy. Moscow continues to bluster and threaten the Baltic states, has cut off energy supplies to countries it wants to lean on and, as Britain knows, has bullied the British Council, interfered in BP and Shell's commercial operations, and even harassed the British ambassador when he went out to buy food for the embassy cat. And then there is the Litvinenko murder, where the response of Putin was to put the man Scotland Yard wanted to question into the Duma with the immunity of an MP.
At the UN, Russia sabotages efforts to solve the Kosovo problem and lined up with Mugabe. In other international bodies, the Russians refuse to co-operate except on their own terms. The most bizarre example is the Council of Europe, which admitted Russia as a member even though Russia refuses to accept the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. In the Council of Europe, Conservative MPs sit in the same group as Putin's stooges, and Tory MPs even tried to install a Kremlin placeman as president last year.
In contrast to Conservatives cuddling up to the bear, Britain's Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has been commendably firm in the Commons on Russia, showing a steel hand behind his smile. But Britain alone cannot face down the new Russian aggression. This requires a united response from Europe. Unfortunately, too many Right-wing leaders in today's EU, notably Angela Merkel in Berlin and Silvio Berlusconi in Rome, appear to want to give Putin the benefit of the doubt.
This allows Moscow to divide and play. The idea of a common foreign policy and the means to implement it in the Lisbon Treaty are anathema to Eurosceptics; but a disunited EU will be easy meat for Russia and leave America without a partner of weight to face down Russian bullying.
The dispute in Georgia will find some temporary brokered settlement. But the bloody assault unleashed by Putin adds new dangers and difficulties to Europe. Once again, Russia threatens peace, stability, the rule of law and the rights of sovereign democracies on its border.
Denis MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and was minister for Europe under Tony Blair
Here is another article on how crazy Russia has become. It also rips on Chuck Schumer.
McCOTTER: Russia's invasion of Georgia
Thaddeus G. McCotter
OP-ED:
The invasion of Georgia by Russia last Friday confirms that a new generation of Lenin's "useful idiots" are alive and well. Senator Charles Schumer, apparently now a lead negotiator for Russia, recently opined that Russia could be persuaded to support stronger sanctions against Iran if, in return, the United States refused to share its anti-ballistic missile shield with our allies in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).
In support of his deal to feed CEE to the revanchist Russian bear, Senator Schumer claimed our missile shield "mocks Mr. Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe."
It should. Mr. Schumer noted: "[Former KGB Lt. Colonel and current Russian strong man Vladimir Putin] seeks to regain the power and greatness Russia had before the fall of the Soviet Union." The Senior Senator from New York says this like it's a good thing, failing to note that this brand of "power and greatness" was premised on the Soviet Union's authoritarian grip over CEE nations' peoples; the poignant savagery of the gulags; and the unpardonable sin of tens of millions slaughtered in the name of Mother Motherland.
The Russian tanks and planes rolling into the sovereign country of Georgia (eerily reminiscent of Afghanistan in 1979) save as a reminder that Russia continues to exert economic and military pressure to strong-arm her former prisoners into a less formal, but no less real, subservience. This week Russia cut the Czech Republic's crude-oil supplies by 40 percent in retaliation for agreeing to allow radar associated with the missile shield to be installed there.
This comes two weeks after threatening military action against both the Czech Republic and the United States in an effort to prevent that agreement. Three weeks ago, after Lithuania banned the display of communist and Soviet symbols, Russian-based hackers attacked 300 Lithuanian government and private Web sites. In defiant contravention of its own promises, Russia still maintains a military presence in Moldova, and Russian military aircraft routinely violate Georgian airspace.
This isn't new behavior, either. Russia's thuggish instincts have been on display for years. And if that weren't enough, Russia's saber-rattling isn't limited to his nearby neighbors. In the past year, Comrade Putin has made a spectacle of building relations with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and just this week, Putin opined that perhaps it was time for Russia to re-engage with Cuba.
Mr. Putin's Bolshevik nostalgia trip notwithstanding, the West won the Cold War and freed CEE's peoples from the Soviet Union. It is, therefore, both strategically injurious and morally repugnant to propose a puerile and cynical return to by rewarding Russia's "bad neighbor" policy with the free peoples of CEE in exchange for Russia abiding its own and the world's interest in preventing the terrorist state of Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
But simply undercutting American foreign and defense policy isn't enough for Mr. Schumer. Again, acting as Russia's agent in place, he proposes that American taxpayers make annual payments to Russia for its losses incurred from trade sanctions against Iran. By Mr. Schumer's own reckoning, this system of fealty payments would cost American taxpayers approximately $2 billion to $3 billion per year.
Of course, tightening international economic sanctions against Iran is a noble and necessary goal, but appeasement will not attain it. Ultimately, by infringing the sovereignty and endangering the liberty of our Central and Eastern European allies and by prostrating America before Russia, the senator's modest proposal will embolden every international bad actor to extort the United States and the free world for concessions, both economic and strategic. In sum, rewarding bad behavior only begets more bad behavior.
That simply isn't acceptable. Regain power and greatness, indeed. If only Mr. Schumer showed this kind of dedication in ensuring his own country's strength and security.
Thaddeus G. McCotter is a Republican congressman from Michigan and chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.
i already commented in that article that it is a complete load of cack.
denis is a muppet.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 20:58
War? The Russian invasion of Georgia was said to protect the "Russian" not to go to war with Georgia and topple the government although anyone can see this seems to be their goal.
We don't have evidence yet that Russia is trying to topple the Georgian government, but Russia has been, de facto (and I am aware I am using those two words a lot) at war with Georgia ever since Georgia crossed the border, broke a ceasefire, shelled civilians, and fired on Russian peacekeepers (who were originally told to seek cover rather than respond). Russia is breaking the military capacity of the Georgians, who were the aggressors in this round of the fighting.
(I still laugh at that because Russia pretty much gave citizenship to people living in Georgia and called them Russians)
They gave citizenship to Ossetians, and the Ossetians wanted the citizenship and took the citizenship. Like someone else has said in this thread, unless you find evidence that they were forced to take citizenship at gunpoint, this is an invalid point.
Edit: Can you explain the massing of Russian troops at the border of Georgia months before the invasion?
Because it's good to be prepared for a situation that can occur? Can I have a link about this "massing of forces" as well?
So, how do you then justify Russian subjugation of Chechnya while at the same time portraying Georgian attempts to regain what is clearly *their* land as aggression?
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 21:11
I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. I supported Russia there because it was a very similar border dispute. That was back when they weren't completely insane.
Adrian II
08-11-2008, 21:28
Where are you reading about the Ossetian refugee experience? I haven't found much on that.Many papers carry such reports. Here is one from The Independent, bearng out reports about Georgian bombing of hospitals and such in Tskhinvali:
Eyewitness accounts from those sheltering in the makeshift camps set up by the Russian Emergency Ministry match the official claims of the Russian government and the South Ossetian rebel leadership.
Most people described scenes of horror, chaos and destruction. Few buildings are left standing in Tskhinvali, refugees said. Aerial and artillery bombardment had destroyed the hospital, maternity ward and cemetery, while most of the city's housing lies in ruins.
Linky (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-refugees-civilians-pour-over-border-into-russia-to-escape-conflict-890287.html)
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 21:38
Thanks.:2thumbsup:
They gave citizenship to Ossetians, and the Ossetians wanted the citizenship and took the citizenship. Like someone else has said in this thread, unless you find evidence that they were forced to take citizenship at gunpoint, this is an invalid point.
they took citizenship because they claim to come from a nation that no-one recognises, therefore they could not travel. try getting into the UK with a south ossettian passport and see what happens.
so the russians offered and the rebels-without-a-holiday accepted. after all, how are all the russian controlled criminal gangs supposed to go about their 'business' if they can't do dodgy dealings in foreign parts?
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 22:02
President Bush is about to speak on major news networks. Lets hear what the official line is, eh?
Mailman653
08-11-2008, 22:06
An interesting analysis on the BBC
Early lessons from S Ossetia conflict (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm)
Because it's good to be prepared for a situation that can occur?
How about I punch you in the face? I mean, it's good to be prepared for a situation to occur, right?
CrossLOPER
08-11-2008, 22:21
How about I punch you in the face? I mean, it's good to be prepared for a situation to occur, right?
Oh dear.
We don't have evidence yet that Russia is trying to topple the Georgian government, but Russia has been, de facto (and I am aware I am using those two words a lot) at war with Georgia ever since Georgia crossed the border, broke a ceasefire, shelled civilians, and fired on Russian peacekeepers (who were originally told to seek cover rather than respond). Russia is breaking the military capacity of the Georgians, who were the aggressors in this round of the fighting.
There are also accounts that the rebels attacked Georgian forces first. You speak like it is a well known fact that Georgia decided to shell the rebels for no apparent reason and Russia was the heroic savior who came to Georgia's aid.
They gave citizenship to Ossetians, and the Ossetians wanted the citizenship and took the citizenship. Like someone else has said in this thread, unless you find evidence that they were forced to take citizenship at gunpoint, this is an invalid point.
I never said they forced to take citizenship. However, just because an area of sovereign country wants to become part of another country, doesn't them the right too. That would be like America absorbing half of Mexico but saying "Hey they wanted it so it's fine".
Because it's good to be prepared for a situation that can occur?
They have had a ceasefire for quite some time now. Why now?
Can I have a link about this "massing of forces" as well?
Sure (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23529182-details/Georgia+declares+15-day+%27state+of+war%27,+as+1,500+civilians+left+dead+by+Russia+conflict/article.do)
Saakashvili said Russia had been massing troops on the border for months.
He said: 'They have been calling it training exercises, but they have not been concealing the fact that they are training these troops for use inside Georgia.
Devastatin Dave
08-11-2008, 22:22
The word "Nazi" should be replaced with "person with a different outlook" and all guns should be replaced with walkie-talkies.
Notice the little laughing smilie at the end of my post.:yes:
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 22:28
The President said pretty much the same thing he had been saying. Russia needs to back down and return to the status quo. He also said that Russia has seriously harmed its standing in the world and its status in Europe and the U.S.
Sarmatian
08-11-2008, 22:55
That is no longer the case. It is now an outright war of aggression against Georgia. Had the Russians stayed within the confines of South Ossetia, your argument would have been true, but that has now changed.
You mean just how NATO air strikes and bombing raids were limited to Kosovo only?
The President said pretty much the same thing he had been saying. Russia needs to back down and return to the status quo. He also said that Russia has seriously harmed its standing in the world and its status in Europe and the U.S.
Judging by Churkin's speech in UN, I don't think that concerns them much.
You mean just how NATO air strikes and bombing raids were limited to Kosovo only?
NATO was wrong to bomb Serbia and to meddle in Kosovo. What Russia is doing right now is just as wrong.
Notice the little laughing smilie at the end of my post.:yes:
my post too was meant as a joke...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 23:12
There are also accounts that the rebels attacked Georgian forces first. You speak like it is a well known fact that Georgia decided to shell the rebels for no apparent reason and Russia was the heroic savior who came to Georgia's aid.
Well, the initial BBC article in this thread said that Georgia's government launched an operation "aimed at securing the stability of the region" very shortly after a ceasefire had just been agreed to by Georgia and the rebels. The rebels and Georgia had already been fighting before the ceasefire, but Georgia broke the recent one. The Georgians also didn't shell "rebels" - they levelled a good portion of town, including hospitals and homes, and killed Russian soldiers.
I never said they forced to take citizenship. However, just because an area of sovereign country wants to become part of another country, doesn't them the right too. That would be like America absorbing half of Mexico but saying "Hey they wanted it so it's fine".
Well, for one thing, there is a massive amount of Russian citizens. Secondly, Russia is supporting a breakaway province. Former Yugoslavia, anyone? Thirdly, Russian soldiers were killed in the initial Georgian strike, making that strike a military attack against the Russian Federation as well as an attack against Ossetia.
They have had a ceasefire for quite some time now. Why now?
Well, Georgia broke the ceasefire. Ask them.
Sure (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23529182-details/Georgia+declares+15-day+%27state+of+war%27,+as+1,500+civilians+left+dead+by+Russia+conflict/article.do)
A statement by the Georgian President (obviously an unbiased source) saying that Russians were massing troops and conducting military exercises? Alright...
That article does reveal something very interesting, however. Check this out (it's a map featured in the article): http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/09/article-1042816-0237A80F00000578-152_468x293_popup.jpg
And I quote:
1. Georgian force backed by warplanes surround and shell Tshkinvali, the capital of the breakaway province. Many hundreds of civilians reported killed, homes burnt, a hospital destroyed, and 12 Russian peacekeepers dead.
This being the initial attack, carried out by Georgia, which left 12 Russian soldiers dead.
You expect the Russians to be fair and balanced?
Marshal Murat
08-11-2008, 23:18
You expect the Russians to be fair and balanced?
Like Fox News right?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 23:20
You expect the Russians to be fair and balanced?
Hardly. You expect anyone to be fair and balanced about current events?
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 23:21
EMFM - here is an article that postulates that Russia has been doing a mass build up and military maneuvers over the past month in the Caucasus.
Diplomatic mood darkens in Georgia
By Nik Gowing
BBC News, Tbilisi
European diplomats and foreign ministers have conceded they will struggle to regain the initiative in the conflict between Russia and Georgia.
They talk in the darkest terms of a possible return to tensions the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II.
Several have even compared events to Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland.
In more than 25 years covering international diplomacy, I have rarely seen such gloom and head-shaking over the activities of one nation - Russia.
It is not just me saying that. It is those in government almost check-mated in the past few days - both by Georgia's military push into South Ossetia on Thursday night, then Russia's defiant response on Friday, which continues as I sit writing this in the Georgian foreign ministry.
After spending more than a day with several of them at a private gathering in northern Italy, none can answer with precision whether the warning signs of the decisive Russian response against Georgia were there to be read in the middle of last week.
"The Russian capability was obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt as we descended in his Swedish air force jet out of Turkish airspace for a quick dash to Tbilisi's almost deserted airport.
"But capability never revealed intent - even after the many weeks of Russian manoeuvres in the Caucasus, just north of the Georgian border."
'Immense challenge'
If any of the capital's airport had been bombed by Russian warplanes, there was no obvious sign.
A handful of military helicopters sat untouched on the grass. As we taxied in, we could see French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's jet alongside the old Soviet-style VIP terminal.
It is against what Russia signed up to - to settle disputes by peaceful means
Terri Davis
Council of Europe
By the time we arrived, it had gone - for the French EU presidency's next dash to Moscow to broker a ceasefire agreement with Russia.
European diplomacy is not so co-ordinated that the foreign minister currently representing the EU's 27 members could wait a few more minutes to exchange impressions with the current chair of the European body representing the 47 nations in the Council of Europe.
Mr Bildt, a veteran of the diplomatic realities of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, could only shrug in the fierce Georgian sun, look across to the French jet waiting to take off, then turn away for his own mission.
He already told me on the plane that the diplomatic challenge to restrain Russian intentions was "immense in every respect".
The widespread diplomatic concern in the EU and Nato is that after South Ossetia and probably Abkhazia, next Moscow will have its eyes set on the Crimea region of Ukraine and then Ukraine itself.
No programme
It is the first time in the Council of Europe's 60-year history that two member nations who have pledged to resolve disputes peacefully have instead resorted to war. Turkey's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 does not qualify.
Along with the Council of Europe's Secretary-General, Terri Davis, Mr Bildt is here to make an assessment ahead of an emergency EU meeting in Brussels on Wednesday.
"This is unprecedented," said Mr Davis. "There is no international right to go into a country to protect the right of your citizens." South Ossetia is thought to have 70,000 Russian passport holders.
"It is against what Russia signed up to - to settle disputes by peaceful means."
I asked Mr Bildt whether it was too late before his first meeting with Georgia's foreign minister.
"Evidently, since the war is ongoing," he said, with Swedish understatement.
What should have happened?
"Perhaps to have acted more forcefully earlier and dealt with the activities that we saw," he added.
"There has been escalation over some time, over weeks and over months."
Mr Bildt and Mr Davis will have 36 hours here.
There is no programme, no list of appointments - just a determination to be well informed before difficult decisions have to be taken by the EU and Nato to underscore the warning of US Vice President Dick Cheney that Russian aggression "must not go unanswered".
Like Fox News right?
No, they're fake and biased :2thumbsup:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-11-2008, 23:24
EMFM - here is an article that postulates that Russia has been doing a mass build up and military maneuvers over the past month in the Caucasus.
Diplomatic mood darkens in Georgia
By Nik Gowing
BBC News, Tbilisi
European diplomats and foreign ministers have conceded they will struggle to regain the initiative in the conflict between Russia and Georgia.
They talk in the darkest terms of a possible return to tensions the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II.
Several have even compared events to Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland.
In more than 25 years covering international diplomacy, I have rarely seen such gloom and head-shaking over the activities of one nation - Russia.
It is not just me saying that. It is those in government almost check-mated in the past few days - both by Georgia's military push into South Ossetia on Thursday night, then Russia's defiant response on Friday, which continues as I sit writing this in the Georgian foreign ministry.
After spending more than a day with several of them at a private gathering in northern Italy, none can answer with precision whether the warning signs of the decisive Russian response against Georgia were there to be read in the middle of last week.
"The Russian capability was obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt as we descended in his Swedish air force jet out of Turkish airspace for a quick dash to Tbilisi's almost deserted airport.
"But capability never revealed intent - even after the many weeks of Russian manoeuvres in the Caucasus, just north of the Georgian border."
'Immense challenge'
If any of the capital's airport had been bombed by Russian warplanes, there was no obvious sign.
A handful of military helicopters sat untouched on the grass. As we taxied in, we could see French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's jet alongside the old Soviet-style VIP terminal.
It is against what Russia signed up to - to settle disputes by peaceful means
Terri Davis
Council of Europe
By the time we arrived, it had gone - for the French EU presidency's next dash to Moscow to broker a ceasefire agreement with Russia.
European diplomacy is not so co-ordinated that the foreign minister currently representing the EU's 27 members could wait a few more minutes to exchange impressions with the current chair of the European body representing the 47 nations in the Council of Europe.
Mr Bildt, a veteran of the diplomatic realities of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, could only shrug in the fierce Georgian sun, look across to the French jet waiting to take off, then turn away for his own mission.
He already told me on the plane that the diplomatic challenge to restrain Russian intentions was "immense in every respect".
The widespread diplomatic concern in the EU and Nato is that after South Ossetia and probably Abkhazia, next Moscow will have its eyes set on the Crimea region of Ukraine and then Ukraine itself.
No programme
It is the first time in the Council of Europe's 60-year history that two member nations who have pledged to resolve disputes peacefully have instead resorted to war. Turkey's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 does not qualify.
Along with the Council of Europe's Secretary-General, Terri Davis, Mr Bildt is here to make an assessment ahead of an emergency EU meeting in Brussels on Wednesday.
"This is unprecedented," said Mr Davis. "There is no international right to go into a country to protect the right of your citizens." South Ossetia is thought to have 70,000 Russian passport holders.
"It is against what Russia signed up to - to settle disputes by peaceful means."
I asked Mr Bildt whether it was too late before his first meeting with Georgia's foreign minister.
"Evidently, since the war is ongoing," he said, with Swedish understatement.
What should have happened?
"Perhaps to have acted more forcefully earlier and dealt with the activities that we saw," he added.
"There has been escalation over some time, over weeks and over months."
Mr Bildt and Mr Davis will have 36 hours here.
There is no programme, no list of appointments - just a determination to be well informed before difficult decisions have to be taken by the EU and Nato to underscore the warning of US Vice President Dick Cheney that Russian aggression "must not go unanswered".
That is an interesting article, and I acknowledge that an arms buildup in the region is a good possibility in why Russia's response was so quick, but at the same time, Georgia launched the operation beginning this, and killed twelve Russian soldiers in the process.
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2008, 23:29
That is an interesting article, and I acknowledge that an arms buildup in the region is a good possibility in why Russia's response was so quick, but at the same time, Georgia launched the operation beginning this, and killed twelve Russian soldiers in the process.
Okay - so you admit that Russia was most likely preparing for an invasion. They couldn't have been preparing to defend against an invasion into Russia, so what would the alternative reason be? Now - couple this fact with the idea that Russian forces and South Ossetians were firing at Georgian forces before the eruption of conflict, therefore breaking the conditions of the ceasefire and the entire reason that Russia was in South Ossetia in the first place. This was clearly a planned assault and regime change on a sovereign country rather than some sort of "reaction". I'm suprised that you've bought into that argument.
Rhyfelwyr
08-11-2008, 23:58
I think Russia's longer-term plans since positioning peacekeepers have been made clear, if they were ever in any doubt.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 00:14
I just remembered how terrible Gordon Brown has been through all of this so far. I miss Tony Blair.
Well, the initial BBC article in this thread said that Georgia's government launched an operation "aimed at securing the stability of the region" very shortly after a ceasefire had just been agreed to by Georgia and the rebels. The rebels and Georgia had already been fighting before the ceasefire, but Georgia broke the recent one. The Georgians also didn't shell "rebels" - they levelled a good portion of town, including hospitals and homes, and killed Russian soldiers.
Well, you might want to read up on it. The Georgians are claiming the shelling (yes they shelled), air bombardment, and troop movements were in response to attacks from the rebels upon Georgian citizens. It's not very clear cut who started the fighting.
Well, for one thing, there is a massive amount of Russian citizens.
Actually they are Georgian citizens that Russia calls Russian citizens due to them obtaining Russian passports.s
Secondly, Russia is supporting a breakaway province. Former Yugoslavia, anyone?
Do elaborate. South Ossetia is part of Georgia. It needs to work with the Georgians if it wants independence.
Thirdly, Russian soldiers were killed in the initial Georgian strike, making that strike a military attack against the Russian Federation as well as an attack against Ossetia.
Refer to the above.
Well, Georgia broke the ceasefire. Ask them.
That's disputed.
A statement by the Georgian President (obviously an unbiased source) saying that Russians were massing troops and conducting military exercises? Alright...
Tuff did a good job of reinforcing that argument.
This being the initial attack, carried out by Georgia, which left 12 Russian soldiers dead.
Still doesn't mean it's true.
Okay - so you admit that Russia was most likely preparing for an invasion. They couldn't have been preparing to defend against an invasion into Russia, so what would the alternative reason be? Now - couple this fact with the idea that Russian forces and South Ossetians were firing at Georgian forces before the eruption of conflict, therefore breaking the conditions of the ceasefire and the entire reason that Russia was in South Ossetia in the first place. This was clearly a planned assault and regime change on a sovereign country rather than some sort of "reaction". I'm suprised that you've bought into that argument.
Yeah pretty much. I can't believe how some people seem to the think the only reason Russia is doing this is to save "Russian Citizens". Putin could probably give two ***** about what happens to these people.
Does anyone possibly think this has something to do with Georgia trying to join Nato, Georgia's pro western government, or the massive oil pipeline to the west which avoids Russia?
Yeah pretty much. I can't believe how some people seem to the think the only reason Russia is doing this is to save "Russian Citizens". Putin could probably give two ***** about what happens to these people.
Does anyone possibly think this has something to do with Georgia trying to join Nato, Georgia's pro western government, or the massive oil pipeline to the west which avoids Russia?
D. All of the above
Sarmatian
08-12-2008, 00:47
Well, the initial BBC article in this thread said that Georgia's government launched an operation "aimed at securing the stability of the region" very shortly after a ceasefire had just been agreed to by Georgia and the rebels. The rebels and Georgia had already been fighting before the ceasefire, but Georgia broke the recent one. The Georgians also didn't shell "rebels" - they levelled a good portion of town, including hospitals and homes, and killed Russian soldiers.
From the reports, it looks like most of Tskhinvali is destroyed. Medvedev used the term "genocide" and already experts are dispatched to collect evidence to be sent to UN according to him.
Okay - so you admit that Russia was most likely preparing for an invasion. They couldn't have been preparing to defend against an invasion into Russia, so what would the alternative reason be? Now - couple this fact with the idea that Russian forces and South Ossetians were firing at Georgian forces before the eruption of conflict, therefore breaking the conditions of the ceasefire and the entire reason that Russia was in South Ossetia in the first place. This was clearly a planned assault and regime change on a sovereign country rather than some sort of "reaction". I'm suprised that you've bought into that argument.
There is no chance that this kind of a Georgian offensive could be mounted without someone in Russia or in South Ossetia noticing that things may be heating up. From the examples in former Yugoslavia you could see that it was generally known when an invasion is being prepared. Not the actual timing or the ferocity of the attack (that was subject to change, because not only military but political issues too had to be addressed, within the country and abroad) but it couldn't go unnoticed that something was cooking up.
And if Georgian troops were under attack there would be no need for Saakashvili to admit that Georgian forces broke the ceasefire. If they were under attack, then the other side broke the ceasefire and they were only responding.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-12-2008, 01:58
Yeah pretty much. I can't believe how some people seem to the think the only reason Russia is doing this is to save "Russian Citizens". Putin could probably give two ***** about what happens to these people.
I've said already in this thread that Russia is doing this to expand their own interests in the region. So is Georgia. Wonderful. However, Russia responded after twelve peacekeepers (oh, and the Georgian government agreed to have them there along with Georgian and Ossetian forces, which it later withdrew) were killed by Georgian shelling. Preliminary reports quoted the Georgian leadership as saying that it had attacked Ossetia - first. It seems Georgia has now changed its tone.
Mailman653
08-12-2008, 02:10
Too much madness :hide:
Devastatin Dave
08-12-2008, 03:04
my post too was meant as a joke...
Ah, very good, I like you, keep up the good work and welcome to the Backroom.:2thumbsup:
The question for the million: Who broke the ceasefire? Were there a ceasefire?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-12-2008, 03:15
Too much madness :hide:
Don't tempt me. :sneaky:
Marshal Murat
08-12-2008, 03:15
The question for the million: Who broke the ceasefire? Were there a ceasefire?
Which the million question? There was a ceasefire, that's all I can say for sure.
Who broke the ceasefire?
That one. At a glance, looks like Georgia did. But now turns that Russia did. So, who did it?
Unless I'm mistaken thanks to the bald sickness.
Who fired the first shot is irrelevant. Who broke the ceasefire is irrelevant. What the situation was in South Ossetia prior to the outbreak of hostilities is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Russia feels threatened by NATO's continual encroachment on what it believes to be its backyard and traditional geopolitical sphere of influence. Most of the nations that once belonged to the Soviet Union bear an incredible amount of hatred, loathing and disgust with all things Russian. Russia's sordid past with these nations led directly to the blazingly fast expansion of NATO's expansion into these regions with its only recourse being diplomatic protests and openly blaming the West and NATO for making a mess of things. Let's also not forget the expansion of the EU to include former Warsaw Pact members. Russia not only lost the security of her traditional satellite states but was also cast as an impotent, toothless dog whose bark is worse than its bite.
Poland, one of Russia's major historical satellite states/vassals became a member of NATO in 1999. Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia, nations which also shared this infamous classification with Poland, just joined NATO in 2004. The old Soviet hardliners in modern Russia who fondly recall their nation's glory days of empire must seething with hatred as they watch these nations run towards the West with open arms.
So how does Georgia come into play? Look no further than April of this year...
The fact is that in April of this very year NATO announced Georgia and the Ukraine would become full fledged members of NATO.
http://www.summitbucharest.ro/en/doc_201.html
23. NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
Simple arithmetic will tell you that of the two nations due to join NATO in the near future Georgia is by far the weaker of the two. The variables at play in Georgia bear an eery similarity to those in the late 30s. South Ossetia has turned into a 21st century version of the Sudetenland, both of which were used as a casus belli to open up a larger conflict leading ultimately to acquisition. I firmly believe that beyond South Ossetia and the oil pipeline Russia's modus operandi is to prevent Georgia it from joining NATO by forcibly re-introducing it into its political sphere of influence. Regime change? Possibly. More like Russia will look to force Georgia to sign an iron clad agreement/treaty that will forever deny it entrance into NATO (along with the fringe benefits that only a fat pipeline can bring).
Given the speed and scope of this invasion it is painfully clear that Russia had been planning this for some time. They were supplying South Ossetian rebels with arms and were possibly encouraging them to get a little aggressive in the hopes that Georgia would eventually send in its military to clean things up. Factor in the fact that the US, Britain and token European forces are still tied up in Iraq & Afghanistan and the world's attention is currently being directed at the Olympic games. The timing could not be better, Russia simply had to make a move now while the bulk of the world's attention is elsewhere. The fact that a major oil pipeline that supplies the west runs through Georgia is icing on the cake.
Last but not least keep in mind that after suffering a long line of humiliations from disasters like the Kursk, the terrorist bombings and hostage incidents of the Moscow theater and Beslan as well as the utter mauling Russia received in Chechnya you can understand how they might be looking for a little glory to dull the pain.
So if Russia is so keen on stopping the expansion of NATO then what about the Ukraine? Perhaps the Ukraine is next on the list, who knows? Russia's bullying of Georgia is clearly rubbing the Ukraine the wrong way and as someone already linked, it is threatening to cut off the Russian Navy's access to its ports in the Crimea. Russia may find it easy to bully a small, isolated nation like Georgia with ease but the Ukraine, with the second largest military in Europe and with possible allies in neighbors like Poland and the Baltic states to the north, is an entirely different beast. Afghanistan and Chechnya proved Russia's military is a paper tiger that is easily torn up with a modest sized amount of determination. If Putin and Russia's hardliners are smart they'll limit their actions to Georgia.
Marshal Murat
08-12-2008, 05:21
Spino, great post all-around.
However, I think the current invasion of Georgia has some small benefits.
1. We see Russian armored units in action against a 'conventional' foe, whose troops have ostensibly been trained along Western lines. While Georgian troops may be reservists, it is a foe that isn't hiding behind civilians or using terrorist means to achieve political goals. This is the new Russian army, and may not rely so heavily on political troops or rigid doctrine that one saw in the former U.S.S.R. army formations.
Afghanistan and Chechnya proved Russia's military is a paper tiger that is easily torn up with a modest sized amount of determination.
Afghanistan operated with the old Russian army, but what about Chechnya? My 'modern' history isn't so good, so did Russia suppress them with conventional Red Army troops or the new forces?
Mailman653
08-12-2008, 05:52
I don't doubt that if this is a sign of things to come in regards to Russian foreign policy, I think the US and the next president will be more than happy to pull out of Iraq, plant some more troops in Afganistan, and then spread the rest around Europe.
So Candy Rice was right… Kosovo won’t be a precedent…:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Answer form the sheep keeper to the farmer (well, the French saying is réponse du berger à la bergère…)…
“Saakashvili has behaved in a cretinous manner, but that still doesn't give the Russians the right to violate international borders.” Oooops, Iraq, Serbia…
“Protecting its own interests...by defending South Ossetia...” Concept of preventive attack, somebody remember…?
“the rebels-without-a-holiday accepted. after all, how are all the russian controlled criminal gangs supposed to go about their 'business' if they can't do dodgy dealings in foreign parts?” LOL, I heard the Serbs saying this about the Albanians from Kosovo…:beam:
“However, just because an area of sovereign country wants to become part of another country, doesn't them the right too. That would be like America absorbing half of Mexico but saying "Hey they wanted it so it's fine".” You mean, like Kosovo did? Or like the Bosnian Serbs wanted to do and the Serbs in Croatia were obliged to give up?
“There are also accounts that the rebels attacked Georgian forces first.” Some could argue that the KLA started to shoot the Serbian Police Force (and put a bomb in a Refugee Camp).:yes:
“Last but not least keep in mind that after suffering a long line of humiliations from disasters like the Kursk, the terrorist bombings and hostage incidents of the Moscow theater and Beslan as well as the utter mauling Russia received in Chechnya you can understand how they might be looking for a little glory to dull the pain.”
Let’s analyse (well, discuss) shortly yours points:
Terrorist attack: Not very impressive in the US/NATO side: see Iraq, or even 9/11.
Chechnya: NATO refusal to engage Serbian forces on the ground, and Iraq and Afghanistan where the light equipped rebels give them a lot a trouble…
The glory given by these two operation theatres is?:balloon2:
In fact you can see powers struggling to provide logistic and support to the troops, adequate equipment and strategy.
And you really think that NATO and Allies countries will even risk engaging a conflict to protect Georgia? Against Russia? A major conflict?
In a situation where the aerial support won’t be complete and where the others are probably well equipped?
Well, it didn’t take too much time to see the result of US/NATO and Allies policy. Pandora’s Box was opened and we now start to see the result.
Unfortunately two wrong don’t do one good. But in politic some could have expected the return of the stick… Russian are good chest player, I was told… US are better in poker.
We will see you will win…
Oleander Ardens
08-12-2008, 08:05
Great post by Spino.
There have been firefights going on for years, heating up and cooling down. Basically both sides exchanged shots and shells. I don't think it was an all-out Georgian offensive, given that they didn't destroy the Roki tunnel with air and artillery before shelling Southossetia. Or they were incredibly stupid, lacking every military sense or it was a hot-headed assault after violent skirmishes, in which both sides get their fair share of blame. And who tells me that the Russian "peacekeepers" didn't gave a helping help to ossetians beforehand?
Basically we know that both sides try to paint things their way, but we also know that de jure the Georgians are right and that the Russians are attacking a independent state with brute force after meddling for years in their affairs. This is no Kosovo where there was clear proof of Serbian crimes, this is Southossetia where the Russians have been provocating politically and with more or less hidden military force for years.
“the rebels-without-a-holiday accepted. after all, how are all the russian controlled criminal gangs supposed to go about their 'business' if they can't do dodgy dealings in foreign parts?” LOL, I heard the Serbs saying this about the Albanians from Kosovo…:beam:
my comment was only about one small reason the russians offered passports, and then only in reference to why why so many ossettians accepted them, do you disagree with any of this?
it should also be noted that i think recognising Kosovo, and falling for the media circus of serbian 'atrocities' so that the KLA could get NATO to do their work for them, were both foolish moves by the west that we were warned against and did anyway.
so don't try and lump me in with others who might be somewhat inconsistent with their application of armed force.
Sarmatian
08-12-2008, 10:52
This is no Kosovo where there was clear proof of Serbian crimes, this is Southossetia where the Russians have been provocating politically and with more or less hidden military force for years.
You see, I'm a little touchy when it comes to this issue and this is the second time you mentioned this. What are you considering as a "clear proof"? Would you mind sharing it with me?
I would as well see the "clear proof" that even The Hague wasn't able to show... Operation Horse shoes, Pristina Staduim used as Concentratin Camp, the thousand bodies in the old coal mines, etc...
Not denying crimes, by the way from "Special" Serbian Forces.
"do you disagree with any of this": Not at all. Even today, Kosovars Albanian apply for Serbian Passport...
"so don't try and lump me in with others who might be somewhat inconsistent with their application of armed force" I do not. Yo are indeed consistent.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 11:49
Spino is right that in the end it doesn't matter who recently provoked whom; there is a list of older antecedents and precedents to Russia's actions, as there is to Georgia's. Western power politics is one of them, and I would even say that the western imposition of neoliberal 'shock-therapy' on Russia in the 1990's helped create this newly authoritarian, expansionist Russia.
But the crux of the matter is that we have to deal with it. Even of Russia calls a halt to the fighting, which it appears to have done this morning, this thing isn't over and done with. There are several severe consequences.
1. The U.S., Georgia's biggest ally, was nowhere to be seen in this war. Condoleezza should have been on the plane to Moscow last week. Nothing happened. There is a message in there. The U.S. is too tied up diplomatically and militarily in other issues and areas of the world, as well as too involved in its own election cycle and in its own economic crisis and budget deficit. The Russians know this. They knew Washington would not commit or make a stand with regard to Georgia. They probably won't even make a stand with regard to Ukraine.
2. Britain, the U.S. 's biggest ally in Europe, was nowhere to be seen either. Too tied up in following the American lead elsewhere in the world, too euroskeptic to be able to operate outside the American box and within the EU.
3. Other European nations such as France have been trying to mediate and Sarkozy is in Moscow as i wrote. But any sort of common approach is impossible given the dependence of EU member states on Russian energy, plus the fact that the EU was never enamored of Georgia in the first place.
4. This bodes ill for Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, in that order. They are rightly worried about our lack of commitment to former Soviet satellite states that have become independent and democratic. I just hope that the EU will find the strength to unify over this issue, that the euroskeptics will pull their heads out of their lower bodily apertures and face the reality of post-cold war politics. The world has not turned out to be the neoliberal paradise we were promised by the free marketeers. It's power politics as usual, the U.S. is severely weakened and we will have to fend for ourselves, find a common security policy, change our energy policies, and last but not least build a proper European army. I have said this many times and sad as it is, this Georgian episode only confirms me in my view.
EUskeptics have nothing to do with the poor response to georgia, nor the future insecurity of the baltic states and ukraine.
political integration [EUSSR] adds nothing to the pot that firmly supported collective defence [NATO] has not already provided.
there are two potential solutions to europes lack of coherency:
1. EUskeptic nations suddenly become all in favour of political integration and gradual federalism, which is what it will take to speak with one authoritative voice on foreign policy (requires on firm fist behind the the voice).
2. Get serious about standing behind NATO rather than mucking about with EU duplication which dissolves apparent commitment to NATO, and offer membership to the Ukraine and Georgia (when it sorts itself out with every assistance offered).
personally i think the latter is much more likely, and much more desirable.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 12:15
2. Get serious about standing behind NATONato is all but dead after Iraq and now this episode. It is toothless without the U.S. and the U.S. is not committed to it. The U.S. is committed only to occasional coalitions based on its national interest, narrowly defined as economic interest. In other words, if Georgia were a source for U.S. oil we would have been at war by now. Since it doesn't, we're bystanders.
odd that it is america that has pushed for the pipeline and NATO membership, precisely so that europe has greater energy security and is thus able to act as a bulwark against russia?
but taking your statement at face value (which i don't accept), you believe the only hope for the defence of european nations is to pool sovereignty and federate?
Marshal Murat
08-12-2008, 12:33
Nato is all but dead after Iraq and now this episode. It is toothless without the U.S. and the U.S. is not committed to it.
The greatest flaw with NATO is that most manpower and military that is 'NATO' is the United States. However, it can still be revived. If the US were committed to improving trans-Atlantic relations, increasing it's military, and pulling out of Iraq (and there is indication this might happen in a couple years!), then NATO can get back on it's feet. The Georgia episode is a clear wake-up call to all NATO members, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get serious about mutual defense again. Considering the direction of the attack, NATO might let this one pass. However, were the assault against a Baltic nation or Ukraine, I would say it would be a different story, invoking images of a surging Red Army tide, moving west against the beleaguered Western forces.
Besides, in WW2, when Poland was invaded, France and Britain stood by and watched for a couple months until Germany attacked them...
Kagemusha
08-12-2008, 12:34
All EU needs to do is to have an mutual protection pact between all EU nations, just like we have the monetary Union. Russia might try to bully separate nations, but it wont confront whole of the EU, because of matters like this.
About NATO. NATO is a relic of cold war and is novadays only an auxilia force of US to use in its own conflicts. EU is not NATO and NATO is not EU.
HoreTore
08-12-2008, 12:49
It's fun to see how logic and rationality in certain people disappear depending on whether we're talking about "us" or "them".
God I love being a neutral!
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 13:06
God I love being a neutral!Yeah, and as long as Norway isn't threatened you can afford to. Or you think you can. If you care to think at all, for to me it seems that you are afraid to dirty your hands by establishing guilt, responsibility, and the need for action.
Why bother. Have another lutefisk and do the bygdedans.
HoreTore
08-12-2008, 13:14
Yeah, and as long as Norway isn't threatened you can afford to. Or you think you can. If you care to think at all, for to me it seems that you are afraid to dirty your hands by establishing guilt, responsibility, and the need for action.
Why bother. Have another lutefisk and do the bygdedans.
Hah, NEVER! I will have another croissant and do some frenching, thank you. ~;)
And anyway, if we manage to get into a situation where we face an invasion, we deserve to get stomped because of our dumbness. But anyway, Sweden haven't seen a war in quite some time, they seem to be doing nicely as a neutral country...
And anyway, should we get invaded, my conscript ass will be on the first plane to the Caribbean. :beam:
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 13:26
And anyway, should we get invaded, my conscript ass will be on the first plane to the Caribbean. :beam:That will probably be the best service you can render to your country.
KukriKhan
08-12-2008, 13:46
It's power politics as usual, the U.S. is severely weakened and we will have to fend for ourselves, find a common security policy, change our energy policies, and last but not least build a proper European army...
I'd be careful about fully embracing the underlined part as a 'given' assumption, but if it drives Europe to adopt your follow-on conclusions (all of which are spot-on, IMO)... I think we can take the criticism. Toss a couple more bricks this way, if it helps wake west europe up.
All EU needs to do is to have an mutual protection pact between all EU nations, just like we have the monetary Union. Russia might try to bully separate nations, but it wont confront whole of the EU, because of matters like this.
About NATO. NATO is a relic of cold war and is novadays only an auxilia force of US to use in its own conflicts. EU is not NATO and NATO is not EU.
what happens if nations like the UK are not keen on EU defence integration, or the necessary political integration required to achieve that, and yet are happy to be NATO players?
doesn't that make NATO relevant and EU defence ridiculous?
the only difference between NATO and the possibility of EU defence is;
1. the inclusion of the US
2. the lack of political integration required.
seeing as europe refuses to properly spend on defence the US is outright necessary, much to its chagrin.
seeing as some nations are not interested in political integration the idea of EU defence is ridiculous.
what is out-dated or innappropriate about NATO really..............?
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 13:54
I'd be careful about fully embracing the underlined part as a 'given' assumption, but if it drives Europe to adopt your follow-on conclusions (all of which are spot-on, IMO)... I think we can take the criticism. Toss a couple more bricks this way, if it helps wake west europe up.Correct me if I'm wrong, but after witnessing the U.S. standing by while its close ally was bombed to smithereens last week I believe this to be the case. The U.S. is prepared for two simultaneous local conflicts, not for a major military confrontation and an ensuing costly stand-off that may take years. Where are the troops and where is the money for such an effort? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a huge strain on the American military and national budget already, and how many more war bonds can you sell to the Chinese?
And anyway, if we manage to get into a situation where we face an invasion, we deserve to get stomped because of our dumbness.
Sweden haven't seen a war in quite some time, they seem to be doing nicely as a neutral country...
did finland deserve the winter war?
that is because NATO has guarenteed the security of europe for the last 50 years.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 14:05
NATO is by no means toothless - this situation was a very tricky one that only arguably called for a buildup. The situation did end rather quickly as I had hoped, so the West believed that buildup was unnecessary to achieve the goal of a cessation of hostilities.
I don't believe that the Baltic States are in immediate danger. Supply lines with the west are wide open and they are part of NATO. In the event of an invasion - these Nations are NATO members and part of the EU, the world will be effectively be at war. Georgia and Ukraine were questionable. I don't believe that Ukraine is in immediate jeopardy - Russia might think it can launch an attack on Georgia under the guise of a "humanitarian mission" - what sappy rationale will they use to re-take a black sea-base and in the process incinerate a country?
Georgia was a pain to support. Surrounded by the Caucasus and 2 seas which were largely off limits due to Russian blockade - how could we have ever mounted a successful assault after the initial invasion? Through the Turkish coast?
The absolute inaction of Brown will be a source of humiliation for the British until he is removed from office. Replace him with Milliband or something - someone who seems to give a flying farg.
Thank goodness for Sarkozy. Will he be the new Blair for the next 10 years?
Whoever was responsible for getting them out - goodonya.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 14:11
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after witnessing the U.S. standing by while its close ally was bombed to smithereens last week I believe this to be the case. The U.S. is prepared for two simultaneous local conflicts, not for a major military confrontation and an ensuing costly stand-off that may take years. Where are the troops and where is the money for such an effort? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a huge strain on the American military and national budget already, and how many more war bonds can you sell to the Chinese?
This is why it is so important for you guys to step up. Too many Euros here were making this out to be about the US against Russia. When will you guys step it up!? When will your security be more important to you than it is to the United States? This isn't post WW2 - the EU is the worlds largest economy if you would just pull your heads out of your butts. We have the possibility over the next few years of being an excellent western partnership that would insure general world safety in a way that the US could never do alone.
I'm impressed Adrian with your opinions of this conflict. You seem to get how important it is for you to stop being piddly little Greek city states in the wake of a possible Persian onslaught. You are bigger than that - It is time to recognize it.
We can be true equal partners in defense with the rise of Russia and China (and even our buddy India)
rory_20_uk
08-12-2008, 14:22
Europe is too used to spending vast sums of money on socialist principles. I agree that military spending needs to be increased, and to pay for this money can be taken from the increasingly expensive social care in the country.
Looking abroad things are probably worse. The only way the French would be able to fight it the President pointed out that Russians were making them work longer than their 35 hour week. This and ensuring that inefficient practices are adequately financed means that defense hasn't much money to spare.
Imagine that if the CAP funds were used for EU defence. The sheer volume of money would mean spending it might be difficult at first: missile systems, defense radar, increased number of regiments, decent new equipment, increased research, etc etc. Possibly even ensure that all new systems are part and munition compatible.
But this is hardly a vote winner, is it? Reducing luxuries for a possible future threat?
~:smoking:
The absolute inaction of Brown will be a source of humiliation for the British until he is removed from office. Replace him with Milliband or something - someone who seems to give a flying farg.
Whoever was responsible for getting them out - goodonya.
I'm impressed Adrian with your opinions of this conflict. You seem to get how important it is for you to stop being piddly little Greek city states in the wake of a possible Persian onslaught. You are bigger than that - It is time to recognize it.
Agreed. The singular lack of leadership displayed by GB et-al is disgusting, and i am ashamed.
Disagreed. The UK would appear to be happy with NATO, if the continent has different idea then more power to them.
CrossLOPER
08-12-2008, 14:31
You want to expand NATO to provide a bulwark against Russia, which is mobilizing because of NATO expansion...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after witnessing the U.S. standing by while its close ally was bombed to smithereens last week I believe this to be the case. The U.S. is prepared for two simultaneous local conflicts, not for a major military confrontation and an ensuing costly stand-off that may take years. Where are the troops and where is the money for such an effort? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a huge strain on the American military and national budget already, and how many more war bonds can you sell to the Chinese?
You are only partially correct. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a huge strain on the American peacetime military and national budget. These wars have been conducted entirely without disrupting any aspect of normal life for the average American (bar secondary economic impacts from oil prices, etc.). If the US decided to get serious about a war, it could shift over to an actual wartime military and a wartime economy that could supply a vastly larger amount of military might. The American public would certainly not stand for such a shift over Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Georgia, but I don't think that's what KukriKhan was saying. We certainly don't have the willpower to engage in full scale warfare at this point in history, but it would be a mistake to say we don't have the ability to do so.
rory_20_uk
08-12-2008, 14:42
Oh, if Russia doesn't like it, I guess we should disband NATO. If some of Eastern Europe would volounteer to join with Russia that might make them even happier.
The point isn't to placate Russia or anyone else. Russia is the biggest non-NATO power in the area, and increasing the effectiveness of NATO is not in itself a hostile act.
Getting the Ukraine on side is probably more important than Georgia, although Georgia has oil pipelines that need protecting.
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 14:44
You want to expand NATO to provide a bulwark against Russia, which is mobilizing because of NATO expansion...
You're right - these past few days are a perfect example of why NATO is no longer needed...
Why did Georgia want to be part of NATO? Because it felt threatened by Russian aggression. So, Gerogia engaged in talks with a partner that could defend it but also respect it's territory - NATO. Then Russia attacked - seemingly in the hopes that it would convince Georgia that it doesn't need a defensive partner? I think that this was a desperate Russia trying to spank its former progeny in retaliation, knowing full well that they are lost to them forever.
What is the variable that won't go away? Russian contempt for the sovereignty of formerly Soviet states.
Sarmatian
08-12-2008, 14:51
1. The U.S., Georgia's biggest ally, was nowhere to be seen in this war. Condoleezza should have been on the plane to Moscow last week. Nothing happened. There is a message in there. The U.S. is too tied up diplomatically and militarily in other issues and areas of the world, as well as too involved in its own election cycle and in its own economic crisis and budget deficit. The Russians know this. They knew Washington would not commit or make a stand with regard to Georgia. They probably won't even make a stand with regard to Ukraine.
2. Britain, the U.S. 's biggest ally in Europe, was nowhere to be seen either. Too tied up in following the American lead elsewhere in the world, too euroskeptic to be able to operate outside the American box and within the EU.
3. Other European nations such as France have been trying to mediate and Sarkozy is in Moscow as i wrote. But any sort of common approach is impossible given the dependence of EU member states on Russian energy, plus the fact that the EU was never enamored of Georgia in the first place.
4. This bodes ill for Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, in that order. They are rightly worried about our lack of commitment to former Soviet satellite states that have become independent and democratic. I just hope that the EU will find the strength to unify over this issue, that the euroskeptics will pull their heads out of their lower bodily apertures and face the reality of post-cold war politics. The world has not turned out to be the neoliberal paradise we were promised by the free marketeers. It's power politics as usual, the U.S. is severely weakened and we will have to fend for ourselves, find a common security policy, change our energy policies, and last but not least build a proper European army. I have said this many times and sad as it is, this Georgian episode only confirms me in my view.
1. Even if Condoleezza had visited Moscow, nothing would have changed.
2. I pretty much agree with this one.
3. Nothing much to add here either.
4. I don't think this bodes ill for Poland and Baltic states. NATO was already coming from that side and although admission of these states into NATO complicated things for Russian defense, it wasn't really that big of a deal. Ukraine and Georgia, on the other hand, are. Cutting of Russia from the Black Sea and Caucasus is something Russia won't allow. Don't forget that Crimea have always been a part of Russia and was ceded to Ukraine during Soviet times. Soviet times are over and even though Russia didn't make a fuss about Crimea because it has a deal about using ports there. But if someone tries to close those ports to them, or even worse, position NATO ships there, they're gonna make a fuss, and there shouldn't be any doubt about it.
It is natural that Russia feels threatened when NATO is trying to cut off it's access to Black Sea and surround it with military bases and unfriendly regimes from all sides. Russia is not going to allow it and hell is gonna break loose if that happens.
The only long term solution to this problem is that US and other western European countries start thinking outside Cold War framework which is still dominant within the minds of western politicians. They have issues because Russia refuses to act like a defeated nation. And there is no reason why it should. Russia has rapidly growing economy, it's richest country in the world in terms of natural resources (not just oil and gas, you name it they've got it), big population, very good military, top technology, huge territory and unparalleled nuclear arsenal among other things...
When western (mostly US) politicians realize that the only way to make friends with Russia is to allow it to have say in the world affairs equal to its strength, issues like this one are going to disappear. All other solutions, like even more idiotic trying to get Ukraine in the NATO that will somehow frighten Russia is not going to work and will only serve to mess things up more. And the only country that is going to profit from that will be China. The more West pressures Russia, the more will Russia have to cooperate with China, and that means even stronger political, military and economic ties with Russia for China, and even more Russian resources and energy in China....
CrossLOPER
08-12-2008, 14:56
I don't remember saying disband NATO. My initial post was a compilation of preceding posts. I was trying to point out circular logic.
rory_20_uk
08-12-2008, 15:02
China still has territorial designs on a large swathe of Eastern Russia. I don't imagine Russia is any more thrilled about China than the West is - and they are bordering them after all.
The Ukraine is a soverign nation. Should it have to cede parts of itself to ensure that Russia is happy? Apart from occupation and genocide they don't share that much mutual history. I don't imagine that the Ukraine wants to have only relations with Russia. Since any treaty is going to annoy Russia, the sooner Russia gets used to the idea the better; they still have enough ICBMs to destroy the world several times over.
I agree that stationing ships in Odessa isn't a great idea, but nor do I see any tactical advantage to doing so. Bulgaria is less contentious if one really needs a fleet that close.
I was unaware that Russia had a great military. I know that they are having an overhaul, but most equipment in't that great, and moral is improving, but poor.
~:smoking:
I agree with CrossLoper, I noticed this as well.
Russia seems to feel bullied of sorts because soon they will be surrounded by NATO members, an organization founded to keep Russia in check and the solution everybody comes up with is to go and drive the russian bear even deeper into the corner it already is in. Think about what a bear does when you try to corner it...
Of course you can shout at the bear all day that it is evil and should stop but usually that will not stop it from attacking you. I never particularly liked the idea that Europe is dependant on russian ressources, since we get all our IT equipment from the US and noone says we are dependant on the Us, instead we call them a good trading partner. In a similar fashion we should try to become, laugh if you want, friends, with Russia, trading partners who benefit from eachother. They influence us, we influence them.
surely there are forces in Russia who's rather see us as weaklings kneeling before lord Putin but I would say if we keep treating Russia like it's the devil we're not exactly helping the situation either.
Or maybe I'm just naive and we should nuke Moscow, you tell me. :shrug:
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 15:46
I never particularly liked the idea that Europe is dependant on russian ressources, since we get all our IT equipment from the US and noone says we are dependant on the Us, instead we call them a good trading partner.
That is because you can vote against our interests and we won't turn off the IT faucet. Try doing anything that Russia doesn't like as see if you don't have an energy crisis in the making afterwards.
There is a difference (however subtle) between a FDIC insured bank and a mentally unstable loan shark.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 15:52
I agree with CrossLoper, I noticed this as well.
Russia seems to feel bullied of sorts because soon they will be surrounded by NATO members, an organization founded to keep Russia in check and the solution everybody comes up with is to go and drive the russian bear even deeper into the corner it already is in. Think about what a bear does when you try to corner it...The thing is these nations want to be Nato members, and under the charter most of them are entitled to apply and be admitted. It's called freedom. If Russia doesn't respect that, we won't respect Russia.
And becoming 'friends' with the oligarchy in Moscow is a laughable proposition.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 15:57
The thing is these nations want to be Nato members, and under the charter most of them are entitled to apply and be admitted. It's called freedom. If Russia doesn't respect that, we won't respect Russia.
And becoming 'friends' with the oligarchy in Moscow is a laughable proposition.
:soapbox:
===== :applause::applause::applause::applause:
I agree.
And becoming 'friends' with the oligarchy in Moscow is a laughable proposition.
I didn't say become friends with the oligarchy, I said become friends with the country.
I tend to seperate between a country and it's government though currently most Russians seem to want that government, unfortunately.
Sarmatian
08-12-2008, 16:00
China still has territorial designs on a large swathe of Eastern Russia. I don't imagine Russia is any more thrilled about China than the West is - and they are bordering them after all.
The Ukraine is a soverign nation. Should it have to cede parts of itself to ensure that Russia is happy? Apart from occupation and genocide they don't share that much mutual history. I don't imagine that the Ukraine wants to have only relations with Russia. Since any treaty is going to annoy Russia, the sooner Russia gets used to the idea the better; they still have enough ICBMs to destroy the world several times over.
I agree that stationing ships in Odessa isn't a great idea, but nor do I see any tactical advantage to doing so. Bulgaria is less contentious if one really needs a fleet that close.
I was unaware that Russia had a great military. I know that they are having an overhaul, but most equipment in't that great, and moral is improving, but poor.
~:smoking:
Unfortunately, things happen in the world whether you know it or not. Not long ago China and Russia solved the border issue.
Also, I'd be very surprised if the majority of Ukranians are pro-NATO. Don't mix politician rhetorics with wishes of the population. US are very good at pressuring politicians in other countries to get what they want even when it goes against the wishes of the population in those countries. If I'm not mistaken, majority of Czechs don't want that radar shield installed in Czech, but US is still pressuring politicians to accept. I know that around 80% of Czechs were against recognition of Kosovo but government caved in under US pressure. I know that majority of population in Montenegro don't want to be in NATO but government still pursues that policy. Pro-NATO government in Serbia is silent at the moment because they are aware of strong anti-NATO opinions of the population but are still quietly trying to bring Serbia closer to NATO. They even made up a new euphemism "Euro-Atlantic" integrations, to try to tie issues of joining EU and NATO (a slight majority of population still favours EU membership). Still western politicians talk of NATO membership even though they know that is against the wishes of the majority of the population and that Serbian Parliament voted in favour of a platform that Serbia shouldn't become a member of any military alliance.
So when US and other western countries pressure local population to go against the wishes of the majority of population, that is ok and democratic.
EDIT: Okay, poll conducted on 6th of May 2008
KIEV, May 6 (RIA Novosti) - A majority of Ukrainians are against their country joining NATO, according to an opinion poll conducted by the FOM-Ukraina pollster.
The poll revealed that 54.9% of respondents would vote against joining the military alliance if a referendum were to be held tomorrow, and that 22.3% would back joining NATO.
EDIT 2: (from the same site (http://en.rian.ru/world/20080506/106712138.html)) Nevertheless, asked whether they conceded that should Ukraine join NATO, Russia could raise the issue of who the Crimea belongs to, 40.8% of respondents said yes, and 34.5% said no.
The poll was conducted between April 16-25 and involved 2,000 respondents in 160 cities and villages in Ukraine. The statistical margin of error of the poll is 2.2%.
You want to expand NATO to provide a bulwark against Russia, which is mobilizing because of NATO expansion...
russia is stepping on our windpipe with its energy politics, i want the baku-tbilisi pipeline firmly within our sphere of influence to reduce the pressure of that oppressive boot.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 16:28
They even made up a new euphemism "Euro-Atlantic" integrations, to try to tie issues of joining EU and NATO (a slight majority of population still favours EU membership).The Ukrainians coined that phrase, and they certainly desire both memberships.
And instead of unjustified American meddling in order to get Ukraine to join Nato, as you state, there has been an inordinate amount of Russian meddling, mostly through the Communists and their institutional remnants, to dissuade Ukraine from joining Nato. All parties have now agreed that when the time for a decision comes, there will be a referendum. Sabotage of the referendum is quite possible.
Now here (in answer to posts from others who doubt that Russia still represents a formidable nuisance) is the snag. The Russians don't have the capacity to win a single conventional battle against western forces, be it in the air, on the ground or at sea. But they have the capacity to destabilise the entire former ring of satellites, either by direct intervention (Georgia), by stoking ethnic trouble (Baltics) or by threatening to cut off energy (Poland) and other supplies.
And most of all their political allies (such as the Ukrainian Party of Regions of the Russia-oriented Mr Yanukovych, which is the second party in the land and has strong ties to ethnic Russians and potential break-away areas) are able to stage riots, coups, revolts and (fake) secessions that are not properly Russia's doing, but still present a great challenge to the independence and developing democracy in these countries.
Sarmatian
08-12-2008, 16:32
The Ukrainians coined that phrase, and they certainly desire both memberships.
Judging by the polls, Ukranians seem to disagree with you, and frankly, their opinion is more important then yours, don't you think?
poll conducted on 6th of May 2008
KIEV, May 6 (RIA Novosti) - A majority of Ukrainians are against their country joining NATO, according to an opinion poll conducted by the FOM-Ukraina pollster.
The poll revealed that 54.9% of respondents would vote against joining the military alliance if a referendum were to be held tomorrow, and that 22.3% would back joining NATO.
EDIT 2: (from the same site (http://en.rian.ru/world/20080506/106712138.html)) Nevertheless, asked whether they conceded that should Ukraine join NATO, Russia could raise the issue of who the Crimea belongs to, 40.8% of respondents said yes, and 34.5% said no.
The poll was conducted between April 16-25 and involved 2,000 respondents in 160 cities and villages in Ukraine. The statistical margin of error of the poll is 2.2%.
i wonder what the response would be today..........................................?
I didn't say become friends with the oligarchy, I said become friends with the country.
I tend to seperate between a country and it's government though currently most Russians seem to want that government, unfortunately.
ask BP whether russia is able to make that distinction.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 16:46
Judging by the polls, Ukranians seem to disagree with you, and frankly, their opinion is more important then yours, don't you think?I rely on political majorities, not on polls. Many Ukrainians have been misled by polls that suggest Nato would install nuclear arms on its territory without Ukraine's assent, etcetera. The political class seems to be a bit better informed. Meanwhile Ukraine has been participating in Nato exercises, collaborating with the Polish army within a Nato set-up and modernizing its army in accordance with Nato standards for years. That's not a coincidence, is it?
By the way, earlier this year the pro-Russian Communist Party of Ukraine collected one million signatures from residents in the Crimea demanding that the Russian Black Sea Fleet be stationed there permanently. That sort of minor destabilisation is going on all the time. The Ukrainian Communists favour a 'return' to the Russian Motherland and will go out of their way to support any Russian intervention in Ukrainian politics. If Moscow wanted the Crimea back, or only its naval base, it could possibly foster a revolt in the Crimea.
Marshal Murat
08-12-2008, 16:54
Language Map of Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ruslangsup.PNG)
If you look at the map from wikipedia, the vast majority of native Russian speakers are located in the eastern provinces and the Crimea...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-12-2008, 17:56
It's Over (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm)
Russia has backed an EU peace plan and ceased military operations against Georgia.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 18:24
I'd be careful about fully embracing the underlined part as a 'given' assumption, but if it drives Europe to adopt your follow-on conclusions (all of which are spot-on, IMO)... I think we can take the criticism. Toss a couple more bricks this way, if it helps wake west europe up.Of course we could all switch to a war footing and live for years. But neither the EU nor the U.S. want to forego the 'peace dividend'. Or rather they think there is no reason to do so.
Kagemusha
08-12-2008, 18:32
what happens if nations like the UK are not keen on EU defence integration, or the necessary political integration required to achieve that, and yet are happy to be NATO players?
doesn't that make NATO relevant and EU defence ridiculous?
the only difference between NATO and the possibility of EU defence is;
1. the inclusion of the US
2. the lack of political integration required.
seeing as europe refuses to properly spend on defence the US is outright necessary, much to its chagrin.
seeing as some nations are not interested in political integration the idea of EU defence is ridiculous.
what is out-dated or innappropriate about NATO really..............?
It is up to UK to decide what it does. There is still France who can give Nuclear umbrella to EU, if UK wants to associate more with US then continental Europe. Your statement about defense budget is ridiculous. What Europe lacks is over seas power projection capabilities. In a conventional sense of defense, the combined forces or just part of the armies of Europe can stop any invasion to Europe. You dont need political integration for mutual defense clause anymore then you need that for mutual currency.
Like i said before NATO is novadays more a tool of US then for defense of Europe and many countries that are pro EU, like the former EFTA countries, are not willing to join NATO. Europe does not need anymore US to defend itself from Soviet Union and Warsav pact and understanding that will benefit both the US and Europe. US is the closest ally of Europe and should remain so, but it would benefit both the EU and US, if EU would take care of its own defense. I am sure many of our American friends agree with me on this one.
Spino, great post all-around.
However, I think the current invasion of Georgia has some small benefits.
1. We see Russian armored units in action against a 'conventional' foe, whose troops have ostensibly been trained along Western lines. While Georgian troops may be reservists, it is a foe that isn't hiding behind civilians or using terrorist means to achieve political goals. This is the new Russian army, and may not rely so heavily on political troops or rigid doctrine that one saw in the former U.S.S.R. army formations.
Afghanistan operated with the old Russian army, but what about Chechnya? My 'modern' history isn't so good, so did Russia suppress them with conventional Red Army troops or the new forces?
Georgia's military may be in the process of upgrading to western style training & equipment but it's still very much rooted in the Soviet era. Given this I think Georgia is better off fighting a ruthless guerilla war rather than risking suicide by attempting to go head to head with the Russian army. Besides, Georgia's major strategic chokepoints in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have already been overrun, whatever coventional options they may have had are now gone. This stage of this conflict is pretty much over.
The problem with Afghanistan was that when the Soviet Union rolled in it was pretty much at the height of its military power. This was the same war machine the West feared would steamroller through West Germany and smash NATO to bits. Once the initial blitzkrieg in Afghanistan was over the real test began when small pockets of resistance fighters began to harass and ambush Russian columns and bases. The roads between major towns and cities eventually became deathtraps for Russian supply and patrol columns and once Stingers were introduced the protection afforded these columns by helicopters quickly became compromised. The fact that Russia's military reacted so sloppily to this unorthodox threat and suffered such huge casualties at the hands of the Mujahadeen quickly ripped away the facade of the 'Mighty Russian Bear' and showed it to be more of a paper tiger than a formidable adversary. Afghanistan was a massive blow to the Russian military's prestige.
When the Russians rolled into Chechnya it was Afghanistan all over again except its troops and overall effectiveness were of inferior quality. I can remember hearing gruesome reports of Chechyan fighters ravaging Russian advances so badly that the former were, in some instances, unable to collect their wounded & dead. Stray dogs were reported to be feeding on the bodies of dead Russian soldiers lying in the streets... :skull: Eventually Russia got a crude handle on Chechnya, but only after resorting to its usual indiscriminant mauling of the the local populations (not that the Chechyan rebels and its own Mujahadeen fighters were any better).
The truth is the Russian military really hasn't changed that much since the end of the Cold War. It's military is much smaller than it used to be and while it has modernized to some degree the real problem is that many of the doctrines and training methods left over from the Soviet era are still in use. Thanks to the hardliners in government & the military Russia has demonstrated little interest in the widespread adoption of proven and effective techniques from the West. Furthermore even if Russia wanted to completely overhaul its military it simply doesn't have the money to do so and maintain a force large enough to effectively cover all its borders. To compensate for its lack of effectiveness the Russian military still relies on using overwhelming, disproportionate, indiscriminant brute force to carry the day. So while the political units & troops of the Soviet era are gone Russia's approach to waging war really hasn't changed (much to the chagrin of its opponents... and the average Russian grunt).
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 19:06
Georgia's military may be in the process of upgrading to western style training & equipment but it's still very much rooted in the Soviet era. Given this I think Georgia is better off fighting a ruthless guerilla war rather than risking suicide by attempting to go head to head with the Russian army. Besides, Georgia's major strategic chokepoints in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have already been overrun, whatever coventional options they may have had are now gone. This stage of this conflict is pretty much over.I agree with the latter, but holding on to the conquered territory is going to be a logistic nightmare for the Russians. All the Georgians have to do is sabotage the single entry point, which is the Roki tunnel.
So Russia finally agrees to a cease-fire? Even when Georgia had proposed that a while ago? Georgia is claiming Russia is still bombing the country. And what of Russia? They're more than likely going to pull out most of the troops (I'm betting they're going to leave another "peace-keeping force" in), and leave behind a bombed and invaded Georgia.
Oleander Ardens
08-12-2008, 20:35
First of all it is good to see that major combat operations are over.
If somebody thinks that Russia has even a slight chance of success in an conventional war against NATO or the EU alone doesn't know anything about facts on the ground. The combined military might of the biggest economic powerhouse with roughly 450 million citiziens outclasses Russia alone by a huge margin. Add in the USA and Russia would be hammered in a conventional war which hopefully will never come.
I think that many neighbours of Russia are now thinking what certain countries were thinking when the USA started attacking Iraq out of fear of nuclear weapons. Get the nuke - into NATO - as fast as possible. Then the bully won't bother you again.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-12-2008, 20:54
So Russia finally agrees to a cease-fire? Even when Georgia had proposed that a while ago?
Even when Georgia broke one a while ago? Anyways, it's understandable Russia would break the Georgian forces before agreeing to a surrender. In another note, Russia was the third party involved in the fighting - regardless of who shot first, Georgian and Ossetian forces were already fighting by the time Russia advanced.
Georgia is claiming Russia is still bombing the country.
It seems they're the only ones.
(I'm betting they're going to leave another "peace-keeping force" in)
You do realize that the first peacekeeping force was working with Georgian forces in agreement with Georgia until Georgia pulled out of the agreement, right?
Spartan198
08-12-2008, 20:56
If this has already been asked, I apologize (as I've not read all of the nearly 400 posts here), but has anyone else noticed how this situation seems to mirror the plot of the PC/console game Ghost Recon (released in 2001)? :inquisitive:
Who started it doesn’t matter. Was it Georgian President trying to re-doing the Kosovar Albanian coup, provoking an out of proportion answer from the Serbian Central Power (and Dictatorship) which will lead to a NATO intervention? Was a Russian cold pre-meditated invasion of a neighbour?
What is important is the message to EU, US and others: We are back.
Ten years ago, when NATO decided to bomb Serbia, Russia was against and we said: Yeah, and what can you do about it?
Today, we said we are against Russian invasion and the answer is: Ah yeah, and what can you do about it?
Russia is saying to her neighbours: You think the West will come to your help. Nope, they won’t. Look at us. And you still want our gas and petrol do you?
The Russians say: The US/NATO protection works only against no real opponent as Serbia but when it comes to real war, it is not coming. Think about it and see what happened to Georgia…
So, who did lost world credibility? Not the Russians, I would say.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 21:09
If somebody thinks that Russia has even a slight chance of success in an conventional war against NATO or the EU alone doesn't know anything about facts on the ground.You are the first in the thread to recognize this fact, apart from yours truly. It took me some time to grasp that many other posters were still considering Russia as a world power. The Russian military budget (in absolute terms) is about as large as that of Italy. Or Spain. It is about half that of Britain or France, which spend around 60 billion each. The quality of troops and material has already been adequately dealt with in another post. They are no match for an army equal their size, and would have a very hard time tackling for instance Ukraine's army. Their strength is in their strategic depth, their excellent human intelligence and satellite espionage facilities, and the sheer numbers of reserves they could call up. Oh, and in their occasional flahes op operational brilliance, like the accomplished chess players they are; I think Putin & Co. demonstrated this last week.
I think that many neighbours of Russia are now thinking what certain countries were thinking when the USA started attacking Iraq out of fear of nuclear weapons. Get the nuke - into NATO - as fast as possible. Then the bully won't bother you again.Some Ukrainian leaders are bound to deplore the fact they the country gave up nuclear weapons after the USSR's demise. And to ponder a resumption of their nuclear arms development.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-12-2008, 21:26
Someone at the TWC wrote a pretty good, albiet short, piece about Russia's modern military capabilities.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=184428
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 21:37
Someone at the TWC wrote a pretty good, albiet short, piece about Russia's modern military capabilities.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=184428Nice article, but short on logistics, which is the eminent Russian military bottleneck. It's a nice illusion that they could roll out all of those 16.000 Soviet era tanks - until they have to refuel..
Nice article, but short on logistics, which is the eminent Russian military bottleneck. It's a nice illusion that they could roll out all of those 16.000 Soviet era tanks - until they have to refuel..
So true. If there's one thing this mechanized era of warfare has shown us is that militaries which willfully neglect the logistical arm of warfare are much more vulnerable to unnecessary attrition than those who don't. China's horrendous casualties due to malnutrition, inclement weather, disease and virtually non-existent supply lines during the Korean War is a prime example of how not to dismiss the logistical side of things.
Here's some food for thought. While Russia's military clearly falls short when compared to its western counterparts the one advantage it does have is its willingness to resort to violence and the minimal impact that casualties seem to have on its society. Historically Russia has rarely ever been hindered in times of war by its populace's unwillingness to fight. This can be a huge advantage against a better armed, better trained opponent who deliberately seeks to avoid a fight whatever the cost.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 22:32
Now that the Russinas have announced a cessation of hostilities, I feel that Nato should (with Georgian consent, of course) fly one or two brigade-size units into Georgia and secure some nice central positions in that country. Transit through Turkey would take too long, giving the Russians time to prepare or even react in preventive fashion. Some mechanized, light armour and anti-tank, backed up by extra air power in eastern Turkey, should do the job.
This - for those who don't immediately understand - will be a 'peace-keeping force', stationed in the country at Georgia's own behest, indefinitely if need be. Its primary (and stated) purpose would be the defense of actual and future pipelines through Georgia that are 'regarded as essential for the West's energy supply'.
Of course this will not be done - heaven forbid! But it should be done. Right now. It is the sort of gambit the Russians would certainly pull off in a similar situation, provided they had the hardware for it.
This would undo much of the shameful inaction and helplessness of the last week. The contingent would have the benefit of dissuading further overt Russian meddling in Georgian politics. Its presence would communicate to the Russians that Gori is as far as they get, and not an inch further. And finally, at the same time, it would serve as leverage on Mr Saakashvili, making sure he started no more stupid adventures.
CrossLOPER
08-12-2008, 22:49
Gorbachev (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081101372.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns) on the situation.
“You are the first in the thread to recognize this fact, apart from yours truly. It took me some time to grasp that many other posters were still considering Russia as a world power.”
So what to do? To start a war, then two options: freeze the front until they rearm, or take Moscow and fight a guerrilla until they rearm, as the Russians are good at?
And I don’t know for you, but the last US/NATO/Allies of the Good will operations didn’t convince me of their military power… Again, no ground forces against Serbia (10.000.000 inhabitants and 2 months of bombing).
Are we prepare to escalate the conflict, or are we prepare for a long negotiation which will reinstall the pre-war situation?
Be careful: The under-estimation by potential enemy of the Russian Army was/is always a problem and the over-estimation of their strength and capacities as well.
However, the possibility to raise a lot of people and to produce a lot of material can’t be just evacuated so easily.
And I met some of their Spetnatz and they are (were) good.
And about logistic: who would have the most difficult situation in case of conflict? Russia has no chance to win a conventional war but nor do we… It is a stalemate.
Russia is as much a world power as the USA by this simple fact. We can’t attack it because we can’t defeat it. And what you can’t defeat you deal/live with it:shame:
After reading Gorbachev: The Georgian didn’t want to repeat KLA, but the Croatian Storm Operation (Oluja) when 200 000 Serbs were ethnically clean without one reproach from the “civilised” western Countries…:idea2:
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 23:12
So what to do?Like I said above: send Nato into Georgia overnight, as peacekeepers. Quickly, secretly, efficiently.
In this situation what we need is a Nato fait accompli. Something like the `Pristina dash’, executed by 200 crack Russian parachutists in 1999 during the Kosovo crisis. They drove all the way from Bosnia to Pristina Airport at high speed to secure the airfield as the centre of a separate Russian peacekeeping sector in Kosovo. The surprise move was devised by the head of the Russian General Staff, Anatoly Kvashnin, and his deputy, Leonid Ivashov, without the knowledge of the Minister of Defense or even Boris Yeltsin (who was probably blind drunk again).
To everyone's surprise, on June 11, 1999, these Russians hit the gas and just drove on and on until they got to Pristina and secured the airport. The British drove their tanks up to the airfield perimeter and Nato General Wesley Clark ordered British General Mike Jackson to 'seize the airport', to which Jackson famously responded that he 'would not start World War Three for him'. The images of the Russian troops sitting atop their jeeps and calmly smoking their papyrosy inches away from British tank barrels were all over the media.
But nah, no one in Brussels (Nato HQ) has the imagination or the guts.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 23:19
You are the first in the thread to recognize this fact, apart from yours truly.
I take offense.
Who doesn't recognize that? Do you think that we don't know about relative military sizes and expenditures? The U.S., NATO and EU expenditures combined are numerous times the amount of every other nation on earth combined. It would be a crap shoot, but that doesn't mean that we can just lay back and relax or that a military venture wouldn't lead to a tremendous amount of death or destruction.
I get ancy when nations like Iran get uppity - not because I believe that they are a toe to toe threat, rather that 1 tiny crazy person in a room full of body builders can do a number if nobody is expecting it or watching.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 23:22
I take offense.
Who doesn't recognize that?I meant 'recognize overtly'. No offense intended, I probably missed some more patrons with my generalising remark. I apologize for that.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 23:24
Like I said above: send Nato into Georgia overnight, as peacekeepers. Quickly, secretly, efficiently.
In this situation what we need is a Nato fait accompli. Something like the `Pristina dash’, executed by 200 crack Russian parachutists in 1999 during the Kosovo crisis. They drove all the way from Bosnia to Pristina Airport at high speed to secure the airfield as the centre of a separate Russian peacekeeping sector in Kosovo. The surprise move was devised by the head of the Russian General Staff, Anatoly Kvashnin, and his deputy, Leonid Ivashov, without the knowledge of the Minister of Defense or even Boris Yeltsin (who was probably blind drunk again).
I agreed at the beginning. Russia will whine and scream until the deed is done and then they will recognize that nothing they can do will stop it.
I was hoping it would be done already while fighting was going on in Ossetia.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 23:27
I meant 'recognize overtly'. No offense intended, I probably missed some more patrons with my generalising remark. I apologize for that.
Ok - none taken.:yes:
go to www.globalsecurity.org - you will love it.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 23:28
I agreed at the beginning. Russia will whine and scream until the deed is done and then they will recognize that nothing they can do will stop it.
I was hoping it would be done already while fighting was going on in Ossetia.It couldn't be done in the midst of the fighting because it would have suggested full military backing from Nato for Saakashvili. He didn't deserve that for his foolishness (which is born out more and more by OCSE observers* and other experts in the area) and it would have send the wrong signal to the Russians. But now that hostilities have stopped and Moscow has agreed to mediation and peacekeeping, there is no reason why Georgia couldn't invite an advance peacekeeping force...
* For example, see if you can find anything in English from Ryan Grist, deputy head of OSCE mission in Tbilisi. He gave an interview to the Dutch press in which he states that Georgian troops were way out of line last Thursday, attacking civilian areas with aerial bombardments, rockets and tanks. He even suggests that Georgia intentionally left the Roki tunnel open to accommodate an expected Ossetian exodus to North Ossetia (within Russia), which means ethnic cleansing in the true sense.
ICantSpellDawg
08-12-2008, 23:35
It couldn't be done in the midst of the fighting because it would have suggested full military backing from Nato for Saakashvili. He didn't deserve that for his foolishness (which is born out more and more by OCSE observers and other experts in the area) and it would have send the wrong signal to the Russians. But now that hostilities have stopped and Moscow has agreed to mediation and peacekeeping, there is no reason why Georgia couldn't invite an advance peacekeeping force...
True - but if NATO was brought in and did not engage in any way, staying far away it would have been a deterrent. I'm down for getting NATO involved in any way possible and I like the idea of a speedy insertion of forces now.
I think that eventually Russia will be a candidate for NATO inclusion itself after a certain amount of time. This would allow the west to legitimately secure the resource rich easter provinces from eventual/probable Chinese incursion. It would also calm Russia down and make it feel much more secure. Maybe over 10 years? The future is a beautiful thing, who knows?!
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 23:38
go to www.globalsecurity.org - you will love it.Again no offense, but don't you think I already know that site? :yes:
Btw things are going to Adrian's plan. The Russians torpedoed the draft UNSC resolution today (so much for Obama's brilliant solution to the problem). I still expect negociations to start Thursday in Tbilisi, after the Russians have tied up loose ends in Abkhazia. Sarkozy may be there. Medvedev won't be there, maybe they will send Lavrov who is a nobody in the Kremlin.
Give or take a few days and we'll all be watching the Beijing Games again... :shame:
HoreTore
08-12-2008, 23:39
That will probably be the best service you can render to your country.
Bah, give me one good reason to fight for my country, and I shall reconsider.
Note: country, not ideology. One good reason why I wouldn't want to be under the rule of a, say, swedish social democrat.
Adrian II
08-12-2008, 23:47
Bah, give me one good reason to fight for my country, and I shall reconsider.Frankly I don't care.
Sarmatian
08-13-2008, 00:13
I rely on political majorities, not on polls. Many Ukrainians have been misled by polls that suggest Nato would install nuclear arms on its territory without Ukraine's assent, etcetera. The political class seems to be a bit better informed. Meanwhile Ukraine has been participating in Nato exercises, collaborating with the Polish army within a Nato set-up and modernizing its army in accordance with Nato standards for years. That's not a coincidence, is it?
By the way, earlier this year the pro-Russian Communist Party of Ukraine collected one million signatures from residents in the Crimea demanding that the Russian Black Sea Fleet be stationed there permanently. That sort of minor destabilisation is going on all the time. The Ukrainian Communists favour a 'return' to the Russian Motherland and will go out of their way to support any Russian intervention in Ukrainian politics. If Moscow wanted the Crimea back, or only its naval base, it could possibly foster a revolt in the Crimea.
I didn't find anything about nuclear weapons in this poll. From what I've been able to discern, the question was do they want Ukraine to become a member of NATO. Absolute majority said "no". That is not minor or trivial issue, becoming a member of a military alliance, and government who doesn't take heed of population stance on that issue may be bringing disaster upon them. Anyway, after radar/shield issue with Czech and Poland, you can't really blame them when they fear that potentially something like that may be forced on them.
Further, relying on political majorities can be very tricky. A single important issue may very well turn the general course parties are taking, especially in eastern European countries where things aren't really settled down. Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO) was biggest opposition party to Milosevic in the nineties, their support going sometimes to 30-40%. Now their their popular support is around 3%. Even more importantly, people who don't usually vote often take the trouble of getting up and going to vote when something big is at stake. I've seen it happen more than once. When Milosevic was defeated, it wasn't so much because he got less votes than in previous elections, but because the turn out was much bigger than usual which cost him the elections. So if, let's say, 50% percent of eligible voter generally vote, a turnout of 65% may drastically change how parliaments seats are distributed. Don't forget that percentages depend on absolute numbers...
And I don't really understand what's wrong with Ukranian political parties collecting signatures from Ukrainians about a certain issue to be presented to Ukranian government or trying to affect policies in any other way. That's why they were formed in the first place - to affect country policies. It doesn't matter if parties are pro-Russian or pro-NATO, they all have the right to present their program to the people. It's the basis of democracy. That kind of argument may very well turn in endless loop because the other side may say that pro-NATO parties are in fact destabilizing the country with their bid for membership.
What is clear to me is that vast majority of Ukranians are against NATO membership, for one reason or another. You can argue that "they don't know what's best for them" but that goes against all principles of democracy. That's how dictatorships usually work.
That is their stance and it should be respect, first and foremost by Ukranian government and then by NATO.
If there is to be a referendum, then I don't have any doubts what it's result is going to be. But I'm still not 100% sure that this government wouldn't try to ignore it or to circumvent it somehow.
HoreTore
08-13-2008, 01:17
Frankly I don't care.
Just like a true neutral :2thumbsup:
You are the first in the thread to recognize this fact, apart from yours truly. It took me some time to grasp that many other posters were still considering Russia as a world power. The Russian military budget (in absolute terms) is about as large as that of Italy. Or Spain. It is about half that of Britain or France, which spend around 60 billion each. The quality of troops and material has already been adequately dealt with in another post. They are no match for an army equal their size, and would have a very hard time tackling for instance Ukraine's army. Their strength is in their strategic depth, their excellent human intelligence and satellite espionage facilities, and the sheer numbers of reserves they could call up. Oh, and in their occasional flahes op operational brilliance, like the accomplished chess players they are; I think Putin & Co. demonstrated this last week.Some Ukrainian leaders are bound to deplore the fact they the country gave up nuclear weapons after the USSR's demise. And to ponder a resumption of their nuclear arms development.
agreed.
Papewaio
08-13-2008, 07:17
Russia has something else that the rest doesn't.
Lack of social currency to worry about. They have the rep as the bad guy so they can be the bully and not worry that there is a sudden plunge on their stock market or that the big oil companies will pull out and look for a more stable country like say Nigeria.
Also this little venture could have paid massive dividends to the Russians by putting up the price of oil... rattle a tin saber and get some money... it seems a better strategy when one is a net energy provider then a buyer methinks.
Insert NATO: With what? English and US are stretch, French Stupid President just downsize military resources (and France doesn’t belong to NATO anyway), just sent few Polish, Dutch, Italian or Spanish, sure the Russian will think twice before doing something.
“Also this little venture could have paid massive dividends to the Russians by putting up the price of oil... rattle a tin saber and get some money... it seems a better strategy when one is a net energy provider then a buyer methinks.” Agree on this and it sent a message to neighbours: NATO is NOT what you need for your safety, don’t believe the West.
Russia did what she wanted, and that is it. National pride is restored. Western Forces can camp now.:balloon2:
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 09:39
Insert NATO: With what?We have all these nice European brigades, don't we? Almost all of them are from Nato member states. If we can't insert one or those at short notice, next to an American brigade, we are doing something very wrong. Which is probably the case. We've grown fat, lazy and dumb on free market dreams, and we've got crooks in power in European capitals, like Berlusconi who is openly taking Putin's side in this conflict.
Besides, a large part of western public opinion is cynical these days - not unlike yourself, Brenus - and adds nothing in the way of a constructive approach. Public thinking and speaking about politics has been replaced by passing judgment on politicians, or even on politics as a whole, as if it were some remote sphere of existence which you can opt out of if it doesn't suit you. Look how many posters in this thread think they can get away with lapidary judgments, as if the whole issue doesn't really concern them.
I agree completely with you that legally speaking, 'Georgia' is Putin's answer to 'Kosovo'. I also agree with McGruff that this is a matter of pure power politics (after all, that's what 'Kosovo' was, too) and should be dealt wth accordingly. Saakashvili has had his day in the sun, he blew it, and now it's up to international mediation to settle the issue. In order to get a balanced diplomatic result, a Nato presence must balance the Russian presence on the ground.
For clarity's sake: these Nato units should not be stationed in Georgia to protect silly Saakashvili, but to protect Nato interests. Just like the Russians are there not only to protect Ossetians and Abkhazians, but their own interests as well. And we should drop Bush' approach as per his last tv address. This is not about an attack on a sovereign country, it is about a a civil conflict that got out of hand and requires international mediation.
macsen rufus
08-13-2008, 09:42
Russia 1
Rest of the World 0
As a dispassionate observer, it was a brilliant play by Russia. Ossetia Schmossetia - purely a pretext for advancing the Grand Strategy. As a European citizen dependent on an oil/gas powered economy... "Oh, :daisy:"
The little corridor through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey always looked like a very slim and brittle bauble gently lodged in between the two jaws of a vice: Russia and Iran. Forget democracy, forget "territorial integrity", forget "protecting minorities". This is a resource war pure and simple, and NATO has just been handed a big fat one-finger salute, which they don't even have the capacity to sit and swivel on, let alone "intervene".
ps anyone looked up Georgia on Google earth in the past few days?
Russia has something else that the rest doesn't.
Lack of social currency to worry about. They have the rep as the bad guy so they can be the bully and not worry that there is a sudden plunge on their stock market or that the big oil companies will pull out and look for a more stable country like say Nigeria.
actually this is exactly what has happened, Russia's stock market has taken a massive plunge, and the BP affair is considered to threaten future inward investment in Russia.
We have all these nice European brigades, don't we? Almost all of them are from Nato member states. If we can't insert one or those at short notice, next to an American brigade, we are doing something very wrong. Which is probably the case. We've grown fat, lazy and dumb on free market dreams, and we've got crooks in power in European capitals, like Berlusconi who is openly taking Putin's side in this conflict.
that phantom brigades that haven't the teeth, or the tail, or the political will, to be anything other than peacekeepers.
and if you are going to put a european derived brigade next to an american brigade, why not just do it under NATO, and organisation that does have the teeth, tail, and mandate for offensive operations?
Your statement about defense budget is ridiculous.
What Europe lacks is over seas power projection capabilities.
Like i said before NATO is novadays more a tool of US then for defense of Europe and many countries that are pro EU, like the former EFTA countries, are not willing to join NATO.
no it isn't, the european elements of NATO and non-NATO EU combined spend peanuts compared to the US, and as a consequence have pitiful capability.
yes, and what little there is is the near exclusive province of france and britain.
NATO is only lead by the US because the US picks up the tab, all the time, if europeans pay their tab (3.0% of GDP instead of 2.0%) then we will have a bigger say.
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 10:49
I didn't find anything about nuclear weapons in this poll.I now that recent Ukrainian polls have all indicated a small majority for opponents of Nato membership. But elections are more important than polls and in the last presidential election the pro-Nato candidate was victorious.
Neither of us should entertain illusions about Ukrainian democracy. It is still developing, and both the U.S. and Russia have exerted huge pressure on the country's leaders and public opinion, the Russians crudely, the Amnericans more subtly, but both have been effective in setting agenda's and influencing choices. Now my point is that I am convinced that pro-Nato views will carry the day if Ukrainians master their fear of Russia. This is the real issue. Many Ukrainians are not averse to Nato, but fear a Russian drive to break up their country as a consequence of membership.
That's what Russian parties, activists and demonstrators in the East and South have consistently and openly threatened since 2004. in this sense Ukraine is held hostage by its neighbour. Even the Ukranian Orthodox Church has supported the anti-Nato drive, with the Patriarch stating that 'This is another attempt to implement the centuries-old intention of the Protestant and Catholic, Masonic and Godless West to divert Ukraine from unity with the world’s center of the Orthodox religion, Moscow, and to pull Ukraine into the sphere of Western false values, to make it part of the new world order.'
If you think the old man is off his rocker, try some of the Russian channels broadcasting into Ukraine, claiming that Nato would be 'worse than the Gestapo' and sell Ukrainian daughters off to Saudi oil sheikhs. That's the level of Ukrainian public debate we are dealing with.
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 11:04
no it isn't, the european elements of NATO and non-NATO EU combined spend peanuts compared to the US, and as a consequence have pitiful capability.Combined EU military expenditure is about half of U.S. expenditure. Or used to be before 'Iraq'. That's not peanuts. A more unified command would be helpful, but hey. I agree that American leadership of Nato, which was indispensable during the cold war both for Europe and for the United States itself, is a thing of the past. The U.S. exploits Nato for their own purposes these days. Washington is encircling Russia through a host of unpalatable allies in the various 'stans', pushing irresponsible leaders like Saakashvili and then droppiojg them again like hot potatoes if it suits them. It's an erratic and self-defeating strategy, a hold-over from the cold war, which Europe shouldn't copy. But if Europe wants to have a voice, it should step up to the plate. I suggested some possibilities of what it could do now. It's a matter of political will. The hardware is available. Together the four largest military powers of Europe (starting with Turkey) can field half a million well-armed professional soldiers and well-trained conscripts.
LittleGrizzly
08-13-2008, 11:17
I think its important to note that if there where some kind of EU army or whatever is that Germany could contribute alot more, as i understand its constitution limits its army, as one of the richest EU countries it could contribute quite alot just in terms of finiance, or more if as part of an EU army it was seen as reasonable to re arm itself.
All the talk of socialist policys getting in the way is pure nonense, things like the Iraq war have limited our ability to act here, anyone thinking that spending on socailist policys has somehow weakened us is off to lala land and somehow trying to use an event like this to push thier agenda.. (agenda being socialist policys = bad)
socialist policies be damned, the fact remains that the US spends ~4.5% of GDP on defence, whereas europe averages about 1.9-2.0 percent, and how does iraq limit europes ability to act?
LittleGrizzly
08-13-2008, 11:41
socialist policies be damned, the fact remains that the US spends ~4.5% of GDP on defence, whereas europe averages about 1.9-2.0 percent
The lala land bit wasn't so much aimed at you, incase you were wonderng, i don't think europe needs to spend that much, if we were unified european army for starters, and then if we had countries like Germany contributing as well, we would have a very large well funded army capable of stopping russian incursions into georgia (to go by the example of the thread)
how does iraq limit europes ability to act?
Well i know British forces between Iraq and Afghanastan are streched quite thinly, so Britian would have been unable to support any european effort with much, im not sure on other countries but it has certainly removed uk ability to act...
rory_20_uk
08-13-2008, 12:03
If the EU works at all in terms of armed forces, a unified command as well as set levels of both money and manpower to the EU needs to be set, so when an issue does occur deploying does not take months and months of horsetrading who supplies what.
Then when the force gets there it will need a unified language (probably English as it's almost everyone's second language), rules of engagement and ideally structure so that the commander can deploy a batallion for example and know what he's getting and what it can do, regardless of where it's from.
Until this is sorted out, the amount that is spent on several small disorganised forces, all of which trying to ensure they are not overly committed is less of a scalpel, more of a mess.
Although I am not keen on a EU army that involves the UK, I think that harmonising the structure in Europe at least with itself and preferably with the USA would be sensible. I would argue that it would be better not to have certain features in an army than try to do a job with second rate materials (landrovers in Iraq / Afghanistan for example).
I don't imagine that such a force would stop Russia unless it was already deployed to an area - which unless carefully handled itself is an aggressive action.
~:smoking:
The lala land bit wasn't so much aimed at you, incase you were wonderng, i don't think europe needs to spend that much, if we were unified european army for starters, and then if we had countries like Germany contributing as well, we would have a very large well funded army capable of stopping russian incursions into georgia (to go by the example of the thread)
Well i know British forces between Iraq and Afghanastan are streched quite thinly, so Britian would have been unable to support any european effort with much, im not sure on other countries but it has certainly removed uk ability to act...fair enough, nor do i, but somewhere north of 3.0% would seem prudent to me, and none of us are doing it. a unified army does require a unified state, who wants that out of the EU nations?
ah, i see your point, my fault for disassociating UK from europe. :D
Kagemusha
08-13-2008, 12:18
fair enough, nor do i, but somewhere north of 3.0% would seem prudent to me, and none of us are doing it. a unified army does require a unified state, who wants that out of the EU nations?
ah, i see your point, my fault for disassociating UK from europe. :D
That is completely off the mark. Can you tell me from how many countries have deployed troops in Kosovo,Iraq or Afghanistan for example and can they work together? You dont need to have unified state in order to create an army which can work together from several countries. All you need to have is an over european staff and command, which would use earmarked troops capable of international missions and that would mean in more modern operations. I sense lot of Europhobia from your post, while im Euro seceptic myself, there are things in EU that can benefit us all.
LittleGrizzly
08-13-2008, 12:29
I don't think we need to be a unified state to have a unified army, there would be several problems to get over as rory mentioned, a unified langauge for one, i think battalions would need to be mixed nationality, to save problems like UK not wanting UK battalion posted and instead wanting french battalion posted, funding would need to be the same percentage of GDP throughout europe, i think the potential benefits mean its worth trying...
ah, i see your point, my fault for disassociating UK from europe. :D
NP i suppose if your only thinking of mainland europe then the majority haven't even got troops in Iraq (out of the major forces at least..)
That is completely off the mark. Can you tell me from how many countries have deployed troops in Kosovo,Iraq or Afghanistan for example and can they work together? You dont need to have unified state in order to create an army which can work together from several countries. All you need to have is an over european staff and command, which would use earmarked troops capable of international missions and that would mean in more modern operations. I sense lot of Europhobia from your post, while im Euro seceptic myself, there are things in EU that can benefit us all.
the war-fighting is taken care of by the US/UK or NATO, what remains in kosovo is peacekeeping.
you need to have a federated state to go to WAR because because there will never be agreement otherwise.
how many big euro governments were keen on iraq?
i sense the force within you too, but in me it is a desire to avoid unified gov't on the UK's part, which i believe would be necessary to create a real EU Army with real political will to send it to WAR. that does not preclude the continental nations from doing as they wish, it isn't my business, but i can't help noticing that not many countries want that level of political integration.
I don't think we need to be a unified state to have a unified army, there would be several problems to get over as rory mentioned, a unified langauge for one, i think battalions would need to be mixed nationality, to save problems like UK not wanting UK battalion posted and instead wanting french battalion posted, funding would need to be the same percentage of GDP throughout europe, i think the potential benefits mean its worth trying...
you need political unification to collate the political will to go to war, anything else is the usual EU playthings of 'rapid' 'reaction' 'forces' which are not rapid, rarely ever react, and have no force.
Besides, a large part of western public opinion is cynical these days - not unlike yourself, Brenus - and adds nothing in the way of a constructive approach.
Yeah, yeah, and when I come with a new, constructive and peaceful approach you warmongerers call me stupid and naive... :no:
LittleGrizzly
08-13-2008, 13:13
I know what your getting at, such a force couldn't work with individual goverments having disagreements like Iraq, i agree, the force would need to be either in the hands of the EU goverment, or used under agreement by a % of EU countries, or some mix of those 2, it would be unworkable if every sovreign goverment had to agree individually to its use...
I may be mistaken but i think an issue like the Iraq war is rare, I don't think the unified EU army would be hit with problems like Iraq, especially after Iraq as i think lessons have been somewhat learned...
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 13:34
'Iraq' virtually destroyed Nato. It split the alliance in half, tied down western troops in the wrong places and for the wrong reasons, and leaves us unwilling and incapable of defending our true interests because, well, we 'need' Russia as a partner in our silly 'war on terror', don't we?
Osama is obviously a bigger threat than Putin. :rolleyes:
At least Sarkozy is trying to assess the damage on the spot. He is not negotiating in the real sense, just mediating and putting out feelers, but it's something.
Anyway, it looks like Russia wants to annex both Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia after all. According to the ceasefire conditions two referendums, conducted under Russian supervision, should ensure a majority for accession to Russia in both regions, obviously without any real guarantees for any Georgian and other minorities who live there or used to live there before hostilities began. Georgian revanchism is going to be an open sore for another generation at least. Kiss your pipelines goodbye, BP.
Kagemusha
08-13-2008, 13:43
the war-fighting is taken care of by the US/UK or NATO, what remains in kosovo is peacekeeping.
you need to have a federated state to go to WAR because because there will never be agreement otherwise.
how many big euro governments were keen on iraq?
i sense the force within you too, but in me it is a desire to avoid unified gov't on the UK's part, which i believe would be necessary to create a real EU Army with real political will to send it to WAR. that does not preclude the continental nations from doing as they wish, it isn't my business, but i can't help noticing that not many countries want that level of political integration.
Well the EU forces can be controlled the same way as the Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not a problem militarily. unified government is not needed for it.Same like united government is not needed for in NATO operations or US lead coalition operations. I just cant buy your argument on this.
LittleGrizzly
08-13-2008, 13:47
Kage, i think his point was more about agreement on going to war rather than the situation when the war begins...
FactionHeir
08-13-2008, 13:55
Conflict continues. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/13/georgia.russia.war/index.html)
Also seems that the Georgian President is blowing things out of proportion a bit?
TBILISI, Georgia (CNN) -- A convoy of Russian armored personnel carriers was heading deeper into Georgia Wednesday, CNN Correspondent Matthew Chance reported.
Chance, on the road with the Russian column, said it was moving slowly south from Gori.
Early fears that it was headed for the capital, Tbilisi, were allayed when the convoy turned down a side road.
Chance said CNN had been told by Georgian officials that the convoy was heading for an abandoned Georgian military base.
Georgia and Russia have accused each other of violating a cease-fire only 24 hours after it was agreed.
The six-point deal was meant to end the fighting over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but both sides traded accusations Wednesday.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov used a Moscow press conference to urge Georgia to formally sign the cease-fire deal.
Meanwhile Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, flanked by the leaders of Lithuania, Poland, Estonia and Latvia in a separate media briefing, said Russian tanks were attacking and "rampaging" through the Georgian town of Gori despite the cease-fire.
However journalists in Gori, the birthplace of former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, said they had seen no Russian tanks. Residents there told the journalists they had earlier seen "some" Russian tanks, but not in large numbers.
A Russian military official also disputed Georgia's claims. He said Russian forces were at an abandoned Georgian artillery base near Gori, but not inside the town itself.
"I tell you with full responsibility that there are no Russian tanks in Gori today and there is no reason to be," because Gori authorities have fled the city, said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff.
Nogovitsyn said the conflict had killed 74 Russian troops, wounded 171 and left 19 missing in action. Watch more on push for peace »
Saakashvili also accused Russia of carpet bombing Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's capital, and setting up internment camps for residents there and in Abkhazia.
"Georgia has been sticking to its commitments, but I don't think there is much to stick to here," Saakashvili said. Watch more on battle-ravaged South Ossetia »
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday that Saakashvili and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had agreed to the deal, which called for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal to the positions held before the fighting escalated. iReport.com: Share your story of how the crisis is affecting you
Sarkozy is the current president of the European Union, which mediated the cease-fire.
The deal also allowed displaced civilians to return home safely and opens Georgia to humanitarian aid workers.
Sarkozy acknowledged that the plan was provisional but said a long-term solution was being sought.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner would present the plan to EU members and eventually make it the basis for a legal document to be reviewed by the U.N. Security Council, Sarkozy said.
Lavrov said it was important for Georgian armed forces to return to their barracks as part of the agreement. Watch more from the frontline »
"The Georgian side must immediately fulfill this key issue, to remove all dangers concerning relapses," Lavrov said.
He reiterated that Russian peacekeepers would remain in South Ossetia, where they were before the fighting erupted last week.
He also called for international observers to help ensure peace and "prevent any aggressive ambitions on the part of the Georgian leadership."
Wednesday was a day of mourning in Russia for what Medvedev called the "genocide" of the South Ossetian people by Georgian forces. Flags across Moscow flew at half-staff.
Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus said an international force would be the only way to stop violence and ensure Georgia's territorial integrity.
"Let the world finally wake up and take the action and provide the real security for the region," Adamkus said. Interactive map: See how far the Russians advanced »
Fighting has raged since Thursday when Georgia launched its crackdown on separatist fighters in autonomous South Ossetia, where most people have long supported independence.
Russian troops and tanks moved into South Ossetia on Friday and quickly pushed back the Georgian forces. Russian forces also moved into Abkhazia, another breakaway Georgian region.
Russia called a halt Tuesday to its military incursion, insisting it had been aimed at stopping Georgian military actions against its peacekeepers and citizens in the breakaway regions.
One Russian diplomat told CNN that as many as 2,000 people died after Georgia sent its military into South Ossetia.
Estonian President Toomas Ilves, who spoke at the news conference with Saakashvili, said Russia's actions threatened the independence of former Soviet nations. iReport.com: Georgians rally at Parliament building
"This is the first time that we've actually seen an invasion, a unilateral invasion of a country," Ilves said. "I think we have to think about this long and hard and deeply in the EU [and] in NATO."
Up to 100,000 people are thought to have been displaced in South Ossetia and Georgia. The United States, U.N. agencies, religious groups, and non-governmental organizations have started drives for humanitarian relief.
Banquo's Ghost
08-13-2008, 13:56
It may not yet be over.
Russian tanks have been reported moving on the road to Tbilisi (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0813/breaking133.htm), and South Ossetian irregulars are looting Gori (which is Georgia proper) under the gaze of the Russians.
Kagemusha
08-13-2008, 13:58
Kage, i think his point was more about agreement on going to war rather than the situation when the war begins...
I understand. And i have no objections in current policy, like for example policies towards Iraq and Afghanistan. For example if there will be a conflict like Iraq, where many of the EU nations dont want to send their troops in. I think they should be able to do so. Those who want could send theirs. It has nothing to do with mutual defense clause, which would be used for protection of the EU countries themselves.
If EU countries would be willing to ear mark enough brigades and transportation equipment in general for the "EU army". EU could send brigades from countries that are willing, to crisis which dont threaten EU itself. I dont think that EU should be able to force its member states to send their forces to conflicts far away without their consent. See i am no federalist.
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 13:58
It may not yet be over.
Russian tanks have been reported moving on the road to Tbilisi (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0813/breaking133.htm), and South Ossetian irregulars are looting Gori (which is Georgia proper) under the gaze of the Russians.I suspect that rogue Georgian elements may be just as much to blame. If that is the case, fruitful negotiations are out of the question for the time being. That's what happens if you send western negotiators with nothing go negotiate about. Nato should have flown in those two brigades I talked about either yesterday or today; that would be the only way to bring both the Russians and Saakashvili to their senses. If this goes on, Mr Sarkozy will be staring down the barrel of a T-70 on his next visit to Tbilisi.
I may be mistaken but i think an issue like the Iraq war is rare, I don't think the unified EU army would be hit with problems like Iraq, especially after Iraq as i think lessons have been somewhat learned...
by; "not be hit with problems like iraq", do you mean they would not choose to go into iraq judging it as not aligned with EU aims and goals and not in their opinion worth the cost in any case?
if so, then that is a problem for me in view of the UK being part of such a polity, because we did decide to go into iraq, having judged that it was aligned with our aims and goals, and was worth the cost of achieving.
LittleGrizzly
08-13-2008, 14:15
No, i meant it as, i don't think we will have such a contentious (sp?!) war that will so split european opinion again, it was in reference to your comment about the iraq war in reference to an EU army, i was simply saying that i don't think an issue like that will be a problem for a while... not to say in our thinking on an EU army we should simply think that it won't happen again, im trying to say an issue like iraq will be rare... though there will be disagreement it won't be as extreme as it was over Iraq, for at least sometime i think...
The Black Ship
08-13-2008, 14:36
After this you think governments in Vilnius or Riga will be removing Patriotic War statues any time soon? Will Kiev be begging for Partnership in Peace status and eventual NATO membership more stridently now? Hmm... maybe a new lease for the Crimea?
Russia got the result it wanted... and displayed the weak position that NATO and the EU truly hold in the region.
Marshal Murat
08-13-2008, 14:48
Russians Break Truce? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080813/D92HD9L02.html)
A Russian military convoy thrust deep into Georgia on Wednesday and Georgian officials said Russian troops bombed and looted the crossroads city of Gori, violating a freshly brokered truce intended to end the conflict.
An AP reporter saw several dozen Russian military trucks and armored vehicles speeding out of Gori and heading south, further from the breakaway province of South Ossetia.
Soldiers waved at journalists and one soldier shouted to a photographer takning shots of the convoy: "Come with us, beauty, we're going to Tbilisi." Gori is about a 90-minute drive from the Georgian capital.
From what I understand from this, a reinforced NATO brigade, with sufficient aircover, could stop and turn them back. This reveals a force high on victory, just ready to be brought down by some serious forces.
See, Marshal, these noble Russian peacekeepers are keeping the evil Georgians away from the oppressed people.
Come on, I can't believe this crap. Russia breaks a truce in less than a day.
Oleander Ardens
08-13-2008, 15:04
We don't know what is happening right now. It could well be that "volunteers" are trying to show the justified wrath of the Ossetians by attacking Georgian villages, and that Russia can't sadly do anything about it. Certainly they have more cause for agressive actions than the Georgians have.
To the Black Ship: Actually I think that now every unbiased politician in Europe but especially in Eastern Europe has seen what an agressive bully Russia has become again and will try to come under the protective umbrella of NATO and the EU. As a matter of fact IMHO the tactical victory of Russia was a strategic defeat because it signals that you have to be in Nato to be safe of Russian aggression.
No, i meant it as, i don't think we will have such a contentious (sp?!) war that will so split european opinion again, it was in reference to your comment about the iraq war in reference to an EU army, i was simply saying that i don't think an issue like that will be a problem for a while... not to say in our thinking on an EU army we should simply think that it won't happen again, im trying to say an issue like iraq will be rare... though there will be disagreement it won't be as extreme as it was over Iraq, for at least sometime i think...
i'm afraid i am rather of the opinion that the events that require an army are precisely the events that will be contentious between dissenting parties.
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 15:24
We don't know what is happening right now.That's the trouble if you don't have feet on the ground. It may well be that rogue Georgian elements are still banking on Nato intervention if they succeed in provoking the Russians enough to attack Tbilisi. If they did, Nato would have to make a stand.
it's interesting how our pre-existing viewpoints affect how we interpret the current war in the caucauses. some see it in purely economic terms, as a russian grab to grab or make the pipeline ineffective. others see it in social terms, the s. ossetians deserve to be free and make a choice and they have chosen russia, or the alternate viewpoint, georgia is a sovereign nation and therefore deserves to have it's sovereignty respected by russia, irrespective of what is happening there. some others are more legalistic trying to figure out who actually broke the ceasefire or initiated hostilites because that is the party that is wrong. some see it as the West trying to contain expansionistic russia and that we must do so now before they get stronger. others see it as the West provoking russia, which is just trying to gain or regain it's natural place as a great power.
it is also interesting though how we assume we know the other viewpoints that a person may believe just because they take a certain stance. what i mean by that is, i've read it time and time again here, where a person with the anti-russian viewpoint has said something to the likes of 'so you believe the russians are there just to protect their so called citizens and are not aggressive and expansionistic?" whereas the pro-russian poster has said nothing to that affect, but it is simply assumed. for me personally, i believe that saakashvilli really believes that georgia was threatened and being provoked by russia when he overran s. ossetia, and he either a) assumed russia was not going to get militarily involved or b) that nato would come in on his side. i also believe that putin and medvedev truly believe that their decision to escalate the conflict was to protect the country that they love and they also see themselves as the victims of western expansion and hypocricy. everybody considers themselves as the victim and has the moral highground, that's how we humans enable ourselves to commit unspeakable atrocities against one another.
i also believe in contrast to some other posters here however, that this has put an end to nato expansion for not only georgia, but ukraine and the rest of those CIS states. i believe the west might go to war for the baltic states, and probably would go to war for poland, but as for the rest of the former soviet client states tough, you're on your own. i've only seen it touched on briefly here but the i think the main reason nato isn't in tblisi right now is that is been a cornerstone of world affairs for the last 63 years to not have two well stockpiled nuclear countries go to war with each other. and no one, thankfully, is crazy enough to try to get troops in any kind of situation where it could escalate into that.
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 16:05
it's interesting how our pre-existing viewpoints affect how we interpret the current war in the caucauses.You make many good points.
However, I think we should base ourselves on facts on the ground and not on assumptions about the honesty of leaders. As I see it, Saakashvili overplayed his hand by starting an agressive campaign of ethnic cleansing and was severely punished for it. This threat is now contained, and any further Russian move against Tbilisi should be discouraged. As of now, the issue is strategic, no longer local.
A Nato presence is an excellent tool to discourage them. It would not unleash World War III, even if Nato forces would block the Russian armed column that is now on its way to Tbilisi. And if we have to incinerate that entire column, which Nato air and antitank forces can do within a quarter of an hour, we should do it to show them we mean business.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-13-2008, 16:48
Come on, I can't believe this crap. Russia breaks a truce in less than a day.
I wouldn't trust everything from the Georgian government just yet, especially given the post by FactionHeir.
And if we have to incinerate that entire column, which Nato air and antitank forces can do within a quarter of an hour, we should do it to show them we mean business.
Have you been reading NATO propaganda again? :laugh4: Yeah, sure, we can incinerate a russian column (and do you even know how long that column is?) in 15 minutes, never mind the modern russian jets and SAMs firing at our planes all the time. now you may say they are a paper tiger because they lost in Afghanistan but it's not like NATO has won in Afghanistan yet, that's a different type of warfare.
Obviously Russia would fear those 15 paddle boats Britain has left or the SuperHornets of the USNavy that the Navy didn't want at first and then accepted due to a lack of alternatives until the JSF arrives.
LittleGrizzly
08-13-2008, 17:22
Don't you mock our paddle boats!
With our highly trained personal aboard those paddle boats become highly effective killing machines !!1!1
Sarmatian
08-13-2008, 17:33
I now that recent Ukrainian polls have all indicated a small majority for opponents of Nato membership. But elections are more important than polls and in the last presidential election the pro-Nato candidate was victorious.
Neither of us should entertain illusions about Ukrainian democracy. It is still developing, and both the U.S. and Russia have exerted huge pressure on the country's leaders and public opinion, the Russians crudely, the Amnericans more subtly, but both have been effective in setting agenda's and influencing choices. Now my point is that I am convinced that pro-Nato views will carry the day if Ukrainians master their fear of Russia. This is the real issue. Many Ukrainians are not averse to Nato, but fear a Russian drive to break up their country as a consequence of membership.
That's what Russian parties, activists and demonstrators in the East and South have consistently and openly threatened since 2004. in this sense Ukraine is held hostage by its neighbour. Even the Ukranian Orthodox Church has supported the anti-Nato drive, with the Patriarch stating that 'This is another attempt to implement the centuries-old intention of the Protestant and Catholic, Masonic and Godless West to divert Ukraine from unity with the world’s center of the Orthodox religion, Moscow, and to pull Ukraine into the sphere of Western false values, to make it part of the new world order.'
If you think the old man is off his rocker, try some of the Russian channels broadcasting into Ukraine, claiming that Nato would be 'worse than the Gestapo' and sell Ukrainian daughters off to Saudi oil sheikhs. That's the level of Ukrainian public debate we are dealing with.
If that poll I've seen is an indication, that's a vast majority. 50 something % against, 22 something in favour and we can assume the rest are undecided. That means that more people are undecided than in favour. You can call it vast majority, absolute majority etc... but not slight majority.
Russians don't have American touch for subtlety, I agree with you there. Americans know how to influence countries without appearing that they are doing it for themselves, but for the country. Fair enough, Russians seem to be learning but they are still far behind.
I think your main issue that Ukranians fear Russia is flawed. Wanting to keep best possible relations with a very powerful country next to you is not fear, it's common sense. What would your stance be if you had political elite in Netherlands that want's to do something that will so piss of Germany to the point that Germany might make military response?
Let's say that Ukraine does join NATO and in the best case the only reply from Russia is lot of strong words, it is still going to affect relations between them profoundly. Not only in terms of politics, but in terms of economy and social issues. So, while all western European countries are working to better their relations Russia, making deals, building pipelines etc... Ukraine is supposed (I don't want to use the word "forced" but it's close) to do something that will make adversely affect their relations in a bad way. In the end, it's gonna affect standard of living in Ukraine, destabilize the country and hurt relations with one of the great powers without chance of improving in the foreseeable future. And that is the best case scenario.
On the issues of Patriarch and Gestapo comparisons, I don't have to watch Ukranian TV, I have it all right here in Serbia. But I also don't have to watch Ukranian TV to know that there are same type of rhetorics on the other side, something along the lines of "If we don't join NATO, Russia is going to conquer us and makes us slaves etc...". Different type of people need different kind of propaganda. To the simple folk, talk of disasters are more effective than rational and logical discussion like you and me are having here. Don't tell me that you think that with his "Axis of evil" talk, Bush was trying to reach educated Americans who have a pretty good grasp of geopolitical issues. No, he was reaching more simple folk, who wouldn't know that North Korea exist if they hadn't seen M.A.S.H.
I wouldn't trust everything from the Georgian government just yet, especially given the post by FactionHeir.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia6
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 19:27
Have you been reading NATO propaganda again? :laugh4: Yeah, sure, we can incinerate a russian column (and do you even know how long that column is?) in 15 minutes, never mind the modern russian jets and SAMs firing at our planes all the time. now you may say they are a paper tiger because they lost in Afghanistan but it's not like NATO has won in Afghanistan yet, that's a different type of warfare.Nato won a crushing victory in Afghanistan, it did better in six weeks than th Russians did in ten years, and losses were minimal as opposed to those of the Russians which were massive.
One reason for these Russian losses is that they relied on unprotected armour to do the job. They haven't learned their lesson apparently, because they made the same mistake in Georgia: lots of armour, and the air force was nowhere to be seen. Swedish media have reported that Russian casualties are much higher than reported, probably in the hundreds. If so, it seems the tiny Georgian army put up a beter fight than we thought. The Georgians even downed a Russian Tu-22M3 Backfire bomber, part of their so-called A-team, and this with old Russian designed air defense systems.
Well, it seems the U.S. is now taking a stand in that they will send humanitarian aid through military means, which implies that they will secure airports and harbours in Georgia. Of course Saakashvili immediately starts bragging that the U.S. will 'take over' Georgian ports and airfields, which is not helpful either way. I wish someone would ducttape this idiot for a month.
Anyway, that's the boots on the ground we need. I hope some European nations understand that this is the moment to lend them a hand...
Anyway, that's the boots on the ground we need. I hope some European nations understand that this is the moment to lend them a hand...
Yes, it is time for good old Neville to step down and make room for Winston.
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 19:38
Yes, it is time for good old Neville to step down and make room for Winston.I'm afraid we have no Winston over here.
Has your country even summoned its Russian ambassador? Mine hasn't.
The Black Ship
08-13-2008, 20:11
We don't know what is happening right now. It could well be that "volunteers" are trying to show the justified wrath of the Ossetians by attacking Georgian villages, and that Russia can't sadly do anything about it. Certainly they have more cause for agressive actions than the Georgians have.
To the Black Ship: Actually I think that now every unbiased politician in Europe but especially in Eastern Europe has seen what an agressive bully Russia has become again and will try to come under the protective umbrella of NATO and the EU. As a matter of fact IMHO the tactical victory of Russia was a strategic defeat because it signals that you have to be in Nato to be safe of Russian aggression.
If I were the Baltic States I'd be calling every capitol I could seeking reassurance that this time the world really cares about them. I'd be checking the huge Russia minority and finding out who there has a Russian passport... afterall Ossetians are really Russians so the motherland was just protecting IT"S citizens. What's to stop the same happening again in the Baltic. NATO? The EU?
Russia grabbed Georgian territory obstensibly as a peacekeeping force, incorporated the seized territiories citizens... sounds to me like annexation not peacekeeping. The Georgians may have been aggressors in this, as Russia contends, but they had rigged the situation to the point where Georgia really could only allow annexation, or fight a David versus Goliath battle. Looks like they missed with the rock.
This is a case where an independent review of claim and counter-claim needs to happen since I don't believe either sides version. What good this would do against facts on the ground, who knows?
I laugh at your assertion that the Russian army can't control their proxies in Ossetia, or can't stop Abkhaz militias. If Russia was truly in the business of keeping the peace and trying to demilitarize the border why allow the Ossetians and Abkhaz into Georgian territory? If they can rout Georgian troops why would militias armed and trained by Russia be hard to control?
The Black Ship
08-13-2008, 20:18
OH yeah Adrian,
It seems that Russia believes that Ukraine has been helping Georgia air defence, even heard some rumbling that they think Ukranians might be manning the assets.
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 20:28
OH yeah Adrian,
It seems that Russia believes that Ukraine has been helping Georgia air defence, even heard some rumbling that they think Ukranians might be manning the assets.I read some accusations that there were American soldiers among the Georgian troops killed by the Russians. They were 'some very dark Georgians', a Russian spokesman confirmed, saying that DNA tests would be done on their remains to establish their origin. According the U.S. DoD all American instructors in Georgia are safe and accounted for.
CrossLOPER
08-13-2008, 20:31
OK, so now NATO is going to burn Russian columns and nuke Moscow. I'm going to go play some Warcraft III. I suggest some of you do the same.
Sarmatian
08-13-2008, 20:38
OK, so now NATO is going to burn Russian columns and nuke Moscow. I'm going to go play some Warcraft III. I suggest some of you do the same.
Try Fallout II, just in case...
OK, so now NATO is going to burn Russian columns and nuke Moscow. I'm going to go play some Warcraft III. I suggest some of you do the same.
IIRC, aren't you a Russian living in Georgia? ~;) We demand first-hand accounts!
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 21:12
This is getting better and better.
Moscow now demands that the U.S. 'choose between Georgia and Russia'. And according to the French ceasefire negotiators, Moscow will no longer recognize Georgia as a separate country or have any official dealings with it.
Who'd have thunk their brotherly love for the Ossetians went that far? :laugh4:
PanzerJaeger
08-13-2008, 21:19
This is getting better and better.
Moscow now demands that the U.S. 'choose between Georgia and Russia'. And according to the French ceasefire negotiators, Moscow will no longer recognize Georgia as a separate country or have any official dealings with it.
Who'd have thunk their brotherly love for the Ossetians went that far? :laugh4:
Bros before hos, man.
We can find any old backwater Soviet breakaway to screw around with, but we'll need Russia on our side when the ____ hits the fan with China. :juggle2:
Bros before hos, man.
We can find any old backwater Soviet breakaway to screw around with, but we'll need Russia on our side when the ____ hits the fan with China. :juggle2:
Nah, Russia will be on our side anyway, or they will risk being subjugated by China much like Russia itself is now subjugating Georgia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia
Adrian II
08-13-2008, 22:29
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russiaWe have mentioned all these things already, SwedishFish, but it is good to put every piece if info into perspective.
We have a Russian-dictated ceasefire that was violated on day one by the Russians, with irregulars from Ossetia, Chechnya and God knows where in tow who engage in looting and other abuse. This in a region where hundreds of thousands of people have already lost their homes, their livelihoods and possessions, their relatives or friends. Tomorrow this crisis will be a week old; the UN, Nato, the Eu and other bodies are holding conferences; the U.S. is told by Moscow that it will have to 'choose between Russia and Georgia'; and the Washington neocons are in the ascendant again with their stupid emotional pleas for 'plucky little Georgia'..
How depressing.
We have mentioned all these things already, SwedishFish, but it is good to put every piece if info into perspective.
We have a Russian-dictated ceasefire that was violated on day one by the Russians, with irregulars from Ossetia, Chechnya and God knows where in tow who engage in looting and other abuse. This in a region where hundreds of thousands of people have already lost their homes, their livelihoods and possessions, their relatives or friends. Tomorrow this crisis will be a week old; the UN, Nato, the Eu and other bodies are holding conferences; the U.S. is told by Moscow that it will have to 'choose between Russia and Georgia'; and the Washington neocons are in the ascendant again with their stupid emotional pleas for 'plucky little Georgia'..
How depressing.
As long as it's "for South Ossetia", I'm sure EMFM will support them.
We have mentioned all these things already, SwedishFish, but it is good to put every piece if info into perspective.
We have a Russian-dictated ceasefire that was violated on day one by the Russians, with irregulars from Ossetia, Chechnya and God knows where in tow who engage in looting and other abuse. This in a region where hundreds of thousands of people have already lost their homes, their livelihoods and possessions, their relatives or friends. Tomorrow this crisis will be a week old; the UN, Nato, the Eu and other bodies are holding conferences; the U.S. is told by Moscow that it will have to 'choose between Russia and Georgia'; and the Washington neocons are in the ascendant again with their stupid emotional pleas for 'plucky little Georgia'..
How depressing.
Well your post citing Pristina was spot on the money. If the US & NATO pulled a 'Pristina' in Georgia and simply dropped paratroopers into Tblisi and airlifted assets (as well as Red Cross & other aid) into the airport while citing their 'desire to participate in Russia's peacekeeping mission' then Russia would have been forced to stop its advance. Add to the mix considerable air assets to keep Russia's air force honest and we wouldn't have NATO scrambling to hold meetings to decide what delicate diplomatic language to toss in Russia's general direction.
Marshal Murat
08-13-2008, 23:58
Where are the days when we were so afraid of Russia we had to act immediately to preserve our sacred fluids?
Adrian II
08-14-2008, 00:03
Well your post citing Pristina was spot on the money. If the US & NATO pulled a 'Pristina' in Georgia and simply dropped paratroopers into Tblisi and airlifted assets (as well as Red Cross & other aid) into the airport while citing their 'desire to participate in Russia's peacekeeping mission' then Russia would have been forced to stop its advance. Add to the mix considerable air assets to keep Russia's air force honest and we wouldn't have NATO scrambling to hold meetings to decide what delicate diplomatic language to toss in Russia's general direction.Thank God I am not the only one. You know we have this Nato Response Force, a combined ground, air, naval, intelligence and special forces unit that can sustain itself unsupported for twelve days?
From the official description:
Having achieved Full Operational Capability in November 2006, the NRF is capable of undertaking appropriate missions on its own or serving as part of a larger force contributing to the full range of Alliance military operations. It could therefore be deployed in a number of different ways, for example as a show of force and demonstration of Alliance solidarity in the face of aggression. This NRF was declared to be at full operational capability with 25.000 troops at the 2006 Riga Summit.
So where are they hiding it? Why isn't it securing our pipeline and assisting the authorities in a friendly nation that is threatened with dismemberment and chaos?
Such a Nato presence shouldn't serve to support Saakashvili and certainly not to reconquer any lost Ossetian or Abkhazian territory. It would simpy be there to enforce a real ceasefire, to ensure massive humanitarian aid to rump-Georgia and to sit out the Russians. Remember the Russians are camping in the most devastated part of the country. Winter is coming, the Roki tunnel which is their only supply line will be closed, and the Russians will literally have to fly in every new pair of boots, every gallon of cooking oil and every packet of papyposi by air. Make it expensive for them. Let's see if their love of human rights sustains a budget increase while oil prices are going down and Ossetian and Abkhaz guerilla's start fighting them because they want independence from Russia, too.
Where are the days when we were so afraid of Russia we had to act immediately to preserve our sacred fluids?
We've grown complacent. Dangerously complacent all the while Adolf Vissarionovich Putin has been plotting.
CrossLOPER
08-14-2008, 00:06
We've grown complacent. Dangerously complacent all the while Adolf Vissarionovich Putin has been plotting.
OK, you're not even trying.
Adrian II
08-14-2008, 00:14
OK, you're not even trying.Come on, CrossLOPER. We are all guys sitign behid desks trying to make sense of it all. I am sure you must have some strong views and serious insights, but so far all you do is post cynical one-liners. Give us something to chew on. Feel free. This is the Org, we're not at war here.
Marshal Murat
08-14-2008, 00:29
Gentlemen stop fighting, this is the Totalwar Forum! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29czSGSPE7k)
CrossLOPER
08-14-2008, 02:42
Come on, CrossLOPER. We are all guys sitign behid desks trying to make sense of it all. I am sure you must have some strong views and serious insights, but so far all you do is post cynical one-liners. Give us something to chew on. Feel free. This is the Org, we're not at war here.
I think I'll take you up on that invitation soon enough. :wink:
Don Corleone
08-14-2008, 02:49
You know Russia must be way out of bounds when Adrian is playing the hawk (and I wholeheartedly agree with you, btw).
We all have to ask ourselves, why would Russia destroy their credibility by agreeing to the ceasefire, then thumbing their nose at it and attacking Grosi and marching towards Tblisi. The answer is simple. They're buying time, and they think they only need days. But they don't care what the West thinks, because in their minds, the west will be under heel in a couple of years. Yes, you read that right.
On the 2nd day, Putin explained exactly what this was about. He told the Ukraine and the Baltics they're next. He's reconstituting the former boundaries of the Soviet Union. He will seize the pipeline, all oil resources, and he will stop it from flowing to Europe this winter.
He believes the USA is fangless. Right now, that's the only question I have. Russia invades an ally of ours (granted, award for dumbest bite at a baited hook must goes to Georgia, but that's water under the bridge at this point). I'm shocked and saddened by how muted our reaction thus far has been, but we need to wake up and understand that in 3 days, Georgia will be gone, Russia will be sitting in Tblisi, and the world will know the USA was spineless. And then just wait for the crap to come flying in from all corners of the world.
I heard a fascinating analysis of this entire situation on NPR the other day. A Russian analyst for the State Department was saying that in many, many, many ways, Russia from 1989 to now mirrors Germany from 1919 to 1940.
So, we can either get a little roughed up now, but let them know we're ready. Or, we can wet our pants, effectively encouraging them. Which way will we go? Frankly, we're going to be at war with Russia within 2 years, one way or the other. We should show the wisdom and the courage to do it now, while we still have some ability to control the terms.
Incongruous
08-14-2008, 04:23
You know Russia must be way out of bounds when Adrian is playing the hawk (and I wholeheartedly agree with you, btw).
We all have to ask ourselves, why would Russia destroy their credibility by agreeing to the ceasefire, then thumbing their nose at it and attacking Grosi and marching towards Tblisi. The answer is simple. They're buying time, and they think they only need days. But they don't care what the West thinks, because in their minds, the west will be under heel in a couple of years. Yes, you read that right.
On the 2nd day, Putin explained exactly what this was about. He told the Ukraine and the Baltics they're next. He's reconstituting the former boundaries of the Soviet Union. He will seize the pipeline, all oil resources, and he will stop it from flowing to Europe this winter.
He believes the USA is fangless. Right now, that's the only question I have. Russia invades an ally of ours (granted, award for dumbest bite at a baited hook must goes to Georgia, but that's water under the bridge at this point). I'm shocked and saddened by how muted our reaction thus far has been, but we need to wake up and understand that in 3 days, Georgia will be gone, Russia will be sitting in Tblisi, and the world will know the USA was spineless. And then just wait for the crap to come flying in from all corners of the world.
I heard a fascinating analysis of this entire situation on NPR the other day. A Russian analyst for the State Department was saying that in many, many, many ways, Russia from 1989 to now mirrors Germany from 1919 to 1940.
So, we can either get a little roughed up now, but let them know we're ready. Or, we can wet our pants, effectively encouraging them. Which way will we go? Frankly, we're going to be at war with Russia within 2 years, one way or the other. We should show the wisdom and the courage to do it now, while we still have some ability to control the terms.
You do not really believe that Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire and cut off oil to Europe do you?
I mean, that would be all out war.
KukriKhan
08-14-2008, 05:05
So, we can either get a little roughed up now, but let them know we're ready. Or, we can wet our pants, effectively encouraging them. Which way will we go? Frankly, we're going to be at war with Russia within 2 years, one way or the other. We should show the wisdom and the courage to do it now, while we still have some ability to control the terms.
Maybe.
Or: we wait until we have a sale-able (to the US public) a causus belli, that motivates the wartime mobilization of the nation. Like a trip-wire humanitarian mission there.
Face-to-face confrontation leads to nuke-to-nuke confrontation, and nobody wants that. Think chess, and think poker: commit your queen too early, some pawn deflowers her; bid too high too early on your pair of 6's, get smacked down by Johnny's Full House.
Putting the smackdown on Putin now, unless it's a deathly blow, will only encourage him. Do you think it's time to 'unleash Hell'? Now?
IMO we haven't controlled 'the terms' since the Wall fell.
“Well your post citing Pristina was spot on the money”. It was a good PR exercise from the Russian… But, did t change something on the ground?
To people speaking war:
I am not a pacific and served 5 years in my country’s army. I was anti-tank missile specialist in a Mechanised Infantry Unit, trained hard against the Red Menace that all specialists (included the Russian in USA) predicted been unleash in the 1980’s.
I went in 3 wars as a humanitarian and was injured in one. I saw the result of war as refugees had just time to save one plastic bag of their belonging, if they save something. Did you SMELL a refugee, this mixture of smoke, sweat and misery? Did you heard the injured, the young soldiers who will stay FOR EVER on their bed, the spine cut by a bullet?
I experiment to awake in a hospital after the Dark fall on me…
There are causes to fight for, to die for and worst to kill for.
I have many friends who went in war, and my father, and my grand-father and grand mother.
A friend, 17 years old in a foxhole, alone in the night, cold, only friend was his AK47, told me: If I kill nobody it was not my fault.
I saw my translator in Bosnia crying when remembering our some soldiers of his unit killed civilians on a bridge on the Drina…
My father telling me how it was when you see the first man you sure you killed…
I am proud that the only blood I’ve got on my hands was mine…
You want war with a nation which sustained 30 MILLIONS dead years ago and didn’t give up…
Adrian, the Russian are better in Patriotism and they will call the Old man, the “starost”, to rise again for mother Russia.:beam:
And you want that because a man, a democratic elected leader decided to play his Tudjman and ethnically clean a part of a population… And thought he could get away for it thank to the example set-up by the Croats and the Kosovars without a sight for the same who are actually howling with the wolves…
Nope. I don’t buy it. If you want to go to war, do what I did. Put your ideas in action and go to train then go to the mountains and fight, kill and bleed.
This war isn’t mine…
This war you want against Russia isn’t against the III Reich.
Putin is Hitler, Milosevic was Hitler, Chavez is Hitler, all ours “enemies are Hitlers…
It is a local crisis and has to be dealt as a crisis…
Ok, for forces of interposition. No problem for fast units moved and camping there, waiting to be relieved by UN forces from Pakistan or Botswana, or others countries, freezing to death in the mountains like the poor African Forces in Mount Igman, Bosnia…
A men, Georgian President, decided to use forces to resolve his problem, sure of his impunity given the experience for Former Yugoslavia conflicts. He failed and was defeated.
So, the refugees are not the one he intended. The South Ossetian won’t be the Bosniac, the Roms, the Serbs, the Croats, expelled because we did nothing. No Serbrenica, no Merkale, no Derventa, Zepa, Gorazde or Vukovar, Knin, and I have a bigger list if you want. We all dreamed of this, not so long time ago.
And now, HE is the victim? The poor little Georgia is invaded? The poor little Georgia was quite happy to kill and expelled the even smaller population?
Brenus, you don't have a problem with Russia breaking a truce and invading undisputed sovereign Georgian territory?
Adrian II
08-14-2008, 10:07
I don't necessarily agree with Don Corleone's suggestion that Putin's plans are that ambitious. I made no comparisons with Hitler, Stalin, or other historic precedents. But it doesn't really matter whether we know any and all designs of the Kremlin. It doesn't really matter what Saakashivili wants or doesn't want; nobody takes him serious anymore.
What matters is that Nato should made a stand in Georgia in such a way that further Russian advances are checked and a shooting war is prevented. Those who think that shooting wars are prevented by walking away from commitments live in Lalaland.
The American decision to send soldiers, aircraft and naval support to Georgia is already working out. The Rususians are starting to behave, withdrawing their troops and irregulars from Gori, Poti and other places, and minimizing their aerial presence over the territory. So far so good.
Now excuse me while I'm off to shoot the entire Dutch cabinet for not immediately offering their full support to the American aid operation.
“Brenus, you don't have a problem with Russia breaking a truce and invading undisputed sovereign Georgian territory?”
No, I don’t. I am a supporter of the right to intervene (knowing the dangers and limitations of such claims) when a dictator/country put its population in danger.
I was not against an intervention against Serbia as such, I was against because the pretexts were false, and the leaders knew it.
The expelling of the Albanians in Kosovo started AFTER the NATO bombing campaign.
It was not genocide.
In Georgia, the President of this country planned an Ethnic Cleansing. He launched Rockets on refugees camps, thing even Milosevic didn’t before the actual battle for Kosovo.
Can I remind you this one of the charge against Karadzic in The Hague? He did it against Sarajevo…
As far as I know, Georgia brake the truce…
NATO invaded a “undisputed sovereign Serbian territory” and covered it under Humanitarian Purposes.
I would have like to see NATO bombing the Croatian Army in 1994. This army, under the command of the General Gotovina, following the orders of the elected Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, with the training, the intelligence and the benediction of USA and Germany (and the silent approval of all Western powers including the media) ethnically cleaned around 300,000 Serbs.
I would agree with Bush’s comments about “an over-reaction and un-disproportionate use of forces” by the Russian, if I wouldn’t remember Faludja. And is it the full application of the “Powell Doctrine”, basically throw to the enemy so much that he can’t even dare to rise his head…
Now, the situation on the field should be stabilised. And yes, the suffering of the Georgian population should be stopped and cured.
But don’t give me the “poor little Georgia” thing.
So, I do agree with Adrian about the Fast Reaction Forces deployment.
But to risk a full war to defend an apprentice genocidor, no thank.
Adrian II
08-14-2008, 11:18
But to risk a full war to defend an apprentice genocidor, no thank.I agree that Saakashvili probably tried to pull a 'Gotovina'. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a post-mortem investigation turned up the evidence for it. Well, he's had his punishment.
macsen rufus
08-14-2008, 13:05
It's all Dubya's fault (apparently...) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9791)
I can't vouch for the source, I've never come across them before, but an interesting and different perspective nonetheless.
Washington's bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili would never dream of launching a massive military attack unless he got explicit orders from his bosses at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. After all, Saakashvili owes his entire political career to American power-brokers and US intelligence agencies. If he disobeyed them, he'd be gone in a fortnight. Besides an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support; especially if it's perfectly timed to coincide with the beginning of the Olympic games. (another petty neocon touch) That means Pentagon planners must have been working hand in hand with Georgian generals for months in advance. Nothing was left to chance.
Another tell-tale sign of US complicity is the way President Bush has avoided ordering Georgian troops to withdraw from a province that has been under the protection of international peacekeepers. Remember how quickly Bush ordered Sharon to withdraw from his rampage in Jenin? Apparently it's different when the aggression serves US interests.
Saakashvili has been working closely with the Bush administration ever since he replaced Eduard Shevardnadze as president in 2003. That's when US-backed NGOs and western intelligence agencies toppled the Shevardnadze regime in the so-called color-coded "Rose Revolution". Since then, Saakashvili has done everything that's been asked of him; he's built up the military and internal security apparatus, he's allowed US advisers to train and arm Georgian troops, he's applied for membership in NATO, and he's been a general nuisance to his Russian neighbors. Now, he has sent his army into battle ostensibly on Washington's orders. At least, that is how the Kremlin sees it. Vladimir Vasilyev, the Chairman of Russia's State Duma Security Committee, summed up the feelings of many Russians like this: "The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America. In essence, the Americans have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals."
True. That's why Bush is flying Georgian troops back home from Iraq to join the fighting rather than pursuing peaceful alternatives. Bush still believes that political solutions will naturally arise through the use of force. Unfortunately, his record is rather spotty.
But that still doesn't answer the larger question: Why would Saakashvili embark on such a pointless military adventure when he had no chance of winning? After all, Russia has 20 times the firepower and has been conducting military maneuvers anticipating this very scenario for months. Does Uncle Sam really want another war that bad or is the fighting in South Ossetia is just head-fake for a larger war that is brewing in the Straits of Hormuz?
Adrian II
08-14-2008, 13:33
It's all Dubya's fault (apparently...) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9791)
I can't vouch for the source, I've never come across them before, but an interesting and different
perspective nonetheless.Nearly all of this is public knowledge. But there are also reports that at least in the past year Washington has been strongly dissuading Mr Saakashvili from taking violent action in Ossetia and Abkhazia, and I think they are true.
I'm not going find and refer sources for everything I say, but I believe Mr Saakashvili's mistake can be explained as follows.
At the April 2008 Nato conference he was promised possible membership at some time in the future, but it was clear that major Nato partners (France, Germany) wouldn't accept Georgia as long as it had outstanding minority issues.
Now Mr Saakashvili couldn't resolve these issues peacefully by himself. And he knew the Russians wouldn't allow it even if he could, because they didn't want Georgia to accede to Nato one way or another.
The Russians and Ossetian guerilla's have been constantly provoking Georgia for years, and all they had to do was keep it up and Georgia would forever remain excluded from Nato.
His only option, Mr Saakashvili must have felt, was a blitz to occupy those territories before the Russians could intervene and then settle the minority issues at his (Georgia's) terms.
Instead of convincing him to go easy, the Nato conference appeared to force his hand. And he must have banked on American support once he had put the Russians before the fait accompli in Ossetia. Quod non.
It's all Dubya's fault (apparently...) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9791)
I can't vouch for the source, I've never come across them before, but an interesting and different perspective nonetheless.
the author has the emotional maturity of a 16 year-old attending his first peace rally.
in short it is crap, i will pick it apart if people want but quite frankly i would be disappointed with anyone who needed me to elucidate the obvious.
CrossLOPER
08-14-2008, 14:51
More reasons on why Saakashvili is not (http://www.newsweek.com/id/153087) the most reliable source when it comes to news.
Adrian II
08-14-2008, 14:55
More reasons on why Saakashvili is not (http://www.newsweek.com/id/153087) the most reliable source when it comes to news.I don't want to disappoint you, but I posted this yesterday at 20.27 hrs. I suppose it comes as no surprise to anyone that Mr Saakashvili is out of his depth.
Apparently, Russia is sabotaging the equimpment of the already battered Georgian military. Russia says you can "forget about" Georgian territorial integrity.
Adrian II
08-14-2008, 20:30
Russia says you can "forget about" Georgian territorial integrity.I guess we should, actually. There is no love lost between the Ossetians and Abkhazians and Georgia proper, Georgia blew it chance to take the regions back preacefully, and it would be madness to try and take them back now by military force. Let Russia have them, either as autonomous territories within Russia or as independent states on their border which they have to patrol day and night because of the inevitable guerilla. It's their problem now.
I guess we should, actually. There is no love lost between the Ossetians and Abkhazians and Georgia proper, Georgia blew it chance to take the regions back preacefully, and it would be madness to try and take them back now by military force. Let Russia have them, either as autonomous territories within Russia or as independent states on their border which they have to patrol day and night because of the inevitable guerilla. It's their problem now.
http://charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1012&rip_id=%3CD92I46782%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
Russians should have bought Georgia's allegiance by offering her to force the rebels back into the fold in exchange for some kind of a cooperation treaty. They gained a penny and lost a buck.
ICantSpellDawg
08-14-2008, 20:58
This has been getting alot of coverage as a win for Russia. I can't figure out how. They blew their wad too early and now U.S. troops are entering Georgia. Their credibility has been shot to crap and people are starting to recognize how important it is for Ukraine and Georgia to become a part of NATO as fast as possible.
Adrian II
08-14-2008, 21:02
This has been getting alot of coverage as a win for Russia. I can't figure out how. They blew their wad too early and now U.S. troops are entering Georgia. Their credibility has been shot to crap and people are starting to recognize how important it is for Ukraine and Georgia to become a part of NATO as fast as possible.I beg to disagree about the latter statement. Georgia has lost a lot of credibility, too, and will have to work very hard to polish up its image and show a lot more diplomatic wisdom.
Most of all Ukraine's membership shouldn't be rushed, because a rush might lead the country to break down all by itself, with Russian and non-Russian fighting each other.
Easy easy catchy beary.
ICantSpellDawg
08-14-2008, 21:24
I beg to disagree about the latter statement. Georgia has lost a lot of credibility, too, and will have to work very hard to polish up its image and show a lot more diplomatic wisdom.
Most of all Ukraine's membership shouldn't be rushed, because a rush might lead the country to break down all by itself, with Russian and non-Russian fighting each other.
Easy easy catchy beary.
Eh. What do I know.
We'll see how it goes. I view Russia as a nation in the last throes of defensive singularity. This could either be circa 1930's Germany or it could be a blip on the roadway to a pan-European security pact.
EDIT: see what I mean about things going full bore now as opposed to before Russia went crazy? Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7561926.stm)
U.S. - Polish Defense deal signed.
“This has been getting alot of coverage as a win for Russia. I can't figure out how.”
Er, let’s see:
Put for faith in NATO intervention: Bad move
Neighbours of Russia: You are not out of reach, and even if our militaries are still not great, Western Forces didn’t dare to challenge them. Just wait when we will be fully ready…
Petrol Pipelines: Ooops you built this one to avoid Russia. Try again…
Revenge on Kosovo: The Period of the Drunken Bear is OVER… And Russia used the same crap than NATO. And they are good at it...
Oh, Russia got a bad reputation. I think they will live with it. Who need the petrol and gas from the other, anyway…:inquisitive:
Watch for the Baltic states to ink similar deals with the US and watch as Poland opens its arms to the creation of major NATO bases (especially airfields with US assets that are currently in Germany).
Stay tuned for NATO to re-evaluate Ukraine's application for entrance into NATO and possibly put them on the fast track to membership to stave off Russian 'intrigues' in those eastern provinces with substantial ethnic Russian populations. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ukraine joined NATO within the next 6 months.
If the EU, US & NATO essentially stand by and do nothing in the face of Russia's aggression and saber rattling then it simply validates Russia's quietly held belief that the West is too timid to risk a confrontation in its old stomping grounds. This would be especially damaging to Europe since many of the nations who were part of the Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact are hopeful that they will eventually become members of the EU. Failure to act decisively will be taken as apathy and it would then become painfully apparent to the world that Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) is more than willing to forgo their lofty ideological principles in order maintain their current comfort level. Quite pathetic since this Russia is a shadow of its former self.
Oh, and don't think for a second that this reluctance to take action wouldn't embolden China even more with respect to Taiwan and other disputed regions.
ICantSpellDawg
08-14-2008, 23:08
Watch for the Baltic states to ink similar deals with the US and watch as Poland opens its arms to the creation of major NATO bases (especially airfields with US assets that are currently in Germany).
Stay tuned for NATO to re-evaluate Ukraine's application for entrance into NATO and possibly put them on the fast track to membership to stave off Russian 'intrigues' in those eastern provinces with substantial ethnic Russian populations. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ukraine joined NATO within the next 6 months.
If the EU, US & NATO essentially stand by and do nothing in the face of Russia's aggression and saber rattling then it simply validates Russia's quietly held belief that the West is too timid to risk a confrontation in its old stomping grounds. This would be especially damaging to Europe since many of the nations who were part of the Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact are hopeful that they will eventually become members of the EU. Failure to act decisively will be taken as apathy and it would then become painfully apparent to the world that Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) is more than willing to forgo their lofty ideological principles in order maintain their current comfort level. Quite pathetic since this Russia is a shadow of its former self.
Oh, and don't think for a second that this reluctance to take action wouldn't embolden China even more with respect to Taiwan and other disputed regions.
I agree with you. I see these events as a precursor to rapid NATO re-evaluation and expansion. I wouldn't be suprised either to see the Ukraine in the NATO fold in under 6 months. The prospects won't get any better in the future with Russian meddling particularly if they view that meddling as a legitimate way to get what they want due to western inaction in Georgia.
I also think that China might view our smaller alliances as non-binding if we don't act. They may also view the world opinion in favor of Georgia as a possible stepping stone to deal with their own "territorial dispute" in Taiwan. Without the U.S. promise to defend Taiwan, China would invade Taiwan tomorrow - if that promise proves meaningless, tomorrow might not be a bad day to do it.
Thank God I am not the only one. You know we have this Nato Response Force, a combined ground, air, naval, intelligence and special forces unit that can sustain itself unsupported for twelve days?
From the official description:
Having achieved Full Operational Capability in November 2006, the NRF is capable of undertaking appropriate missions on its own or serving as part of a larger force contributing to the full range of Alliance military operations. It could therefore be deployed in a number of different ways, for example as a show of force and demonstration of Alliance solidarity in the face of aggression. This NRF was declared to be at full operational capability with 25.000 troops at the 2006 Riga Summit.
So where are they hiding it? Why isn't it securing our pipeline and assisting the authorities in a friendly nation that is threatened with dismemberment and chaos?
I dunno, maybe they're waiting for the perfect war to come along? Maybe they're keeping the NRF in check in case the Martians attack Paris? What if the NRF was deployed to Georgia and Hitler's clone were to rise to power in Luxembourg and seize control of EBay and other internet companies based there? You know, so Adolph II can get a bigger piece of the action on all WW2 Nazi collectible auctions? Ye gods man, think of the children! :dizzy2:
ICantSpellDawg
08-14-2008, 23:23
I dunno, maybe they're waiting for the perfect war to come along? Maybe they're keeping the NRF in check in case the Martians attack Paris? What if the NRF was deployed to Georgia and Hitler's clone were to rise to power in Luxembourg and seize control of EBay and other internet companies based there? You know, so Adolph II can get a bigger piece of the action on all WW2 Nazi collectible auctions? Ye gods man, think of the children! :dizzy2:
The NRF is for collective Defense. We've got to remember that this isn't a NATO state - that is why it is a difficult problem. If it had been a NATO State the problem would be very different, such as where to bury all of the Russian bodies and how to deal with the Russian hierarchy now that Moscow no longer exists :dizzy2: :clown:
Seriously though - how do you know that they weren't in the area soon after the events took place? Maybe they just didn't make landfall? NRF also seem to be more geared toward North Sea/Baltic operations than the Black Sea. As soon as Ukraine and Georgia are part of the fold I'm sure there will be large contingents there, too. Like I said - total re-evaluation of NATO.
Marshal Murat
08-15-2008, 02:11
The Conflict Explained (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece)
Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barak Obama being elected president of the United States.
Incongruous
08-15-2008, 02:18
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4534358.ece
Found this load of bollocks in there 'swell, I hope this is not indicative of a new feeling amongst certain sections of western society, they are making Russia bigger than it is.
Yeap, indeed the best way to keep the Russians quiet is to put troops right at their borders…:laugh4:
Can I remind to some you that the actual Ukrainian Government is a coalition of two parties hating each others to block the one party Pro-Russian? They just got a tiny minority…
What is wrong with you? The Russian did exactly what we did to Serbia. There is now a big base in Kosovo, territory we extorted a knife under her throw to Serbia, occupation her territory just (and it is enough) because we bullied her and we are stronger. We ignore all what Russia had to tell about it, and now we are whining about the taste of our own medicine…:whip:
Nothing will happen. It is politic. Georgia played and lost. Thank to this intervention, some minorities won’t be rape, their houses won’t be burned, and some refugees will be able to come back.
Now, the problem is to succeed to have the Russian troops withdrawn (by the way, we still are in Bosnia and Kosovo, 10 years after…) and to reach a peaceful settlement on these territories, and yes, it won’t be an easy ante-bellum situation…
Who’s fault?? The guy who chooses to shell the refugee’s camps, I am afraid.
Oh, his troops were under attack from rebels… Well, use Special Forces, make political deal. Bombing civilians was his answer.
If NATO chooses to expend, what choice it will give to Russia than to respond? If you don’t understand that the Russia fear of encirclement based on irrational feeling but on real geographical points will be just deal by more forces, you are dead wrong…
But somewhere you are right: It is because Russia was so weak in Croatia and Kosovo that the NATO Georgian Ally, the poor victim, decided to go for his own ethnic cleansing sure of impunity.
Finally one crime against humanity was avoided.
I have dream of it for years. I am not happy that the good guy is Russia because I am never happy to agree with people I don’t share the values…:sweatdrop:
I can imagine what History would tell if the French had invaded the Ruhr (when Hitler decided to rearmed) and avoid the WW2, and the Holocaust.
All of you would scream against the French aggressor and the occupation the “undisputed sovereign German territory” and the right to Germany to defend herself…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4534358.ece
Found this load of bollocks in there 'swell, I hope this is not indicative of a new feeling amongst certain sections of western society, they are making Russia bigger than it is.
While i disagree with the way he brushes aside the parallel between kosovo and ossettia, he is totally correct in the premise of the article and its conclusion:
"The EU today seems to have adapted that slogan to fit its own desired global role - the important thing is taking part and not winning."
As to this fear of the russian bear of which you make mention, quite frankly i don't fear it at all, russia is a nation in its death throws as a great power that is being kept on temporary life-support for the coming generation by petro-dollars. after that it's lights out.
Adrian II
08-15-2008, 14:00
While i disagree with the way he brushes aside the parallel between kosovo and ossettia, he is totally correct in the premise of the article and its conclusion:
"The EU today seems to have adapted that slogan to fit its own desired global role - the important thing is taking part and not winning."What a silly article. The gentleman takes issue with some marginal views in the western press, and then blames "the Europeans, and their friends in the pusillanimous wing of the US Left" for them. This is totally beside the point. The point is that U.S. inaction and lack of leadership in this crisis and European lack of unity have led to a resounding defeat for western diplomacy as a whole.
Of course Europe could and should have done more, but it is split right down the middle, it has no military commmand or unified foreign policy and can wave only carrots and no sticks. So what else is new?
I'll tell you what's new. It's the new level of hypocrisy reached by Mr Baker, who has been fulminating for years against any attempt to unify Europe above the level of a customs union, and now complains that Europe is no unity and is therefore toothless.
"Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, in his capacity as head pro tempore of the EU, came back from a trip to Moscow and Tbilisi, waving a piece of paper and acclaiming peace in our time."Mr Sarkozy merely tried to salvage what he could from the wreckage that is Georgia. At least we now have a paper to talk about with the Russians, and to hold them to because they signed it. It is the basis for Condi's present mission to Tbilisi. What is wrong or defeatist about that? It's Mr Baker who uses empty words, not Mr Sarkozy.
And then he goes on to say Europe has all sorts of leverage on Russia: 'We can make life very uncomfortable for Mr Putin. Russia is not the Soviet Union. Its recent (relative) prosperity depends on its continuing integration into the global economy.'
Yeah right. As if we don't need Russia's oil and natural gas for our own integration into the global economy. Except military means, we have practically no leverage on Russia. The EU soft power doesn't work here.
EDIT
The one interesting thing he mentions is that Russia supposedly holds an 'alarmingly large' amount of U.S. official debt. Is this true?
KukriKhan
08-15-2008, 14:25
The one interesting thing he mentions is that Russia supposedly holds an 'alarmingly large' amount of U.S. official debt. Is this true?
Sort of: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2008-124-6.cfm
China holds more, since year 2000.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.