Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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:

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...

'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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

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.

Kage, i think his point was more about agreement on going to war rather than the situation when the war begins...

Conflict continues.

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.

It may not yet be over.

Russian tanks have been reported moving on the road to Tbilisi, and South Ossetian irregulars are looting Gori (which is Georgia proper) under the gaze of the Russians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It may not yet be over.

Russian tanks have been reported moving on the road to Tbilisi, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

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...

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.

Russians Break Truce?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Don't you mock our paddle boats!

With our highly trained personal aboard those paddle boats become highly effective killing machines !!1!1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I wouldn't trust everything from the Georgian government just yet, especially given the post by FactionHeir.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...eorgia.russia6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens

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?