Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia

[Mailman653]

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.

[Brenus]

So Candy Rice was right… Kosovo won’t be a precedent…
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…

“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).

“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?
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]

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.

[JR-]

“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…

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]

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?

[Brenus]

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]

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.

[JR-]

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]

2. Get serious about standing behind NATO

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 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.

[JR-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Adrian II]

And anyway, should we get invaded, my conscript ass will be on the first plane to the Caribbean.

That will probably be the best service you can render to your country.

[KukriKhan]

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.

[JR-]

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]

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?

[JR-]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[JR-]

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]

You want to expand NATO to provide a bulwark against Russia, which is mobilizing because of NATO expansion...

[TinCow]

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]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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]

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]

I don't remember saying disband NATO. My initial post was a compilation of preceding posts. I was trying to point out circular logic.