Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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]

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]

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.

=====

I agree.

[Husar]

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]

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.

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) 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%.

[JR-]

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]

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]

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?

[JR-]

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) 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..........................................?

[JR-]

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]

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]

Language Map of Ukraine

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]

It's Over

Russia has backed an EU peace plan and ceased military operations against Georgia.

[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.

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]

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]

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... 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]

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.

[KarlXII]

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]

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]

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]

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)?

[Brenus]

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]

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]

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]

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

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..

[Spino]

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]

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]

Gorbachev on the situation.