# Georgia and the Russian invasions/annexations/Lebensraum (2008 & 2015)



## Haggis

Another tale of intrigue from that beautiful little country.  Posted in accordance with the Fair Dealings thingy:

*Georgia releases Russian officers in bid to defuse bilateral crisis* 

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) - Georgia on Monday released four Russian officers whose arrest on spying charges prompted Moscow to announce sweeping travel and communications sanctions in the worst bilateral crisis in years.

Hoping to defuse tensions, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said he had decided to hand over the Russians to visiting Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht, the current chairman of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, even though Georgia has a strong case against them. 

"I want to make it very clear: we have a very well-founded case," Saakashvili told reporters. "It's a very solid case of espionage, subversion and trying to destabilize my country." 

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/061002/w100228.html


----------



## tomahawk6

To punish Georgia further,the Russians have initiated sanctions. Odd they would treat the Georgians harsher than their pals the Iranians but there you have it. To top it off the Russians are supporting breakaway factions in 2 Georgian provinces/regions, its no coincidence that Russian troops are based in those areas. The Russians have been dragging their feet about withdrawing their forces. I wouldnt doubt that they would back a coup against the elected government.


----------



## Haggis

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> To punish Georgia further,the Russians have initiated sanctions. Odd they would treat the Georgians harsher than their pals the Iranians but there you have it. To top it off the Russians are supporting breakaway factions in 2 Georgian provinces/regions, its no coincidence that Russian troops are based in those areas. The Russians have been dragging their feet about withdrawing their forces. I wouldnt doubt that they would back a coup against the elected government.



The Russians also maintain a "transportation company" garrison just outside Tbilisi, adjacent to a major Georgian base.  Quite an unfriendly bunch, too.  The Russians have loudly protested NATO actiivites in Georgia, most notably the American GTEP (Georgia Train and Equip) program and a large NATO exercise at this very base in 2002.


----------



## Rayman

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/071107/n_top_news/news_georgia_col

*Georgia Declares State of Emergency*

TBILISI (Reuters) - Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has declared a state of emergency after sending in riot police to battle protesters demanding his resignation.

Saakashvili, facing the worst crisis since he came to power on the back of street protests in 2003, has blamed Russia for stirring up strife in the former Soviet republic which has forged close ties with Washington under his rule.

Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli said authorities had prevented a coup. Economic Development Minister Georgy Arveladze said all independent television news programs would be stopped during a 15-day state of emergency across Georgia.

Riot police used tear gas and water cannon on demonstrators in Tbilisi on Wednesday. Special forces troops wielding automatic weapons stormed the country's main opposition television channel, Imedi, which was then taken off air.

Georgia expelled three Russian diplomats and recalled its ambassador from Moscow. Saakashvili said he had evidence that Russian intelligence was behind the disorder.

Relations between Georgia and Russia were already at all-time lows. Saakashvili's desire to join NATO and his drive to regain sovereignty over two breakaway pro-Russian provinces have angered Moscow, which last year cut all transport links.

"We cannot let our country become the stage for dirty geo-political escapades by other countries," Saakashvili told the nation in a television broadcast. "Our democracy needs the firm hand of the authorities."

Saakashvili, who came to power in 2003 when protests drove Eduard Shevardnadze from office, wants to take his small Caucasus nation into NATO and the European Union.

More on Link above:

(mods if I didnt do this right please fix it?)


----------



## JBoyd

Interesting, how very 'Tom Clancy'. I would definately like to keep up on what happens in the future.


----------



## Haggis

Tom Clancy would wet himself for a scenario like this.  Beleive me, the Russians are still major players in Georigian politics. There are still Russian peacekeeping troops garrisoned in Georgia, some just outside the capital city of Tbilisi.  The UN has a mission there as well, UNOMIG.

When I was in Georgia with NATO in 2002, the Russians were openly hostile towards us.  Although there were no direct confrontations, there were bitter complaints about our presence.


----------



## JBoyd

I have heard some rumours, (probably unfounded and conspiricy theorist-like) that the current president of Russia is wanting and planning to restore Russia to its 'Former Glory'. Any proof to this?


----------



## RCR Grunt

Tom Clancy can predict the future!!

The scenario for the original "Ghost Recon" video game for the PC read almost exactly as the headlines do, complete with UN personnel. Maybe we should all read "Red Storm Rising" and "The Bear and The Dragon" again, just in case.


----------



## JBoyd

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Tom Clancy can predict the future!!
> 
> The scenario for the original "Ghost Recon" video game for the PC read almost exactly as the headlines do, complete with UN personnel. Maybe we should all read "Red Storm Rising" and "The Bear and The Dragon" again, just in case.



Perhaps someone is using Tom Clancy's books as 'How to start war for dummies' ?


----------



## JBoyd

Looks like this is related to events in the original newspost

Georgian leader to seek re-election in special vote in January
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/08/asia/georgia.php?page=1



> MOSCOW: The president of Georgia called Thursday for a special presidential election on Jan. 5, saying he would test whether he had retained a mandate after a police crackdown and clashes with opposition demonstrators Wednesday ended with the government declaring a state of emergency.
> 
> The president, Mikheil Saakashvili, also said that a referendum would be held on the same day to determine the timing of parliamentary elections, which the opposition had demanded for next spring.
> 
> Saakashvili's surprise announcement marked an effort to alleviate the domestic unrest and international concern over the police action in Tbilisi, the country's capital, and the suspension of civil liberties that followed.
> 
> The president also said that the state of emergency would end soon, although he did not set a date.
> 
> More than 500 people were injured in the crackdown and clashes, none of them fatally, the government said. In the aftermath of the violence, public assembly was banned by Saakashvili's emergency order, and two opposition television stations were forced off the air, one by armed special forces officers.
> 
> Musharraf says he will give up uniform and hold electionsAung San Suu Kyi ready to 'cooperate' with Myanmar juntaBelatedly, Asia's literary scene comes of age
> Newspapers and foreign news broadcasts were not available in the capital on Thursday, and the police filled the city's streets. Residents wondered whether their country, a young and fragile democracy in a turbulent corner of the former Soviet world, would slide back to authoritarian rule.
> 
> Appearing on national television at 7 p.m., three hours after calling the American ambassador in Tbilisi and notifying him of his plans for early elections, Saakashvili both defended the police action and expressed regret.
> 
> He said he had been forced to act against a plot organized by Russia to destabilize Georgia and its experiment in democracy, and insisted that he was protecting the country and not his own power.
> 
> "My chair is worth nothing to me; we care about countries, not chairs," he said. "Demand and you will receive. You demanded early elections. Here they are: early elections. Come and decide who you want to vote for."
> 
> "I do not want to be the president of a country that limits mass media and that declares emergency rule," he added. "I can only rule the country if I have a renewed mandate from the people."
> 
> He called on international organizations to send as many election observers as they wished to ensure that the campaign and the voting would be free, fair and clean.
> 
> Saakashvili's announcement effectively shaved nearly a year off his presidential term. It also marked a sharp shift from his emphatic refusal to change election dates or compromise with opposition demands.
> 
> The government clearly hoped the announcement would shift the opposition from a protest mode to a campaign mode, and demonstrate to voters and Georgia's international allies alike that Saakashvili, under intense pressure, had not chosen an autocratic path.
> 
> Although it was not clear that Saakashvili's concession would calm the anger among Georgia's citizens after the events of the previous day, the declaration of a special election was cheered by opposition leaders, who called it a victory and vindication of their protests.
> 
> "Saakashvili, I think, understood when he woke up that he basically fought against the whole country," Tina Khidasheli, a leader in the Republican Party, one of the many parties in the opposition movement, said by telephone. "I think that is what broke him finally - the reaction of the people."
> 
> There has not been an opposition politician in Georgia of Saakashvili's stature since he rose to power during peaceful protests in 2003. But the opposition said he had severely miscalculated with the crackdown, and that voters would reject him at the polls on Jan. 5.
> 
> "I believe he is done," Khidasheli said. "I believe he has no chances."
> 
> The shift in the government's position was made as Saakashvili and his government faced mounting international dismay.
> 
> Witnesses, diplomats, journalists and demonstrators on Wednesday described a day of frightening police action, as the riot police used tear gas, rubber bullets, batons and water cannon to chase demonstrators from the streets.
> 
> There were reports and video recordings of the police beating demonstrators who offered no resistance and of demonstrators in custody or prone on the ground.
> 
> The police also attacked some of the journalists on the streets, and seized or destroyed their equipment.
> 
> The United Nations, NATO and the European Union all expressed concern at the country's descent into official violence and the imposition of a state of emergency.
> 
> Thomas Hammarberg, the commissioner for human rights of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, decried the events.
> 
> "My reaction is that, obviously, according to the reports we have received, there was excessive use of violence by the police against the demonstrators," he said by telephone.
> 
> Hammarberg said he was also alarmed that Georgia's human rights ombudsman, Sozar Subari, was severely beaten by the police, even after he identified himself, and that independent news sources had been closed.
> 
> He said that international human rights observers remained uncertain how many people had been arrested and how they had been treated.
> 
> "The blockade on news is a problem there, because the facts did not come out," he said.
> 
> There were indications that the authorities themselves, while they said that a police action was justified, were disturbed by elements of the events.
> 
> Shota Utiashvili, a senior official in the Interior Ministry, said that the ministry planned to investigate allegations of police misconduct and brutality once the state of emergency was lifted.
> 
> "We will sit down and investigate these cases once the crisis is over," he said by telephone.
> 
> He added that officers who beat journalists and seized or damaged their equipment had acted illegally. "Every officer had clear instructions not to touch the journalists, which they did not all follow, and we will investigate," he said.
> 
> Utiashvili said that none of the opposition leaders had been arrested and held, but said that a few dozen demonstrators had been arrested and would be charged in administrative court with charges, including hooliganism, that carry fines or sentences of not more than 30 days in prison.


----------



## Falange

JBoyd said:
			
		

> I have heard some rumours, (probably unfounded and conspiricy theorist-like) that the current president of Russia is wanting and planning to restore Russia to its 'Former Glory'. Any proof to this?



Actually, you can find plenty of academic literature and research done on this. I recommend works by Dr. Julie Anderson and O. Kryshtanovskaya. Numerous members of the _Siloviki_ (Putin's ex KGB/FSB gents club) have made blatant statements such as: "The Fall of the Soviet Union is worst thing it could have ever happened to Russia," "We are going to bring the glory of the Old Russian Empire and the Soviet Empire" and some other staff regarding Orthodoxy, Slavophilia and making the Russian "Nation-State" the most strategically significant whatever that means.


----------



## midget-boyd91

With the two neighbours bantering and at each others throats, politically and militarily speaking, here's a thread for News stories, commentaries et al on the subject.
Here's a couple recent articles.

*Georgia accuses Russia of trying to annex breakaway region*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7350442.stm   
Article from April 16, 2008



> *Georgia has accused Russia of trying to annex the breakaway republics
> of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with its decision to seek closer ties with them.*
> 
> Moscow said it would intensify social and economic co-operation in the regions and recognise businesses and organisations registered there.
> 
> But Georgian Foreign Minister David Bakradze said this amounted to "de facto annexation" of its provinces.
> 
> Last month, both regions called on the UN to recognise their independence.
> 
> Tbilisi responded by warning Moscow not to take any step towards recognition.
> 
> A senior MP in the Georgian parliament, Shota Malashkhia, said it would lead Russian peacekeepers to be "outlawed" in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
> 
> Russian and UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the two republics since the early 1990s, when violence broke out as both regions tried to break free from Georgian control.
> 
> EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was said to be "concerned" by what were described as "these unilateral decisions".
> 
> "We have always supported Georgia's territorial integrity," his spokeswoman Christina Gallach said.
> 
> Georgian TV reported that the country's Security Council convened in emergency session.
> 
> Moscow said its decision to recognise some documents issued by the republics' authorities was in the interests of their mainly Russian citizens and was not intended to inflame the situation.
> 
> "Our actions with regard to Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not mean that Russia is making a choice in favour of confrontation with Georgia," a foreign ministry statement said.
> 
> Abkhazia's Foreign Minister Sergei Shamba said Russia's decision would lead to a "breakthrough" in resolving economic, social and security issues.





*Russia shoots down Georgian drone*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7358761.stm   _There is some pretty impressive video footage on the link_
Article from April 21, 2008



> *A Russian fighter jet has shot down an unmanned
> reconnaissance aircraft over the breakaway Georgian
> region of Abkhazia, Georgian authorities say.*
> 
> Georgia's defence ministry has released video showing what appears to be a Russian MiG-29 shooting down the unarmed Georgian drone on Sunday.
> 
> A Russian air force spokesman said the claim was "nonsense" while Abkhaz rebels said they had downed the drone.
> 
> Russia's leader asked why a drone had been present in a "conflict zone".
> 
> President Vladimir Putin expressed his concern in a phone call to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, the Kremlin reported.
> 
> Mr Saakashvili himself went on Georgian TV to say he had "categorically demanded [of Mr Putin]... that these aggressive attacks on Georgia be stopped immediately".
> 
> Tensions are high between the two neighbours over Russian support for Abkhazia and another breakaway Georgian region, South Ossetia.
> 
> Russian and UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the two regions since the early 1990s, when violence erupted as they broke free from Georgian control.
> 
> Tbilisi believes Moscow is fuelling the separatist conflict in Abkhazia to maintain Russian influence in the region and to damage Georgia's hopes of joining Nato, the BBC's Matthew Collin reports from Georgia.
> 
> *'Absolutely illegal'*
> 
> *The video, shot from the drone moments before impact, shows a jet launching a missile over what appears to be the Black Sea. *
> 
> "It's absolutely illegal for a Russian MiG-29 to be there," said Col David Nairashvili, the air force commander.
> 
> "Russian military aircraft intruded into Georgian airspace above Abkhazia, Georgia," said President Saakashvili on television.
> 
> "This aircraft attacked and destroyed a Georgian UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle]. Once again, Georgia was exercising [its] sovereign right to monitor a situation on its own territory."
> 
> Abkhazia's separatist administration has said its own forces shot down the drone because it was violating Abkhaz airspace and breaching ceasefire agreements.
> 
> According to Russian reports from Sukhumi, the Abkhaz capital, the authorities there have put on display fragments of the drone.
> 
> Garry Kupalba, deputy defence minister of the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, told reporters the drone had been shot down by an "L-39 aircraft of the Abkhaz Air Force".
> 
> He also identified the drone as an Israeli-made Hermes 450.
> 
> *'Destabilising'*
> 
> President Putin viewed the presence of the drone as a "destabilising factor escalating tension", the Kremlin said.
> 
> "During an examination of the incident with the Georgian unmanned plane, Vladimir Putin expressed his perplexity over the fact that the Georgian side is organising military flights over a conflict zone," it added.
> 
> A Russian air force spokesman said: "What would a Russian jet fighter be doing over Georgian territory?"
> 
> Last week, Georgia accused Russia of trying to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia by deciding to seek closer ties with them.
> 
> Russia has said its proposal is aimed at protecting the rights and legal interests of Russian citizens, who make up the majority of the population in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
> 
> Earlier this month, Nato decided not to grant Georgia's request to join its Membership Action Plan but promised it would eventually become a member of the alliance.



I don't imagine that entering 'hostilities' with Russia would be the wisest way for Georgia to gain membership with NATO anytime soon.



Midget


----------



## midget-boyd91

*Russia denies shooting down drone, claims it was rebels*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7360864.stm
Article from April 22, 2008



> * Russian authorities have said that Abkhaz rebels
> shot down an unmanned Georgian spy plane over the
> breakaway region of Abkhazia.*
> 
> The Russian foreign ministry also said the flight breached a 1994 peace accord which ended fighting in the province.
> 
> Georgia insists a Russian plane shot down the drone on Sunday, calling it an act of "open aggression".
> 
> The country's defence ministry has released footage showing what seems to be a Russian MiG-29 shooting the drone.
> 
> The video, shot from the drone moments before impact, shows a jet launching a missile over what appears to be the Black Sea.
> *
> 'Evidence'*
> 
> "We have hard evidence proving that this is the Russian military aircraft shooting down Georgian UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle]," Temu Iakobashvili, the Georgian minister in charge of the breakaway regions, told the Associated Press news agency.
> 
> But in a statement, Russia's foreign ministry said the drone was shot down by Abkhaz anti-aircraft weapons.
> 
> Abkhazia's separatist administration has said its own forces shot down the drone because it was violating Abkhaz airspace and breaching ceasefire agreements.
> 
> Tensions are high between Russia and Georgia over Russian support for Abkhazia and another breakaway Georgian region, South Ossetia.
> 
> *International involvement*
> 
> Russian and UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the two regions since the early 1990s, when violence erupted as they broke free from Georgian control.
> 
> Tbilisi believes Moscow is fuelling the separatist conflict in Abkhazia to maintain Russian influence in the region and to damage Georgia's hopes of joining Nato.
> 
> Georgia has requested a UN Security Council meeting on the issue, due to be held on Wednesday and attended by the country's foreign minister David Bakradze.
> 
> Georgia's deputy prime minister was in London on Tuesday for meetings with British officials to try and garner international support for his country's position in the row with Russia.
> 
> Last week, Georgia accused Russia of trying to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia by deciding to seek closer ties with them.



You know, that video of the MiG-29 firing on the drone (successfully, I might add), would probably be quite hard to get away from and deny. I really didn't know that the rebels had access to MiGs.


*US reassures Georgia over Russia*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7362480.stm
Article from April 23, 2008



> *US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has assured
> Georgia that the US is firmly committed to supporting the
> country's sovereignty.*
> 
> Georgia says Russian moves to forge closer ties with two of its breakaway regions threaten its sovereignty.
> 
> The row between the two neighbours will be discussed at a closed-door session of the UN Security Council.
> 
> After meeting Georgia's foreign minister, Ms Rice said the US was "very concerned" by Russia's actions.
> 
> Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision last week to order closer links between Russia and Georgia's two breakaway regions - Abkhazia and South Ossetia - prompted outrage in Tbilisi.
> 
> *Aggression claim*
> 
> "Our commitment to Georgia and to its territorial integrity is firm," Ms Rice said in Washington where she met with her Georgian counterpart, David Bakradze.
> 
> "There should be no question as to Georgia's integrity and Georgia's full incorporation into the international community," she added.
> 
> he US secretary of state said the dispute between the two neighbours should be "worked out state-to-state".
> 
> Georgia is pressing the UN to back its claims of aggression from its powerful neighbour, Russia.
> 
> Earlier, Mr Bakradze said Georgia's clash with Russia represented a test for international institutions.
> 
> "Today, in 2008, the annexation of a neighbouring country is unacceptable for the international community," he said.
> 
> Tensions between the two countries flared after a Georgian spy drone was shot down over the breakaway region of Abkhazia on Sunday.
> 
> *Spy plane row*
> 
> Georgia's defence ministry produced a video which appeared to show footage of the unmanned aircraft being hit by a Russian jet, saying this constituted "an act of open aggression".
> 
> Russia has denied any involvement in the incident, blaming Abkhaz rebels, who have also claimed responsibility.
> 
> The Russian foreign ministry also said that the presence of the drone violated UN ceasefire agreements.
> 
> Russian and UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the two regions since the early 1990s, when violence erupted as they broke free from Georgian control.
> 
> Russia has asserted that it is not seeking to inflame the situation but to try and protect the rights and legal interests of Russian citizens who make up the majority of the population in the two regions.




Midget


----------



## midget-boyd91

*Russia criticized over strengthening ties with breakaway regions*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7364544.stm
Article from April 24, 2008



> *Western powers have urged Russia to reverse
> plans for closer ties with two breakaway Georgian
> regions - plans which Georgia sees as a threat.*
> 
> The US, Britain, France and Germany said they were "highly concerned" about Russia's moves.
> 
> The Russian president's order last week to forge closer links with Abkhazia and South Ossetia angered Tbilisi.
> 
> Russia's Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, called the demand by the Western states "a tall order".
> 
> After a closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council in New York, the four states issued a statement saying: "We call on the Russian Federation to revoke or not to implement its decision."
> 
> *Creeping annexation'*
> 
> Georgia's foreign minister, who flew to the US for the talks and also met the US secretary of state on Wednesday, said Russia's "unilateral steps" amounted to "creeping annexation" of the two regions.
> 
> David Bakradze said Moscow's lifting of trade sanctions against Abkhazia risked allowing a military build-up in the region and represented a challenge to Georgia's jurisdiction over the area.
> 
> Russia's ambassador to the UN said there was nothing "anti-Georgian" in his country's moves.
> 
> He also underlined that Russia had no intention of reversing its plans.
> 
> "This is not the kind of thing which we would expect from our international partners," Mr Churkin said.
> 
> Tensions between the two countries flared after a Georgian spy drone was shot down over the breakaway region of Abkhazia on Sunday.
> 
> *Spy plane row*
> 
> Georgia's defence ministry produced a video which appeared to show the unmanned aircraft shot down by a Russian jet, saying this constituted "an act of open aggression".
> 
> Russia has denied any involvement in the incident, blaming Abkhaz rebels, who have also claimed responsibility.
> 
> But the four Western countries condemned the downing of the spy plane, calling on all parties, "to renounce any armed or military action and to respect Georgia's sovereignty".
> 
> The Russian foreign ministry says the presence of the drone violated UN ceasefire agreements and has suggested the footage is fake.
> 
> Russian and UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the two regions since the early 1990s, when violence erupted as they broke free from Georgian control.
> 
> Russia has asserted that it is not seeking to inflame the situation but to try and protect the rights and legal interests of Russian citizens who make up the majority of the population in the two regions.




*Georgia-Russia tensions 'Ramped up'*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7374546.stm
Article from April 29, 2008



> *Georgia has reacted angrily to Russia's accusation
> it is preparing to invade the breakaway region of Abkhazia.*
> 
> Russia says it is boosting its own troops in Abkhazia and Georgia's other breakaway region of South Ossetia.
> 
> Georgia's prime minister called the Russian move "irresponsible". The EU also urged caution, saying it was unwise given current tensions.
> 
> Russia's foreign minister said his country was not preparing for war but would "retaliate" to any attack.
> 
> Russia says Georgia is massing 1,500 soldiers and police in the upper Kodori Gorge, the only part of Abkhazia which remains under government control.
> 
> *'Retaliatory measures'*
> 
> A statement from the Russian foreign ministry said that "a bridgehead is being prepared for the start of military operations against Abkhazia".
> 
> In response, it said, it was increasing Russian peacekeepers in both Abkhazia and Georgia's other breakaway region of South Ossetia.
> 
> Georgia denies any build-up of its own forces in the area, and says that Russia is taking provocative action.
> 
> "We think that this step, if they take it, will cause extreme destabilisation in the region," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze.
> 
> "From now on, we consider every [Russian] soldier or any unit of military equipment coming in [to Abkhazia and South Ossetia] as illegal, potential aggressors and potential generators of destabilisation."
> 
> After meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana called on Russia to show restraint.
> 
> "Even if the increase in peacekeepers is within limits, if we want to diminish the perception of tensions, I don't think it is a wise measure to increase now," Mr Solana said.
> 
> Mr Lavrov said that Russia had to protect Russian-passport holders in the regions and that if Georgia took military action, Russia would have to take "retaliatory measures".
> 
> Mr Solana's comments reflect a growing concern that Nato's promise to admit Georgia as a member one day, despite strong Russian opposition, could have unpredictable consequences, says the BBC's European affairs correspondent Oana Lungescu.
> *
> Peacekeeping force*
> 
> Russia has kept a peacekeeping force in Abkhazia and South Ossetia under an agreement made following the wars of the 1990s, when the regions broke away from Tbilisi and formed links with Moscow.
> 
> There are around 2,000 Russians posted in Abkhazia, and about 1,000 in South Ossetia.
> 
> Tensions between Russia and Georgia have flared up recently, despite Russia lifting economic sanctions against Georgia earlier this month.
> 
> Last week Georgia accused a Russian plane of shooting down an unmanned Georgian spy plane - which Russian authorities insisted was shot down by Abkhaz rebels.
> 
> And on Tuesday Georgia said it was blocking Russia's entry to the World Trade Organization.
> 
> Many in Abkhazia believe that Kosovo's announcement of independence from Serbia in February provides a precedent for it to be recognised as an individual state.
> 
> Although it has its own flag and postage stamps, it is not internationally recognised.
> 
> Our correspondent in the area says that with this latest statement the Russian government has pushed the already bellicose rhetoric between the two countries to a new level.




Midget


----------



## midget-boyd91

*Tensions*
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/world/europe/30briefs-GEORGIARUSSI_BRF.html?ref=world
Article from April 30, 2008



> Tensions flared again between Russia and Georgia, its southern neighbor, after both sides accused each other of an improper military buildup related to a disputed border area. Georgia criticized Russia for sending extra peacekeeping troops to Abkhazia, the breakaway region of Georgia that is allied with Moscow. The Kremlin said in turn that it had evidence that Georgia was planning to attack Abkhazia, a charge denied by the Georgian government.




*Georgie accuses Russia of 'full-scale military aggression'*
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihZnAy4551IBb0C-6R0Oi-7Z0Sag
Article from April 30, 2008



> BRUSSELS (AFP) — Georgia on Wednesday slammed Russia's plans to boost peacekeeping troops in two rebel Georgian regions as the start of "full scale military aggression".
> 
> "It's hard to believe that this is being done for the purposes of peacekeeping, it's rather the beginning of full scale military aggression," Georgia's top diplomat, David Bakradze, told AFP.
> 
> His remarks came after Russia's defence ministry announced Tuesday an increase in peacekeeping forces to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in response to what it called aggressive moves by pro-Western Georgia.
> 
> Bakradze accused Russia of strengthening "de facto control on the ground" in Abkhazia in the last three months and establishing direct ties with the local authorities, which "questions Georgia's jurisdiction".
> 
> The Russian peacekeeping announcement only fuelled problems, said President Mikheil Saakashvili's new "special representative", who resigned as foreign minister last week to run for parliament.
> 
> "The Georgian side, as the host country, should be notified in advance and there should be consent from Georgia on any troop deployment, including peacekeepers. We have not been notified," he said.
> 
> "Peacekeeping is not strengthened by unilateral steps," he told AFP by telephone during a trip to Brussels.
> 
> Russia has a peacekeeping force in the regions under an agreement with Georgia from the 1990s following wars in which separatists broke away and established close ties with Moscow, which has encouraged residents there to take Russian citizenship.
> 
> The Russian defence ministry, which accused Georgia of massing troops near the rebel areas, did not say how many extra soldiers were being sent, but said that 15 new observation posts would be set up on the front line in Abkhazia.
> 
> Around 2,000 Russians serve there and a further 1,000 in South Ossetia.




Midget


----------



## oligarch

Wow I need to sit down and address all of these concerns some day. I wish I had the time. 

1) Lets look at the history of these "break-away" regions. These regions were "republics", if you could put a term to them, of the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union, including Georgia, which did not include the Abkhazia and, what was then known as "ossetia". Under Stalin, it was decided that it would be easier to merge north Ossetia with the region above, and to let south ossetia be administered by the georgian region of the soviet union. Keep in mind that this was done for *administrative* reasons, Ossetians were always genetically and culturally different from Georgia. After the break up of the Soviet Union, Georgia declairs independence and "proclaims" its borders to include these regions. From the start these regions never agreed to be part of Georgia and a conflict began, which culminated with the presence of Russian peacekeepers. These regions are already de facto independent and Georgian spy planes are not even allowed to enter their air-space, as well as Georgian forces which are kept apart by the Russian army. Currently, close to 80% of those living in these regions hold Russian passports and are culturally and ethnically Russian. However, due to the millitary conflict, the presence of peacekeepers, and the de facto independence Russians in these regions are not able to obtain consular services and their "documents" are not recognized by the world community. For example, if Abkazia is de facto independent and issues a note to a citizen, the world community does not recognize it, even thought it is perfectly valid and binding in abhkazia. So what is Russia to do? Leave its citizens stranded in no-mans land for the hopes of strenthening relations with NATO, whose member state which refuse to even ratify the conventional forces in europe treaty, the moratorium of which was so loudly demonized in the west? Given the precendet of Kosovo (and after long thought, I still fail to see how the Kosovo case is "unique", it is the same racial conflict, the same de facto independence), Russia has to the full legal and moral right to recognize documents issued by the AUTONOMOUS, DE FACTO governments of these regions.

Given the precendence of Georgian actions in the past, I highly suspect that the Georgian spy plane flew into protected air space *intentionally*, being unmanned, in order to be shot down. This is simmilar to the disinformation campaign about Russia bombing a Georgian EMPTY FIELD some time back, which I also find completely ridiculous. Canada should not support Georgia in its bid for NATO membership. To see how truly "democratic" Georgia is, read about Irakli Okruashvili.


----------



## Flanker

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> You know, that video of the MiG-29 firing on the drone (successfully, I might add), would probably be quite hard to get away from and deny. I really didn't know that the rebels had access to MiGs.



Are you sure it is Mig-29 and not Su-27 or F-15? This video proves absolutely nothing.
Georgia is still trying to play that-old-bad-aggresive-Russia card.
After the fiasco at NATO's summit in last April, it is pretty clear that provocations like this one just must happen.


----------



## oligarch

I think this whole ordeal smell a lot like the previous incident of Russia *allegedly* bombing an empty field a while back. Besides, the drone should not have been there anyway and shooting it down was the appropriate response. I think Georgia is planning millitary action against these regions and was conducting prep rec. work. I can see why Russia and these regions would be nervious. Of course, Saakashvili is deperately trying to get into NATO so he can hide behind NATO in future provokations of Russia and attempt to kick out Russian peacekeepers, which would be followed by his taking control of the regions again. I understand that there are pipelines going through Georgia, and this could be the reason the US is pushing for entry of Georgia into NATO. I am not sure because I haven't looked exactly at where the pipeline lies and whether it passes through these regions.


----------



## sober_ruski

How would Georgia even qualify for NATO? You know, the NORTH ATLANTIC part in the name.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Caucasus in crisis: Georgia invades rebel region
The Caucasus have descended into crisis after Georgian troops launched a full-scale military assault against Moscow-backed rebels in an attempt to wrest control of the breakaway region of South Ossetia. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2519908/Caucasus-in-crisis-Georgia-invades-rebel-region.html

By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow 
Last Updated: 1:26AM BST 08 Aug 2008
Georgian military commanders confirmed an invasion began in the early hours of Friday morning, raising fears of a serious diplomatic crisis between the country's western allies and Moscow.
The United States swiftly called for calm, but appeared to apportion more blame on Moscow and the separatist forces it supports for taking the volatile region to the brink of war.
"We're urging Moscow to press South Ossetia's de facto leaders to stop firing," a US State department official said. "We're urging Tbilisi to maintain restraint." 
Just hours after Mikheil Saaskashvili, Georgia's pro-western president, declared a unilateral ceasefire, his armed forces began an artillery barrage against Tskhinvali, the rebel capital.
Military commanders indicated that a full-scale invasion was underway and would not stop until Georgia had regain control of the self-proclaimed republic, which attempted to secede in a bloody war that ended, unresolved in 1994.
"Despite our call for peace and a unilateral ceasefire, separatists continued the shelling of Georgian villages," Mamuka Kurashvili, a senior Georgian commander, said. "We are forced to restore constitutional order in the whole region." A rapid deterioration in the separatist crisis began over the weekend when at least six people were killed in a shoot-out after an improvised explosive device detonated as a Georgian military convoy drove past.


----------



## blacktriangle

Ghost Recon anyone?


----------



## Mike Baker

Russian tanks 'rolling into Georgian breakaway'




> TBLISI, Georgia (CNN) -- Russian television Friday showed a convoy of Russian tanks and said they were heading into the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia as escalating tensions over the region threatened to boil into full blown conflict.
> 
> The move came after Russia denounced as "aggressive" a Georgian troops military offensive to regain control over the province, vowing to respond.
> 
> Russian authorities earlier said several of its peacekeepers died in a Georgian attack in South Ossetia, which borders Russia and has strong ties to its vast northern neighbor, and they vowed not to leave Russian citizens in the territory unprotected.
> 
> "The Georgian leadership has launched a dirty adventure," a statement from Russia's Defense Ministry said on Friday. "We will not leave our peacekeepers and Russian citizens unprotected."
> 
> Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Georgia started the fighting and warned that Russia would respond to their actions.
> 
> "Heavy weapons and artillery have been sent there, and tanks have been added. Deaths and injuries have been reported, including among Russian peacekeepers," Putin said in comments carried Friday by Russia's Interfax news agency.
> 
> "It's all very sad and alarming. And, of course, there will be a response."
> 
> Earlier Friday, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said in a televised statement that Russian aircraft bombed several Georgian villages and other civilian facilities.
> 
> He added that there were injuries and damage to buildings. "A full-scale aggression has been launched against Georgia," he said.
> 
> A Georgian official reported that seven people were hurt in the attack, the Associated Press said.
> 
> Saakashvili urged Russia to immediately stop bombing Georgian territory. "Georgia will not yield its territory or renounce its freedom," he said.
> 
> He also called for the full-scale mobilization of Georgian reserve forces as fighting continued to rage in South Ossetia's capital.




More on the link at the top of this post.

-Deadpan


----------



## tomahawk6

Israeli advisors are with Georgian troops. There is strong Israeli interest in the region's oil pipelines. Russia opposes the pipeline being routed through Turkey hence their support for supporting the breakaway provinces. Perhaps if Georgia links the pipelines with Russia then this Russian support may end.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Another no win situation for innocent people to get caught in the middle of.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pretty detailed blow-by-blow (with the usual caveats, given the medium) @ wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_South_Ossetia_%282008%29

Also, deja vu all over again (18 months last time around)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_South_Ossetia

And a little advice, apparently not heeded from June of this year:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/text/index.cfm?id=5469


> With the dispute between Georgia and Russia in a new, dangerously confrontational phase, the risk of war in the South Caucasus is growing. Concerned by NATO’s plans for further extension to former Soviet republics and Kosovo’s unilateral but Western-orchestrated independence, Russia has stepped up manipulation of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflicts. Georgia remains determined to restore its territorial integrity, and hawks in Tbilisi are seriously considering a military option. Both sides need to recognise the risks in current policies, cool their rhetoric and cease military preparations. Russia should cease undermining its peacekeeper and mediator roles and be open to a change of negotiating formats. Georgia should adopt a new approach to the Abkhaz, encouraging their links to the outside world to lessen dependence on Russia and emphasising incremental con­­fidence building to establish the mutual trust needed for successful negotiations. The U.S. and European Union (EU) should be firm and united in cautioning both Moscow and Tbilisi against military adventures.....


----------



## vonGarvin

Oi.  I sure hope that things settle down before it gets too big to handle.  Little events  have a way of blowing way out of proportion


----------



## Dissident

Original link:
http://www.local12.com/content/breaking_news/story.aspx?content_id=a2e6f6c8-11f3-4fb6-9f59-c9f5c3c6d630


WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is calling for an immediate cease-fire in a conflict between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia.

State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told reporters Friday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is making calls to top officials urging all parties to remain calm. He did not identify the officials.

He says a U.S. envoy is traveling to the region Friday in hopes of bringing an end to hostilities. Gallegos did not name the envoy, who will meet with U.S. allies and others.

He says the U.S. supports Georgia's territorial integrity. Georgia launched a major military offensive Friday to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia, prompting Moscow to send tanks into the region in a furious response that threatens to engulf Georgia, a staunch U.S. ally, and Russia in all-out war.

Hundreds were reported dead in the worst outbreak of hostilities since the province won defacto independence in a war against Georgia that ended in 1992. Witnesses said the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali was devastated.

"I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars," said Lyudmila Ostayeva, 50, who had fled with her family to Dzhava, a village near the border with Russia. "It's impossible to count them now. There is hardly a single building left undamaged."

The fighting broke out as much of the world's attention was focused on the start of the Olympic Games and many leaders, including Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Bush, were on their way to Beijing. The timing suggests Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili may have been counting on surprise to fulfill his longtime pledge to wrest back control of South Ossetia - a key to his hold on power.

Saakashvili agreed the timing was not coincidental, but accused Russia of being the aggressor.

"Most decision makers have gone for the holidays," he said in an interview with CNN. "Brilliant moment to attack a small country."

South Ossetian separatist leader Eduard Kokoity claimed hundreds of civilians had been killed. Ten Russian peacekeepers were killed and 30 wounded when their barracks were hit in Georgian shelling, said Russian Ground Forces spokesman Col. Igor Konashenkov.

Russia has soldiers in South Ossetia as peacekeeping forces but Georgia alleges they back the separatists.

Georgia's president says the country is calling home its troops from Iraq amid heavy fighting in the breakaway province of South Ossetia. Georgia has 2,000 troops serving with the coalition forces in Iraq, making it the third-largest contributor after the United States and Britain. But Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili told CNN television Friday the troops would return urgently to Georgia after fighting erupted in South Ossetia. "One brigade of Georgian forces is in Iraq and we are calling it home tomorrow," Saakashvili said in the interview.

Georgia, which borders the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the breakup of the Soviet Union. The country has angered Russia by seeking NATO membership - a bid Moscow regards as part of a Western effort to weaken its influence in the region.

Speaking earlier on Georgian television, Saakashvili accused Russia of sending aircraft to bomb Georgian territory, which Russia denied. Russia's Defense Ministry said it was sending reinforcements for its peacekeepers, and Russian state television and Georgian officials reported a convoy of tanks had crossed the border. The convoy was expected to reach the provincial capital, Tskhinvali, by evening, Channel One television said.

Georgian State Minister for Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili said government troops were now in full control of the city. "We are facing Russian aggression," said Georgia's Security Council chief Kakha Lomaya. "They have sent in their troops and weapons and they are bombing our towns."

Putin has warned that the Georgian attack will draw retaliation and the Defense Ministry pledged to protect South Ossetians, most of whom have Russian citizenship. Chairing a session of his Security Council in the Kremlin, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev also vowed that Moscow will protect Russian citizens. "In accordance with the constitution and federal law, I, as president of Russia, am obliged to protect lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are located," Medvedev said, according to Russian news reports. "We won't allow the death of our compatriots go unpunished."

An AP reporter saw tanks and other heavy weapons concentrating on the Russian side of the border with South Ossetia - supporting the Russian TV reports of an incursion. Some villagers were fleeing into Russia. "I saw them (the Georgians) shelling my village," said Maria, who gave only her first name. She said she and other villagers spent the night in a field and then fled toward the Russian border as the fighting escalated.

Yakobashvili said Georgian forces have shot down four Russian combat planes over Georgian territory. He gave no details. Russia's Defense Ministry denied an earlier Georgia report about one Russian plane downed and has had no immediate comment on the latest claim.

Yakobashvili said that one Russian plane had dropped a bomb on the Vaziani military base near the Georgian capital, but no one was hurt. More than 1,000 U.S. Marines and soldiers were at the base last month to teach combat skills to Georgian troops.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


----------



## Haggis

And it would seem that Russia has now invaded the Republic of Georgia. (shared with the usual dislciamer)

DZHAVA, Georgia - Russia sent columns of tanks and reportedly bombed Georgian air bases Friday after Georgia launched a major military offensive to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia, threatening to ignite a broader conflict.  Hundreds of civilians were reported dead in the worst outbreak of hostilities since the province won de facto independence in a war against Georgia that ended in 1992. Witnesses said the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali was devastated. 

"I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars," said Lyudmila Ostayeva, 50, who had fled with her family to Dzhava, a village near the border with Russia. "It's impossible to count them now. There is hardly a single building left undamaged." 

The fighting broke out as much of the world's attention was focused on the start of the Olympic Games and many leaders, including Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush, were in Beijing. 

The timing suggests Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili may have been counting on surprise to fulfil his longtime pledge to wrest back control of South Ossetia - a key to his hold on power. 

Saakashvili agreed the timing was not coincidental, but accused Russia of being the aggressor. "Most decision makers have gone for the holidays," he said in an interview with CNN. "Brilliant moment to attack a small country."  
  
South Ossetian separatist leader Eduard Kokoity claimed hundreds of civilians had been killed. 

Ten Russian peacekeepers were killed and 30 wounded when their barracks were hit in Georgian shelling, said Russian Ground Forces spokesman Col. Igor Konashenkov. Russia has soldiers in South Ossetia as peacekeeping forces but Georgia alleges they back the separatists. 

Georgia, which borders the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the breakup of the Soviet Union. Georgia has angered Russia by seeking NATO membership - a bid Moscow regards as part of a Western effort to weaken its influence in the region. 

Speaking earlier on Georgian television, Saakashvili accused Russia of sending aircraft to bomb Georgian territory, which Russia denied. 

Russia's Defence Ministry said it was sending reinforcements for its peacekeepers, and Russian state television and Georgian officials reported a convoy of tanks had crossed the border. The convoy was expected to reach the provincial capital, Tskhinvali, by evening, Channel One television said. 

Georgian State Minister for Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili said government troops were now in full control of the city. 

"We are facing Russian aggression," said Georgia's Security Council chief Kakha Lomaya. "They have sent in their troops and weapons and they are bombing our towns." 

Putin has warned that the Georgian attack will draw retaliation and the Defence Ministry pledged to protect South Ossetians, most of whom have Russian citizenship. 

Chairing a session of his Security Council in the Kremlin, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev also vowed that Moscow will protect Russian citizens. 

"In accordance with the constitution and federal law, I, as president of Russia, am obliged to protect lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are located," Medvedev said, according to Russian news reports. "We won't allow the death of our compatriots go unpunished." 

An Associated Press reporter saw tanks and other heavy weapons concentrating on the Russian side of the border with South Ossetia - supporting the Russian TV reports of an incursion. Some villagers were fleeing into Russia. 

"I saw them (the Georgians) shelling my village," said Maria, who gave only her first name. She said she and other villagers spent the night in a field and then fled toward the Russian border as the fighting escalated. 

Yakobashvili said Georgian forces have shot down four Russian combat planes over Georgian territory. He gave no details. Russia's Defence Ministry denied an earlier Georgia report about one Russian plane downed and has had no immediate comment on the latest claim. 

Yakobashvili said that one Russian plane had dropped a bomb on the Vaziani military base near the Georgian capital, but no one was hurt. 

South Ossetia officials said Georgia attacked with aircraft, armour and heavy artillery. Georgian troops fired missiles at Tskhinvali, an official said, and many buildings were on fire. 

Georgia's president said Russian aircraft bombed several Georgian villages and other civilian facilities. 

"A full-scale aggression has been launched against Georgia," Saakashvili said in a televised statement. He also announced a full military mobilization with reservists being called into action. 

A senior Russian diplomat in charge of the South Ossetian conflict, Yuri Popov, dismissed the Georgian claims of Russian bombings as misinformation, the RIA-Novosti news agency reported. 

Russia's Defence Ministry denounced the Georgian attack as a "dirty adventure." "Blood shed in South Ossetia will weigh on their conscience," the ministry said in a statement posted on its website. 

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev later chaired a session of his Security Council in the Kremlin, vowing that Moscow will protect Russian citizens. 

"In accordance with the constitution and federal law, I, as president of Russia, am obliged to protect lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are located," Medvedev said, according to Russian news reports. "We won't allow the death of our compatriots go unpunished." 

Saakashvili long has pledged to restore Tbilisi's rule over South Ossetia and another breakaway province, Abkhazia. Both regions have run their own affairs without international recognition since splitting from Georgia in the early 1990s and built up ties with Moscow. 

Relations between Georgia and Russia worsened notably this year as Georgia pushed to join NATO and Russia dispatched additional peacekeeper forces to Abkhazia. 

The Georgian attack came just hours after Saakashvili announced a unilateral ceasefire in a television broadcast late Thursday in which he also urged South Ossetian separatist leaders to enter talks on resolving the conflict. 

Georgian officials later blamed South Ossetian separatists for thwarting the ceasefire by shelling Georgian villages in the area.  

Not a nice little corner of the world.  Dirty, violent and corrupt.  And that was long before this sh!t started.


----------



## Haggis

Dissident said:
			
		

> Yakobashvili said that one Russian plane had dropped a bomb on the *Vaziani military base near the Georgian capital*, but no one was hurt. (Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)



The US, Turkey and other western governments poured a lot of money into the Vaziani garrsiosn since 2002.  And it needed it! 



			
				Dissident said:
			
		

> *More than 1,000 U.S. Marines and soldiers were at the base last month to teach combat skills to Georgian troops*.



I guess GTEP is still alive and well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Pretty smart to attack during the Olympics, everyone distracted and looking eleswhere.


----------



## midget-boyd91

I have to say, I'm quite irritated. This could be the start of a major war in Europe, and I can't even watch a damn thing about it on the News because Senator John Edwards cheated on his wife two years ago. Priorities, eh?

Midget


----------



## karl28

Here is hoping that cooler heads can prevail and we can put an end to this quickly .


----------



## LakeSup

I have to say, I'm quite irritated. This could be the start of a major war in Europe, and I can't even watch a damn thing about it on the News because Senator John Edwards cheated on his wife two years ago. Priorities, eh?


Yeah, Midget, you have to go to BBC or any  non US media.   If the US wins 17 swimming medals over the weekend we may never hear anything about it.  Unbelievable.


----------



## The Bread Guy

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> I have to say, I'm quite irritated. This could be the start of a major war in Europe, and I can't even watch a damn thing about it on the News because Senator John Edwards cheated on his wife two years ago. Priorities, eh?



Sadly, it's not America's immediate back yard, so the networks are caught up in the usual herd journalism.

As W&V suggested, BBC is good - here's where else I'm looking.....

Yahoo Full Coverage:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Georgia;_ylt=AuqWzqPXZjpobp5tQ.QWB8t2y14A

EMM Explorer (a free-access news aggregator run by the European Community - VERY nice):
http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/countryedition/en/GE.htm
(et en français aussi)
http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/countryedition/fr/GE.htm

NewsNow aggregator:
http://xrl.us/om6vm

not to mention the ubiquitous Google News Search "Georgia+Russia" (sorted with most recent up top):
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=Georgia+Russia&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n

as well as the OTHER side of the story from Kavkazcenter.com
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/section.php?id=c
and I'm guessing these'll be seeing new posts real soon, too...
http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/the-war-in-south-ossetia-the-second-night/
http://separatism.blogspot.com/
http://www.anti-imperialist.info/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=33
http://caucasus.wordpress.com/

Happy hunting, all!

_- edited to add other links -_


----------



## The Bread Guy

US keeping an eye on things....

*Pentagon, U.S. State Department Monitoring Georgian Situation*
Gerry J. Gilmore, American Forces Press Service, 8 Aug 08
Article link

The Defense Department is closely watching developments in South Ossetia, in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, a senior Pentagon spokesman said here today.

News reports cite Russian tanks crossing the border into South Ossetia and of fighting between Georgian troops and rebels in and around Tskhinvali, South Ossetia’s capital city.

“We’re monitoring it very closely,” spokesman Bryan Whitman said of the situation during a briefing with Pentagon reporters.

(....)

*Whitman said about 130 U.S. military and civilian personnel are currently located near the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, helping train Georgian troops for an upcoming deployment to Iraq.* All the Americans are accounted for, and none has been injured, Whitman said.

The U.S. State Department is the lead U.S. agency regarding the situation in South Ossetia, Whitman said. The State Department is “in close contact with senior Russian and Georgian officials. We’re urging Moscow to press South Ossetia’s de facto leaders to stop firing,” Gonzalo R. Gallegos, acting deputy spokesman for the State Department, said yesterday during a Washington news conference. 

(....)

More on link


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Everyone's getting cranky about OIL, this could get really ugly really fast now.


----------



## tomahawk6

All U.S. trainers in Georgia accounted for

As fighting flares with Russian forces, no plans to pull out American troops
Staff and wire reports
Posted : Friday Aug 8, 2008 17:44:59 EDT
   
Russian military forces on Aug. 8 invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia, whose troops receive training from U.S. forces and have been a steadfast ally in the war in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that at the time of the attack, some 130 U.S. troops and contractors were in Georgia to prepare the Georgian forces for their next deployment to Iraq. All were accounted for, none had been injured, and there were no plans to pull them out of the country, Whitman said.

He said the trainers were in the area of the Georgian capital, Tblisi, but he would not say exactly where. The capital is well away from the fighting between Georgian and Russian troops.

The U.S. personnel, who answer to the U.S. European Command, are in Georgia on a “semi-permanent basis,” said another defense official who asked not to be identified.

The official emphasized that the trainers are “taking absolutely no part” in the flare-up in Georgia.

“They are there just to assist in the training of Georgia army forces rotating into Iraq,” he said. “That being said, that would not protect them from inadvertent harm caused by the fighting.”

The training program has been temporarily suspended, the official said.

Georgia has about 2,000 troops deployed to Iraq, making it the third largest coalition force contributor behind the U.S. and Great Britain.

The U.S. called for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict, which began when Russia sent columns of tanks and reportedly bombed Georgian air bases after Georgia launched a major military offensive to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

Hundreds of civilians were reported killed in the fighting that broke out.

Operation Immediate Response 2008
One of the air bases reportedly bombed was Vaziani, where in July about 1,000 U.S. Marines and soldiers participated in a combat-skills training exercise with Georgian forces. The exercise, Operation Immediate Response 2008, ended less than 10 days before Russian forces invaded.

The Marines and soldiers taught combat skills to Georgian soldiers, as well as about 30 troops from nearby Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. The U.S. troops included about 300 reservists with 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, and about 300 Army reservists with the Winder, Ga.-based 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment.

On a regular basis, 20 to 25 Marines are stationed in Georgia, said Maj. David Nevers, a Marine Corps spokesman.

About six serve as security guards at the U.S. Embassy in the capital of Tbilisi, with the rest training Georgian troops as part of the three-year-old Georgia Sustainment and Stability Operations Program.

Nevers said the program originally was an Army mission but was turned over to the Corps a few years ago. Most recently, Marines have been teaching Georgian soldiers how to drive military vehicles.

“A lot of it’s very basic stuff,” Nevers said. “It’s everything from how to put on a uniform to how to fire and maneuver.”

Nevers said there was no immediate plan to change the Corps’ mission in Georgia, pointing out that the fighting was concentrated away from Tbilisi.

On the same day Operation Immediate Response began, the Russian military announced it had launched its own military training exercise in its nearby North Caucasus region.

A spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry told the AP there was no connection between the Russian exercises and the U.S.-Georgian training effort.

The clash that erupted Aug. 8 was the worst outbreak of hostilities since South Ossetia won de facto independence in a war against Georgia that ended in 1992.

U.S. diplomacy
The U.S. was sending an envoy to the region to meet with the parties involved to try to end hostilities.

“We support Georgia’s territorial intergrity and we call for a cease-fire,” State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson said. “We want all parties to come to the table to de-escalate the situation and avoid conflict.”

Thompson said the U.S. is working on mediation efforts to secure a cease-fire. “We are going to send an envoy to the region to engage with the parties in the conflict,” she said. “The envoy will join some representatives from our European allies, as well.”

The envoy has not yet been named, nor has the meeting place.

Georgia, which borders the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the breakup of the Soviet Union. Georgia, a staunch U.S. ally, has angered Russia by seeking NATO membership — a bid Moscow regards as part of a Western effort to weaken its influence in the region.

The conflict between Georgia and Russia has great strategic importance because it pits one of Washington’s staunchest allies in the so-called “war on terrorism” against Russia, a re-emerging superpower with vast energy reserves that is showing growing eagerness to assert its will on the international stage.

However, one analyst suggested that Georgia’s unexpected assault on South Ossetia may have been rooted as much in a sense that its NATO bid was faltering as in antagonism with Russia.

Earlier this year, NATO quashed Georgia’s drive to get a so-called “road map” for alliance membership amid alarm that President Mikhail Saakashvili was backtracking on democracy with his violent suppression last year of opposition rallies.

Although Georgia got assurances that it could eventually join, “this pushed Georgia into a philosophy of self-reliance — the idea that Georgia will be able to regain breakaway entities only by its own means,” said Nicu Popescu of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

While the U.S. and other NATO members have sent substantial aid to build up Georgia’s once-shabby military, diplomats often have shown clear discomfort with Saakashvili’s headstrong ways.


----------



## Franko

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Everyone's getting cranky about OIL, this could get really ugly really fast now.



Oil?     ???


----------



## tomahawk6

Oil and gas pipelines actually.Georgia wants to link their new pipelines with Turkey and Israel,the Russians want the pipelines to link with their existing ones.


----------



## Franko

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Oil and gas pipelines actually.Georgia wants to link their new pipelines with Turkey and Israel,the Russians want the pipelines to link with their existing ones.



Got that...but the Russians going in is for a totally unrelated matter no?

Regards


----------



## tomahawk6

Speculation is that Russian support for S. Ossetia and Abkhazia is tied to the pipeline dispute. If Georgia change their plans to link with the Russian pipeline then Russian support for the breakway provinces would vanish.


----------



## a_majoor

The comments from the Presidential candidates:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/08/candidates_react_to_georgiarus.html



> Candidates React to Georgia/Russia Conflict
> Posted by BLAKE DVORAK | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author
> 
> *From John McCain:*
> 
> Today, news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave.
> 
> The government of Georgia has called for a cease-fire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia's security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.
> 
> *From Barack Obama:*
> 
> 
> I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.


----------



## Haggis

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Oil?     ???



There is already a major pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan through Tbilisi to Ceyhan, Turkey linking the Caspian and Medeterranean Seas as well as major oil facilities on the Black Sea at Poti.


----------



## Franko

Haggis said:
			
		

> There is already a major pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan through Tbilisi to Ceyhan, Turkey linking the Caspian and Medeterranean Seas as well as major oil facilities on the Black Sea at Poti.



I'm aware of the oil pipelines in the area, just wasn't aware of any tensions in the area concerning the flow.       

Regards


----------



## Haggis

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> I'm aware of the oil pipelines in the area, just wasn't aware of any tensions in the area concerning the flow.



Gotcha.

Interestingly, Georgia is not a major producer, just a transitway (much like many conspiracy theorists beleive Afghanistan is destined to be).

IMO the issue has much les to do with oil and much more to do with Russia exerting a "presence" in the face of NATO by supporting/sheletering the Ossetian rebels (and Abkhazians, as well) in the face of an intransigent and defiant former member of Sovietskogoi Soyuza.  Remember, South (Georgian) Ossetia and North (Russian) Ossetia border Ingushesta.  North Ossetia is also the province of Beslan, location of the huge school massacre a few years ago which Russia blames on Chechen rebels who infiltrated from Ingushesta.   It didn't take much for Russia to "connect the dots" and infer that these terrorists were supported by Georgia.

Additionally, since the early part of this decade the Russians have strongly opposed all NATO activity in Georgia; GTEP, GS, PfP etc.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander

Hmm, right timing. Everyone is watching the olympics, especially the opening ceremonies today


----------



## oligarch

Did anyone even mention the fact that prior to Russian involvement Georgia spent all night shelling the South Ossetian capital and killing as much as 1400 ethnic Ossetians, many of whom hold Russian citizenship? Does this not constitute a form of ethnic cleansing on the part of Georgia? How about the fact that Georgia does this in light of a cease-fire it claimed to have agreed to the night before and the fact that Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia was illegal according UNSC resolutions, and the CIS cease-fire agreement? Georgia flagrantly disregards international law and and recieves support from Washington's disinformational media due only to the fact that Georgia is helping them in Iraq. There are also rumours of Russian peacekeeprs being killed execution style and confirmed allegations of peacekeeping contingents being fired upon by Georgian forces, also before Russian involvement. I never thought Russia would allow the undescriminate killing of its citizens, but it appears Saakashvili was hoping exactly for the contrary. The actions of the Georgian side lead to loss of life, including Russian peacekeepers who had every right to be there from internation agreements.

Regards,
Citizen of the Russian Federation


----------



## vonGarvin

oligarch said:
			
		

> Did anyone even mention the fact that prior to Russian involvement Georgia spent all night shelling the South Ossetian capital and killing as much as 1400 ethnic Ossetians, many of whom hold Russian citizenship? Does this not constitute a form of ethnic cleansing on the part of Georgia? How about the fact that Georgia does this in light of a cease-fire it claimed to have agreed to the night before and the fact that Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia was illegal according UNSC resolutions, and the CIS cease-fire agreement? Georgia flagrantly disregards international law and and recieves support from Washington's disinformational media due only to the fact that Georgia is helping them in Iraq. There are also rumours of Russian peacekeeprs being killed execution style and confirmed allegations of peacekeeping contingents being fired upon by Georgian forces, also before Russian involvement. I never thought Russia would allow the undescriminate killing of its citizens, but it appears Saakashvili was hoping exactly for the contrary. The actions of the Georgian side lead to loss of life, including Russian peacekeepers who had every right to be there from internation agreements.
> 
> Regards,
> Citizen of the Russian Federation


Здравствулте!  I did read about the Georgians shelling the capital of South Ossetia. I also know it's not a simple case of "good Georgians" vs. "Bad Russians".

In the event you have relatives over there (on either side), I wish them well.
До свидания!


----------



## JackD

Since everyone else says this - how about this ogliarch guy posting details of his name etc... or does this genteleman reperesent the Russian embassy?


----------



## midget-boyd91

It's official now, anyhow. Georgia has declared a state of war with Russia

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html 



> TBLISI, Georgia (CNN) -- Georgia's parliament Saturday approved a request by President Mikhail Saakashvili's to impose a "state of war," as the conflict between Georgia and Russia escalated, Georgian officials said.




Midget


----------



## Franko

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> It's official now, anyhow. Georgia has declared a state of war with Russia
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html
> 
> 
> Midget



It's going to be a short one methinks....someone woke the bear up.

Regards


----------



## The Bread Guy

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> It's going to be a short one methinks....someone woke the bear up.



Oh yeah - although the last time these contenders faced off, it was ~18 months...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80%931992_South_Ossetia_War

And a bit more explanation of the link to oil pipes...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/09/MNDG127U55.DTL


----------



## vonGarvin

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> It's going to be a short one methinks....someone woke the bear up.
> 
> Regards


Should I start planning the southern front offensive?  >


----------



## Flanker

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> It's official now, anyhow. Georgia has declared a state of war with Russia
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/09/georgia.ossetia/index.html
> 
> Midget



Be aware CNN has been doing pro-Georgian propaganda for a while.
But now they show they complete ignorance and diletantism.

The state of war in this context is the declaration of martial law and not the declaration of war.

So the BIG HEADLINE like "Georgia declares state of war with Russia" is just a BIG LIE.


----------



## Mike Baker

Here is a good link.



So, it's time for speculation. What do you all think is going to happen because of this? Another Chechnya, or will all of Georgia be taken by the Russian Bear? Or what else do you think may happen?



-Deadpan


----------



## tomahawk6

While Putin would love to takeover Georgia he doesnt want to do it at the cost to Russia that Chechnya did. The Russians would settle for evicting the Georgians from S. Ossetia but in the process the province will look like Chechnya did certainly not good for the civilians in the area. Somehow cooler heads need to prevail so that everyone returns their corners.The Georgians dont have much of an air force and the Russians probably have air superiority at this point.Its best for both sides to back off.


----------



## CougarKing

Some pictures from the conflict.


----------



## Kirkhill

As a reminder - here is an article on the existing Turkish Pipeline from Baku on the Caspian via Georgia (and South Ossetia) to Ceyhan in Turkey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/526515.stm

Then there is this:



> Oil prices rise after Turkish pipeline fire
> 08/08/2008 | 05:07 AM
> 
> Email this | Email the Editor | Print | Digg this | Add to del.icio.us NEW YORK - Oil prices jumped back above $120 a barrel Thursday, halting a steep three-day slide after Kurdish rebels claimed responsibility for a fire at key Turkish pipeline that supplies Western countries.



And finally I would note this:



> Kongra-Gel was founded by Abdullah Ocalan in 1974 as a Marxist-Leninist separatist organization and formally named the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in 1978.



The Kurdish Rebels in question are the same Rebels at odds with  the American aligned Kurds of Northern Iraq.

My version of the dots.

Iraq reaches public perception as stabilizing.  (Obama's stock falls and becomes a target of Jay Leno)
Oil drops.
Alberta and Moscow see revenues impacted.
Moscow decides to do something about it.
Calls on friends in Turkey and South Ossetia.
Pipeline blown in Turkey.
Georgians act in South Ossetia.
Russians invade to assist friends.
Oil rises.
Moscow, and Alberta, see revenues rise.
PM Putin a happy man.


Edit:  And I would also note this:



> TURKEY OFFERS ROUTE TO EUROPE FOR IRANIAN AND TURKMEN GAS
> 
> By Vladimir Socor
> 
> Thursday, July 19, 2007
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Hilmi Guler On July 13 in Ankara, Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Hilmi Guler and Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on gas deliveries from Turkmenistan and Iran to Turkey and via Turkey to Europe. *A deal along these lines could, if finalized:
> 
> open the last available gas corridor to Europe (“fourth corridor”) outside Russian control*;
> 
> rescue the Nabucco pipeline project (originally planned for Iranian gas);
> 
> give Turkmenistan for the first time an overland outlet to Turkey and farther afield, circumventing the Caspian Sea instead of crossing it;
> 
> provide direct access for Iranian gas westward, diversifying the European Union’s supplies away from dependence on Gazprom; and
> 
> put some counter-leverage into European hands ahead of 2010, when some major supply agreements with Gazprom are up for renegotiation.



And there is this  on Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the EU and the Caspian Pipeline.



> Trans-caspian gaz pipeline project: Azerbaijan might transit Kazakh gas to Georgia
> Breaking News published on 23/04/2006
> 
> Astana, 23 April 2006 (Trend.az - website) - A project of gas pipeline construction at the Caspian Sea bottom is now being discussed in Kazakhstan, the Kazakh foreign minister, Kasimjomart Tokayev told Trend.
> 
> “Pipeline construction across Caspian sea is also discussed in EU, which has prepared a document – ‘Green Map’. Kazakhstan is now studying the given project as it does have a number of significant geopolitical situations. The more there are chances to transport out energy resources, the better for us,” he said.
> 
> Implementation of this project will allow gas transports to Azerbaijan directly. From Azerbaijan it can be transported to Georgia and further on. Currently the both countries are receiving gas via Russian territory.



Yes.  It is all about oil.  The EU's need for it and Russia's desire to control it.


----------



## Flip

I don't know or understand anything about all this but this strikes me as a little cynical   


> Yes.  It is all about oil.  The EU's need for it and Russia's desire to control it.


If you are correct and oil and gas are the motivators, is it safe to assume that this will be long and nasty?  Will the Russian people continue in their adoration of Putin?
The earlier articles suggested that it was another "bad Americans" story and had to do with Russia saving face or something like that.  

Anyhow, I doubt there will be a happy ending for anyone before the olympics are over.

As for the inclusion of Alberta in your comment.......... :tsktsk:
I think we here in Ralph's world would like to export oil and gas at price the US can afford.  That is, if our major customer slips deeper into recession it wouldn't do us a lot of good.  The Russians however may be in a position to gain from a near monopoly, they certainly have in the recent past and may indeed be positioning for it in the future.


----------



## Kirkhill

I plead guilty to cynicism.

I am not particularly bothered about the biases of the reports.  It is just the facts of the pipelines and the markets that interest me.

As to Alberta, as a proud born-again Albertan, (3rd time back here), I am as happy as anybody with a high price of oil.  The same goes for friends in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the ungrateful wretches in BC that prefer to ignore the hydrocarbon component of their wealth.

Alberta is included just to demonstrate that parties other than the Russians benefit from these types of crises.

Sorry to aggravate Flip.  

PS With respect to long and nasty and Russians respecting Putin.

For my money, the longer Putin can stretch this thing out the happier he will be - so long as it isn't Russian soldiers being killed.  By and large the Russians want jobs and petro-rubles are fuelling GazProm jobs which, in turn, make for happy and healthy Rutin supporters.


----------



## Korporaal

Russia claims 10 of there peacekeepers were killed by the Georgians and that this was one of the reasons for the invasion.

Isn`t this a bit like the Taliban sending peacekeepers to Afghanistan.

Common sense and politics make strange bed fellows.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of a map, showing some of the hot spots (also shows the airfield base - zoom in on the tiny red flag - of Ex Immediate Response 2008,  which reportedly, "united forces from several nations to participate in small arms, combat lifesaver, and situational training exercises. Countries involved include the United States, Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Armenia."

Apologies for lack of map info in Georgia and other Caucasus republics - don't know if this is a recent Google development, or something long standing.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Should I start planning the southern front offensive?  >



Remember to keep your flanks strong this time.   >


----------



## GAP

Flip said:
			
		

> That is, if our major customer slips deeper into recession it wouldn't do us a lot of good.



Right now, a recession in the US is good for them....it forces them to deal with/block future sub prime type garbage ( much like they did with the other crisis over the last couple of decades). It also forces them to take a good look, not that it will do much good, at the offshore production they depend on so much, but that is killing jobs at home. (think china and Indonesia)


----------



## tomahawk6

The US economy isnt in as bad a shape as the media portrays. Anyone else in the world have 5.7% or less unemployment ? Didnt think so thats hardly a recession.


----------



## GAP

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US economy isnt in as bad a shape as the media portrays. Anyone else in the world have 5.7% or less unemployment ? Didnt think so thats hardly a recession.



I agree, but the recession mentality is still there, especially with an election in November...


----------



## Kirkhill

As I understand it the media keeps reporting that the US is in danger of slipping into recession.  It just never seems to get there.  :

It has yet to "achieve" two quarters of sustained reduction in GDP.


----------



## tomahawk6

The media is trying to create the impression of an economic downturn because they are trying to help the democrats. There are segments of the economy in a downturn some of its due to high fuel prices RV industry for one,trucking and airlines are others.The housing market is down. All economies have sectors that are cyclical.Not sure what this has to do with the conflict in Georgia. The danger is that the Russians may want to simply take Georgia and install a government friendly to Russia this would solve many of their problems in the region but give them heartburn internationally.I dont see the US intervening to save Georgia which in turn makes the US look weak. We have fewer options and I dont like that at all.


----------



## JayJay144

Colin P said:
			
		

> Pretty smart to attack during the Olympics, everyone distracted and looking eleswhere.





			
				uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> I have to say, I'm quite irritated. This could be the start of a major war in Europe, and I can't even watch a damn thing about it on the News because Senator John Edwards cheated on his wife two years ago. Priorities, eh?
> 
> Midget



Does this mean Israel will attack Iran during the Olympic time frame? What are the chances I wonder.


----------



## JayJay144

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US economy isnt in as bad a shape as the media portrays. Anyone else in the world have 5.7% or less unemployment ? Didnt think so thats hardly a recession.



I wouldn't be so sure of that. You might want to read this article from Paul Craig Roberts. He's known as the Father of Reaganomics. 

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05232008.html


----------



## oligarch

JackD said:
			
		

> Since everyone else says this - how about this ogliarch guy posting details of his name etc... or does this genteleman reperesent the Russian embassy?



Would you like SIN number while we are at it? I live in Canada and I hold dual citizenship. I have many relatives and friends in Russia; fortunately, none of them have been caught up in this conflict. This should be enough information for you if you want to make some sort of personal attack to discredit me on the forums. Actually, you got me! I represent the Russian embassy. I also work for KGB, which actually still exists, and my assignment is to go on the forums and brainwash members of the Canadian Forces. I should also make you aware that I make tons of money from oil, that I am from Nothern Siberia, that I learned to shoot hunting bear and I love to drink vodka by the litre. I also have a beard and play the balalaika.

But I am just saying that I find it ridiculous how many news sources, especially British and American, make it look like Russia started this conflict. I have been reading comments on other Canadian forums and newspaper responses and I find it surprising how many Canadians can actually see through this corporate media BS that we are being fed. Russians intervened after some crazy nut-job BOMBED A POPULATED CITY INDISCRIMINATELY!!! I don't see how this does not constitute genocide, seeing as Ossetians were the population there, somebody Georgia would prefer to see somewhere much higher North. Below I quote one of these responses:

"So, when Russian forces bomb a city on Russian territory (Grozny in Chechnya for instance) it is a humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing, but when Georgian forces bomb a city on Georgian territory - what do we call that? Why is it OK for the West to help Kosovo break away from Yugoslavia, but it is not OK for Southern Osetia to break away from Georgia? Why is it OK for US to bomb Bosnia to protect the lives of its soldiers, but not OK for Russia to bomb Georgia to protect the lives of its soldiers? Sure, both Georgia and Russia are to blame for this conflict, but at least the newsmedia should try and remain objective."


----------



## Michael OLeary

oligarch said:
			
		

> Actually, you got me! I represent the Russian embassy. I also work for KGB, which actually still exists, and my assignment is to go on the forums and brainwash members of the Canadian Forces. I should also make you aware that I make tons of money from oil, that I am from Nothern Siberia, that I learned to shoot hunting bear and I love to drink vodka by the litre. I also have a beard and play the balalaika.



Nice.  Instead of working to establish your credibility, you choose to mock that challenge you should have expected.  Would you like to try again, in order to be able to present a credible alternate perspective of ongoing events?


----------



## oligarch

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Здравствулте!  I did read about the Georgians shelling the capital of South Ossetia. I also know it's not a simple case of "good Georgians" vs. "Bad Russians".
> 
> In the event you have relatives over there (on either side), I wish them well.
> До свидания!



Благодарю!

Luckly, my relatives are not directly involved in the conflict, but I thank you anyway and hope your wishes live on and serve someone who really needs them at this terrible time. Believe me, in spite of stereotype, media hype, and sometimes popular opinion in the west, the Russian people do not want war. The Russian people have gone through so much conflict, fighting, oppression, and revolution that I think it offensive for outsides to regard us as "trigger happy". There is no single Russian familly, including my own, that has not been somehow affected by one of the wars Russia has lived through in the last century. I and all Russians sincerely hope that the fighting stops, but not at any cost. The Russian government and the Russian people are not prepared to abandon their national and security interests, just as the Canadian government is not prepared to abandon theirs. 

С глубочайшим уважением,
Олигарх


----------



## oligarch

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Nice.  Instead of working to establish your credibility, you choose to mock that challenge you should have expected.  Would you like to try again, in order to be able to present a credible alternate perspective of ongoing events?



A challenge to post my name? I don't know about you but I've been told never to post my name or give out personal information in public forums. So yes, because I find the challenge to be childish, pointless, and quite immature I did indeed opted to mock it. If you read the post that individual responded to you will indeed find my case, which nobody really has made a levelheaded logical response to. There is no "alternate perspective"! There is the twisting of facts and misrepresentation of the timeline I see on BBC news, which being of the more objective English speaking sources on the conflict, makes it appear as though this incident began the moment that the 58th Army of the Russian Federation entered Ossetia. I am so confident in my point of view that I am willing to say this and I challenge anyone who disagrees to prove me wrong. My identity does not matter in an argument, because it is the argument, not the arguer, that should be addressed in a formal debate. To do so otherwise would be to commit a logical fallacy. Georgia spent all night shelling innocent civilians, killing over 1400 of them (the number now could be up in 2000), it then proceeded to shell and execute peacekeepers. Pardon me for seeming a bit upset but my people are dying and your media spin and blind following of anything Rupert Murdoch tells you to believe upsets me to say the least.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I did not challenge you to post your name, only to present a logical set of facts, and possibly alternate sources of information, to support your views.


----------



## JayJay144

oligarch said:
			
		

> A challenge to post my name? I don't know about you but I've been told never to post my name or give out personal information in public forums. So yes, because I find the challenge to be childish, pointless, and quite immature I did indeed opted to mock it. If you read the post that individual responded to you will indeed find my case, which nobody really has made a levelheaded logical response to. There is no "alternate perspective"! There is the twisting of facts and misrepresentation of the timeline I see on BBC news, which being of the more objective English speaking sources on the conflict, makes it appear as though this incident began the moment that the 58th Army of the Russian Federation entered Ossetia. I am so confident in my point of view that I am willing to say this and I challenge anyone who disagrees to prove me wrong. My identity does not matter in an argument, because it is the argument, not the arguer, that should be addressed in a formal debate. To do so otherwise would be to commit a logical fallacy. Georgia spent all night shelling innocent civilians, killing over 1400 of them (the number now could be up in 2000), it then proceeded to shell and execute peacekeepers. Pardon me for seeming a bit upset but my people are dying and your media spin and blind following of anything Rupert Murdoch tells you to believe upsets me to say the least.



Oligarch you should take it easy and stop flipping out. If you bothered to read the original post of this thread you'd see that everyone here knows it wasn't Russia that started the incident. it's all right there with the thread starter. If you want to get political you should look for conspiracy websites because it appears that kind of thing would be up your ally.


----------



## meni0n

oligarch, I'm sure Russia 'accidently' had tanks ready to roll in at the border to defend the poor 'separatists' of SO.And the video and pictures of the  bombing of Gori is a huge propaganda on behalf of the Western world to show how Russia is truly evil. Don't forget, Russia is the only country in the world to recognize SO. I'm sure they're just innocent peacekeepers out to do good in the world. :


----------



## JackD

Dear Mr. Oligarch.. childish and immature? Interesting - since i am 52 years old, teach, spent 11 years in the Canadian Armed Forces and have posted on this website for several years. I asked a legitimate question in view of your sudden appearance parroting the usual Russian line and indeed used similar rhetorical flourishes found in the commentary sections on many news websites in the last couple of days. vis a vis articles discussing this conflict.. i was simply asking that you fill in your profile... You see, I was known personally to several of the posters to this website.. but you are not.
    As to the conflict itself - i am rather amazed at how muted the response is to it in the media, and by western governments....


----------



## Franko

oligarch said:
			
		

> A challenge to post my name? I don't know about you but I've been told never to post my name or give out personal information in public forums. So yes, because I find the challenge to be childish, pointless, and quite immature I did indeed opted to mock it. If you read the post that individual responded to you will indeed find my case, which nobody really has made a levelheaded logical response to. There is no "alternate perspective"! There is the twisting of facts and misrepresentation of the timeline I see on BBC news, which being of the more objective English speaking sources on the conflict, makes it appear as though this incident began the moment that the 58th Army of the Russian Federation entered Ossetia. I am so confident in my point of view that I am willing to say this and I challenge anyone who disagrees to prove me wrong. My identity does not matter in an argument, because it is the argument, not the arguer, that should be addressed in a formal debate. To do so otherwise would be to commit a logical fallacy. Georgia spent all night shelling innocent civilians, killing over 1400 of them (the number now could be up in 2000), it then proceeded to shell and execute peacekeepers. Pardon me for seeming a bit upset but my people are dying and *your media spin and blind following of anything Rupert Murdoch tells you* to believe upsets me to say the least.



Oligarch,

Welcome to Army.ca....a _*Canadian*_ website. Fox News doesn't have much sway here.

Back on topic troops.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## vonGarvin

Getting back on topic, there was a post that made it look as though Russia "accidentaly" had tanks on the border.  For heaven's sake, Russia and Georgia have had "differences" over the years, including several persons of Russian ethnicity (and citizenship) in the de-facto independant "state" of South Ossetia.  Things have come to blows, and the Russians have responded.  I don't even want to pretend to know whom to "blame" for this one.  All I know is that I hope it's over soon and that bloodshed, especially for the citizens of both sides.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some of the latest.....

DPA, Euronews.net:  *"The Russian army now appears to have firm control of South Ossetia’s capital"*

Agence France Presse:  *"Georgia Is Completely Withdrawing Armed Forces from South Ossetia"*

Reuters:  *"Russian navy arrives at Georgia sea border"*
Agence France Presse:  *"Russia denies imposing naval blockade on Georgia"*

Reuters:  *"Russia, Georgia agree to evacuate refugees"*

And, not too far away, "Abkhazia pres proposes proclaiming mobilisation in republic" and "Abkhazia sends army to drive out Georgian troops"


----------



## tomahawk6

Ralph Peters article.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/raping_georgia_123664.htm

AS I write, Russian tanks grind into a brave and isolated democratic state. 

Assuming that the world's attention would focus on Beijing, Moscow stage-managed an elaborate act of aggression against Georgia. 

But the world has changed since Soviet tanks rolled unchallenged into Afghanistan at Christmastime 29 years ago. Global communications now spotlight aggression instantly. 

Yesterday, the world didn't watch the Olympic opening ceremonies (the Chinese must be furious at the Russians). Instead, we saw images of Soviet - sorry, I meant Russian - aircraft pounding Georgian territory as Russian armor rolled over the Caucasus Mountains. 

The Kremlin is determined to break Georgia's will - and keep the feisty republic out of NATO. 

Russia, you see, still believes it's entitled to all of its former empire. And, tragically, "Old Europe" is back: Yesterday, Germany and other nervous European states bought the Russian line that Georgia is the aggressor. Wouldn't want to anger Moscow . . . 

The background: When a fellow officer and I drove through the region in 1991, Georgian patriots and Russian "peacekeepers" were already facing off. As the USSR collapsed, its security services leapt to foment separatist (pro-Moscow) movements in the newly independent states. In Georgia's case, that meant instigating rebellions in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and - unsuccessfully - Adjaria (the Caucasus is a crazy quilt of obscure identities). If Georgians insisted on independence, the Kremlin intended to dissect the country. 

But then Russia found itself bogged down in a series of botched wars in Chechnya as its military rotted and the Yeltsin government floundered. 

Now, however, the petrodollar-powered Russia of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his straight man, President Dmitri Medvedev, is swaggering - and determined to punish Georgia, to make it an example to other defiant neighbors. 

What just happened? The Kremlin decided it was time to act, since Georgia was only growing stronger under its democratically elected government. Although NATO has been hemming and hawing about admitting Georgia, the Russians didn't want to take any chances. (Just last month, 1,000 US troops were in Georgia for an exercise.) 

Calculating that the media and world leaders would be partying in Beijing, the Russians ordered North Ossetian militiamen, backed by Russian "peacekeepers" and mercenaries, to provoke the Georgians earlier this month. 

Weary of the Russian presence on their soil, the Georgians took the bait. President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered his US-trained military to respond. 

That was the excuse the Kremlin wanted. Immediately, a tank brigade from Russia's 58th Army (the butchers of Chechnya) crossed the international border into Poland - sorry, I meant Georgia. 
How do I know that the Russians set a trap? Simple: Given the wretched state of Russian military readiness, that brigade could never have shot out of its motor pool on short notice. The Russians obviously "task-organized" the force in advance to make sure it would have working tanks with competent crews. 

Otherwise, broken-down vehicles would've lined those mountain roads. 

The Russians planned it. And they hope to push it to the limit. 

What happens next? This is a fight between a very small David and a very large Goliath. That said, the Russians may be surprised at how fiercely the Georgians defend their homeland. At least two, and possibly four, Russian jets have been shot down while attacking Georgian bases close to the capital city, Tbilisi. 

As of last night, the Georgians had retaken Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's capital. I'd bet American veterans helped Georgia with contingency planning for just such a situation (it worked in Bosnia). 

Meanwhile, hundreds of civilians and dozens of militiamen, Kremlin-funded mercenaries and Russian "peacekeepers" have been killed, along with tens of Georgian troops. This fighting is serious. And, unless Moscow pulls out all the stops, its forces just might take a surprise beating. 

The Russian view: If I were a Russian staff planner (and sober), I wouldn't expect to drive all the way to the Georgian capital - that would be too much for the West to stomach (although Russia's greatest strength today is that it doesn't care about world opinion). 

My objective would be to retake Tskhinvali, then strike due south to cut Georgia's lifelines to the world - the strategic highway, parallel rail line and international pipeline that connect Georgia's eastern interior with its western ports. 

(Incidentally, such an offensive would take the Kremlin's tanks to the aptly named city of Gori, birthplace of Josef Stalin.) 

If the Russian invaders can sever those links, they'll cut Georgia in half. Control of that road-rail-pipeline complex would not only bring the Georgian economy to a standstill - it would also allow the Kremlin's other clients in Abkhazia, on the Black Sea, to renew their attempt to devour Georgian territory. 

Russian generals have always been good planners. The problems crop up in the execution. 

And the Russians have several vulnerabilities: 

* They have only a single route over the rugged Caucasus range. If Georgian commandos interdict it, the Russians will feel the supply pinch quickly. And any major Russian military operations need to be wrapped up before autumn snows close the passes - if there isn't a cease-fire sooner. 

* The Russians also need a local airfield to sustain their efforts - that could lure them closer to Georgia's capital. 

* Finally, the Russian army still relies on brute force - sophisticated combat operations are not its specialty. 

We don't know how this will develop. A Russian humiliation? A Kremlin success as the world wrings its hands but looks away? A destructive, bloody standoff? 

The only thing that's 100 percent clear is which side we should be on. 

Ralph Peters' latest book, "Looking For Trouble," takes readers through Georgia.


----------



## vonGarvin

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> * Finally, the Russian army still relies on brute force - sophisticated combat operations are not its specialty.
> .



Hmm....quite the simplification.  The Germans actually still believe (some of them) that they lost WW2 due to Russian numerical superiority.  Unfortunately (for them), The Red Army was quite successful in conducting complex operations at levels not seen since.  Operations URANUS  and BAGRATION  are but two operations that were both complex and sophisticated.  Just curious, does Ralph Peters have an axe to grind?

PS: I realise that the Russian army of today is not the Soviet Army of 1942-1944.  Still, it seems as though some prejudices haven't died.

And in case Ralph Peters forgot something, but military action is by definition "brute force".  Just as the Taliban what kind of "force" we use on them in firefights...


----------



## tomahawk6

I think Peters point of reference is Chehcnya where you must agree the Russians used a rather heavy hand in places like Grozny.


----------



## GAP

But the heavy hand is what is known and expected....

Russia, while capable of sophisticated operations and planning, does not, unlike the US, cloud it's goals with niceties.....Just get the job done, pretty can wait until after....whereas, the west tends to get bogged down in what the rest of the world is going to think of them afterwards....everything must be justified


----------



## vonGarvin

Gap: I think you hit the nail on the head.  The Russians have always understood that if military force is to be used, it must be decisive.  No holds barred, as it were.  It may not always work for them in the long run, but you're right, it's what's expected.


----------



## JayJay144

the news feeds have been an interesting look at Russia's post communist army. I remember jokes from the 90's "Russian army will work for food" and things like that but I don't think anybody is laughing now. They still have quite a force. What really surprises me is that the price of gas hasn't shot up. when I heard of the hostilities I immediately headed for the gas station. And on top of that they bombed pipelines. With the proximity to Iran and how close they are to war this thing could get interesting.


----------



## oligarch

meni0n said:
			
		

> oligarch, I'm sure Russia 'accidently' had tanks ready to roll in at the border to defend the poor 'separatists' of SO.And the video and pictures of the  bombing of Gori is a huge propaganda on behalf of the Western world to show how Russia is truly evil. Don't forget, Russia is the only country in the world to recognize SO. I'm sure they're just innocent peacekeepers out to do good in the world. :



Bombing of Gori? 20 Civilians were killed in Gori by Russian fire. Gori is also where much of the Georgian illegal "Grad" artillery was positioned. If the Russians acted like Georgians in this conflict, they would mobilize their Smerch systems and level Gori. I say this because the Georgians used Grads to bomb Tsihinvali and the Georgians leveled it to the ground, killing what now seemes to be over 2000 peaceful individuals. If you would like to see videos of what the Ossetian capital looks like after Georgian 'democratic' and strategic fire, please feel free to give me your e-mail address and I'll send them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Why not post a link?.....or somehow are you the only one with these videos?

While your at it, could you provide proof of your claims?


----------



## meni0n

I see plenty of pictures of dead Georgian civilians but nothing really from SO. So if Russia is just protecting innocent SO people, why are they attacking Georgia in Abkhazia?

Here is a good read on why this has happend:

http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=339


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of "the spent casing's still haven't cooled off yet" analysis....

Strategy Page:  "To no one's surprise, the  Russians drove back a Georgian attempt to regain control of South Ossetia. There were several hundred military and civilian casualties. The fighting apparently began when some South Ossetia militiamen fired across the border at Georgian troops. This escalated to a Georgian invasion, and a Russian reinforcement of its peacekeepers, and the expulsion of the Georgian troops. All in the space of a week...."

Sunday Times (UK):  "....In South Ossetia, Russia is drawing a confrontation line in the sand. If Georgia joins Nato, Moscow is saying, there is no way that South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be part of it...."

Agence France Presse:  "....Though it was Georgia that launched the initial attack on South Ossetia and then withdrew under heavy Russian fire, it is also Georgia - whose quest to join NATO, supported by the U.S., and which rankles the Kremlin - that is being portrayed as the victim in the conflict, analysts said...."

More on links...


----------



## midget-boyd91

oligarch said:
			
		

> If you would like to see videos of what the Ossetian capital looks like after Georgian 'democratic' and strategic fire, please feel free to give me your e-mail address and I'll send them.



So what does Grozny look like now?   
_Russia_ is more concerned about gains and objectives during conflict than avoiding collateral damage.  As has been shown during recent history, civilians being killed is an acceptable bi-product of fighting to them, and has *zero* bearing on how operations are conducted.

Midget


----------



## tomahawk6

Some US military response should wake the Russians up and get them to back off.


----------



## wannabe SF member

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Some US military response should wake the Russians up and get them to back off.



Wouldn't US support be more appropriate at first, I mean we are dealing with a Nuclear power here.


----------



## tomahawk6

Talk alone isnt going to get the Russians to back off,there is alot more at stake than just Georgia.All of eastern europe is at risk and perhaps western europe as well. The US cannot afford to appear weak or Putin will expand his little empire one small state at a time.


----------



## JayJay144

I doubt the US will get involved in a large capacity. It wouldn't be a good idea especially since they are too busy with the Middle East and the prospect of Iran. The timing of the election and Iran just couldn't be a better time. It would be best for Russia to bring the Georgian leader to justice for the shelling of that regional capital city and then everything should calm down. Send him off to the Hague. This is Russia's backyard and it's for them to deal with. Putin wouldn't be able to get away with trying to take over half of Europe anyways.


----------



## TacticalW

The incongruous said:
			
		

> Wouldn't US support be more appropriate at first, I mean we are dealing with a Nuclear power here.



That and we're already swamped with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military is already stretched almost as far as possible. Until that's done with I can't see us being in a good position to do anything like that.

I think we've got to give all of the support we can, but if this starts to become the same as the situation with pre-WW2 Germany then the stick would be an option that would be seriously thought about.


----------



## oligarch

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> So what does Grozny look like now?



Looks like a pretty clean city and quite peaceful. They actually held an international film festival there a few months back. You've never been?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC8UVau5Xnw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QassVvbt4&feature=related



> no footage/pictures of Georgian bombing of Tshinivali.... oh really??????



"The Western media has portrayed the Russian as solely responsible for the deaths of civilians, yet at the same time the Western media has acknowledged (confirmed by the BBC) that most of the civilian casualties at the outset were the result of the Georgian ground and air attacks. 

Based on Russian and Western sources, the initial death toll in South Ossetia was at least 1,400 (BBC) mostly civilians.  "Georgian casualty figures ranged from 82 dead, including 37 civilians, to a figure of around 130 dead.... A Russian air strike on Gori, a Georgian town near South Ossetia, left 60 people dead, many of them civilians, Georgia says." (BBC, August 9, 2008). Russian sources place the number of civilian deaths on South Ossetia at 2000."(Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economics at U of Ottawa, 2008)

The reason all you see is footage of bombed Gori is because that is all your media will show you. There was one misfire in Gori, 20 people dead! Just to put that in perspective, during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, which I'm certain you support, NATO CONFIRMED casualties were over 2500; in actual fact, the death toll is likely double that. So why are we flipping out on Russia for 20 deaths (according to Russian sources) or 60 deaths according to Georgian sources. The real number is likely somewhere in the middle. 
1) 2000 dead BY THE HAND OF GEORGIA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4tvUrIQe0U
2) 2000 dead: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/09/georgia.russia2
3) Georgia bombs Tshinvali before Russia gets involved, in Russian. Feel free to bablefish: http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/08/violence/
4) Selected timeline from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_War#August_7_.E2.80.93_August_8:_Georgian_involvement)


> 1) Beginning late on 1 August, intense fighting began between Georgian troops and paramilitary soldiers of South Ossetia causing the deaths of six people and the injuries of twenty-one others. Each side accused the other of commencing the fighting. On 3 August, the Russian government allowed South Ossetians to begin evacuation into Russia, which resulted in twenty bus-loads of refugees leaving the region on the first day.
> 2) On August 4, five battalions of Russian 58th Army were moved to the vicinity of Roki Tunnel that links South Ossetia with North Ossetia (for those of you who will undoubetdly ask, this is INSIDE Russia)
> 3) http://www.interfax.com/3/417133/news.aspx
> 4) Before Russian involvement, the Georgian Army crossed the border of South Ossetia on the early hours of August 8, 2008 after overnight bombardment of Tskhinvali by heavy artillery (howitzers), 122 mm multiple-launch rocket systems "Grad", and large-caliber mortars. Tanks and APC supported by artillery launched a thrust towards Tskhinvali. These are confirmable FACTS, not opinions. I don't know why I should have to back up what is common knowledge everywhere outside of North America. The fact is, from the begining of Saakashvili's presidency he was told that any aggression against Ossetia or Abkhazia will be met with a strong reaction by the Russian Federation. Further, the Russian federation was there to ensure that neither Georgia nor South Ossetia break the peace. Georgia broke the peace, and Vitali Churkin merely requested that all Georgian forces be REMOVED FROM SOUTH OSSETIA and that Georgia signs an agreement about the non-use of violence in the region. If Russia was a destabilizing country, why would it call for Georgia to sign this document in the weeks leading up to the conflict? A further and more interesting question would be the following one: if Georgia really did not intend to invade South Ossetia, why would it refuse to sign this agreement?
> 
> 5) Somebody requested pictures of the aftermath of the Georgian shelling of Tsihinvali? Here are just a few...
> a) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/09/ossetia/4_Jpg.htm
> b) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/09/ossetia/12_Jpg.htm
> c) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/09/ossetia/5_Jpg.htm (a burned Georgian tank... may I ask what it was doing in Tsihinvali?)
> d) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/09/ossetia/2_Jpg.htm
> e) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/08/ossetia2/111_Jpg.htm
> f) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/08/ossetia2/222_Jpg.htm (firing of Grad upon a city, which is not a very accurate weapon if you know anything about it)
> g) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/08/ossetia2/8_Jpg.htm
> h) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/08/ossetia2/10_Jpg.htm
> i) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/08/ossetia2/11_Jpg.htm
> j) http://lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/08/ossetia2/12_Jpg.htm



Here is a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJkwYeo738s

I want to say thanks for those who understand that Russia is not the aggressor here. If anything, this war is not in the best interests of Russia because it further destabilizes the situation for the Olympics, advances Ukrain's NATO bid (which is why i suspect the US pushed Georgia into this war), among other things I will not go into at this point. The people that think anything to do with Russia is evil right of the bad infuriate me, and I see some occasionally on this forum. This kind of thinking is what starts wars, it does not end them.

If you want a first hand point of view on the subject, try to find the latest UNSC meeting and watch it in its entirety. I did without translation on a paysite, but I'm sure the text of Vataly Churkin's speech can be found somewhere on the net. I completely agree with every word put forth by him in this speech, and urge those who feel strongly on the issue one way or another to at least see this information. Even if you choose to disagree, you will get to at least be able to say that you have seen both sides of the story.

I'll post more tommorow morning if I am up to it. Good night.


----------



## midget-boyd91

oligarch said:
			
		

> Looks like a pretty clean city and quite peaceful. They actually held an international film festival there a few months back. You've never been?


Okay then, I'll dumb it down a bit so you can't dodge around the question you knew I was asking.
_What did Grozny look like in the days and weeks following the Russian assault? _

Here's an article snip from 99 when the Russians went back to Chechnya:



> (12/6/99) --- While war rages in Chechnya's lowlands, up to 20,000 civilians in mountainous Shatoi district are trapped under constant bombardment from Russia forces. There are no safe exit routes for the civilians to flee.
> 
> "Russian forces have bombed Shatoi for weeks now, and the situation for civilians is desperate," said Holly Cartner, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and Central Asia division. "The risk of more civilian casualties is enormous."



Don't try to pull off any "Russia is innocent and too noble to bomb civilians." It won't work here. The people here know too much to actually believe that.

Here's downtown Grozny, by the way.







Midget


----------



## Snafu-Bar

From the sounds of this clip it's going to get worse before it gets better in that region.

 Interesting note that the south Ossetian's fled to Russia instead of deeper into Georgia. Perhaps i am reading something into this that isn't there though... Either way a bad deal for the innocent people trapped in the middle of this political mess.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/416590


----------



## vonGarvin

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> Here's downtown Grozny, by the way.


And here's downtown Caen after we got done with it.





Meanwhile in Georgia:
*Russian jets resume air strikes within Georgia*
"Swarms of Russian jets launched new raids on Georgian territory Monday and Georgia faced the threat of a second front of fighting as Russia demanded that Georgia disarm troops near the breakaway province of Abkhazia. 
While a senior Russian general insisted that Russia has no plans to press further into Georgian territory - its troops are now in two breakaway provinces - the order to disarm carried the threat that Russian-sponsored fighting would spread."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

oligarch,
Every one of your "proofs" were according to Russian officials.

By the way, I've visited your school site [among others], you are far from objective on any matter pertaining to Russia.
I think what is pissing me off is your wording of "your media" whilst you attend one of our finer educational institutions.............maybe its just me though.


----------



## time expired

Whats new here? Russia's best diplomatic weapon has always been 
the tank, East Germany 57,Hungary,Czechoslovakia,Afghanistan,Chechnya.
But it seems that they have discovered a new one, energy,they have
already cowed most of Western Europe with this new weapon and to
insure their continued energy domination, Tsar Putin has decided to 
use his old favorite weapon, the tank.This will insure that no gas or
oil will get to Europe without the say so of Gaspron. 
  How soon we all forget.
                                  Regards


----------



## Blackadder1916

This may be the limit of direct US military support.

US begins flying Georgian troops home from Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081000920.html 


> By KIM GAMEL The Associated Press Sunday, August 10, 2008; 12:48 PM
> 
> BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military began flying 2,000 Georgian troops home from Iraq on Sunday, military officials said, after the Georgians recalled the soldiers following the outbreak of fighting with Russia in the breakaway province of South Ossetia.
> 
> The decision was a timely payback for the former Soviet republic that has been a staunch U.S. supporter and agreed to send troops to Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition.
> 
> Georgia was the third-largest contributor of coalition forces after the U.S. and Britain, and most of its troops were stationed near the Iranian border in southeastern Iraq.
> 
> The U.S. military has played down concerns about the redeployment, saying it may have "some impact" in the near term but no significant long-term effect on Iraq's security.
> 
> "We want to thank them for the great support they've given the coalition and we wish them well," military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll said earlier Sunday at a news conference.
> 
> Georgia, which borders the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, had asked the U.S. military on Friday to provide transportation.
> 
> "We are supporting the Georgian military units that are in Iraq in their redeployment to Georgia so that they can support requirements there during the current security situation," said Col. Jerry O'Hara, another military spokesman in Baghdad. "Flights have in fact begun today and Georgian forces are redeploying."
> 
> He declined to disclose flight details. But another senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information, said the military would fly the troops back "to the republic of Georgia.
> 
> The officials also said American units had been shuffled in their area of responsibility to compensate for the departure of the Georgians.
> 
> O'Hara said that even though the loss of forces was unexpected, "we can and are accommodating the changes."
> 
> Most Georgian troops moved last year from the relatively safe Green Zone in Baghdad to an area southeast of the capital to help interdict supplies allegedly being smuggled to Shiite extremists from Iran. More than 100 remained in Baghdad to help secure the Green Zone.
> 
> At least five Georgians soldiers have died in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
> 
> Some Iraqis welcomed the Georgian withdrawal, saying they're tired of the presence of U.S-led foreign troops.
> 
> "God willing, not only the Georgian forces will withdraw but all other troops will leave our country and security and stability will come back to our land," Baghdad resident Ghada Adnan told Associated Press Television News.
> 
> Georgia, whose troops have been trained by American soldiers, began an offensive to regain control over South Ossetia overnight Friday, launching heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes.
> 
> In response, Russia, which has granted passports to most South Ossetians, began overwhelming bombing and shelling attacks against Georgia and Georgian troops.


----------



## geo

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> This may be the limit of direct US military support.
> 
> US begins flying Georgian troops home from Iraq
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081000920.html



Given that the US will be providing an aerial autobahn to deploy troops AND their equipment will probably, IMHO, be considered an extremely hostile act by the russians.  Troops going home is one thing BUT, in this case, I imagine that all their figthting and support vehicles will be accompanying.  That makes an additional Brigade (minus) available to the Georgian government.  Not much when facing the might of the Russian federation BUT, enough to get their dander up.  I just hope the russians don't decide to shoot anything down - create escalation beyond what's already happened.


----------



## vonGarvin

Russian Response to US transporting Georgians from Iraq back to Georgia

*Russia-US tensions overshadow conflict peace bid*


TBILISI (AFP) — Heightened US-Russian friction over Georgia overshadowed progress in a European peace drive Monday despite Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili signing up to an EU peace deal.

After US President George W. Bush said he had told Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the violence in Georgia was unacceptable, Putin accused the United States of trying to undermine Russia's operation by transporting Georgian troops from Iraq into the conflict zone, said Putin.


----------



## JackD

One of the aspects of interest in this conflict is the American government response - it seems they were caught flatfooted  (please note: I say it seems - as of course I am not privy to inside information). If so,  this would be another failure of the CIA or in liaising with the CIA - whose role is to inform and predict long term and short term events... Even the government's reaction is strange - President Bush is still in Peking - yet they do have Marine instructors in the conflict zone.... The wider implications of this conflict are in my view, that the uselessness of the United Nations is apparent (in the first place, how did Russian Forces - obviously not neutral - become designated a peacekeeping force which is supposed to be neutral). The muted response by members of NATO is also evident that this organization is tattered as well. It's August.. August and September are months of ill fortune when it comes to international diplomacy... Would anyone care to comment?


----------



## tomahawk6

The Russians have captured Gori and a Georgian military base.Gori is 40 miles from Tbilisi and the Russians seem intent on driving to Tblisi and ousting the government. This operation seems well planned and executed.The so called peacekeeping force rebuilt a vital railway that enabled the Russian invasion.


----------



## CougarKing

COMPARISON TABLE (before the conflict, of course)

GEORGIA:

Total personnel: 26,900
Main battle tanks (T-72): 82
Armoured personnel carriers: 139
Combat aircraft (Su-25): Seven
Heavy artillery pieces (including Grad rocket launchers): 95

RUSSIA: 

Total personnel: 641,000
Main battle tanks (various): 6,717
Armoured personnel carriers: 6,388
Combat aircraft (various): 1,206
Heavy artillery pieces (various): 7,550

Source: Jane's Sentinel Country Risk Assessments

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7552012.stm

Does this seem familiar?


----------



## Haggis

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Russians have captured Gori and a Georgian military base.Gori is 40 miles from Tbilisi and the *Russians seem intent on driving to Tblisi * and ousting the government. This operation seems well planned and executed.The so called peacekeeping force rebuilt a vital railway that enabled the Russian invasion.



The Russians are already there!  The Vaziani garrison, 18 km from Tbilisi, has had Russian peacekeepers as next-door neighbours for many years.  Vaziani has an airfield and several training facilities large enough for a battalion.


----------



## tomahawk6

I dont know about that except the Russians claim to have withdrawn all froces from Georgia in Nov of last year.Essentially they withdrew to S.Ossetia and Abkhazia.



> Pullout confirmed
> 
> Early on Thursday, General Alexei Maslov, a top Russian military official, confirmed that Russia was pulling out its troops from Georgia.
> 
> "There are no more Russian troops in Georgia, there remain only peacekeepers ... in Abkhazia, and those that are part of the combined forces in South Ossetia with the participation of Georgia," the RIA-Novosti quoted him as saying.
> 
> Maslov's aide, Colonel Igor Konashenkov, said the final convoy of troops and equipment based in Batumi in southwest Georgia had already crossed into Armenia to set up base in the northern town of Gyumri.
> 
> Russia pulled out its troops from the Akhalkalaki base in June following increased scrutiny and criticism of its activities in Georgia.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/11/mil-061123-rianovosti01.htm



> Second trainload of equipment leaves Russian garrison in Georgia
> RIA Novosti
> 
> 23/11/2006 12:57 TBILISI, November 23 (RIA Novosti) - A second trainload of equipment and ammunition left a Russian garrison outside the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, on Thursday, in keeping with Russia's commitment to withdraw from its military bases in the post-Soviet Caucasus state by the end of 2008.
> 
> Russia's South Caucasus Command said the train set off from the suburb of Vaziani at 5 a.m., and is heading for Russia through Azerbaijan.
> 
> The Vaziani garrison will be pulled out before the end of the year, ahead of the earliest of the withdrawal deadlines for Russian forces in the South Caucasus state, set for 2007. The defense minister decided on an early pullout in mid-October, amid a diplomatic feud between the former Soviet allies.
> 
> The Vaziani base had about a hundred items of equipment and 350 metric tons of ammunition before the first consignment was withdrawn a week ago for redeployment to a base in neighboring Armenia.


----------



## oligarch

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> This may be the limit of direct US military support.
> 
> US begins flying Georgian troops home from Iraq
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081000920.html



Shoot them down!

With regard to another poster, I think it already got answered by another individual with an example from Cayen. The other individual who talked about my 'school site', i'm not quite sure what he meant. Pictures of downtown Tsihinvali are pictures of downtown tshinivali, regardless of where they came from, Russia or the much more objective BBC, or even CNN, which got called out even by the Russian media for mixing up footage from Tshinivali and presenting it as footage from Gori. Even BBC confirmed 1400 deaths. And Michel Chousudovsky is CANADIAN. Besides, the shelling of Ossetia I've watched on television live all evening untill about 3am when I went to sleep, and Russia entered the war only by the time I woke up the next day. With regards to 'your media', I'm sorry for the wording. I didn't know army folk would be so darn sensitive.


----------



## JackD

Shoot them down... Nice comment.......


----------



## Haggis

T6:  _to my knowledge _ (which I'll freely admit is dated), the Russians never completely left thier garrison near Vaziani.


----------



## George Wallace

oligarch said:
			
		

> Shoot them down!



How Friggin Patriotic of you.  What are you anyway?  Your profile is empty.  You profess to have knowledge, yet don't provide "links" or proof of.  Are we to assume that you are some juvenile Troll come here to bait people and have your "jollies"?  If so, kindly leave.  If not, kindly fill in something in your profile so as to give yourself some credibility.  Right now it is sadly lacking.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haggis said:
			
		

> The Russians are already there!  The Vaziani garrison, 18 km from Tbilisi, has had Russian peacekeepers as next-door neighbours for many years.  Vaziani has an airfield and several training facilities large enough for a battalion.





			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> T6:  _to my knowledge _ (which I'll freely admit is dated), the Russians never completely left thier garrison near Vaziani.



If you believe the BBC, Russians left the Tbilisi HQ just before Xmas 2006.  When it comes to Vaziani (Google map), though, can't find OS sources (yet) definitively showing Russians left or Russians still there.  A few weeks ago, Ex IMMEDIATE RESPONSE 2008 happened there, and I can't find any public or official reference to Russian troops being on the base.  I'm guessing if there were Russian troops there:
1)  MSM would have mentioned that, or
2)  the ex may not have happened there because of possible issues.

However, there's always been more than just a few Russian "peacekeepers" (including, according to public reports, paratroopers with BMD-2s) were among the additional troops in Abkhazia.

Also, FYI, here's a good month-by-month summary of political/security happenings in Georgia, courtesy of the International Crisis Group.

_*Edit Update: *_ According to the _Arms Control Today_ (September 2001), Russia reportedly "officially handed over control of a Russian military base in Vaziani, Georgia, to Tbilisi on June 29."  According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (2 Mar 2004), "In Georgia, Russia has already withdrawn from two bases at Vaziani and Gudauta."   More recently, according to Voice of America said, "Experts say another irritant for Russia is the fact that Georgian and U.S. troops are conducting (Ex IMMEDIATE RESPONSE) at the Vaziani training area outside of Tbilisi," without mentioning the presence of any Russian troops on the base.

_- edited to add more references -_


----------



## Franko

oligarch said:
			
		

> Shoot them down!



Nice...blatant trolling.



> With regards to 'your media', I'm sorry for the wording. I didn't know army folk would be so darn sensitive.



Seeing as you're posting from Toronto, it's your media as well.

If you have an axe to grind here....leave before you are shown the door. 

If not, suck back and re-think your approach.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## geo

oligarch said:
			
		

> Shoot them down!



I must admit that I brought up the subject as a possibility of Russian reaction to US transport assistance for Georgian troops changing TOs.

Oligarch just latched onto it......


----------



## The Bread Guy

geo said:
			
		

> I must admit that I brought up the subject as a possibility of Russian reaction to US transport assistance for Georgian troops changing TOs.



Well called - while you're just raising the possibility of one view of the situation.....



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Oligarch just latched onto it......



....and used it to troll.


----------



## Haggis

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> If you believe the BBC, Russians left the Tbilisi HQ just before Xmas 2006.  When it comes to Vaziani (Google map), though, can't find OS sources (yet) definitively showing Russians left or Russians still there.  A few weeks ago, Ex IMMEDIATE RESPONSE 2008 happened there, and I can't find any public or official reference to Russian troops being on the base.  I'm guessing if there were Russian troops there:
> 1)  MSM would have mentioned that, or
> 2)  the ex may not have happened there because of possible issues.



NATO held a large, multinational exercise at Vaziani in 2002 in full view of and to the great consternation of the Russians.  



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> _*Edit Update: *_ According to the _Arms Control Today_ (September 2001), Russia reportedly "officially handed over control of a Russian military base in Vaziani, Georgia, to Tbilisi on June 29."  According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (2 Mar 2004), "In Georgia, Russia has already withdrawn from two bases at Vaziani and Gudauta."   More recently, according to Voice of America said, "Experts say another irritant for Russia is the fact that Georgian and U.S. troops are conducting (Ex IMMEDIATE RESPONSE) at the Vaziani training area outside of Tbilisi," without mentioning the presence of any Russian troops on the base.



I'm referring to two separate areas, as described below.  I'll post the Google Earth coordinates of the Vaziani garrison when I get home.

In September 2001, Russia did hand over a large part of the Vaziani base to Georgia, but not all of it.  Just outside the main base complex was a heavily guarded, concrete walled separate complex which housed, IIRC, a Russian peacekeeipng transport/logisitics unit.  Georgia controlled the general Vaziani garrison site, a former fighter base with ranges, barracks and other accomodations refurbished with US/Turk assistance and an adjacent refugee camp known as Vaziani City.


----------



## vonGarvin

Though the comment "shoot them down" may have been _seemed _ a bit too crass, I do believe that if the Russians did intercept "a flight" (even if it were a US Air Force Flight) carrying members of an opposing army's military forces and shoot it down, it would be an act _jus in bellum_ (I hope I've done my Latin Grammar properly).
Edited (deleted "been" inserted "seemed")


----------



## Mike Baker

I like this little map  from the Wiki about the whole thing. Yeah I know its Wikipedia, but still. 



-Dead


----------



## Mike Baker

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Though the comment "shoot them down" may have been a bit too crass, I do believe that if the Russians did intercept "a flight" (even if it were a US Air Force Flight) carrying members of an opposing army's military forces and shoot it down, it would be an act _jus in bellum_ (I hope I've done my Latin Grammar properly).


I thought that it was _Jus ad bellum_. 

But I agree with you, that if the Russians were to intercept an American plane with Georgian troops/cargo on board I would assume that would be a cause of war between the United States and the Russian Federation. 

If that did happen, and the U.S. didn't respond (I know, not very likely, but still), would be like the pre world war 2 era, where the League of Nations did nothing to stop Italy in Africa, or Japan in China. That showed Hitler that he could do just about what ever he wanted. But not every thing, as history has shown us.


Thus ends my ramblings for now.
-Deadpan


----------



## geo

Jus ad bellum (Latin for "Justice to War")  VS 

Jus in bello (or justice in war) The rules serve as guidelines for fighting well once war has begun.


----------



## vonGarvin

Deadpan said:
			
		

> I thought that it was _Jus ad bellum_.
> 
> But I agree with you, that if the Russians were to intercept an American plane with Georgian troops/cargo on board I would assume that would be a cause of war between the United States and the Russian Federation.
> 
> If that did happen, and the U.S. didn't respond (I know, not very likely, but still), would be like the pre world war 2 era, where the League of Nations did nothing to stop Italy in Africa, or Japan in China. That showed Hitler that he could do just about what ever he wanted. But not every thing, as history has shown us.
> 
> 
> Thus ends my ramblings for now.
> -Deadpan


My point is that if the Russians shot down any plane carrying members of its enemy's armed forces, it would be a totally legitimate act within the laws of war.


----------



## Mike Baker

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> My point is that if the Russians shot down any plane carrying members of its enemy's armed forces, it would be a totally legitimate act within the laws of war.


Ah I understand.

My mistake. :-[

-Deadpan


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haggis said:
			
		

> I'm referring to two separate areas, as described below.  I'll post the Google Earth coordinates of the Vaziani garrison when I get home.
> 
> In September 2001, Russia did hand over a large part of the Vaziani base to Georgia, but not all of it.  Just outside the main base complex was a heavily guarded, concrete walled separate complex which housed, IIRC, a Russian peacekeeipng transport/logisitics unit.  Georgia controlled the general Vaziani garrison site, a former fighter base with ranges, barracks and other accommodations refurbished with US/Turk assistance and an adjacent refugee camp known as Vaziani City.



Seen - I notice what looks like a pretty major "subdivision" next to the airfield, which could be a town and/or a major base.

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> My point is that if the Russians shot down any plane carrying members of its enemy's armed forces, it would be a totally legitimate act within the laws of war.



Now, Speculation Call - how likely is it that Russian forces would shoot down an American plane full of Georgians?

I'm going to say not likely, given the potential US response (even if it is spread thin in IRQ and AFG).


----------



## vonGarvin

Now, even though the Russians would be well within their rights to shoot down ANY transport carrying members of their enemy's forces, if I were king (or tsar, as the case may be), I would NOT do so, as the political ramifications would be quite dire.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

oligarch said:
			
		

> Even BBC confirmed 1400 deaths.



You lie........BBC's report said 'according to Russian sources" 1400 have died,......that IS NOT confirmation.
Stop spinning your yarns on here.

..and about the school sight, you know what one I mean, but I will respect your PERSEC on the open forum.
Bruce


----------



## oligarch

Troll? What is implied by "trolling"? As I observe, my comment created an interesting discussion and I even learned a bit of latin. I'm glad to see that I am threatened to be "shown the door" for making a point in a free and a democratic society. I am certain that the transit of Georgian troops with American aid will not be seen as a friendly act, although I still believe that the Russian Federation, from a moral point of view, should have shot it down.

In fact, I would like to say that the Russian response had been quite constrained. If the Russian Response had been at least somewhat proportionate to the acts by the Georgian side the Russians would have mobilized their "Smerch" systems to juxtapose the Georgian "Grad". The image somebody posted earlier from wikipedia says it all. 

If you don't agree with me, then answer the following simple questions. Why were Georgians shelling Tshinivali? What would be a more appropriate response by Russia, given that they have a peacekeeping mandate, in light of the Georgian attack on Tshinvali?

In light of the recent situation in Kosovo, which is identical to the situation in South Ossetia in every way, I assume you would apply different principles than you did to Kosovo? South Ossetians have decleared independence, has its own government, its own army, and it is not ruled by "rebels" or "seperatists" as "MY" media would like me to believe. I also find it quite interesting that these terms were not used in the case of Kosovo and every mention of Kosovo was not prefixed by the combination of words "seperatist region". Why did MY media not refer to NATO trying to "annex" Kosovo but refers to Russia as trying to "annex" South Ossetia? Why is MY media putting the words "peacekeepers" in quotation marks when the Russian peacekeeps are present there according to an official agreement between South Ossetia, Russia, and Georgia? Our job was to seperate the sides, and when one side (Georgia) violates the agreement, Russia's mandate is to help the side that was attacked. This is exactly what it is doing. The double standards are getting ridiculous.


----------



## Franko

oligarch said:
			
		

> Troll? What is implied by "trolling"? As I observe, my comment created an interesting discussion and I even learned a bit of latin. I'm glad to see that I am threatened to be "shown the door" for making a point in a free and a democratic society.



*This is a privately owned site*. There are rules, you agreed to abide by them...you broke your agreement.

You should have been placed on warning but I figured a public nudge would suffice. I was wrong.

Welcome to the warning system...you're on the ramp.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## The Bread Guy

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Now, even though the Russians would be well within their rights to shoot down ANY transport carrying members of their enemy's forces, if I were king (or tsar, as the case may be), I would NOT do so, as the political ramifications would be quite dire.



As we were typing, this came up elsewhere as another option for RUS should it want to express its displeasure now that AQ is reportedly eyeing NATO supply lines for targeting....
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/78820/post-742725.html#msg742725


----------



## AlphaQup

Slightly OT but Georgian troops started shelling Chinvali on Friday and they killed around 1.600 people from Russian media and around 30,000 fled to Russia. US backed this act as "restoring territorial integrity". Would you consider these as terrible double standards present in the West?


----------



## vonGarvin

I must say that I find it odd that in this forum, where we as a generally well-rounded group of people with an above average knowledge of the CF, point out on a virtual daily basis the bias against the CF in the media (not all media, but some media).  We also on a regular basis point out errors in the media, honest or otherwise.
I would hesitate to believe either Russian or Georgian press right now.  I would offer that the truth lies somewhere in between.  I also acknowledge that even though the cold war ended almost 20 years ago, there is still a bit of "anti-Russianism" (is that a word?) in the "western" press.
I personally don't buy it that ANYONE is spinning yarns on here.  Everyone has opinions, and I know that they are sometimes offered in a heated manner.  Just as we members of the CF get rather passionate about the current mission in Afghanistan, that very passion is to be expected of persons who have blood relatives in the current Russian/Georgian war.  Some leeway was both expected and given; however, I think sometimes a little private chat, offline, may help (of course, I'm not even sure if PMs were sent)

Anyway, that's all for today, it was free, and you certainly got your money's worth ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

AlphaQup said:
			
		

> Slightly OT but Georgian troops started shelling Chinvali on Friday and they killed around 1.600 people from Russian media and around 30,000 fled to Russia. US backed this act as "restoring territorial integrity". Would you consider these as terrible double standards present in the West?


If true, I certainly would.  (Not saying it's not true, but even if the US acknowledged that 1,600 persons died in the shelling of a civilian zone, and called it an act of "restoring territorial integrity", then I would simply say "uh oh".  The Soviet Bear may be extinct, but the Russian Bear is still out there).


----------



## greenjacket

What I wonder is how long does Georgia think that they can hold up against Russia.


----------



## vonGarvin

The situation "over there" is in a constant state of flux.  Having said that, I found this  to be interesting:

*Georgia began an offensive * to regain control over South Ossetia late Thursday with heavy shelling and air strikes that ravaged its provincial capital of Tskhinvali. *The Russia response was swift and overpowering * -- thousands of troops that shelled the Georgians until they fled Tskhinvali on Sunday, and four days of bombing raids across Georgia.
(My emphasis added)

So, if ctv.ca is to be believed, the Georgians started their offensive with forces that apparently "ravaged" Tskhinvali.  

My own opinion is that the Western Response is rather curious.  While acknowledging that Georgia began this offensive, the old knee-jerk reaction of "blame the Russians" seems to be the norm.  
I know that the Russian system is much different from ours, and Putin didn't have to convince a congress to invade, evoking weapons of mass destruction or some other motive.  He simply acted.

Personally, if there were a bunch of "ethnic Rockpainters" living next to "Rockpainterland" (of which I were president) and "Fakeland" started shelling that their cities, my own response to "Fakeland" would be swift and overpowering. But that's just me.  

Having said all this, I hope that this issue is resolved quickly.


----------



## Haggis

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You lie........BBC's report said 'according to Russian sources" 1400 have died,......that IS NOT confirmation.



There's an old saying from the Soviet era:  "There is no news in TASS and no truth in Pravda."  "Pravda", of course, being the Russian word for "truth".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> My own opinion is that the Western Response is rather curious.  While acknowledging that Georgia began this offensive, the old knee-jerk reaction of "blame the Russians" seems to be the norm.



Bullshit......since I don't give a rats ass about either side that is quite wrong. I just don't like the "you and all you damn Westerner's" attitude this fine young Canadian University student is showing us.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

There will be truths and lies on all sides, perspectives change with one's social or political standing of the involved parties. The reporters on all sides will report what they "feel" is newsworthy or relevant at the time.

 Lets just hope innocent people aren't the prime focus in this and that peace can be brought back to the region quickly and safely.


 Cheers.


----------



## Haggis

Tony, as promised:

Vaziani Georgian Army Garrison:  41°40'35.72"N,  45° 3'32.89"E

Airfield complex:  41°37'50.16"N,  45° 1'58.70"E

Vaziani City (refugees):  41°39'50.23"N,  45° 4'38.57"E.  Not a happy place and "ruled" by the Tbilisi underworld.

(Former?) Vaziani Russian Peacekeeper Garrison:  41°41'10.07"N,  45° 3'20.49"E.

Hope this makes my prior explanation of where the Russians were (are?) or weren't (aren't?) when discussing this location.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haggis said:
			
		

> Tony, as promised:
> 
> Vaziani Georgian Army Garrison:  41°40'35.72"N,  45° 3'32.89"E
> 
> Airfield complex:  41°37'50.16"N,  45° 1'58.70"E
> 
> Vaziani City (refugees):  41°39'50.23"N,  45° 4'38.57"E.  Not a happy place and "ruled" by the Tbilisi underworld.
> 
> (Former?) Vaziani Russian Peacekeeper Garrison:  41°41'10.07"N,  45° 3'20.49"E.
> 
> Hope this makes my prior explanation of where the Russians were (are?) or weren't (aren't?) when discussing this location.



Even better - will quickmaps.com this shortly - thanks again!

_- Edited to add map link -_

Map, as promised.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The airbase looks defunct, no vehicles, no aircraft.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> The airbase looks defunct, no vehicles, no aircraft.



I don't think Google imagery is always up-to-date.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

My view says oct 2006.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER HARPER ON CONFLICT IN GEORGIA


August 11, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

In a statement released today, Prime Minister Harper condemned Russias incursions into Georgian territory far beyond South Ossetia, including into already tense Abkhazia. 

"Russian and Georgian forces must immediately cease hostilities throughout Georgia and return to their August 6 positions, he said. "Furthermore, in escalating the conflict through its attacks on Georgian towns and cities outside South Ossetia, Russia has ceased to act as a peacekeeper. It is imperative that Russia respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia."

Prime Minister Harper added that Military force will not resolve this dispute. The only viable long-term solution is international mediation and peacekeeping." 

Prime Minister Harper added that Canada is working with its international partners to bring this conflict to a close as quickly as possible. He also stated that Canada stands ready to provide humanitarian assistance to those affected by the conflict. The first priority for all sides must be to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians, and facilitate full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to assist those in need.


----------



## George Wallace

I am beginning to wonder what all those guys I have been training on OPFOR think of it now?


----------



## DBA

oligarch said:
			
		

> If you don't agree with me, then answer the following simple questions. Why were Georgians shelling Tshinivali? What would be a more appropriate response by Russia, given that they have a peacekeeping mandate, in light of the Georgian attack on Tshinvali?



Russia had been pushing hard for this to happen. Eventually they pushed hard enough and Georgia responded at which time Russia put the forces they had close by into action. Just like after lots of problems from the region Russia invaded Chechnya to put a stop to it, Georgia like wise attacked South Ossetia. The main difference is the trouble South Ossetia was causing for Georgia was backed by a Russia just waiting for them to act so they could charge in. 

Looks like Russia is going back to it's old self: brutal and incompetent. As the recently deceased Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote about pretty clearly Communism inevitably leads to this. In this form of government contrary opinions must be suppressed and this is eventually done with brutality. Following the party line takes precedent over competence and the country achieves a mere fraction of it's potential as growth and development are severely restrained by incompetent central planning. All of Russia's accomplishments in the 20th century are only a fraction of what they could have been due to Lenin and Stalin and the communist system.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I guess this is a heads up that the West needs to be able to fight both a convential war and a Insurgent war. I can see the argument for maintaining both light and heavy forces. Weapon systems that can do both will be worth their weight in gold. Thank god we bought Leo2's finally and did not go totally light.


----------



## GAP

Colin P said:
			
		

> I guess this is a heads up that the West needs to be able to fight both a conventional war and a Insurgent war. I can see the argument for maintaining both light and heavy forces. Weapon systems that can do both will be worth their weight in gold. Thank god we bought Leo2's finally and did not go totally light.



Excellent point....I wonder if the new breed of US Generals that everyone was cheering in a recent thread, because they were finally coming into their own. The comments circled around how they were replacing the Cold War Conventional generation with an Insurgent orientated generation. Maybe there needs to be a bit of a rethink......


----------



## Navy_Blue

I was thinking it was awful convenient that Russia would have a battle ready unit just sitting and able to pounce on poor Georgia.  

Then I remember reading a National Geographic a few years back on how the Soviet's built a very well thought out rail system.  An amazingly huge resource pig, bureaucratic monster of a railway system.  None the less very capable of moving anything around Russia.  

Then I thought what Super Power/Ex Super power would not try and maintain a rapid reaction force capable of responding to any border within say a day or less?  A battle ready force capable of crossing into Georgia is not beyond reality.

So yes Georgia could start Shelling and Russia could give the word and a fully capable unit could knock on Georgia's front door the next day.  Its not like the US, they don't have to load a wack of transports and go half way around the world to act on a situation.  Georgia is down the street from Russia.  Given the tension they could have had a well thought out contingency for such an occasion.   So I'm not really seeing any conspiracy red flags yet.

Mr Oligarch tried to say that this was no different from Kosovo.   Except that the rolls are almost perfectly reversed.  The Russians during Kosovo sided with Serbia a long time Russian supporter.   They criticised the west for its actions all through the bombing campain.  Now the Americans and NATO are criticizing Russia and siding with Georgia a democratic NATO wanna be (shocking isn't it??  <===insert sarcsum here).  Why would we do anything different they have expressed real intrest in joining our alliance and helping us.

My only concern is that this is no less dangerous than any other little skirmish that has occurred in the last 100 years.  Two of those little skirmishes got big quick.  This could be a very small snow flake just starting to roll down the mountain.  someone could step on it soon or it could grow and grow.

Makes me wonder if we had media like this in the 30's, what would we have been saying when Mr Hitler started playing in Poland?  It makes me wonder if with all that is going on in the world,  are we on the cusp of something as big a terrible?  I hope not!


----------



## karl28

I think the current world state of affairs would go hand in hand with the old saying  "over come and adapt" . That's in regards on how to deal with all the various different problems out there  .


----------



## TacticalW

DBA said:
			
		

> Russia had been pushing hard for this to happen. Eventually they pushed hard enough and Georgia responded at which time Russia put the forces they had close by into action. Just like after lots of problems from the region Russia invaded Chechnya to put a stop to it, Georgia like wise attacked South Ossetia. The main difference is the trouble South Ossetia was causing for Georgia was backed by a Russia just waiting for them to act so they could charge in.
> 
> Looks like Russia is going back to it's old self: brutal and incompetent. As the recently deceased Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote about pretty clearly Communism inevitably leads to this. In this form of government contrary opinions must be suppressed and this is eventually done with brutality. Following the party line takes precedent over competence and the country achieves a mere fraction of it's potential as growth and development are severely restrained by incompetent central planning. All of Russia's accomplishments in the 20th century are only a fraction of what they could have been due to Lenin and Stalin and the communist system.



I agree, they supported and funded the rebels as well as set things up to work very well for an invasion from their side. The rebels that were funded poked and prodded with a sharp stick and low and behold eventually there's finally a reaction. I'm sure they expected this and very sure they wanted this to happen. By the way I'm not just another westerner talking, I was born in Russia and my family left to come here for a better life. It's hard to believe how much bs citizens there are being fed sometimes... 

I think if tensity keeps rising between us and Russia that military overhaul that we've needed for a while now will probably be coming.


----------



## Mike Baker

US military surprised by speed, timing of Russia military action 




> WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military was surprised by the timing and swiftness of the Russian military's move into South Ossetia and is still trying to sort out what happened, a US defense official said Monday.
> 
> Russian forces surged into the breakaway region last week after weeks of clashes, threats and warnings between Tblisi and Moscow which culminated August 6 in a two-day Georgian offensive into South Ossetia.
> 
> That the two countries were on a collision course was no surprise to anyone, but the devastating Russian response was not expected, officials said.
> 
> "We were tracking it earlier in that week and we knew that things were escalating," said a military official, who asked not to be identified. "I can tell you it moved quicker than we anticipated that first day."
> 
> But how it unfolded is still unclear, clouded by conflicting claims from both sides.
> 
> "I think a lot of what you're asking needs to be ironed out," said the official.
> 
> "Some of these little issues are definitely still big questions in this event -- What was the intent? Who started it? Why did they start it? And why weren't they prepared to defend what they started?"
> 
> President George W. Bush, who urged Moscow to cease fire and return to pre-August 6 positions, charged in a televised statement that Russia's intention appeared to be depose Georgia's democratically elected president.
> 
> But the extent of the Russian operation remained unclear to US officials on Monday.
> 
> Georgian officials said Russian troops had moved out of South Ossetia into Georgia proper, occupying the city of Gori while Georgian troops were retreating to the capital.
> 
> But US defense officials said they were unable to corroborate the Georgian claims.
> 
> "We don't see anything that supports they are in Gori," said a defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't know why the Georgians are saying that."
> 
> "That assessment is ongoing," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.
> 
> The United States has among the most powerful tools for monitoring brewing conflicts, from spy satellites to reconnaissance aircraft and drones capable of scooping up radio signals or capture real-time images of forces on the ground.
> 
> But the extent to which they were trained on this remote conflict before it turned violent is not known.



More on the link.

-Deadpan


----------



## George Wallace

Deadpan said:
			
		

> US military surprised by speed, timing of Russia military action



Someone was asleep at their desk as other "desks" were in the spotlight.


----------



## Haggis

Colin P said:
			
		

> The airbase looks defunct, no vehicles, no aircraft.



You don't need a lot of airfield to support 7 fighter aircraft. ;D

IIRC the airfield part of Vaziani had been deserted for some time and Vaziani City (VC) was the former "PMQ patch" for the airfield.   Many of the conscripts stationed at Vaziani garrison had family members in VC and surrounding villages.  Some would walk home, occasionally through the impact areas, after duty each night.

Note the concrete slab walls surrounding many of the loactions.


----------



## a_majoor

GAP said:
			
		

> Excellent point....I wonder if the new breed of US Generals that everyone was cheering in a recent thread, because they were finally coming into their own. The comments circled around how they were replacing the Cold War Conventional generation with an Insurgent orientated generation. Maybe there needs to be a bit of a rethink......



I think (as the person who started that thread) the US is doing the right thing with the changing of the guard. The battle in Georgia will almost certainly devolve into a COIN operation for the Russians, so assuming the United States is willing to offer support, there is a need to understand Insurgencies from both sides of the fence. As well, moving heavy forces around is very cumbersome, it took more than six months to assemble the force for the first Persian Gulf War and moving stuff around for OIF was pretty challenging as well.

What the United States needs is the ability to think and act in all the spectrum of armed conflict, and be able to transition back and forth between roles. OIF was a triumph of post cold war "RMA" inspired thinking, but the force wasn't able to transition when the situation changed abruptly. The new breed of commanders have demonstrated the ability to transition from soft to hard, and use heavy forces in COIN OPS when required to clear insurgents out of urban strongholds.

A generation of senior commanders who are versed in both "cold war" operations and COIN operations will have a very large and flexible toolkit to deal with the enemy (whoever and whatever they are), and will be able to offer more surprises and a much broader range of options to use, giving the civillian leadership a more nuanced ability to deal with issues and handing the enemy a much more difficult task.


----------



## tomahawk6

Fred Thompson made this statement last November.



> We have major shortcomings in U.S. defense capabilities. To confront these shortcomings, we must address several key priorities: First, we must spend more on defense, and we must do so carefully and wisely. Spending today as a percent of GDP is estimated at 4.1 percent - and that includes funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> According to the Office of Management and Budget, defense spending is expected to decline down to 3.1 percent in 2011. I believe we must be prepared to increase defense spending to at least 4.5 percent of GDP, not including what it takes to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When it comes to matters of budgets with Congress they say all numbers are fungible. But in this area of appropriation, there should be little room for negotiation.
> 
> Second, we must admit to ourselves, as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, that our military is simply too small. Too many commitments today leave our Armed Forces capable of meeting too few contingencies tomorrow. I propose today that we build a "Million-Member" ground force. We should increase Army end strength to 775,000 organized into 64 brigade combat teams and increase active duty Marine Corps forces by 50,000 to 225,000. Half-measures and small increases will no longer do. We need the best all-volunteer force that can meet the security needs of this country, and they must be organized, trained and equipped to deal with tomorrow's threats as well as today's.
> 
> Third, we must modernize our Armed Forces. The average age of our military aircraft is 24 years; some are over forty years old...twice the age of most of you. The Army's main battle tank and fighting vehicles were designed in the 1970s and 80s. And the entire fleet of vehicles is not aging gracefully either, with an average age of 13 years, made worse by years of tough use.
> 
> We must fully field and fund the next generation of military systems to ensure U.S. forces retain dominance in the full battle space: On the battlefield, in the skies above it, and in the waters surrounding it. The investments we make today provide the means to defend our nation tomorrow. They will make our military personnel more effective and safer. We need sustained technology development, and we need the best and brightest working on our defense programs.
> 
> Finally, and most importantly, we must take better care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They are the life-blood of our defense establishment. Whether they are active duty, Guard or Reserve, they are entitled, as well, to expect the best pay and benefits our country can afford, including a modern GI Bill with educational assistance that will help us recruit and keep our nation's finest in uniform. They also deserve the best healthcare and the best support possible for their families.
> 
> And for those who have already served, we need to fix the VA system and implement many of the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veteran's Disability Benefits Commission report.
> 
> These four pillars of a revitalized national defense are part of a much more detailed plan that must include, among other initiatives, enhancing the capabilities of our Special Operations Forces to hunt down terrorists; rebuilding the Navy to show American resolve, full time, in trouble spots; strengthening our intelligence gathering and analysis; procuring modern long-range cargo aircraft to project power anytime, anywhere; building a robust missile defense system to defend our homeland, our troops and our allies from ballistic missiles; and ensuring the means to protect our space-based assets and cyber systems
> 
> Some will say that this plan is "too much," or "too big." Others will say that building a large military will encourage our involvement in more conflicts. But these views are out step with reality, out of touch with our nation's needs, and overlook our nation's history.
> 
> The fact is, we can and must do this. The world, our foes and friends alike, will not allow us to do otherwise. We can either build up and deter war, or we can allow our forces to wither and risk conflict.


----------



## GAP

While I think you are right that the new generation is more easily adaptable to soft and hard, I think they (politicians and brass) have to be very careful what is kept and what is discarded....( a classic example is our former CDS being prepared to accept the loss of the Leo's even though the decision was made by the politicians)..


----------



## tomahawk6

The real problem is the will to act by the US and NATO. If everyone is afraid of a confrontation with Moscow there will be more Georgia's in our future. This goes back to the Pristina airport confrontation between NATO forces and Russia. Not every confrontation with Russia means the start of a war. Otherwise we are giving Russia carte blanche to do anything they feel like doing.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

This is a delacate situation considering Bush's reign is coming to an end. The next President is going to have a full plate to deal with the instant he's settled into office. If Bush is smart he will try to quell the sitaution peacefully with the help of the UN as the MAIN negotiators with Russia. If the UN can get the Russian's to atleast stop firing then peace will have a chance in the region at least for a while.

 However IF the Russian mandate goes deeper than just showing the world it's not happy and no longer sitting idle, it could get alot worse before better. Throw in Iran, Pakistan and India and it could get really ugly really fast.


 :-\


----------



## George Wallace

You are placing a high degree of credibility on the UN.  If it had that kind of credibility and power/threat it would have been able to sort out Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, Iran, Iraq, and the list goes on.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Well i highly doubt Bush will have any better of a chance persuading Russia in a stand down order. The UN has many voices hopefully one of them will have some degree of success. I'm not saying anything will have "favourable outcomes" but options are pretty limited right now. Either let Russia make thier intentions clear and respond peacefully, OR get out the hardware and prepare for the insuing conflicts.

 The alternatives are frightning considering the players at the table.


----------



## armyca08

It should be noted that Russia was the first to offer a ceasefire and demand people go back to starting points and a return of the status quo - the UN Security Council and Georgia rejected Russia's initial offer, and added conditions to the cease fire.

Also Georgia openly declared war on Russia - the President of Georgia made statements such as "We are at war with Russia".

Georgia also was the one who started razing Georgian Villages (or rather South Ossetia Villages), and blocking humanitarian aid from Russia such as food supplies.

Russian Citizens, personnel and equipment came under attack, causing numerous deaths at which time Russia responded.

Georgia had pushed into the Capital of South Ossetia prior to Russia launching a counter offensive on claims that ethnic cleansing operations were occuring conducted by Georgia.

Russia responded to two fighter Aircraft being shot down and tanks coming under fire by- in what was said to be humanitarian operations in relation to protecting civilians and maintaining the status quo in S.O. - expanding beyond S.O.  and force a retreat by Georgia.

In this time Georgia declared war against Russia it should also be noted the areas have either been autonomous or waging a civil war in Georgia for the last 15 years - this is not a sudden development.

Washington just appears to be playing it into their favour - potentially to increase republican sway in the upcoming elections but that may be a stretch.


Russians had been acting as a peacekeeping force for 15 years protecting the interests of the historically seperate Ossetians in South Ossetia. Georgia meanwhile has been using military force to crush seperatist movements - however those bodies are not historically part of Georgia.


----------



## meni0n

armyca08, you are out to lunch.

From http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=339


"The brazen attacks during the night of August 7 to 8 in South Ossetia left Tbilisi with no choice but to respond. Continuing Georgian restraint would have resulted in irreparable human, territorial, and political losses. Moscow’s military and propaganda operation bears the hallmarks of its blitzkriegs in Transnistria in 1992 and Abkhazia in 1993. Georgia’s defensive response in South Ossetia since August 8 is legally within the country’s rights under international law and militarily commensurate with the attacks."

"On July 9 Moscow demonstratively acknowledged that four Russian Air Force planes had flown a mission over South Ossetia. That action sought to deter Georgia from flying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), thus blinding Tbilisi to Russian and proxy military movements in the area. A series of roadside bomb blasts targeted Georgian police patrols. During the second half of July and the first days of August, Russian-commanded Ossetian troops under the authority of Russian-led South Ossetian authorities fired repeatedly at Georgian-controlled villages, forcing Georgian police to fire back defensively."

You are forgetting SO is Georgian territory. No one in the world recognizes their independence except Russia. No one invaded Chechnya while the Russians were fighting there, why is it Russia has the right to invade Georgia? Just because they decided to grant everyone a Russian passport and use that as a pretext to attack Georgia?


----------



## Kirkhill

Excuse the slight non sequitur here.  I have been tied up all day.

It has been suggested here that some are not giving as much credence to Russian versions of events as we might.

I can only speak for myself and offer that I would find it much easier to accept the word of an individual who had not spent a career working for an agency known for its expertise in disinformation.

Or is that дезинформация?

Having said that, I too am finding difficulty parsing the sequence of events to determine whose fist first hit whose nose.

I still stand by my conjecture that Russia and Gazprom are primary beneficiaries of this dust-up.


----------



## tomahawk6

Both sides are masters of disinformation. Earlier the Georgians were claiming the Russians had cut the country in half but there is no evidence of that at least at this point. The Georgians claimed they shot down 3 SU-25's and a TU-22 which was on a recon mission. Who knows if this is true or not ? I do know that if the Russians dont ratchet down the rhetoric the gears are in motion to kick them out of the G8 that wont help Georgia but the Russians will pay a price.


----------



## armyca08

Odd that the Kurds - would be the ones to be the ones who hit Turkeys Pipeline? Arn't the Kurds ProWestern? Or did that all change when NATO gave Turkey a lisence to kill?

I've been following the story since the first reports of escalation came out Thursday night - that is before the huge amount of western media spin on the situation. It is clear to me Georgia launched an offensive into S.O. which is what sparked the issue - probably the reason the pentagon isn't giving out many details on how things developed.


----------



## armyca08

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Both sides are masters of disinformation. Earlier the Georgians were claiming the Russians had cut the country in half but there is no evidence of that at least at this point. The Georgians claimed they shot down 3 SU-25's and a TU-22 which was on a recon mission. Who knows if this is true or not ? I do know that if the Russians dont ratchet down the rhetoric the gears are in motion to kick them out of the G8 that wont help Georgia but the Russians will pay a price.



They did but withdrew from the city proper.

THere is no way of really knowing - however following the media facts and removing the rhetoric it seems that Russia has taken out key infrastructure and government ministries operation points. Essentially they are taking out their capacity to wage war.. but not occupying a number of populated areas.. it actually reads like Russia is fighting aslightly clean battle - however also reports of people being killed hence the ethnic cleansing reports also against the Russians - which is in part causing the displacement as people flee the warzone.

However they have also given advance warnings like - disarm your police etc... 

However i have no doubts Russia will not be insulted on this one, the west is just playing games with Russia if they wanted to end the situation they'd just accept that Georgia is the intial agressor - however the autonmous zones arn't going to be given up by Georgia -- and that is what Russia is likely aiming for .. afterall a ceasefire right now would have Russia holding half a Georgia.


----------



## meni0n

The Georgians did launch an offensive, but after being baited by numerous attacks from SO and Russia played a big role orchestrating it.


----------



## lennoj

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Having said that, I too am finding difficulty parsing the sequence of events to determine whose fist first hit whose nose.
> 
> I still stand by my conjecture that Russia and Gazprom are primary beneficiaries of this dust-up.



Agreed, I wasn't on the ground. 

In our cultural form, if you will, there has been no paradigm shift in our views towards Russia. Russia is still the "bad boy" on the international block that doesn't play by the rules - or so our "beloved" CNN/FOX/and whatever bias news reporters say. 

Someone posted a wiki article in this topic a few pages back that had some pretty interesting information on it if you followed the sources. I believe Russia was in the right to go in with force after their peacekeepers were fired upon, and when the SO asked for interventions. These actions (of aggression) were no different from Israel's in years past. The one primary fact which has been left out of most of the media coverage in the western hemisphere is that the Russian Defense Ministry was calling on military lawyers (international community) to investigate war crimes which may or may not have occour at fault of the military of the Georgian Republic.

As I mentioned in my opening statement – I wasn’t on the ground – so my opinion is not valid or 100% factual. Heresay I say.


----------



## armyca08

meni0n said:
			
		

> The Georgians did launch an offensive, but after being baited by numerous attacks from SO and Russia played a big role orchestrating it.



I think that is plausable - however I havn't seen any actual evidence - and Georgia responded by killing civilians.. not attacking military targets or attempting to defend their territory - they went on an offensive into a "status quo area" and attacked civillians that held russian citizenship.

They could have tried diplomacy or tried to end the conflict by giving the seperatists recognition as a seperate state, instead they chose to fight them, and without any support.

If I was Georgia I would have waited until I was in NATO before I attacked Russian citizens. Or launched a criminal case, or just mounted a defence instead of an offence. An offence is an escalation - a defence is an attempt to maintain. It was a bad move by Georgia to launch an offensive if there was nothing to gain but ethnic genocide by the deal- did they think Russia would let them kill everyone? It seems the other way around - Russia is the one being baited on this since Georgia has the trigger to force plus one the situation.


----------



## George Wallace

armyca08 said:
			
		

> If I was Georgia I would have waited until I was in NATO before I attacked Russian citizens. Or launched a criminal case, or just mounted a defence instead of an offence. An offence is an escalation - a defence is try to maintain. It was a bad move by Georgia to launch an offensive if there was nothing to gain but ethnic genocide by the deal- did they think Russia would let them kill everyone? It seems the other way around - Russia is the one being baited on this since Georgia has the trigger to force plus one the situation.



I think that would also have been the quickest way to get booted out of NATO.


----------



## Kirkhill

lennoj said:
			
		

> In our cultural form, if you will, there has been no paradigm shift in our views towards Russia. Russia is still the "bad boy" on the international block that doesn't play by the rules - or so our "beloved" CNN/FOX/and whatever bias news reporters say.



Lennoj - I also have to admit that cultural conditioning is a big personal factor.  Just as 900 years of conditioning have led me to suspect anything that is reported by Parisian government organs.  It is just another cross I have to bear.  ;D

And armyca08, there are Kurds and then there are Kurds.  The Kurds lack of success against the Turks can, in part be laid at the feet of internecine conflict.  They spent as much time fighting each other as fighting the Turks, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians, Armenians, Georgians....  Each group of clans found friends where they could.  Some with the Russians and some with the Americans.  The Kurds that have come out on top in Iraq are still at odds with those Kurds raiding from Iraq into Turkey and some of those still living in Turkey.

The situation has a WWII analogy in Yugoslavia where some folks found support from the Germans, some from the Russians, some from the Brits and some from all of the above - Ustasha, Chetniks and Tito's Partisans (IIRC).


----------



## armyca08

Well if it ain't NATO's agenda -- -why would they launch an offensive which targetted Russian Civilians without assurances of support capable of defending a Russian Response?

it just seems stupid to me


----------



## George Wallace

armyca08 said:
			
		

> Well if it ain't NATO's agenda -- -why would they launch an offensive which targetted Russian Civilians without assurances of support capable of defending a Russian Response?
> 
> it just seems stupid to me



Are you on drugs?


----------



## George Wallace

armyca08 said:
			
		

> Odd that the Kurds - would be the ones to be the ones who hit Turkeys Pipeline? Arn't the Kurds ProWestern? Or did that all change when NATO gave Turkey a lisence to kill?
> 
> I've been following the story since the first reports of escalation came out Thursday night - that is before the huge amount of western media spin on the situation. It is clear to me Georgia launched an offensive into S.O. which is what sparked the issue - probably the reason the pentagon isn't giving out many details on how things developed.



OK?  I don't know where the Kurds came into all this, but obviously you have no idea of what is going on with Kurdistan and the Kurdish rebels and that is for yet another topic.  armyca08; you are posting unintelligablel posts.  You are totally discomboobulated.  Please do some more research and please post coherent sentences.  The Georgians burning Georgian villages, really is not helping our arguement.

[Reprinted below, in case you want to edit your confusing post.]



			
				armyca08 said:
			
		

> It should be noted that Russia was the first to offer a ceasefire and demand people go back to starting points and a return of the status quo - the UN Security Council and Georgia rejected Russia's initial offer, and added conditions to the cease fire.
> 
> Also Georgia openly declared war on Russia - the President of Georgia made statements such as "We are at war with Russia".
> 
> Georgia also was the one who started razing Georgian Villages (or rather South Ossetia Villages), and blocking humanitarian aid from Russia such as food supplies.
> 
> Russian Citizens, personnel and equipment came under attack, causing numerous deaths at which time Russia responded.
> 
> Georgia had pushed into the Capital of South Ossetia prior to Russia launching a counter offensive on claims that ethnic cleansing operations were occuring conducted by Georgia.
> 
> Russia responded to two fighter Aircraft being shot down and tanks coming under fire by- in what was said to be humanitarian operations in relation to protecting civilians and maintaining the status quo in S.O. - expanding beyond S.O.  and force a retreat by Georgia.
> 
> In this time Georgia declared war against Russia it should also be noted the areas have either been autonomous or waging a civil war in Georgia for the last 15 years - this is not a sudden development.
> 
> Washington just appears to be playing it into their favour - potentially to increase republican sway in the upcoming elections but that may be a stretch.
> 
> 
> Russians had been acting as a peacekeeping force for 15 years protecting the interests of the historically seperate Ossetians in South Ossetia. Georgia meanwhile has been using military force to crush seperatist movements - however those bodies are not historically part of Georgia.
> 
> « Last Edit: Today at 22:51:41 by armyca08 »




Too late.  You cleaned it up a little I see.



I may suggest that you think out your response a bit more than you have before you hit the POST button.  Your trend of going back and editing your posts is taking away from the discusion.  It is a bit unethical to be changing your post after someone has countered your position; perhaps in an attempt to better your appearance.


----------



## meni0n

armyca08 said:
			
		

> I think that is plausable - however I havn't seen any actual evidence - and Georgia responded by killing civilians.. not attacking military targets or attempting to defend their territory - they went on an offensive into a "status quo area" and attacked civillians that held russian citizenship.
> 
> They could have tried diplomacy or tried to end the conflict by giving the seperatists recognition as a seperate state, instead they chose to fight them, and without any support.
> 
> If I was Georgia I would have waited until I was in NATO before I attacked Russian citizens. Or launched a criminal case, or just mounted a defence instead of an offence. An offence is an escalation - a defence is an attempt to maintain. It was a bad move by Georgia to launch an offensive if there was nothing to gain but ethnic genocide by the deal- did they think Russia would let them kill everyone? It seems the other way around - Russia is the one being baited on this since Georgia has the trigger to force plus one the situation.



I think you forget there's not only innocent civilians in SO, there is a militia sponsored by Russia that has been fighting and launching attacks against Georgia. Georgia was being attacked early August and responded to that. Just because Russia granted them passports doesn't mean that territory now belongs to Russia. It is still Georgian territory. The situation is much more complex than you think, you should read some of the backgrounders on cfr.org and jamestown to get a feel for the situation and not just go off what you see in the news.


----------



## armyca08

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you on drugs?



not yet, no, any day though sir (joke)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder why the Gerogian Forces did not bypass the city, surruonrd it and cut it off, also setting up blocking positions against any Russian relief effort? At which point they could move into the city carefully and slowly gaining international support and making any Russian attempts costly and unprovoked?


----------



## armyca08

meni0n said:
			
		

> I think you forget there's not only innocent civilians in SO, there is a militia sponsored by Russia that has been fighting and launching attacks against Georgia. Georgia was being attacked early August and responded to that. Just because Russia granted them passports doesn't mean that territory now belongs to Russia. It is still Georgian territory. The situation is much more complex than you think, you should read some of the backgrounders on cfr.org and jamestown to get a feel for the situation and not just go off what you see in the news.




Yah, however Georgia has been fighting with that militia since 1991 and the territory has never de facto been Georgian territory - the areas were amalgamated into the Georgian S.S.R. back in the days of the USSR and arn't actually historically Georgian areas.  Georgia Seperated/declared independance from Russia/USSR in what 1991 and the territories such as South Ossetia declared independance also in 1991, and a seperate government was set up. In Mid July Georgia blocked a humanitarian convoy.. which in part may have been the reason for any actions.. but it will all be a you did this I did that.. the fact is South Ossetia isn't recognized by the West.. as such Georgia did burn georgian villages from a western standpoint and extrajudicially murdered its own citizens (not just members of the militia but people who specifically had Russian Citizenship/passports - if you don't accept Russia's claims... even more dispicable if you ask me.
But they did have legal Russian Citizenship.. the gave out passports like candy is rhetoric.. granting citizeship is granting citizenship.. doesn't matter how it happens.. if it happens it is legal if it occurs legally.. end of story.


(also my typos are done by little green men)


----------



## lennoj

armyca08 said:
			
		

> not yet, no, any day though sir (joke)



Right...

Back on track 

What would be interesting to see in the coming months is whether or not Russia will come out swinging lobbying to have SO recognized as a sovereign state or if Russia will annex the state itself via UN conventions…The other thing to see, is if this recent conflict has trumped Georgia’s chances of becoming a NATO member, due to Georgia not having full control over its boarders/territory, or if NATO will cease this opportunity in order to piss Russia off?


----------



## meni0n

The only reason those passports were given out was to have a foothold in Georgian territory and to have a pretext to defend its citizens. Since no international body recognizes SO independance, it is then Georgian until, it is recognized otherwise. Russia pushing out into Georgian from Abkhazia shows they are not there to protect anyone but to look after their own interests. The fact they had a lot of forces amassed at the borders of SO and Abkhazia shows this wasn't a surprise to Russia and they knew what they were doing all along.


----------



## armyca08

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder why the Gerogian Forces did not bypass the city, surruonrd it and cut it off, also setting up blocking positions against any Russian relief effort? At which point they could move into the city carefully and slowly gaining international support and making any Russian attempts costly and unprovoked?




They were too busy retreating to the capital russia said they had no intentions of advancing on. What would you do against over 500 russian tanks and 30,000 personnel?

Although there have been small skirmishes.. total lethality is being reported against the Georgians.. due to Russian Mechanization me thinks. :blotto:

Bear in mind the Russians have aircraft. Air Superioirty = pawn picking (and yah it'll be costly regardless of Georgians being effective in geurilla operations... they need diplomacy or western backing.. eg. Turkey. Which doesn't seem likely since the West can probably get from Russia what they can get from Georgia.. it's already costing multi millions of dollars --- what is georgias GDP actually fairly large at 20 Billion.


The US has air bases in Turkey I'm geussing - or did.  I'm geussing they are having fun at Incirlik - .. none the less... it is diplomacy or bust.. other than a regime change what is in the cards.. Russia seem to just be letting on they are disarming Georgia any intention beyond that who knows.. just a question if the west spends a few billion more to rearm them.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stalinist Forced Relocation Policies

I wouldn't get overly concerned about passports and citizenship in that part of the world when it comes to Casus Belli.  There is a particular irony that most of the "Russians" currently in "Gyurzia" were probably deposited there by that great Georgian Communist, Uncle Joe.


----------



## oligarch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98uyHb1c6U


----------



## TacticalW

oligarch said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98uyHb1c6U



I see no proof of any atrocities or any of these claims, it's just a recycled speech on what the Russian media is feeding its citizens. Only a few things there were valid. Now we're in the biased territory of the other side, he failed to mention any of the possible reasons why Russia may be at fault in this and not Georgia. I wonder if he's even heard of the parts that may make Russia look not so Innocent. 

Once the investigations are completed we'll see what turns up, but even then you have to look at Russia's aggressive actions leading up to this. They don't even know if those atrocities actually happened and now they're deep inside of Georgia racking up collateral damage despite this. A little late to call in the investigators don't yah think, a full scale war is on and Georgia is being pummeled.


----------



## vonGarvin

*Russia halts military action in Georgia*
"Russia's president has ordered a halt to his country's military action in Georgia over the conflict in South Ossetia.
"The security of our peacekeepers and civilians has been restored," Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday in a nationally televised statement. "The aggressor has been punished and suffered very significant losses."
Medvedev also ordered Russia's military in the region to squelch any further Georgian resistance.
"If there are any emerging hotbeds of resistance or any aggressive actions, you should take steps to destroy them," he told his defence minister at a Kremlin meeting.
Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, repeated his government's call that Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili had "better go" as Moscow won't talk with him.
Those statements came as France's President Nicolas Sarkozy heads to Moscow to negotiate a truce over the conflict involving Georgia, Russia and two breakaway regions -- South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Georgia launched military action in South Ossetia on Thursday.
South Ossetia broke with Georgia in 1992 and has run its own affairs ever since. Russia has issued passports to many South Ossetians.
In response to Georgia's actions, Russia dispatched its military. Russian soldiers and tanks have pushed into Georgian territory as part of its retaliation."

*Georgia wants more evidence of Russian military halt*
"MOSCOW (Reuters) - Georgia needs more evidence of a Russian halt to military operations and will remain "prepared for everything" until Moscow signs a peace deal, Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze told Reuters on Tuesday.
"We will need more evidence, everyone in this situation needs a signed binding agreement," Gurgenidze told Reuters by telephone from an extraordinary meeting of parliament.
"Until that happens we are mobilised, we are prepared for everything," he said. "I do appreciate it (Medvedev's gesture) ... but there has been more damage to infrastructure and civilian casualties today."


----------



## Navy_Blue

Other than a larger than normal number of "Russian citezens" in South Ossetia what is the strategic importance to the area.  I understand the argument that they wanted to secure the situation for the peace keepers in the area (which really is no different than what we would do).  It just seems like a waste of time to annex this strip of land.  Is it just really loud saber rattling?  If they are shown or are able to convince there people they were right to have done this it would be a big moral boost for the Russians.  "Look our military is still viable and good.  We helped our poor brothers in South Ossetia."  I see it undermining NATO and the west for the Georgians because they are all asking why have the Americans not helped us?? and where was NATO??  If you think long term this could bring more support for Russia.  Why join an alliance that is not able or to scared to protect you??  The way this is Spinning the Russians are looking to be the White Knights here.  CNN can say all it wants about the evil Russians because most of the Georgians and Russians are probably not listening.


----------



## GAP

The whole exercise is a message......(to all surrounding states that are considering wandering away from Russia's umbrella)

From Russia.....if you think the west is going to come to your aid....check out what happens when we do this.....

Did they come.....no?....gosh.....maybe you should consider closer ties to those that are near and dear.....


----------



## armyca08

One thing I find sorta funny is that - this area is where Russia proposed the alternative early warning sites, rather than the Ukraine.

Georgia won't recognize the independance of the areas - they are fighting against them - they are pro Russian - Georgia is trying to join NATO - once it does - can Russia actually continue aiding the seperatists or would that be a breach of the common defence clause of NATO - would all be lost?

I think in large part it is that Russia has been there for a long time, the  areas voted on seperation and had a 95% civilian backing for succession from Georgia but Georgia won't recognize it - for that matter most of the world won't. Simply put the people are dissenfranchised and under attack by a majority group. Russia really is helping their little brothers.

Not much more to the story. - however the press is still totally ignoring that Russia proposed the original ceasefire on the 9th or 10th with the UN security council that other members rejected and added stipulations to - thus all this Russia denied a ceasefire stuff reads as total rhetoric - even though it did it is making it seem like the western ceasefire was the only one proposed and the first proposed - not true. Also I find them totally pumping bushes role in threatening Georgia - I tend to think the EU's stance was a critical factor - not  the US stance - as it was likely to be expected anyway.


I fnd it funny Harper denounces Russia after the ceasefire is called.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Harper's call for a ceasefire was done and reported before Russia ceased hostilities.


----------



## meni0n

armyca08, I cannot find anywhere that Russia proposed any kind of cease-fire on the 9th, 10th. I did find :

" Khalilzad disclosed during a U.N. Security Council session that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday morning "that a democratically elected president of Georgia — and I quote — must go." "

Can you post a source for when Russia proposed a cease-fire?


----------



## oligarch

meni0n said:
			
		

> armyca08, I cannot find anywhere that Russia proposed any kind of cease-fire on the 9th, 10th. I did find :
> 
> " Khalilzad disclosed during a U.N. Security Council session that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday morning "that a democratically elected president of Georgia — and I quote — must go." "
> 
> Can you post a source for when Russia proposed a cease-fire?



Read the UNSC meetings or watch them its their entirety. I don't know where you can do so for free but I'm certain its possible. Russian envoy to the UNSC V.Churkin has made clear the Russian conditions for a cease fire.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Russians want nothing less than the departure of the Georgian government and a pro-Moscow government installed to replace them. This is the future for any government that gets too close to the west.


----------



## oligarch

TacticalW said:
			
		

> I see no proof of any atrocities or any of these claims, it's just a recycled speech on what the Russian media is feeding its citizens. Only a few things there were valid. Now we're in the biased territory of the other side, he failed to mention any of the possible reasons why Russia may be at fault in this and not Georgia. I wonder if he's even heard of the parts that may make Russia look not so Innocent.
> 
> Once the investigations are completed we'll see what turns up, but even then you have to look at Russia's aggressive actions leading up to this. They don't even know if those atrocities actually happened and now they're deep inside of Georgia racking up collateral damage despite this. A little late to call in the investigators don't yah think, a full scale war is on and Georgia is being pummeled.



I can just as easily state that I see no proof of Russia being at fault in this and not Georgia. Why would he mention those reasons if they don't exist? Just look at the chronololy of the events.

1990: Ossetians proclaime South Ossetia a Soviet Democratic Republic[18], fully sovereign within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). 
1990: The Georgian Supreme Soviet adopted a law barring regional parties in summer 1990.
1990: South Ossetia hold an election.
1990: The Georgian government headed by Zviad Gamsakhurdia declared their election illegitimate and abolished South Ossetia's autonomous status altogether on 11 December, 1990.
1991: Break-up of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia declaires independence, Abkhazia declaires independence, Georgia decleaires independence including the aforementioned republics
end of 1991: war
1992: The government of Georgia and South Ossetian separatists reached an agreement to avoid the use of force against one another, and Georgia pledged not to impose sanctions against South Ossetia
.... skip to 2008....
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#1989-2008)
2008 Aug 8: a mass incursion of Georgian troops and armour to a South Ossetian-controlled territory and repeated shelling of Tskhinvali
2008 Aug 8:  Twelve Russian peacekeepers were killed and nearly 150 injured
2008 Aug 8: The Russian Prime-Minister Vladimir Putin said that the Russian Government "condemns the aggressive actions by Georgian troops in South Ossetia" and that Russia would be compelled to retaliate
2008 Aug 8: Heavy fighting was reported in Tskhinvali for most of August 8, with Georgian forces attempting to push Ossetians slowly from the city.[32]
2008 Aug 8: Meanwhile, Russian tanks rolled across the border to aid South Ossetia, and are reported to patrol throughout Tskhinvali.


Now I challenge you to ask yourself, if Canada was peacekeeping in a conflict zone and Canadian peacekeepers came under blatant artilery fire by one of the sides, as well as the fire against the other side you are supposed to be seperating, would you not support a Canadian Forces response and would you even think about blaming the Canadians for the escalation?


----------



## oligarch

With regards to earlier accusations of me "trolling" about the way the media reports these events, I post an article.




RussiaToday: August 12, 2008, 14:45

CNN blamed for using misleading war video 

American broadcaster CNN has been accused of using the wrong pictures in their coverage of the conflict in South Ossetia. A Russian cameraman says footage of wrecked tanks and ruined buildings, which was purported to have been filmed in the town of Gori, in fact showed the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali.


Gori was said to be about to fall under the control of the Russian army but the cameraman says the video was actually shot in Tskhinvali, which had been flattened by Georgian shelling.

Aleksandr Zhukov, from the Russiya Al-Yaum channel, said: “When we arrived and news came that Gori was being shelled, I saw my footage. I said: that’s not Gori! That’s Tskhinvali. Having crawled through the length and breadth of Tskhinvali, I don’t need much to tell from which point this or that footage was recorded. I can swear in front of any tribunal. I can point at this location on the map of the town, because I and the cameraman of the Rossiya channel videotaped that.”


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122008...gue_124032.htm

RUSSIA GOES ROGUE

. . . AND AMERICA WIMPS OUT


IT'S impossible to overstate the importance of what's un folding as we watch. Russia's invasion of Georgia - a calculated, unprovoked aggression - is a crisis that may have more important strategic implications than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. 

We're seeing the emergence of a rogue military power with a nuclear arsenal. 
The response of our own government has been pathetic - and our media's uncritical acceptance of Moscow's version of events is infuriating. 

This is the "new" Russia announcing - in blood - that it won't tolerate freedom and self-determination along its borders. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is putting it bluntly: Today, Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine (and the Baltic states had better pay attention). 
Georgia's affiliation with the European Union, its status as a would-be NATO member, its working democracy - none of it deterred Putin. 

Nor does Putin's ambition stop with the former Soviet territories. His air force has been trying (unsuccessfully) to hit the new gas pipeline running from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. The Kremlin is telling Europe: We not only have the power to turn off Siberian gas, we can turn off every tap in the region, any time we choose. 

Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions. 
As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast. 

The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets. 

Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks." 
Working through their mercenaries in South Ossetia, Russia staged brutal provocations against Georgia from late July onward. Last Thursday, Georgia's president finally had to act to defend his own people. 
But when the mouse stirred, the cat pounced. 
The Russians know that we know this was a setup. But Moscow's Big Lie propagandists still blame Georgia - even as Russian aircraft bomb Georgian homes and Russian troops seize the vital city of Gori in the country's heart. And Russian troops also grabbed the Georgian city of Zugdidi to the west - invading from Abkhazia on a second axis. 

Make no mistake: Moscow intends to dismember Georgia. 
This is the most cynical military operation by a "European" power since Moscow invaded Afghanistan in 1979. (Sad to say, President Bush seems as bewildered now as President Jimmy Carter did then.) 
This attack's worse, though. Georgia is an independent, functioning democracy tied to the European Union and striving to join NATO. It also has backed our Iraq efforts with 2,000 troops. (We're airlifting them back home.) 
This invasion recalls Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia - to protect ethnic Germans, he claimed, just as Putin claims to be protecting Russian citizens - complete BS. 
It also resembles Hitler's invasion of Poland - with the difference that, in September '39, European democracies drew the line. (To France's credit, its leaders abandoned their August vacations to call Putin out - only Sen. Barack Obama remains on the beach.) 

Yet our media give Putin the benefit of the doubt. Not one major news outlet even bothers to take issue with Putin's wild claim that the Georgians were engaged in genocide. 
I lack sufficiently powerful words to express my outrage over Russia's bloody cynicism in attacking a small, free people, or to castigate our media for their inane coverage - or to condemn our own government's shameful flight from responsibility. 
Just as Moscow has reverted to its old habit of sending in tanks to snuff out freedom, Washington has defaulted to form by abandoning Georgia to the invasion - after encouraging Georgia to stand up to the Kremlin. 

Reminds me of 1956, when we encouraged the Hungarians to defy Moscow - then abandoned them. And of 1991, when we prodded Iraq's Shia to rise up against Saddam - then abandoned them. We've called Georgia a "friend and ally." Well, honorable men and states stand by their friends and allies. We haven't. 
Oh, we sure are giving those Russians a tongue-lashing. I'll bet Putin's just shaking as he faces the awesome verbal rage of Condi Rice. President Bush? He went to a basketball game. 
The only decent thing we've done was to reveal, at the UN, that the Russians tried to cut a deal with us to remove Georgia's president. 
Shame on us. 
Ralph Peters' latest book, "Looking for Trouble," details his own adventures in Georgia.

THE BEAR'S MILITARY MESS
RUSSIA's military is succeeding in its invasion of Georgia, but only because Moscow has applied overwhelming force. 

This campaign was supposed to be the big debut for the Kremlin's revitalized armed forces (funded by the country's new petro-wealth). Well, the new Russian military looks a lot like the old Russian military: slovenly and not ready for prime time. 

It can hammer tiny Georgia into submission - but this campaign unintentionally reveals plenty of enduring Russian weaknesses. 

The most visible failings are those of the air force. Flying Moscow's latest ground-attack jets armed with the country's newest precision weapons, pilots are missing far more targets than they're hitting. 

All those strikes on civilian apartment buildings and other non-military targets? Some may be intentional (the Russians aren't above terror-bombing), but most are just the result of ill-trained pilots flying scared. 
They're missing pipelines, rail lines and oil-storage facilities - just dumping their bombs as quickly as they can and heading home. 

Russia's also losing aircraft. The Kremlin admits two were shot down; the Georgians claimed they'd downed a dozen by Sunday. Split the difference, and you have seven or more Russian aircraft knocked out of the sky by a tiny enemy. Compare that to US Air Force losses - statistically zero - in combat in all of our wars since Desert Storm. 

As one US officer observed to me, the Russian pilots are neither professionally nor emotionally toughened for their missions. Their equipment's pretty good (not as good as ours), but their training lags - and their pilots log far fewer flight hours than ours do. 
Russia has been planning and organizing this invasion for months. And they're pulling it off - but the military's embarrassing blunders must be infuriating Prime Minister Putin.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think GAP has it about right.

Strategically, Russia has sent a big, strong message to all its neighbours saying that:

•	We matter! We are big and powerful and we are willing and able to do pretty much as we please in our own _sphere of influence_;

•	The Americans may be a _hyper-power_ but they are fully extended and they are unwilling to extend themselves further in Europe;

•	The European Union is big, rich, soft and impotent; and

•	NATO is a paper tiger.

Not everyone will read this message in quite the same way, however.

America may well want to _push back_ and America can drum up considerable anti-Russia sentiment, some of which will, surely, _leak_ into policy throughout the West and in Asia, too.

China will push back, too – but neither so quickly nor as obviously as America. It is the Chinese _pushback_ that will, I think, do the most severe and long lasting damage to Russia.

The Russians have also confirmed their historical political _culture_ of thuggishness – and that, to, is a message in and of itself. We (the West, China and India) are not dealing with a state that acts and reacts as ‘we’ do. The Russians, like most schoolyard bullies, understand that swift brutality is a useful tactic. It is not clear, yet, if they have also learned the lesson that ‘we’ can be provoked to an extent that our only acceptable outcome is a complete, crushing victory.


----------



## meni0n

oligarch said:
			
		

> Now I challenge you to ask yourself, if Canada was peacekeeping in a conflict zone and Canadian peacekeepers came under blatant artilery fire by one of the sides, as well as the fire against the other side you are supposed to be seperating, would you not support a Canadian Forces response and would you even think about blaming the Canadians for the escalation?



Already happend and we did not invade another country over it. I read over the UNSC transcripts, and the Georgians give a clear and detailed account of what happend before their intervention. Russia does nothing but throw accusations around. Russian "peacekeepers" had a mandate in SO, not attacking Georgian ports, airports and infrastructure.


----------



## tomahawk6

Where does Georgia go from here ?
I think they need to expand their army to be able to defend themselves from future Russian invasion.
They need to form some kind of alliance with their non-Russian neighbors as they are all in the same boat.
Their air defenses gave a pretty good account of themselves but the air force needs to be greatly expanded. In the end more troops,more armored vehicles and fortifications may help in a future conflict with Russia.


----------



## vonGarvin

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122008...gue_124032.htm
> 
> RUSSIA GOES ROGUE
> 
> . . . AND AMERICA WIMPS OUT
> 
> 
> IT'S impossible to overstate the importance of what's un folding as we watch. Russia's invasion of Georgia - a calculated, *unprovoked * aggression - is a crisis that may have more important strategic implications than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.


May have been calculated (Contingency plan, deliberate plan), but I don't buy "unprovoked".



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We're seeing the emergence of a rogue military power with a nuclear arsenal.
> The response of our own government has been pathetic - and *our media's uncritical acceptance of Moscow's version of events is infuriating*.


I think that Western media has been, by and large, anti-Russian if anything.  Heck, they don't even accept Canada's version of events in Afghanistan at face value in many cases.


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that *there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions. *


I call "BS" to that.  Whereas we have pretty good drills at section and platoon level, so too do the Russians: up to Division level.  For example, tell Division "x" that it's three objective lines on a map are here, here and here, and all that division has to do is "fire and forget" its various elements, starting with the Div Recce Bn, Regt Recce Coys, Combat Recce Patrols, and so forth.  As for "action on contact", it's fairly straightforward.  "Fix and Turn" as they used to say...


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Russians also managed to arrange the *instant appearance * of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets.


 "Instant Appearance?"  Those ships are at sea, the Black Sea, a few hours steaming time from Georgia at best?  As for pre-planned targets, again, contingency planning on their part (see "Frunze Academy") and all they would have to do is dust off "plan 9 from the Caucasus" and away they go...


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "*Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks*."



Maybe for us it would.  The Russians are pretty good at massing forces and then "launching" them.


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Make no mistake: Moscow intends to dismember Georgia.



Perhaps.  


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This attack's worse, though. Georgia is an independent, functioning democracy tied to the European Union and striving to join NATO. It also has backed our Iraq efforts with 2,000 troops. (We're airlifting them back home.)
> This invasion recalls Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia - to protect ethnic Germans, he claimed, just as Putin claims to be protecting Russian citizens - complete BS.


 Or as we rushed in to Serbia to protect ethnic Kosovars?  Not defending the Russians' motives here, but things aren't all black and white here, I suspect.


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It also resembles Hitler's invasion of Poland - with the difference that, in September '39, European democracies drew the line. (To France's credit, its leaders abandoned their August vacations to call Putin out - only Sen. Barack Obama remains on the beach.)


Reductio ad Hitlerum


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> RUSSIA's military is succeeding in its invasion of Georgia, but only because *Moscow has applied overwhelming force. *


  Well, it _is _ the Russian Way of waging war.  


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This campaign was supposed to be the big debut for the Kremlin's revitalized armed forces (funded by the country's new petro-wealth). Well, the new Russian military looks a lot like the old Russian military: slovenly and not ready for prime time.


Dangerous thinking that....The Russian Armed Forces may have several problems, but in one area (at least), they are good at attacking.  Very good.


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> All those strikes on civilian apartment buildings and other non-military targets? Some may be intentional (the Russians aren't above terror-bombing), but most are just the result of ill-trained pilots flying scared.


  Admittedely, this whole mess flared up big time when the Georgians shelled Tskhinvali.  Anyway, We (the Royal We, eg: the West) certainly used Terror bombing before (eg: 1942-1945), thankfully, we've evolved.  Hopefully both sides "over there" will also evolve.


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Russia's also losing aircraft. The Kremlin admits two were shot down; the Georgians claimed they'd downed a dozen by Sunday. Split the difference, and you have seven or more Russian aircraft knocked out of the sky by a tiny enemy. Compare that to US Air Force losses - statistically zero - in combat in all of our wars since Desert Storm.


I think Mr. Peters forgets this


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Russia has been planning and organizing this invasion for months. And they're pulling it off - but the military's embarrassing blunders must be infuriating Prime Minister Putin.


I don't know if PM Putin is infuriated.  Even if Russia has lost say 12 aircraft, and given that most of those missions would be low-level, let's not forget that the Georgians aren't a bunch of numbskulls (for lack of a better term).  From all accounts, the Georgian military is quite capable, and is well-equipped with Soviet-style equipment.  They may have a small armed forces (puny compared to Russia), but it is potent.

Anyway, this is madness.  Georgia picking on the Russian-backed Ossetians.  Russia picking on the Western-backed Georgians.  I seriously hope that it ends very soon, and that cooler heads will prevail.

IMHO, Ralph Peters is not one of them.


----------



## lennoj

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.
> As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.
> 
> The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets.
> 
> Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks."
> Working through their mercenaries in South Ossetia, Russia staged brutal provocations against Georgia from late July onward. Last Thursday, Georgia's president finally had to act to defend his own people.
> But when the mouse stirred, the cat pounced.
> The Russians know that we know this was a setup. But Moscow's Big Lie propagandists still blame Georgia - even as Russian aircraft bomb Georgian homes and Russian troops seize the vital city of Gori in the country's heart. And Russian troops also grabbed the Georgian city of Zugdidi to the west - invading from Abkhazia on a second axis.



The article, although heavily empathic, suggests good intelligence on the Russians behave. What I enjoy about this particular article is the cadence in the writing style. It started out strong in an accusing fashion then subsided half way through with recognizing that the Georgian’s have some blame as well. 



> Yet our media give Putin the benefit of the doubt. Not one major news outlet even bothers to take issue with Putin's wild claim that the Georgians were engaged in genocide.



And again good CYA principals.



> Russia's also losing aircraft. The Kremlin admits two were shot down; the Georgians claimed they'd downed a dozen by Sunday. Split the difference, and you have seven or more Russian aircraft knocked out of the sky by a tiny enemy. Compare that to US Air Force losses - statistically zero - in combat in all of our wars since Desert Storm.



This is rather misleading. Check the stats on the American loses. Last year alone they lost several helicopters, and March 2003 lost 4 aircraft during The Shock and Awe.

The Russians like any other country which relies on intel before marching in, had the pro active measures in place for such an event with a potential enemy state sitting on one of its many boarders. To declare Russia as gone “Rogue” is ludicrous and has undermined the articles author. 

The fact that the Russians have gone further then SO in their quest to “assist the people of SO” against the “aggressors’” is the only questionable thing in my mind about their actions. I agree on their side that it was the right thing to go in after their peacekeepers came under fire and when SO asked for assistance from its big brother. 

I like to refer to this conflict as a chess game, what are the Russian intentions for 3-5 years down the road? It is not a question of what happened, but what are their intentions for later on, other then what they stated simply as “we wanted to help out our cousin Boris in SO.”(that’s a pun – not factual  ) This is what eludes me in a general sense…Would this be a message of some sort or just showing the world it still has a military might? 

/End opinion…

*EDIT: Quote error


----------



## vonGarvin

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Where does Georgia go from here ?
> I think they need to expand their army to be able to defend themselves from future Russian invasion.
> They need to form some kind of alliance with their non-Russian neighbors as they are all in the same boat.
> Their air defenses gave a pretty good account of themselves but the air force needs to be greatly expanded. In the end more troops,more armored vehicles and fortifications may help in a future conflict with Russia.


Personally I think that have to realise that just as Poland waited in vain for help in 1939, none is coming for them.  They must first sue for peace, and then resort to political methods to solve the issues of South Ossetia and elsewhere.
As for an alliance with other former Soviet Republics, that may be a very good idea for them.


----------



## oligarch

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080810/115933126.html


Peacekeepers say Georgian forces shelling apartments in S.Ossetia

MOSCOW, August 10 (RIA Novosti) - Russian peacekeepers in Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia said on Sunday that Georgian forces remain in the region, and are shelling apartment blocks in the capital. 

Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili earlier said Georgian forces had fully withdrawn from the separatist province. 

A spokesman for the peacekeeping command told RIA Novosti: "This statement is a lie, just like [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili's statement on the impossibility of using military force in conflict zones." 

Russian and South Ossetian officials say around 2,000 of the province's residents have been killed since Georgia began its ground and air offensive on South Ossetia on Friday. 

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who visited Russia's North Ossetia, where thousands of refugees from the Georgian province are being housed, called the killings an act of genocide. 

At a meeting with refugees at a makeshift hospital camp in Alagir on Saturday, eyewitnesses told the premier how Georgian troops had set fire to a house with several young women inside. 

"They were rounded up like cattle, shut into the house, and set on fire. In another place, we saw a tank run over an old woman who was running away with two children. We saw how they slashed up an 18-month child," a refugee said. 

Putin told the gathering: "This is full-scale genocide... They have completely lost their minds." 

Speaking at a conference in the North Ossetian city of Vladikavkaz, Putin called Georgia's actions "a crime first and foremost against their own people." 

Russia's retaliation is "absolutely justified and legitimate from a legal point of view," he said. 

Georgia launched a major ground and air offensive to seize control of South Ossetia on Friday, prompting Russia to send in tanks and hundreds of troops. Georgia imposed martial law on Saturday after Russian warplanes began bombarding military bases. South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali has been largely destroyed in the violence. 

After returning to Moscow on Sunday, Putin said Russia's government will provide $10 billion rubles ($420 million) in aid for South Ossetia.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Well Georgia is in a damned if they do or don't situation. One hand they are being forced to let South Ossetia break away to Russia, and on the other stand thier ground on keeping thier own soveriengty stable and Russian free.

 In the end i think they are only going to have one option, and that is to let the Ossetian's go thier own route and that may mean the encroachment of the Russian boarder.


----------



## vonGarvin

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> IMHO, Ralph Peters is not one of them.


And here is his proposed solution to the problems in the Middle East:






Anyway, I don't know much about Mr. Peters, though I have his book "Red Army", and I thoroughly enjoyed it.


----------



## tomahawk6

Peters bio:
Peters enlisted in the Army as a private soldier in 1976, after graduation from Pennsylvania State University.[1] He served with 1st Battalion - 46th Infantry Regiment, then part of the 1st Armored Division,[2] and attained the rank of sergeant. He was commissioned in 1980.[3][4] He spent ten years in Germany working in military intelligence. Years later, during the 2004 Killian documents controversy, Peters pointed out that in his front-line division in 1977, five years after the memos in question were allegedly written, only the general's secretary had an electric typewriter. It was, he says, too primitive to produce the documents in question, and moreover, National Guard units "…got the junk we didn't want."

After returning from Germany, Peters attended Officer Candidate School and received a commission, eventually attending the Command and General Staff College, and still later graduated from the U.S. Army War College, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. His last assignment was to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He retired in 1998 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.


----------



## oligarch

Tskhinvali after the first shelling – eyewitness video
RIA Novosti correspondent Alan Tsorion spent the night of August 7 in Tskhinvali. He spent almost the whole of the following day sheltering in a basement of an apartment building with other civilians. Only in the evening did he have a chance to leave his shelter and take pictures of the city after the night attack. 


http://en.rian.ru/video/20080811/115958937.html


----------



## oligarch

http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20080812/115971545.html


----------



## George Wallace

oligarch said:
			
		

> http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20080812/115971545.html



Are you going to comment or just post a link that will probably disappear in two days?


----------



## vonGarvin

Information is power
President of Georgia's Website
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Georgia)
President of Russia's Website
Ministry of Foreign Affairs(Russia)
All sites in English, and certainly some slanted information there.  Given time, someone could sift through the mess and see some stuff admitted to on both sides that match.
EDIT:
Here  is a site with fairly comprehensive coverage.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect that all of the border states will be reviewing their defence plans. I suspect focus on fortifications, ATGM’s, good all round AD and minefields. They now realize that Europe will do nothing but bleat. Ukraine will have a hard time to defend itself as it has little in the way of defensible terrain.


----------



## oligarch

To follow up once again on MY media comments. 

In one of its news bulletins CNN has shown Russian tanks and ruined buildings which they claimed are in the Georgian town of Gori. Russian cameraman of the Russian TV channel, who did the footage in reality in South Ossetian city of Tskhinvali says CNN aired footage of Tskhinvali district close to former Russian peacekeepers headquarters, nearly all of them were killed by Georgians after the footage was made. 

LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVNblG9PJMk

-----

On another note, Georgian troops firing at refugees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhFPcNxybIs


----------



## vonGarvin

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect that all of the border states will be reviewing their defence plans. I suspect focus on fortifications, ATGM’s, good all round AD and minefields. They now realize that Europe will do nothing but bleat. Ukraine will have a hard time to defend itself as it *has little in the way of defensible terrain.*


The Dnepr River is pretty good, of course, they'd have to give up half their territory.


----------



## tomahawk6

I thought it was instructive that the Russians made good use of Chechen special forces.
If Ukraine were attacked they would also see Russian troops striking from Belarus. I hate to say it small professional armies just dont cut it when you have to face 100,000 invaders or more. The best defense for Poland,the Ukraine and others is large well equiped and trained ground forces supported by modern air forces and air defenses. You want to let the Russians know that the Russians will pay a heavy price for regime change.


----------



## tomahawk6

Ajara may be the next Russian target according to Debka.The return of the Russians to its base at Batumi would be a serious blow to Georgia and a threat to Turkey.Georgia isnt a NATO country but Turkey is and if they enter the war then things could get very interesting for NATO.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interestingly enough the Dniepr has acted as the barrier between Orthodox and Catholic, Scandinavian Boatmen and Steppes Horsemen as well as Gene Pools.  A permeable barrier it has been but still enough of a barrier to create two distinctive cultural groups.

And T6 - EVERYBODY, Euros especially, will be relying on the USAF to "stem the hordes".  So we all better hope that the sand and salt haven't taken too much of a toll on your aircraft in the last few years.


----------



## tomahawk6

There's an interesting analysis at thedonovan about the importance of C. Ossetia.Its a good read.

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/08/why_not_ossetia.html


----------



## JayJay144

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I thought it was instructive that the Russians made good use of Chechen special forces.
> If Ukraine were attacked they would also see Russian troops striking from Belarus. I hate to say it small professional armies just dont cut it when you have to face 100,000 invaders or more. The best defense for Poland,the Ukraine and others is large well equiped and trained ground forces supported by modern air forces and air defenses. You want to let the Russians know that the Russians will pay a heavy price for regime change.



What are the chances that western and Israel special forces or even mercenaries were involved?  There's been Russian media reports of captured western mercenaries but I'm waiting on more sources to report because I can't take any mass media seriously in this day in age. What I can say is it is interesting that there was exercises in Georgia a month before. Perhaps this is the reason why Russia was so quick to respond to the war crimes at the border city. This was practically Russia's 9/11. I for one don't side with them but I don't blame them either. Georgia was stupid to start this mess and they should have known better. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1556589920080715
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=SimpleSite/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1218446175084


In the worlds of Sgt. Steven Pink from the War Tapes. "...I have lost all faith in the media. A hapless joke I'd rather laugh at than be apart of..."


----------



## a_majoor

Regardless of who did what, and even if the United States wasn't involved in WW IV, it is highly unlikely that the West would have intervened on behalf of Georgia. The logistical difficulties are too great, the risks too high, and the perceived threat to "national interest" is too small to justify intervention. (Historically, this was the same during the Russian Civil War and when the Great Powers attempting to divvy up the spoils of the Ottoman Empire after the Great War. Even the Romans had difficulties in their day).

We need to look at containment strategies that eliminate Russian strengths; including discovering means to substitute oil and other hydrocarbons from the energy budget. If the United States does succeed in finding means to create a low cost substitute for imported oil (perhaps some sort of biological system using genetically engineered algae or bacteria), then the price of oil will drop like a stone and Russia (and autocratic Middle Eastern regimes) will have their financial arteries cut. 

Given the kleptocratic nature of the current Russian government, aggressive international law enforcement against money laundering and shining the spotlight on financial corruption by Gazprom and other state enterprises will dry up a lot of foreign investment, further hobbling the ability of the Russian State to carry out prolonged aggression. (Monies currently lining the ruling elite's pockets is hardly going to be released to invest in productivity or military upgrades).

The last thing that needs to be kept in mind is Russia is undergoing a demographic meltdown. While it is cold comfort for the here and now, Russia's ethnic Russian population will probably be halved in 35 years due to the catastrophic below replacement birthrates. The lack of manpower will finish Russia as a "Great Power"; there will be no one to man the borders and keep the economy running (and of course the critical mass of educated and skilled people to provide leadership and innovation will also be shrinking, probably in greater proportion than the rural population. This is also happening in Europe, Canada and the Democratic "Blue" States). Much of Russia's activities in the "near abroad", the "Stans" and along the Chinese border may reflect the fears of ethnic Russians of being submerged in a sea of peoples of other religions and ethnicity's.


----------



## tomahawk6

The logistics isnt all that difficult if we use Turkey and our bases in that country. If we can get the Turks to be our proxy we might be able to counter the Russians. Offer the Turks increased financial/military assistance in exchange for being pro-active in the region. It is in their best interest after all.


----------



## George Wallace

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The logistics isnt all that difficult if we use Turkey and our bases in that country. If we can get the Turks to be our proxy we might be able to counter the Russians. Offer the Turks increased financial/military assistance in exchange for being pro-active in the region. It is in their best interest after all.



This may be bit of a sticky wicket, in that NATO, the US and Turkey have different views on the Kurds in Iraq and their activities along that border.


----------



## tomahawk6

McCain's speech today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byn6egvAxkM


----------



## GAP

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The logistics isnt all that difficult if we use Turkey and our bases in that country. If we can get the Turks to be our proxy we might be able to counter the Russians. Offer the Turks increased financial/military assistance in exchange for being pro-active in the region. It is in their best interest after all.



Doesn't the US already supply a chunk of Turkey's GDP?  ;D


----------



## meni0n

oligarch said:
			
		

> On another note, Georgian troops firing at refugees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhFPcNxybIs



There is no proof in that video except for some hearsay.


----------



## oligarch

meni0n said:
			
		

> There is no proof in that video except for some hearsay.



The same can be said for anything you can provide.


----------



## meni0n

There are plenty of sources that consistently report Russia's escalating the conflict before Georgia made its move. All you provide is a video of a reporter that "saw" a bus with broken glass and some "bullet holes" and an old woman talking out of window saying she heard of the great Georgian atrocities yet she wasn't there and no one appears to have collaborating proof. There is video and photographic evidence of Russia planes bombing civilian targets, do you have any actual video to back up Georgian forces attacking civilians? If not, then your credibility is pretty shot up.


----------



## oligarch

meni0n said:
			
		

> There are plenty of sources that consistently report Russia's escalating the conflict before Georgia made its move. All you provide is a video of a reporter that "saw" a bus with broken glass and some "bullet holes" and an old woman talking out of window saying she heard of the great Georgian atrocities yet she wasn't there and no one appears to have collaborating proof. There is video and photographic evidence of Russia planes bombing civilian targets, do you have any actual video to back up Georgian forces attacking civilians? If not, then your credibility is pretty shot up.



Are you high? Are you trying to tell me that RUSSIA bombed Tshinvali? Did you not see pictures of Tshinvali? Or did the Ossetians bomb themselves? 

Please provide these "sources" you speak of and explain to me why they are more credible than what you have provided. Besides, minion, what are you trying to prove?


----------



## meni0n

I am proving that Russia is not an innocent peacekeeper that you are trying to portray it to be. I am also proving that you are providing hearsay and fiction as fact and base your arguments on it, yet you can't back it up. If you read any of the reports on CFR.ORG, Jamestown, heck look a page back at the german site that Rock provided. Russia and SO were taking potshots at Georgian troops and police for days before Georgia decided to act. Hmm, let's see, today Russians killed a Dutch journalist and some civilians while bombing Gori. It is very easy to find pictures and video of Gori completely destroyed. I am not going to hotlink graphic images on the site. Show me the great evidence of ethnic cleansing Russia has been so passionate about, they have control of SO right now yet not a single shot of evidence is being presented. How odd is that eh?


----------



## oligarch

In a move typical of members of a democratic and free society, I see I am no longer allowed to edit my posts. Oh well. Anyways, I have more gruesome pictures of Tshinivali... you know pictures of Ossetian civilians without heads and arms and limbs but I don't think its nessesary to post them, but it appears I have to.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043639/Pensioners-burned-alive-church-baby-stabbed-death--just-horrific-stories-Georgia.html

Tshinvali: 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5kjsMUruPA
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT-ffoxOsLA


HERE IS SOME VIDEO OF GEORGIAN FORCES ATTACKING GEORGIAN CITIVILIANS...  see at 0:19 that is the firing of a grad installation, which the Georgians used to shell the cities... aftermath of which bombings attached in the pictures below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-hkyJLZLJo

Grad is not something you use to make "precise attacks" with, it is something you try to level a city with. Georgians had 40 of them.


----------



## Koenigsegg

oligarch, you may want to provide warnings in the future when you post graphic photos.  Not everyone who posts here is a military member, an adult, or really wants to see such photos.  I personally have no real problem with them, but I can't see everyone being willing to look at a picture of a decaying lady.  That can be pretty disturbing stuff to some people.
Maybe just provide links to such photos.

Just me rambling here...


----------



## oligarch

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> oligarch, you may want to provide warnings in the future when you post graphic photos.  Not everyone who posts here is a military member, an adult, or really wants to see such photos.  I personally have no real problem with them, but I can't see everyone being willing to look at a picture of a decaying lady.  That can be pretty disturbing stuff to some people.
> Maybe just provide links to such photos.
> 
> Just me rambling here...



My apologies. I tried not posting these images but a certain individual was quite emphatic when asking for proof that innocent civilians were dying. Also, these came directly from my computer so I didn't know how the attachments systems works on here yet. However, I understand the concerns and I will be more descrete in the future.

This is not as graphic but also shows images of civilians who were killed South Ossetia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh9rrLRX1gM

I think Saakashvili should be tried for war crimes. Would bombing of a civilian area which has a distinct national identity such as South Ossetia be qualified as genocide under internation law?


----------



## TacticalW

meni0n said:
			
		

> I am proving that Russia is not an innocent peacekeeper that you are trying to portray it to be. I am also proving that you are providing hearsay and fiction as fact and base your arguments on it, yet you can't back it up. If you read any of the reports on CFR.ORG, Jamestown, heck look a page back at the german site that Rock provided. Russia and SO were taking potshots at Georgian troops and police for days before Georgia decided to act. Hmm, let's see, today Russians killed a Dutch journalist and some civilians while bombing Gori. It is very easy to find pictures and video of Gori completely destroyed. I am not going to hotlink graphic images on the site. Show me the great evidence of ethnic cleansing Russia has been so passionate about, they have control of SO right now yet not a single shot of evidence is being presented. How odd is that eh?



Exactly... I see a body, a few destroyed buildings and property and that's very normal for any conflict. I don't see any proof of this mass-ethnic cleansing that Russia has been throwing in everyones faces and that you have been "insisting" on happening constantly saying that there is this mythical evidence that you have stacked away somewhere that can prove this. I think the Western media would like to "see" this proof, if there was concrete proof you can bet your *** that it would be aired... unlike some other countries that don't even mention anything that could make them look bad, when the evidence "is" there. You haven't shown anything concrete enough to back up any of the big claims Russia has made and has already fed to their citizens as fact.

As for what was just posted when I was writing this, I see only claims by the Russian media and a few guesses as to how certain people died and what happened where. I'm wondering if some of these claims by civilians are just to rally support towards the rebels.


----------



## oligarch

TacticalW said:
			
		

> Exactly... I see a body, a few destroyed buildings and property and that's very normal for any conflict. I don't see any proof of this mass-ethnic cleansing that Russia has been throwing in everyones faces and that you have been "insisting" on happening constantly saying that there is this mythical evidence that you have stacked away somewhere that can prove this. I think the Western media would like to "see" this proof, if there was concrete proof you can bet your *** that it would be aired... unlike some other countries that don't even mention anything that could make them look bad, when the evidence "is" there. You haven't shown anything concrete enough to back up any of the big claims Russia has made and has already fed to their citizens as fact.
> 
> As for what was just posted when I was writing this, I see only claims by the Russian media and a few guesses as to how certain people died and what happened where. I'm wondering if some of these claims by civilians are just to rally support towards the rebels.



I see.... so what kind of proof are you looking for? As for it being aired, you really need to take a look at Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Ethnic cleansing occured because ... not pay attention you might miss it again...  GEORGIAN forces BOMBED CIVILIANS OF A PARTICULAR DISTINCT RACE, THAT BEING OSSETIAN. They bombed a city which they knew is populated by Ossetians, resulting in over 1500 deaths, 2000 according to Russian sources (not disputed by the west by the way), and this qualifies as ethnic cleasing. Clear enough?


----------



## oligarch

On that note, I'd like to insist that the 8 images I posted is more evident proof of ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia than the proof provided to the OUR public that "Osama did it" or that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Regardless of who did what, and even if the United States wasn't involved in WW IV, it is highly unlikely that the West would have intervened on behalf of Georgia. The logistical difficulties are too great, the risks too high, and the perceived threat to "national interest" is too small to justify intervention. (Historically, this was the same during the Russian Civil War and when the Great Powers attempting to divvy up the spoils of the Ottoman Empire after the Great War. Even the Romans had difficulties in their day).
> ...



Agreed. There are always limits to the interests and capabilities of even the greatest powers.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> We need to look at containment strategies that eliminate Russian strengths; including discovering means to substitute oil and other hydrocarbons from the energy budget. If the United States does succeed in finding means to create a low cost substitute for imported oil (perhaps some sort of biological system using genetically engineered algae or bacteria), then the price of oil will drop like a stone and Russia (and autocratic Middle Eastern regimes) will have their financial arteries cut.
> 
> Given the kleptocratic nature of the current Russian government, aggressive international law enforcement against money laundering and shining the spotlight on financial corruption by Gazprom and other state enterprises will dry up a lot of foreign investment, further hobbling the ability of the Russian State to carry out prolonged aggression. (Monies currently lining the ruling elite's pockets is hardly going to be released to invest in productivity or military upgrades).
> ...



This is part of what I had in mind when I mentioned American _pushback_.

But, further, and soon: Russia must be expelled from the G8. It never belonged in the first place. It is, as Thucydides  says, a kleptocracy rather than a functioning, capitalist economy and Russia has demonstrated that it is completely *unworthy* of holding a place in the councils of the mighty and responsible. China, and maybe India and Brazil, too, should be invited "in" coincidentally with Russia's expulsion.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> The last thing that needs to be kept in mind is Russia is undergoing a demographic meltdown. While it is cold comfort for the here and now, Russia's ethnic Russian population will probably be halved in 35 years due to the catastrophic below replacement birthrates. The lack of manpower will finish Russia as a "Great Power"; there will be no one to man the borders and keep the economy running (and of course the critical mass of educated and skilled people to provide leadership and innovation will also be shrinking, probably in greater proportion than the rural population. This is also happening in Europe, Canada and the Democratic "Blue" States). Much of Russia's activities in the "near abroad", the "Stans" and along the Chinese border may reflect the fears of ethnic Russians of being submerged in a sea of peoples of other religions and ethnicity's.



I have heard, but I cannot verify that Russians are abandoning (Chinese) border areas in Eastern Siberia. Some (a few? several?) Russian market towns in the border region have been described as largely Chinese: no efective Russian border guards/customs; Chinese money in the shops; even Chinese fire departments providing emergency services. Many Chinese believe that Siberia, the part East of the Yenisey River anyway, is _naturally_ Chinese and will provide much needed resources and some _lebensraum_, too.

I think China regards any Russian aggression, except, perhaps towards NATO, as a threat to China. This would especially be the case as regards the _Stans_. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Shanghai Six) allows China to regard Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as being within its _sphere of influence_.

Regarding demographics: there is an old saying that the candle flares brightest just before it dies; perhaps that's what we're seeing now - the beginning of the end of Russia as a cohesive, thuggish, giant, Eurasian state.


----------



## stegner

Just to be devil's advocate.   I assuming that many folks on this site support the U.S incursion into Afghanistan and Iraq.   How come we are willing to accept that American self-defense extends thousands of miles from it borders, but when Russia intervenes in a neighboring country such as Chechnya or Georgia-this is seen to be thuggish, disproportionate an act of unnecessary hostility? Ironic that the U.S is lambasting Russia's use of strategic bombers in this conflict.  What exactly did they use in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Strategic bombers.   

Georgia is not a democracy, despite the west's attempts to portray it so.   NATO has become so desperate to be relevant that it is seeking the membership of anyone these days (including Georgia)-democratic principles is seemingly no longer a prerequisite.  Mikheil Saakashvili is hardly a reformer and is largely no better than his predecessor Eduard Shevardnadze and is certainly not the moral superior to Putin or Mevedev (all of these men are illiberal, brutal and elected).  If we are willing to tolerate regime change in countries thousands of miles from our borders why can we not accept that Russia is entitled to facilitate regime change as well?  Especially when we consider that  70% of South Ossetian's are Russian passport holders! Russia is being aggressive-the violence of action is now to their advantage.  Why should they not encourage Georgia never ever to mess with South Ossetia or _their citizens _again?   Frankly, I am getting quite tired of elements or governments causing conflicts and then demanding a ceasefire when it is clear they have bitten more off than they can chew.   This applies to Hezbollah in 2006 and also to Mikheil Saakashvili presently.


----------



## Edward Campbell

stegner said:
			
		

> Just to be devil's advocate.   I assuming that many folks on this site support the U.S incursion into Afghanistan and Iraq.   How come we are willing to accept that American self-defense extends thousands of miles from it borders, but when Russia intervenes in a neighboring country such as Chechnya or Georgia-this is seen to be thuggish, disproportionate an act of unnecessary hostility? Ironic that the U.S is lambasting Russia's use of strategic bombers in this conflict.  What exactly did they use in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Strategic bombers.
> 
> Georgia is not a democracy, despite the west's attempts to portray it so.   NATO has become so desperate to be relevant that it is seeking the membership of anyone these days (including Georgia)-democratic principles is seemingly no longer a prerequisite.  Mikheil Saakashvili is hardly a reformer and is largely no better than his predecessor Eduard Shevardnadze and is certainly not the moral superior to Putin or Mevedev (all of these men are illiberal, brutal and elected).  If we are willing to tolerate regime change in countries thousands of miles from our borders why can we not accept that Russia is entitled to facilitate regime change as well?  Especially when we consider that  70% of South Ossetian's are Russian passport holders! Russia is being aggressive-the violence of action is now to their advantage.  Why should they not encourage Georgia never ever to mess with South Ossetia or _their citizens _again?   Frankly, I am getting quite tired of elements or governments causing conflicts and then demanding a ceasefire when it is clear they have bitten more off than they can chew.   This applies to Hezbollah in 2006 and also to Mikheil Saakashvili presently.



I agree, _very broadly_, with you, stegner, on both points:

1. "We" - however narrowly defined, even just "we" here in Milnet.ca, *me included* - are not, in any way, immune to hypocrisy; and

2. The Russians had some largely free and pretty fair elections and they decided, freely and fairly and for themselves, to elect Stalinist thugs - thugs who promised them that they would "matter" once again.

*But*: the fact that Georgia is anything but a perfect liberal democracy does not score any _points_ *for* Russia - it is still a bully and a thug, beating up on its small neighbours because it is terrified of its big ones. Russia is the aggressor. That ought to matter.


----------



## jj11ssmm

> The Georgian troops breaking all international agreements started aggression against Osetian population and Russian peaceful forces
> 
> On the 8th of august Georgia treacherously, breaking all international agreements, started massive bombardment of the South-Osetian capital Zhinvali, the dispositions of Russian peacemakers and Osetian villages, using air bombers, hard artillery, mine troopers, «Grad» weapons. Two days earlier the Georgian peacemakers without any explanations left their positions and Georgia evacuated ethnically Georgians, living on the territory of South Osetia.
> 
> South Osetia is an autonomous republic which demands independence, staying formally after disintegration of the Soviet Union in the territorial borders of Georgia. The people of S. Osetia on the referendum declared their will to become an independent state. In 1994 Georgia started its first war against the Osetian people proclaiming the idea of territorial wholeness. Then Georgian troops destroyed hundreds of villages and thousands of people were killed and injured. The peaceful agreement after the war supposed the presence of peacemakers from Russia and Georgia in South Osetia to prevent collisions between the Georgian and Osetian partisans.
> 
> It must be specially underlined that Osetia now is divided into two parts: South and North. The last is the part of Russia. Osetia has a two hundred years friendly relations with Russia: exactly 200 hundred years ago Osetia asked Russia about the entry into the Russian empire and from that time till now Russians and Osetians live in peace and friendship. Most of the Osetian people have Russian citizenship.
> 
> Returning to august the 8th. The Georgian troops breaking all international agreements started aggression against Osetian population and Russian peaceful forces.
> 
> On the night of the 8th of august the capital of Osetia was turned into ruins for seven hours of Georgian massive air and hard artillery bombardment.
> 
> Paying no attention that the houses are inhabited by women, children and old people the Georgian artillery crushed everything in the city, including the House of Parliament, schools, university, hospital and positions of Russian peaceful forces.
> 
> Thousands of people were killed by bombs and crushing houses. Those, who stayed alive, and those, who were wounded, were obliged to hide in the basements of the ruined houses. They spent there several days (some of them stay there up till now), experiencing lack of water, air, medicines. Wounded and bleeding people are dying in anti-sanitary conditions. The Georgian troops which occupied Zchinval, shoot everyone who tries to come out of their shelters in search of water. People in the shelters saw how the Georgian tanks executed women with children in their hands, shooting their heads, and squashing them by tanks caterpillars. Georgian snipers were working hard not to allow peaceful citizens to leave the city. Witnesses saw how the women, who was trying to find water for her child, was shot by Georgian sniper, her head turning into pieces. In these hours came the facts that amongst the Georgian warriors were present the hirelings from other countries, from NATO ,who even didn’t speak Georgian or Russian.
> 
> Those peaceful citizens, who managed to leave the city and tried to make their way, using their cars and on foot, to the nearby Osetian village Jhava, were attacked by Georgian tanks and mine-throwers, some of them were attacked from the air and annihilated. At the same time Russian peacemakers, which had lost 15 people dead and more than 150 wounded continued resistance on there positions, being surrounded by Georgian troops whose number in twelve times overcame the number of Russian peaceful contingent.
> 
> In this conditions, which Russian Federation qualified as “genocide of the Osetian people”, as murdering of peaceful population, as the Georgian strategy of “burnt ground” and “ethnic cleansings”, as “the barbaric war of the president with the people of his country” made a decision to restore peace and stability in South Osetia using all international agreements and the right to protect Russian citizens. The Russian authorities decided to strengthen the peaceful contingent in the epicenter of war, in order to stop violence, murdering of innocent people, to help the wounded Russian citizens to leave the Zchinval city and reach hospitals in the safe regions.
> 
> The president Saakashvili applied the American tactics of “burning ground”, which was practiced in Vietnam by American aggressors in the late 60-s. The operation of extermination of Osetian population was planned long before the 8th of august under the direction of American military specialists and was of extremely antihuman character.
> 
> Analyzing the facts from the epicenter of war, Russian investigators constituted: Georgian troops practiced face to face shooting of civil people, burned them with fire, shouted into the backs of running away women and children, used tank caterpillars to crush people in order to destroy the signs of antihuman violence on the occupied territories. There are hundreds of witnesses of the terrific cruelness of Georgian soldiers towards the Osetin population. Most of the soldiers of the aggressor used narcotics. They carried maps of “one-day war” according to which they were obliged to finish the war in one day, occupying south Osetian territories and exterminating population as quickly as it is possible.
> 
> It should be stressed, that during the previous years of Saakashvili precedence all the economical recourses of the Georgian nation were thrown to the organization of war with Osetia and Abchasia. Young people for years practiced military trainings with NATO instructors. The army increased its might in thirty times. At the same time the main Georgian population reached the lowest levels of poverty and degradation.
> 
> For the forth day Georgian side continue large-caliber shooting in the parts of the city. Up till now wounded people cant get water, medicine and medical help. Russian troops continue displacement of the Georgian troops from the regions of the city.



http://evrazia.org/article.php?id=580



[Edited to include Quotes, where original poster "forgot".]


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

oligarch said:
			
		

> In a move typical of members of a democratic and free society, I see I am no longer allowed to edit my posts.



This is a PRIVATE website with rules and you broke them.............stop whining.

If I was to go to a website forum like, say  this one  and not want to follow the rules as agreed to,  what would happen?


----------



## George Wallace

jj11ssmm 

We frown on posting verbatim published articles without the necessary credits.  You have made a post that insinuates that it is your own words, when none of them are, everything being from a news article.  If you want to contribute, please post your own comments and properly credit the works of other authors.

Perhaps you should have a look at our Rules of Conduct, and our Policy on posting of entire articles- EVERYONE PLEASE READ!!!

Another point, as you just registered and posted this canned post immediately, we already have a topic discussing the events in Georgia.


As it looks like you may have missed or ignored this on registration, I will post you a welcome:




Welcome to Army.ca. Here are some reading references that are core to how Army.ca operates. I strongly recommend you take a moment to read through these to give you a better sense for the environment here. It will help you avoid the common pitfalls which can result in miscommunication and confusion. For those that choose not to read, their actions often lead to warnings being issued or even permanent bans.

*Army.ca Conduct Guidelines*: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

Tone and Content on Army.ca: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

*Frequently Asked Questions - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41136.0.html*

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html
Army.ca Wiki Recruiting FAQ - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions
Canadian Forces Aptitude Test - http://army.ca/forums/threads/21101/post-103977.html#msg103977
Fitness requirements at enrolment, see page 12 of this brochure: http://64.254.158.112/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf


Infantry Specific FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html

CFAT practice test - http://64.254.158.112/pdf/preparing_for_aptitude_test_en.pdf

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Google search of Army.ca - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Aarmy.ca+%22search+term%22&btnG=Search&meta= (follow the link then replace "search term" with what you are looking for)

Army.ca wiki pages  - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.


----------



## TacticalW

oligarch said:
			
		

> I see.... so what kind of proof are you looking for? As for it being aired, you really need to take a look at Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Ethnic cleansing occured because ... not pay attention you might miss it again...  GEORGIAN forces BOMBED CIVILIANS OF A PARTICULAR DISTINCT RACE, THAT BEING OSSETIAN. They bombed a city which they knew is populated by Ossetians, resulting in over 1500 deaths, 2000 according to Russian sources (not disputed by the west by the way), and this qualifies as ethnic cleasing. Clear enough?



I have seen numbers go anywhere from 40 to 2000, I'd say no one knows the "actual" casualty number, including Russia. As for ethnic cleansing, I doubt they were targeting the citizens specifically and many of the "stories" of atrocities can easily be argued against. Make sure to watch the words you say there, you're devolving into insults again. 

The proof would be pictures/video of the atrocities actually happening, thorough investigations from a third party and things of that nature. For those major claims, you have nothing. Shellings are common in battle and they didn't really have that much else available to use for that purpose. They more then likely wouldn't have to if the Russians didn't support and fund the rebels and if things didn't get set up like this. 

The bottomline is that Russia has a "lot" to gain from this and all of the evidence points to them trying to jump-start this "event". If that news article on the cyber warfare is true, well that's just more ammo to the already credible list of facts behind them wanting a heavy handed reaction and forcing it.


----------



## vonGarvin

The media is all over the place.  Remember, for everyone, the first casualty in war is truth.  Such as the charade that Mikheil Saakashvili put on when his bodyguards covered him with flak jackets, everyone looking "with fear" to above.  Of course, the Russians weren't bombing just then.  Winston Churchill would have been ashamed!
Then, on the other side, Pravda says that "USA shows its meanness again as Russia mourns victims of genocide".  Whom to believe?  I'm not sure.  I do remember the French reporter taking several staged shots in 2006 in Lebanon.  Same girl was portrayed as several girls killed by Israelis.
Remember, just as the Western Press only reports bad news out of Afghanistan, does everyone here honestly think that only one side is telling the truth in Georgia right now?
So, to all, I would offer "Be objective" and "think critically" when you read or hear about Georgia.  To illustrate, the following are pretty well verified by all media
On or about 8 August, Georgia shelled into South Ossetia.  Why?  That's debatable.
On or about 9 August, Russia attacked into South Ossetia.  Why?  That too is debatable.
Anything beyond that, at this point, is speculation, I would offer.


----------



## JackD

In regard to genocidal activities within the enclave - I found this arcticle posted on the CBC website: the account of outside observers: 
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080813/w081305A.html

Heavy damage in Tskhinvali, mostly at government centre
Published: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 | 12:53 AM ET
Canadian Press: Douglas Birch, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TSKHINVALI, Georgia - Gutted and shrapnel-scarred buildings testify to fierce street battles and heavy rocket and bomb attacks in the separatist capital of South Ossetia. But there is little evidence civilians were specifically targeted by Georgian troops, as Russia claims.
During a visit Tuesday arranged by the Russian government, journalists from The Associated Press and other Western media were escorted into the city aboard armoured vehicles.
Reporters witnessed more than a dozen fires in what appeared to be deserted ethnic Georgian neighbourhoods and saw evidence of looting in those areas.
The heaviest damage from the recent fighting appeared to be around Tskhinvali's government center. More than a dozen buildings in the area were little more than scorched shells.
Several residential areas seemed to have little damage, except for shattered windows, perhaps from bomb concussions.
Near the city center, on Moscow Street, pieces of tanks lay in a heap near a bomb crater. The turret of one tank was blown into the front of the printing school across the street. A severed foot lay on the sidewalk nearby.
Continue Article
Salima Grapova, a 41-year-old music teacher pointed to the blast damage at the intersection, which is one of the hardest hit spots. A theatre, typesetting school and an apartment house were heavily damaged or destroyed.
"Here every rock had blood on it," she said of the fierce fighting. Asked why her neighbourhood had suffered, she noted that the train station and other government targets were nearby.
Outside town, dozens of houses burned along the main road. A Russian officer said some of the buildings had been burning for days and others were damaged the previous night during an airstrike by a single Georgian plane.
When an AP photographer rode through the same villages Monday morning, none of the houses was burning. The fires only began Monday night, more than 24 hours after the battle for the city was over.
Georgia's security council said Tuesday it filed suit against Russia in the International Court of Justice, alleging Russian troops who intervened in the conflict are trying to drive ethnic Georgians out of South Ossetia and another breakaway area, Abkhazia.
That claim came after Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and other Kremlin officials accused Georgia of committing genocide after launching its offensive last week, including missile attacks, to try to retake control of this region populated by ethnic Ossetians.
Russian officials in Tskhnivali echoed that theme during the visit by reporters Tuesday.
Army Col. Igor Kononenko showed off a civilian neighbourhood, once part of the old Jewish quarter, that sustained extensive damage. He said that was proof the Georgians targeted civilians.
"This street is very small, tanks can't go through here," he said, arguing there was no military reason for the Georgian military to shell the neighborhood.
However, the district stands on a hillside in the line of fire between Georgian rocket position and Tskhinvali's government center, located around the university. Some civilians in the area conceded Georgian fire at the government building might have fallen short.
At the regional hospital, doctors said the patients were moved to the basement during Georgia's bombardment of the city, and had to do without light, water or toilets. The dungeon-like rooms still stank of sewage Tuesday, while sheets and bandages were stained with blood.
Dr. Tina Zhakarova, who said the hospital had treated 224 patients during the fighting, called the Georgian assault on the city an act of ethnic cleansing.
Noting the medical facility had been damaged, she held out a handful of shrapnel to reporters. Doctors can protect people from disease, she said. "How can we protect them against this?"
But from the outside, the hospital appeared to have only light damage, either from bullets or shrapnel. Most of the windows were shattered.
Russian army officers said a Georgian missile pierced the hospital's roof and caused damage not visible on the outside. But they refused to show reporters the destruction, saying it was not safe.
Georgian authorities also have charged misdeeds by Russian troops and their allies.
An AP photographer saw irregular troops near burning homes in ethnic Georgian villages, and there was evidence of looting in those areas.
At an Ezeit electronics store with smashed windows, a few appliances stood outside, but most of the stock seemed to be gone.
Nearby, a man in dark glasses, camouflage and a Kalashnikov assault rifle drove a tractor hauling what looked like a large refrigerator partly visible under a blanket. A car went down the road with two new satellite dishes on top.
Much of South Ossetia has become an armed camp after fighting that Russian officials said had killed 2,000 Ossetians.
Two rocket launchers stood in an alpine meadow near grazing cows Tuesday. Resorts, picnic areas and a school had become impromptu military bases. A long line of Russian army trucks headed south day and night on mountain roads toward Tskhinvali.
In the capital, meanwhile, the few residents left didn't appear to have much to do except mourn their dead. Many complained bitterly about alleged Georgian "fascism."
Sporadic fighting. There was artillery fire, apparently aimed at suspected Georgian positions, and anti-aircraft missile was fired. No aircraft was visible from the ground, and nothing appeared to be hit.
Asked whether Russian forces planned to push deeper into Georgia, Kononenko, the army colonel, said he had orders not to move his troops. "We are staying here," he said.
-
Associated Press Writer Musa Sadulayev contributed to this report.
© The Canadian Press, 2008

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080813/w081305A.html


----------



## geo

.... so, Russian troops have liberated the proletariat of South Ossetia from Georgian opression.
And now the Russian troops have declared that they are staying.
Soo.... is this going to be protective custody - like they provided to East Germany, Czecoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and all those other eastern block countries they protected between 1945 and 1990 ???


----------



## vonGarvin

geo said:
			
		

> .... so, Russian troops have liberated the proletariat of South Ossetia from Georgian opression.
> And now the Russian troops have declared that they are staying.
> Soo.... is this going to be protective custody - like they provided to East Germany, Czecoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and all those other eastern block countries they protected between 1945 and 1990 ???


I hardly think so.  South Ossetians, for the most part, carry Russian Passports.  East Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles etc didn't.


----------



## vonGarvin

Reports: Russians moving deeper into Georgia


> TBILISI, Georgia (CNN) -- A convoy of Russian armored personnel carriers was heading deeper into Georgia Wednesday, CNN Correspondent Matthew Chance reported.
> Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili says Russia has continued to attack the city of Gori. 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.


So, that's what the story said in the main body.  In the "tag line" on the main page, it said this:


> Russian tanks were heading deeper into Georgia today on a road that leads to the capital, Tbilisi, witnesses at Gori said. CNN's Matthew Chance, on the road with the Russian column, reports *armored personnel carriers filled with hundreds of men were moving slowly in the direction of the capital *



This is what I mean.  In the tag line on the main page, one would assume that the Russians were heading to Tbilisi.  If you read it critically, you see that they were heading "in that direction."  In the article, posted 7 minutes before I got to the page, it shows that they were heading to that abandoned military base.

Another interesting point.  CNN tracks the "top ten" viewed articles.  
They were:
Loyal dog guards owner after death
Tips to think faster on your feets
'Pregnancy pact' principle resigns
Sheriff groped me, deputy says
'Virgin' actor charged in stabbing
Bear mauls man, son
Mom held in boy's alleged cult death
'Russia rampaging through town'
Stroke blamed in Hayes' death
Dungeon man faces slavery charge

So, tell me, is the news media an information service, or entertainment, or both?  This, I think, illustrates why anything reported anywhere ought to be viewed critically.


----------



## geo

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I hardly think so.  South Ossetians, for the most part, carry Russian Passports.  East Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles etc didn't.


Russian passports?
Is this a holdover from the Soviet days where they obtained automatic citzenship when the USSR rolled up on itself or are these more recent immigrants to the region?
(Lord knows, when the UK started handing back their collonies to the local populations, lots and lots of colonials obtained their UK passports - though I believe that loophole was closed by the time Hong Kong was returned to China.)


----------



## stegner

> Russian passports?
> Is this a holdover from the Soviet days where they obtained automatic citzenship when the USSR rolled up on itself or are these more recent immigrants to the region?
> (Lord knows, when the UK started handing back their collonies to the local populations, lots and lots of colonials obtained their UK passports - though I believe that loophole was closed by the time Hong Kong was returned to China.)



Ossetians are essentially a Christian Persian or Iranian ethnic group.  They are kind of like the Kurds in that they do not have an independent homeland.   This conflict presently, is merely a continuation of the first major Georgian-Ossetian conflict that took place from 1918-1920.   Many Ossetians felt they were better treated under the Soviets than under the Georgians historically and have retained their Russian passports to indicate their desire to be 'Russians'  rather than 'Georgians,' as the believe that Russia will defend their interests.  The Ossetians are allies with the Russians in fights with the Ingush and Chechens.   The conflict in 1991-92 saw the Russians and Ossetians facing off against Chechens and the Ingush militias.


----------



## Kirkhill

> But it has vowed to defend its citizens in South Ossetia - of which there are many. More than half of South Ossetia's 70,000 citizens are said to have taken up Moscow's offer of a Russian passport.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7549736.stm

The rest of the link gives the BBC's version of a canned history.

I am afraid that I am of the opinion that SOME sort of military intervention by the EU or NATO or the US is required.  Not on the front lines perhaps but certainly a Battalion/Brigade sized demonstration force deployed to uncontestably Georgian ground - like Tblisi itself.

This is analogous to the end of WWII.  The Russians moved into a vacuum created by a West that was very happy with itself for defeating Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini and just wanted to pack up and study war no more.  That resulted in Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians and even Germans ,living under unfriendly foreign occupation for almost 50 years.

If the US doesn't act firmly (I would love the EU/NATO to act firmly but the Stars of NATO and the EU should perhaps be replaced by the Mythical Spaghetti Bush of Richard Dimbleby fame), then all of those Nations will have to look to their own devices making for an even more unpredictable and unstable situation.

Ukrainia, (literally "The Borderland") is a special case as it alway has been.  The Principality of Kiev has always been a nexus of trade between East and West, as well as North and South.  The same is true of Tbilisi.

The US needs to visibly support its Eastern Allies.  I would like NATO to do the same thing aber sie haben keine sputzen.  And Vladimir knows it.

A forward deployment of USAF tactical assets into Poland and Hungary might send the appropriate message as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

> ....But NATO ambassadors meeting in Brussels blasted Moscow for "an excessive, disproportionate use of force," and renewed their support for Georgia to ultimately join the military alliance.
> 
> ....In a show of defiance to the Russian attacks, 100,000 people packed the main Rustaveli avenue of Tbilisi, where a sea of red-and-white Georgian flags waved above the crowds.
> 
> President Mikheil Saakashvili told a rally that Georgia would quit the Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a grouping of former Soviet states, and urged Ukraine to follow suit.
> 
> Georgia has received strong support from other former communist states with the leaders of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states travelling to Tbilisi where they addressed a mass rally.
> 
> "You have the right to freedom and independence. We are here to demonstrate our solidarity ... freedom is worth fighting for," shouted Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in live pictures carried by Georgian television.....



http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gMdd8JLLbK-2-v3dR8eJql7VdalA

I am not surprised by the actions of the leaders of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States.  I have to admit that the words of the NATO ambassadors surprise me.  Maybe the prospect of long, cold winters is stiffening their resolve.

Another interesting factor in this is the relatively positive play that the Georgian position is receiving in Agence France Presse.  Does Sarkozy get a chance to play for Man of the Hour as both President of France and President of the EU?  The Anti-DeGaulle DeGaulle?


----------



## stegner

> I am afraid that I am of the opinion that SOME sort of military intervention by the EU or NATO or the US is required.



I disagree.  The Caucus region is within Russia's sphere of influence and they are entitled to their own Monroe Doctrine in that region, just as the U.S is entitled to exercises its discretion in the western hemisphere, whether it is Panama, El Salvador or Grenada (remember in 1983 when the U.S invaded the territory of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II).  How would the U.S react if the Russians started to  play a major role in the Western Hemisphere such as sending Special Forces units to train soldiers of countries that are not friendly to the U.S?  The U.S has been doing this in the Caucus for several years now.  Or what about permanently stationing troops (i.e. a Spetnaz Company) in Central or South America as the U.S has done in the Caucus.   The U.S would crap its pants.   It can dish it out but can't take it in.  The U.S is still refusing to have normal relations with Cuba as it had cooperated too greatly with the Soviets. What you suggest will only escalate the situation and besides the west has no business in Georgia or the Caucus or the immense oil deposits therein.  If the U.S signed off on the Georgian adventure in South Ossetia in the hopes that it would facilitate pipeline construction than it must share the blame in the reaction of the Russians.  Many have described the Russians as a bully.  Sure they are.  Most great powers are.  Let's not forget that our ally, the U.S, the hyper-power, is a bully too and is hypocritical at times. Russia is aggressively defending the South Ossetians, but let's be clear they are also in dialogue with its neighbours and the U.S and NATO: Don't poke the Bear!  

Btw The deal of the Second World War among the allies was that if you conquer the territory you get to administer it after the war was over.  Why should millions of Russians die to serve Western interests is what many Soviet policy makers thought at the time and so they tried to convert their territories to communism.   If the west had a problem of the territorial arrangements they should have fought Germany more effectively.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stegner, I regret that I believe you to be a bit behind the times.  The Communists were indeed supporting local sympathizers in the US's Backyard for many years, directly in aid to Cuba, indirectly in using Russian trained Cubans to assist locals (and Africans in the case of Angola) and covertly in supplying training facilities in places like Libya to various Liberation Fronts.

With respect to hypocrisy....personally I don't have much difficulty recognizing substantive differences between the US and Putin's kleptocracy (well done Thucydides) that allow me to rationalize the US as a very different and, I daresay, better global citizen, than Russia.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With respect to hypocrisy....personally I don't have much difficulty recognizing substantive differences between the US and Putin's kleptocracy (well done Thucydides) that allow me to rationalize *the US as a very different and, I daresay, better global citizen, than Russia.*


Many people debate that point; however, I don't think that the US=White Knight and Russia=Black Knight.
Did Georgia go after South Ossetia?  Yes.  BM-21 Grads and all.  Was it provoked?  I'm pretty sure.  Did Russia go in with "overwhelming" force against Georgia?  Most certainly, Su-25s and all.  
In my opinion (and my opinion only), Georgia's recent actions appear to be of a little pissant nation trying to get its own way through force, thinking (perhaps wrongly) that NATO (read: The USA) would come and help them once the Bear hit back on them.  The Georgian's aren't idiots: they KNEW that if they went into an enclave of persons whom Russia considers Russian citizens, Russia would hit back, and hard.  I don't think that they foresaw the speed with which the Russians reacted.  Having said that, I'm fairly certain that Russia had a number of contingency plans, and I'm also fairly certain that the Russians saw evidence of an impending Georgian foray into South Ossetia, thereby prepping "Plan 9 from Caucasus".  Unlike our massive, lumbering divisions, the Russians can launch theirs fairly quickly.  I mean, they didn't do a strategic recce, set up a Theatre Activation Team, do up an HLTA plan, organise airlift, give cultural briefs, etc and so forth.  Remember, we use precision munitions because we, in the west, prefer to avoid killing when we go to war.  The Russians have no such qualms, which is why they use things like the 9P140 URAGAN  (Hurricane) and the 9K58 SMERCH  ("Tornado").  We know it, the Russians know it and the Georgians certainly know it.  And if they didn't, they certainly do now.


----------



## stegner

> Stegner, I regret that I believe you to be a bit behind the times.  The Communists were indeed supporting local sympathizers in the US's Backyard for many years, directly in aid to Cuba, indirectly in using Russian trained Cubans to assist locals (and Africans in the case of Angola) and covertly in supplying training facilities in places like Libya to various Liberation Fronts.



No I realize the Soviets were active in South and Central America-though mostly indirectly as part of the series of Cold War proxy wars.  There was no need to train the Contras when you could get the Cubans to do it for you.  I am talking about right now.  The U.S thinks that the Monroe Doctrine applies globally.   My contention is that they think the entire world is their backyard and they get upset whenever anyone else invades a country.  The U.S does not have a monopoly on invading smaller countries and regime change.   They have to realize the limitations of their Empire.   If they don't imperial overstretch is not far behind.   I subscribe to neither the belief that Russians or Americans impetuses are required for a better global citizen.  Btw Is not Vice-President Cheney a kleptocrat?  What about the Congress or the Senate?  I have not thought of those bodies as legislative bodies, but rather bodies for pork-barreling.


----------



## vonGarvin

Interesting article here

Samples:
The military operation in Georgia will serve ``as a warning'' to Ukraine that it should desist from petitioning for NATO entry, said Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``Otherwise, Moscow may intervene to protect the allegedly threatened interests of the Russian population.'' 
--------------
``If (Russia) reacts too violently against Ukraine, then it risks provoking the reaction it least wants: trade and investment barriers for its companies, a more antagonistic approach to energy transit, and above all, it risks scaring Ukraine into seeking western protection,'' he said. 
--------------
Germany and France opposed NATO entry for Georgia, a country of 4.6 million people that is almost as big as the U.S. state of South Carolina, and Ukraine because of the Georgian separatist disputes and opposition to membership among some Ukrainians. They now will feel their concerns have been justified, said Cliff Kupchan of New-York based Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm.


----------



## oligarch

To the individual who has neard numbers from 40 to 2000, you are mixing up numbers from Gori and from Tshinivali. The innocent civilians killed by the Russian side in Gori when bombing military instalations (grad systems, particularily) near and in Gori range from 20-60 from different sources. The numbers in Tshinivali actually range from 1400 from the most conservative to 2000.

Calling the president a "thug" is just unacceptable and insulting. It's probably best not to respond to provocation.

With regard to Georgia allegedly getting for a ceasefire through the media, there was no official note directed to the Russian ministry for foreign affairs or defence ministry, and firing from the Georgian side continued. The allegations that there was a ceasefire as Russians continued to advance are complete falsehood and lies.

With regard to me breaking the rules. I disagree that I broke any rules. Please cite WHICH rule I broke and what I said to brake it. Otherwise, I kindly request that my "warning" be removed. I just want to know what I did wrong... you know... just so I don't accidentally do it again.

With regard to the Georgian side which was "begging for a ceasefire", it is apparent that it is continuing millitary operations even in light of an actual ceasefire (see below). Can it really be trusted?

With regard to Georgia being a "beacon of democracy", see this: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=17670 
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irakli_Okruashvili 
and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t95x5-0dKlo&feature=related 
and this even this (warning BBC news):  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7084357.stm

-------------------------------------------------------

Russian troops down Georgian drone over S. Ossetia 
19:46 | 13/ 08/ 2008 
   
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080813/116017256.html 

MOSCOW, August 13 (RIA Novosti) - Russian peacekeepers shot down a Georgian unmanned reconnaissance plane over the capital of breakaway South Ossetia on Wednesday, a Defense Ministry official said. 

"Despite Georgia's assurances that it would end military action, a Georgian unmanned drone was detected over Tskhinvali on Wednesday. ... Russian peacekeepers shot it down," the official said. 

The spokesman said the drone was downed around 17:30 [13:30 GMT] and was the second reconnaissance aircraft to be shot down over the region since last night. 

At least eight flights by reconnaissance drones over the separatist republic were reported by Russian peacekeepers last Thursday, a day before Georgia launched its devastating military offensive on South Ossetia August 8. 

---------------------

With regard to the individual who wants more proof; unfortunately, I can't show you 2000 pictures of the dead. There are images of the shelling of the city, which is exactly what is alleged. Russia is claiming the shelling of racially unique areas to be GENOCIDE.


----------



## JackD

"calling the president a thug is just unacceptable and insulting. It's probably best not to respond to provocation' - so what do you suggest - pistols at dawn? 

Nice term 'peacekeepers' Do they wear blue helmets? Are they paid by the United Nations? Are they minimally armed? Are they neutral? I happened to know a bit about peacekeeping as I had been in Cyprus and Egypt.. To use the term ''peacekeeper" is a travesty in this context and reflects badly upon the United Nations.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Looks like everyones still in a pissy mood and cooler heads aren't prevailing.  :-\

http://www.torontosun.com/News/World/2008/08/13/6435116.html


----------



## Haggis

oligarch said:
			
		

> With regard to me breaking the rules. I disagree that I broke any rules. Please cite WHICH rule I broke and what I said to brake it. Otherwise, I kindly request that my "warning" be removed. I just want to know what I did wrong... you know... just so I don't accidentally do it again.



It took me, like, 30 seconds to find out why you've received a warning here.  You seem to put considerable effort into pleading your case on behalf of Russia but little on behalf of yourself.  Try it!



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> With regard to the Georgian side which was "begging for a ceasefire", it is apparent that it is continuing millitary operations even in light of an actual ceasefire (see below). Can it really be trusted?



Can Russia be trusted?  According to CBC News, Russia is not being as forthright and cooperative as you would like us to believe

"Also on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said his country's "peacekeepers" will remain in South Ossetia, an apparent violation of the ceasefire terms."


----------



## oligarch

JackD said:
			
		

> "calling the president a thug is just unacceptable and insulting. It's probably best not to respond to provocation' - so what do you suggest - pistols at dawn?
> 
> Nice term 'peacekeepers' Do they wear blue helmets? Are they paid by the United Nations? Are they minimally armed? Are they neutral? I happened to know a bit about peacekeeping as I had been in Cyprus and Egypt.. To use the term ''peacekeeper" is a travesty in this context and reflects badly upon the United Nations.




The answers to all those questions are "yes", except for them being paid by the UN, I am not certain who they are paid by. They are there on a UN mandate and on the mandate from a trilateral agreement between Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia. A peacekeeping force of Ossetians, Russians, and Georgians was established. On November 6, 1992, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) set up a Mission in Georgia to monitor the peacekeeping operation. They were neutral and measured for 16 years untill the Georgian side attacked and killed 12 of them... or is it 15 I've lost count by now. It reflects badly upon the United Nations to you because you are terribly misinformed about the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It also reflects badly upon the United Nations 

Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the U.N., responds to the crisis in South Ossetia on CNN: 

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvFhb9RZjeU
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds4MO2RrN_c
3 PART 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMcC6wbgPTE
3 PART 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq39RVL1BGQ


----------



## Franko

oligarch said:
			
		

> With regard to me breaking the rules. I disagree that I broke any rules. Please cite WHICH rule I broke and what I said to brake it. Otherwise, I kindly request that my "warning" be removed.



Go right ahead and disagree...the warning stands.

Keep trolling and you'll be bumped up further.

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## meni0n

They were anything but neutral in that region oligarch. To claim otherwise is just ludicrous.


----------



## George Wallace

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Looks like everyones still in a pissy mood and cooler heads aren't prevailing.  :-\
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/News/World/2008/08/13/6435116.html



I am surprised that oligarch hasn't commented on this.  Perhaps (s)he only posts links, but never checks out other people's posted links.  

That is why I personally don't take empty profiles as being credible.


----------



## oligarch

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am surprised that oligarch hasn't commented on this.  Perhaps (s)he only posts links, but never checks out other people's posted links.
> 
> That is why I personally don't take empty profiles as being credible.



I'll take the method employed by some on this forum and ask for proof. Just as you consider Russian media not to be credible, I consider the AP not to be credible. 



> They were anything but neutral... to claim otherwise is just ludicrous



They were neutral... to claim otherwise is just ludicrous. You say the Russian side has provoked this. Why? In order to return things to the status quo? Seems like an aweful waste of resources.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

As i have said earlier in this thread one's opinion is reflected in one's political or social outlook, not everyone will agree with everything.

 As i have also stated there are thruths and lies on BOTH sides of this, however the fact innocent people are trapped in the middle is making fodder of who is doing what to whom and why at this point.

Unless all sides are willing to sit together at a table and find a resolution, there will be nothing left to fight over but potholes and dirt.


Cheers.


----------



## Haggis

oligarch said:
			
		

> They were neutral... to claim otherwise is just ludicrous. You say the Russian side has provoked this. Why? In order to return things to the status quo? Seems like an aweful waste of resources.



Circular argument.  This will get us nowhere.

It would seem that you expect, no, DEMAND that we take the word of the Russian media at face value but you refuse to accept, for example, that the AP's verison may be accurate as well.  Why is that.

I now return this thread to it's ongoing curcular argument.

(Edited to keep it civil.)


----------



## wolfshadow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7557049.stm

An interesting analysis piece over at BBC.  One of the regulars earlier was saying that there was a good chance that this was about energy supplies. (Natural Gas mainly, I think)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

wolfshadow said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7557049.stm
> 
> An interesting analysis piece over at BBC.  One of the regulars earlier was saying that there was a good chance that this was about energy supplies. (Natural Gas mainly, I think)



Watching Glenn Beck last night and he was pretty convincing thats ALL this is about......controlling the pipeline.


----------



## wolfshadow

So do the regluars here think that this boosts or harms Ukraine's chances of getting into NATO?  My best friend and I had quite the discussion over this last night.


----------



## vonGarvin

France and Germany both opposed both Georgian and Ukrainian acceptance into NATO.  See my earlier post re: article on Bloomberg news.


----------



## vonGarvin

meni0n said:
			
		

> They were anything but neutral in that region oligarch. To claim otherwise is just ludicrous.


What of the Georgian peacekeepers there?  The Ossetian peacekeepers there?

All three parties had interests in the region (as is painfully apparent now).  The OSCE monitored the peacekeeping operations there.  There have in the past been some conflicts, actions, incidents and so forth, but until the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia, things have been relatively quiet.


----------



## meni0n

From UNSC:

On 1 August, at about 8 a.m. Tbilisi time, a
pickup vehicle containing six Georgian police officers
was hit by two remote-control explosive devices. As a
result of that attack, five Georgian policemen were
severely wounded. The central authorities decided not
to retaliate, so as not to escalate the situation.

On 2 August, six civilians and one Georgian
policeman were injured during the overnight shelling
of seven Georgian villages in the South Ossetian
conflict zone. The seven Georgian-controlled villages
came under intense fire from South Ossetian separatists
using large-calibre mortars. Georgian law-enforcement
personnel fired back defensively for some time but
then received a ceasefire order aimed at not escalating
the situation.

Late on 6 August, separatists opened fire with
mortars on Georgian-populated villages: Eredvi and
four others. Georgian Government forces fired back to
defend the civilian population. As a result of intense
crossfire during the night, two servicemen belonging to
the Georgian battalion of the Joint Peacekeeping
Forces were injured.

Overnight and in the early-morning hours of
7 August, intensive fire came from four positions in
various Ossetian villages. The separatist authorities
continued firing on Georgian law-enforcement
personnel and peacekeeping units with mortars and
artillery. The central authorities responded with limited
fire in order to defend those positions.


You can find collaborating information in plenty of sources. This is anything but quiet.


----------



## Blackadder1916

meni0n said:
			
		

> From UNSC:
> 
> ( . . . )
> 
> You can find collaborating information in plenty of sources. This is anything but quiet.



Do you have a link to this "quote"?  While there may be many sources "collaborating" with one side or the other, most viewing this thread would prefer "corroborating" information.


----------



## meni0n

Link to the transcript is http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.5951&Lang=E .

For collaborating information, I have posted articles from CFR.org and Jamestown that have the same information of provocation by Russia. There are several Europe based publications that also repoted this, you can click on the URL Rock has pasted last page to read for yourself.


----------



## wannabe SF member

Is it me or the russian soldiers I've seen so far in this conflict are completely different than the image that the russian government had been conveying previously. Where's the professionnal and uniform army I've see in commercials and other medias. So far I've seen a pretty ragtag bunch.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Perhaps they are in new "Urban Camo" gear aimed at being indistinguishable from it's enemy of the day.   ;D


----------



## Haggis

The incongruous said:
			
		

> Is it me or the russian soldiers I've seen so far in this conflict are completely different than the image that the russian government had been conveying previously. Where's the professionnal and uniform army I've see in commercials and other medias. So far I've seen a pretty ragtag bunch.



Careful, now.  Our troops in Afghanistan bear little resemblance to those well dressed, uniform and clean troops in the recruiting ads.  Does that mean we're unprofessional, too?

don't just slag the Russians. Check out the phots of the Georgians, too.  Uniforms of old and new(er) US Army temperate BDUs and USMC MARPAT.  Weapons of M4's, AK74's, AK47's M16's.  While I was there, I personally saw at least five different field uniforms of varying American vintage, both temperate and arid pattern on a daily basis.

(Edited because my spelling sucks when the sun goes down.)


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's a question for those in the know:   How DO you tell a Russian BMP from a Georgian BMP?  Paint job?  The dialect in which the return rollers squeak?

I can imagine it must be pretty difficult to determine whose vehicles are going which direction at what time.


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I can imagine it must be pretty difficult to determine whose vehicles are going which direction at what time.



Rule of thumb:  If it has its gun pointed in your direction, it is not Friendly.  If it has its gun over the Backdeck, it is Friendly.  The gun should always be pointed at the ENEMY.  If it is pointed at you, it is the ENEMY.


----------



## tomahawk6

Some video of abandoned Georgian equipment.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=633_1218601283


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the Heads Up George.  

Most of the vids that I have seen so far, including of "retreating" Georgians, seem to have had their guns over their front decks.  IIRC anyway.


----------



## tomahawk6

Georgian tank struck from the rear by air or arty.


----------



## wannabe SF member

What happens to all that anyways, have the russians been known to scavenge?


----------



## Franko

The incongruous said:
			
		

> What happens to all that anyways, have the russians been known to scavenge?



Not much to scavenge off a brewed up tank....especially a T Series. 

Note the turret on the right tank...there is nothing of use in them at all.

Regards


----------



## armyca08

> 2. The Russians had some largely free and pretty fair elections and they decided, freely and fairly and for themselves, to elect Stalinist thugs - thugs who promised them that they would "matter" once again.



I just felt like adding a little bit of humour --- did you know Stalin was Georgian? Sort of ironic you would use the term stalanist to decribe Russian Thugs attacking Georgia. 

Although I tend to see this conflict oddly, Russia has done nothing Georgia has not done - although I don't get the sinking of the boats..  maybe it has something to do with subs... anyway...

I thought I'd add Gori was taken before the Ceasefire - Russia then withdrew from the City.. so stating activity in and around the ceasefire as evidence the ceasefire was broken seems not to valid.. Russia stated they would respond to any attacks within their zones of occupation... 

Although I honestly think the flames are being fanned... I'm starting to think a lot of people would like to make more of this.  

I do think Russia is not trying to draw first blood  - but it isn't going to hit first hard - I could be mistaken but it seems that it will continue going on about things finish the collatoral issues, and wait for

A PEACE TREATY and DEMARCATION... 


STALIN BORN IN --------


GORI, GEORGIA.....


----------



## JackD

On a technical basis - the catastrophic failure of the tanks shown in the pictures supplied by Mr. Tomahawk6 are quite evident (to me) that the quality of  Russian designed armour used in this conflict lags far behind Western designs. The attempt to update them with reaction armour is evident.  I can't recall one picture/account of current Western armour failing in such a manner. I'm long out of the loop, but those are T-80's  aren't they? What say the experts?


----------



## wolfshadow

I can't see the front glacis, but IIRC, The Georgians are using T-72s.


----------



## oligarch

wolfshadow said:
			
		

> So do the regluars here think that this boosts or harms Ukraine's chances of getting into NATO?  My best friend and I had quite the discussion over this last night.



It boosts Ukraine's chances of getting into NATO. Yushenko will unquestionably use this as an example of "Russian Agression" to push for a membership action plan in December. Whether Germany will hold their ground is the question that will decide this.


----------



## JackD

Well.. the latest in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/europe/14georgia.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

14, 2008
Bush, Sending Aid, Demands That Moscow Withdraw 
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
This article was reported by Steven Lee Myers, Sabrina Tavernise and Ellen Barry and written by Mr. Myers.

WASHINGTON — President Bush sent American troops to Georgia on Wednesday to oversee a “vigorous and ongoing” humanitarian mission, in a direct challenge to Russia’s display of military dominance over the region. His action came after Russian soldiers moved into two strategic Georgian cities in what he and Georgian officials called a violation of the cease-fire Russia agreed to earlier in the day.

Mr. Bush demanded that Russia abide by the cease-fire and withdraw its forces or risk its place in “the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century.” It was his strongest warning yet of potential retaliation against Russia over the conflict.

The decision to send the American military, even on a humanitarian mission, deepened the United States’ commitment to Georgia and America’s allies in the former Soviet sphere, just as Russia has been determined to reassert its control in the area. 

On a day the White House evoked emotional memories of the cold war, a senior Pentagon official said the relief effort was intended “to show to Russia that we can come to the aid of a European ally, and that we can do it at will, whenever and wherever we want.” At a minimum, American forces in Georgia will test Russia’s pledge to allow relief supplies into the country; they could also deter further Russian attacks, though at the risk of a potential military confrontation.

“We expect Russia to ensure that all lines of communication and transport, including seaports, airports, roads and airspace, remain open for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and for civilian transit,” Mr. Bush said. “We expect Russia to meet its commitment to cease all military activities in Georgia, and we expect all Russian forces that entered Georgia in recent days to withdraw from that country.”

In Georgia, President Mikheil Saakashvili, who has sharply criticized what he called a failure of the West to support his country, declared the relief operation a “turning point” in the conflict, which began on Thursday when Georgian forces tried to establish control in the breakaway region of South Ossetia, only to be routed by the Russians.

“We were unhappy with the initial actions of the American officials, because they were perceived by the Russians as green lines, basically, but this one was very strong,” he said in a telephone interview after Mr. Bush’s statement in Washington.

Mr. Saakashvili interpreted the aid operation as a decision to defend Georgia’s ports and airports, though Bush administration and Pentagon officials quickly made it clear that would not be the case. A senior administration official said, “We won’t be protecting the airport or seaport, but we’ll certainly protect our assets if we need to.”

Mr. Bush spoke in the Rose Garden of the White House, flanked by his secretaries of state and defense, Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates. He said that Ms. Rice would fly to France to support its mediation efforts and then to Georgia “to continue our efforts to rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia.” 

State Department officials said there were no plans for Ms. Rice to go to Moscow.

Mr. Bush’s remarks, like the military operation he ordered, reflected a growing apprehension within the White House over Russia’s offensive, as well as mounting frustration that Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, whom Mr. Bush often calls a friend, was unmoved by appeals for moderation. Underscoring the urgency, Mr. Bush, who had remained at the Olympics in Beijing while the conflict erupted, postponed a planned trip to his ranch in Crawford, Tex., which was to have begun on Thursday.

The first relief aircraft, a C-17 transporter carrying medical supplies and materials for shelter for thousands displaced by the fighting, arrived in Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, on Wednesday; a second was due Thursday. 

Ms. Rice called her Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, and informed him about the relief operation. The presence of American troops to help the aid mission will also allow the United States to monitor whether Russia was honoring the cease-fire, brokered by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

At a news conference at the State Department, Ms. Rice evoked some of the darkest memories of the cold war, though she stopped well short of promises of direct military support to Georgia.

“This is not 1968, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can invade its neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it,” she said. “Things have changed.”

She and Mr. Bush gave credence to Georgia’s accusations that Russian forces continued to operate in violation of the cease-fire. Russia insisted that all of its operations were permitted under the agreement.

The cease-fire included a provision that required Russian forces to withdraw to their “normal bases of encampment” but also allowed them to “implement additional security measures.”

A senior American official said the vague language “would allow the Russians to do almost anything.”

Only hours after the agreement was reached, a Russian tank battalion occupied parts of Gori, a strategic city in central Georgia. Hundreds of additional Russian soldiers also poured over the border from Russia into South Ossetia, accompanied by fuel trucks and attack helicopters.

Gori is only 40 miles from the capital, and the presence of Russian forces there frayed nerves as rumors circulated of an attack on Tbilisi itself. A Russian battalion commander, at a checkpoint on the highway from Gori to the capital, spoke menacingly of Mr. Saakashvili.

“If he doesn’t understand the situation, we’ll have to go further,” the commander said on the condition of anonymity. “He doesn’t seem to understand that the Russian Army is much stronger than the Georgian Army. His tanks remain in their places. His air force is dead. His navy is also. His army is demoralized.”

Mr. Bush also cited reports that Russians had taken up positions in Poti, a port city on the Black Sea, and were blowing up Georgian ships. Russian officials denied that troops had occupied any cities, but some of the statements appeared to rest on technicalities of what constituted occupation.

In Russia, Mr. Lavrov, the foreign minister, warned the Bush administration that it risked a breach with Russia by throwing its support so strongly behind Georgia and its president.

“We understand that this current Georgian leadership is a special project of the United States,” he said, “but one day the United States will have to choose between defending its prestige over a virtual project or real partnership” with Russia.

He and other officials said that Russian troops in Georgia continued to conduct operations on Wednesday, but only in support of peacekeepers, a role explicitly permitted in the cease-fire signed by Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, and Mr. Saakashvili.

Mr. Lavrov said that when Georgian forces abandoned their military headquarters near Gori, they left “a major arsenal of armaments and military equipment” and that the Russian troops were now guarding it.

“To leave it in such a condition would be unforgivable,” he said. “The city residents have problems with food,” he added. “The Russian servicemen will provide them with necessary aid.”

One of the Russian commanders, Gen. Vyacheslav Nikolayevich of the Pskov Airborne Division, said Russian soldiers would remain on the outskirts of Gori but not enter the city. “People can get back to their lives,” he said.

Asked whether Mr. Bush’s relief mission made him nervous, he scoffed. “What can the Americans do to us?” he said. “A big country like Russia doesn’t fear America.”

Mr. Bush’s remarks were the toughest yet in the conflict. “Russia’s ongoing actions raise serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region,” he said. “In recent years, Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic, and security structures of the 21st century. The United States has supported those efforts. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions.”

Administration officials said that the United States would not take part in planned military exercises with Russia this weekend and that they were considering blocking Russia’s accession into the World Trade Organization and its participation in the Group of 8 industrialized nations.

“I don’t think that there’s any doubt that Russia has already in its actions called into question some of its desire to be integrated into these institutions,” Ms. Rice said Wednesday.

In South Ossetia, investigators began to look into accusations of atrocities. Human Rights Watch reported that researchers witnessed “terrifying scenes of destruction” in four ethnic Georgian villages, and said the villages had been looted and burned by South Ossetian militias. 

Anna Neistat, one of the researchers, said by telephone from Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, that they had found no evidence to substantiate Russian assertions of widespread brutality by Georgian troops. Human Rights Watch has been able to confirm fewer than 100 deaths.

Russian leaders have said they would like to bring Mr. Saakashvili to face war crimes charges in The Hague. Meanwhile, Georgia has filed a lawsuit against Russia at the International Court of Justice in The Hague for its actions on and around Georgia from 1991 to 2008, the court said in a statement.

At the United Nations, Security Council members continued informal but inconclusive consultations on the final draft of a resolution intended to codify the cease-fire. Foreign ministers from 27 European Union countries convened an emergency meeting in Brussels. 

It was a day on which Georgians were teased with signs that the Russians were — or were not — coming. There were a flurry of reports that Russian tanks were on the road from Gori to Tbilisi, but no tanks ever arrived there. 

In Senaki, Russian soldiers had occupied Lia Baramia’s cafe. She had fled when she heard about the fighting. When she returned, Russian soldiers had dug trenches in the cafe’s driveway and were using an outdoor tap to drink and bathe. They were friendly, she said, but she was happy when they left. Cows were munching on the leaves and grass the soldiers had used to camouflage their vehicles, and Ms. Baramia decided to reopen.

Within 10 minutes, a convoy of Russian personnel carriers sped back into town.

Steven Lee Myers reported from Washington, Sabrina Tavernise from Gori, Georgia, and Ellen Barry from Moscow. Reporting was contributed by Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper from Washington; Dan Schneider from the United Nations; and Andrew Kramer and C. J. Chivers from Tbilisi, Georgia.


Going back to those tanks - although the pictures are vague, would you speculate ambush? aerial attack? Or possibly abandonment and blown in situ? The reason I posit the latter is that the reaction armour doesn't seem to have blown. If ambush, then that would be poor infantry-armour cooperation; if air, then bad overwatch. In view of the pictorial and ancedotal evidence, if i was some defense official of some country equipped with such beasties, I'd park them fast and buy Toyota 4x4's instead.


----------



## JackD

I have been perusing the wikipedia article on the Munich Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement of September 1938.  The peace treaty (document of surrender) 'concluding' this war  was negotiated by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy. I rather hope he didn't hold up a piece of paper and declare "'We have peace in our time".....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ and _Globe and Mail_ respectively, are two articles that I find interesting:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=721453


> The West helped cause this war
> 
> Fred Kaplan, Slate.com
> 
> Published: Thursday, August 14, 2008
> 
> It is impossible to think about the Russian assault on Georgia without feeling like a heartless bastard or a romantic fool. Should we just let Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev roll their tanks into Tbilisi in recognition of Moscow's sphere of influence -- and let a fledgling democracy die? Or should we rally sanctions and mobilize troops -- none of which is likely to have any effect? Is there some third way, involving a level of diplomatic shrewdness that the Bush administration has rarely mustered?
> 
> Regardless of what happens next, it is worth asking what the Bush people were thinking when they egged on Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's young President, to apply for NATO membership, send 2,000 of his troops to Iraq as a U. S. ally and receive tactical training from our military. Did they think Putin would sit by and see another border state slip away to the West? If they thought that Putin might not, what did they plan to do about it?
> 
> It's heartbreaking to read so many Georgians quoted in The New York Times wondering when the United States is coming to their rescue. It's clear that Bush did everything to encourage them to believe that he would. When Bush pushed for Kosovo's independence from Serbia, Putin warned that he would do the same for pro-Russian secessionists elsewhere, by which he could only have meant Georgia's separatist regions. Putin had taken drastic steps in earlier disputes over those regions with an implicit threat that he could inflict greater punishment. Yet Bush continued to entice Saakashvili with weapons and talk of entry into NATO. Of course the Georgians believed that if they got into a firefight with Russia, the Americans would bail them out.
> 
> Bush pressed the other NATO powers to place Georgia's application for membership on the fast track. The Europeans rejected the idea. If the Europeans had let Bush have his way, we would now be obligated by treaty to send troops in Georgia's defence. That is to say, we would now be in a shooting war with the Russians. Those who might oppose entering such a war would be accused of "weakening our credibility."
> 
> This is where the heartless bastard part of the argument comes in: Is Georgia's continued control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia really worth war with Russia? Is its continued independence from Moscow's domination worth our going to war?
> 
> At this point, the neo-cons would enter the debate by invoking the West's appeasement of Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938.
> 
> A few counter-questions for those who rise to compare every act of aggression to the onset of World War III: Do you really believe that Russia's move against Georgia is not an assertion of control over "the near abroad," but rather the first step of a campaign to restore the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe and bring back the Cold War's continental standoff? If so, why aren't you devoting every waking hour to pressing for the revival of military conscription, for a war surtax to triple the military budget and for getting out of Iraq in order to send a few divisions to fight in the larger battle? If not, what exactly are you proposing?
> 
> The same question can be asked of the Bush administration. Vice-President Dick Cheney reportedly called Saakashvili on Sunday to assure him that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered." We should all be interested to know what answer he is preparing. The U. S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the Security Council, "This is completely unacceptable and crosses a line." Talk like that demands action. What's the plan, and how does he hope to get the Security Council to approve it?
> 
> Regardless of which side started this conflict, the crisis holds a few lessons for the next American president.
> 
> First, security commitments are serious things; don't make them unless you have the support, desire and means to follow through.
> 
> Second, Russia is ruled by some nasty people, but they are not Hitler or Stalin, and they can't be expected to tolerate direct challenges from their border any more than an American president could from, say, Cuba.
> 
> Third, the sad truth is that the U. S. has little leverage over what the Russians do, at least in what they see as their own security sphere. And our top officials only announce this fact loud and clear when they issue ultimatums that go ignored without consequences.
> 
> In the short term, if an independent Georgia is worth saving, the Russians need some assurances in exchange for keeping the country and its elected government intact.
> 
> If a newly expansive Russia is worth worrying about, then it's time to bring back Washington-Moscow summitry. Relations have soured so intensely in recent years that a new president could do worse than sit down with Medvedev and/or Putin, if just to lay out issues of agreement and disagreement and then go from there. It's staggering that no such talks have taken place so far this century.
> 
> In the long term, the best way to take Russia down a notch is to pursue policies that slash the demand for oil. The Georgia crisis should make clear that this is a matter of hard-headed national security.




and​

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080814.wcogeorgia14/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Georgia in the middle
> *The Russians set a trap, and prodded by the neo-cons, Saakashvili walked right in*
> 
> MISHA GLENNY
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> 
> August 14, 2008 at 7:28 AM EDT
> 
> Georgia's decision to seize large parts of Tskhinvali - the capital of the breakaway region of South Ossetia that borders Russia - was a most disastrous political miscalculation. Within three days of the assault, Russian forces had responded by effectively neutralizing Georgia's military capacity, which President Mikhail Saakashvili's government in Tbilisi had spent several years, and considerable sums of money, building up.
> 
> Clearly, Russia has been goading the Georgian government for several years into making the big mistake. The parastates of Abkhazia and, above all, South Ossetia, have been under the control of a toxic coalition of criminals and both former and serving Russian security service officers. Russian soldiers have been acting as their protectors under the guise of a peacekeeping mission, preventing Georgia's attempts to seek a negotiated reintegration of the two areas. The Georgian crisis has clearly benefited the standing of hard-liners in Moscow still aggrieved at Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's decision to have the moderate, business-friendly Dimitry Medvedev succeed him in the Kremlin.
> 
> But under the influence of an energetic neo-con lobby in Washington and with considerable support from Israeli weapons manufacturers and military trainers, Mr. Saakashvili and the hawks around him came to believe the farcical proposition that Georgia's armed forces could take on the military might of their northern neighbour in a conventional fight and win.
> 
> So the Russians set a trap, and prodded by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney's people, Georgia walked right into it.
> 
> The consequences of this egregious error begin in Georgia itself. Not only is it now defenceless, it can kiss goodbye to any restoration of sovereignty over both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Even though French President Nicolas Sarkozy received tentative agreement from both Moscow and Tbilisi for the establishment of international talks to settle the status of the two areas, they are unlikely to rejoin Georgia any time soon. The loss of Abkhazia, with its considerable economic potential, is a huge blow. The European Union and the United States will argue there is no parallel to be drawn between Kosovo and the Georgian breakaway regions. But that is not how much of the world, including China, South Africa and Indonesia see it. And it is certainly not how Russia sees it. The first chickens of Kosovo's independence are coming home to roost.
> 
> Second, President Saakashvili is now very vulnerable. The Russian invasion has cut communications between Tbilisi and the main port in Poti. BP has closed down the pipeline running from Baku to Ceyhan in Turkey through Tbilisi, and Georgian banks are freezing all loans and blocking capital flight. After only a week, the Georgian economy is teetering. And if the wheels do come off the economy, it is hard to see how Mr. Saakashvili might salvage his political position - such a combination of economic distress and military defeat is usually fatal. If he goes, Georgia is likely to fracture politically into a variety of fiefdoms familiar from the 1990s, and living standards will plummet. There is one faint consolation. The West may be impotent when it comes to responding to the situation militarily but it can rally round by offering the country a financial and commercial lifeline.
> 
> Meanwhile, the foreign implications of the error are graver still. Russia is placing a marker on Ukraine. Do not, Moscow says, even think of allowing Ukraine into NATO, otherwise what we have seen in Georgia will be child's play. So the West will have to think hard how to play Ukraine's application to join the military alliance.
> 
> This, in turn, has accentuated the divisions within the EU between those countries, including Germany, which remain cautious about a course of open confrontation with Russia, and Britain which has echoed calls from Washington demanding that Russia's application to join the WTO be reconsidered.
> 
> But the Georgian fiasco has even broader political implications. For the Bush administration (or for its hawks at least), the Georgian mistake presents an opportunity - let us recast Russia as a threat to global stability and a potential enemy. Predictably, the toughest response to the Russian invasion came from Mr. Cheney on Sunday. The outbreak of the crisis coincided with U.S. President George Bush horse-playing with beach volleyball players in Beijing and the Vice-President was in operational control at the time. Mr. Cheney immediately announced the Russian invasion could not go "unanswered." Mr. Cheney has been spoiling for a fight with the Russians for a couple of years, and he and his allies have seized upon Georgia's and Ukraine's stated aims to join NATO as a way of riling Moscow. By cranking up the dispute with Russia over NATO, Mr. Cheney is also shifting the political debate in the United States away from the state of the economy and toward the issue of national security.
> 
> If the presidential election is fought on the former issue, Democratic candidate Barack Obama is a shoo-in. But if the central issue is national security and who would be best at dealing with a major crisis like Georgia, then his Republican opponent John McCain has to be the favourite. Mr. McCain's response to the Georgia crisis was almost as tough as Mr. Cheney's, perhaps explained in part by the fact his chief foreign policy adviser worked as a former lobbyist for the Georgian government.
> 
> This political dynamic is driving the West toward a rift with Russia that will polarize a number of other issues, including policy toward Iran. On this latter issue, Russia has played a relatively constructive and, perhaps more importantly, a moderating role. In the next three months, the issues of Ukraine and Iran will loom large in global politics and they may well have a decisive impact on the outcome of the U.S. election. Who set the trap in Georgia? Mr. Putin and his thuggish security service pals or Mr. Cheney and his equally unflappable neo-con friends?
> 
> Whether Georgia was defeated by the Russians or lost by the neo-cons, a touch of diplomatic sobriety on both sides would be a welcome development if the Georgian conflict is not to mark a very dangerous new phase in the development of global politics - serial confrontation between the West and Russia.
> 
> _Misha Glenny is "Author of McMafia: A Journey Through the Global Criminal Underworld"_



I agree with Fred Kaplan’s three lessons for the next president and, broadly, with his three prescriptive recommendations but I would add one more: the American led West must, simultaneously, isolate Russia – unceremoniously kick it out of the G8 and refuse to allow it in to the WTO – and, and this is especially for the European members of NATO, restore enough military power in Europe to *deter* Russia. The Russian leaders are and are likely to remain thugs and bullies – they understand brute force. If they cannot be guaranteed of administering an easy defeat on their enemies then they will cower in fear, and that’s the posture in which we want them.

I think Glenny is wrong. We do not need “a touch of diplomatic sobriety on both sides ... [because ] the Georgian conflict *is* a very dangerous new phase in the development of global politics - serial confrontation between the West and Russia.”

Russia has chosen the path of confrontation. Even as one understands their frustration, even fear, it is impossible to put their thuggish policies – first in baiting Georgia and then in their _’disproportionate’_ military response – in any light except confrontation. That, it appears to me, is what Putin intended. I say let him have it, with all its implications. America is, slowly but surely, reducing its dangerous reliance on Middle Eastern oil – relying, instead, on Western hemisphere, especially Canadian, oil. Europe and Japan can meet their needs from the Middle East – they don’t need Russian oil, even though it is closer. China will need Russia’s oil – the only question is how it will take it. 

The good news, from my radio, is that NATO has blocked a Russian warship from joining the ongoing NATO _Active Endeavour_ exercises in the Mediterranean and the FRUKUS exercises in the Sea of Japan have been called off. It's a start.


----------



## George Wallace

wolfshadow said:
			
		

> I can't see the front glacis, but IIRC, The Georgians are using T-72s.



Looking at the mantlet of that tank, it looks like a T-55.


----------



## Kirkhill

I've been looking at the comments of some of our fellow members and it appears to me that broadly they could be categorized as:

Those that fear we are on track for World War I, the sequel;

Those that fear we are on track for World War II, the sequel.

I base that on the my personal observation that World War I occured because governments adhered to prewar agreements and guarantees while World War II occured because governments ignored prewar agreements and guarantees.  I am not sure that either offers a guide to successful conflict resolution.  Having said that I generally believe that "a man is as good as his word".  Agreements HAVE to mean something.

I agree with Kaplan and Edward in that regard.

I also agree with the characterization of Putin as not being Stalin or Hitler.  Hitler and Stalin were dangerous because they were (IMHO) ideologues that ultimately rationalized the end justifying the means because they believed that only they could create a Utopia for their respective folks.  They failed to accept contrary information and react in a timely, life saving fashion.  They were akin to those individuals who, having lost the sense of feeling, leave their hand on a hot stove until they smell smoke.

Putin is entirely sensible, in all senses of the word.  He reacts.  However he won't react unless he feels pain. And pain must be inflicted.  A little military, a little diplomatic and a large dose of economic. The Mob is most grievously concerned about who will pay for its gold rings.  

WRT Kaplan's third point Kaplan is flat wrong.  The US does have leverage.  It has many potential allies all around Russia's frontiers.  That is self evident from the fear that Russia has of those potential allies.  

What the US, and the EU, and NATO, and Western Europe, and Canada, doesn't have is the same ruthless dedication to task that Vladimir Putin exhibits.


----------



## George Wallace

oligarch said:
			
		

> If you can't see that the bombing of Tshininvali actually happened, I can just put you in the same category with the people who believe that WMDs were actually found in Iraq and with the Holocaust deniers.



 :

Mame

Can you make an unfanatical response to the following then?

Explosions suggest Gori withdrawal not taking place.    14/08/2008 8:55:48 AM



> A planned withdrawal of Russian troops from the Georgian city of Gori appeared to hit a snag on Thursday.
> 
> An agreement had been reached on Wednesday that the troops would leave the city, but explosions and gunfire could be heard Thursday morning suggesting that was not taking place.
> 
> There were reports that the blasts -- which occurred shortly after a tense standoff between Russian and Georgian troops on the edge of the city -- sounded like mortar fire.
> 
> "It started smoothly, but later a complicated situation occurred," Zaza Gachechiladze, editor-in-chief of The Messenger, an English-language newspaper in Georgia, told CTV's Canada AM.
> 
> "It started out OK but that soon gave way to small sporadic shootings and fires in the provincial town of Gori. The Georgian population and leaders ... are very much concerned about the situation."
> 
> Georgia had earlier said the Russians were leaving Gori, but later claimed more Russian troops were arriving.
> 
> Georgia also claimed the Russians had seized a military base outside of Gori.
> 
> Georgian officials had gone into Gori to participate in the handover, but left unexpectedly around midday Thursday.
> 
> That was followed by the brief but tense standoff at a checkpoint, which ended when Russian tanks arrived at the scene and Georgian soldiers backed off, The Associated Press reports.
> 
> "Russia has not taken the right steps and is not following it's commitment," Gachechiladze said.



or this:

Russians said to be advancing, not withdrawing, in Georgia.  Thursday, August 14, 2008 | 9:45 AM



> In a day of conflicting news, there are reports that Russian troops are advancing rather than pulling back in parts of Georgia, adding to their strength in the key central city of Gori and sending forces to a Black Sea oil port.
> 
> "I cannot confirm a ceasefire right now," Eka Zguladze, a Georgian deputy foreign minister, told CBC News.
> 
> She said Russian forces "are still present, very aggressively present" in Gori despite a French-brokered ceasefire agreement that called for both sides to pull back to positions they held before the fighting started last Friday.
> 
> In Poti, the Russians are looting and "blowing up port infrastructure," she asserted.
> 
> Speaking from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, she said her country is not calling for outside military intervention but hopes to see the West put political and economic pressure on Russia to withdraw.
> 
> "We've been self-defensive so far, and if the occupation of our territory continues we will have to fight," she said.
> 
> Meanwhile, Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, told reporters that "one can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity" in the Russian-dominated separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, suggesting that Russia might absorb them.
> 
> The Associated Press reported that at least five explosions were heard near Gori just hours after the Georgian Interior Ministry said Russian troops were leaving the area.
> 
> Russian and Georgian soldiers pointed weapons at each other at a checkpoint on the city's outskirts before Russian tanks rushed to the scene to force the Georgians to back off, AP said.



I am still undecided as to whom are the "Good Guys" and whom are the "Bad Guys" or if there are neither.


----------



## stegner

Has no one noticed the irony of Georgia violating Iraq`s sovereignty by participating in the Iraq War in 2003?   It's fine for Georgia to invade other countries-but heaven forbid if they are invaded?  Not hypocritical at all.  Very little sympathy for them and their playing the violation of sovereignty card!  Maybe if they hadn't put troops in Iraq they could have defended their own country a bit better?


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Wasn't thier involvement in Iraq part of the future NATO pact with the US? 

 You help us now we'll help you later kinda thing.


 ???


----------



## stegner

> Wasn't thier involvement in Iraq part of the future NATO pact with the US?
> 
> You help us now we'll help you later kinda thing.



Sure but that still doesn't give it any more legitimacy for Georgia to violate the sovereignty of a country that never attacked it.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Well everyones still questioning the US legitimacy of the war. I fail to see how this NOW affects Georgia's ability to shore up it's border with the Russians. The American's are now obviously put to task in helping the Georgian's, but how much and how far the US is willing to go is going to be interesting. 

 Most countries around the world are paying very close attention to this squabble, as it's potential for escalation has nuclear proportions all over it, or at the very least a global confrontation(WW3)

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting response by a Russian reader. Linking the conflict to larger issues like energy flows and so on is interesting, but needs to be kept in context and not as a launching pad for conspiracy theories:

http://dustmybroom.com/content/view/5050/1/



> *What do we know about the Georgia-Russia conflict*
> Written by Krazy
> 
> Wednesday, 13 August 2008
> This is an email sent to me by one of my Russian friends who has asked me to post - It was written by Bruce Gagnon to Organizing Notes at 8/11/2008. It has some interesting information:
> 
> I must admit that I am not an expert on the Georgia-Russia conflict that is now underway. But I have been following issues there for some time and have learned to see some linkages between what is going on in places like Poland, Czech Republic, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, and the Georgia-Russia conflict.
> 
> So here are some random, and not so random, observations and quotes that I think might give us all something to ponder.
> 
> * It's all about oil and natural gas. Russia has the world's largest supply of natural gas and Iran has the world's second largest supply. There is much oil and natural gas up in the Caspian Sea region. Which ever country controls this part of the world will have a jump start in controlling the keys to the world's economic engine for the foreseeable future.
> 
> * The expanding economy of China has tremendous need for energy. China now imports much of its oil via sea (thru the Taiwan Straits) and the U.S. has in recent years doubled its naval presence in this region pursuing the ability to "choke off" China's ability to import oil. China is looking for alternative, land routes, to transmit oil thus pipelines through Central Asia become crucial. U.S. permanent bases in Afghanistan and attempts to put military bases in other Central Asian countries is in large part an attempt to create the ability to control these pipeline routes. F. William Engdahl, author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, maintains that, "Washington is out to deny China east land access to either Russia, the Middle East or to the oil and gas fields of the Caspian Sea."
> 
> Engdahl goes on to say, "A close look at the map of Eurasia begins to suggest what is so vital for China and therefore for Washington's future domination of Eurasia. The goal is not only strategic encirclement of Russia through a series of NATO bases ranging from Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo to Poland, to Georgia, possibly Ukraine and White Russia, which would enable NATO to control energy ties between Russia and the European Union."
> 
> "Washington policy now encompasses a series of 'democratic' or soft coup projects which would strategically cut China off from access to the vital oil and gas reserves of the Caspian including Kazakhstan. The earlier Asian Great Silk Road trade routes went through Tashkent in Uzbekistan and Almaty in Kazakhstan for geographically obvious reasons, in a region surrounded by major mountain ranges. Geopolitical control of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan would enable control of any potential pipeline routes between China and Central Asia just as the encirclement of Russia controls pipeline and other ties between it and western Europe, China, India and the Mideast."
> 
> 
> * Some years ago I read the book called The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski which I recently wrote about in relation to his being a chief foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama. Brzezinski has been critical of the Bush administration for invading Iraq essentially saying that it was the wrong war. Brzezinski has long maintained that Russia and China were the targets that had to be militarily contained if the U.S. hoped to continue its role as chief superpower of the world. He says, "Eurasia is the world's axial super continent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia.....Eurasia accounts for 75% of the world's population, 60% of its GNP, and 75% of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's."
> 
> 
> * In 2005 the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline opened. It cost $3.6 billion and was funded by British Petroleum (BP) in a consortium including Unocal of the U.S. and Turkish Petroleum, and others. With the fall of the Soviet Union a scramble ensued for political and economic control of this part of the world. Georgia is on the pipeline route. Russia was opposed to this pipeline route. Brzezinski was a consultant to BP during the Bill Clinton era and urged Washington to back the project whose route would circumvent Russia.
> 
> Brzezinski also serves on the board of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce that includes people like Tim Cejka (President of ExxonMobil Exploration); Henry Kissinger; James Baker III (who in 2003 went to Georgia to tell them President Shevardnadze that Washington wanted him to step down so U.S.-trained Mikhail Shaakashvili could replace him as president); Brent Scowcroft (former Bush I national security adviser); and Dick Cheney (who served on the board before becoming Bush II's V-P).
> 
> 
> The U.S. has long been involved in supporting "freedom movements" throughout this region that have been attempting to replace Russian influence with U.S. corporate control. The CIA, National Endowment for Democracy (board members include former neo-conservative congressman Vin Weber and General Wesley Clark), and Freedom House (includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Obama foreign policy adviser Anthony Lake) have been key funders and supporters of placing politicians in power throughout Central Asia that would play ball with "our side".
> 
> 
> * Now all of this hardball politics is to be expected. The U.S., Russia, and China all want control of this part of the world. OK, nothing new there. But the current Georgia-Russia conflict indicates that things are moving to a new dangerous stage of development. Very recently the U.S. and Georgia held military maneuvers in the now disputed territories. Russia countered with military maneuvers of its own. Russia is feeling threatened by expanding U.S. bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech Republic. Added to that are NATO attempts to put bases in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and possibly even Georgia - all along or very near Russia's border.
> 
> 
> * None of this is about the good guys verses the bad guys. It is power bloc politics and when the shooting starts it is civilians who die and their communities get destroyed. Big money is at stake and big money does not mind killing innocent people who stand in the way of "progress". For the peace movement we must first understand some of the history, and also understand the "chess" game now underway. We must not have illusions that this is about "democracy" and must denounce the military and corporate agenda of the players involved. For us in the U.S. we must also remove our blinders and see that both parties (Republican and Democrat) share a bi-partisan history and agenda of advancing corporate interests in this part of the world. Obama's advisers, just like McCain's (one of his top advisers was recently a lobbyist for the current government in Georgia) are thick in this stew.
> 
> 
> * In the end the peace movement must recognize that this current fighting could trigger protracted war and the only question becomes which weapons get used? Does the U.S. decide it must "come to the aid of it's ally Georgia"? Is an attack on Iran somehow connected to this widening war for oil? Are nuclear weapons on the table? None of us has all the answers but it is imperative that we begin asking these hard questions and learn as quickly as possible as much as we can about the region.
> 
> 
> * Lastly, need I remind anyone, that any protracted warfare in this region will be directed by space satellite technology. Space control and domination gives the U.S. the leg-up in any superpower struggle for control of oil and natural gas.
> 
> 
> Posted By Bruce Gagnon to Organizing Notes at 8/11/2008


----------



## bolshoi

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Wasn't thier involvement in Iraq part of the future NATO pact with the US?
> 
> You help us now we'll help you later kinda thing.
> ???



In the larger scheme of international politics, countries from the former-Soviet bloc recieve a lot of credit when they can offer expeditionary forces for international missions. Many analysts believe that Romania was given limited accession to the EU in 2007 because they could commit troops to Iraq, OEF and ISAF. They did not qualify for EU membership otherwise. For all intents and purposes, Georgia has used the same tactic over the last 5-6 years and they are now reaping the rewards for their efforts. 

It's just another factor that makes the situation that much more complex.


----------



## meni0n

stegner said:
			
		

> Has no one noticed the irony of Georgia violating Iraq`s sovereignty by participating in the Iraq War in 2003?   It's fine for Georgia to invade other countries-but heaven forbid if they are invaded?  Not hypocritical at all.  Very little sympathy for them and their playing the violation of sovereignty card!  Maybe if they hadn't put troops in Iraq they could have defended their own country a bit better?



Are you on crack?

During OIF,

United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI)

    * Flag of Georgia (country) Georgia: 550 blue-helmets


----------



## GAP

Not crack....clueless....  :


----------



## a_majoor

Very interesting when you look at the start date for these events:

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-%2526-space/article/2008-08/web-newest-front-line



> *Is the Web the Newest Front Line? Attacks on Georgian and Russian Web sites have made the Internet a battlefield *
> By Stuart Fox Posted 08.13.2008 at 5:31 pm
> 
> As the actual ground combat between Russia and the former Soviet Republic of Georgia grinds to a halt, security and Web experts have begun to focus on what might have been a secret third front in the conflict: the Internet. With numerous Georgian government Web sites defaced or shut down, the virtual attacks that preceded the actual invasion may go down in history as the first war in cyberspace.
> 
> *The first barrages began in the end of July, and consisted of denial of service attacks on the Georgian President’s Web site.* A denial of service attack (DoS) involves shutting down a server by routing more traffic to the site than the machines can handle. These attacks are committed by bot servers, which constantly bombard the target site with service requests.
> 
> *Those July disturbances turned out to be reconnaissance for the large scale attack that coincided with the ground invasion on August 11th. DoS attacks disabled Georgian government Web sites*; first publicized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia Web site, which was forced to move to Google Blogs after its Georgia-based site was disabled. Additionally, the Bank of Georgia’s Web site was defaced with pictures of Georgia’s President juxtaposed with pictures of Adolf Hitler.
> 
> Finding out who is behind the attacks is more complex than it first appears. None of the attacks could be traced back to the Russian government directly, with most security experts attributing the implementation of the attacks to the innocuously named Russian Business Network (RBN). RBN is actually an organized crime front that has been linked to spreading malware, spamming, phishing, identity theft and even child pornography.
> 
> However, some experts disagree, with CNET.com reporting that the attacks might be the work of nationalistic private hackers, in effect, the Internet version of the Russia-backed militias that have been fighting alongside the Russian army in the ground war. DoS attacks against popular Georgian hacker forums and the publication of Georgian politician’s emails address for spamming seems to support this theory. For its part, Georgia has not been passive, with Georgian hackers launching their own DoS attacks against Russian news outlets.
> 
> Whether or not these attacks represent the Russian military acting against the Georgian government by proxy or ambitious nationalist hackers seizing an opportunity, these attacks clearly indicate that the Internet has become a battlefield.


----------



## stegner

> Are you on crack?
> 
> During OIF,
> 
> United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI)
> 
> * Flag of Georgia (country) Georgia: 550 blue-helmets




Wow for someone who throws around the insults you really should not.  That applies to GAP also.  Operation Iraqi Freedom is not UNAMI.  Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched in March 2003.  The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) was not created until August 14, 2003.  Remember the UN did not invasion, though it later approved reconstruction efforts.   This efforts went largely nowhere, because  Sérgio Vieira de Mello  was killed during the Canal Hotel bombings just five days later on August 19, 2003.   Some five years later the UN presence in Iraq is minimal.   Though Georgia is now part of UNAMI when it initially entered Iraq it was under OIF and not on a UN sponsored mission.   The initial Georgian commitment to Iraq was not the 550 blue-helmets mission, but 70 troops, and than 300 Georgian Special Forces that operated under U.S command in Baqouba, guarding bridges as well as FOB's 'Caldwell,' 'Warhorse' and 'Gabe.'  There were 2,000 Georgian troops in Iraq, so the majority of that force some 1450 was not participating in the UN mission, but in OIF.  Georgia was a member of the coalition of the willing.


----------



## GAP

Ahhh....gee, now that you've pointed out that, we should shut down the UN and send everybody home....might need those "diplomats" to negotiate in case their country is attacked, oh, and cancell all peacekeeping operations too....same reason. 

And, if we ask nicely, because you said it is so, those nasty little armies/navies/etc waging war/intervention/etc. should just get on home, they might be needed....

right........another 10 years of this and you'll be right up there with Jack and Elizabeth.....


----------



## stegner

> Ahhh....gee, now that you've pointed out that, we should shut down the UN and send everybody home....might need those "diplomats" to negotiate in case their country is attacked, oh, and cancell all peacekeeping operations too....same reason.
> 
> And, if we ask nicely, because you said it is so, those nasty little armies/navies/etc waging war/intervention/etc. should just get on home, they might be needed....
> 
> right........another 10 years of this and you'll be right up there with Jack and Elizabeth.....



I am not sure what you are trying to say.   My closest guess is that you are invoking _reductio ad absurdum_-but even with that you are not very clear, nor do you seem to logically connect with what has been said previously.   Please take the time and consideration to articulate your thoughts more clearly.   Not sure who Jack and Elizabeth are, but send them my regards nevertheless.


----------



## Navy_Blue

I got thinking about the situation when people(Oligarch) were questioning/defending the Neutrality of the Russian Peace Keepers.  What was the UN thinking allowing Russia to act as mediators in an area where they can't possibly be unbiased?  It would be a kin to having Quebec separate break into a civil war and allow Canadian troops to be the peace keepers.  I know the world is pretty stretched right now to keep up with its peace support missions but really.  Would Russia have Vetoed an EU backed mission?  I can't think of too many UN missions where the troops that wore the blue helmets had potential almost blatant conflict of intrest on how the mission would turn out.


----------



## GAP

stegner said:
			
		

> I am not sure what you are trying to say.   My closest guess is that you are invoking _reductio ad absurdum_-but even with that you are not very clear, nor do you seem to logically connect with what has been said previously.   Please take the time and consideration to articulate your thoughts more clearly.   Not sure who Jack and Elizabeth are, but send them my regards nevertheless.



Nah....didn't think you'd figure it out.....done, I have more productive use of my time than arguing with some online bumpkin....


----------



## Franko

Well this thread has spiraled nicely....

Now opened again.



*Warning to all members: If you can't keep it civil and keep it to the facts without the discussion getting personal you will be dealt with.

No more personal attacks of any kind or you will be thrown on C&P immediately, if it's sever enough you will be banned.*


*
The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## KevinB

For the genius's that dont beleive the WMD threat in Iraq -- Geez where did all that Yellowcake come from that got shipped to Canada two months ago from Iraq?
  and yes FYI I was there and was involved in my own small part of the movement of it.

Dont even try to use the Iraq straw argument -- there were UN resolutions in place to give the coalition the legitimacy to remove Sadam if he did not prove he had destroyed his stockpiles of WMD's -- these had been documented by the UN after GW1 -- He never proved it and he is gone.

Russia invaded a soveriegn country - and made aggressive moves past any "peacekeeping" role.  I see the old Commie lovers have crawled back out from under their rock.


----------



## JackD

Actually I wouldn't use the term ''Commie-lovers'' - I'd say this is just a continuation of the ''Great Game''- the Russia-West confrontations of the 19th century. The foreign policy of the Soviet Union was very similar to that of Czarist Russia... In many ways it is ridiculous in that if you look at such sites as  (if I remember) The Worst Roads in the World or The worst polluted places in the World  - Russian locations are prominent.. It would seem rational to build the infrastructure of a country first before any outside adventure - but rationality doesn't seem to be at play here    http://neoncobra.blogspot.com/2006/12/worst-highway-in-world.html ; http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/wwpp2007/finalReport2007.pdf


----------



## meni0n

stegner said:
			
		

> Wow for someone who throws around the insults you really should not.  That applies to GAP also.  Operation Iraqi Freedom is not UNAMI.  Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched in March 2003.  The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) was not created until August 14, 2003.  Remember the UN did not invasion, though it later approved reconstruction efforts.   This efforts went largely nowhere, because  Sérgio Vieira de Mello  was killed during the Canal Hotel bombings just five days later on August 19, 2003.   Some five years later the UN presence in Iraq is minimal.   Though Georgia is now part of UNAMI when it initially entered Iraq it was under OIF and not on a UN sponsored mission.   The initial Georgian commitment to Iraq was not the 550 blue-helmets mission, but 70 troops, and than 300 Georgian Special Forces that operated under U.S command in Baqouba, guarding bridges as well as FOB's 'Caldwell,' 'Warhorse' and 'Gabe.'  There were 2,000 Georgian troops in Iraq, so the majority of that force some 1450 was not participating in the UN mission, but in OIF.  Georgia was a member of the coalition of the willing.



Georgia doubled their contingency only in 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6433289.stm


----------



## oligarch

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I got thinking about the situation when people(Oligarch) were questioning/defending the Neutrality of the Russian Peace Keepers.  What was the UN thinking allowing Russia to act as mediators in an area where they can't possibly be unbiased?  It would be a kin to having Quebec separate break into a civil war and allow Canadian troops to be the peace keepers.  I know the world is pretty stretched right now to keep up with its peace support missions but really.  Would Russia have Vetoed an EU backed mission?  I can't think of too many UN missions where the troops that wore the blue helmets had potential almost blatant conflict of intrest on how the mission would turn out.



More like letting the US peacekeep rather than Canada.

I see that "the incident" had been removed from the board. I'm glad to see that it was dealth with in an unbiased method and my posts were not the only posts that were removed.

Now for posting what I came here to post.

I previously made comments about the media and to follow up those comments I have the following video. A 12 year old girl tells the truth on Fox News about Georgia and who they in actual fact were running from. Fox News even had to cut them off right in the middle of the account of Georgian aggression even though they had just come from a commercial break 2 minutes prior to that. Fox News and corporate media do not want the truth out. Keep in mind that the media is not "independent", it is corporate. I believe there is no such thing as independent media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

More pictures of the conflict: 

Bombardment of the Russian escort: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiT1hfH5KPw

Before Russian involvement on Russian news about the Georgian bombardment of Tshinivali and the bombardment of Russian peacekeeprs, 10 of whom had died, Russian 58th army is begining to move towards South Ossetia to help the peacekeepers.. this is in Russian but the images speak for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUdz36VSVCQ

7th of Augusts Georgian artillery fire on the city during the night, agian in Russian but the pictures speak for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfEJUZ0wISk

The artillery you see firing is firing upon the populated city of Tshinivali, the South Ossetian capital... this is the fire under which the girl in the cafe you saw in the first video got trapped


----------



## vonGarvin

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I got thinking about the situation when people(Oligarch) were questioning/defending the Neutrality of the Russian Peace Keepers.  What was the UN thinking allowing Russia to act as mediators in an area where they can't possibly be unbiased?  It would be a kin to having Quebec separate break into a civil war and allow Canadian troops to be the peace keepers.  I know the world is pretty stretched right now to keep up with its peace support missions but really.  Would Russia have Vetoed an EU backed mission?  I can't think of too many UN missions where the troops that wore the blue helmets had potential almost blatant conflict of intrest on how the mission would turn out.


As pointed out, not only did Russia have peacekeepers there, but also Ossetians and Georgians.


----------



## Haggis

oligarch said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
> 
> Bombardment of the Russian escort: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiT1hfH5KPw
> 
> Before Russian involvement on Russian news about the Georgian bombardment of Tshinivali and the bombardment of Russian peacekeeprs, 10 of whom had died, Russian 58th army is begining to move towards South Ossetia to help the peacekeepers.. this is in Russian but the images speak for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUdz36VSVCQ
> 
> 7th of Augusts Georgian artillery fire on the city during the night, agian in Russian but the pictures speak for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfEJUZ0wISk
> 
> The artillery you see firing is firing upon the populated city of Tshinivali, the South Ossetian capital... this is the fire under which the girl in the cafe you saw in the first video got trapped



It's interesting, *oligarch*, that all the footage apprearing on YouTube is originating from the Russian/South Ossetian sides.  Could that be part of the plan in the DOS (Denial of Service) attacks on Georgian Internet infrasturcture?  In the absence of two sides to a story, the only side seen must be taken as the truth.  Information Warfare at it's finest.  In this case, my hat is off to the Russians.

Now, I would ask you to review this story from CANOE (shared with the usual disclaimer) and comment, objectively and without passion, please.
*Russia says 'forget Georgian territorial integrity'*


----------



## meni0n

oligarch said:
			
		

> More like letting the US peacekeep rather than Canada.
> 
> I see that "the incident" had been removed from the board. I'm glad to see that it was dealth with in an unbiased method and my posts were not the only posts that were removed.
> 
> Now for posting what I came here to post.
> 
> I previously made comments about the media and to follow up those comments I have the following video. A 12 year old girl tells the truth on Fox News about Georgia and who they in actual fact were running from. Fox News even had to cut them off right in the middle of the account of Georgian aggression even though they had just come from a commercial break 2 minutes prior to that. Fox News and corporate media do not want the truth out. Keep in mind that the media is not "independent", it is corporate. I believe there is no such thing as independent media.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
> 
> More pictures of the conflict:
> 
> Bombardment of the Russian escort: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiT1hfH5KPw
> 
> Before Russian involvement on Russian news about the Georgian bombardment of Tshinivali and the bombardment of Russian peacekeeprs, 10 of whom had died, Russian 58th army is begining to move towards South Ossetia to help the peacekeepers.. this is in Russian but the images speak for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUdz36VSVCQ
> 
> 7th of Augusts Georgian artillery fire on the city during the night, agian in Russian but the pictures speak for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfEJUZ0wISk
> 
> The artillery you see firing is firing upon the populated city of Tshinivali, the South Ossetian capital... this is the fire under which the girl in the cafe you saw in the first video got trapped



I have watched these videos, Bombardment of russian escort is just an attack on an advancing convoy, 7th August artillery, is also interesting, where did these russian journalists got all this close up footage as the newscast said, at the time of the Artillery strike, they were evacuated from the area, so how do they get film of artillery firing miles away, being almost to the side of it. All these videos have is just a few shots of shot up downtown Tshinivali ( which the newscast guy actually specifies ) and amazing Russian media disinformation.

Given the Russians broke the ceasefire and again advancing in Georgia, how can anyone actually believe what most of Russian state controlled media has to say.


----------



## oligarch

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's interesting, Oligarch, that all the footage appraring on YouTube is originating from the Russian/South Ossetian sides.  Cold that be part of the plan in the DOS (Denial of Service) attacks on Georgian Internet infrasturcture?  In the absence of two sides to a story, the only side seen must be taken as the truth.  Information Warfare at it's finest.  In this case, my hat is off to the Russians.




Not really sure what you mean. DOS attacks could be organized by anyone with a few servers at his disposal. Like I said earlier, I can pay someone I know in Russia 500 bucks and army.ca would go down for a day. So anyone in Russia with an axe to grind could be doing it, and believe me, there are people in Russia who are not happy about what Mr. Saakashvili is doing. 

Menion,

The convoy I posted just as an interesting video to watch, and it was not really intended to "prove" anything. The fact that you felt compelled to respond to it and that you had the defensive kneejerk reaction of the need for response really indicates something though. The videos with a point are the videos of the Georgian shelling of Tshinivali using Grad installation, which in itself is a war crime because it targets civilians, and the video of the little girl thanking the Russian troops. With regard to Russian misinformation, I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you trying to tell me that the images of the grad installations bombarding the city have been photoshopped or are actually not real. It seems to me that you will discount anything non-CNN as Russian propoganda and blindly believe anything FOX-ABC-BBC will tell you to believe. This is particularily why I posted the video of the little girl on FOX news telling the truth about the war, and the anchor trying to cut them off. Glad to see that he had more decency than Bill O'Reily and didn't just tell the little girl to "shut up".

Cheers!


----------



## oligarch

meni0n said:
			
		

> Given the Russians broke the ceasefire and again advancing in Georgia, how can anyone actually believe what most of Russian state controlled media has to say.



I forgot to address the last point. The Russians did not break the ceasefire and did not again continue advancing into Georgia. There is not proof whatsoever of this occuring besides the rambling of Mr. Saakashvili, but given his bombing of civilian targets in Tshinivali, how can I believe anything that man has to say? The Russian media is not state controlled and again if you actually knew anything about Russian media (or your own, for that matter) you would know that there are 3 state owned channels in Russia - Ch. 1, Ch. Russia, and NTV, which isn't a big stretch from Canada's own "state media", the CBC. In fact, Russians agreed to the ceasefire completely of their own accord. If I remember correctly, Russia was winning the war, so if they wanted to continue advancing deep into Georgia, they would just not accept a ceasefire. It doesn't make sense for Russia to accept a ceasefire they DID NOT NEED TO ACCEPT and then break it. I like how your imaginings completely break all rules of logic and common sense all for the sake of trying to believe CNN.

I would also like to mention again that the Russian shot down more Georgian spy planes, which also break the ceasefire on the part of Georgia. 

Cheers!


----------



## oligarch

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's interesting, *oligarch*, that all the footage apprearing on YouTube is originating from the Russian/South Ossetian sides.  Could that be part of the plan in the DOS (Denial of Service) attacks on Georgian Internet infrasturcture?  In the absence of two sides to a story, the only side seen must be taken as the truth.  Information Warfare at it's finest.  In this case, my hat is off to the Russians.
> 
> Now, I would ask you to review this story from CANOE (shared with the usual disclaimer) and comment, objectively and without passion, please.
> *Russia says 'forget Georgian territorial integrity'*



Which side are you hoping to see footage from? I'm sure the Georgian side would not post videos of their own crimes on the internet. I mean I know the Georgian leadership has not shown itself to be too bright in the recent days, but they aren't THAT stupid!


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Another local clip to read up on.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/418559


 Once again two sides saying things both true and false on both sides. I do believe that there are innocent people trapped in the middle(as is always the case of war) and that the people on all sides in charge of things are looking to make a statement that regardless of the outcome they are prepared for the next step if peace isn't found.

 Just more posturing on all sides in carving up the last of our worlds resources before there is none left to fight over.


Cheers.


----------



## Haggis

oligarch said:
			
		

> *Not really sure what you mean.* DOS attacks could be organized by anyone with a few servers at his disposal. Like I said earlier, I can pay someone I know in Russia 500 bucks and army.ca would go down for a day. So anyone in Russia with an axe to grind could be doing it, and believe me, there are people in Russia who are not happy about what Mr. Saakashvili is doing.



What I mean is that it would be disingenious to not link the two events:  DOS attacks and sole source posting of YouTube videos from within the country subject to the DOS attacks.  I'm not saying that the DOS attacks are (were) state sponsored.  But why not?



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> Which side are you hoping to see footage from? I'm sure the Georgian side would not post videos of their own crimes on the internet.



Clearly the Georgians have not posted anything as they have not, as a consquence of the DOS attacks, had the capability of doing so.  Secondly, I'm sure the Georgians aren't the only ones shelling things.  Or is Russian artillery and air attack so surgically accurate as to not casue any collateral damage, like that seen in Gori? 

So, do you have any comment on the link I posted?


----------



## meni0n

oligarch, there is no proof that is Georgian grad, only you and the Russian tv that is airing the video. For all we know, it is a footage from an exercise put in for dramatic purposes. But Russia DID accept a ceasefire and then broke it. You can't say, well I made a promise to do something but I didn't HAVE to do it so I broke my promise. If you do that, no one will ever trust you as you got no integrity. The Russian media is used by the government for their own purposes, if the stations don't comply, well take a look at what happend to TVS.


----------



## oligarch

meni0n said:
			
		

> I have watched these videos, Bombardment of russian escort is just an attack on an advancing convoy, 7th August artillery, is also interesting, where did these russian journalists got all this close up footage as the newscast said, at the time of the Artillery strike, they were evacuated from the area, so how do they get film of artillery firing miles away, being almost to the side of it. All these videos have is just a few shots of shot up downtown Tshinivali ( which the newscast guy actually specifies ) and amazing Russian media disinformation.
> 
> Given the Russians broke the ceasefire and again advancing in Georgia, how can anyone actually believe what most of Russian state controlled media has to say.



Believe me, I don't know who told you that the Russian media had been 'evacuated', but whoever it was, they lied. 

Haggis, I'll read up on your link later. There are plenty of Georgian videos on youtube, go ahead and search for them. You'll probably need to know Georgian in order to understand them, however. I don't, so it is a bit difficult for me type in that language. Russian, however, I know very well. 

Secondly, I'm not sure you understand what DOS attacks are. They don't shut down "the internet", they shut down certain servers. Mostly, these servers hold websites. They don't prevent you from uploading information to a site like youtube, which is not hosted in Georgia to the best of my knowledge. In order to prevent uploading of videos onto youtube you would have to hack into Georgian ISPs, which is a lot more difficult to orchestrate than a DOS attack. It appears you are fishing.


----------



## oligarch

meni0n said:
			
		

> oligarch, there is no proof that is Georgian grad, only you and the Russian tv that is airing the video. For all we know, it is a footage from an exercise put in for dramatic purposes. But Russia DID accept a ceasefire and then broke it. You can't say, well I made a promise to do something but I didn't HAVE to do it so I broke my promise. If you do that, no one will ever trust you as you got no integrity. The Russian media is used by the government for their own purposes, if the stations don't comply, well take a look at what happend to TVS.



lol... then there is no proof of Russia breaking the ceasefire is there? The little girl on CNN is also an actress. Everyone who has been following the developments in South Ossetia before CNN broke the news knows this. You, evidently, believe that everything is orchestrated by the Russians and nothing I do or say will prove it otherwise to you. I guess the truth you seek is in South Ossetia, you will have to see it with your own eyes because I've posted countless images and videos. The destroyed city is Tshinivali is also the aftermath of an excersie photoshoped in for dramatic effect, and the 1600 dead? There is no proof of the Russians even being in Gori, according to your logic. Well done... or do you expect a different standard of proof for the Russians than you expect of the Georgians. I could continue posting videos and images on here but you will continue discounting them just like everything else non-CNN!!

With regard to Russian media, if they don't comply, they continue broadcasting, just like RenTV, RTVi, and others. There is also free access to western media in Russia. Nice try!

If you are trying to prove to me that certain people in Russia have sway with the media, you don't have to prove that to me. But believe me, there is no such thing as independent media except the lowly underground papers nobody really has access to. To believe otherwise is simply naive.


----------



## Haggis

oligarch said:
			
		

> Haggis, I'll read up on your link later. There are plenty of Georgian videos on youtube, go ahead and search for them. You'll probably need to know Georgian in order to understand them, however. I don't, so it is a bit difficult for me type in that language. Russian, however, I know very well.



I will.  in the meantime, would it not be fair for you to upload some as well, in order to present a balanced argument for Georgain criminal activity?



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> Secondly, I'm not sure you understand what DOS attacks are. They don't shut down "the internet", they shut down certain servers. Mostly, these servers hold websites. They don't prevent you from uploading information to a site like youtube, which is not hosted in Georgia to the best of my knowledge.* In order to prevent uploading of videos onto youtube you would have to hack into Georgian ISPs, which is a lot more difficult to orchestrate than a DOS attack.* It appears you are fishing.



I don't fish.  It's boring.

I am familiar with DOS and other cyberwarfare/cybercrime methods.  That's why I alluded to these "attacks" (DOS included) possibly being state sponsored.  Yes, it's difficult to bring down an ISP, but there are few in Georgia and it's not impossible and improbable that Russia devoted the resources to do so, given the amount of "hard" combat power Russia has unleashed upon the Georgians.


----------



## daftandbarmy

"In war, truth is the first casualty."

Aeschylus
Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC) 

Let's just hope this doesn't get out of control...


----------



## Franko

Haggis....didn't you work/ live in Georgia for a while?

Regards


----------



## KevinB

Denial of Service -- you cant get on the net -- when China hacked the US DoS and hit them with Denial of Service we where offline for a few days when I was working for them in Kabul.

FYI we have some Georgians here where I work, one lost family when the Russians levelled his village - he just found out today and is leaving on emergency leave tomorrow.

oligarch you seem to be a Russian mouth piece - please give it a break.


----------



## Baloo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia_144

Fair dealings and all that.



> * Russia: 'Forget' Georgian territorial integrity*
> 
> _By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer Thu Aug 14, 10:33 AM ET_
> 
> GORI, Georgia - Russia's foreign minister declared Thursday that the world "can forget about" Georgia's territorial integrity, and American and Georgian officials said Russia appeared to be targeting military infrastructure — including radars and patrol boats at a Black Sea naval base and oil hub.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> An AP Television News crew in the oil port city of Poti saw one destroyed Georgian military boat, and two Russian armored vehicles and two Russian transport trucks. Soldiers who identified themselves as Russian peacekeepers blocked the crew from going further.
> 
> Russia's president met in the Kremlin with the leaders of Georgia's two separatist provinces — a clear sign that Moscow could absorb the regions. The comments from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov appeared to come as a challenge to the United States, where President Bush has called for Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia."
> 
> The Russian refusal to withdraw from Georgia presents a challenge to the cease-fire agreement designed to end seven days of fighting. The EU-sponsored accord had envisioned Russian and Georgian forces returning to their original positions.
> 
> In Washington, an American official said Russia appears to be sabotaging airfields and other military infrastructure as its forces pull back. The U.S. official described eyewitnesses accounts for The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The official said the Russian strategy seems like a deliberate attempt to cripple the already battered Georgian military.
> 
> The United States poured aid into the Georgian capital of Tbilisi on Thursday and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice launched emergency talks in France aimed at heading off a wider conflict.
> 
> Russia's deputy chief of General Staff Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn said he was not sure that the U.S. planes carried exclusively humanitarian cargo. "It causes our concern," he said.
> 
> At least 20 explosions were heard near Gori, along with small-arms fire. It could not immediately be determined if the blasts were a renewal of fighting between Georgian and Russian forces, but they sounded similar to mortar shells and occurred after a tense confrontation between Russian and Georgian troops on the edge of the city.
> 
> The strategically located city is 15 miles south of South Ossetia, the Russian-backed separatist region where Russian and Georgian forces fought a five-day battle. Russian troops entered Gori on Wednesday, after the two sides signed the cease-fire.
> 
> In Washington, a Pentagon official said U.S. intelligence had assessed that the number of Russians in Gori was small — about 100 to 200 troops. But the Russian presence in Gori, only 60 miles west of Tbilisi, was viewed as a demonstration of the vulnerability of the capital.
> 
> Nogovitsyn said Russian troops went to Gori to establish contact with local civilian administration and take control over military depots left behind by the Georgian forces. "The abandoned weapons needed protection," he said.
> 
> Georgian government officials who went into the city for the possible handover left unexpectedly around midday, followed by a checkpoint confrontation outside Gori which ended when Russian tanks sped toward the area and Georgian police quickly retreated.
> 
> A Russian general in Gori had said Wednesday it would take at least two days to leave the city.
> 
> Besides the hundreds killed since hostilities broke out, the United Nations estimates 100,000 Georgians have been uprooted; Russia says some 30,000 residents of South Ossetia fled into the neighboring Russian province of North Ossetia.
> 
> Russian troops also appeared to be settling in elsewhere in Georgia outside the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
> 
> "One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state," Lavrov told reporters.
> 
> The White House bluntly rejected Lavrov's message.
> 
> "Our position on Georgia's territorial integrity is not going to change no matter what anybody says," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday. "And so I would consider that to be bluster from the foreign minister of Russia. We will ignore it."
> 
> Georgia's coast guard said Russian troops had burned patrol boats and destroyed radars and other equipment at the port city of Poti, home to Georgia's main naval base and a major hub for oil exports to Europe. The APTN crew saw one destroyed boat, about 60 feet long.
> 
> On Poti's outskirts, the APTN crew followed a different convoy of Russian troops as they searched a forest for Georgian military equipment.
> 
> Nogovitsyn avoided comment on the Russian presence in Poti, saying only that Russian forces were operating within their "area of responsibility."
> 
> Another APTN camera crew saw Russian soldiers and military vehicles parked Thursday inside the Georgian government's elegant, heavily-gated residence in the western town of Zugdidi. Some of the soldiers wore blue peacekeeping helmets, others wore green camouflage helmets, all were heavily armed. The scene underlined how closely the soldiers Russia calls peacekeepers are allied with its military.
> 
> "The Russian troops are here. They are occupying," Ygor Gegenava, an elderly Zugdidi resident told the APTN crew. "We don't want them here. What we need is friendship and good relations with the Russian people."
> 
> Georgia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.
> 
> A steady, dejected trickle of Georgian refugees fled the front line in overloaded cars, trucks and tractor-pulled wagons, heading to Tbilisi on the road from Gori. One Soviet-era car carried eight people, including a mother and a baby in the front seat. The open back door of a small blue van revealed at least a dozen people crowded inside.
> 
> The Russian General Prosecutor's office on Thursday said it has formally opened a genocide probe into Georgian treatment of South Ossetians. For its part, Georgia this week filed a suit against Russia in the International Court of Justice, alleging murder, rape and mass expulsions in both provinces.
> 
> More homes in deserted ethnic Georgian villages were apparently set ablaze Wednesday, sending clouds of smoke over the foothills north of Tskhinvali, capital of breakaway South Ossetia.
> 
> One Russian colonel, who refused to give his name, blamed the fires on looters.
> 
> Those with ethnic Georgian backgrounds who have stayed behind — like 70-year-old retired teacher Vinera Chebataryeva — seem increasingly unwelcome in South Ossetia.
> 
> As she stood sobbing in her wrecked apartment near the center of Tskhinvali, Chebataryeva said a skirmish between Ossetian soldiers and a Georgian tank had gouged the two gaping shell holes in her wall, bashing in her piano and destroying her furniture.
> 
> Janna Kuzayeva, an ethnic Ossetian neighbor, claimed the Georgian tank fired the shell at Chebataryeva's apartment.
> 
> "We know for sure her brother spied for Georgians," said Kuzayeva. "We let her stay here, and now she's blaming everything on us."
> 
> North of Tskhinvali, a number of former Georgian communities have been abandoned in the last few days. "There isn't a single Georgian left in those villages," said Robert Kochi, a 45-year-old South Ossetian.
> 
> But he had little sympathy for his former Georgian neighbors. "They wanted to physically uproot us all," he said. "What other definition is there for genocide?"
> 
> ___
> _
> Associated Press writers Misha Dzhindzhikhavili in Tbilisi; Mansur Mirovalev in Tskhinvali, Georgia; Jim Heintz in Moscow; and Anne Gearan, Matthew Lee and Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report._


----------



## Kirkhill

JackD said:
			
		

> Actually I wouldn't use the term ''Commie-lovers'' - I'd say this is just a continuation of the ''Great Game''- the Russia-West confrontations of the 19th century. The foreign policy of the Soviet Union was very similar to that of Czarist Russia... In many ways it is ridiculous in that if you look at such sites as  (if I remember) The Worst Roads in the World or The worst polluted places in the World  - Russian locations are prominent.. It would seem rational to build the infrastructure of a country first before any outside adventure - but rationality doesn't seem to be at play here    http://neoncobra.blogspot.com/2006/12/worst-highway-in-world.html ; http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/wwpp2007/finalReport2007.pdf



Jack, Moscow and London were latecomers to the game even then.  That game has been on going since the Andronovan Charioteers got involved in an internal dispute between the Hill men of Susa and the River men of Sumer.  The discussion is 7000 years old.

I am not particularly bothered with the rights and wrongs of the thing.  It is one of those situations where the facts have no bearing on the argument at all.  In consequence I look to finding "the best possible outcome".  Unfortunately my definition of that is unlikely to be the same as Oligarch's.  Although I could be surprised and will stand to be corrected.


Just as Russia exists solely as an extension of Moscow,  (and France Paris and England London) so Georgia exists solely as an extension of Tbilisi.  Tbilisi exists as a trading point, a transit point between the riches of the East (Samarkand or the Gas Fields of Kazakhstan) and the rich markets of the West (Constantinople or Istanbul).  That has always been its source of wealth.  That has always been why it has been so prized.   Generally the citizenry have been protected by their mountains, even if the princes have fallen.  Taxes may have been paid to different overlords but the basic culture remains.

Now as to the related cultures in all of those little petri dishes / tidal pools / mountain valleys and how closely they are related - blood or adaptation - synergy or competition - that is another matter entirely.

For me Vlad is starting to look a lot like Robert Mugabe.  He wants the Georgian's "share", and the Kazakhs, Turkmen and Azerbaijani's as well.


----------



## midget-boyd91

Just watching on NewsNet, there isn't a story on their website yet, but it was reporting that Russian military forces have moved towards, and surrounded T'blisi. 

Midget


----------



## muffin

Denial of Service attacks are very similar to ECM Jamming - flooding a service or server with calls until it can no longer respond (or responds very slowly). 

You don't have to be in the same country as a server to attack it, and you could affect a regions ability to access and interact with certian sites, especially ones like Youtube, who have several regional static servers.

The DOS attack in Georgia  could have been done by another government, an activist group, or a bunch of empasioned teenagers with laptops - it isn't an overly  difficult thing to do. 

Interesting move by the US though, following the attack (associated press shared with fair dealings etc)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gCRZYKAcPy9kLZ4G3YvS-aMu2RrwD92HQ6GG0

While hacking a Georgian ISP is definatly more difficult than pinging a server repeatedly, it isn't unusual that a government would force a  block on access to sites (such as Youtube) if they didn't want thier people posting things (or reading about them) online. Similar to China's cyberspace control, who have blocked Google, and more than 500,000 sites with the Tibet protesters and the Olympics etc. 

Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey, and many other Governments have blocked YouTube at one time or another.  In fact if I recall, recently one of them unintentionally took the whole site out for everyone worldwide.  

It's amazing the sort of impact something like this can have in our information age.


----------



## tomahawk6

Reporter shot while giving report. Could be but I am skeptical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfBpvY81Fl4&eurl=http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/


----------



## Edward Campbell

It seems to me that we are trying to pick the fly-shit out of the pepper here while we ignore the bigger issues.

There is plenty of blame to go ‘round. The US prodded Georgia into a rash act (or, at least, the US pumped Georgia full of false confidence), shame on them; Russia provoked Georgia into the same rash act, shame on them, too; and Saakashvili miscalculated and acted rashly, so shame on him, also. But, so what? We learn that:

•	The US government is careless in strategic matters and fails to think things through;

•	Russia is duplicitous and thuggish; and

•	Georgia is stupidly rash.

 Nothing new there.

There seems to be little we can do about US carelessness, short of filling the State Department and the Intelligence Community with much, much smarter people – something that will be very hard to do.

There also seems to be little that we can do re: the _status quo_ in the region: the Russians have some (most?) of what they want for now and “we” have little realistic hope of restoring the situation to the _status quo ante_.

We might decide to avoid further provoking the Russians by e.g. making it clear that Ukraine will not be welcome in NATO. We usually call that appeasement, and it will appeal to many – especially in Europe.

We might, equally, decide to confront Moscow – “we” can make life quite miserable (economically and politically) for Russia. That course might provoke a new kind of cold war. That might be a bad thing ... perhaps ...


----------



## oligarch

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It seems to me that we are trying to pick the fly-crap out of the pepper here while we ignore the bigger issues.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go ‘round. The US prodded Georgia into a rash act (or, at least, the US pumped Georgia full of false confidence), shame on them; Russia provoked Georgia into the same rash act, shame on them, too; and Saakashvili miscalculated and acted rashly, so shame on him, also. But, so what? We learn that:
> 
> •	The US government is careless in strategic matters and fails to think things through;
> 
> •	Russia is duplicitous and thuggish; and
> 
> •	Georgia is stupidly rash.
> 
> Nothing new there.
> 
> There seems to be little we can do about US carelessness, short of filling the State Department and the Intelligence Community with much, much smarter people – something that will be very hard to do.
> 
> There also seems to be little that we can do re: the _status quo_ in the region: the Russians have some (most?) of what they want for now and “we” have little realistic hope of restoring the situation to the _status quo ante_.
> 
> We might decide to avoid further provoking the Russians by e.g. making it clear that Ukraine will not be welcome in NATO. We usually call that appeasement, and it will appeal to many – especially in Europe.
> 
> We might, equally, decide to confront Moscow – “we” can make life quite miserable (economically and politically) for Russia. That course might provoke a new kind of cold war. That might be a bad thing ... perhaps ...



To be dimplomatic on my part, I'll agree with the main idea of your message. However, calling Russia "thuggish" for going to war is a bit old fashioned given that the country we all live in is at war itself.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Folks I think you are wasting your time. Oligarch does not want to find fault in any of Russia's actions because he will not see that they are in the wrong. You are wasting your breath trying to convince him otherwise.


----------



## Franko

oligarch said:
			
		

> To be dimplomatic on my part, I'll agree with the main idea of your message. However, calling Russia "thuggish" for going to war is a bit old fashioned given that the country we all live in is at war itself.



A bit different war....seeing that NATO was given a clear UN mandated mission and clearance.

But I digress...this thread is about Georgia and Russia.

Regards


----------



## tomahawk6

There are larger issues and they go back to the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslav republics of Croatia,Bosnia and Kosovo.NATO/EU/US carved up a sovereign nation Yugoslavia. Today Russia using Nazi Germany rationale for being in S. Ossetia and Abkhazia to protect ethnic Russians. There are also ethnic Russians living on the Crimea and Ukraine and other regions of the former USSR. Using Kosovo and Bosnia as examples they could reinvade any former republic that Putin wants.


----------



## stegner

> Today Russia using Nazi Germany rationale for being in S. Ossetia and Abkhazia to protect ethnic Russians.



Ossetians are *not* ethnic Russians.  They are of Iranian ethnicity and possess a distinct language and culture.


----------



## oligarch

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> A bit different war....seeing that NATO was given a clear UN mandated mission and clearance.
> 
> But I digress...this thread is about Georgia and Russia.
> 
> Regards



Russia's peacekeeping role is UN mandated and mandated by a trilateral agreement between all sides. Not much different.


----------



## tomahawk6

stegner said:
			
		

> Ossetians are *not* ethnic Russians.  They are of Iranian ethnicity and possess a distinct language and culture.



Then why did the Russians hand out Russian passports to anyone that wanted one ?


----------



## Edward Campbell

oligarch said:
			
		

> To be dimplomatic on my part, I'll agree with the main idea of your message. However, calling Russia "thuggish" for going to war is a bit old fashioned given that the country we all live in is at war itself.



Going to war does not, in and of itself, make a country thuggish. We have been to war to defeat thugs and aggressors - it is the proper thing to do when international bullies stalk about, throwing out their chests and frightening the children.

It is, in my personal opinion, time we called Putin and Russia what they are: thugs. I think it is the appropriate word. They may be big, even fairly powerful thugs  but we've met and beaten their kind before; we'll do so again.


----------



## stegner

> Then why did the Russians hand out Russian passports to anyone that wanted one ?



Because South Ossetians _want _Russian passports.  Here's an idea.   A well identified provision of international law is the right to self-determination.  If Kosovo can secede from Serbia so can South Ossetia from Georgia.  Wait a minute they already did back in 1991-1992.  Why not let this folks vote on the matter.   Why is the west not promoting that idea?  Primarily, because the West does not like democracy when it does not serve its interests.  I think the fact that a large majority of South Ossetia has Russian passports is indicative of a democratic voice.   Clearly, they do not want to be part of Georgia.  But let's ignore democratic interests when it interferes with US access to oil and gas in the Caucus.


----------



## Edward Campbell

With regard to the oil issue:

A couple of years ago I was invited to sit in on a conference in China – the English sub-title was something like “The Race for Resources.”

The day was interesting: first there were projections (proving to be conservative) of how many cars and how many air conditioners China would have in 2010 and 2020 and so on and then a summary of where the necessary coal and oil and natural gas and, and, and, nearly _ad infinitum_, was to be found. Everyone in the room agreed that China would be best served by buying as much as it could from Russia and paying for it with income earned by selling the Russians all manner of consumer goods. That which Russia couldn’t supply could be bought from e.g. Canada.

In the hallways, however, there were different conversations. Several people expressed the opinion that Russia is a European power and ought not to be in Asia. Siberia – that treasure trove of resources – is Asian, they said; it should be part of Asia: part of China, to be precise.

I remain convinced that China is Russia’s main _natural_ enemy and that the enmity will intensify in the 21st century. I think that *IS* bad news for Russia and *may* be bad news for China, too. But it might be good news for a US led West which seems a bit adrift, strategically, right now.


----------



## Edward Campbell

stegner said:
			
		

> Because South Ossetians _want _Russian passports.  Here's an idea.   A well identified provision of international law is the right to self-determination.  If Kosovo can secede from Serbia so can South Ossetia from Georgia.  Wait a minute they already did back in 1991-1992.  Why not let this folks vote on the matter.   Why is the west not promoting that idea?  Primarily, because the West does not like democracy when it does not serve its interests.  I think the fact that a large majority of South Ossetia has Russian passports is indicative of a democratic voice.   Clearly, they do not want to be part of Georgia.  But let's ignore democratic interests when it interferes with US access to oil and gas in the Caucus.



I agree, broadly, with your summary, stegner. As I said earlier, we are no strangers to hypocrisy when our interests are at stake. "Our" (broadly defined _our_) perceived interests have not proved terribly helpful to the peoples of the Caucasus.


----------



## JackD

Good idea - a vote - should that include all those who lived in that area in 1991 and their descendents... or earlier? That's the trouble with these votes - who should be included - The allied powers ran into this problem in 1919 regarding the messy partition of Silesia and Pomerania.. I believe the same problem was encountered in the Former Yugoslavia - who to include.


----------



## wannabe SF member

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I remain convinced that China is Russia’s main _natural_ enemy and that the enmity will intensify in the 21st century.



Are you talking about the speculated "invasion" of Siberia by China using massive migration of chinese population that would repopulate regions left empty by the demographic crash?


----------



## tomahawk6

Its not speculation the Chinese migration into Siberia is happening. A number of cities along the border have 50% of the population being Chinese.


----------



## Haggis

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Haggis....didn't you work/ live in Georgia for a while?



Yup.

Still got some Georgian acquaintances that I correspond with occaisonally.  Hope they're OK.  Even so, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I did see what the Russians left behind the first time they departed Georgia.  This, particularly around Poti, is starting to look familiar.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The incongruous said:
			
		

> Are you talking about the speculated "invasion" of Siberia by China using massive migration of chinese population that would repopulate regions left empty by the demographic crash?



No, as T6 says, that's already happening - see, also, my speculation here. "Facts on the ground" do have weight, however.

I think China might have _ambitions_ in Siberia - maybe from the Urals to the East, certainly from the Yenisey. If Russia decides that China cannot have enough oil then China might feel justified in taking some. Ditto for other resources.

Historically China and Russia have been at odds - China has usually had its way.


----------



## vonGarvin

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> A bit different war....seeing that NATO was given a clear UN mandated mission and clearance.
> 
> But I digress...this thread is about Georgia and Russia.
> 
> Regards


He does raise a point, however.  Our actions in Kosovo, which was part of a sovereign nation (Serbia), were not "UN Mandated".  So, Russia could argue, I suppose, that precedence was set.


----------



## oligarch

I see the Guardian is still the one and only voice in western media that even allows itself to consider thing from the Russian point of view... sorta


--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/14/russia.georgia
--
This is a tale of US expansion not Russian aggression

War in the Caucasus is as much the product of an American imperial drive as local conflicts. It's likely to be a taste of things to come
--

The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nor, amid the outrage at Russian bombardments, have there been much more than the briefest references to the atrocities committed by Georgian forces against citizens it claims as its own in South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali. Several hundred civilians were killed there by Georgian troops last week, along with Russian soldiers operating under a 1990s peace agreement: "I saw a Georgian soldier throw a grenade into a basement full of women and children," one Tskhinvali resident, Saramat Tskhovredov, told reporters on Tuesday.

Might it be because Georgia is what Jim Murphy, Britain's minister for Europe, called a "small beautiful democracy". Well it's certainly small and beautiful, but both the current president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and his predecessor came to power in western-backed coups, the most recent prettified as a "Rose revolution". Saakashvili was then initially rubber-stamped into office with 96% of the vote before establishing what the International Crisis Group recently described as an "increasingly authoritarian" government, violently cracking down on opposition dissent and independent media last November. "Democratic" simply seems to mean "pro-western" in these cases.

The long-running dispute over South Ossetia - as well as Abkhazia, the other contested region of Georgia - is the inevitable consequence of the breakup of the Soviet Union. As in the case of Yugoslavia, minorities who were happy enough to live on either side of an internal boundary that made little difference to their lives feel quite differently when they find themselves on the wrong side of an international state border. 

Such problems would be hard enough to settle through negotiation in any circumstances. But add in the tireless US promotion of Georgia as a pro-western, anti-Russian forward base in the region, its efforts to bring Georgia into Nato, the routing of a key Caspian oil pipeline through its territory aimed at weakening Russia's control of energy supplies, and the US-sponsored recognition of the independence of Kosovo - whose status Russia had explicitly linked to that of South Ossetia and Abkhazia - and conflict was only a matter of time. 

The CIA has in fact been closely involved in Georgia since the Soviet collapse. But under the Bush administration, Georgia has become a fully fledged US satellite. Georgia's forces are armed and trained by the US and Israel. It has the third-largest military contingent in Iraq - hence the US need to airlift 800 of them back to fight the Russians at the weekend. Saakashvili's links with the neoconservatives in Washington are particularly close: the lobbying firm headed by US Republican candidate John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has been paid nearly $900,000 by the Georgian government since 2004.

But underlying the conflict of the past week has also been the Bush administration's wider, explicit determination to enforce US global hegemony and prevent any regional challenge, particularly from a resurgent Russia. That aim was first spelled out when Cheney was defence secretary under Bush's father, but its full impact has only been felt as Russia has begun to recover from the disintegration of the 1990s. 

Over the past decade, Nato's relentless eastward expansion has brought the western military alliance hard up against Russia's borders and deep into former Soviet territory. American military bases have spread across eastern Europe and central Asia, as the US has helped install one anti-Russian client government after another through a series of colour-coded revolutions. Now the Bush administration is preparing to site a missile defence system in eastern Europe transparently targeted at Russia.

By any sensible reckoning, this is not a story of Russian aggression, but of US imperial expansion and ever tighter encirclement of Russia by a potentially hostile power. That a stronger Russia has now used the South Ossetian imbroglio to put a check on that expansion should hardly come as a surprise. What is harder to work out is why Saakashvili launched last week's attack and whether he was given any encouragement by his friends in Washington.

If so, it has spectacularly backfired, at savage human cost. And despite Bush's attempts to talk tough yesterday, the war has also exposed the limits of US power in the region. As long as Georgia proper's independence is respected - best protected by opting for neutrality - that should be no bad thing. Unipolar domination of the world has squeezed the space for genuine self-determination and the return of some counterweight has to be welcome. But the process of adjustment also brings huge dangers. If Georgia had been a member of Nato, this week's conflict would have risked a far sharper escalation. That would be even more obvious in the case of Ukraine - which yesterday gave a warning of the potential for future confrontation when its pro-western president threatened to restrict the movement of Russian ships in and out of their Crimean base in Sevastopol. As great power conflict returns, South Ossetia is likely to be only a taste of things to come.


----------



## Trinity

Hope this is the right place for this.

Quick little video of a reporter being shot (grazed) by a round while giving a report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShPxp-oJqX8


----------



## time expired

The Guardian,Ha Ha, I wondered when you would get round to
quoting that Commie rag.Years of calling for the proletariat to rise
up and form a British soviet,apologising for the brutal Soviet policies.
What are you going to produce next as proof positive of Russian
innocence, quotes from Izvestia or Pravda?.Pathetic.


----------



## Kirkhill

To open up an old question: What kind of Chinese?  Core Chinese (Han), or Fringe Chinese (Mongols, Manchus, Uighurs)?  Increased Centrifugal Forces or Decreased Centrifugal Forces?

Moscow and Beijing can't control those steppes.  They may be able to isolate them and deny the inhabitants the opportunity to exploit the resources themselves but I don't believe they can ever control those areas sufficiently to effectively exploit those resources to their benefit.  I just see Afghanistan writ many times over.


----------



## CougarKing

Mr. Kirkhill,

You forgot the Tibetans/Xi Zang Ren in your post about "fringe Chinese" groups. ;D

BTW, we have not heard much on the naval front in this Russia-Georgia War- I have heard about Russian naval forces encroaching on Georgian waters as well as this line from the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia



> In the Black Sea port of Poti, and Georgian television showed boats ablaze in the harbor. Georgia's security chief also said Russian forces targeted three Georgian boats, while Lavrov said Russian troops were nowhere near the city.



And this other report states that the Russian Navy is currently blockading Georgia's coast, IIRC.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1452890



> MOSCOW (AP) - A news agency says the Russian navy has deployed ships to blockade Georgia's Black Sea coast.
> 
> The Interfax news agency says the Moskva missile cruiser and other Russian Black Sea Fleet ships have been deployed to Georgia's coast to prevent any weapons supplies.
> 
> A Russian navy spokesman refused to comment on the report Sunday.



And yes, Georgia has a navy:

 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/georgia/navy-equipment.htm


----------



## Kirkhill

You're right CougarD.  One of my many usual oversights.

And please, do me a favour and drop the Mr.  I appreciate the effort a politeness but round about here it seems to be superfluous.  


WRT the Naval aspect I am fascinated as to when the USN last operated in the Black Sea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Mr. Kirkhill,
> 
> 
> And yes, Georgia has a navy:
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/georgia/navy-equipment.htm



I believe the term is "had"  

In answer to your question Kirkhill, perhaps the "white fleet"?

google= http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DC143CF930A25751C0A96E948260


----------



## tomahawk6

Poti pic's. Another casualty of the conflict in Georgia is the cancellation of two exercises with Russia and Canada on Aug. 15 and Aug. 20.


----------



## wolfshadow

*tomahawk6*: What kind of missle boat is that?  That looks like a styx launcher on the back end, and a 76mm turret on the front.


----------



## Haggis

wolfshadow said:
			
		

> What kind of missle boat is that?



A burning one.   ;D


----------



## wolfshadow

*Haggis*:Well, I gathered that. .. Was wondering what class it was...


----------



## George Wallace

A "Tarantul" perhaps.


----------



## wannabe SF member

Well if Wikipedia is to be trusted, It's named Tbilissi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_navy#cite_note-5
(Bottom of the page)



> The Tbilisi (თბილისი) is a Soviet 206MR project boat, obtained in 1999 from Ukraine. It is equipped with two Termite missile launchers, a 76 mm AK-176 dual purpose gun and a six-barreled 30 mm AK-630M Gatling gun. The ship was discovered on fire in the Georgian naval base of Poti on August 13, 2008


----------



## oligarch

time expired said:
			
		

> The Guardian,Ha Ha, I wondered when you would get round to
> quoting that Commie rag.Years of calling for the proletariat to rise
> up and form a British soviet,apologising for the brutal Soviet policies.
> What are you going to produce next as proof positive of Russian
> innocence, quotes from Izvestia or Pravda?.Pathetic.



Times Online, Ha Ha,  wondered when you would get round to
quoting that NeoConservative rag.Years of calling for the third reich to rise
up and form a American workers,apologising for the brutal NAZI policies.
What are you going to produce next as proof positive of American
innocence, quotes from CNN or FOX?.Pathetic.


Point made?


----------



## tomahawk6

The vessel was bought from the Ukraine and is a 206MR project boat armed with a 76mm gun,2 Termite SSM's and a 30 mm AK-630M CIWS.

Tsyurupynsk ('Matka'/Vikhr') class missile boats 
(Project 206MR) 

Displacement: 257 tons full load
Dimensions: 38.6 x 7.6 x 2.1 meters/126.6 x 25 x 6.9 feet
Extreme Dimensions: 38.6 x 12.5 x 3.26 meters/126.6 x 41 x 10.7 feet over foils
Propulsion: 3 diesels, 3 shafts, 14,400 bhp, 42 knots
Crew: 25-28
Fire Control: Harpun/Plank Shave SSM control
EW: 2 PK-16 decoy
Armament: 2 SS-N-2C/P-15M Termit SSM, 1 76.2mm/59 cal DP, 1 30 mm AA, SA-14/SA-16 SAM position
Concept/Program: Soviet semi-hydrfoil patrol craft transferred 1996; built 1978-83.

Builders: Sudostroitel'noye Odyedineniye Almaz, Kolpino.


----------



## George Wallace

oligarch said:
			
		

> Times Online, Ha Ha,  wondered when you would get round to
> quoting that NeoConservative rag.Years of calling for the third reich to rise
> up and form a American workers,apologising for the brutal NAZI policies.
> What are you going to produce next as proof positive of American
> innocence, quotes from CNN or FOX?.Pathetic.
> 
> 
> Point made?



Lady

Your tactics suck.  Most here are relatively neutral in this affair and trying to come to some reasonable truths as to what is happening in Georgia.  You are acting like the loyal wife and protecting her Mafioso husband.  Try not to be so one sided; it may help.  Right now you are coming off as a raging fanatic.  

This little exhibit of tit for tat is not helping the discussion.


----------



## Blindspot

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Poti pic's. Another casualty of the conflict in Georgia is the cancellation of two exercises with Russia and Canada on Aug. 15 and Aug. 20.



As a Graphic Designer with a great deal of experience in Photoshop, these images _appear_ fabricated. Tell-tale signs include shadows cast in all angles and a patchedwork of image elements.

This is difficult for me to point out as I'm in the "thuggish" Russians camp. Not that I need to remind but I would caution all not to believe everything you see as absolute with respect to static images.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There is a video on livelink showing a patrol boat burning I suspect the same one.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> There is a video on livelink showing a patrol boat burning I suspect the same one.



I have seen clips of other ships burning and scuttled.  If it is "PhotoShopped", it is a very good one.  I don't see any problems with the shadows cast by a listing ship.


----------



## Blindspot

I probably spoke too soon then. After taking a much closer look, I think I'm seeing propaganda where there isn't any in this case.  :-[


----------



## JackD

A little bit about ethnic cleansing:
August 15, 2008
Signs of Ethnic Attacks in Georgia Conflict 
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and MATT SIEGEL
TBILISI, Georgia — As the conflict between Russia and Georgia enters its second week, there is growing evidence of looting and “ethnic cleansing” in a number of villages throughout the area of conflict. 

The attacks — some witnessed by reporters or documented by a human rights group — include stealing, the burning of villages and possibly even killings. Some are ethnically motivated, while at least some of the looting appears to be the work of profiteers in areas from which the authorities have fled. 

The identities of the attackers vary, but a pattern of violence by ethnic Ossetians against ethnic Georgians is emerging and has been confirmed by some Russian authorities. “Now Ossetians are running around and killing poor Georgians in their enclaves,” said Maj. Gen. Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Borisov, the commander in charge of the city of Gori, occupied by the Russians.

A lieutenant from an armored transport division that was previously in Chechnya said: “We have to be honest. The Ossetians are marauding.”

The hostilities between Russia and Georgia started last week when the Georgian military marched into the disputed territory of South Ossetia, and the Russians responded by sending troops into the pro-Russia, separatist enclave and then into Georgia proper. 

Dozens of houses were on fire on Tuesday in the northern suburbs of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. Reporters saw armed men moving on the streets, carting away electronics and other household items. It was not clear who the men were. They did not appear to be part of the Russian forces, but the Russians were not stopping them. 

“We’re not a police force, we’re a military force,” said a Russian lieutenant colonel in response to a reporter’s question. “It’s not our job to do police work.” 

Still, there was some evidence that the Russian military might be making efforts in some places to stop the rampaging. A column of 12 men with their hands on their heads, several wearing uniforms, were marched into the Russian military base in Gori on Thursday afternoon. The identities of the men were unclear. 

Human Rights Watch issued a report on Thursday that documented attacks by ethnic Ossetians in and around Tskhinvali on Wednesday. Researchers saw a number of houses on fire in the town of Java. They quoted a South Ossetian intelligence officer as saying that his fighters had burned the houses to “make sure” that the Georgians could not come back.

The report’s findings also seemed to indicate that early Russian accounts of casualties, which in the first days of fighting reached 2,000, were far too high. In Tskhinvali , where the heaviest fighting took place, the local hospital received 44 corpses and 273 wounded people from Aug. 6, after clashes between separatists and Georgians, to Aug. 12, the report said, citing a doctor. 

The report quoted the doctor as saying that the majority of the wounded were affiliated with the military, although it was not clear if he meant the Russian or Georgian armies or Ossetian fighters. As of Aug. 13, none of the wounded remained in the hospital, the report said. Many were transferred to mobile hospitals in the Russian Emergencies Ministry. 

An elderly woman from the village of Kurta who gave only her first name, Elene, said she had been forced to walk three days to safety after Russian-speaking men broke into her house. An Ossetian man was with them, she said. “They entered the houses, took whatever they liked, and burned everything.” They threatened to shoot her after taking her valuables, but her neighbor, a Russian woman, intervened on her behalf. 

“She said, ‘Please don’t do this,’ ” said the woman. The men shot at the ground several times and then left. She fled. 

Five villages in her area were looted and people driven out, she said. In one of them, Oreti, she said she saw the bodies of two women decomposing. The walk was terrifying. She spent one night in an empty house. 

She was reminded of the violence that took the life of her husband in the early 1990s, when Ossetians and Georgians fought an all-out war. “I wish I’d died soon after my husband,” she said. “There are so many deaths.”

A Georgian official said some of the worst “ethnic cleansing” was in the towns of Eredvi, Ditsi, Tirdznisi and Kuraleti. A man from the village of Karetezhvyari said he returned to check his house on Thursday, only to discover several houses on fire. 

The man, who gave only his first name, Nukri, was livid about the lootings and the Russian advance. “They were a big empire, and they fell,” he said, “but they can’t stop acting like one.”

Sabrina Tavernise reported from Gori and Tbilisi, Georgia, and Matt Siegel from Tskhinvali, Georgia. Bryon Denton contributed reporting from Gori.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/world/europe/15ethnic.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is *an article with which I agree* (save for the brief assessment of Russia’s military capabilities – about which I have insufficient information):

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=726006


> The new cold war, a brief history
> 
> Matt Gurney, National Post
> 
> Published: Friday, August 15, 2008
> 
> The Russian advance deep into Georgia, with tanks rolling into the city of Gori yesterday in flagrant violation of the EU sponsored ceasefire, seems to have caught many off-guard. Perhaps the most surprised of all is Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, whose attempt to crush South Ossetian separatists under the noses of Russian troops provoked the response that has seen his country heavily bombed and partially occupied. While Western diplomats bluster and offer stern but vague warnings to Moscow, the Russians continue their assault.
> 
> The invasion of Georgia marks only the latest in a series of escalating Russian provocations. In the past, when I would slip up and call them "Soviets," I'd always correct myself. These days, I no longer see the point. Our cunning Cold War enemies, repackaged now as Russian nationalists, are back. The ideology has changed, but the methodology is all too familiar.
> 
> While it has taken years for Russia's depleted military strength to match the ambitions of its leadership, the seeds of the current conflict can be seen clearly as far back as four years ago. Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-Western, pro-NATO Ukrainian presidential candidate, almost lost his life to a clumsy poisoning attempt that left him physically scarred but politically triumphant. Having failed to stop the popular "Orange Revolution" from sweeping Yushchenko into office, the Russians then sought to discredit him politically when, in a move grimly reminiscent of the Berlin blockade, they disrupted the natural gas supplies that provided one-third of the Ukraine's power and upon which its economy depended. The fact that this action also disrupted energy supplies in Western Europe seemed to be of little concern to Russia's then-president and now Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin.
> 
> Two years after the attempt on Yushchenko's life, Alexander Litvinenko, an outspoken critic of Putin and defector to the United Kingdom, was murdered on British soil, falling victim to a radioactive poison the same day he made allegations linking Putin to the murder of a Russian journalist, one among many such silencings. While neither of the poisonings can be explicitly linked back to Russia, given that both Putin and his inner circle are former KGB men, it can be said that in these cases the smoke almost certainly means there's fire.
> 
> In 2007, Putin ratcheted up the Cold War nostalgia a notch further when he announced that Russia would resume regular patrol flights by long-range bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons. While it cannot be proven one way or the other whether or not these planes are indeed carrying live nukes, they have certainly made a nuisance of themselves.
> 
> The bombers, mainly the venerable Tu-95 Bear, have flown provocatively close to North America's airspace, on more than one occasion prompting the North American Air Defence Command to scramble Canadian and American fighter jets to intercept the Russian planes and ensure they stayed outside of our territory. Russian bombers have also flown past the American military base on Guam, and in a brazen move in February of this year, flown over the USS Nimitz battle group, with one bomber passing within 2,000 feet of the carrier herself.
> 
> The Europeans have received similar visits. In an instance particularly revealing of Putin's desire to assert his strength, the British were forced to scramble Tornado fighter jets on three separate occasions in July, 2007, a low point in British-Russian relations brought about by Russia's refusal to extradite a suspect in Litvinenko's murder. Three months later, a pair of Bear bombers flew over the North Sea, alarmingly close to a meeting of NATO defence ministers in the Netherlands, once again compelling fighters to be sent aloft to intercept them.
> 
> Nor have the Russians hesitated to use maskirovka, or deception, to further intimidate. In April, 2006, a Russian air force general bragged to reporters that an advanced Tu-160 Blackjack bomber, modified to be stealthier than earlier models, had successfully penetrated NORAD's defences and overflown North American territory without being detected. For obvious reasons, this claim cannot be verified; one cannot prove or disprove the presence of an invisible aircraft.
> 
> Much more recently, Russian media reported only last month that the air force was considering basing nuclear-capable bombers in Cuba, a move that, though denied by Moscow, brought an immediate response from the U. S. military. General Norman Schwartz, on the eve of his promotion to Air Force chief of staff, told Congress that any such move, so reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, would be "crossing the line." How seriously either of these threats should be taken is unclear, but certainly, they were not meant to improve relations.
> 
> These overt provocations have been exacerbated by Russia's increasingly apparent diplomatic opposition to Western interests. Whether manifested by its refusal to back international action against the Sudanese government's ethnic cleansing in Darfur, or the proposed sale of fully modern anti-aircraft batteries to the Iranians over the strident objections of Israel, Russia has set itself against the West across a wide spectrum of issues.
> 
> Today, with Georgia getting the same kind of treatment the Soviet Union meted out to Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and the Baltic states, it might be time for the West to accept the fact that these are not unrelated incidents. The Russian bear, after almost 20 years of hibernation, has awoken. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can return to the same kind of hard-nosed, pragmatic diplomacy that allowed us to avoid disaster without sacrificing our vital interests during the first Cold War.
> 
> _mgurney.responses@gmail.com_


----------



## Edward Campbell

And here is another article, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, that supports my proposed _sanctions_:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=726008


> Great bear rising
> 
> Aurel Braun, National Post
> 
> Published: Friday, August 15, 2008
> 
> Using massive military force to invade and utterly humiliate another country, and justifying the attack with outlandish claims of victimization, the Kremlin's behaviour in Georgia harks back to Soviet days. While today's Russia is no U.S.S.R. (it lacks both the ideology and the vast military might of its superpower predecessor), its actions in the Caucuses have profoundly dangerous implications for the region, NATO and international peace.
> 
> In South Ossetia, Moscow prodded and provoked the excitable Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili into retaliating for Ossetian attacks across the breakaway region's temporary demarcation lines. When Saakashvili decided last week to retake the region, which the international community recognizes as an integral part of Georgia, the Russians were well prepared, and swiftly crushed the vastly smaller and weaker Georgian army.
> 
> The six-point plan for a ceasefire and disengagement, to which the Russian and Georgian Presidents agreed on Tuesday, is sufficiently ambiguous to leave Russia with ample opportunity for "interpretation" and intimidation. Large-scale Russian military actions across Georgia since the ceasefire starkly confirm this.
> 
> It is vital to put Russia's action in a larger context in order to better understand the Kremlin's goals in the recent conflict, its long-term expectations and the potential dangers to international peace.
> 
> It seems that Russia has been primarily motivated by five major factors:
> 
> *KOSOVO*
> 
> The Georgian conflict has clearly demonstrated that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is in charge, and that President Dmitry Medvedev is little more than "a flower in his lapel." For months, Putin has warned that the Kremlin would retaliate for Western nations' recognition of Kosovo's independence. For Moscow, recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (another disputed region of Georgia) is "payback." In effectively annexing these parts of Georgia, however, Moscow is going further, establishing a dangerous precedent for Russian regional expansionism.
> 
> *NATO*
> 
> Moscow's Georgian foray sent a powerful message to neighbouring NATO aspirants -- especially Ukraine -- that any attempt to join the alliance will bring dire punishment. The West can ill afford to have Russia establish this type of "deterrent" to alliance enlargement.
> 
> *MISSILE SHIELD*
> 
> The Russian invasion sent a forceful signal to Poland and the Czech Republic that they must not agree to deploy missile defences against a future Iranian threat. The fact that the leaders of Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia rushed to Tbilisi to express solidarity with Georgia is but one indication of how extraordinarily concerned they are regarding the possibility that Russia could exercise a veto over the defence policies of NATO states.
> 
> *NATURAL GAS PIPELINES*
> 
> In its brutal exercise of military power throughout Georgia, including bombing the country's primary port and blowing up Georgian ships, Moscow undermined Western hopes of building natural gas pipelines in Georgia that would skirt Russian territory -- thereby bringing secure energy supplies from the Caspian area. Western investors are unlikely to risk billions of dollars to build such pipelines on territory where Russia can so quickly -- and in such an unchallenged fashion -- commit this level of violence. Moscow is telling Western Europeans, in particular, that they will continue to depend on Russian pipelines, which Moscow will not hesitate to turn into political currency.
> 
> *WESTERN QUIESCENCE*
> 
> The tepid reaction from Western European countries (particularly Germany) to Russia's massive use of force confirms Putin's expectations. It reinforces his apparent belief that Russia can successfully use "petromail" to silence Western opposition to Russian belligerence. It also strengthens his belief that manoeuvres, manipulation and intimidation add up to a shortcut to achieving global power, even if Russia (but for energy) does not have a modern, competitive world-class economy.
> 
> There are enormous risks that Russia, an ersatz great power, will draw the wrong lessons from its "success" in this conflict -- and that the reinforcement of Putinite myths and ambitions will
> lead Moscow to dangerously "overreach" in its foreign relations in general and specifically in regard to the Baltics and Ukraine. The West must therefore disabuse Moscow of its illusions.
> 
> This certainly does not require a major military response, which at any rate would be unrealistic. While some suggest that accommodation and appeasement are our only options, Moscow is vulnerable and we have several viable courses of action:
> 
> - Re-examine Russia's membership in the G8;
> 
> - Question Moscow's aspirations for World Trade Organization membership;
> 
> - Reassess the advisability of continuing with the NATO-Russia Council, which gives Moscow an important participatory role in the alliance;
> 
> - Insist on the deployment of a true international force in the breakaway regions of Georgia, while re-emphasizing the non-negotiability of Georgia's territorial integrity, a stance that international law strongly supports.
> 
> These and other options are worth exploring. Canada, moreover, has the international credibility and the opportunity to play a major role in addressing this crisis, and helping to prevent an even wider and more deadly confrontation in the future.
> 
> _Aurel Braun is a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Toronto. His latest book is NATO-Russia Relations in the Twenty-First Century (Routledge, 2008)._



I agree with Braun that the West’s reaction has been tepid – flaccid also seems like a good descriptor.

Obviously I agree with his prescriptions but I would reword them ever so slightly. The US led West should:

•	Re-examine Revoke Russia's membership in the G8;

•	Question Scupper Moscow's aspirations for World Trade Organization membership;

•	Reassess the advisability of continuing with Cancel the NATO-Russia Council, which gives Moscow an important participatory role in the alliance; and

•	Insist on Lead the deployment of a true international force in the breakaway regions of Georgia, while re-emphasizing the non-negotiability of Georgia's territorial integrity, a stance that international law strongly supports.


----------



## a_majoor

The resurgence of Russian power and the growth of Chinese power are alarming developments for the West (see A Grand Strategy for a divided America), particularly since these are autocratic powers which do not have a history of or respect for the triad of ideas that underpin our civilization: Freedom of expression, Property rights and Rule of Law.

They do have a great deal of respect for power: political, economic and military. 

While in the long run there may be a time when China and Russia confront each other over the resources of Siberia, for now they are in an alliance of conveinience against America and the West. They happily provide nuclear fuel to our enemies, support anti western regimes and are now flexing their economic muscles (the cutting of natural gas supplies to the Ukraine and the implicit threat to Western Europe is a pretty blatent example). This is similar to the unholy marriage of conveinience between the Iranians, militant Wahhabi's and secular Ba'athists in the Middle East. Only the Americans can prevent these groups from becoming regional Hegemons, so the Americans have to be defeated first before they can get down to the serious business of killing each other....

The US "Grand Strategy" of building partnerships throughout Asia may take a beating over this incident, but since the US is in the Caucus, the 'Stans and Mongolia, they may still be holding high cards in the game. As an Oceanic Power, the US and the West as a whole does not "need" these areas, but having the ability to shape and broadly influence the region will pay off in the longer term (say +35 years from now after the Russian demographic crash), so maybe we are not taking a broad enough view of things here.


----------



## wolfshadow

If the US leaves Georgia hanging in the breeze, with Georgia being, IIRC, the 3rd largest deployment in Iraq, how does it affect US credibility with other erstwhile allies?  

And how do the regulars feel about a possible treaty/alliance between Turkey, Ukraine and Georgia, as well as some of the other former Warsaw Pact states?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good news:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2729

* Media Advisory

Statement by the Minister of National Defence on the cancellation of a planned NORAD military exercise with Russia*

NR–08.054 - August 14, 2008

*OTTAWA* - The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, issued the following statement today: 

“In light of the current situation in Georgia, and after consultation with our American allies, we agreed that it would be inappropriate to go ahead with Exercise VIGILANT EAGLE, a planned combined NORAD-Russia military exercise that was scheduled to begin August 20, 2008. 

We will assess participation in future such exercises as the situation evolves. 

The Government of Canada’s position on hostilities in Georgia was clearly stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I join with them in calling for Russia to fully respect the terms of the cease-fire and respect Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

We sincerely hope for an end to these hostilities, and for the safety of the civilian populations affected by this crisis."

-30-​


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The resurgence of Russian power and the growth of Chinese power are alarming developments for the West (see A Grand Strategy for a divided America), particularly since these are autocratic powers which do not have a history of or respect for the triad of ideas that underpin our civilization: Freedom of expression, Property rights and Rule of Law.
> 
> They do have a great deal of respect for power: political, economic and military.
> 
> While in the long run there may be a time when China and Russia confront each other over the resources of Siberia, for now they are in an alliance of conveinience against America and the West. They happily provide nuclear fuel to our enemies, support anti western regimes and are now flexing their economic muscles (the cutting of natural gas supplies to the Ukraine and the implicit threat to Western Europe is a pretty blatent example). This is similar to the unholy marriage of conveinience between the Iranians, militant Wahhabi's and secular Ba'athists in the Middle East. Only the Americans can prevent these groups from becoming regional Hegemons, so the Americans have to be defeated first before they can get down to the serious business of killing each other....
> 
> The US "Grand Strategy" of building partnerships throughout Asia may take a beating over this incident, but since the US is in the Caucus, the 'Stans and Mongolia, they may still be holding high cards in the game. As an Oceanic Power, the US and the West as a whole does not "need" these areas, but having the ability to shape and broadly influence the region will pay off in the longer term (say +35 years from now after the Russian demographic crash), so maybe we are not taking a broad enough view of things here.



I reiterate my long held position that we have no *fundamental* dispute with China. It is not and is not going to become a friend but there is no reason to make it into an enemy.

Russia is another matter. Geography and petroleum make it a *potential* threat. Its own _disposition_ (a cultural predisposition to “thuggishness,” perhaps?) reinforces its threatening potential.

China sees the same (geographic and petroleum) threats from Russia as we should.

With regard to the ‘Stans’: I say let China have ‘em, and good riddance. They are a festering sore, I think, collectively a _’pimple on the prick of progress’_ as one of my favourite NCOs used to say about a half century in the past. I’m guessing that the Chinese find them terribly frustrating ‘clients’: expensive, corrupt, even by China’s lax standards, and administratively inept. Thucydides is right, “we” (the West) still have an essentially _maritime_ strategy – a variant of the one Elizabeth I pioneered. We don’t need to ‘hold’ too much ground – especially not in hostile regions like Central Asia. 

If China and Russia return, as I am certain they will, to their traditional enmity it cannot be anything but ‘good’ for us – in the near to mid term. *But*: If, at the end of the process, China acquires large, ‘domestic’ (formerly Russian) oil and natural gas reserves then we would not be quite so happy – unless the ‘petroleum age’ is near its end, anyway.


----------



## JackD

And some more on ethnic cleansing: if you look at the referred-to Human Rights Watch - it is far from being pro-American in regard to the articles posted: 

Georgia accuses Russia of 'ethnic cleansing'
 MARGARITA ANTIDZE 

Reuters

August 15, 2008 at 6:43 AM EDT

TBILISI — Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili appealed to the world to stop what he termed Russia's “barbaric, inhuman, treacherous” occupation, hours before U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrives to secure Tbilisi's signature to a French-led peace deal.

Amid reports of looting by militias, Mr. Saakashvili accused Russian troops of “ethnically cleansing” the rebel areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He said Moscow wanted to force Georgia into a humiliation like the one suffered by Czechoslovakia at the hands of the Nazis.

Russia says its actions were fully justified by Georgia's “aggression” in attacking South Ossetia last week and maintains its troops must stay on the ground in Georgia to secure the situation and prevent further conflict.

“I accuse the government of Russia of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing,” Mr. Saakashvili said on Thursday night. “We've received 14,000 reports of brutal attacks, slaughter, rapes and internment of people in violation of the rules of the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law.”



 Moscow attacked Georgia with troops, tanks, planes and warships last week after Tbilisi sent a force into South Ossetia to try to take back control over the province, which threw off Georgian control in a war in the 1990s.

Russian troops and armour remained deep inside Georgian territory on Friday, in Moscow's biggest show of force outside its borders since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

The United Nations has expressed alarm at lawlessness in war-torn areas. Witnesses in the area have seen Ossetian militiamen attacking villages and stealing cars.

The United States, a close ally of Georgia, has accused Russia of trying to “punish Georgia for daring to try to integrate with the West” and has threatened serious consequences for years to come unless Moscow steps back.

On Friday, Ms. Rice told reporters on her plane: "We'll try to get this formal ceasefire in place because the goal of this is to get a ceasefire and to get Russian forces to withdraw from the country ASAP".

In a move further souring Russia's ties with Washington, Poland agreed on Thursday to host elements of a U.S. anti- missile system on its land after Washington agreed to base a battery of Patriot missiles there amid the Georgia crisis.

Russia views the plans for an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe as a serious threat to its national security and has promised to respond.

A Moscow Foreign Ministry source on Friday told local agencies that the haste with which Poland and the U.S. agreed the deal “proved” that the system was targeted at Russia.

Diplomatic efforts to end the crisis, which has unnerved oil markets and alarmed the West, continued.

Georgia has yet to formally place its signature on a peace deal brokered this week by France, and Mr. Saakashvili appeared uncertain about it.

“We are still in the negotiating process ... Russians are trying to justify their invasion and to legalize their presence in Georgia,” Mr. Saakashvili told CNN. “I think we should take a closer look at it (the peace agreement).”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel will meet Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Sochi, near Georgia's border, to urge Russia to embrace diplomacy in its showdown with its small neighbour.

Germany is Russia's biggest trading partner and has historically taken a balanced position towards Moscow, meaning the Kremlin pays close attention to Berlin.

On Friday, Russian tanks and armoured vehicles were again blocking the main entrance to the key Georgian town of Gori, 70 kilometres west of Tbilisi, a Reuters correspondent said.

Russian soldiers relaxing under trees at the Gori checkpoint said looters had been active in the town overnight.

The West is determined to stop the Caucasus sliding further into conflict, not least out of fear for the security of key oil supply routes through the region from the Caspian Sea.

On Thursday, witnesses said Russian tanks had rolled through the Black Sea port of Poti, accompanying trucks with troops to the port area. A large column of Russian troops was seen in the western town of Zugdidi, not far from the second pro-Moscow separatist region of Abkhazia.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, architect of a three-day old ceasefire, said Mr. Saakashvili's signature to a six-point peace deal would “consolidate” the halt to fighting and lead to the withdrawal of Russian troops.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: “We can forget about talks on Georgia's territorial integrity because it's impossible to force South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree that they can be returned into Georgia's fold by force.”

Russia has said the case of Kosovo, a breakaway province of Serbia whose self-proclaimed independence was promptly recognized by major Western powers, creates a legal precedent for Georgia's separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, responding to Mr. Lavrov, said Georgia's territorial integrity was not under debate.

“Georgia's borders have been reaffirmed by numerous Security Council resolutions. So the question of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be the subject of international negotiations as they have been at the UN Security Council,” she said.

A U.S. human rights group on Friday accused Russia of dropping cluster bombs in populated areas of Georgia during its military offensive that began last week, but Moscow denied the charge.

Human Rights Watch said Russian aircraft had used cluster bombs in two separate raids on the towns of Ruisi and Gori on Tuesday, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens.

Asked about the report, the deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told a news conference: “We never use cluster bombs. There is no need to do so.”

The Gori strike killed at least eight, Human Rights Watch said, including a Dutch cameraman. An Israeli journalist was among the wounded and an armoured vehicle belonging to Reuters news agency was perforated with shrapnel.

The rights watchdog cited interviews with victims, doctors and military personnel, as well as photos of craters and video footage of the Gori attack, to support its assertion that Russia had used cluster bombs.

It said video showed more than two dozen simultaneous explosions during the attack, characteristic of cluster bombs. The munitions contain dozens or hundreds of smaller submunitions or bomblets and explode across a broad area.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080815.wgeorgia0815/BNStory/International/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp

The Human Rights Watch site: http://www.hrw.org/


----------



## vonGarvin

JackD said:
			
		

> Asked about the report, the deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told a news conference: “We never use cluster bombs. There is no need to do so.”


Of course they don't need cluster bombs.  Not when you have 9P140s!  >


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree with Edward to this extent:  One at a time.

We can't take on both Russia and China and it doesn't serve us well to drive the two into each others arms.  Better by far to deal with the greater threat first.

Russia is the most obstreporous of the two and needs to be dealt with first.  The Chinese are more inclined to play a long game and so we can back burner them for a while.  Perhaps their own internal contradictions will bring them around before a confrontation is required.  Or they will end up in Edward's Siberian Conflict.

Russia, on the other hand, seems to be feeling desperate.  And that is a problem.

As to Turkey, Ukraine and Georgia: the last time that those territories were united into one polity the Byzantines and Khazars were the dominant hegemons and they were having to deal with Mohammeds Marauders.  The Vikings had not yet established their outpost at Kiev.

That is one alliance that the Russians would not stand for, and have enough ethnic allies in both Georgia and Ukraine to make it difficult/impossible.


----------



## wolfshadow

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1563317.ece

Well if you have no legitimate reason to be there, why not conduct a litttle armed robbery while you are on your "tour".
Again, this speaks to the discipline level of the troops deployed there.


----------



## tomahawk6

Brookings Institute article.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2008/0814_georgia/20080814_georgia.pdf


----------



## CougarKing

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I agree with Edward to this extent:  One at a time.
> 
> We can't take on both Russia and China and it doesn't serve us well to drive the two into each others arms.  Better by far to deal with the greater threat first.



Forgive me if I disagree. I think it is only a matter of time before the PLA will take Taiwan if somehow the Guo Min Dang  and the CCP will not set aside their schism differences just for the sake of unification and mainly to spite the DPP. ROC President Ma and other Pan-Blue officials like James Song and Lien Chan may be implementing more links with the mainland, but they are no Beijing sycophants. I just don't see any "one country, two systems arrangement" happening to Taiwan as what happened to Hong Kong and Macao. 

I do not think that this is a return to the bipolar world of the Cold War;  both Russia and China must be thought of as just major poles within this multipolar world in which the EU and India are also major poles as well to compete with the US/the UK/Canada/Australia (the Anglosphere=one pole).

And are we forgetting the SCO or Shanghai Six Alliance that includes Russia and China?


----------



## Kirkhill

I am not forgetting the SCO - I just happen to see that as a very tenuous marriage of convenience.  Russia and China will agree to co-operate right up until the time that their vital interests are involved.  And in fragile states like both China and Russia, with overlapping territorial interests, I don't believe it takes very long for their vitals to be afffected. They are not robust societies capable of absorbing a lot of stress.

Russia only gets to sell gas to China because of the successful expanionist policies of the Tsars (especially the 19th century ones).  The CPSU merely managed to hang on to what the Tsars one while China was too weak and disinterested.  Now China is at least the equal of Russia, but rising - perhaps too fast, while Russia is on the downhill side of history (demographically).  China is probably better positioned to replace Russia between the Urals and the Pacific, if not the Dnepr, but as alluded to by both Edward and myself, that doesn't guarantee them control of the Steppes.

I don't disagree with your concern for Taiwan, in fact I agree that factions within Beijing might be encouraged by the Georgian adventure to try their luck if the West reacts as pusillanimously as it seems it might.  Unfortunately for Taiwan it isn't as strategically critical as Georgia (IMHO).  On the plus side, because of its maritime accessibility - and the Maritime Capabilities of the Anglosphere described by Thucydides and Edward Taiwain is easier to defend and more likely to be successfully supported simply by a demonstration of Aircraft Carriers.

Beyond that however, I see Taiwan as a Prestige Issue (is "face" the right word" for Beijing, while water, food and fuel are Essentials.  (And in invoking Lazlo's Hierarchy of Needs we might also add Brides as a rising Essential).

My sense is that while China and the Chinese by and large see a bright future and are generally optimistic in the face of their considerable challenges the Russians are contemplating a long dark night.  I fear that their pessimism breeds desperation which makes them more unpredictable.  That is as a nation.  Beyond the Russian nation, you have Thucydides's kleptocracy, who I believe has a much feeling for the Russians as the early Tsars had for the serfs.


----------



## armyca08

0.02

Taiwan is a provience of CHina that has been occupied by one side of a civil war for generations - the UN backed that notion years ago, which is why China sits at the UN and Taiwan does not. It is only a matter of time before the gap between Taiwan and China is mostly non existant - with China opening up its economy a little, what will the gov.of taiwan have to offer than china can not provide?I think many Taiwanese, regular taiwanese would be releived to know that the anual exerciss of the storming of Taiwan and Chinese mssle tests will have no reason to continue. Of course this is as China slowly gains a little more acceptance in the west.

NATO is outside it's home ground a bit, if not for Turkey the legitimacy of action in Iraq would be much less. Afghanistan is very much removed from the NATO close sphere. Georgia of course borders both Turkey and Russia. 


The conflict is winding down... ---- butI am very much saddened by how heavy the propaganda rolled out.


----------



## a_majoor

A further look at Russian motivations. As has been pointed out by myself and others, Russia might have the military muscle and the threat of nuclear and petro dollar blackmail to maintain its grip for a while, but the dysfunctional nature of the kleptocracy in the short to medium term will provide economic limits to how far Russia can really go (and also provides a lever to use against Russia, if we choose to implement aggressive measures against money laundering and limit investment into corrupt Russian enterprises). Edward has pointed out we have several diplomatic levers, and in the long run, the demographic crash will eliminate Russia as a Great Power (and it will take generations to recover, if that is even possible. No nation in history has ever gone into such steep decline. We should not be smug; Canada and the EU are also in sinking demographic boats...)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20080815.aspx



> *The Empire Struggles Back*
> 
> August 15, 2008: The Russian empire is being rebuilt. The Russian people demand it. Russian politicians are using this popular attitude to placate the people, and distract them from the fact that Russia is turning into a dictatorship. And so Russia is pressuring its neighbors to do what they are told by Moscow. In support of this, the Russian government has re-established control over key industries, as well as all the major mass media.
> 
> While the 1917 revolution destroyed the ancient Russian monarchy and simultaneously rejected democracy and the market economy, the 1917 revolution didn't work. The overbearing and inept czarist aristocracy eventually returned in the form of overbearing and inept Communist Party officials and state-appointed industrial managers. The second revolution in 1991 was less bloody than that of 1917, but the huge Communist bureaucracy was not dismissed, only reduced.
> 
> Unlike the 1917 revolution, 1991 one saw the dismemberment of the czarist empire, something even the 1917 Reds were not willing to tolerate. Territories that had been Russia's for centuries, like Ukraine and Belarus, plus others that had only been conquered in the 19th century (Central Asia and the Caucasus), were suddenly independent once more.
> 
> But not completely free. The Russians called their new neighbors the "Near Abroad" and treated them more like prodigal children than sovereign nations. In the early 1990s, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was formed by Russia. The CIS was sort of a successor of the Soviet Union. But after he 1990s, the CIS began to fall apart. Some members, especially Armenia, Ukraine, Georgia and Turkmenistan, drifted away. Or at least tried to. Apparently you could join the CIS, but not leave it.
> 
> *The New Russia of the 1990s faced serious economic and political problems internally, as well as unrest on its new borders with these new neighbors. Russia sought to solve all these problems to its advantage, Thus the Near Abroad nations are increasingly hostile to Russian interference. During all this, Russians grew increasingly nostalgic for the old empire. Russian politicians played on this by talking of rebuilding the empire.*
> 
> *There were other considerations. For over a thousand years, Russians have lived in fear of invasion. Thus it has always been popular to absorb or subdue neighbors, to provide a buffer zone between the core Russian (mainly Slavic) territories, and potential invaders. The Golden Age was the post World War II period, when Russia still had all the czarist conquests, while Eastern Europe, Mongolia and North Korea were run by communist governments that were basically satellites of Russia. Memory here has been selective. The empire was expensive, in terms of cash, diplomatic ill-will and poor public relations. But only the good things are now remembered, which is how nationalistic memories usually work.*
> 
> Ironically, the Russian military industries were saved in the last decade by India and China. These two nations kept Russian weapons manufacturers alive with large orders. More importantly, the booming economies in China and India drove up the price of oil, of which Russia is a major exporter. The billions in oil wealth propped up the Russian economy and allowed the armed forces to be rebuilt. Now Russia talks openly of reclaiming its status as a superpower and dictating the fate of its neighbors. But Russia remains a second rate military power, with a second rate arms industry and a collection of very hostile, and fearful, neighbors.
> 
> The war in Georgia comes on the heels of threats (of violence) made to Ukraine. Before that, Russia cut off energy supplies to Ukraine to show who was really in charge. Russia makes more threats to the Baltic States and East European countries over membership in NATO and the construction of a U.S. anti-missile system. The bear is back in a fighting mood, and the world wonders how far this reassertion of empire will go.
> 
> Western Europe is paralyzed by fear of losing a quarter of its natural gas supplies. When Russia set up those gas pipelines during the Cold War, somber pledges were made that gas deliveries would never be used for political purposes. After seeing what happened to Ukraine, and other East European customers, no one can be sure anymore. After Georgia, no one can feel safe from Russian violence anymore either.


----------



## armyca08

What happened to the Ukraine with the gas supplies. They started being normalized with global gas prices rather than giving them gas for a fraction of the world market cost? Then those who had to pay the actual free market rates started whining..


----------



## Kirkhill

A 1995 Russian strategy to ally with Iraq, Iran and Algeria?
Iraq stabilizing?
Russia in Georgia?
Tehran playing for time with Russian help?
EU and the US upping the ante against Tehran?
US topping up the strategic oil reserve?
Israel practicing long range air missions?
US/UK/Fr gathering naval forces at the Straits of Hormuz (Roosevelt, Reagan and Lincoln, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Ark Royal with Roosevelt carrying French Fighters)?
US pushing naval forces into the Baltic to aid Georgia?




> TIMMERMAN: Global strategy harbinger?
> 
> Friday, August 15, 2008
> 
> …A 1995 Russian national security memo, obtained by Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, who had it translated by the CIA, identifies the United States as "the main external force potentially capable of creating a threat to the Russian Federation military security and to Russia's economic and political interests."
> The memo, written by a top adviser to the Russian defense minister and stamped "approved" by the defense minister's office, sketches out a new Russian policy to contain the United States in the Persian Gulf. "And in case Russia is persistently driven into a corner, then it will be possible to undertake to sell military nuclear and missile technologies to such countries as Iran and Iraq, and to Algeria after Islamic forces arrive in power there," the memo states.
> "Moreover, Russia's direct military alliance with some of the countries mentioned also should not be excluded, above all with Iran, within the framework of which a Russian troop contingent and tactical nuclear weapons could be stationed on the shores of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz."
> Just idle talk? Consider the following facts:
> c Just one month after he was briefed on this memo, Defense Minister Pavel Grachev went to Iran to discuss military cooperation. His visit paved the way for a sweeping 10-year cooperation agreement the two countries signed Dec. 28, 1995.
> c Two months after the briefing, Russia began shipping to Iraq gyroscopes scavenged from dismantled SS-18 strategic nuclear missiles.
> c Within four months of the briefing, the Russian government authorized Russian missile experts to travel to Iran, to work on jointly developing a new generation of nuclear missiles for Iran. Those missiles became the Shahab-3, which Iran parades about the streets of Tehran with signs in English that read "Israel will be wiped off the map." ..



http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/15/global-strategy-harbinger/



> By: Richard the First
> Lets see now, we have Russia’ incursion Georgia’ South Ossetia Provence as well as Russian war ships along their Black Sea coast. We have Iran’ continued threats to wipe Israeli off the face of the map. The Israeli air force makes a 1,500 mile fly over of the Mediterranean Sea in June and the US has its strategic oil reserves at 92+ % and is expanding its capacity. This does not give one a warm fuzzy feeling.



August 15, 2008 at 1:03 p.m.  | (From the comments on the above article)



> Is war in air in the Gulf?
> Claude Salhani UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
> Thursday, August 14, 2008
> 
> No sooner was there an end to Operation Brimstone - a joint U.S., British and French naval megaexercise held in the Atlantic Ocean, where the allies practiced enforcing an eventual blockade on Iran - than, according to numerous reports, the armada set sail for Gulf waters and a potential showdown with Iran.
> The move came shortly after the European Union issued a decree Friday authorizing the imposition of stronger sanctions against Iran, on top of existing U.N. Security Council sanctions, over its refusal to back down from its controversial nuclear program.
> Leading the joint naval task force is the nuclear-powered carrier the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its Carrier Strike Group 2. In addition to the 80-plus warplanes the Roosevelt normally transports, it is carrying an additional load of Rafale fighter jets from the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, currently in dry dock.
> Also reportedly heading toward Iran are another nuclear-powered carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, and its Carrier Strike Group 7; the USS Iwo Jima; the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal; and a number of French warships, including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste.
> Once on site, the joint naval force in the Persian Gulf region will be joining two other U.S. battle groups already in position: the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Peleliu, the Lincoln with its carrier strike group and the latter with an expeditionary strike group.
> Meanwhile, Tehran seems undeterred,….



http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/14/is-war-in-air-in-the-gulf/

And then there is this:  A bit of light comic relief to remind everybody that Canada actually DOES have a dog in this fight.  Its outcome matters to us.



> Canada's front line for Arctic sovereignty is a lone research vessel in Beaufort Sea
> 
> Randy Boswell and Andrew Mayeda
> Canwest News Service
> Friday, August 15, 2008
> 
> Next week, in the remote Beaufort Sea 400 kilometres north of the Yukon-Alaska border, a team of Canadian government scientists aboard the Coast Guard icebreaker Louis S. St-Laurent will embark on this country's latest assertion of sovereignty in the Arctic.
> 
> For 42 days, the ship will mow through the ocean, running back and forth as a raft of pricey instruments being towed behind scans the sea floor to create a profile of its composition and contours. The intent is to demonstrate, under the terms of a UN treaty, that Canada's offshore boundaries should be extended beyond the traditional 370-kilometre coastal economic zone to include "natural prolongations" of our continental shelf -- in the Beaufort Sea and north of Ellesmere Island.



http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=b77810f5-8976-4c24-b3a5-1ca5c3db70de&sponsor=


----------



## Kirkhill

And there is this from "that commie rag" the Guardian ;D



> Turkey delivered a humiliating snub to Iran's visiting president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, yesterday by backing out of a lucrative energy deal under pressure from the US government, which feared it would enhance Iranian nuclear ambitions.
> 
> Signing the £1.87bn agreement to provide Turkey with Iranian natural gas - on which memoranda of understanding had already been agreed - was to have been the crowning achievement of Ahmadinejad's two-day visit to Istanbul, which Turkish officials had agreed to after intense Iranian lobbying. Iran is Turkey's second-biggest energy supplier after Russia and has been seeking to woo Turkish investment in its South Pars gas fields.
> 
> But as Ahmadinejad met his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gül, at Ciragan Palace in Istanbul, it emerged that US intervention had effectively torpedoed a deal.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/turkey.iran

That puts a crimp in the Iranian Plan -and the Putin-Kazakh connection.

This is all getting more and more interesting.  Has Putin overplayed his hand?  How do you believe a Professional Liar (KGB Agent)?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dang... so much for all that Hearts and Minds training.

Russian soldiers rob Georgian bank:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1563317.ece


----------



## tomahawk6

The Russians have let their Chechens and the Vostok battalion run loose as well as the irregulars of the Ossetian paramilitary troops. 











Detained ethnic Georgians sit in a truck with coffins as they are made to collect the bodies of dead Georgians soldiers in the South Ossetian capital of Tshinvali August 15, 2008.


----------



## JackD

The scenes displayed and activities shown are very much like those I am reading about as i deal with translations of the German and early Russian occupation of Poland. Mankind hasn't changed much. 

The Russian government seems to play international brinkmanship games, but their investment in Russia - especially in Siberia doesn't seem to be much - air corridors, two national railroad links - only one recently completed, no national highway linkage east probably no fiber-optic network, no new mine development - and certainly no concept of pollution control: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2512697.stm , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3007228.stm; http://artsonearth.com/2008/08/40-most-dangerous-roads-in-world.html

By the way, is Canada still subsidizing the heating costs for Siberian cities? Are the Americans still payingRussians to guard their nuclear weapons? Are the Americans still paying the salaries of the Russian nuclear scientists?


----------



## cameron

I would hope that after this the Canadian Government seriously reconsiders leasing any Russian helicopters.  A message needs to be sent to Russia and IMHO it would be inappropriate to be signing deals with them now to purchase military equipment.


----------



## JackD

Some more on the accusations of genocide:
Mythmaking in Moscow
Georgia wasn't committing 'genocide,' and the Russians aren't keeping the peace.


Saturday, August 16, 2008; A14



THE EVENTS of the past week in the small Caucasus republic of Georgia will prompt animated debates about Russia and U.S.-Russian relations. We view the events as confirmation of the dangerous challenge posed by an authoritarian regime unwilling to recognize the sovereignty of its former imperial possessions. Many will take issue with our interpretation, and that is as it should be. But the debate should be based on facts. Instead, assertions of the Russian leadership that have proved contrary to fact continue to circulate. For example:


· Georgia committed genocide against the people of South Ossetia. This charge was initially leveled by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and has been taken up by others, including President Dmitry Medvedev, who on Thursday came up with the interesting formulation that South Ossetians "had lived through a genocide." Mr. Medvedev has referred to "thousands" killed, and Russian officials frequently have cited 2,000 South Ossetians killed (out of a population of 70,000). They have said Georgia razed the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. These purported depredations are given as the main motivation for Russian military intervention.

A researcher for Human Rights Watch who visited Tskhinvali reported as follows: "A doctor at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital who was on duty from the afternoon of August 7 told Human Rights Watch that between August 6 to 12 the hospital treated 273 wounded, both military and civilians. . . . The doctor also said that 44 bodies had been brought to the hospital since the fighting began, of both military and civilians. The figure reflects only those killed in the city of Tskhinvali. But the doctor was adamant that the majority of people killed in the city had been brought to the hospital before being buried, because the city morgue was not functioning due to the lack of electricity in the city."

Independent journalists back up the account provided by Human Rights Watch. The Wall Street Journal, for example, yesterday reported finding Tskhinvali, where most of the fighting took place, mostly intact and with "little evidence of a high death toll."


· Russians in Georgia are "peacekeepers" on a humanitarian mission to protect civilians. This formulation has alternated with repeated Russian statements, repeatedly disproved, that Russian forces were not in Georgia at all, or were leaving, or were about to leave. In fact, journalists, human rights observers and others have documented that Russian troops have ranged far into Georgia, including the city of Gori and the port of Poti. They have razed, mined and looted Georgian army bases and destroyed civilian houses and apartment buildings.

Militia forces under Russian control include South Ossetians and others brought in from Russia itself -- what Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza described as "the North Caucasus irregular forces that the Russian military inexplicably encouraged to enter South Ossetia to murder, rape and steal." They have attacked civilians in Gori and engaged in ethnic cleansing of Georgian-populated villages in South Ossetia. Remarkably, the Russian-allied "president" of South Ossetia acknowledged the ethnic cleansing yesterday in an interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant, although he did not acknowledge the killings of Georgian civilians that others have documented. Eduard Kokoity said that his forces "offered them a corridor and gave the peaceful population the chance to leave" and that "we do not intend to allow" their return.

A war crime, yes; but at least he was honest about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503319_pf.html


----------



## armyca08

JackD said:
			
		

> Georgia wasn't committing 'genocide,'



Ok what would you call mass murder of an ethnic population , while forcing more than 50% of the population of a fairly large region to flee their homes? With about 60% of the population directly effected, and no signs showing that the process would stop without intervention?


----------



## armyca08

PS here is a slightly unbiased report from yesterday - although the body count is very much unsubstantiated, however bearing the populations of the border villages razed by Georgia you would think the number to be more than 45. For that mater the bear minimum is 45 with Russia's estimate being 1500 - bearing that you would expect that number not to be greater. You would hope that number not to be greater.

http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/russia_oil_politics/archives/2008/08/the_genocide_in.html


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Conflict.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Saturday, August 16, 2008
> 
> Russian forces pull back from Georgian town, other troops stay put
> 
> Christopher Torchia, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> IGOETI, Georgia - Russian forces pulled back Saturday from the centre of a town not far from Georgia's capital after Russia's president signed a ceasefire deal, but other troops stayed put despite pressure for Moscow to honour the agreement.
> 
> Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said a broader withdrawal would come only with further security measures, calling into question how quickly the troops will be out.
> 
> Lavrov also said Russia would strengthen its peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia, the breakaway Georgian region at the centre of more than a week of warfare that has sharply soured relations between Moscow and the West. .....
> 
> The Russian seizure of territory raised fears that Moscow was aiming for a permanent occupation of the country that once was part of its empire.....
> 
> But he (Lavrov) said any "international mechanism" for South Ossetia must back the work of Russian peacekeepers long stationed in the province, indicating that Georgia would not be able to restore its peacekeeping contingent there.
> 
> "These questions are not decided by Condoleezza Rice or somebody else. They are decided first of all by the side that has suffered in the conflict," Lavrov said. *"What peacekeepers from what countries are needed for the people of South Ossetia to feel comfortable is a primarily up to the people of South Ossetia." *
> 
> Lavrov also said the cease-fire deal Saakashvili differed from the one signed by Medvedev, lacking the introductory portion. While the difference appeared largely to be a technicality, it was one that either side might potentially cite if it wanted to abandon the deal.



Link 

So we have a deal with a backdoor opt out, and a set up where South Ossetians will ask for Russian Peacekeepers to protect them.  Presumably the Georgians will then ask for American/NATO/EU/Ukrainian Peacekeepers.

As I said in a PM to one of the members: Berlin II but with the Russians in the Salient at the end of a Corridor (the Roki Tunnel Corridor).

Revolution +71 and the White Forces are back to where they were in Revolution +5.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lots of photo's

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theatrum-belli/sets/72157606625660548/


----------



## a_majoor

Salim Mansur on the dangers of this conflict:

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2008/08/16/pf-6469236.html



> *On the rogue again*
> Russia provides lesson to Iran in the power of nukes and oil
> By SALIM MANSUR
> 
> In one swift demonstration of military swagger Moscow punctured soft-headed thinking in the West that since the Soviet Union's disintegration post-Communist Russia would be a partner supporting freedom and democracy's progress around the world.
> 
> The invasion of Georgia was choreographed by Vladimir Putin's Russia, sending to western capitals the message that Moscow's interests in controlling the former vassal states of the defunct Soviet empire on its borders remain unchanged.
> 
> Moscow is the capital of a state that has failed repeatedly to consummate its ambition of being equal to or greater than its western rivals since the times of Peter the Great in the early 18th century. During the last century a savage political ideology backed by military ruthlessness provided Moscow with a facade of great power status that eventually crumbled through irresolvable inner contradictions.
> 
> Its lies and weaknesses exposed, Russia momentarily withdrew behind its own frontiers while embracing cosmetic democratic reforms as a charade.
> 
> This was greeted in the West, exhausted by the Cold War, as the end of history and other associated platitudes of new age politics.
> 
> An August invasion of the small nation of Georgia is a reminder of another Moscow's mid-summer blitzkrieg into Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the crushing of Prague Spring.
> 
> RISK AVOIDANCE
> 
> Moscow's rulers knew then, as they do now 40 years later, that the West will not risk military confrontation for one simple reason. Russia is a giant rogue state with nuclear weapons.
> 
> But Moscow also is assured of the West's soft-power approach -- the game of endlessly talking with adversaries for keeping the pretence of doing something -- as the European Union's dependency on Russian oil and gas grows.
> 
> A nuclear weapon state sitting atop vital energy reserves is a combination that seemingly guarantees Moscow the power to bully its neighbours, and to take it for granted that the West will grudgingly respect Russia's sphere of influence as it did during the Cold War era of a divided Europe.
> 
> For the West to reflexively appeal to the UN is worse than delusional given Moscow's veto in the Security Council. This would be a craven gesture appeasing a rogue state in the temple of hypocrisy, and conceding there is not much the free world can do in responding to naked aggression.
> 
> Putin's power play has its admirers, and likely none more than the power-crazed theocrats in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his master, Ayatollah Khamenei, have been given a vivid display of how potent is the mix of nuclear weapons and energy reserves in contemplating military force against opponents.
> 
> If the West cannot protect the fragile democracy of Georgia, nor guarantee its independence and territorial integrity by doing the minimum of suspending Russia from the G-8 club, it must yet demonstrate some spine to deter rogue states -- such as Iran, Sudan, or Venezuela -- from imitating Putin's swagger.
> 
> There was another August, within reach of living memory 94 years ago, when Europe tumbled into a catastrophic war. Russia's invasion of Georgia hopefully will not be the guns of August for our generation.
> 
> But when small states are crushed by rogue powers, and the first impulse is to appease the aggressor and blame the victim as western democracies did in September 1938 over Czechoslovakia, then the catastrophe that free people desperately seek to avoid paradoxically looms closer.


----------



## JackD

Another aspect of this conflict and look at these enclaves - if I recall correctly, the same could be said about Muldavia: 

August 16, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
When the War Ends, Start to Worry 
By MICHAEL BRONNER
EVEN as Russia and Georgia continue their on-again, off-again struggle over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a frenzied tea-leaf reading about the war’s global political ramifications has broken out across airwaves and think-tank forums. But as the situation on the ground recedes inevitably to some new form of the pernicious “frozen conflict” that has plagued the region since Georgia’s civil wars of the early 1990s, few are paying attention to a less portentous but equally critical international threat: an increase in the longstanding, rampant criminality in the conflict zones that is likely to further destabilize the entire Caucasus region and at worst provide terrorist groups with the nuclear material they have long craved. 

While the Russian “peacekeepers” who entrenched themselves in the conflict zones in the 1990s (and who will now likely resume their posts anew) have proved ineffectual and uninterested in maintaining stability, they’ve been highly successful in protecting an array of sophisticated criminal networks stretching from Russia through Georgian territory. South Ossetia, in particular, is a nest of organized crime. It is a marketplace for a variety of contraband, from fuel to cigarettes, wheat flour, hard drugs, weapons, people and, recently, counterfeit United States $100 bills “minted” at a press inside the conflict zone. 

“It’s a pretty sophisticated counterfeiting piece,” the American ambassador to Georgia, John Tefft, told me when I was in Georgia last year. He added that the fake bills appear so authentic that, if you weren’t specifically looking for a forgery, you’d easily miss it. More than $20 million worth have been found up and down the East Coast of the United States as well as in Israel, Russia and Georgia.

“We know where the printing press is,” Shota Utiashvili, a chief intelligence analyst at Georgia’s Interior Ministry, told me last year, when I was researching a study on smuggling that was published by Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. “We know the channels of distribution. And we know who is running the business. But the problem is neither we nor the Americans can do anything because the place is under the protection of the Russian military.” I found this sentiment echoed in my discussions at the American Embassy. 

Far more dangerous contraband than fake bills is bartered in the conflict zones. On a bleak winter day last year, I hitched a ride from Tbilisi, the capital, to the “administrative border” — the semiporous line of control that swoops deep into Georgian territory from the Russian border demarking the contours of South Ossetia. I was investigating one of the most serious nuclear smuggling incidents in years — an offer of up to 3 kilograms of bomb-grade highly enriched uranium.

Because South Ossetia is within Georgia’s internationally recognized borders, Georgia doesn’t recognize the South Ossetian periphery as a legitimate frontier, and has thus refused to post border guards or impose any normal controls at the administrative line. At the grim little checkpoint, I had to navigate through dozens of armed young men, clad in seemingly random combinations of camouflage, none bearing the insignia of a national force (the scariest kind of border to cross, as there’s no way of telling who’s who).

Aside from demanding bribes from journalists, these South Ossetian irregulars, backed by the Russian peacekeepers, have long prevented Georgian forces from getting anywhere near the actual border — a two-lane hole called the Roki Tunnel that plunges into a mountainside on the Russian side of the border, cuts through two miles of bedrock beneath the Caucasus Mountains and pops out in South Ossetia, smack in the war zone. 

Three years ago, Georgian intelligence officials began receiving reports from South Ossetian criminal contacts that a Russian smuggler — a North Ossetian calling himself Oleg — was circulating in Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital. He was reportedly looking for a buyer for what he claimed was high-quality enriched uranium pilfered from the Russian military. The price was $1 million for the initial shipment: 100 grams at $10,000 per gram. If the deal went well, a mother lode of up to 3 kilograms would be made available. One hundred grams of highly enriched uranium is not enough to build a nuclear bomb — it’s thought that even a top-tier terrorist group would require at least 15 kilograms — but it would be a step in the right direction. 

Huge international efforts sponsored by the United States State, Energy and Defense Departments have sought to counter such nuclear smuggling (since 1994, the Energy Department has spent upwards of $420 million installing nuclear detection equipment at international border crossings, most of that effort concentrated on Russia’s frontiers), but conflict zones like South Ossetia have been an Achilles’ heel. 

In this case, we got lucky. A haphazard sting operation run by Georgian paramilitaries and Interior Ministry agents recovered the 100 grams of highly enriched uranium and captured Oleg Khinsagov, the Russian smuggler, and three Georgian associates. Testing of the material proved it to be nearly 90 percent pure — bomb-grade uranium indeed — sending secure telephone lines ringing from Washington to Langley, Va. 

The Russian government refused to acknowledge the obvious — that the uranium had originated in Russia — so a quickly assembled team of American experts from the Energy Department and the F.B.I. loaded an unmarked jet and quietly raced to Tbilisi to secure the material.

Good police work is vital, but we simply cannot depend on dramatic interventions like the Georgian raid to combat the broad security threats posed by anarchy on Russia’s borders. There are some great examples of cooperation between Washington and Moscow — the setting up of nuclear detection programs at borders is clearly one of them. Somehow, however, the full spirit of cooperation has yet to reach to the top of Russia’s government — the same men, unfortunately, who seem more inclined to pouring fuel on the fire in Georgia. 

Michael Bronner is an investigative journalist and filmmaker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/opinion/16bronner.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from Friday’s _Daily Telegraph_ is an opinion piece that should give us a good view of what America’s so-called (but mislabelled) _*conservatives*_ ‘wing’ thinks about the Georgia crisis:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2563260/John-Bolton-After-Russias-invasion-of-Georgia-what-now-for-the-West.html


> After Russia's invasion of Georgia, what now for the West?
> *At least for now, the smoke seems to be clearing from the Georgian battlefield. But the extent of the wreckage reaches far beyond that small country.*
> 
> By John R Bolton
> 
> Last Updated: 2:32PM BST 15 Aug 2008
> 
> Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage.
> 
> As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger. Sending Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice to Tbilisi is touching, but hardly reassuring; dispatching humanitarian assistance is nothing more than we would have done if Georgia had been hit by a natural rather than a man-made disaster.
> 
> The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich: a ceasefire that failed to mention Georgia’s territorial integrity, and that all but gave Russia permission to continue its military operations as a “peacekeeping” force anywhere in Georgia. More troubling, over the long term, was that the EU saw its task as being mediator – its favourite role in the world – between Georgia and Russia, rather than an advocate for the victim of aggression.
> 
> Even this dismal performance was enough to relegate Nato to an entirely backstage role, while Russian tanks and planes slammed into a “faraway country”, as Chamberlain once observed so thoughtfully. In New York, paralysed by the prospect of a Russian veto, the UN Security Council, that Temple of the High-Minded, was as useless as it was during the Cold War. In fairness to Russia, it at least still seems to understand how to exercise power in the Council, which some other Permanent Members often appear to have forgotten.
> 
> The West, collectively, failed in this crisis. Georgia wasted its dime making that famous 3am telephone call to the White House, the one Hillary Clinton referred to in a campaign ad questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for the Presidency. Moreover, the blood on the Bear’s claws did not go unobserved in other states that were once part of the Soviet Union. Russia demonstrated unambiguously that it could have marched directly to Tbilisi and installed a puppet government before any Western leader was able to turn away from the Olympic Games. It could, presumably, do the same to them.
> 
> Fear was one reaction Russia wanted to provoke, and fear it has achieved, not just in the “Near Abroad” but in the capitals of Western Europe as well. But its main objective was hegemony, a hegemony it demonstrated by pledging to reconstruct Tskhinvali, the capital of its once and no-longer-future possession, South Ossetia. The contrast is stark: a real demonstration of using sticks and carrots, the kind that American and European diplomats only talk about. Moreover, Russia is now within an eyelash of dominating the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the only route out of the Caspian Sea region not now controlled by either Russia or Iran. Losing this would be dramatically unhelpful if we hope for continued reductions in global petroleum prices, and energy independence from unfriendly, or potentially unfriendly, states.
> 
> It profits us little to blame Georgia for “provoking” the Russian attack. Nor is it becoming of the United States to have anonymous officials from its State Department telling reporters, as they did earlier this week, that they had warned Georgia not to provoke Russia. This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquess of Queensbury rules in South Ossetia, where ethnic violence has been a fact of life since the break-up of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1991 – and, indeed, long before. Instead, we are facing the much larger issue of how Russia plans to behave in international affairs for decades to come. Whether Mikhail Saakashvili “provoked” the Russians on August 8, or September 8, or whenever, this rape was well-planned and clearly coming, given Georgia’s manifest unwillingness to be “Finlandized” – the Cold War term for effectively losing your foreign-policy independence.
> 
> So, as an earlier Vladimir liked to say, “What is to be done?” There are three key focal points for restoring our credibility here in America: drawing a clear line for Russia; getting Europe’s attention; and checking our own intestinal fortitude. Whether history reflects Russia’s Olympic invasion as the first step toward recreating its empire depends – critically – on whether the Bush Administration can resurrect its once-strong will in its waning days, and on what US voters will do in the election in November. Europe also has a vital role – by which I mean the real Europe, its nation states, not the bureaucracies and endless councils in Brussels.
> 
> First, Russia has made it clear that it will not accept a vacuum between its borders and the boundary line of Nato membership. Since the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union collapsed, this has been a central question affecting successive Nato membership decisions, with the fear that nations in the “gap” between Nato and Russia would actually be more at risk of Russian aggression than if they joined Nato. The potential for instability and confrontation was evident.
> 
> Europe’s rejection this spring of President Bush’s proposal to start Ukraine and Georgia towards Nato membership was the real provocation to Russia, because it exposed Western weakness and timidity. As long as that perception exists in Moscow, the risk to other former Soviet territories – and in precarious regions such as the Middle East – will remain.
> 
> Obviously, not all former Soviet states are as critical to Nato as Ukraine, because of its size and strategic location, or Georgia, because of its importance to our access to the Caspian Basin’s oil and natural gas reserves. Moreover, not all of them meet fundamental Nato prerequisites. But we must now review our relationship with all of them. This, in effect, Nato failed to do after the Orange and Rose Revolutions, leaving us in our present untenable position.
> 
> By its actions in Georgia, Russia has made clear that its long-range objective is to fill that “gap” if we do not. That, as Western leaders like to say, is “unacceptable”. Accordingly, we should have a foreign-minister-level meeting of Nato to reverse the spring capitulation at Bucharest, and to decide that Georgia and Ukraine will be Nato’s next members. By drawing the line clearly, we are not provoking Russia, but doing just the opposite: letting them know that aggressive behaviour will result in costs that they will not want to bear, thus stabilising a critical seam between Russia and the West. In effect, we have already done this successfully with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
> 
> Second, the United States needs some straight talk with our friends in Europe, which ideally should have taken place long before the assault on Georgia. To be sure, American inaction gave French President Sarkozy and the EU the chance to seize the diplomatic initiative. However, Russia did not invade Georgia with diplomats or roubles, but with tanks. This is a security threat, and the proper forum for discussing security threats on the border of a Nato member – yes, Europe, this means Turkey – is Nato.
> 
> Saying this may cause angst in Europe’s capitals, but now is the time to find out if Nato can withstand a potential renewed confrontation with Moscow, or whether Europe will cause Nato to wilt. Far better to discover this sooner rather than later, when the stakes may be considerably higher. If there were ever a moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall when Europe should be worried, this is it. If Europeans are not willing to engage through Nato, that tells us everything we need to know about the true state of health of what is, after all, supposedly a “North Atlantic” alliance.
> 
> Finally, the most important step will take place right here in the United States. With a Presidential election on November 4, Americans have an opportunity to take our own national pulse, given the widely differing reactions to Russia’s blitzkrieg from Senator McCain and (at least initially) Senator Obama. First reactions, before the campaigns’ pollsters and consultants get involved, are always the best indicators of a candidate’s real views. McCain at once grasped the larger, geostrategic significance of Russia’s attack, and the need for a strong response, whereas Obama at first sounded as timorous and tentative as the Bush Administration. Ironically, Obama later moved closer to McCain’s more robust approach, followed only belatedly by Bush.
> 
> In any event, let us have a full general election debate over the implications of Russia’s march through Georgia. Even before this incident, McCain had suggested expelling Russia from the G8; others have proposed blocking Russia’s application to join the World Trade Organisation or imposing economic sanctions as long as Russian troops remain in Georgia. Obama has assiduously avoided specifics in foreign policy – other than withdrawing speedily from Iraq – but that luxury should no longer be available to him. We need to know if Obama’s reprise of George McGovern’s 1972 campaign theme, “Come home, America”, is really what our voters want, or if we remain willing to persevere in difficult circumstances, as McCain has consistently advocated. Querulous Europe should hope, for its own sake, that America makes the latter choice.
> 
> _*John R Bolton* is the former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, he is the author of the recently published “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations” (Simon & Schuster/Threshold Editions, £18.99), which is available from Telegraph Books for £16.99 + £1.25 p&p. To order, call 0870 428 4112 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk_



I think Bolton’s analysis is pretty much dead on point throughout.

Let me take him paragraph by paragraph:

_* Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage.*_ Too true. It is also the sort of aggressive warfare for which we, including the Russians, hanger several Germans during my lifetime.

_* As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned ...*_ True again. Bolton goes farther, characterising America, under President George W Bush, as a _paper tiger_ – strong stuff but America *did* look a lot like _Casper Milquetoast_ for too many hours, stretching into too many days.

_*The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich ...*_ Yes, indeed, proving, yet again, that a *strong, coherent* and self serving European foreign policy remains a Franco-German wet dream.

_*Even this dismal performance was enough to relegate Nato to an entirely backstage role*_ [and] _*In New York, paralysed by the prospect of a Russian veto, the UN Security Council, that Temple of the High-Minded, was as useless as it was during the Cold War.*_ Once again, too true. The UN is useless.

_*The West, collectively, failed in this crisis.*_ And it continues to do so as it dithers, Paul Martin like, trying to parse the _’signals’_ from the Caucuses.

_*Fear was one reaction Russia wanted to provoke, and fear it has achieved, not just in the “Near Abroad” but in the capitals of Western Europe as well. But its main objective was hegemony ...*_ Yes, again. Now, I know that some members here object to constant reference to Russia and the Russians as being _*”thuggish”*_ but what other word applies to those who aim to provoke fear? Russia is a thug and the Russian people elected leaders who promised to make it so – and that qualifies the Russian people for the title of _*”thuggish”*_ too, in my book.

_*It profits us little to blame Georgia for “provoking” the Russian attack.*_ Quite right. The Georgians were, technically, the _’aggressors’_ but they were lured into that role by the Russians – using peasant like craftiness to create a crisis the Georgians could not ignore.

_*So, as an earlier Vladimir liked to say, “What is to be done?” There are three key focal points for restoring our credibility here in America: drawing a clear line for Russia; getting Europe’s attention; and checking our own intestinal fortitude.*_ It is not just America’s credibility that needs restoring. The entire West is in the _Casper Milquetoast_ mode.

_*First, Russia has made it clear that it will not accept a vacuum between its borders and the boundary line of Nato membership.*_ A fact which must lead us to certain deductions that will, inevitably, influence whatever course of action we, eventually, decide to take.

_*Europe’s rejection this spring of President Bush’s proposal to start Ukraine and Georgia towards Nato membership was the real provocation to Russia, because it exposed Western weakness and timidity.*_ True, again. *But* I think that NATO expansion, perhaps even NATO’s continued existence is problematical.

_*Obviously, not all former Soviet states are as critical to Nato as Ukraine, because of its size and strategic location, or Georgia, because of its importance to our access to the Caspian Basin’s oil and natural gas reserves.*_ Which is why we need to keep Ukraine and Georgia out of Russia’s sphere of influence.

_*By its actions in Georgia, Russia has made clear that its long-range objective is to fill that “gap” if we do not. That, as Western leaders like to say, is “unacceptable”.*_And “unacceptable” is what it must remain.

_*Second, the United States needs some straight talk with our friends in Europe, which ideally should have taken place long before the assault on Georgia.*_ But, as the man said, Europe is from Venus and America is from Mars.

_* Saying this may cause angst in Europe’s capitals, but now is the time to find out if Nato can withstand a potential renewed confrontation with Moscow, or whether Europe will cause Nato to wilt.*_ But there is a bigger question: why is NATO still here, at all? Is it the best tool for guaranteeing the peace in Europe in the 21st century?

_*Finally, the most important step will take place right here in the United States. With a Presidential election on November 4, Americans have an opportunity to take our own national pulse, given the widely differing reactions to Russia’s blitzkrieg from Senator McCain and (at least initially) Senator Obama.*_ Americans need to do some clear, not so politically correct talking, amongst themselves about their vital interests: their goals and the steps they need to take to met them. America’s friends and allies – *A*ustralia, *B*ritain, *C*anada, *D*enmark and so on  - need to have similar and coincident discussions – equally loud and equally politically incorrect. 

_*In any event, let us have a full general election debate over the implications of Russia’s march through Georgia.*_ Yes, indeed, and see above.

Bolton has a few prescriptions and I’m not so sure that they are all as good as his analysis:

1. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline must be kept out of Russian hands if America wishes to achieve “continued reductions in global petroleum prices, and energy independence from unfriendly, or potentially unfriendly, states.” Agreed.

2. There should be “a foreign-minister-level meeting of Nato to reverse the spring capitulation at Bucharest, and to decide that Georgia and Ukraine will be Nato’s next members.” I’m not so sure, but I don’t have any better ideas.

3. “This is a security threat,” Agreed! “and the proper forum for discussing security threats on the border of a Nato member – yes, Europe, this means Turkey – is Nato.” Sort of agreed, but shouldn’t there be a better forum? The problem is Bolton’s _Eurocentric_ view. Russia’s return to its traditionally *thuggish* ways is a problem for more than just NATO-Europe.

4. America should follow John McCain and agree to expel Russia from the G8, deny it entry into the WTO, cancel all military cooperative measures and so on. Agreed, again.


----------



## Kirkhill

NATO held, mostly, as long as there was an existential threat to the member states - and they were required to do nothing more than divert much of their unproductive society into large armies and self-serving defence industries - a glorious make-work project inherited from the 19th century that continues to cripple euro thinking on economics.

But back to the existential....


NATO started to drift when the threat "disappeared", when they were asked to act, when buffer states rose to take the brunt of any military action.

Spain, France, Italy, and much of Germany, now feel that there will be no war in their backyard.  They can afford to trade someone else's land for peace.  Fine.

Time to find allies with those  that feel the existential threat and that are willing to act. Time to support the new frontline states and let the Western European Union wither within NATO.

The Russians seem to behave themselves better when their limits are clearly proscribed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Russia considering nukes for Syria, and other stable bastions of liberal democracy (not)  

Dig deep and keep the canned food handy....

http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=5513


----------



## JackD

Well, perhaps Europe is developing a backbone: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080817/world/georgia_russia_conflict_nato: 

Georgia 'will join NATO': Merkel 
1 hour, 16 minutes ago



TBILISI (AFP) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday assured Georgia would join NATO as she strongly backed the ex-Soviet republic's President Mikheil Saakashvili in his conflict with Russia.


"Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to," she told reporters before talks with Saakashvili in Tbilisi.


It was one of the strongest statements yet of support for Georgia's NATO membership bid, which is fiercely opposed by Russia.


"We are on a clear road towards NATO membership (for Georgia)," she added at a later news conference.


On August 12, German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung had said the conflict in the Caucusus had changed nothing with regard to Georgia's chances of joining the NATO military alliance.


At the last NATO summit in Bucharest in April, leaders agreed that Georgia and Ukraine should join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization eventually, but neither nation was given candidate status and no timetables were set.


The United States is strongly in favour of Georgia joining NATO, but misgivings from France and Germany prevented Tbilisi being awarded full candidate status in Bucharest.


Merkel was in Tbilisi to support Saakashvili and press for the withdrawal of Russian troops who attacked Georgia on August 8 to repulse an offensive by Georgian troops against a Moscow-backed separatist region, South Ossetia.


Standing side-by-side with Saakashvili at the news conference, Merkel declared that the "withdrawal of Russian troops is the most urgent task."


"I am looking forward to the speedy withdrawal of Russian troops, which has not yet happened as we had expected."


She was the latest world leader to visit Georgia -- which has repeatedly appealed for Western support -- after trips by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the last week.


She said she had come to Tbilisi "to show that we support the Georgian people and also the government to deal with the work there is to do."


Merkel on Friday held talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who later in a frosty news conference stated that Moscow was "the guarantor of security" in the Caucasus region.


Meanwhile, Merkel also attempted to reassure Georgia about Russia's right under a ceasefire agreed earlier this week to take "additional security measures" outside the South Ossetia conflict zone.


This phrasing -- the most contentious issue in the EU-brokered six point ceasefire deal -- has raised fears in Tbilisi that Russia could maintain a long term troop presence deep inside the country.


"The security zone is temporary. This is not disputed by any of the parties," said Merkel.


She urged the rapid deployment of monitors from the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).


"It is more important that foreign observers arrive so it is not only troops of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)," she added, referring to the post-Soviet international body dominated by Russia.

Saakashvili angrily dismissed suggestions from some Russian military officials that their forces could stay on as "peacekeepers" to patrol the security zone.

"There is no such notion any more in Georgia as Russian peacekeepers. There can be no Russian peacekeepers -- these are just Russian forces," he said.

Employing his customary mix of rhetoric and emotion, Saakashvili added: "We will defend our capital whatever it takes."

Russian troops on Sunday remained deployed in the north and west of the country, including units within half an hour's drive of Tbilisi.

Russia says that regular forces will begin withdrawing Monday but that an unspecified number of Russian peacekeepers will remain.

Moscow is furious at Georgia's attempt to join NATO. The Western military alliance is divided over how fast to accept Georgia, but has indicated that membership is a matter of when, not if.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in an interview with weekly Welt am Sonntag, warned on Sunday against any "knee-jerk" reaction in relations with Russia, such as suspending EU cooperation talks.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Russia considering nukes for Syria, and other stable bastions of liberal democracy (not)
> 
> Dig deep and keep the canned food handy....
> 
> http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=5513



I think you're jumping the gun here. If you read the Debka report you will see that they describe the Iskander as being "_*nuclear-capable*_."
That doesn't mean that the Russians would actually sell the Syrians nuclear warheads. Lets face it, not even Putin is that stupid.


----------



## a_majoor

Perhaps the formulation "New Europe" might better fit an alliance or economic cooperative effort by the former East Bloc nations, separate from and independent of NATO, the EU, WEU or what ever other sorts of formulations that "Old Europe" comes up with.

From a historical point of view, this isn't exactly the best solution (there was a series of "small wars" in that part of Europe between WWI and WWII as various Eastern European nations grabbed "historic" territories and peoples from each other, and this continued into the Second World War, with the nations allied with the Germans or Soviets depending on the tides of war and what territorial concessions they could grab), but all the nations in the region now face a renewed "Existential threat" for at least another generation. Standing together provides mutual support, and their semi democratic and free market societies, if allowed and encouraged to evolve towards true Liberal Democracies will provide the economic muscle to counterbalance both Russia and the EU.

And a roundup on Instapundit Aug 17 2008:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/



> *WHAT HATH PUTIN WROUGHT? Germany Offers Support for Georgia's NATO Bid:*
> 
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel is offering strong support for Georgia, saying the country is on track to become a member of NATO. Merkel flew to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi on Sunday, two days after she met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.
> 
> *Plus this: Ukraine to join in US-led missile shield in Europe:*
> 
> Ukraine has agreed to take part in a missile defence system designed by the United States to protect Western countries. The government in Kiev defended its decision for military co-operation with the West, saying Russia cancelled a bilateral treaty with Ukraine earlier this year.
> 
> A few days ago, Poland and the United States reached agreement on the siting of missiles on Polish territory. These, together with radar installations in the Czech republic, make up the missile shield. Russia is fiercely opposed to the defence system and has threatened retaliatory measures.
> 
> It seems that Putin's bullying is having precisely the opposite effect he intended.
> 
> UPDATE: Making Putin Pay. "In the past 48 hours, the West has begun to push back. If its leaders stay the course, they may yet turn Mr. Putin's meager military success into a significant political defeat."
> 
> ANOTHER UPDATE: Randall Parker offers an innovative suggestion: "17% of the people in Ukraine are Russians. So that's about 7.8 million people who could be offered financial incentives to move over the border into Russia. A lot of people. But NATO could offer money as a much cheaper way than weapons to make Ukraine a more secure place. . . . The Baltic states ought to consider buying out their Russian citizens. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania could avoid future trouble by paying Russians hefty sums of money to leave. Russia has massive open spaces. The influx would not create a strain since Russia is shrinking by 400,000 people per year." I don't think this'll do the trick -- and would you take that deal? I wouldn't. Of course, that would make a point of sorts, too.
> 
> MORE: Kevin Drum thinks that Putin blew it:
> 
> My take, roughly, is that Putin screwed up. The West was never going to actively approve of the Russian invasion, but if Putin had limited himself to a short, sharp clash in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it would have been an almost unalloyed victory. The murky status of the provinces combined with the fact that Saakashvili sent in troops first would have kept Western reaction to a minimum, and Russia's message would still have been sent loud and clear: don't mess with us in our sphere of influence.
> 
> But then Putin got greedy — or just made a mistake — and sent Russian troops into Georgia proper. This was almost certainly militarily unnecessary, and it succeeded mainly in uniting virtually everyone in outrage against Russian aggression. Putin can pretend all he wants that he doesn't care about Western opinion, but he obviously does — and what's more, Western unity makes a difference in concrete terms too. Poland's quick turnaround on missile defense is probably just the first example of this. The U.S. has gotten lots of bad reviews for its handling of the situation, but in the end, the countries on Russia's border are more firmly in our camp now than they were even before the war.
> 
> Even militarily, Putin's overreach might have been a mistake. Sure, the Russian Army is in better condition than it was ten years ago, but it's clear now that its performance in Georgia was still only so-so, despite the fact that Georgia is a minuscule country and the Russians have had this operation planned and ready to go at a moments notice for weeks (maybe months). In the end, Russia is still basically Mexico with nukes, and their ability to project power even along their own borders is limited.
> 
> I certainly hope he's right.


----------



## armyca08

In regards to the redeployment - if so - has anyone tracked the troop buildup, if indeed this wasn't done with regular numbers of units on the Russian Military bases in the area. Eg. Did it happen when Turkey mobilized 200,000 personnel against the Kurds, or another time?

Was this information not supplied? Does NATO not track Russian forces by spy satalite or other means - and is there a reason why they would not alert western leaders - who were taken by suprise when the event happend.

Why so now then does the media let on that Russia preplanned the incursion? Where is the evidence of a buildup? Where else would Russia position its military, other than Eastern Europe are there any other non Russian supporting nations on the Russians frontier?


----------



## meni0n

For oligarch, the saint Russian army and their allies

http://www.hrw.org/photos/2008/georgia0808/


----------



## armyca08

Anyone wanna take a long shot bet that instead of a withdrawl the capital will be taken?


what do you think the odds are 1:100,000 1:1,000,000?


----------



## vonGarvin

army08 said:
			
		

> Anyone wanna take a long shot bet that instead of a withdrawl the capital will be taken?
> 
> 
> what do you think the odds are 1:100,000 1:1,000,000?


Russia will not take the capital.  They will raze Georgian military infrastructure on the way back (as they've been doing), but they won't go take Tiblisi


----------



## armyca08

Seems like they've started the pullback.


----------



## geo

army08 said:
			
		

> Seems like they've started the pullback.


¸
... smashing everything along the way that could be of use to Georgian authorities


----------



## vonGarvin

The Russians have, IMHO, been quite effective in this little foray of theirs.  They handed Georgia a humiliating defeat.  They've boosted the confidence of _volksRussians_ outside their borders, and the message to Georgia (and others) is "Don't do it again!"  And the Georgians won't be able to.


----------



## Haggis

geo said:
			
		

> ¸
> ... smashing everything along the way that could be of use to Georgian authorities



Which is pretty much what they did in 1990-91.  Whatever they couldn't take they burned or blew up. The Georgians hadn't yet finished repairing that so this will add insult to injury.


----------



## stegner

> The Russians have, IMHO, been quite effective in this little foray of theirs.  They handed Georgia a humiliating defeat.  They've boosted the confidence of volksRussians outside their borders, and the message to Georgia (and others) is "Don't do it again!"  And the Georgians won't be able to.



I fully agree.   The Russians fight mean for a reason.  I think they have also shown that the don't care about the hyper-power or what is has to say.  This increases their global street cred.  It has also increased the self-confidence of Russians after a series of defeats on Iraq and Kosovo.   The Russians have, IMHO, seriously hurt U.S energy interests in the Caucus and has largely shown the U.S to being unable to support its allies in a way meaningful to the violence of action.  Despite U.S training, the Georgian military was in a constant state of retreat.   Maybe an actual Air force might help Georgia?  It makes countries not only in Caucus, but all over Eastern Europe ponder their realpolitk.  It will cause them to think that while  the U.S makes for a good commercial ally, as a military ally not so much.  They will be wary of the Russian bear.


----------



## geo

stegner said:
			
		

> It has also increased the self-confidence of Russians after a series of defeats on Iraq and Kosovo.



Defeats in Iraq & Kossovo.... in the geopolitical sense ???  You can't mean Militarily...

You might as well throw in all the eastern european countries that used to form the USSR - cause every single last one of them was a political defeat... in the eyes of the Russians.


----------



## JackD

The latest: Russia moves SS-21 missiles into Georgia: US defense official 
2 hours, 8 minutes ago



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Russia has moved short-range SS-21 missiles into South Ossetia, possibly putting the Georgian capital Tbilisi in range, a US defense official said Monday.


The development came amid other signs that Russia was adding ground troops and equipment to its force in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, strengthening its hold over the breakaway regions, officials said.


"We are seeing evidence of SS-21 missiles in South Ossetia," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.


The official said the short-range missiles should be capable of targeting Tbilisi.


"We're seeing them solidify their positions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia," the official said, adding that "more troops and more equipment" were evident in the enclaves.


But the official said it was "hard to say" whether Russia has begun pulling any troops out of Georgia into the enclaves.


"I can't say whether they are actually moving people out right now or not, but we do expect them to start moving out. We expect them to move out slowly, so this may take some time," he said.

http://fe1.ca.news.a1.b.yahoo.com/s/afp/080818/usa/georgia_russia_conflict_us_missiles?printer=1

I had thought the ss 21 along with the pershing 2 was supposed to have been destroyed according to arms agreements...


----------



## stegner

> Defeats in Iraq & Kossovo.... in the geopolitical sense Huh  You can't mean Militarily...



The geopolitical sense-not militarily.


----------



## vonGarvin

JackD said:
			
		

> The latest: Russia moves SS-21 missiles into Georgia:


Information is power:
SS-21 SCARAB (aka 9K79 Tochka)


> On 21 October 1999 US satellites [reportedly the Defense Support Program] tracked two Russian short-range ballistic missile launched from the Russian city of Mozdok some 60 miles northeast of Grozny. The missiles slammed into a crowded Grozny marketplace and a maternity ward, killing at least 143 persons, according to reports from the region. The missiles are believed by intelligence analysts to have been SS-21s.


Точка="Point" in English.  FYI


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The US could fly in airborne units to `Protect the captial`which would cause the Russians to pause without forcing their hand to much, as they can say, that it is of no matter as they had no intention of attacking it anyways. So both Russia and the US can act while saving face, with lots of clear comms in the background so everyone knows where the hidden lines in the sands are.


----------



## vonGarvin

Colin P said:
			
		

> The US could fly in airborne units to `Protect the captial`which would cause the Russians to pause without forcing their hand to much, as they can say, that it is of no matter as they had no intention of attacking it anyways. So both Russia and the US can act while saving face, with lots of clear comms in the background so everyone knows where the hidden lines in the sands are.


I doubt that the US would do that.  Where to find the forces?  What if the Russians call "bluff" and attacked? (This, of course, is assuming that they wish to attack Tiblisi).

I don't think that the US is ready to trade blood for Georgia.  Not now, anyway.  

Anyway, I think that Russia has made its point.  Or points.  Not only will it take years for Georgia to recover its military, but Russia has just demonstrated (again) that it can move its divisions fairly quickly, albeit usually in pretty straight lines.  Still, sometimes that's all they need to do.
"Идет на запад, Иван" 
"Да!"


----------



## observor 69

No Cold War over Georgian attack
 TheSpec.com - Opinions - No Cold War over Georgian attack 
After Russian troops leave the chill will dissipate

Gwynne Dyer
Independent

(Aug 15, 2008) 
"Have you noticed," my wife asked, "that when one of America's allies thinks it has a green light to invade somewhere, they always do it in the summer?"

She was right: Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990; Israel invaded Lebanon in July 2006; Georgia invaded South Ossetia in August 2008.

Israel really did have a green light from Washington (not that it helped much), but Saddam Hussein was catastrophically wrong, and Mikhail Saakashvili was, too.

The difference is that the U.S. government continues to support Saakashvili even after his smash-and-grab assault on South Ossetia went so badly wrong. The Bush administration is just trying to save face -- sending in "humanitarian aid" in U.S. military aircraft and ships after the shooting stops, for example -- and Washington never really backed Georgia's aggression. But if the Russians don't understand that, we're heading for a new Cold War.

That would be a very stupid way to spend the early 21st century, but comically belligerent Vice-President Dick Cheney is not the only one declaring that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered." The U.S. and British media (but not those in most other western countries) are talking as if Communists still ruled in Moscow and Russia had committed a wanton act of aggression.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain declares "We are all Georgians now," and suggests expelling the Russians from the G8. Even relatively balanced people like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are using Cold War analogies: "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbour, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it." She's right about one thing -- it's not 1968 -- but the rest is nonsense.

Russia didn't threaten Georgia; it responded to a surprise Georgian attack on South Ossetia, a territory where there were Russian peacekeeping troops by international agreement. It has not occupied Georgia's capital, nor has it overthrown the government (though the Georgians may do that themselves when they realize what a fool Saakashvili has been).

It is true that Moscow was unhappy about Georgia's close ties with the U.S., which included American sponsorship of Georgia for NATO membership. It is also true that, presented with the opportunity by Saakashvili's attack, Russia has taken advantage of it to smash his shiny new American-trained army (which fled in panic from Gori on Monday).

It may even be true that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's government deliberately suckered Saakashvili into his attack by provoking him in various ways, but that is far from certain. Even if that did happen, it was still Georgia that launched an all-out assault on the enclave of South Ossetia on the night of Aug. 7, and Georgian peacekeeping troops who turned their weapons on their Russian colleagues.

If the Russians had not reacted as they did, Georgia would now control the whole territory, and the surviving South Ossetians would mostly be refugees in (Russian) North Ossetia. That does not give vengeful South Ossetians the right to drive the Georgian minority in the enclave out of their villages, as some reports suggest may now be happening, and it is the Russians' duty to stop it. But this is not Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia because he thought his American ties would frighten the Russians into silence, but in reality the U.S. was never going to fight a war against Russia over Georgia. So now we have the charade of the "humanitarian aid," and the brazen cheek of the U.S. special envoy to the region, Matthew Bryza, telling the BBC that the violence in the Caucasus strengthens Georgia's case to join the Nato alliance.

"Russia, a country with 30 times the population (of Georgia) decided to roll into its much smaller neighbour and tried to roll over it," said Bryza. "It failed to roll over Georgia, but it would never have even thought of doing this if Georgia were already a member of NATO." Happily, this grotesque misrepresentation of the truth will carry little weight with the larger Western European members of NATO, so that isn't going to happen.

The Russian troops will probably all be gone from Georgia within a week, and Saakashvili will also probably be gone within a year. There will be a certain chill in the air for awhile, but the Cold War is not coming back. At least, not over this incident.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

http://www.thespec.com/printArticle/418961


----------



## Blindspot

I can't think of anyone more arrogant and self-important than Gwynne Dyer... except Noam Chomsky.



> Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia because he thought his American ties would frighten the Russians into silence, but in reality the U.S. was never going to fight a war against Russia over Georgia. So now we have the charade of the "humanitarian aid," and the brazen cheek of the U.S. special envoy to the region, Matthew Bryza, telling the BBC that the violence in the Caucasus strengthens Georgia's case to join the Nato alliance.



Does Dyer really believe that Georgia would take the risk to rouse the Russians with the pretext that the US would bail them out considering what's going on in the Middle East? It seems like a typical anti-american stretch. Too bad he wrote his peace before Merkel landed in Georgia.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

How does one "invade" ones own country?


----------



## stegner

> How does one "invade" ones own country?



South Ossetia seceded from Georgia back in 1991-92.   With the exception of Akhalgori and other small pockets Georgia has not had any measure of control over that territory since that time and even before that.  The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (PCGN) finding that, 



> South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast within Georgian territory from the beginning of the Soviet Union in 1922 until 1990, shortly after Georgia achieved independence...it has not featured as part of the official administrative-territorial structure of Georgia since 1990...



South Ossetia has held two referendums-both resulted in overwhelming yes votes.   

http://web.archive.org/web/20061128192630/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/13/sossetia.independence.ap/index.html


The referendum wrongly excluded ethnic Georgians.   However, the 2007 population of South Ossetia according the PCGN is comprised as such,



> Using the estimate of a total population of 70,000 as a basis, it is possible that South Ossetia currently possesses an ethnic Ossetian population of some 45,000 and an ethnic Georgian population of perhaps 17,500.



The majority of South Ossetia has spoken and they want independence.   

The PCGN report can be found here:  http://www.pcgn.org.uk/Georgia%20-%20South%20Ossetia-Jan07.pdf

So to South Ossetians Georgia is not their country.


----------



## geo

Given the overwhelming Russian presence in South Ossetia, sure looks like the Ossetians traded in one "tyrant" for another.

- Two independence referendums ? .... which excluded anyone who could possibly claim to have Georgian ethnic background... that sounds really democratic and "fair".  Are we to believe the population mix that these same ethnic South Ossetians (non Georgian) fairminded citzens have published?

Is it just possible that, the same way as in the Baltics where the Soviets encouraged their retiring servicemen to settle in these areas - have tipped the balance to the point where there are more russian South Ossetians than georgian South Ossetians in the SO gene pool?


----------



## Edward Campbell

I’ll see your  Gwynne Dyer and raise you a Diane Francis with this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=315361eb-b49a-4585-9c0a-0f76269a81ce


> Stand up to Russian bully Bear
> 
> Diane Francis, Financial Post
> 
> Published: Tuesday, August 19, 2008
> 
> The Russians overdid it by invading and destroying huge chunks of Georgia and the backlash builds, both diplomatically and economically.
> 
> The ruble and Russian markets have tanked and nobody in their right mind would do business with, or in, Russia.
> 
> Moscow was provoked into the invasion, perhaps by accident or on purpose, by a foolish Georgia President who sent troops into breakaway provinces where there were Russian peacekeepers.
> 
> Even so, there was no need to rape and pillage the tiny country. But, as one commentator suggested a while ago, all bully-boy leaders occasionally pick up some "crappy little nation and throw it against the wall" just to flex their muscles.
> 
> Canada, hardly a world power, still has moral standing in the world and much skin in the game. This is why Ottawa should grow a backbone and do three things immediately: prohibit any more Russians, or Russian entities, from acquiring any more Canadian corporations or assets; oppose WTO membership for Russia for the time being; and support the movement to kick Russia out of the G8, to which it has never really belonged.
> 
> By the way, these are not punitive policies but protective ones. The Putinocracy is neither a democracy nor a free-enterprise nation. The media has been gutted, the elections were fraudulent, the rule of law has never been in place. Just ask BP, whose CEO has just been booted out of the country, or any number of other foreigners who have been disenfranchised or gone missing unceremoniously. (Frank Stronach, Belinda Stronach, Magna, PetroCanada and others doing business there or with Russians, make note of their rough treatment.)
> 
> Meanwhile, the biggest future victims -- the Europeans -- must avoid becoming totally dependent on Russia's energy supplies. A big motivation for Russia's unnecessary conquest of Georgia was to worry owners of the so-called BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline, capable of carrying up to 10 million barrels a day of oil from Central Asian republics to a Turkish port via Georgia, thus bypassing Russian pipelines. (Owners include BP, Total of France, the Azerbaijani government, among others.)
> 
> But Vlad Putin may have overplayed his hand when he thumbed his nose last week at a ceasefire deal negotiated by France's Nicolas Sarkozy.
> 
> Within hours of signing off, and with Putin's thugs ignoring the "treaty," Poland agreed to join the U. S. missile shield, sparking a nasty nuclear threat from a Russian general. This weekend, Ukraine stood beside Georgia and is talking nuke protection too.
> 
> Strangely, this is good news for Canada. It makes our oil and mining sectors look like the best bets in the world, along with Australia's.
> 
> It also should wake up a pliant and naive Ottawa that Canada has been a target nation of the Russian Bear for nearly two years now. Several of our largest companies have been snapped up, plus goodness knows how many more are secretly owned or doing business with the Russians.
> 
> Canada should also make it known that it will absolutely oppose regime change in Georgia, will help rebuild the country and will be against World Trade Organization membership for Russia.
> 
> This is also because the next "crappy little country" to be thrown against the wall by the bully-boy might be Canada's Arctic territories.
> 
> _dfrancis@nationalpost.com_



She adds a third prescriptive measure to kicking Russia ass out of the G8 where, as Francis correctly observed, it never, ever belonged, and preventing it from joining the WTO: *” prohibit any more Russians, or Russian entities, from acquiring any more Canadian corporations or assets.”* That’s a good policy for all Western nations – no truck or trade with the thugs.

She also makes two more good points:

•	*These* (kick Russia out and keep Russia out)* are not punitive policies but protective ones. The Putinocracy is neither a democracy nor a free-enterprise nation.* It doesn’t belong in the _’club’_ and its presence threatens the real progress that many former Russian colonies are making; and

•	*Canada, hardly a world power, still has moral standing in the world and much skin in the game.* Canada does matter and Canada needs to work, very hard, in all aspects of world politics – including in the military domain – to keep its standing.

All in all and _comme d’habitude_, Dyer is so full of sh!t his eyes are brown and Francis is *right*.


----------



## vonGarvin

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Does Dyer really believe that Georgia would take the risk to rouse the Russians with the pretext that the US would bail them out considering what's going on in the Middle East? It seems like a typical anti-american stretch. Too bad he wrote his peace before Merkel landed in Georgia.


IMHO, Dyer hit the nail on the head.  The facts are that The Georgians DID take the risk.  Why else would they move into South Ossetia?  They are trying to join NATO, and perhaps this was a move to try to force their hand.  Maybe it worked.  Their infrastructure has just been wrecked, and now Merkel is saying that Georgia will be part of NATO.  Maybe Saakashvili is smarter than we think.  He'll get brand new barracks, boats, tanks and whatever, all on the NATO Euro.
Yes, this all happened within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia, but until recently, Kosovo was within the internationally recognised borders of Serbia.  We use precision guided munitions.  Russians use Motor Rifle Divisions.  It's all about _effective_ technology: the Russians use what works, not what's fancy.  After all, that's probably why they used pencils during the space race and the US used high tech (and expensive) pens.


			
				Blindspot said:
			
		

> I can't think of anyone more arrogant and self-important than Gwynne Dyer... except Noam Chomsky.


I agree; however, even sometimes, Chomsky got things right.


----------



## JackD

Don't bring up Chomsky - I'm editing two master's papers for former students and Chomsky's Universal Grammar is  a core component of both....


----------



## vonGarvin

JackD said:
			
		

> Don't bring up Chomsky - I'm editing two master's papers for former students and Chomsky's Universal Grammar is  a core component of both....


Sounds like you could use a Motor Rifle Division of your own ;D


----------



## JackD

i know where I'd like to throw him and several other experts of his ilk.. Incidentally, I was downtown today (i live in Poland) I noticed that the tourist signs are no longer in Polish, English and German, but  are now Polish, English and Russian - Oh and the bank lady is taking Russian lessons  that are being offered by the bank management - coincidence..... ?


----------



## vonGarvin

JackD said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I was downtown today (i live in Poland) I noticed that the tourist signs are no longer in Polish, English and German, but  are now Polish, English and Russian - Oh and the bank lady is taking Russian lessons  that are being offered by the bank management - coincidence..... ?


:rofl:

Now THAT'S comedy!


----------



## stegner

> The ruble and Russian markets have tanked and nobody in their right mind would do business with, or in, Russia.


This was true from the early 1990’s to late 1990’s.  The Russian economy is doing much better at the moment.  It’s the U.S economy that is largely causing international investors concern.   


> She adds a third prescriptive measure to kicking Russia *** out of the G8 where, as Francis correctly observed, it never, ever belonged, and preventing it from joining the WTO


Well if we are kicking people out of the G8-we should note that Canada really doesn’t belong either.   There are many countries that are more deserving.   


> That’s a good policy for all Western nations – no truck or trade with the thugs.


So when are we kicking the Saudi’s out of Canada?   

For the people who keep referring to South Ossetians as ethnic Russians.  Please don't-as they are not.  The majority South Ossetians are of Persian ethnicity.


----------



## CougarKing

Interestingly. some Russian forces have been spotted retreating toward S. Ossetia and Azkhazia, IIRC after just tuning into CNN.

Still, at least one of these Russian columns has been spotted with Georgian prisoners aboard trucks as well as US-built Humvees in tow/being driven by Russian soldiers as war prizes.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/19/georgia.russia.war/index.html



> NATO: Russia not honoring cease-fire terms
> Story Highlights
> NATO accuses Russia of not honoring agreed cease-fire with Georgia
> 
> Russian Foreign Minister says NATO announcement is "biased"
> 
> Russia-Georgia exchange prisoners captured during the fighting
> 
> However, at same time Russia imprisons Georgian forces in port city of Poti
> 
> BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- NATO has accused Russia of failing to honor the full terms of the cease-fire agreement brokered by the European Union last week aimed at ending the fighting in Georgia.
> 
> NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said on Tuesday that Russian forces were still inside Georgia despite the agreement to withdraw -- and despite Moscow saying they had begun doing so on Monday.
> 
> "We do not see signals of this happening," Scheffer said. "There can be no business as usual with Russia under the present circumstances."
> 
> Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said NATO's accusations were "biased."
> 
> Lavrov said NATO was taking the side of Georgia, whose forces he said had failed to withdraw to their barracks.
> 
> "They blame us as if there were no requirements for the Georgian side in the six points (of the cease-fire agreement)," he said. "I mean the requirements to bring back their troops to the places where they are on a permanent basis."
> 
> Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of staff of Russia's armed forces, said Tuesday that some troops remained in place to protect South Ossetia's borders.
> 
> The conflict began when Georgian troops entered the breakaway territory to attack pro-Moscow separatists. Russia responded by invading the country on August 8, prompting heavy fighting with Georgian forces that spread to another breakaway territory, Abkhazia.
> 
> The fighting has devastated parts of Georgia and South Ossetia, with many casualties reported. The U.N. refugee agency said more than 158,000 people had been displaced by fighting in Georgia, mostly from districts outside the breakaway territories where the fighting began. Watch how Georgians are being affected by the conflict »
> 
> Both Russia and Georgia accuse the other of "ethnic cleansing" during the conflict.
> 
> Hopes of resolving the crisis had been boosted earlier on Tuesday when Georgia and Russia exchanged soldiers who had been captured during the fighting, then Russia agreed to a beefed-up monitoring mission for Georgia's disputed region of South Ossetia.
> 
> *However, at the same time Russian soldiers took 21 Georgian military police officers prisoner at the port of Poti in western Georgia, interior ministry officials said. The Associated Press reported they also seized four American vehicles set to be returned to the U.S. following joint military exercises.*
> 
> Georgian officials said that local police in Poti asked the military police to intercede when Russian forces entered the city and impeded the delivery of humanitarian aid. After a verbal exchange, the Russian forces took the Georgians into custody, according to the interior ministry officials.
> 
> The military police officers were disarmed and transferred to the nearby town of Senaki, where Russian forces have established a base, the officials said. The Russian military, however, said its forces were picking up roving Georgian forces who have not returned to their bases.
> 
> Scheffer's announcement came after foreign ministers from NATO member nations gathered in Belgium for an emergency meeting over the crisis which also involved U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
> 
> A statement from the ministers said: "Military action must cease definitively and military forces must return to their positions held prior to the outbreak of hostilities."
> 
> NATO members "remain concerned by Russia's actions," the statement said, calling Russian military action "disproportionate."
> 
> Ministers said they were "seriously" considering the implications of Russia's actions on the NATO-Russia relationship
> 
> "As long as Russian forces are basically occupying a large part of Georgia, I cannot see a NATO-Russia Council convene at whatever level," Scheffer said.
> 
> "I should add that we certainly do not have the intention to close all doors in our communication with Russia, but ... the future will depend on the concrete actions from the Russian side." Watch report on what actions West may take against Russia »
> 
> Scheffer said NATO would set up a NATO-Georgian Commission to oversee Georgia's relationship with the international alliance, supervise its bid to join the group and assist Tbilisi with support in the wake of the Russian invasion.
> 
> He said a team of 50 NATO staff would to go to Georgia to help assess needs of the Georgian military, help with air traffic resumption and assist in the investigation of cyber attacks.
> 
> The U.S. claims Russia is trying to undermine the government of Georgia's pro-Western leader, Mikheil Saakashvili.
> 
> The Bush administration wants suspension of the whole spectrum of programs of cooperation between NATO and Russia. Britain and several former Soviet republics support this idea, but other countries -- including France and Germany -- are less inclined to isolate Russia that aggressively.
> 
> The United States wants Europe to cancel the many exchanges of personnel and postpone an EU-Russia summit scheduled for November, and is also pushing Europe to start lessening its energy dependence on Russia.
> 
> Rice will travel to Warsaw to sign a formal agreement with Poland on Wednesday to base ballistic missile interceptors there. That move, along with the eastward expansion of NATO, has angered Moscow.
> 
> The chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said that Russia has agreed to allow the immediate dispatch of 20 of its observers to Georgia's capital of Tbilisi to supplement the nine already based in South Ossetia, with the aim of increasing the total to 100.
> 
> CNN's Jill Dougherty in Moscow contributed to this report
> 
> Copyright 2008 CNN. All rights reserved.


----------



## JackD

"Well if we are kicking people out of the G8-we should note that Canada really doesn't belong either.   There are many countries that are more deserving." - actually that depends on how you measure wealth - I'd say based on mineral wealth alone it is certainly a top country - Intellectual wealth, yes, infrastructure -yes. industrial processing/ yes.. I'd say Canada tops it... the Russian economy is shaky - where's the development? Where's the pollution controls? Where's the safety concerns? Who is paying salaries of top scientists? Where do people want to come and where do people want to leave? That answer to that question is the evidence on which country is superior.


----------



## JackD

The Georgian prisoners - never see them again... As to accusations of NATO bias - well great big whoppy-do....


----------



## Edward Campbell

stegner said:
			
		

> ...
> Well if we are kicking people out of the G8-we should note that Canada really doesn’t belong either.   There are many countries that are more deserving.
> ...



Oh? here are the OECD data. Russia, of course, is not an OECD member because it is not even remotely qualified. (In 2007 it (along with Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia) was invited to _exploratory_ talks which have progressed - but I'm confident they will, now, be cancelled.)

(Countries with GDP in excess of $900 Billion, only)
Country - GDP (billions) - GDP per capita (PPP - IMF data)
USA  -  $13,759.9  -  $45,845
Canada  -  $1,425.6  -  $38,435
Australia  -  $948.1  -  $36,258
UK  -  $2,764.4  -  $35,134
Germany  -  $3,317.4  -  $34,181
Japan  -  $4,378.5  -  $33,577
France  -  $2,589.8  -  $33,188
Italy  -  $2,101.6  -  $30,448
Spain  -  $1,436.9  -  $30,120
(South) Korea  -  $969.8  -  $24,783
Mexico  -  $904.9  -  $12,775

Who should replace us? What in hell does _*"deserving"*_ mean when we are talking about an organization of 'leading' economies? Does Spain "deserve" to replace Canada? Why? In what area does in 'lead' anyone? Is Korea somehow more deserving than Canada? Russia never should have been invited into the G7. It was a significant blunder by the Clinton (1997) and Bush (2002) administrations. There is now a golden opportunity to clean up one of _Billary's_ and _Dubya_'s messes.

I agree that the G8 should be reformed - my previously expressed preference is for a smaller organization representing _blocks_ and free trade areas. I suspect we will end up weakening the influence of the G8 by admitting more and more members, few of which will be *properly qualified* (see link above) for membership.


----------



## Edward Campbell

stegner said:
			
		

> ...
> So when are we kicking the Saudi’s out of Canada?
> ...



I couldn't agree more with the sentiment. Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of Islamic terrorism - it is not, in any way at all, a _friend_ to anyone in the West. It is odd that President Bush so often grovels in front of Saudi princelings.


----------



## CougarKing

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh? here are the OECD data. Russia, of course, is not an OECD member because it is not even remotely qualified. (In 2007 it (along with Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia) was invited to _exploratory_ talks which have progressed - but I'm confident they will, now, be cancelled.)
> 
> (Countries with GDP in excess of $900 Billion, only)
> Country - GDP (billions) - GDP per capita (PPP - IMF data)
> USA  -  $13,759.9  -  $45,845
> Canada  -  $1,425.6  -  $38,435
> Australia  -  $948.1  -  $36,258
> UK  -  $2,764.4  -  $35,134
> Germany  -  $3,317.4  -  $34,181
> Japan  -  $4,378.5  -  $33,577
> France  -  $2,589.8  -  $33,188
> Italy  -  $2,101.6  -  $30,448
> Spain  -  $1,436.9  -  $30,120
> (South) Korea  -  $969.8  -  $24,783
> Mexico  -  $904.9  -  $12,775
> 
> Is Korea somehow more deserving than Canada? Russia never should have been invited into the G7. It was a significant blunder by the Clinton (1997) and Bush (2002) administrations. There is now a golden opportunity to clean up one of _Billary's_ and _Dubya_'s messes.



Regarding your (rhetorical) question about South Korea, this is because the ROK is an economic powerhouse and one of the four original Asian economic Tigers. Whenever I think of that country, I often classify it in the same league as Japan, Singapore and Taiwan because of their standard of living. If you've travelled to Southeast Asia recently, you can see South Koreans everywhere, from learning Mandarin in Beijing's universities to settling in Manila in large numbers because their money there goes a long way since the cost of living is much less. And anyone who has taught ESL here in Vancouver will notice that an increasing number of their students are coming from South Korea, although they have yet to reach the number of the mainland Chinese and Taiwanese being sent here, although I think the South Koreans have surprassed the number of Japanese studying English here.


----------



## greentoblue

US trainers say Georgian troops weren't ready http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081801446_2.html

Quote: "They inherited bad habits from the Red Army ... The Georgian army has five regular infantry brigades, each with some 2,000 troops. Only one of them _ the 1st, which was rushed home from Iraq by U.S. planes after fighting broke out _ has been trained to a NATO level ....

The Americans were training them to use the U.S. military's M-4 rifles, he said. But when fighting broke out, *the Georgians went back to the Soviet AK-47,* the only weapon they trusted. They appeared incapable of firing single shots, instead letting off bursts of automatic fire, which is wildly inaccurate and wastes ammunition, he said. 

Another problem was communications: As soon as combat began, the army's communications network largely collapsed, he said, so troops conducted operations using regular cell phones. That left their communications easily accessible to Russian intelligence."
----

I was wondering why the M4 rifles the Russions were displaying looked so new - turns out they were brand new! Wonder if they captured the bolts as well?


----------



## geo

M4 rifles... never fired in anger ??? :warstory:

WRT military communication gear, the russians would've been well versed in jamming their old Soviet era kit...  so that you are stuck with a choice of breaking comms security OR not communicating at all.


----------



## time expired

NATO sends Russia an unmistakable message,do what you 
like we wont interfere,its very difficult not to be cynical about
the crap that comes out of Brussels, like the rabbit frozen before
the snake they are terrified to make any move that will further
antagonise the Russian thugs.Tante Angela's (Merkel)tough
words meant nothing.
  The thing that upsets the most is the total lack of will,imagine
if you will that the USAF closed that tunnel connecting Russia
to Georgia and subjected the Russian invaders to a weeks Shock
and Awe,what could the Russians do? launch a nuclear strike
at the US,I don't think so.The next cold war would start for sure,
but does anyone think its not around the corner anyway,we have
just encouraged the Russian to continue on their expansionist
journey with our total lack of will.
                                      Regards


----------



## cameron

Hmmmnn the Russians are taking some great liberties with the work 'withdrawal'


----------



## stegner

> The thing that upsets the most is the total lack of will,imagine
> if you will that the USAF closed that tunnel connecting Russia
> to Georgia and subjected the Russian invaders to a weeks Shock
> and Awe,what could the Russians do?



Shock and Awe only works in countries that don't have real Air Forces.   Russia has a real Air Force as well as a very able   SAM fleet, including the S-400 that would make short work of F-15 and F-16's.   You don't think that the Bear bombers would retaliate?


----------



## geo

The Syrians have spent a bundle on the purchase of state of the art, russian air defence weapons... S400 included.
That didn't help much when the israelis decided to dispose of that North Korean facility that doesn't exist (any more).

I certainly wouldn't write off those F15s and 16s if I were you


----------



## aesop081

stegner said:
			
		

> SAM fleet, including the S-400 that would make short work of F-15 and F-16's.



Making broad assumptions that you are not qualified to make.




> You don't think that the Bear bombers would retaliate?



Bear bombers are a political threat, not a military one. Again, your lane is on the left.


----------



## vonGarvin

stegner said:
			
		

> Shock and Awe only works in countries that don't have real Air Forces.   Russia has a real Air Force as well as a very able   SAM fleet, including the S-400 that would make short work of F-15 and F-16's.   You don't think that the Bear bombers would retaliate?


Russia WOULD retaliate, and let's not forget that the "great game" is still afoot in the North Atlantic.  Subs parked off of the coast could make very short work.  Implausible?  Heck, it's what we all feared in the Cold War.  The scary thing about Georgia is that it could have, very quickly, gotten out of hand.  
Remember the US flying in the Georgians from Iraq?  Russia could have argued that as an act of war (providing logistical support to an enemy) and shot down those planes (in spite of the "gentleman's agreement" they apparently had).  Having said that, I doubt that Russia would want to go to blows over Georgia.  Neither would NATO.  Or the US especially.


----------



## vonGarvin

S-400 Triumph (aka "SA-20")
Information is power.

It went operational in the Moscow Oblast last year.  I don't think Syria has the S-400.  From what I could find online, they have (had?) the S-300.
As for them being able to take out F15s and F16s, well, where would said fighters be launched?  Turkey?  Iraq?  If anything, any US Air Strike in support of Georgian operations would most likely involve strategic bombers.  How the S-400s would fare against strategic bombers, including stealth, is probably a guessing game.  I don't even know if they are deployed in the Georgian Strategic Direction for that matter.  Probably S-300s, but since they are mobile systems, I'm sure that Vlad could have his Army move them there.  I guess.


----------



## stegner

> It went operational in the Moscow Oblast last year.  I don't think Syria has the S-400.  From what I could find online, they have (had?) the S-300.
> As for them being able to take out F15s and F16s, well, where would said fighters be launched?  Turkey?  Iraq?  If anything, any US Air Strike in support of Georgian operations would most likely involve strategic bombers.  How the S-400s would fare against strategic bombers, including stealth, is probably a guessing game.  I don't even know if they are deployed in the Georgian Strategic Direction for that matter.  Probably S-300s, but since they are mobile systems, I'm sure that Vlad could have his Army move them there.  I guess.



Fair enough.   



> The Syrians have spent a bundle on the purchase of state of the art, russian air defence weapons... S400 included.
> That didn't help much when the israelis decided to dispose of that North Korean facility that doesn't exist (any more).
> 
> I certainly wouldn't write off those F15s and 16s if I were you



Those were Israeli F15 and F15 with Israeli avionics and systems-they are not the same as the USAF fleet.  I wouldn't write off the Russians.  Again, the Russians have a real Air Force the Syrians do not-nor have they since 1982.     The west needs to stop thinking itself as invincible.  For instance, the much maligned Iraqi Air Force got some kills of top American jets during the First Gulf War, including a Mig-25 kill of a F/A-18.  I reckon that the Russian Air Force would put up a much better fight.    
    


> Bear bombers are a political threat, not a military one. Again, your lane is on the left.



I will respectfully disagree.  The Bear Bombers are still a threat despite your assertions as the Tu-95MS6 can carry 6 Kh-55  and on the updated Tu-95MS16 16 Kh-55 with ranges up to 3,000 km.   In sum this constitutes a very serious threat.   Would you consider none of the Russian bombers a threat or is it just the Tu-95?


----------



## aesop081

stegner said:
			
		

> I will respectfully disagree.



I know you do but i have training and education on my side. The TU-95 is what you mentioned and that is what i commented on. I would be more worried about TU-160s than anything else.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Russia WOULD retaliate, and let's not forget that the "great game" is still afoot in the North Atlantic.  Subs parked off of the coast could make very short work.  Implausible?  Heck, it's what we all feared in the Cold War.  The scary thing about Georgia is that it could have, very quickly, gotten out of hand.
> ...



I'm inclined to agree, and that's why *our* response ought to be less 'thuggish.' We need to use social, diplomatic, political and above all economic weapons.

We beat the Russians last time by offering them a stark choice: stand down or, as the price of 'keeping up,' force the Russian people to eat grass. Military power costs money - to the degree that we can restrict Russia's money we can restrict their power. They have oil; they can and will sell it; we can make sure they can't sell much else or buy what they need. The Russian people have seen the outside world and they want a share; if we can close the doors they will be less and less content with Vlad the Thug.


----------



## stegner

> I know you do but i have training and education on my side. The TU-95 is what you mentioned and that is what i commented on. I would be more worried about TU-160s than anything else.



Okey dokey.


----------



## CougarKing

update:



> POTI, Georgia - Russian soldiers took about 20 Georgians in military uniform prisoner at a key Black Sea port in western Georgia on Tuesday, blindfolding them and holding them at gunpoint, and commandeered American Humvees awaiting shipment back to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26284851
> 
> POTI, Georgia: Even as Russia began to withdraw some of its troops from central Georgia on Tuesday, its forces bound and blindfolded 21 Georgian soldiers at the Black Sea port of Poti, displaying them along with five seized U.S. Humvees as a pointed reminder of their grip on the country.
> 
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/19/europe/georgia.php#


----------



## The Bread Guy

A little "bigger picture" action from the U.S. Congressional Research Service, via the Federation of American Scientists (.pdf)

*Russia-Georgia Conflict in South Ossetia: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests*
Jim Nichol, Congressional Research Service report RL34618, 13 Aug 08


> Summary:
> In the early 1990s, Georgia and its breakaway South Ossetia region had agreed to a Russian-mediated ceasefire agreement that provided for Russian “peacekeepers” to be stationed in the region. Moscow extended citizenship and passports to most ethnic Ossetians and supported the regional economy. Simmering long-time tensions erupted on the evening of August 7, 2008, when South Ossetia and Georgia accused each other of launching intense artillery barrages against each other. Georgia claims that South Ossetian forces did not respond to a ceasefire appeal but intensified their shelling, “forcing” Georgia to send troops into South Ossetia that reportedly soon controlled the capital, Tskhinvali, and other areas.
> 
> On August 8, Russia launched large-scale air attacks across Georgia and dispatched seasoned troops to South Ossetia that engaged Georgian forces in Tskhinvali later in the day. Reportedly, Russian troops had retaken Tskhinvali, occupied the bulk of South Ossetia, reached its border with the rest of Georgia, and
> were shelling areas across the border by the morning of August 10. Russian warplanes bombed the Georgian town of Gori and the outskirts of the capital, Tbilisi, as well as other sites. Russian ships landed troops in Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia region and took up positions off Georgia’s Black Sea coast.
> 
> On August 12, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev declared that “the aim of Russia’s operation for coercing the Georgian side to peace had been achieved and it had been decided to conclude the operation.... The aggressor has been punished.”  Medvedev endorsed some elements of a European Union (EU) peace plan presented by visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The plan calls for both sides to pull troops back, allow humanitarian aid into the conflict zone, and facilitate the return
> of displaced persons. After Russia and Georgia sign a binding text, the plan reportedly will be endorsed at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council. On August 13, the Russian military was reported to be pulling back from some areas of Georgia but also reportedly continued “mopping up” operations.
> 
> President Bush stated on August 9 that “Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected. We have urged an immediate halt to the violence [and] the end of the Russian bombings.” On August 13, he announced that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to France “to rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia,” and to Georgia, where the United States was launching a major humanitarian aid effort. Congress had begun its August 2008 recess when the conflict began, but many members spoke out on the issue. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama condemned the Russian military incursion and urged NATO to soon extend a Membership Action Plan to Georgia. On August 12, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden warned Russia that its aggression in Georgia jeopardized Congressional support for legislation to collaborate with Russia on nuclear energy production and to repeal the Jackson-Vanik conditions on U.S. trade with Russia.


----------



## RangerRay

From <a href="http://www.samefacts.com/archives/georgia_/2008/08/georgia_on_my_mind.php#comments">Mark Kleiman</a>, where I found the reference to at <a href="http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/08/special-kind-of-pathology.html">Terry Glavin's</a> blog...



> *Footnote* I don't have the time or the patience for a full fisking of the Katherine vanden Heuvel piece linked to above, but I would like to list some of the facts it omits, and ask any reader, including Ms. vanden Heuvel, to either challenge the facts themselves or explain why their omission does not constitute deception.
> 
> 1. A substantial minority of the population of South Ossetia is ethnically Georgian.
> 
> 2. For years, Russian "peacekeepers" have been assisting South Ossetian "irregulars" (the distinction is largely notional) in attacking ethnic Georgians.
> 
> 3. The pace of those attacks was picked up, on Russian orders, after the declaration of Kosovan independence, as a way of baiting Saakashvili into taking military action to which Russia could "respond."
> 
> 4. The forces Russia sent into South Ossetia could not have been assembled between the time of the attack on Tskhinvali and the time of the Russian intervention. The operation had been planned well in advance.
> 
> 5. When the USSR broke up, there was also a large population — perhaps constituting a majority — of ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia. The Russian puppet regime there systematically drove them out in 1990, and there are 200,000 refugees from Abkhazia in Georgia proper.
> 
> 6. That purge of Georgians from Abkhazia was the only substantial act of ethnic cleansing in the post-Soviet history of Georgia. The post-Soviet Georgian government never engaged in anything resembling the genocide Serbia attempted in Bosnia or the massive ethnic cleansing it carried out in Kosovo.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

stegner said:
			
		

> For instance, the much maligned Iraqi Air Force got some kills of top American jets during the First Gulf War, including a Mig-25 kill of a F/A-18.  I reckon that the Russian Air Force would put up a much better fight.



Can you provide more info on this? According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force) the Iraqi Air Force managed only one kill during the Gulf War. 



> I will respectfully disagree.  The Bear Bombers are still a threat despite your assertions as the Tu-95MS6 can carry 6 Kh-55  and on the updated Tu-95MS16 16 Kh-55 with ranges up to 3,000 km.   In sum this constitutes a very serious threat.   Would you consider none of the Russian bombers a threat or is it just the Tu-95?



The TU-95 is a big fat target. I would love to see its radar cross section - it must be a beaut! As for the Kh-55 its a nuclear armed cruise missile, not a conventional missile.


----------



## stegner

> Can you provide more info on this? According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force) the Iraqi Air Force managed only one kill during the Gulf War.



I was thinking of the one air to air kill and the bunch of SAM kills.  Sorry if i gave the impression of more than one air to air kill.   Having looked at the wikipedia page it is interesting to see how the IrAF force, particularly the Mig-25's caused significant problems for the coalition forces.


----------



## aesop081

stegner said:
			
		

> Having looked at the wikipedia page



 :rofl:


----------



## KevinB

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :rofl:



Ditto


----------



## stegner

> :rofl:



Not sure why I got this response.  I was responding to Retired AF Guy who mentioned the wikipedia- in the post right before mine.    I see no problem with wikipedia, nor the always collegial Retired AF Guy citing it as a source.  Wikipedia has its limitations, but I would not condemn all of wikipedia.  If anyone has any information that contradicts the IrAf wikipedia entry by all means share it with the group and correct any information on the wikipage.   Please keep me abreast of the progress in revising that page.  Kind wishes.


----------



## 2 Cdo

stegner said:
			
		

> I was thinking of the one air to air kill and the bunch of SAM kills.  Sorry if i gave the impression of more than one air to air kill.   Having looked at the wikipedia page it is interesting to see how the IrAF force, particularly the Mig-25's caused significant problems for the coalition forces.



Let's see if I understand you. One Mig 25 gets one air-to-air kill and that equals "significant problems". :

I think CDN Aviator and Infidel-6 nailed it.


----------



## vonGarvin

2 Cdo et al.  I'm not sure why the merits (de-merits?) of MIG-25s come into this.  In any event, _I think_ we were talking about US response to Russia, and the military ability (if any) of Russia to counter any moves.  Russia is NOT Iraq, Syria or any other such nation.  Russia is a large power, with a powerful military.  As a thought exercise, how _would_ Russian forces fare?

Before answering, don't use Iraqi or other foreign users of Russian weapons as an example.  The former USSR and current Russia, as a rule of thumb, didn't export the good stuff (with some exceptions, such as to the German Democratic Republic).


----------



## Edward Campbell

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Let's see if I understand you. One Mig 25 gets one air-to-air kill and that equals "significant problems". :
> 
> I think CDN Aviator and Infidel-6 nailed it.



Fair enoughon the first sentence; *but*, regarding the second, stegner's complaint about the  :rofl:  is valid. He was, as he said _" ... responding to Retired AF Guy who mentioned the wikipedia- in the post right before mine."_ All stegner did was comment on the data on the page RAFG put into play.

If wikipedia is the problem (as it very clearly was for CDN Aviator) then both CDN Aviator and I-6 need to take a new point of aim.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Back on topic.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting opinion piece by Edward Luttwak:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wcogeorgia20/BNStory/specialComment/home


> The party's over for Europe: The bear is back
> 
> EDWARD LUTTWAK
> 
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> August 20, 2008 at 8:38 AM EDT
> 
> South Ossetia may be very small, but it has become the scene of an event of colossal proportions: the return of Great Power politics, in which tanks are the deciding factor, not "soft power," let alone international legitimacy.
> 
> This huge change follows inevitably from Russia's regression to its own historic version of empire, which existed under the czars and was revived by Stalin. It is based on a tacit bargain: The Russians accept authoritarian rule and the loss of personal freedom in exchange for an imperial role on the global scene, starting with the "near abroad" - countries such as Georgia that used to belong to the Soviet Union.
> 
> For all its weaknesses, the Russian Federation has all it needs to function as a Great Power, from a determined ruling elite to a vast nuclear arsenal, adequate military forces now being modernized, and a revitalized intelligence service. Hence, the reversion of Russia to the dangerous rules of Great Power politics compels all others to change their behaviour as well - it is not a game, and participation is not voluntary.
> 
> Understandably, the Poles were the first to react. After bargaining with the Americans for months to extract more rewards for accepting a small anti-ballistic missile base on their territory, within hours of the Russian advance into Georgian territory, they dropped all their demands to sign on the dotted line. Other reactions may be much less obvious but could be much more important. Japan, for example, is likely to draw even closer to the United States, while China's rulers might be influenced in a most unfortunate way. After leaning this way and that, they had seemingly decided that maximum economic success was more valuable than a fast buildup of military strength; they may now revise their priorities.
> 
> The most direct impact, however, will be on Europe and the North Atlantic alliance. All through the Cold War, it was a truly operational organization, in which every member had to be ready to fight in defence of every other member. There were serious defence plans for vulnerable borders that were realistically exercised by hundreds of thousands of troops, and periodic airlifts to bring reinforcements to exposed frontiers as a reminder of what would happen in war.
> 
> Once the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO was not abolished, as some would have wanted. It never really worked for expeditions elsewhere, and mostly became something of a social club for European armed forces. That is why Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were allowed to become members, even though nothing was done to prepare for their defence in the event of a Russian threat to their borders. The same was true of Poland, less indefensible with its much deeper territory and significant armed forces but also the prime focus of Russian hostility. When it comes to Poland, the Russians just can't help themselves.
> 
> It was in that other world of "soft power" that has just ended that the admission of both Georgia and Ukraine to NATO was being rapidly prepared. Indeed, that was the strategic setting of Vladimir Putin's attack on Georgia's independence. Under Mr. Putin, Russian influence has been restored over the Central Asian republics and Moldova, but Ukraine is the big prize. Its territorial integrity is also threatened by a claim over the Crimea, in which Russia retains a fleet at Sevastopol, whose city authorities side with Russia and are subsidized out of the Moscow city budget. There is a large Russian minority, and also Ukrainians would like to join today's newly prosperous Russia.
> 
> There is also a new threat: Last Wednesday, the Russian news agency Interfax relayed the accusation that Russian warplanes flying in the "peace enforcement operation" in Georgia were shot down by S-200 and Tor anti-aircraft missiles supplied by Ukraine.
> 
> If Ukraine is allowed to enter NATO, all other members must be ready to send their troops to defend its borders - an outlandish notion for most of them. Would German troops go back to the Ukrainian front? Would the Italians? Or the British, for that matter? Yet, to refuse Ukraine's admission now would surely hand it over to Russian hegemony.
> 
> One way or the other, Europe's holiday from serious geopolitics is over.
> 
> _Edward Luttwak is senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies_



There are three key bits in Luttwak’s analysis:

1.	"For all its weaknesses, the Russian Federation has all it needs to function as a Great Power, from a determined ruling elite to a vast nuclear arsenal, adequate military forces now being modernized, and a revitalized intelligence service. Hence, the reversion of Russia to the dangerous rules of Great Power politics compels all others to change their behaviour as well - it is not a game, and participation is not voluntary."

2.	"Once the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO ... became something of a social club for European armed forces."

3.	"One way or the other, Europe's holiday from serious geopolitics is over."

I take serious issue with him on one point. He says, _”Russian influence has been restored over the Central Asian republics ...”_ That is a Russian wet dream. In my opinion, based on my readings, Chinese influence is nearly absolute in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, it is stronger than Russia’s in Kazakhstan and it is probably the strongest of the three contenders (America, China and Russia) in Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Russia *wants* to regain influence and some measure of control over the Central Asian ‘Stans’ but the Chinese will fight them tooth and nail, threat for threat and bribe for bribe.


----------



## stegner

> The MiG-25 force (NATO codename 'Foxbat') recorded the only Iraqi air-to-air kill during the war. A Mig-25PD shot down an American F/A-18 on the first night of the war. In another incident, an Iraqi Foxbat-E eluded eight American F-15s, firing three missiles at an EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission. In yet another incident, two MiG-25's approached a pair of F-15 Eagles, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then out-ran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the Foxbats; none of which could reach them.



Without getting too far off topic.  Above is the section from wikipedia that I read that caused me to think that the Mig-25 caused coalition forces significant problems, just thought I clarify.   



> Before answering, don't use Iraqi or other foreign users of Russian weapons as an example.  The former USSR and current Russia, as a rule of thumb, didn't export the good stuff (with some exceptions, such as to the German Democratic Republic).



Indeed.   Given that some of the satellites were not the most loyal this made perfect sense.    



> As a thought exercise, how would Russian forces fare?



I think in a protracted war it would largely be a question of keeping equipment running.  I give full credit and even the advantage to the Russians.  Russian equipment is built for a mind for practical use.    I will give an example.  The Russians don't bother ensuring that runways are clean and tidy, like the west.  To them this seems like a ridiculous notion as during a conflict  a runway will be littered with debris and so they construct their fighters to take this into account.   Russian fighters have a filter that comes down for take-offs and so they don't have to worry about wrecking the engines.   The west has a lot of gee-whiz kit that seems really cool, but is a maintenance nightmare.   This equipment works for a short war or in one which we don't have to worry about support elements and  bases being attacked.


----------



## KevinB

Edward -- Ret AF guy may have cited it -- but Stegner admitted using to bolster his claim that the Mig-25 has given "significant" problems.

Significant to me means a little more than an annoyance - and quite frankly that is what the Mig was -- it is a high speed interceptor - it fires and runs - runs damn fast.  I am rusty on my A/C Recognition so I appologize in advance for any errors.


 Regarding Russian equipment -- can their tanks stand up to the M1A2 TUSK?  I highly highly doubt it -- the US has been at war since 2001 - and the US Army is a very lethal force when unleashed.  does mistake that it is the premier fighting force on the planet.  The National Guard has been combat tested with many doing a second or third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Yes they are strained -- but they still have the ability given national will to project a metric shitload of force.

 I dont think McCain as President (I dont give Osama Obama much credence given the way the election is looking recently) would hesitate to confront the Bear if he felt it was the correct action, and I think the Russians know they cannot go blow to blow with the USofA.

I joined the Army in 1987 and my first intro was a Maj. slamming a C1A1 into a table staying "Your Job is to kill Russians..."  I have never doubted that statement to this day.  However I dont think Russia wants any more confrontation with the US either -- yes they want to be a player, but they know the larger threat is still the Islamofascist terrorist element of radical Islam, and they dont want to the US turning from that direction.


----------



## geo

Maintenance nightmare ???
Umm... care to be more specific ???
The kit we deploy with is reliable and dependable... if it isn't, and you can't rely on it being there for you, then what's the point.


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Regarding Russian equipment -- can their tanks stand up to the M1A2 TUSK?  I highly highly doubt it -- the US has been at war since 2001 - and the US Army is a very lethal force when unleashed.  does mistake that it is the premier fighting force on the planet.  The National Guard has been combat tested with many doing a second or third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.
> Yes they are strained -- but they still have the ability given national will to project a metric shitload of force.


Their tanks stand up as well to the M1A2 TUSK as well as they did to the M1A1: same gun; however, the question is: How does the M1A2 TUSK stand up to the latest Russian Armour?  Probably very well.

I also agree that the US is a very lethal force, premier fighting force on the planet.  The Russians, however, have in their history destroyed the then premier fighting force on the planet: the Wehrmacht.  Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.

(Edited adjectives in final sentence for clarity)


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, date/time stamped at 11:46 EDT today and reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ website, indicates that flaccid rhetoric from our side is not doing what one might have hoped:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wgeorgia0820/BNStory/International/home


> Russians dig in, not pull back, in Georgia
> 
> MIKE ECKEL
> Associated Press
> 
> August 20, 2008 at 11:46 AM EDT
> 
> SACHKERE, Georgia — Russian forces on Wednesday built a sentry post just 50 kilometres from the Georgian capital, appearing to dig in to positions deep inside Georgia despite pledges to pull back to areas mandated by a cease-fire signed by both countries.
> 
> Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says his troops will complete their pullback by Friday, but few signs of movement have been seen other than the departure of a small contingent that have held the strategically key city of Gori.
> 
> A convoy of flatbed trucks carrying badly needed food aid to one of the areas most heavily hit by the fighting was waved through a checkpoint by Russian soldiers. But conditions throughout much of the country remained tense.
> 
> Russian soldiers were setting up camp Wednesday in at least three positions in west-central Georgia. Further east, soldiers were building a sentry post of timber on a hill outside Igoeti, 50 kilometres from Tbilisi and the closest point to the capital where Russian troops have maintained a significant presence.
> 
> A top Russian general, meanwhile, said Russia plans to construct nearly a score of checkpoints to be manned by hundreds of soldiers in the so-called “security zone” around the border with South Ossetia.
> 
> And at a military training school in the mountain town of Sachkhere, a Georgian sentry said he feared Russian forces will make good on their threat to return after a confrontation the day before.
> 
> The sentry, who gave his name only as Corporal Vasily, said 23 Russian tanks, APCS and heavy guns showed up at the base on Tuesday and demanded to be let in. The Georgians refused and the Russians left after a 30-minute standoff but vowed to return after blowing up facilities in the village of Osiauri, he said.
> 
> Georgia's Defense Ministry said Wednesday that Russian soldiers destroyed military logistics facilities in Osiauri, but the claim could not immediately be confirmed.
> 
> “We're trying not to provoke them; otherwise they'll stay here for five to six months,” Vasily said. He said the school itself had no heavy weapons or other significant strategic value, unlike the military base raided by Russians at Senaki, “where they even took the windows off the buildings.”
> 
> Russia sent its tanks and troops into Georgia after Georgia launched a heavy artillery barrage Aug. 7 on the separatist, pro-Russian province of South Ossetia. Fighting also has flared in a second Georgian breakaway region, Abkhazia.
> 
> The short war has driven tensions between Russia and the West to some of their highest levels since the breakup of the Soviet Union.
> 
> A cease-fire signed by the presidents of Russia and Georgia calls for Russian forces to pull back to the positions they held before Aug. 7. The cease-fire allows Russia to maintain troops in a zone extending about 4 miles into Georgia along the South Ossetian border.
> 
> The Kremlin said Medvedev told French President Nicolas Sarkozy by phone Tuesday that Russian troops would withdraw from most of Georgia by Friday — some to Russia, others to South Ossetia and a surrounding “security zone” set in 1999.
> 
> The White House has made clear that it expects Russia to move faster.
> 
> “Both the size and pace of the withdrawal needs to increase, and needs to increase sooner rather than later,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. “I don't think they need any more additional time.”
> 
> Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian general staff, told a briefing Wednesday that Russia will build a double line of checkpoints totalling 18 in the zone, with about 270 soldiers manning the front-line posts. He said the security zone would be 40 kilometres from the strategically key city of Gori, but the city is significantly closer to the zone's presumed boundaries than that.
> 
> South Ossetia technically remains a part of Georgia, but Russia has said it will accept whatever South Ossetia's leaders decide about their future status — which is almost certain to be either a declaration of independence or a request to be incorporated into Russia.
> 
> Western leaders have stressed Georgia must retain its current borders.
> 
> A U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee delegation is travelling to Georgia to show solidarity with its government and assess the situation after fierce fighting between Georgian and Russian troops.
> 
> “This is a moment in history when it is vital for the world's democracies to stand in solidarity,” U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said in a statement before the trip.
> 
> Lieberman and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham were meeting with Georgian officials as well as with the ranking U.S. general on the ground.
> 
> U.S. Brig. Gen. Jon Miller arrived with a team Monday to assess humanitarian needs. About half of the displaced Georgians have taken refuge in schools, municipal offices and even condemned buildings in and around the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.
> 
> The Igoeti checkpoint that the aid trucks crossed, about 30 miles west of Tbilisi, is one of the deepest penetrations made by Russian forces into Georgia after fighting broke out in South Ossetia nearly two weeks ago.
> 
> The Russian seizure of Gori and villages in the region has left thousands of people with scarce and uncertain food supplies. The nine flatbed trucks carrying aid from the World Food Program could bring them some small comfort for a few days.
> 
> On Tuesday, Russian forces drove out of the Black Sea port city of Poti in trucks and armored personnel carriers loaded with about 20 blindfolded and bound Georgian prisoners — identified by local officials as soldiers and police — and seized four U.S. Humvees. They reportedly were taken to a Russian-controlled military base nearby, and Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said Wednesday they still were being held.
> 
> Nogovitsyn, the Russian general, indicated his forces may not return the U.S. vehicles, which had been waiting at Poti to be shipped home after being used in recent U.S.-Georgia exercises.
> 
> Asked about U.S. demands that Russia return seized weaponry to the Georgian military, he said “we don't intend to give up trophies.”



Sen. Lieberman’s call for ‘solidarity’ is well taken but it, I fear, will be ”more honour’d in the breach than the observance.”

France, Germany, Italy and Spain, mainly, are more likely to put secure oil supplies – a very immediate problem – ahead of _potential_ military threats. They can always hope that, as in he past, the USA will ride to their rescue.


----------



## wolfshadow

Hey *Oligarch*

Russians Revise death toll for South Ossetia from 1600 to 133: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572635.stm


----------



## geo

wolfshadow said:
			
		

> Hey *Oligarch*
> 
> Russians Revise death toll for South Ossetia from 1600 to 133:



Must be a problem with the decimal points.....


----------



## vonGarvin

wolfshadow said:
			
		

> Hey *Oligarch*
> Russians Revise death toll for South Ossetia from 1600 to 133:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572635.stm


You're not baiting Oligarch, are you?  

Anyway, as they say, Truth is the first casualty of war.  But facts are facts.  Georgia launched into South Ossetia, which, of course, _is_ part of Georgia.  Perhaps as much as Chinese Taipei is part of the People's Republic of China, albeit with no formal international recognition, but there it is.

Anyway, this looks to have the making of a large _Scheiße_-Sandwich, and I'm hoping not too many of us have to take a bite.


----------



## Haggis

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> You're not baiting Oligarch, are you?



Nawwww.  We just miss the contrasting viewpoints, so eloquently presented.



			
				Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Anyway, this looks to have the making of a large _Scheiße_-Sandwich, and I'm hoping not too many of us have to take a bite.



Someone fairly high up the food chain here at NDHQ commented to me the other day (knowing I had served in Georgia) that this "is the most strategically significant thing going on in the world today".  I told him I'd kept my maps.


----------



## vonGarvin

Haggis said:
			
		

> Someone fairly high up the food chain here at NDHQ commented to me the other day (knowing I had served in Georgia) that this "is the most strategically significant thing going on in the world today".  I told him I'd kept my maps.


_They_ laughed at me when I took the old Soviet-era ORBAT and doctrine books from the unit library (they were being earmarked for destruction).  _They_ called me a "Cold War Dinosaur".  Who's laughing now?  Well, I'm not, because this isn't funny.


PS: I only kept those old books for my hobby: wargaming.


----------



## vonGarvin

Haggis said:
			
		

> Nawwww.  We just miss the contrasting viewpoints, so eloquently presented.


:rolf:

Oh, you mean the old "R2!"/"RNOT!" arguments? ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, just in:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wnorwayrussia0820/BNStory/International/home


> Russia to cut military ties with NATO, says Norway
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> August 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM EDT
> 
> OSLO, Norway — Norway's Defence Ministry says Russia has informed it that it plans to cut all military ties with NATO.
> 
> Ministry spokeswoman Heidi Langvik-Hansen said the country's embassy received a telephone call from Russia's Defence Ministry today, saying Moscow plans “to freeze all military co-operation with NATO and allied countries.”
> 
> Norway was told in the telephone call a written note about this would be sent out shortly.
> 
> Russian officials were not immediately available to confirm the information and officials at NATO headquarters said they have not been informed of any such moves.
> 
> NATO foreign ministers Tuesday suspended formal contacts with Russia as punishment for sending troops into Georgia.
> 
> _More to come_



To which I say: good on them; saves us the trouble.


----------



## CougarKing

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> You're not baiting Oligarch, are you?
> 
> Anyway, as they say, Truth is the first casualty of war.  But facts are facts.  Georgia launched into South Ossetia, which, of course, _is_ part of Georgia.  Perhaps as much as Chinese Taipei is part of the People's Republic of China, albeit with no formal international recognition, but there it is.
> 
> Anyway, this looks to have the making of a large _Scheiße_-Sandwich, and I'm hoping not too many of us have to take a bite.



Mortarman,

Taiwan is not part of China according to the 90% of native Taiwanese or _benshengren_/本省人 who live on the island, while the remaining 10% or so _waishengren_/外省人 or Chinese who live on the island, with mainland roots, whose forefathers fled there in 1949 believe that Taiwan should reunite with the mainland, but with special conditions/concessions on the PRC's part. The reason why all those native Taiwanese did not vote for the pro-independence DPP party the last election is because they are pragmatic and would rather not see the PRC invade them and because of all the recent corruption scandals the plagued the DPP, including former Pres. Chen's wife and brother-in-law, IIRC.

To assume that the _benshengren_ are just merely another Chinese group is to deny the distinct identity that arose when Taiwanese history first diverged from the rest of China when the island became Japanese territory from 1895-1945 after the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War, followed by the brutal massacres (such as the 2-28 massacre) that occured when Chiang-Kai-Shek's Guominjun troops landed in Taiwan in 1946 to reclaim the island for the ROC. When Chiang's troops came they treated the locals not as fellow Chinese but as conquered Japanese because they locals had been previously Japanized to the point that they were indistinguishable from their former occupiers (look up the Japanese assimilation policy called doka/kominka); the only link they had to their Chinese heritage was their spoken dialect called Taiwanese/Tai wan Hua, which was merely a bastardization of Fu Jian Hua/Hokien, the dialect spoken in the adjacent mainland province of Fujian. And then you had the years under Chiang's rule under which the island became a virtual fortress against Chicom invasion, with the locals reassimilated into ROC society, and slowly working their way to positions in th government until one -Lee-Tung Hui became President in 1996 during the 1995-1996 Taiwan Missile Crisis. And then another- Pres. Chen- also became Pres. the next election in 2000. I could go on and on, but the point is that the locals have their distinct history and you are simply dismissing that by calling Taiwan a part of China- it's not your place to decide that, but theirs. Even the current President of Taiwan, Pres. Ma Ying Jieu, although himself a waishengren, is definitely no Beijing sycophant.

And you have a lot of nerve as well by saying that Tibet is part of China in your avatar signature line. All the years of economic and infrastructure development- as well as the education and other programs that give the Tibetans some privilieges such as exception to the one-child policy-  in Tibet province of China does not justify the fact the that China took that nation by force and the brutal PLA crackdowns on the locals last April and ten years ago and also back in 1959.

Anyways, just wanted to emphasize a point-this is the end of the topic hijack.

And Mortarman, it is not a Scheiste sandwich, but a GAVNO (screw the Cyrillic) sandwich.

Or better yet this is a DA BIAO (Mandarin for you know what) sandwich.


----------



## geo

One person's Scheisse is someone else's gavno.... is someone else's Guano...

If it looks like it, smells like it, feels like it and tastes like it..... aren't you happy you didn't step in it


----------



## Edward Campbell

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> ...
> Taiwan is not part of China according to the 90% of native Taiwanese or _benshengren_/本省人 who live on the island, while the remaining 10% or so _waishengren_/外省人 or Chinese who live on the island, with mainland roots, whose forefathers fled there in 1949 believe that Taiwan should reunite with the mainland, but with special conditions/concessions on the PRC's part ...



But, Taiwan has been, mainly, a province of China since the middle of the 17th century - longer than many European and all North American nation-states have existed, in their current form.

The issue remains *how* the reunification is acomplished. One country _n_ systems, anyone?


----------



## vonGarvin

Irrespective of Taiwan's history, the PRC considers Taiwan as part of the PRC.  That's the only point I meant.

As for Tibet, well, it's the latest focal point for the ignorant left, so yes, I acknowledge that I am perhaps being rather flippant, but given that most people (myself included) couldn't find Tibet on a map, let alone know its history, I am taking the exact 180 degree opposite from the "popular" point of view on Tibet.

PS: It's also a pun on the "My Canada includes Quebec" bumper stickers that were all the rage circa 1995.

Anyway, there it is.


----------



## CougarKing

And the story keeps getting better and better. Oh well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_re_eu/russia_...aFCtJrhJUcZbd7us0NUE



> OSLO, Norway - *Norway's Defense Ministry says Russia has informed it that it plans to cut all military ties with NATO.*
> 
> Ministry spokeswoman Heidi Langvik-Hansen says the country's embassy received a telephone call from Russia's Defense Ministry on Wednesday, saying Moscow plans "to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and allied countries."
> 
> Norway was told in the telephone call a written note about this would be sent out shortly.
> 
> Russian officials were not immediately available to confirm the information and officials at NATO headquarters said they have not been informed of any such moves.
> 
> NATO foreign ministers Tuesday suspended formal contacts with Russia as punishment for sending troops into Georgia.


----------



## time expired

Rockpainter Mortarman,Ab 7uhr 30 wert zuruckgeschossen.Remember that,
Hitlers words as Poland attacked poor Germany and started WW2. Facts are
starting starting to show up that seem to point to the Ossetian militia starting
the ball rolling,of course without Russian knowledge,right.Anyway this should 
not disturb your apparent support of Russian or Chinese aggression.
                                        Regards


----------



## Kirkhill

Just as a modest interjection -  I don't believe that the question of military superiority relies on whether the Tusk can "take" the Black Eagle or whatever it is currently called.  As I have stated before all warfare is assymetric.  Rock vs Rock, Knight vs Knight, Tank vs Tank is a recipe for a stalemate - a "do-over".    Rock is defeated by paper.  Knights were defeated by arrows (and then bullets).  The Tank will be defeated by .......?????

Javelins?  Excalibur?  Small Diameter Bombs with DAMASK Seekers and Diamond Back wings? Who has the best Diesel Tankers (Just watched Battle of the Bulge for the umpteenth time Mortarman...  ) ? Does marijuana or vodka have the most deleterious effect on unhappy conscripts?  Does Boyd's OODA perform better than predefined artillery tables?  Whose unconventional forces are more successful - NATO's Operational Forces or Russia's Strategic-Political forces?

I do NOT believe that there will be anything like a Kursk II.  Nor even a Gulf War I on the Steppes.

Nor do I believe that there is going to be nuclear exchange.  I believe that if the Russians so much as opened the lids on the silos that would give the Americans all the excuse they need to launch a PGM counter/first-strike.  And I don't think the Russians have much reason to be confident that their arsenal will work as they hope.

What we might see is the Russian Great Satan being refurbished by the Mullahs and invited into Iran - openly.   Now that would set the cat among the pigeons.


----------



## vonGarvin

time expired said:
			
		

> Rockpainter Mortarman,Ab 7uhr 30 wert zuruckgeschossen.Remember that,
> Hitlers words as Poland attacked poor Germany and started WW2. Facts are
> starting starting to show up that seem to point to the Ossetian militia starting
> the ball rolling,of course without Russian knowledge,right.Anyway this should
> not disturb your apparent support of Russian or Chinese aggression.
> Regards


I had a reply all typed up, but alas, my connection failed and I had to reboot.  I love technology.
Anyway, I don't know how China got into all of this :
As for my "support" of Russian aggression, my point is this: I believe that the Russian case for Jus ad Bellum is rock-solid, whereas the case for Georgian Jus ad Bellum is less so.  I also believe that whether or not both sides acted Jus in Bello remains to be seen.  I also believe that to relegate the Russians to the class of "thugs" is dangerous.  Never underestimate our Russian "drooz'ya".  Though "we" would have acted (and have acted in similar cases: Kosovo I believe is being called precedent by Russia) with PGMs, etc, we still took the fight in 99 to a sovereign nation over a matter they saw as an internal affair.  Russia isn't so lavished with PGMs as we, so they resort to that which they know best: immediate, intermediate and final objective lines being driven to by motor rifle divisions.
Anyway, have a glorious day, and I agree with Kirkhill: no Kursk II on this one, but I do foresee a long and cold time ahead of us all.


----------



## a_majoor

A bit of light reading so we can all draw a breath:


----------



## Haggis

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A bit of light reading so we can all draw a breath:



Is she nude under that ink?

POINTLESS THREAD HIJACK ENDS.
  Вы для вашего участия.


----------



## observor 69

It's a "good thing" to hear other poiints of view.

The New York Times

August 20, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Russia Never Wanted a War 
By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Moscow

THE acute phase of the crisis provoked by the Georgian forces’ assault on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, is now behind us. But how can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people taking cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?

Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong enough position domestically; it did not need a little victorious war. Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction. 

The decision by the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to now cease hostilities was the right move by a responsible leader. The Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. Anyone who expected confusion in Moscow was disappointed. 

The planners of this campaign clearly wanted to make sure that, whatever the outcome, Russia would be blamed for worsening the situation. The West then mounted a propaganda attack against Russia, with the American news media leading the way.

The news coverage has been far from fair and balanced, especially during the first days of the crisis. Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing — before any Russian troops arrived. Yet Russia was already being accused of aggression; news reports were often an embarrassing recitation of the Georgian leader’s deceptive statements.

It is still not quite clear whether the West was aware of Mr. Saakashvili’s plans to invade South Ossetia, and this is a serious matter. What is clear is that Western assistance in training Georgian troops and shipping large supplies of arms had been pushing the region toward war rather than peace.

If this military misadventure was a surprise for the Georgian leader’s foreign patrons, so much the worse. It looks like a classic wag-the-dog story. 

Mr. Saakashvili had been lavished with praise for being a staunch American ally and a real democrat — and for helping out in Iraq. Now America’s friend has wrought disorder, and all of us — the Europeans and, most important, the region’s innocent civilians — must pick up the pieces.

Those who rush to judgment on what’s happening in the Caucasus, or those who seek influence there, should first have at least some idea of this region’s complexities. The Ossetians live both in Georgia and in Russia. The region is a patchwork of ethnic groups living in close proximity. Therefore, all talk of “this is our land,” “we are liberating our land,” is meaningless. We must think about the people who live on the land. 

The problems of the Caucasus region cannot be solved by force. That has been tried more than once in the past two decades, and it has always boomeranged. 

What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. Mr. Saakashvili has repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons that have now become abundantly clear. 

The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, it chooses to blame Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In that case, expect the worst.

In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization. 

These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: If our opinion counts for nothing in those institutions, do we really need them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table and listen to lectures?

Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here’s the independence of Kosovo for you. Here’s the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here’s the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?

There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with Russia. One thing that should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its positions and interests. 

Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than token, cooperation. Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for this. But is the same true of the political leaders?

A bipartisan commission led by Senator Chuck Hagel and former Senator Gary Hart has recently been established at Harvard to report on American-Russian relations to Congress and the next president. It includes serious people, and, judging by the commission’s early statements, its members understand the importance of Russia and the importance of constructive bilateral relations.

But the members of this commission should be careful. Their mandate is to present “policy recommendations for a new administration to advance America’s national interests in relations with Russia.” If that alone is the goal, then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however, the commission is ready to also consider the interests of the other side and of common security, it may actually help rebuild trust between Russia and the United States and allow them to start doing useful work together.

Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article was translated by Pavel Palazhchenko from the Russian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20gorbachev.html?_r=1&em=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


----------



## geo

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I had a reply all typed up, but alas, my connection failed and I had to reboot.  I love technology.
> Russia isn't so lavished with PGMs as we, so they resort to that which they know best: immediate, intermediate and final objective lines being driven to by motor rifle divisions.


Immediate, intermediate and intimidate.  Motor Rifle & armoured divisions are good for that (intimidate)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> It's a "good thing" to hear other poiints of view.
> 
> The New York Times
> 
> August 20, 2008
> Op-Ed Contributor
> Russia Never Wanted a War
> By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
> Moscow
> 
> THE acute phase of the crisis provoked by the Georgian forces’ assault on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, is now behind us. But how can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people taking cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?
> 
> Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong enough position domestically; it did not need a little victorious war. Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.
> 
> ...
> 
> In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization.
> 
> These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: If our opinion counts for nothing in those institutions, do we really need them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table and listen to lectures?
> 
> Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here’s the independence of Kosovo for you. Here’s the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here’s the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?
> 
> There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with Russia. One thing that should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its positions and interests.
> 
> Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than token, cooperation. Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for this. But is the same true of the political leaders?
> 
> A bipartisan commission led by Senator Chuck Hagel and former Senator Gary Hart has recently been established at Harvard to report on American-Russian relations to Congress and the next president. It includes serious people, and, judging by the commission’s early statements, its members understand the importance of Russia and the importance of constructive bilateral relations.
> 
> But the members of this commission should be careful. Their mandate is to present “policy recommendations for a new administration to advance America’s national interests in relations with Russia.” If that alone is the goal, then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however, the commission is ready to also consider the interests of the other side and of common security, it may actually help rebuild trust between Russia and the United States and allow them to start doing useful work together.
> 
> Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article was translated by Pavel Palazhchenko from the Russian.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20gorbachev.html?_r=1&em=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print



There is some merit in some of Gorby's comments. For example:

•	Georgia was, indeed, the aggressor and it looks more and more like the decision to attack was rash and foolish; and

•	There is a _movement_ afoot to boot Russia out of what Barnett calls the "connected core." This _movement_ is supported by those, like me, who never, even for a second, believed that Russia belonged in the core at all; but

•	Russia has good cause to wonder if being a strategic afterthought is meeting its own best interests.

But, Gorby is being terribly disingenuous in advising the Hagel/Hart commission to toss aside its mandate and, instead, try to accommodate Russia's interests: *arrant nonsense!*


----------



## Kirkhill

Motor Rifle and Armoured  Divisions are the ONLY (IMHO) way to do that.  That too is the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan, and every other "Peacekeeping/Peacemaking/Law Enforcing/Colonizing" mission.  It is always about "Boots on the Ground",  "Advancing to Contact" and "Personal Contact".

Bombs may destroy threats, and kill people, but they will never produce a pliable, even friendly, population.


The Russians are apparently already striking up conversations with locals.  French publicans sold wine to German soldiers with French girlfriends.


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> •	Georgia was, indeed, the aggressor and it looks more and more like the decision to attack was rash and foolish; and


For me, this point is key, and seems to be lost on some, ignored by others, and attributed to some grand Russian conspiracy.  I am of the opinion that the president of Georgia is like some little lap dog, hoping that his alpha will protect him as he mouths off.  You know that cartoon, the little one goes on and on how big and strong his friend Ralph is?  

Anyway, that's just me, maybe, but it seems that the West ("Royal" west, that is) is full of rhetoric on this one.


----------



## geo

Georgia with it's secessionist provinces is in some ways, similar to Serbia and it's secessionist province - Kossovo.

Mind you, I think we got involved in Kossovo - after taking into account all the crap that Serbia caused in the breakup of the Yugoslavia & what was done with Bosnia Herzegovina - and to a lesser extend with Croatia.  

Slobodan & his buddy Radovan initiated it... and we finished it.


----------



## CougarKing

A little update: Turkey has just allowed a joint USN-USCG group of 3 ships to head for the Black sea via the Bosporous Strait and eventually to Georgia's coast for relief work.

http://www.military.com/news/article/turkey-to-let-relief-ships-through.html?col=1186032310810&wh=wh



> August 21, 2008
> Associated Press
> 
> WASHINGTON - The United States says Turkey is allowing three U.S. military ships to pass through Turkish straights to deliver humanitarian relief supplies to Georgia.
> 
> *State Department spokesman Robert Wood says NATO ally Turkey has approved the passage of two U.S. Navy ships and a Coast Guard cutter to transit from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. He would not comment Wednesday on reports that Turkey was unwilling to allow military hospital ships to pass.*
> 
> Wood said that since Aug. 19, the United States has delivered supplies to Georgia's capital, Tblisi, on 20 flights.
> 
> The aid is intended for people displaced since Russia sent tanks and troops into Georgia. Russia's offensive came after Tblisi launched an artillery barrage Aug. 7 on the separatist, pro-Russian province of South Ossetia.
> 
> © Copyright 2008 Associated Press.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> •	Georgia was, indeed, the aggressor and it looks more and more like the decision to attack was rash and foolish; and
> ...



Let your imagination wander for a moment; consider Canada in 1995:

•	Suppose just a few thousand more Québecers had voted _Oui_ – securing 50%+1 *for* _l’indépendence_;

•	Now suppose, supported by a few meddlesome members of _La Francophonie_, Parizeau had declared independence almost immediately;

•	Now suppose the James Bay Cree did much the same thing – a hasty referendum followed by a Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the newly made nation-state of Québec;

•	Then supose Québec invades the North; and

•	The aboriginals, we can suppose, would call for help – suppose Canada supports them and invades West Québec (in an effort to make Québec split its less than well prepared police forces).

Now suppose that, for some reason beyond my imagination, the USA had decided to support the new nation-state of Québec. Québec calls for help against the Canadian aggressors – and, à la Georgia in South Ossestia, the Canadians are, by definition the aggressors. How would we, Canadians, see any US ‘help,’ especially military ‘help’ applied against us?


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Let your imagination wander for a moment; consider Canada in 1995:
> 
> •	Suppose just a few thousand more Québecers had voted _Oui_ – securing 50%+1 *for* _l’indépendence_;
> 
> •	Now suppose, supported by a few meddlesome members of _La Francophonie_, Parizeau had declared independence almost immediately;
> 
> •	Now suppose the James Bay Cree did much the same thing – a hasty referendum followed by a Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the newly made nation-state of Québec;
> 
> •	*Then supose Québec invades the North*; and


No need to convolute it beyond that point.  Using this as a Georgian analogy, Quebec is Georgia, the Cree are the South Ossetians and we are Russia.  To add the US to the mix is getting away from the analogy.


----------



## geo

Heh.... aren't we suddenly back to that old book.... "Killing ground" about Quebec Independance.... where the US invades - as Peacekeepers no less...


----------



## armyca08

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just as a modest interjection -  I don't believe that the question of military superiority relies on whether the Tusk can "take" the Black Eagle or whatever it is currently called.  As I have stated before all warfare is assymetric.  Rock vs Rock, Knight vs Knight, Tank vs Tank is a recipe for a stalemate - a "do-over".    Rock is defeated by paper.  Knights were defeated by arrows (and then bullets).  The Tank will be defeated by .......?????



Appache helicopters were one of the touted "tank killers". Ultimately Precision guided bombs have the ultimate advantage. I am currious as to the effects of "camaflouge, and conceilment on image guided bombs.  EG. if a picture of tank is input, what if the tank were dressed up in a tank halter? Would the image guided bomb be effecitve? Or if for a larger area, what about ready made inflatablebuildings that are changed hourly? I'm geussing the systems can't be fooled that easily.  Those system have definate advantages, perhaps that is why Russia is assisting Syria with AntiAir defence systems.





> I don't think the Russians have much reason to be confident that their arsenal will work as they hope.


 It working as effectively as they would like, probably won't be that much of a determinant on the ongoing consequences of large scale nuclear exchange. Although perhaps global warming would be less on the political agenda after the fact so not all loss for the right wing industrialists in the G8.


----------



## time expired

Better yet Que. minority government declares itself independent
and starts expelling non French Canadians and attacking Federal
facilities also interfering  with seaway traffic.The Canadian forces
move into Que.and a few skirmishes take place.The UN gets involved
and calls for peacekeepers,as there are no takers, the US fills the gap.
After a while they start training a Que. militia who start pressuring
English Canadians and other groups who resist separation to leave, also
starts minor incursions over Ontario and New Brunswick border,
the US peacekeepers do nothing.Britain,Australia and New Zealand
send equipment and instructors to help expand Canadas Armed Forces.
I forgot to mention that the UN agreement forced Canada to pull its 
troops out of Quebec. 
How would we react?
                         Regards


----------



## Franko

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just as a modest interjection -  I don't believe that the question of military superiority relies on whether the Tusk can "take" the Black Eagle or whatever it is currently called.



Just for the record...the Black Eagle doesn't exist except in a wooden mock-up made for an arms expo in the late 90's.

Some people out there wearing tinfoil hats are perpetuating the myth of it actually being adopted and deployed.

Regards


----------



## Mike Baker

Russians halt Nato co-operation




> Russia has told Nato it is halting all military co-operation, the bloc says, as the crisis over Georgia deepens.
> The Russian move follows a statement by Nato that there would be no "business as usual" with Moscow unless its troops pulled out of Georgia.
> However, the alliance had stopped short of freezing co-operation with Moscow.
> Meanwhile, a top Russian general said that the withdrawal of the bulk of Russia's troops would be complete in about 10 days.
> Gen Vladimir Boldyrev, commander of the Russian ground forces in the region, referred to the pullout of troops "sent to reinforce Russian peacekeepers" in Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia.
> It was not immediately clear how Gen Boldyrev's comments would fit in with a previous Russian commitment to withdraw its forces to behind a buffer zone around South Ossetia by the end of Friday.
> 
> Moscow has said it intends to keep some 500 troops in what it called a "zone of responsibility" as part of a peacekeeping mission.
> In a separate development, South Ossetia and Abkhazia - another Georgian breakaway region - held mass rallies calling for independence.
> Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow's response to their pleas would depend on the conduct of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.




More on link.

-Dead


----------



## tomahawk6

Putin is creating a very dangerous climate in Europe. Putin wins if the EU/NATO limits their reaction to talk. He will move into one country after another as long as NATO does nothing. Putin seems intent on getting control over the pipeline that has its terminus in Turkey to either shut it down or control it. We have to take Putins threats at face value. He has threatened Poland who is a NATO ally maybe we should move one of our divisons from Germany into Poland ? So far the Russians arent leaving Georgia how can we encourage them to do so ? Today a USN DDG and a Coast Guard Cutter transited into the Black Sea bound for Georgia on a humanitarian mission. This is a good move. Another would be to deploy a couple of heavy brigades in Georgia and start flying CAP over Georgia from Turkey.It would be nice to get Turkey to be more pro-active because a resurgent Russia isnt in their best interest.


----------



## CougarKing

More details on the last update:

stars and stripes



> NAPLES, Italy — The U.S. Navy has dispatched a ship to deliver humanitarian aid to war-torn Georgia and is preparing two others to transit the Black Sea to deliver supplies, Navy officials said.
> 
> Late Wednesday, the guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul left Souda Bay, Crete, loaded with 40 pallets of baby food, diapers, hygiene items and milk. Another 32 pallets contained paper plates, toilet paper, plastic tableware and bottled water.
> 
> Within the next day or two, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Dallas — which until recently had been in the Gulf of Guinea as part of the Navy’s Africa Partnership Station program — will head to Georgia, followed by the amphibious command and control ship USS Mount Whitney by month’s end, said Cmdr. Scott Miller, spokesman for Naval Forces Europe/6th Fleet, headquartered in Naples...


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here are some links to various reports concerning the Georgia crisis. I had planned on posting them some time ago, but I just never got around to it (sorry excuse I know).  The items up are from the International Crisis Group . The ICG is one of those advocacy groups dedicated to conflict resolutions. I've found their reports very interesting in that they actually send researchers into the conflict zones to interview the folks on the ground, including combatants, politicians, NGO's and ordinary citizens. You will notice that some of these reports are dated, but i included them any ways because they give a background on the happenings in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 

The first report is Georgia: Conflict History. This gives a short concise history of not only the South Ossetia problem, but also Abkhazia.  

Georgia: Avoiding War in South Ossetia.  26 November 2004

 Abkhazia Today. 15 September 2006

. Georgia/South Ossetia: Make Haste Slowly .7 June 2007

 Georgia and Russia: Clashing Over Abkhazia This is the latest report having come out on early June 2008. While it deals with Abkhazia, while doing a quick read I noticed a couple of comments they also apply to S. Ossetia. Take this one from the first page: "_* Russia has stepped up manipulation of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflicts. Georgia remains determined to restore its territorial integrity, and hawks in Tbilisi are seriously considering a military option.*_" 

Here is a second little snippet: "_*The worrying unpredictability of Georgian actions stems largely from the difficulty of knowing the thought processes of the tight inner circle around President Saakashvili, a group that seems to make its analyses and draw its conclusions in a virtual vacuum. The risk of a rash move is compounded because the Abkhaz and South Ossetian conflicts and the relationship with Russia trigger highly emotional reactions. Saakashvili himself is a volatile personality*_."

That's all I'll post for the time being. I have some more links to post, but rather than overload everyone I'll wait until tomorrow or the weekend to post them. Enjoy.


----------



## stegner

> This is a good move. Another would be to deploy a couple of heavy brigades in Georgia and start flying CAP over Georgia from Turkey.It would be nice to get Turkey to be more pro-active because a resurgent Russia isnt in their best interest.



Were would the U.S get this heavy brigades?  So we will attack powers just because the are against the interests of the west?   Why should Turkey do the dirty work for U.S?


----------



## tomahawk6

It is in Turkey's interest to keep Russian tanks as far from their borders as possible.Second the pipeline in Georgia the Russians are threatening has its terminus in Turkey,loss of this pipeline would have a negative effect on Turkish access to oil/gas.


----------



## wolfshadow

Another interesting analysis on BBC website.

I'm wondering what the chances of a formal treaty between Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey are, with the pipeline at stake....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7575813.stm


----------



## Kirkhill

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Just for the record...the Black Eagle doesn't exist except in a wooden mock-up made for an arms expo in the late 90's.
> 
> Some people out there wearing tinfoil hats are perpetuating the myth of it actually being adopted and deployed.
> 
> Regards



Thanks for the clarification RBD.  Cheers.


----------



## KevinB

stegner said:
			
		

> Were would the U.S get this heavy brigades?  So we will attack powers just because the are against the interests of the west?   Why should Turkey do the dirty work for U.S?



1) THESE as opposed to this Heavy Brigades.

2) The US has virtually no heavy units deployed in Iraq or Afghan these days...

Why -- well Abrams and Bradleys are not the best for COIN.  Yes they have some - but very few - and those that are here very rarely go out and about.   


The Russians had armed militias stirring the pot to provoke Georgia -- they relied on the fact that either Georgia would react and then they could smash into Georgia, or they would force Georgians from the regions and thereby easily swallow them into Mother Russia.
   Yes Georgia reacted rashly - but they where provoked.

American helo pilots are gaining thousands of flying ours in combat, the units are getting very slick with CAS, Casevac is supurb.  While America may not want to comitt -- they do have the forces, and those forces are ready.

As for quantity over quality -- I will go for quality every day.


IF Russia truly was just "peacekeeping" are restoring order - they never would have smashed into Georgia, they where sending a message.

A message the world needs to listen to -- and act against.


----------



## geo

Read an article in the paper this morning.  It would appear that South Ossetians have grabbed additional territory that was clearly Georgian before this dust-up.  SO militias have set up roadblocks.... behind a protective screen of nice Russian peacekeepers.


----------



## KevinB

geo said:
			
		

> Read an article in the paper this morning.  It would appear that South Ossetians have grabbed additional territory that was clearly Georgian before this dust-up.  SO militias have set up roadblocks.... behind a protective screen of nice Russian peacekeepers.



BINGO

Imagine who gave them the balls to try that one?


----------



## geo

Three guesses & the 1st two don't count


----------



## CougarKing

This is hilarious... apparently Russia's withdrawal is complete! Except for the 2500 "peacekeeper" troops inside Georgia, the attack helicopters, APC's, etc, etc that Russia says will remain in Georgia for the foreseeable future to man checkpoints and buffer zones throughout Georgia (both provinces and Georgia proper). A few snippets from the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7576556.stm



> "Earlier, the deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, Gen Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said that more than 2,500 "peacekeeping" troops with armoured cars and helicopters would remain inside Georgia for the foreseeable future. "
> 
> "The commander of US forces in Europe, Gen John Craddock, said earlier that Russia was taking too long to withdraw, and added "if they are moving, it is at a snail's pace". "
> 
> "The Georgian government has denounced the move as unacceptable."
> 
> "The White House said checkpoints and buffer zones were "definitely not part of the agreement", and called for an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops."


----------



## a_majoor

Now we see if Russia really has taken a bigger bite then they can really handle:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D4FABFB0-74CC-43DC-BFC3-1C053820492C



> *Putin's Next Domino *
> By Kathy Shaidle
> FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, August 22, 2008
> 
> As soon as the U.S. and Poland signed their long awaited missile defense pact on August 20 (a deal recently reported in FrontPage), the Kremlin issued a sinister threat reminiscent of its old Cold War rhetoric.
> 
> The deal places 10 missile defense interceptors on Polish territory, 115 miles from the Russian border. The missiles are designed to deter and, if necessary, defeat an Iranian attack, not to attack the former Soviet Union. But the Russians don't believe that.
> 
> Hours after the signing, Russia's Foreign Ministry described the new base as "one of the instruments in an extremely dangerous bundle of American military projects involving the one-sided development of a global missile shield system." The Foreign Ministry insisted that the interceptors don't have "any target other than Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles," and issued a veiled threat: "In this case Russia will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic" channels.
> 
> A few days earlier, Deputy Chief of Staff General Anatoly Nogovitsyn had warned, "Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to [nuclear] attack, one hundred percent."
> 
> Earlier, the chief of Russia's strategic missile command suggested aiming nuclear missiles at Poland, while Vladimir Putin himself has warned Poland's neighbor that "Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory" if Ukraine joined NATO.
> 
> In Poland to sign the aggreement, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed any suggestion that the new system represents a threat to Russia, and denounced General Nogovitsyn's threat.
> 
> Comments like this "border on the bizarre, frankly," said Rice, adding, "The Russians are losing their credibility." "Missile defense, of course, is aimed at no one," Rice futher explained. "It is in our defense that we do this."
> 
> "It's also the case that when you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988," Rice continued. "It's 2008 and the United States has a ... firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland's territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it's probably not wise to throw these threats around."
> 
> Perhaps, but Russia seems eager to turn back the clock, to a time when it was the United States' most feared enemy, and not merely a nation among others.
> 
> Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Gabriel Schoenfeld reports that, like the United States since the end of the Cold War,
> 
> Russia has also reduced the size of its tactical nuclear arsenal, but starting from much higher levels and at a slower pace, leaving it with an estimated 5,000 such devices -- 10 times the number of tactical weapons held by the U.S. Such a disparity would be one thing if we were contending with a stable, postcommunist regime moving in the direction of democracy and integration with the West. That was the Russia we anticipated when we began our nuclear build-down. But it is not the Russia we are facing today. (...)
> 
> As in the Cold War, nuclear weapons are central to the Russian geopolitical calculus. "*The weak are not loved and not heard, they are insulted, and when we have [nuclear] parity they will talk to us in a different way.*" These words are not from the dark days of communist yore. Rather, they were uttered last year by Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, and they perfectly capture the mentality we and Russia's neighbors are up against.
> 
> In other words, the Kremlin has the hardware to back up their bluster. In recent months, the Russians have sent bombers on sorties along the Alaskan coast, and have threatened to station nuclear weapons in Cuba in response to the U.S. Poland pact.
> 
> Because Russia is the world's second largest oil producer, its newest threats helped oil prices shoot up to $115 a barrel on Wednesday. The situation was compounded by Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, which threatened to disrupt important regional pipelines. The price of gold, which has historically risen and fell in unison with international tensions, also rose yesterday due to "increasing geopolitical risk." One veteran market observer analyzed the situation on Thursday and issued a distressing prediction:
> 
> Venezuela, Syria and Iran are aligning themselves with Russia. President Assad has said that Israeli assistance to Georgia shows that Russia and Syria should bolster military cooperation. Venezuela's Chavez is also aligning himself with the Russians. Chavez said at the weekend that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev wanted to send a Russian naval fleet to visit Venezuela and that the Russians naval fleet would be welcome in Venezuela. Venezuela has been seeking closer relations with Moscow, in part to buy military hardware, including 24 Russian Sukhoi fighter jets recently delivered.
> 
> Geopolitical risk is higher now than at any time since the end of the Cold War and looks set to remain heightened in the coming months.
> 
> So far, the U.S. and Poland have issued calm yet firm statements in response to the Kremlin's belligerence.  For example, on August 21, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski suggested that the Russians be invited to inspect the new bases on Polish territory.
> 
> However, whether or not the two nations and their allies can maintain this sanguine front in the face of Russia's threats of nuclear "payback" remains to be seen.
> 
> A blogger since 2000, Kathy Shaidle runs FiveFeetOfFury.com. Her new e-book Acoustic Ladyland has been called a "must read" by Mark Steyn.



Throttling their ramshackle economy is the safest and surest means of defanging Russia (nukes or not. The vast amount of military hardware was totally for naught when the Wall fell; and indeed was the anchor weight that dragged the USSR down). Edward Campbell has posted on this, so there is no need to repeat it (scroll back).


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.military.com/news/article/us-trainers-georgian-troops-werent-ready.html?col=1186032325324

US Trainers: Georgian Troops Weren't Ready
August 19, 2008
Associated Press

TBILISI, Georgia - U.S. military trainers - the only American boots on the ground here - say the Georgian soldiers they knew who were sent to battle the Russians had fighting spirit but were not ready for war.

The Georgians were "beginning to walk, but by no means were they running," said Army Capt. Jeff Barta, who helped train a Georgian brigade for peacekeeping service in Iraq. "If that was a U.S. brigade it would not have gone into combat."

Now on standby at the Sheraton Hotel, unarmed and in civilian clothes, six of the American trainers offered a glimpse at the 5-year-old U.S. mission and at the performance of the outnumbered and outgunned Georgian military in its defeat by Russia.

The Americans arrived for work Aug. 7 to unexpectedly find training was over for the unit they had been assigned to for three weeks, the 4th Brigade: The Georgian soldiers were sitting on their rucksacks and singing folk songs as an Orthodox priest walked among them chanting and waving incense.

Then buses and trucks took the troops off toward Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia, where there had been sporadic clashes and shelling during the previous week. That night the Georgian army began an offensive trying to retake the Russian-supported region, and by the following morning hundreds of Russian tanks were rolling across the border.

"From what I've heard, a lot of the 4th Brigade was hit pretty hard," said Rachel Dejong, 24, a Navy medic.

The Georgian company commander who was training alongside Barta was killed.

"Some of the soldiers seemed really grateful for the things we taught them," said Barta, 31, but he acknowledged it was not nearly enough.

Trainers start with the basics of infantry warfare - shooting, taking cover, advancing - then on to squad and platoon maneuvers, Barta said.

The Georgians do not lack "warrior spirit," he said, but added that they weren't ready for combat.

They inherited bad habits from the Red Army, whose soldiers wouldn't move without a direct order from a superior, and need to be taught to think on their own, Barta said. To make things more difficult, many soldiers "come from the hills of Georgia, and some of them sign for their paycheck with an X," he said.

The Georgian army has five regular infantry brigades, each with some 2,000 troops. Only one of them - the 1st, which was rushed home from Iraq by U.S. planes after fighting broke out - has been trained to a NATO level.

There are also units of poorly trained reservists, Georgian men who do 18 days of one-time military training and then eight days a year into their 40s. Officially, the government says it has 37,000 regular soldiers and 100,000 reservists.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, some of the American trainers spoke bluntly about problems with the Georgian troops, who one veteran sergeant said "got torn up real bad."

The Americans were training them to use the U.S. military's M-4 rifles, he said. But when fighting broke out, the Georgians went back to the Soviet AK-47, the only weapon they trusted. They appeared incapable of firing single shots, instead letting off bursts of automatic fire, which is wildly inaccurate and wastes ammunition, he said.

Another problem was communications: As soon as combat began, the army's communications network largely collapsed, he said, so troops conducted operations using regular cell phones. That left their communications easily accessible to Russian intelligence.

"Were they ready to go? The answer is no," the sergeant said.

The U.S. trainers come from different branches of the military: Marines, Army, Navy and special forces. Most have combat experience in Iraq or Afghanistan. At the moment, according to the trainers, there are fewer than 100 of them in the country.

Officially their job is to get the Georgians ready to serve in Iraq, where the country has maintained a 2,000-man contingent.

Unofficially, some of the trainers acknowledge, the program hopes to give the U.S. a more robust ally on Russia's border in a country that houses a vital oil pipeline.

The Americans aren't the only ones here. Georgian corporals and sergeants train with Germans, alpine units and the navy work with French instructors, and special operations and urban warfare troops are taught by Israelis, said Georgia's deputy defense minister, Batu Kutelia.

While the U.S. mission is specifically aimed at getting troops ready for Iraq, the "overall goal is to bring Georgia up to NATO standards," Kutelia said in an interview at the Defense Ministry on Sunday.

This former Soviet republic has allied itself with the West and has hopes of joining NATO, ambitions that Russia has seen as a challenge to its influence and security.

Kutelia said Georgian troops who had trained with the Americans and other foreign forces - about half of the military - performed better in the war than those who didn't.

It isn't clear how many Georgian units actually had a chance to put what they learned into practice.

One Georgian officer who returned from the front said the army succumbed not to one-on-one combat but to overwhelming Russian air power. The officer, who appeared shaken by what he saw, showed photographs of Georgian military jeeps destroyed from the air, the bodies of their occupants lying bloated on the road.

He would not give his name because he was not authorized to speak to journalists.

Barta, the Army captain, said of the company he was training: "I know specifically that Bravo Company, I'm sure, and I hope from what I did for them, that they're better off than they would have been if this happened four weeks ago."

An independent Georgian military expert, Koba Liklikadze, said the U.S. training was not a deciding factor, attributing the army's loss to bad decisions by the government. Georgia declared a cease-fire too soon, he said, which demoralized the troops before most of them had a chance to fight.

"It was not an absolutely decisive factor whether Georgians were trained by Americans or not," he said. "What happened was due to the political decision of Georgian authorities, and not the performance on the ground."

The U.S. program has been interrupted, and critically damaged, by the war. The Georgian army has been dealt a harsh blow: While official statistics claim 180 fatalities, soldiers and civilians, Liklikadze estimated the number of dead or missing soldiers at 400.

Many Georgian military bases, including the main U.S. training facility at Vasiani, were damaged or destroyed.

The U.S. trainers now lounging at the Tbilisi Sheraton have been relegated to following the situation from the hotel's carpeted halls and glass elevators. They seem eager to either get back to work or leave.

With the future of their mission uncertain, the trainers have been drafted to help the U.S. aid operation that began last week. But it is hard to avoid the impression they would rather be elsewhere.

"I'm not saying that we're suffering here with the one million-thread-count sheets or checking out the local females at the pool," said Capt. Pongpat Piluek, a veteran of the Afghanistan war. "But if our job now is to sit here and put down roots in the couch, I'd rather do it at home."


----------



## geo

New article in the paper this morning.....
It points out that the Russian Black sea fleet's home port of Sebastopol is in the Ukraine AND the lease comes up sometime in the next 20 years.  Considering the number of retired russian sailors living in Sebastopol, any wager the Ukranian gov't is gonna be thinking about the Russian gov't reaction if the lease isn't renewed....

Ahh... Realpolitik & gunboat diplomacy.... the good old days of the Cold war all over again


----------



## George Wallace

This subtle policy of "repopulating" what were former "Satellite States" with retired military personnel is probably what is contributing to some of these problems in those States.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> New article in the paper this morning.....
> It points out that the Russian Black sea fleet's home port of Sebastopol is in the Ukraine AND the lease comes up sometime in the next 20 years.  Considering the number of retired russian sailors living in Sebastopol, any wager the Ukranian gov't is gonna be thinking about the Russian gov't reaction if the lease isn't renewed....
> 
> Ahh... Realpolitik & gunboat diplomacy.... the good old days of the Cold war all over again



2017 if I recall.


----------



## vonGarvin

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> This is hilarious... apparently Russia's withdrawal is complete! Except for the 2500 "peacekeeper" troops inside Georgia, the attack helicopters, APC's, etc, etc that Russia says will remain in Georgia for the foreseeable future to man checkpoints and buffer zones throughout Georgia (both provinces and Georgia proper).


No funnier than NATO "peacekeepers" in Kosovo?  (Though, the difference of course is that KFOR was mandated by the UN).  But to suggest that Russians acting as peackeepers after they were the ones who went in after Georgia struck at South Ossetia is different from NATO going into Kosovo is a difference of degrees of the same thing, IMHO.


----------



## JackD

Nuking Poland.. a bit silly that - which way are the prevailing winds? Where do the pipelines run... where do your connections to your primary trade partner pass-through.... The rather hot summer of 2008 has clearly affected some brains..  As for the Ukraine. frankly I can see dismemberment occuring - the atitudes of eastern Ukraine are quite different to western Ukraine, culturally, politically, religiously, ethnographically etc... A balancing act for sure - a harder one than for Canada...


----------



## Rodahn

JackD said:
			
		

> Nuking Poland.. a bit silly that - which way are the prevailing winds? Where do the pipelines run... where do your connections to your primary trade partner pass-through.... The rather hot summer of 2008 has clearly affected some brains..  As for the Ukraine. frankly I can see dismemberment occuring - the atitudes of eastern Ukraine are quite different to western Ukraine, culturally, politically, religiously, ethnographically etc... A balancing act for sure - a harder one than for Canada...



Jack;

What are the prevailing feelings in Poland, and how are people reacting the the current Russian sabre ratling? I think that the perception of people where you are, would provide an interesting point of view here.

Chimo


----------



## CougarKing

Mortarman,

My comments were not meant to slight any other nations' peacekeepers in KFOR, IFOR and SFOR and so forth- only the Russians for their "peacekeepers". And here is another update.



> GORI, Georgia - A top Russian general on Saturday said his country's forces will continue to patrol a key Georgian Black Sea port even though the city lies outside the "security zones" where Russia claims it has the right to station soldiers in Georgia.
> 
> The statement by deputy head of the general staff Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, reported by Russian news agencies, came a day after Russia said it had pulled back forces from Georgia in accordance with a EU-brokered cease-fire agreement.
> 
> Russia interprets the accord as allowing it to keep a substantial military presence in Georgia — a point hotly disputed by the United States, France and Britain.
> 
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26361173/


----------



## Flanker

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://www.military.com/news/article/us-trainers-georgian-troops-werent-ready.html?col=1186032325324
> 
> US Trainers: Georgian Troops Weren't Ready



Looks like a funny attempt to save face   after pumping millions into Georgians army.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Take into consideration how long they have been supporting Georgias military...
It would take a long time to get ANY force up the standards of a premier "western" military.  Even at that, you never know what will happen until the bullets really start flying.


----------



## Flanker

JackD said:
			
		

> Nuking Poland.. a bit silly that - which way are the prevailing winds? Where do the pipelines run... where do your connections to your primary trade partner pass-through....



I am surprised how many times Poland, instead of building good relationship with Russia, tried to ally with Western allies and how many times then it got  treasoned by these allies. It is just amazing. 

However, It should be very clear that there is no free lunch (a part of mouse traps)

By placing missiles on its territory Poland takes a great deal of risk and responsibility and gets involved automatically in any potential conflict as a potential target.
It is just a normal planning. You place missiles at our borders, you get targeted. 
The worst thing is that it is a risk, over which Poland has absolutely no control.

I just do not get this point.


----------



## aesop081

Flanker said:
			
		

> I am surprised how many times Poland, instead of building good relationship with Russia,



Because Poland was treated so well by Russia in the past....we all know that.

 :


----------



## Koenigsegg

Exactly what I was going to say CDN Aviator.

If I were Poland, I'd take my chances with putting the _defensive_ missiles in place.  If it goes well, it'll go really well.  If it goes bad...Well at least we'll all know how effective the missiles really were, on both sides.


----------



## Flanker

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Because Poland was treated so well by Russia in the past....we all know that.



What do you know?


----------



## aesop081

Flanker said:
			
		

> What do you know?



Plenty


----------



## George Wallace

Flanker said:
			
		

> I am surprised how many times Poland, instead of building good relationship with Russia, tried to ally with Western allies and how many times then it got  treasoned by these allies. It is just amazing.
> 
> However, It should be very clear that there is no free lunch (a part of mouse traps)
> 
> By placing missiles on its territory Poland takes a great deal of risk and responsibility and gets involved automatically in any potential conflict as a potential target.
> It is just a normal planning. You place missiles at our borders, you get targeted.
> The worst thing is that it is a risk, over which Poland has absolutely no control.
> 
> I just do not get this point.



 ???

You know what?  I just don't get your point.  I can only shake my head in disbelief in what I just read.  I know I'm not drinking or on drugs, other than one Ibuprofen 600, and that isn't enough to make me hallucinate over what I just read............


----------



## tomahawk6

The Poles were pretty smart when negotiating this treaty by requiring a US military  guarantee of its security over and above NATO. If Russia attacks Poland US troops on Polish territory will require a US military response.
I would also go forward with a bare bones base in Poland where a US brigade can rotate in and out every 3-6 months for training.


----------



## Flanker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> to make me hallucinate over what I just read............



What is that shocking?
How would US react if Russia places a bunch of "ABM" at Cuba?


----------



## tomahawk6

If it was an ABM system I wouldnt be too worried.If it was an ICBM though then we have another problem entirely.


----------



## Flanker

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Poles were pretty smart when negotiating



Yeah they do that all the time and all the time they get abandoned and treasoned by their allies


----------



## aesop081

Flanker said:
			
		

> Yeah they do that all the time and all the time they get abandoned and treasoned by their allies



 :rofl:

Go read some more history books.....you need it if you think for one seconds that Russia would not hang Poland out to dry if it benefited Russia.

People forget so quickly......or are just freakin blind.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US has yet to abandon any NATO member. Now if Obama gets in the White House I would put that deal on ice until a republican was president again.


----------



## Koenigsegg

The missiles for Poland are defensive from my understanding.  Meant to shoot threats down (like missiles), not destroy territory and kill innocent people.  Big difference between what Russia is threatening to do (agressive), and what Poland may do (defensive).

I only recall them not getting a lot of support from their western allies once...back in 1939.  After that war they were Soviet (that went well... :), and since the fall of the iron curtain they havent really been in a really bad situation yet.


----------



## Flanker

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If it was an ABM system I wouldnt be too worried.If it was an ICBM though then we have another problem entirely.



As you might know after some modifications the ABM silos can host short range missiles with nuclear heads.
As Russia cannot distinguish an ABM and ICBM launched from the same silo, and time delays are very short, a counter attack could be launched automatically.


----------



## Flanker

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> you need it if you think for one seconds that Russia would not hang Poland out to dry if it benefited Russia.



If you would do this does not mean everybody would.
Relax.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Well, lets see...

An ABM will only be launched AFTER a ballistic missile is launched against them.
So, if a missile comes out of that silo before the Russians luanch a ballistic missile, it's safe to assume that the missile is NOT an ABM.
If Russia launches a ballistic missile first, then it really doesn't matter what comes out of that mystery silo because Russia just started a full scale war.

That works the same the other way around, with us as the aggressors.


----------



## Foxhound

Flanker said:
			
		

> As Russia cannot distinguish an ABM and ICBM launched from the same silo, and time delays are very short, a counter attack could be launched automatically.



Ummm...  I'm no military genius, but if the ABM birds are in the air, doesn't that presuppose that they _are_ the "counter attack"?

Oops, beat me to it Koenigsegg   ;D


----------



## Koenigsegg

Exactly, Foxhound.

But you said it so much easier, I have verbal diarrhea.


----------



## tomahawk6

Flanker thats where intelligence gathering comes in. During the Cuban Missile crisis we flew recon missions over Cuba, we photographed the ships the missiles were transported on. We also had some HUMINT. We knew the types of missiles and how many.We are transparent about about this ABM system and would probably allow Russian GRU officers to observe the type of missile being deployed.These are kinetic energy interceptors with no warhead.On top of it we are only deploying 10 so its hardly a threat even to the paranoid Russians.


----------



## Flanker

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> So, if a missile comes out of that silo before the Russians luanch a ballistic missile, it's safe to assume that the missile is NOT an ABM.



But the fact is still the same the silo must be targeted.
And we all know technology is not perfect ... 
This is why it is surprising how the Poland president blindly takes the risk disregarding will of his people


----------



## aesop081

Flanker said:
			
		

> This is why it is surprising how the Poland president blindly takes the risk disregarding will of his people



Prove it


----------



## Flanker

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Prove it



What? The agreement has been signed last week.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Targetted maybe, but there would be no reason to blow it up, until you realise that it just launched a missile without you firing first.  And no sensible country will be the first to launch any form of nuclear weapon.

I think he means to prove how "the Poland president blindly takes the risk disregarding will of his people".
Sure, he signed, but what's this about the will of the people?  (I don't know about it, I'm not being an ass)


----------



## aesop081

Flanker said:
			
		

> What? The agreement has been signed last week.



Prove that it was against the will of Poles


----------



## Flanker

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> These are kinetic energy interceptors with no warhead.On top of it we are only deploying 10 so its hardly a threat even to the paranoid Russians



Not these interceptors. I am talking about short/medium range missiles hosted in the same silos.
Just put you in place of Russia.
US and Poland are not listening to Russia when placing 10 interceptors.
Would they listen when placing 35 or 342 interceptors or anything else?
What would you do?

You manage risk and include this stuff in your target list.
It is this simple.


----------



## Flanker

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Prove that it was against the will of Poles


Poles are among the few nations that hold generally positive views of the United States. But a poll published Aug. 10, 2006, in the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita found that 63 percent of Poles were against allowing the United States to build an anti-missile site on Polish soil. Less than a quarter of those surveyed (23%) were in favor and 14 percent expressed no opinion. 
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/breuropera/244.php?lb=breu&pnt=244&nid=&id=


----------



## Koenigsegg

If I were in Russias shoes,  I'd set up interceptors in my territory.  Much nicer than saying "Hey, you, Poland.  You do this, and you open yourself up to nuclear attack."
They set up interceptors, I don't trust them, so I'll do the same.


----------



## Flanker

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> If I were in Russias shoes,  I'd set up interceptors in my territory.  Much nicer than saying "Hey, you, Poland.  You do this, and you open yourself up to nuclear attack."
> They set up interceptors, I don't trust them, so I'll do the same.



This is what Russia said.


----------



## Flanker

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Targetted maybe, but there would be no reason to blow it up, until you realise that it just launched a missile without you firing first.  And no sensible country will be the first to launch any form of nuclear weapon.



All this nice logic worked perfectly for long range ballistic missiles when you have like 15-20 minutes to make decision.
This does not work for short range missiles.
No sufficient time, the response must be entirely automatic.
This an enormous risk for all parties.
There is no winner.

This is why US and USSR signed agreements to eliminate these missiles in Europe.


----------



## George Wallace

Tell ya what........We'll all chip in and buy you a oneway ticket on Air Canada to Mother Russia so you can go there and really research these factoids.  Please sign the documents enclosed ensuring repayment of funds and 25% interest compounded annually.

Hope you a long stay.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Nevermind, I may have misinterpretted a post.
So I got rid of what I typed.
And I replace it with this:

Yes, that is what they said.  They did  indeed in a nutshell say "You do this, and you open yourself up to nuclear attack."  Except, I'm leaving out the "100%" part.


----------



## Flanker

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Yes, that is what they said.  They did  indeed in a nutshell say "You do this, and you open yourself up to nuclear attack."  Except, I'm leaving out the "100%" part.



Not really. The message was incorrectly interpreted by media.
Russia said that it may put short range missiles near Poland.
These missiles could be potentially equipped with nuclear heads (if needed) however this does not mean they will be.
Exactly as ABM or whathever will be hosted at Poland bases.


----------



## vonGarvin

A new NATO, with lines drawn in Poland, and elsewhere.  Russia bantering.  The USA bantering.  I tell you all, like it or not, the Cold War is back 

And remember this.  After the first world war, we thought that war couldn't get worse.  WW2 ended up being a nuclear war (even though only one side used nukes).  The future is so bleak, I gotta wear shades...


----------



## Koenigsegg

This was misinterpretted?

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent,"
- Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff

I can understand that, from that quote, the "nuclear"  part was speculation, but we are talking about Russia.  Mother Russia likes to puff herself up.

Oh, and lets not forget about the "Beyond diplomacy" line.


----------



## vonGarvin

More on Information is power:
ITAR-TASS.  At first glance, seems fairly neutral, offering news without opinion.
Then, there is "truth".  The Russian Foxnews ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

Georgia's President eats his Tie.

Watch the Youtube video  as well.... :


----------



## aesop081

Flanker said:
			
		

> This is why US and USSR signed agreements to eliminate these missiles in Europe.



If you honestly think that a few interceptors in Poland greatly upsets the power ballance then you are saddly mistaken and you take Russia for a near-powerless nation.

Simple fact is that, with ballistic missiles alone, Russia can pulverize the US and Europe several times over. Russia, like the US, has multiple systems to deliver nuclear weapons ensuring that complete and utter destruction occurs. Puttin knows this and is simply using the interceptors in Poland to score political points. This is not a significat threat to Russia.


----------



## CougarKing

Well, at least the Georgians are finally getting some aid; the USS McFaul has arrived!

http://www.military.com/news/article/us-navy-warship-arrives-at-georgia.html



> *US Navy Warship Arrives at Georgia*
> August 24, 2008
> Associated Press
> 
> BATUMI, Georgia - A U.S. Navy warship carrying humanitarian aid anchored in the southern port of Batumi on Sunday, bringing much-needed humanitarian aid to Georgia and sending a strong signal of support to an embattled ally.
> 
> *The guided missile destroyer USS McFaul, loaded with 72 pallets of humanitarian aid, is the first in a series of five American ships scheduled to arrive this week. *
> 
> The shipment comes after a partial withdrawal of Russian military forces from Georgia following days of fighting earlier this month that damaged cities and towns and displaced tens of thousands of Georgians.
> 
> The conflict between Russia and Georgia, a small ex-Soviet republic whose pro-Westerns have tried to shed Moscow's influence and sought NATO membership, has brought Russian-U.S. relations to a post-Cold War low.
> 
> The McFaul, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, is also outfitted with an array of weaponry, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, and a sophisticated radar system. For security reasons the Navy does not say if ships are carrying nuclear weapons, but they usually do not.
> 
> The deputy chef of Russia's general staff suggested Saturday that the arrival of the McFaul and other ships of NATO members ships would increase tension in the Black Sea. Russia shares the sea with NATO members Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria as well as Georgia and Ukraine, another ex-Soviet whose pro-Western president also is leading a drive for NATRO membership.
> 
> "I don't think such a buildup will foster the stabilization of the atmosphere in the region," Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.
> 
> Batumi, Georgia's main oil port, is close to the southern end on Georgia's Black Sea coast, near the Turkish border.
> 
> A U.S. ship anchoring in Poti, a port further north that has been a target of the Russian military, would have created more tension because Russian troops still hold positions near Poti.
> 
> But an official from the U.S. Embassy in Georgia said the decision to anchor further south, in Batumi, was the result of concerns about damage inflicted to the Poti port during the conflict.
> 
> "Because there was damage to the port facility in Poti, we wanted to be sure the humanitarian aid got in," U.S. Embassy spokesman Stephen Guice said in Batumi.
> 
> 
> © Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.


----------



## JackD

hi Rodahn! Sorry. I was away.. Polish feelings towards Russia... Have a look at Polish history - the occupation of Poland in the 18th century - then count the number of rebellions til 1918, then add the Polish-Russian wars (which Poland won - and officers of which were particularly rounded up by Red internal security troops), add in 1939.. then add in 1944, when the Home Army was willing to cooperate and was rounded up (the memorial stone in Lublin Castle here - used by the gestapo and then the Russian Internal Security chappies lists the last execution of Home Army personnel as 1963)...then there's the Warszawa Uprising, and post-war looting and repayments. Read about Kaliningrad and the cooperative spirit with Poland about access to Polish waters.. oh and add-in another wonderful Russian legacy: Chernobyl.. cancer rates are quite high here.... Then there's the Russian mafia... the non-return of Polish art treasures... Basically, the opinion is "Thank-you very much... please stay on your side of the border". I doubt anyone wants the return of the grey, dreary days of being allied to USSR/Russia - a good description of which, can be found in P.J. O'Rourke ''Holidays in Hell''


----------



## tomahawk6

The USAF has been flying humanitarian aid into Tbilisi for over a week now.


----------



## tomahawk6

The USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) is due to transit to the Black Sea at the end of the month.There is speculation that a Polish frigate and a Canadian warship possibly Iroquois or Calgary will accompany the Whitney on its humanitarian mission to Georgia.


----------



## Flanker

JackD said:
			
		

> Polish feelings towards Russia... Have a look at Polish history - the occupation of Poland in the 18th century - then count the number of rebellions til 1918, then add the Polish-Russian wars (which Poland won - and officers of which were particularly rounded up by Red internal security troops), add in 1939.. then add in 1944, when the Home Army was willing to cooperate and was rounded up (the memorial stone in Lublin Castle here - used by the gestapo and then the Russian Internal Security chappies lists the last execution of Home Army personnel as 1963)...then there's the Warszawa Uprising, and post-war looting and repayments.



This is a typical Polish point of view.
Listening to you, one might think of an innocent sheep being constantly agressed by a rude bear.
But reality is not that black and white, so I dare to add some grey paint to this aquarel

18th century, Occupation of Poland - why do not you mention Poland occupation of Russia in 17th century
1918, Polish-Russian wars, which Poland won  - yeah, the first thing the independent Poland did was attacking Belorussia and Ukraine
1938, Munich agreement - Poland in collaboration with Hitler troops invades Czechoslovakia and occupies Teshin region
1939 - after Poland government fleed under German attack leaving country without control, the Soviet Union retakes the territory occupied by Poland in 1919-20
1944 - Home Army organizes the avanturist Warsaw uprising without negotiating any support from Red Army and fails

What is more surprising, is current Poland's position, which is constantly trying to hurt Russia for any economical or military reasons.


----------



## Flanker

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) is due to transit to the Black Sea at the end of the month.There is speculation that a Polish frigate and a Canadian warship possibly Iroquois or Calgary will accompany the Whitney on its humanitarian mission to Georgia.



Ehh .. just a question, why do not send a basic cargo ship for a "humanitarian mission"?
 :


----------



## tomahawk6

Piracy ?


----------



## Flanker

AFAIK, this US ship is the last US ship that Turkey allowed entering the Black Sea this year


----------



## JackD

Mr. Flanker... Have you been here, do you have relatives that have endured the great and noble Russian way of rule? Everything Russia touches they destroy - look at the ecological disaster that is Russia today... One think you might think about, if Russia and the Russian way of life was so grand, why did so many nations choose to leave it when they could? I'll say no more.. you and your ilk are beneath contempt... and I say that as having been a soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces. May I ask why the f. are you in Canada if Russia is your version of the land of hope and glory?


----------



## geo

Flanker... before you coment, note that JackD is currently a resident of Poland and would be on the receiving end of any largesse the Russians would care to deliver.


----------



## JackD

Geo.. it isn't really that, the irritant is that people like the gentleman concerned holds in contempt our generation - the Dr. Strangelove generation. I still remember the Cuban Missile Crisis  - though a wee lad at the time - I also remember Prague Spring. Poland has always been a target - much as Canada has always been a target  (in the first case due to transportation links, the second to blind and deafen the eyes and ears of NORAD). The history of post-Cold War politics has been the desire to establish engagement.. Why else all the economic assistance provided to Russia? But in any dance, the partner has to dance too. Putin and his boys first want to sulk in the corner, then to demand the tune changes, the band changes, the venue changes... A good geopolitical example is Poland-Ukraine - hundreds of years of hostility - but both sides are getting over that. Another, German-Poland... Why turn back the clock? But Putin and his ilk (seem to) want that.


----------



## JackD

By the way, thel atest comments: Russia sees Georgia outcome as proof of its dominance
The U.S. and other Western nations may not like what Russia is doing, but officials in Moscow believe those countries lack the leverage, strength or unity to intervene, analysts say.
By Megan K. Stack
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 25, 2008

MOSCOW — In this historic hub of expansion and empire, Russia's military victory over U.S.-backed Georgia was cheered as evidence that Moscow has regained its global dominance -- and proof that the rest of the world can't risk standing in its way.

As Russian soldiers poured into neighboring Georgia this month and Russian warplanes bombed fleeing, ill-equipped Georgian troops, U.S. and European officials condemned Moscow. But the image of Russia that appeared over and over in media here was that of a country rising from its knees.

The United States and the nations of Europe may not like what Russia is doing, but officials in Moscow now believe those countries lack the leverage, strength or unity to intervene, analysts here say. Several of them repeated the same idea: that the West no longer exists as a unified force. 

With the U.S. floundering economically and bogged down in two costly wars, Russian officials were confident that it could not and would not come rushing to Georgia's defense with a military intervention, analysts here say. Europe, meanwhile, depends upon Russian oil and gas exports, and was leery of a conflict with Moscow that could further raise fuel prices, they said.

"There is no West anymore. It's eroding and weakening," said Sergei Karaganov of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a Moscow think tank. "We are feeling very strong, and we don't trust anybody. Especially the United States."

Three or four years ago, he said, Russia would have been nervous to hear threats of expulsion from the Group of 8 leading industrialized nations, as Republican presidential candidate John McCain suggested. Now, Karaganov said, many Russians laugh at the notion.

"I mean, who are these nations? Russia is probably stronger than any country in the G-8 except for the United States, and it has more credibility because it hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of people recently," he said. "It has won wars, and the other countries are losing them."

He paused. "There is arrogance in my statements," he said, "but that's the way people see things." 

Many here read the current conflict not as the defeat of a smaller, poorer Georgian army but as a strike against the U.S., which has backed Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and trained his troops. After years of fuming while the U.S. built up ties with former Soviet republics and Eastern European nations, many Russians view the Georgian conflict as an important turning of the tide.

"As far as the Russian elite is concerned, it's another very important step in Russia's restoration of its position in the world," Andrei Piontkovsky, a visiting fellow at Washington's Hudson Institute, said in a telephone interview. "The public and government is so proud not only because they defeated Georgia, but because they humiliated and defeated their great geopolitical rival, the United States of America."

With war raging between Russia and Georgia, which has hopes of someday joining NATO, the U.S. was limited to sending humanitarian aid and railing against Moscow. Badly needed aid is still pouring in: The U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer McFaul arrived at the Georgian port of Batumi on Sunday with baby food, bottled water and other supplies.

Georgia now finds itself on the front line in a broader, deeper and slower ideological war. Since the Soviet collapse, the last vestiges of the Cold War have lingered in the form of a struggle between Washington and Moscow for influence in the former U.S.S.R.

"Moscow is very much concerned with the meddling of the United States in the post-Soviet space," said Sergei Markov, a Russian analyst close to the Kremlin. "We have been watching for a long time how the United States, under the guise of helping new democracies, has in fact been gaining managerial control over these countries." 

Nations once firmly under Moscow's thumb, especially Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia and Estonia, have pulled away from Russia and worked to develop new alliances in the West.

With regional tensions inflamed over Georgia, other neo-Cold War fights are brewing. Many Russians are keeping a close eye on Ukraine, whose loss remains an existential challenge to a Russian culture that traces its empire to the banks of the Dnieper River. Moscow has long resisted the notion that Ukraine is an independent nation. 

Some analysts believe that watching Georgia get pummeled by Russia may have given Ukrainians a more visceral sense of vulnerability. That could result in the opposite reaction sought by Moscow, helping to nudge reluctant citizens to support Ukraine's own bid for NATO membership.

At the same time, there is increasing tension over historical Russian claims to Ukraine's Crimea peninsula, home to many ethnic Russians as well as Russia's Black Sea fleet.

If Ukraine joins the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Karaganov said, "it will be seen as an act of belligerence."

"Ukraine is the cradle of Russia," he said. "It's more Russian than Russia."

Meanwhile, Poland enraged Moscow last week by agreeing to host a U.S. missile defense base that the Bush administration insists is designed to bring down weapons launched from nations such as Iran. Russian officials, who regard the missile shield as deterrence meant to curb Moscow's military might, responded by saying that Russia would be "forced to react, and not through diplomatic channels."

But for now, the biggest fight remains in the Caucasus. Russian military officials this weekend vowed to beef up their forces in Georgia in direct proportion to American military spending to rebuild the Georgian army. 

Russia accuses Georgia of starting the current conflict by launching a military operation meant to reassert control over the breakaway republic of South Ossetia. 

"We just repelled a frenzied attack on Russia from the United States," Markov said. "Everybody knows that it was none other than Washington that gave Tbilisi [the Georgian capital] the green light to kill thousands of peaceful residents in South Ossetia." 

In the popular Russian narrative, Moscow is the defender and peacemaker, not the aggressor and invader.

U.S. officials argue that Russia wedged itself between Georgia and its breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in a de facto annexation, then labored for months to provoke a conflict in order to formalize the arrangement. Russia then reacted far too forcefully to the Georgian operation in South Ossetia, they say, exaggerating the death toll while dropping cluster bombs on Georgian civilians and occupying swaths of Georgia proper that it has yet to relinquish. 

American propaganda, Russians say. Alongside a newfound sense of might, Russians appear firm in their belief that they hold the moral high ground.

"This crazy, trigger-happy monster was killing civilians in South Ossetia," said Vyacheslav Nikonov, a political analyst and head of the Russian World foundation, which promotes Russia and its language. "What else could [Russian President Dmitry] Medvedev do?"

After watching the West's reaction to the conflict, Russia's elite is rethinking its strategic planning along military lines, Nikonov said.

"We took for granted that we had some working relationship with the West, and it looks like that's not the case," he said. "There will be a serious strategic debate in this country, rethinking many things: alliances, military spending, the role of the nuclear component in the armed forces."

But other Russian analysts were more critical of Moscow. By boosting hopes for independence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have taken the first step toward redrawing post-Soviet borders, Piontkovsky said. There is a strong parallel between today's resurgent Russia and the rise of Germany in the 1930s from broken country to would-be empire, he argued.

"Under the same slogan of rising from the knees . . . Hitler was getting away with everything, and every demonstration of weakness from the West emboldened him to the next adventure," Piontkovsky said. "Now we can say that Putin has gotten away with dismembering countries."

megan.stack@latimes.com

Times staff writer Sergei L. Loiko contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russia25-2008aug25,0,3458732,print.story


----------



## JackD

This is the President of the Ukraine's comments: quite astute actually: 
Georgia and The Stakes For Ukraine

By Victor Yushchenko
Monday, August 25, 2008; A17



KYIV, Ukraine -- The conflict in Georgia revealed problems that extend well beyond our region. Recent events have made clear how perilous it is for the international community to ignore "frozen conflicts." The issues of breakaway regions in newly independent states are complex; too often, they have been treated as bargaining chips in geopolitical games. But such "games" result in the loss of human lives, humanitarian disasters, economic ruin and the collapse of international security guarantees.

Ukraine has become a hostage in the war waged by Russia. This has prompted Ukrainian authorities and all of our country's people, including those living in the Crimea, to ponder the dangers emanating from the fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet is based on our territory.

The tragic events in Georgia also exposed the lack of effective preventive mechanisms by the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other international organizations.

We in Ukraine hope that the Russian Federation will heed the opinion of the global community so that the issues at hand can be settled through negotiations. We want an end to the looting and destruction of Georgian infrastructure. We must do everything possible to prevent provocations and avoid further massacres.

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Georgia affects my country's interests. Military operations have taken place close to our borders, and the Russian Black Sea fleet was directly involved. The question of Ukraine's national security was acutely raised. Given the activities of the Russian fleet, I had to issue a decree regulating its functioning on the territory of Ukraine.

Under these circumstances, Ukraine could not stay silent. We, along with other nations, engaged to seek resolution of the conflict. From the first day of hostilities, Ukraine called for an immediate cease-fire by all parties and dispatched humanitarian aid to victims regardless of their ethnicity.

Ukraine upheld its firm support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia.

On Aug. 12, I, together with my colleagues from the three Baltic states and Poland, visited Tbilisi. Our proposals seeking a solution to the conflict were in harmony with the European Union settlement plan. We highly praise the efforts of the United States and the E.U. presidency, led by the French, to achieve a cease-fire. Their actions proved efficient in putting a halt to war and bloodshed.

Ukraine favors a wider international representation in the peacekeeping force in the conflict area. A new multilateral format mandated by the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is the only way to guarantee security in the conflict zone.

I strongly hope that that plan will be strictly implemented by the conflicting parties. We are ready to join international efforts to provide relief and help victims resume their peaceful lives. Ukraine also stands ready to take part in the U.N. or OSCE missions by sending peacekeepers.

It is clear that in addition to the political dimensions of issues involving breakaway regions, we need to cope with the social and economic aspects of this phenomenon. Many of these provinces are beyond the control of the respective governments or the international community. In many cases, the absence of monitoring has turned these territories into havens for smuggling as well as illegal trafficking in arms, people and drugs. Corruption and human-rights abuses are rampant. These areas are marked by their lack of democratic electoral procedures and their unfree or biased media. The ethnic dimension of the problem is often exaggerated to help conceal the criminal practices.

Moreover, an area home to such activities poses a threat to the prosperity and development of adjacent nations. Official authorities are compelled to counter attacks from separatist paramilitaries. But they are not always successful. Before large-scale combat erupted in Georgia, Russian peacekeepers failed to prevent the shelling of Georgian territory by South Ossetian separatists. Indeed, that activity intensified in the days before the greater conflict.

This weekend Ukraine celebrated the anniversary of its independence. This conflict has proved once again that the best means of ensuring the national security of Ukraine and other countries is to participate in the collective security system of free democratic nations, exemplified today by NATO. In accordance with national legislation and its foreign policy priorities, Ukraine will continue following the path of Euro-Atlantic integration. This is the path of democracy, freedom and independence.

The writer is president of Ukraine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/24/AR2008082401856_pf.html


----------



## oligarch

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Lady
> 
> Your tactics suck.  Most here are relatively neutral in this affair and trying to come to some reasonable truths as to what is happening in Georgia.  You are acting like the loyal wife and protecting her Mafioso husband.  Try not to be so one sided; it may help.  Right now you are coming off as a raging fanatic.
> 
> This little exhibit of tit for tat is not helping the discussion.



I call inappropriate behaviour on this bullshit! Please see Army.ca Moderator Guidelines, particularily the following quote: "Army.ca has a zero tolerance policy for personal attacks, whether against another Army.ca member or a public figure. Posts that contain a personal attack should be summarily deleted, and the user should normally receive a warning. Personal attacks detract from the professionalism of the site and can sometimes cause serious problems for Army.ca as a whole." Also see TONE AND CONDUCT: "You will not post any information that is offensive, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law." I call that your post is offensive, defamatory, vulgar, hateful, obscene, and sexually oriented. Why are you calling me a "lady"? What are you implying about the "lady" status that you are trying to offend me with it? Besides, speaking of Russia so much on this board, in Russia you would be dealt with a lot fewer words after such remarks.

But since we are in a mature enviournment, I now call into question your moderator status. Further comments from you go in the "ingore" pile. My diplomatic relations with George Wallace have been severed.


----------



## aesop081

oligarch said:
			
		

> But since we are in a mature enviournment, I now call into question your moderator status. Further comments from you go in the "ingore" pile. My diplomatic relations with George Wallace have been severed.



Please just got find another sandbox to play in........you have pee'ed in this one more than enough.


----------



## George Wallace

oligarch said:
			
		

> I..... Why are you calling me a "lady"? What are you implying about the "lady" status that you are trying to offend me with it?



I don't know.  Perhaps it is your blank profile.  Are you insinuating now that you are a man?  I didn't know, as your profile doesn't state so.



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> Besides, speaking of Russia so much on this board, in Russia you would be dealt with a lot fewer words after such remarks.



In some circles that could be construed as a "Threat".



			
				oligarch said:
			
		

> But since we are in a mature enviournment, I now call into question your moderator status. Further comments from you go in the "ingore" pile. My diplomatic relations with George Wallace have been severed.



I didn't know we had "diplomatic relations".  Are you also insinuating that I do not have the same privileges as other members to post on this site?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here is another excellent report from Micheal Totten who has just arrived in Georgia. In the report he interviews a local reporter who is an expert on the Georgia conflict, and other conflicts in the region. 

http://www.michaeltotten.com/


----------



## CougarKing

Russia gives diplomatic recognition to the two breakaway provinces of Georgia. Oh well. 


http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080826/116286788.html



> MOSCOW, August 26 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's president signed decrees on Tuesday recognizing Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states and called on other countries to follow suit.
> 
> "This is not an easy decision, but it is the only way to protect people's lives," Medvedev said in a televised address.
> 
> Both houses of Russia's parliament voted unanimously on Monday on a resolution asking the Russian president to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, following requests from the leaders of both breakaway republics.
> 
> The move will further worsen Russia's relations with the West, already strained over Moscow's response to Georgia's attack earlier this month to retake South Ossetia.
> 
> U.S. President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Medvedev against the move on Monday, urging him to respect Georgia's territorial integrity.
> 
> Russian officials have said Georgia lost its right to the two regions after launching a military offensive that killed hundreds of people and forced thousands to flee devastated South Ossetia.


----------



## Kat Stevens

So, if you kill thousands of your own people you forfeit the right to govern their territory?   :rofl:  Russia would be about the size of Liechtenstein if that were the case.


----------



## vonGarvin

We recognise Kosovo.  They recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  Hopefully this means that they will give up North Ossetia to unite with their Ossetian brothers from the south.  Anyway, check out my tag line.  The war is COLD and it appears to be on again.


----------



## stegner

> The war is COLD and it appears to be on again.



The West said it was over.  The Russians never did.  They are sneaky that way.


----------



## CF_Enthusiast

I think I've played this videogame before...     :blotto:


----------



## tomahawk6

The problem is coming up with a gameplan to deal with Russian meddling in its neighbors affairs.We either abandon these countries because we dont want to risk a military confrontation or we roll the dice and deploy forces on Russia's borders which would be extremely provocative. There are no easy solutions. Maybe play rope a dope and hope Putin is assasinated by one of his many enemies.


----------



## GAP

No problem.....get the UN to declare a chapter 7


----------



## stegner

> No problem.....get the UN to declare a chapter 7



Can't you need the security council to do that and China and Russia have veto power.


----------



## Flanker

stegner said:
			
		

> The West said it was over.  The Russians never did.  They are sneaky that way.



This is a good one.  ;D

Let me remember something ..
The Cold War resulted in some good desarmement agreements between the East and the West

There was the ABM Treaty - broken by US
There was the CFE Treaty - never respected by NATO
There were promises to not expand NATO toward Russia - broken by NATO many times
There are actual calls in US Congress to denounce START I in 2009
Russia removed their bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Georgia - US installed bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrgizstan, Kosovo, Afganistan, ABM in Poland etc.

You are right
These Russians are so freakin sneaky ... they have really got NATO under control  >


----------



## George Wallace

So? Has Russia's incursion into Georgia moved the Pipeline closer to Russian 'control of oil' going to Europe; or is the pipeline going to take a more Southerly route to Turkey and keep Russia from controlling the flow of oil to Europe?


----------



## tomahawk6

I have a question for you Flanker. How can we in the West avoid conflict with Russia ? How can we prevent anymore Georgia's or conflict in Eastern Europe ?


----------



## Flanker

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How can we prevent anymore Georgia's or conflict in Eastern Europe ?


First it would be wise to relax a bit support of pro-western governments in Ukraine and Georgia.
Anticipating Western support, sometimes they become really inadequate.


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How can we prevent anymore Georgia's or conflict in Eastern Europe ?



We do it by standing up to Russia right now.


----------



## Flanker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So? Has Russia's incursion into Georgia moved the Pipeline closer to Russian 'control of oil' going to Europe; or is the pipeline going to take a more Southerly route to Turkey and keep Russia from controlling the flow of oil to Europe?


Until now I have not seen any major change. I think even there will be more stability in the region.
And the pipeline cannot be moved to South because this would require it passes across the Iranian an Armenian territory.
The first is unacceptable for many Western coutries, the second is unacceptable for Azerbaijan.


----------



## George Wallace

Flanker said:
			
		

> Until now I have not seen any major change. I think even there will be more stability in the region.
> And the pipeline cannot be moved to South because this would require it passes across the Iranian an Armenian territory.
> The first is unacceptable for many Western coutries, the second is unacceptable for Azerbaijan.




 ???

Georgia is to the North and West of Azerbaijan.  Iran is to the South.  I can see a Southern route possibly being through Armenia (West of Azerbaijan), but there is no need; and there is definitely no need to go through Iran.  Now, Russia to the North is a whole different story.  Who is going to control the oil from Azerbaijan and the Caspian Sea?  Russia?




> Azerbaijan shares all the formidable problems of the former Soviet republics in making the transition from a command to a market economy, but its considerable energy resources brighten its long-term prospects. Baku has only recently begun making progress on economic reform, and old economic ties and structures are slowly being replaced. Several other obstacles impede Azerbaijan's economic progress: the need for stepped up foreign investment in the non-energy sector, the continuing conflict with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, pervasive corruption, and elevated inflation. Trade with Russia and the other former Soviet republics is declining in importance, while trade is building with Turkey and the nations of Europe. Long-term prospects will depend on world oil prices, the location of new oil and gas pipelines in the region, and Azerbaijan's ability to manage its energy wealth.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/aj.html#Econ


----------



## George Wallace

What else is going on in that Region?



> GEORGIA
> Economy - overview:
> Georgia has overcome the chronic energy shortages of the past by renovating hydropower plants and by bringing newly available natural gas supplies from Azerbaijan. It also has an increased ability to pay for more expensive gas imports from Russia. The country is pinning its hopes for long-term growth on a determined effort to reduce regulation, taxes and corruption in order to attract foreign investment. The construction on the Baku-T'bilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Baku-T'bilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline, and the Kars-Akhalkalaki Railroad are part of a strategy to capitalize on Georgia's strategic location between Europe and Asia and develop its role as a transit point for gas, oil and other goods.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gg.html  



> ARMENIA
> Economy - overview:
> Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenia has made progress in implementing many economic reforms including privatization, price reforms, and prudent fiscal policies. The conflict with Azerbaijan over the ethnic Armenian-dominated region of Nagorno-Karabakh contributed to a severe economic decline in the early 1990s.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/am.html



> TURKEY
> Economy - overview:
> Oil began to flow through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline  in May 2006, marking a major milestone that will bring up to 1 million barrels per day from the Caspian to market.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/tu.html    

So?  Does Russia want to divert this flow?  If they do they can 'shut off the taps' whenever they please and have a 'strangle hold' on Europe.


----------



## tomahawk6

A point of interest on 22 Aug, the Russians and Armenians had a joint military exercise. It is expected that the US Coast Guard cutter Dallas and the command and control USS Mount Whitney will dock in Poti Wednesday to offload humanitarian aid. The Russians continue to occupy the harbor so conflict is a possibility.


----------



## Flanker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can see a Southern route possibly being through Armenia (West of Azerbaijan)



AFAIK Armenia is not an option. Azerbaijan is concerned by the unresolved conflict with Armenia in the Karabakh region and "de jure" Azerbaijan is still in state of war with Armenia.
As for Russia, it is impossible that Russia would try to conquer/occupy the whole Georgia by military ways and there have been no plans for this.
There would be too many negative consequences in long term. 
It is just not feasible without some kind of population support.


----------



## George Wallace

Flanker said:
			
		

> AFAIK Armenia is not an option. Azerbaijan is concerned by the unresolved conflict with Armenia in the Karabakh region and "de jure" Azerbaijan is still in state of war with Armenia.



So I have noticed (see post above):



> ARMENIA
> Economy - overview:
> Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenia has made progress in implementing many economic reforms including privatization, price reforms, and prudent fiscal policies. The conflict with Azerbaijan over the ethnic Armenian-dominated region of Nagorno-Karabakh contributed to a severe economic decline in the early 1990s.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/am.html


----------



## CougarKing

Here is another reason why people on this thread must take the SCO or Shanghai Six alliance of which both Russia and China are both members, more seriously.

Because they are a collective threat that is starting to look like the Warsaw Pact of Central Asia.



> *Russia calls on Asian alliance for support*
> 
> (CNN) -- Russia has appealed to an Asian security alliance to support its actions in Georgia.
> 
> Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sought support from the *members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization* (SCO) at a summit Thursday in the Central Asian nation of Tajikistan, The Associated Press reported.
> 
> Medvedev told the group, which includes* China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan*, that support for Russia would serve as a "serious signal for those are trying to justify the aggression."
> 
> The move comes as Russia tries to counterbalance mounting pressure from the West over its military action in Georgia and its recognition of two breakaway regions -- Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
> 
> On Wednesday a U.S. ship carrying aid docked in Georgia, while Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband traveled to the Ukraine, which is worried about Russia's intentions in the region, to offer the UK's support.  Watch more on rising tensions »
> 
> Miliband equated Moscow's offensive in Georgia with the Soviet tanks that invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague Spring democratic reforms in 1968, and demanded Russia "change course," AP reported.
> 
> "The sight of Russian tanks in a neighboring country on the 40th anniversary of the crushing of the Prague Spring has shown that the temptations of power politics remain," Miliband said. Watch CNN's
> 
> Russia, however, has continued to defend its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
> 
> Russian military entered Georgia proper from the provinces in early August after Georgian troops attacked separatists in South Ossetia. Russia called it an extension of their peacekeeping duties. The West and Georgia called it an invasion.
> 
> Medvedev said recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia "was not a step taken lightly, or without full consideration of the consequences."
> 
> In an op-ed that appeared on The Financial Times Web site, he said Georgia was fighting a "vicious war on its minority nations."  Watch Medvedev explain his reasoning to CNN »
> 
> 
> Russia and the Caucasus region are jumbles of nationalities and, Medvedev said "relations between nations living 'under one roof' need to be handled with the utmost sensitivity."
> 
> He said after communism fell, Russia "reconciled itself to the 'loss' of 14 former Soviet republics, which became states in their own right" and observed that around 25 million ethnic Russians "were left stranded in countries no longer their own."
> 
> One of those former Soviet republics is Georgia, which "immediately stripped its 'autonomous regions' of Abkhazia and South Ossetia of their autonomy," he said.
> 
> He said Russia had enforced peace but "fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples" lingered because Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili talked of rearming his troops and "reclaiming 'Georgian territory.'"
> 
> Medvedev said the West ignored "the delicacy of the situation."
> 
> Germany on Wednesday added its criticism to Russian recognition of the two republics.
> 
> Chancellor Angela Merkel told Medvedev by telephone the move violated international law and the six-point Russian-Georgia cease-fire agreement brokered on behalf of the European Union by France.
> 
> Merkel said: "The continued Russian presence in Georgia outside of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for example, in Poti, represents ... a significant violation of the six-point plan agreement."
> 
> South Ossetia and Abkhazia broke away from Georgia during civil wars in the 1990s. Russia strengthened ties with them after the U.S. and much of Europe recognized the independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo earlier this year, a move that Moscow had warned against.
> 
> The Bush administration has insisted that both Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain part of Georgia, a U.S. ally that is seeking NATO membership.
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html
> 
> http://www.japanfocus.org/_M_K_Bhadrakumar-Shanghai_Cooperation_Organization_Primed_and_Ready_to_Fire__Toward_a_Regional_and_Global_Realignment_/


----------



## Edward Campbell

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Here is another reason why people on this thread must take the SCO or Shanghai Six alliance of which both Russia and China are both members, more seriously.
> 
> Because they are a collective threat that is starting to look like the Warsaw Pact of Central Asia.
> ...



I don't think the Russians will get what they want.

I think they will get something - they're *entitled* to some support.

But the Chinese must be peeing their pants with glee right now. Here are two old enemies at each others' throats - distracting (adverse) attention from China. China will want to give Russia some support - just enough to keep the crisis on the front burner, but not enough to do any real good.


----------



## CougarKing

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think the Russians will get what they want.
> 
> I think they will get something - they're *entitled* to some support.
> 
> But the Chinese must be peeing their pants with glee right now. Here are two old enemies at each others' throats - distracting (adverse) attention from China. China will want to give Russia some support - just enough to keep the crisis on the front burner, but not enough to do any real good.



China just announced that they will condemn Russia's actions in Georgia. Perhaps the CCP is not full of hypocrites after all when it comes to respecting other nations' sovereignty. Or maybe Beijing is just worried that Tsibilisi might switch "One China recognition" to Taiwan.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html



> *Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war*
> Story Highlights
> Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accuses U.S. of plotting conflict
> 
> Putin says U.S. did it to help one of the presidential election candidates
> 
> *Russia fails to win support of Asian security alliance over Georgia
> 
> Russia had appealed to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for backing*
> 
> From CNN's Matthew Chance
> SOCHI, Russia (CNN) -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the United States of orchestrating the conflict in Georgia to benefit one of its presidential election candidates.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with CNN's Matthew Chance in the Black Sea city of Sochi Thursday, Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia.
> 
> Putin told CNN his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush -- although he presented no evidence to back it up.
> 
> "U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict," Putin said. "They were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader." Watch Putin accuse the United States »
> 
> White House spokeswoman Dana Perino blasted Putin's statements, saying they were "patently false."
> 
> "To suggest that the United States orchestrated this on behalf of a political candidate just sounds not rational," she said.
> 
> U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood concurred, and labeled Putin's statements as "ludicrous."
> 
> "Russia is responsible for the crisis," Wood said in an off-camera meeting with reporters in Washington on Thursday. "For the Russians to say they are not responsible for what happened in Georgia is ludicrous. ... Russia is to blame for this crisis and the world is responding to what Russia has done."
> 
> When told that many diplomats in the United States and Europe blame Russia for provoking the conflict and for invading Georgia, Putin said Russia had no choice but to invade Georgia after dozens of its peacekeepers in South Ossetia were killed. He told Chance it was to avert a human calamity. iReport.com: First-person accounts from the center of the conflict
> 
> The former Russian president, still considered the most powerful man in the country, said he was disappointed the U.S. had not done more to stop Georgia's attack.
> 
> Putin recalled he was watching the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia unfold when he was at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games on August 8.
> 
> He said he spoke to U.S. President George W. Bush, also attending, who told the Russian prime minister he didn't want war -- but Putin spoke to CNN of his disappointment that the U.S. administration didn't do more to stop Georgia early in the conflict.
> 
> Also Thursday Putin announced economic measures which he said were unrelated to the fighting with Georgia. Nineteen U.S. poultry meat companies would be banned from exporting their products to Russia because they had failed health and safety tests, and 29 other companies had been warned to improve their standards or face the same ban, Putin said.
> 
> Putin said Russia's health and agricultural ministries had randomly tested the poultry products and found them to be full of antibiotics and arsenic.
> 
> While Putin repeated that the bans were not related to the Georgian conflict, they indicate the measures some Western countries -- particularly in Europe -- fear if Russia goes on a diplomatic offensive. Watch analysis of Russia's relationship with the West. »
> 
> Russia is trying to counterbalance mounting pressure from the West over its military action in Georgia and its recognition of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
> 
> But Russia's hopes of winning international support for its actions in Georgia were dashed Thursday, when China and other Asian nations expressed concern about tension in the region.
> 
> *The joint declaration from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, said the countries hoped any further conflict could be resolved peacefully. Watch more on rising tensions between Russia and the West. »*
> 
> *"The presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of respect for historic and cultural traditions of every country and efforts aimed at preserving the unity of a state and its territorial integrity," the declaration said, The Associated Press reported.
> 
> "Placing the emphasis exclusively on the use of force has no prospects and hinders a comprehensive settlement of local conflicts," AP reported the group as saying.
> 
> Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had appealed to the SCO at a summit in Tajikistan Thursday to support its actions, saying it would serve as a "serious signal for those who are trying to justify the aggression."*
> 
> On Wednesday a U.S. ship carrying aid docked in Georgia, while Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband traveled to the Ukraine, which is worried about Russia's intentions in the region, to offer the UK's support.
> 
> Miliband equated Moscow's offensive in Georgia with the Soviet tanks that invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague Spring democratic reforms in 1968, and demanded Russia "change course," AP reported. iReport.com: Do remember the Cold War?
> 
> Copyright 2008 CNN. All rights reserved.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> China just announced that they will condemn Russia's actions in Georgia. Perhaps the CCP is not full of hypocrites after all when it comes to respecting nations' sovereignty. Or maybe Beijing is just worried that Tsibilisi might switch "One China recognition" to Taiwan.
> ...



China has been pretty consistent on the sovereignty/internal affairs issue. By China's traditional standard Georgia was fully within its rights to take whatever action it chose in a so called _breakaway_ province and Russia has done what China most vehemently opposes.

That being said, I don't think it is in China's best interests to totally abandon Russia, *yet* - there ought to be a way to blame the USA for all this, as Putin is doing.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hmm.  

Moscow, Volgograd, Astrakhan, Caspian, Tehran. 

And  by extension - Petersburg to Bandar Abbas.

River and Sea Route that bypasses Tblisi, Baku, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and, most importantly, Turkmenistan.

Of those countries Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are the most interesting to me.  They hold the reserves and are/have been interested in selling their product to the west.  The only question is: will they be forced to accept Putin's mail or will they get to sell to Paris via the Baku-Istanbul pipeline (financed by BP which has just be censured in Russia).  They also represent the most likely land route between Moscow and Tehran.  The Caucasus is shorter by militarily more vulnerable.

The Caspian - now that one is an internal sea wholly owned by Russia and Iran.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5618151/IRAN-FOUR-CARGO-SHIPS-TO.html



> IRAN: FOUR CARGO SHIPS TO JOIN IRAN'S CASPIAN SEA FLEET THROUGH COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA.
> 
> Publication: IPR Strategic Business Information Database
> Publication Date: 31-JUL-06  Format: Online
> Delivery: Immediate Online Access
> 
> Article Excerpt
> According to "Tehran Times", Iran and Russia are cooperating in building four cargo ships. The vessels are expected to significantly expand Iran's cargo delivery capacity in the Caspian Sea. Iranian engineers and technicians are supervising building of the vessels of Iran Anzali, Iran Iran...



Or

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/apr/1024.html



> 4/3/07
> Iran's Share in Caspian Sea Shipping is Little
> By Ladan M. Sadeghioon
> Lack of a clarified regulation in Caspian Sea's legal system has decreased Iran's share in shipping industry both in tourism and transportation sections.
> 
> 
> 
> Tehran, 3 April 2007 (CHN) -- Despite all tourism attractions that exist in Iranian northern provinces and Iran's high potential in shipping industry, Iran's share in Caspian Sea voyages and transportation is very limited.
> 
> Referring to Iran's development in marine transportation and its tourism potentials in northern provinces, Dr. Taheri Motlagh, director general of Iran's Ports and Shipping Organization told CHN: " Iran has a little share in Caspian Sea's marine transportation, therefore, by supporting Iran's marine industry, the government is determined to promote this industry in the country."
> 
> He further added: "Establishing and launching special docks in northern harbors of Iran for berthing cruise ships and providing some facilitate for transportation of passengers should be taken into consideration."
> 
> Regarding the active shipping lane in Caspian Sea, he stated: "Considering the large amount of oil and gas resources existed in Caspian Sea, more development should be made in this section. Following the agreements which have been reached with the other Caspian Sea regional countries, we hope to increase the number of our national ships with support of government in a near future."
> 
> According to Taheri, due to the little share of Iran in Caspian Sea shipping industry, only 8 trade ships with capacity of 25 thousand tones are active in this sea and three more have been added to them during last year.
> 
> Taheri strongly believes that lack of a clarified legal regulation on Caspian Sea is the main reason for decreasing Iran's share in shipping industry in this sea.
> 
> "There are still many chances for promoting the capacity of shipping industry in Caspian Sea region, provided that the condition for activity of private sector is also prepared" added Taheri.
> 
> Director General of Iran's Port and Shipping Organization further announced that in a near future the taxes of Iranian ships which travel in Caspian Sea will reduce up to 50 percent in an attempt to promote shipping industry both in tourism and transportation sections.


----------



## CougarKing

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> China has been pretty consistent on the sovereignty/internal affairs issue. By China's traditional standard Georgia was fully within its rights to take whatever action it chose in a so called _breakaway_ province and Russia has done what China most vehemently opposes.
> 
> That being said, I don't think it is in China's best interests to totally abandon Russia, *yet* - there ought to be a way to blame the USA for all this, as Putin is doing.



When I meant hypocrites, I was also only talking about the PRC's continued occupation of Tibet, if one considered Tibet/Xi Zang to have their own country and not be one of the 50 or so zu/族 or ethnicities, other than the Han Zu/漢族,  that populate the PRC.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Georgia's wounded troops tell of their surprise when Russia attacked

James Hider in Tbilisi 
Major Malkhaz Dumbatze was in a celebratory mood. His 14 Georgian tanks had just taken control of the rebel South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, and he was already looking forward to a trip to Israel to study new battle command systems. The jets flying over the city, where his men were mopping up Ossetian snipers, he took to be Georgian fighters.
Major Dumbatze is still going to Israel, but now it is to have reconstruction surgery on his legs. The aircraft he had spotted were in fact Russian, and one of them dropped two bombs on his armoured unit.

Speaking with difficulty because half his teeth had been blown out by shrapnel that exited through his throat, the battalion commander was undaunted about the future of his crushed army.
“I'm 100 per cent sure we'll recover from this,” he said, his wounded comrades on either side of his bed in a Tbilisi hospital.

Georgia's soldiers, trained by US and Israeli advisers, are gung-ho about returning to the fray, though some unanswered questions still hang in the air - such as the advisability of taking on their giant neighbour without adequate anti-air defences.

Major Dumbatze, 33, denied any knowledge of atrocities committed in Georgia's initial assault on Tskhinvali. His men were hunting down remaining militiamen and had left their armour in the open only because they thought they had won, bringing 17 years of secession to an end. “It was a dream for all Georgian soldiers,” he said. “I didn't expect the Russians. I thought it was politically sealed, the Russian and Georgian Governments made some kind of agreement.”

There was no deal, as he discovered to his cost. As a loyal officer he avoided criticising his Government during the crisis, but admitted that “if you thought the Russians would attack, you'd have to be mad” to launch such an operation. “But we never expected them to attack - if you see the bear coming, you either get under a rock or out of the way.”

Corporal Tristani Chinditze, 20, never even made it as far as the battlefield. His unit was on its way to the front line in lorries and Jeeps when they were ambushed by a much larger Russian force of tanks and infantry.

“Maybe without their planes we could have won. That's why I went - I thought we could win,” he said, just before doctors wheeled him out for an operation to save his legs. Both limbs were shredded by shrapnel from a tank shell. “There were three brigades, plenty of them were wounded. We were in trucks and we had no chance to open fire.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4636590.ece


----------



## Blackadder1916

*Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state'*


> Tony Halpin in Moscow  The Times August 30, 2008
> 
> The Kremlin moved swiftly to tighten its grip on Georgia’s breakaway regions yesterday as South Ossetia announced that it would soon become part of Russia, which will open military bases in the province under an agreement to be signed on Tuesday.
> 
> Tarzan Kokoity, the province’s Deputy Speaker of parliament, announced that South Ossetia would be absorbed into Russia soon so that its people could live in “one united Russian state” with their ethnic kin in North Ossetia.
> 
> The declaration came only three days after Russia defied international criticism and recognised South Ossetia and Georgia’s other separatist region of Abkhazia as independent states. Eduard Kokoity, South Ossetia’s leader, agreed that it would form part of Russia within “several years” during talks with Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian President, in Moscow.
> 
> The disclosure will expose Russia to accusations that it is annexing land regarded internationally as part of Georgia. Until now, the Kremlin has insisted that its troops intervened solely to protect South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgian “aggression”.
> 
> Interfax news quoted an unidentified Russian official as saying that Moscow also planned to establish two bases in Abkhazia. Sergei Shamba, Abkhazia’s Foreign Minister, said that an agreement on military co-operation would be signed within a month.
> 
> The Russian Foreign Ministry confirmed that agreements on “peace, co-operation and mutual assistance with Abkhazia and South Ossetia” were being prepared on the orders of President Medvedev. Abkhazia said that it would ask Russia to represent its interests abroad.
> 
> Georgia announced that it was recalling all diplomatic staff from its embassy in Moscow in protest at the continued Russian occupation of its land in defiance of a ceasefire agreement brokered by President Sarkozy of France. The parliament in Tbilisi declared Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be under Russian occupation.
> 
> Gigi Tsereteli, the Vice-Speaker, dismissed the threat of South Ossetia becoming part of Russia, saying: “The world has already become different and Russia will not long be able to occupy sovereign Georgian territory.
> 
> “The regimes of Abkhazia and South Ossetia should think about the fact that if they become part of Russia, they will be assimilated, and in this way they will disappear.”
> 
> Lado Gurgenidze, the Prime Minister of Georgia, scrapped agreements that had permitted Russian peacekeepers to operate in the two regions after wars in the early 1990s. He called for their replacement by international troops.
> 
> Vyacheslav Kovalenko, Moscow’s Ambassador to Georgia, described Tbilisi’s decision to sever relations as “a step towards further escalation of tensions with Russia and the desire to drive the situation into an even worse deadlock”.
> 
> Russia attacked the G7 after the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan condemned its “excessive use of military force in Georgia”. In a joint statement, they had called on Russia to “implement in full” the French ceasefire agreement.
> 
> The Foreign Ministry said that the G7 was “justifying Georgian acts of aggression” and insisted that Moscow had met its obligations under the six-point agreement.
> 
> Having been rebuffed on Thursday by China and four Central Asian states, Russia will seek support next week from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) for its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The CSTO comprises Russia and the former Soviet republics of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
> 
> The signing of the military agreement with South Ossetia will take place the day after an emergency summit of European Union leaders to discuss the crisis. The French presidency of the EU said that sanctions against Russia were not being considered, contradicting an earlier statement by Bernard Kouchner, the Foreign Minister.
> 
> Russia told the EU that any sanctions would be damaging to both sides. Andrei Nesterenko, a Foreign Ministry official, said: “We hope that common sense will prevail over emotions and that EU leaders will find the strength to reject a one-sided assessment of the conflict . . . Neither party needs the confrontation towards which some countries are being energetically pushed by the EU.”
> 
> Russia also lashed out at Nato, saying that it had “no moral right” to pass judgment on the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Foreign Ministry said: “Further sliding to confrontation with Russia and attempts to put pressure on us are unacceptable, as they can entail irreversible consequences in the military-political climate and in stability on the continent.”
> 
> The US confirmed that the flagship of its Sixth Fleet, the USS Mount Whitney, would deliver aid to Georgia next week. Two other warships are moored off Georgia’s Black Sea port of Batumi, and Russia has ordered its fleet to take “precautionary measures”.
> 
> Mr Medvedev has accused the US of shipping weapons to Georgia along with aid, a claim dismissed as “ridiculous” by the White House.


----------



## Kirkhill

October 1, 1938


----------



## George Wallace

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> *Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state'*



Now this is going to open up quite a can of worms on the World Diplomatic Front.  What reaction can we see in the UN?  Will a UN sponsored set of Observers be sent in to officially take a poll as to what the population really wants?  Will Russia simply appropriate the lands and reject any diplomatic maneuvering from outside nations?  What reaction politically and militarily will Georgia take?  What reaction politically and militarily will the US and Israel take?  Will the EU react or remain silent?  What relationship changes will we see in NATO/Russian discussions and cooperation?  This really has opened up a can of worms.


----------



## tomahawk6

Well the Ossetians wanted to be part of Russia.Whats that old saying about getting what you wished for ?


----------



## Kat Stevens

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now this is going to open up quite a can of worms on the World Diplomatic Front.  What reaction can we see in the UN?  Will a UN sponsored set of Observers be sent in to officially take a poll as to what the population really wants?  Will Russia simply appropriate the lands and reject any diplomatic maneuvering from outside nations?  What reaction politically and militarily will Georgia take?  What reaction politically and militarily will the US and Israel take?  Will the EU react or remain silent?  What relationship changes will we see in NATO/Russian discussions and cooperation?  This really has opened up a can of worms.


Russia seems to be in the driver's seat in the region, and would probably just tell the UN to STFU and take it.  The UN, being the toothless poodle it is, will fold like a cheap tent in a tornado.


----------



## Rodahn

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Russia seems to be in the driver's seat in the region, and would probably just tell the UN to STFU and take it.  The UN, being the toothless poodle it is, will fold like a cheap tent in a tornado.



Or if sanctions were to be enacted in the UN, the Russians would just utilize their power of veto.....


----------



## tomahawk6

George this is a fait accompli. Georgia and NATO will fret but thats about it. The real focus will be how to prepare for the next Russian invasion.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now this is going to open up quite a can of worms on the World Diplomatic Front.  What reaction can we see in the UN?  Will a UN sponsored set of Observers be sent in to officially take a poll as to what the population really wants?  Will Russia simply appropriate the lands and reject any diplomatic maneuvering from outside nations?  What reaction politically and militarily will Georgia take?  What reaction politically and militarily will the US and Israel take?  Will the EU react or remain silent?  What relationship changes will we see in NATO/Russian discussions and cooperation?  This really has opened up a can of worms.



Add the geo-political questions of: who will get to control Poti and Gori?  Will the Georgians/US/EU/NATO push back hard against the Russians claimed "buffer zone".  If they don't then Georgia is limited to the southern comms route (pipeline) between Tblisi and Batumi?

Is the USN going to enter Poti (currently held by the Russians)?  What will be the Russian reaction?  That could be an interesting indicator of things to come.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> October 1, 1938


Sudetenland.  A leftover of the mess following WW1.  IIRC, this lead to many "Volksdeutsche" leaving the Baltic States: the USSR didn't want any 'excuse' for Germany to move in on its sphere of influence.


----------



## tomahawk6

The birth rate inside Russia is dropping at the rate of 700,000 people a year.Probably one of the few countries in the world that is losing population down to 142m from 149m.The Russian birthrate in the former republics is high and there are 15m living outside Russia proper.This birthrate crisis may be behind Putin's militarism.


----------



## Kirkhill

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Sudetenland.  A leftover of the mess following WW1.  IIRC, this lead to many "Volksdeutsche" leaving the Baltic States: the USSR didn't want any 'excuse' for Germany to move in on its sphere of influence.



Im virklichkeit.


----------



## stegner

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Im virklichkeit.



Do you mean wirklichkeit instead of virklichkeit?


----------



## a_majoor

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The birth rate inside Russia is dropping at the rate of 700,000 people a year.Probably one of the few countries in the world that is losing population down to 142m from 149m.The Russian birthrate in the former republics is high and there are 15m living outside Russia proper.This birthrate crisis may be behind Putin's militarism.



Indeed. The ethnic Russians have several problems stemming from declining birthrates. They traditionally fear the "hordes" from the East, and the rapidly growing Islamic population in the 'Stans and other parts of the "near beyond" probably have their elites awake at night too. Their economy is not very strong outside of energy and resources, so declining manpower means economic contraction as there are fewer hands on the factory floor.

I suspect a deeper motivation is grabbing what they can while they can, and the hope that they can establish a tributary system (maybe by manipulating the energy markets to force compliance from Old and New Europe) to prop up their regime, which is a deeper interpretation of the "Imperial" motivations floated in this thread. Even so, "game over" will take place in the 2030's, as Russia's population drops to about half of today's (and their EU tributaries will also be in the same boat, so the flow tribute will also be cut dramatically).

We still need to take firm action in the here and now, since waiting 25 years for the situation to resolve itself isn't an acceptable option.


----------



## cameron

Some very interesting comments by a former Russian naval officer on the capability of the Black Sea Fleet to destroy the current NATO fleet in the Black Sea in 20 minutes.  Would like to hear the opinion of the Navy.ca guys on this, wishful thinking on his part or a credible scenario?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/30/Russian_NATO_Black_Sea_fleet


----------



## tomahawk6

He's probably right as far as that goes.The USS McFAUL  an Aegis DDG is probably one of the most powerful NATO ships in the Black Sea.The Mount Whitney and Cutter Dallas are lightly armed. I wouldnt be surprised if there was an attack sub in the AO.


----------



## JackD

Some other news from Russia:  Russian police accused in killing of man whose website criticized authorities
 TheSpec.com - News - Russian police accused in killing of man whose website criticized authorities 

By Vladimir Isachenkov
MOSCOW — The owner of an independent website critical of authorities was shot and killed Sunday by police, his body dumped by the side of the road in a volatile province in southern Russia, his colleague said.

The killing of Ingushetiya.ru owner Magomed Yevloyev could incite tensions in the province of Ingushetia west of Chechnya, which has been the site of frequent attacks on police and other officials.

Police arrested Yevloyev on Sunday, taking him off a plane that had just landed in Ingushetia province near Chechnya, said the site’s deputy editor, Ruslan Khautiyev.

Police whisked Yevloyev away in a car and later dumped him on the road with a gunshot wound to the head, Khautiyev said. He said Yevloyev died in a hospital shortly afterward.

In Moscow, Investigative Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin said in a statement that Yevloyev was detained by police and died in an “incident” while being taken to police headquarters for an interrogation. Markin did not elaborate, saying that a check to clarify the circumstances of Yevloyev’s death had begun. The committee is under the Prosecutor General’s office.

Yevloyev has angered regional authorities with criticism of police treatment of civilians in the region. A court in June ordered him to shut his site on charges of spreading “extremist” statements, but it reappeared under a different name.

Khautiyev said that Yevloyev arrived in Ingushetia from Moscow on Sunday on the same plane as regional President Murat Zyazikov. 
Police blocked the jet on the runway after it landed in Ingushetia’s provincial capital, Magas, entered the plane and took Yevloyev out.

Yevloyev’s death is likely to inflame passions in Ingushetia, which has been plagued by frequent raids and ambushes of federal forces and local authorities. Government critics attribute the attacks to anger fuelled by abductions, beatings, unlawful arrests and killings of suspects by government forces and local allied paramilitaries.

In June, Human Rights Watch accused Russian security forces of widespread human rights abuses in Ingushetia, saying it has documented dozens of summary and arbitrary detentions, acts of torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions. It said officials in Ingushetia persecuted peaceful Muslims and government critics, marginalized opposition groups and stifled independent media.

The New York-based rights group warned that the “dirty war” tactics against insurgents would likely further destabilize the situation in Ingushetia and beyond in the North Caucasus.

Many in Ingushetia are intensely unhappy with Zyazikov, a former KGB officer and a close ally of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. 
An anti-government rally in Ingushetia in January drew hundreds of people who clashed with police.

Immediately after Yevloyev’s detention, his website urged Ingushetia’s residents to gather outside the headquarters of a leading opposition group. 




http://www.thespec.com/News/article/427714


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> He's probably right as far as that goes.The USS McFAUL  an Aegis DDG is probably one of the most powerful NATO ships in the Black Sea.The Mount Whitney and Cutter Dallas are lightly armed. I wouldnt be surprised if there was an attack sub in the AO.



Concur with what Tomhawk has said. Except I wonder if the Straits are deep enough for a sub and is there not a treaty in existence between Turkey and Russia regarding the passage of warships through the straits as well.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Concur with what Tomhawk has said. Except I wonder if the Straits are deep enough for a sub and is there not a treaty in existence between Turkey and Russia regarding the passage of warships through the straits as well.



The treaty you are referring to is the  1936 Montreux Convention . According to Global Security.org Turkey must be notified eight days prior before any ships can transit the straits. Aircraft carriers are not allowed to transit and submarines must transit the straits on the surface.  That means that its unlikely that the USN has any submarines in the Black Sea or we would know about it.


----------



## tomahawk6

With the tomahawk's on board the attack sub you dont have to be in the Black Sea to be able to support USN vessels operating near Georgia.


----------



## CougarKing

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> With the tomahawk's on board the attack sub you dont have to be in the Black Sea to be able to support USN vessels operating near Georgia.



Don't forget the USAF assets in Incirlik AFB, In Turkey. Or is that too far?   ?????


----------



## tomahawk6

There are no permanently assigned combat aircraft at Incirlik AFB. Of course some may have rotated in.


----------



## Kirkhill

Turkey is the only launch point.  This is from 18 months ago but I don't doubt that Bulgaria and Romania would be at least as willing as Turkey, possibly as eager as Ukraine and Poland, to host USAF assets.




> America "Poised to Strike at Iran's Nuclear Sites" From Bases in Bulgaria and Romania
> By Gabriel Ronay
> The Sunday Herald UK
> 
> Sunday 28 January 2007
> 
> Reports suggest that "US defensive ring" may be new front in war on terror.
> President Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.
> 
> "American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.
> 
> The American build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.




This,  was in the Air Force News at the same time




> Air Force gains larger presence in Romania
> 
> By Tech. Sgt. Greg Bluethmann
> Det. 4, Air Force News Agency
> 
> 5/9/2007 - RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFNEWS) -- The Romanian parliament passed legislation the first week of May that now authorizes the U.S. military to use several of its bases.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The treaty you are referring to is the  1936 Montreux Convention . According to Global Security.org Turkey must be notified eight days prior before any ships can transit the straits. Aircraft carriers are not allowed to transit and submarines must transit the straits on the surface.  That means that its unlikely that the USN has any submarines in the Black Sea or we would know about it.



Appreciate the clarification.


----------



## aesop081

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Or is that too far?   ?????



Nothing is too far !

Just remember where USAF B-2 strikes in the Balkans or Iraq originate from.

How about USAF F-111 strikes in Libya ?


----------



## CougarKing

Of course. Airborne refuelling makes that possible. Though Georgia's Coast would still be in the range of Strike Eagles if there were any based in Incirlik, without air-to-air refuelling?    ???


----------



## Retired AF Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> With the tomahawk's on board the attack sub you dont have to be in the Black Sea to be able to support USN vessels operating near Georgia.



True, but any launch from the Med would mean the missiles would have to overfly the sovereign territory (most likely Turkey) which would be a violation of international law. Now, Turkey might give permission, on the other hand it might not.


----------



## aesop081

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> True, but any launch from the Med would mean the missiles would have to overfly the sovereign territory (most likely Turkey)



Theres nothing that says Turkey would know anything about it until it was over.


----------



## Flanker

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> *Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state'*



A big provocative headliner, which has nothing common with the article content.
Where is "Kremlin announces"?
"Free press" is still free to write any lie.


----------



## Flanker

JackD said:
			
		

> Some other news from Russia:  Russian police accused in killing of man whose website criticized authorities



JackD, in order to be consistent with the forum rules, I would suggest you post all offtopics like this in a new separate thread ... something like "My Russofobia and Me" ...


----------



## George Wallace

Flanker said:
			
		

> JackD, in order to be consistent with the forum rules, I would suggest you post all offtopics like this in a new separate thread ... something like "My Russofobia and Me" ...



What's the matter Flanker?  Someone posting about the problems in the Caucasus that disagrees with your views, and they should post it elsewhere?  Perhaps it is you who should create a new topic:  "My Love for my Motherland".


----------



## Flanker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What's the matter Flanker?


I would appreciate, if someone could explain what last tribal skimishes in Ingushetia have to do with Russian police, Russian politics and in particular with the war in Ossetia.  :
I do not see any link other than the same old refrain "all is bad in Russia" the author repeats all over the forum.


----------



## JackD

Actually it is about the Caucasus... Free speech, means it seems, I must tolerate your opinions, but you not mine.... nor the articles i find and post here in order to keep this debate alive -  articles by the way, I do not comment upon positively or negatively. As I am a teacher, and am used to dealing with children, i will refrain from commentary.


----------



## Rodahn

Flanker said:
			
		

> I would appreciate, if someone could explain what last tribal skimishes in Ingushetia have to do with Russian police, Russian politics and in particular with the war in Ossetia.  :
> I do not see any link other than the same old refrain "all is bad in Russia" the author repeats all over the forum.



Flanker just so that you are aware, JackD currently resides in an area that was controlled by the former Soviet Union, and is well aware of the problems caused by that former regime, based upon first hand experiences.

I, for one, know Jack personally, having served with him many, many moons ago. I am more than willing to listen to his point of view, and believe him over other posters on this forum.

My .02 pfennigs anyhow.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Flanker just so that you are aware, JackD currently resides in an area that was controlled by the former Soviet Union, and is well aware of the problems caused by that former regime, based upon first hand experiences.
> 
> I, for one, know Jack personally, having served with him many, many moons ago. I am more than willing to listen to his point of view, and believe him over other posters on this forum.
> 
> My .02 pfennigs anyhow.



Ditto, on all counts.


----------



## Flanker

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Flanker just so that you are aware, JackD currently resides in an area that was controlled by the former Soviet Union, and is well aware of the problems caused by that former regime, based upon first hand experiences.



Do you mean just by living in Poland anyone becomes an expert with "first hand experience" on Russia's internal affairs?
I respect other opinions but his phrases like "Everything Russia touches they destroy" sound pretty much russofobic to me and compromise all credibility of the gentleman.


----------



## George Wallace

Flanker said:
			
		

> Do you mean just by living in Poland anyone becomes an expert with "first hand experience" on Russia's internal affairs?
> I respect other opinions but his phrases like "Everything Russia touches they destroy" sound pretty much russofobic to me and compromise all credibility of the gentleman.



 :

Of course you have much closer experiences with the current Russian Regime to justify your biases.  We have to blindly kowtow to your better judgement.


----------



## Flanker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Of course you have much closer experiences with the current Russian Regime to justify your biases.  We have to blindly kowtow to your better judgement.



It is up to you to decide. I would prefer we discuss facts not fobias.


----------



## George Wallace

Flanker said:
			
		

> It is up to you to decide. I would prefer we discuss facts not fobias.



It seems we are, but you insist we have phobias and denounce any facts that run counter to your perceived views on Russia.


----------



## Rodahn

Flanker said:
			
		

> It is up to you to decide. I would prefer we discuss facts not fobias.



do you perchance mean "Phobia's"? In any event, the territories of the former Soviet bloc are, if I'm not mistaken from the the reports that I have read such as http://countrystudies.us/russia/25.htm are in dire need of environmental clean up. If the habitat is not safe for man nor beast, then I would refer to the act as destruction, would you not?

Edit to add: George beat me to it....


----------



## Flanker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It seems we are, but you insist we have phobias and denounce any facts that run counter to your perceived views on Russia.


This works in the both sides, Georges


----------



## aesop081

Flanker said:
			
		

> Do you mean just by living in Poland anyone becomes an expert with "first hand experience" on Russia's internal affairs?



It certainly puts one more in tune with how Russia treats in former sattelites and neighbours.

Where exactly do you live ?


----------



## Flanker

Rodahn said:
			
		

> In any event, the territories of the former Soviet bloc are, if I'm not mistaken from the the reports that I have read such as http://countrystudies.us/russia/25.htm are in dire need of environmental clean up. If the habitat is not safe for man nor beast, then I would refer to the act as destruction, would you not?




Look at the statistics, it is not so bad as someone would.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/rs-russia/env-environment
Compare to US and China


Can I say that "Everything US touch they destroy" due to leading CO2 emission? 
Or that Canada is the world's evil due to not signing the Kyoto protocol?
This is what I call phobias or a biased opinion (thanks for spelling by the way)


----------



## Rodahn

Flanker said:
			
		

> Can I say that "Everything US touch they destroy" due to leading CO2 emission?
> Or that Canada is the world's evil due to not signing the Kyoto protocol?
> This is what I call phobias or a biased opinion (thanks for spelling by the way



You can say it all you want, just because you say so, does not make it so.....


----------



## Koenigsegg

Flanker, take into consideration the massive geographical size of Russia, and how much of that land is unpopulated.
The US isn't clean, no.  But neither are the populated regions of Russia.  And that is the same almost everywhere in the world, the places with the least human interference are the best off.

Compare the number of people per square kilometer in the three nations you mentioned, and you may find out why those numbers look good to Russia.
A lot of them (those statistics) don't mean that much though.

And the people here are not "Russophobic", I can tell this because Russia has come up many times in many topics over the history of this website and a lot of the time it is not negative, per se.
Good things said, along with Realist comments and of course, negative things.

If I were to say that in general Russian military technology is lacking (for some branches of the military), that's a realist comment.  Because there is not necessarily something wrong with that, and in the Russian military philosophy, that is the way they like (or liked) things and it works.  It's not worse, just different.

So even in this thread, not all of what you think is negative, or "Russophobic" really is.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Anyway, yes.  It would seem like the Russian Government thinks along the same lines as Henry Ford with the Model T.
Except instead of "You can have any colour you want, as long as it is black."
It is "You can say anything you want, as long as it is OK with me."
Good to see they've come along from the days of the USSR.  It's too bad, they have a lot of potential.

But do we even know what the man in this situation was saying?
I'm not saying that killing him (if they did) was justified, just that maybe he wasn't innocent in his messages.


----------



## Kirkhill

And for those that believe we are all russophobes, as well as those that would see all Russians as one.....

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2008/09/kremlin_split_by_georgia_polic.html



> September 03, 2008
> *Kremlin Split by Georgia Policy*
> By Andrei Piontkovsky
> 
> MOSCOW — Dmitry Medvedev inherited the post of president of the Russian Federation from Vladimir Putin, and while Putin moved down the pecking order to become prime minister, speculation has abounded from the start of Medvedev's presidency about an eventual split between Russia's two highest leaders. The first days of the conflict in Georgia crushed this hypothesis.
> 
> Indeed, Putin and Medvedev have worked in perfect tandem with respect to Georgia, cooperating and skillfully performing their different roles, with Putin cast in the lead role of the menacing god of a Russian reckoning, and Medvedev in the supporting role of a possible humanitarian peacemaker.
> 
> But *the Georgia crisis revealed a new strategic force in the Kremlin that opposes both Putin and Medvedev*. We still cannot name its players, but we are aware of its interests and impact on events in the same way that astronomers discern a new but invisible planet by recording its impact on known and visible objects in space.
> 
> *One indication that something new is affecting Russian policy is provided by those loyal Kremlin pundits * who are known for their gift of unmistakably guessing their masters' changing moods. *One after another, they have appeared on television and radio to denounce "provokers," whom they dare not name, for "planning the incursion of Russian troops all the way to Tbilisi and the establishment there of a pro-Russian government."*
> 
> *Another indirect indication of an ongoing struggle is the uncertain behavior of the Russian military in Georgia, which apparently is the result of contradictory orders from the Kremlin.* While the Russian Army seems not to have engaged in any active measures since reaching its current positions, it pointedly remains within a half-hour of Tbilisi.
> 
> *The line in the sand that U.S. President George W. Bush drew on the night of Aug. 11,* warning against Russian air strikes on Tbilisi's airport and shortly thereafter sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to visit Tbilisi, *provoked a split in the Kremlin. The split divides those who are and are not concerned about the fate of Russian elites' vast personal holdings in the West*........




Ah, yes indeed.  The Tyranny of the Market Place.  Economic Hegemony.  Or as Lord Invader and the Andrews Sisters would have it:workin' for the yankee dollar  ;D

Rather than tranquillizing tigers the wee fella might be better advised watching his back.


----------



## tomahawk6

An interesting development.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4682003.ece

A US navy flagship has steamed into a Georgian port where Russian troops are still stationed, stoking tensions once again in the tinderbox Caucasus region. 

A previous trip by American warships was cancelled at the last minute a week ago amid fears that an armed stand off could erupt in the Black Sea port of Poti. 

The arrival of the USS Mount Whitney came as Moscow accused Dick Cheney, the hawkish US vice-president, of stoking tensions during a visit to Tbilisi yesterday, in which he vowed to bring Georgia into the Nato alliance. Russia sees any such move as a blatant Western encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence. 

Russia’s leadership has already questioned whether previous US warships that docked at the port of Batumi, to the south, were delivering weapons to rearm the smashed Georgian military, something Washington has denied. 

While Russia again questioned the deployment of what it described as "the number one ship of its type in the US navy” on the Black Sea, it said it planned no military action in response. The Russian Army has kept a small number of soldiers in Poti, where local Georgian officials accuse them of looting port authority buildings. 

“Naval ships of that class can hardly deliver a large amount of aid,” said Andrei Nesterenko, a Russian foreign ministry spokesman. “Such ships of course have a hold for keeping provisions for the crew and items needed for sailing. How many dozens of tonnes of aid can a ship of that type deliver?" 

He said the presence of US warships could contravene international conventions governing shipping on the Black Sea, and - in particular - restricting the entry of naval ships from countries that do not share a Black Sea coastline. 

Militarily, the small Russian garrison in Poti would pose almost no threat to a vessel like the Mount Whitney, but the proximity of two hostile forces in such a fraught setting set the political temperature rising again in the Caucasus, a month after Russia’s five day war with Georgia. 

The American warship is too large to actually enter the port, where Russia sunk several Georgian navy vessels in its offensive last month. Instead, it is expected anchor offshore and unload its cargo of blankets, hygiene kits, baby food and infant care supplies on to smaller boats. 

"I can confirm it has arrived in Poti. Anchoring procedures are still ongoing but it has arrived," said a US naval official. 

Moscow, which followed up its crushing military defeat of Georgia by unilaterally recognising the independence of two of its breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, was fuming that Mr Cheney still insisted on Georgia’s entrance into the Atlantic alliance – something several key NATO members are wary of. 

“The new promises to Tbilisi relating to the speedy membership of NATO simply strengthen the Saakashvili regime’s dangerous feeling of impunity and encourages its dangerous ambitions,” said Mr Nesterenko. 

Washington has also pledged one billion dollars in aid to help Georgia rebuild after Russia pounded many of its military bases to dust and targeted important infrastructure. 

The brief conflict has left thousands of Georgians homeless, including many driven from South Ossetia and the surrounding Russian buffer zone inside Georgia itself. 

Georgian officials have accused the Russian-backed Ossetian militias of “ethnically cleansing” remote villages, while Moscow has charged Tbilisi with “genocide” for its heavy handed attack on the breakaway region last month.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a comment with which I agree:

My *emphasis* added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080904.wcorussia05/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Standing up to Russia
> 
> TIMOTHY GARTON ASH
> 
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> September 5, 2008 at 12:27 AM EDT
> 
> As you read this, another remote corner of Europe has been "ethnically cleansed." That means young men murdered, old women driven out of their homes, villages plundered and torched. As in Bosnia, so now in South Ossetia, the butcher's work has largely been done by irregular militias. "We did carry out cleansing operations, yes," "Captain Elrus" told The Guardian. These violent crimes have been committed under the noses of Russian troops, now unilaterally rebranded "peacekeepers" by the simple expedient of giving them blue helmets. This ethnic cleansing has extended to the buffer zone around South Ossetia that Russia has unilaterally established, exploiting an alleged loophole in the ceasefire agreement brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy on behalf of the European Union.
> 
> These facts, established on the ground by brave reporters, are the true human measure of Europe's failure to keep its cardinal promise of peace even in its own backyard. They are also the measure of Russia's deliberate challenge to the late 20th-century way of doing politics and international relations that the EU represents.
> 
> Two things must be said at once. First, great as were the provocations on the ground, *Georgia's leaders behaved with reprehensible folly in escalating the conflict in South Ossetia, allowing their forces to kill civilians and failing to anticipate the Russian hammer-blow reaction*. "We did not prepare for this kind of eventuality," confessed Georgia's deputy defence minister. What irresponsible idiots.
> 
> Second, *the dying Bush administration behaved with characteristic incompetence in allowing Georgia to nurse even the shadow of a hope that the U.S. cavalry might ride to the aid of this would-be Israel of the Caucasus*. Worldwide ridicule of Washington's indignant response also demonstrated just how much credibility the U.S. has lost over Iraq. (Don't invade a sovereign country. That's what we do.)
> 
> So, yes, there was also fault in Tbilisi and Washington. But finding fault with the U.S. (a sport at which Europeans excel) and Georgia (a country of which most Europeans know nothing) reduces not one jot or tittle the challenge that Russia now poses to the way Western Europe has tried to conduct human affairs since 1945 - and the creed most of Europe has lived by since 1989.
> 
> "Territorial integrity" is not the heart of the matter here. The essence of the new European way of doing things is something more like procedural integrity. The frontiers of existing states must be respected, but, in exceptional cases, territories within states may negotiate special autonomies or even vote to become independent, such as Kosovo or perhaps Scotland one day. But always providing this is done by peaceful means, with the sanction of national and international law. The how matters more than thewhat.
> 
> That's Europe's fundamental claim, which Vladimir Putin's Russia is challenging head-on. Its message is that *the unilateral use of force to advance national interests is part of what great powers do; that the postmodern, law-based order of the EU is a 20th-century anachronism; that, in the words of Thucydides's Melian dialogue, "the strong do what they can, and the weak submit*."
> 
> So what is Europe's answer? The outcome of Monday's EU emergency summit in Brussels was less bad than it might have been. A minimal unity was preserved. But the measures agreed were still weak. "Thank God common sense triumphed," said Mr. Putin. And the unity itself is weak. Deep differences in approach remain, reflecting differing levels of energy dependency on, and diverse historical experiences with, Russia. Moscow will do everything in its power to exploit these differences.
> 
> I found the tone of mild self-congratulation at the post-summit press conference with Mr. Sarkozy and European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso inappropriate. You should not allow that tone to creep in when, even as you speak, women and children are being made destitute, if not worse, as a result partly of Europe's failure. A defeat is not a victory. And this summit can only be accounted a success if it begins a fundamental rethinking of Europe's whole policy toward Russia.
> 
> *What we need is a twin-track approach, combining elements of muscular deterrence and skillful engagement - of Cold War and detente, if you will*. It must remain clear the door is still open to the kind of strategic partnership the West dreamed of in the 1990s, with Russia as a new pillar of liberal international order. *But our working assumption must be that it will remain Mr. Putin's Russia: a ruthless great power, determined to roll back the West's influence and establish its own 19th-century-style sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space*. And one prepared to use violence, intimidation and extortion to realize its national interests, which it defines as extending to the "protection" of millions of Russians in other sovereign states around its borders.
> 
> Yalta, c'est fini, Mr. Sarkozy declared in Brussels, alluding to the alleged division of Europe into two spheres of influence at the 1945 Yalta conference. But a new kind of "Yalta" may be starting - at that very same town of Yalta in the Crimea, and many like it, where Mother Russia yearns to look after her own. Europe must do what it can for Georgia, including a visible presence on the ground. But even more important is to do what it can for Ukraine, a pivotal state that (unlike Georgia) still more or less controls all the territory within its borders.
> 
> British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was absolutely right to go there in response to the Georgian crisis. The EU should now give Ukraine a clear perspective of membership. It should put monitors, officials, lawyers, police advisers and development workers on the ground, especially in regions such as the Crimea.
> 
> Our response should be realistic, not just in how we assess Russia but also in judging our own strengths and weaknesses. Russia does tanks. Europe is not good at doing stuff with tanks. But Europeans do a thousand other things, each of them smaller, softer and slower than a tank — which together, given time and the perspective of eventual membership, can be a force more powerful. This model is now on trial.
> 
> _ Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at St. Antony's College, Oxford._




Europe *MUST* grow some, even just a little, backbone, get off its knees and confront Russia on Russia’s terms. TGA may be right that “Europe is not good at doing stuff with tanks” but it was not ever thus and some Europeans need to remember that, unless they are happy with the message in Thucydides's Melian dialogue. America may have to stiffen Europe’s resolve, again. This matter – _’containing Russia’_ - is too important to ignore in the hope that Europe will stumble and bumble into an acceptable solution.


----------



## vonGarvin

"Contain the Russians".  Didn't Hitler try, and fail, to do just that? [/irony]


----------



## Kirkhill

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> "Contain the Russians".  Didn't Hitler try, and fail, to do just that? [/irony]



Not so much MR.  The silly wee fella tried to do a Thunder Run on Moscow - a lightning bolt if you will, or even a rapier thrust.  But you have to extraordinarily active to hold anything with a rapier.  It is like digging a ditch with a one prong fork rather than a spade - possible but tiring.

The essence of containment is inactivity.  The side that does least lasts longest.  Activity only expends scarce resources.

If you can sit quietly, and be well provisioned, while your opponent is blockaded and forced to act then you win.

Hitler opted to pick a fight against a better provisioned and more numerous foe by betting on a single killing stroke against a single target (Uncle Joe).

I suppose as one megalomaniac to another that made sense to both of them.  Neither could likely conceive of their countries or strategies surviving without them.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Theres nothing that says Turkey would know anything about it until it was over.



While Turkey is a major US ally, there is a significant percentage of the population that is opposed to US policies in the region. A launch of a Tomahawk missile over the country without Turkey's permission would result in widespread protest that could include attacks against US citizens/installations/businesses and would further alienate a sizable portion of the population. The US is not going to jeopardize a somewhat tense relationship with the Turkish government by carrying what would be a violation of Turkish airspace and sovereignty. 

Plus, the USN doesn't need to launch Tomahawk missiles from a sub, the AEGIS class destroyer USS McFaul likely has Tomahawks missiles already onboard. A component of the  AEGIS Mk 7 weapons system  is the  Mk 41 vertical launch system  which is capable of launching the Tomahawk missile. 

BTW, in regards to the earlier post about the Russian ex-admiral boasting that the Russian navy could blow the US naval presence in the Black sea out of the water, I would say - not so fast.  The Mk 7 weapons system is a very capable system designed to defend against, and engage multiple targets (up to 100 or more) and threats. It can "*defeat an extremely wide range of targets from wave top to directly overhead....against anti-ship cruise missiles and manned aircraft flying in all speed ranges from subsonic to supersonic....effective in all environmental conditions having both all-weather capability and ....in chaff and jamming environments. AEGIS equipped ships are capable of engaging and defeating enemy aircraft, missiles, submarines and surface ships."*  

The Russian  Black Sea Fleet  is shell of its former greatness and may not have the numbers to effectively knock-out the USS McFaul. They only have one major surface combatant, the Moskva (ex-Slava cruiser) as its flagship, some smaller destroyers/frigates/missile patrol boats and one Kilo submarine. I would think that the McFaul could handle itself quit well. However, the one advantage the Russians have is that they could draw on ground-based air units to overwhelm the US ships, however, I doubt Putin (or George Bush) is ready to start WWIII just yet.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> "Contain the Russians".  Didn't Hitler try, and fail, to do just that? [/irony]



Hitler wasn't trying to *"contain*" the Russians. He was trying to _*Destroy them!.*_ Big difference.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> "Contain the Russians".  Didn't Hitler try, and fail, to do just that? [/irony]



Perhaps he did (try and fail), but Harry Truman, on George F Kennan's advice, tried and succeeded.


----------



## cameron

Thanks for your perspective Retired AF Guy.  That's one of the things I was wondering if the USS Mc. Faul's AEGIS system could handle the missile onslaught that Russian was bragging about.  I certainly hope you're right but even more so I hope we never have to find out.  One another point E.R. Campbell's view is one i've long held Europe needs to grow some backbone and bloody fast.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

cameron said:
			
		

> Thanks for your perspective Retired AF Guy. That's one of the things I was wondering if the USS Mc. Faul's AEGIS system could handle the missile onslaught that Russian was bragging about.



I'm not an expert naval weapon systems, either US or Russian, so I don't have the expertize to say who has the best weapon system. The missiles the Russian was talking about is the  SS-N-12 which has a speed of Mach 2.5 and a range of 550 km. However, at 11.7m x .9m (38' x 3.7') its a big honking missile. My philosophy is that the bigger you are, the bigger the target you are (starting to sound like Yoda).



> I certainly hope you're right but even more so I hope we never have to find out.



Agree with you whole heartedly. While Putin may be hungry for power, at least he's still a rational guy (I hope!) who knows when to push and when to talk. Which is more than we can say about many other dictators out there. 



> One another point E.R. Campbell's view is one I've long held Europe needs to grow some backbone and bloody fast.



ERC hit it on the head. When Yugoslavia blew apart the Europeans dillydallied while ethnic cleansing and the massacres were taking place and did nothing. It was only when the Americans (very reluctantly) got involved that anything happened.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Something brought to my attention to make it all the more interesting....

*Commentary: Israel of the Caucasus*
ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, Middle East Times, 2 Sept 08
Article link


> .... In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter-bombers in the event of pre-emptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter-bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli air force would fly over Turkey.  The attack ordered by Saakashvili against South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7 provided the Russians the pretext for Moscow to order Special Forces to raid these Israeli facilities where some Israeli drones were reported captured ....




From RUS media 2 days later


> Israel imposed an embargo on arms supplies to Tbilisi a week before Georgia attacked its breakaway region of South Ossetia, the Israeli ambassador to Russia said on Thursday. (Abandoned Georgian armor and artillery - Image gallery)
> 
> Russia's Defense Ministry earlier said Israel had sold unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, and electronic artillery systems to Georgia and planned to supply armored vehicles and small arms. Some reports claimed that Israeli military experts had been training Georgian reconnaissance units since the fall of 2007.
> 
> "A week before the conflict we decided to halt all arms supplies to Georgia," Anna Azari said ....



More on links


----------



## JackD

A post-mortem via the New York Times over the wider implications of this short war:  September 10, 2008
Russia’s Recognition of Georgian Areas Raises Hopes of Its Own Separatists 
By ELLEN BARRY
MOSCOW — Tatarstan is a long way from South Ossetia. While South Ossetia is a poor border region of Georgia battered by war, Tatarstan is an economic powerhouse in the heart of Russia, boasting both oil reserves and the political stability that is catnip to investors. 

But the two places have one thing in common: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, both have given rise to separatist movements. And when President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia formally recognized the breakaway areas of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations two weeks ago, activists in Kazan, the Tatar capital, took notice. 

An association of nationalist groups, the All-Tatar Civic Center, swiftly published an appeal that “for the first time in recent history, Russia has recognized the state independence of its own citizens” and expressed the devout wish that Tatarstan would be next. The declaration was far-fetched, its authors knew: One of Vladimir V. Putin’s signal achievements as Mr. Medvedev’s predecessor was to suppress separatism. The Tatar movement was at its lowest ebb in 20 years. 

But Moscow’s decision to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia made Tatarstan’s cause seem, as Rashit Akhmetov put it, “not hopeless.” 

Mr. Akhmetov, editor in chief of Zvezda Povolzhya, an opposition newspaper in Kazan, said, “Russia has lost the moral right not to recognize us.” 

Mr. Medvedev’s decision to formally recognize the two disputed areas in Georgia — an option long debated in Moscow’s foreign policy circles — has had far-reaching consequences. 

Most immediately, it has deepened the rift between Russia and its erstwhile negotiating partners in the West. But some also see Moscow departing from its longstanding insistence on territorial integrity, leaving an opening for ethnic groups within its borders to demand autonomy or independence. 

“In the long term, they could have signed their own death warrant,” said Lawrence Scott Sheets, the Caucasus program director for the International Crisis Group, an independent organization that tries to prevent and resolve global conflicts. “It’s an abstraction now, but 20 years down the road, it won’t be such an abstraction.” 

Moscow’s position is that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were extreme situations, in which decisions were driven by the threat to the lives of its citizens. Russian troops poured across the border early in August, after Georgian forces attacked civilian areas in the city of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, with rocket and artillery fire. 

The attack made it “completely impossible” to conceive of South Ossetia returning to Georgian control, said Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for Mr. Putin, now Russia’s prime minister. 

Mr. Peskov said Russia stood firmly behind the principle of territorial integrity and saw no major separatist movements within its borders.

“We do have some separatist movements, some extremist elements, especially in the northern Caucasus, but they are very minor,” he said. “These are very fragmented and very small groups.” He added that the circumstances of South Ossetia and Abkhazia belonged in a “totally different category.” 

The picture looked very different before Mr. Putin took office. In the 1990s, President Boris N. Yeltsin urged regional leaders to “take as much sovereignty as you can swallow.” Movements toward self-rule were taking hold in some of Russia’s most valuable territory: in Tatarstan, home not only to an oil industry but also to a major truck factory and an aircraft plant; in Bashkiria, a major source of natural gas; in Komi, a northern province that produces coal. 

All this came to a halt in Chechnya, an oil-rich patch of land in the north Caucasus. Chechnya was the only region to declare independence outright. In 1994, Russia sent troops into Chechnya, and two years of fighting left tens of thousands dead. In 1999, amid a crescendo of violence throughout the north Caucasus, Mr. Putin, then the prime minister, oversaw a second war that obliterated the Chechen rebel movement

The message from Moscow — empowered and newly rich with petrodollars — was clear. “Russia has shown the inhuman price it will pay to preserve its territorial integrity,” said Sergei A. Karaganov, a political scientist who leads the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy. “The fighting in Chechnya was not just against the Chechen rebels, it was against movements all around.” In fact, the threat of separatism has largely faded from the Russian landscape, and Mr. Putin has granted enough freedom to quiet internal opposition in many of Russia’s trouble spots. Even in the north Caucasus, one of Russia’s most volatile regions, the government now helps Muslims with visas and airfare to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj. At the same time, Mr. Putin greatly strengthened his executive power, abolishing the direct election of governors in 2004. Handpicked bosses improved local economies and clamped down harshly on opposition groups. 

Tatarstan was a case in point. Tatars still commemorate the day in 1552 when Kazan fell to Ivan the Terrible, absorbing their country into Holy Russia. 

When Mr. Yeltsin encouraged regions to assume sovereignty, Tatarstan complied with gusto, adopting its own taxes and license plates. Gleaming new mosques competed with Kazan’s onion domes, and ethnic Tatars, who made up 48 percent of the population to the Russians’ 43 percent, opened their own schools. The Tatar Parliament declared that local conscripts could not fight outside the Volga region. 

When Mr. Putin eliminated regional elections, the Tatar president, Mintimer Shaimiyev, protested vociferously, calling the plan a “forced and painful measure.” But in the years that followed, Mr. Akhmetov, the editor of the opposition newspaper in Kazan, saw prospects for autonomy drop to a new low.

“We understood that our president could be removed at any time, within 24 hours,” Mr. Akhmetov said. But Mr. Medvedev’s decision to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, he said, “created a precedent, kind of a guideline” for gaining independence. Moscow is confident that it wields strict control over politics in the outlying regions, he said, but that could change in 10 or 20 years. 

“The seeds of self-destruction are built into the authoritarian system,” Mr. Akhmetov said. “It’s Moscow’s mistake.” 

A similar stirring came out of Bashkortostan, a major petrochemical center where ethnic Bashkirs make up about 30 percent of the population. A small organization called Kuk Bure, which has pushed for the Bashkir language to be required in public schools, issued a manifesto accusing Moscow of “double standards” for championing ethnic groups like the Abkhaz and Ossetians while ignoring their platform. 

“The time has come to ask each federal official — and they have multiplied by the thousands in Bashkortostan in recent years — ‘What are you doing for the Bashkir people?’ ” said the statement, which was posted on the group’s Web site. 

Timur Mukhtarov, a lawyer and one of the movement’s co-founders, said the group’s mission stopped far short of independence. Though some may discuss that notion in private, laws against extremism have made it dangerous to espouse publicly. 

At 31, he feels some nostalgia for the Yeltsin years, a time of “more chaos, but less fear.” 

The Russian stand for self-determination in Georgia may not change Moscow’s attitude toward Bashkortostan, he said, “but at least it gives us something to discuss.” 

Russia’s act could also stir movements in the northwest Caucasus, where a number of groups called for autonomy or separation in the early 1990s, said Charles King, a professor of international affairs and government at Georgetown University. Those calls had gone quiet since Mr. Putin took power. 

But few people have watched events in Abkhazia more closely than their ethnic kin, the Circassians. Many Circassians still live in Russia, in the republics of Kabardino-Balkariya, Karachayevo-Cherkesiya and Adygeya; the vast majority live outside Russia yet look back at the Caucasus as their homeland. 

“They’re ecstatic,” said Professor King, author of “The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus.” “Their cousins have gotten independence. They see this as something quite big, that could have real implications for Russia.“ 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/world/europe/10separatists.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


----------



## cameron

JackD said:
			
		

> A post-mortem via the New York Times over the wider implications of this short war:  September 10, 2008
> Russia’s Recognition of Georgian Areas Raises Hopes of Its Own Separatists
> By ELLEN BARRY
> MOSCOW — Tatarstan is a long way from South Ossetia. While South Ossetia is a poor border region of Georgia battered by war, Tatarstan is an economic powerhouse in the heart of Russia, boasting both oil reserves and the political stability that is catnip to investors.
> 
> But the two places have one thing in common: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, both have given rise to separatist movements. And when President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia formally recognized the breakaway areas of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations two weeks ago, activists in Kazan, the Tatar capital, took notice.
> 
> An association of nationalist groups, the All-Tatar Civic Center, swiftly published an appeal that “for the first time in recent history, Russia has recognized the state independence of its own citizens” and expressed the devout wish that Tatarstan would be next. The declaration was far-fetched, its authors knew: One of Vladimir V. Putin’s signal achievements as Mr. Medvedev’s predecessor was to suppress separatism. The Tatar movement was at its lowest ebb in 20 years.
> 
> But Moscow’s decision to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia made Tatarstan’s cause seem, as Rashit Akhmetov put it, “not hopeless.”
> 
> Mr. Akhmetov, editor in chief of Zvezda Povolzhya, an opposition newspaper in Kazan, said, “Russia has lost the moral right not to recognize us.”
> 
> Mr. Medvedev’s decision to formally recognize the two disputed areas in Georgia — an option long debated in Moscow’s foreign policy circles — has had far-reaching consequences.
> 
> Most immediately, it has deepened the rift between Russia and its erstwhile negotiating partners in the West. But some also see Moscow departing from its longstanding insistence on territorial integrity, leaving an opening for ethnic groups within its borders to demand autonomy or independence.
> 
> “In the long term, they could have signed their own death warrant,” said Lawrence Scott Sheets, the Caucasus program director for the International Crisis Group, an independent organization that tries to prevent and resolve global conflicts. “It’s an abstraction now, but 20 years down the road, it won’t be such an abstraction.”
> 
> Moscow’s position is that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were extreme situations, in which decisions were driven by the threat to the lives of its citizens. Russian troops poured across the border early in August, after Georgian forces attacked civilian areas in the city of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, with rocket and artillery fire.
> 
> The attack made it “completely impossible” to conceive of South Ossetia returning to Georgian control, said Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for Mr. Putin, now Russia’s prime minister.
> 
> Mr. Peskov said Russia stood firmly behind the principle of territorial integrity and saw no major separatist movements within its borders.
> 
> “We do have some separatist movements, some extremist elements, especially in the northern Caucasus, but they are very minor,” he said. “These are very fragmented and very small groups.” He added that the circumstances of South Ossetia and Abkhazia belonged in a “totally different category.”
> 
> The picture looked very different before Mr. Putin took office. In the 1990s, President Boris N. Yeltsin urged regional leaders to “take as much sovereignty as you can swallow.” Movements toward self-rule were taking hold in some of Russia’s most valuable territory: in Tatarstan, home not only to an oil industry but also to a major truck factory and an aircraft plant; in Bashkiria, a major source of natural gas; in Komi, a northern province that produces coal.
> 
> All this came to a halt in Chechnya, an oil-rich patch of land in the north Caucasus. Chechnya was the only region to declare independence outright. In 1994, Russia sent troops into Chechnya, and two years of fighting left tens of thousands dead. In 1999, amid a crescendo of violence throughout the north Caucasus, Mr. Putin, then the prime minister, oversaw a second war that obliterated the Chechen rebel movement
> 
> The message from Moscow — empowered and newly rich with petrodollars — was clear. “Russia has shown the inhuman price it will pay to preserve its territorial integrity,” said Sergei A. Karaganov, a political scientist who leads the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy. “The fighting in Chechnya was not just against the Chechen rebels, it was against movements all around.” In fact, the threat of separatism has largely faded from the Russian landscape, and Mr. Putin has granted enough freedom to quiet internal opposition in many of Russia’s trouble spots. Even in the north Caucasus, one of Russia’s most volatile regions, the government now helps Muslims with visas and airfare to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj. At the same time, Mr. Putin greatly strengthened his executive power, abolishing the direct election of governors in 2004. Handpicked bosses improved local economies and clamped down harshly on opposition groups.
> 
> Tatarstan was a case in point. Tatars still commemorate the day in 1552 when Kazan fell to Ivan the Terrible, absorbing their country into Holy Russia.
> 
> When Mr. Yeltsin encouraged regions to assume sovereignty, Tatarstan complied with gusto, adopting its own taxes and license plates. Gleaming new mosques competed with Kazan’s onion domes, and ethnic Tatars, who made up 48 percent of the population to the Russians’ 43 percent, opened their own schools. The Tatar Parliament declared that local conscripts could not fight outside the Volga region.
> 
> When Mr. Putin eliminated regional elections, the Tatar president, Mintimer Shaimiyev, protested vociferously, calling the plan a “forced and painful measure.” But in the years that followed, Mr. Akhmetov, the editor of the opposition newspaper in Kazan, saw prospects for autonomy drop to a new low.
> 
> “We understood that our president could be removed at any time, within 24 hours,” Mr. Akhmetov said. But Mr. Medvedev’s decision to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, he said, “created a precedent, kind of a guideline” for gaining independence. Moscow is confident that it wields strict control over politics in the outlying regions, he said, but that could change in 10 or 20 years.
> 
> “The seeds of self-destruction are built into the authoritarian system,” Mr. Akhmetov said. “It’s Moscow’s mistake.”
> 
> A similar stirring came out of Bashkortostan, a major petrochemical center where ethnic Bashkirs make up about 30 percent of the population. A small organization called Kuk Bure, which has pushed for the Bashkir language to be required in public schools, issued a manifesto accusing Moscow of “double standards” for championing ethnic groups like the Abkhaz and Ossetians while ignoring their platform.
> 
> “The time has come to ask each federal official — and they have multiplied by the thousands in Bashkortostan in recent years — ‘What are you doing for the Bashkir people?’ ” said the statement, which was posted on the group’s Web site.
> 
> Timur Mukhtarov, a lawyer and one of the movement’s co-founders, said the group’s mission stopped far short of independence. Though some may discuss that notion in private, laws against extremism have made it dangerous to espouse publicly.
> 
> At 31, he feels some nostalgia for the Yeltsin years, a time of “more chaos, but less fear.”
> 
> The Russian stand for self-determination in Georgia may not change Moscow’s attitude toward Bashkortostan, he said, “but at least it gives us something to discuss.”
> 
> Russia’s act could also stir movements in the northwest Caucasus, where a number of groups called for autonomy or separation in the early 1990s, said Charles King, a professor of international affairs and government at Georgetown University. Those calls had gone quiet since Mr. Putin took power.
> 
> But few people have watched events in Abkhazia more closely than their ethnic kin, the Circassians. Many Circassians still live in Russia, in the republics of Kabardino-Balkariya, Karachayevo-Cherkesiya and Adygeya; the vast majority live outside Russia yet look back at the Caucasus as their homeland.
> 
> “They’re ecstatic,” said Professor King, author of “The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus.” “Their cousins have gotten independence. They see this as something quite big, that could have real implications for Russia.“
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/world/europe/10separatists.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin



I can't wait to see Russia reap the whirlwind it started.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The bad economic news could hardly be worse for Russia. This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, only gives half the problem:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.wrbanksrussia17/BNStory/SpecialEvents2/home


> The contagion spreads: Russia
> 'Full-fledged financial panic' sees stocks dive 11.5% before trading is halted
> 
> BRIAN MILNER
> 
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> September 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM EDT
> 
> The global market meltdown has triggered a flight to safety in markets around the world, but no country has been hit harder than Russia.
> 
> The pummelling of energy and commodity prices, combined with a growing lack of confidence in Russia's ability to manage its economic affairs and to provide a transparent market that plays by the rules is throwing the country into its worst financial crisis since the crash of 1998.
> 
> In a stunning drop, Russia's dollar-denominated stock index plunged 11.5 per cent yesterday as investors headed for the exits. The benchmark ruble-denominated index fell nearly 18 per cent, and analysts say the worst may be yet to come. The selloff was so dramatic that authorities halted trading for an hour in an effort to stabilize the market.
> 
> "We're seeing a full-fledged financial panic," said Anders Aslund, senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.
> 
> "I think the Russian stock market has quite a bit further to go."
> 
> To prop up the crumbling ruble and shore up the financial system, the central bank pumped a record $14-billion (U.S.) into the market and spent more than $1-billion on rubles.
> 
> But it will almost certainly have to do more, analysts say.
> 
> Prime Minister Vladimir Putin insisted that his country could withstand the financial assault.
> 
> "I have no doubt that the safety cushions established in the Russian economy in recent years will work," he told a television audience.
> 
> But market watchers are not convinced, noting that Russia is plagued with myriad problems exposed by the sudden decline of oil prices and the global credit squeeze that is raising the cost of debt financing for all but a select few countries with top-notch credit ratings. Russia's invasion of Georgia in August also sent a message to investors that the country would put politics ahead of its economic interests.
> 
> Indeed, Russia's weakening finances, the lack of interest in its corporate debt and the loss of investor confidence in everything Russian were well under way before global events made financial life considerably tougher for the wounded Russian bear.
> 
> "When the Russians start valuing political and security issues and say to hell with whatever happens to the economy, investors pay attention to that," said Peter Zeihan, vice-president of analysis with Stratfor, an Austin, Tex.-based publisher of geopolitical and security analysis and intelligence.
> 
> "So all of the factors that were behind the Russian surge of the past three years economically have had their legs knocked out from under them. And investors are acting appropriately."
> 
> Russian stocks are down nearly 55 per cent since late May. And the major, state-controlled energy companies are off as much as 70 per cent.
> 
> The steep decline has hit Russia's wealthiest people particularly hard, because the oligarchs were using stocks as collateral for other risky investments. Now they face margin calls, which is putting further pressure on the market.
> 
> Russia's rapid transformation from a darling of emerging market investors to near-pariah status has market watchers recalling the debacle of a decade ago, when the Russian financial collapse triggered a global financial storm. That isn't likely today, because the Russian treasury is still loaded with oil revenues.
> 
> Most major Russian companies, on the other hand, rely heavily on foreign debt to finance their operations and expansion. And they are finding a cold shoulder in the international bond market.
> 
> For its part, the government will have to pay significantly higher rates to roll over expiring sovereign bonds in the next year, analysts say.
> 
> The energy producers that have been the drivers of the Russian economy and the principal source of the country's growing coffers need more money than ever to develop new sources of supply. "But they're entering an environment where they're going to get less and they're going to have to pay more for it," Mr. Zeihan said.




To start: the Russian market was always reserved for the highest of high risk investors – your pension fund manager never put even one penny of your money there; not unless he was insane and corrupt.

It (the Russian stock market) closed early again today, as it did yesterday – on a “cease trading” order because the losses were overwhelming the _system’s_ capability to keep rack of transaction values. The Russian government has promised RUB1 Trillion+ ($40± Billion) in liquidity but has not promised that the market will reopen tomorrow.


Then there is this, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act but this time from news.com:

http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,24359118-31037,00.html


> Panic as Russian market suspended
> 
> BY CONOR HUMPHRIES IN MOSCOW
> 
> September 17, 2008 12:43am
> 
> RUSSIA'S main stock market suspended trading today after plummeting more than 11 per cent, having lost more than half its value since May, as failing Wall Street banks caused panic on global markets.
> 
> The benchmark RTS index halted trade after a fall of 11.47 left it 54 per cent below its record close on May 19. The ruble-denominated Micex was also suspended for an hour after dropping 16.6 per cent.
> 
> 
> "Panic has gripped the Russian stock market," read a headline on the Interfax news agency.
> 
> 
> Those hardest hit on the RTS were energy companies, with state-controlled gas giant Gazprom falling 17.2 per cent and oil firm Rosneft losing 19.12 per cent.
> 
> 
> "The turmoil on Wall Street and worries about fall in the oil price are keeping buyers away despite the cheap prices," said analyst Chris Weafer in a note from Moscow-based investment bank Uralsib.
> 
> 
> "The only feeling is one of numbness, shock," he said. "The hope is that this is the final clear-out, that this week we will find a floor."
> 
> 
> The fall came after repeated attempts by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to calm market fears.
> 
> 
> Yesterday he told a meeting of top businessmen that "we do not have a crisis", and ordered the government to pump money into the markets.
> 
> 
> Before the latest wave of turmoil on Wall Street, investors were selling Russian stocks on falling commodity prices, turmoil in international markets and political uncertainty, analysts said.
> 
> 
> Increasing tensions with the West stoked by Moscow's military intervention in Georgia last month have also hit prices - the RTS has fallen more than a third since the conflict began.
> 
> 
> President Medvedev estimated last week that a quarter of the market's losses were due to the war, in part due to fears a stand-off with the West would hurt business.
> 
> 
> The market collapse has so far had little impact on tens of millions of Russians whose lives have been transformed by a five-year economic boom.
> 
> 
> The fall has revived uncomfortable memories of the August 1998 financial crisis, which cut short an earlier boom exactly 10 years ago.
> 
> 
> But Mr Weafer said the market turmoil appeared unlikely to spread into the wider economy.
> 
> 
> "There is a risk that if this persists, it could spread into consumer confidence, but so far it is being seen as a market event."
> 
> 
> But traders on the Internet site quote.ru, many of whom have seen their investments fall in value by half, found it hard to see the bright side. "This isn't Black Tuesday. This is worse," said one forum contributor.
> 
> 
> "There's only one kind of paper that can be sold now. Toilet paper," wrote another.




There is one big worry: What passes for adult leadership in Russia traditionally looks to deflect attention rather than solve problems and there’s nothing like some military action to ‘unite’ the Russian people behind the *thugs*, *bandits* and *secret policemen* they elected.


----------



## Kirkhill

Economic warfare Karl Rove style.  > > >

Message from the Yanks:  We can still outspend you!!!!


----------



## oligarch

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Economic warfare Karl Rove style.  > > >
> 
> Message from the Yanks:  We can still outspend you!!!!



The irony of that statement is that the bankrupcies suffered by the Yanks are what caused the crisis in the first place. Russian economic fundamentals are good since their macroeconomics are sound and they weren't hit directly by the sub-prime meltdown. The US are, however, between a rock and a hard place. I say around the the start of December the markets in Russia will be back where they were before mid-august, but I say this with great uncertainty: could be sooner, could be later, but I'd buy Russian blue-chips while they are underpriced. Many say November, but I am skeptical. In regard to the US markets, only god knows what will happen. Canada will not be hit too hard, but the effects will be mostly indirect. I'll definately have trouble finding a job here when I graduate in Capital Markets.... oh well...

An interesting comment I have by one financial analyst is that the Federal Reserve dropped a bunch of Euro and other currencies on the market before the dollar spike, causing people to withdraw from oil (which is negatively correlated with the dollar). If this is true than this is very bad; if this is their long-term strategy then eventually they are going to run out of foreign reserves.

I don't think the war in the caucauses explains any of this, seeing as the financial trouble is worldwide. China was hit even harder than Russia, and so far no Russian banks have filed for bankruptcy, as opposed to the US where we are already in the double digits in terms of this. Anyways claiming that Georgia has anything to do with this is a real stretch of the imagination who has any clue as to what they are talking about when it comes to finance. At most the phycological effects of the Georgian crisis could explain 10-25% of the current withdrawl of capital. In regard to this little illustration of intillect, "So all of the factors that were behind the Russian surge of the past three years economically have had their legs knocked out from under them. And investors are acting appropriately.", I can only bring the author's attention to a lack of his business education, since Russian blue-chip companies have P/E ratios of 12-15, Price-to-book hovering around 1 for some banks, they represent really good bargains now, and since the country has not even considered tapping into the 500 billion dollar stabilization fund seeing as they don't consider this crisis to be "real". Believe me, there will be no liquidity problems with a 500 billion dollar stabilization fund, created for situations much worse than this.


----------



## oligarch

cameron said:
			
		

> I can't wait to see Russia reap the whirlwind it started.



Cameron, can you wait to reap the whirlwind Canada has started with its recognition of Kosovo, given the existance of an openly seperatist party in our French province?


----------



## Koenigsegg

Banks in the United States are formed, and managed different than they are in Canada, or Russia.  Different governmental controls and input.

That could be one reason the USA has seen the bankruptcies.  I forget the details on how it all works though.  So sadly...I am quite useless.
Coming from a family very in the know of such things obviously doesn't always mean the youth will obsorb any of it.  haha


----------



## Edward Campbell

oligarch said:
			
		

> ...
> I don't think the war in the caucauses explains any of this, seeing as the financial trouble is worldwide ...



Quite correct. My point is that this financial crisis may well explain why Russia adopts even more thuggish, aggressive ways - to distract attention from the *kleptocracy* that masquerades as 'rule of law' in Russia and unite the people behind a military adventure.


----------



## cameron

oligarch said:
			
		

> Cameron, can you wait to reap the whirlwind Canada has started with its recognition of Kosovo, given the existance of an openly seperatist party in our French province?



oligarch are you serious or just seriously biased?  At what point in the twentieth century has Canada committed genocide  and ethnic cleansing against Quebecois?


----------



## Kirkhill

Oligarch, my comment was facetious.  I just know that there are people out there that are inclined to find the "hand of Rove" in all things.

With respect to your comment about bankruptcies and PE ratios.  The issue is not whether Russian companies outperform US or western companies. The issue is whether or not investors can believe the ratios, whether or not companies are allowed to go bankrupt or forced into bankruptcy by oligarchal fiat, whether or not investors have a reliable system of laws by which they can hold the government, the company, and the oligarchs, to account.


It is not that Al Capone didn't run a profitable business. It is a question of whether or not you want to do business with Al Capone.


----------



## Paul W...

Putins Russia.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6580938720868203336

He's a monster.


----------



## Flanker

Paul W... said:
			
		

> Putins Russia.
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6580938720868203336
> He's a monster.



Quit watching this propagandist crap. 
May be then you won't see monsters everywhere.   ;D


----------



## Flanker

cameron said:
			
		

> oligarch are you serious or just seriously biased?  At what point in the twentieth century has Canada committed genocide  and ethnic cleansing against Quebecois?


Neither did Russia. So what was your point?


----------



## Paul W...

Flanker said:
			
		

> Quit watching this propagandist crap.



Try proving what's wrong with this documentry dumbass.


----------



## Flanker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Quite correct. My point is that this financial crisis may well explain why Russia adopts even more thuggish, aggressive ways - to distract attention from the *kleptocracy* that masquerades as 'rule of law' in Russia and unite the people behind a military adventure.



You seem to exaggerate impacts of stock indexes on Russian economy.
Let me tell that they are too far speculative and too far away from 99% people and businesses comparing to US or Canada.
By the way, they are up 30% today. 
Would you mind to post an article on this success?


----------



## Flanker

Paul W... said:
			
		

> Try proving what's wrong with this documentry dumbass.


Prove what? 
If you want to make a good documetary and make your opinion on Putin and his government, you will learn Russian and go to Russia in order to interview real people.
You will not go to a garbage yard to interview all sorts of scumbags like traitor Kalugin, terrorist Zakaev, communist Landsbergis or former chessmaster Kasparov. 
It is just not serious. It is like to ask Osama Bin Laden about American politics.
Yeah, they speak English, but nobody gives a sh$t about their opinions.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Why do you people put so much stock (ha!), and trust in the Russian economy considering for about 20 (consecutive) years during the USSR days the economy was completely false?
Not a good track record, and not much of a reason to trust the Russian government when some of the members were party members back then too.

I have no clue the 100% true state of their economy, nor the affect the issues now are causing.  And guess what?  I would wager no one else here does either.

Flanker, could to clarify this for me?:
"Let me tell that they are too far speculative and too far away from 99% people and businesses comparing to US or Canada."

The last part kinda lost me.  But hey, I never claim to be swift.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Kasparov I know, and he was ****ed by Putin.  So I can see how his opinion could matter.  Depending on what angle you wanted from him.
People who are pro-Putin and them, well yes...they wouldn't care, and would disagree.

Like Stalin...Zhukov may have given him good reviews...but a lot of other people were they alive surely wouldn't have.  And what would make those people's opinions any less valuable.

But I digress.  This documentary talk is off topic.


----------



## Flanker

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Flanker, could to clarify this for me?:
> "Let me tell that they are too far speculative and too far away from 99% people and businesses comparing to US or Canada."
> 
> The last part kinda lost me.  But hey, I never claim to be swift.



The stock market in Russia is a gradually developping market. 
Risks are high but profits can be also high.
This attracts speculative "investors" from all over the world who leave the market in panic when any instability in the world finance system is expected.
This is also the reason why very very few local people and companies are investing into the stock market.
So, when the market goes down, it does not affect economy so much.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Flanker said:
			
		

> This is also the reason why very very few local people and companies are investing into the stock market.
> So, when the market goes down, it does not affect economy so much.



OK.  Thank you.  I see what you meant now.
But, I being ignorant of the Russia economy can't really say anymore.

However, does anyone know what percentage of the Russian GDP or Income comes from exports and investment?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Flanker said:
			
		

> You [E.R. Campbell] seem to exaggerate impacts of stock indexes on Russian economy.
> Let me tell that they are too far speculative and too far away from 99% people and businesses comparing to US or Canada.
> By the way, they are up 30% today.
> Would you mind to post an article on this success?




I would be have been happy to do that, Flanker if the _Ruskis_ hadn’t ‘ceased trading’ again - this time because they couldn’t _manage_ the upswing!

Here, instead, is a better analysis, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/views/story.html?id=09f3baba-28bc-469d-ae15-7232a62cf491


> Bear market
> *Russia's stock market collapse this week could well be enough to drive the country back to its old, anti-economic ways*
> 
> Eric Morse
> Citizen Special
> 
> Saturday, September 20, 2008
> 
> Retribution has come upon Russia for its August war with Georgia faster than expected in the form of a massive market collapse. The great unknown is whether this will restrain Russia's geopolitical ambitions or inflame them. Inflammation is the safer bet.
> 
> Analysts estimate that foreign and domestic investors have pulled about $35 billion U.S. out of Russian markets since the brief war. Trading on Russian exchanges was suspended for much of this week. Certainly, Russia is affected by the global market chaos, and a fall in oil prices -- Russia's mainstay export -- has added to the turmoil, but the war has certainly made matters much worse.
> 
> The crisis in investor confidence has been compounded by the Kremlin's growing propensity for what amounts to bare-faced confiscation of other peoples' assets. That has led some Russia-watchers to wonder whether Russia can be said to have been operating under a market system at all, as we in the West comprehend it.
> 
> There is a current of wisdom which holds that Russia overplayed its hand by its use of military force against Georgia. The basis for this argument is that no matter how much fear Russian threats inspire in its neighbours, Russia is an economic paper tiger, even with the very visible threat of turning off the gas supply to Eastern and Central Europe, and that it cannot sustain a viable military threat to the geopolitical order.
> 
> It has been suggested that the Russian business oligarchy would not tolerate the domestic economic chaos that would ensue from geopolitical overreach. Sooner or later domestic political change would result, thereby curtailing the ability of Russia to drive the world order in the direction of its choosing.
> 
> The problem with the argument is that it values economics over psychology. The clique of ex-KGB strongmen -- the siloviki -- that has formed around Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has proven highly impermeable to what westerners regard as the basic reality of economics and business. This really should not be surprising in the light of history.
> 
> It is catechism in the West that business and market forces drive politics (although this belief system is as susceptible to having holes shot in it as any other theology). That catechism was never accepted by the leadership of Soviet Russia, nor -- more importantly for us in this era -- was it really ever taken to heart by the Russian people as a whole, nor is it accepted by the current political leadership.
> 
> This is not to suggest that Communism is resurgent, far from it. We forget too easily that Marxism-Leninism did not make modern Russia; pre-modern Russia made Marxism-Leninism. The house that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin built was founded on the bedrock of Russian popular collectivism, intellectual imperialism and pan-Slavism and the divine right of Tsars -- roots that go as deep as the history of the Russian state.
> 
> The vital -- and dangerous -- factor is that the paramount traditions of Russian history are anti-economic. They deny the force of economics in favour of the force of the spirit, made manifest in business, politics and geopolitics by the application of physical force.
> 
> The "Russian free-market system" has only been in existence some 15 years. Western-style structures with some surface credibility only came into being after the market meltdown of 1998, but they have proven unable to resist forcible intervention to suit the interests of the rulers and the absence of the effective rule of law has become more and more noticeable.
> 
> Russia wears the mask of the market economy very thinly, and the benefits have not yet reached the mass of the Russian people in any meaningful way. Russia might develop a sudden excess of political restraint as a result of hard times. But the opposite reaction is frighteningly tempting -- to seek "saboteurs" (the current tame oligarchs would do very nicely as their financial usefulness to the ruling clique wears out) and even to attempt to return to the Soviet-era "security blanket" of economic autarchy. Soviet Russia failed economically but it took 70 years of cataclysm within and without to bring it to an end. Without Mikhail Gorbachev's interventions it might still be stumbling onward.
> 
> There is another dangerous factor. For all its failings, the Communist party had broad legitimacy and imposed internal collective discipline on the ruling circle. Nothing of the sort exists now except the personal authority of Mr. Putin. That is a very thin guarantee of order in the sort of power politics now played at the top levels in Russia.
> 
> In its circumstances, Russia would not be the first nation that overplayed its military hand in pursuit of a political chimera.
> 
> _Eric Morse is a former member of External Affairs and a member of the Royal Canadian Military Institute's Defence Studies Committee._
> 
> © The Ottawa Citizen 2008​




It’s those ant-economic and anti-democratic “*paramount traditions of Russian history*” that cause all the problems. A “free market” is possible when, and only when, there is a legal system that protects the investor from predators. That is the weakness in China’s version of market capitalism – one which they recognize and, however haltingly, are addressing. It is the weakness is all of Russia’s systems – and they are not trying to solve the problem because the oligarchs are happy with it and the people are happy with the oligarchs. That is why Russia will not be a modern, trustworthy, law abiding nation-state and why it cannot be our friend or even our competitor. It is and will remain an unpredictable, even malevolent threat to East and West.


----------



## oligarch

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Kasparov I know, and he was ****ed by Putin.  So I can see how his opinion could matter.  Depending on what angle you wanted from him.
> People who are pro-Putin and them, well yes...they wouldn't care, and would disagree.
> 
> Like Stalin...Zhukov may have given him good reviews...but a lot of other people were they alive surely wouldn't have.  And what would make those people's opinions any less valuable.
> 
> But I digress.  This documentary talk is off topic.



Didn't really understand what the point of the article above is. In terms of "confiscations", I don't remember when assets got "confiscated" by the government since 1917. The government has bought some shares in public companies, but this is not really a bad thing. I mean the United States has de facto nationalized banks and insurance companies, and there is really no problem with that, of course here we made a new word for nationalization and now call it by the wonderful word of "stewardship". Nice one! Since banks need LIQUIDITY, many western funds are moving to CASH in order to provide this liquidity for banks, and hence, are moving out of emerging markets. Therefore: net capital outflow! And since, as flanker said, there are few local investors due to the high volatility, the markets suffer. Flanker has actually already commented on the situation in the market and since I agree with him, I won't comment further for now except for the point above. 

In regard to Kasparov, he never mattered. While he may be a good chess player, he should stick to chess. His whole campaign seems to be centered around being hateful of Putin, without many ideas of his own. I've never actually heard of what he would *DO* should he come to power, except not be Putin. Nobody really listens to him in Russia, his whole campaign seems to be directed towards the west in order to recieve aid and support from them. He was never "****e" by Putin, or anyone... maybe by himself.


----------



## cameron

Flanker said:
			
		

> Neither did Russia. So what was your point?


Flanker if you were paying attention you'd see I was referring to Serbia.  Oligarch's attempt to compare Quebec with Kosovo is ridiculous to say the least.


----------



## a_majoor

For whatever reason the Pro Russia crowd seems determined to ignore history and the day to day unraveling of Russia as a society under the Rule of Law. 

The seizure of private assets has been most evident in the energy industry (and indeed this was the case even before the current economic crisis), with foreign companies either driven out of projects or subjected to various pressures to force Russian State ownership and control of the projects. Private Russian companies have also been forced out of business (think of the kangaroo court atmosphere surrounding the dissolution of Yukos (sp?))

Reporting of this and many other subjects is stifled by the oldest and crudest means possible; the murder of reporters.

Russian markets are fluctuating wildly since there is no reliable market information, people must finally believe that the kleptocrats are milking them of any profits causing unpredictable runs on the markets and economy. The Efficient Market hypothesis is demonstrated yet again.

While I feel for the people of Russia, who must bear these burdens, it is also clear they have chosen to leave the powers of the State in the hands of unreformed thugs from the former Soviet regime with the implicit promise these thugs will recreate a "Great Russia". They are now discovering the bill is being presented to them (not the former Soviet states and the EU and West), and given the endemic weakness of the Russian State, their economy and demographic underpinnings, I can only see lots of trouble ahead.


----------



## oligarch

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For whatever reason the Pro Russia crowd seems determined to ignore history and the day to day unraveling of Russia as a society under the Rule of Law.
> 
> The seizure of private assets has been most evident in the energy industry (and indeed this was the case even before the current economic crisis), with foreign companies either driven out of projects or subjected to various pressures to force Russian State ownership and control of the projects. Private Russian companies have also been forced out of business (think of the kangaroo court atmosphere surrounding the dissolution of Yukos (sp?))
> 
> Reporting of this and many other subjects is stifled by the oldest and crudest means possible; the murder of reporters.
> 
> Russian markets are fluctuating wildly since there is no reliable market information, people must finally believe that the kleptocrats are milking them of any profits causing unpredictable runs on the markets and economy. The Efficient Market hypothesis is demonstrated yet again.
> 
> While I feel for the people of Russia, who must bear these burdens, it is also clear they have chosen to leave the powers of the State in the hands of unreformed thugs from the former Soviet regime with the implicit promise these thugs will recreate a "Great Russia". They are now discovering the bill is being presented to them (not the former Soviet states and the EU and West), and given the endemic weakness of the Russian State, their economy and demographic underpinnings, I can only see lots of trouble ahead.



Could not disagree with you more. In regard to Yukos, I always find it curious how the western PR agencies, who make no secret of the fact that Khodorkovsky is a client, managed to turn the Russian verison of Kenneth Lay into a Martyr. Western companies are not forced out of anything. I'm not really sure what you are referring to, so please, if you are going to make such claims, do cite which particular case you are referring to. 

In regard to Russian markets fluctuating, please refer to above posts. By the way, your post is contradictory. If the efficient market hypothesis was 'demonstrated', the markets would not be fluctuating due to an absense of information, but would simply stay low (if the majority of people in the market believed what you beleive). However, again, the reason the Russian market is fluctuating, as all emerging markets do, is due to western funds converting to cash. Even the last two i-banks have recently changed their status in order to basically be allowed to follow the canadian model and use deposits to cover their liquidity needs.

In regard to reporting being 'stifled', have you ever observed Russian press/news? Or are you just going by someone's word? I have!

Who do you suppose is killing these journalists? I know you didn't say it was the state, but the way I understand is that you implied this. Correct me if I am wrong by all means. Maybe you would like to share this evidence you have that you are drawing your conclusions on, because I sure would love to know if my opinion has been wrong and my personal experiences with Russia have been the effect of some sort of centrally planned massive lie by the all powerful Putin.

In regard to you feeling for the people of Russia, don't. The Russian people are happy where they are right now, believe me, take it from someone who knows people in Russia and who visits the country regularly. And I don't even mean Moscow, I mean 'poor' Siberian cities. In regard to 'their economy', their economy is in much better shape right now that is the economy south of the border, who's depression we will unquestionably feel.

Anyways, I didn't really know which point to dwell on because many of the things you are claiming are simple cliches and some are just plain wrong, so I'll move on.


----------



## oligarch

cameron said:
			
		

> Flanker if you were paying attention you'd see I was referring to Serbia.  Oligarch's attempt to compare Quebec with Kosovo is ridiculous to say the least.



How so? Please articulate your opinion with inclusion of premises, hopefully connected in some sort of argumentative structure, which would tie your premises together in support of your conclusion. If you just state the conclusion with no premises it is hard to be convinced that you are presenting the correct viewpoint, even for a much more open-minded individual than myself.


----------



## tomahawk6

Oligarch it would be better to phrase your request in a more concise manner. Thx


----------



## a_majoor

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Oligarch it would be better to phrase your request in a more concise manner. Thx



Since Oligarch seems willing to ignore dead reporters on the street (who does he suppose is killing them?), I suspect that we are just wasting bandwidth here. Let's carry on with the discussion at hand.


----------



## oligarch

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since Oligarch seems willing to ignore dead reporters on the street (who does he suppose is killing them?), I suspect that we are just wasting bandwidth here. Let's carry on with the discussion at hand.



Even though your implication that ***in order to say that one party is not GUILTY UNTILL PROVEN INNOCENT I must accuse someone else of the impugned crime*** is ridden with flawed logic, I'll play your game this time.... the answer to your question would possibly have something to do with Berezovsky. 

Who do you suppose killed them? Putin? Why would he kill Journalists such as Politkovskaya but not journalists such as Evgenyi Kiselev, who is hosting an absurdly anti-Putin, pro-Khodorkovsky show on RTVi from his comfy studio in Moscow? Every single show starts with a countdown untill the end of Khodorkovsky's prison term in an act of protest, and while Putin was still the elected president, untill the end of his term. Now how is this man able to host such a show in a country with no free speech?

http://vlast.rtvi.com/


----------



## 1feral1

oligarch said:
			
		

> Even though your implication that ***in order to say that one party is not GUILTY UNTILL PROVEN INNOCENT I must accuse someone else of the impugned crime*** is ridden with flawed logic, I'll play your game this time.... the answer to your question would possibly have something to do with Berezovsky.
> 
> Who do you suppose killed them? Putin? Why would he kill Journalists such as Politkovskaya but not journalists such as Evgenyi Kiselev, who is hosting an absurdly anti-Putin, pro-Khodorkovsky show on RTVi from his comfy studio in Moscow? Every single show starts with a countdown untill the end of Khodorkovsky's prison term in an act of protest, and while Putin was still the elected president, untill the end of his term. Now how is this man able to host such a show in a country with no free speech?
> 
> http://vlast.rtvi.com/



Dear Sir, your posts are really confusing me.

In lay terms what exactly are you trying to tell us on here?

Seems your agenda is one sided. If I am incorrect, please explain.

Please respond.

Thanking you in advance,

A happy, healthy, and team playing OWDU.


----------



## cameron

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since Oligarch seems willing to ignore dead reporters on the street (who does he suppose is killing them?), I suspect that we are just wasting bandwidth here. Let's carry on with the discussion at hand.



I couldn't agree more, I think it's time we get back to reality.


----------



## tdr_aust

It still appears to be a case of continuing the cat and mouse game..

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Georgia/10247152.html


> Georgia shoots Russia drone near South Ossetia
> Agencies
> Published: September 23, 2008, 12:42
> 
> Tblisi: Georgia said on Tuesday it had shot down a small Russian reconnaissance drone over Georgian territory just south of the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
> 
> The drone was downed on Monday morning near the town of Gori, some 30 km (20 miles) from the de facto border with South Ossetia, said Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili. There was no immediate response from the Russian authorities.


----------



## tdr_aust

The economic issue for Russia are simply described in teh following link.
It is too long to post so I have only added the first piece.
LINK: http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/business/10247267.html



> Russia's coming financial crash
> By Anders Aslund, Project Syndicate, 2008, Special to Gulf News
> Published: September 24, 2008, 00:07
> 
> 
> Today, the whole world is being hit by a tremendous financial crisis, but Russia is facing a perfect storm. The Russian stock market is in free fall, plummeting by 60 per cent since May 19, a loss of $900 billion. And the plunge is accelerating. As a result, Russia's economic growth is likely to fall sharply and suddenly.
> 
> One problem is that, after a long period of fiscal prudence, Russia's government has shown extraordinary ineptitude. Russia has enjoyed average annual economic growth of 7 per cent since 1999. With huge current-account and budget surpluses, it had accumulated international reserves of $600 billion by July. Its public debt was almost eliminated. But the open economy that has bred Russia's economic success requires the maintenance of sensible policies to succeed.
> 
> The initial American financial crisis barely touched Russia, but the global economic slowdown brought about a decline in oil and other commodity prices by more than one-third since July, which was a big blow. All the other hits, however, have been self-inflicted. The Russian financial crisis is high drama, best described as a tragedy in five acts.
> 
> On July 24, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin initiated the first act by fiercely attacking, without evidence, the timid owner of the giant coal and steel company Mechel for price-gouging and tax evasion. In three days, Mechel's shares lost half their value, triggering the Russian stock market's decline.
> 
> Then, on August 8, Putin launched the second act of this Russian tragedy, his long-planned attack on Georgia. Shockingly, Russia argued that it had the right to attack a country that harboured people to whom it had just issued passports, scaring all countries with Russian minorities. By recognising the "independence" of the two occupied territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia turned the whole world against it.
> 
> Anders Aslund, a senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is the author of Russia's Capitalist Revolution: Why Market Reform Succeeded and Democracy Failed.



The author describes 5 acts/phases to the econimic problem..

Anyway entertaining...


----------



## oligarch

tdr_aust said:
			
		

> The economic issue for Russia are simply described in teh following link.
> It is too long to post so I have only added the first piece.
> LINK: http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/business/10247267.html
> 
> The author describes 5 acts/phases to the econimic problem..
> 
> Anyway entertaining...



This is a terrible way to look at the non-existant crisis on the Russian market. As you can see, the markets in Russia are again in decent shape, while the US bailouts are failing. The falling markets are due to speculative capital which always flees emerging markets in times of liquidity troubles. Anyways, this has already been explained on here numerous times. The way things are looking now, I might have to move to Russia in order to get a job in finance nowadays, at least they still have investment banks over there. =)

Now for something REALLY entertaining, Russian war games: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyow0fxB1BM


----------



## a_majoor

Now the West has to undo the damage of the last decade of feeding the delusions of Vladimir Putin and the rest of the Russian elite

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121876037443642795.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries



> *How the West Fueled Putin's Sense of Impunity*
> By GARRY KASPAROV
> 
> 
> Russia's invasion of Georgia reminded me of a conversation I had three years ago in Moscow with a high-ranking European Union official. Russia was much freer then, but President Vladimir Putin's onslaught against democratic rights was already underway.
> 
> "What would it take," I asked, "for Europe to stop treating Putin like a democrat? If all opposition parties are banned? Or what if they started shooting people in the street?" The official shrugged and replied that even in such cases, there would be little the EU could do. He added: "Staying engaged will always be the best hope for the people of both Europe and Russia."
> 
> The citizens of Georgia would likely disagree. Russia's invasion was the direct result of nearly a decade of Western helplessness and delusion. Inexperienced and cautious in the international arena at the start of his reign in 2000, Mr. Putin soon learned he could get away with anything without repercussions from the EU or America.
> 
> Russia reverted to a KGB dictatorship while Mr. Putin was treated as an equal at G-8 summits. Italy's Silvio Berlusconi and Germany's Gerhardt Schroeder became Kremlin business partners. Mr. Putin discovered democratic credentials could be bought and sold just like everything else. The final confirmation was the acceptance of Dmitry Medvedev in the G-8, and on the world stage. The leaders of the Free World welcomed Mr. Putin's puppet, who had been anointed in blatantly faked elections.
> 
> On Tuesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy sprinted to Moscow to broker a ceasefire agreement. He was allowed to go through the motions, perhaps as a reward for his congratulatory phone call to Mr. Putin after our December parliamentary "elections." But just a few months ago Mr. Sarkozy was in Moscow as a supplicant, lobbying for Renault. How much credibility does he really have in Mr. Putin's eyes?
> 
> In reality, Mr. Sarkozy is attempting to remedy a crisis he helped bring about. Last April, France opposed the American push to fast-track Georgia's North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership. This was one of many missed opportunities that collectively built up Mr. Putin's sense of impunity. In this way the G-7 nations aided and abetted the Kremlin's ambitions.
> 
> Georgia blundered into a trap, although its imprudent aggression in South Ossetia was overshadowed by Mr. Putin's desire to play the strongman. Russia seized the chance to go on the offensive in Georgian territory while playing the victim/hero. Mr. Putin has long been eager to punish Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for his lack of respect both for Georgia's old master Russia, and for Mr. Putin personally. (Popular rumor has it that the Georgian president once mocked his peer as "Lilli-Putin.")
> 
> Although Mr. Saakashvili could hardly be called a model democrat, his embrace of Europe and the West is considered a very bad example by the Kremlin. The administrations of the Georgian breakaway areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are stocked, top to bottom, with bureaucrats from the Russian security services.
> 
> Throughout the conflict, the Kremlin-choreographed message in the Russian media has been one of hysteria. The news presents Russia as surrounded by enemies on all sides, near and far, and the military intervention in Georgia as essential to protect the lives and interests of Russians. It is also often spoken of as just the first step, with enclaves in Ukraine next on the menu. Attack dogs like Russian nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky are used to test and whip up public opinion. Kremlin-sponsored ultranationalist ideologue Alexander Dugin went on the radio to say Russian forces "should not stop until they are stopped." The damage done by such rhetoric is very slow to heal.
> 
> The conflict also threatens to poison Russia's relationship with Europe and America for years to come. Can such a belligerent state be trusted as the guarantor of Europe's energy supply? Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been derided for his strong stance against Mr. Putin, including a proposal to kick Russia out of the G-8. Will his critics now admit that the man they called an antiquated cold warrior was right all along?
> 
> The conventional wisdom of Russia's "invulnerability" serves as an excuse for inaction. President Bush's belatedly toughened language is welcome, but actual sanctions must now be considered. The Kremlin's ruling clique has vital interests -- i.e. assets -- abroad and those interests are vulnerable.
> 
> The blood of those killed in this conflict is on the hands of radical nationalists, thoughtless politicians, opportunistic oligarchs and the leaders of the Free World who value gas and oil more than principles. More lives will be lost unless strong moral lines are drawn to reinforce the shattered lines of the map.
> 
> Mr. Kasparov, leader of The Other Russia coalition, is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal.


----------



## oligarch

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Now the West has to undo the damage of the last decade of feeding the delusions of Vladimir Putin and the rest of the Russian elite
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121876037443642795.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries



Garry Kasparov, and apparently Thucydides, forgot who the president of Russia is. 

President of Russia: http://kremlin.ru/eng/articles/D_Medvedev.shtml


----------



## aesop081

oligarch said:
			
		

> Garry Kasparov, and apparently Thucydides, forgot who the president of Russia is.
> 
> President of Russia: http://kremlin.ru/eng/articles/D_Medvedev.shtml



Puttin runs Russia, no one else.


----------



## JackD

Hello; Some further implications and something to watch in the coming months: Ukraine-Russia tensions rise in Crimea
Residents of Sevastopol and the rest of the Crimean Peninsula have close ties to Moscow, and analysts say Ukraine could break apart if leaders push Russia away.
By Megan K. Stack
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 28, 2008

SEVASTOPOL, UKRAINE — Skimming the Black Sea aboard a military motorboat, Russian navy spokesman Igor Dygalo turned to an entourage of television cameras. "The dirty ones, those are the Ukrainian ships," he said with a light smirk. "The clean ones are Russian."

Against a backdrop of simmering tensions, Dygalo led journalists on an unusual wide-ranging visit to Russia's Black Sea Fleet this month, complete with unprecedented access to the flagship Moskva, a guided missile cruiser. 

The public relations tour came just as the strategically crucial Russian base here finds itself at the epicenter of an escalating political clash. 

Alarmed by Russia's recent war in Georgia, the Ukrainian government has imposed new restrictions on the Russian ships' movements, and suggested raising the rent for the fleet.

The Ukrainian president has called the surrounding Crimean Peninsula -- historically a part of Russia and still home to a majority Russian population -- the most dangerous spot in the country because of separatist sentiment.

Russia has responded with icy vows to beef up its military forces in the Black Sea, eagerly showing off to reporters the firepower aboard vessels that were used to blockade Georgia -- and to remind the world of the deep Russian roots in this restive Ukrainian region.

"The military budget will be revisited so that we can exploit these ships better and build new ships," said Dygalo, aboard the Moskva. "The attitude toward the international situation has changed, of course. We understand quite well that Russia came under pressure."

Tensions have been climbing in this sleepy port since the fighting in Georgia brought into sharp focus two clashing interests: Russia's determination to take on a greater role in the former Soviet states, and the Ukrainian government's determination to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The war in Georgia pitted a Western-friendly government against Moscow; meanwhile, Ukraine is painfully divided in loyalties to the West and Russia.

Crimea is Russian-friendly turf. Former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave the peninsula to Ukraine back when the shared flag made the distinction between the two countries relatively unimportant. 

Many residents of Crimea say they are Russian first, Ukrainian second. They vehemently oppose Ukraine's bid to join NATO, bristle over anti-Moscow rhetoric from national leaders and say they are embittered by government efforts to infuse Crimea with Ukrainian language and culture. 

Because of Crimea's staunch pro-Russia sentiments, analysts warn that the country could break apart if politicians in Kiev continue their push toward NATO and the West.

"Most threats from Ukraine don't come from outside, but from inside," said Vladimir Kornilov, a political scientist in Kiev. "Ukraine is living on its own volcano."

Critics accuse the Black Sea Fleet of deliberately exacerbating the tension.

"All the anti-Ukrainian, pro-Russia blocs are closely tied to the Black Sea Fleet," said Miroslav Mamchak, the snowy-haired chief of a group called the Ukrainian Community of Sevastopol. "They struggle against the Ukrainian language. They support the separatists."

Mamchak is a rare voice of Ukrainian nationalism here. He says that he has received death threats, and that Russian loyalists plastered the town with his picture under the slogan, "I'm a traitor to Russia." 

Black Sea Fleet officials deny any political tampering. But many Ukrainians worry that Moscow is stealthily working to stir up separatist sentiment. There have been reports that Russia has quietly begun to grant passports to some residents; Russian officials say it's not true.

Powerful Moscow Mayor Yuri M. Luzhkov, who has been banned from Ukraine for his rhetoric on Crimea, has said the region "doesn't belong" to Ukraine.

Moscow and Sevastopol have long had close ties, and the Moscow city government has built schools and apartments in the Ukrainian city. One opulent school is decorated with stained glass depictions of Moscow, and a university is affiliated with Moscow State University.

Pro-Moscow residents regard Mamchak's political organization as part of a Kiev-backed effort at "ethnocide." 

Many people here complain about the mandatory teaching of the Ukrainian language in schools and its use in the media and for government paperwork. Pro-Russia leaders also accuse the Ukrainian government of slowly moving people into the region from other parts of the country and installing pro-Kiev leaders in the city government. 

"Faster, faster, faster to make everybody a Ukrainian," said Raisa Telyatnikova, head of the Russian Community of Sevastopol. "They want to completely distance us from our historical motherland, Russia, and turn it into an alien state. . . . They want to change the ethnic composition and break the spirit of Sevastopol."

With its clusters of war memorials and Soviet awards from Vladimir I. Lenin still adorning the walls of the town hall, today's Sevastopol has the feel of a living monument to the U.S.S.R., or at least to the power of Moscow. Russian flags flutter throughout the city, a statue of Catherine the Great looms on the main street and Russian is heard on most every corner. Bookstores stock a paltry number of Ukrainian titles. "It's only the language of state business," one bookseller said with a shrug.

Despite the fleet's warm ties with the locals, politicians in Kiev have made it plain that the Russian navy could be asked to leave after its lease expires in 2017.

Russia, however, has other ideas. The fleet's presence here is woven into history, Russian military officials say. The ships will stay put, and multiply, they have said repeatedly. 

"Nothing prevents us from building up our forces here in Ukrainian territory," said Rear Adm. Andrei Baranov, the fleet's deputy chief of staff. "The fleet will be renovated. . . . New ships will be arriving here."

On the grounds of St. Nicholas the Sanctifier Church, the bones of an estimated 60,000 Russian fighters, casualties of the Crimean War in the 19th century and World War II, lie in a vast, quiet cemetery that rolls downhill toward the sea. On the steps of the sanctuary, priests spoke of their emotional ties to generations of sailors and of their unwillingness to hoist a Ukrainian flag. 

In a scene that seemed cut from tsarist times, Russian navy officials and Orthodox priests sat at a long table, knocking back shots of vodka and proclaiming emotional toasts.

"The West shuddered 150 years ago when Russia showed its sword, and the Black Sea turned red with blood," said Igor Bebin, a pink-robed priest who rose to his feet, vodka glass held high. 

"That was the supreme truth. And the truth is that now, for the first time, the sword of Russia is shining again. Be afraid of the sword."

The Russians cheered, and took a deep drink.

megan.stack@latimes.com  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sevastopol28-2008sep28,0,4902782,print.story


----------



## oligarch

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Puttin runs Russia, no one else.



Says someone who's never been there.


----------



## oligarch

JackD said:
			
		

> "The dirty ones, those are the Ukrainian ships," he said with a light smirk. "The clean ones are Russian."



LAWL... funny because its true. But seriously, the Big Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership was renewed for another 10 years, with the treaty, Moscow recognizes Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity, and accepts Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea and Sevastopol. Further, Russia doesn't need Crimea to seperate... we can already enter Crimea with our Russian passports and can freely vacation there. It's a really nice place and I'm hoping to drop by next summer!


----------



## aesop081

oligarch said:
			
		

> Says someone who's never been there.



How did you establish i have not been there ?

Elighten me, please ?


----------



## 1feral1

oligarch said:
			
		

> Says someone who's never been there.



Dear Mr Oligarch,

I've pretty much stayed off this thread, and the one SIMPLE question I asked you earlier, well never got an answer. I was not suprised.

So here is yet another SIMPLE question.

Its so obvious that you seem to have an intense passion for Russia, seeming to believe they can do no wrong, and are superior to all around them, yet I wonder why you choose to stay in Canada if you are so much in love with the perfect Russian world?

Care to respond, or will your arrogance shine through yet again.

I do hope you can find the time in such a busy world to POLITELY respond.

Thanking you in advance,

OWDU


----------



## DBA

If the US economy contracts by 80% the per capita GDP will be equal to that of Russia. During the depression period of 1929-33 unemployment rose from 3 to 25 percent as the nation's output fell over 25 percent and prices over 30 percent, in what has been called the Great Contraction. Adjusting spending to reflect less money and so a smaller budget might be a big change but most of the world spends less anyway. Borrowing money to fuel growth is good unless you get carried away and then the crunch comes and you regress. Borrowing money to fuel consumption is allways folly - there is no growth to offset future repayments and the crunch comes a lot faster as a result.

The US borrowed far too much to fuel both growth and consumption and now a crunch has come. How large and how long it will last is hard to tell at the moment and depends on how much the rest of the world did the same. So far growth has slowed but not gone negative but recent credit market problems seem to indicate negative growth may be coming.


----------



## oligarch

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Dear Mr Oligarch,
> 
> I've pretty much stayed off this thread, and the one SIMPLE question I asked you earlier, well never got an answer. I was not suprised.
> 
> So here is yet another SIMPLE question.
> 
> Its so obvious that you seem to have an intense passion for Russia, seeming to believe they can do no wrong, and are superior to all around them, yet I wonder why you choose to stay in Canada if you are so much in love with the perfect Russian world?
> 
> Care to respond, or will your arrogance shine through yet again.
> 
> I do hope you can find the time in such a busy world to POLITELY respond.
> 
> Thanking you in advance,
> 
> OWDU



You're welcome. I didn't answer your last question because your question was "your agenda seems to be one sided". I am surprised that you are surprised that my agenda is one sided, since pretty much everyone involved in a debate will have a one sided agenda. I can say that about many on this board supporting "the other side", like yourself. So I didn't feel the need to respond to this absurd assumption that a "one sided" agenda is somehow a wrong one, and thought it would be better for all if I just moved on. 

Your second assumption, that I must live in Russia because I support the actions of this Russian government is not proper argument once again. It seems you are saying that I must live in the country who's government I support, and vice versa. What if I move to Russia and there is a change in government where, god forbid, Kasparov overthrows Putin by some undemocratic [insert colour here] revolution? Must I find another country to live in once again? Belarus? It seems to me that you are supporting your government to justify you living here. Isn't disagreement at the essence of democracy? Many on here claim that Russia is undemocratic, but when I excercise my democratic right as a Canadian to voice an opinion that's not commonplace I am bombarded by personal attacks, so where is the democracy here? 

If you could not understand what I said, you could try reading the post again very carefully. I'm sure you will be able to figure it out. If you really can't and need help, you couldn't contacted me by PM and I would have been glad to write a simpler worded statement for you. However, I saw an agenda in your ... ehm... "question", and didn't feel the need to respond.

I am not arrogant by any means. If I was arrogant I would just be above such internet boards and I would not even think to try to convince people on here of anything. But when I go on this board and see things that are just plain wrong, I tend to want to state otherwise. Wouldn't anyone?

In regard to my assumption that CND Aviator has never been to Russia, I just had a feeling. However, I should not have done so, and my apologies are put forth if I came accross as offensive. Aviator, I didn't mean to sound arrogant, I just got a little agitated from hearing this unfounded point and I should've controlled my emotions better. I will try to keep the discussion focused on the argument at hand rather than let it get personal in the future. Its just that there has been so many personal attacks on me that I could not resist the temptation. Let me do this properly. Why do you think Putin is still running things?  Perhaps he still has some power, seeing as he is Prime Minister, but would you not agree that he is running different things than before? And did you mean to imply that there is something wrong with Putin continuing to run "some" things after a presidential term in the form of a Prime Minister?  Is it hence, your assertion, that after a presidential term an individual must never be in politics again?

Cheers !!!


----------



## The Bread Guy

oligarch said:
			
		

> the Big Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership was renewed for another 10 years, with the treaty, Moscow recognizes Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity, and accepts Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea and Sevastopol.



Comforting, just like the old Article 72:  "Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR"....  and yes, I know Russia isn't the USSR.


----------



## oligarch

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Comforting, just like the old Article 72:  "Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR"....  and yes, I know Russia isn't the USSR.



Yes, so why wasn't South Ossetia and Abkhazia allowed to freely secede from the USSR?

On the issue of South Ossetia:



> PACE recognizes ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia
> 
> Experts were shocked at the state of Tskhinvali
> 
> Last week, a mission of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) studied the history of the conflict in the Caucasus. Delegates visited Tbilisi and Tskhinvali and later shared their impressions at a press conference attended by local and Western journalists in the Georgian capital.
> 
> Head of the PACE mission Luke Van den Brande said he was shaken and even shocked by what he saw a ruined Tskhinvali and burned Ossetian and Georgian villages.
> 
> "There are no words to justify what happened," Van den Brande said. "However, we can’t refer to the events in Tskhinvali as a genocide. We need to be careful when using this word. What most probably went on was ethnic cleansing."
> 
> However, KP consulted several dictionaries and discovered that a genocide is nothing more than "a form of ethnic cleansing." As a result, it seems that there is no contradiction between the the two terms. Of course, it's possible that PACE doesn't trust Russian dictionaries. Everything will be clear after PACE's autumn session when Van den Brande introduces his official report.
> 
> At around the same time, the Museum of Russian Aggression will open in the Georgian town of Gori. Interestingly, the museum will be located on the second floor of the Stalin Museum. The Soviet leader certainly wouldn't have imagined such a thing possible. Experts from the Baltics and Poland will help the Georgians create the museum. And it's a well-known fact how cunningly these nations are able to bend history.
> 
> On this note, it should be mentioned that another museum has operated in Tbilisi for years now — the Museum of Soviet Occupation. It isn't especially popular among the mainstream population, but a mandatory stop for schoolchildren and Western journalists. The rumor goes that Saakashvili was behind the founding of the museum.
> 
> The icing on the cake, however, which sums up the issue quite well, was the UK Ambassador to Russia Tony Brenton’s remark yesterday openly terming Georgia's aggression against South Ossetia a "huge mistake."



http://www.kp.ru/daily/24171.5/383026/


----------



## Blackadder1916

If you are going to use a news article from a source of questionable impartiality (to many on this means), it might be best to relate it to what the PACE delegation actually reported.

Here are some extracts (emphasis added are mine) from the memorandum prepared by Mr Luc Van den Brande (Belgium, EPP/CD), Chairperson of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau of the Assembly.  The initial part of the memorandum (which I've redacted) deals with the mechanics of the committee's visit and their discussion about the causes of the outbreak of the war, which mostly boils down to "he said, he said".  There is, however, enough recrimination to go around.

The situation on the ground in Russia and Georgia in the context of the war between those countries
http://assembly.coe.int//Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc08/edoc11720add2.htm


> The immediate aftermath of the war
> 
> *12.       During our talks with the Russian authorities, the delegation made it clear that the unilateral recognition by the Russian Federation of the self-proclaimed independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia violated the principle of the territorial integrity of Georgia and is in contravention of international law and the obligations of the Russian Federation as a member state of the Council of Europe. *
> 
> 13.       The Russian authorities stressed that a decision not to recognise the self-proclaimed independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia would have led to strong reactions in the Northern Caucasus republics which would have had a potential destabilising effect on this volatile region of the Russian Federation. Moreover, while agreeing that Kosovo and South Ossetia are completely different and incomparable cases, the Russian authorities stressed that the recognition of Kosovo by several European countries, in their opinion, had opened a Pandora’s Box in this respect.
> 
> 14.       The delegation stressed the need for all parties to fully implement the provisions of the Sarkozy cease-fire agreement which was signed by both Presidents Medvedev and Saakashvili, especially with regard to the withdrawal of troops.
> 
> 15.       The delegation is seriously concerned about the issue of withdrawal of Russian troops to their pre-war positions and strengths. According to the recent negotiations between Presidents Sarkozy and Medvedev, Russian troop withdrawal from the so-called “buffer zone” is foreseen to have been completed on 1 October, after the arrival of EU monitors, although the delegation received indications that the withdrawal may only start at 10 October. * However, the Russian authorities informed us that the presence of Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer part of the cease-fire agreement as the Russian authorities have recognised the independence of these two regions. According to the Russian authorities, troop presence in those two regions will now be governed by bilateral agreements. This is a matter of serious concern to the delegation, as this would be in clear violation of the cease-fire agreement.*
> 
> 16.       The recognition by Russia of the independence of these two regions also complicates the provision of humanitarian aid as well as monitoring of the implementation of the cease-fire agreement by independent monitors. International organisations are refused entry to South Ossetia via Georgia proper, while EU and OSCE monitors are prevented from entering South Ossetia and Abkhazia at all.
> 
> 17.       Several interlocutors informed the delegation they feared that various forms of provocation could be used to justify a prolonged presence of Russian troops in the “buffer zone”, which could lead to increased tensions.
> 
> Humanitarian and Human Rights concerns
> 
> 18.       *The visit to the villages in the “buffer zone” and South Ossetia made clear the extent of the human rights violations in these areas. The delegation saw evidence of large-scale looting and destruction of property and heard accounts of assaults and robberies. According to the Georgian villagers the delegation spoke to, the looting and destruction of houses started mostly after the cease-fire agreement was signed on 12 August and is continuing unabated to this day. While the looting, assaults and destruction of property take place mostly during the night, we were informed that they also occur during the day.*
> 
> 19.       When asked, the Georgian villagers indicated that these crimes were committed by South Ossetian irregular troops and gangs but also by so-called volunteers from the Northern Caucasus. *Russian troops were not reported to have been involved in the looting and burning themselves, but allegedly had done nothing to stop these practices, often turning a blind eye. These accounts were confirmed by independent reports from Russian human rights organisations who had been present in South Ossetia both during and after the outbreak of hostilities.*
> 
> 20.       *The delegation was informed by international humanitarian and relief organisations, as well as human rights organisations and the diplomatic community in Georgia, about systematic acts of ethnic cleansing of Georgian villages in South Ossetia by South Ossetian irregular troops and gangs. This pattern seemed to be confirmed by the visit of the delegation to the Georgian village of Ksuisi in South Ossetia, which had been completely looted and virtually destroyed. The delegation received reports that, in some cases, entire villages have been bulldozed over and razed. *
> 
> 21.       The delegation is seriously concerned about these reports of ethnic cleansing, as well as of the looting and destruction of property it saw during its visit. *The delegation stressed that the Russian Federation, under international law, bears full responsibility for any crimes and human rights violations committed on the territories that are under its effective control.*
> 
> 22.       *During our visit to Tskhinvali, the delegation saw several residential areas, as well as public buildings, that had been completely destroyed by indiscriminate shelling by Georgian troops in the initial phases of the war, as well as in the course of subsequent battles between Georgian and Russian troops over the city. The delegation stressed that the use of indiscriminate force and weapons in civilian areas can be considered a war crime and called for a full investigation in order to establish the facts in this respect.*
> 
> 23.       The number of deaths as a result of the conflict is a matter of controversy, although all sides agree that the initial high numbers were inflated. Independent reports put the total number of deaths at between 300 and 400, including the military. However, it should be stressed that even one victim is a victim too many.
> 
> 24.       In the initial phases of the conflict, around 35.000 to 40.000 South Ossetian refugees were recorded in North Ossetia. All interlocutors highlighted the efficient manner in which this refugee stream was managed by the Russian authorities. Most of these refugees have now returned to their place of residence, while an estimated 2.000 remain in North Ossetia with their families.
> 
> 25.       According to different sources, the conflict initially led to 130.000 IDPs in Georgia, of which 60.000 currently remain. Another 29.000 are expected to be able to return when Russian troops have withdrawn from the so-called “buffer zone” and security for the population has been re-established. A total of 31.000 IDPs (25.000 from South Ossetia and 6.000 from Abkhazia) are considered to be “permanently” unable to return to their original place of residence. These numbers should be seen in the context of the approximately 300.000 already existing IDPs from these areas as a result of the 1992 conflict.
> 
> 26.       The humanitarian situation is further exacerbated by the uncertainty regarding the “buffer zone”. The current serious security vacuum needs to be urgently addressed but there seem to be conflicting views regarding the role of the EU Monitors and Georgian police forces. While the EU is sending strictly civilian monitors to observe the security situation, and considers it to be the role of the Georgian law enforcement forces to provide security to the population in that area, the Russian authorities seem to be of the view that civilian protection will be also the responsibility of the EU Monitors and have reservations about the idea of armed Georgian police in this area. This issue needs to be urgently resolved to avoid an even further decline of security in this area.
> 
> Conclusions
> 
> 27.       The delegation is extremely concerned that two member states of the Council of Europe, who committed themselves to resolve all conflicts, including old ones, by peaceful means, did not live up to this commitment. This can not be tolerated and *both countries share responsibilities for escalating this conflict into war.* Taking into account the complexity of the situation, the diametrically opposed views of the parties in the conflict, the mutually exclusive national public discourses, the negation by both states of any share of responsibility, as well as the short time that the delegation had at its disposal, it is impossible for the delegation to establish all the facts regarding the exact sequence of events on 7 and 8 August, as well as the circumstances that led to them, which are necessary to draw precise conclusions. The exact facts, as well as the precise responsibility of each of the parties in this conflict, including the outbreak of the war, can only be properly established in the framework of a thorough and independent international investigation as suggested in point 11 in this memorandum. Truth is a prerequisite for reconciliation. This is of utmost importance as similar conflicts exist in other parts of this geographical region and it must be made clear that, for the Council of Europe or its Assembly, it can not be acceptable that such conflicts escalate into war.
> 
> 28.       *It is clear that both sides did not do enough to prevent the war and that grave human rights violations were committed and continue to be committed up to this day.* There can be no impunity for such violations and for alleged ethnic cleansing. The Council of Europe has an important role to play in this respect. All alleged human rights violations should be investigated and perpetrators held to account before the courts. In this respect, *it is clear that the Russian Federation bears full responsibility for the protection of civilians in the territories that are under its effective control and therefore for the crimes and human rights violations committed against them. * The use of indiscriminate force and weapons by both Georgian and Russian troops in civilian areas can be considered war crimes that need to be fully investigated.
> 
> 29.        While it is beyond the scope of this memorandum to discuss the possible action the Assembly should take, it is clear that it can not be business as usual. At the same time, there is a need to maintain the dialogue with, and between, both countries in the conflict.
> 
> 30.       It is my firm conviction that the Assembly has an important role to play in resolving the current situation. Following the debate in the Assembly, the Bureau might consider sending a follow-up mission to the region, possibly in different format and composition, in the not too distant future.



And this from a previous mission report.

http://assembly.coe.int//Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc08/edoc11720.htm


> 7.      * Whatever the circumstances that led to the armed intervention in the South–Ossetian region, nothing can justify the disproportionate military force used by the Russian Federation in response*. This disproportionate use of force is incompatible with the principles and role of peace keeping and made Russia a de facto party in the conflict. Furthermore, the military action by Russian troops far outside the conflict zone – including the bombing of Poti, a major Georgian harbour situated several hundreds of kilometres from South Ossetia – and the occupation of a significant part of Georgia’s territory by the Russian federation, in clear violation of Georgia’s territorial integrity, is both unacceptable and unjustifiable.
> 
> 8.       In this context, we are especially concerned by the wanton destruction of the Georgian economic infrastructure by the Russian military. During our stay, Russian troops reoccupied Poti and destroyed a large part of its harbour infrastructure, including in the civilian port. Moreover, we received credible reports from members of the international community that train lines and bridges were being mined or destroyed and that attacks had taken place against the oil pipeline that runs from Azerbaijan to Turkey through Georgia (the BTC pipeline).
> 
> 9.       *There is no military justification for the destruction of the economic infrastructure of Georgia. Taken into account the openly admitted goal of the Russian authorities to change the democratically elected regime in Tbilisi, it can only be seen as a direct attack against Georgia’s sovereignty, in contradiction of international norms and principles and clearly in violation of Russia’s commitments to the Council of Europe*.


----------



## oligarch

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> If you are going to use a news article from a source of questionable impartiality (to many on this means), it might be best to relate it to what the PACE delegation actually reported.



I posted an article and the source, if you want to do your own research, you have all the resources you need. I just used google news scanner for "South Ossetia, PACE". 

If everyone had to do a lot of analysis on news from a source of questionable impartiality, then I condend that many would have to redraft their post of BBC and CNN articles.
For more on media impartiality, see this book: http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499


----------



## The Bread Guy

Looking north a bit....

*North Ossetia police chief shot dead*
RIA Novosti, 1 Oct 08
Article link


> The head of the criminal investigation department in Russia's Caucasus republic of North Ossetia has been shot dead, the republic's investigations committee said on Wednesday.  The statement said unknown assailants opened fire on police chief Cheldiyev's car on Wednesday morning on the outskirts of the republic's capital, Vladikavkaz.  His son was also killed in the attack.  No further details are currently available.




*Ringleader of ''CID of MIA of North Ossetia'' eliminated*
Kavkazcenter.com (known to post Chechen propaganda), 1 Oct 08
Article link


> The ringleader of "Criminal Investigation Department of North Ossetia's Ministry of Internal Affairs" Cheldiyev and his have been eliminated in Vladikavkaz, sources reported on Wednesday.  Ringleader's car has come under fire from automatic weapons on the outskirts of Vladikavkaz.  The scene of attack is sealed off within a radius of several kilometers, local sources said.  After a while, burned car was found in which, presumably, were the saboteurs.  According to official of the puppet gang of "Ministry of Internal Affairs", a "Zhiguli" car of 9th model, was found in the same area where a successful operation to eliminate the ringleader of "CID" had been conducted.  Local sources reported that Cheldiyev was transferred from a gang of "UBOP (Department for Combating Organized Crime)" about two months ago, where he led one of the bloodiest terrorist groups.  It is possible that eliminated criminal has been related to the so-called "death squads", which involved in abductions and killings of residents of the Province of Ghalghaycho (Ingushetia) of the Caucasus Emirate ....



More on link


----------



## GAP

Someone is cleaning house.....


----------



## The Bread Guy

....or getting a bit of payback?


----------



## JackD

this seems to be the place to watch now - especially with the break-up of the col lition governing the Ukraine right now:

CRIMEAN POWER STRUGGLE
Russia and Ukraine Jockey in the Black Sea
By Walter Mayr

The naval fleets of Russia and Ukraine share the port at Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula. Some in Russia would like the Ukrainian city to return to the Russian fold. Many fear that a spark here could quickly lead to a larger conflagration.

It is early morning deep inside the missile cruiser Moskva, where the heat and the stench of diesel fuel are the most oppressive, as the lower ranks emerge from their five-bed cabins. Below decks, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet feels like a prison tract with cell walls made of gray-painted steel.

The sailors march up the stairs for morning roll call. At 7:43 a.m. sharp, officers and seamen stand at attention on the upper deck, in rows three deep, between cigar-shaped missile shafts and launching pads for anti-aircraft missiles, while the division commander inspects the formation. "We salute the Comrade Rear Admiral," the troops shout. The commanding officer replies: "At ease."

Here on Quay 14 in Sevastopol's Holland Harbor, the Russian navy is ready for battle once again, at least judging by what Rear Admiral Andrei Baranov, the deputy commander of the Russian Black Sea fleet, has to say. The recent operation in Georgian waters was a brief act of "self-defense," says Baranov, adding that additional combat missions are not on the agenda at this point. Nevertheless, he is quick to add, the Black Sea has undoubtedly become a "hot spot", and "we are, of course, obligated to protect our citizens in case of emergency."

The rear admiral chooses precisely the same words Moscow used to justify its August combat operations in Georgia. According to the Russians, citizens in the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, who had been issued Russian passports beforehand, required "protection" against Georgian aggression. But in the port city of Sevastopol, on Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, the situation is more complex. Close to three-quarters of the city's residents and about half of the Crimean population are ethnic Russians, but most are Ukrainian citizens.

Facilitating Naturalization 

Rumors have been swirling in the Crimea that Russian passports are being issued on a grand scale. The chairwoman of the "Russian Community" in Sevastopol thinks there could be as many as 50,000 Russian citizens in the city, a figure that officials at the Russian consulate deny. Last Monday, the upper house of the Russian parliament complicated matters even further when it adopted legislation facilitating the naturalization of ethnic Russian citizens of other countries, of which there are up to eight million in Ukraine alone.

Sevastopol, a naval base for 14,000 members of the Russian Black Sea fleet, is already a Moscow enclave of sorts, a sharp thorn in the side of Ukraine, an independent country since 1991. The city became Russian under Czarina Catherine II, and it remained that way until Soviet Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev, in the context of an exchange of territory, awarded the entire Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954 as a "gift." When the Black Sea fleet was split apart in 1997, Sevastopol became home to both a Russian and a Ukrainian naval unit. The Russian lease expires in May 2017.

Tension between the two countries has been high, though speculation that the Russian-Ukraine treaty on friendship -- which guarantees the current borders between the two countries and peaceful coexistence -- proved unfounded. The treaty was extended for another 10 years this week.

In the run up to the decision, however, many had thought new conditions would be introduced into the pact or that the treaty would be cancelled altogether. "If we lose Sevastopol, we lose the entire Caucasus," said Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who wants the treaty jettisoned and the port city brought back into the Russian fold. As a mouthpiece of militancy and a sponsor of the Russian diaspora in the Crimea, Luzhkov has served as the Kremlin's watchdog for years. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, on the other hand, weakened by the renewed collapse of his governing coalition, has made it clear that he prefers to see the Russian navy leave his country sooner rather than later.

From on board the Moskva, it is easy to recognize why. A tiny spark in the harbor of Sevastopol could result in a much larger political conflagration. Ash-gray steel colossuses flying the Russian and Ukrainian flags are docked next to each other, the Alrosa, a Russian submarine, bobs nearby and, in the middle of it all, there is the visiting USNS Pathfinder, an American naval reconnaissance ship.

Expensive Evaporated Milk 

For the Russians in Sevastopol, the US Navy's claim that the ship is here to search for World War II wrecks on the Black Sea floor is difficult to believe -- as are other US Navy claims. A Russian captain on board the Moskva says derisively: "The Americans are supposedly bringing evaporated milk to Georgia with their warships. That would be the world's most expensive evaporated milk."

NATO ships at anchor in the harbor of Sevastopol, the "City of Heroes," trigger old reflexes among those Russians who have always seen themselves as surrounded by their enemies. In pro-Moscow newspapers on the peninsula, Cossack groups and the backrooms of political incendiaries, there has recently been talk of an upcoming "third defense" of the city. After heroic losses in the 19th-century Crimean War and later against Nazi Germany, the Crimea's ethnic Russians now see themselves about to embark on a new form of defensive action: against the political leadership in Ukraine, which is seeking to join the NATO alliance.

When it comes to the Crimea and Sevastopol, the Russians believe that it is their mission to save more than just a fleet base, but also a miniature version of Russia. The seaside city is graced with cedar and acacia trees, a bronze statue of Lenin in front of the St. Vladimir Cathedral, elegant officers' clubs, nightly skating exhibitions featuring long-legged beauties on the piers and Russian pop music under a starry sky.

"The Crimea was everything that Russia was not: the south and freedom, a foreign place on the territory of the Russian empire," writes Karl Schlögel, an expert on Russia and Eastern Europe. The Crimea, a refuge for the aristocracy since the days of czars and dubbed the "red Riviera" during the Soviet era, occupies a fixed place in the collective Russian memory, he says. "Dream landscapes are more stable than countries, and the maps in people's heads continue to exist long after new borders have been drawn," says Schlögel. 

'No Peaceful Solution' 

The borders in favor of Ukraine were drawn here decades ago. But the voices that insist on Russia having an inalienable right to the Crimea are only beginning to grow today. Is it true, then, as Ukrainian government politicians claim, that a repeat of the bloody "Georgian scenario" could take place on Crimean soil?

"There can be no peaceful solution. But the price of a forceful disengagement of the Crimea from Ukraine would be high: War against a sister nation," says a thin Russian officer who has agreed to meet in a discreet outdoor restaurant in Sevastopol. The man, who wishes to be called Viktor Kalugin, for his own protection, is familiar with the combat readiness of his country's military. He was on the ship that sank the Georgi Toreli, a Georgian coast guard vessel, off the coast of Abkhazia on the evening of Aug. 9.


The Russian Flag for the Crimea?


"War is war, and an officer must execute the commands he is given," says Kalugin -- even when his men are marching against a former sister nation, as in the case of Georgia. "We didn't even know where we were going when we received our orders to deploy" says Kalugin. "We tried to keep up with the events by watching the news on television. But there was poor reception on the water. Even our commander knew nothing."

Would Kalugin be as obedient a soldier if he were fighting Russia's Ukrainian neighbors? He prefers not to think about it. He has served in the navy since the latter days of the Soviet era, and he has gone to wherever he was sent. He still drinks vodka with former colleagues who are now serving with the Ukrainian Black Sea fleet, but they never discuss politics. Kalugin, a high-ranking naval officer, has a fervent wish, which he keeps to himself on those evenings spent with the Ukrainians: That the Russian flag will soon fly "over, not just Sevastopol, but the entire Crimea." 

In Sevastopol, just as in many once-closed cities of the vast former Soviet Union, some things have remained unchanged. Dubbed the "last bastion" while under Soviet control, and so strictly shielded that it was off-limits to foreigners until 1996, Sevastopol is a place where paranoia and xenophobic propaganda flourish like seedlings in a greenhouse. The toxic seeds planted by both sides since the 2004 Ukrainian revolution and Kiev's change of course have finally borne fruit.

Nightly Vigils 

The port city's newspapers, with names like Last Bastion and Legendary Sevastopol, are increasingly filled with alarming reports of a near-collision between the missile cruiser Moskva and a Ukrainian naval vessel in Sevastopol Bay, Russian activists protesting at one of the city's breakwaters, clashes with the police, the destruction of a plaque commemorating the first warship to sail under the Ukrainian flag, protests by Ukrainians against a new memorial to Czarina Catherine II on Lenin Street and subsequent nightly vigils by Russian volunteers at the site.

After 1991, centuries of common history were shattered and the wreckage reassembled. The image that resulted on the one side is dominated by primarily Ukrainian-speaking freedom fighters, military commanders and poets. But there is mounting anger on the other side, among the once-dominant Russians: over issues like the removal of Russian stations from the cable TV lineup, university lectures in Ukrainian and schoolbooks in which, more recently, Russian literature is subsumed into "world literature."

The center of Russian resistance is in a building on Nakhimov Square, where the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy once lived. The building, known as the "Moscow House," is the hub of a network designed to help local Russians feel at home in Sevastopol, with projects such as a school featuring a Russian lesson plan, a branch of Moscow's Lomonosov University and the construction of 2,000 comfortable apartments for officers.

The money for the projects comes from the budget of Moscow Mayor Luzhkov, who has been barred from entering Ukraine since May because of his inflammatory rhetoric. But for the Russians in Sevastopol, Luzhkov is a hero. Not only is he responsible for providing them with schools, lecture halls and apartments, but he also makes it unmistakably clear that the Ukrainians should not expect a Russian withdrawal, be it in "2017 or 3017," as Luzhkov says derisively.

A 'Single Nation' 

Similar views are held in the Sevastopol city parliament, which is dominated by the supporters of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, communists and radicals from the "Russian bloc." The national chairman of the "bloc," Alexander Svistunov, happens to be visiting Sevastopol, and made himself available to answer questions.

As he sits there, evoking a peaceful future for the Crimea while at the same time explaining why things will probably turn out differently, Svistunov is the prototypical troublemaker feigning innocence. Unfortunately -- yes, unfortunately -- he says, the mood among the people in Sevastopol is similar to that of the Abkhazians and South Ossetians before war erupted in Georgia. The "tragic historical mistake" of awarding all of the Crimea to Ukraine threatens to come back to haunt the city, he says. Naturally, he adds, this is no reason for him and his people to unleash a war, but Sevastopol can certainly expect a "hot autumn." 

Is he saying that there is no peaceful solution? Oh, of course there is, says Svistunov, explaining that Russia's Ukrainian and Belarusian brothers should simply come to terms with Moscow so that they can be brought back into the Russian fold. "Why risk yet another historic tragedy when the real issue is that we all belong to one single nation?"

Svistunov, along with almost 90 percent of the parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, recently voted for a resolution calling upon the pro-Western Ukrainian government to recognize the separatist republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- a proposal with no prospect of succeeding. But it was yet another pinprick designed to generate headlines. Another was the threat, disguised as a call for help, by the deputy speaker of the Crimean parliament, who said: "We note with concern that we now face times no less dramatic than during the Crimean War, a century-and-a-half ago." Once again Europe, the deputy speaker added, has "gone to war with Russia."

Language of Power 

"And," Miroslav Mamchak asks, smiling, "what was the outcome of that war? Russia lost, and Sevastopol fell. All enemies that have ever come here have captured the city -- that is the bitter truth about this city of heroes."

A retired sea captain in the Black Sea fleet, Mamchak was one of the first to swear an oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian flag, in 1992. Today he is one of the few who fearlessly expresses something that ought to be legally indisputable: that the port city is an inalienable part of Ukrainian territory and that the presence of the Russian fleet is contractually limited until 2017.

Mamchak, who is also the chairman of the "Ukrainian Society" and general manager of "Briz," a military radio station, has come under heavy fire from Russians in the city. He is caricatured on posters as an SS officer and fascist with a Hitler moustache, and, as he says, the words "Get out of Sevastopol" were scrawled onto the walls of his house. But Mamchak insists that he will not be forced to his knees by "criminals" and "mentally ill" warmongers.

The sorely afflicted city of heroes, says Mamchak, urgently needs a civilian concept for the future. "We currently have 100 meters (328 feet) of quay for warships, but only 90 meters (295 feet) for cruise ships. That has to change," he says. Mamchak's vision of a Sevastopol of the future includes tourists instead of torpedoes in the city's harbors, and "Ukrainian culture" instead of post-Soviet hero worship.

And how is this to be achieved against Moscow's wishes? Quite simply, says Mamchak: "Ukraine desperately needs to become part of NATO. Or re-obtain nuclear weapons. There is only one thing Russians understand: the language of power."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,582092-2,00.html


----------



## a_majoor

Economic fallout for Russia could become even worse as the fallout from the conflict in Georgia deters investors, while the effects of market intervention "by decree" can only be guessed at.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/02/europe/russia.php



> *Russia sees in credit crisis end of U.S. domination*
> By Andrew E. Kramer
> Thursday, October 2, 2008
> 
> MOSCOW: The Russian president said in a speech Thursday that the financial crisis in the United States should be taken as a sign that America's global economic leadership is drawing to a close, reiterating an argument that leaders here have been making for some time, though investors in recent weeks have been fleeing Russia and depositing money in U.S. Treasury bills.
> 
> Perhaps inevitably for a country long lectured to by the United States, Russia is using the occasion of the U.S. financial crisis to do some lecturing of its own.
> 
> President Dmitri Medvedev said Thursday that the U.S. crisis showed that "the times when one economy and one country dominated are gone for good." Speaking of the United States, Medvedev said the world no longer needed a "megaregulator."
> 
> Russia has argued that the freewheeling Anglo-American style of capitalism is to blame for the crisis, a position echoed by Germany and other Continental European nations. Medvedev even called it financial "egoism."
> 
> A drumbeat of similar pronouncements has been heard in Russia in recent days. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made a major speech Wednesday on U.S. financial "irresponsibility," blaming the plunge of more than 50 percent in the Russian stock market on the global economic slowdown and U.S. financial turmoil, rather than on any troubles endemic to Russia.
> 
> "The saddest thing is that we can see an inability to take appropriate decisions," Putin said in his speech after the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the Bush administration's bailout plan. In contrast, the Russian bailout was decided by decree.
> 
> "This is not the irresponsibility of some people but the irresponsibility of the system, which, as it is known, claimed to be the leader," Putin said.
> 
> Medvedev spoke Thursday at St. Petersburg State University during the eighth annual Petersburger Dialog, a forum devoted to developing relations with Germany and where he met with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Members of Merkel's government have also been critical of U.S. regulators.
> 
> Germany will "always support a multilateral approach" to market regulation, Merkel said, adding that officials from the European members of the Group of 8 industrialized nations would meet to discuss new market regulations, Bloomberg News reported.
> 
> But in contrast with other European countries Russia's own financial system has been in steep decline over the past weeks, and regulators suspended stock trading three times. As in other emerging markets during periods of turmoil, investors have had a tendency to pull money out of Russia and to deposit it in U.S. Treasury bills.
> 
> Since the second week in August, when the war in Georgia and political tension with the West heightened concerns about stability in Russia, $52 billion in net private capital has left Russia, according to an investor note from Goldman Sachs.
> 
> Russia has promised a total of about $150 billion for loans to banks, tax cuts and other measures. The moves seek to stimulate the economy, restore liquidity to the banking sector and return confidence in the stock market.
> 
> Still, the global credit crisis could trim about 1 percent from Russian growth next year, according to Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin.


----------



## Blackadder1916

*Russian troops start dismantling Georgia posts *  


> By SOPHIKO MEGRILIDZE, Associated Press Writer  October 5, 2008
> 
> NADARBAZEVI, Georgia - Russian troops on Sunday began dismantling positions in the so-called security zones inside Georgia that they have occupied since August's war, Georgian and EU officials said, a sign Russia will fulfill its pledged pullback.
> 
> Moscow faces a Friday deadline for pulling back its troops under the terms of a deal brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy on behalf of the European Union. Hundreds of EU observers began monitoring Russia's compliance last week.
> 
> A pullback would likely mean at least a mild reduction of tensions between Russia and the West following their worst confrontation since the Soviet collapse. But substantial points of dispute remain.
> 
> Russia was dismantling positions Sunday inside what it calls security zones, extending roughly four miles inside uncontested Georgian territory.
> 
> But Moscow vows to keep thousands of its troops stationed in two separatist Georgian regions that it recognizes as independent countries — South Ossetia and Abkhazia — which appears to stretch the terms of the cease-fire and which the Georgian government denounces.
> 
> Tensions also rose sharply on Friday when a car bomb killed nine people when it exploded outside Russian forces' headquarters in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia.
> 
> South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity on Sunday said investigators had found demonstrable "Georgian traces" in the explosion and said security would be tightened by reducing the number of crossing points from Georgia into the republic to two, the Interfax news agency reported.
> 
> South Ossetian officials previously alleged that Georgian special services were behind the bombing, aiming to undermine the cease-fire.
> 
> The war began Aug. 7 when Georgian troops launched an offensive to regain control of South Ossetia, one of two Georgian separatist regions where Russia has troops stationed as peacekeepers.
> 
> Russia sent a large force that quickly routed the Georgian military and pushed deep into the former Soviet republic, occupying large swaths. Russia then declared what it called a security zone roughly four miles deep inside Georgia south of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
> 
> In late August, Russian troops mostly pulled back to those so-called security zones and last month they pulled out of some more positions, including six checkpoints and temporary bases in and near the Black Sea port of Poti.
> 
> The Russian presence in Poti had been particularly galling for Georgia because it is hundreds of miles from South Ossetia, where the war broke out and where most of the fighting occurred. And the occupation of uncontested Georgian territory has deeply strained relations between Moscow and the West.
> 
> The EU-brokered agreement now obliges Russia to pull its troops out of the security zones by Friday. It also calls for both sides to return troops to the positions they held before the fighting broke out — but Russia's announced plan to keep some 8,000 troops in the regions well exceeds the number reportedly there before the fighting began.
> 
> Russia recognized the independence of both regions after the fighting. So far, only Nicaragua and the Hamas government in Gaza have followed suit with recognition.
> 
> On Sunday, troops lowered the flag at a Russian base in Nadarbazevi, about 30 miles northwest of the capital, Tbilisi. Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili described that position as a "communications center" and said Russia had promised to leave it completely on Monday.
> 
> Utiashvili also said a checkpoint was dismantled Sunday in Ali — also called Nabakhtevi — in the zone around South Ossetia. And Russian forces were leaving another position in Zugdidi, within the zone south of Abkhazia, Utiashvili said.
> 
> "We have to see how it ends, but so far this is a good sign," Utiashvili said.
> 
> Hansjorg Haber, the head of the EU monitoring mission, said his observers confirmed the dismantling.
> 
> Georgian and EU officials could not immediately clarify how many Russian positions in total would have to be dismantled to meet the agreement's terms. After the war, Russia said it would set up a total of 36 checkpoints in the security zones — 18 in each.
> 
> Also Sunday, a Russian construction worker was killed on the outskirts of Tskhinvali by gunfire that came from the village of Nikozi, which had been under control of Georgian police until the war, the ITAR-Tass news agency said. It quoted South Ossetian Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzayev as saying the shooting is being investigated.
> ___
> 
> Associated Press writers Matt Siegel in Tbilisi, Georgia and Jim Heintz in Moscow contributed to this report.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ and _Globe and Mail_ respectively, are two articles that I find interesting:
> 
> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=721453
> 
> and​
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080814.wcogeorgia14/BNStory/specialComment/home
> 
> I agree with Fred Kaplan’s three lessons for the next president and, broadly, with his three prescriptive recommendations but I would add one more: the American led West must, simultaneously, isolate Russia – unceremoniously kick it out of the G8 and refuse to allow it in to the WTO – and, and this is especially for the European members of NATO, restore enough military power in Europe to *deter* Russia. The Russian leaders are and are likely to remain thugs and bullies – they understand brute force. If they cannot be guaranteed of administering an easy defeat on their enemies then they will cower in fear, and that’s the posture in which we want them.
> 
> I think Glenny is wrong. We do not need “a touch of diplomatic sobriety on both sides ... [because ] the Georgian conflict *is* a very dangerous new phase in the development of global politics - serial confrontation between the West and Russia.”
> 
> Russia has chosen the path of confrontation. Even as one understands their frustration, even fear, it is impossible to put their thuggish policies – first in baiting Georgia and then in their _’disproportionate’_ military response – in any light except confrontation. That, it appears to me, is what Putin intended. I say let him have it, with all its implications. America is, slowly but surely, reducing its dangerous reliance on Middle Eastern oil – relying, instead, on Western hemisphere, especially Canadian, oil. Europe and Japan can meet their needs from the Middle East – they don’t need Russian oil, even though it is closer. China will need Russia’s oil – the only question is how it will take it.
> 
> The good news, from my radio, is that NATO has blocked a Russian warship from joining the ongoing NATO _Active Endeavour_ exercises in the Mediterranean and the FRUKUS exercises in the Sea of Japan have been called off. It's a start.




Notice it’s only the G7 when something really important needs to be done.

G8? Anyone? Russia, Bueller, anyone?


----------



## George Wallace

Well.  It is one way to get a "Hospitality Suite" at the next G8 if Russia doesn't show.    ;D


----------



## oligarch

I’m not really naïve enough anymore to think that this will change anybody’s mind, but to present the other point of view once again:

Wounds of Tshinval with (poorly translated) English subtitles (viewer discretion is advised): 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8220387311934539758&ei=uZnzSP6sEYfA-wGyuMyNBA&q=%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%86%D1%8B

Here is some cellphone footage of Georgian "Heroes" fighting against civilian cars and housing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw2Rdj5wtqQ


----------



## Edward Campbell

You know, oligarch, I don’t think most people argue that Georgia’s hands are not dirty – there’s not much, if any, ‘right’ on Georgia’s side.

What I, particularly, ague is that, bad a Georgia’s ‘case’ maybe be, Russia’s is at least as bad.

My view is that Russia is *not* a ‘western’ nation and it is unlikely ever to become one. It has no traditions of individuality or liberalism which even the weakest ‘liberal’ and ‘capitalist’ democracies share. Nor, of course, does it have good, solid, Eastern, Confucian _conservatism_. It is, instead, a terribly _illiberal_ society with a callous culture rooted in brutality and servitude. I emphasize, that’s my view.

I cannot see how or why we have any particular interest in making Russia a ‘friend’ – it need not, should not if we can manage it, be an enemy. But, when there is a _contest_ between e.g. Russia and China then I, for one, will advocate coming down on China’s side – where we do have _interests_.

The situation is different for Europe. Russia is a neighbour – a big, close, and generally malevolent neighbour – but its former _satellites_ have no interest in restoring ties of ‘friendship’ any time soon. So German _romanticism_ must contend with Polish and Czech _realism_ for another generation or so.

We take your point, oligach: Georgia is not heroic or ‘right.’ It’s not even a _victim_ - except of its own leaders’ miscalculations. But that doesn’t say anything ‘good’ about Russia, does it?

Two wrongs don't make a right - we just have a two states in the roles of thugs and bullies.


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We take your point, oligach: Georgia is not heroic or ‘right.’ It’s not even a _victim_ - except of its own leaders’ miscalculations. But that doesn’t say anything ‘good’ about Russia, does it?
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right - we just have a two states in the roles of thugs and bullies.


Agreed.  *Totally * agree.  You have said what I have been trying to say since the beginning of this mess (to which I was once accused of being a "commie sympathiser!"  LOL)


----------



## oligarch

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Notice it’s only the G7 when something really important needs to be done.
> 
> G8? Anyone? Russia, Bueller, anyone?



http://en.rian.ru/business/20081011/117679791.html

http://www.russiatoday.com/business/news/31739


----------



## Edward Campbell

You will find that there were several meetings after the G7 finance ministers met:

•	‘The Americas’ finance ministers met;
•	The IMF met; and
•	The G20*met.

Additionally, there may have been _ad hoc_ meetings such as the _”outreach dinner”_ mentioned here, which is what I think the RNIA article meant. I really, really don't think an "outreach dinner' qualifies as Russia joining the G7 for "talks."

Regarding expanding the G7 to the G_n_, (second article LINK) I think that’s an excellent idea and I believe a G14 is appropriate: Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Norway, Singapore, South Korea and Spain should be the _voting_ members and the European Central Bank, the IMF and the World Bank should be _ex officio_ members. My G14 does not include Russia because, while it is one of the _top ten_ global economies, it is not a _trusted_ partner – as its actions in South Ossetia and Georgia show.

My guess is that *at least* two or three G7 members would veto adding Russia to any new G_n_. Russian membership in the G20 (along with e.g. Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey) is sufficient.


--------------------

* The members of the G-20 are the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, *Russia*, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The European Union is also a member, represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank. To ensure global economic fora and institutions work together, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis.


----------



## a_majoor

Piecing together the evidence of cyber attacks originating in Russia. Although there is no conclusive evidence that this was organized or directed by the government, we should remember there was little direct linkage to things like the mid 1980's "Peace Offensive", the unsolved murders of Russian investigative journalists since the late 1990's on, or other activities over the decades that somehow seem to only benefit Russia. Of course, Vladimir Putin and his cronies are either ex KGB or somehow connected to the intelligence world, people who's job description was to make things happen without it being traced back to their government...:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20081020.aspx



> *The Russian Cyber Militia*
> 
> October 20, 2008: Georgia was not just invaded by Russian troops last August, it was also hammered on the Internet, with the same Cyber War techniques used against Estonia last year. An investigation by a large team of Internet experts concluded that, as with the attacks on Estonia, the Russian government was not directly involved in the Georgia attacks. The Cyber War attacks on Georgia were coordinated from a non-government web site. If there was any Russian government involvement, it was indirect. For example, the attacks on Georgian web sites began with a very complete list of targets. Not that any of the Russian civilian volunteers couldn't have put such a list together, but this one appeared "general staff" thorough.
> 
> In the wake of last year's attacks, Russia was accused of causing great financial harm to Estonia, and Estonia wants this sort of thing declared terrorism, and dealt with. NATO agreed to discuss the issue, but never took any action against Russia. But as a result of that incident, NATO did establish a Cyber Defense Center in Estonia earlier this year. That is one tangible result of the 2007 Cyber War attacks. The Center will study Cyber War techniques and incidents, and attempt to coordinate efforts by other NATO members to create Cyber War defenses, and offensive weapons.
> 
> Also earlier this year, Estonia concluded that the weeks of Cyber War attacks it endured last year were not an act of war. Or, rather, the attacks were not carried out by the Russian government, but at the behest of the government by Russian hackers angry at Estonia. Some Internet security researchers believe that the attacks were the result of efforts by a small number of hackers, who had access to thousands of captive (or "zombie") PCs. Some of the zombies were located in Russian government offices. But that's not unusual, as government PCs worldwide tend to be less well protected than those in large corporations. It is believed that other governments are behind similar attacks that temporarily shut down politically embarrassing web sites. This is becoming very common, and often the attacks are ones where only a particular government would benefit.
> 
> Last year's attacks were the result of Estonia moving a statue, honoring Russian World War II soldiers, from the center of the capital, to a military cemetery. The Estonians always saw the statue as a reminder of half a century of Russian occupation and oppression. Russia saw the  move as an insult to the efforts of Russian soldiers to liberate Estonia, and enable the Russians to occupy the place for half a century. The basic problem here is that most Russians don't see their Soviet era ancestors as evil people, despite the millions of Russians and non-Russians killed by the Soviet secret police. The Russians are very proud of their defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, ignoring the fact that the Soviet government was just biding its time before it launched its own invasion of Germany and Europe in general. Georgia has been occupied by the Russians for over a century, and were never really very comfortable with it.
> 
> While many Russians would have backed a military attack on Estonia, to retaliate for the insult by an ungrateful neighbor, this approach was seen as imprudent. Estonia is now part of NATO, and an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all. It's because of this Russian threat that Estonia hustled to get into NATO. The Russians, however, believed that massive Cyber War attacks would not trigger a NATO response. Meanwhile, Russian language message boards were full of useful information on how to join the holy war against evil Estonia. There's no indication that any Russians were afraid of a visit from the Russian cyber-police for any damage done to Estonia. And the damage was significant, amounting to millions of dollars. While no one was injured, Estonia insisted that this attack, by Russia, should trigger the mutual defense provisions of the NATO treaty. It didn't, but it was a reminder to all that Cyber War is very real.
> 
> The same patterns were repeated with the attacks directed at Georgia. Again, the Russian government denies any involvement. Estonia sent two Cyber War exerts to Georgia, to help in dealing with the Internet based attacks coming out of Russia. In addition, Georgia is trying to join NATO.


----------



## JackD

A little bit more about the Ukraine and some activiies going on in this area:  
Mayor of Moscow exports Russia's new nationalism 
By Clifford J. Levy

Sunday, October 26, 2008 
TSKHINVALI, Georgia: On a clearing in this disputed city, where enemy homes were bulldozed after the conflict in August, Mayor Yuri Luzhkov promised this month to build a new neighborhood for the South Ossetian separatists here.

Grinning widely before a boisterous crowd, which hailed him as a liberator, Luzhkov said he would spend more than $100 million on houses, schools and shopping centers. "We are celebrating a great victory  a victory for freedom and independence," he declared.

The pledge was notable for its cost  a sizable sum in this impoverished breakaway enclave of 70,000  but also because Luzhkov is the mayor of Moscow, not Tskhinvali. The money is to come from Moscow's city budget.

Yuri Luzhkov is a mayor with a foreign policy. A former Soviet apparatchik who yearns to restore Russia's regional hegemony, he has supported ethnic Russians and stoked separatism in nations along the country's borders. He has championed a new Russian nationalism that the Kremlin effectively backed with force when it wrested South Ossetia from neighboring Georgia this summer.

Over the past decade, Luzhkov, 72, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars from Moscow's well-padded city budget in Russia's "near abroad," several city officials said. He has supported pro-Russian separatists in Moldova, built highways in rebellious Georgian enclaves and constructed housing for the Russian military on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine.

His enigmatic role unnerves Russia's pro-Western neighbors because he flouts diplomatic rules that prohibit aid to separatists. When foreign governments protest that he is violating their sovereignty and destabilizing their countries, he says he is merely expanding Moscow's sister-city relationships. The Kremlin says he is acting as a local official or a philanthropist.

But the ambiguity seems purposeful. Russia's paramount leader, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has sought to undermine new pro-Western governments that took power in the so-called color revolutions. Luzhkov is, in a sense, spearheading Putin's counterrevolution.

"In this type of foreign policy, someone has to carry the aggressive message, and Luzhkov is very suitable for this because he thinks it and really believes it," said Konstantin Remchukov, owner of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, a Moscow newspaper. "So they use him deliberately."

Luzhkov offered typically pointed remarks at the groundbreaking this month in Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, for the neighborhood, to be called the Moscow district. It is to rise on land that had been Georgian but was essentially ethnically cleansed after being overrun by Russian troops.

"What the heck is Bush thinking?" Luzhkov told the crowd. "He boasts that America supports the aspirations of people for freedom and independence. But the president of America should come to Tskhinvali, wrecked but alive, wrecked but with people who are experiencing joy and freedom."

Short and stocky, a Soviet-style proletariat's cap covering his bald head, Luzhkov is often shown on state-controlled television journeying abroad. A few days before he arrived in South Ossetia, he went to Abkhazia, the other breakaway enclave in Georgia, where he was also greeted as a hero.

He has been the primary Russian patron of the two enclaves, whose ambitions spurred the conflict in August, and he has long required his city to conduct relations with their separatist governments as if they were independent nations. Only after the crisis did the Kremlin follow suit.

He is so popular in South Ossetia that a street was named after him here in Tskhinvali. South Ossetia's president, Eduard Kokoity, referred to him as "a dear friend who is one of us."

But he is the bête noire of leaders who took power in popular "color revolutions" that swept Eastern and Central Europe over the past six years, especially the Rose and Orange Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine.

The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, professes to loathe Luzhkov, and the feeling is mutual. (During his speech here, Luzhkov called Saakashvili "subhuman.")

Luzhkov, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has also called for Russia to reclaim Crimea from Ukraine. Many Russians consider Crimea, which has an ethnic Russian majority and a Russian naval base on the Black Sea, an integral part of Russia.

If it becomes the next flash point between Russia and the West, Luzhkov will in no small part be responsible. He has nurtured separatist groups in Crimea that since the Georgia conflict have a new battle cry: we will be next.

In May, when Luzhkov got off a plane in Crimea, he was greeted by Ukrainian security service agents who warned him to stop fomenting separatism. He instead proclaimed in a speech that Sevastopol, the site of the Russian naval base, belongs to Russia.

"Is it right for us to keep silent?" he said. "We are speaking the truth."

The next day, Ukrainian officials barred him from Ukraine and began investigating his activities in Crimea, including his support for a cultural center, Moscow House, he set up in Sevastopol.

Ukraine said it was also looking into the affairs of his wife, Yelena Baturina, a billionaire who is Russia's richest woman. The Ukrainians contend that she has assisted him by investing money in areas where he is active.

The Georgians have their own inquiry into Luzhkov. To the South Ossetians, though, any attempts to go after him only underscore the importance of his support.

"If someone comes to your house to kill you, the person who helps you first, the person who extends his rescuing hand to you, how would you feel about him?" said Zalina Abayeva, 38, a government worker who was in the crowd welcoming Luzhkov to Tskhinvali. "That is how we feel about Luzhkov."

A Nationalist Streak

Luzhkov's nationalism sprang from the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, which deeply pained Luzhkov and many other Russian leaders who came of age at the height of Soviet power.

They were embittered by Russia's economic plight in the 1990s and said that the West was taking advantage of Russia's weakness by encroaching upon its zone of influence. Those feelings hardened when NATO admitted former Soviet satellites and republics.

Luzhkov also focused on the plight of millions of ethnic Russians who after the breakup found themselves living in other former Soviet republics. He said he believed that these people had been abandoned by the Kremlin under President Boris N. Yeltsin, so he sent tens of millions of dollars in aid to them.

When Yeltsin negotiated a friendship treaty with Ukraine in the late 1990s, Luzhkov said it amounted to the "surrender of Crimea."

Luzhkov used nationalism  twinned with a reverence for the revived Russian Orthodox Church  to position himself to run for president in 2000. He offered a more establishment-friendly alternative to the virulent nationalism of another contender, the hard-liner Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

"At a certain point, this became part of his political image," Konstantin Zatulin, a member of Parliament and Luzhkov ally, said of Luzhkov. "In the 1990s, he was seen as probably the only defender of Russian speakers in the former Soviet Union."

When it became clear that Putin would win the presidency in 2000, Luzhkov stepped aside. But he continued to raise his profile.

Since he became mayor in 1992, Moscow has been transformed from a dysfunctional and shabby city into a flashy, traffic-choked metropolis. Luzhkov has overseen a building bonanza, including a financial complex on the Moscow River that will include the tallest skyscraper in Europe. He even has his own architectural style  buildings topped with triangular turrets, popularly called Luzhkov towers.

On Saturdays he tours neighborhoods to inspect projects and berate bureaucrats, television cameras in tow. He is mentioned more in the Russian media than any politician but Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev.

Still, like Russia as a whole, Moscow has been plagued by corruption. Luzhkov's second wife, Baturina, 45, whom he married in 1991, became a billionaire through her real estate and manufacturing company, Inteko. The mayor's opponents have attributed her success to cronyism. He denies that.

As a leader of the governing party, he has shown little tolerance for dissent, filing lawsuits against politicians, journalists and others who criticize him.

In May, after Remchukov's newspaper ran an editorial criticizing Luzhkov for his provocative comments on Crimea, city officials sought to evict the newspaper from its building. Only after an uproar ensued did the officials back down, Remchukov said.

While Luzhkov is not a member of Putin's inner circle, Putin has kept him in power. Moscow's mayor used to be popularly elected but is now appointed by the president. Putin, who moved from president to prime minister this year, selected Luzhkov to be Moscow's mayor last year.

Putin has not publicly objected to Luzhkov's grandiose vision of the mayor's role or reined in Luzhkov's spendthrift foreign commitments.

City officials would not specify how much Luzhkov had spent abroad, and government budgets in Russia are opaque. Aleksandr Pogorelov, a spokesman for the city's department of international relations, would say only, "We are engaged in offering aid to those considered Russian compatriots."

Sergei Mitrokhin, an opposition lawmaker in Moscow's city council, said the amount over the past decade was hundreds of millions of dollars. Two other city officials from the governing party, who asked that their names not be disclosed for fear of retribution, concurred.

Mitrokhin said he had opposed such ventures because Moscow had immense needs. "If it is international politics, then the money should be given out from the federal budget," he said.

Aid for an Enclave

In June 2005, Luzhkov invited South Ossetian separatist leaders to a Moscow railroad station, where a train had been loaded with millions of dollars in aid  food, medical equipment, dump trucks, tents and cranes.

Luzhkov said the shipment was humanitarian. The Georgians labeled it military. And the South Ossetians suggested that Luzhkov was helping them gird for a coming conflict.

"We say to those who today are trying to foist a dirty political fight upon us: We are Ossetians, and we are a steadfast people!" said the South Ossetian president, Kokoity.

Later in 2005, as if to drive home the point, Luzhkov paid for major repairs to a strategic highway in South Ossetia to ease the movement of separatist troops, Georgian officials said.

The city of Moscow has also become one of largest owners of resorts and other property in Abkhazia, which has Black Sea beaches and was a popular vacation area in Soviet times, Georgian officials said. The Russian government has assisted the enclaves as well, giving weapons to their soldiers and Russian passports to their residents, but Luzhkov often seems to take the lead.

"He has been very notorious in his hectic activities in these conflict areas," said Temuri Yakobashvili, Georgia's reintegration minister. "His role is both political and financial, and that is a dangerous mixture because the political talk also comes with a lot of money."

Luzhkov has also worked to cement Russia's gains in the war. Even before it ended, he dispatched officials to prepare to resettle South Ossetians on what was once an ethnic Georgian village called Tamarasheni.

Before the conflict, South Ossetia was a patchwork of ethnic areas overseen by peacekeepers, and its separatist government had no control over Tamarasheni. The village, which has now been absorbed by the capital, Tskhinvali, is in ruins, filled with the carcasses of looted homes and stores.

In his speech here, Luzhkov did not mention the Georgians who lost their land. He talked about the neighborhood he was building in Tamarasheni, with homes, schools, a sports complex, stores and playgrounds, as a symbol of Russian strength.

"Russia needs nothing," he said. "It has everything. It is the wealthiest country. But when we see injustice toward South Ossetia, toward the people of Abkhazia, it rises up to their defense."

Deepening Russia's Presence

Luzhkov has devoted even greater attention to Crimea, which many Russians consider a nearly sacred, if disputed, part of their patrimony.

This peninsula on the Black Sea was part of Russia until 1954, when the Soviet leader Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine. It mattered little then because both were part of the Soviet Union. But after Communism's fall, Crimea's ethnic Russians, who make up 60 percent of the population of two million, had to answer to Kiev, Ukraine's capital, not Moscow. Then came the Orange Revolution of 2004, led by Ukrainian nationalists who are hostile to the Kremlin and want to join NATO.

Much of the friction revolves around Russia's Black Sea fleet, which has a base in Sevastopol. The Ukrainian leadership has announced that the fleet must leave when its lease ends in 2017. It has also begun requiring the use of the Ukrainian language in public life.

"Ukraine's leadership is showing an absolutely clear tendency toward the suppression of all things Russian  the Russian language, Russian culture, Russian literature, Russians on their territory," Luzhkov said in August.

In Sevastopol, a city of 350,000, Luzhkov has deepened the Russian presence. He has constructed a branch of Moscow State University, Russian Orthodox cathedrals, schools, a sports complex and other facilities.

Military personnel with the Black Sea fleet refer to their housing as Luzhki because Luzhkov built thousands of apartments for them. He has proposed spending another $2 billion on real estate development in Crimea.

Putin has said that Russia respects Ukraine's territorial integrity, but he has not disavowed the separatists or Luzhkov. In fact, after Luzhkov was barred from Ukraine in May, the Kremlin lashed back.

"Luzhkov only expressed a view that, incidentally, coincides with the point of view of most Russians who responded painfully to the disintegration of the U.S.S.R.," the Foreign Ministry said.

The fervor that Luzhkov has helped whip up was evident last month at a rally in Sevastopol on a hill lined with graves of Russian soldiers who had died defending the city when it belonged to Russia.

Waving Russian flags and singing Soviet anthems, residents praised Russia's victory in Georgia and spoke of Luzhkov as a brother in arms. They said he was helping to free them from Ukrainian tyranny.

The city's chief Russian Orthodox priest, the Rev. Sergei Khaluta, blessed the rally. "Truth is with our country!" he said, and it was clear that he did not mean Ukraine.

More Articles in World » A version of this article appeared in print on October 26, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition.

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=17242346


----------



## oligarch

What really happened in South Ossetia?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/review/7695956.stm

After gaining exclusive access to South Ossetia, Tim Whewell has discovered evidence Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region in August.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

MAY HAVE?

Of course they did, in war stuff happens that afterwards didn't pass the sniff test but at the time.......


----------



## Kat Stevens

oligarch said:
			
		

> What really happened in South Ossetia?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/review/7695956.stm
> 
> After gaining exclusive access to South Ossetia, Tim Whewell has discovered evidence Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region in August.



And I'm certain the rest of the emotionally stable, peaceloving Slavic peoples of the region acted with perfect decorum, just like in FRY.


----------



## a_majoor

Russia may have some difficulty maintaining an aggressive posture in the current economic environment. Follow the link in the article to see the various break points in oil prices price and their effects on Russia:

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/12/19/a-bright-side-of-the-economic-downturn/



> *A Bright-side of the Economic Downturn*
> 
> December 19, 2008 · By Greg Farries
> 
> The mighty bear might have some trouble flexing it’s muscles and scaring it’s neighbors in this chilly economic climate:
> 
> The bleak scenario would mark a rapid unraveling of Russia’s oil-fueled economic gains over the past eight years, during which time the government has paid down most of its foreign debt and built up a vast stockpile of international reserves.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Russia, which grew at over 8 percent last year, is facing a severe slowdown in growth, and possibly even recession next year, analysts say. Torrid figures released earlier this week showed that industrial output had plunged 10.8 percent in November from the previous month, signaling a dramatic slowdown in the final quarter.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Now this is how we can decide future conflicts in the area......and of course Simon Cowell will be the presiding arbitrator.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/593292
Dig at Putin on Georgia band's mind
Feb 26, 2009 04:30 AM 

TBILISI –Having suffered a battlefield bruising from Russia last August, Georgia has taken the fight with its northern neighbour to the disco floor, with plans to present a tune that jabs at Russia's pre-eminent leader, Vladimir Putin, at Europe's premier song contest.
The song's title, "We Don't Wanna Put In," is a barely successful play on the Russian prime minister's name. The song, sung in accented English by a Georgian group called Stephane and 3G, was chosen by popular vote last week as Georgia's entry for Eurovision, the mega-popular European song contest to be hosted by Moscow in May.

Georgia was planning to boycott this year's event to protest Russia's de facto annexation of two Georgian separatist regions after the August war, but it apparently settled on taking a musical swipe at Putin right in the Russian capital.
The news has begun to excite patriotic passions in Russia, where anti-Georgian sentiment remains high after the war, which many in Russia believe Georgia started.

"In my opinion, this is amoral," Yana Rudkovskaya, the Russian producer for Dima Bilan, last year's Eurovision winner, told Echo Moskvy radio. "I think the Eurovision board and the heads of Channel One should forbid this song because it insults our country.''

Stephane Mgebrishvili, the Georgian group's frontman, said he and his three female bandmates had hoped for this kind of resonance when they came up with the song.
"The most important thing for us was to create the project that would attract as much attention as possible," said Mgebrishvili, 29.


----------



## Yrys

Russia blocks UN's Abkhazia role 







Russia has vetoed an extension of the UN observers' mandate in Georgia, so a 131-strong UN 
team will now have to leave the Georgia-Abkhazia border zone.

Russia's move at the UN means there will be no more impartial international observers inside 
the disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The UN mandate was "built on old realities," 
said Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin. Russia has controlled the rebel areas since 
a war with Georgia last year.

Speaking at the UN Security Council in New York, Mr Churkin said "only a new security system 
on the Georgian-Abkhaz border could guarantee non-aggression by Georgia".

*Recognition row*

Russia has recognised the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but the West says 
the two regions remain part of Georgia. Abkhazia's ethnic Georgian community complains 
that security has deteriorated since last year's war.

Georgia's Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze denounced the Russian veto, saying Tbilisi would 
never accept any decision that challenged Georgia's territorial integrity. UK Foreign Secretary 
David Miliband accused Russia of using its veto power to "pursue its own narrow interests".

The UN mission has been on the ground in Abkhazia since 1993, when it was deployed to 
monitor an earlier ceasefire between Abkhaz separatists and Georgian forces.

The BBC's Tom Esslemont in Tbilisi says the ending of the UN mandate comes just as the 
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) prepares to terminate its small 
observer mission in Georgia too. It means that the European Union Monitoring Mission is the 
only recognised international observation force on the ground, he reports.

With Russian soldiers and Georgian police units stationed metres away from each other along 
the borders, it now falls to the EU monitors alone to make sure the fragile truce is honoured. 
But their mandate only allows them access to areas under Georgian control, our correspondent 
says.


----------



## CougarKing

Another worrying development.



> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8188910.stm
> 
> AFP
> 
> TBILISI, Georgia — *Georgia warned of the risk of a new war with Russia on Tuesday as Moscow raised the battle-readiness of its forces ahead of the first anniversary of their conflict over the rebel South Ossetia region.
> 
> Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili called on the United States and European Union to send a "clear message" to Moscow to help avert a new war, as both sides exchanged accusations of attacks and "provocations" in the region.
> 
> "There is a risk. The Russians are exerting constant pressure," Saakashvili told French radio station RTL when asked about the possibility of renewed conflict.
> 
> "The latest (Russian military) manoeuvres are worrying. They refuse to respond to calls from European observers and unfortunately the media in Moscow are announcing a situation of imminent conflict," he said.*
> 
> "Despite all that, I am confident that Europe and the United States will send a clear message" to Moscow, he said.
> 
> The Russian foreign ministry meanwhile said its forces had heightened their state of battle-readiness in South Ossetia.
> 
> "The situation is very worrying and the Georgian provocations ahead of the anniversary of last year's war are not halting," foreign ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement.
> 
> "In connection with this, the battle-readiness of Russian troops and border guards stationed in South Ossetia has been heightened," he said.
> 
> Tensions have been rising between the two countries as they prepare to mark the one-year anniversary on August 7 of the outbreak of their five-day war over the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia.
> 
> "At the moment, the main thing is not to allow an escalation and development of the shootings into a more serious clash. We are doing and will do everything to avoid this," said Nesterenko.
> 
> Georgia placed the blame for mounting tensions squarely on Moscow, insisting that it was not seeking a conflict.
> 
> "The Russian occupants and the proxy regimes continue to pursue their efforts aimed at further enhancing tension," the Georgian foreign ministry said in a statement Tuesday. "Full responsibility for such actions rests with Russia."
> 
> Earlier Tuesday, Russia had accused Georgia of preparing a series of "provocations" on its de-facto border with South Ossetia, as both sides traded accusations of carrying out grenade and mortar attacks.
> 
> Russian deputy foreign minister Grigory Karasin also angrily accused the US of re-arming the Georgian military.
> 
> Washington is "playing the main role in re-equipping the Georgian war machine," he told the Interfax news agency in an interview.
> 
> And the Russian defence ministry issued a stark warning over the weekend that the military reserved the right to hit back with force if Tbilisi continued carrying out "provocations" in the area.
> 
> South Ossetia's pro-Moscow defence ministry said Tuesday that the border village of Ortev had come under fire from three mortar rounds late Monday but that there had been no reports of casualties.
> 
> Georgia had earlier accused South Ossetian forces of firing three rocket-propelled grenades at a Georgian police checkpoint near the border late Tuesday. No one was reported injured.
> 
> The alleged attacks follow frequent reports of ceasefire violations over the last week and a call from the EU for all sides to show restraint as the anniversary of the war approaches.
> 
> South Ossetia's rebel leader, Eduard Kokoity, said Monday that Russian soldiers based in the region had started manoeuvres, but this report was denied by a source in the Russian defence ministry quoted by news agency Itar-tass.
> 
> The war erupted last year when an attempt by Georgian troops to retake South Ossetia was rebuffed by Russia. Moscow then sent troops and tanks deep into Georgian territory.
> 
> After the war, Russian forces mostly withdrew into South Ossetia and another breakaway Georgian region, Abkhazia but Moscow then infuriated the West by recognising both regions as independent.


----------



## CougarKing

Wait a minute? Did they say PUTIN? And to think the MSM says Medvedev is in charge.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090812-putin-pledges-half-billion-dollars-defend-abkhazia-russia-georgia




> Putin pledges half a billion dollars to defend Abkhazia
> Wednesday 12 August 2009
> 
> On a surprise visit to the breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia, Russian PM Vladimir Putin pledged 500 million dollars to build bases and defend Abkhazia as tensions with Georgia appear to grow.


----------



## CougarKing

Another update:



> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/wo...r=1&ref=europe
> U.S. to resume training Georgian Troops
> WASHINGTON — The United States is resuming a combat training mission in the former Soviet republic of Georgia to prepare its army for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, despite the risks of angering Russia, senior Defense Department officials said Thursday.
> The training effort is intended to prepare Georgian troops to fight at NATO standards alongside American and allied forces in Afghanistan, the Pentagon officials said.
> Russian officials have been informed, American officials said. The training should not worry the Kremlin, they said, because it would not involve skills that would be useful against a large conventional force like Russia’s.
> “This training mission is not about internal defenses or any capabilities that the Georgians would use at home,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “This is about the United States supporting Georgia’s contribution to the war in Afghanistan, which everybody can recognize is needed and valued and appreciated.”
> At the same time, officials in Washington said, the Georgians should not see the new training mission as a military counterweight to Russian influence along Georgia’s borders and within the separatist regions they fought over.
> A year ago, the republic’s brief, disastrous war with Russia froze a similar American training operation that prepared Georgian troops for deployments to Iraq.
> The new training mission is scheduled to begin Sept. 1. The first members of a Marine Corps training and advising team are to arrive in Georgia on Sunday or Monday, and the number of trainers will fluctuate between 10 and 69 over the next six months.
> Georgia has pledged an army battalion — about 750 troops — to Afghanistan, and it should be ready to deploy next spring, perhaps by March.
> It is unlikely that Kremlin officials could offer a convincing argument that training a single Georgian Army battalion amounted to a threat to Russian security. But the new training could be seen as a launching pad for increased military relations among Washington, NATO members and a former Soviet republic that aspires to NATO membership.
> The Kremlin vehemently opposes any extension of NATO’s defensive umbrella over former Soviet republics, in particular Georgia and Ukraine. At the same time, some NATO officials view Georgia’s behavior before the war last year as needlessly provocative, and have said it harmed the country’s chances for alliance membership.
> Shortly after taking office, President Obama ordered the doubling of American forces in Afghanistan, to about 68,000, and the administration has sought, with little success, to persuade NATO allies to add to their combat forces.
> In contrast to some NATO allies that impose restrictions on where their forces can go and what they can do in Afghanistan, the Georgian military will send its troops with none of these so-called caveats, a decision viewed by American officials as intended to indicate Georgia’s worthiness for potential alliance membership.
> Officials said Georgia’s troops would probably be assigned to operations in areas of Afghanistan under Marine command, so the training mission begins that partnership.
> The United States has so far rebuffed requests from Georgia to rearm its military after its humiliating defeat by Russia. When the war began, Georgia recalled an army brigade serving in Iraq and never sent it back, and the Americans training the Georgians returned home.
> Georgian troops that join the Afghan mission will bring their own small-caliber weapons, but the United States and other allies will supply vehicles, including armored transports, as well as logistical support and daily supplies, according to senior Defense Department officials.
> Any weapons provided to the Georgians would stay in Afghanistan, the officials said.
> Some military ties between the United States and Georgia resumed after the war with Russia, but they focused on officer development, improvement of command-and-control systems, and other such areas, officials said. There have been visits by senior American military officers and government leaders — most recently Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. — and NATO has conducted some military exchanges.
> Administration officials familiar with discussions with Russia said American officials emphasized that Russia had endorsed the international security assistance mission in Afghanistan. For example, Russia allows overflight rights and land access for the coalition supply mission for Afghanistan.
> A senior Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to describe the diplomatic communications with Russia, acknowledged that “this is delicate for us — because while we want to be supportive of the Georgians, and look forward to their contribution in Afghanistan, we don’t want to be perceived incorrectly as supplying lethal capabilities that would elicit a Russian response.”


----------



## Yrys

Suicide Bomber Rams Truck Into Police Station in Russia, Killing 20

MOSCOW — At least 20 people were killed and dozens were wounded 
when a suicide bomber rammed a truck filled with explosives into a 
police headquarters in Russia’s tumultuous North Caucasus region on 
Monday, according to government officials. It was the latest episode 
in a spate of violence to hit the area in recent weeks.

The blast struck the police headquarters in Nazran, the capital of Ingushetia, 
about 9 a.m. local time as many police officials were arriving at work. The 
attack seemed to further undermine the authority of Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, 
Ingushetia’s populist president, who came to power last October vowing a 
softer approach in dealing with rebel violence than that of Ramzan Kadyrov, 
the president of neighboring Chechnya.

It was the bloodiest single attack to hit Ingushetia in some time, though violence 
against the police and government officials in this and other North Caucasus 
republics occurs almost daily.

Mr. Yevkurov himself was seriously wounded in a suicide attack on his convoy 
in June and announced last week that he would soon return to work. Ingushetia’s 
construction minister, Ruslan Amirkhanov, was assassinated in his office last week.
Russian television coverage of Monday’s attack showed rescue workers picking 
through smoldering rubble punctuated by a huge crater.

“It was a suicide bomber,” said Kaloi Akhilgov, the spokesman for Mr. Yevkurov. 
“He rammed the gate of the police headquarters, drove into the courtyard and blew
himself up.” The blast occurred in a heavily populated area, not far from several 
banks and government buildings. A six-story residential building nearby was also 
heavily damaged.

About 60 people were wounded, the prosecutor general’s office said, though the 
Emergency Situations Ministry put the number of wounded at 138. Mr. Akhilgov said 
10 of the wounded were children.

A spokeswoman for the central hospital in Nazran said dozens of victims had arrived 
with severe burns and broken bones. The investigative wing of the prosecutor general’s 
office put the death toll at 20 by Monday evening.

In response to the bombing, President Dmitri A. Medvedev fired Ingushetia’s interior minister 
and ordered the federal interior minister, Rashid G. Nurgaliyev, to increase the strength of 
police forces in Ingushetia after the attack. “I suggest that this is not only the result of 
problems connected to terrorism, but also the result of unsatisfactory work by law enforcement 
agencies in the republic,” Mr. Medvedev said. “This terror attack could have been prevented.”

The statement appeared to criticize Mr. Yevkurov’s strategy on the militant threat. A former 
intelligence officer and a practicing Muslim, Mr. Yevkurov has reached out to opposition leaders 
as well as militant commanders in an attempt to ease the bubbling tensions in Ingushetia. But 
the violence has continued, fueled in part by the local militants as well as by the arrival of 
separatist fighters fleeing Mr. Kadyrov’s brutal counterinsurgency in Chechnya, where a decade 
and a half of internecine warfare has ground down the rebel movement to a paltry, though potent, 
few.

The bombing on Monday comes just days after separate attacks in neighboring Chechnya and 
Dagestan killed over 20 people, including seven female employees of a sauna in Dagestan. In 
Dagestan’s capital, Makhachkala, a police officer was killed and three officers were wounded 
on Monday when a bomb exploded next to their jeep, the Ria Novosti news agency said, citing 
a police spokesman.

In a sign that Mr. Yevkurov’s experiment in reconciliation has failed, Mr. Kadyrov has sent 
Chechen commanders to Ingushetia to conduct counterterrorism operations there. “We have 
a common enemy and a common task to eliminate it,” Mr. Kadyrov said in a statement on 
his Web site on Monday. “Together with President Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, we will realize this 
mission and do everything necessary to liquidate the remaining militants. The leadership of 
this country supports us.”


----------



## CougarKing

Seems there is a new bone of contention between these former Soviet states.



> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8219171.stm
> 
> Ukrainian troops fought alongside Georgian forces in the brief conflict last August between Georgia and Russia, Moscow prosecutors say.
> Regular soldiers, as well as 200 members of a Ukrainian nationalist group, took part in the fighting, the prosecutor general's office said.
> The statement comes amid worsening relations between Moscow and Kiev.
> Ukraine denied it helped Georgian attempts to re-assert control over the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
> It is believed to be the first time a Russian official has made such a direct accusation in a long war of words between Moscow and Kiev about the conflict, says the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow.
> 'Anti-Russian policies'
> "Soldiers from Ukraine's regular defence ministry detachments and at least 200 members of the UNA-UNSO nationalist organisation took part in the armed aggression against South Ossetia," the Russian prosecutor general's office said in Monday's statement.
> A spokesman for the office said Ukrainian anti-aircraft weapons had been seized, and went on to name individual UNA-UNSO members involved.
> He also claimed to have evidence including uniforms, photographs and other personal belongings.
> Ukrainian defence ministry spokesman Konstantin Sadilov told AP news agency no members of Ukraine's military had fought in the war, though he did not rule out the possibility that other Ukrainians could have taken part.
> Relations between the two countries took another turn for the worse earlier this month when the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev accused Ukraine of pursuing anti-Russian policies.
> He added that there was no hope of any improvement in relations while the Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko remained in power.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8281990.stm

Georgia 'started unjustified war'  

The report does not put the whole blame on either country 
The war in Georgia last year was started by a Georgian attack that was not justified by international law, an independent report has concluded.

MORE AT LINK


----------



## CougarKing

Russia moving into Georgia again?

Foreign Policy



> *The Heavy-Handed Russian Move Nobody’s Talking About
> 
> Across the Caspian, in the Caucasus, Russia’s energy and geopolitical objectives collide.*
> 
> By Andrew Witthoeft
> August 06, 2015
> 
> A simmering conflict is approaching its boiling point in the Caucasus, as Russia continues with its revisionist attitude in its ‘near-abroad’ unfazed and unabated in spite of the West’s backlash. On July 10, as Europeans were haggling over Greece and the U.S. was busy sealing the Iran deal,* Russian-backed South Ossetian forces redrew the province’s borders unilaterally by moving the border posts deeper into Georgian territory.* According to the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, signposts were placed 985 feet farther south near the village of Orchosani, while next to Tsitelubani the South Ossetian territory was expanded by a whopping 3,330 feet. Villagers went to bed in Georgia, only to wake up in South Ossetia. Predictably, Moscow denied the charges.
> 
> *With this latest land grab, the Russian-backed separatists managed to gain access to almost a mile of the BP-operated Baku-Supsa pipeline, which carries some 145,000 barrels of Caspian oil per day to the Black Sea.* Perhaps more worryingly, the E60 highway that runs from Kyrgyzstan via Azerbaijan and Georgia all the way to the western tip of France is now just a stone’s throw away from the rebels in South Ossetia. Apart from being the primary Georgian road, linking the country’s east to its Black Sea shore, it also represents a key commercial highway. For example, during the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia, the road played a key role in keeping the oil flowing from Azerbaijan to European markets. BP operates a second pipeline, the 1.2 million bpd Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, which also runs along the E60.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## McG

More on Russia's latest Georgian annexations here:   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33675488

Odd that this is not getting more press coverage.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think the Caucasus may be the one of the few regions that is more geo-politically confusing to the Western mind than is that Balkans ... and we remember the rule of thumb about the Balkans, don't we?

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I don't think much has changed in the past 140 years.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest from the 2008 "adventure" ...


> International Criminal Court judges ordered an investigation of alleged crimes committed during the 2008 Georgian-Russian over the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia - the court's first investigation outside Africa.
> 
> The five-day war saw Russia strengthen its grip over largely pro-Russian South Ossetia, which had effectively been beyond Tbilisi's control since 1990. Russian troops pushed through South Ossetia deep into Georgia before withdrawing.
> 
> In a statement on Wednesday, judges said there was reason to believe crimes against humanity, including murder and the driving of Georgians from their homes, had been committed during the conflict, as well as war crimes including attacks on peacekeepers by Russian-backed South Ossetian and by Georgian forces.
> 
> The ICC, which has handed down just two convictions, of little-known Congolese warlords, has been criticised for bringing investigations only in Africa since being set up 13 years ago.
> 
> Last October, ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda asked to open an investigation after finding that up to 113 ethnic Georgian civilans had been killed and 18,500 driven from their homes as part of a "forcible displacement campaign" run by the authorities in mainly Russian-speaking South Ossetia.
> 
> Investigators will investigate allegations of crimes committed betweeen July 1 and October 10, 2008, covering periods either side of the five-day August war.
> 
> Opposing Georgian and South Ossetian forces appeared to have killed 12 peacekeepers, both Russian and Georgian, while Georgian forces had attacked a medical facility, Bensouda said ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Welcome, Ossetian brothers & sisters!


> South Ossetian President Leonid Tibilov has recently announced an intention to conduct a referendum in the country to join the Russian Federation. According to Tibilov, reunification with Russia has been a longstanding dream of the South Osetian people. Moscow has not been showing friendly attitude to such statements on post-Soviet space lately, but in this case, Russia made an exception.
> 
> "Political reality prompts us to make our historical choice. We must reunite with brotherly Russia to ensure security and prosperity for our republic and our people for centuries to come," Tibilov said ...


Here's a map in case you've forgotten where the latest protectorate's going ...


----------

