Georgia and the Russian invasions/annexations/Lebensraum (2008 & 2015)
- Thread starter Haggis
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,328
- Points
- 1,160
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
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,008
- Points
- 1,160
Lots of photo's
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theatrum-belli/sets/72157606625660548/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theatrum-belli/sets/72157606625660548/
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
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
- Reaction score
- 6,007
- Points
- 1,260
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
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 – Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark 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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2563260/John-Bolton-After-Russias-invasion-of-Georgia-what-now-for-the-West.html
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 – Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark 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.
- Reaction score
- 8,328
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,534
- Points
- 1,160
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
Dig deep and keep the canned food handy....
http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=5513
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.
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
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 947
- Points
- 1,160
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.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
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/
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/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
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?
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?
- Reaction score
- 1,500
- Points
- 1,040
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.