• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 
 
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.

 
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.
 
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.
 
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

 
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)
 
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!

 
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?


 
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.
 
Back
Top