• 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)

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")
 
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).
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Ah I understand.

My mistake. :-[

-Deadpan
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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. 
 
oligarch said:
Even BBC confirmed 1400 deaths.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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. 
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
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
 
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?
Click to expand...
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).
 
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. 


 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
You lie........BBC's report said 'according to Russian sources" 1400 have died,......that IS NOT confirmation.
Click to expand...

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".
 
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. 
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top