Jump to content

Georgia on my Mind


Recommended Posts

Some quick comments then I have to leave for a bit (busy, busy, busy!).

The American vehicles seen were Humvees, not Strykers. Strykers are 8x8 vehicles that look like most like the BTR. I can promise you that they have no Strykers or even the Canadian LAV III variants. They do, however, have a very small number of Humvees. This was mentioned in the article on page 2 or 3 of this thread that detailed all the equipment used.

It is very typical for both sides of a new conflict like this to accuse the other side of distorting the evidence. Each side, unfortunately, tends to discredit the other side's sources more than their own. This is a natural Human condition that we are all guilty of. In other words, "the sources that are on my side are good until proven inaccurate, the sources for my opponent are inaccurate until proven good". We must all be careful to keep this in mind and treat all information, from both sides, as suspect unless it is verified. And I mean *all*. Any American here that was even remotely supportive of the invasion of Iraq knows why this is so important :D

Steve

Steve I think that everyone in this forum knows the difference between Stryker and Humvee:D

I didn't said that " I SAW STRYKER " I only said what some other people told me "...some type of APC wve never seen before..." so as I did know that georgians have some US or NATO weapons and vehicles I thought that it was Stryker(4 wheeled etc.).:D

And You're right in second part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Alan,

I meant, "Surprised that the Ukrainians would sell weapons to Georgia." Not "Surprised that there were Ukrainian weapons in Georgia." The Russian position on this is however clear: Ukraine acted in an unfriendly manner by selling ADA to Georgia, Nogovytsin had made no bones about that.

I for one don't understand why the Russians flew into S-200 envelopes. My best guess is, the Russians assumed the Georgians couldn't operate the systems, or that the Russian air force had an effective counter. The sortie rate dropped from dozens of planes in the air to singleton strikes over the course of four days, so it seems clear the Russians really cut back their air effort once they figured out somehow the Georgians might knock them down. Personally, I don't think Russian air support was all that effective. Consider their attempts to hit the Su-25 factory by Tbilisi airport.

As to Russian fears, my point is, RTR and the other Russian media provide information to play to the fears, which is not the same thing as saying all Russian viewers buy what the state media says. I was responding to the question "Why are the Russians so angry about the Ukrainians?" My theory is, really, the Russians really aren't that angry, neither the leadership nor the people. But for RTR, painting Ukraine as a dangerous neighbor, Georgia as a military power, and Russia surrounded by potential enemies is exactly the kind of programming the Kremlin approves of.

And we know what happens to Russian media that reports things, that the Kremlin does not approve of.

As far as Russian never attacking Ukraine, I think it is worth remembering that the longest guerilla war against the Soviet state was fought by Ukrainians in Ukraine. As far as some Ukrainians are concerned, Russia had attacked Ukraine before and, if not prevented by force or diplomacy, Russia is likely to do so again.

Don't forget, Russia for years has issued Russian passports to Ukrainian nationals, mostly ethnic Russians, living in Crimea. There is no difference between this approach, and the way Russia issed Russian passports to ethnic Ossetians living in South Ossetia.

Russia in 1991 signed a treaty making South Ossetia under Georgian sovereignty; by military force they reneged on that signature in 2008. Russia's signature of that treaty likewise affirmed Crimea was Ukrainian, not Russian territory.

And unfortunately Russia's recent interpetation of "security zones" in the Sarkozy ceasefire plan to mean "The continued occupation of two big enclaves Georgia to include absolute prevention of military movement, repeated inspections and delays to Georgian civilian traffic within Georgian territory, and destruction of Georgia's military infrastructure after the ceasefire was signed" has undermined Russia's reputation as a country that lives up to its word even further.

So although you write "Russia will never attack Ukraine", I fear that many Ukrainians are not so optimistic. Never is a long time.

First of all: did you heard in video that Russia was "surprised" to see Ukrainian weapons in georgia? No, because we did know about those weapons. 2nd yes they knew about s-200. You can call it a mistake, but when 58th army was crossing border(was on the march) it needed air support.

next:

- Russia will NEVER attack Ukraine.

- We don't worry about "world surrounds us"(If we die you'll die too :D (big boom:D ))

- "Georgia was a dangerous opponent" :eek: are you serious?? "opponent"? "dangerous"? they destroyed georgian military infrastructure in 30 hours? so there was no opponent at all.

- those S-200's aren't Russian. They came out of Ukrainian factories with Ukrainian electonics and even Ukrainian crews inside )).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1991 Russia signed alot of things that it shouldn't have, giving away lands that took Czars hundreds of years to aquire. Considering those agreements 100% legally binding is unfair considering the revolutionary state of Russia in 1991 - no clear thinking nation would sign those things.

South Ossetia being part of Georgia is completely artificial creation, same as Abkhazia (Beria's brainchild), same as Crimea being Ukraine (Krushchev's legacy). Pretty much the whole idea if Ukranian nationalism is artificial as well, as historically there is no such thing as Ukranian nation. Crimea was always Russian, with Russian population and great naval tradition, giving it to Ukrane was the dumbest move of entire Soviet collapse. Well the ownership if unfortunate and hopefully temporary...

The whole animosity is not towards Ukraine, but towards the orc in power (supported by whopping 5% of population) as well as certain ultra-nationalist Western Ukranians (followers of a "new" national hero - Stepan Bandera). Another interesting fact - vast majority of Ukranians reject NATO, so why Ushenko, being the pillar of democracy that he is, insists of dragging the country into the Alliance? I think most of Ukraine finally realized that the Orange was not quite ripe, and once Ushenko is gone relations should get better. After all, every Russian family has Ukranian blood in it, and vice versa - there is no reason to hate each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigDuke6's point is that a lot of Russia's neighbors fear Russian aggression. Whether that fear is rational or not is irrelevant. Russia flexing its military muscle against Georgia, then not abiding by the cease fires it signed afterwards, doesn't help matters.

If Russia did not want a war with Georgia it could have easily avoided it. They knew the attack was coming and they knew that they could defeat it. They could have broadcast an appeal, and a stiff warning, to the Georgian people and the world ahead of hostilities. "Hey, if your idiot leaders do anything stupid this week like launch an attack, we're going to come in and settle this thing with overwhelming force". In my book if the Georgians ignore this and launched a unilateral attack they would deserve to be crushed and occupied. But now the waters are very murky and it can not be said that Russia did ANYTHING to avoid the conflict.

The reason is most likely straight forward. The reason Russia did nothing to try and prevent Georgian aggression was because it wanted the war to happen. If Georgia didn't attack then the status quo, which Russia does not want, would have been maintained. Russia would have won diplomatic points for avoiding the conflict, and therefore avoided the negative consequences she now faces, but they wouldn't have key pieces of Georgian territory (critical to oil/gas delivery) and a chance of bringing down Georgia's current government.

So it is very clear. Russia wanted to settle this issue with its military, not its diplomats. As the much stronger, and I would say smarter, country in this conflict they had an obligation to take the high road. They did not and therefore its other neighbors are quite worried. After nearly half a century of brutal domination by Russians, there is very good reason for concern. Russia's recent behavior is not very different than its previous Soviet behavior in their eyes. Read anything from former Soviet occupied nations and that is very, very, VERY clear.

BTW, the same argument could be made against the US and the Europeans in 1990 before Saddam invaded Kuwait. The invasion was probably known well ahead of time and there is even an accusation that the Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam that the US would not do anything to stop it. Regardless of the last bit, the truth is that there was a possibility of heading off Gulf War One before it started if the US and its allies wanted it to. For long standing security reasons, which remain true to this day, it was not seen as being in the best interests of the US to have a hostile government in Iraq, therefore nothing was done until AFTER hostilities started.

My educational background is history. Machiavellian politics are a particular favorite of mine. All nations practice it, some more than others... some better than others.

That's my rant for tonight :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I miss the good old days of "SA" and an ASCC nickname! Made keeping track of things so much simpler as a threat analyst. I must've blinked, missed an update or something, but is it now being claimed that the SA-5/Gammon/S-200 scored its first combat kill?

If so, was its victim the only known Backfire combat loss, in the form of a Tu-22MR? I was under the impression that the Backfire got "eaten" by the SA-11/Gadfly/Buk M1, hence, my earlier observation about route sanitization via Spetsnaz Vintorez fire. If the S-200 did the deed, then the Russians must be feeling profoundly mixed emotions:

proud a Russian SAM system, especially such an old one, worked perfectly in modern combat and sad it was demonstrated at their direct expense.

Alan15rus,

What I could follow of the four vids you provided was eminently watchable, but the second of the four produced no vid when selected. Since I don't speak Russian, could you please summarize the highlights of what was said in each. I saw, for example, the captured equipment, some of which was clearly of American design and in some cases,

origin, but I couldn't follow what was said about the personnel docs, the African bodies found, and other items of interest.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I could follow of the four vids you provided was eminently watchable, but the second of the four produced no vid when selected. Since I don't speak Russian, could you please summarize the highlights of what was said in each. I saw, for example, the captured equipment, some of which was clearly of American design and in some cases,

origin, but I couldn't follow what was said about the personnel docs, the African bodies found, and other items of interest.

Regards,

John Kettler

They've captured few Humvees, Land Rovers and those S-200 that we are talking about. They say that there was some very interesting equipment in those Humvees and Rovers- GPS systems, some systems to contact satellites(I'm not good at whole that electronic, navigation systems thing) and modern radio systems(i guess). They've captured tons of unused M-4's M-60's some NATO weapons and ammunition(but it's not so important - they just meant that georgian army was leaving everything to advancing Russians.). It those docs were taken from dead soldiers showing that they were instructors(There were 2 bodies of Africans in Tskhinvali - as far as i HEARD-i don't have any proof-one of them had American documents with him). Plus the in video they show documents of Ukrainians(crews of S-200).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

I for one don't understand why the Russians flew into S-200 envelopes. My best guess is, the Russians assumed the Georgians couldn't operate the systems, or that the Russian air force had an effective counter. The sortie rate dropped from dozens of planes in the air to singleton strikes over the course of four days, so it seems clear the Russians really cut back their air effort once they figured out somehow the Georgians might knock them down. Personally, I don't think Russian air support was all that effective. Consider their attempts to hit the Su-25 factory by Tbilisi airport.

As to Russian fears, my point is, RTR and the other Russian media provide information to play to the fears, which is not the same thing as saying all Russian viewers buy what the state media says. I was responding to the question "Why are the Russians so angry about the Ukrainians?" My theory is, really, the Russians really aren't that angry, neither the leadership nor the people. But for RTR, painting Ukraine as a dangerous neighbor, Georgia as a military power, and Russia surrounded by potential enemies is exactly the kind of programming the Kremlin approves of.

And we know what happens to Russian media that reports things, that the Kremlin does not approve of.

http://rutube.ru/tracks/915456.html?v=1e16b063daacd3239483bafa053fbe8d

Russian pilot captured by Georgians.

You're absolutely right with the S-200 thing. Russians thought that georgians couldn't operate those systems. One of the reasons why Russia is angry with Ukraine is that those S-200 were operated by Ukrainians.

And you're right we aren't angry about people of Ukraine. Before war they weren't asked by their president if they want to support Georgia or they want to support Russia. And for that whole TV thing - I don't believe them even 50%. I was watching CNN and BBC those days and I was shocked by what they were telling to the whole world(by the way - 2 American reporters were killed in the morning of 8th August in Tshkinvali. They were moving with georgian troops. 3rd was saved by S.Ossetians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Russia did not want a war with Georgia it could have easily avoided it. They knew the attack was coming and they knew that they could defeat it. They could have broadcast an appeal, and a stiff warning, to the Georgian people and the world ahead of hostilities. "Hey, if your idiot leaders do anything stupid this week like launch an attack, we're going to come in and settle this thing with overwhelming force". In my book if the Georgians ignore this and launched a unilateral attack they would deserve to be crushed and occupied. But now the waters are very murky and it can not be said that Russia did ANYTHING to avoid the conflict.

The reason is most likely straight forward. The reason Russia did nothing to try and prevent Georgian aggression was because it wanted the war to happen. If Georgia didn't attack then the status quo, which Russia does not want, would have been maintained. Russia would have won diplomatic points for avoiding the conflict, and therefore avoided the negative consequences she now faces, but they wouldn't have key pieces of Georgian territory (critical to oil/gas delivery) and a chance of bringing down Georgia's current government.

So it is very clear. Russia wanted to settle this issue with its military, not its diplomats. As the much stronger, and I would say smarter, country in this conflict they had an obligation to take the high road. They did not and therefore its other neighbors are quite worried. After nearly half a century of brutal domination by Russians, there is very good reason for concern. Russia's recent behavior is not very different than its previous Soviet behavior in their eyes. Read anything from former Soviet occupied nations and that is very, very, VERY clear.

My educational background is history. Machiavellian politics are a particular favorite of mine. All nations practice it, some more than others... some better than others.

That's my rant for tonight :D

Steve

Steve please do some research. Since 2002 Russia was trying to prevent Saakashvili from starting a war in S.Ossetia and Abkhazia. There were millions of calls to Saakashivili. Putin let him know that if Georgia attacks S.Ossetia or Abkhazia Russia will have to defend it's citizens. You said before that we should be more careful with our comments but at the same time don't know what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7th august Saakashvili in his interview to georgian channel said that georgia don't want to start war in S.Ossetia. 5 hours after they started to bombard Tshkinvali. You're talking about "Russia wanted the war" while we - people of Osetia - were wondering why it took so long for Russia to move it's units into S.Ossetia. Now S.Ossetia has it's independence and we'll always thank Russia for it. And about what type of diplomats you're talking about? They (georgians) killing us but we should scream for peace?? Our diplomats destroyed georgian military in 2 days. We'll never be part of Georgia again. They made a mistake and there was no turning back. And I wonder why Saakashvili is still president: in 3 days he managed to loose some parts of his country, almost 7 000 soldiers, georgian military became impotent, he ate his tie while speaking to the whole world in interview, he was running like a rat when he heard sound of jet(I should mention that the jet was Georgian) while CNN was interviewing him and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigDuke6's point is that a lot of Russia's neighbors fear Russian aggression. Whether that fear is rational or not is irrelevant. Russia flexing its military muscle against Georgia, then not abiding by the cease fires it signed afterwards, doesn't help matters.

If Russia did not want a war with Georgia it could have easily avoided it. They knew the attack was coming and they knew that they could defeat it. They could have broadcast an appeal, and a stiff warning, to the Georgian people and the world ahead of hostilities. "Hey, if your idiot leaders do anything stupid this week like launch an attack, we're going to come in and settle this thing with overwhelming force". In my book if the Georgians ignore this and launched a unilateral attack they would deserve to be crushed and occupied. But now the waters are very murky and it can not be said that Russia did ANYTHING to avoid the conflict.

The reason is most likely straight forward. The reason Russia did nothing to try and prevent Georgian aggression was because it wanted the war to happen. If Georgia didn't attack then the status quo, which Russia does not want, would have been maintained. Russia would have won diplomatic points for avoiding the conflict, and therefore avoided the negative consequences she now faces, but they wouldn't have key pieces of Georgian territory (critical to oil/gas delivery) and a chance of bringing down Georgia's current government.

So it is very clear. Russia wanted to settle this issue with its military, not its diplomats. As the much stronger, and I would say smarter, country in this conflict they had an obligation to take the high road. They did not and therefore its other neighbors are quite worried. After nearly half a century of brutal domination by Russians, there is very good reason for concern. Russia's recent behavior is not very different than its previous Soviet behavior in their eyes. Read anything from former Soviet occupied nations and that is very, very, VERY clear.

BTW, the same argument could be made against the US and the Europeans in 1990 before Saddam invaded Kuwait. The invasion was probably known well ahead of time and there is even an accusation that the Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam that the US would not do anything to stop it. Regardless of the last bit, the truth is that there was a possibility of heading off Gulf War One before it started if the US and its allies wanted it to. For long standing security reasons, which remain true to this day, it was not seen as being in the best interests of the US to have a hostile government in Iraq, therefore nothing was done until AFTER hostilities started.

My educational background is history. Machiavellian politics are a particular favorite of mine. All nations practice it, some more than others... some better than others.

That's my rant for tonight :D

Steve

Steve,

I disagree with the statement that Russia did not resort to diplomatic channels before resorting to military response due to several factors:

1) Attempting to settle anything though international channels would be blocked by U.S. for obvious reasons

2) Saaskashvili was being portrayed as warm and fuzzy, a new leader for a new Georgia and etc. While Putin's reputation was of an evil dictator comparable to Hitler.

3) A peace conference in Russia-Georgia-S.Ossetia-Abkhazia format was scheduled for Aug. 8, the day following the attack

4) Numerous statements by Saaskashvili that he would not resort to force

5) Numerous warnings from Putin that Russia will respond

6) The fact that Putin was at Olympics opening and Medvedev is not a strong-man that will start a war, but rather a business man. He presided over Gazprom board before gaining the Presidency, last thing he wanted to do was to start a war.

7) Russia's requiest for an emergency UN council meeting on the night of the attack was vetoed by U.S. (and that was before Russian troops crossed Roki) - To buy saaskashvili time? (if you add complete silence from Westerm media sources until Georgian army was in rout, picture becomes pretty clear...)

8) Hasty nature with which 58th army deployed - outdated armor, broken down units, draftees being thrown into fighting because they were on exercise nearby (only contract soldiers are supposed to participate in combat operations), commander of 58th riding in front of the column and getting wounded, and etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply only one country is allowed to "peacemake" civilians with carpet bombing and Tomahawk missiles. :) Serbia, Iraq, you have the picture. When sponsored marionette of that country had got his nose blooded and started crying, Russia suddenly became "Evil Empire". Has my country no rights to defend its citizens?

The West liked Yeltsin's Russia - poor and drunken, like himself. Now, when Russia become stronger and return to the world scene as influensive state there is mich blah-blah about reborn of the Soviet empire, aggresive plans and other nonsense you can often read in western newspapers. Simple minds are easily affected by the Force of media. © Obi-Van Kenobi. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

Several issues:

- Georgian agression

I think if you look at the border incidents prior to the actual conflict, you will agree that there was agression on both sides. As nearly as can be told, Ossetian militia/army was firing on Georgian villages with machine guns and mortars. This is not to say the Georgians did not fire back, nor is it to say the Ossetians fired first. But it is to say that Georgia no matter how stupid Saakashvili is, entered the war without grounds. Border incidents are a standard casus belli. It is impossible to say the Russian/Ossetian side did not participate, and it is impossible to say the Russian/Ossetian side is without complicity in the general high level of tension in the region. Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that Russia has been attempting to stabilize the region since 1991. Russia in 1991 signed a treaty agreeing the region belonged to Georgia, and since then it has armed and invested heavily the Ossetian side. This is not neutral behavior, and it is a direct violation of a legal international agreement signed by the Russian government.

Of course, Georgia started the conventional warfare. But they did not do so in a vacuum, and no matter what RTR says, Russia has supported instability, not stability, in the region.

- Russian signature on treaties

Your arguement Russia has no need to abide by the terms of treaties it signed and ratified is untenable in international law. By that standard, Russia's own borders have no validity, as they were defined by the same 1991 agreement creating the CIS.

In simple terms close to the topic at hand, Chechnya has every bit as much right to be its own country, as Russia. Further, if the 1991 CIS agreement is invalid, the international community has every right and indeed a duty to support the Chechen insurgency.

Russia's work of centuries expanding its borders into the region is meaningless, if the treaties and international agreements underpinning the borders of the Russian state are up for dispute. After all, Russia only had control of say the Primorskiy region for about 300 years, after signing an agreement with China. (I may be a little off on the exact time, please correct me here.) Initial Chinese influence of north Pacific coast dates back not centuries, but millenia. So, if Russia gets to abrogate the 1991 CIS treaty and pick and choose which parts of it it chooses to abide by, then why shouldn't China get title to the Primorskiy region? You and I both know who it is, the Chinese or the Russians, that have the better economy and the bigger population. If treaties mean nothing, and historical influence is how you decide what bit of the planet belongs to whom, then what's to stop the Chinese from claiming everything from Vladivostok to the Bering Strait?

Of course, if the rule is, "Double standards are okay for Russia, but not okay for the rest of the world," then fine, your logic holds up.

But I fear you will have trouble finding people outside Russia to agree with that point of view.

- The Ukrainian angle

It is true the Ukrainians are not in favor of joining NATO, but it is not true that they are overwhelmingly opposed. The latest numbers I saw was a moderate majority against, and tellingly, the numbers had shifted about 5 per cent towards NATO in the month after the Ossetia war. As time passes support has increased. If present trends of education and mortality continue, so will the trend - many of the pro-Russian Ukrainians grew up in the Soviet Union, and as they die off they are replaced by Ukrainians born and raised in an independant Ukraine. The younger generation of Ukrainians is 100 per cent for joining the EU, and understands that NATO is the route. If Russia grabs another 1-2 bits of other countries, and then again makes excuses about how international agreements don't apply to Russia, I expect that will tip support towards NATO in Ukraine.

The Ukrainians are not stupid. They see how the Russian government is handing out passports in Crimea, how the Russian government finances pro-Russia Ukrainian politicians, and how the Russian government gained full control over South Ossetia. The Ukrainians do not think of Russia as a protective friend, but rather an overmuscled neighbor happy to extort political concesssions with whatever means it has at its disposal, be it energy, military, or faked-up claims about the opression of the Russian language in Ukraine.

As Steve said, Russia had the option of taking the high road, of beating up Georgia and then leaving immediately, and getting the reputation of a power interested in regional stability. But the Kremlin chose the same thing Saakashilia did: the option of military agression for the goal of territorial gain.

It remains to be seen how much fall out in the West there will be against Russia, but in Ukraine, Russia has harmed its already-questionable reputation. It may be possible to argue to the Germans or the French Russia is a reliable partner, but the Ukrainians live next door, and in my view they know different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

Several issues:

- Georgian agression

I think if you look at the border incidents prior to the actual conflict, you will agree that there was agression on both sides. As nearly as can be told, Ossetian militia/army was firing on Georgian villages with machine guns and mortars. This is not to say the Georgians did not fire back, nor is it to say the Ossetians fired first. But it is to say that Georgia no matter how stupid Saakashvili is, entered the war without grounds. Border incidents are a standard casus belli. It is impossible to say the Russian/Ossetian side did not participate, and it is impossible to say the Russian/Ossetian side is without complicity in the general high level of tension in the region. Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that Russia has been attempting to stabilize the region since 1991. Russia in 1991 signed a treaty agreeing the region belonged to Georgia, and since then it has armed and invested heavily the Ossetian side. This is not neutral behavior, and it is a direct violation of a legal international agreement signed by the Russian government.

Of course, Georgia started the conventional warfare. But they did not do so in a vacuum, and no matter what RTR says, Russia has supported instability, not stability, in the region.

- Russian signature on treaties

Your arguement Russia has no need to abide by the terms of treaties it signed and ratified is untenable in international law. By that standard, Russia's own borders have no validity, as they were defined by the same 1991 agreement creating the CIS.

In simple terms close to the topic at hand, Chechnya has every bit as much right to be its own country, as Russia. Further, if the 1991 CIS agreement is invalid, the international community has every right and indeed a duty to support the Chechen insurgency.

Yes you right - there were numerous border incidents, especially before the war started. But why you say Ossetians were firing at Georgian villages? With same success you can say that it were Georgians firing at Ossetian villiages, can't you? I think you can't tell now who was the first to fire at another's villages. Did I say that that "Russia has been attempting to stabilize the region since 1991"? No. I said "since 2002(or 2004). You see it's not "Russia" from 90's -like TempV said : "poor and drunken" it's new type of Russia -"with opened eyes and clear minds".

"Russia in 1991 signed a treaty agreeing the region belonged to Georgia, and since then it has armed and invested heavily the Ossetian side"

They didn't sign such treaty - do some closer research- they singed documents on cease-fire, not using any kinds of weapons and peacekeeping force in the region. Now please bring some facts about "arming and investing heavily the Ossetian side" -for me(man who lives in Ossetia) it's some kind of nonsense- if Russia had been investing in Ossetian military it would have been Ossetia who attacked Georgia.

Speaking of Chechnya: ask any Chechen in republic about Russia - these days Chechens are pleased by being part of Russia. There are no more "insurgents" in Chechnya. It's all over now. But in Georgia Russians didn't support some kind of "insurgency" - they were defending Russian citizens and peacekeepers who were under Georgian attack (in fact it was GENOCIDE of Ossetians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Red Rage posted,

“In 1991 Russia signed a lot of things that it shouldn't have, giving away lands that took Czars hundreds of years to aquire”

I agree with the sentiment…

Due to what anyone with a brain realized was only temporary weakness Russia agreed to all sort so stuff. The problem is that the Americans did not seem to understand that the weakness was certain to only be temporary. The Germans for example did and do understand this.

History never really went away and never will. Humans are tribal hence history rolls on as always.

When it comes to international law… there is no such thing in the normal meaning of “law”. Nations voluntarily follow so called international law; they can and do withdraw their consent to such law at will.

All interesting stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

The security codicil of the 1991 CIS agreement, signed in 1992 in Chisinau, committed CIS members to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of of all signees. That included Georgia and Russia. Russia has now abrogated that commitment, specifically when Medvedev recognized South Ossetia's independance last month.

As to Russian investment in South Ossetia, I think it is a matter of generally-accepted fact that the South Ossetian government had under its control some 100 - 150 armored vehicles, and some 5,000 fighters. I think it is safe to say neither China nor the US, nor the EU nor the African Union, provided those arms to a province considered by the international community under Georgian sovereignty. This of course does not take into account the Russian "peacekeepers", who despite the name are in fact picked infantry fielding armored personnel carriers, and at least sometimes providing arms to the South Ossetian side. Nor does it take into account Russian issuance of passports to residents of another country, by the definitions of the international community.

Are you arguing South Ossetia has faced off against Georgia without Russian assistance?

As to your assertation Chechens like Russian domination, I have one word for you: Kadyrovtsi.

As to whether or not the insurgency is over, you might check here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_phase_of_the_Second_Chechen_War_(2008)

Compared to that, what the US is up against Iraq and Afghanistan isn't insurgencies, it is a few bandits.

In my opinion, the Chechens will never accept Russian domination. Never. Every Chechen boy knows who Shamil was, and if you ask any Chechen what makes his nation different from any other nation that is in the Russian sphere of influence, he will say themselves: "We Chechens are not slaves."

But perhaps you know better than me, or maybe you know different Chechens.

In any case, that's not the point. What is to the point is: If it is ok to accept South Ossetian independence, then by any standard it is ok to accept Chechen independance. The Chechen nation is larger, has been in the region longer, and has fought for its independance far more than the Ossetians. If Russia denies Chechen independance, and at the same time supports Ossetian independance, then Russia is following a double standard.

That is of course Russia's right as a nation state, but the words of Kremlin spokesmen are not going to change the facts on the ground. Logically, now there is nothing to stop China from issuing passports to its citizens in the Primorskiy Krai.

Russia is a bit stronger than it was in the 1990s, but a state-run media and defeat of a fifth-rate power like Georgia does not make Russia a major power. It remains to be seen whether the Kremlin's campaign in Georgia and its apparent rejection of the concept of international territorial integrity, will serve Russia's long-term interests.

But one thing is for sure: No country has more territory to worry about, than Russia.

Old Ukrainian saying: How is it, that with all the land the Russians have, they always want more? They don't have enough already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigduke6

Anyway, thanks to Russia, S.Ossetians are alive and independent. I don't really care about politics and whole that paper stuff. You can call me ignorant, but why should I care about some games some people play? We finally got peace, but if georgians strike again, we'll not stop by Ossetian borders. We'll go deep inside and make sure they won't be able to strike another time(and i don't think that council of UN or someone else will come and stop us):cool::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Before the Georgia war kicked off, say three odd months ago, one of the long-time senior writers on the British based Financial Times wrote… to closely paraphrase…

“We in the West have to come to terms with the fact that big countries such as China and Russia will follow a model closer to that of Singapore than Germany and will succeed as Singapore has. Big countries will emerge that are as wealthy per head as Western nations but are not democratic as in the West.”

The West no longer has the power to determine the outcome in Russia’s or China’s back yard. This will lead to a more rational world. The West has not coped well with the near absolute power it enjoyed in the ‘90s.

Competition will up the quality of government in the US and UK… as a New Zealander living in the UK this is good thing.

For the nations surrounding Russia the model to follow is Finland… not the Baltic States.

All interesting stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by my previous statement. If Russia wanted to avoid a military conflict in Georgia it most likely could have. In the event that Saaskashvili still attacked then Russia could have destroyed the Georgian attacking force and withdrew to the previously internationally recognized borders. They signed pieces of paper saying that they would do this, and yet they have not.

As BigDuk6 points out it is completely naive, and contrary to the facts, to say that the Georgian attack was completely unprovoked. It is also completely contrary to the facts to say that Russia has done nothing to help provoke the conflict. It is also completely contrary to facts that Russia didn't try to stop the Georgian attack it knew was only days away from happening. If Russia really did "pull out all the diplomatic stops" I would have heard about it on US news because such strong statements would have got people's attention, even over here. As far as I can tell Russia remained very quiet at the time it should have been most vocal.

I also agree that it is ridiculous to say that previously agreed to treaties can be nullified unilaterally. That is the same as saying that no treaties have any meaning ever. Unfortunately, the Russian behavior since signing the cease fire is not encouraging.

Please understand that this is not the "pot calling the kettle black". I am as against unwarranted American aggression and interference in the affairs of other countries as I am against the same behavior from any other nation, Russia or otherwise. I do not think it is productive to justify and defend Russia's behavior, or Saaskashvili's for that matter, by insisting "other countries do it, so it's OK for us to do it too". Especially since Russia has made many very strong statements against the US actions in Iraq and elsewhere.

I also stand by my comments that it appears that just about the only country in Europe that doesn't think Russia is being aggressive is Russia :D So at the very least Russia has a PR problem on its hands, because if it really isn't an aggressive expansionist state... it needs to do a better job of convincing its neighbors they have nothing to fear.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I am all for a more economically prosperous Russia. Not only does it make for a better, more balanced world economy but it also makes Battlefront more profitable :D We have several Russian partners, products, and marketing/distribution agreements. When we first started Battlefront the only games of ours for sale in Russia were pirated CDs for less than $1 a piece. Now we actually consider the revenue from Russia to be significant.

So it's nonsense to suggest that if someone disagrees how Russia is handling itself that that person also wants Russia to be weak. I disagree with a LOT of what my own country does (here and around the world), that doesn't mean I want us to be sitting around in poverty with Canadians messing around with our borders :D

Oh, I find it to be funny (I do mean funny) that anybody in Russia can be pissed off about what weapons are used against their forces. Using that same logic then the US should never speak with Russia again because almost all the weapons it is likely to face in combat are supplied by Russia ;) I am not angry with Lebanon that it used US weapons against Israel, or that US weapons were used against US forces in Panama, or that US surplus warships were used against the British, etc. That's just the way things work in this world. If one really cared about this then there would be no international arms sales between anybody for any reason ever. And that's never, ever going to happen.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I am all for a more economically prosperous Russia. Not only does it make for a better, more balanced world economy but it also makes Battlefront more profitable :D We have several Russian partners, products, and marketing/distribution agreements. When we first started Battlefront the only games of ours for sale in Russia were pirated CDs for less than $1 a piece. Now we actually consider the revenue from Russia to be significant.

So it's nonsense to suggest that if someone disagrees how Russia is handling itself that that person also wants Russia to be weak. I disagree with a LOT of what my own country does (here and around the world), that doesn't mean I want us to be sitting around in poverty with Canadians messing around with our borders :D

Oh, I find it to be funny (I do mean funny) that anybody in Russia can be pissed off about what weapons are used against their forces. Using that same logic then the US should never speak with Russia again because almost all the weapons it is likely to face in combat are supplied by Russia ;) I am not angry with Lebanon that it used US weapons against Israel, or that US weapons were used against US forces in Panama, or that US surplus warships were used against the British, etc. That's just the way things work in this world. If one really cared about this then there would be no international arms sales between anybody for any reason ever. And that's never, ever going to happen.

Steve

Steve I agree with you 200%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

International treaties are like marriages between consenting adults… if one party really wants out, then it is all over. All nations have to take the real world consequences of their actions, like divorcees have to.. but no nation can be held by so called “law”… international or not.

The various different tribes are sovereign. American voters will “never” do what they are told to do by Russians and Chinese voting together… British voters will not do what they are told to do by French and German voters voting together. Unless the Americans and British want to do as they are told.

i.e. International law and treaties are voluntary in a way national laws are not for the individual citizen..

All good stuff…

All the best,

Kip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

Well let's hope it works out for the best. Maybe Russian domination will be just great for South Ossetia.

As for the next Georgian strike, you better get ready. The way it looks the West is going to re-arm Georgia bigger and better than before. And countries have a tendency of learning from defeat, look at how Egypt improved its performance from 1967 to 1973.

Bigduke6

Anyway, thanks to Russia, S.Ossetians are alive and independent. I don't really care about politics and whole that paper stuff. You can call me ignorant, but why should I care about some games some people play? We finally got peace, but if georgians strike again, we'll not stop by Ossetian borders. We'll go deep inside and make sure they won't be able to strike another time(and i don't think that council of UN or someone else will come and stop us):cool::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigDuke6,

Or a more relevant example of learning from previous mistakes... Russia vs. Georgia compared to Russia vs. Chechnya! Of course it helped that Georgia completely botched the attack ;)

Kip,

International treaties are like marriages between consenting adults… if one party really wants out, then it is all over.

True, however there are some ways to do this that are more "right" than "wrong. For example, I doubt you would agree that if a man wants out of a marriage that he has the right to cheat on his wife? Or if a woman wants out she has the right to put a shotgun to his testicles and pull the trigger? Or one beats up the children as a way of getting even with the other? I hope not ;) No, what should happen is the two parties should sit down and openly discuss the situation. The outcome may indeed be an open disagreement, which can't be resolved, but at least everybody knows where each stands. That's how civilized people behave and so should nations since they are simply an extension of the belief systems of individuals.

As a practical matter, a country which ignores its previous signatures must, by definition, be viewed with suspicion by its neighbors. And when military force is thrown into the mix, then it is only proper that its neighbors take steps to protect themselves from possible aggression. Therefore, Russia is in no position to dictate how its neighbors should be acting towards it since she is giving them every reason in the world to fear her (economically too, as Russia proved when it shut off the natural gas in the middle of the winter). Even if Russia has free and clear morale high ground regarding South Ossetia, before and during the Georgian attack, it has lost it now that its failed to honor its obligations that it voluntarily agreed to. As I said earlier, at the very least Russia has created a political PR problem for itself.

As for Georgia... it is, basically, unimportant on its own. Well, at least until it is able to militarily challenge Russia. Judging by their recent performance, I'd say that's a long ways away.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Saaskashvili is in hot water with every opposition party in Georgia, who are publicly calling for an early election with words like "traitor" floating around. Spark was countinued blockage of .ru Internet sites in Georgia.

Opposition leaders are calling for new direction for Georgia with its own national identity, free from Russian and American influences. They seem to aim at balanced and friendly relations with both, U.S. and Russia. NATO membership is being considered only in political cooperation format, but with absolutely no possibility of full membership. Just the viewpoint needed to stabilize the region...

On a personnal note: One would think that it is in order of things for a president to resign after a monumental fook up like that (for a military man who planned it, it would be a good idea to shoot himself), but not for Mad Mike...he's a weasel of a rarest kind who'll do anything to stay in the spotlight, including total destruction of his own people. But hey, at least he's safe - Dutch wife with money, US citizenship, perfect English...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

As for the next Georgian strike, you better get ready. The way it looks the West is going to re-arm Georgia bigger and better than before. And countries have a tendency of learning from defeat, look at how Egypt improved its performance from 1967 to 1973.

It would be suicidal for Georgia to strike again. Next time we'll(Russians and Ossetians) have to get to Tbilisi itself, not just stop by S.Ossetian border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...