Jump to content

Separatist push/Ukraine shove back


Kinophile

Recommended Posts

How looks enemy assaults. Separatists uploaded this video with name "Avdeevka. Ukies ambushed" (don't look on cadre with Grads, this is just eyecandy first cadre), but really is a video of attempt to approach to "Almaz" position and the end of this engagement was cutted (watch second video). Possibly enemy fire suport group - three men with PRG-7, several RPG-26 and rifles conduct supress fire on our positions, while other group is trying to attack - very intensive gunfire heard on background, but in side of this three fighters are incoming only few bullets in return. On the second short video is cutted final - our troops move fire on enemy fire support group and they with cries "Retreat! Take the camera! Retreat ! Rudik, comne on! Retreat! " is running away. Unknown either can retreat their RPG-7 shooter Rudik or not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Haiduk said:

On the second short video is cutted final - our troops move fire on enemy fire support group and they with cries "Retreat! Take the camera! Retreat ! Rudik, comne on! Retreat! " is running away. Unknown either can retreat their RPG-7 shooter Rudik or not. 

... and photo of lieutenant of 46th sep,battalion "Donbas-Ukraine", which is starting advance of own unit in Novoluhanske in Dec of 2016. In Russian media real hysteria have started because "Ukrainain nazi have desecrated famous photo of soviet battalion commander, which raised own figters in attack" (below this photo)

 

Great video, thanks! It seems that he shouts "Арта, блядь". "Artillery". So, 7 minutes - Ukrainian mortar responce time? CM:BS is very accurate! ) Good tactic, they use back slope of the hill and grass to cover.

Haiduk, man on that photo with TT pistol is not a battalion commander. He is politruk. (comissar) He is a communist, What do you think about "decommunisation"? Is it good to cosplay a Soviet communist? By the way, I didn't see hysteria. I see that photo 1-st time here.

Edited by DMS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IMHO said:

Georgia: report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia of the Council of the European Union. Chapter two "The Conflict in Georgia in August 2008": "The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia..."

I just wanted to make small correction here. Many Russians like to start the war on August 7 because it is politically convenient to say "evil Georgian Army was trying to exterminate population", which is also what Russian state-owned media spins about war in Ukraine. Since the beginning of the month South Ossetian artillery (with Russian help, of course) was blasting schools, administrative buildings, police stations, and other objectives in a blatant attempt to elicit an armed response from Georgia. For the first few days the Georgian's were smart enough to not react in an overt manner but rather increase sniper activity. Finally August 7 the Georgians had enough and threw together a hasty plan to take Tskhinvali, unaware that this was Russia's plan from the start. Before August 7, Russia was moving large amount of equipment form the 58th Army in preperation of the Georgian response. Even in the 1990s Russia was actively funding South Ossetian ultra-nationalists to divide the two groups who have lived together in harmony for centuries.

Russia is no innocent peacekeeper. It is beneficial for Putin's regional goals to keep Georgia chained by his puppet provinces and "peacekeepers". Therefore, until Georgia can defeat the Russian army then slavery will persist.

2 hours ago, IMHO said:

However "real Ukrainian patriots" distrust Donbass population even on their side of the line of control for being"Russian sympathizers" they're still your compatriots or at least that's what Ukraine desires.

Ukrainian far-right nationalists in majority Russian-speaking cities:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DMS said:

So, 7 minutes - Ukrainian mortar responce time?

Artillery PDAs merged in network theoretically allow to open fire in 1-3 minutes, but not all arty/mortar units have its yet. Also because of Minsk, formally permision on opening return fire with mortars and guns more than 100 mm gives sector HQ through the chain field unit - battalion HQ - sector HQ and back, so can be addition delay.

30 minutes ago, DMS said:

Is it good to cosplay a Soviet communist?

That politruk was also Ukrainain. Lieutenent didn't cosplay him. It's just our journalists have found paralllels and shared it in media and caused reaction of Russian media. I watched interview with this lieutenent, he said he just want to reach as faster as possible to Novoluhanske, so jumping from trench and call others follow- Yuryi Velichko, photographer can catch the moment. Though, I think, some "theatricality" also was present too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Haiduk said:

That politruk was also Ukrainain.

His name is uknown, Why do you think that he was Ukrainian? There is a chance, of course. But if he was Ukranian, he was a bad Ukrainian, communist, occupant, invader. wasn't he? If you don't think so I am glad.

Common, lieutenent is posing. :) I don't think that he attacks with a pistol.

Just now, Haiduk said:

Artillery PDAs merged in network theoretically allow to open fire in 1-3 minutes

1-3 minutes - calculation of fire data, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must agree with IMHO this time, this situation can be solved only behind the table. Nowhere else.

The more Ukraine invest into weapons, the worse for them. You have to pay it back one day and so far you have to pay it back to IMF, EU and even to RF.

So far Haiduk is showing some infos from front with pictures - thats ok, but slowly you are going to cross the line, where you are going, hard to explain in english for me, to create enemies even between us, because we do not agree with your way of thinking. I thought, that this was, is and will be COMBAT MISSION BLACK SEA forum and not some 2nd grade chit chat forum... But maybe this is only my opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DMS said:

His name is uknown, Why do you think that he was Ukrainian?

Finally got to learn about this iconic image I knew from the cover of the Advanced Squad Leader rules:

http://visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/#543

"Младший политрук Алексей Еременко ведет солдат в атаку." [Junior political commissar Aleksei Yeremenko leads troops into battle.]

Taken on July 12, 1942.

Also available in 1/72 scale :):

ESC203c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Machor said:

Finally got to learn about this iconic image I knew from the cover of the Advanced Squad Leader rules:

There are many doubts. Documents say that Aleksey Eremenko was killed earlier. Though mistake is possible. There is version that "combat" was Pavel Petrov, Many veterans wrote letters to author of the photo recognizing their mates. We will never know for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haiduk,

I've always loved that classic GPW pic, but, even with color removed, the Ukrainian version is far more dynamic. That said, the Russian has a bigger gun! Would someone please give your man a proper military pistol? That thing looks like a popgun. Is the new photo an actual combat shot? If so, kudos to the photographer.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Haiduk,

I've always loved that classic GPW pic, but, even with color removed, the Ukrainian version is far more dynamic. That said, the Russian has a bigger gun! Would someone please give your man a proper military pistol? That thing looks like a popgun. Is the new photo an actual combat shot? If so, kudos to the photographer.

Regards,

John Kettler

This is usual PM of our officers %). About photo - this is real situation, but officer definetely played along for expressiveness of the shot - was no any need to nake the pistole. You can find many photos of Yury Velichko in network. For example, his series from Donetsk airport. All of them was made in ATO zone, less part of them are stage for artistic purposes, some real. He was official photographer of MoD, but many his colleagues-journalists possibly envied for his success and blamed him in staging of some photos from Shyrokyne - you could see it, where soldiers are runing from explosion and kids stroller in front of cadre. Of course, Velichko proved that this photos were real, and all own "artistic" photos he specially marked, but MoD have fired it, because afraid negative reactions of West media. But Velichko continues make photos in ATO already as free photographer.

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haiduk,

Thanks for the fascinating explanation. That was a pretty ferocious firefight raging, and I thought it most interesting to watch those three guys in battle. Are they commando types? They certainly seemed steady under fire. The snow camo was phenomenal. What I saw in that video, though I don't recall seeing a single bullet strike in the snow, was what looked to me like at least intermittent suppression. At times, though, going to ground was simply a protected way to reload, and reloading seemed to be difficult. At other points I noticed men rolling out of one location and into a different one, presumably to keep the foe guessing where they were. Thought it took real stones to stand up and fire the RPGs, but I don't understand why, since shooting from kneeling is most definitely taught as one of the firing positions. I've watched video of Russians on the training range doing exactly that. And if my position was coming under repeated RPG fire, you';d best believe I'd have somebody waiting for the next guy to stand up.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

Haiduk,

Are they commando types? They certainly seemed steady under fire. The snow camo was phenomenal. 

I don't know from what unit they are. On "promka" is fighting different detachments of 11th regiment "Vostok", 100th mot.rifle brigade, assault battalion "Somali" and recon-assault battalion "Sparta". Who of them filmed this - unknown. Camo is standard - UKR forces using the same. You didn't see bullet strikes, but you can hear several incoming zipping. Looks like our troops was busy with main group and this supporters fired in "area target" mode, so their fire wasn't too danger to spend firepower on that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Many Russians like to start the war on August 7 because it is politically convenient to say "evil Georgian Army was trying to exterminate population", which is also what Russian state-owned media spins about war in Ukraine. Since the beginning of the month South Ossetian artillery (with Russian help, of course) was blasting schools, administrative buildings, police stations, and other objectives in a blatant attempt to elicit an armed response from Georgia. For the first few days the Georgian's were smart enough to not react in an overt manner but rather increase sniper activity. Finally August 7 the Georgians had enough and threw together a hasty plan to take Tskhinvali, unaware that this was Russia's plan from the start. Before August 7, Russia was moving large amount of equipment form the 58th Army in preperation of the Georgian response.

I quote official EU fact finding report not the Russian media. So regarding your statements:

In the course of summer 2008, the main focus of tension then shifted from the Georgian-Abkhaz to the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, triggered by subversive attacks as well as by intensified exchanges of fire between the Georgian and South Ossetian sides, including mortar and heavy artillery fire.

Open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008. Operations started with a massive Georgian artillery attack. At the very outset of the operation the Commander of the Georgian contingent to the Joint Peacekeeping Forces (JPKF), Brigadier General Mamuka Kurashvili, stated that the operation was aimed at restoring the constitutional order in the territory of South Ossetia.

The Georgian allegations of a Russian invasion were supported, inter alia, by claims of illegal entry into South Ossetia of a large number of Russian troops and armour, prior to the commencement of the Georgian operation. [...] The Mission is not in a position to consider as sufficiently substantiated the Georgian claim concerning a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before 8 August 2008.

Military spending in Georgia under President Saakashvili´s rule increased quickly from below 1 % of GDP to 8 % of GDP, and there were few who did not see this as a message.

To me the report says something exactly opposite to your claims. Can you provide some verifications to your allegations?

Edited by IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IMHO said:

To me the report says something exactly opposite to your claims. Can you provide some verifications to your allegations?

There's actually quite a bit.  And it is the reason why the new Ukrainian government did not try to mount armed resistance to Russia's invasion of Crimea no matter how hard Russian forces tried to get a shooting war started.  They stated, explicitly, that they weren't going to be as stupid as Georgia was.

Russia's use of fake provocations to start military actions are well documented.  It goes way back into history, for example the Soviet Union's faked reasons to go to war against Finland in the Winter War.

Here's Georgia's documentation of Russian aggression prior to the war.  Note it goes back many years:

http://www.civil.ge/files/files/GeorgianGovernmentReportWar.pdf

A case establishing Russia's provocations here:

http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/CAD-10-12-16.pdf

A general overview of the war, including how and why it started:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub1069.pdf

What Russia did to Georgia is exactly what Russia did to Ukraine.  The difference is that Ukraine didn't "take the bait" and forced Russia into fighting a protracted "frozen conflict" instead of having a quick and decisive military campaign out in the open.

Years ago when I was researching how long it took Russia to move forces around I found a very detailed analysis of the Russian forces which fought against Georgia.  It showed that Russia was moving these forced into position up to 5 days before the Georgian artillery action that Russia used as the excuse to start the war.  There was no mention of Russian military officials possessing a crystal ball to foresee the future.  Sadly, I did not save this report (IIRC it was done by RAND) and several attempts over the past few years have failed to find it again.

What I did find was this analysis which clearly shows Russia covertly building up for the invasion of Georgia perhaps 3 months prior to launching its offensive.  This is a link to a PDF and you can start on Page 9:

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwiP0p-G1PrRAhXhx4MKHRRKCLoQFghDMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA500627&usg=AFQjCNFhzH2NAtaesYxTESjKKM7ShJyc_A&cad=rja

Oh, and let's not forget that Russia's war against Georgia was illegal under International Law, as is it's subsequent occupation of its territories:

On August 8, 2008, the President of Russia characterized the Georgian attack on the South Ossetian town of Tskhinvali and surrounding areas as "an act of aggression," and stated that Russia’s involvement was an act of providing assistance to defend against the attacking Georgian troops.[32]  However, an act of aggression can be recognized by the U.N. Security Council only upon evaluation of all the circumstances surrounding a military incursion.  Moreover, an act of aggression requires use of the armed forces of a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state.[33] Similarly, military assistance in the form of self-defense can be provided to another state only pursuant to formal agreements on this issue.  None of these requirements was met in the events of August 8, 2008.  Despite the fact that South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia, it had not achieved the status of an internationally recognized independent state. On August 8, 2008, South Ossetia remained an integral part of Georgian territory, which excludes the possibility of Georgian aggression against South Ossetia and undermines the use of this international law principle in as justification for Russia’s action.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/russian-georgia-war.php

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia's use of fake provocations to start military actions are well documented. It goes way back into history, for example the Soviet Union's faked reasons to go to war against Finland in the Winter War.

I suggest an even better historical argument. In the late 15th century when Kuevan Rus' disintegrated under the pressure of Mongol Invasion Moscow Grand Duchy together with Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia and Grand Duchy of Lithuania partitioned the territory of Kievan Rus'. Alas, there was no such thing as "Russia" at that moment :)

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's Georgia's documentation of Russian aggression prior to the war.  Note it goes back many years:

http://www.civil.ge/files/files/GeorgianGovernmentReportWar.pdf

A case establishing Russia's provocations here:

http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/CAD-10-12-16.pdf

Steve, these are both produced by the government of Saakashvili, who according to the EU fact finding report started the war. The second document is hosted on a Swiss resource but authored by Temuri Yakobashvili, Georgian State Minister for Reintegration in the Saakashvili Cabinet (Minister for Reintegration - Sic! :). Shall you extend the same level of trust if I start quoting Russian official papers? :D

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Years ago when I was researching how long it took Russia to move forces around I found a very detailed analysis of the Russian forces which fought against Georgia.  It showed that Russia was moving these forced into position up to 5 days before the Georgian artillery action that Russia used as the excuse to start the war.

Steve, do you remember the sources for the analysis? It would be interesting to compare as I happen to have the references that Georgia presented to EU fact finding mission. And there was a good reason why they wrote: "The Mission is not in a position to consider as sufficiently substantiated the Georgian claim concerning a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before 8 August 2008." :)

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

What I did find was this analysis which clearly shows Russia covertly building up for the invasion of Georgia perhaps 3 months prior to launching its offensive.

If I may quote from the text you've given:

"One author suggests that the decision to initiate the war was made in April of 2008 during a crisis in Abkhazia when the Russian air force shot down two Georgian drones that were monitoring Russian peacekeeping forces. If true, the Russian military had at least three months to prepare."

So "suggests" and "if true" somehow translates into "clearly shows"? Do we have this level of discussion? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

What would happen if one starts making serious policy decisions based on the same quality of information? The US Army is now augmenting forward deployed prepositioned stocks - a well known fact. One causally listens to Rush Limbaugh or reads some crazy article in Breitbart claiming the US is entitled to own half of the world. What should one do then? Put two and two together and start a nuclear war?

Edited by IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one follows the Saakashvili schedule of communications after the EU mission finished the report then you would notice major countries limited their discussions with him. The reason was the feedback of the mission that the guy is simply dangerous to deal with. He lived in the world of fantasies, you tell him one thing and he heard something else. Alas he is not some simple layman, he had the power to make serious decisions based on what he believed he had heard. He was the President of Georgia so everyone respected that he saw his patriotic duty in uniting his country. But the decision to start a war should be based on cold and inquisitive analysis of the facts. If one starts accepting into the grave equation of life and death the reasons akin to "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq" (direct quote from George W. Bush) we can be sure it will be a terrible mess for many many years ahead. Here's the quote about Saakashvili from Condolizza Rice memoir (I hope no one believes Condy cuts too much slack to Russia :)

He's proud and can be impulsive, and we all worried that he might allow Moscow to provoke him to use force. In fact, he himself successfully provoked conflict in another breakaway part of the country, Adjara, and benefited when it had been reintegrated into Georgia through domestic and international pressure. The precedent, we feared, might make him think he could get away with a repeat performance in the territories located closer to Putin's beloved Sochi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Years ago when I was researching how long it took Russia to move forces around I found a very detailed analysis of the Russian forces which fought against Georgia.  It showed that Russia was moving these forced into position up to 5 days before the Georgian artillery action that Russia used as the excuse to start the war.  There was no mention of Russian military officials possessing a crystal ball to foresee the future.  Sadly, I did not save this report (IIRC it was done by RAND) and several attempts over the past few years have failed to find it again.

What I did find was this analysis which clearly shows Russia covertly building up for the invasion of Georgia perhaps 3 months prior to launching its offensive.  This is a link to a PDF and you can start on Page 9:

I'm not sure how that shows that Russia orchestrated the whole thing, rather than simply having sufficient intelligence to know that an attack is going to happen. 

The Georgian posture towards the breakaway republics was aggressive for quite some time. Sakashvilii promised to reunite Georgia, and Georgian military spending was over 8% of their GDP. It was obvious that they were preparing for a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IMHO said:

Steve, these are both produced by the government of Saakashvili, who according to the EU fact finding report started the war. The second document is hosted on a Swiss resource but authored by Temuri Yakobashvili, Georgian State Minister for Reintegration in the Saakashvili Cabinet (Minister for Reintegration - Sic! :). Shall you extend the same level of trust if I start quoting Russian official papers? :D

The documents detail specific incidents which in theory can be checked and verified.  I have no doubt that some of the incidents are exaggerated or even completely made up, but other sources back up the general point... Russia was doing to Georgia then exactly what it is doing to Ukraine now. 

7 hours ago, IMHO said:

Steve, do you remember the sources for the analysis? It would be interesting to compare as I happen to have the references that Georgia presented to EU fact finding mission. And there was a good reason why they wrote: "The Mission is not in a position to consider as sufficiently substantiated the Georgian claim concerning a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before 8 August 2008." :)

Correct.  And the OSCE had difficulty establishing that the Russian military was freely operating in Donbas even though clearly it was.  The pattern of Russian behavior is to work through proxies and "reflagging" of its own forces.  Even when Russian forces were in obviously invading Crimea Putin still boldly claimed they were "local defense forces" who bought their equipment off of eBay.

So the EU report can be both true and false at the same time.  It did not have sufficient information that clearly marked and clearly led Russian forces were operating in South Ossetia before August 8.  But that doesn't mean Russian proxy forces weren't.

7 hours ago, IMHO said:

If I may quote from the text you've given:

"One author suggests that the decision to initiate the war was made in April of 2008 during a crisis in Abkhazia when the Russian air force shot down two Georgian drones that were monitoring Russian peacekeeping forces. If true, the Russian military had at least three months to prepare."

So "suggests" and "if true" somehow translates into "clearly shows"? Do we have this level of discussion? :(

You conveniently overlook the other information presented.  That quote is establishing the longest period of time that it appears Russia was preparing for the war, not the shortest.

7 hours ago, IMHO said:

What would happen if one starts making serious policy decisions based on the same quality of information? The US Army is now augmenting forward deployed prepositioned stocks - a well known fact. One causally listens to Rush Limbaugh or reads some crazy article in Breitbart claiming the US is entitled to own half of the world. What should one do then? Put two and two together and start a nuclear war?

There's a big difference between one side openly doing sensible things to defend itself and another side covertly waging wars of aggression on other nation's soil and then lying about it.  The war in Georgia happened only because Russian proxy forces, armed and trained by the Russian government (and in some times were Russian forces "reflagged") were illegally operating on Georgian soil.  That is fact.

6 hours ago, IMHO said:

If one follows the Saakashvili schedule of communications after the EU mission finished the report then you would notice major countries limited their discussions with him. The reason was the feedback of the mission that the guy is simply dangerous to deal with. He lived in the world of fantasies, you tell him one thing and he heard something else. Alas he is not some simple layman, he had the power to make serious decisions based on what he believed he had heard. He was the President of Georgia so everyone respected that he saw his patriotic duty in uniting his country.

Sure, and by that logic what should one be doing about Putin? :D

Saakashvili screwed up big time.  As I've already stated, he was a fool for taking the bait Russia laid out for him.  He did so because he completely misunderstood the situation.  Saakashvili was directly responsible for the war that followed because he chose that direction.  The interim Ukrainian government, as others, have learned from his mistake and have openly stated they would not give Russia an excuse on a silver platter.  This has not stopped Russia from waging war against Ukraine, but it has made it much more difficult than if Ukraine had resisted Russia's illegal invasion of Crimea.

6 hours ago, IMHO said:

But the decision to start a war should be based on cold and inquisitive analysis of the facts.

Well, it was.  Russia was waging a convert war against Georgia's sovereignty through the use of proxy military forces.  Georgia had the legal right to challenge Russia's actions and it also had the right to be protected from further illegal and grabs by Russia as a result of the war.  But the international community is week and ineffective.  Something Russia knows very well.  So that is why Georgia was stupid for going to war against Russia... Russia came out ahead.

Let me summarize the point.  Russia took land away from Georgia illegally and placed it under its direct control through illegally armed proxy forces operating on recognized Georgian territory.  Russia for years engaged in activities to undermine and complicate Georgian politics.  Russia pushed Georgia into making a very stupid decision and it capitalized on that by ruining Georgia's military and illegally taking more Georgian soil.  Russia has used this same strategy in numerous places before and since, but is using it most obviously in Ukraine.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nefron said:

I'm not sure how that shows that Russia orchestrated the whole thing, rather than simply having sufficient intelligence to know that an attack is going to happen. 

Well, if one ignores how Russia operates then one could come to this conclusion :D  The history of Soviet and Russian activities fit into a very well established pattern.  When Russia wants something it has no legal or moral right to have, it sets up conditions by which it can claim to be acting in a legal or moral way.  The primary excuse is Russians living in the near-abroad.  Russians placed there, I might add, explicitly for that purpose.

The key element of the Russian mindset is to identify clear and obtainable goals then set about "stirring the pot" to create conditions deemed sufficient to take more direct action.  Rarely does Russia do a single specific action with a specific reaction in mind.  Russia is very much a believer in making ones own luck and then placing its bet.

Ukraine is a perfect example.  Russia had a long term plan for seizing Crimea, in particular since 2010.  The plan was sufficiently vague and non-specific in terms of timing or when it might be used, but it was designed with the knowledge that odds were that someday soon the Ukrainian government would try to break out of Russia's orbit.  Russia had no way of knowing when and how that would happen, so it had no explicit plans until the circumstances became clearer in February.  The plan to undermine and outright breakaway southern and eastern Ukraine from Kiev's control had similarly been underway for years before.  Mostly in the form of Russian media control and ties with sympathetic Ukrainian oligarchs/criminals.

The point here is that Russia manipulates truth and fact to support a narrative that is sympathetic to Russian interests.  It then uses that narrative to justify its actions.  It worked very well in the case of Georgia, it has not worked as well against Ukraine.  But in neither case is the Russian narrative accurate or even truthful.

2 hours ago, Nefron said:

The Georgian posture towards the breakaway republics was aggressive for quite some time. Sakashvilii promised to reunite Georgia, and Georgian military spending was over 8% of their GDP. It was obvious that they were preparing for a war.

Sure, because Russia was already waging war against Georgia through it's proxy forces.  If the world correctly established this fact, instead of deferring to Russia's false case, then Georgia would have been in a different situation in August of 2008.  Saakashvili got played the fool by Putin.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If Serbia is divisible, then so is Kosovo!" (c)

The problem with Georgia and Ukraine is that some people there didn't like the break up of the Soviet Union and don't like to live in that new states. They were living in the USSR with the great education, medicine, industry and great history. And in one moment they become "Ukrainans" and "Georgians" though ethnically they are Osetians, Abhasians or Russians. They didn't vote for it, they didn't want it, they just were told that "here is Ukraine now". (Georgia) And than they were told that "In Ukraine all people must speak Ukrainian".

But if Georgians had right to be independent, why Osetians don't have? Why Crimea people don't have, if Crimia never was Ukrainian? Why industrial city of Donetsk, that was built by Soviet people, (most of them were Russians) and was given to Ukrainian Soviet Republic to help with industry don't have a right to choose? Most of the people in the ex-USSR were not succesfull in new reality, only few (mainly in large cities) benefited from changes. So their displeasure was based on economic factors, not only morale.

The root of that conflicts is unfair partition of the Soviet Union. Local authorities didn't have a wisdom to agree with ethnical minorities, they demanded to obey. In Ukraine society found a compromise, there was no civil war like in Georgia. In 2004 was elected "western" (supported by western Urkaine) president Yushenko, in 2010 - "eastern" (He is from Donbas) president Yanukovich. In 2015 would be elected another "western" president, Poroshenko or someone else. But "westerns" wanted to smash opponents, to overthrow their president and to rule for decades, changing persons, but not the ruling class. EU pushed them forward to get Ukrainian market. Nice try, thousands of people are dead. To elect Poroshenko 1 year earlier worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The documents detail specific incidents which in theory can be checked and verified.  I have no doubt that some of the incidents are exaggerated or even completely made up, but other sources back up the general point...

If you mean the fire incidents - they were checked. Just as you may guess the Georgians conveniently omitted THEIR bombardments. So after all the incidents were checked the conclusion was that both sides were firing over the line.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

You conveniently overlook the other information presented.  That quote is establishing the longest period of time that it appears Russia was preparing for the war, not the shortest.

What other information? That Russian government knew for three months that Georgia wanted to attack? Certainly Russia knew it for even longer - everyone knew. No James Bond tricks to deduce, military spending of 8% of GDP means the country goes to war soon because such level of military spendings are economically detrimental and unsustainable. And what should Russia have done then? You have 500 soldiers armed just with small arms and three old BMP-1 and the only way you can provide reinforcements is through a narrow Roki tunnel. Against 16'000 Georgians with 50 or 60 (don't remember exactly) upgraded T-72 and over a hundred armored troop carriers as it turned out. So what Russia did? It prepositioned two battalion tactical groups of 500 people each within 30-50 km from the Roki tunnel entrance on the RUSSIAN side. I'd call it an example of restraint. The US would bomb the hell out of advancing force without much thinking because those 500 in South Ossetia would be decimated in no time. And if you would like to discuss the position that Russia moved the forces through Roki before Saakashvili started shelling Tskhinval - let's do it. Just let's stick to the exact sources of such information to make the discussion detailed. Because these Georgian arguments were presented to the mission and they found them... Well... How to put it mildly... Unsubstantiated :)

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia took land away from Georgia illegally and placed it under its direct control through illegally armed proxy forces operating on recognized Georgian territory.

Steve, South Ossetia secession act was adopted by South Ossetian parliament in 1989. It was still Soviet Union - two years till Russia even reappeared on the map.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The war in Georgia happened only because Russian proxy forces, armed and trained by the Russian government (and in some times were Russian forces "reflagged") were illegally operating on Georgian soil.

Can you provide the sources for "reflagged" thing? Just not Temuri Yakobashvili :) He was quite officially the most senior figure responsible for formulating and executing Georgian policy towards Abkhazia and Ossetia after Saakashvili himself. If Mikhail has screwed up big in your opinion then what one can expect Temuri to say?

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

It did not have sufficient information that clearly marked and clearly led Russian forces were operating in South Ossetia before August 8. But that doesn't mean Russian proxy forces weren't.

Let's discuss other impartial sources. Because otherwise it will kill the discussion. "They didn't find it but it certainly happened" :D Please do not take it as offence :)

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, and by that logic what should one be doing about Putin? :D

Who knows? ;) I just prefer to discuss the things with tangible sources if information :)

Edited by IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...