MM the Russians never said the wanted to change the leadership in Goergia
What is so hard to understand about the fact that Georgia launched hostilities agians thier countrymen under cover of the Olympics in a gamble to crush the rebellion and ended up losing their butts reports I have seen reports that said the Georgian Army has been smashed.
And did you guys see that nice shiny new Russian military equipement? :cheers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAHrHd2lcw&mode=related&search
1. They didn't say so PUBLICLY, however they did say exactly this in a phone call to Condi Rice. The exact words used in that conversation was
"Shaakasavili's must go!" (According to WH sources).
They were also asked the very same question by the US ambassador to the UN (in front of the entire UN security council) and by a CNN journalist. To the latter they replied that removing Shaakashivili was "recommened".
I really dont think one needs to read between the lines about Moscows intent.
2. I have answered that question already, but in a nutshell Moscow was behind the rebellion in Ossentia from the very begining. They WANTED the Georgians to respond to the rebels so they could have a justification to invade. Its exactly what the Austro-Hungarians did to the Serbs in 1914. They baited the nationalists up so much, that they finally responded (the assasination of Emporor Franz-Ferdinand) and when they did the Austro-Hungarians had their excuse to invade.
3. And OTG is correct. First of all Shaakashivili was a democratically elected president in a election that was much more free and fair than Russia's recent election was. And Second of all, Ossentia is recognized by the entire world as being part of Georgia, there is no disagreement on this within the UN on this. Ossentia is Georgian territory, and because of it Georgia is therefore entitled to launch security measures against forces seeking to destablize the country.
4. Yes we did, thats the only good part to this mess.
USMC03
Well there-in lies the real problem. The WH and the DOD said a few years ago that despite the vast consumption of military resources used for Iraq, we would have the forces necessary for a 3rd Front should trouble spark somewhere else. Did they really mean it? Or where they blowing smoke up our rear-end? (I suspect the latter, but I could be wrong). I would wager however, that the weakened state of US military affairs played a very large role in Moscow's decision in this Georgian gamble.
We would have to start sending in forces from other theatres. We have 25000 troops in Korea doing nothing, we have forces in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. Our best tactic would be to challenge Russia Air superiority, institute and Patrol No-Fly zones within Georgia by using airfields in Neighboring NATO countries. The USAF already has several bases in Germany. If the Russians lose Air Superiority then their Armor is essentially grounded. that should buy time for us to move some troops from Iraq and non-vital conflicts zones (Korea for example, there are 25000 Marines there). They be of better use in Georgia. Its tricky and perhaps even wishful thinking, but I see no other way. Its a gamble, but even though Russia doesnt like Georgia, I don't think it wants a war with NATO over it.
Of course my other hope is that the other NATO countries might get nervous about Russian expansionism. Europe does business, but they really dont trust the Russians. The French have not forgotten the fact that it was Moscow (their supposed Ally) that sold them out to Germany both in 1917 and again in 1940. Because Europeans prefer talk to action (another fact Moscow is sure to take advantage of) they might not move right away because Moscow supplies them with oil, but sooner or later the growling of the Russian Bear becomes more worrisome than fuel prices, that they decide to intervene as they did in Kosovo.
