Georgia "Invaded" By Russian Forces
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Because if the Russians were serious about eliminating Georgia they would have done it by now they would not have allowed the return of Georgian troops from Iraq because they would have simply invaded throughout the country and left them no where to return to.
Oddly enough the BBC confirmed what the Russians were saying last night and even showed footage of Georgian troops firing on Russian forces as they were withdrawing.
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
Except a Full scale military intervention is completely unjustifiable in the 21st century, even the Russians know this.
I believe their true goal is to weaken Georgia's foundations just enough so that it collapses on its own. They are doing this by targeting the one thing that keeps the various rebellious ethnic groups together, which is the Georgian military. Without the glue, Georgia collapses and the Russians have complete deniability.
Its actually a brilliant idea, and it might just work too...
playstation60
Active member
You most certainly have a point with that one. And given how the media almost always is, I doubt we'll ever know the "whole true" story either.
I feel bad for not remembering the whole Kosovo situation as well as I feel I should. I was only about 10-12 years old at that time and it wasn't covered very in depth.
As for the whole US supporting the Kurds in Iraq thing...I'm still very much learning that situation. I have a bad habit of finding out information well after the fact and from not always the most credible sources. Given that I work for a fundraising company (republican clients mostly) alot of information comes from the prospects that I call on a daily basis, and then I've got to try and sift through all the political propaganda that we have to state to the client ourselves and try and formulate opinions.
LOL, let me know how things go in 2203!
I feel bad for not remembering the whole Kosovo situation as well as I feel I should. I was only about 10-12 years old at that time and it wasn't covered very in depth.
As for the whole US supporting the Kurds in Iraq thing...I'm still very much learning that situation. I have a bad habit of finding out information well after the fact and from not always the most credible sources. Given that I work for a fundraising company (republican clients mostly) alot of information comes from the prospects that I call on a daily basis, and then I've got to try and sift through all the political propaganda that we have to state to the client ourselves and try and formulate opinions.
LOL, let me know how things go in 2203!
The Other Guy
Spam King
If they keep going the way they are now, I don't even want to know.
playstation60
Active member
Right. There are days where I feel that if something drastic doesn't change, humanity WON'T exist come 2203.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
The Chinese may take note of this.
playstation60
Active member
That is an absolutely terrifying thought.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Unfortunately, I think it's a VERY distinct possibility. Raise your hand if you think Communism is gonna make another push, but this time, take it world wide and simultaneously.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Don't know if it has to do with Communism, rather other factors.
sunb!
Forum Barbecuer
Highly unlikely that any president would start a new military campaign while being tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at the same time at the end of his period...
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
For the Russians, couldn't have timed it better.
If anything this could be the job of the US Air Force. Provide supreme air cover for allied countries while the US Army is bogged down in a street level, low tech war.
If anything this could be the job of the US Air Force. Provide supreme air cover for allied countries while the US Army is bogged down in a street level, low tech war.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Don't get me wrong Sunb!, I am not blaming the US for not intervening militarily - but yes it could show more diplomatic effort and also try to drag in Europe more quickly, though it all happened very unexpectedly and fast.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I found this to be an interesting breakdown on the whole affair on the BBC's web site.
Winners and losers after Georgia conflict
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC news website
There are some clear winners and losers in the conflict over South Ossetia - and the crisis has shown the need for a fresh start in relations between Russia and the West. First, the balance sheet:
Winners
Russia: It has emerged strongly, able to impose its will in South Ossetia and sending a clear signal about its readiness to assert itself.
It agreed to a ceasefire plan when its objective - control of South Ossetia - was achieved. The plan basically calls for no further use of force and some kind of return to the position before the conflict. However, Russia's foreign minister said Georgian troops would "never again" be allowed to resume their role as part of the joint peacekeeping force agreed with Russia in 1992. It is not clear whether Russian forces will be reduced to the battalion-sized unit allowed for in that agreement.
This is unlikely. Think more of Cyprus in 1974, when the Turks intervened, making similar claims about protecting their kith and kin. They are still there.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin: He confirms that he is the power in the land. He gave strong performances throughout, especially when accusing the West of double standards by ignoring the casualties caused in Georgia's attempt to take over the enclave.
"What is surprising is the sheer scale of the cynicism - calling black white and white black, portraying aggressors as victims," he said. That goes down well at home.
The South Ossetians: The separatist movement will be in greater control now that Russia has taken over completely.
Old Europe: France and Germany, which are cautious about letting Georgia and Ukraine into Nato, will feel vindicated. They think that a country like Georgia with a border dispute should not yet be allowed in.
Losers
The dead and wounded and the refugees, of course: There are no accurate figures, but they might run into the hundreds. One problem has been the lack of reporting from inside South Ossetia. The initial Russian claim that a thousand and more were killed in the Georgian attack cannot be verified.
President Saakashvili of Georgia: He has been championed by the Bush administration but he failed in his attempt to impose Georgian control over South Ossetia and has to pay a price. Harsh words are being said about him by some European governments, where there has been private criticism of what one close observer called his "sudden and emotional" decision.
(Update 14 August: It is interesting however to see how President Saakashvili is trying to turn his position around, by gathering US and Eastern European support as the man who 'stood up' to the Russians. Other leaders have done this successfully before, for example Nasser in 1967 after the war with Israel.)
The truth: This has been a difficult conflict in which to sort out the facts. Russia failed to back up its claims of Georgian atrocities and did not allow reporters and international observers in to check them. Georgia made all kinds of claims that Russia was invading, including a statement that Russian troops had taken over the town of Gori which proved not to be so.
(Update 14 August: this reference was to a Georgian claim during the actual fighting, not to the subsequent Russian presence in Gori after the ceasefire.)
The US and UK at least have chosen to represent this as Russian aggression. Yet it was Georgia that attacked with a rocket barrage which by its nature was indiscriminate.
The West: Once again, the West was taken by surprise. The word in Washington (and London) is that President Saakashvili was warned to exercise restraint. If so, not only has Russia come out on top against a potential Western Nato ally, but that potential ally ignored serious advice from its mentors.
This raises the issue of what happens now.
The need for a new start
The fact is that the West needs Russia and Russia needs the West. Russia wants (or will want) to be better integrated into the world economic system and to be taken seriously as a diplomatic partner.
The West needs Russian support in the confrontation with Iran and Sudan, for example.
And perhaps the West needs to acknowledge that the Russians did have a case. It needs to explain why it helped Kosovo but questioned Russia's right to help South Ossetia.
However, there is already talk in Western capitals about retaliating against Russia for what is seen as its "disproportionate" response to the Georgian attack.
I understand that the following measures are being considered:
Blocking a new Russia/EU agreement: This covers a wide range of issues from trade to human rights. The old agreement is running out and negotiations must start on a new one. It is a symbol of good co-operation.
Restating Nato's commitment to Georgian and Ukrainian membership: This was agreed in principle in April and might be reaffirmed at a Nato meeting in December. However, there is no timetable and realistically, the conflict probably puts this off into the distant future.
Blocking Russian membership of the World Trade Organization: There could also be a questioning of Russian membership of the G8 group of leading industrial countries.
Whatever the outcome, the fortunately relatively small-scale war over South Ossetia has highlighted the present unsatisfactory situation between Russia and what one still has to call the West.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557915.stm
Winners and losers after Georgia conflict
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC news website
There are some clear winners and losers in the conflict over South Ossetia - and the crisis has shown the need for a fresh start in relations between Russia and the West. First, the balance sheet:
Winners
Russia: It has emerged strongly, able to impose its will in South Ossetia and sending a clear signal about its readiness to assert itself.
It agreed to a ceasefire plan when its objective - control of South Ossetia - was achieved. The plan basically calls for no further use of force and some kind of return to the position before the conflict. However, Russia's foreign minister said Georgian troops would "never again" be allowed to resume their role as part of the joint peacekeeping force agreed with Russia in 1992. It is not clear whether Russian forces will be reduced to the battalion-sized unit allowed for in that agreement.
This is unlikely. Think more of Cyprus in 1974, when the Turks intervened, making similar claims about protecting their kith and kin. They are still there.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin: He confirms that he is the power in the land. He gave strong performances throughout, especially when accusing the West of double standards by ignoring the casualties caused in Georgia's attempt to take over the enclave.
"What is surprising is the sheer scale of the cynicism - calling black white and white black, portraying aggressors as victims," he said. That goes down well at home.
The South Ossetians: The separatist movement will be in greater control now that Russia has taken over completely.
Old Europe: France and Germany, which are cautious about letting Georgia and Ukraine into Nato, will feel vindicated. They think that a country like Georgia with a border dispute should not yet be allowed in.
Losers
The dead and wounded and the refugees, of course: There are no accurate figures, but they might run into the hundreds. One problem has been the lack of reporting from inside South Ossetia. The initial Russian claim that a thousand and more were killed in the Georgian attack cannot be verified.
President Saakashvili of Georgia: He has been championed by the Bush administration but he failed in his attempt to impose Georgian control over South Ossetia and has to pay a price. Harsh words are being said about him by some European governments, where there has been private criticism of what one close observer called his "sudden and emotional" decision.
(Update 14 August: It is interesting however to see how President Saakashvili is trying to turn his position around, by gathering US and Eastern European support as the man who 'stood up' to the Russians. Other leaders have done this successfully before, for example Nasser in 1967 after the war with Israel.)
The truth: This has been a difficult conflict in which to sort out the facts. Russia failed to back up its claims of Georgian atrocities and did not allow reporters and international observers in to check them. Georgia made all kinds of claims that Russia was invading, including a statement that Russian troops had taken over the town of Gori which proved not to be so.
(Update 14 August: this reference was to a Georgian claim during the actual fighting, not to the subsequent Russian presence in Gori after the ceasefire.)
The US and UK at least have chosen to represent this as Russian aggression. Yet it was Georgia that attacked with a rocket barrage which by its nature was indiscriminate.
The West: Once again, the West was taken by surprise. The word in Washington (and London) is that President Saakashvili was warned to exercise restraint. If so, not only has Russia come out on top against a potential Western Nato ally, but that potential ally ignored serious advice from its mentors.
This raises the issue of what happens now.
The need for a new start
The fact is that the West needs Russia and Russia needs the West. Russia wants (or will want) to be better integrated into the world economic system and to be taken seriously as a diplomatic partner.
The West needs Russian support in the confrontation with Iran and Sudan, for example.
And perhaps the West needs to acknowledge that the Russians did have a case. It needs to explain why it helped Kosovo but questioned Russia's right to help South Ossetia.
However, there is already talk in Western capitals about retaliating against Russia for what is seen as its "disproportionate" response to the Georgian attack.
I understand that the following measures are being considered:
Blocking a new Russia/EU agreement: This covers a wide range of issues from trade to human rights. The old agreement is running out and negotiations must start on a new one. It is a symbol of good co-operation.
Restating Nato's commitment to Georgian and Ukrainian membership: This was agreed in principle in April and might be reaffirmed at a Nato meeting in December. However, there is no timetable and realistically, the conflict probably puts this off into the distant future.
Blocking Russian membership of the World Trade Organization: There could also be a questioning of Russian membership of the G8 group of leading industrial countries.
Whatever the outcome, the fortunately relatively small-scale war over South Ossetia has highlighted the present unsatisfactory situation between Russia and what one still has to call the West.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557915.stm
sunb!
Forum Barbecuer
I get the taste of "this is a Russian domestic affair" policy from some countries in Europe - perhaps some left overs from the cold-war era that hasn't been dealt with since?
Ps: Good to see you around IG
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I wonder how the West will respond the next time there is a sudden and unexpected attack from a country to an ally. Will it sit by again and justify its slow or lack of response with a string of excuses? Or did it really sit back and stay out because they REALLY felt it was wrong to help defend Georgia's claims. I have the feeling that although in this case it was the latter, the next time around the former could be true.
mmarsh
Active member
Indeed, this is a test. Russia is testing NATO resolve. You can be sure that other countries like Ukraine are going to have to be worried.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
"It's not that important and it's none of our business anyway" is probably precisely what the French and British felt when Nazi Germany was doing its thing with Czechoslovakia. We just never learn.
May have just given the Chinese a green light they may want to capitalize a few years from now.
May have just given the Chinese a green light they may want to capitalize a few years from now.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
My thoughts exactly. This whole Ossetia thing has got me nervous, folks.