Russia ''invades'' Georgia

Overheal

conceited wrote: »

Thanks for the history lesson .
Why are the united states of america putting missiles in poland?

To respond to new missile threats created by Iran, apparently.

Moscow fiercely opposes the missile defense deal, claiming that the planned U.S. system will target Russia. The U.S. strongly denies that, saying the system is designed to protect against threats from countries like Iran, and would in any case be powerless against Russia's arsenal of missiles.

irish_bob

russia is a far bigger security threat than iran , there is one reason and one reason only why america has its knickers in a not over iran

conceited

Overheal wrote: »

To respond to new missile threats created by Iran, apparently.

That has to be one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard.

extragon

extragon wrote: »

And one could mention US bases in former Soviet territory in Central Asia.
I don't think Russia got nearly enough credit for the massive withdrawal of its forces in 1989-91. It wanted to reform its economy and introduce democracy, but it didn't have to - at least not then - and could easily have crushed the small amount of agitation. I can think of no other example of an empire withdrawing in this manner.

Russia's reward - the US encircles it with NATO members, missiles, and bases.

LOL they pulled out coz they were running out of money. Thats why the the Soviet Union collapsed they couldnt pay anybody in the end

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

To respond to new missile threats created by Iran, apparently.

conceited wrote: »

That has to be one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard.

they did use the word "apparently". Anyway its pointless against the thousands of Russian missles. It was simply a dig at Russia for invading Georgia.

Overheal

apparently for the win. I just observe.

In a twisted way I'm curious how much fight Ivan has these days. I mean US television would have had me beleive all these years that Russia has run itself poor.

They couldn't have possibly picked a better time though, with the US largely in debt itself. I mean look how hesitant the US is to get involved: its not in any shape to stare down Ivan.

conceited

Maybe you should stop watching so much tv there overheal.:)

Overheal

hell no. the only thing I have to do these days is waste time on boards and watch TV. do you know how hard it is to re-start your life when youve been in Ireland for 8 years? Its slow going If it wasnt for my passport and SSN I technically wouldnt exist.

RedPlanet

The media are doing us all a disservice by hyping up all this talk about Russia not withdrawing quick enough.
Point 5 of the "Six Point Peace Plan" says:

Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines prior to the start of hostilities. While awaiting an international mechanism, Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures.

Russia had previously stated they would create a "Security Zone" beyond S. Ossetia.

If i were Russia, why not dig-in, inside Goria and beyond and just wait?
Wait to:
1) Call NATO's bluff
2) Wait for Saakashvili to do something stupid again thus providing a good enough reason for regime change.

Except Russia knows that doing so is not what the peace plan was supposed to mean.
She will of course be told this over and over agin in the coming weeks no doubt.
By continuing to ignore what she's told,she is being increasingly isolated.
No harm in that in my opinion.

RedPlanet

But they can turn the gas off.
Isolating Russia is another bluff.
By the sounds of it, NATO won't even suspend the NATO-Russia Council.

conceited

Why are nato doing in afghanistan ?

mike65

Fighting the Taliban

Mike.

faceman

Did i hear the news right today - Russia mobilised units carrying nuclear war heads to the Baltics?

conceited

I think what you should have said is did the news tell the truth today.

Why are they fighting the taliban?

The Saint

As much as I'm not particularly fond of Pat Buchanan I think he gives a good anaysis in this article.

Blowback From Bear-BaitingFri Aug 15, 3:00 AM ET


Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight — Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.

Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?

Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?

That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili's provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.

When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?

American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia's doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.

Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin's birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?

The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.

We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic "revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.

Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?

For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia's space and getting into Russia's face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost — in Tbilisi.

The Saint

The Saint wrote: »

As much as I'm not particularly fond of Pat Buchanan I think he gives a good anaysis in this article.

That article really puts things in a different light.

Cheers

Belfast

every now and then Pat Buchanan makes a good point.

The Americans should never have put this clause in the United States Constitution.
the Second Amendment right to keep and Arm Bears .

Bear-Baiting and Arming bears a winning combination.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

But they can turn the gas off.
Isolating Russia is another bluff.
By the sounds of it, NATO won't even suspend the NATO-Russia Council.

Turning the gas off is a bluff.
Russia needs the foreign currency.

extragon

Deleted User wrote: »

LOL they pulled out coz they were running out of money.

So that's why they withdrew from countries like East Germany, richer than they were?
There were pro democracy protests in Leipzig, but generally the population in Eastern Europe was docile, with puppet regimes in place only needing a Red Army show of support. Any Russian leader prior to Gorbachev would have unleashed violent repression. And regarding the later break up of the USSR, this was only possible because democratic institutions were permitted, for the first time ever.
It was a wonderful time in Russia, and a missed opportunity for the world.

irish_bob

ive always liked pat buchannon , hes and old style republican
however , knowing pat buchannan,s form , i think we cant be too forigiving of russia , buchannan as anyone who watches him on the mc loughling group will know , has always been a fan of putin , buchannan admires strength , putin is a strong leader , notice too how buchannan connebts on the american support of israels 35 day war on lebannon in 2006 , buchannan is notorious for being critical of israel and i think he was itching to put the boot in there

Tea drinker

it is an interesting article from Buchanan, something of a departure for US.

As regards NATO, it has no function other than expansion.

Manic Moran

SeanW wrote: »

Well, the Ruskies have (indirectly, through their propoganda machine at RussiaToday) already accused the Ukrainians of selling high end anti-aircraft missile systems to the Georgian military. So whether they find any or not will make no difference, RT will, if the Kremlin wants it to, report that they "found" some such hardware.

The Ukrainians admitted on Day 1 that they had sold hardware to the Georgians and not notified the 'usual channels' about it. (UN, or whoever it is that monitors declared arms trades).

More Russian heroics

Need more information. There's nothing inherently wrong with using cluster munitions (or any other non-incendiary air-delivered munitions) in civilian areas as long as the target was military.

Guess what it is.

Article is only partially correct, in that it implies that the US's military relationship with Georgia is a result of the Global War on Terror. Ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union, far longer than the GWOT, the US Military has involved itself in the State Partnership Programme. Basically every State (Except, for some reason, Idaho) has partnered with another country and has been working to train up and upgrade their forces. Initially the only partner countries were former Soviet states, but the SPP currently involves countries from around the globe. Generally the more high-profile the State, the nicer the country one gets partnered with. My last State, California, had Ukraine. D.C. is partnered with Jamaica. (Surprise, surprise. I wouldn't mind a tour there). My current State, Nevada, works with Turkmenistan. Joy. Georgia, well, that was a no-brainer. Georgia (State) got Georgia (Country). Indeed, at the end of July, only a week or two before this kicked off, over a thousand Georgians (State) were involved in a large military exercise in Georgia (Country).

NTM

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote: »

Article is only partially correct, in that it implies that the US's military relationship with Georgia is a result of the Global War on Terror. Ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union, far longer than the GWOT, the US Military has involved itself in the State Partnership Programme. Basically every State (Except, for some reason, Idaho) has partnered with another country and has been working to train up and upgrade their forces. Initially the only partner countries were former Soviet states, but the SPP currently involves countries from around the globe. Generally the more high-profile the State, the nicer the country one gets partnered with. My last State, California, had Ukraine. D.C. is partnered with Jamaica. (Surprise, surprise. I wouldn't mind a tour there). My current State, Nevada, works with Turkmenistan. Joy. Georgia, well, that was a no-brainer. Georgia (State) got Georgia (Country). Indeed, at the end of July, only a week or two before this kicked off, over a thousand Georgians (State) were involved in a large military exercise in Georgia (Country).

Interesting. You learn something new every day. Wasn't aware of this program. Does each state have to budget for this out of a federal pot, or is it very much a case of whatever-the-state-needs-it-gets? Just wondering considering the more wealthy states (like California) would be in a far stronger position budget-wise if determined by state

And on the confusing note of Georgians training Georgians;

Manic Moran

After hunting around a bit, it seems there's no simple answer as to the funding question. It all seems to eventually come out of the Federal pot, but depending on exactly what the exercise/training in question consists of, the money either comes from one of the Theatre Commands, or out of National Guard Bureau in DC. However, as the SPP has expanded beyond the initial simple military relationship into other government departments, other agencies and funding sources need to be accounted for, more likely State level given that the CA Dept of Justice has no federal equivalent to NGB.

As a result, it seems that country pairing is either done out of political reasons, size, or geographic proximity. Thus CA's link to Ukraine could be either due to politics or simply the fact that CalGuard is one of the few big enough to handle the Ukrainian military. On the other hand, Russia's partner state is Iowa, the size of which doesn't make quite as much sense. (Though Iowans can probably better stand a Russian winter). Similarly small little Rhode Island is partnered with the Bahamas. (There's another tour I wouldn't mind going on, damnit). Geographic link could be demonstrated by Hawaii and Guam partnering with the Philippines. Florida is listed as partnering with Venezuela, I wonder how that's getting along?

[Edit] Found this description

The countries were originally paired with states that had the largest immigrant ethnic base from that country, making the Guard a natural fit. There were a large number of Lithuanians in Pennsylvania, Latvians in Michigan and Estonians in Maryland. There is a large Polish community in Chicago, Hungarians in Ohio and Czechs in Texas. Because of the vision of long- term relationships the program has to get beyond the military. Therefore the best way to get into the local communities was through ethnic lines. Other states were chosen because of similar geography and military size, like mountainous Vermont and Macedonia, or Florida with Venezuela, but still others were paired for different reasons.

NTM

cabinteelytom

'They despise everything human, everything nice, everything modern, everything european, everything civilised...Everything nice and new makes them sick.' I think I've quoted President Saakashvilli correctly from about 15-8-08.
It is a little unclear who 'they' are ; but the context suggests they are either the president's fellow citizens in Ossetia or his now and future neighbours in Russia. Clearly fostering good community relations in the Caucasus will not be a feature of the Saakashvilli presidency.

Irish nationalists will be a little envious of the international support (all NATO leaders actually) quickly marshalled to demand Georgian 'territorial integrity'. It would be music to our ears.

Claims of democracy are brandished as if self-evident; but how democratically were the borders of Georgia drawn? I mean, were they drawn in Stalin's time (with a nod to the auld country), or in Lenin's time , or under the Tsars?

In contrast to Ireland, Georgia's independence owes little to the activities of nationalists; and much to a power struggle won and lost in Moscow. Very fortunate for Georgians.

To-day, after a hasty application to join NATO , and an even more hasty military foray into Tskinvalli, the president would pose as a patriot defending his country's independence. He is not. He his busy making his country a pawn of super-power rivalry.

The better course for Georgia would be to follow the examples of Ireland and Finland ( both beside more powerful neighbours), pursue neutrality, and avoid posing a threat, or giving unneccessary provocation.

Sesshoumaru

An interesting report from Tbilisi

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0820mt.html

We thought we were alone. I am so thankful for the support we have from the United States and from the West. The support is very important for us.” She tried hard to maintain her dignity and not cry in front of me, a foreign reporter in fresh clothes and carrying an expensive camera. “The West saved the capital. They were moving to Tbilisi. There was one night that was very dangerous. The Russian tanks were very close to the capital. I don’t know what happened, but they moved the tanks back.”

irish_bob

cabinteelytom wrote: »

'They despise everything human, everything nice, everything modern, everything european, everything civilised...Everything nice and new makes them sick.' I think I've quoted President Saakashvilli correctly from about 15-8-08.
It is a little unclear who 'they' are ; but the context suggests they are either the president's fellow citizens in Ossetia or his now and future neighbours in Russia. Clearly fostering good community relations in the Caucasus will not be a feature of the Saakashvilli presidency.

Irish nationalists will be a little envious of the international support (all NATO leaders actually) quickly marshalled to demand Georgian 'territorial integrity'. It would be music to our ears.

Claims of democracy are brandished as if self-evident; but how democratically were the borders of Georgia drawn? I mean, were they drawn in Stalin's time (with a nod to the auld country), or in Lenin's time , or under the Tsars?

In contrast to Ireland, Georgia's independence owes little to the activities of nationalists; and much to a power struggle won and lost in Moscow. Very fortunate for Georgians.

To-day, after a hasty application to join NATO , and an even more hasty military foray into Tskinvalli, the president would pose as a patriot defending his country's independence. He is not. He his busy making his country a pawn of super-power rivalry.

The better course for Georgia would be to follow the examples of Ireland and Finland ( both beside more powerful neighbours), pursue neutrality, and avoid posing a threat, or giving unneccessary provocation.

some irish people have the ablity to make everything about themselves , in your case , you have drawn spurious comparrisons between the georgians and the irish

Kama

Not entirely spurious. Small country with larger imperialist neighbour, the benefits of neutrality rather than military alignment as a foreign policy; whats the problem?

Sand

Our neutrality is based on our location and the expectation the British, French and Germans will defend us if anything serious goes wrong, as they cant afford not to defend us. So best of both worlds - guaranteed security, AND a moral high horse to ride on whilst sheltering under the the security umbrella of our war mongering EU neighbours. Of course, theyre sheltering under the security umbrella of their war mongering US allies.

Georgians lack of neutrality is based on their location and their expectation the Russians will threaten their sovereignty. Which they have. If South Ossestian sovereignty over-rides Georgian sovereignty is a matter of.....vigorous....debate lately, though it seems the Russians have delivered some compelling points in favour of South Ossetias independance.