Russia ''invades'' Georgia

wasper

clown bag wrote: »

Strategic reasons, precisely because it has problems and can't defend itself.

making friends with the big boys. Showing support for the US / west. trying to secure allies who would help them if they ever needed it. Being next door to Russia, who has troops and supports separatists in their own country would suggest they need all the back up they can get. No doubt given their geographical position and the fact that a friendly Georgia would secure energy for the west, the Georgians have already been courted and given assurances by the US. It seems these assurances gave the Georgian president a false sense of security.

Perhaps Georgia made a massive gamble and chose to escalate the situation in the hope that they could secure their full boarders without Russian interference due to the fact that Georgia is an ally of the US and NATO. Perhaps Russia escalated the situation because they new the Georgian president could be manipulated into doing such a thing, only Russia new the west would sit by and leave them to their fate.

At the end of the day it was a good strategy in principle from Georgia to build relations with the west but a woefully mistimed escalation just played into Russians hands. Now Russia has the opportunity to completely remove Georgian troops from the disputed regions and also make the West look inept and unable to defend it's allies, which in turn makes other nations think twice about shunning Russia for the west.

Bottom line, Georgia has been out played and manipulated into making a premature stand against Russia. Looks like Russia just secured a new oil pipeline and stuck 2 fingers up to western expansion.

Having Nato basis is like buying a car insurance to cover accidents. Well the Russians have invaded & Nato has failed to respond or in the metaphor failed to pay. So how will the Georgian government respond to this situation?

OgreSwamp

At the moment more then 2K ossetian civilians were killed by georgian troops. Fell the difference. 50 against 2000. It's bloody genocide!

Slav

sink wrote: »

Historically both regions have similar history, Kosovo was always a Serbian territory that was settled by Albanians in recent times and South Ossetia was historically always Georgian that was settled by ethnic Russians in recent times.

Not quite right.

1. Ossetia (Alania) has always been populated mostly by Ossetians. In South Ossetia there are very few ethnic Russians: less then 3%. This figure did not see any major fluctuations for at least past 50 years.

2. Kosovo is where Serbia was born. Serbs lost it in war in medieval ages and were always mourning it. It is a historical and spiritual heart of Serbian nation.
South Ossetia was NOT historically Georgian. In fact it was under Georgian rule for a very short (though very recent) period of its history: during Soviet times. Also de jure it has also been a part of Georgia after the USSR collapse but de facto it is independent after the 1990-1992 war.

eoin5

OgreSwamp wrote: »

At the moment more then 2K ossetian civilians were killed by georgian troops. Fell the difference. 50 against 2000. It's bloody genocide!

When you consider were only talking about a 70000 population total its a very serious tempest!

Happy Monday

Interesting how the Americans ask for Russia to stop this.

They invaded Iraq and slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians but this is ignored!

Makes you think doesn't it - or at least it should!!

jady88

Happy Monday wrote: »

Interesting how the Americans ask for Russia to stop this.

They invaded Iraq and slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians but this is ignored!

Makes you think doesn't it - or at least it should!!

So america shoud just stay silent?

Happy Monday

America should apologise for the mass murders it has been responsible for across the world and then endeavour to change its ways.

Then, it can begin to judge Russia, Zimbabwe etc.

Hopefully Obama will come to power and begin this process....

sink

jady88 wrote: »

So america shoud just stay silent?

I think America is too quick to prejudge the situation. I don't trust the Georgian government any more than the Russian government. European and American news agencies are quick to put up a pro Georgian slant. All of their info seems to be coming from Georgian sources, no western journalists seem to be on the ground. Russia today is obviously biased and paints a completely different picture although they have reporters in the war zone. I don't believe anyone is reporting the full facts somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Happy Monday

sink wrote: »

I think America is too quick to prejudge the situation. I don't trust the Georgian government any more than the Russian government. European and American news agencies are quick to put up a pro Georgian slant. All of their info seems to be coming from Georgian sources, no western journalists seem to be on the ground. Russia today is obviously biased and paints a completely different picture although they have reporters in the war zone. I don't believe anyone is reporting the full facts somewhere in the middle is the truth.

This is exactly the point - western media agencies are showing photos of georgian refugees - yet when america invaded iraq we got nothing like that and no tally on civilian deaths was produced - makes you think - who really are the bad guys out there??

sink

Happy Monday wrote: »

This is exactly the point - western media agencies are showing photos of georgian refugees - yet when america invaded iraq we got nothing like that and no tally on civilian deaths was produced - makes you think - who really are the bad guys out there??

My point is that there is no bad/good black/white. You can't call America bad because of it's warped view of the world. From their point of view they were doing the right think and even some Iraqis supported them. This is so far away from the the original topic and should be debated in another thread if you want to take it further.

jady88

First of all I would trust the Georgian government a lot more than the Russian one, the behavior of Russia over the past couple of years is less than inspiring.

There are lots of reporters on the ground? Watch the BBC, if anything I'm surprised that the reporting hasn't been more in Georgia's favour.

I don't think it's prejudging to call for a cessation on all sides.

sink

jady88 wrote: »

First of all I would trust the Georgian government a lot more than the Russian one, the behavior of Russia over the past couple of years is less than inspiring.

There are lots of reporters on the ground? Watch the BBC, if anything I'm surprised that the reporting hasn't been more in Georgia's favour.

I don't think it's prejudging to call for a cessation on all sides.

Are you aware that the Georgian president has been accused of plotting to assassinate the leader of the opposition? And by his own deputy no less! I wouldn't place any faith in the reliability of Georgian sources. I'm not defending Russia by any means, one seems to be as bad as the other in my view. Georgia is actively trying to drag the west to satisfy it's own political agenda. The fog of war has fallen it may take weeks for it to clear.

Happy Monday

sink wrote: »

My point is that there is no bad/good black/white. You can't call America bad because of it's warped view of the world. From their point of view they were doing the right think and even some Iraqis supported them. This is so far away from the the original topic and should be debated in another thread if you want to take it further.

Sink - wake up and smell the coffee baby!! - America invaded Iraq because it wanted long term control of Middle Eastern oil reserves - this is a central tent of neo conservative thinking from Richard Pearle and others which has influenced this administration - Russia equally is taking this action for reasons of control over energy resources - there is no differnce between either action, what I'm saying is that repoting on these issues should be the same.

sink

Happy Monday wrote: »

Sink - wake up and smell the coffee baby!! - America invaded Iraq because it wanted long term control of Middle Eastern oil reserves - this is a central tent of neo conservative thinking from Richard Pearle and others which has influenced this administration - Russia equally is taking this action for reasons of control over energy resources - there is no differnce between either action, what I'm saying is that repoting on these issues should be the same.

Another theory is that the Neo-cons needed to paint a picture of a lethal enemy that they could unify the American people behind a great moral imperative in order to halt social decline. Sounds just a plausible as what you believe but I need more evidence to fully commit to either theory. Alternatively it is perfectly plausible that there were no hidden agendas and that the neo-cons really believed they were telling the truth. Fact is I don't know for certain what America's motives were and neither do you. Cheney, Rusmfeld and Bush are possibly the only ones that know their true motives.

Happy Monday

sink wrote: »

Another theory is that the Neo-cons needed to paint a picture of a lethal enemy that they could unify the American people behind a great moral imperative in order to halt social decline. Sounds just a plausible as what you believe but I need more evidence to fully commit to either theory. Alternatively it is perfectly plausible that there were no hidden agendas and that the neo-cons really believed they were telling the truth. Fact is I don't know for certain what America's motives were and neither do you. Cheney, Rusmfeld and Bush are possibly the only ones that know their true motives.

Cheney, Bush, Pearle, etc believe that Amercia needs to take direct unilateral action to solidify America's dominant economic and political position in the world today - ok, that's fine - conquer and colonise as you will - but that then doesn't give them the right to condemn Russia, China or anyone else for doing the same thing.

Sink - I think you need to realise that the good old US of A is not the force for good in the world I accept it once was under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

sink

Happy Monday wrote: »

Cheney, Bush, Pearle, etc believe that Amercia needs to take direct unilateral action to solidify America's dominant economic and political position in the world today - ok, that's fine - conquer and colonise as you will - but that then doesn't give them the right to condemn Russia, China or anyone else for doing the same thing.

Sink - I think you need to realise that the good old US of A is not the force for good in the world I accept it once was under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

I didn't say they were a force for good, I don't think they're an evil empire out to pillage and plunder either. As I said before things are rarely black and white. There are many opinions on the Iraq war and I can't figure out who is right and I'm not going to follow empty rhetoric. Solid evidence is the only thing that will convince me of anything, until such evidence comes forward I will keep an open mind. I'm not saying you are wrong I just can't commit to your theory until I see more evidence.

Call Me Jimmy

Happy Monday wrote: »

Cheney, Bush, Pearle, etc believe that Amercia needs to take direct unilateral action to solidify America's dominant economic and political position in the world today - ok, that's fine - conquer and colonise as you will - but that then doesn't give them the right to condemn Russia, China or anyone else for doing the same thing.

Sink - I think you need to realise that the good old US of A is not the force for good in the world I accept it once was under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

You need to start reading people's posts properly before you begin patronising anyone.

Happy Monday

sink wrote: »

I didn't say they were a force for good, I don't think they're an evil empire out to pillage and plunder either. As I said before things are rarely black and white. There are many opinions on the Iraq war and I can't figure out who is right and I'm not going to follow empty rhetoric. Solid evidence is the only thing that will convince me of anything, until such evidence comes forward I will keep an open mind. I'm not saying you are wrong I just can't commit to your theory until I see more evidence.

Consider this - the general assembley and security council of the UN failed to support the US in its actions in Iraq on the basis that it was a unilateral militaristic invasion akin to the imperalist ventures of European powers in the 19th century.

Many people in the US and the the majority of people in the UK have the same opinion.

I am pro Amercian in many ways but on this issue and this time the USA has lost all moral authority - it has no right to condemn any other power in the world and it should hang its head in shame.

sink

Happy Monday wrote: »

Consider this - the general assembley and security council of the UN failed to support the US in its actions in Iraq on the basis that it was a unilateral militaristic invasion akin to the imperalist ventures of European powers in the 19th century.

Many people in the US and the the majority of people in the UK have the same opinion.

I am pro Amercian in many ways but on this issue and this time the USA has lost all moral authority - it has no right to condemn any other power in the world and it should hang its head in shame.

Think of who sits on the security council. It's as if you hold the monkey's word above the donkey's. The security council is by no means a great moral authority on anything and is more of a political tool to pursue individual agendas. I don't understand why Irish people in particular seem to have absolute faith in the security council.

Many people believe in a divine being too, you'll find that I'm like a hung jury on that one too.

Happy Monday

Happy Monday wrote: »

Cheney, Bush, Pearle, etc believe that Amercia needs to take direct unilateral action to solidify America's dominant economic and political position in the world today - ok, that's fine - conquer and colonise as you will - but that then doesn't give them the right to condemn Russia, China or anyone else for doing the same thing.

Sink - I think you need to realise that the good old US of A is not the force for good in the world I accept it once was under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

Kennedy was the one who got involved in the Vietnam war!?!

The US invaded Iraq because it suited them, they needed to get the hell out of Saudi because their bases were causing unrest because the "infidels" were in their holy land. This caused two problems 1) it threatened the stability of the pro west monarch and 2) it sent people to the local Al Qaeda recruiter (most of the hijackers were Saudis).

They could Kill 3 birds with one stone by invading Iraq:
1) Sort out the EPIC FAIL that was containment of Saddam (lets not forget he did invade Saudi Arabia after taking Kuwait).
2) Move the troops out of Saudi and into Iraq
3) Open up Iraqs oil to the world market.

Iran is a thorn in the side of the US because they threaten to close the straits of Hormuz(which would be VERY bad for the world economy go google how much of the worlds oil % passes through there) and they are an Islamic Fundamentalist state which actually DO want the WORLD to become muslim then there will be no problems... from Ahmadinejad`s latest interview

In a nutshell, distance and — indifference to the teachings of the divine prophets and our ethical standards are the root causes that beguile humanity today.

That is why the teachings of divine prophets, in other words, a belief in the almighty, justice, friendship, and peace and love for fellow human beings, we should return to those. If these come to prevail around the world, they will come to see that the world will be full of peace and friendship

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25887437/

The US knows well all the hassle that comes with getting oil from the Middle east which is why it has a policy of energy diversification which includes Georgia. Russia wants to play the game too and a very important pipeline runs through Georgia...

This isnt about alleged genocide in South Ossetia this is about oil and gas.

Everybody wants oil its limited. He who has oil has power and control over others economies. Russia turned off the gas to Germany and Ukraine in 2006 when it got cranky....remember...

IanCurtis

bringitdown wrote: »

Its war!

<sh1t youtube video was inserted here>

This is the Politics board. Keep that sh1te for AH please. It's not unfunny amateur comedians night.

Manic Moran

IanCurtis wrote: »

This is the Politics board.

Oh, I don't know. I thought it was the "Beat on America" board, the way this thread has devolved becoming just one more example of the phenomenon. Gone from debating the duration Georgian control over S. Ossetia to the American neo-con plan to control the world's oil in about four posts.

NTM

SeanW

bringitdown wrote: »

Its war!

<sh1t youtube video was inserted here>

This is the Politics board. Keep that sh1te for AH please. It's not unfunny amateur comedians night.

QFT!

This thread has drifted wildly.

But I have for some time feared that the proverbial "Russian Bear" would turn out to be a flippin' Werewolf. It looks like I was right - there were signs of it during the firestorm of chaos surrounding the move of a Red statue in Estonia, all the stories of the Kremlin critics who mysteriously ended up dead or in mental asylums, but what amounts to an open invasion of a neighbor's soveirgn territory just takes it to a new level.

RedPlanet

Deleted User wrote: »

:
1) Sort out the EPIC FAIL that was containment of Saddam (lets not forget he did invade Saudi Arabia after taking Kuwait).
2) Move the troops out of Saudi and into Iraq
3) Open up Iraqs oil to the world market.

He did NOT invade Saudi Arabia after taking Kuwait.
The pretense that got America involed was that he was massing troops along the Saudi border. America had treaty obligations with that country so they could get involved. The Americans did not have any treatys with Kuwait.
Russian satelite photography along the border of Iraq, SA and Kuwait did not show any such buildup of troops along the SA border.
The Americans never did show evidence Saddam was massing troops along the border.
The public and mainstream media swallowed the story without asking for any proof.
Saddam harboured no major grudge toward SA like he did Kuwait.

oscarBravo

IanCurtis wrote: »

This is the Politics board. Keep that sh1te for AH please. It's not unfunny amateur comedians night.

And leave the moderating to the moderators, thanks.

Everyone: back on topic. This isn't the beat up on America board, no matter how much some might like it to be.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

He did NOT invade Saudi Arabia after taking Kuwait.

eh yes he did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji

The Battle of Khafji was the first major ground engagement of the Gulf War. It took place in the Saudi Arabian city of Khafji, from January 29 to February 1, 1991.

The battle began when Iraqi troops unexpectedly invaded Khafji. Forces from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, backed by American artillery and air strikes, evicted Iraqi troops and tanks, and freed two trapped U.S. Marine reconnaissance teams.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I thought it was the "Beat on America" board, the way this thread has devolved becoming just one more example of the phenomenon. Gone from debating the duration Georgian control over S. Ossetia to the American neo-con plan to control the world's oil in about four posts.
NTM

Its not a plan to "control" the oil but to keep it flowing. Im not beating on America, I use oil too!

And it is linked to Georgia. Russia doesnt give a damn about Georgia only because of the gas pipeline.
In my opinion the Russians are dangerous all you have to do is look to the recent past with the radiation poisoning assasination, the trouble with Estonia and also Ukraine.

mike65

Sounds like the Russians made an attempt to blow the pipeline but due to poor training (one presumes) missed. Russian troops are now in (proper) Georgia and if they head south one can only guess they are going to one place and its not necessarily the capital.

If the reports are correct then Russian interest in the poeple of South Ossetia is being used as a pretext for control of the Caspian sea resorces.

I hope you filled your tanks.

Mike.

sink

Russia knows the west will not stand for it annexing a whole country. It might get away with putting troops in the break away regions but there is no way it is bold enough to march down to the pipe line and blow it up. It would definitely draw in NATO to the equation and that is not a winning move for anybody.

jady88

sink wrote: »

Are you aware that the Georgian president has been accused of plotting to assassinate the leader of the opposition? And by his own deputy no less! I wouldn't place any faith in the reliability of Georgian sources. I'm not defending Russia by any means, one seems to be as bad as the other in my view. Georgia is actively trying to drag the west to satisfy it's own political agenda. The fog of war has fallen it may take weeks for it to clear.

I never said I trusted them to any great extent nor would I, yes I was aware of that but all I said was that I trusted them more than Russia which is practically not at all. We don't need to trust the Georgian sources there are plenty of Reuters reporters across the country along with many others.

They are as bad as each other? Georgia a tiny nation long suffering at the hands of its behemoth neighbour just how exactly are they as bad as each other?

johngalway

As I understand it the Russians may have staged some type of raid near the BTC pipeline but didn't damage it. Any halt in supply from it was caused by a pipeline fire in Turkey.

From what I understand of the latest conflict situation in Georgia, Georgia declared a ceasefire, which the Russian backed South Ossetian seperatists broke. Georgia moved to reassert control (legally in my opinion) over it's own territory.

Russia had taken dual steps before all this, conducting an economic war against Georgia by banning imports from Georgia and issuing Russian passports to South Ossetians incase economic measures wouldn't bring Georgia to heel.

The economic measures Russia took failed. So South Ossetian seperatists, backed by Russia, provoke Georgia into military action. Russia uses this excuse to invade Georgia.

Georgia made a fatal mistake thinking it would recieve outside support. It won't as Nato et al are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. The EU is impotent in this situation as if it annoys Russia then the gas tap gets turned off.

All of this stems from Russian bullying of it's neighbours, it's smaller neighbours. Georgia is involved in the BTC pipeline which bypasses Russian territory, they want to join the EU and NATO and leave the Russian sphere of influence far behind them.

The people in charge of Russia want their empire back, some recreation of the Soviet Union and it's influence in certain parts of the world.

Look at Russias track record. They turn off the gas to the Ukraine when an election doens't go their way and attempt to assasinate it's president by poisioning him.

Estonia relocates a Soviet era statue and a cyberwar ensues.

I've heard a lot of people critcise Georgia and their actions in South Ossetia, actions which are far from clear and information seems to be coming from the Russian side. These same people should do some reading on how Russia deals with it's own internal problems - read Checnya and elsewhere before assuming the Russians hold the moral high ground.

The people in control of Russia are very very dangerous indeed.