quote:

---

I have been reading the purple prose coming out of Washington today. Has everyone forgotten the reason for this war (let us call it what it is)? This war started because Georgia, under the leadership of a tinhorn dictator, invaded a neighbour that was less than 2.5 percent of its population, bombarded the residential housing districts of its capital acting under direct orders of the Georgian president, and treacherously attacked the Russian peacekeeping troops.

---

She finishes:

quote:

---

... Russia… what is it going to do? It’s going to sit back and let the pot boil. Saakashvili is a decapitated chicken flopping about the world stage, and everyone (especially Bush and Rice) knows it. He’s a goner, and the Russians don’t want to queer it by occupying more of Georgia. If what Russia did is wrong, then, Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, and Iraq 2003 are equally wrong.

---

George Bush is shaming America and making a jackass of himself.

Here is part V (the previous thread)

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

I have been reading the purple prose coming out of Washington today. Has everyone forgotten the reason for this war (let us call it what it is)? This war started because Georgia, under the leadership of a tinhorn dictator, invaded a neighbour that was less than 2.5 percent of its population, bombarded the residential housing districts of its capital acting under direct orders of the Georgian president, and treacherously attacked the Russian peacekeeping troops.

She finishes:

quote:... Russia… what is it going to do? It’s going to sit back and let the pot boil. Saakashvili is a decapitated chicken flopping about the world stage, and everyone (especially Bush and Rice) knows it. He’s a goner, and the Russians don’t want to queer it by occupying more of Georgia. If what Russia did is wrong, then, Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, and Iraq 2003 are equally wrong.

---

Gee, i could re-write this narrative so easily:

I have been reading the purple prose coming out of the Arab word today. Has everyone forgotten the reason for this war (let us call it what it is)? This war started because Iraq, under the leadership of a tinhorn dictator, invaded a neighbour that was less than 2.5 percent of its population, bombarded the residential housing districts of its capital acting under direct orders of the Iraqi president, and treacherously attacked Kuwaiti troops.

She finishes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
At last. Something we can agree on.

---

quote:

---

If what Russia did is wrong, then, Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, and Iraq 2003 are equally wrong.

---

By George Friedman

The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.

Let’s begin simply by reviewing the last few days.

On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.

On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.

On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.

The Mystery Behind the Georgian Invasion

In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.

The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.

The Western Encirclement of Russia

To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.

That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.

The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.

The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.

Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn’t mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.

Resurrecting the Russian Sphere

Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.

By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.

The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.

The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.

Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).
In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.

The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

By George Friedman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
It comes from an organization named Stratfor.

Most of their articles are subscription however they do release some open articles every few weeks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
It comes from an organization named Stratfor.

Most of their articles are subscription however they do release some open articles every few weeks.

---

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Claims of Russian traps, shelling for days by Ossetians that never happened, bullshit about the US being absorbed elsewhere (they even moved over 1,500 Georgian combat troops to the front line from Iraq, that's how "absorbed" they were ... ha ha), and so on ... in general, a great little piece of fiction by Friedman.

Cause becomes effect, effect becomes cause, and so on. The author is going to have some explaining to do, however, since the Russian "invasion" is already over, and they've agreed "that Russia's armed forces be withdrawn to the position preceding the beginning of the military actions".

Some invasion, eh, where they have already agreed to the conditions for their rapid exit and have outlined the only reason why they would stay any longer than planned.

Contrast that to the "exit strategy" of the US and NATO in Afghanistan or Iraq. Good grief.

Maybe this guy sells good gaming platforms or something. Analysis? He needs to study some political economy, along with moving his toy soldiers across his dining room table.

quote:

---

The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
It is a very good analysis of the machinations of global power. It was all sort of summed up in the first paragraph, though:

"The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8."

---

The whole premise is a crock. Georgia attacked South Ossetia following a calculated, but fake, ceasefire. The inhabitants never stood a chance. 2,000 of them, at least, are dead. Even the drubbing that the Russians gave the outclassed Georgians is treated as some sort of "evidence" that the Russian "attack" was planned, etc..

The unspoken premise, I think, is the cold war ideology of the author. It doesn't rise much above, "Them Rooskies can't be trusted!" The very idea that the Russians might have some legitimate security concerns, the fact that their peacekeepers were killed in Ossetia, etc. - all of this is ignored with a wave of the hand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Good grief, what a lot of war-game dazzled, geek-soaked, gobble-dee-gook. It reads like the analysis of a chess game between two patzers. The attack on South Ossetia comes across as a picnic - or maybe a shopping trip for the weekend - for the Georgians until they get "bogged down" while driving "across the border". How DID all those civilians die, anyway?

Claims of Russian traps, shelling for days by Ossetians that never happened, bullshit about the US being absorbed elsewhere (they even moved over 1,500 Georgian combat troops to the front line from Iraq, that's how "absorbed" they were ... ha ha), and so on ... in general, a great little piece of fiction by Friedman.

Cause becomes effect, effect becomes cause, and so on. The author is going to have some explaining to do, however, since the Russian "invasion" is already over, and they've agreed "that Russia's armed forces be withdrawn to the position preceding the beginning of the military actions".

Some invasion, eh, where they have already agreed to the conditions for their rapid exit and have outlined the only reason why they would stay any longer than planned.

Contrast that to the "exit strategy" of the US and NATO in Afghanistan or Iraq. Good grief.

Maybe this guy sells good gaming platforms or something. Analysis? He needs to study some political economy, along with moving his toy soldiers across his dining room table.

1 out of 5. This guy needs a serious upgrade.

---

How exactly did Russia manage to move that amount of troops and equipment to engage the georgians so quickly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So what gives Russia the right to intefere in the internal affairs of other countries and wantonly launch invasions. Its wrong when the US does it. Its wrong when China does it and its wrong when Russia does it.

Down with superpower imperialism!!

---

Amazing just how fast a pro-Imperialist stooge can become a revolutionary at the barricades ... until the break at the drive-thru McDonalds window, anyway ...

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Let's also bow our heads in gratitude at the great humanitarians who govern Israel for their great restraint. If they wanted to, they could march to Beirut and occupy all of Lebanon - but out of the goodness of their hearts they didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
It is a very good analysis of the machinations of global power. It was all sort of summed up in the first paragraph, though: "The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8."

---

quote:

---

The unspoken premise, I think, is the cold war ideology of the author. It doesn't rise much above, "Them Rooskies can't be trusted!" The very idea that the Russians might have some legitimate security concerns, the fact that their peacekeepers were killed in Ossetia, etc. - all of this is ignored with a wave of the hand.

---

quote:

---

ABC News:

Medvedev said any final deal must include Georgia withdrawing all of its troops from South Ossetia and promising not to use violence to settle the dispute over its rebel province.

---

quote:

---

ABC News:

He also insisted that Russian troops would remain in South Ossetia and in a second breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia, and that both provinces should be able to decide whether they want to be part of Georgia or join Russia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I don't think he made those assertions. I thought he gave a fairly dry appraisal. You can't argue to me, convincingly anyway, that Russia isn't exercising its own Munroe Doctrine. If we accept the principle of nation states, power politics, and the minds of men, then we must also accept that the Russians have what are termed "legitimate" interests in securing its own "sphere of influence" or we must reject all of it.

Russia did not ride to the defense of civilians caught up in the fire of a hostile enemy (although that might make a very fine personal narrative), Russia rode to the defense, and promotion, of its own geo-political interests.

---

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
What I'm objecting to is the claim that this whole sequence of events was a plan on their part - when it is clear as day that Georgia, with US support and complicity, thought to carry out a first strike against Ossetia (and Abkhazia to follow) and got their butt kicked. End of story.

---

quote:

---

Georgia attacked South Ossetia following a calculated

---

quote:

---

al-Qa'bong: Actually, Hezbollah keeps kicking their asses out, which is why they don't occupy all of Lebanon.

---

quote:

---

Stockholm: South Ossetia has always been part of Georgia in the first place - so Georgia is just trying to end an insurrection in part of its own territory.

---

SO has been, de facto, a separate state since about 1992. The conflicting parties have agreed to put peacekeepers there and the situation has been pretty stable for some time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
There's nothing wrong with presuming a geo-political approach on the part of the Russians. What I'm objecting to is the claim that this whole sequence of events was a plan on their part

---

Of course, it's at least as likely to be something much more mundane. Russia likely had plenty of intelligence on Georgia's activities, and if they found that Georgia was planning on retaking the breakaway province(s) this would be an excellent opportunity for the Russians to flex their muscles. This would fit in with their overall geopolitical plans, though, as outlined in the article. So there's a lot of useful stuff in there, even if it's tainted somewhat.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

The notion of Russians as "peacekeepers" in SO, is ludicrous. Who ever heard of having one of the two protagonists in the conflict be peacekeepers. It would be as absurd as having India be a "peacekeeper" in Kashmir.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I heard that the South Ossetians following orders from Russia killed all the Georgians in Soiuth Ossetia in an ethnic cleansing rampage.

---

quote:

---

The notion of Russians as "peacekeepers" in SO, is ludicrous. Who ever heard of having one of the two protagonists in the conflict be peacekeepers. It would be as absurd as having India be a "peacekeeper" in Kashmir.

---

The Gorbachev article actually clarifies this somewhat:

quote:

---

Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.

---

In each thread everyone made interesting points and comments. In truth I am not sure if the will ever be know.

The key facts I believe are in the opening stages of this conflict. The readiness levels of both militaries are a key point of interest, the tactics used, amount of ammunition used are also critical points of knowledge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I heard that the South Ossetians following orders from Russia killed all the Georgians in Soiuth Ossetia in an ethnic cleansing rampage.

---

I heard that you often cite things you've heard (and that no one else has heard) as justification for your posts.

The article is interesting, although it is entirely possible that this was fairly routine hacking. The Russians are really good at this, and seething nationalists in Russia have often engaged in such activity. Revelations on this front will be particularly interesting, especially after the cyberattacks on Estonia that were purportedly launched from Russia.

edit:: more on this from wired

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]some stuff on the RBN from WSJ

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

This is yet another made-in-the-USA war. US President George W Bush loudly supported Georgia’s request to join NATO in April, much to the consternation of European leaders. NATO promised to send advisers in December. Not losing any time, the US sent more than 1,000 US Marines and soldiers to the Vaziani military base on the South Ossetian border in July “to teach combat skills to Georgian troops.” The UN Security Council failed to reach an agreement on the current crisis after three emergency meetings. A Russian-drafted statement that called on Georgia and the separatists to “renounce the use of force” was vetoed by the US, UK and France. To dispel any conceivable doubt, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday: “We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia’s territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil.”

But it’s also yet another made-in-Israel war. A thousand military advisers from Israeli security firms have been training the country’s armed forces and were deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to attack and capture the capital of South Ossetia, according to the Israeli web site Debkafiles which has close links with the regime’s intelligence and military sources. Haaretz reported that Yakobashvili told Army Radio — in Hebrew, “ Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers.”

---

Solana fears Kosovo 'precedent' for Abkhazia, South Ossetia

Knowing there was no diplomatic solution (and realising his NATO dreams were fantasy as long as he had problems in SO and A), the only option left for this madman was to ethnically cleanse the region before any defense could be mounted (he has already done this twice before to two other "disputed" areas). Only this time, the Russians were waiting and he was forced to curl into a ball hiding from imaginary Russian bombs in front of the world's cameras.

Georgia's deliberate targeting of civilians and internationally recognised peacekeepers on the night of the 7th (on the eve of renewed peace talks with SO and minutes after a ceasefire was declared) constitutes an international war crime. Too bad these laws will never apply to a US colony.

Finally if someone wants to watch an amazing video of how our media is feeding us fake Georgian propaganda, here is a video that is worth watching:

Georgia deceives International media

I'll let Stockholm and the other likely suspects return to their cold war fantasies.

BTW, webgear the US military is crapping themselves right now as they did not expect Russia to be so well prepared (they were counting on Georgia to secure the territory and then acknowledged their gains - as they did the two previous times their puppet tried this stunt):

US Military surprised by speed, timing of Russian action

Nice to see the American Empire finally realise they can't invade and mess with anyone they want.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

In regard to the breathless claims that the Russians could not have defeated the Georgians so quickly without advance preparation, blah blah ....

quote:

---

There was only one good thing in this mess. The Americans thought that they were dealing with a professional military force. Luckily for the world, the Georgian army was as corrupt and mendacious as its president. He placed officers in their situations not for their military ability, but, for their political reliability. The American advisers wrote back rosy reports, because that was what was expected of them, and if they did not provide their political masters such fairy tales, they would receive bad fitness reports and torpedo their careers. I pity such men, for they did only what most would do, for a military officer has no option but to accept the post given in their orders. They had to deal with a set of gross incompetents, as the events of the past five days have shown.

I should mention in this regard, that there was only a limited force that Russia could send down and supply using the restricted road network of the region. The Russians used elements of three divisions and some independent units, a total of two division equivalents. The Georgians had approximately a division equivalent in the area, a force very capable of delaying the Russian force, if not stopping it. Because of logistical difficulties and terrain constraints, Russia could not deploy and utilise a larger force. Therefore, the only reason for the rapid Georgian defeat was gross incompetence probably combined with low morale (the unpopularity of the Saakashvili régime being what it is). Georgia had the “paper” capability to resist a Russian force long enough to win a “political” victory. The fact that they did not is due to the gross incompetence and corruption of Saakashvili and his entire junta.

Don’t buy a pig in a poke. Remember, a bird in hand is worth two from Bush

---

That last line is a beauty. Anyway, the key point is the underlining of the gross incompetence of the Georgian army. And the reasons why are clear enough.

Bush presents aggressor as the victim

Here's some more analysis from the same author.

quote:

---

... the performance of the Georgian forces in battle was wretched and abysmal. Anyone who has been in that part of the world knows that the terrain favours the defence, the roads are easily interdicted from the surrounding heights, and that a well-motivated force can hold back attackers much larger in number. In fact, the terrain is such that any advantage in armoured vehicles is negated due to the broken nature of the ground, and blitzkrieg tactics that are possible in more open terrain are impossible. For instance, it is hard to execute either a flanking manoeuvre or an oblique attack.

The Georgian forces broke in less than a week; in fact, they were broken after 48 hours. This bespeaks very poor command, control, communications, and intelligence (so-called C3I), non-existent unit cohesion, morale in the toilet bowl, and no motivation to speak of. It could also be a sign that the Georgians had unwisely bought too many flashy pieces of equipment without sufficient spares support and units of fire. There was probably no logistics support to speak of. Most of all, the Georgian grunt was not prepared to die for South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Furthermore, the reports of Mr Halpin, the London Times correspondent in Gori make it clear that the forces were no more motivated to die for Georgian soil. That is significant, as forces are usually ready to “do or die” when the homeland is involved. Georgians are not cowards. If soldiers of such a race run, it is because they have lost faith in the political leadership....

There are conclusions to be drawn from this failure. The presence of 127 American advisers did not affect the outcome. Why? Georgia is an ancient clan-ridden society, but, this was not so much a hindrance when Georgia was part of a larger entity, as the clan influence was watered down due to the presence of outsiders. Saakashvili and his cronies filled the ranks of the government and military with their relatives, it was as simple as that. People knew that, so, there was no incentive for them to be up to snuff. You can train a zero many times over, but, he shall remain a zero. The American trainers had to report a good result, or their superiors would look bad, and since everyone wanted a good rating on their fitness report, to ensure one’s place in the service, lies were brazenly written (gee, I can smell those cooked books all the way up here in Albany).

---

There have also been uncomfirmed reports that some US personnel have been seen in action in SO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I should mention in this regard, that there was only a limited force that Russia could send down and supply using the restricted road network of the region. The Russians used elements of three divisions and some independent units, a total of two division equivalents. The Georgians had approximately a division equivalent in the area, a force very capable of delaying the Russian force, if not stopping it. Because of logistical difficulties and terrain constraints, Russia could not deploy and utilise a larger force

---

Hmmm I would disagree with this statement due to the evidence I saw in the video's in previous links.

Here is the thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I heard that you often cite things you've heard (and that no one else has heard) as justification for your posts.

Source.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Well I found it particularly telling, and funny to boot, to read about Georgian tank drivers and soldiers in pick-ups racing each other from Gori to Tbilisi and jockeying for position on the highway rather than facing the big, bad Russians. If you won't defend your own country your morale has to just suck incredibly. Or you have no faith in your political masters. I don't presume that Georgian soldiers are any more cowardly than any other soldiers.

---

Running away from superior force is certainly often the best policy. False heroics and posturing are of little value to the those who are destined to lose there lives. I would never judge the quality of an army's resolve on surface appearances, and it is simplistic to think so. The Vietnamese spent a good deal of time running away from superior US force, and indeed this was an important part of their winning strategy.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Resurrecting the Russian Sphere

By George Friedman

Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power.[/i]

---

No. The Nazis discovered Keynesian-militarism, and the U.S. perfected it. U.S. taxpayers spend more on upside-down socialism for the rich than the next 20 or 30 countries combined. <----MOTIVE Their's is a war economy and an economy based on war. They need war. It's like a war every four years to showcase the latest weaponry and gadgets, and not just to sluff off on the Pentagon, but around the world. The 8000 or so U.S. military contractors are merely the domestic market. War and imperialism go hand-in-hand. The 100 plus U.S. military trainers in Georgia need to train Saakashvili's Nazi lookalikes a lot better with using the demo models. And we can bet there will be a next time.

And the corporate-sponsored US and western news media wasted no time propagandizing hell out of this to make it appear on the surface that Russia is at fault for attacking an enemy at the gates. This is more than just another covert NATO-Gladio. U.S.-NATO support for this one is a clear act of unprovoked aggression.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

Hmmm I would disagree with this statement due to the evidence I saw in the video's in previous links.

A single Russian Division could have handled the situation with proper support for higher formations.

---

Well of course. Why not use overwhellming force if it is available?

Now we will see that the Russians dawdle on the final resolution of a peace agreement, and instead sit tight with their metaphorical cock-up the Georgian ass. Most importantly there will be no deals between Georgia and NATO for the foreseable future. There is no advantage to resolving any issues, as far as Russia is concerned and having their army deep inside Gerorgia will make the situation for Saakashvili very tight, and give the Russians plenty of chips to cash in with NATO at later date. So I expect a local political stalemate for some time to come.

Turkey has its army on the border of Georgia, and I see the Russian Black sea fleet is in the Mediteranean. War games...

All in all the morality behind all this jockying, and killing is highly dubious on all sides and I am not going to fall into line by saying that Russia has acted to enforce a moral policy (even though this might indeed be a side efffect) because I still believe their motives are primarily real-politick. My overall opinion is that this shot over the NATO bow may do the world in general considerable good, and there is hope that some kind of stability and balance may be restored to the international arena, whatever the Russians are doing.

Iran features prominently in the background of this conflict, and Amedinejad is breathing much easier, now that Russia has acted decisively in the region.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Cueball: My overall opinion is that this shot over the NATO bow may do the world in general considerable good, and there is hope that some kind of stability and balance may be restored to the international arena, whatever the Russians are doing.

---

The interview of Vitali Churkin on Charlie Rose consisted of Rose coming back, again and again, to the claim that Russia by its actions had worsened the relations between that country and the US. Churkin, calmly, drew attention to the genocide in South Ossetia that had to be stopped and noted that such things were more important that good relations with anyone. Rose did his usual, "Yes, well, let's ignore that, and don't you think that your country has worsened relations ...", and the Ambassador refused to agree with Rose and even claimed that things may become MORE stable now that a mechanism for a solution of these simmering problems in Abkhazia and Ossetia is in place.

Rose scolded and Churkin rebuffed him. The former wanted the Ambassador to admit that his country had possibly made a mistake that could worsen relations with the US. Churkin didn't budge an inch and he remained cheerful about future prospects.

quote:

---

Iran features prominently in the background of this conflict, and Amedinejad is breathing much easier, now that Russia has acted decisively in the region.

---

Israel has also backed right off, which may indicate fewer tensions between that country and Iran. That's got to be a good thing.

quote:

---

Now we will see that the Russians dawdle on the final resolution of a peace agreement ... [with] no advantage to resolving any issues ... [and] a local political stalemate for some time to come.

---

And it ain't rocket science.

Georgia will refuse to sign the "legally binding document" demanded by Russia and listed in the agreed peace principles that effectively would surrender even a pretense of sovereignty to Ossetia and Abkhazia. No nation in that position would sign.

This will be Russia's pretext for continuing to use its troops as it pleases. The agreement says troops will return to positions before last week. But the Gerogian troops will not be allowed back into Ossetia [duh]. And Russia will hammer any Gerogian troops that attempt to assist in preventing Georgia's military expulsion from the Kordi Gorge in Abkhazia, which has begun and will escalate. Battle ready Russian units will be placed in Ossetia and Abkhazia- not where they were as per the agreement- ready to move swiftly back into Georgia. They may even make a point by parking somewhere inside Gerogia proper, even though have control of the military situation without that.

There will be lots of tut tutting over how Russia violates the agreement.

ETA: Agreeing with Cueball, and contrary to Beltov, this is how Russia will 'dawdle'. They don't need to be in Georgia to control it through the combination of military and diplomatic means [since the West is pretty toothless even on the latter].

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

The United States is sending fresh supplies of weapons to Georgia from its base in the Jordanian port of Aqabah. That’s according to the Israeli newspaper – Maariv.

The paper says the US began flying weapons from the transport hub on Saturday.

According to Maariv, the US is hiring Russian-made freight planes belonging to UTI Worldwide Inc. to transport arms and ammunition to Georgia. The paper says the Pentagon is redirecting supplies to Tbilisi that were earmarked for Iraq.

---

The Russians will collect their evidence and I don't expect them to sit on their hands after that. Once they start clamoring for something to be done about the war crimes and atrocities, Saakashvili may just be finished politically.

quote:

---

However, it is not clear how Georgian leaders may be brought to trial. Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein were taken to court after the collapse of their regimes. Political analyst Leonid Radzikhovsky said that those who are to blame for the events in the conflict zone can be put on trial legally. He said that it is possible to establish a special agency for this purpose, but that it will not be internationally recognised. He recalled the Hague Tribunal in this context. It is somewhat politicised but respected in the West. “I don’t know a single case when the political leaders of a state were brought to responsibility while they were still in power,” Mr Radzikhovsky said.

South Ossetia’s recent moves also show that Mr Saakashvili may be punished by law. Its investigation committee has instituted criminal proceedings against Georgia. In response, the Georgian leaders have taken the case against Russia to the Hague Tribunal. It is hard to say who will win the legal battle. But, thousands of victims cannot be deleted from evidence against Mr Saakashvili.

---

If the people of Georgia overwhelmingly want to join the EU and NATO and have a foreign policy that is actively independent of Russia = shoudl they have the right to do so??

Or does Russia enjoy some sort of eastern hemisphere equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine that gives them the right to arbitrarily maintain a "sphere on influence"?

If Russia has the right to force Georgia to be a puppet - then I guess you would have no objection to the US doing to Cuba what Russia is doing to Georgia.

quote:

---

Georgia made a "grave mistake" in advancing into the breakaway province of South Ossetia without adequate preparation, former President Eduard Shevardnadze was quoted as saying Wednesday.

Georgia launched an offensive last week to regain control over the region, which has close ties to Moscow _ triggering a furious response from Moscow. Pro-Western President Mikhail Saakashvili charged that Russia aimed to "destroy" his nation, a former Soviet republic.

In an interview with the German daily Bild, Shevardnadze declined to respond directly when asked his opinion of Saakashvili, who came to power in 2004 after leading street demonstrations that ousted his government.

"We have a tradition that, in times of crisis, the opposition stands united behind the president and does not attack him," he was quoted as saying. "But Georgia should not have advanced into Tskhinvali (South Ossetia's capital) in so unprepared a way. That was a grave error."

---

That is the same whether intentions are adventurest or to just be a deterrant to being swallowed. [There isn't BTW a practical difference to those two preparation wise. War and conflict are like that.]

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

A better question is this - how should a government leader responsible for such horrific atrocities be prosecuted? By the International Criminal Court? By the current criminal prosecution by South Ossetian authorities? Some other method?

quote:

---

The NATO allies supported Georgia in its military confrontation with Russia and said Tuesday the Caucasus nation stays on course to one day join their alliance _ a prospect Russia strongly opposes.

---

quote:

---

Russian planes which flew missions in the peace enforcement operation in Georgia were shot down with air defense systems supplied by Ukraine and other countries, members of a Russian military delegation said on Wednesday after a meeting of the Air Defense Coordinating Council of the CIS Council of Ministers in Dushanbe.

"According to information available to us, a Tupolev Tu-22 long-range supersonic bomber and several Sukhoi Su-25 jets were shot down with S-200 and TOR surface-to-air systems, supplied to Georgia by Ukraine. Ukrainian crews were operating the air defense systems," a member of the Russian military delegation said.

---

That can't be good for Ukrainian-Russian relations. link

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Well of course. Why not use overwhellming force if it is available?

---

Anyone have the slightest idea how a country can mobilise 'overwhelming force' so quickly?

quote:

---

Russian military moves towards Tbilisi in defiance of Nicolas Sarkozy's peace deal

---

Ah yes, the humanitarian Russians are sending overwhelming force into Tbilisi, in defiance of and overnight peace deal brokered by the French.

No doubt just some peacekeeping involving a cat in tbilisi that is rumoured to be sired by a South Ossetian tomcat.

Lets see: Russians advance on Tbilisi, Georgia uses Ukrainian missile systems operated by Ukraiians,Americans have advisers with Georgian military and are rushing arms to Georgia on Russian cargo planes owned by a Ukraiian company,Abkhazia is taking the opportunity to consolidating territory and every grievancemonger in the caucasus is plotting payback for slights and indignities their clan has suffered since the Crusades.

ETA: the Ukrainians refuse to allow the Russian fleet back into their Ukrainian ports.

Methinks our resident Russian apologist will be extremely busy today. Saakshivili gets to play Archduke Ferdinand

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: jester ]

Today is a National Day of Mourning in Russia for the dead. All 1,600 of them. Will any western media outlet even ACKNOWLEDGE the grief over all these deaths? I doubt it. Not even crocodile tears.

quote:

---

jester: Ah yes, the humanitarian Russians are sending overwhelming force into Tbilisi, in defiance of and overnight peace deal brokered by the French.

---

What a crock. The Georgian Interior Ministry just acknowledged that Russian armor is not heading towards Tbilisi. More fiction from The Telegraph. Edited to add - there's nothing like a summer blockbuster and action yarn for reading on the beach.

Eat your words!

quote:

---

Russian troops have left the Georgian town of Gori near South Ossetia, but are not advancing towards the capital Tbilisi, Georgia's deputy interior minister said.

''I'd like to calm everybody down. The Russian military is not advancing towards the capital,'' Ekaterine Zguladze told a news conference. Zguladze did not specify what the Russian troops were doing.

REUTERS

---

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

What a crock. The Georgian Interior Ministry just acknowledged that Russian armor is not heading towards Tbilisi. More fiction from The Telegraph.

---

OK, How about the rest of my post? Most of the Caucasus will love an opportunity to take a swipe at the Russians. It ain't over till its over.

ETA: the Americans are going to use every opportunity to shit disturb and cause grief for the Russians. They will exploit old Caucasus grievances and stirr up the grievancemongers.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: jester ]

Edited to add:

Georgia drone shot down above South Ossetia - Russian official

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

George Victor: Thought they'd overcome that since 1989.

---

I don't recall if it was Stephen Cohen or someone else, but one observer remarked that much of the cold war (anti-communist) rhetoric against the Russians may, in hindsight, turn out to be the "the great game" in a new shell. There's a continuity that only makes sense if there is something in common that transcends the political changes since 1989. That thing in common?

Don't trust the Rooskies!

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I don't recall if it was Stephen Cohen or someone else, but one observer remarked that much of the cold war (anti-communist) rhetoric against the Russians may, in hindsight, turn out to be the "the great game" in a new shell. There's a continuity that only makes sense if there is something in common that transcends the political changes since 1989. That thing in common?

Don't trust the Rooskies!

It's got a certain elegant simplicity about it.

---

quote:

---

Review of ZB's book - The task facing the United States, he argues, is to manage the conflicts and relationships in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East so that no rival superpower arises to threaten our interests or our well-being.

---

No Russian with any influence elaborates such views. Not even close.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

When you have more than one Great Power, you have conflict

---

But for many, a political economy approach to politics is more fruitful. Such an approach starts from the economic foundation ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

But for many, a political economy approach to politics is more fruitful. Such an approach starts from the economic foundation ...

you know the rest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Oh, one "Great Power" alone is sufficient for conflict.

---

He had clips of the US Ambassador to the UN, speaking about how bad the actions of Russians were in "invading" a country for a regime change.

This was back dropped by Jon's wondering how the US Ambassador was going to call Russia bad and get around the fact that the USA has done exactly what they are accusing Russia of, but worse.

The "esteemed" USA Ambassador to the UN said (paraphrased):

"Russia does not seem to understand that the days of invading a country to bring about a regime change are over...in "Europe".

ETD for clarity and accuracy

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Good grief. Give it up Jester. If it will make it easier to comprehend, just pretend that the Russians did something good by accident. That way, you can keep any prejudice against them intact.

Edited to add:

Georgia drone shot down above South Ossetia - Russian official

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

Oh Good Grief, Beltov. The Russians are playing the same geopolitical game in the Caucasus that the French play in Africa and the US( and its stooges of convenience) plays wherever opportunity rises.

I'm an equal opportunity cynic and distrust them all while you should take off your beer goggles regarding Russian benevolence.

The genius has just announced American benevolence in the Caucasus - humanitarian aid delivered by the military,including naval elements - I don't believe Dubya's 'benevolence' any more than I believe Vladimir's.

OTOH, This is official US doctrine. It's no secret. This is a fundamental difference that can't be glossed over by reference to Putin's (or Medvedev's) dictatorial tendencies.

Incidently, how much aid did Dubya set aside for the bombing victims in South Ossetia? What about Canada in that regard?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Stewart is funny as hell, and I have enjoyed his satire a lot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Israel has also backed right off, which may indicate fewer tensions between that country and Iran. That's got to be a good thing.

---

Perhaps.

quote:

---

The paper quoted an unnamed senior official saying that Israel needed "to be very careful and sensitive these days. The Russians are selling many arms to Iran and Syria and there is no need to offer them an excuse to sell even more advanced weapons."

Israel's immediate concern is that Russia will proceed with the sale of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran, which would help it defend its nuclear installations from aerial attack. Israel, like the US, believes that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at developing a bomb, and Israeli leaders have refused to rule out the possibility of a pre-emptive strike aimed at derailing Iran's nuclear aspirations.

---

Fact Sheet

The summary seems to show that, while he can't be compared to the Saakashvili junta, E. Shevardnadze bears some responsibility here as well (up to Jan 2004 when he was ousted, anyway). The summary also shows the pattern of provocations and violence leading up to August 8. It's quite clear.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

---

quote:

---

In their rich variety and diversity, and in the reciprocal influences they exert on one another, all cultures form part of the common heritage of humanity. UNESCO

---

It is the harm to this common heritage and property of humanity that should concern us all.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

By George Friedman

The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted.

---

Interestingly enough, Richard Seymour (Lenin's Tomb) links to this article.

quote:

---

It's clear that the Caucasus is one of the most ethnically diverse places on planet Earth.

---

Its amazing that this is even the case anymore considering how for 70 odd years the Soviets did everything in their power to suppress all languages and cultures other than Russian and tried to get as many ethnic Russians as possible to move to all the other Soviet Socialist Republics and water down the native cultures and languages.

Morale. Belief in the political leadership that's setting the policy. Corruption. Nepotism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Ya know for those such as myself whose formal education disposes them to take a longer view, there is a lesson to be taken from this historical map.

I'm just not clear yet what it is.

---

ah well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
the Saakashvili junta

---