If they wanted to up the situation they would send in a CBG, and i think there are a couple within a few days/week sail. If they thought there was any chance whatsoever of a USN asset actually being shot at they wouldnt send it in alone. So i dare say if they have sent a single cruiser in theater it IS for humanitarian aid. Georgia is a warzone after all and there thousands of displaced persons who need aid. Pretty simple actually. Anyway do you think a single warship will "up the confrontation" at all? If it was the Whitehouse's intention to send a signal they would have sent in much more formidable assets. They could have easilly, the Russians know this.Looks like US wanna up the confrontation by sending in a cruiser into the Black sea under the disguise of sending humanitarian aid.
It's a destroyer and a coast guard cutter and how do you know it is a disguise? A disguise for what? you only have specualtions based on prejudice on that one. Delivering humanitarian aid is actually an effective policy tool and it is being used in earnest.Looks like US wanna up the confrontation by sending in a cruiser into the Black sea under the disguise of sending humanitarian aid.
I thought the usual protocol was for a lot of large Industrial sized "Trawlers" to suddenly appear just outside coastal waters, the sort that occasionally get struck by missiles malfunctioning in a test.It's a destroyer and a coast guard cutter and how do you know it is a disguise? A disguise for what? you only have specualtions based on prejudice on that one. Delivering humanitarian aid is actually an effective policy tool and it is being used in earnest.
Except that these ships are marked as USN/USCG ships tasked with delivering humanitarian aid - i.e. a policy mission. If the US wish to deliver arms, they can do so openly.I thought the usual protocol was for a lot of large Industrial sized "Trawlers" to suddenly appear just outside coastal waters, the sort that occasionally get struck by missiles malfunctioning in a test.
Things have the potential to become quite Orwellian if not downright surreal, if we start to get Russian “4th Mechanized Peacekeepers” and US “1st Armored Humanitarian Aid Deliverers” rubbing shoulders regularly.
As the old joke in the UK goes, its not the job of the Royal Marines to help Old Ladies cross the Road in a Warzone, thats for the Paratroopers!
Very doubtful that it was a U.S drone, if that were the case the Russians would of used that information for propaganda purposes, plus I think that you overestimate just how much we have invested in Georgia, they are only in the crawl phase of even being considered for NATO, they still have Russian bad habits so to speak. U.S advisors that are still over there even stated that Georgian forces did not even have a firm grasp of basic infantry fighting skills let alone fighting as a cohesive unit as the Russians found out. Codes for radio frequencies can be changed out rather quickly during these modern times along with encryptons so the KGB most likely walked away with a little propaganda to be used by the Russian leadership.the 300 figure included Israeli advisors and other "advisors"and technicians, I assumed that the dron shot down by the Russians you can find the shoot down footage on Youtube pretty easily(I know it is a few months old). The only part of the dron you could see was the landing gear, it looked like one of ours. At any rate it is safe to assume that all the ground support equipment, control system, manuals, this gives them the radio frequencies used with the dron and what ever incryption system is used on it, are safely in Moscow right now that stuff is pretty classified. I would assume that the GRU had a shopping list of Georgian (US and Isreali supplied) advanced equipment they wanted and I seriously doubt Humvees were on the list that is why I said they were the least of our worries. If there was any electronic intelligence gear in Georgia we lost that too.
The propaganda is thinking the Russians (KGB-GRU-NKVD or what ever they call themselves these days) did not know exactly what they wanted from each Georgian military facility the visited instead some soldiers simply hijacked a few US Marine Corps vehicles awaiting shipment back to the USnfloorl:. With the US was craming Georgian membership into NATO a lot of pre-NATO membership work was going on. To intigrate and modernize the Georgian military into our way of doing business.
Have a great day I need to get read for work see ya
Two different points.You guys crack me up, who gives a crap about 5 humvees more than that are destroyed every month in training, what about all the top secret NATO information they captured at various Georgian military bases, 5 humvees give me a break. They are nothing compaired to all the encryption machinery taken, along with radar gear, technical manuals. This is nothing short of a disaster and some of you are worried about 5 vehicles? Talk about the drive by media.
1. They cant send any CBG due to Turkey refusing access.. In fact, US cant send even any large military vessel.If they wanted to up the situation they would send in a CBG, and i think there are a couple within a few days/week sail. If they thought there was any chance whatsoever of a USN asset actually being shot at they wouldnt send it in alone. So i dare say if they have sent a single cruiser in theater it IS for humanitarian aid. Georgia is a warzone after all and there thousands of displaced persons who need aid. Pretty simple actually. Anyway do you think a single warship will "up the confrontation" at all? If it was the Whitehouse's intention to send a signal they would have sent in much more formidable assets. They could have easilly, the Russians know this.
Pretty much agree with formal point of view. Practically, we'll see.2. The Humvees at Poti, & any other equipment associated with them, are the property of the US government, not in the possession of the Georgian military, not being used against Russia, not being used in the war. The Russians have no more right to them than they have to any other private (i.e. not belonging to the Georgian government) property in Georgia. In fact, under the Geneva conventions, they are obliged to protect such property in occupied territory, not steal it.
The specific allegation is that Russian forces committed a crime by taking the Humvees. There is no allegation of criminality in the seizing of equipment from Georgian bases.
1. Turkey doesn't have any discretion in peacetime, but is bound by the terms of the Montreux Convention, & must refuse or permit access according to its terms. If, however, Turkey is at war, or considers itself to be in imminent danger of war, the Montreux Convention restrictions go out of the window (ref. articles 20 & 21 of the convention, covering these eventualities) & Turkey has complete discretion.1. They cant send any CBG due to Turkey refusing access.. In fact, US cant send even any large military vessel.
2. CBG in such small sea as Black Sea is nothing more than helpless target for different ASM's, including coastal ones. US will never put CBG in such position even if they could. From military point of view CBG is useless there. Politically small destroyer is just as good.
3. And yes, i dont think they any US assets will be shot. In fact, such military help is pretty normal situation and all sides involved usually avoided confrontation with "neutral" military vessels. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea - to name the few most largest examples.
I suspect the US government won't make a big fuss over a few Humvees & the like. Maybe a discreet formal note requesting their return, maybe nothing at all.Pretty much agree with formal point of view. Practically, we'll see.
1. Turkey right now dont feel itself in war or in danger. Actually, in this conflict Turkey takes rather Russian side.1. Turkey doesn't have any discretion in peacetime, but is bound by the terms of the Montreux Convention, & must refuse or permit access according to its terms. If, however, Turkey is at war, or considers itself to be in imminent danger of war, the Montreux Convention restrictions go out of the window (ref. articles 20 & 21 of the convention, covering these eventualities) & Turkey has complete discretion.
2. & 3. Yes.
Actually, Geneva IV doesn't mention that anywhere.In fact, under the Geneva conventions, they are obliged to protect such property in occupied territory, not steal it.
Which means it has no discretion. As long as US ships give sufficient notice, & aren't aircraft carriers or otherwise restricted, Turkey has to let them through.1. Turkey right now dont feel itself in war or in danger.
coast guard cutter-hmmmmm; don't the USN send them in prior to landing marines?It's a destroyer and a coast guard cutter and how do you know it is a disguise? A disguise for what? you only have specualtions based on prejudice on that one. Delivering humanitarian aid is actually an effective policy tool and it is being used in earnest.
Last time I looked they were robbing the foreigners, including the cameras from reporters.Two different points.
1. The equipment captured at Georgian bases may be legitimately seized by the Russians. It's the property of, or being used by, the armed forces of state with which Russia is at war.
2. The Humvees at Poti, & any other equipment associated with them, are the property of the US government, not in the possession of the Georgian military, not being used against Russia, not being used in the war. The Russians have no more right to them than they have to any other private (i.e. not belonging to the Georgian government) property in Georgia. In fact, under the Geneva conventions, they are obliged to protect such property in occupied territory, not steal it.
The specific allegation is that Russian forces committed a crime by taking the Humvees. There is no allegation of criminality in the seizing of equipment from Georgian bases.