The bear from the East is awake once again.

[guppy]

"win the war"? That would be occuping Georgia... NOT just keeping it at bay from conquering Abkhazia! This IS direct and indisputable job of peace keeping forces - insuring what where are NO combat between 2 sides, and both sides have nothing to do in each other land.

Either way, if peace keepers are not allowed to use they weapon to stop violence... then how would we call UN & NATO troops in Kosovo? In Lebannon? in dozens other places where peacekeepers DO use weapon?

Why would "win the war" mean occupying Georgia? I am not too familiar with the politics in the area. However, if the political objectives of the Russian government was to re-integrate the two breakaway states, and the Russian military was tasked to prevent Georgia from intervening, then keeping the line would be considered a military victory for the Russians.

Obviously, peacekeepers are allowed to use their weapons, but what aim and objective did they have in mind when they took out a couple of georgian drones? Were ppl on the ground directly threatened? Were actions escalatory or de-escalatory in nature? What if all this provokes a massive build up of forces on both sides, reminiscent of the cold war? Is that still considered peacekeeping? Of course we know it will not happen due to the current state of world affairs, but what if someone miscalculates some time down the road?

I will just say that the russians there are not regular peacekeeping forces as the western world is used to. I think there is a difference between intimidation and peacekeeping, like there is a difference between the mafia and the police.

btw, why not read what wiki has to say.

cheers

guppy

 

[guppy]

Funny thing, special UN commission couldnt determine it with all information available to them. That alone speak volumes.

According to same commission, Abkhazia AD network is perfectly capable to track and destroy such UAV's.

I do not doubt the credibility of the UN commission. However, there appears to be several aspects to this issue.

Firstly, with intimate knowledge of the optical system on the drone, it might be possible to determine the focusing distance of the attacker. Perform angle measurements on wingspans, do some trigonometry and compare against known figures for flankers and fulcrums. Now, was Georgia able to or willing to provide the UN with such data? Maybe, maybe not. I doubt it.

The 2nd aspect is this: does it matter whether it is a fulcrum or a flanker? Is it worth all the trouble to figure out which is it? Which airforce in that region flies two tailed fighters and have a motive to attack the drone? All the evidence is circumstantial, so they can't issue a statement that says,"the russians did it!".

cheers

guppy