Burunsuzoglu
New Member
Traffic is as normal (with delays) - wouldn't be overly surprised if precautions had been taken to protect the pipe/rail lines; however, officially the only column has been the red cross?
Caucasian Powderkeg?
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Status
Burunsuzoglu
New Member
to regain their influence in the region, and gain a total monopoly over energy sources.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #343
No translation error. That's what all Russian media outlets are saying. Also the Kodori Gorge was taken over by Georgian forces somewhat illegally from what I understand, so really this is just a re-establishment of what the original Moscow Accords of 1994 affirmed. Also I've seen a few times allusions to a 1999 agreement between Russia, S. Ossetia, and Georgia that if war broke out Russia would intervene on the side of the victim and force the aggressor to back down. Essentially Russia was a guarantor of peace. And given the situation, the Russian response it peacekeeping, in it's own strange way. After all do you have a better way to stop the Georgians?
BlackAdder
New Member
In Russian the term is "mirotvorets". It translates into "peacemaker". There is no term in Russian which directly corresponds to "peacekeeper". Though they use "mirotvorets" with regard to UN peacekeeping missions as well.
Burunsuzoglu
New Member
We are talking about a major US partner, the only reason why they are not members of NATO is because the French and Germans are no need for unnecessary foul language scared of hurting Russian feelings - now look at the mess that has resulted, the gutless shits, I don't even know why France has rejoined NATO. Ranting aside - since the Georgian military has been built from scratch by the USA and Turkey I think it would be safe to assume they have considerable intelligence capabilities to hand on the ground.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #346
Another quick update, arms-tass.su reports 9000 Russian troops with 350 units of armor in Abkhazia. Sounds like roughly a VDV division. But I can't tell from their photo, whether it's a BMD or not. It looks awfully like a BMP-1/2.
So looks like the Germans were right to make sure Georgia doesn't drag them into a confrontation with Russia. NATO isn't a protection agency for third world FSU and ex-WarPac states. It's a military and political alliance.
Well if Georgia wasn't intent on breaking their own international agreements there would be no mess, right?
So looks like the Germans were right to make sure Georgia doesn't drag them into a confrontation with Russia. NATO isn't a protection agency for third world FSU and ex-WarPac states. It's a military and political alliance.BlackAdder
New Member
Well, there I have problem - I fail to understand how it will promote their interests. In my view it is another example of brainless Russian generals who are more adept at making conscripts to build their dachas than managing defense issues.
Two rather interesting articles on the point of real Russian interests in the region as opposed to those of criminal gangs. \
http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1189525.html
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373298
BlackAdder
New Member
On the other hand... Here is a StratFor analysis. I'm not inclined to concur with everything, but some arguments are sound:
"The war between Georgia and Russia appears to be drawing to a close. There were Russian air attacks on Georgia and some fighting in South Ossetia, and the Russians sank a Georgian missile boat. But as the day ended the Russians declared themselves ready to make peace with Georgia, and U.N. officials said the Georgians were ready to complete the withdrawal of their forces from South Ossetia.
At this point, the Russians have achieved what they wanted to, quite apart from assuring South Ossetia’s autonomy. First, they have driven home the fact that in the end, they are the dominant power not only in the Caucasus but also around their entire periphery. Alliance with the United States or training with foreign advisers ultimately means little; it is not even clear what the United States or NATO would have been able to do if Georgia had been a member of the alliance. That lesson is not for the benefit of Georgia, but for Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, and even Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russians have made it clear that, at least at this moment in history, they can operate on their periphery effectively and therefore their neighbors should not be indifferent to Russian wishes.
The second lesson was for the Americans and Europeans to consider. The Russians had asked that Kosovo not be granted independence. The Russians were prepared to accept autonomy but they did not want the map of Europe to be redrawn, and they made it clear that once that starts, it will not only not end, but the Russians would feel free to redraw the map themselves. The Americans and Europeans went forward anyway, making the assumption that the Russians would have no choice but to live with that decision. The Russian response to the Georgian attack on South Ossetia drives home the point that the Russians are again a force to be reckoned with.
There has been sharp rhetoric from American and European officials, but that rhetoric can’t be matched with military action. The Europeans are too militarily weak to have any options, and the Americans have quite enough on their plates without getting involved in a war in Georgia. In some ways the rhetoric makes the Russians look even stronger than they actually are. The intensity of the rhetoric contrasted with the paucity of action is striking.
The Americans in particular have another problem. Iran is infinitely more important to them than Georgia, and they need Russian help in Iran. Specifically, they need the Russians to not sell the Iranians weapons. In particular, they do not want the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles delivered to the Iranians. In addition, they want the Russians to join in possible sanctions against Iran. Russia has a number of ways to thwart U.S. policy not only in Iran, but also in Afghanistan and Syria. These are areas of fundamental concern to the United States, and confronting the Russians on Georgia is a risky business. The Russians can counter in ways that are extremely painful to the United States.
There is talk that the Russians might want a new government in Georgia. That is probably so, but the Russians have already achieved their most important goals. They have made it clear to their neighbors that a relationship with the West does not provide security if Russia’s interests are threatened. They have made it clear to the West that ignoring Russian wishes carries a price. And finally, they have made it clear to everyone that the Russian military, which was in catastrophic shape five years ago, is sufficiently healed to carry out a complex combined arms operation including land, air and naval components. Granted it was against a small country, but there were many ways in which the operation could have been bungled. It wasn’t. Russia is not a superpower, but it is certainly no longer a military cripple. Delivering that message, in the end, might have been the most important to Russia."
"The war between Georgia and Russia appears to be drawing to a close. There were Russian air attacks on Georgia and some fighting in South Ossetia, and the Russians sank a Georgian missile boat. But as the day ended the Russians declared themselves ready to make peace with Georgia, and U.N. officials said the Georgians were ready to complete the withdrawal of their forces from South Ossetia.
At this point, the Russians have achieved what they wanted to, quite apart from assuring South Ossetia’s autonomy. First, they have driven home the fact that in the end, they are the dominant power not only in the Caucasus but also around their entire periphery. Alliance with the United States or training with foreign advisers ultimately means little; it is not even clear what the United States or NATO would have been able to do if Georgia had been a member of the alliance. That lesson is not for the benefit of Georgia, but for Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, and even Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russians have made it clear that, at least at this moment in history, they can operate on their periphery effectively and therefore their neighbors should not be indifferent to Russian wishes.
The second lesson was for the Americans and Europeans to consider. The Russians had asked that Kosovo not be granted independence. The Russians were prepared to accept autonomy but they did not want the map of Europe to be redrawn, and they made it clear that once that starts, it will not only not end, but the Russians would feel free to redraw the map themselves. The Americans and Europeans went forward anyway, making the assumption that the Russians would have no choice but to live with that decision. The Russian response to the Georgian attack on South Ossetia drives home the point that the Russians are again a force to be reckoned with.
There has been sharp rhetoric from American and European officials, but that rhetoric can’t be matched with military action. The Europeans are too militarily weak to have any options, and the Americans have quite enough on their plates without getting involved in a war in Georgia. In some ways the rhetoric makes the Russians look even stronger than they actually are. The intensity of the rhetoric contrasted with the paucity of action is striking.
The Americans in particular have another problem. Iran is infinitely more important to them than Georgia, and they need Russian help in Iran. Specifically, they need the Russians to not sell the Iranians weapons. In particular, they do not want the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles delivered to the Iranians. In addition, they want the Russians to join in possible sanctions against Iran. Russia has a number of ways to thwart U.S. policy not only in Iran, but also in Afghanistan and Syria. These are areas of fundamental concern to the United States, and confronting the Russians on Georgia is a risky business. The Russians can counter in ways that are extremely painful to the United States.
There is talk that the Russians might want a new government in Georgia. That is probably so, but the Russians have already achieved their most important goals. They have made it clear to their neighbors that a relationship with the West does not provide security if Russia’s interests are threatened. They have made it clear to the West that ignoring Russian wishes carries a price. And finally, they have made it clear to everyone that the Russian military, which was in catastrophic shape five years ago, is sufficiently healed to carry out a complex combined arms operation including land, air and naval components. Granted it was against a small country, but there were many ways in which the operation could have been bungled. It wasn’t. Russia is not a superpower, but it is certainly no longer a military cripple. Delivering that message, in the end, might have been the most important to Russia."
2S1
Banned Member
It looks like a BMP-2; six road-wheels and a 30mm cannon.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Other than a few choice words and assistance in redeployment of Georgian troops back to Georgia, the US hasn't really done a whole lot much.
As much as anyone would like, the reality is as of today, no Awacs has been sent across Turkey and no F22s are being redeployed.
Right now I think the main aim for the US is to ensure that there is still a Georgia to support.
Georgia may seem like a major US partner but strategically, the loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia doesn't put a dent to US plans in isolating Iran or managing oil pipe line routes.
Let's look at it from the perspective of the secretary of state. The Russians are balkanising (ie breaking up) Georgia. What US will consider doing is to prevent state recognition of Akbhazia and South Ossetia by more than the usual suspects. It needs to seek UN support to maintain the de jure territorial integrity of Georgia whilst it can. Then it will seek the removal of Russian troops as it did previously in Abkhazia. Thereafter, after a period of time, it will seek a reunification on a basis of autonomy for the 2 regions within Georgia.
However, the current timing is useful to Russia. The coming change in US presidents mean Bush is a lame duck. Stall for a few more months and wait for the next president's response. I'm not so sure Obama is savvy enough to navigate this complexity.
Looking at it from Russia's perspective. America is going to lose political/moral points if it throws its full weight of support for Georgia if Georgian troops are found to have committed atrocities. Georgia's going to lose a segment of resource and be diverted from supporting Chechnya. Russia also has a great deal of cover in terms of distraction from activities in other regions eg Chechnya.
Remember Saakashvili is no Shevardnadze. He's a guy whose willing to use force to achieve his ends and got caught out by a bigger gangster in the neighborhood.
The US does have an opportunity to create another satellite beholden to US interests.
If I was the Americans, what I'll do is to fast-track Georgia's entry into Nato. It'd guarantee Georgia's existence and certain to irk Russia.
Other than a few choice words and assistance in redeployment of Georgian troops back to Georgia, the US hasn't really done a whole lot much.
As much as anyone would like, the reality is as of today, no Awacs has been sent across Turkey and no F22s are being redeployed.
Right now I think the main aim for the US is to ensure that there is still a Georgia to support.
Georgia may seem like a major US partner but strategically, the loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia doesn't put a dent to US plans in isolating Iran or managing oil pipe line routes.
Let's look at it from the perspective of the secretary of state. The Russians are balkanising (ie breaking up) Georgia. What US will consider doing is to prevent state recognition of Akbhazia and South Ossetia by more than the usual suspects. It needs to seek UN support to maintain the de jure territorial integrity of Georgia whilst it can. Then it will seek the removal of Russian troops as it did previously in Abkhazia. Thereafter, after a period of time, it will seek a reunification on a basis of autonomy for the 2 regions within Georgia.
However, the current timing is useful to Russia. The coming change in US presidents mean Bush is a lame duck. Stall for a few more months and wait for the next president's response. I'm not so sure Obama is savvy enough to navigate this complexity.
Looking at it from Russia's perspective. America is going to lose political/moral points if it throws its full weight of support for Georgia if Georgian troops are found to have committed atrocities. Georgia's going to lose a segment of resource and be diverted from supporting Chechnya. Russia also has a great deal of cover in terms of distraction from activities in other regions eg Chechnya.
Remember Saakashvili is no Shevardnadze. He's a guy whose willing to use force to achieve his ends and got caught out by a bigger gangster in the neighborhood.
The US does have an opportunity to create another satellite beholden to US interests.
If I was the Americans, what I'll do is to fast-track Georgia's entry into Nato. It'd guarantee Georgia's existence and certain to irk Russia.
Stryker001
Banned Member
Georgia
The solution for the Georgians is simple come home, it is inevitable. It is what Stalin would have wanted.
Very smart of NATO not granting NATO membership, the oil pipeline is not as important to the US as it is to Europe in the bigger picture.
The solution for the Georgians is simple come home, it is inevitable. It is what Stalin would have wanted.
Very smart of NATO not granting NATO membership, the oil pipeline is not as important to the US as it is to Europe in the bigger picture.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Blackadder, thanks for posting the stratfor extract. I think the article has nailed a significant number of reasons down.
One thing it highlights. Reasons are only consistent so long as it supports the objective.
Blackadder, thanks for posting the stratfor extract. I think the article has nailed a significant number of reasons down.
One thing it highlights. Reasons are only consistent so long as it supports the objective.
An American Soldier/Citizen Captured In South Ossetia?
A report from Russian newspaper Izvestia claims an African-American soldier was captured with some Georgian soldiers. He has apparently been transferred to the Russian Vladikavkaz army base. If these claims are true the question has to be whether he was actively involved in the conflict. The Georgians he was supposedly detained with specialize in handling ordinances. What is known is that US soldiers have been training the Georgian military in dealing with ordinances. The Russian article was found by the War News Updates blog. However, Russian magazine Life News is also reporting this story and has published a photograph of the captured soldier. The publication suggests he may be a NATO instructor.
A report from Russian newspaper Izvestia claims an African-American soldier was captured with some Georgian soldiers. He has apparently been transferred to the Russian Vladikavkaz army base. If these claims are true the question has to be whether he was actively involved in the conflict. The Georgians he was supposedly detained with specialize in handling ordinances. What is known is that US soldiers have been training the Georgian military in dealing with ordinances. The Russian article was found by the War News Updates blog. However, Russian magazine Life News is also reporting this story and has published a photograph of the captured soldier. The publication suggests he may be a NATO instructor.
It is not even THAT important to Europa in big picture. EU is completely depended on Russian natural resources anyway, and 1 or 2 independent pipelines will not change that. I mean, it will not make big difference if EU receive 46% or 49% of natural resources through russian-controlled piplines. By that, keep in mind - some sense russian always controlled that pipeline due to it being that close to russian border, and in quite unstable region.
Suprizingly russians did better than I thought , didn't knew they had such a capability apart from the moscow guards , given that georgians equipment is upgraded by west and had drones and were trained by israeli instructors and given that 58th army had kinda obsolete equipment and that georgians were on higher ground afaik I have to say russians did pretty good for their standard, much better so than they would in the 90's.
Burunsuzoglu
New Member
Dito - I don't even bother with the BBC any more.
Burunsuzoglu
New Member
Young man - all those gas rich Central Asian Turkic states are looking long and hard at how America reacts. Georgia is its main ally in the region, if it cannot even defend its friends what assistance can they expect if they decide to ally with USA; you have already lost Tajikistan, the real prize is Turkmenistan & Kazakhstan.
Burunsuzoglu
New Member
It would be interesting to find out what role Chechen mercenaries played?
BlackAdder
New Member
Thank you, though I still consider myself young at heart, my passport begs to differ
I can perfectly see your point, which is likewise illustrated very succinctly in StrarFor analysis, and still... In my view the path Russia has chosen creates more long-term problems for them than solves. It certainly plays into Western hawks who will chirp in "I told you so. These Russians cannot be trusted". It will make EU more wary of BlueStream project and more anxious to promote Nabucco. It will encourage Georgia and Ukraine NATO fast-track. It will make unite Georgia (what will be left of it) against Russia forever. It will make Russia's freedom of action in the region more constrained by the whims of client statelets (as it was with the USSR during the Cold War).- Status