• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Georgia and the Russian invasions/annexations/Lebensraum (2008 & 2015)

There will be truths and lies on all sides, perspectives change with one's social or political standing of the involved parties. The reporters on all sides will report what they "feel" is newsworthy or relevant at the time.

Lets just hope innocent people aren't the prime focus in this and that peace can be brought back to the region quickly and safely.


Cheers.
 
Tony, as promised:

Vaziani Georgian Army Garrison:  41°40'35.72"N,  45° 3'32.89"E

Airfield complex:  41°37'50.16"N,  45° 1'58.70"E

Vaziani City (refugees):  41°39'50.23"N,  45° 4'38.57"E.  Not a happy place and "ruled" by the Tbilisi underworld.

(Former?) Vaziani Russian Peacekeeper Garrison:  41°41'10.07"N,  45° 3'20.49"E.

Hope this makes my prior explanation of where the Russians were (are?) or weren't (aren't?) when discussing this location.
 
Haggis said:
Tony, as promised:

Vaziani Georgian Army Garrison:  41°40'35.72"N,  45° 3'32.89"E

Airfield complex:  41°37'50.16"N,  45° 1'58.70"E

Vaziani City (refugees):  41°39'50.23"N,  45° 4'38.57"E.  Not a happy place and "ruled" by the Tbilisi underworld.

(Former?) Vaziani Russian Peacekeeper Garrison:  41°41'10.07"N,  45° 3'20.49"E.

Hope this makes my prior explanation of where the Russians were (are?) or weren't (aren't?) when discussing this location.

Even better - will quickmaps.com this shortly - thanks again!

- Edited to add map link -

Map, as promised.....

 
Colin P said:
The airbase looks defunct, no vehicles, no aircraft.

I don't think Google imagery is always up-to-date.
 
STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER HARPER ON CONFLICT IN GEORGIA


August 11, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

In a statement released today, Prime Minister Harper condemned Russia’s incursions into Georgian territory far beyond South Ossetia, including into already tense Abkhazia.

"Russian and Georgian forces must immediately cease hostilities throughout Georgia and return to their August 6 positions,” he said. "Furthermore, in escalating the conflict through its attacks on Georgian towns and cities outside South Ossetia, Russia has ceased to act as a peacekeeper. It is imperative that Russia respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia."

Prime Minister Harper added that “Military force will not resolve this dispute. The only viable long-term solution is international mediation and peacekeeping."

Prime Minister Harper added that Canada is working with its international partners to bring this conflict to a close as quickly as possible. He also stated that Canada stands ready to provide humanitarian assistance to those affected by the conflict. The first priority for all sides must be to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians, and facilitate full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to assist those in need.
 
I am beginning to wonder what all those guys I have been training on OPFOR think of it now?
 
oligarch said:
If you don't agree with me, then answer the following simple questions. Why were Georgians shelling Tshinivali? What would be a more appropriate response by Russia, given that they have a peacekeeping mandate, in light of the Georgian attack on Tshinvali?

Russia had been pushing hard for this to happen. Eventually they pushed hard enough and Georgia responded at which time Russia put the forces they had close by into action. Just like after lots of problems from the region Russia invaded Chechnya to put a stop to it, Georgia like wise attacked South Ossetia. The main difference is the trouble South Ossetia was causing for Georgia was backed by a Russia just waiting for them to act so they could charge in.

Looks like Russia is going back to it's old self: brutal and incompetent. As the recently deceased Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote about pretty clearly Communism inevitably leads to this. In this form of government contrary opinions must be suppressed and this is eventually done with brutality. Following the party line takes precedent over competence and the country achieves a mere fraction of it's potential as growth and development are severely restrained by incompetent central planning. All of Russia's accomplishments in the 20th century are only a fraction of what they could have been due to Lenin and Stalin and the communist system.  
 
I guess this is a heads up that the West needs to be able to fight both a convential war and a Insurgent war. I can see the argument for maintaining both light and heavy forces. Weapon systems that can do both will be worth their weight in gold. Thank god we bought Leo2's finally and did not go totally light.
 
Colin P said:
I guess this is a heads up that the West needs to be able to fight both a conventional war and a Insurgent war. I can see the argument for maintaining both light and heavy forces. Weapon systems that can do both will be worth their weight in gold. Thank god we bought Leo2's finally and did not go totally light.

Excellent point....I wonder if the new breed of US Generals that everyone was cheering in a recent thread, because they were finally coming into their own. The comments circled around how they were replacing the Cold War Conventional generation with an Insurgent orientated generation. Maybe there needs to be a bit of a rethink......
 
I was thinking it was awful convenient that Russia would have a battle ready unit just sitting and able to pounce on poor Georgia.  

Then I remember reading a National Geographic a few years back on how the Soviet's built a very well thought out rail system.  An amazingly huge resource pig, bureaucratic monster of a railway system.  None the less very capable of moving anything around Russia.  

Then I thought what Super Power/Ex Super power would not try and maintain a rapid reaction force capable of responding to any border within say a day or less?  A battle ready force capable of crossing into Georgia is not beyond reality.

So yes Georgia could start Shelling and Russia could give the word and a fully capable unit could knock on Georgia's front door the next day.  Its not like the US, they don't have to load a wack of transports and go half way around the world to act on a situation.  Georgia is down the street from Russia.  Given the tension they could have had a well thought out contingency for such an occasion.   So I'm not really seeing any conspiracy red flags yet.

Mr Oligarch tried to say that this was no different from Kosovo.   Except that the rolls are almost perfectly reversed.  The Russians during Kosovo sided with Serbia a long time Russian supporter.   They criticised the west for its actions all through the bombing campain.  Now the Americans and NATO are criticizing Russia and siding with Georgia a democratic NATO wanna be (shocking isn't it??  <===insert sarcsum here).  Why would we do anything different they have expressed real intrest in joining our alliance and helping us.

My only concern is that this is no less dangerous than any other little skirmish that has occurred in the last 100 years.  Two of those little skirmishes got big quick.  This could be a very small snow flake just starting to roll down the mountain.  someone could step on it soon or it could grow and grow.

Makes me wonder if we had media like this in the 30's, what would we have been saying when Mr Hitler started playing in Poland?  It makes me wonder if with all that is going on in the world,  are we on the cusp of something as big a terrible?  I hope not!

:salute:
 
             I think the current world state of affairs would go hand in hand with the old saying  "over come and adapt" . That's in regards on how to deal with all the various different problems out there  . 
 
DBA said:
Russia had been pushing hard for this to happen. Eventually they pushed hard enough and Georgia responded at which time Russia put the forces they had close by into action. Just like after lots of problems from the region Russia invaded Chechnya to put a stop to it, Georgia like wise attacked South Ossetia. The main difference is the trouble South Ossetia was causing for Georgia was backed by a Russia just waiting for them to act so they could charge in.

Looks like Russia is going back to it's old self: brutal and incompetent. As the recently deceased Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote about pretty clearly Communism inevitably leads to this. In this form of government contrary opinions must be suppressed and this is eventually done with brutality. Following the party line takes precedent over competence and the country achieves a mere fraction of it's potential as growth and development are severely restrained by incompetent central planning. All of Russia's accomplishments in the 20th century are only a fraction of what they could have been due to Lenin and Stalin and the communist system.  

I agree, they supported and funded the rebels as well as set things up to work very well for an invasion from their side. The rebels that were funded poked and prodded with a sharp stick and low and behold eventually there's finally a reaction. I'm sure they expected this and very sure they wanted this to happen. By the way I'm not just another westerner talking, I was born in Russia and my family left to come here for a better life. It's hard to believe how much bs citizens there are being fed sometimes...

I think if tensity keeps rising between us and Russia that military overhaul that we've needed for a while now will probably be coming.
 
US military surprised by speed, timing of Russia military action


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military was surprised by the timing and swiftness of the Russian military's move into South Ossetia and is still trying to sort out what happened, a US defense official said Monday.

Russian forces surged into the breakaway region last week after weeks of clashes, threats and warnings between Tblisi and Moscow which culminated August 6 in a two-day Georgian offensive into South Ossetia.

That the two countries were on a collision course was no surprise to anyone, but the devastating Russian response was not expected, officials said.

"We were tracking it earlier in that week and we knew that things were escalating," said a military official, who asked not to be identified. "I can tell you it moved quicker than we anticipated that first day."

But how it unfolded is still unclear, clouded by conflicting claims from both sides.

"I think a lot of what you're asking needs to be ironed out," said the official.

"Some of these little issues are definitely still big questions in this event -- What was the intent? Who started it? Why did they start it? And why weren't they prepared to defend what they started?"

President George W. Bush, who urged Moscow to cease fire and return to pre-August 6 positions, charged in a televised statement that Russia's intention appeared to be depose Georgia's democratically elected president.

But the extent of the Russian operation remained unclear to US officials on Monday.

Georgian officials said Russian troops had moved out of South Ossetia into Georgia proper, occupying the city of Gori while Georgian troops were retreating to the capital.

But US defense officials said they were unable to corroborate the Georgian claims.

"We don't see anything that supports they are in Gori," said a defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't know why the Georgians are saying that."

"That assessment is ongoing," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.

The United States has among the most powerful tools for monitoring brewing conflicts, from spy satellites to reconnaissance aircraft and drones capable of scooping up radio signals or capture real-time images of forces on the ground.

But the extent to which they were trained on this remote conflict before it turned violent is not known.

More on the link.

-Deadpan
 
Colin P said:
The airbase looks defunct, no vehicles, no aircraft.

You don't need a lot of airfield to support 7 fighter aircraft. ;D

IIRC the airfield part of Vaziani had been deserted for some time and Vaziani City (VC) was the former "PMQ patch" for the airfield.  Many of the conscripts stationed at Vaziani garrison had family members in VC and surrounding villages.  Some would walk home, occasionally through the impact areas, after duty each night.

Note the concrete slab walls surrounding many of the loactions.
 
GAP said:
Excellent point....I wonder if the new breed of US Generals that everyone was cheering in a recent thread, because they were finally coming into their own. The comments circled around how they were replacing the Cold War Conventional generation with an Insurgent orientated generation. Maybe there needs to be a bit of a rethink......

I think (as the person who started that thread) the US is doing the right thing with the changing of the guard. The battle in Georgia will almost certainly devolve into a COIN operation for the Russians, so assuming the United States is willing to offer support, there is a need to understand Insurgencies from both sides of the fence. As well, moving heavy forces around is very cumbersome, it took more than six months to assemble the force for the first Persian Gulf War and moving stuff around for OIF was pretty challenging as well.

What the United States needs is the ability to think and act in all the spectrum of armed conflict, and be able to transition back and forth between roles. OIF was a triumph of post cold war "RMA" inspired thinking, but the force wasn't able to transition when the situation changed abruptly. The new breed of commanders have demonstrated the ability to transition from soft to hard, and use heavy forces in COIN OPS when required to clear insurgents out of urban strongholds.

A generation of senior commanders who are versed in both "cold war" operations and COIN operations will have a very large and flexible toolkit to deal with the enemy (whoever and whatever they are), and will be able to offer more surprises and a much broader range of options to use, giving the civillian leadership a more nuanced ability to deal with issues and handing the enemy a much more difficult task.
 
Fred Thompson made this statement last November.

We have major shortcomings in U.S. defense capabilities. To confront these shortcomings, we must address several key priorities: First, we must spend more on defense, and we must do so carefully and wisely. Spending today as a percent of GDP is estimated at 4.1 percent - and that includes funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, defense spending is expected to decline down to 3.1 percent in 2011. I believe we must be prepared to increase defense spending to at least 4.5 percent of GDP, not including what it takes to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When it comes to matters of budgets with Congress they say all numbers are fungible. But in this area of appropriation, there should be little room for negotiation.

Second, we must admit to ourselves, as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, that our military is simply too small. Too many commitments today leave our Armed Forces capable of meeting too few contingencies tomorrow. I propose today that we build a "Million-Member" ground force. We should increase Army end strength to 775,000 organized into 64 brigade combat teams and increase active duty Marine Corps forces by 50,000 to 225,000. Half-measures and small increases will no longer do. We need the best all-volunteer force that can meet the security needs of this country, and they must be organized, trained and equipped to deal with tomorrow's threats as well as today's.

Third, we must modernize our Armed Forces. The average age of our military aircraft is 24 years; some are over forty years old...twice the age of most of you. The Army's main battle tank and fighting vehicles were designed in the 1970s and 80s. And the entire fleet of vehicles is not aging gracefully either, with an average age of 13 years, made worse by years of tough use.

We must fully field and fund the next generation of military systems to ensure U.S. forces retain dominance in the full battle space: On the battlefield, in the skies above it, and in the waters surrounding it. The investments we make today provide the means to defend our nation tomorrow. They will make our military personnel more effective and safer. We need sustained technology development, and we need the best and brightest working on our defense programs.

Finally, and most importantly, we must take better care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They are the life-blood of our defense establishment. Whether they are active duty, Guard or Reserve, they are entitled, as well, to expect the best pay and benefits our country can afford, including a modern GI Bill with educational assistance that will help us recruit and keep our nation's finest in uniform. They also deserve the best healthcare and the best support possible for their families.

And for those who have already served, we need to fix the VA system and implement many of the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veteran's Disability Benefits Commission report.

These four pillars of a revitalized national defense are part of a much more detailed plan that must include, among other initiatives, enhancing the capabilities of our Special Operations Forces to hunt down terrorists; rebuilding the Navy to show American resolve, full time, in trouble spots; strengthening our intelligence gathering and analysis; procuring modern long-range cargo aircraft to project power anytime, anywhere; building a robust missile defense system to defend our homeland, our troops and our allies from ballistic missiles; and ensuring the means to protect our space-based assets and cyber systems

Some will say that this plan is "too much," or "too big." Others will say that building a large military will encourage our involvement in more conflicts. But these views are out step with reality, out of touch with our nation's needs, and overlook our nation's history.

The fact is, we can and must do this. The world, our foes and friends alike, will not allow us to do otherwise. We can either build up and deter war, or we can allow our forces to wither and risk conflict.
 

While I think you are right that the new generation is more easily adaptable to soft and hard, I think they (politicians and brass) have to be very careful what is kept and what is discarded....( a classic example is our former CDS being prepared to accept the loss of the Leo's even though the decision was made by the politicians)..
 
Back
Top