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

[tomahawk6]

The real problem is the will to act by the US and NATO. If everyone is afraid of a confrontation with Moscow there will be more Georgia's in our future. This goes back to the Pristina airport confrontation between NATO forces and Russia. Not every confrontation with Russia means the start of a war. Otherwise we are giving Russia carte blanche to do anything they feel like doing.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

This is a delacate situation considering Bush's reign is coming to an end. The next President is going to have a full plate to deal with the instant he's settled into office. If Bush is smart he will try to quell the sitaution peacefully with the help of the UN as the MAIN negotiators with Russia. If the UN can get the Russian's to atleast stop firing then peace will have a chance in the region at least for a while.

However IF the Russian mandate goes deeper than just showing the world it's not happy and no longer sitting idle, it could get alot worse before better. Throw in Iran, Pakistan and India and it could get really ugly really fast.


:-\

 

[George Wallace]

You are placing a high degree of credibility on the UN.  If it had that kind of credibility and power/threat it would have been able to sort out Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, Iran, Iraq, and the list goes on. 

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Well i highly doubt Bush will have any better of a chance persuading Russia in a stand down order. The UN has many voices hopefully one of them will have some degree of success. I'm not saying anything will have "favourable outcomes" but options are pretty limited right now. Either let Russia make thier intentions clear and respond peacefully, OR get out the hardware and prepare for the insuing conflicts.

The alternatives are frightning considering the players at the table.

 

[armyca08]

It should be noted that Russia was the first to offer a ceasefire and demand people go back to starting points and a return of the status quo - the UN Security Council and Georgia rejected Russia's initial offer, and added conditions to the cease fire.

Also Georgia openly declared war on Russia - the President of Georgia made statements such as "We are at war with Russia".

Georgia also was the one who started razing Georgian Villages (or rather South Ossetia Villages), and blocking humanitarian aid from Russia such as food supplies.

Russian Citizens, personnel and equipment came under attack, causing numerous deaths at which time Russia responded.

Georgia had pushed into the Capital of South Ossetia prior to Russia launching a counter offensive on claims that ethnic cleansing operations were occuring conducted by Georgia.

Russia responded to two fighter Aircraft being shot down and tanks coming under fire by- in what was said to be humanitarian operations in relation to protecting civilians and maintaining the status quo in S.O. - expanding beyond S.O.  and force a retreat by Georgia.

In this time Georgia declared war against Russia it should also be noted the areas have either been autonomous or waging a civil war in Georgia for the last 15 years - this is not a sudden development.

Washington just appears to be playing it into their favour - potentially to increase republican sway in the upcoming elections but that may be a stretch.


Russians had been acting as a peacekeeping force for 15 years protecting the interests of the historically seperate Ossetians in South Ossetia. Georgia meanwhile has been using military force to crush seperatist movements - however those bodies are not historically part of Georgia.

 

[meni0n]

armyca08, you are out to lunch.

From http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=339


"The brazen attacks during the night of August 7 to 8 in South Ossetia left Tbilisi with no choice but to respond. Continuing Georgian restraint would have resulted in irreparable human, territorial, and political losses. Moscow’s military and propaganda operation bears the hallmarks of its blitzkriegs in Transnistria in 1992 and Abkhazia in 1993. Georgia’s defensive response in South Ossetia since August 8 is legally within the country’s rights under international law and militarily commensurate with the attacks."

"On July 9 Moscow demonstratively acknowledged that four Russian Air Force planes had flown a mission over South Ossetia. That action sought to deter Georgia from flying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), thus blinding Tbilisi to Russian and proxy military movements in the area. A series of roadside bomb blasts targeted Georgian police patrols. During the second half of July and the first days of August, Russian-commanded Ossetian troops under the authority of Russian-led South Ossetian authorities fired repeatedly at Georgian-controlled villages, forcing Georgian police to fire back defensively."

You are forgetting SO is Georgian territory. No one in the world recognizes their independence except Russia. No one invaded Chechnya while the Russians were fighting there, why is it Russia has the right to invade Georgia? Just because they decided to grant everyone a Russian passport and use that as a pretext to attack Georgia?

 

[Kirkhill]

Excuse the slight non sequitur here.  I have been tied up all day.

It has been suggested here that some are not giving as much credence to Russian versions of events as we might.

I can only speak for myself and offer that I would find it much easier to accept the word of an individual who had not spent a career working for an agency known for its expertise in disinformation.

Or is that дезинформация?

Having said that, I too am finding difficulty parsing the sequence of events to determine whose fist first hit whose nose.

I still stand by my conjecture that Russia and Gazprom are primary beneficiaries of this dust-up.

 

[tomahawk6]

Both sides are masters of disinformation. Earlier the Georgians were claiming the Russians had cut the country in half but there is no evidence of that at least at this point. The Georgians claimed they shot down 3 SU-25's and a TU-22 which was on a recon mission. Who knows if this is true or not ? I do know that if the Russians dont ratchet down the rhetoric the gears are in motion to kick them out of the G8 that wont help Georgia but the Russians will pay a price.

 

[armyca08]

Odd that the Kurds - would be the ones to be the ones who hit Turkeys Pipeline? Arn't the Kurds ProWestern? Or did that all change when NATO gave Turkey a lisence to kill?

I've been following the story since the first reports of escalation came out Thursday night - that is before the huge amount of western media spin on the situation. It is clear to me Georgia launched an offensive into S.O. which is what sparked the issue - probably the reason the pentagon isn't giving out many details on how things developed.

 

[armyca08]

Both sides are masters of disinformation. Earlier the Georgians were claiming the Russians had cut the country in half but there is no evidence of that at least at this point. The Georgians claimed they shot down 3 SU-25's and a TU-22 which was on a recon mission. Who knows if this is true or not ? I do know that if the Russians dont ratchet down the rhetoric the gears are in motion to kick them out of the G8 that wont help Georgia but the Russians will pay a price.

They did but withdrew from the city proper.

THere is no way of really knowing - however following the media facts and removing the rhetoric it seems that Russia has taken out key infrastructure and government ministries operation points. Essentially they are taking out their capacity to wage war.. but not occupying a number of populated areas.. it actually reads like Russia is fighting aslightly clean battle - however also reports of people being killed hence the ethnic cleansing reports also against the Russians - which is in part causing the displacement as people flee the warzone.

However they have also given advance warnings like - disarm your police etc...

However i have no doubts Russia will not be insulted on this one, the west is just playing games with Russia if they wanted to end the situation they'd just accept that Georgia is the intial agressor - however the autonmous zones arn't going to be given up by Georgia -- and that is what Russia is likely aiming for .. afterall a ceasefire right now would have Russia holding half a Georgia.

 

[meni0n]

The Georgians did launch an offensive, but after being baited by numerous attacks from SO and Russia played a big role orchestrating it.

 

[lennoj]

Having said that, I too am finding difficulty parsing the sequence of events to determine whose fist first hit whose nose.

I still stand by my conjecture that Russia and Gazprom are primary beneficiaries of this dust-up.

Agreed, I wasn't on the ground.

In our cultural form, if you will, there has been no paradigm shift in our views towards Russia. Russia is still the "bad boy" on the international block that doesn't play by the rules - or so our "beloved" CNN/FOX/and whatever bias news reporters say.

Someone posted a wiki article in this topic a few pages back that had some pretty interesting information on it if you followed the sources. I believe Russia was in the right to go in with force after their peacekeepers were fired upon, and when the SO asked for interventions. These actions (of aggression) were no different from Israel's in years past. The one primary fact which has been left out of most of the media coverage in the western hemisphere is that the Russian Defense Ministry was calling on military lawyers (international community) to investigate war crimes which may or may not have occour at fault of the military of the Georgian Republic.

As I mentioned in my opening statement – I wasn’t on the ground – so my opinion is not valid or 100% factual. Heresay I say.

 

[armyca08]

The Georgians did launch an offensive, but after being baited by numerous attacks from SO and Russia played a big role orchestrating it.

I think that is plausable - however I havn't seen any actual evidence - and Georgia responded by killing civilians.. not attacking military targets or attempting to defend their territory - they went on an offensive into a "status quo area" and attacked civillians that held russian citizenship.

They could have tried diplomacy or tried to end the conflict by giving the seperatists recognition as a seperate state, instead they chose to fight them, and without any support.

If I was Georgia I would have waited until I was in NATO before I attacked Russian citizens. Or launched a criminal case, or just mounted a defence instead of an offence. An offence is an escalation - a defence is an attempt to maintain. It was a bad move by Georgia to launch an offensive if there was nothing to gain but ethnic genocide by the deal- did they think Russia would let them kill everyone? It seems the other way around - Russia is the one being baited on this since Georgia has the trigger to force plus one the situation.

 

[George Wallace]

If I was Georgia I would have waited until I was in NATO before I attacked Russian citizens. Or launched a criminal case, or just mounted a defence instead of an offence. An offence is an escalation - a defence is try to maintain. It was a bad move by Georgia to launch an offensive if there was nothing to gain but ethnic genocide by the deal- did they think Russia would let them kill everyone? It seems the other way around - Russia is the one being baited on this since Georgia has the trigger to force plus one the situation.

I think that would also have been the quickest way to get booted out of NATO.

 

[Kirkhill]

In our cultural form, if you will, there has been no paradigm shift in our views towards Russia. Russia is still the "bad boy" on the international block that doesn't play by the rules - or so our "beloved" CNN/FOX/and whatever bias news reporters say.

Lennoj - I also have to admit that cultural conditioning is a big personal factor.  Just as 900 years of conditioning have led me to suspect anything that is reported by Parisian government organs.  It is just another cross I have to bear.  ;D

And armyca08, there are Kurds and then there are Kurds.  The Kurds lack of success against the Turks can, in part be laid at the feet of internecine conflict.  They spent as much time fighting each other as fighting the Turks, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians, Armenians, Georgians....  Each group of clans found friends where they could.  Some with the Russians and some with the Americans.  The Kurds that have come out on top in Iraq are still at odds with those Kurds raiding from Iraq into Turkey and some of those still living in Turkey.

The situation has a WWII analogy in Yugoslavia where some folks found support from the Germans, some from the Russians, some from the Brits and some from all of the above - Ustasha, Chetniks and Tito's Partisans (IIRC).

 

[armyca08]

Well if it ain't NATO's agenda -- -why would they launch an offensive which targetted Russian Civilians without assurances of support capable of defending a Russian Response?

it just seems stupid to me

 

[George Wallace]

Well if it ain't NATO's agenda -- -why would they launch an offensive which targetted Russian Civilians without assurances of support capable of defending a Russian Response?

it just seems stupid to me

Are you on drugs?

 

[George Wallace]

Odd that the Kurds - would be the ones to be the ones who hit Turkeys Pipeline? Arn't the Kurds ProWestern? Or did that all change when NATO gave Turkey a lisence to kill?

I've been following the story since the first reports of escalation came out Thursday night - that is before the huge amount of western media spin on the situation. It is clear to me Georgia launched an offensive into S.O. which is what sparked the issue - probably the reason the pentagon isn't giving out many details on how things developed.

OK?  I don't know where the Kurds came into all this, but obviously you have no idea of what is going on with Kurdistan and the Kurdish rebels and that is for yet another topic.  armyca08; you are posting unintelligablel posts.  You are totally discomboobulated.  Please do some more research and please post coherent sentences.  The Georgians burning Georgian villages, really is not helping our arguement.

[Reprinted below, in case you want to edit your confusing post.]

It should be noted that Russia was the first to offer a ceasefire and demand people go back to starting points and a return of the status quo - the UN Security Council and Georgia rejected Russia's initial offer, and added conditions to the cease fire.

Also Georgia openly declared war on Russia - the President of Georgia made statements such as "We are at war with Russia".

Georgia also was the one who started razing Georgian Villages (or rather South Ossetia Villages), and blocking humanitarian aid from Russia such as food supplies.

Russian Citizens, personnel and equipment came under attack, causing numerous deaths at which time Russia responded.

Georgia had pushed into the Capital of South Ossetia prior to Russia launching a counter offensive on claims that ethnic cleansing operations were occuring conducted by Georgia.

Russia responded to two fighter Aircraft being shot down and tanks coming under fire by- in what was said to be humanitarian operations in relation to protecting civilians and maintaining the status quo in S.O. - expanding beyond S.O.  and force a retreat by Georgia.

In this time Georgia declared war against Russia it should also be noted the areas have either been autonomous or waging a civil war in Georgia for the last 15 years - this is not a sudden development.

Washington just appears to be playing it into their favour - potentially to increase republican sway in the upcoming elections but that may be a stretch.


Russians had been acting as a peacekeeping force for 15 years protecting the interests of the historically seperate Ossetians in South Ossetia. Georgia meanwhile has been using military force to crush seperatist movements - however those bodies are not historically part of Georgia.

« Last Edit: Today at 22:51:41 by armyca08 »

Too late.  You cleaned it up a little I see.



I may suggest that you think out your response a bit more than you have before you hit the POST button.  Your trend of going back and editing your posts is taking away from the discusion.  It is a bit unethical to be changing your post after someone has countered your position; perhaps in an attempt to better your appearance.

 

[meni0n]

I think that is plausable - however I havn't seen any actual evidence - and Georgia responded by killing civilians.. not attacking military targets or attempting to defend their territory - they went on an offensive into a "status quo area" and attacked civillians that held russian citizenship.

They could have tried diplomacy or tried to end the conflict by giving the seperatists recognition as a seperate state, instead they chose to fight them, and without any support.

If I was Georgia I would have waited until I was in NATO before I attacked Russian citizens. Or launched a criminal case, or just mounted a defence instead of an offence. An offence is an escalation - a defence is an attempt to maintain. It was a bad move by Georgia to launch an offensive if there was nothing to gain but ethnic genocide by the deal- did they think Russia would let them kill everyone? It seems the other way around - Russia is the one being baited on this since Georgia has the trigger to force plus one the situation.

I think you forget there's not only innocent civilians in SO, there is a militia sponsored by Russia that has been fighting and launching attacks against Georgia. Georgia was being attacked early August and responded to that. Just because Russia granted them passports doesn't mean that territory now belongs to Russia. It is still Georgian territory. The situation is much more complex than you think, you should read some of the backgrounders on cfr.org and jamestown to get a feel for the situation and not just go off what you see in the news.

 

[armyca08]

Are you on drugs?

not yet, no, any day though sir (joke)