Russia and Georgia fighting over South Ossetia

[Deacon]

Withdrawing an army is not something you do in few days after the end of conflict, it takes time and you know it.

Why not? They rolled in over a few days. Why can't they roll back out over a few days?

I have an inclination to think they want to stay longer to make sure that troubles will not start right after they leave. You have to see this from our perspective. Georgia attacks Ossetia

That's a really odd way to see things, to be honest. Tell me, does this page have the right idea according to what you've heard?

I would also like to point out that it sounds odd the way you're couching everything as though Russia were altruistically just going to help some poor, downtrodden little country from a big bully, and this is purely some sort of humanitarian thing, regardless of the humanitarian impact of Russia's invasion of Georgia. Ossetia's part of Georgia at the moment and has been for a while. It's not up to Russia to roll troops up into Georgia to impose their will, especially on the flimsy pretense of "Yeah, well, he fired some mortars into Tshinkvali, so I get to do whatever I want."

I am surprised however to see that USA media is in 20th position on that web site of transparency. The same media who claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, regardless of severals UN reports on this and IAEA inspections. They still can not believe their media manipulated the public opinion. Those things do not only happens to Russians.

Oh God, this silliness now? First of all, many of us here have dogged the US media for being sensationalist, sometimes half-retarded, somewhat left-leaning, and occasionally blatantly partisan. But never can I recall someone having leveled an accusation at the US media of lying to the public in order to initiate a war against Iraq. Those charges have all been leveled at Bush, and even though they have yet to actually be substantiated, the media certainly assists in manipulating US public opinion against Bush--they've been doing it before he was even elected the first time.

[Martin Blank]

My problem is not what USA think of Russia, it is what USA think of Georgia in that event.

I'm not talking just about what the US thinks of Russia. I'm also talking about how Russia is now perceived by countries like the UK, France, Sweden, Ukraine, Costa Rica, Burkina Faso... This is not just a Western issue.

Georgia attacked Ossetia, destroyed a good part of Tskhinvali, violating the agreement of ceasefire of 1992. Where do you mention those things?

I have called Georgia on it. The very timeline to which you respond starts with Georgia attacking South Ossetia. Russia promptly reported that more than 2000 had been killed and that Tshkinvali had been leveled. However, recent reports from Russian sources suggest that the civilian death toll in South Ossetia may have been as low as 133, and Interfax reported that Russian Deputy Regional Development Minister Vladimir Blank said that 10% of the buildings in the city had been irreparably destroyed, and that 20% total suffered damage. That's a far cry from comparisons to Stalingrad made initially.

We can see little sign of impartiality in the way you are presenting those events.

Georgia was willing to stop fighting within a couple of days of the Russian counter-attack. Russia kept promising to stop. It wasn't until nearly two weeks later that they had withdrawn the bulk of their forces, and they are still keeping a 'buffer zone' around South Ossetia.

In 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, USA said they would withdraw their troops by June 2003, and yet, they are still there.

There's a difference between a projection and a promise. Poor post-invasion planning led to the stay by the coalition forces. Russian forces promised to withdraw, and yet were setting up checkpoints past Gori towards Tbilisi.

I have an inclination to think they want to stay longer to make sure that troubles will not start right after they leave.

What troubles? Georgia has even less military left than they had before the invasion of South Ossetia, and that wasn't much. Their newest tanks are a few dozen T-72s. Their best aircraft is an Su-25. Their navy has no capital ships. They're not going to do much more than glance harshly at South Ossetia and Abhazia, let alone Russia proper.

This would be consistent with the American expension of NATO in the Russian sphere (Poland, Czech Respublik, Bulgaria, Romania, Baltic States, and so forth. How do you expect Russians will react?

Those nations were coming out from 70 years of being under the Russian boot (and some of them centuries of rule or influence before). Once they got their freedom from Moscow's influence, I don't think anyone was expecting them to turn around and embrace them. It's not a wonder at all that they raced for NATO to provide protection from further chances that the bear would once again come looking for a meal.

Perhaps the troops are not in hurry to leave because they do not know what will be the intentions of NATO after that, leaving Ossetia alone in a country they do not wish to join.

The US is now going to help rebuild the Georgian military. That may mean M-1 Abrams tanks -- the ones that ate T-72s much like those used by Russia in the counter-attack -- for breakfast, lunch and dinner in Iraq. It may mean F-16 fighters, which while not an even match for modern Russian fighters would be more than a nuisance to the Tu-160 Blackjacks that did the heavy bombing work. It may mean Patriot air defense systems, which might be more than a nuisance to those Russian fighters.

17 August: Russia claims that it is withdrawing.

Georgian police has retaken control of Gori yesterday.

That's a week later than they promised. The current leadership in Moscow is bearing more resemblance to the days of Brezhnev and Andropov, and I find it rather disturbing.

[Makh]

I would also like to point out that it sounds odd the way you're couching everything as though Russia were altruistically just going to help some poor, downtrodden little country from a big bully, and this is purely some sort of humanitarian thing, regardless of the humanitarian impact of Russia's invasion of Georgia.

I have never said that friend. What I said is that some people here forgot how this conflict started. I am aware of several incidents and tension before in the past, and I think both parties should be blamed, however I have impression that Georgia is the downtrodden little country in Western eyes.

Ossetia's part of Georgia at the moment and has been for a while. It's not up to Russia to roll troops up into Georgia to impose their will, especially on the flimsy pretense of "Yeah, well, he fired some mortars into Tshinkvali, so I get to do whatever I want."

Some mortars? 160 000 Ossets fled Ossetia because of some mortars? I hope it is an euphemisim. Like I said in my first post in this thread, it is not so simple in Caucasus, geopolitical borders are not what they seem. After 1991, borders in this area have been revised and modified (a bit like they did in Afrika after colonialism, to a much lesser extent though) and not everyone are happy with this. Ossets and Abkhaz are among them. You said "impose their will"? This is exacly what Georgia did in those de facto independent regions. They broke a ceasefire. Before Saakashvili, Georgians let Ossets and Abkhaz do pretty much what they want. This man is a nationalist, and he tought he was backed by NATO, so he wanted to force those regions to be integral part of Georgia. He knew those regions were backed by Russia, they are since 1992. They are in Georgia and not in Russia because Stalin decided so, without their consent of course, not surprisingly.

Oh God, this silliness now? First of all, many of us here have dogged the US media for being sensationalist, sometimes half-retarded, somewhat left-leaning, and occasionally blatantly partisan. But never can I recall someone having leveled an accusation at the US media of lying to the public in order to initiate a war against Iraq. Those charges have all been leveled at Bush, and even though they have yet to actually be substantiated, the media certainly assists in manipulating US public opinion against Bush--they've been doing it before he was even elected the first time.

I did not say they lied, I said they used manipulation. If they were not manipulating the public opinion, then they have been manipulated by your government. It is worse because they did not do their job to inform the people according to the deontology of journalism and report facts with solid proofs and confirmation of what they said, which are essential in this profession. If not, then you become closer to the side of darkness: Russian media.

My problem is not what USA think of Russia, it is what USA think of Georgia in that event.

I'm not talking just about what the US thinks of Russia. I'm also talking about how Russia is now perceived by countries like the UK, France, Sweden, Ukraine, Costa Rica, Burkina Faso... This is not just a Western issue.

Most of Europe is anti-American more than they are anti-Russian, except for Poland and Estonia. Like a good part of the world. Russians are not too worried about that.

Georgia attacked Ossetia, destroyed a good part of Tskhinvali, violating the agreement of ceasefire of 1992. Where do you mention those things?

I have called Georgia on it. The very timeline to which you respond starts with Georgia attacking South Ossetia. Russia promptly reported that more than 2000 had been killed and that Tshkinvali had been leveled. However, recent reports from Russian sources suggest that the civilian death toll in South Ossetia may have been as low as 133, and Interfax reported that Russian Deputy Regional Development Minister Vladimir Blank said that 10% of the buildings in the city had been irreparably destroyed, and that 20% total suffered damage. That's a far cry from comparisons to Stalingrad made initially.

They bombed during 3 days and nights, what if Russians had not entered Georgia? The first estimation were not made by Russians, but by Ossets. They exaggerated the numbers, of course, everybody do. During September 11th, New York officials said that 7000 people died, many weeks later, that number was reduced to 2800. In Kosovo, Washington claim that death toll was 12,000 while the number was reduced to something like 2000 or 3000.

It is hard to have a good estimation on the moment. People are still buried under the rubbles, there are missing people too. Only time will give us more accurate numbers.

This would be consistent with the American expension of NATO in the Russian sphere (Poland, Czech Respublik, Bulgaria, Romania, Baltic States, and so forth. How do you expect Russians will react?

Those nations were coming out from 70 years of being under the Russian boot (and some of them centuries of rule or influence before). Once they got their freedom from Moscow's influence, I don't think anyone was expecting them to turn around and embrace them. It's not a wonder at all that they raced for NATO to provide protection from further chances that the bear would once again come looking for a meal.

Interesting allegory, but far from reality. Expension of NATO is a more than a decade old desire of USA to expend his military alliance in ex Soviet area. What they did is consolidation. Russia was way too weak to threaten those countries, and even now, war with her neighbors would bring nothing and solve nothing and most Russians would not like it. I may be wrong Martin Blank, but it is not Russia who violated the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe by investing in that missile system in Poland and Czech respublik, claiming it is designed to counter Iran. It is very hard to not see expension NATO in ex Soviet area as mere provokation.

Perhaps the troops are not in hurry to leave because they do not know what will be the intentions of NATO after that, leaving Ossetia alone in a country they do not wish to join.

The US is now going to help rebuild the Georgian military. That may mean M-1 Abrams tanks -- the ones that ate T-72s much like those used by Russia in the counter-attack -- for breakfast, lunch and dinner in Iraq. It may mean F-16 fighters, which while not an even match for modern Russian fighters would be more than a nuisance to the Tu-160 Blackjacks that did the heavy bombing work. It may mean Patriot air defense systems, which might be more than a nuisance to those Russian fighters.

What a brilliant idea. This will only create a new escalation of armed forces in Caucasus. Georgia is not the only country in the area, and not surrounded by good and trustworthy friends.

Georgian police has retaken control of Gori yesterday.

That's a week later than they promised. The current leadership in Moscow is bearing more resemblance to the days of Brezhnev and Andropov, and I find it rather disturbing.

Yes but now you can do business with Russia.

[Deacon]

Europe was not frighened of Russia. We were never in a cold war with them. Our books and movies and education did not display them as evil. We are not concerned about them today.

Nice.

And while we are at it, tell us over how many dead you went into Vietnam. You know, in that never proven attack, that Tonking thing.

...Vietnam? What? What exactly are you asking for? Is this something about the Cold War, over 40 years ago?

It's also really weird to me that you're trying to compare the invasion of Iraq to Russia's invasion of Georgia. The two events are nothing alike, least of which in scale.

Arming the world, yes that has always worked out fine. I cannot place my finger on it, but what happened the last time you armed and trained some organisation that was against the russians?

Some wall in Germany fell, IIRC. Perhaps you've heard of it?

[collegestudent22]

And that new timeline of 2010, is that a promise or another projection? And how can it be that while talking about pulling the troops out, you send in even more?

Which timeline is that now? The one that some in the Iraqi government are calling for, and hasn't even been approved yet?

You´ll never withdraw from Iraq, you will have permanent bases there.

Yes, that is typically something that allies do. You know have military presences in each other's countries. We have bases in Korea, Germany, Australia. And where we don't, we typically have troops assigned to assist on some of the home country's bases...

That's a week later than they promised. The current leadership in Moscow is bearing more resemblance to the days of Brezhnev and Andropov, and I find it rather disturbing.

A week later, my god. Tell me you are being sarcastic.[/quote]

You realize it should take all of a few hours, right? I mean, they didn't topple the government and have to rebuild from scratch....

I´m bringing up Vietnam because Martin brought up that maybe only 133 people died and that sems not enough to invade some other country, right?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was essentially used as an excuse to get Congress to vote Kennedy's way. He was determined to protect the sovereignty of South Vietnam and prevent more forceful Communist expansion. Vietnam was essentially a defensive war. Not like the current war between Russia and Georgia, because of one key difference. If the Vietcong had requested a cease-fire, the troops would have become essentially border guards, but they did not. Georgia did, and it took a long time for the Russians to back off. And if this war was truly about the independence/annexation of South Ossetia, why would the Russians use Chechyan battalions, knowing that Chechyans and Georgians have a 300 year old blood fued, and the Chechyans will be unneccesarily cruel. Because they don't care about South Ossetia, they are trying to make political points and gain some land in the process.

[StruckingFuggle]

Yes, that is typically something that allies do. You know have military presences in each other's countries. We have bases in Korea, Germany, Australia. And where we don't, we typically have troops assigned to assist on some of the home country's bases...

Huh. Meanwhile, out of curiosity, who has bases on US soil, especially within the borders of the Contiguous US...?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was essentially used as an excuse to get Congress to vote Kennedy's way.

That's kind of funny, because at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, JFK WAS DEAD. Man, now THAT is a conspiracy.

[Hirschof]

Also, I didn´t know you only have bases with your allies. You have a bloody lot of them by that logic.

That is what happens when your the neo-Roman empire.

[StruckingFuggle]

It doesn´t work that way, the US does not want foreign military in their own country.

See, that's what I thought, but damn if I didn't want cs22 to make the point for me and hopefully realize something in the process.

[Deacon]

What would be realized? And if I'm not mistaken, don't troops from other nations train on US bases, too? I know the British do, at least.

[Arc Orion]

Furthermore, why would a nation with fewer military resources establish bases to help protect the nation with greater military resources?

[Hirschof]

Fucking outsourcing...

[collegestudent22]

What would be realized? And if I'm not mistaken, don't troops from other nations train on US bases, too? I know the British do, at least.

As well as Canadians, Germans (they even have German Tornado planes in NM), Aussies, French (although they don't have much of a military to start with...). And all of those bases are IN the US.

Huh. Meanwhile, out of curiosity, who has bases on US soil, especially within the borders of the Contiguous US...?

As was mentioned, we aren't really in a position of requiring homeland assistance. We kinda have MORE military strength, so our allies are more prone to keep their military power reserved, especially since they are closer to old and current enemies.

That's kind of funny, because at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, JFK WAS DEAD. Man, now THAT is a conspiracy.

And was there any reason that LBJ wouldn't have done what Kennedy wanted before he died. He certainly did so with almost every other policy point.

[Martin Blank]

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a complete fabrication, a mechanism designed to get the US further involved in Vietnam. I'm not afraid of saying it (unlike cs22), because it's true.

160 000 Ossets fled Ossetia because of some mortars?

South Ossetia's pre-war population was only 70,000 in 2000, so your number is way off. There was a total of 160,000 displaced, but that included a lot of Georgians, including 56,000 from Gori alone, and another 15,000 Georgians fleeing South Ossetia.

I may be wrong Martin Blank, but it is not Russia who violated the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe by investing in that missile system in Poland and Czech respublik, claiming it is designed to counter Iran. It is very hard to not see expension NATO in ex Soviet area as mere provokation.

I've not heard much about claims of violating such a treaty. In addition, as has been mentioned many times, there will be ten or so interceptors total. Russia has nearly 500 ICBMs carrying nearly 1800 warheads -- and this doesn't even touch on the subs or the bomber-launched weapons. The system is not at all a threat to Russia.

Also, I didn´t know you only have bases with your allies. You have a bloody lot of them by that logic.

We do, actually. NATO encompasses most of Europe. We have alliances with several Middle Eastern nations. The alliances with Japan and Thailand go back many decades. That's what you get for being the biggest kid on the block. Some nations turned to the Soviets, and others to the US, depending on their guiding ideology.

I cannot place my finger on it, but what happened the last time you armed and trained some organisation that was against the russians?

The Russians got bogged down for the better part of 15 years, throwing thousands of soldiers and billions in equipment into a meat grinder from which they belatedly realized there was no chance of reaching their goals.

And then there was NATO, which kept Russia from pulling a Czechoslovakia across the continent.

Europe was not frighened of Russia. We were never in a cold war with them.

Would you mind explaining to me why West Germany allowed a significant portion of the US military to be based on its soil, with forces permanently in the field, cannons pointed east? Perhaps you can explain the nuclear deterrents of France and the UK, who kept a missile sub at sea, kept patrols in the air, and had nuclear cruise missiles available for arming planes kept on warm stand-by 24/7. Why was it that Turkey allowed Jupiter nuclear missiles on its territory before they were withdrawn as part of the deal ending the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Every nation involved with NATO -- including a few who were not full members -- was involved directly with the Cold War. The first shot fired across the border of the Warsaw Pact -- in either direction -- was going to start a continental war, and everyone maintained a high state of readiness.

Those of you trying to suggest that because the US invaded Iraq means that it's not allowed to criticize Russia for the level of action in Georgia are simply erecting a straw man and avoiding the point. What about Burkina Faso condemning the invasion? Are its criticisms invalid?

The issue here is not that Russia responded. It had that right and duty as part of the peacekeeping force. Georgia wasn't supposed to undertake direct action in the way that it did, and was rightfully pushed out of South Ossetia. However, Russia should have stopped there pending additional meetings at the UN. As it is, their actions in recognizing independence of those areas has set a bad precedent for themselves. What happens if, say, Turkey recognizes the independence of Chechnya?

[Makh]

South Ossetia's pre-war population was only 70,000 in 2000, so your number is way off. There was a total of 160,000 displaced, but that included a lot of Georgians, including 56,000 from Gori alone, and another 15,000 Georgians fleeing South Ossetia.

That does not matter for the point I was trying to make. The provenance of the people is not important as they are all victims of this war. My intention was to show that it was not an insignificant clash between two parties. I should have said "refugee" to avoid confusion. A mistake of mine I guess.

Why was it that Turkey allowed Jupiter nuclear missiles on its territory before they were withdrawn as part of the deal ending the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I thought that was the instigation of US airforce because France refused to provide a place for them? I prefer to let Lucksi answer regarding Germany.

Those of you trying to suggest that because the US invaded Iraq means that it's not allowed to criticize Russia for the level of action in Georgia are simply erecting a straw man and avoiding the point. What about Burkina Faso condemning the invasion? Are its criticisms invalid?

They can criticize if they want. The problem I have is that US yelled at Russia, and whispered to Georgia.

As it is, their actions in recognizing independence of those areas has set a bad precedent for themselves.

I see. Tell me what is diffence between this and Kosovo? If NATO want to open pandora box, they must live with consequences.

What happens if, say, Turkey recognizes the independence of Chechnya?

Ossetian separatists are big majority, Chechen separatists have always been a minority. A minority with rocket launchers and machine guns is still minority. Chechen separatists are way too extreme in their belief of Islam. Turkey would never recognize it.

[Deacon]

you have not yet realised that you are in a meat grinder with no hopes of reaching your goal.

Are you saying that the US in Iraq is like Russia in Afghanistan?

Yes, sure, like the US would do the same or listen to the UN in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the US would not invade Georgia, no. Why would you say it would?