Russia vs. Georgia

[Maphusio]

They probably came over from South Carolina and Alabama.

My money is from the Mexican border. Paratroopers came over on disguised passenger airlines and forces are invading from the North from the Barring Strait... Don't worry, we will stop em' but cold in the South *camp fire flares up*

 

[GreyViper]

It's funny to watch American news propaganda.
"Russia is teh evil! They are killing Gerogian babies!"

You think that's funny, I heard on the news this morning that there have been quite a few Americans in Georgia, USA asking where all the Russian tanks were at...

Hahaha Maphusio thats really funny. Speaking of America, guess Tom Clancy is going to have a field day over this

 

[welsh]

Apparently President Gump (W Bush) of the US has declared that the US is sending humanitarian aid and arms to help the Georgians.

Ehhh gawd..

So now its a battle of swinging dicks? Although it does seem that the US started this deployment only after the Russians crossed into Georgian territory, still I can't help but think this policy is reckless. That said, I think if McCain were president, the response would be more forceful.

That said, at least some folks are reconsidering US projects to provide military aid to dubious countries. A friend of mine works with an NGO that does security consulting ( I think of it a military contracting) in the former Yugoslavia and asked my opinion about doing similar projects in Africa. My response was that the problem with the military is that its more likely to be turned on its own people that to protect national security. Worse yet, you really just improve the quality of a country's despotic and coercive instrument yet place that in the hands of a ruling class that may not have its country's best interests at heart.

www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-georgia0814,0,102258.story

baltimoresun.com
In Georgia, the hazards of proxy war

David Wood

Sun reporter

WASHINGTON

In the early 1990s, the United States began beefing up Georgia's army as the tiny republic gained independence from the collapsing Soviet Union -- an effort accelerated after 9/11 in what President Bush said was a fight against al-Qaida.

That "train and equip" program is part of a growing, global U.S. initiative to bolster military forces in such unlikely and unstable places as Ethiopia. Chad, Albania, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Lebanon and Yemen.

But critics, pointing to the week's violent events in Georgia, say it is a dangerous form of proxy warfare that can get out of hand.

Indeed, after receiving American training and equipment worth more than $1.5 billion since 1992, Georgia used its military forces last week in a confrontation, not against al-Qaida terrorists, but with Russia. Georgia's bid to reassert control over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia exploded into an international crisis.

"What happens when your client pursues an agenda that isn't your agenda?'' observed Steven Biddle, an expert on warfare at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Once again- the short-sighted reach of US foreign policy.

U.S. military assistance convinced the Georgians that "at the end of the day we would come to their aid," said Charles Kupchan, professor of international relations at Georgetown University. "It was a very serious miscalculation."

In a rhetorical escalation yesterday, Bush issued a stern statement from the White House that portrayed Russia as the aggressor and stressed that the United States "stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia."

As invading Russian troops and paramilitary forces took up positions outside the central Georgian city of Gori, blocking all east-west traffic in the country and reportedly looting and burning homes, Bush said he expects Russia to "cease all military activities in Georgia."

He said Russia should honor its commitment to withdraw "all Russian forces that entered Georgia in recent days."

The phrase made no mention of the several thousand Russian "peacekeeping" troops that have been stationed in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions since the mid-1990s.

Bush dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to stop in Paris to confer with European Union officials and then proceed to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, to "rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia."

He also directed the Pentagon to begin what officials later described as "a continuous and robust" military-led provision of humanitarian support to Georgia.

Now what would happen if a Russian submarine sank a US warship? Or if Russian "peacekeepers" fired on US "Humanitarian aid" workers.

Russians and Americans start firing on each other.. escalates conflict. Wouldn't it be a kick if Fallout 3 was delayed indefinitely because President W "Gump" Bush and Vlad "the Impaler" Putin started a war over a largely insignificant country?

Pentagon and State Department officials indicated they expected free access to sea lanes, ports and airfields in Georgia to deliver humanitarian supplies.

U.S. ships bringing humanitarian supplies to Georgia would have to cross the Black Sea, where Russia maintains a fleet of warships at a base leased from Ukraine.

"We expect that Russia will respect the humanitarian nature of this mission," Rice said.

The rhetoric and diplomacy, and the continuing violence in Georgia, where there were hundreds of reported casualties and thousands left homeless by the fighting, seemed a long way from Bush's declaration in February, 2002, that the threat in Georgia was al-Qaida.

"So long as there's al-Qaida influence anywhere, we will help those host countries rout them out and bring them to justice," he told reporters after a speech in Charlotte, N.C.

Except, given the number of times the US president lied, how can you really trust his intentions?

Just in the past year, the Pentagon has spent $6.5 million in Georgia, described by the State Department as "a steadfast ally in the war on terror." Georgia has received uniforms, small arms and ammunition, and training in communications, tactics, and combat medicine, and at least six "Huey" helicopters. Its officers were also trained in command-post operations.

In return, Georgia sent its U.S.- trained soldiers to join American peacekeeping troops in Kosovo. In addition, Georgia sent about 2,000 troops to Iraq, where they were the third-largest troop contributor, after the U.S. and Britain, until they were recalled this week during the emergency.

The benefit of military aid to such willing countries is that it creates "partners who will fight with us or for us," Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in April.

Or potentially draw us into conflicts that we really have little direct interest in and don't want to fight?

"We encouraged [the Georgians] to think they were a critical American ally," agreed Daniel Nelson, a former European expert at the State Department.

But while the "train and equip" program helped Georgia build a larger military force, "it was still not capable of withstanding a Russian onslaught" said Nelson.

"We are complicit in this disaster," he said.

Yep. But you got to figure that this kind of fuck up was predicted.... Well perhaps not by the dipshits in office who don't seem to be able to predict much of anything.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who fought for and won authorization to expand the "train and equip" program this year with additional funding of $750 million worldwide for fiscal year 2009, has called the effort critical.

"The program focuses on places where we are not at war, but where there are both emerging threats and opportunities," he said at a congressional hearing April 15.

"It decreases the likelihood that our troops will be used in the future," Gates said.

This is the problem with using proxies.

At present there are "equip and train" efforts under way in 47 countries, from Albania to Yemen, at a cost last year of $395.6 million, according to a May 15 report by the Congressional Research Service. Most of the missions are carried out by U.S. Special Forces, with the assistance of private contractors.

MPRI, a defense contractor based in Alexandria, Va., has conducted training in Bosnia and Croatia as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria. Its Web site lists an opening for a Special Forces trainer at the Vashlijvari Special Forces base in Georgia.

MPRI gained its rep by helping to train Croatia's army against Serbs.

These programs are not overseen by the U.S. embassy in each country, as most aid programs are, but instead by the regional U.S. military combat commander. Army Gen. Bantz J. Craddock of the U.S. European Command controls "train and equip" programs in Georgia and elsewhere in Europe.

The Pentagon spent $9.3 million last year as part of a long-term effort to train Ethiopia's military in counterterrorist operations. But according to a June 2008 Human Rights Watch report, Ethiopian army units have been marauding through Somalia, an ancient foe, where they have been committing executions, torture and rape.

Lebanon, locked in a bitter civil war with the Iranian-funded group Hezbollah, received $41.2 million in training and equipment, while Yemen received $31 million in training and equipment for its commandos.

Among other large recipients of "train and equip" funds are Indonesia, which last year received $47.1 million; Kazakhstan, $19.3 million; and Ukraine, $12 million.

david.wood@baltsun.com

So the Pentagon has taken over much of the intelligence gathering and a bit of the US foreign policy too.

 

[Makenshi]

BN X Welsh Wars! To your bunkers, people!

And yes, I don't trust Russia. Its a bully that uses it oil, but at the end of the day it seems mostly like a petro-state with a big military and nuclear weapons and a state run by a strongman. Which, by the way, is another reason for getting off oil.

Your Russian description suits the US as well, to some extent... it's a bully that uses oil, has a big military and nuclear weapons, and is a state run by a strongman.

OK, Bush is not strong anymore, but he was from September 2001 until around 2006/2007, and that was long enough to describe him as haveing been a strongman.

Now what would happen if a Russian submarine sank a US warship? Or if Russian "peacekeepers" fired on US "Humanitarian aid" workers.

Russians and Americans start firing on each other.. escalates conflict. Wouldn't it be a kick if Fallout 3 was delayed indefinitely because President W "Gump" Bush and Vlad "the Impaler" Putin started a war over a largely insignificant country?

Yes, a Fallout 3 delay (or even a bomb in Beth's HQ after mid-night to shut it down for good) would be a kick. But quit dreaming, US and Russia went through this in Korea in the 50's, yet the conflict did not escalate. Not going to happen now, me thinks.

 

[welsh]

BN X Welsh Wars! To your bunkers, people!

And yes, I don't trust Russia. Its a bully that uses it oil, but at the end of the day it seems mostly like a petro-state with a big military and nuclear weapons and a state run by a strongman. Which, by the way, is another reason for getting off oil.

Your Russian description suits the US as well, to some extent... it's a bully that uses oil, has a big military and nuclear weapons, and is a state run by a strongman.

OK, Bush is not strong anymore, but he was from September 2001 until around 2006/2007, and that was long enough to describe him as haveing been a strongman.

As for Bush- absolutely. We got hit on 9/11, Americans wanted revenge, and the President got a big boost in the popularity figures. Truth is that Bush dropped the ball leading up to 9/11, but that was only discovered later.

Well, as an oil importer, we really don't have much of an oil weapon but import a lot. That's probaby why Hugo Chavez is such a pain in our ass.

But yes, we've got probably the most "imperial" president in 30 years in office. Worse, he's an incompetent fool whose administration has been slowing destroying the state and who's actions are, to me, almost treason. So no, I am not defending him.

The problem with the US is that while its military power is still strong, other forms of power- ideological, economic and political have been weakening. That needs to change with the next administration. If its McCain, I doubt it will.

But there are significant differences between the US and Russia. Economically, Russia's economy is roughly 1/12 of the US, and less than that of the EU combined and below that of Brazil- which is definitely a third world country. Don't get me wrong- Russia's economy has grown, but so has state control and efforts to create rule-of-law and reduce corruption- essential for the building of a rational market economy, have not be that great. A lot of that wealth comes from sitting on the 3rd largest reserves in oil- so Russia is definitely a petro-state. The danger here might be that Russia becomes a rentier state, but I don't think so. Russia is considered a BRIC, which places it firmly with Brazil, India and China as rising third world states.

In contrast, the problem with the US economy is that its manufacturing sector has grown weak and its services sector economy too big, plus the government has been reducing regulation over its financial rules. We've also got a big debt problem that needs to be resolved. But that said, most of the US current problem is a liquidity crisis, but it remains a very large and diversified economy. While Russia's middle class is growing and US middle class is shrinking, the US middle class is still very well off and robust. In terms of international influence, Russia has little when compared to its prestige in the days of the Cold War. US international prestige has sunk, but that's partially the result of dipshit Bush and is circle of idiots. Replace him, and I think there is a good chance the US can get its house in order. US still has a powerful economy.

So I would also agree that, like Putin & Co, Bush & Co is pursuing a policy that is reckless, poorly considered and arrogant. However, in a country with a wounded pride- like Russia, a military win is a great way to shore up national pride and support for the ruling class.

But these kinds of operations are like marriages- easy to get into, but difficult and painful to get out of. Ideally, both the US and Russia have shared interests in the region and should cooperate. But they don't. One could see US support for Georgia as part of US policy to encircle Russia or even Iran. Is Russia's Iran policy so well thought out? Or is it a bit of commercial opportunism? Or is it a thumb in the eye of the West? Of course the Russians can say, "But you Americans did this!" - and then it becomes a game of more bullshit.

Which is what seems to be to be what this Georgian-Russian problem turned into. A lot of Russians will say, "But the Georgians invaded." Yeah. And the Russians were all benevolent in those breakaways? There was no instigation on both sides to this? The Russians can complain that the Georgians were planning genocide, but it seems that there are also people saying that the Georgians were the recipients of genocide at other times. As said, I think both sides here have dirty hands and that these breakaways are going to be a mess for whoever gets them.

The Georgians don't want to lose their territorial integrity and there is land up there that they want back. Why? Maybe it has something to do with-

In 1995, Shevardnadze was officially elected as a president of Georgia. At the same time, two regions of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, quickly became embroiled in disputes with local separatists that led to widespread inter-ethnic violence and wars. Supported by Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia achieved de facto independence from Georgia. More than 250,000 Georgians were ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia by Abkhaz separatists and North Caucasians volunteers (including Chechens) in 1992-1993. More than 25,000 Georgians were expelled from Tskhinvali as well, and many Ossetian families were forced to abandon their homes in the Borjomi region and move to Russia.

Bad blood and a desire for revenge?

I see this as a game with very high stakes over very little gains. It's stupid.

Edit-
Oh.. it continues.

August 15, 2008
Russia Vows to Support Two Enclaves, in Retort to Bush
By ELLEN BARRY and C.J. CHIVERS

MOSCOW — President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia said Thursday that Russia would act as an international guarantor of the two pro-Russian enclaves at the center of the crisis with Georgia, and Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov said that Georgia could “forget about” territorial integrity because of the war.

The comments did not stake out a new position, but together, they offered a sharp retort to President Bush’s insistence a day earlier that “the sovereign and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected.”

The Russian rebuke came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice headed to the region to work for a settlement and to show support for the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili.

If it were up to me, let the Russians have them. Not sure if this will lead to much autonomy.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, Russian forces briefly allowed the Georgian police to return to the city of Gori on Thursday morning as the Russian troops appeared to prepare to pull out. But joint patrols were canceled three hours later and the city returned to full Russian control.

In a further sign that Russian forces remained in control of key parts of Georgian territory, Russian tanks patrolled the city of Poti, a Black Sea port farther west.

Mr. Medvedev said he would support the independence aspirations of South Ossetians and Abkhazians in accordance with the United Nations Charter, international conventions of 1966 and the Helsinki Act on Security and Cooperation in European.

“You have been defending your land, and the right is on your side,” Mr. Medvedev said at a meeting with leaders of the two breakaway regions.

“Russia’s position is unchanged: we will support any decisions taken by the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in accordance with the U.N. Charter,” he said, adding that “not only do we support but we will guarantee them.”

As Ms. Rice traveled to the region, she stopped in France for discussions with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who brokered the cease-fire accord between Russia and Georgia.

Speaking after the meeting, at the president’s summer residence in southeast France, Ms. Rice urged Russia to honor the truce and withdraw all of its troops.

“The provisional cease-fire that was agreed to really must go into place,” she said after the two-hour meeting with Mr. Sarkozy. “And that means that military activities have to cease.”

Ms. Rice was due later to travel to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital.

On Wednesday, the United States and Georgia called the Russian advances into Gori and another strategic Georgian city a violation of the cease-fire agreement struck only hours earlier.

In response, Mr. Bush sent American troops to Georgia to oversee a “vigorous and ongoing” humanitarian mission, in a direct challenge to Russia’s display of military dominance over the region. Mr. Bush demanded that Russia abide by the cease-fire and withdraw its forces or risk its place in “the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century.” It was his strongest warning yet of potential retaliation against Russia over the conflict.

In Gori, which was the focus of international protest after Russia shelled it and occupied it on Wednesday, the attempt at joint patrols on Thursday suggested a cooling of tensions there.

Gori is just 40 miles from Tbilisi, and rumors had circulated on Wednesday of a possible advance on the city.

It was not clear why the joint patrols failed, but it appeared that personnel on the ground were in conflict. Around 10 a.m. Thursday, a Russian Army major ordered Georgian and Russian police officers to patrol in pairs. But this clearly did not last. “We had to go or there would have been shooting,” said a Georgian officer, who would not give his name.

Joint patrols? Bad idea.

More than 30 Georgian police officers left Gori and returned to a post outside the city; shortly afterward Russian troops fired three artillery rounds. Their target was not clear.

In Poti, three Russian tanks were seen patrolling the city. Villagers there said the Russian tanks frequently made the 30-minute drive from their base just northeast in Senaki to Poti to perform exercises on an abandoned military base, with troops jumping off their tanks and sweeping the area around them.

A Georgian state television reporter was shot, but not seriously hurt, on Thursday afternoon while broadcasting live from the side of the road between Tbilisi and Gori. The reporter, Tamara Urushadze, wearing a flak jacket marked “TV,” was speaking when muffled pops could be heard. She looked over her shoulder, then stepped sideways and fell in front of the camera. A bullet grazed her left wrist, and Ms. Urushadze continued broadcasting live as she held her bleeding arm.

In an interview on a liberal radio station, Ekho Moskvy, Mr. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said that Georgia’s territorial integrity was “de facto limited” and that any agreement suggesting otherwise would be “deeply insulting” to the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

He also said he was not worried about the threat of international isolation, the Interfax news agency reported.

“I don’t know how they are going to isolate us,” he said.

The decision on Wednesday to send the American military, even on a humanitarian mission, deepened the United States’ commitment to Georgia and American allies in the former Soviet sphere, just as Russia has been determined to reassert its control in the area.

A senior Pentagon official said Wednesday that the relief effort was intended “to show to Russia that we can come to the aid of a European ally, and that we can do it at will, whenever and wherever we want.”

At a minimum, American forces in Georgia will test Russia’s pledge to allow relief supplies into the country; they could also deter further Russian attacks, though at the risk of a potential military confrontation.

“We expect Russia to ensure that all lines of communication and transport, including seaports, airports, roads and airspace, remain open for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and for civilian transit,” Mr. Bush said. “We expect Russia to meet its commitment to cease all military activities in Georgia, and we expect all Russian forces that entered Georgia in recent days to withdraw from that country.”

Mr. Saakashvili, who had sharply criticized what he called a failure of the West to offer support, declared the United States relief operation a “turning point” in the conflict, which began last Thursday when Georgian forces tried to establish control in the breakaway region of South Ossetia, only to be routed by the Russians.

Mr. Saakashvili interpreted the aid operation as a decision to defend Georgia’s ports and airports, though Bush administration and Pentagon officials quickly made it clear that would not be the case. A senior administration official said, “We won’t be protecting the airport or seaport, but we’ll certainly protect our assets if we need to.”

Mr. Bush spoke in the Rose Garden of the White House on Wednesday, flanked by Ms. Rice and the secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates. He announced Ms. Rice’s plans to fly to France and Georgia, but State Department officials said there were no plans for her to go to Moscow.

Mr. Bush’s remarks, like the military operation he ordered, reflected a growing apprehension within the White House over Russia’s offensive, as well as mounting frustration that Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, whom Mr. Bush often calls a friend, was unmoved by appeals for moderation. Underscoring the urgency, Mr. Bush, who had remained at the Olympics in Beijing while the conflict erupted, postponed a planned trip to his ranch in Crawford, Tex., which was to have begun on Thursday.

The first relief aircraft, a C-17 transporter carrying medical supplies and materials for shelter for thousands displaced by the fighting, arrived in Tbilisi on Wednesday; a second was due Thursday.

Ms. Rice called Mr. Lavrov, and informed him about the relief operation. The presence of American troops to help the aid mission will also allow the United States to monitor whether Russia was honoring the cease-fire.

At a news conference at the State Department on Wednesday, Ms. Rice evoked some of the darkest memories of the cold war, though she stopped well short of promises of direct military support to Georgia.

“This is not 1968, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can invade its neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it,” she said. “Things have changed.”

She and Mr. Bush gave credence to Georgia’s accusations that Russian forces continued to operate in violation of the cease-fire. Russia insisted that all of its operations were permitted under the agreement.

The cease-fire included a provision that required Russian forces to withdraw to their “normal bases of encampment” but also allowed them to “implement additional security measures.”

A senior American official said the vague language “would allow the Russians to do almost anything.”

Only hours after the agreement was reached early Wednesday, a Russian tank battalion occupied parts of Gori, a strategic city in central Georgia. Hundreds of additional Russian soldiers also poured over the border from Russia into South Ossetia, accompanied by fuel trucks and attack helicopters.

The presence of Russian forces in Gori frayed nerves as rumors circulated of an attack on Tbilisi itself. A Russian battalion commander, at a checkpoint on the highway from Gori to the capital, spoke menacingly of Mr. Saakashvili.

“If he doesn’t understand the situation, we’ll have to go further,” the commander said on the condition of anonymity. “He doesn’t seem to understand that the Russian Army is much stronger than the Georgian Army. His tanks remain in their places. His air force is dead. His navy is also. His army is demoralized.”

Ellen Barry reported from Moscow and C.J. Chivers from Gori, Georgia. Reporting was contributed by Steven Lee Myers, Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper from Washington, Sabrina Tavernise from Gori, and Andrew Kramer from Tbilisi, Georgia.

A couple of updates- from NPR.

US military action seems unlikely according to the US Defense Secretary-

Gates Sees No Need For U.S. Military In Georgia

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday Russian forces appear to be pulling back from positions inside Georgia, dismissing questions that U.S. troops might aid the pro-U.S. Georgian government.

"I don't see any prospect for the use of military force by the United States in this situation," Gates said at a briefing in Washington Thursday morning. "The United States spent 45 years working very hard to avoid a military confrontation with Russia. I see no reason to change that approach today."

Gates said the Russians appear to be withdrawing from Georgia into the conflict zone in South Ossetia. He said many of the reports on the conflict been incorrect, adding that U.S. officials now believe that the Russians never enacted a blockade and that the port city of Poti is intact.

"The information we have available to us, first of all, (is) the air corridors are open; we've seen no indication they are blocking roads," he said.

Georgia last week used airstrikes and ground forces in an attempt to retake South Ossetia, a pro-Russian province that threw off Georgian rule in the 1990s. Russian officials responded by sending in troops that threatened to crush the small country, saying Russian peacekeepers on the South Ossetia border were killed by Georgian airstrikes.

It seems that the Russian actions have actually strengthened NATO in Eastern Europe.

Poland, U.S. Sign Missile Defense Agreement

Poland and the United States reached an agreement Thursday to install American missiles inside Poland as part of a missile defense system that has infuriated Russia.

The deal, signed Thursday in Warsaw, includes what Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called a "mutual commitment" between the two nations - beyond that of NATO - to come to each other's assistance in case of danger.

That was an obvious reference to the force and ferocity with which Russia rolled into Georgia in recent days, taking the key city of Gori and apparently burning and destroying Georgian military outposts and airfields.

Tusk said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be too slow in coming to Poland's defense if Poland were threatened and that the bloc would take "days, weeks to start that
machinery."

More on Thurs in Georgia here-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93522075

also seems that Georgia was warned against its actions in the seperatist regions-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93540746
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93573814

Looks like this is getting ugly-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93606405
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93606408
(Listen to the report- seems that Russian claims of preventing Georgia from beginning a genocide are largely unfounded).

More background from the BBC and Public Radio International-
http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/20038

 

[Pablosdog]

Well, I still have my doubts about any full scale war but, The U.S needs to stay away, far far away. The next thing we need is any possiblity of war with Russia. This effects my country too, being pretty much a U.S puppet state currently.

Makes me glad we pick neutral in most issues. Harper would have to be a complete idiot to even try to pass a bill that would involve us going anywhere near russia.

 

[liberty rogue]

words

:effort:

Funny thing is, some russian general just gave an interview saying that they are giving Gori over to georgian police.

Georgians were saying that we took Gori before we were actually there. After Medvedev announced the end of the operation, Genshtab specifically said that some recon units will remain in Georgia and do their recon thing. Now we know what they meant: we took our time to loot Georgian military bases.

15 tanks, dozens of armoured cars and artillery, shells, missiles, 764 M-16 rifles, 28 M-40 machineguns, 754 Kalashnikovs.

You can't have too many Kalashnikovs. <strike>Thanks for the fish!</strike>

Anyway, georgians should get rid of Saakashvili because he clearly is a loose cannon, doing a huge disservice to his country. Sadly we have those here in estonia too, going out of their way to demonize russia. Marko Mihkelson comes to mind, how this guy gets so much air time is beyond me.

What the hell with Eesti Ekspress saying the Georgia was the biggest Estonian geopolitical project?

Saakashvili just signed the ceasefire treaty [with South Ossetia]. Says, we bombed the oil pipeline, genocided everyone and attempted to crush Georgian sovereignty. Western press is bathing in it's own bile; I didn't realize you guys were so horribly, horribly ideologized.

EDIT: About the Saakashvili being a "loose cannon". One of the better things about the US political expansion is that the countries under it's effect tend to become richer, more stable and accepted by the world community. This isn't bad for anyone, including us (despite whatever crap you may have read in the press). Saakashvili's Georgia is a much better place then Shevardnadze's and certainly better then Gamsahurdia's.

The downside is that the politicians that come to power tend to be, for the lack of the better word, batshit insane, driven by strong nationalistic effects. They love to dig out that old buried crap and, in case of Georgia, you don't need to dig deep.

 

[Brother None]

Saakashvili just signed the ceasefire treaty [with South Ossetia]. Says, we bombed the oil pipeline, genocided everyone and attempted to crush Georgian sovereignty. Western press is bathing in it's own bile; I didn't realize you guys were so horribly, horribly ideologized.

Compared to whom? I haven't done anything then occasionally glance at Lenta.ru for this crisis but I seriously doubt Russian coverage is very neutral.

Besides, while I'm not one to support blatant ignorance, it's not like the West has much reason to trust Russia's truthfulness or care in military operations, whereas Georgia is the democratic partner and all. A stupid, lazy attitude, but an understandable one.

Saakashvili's Georgia is a much better place then Shevardnadze's and certainly better then Gamsahurdia's.

Is it?

I was under the impression that - at least economically - not that much had changed.

 

[liberty rogue]

Is it?

I was under the impression that - at least economically - not that much had changed.

Wikipedia says,

As of 2001 54% of the population lived below the national poverty line but by 2006 poverty decreased to 34%. In 2005 average monthly income of a household was GEL 347 (about 200 USD).

Since early 2000s visible positive developments have been observed in the economy of Georgia. In 2006 Georgia's real GDP growth rate reached 8.8%, making Georgia one of the fastest growing economies in Eastern Europe.

They weren't doing so bad.

Compared to whom? I haven't done anything then occasionally glance at Lenta.ru for this crisis but I seriously doubt Russian coverage is very neutral.

I obviously isn't neutral with our soldiers fighting there, but it isn't suffering from Downs either. "We Are All Georgians", "The Bear Is Back on The Prowl", "Why Is Vladimir Putin So Scared of Georgia?", "Will Russia Get Away With It?", "Staring Down the Russians". Egh. It's like visiting a museum of Soviet press.

Also, your sig.

“And an utterly stupid people too!” he replied. “Would you believe it, they are absolutely ignorant and incapable of the slightest civilization! Why even our Kabardians or Chechenes, robbers and ragamuffins though they be, are regular dare-devils for all that. Whereas these others have no liking for arms, and you’ll never see a decent dagger on one of them! Ossetes all over!”

“You have been a long time in the Chechenes’ country?”

That's something they don't tell you in classic literature class, huh. Lermontov is soooo 19th century.

 

[Brother None]

They weren't doing so bad.

Huh. Cool.

Or too bad, depending on how you look at it.

I obviously isn't neutral with our soldiers fighting there, but it isn't suffering from Downs either. "We Are All Georgians", "The Bear Is Back on The Prowl", "Why Is Vladimir Putin So Scared of Georgia?", "Will Russia Get Away With It?", "Staring Down the Russians". Egh. It's like visiting a museum of Soviet press.

LOL @ McCain.

Teh funnt.

That's something they don't tell you in classic literature class, huh.

What? Lermontov is a part of our Russian literature curriculum, yes.

 

[liberty rogue]

What? Lermontov is a part of our Russian literature curriculum, yes.

Uh, I meant they didn't care to note his passions towards Ossetians in our class.

Huh. Cool.

Or too bad, depending on how you look at it.

Well, if you live in a country runned by some mafia clan with police being an extension of it, then yeah. After the Rose Revolution Georgia was steadily improving. Back in 2002 it was infinitely more terrible.

 

[welsh]

To be honest, I can understand the Russian argument that "The Georgians started it" but I also have to think that the Russians provoked it. For the Russians it seems a chance to put a thumb in the eye of Georgia and the US, a chance to challenge NATO expansion, to assert its sphere of influence, and maybe get a couple puppets.

So I still think that both sides suffer dirty hands. While I can understand why the Georgians would want to put down militia fighters in either of these breakaway regions, it still seemed like a risky move to me. In contrast, Russia's moves seem hardly surprising.

But why did the Georgians try this?

I found this little interesting bit-
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/scheer2

Georgia War: A Neocon Election Ploy?
By Robert Scheer

Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the US presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the US Iraq invasion.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new cold war, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Hussein to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

McCain gets to look tough with a new cold war to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But it will provide the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.

What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that ramps up its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Joseph Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a "revanchist Russia" that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.

How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori, they would have found a museum still honoring their local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed, five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori's Stalin Square on Tuesday.

It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo's independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia's invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.

For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann's neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible.

Hmmm. More on this from NPR-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93631243

 

[GreyViper]

Apparently the picekeepers are doing bank jobs as side gigs.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1563317.ece
And since Poland agreed that US could establish interceptor base and a battery of Patriot missiles on its territory. That was a big NO NO and was fallowed by angry threats and fist shaking from russian general. Funny, that it being a internal matter for Poland and yet russia thinks its is the one who decides what will be done.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1566799.ece

 

[Makenshi]

And since Poland agreed that US could establish interceptor base and a battery of Patriot missiles on its territory.

What, US anti-missile shield is composed of Patriot AA missiles? Bah! I thought they were going to use THEL* technology...

* Tactical High Energy Laser, Google it and Youtube it for more info

 

[Den Baster]

Ｈｅｙ　ｇｕｙｓ, war is　finished. Let's live in the peace.
Godbless Russia

 

[welsh]

God bless Russia? Really. Why?

Certainly the Russians had more than a bit of responsibility here. They seem to have drawn quite a bit of extra blood on their hands. While its fair to say the Georgians invaded those breakaways, its also fair to say that the Russians have been supporting the separatists as proxies.

Sorry, but I see plenty of responsibility for this falling on everyone's shoulders. The US, Georgia and Russia.

This was a bullshit war begun by proxies, manipulated by great powers for great power gains, and a lot of folks got killed for... what?

 

[Wooz]

For Great Justice, silly.

 

[fedaykin]

No, it was for the lulz. Also, what great power gains? I don't think anyone gained much except maybe for Russia making sure that Georgia won't get into NATO anytime soon.

 

[welsh]

No, it was for the lulz. Also, what great power gains? I don't think anyone gained much except maybe for Russia making sure that Georgia won't get into NATO anytime soon.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Had Russia stopped at the break aways, maybe.

But now we have Russian troops moving across Georgia with irregular forces burning and looting. Georgia got a lot of Western sympathy for being a democratic state, but had it ended at the breakaways, than I think the argument that Russia was defending territory against invading forces for humanitarian reasons- might have been believable.

Now? I doubt it. Would this have happened had Georgia been in NATO? Remember NATO was created to stop Russian tanks from invading Europe. I think Russia just managed to remind Europe of that.

 

[liberty rogue]

But now we have Russian troops moving across Georgia with irregular forces burning and looting. Georgia got a lot of Western sympathy for being a democratic state, but had it ended at the breakaways, than I think the argument that Russia was defending territory against invading forces for humanitarian reasons- might have been believable.

Now? I doubt it. Would this have happened had Georgia been in NATO? Remember NATO was created to stop Russian tanks from invading Europe. I think Russia just managed to remind Europe of that.

I don't get it, are you trolling or is this a seriousbusiness post.