Georgia and Russia at war.

[JugBR]

Milos that bear was the one who went to rescue Serbia in 1914, and fought side by side with Serbs many times against common enemies. That bear was the only one who took Serbia's side during NATO bombings in 1999.
I believe the bear is not the animal you should be scare of.

that bear also combated hitler in the biggest militar operation in history and have a important role(i think the most important) in the fall of 3 reich.

but for the western powers, russia still beign the old ussr. i dont know if is ignorance, politics, somekind of racism, rivality... but seems like the nato and the european union dont trust in russia.

does russia trust in west, or the russians think they are surrounding by enemies triyng to desintegrate their country and make that weakest as possible ?

came from the west, russians saw the napoleonic army, the german army, the cold war missiles near borders, the political game to isolate russia from former ussr rebublics... does russians think from the west just comes bad news ?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Personally I don't fear "The Bear" but I think we have to differentiate between the "Russian Bear" and that of the old Soviet Union. In the cold war years I did have concern because there were people running the Soviet Union who believed in the Communist Manifesto and sought to follow it through – I could still remember Khrushchev saying that capitalism would eventually be crushed.

In today's world I see Russia still seeking dominance over its regional neighbors. They may be justified because of the suspicion and mistrust from the west and in many cases I can't blame them.

Do I fear "The Bear" militarily? Not in the sense of an attack on the US but I would have concerns if the US got involved militarily in regions around Russia. Although I believe the US still outclasses Russia militarily I would never underestimate "The Bear" especially in a conflict close to its borders.

I think within the next generation Russia and the US will eventually become more trusting of each other, especially when many of the old "Cold War Guard" goes out to pasture. Again I repeat, I think many in the west fail to differentiate between "The Bear" that made up the former Soviet Union and "The Bear" that makes up Russia today. They are two very different animals.

 

[Ramirezzz]

Looking more and more like Russia got what it wanted and now is ending it's operations in Georgia. Nothing the Georgians can do about it. The thing looks pretty much over.

Read a good article from Ralph Peters on this one. He's got some very good points. Posting it below.

which points actually? This article is the most biased , one-sided article which was ever published during the last four days, overshadoved even the masterpieces from some American neoconservatives.

IT'S impossible to overstate the importance of what's unfolding as we watch. Russia's invasion of Georgia - a calculated, unprovoked aggression

that explains it all.

The response of our own government has been pathetic - and our media's uncritical acceptance of Moscow's version of events is infuriating.

Almoust all what I've red in UK and US press was a reflection of the georgian point of view.

This is the "new" Russia announcing - in blood - that it won't tolerate freedom and self-determination along its borders. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is putting it bluntly: Today, Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine (and the Baltic states had better pay attention).

gonna tell them my friends in Kiev and Donezk - they better gotta find a new hiding place.

Nor does Putin's ambition stop with the former Soviet territories. His air force has been trying (unsuccessfully) to hit the new gas pipeline running from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.

BS. Even the BP confirmed no air attacks were commited on the pipelines.

Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation.

this guy simply doesn't have a clue. Of course Russia planned a response to any possible Georgian attack on Ossetia or Abkhazia, that's why military exersices were executed in that region two months ago.

Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.

As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.

Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks."

same here.

The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia.

no blockade was actually commited, warships stayed in the vinicity of Abkhazian shores.

Working through their mercenaries in South Ossetia,

well these South Ossetia mercenaries somehow managed to defend their land against Georgian military in 1990ies even without any Russian help.

and Russian troops seize the vital city of Gori in the country's heart.

not a single Russian soldier was even in the vinicity of this city.

Make no mistake: Moscow intends to dismember Georgia.

that's why its (Russian) troops are withdrawing to their prewar positions according to the Sarcosy-Medvedev agreement

It also has backed our Iraq efforts with 2,000 troops. (We're airlifting them back home.)

well it looks like USAF will airlift them back to Iraq very soon.

This invasion recalls Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia - to protect ethnic Germans, he claimed, just as Putin claims to be protecting Russian citizens - complete BS.

tell that the citizens of Tshinvali, some 1500 of them are dead after Georgian bombardment. Hell I can give this guy a telephone number of a good friend of mine , a journalist, who saw all this mess with his own eyes.

THE BEAR'S MILITARY MESS

lol let's come to the funniest part of all

Russia's military is succeeding in its invasion of Georgia, but only because Moscow has applied overwhelming force.

as I said -this guy hasn't a clue. In fact there were less Russian troops in South Ossetia than opposing Georgian troops.

Well, the new Russian military looks a lot like the old Russian military: slovenly and not ready for prime time.

slovenly? That was a hell of bold action demonstrated!

The most visible failings are those of the air force. Flying Moscow's latest ground-attack jets

these "latest" jets were actually aged Su-24 and Su-25 some of them saw the action even in Afganstan.

armed with the country's newest precision weapons, pilots are missing far more targets than they're hitting.

well he certainly has a source in North Kaukazus Military District who provides him with a classified information.

but most are just the result of ill-trained pilots flying scared.

the Georgian air defence was practically wiped out on a second day by these scared ill-training pilots.

They're missing pipelines, rail lines and oil-storage facilities - just dumping their bombs as quickly as they can and heading home.

lol this guy is a true warfare operations expert !

Russia's also losing aircraft. The Kremlin admits two were shot down; the Georgians claimed they'd downed a dozen by Sunday.

four losses confirmed.

As one US officer observed to me, the Russian pilots are neither professionally nor emotionally toughened for their missions. Their equipment's pretty good (not as good as ours), but their training lags - and their pilots log far fewer flight hours than ours do.

combat sorties were mostly flown by Chechen war veterans with over than a 200 flying hours per year.

And they're pulling it off - but the military's embarrassing blunders must be infuriating Prime Minister Putin.

in fact it was one of the most effective operations the Russian army ever combined in its newest history - bold, fast , good planned and executed against some good trained army which even had a numerical advantage.

this BS is written by some conservative Cold War "analysist" who hasn't a clue in the issue. Biased allegations, totally amateurish military analysis.

Video: Georgian army flees in disarray as Russians advance - Times Online

 

[FLYBOYJ]

this BS is written by some conservative Cold War "analysist" who hasn't a clue in the issue. Biased allegations, totally amateurish military analysis.

Agree 100%

 

[timshatz]

Disagree with you on this one guys. Peters has been around for a while and pegged events in the Middle East pretty much on the nose. He is very good. If you have the time and the inclination, you should read his books. They are excellent, if sometime a little on the intense side.

While we can disagree on the targeting of the Russian aircraft and the start of the war (he said/she said on who did what first), his point that the attacks into Georgia were planned has to be taken at face value. He is right about the logistics of moving the equivelent of 2 divisions into an attack. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes weeks, if not months to do something like that. A lot of foresight and planning. As the old adage says, "Amatuers study tactics, proffessionals study logistics". There is no way this thing was pulled off in less than a month of planning.

Another point which brings in the point of planning. There were two columns into Georgia. One directed at Ossentia, the other in the West. Pretty smart and pretty good move. Force the Georgians to deal with two threats at the same time. Something they just don't have the forces to do.

We are getting only tidbits of information about this thing but what I have seen come out (and I'm getting about the same stuff everyone else on this board is getting) shows some pretty smart moves by the Russians in their actions. Attacking in two different locations, cutting the main highway, seizing the main tunnel into Ossentia, all are smart and methodical moves.

It shows a decent amount of planning, if anything.

 

[JugBR]

i think that article of ralph peters expose very well some kind of ignorance, or some resentment by old events when russia was the ussr and the world was about to explode.

the title, "russia goes rogue", says everything, since russia became a democratic country and ehir are open for business, investments and also a capitalist nation, some part of west still associate russia with countries like iran and n. korea.

RUSSIA GOES ROGUE
By RALPH PETERS

August 12, 2008 --

IT'S impossible to overstate the importance of what's unfolding as we watch. Russia's invasion of Georgia - a calculated, unprovoked aggression - is a crisis that may have more important strategic implications than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

We're seeing the emergence of a rogue military power with a nuclear arsenal.

The response of our own government has been pathetic - and our media's uncritical acceptance of Moscow's version of events is infuriating.

ralph demands that russia invasion was "calculated, unprovoked aggression", but he forget to say, there was about 1.600, S. Ossetians killed before russia invades georgia. and most of them, russian citzens.

He mentions iraq, maybe because some ressentment about russia was against the invasion, like france and germany, besides the only thing in commom between both situations was really the fact russia and usa didnt care about the security council´s decision.

he said the response of usa was pathetic, but i readed in this forum, many americans thinks the best of usa could do was been out of this conflict.

This is the "new" Russia announcing - in blood - that it won't tolerate freedom and self-determination along its borders. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is putting it bluntly: Today, Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine (and the Baltic states had better pay attention).

Georgia's affiliation with the European Union, its status as a would-be NATO member, its working democracy - none of it deterred Putin.

once again, he talks about blood, but forgets until now, what we know is the georgian army killed 1600 people instead russia focused more over military bases and strategical points, making less civilian deaths.

he forgets that russia is a free country and agree with the self-determination of their former republics, he also hurries to predict a disater: "Today, Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine (and the Baltic states had better pay attention)".

he also subverts the meaning of the word "democracy" to a state of alliance with western powers. democracy isnt free voting, isnt freedon of expression, is about you allie with western powers, to opposes puttin.

now, whos the rogue ?

Nor does Putin's ambition stop with the former Soviet territories. His air force has been trying (unsuccessfully) to hit the new gas pipeline running from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. The Kremlin is telling Europe: We not only have the power to turn off Siberian gas, we can turn off every tap in the region, any time we choose.

he said that russian air force "unsuccessfully" bombs a pipeline, but until now, no pictures of this attempt or videos was shown. also russias didnt confirmed any kind of action like that. he also wants to associate russia with terrorism. for russians its not interesting sell natural gas for europe, but use that as a weapon of terror.

Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.

now we see whos responsible for the "pathetic response" of usa: the diplomats !

also, in a unbelievable gessing, he affirms that kremlin spent months preparing this operation, he also claim have sources for such issue. wich is quite strange since ralph peters shows to be a russian hater.

how could be possible ? georgia calls kremlin and says: - we gonna attack S. Ossetia, should you be there ? - yes. kremlin answers. - so lets make some noise !

mr peters is impressed with the instantaneus russian response, does he knows that russia makes frontier with georgia ? or he thinks is the state of georgia in usa ?

As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.

does mr. peters knows that s. ossetia and Abkhazia are by a long time, since ussr falls(does he know that) a very problematic regions and russia, as any other country that makes frontier with problem zones have troops on his side of border ? or is it illegal ?

The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets.

Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks."

mr. peters is scared because he dont know where those ships came from, from nowhere ? where those ships came from ?

Working through their mercenaries in South Ossetia, Russia staged brutal provocations against Georgia from late July onward. Last Thursday, Georgia's president finally had to act to defend his own people.

But when the mouse stirred, the cat pounced.

another case of biased, rogue statement. call an entire population "mercenaries", those who dont want to be part of georgia, forget or dont know that russia and georgia was in a joint peace mission to reduce the conflicts in the zone since a long time.

and also, dont mention that "georgia defence of his own people" implicated in the death of 1600 s. ossetians ? these dont matter ? maybe because have russian passports...

The Russians know that we know this was a setup. But Moscow's Big Lie propagandists still blame Georgia - even as Russian aircraft bomb Georgian homes and Russian troops seize the vital city of Gori in the country's heart. And Russian troops also grabbed the Georgian city of Zugdidi to the west - invading from Abkhazia on a second axis.

Make no mistake: Moscow intends to dismember Georgia.

once again, distorting fact for his own interests. why blame georgia ? should the ossetians can diverts from georgian bullets "matrix style" ? when a bombing mission in iraq missed a target and hit a house was a mistake. when russians do the same, was intentional ? why russians seize gori ? because there was a georgian army there ready to attack s. ossetia ? or because russians are evil ?

This is the most cynical military operation by a "European" power since Moscow invaded Afghanistan in 1979. (Sad to say, President Bush seems as bewildered now as President Jimmy Carter did then.)

This attack's worse, though. Georgia is an independent, functioning democracy tied to the European Union and striving to join NATO. It also has backed our Iraq efforts with 2,000 troops. (We're airlifting them back home.)

once again, somekind of "racism" and call russia "european", like just geographic near to europe. also he tell about the afghanistan, like soviet union still exists.

again, the only democratic countries are the countries that dont go against the interests of nato. elections are just a figurative aspect.what really matters is support the west.

This invasion recalls Hitler's march into Czechoslovakia - to protect ethnic Germans, he claimed, just as Putin claims to be protecting Russian citizens - complete BS.

yeah, you know what is BS and what is not !

It also resembles Hitler's invasion of Poland - with the difference that, in September '39, European democracies drew the line. (To France's credit, its leaders abandoned their August vacations to call Putin out - only Sen. Barack Obama remains on the beach.)

Yet our media give Putin the benefit of the doubt. Not one major news outlet even bothers to take issue with Putin's wild claim that the Georgians were engaged in genocide.

then he urges the western world for a cruzade in the east, to defend the georgians that wild russians accuses unreasonably making genocyde. how could a free democratic nation(aka nato friend) make such a thing ? we cant tolerate this !

then he repeat in a very boring way all that he talked before...

russia is evil
russia plannet invaded georgia
russia military is a mess depsite the invasion was planned
russia is evil
russia is killing georgia
nobody do nothing
russia is evil
russia bombs inocent citzens
the ossetia is full of mercenaries and russians, wasnt a big deal 1600 deaths so
did i said russia is evil ?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Don't jump too harshly on Tim folks; he's relaying the view by one American Journalist, not necessarily his view or the view of the majority of US citizens who have been watching this.

Peters may have been around for a while but I think he jumped into this too prematurely and without gaining all the facts. His comment about "Flying Moscow's latest ground-attack jets armed with the country's newest precision weapons, pilots are missing far more targets than they're hitting" tells me he's still stuck in the 80s. I wonder if he has a mullet hair cut?

I'm sure the Russians had this planned as this crisis has been simmering for quite a while but with that said I bet the Georgians also had this action in mind for a very long time. Bottom line the whole thing could have been handled different but Georgia choose to act with force - now that could only reap the consequences of their actions.

 

[Ramirezzz]

Disagree with you on this one guys. Peters has been around for a while and pegged events in the Middle East pretty much on the nose. He is very good. If you have the time and the inclination, you should read his books. They are excellent, if sometime a little on the intense side.

well he may be a good writer and I believe I've heard his name some time ago but particulary this analysis here is of some painfully low quality. He overlooks here some elementary facts.

While we can disagree on the targeting of the Russian aircraft and the start of the war (he said/she said on who did what first), his point that the attacks into Georgia were planned has to be taken at face value. He is right about the logistics of moving the equivelent of 2 divisions into an attack. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes weeks, if not months to do something like that. A lot of foresight and planning. As the old adage says, "Amatuers study tactics, proffessionals study logistics". There is no way this thing was pulled off in less than a month of planning.

that's definately true ,but Peters made wrong conclusions from the correct facts . Of course the operation was planned some time ago, and there were several military exercises conducted , but does it mean it was a preplanned agression? Remember the famous Cold War exercise "Reforger"? Pretty the same thing I believe.
After all it was not SOO many troops redeployed in Abkhazia and Ossetia - some 8000 in Abkhazia and even less in Ossetia. 12000 men - some three American airborne divisions I believe? Does it take much hours to deploy them to any point on Earth?
As for tanks and motorized infantry, it does take some 3 or 4 hours to reach South Ossetia from North Ossetia where they were stationed.

Another point which brings in the point of planning. There were two columns into Georgia. One directed at Ossentia, the other in the West. Pretty smart and pretty good move. Force the Georgians to deal with two threats at the same time. Something they just don't have the forces to do.

strictly speaking there wasn't any second column directed in the West - there were about 5000 troopers brought by transport ships and some 3000 airborne troops brought by planes.

We are getting only tidbits of information about this thing but what I have seen come out (and I'm getting about the same stuff everyone else on this board is getting) shows some pretty smart moves by the Russians in their actions. Attacking in two different locations, cutting the main highway, seizing the main tunnel into Ossentia, all are smart and methodical moves.

It shows a decent amount of planning, if anything.

absolutely true. But that doesn't mean a preplanned agression at all .If you look at the actions taken by Georgia some last months or even years (Adzharia and Kodori pass) - no wonder Russians've planned an operation like this.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well as I said, based upon what limited information I have, I believe the US would have acted similarly. What is most suprising is how our Forum members have been so quick to villify the US in this situation. That is disheartening. And VERY telling.

Agreed 100%, but I did not expect anything different.

Latest I heard was that they were implying a scorched earth policy for T'bilisi, warning citizens to evacuate as they pushed towards the city, and indicating bombing/shelling was on its way.

If that is the case, that is not the right thing to do.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

or even deliberately used the Georgians as Guinea Pigs??

Regards
Kruska

Please explain? Seriously? How did the US use Georgia as guinea pigs? This should be interesting...

 

[Erich]

just to tweak this but something for us to consider

do you think Israel has been watching this with a close eye ?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have also read all other posts and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone but I think that Georgians started this whole thing and that Russians can do whatever they want for they are far superior.

First let me say again that I am not taking sides in the war between Georgia and Russia.

Okay now that I have asked that, let me just change a few words in your post and you tell me what you think. I am not trying to pick a fight, I just want your opinion on it.

Okay here goes:

"I think that Serbs, Bosnians and Kosovars started this whole thing and that the United States and NATO can do whatever they want for they are far superior."

Again I just want to hear your thoughts.

 

[timshatz]

To throw another log on the fire, here is the Op Ed from the Wall Street Journal.

If we are just talking opinions (and that is the basis of this board, to post our opinions and those of respected individuals), thought I'd post opinions of others with a little more experience.



Vladimir Bonaparte
August 12, 2008; Page A20
The farther Russia's tanks roll into Georgia, the more the world is beginning to see the reality of Vladimir Putin's Napoleonic ambitions. Having consolidated his authoritarian transition as Prime Minister with a figurehead President, Mr. Putin is now pushing to reassert Russian dominance in Eurasia. Ukraine is in his sights, and even the Baltic states could be threatened if he's allowed to get away with it. The West needs to draw a line at Georgia.

No matter who fired the first shot last week in the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, Moscow is using the separatist issue as an excuse to demolish Georgia's military and, if possible, depose its democratically elected government. Russian forces moved ever deeper into Georgia proper Monday. They launched a second front in the west from another breakaway province, Abkhazia, and took the central city of Gori, which lies 40 miles from the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. These moves slice the country in half and isolate its ports, most of which Russia has bombed or blockaded. Moscow dismissed a cease-fire drawn up by European nations and signed by Georgia.

Russian bombers have also hit residential and industrial areas, making a mockery of Moscow's charge that Georgia is the party indiscriminately killing civilians. Russian claims of Georgian ethnic cleansing now look like well-rehearsed propaganda lines to justify a well-prepared invasion. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks, ships and warplanes were waiting for Mr. Putin's command.

While the rape of Chechnya was brutal, this is the most brazen act of Mr. Putin's reign, the first military offensive outside Russia's borders since Soviet rule ended. Yet it also fits a pattern of other threats and affronts to Russia's neighbors: turning off the oil or natural-gas taps to Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and even to NATO-member Lithuania; launching a cyberassault on Estonia; opposing two antimissile sites in NATO members in Eastern Europe that couldn't begin to neutralize Russia's offensive capabilities.

Our emphasis on NATO here is no coincidence. The Georgia invasion is a direct slap at the Western alliance. Tbilisi, like Kiev, has been pushing for NATO membership. Mr. Putin decided to act while some alliance members, led by Germany, dallied over their applications. Georgia was first. Ukraine, which has been pushing Russia to move its Black Sea fleet's headquarters out of the Crimea, could be next.

The alliance needs to respond forcefully, and it can start today. NATO officials have granted Russia a special meeting before deciding what to do about Georgia -- though we don't recall Russia briefing NATO about its plans in the Caucasus. The meeting is an opportunity to relay to Moscow that Georgian and Ukrainian membership is back on the table and that the alliance is considering all options for Georgia, from a humanitarian airlift to military aid, if Russia doesn't withdraw immediately.

Mr. Putin is betting that the West needs him for oil and deterring Iran's nuclear ambitions more than he needs the West. He's wrong -- not least since his "cooperation" on Iran consists of helping Tehran stall for time and selling the mullahs advanced antiaircraft missiles. Russia also needs the West's capital and especially its expertise in developing its oil and gas fields at least as much as the West needs Russian energy supplies.

The U.S. and Europe need to make all of that clear. Forcing Russia to veto a strong condemnation of its own actions at the U.N. Security Council would be one way to turn the pressure up. And speaking of pressure, where are all the peace protesters during this war? They can't all be in China.

As for the U.S., this is perhaps the last chance for President Bush to salvage any kind of positive legacy toward Russia, amid what is a useful record elsewhere in Eurasia. While Mr. Bush has championed the region's fledgling democracies, he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice badly misjudged Mr. Putin. Now would be a good moment for Mr. Bush to publicly acknowledge his misjudgment and rally the West's response.

John McCain had the Russian leader pegged better, which speaks well of his foreign-policy instincts. The Republican Presidential candidate has long said that Russia should be booted from the G-8 and yesterday he outlined a forceful Western strategy on Russia that stops short of military action. Barack Obama has in the past indicated support for the Georgia and Ukraine NATO bids, but the Democratic candidate has yet to explain in any detail how he would respond to the current conflict.

There's one other way the U.S. could hit Russia where it hurts: by strengthening the dollar. The greenback's weakness has contributed greatly to the record oil prices that have in turn made Russia flush with petrodollars and fueled Mr. Putin's expansionist ambitions. Crude prices continued to fall yesterday, below $115 a barrel, and further deflating that bubble would do more to sober up an oil-drunk Kremlin than would any kind of economic sanctions.

* * *
Vladimir Putin's Russia isn't the former Soviet Union, bent on ideological confrontation around the world. But it is a Bonapartist power intent on dominating its neighbors and restoring its clout on the world stage. Unless Russians see that there are costs for their Napoleon's expansionism, Georgia isn't likely to be his last stop.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

this BS is written by some conservative Cold War "analysist" who hasn't a clue in the issue. Biased allegations, totally amateurish military analysis.

[/url]

I am not going to argue with you that it is a biased piece, but please be honest with yourself. I am sure there is just as much BS (as you call it) written coming out of your Russia that is written about the US and Nato. Very biased and frankly BS. Just be honest...

 

[Ramirezzz]

Agreed 100%, but I did not expect anything different.

well the USA reaction was predictable and understandable regarding the fact that Georgia is one of their closest alliels. What could they do else rather than defending its actions and puting a pressure on Russians?
But as I've said before it seems that USA themselfes were caught pretty much by surprise by Georgia's actions in Ossetia , which gave the USA diplomacy pretty bad time.

If that is the case, that is not the right thing to do.

that was a Georgian claim , one of many. Of course some civilian buildings were undeliberately hit , but it's seems an inevitable thing in a modern conflict...

 

[Ramirezzz]

I am not going to argue with you that it is a biased piece, but please be honest with yourself. I am sure there is just as much BS (as you call it) written coming out of your Russia that is written about the US and Nato. Very biased and frankly BS. Just be honest...

So what?I'm not denying that, very true - a lot of BS is written in Russia as well. Just like a lot of BS was written about the performance of coalition troops in the Second Gulf War . But it doesn't mean THIS particulary article isn't a BS. This guy shows an apalling lack of knowlege of some basic facts of the conflict.

 

[timshatz]

Another opinion piece from a Paper I am not a big fan of (actually strongly dislike it, but hey, it has a good reputation), this one is from the New York Times. While there are disparities in all the opinions posted, you will see they all seem to agree on the details of this thing.

I should also note that I am not, personally, committed to either side of this thing. But I have a hard time believing Georgia attacked Russia (S.O. in this case) as a matter of aggression or territorial ambition.

My apologies in advance to the Russian readers on this board for this and the last two op-eds I posted as they are not complimentary of the Russian position.

Anyway, here's the view from the American Lefties....

Op-Ed Contributor
Russia Blames the Victim


By SVANTE E. CORNELL
Published: August 11, 2008


RUSSIA is portraying its war in Georgia as a legitimate response to Georgia's incursion last week into its breakaway region of South Ossetia. Many in the West, while condemning the disproportionate nature of Russia's response, are also critical of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for his attempts to bring South Ossetia back under Georgian rule, and of the United States for supposedly encouraging Mr. Saakashvili's risk-taking by pushing NATO membership for Georgia.

But the truth is that for the past several months, Russia, not Georgia, has been stoking tensions in South Ossetia and another of Georgia's breakaway areas, Abkhazia. After NATO held a summit in Bucharest, Romania, in April — at which Georgia and Ukraine received positive signs of potential membership — then-President Vladimir Putin of Russia signed a decree effectively treating Abkhazia and South Ossetia as parts of the Russian Federation. This was a direct violation of Georgia's territorial integrity.

It came after years of growing Russian efforts to assert control over these regions, for example, by distributing Russian passports to citizens and arranging the appointment of Russians to the territories' governments. Mr. Putin, who is now Russia's prime minister, oversaw a build-up of Russian "peacekeeping" forces in Abkhazia, which was clearly intended to provoke Georgia into a military response.

Yet Georgia showed restraint — in large part because Mr. Saakashvili understood that military adventurism would harm his NATO prospects. Moscow, in turn, transferred its efforts to South Ossetia, where pro-Russian rebels carried out attacks on Georgian forces and villages, finally provoking the response that Moscow had sought as a pretext to intervene.

Now Moscow has sent out the Black Sea fleet to Georgia's coast and broadened the war into Abkhazia and Georgia proper, showing that Moscow's war is not just about South Ossetia. In any case, Moscow's own treatment of separatism — killing tens of thousands of Chechens over the past decade — says volumes about its claims that it is just trying to protect a minority population.

This war is about making an example in Georgia, about the consequences post-Soviet countries will suffer for standing up to Moscow, conducting democratic reforms and seeking military and economic ties with the West. No Eurasian country has come so far as Georgia in recent years in terms of democratization and reform. Georgia has the third-largest contingent of forces in Iraq, and before this crisis it had pledged to send forces to Afghanistan.

If Georgia is allowed to fall, governments across Eurasia will certainly take note, especially those — such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Ukraine — that have built ties with the West and sought closer integration in European institutions, drawing Moscow's ire.

Should we allow Russia to occupy Georgia or even just depose the Saakashvili government, the implications for America's standing in Eurasia would be dire. We would risk losing the support of the post-Soviet states of Central Asia that are cooperating with the American mission in Afghanistan, along with hopes of westward exports of more Central Asian energy.

Many who might agree with this analysis nonetheless shrug their shoulders over solutions. Indeed, we have no real military options against Russia. But we can put together a meaningful comprehensive reaction, attaching real costs to Russia for its policies.

America must hit where it hurts: Russia's international prestige, an obsession of Mr. Putin's. To begin with, we must do everything possible to see Russia's membership in the Group of 8 industrialized nations be suspended (something the Republican presidential hopeful John McCain called for even before this crisis).

Once the fighting is over, America must step up its campaign for NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Should European countries reject the idea, America could designate them "major non-NATO allies," along the lines of Israel and Pakistan. This would involve more American military trainers in Georgia, intelligence-sharing, joint exercises and other steps, if not a full pledge by Washington to defend the country in case of attack.

Finally, in a measure of fitting symbolism, America must note that Russia started this war on the opening day of the Olympics, while it plans to hold its own Winter Olympics only a dozen miles from the victim of its aggression. America should seriously consider announcing a boycott of the 2014 Sochi Olympics. We owe our Georgian allies nothing less.

 

[Ramirezzz]

I am not going to argue with you that it is a biased piece, but please be honest with yourself. I am sure there is just as much BS (as you call it) written coming out of your Russia that is written about the US and Nato. Very biased and frankly BS. Just be honest...

Adler I suppose you can read German so here is some good analysis from an independend source:

Osteuropa-Experte Segbers zum Georgien-Krieg: "Saakaschwili hat sich verkalkuliert" - Politik - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yea Tim - I think there more BS there as well - "Moscow's own treatment of separatism — killing tens of thousands of Chechens over the past decade — says volumes about its claims that it is just trying to protect a minority population." Is nothing being said about Chechen rebels and their ties to Islamic terrorism?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So what?I'm not denying that, very true - a lot of BS is written in Russia as well. Just like a lot of BS was written about the performance of coalition troops in the Second Gulf War . But it doesn't mean THIS particulary article isn't a BS. This guy shows an apalling lack of knowlege of some basic facts of the conflict.

Just reminding you that there are always two sides to the coin.