Georgia and Russia at war.

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't agree. Maybe the acts are not the same but very similar, especially as seen from Central European perspective.

The Soviet invasion to Czechoslovakia in August 21st 1968 was a very clear message, as well as this is a clear message. The Russians are looking for every occasion to expand their area of influence...

As well as in 1968, where the excuse was "fighting the Contra-Revolution", in 2008 they say they need to "defend Russian civilians" (to wit holder of passports of the Russian Federation). Nothing about that - I agrre - if this would be only honest. It is quite obvious that this is an inderict reacton to Kosovo and US radar base in the Czech Republic and Poland.

The Gerogians were just trying to keep order in their sovereign territory = South Osetia and it's not Russia's business.

I'm very neutral in this conflict, becauee none of the sides have the right to act as they had acted but I'm quite sceptic to Russia. The 40th anniversary of ocuppation of my country is coming (21st Aug) and it is still alive here...

Sorry Pisis - I remember the 1968 invasion vividly - Alexander Dubcek was a reformer and everything that was going on was done with out any violence until the Soviet Union rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia. I have some of my L-29 friends who were there and to this day they absolutely hate Russians. In South Ossetia we could argue and debut who was in the right and where the people of the region really should of been representative, but what threw everything off was Georgia's initial actions.

I agree, the whole thing could of and should of been handled different. Had the Georgian President sought a peaceful solution and then been invaded, we would not be having this conversation.

 

[JugBR]

...

 

[Ramirezzz]

I think the main problem is that the Western world looks at this conflict from global , and not from local Caucasian point of view. I believe if there were some attempts to spread the message across the Europe that was only a secondary if not a third intention of the Russian actions there.
The primary geopolitical goal was to save the still existing Russian influence in that region. If Saaakashvili had succeed with establishing control of the South Ossetia the whole Caucasus (even the Russian provinces) would probably see Russia as a weak player and as a betrayer of their allies there. That would lead to some catastrophic consequences for the Russian politics in that region.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Situation on Caucas in the picture

You were warned by FlyboyJ to quit with these kind of postings and stick to the topic. Even Ramierezzz has told you to be civil.

Since you can not do so, you have recieved an infraction. You will only recieve one from me, next time you are gone...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think the main problem is that the Western world looks at this conflict from global , and not from local Caucasian point of view.

I think that sums it up perfectly!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

if you disagree of mitya, would you explain what george w bush is doing there ?

His posts was ignorant, nothing else. Mitya does not wish to discuss this in a civil manner. He has an adgenda and does not wish to discuss facts.

He wishes to make ignorant accusations and not back them up.

I have no problem with other peoples opinions, but lets keep them civil.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think the main problem is that the Western world looks at this conflict from global , and not from local Caucasian point of view.

I can see that, and I think that is what happens with most conflicts.

 

[JugBR]

I think the main problem is that the Western world looks at this conflict from global , and not from local Caucasian point of view. I believe if there were some attempts to spread the message across the Europe that was only a secondary if not a third intention of the Russian actions there.
The primary geopolitical goal was to save the still existing Russian influence in that region. If Saaakashvili had succeed with regaining control of the South Ossetia the whole Caucasus (even the Russian provinces) would probably see Russia as a weak player and as a betrayer of their allies there. That would lead to some catastrophic consequences for the Russian politics in that region.

i could be wrong(not new stuff), but russia should end quickly the conflict besides georgian provocations. i believe if georgian president didnt surrended until now, the best thing is sign an cease-fire. even taking the risk that georgia again brokes the cease-fire, but the best is avoid more casualties and put the Saaakashvili on a negotiations table face to face with putin.

but i could be wrong, wich is nothing new...

 

[Pisis]

Sorry Pisis - I remember the 1968 invasion vividly - Alexander Dubcek was a reformer and everything that was going on was done with out any violence until the Soviet Union rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia. I have some of my L-29 friends who were there and to this day they absolutely hate Russians. In South Ossetia we could argue and debut who was in the right and where the people of the region really should of been representative, but what threw everything off was Georgia's initial actions.

I agree, the whole thing could of and should of been handled different. Had the Georgian President sought a peaceful solution and then been invaded, we would not be having this conversation.

Well, Czechoslovakia's initial actions back in 1968 were, as you write, just peaceful reforms, and it led to occupation anyway.

I think the Georgian units were only trying to keep order in what from their perspective is their territory. I just can't help myself but I perceive the Russian behavior as an agression and a tendency to dictate their own rules in the region, and hence I see it as an interference.

I just don't think that the Russian practics have changed so much since the Cold War... Putin is a great sample of that.

 

[timshatz]

Well, Czechoslovakia's initial actions back in 1968 were just these reforms. I think Gergian units were just trying to keep order in what from their perspective is theirs. I just can't help myself but I perceive the Russian behavior as an agression and a tendency to dictate their own rules in the region.

Nothing to apologize for. Idealism increases with distance. You've lived under an occupation, we haven't (well, at least most of us). Such an event tends to give you perspective we don't have (and hopefully never will).

 

[comiso90]

Ukraine vows to implement orders on Russia fleet

IEV (Reuters) - Pro-Western Ukraine vowed on Thursday to make Russia seek official permission for movements of its warships based in the ex-Soviet state despite Moscow's objections, placing the neighbors on a collision course.
ADVERTISEMENT

Russia's Black Sea Fleet is based on Ukraine's Crimea peninsula under an agreement signed by the two ex-Soviet states. Kiev's jurisdiction over the area remains a highly sensitive issue among Russian nationalists and in the peninsula dominated by ethnic Russians.

Ukraine's plans for tougher rules on Russian naval moves, announced by President Viktor Yushchenko on Wednesday, are the latest affront to Moscow after Kiev's sharp criticism of its military incursion into Georgia in support of breakaway regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Tension between the two states had already been simmering due to Moscow's opposition to Kiev's efforts to join NATO, and past disputes over gas prices and property.

On Thursday, Georgian Chief of Staff Serhiy Kirichenko said Yushchenko's decree would be carried out, no matter what.

"There is a presidential decree and it will, naturally, be implemented," Interfax Ukraine quoted him as saying. "I guarantee that we will do everything to ensure the president's decree is carried out."

Ukraine vows to implement orders on Russia fleet - Yahoo! News

.

 

[Milos Sijacki]

On the news I heard that SO and Abkhazia want full independence and that they won't accept any other deal

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, Czechoslovakia's initial actions back in 1968 were, as you write, just peaceful reforms, and it led to occupation anyway.

I think the Georgian units were only trying to keep order in what from their perspective is their territory. I just can't help myself but I perceive the Russian behavior as an agression and a tendency to dictate their own rules in the region, and hence I see it as an interference.

I just don't think that the Russian practics have changed so much since the Cold War... Putin is a great sample of that.

And based on conversations with the Czechs I've dealt with I could totally understand that position.

 

[javlin]

I agree with Pisis for the most part and the statements by Bush this morning after I am sure hours of intelligence debriefs stated,Russia needs to obey the rules of the ceasefire and acknowledge the boundries,(a close parphrase)that says something in itself.

 

[Pisis]

Nothing to apologize for. Idealism increases with distance. You've lived under an occupation, we haven't (well, at least most of us). Such an event tends to give you perspective we don't have (and hopefully never will).

And based on conversations with the Czechs I've dealt with I could totally understand that position.

Now the second thing is what kind of personality Skakashvilli is and what his regime tries to do... And the third thing is that from the Russian point of view, this is not interference but international help. The biggest problem comes when both sides are convinced they are right and they have a priveleged right to act so.

 

[JugBR]

.....

 

[JugBR]

You were warned by FlyboyJ to quit with these kind of postings and stick to the topic. Even Ramierezzz has told you to be civil.

Since you can not do so, you have recieved an infraction. You will only recieve one from me, next time you are gone...

wait a minute, does that guy really looks like w. bush or the image was phtoshoped ?

i tought was a coincidence he was very looks like bush, but now i see the post of mitya was edited... i dont know if was photoshoped

anyway ill edit my post too

 

[Kruska]

I am not an expert on Russian/Slavic race and history into minor detail, but to compare the Czechoslovak crisis with Georgia is IMO completely beside the point.

Georgia is a breakaway province of Russia which it has possessed and ruled for 200/300? years. Czechoslovakia has never been part of Russia, but has been a sovereign state for many centuries - with interruptions.

Russia was in a state of no choice in the 1990's, and I do have a certain degree of sympathy with Russia's plight in that period. Such as Germany who had no say neither in 1918 nor in 1945 in regards to having to give up huge parts of its territory.

The West was still in the Cold War mentality and too busy trying to cut down the USSR by acknowledging one separation move after another. Now that Russia is regaining its strength and willpower to act independently or even opposing US global political views, those former Russian republics have all reasons to fear the non tolerance attitude, for previous enforced separation from Russia.

Maybe now after 15 years of neglect, the US and NATO finally realizes that the danger of war arises from these hastily acknowledged separatist movements resulting in dozens of new countries bordering Russia and not China as pointed out by the US until today.
Instead of constantly infuriating Russia by a continuous expansion of NATO beyond former independent Nations as of before 1939, NATO needs to negotiate together with Russia in regards to these Separatist countries and ensure Russia that NATO has no intention to meddle around along Russia's borders, but on the other hand will not tolerate a military move by Russia into these "new" countries.

However if NATO continues to meddle along Russia's borders, I would not be surprised to see Russia react by military force in order to be one step ahead –see the Georgia – NATO case.

A further aggravation of the Bear in regards to the Ukraine will result in the same situation, and I do not believe at all that NATO or the US will risk a war in order to safeguard any of these new countries that have become illusionist about their safety in regards to NATO or US interventions and as such miss out the chance to diplomatically and not arrogantly (Ukraine and the Russian navy case) resolve disputes with Russia.

Regards
Kruska

 

[JugBR]

should somebody could comment the technical aspects of this conflict ?

i readed that one of the russian planes that georgians had hits, was a TU 22M. isnt that plane too old ? developed from the early 70´s... for a comparative example, wouldnt be the same as w. bush and rumsfeld decided strikes iraq with thunderchiefs and phantons ?

otherwise, should the tu-22m a great plane and the failure was to ensure a total air superiority to use him as recognition plane ? or that was a role that tu-22m wasnt able to play, since it is know as nuclear bomber and not recognition plane.

ucranian tu-22m

considering the lack of fighters in georgian airforce, i heard about some "conspiracy theories" inside russia press, to justificate the loss of russian planes. according to these theories, ucranians should been helping georgia with anti-aircraft high-altitude missile systems.

also is suposed that there was killed a su-25 and a mig-29, but the numbers that georgian and russians gave are totally conflitant. georgia says they killed 30 russian planes, instead russia just report 4 losses.

one of the russian missions outside ossetia, in tbilisi, was destroy the georgian radar system to ensure air superiority over battlefield.

also, in the ground, acording to the pictures and the stories, the t-72 has proved again be a very weak armoured thank according the specialists. theres images of many t-72 with reactive armor destroyed, claims that rpg´s destroyed some of those. also, like the t-72, seems like all the georgian army veichles are obsolete russians. wich increased the advantage of russian army even more in battlefield.

 

[Kruska]

Hello JugBR,

I don't quite get the meaning of your statement or question from your post. IMO both, Russia and Georgia mainly possess outdated military hardware. Since they do not have much of anything else what should they use?

I can't see the picture, but those Russian made tanks were most certainly knocked out with guided missiles or through head on head firing from tank to tank. and conventional ATmines.

Regards
Kruska