Russa Invades Georgia - Full Scale Invasion
- Thread starter THE-BEAKER
- Start date
Agree w/ you on this. I think that China is watching this as closely as anyone, and it does note bode well for the future of Taiwan at all. My business partner Anthony's family is from there, his uncle is one of the largest land owners in Kaohsiung and has been worried, moving a lot of his money out of Tawian and onto the mainland and into Canada and Australia.
Interestingly the dissolution of the Soviet union in 1990 with the two areas in Georgia wanting to continue the strong ties with Russia, were promised to become controlled/subdued by the elected president of Georgia - that was a central part of his program that won him the presidential election there.
When Georgia became independent, they sought to balance the strong russian influence in the region with stronger ties to the US. A strategic gas pipeline runs through Georgia, and the US was ready to oblige and funded and strengthened the georgian military ... that gave way to high tensions between the breakaway regions and rest of/central Georgia.
I wonder what the US would do if Cuba got some fancy modern russian hardware? Venezuela is funding it's military to be the strongest in the region nowadays - kind of interesting to say the least.
In the last few weeks there have been lots of provocations from Georgia in the breakaway areas, with bombings (killing local officials and UNIMOB observers at a cafe) as well as increasing attacks from the georgian government in the region ...
I do think Russia is pretty ticked off by a US-supported and -funded georgian army attacking russians (at least locals with russian passports) and the local governments that have been part of the separatist areas since the early 1990s.
The government of Georgia had a proclaimed program of controlling and subduing the breakaway regions, and the US is their most prominent supporter. It pretty much reeks of old cold-war tactics from both the US and Russia on this one ..
Russia warned Georgia repeatedly over the last months over the escalation, and wanted them to commit to a binding non-violence/-attack agreement for the region. Now, it seems the georgian government pushed too hard when they started attacking and killing civilians on a large scale ...
I wonder how much the US was involved in counseling Georgia leading up to the attack ...? We will of course never get any admissions from the US government, and I doubt any propaganda-less information will be divulged to the public from Us sources.
... but one thing is clear - the russians did not start or provoke the attacks - the US-supported government of Georgia did ... Condi Rice just left Georgia after a short visit, just before the hostilities started - what a curious coincidence ... Perhaps the separatists sent some rockets after her, as they did after John McCain's helicopter in 2006 when he was visiting there ...
I wonder how much of the world and "world progress" of the last decades the Bush government is capable of fucking up.
When Georgia became independent, they sought to balance the strong russian influence in the region with stronger ties to the US. A strategic gas pipeline runs through Georgia, and the US was ready to oblige and funded and strengthened the georgian military ... that gave way to high tensions between the breakaway regions and rest of/central Georgia.
I wonder what the US would do if Cuba got some fancy modern russian hardware? Venezuela is funding it's military to be the strongest in the region nowadays - kind of interesting to say the least.
In the last few weeks there have been lots of provocations from Georgia in the breakaway areas, with bombings (killing local officials and UNIMOB observers at a cafe) as well as increasing attacks from the georgian government in the region ...
I do think Russia is pretty ticked off by a US-supported and -funded georgian army attacking russians (at least locals with russian passports) and the local governments that have been part of the separatist areas since the early 1990s.
The government of Georgia had a proclaimed program of controlling and subduing the breakaway regions, and the US is their most prominent supporter. It pretty much reeks of old cold-war tactics from both the US and Russia on this one ..
Russia warned Georgia repeatedly over the last months over the escalation, and wanted them to commit to a binding non-violence/-attack agreement for the region. Now, it seems the georgian government pushed too hard when they started attacking and killing civilians on a large scale ...
I wonder how much the US was involved in counseling Georgia leading up to the attack ...? We will of course never get any admissions from the US government, and I doubt any propaganda-less information will be divulged to the public from Us sources.
... but one thing is clear - the russians did not start or provoke the attacks - the US-supported government of Georgia did ... Condi Rice just left Georgia after a short visit, just before the hostilities started - what a curious coincidence ... Perhaps the separatists sent some rockets after her, as they did after John McCain's helicopter in 2006 when he was visiting there ...
I wonder how much of the world and "world progress" of the last decades the Bush government is capable of fucking up.
Of course it's impossible to predict the future, but it's possible to group some probable outcomes of the near future. The longer future is much more complicated to analyze with certainty.
Well, what will happen after Georgia attacked the Abkhazia and Ossetia areas? What did the president of Georgia have to gain doing this? Is he just mad ... ?
I don't think he is. Condaleezza Rice had just visited Georgia, and the current president has good ties with the US. However, the local support for the president was diminishing. Now, the outcome will probably gather the the views that the russians are oppressors and to be feared. Also, this has wider effects which will gather support and huddle NATO together in fears for "the awaking eastern bear". Apparently the latest events have been a good round of taunting and an opportunity to press the finger in a sore spot for the russians ...
With the bleeding economic conditions of the US, a more controlled international atmosphere could strengthen the old ties - like the Marshall plan did - and which the UK finished paying WWII-debts just in 2006. A more open world has definitely not been only positive for the US, as China, Russia, India, Brazil, arab countries and some others have strengthened economically.
So, is world unrest a good sign for the US economy? Well, if you are in the defense business - which the US excels in - it certainly is ...
Well, what will happen after Georgia attacked the Abkhazia and Ossetia areas? What did the president of Georgia have to gain doing this? Is he just mad ... ?
I don't think he is. Condaleezza Rice had just visited Georgia, and the current president has good ties with the US. However, the local support for the president was diminishing. Now, the outcome will probably gather the the views that the russians are oppressors and to be feared. Also, this has wider effects which will gather support and huddle NATO together in fears for "the awaking eastern bear". Apparently the latest events have been a good round of taunting and an opportunity to press the finger in a sore spot for the russians ...
With the bleeding economic conditions of the US, a more controlled international atmosphere could strengthen the old ties - like the Marshall plan did - and which the UK finished paying WWII-debts just in 2006. A more open world has definitely not been only positive for the US, as China, Russia, India, Brazil, arab countries and some others have strengthened economically.
So, is world unrest a good sign for the US economy? Well, if you are in the defense business - which the US excels in - it certainly is ...
Some strategies culminating towards the start of Georgia conflict ...
It is feebily naive to think that there are no strategies behind the actions in Georgia - from all parties.
While it seems that Abkhazia and Ossetia are ethnic groups different from the rest of Georgia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg ) that might explain some of the incentive for these regions to seek independence from Georgia. In the case of Ossetia, it seems more logical that they want to join their northern part on the other side of the border.
Why would Georgia want to attack these regions? It seems Condoleezza Rice visited Georgia just before the latest attacks by Georgia. When John McCain visited in 2006, separatist sent rockets after his helicopter - so the sides are pretty entrenched ideologically. The georgian president's support had been dwindling, and he won the latest election with a program saying he would reign in the breakaway regions.
After Georgia got it's independence, of course a natural and logical strategy for them was to balance the strong russian influence by seeking protection and proximity to the EU and NATO/the US. Thus georgian self-preservation considerations speaks in favour for this strategy. It would however be a "slight" provocation if Georgia actually became a NATO member, with the US exerting it's influence and increasingly surrounding Russia.
The US and Israel have been training georgian military forces, as well as supporting Georgia in increasing their military capabilities over the years. Georgia provides a relatively important role for the EU and the US with the two energy pipelines going through the country. For Russia it seems it's main strategic importance is the shared border and it's strategic implications.
What could the georgian president, the US and others see as the most probable outcomes from attacking the breakaway regions as they have done? Obviously, they could expect some reaction from Russia and Russia could easily overwhelm and stem the attacks. Still, Georgia promised pulling back - but still continued attacks on the Ossetia capital with attack helicopters according to international Reuter's journalists. So there seems to be a tactic behind the attacks - some reasoning and not just plain madness.
When Russia responds to attacks on these regions, this obviously frightens Europe and any other independent state close to Russia. This makes NATO members concerned as well, and tightens the NATO unity. These are obvious self-preservation reactions from states, organizations etc.
Who has to gain from these reactions? Well, Russia seemingly has to do something or they could just give up their interests completely in Georgia - that is - the strategic importance of Georgia. That does not make much sense for russian self-preservation. Secondly, the people who are ethnically different from the rest of Georgia in these two regions will surely suffer if they continued their struggle under georgian domination (proven by the military attacks by Georgia) - so there is actually a humanitarian side to the russian actions. This should not be overlooked, but is being muted by most media, except the russians.
Russia has been increasing their rhetoric up to the latest escalation in conflicts with repeated warnings towards Georgia and Georgia has spurred sporadic attacks and set off bombs in the breakaway regions. The tensions have been kept high by all parties. The russians pressed Georgia on committing to peaceful treatment of the breakaway regions, while this has been undermined by the georgian side.
Georgia itself would face quite a few repercussions from attacking these breakaway regions, since Russia has been involved there since 1992 and 1993 respectively with troops. However, sacrificing parts of the georgian population, the georgian leadership could unite the georgian people behind them - fearing russian domination. They could also expect moral support and attention from the EU and the US - and especially NATO. A more alerted and attentive NATO would spark actions to strengthen the organization - which would favour the US and Georgia.
Secondary, the world economic situation and development has lead to more and more capital drained from the US and lost to emerging nations and arab oil-producing nations. World turmoil would favour the US by focusing again on NATO, security concerns and military capabilities. Russia is prone to becoming a very strong food producer, as well as being an important oil-producer, when they now have become better organized after the fall of the communist rule and the Soviet union. Therefore they pose a long-term threat to US influence and economic might. This also goes for China and Brazil. Within military technology there are also some developments where Russia, India and Brazil are collaborating on the Sukhoi PAK-FA - which might become a serious threat. All along, Venezuela, is strengthening it's military more than anyone else in South America. In the end - all of this means severe economic, political and military threats to US self-preservation concerns. If the USA is going to continue it's domination of economic, military and political might - they are compelled to act against others climbing the respective ladders of influence around the world ... or else, the USA will no longer call itself a super-power.
It seems like an age-old conflict which gave rise to WWI (and thereby WWII), as well as most other conflicts we can remember. Of course (hopefully) this conflict will not start WWIII (that will be sparked because of religious divides in my opinion), it will serve the goals of the strongest nations and their self-preservation goals as well as those seeking to align themselves with them for personal and strategic goals.
It is feebily naive to think that there are no strategies behind the actions in Georgia - from all parties.
While it seems that Abkhazia and Ossetia are ethnic groups different from the rest of Georgia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg ) that might explain some of the incentive for these regions to seek independence from Georgia. In the case of Ossetia, it seems more logical that they want to join their northern part on the other side of the border.
Why would Georgia want to attack these regions? It seems Condoleezza Rice visited Georgia just before the latest attacks by Georgia. When John McCain visited in 2006, separatist sent rockets after his helicopter - so the sides are pretty entrenched ideologically. The georgian president's support had been dwindling, and he won the latest election with a program saying he would reign in the breakaway regions.
After Georgia got it's independence, of course a natural and logical strategy for them was to balance the strong russian influence by seeking protection and proximity to the EU and NATO/the US. Thus georgian self-preservation considerations speaks in favour for this strategy. It would however be a "slight" provocation if Georgia actually became a NATO member, with the US exerting it's influence and increasingly surrounding Russia.
The US and Israel have been training georgian military forces, as well as supporting Georgia in increasing their military capabilities over the years. Georgia provides a relatively important role for the EU and the US with the two energy pipelines going through the country. For Russia it seems it's main strategic importance is the shared border and it's strategic implications.
What could the georgian president, the US and others see as the most probable outcomes from attacking the breakaway regions as they have done? Obviously, they could expect some reaction from Russia and Russia could easily overwhelm and stem the attacks. Still, Georgia promised pulling back - but still continued attacks on the Ossetia capital with attack helicopters according to international Reuter's journalists. So there seems to be a tactic behind the attacks - some reasoning and not just plain madness.
When Russia responds to attacks on these regions, this obviously frightens Europe and any other independent state close to Russia. This makes NATO members concerned as well, and tightens the NATO unity. These are obvious self-preservation reactions from states, organizations etc.
Who has to gain from these reactions? Well, Russia seemingly has to do something or they could just give up their interests completely in Georgia - that is - the strategic importance of Georgia. That does not make much sense for russian self-preservation. Secondly, the people who are ethnically different from the rest of Georgia in these two regions will surely suffer if they continued their struggle under georgian domination (proven by the military attacks by Georgia) - so there is actually a humanitarian side to the russian actions. This should not be overlooked, but is being muted by most media, except the russians.
Russia has been increasing their rhetoric up to the latest escalation in conflicts with repeated warnings towards Georgia and Georgia has spurred sporadic attacks and set off bombs in the breakaway regions. The tensions have been kept high by all parties. The russians pressed Georgia on committing to peaceful treatment of the breakaway regions, while this has been undermined by the georgian side.
Georgia itself would face quite a few repercussions from attacking these breakaway regions, since Russia has been involved there since 1992 and 1993 respectively with troops. However, sacrificing parts of the georgian population, the georgian leadership could unite the georgian people behind them - fearing russian domination. They could also expect moral support and attention from the EU and the US - and especially NATO. A more alerted and attentive NATO would spark actions to strengthen the organization - which would favour the US and Georgia.
Secondary, the world economic situation and development has lead to more and more capital drained from the US and lost to emerging nations and arab oil-producing nations. World turmoil would favour the US by focusing again on NATO, security concerns and military capabilities. Russia is prone to becoming a very strong food producer, as well as being an important oil-producer, when they now have become better organized after the fall of the communist rule and the Soviet union. Therefore they pose a long-term threat to US influence and economic might. This also goes for China and Brazil. Within military technology there are also some developments where Russia, India and Brazil are collaborating on the Sukhoi PAK-FA - which might become a serious threat. All along, Venezuela, is strengthening it's military more than anyone else in South America. In the end - all of this means severe economic, political and military threats to US self-preservation concerns. If the USA is going to continue it's domination of economic, military and political might - they are compelled to act against others climbing the respective ladders of influence around the world ... or else, the USA will no longer call itself a super-power.
It seems like an age-old conflict which gave rise to WWI (and thereby WWII), as well as most other conflicts we can remember. Of course (hopefully) this conflict will not start WWIII (that will be sparked because of religious divides in my opinion), it will serve the goals of the strongest nations and their self-preservation goals as well as those seeking to align themselves with them for personal and strategic goals.
Quote from Gringinho:
Interestingly the dissolution of the Soviet union in 1990 with the two areas in Georgia wanting to continue the strong ties with Russia, were promised to become controlled/subdued by the elected president of Georgia - that was a central part of his program that won him the presidential election there.
When Georgia became independent, they sought to balance the strong russian influence in the region with stronger ties to the US. A strategic gas pipeline runs through Georgia, and the US was ready to oblige and funded and strengthened the georgian military ... that gave way to high tensions between the breakaway regions and rest of/central Georgia.
I wonder what the US would do if Cuba got some fancy modern russian hardware? Venezuela is funding it's military to be the strongest in the region nowadays - kind of interesting to say the least.
In the last few weeks there have been lots of provocations from Georgia in the breakaway areas, with bombings (killing local officials and UNIMOB observers at a cafe) as well as increasing attacks from the georgian government in the region ...
I do think Russia is pretty ticked off by a US-supported and -funded georgian army attacking russians (at least locals with russian passports) and the local governments that have been part of the separatist areas since the early 1990s.
The government of Georgia had a proclaimed program of controlling and subduing the breakaway regions, and the US is their most prominent supporter. It pretty much reeks of old cold-war tactics from both the US and Russia on this one ..
Russia warned Georgia repeatedly over the last months over the escalation, and wanted them to commit to a binding non-violence/-attack agreement for the region. Now, it seems the georgian government pushed too hard when they started attacking and killing civilians on a large scale ...
I wonder how much the US was involved in counseling Georgia leading up to the attack ...? We will of course never get any admissions from the US government, and I doubt any propaganda-less information will be divulged to the public from Us sources.
... but one thing is clear - the russians did not start or provoke the attacks - the US-supported government of Georgia did ... Condi Rice just left Georgia after a short visit, just before the hostilities started - what a curious coincidence ... Perhaps the separatists sent some rockets after her, as they did after John McCain's helicopter in 2006 when he was visiting there ...
I wonder how much of the world and "world progress" of the last decades the Bush government is capable of fucking up.
It's not quite that simple. Russia has been destabilizing Georgia by handing out passports for the last few years to people inside disputed territory, funding separatist movements there etc.
This is all blowback from the US/EU pursuing the strategy of trying to co-opt Russian border states to join NATO. Russia hasn't taken too kindly to this and so have been trying to pursue what they see as their own interests, siding against pro-west politicians. This latest incident is an escalation of that policy. Basically the west were rather insensitive to Russia's sphere of influence, and then one of the local politicians started trying to muscle around, Russia felt the need to assert themselves. If they did nothing then they would have been viewed as totally impotent to influence regional politics. They got directly challenged, and now are swatting down the upstart challenger.
If you look at it from their point of view: they lost E Europe, the lost the Baltic states, they lost Ukraine, all their former empire. Then to top that off, the USA and Europe start trying to co-opt these places into NATO. They look to build a missile shield in E Europe. Even a non-paranoid Russian might start to feel like the west was starting to become a bit threatening right on their doorstep. The last thing they want is to sit back whilst every neighbour goes over to the other side. Think of how the USA viewed Cuba during the cold war, that is probably how Russia thinks of things now.
It doesn't excuse the recent conduct, but it has been very naive diplomacy by the west (and Georgia) IMO to assume they could carry on baiting Russia without consequence. It's unlikely the west can militarily stop Russia successfully throwing their weight around in the border regions, so the west was really playing a game of "all mouth, no trousers" on this one. At this point, if Russia wanted to annex Georgia, there isn't much anyone could do about it, short of starting WWIII.
Regarding your 2nd post - the US/EU would not have any interest in sparking a military contest in Georgia, since the former is already stretched in Iraq, and the latter has no military power to speak of, at least nothing they can really project beyond their region. If there was some nefarious US plot to bring NATO closer or demonize Russia, it would not happen a few months before a Presidential election where a new administration will come in, and would not happen while the US is stretched thinly across the world.
Some say that the Russians baited this move by Georgia. Russian tanks were hidden in a tunnel somewhere, not visible by satellite. The Russian leadership is about like Mobster leadership in the USA, they would think that was clever and it fun to overrun the little countries that want to join NATO.... during the olympics... when the US armies are spread a little thin already..
I agree with you on the stepwise provocations of/ticking off Russia, and Russia wanting to assert it's influence in the region. The main reason is Russia's concern for military/security influence so close to home.
I do however, think that the obvious fallout of attacking the regions is a more united and attentive NATO as well as the EU evaluating it's relationship to the USA.
I do not think that the government in Georgia woke up one sunny day and thought "What are we going to do today? Not in the mood to watch the olympics, lets attack Ossetia a 'little' and see if we can have some fun ..."
This has had to be planned, and the consequences had to be considered beforehand. Anything else would be shear madness, and completely naive by anyone thinking "it just happened and what a surprise the reaction was".
Of course it is a surprise to anyone else than those involved in the conflict, but those involved had to be aware of the fallout.
I'm not saying the US led some evil plot to do this - but I'm saying that it seems carefully considered with regards to the consequences. Russia has little interests in Georgia except the strategic implications. Georgia needs NATO/EU/US to offset russian influence. The US has energy political goals as well as long-term political goals with regards to russian influence. The EU has energy political interests with the pipelines through Georgia, but little else.
Georgia has not gotten a NATO membership mainly because it would upset Russia tremendously, as well as Georgia severely lacking in democratic reforms. The breakaway regions see their proximity to Russia as more important - probably economically as well - and being ethnic minorities in Georgia. South Ossetia have ties to North Ossetia within Russia.
Thinking critically and trying to be objective - of course there are some interests at play - and the civilian population are partly sacrificed for the political goals of the georgian leadership, and probably with US (and perhaps NATO) blessings.
Russia acts out of immediate necessity. Georgia acts out of trying to push developments faster, by sacrificing a little but really no vastly strong repercussions or risks. The US acts/supports Georgia out of long-term concerns. There are truly many facets to the conflict.
Of course, Russia also contributed with strong rhetoric and demands over the last months. However, the russians have the "moral highground" since they can claim humanitarian concerns by protecting the minorities in the two regions - which are under attack by the rest of Georgia.
Now, the smart move by Russia could be to crush as much of georgian aspirations as possible. That would send a very strong message to the US and the EU. They would certainly gain further influence by annexing or continuing strong support to Abkhazia and Ossetia. That would intimidate further steps by the US or NATO in the region - and they will push for much stronger commitments from Georgia now - so that a NATO membership probably will be interpreted as a direct violation of such an agreement, and any further escalation or rebuilding of Gerogia's military capabilities will be very difficult.
The US and NATO of course are not getting directly involved - and that would be crossing another very dangerous line - and frankly impossible. They do gain something from this conflict of course.
The losers are the breakaway regions - because in the end - it's only the civilian population who pay the price in this political game. Thus I see the russians as the ones with the most legitimate concerns - if I should consider a decision of what could be the best solution.
The breakaway regions should become independent or annexed for Russia - since that would ensure the longer lasting peace and Georgia could continue to develop stronger ties economically and politically with the west while not being perceived as a threat to Russia. Militarily - it will always be extremely sensitive - which is why there is more "cloak and dagger" by the US, Israel, NATO etc.
Well, that is how I see it anyway.
I do however, think that the obvious fallout of attacking the regions is a more united and attentive NATO as well as the EU evaluating it's relationship to the USA.
I do not think that the government in Georgia woke up one sunny day and thought "What are we going to do today? Not in the mood to watch the olympics, lets attack Ossetia a 'little' and see if we can have some fun ..."
This has had to be planned, and the consequences had to be considered beforehand. Anything else would be shear madness, and completely naive by anyone thinking "it just happened and what a surprise the reaction was".
Of course it is a surprise to anyone else than those involved in the conflict, but those involved had to be aware of the fallout.
I'm not saying the US led some evil plot to do this - but I'm saying that it seems carefully considered with regards to the consequences. Russia has little interests in Georgia except the strategic implications. Georgia needs NATO/EU/US to offset russian influence. The US has energy political goals as well as long-term political goals with regards to russian influence. The EU has energy political interests with the pipelines through Georgia, but little else.
Georgia has not gotten a NATO membership mainly because it would upset Russia tremendously, as well as Georgia severely lacking in democratic reforms. The breakaway regions see their proximity to Russia as more important - probably economically as well - and being ethnic minorities in Georgia. South Ossetia have ties to North Ossetia within Russia.
Thinking critically and trying to be objective - of course there are some interests at play - and the civilian population are partly sacrificed for the political goals of the georgian leadership, and probably with US (and perhaps NATO) blessings.
Russia acts out of immediate necessity. Georgia acts out of trying to push developments faster, by sacrificing a little but really no vastly strong repercussions or risks. The US acts/supports Georgia out of long-term concerns. There are truly many facets to the conflict.
Of course, Russia also contributed with strong rhetoric and demands over the last months. However, the russians have the "moral highground" since they can claim humanitarian concerns by protecting the minorities in the two regions - which are under attack by the rest of Georgia.
Now, the smart move by Russia could be to crush as much of georgian aspirations as possible. That would send a very strong message to the US and the EU. They would certainly gain further influence by annexing or continuing strong support to Abkhazia and Ossetia. That would intimidate further steps by the US or NATO in the region - and they will push for much stronger commitments from Georgia now - so that a NATO membership probably will be interpreted as a direct violation of such an agreement, and any further escalation or rebuilding of Gerogia's military capabilities will be very difficult.
The US and NATO of course are not getting directly involved - and that would be crossing another very dangerous line - and frankly impossible. They do gain something from this conflict of course.
The losers are the breakaway regions - because in the end - it's only the civilian population who pay the price in this political game. Thus I see the russians as the ones with the most legitimate concerns - if I should consider a decision of what could be the best solution.
The breakaway regions should become independent or annexed for Russia - since that would ensure the longer lasting peace and Georgia could continue to develop stronger ties economically and politically with the west while not being perceived as a threat to Russia. Militarily - it will always be extremely sensitive - which is why there is more "cloak and dagger" by the US, Israel, NATO etc.
Well, that is how I see it anyway.