Russa Invades Georgia - Full Scale Invasion

[a_person]

Quote from bwolinsky:

Since most of South Ossetia's citizens carry Russian passports, it appears Russia was, in essence, "defending" its citizens.

Well, Russia was deliberately giving out their passports to have this excuse (lame as it is) to "defend" their citizens. The problem is when your citizens are in a war zone in a foreign country you evacuate them, you don't invade that country.

Half of Israel have Russian passports, should we be expecting Russia to bomb and invade Gaza after the next Qassam rocket?

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from Gringinho:

areal,

actually this will be a resounding success for the USA no matter how it ends. They gain to destabilize the region, weaken Russia, frighten the EU and strengthen support for NATO.

Since there is a soon-to-be-held referendum in the Ukraine about NATO membership - this is playing out just perfectly for the USA. It's almost impossible for this not having a positive outcome for the USA.

Too bad the minorities of the region have to pay with their lives for this strategic game. I share some of the russian indignation, no doubt. I don't agree on them attacking further targets in Georgia - but they obviously can not sit entirely idle as well.

What I find so crazy is that all of the Western is calling on a cease-fire, like you can just stop in the middle of an attack and everyone will be cool. That's not going to happen. If you got some leverage, you'll be happy to go to the table. I bet that happens once Russia decides it's taken enough ground.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from bwolinsky:

Well I'm glad to see someone pointed out the the Georgian military actually instigated the conflict.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqXEOFTNv_bk&refer=home

The way I read this and in my blog was that Georgian military attacked South Ossetia. Since most of South Ossetia's citizens carry Russian passports, it appears Russia was, in essence, "defending" its citizens.

I believe it's the case that Russia has some probable cause to be attacking. I don't agree with taking over the country, but it appears it was a genocidal attack that prompted Russian military action.

This gets to what I'm talking about, in parentheses:

Georgia and Russia began fighting when Russia moved in troops and bombed targets (after Georgian forces began an offensive into South Ossetia, which split away from Georgia in an early 1990s war).

Russia has said its actions are (justified by what it calls a Georgian-waged ``genocide'' in South Ossetia). Russia says (most of those killed in the conflict are civilians who died through Georgian military action).

I think it is probably true, but I've yet to come up with a motive for the Georgian military attack.

I'm definitely for free markets, capitalism and democracy, but I don't believe that's what's going on here. For some reason, it looks as though Georgia instigated these attacks.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that before initiating military action, Russia went to the Security Council and it's proposed resolution was blocked by the US and Britian. It was really left with no other recourse.

I must admit that I'm a bit baffled by Georgia's motivation. It was obvious that Russia would take a very strong position. Did Washington's dog get off it's leash or is there something else going on ?

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from a_person:

Well, Russia was deliberately giving out their passports to have this excuse (lame as it is) to "defend" their citizens. The problem is when your citizens are in a war zone in a foreign country you evacuate them, you don't invade that country.

Half of Israel have Russian passports, should we be expecting Russia to bomb and invade Gaza after the next Qassam rocket?

I don't think you can say it was an excuse. I doubt 18 years ago that they decided in some grand conspiracy, "Sure! We'll give them passports, and when they get attacked will take over their country and the aggressor (who we don't like, either)." You'll have to excuse my sarcasm.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from dcraig:

Additionally, it should be pointed out that before initiating military action, Russia went to the Security Council and it's proposed resolution was blocked by the US and Britian. It was really left with no other recourse.

I must admit that I'm a bit baffled by Georgia's motivation. It was obvious that Russia would take a very strong position. Did Washington's dog get off it's leash or is there something else going on ?

I'm not one for conspiracies, but I think a lot of people are going to understand what I've said.

I'm just like them, too, though. I don't have a reason. Maybe Georgia's leader just went crazy.

 

[a_person]

Quote from bwolinsky:

I don't think you can say it was an excuse. I doubt 18 years ago that they decided in some grand conspiracy, "Sure! We'll give them passports, and when they get attacked will take over their country and the aggressor (who we don't like, either)." You'll have to excuse my sarcasm.

yet that's exactly what happened. But don't take my word for it, here is what the BBC has to say on this matter:

Russia has issued most South Ossetians with Russian passports, potentially justifying direct intervention (on the grounds of protecting "its own" citizens).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7549662.stm

At any rate it's their right to give away their passports to anyone they want whether they do or don't have a malicious intent. It's still not an excuse to invade a sovereign country.

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from bwolinsky:

What I find so crazy is that all of the Western is calling on a cease-fire, like you can just stop in the middle of an attack and everyone will be cool. That's not going to happen. If you got some leverage, you'll be happy to go to the table. I bet that happens once Russia decides it's taken enough ground.

Exactly.

Russia would now be smart in overdoing their actions as much as possible. This would intimidate NATO further, and not to speak of the EU, but it could stem some of the tide in the Ukraine whose population shortly will be voting on NATO membership.

After crushing Georgia, and showing the US that they will not tolerate this - then they can go back to protecting the regions with the minorities, and demand that Georgia shall not increase their military capabilities again, and refrain from aggression towards the minorities - or they could incorporate the two regions into Russia - which would obviously be the most secure for the minorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Now, another consequence is that the missile-shield will now be easier to accept for the EU and europeans at large since they are now more frightened of Russia - all instigated by the attacks in the region of Georgia ...


It's truly a terrible outcome for Europe, while the US gains a lot ...

a_person,
of course the russian passports to south-ossetians was a play to ensure their influence in the region as well as strengthen the ties to the minority population - playing up to higher stakes for Georgia and the US interests in the conflict. The russians also repeatedly increased their rhetoric against Georgia over the last months demanding a stop to all aggression towards the minority populations. There were café bombings in Abkhazia for instance that killed russian soldiers, UN personell and local officials.

It's all pretty dirty - but for Russia it seems to be mostly security politics which offer the strategic importance of the small region. For the other players, it seems a lot more is at stake and to gain. Overall it seems designed to weaken Russia and strengthen NATO in one fell swoop.

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from dcraig:

Additionally, it should be pointed out that before initiating military action, Russia went to the Security Council and it's proposed resolution was blocked by the US and Britian. It was really left with no other recourse.

I must admit that I'm a bit baffled by Georgia's motivation. It was obvious that Russia would take a very strong position. Did Washington's dog get off it's leash or is there something else going on ?

The georgian leadership gains a united opposition against russian aggression. The support for the current leadership in Georgia was dwindling somewhat, and the president won the election by saying he would subdue the break-away regions.

Longer term, Georgia will sacrifice some civilian casualties but will gain lots of sympathy and closer (necessary, obviously too) ties to the west. This is needed (maybe) to ensure their independence for the future - since who knows how Russia finally will end up with it's strengthening internal leadership. Economically, Georgia has little to offer, though. Georgia's actions and Russia's obvious reaction might also influence the decision on neighbouring Ukraine's population to vote for NATO membership - further weakening Russia.

Russia would be mildly mad to do the same to the Ukraine that they are doing to Georgia right now ... The Ukraine has some serious military arsenal including nuclear capabilities. I do hope the Ukraine population gets some insight in who are gaining and how to make up their minds - although I do see the need for the Ukraine to strengthen ties to the west to get their needed level of security.

Hopefully, the ukrainian population and leadership will not be so easily played as their georgian counterparts in any security politics for their continued secure sense of independence, but world politics is a dirty game.

It will also be interesting to see how the US plays this further in the rhetoric against Russia - and how this will influence the question about a US missile-shield in Europe.

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from Gringinho:

All this will obviously do wonders for Russia-Israeli relations (irony) ...

Other than destabilizing the region and poking at Europe - what can possibly Israel gain by helping Georgia attack the civilians in the ethnic minority regions?

Anyone have some inkling on what is going on there? Is it simply helping the US get stronger helps Israel in the end?

I read the President of Georgia is a Jew.

 

[Gringinho]

I remember another poster on ET making me aware of organized posters and how they divert discussions into ridicule and personal attacks, as well as trying to change perceptions of participants of various "sensitive topics".

Here is a small reminder of how various groups disperse their tactics on the Internet. I specifically remember the other poster mentioning the CAMERA organization.

http://www.honestreporting.com/arti...ed_-_Anti-Israeli_Subversion_on_Wikipedia.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America (CAMERA)

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1485

Ridicule and sabotaging of serious topics is just one of their tactics. Better discussion-forum functionality and trust-based systems is coming to prevent these tactics, and hopefully ET will migrate some time in the future.

I am laughing here as the exact same statement that "omegapoint" is making in the post above can be seen on other discussion forums as well ... hehe, that just makes it so bloody obvious.