View Full Version : Russia and Georgia...
...are now in open armed conflict over the disposition of South Ossetia.
Given the structure of extant alliances, should the US send a military contingent, or allow Russia to have it's way with Georgia?
devilsadvocate
08-10-2008, 03:32 PM
I'm torn on just what we should do. If anything it should only be as part of a neutral international peacekeeping force. Do we have the resources anyway? I would certainly steer clear of in the shadows type interference.
If US gets involved then Russia will seek alliance as well which most probably will extend to massive conflict. i say let Georgia and Russia have their own way and let them figure it out if we want to dodge another world war cuz if it happens and a new world war starts it will be more damaging then it previous version, and i doubt world recover from it, atleast not as fast as before.
funny this all started exactly the day of Olympics launch.
Well, then.
How should we view these developments?
Apparently Georgia has declared a unilateral ceasefire - Russia says they don't care, they'll keep fighting.
Doesn't sound quite right to me.
The UN is in emergency session.
i doubt that Russia cares much about the Ossetia, since US Supporter saakashvili was brought to power russia wanted to do something to Georgia, he got quite good reason to do so.
poor saakashvili went on declaring war simply because he thought west/US will back him up, well he didnt knew US is master in these things, he forgot when US ambassador in IRAQ told Saddam that US will not step into Arab/Arab conflict which US soon did after iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Smith
08-12-2008, 10:56 PM
The sad fact is the only thing we can hope for is that the UN does something about this. The Russian army is 395,000 strong and will crush anything in its path. The US won't take any action because risking their relationship with Russia after all those years could only be in retaliation to something Russia does.
i doubt that Russia cares much about the Ossetia...
Well, obviously they care about something, carrying their campaign three days beyond the Georgian cease-fire.
They state that Saakashvili "must go".
Would that the US spoke so plainly, eh? :dry:
The sad fact is the only thing we can hope for is that the UN does something about this. The Russian army is 395,000 strong and will crush anything in its path.
The UN?
Do something?
Like...what, precisely?
Maybe they could issue 395,000 crush-proof resolutions. :whistling
Smith
08-13-2008, 04:15 PM
Well, obviously they care about something, carrying their campaign three days beyond the Georgian cease-fire.
They state that Saakashvili "must go".
Would that the US spoke so plainly, eh? :dry:
The sad fact is the only thing we can hope for is that the UN does something about this. The Russian army is 395,000 strong and will crush anything in its path.
The UN?
Do something?
Like...what, precisely?
Maybe they could issue 395,000 crush-proof resolutions. :whistling
Thats exactly my point. What can we do? Nothing
well in this world strong says anything and others are either with it or keep their mouth shut and hide in dark, same as when US decides over night to Invade a country(IRAQ), UN is just a puppet in hand of Vito holders and is useful in face of weak countries, just a tools for big five to enforce their policies on others, one would be making a big mistake to count on UN, if you cant protect your ass that Kung-fu guy cant do it for you.
any how i kinda liked to finally see US being helpless in enforcing some1 to go its way.
clocker
08-17-2008, 02:30 PM
...are now in open armed conflict over the disposition of South Ossetia.
Given the structure of extant alliances, should the US send a military contingent, or allow Russia to have it's way with Georgia?
From a purely practical viewpoint, exactly where is this "military contingent" going to come from?
Not only is the US military strained to the breaking point man-power wise but for the past several years has tried to refashion itself to operate in a guerrilla/terrorist warfare scenario and isn't currently prepared to fight a conventional type battle.
I'm sure the Russians are perfectly aware of this and even counted on it in their preparations...
...are now in open armed conflict over the disposition of South Ossetia.
Given the structure of extant alliances, should the US send a military contingent, or allow Russia to have it's way with Georgia?
From a purely practical viewpoint, exactly where is this "military contingent" going to come from?
Not only is the US military strained to the breaking point man-power wise but for the past several years has tried to refashion itself to operate in a guerrilla/terrorist warfare scenario and isn't currently prepared to fight a conventional type battle.
I'm sure the Russians are perfectly aware of this and even counted on it in their preparations...
Indeed they did; have you seen what they're using to beat up on the Georgians?
Friggin' antiques.
The manpower problem is the unfortunate residue of Rumsfeld's miscalculation vis a vis my previous (by that I mean in a long ago, faraway, probably-not-there-anymore thread) note of burgeoning Russia, objecting to NATO's intrusion into Turkey.
Rummy had in mind nice, tidy fighting units, but he never seemed to notice a need for more than a very few of them - he apparently believed the Soviet "inclination" had been forever subliminated.
Duh.
I think NATO ought to throw in the towel and lead the UN out of their corrupt and darkened world into the daylight of AlGore's Global Warmth, wherein is secreted (and I do mean secreted) milk and honey for all. :dry:
bigboab
08-17-2008, 08:21 PM
Can I take it if the Georgian President's name was Hudson Austin the invasion would have been OK?:whistling
mossy123
08-17-2008, 08:36 PM
The BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse in Gori, the largest town close to the boundary with South Ossetia, says there is a much-reduced Russian military presence there and that lorries can be seen delivering humanitarian aid.
Can I take it if the Georgian President's name was Hudson Austin the invasion would have been OK?:whistling
Not Maurice Bishop, then? :D
bigboab
08-18-2008, 06:48 AM
Can I take it if the Georgian President's name was Hudson Austin the invasion would have been OK?:whistling
Not Maurice Bishop, then? :D
:P I had his name down originally. I found another article that disputed who was actually in charge when the invasion took place. I found the whole thing rather confusing with different reports.
I think the CIA saw my original post and removed all internet articles that told the truth.:lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Austin
thewizeard
08-18-2008, 06:30 PM
The US is not the world's policeman. So no and no.
even if america weren't in 2 wars already, how do you honestly think war with russia (on its doorstep no less) would go?
imo a military solution was never possible, so to answer j2's original question: no the US shouldn't send a 'contingent'
even if america weren't in 2 wars already, how do you honestly think war with russia (on its doorstep no less) would go?
imo a military solution was never possible, so to answer j2's original question: no the US shouldn't send a 'contingent'
At the moment, I agree.
What do you think of Russia's actions and rhetoric vis a vis their excursion into Georgia?
Not Maurice Bishop, then? :D
:P I had his name down originally. I found another article that disputed who was actually in charge when the invasion took place. I found the whole thing rather confusing with different reports.
I think the CIA saw my original post and removed all internet articles that told the truth.:lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Austin
I just read Reagan's autobiography, wherein Austin was (I think) referred to as the leader of the junta, or what-have-you, which was getting pissy with Maggie.
I'm quite sure the CIA (and Reagan, ftm) knew who was running the show; purposely failing to identify him by name in recounting the story is a sort of run-of-the-mill tactic.
I also recently read The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister and recall the story getting the same treatment, so.
bigboab
08-19-2008, 09:57 PM
:P I had his name down originally. I found another article that disputed who was actually in charge when the invasion took place. I found the whole thing rather confusing with different reports.
I think the CIA saw my original post and removed all internet articles that told the truth.:lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Austin
I just read Reagan's autobiography, wherein Austin was (I think) referred to as the leader of the junta, or what-have-you, which was getting pissy with Maggie.
I'm quite sure the CIA (and Reagan, ftm) knew who was running the show; purposely failing to identify him by name in recounting the story is a sort of run-of-the-mill tactic.
I also recently read The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister and recall the story getting the same treatment, so.
They should read our posts to get the truth.:lol:
I just read Reagan's autobiography, wherein Austin was (I think) referred to as the leader of the junta, or what-have-you, which was getting pissy with Maggie.
I'm quite sure the CIA (and Reagan, ftm) knew who was running the show; purposely failing to identify him by name in recounting the story is a sort of run-of-the-mill tactic.
I also recently read The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister and recall the story getting the same treatment, so.
They should read our posts to get the truth.:lol:
Ah, sometimes the truth falls right in our bloody laps and we miss it anyway.
I'd say I'm convinced the right people know who's who, and what's what.
I guess that's why I still love books so much; they're the only things capable of adding coherently to history, however recent.
That's the whole problem with the web; however vital it is, it's not sufficiently self-vetting. :dabs:
Russia's response to Georgia's actions was way in excess of what could be expected from locally garrisoned troops. Consequently the Russian troop levels in the area must have been increased. The reason could be that Russia were intending some sort of action in any case and were overtaken by events or they knew what Georgia was planning, either by being tipped off or by watching Georgian troop movements.
It doesn't really matter which though. The real question is whether the West spotted the Russian and Georgian troop movements.
If those troop movements were spotted, then clearly nothing was done about them. That would suggest that perhaps NATO isn't quite ready to accept Georgia as a member and was prepared to let things unfold. Russia can work this out just as easily as I have which is why it is in no hurry to pull its troops out of Georgia.
On the other hand, there's the possibility that those troop movements weren't spotted. If that's the case then the claims about the capability to see such things have been dangerously exaggerated. Again, Russia can work this out and therefore knows that it can move its troops around Georgia without having to explain what it is doing.
The bottom like is that Russia may not know if the West spotted its troop movements, but it knows damn well that we aren't going to do anything about them.
Russia's response to Georgia's actions was way in excess of what could be expected from locally garrisoned troops. Consequently the Russian troop levels in the area must have been increased. The reason could be that Russia were intending some sort of action in any case and were overtaken by events or they knew what Georgia was planning, either by being tipped off or by watching Georgian troop movements.
It doesn't really matter which though. The real question is whether the West spotted the Russian and Georgian troop movements.
If those troop movements were spotted, then clearly nothing was done about them. That would suggest that perhaps NATO isn't quite ready to accept Georgia as a member and was prepared to let things unfold. Russia can work this out just as easily as I have which is why it is in no hurry to pull its troops out of Georgia.
On the other hand, there's the possibility that those troop movements weren't spotted. If that's the case then the claims about the capability to see such things have been dangerously exaggerated. Again, Russia can work this out and therefore knows that it can move its troops around Georgia without having to explain what it is doing.
The bottom like is that Russia may not know if the West spotted its troop movements, but it knows damn well that we aren't going to do anything about them.
Well and succinctly divined.
They don't care because they don't have to.
They're Soviets, after all. ;)
Heard a rumor; Putin's been made a gift of the very same shoe(s) Khrushchev used to pummel the podium at the UN. :dabs:
bigboab
08-22-2008, 07:31 AM
Heard a rumor; Putin's been made a gift of the very same shoe(s) Khrushchev used to pummel the podium at the UN. :dabs:
A case of the bootshoe is on the other foot, or is it?
This Georgian thing is just more proof that the super powers can just do what they want.
We can be thankful that Bush is still in charge. He is still trying to decipher the message he got from his Chief of Staff. 'We want putin put in his place'.:blink:
Heard a rumor; Putin's been made a gift of the very same shoe(s) Khrushchev used to pummel the podium at the UN. :dabs:
A case of the bootshoe is on the other foot, or is it?
This Georgian thing is just more proof that the super powers can just do what they want.
We can be thankful that Bush is still in charge. He is still trying to decipher the message he got from his Chief of Staff. 'We want putin put in his place'.:blink:
Uber-harsh, Bob.
Are you in French Ambassador-to-the-UN mode. :whistling
Long article i know, but i thought it was quite well reasoned.
One extremely interested observer in the war between Russia and Georgia hasn't vocally taken sides in the conflict. Given the war's timing, you might call this country's interest – or lack thereof – in the conflict "sporting". But in reality, Georgia versus Russia provides a convenient simulation for this great power's options of dealing with the western backed irritant on its own perimeter.
Beyond the combatants and other former Soviet Republics, no nation is more interested in the Russia-Georgia conflict's global fallout than China. China's relationship with Taiwan resembles Russia's ties to Georgia. In both situations, the big state feels a sense of grievance over the very existence of its puny neighbour and resents outsiders that act as its self-appointed protectors.
The Caucuses conflict offers China a realistic model for what it can expect if it the Taiwan situation turns violent. The parallels aren't perfect, but there's a close enough fit for China to pay very close attention, particularly to the international consequences of Russia's humiliation of Georgia. With China watching, the US and it allies need to get their response to Russia absolutely right.
The crisis may have its roots in a failure to communicate. Georgia and its president Mikheil Saakashvili may have grossly overestimated the west's commitment to defending its borders and interests. Saakashvili may have equated the west's promise of Nato membership with mutual defence benefits. Or, at least, Saakashvili may have believed that Russia believed the west would fight for Georgia. Although the US insists Georgia is still a candidate for Nato, it's now comedic or criminal to imagine putting a Georgian finger on the trigger to set American, British, French, German and other European troops firing on Russian forces.
Shift the focus to Taiwan, an island that China considers a renegade province, and the proposition seems equally ludicrous, while the scope for miscalculation appears similarly broad. America has been purposely vague about what it would do in the event of a mainland military threat to Taiwan and its 23 million people. A dozen years ago, China conducted missile tests in the Taiwan Strait ahead of Taiwan's first presidential election. As unbelievable as that seems, it's even more incredible to recall that the US sent an aircraft carrier group warning China to back off.
Today Taiwan is a de facto separate country, while China claims it's still part of the nation. Keeping the peace relies on both governments preserving the status quo: China won't attempt reunification by force, and Taiwan won't move toward official independence. Within those rules, everyone trades and invests together peacefully. But rules are made to be broken, and even if nobody explicitly crosses the line, ticklish situations can arise. For example, China could decide that Taiwan's ambition to join the World Trade Organisation constitutes a move toward independence.
When Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov urged the US to choose between "support for a virtual project" in Georgia and its "real partnership" with Russia on key issues such as nuclear negotiations with Iran and North Korea, he could have been China's foreign minister Yang Jiechi speaking about the US, China and Taiwan. The unprecedented turnout of world leaders for the Olympics in Beijing indicates that the global establishment desperately wants "real partnership" with China. It's hard to imagine that Taiwan would be allowed to interfere.
Deepened economic ties between the US, EU and China over the past decade mean all sides have more to lose in a conflict. While moving toward a consumer economy, China still remains heavily dependent on exports to developed countries. Developed economies depend on China for cheap goods to meet consumer demand while controlling inflation and maximising corporate profits. With bricks and mortar investment in the mainland, western companies would risk expropriation in the event of a crisis. China also holds trillions of dollars in US Treasury securities, which it could dump on the market to depress US bond prices and raise Uncle Sam's financing costs. A fire sale of Treasury notes would cost China dearly, so the holding acts as a sort of financial mutual suicide pact neither side wants to test.
Russia's huge energy reserves may give it even greater economic leverage than China, especially over Europe. Therefore Russia may get off a little easier than China would for its military excesses. If the US and EU show spine despite this leverage, then China can expect to pay a bigger price.
China will particularly be watching threats to punish Russia in international organisations and institutions, where China participates more deeply than Russia. While Russia hopes to join the WTO, China entered it in 2001, boosting foreign investment exponentially and making economic reform seem irreversible. Sanctions would be embarrassing, but also potentially harmful to investment and trade.
"If Russia does not step back from its aggressive posture and actions in Georgia, the US-Russian relationship could be adversely affected for years to come," US defence secretary Robert Gates warned last Thursday. That's tough talk, but so far, there's only been talk and empty ceasefire proposals as Russia has advanced beyond disputed territory into Georgia proper. There's "no prospect" of US military intervention, Gates added emphatically. The Russians are writing the script here. The US and EU are in no position to edit it, and it would be hard for China not to notice.
Russia benefits because the US is involved in two wars already and has neither the troops nor the stomach for a third. China may be tempted to act soon, while US commitments and its need for China's help on North Korea and other issues are great. But the US can still muster more than blankets and cots in response to aggression.
Today's signing of a US-Poland agreement on missile defence and mutual defence is a reminder that the US has some weapons to counter Russian ambitions. For China, it's a reminder that assertiveness on Taiwan will trigger reactions from its neighbours. The two biggest neighbours, US allies Japan and South Korea, have long histories of hostility toward China. Additionally, other countries on its flanks, including Southeast Asia could be spooked by military action in Taiwan. Imagine Vietnam reopening the naval base at Cam Rahn Bay to its old enemy the US in response to China's belligerence.
The most hopeful sign of avoiding a replay of the Georgian war between China and Taiwan is warming cross-strait relations, particularly since Ma Ying-jeou took office as Taiwan's president in May. The better the two sides get along, the less likely outsiders can tempt either side to throw a spanner into the works. The outcome in Georgia will illustrate the cost of miscalculation.
If Russia humiliates Georgia at little cost, it could inspire China to press Taiwan when the opportunity beckons. Taiwan's allies, like Georgia's, are eager to remain friends with the big player neighbour and not eager for a fight. If the current sunshine over the Taiwan Strait gives way to clouds, that could drive the little player to do something desperate, as Georgia did, before it loses whatever leverage it has, and China to take advantage of the opening.
To avoid a replay, the US need to show Taiwan and China that it wants to be a dependable friend to each, but that friendship depends on following the rules. That means Russia and Georgia both have to pay a price for their misadventure in the Caucuses. Otherwise, Taiwan will pay a far bigger one.
Yes, and there is also this:
Russia's - and to a very similar extent, China's - regime (let us call them that, for that is what they are) does not exactly suffer by comparison to any of the various versions of Islam as practiced in the mid-east.
The hot-spot of Georgia is ultimately a bit less hot for the fact.
Sorry Ian, but I just couldn't be bothered reading all the excessive verbage considering that the Russia/Georgia and China/Taiwan models are completely different.
Seems like a discussion piece for the sake of talking, rather than an informed opinion.
Shame you didn't quote them, Guardian perhaps?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.