Discussion in 'Military History' started by Soviet man, Aug 15, 2008.
Abkhazia, South Ossetia Begin Joint Calls For Independence
Interesting piece from the latest Private Eye;
While foreign secretary David Miliband has been busy calling for a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia, Britain has also been busy- selling more weapons to both countries.
According to Foreign Office licences, 2007 was a record year for arms exports to both Georgia and Russia. The UK sold Georgia £5.4m of military exports, including very useful sounding "military firing sets". This was an eightfold increase since 2005, when British military exports to Georgia stood at only £250,000. Meanwhile the Georgian army underwent a $63 American "train and equip" programme, designed to build up Georgia's military so it could fight in Iraq and be ready to join NATO - and, as it turns out, prepare an assault on South Ossetia.
In response, Putin's forces appear to have broken the Georgian army, presumably rendering the arms exports useless. Fortunately Britain has been even-handed in its approach: although Russia needs little help running one of the world's biggest armies, the Foreign Office is keen to do its bit by granting licences. In 2007 Russia got £55m of exports, including armoured personnel carriers and parts for combat aircraft. These sales have risen dramatically: in 2004 Britain sold Russia a mere £5m of military kit. The eight-to-tenfold increase of British arms sales to both sides of the Caucuses seems to have precisely presaged the war.
August 22nd: Russia claims to have finished it's removal from Georgia: it has "Just" left a few units in:
- Abkazia, including areas that had never been under independentist control
-South Ossetia, including the Georgian ethnic areas
-a buffer zone outside South Ossetia along the Georgian ossetian border.
-checkpoints on the highway from Tbilissi to the Harbour of Poti.
Georgians cannot fart without Russian consent, but Russia claims they will stay for a long time and are now investigating the possibility of granting South Ossetia and Abkazia independence.
IM kinda tired of this topic I posted earlier about some french GIs KILLED in afghanistan and not one person read it... PISES ME OFF....
Hi Mortman. I'm glad you posted that post. I had noticed this but I wanted to see who was going to answer BEFORE I reacted. It's a terrible tragedy, I'll go to the thread later and react. Don't blame other rogues, maybe they have not seen it. I have posted a tribute to Patton's army that took place last week in Orleans and got no reactions either. I guess people would have reacted, but they just did not see it, so I'm not offended.
As to this thread I may close it , but another one would pop up soon, so I guess it will die soon when other members get tired of it too.
I am surprised at the last paragraph on the post above. This thread has been very useful insofar as some members have striven to publish the most recent and better sourced views on what may be happening in the conflict of the topic. Nothing offensive has been posted, no controversy has raised. So why close the thread?
As for Mortarman perhaps if he had opened another topic dedicated to the event he would have gotten better attention, it's no one else's fault if his off-topic presentation wasn't not as effective as he would like it to have been.
How to contain Russia
Aug 21st 2008
From The Economist print edition
There is no quick fix, but an over-confident Russia is weaker than it looks
FROM Brussels this week NATO brandished a fist at Russia, warning it that there could be no “business as usual” so long as Russian forces remained in Georgia. The Russians, oddly, did not quail. If anything, President Dmitry Medvedev and his mentor and prime minister, Vladimir Putin, seem to be enjoying the world’s impotent indignation in the face of their new-found machismo. And why not? They know that the West will not fight for the territorial integrity of Georgia, a trisected statelet of only 4m people in the faraway Caucasus. They also know that they will face no serious economic punishment. As a collective, NATO may huff and puff, but the cold fact is that many of its big members need a lot of business with Russia to continue. Germany and others in Europe need to keep buying Russia’s oil and gas. America needs Russia, too, in order to secure vital foreign-policy objectives of its own, such as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Does this mean that Russia will get away with its smash-and-grab operation? In one sense it does. Russia’s intentions were unclear this week; it drove some tanks here and there for the benefit of the cameras (see article). But if it is determined to keep its forces in Georgia proper despite the ceasefire agreement brokered by France, Germany and America, it is hard to see what any outsider can do about it. Georgia’s dispute with Russia would then once again become a “frozen” conflict, except with different de facto borders.
The wider aims with which Russia is presumed to have entered Georgia have not yet been achieved, however. They include toppling its pro-American president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and using intimidation to stop Georgia and Ukraine from following the Poles, Czechs, Balts and other former dominions of the Soviet Union into the orbit of the West and thence into NATO. If it pursues sound policies, the West still stands a fair chance, despite its divisions, of thwarting these aims.
Sound policy starts with a sense of proportion. Contrary to some excitable first reactions, Russia’s ability to crush the minuscule Georgian army does not make it a superpower, and its aggression in the Caucasus need not mark the start of a new cold war. To put things in perspective, America’s GDP is ten times bigger than Russia’s and it spends at least seven times more on defence. Russia’s economy would fall off a cliff if energy prices slumped and its population, racked by ill-health and inequality, is shrinking by up to 800,000 a year. Russia can make mischief, but it cannot project military and ideological power all around the world, as the Soviet Union did during the cold war. Although it scares some neighbours (but not the Chinese), its threats make them all the more determined to stay on guard. It is surely no coincidence that after months of prevarication the Poles agreed immediately after Russia invaded Georgia to let America base missile defences (ostensibly against a future threat from Iran) on Polish territory.
To say that Russia’s strength is exaggerated is not to say that it should be allowed to escape its Georgian adventure unpunished. A weak power can be more reckless than a strong one. Russia needs to learn that in spite of their own enervating foreign wars and economic worries the members of the Western alliance can still unite in front of a challenge. But because Russia is fundamentally less strong than it likes to pretend, the West’s response can afford to be patient as well as principled.
One principle the West must insist on is the legitimacy of Georgia’s government. However foolish Mr Saakashvili was to give Russia a pretext for invasion, he should stay in office until Georgians themselves throw him out. Another principle is the right of any country, even if it is a former Soviet vassal in what Russia still counts as its own sphere of influence, to ask to join NATO. Naturally, the alliance should not admit members who are unready, or for whom it is not in the end willing to fight. On this test, Georgia might never get in. But to give Russia a veto would be to mock the sovereignty of small countries.
As to patience, suspending business as usual should not be pushed to the point that drives Russia into the sort of sulk that will make its behaviour worse. Finding the line between disapproval, pressure and continued engagement will be hard. Too much concern for the hurt feelings of a fallen empire could be misread as weakness and so encourage further bullying. But there is vital work to be done—on nuclear proliferation and arms reduction, for example—in which the need for co-operation with Russia simply outweighs the need to punish it.
So Russia will keep its tanks in Georgia if it wants to. But the longer it does so, the less Europe will want to rely on Russia for its energy, the longer it will wait to join the World Trade Organisation, the more hostile the next American president will be and the more its nervous neighbours will be tempted to turn to the West for safety. The job now is to explain to Russia that this may not have been such a victory for machismo, after all.
Za do you expect Russia to try to take back Ukraine?
>>Haha man! I said 90 % are russian's citizens! ANd 98 % of population of Ossetia want independecne! lol.<<
Its very impressive that Russia could mobilize over 1200 AVF's within hours of the conflict starting the obviously could teach the west a great deal about logistics that would have taken NATO weeks. Given that they say they had no warning I have to take my hat off to them for the promptness of their response.
Nah only part of it .
Yeah all of it.
You don't think Russia could have possibly been preparing for this for a while? Just part of the Ukraine, huh?
Now this is interesting....
BBC NEWS | Europe | Russia recognises Georgian rebels
Remember that if you give them independence you should leave their countries ( at least Ossetian territory ),right?!
ooohh, excellent one Kai!
Hi Vet, I think Russia's intervention was a bit too swift to be unprepared. I wouldn't be surprised to learn later that their secret services knew about Georgia going to make a move. I must admit that Russia's quick reaction was impressive, but their quick move into Abkasia as well (whereas the trouble was in South Ossetia) makes me wonder if the troops were already near the border before Georgia's attack. That will possibly remain a mystery.
If the Russians don´t leave soon enough my guess is they´ll be sorry they gave guns to the local separatists....
>>Were the russian really taken by surprise or was the border already heavily manned with troops ?<<
I dont think it is possible the Russians could have responded in hours unless they were baiting the Georgians with the intention of invasion. The Georgians were idiots and played right into it. Supposedly the russians called up reservists for the airforce a week before though I havent seen any confirmations of that.
The Russians were not impressive they had a mixture of forces old and new the Georgians were completely outgunned and yet there was a lot of reservists amongst the Russian forces.
I think some of the units shown on media footage were Chechen units though I could be mistaken they certainly had a lot of oldT62's and BMP 1's which are not issued to Russian Grade A units . Some of the tanks were old with the classic dome turrets and 115mm smoth bore guns as were the BMP's with the old style 73 mm guns rather than the cannon mounted on BMP 2-3.
There were certainly plenty of front line T80's and BMP 2 and 3's as well and the older kit suddenly disapeared once the fighting started it suggests that they had been preparing. They may have been Osetian though I dont know if the Russians gave their proxies kit that heavy and the crews were wearing soviet style uniforms so it seems doubtful. This suggests the Russians needed to use reserve armour for the Georgian operation hardly suggesting strength in depth.
No army on earth coulod have counter attacked in the time the Russians did certainly the mixture of modern and dated kit seen on the News footage suggests a force incapable of this type of operation even against a country the size of Georgia without extensive warning and preperation.
>>The_Historian;310909]This morning a Russian general apparently hinted at Poland now being a legimate nuclear target. That's worrying, but not as depressing as two other developments:
-The complete lack of any response from CND, who don't usually miss a chance to attack Britain and America over nuclear weapons.
-The fact that the BBC and newspaper forums here are full of people blaming Britain and America for a Russian General's statement!
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Russian anger at US missile deal
Russia threatens nuclear strike on Poland as Cameron demands withdrawal from Georgia | Mail Online<<
Dont pay this too much heed the BBC web sites they tend to be rather biased with only posts the BBC apporoved views getting on . They tend to be somewhat left leaning since they only recruit from papers like the Gaurdian indeed the only people I know who were employed by the BBC were both journalists from the Labour parties internal news paper so its not a miracle if the debates on their websites have a general left-liberal stance.
Yeah, rebel's territories now independence, but we will have there bases to protect them from Georgia. President of South Ossetia Kakoyty offered
that. He want to keep russian''s bases in South Ossetia. I don't know, but perhaps we will have bases and in Abhazia, too.
And as for relationships with West: president Medvedev said that he don't want to keep it bad. But if West want to keep it in bad relationships, Medvedev said that "we live without West, and we can live without West again."