Georgia moves against separatists

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

2: No. Georgia moved into SO first. For a pre-emptive strike, NATO Command has to be in agreement. The defence treaty is only in effect for defence purpose. A country has to be attacked first in order to be eligable for NATO Aid.

Legaly speaking, Georgia is not an agressor but had been attacked: S.O is part of its territory, she has the right to do whatever military operation she wants there. On the contrary, Russia is attacking a foreign country. Had Georgia been in NATO, the defense treaty would have been in effect, and no doubt russians wouldn't have move a toe.

[+Julhelm 266]

Yeah, ( It's strange you're defending Russia, whereas they are just involving themselves into a separatist conflict for a region that had been part of Georgia for long. It remind me of something... some mountain area called Tibet): Ukraine can do that, and Russia won't be able to get back its loaned port without military action. And Ukraine is by far more able to defend herself. And this time Nato would not stand idle. I do think it's quite a clever move for Kiev.

 

And the little is not always defeated. You may remember your country got licked in a few days by Vietnam in 1979, don't you?

Did you even try toread the info on Tibet that I posted? I see you bring up Chechnya as well in your russophobic scaremongering, and frankly it bothers me that an american would use the example of Russia slamming down on those slave-trading, women-abusing islamist fundies as a reason as to why Russia is a big evil empire. Especially since Chechnya was part of Russia.

 

So it's ok when the US slams down on the Taliban which it helped create, but it's bad when Russia or China does the same with religious theocracies litterally on their soil? That's some hypocritical double standard right there.

 

*Edit: Flames removed.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Julhelm

[MigBuster 2,861]

Legaly speaking, Georgia is not an agressor but had been attacked: S.O is part of its territory, she has the right to do whatever military operation she wants there. On the contrary, Russia is attacking a foreign country. Had Georgia been in NATO, the defense treaty would have been in effect, and no doubt russians wouldn't have move a toe.

 

Sorry I dont agree - Georgia have NO right to send heavy artillery into populated areas like that even if it wasnt disputed territory - they knew damn well they would kill their own civilians and Russian soldiers provoking a Russian response - and what they expect NATO to back them up on this !!!!!!.

 

We seem to be accusing the Russians of wanting a change of administration - trust me they are right on this at least - there is NO WAY the current admin is fit to be part of NATO.

 

 

And prey the only thing NATO launches at Russia - is harsh words (which it will be)

[+Julhelm 266]

The thing is, it isn't their own civilians - the S.O population are russians who hold russian passports, and thus the georgians launched an unprovoked attack on russian citizens in an independent state. One has to wonder what they sought to achieve with such an idiotic gesture.

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Especially since Chechnya was part of Russia.

Just like S.O is part of Georgia, gentleman. Just give a look at internationaly recognized borders.

Justifications are right when it's Russia/Red China; Wrong when Georgia?

Dishonesty is sure a marvellous thing.

[MAKO69 186]

The Russians are the ones dropping Bombs right (on "thier" people), both sides are in the wrong the Georgian Army shoudn't have fired upon the Russian "Peace" Keeping force which probably should not have been there. The Russians were not in their own country they were asked to leave. Georgians saw them as an invading force. The Georgains have withdrawn per order of the UN. The Russians are still in Georgian Territory. They should pull out also, and find a more diplomatic soloution.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Updated 10 mins ago

 

"Russia and Georgia have accused each other of launching new attacks, as diplomats press for a ceasefire in the conflict over South Ossetia.

 

Georgia said dozens of Russian bombers attacked targets inside its territory, including around Tbilisi and Gori.

 

Russia said Georgian attacks on the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali killed three of its troops.

 

Georgia's president backed a draft EU ceasefire proposal for a ceasefire, but Moscow reportedly rejected the plan."

 

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7553144.stm

 

so who is lying? - my guess both parties - or who knows maybe??

Edited August 11, 2008 by MigBuster

[MigBuster 2,861]

hmmm Really not sure how much of this I believe tbh - georgia driving back a Russian offensive???

 

Mr Saakashvili said that Russian troops came within three miles of Gori before being driven back a distance of 12 miles by a Georgian counter-attack. But journalists on the scene are deeply skeptical of this account. There is no independent evidence that a large scale battle against a major Russian offensive took place outside Gori.

 

Mr Saakashvili added that "90 per cent" of the casualties suffered by Georgia were civilians. "They are specifically targeting civilian targets. They've been targeting highways in Georgia which are especially crowded at this time of year because of returning holidaymakers," he said.

 

But the main highway bisecting Georgia from East to West and running through Gori remains open. Russia appears to have refrained from severing this key artery, suggesting that its forces are showing some restraint.

 

The Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States of trying to disrupt his country's military operations in Georgia.

 

He said that the Americans had used transport planes to fly Georgian troops into the conflict zone after they were redeployed from Iraq.

 

Mr Putin said: "I regret that some of our partners are not helping us but in fact are trying to impede us.

 

"I am referring to the US transfer, aboard its military transport planes and directly into the conflict zone, of the Georgian military contingent from Iraq."

 

His comments came as troops who had been serving in Iraq began to appear in the town of Gori. One, who named himself only as Badri, told the Telegraph that he and his comrades were ready to fight to the death to defend Georgian sovereignty.

 

"We are here to drink Russian blood," he said.

 

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...completion.html

Edited August 11, 2008 by MigBuster

[+whiteknight06604 931]

US has been airlifting Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia.It would be wise of Russia not to get in the way of US planes.It would be nice if both side just stopped the BS and withdrew to pre-conflit borders and waited for some sort of international ruling on the matter.All thats gonna happen now is revenge for the previous days attaks and it will just go on and on with the civilian population suffering the most.

[JediMaster 451]

Both sides are wrong in multiple ways, simple as that. Both are trying to take advantage of mistakes made by the other side for their own personal gain. I don't really know if EITHER side cares about the civilians in S.O., and Abkhazia shouldn't be involved in this at all, yet somehow is.

 

Whoever fired first was most wrong, but that doesn't mean the other side is free of blame.

[MigMan234 0]

with the russians now advancing through west goergia i doubt George bush is gonna sit and do nothing. this would be a good thing to make a campaign for

[Erwin_Hans 6]

They got what they want.

 

[Mannie 21]

to be honest, and I may be naive, I don't know why the whole thing started, why it is still going on and for sure how its going to end.

 

what did Sakaashvili think? that he could hold out against the Russian bear?

The US got there hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran breathing on the neck of the free world, not to mention the terror that spreads like wild fire around the world.

 

All the US needs now is an all out conflict with the Russians to collapse economically.

 

The fool didn't think twice before making his stupid move.

[eraser_tr 29]

No, neither side cares about the civilians beyond using them as an excuse to keep fighting. If either cared otherwise, they'd put the ceasefire into effect.

 

The problem with most wars is its a necessity that we wind up fighting. If Ukraine blocks Russia from their ports and russia moves against ukraine, I'm afraid there may be just no avoiding a snowballing of external involvement. And with the current state of our military, the only way to handle such a conflict would be to turn the whole country into wartime mode like WW2 to build equipment, and a full blown draft to keep our forces able.

 

If that happens, I'm heading to the airforce (or maybe navy, chances of getting an F-22 are slim while F-15s are dropping like flies, but then I have to fly the superbug)

[Mannie 21]

No, neither side cares about the civilians beyond using them as an excuse to keep fighting. If either cared otherwise, they'd put the ceasefire into effect.

 

The problem with most wars is its a necessity that we wind up fighting. If Ukraine blocks Russia from their ports and russia moves against ukraine, I'm afraid there may be just no avoiding a snowballing of external involvement. And with the current state of our military, the only way to handle such a conflict would be to turn the whole country into wartime mode like WW2 to build equipment, and a full blown draft to keep our forces able.

 

If that happens, I'm heading to the airforce (or maybe navy, chances of getting an F-22 are slim while F-15s are dropping like flies, but then I have to fly the superbug)

 

Hey eraser, you say you come from mars, well let me tell you something.

you sure sound like one.

How many F-22's do you think the US will be able to build in case an all out war breaks?

One Raptor costs about 120 million $ if I am not mistaken.

Its more likely the US will bring back to life what ever was left of the F-14's, F-4's and the rest of the old generation of fighters that went out of service.

 

On ground and sea it will not look any different.

[+NeverEnough 78]

War in the Caucasus

FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE

August 11, 2008

 

"War has started," Vladimir Putin said Friday as Georgian and Russian forces fought over the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia. Since then, the Prime Minister has personally overseen an escalation of hostilities that suggests Russia's true aim is demolishing Georgia's fledgling democracy.

 

Regardless of who fired the first shots late last week -- each side blames the other -- it became clear over the weekend that Russia intended from the start to turn that small battle into a broader assault. As Georgian troops withdrew from South Ossetia yesterday in hopes of negotiating a cease-fire, thousands of Russian soldiers reportedly were unloading from warships in the Black Sea into another separatist Georgian area, Abkhazia, to create a second front. Russian warplanes bombed cities well inside Georgia, including military bases and the civilian airport near the capital Tbilisi. Moscow has long since gone beyond merely pushing back on Georgia.

 

On Saturday Mr. Putin explicitly rejected "a return to the status quo" of just a few days ago, when rebels and Russian "peacekeepers" controlled the breakaway regions. Mr. Putin was meeting with generals near the Russia-Georgia border after flying home from the Beijing Olympics, leaving no doubt who was in charge of a war that the Kremlin has long sought (hint: not President Dmitry Medvedev).

 

Western leaders should have seen this coming. Russia has baited the hot-tempered Georgian leader, Mikheil Saakashvili, with trade and travel embargoes as well as saber-rattling. Georgia has had to tolerate a few thousand Russian troops on its soil. And in April, Russia downed a Georgian drone over Abkhaz -- that is, Georgian -- air space. Russia in recent years has also granted citizenship to the separatists. That looks like premeditation now. President Medvedev pledged Friday to "protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens, no matter where they are located."

 

Despite this aggression, the West has proved unwilling to push back against Moscow in the Caucasus. When the U.S. proposed NATO "membership action plans" for Georgia and Ukraine at an April summit in Bucharest, Germany vetoed the move. Berlin didn't want to anger Moscow, a fact that the Russians surely noticed as they contemplated when, or if, to move against the government of Mr. Saakashvili, whom they have long despised as a reformer outside of the Kremlin's orbit. (Mr. Saakashvili writes about the war on a nearby page.)

 

Europe depends on Russian energy supplies and is loath to stand up to Moscow to help Georgia, which is seen to have made trouble for itself. But this is a crucial moment in the West's relationship with Russia. The rest of the Caucasus, home of other imperfect democracies and critical partners in the Continent's bid for energy security, will take its future cues from how Europe and the U.S. do or don't support Tbilisi.

 

Now it's up to NATO and especially the U.S. to persuade Moscow to stand down. Washington has publicly described the weekend's events as a "disproportionate and dangerous escalation on the Russian side" and warned of a "significant, long-term impact on U.S.-Russian relations."

 

Everyone acknowledges that Russia is back as a world power. But it has no right to use its renewed strength to punish democratic neighbors and prevent them from choosing their own futures. Mr. Putin needs to hear that using Ossetia as a pretext for imperialism will have consequences for Russia's relationship with the West.

[eraser_tr 29]

Uh, thats exactly what I'm saying, I said chances of getting one are slim. Highly unlikely with the numbers being built.

[Mannie 21]

Uh, thats exactly what I'm saying, I said chances of getting one are slim. Highly unlikely with the numbers being built.

 

Oh OK, so in that case we see eye to eye.

[+NeverEnough 78]

Hear it from the man himself.

 

The War in Georgia

Is a War for the West

By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI

August 11, 2008; Page A15

 

Tbilisi, Georgia

 

As I write, Russia is waging war on my country.

 

On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system.

 

 

AP

An apartment building, damaged by a Russian air strike, in the northern Georgian town of Gori, Saturday, Aug. 9.

Why this war? This is the question my people are asking. This war is not of Georgia's making, nor is it Georgia's choice.

 

The Kremlin designed this war. Earlier this year, Russia tried to provoke Georgia by effectively annexing another of our separatist territories, Abkhazia. When we responded with restraint, Moscow brought the fight to South Ossetia.

 

Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.

 

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

 

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

 

When my government was swept into power by a peaceful revolution in 2004, we inherited a dysfunctional state plagued by two unresolved conflicts dating to the early 1990s. I pledged to reunify my country -- not by the force of arms, but by making Georgia a pole of attraction. I wanted the people living in the conflict zones to share in the prosperous, democratic country that Georgia could -- and has -- become.

 

In a similar spirit, we sought friendly relations with Russia, which is and always will be Georgia's neighbor. We sought deep ties built on mutual respect for each other's independence and interests. While we heeded Russia's interests, we also made it clear that our independence and sovereignty were not negotiable. As such, we felt we could freely pursue the sovereign choice of the Georgian nation -- to seek deeper integration into European economic and security institutions.

 

We have worked hard to peacefully bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia back into the Georgian fold, on terms that would fully protect the rights and interests of the residents of these territories. For years, we have offered direct talks with the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so that we could discuss our plan to grant them the broadest possible autonomy within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia.

 

But Russia, which effectively controls the separatists, responded to our efforts with a policy of outright annexation. While we appealed to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with our vision of a common future, Moscow increasingly took control of the separatist regimes. The Kremlin even appointed Russian security officers to arm and administer the self-styled separatist governments.

 

Under any circumstances, Russia's meddling in our domestic affairs would have constituted a gross violation of international norms. But its actions were made more egregious by the fact that Russia, since the 1990s, has been entrusted with the responsibility of peacekeeping and mediating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Rather than serve as honest broker, Russia became a direct party to the conflicts, and now an open aggressor.

 

As Europe expanded its security institutions to the Black Sea, my government appealed to the Western community of nations -- particularly European governments and institutions -- to play a leading role in resolving our separatist conflicts. The key to any resolution was to replace the outdated peacekeeping and negotiating structures created almost two decades ago, and dominated by Russia, with a genuine international effort.

 

But Europe kept its distance and, predictably, Russia escalated its provocations. Our friends in Europe counseled restraint, arguing that diplomacy would take its course. We followed their advice and took it one step further, by constantly proposing new ideas to resolve the conflicts. Just this past spring, we offered the separatist leaders sweeping autonomy, international guarantees and broad representation in our government.

 

Our offers of peace were rejected. Moscow sought war. In April, Russia began treating the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian provinces. Again, our friends in the West asked us to show restraint, and we did. But under the guise of peacekeeping, Russia sent paratroopers and heavy artillery into Abkhazia. Repeated provocations were designed to bring Georgia to the brink of war.

 

When this failed, the Kremlin turned its attention to South Ossetia, ordering its proxies there to escalate attacks on Georgian positions. My government answered with a unilateral cease-fire; the separatists began attacking civilians and Russian tanks pierced the Georgian border. We had no choice but to protect our civilians and restore our constitutional order. Moscow then used this as pretext for a full-scale military invasion of Georgia.

 

Over the past days, Russia has waged an all-out attack on Georgia. Its tanks have been pouring into South Ossetia. Its jets have bombed not only Georgian military bases, but also civilian and economic infrastructure, including demolishing the port of Poti on the Black Sea coast. Its Black Sea fleet is now massing on our shores and an attack is under way in Abkhazia.

 

What is at stake in this war?

 

Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

 

Second, Russia's future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

 

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states -- whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia -- will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.

 

Mr. Saakashvili is president of Georgia.

[+Jug 99]

Hey eraser, you say you come from mars, well let me tell you something.

you sure sound like one.

How many F-22's do you think the US will be able to build in case an all out war breaks?

One Raptor costs about 120 million $ if I am not mistaken.

Its more likely the US will bring back to life what ever was left of the F-14's, F-4's and the rest of the old generation of fighters that went out of service.

 

On ground and sea it will not look any different.

We could stop the fighting immediately if we entered into a long term deal to buy all of the Russian and all of the Georgian aircraft. It would be a little expensive, but we wouldn't have to move them far to attack Iran.

[eraser_tr 29]

What the hell would we do with several hundred migs and sukhois? And that wouldn't help anything, they'd simply use more ground forces, it would only create the irony of them shooting at their own equipment when we had to get involved and use it to supplement our equipment.

[Mannie 21]

We could stop the fighting immediately if we entered into a long term deal to buy all of the Russian and all of the Georgian aircraft. It would be a little expensive, but we wouldn't have to move them far to attack Iran.

 

And I thought I was naive.

You really think this is a reasonable move?

What makes you think you can buy over 1000 jet fighters from the Russians and what the hell are you going to do with them?

Why don't you take it one step further? why not buy Russia itself?

Edited August 11, 2008 by Mannie

[gbnavy61 1]

I guess the crux of the issue is what the technical definition of an "independent state" is, regarding S Ossetia and Abkhazia.

 

I don't think the Russians have any legal basis to be occupying those territories. Therefore, they have committed a hostile act against a neighboring country. I certainly don't like that the Georgians were blasting their own citizens, but they had the "right" to do that since it's their country. Russia is just taking advantage of the situation. Russia has Europe by the balls with energy resources and the stupidity of the US has left it too weak - politically and militarily - to counter Russia on its own. The Russians know this and they'll press until they think they can't actually get away with more.

 

I agree that the West/NATO is now in a position to send a message to the world based on what they do or fail to do on behalf of Georgia. I hope Georgia is not sacrificed, but I have concerns that it will be. (Reminds me of Czechoslovakia pre-WWII.)

 

I have a feeling, regardless of what Ukraine does, the Russians would probably not press the issue because I think that would draw a major international response - with more than talk to back it up. (Like Poland in 1939.)

 

Anyone else seeing parallels here?

[eraser_tr 29]

And like germany, russia went through an economic collapse and rebuild.

 

I guess its a good time to buy stocks in the arms industry.

[Mannie 21]

I hope Georgia is not sacrificed, but I have concerns that it will be. (Reminds me of Czechoslovakia pre-WWII.)

 

But it is being sacrificed as we speak.

The Russian army has literally cut Georgia in half. I just saw it on the news here on Israeli TV.