The Shotgun Blog
« Guns, girls and gold: an Olympic dream comes true | Main | Bureaucrat running dogs take a bigger bite »
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Can Georgia Win?
On paper, Russia and Georgia are a tremendous mismatch. Georgia has 4.4 million people and spends just under a billion dollars on its military. The Georgians are, by any conventional reckoning, hopelessly outmatched.
However, the intangibles favour the Georgians. They’re fighting on home turf, to be sure. But, far more importantly, the Georgians have, with the assistance of the United States, carefully built up a conventional military force that might well be capable of fending off any but the most determined Russian assault.
The present state of the battle is confused. It’s unclear whether the Russians have taken the capital of South Ossetia. They claim to have lost two aircraft and had a dozen men killed. It’s probably safe to those figures can, being Russian numbers, be multiplied by some number. Could the Georgians actually win this thing?
The core of Georgia’s military is seven US-trained battalions. In other words, roughly a short Division. In total, including reserves and other forces, Georgia’s combat strength might be reckoned as a single NATO-equivalent Division. During the Cold War, the general correlation of forces in Western Europe would have seen each NATO Division matched up against several from the Red Army. That was generally felt to be viable. And, from what we know, the Russian Army of today is not the Red Army in terms of training, equipment, doctrine, or professionalism.
As things stand right now, the Georgians claim that the Russians have something like 2500 troops in the combat zone. The Russians are promising to rush “one hundred planeloads” of Airborne troops to the scene (in other words – an Airborne Division). In other words – the present balance of forces might well favour the Georgians and, given the general slowness of the Russian military, it may well for the foreseeable future.
With a little luck, the Georgians could – especially if they can quickly get their men back from Iraq – probably defeat the Russian forces in place at present. They could probably repel a second attack by the first forces the Russians can get to the region – airborne troops plus those already on the ground. However, the odds are that the third wave – made up of Russian armour and mechanized/motorized infantry – would shatter the Georgian Army. But, I should add, such an attack would probably weeks – if not months – away.
Now, we enter into a maze of questions:
1) What is Russia’s goal here? Is Russia’s goal merely a show force? Then it probably makes sense for the Georgians to back down if they really think that they can return to the status quo ante. Fighting and beating Russia in a battle, if Russia merely meant to launch a minor skirmish to either rattle oil markets or to stir up some national pride, would probably be a bad idea for the Georgians since it might provoke the Russians into launching an actual invasion that would spell the end of Georgian independence. On the other hand, if that’s Russia’s goal in any case (a serious possibility, given the aggressive posture of Putin’s Russia) then fighting now makes more sense.
2) Do the Russians have staying power? In Chechnya, the Russian Army repeatedly displayed a nigh-hopeless level of incompetence. That was against a smaller and less well-equipped foe. Do the Russians really have the stomach to fight a mixed conventional/unconventional war against a foe that could, almost certainly, inflict thousands of deaths upon a Russian force in multiple engagements? Will defeat bow Russia, or cause them to ruthlessly crush Georgia?
3) What will the West do for Georgia? Obviously, there are not sufficient strategic interests in Georgia for the rest to risk all-out war with the Russians. That’s not really even worth discussing. But what is worth considering is the degree to which the West, by which I mean the United States in this case, is willing to take risks to assist the Georgians? I think, at the least, helping them get their men back from Iraq ought to be a no-brainer. Beyond that, money and weapons could be of tremendous help.
My suggestion – one that I’ve offered in regards to the Islamic insurgency in Western China as well – is that serious thought should be given to paying the Russians back in turn. Most of the weapons that have been used by the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last few years are of Russian, Chinese, or Iranian manufacture – in almost all cases being derivative of Russian designs. Massive stocks of these weapons have been recovered over the years. Surely some of them – the useful ones at least – could be rerouted to the Georgians without much traceability?
For that matter, what is there to stop patriotic Georgians exiting Iraq to defend their homeland from pilfering some carefully-selected and carelessly-stored American weaponry?
Money too, would be of use. Surely a few hundred million dollars in cash could go a long way towards buying off some notoriously-corrupt Russian officers?
Pat Buchanan wrote the other day about the rising power of autocratic capitalism in places like Russia and China. These powers, nationalist by their very nature, are unlikely to align themselves with the United States in the near future. If it’s possible to inflict a humiliation upon the Russians, it ought to be done.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on August 9, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553f598d88834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can Georgia Win?:
Comments
I'm just worried that the war will spread from Georgia to South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and especially Alabama. Oops. :)
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-09 3:46:58 PM
Maybe Second Lieutenant Yoshida can act as an adviser to them and get the XVIII Airborne Corps mobilized to give a hand.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-09 3:48:12 PM
WOW!!
Could not resist to comment on this one!! Do you really think that Georgia could go into war with Russia by itself???? Just two weeks after Ms. Rise visited the Georgia it goes into war, is this so hard to connect?? I understand that most of the people in Western hemisphere are lost their ability to think anything different from what media tells them to think, but you really amazed me.
Posted by: Gene | 2008-08-09 3:56:43 PM
Adam: 7 battalions means 800 x 7 = 5600.
A modern division is 3 brigades of 5-8000 equalling somewhere around 20,000 per division.
I don't see a division here. I see the Russians crushing this in a hurry. These people aren't accustomed to a long Taliban/viet cong style life.
Posted by: Opinion | 2008-08-09 4:05:19 PM
Georgia is now withdrawing its troops from Iraq. They had about 2,000 along the Iranian border.
Don't worry - international pressure will force the Russians to back down soon.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-09 4:13:12 PM
I'm just worried that the war will spread from Georgia to South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and especially Alabama. Oops. :)
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 9-Aug-08 3:46:58 PM
As Alabama is the 3rd most obese state in the US I wouldn't put too much faith in those lard asses getting out of their seats at the Golden Corral or Ryans to defend then state.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-09 4:20:55 PM
Zeb: Where will that pressure come from? Russia controls the EU oil, China and the mid-east don't care.
Russia will see this as an opportunity to stifle US influence in the area.
We'll see a lot more of this in the future as Russia/China continue to use capitalism as a wealth/power generator and the west embraces left or right socialism and goes on the decline.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-09 4:21:32 PM
attitude: the Russians caved into international pressure over Chechnya. It's not impossible.
As Spider-man always said, with great power comes great responsibility. The Russians risk their all-important relations with the US, the EU and China over this.
Stig: Alabama alone could take Canada. Alabama has more soldiers in its National Guard than Canada does in its army. US Army Aviation at Fort Rucker has more helicopters than Canada too. Of course, what would we do with you ignorant peons?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-09 4:36:27 PM
The idea of Georgia defeating Russia is not likely. Firstly, the Russian military capability has greatly improved since the 1990's. No one can compare the military to the way it was ten or even five years from now. The shear lightning reaction of the army in South Ossetia is a testament to that. I believe the author exaggerates when he say reinforcements will take weeks or months to arrive. That ignores the military reality, especially for Georgia. In war you always must look for worst-case scenarios, particularly here. Georgia cannot match Russia on the Ground, Sea, or Air in any way shape or form. With continued strikes from the air, a naval blockade of Georgia's coast, and massive pressure from the ground, the small and feeble Georgian military will inevitably surrender or face total destruction and collapse.
Posted by: Julian | 2008-08-09 4:49:23 PM
Opinion- not exactly. That 20,000 (more like 18,000) is going to include supporting elements. Depending on the configuration, a modern division is going to field something like 10-12 battalions
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-08-09 4:56:31 PM
Don't forget that not every soldier in a modern army division will be a front-line soldier. That "18-20,000" includes combat troops (infantry, army, recon), combat support (artillery, aviation, signals, engineers), and service support (supply, medical, maintenance) as well as headquarters. Of those 18-20,000, maybe 5,000 will be on the front lines. So Georgia is, as they say, pwned, because the Soviets - I mean Russians! :) - can bring far more divisions than they can.
Hopefully there will be a ceasefire soon.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-09 5:05:48 PM
Hey grassroots
I know that Heaven don't like the United States of America and European Union (Western) concerning intervention for oil war, terrorism and mass genocide. I have agreed and witnessed with this article concerning Western interests in Oil War, terrorism and mass genocide (Holocaust & Ethnic cleansing) for nearly two hundred and thrity years…
I acknowledged that Judeo-Israeli invaded and massacred people of Alexandria (Egypt) in 2,500 BC for first holocaust like Modernist Judeo-Christians and Zionism (AIPAC and American Jewish) (for example of Jewish ordered Rome King to kill Jesus Christ)
I acknowledged that Jesus Christ is not interested to make religious sect about religious matter, just social harmony. Next James Christ is youngest brother of Jesus and He is only first Kingdom of Eastern Orthodox Christian and has been conflicted with Judeo-israeli for sixty-five years).
I don't like Dictator Jewish and Zionism (American Jewish) concerning genocide and ethnic cleansing over European culture that corrupted and destroyed the Rome Republic and Rome Empire, Saxony, Slavic, more...
You know that American Revolution murdered and destroyed the people over the British colonialism in 1770... I saw the history of spanish war that American invade the spanish land (Mexico) in 1812 for ethnic cleansing over spanish people... I also witnessed that American destroyed Native Indian to completed ethnic cleansing for sixty years...
I saw that the history of US imperialism and aggressors over Phillipines, Europe, Latin American, South-eastern Asia, Canada, Alaska, Central American, Africa, Northern Asia, so on for promote a war (opium, natural resources and oil), fraudlines liberal democracy and ethnic cleansing for American culture (by Hollywood celebrities, Western media and American separatists) for nearly one hundred and thirty years since 1800s...
I know that people don't understand what is democracy (American position mean liberal democracy to political corruption, plutorcacy, and kleptocracy? what is civil liberties (American enjoy to destoryed the civil rights for a completed missing...)? what is human rights (American enjoy to kill the people over many years since now)? what is freedom (mean not free, controlled by American and European position)? what is faith (mean loyal and knee to American and European position)?
I saw Western media culture (controlled by the US and British Department of Defense, State, CIA/MI5 and White House) is biased, complete destroyed, and makes the people the easier forget and so dumb ever for sixty years... Western NGO and other organisations (Hollywood Celebrities over Save on Darfur, Western Oil Companies (almost profit over $1.5 trillion for nearly seven years), Human Rights Watch, USAID, Amnesty International, Freedom House, MSF and so on)is played to promote the western mafia style for a war and ethnic cleansing for sixty years....
I feel warned concerning US Presidents (like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin) dreamed to destroyed the people around the world by the mass of assured destruction (MAD) and the Atomic bomb. You see that USA is destroyed Hiroshima and Nagakasi over Mass of Assured Destruction in 1945 and Biological weapon over Vietnam, Iraq and Africa... I know that French President Sarkozy didn't reduce to destroyed Atomic missiles since April 2008 and He's bastard liar... I thanked Irish voters who rejected over EU Referendum, but others...
I did vote but didn't vote the candidate of my local resident area for nearly twenty years... I pledged you and your people to overthrown United States Governments & Congresses & Senators, European Governments & Parliaments and Jewish Zionism organisations in the 21st century. Don't blind over western expansionism and fight to them for our rights, NOW... Heaven need to settle the world harmony for the peace...
I support criticisim of Alfred Wallace (Naturalist), Noam Chomsky, Robert Friedman, Marxism/Leninism/Maoism (Mao's Democracy) and Keith Harmon Snow over Western imperialism, colonialism and aggressors
Posted by: Skycross | 2008-08-09 8:27:37 PM
Wow, that was a wasteful rant. All "America bad" with some anti-Zionism and anti-capitalism thrown in for good measure, no objectivity whatsoever.
You support "Marxism/Leninism/Maoism (Mao's Democracy)"? That's illogical since none of those things has ever been democratic. In fact, in the least they have been as criminal as Western imperialism. The crimes of communism murdered as many as fascism and colonialism combined.
You should work for the CBC. You'd fit right in with their mindset.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-09 9:03:40 PM
Zeb: Things are different for Russia now. They don't have their hand out to the IMF anymore. The EU is in a submissive position to Russian oil and gas. China couldn't give a rat's ass and the US is on the downslide.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-09 9:21:05 PM
attitude: I still think they will bow to international persuasion to stop fighting. They have much to lose.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-09 9:44:02 PM
I feel for Georgian but also any country that was attack or is occupied by enemy. But I truly believe we have enough problem on our own and we should just take care of those first. I feel sorry for all starving children in the world. But I feel even more sorrow for all our children that have no proper medical care, in many cases no insurance, or they are very sick and their insurance does not cover certain treatments. Same goes to old people, sick people and weak people. Let us take care of ourselves. No one will. No one will rush to help us, maybe except United Kingdom, Poland and couple of other countries in Europe. We already learned that lesson. So, once again, USA first, then friends, then others. Let us not get involved any more in some other people problems. This does more damage than good. At least not until we will feel strong again. Let us prevail in the world through knowledge, technology, strategies and internal strength and not through involvements that weaken us.
Posted by: Go Blind | 2008-08-09 9:47:52 PM
Here's one opinion from a newsletter I get:
August 8, 2008
Fighting in Georgia?s separatist enclave of South Ossetia picked up overnight Friday. Georgia moved regular army forces into the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali proper after having captured most of the suburbs and encircling the town. The Georgian government says that its forces now hold most South Ossetian territory, including all of the heights overlooking the capital.
South Ossetia seceded from Georgia in 1993 during the chaos of the Soviet breakup. In those early post-Soviet days, a crumbling Russia wanted to maintain footholds south of the Caucasus Mountains and ensure that Georgia could not become a launching point for foreign influence into Russian territory. On the other side of the border, Georgia was undergoing a nationalist spasm that made the South Ossetians believe that their destruction was imminent. These fears merged and the Russians provided the South Ossetians with the military capabilities they needed to secure and hold independence. Fifteen years later, the Georgians are attempting to eliminate the South Ossetian separatists.
But this conflict is about much more than simply which flag flies over a tiny chunk of territory in the Caucasus. Georgia is an extremely pro-American and pro-Western state and represents the easternmost foothold of American/Western power. It has also been in the Russian orbit for the bulk of the past 300 years. As such, it is the hottest flashpoint in Western-Russian relations. Which way the territory falls ultimately decides whether Russia can determine security concerns that literally fall right on the border of its heartland. To put it another way, what is being decided here is whether bordering Russia and simultaneously being a U.S. ally is a suicidal combination. Whichever way this works out, the dynamics of the entire region are about to be turned on their head.
The conflict started on Thursday because the South Ossetians feared that the Russians were about to sell them out. Russia does not want Georgia to join NATO ? or even to be appearing to be seeking to join NATO ? and so has cranked up political, economic and military pressure on Tbilisi. The two had been negotiating a deal by which Georgia would abandon its NATO bid and tone down its rhetoric in exchange for being allowed to continue existing. Since South Ossetia (and, to a lesser degree, Georgia?s other breakaway region of Abkhazia) gauges its own prospects for continued existence based on the level of tension between Moscow and Tbilisi, the South Ossetians feared that restoration of some sort of ?normal? relations between Russia and Georgia could destroy them. Ergo they began shelling Georgian towns near Tskhinvali. The Georgians responded with an invasion.
Fundamentally there are only two locations in this conflict that matter: the capital and the southern end of the Roki Tunnel, which connects South Ossetia to Russia. The capital is the only city of note in South Ossetia, and the Roki is the only means for Russia to shuttle forces to and from the territory. The tunnel is only two lanes wide and is an excellent choke point. If Georgia can capture and hold those two targets, South Ossetia?s 15-year rebellion will in essence be over.
But that can happen only if the Russians let it. While Georgia?s forces ? with U.S. training ? have become demonstrably more capable in the past five years, Georgia remains a relative military pigmy and South Ossetia is a Russian client.
Effective Russian intervention has not yet materialized, however. Russian sources are reporting that the Georgians have engaged Russian peacekeepers (forces the Russians have long deployed to guarantee South Ossetia?s independence) and killed their commander. Georgian sources report that Russian jets have bombed Gori, a city in Georgia proper that is being used for the invasion?s launching point. Those reports also claim that Georgian forces downed one of the jets.
The truth of the reports from either side cannot be confirmed at this point, but this we know for sure: If the Russians were committed to assisting the South Ossetians, then the Roki tunnel would be flooded with military assets flowing south instead of evacuees flooding north. All reports at present indicate that the northern end of the tunnel is cluttered with evacuation buses, by some reports enough to transport a sizable portion of South Ossetia?s total population of about 70,000.
If the Russians do commit militarily, one of the most enthusiastic forces they could tap to assist South Ossetia are the Abkhaz. Like South Ossetia, Abkhazia is another Georgian separatist enclave that could have attained and maintained its de facto independence only with active Russian military support. The Abkhaz say they are willing to send at least 1,000 volunteers to back up South Ossetia, but it appears the Russians are restraining them.
The Russians appear to be making up their minds about what to do. President Dmitri Medvedev is chairing a National Security Council meeting as this diary is being published, a meeting that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin ? at the Olympics in Beijing ? is undoubtedly attending remotely.
The Russians now face an uncomfortable decision. South Ossetia wants to force Russia to intervene militarily, but Russia prefers to maintain the fiction that it is not Russian military assets that guarantee South Ossetian independence. Should Russia not intervene, however, it will essentially have demonstrated its ineffectiveness in its own back yard. Kosovo?s independence proved that Russian diplomatic power in Europe was nonexistent. Getting forced out of South Ossetia ? a territory that Russia not only borders but has troops in ? would be several steps past humiliation.
And so we would be very surprised if Russia does not act. Which means we are very surprised that the Russians have not yet acted firmly. They will need to do so very soon, for if Georgia manages to capture both Tskhinvali and the mouth of the Roki Tunnel, then Russia not only will have lost its foothold in the South Caucasus, but also will be unable to use purely conventional forces to put the military balance back where Moscow would like it to be.
So, for now, all eyes are on that security council meeting in Moscow. The Russians need to decide if they are all in.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-09 10:08:29 PM
JC- that is why they invented combat air patrols, ground attack aircraft and airborne troops. The USA can help but only indirectly and due to the oil and gas dependency on Russia, Europe is a lame duck. A determined Georgia and an international press effort is the best bet.
Posted by: DML | 2008-08-09 10:27:26 PM
I just hope Russia bashes its brains out in Georgia like it did in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Faramir | 2008-08-09 10:41:22 PM
who wrote this crap? some f a g g o t CIA goof?
enjoy your mortgages -
Posted by: Robert J Urquhart | 2008-08-10 1:20:04 AM
Russian military involvement in Chechenia has been no cakewalk, but at least it's been a lot more successful than the hopeless American effort in Iraq, where the 'Green Zone' (with the US ambassador holed up in Saddam Hussein's old palace) comes under almost daily shelling. As for outside the green zone, things are even worse for the Americans. Note that in Georgia the port of Poti, the main Georgian naval base, has already been destroyed - and that's according to the Georgian government. The country is under more or less complete naval blockade. Of course Georgia cannot win. And by the way, South Ossetia is no more 'home territory' for them than Iraq is. (Admittedly, of course, the rest of Georgia actually IS home territory). It's all right saying the Russians are badly trained, but they have learnt a lot from Chechenia. And at least, unlike American GIs, most of them can read and write, without having to get instructions in cartoon form.
Would the Americans actually DARE to try to ship a 2000-strong Georgian fighting force back to Georgia, with or without weapons and equipment? I doubt it. And even if they tried, there is absolutely no guarantee that they'd be able to succeed, in what would obviously be a direct military involvement in the conflict. The Russian air force would very probably shoot them down. The American military is nowhere near as strong as is often believed. Besides, it is ridiculously over-extended, fighting an unwinnable war in Iraq, where it has no clear military aim.
America and Israel have been training and equipping Georgian forces for several years, and someone must have given Georgia the green light to attack. Do you really think the result of this war will be that the pipeline will connect through Turkey, being able to supply Israel through Ashkelon?
One could reasonably ask, "Are the Americans about to be taught a lesson?" - to which the answer is probably, "Yes".
Posted by: Dave Harris | 2008-08-10 4:20:58 AM
It's not about saving face. The Russian leadership isn't stupid. If they were about to sell the (South) Ossetians out, the latter wouldn't have been able to spur them to doing otherwise by shelling Georgia and provoking a Georgian invasion. The Russians would just have sold them out anyway.
The Georgian leadership wants to be a compradore American client in the region. I mean, 2000 troops in Iraq - what other explanation is there? They want to keep Abkhazia, keep South Ossetia, probably assist in future operations of a Beslan massacre type to get at the Russians, and - oh yes - join NATO too. And all because of money from the Americans, and possibly from pro-American Jewish billionaire cirminals from the former USSR such as Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili.
Patarkatsishvili was of course from Georgia. Both he and Berezovsky were protected by the UK, although it is not clear who murdered Patarkatsishvili in England earlier this year. The Russian SVR? The British? Mossad?
This war has been set up - but not by South Ossetian interests. It has been set up by western interests, and, as in Iraq, they have bitten off more than they can chew.
Posted by: Oliver Copefield | 2008-08-10 4:35:58 AM
Ineffective Russian intervention? The naval port of Poti has already been destroyed. There is no way that equipment is going to be taken back from Iraq by sea. Georgia cannot possibly win. They have not even taken Tskhinvali, which they absolutely needed to in the first two days to stand any chance of holding out for a reasonable period of time. The Russians are coming!
Posted by: Alex Camberley-Smith | 2008-08-10 4:38:50 AM
The Georgian government has announced that the Russians hold Tskhinvali (contrary to earlier lies the Georgians told), and that Georgian forces are pulling out.
Talk of the Americans rushing (Georgian) forces and equipment from Iraq to Georgia, to defend South Ossetia to the death of the last Georgian, was unwarranted.
The Russians have already won.
Posted by: Dave Harris | 2008-08-10 4:43:51 AM
Another point - the American training of Georgian forces in "information warfare" came to zero. Russian forces knocked out the Georgian websites in the first few hours of the war.
Слава России!
Posted by: Oliver Copefield | 2008-08-10 4:48:28 AM
Russia sent more troops and armour in this morning. I don't think they'll allow even more US influence right on their doorstep and they've been looking at Cuba again as an outpost for Russiam bombers.
Here we go again...
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-10 7:20:05 AM
Zeb: I don't see much bowing going on here. You're wrong, Russia will have it's way. This is a country that kills journalists.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-10 10:29:24 AM
attitude: yeah it looks like you're right. I guess there will be hell to pay when this is over. The Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, revealed that he overheard Bush and Putin arguing in Beijing over the affair.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/beijing_olympics/story/0,27313,24156469-5014197,00.html
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-10 11:38:09 AM
Some geopolitical facts: the US has bases in, or other meaningful military arrangements with, almost all of the former members of the Warsaw Pact, and the majority of the 15 former republics of the USSR. Russia has done nothing to prevent this. For one reason: it was impossible. HOWEVER, they have resisted a US-run 'flower revolution' in Byelorussia, and they keep considerable influence in the Ukraine. They also control enormous gas resources, to the extent that it remains possible that Russian capital will launch a financial takeover of the entire British gas industry.
(Note: a 'flower revolution' in Russia could only mean the return of Boris Berezovsky, exercising a dictatorship behind the scenes. A more likely scenario would be simply that Berezovsky gets assassinated in London, an event which I doubt is far off).
In Georgia too, a line was drawn. At one time the SVR ambushed the CIA head of station in Georgia and shot him dead. (I don't recall the precise year. I think it was early 1990s). The Americans have tried to stir things up in South Ossetia, and in Georgia as a whole, in cooperation with the Israelis - and not simply so they could use Georgian troops as cannon fodder in Iraq. (The idea that the Georgian troops in Iraq are an 'elite force' is nonsense). What is happening now is that the Russian worm is turning, they are extending their extremely reduced sphere of influence just a little bit, and the local American stooges are going to put their tails between their legs and run. Tskhinvali did not fall to the Georgians. The question that started this discussion was 'Can Georgia Win?'. Much interesting discussion could be had, but the answer is quite obviously 'No', because the Russians have already won.
Posted by: Oliver Copefield | 2008-08-10 12:18:41 PM
You're right, Oliver. Also look at the Russian naval blockade in the Black Sea. One thing's for certain - the Black Sea is not going to become an American lake.
Posted by: Dave Harris | 2008-08-10 12:29:29 PM
What Russian "Navy"? The U.S. Navy could dispose of what's left of Russia's fleet in an afternoon.
Interesting too, to see the sudden appearance of two commenters on this particular subject who adhere so closely to the Kremlin line. Are you in the pay of Uncle Vlad?
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-08-10 12:34:44 PM
All I can say is not every state is enthused about western politics, and when a former soviet republic begins beligerent and outspoken talks to western "enemies" this action will not go unnoticed, in a political standpoint georgia was the first to aggress, and Russia retailiated the only way it has ever known how, through blunt military aggression as a deterent. In my opinion those georgians are paying the price for stirring anti-russian sentiments and trying to bring a very foreign ideal to a disputed area, I can only hope that this adventure is crushed and once again Georgia is in the hands of its old masters, South Ossetia is a part of The Russian Federation, so as mentioned before it was georgia that defied russian sovereignty first. By the way Stalin was Georgian, ironic init?
Posted by: dave polevsky | 2008-08-10 12:47:39 PM
The Russian navy declined fast after 1991, but it has been being built up again for a few years now. This year they deployed in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, which they hadn't done for many years. There is no way that US forces could dispose of the Russian navy in a single afternoon. Let us hope they don't try. The US Navy would get humiliated if it started a conflict in the Black Sea.
What did happen in a few hours was that Russian electronic warfare forces took out the Georgian electronic capability, supplied by the US and Israel. I'd suggest that came as a big surprise in Washington!
This entire attack by Georgia has been a complete fiasco. You gotta wonder what 'surprises' might be around the corner.
Posted by: Dave Harris | 2008-08-10 1:19:00 PM
Interesting too, to see the sudden appearance of two commenters on this particular subject who adhere so closely to the Kremlin line. Are you in the pay of Uncle Vlad?
Uncle Vlad...Uncle Sam...Now that the US is openly becoming a paranoid Police State...I can't tell the difference anymore.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-10 1:56:34 PM
Good one JC. I totally agree.
Georgia started aggression against a state that voted fair and square to secede. They deserve the spanking they get. The Russians are imitating our efforts in Kosovo.
NATO should've stayed out of Kosovo. Russia should stay out of Georgia. Georgia should stay out of Ossetia.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-10 3:13:29 PM
no objectivity whatsoever.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 9-Aug-08 9:03:40 PM
Good one, as if either Adam or you would be capabal of it.
Pot, Kettel......
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-10 9:04:36 PM
What Russian "Navy"? The U.S. Navy could dispose of what's left of Russia's fleet in an afternoon.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 10-Aug-08 12:34:44 PM
Whishful thinking again? There has been very little direct confrontation between the US and Soviet (or Russian) forces over the years. The only thing they ever went up against (mostly by proxy) are export models and trained third rank units. To base your strategic assessment on the performance of those is.... Well, let's just say foolish.
But again, I am still waiting for you to report to a Marine recruitement office in the US and go and do what you others want to do all the time: Mainly maime and kill others (and be killed) in the name of "Western Values".
Let us know how basic goes.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-10 9:11:22 PM
This entire attack by Georgia has been a complete fiasco. You gotta wonder what 'surprises' might be around the corner.
Posted by: Dave Harris | 10-Aug-08 1:19:00 PM
On another forum someone speculated that this could have been a test to see how quickly Russia would respond to an attack on Iran.
Georgia is a prime location as a jump off point for an invasion of Iran, with this "test" they could have determined if this would have been a viable option or not. Even if Russia would not have directly defended Iran (though they did indicate they would), they probably would not tolerate a troop buildup in Georgia. So this little "exercise" may have been the US's way to try and see if they could get away with it.
I guess the answer to that is a no.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-10 9:14:28 PM
Snowrunner: I doubt that any "hawks" will ever see action. They just want to send others over to die. Hawks are basically cowards.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-10 9:14:31 PM
Some morons here have said that Georgia started this, and one even said that this happened two weeks after Rise(sic) visit to Georgia. As if the Russians attacking Georgia is Georgia's idea.
The big bully bear needs to be put down. Unfortunately, that isn't about to happen. God bless Georgia, and here's hoping those communist pricks in China stand against this terrible injustice by Russia.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-08-10 10:13:15 PM
Some morons here have said that Georgia started this, and one even said that this happened two weeks after Rise(sic) visit to Georgia. As if the Russians attacking Georgia is Georgia's idea.
Posted by: Markalta | 10-Aug-08 10:13:15 PM
Do you hold the same opinions with regards to Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and a few dozen other places that spring to mind where the West acted in similar vain?
And btw, yes, Georgia DID start this, they even BOASTED about it once they were at the outskirts of the capital. Only after the Russians actually followed up on their promise that they will defend South Ossetia did they suddenly change their tone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2519908/Caucasus-in-crisis-Georgia-invades-rebel-region.html
"Georgian military commanders confirmed an invasion began in the early hours of Friday morning, raising fears of a serious diplomatic crisis between the country's western allies and Moscow.
[...]
Just hours after Mikheil Saaskashvili, Georgia's pro-western president, declared a unilateral ceasefire, his armed forces began an artillery barrage against Tskhinvali, the rebel capital.
Military commanders indicated that a full-scale invasion was underway and would not stop until Georgia had regain control of the self-proclaimed republic, which attempted to secede in a bloody war that ended, unresolved in 1994."
If it wasn't Georgia's idea, then the question should be: Who thought it would be a good idea to advice Georgia to start the attack? Anybody wants to guess? There's a handful of countries that have "advisors" in the area right now.
Also an interesting thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=78757.0
BTW, it provces once again one thing: You may be able to chose when to start a war, but you simply cannot chose when to end it.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-10 10:36:05 PM
"On another forum someone speculated that this could have been a test to see how quickly Russia would respond to an attack on Iran."
That could well be exactly right, Snowrunner. Although I'd tweak it just a little bit: it could have been a test to see how quickly Russia would react to a build-up of US forces in Georgia preparatory to an invasion of Iran. Maybe a large-scale aerial bombing campaign against Iran, probably with nuclear warheads, is relatively more likely now? Which could be done either by Israel or the US, although I suspect the former would rather it be done by the latter. Invasion could wait a while.
Markalta - if you think it's moronic to say Georgia started it, you should get out some more! This is assuming that you don't mean the US and Israel gave Georgia the green light, and set them up, but I don't think you do mean that.
Posted by: Dave Harris | 2008-08-11 4:45:06 AM
"the rebel capital."
"Military commanders indicated that a full-scale invasion was underway and would not stop until Georgia had regain control of the self-proclaimed republic, which attempted to secede in a bloody war that ended, unresolved in 1994."
posted by snowy (anybody but the west) runner
You said it yourself, Georgia was responding to rebel attacks, and Russia decided to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong. South Ossetia hasn't been a part of Russia for over 16 years, it is part of Georgia.
Putin is just trying to restore the former glory of the Communist Soviet Union, except he's now following China's lead using capitalism to pay for it.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-08-11 4:29:39 PM
Well, Mr. Yoshida? Did your brainy ideas pay off?
I guess the Geoegians and their US masters aren't too keen on reading the blogs, or they would have surely won the conflict by now. :)
Inflict a humiliation upon Russia? Don't you think that Russia's loss of Eastern Europe, 40% of its own land, an encirclement by NATO, deployment of US ABM systems and the installation of US puppet regimes in its back yard is humiliation enough? Humiliating Germany after World War I turned out to be a big mistake.
Posted by: Thumper2000 | 2008-09-06 2:27:43 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.