Russia invades Georgia

[Texas]

There is no such thing as a "disproportionate amount of power" in conventional military conflicts. The more overwhelming your power is, the fewer losses you suffer.

"Disproportionate use of force" is a law enforcement term, where the goal is to keep both officers and suspects from harm.

War is when both sides try hard to kill each other, which is a fundamentally different situation.

So I would assume that you are in favor of leveling Baghdad to lower American losses? How about Fallujah did you cheer the US on? The main reason we have taken so long to bring stability to Iraq is that we didn't wage total war due to the civilian losses it would have required.

 

[CapelDodger]

However neat the borders look on the map, the population is hopelessly tangled and intermingled.

The populations are not hopelessly tangled, they've lived like that for hundreds of years. It's map-based claims of legitimacy that's hopeless.

This is a mountainous region, remember, where there is limited living space relative to the total land mass. The historic Georgian Kingdom up to ca.1801 was something of a mini-multinational-empire in its own right, and that hasn't changed.

There's no historic Georgian Kingdom; the Caucasus has been the plaything of Persians, Romans, Turks, Mongols and Russians since forever. Not much of it has a serious impression on mountain-folk. Which is why the world still has Kurds, bless 'em.

 

[Texas]

Cut the straw.

It's Georgia's fault that they attacked South Ossetia, under the mistaken belief that they would get away with it.

But because the US backed Georgia the latter's humiliation by Russia is an embarassment for the US as well.

Well we will soon see. The US is airlifting Georgia's Iraq troops back to Georgia to join the fight. Let's see if Russia has the stones to shoot down the troop planes.

 

[Texas]

Georgia (without South Ossetia and Abkhazia, obviosuly) is one hell of a bait to dangle in front of the Turks, What purpose does Georgia serve, after all? Wouldn't life be simpler if is was got rid of and never mentioned again?

The Turks being a member of NATO isn't about to jump into this mess unless it is against the Russians..

 

[Alex Libman]

Amazing how mainstream western opinion on this completely ignores what the Ossetians want...

 

[Gurdur]

.... There's no historic Georgian Kingdom

Wrong, very wrong indeed.

The medieval Georgian kingdom lasted from the 11th to the early 13th centuries; part of the georgian kingdom lasted a great deal longer than that, up to the end of the 18th century; and Georgia declared itself an independent country in 1918, only to be invaded by the Russians in 1921.

Sheeeesh, the medieval kingdom of Georgia ought to be common knowledge, and even if it isn't (who the hell do you think together with the Armenians stopped the Arabs sweeping through the Caucasian mountains through to the Ukraine etc. back when the Arabs made a determined effort to invade western Europe), there's always Wikipedia to look up before coming out wiuth statements like this.

Out of interest, why do you talk Georgia down in the present conflict? I've noticed a fair few of your posts doing that, and since you normally make well-balanced and rational posts, I'm kinda wondering at your bias here.

 

[geni]

Can the U.S. now invade Cuba? Lookout Canada and Mexico!

US could invade cuba but would take a hit in international relations and would likely find the losses in holding the place unacceptable. But yes the US has the militry capacity to capture cuba.

 

[CapelDodger]

NATO on the other hand is in danger of becoming a paper tiger. If the US had had its way Georgia would have been on its way to become a NATO member by now.

If the Cheney Administration had had its way Georgia would have rammed through a fast-track to full membership by now. Laughable hubris.

But I don't believe for a second that any other NATO member would have been willing to wage war with Russia over the lousy speck of real-estate that is Georgia. And such a refusal would be the end of NATO as a relevance.

They certainly weren't going to make binding alliances over the Caucasus. We Europeans have long experience of the Caucasus. And the Balkans. The Russians. And, of course, the Turks, from way back.

It's all these little snarky states (such as Georgia) that are grit in the oil of modern times.

 

[geni]

3. Even more confused: how is membership in the EU any kind of deterrent to Russian designs on central and eastern Europe, if any such exist? (I wonder) The EU is, as a collective security organization, a paper tiger. It is only due to its NATO link that EU has a credible security posture vis a vis the central and eastern nations.

EU memebership tends to mean money which is helpful in all forms of war. The EU is also closely enough tied together that it is likely to take an attack on part of it being an attack on all of it seriously. If you don't try and counter the russian advance into poland too much risk of it rolling into berlin shortly afterwards. German, Britian and France do for the time being still retain a significant militry capacity enough to make any russian invasion unacceptably expensive.

 

[geni]

Georgia (without South Ossetia and Abkhazia, obviosuly) is one hell of a bait to dangle in front of the Turks, What purpose does Georgia serve, after all? Wouldn't life be simpler if is was got rid of and never mentioned again?

Turkey has enough issues with the kurds. Last thing it wants is an indefencable bit of land with another problematic ethnic group. With South Ossetia and Abkhazia Russian held there is no realistic way for any other power to have significant militry influence in the area.

 

[geni]

Well we will soon see. The US is airlifting Georgia's Iraq troops back to Georgia to join the fight. Let's see if Russia has the stones to shoot down the troop planes.

No point. Airlifting means limited heavy equipment and the performance of Georgia's armed forces so far hasn't been impressive. Heh could well be a bigger threat to Saakashvili than Russia in that a commander could well decide that a coup is preferable to suicidal heroics.

 

[Texas]

If the Cheney Administration had had its way Georgia would have rammed through a fast-track to full membership by now. Laughable hubris.



They certainly weren't going to make binding alliances over the Caucasus. We Europeans have long experience of the Caucasus. And the Balkans. The Russians. And, of course, the Turks, from way back.

It's all these little snarky states (such as Georgia) that are grit in the oil of modern times.

Tell me, why would former Soviet states entering NATO be a bad thing?

 

[ddt]

The medieval Georgian kingdom lasted from the 11th to the early 13th centuries; part of the georgian kingdom lasted a great deal longer than that, up to the end of the 18th century; and Georgia declared itself an independent country in 1918, only to be invaded by the Russians in 1921.

By the time that they were subsumed into the Russian Empire, the Georgian kingdom had been split into 4 separate kingdoms, together about the size of current Georgia. The one carrying the name of Georgia at least asked the Czar to become part of Georgia out of fear for the Ottomans.

Sheeeesh, the medieval kingdom of Georgia ought to be common knowledge, and even if it isn't (who the hell do you think together with the Armenians stopped the Arabs sweeping through the Caucasian mountains through to the Ukraine etc. back when the Arabs made a determined effort to invade western Europe), there's always Wikipedia to look up before coming out wiuth statements like this.

Sorry, now you're wrong. Those were the Khazars.

Apart from the fact that some historians doubt the "concerted effort" part of the Arabs to conquer France. At least the Battle of Tours was on the side of the Arabs just a raiding tour, not an attempt at conquering either Aquitaine or the Frankish kingdom.

 

[Texas]

No point. Airlifting means limited heavy equipment and the performance of Georgia's armed forces so far hasn't been impressive. Heh could well be a bigger threat to Saakashvili than Russia in that a commander could well decide that a coup is preferable to suicidal heroics.

So you believe that the Georgian military would willingly come under Russian control again?

 

[ddt]

War is the continuation of diplomacy by special other means.

Fixed it for you. You're quite fond of those old Prussians?

 

[Gurdur]

By the time that they were subsumed into the Russian Empire, the Georgian kingdom had been split into 4 separate kingdoms, together about the size of current Georgia. The one carrying the name of Georgia at least asked the Czar to become part of Georgia out of fear for the Ottomans.

The last sentence is dubious. Apart from that, the fact of the medieval kingdom of Georgia -- and also, BTW, Georgia's survival as a cohesive ethnic and linguistic group for over 2000 years -- is beyond all doubt.

Sorry, now you're wrong. Those were the Khazars.

No, it was not just the Khazars whatsover. BTW, didn't we do Khazars on another thread? Whatever became of that?

Apart from the fact that some historians doubt the "concerted effort" part of the Arabs to conquer France. At least the Battle of Tours was on the side of the Arabs just a raiding tour, not an attempt at conquering either Aquitaine or the Frankish kingdom.

* cough *

1) "Some historians" would doubt my existence, yours, and the existence of Churchill.

2) Pretty HONKING GREAT BIG "raiding tour", if you ask me, and that thesis of course ignores the fact that full-scale invasion were almost always preceded by prelimary expeditions (when those were successful) at that time.

 

[CapelDodger]

Wrong, very wrong indeed.

Oh dear ...

The medieval Georgian kingdom lasted from the 11th to the early 13th centuries; part of the georgian kingdom lasted a great deal longer than that, up to the end of the 18th century; and Georgia declared itself an independent country in 1918, only to be invaded by the Russians in 1921.

That's one heck of a sentence. It starts with the 11th to 13thCE, during which time presumably there ws someone called "King of Georgia", when both "King" and "Georgia" were very vague terms.

"Part of the Georgian Kingdom", well yes, when a "kingdom" falls apart some parts will lay claim to being the legitimate part.

Georgia was taken from the Ottomans by the Russians in the 19thCE, becoming part of the Tsarist Russian Emprire. The mountain-folk shrugged and carried on as usual. When the Tsarist Russian Empire collapsed in 1917 a Georgia was declared, but it didn't last. When the USSR collapsed Georgia was declared again; we've yet to find out how long that will last.

Sheeeesh, the medieval kingdom of Georgia ought to be common knowledge, and even if it isn't (who the hell do you think together with the Armenians stopped the Arabs sweeping through the Caucasian mountains through to the Ukraine etc. back when the Arabs made a determined effort to invade western Europe), there's always Wikipedia to look up before coming out wiuth statements like this.

Another mighty sentence.

It wasn't the doughty resistance of the mountain-folk that kept the Arabs away, it was the frickin' mountain-ranges they live in. Check them out, they're awesome.

You've bought into a national mythology. Never a good idea. Analysing national mythologies is always a great idea.

 

[Texas]

They certainly weren't going to make binding alliances over the Caucasus. We Europeans have long experience of the Caucasus. And the Balkans. The Russians. And, of course, the Turks, from way back.

It's all these little snarky states (such as Georgia) that are grit in the oil of modern times.

You really do pine for the days of the USSR don't you? Those "snarky" little states have as much right to exist in peace as the largest states. Russia has now advanced well into Georgia so it is becoming obvious that Putin is using this as an excuse to bring the entire country under his control. I realise that the Europeans have a long history dealing with these regions and it has been one of throwing the sheep to the bear. It is despicable.

 

[Giz]

Then you've missed the point entirely. I don't want a return to the Cold War, I want an end to the unipolar world. And the reason is that I don't trust the US to not mess things up. Which under Bush it arguably has already done.

The upside is that the world has already become somewhat multipolar, only that some people haven't figured it out yet. Hence Washington's current embarrasment with Georgia. Consider it a valuable lesson.

I can understand people saying (even if I might disagree); "if only the EU could act as a counter balance to the US" but how can it be a good thing that brutal regimes like China and Russia are becoming more powerful?

Will their rise help prevent wars? Not likely - as can be seen with Georgia, though it might make a big war more likely.
Will their rise help human rights? No.
Will their rise help the environment? No.

I guess what I am trying to say is...
My ranking of the best to worst possible worlds:
1) Many peaceful, prosperous, democratic states determine the worlds future (and sing kumbayah together in perfect harmony)
2) The is a single hegemon and it is largely benign (i.e. it will trade peacefully, generally respect smaller states etc) (this describes the USA/our world if you hadn't guessed)
3) Confrontational bipolar world (i.e. Cold War), actual proxy wars, risk of major war. Risk of the wrong side winning which could lead to:
4) Single oppressive hegemon (totalitarian/dictatorship/communist/whatever). Don't feel it should be neccessary to go into detail as to why this would be the worst...

 

[Gurdur]

That's one heck of a sentence. It starts with the 11th to 13thCE, during which time presumably there ws someone called "King of Georgia", when both "King" and "Georgia" were very vague terms.

Oh bollocks. Did you do any reading on this at all, or is this just determined bias speaking on your part?

It wasn't the doughty resistance of the mountain-folk that kept the Arabs away, it was the frickin' mountain-ranges they live in. Check them out, they're awesome.

Bollocks again. The mountains wouldn't have stopped them if it wasn't for the people there. The mountains are tough, but there are passes, and it's not the Himalayas we're talking. Sheeeesh.

You've bought into a national mythology. Never a good idea. Analysing national mythologies is always a great idea.

Let me know when you've done some actual reading, and then we can talk analysis. BTW, I have no brief for the Georgians at all, but I'm rather interested that you did not answer my question about your rather evident bias at all.