Russia invades Georgia

[geni]

As a buffer-zone between Turkey and Russia, Georgia wouldn't need to be defensible. Possession of the Georgian valley would give Turkey control over an important strategic route, especially in concert with their fellow Turks in Azerbaijan.

Important perhaps but if the locals keep shooting at you it is a bit of a pain.

Anyway it appears it is mostly over now with Russia firmly in the breakaway regions and Georgia left in a hopeless strategic position in the case of future conflicts.

 

[CapelDodger]

You really do pine for the days of the USSR don't you?

There weren't so many wars going on in those days, and there was a brief pause in the endemic inter-communal slaughter in the Balkans and Caucasus.

Those "snarky" little states have as much right to exist in peace as the largest states.

Georgia was free to exist in peace, but it chose not to when it invaded South Ossetia.

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.

Nonsense. The Russians are neutralising the support-bases for Georgian operations in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Standard tactical doctrine.

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.

Oh dear. Napoleon and Hitler threw sheep to the bear, did they?

So what are you big butch 'Murricans going to do about it? After all, as Cheney has said, "This cannot go unanswered". Or will it (like the Nazis in Czechoslovakia) be left to Europe to sort out?

 

[CapelDodger]

Important perhaps but if the locals keep shooting at you it is a bit of a pain.

I grew up with the Troubles in Norhern Ireland so, yeah, tell me about it . I can't see the Georgians being nearly so troublesome as the Irish, though.

Anyway it appears it is mostly over now with Russia firmly in the breakaway regions and Georgia left in a hopeless strategic position in the case of future conflicts.

Georgia's pre-exisiting hopeless strategic situation has been brought home to them, along with the inanity of expecting long-distance alliances to materially influence it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Fine. Great. Now tell me why you make such a glaring ******** statement like "There's no historic Georgian Kingdom", a statement whch is either dishonest or horribly ignorant, and then when you get called out on it, all you can do is act like a prat and attack me and sentence structure? Was that really the best you could think of on the spot? Bit of an awfully twattish reply, that one of yours.

Put side by side with this reponse of yours I'm comfortable with it.

It's a ******** claim of yours yet again about the Imperial grant; sheesh, which Imperial power are you talking about? I wouldn't put it past you to be that ignorant. The Byzantines? Pretty defunct by the 11th century; the Russians still paying tribute to the Mongols; the Georgian kingdom existed because it created itself by force. You going to try pretending that King David IV or Queen Tamar were only royal rulers by Byzantine decree (I assume; I hope to god you really don't mean a Czar or something, though given your posts here, you might ). Sheeesh, what are you relying on? Russian disinfo hand-outs done on the back of old cig packets?

Well, there's John Julius Norwich's Byzantium trilogy, the second of which ("Apogee") covers the 11th to 13thCE. It's the Byzantines and the Eastern Church (which amounts to the same thing) that we depend on for information on medieval Georgia in the first place, and they weren't unbiased. If David IV was a king it was because Byzantium called him a king, and it did so because he was a client of theirs.

If you prefer, I can do monosyllables for you; as it is, normally you are much more rational in your posts, so I want to know the reasons for why your very evident bias. Answer the question.

Direct your imperious orders elsewhere, I care nothing for them.

You are only displaying massive (and rather astonishing) ignorance all over again. The Arabs in their expansionist period displayed amazing logistics ability; how do you think they conquered so much? Magic?

They did it on horseback, living off the land. That's how they were so mobile in comparison to the regular Byzantine and Persian armies with their unwieldy logistical trains.

Hello? Hellloooo? Planet Earth calling you; how do you think the Arabs conquered Iran, Egypt, etc. etc.? Helloooo? Anyone at home in there?

Twat.

Have you read any proper history at all?

Oh dear ...

Coming from you, when you appear to be woefully ignorant of Arab military history and early success, I find that rather funny.


Well, certainly, I obviously know rather more than you do on this and related subjects. Although that's setting the bar rather low.

How about you first explain your very evident bias first, seeing I've asked now three times, and then I answer your questions?

That seems fair to me.

Explain to me again about Arab logistics and how we know they were banana-shaped. I missed it the first time around.

 

[egslim]

So what are you big butch 'Murricans going to do about it? After all, as Cheney has said, "This cannot go unanswered".

Brilliant, he just keeps on digging.

It was actually an American who advised speaking with a soft voice while carrying a big stick. Cheney's screaming, with nothing more than a rolled up newspaper to back it up. Of course it sounds good for the US electorate, but to the rest of the world it's just stupid. As is McCain, by the way.

Never make a threat unless you can credibly back it up. Russia actually mentioned Ossetia as an example of what could happen if Kosovo declared independence.

 

[CapelDodger]

Brilliant, he just keeps on digging.

Remember, Cheney represents the force that doesn't have to act in accordance with reality but instead creates reality when it acts.

It was actually an American who advised speaking with a soft voice while carrying a big stick.

A great 'Murrican .

Cheney's screaming, with nothing more than a rolled up newspaper to back it up. Of course it sounds good for the US electorate, but to the rest of the world it's just stupid. As is McCain, by the way.

The US audience is so deeply parochial it probably won't notice any of that. Something I've noticed (and wasn't surprised by) is how many people assume that somehow this is all about the US when in reality (there's that word again) it's just another little bust-up in the Caucasus.

 

[a_unique_person]

Remember, Cheney represents the force that doesn't have to act in accordance with reality but instead creates reality when it acts.

Reagan had the right idea, if you're going to invade somewhere, make it somwhere like Grenada.

 

[Garrette]

A great 'Murrican .

I agree.

The US audience is so deeply parochial it probably won't notice any of that.

All of us?

Something I've noticed (and wasn't surprised by) is how many people assume that somehow this is all about the US

I find very few assume that, while quite a few Americans, myself included, think it has potentially significant and long-term ramifications for the US. That's an entirely different, and not silly, thing.

when in reality (there's that word again) it's just another little bust-up in the Caucasus.

One hopes.

 

[Big Les]

It's not quite over yet, it would seem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/12/georgia.russia5

If the Georgian pres doesn't do one, expect more of the same. Interesting though that the Georgians claimed full-scale invasion (fall of Gori etc), when nothing of the sort seems to have happened.

On the face of it, the Russians have simply "done a Kosovo". I'm sure there's more to it in terms of their local and global ambitions*, and boy were they itching for the chance to put Georgia down hard, but they can't really be faulted for their actions I don't think.

Both sides have been lying through their teeth, mind.

*recapturing something of their former greatness mainly, no need for twitchy sphincters in the West just yet.

 

[geni]

If the Georgian pres doesn't do one, expect more of the same. Interesting though that the Georgians claimed full-scale invasion (fall of Gori etc), when nothing of the sort seems to have happened.

A mixture of trying to force the international community to act and a likely breakdown of comand and control. Looking at some of the Georgian activity they genuinly thought that Gori was being held.

 

[moon1969]

Russia invades Georgia just like it invaded Finland in 1939 and is invading Chechnya.

 

[egslim]

it has potentially significant and long-term ramifications for the US.

Not in a rational way. Georgia was never a viable long-term US ally in the face of an ascending Russia. Logistically too far out of the way, with internal tensions in the form of seperatist regions - at least two that I know of, plus South Ossetia. And a rather disfunctional democracy, ironically much like Russia is.

What this conflict does do, is demonstrate the limits of US hegemonic power. But that has been clear to any objective observer for a while now. Not including those in the US government who claim to "create their own reality when they act". Nor those who believe military spending is the most important indicator of political influence in the world.

Objectively the conflict is of little importance. But it may get some people to change their perspective of how the world works.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It's a very old kind of war, about determining spheres of influence between Great Powers in strategically important areas. When Russia was weak, after the collapse of communism during the nineties, the US expanded its sphere eastwards. Now Russia is in the ascent, while the US is stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq. So Russia is making use of the occasion to push back the US's sphere.

And the US is pretty much impotent to do anything about it. It has made (or at least implied) promises it can't keep.

Put it like you like.
It is another damn war on oil played on the skin of innocent people.
And the media of all sides are misinforming everybody as usual

 

[Matteo Martini]

Russia invades Georgia just like it invaded Finland in 1939 and is invading Chechnya.

..like the US invaded Iraq..

 

[Matteo Martini]

Objectively the conflict is of little importance. But it may get some people to change their perspective of how the world works.

Little importance for the 2000 people dead?

 

[geni]

Put it like you like.
It is another damn war on oil played on the skin of innocent people.
And the media of all sides are misinforming everybody as usual

For a modern war rather a high percentage of the fighting has been between regular forces.

 

[CapelDodger]

All of us?

It was a generalisation, for which I apologise.

I find very few assume that, while quite a few Americans, myself included, think it has potentially significant and long-term ramifications for the US. That's an entirely different, and not silly, thing.

It could have a positive effect on US diplomacy. No more necon adventures in places "far-away of which they know little" .

One hopes.

It seems to be winding down now, fortunately.

 

[Garrette]

Not in a rational way. Georgia was never a viable long-term US ally in the face of an ascending Russia.

Georgia-as-ally was not my point.

What this conflict does do, is demonstrate the limits of US hegemonic power.

Yes, and this gets to what I was implying, and it is certainly rational.

But that has been clear to any objective observer for a while now.

Undoubtedbly, but the extent has been unclear. What this has the potential for doing is exaggerating the extent to which that power has diminished.

Not including those in the US government who claim to "create their own reality when they act".

While I don't agree with the apparent extent to which you reject this statement, I do agree with you mostly.

Nor those who believe military spending is the most important indicator of political influence in the world.

While those are generally the most vociferous, they are, I think, the least numerous and only occasionally the most influential.

Objectively the conflict is of little importance.

From our end, perhaps, though I again do not agree with your near complete dismissal of it. From the Russian end, I think it rather more significant than you give it credit for. Of such things are local/regional hegemony built.

But it may get some people to change their perspective of how the world works.

I've yet to find anyone with a monopoly on the One True Perspective.

 

[Garrette]

It was a generalisation, for which I apologise.

Not really needed, but appreciated.

It could have a positive effect on US diplomacy.

One really truly hopes for this, even some of us 'Murricans.

Of course, the election could have such an effect, too...

No more necon adventures in places "far-away of which they know little" .

How better to learn of them than to occupy them? [Here's hoping I don't need to place a smiley]

 

[CapelDodger]

For a modern war rather a high percentage of the fighting has been between regular forces.

A military encounter in the classic tradition, which is indeed unusual these days.