• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Russia invades Georgia

CapelDodger said:
An excellent summation, IMO, and refreshingly free of value-judgements.

Neocon diplomacy seems to have been ill thought out. It encompasses recidivist bear-baiting and a concentration on the Middle East - where Russia is the other face of the vice, and thus a desirable ally. It always had "fiasco" written all over it.

The next President will have to pick up the pieces. Unless he decides to let them lie and cut his losses. Soft power projection in the Caucasus is hardly a pressing matter.
Click to expand...


I agree, good summary. I only had two objections.

1) The writer seems almost to dismiss the possibility that the US were oblivious to what was happening in the build up to Georgia and Russia's military actions. Yet they've just finished telling us how unimportant the entire issue was for the USA. I think an "intelligence failure" (or more accurately an "intelligence lack-of-interest") is far more plausible than any other explanation.

2) Granted the writer is offering things from the Russian perspective, but if the fall of the USSR saw Russia surrounded by hostile states, it has no one to blame but itself. The reason nations like the Ukraine, Poland, (Eastern) Germany, Estonia, etc. are hostile to Russia now is because they remember how they were treated under the USSR.

The Eastern Bloc were spoils of war Russia claimed for itself after WW2. It's nonsensical that those nations should be forced to remain neutral to the west just because they were once held hostage by the USSR.
 
Israel illegally occupy another country for several decades, and they remain great friends of the US.

Russia performs the same actions, and there are calls of it being ostracized from the International Community.

Got to love the double standards in 2008.
 
Matteo Martini said:
In 2008, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength offered several estimates of actual 2007 Chinese military spending. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, Pentagon estimates range between US$97 and US$139 billion,[2] the second highest in the world after the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

I think you can buy a lot of chopters with this money..
Click to expand...

Maybe you can, but China hasn't.

Go look at the mechanical industry in China and tell me if they can not build the necessary infrastructure for a war?
Click to expand...

Once again: that they may be able to in the future doesn't mean that they have. In fact, considering how geared that industry is to making China commercially profitable, it is extremely unlikely that China will redirect most of that capacity any time soon, and it would pay a heavy economic price if it did.

Which is exactly my point (bold mine)
Click to expand...

So what? Our neighbors are allies too, so your comparison is still worthless.

People's Liberation Army Navy
[..]
Since then, it has undergone rapid modernisation. The PLAN also includes 35,000 Coastal Defence Force and 56,000 Naval infantry/Marines, plus a 56,000 PLAN Aviation naval air arm operating several hundred land-based aircraft and ship-based helicopters. As part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLAN has a plan of developing a blue water navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy
Click to expand...

Once again, your cluelessness shines through. Yes, they've got lots of people (something China has never been short on), but they don't have much capacity to project those people any significant distance. They do not, for example, have a single deployable aircraft carrier (they've got a couple decomissioned ones for tourist attractions, but they can't be used militarily). And their amphibious assault craft (which, really, is what you'd want for an overseas invasion) are pretty much all geared towards the short distance between China and Taiwan. It's right there in the bolded part: China has plans for a blue-water navy because it doesn't have much of one at the moment. But evidently, you couldn't understand the words you quoted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Air_Force
It currently consists of approximately 250,000 personnel and 2,300 combat aircraft,[2] making the PLAAF the largest air force in Asia and the third largest in the world behind the Russian Air Force, and the United States Air Force.
Click to expand...

As mentioned by Rika, size alone ain't enough. How many AWACS do they have? How many midair refeuling tankers do they have? How much cargo lift capacity do they have? How many helicopters (which are the best way to airlift infantry) do they have? Not enough for an airborne invasion, not by a long shot. Hell, even the US doesn't do its invasions primarily by air, and we're number one. Unlike the US (which, as already mentioned, built up an unparalleled force projection capability in order to surge US forces to Europe inthe event of WW3), China's air force is very much in a defensive posture. They do not have the capacity to project that air power any great distance.
 
Syria was provoked by the attack on a fellow Arab state by Israel. Its like NATO, attack one of them..you attack all of them.
 
gumboot said:
I agree, good summary. I only had two objections.

1) The writer seems almost to dismiss the possibility that the US were oblivious to what was happening in the build up to Georgia and Russia's military actions. Yet they've just finished telling us how unimportant the entire issue was for the USA. I think an "intelligence failure" (or more accurately an "intelligence lack-of-interest") is far more plausible than any other explanation.
Click to expand...

A good point. We'll have to wait for the insider biographies before we know for sure :). Perhaps it was just a lack of attention at the height of the holiday season. Georgia? Meh, it'll still be there when I get back.

2) Granted the writer is offering things from the Russian perspective, but if the fall of the USSR saw Russia surrounded by hostile states, it has no one to blame but itself. The reason nations like the Ukraine, Poland, (Eastern) Germany, Estonia, etc. are hostile to Russia now is because they remember how they were treated under the USSR.
Click to expand...

I think the writer's taking a historical, disinterested perspective rather than a Russian one.

It's one thing to feel hostile, it's entirely another to be provocative. There's been a lot of that going on; nationalist Russophobes garner votes and the warm affection of the White House. It's entirely counter-productive, but that's people for you.

The Eastern Bloc were spoils of war Russia claimed for itself after WW2. It's nonsensical that those nations should be forced to remain neutral to the west just because they were once held hostage by the USSR.
Click to expand...

It's provocative of them to join NATO while their leaders are blaming all the country's ills on the Russians. It's a bad policy.
 
parky76 said:
Syria was provoked by the attack on a fellow Arab state by Israel. Its like NATO, attack one of them..you attack all of them.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about that Arab state that was massing troops at the border for an invasion? :rolleyes:
 
CapelDodger said:
A good point. We'll have to wait for the insider biographies before we know for sure :). Perhaps it was just a lack of attention at the height of the holiday season. Georgia? Meh, it'll still be there when I get back.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps if the US instructors weren't enjoying their time there, they hoped it wouldn't be... ;)


CapelDodger said:
It's one thing to feel hostile, it's entirely another to be provocative. There's been a lot of that going on; nationalist Russophobes garner votes and the warm affection of the White House. It's entirely counter-productive, but that's people for you.

It's provocative of them to join NATO while their leaders are blaming all the country's ills on the Russians. It's a bad policy.
Click to expand...

Or alternatively if you're going to bad mouth Russia it's probably wise to align with NATO. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I don't envy the East European states. They've been buffer states ever since the Romans built their forts along the Rhine and Danube, and I can't imagine being a buffer is much fun. Thankfully we're rather isolated here and the only thing we're buffering is the fish.
 
parky76 said:
Syria was provoked by the attack on a fellow Arab state by Israel. Its like NATO, attack one of them..you attack all of them.
Click to expand...

The borders in the region were drawn by French and British diplomats in the 20's, from a distance, on small maps and with thick pencils. No wonder it's a mess, since it takes no account of the situation on the ground or the long history it reflects.

Much like the borders of the old Soviet Republics, except that they were drawn up by Lenin, Stalin, and Beria. Once they'd done that they start shuffling ethnic groups between them, just to confuse things further. Then these republics that were designed not to be viable nations are suddenly granted that status and those borders become sacrosanct.

It's nonsense, isn't it? It's easy, it's lazy, it keeps the lid almost on the can of worms, but it could only lead to grief.

The Czechs and the Slovaks did it the civilised way, and I doff my hat to them.
 
gumboot said:
Or perhaps if the US instructors weren't enjoying their time there, they hoped it wouldn't be... ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, they must have been. Have you not seen the pictures? It is so not like the Mekong Delta. Georgian women are fit, but then so are their brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins, all of them armed ... damn, that's gotta be added thrill for a true warrior. Georgia is their natural environment.

Thinking of which, where are they at the moment? Where were they when the shooting was going on?

Or alternatively if you're going to bad mouth Russia it's probably wise to align with NATO. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

Why bad-mouth Russia in the first place? The USSR went away in very civilised manner. Compare and contrast what happened in Yugoslavia and Romania. The Evil Empire went quietly.

I don't envy the East European states. They've been buffer states ever since the Romans built their forts along the Rhine and Danube, and I can't imagine being a buffer is much fun.
Click to expand...

There aren't even the same people around the Danube as in Trajan's day. The Bulgars are new, the Magyars are new, the Slavs are new (Justinian brought them in centuries later). It's that kind of place, wide open to the steppe super-highway, the Turks from behind (as ever), and in more recent times Muscovite expansionism from the north.

Given the choice, I wouldn't live there, in any era.

Thankfully we're rather isolated here and the only thing we're buffering is the fish.
Click to expand...

I live at the western end of an island off the western coast of Europe which is the western extension of Eurasia which is where all the serious and nasty stuff happens. I'm not even on the way to anywhere interesting.

The weather's depressing, but you can't have everything.
 
CapelDodger said:
Why bad-mouth Russia in the first place? The USSR went away in very civilised manner. Compare and contrast what happened in Yugoslavia and Romania. The Evil Empire went quietly.
Click to expand...

Only if you start the clock in the late 1980s.
 
WildCat said:
It makes it perfectly legitimate. There are consequences for unprovoked aggression, as Syria has found out. It sucks to lose a war.
Click to expand...

Surely an act of unprovoked aggression matches with reports of Georgian tanks running down South Ossetian civilians?

Did the Gulf of Tonkin incident honestly warrant the degree of aggression leveled upon the Vietnamese?
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
Surely an act of unprovoked aggression matches with reports of Georgian tanks running down South Ossetian civilians?
Click to expand...

It wasn't that simple. Look for timeline of the events leading to the escalation.

Did the Gulf of Tonkin incident honestly warrant the degree of aggression leveled upon the Vietnamese?
Click to expand...

And there were the Gleiwitz incident and the Shelling of Mainila incident before that in 1939. It used to be perfectly normal to start a war at a kings whim some more time ago, but luckily we are getting past that point now. Ill deeds of the the past are not supposed to be excuses today. (And don't waste your time calling me a naive idealist).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom