Russia invades Georgia

[Policenaut]

http://ideas.repec.org/p/wii/rpaper/rr343.html

If anyone has $50 lying around to download this paper I'm sure many people would be interested in reading it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It was in my first quote. Russia supplies a quarter of the EU's oil supply and half their natural gas. Did you not read what I wrote?

Must have missed it. Could you provide the evidence of your claims again please? Thanks.

 

[Ziggurat]

Must have missed it. Could you provide the evidence of your claims again please? Thanks.

It's in the quote, go look up the link if you don't believe me. If you don't believe my source, then stop playing these games and just say so. You can also check out Policenaut's link if you want a more detailed treatment. But really, grow up.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It's in the quote, go look up the link if you don't believe me. If you don't believe my source, then stop playing these games and just say so. You can also check out Policenaut's link if you want a more detailed treatment. But really, grow up.

What quote, my friend?

 

[egslim]

What quote, my friend?

The one in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3982920&postcount=793

The European Union is keen to wean itself off Russia, which supplies a quarter of its oil and half its natural gas,

 

[DanishDynamite]

It was in my first quote. Russia supplies a quarter of the EU's oil supply and half their natural gas. Did you not read what I wrote?

I entered this thread late.

My next question is: So what?

Please provide the evidence that Sarkozy was influenced by this. I assume you are aware that France runs on nuclear power?

 

[Ziggurat]

I entered this thread late.

That's your excuse? The quote in question was in the post of mine that you responded to. I don't care if you didn't read something from five pages ago, but when you don't read the post that you respond to, and then repeatedly challenge me to provide what was already in that post, it makes you look foolish.

My next question is: So what?

Please provide the evidence that Sarkozy was influenced by this. I assume you are aware that France runs on nuclear power?

Wow, did you miss my point. But I'm not surprised, given that you don't seem to be paying much attention. I'm not claiming Sarkozy was influenced by it, or by anything else in particular, because I don't care to try to figure that out. But whether or not he was, he really ought to have been, because the outcome of this conflict matters quite a bit to Europe. While France might not feel much direct impact from Russian energy dependence, the fact is that they've tied their currency to most of the EU. If the economies of the rest of the EU tank, France will suffer too - not as much, perhaps, but it will suffer.

 

[CapelDodger]

NATO and the EU have no stake in this last Russian spasm. No flabby impotence has been shown or even hinted at.

The NATO Conciliate or whatever met to demand that Russia withdraw. (Russia ignored them.) Sarkozy got involved clothed in the EU Presidency, and brokered a deal that's now so much confetti. Flabby. Ever more insistent demands that Russia is simply going to ignore. First Rule of Demands : Don't demand what you can't enforce.

The UN does have a stake in the sense that UN Resolutions have been violated.

Have they?

The big stick, which you ask for, will, if it is applied, come from exclusion of Russia from WTO, G8, etc.

Russia really doesn't care. Russia has a name, not an acronym. It has a long history and a strong sense of identity. Also a lot of resentment about the Yeltsin years and US triumphalism, a problem which has been sorted by the March Through Georgia. The Russians are feeling good about themselves again, and good about their leaders.

 

[PogoPedant]

Georgia didn't piss off Russia. Russia got their Ossentian proxies into attacking Georgia, and Russian regular troops (as in tank columns, not simply the peace keepers they were allowed to deploy) started to invade through South Ossetia. The Georgians tried to head off the Russian invasion by moving their own troops through the South Ossentian capital, and that was what most people think started the war. But it wasn't. That wasn't Georgia trying to piss off Russia, that was Russia instigating a war of their choice.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php

Oh, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.

Frankly, I'm just happy people are starting to notice that the bear has awoken. Norway shares a border with Russia, and I'm not too happy about it. Thankfully, our ice-free harbours aren't all that strategic any more.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.

Well, it is kind of important. And I wasn't not trying to attack you, but merely trying to inform. Most reporting on the whole mess got the sequence wrong, and Russia is rather actively trying to reinforce that misperception. Right now they're accusing the US of having directed Georgia to attack South Ossetia. Propaganda-wise, it's an excellent move: the US is probably going to focus on refuting the idea that we directed Georgia's attack, and maybe we'll succeed in convincing the world of that, but in the meantime, the misperception that Georgia struck first will be cemented, because nobody will be talking about that.

 

[egslim]

And I wasn't not trying to attack you, but merely trying to inform.

What you call "information" here, is really a popular misconception in the US we spent the first ten pages or so of this thread refuting.

And your implication of superior Russian propaganda is beyond laughable. Russian propaganda was crude, and rather ineffective in the West. Georgia on the other hand, launched a well-prepared propaganda offensive. Including a conference call for financial analysts, whose talking points were pretty much repeated by the US media.

Also, the link you gave was originally posted by NoZed Avenger. With the added comment that it should be taken with a: Grain of salt, since some of the info comes from a Georgian government source(s).

The Georgians tried to head off the Russian invasion by moving their own troops through the South Ossentian capital,

Either that statement is false, or the Georgians are morons. If they wanted to head off Russian forces, they should have simply blown up the Roki tunnel with airstrikes

That's all I will respond to this post, I'm not going to go through the same motions again.

 

[PogoPedant]

Well, it is kind of important. And I wasn't not trying to attack you, but merely trying to inform. Most reporting on the whole mess got the sequence wrong, and Russia is rather actively trying to reinforce that misperception. Right now they're accusing the US of having directed Georgia to attack South Ossetia. Propaganda-wise, it's an excellent move: the US is probably going to focus on refuting the idea that we directed Georgia's attack, and maybe we'll succeed in convincing the world of that, but in the meantime, the misperception that Georgia struck first will be cemented, because nobody will be talking about that.

My reference was probably a bit too opaque. Fast forward to 5:50 to see what I'm on about.



I remember reading about the South Ossetians firing the first shots in some Norwegian newspaper, but that part of the story got lost fairly quickly.

It's all about keeping a cool head, though. In retrospect, Georgia should have refused to answer fire, invited tv-crews, and waited until the word was out that Ossetia started the ball. At that point, they would have been able to neutralize the Ossetians and Russia wouldn't have been able to do what they did without massive PR-casualties, far larger then they are already enduring. (Assuming Russia still cares about PR.)

On a purely personal note, though, if Ossetia wants self-determination, they should have self-determination.

 

[Darth Rotor]

On a purely personal note, though, if Ossetia wants self-determination, they should have self-determination.

You'd think the Georgians would cotton to that, given their desire to break off from the USSR/CIS/Russia as the wall fell.

Looks like in Georgia, all the streets are one way.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Either that statement is false, or the Georgians are morons. If they wanted to head off Russian forces, they should have simply blown up the Roki tunnel with airstrikes

Whether or not they wanted to head of the Russians on the 7th, they still would have wanted to cut off any more Russian reinforcements or supplies from getting through that tunnel later in the conflict. But they didn't. Why not? The only reasonable answer is they couldn't. I seriously doubt the Georgians were able to establish air superiority in the region. Their equipment isn't very good, their pilots don't get a lot of training, and the Russians simply have more stuff. Russia had air superiority. I doubt air strikes to close the tunnel were ever really an option for Georgia. American competence in precision air strikes seems to have created an impression that they're easy to do, but they aren't really.

 

[CapelDodger]

On a purely personal note, though, if Ossetia wants self-determination, they should have self-determination.

Right from the start the Georgians were demanding national self-determination within the boundaries defined by Stalin, explicitly rejecting self-determination for the Abkhaz or Ossetians (or Ajarians, for that matter). Which is not a coherent position and was always going to lead to trouble. And it has, twice so far.

If the Georgians insist on making their "national territory" a test of their manhood, the Russians will one day cut their nuts off.

 

[egslim]

Whether or not they wanted to head of the Russians on the 7th, they still would have wanted to cut off any more Russian reinforcements or supplies from getting through that tunnel later in the conflict. But they didn't. Why not? The only reasonable answer is they couldn't.

You're missing the point. You claimed Georgian troops went into South Ossetia to head off Russian forces. So they abandoned their familiar defensive positions, to go into an area with a hostile civilian population, thoroughly muddling their case as innocent victim of Russian aggression at the same time. That would be both military and diplomatic madness, unless they expected to defeat the Russian forces. And that, no matter how unlikely, certainly required them to destroy the tunnel.

In reality the Georgians went into South Ossetia, expecting their close ties with the US or perhaps even the presence of US military advisers to prevent a Russian military response. That's what Russia had been hoping for, so they pounced hard. After overcoming the initial surprise and shock Georgia probably no longer had the ability to hit the tunnel. Their only chance to do so was while they still had the initial element of surprise.

I doubt air strikes to close the tunnel were ever really an option for Georgia. American competence in precision air strikes seems to have created an impression that they're easy to do, but they aren't really.

German Stuka pilots were making precision strikes 70 years ago. And if I recall correctly, the Georgian air force flies SU25's. Slow and sturdy, perfect for poorly trained pilots to hit small targets with.

 

[moon1969]

I wonder what Boris Yeltsin would say about this, the same man who Vladimir Putin gaved immunity from legal prosecution. Putin made sure that Yeltsin had immunity from legal prosecution.

 

[Ziggurat]

German Stuka pilots were making precision strikes 70 years ago. And if I recall correctly, the Georgian air force flies SU25's. Slow and sturdy, perfect for poorly trained pilots to hit small targets with.

Perfect for getting shot out of the sky by Russian fighters, too. And Russian planes have been violating Georgian air space for quite some time - remember when a Russian fighter shot down a Georgian reconnaisance drone back in April?

 

[dudalb]

That's debatable. The US is apprently unable to take the initiative in any sphere - not financial, military, nor diplomatic. Not even morally, with Guantanamo, "torture-lite", and Christian Zionists with a hot-line to the White House.

You can't lead if you don't have the initiative and have no chance of gaining it. The Russians kick up a little fuss in the Caucasus, and the bluff is called. Vapid Stars Wars contracts with the Poles just make it more obvious.

I don't make value-judgements. I just call it as I see it.

I guess I was right when I stated that your support for Putin and Russia was motivated by Anti Americanism.

 

[PogoPedant]

Right from the start the Georgians were demanding national self-determination within the boundaries defined by Stalin, explicitly rejecting self-determination for the Abkhaz or Ossetians (or Ajarians, for that matter). Which is not a coherent position and was always going to lead to trouble. And it has, twice so far.

If the Georgians insist on making their "national territory" a test of their manhood, the Russians will one day cut their nuts off.

Aye, well my starry eyed ideas about self-determination for anyone that wants may have some practical kinks that needs to be worked out. I suspect not everyone can have self-determination in the same geographic area...

Now, if someone could just find the nuts needed to contain the Russians.