Russia invades Georgia

[Matteo Martini]

You really have to brush up your history knowledge then.

Chinese "volunteers" helped North Korea in invading South Korea in the Korean war (OK, that's just over 50 years ago).

China invaded Tibet around 50 years ago.

China had a nasty border war with India around 1960.

I note that all the events you are talking about are either not invasions or happened more than 50 years ago

China had another war with Vietnam end 1970s.

If you are talking about the 23-days intervention of China in Vietnam, OK, let`s consider it.
Then go look what the US did in the last 50 years and then talk again

 

[Matteo Martini]

This is a phenomenally ignorant post. Go look up "Strategic Airlift" and "Force Projection" and then get back to us when you understand the relevance. Cheers.

The United States has the only military in the world with force projection capabilities.

You are suggesting that Japan can not build an army capable to invade, let`s say, the Philippines, in let`s say, two years?
Or build an hundred of ICBM?
Does Japan have any technical or logistical problem in doing so?
Does Brazil have any technical problem to attack, let` s say, Paraguay?
Or China does not have the military capability to attack Mongolia? or any other country in the range of 5000 kilometers or more?

What are you talking about Gumboot?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Of course war is still on the table, but only in the form of smaller-scale conflicts.

Until there will be so many nukes around that some crazy leader of the state of Bananas will start using them and start WWIII

 

[egslim]

You are suggesting that Japan can not build an army capable to invade, let`s say, the Philippines, in let`s say, two years?

Try 10 years. Of course, if Japan buys the necessary equipment elsewhere instead of developing it themselves, 5 years may be doable.

Or build an hundred of ICBM?

Much simpler to do.

Does Japan have any technical or logistical problem in doing so?
Does Brazil have any technical problem to attack, let` s say, Paraguay?
Or China does not have the military capability to attack Mongolia? or any other country in the range of 5000 kilometers or more?

To a large extent the reason only the US currently has those capabilities is one of the leftovers from WWII I mentioned before.

Much of current US military doctrine is a leftover from Cold War doctrine, which by itself was constructed based on WWII experience.

To obtain the same capabilities the US has would have required other nations to develop them, while the US only had to maintain what they ended WWII with. Basic inertia does that.

 

[geni]

Here's a short clip from FOX News. They had a 12 year old girl on who was in SO at that time, visiting her aunt. Wanted to do a little appeal to emotions. And what does she say in front of millions of brainwashed TV zombies?

"i want to say that i was running away from Georgian troops bombing our city not Russia troops, .......i just want to thank the Russian troops"

Georgian bombing capacity is very limited and of course she is Ossetian. Might have been shelling.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is a phenomenally ignorant post. Go look up "Strategic Airlift" and "Force Projection" and then get back to us when you understand the relevance. Cheers.

The United States has the only military in the world with force projection capabilities.

If you refer to global force projection yes. NATO has a standing amphibious force in the Med which can, if the US declines to operate, work as a modest EU, or WEU, or other ad hoc coalition force projection in that theater.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Your ignorance of proper definitions is noted. Moving on...

This crap could go on all day. We are either talking past each other, or you are playing games.

Their desire is not decisive, I'll grant you that.

Aye. For another example: even internally, the desire of President Clinton to go into Bosnia was not decisive. He had to build political consensus within America to finally pull that off. In the NATO model, what Cheney and Bush may "want" or profess to want, if it has to do with NATO, requires building the consensus within the alliance to get everyone to vote "yes" to something.

But to discard the wishes of NATO's by far most powerful member with respect to who should join the organization as irrelevant with a mere "so what"? That's just crzay.

Not at all. It not only not crazy, it is profoundly reality based. America doesn't always get its way in NATO. Please understand I've been inside the belly of that beast. The other nations are not doormats. And some are just plain stubborn. Try working a joint security project with the Greeks and the Turks some day. It's a real treat.

Your own article claims that the US was "pressing hard to bring Georgia into the NATO orbit". Such pressure still weighs severely on other NATO members. Less than it used to, though.

See above. Pressure does not equal consensus and agreement. It sometimes results in pushback. Are you forgetting the very public push back from the French over the Iraq war?

To consider what would have happened had they succeeded is not a fantasy, it's an important hypothetical. Especially next time a new member is proposed.

You were basing your argument on the fantasy that the US could force NATO to accept Georgia, with your if projection, which once again, I am not going to stop harping on this point, is complete rubbish due to the political reality of how nations join NATO. See also, for a similar item of interest, the troubles with Turkey getting into EU.

Very true. Bluff makes poor foreign policy. It forces people to guess for real meaning, introducing uncertainty, and that's dangerous.

Aye.

I read it twice now, and I still can’t find a side by side comparison of the pro and cons of those risks in your postings. Maybe my English idiom is failing, or you just weren’t very clear.

It's real simple. The risks of a hegemon are of one sort, political and security wise, and the risks of the multi polar structure are of another sort, which history has shown tends to be a higher incidence of war. That the wars may not be direct confrontations between Powers is no comfort at all to whoever war happens to: be it a proxy war or a standard brushfire war below the Power horizon.

Let's once again look hard at the issue here: war between Powers is hardly the only class of war. Iran Iraq comes to mind.

Unlikely. To some extent America is still freewheeling on the (ever declining) remains of its position as the only large, developed nation to escape WWII undamaged.

Not worthy of comment.

Without another world war[/] none of the other power blocs can obtain the same advantage, and without that neither of them can get sufficiently far ahead of the others combined to be considered a hegemon.

I cannot agree with you here. Another world war, which I expect you mean to be a war between the great powers, shapes up As an exercise in "if I can't have it all, nobody can have any of it" in terms of the damage done to international system and trade. My comment above about who has most to lose remains on point.

Using your own argument for a moment here, the power balance can change drastically due to economic changes, as economic power tends to underwrite most other power, in a Power: see Ike's remarks on that some fifty years ago. That is a slow acting change, not a rapid change.

Perhaps. McCain's response to this conflict was not encouraging.

Aye, covered well in that other thread, the one about are US and Russia at war?

Their provocations can get countries to do stupid things. Hegemons are more likely to do something stupid, because there is no one to keep them in check. And because they have more power, their stupid actions cause more damage.

I see, so Sri Lanka is a hegemon? The Philippines is a hegemon? India is a hegemon?

Most importantly though, is whether or not a country overestimates its own abilities.

We agree on that. Too bad the Georgian leadership didn't think that one through. Maybe they ought to read a bit of Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz, before their next little adventure. I'd also recommend Mahan and Corbett, but it wouldn't do them any good.

And then my internetconnection failed, hence the delay in posting it.

Arggh, happens to me now and again.

DR

 

[moon1969]

LOL even Sulim Yamadayev is in Georgia.

 

[Darth Rotor]

LOL even Sulim Yamadayev is in Georgia.

From a quick wiki, so grain of salt:

Sulim Yamadayev (also spelled Yamadaev) is a former Chechen rebel commander from the First Chechen War who had switched sides together with his brothers Dzhabrail, Badrudi, Isa and Ruslan in 1999 during the outbreak of the Second Chechen War. He's de facto commander of the Russian military Special Battalion Vostok unit belonging to the GRU. As such, until 2008, he was officially in command of the biggest pro-Moscow militia outside the control of the current Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov.[1]

Currently, Yamadayev is federally wanted in Russia for "murder, kidnapping of people and other grave crimes". Nevertheless, at the same time he is reportedly one of the Russian military commanders in the Russia's War with Georgia.[2]

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=1622

FWIW.

I finally agree with moon, this is rather droll.

DR

 

[geni]

"Racking up" 5 invasions is more than enough to be defined an aggressor IMHO

Well ethiopia is on two which means that it has invaded 40% of the countries it can reasonably invade. Has the US invaded about 40 countries?

Again, you do not know what you are talking about.

Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy.

 

[mrbaracuda]

What's this I hear about Russia threatening Poland with nukes?

 

[Nogbad]

What's this I hear about Russia threatening Poland with nukes?

I thought the shield was to prevent rogue states like Andorra terrorising the World.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Everyone take a look at this video and tell me what you think.
Its a little girl and her mother talking about Georgia aggression and how they were in S.O. when the attacks happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

It appears as if Fox news is trying to cut their story off when they begin to speak.
Anyone else feel this is the case or were they given plenty of time?

 

[Nogbad]

No I wouldn't say so.

On the rare occasions I watch Fox, I am always infuriated by the frequency and length of the commercial breaks. No matter which side is putting their point across it always seems like a race against time. The 12 year old said her piece and it was fair enough. The Aunt lost her house and was understandably pissed - I don't think the presenter was all that interested - but he did listen to the kid (more news-worthy I guess).

 

[Policenaut]

What's this I hear about Russia threatening Poland with nukes?

You know I heard something today about Russia comparing the missile defense system to nukes on cuba. Yea exactly the same thing.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Link:

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

 

[latent aaaack]

I think he just wanted to use the phrase "nuclear weapons." I thought it went without saying that in a war an opponent's military allies would be attacked too.

He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.

 

[CapelDodger]

They're attempting, but they aren't exactly succeeding.

His point is essentially correct: there are very few countries with the ability to project significant military power beyond their own borders. The US is by far in the lead in that regard. Russia is still a big player, and so is the UK. But that's about it ...

You may not know it yet, but by that you have brought down the wrath of France on your head. At a time of their choosing, of course.

The French are a bit delusional in this regard; they fiddle about in Africa to no consistent purpose, just to persuade themselves they're still a Great Power. Inevitably, the results are never good for anyone concerned.

 

[ddt]

The French are a bit delusional in this regard; they fiddle about in Africa to no consistent purpose, just to persuade themselves they're still a Great Power. Inevitably, the results are never good for anyone concerned.

The French still have considerable political influence in Africa. I'm pretty sure that translates in economic goodies for big French industries. And of course in diamonds for Giscard, from his buddy Bokasa.

 

[CapelDodger]

More importantly, why the hell are they in sovereign (undisputed, non-breakaway) Georgian territory in the first place? I still think they were justified in booting (aggressor, by most accounts) Georgian forces out of a de facto independent state, but this is surely wrong.

It's not wrong during a military operation, and that isn't yet completed. Disrupting lines of communication and neutralising support-bases is standard (and efficient) tactical doctrine. That's what the Russians have done. They are now in the process of dismantling the enemy's capacity to wage war, which is again standard practice.

The aim of the operation isn't to drive the Georgians out of South Ossetia this week; the aim is to make South Ossetia safe from Georgian hostility in the foreseeable future.

The great mistake in the Kuwait War was to limit the aim to liberation of Kuwait that one time, rather than aiming to make Kuwait safe from Iraqi hostility. Had that been the aim the Saddam regime would have been toppled and everything would have settled down out there long ago.

Also because of their failure to exercise control over the Ossetians, who are running roughshod, looting and even robbing journalists. Of course there are irregulars on the other side too.

This is the Caucasus we're talking about. Bandit country. The veneer of law and order lies very thin. They're all armed, they regard theft as property, they're difficult to control in the best of circumstances. Which these aren't.

One comfort is that much worse things happened in the Balkans, and they went on for years.

I think the blame scales are firmly tilted back toward Russia at this point though. They had the Kosovo comparison moral high ground, and they lost it in their urge to show Georgia, the region, and the world, just how much control they're able to exercise, and just how little everyone else is.

The Russians did it to show Georgia where it stands, in real practical terms. Nobody else in the region (and very few in the world) needs to be shown that. Nor do they care much.

PS Can we stop the derail please? This is history in the making in its own right, without all the OT stuff.

Unexpected stuff is definitely unfolding before our very eyes. Who saw this coming? Isn't Iran meant to be the narrative? Who's in charge here?