Page 2 of 4
Posted: 14 Aug 2008, 02:07
by mr.bean
Posted: 14 Aug 2008, 14:04
by mr.bean
Article that contains bad news, which will lead to further fights.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LE260866.htm
Russkies concerned about USAF aid flight to Georgia
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LE203305.htm
Posted: 14 Aug 2008, 23:33
by mr.bean
Posted: 15 Aug 2008, 14:01
by mr.bean
Posted: 15 Aug 2008, 16:51
by mr.bean
Posted: 16 Aug 2008, 14:15
by mr.bean
Looks like the truce got broken up again...
Russian armor moving deeper.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... 22&sp=true
Posted: 16 Aug 2008, 14:29
by mr.bean
Posted: 16 Aug 2008, 15:08
by Firebird
Are they bored with the Olympics or just p*ssed at not winning any gold medals?
Posted: 16 Aug 2008, 17:00
by Ford Friendly
The Russians are trying to regain some political respect whcih they consider they lost with the collapse of the USSR/Warsaw Pact. That they would do so at the "expense" of Georgia is unsurprising considering the history of relations between the two.
Despite being a Georgian himself, Stalin despised the region, often inflicting more harsh controls/reprisals on the region than elsewhere. His pogroms were particularly thorough there and the ethnic tensions between Russians and Georgians ranks up right up there with that seen in the genocidal conflicts in Africa.
Consider Putin, et al.'s actions in the following context. Does anyone REALLY think that Bush/the US will send combat troops to Georgia? Aid for civilian casualties is one thing - but is are most people arguing that the US military is already over-stretched, what do any of you think would happen the first time a Russian or an American was actualy killed by the "other side"? This ain't the Cold War any more, when accdients will happen was part fo the game.
Russia is in a position where they seem to think that not only can they get away with this, they HAVE to get away with it for reasons of self and other respect - now that they have already acted.
Personally, I believed the outcome, Russia will gain what it wants here, was a foregone conclusion as many as five years ago. It was just a matter of timing and Putin's will.
Posted: 16 Aug 2008, 17:02
by Ford Friendly
The Russians are trying to regain some political respect whcih they consider they lost with the collapse of the USSR/Warsaw Pact. That they would do so at the "expense" of Georgia is unsurprising considering the history of relations between the two.
Despite being a Georgian himself, Stalin despised the region, often inflicting more harsh controls/reprisals on the region than elsewhere. His pogroms were particularly thorough there and the ethnic tensions between Russians and Georgians ranks up right up there with that seen in the genocidal conflicts in Africa.
Consider Putin, et al.'s actions in the following context. Does anyone REALLY think that Bush/the US will send combat troops to Georgia? Aid for civilian casualties is one thing - but as most people are arguing that the US military is already over-stretched, what do any of you think would happen the first time a Russian or an American was actualy killed by the "other side"? This ain't the Cold War any more, when "accidents will happen" was part of the game.
Russia is in a position where they seem to think that not only can they get away with this, they HAVE to get away with it for reasons of self and other respect - now that they have already acted.
Personally, I believed the outcome, Russia will gain what it wants here, was a foregone conclusion as many as five years ago. It was just a matter of timing and Putin's will.
Edited to clarify grammar/typos.
Posted: 16 Aug 2008, 23:43
by mr.bean
Posted: 17 Aug 2008, 01:35
by mr.bean
Posted: 17 Aug 2008, 03:57
by Ford Friendly
A couple of obvious elements about this article/blog entry on the naval engagement.
0. Remember that this is an article which is taken from a blogger... so the article itself appears secondhand... making some of the info third hand if we use the wired.com reference as our analytic starting point. Ever sit in a circle and send a whispered secret around it? Was what came back anywhere close to 100% accurate?
1. It would NOT take 25 hours to sale from Sevastopol to a point where the Georgian naval vessels might be engaged. Sov/Russian naval doctrine and standard naval practice is pretty simple --- rush to the scene as fast as possible ***while considering the (potential) threat one will/could be exposed to enroute.*** What enroute threat was there? Zip. Zero. Nada. Only Turkey could conceivably openly oppose a major task force sailing in the Black Sea.
2. "For any fleet to deply that quickly is extraordinary."??? Please catch me as I fall down laughing. Any experienced sailor/analyst should know that in an "emrgency" situation, ships sail without full crews into action rather than wait and possibly arrive too late.
3. Relying on his own "amateur translation" of a Russian sailor who gave the local press an interview for any sort of effective/accurate analysis of an engagement? Pfft. That's like reading tea leaves. Profitable if one's audience believes in magic. Useless otherwise. The journalist's article is a second hand account - spoken by the sailor, "reinterpreted" and edited by the journalist for publication - and we all believe that the Russian press is free and open (as well as scrupulously honest), right?.
The usefulness of the Inside the Battle article in identifying what actually went on???? My assessment.... laughable at best because of questionable source credibility.
Then again, I guess you could say I am a cynic.
(Most good analysts I know/knew are.)
Posted: 18 Aug 2008, 00:27
by mr.bean
Posted: 19 Aug 2008, 00:12
by mr.bean
Posted: 19 Aug 2008, 23:02
by mr.bean
Posted: 19 Aug 2008, 23:24
by Jumpshot724
Stolen US humvees....wtf!?!?
Seriously, what the HE!! is Russia thinking lately!?!?
Also, does anyone else see the similarity of this with the beginning of WWII (IE Germany invading Poland)?? Not saying that this is the beginning of WWIII (crossed fingers) but I just couldn't oerlook the similarity....
Posted: 20 Aug 2008, 16:41
by Jumpshot724
Posted: 20 Aug 2008, 17:53
by VulcanDriver
Jumpshot724 wrote:
Also, does anyone else see the similarity of this with the beginning of WWII (IE Germany invading Poland)?? Not saying that this is the beginning of WWIII (crossed fingers) but I just couldn't overlook the similarity....
Neither did I. I studied the Nazi regime for my history degree. A shudder ran down my spine when I heard the reason for the Russian invasion. Although I do not believe that Russia would risk all on Georgia.
John
Posted: 20 Aug 2008, 18:32
by Ford Friendly
VulcanDriver wrote:Although I do not believe that Russia would risk all on Georgia.
Seriously guys. Exactly WHAT is Russia risking?
NATO has already demurred on taking any significant action. Europe's energy needs are far too tied to Russian production for the EU to want serious action against Russia.
As far as the UN/Security Council taking significant action, don't forget that Russia has Security Council veto power. Nothing will come of posturing there.
Do any of you have an honest belief that the US will go head to head with Russia over this? If so, please explain to me what such a belief is based on.
I read about the invasion of Poland also. This has the same kind of similarity to that that the Manhattan Project has to the Star Trek series - it seems to take quite a stretch of imagination ***for me*** to get from the first to the second. In the German case, that invasion followed other successful land grabs. The annexation of Austria/the Sudetenland might be a better analogy here - but I think even that is a stretch.
A few Hummers swept up by a Russian "Lieutenant" to prevent opposition from deciding to use them is not going to precipitate WW3. There are no inescapable interlocking alliances like those that sparked WWI which will be set in motion here.
I'm kinda surprised at the apparent tone of alarmism here.