1 The man does ask a fair question. Since he can't call the White House and ask it, I'll try to do it on his behalf. Other commenters should do the same, I think.

2 The Georgians helped Georgia in Iraq. They didn't help us. The war in Iraq is civilization vs. barbarism. Anyone who sent troops there did so to aid in the global fight against Muslim terrorism, which threatens every free person. Does the world seriously think we're going to get into a shooting war with Russia? How will the world like oil at $400 a barrel? The only saving grace is we're learning that Russian weapons don't work. Their "smart" bombs miss, and the fifty air-to-surface missiles they fired at the pipeline all missed. In 1994 Chechen terrorists destroyed two entire Russian armored brigades in street fighting, using only rocket-propelled grenades and satchel charges. The only reason the Russians are winning in Georgia is through sheer force of numbers. They'll also lie about their casualties, as they did in the two Chechen wars. Some Russian mothers say that those two wars cost the Russians over 25,000 dead. We shouldn't, however, get lost in fantasies that we can go to war in defense of Georgia. It's simply not possible right now. Maybe if we' weren't already at war in two other countries...

3 It's hard not to agree with that guy. We need to help. But it is shocking that the Russians would be that open and obvious about their plans, calling someone an "obstacle."

Yes, we could go to war in Georgia, we'd mop up everything the Russians threw at us in short order. In fact, the UN should be moving to have everyone other than Russia (and China) do just that. It just won't happen.

4

Tom W. at August 10, 2008 10:11 PM (pXS7q)

 

Bullshit. America can very easily draw a line in the sand. We have troops, planes, bases located all over the region.  Russia is a paper bear and America needs to station troops in Gerogia and dare Russia to attack.  A show of force in Georgi now will prevent the bloodshed of million in the coming years.   Georgia is Putin's demilitarized Rhineland zone.  If the west does not stand up to this thug now things will get very ugly.   Russia is not a superpower.   The tyhreat of force without aid by the west will bring several former soviet districts back inot Russia's sphere of influence.   If need be Afganistan and Iraq should be abanded to protect Georgia.  terrorist compared to Russia is small fish. 

5 Russia is not a superpower.

unseen,

Yes they are.

It may seem like a gamble worth taking from the comfort of our keyboards but I imagine getting into a shooting war with a nuclear superpower is not a very appealing option for anyone sitting in the big chair in the White House.

That's why stopping Iran is so important.

6 Obama's candidacy must be like a kama sutra sex kit to Putin. ........... He's aroused and ready to stick it anywhere he can

7 So if I'm understanding this correctly, Russia is trying to annex South Ossetia and oust a pro-western president.  Of course, I question the timing.  If the plans to join NATO had already come to fruition, Russia would now be in a shooting war with all of NATO (since by treaty an attack on one is an attack on all).  If they oust the current president and manage to install a pro-Russian president, those plans will never come to fruition and Georgia will become another part of the new Soviet Union which Putin and his croanies seem to be creating.
A secondary goal of this whole "regime change" is the pipeline.  As I see it the issue with the pipeline is that Russia has been trying to get a stranglehold on oil and gas in eastern Europe for both economic and strategic reasons.  Russia doesn't need the oil in that pipeline, but the pipeline is a threat to their goals of energy domination in eastern Europe.  Therefore, by either destroying the pipeline or by controlling the Georgian state, they are shutting off one of the remaining routes of oil into Europe that they don't control.

8 OU_Grypho,

Add to that the fact we are running supplies to Afghanistan through...Russia because Pakistan is not a permanent answer.

The west bought the whole 'Russia has changed' line and now in a lot of ways they have us by the short hairs.

As I've said before Georgia is lost. Sorry about that but it's not changing in the next few weeks. The only important question is, what's next?

Putin has played this beautifully. To this point. Right now he has all the leverage but that's usually a situation that can't last forever. Plus, for the last 10 years or so, he's been the only one playing the game.

We need to start finding his pressure points and developing some leverage of our own or begging for his favor. Those are the only two choices. I fear, as the west always has, we'll waste sometime begging and trying to sway him. It'll be for nothing. We can only hope it's not too late then.

9

Unseen,I think your unhinged.You seem to have forgotten that Russia is a nuclear power.Only one of those warheads have to work to kill a hell of a lot more people than we are talking about right now.Does it suck?Yes.but thats the way it is.

 Also,where are the fucking Euroweenies on this.I am so sick of America having to come to the rescue/fight Europes battles.When the fuck are these faggots going to start taking care of thier own business?

 While I'm at it,hopefully the Repubs can turn this on the Dems.If those idiots would support domestic energy our hands would not be as tied as they are right now.We can't afford 200 dollar a barrell for oil.If we were ever to get in a war with Russia all they would have to do is sink every tanker they could and they would be able to sit back and watch our economy collapse.Man,I fucking hate Dems!

10 Bull fucking shit we can't do anything. We should do the same thing we did in Afghanastan in the 80's. Send the Georgians a couple hundred Javelin rockets with launchers. In a guerilla war scenario that the Georgians are threatening to fight, these weapons would be devastating the Russian armor. Those, coupled with the newest generation of shoulder-launched anti-air missiles would make Russia pay heavily for its imperial ambitions.

11 Most of Russia's Topol M's undoubtedly work just fine. 

A challenge from an alliance of western nations is probably the only way successfully to challenge Putin's move; but as someone rightly pointed out, that is likely not going to happen.

12 "Only one of those warheads have to work to kill a hell of a lot more people than we are talking about right now.Does it suck?Yes.but thats the way it is." Your the one that is unhinged if you think Putin is going to go nuclear over some fucking border war. What possible sense would that make?

13 I agree with DrewM.  Russia may not be what it once was, but it is still a superpower.  It was a major propaganda win when the rest of the world became convinced that we are the only superpower left and that Russia and China are merely "powers".  After all, they may ask, why do we need to remain a superpower when the USSR has been defeated?  The logical conclusion being that the US needs to give up its power and lay down its arms.  But I digress...

We may have bases and whatnot around the world, but the most we could do in the short term is fly some ground support missions and maybe airlift in a few units.  Unfortunately, Georgia is in Russia's backyard and if they choose to "bring it", there is nothing we can do logistically to support Georgia.  This of course ignores the question of do we really want to piss off Russia in this way, knowing that it will come down to Russia, China, the middle east, and pretty much the rest of the world against us.

Morally speaking, we should definitely support Georgia.  Realistically speaking, there is precious little we can do or and even less that would be prudent to do.

14

Posted by: DrewM. at August 10, 2008 10:26 PM (hlYel)

 

No they are not.  Superpower means more than having nuclear weapons.  It means having the ability to project force anywhere in the world.  It means economical strentgh.  sure they have nuclear weapons that does not make them a superpower.  Britian, and France also have nuclear weapons are they superpowers?  

there is only one superpower in the world.  and that is thank god the USA. 

 

15 Your the one that is unhinged if you think Putin is going to go nuclear over some fucking border war. What possible sense would that make?

Jason,

The second you drop in an airborne division or brigade (if you can find one at the moment no cycling up of down from deployment) or a carrier group or anything with an American flag on it, this 'fucking border war' becomes WW III. Then nukes are very much in the picture.

16

vae victus at August 10, 2008 10:39 PM

Anyone that thinks russia would start a nuclear war over Georgia is unhinged.  russia know that if nuclear war then they die as well as us.   This will be a regional war.  Russia has no navy to speak of, no massive army.  no topline battle tanks etc.  Russia will not expand the war.  they will be forced to keep it in the region and Russia as weak as they are will be forced to stop agression if the West has the balls it should have had when Hitler did the same crap. 

 

17 unseen,

By your definition the Soviets weren't a superpower.

Their force projection was never what the US's was and even in the CIA wetest (and most inaccurate) dreams the Soviet economy was never a powerhouse.

What gave the Soviets superpower status beyond their nukes?

As for economic power, do you have any idea how much money is floating around Russia these days?  Trust me, not all of that oil money is going to Saudi Arabia.

18 Jason, switch to decaf or something.  Russia won't go nuclear over a border war, but this border war could go regional or bigger very quickly.  Russia is betting that we won't get in because we are afraid of they will use their nuclear capability in a larger conflict.  They know that we know that threat is useless if they aren't prepared to back it up. 

The reason we supported Afghanistan the way we did was to avoid making a small war into a larger conflict.  It sounds to me like we are already supporting Georgia in a similar way.  Maybe we need to step it up, but saying "damn the torpedoes" is insane when nukes are on the line.

19

DrewM. at August 10, 2008 10:46 PM WW3  russia will be shit stomped all over the world if they tried to expand the war.   Possibly if china comes in on russia's side but why would they do that?  china will save its strength and swoop into Sibera after the USa weakens Russia and claim all the natural resources of the region.  

 

Russia is playing a game of brinkmanship and they only way they lose is if the West stands up to the bully.   I doubt if we send in a  couple companies of western troops from Germany, France, Britian, Italy and the USA  that Russia would even fire a shot. 

 

If The western Powers would have made a simple show of force when hitler siezed the Rhineland WW2 would never had occurred. 

 

We are at another of those moments.  Georgia is our friend and ally failure to mount any type of response will destroy are reputation in the cacassus, the baltic, South Asia, and eastern Eruope.  All the gains we have made in the last 15 years will be wiped out.  russia will have a stranglehold on not only eastern euriope but western europe with its energy sources and its threat of force.

 

20 Okay, Russia may not be what it was in the Soviet era, but they still have a navy with the same or better weapons that they had in the cold war.  They still have tanks that are in the same class as anything in the world today.  Their planes, while not stealthy, are still comparable to our F-15s, F-18s, and F-16s which is the majority of our air force and navy air assets.  And most importantly, they still have nukes.  They don't have the same number of any of these things that they used to have, but they still have a lot more than any other European nation and a lot more than we can bring to the fight.

If you are a student of history, as you claim to be, you know that superiority of arms does not guarantee victory against superior numbers of well supplied troops.  Just ask the Nazis about that - oh, wait, you can't because our inferior tanks, boats, guns, and planes kicked their asses.  I would also recommend that you research Operation Market Garden on the folly of overextending yourself.

21

DrewM. at August 10, 2008 10:51 PM

the soviets where able to field a massive navy,  they projected force facross the world in cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, central america, south america, africa, middle east.  they were able to provide training, arms and treaties of mutal protection to their allies.  their ground army when eastern europe was included made the West's look small.  america countered there size defiencicy with technology.   If the Soviet's moved into western Germany the frontline USA troops avg life expectancy was 8 minutes.  That does not even bring their nuclear arsenal into the picture.  

 

As far as a superpower today can russia move 150,000 troops half way around the world.  Can they fight two wars while protecting another 3 countries.   Can they shoot down enemyICBM's?   their economy is 4 times SMALLER than ours.  their army now is made of conscripts.  Their tanks, plance and arms are decades old. 

22 I've just got this feeling (which is usually wrong) that Putin is looking for a reason to go nuclear in Georgia. Nukes have lost a lot of their deterrence because no one thinks anyone will use them for anything but retaliation for an all-out WMD attack, if that. If nukes become just another weapon in Russia's arsenal, one that they're not afraid to use, then they become that much more powerful.

23 Just wait until Russia's ~70% abortion rate catches up with them.  They are a dying nation, and dying things tend to do desperate acts.

24 Russia would love for us to "invade" Georgia.  They could say they are just defending their citizens against "cowboy diplomacy".  The media would eat it up and so would most of the world including the (anti) American left.  The Russians could easily attack us and give any number of excuses such as "Oops, were those Americans we just bombed?" or "They fired at us first".  America's enemies at home and abroad would say we deserved whatever we got and what recourse would we have short of bombing Russian assets?

Even if they don't attack us, all they have to do is wait until we elect Obama and we are as good as defeated.  Obama would be in Moscow apologizing personally within a month of his inauguration.

25 Posted by: unseen at August 10, 2008 10:58 PM (aVGmX)

I really don't know what to say to you because this is just so disconnected from any reality I'm familiar with.

I agree with the sentiment but the simple fact is in this case the Russians have planned it so they hold all the cards. I don't see how anyone can look at the board as it stands and say otherwise.

We had about 100,000 troops to go into Iraq. Where are you getting that number (assuming that would be enough to get the job done) for this new campaign? 

Even if you could, what reality do you live in to think there's any political will to do this? I'm not talking about Bush, I think we agree he's game for a fight but Georgia isn't a treaty ally so we'll need some congressional authorization for this. I'm sure Pelosi and Reid will fall in line. And oh yeah, the American people. They will have zero interest in this fight.

So, I'm pretty sure the military option is off the table long before we get to the inconvenient nuclear issue.

Look, this is a real problem. We need a real strategy not some fanciful tough guy talk.

26

OU_Gryphon

 

Russia's navy is not world class.  Russia's weapons are not up to the american weapons.  sure they can resupply faster than us.  I know all about Market Garden.   It was a  british adventure.  You know Monty wanted to make a splash.  the Germans were not defeat simply by numbers.  It was a combination of stratagy (bombings, taking out Italy, arming the Soviet Union etc.   When the USA, Britian and Soviets agreed to make it a three front war Germany was in for the shit.  Yet still Germany could have pulled it off if they would have planned for the russian winter, Stalingrad ring a bell?  

By the Americian taking out the soft underbelly of the German defense with Italy.  The allies ability to fake out the germans in normandy and gain a beach head etc. Mattered more than weapons and mass of soldiers.    While some of are weapons were not as good as the germans others were just as good if not better.   There is more to wars then number of troops and weapons.  russian military doctrine hasn't changed since the cold war.  Their order of battle, they massive firepower concentration they use to advance etc.  Is still the same.  even after massive losses in Afganistian and Checkneyes the Russia order of battle has not changed.   they had to level the capital of checkneye to pacify it.  america did not need to level cities to pacify Iraq.  Are warfighting is different and better IMO. 

27 Bullshit we cant do anything about it. Send everything we have to fucking Georgia if need be. Leave Iraq and Afghanastan if need be. Georgia is an ally, if you are not going to support an ally when they need it then pack up everything we have and go back to isolationism. Russia may have nukes but last I checked so did we. Honestly what has happened to Americas balls. The comments on this thread sound like they come from the fucking sissies from the daily kos. Bush needs to get his ass back to Washington  and order the USAF to make all of Georgia a fucking no fly zone at the very fucking least. Shoot down a pair of migs and see exactly how far Putin wants to take this bullshit. We held the soviets at bay during the cold war by behaving like we had a pair of balls. Well boys it time to find our stones again.

28

Why would they do this now, why not wait for the election, maybe things are worse there then we think.

I think they may think that McCain will win. I think McCain will make Cheney look like a nice guy, he has a real big mean streak, little guy, POW. Old

Russians do not do things unless they have a good reason, NATO does not scare them, we do

29

Well, foax, this is the kind of shit that happens when our media convinces everyone on the world, and half the people in the US, that our President is an idiot who has no support among the American people.  Good work MSM. 

You were trying to do to help your Democrap buddies, and it sure paid off.  Too bad you will never accept any responsibility for your fecklessness.

Look it up, you cocksuckers.

30 Yet still Germany could have pulled it off if they would have planned for the russian winter, Stalingrad ring a bell?

Yep, Stalingrad rings a bell.  An army with supply lines stretched way to far attacking the Russian army on its own turf.  The Russian army was inferior in technology but still won after a long and bloody conflict.  Hmm, I think you just made my point for me.  Thanks!

31

DrewM. at August 10, 2008 11:16 PM (hlYel)

Let's put things in prespective.  russia has sent 6,000 troops into Georgia.   At the height of the surge we had around 150,000 troops in Iraq.   We have reduced the number of troops to pre surge levels meaning the USA has around 50,000 battle tested troops available for a peacekeeping mission.  

 

as far as the dems in Congress would the dems in an election year vote to not fund a peace keeping force?  possiblty but by doing so they sign their retirement papers IMO.   As far a a formal treaty with georgia  we have troops in there at this moment training georiga's army.  We have embassy people, we have several reason why Bush could use the war powers act. to protect Americian lives.

 

What you fail to understand is that this conflict did not just happen.  Georgia was to be voted into Nato in dec.  Russia and the USa have been trading diplomatic blows over this area for the last several months.  russia choose to escalate it to open military blows.  It is now the USA turn to put up or shut up.  If we do the latter the entire effort of the last 15 years to contain Russia is over and we go back to a cold war or possibliy a hot war over rersources come winter when Russia turns off the pipeline to Germany and western europe.

 

32 NATO does not scare them, we do

Except that we are the sword and shield of NATO, therefore they are just as afraid of NATO as they are of us.  What that says about their lack of respect for us is chilling.

33 The problem is that Putin appears to be dedicated to driving backwards into the future. Whatever his motives, Russia has been gradually ramping back up to Cold War behavior. Problem is, they do still have their fucking nukes and if we try to do what's right they can make public pronouncements about how America's belligerence has forced them to reactivate their arsenal as a deterrent against American unilateralist interference in their region. So not only will we have the physical threat of nuclear weapons again, we will have the deranged and the spineless of the western nations actually blaming the United States for it.

Shit like this happens, and we still have fucktards in the States and around the world who think that we're the problem. God, let us get McCain in the center seat. He's "reached out" on a lot of issues but I believe he has the stones and the convictions to do what needs to be done. We need to do something about Russia and China's espionage as well as begin a real Strategic Defense Initiative. Maybe in that way we'll actually be able to curtail those asshole autocrats in the future.

In the meantime, Bush should protest to Putin at the games, but say he will do nothing to interfere in Georgia. Then Bush should get on the phone with every pro-west former Warsaw Pact nation and rapidly negotiate treaties for placing anti-missile defenses all around Putin's fucking border. After seeing what the Russians are doing to Georgia, I'm pretty sure they'll agree.

34 "The second you drop in an airborne division or brigade (if you can find one at the moment no cycling up of down from deployment) or a carrier group or anything with an American flag on it, this 'fucking border war' becomes WW III. Then nukes are very much in the picture." That's why I said that we should supply Georgian troops with American weapons, rather than send in our own troops. "Look, this is a real problem. We need a real strategy not some fanciful tough guy talk." I just gave you a real strategy. Supply Georgian troops with Javelin missiles that will make mincemeat of Russian armor. That may not be able to win the war if Russia decides to commit everything it has into Georgia, but such weapons would make them pay a heavy price for their ambitions. We should also sign agreements to sell such systems to Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics at discounted prices, just to make the Russians sweat.

35 In the meantime, Bush should protest to Putin at the games, but say he will do nothing to interfere in Georgia. Then Bush should get on the phone with every pro-west former Warsaw Pact nation and rapidly negotiate treaties for placing anti-missile defenses all around Putin's fucking border. After seeing what the Russians are doing to Georgia, I'm pretty sure they'll agree.

A good plan except who ratifies treaties in the US?  That's right, Harry Reid and Lyndsey Gramnesty's Senate.  These treaties can be made and even assuming Obama doesn't win in November, they would never be ratified by a congress openly hostile to ABM programs.

36 Also, like most arm-chair generals, I think many commentators on this thread GREATLY overestimate the risk of land operations, even directly between Russia and the US, becoming nuclear. There is a pronounced tendency to mark nuclear powers as untouchable. This may be true if our aim is complete conquest, but the later history of the 20th century demonstrated quite clearly that conflict between two nuclear superpowers will no become nuclear in lesser conflicts.

37

OU_Gryphon

The Germans did not lose because of long supply lines.  their supply lines were secure.   Stalingrad was won for the Russian because they sacrificed the entire population of the city in urban conflict.  It slowed the Germans down and caused the Germans to be in a winter fight equiped for summer.  It also allowed the Russians time enough to regroup and launch a counter attack in nov.  encirlcling the germans and causing the 300,000 german army to surrender.  It was a failure by hitler to plan, to keep his eye on the ball,  Stalingrad could have been surrounded and left to wither on the vine.   

38
It'd be nice if Europe had balls and an army right about now.

Too bad for the world that they have neither.

39

It looks like I have to post over here, not at the new site. My post from the new site (please feel free to delete the other post):

"It's hard not to agree with that guy. We need to help."

Yes. The problem is that, whatever our public promises, I think that we never promised military intervention, nor led them to believe such.

Georgia is in Russia’s backyard and has been "Russian" for a few hundred years. There is history behind this, and a comparison between Georgia and Europe (1919-1939 and 1945-1990) has historical and geographic problems.

But if we make the comaprison, we may have to let Georgia become the 21^st Century’s Rhineland, and do all we can to prevent in from becoming the next Sudetenland. We should not let it become the next 1939-vintage Poland.

As a practical matter, what the farmer wants us to do is simply beyond our reasonable power. Exchanging cities (by launching ICBMs) is not reasonable, and everyone knows it.

We probably could, with a squadron or two of F-22s and another 2 or 3 of F-15/F-16s, remove all Russian aircraft from the area, suppress their local air defenses, destroy most of their local comm, supply, etc., and maybe force all their formations to halt and hide.

But then there’s the ground effort. Where do we get troops? Europe? No problem getting volunteers to go to A. / I. (there’s a line to get a big slice of Taliban / Al Q butt), but Georgia . . . . . . our clear enemies are not there. Draft?

Sending USN assets into the Black Sea is an unnecessary and tragic mistake; specifically it will make those forces a ripe target and force us to severely escalate or lose much face if anything happens.

Money. We’re bleeding a lot of money into Iraq, and there are no organized opposing forces of any size. Russia still has significant forces, and in the immediate area. As time passes, those forces could grow enormously. The cost to us will be tremendous. Can we afford it?

I think that we needed to handle Saddam (in ’91), but 2003 worked ok. He was a threat and a pervert, and he can no longer do what he intended.

Do we need to fight Russia? I think the answer is "no"; worst case, we can fight another Cold War; some dead, maybe thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, but not millions.  The Russians are still rational, was Saddam ever?

To oversimplify Russian history: WW2, WW1, the Crimean War, Napoleon. In all cases, most if not all of the fight was on Russian soil, and 3 of the 4 threatened the existence of Russia. Not too many years before Napoleon, Russia finally subdued the last of the steppe nomads, essentially the heirs of the Mongols, that had been plaguing Russia for the past 500 or so years.

Then there’s the body count, lots of dead Russians (and prior to Napoleon, many carried away and . . .), and due to foreign invasion.  It's not that they have long memories, everyone does; we have short memories because we have a short history (from a fresh start).

There is, of course, very much more to history, but, right or wrong, this will play easily and well to the Russian people. Look at Soviet WW2 propaganda posters . . . . . .

Any US military intervention in Georgia will be easily spun into a threat to Russia itself.

Looking into the future, a friendly Russia would be good choice for the US, Europe and to the World in general.  An unfrienfly Russia looks real bad, for everyone and for a long time.

We should support Georgia diplomatically, economically, politically, etc., and perhaps there is a chance . . . fire many State Department butts  . . . unfortunately, it looks like Georgia will lose.

40

electricferret at August 10, 2008

agreed.   I still think a peace keeping force made up of regional players and western powers should be formed and dispatched now.   Ukraine, Azerbajon, turkey, Iraq, germany, britian, france and the usa putting in "some" troops to make a line in the sand would go along way to blunting the adventure by putin.   Give him the south ossteia  but no more.   Bring georgia into Nato at the earlest possible time  and put russia on notice.  

 

 

41 but the later history of the 20th century demonstrated quite clearly that conflict between two nuclear superpowers will no become nuclear in lesser conflicts.

I'm sorry, I must have forgotten all those times when our armies openly went up against theirs.  I do remember numerous proxy wars, though.  As I recall, those were considered the only safe way to do battle during the cold war.

42 Is it just me or is our sacred honor at stake here?  We need to help them, this is fucked up.  I feel so powerless.

43 Jason,

I've said a couple of times on other threads I'm fine with supplying Georgia with weapons but when you say stuff like this I think you are off the mark...

but the later history of the 20th century demonstrated quite clearly that conflict between two nuclear superpowers will no become nuclear in lesser conflicts.

We can fight proxy wars against each other but we've never been in a direct shooting war with another nuclear power.  Thinking that it can be contained is a dangerous gamble that no one has ever wanted to take and for good reason.

44 << Also,where are the fucking Euroweenies on this. >>

Why, the Europeans are praising Putin and hating Bush, of course.

45 Well we came pretty close during the Cuban missile crisis Drew, which also just happened to be the event that turned the tide of the Cold War. As far as risk goes, it is true that it would be a major gamble, but one really does have to count on the rationality of Putin and the Russian high command to not wish their country to be destroyed. Accepting that, a successful strategy must be willing to take risks when the reward, or the alternative of not doing so, is great.

46 Posted by: unseen at August 10, 2008 11:33 PM (aVGmX)

Let's put things in prespective.  russia has sent 6,000 troops into Georgia.

Yes, they have 6,000 troops in South Ossetia/Georgia (according the Georgians)  and supposedly another 4,000 on ships or trains heading to Abkhazia.  You seem to assume however that they won't move any more in from Russia itself, which is an insane assumption.

as far as the dems in Congress would the dems in an election year vote to not fund a peace keeping force?

It's not a question of funding, it's a question of authorizing. And more importantly, when the shooting is still going on it's not 'peace keeping' it's 'peace making'.

Trust me there is zero support in this country right now to send 50,000 'battle hardened troops' to war with Russia on behalf of Georgia. And yes, they are back but that doesn't mean they are ready to hop on a plane and fight a war, does it?


What you fail to understand is that this conflict did not just happen.

I understand perfectly well this didn't just happen. That's the damn point. The Russians have planned this well and right now they hold the cards. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't change that fact.

47

DrewM. at August 10, 2008 11:54 PM

 

So if russia decides to walk into Lativa or Poland again we should just let them?  Or if russia decides to take over Kakaztian  and its oil and gas that's ok too right?  Or if they want to bring the Ukrinae back into the fold.  no problem right?

 

russia knows the moment it shoots a ICBM their country is died just like ours.   they will want to contain the conflict.  while there is noever a 100% failsafe with WMD.  IMO unless russia is backed into a corner and threated with complete defeat the nuclear option will be kept off the table.   Fear of the nuclear war should not be a reason to allow a country to do wahat it wants.

48 Moreover, I wasn't advocating disembarking the 3rd ID in Poti and fighting as an expeditionary force for the Georgians. However, I can see us getting involved in a regional air war with Russia, which, if we retain our planes within Georgian airspace and only attack those Russian planes and armor formations within Georgia, there is a good chance of limiting even a direct engagement between us a Russia.

49 Well we came pretty close during the Cuban missile crisis Drew, which also just happened to be the event that turned the tide of the Cold War.

Jason,

"Pretty close" is a long way from what you originally wrote..."the later history of the 20th century demonstrated quite clearly that conflict between two nuclear superpowers will no become nuclear in lesser conflicts".

More to the point, the reason the Soviets backed down and prevented a shooting war is exactly because neither the US or USSR was willing to run the risk of doing exactly what people who claim we should throw troops into Georgia want to do.

No one then or since was willing to take the gamble so may here are willing to.

50 Lativa? Kakaztian? Ukrinae?  I've never heard of these countries.  Perhaps you could point them out on the map?

51 "More to the point, the reason the Soviets backed down and prevented a shooting war is exactly because neither the US or USSR was willing to run the risk of doing exactly what people who claim we should throw troops into Georgia want to do." No, it's because Kennedy directly threatened nuclear war over the deployment of missiles in Cuba. There is a big difference between a threat of preemptive nuclear attack made over an existential strategic threat, and a proxy war over some shit-hole in Georgia. Be serious, do you really think that Putin will risk a nuclear war over fucking South Ossetia? If the logic of "they have nukes, we can't do anything," is true, then what is to stop Russia from moving into all of Central Europe?

52

 understand perfectly well this didn't just happen. That's the damn point. The Russians have planned this well and right now they hold the cards. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't change that fact.

DrewM. at August 11, 2008 12:01 AM (hlYel)

So what makes you think that if russia planned this the USa did not also plan a response.   Bush and co knew this could be a result.   Do you really think Bush has no plans in case this happened? 

And I am assuming that Russia will not send more troops?  That depends if that want to escalate the conflict.   The georgian army numbers 30,000.  We are flying another 2,000 georgian troops into the war as we write this.   the trrian of Georgia is such that there are few passes into georgia from the north 9mountians you know.   One reason Russia rushed in if Georgia could have secured the pass russia would be forced to fight its way through the mountians.  not a good thing.   the other ave of supply would be from the sea.  Russian's navy and airforce could not protect troop transports from the US airforce.  Thus Russia would be forced to either expand the war into other regions, fight against georigian and american troops thru the mountians or trust in the sea.  Niether is good.

 

As far as the mood in this country for more war.  I will give you that point.  However,  this is different from Iraq in many ways and Americians are a people that supports its friends.  So IMO support could be obtained possibly.

the dems are the pacifist party and any thing that shines the lights on this cocksuckers would be a good thing in NOV.   the fact that Congress could not get the public to agree to end the Iraq war in defeat is a good point to make.

 

 

53 Posted by: unseen at August 11, 2008 12:03 AM (aVGmX)

As you likely know, we have treaty obligations to Poland and Latvia. Hopefully, we will soon with Ukraine. 

No, I don't think it's a given we'd go to war of Kazakhstan at this point.

You're pretty cavalier about who we will go to war over and the consequences of that action, not to mention pretty unclear how we are actually going to get it done.

How long do you think it would take to move those 50,000 'battle tested troops' and their gear into the theater? That's assuming they have gear like tanks and armored vehicles that are ready to go and not in overhaul.

54

OU_Gryphon

ok smartass I know you know what I mean but it you want to play 6 year old games here you go:

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS280&q=Latvia

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS280&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ukraine&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS280&q=kazakhstan&btnG=Google+Search

55

DrewM.

Not caviler about it at all.  just understand the stakes of not doing anything.   Appeasement doesn't work.  Failure to protect our friends will cost us more in the long run.  If we fail to make a stand than nothing is going to stop the russian bear. 

 

what is the point where you would make a stand?  Would it be in Berlin?  Maybe in Iran if russia decides to take out Iran?   Or maybe it would be the english channel?   Where do you draw the line and tell Russia here and no further?  If you do not draw the line russia will continue to expand.   So if not in georgia with favorable terrian for the defenders, with USa bases of power scattered in the region (turkey, Iraq, afgansitian among other).  with heavey equipment like tanks,helicopters etc close by then where?  Or should we just go ahead and surrender now?

56

More to the point, the reason the Soviets backed down and prevented a shooting war is exactly because neither the US or USSR was willing to run the risk of doing exactly what people who claim we should throw troops into Georgia want to do.
Drew.

 

i don't remember the USa backing down.  the USA was very willing to have a nuclear exchange.  THAT was what caused the Soviets to back down.  The USA stood up to the bully and the bully backed down.  Same thing happened when Reagan stood up to the evil empire. 

57 Posted by: unseen at August 11, 2008 12:13 AM (aVGmX)

Do you really think Bush has no plans in case this happened?

Well, what ever plans they have they don't seem to include starting a shooting war with Russia, do they?

As for American support...I doubt the vast majority of Americans could find Georgia on a map. Sure you can try to build a case but you're going to need a lot more than you have at this point.

And I am assuming that Russia will not send more troops?  That depends if that want to escalate the conflict.

We would be the ones escalating the fight for Christ's sake. How do you  not get this?

For those of you who think this would be a simple matter of some troops, some jets and some bombs you need to know the history of warfare goes back to before 1991.

If you think the Russians are simply going to melt away like the Iraqis did or take an ass kicking and let it go at that you are simply stupid or delusional.

58 Okay, I'm done with internet tough guys.

Send your deep strategic thoughts to the White House of the Pentagon. I'm sure they'll enjoy them.

59 Send your deep strategic thoughts to the White House of or the Pentagon. I'm sure they'll enjoy them.

60

drew maybe this will help:

 

The Kremlin designed this war. Earlier this year, Russia tried to provoke Georgia by effectively annexing another of our separatist territories, Abkhazia. When we responded with restraint, Moscow brought the fight to South Ossetia.

Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121841306186328421.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

 

What is at stake in this war?

Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

Second, Russia's future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states -- whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia -- will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.

Mr. Saakashvili is president of Georgia.

61 I honestly don't know how we'll proceed from here, but sanctions have hardly proven effective against threatening states. (See Iran)

This has the potential to get very bad very quickly.

62 drew maybe this will help:

It doesn't because I already know we should help Georgia. I'm all for resupplying them. I already know what's happening to them is a crime and bad for us. I am already emotionally enraged.

I got it.

What I am not is convinced that we have the forces at hand to do anything about it. Even if we did have the forces, getting into a shooting war with Russia is not an inconsequential thing that we should be undertaking at this point.

unseen, Jason and anyone else who wants to fight our way in there, can you link to anyone of consequence who has laid out a viable military option? Is there anyone who has been or is in an actual position of authority who is advocating a US military response? I haven't seen one.

63 Is there anyone who has been or is in an actual position of authority who is advocating a US military response?

I don't think anyone's advocating it at this time, but I doubt that anyone who currently is in a position of authority would tell you or I about his/her plans/ideas right now anyway.

64 Here's some good news for those of you who want to kick a little Ruskie ass over this...

In a telephone call to Georgia's leader Mikhail Saakashvili, the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, said Russian aggression "must not go unanswered".

If I were Putin, I'd be worried when Dick "The Cock of Death" Cheney starts talking like that.

65 In a way, this is like the situation with the potency of the West with respect to petroleum. For the last thirty years the West and primarily the USA has decided it would refuse to take advantage of its own good fortune and natural resources and insist on obtaining petroleum from anyplace except the USA. The consequences of this required many years to ripen, but the harvest has arrived. Now, that world demand for petroleum has skyrocketed, and prices have followed, even if the USA were to regain its sanity and begin drilling now with a passion, it would take several years to ramp up production. It may be necessary, but it will take time. If the USA hadn't decided to tie its own hands, a far greater supply would be available to market right now. However, we decided to prevent supplying ourselves with not only oil but nuclear power, and we are living the consequences. But the thought of those ugly oil wells was too repellent.. and in our current mindset, the thought of ugly intervention in nearly any conflict seems too noxious to consider. The fact that we managed to upset the apple cart in Iraq is the evidence for our distaste to do the right thing... nothing in the last two decades has riven the factions of Western democracies as much as that event. And it would never have happened had Gore been President. Saddam would now be adding to his new nuclear stockpile, after the lifting of UN sanctions, had he been left in place. The West, including Europe, decided many years ago that fighting just wasn't worth it. A West with the resources to invade, pacify, and rectify a place as backward and barbaric as Rwanda decided that the better option was to wring it hands, make tearful documentaries, and send apologies after the fact of the massacres there. A West that refused to take charge of the situation in Somalia during the nineties again revealed its fundamental lack of seriousness with regard to genocide. The same applies, with greater force, to the European response to the Balkan Wars. Consider Darfur and Sudan. The monsters running these places make the Three Stooges look like masterminds of strategy. Yet the dominant spirit of the age, the Left, can only look askance and talk about "raising awareness." The very picture of impotence. We seem to be in an age where no industrial Western power is willing to expend much blood and money for anything unless it literally, directly affects the lives of its people. If 100,000 people were to die in Georgia, the Parisian can still have his morning espresso, the Manhattanite can still buy his copy of the New Yorker at the local newsstand next to the gourmet deli. Consider Iraq... despite the howling of the moonbat Left, casualties have been remarkably low compared to any other war, and the cost of the war hasn't been clearly injurious to the nation. Even though the Left loves to come up with per second cost figures for the war, we are still not in a recession... and the war has lasted for five years. There is no draft. There is no shortage of enlistments. But it looks like Iraq is the last of the West's attempts to fight for some time. Especially if and when Saint Barry Hussein O'Guiltwhite moves into La Maison Blanche. My point is that what most of us would call "real war" has become forbidden anathema to the West, at least for now. Real war will go on in places where life isn't so comfortable as Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street or the Embarcadero or Pike Place Market, but don't expect the West to care much about it. Perhaps we are seeing a taste of what Paulbots and the hard Left really want, a world where the powerful refuses to raise its hand against tyranny, lest we violate "international law", or look arrogant, or fail to pass the global test... Time to reread "Heart of Darkness." The world outside of the West is full of indigenous copies of Colonel Kurtz, and the West increasingly looks like the cynical, plotting greedy Frenchmen of the Company, coming in after the fact to pick the bones of the dead, all the while lamenting that the method was "unsound." Goodbye Georgia!

66 Well Said George Orwell.

Cheney is not going to do spit. Dems would howl if the US did ANYTHING and as noted, Russia has us by the short-hairs in Afghanistan, given Pakistan's shaky status as a nation willing to allow us to supply our troops in Afghanistan.

Russians are not stupid, they spent YEARS planning this, analyzing what went wrong with Chechnya, and looking at the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They know us well and are local, with short supply lines and inventive, imaginative leaders.

Georgia will be crushed, a puppet regime installed, and the pipeline dismantled. Which is the point. Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, the rest are next. Probably also including Germany.

There is no real military force in Europe save a few US troops and Russia, Putin figures he might as well rule Europe as anyone. Europe gambled it all on what the Paulbots and Hard Left desired, disarmament and betting on how human nature had reached "the end of history" and now they're nothing more than the main course for Putin's meal, after he eats Georgia's appetizer.

No one is going to be signing missile defense agreements with the US. If anything, they'll roll over even faster. Putin is not weak. The US is. People are afraid of Putin and Russia again, and have nothing but contempt for the US. The hard man with the gun beats the sophisticated intellectual every time.

It's time for the US to build a crapload of nukes and ICBMs, a whacking great Navy and global Air Force (with unmanned bombers), and expand our Army and Marines. While drilling the crap out of everything at home.

Putin has not even BEGUN to play his cards, among them: giving Iran nukes, giving Osama nukes, or bio-weapons or chemical weapons, open alliance with Iran (likely coming), a Russian Navy pushing out into the Med, and fighting in Turkey alongside Iran to establish a "true" Turkish Islamic State.

Weakness invites aggression, and fundamentally the West is weak. Exhibit A: "Hate America and Whitey" Obama.

67 DrewM.: While I don't necessarily think we should get involved in Georgia right now, I don't see how Russia can possibly be called a superpower. Russia is, always has been, and likely always will be an unstable Third World hellhole vaguely masquerading as a coherent society. They lack fundamental economic and legal apparatus that support stability, prosperity, and resillience. They lack the social attitudes about the work ethic, entrepreneurship, and property rights that are the main ingredients in the West's "secret sauce." Their entire culture is dysfuctional and still deteriorating.

68

unseen, Jason and anyone else who wants to fight our way in there, can you link to anyone of consequence who has laid out a viable military option?

Drew

 

McCain told reporters: "What's most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces."

He said the U.S. should work with the European Union to put diplomatic pressure on Russia and help establish an independent peace keeping force in South Ossetia.

 

I would consider this a viable military option.  russia isn't leaving on their own.  It would also draw a line in the sand.

69 No one outside of Russia and Georgia is going to fight for anything. No one is going to stop Iran from building its nuclear weapons. No one is going to stop predation in the Sudan, in Myanmar, or anywhere else. Even if we are unimaginably lucky and get McCain as President, Iraq will be the final place America will maintain troop presence as actual deterrent, as opposed to historical artifact, like bases in Germany. Does anyone think the presence of US troops in Germany deters Putin from doing anything short of invading Germany itself? The next decade at minimum will be a time where any tyrant or power may exercise military force without credible threat from the West. I would certainly not trust the West to come to my aid, even if it were promised and codified. And as more and more powers obtain nuclear weapons, the likelihood of Western intervention will shrink to microscopic scales. Russia may be little more than a third world power in terms of conventional military force and economic health, but the possession of nukes changes the game... and even if they didn't possess them, what could possibly make it worth the West's time to forcibly, literally pose itself between two fighting factions? Can you imagine the US intervening in Venezuela should Chavez decide his dick needs inflation by means of invading Colombia? The US may send "advisors" and a few arms, but would any administration dare propose another real war in this age? The enormous size and inertia of the US economy and culture likens it to an ocean liner. We can do enormous damage to ourselves, go run riot on the bridge, flood seawater into the engine boilers, shatter the rudder... but because the ship is so big, the consequences of our actions take many years to play out. And when the consequences arrive, we wonder why, forgetting what we did years ago. Like when we shut down new nuclear power development, and new oil exploration. That took thirty years to ripen into a crisis. I've often thought the only thing that could motivate the US or the West into action would be some sort of attack that deprives us of our television. Seriously. If AQ came up with a weapon that could deprive North America of video broadcast, cable, over the air, what have you... and deprive us of it on demand, we would finally fight. No, on second thought, I actually think most of us would surrender. We would give AQ anything it wants, just so long as we could return to the glass teat and have something to watch. If you think I am being merely cynical and dismissive of American character, look at our cultural forbears, the UK. Day by day they surrender identity and freedom, on the thinnest of pretexts, to political correctness and perceived Muslim outrage. The fact that the Muslim outrage may not even be as real and widespread as imagined makes matters worse... they are surrendering not to realities but to the fear of being considered less than multicultural.

70

"It's hard not to agree with that guy. We need to help."

Yes. The problem is that, whatever our public promises, I think that we never promised military intervention, nor led them to believe such.

Georgia is in Russia’s backyard and has been "Russian" for a few hundred years. We may have to let Georgia become the 21^st Century’s Rhineland, and do all we can to prevent in from becoming the next Sudetenland. We should not let it become the next 1939-vintage Poland.

As a practical matter, what the farmer wants us to do is simply beyond our reasonable power. Exchanging cities (by launching ICBMs) is not reasonable, and everyone knows it.

We probably could, with a squadron or two of F-22s and another 2 or 3 of F-15/F-16s, remove all Russian aircraft from the area, suppress their local air defenses, destroy most of their local comm, supply, etc., and maybe force all their formations to halt and hide.

But then there’s the ground effort. Where do we get troops? Europe? No problem getting volunteers to go to A. / I. (there’s a line to get a big slice of Taliban / Al Q butt), but Georgia . . . . . . our clear enemies are not there. Draft?

Sending USN assets into the Black Sea is an unnecessary and tragic mistake; specifically it will make those forces a ripe target and force us to severely escalate or lose much face if anything happens.

Money. We’re bleeding a lot of money into Iraq, and there are no organized opposing forces of any size. Russia still has significant forces, and in the immediate area. As time passes, those forces could grow enormously. The cost to us will be tremendous. Can we afford it?

I think that we needed to handle Saddam (in ’91), but 2003 worked ok. He was a threat and a pervert.

Do we need to fight Russia? I think the answer is "no"; worst case, we can fight another Cold War; some dead, maybe thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, but not millions.

To oversimplify Russian history: WW2, WW1, the Crimean War, Napoleon. In all cases, most if not all of the fight was on Russian soil, and 3 of the 4 threatened the existence of Russia. Not too many years before Napoleon, Russia finally subdued the last of the steppe nomads, essentially the heirs of the Mongols, that had been plaguing Russia for the past 500 or so years.

Then there’s the body count, lots of dead Russians (and prior to Napoleon, many carried away and . . .), and due to foreign invasion.

There is, of course, very much more to history, but, right or wrong, this will play easily and well to the Russian people. Look at Soviet WW3 propaganda posters . . . . . .

Any US military intervention in Georgia will be easily spun into a threat to Russia itself.

Looking into the future, a friendly Russia would be a major asset to the US and to the World in general.

We should support Georgia diplomatically, economically, politically, etc., and perhaps there is a chance . . . . . . unfortunately, it looks like Georgia will lose.

71 And Soviet WW2 propaganda posters, too.

72

Anybody realize that this really is "blood for oil".  Specifically, Russia wants to control Georgia's oil by controlling country and the pipeline running west through Turkmenistan and Turkey.

Where are the Liberals screaming "blood for oil" when it REALLY happens???

73 Again, it looks like Saakashvili started this shit, by breaking a ceasefire and agreement to negotiate he agreed to on Thursday.  "Jaw, jaw, is better than war, war," as Churchill said.  Saakashvili agreed to a ceasefire and then treacherously attacked.  If he miscalculated, then maybe he's going to end up in history's trashcan.

I agree with DrewM.  For those who never learned about or lived the nuclear age, the Russians have many missiles which could fuck us up.  Their SS-18s have either 10 MIRVed 1 megaton warheads, or one 25 megaton warhead on them.

I'm surprised at all the fools that want to play

GEN Wesley Clark at Pristina Airport

I'm more on the General Sir Michael Jackson side: "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."

74 The Russians may not have the ability to reach as far as the old Soviet Union or be capable of the continuous effort needed to control the old subjects full-time, but in their sphere they are quite capable of stomping any one or two of the former satellites that give them too much trouble. The Baltics have to be sweating bullets, likewise the Azerbaijanis.

Don't count on much US help, nor NATO. As for the EU - please...

75

There is one possible option we could, in theory, do, without really getting directly involved.  If Georgia (and possibly also the Ukraine) asked us to lay naval minefields to defend their coastline, we could do that.  It puts the entire Black Sea Fleet at risk, but would not officially be an aggressive response.

 

No way in Hell we'd actually do it, but we probably could.

76 Instead of focusing on what we don't have, let's have a look at what we've got: 2,000 well trained Georgian soldiers who want to get into the fight. I say run them through a certain school for boys located at Ft. Bragg, & infiltrate them back to their homeland with a bunch of sterilized gear. Then they can make the Russians choke on what they've bitten off.

77 "There's a legitimate answer but it's an ugly and ignoble one...there's not much we can do." Bullshit Drew. Just bullshit. There may not be much we will do, but there's plenty we can do. Don't enable the political windsocks.

78 Immolate, more accurate to say, "Not much we can do without risking having your user name happen to the whole world". Talk about how it's like the Sudetenland all you want, but keep in mind the Nazis didn't have nukes. Russia Does. With no mutual defense treaty between us, we aren't going to risk losing New York to save Tiblisi. It's possible the Russians would back down were we to make a show of force here, but WHAT IF THEY DON'T? This isn't a board game, even if the pieces will all fit in a small box afterwards if it does go nuclear.

79 Didn't Georgia start this problem by attempting re-take South Ossetia? Sorry, but I don't think our "alliance" with Georgia includes helping them militarily when they poke a bear with a stick.

Is anyone here going to claim we should help South Korea if they attempted to invade the North?

80 And Bush Jr. calms the American Olympic audience at home, having told Putin, "This is unacceptable."

"Unacceptable" is PC Newspeak for "pretty please with sugar on top don't."

Then again, as Obama would say, "Merci beaucoup."

Disgusting, calling it "unacceptable" but sticking around for the show.

81 Drew, how does an attack on Gori represent a "major escalation of the conflict", when Gori is the absolute closest border town to South Ossetia?  The town from which Georgia funnelled their attackers...

Where is the acknowledgement in your post that Georgia started this conflict by attacking South Ossetia and occupying its major center, killing hundreds in the process?

I'm sorry, why is the USA supposed to get sucked into this conflict, that consists of an absurd Georgian adventure by a loose canon leader who bit off more than he could chew?

South Ossetia is historically alligned with Russia.  Historically, it was never part of Georgia, until Stalin (a Georgian by the way) made it so.  If you want to say South Ossetia should not be independent of Georgia, then by that logic Georgia should have never gotten independence from USSR (or equiv confederation).  South Ossetia fought for independence less than one year after Georgia got its independence.

Fact is this conflict is a mirror image of Kosovo.

82 Another nekulturny mudak speaks what's on his mind. (Funny how the Moscow line on the war is what's on his mind.) In Kosovo, we were not arming the Kosovars and encouraging them to shell Serbia. Nor were we giving the Kosovars US passports so we could claim that it was our citizens the Serbs were attacking. 

83

Russia may be little more than a third world power in terms of conventional military force and economic health, but the possession of nukes changes the game... and even if they didn't possess them, what could possibly make it worth the West's time to forcibly, literally pose itself between two fighting factions?

In this case, I don't think there's really a need to intervene because I don't think Russia is a threat to our interests. I don't even think Russia as we have known it will exist much longer. They have a raging AIDS epidemic, low birthrates, high abortion rates, massive drug use (even by children), and rule by organized crime. Before long, the only people left in Russia will be Muslims. We have far bigger fish to fry.

84 Drew, how does an attack on Gori represent a "major escalation of the conflict", when Gori is the absolute closest border town to South Ossetia?  The town from which Georgia funnelled their attackers...

Village Idiot ,

I'm not sure there's a free pass for going into Georgia proper because Gori is close to South Ossetia. Obviously Russian troops leaving the disputed region for undisputed Georgian territory is an escalation.

I also wouldn't use the word 'attackers' to describe Georgian troops going into Georgian territory which, whether Moscow likes it or not, is exactly what South Ossetia is.

You can say the Georgians shouldn't have pushed the issue at this time but I'd also say the Russian's and their separatist friends shouldn't have been lobbing artillery shells from South Ossetia.  That's the kind of think likely to generate a response.

As for talking about the start of the war, this is like the 5th or 6th post on the matter between Gabe and I. I don't think we are going to cover ground we've already covered in previous posts.

85

@50: "Lativa? Kakaztian? Ukrinae?  I've never heard of these countries.  Perhaps you could point them out on the map?"

Ukrinae is GAME to you?! 

86 My take is that a Predator with a missile or two could've closed the tunnel between Russia and Ossetia in a matter of minutes. Then there would've been no way for Soviet- er, Russian, troops to get into the fight. With good timing, no casualties either.

87 DrewM,

Gori isn't merely close to south Ossetia.  It is exactly the border town from which the Georgian troops attacked and occupied the center of South Ossetia.  It is a logical part of the conflict and response to what Georgia did when it sent in massed troops to invade and occupy the center of Ossetia, not some unexpected and stunning "escalation". 

You say you wouldn't use the word "attackers" to describe Georgians going into South Ossetia.  Well fact is the Georgian military killed hundreds of people in South Ossetia with their invasion.  Drew M, look yourself in the mirror and say again that they were not attackers?  

Oh and by the way previous posts on kosovo are beyond absurd. 
Look at this quote.  "Third, Kosovar independence was achieved without military action. Actually, the fact that Kosovo was able to declare independence without going to war with Serbia is evidence of just how complete its de facto independence was."

Have you ever read anything so absurd from Gabriel Manor?  What about the years of KLA terrorist action against Serbia, was that not military action?  Or the NATO bombing of serbia to forcably wrest Kosovo from it?

Or how about this whopper from Gabriel Manor. "Georgia has always been able to exert at-will military control over South Ossetia."   Oh really!  Then why did Georgia sign a cease fire in 1992 with South Ossetia that said they were giving up exactly that?   The same one they violated just now that provoked this whole conflict?

This conflict is Kosovo coming back to bite us, it is a mirror image.   And this is just the tip of the iceberg from Kosovo, it will haunt us for decades. You can't support Kosovo independence while giving South Ossetia no credence.  Be honest with yourself and your readers.

88 The idea that Georgia is the aggressor, when Russia gave artillery to the South Ossetia rebels that they were firing into Georgia, is just sick.

South Ossetia is not recognized as a sovereign nation... it's part of Georgia that is in the process of seceding... Georgia only went in to protect themselves from the killer 'rebels' (Russian special forces).  Russia takes that as an excuse to swarm the entire country and demand that the popularly elected government be replaced with one Russia wants.  Russia has no evidence of the 'ethnic cleansing' aside from what they are doing to the Georgian people (killing them by the thousand).

If we can't do anything about it, then we can't.  And I grant it would be tough to get there, and Russia is a nuclear power (though a weak one otherwise), so we may not be able to go to war with them.  But nuclear weapons are not a license to murder thousands of people and take over nations that lack nukes.

Many don't want to escalate the situation.  But I think it's going to escalate faster if we don't act strongly now.

Iraq is thankfully getting a lot better quickly, and perhaps it's time to reduce our presence to a few fortified QRF posistions and navy support, in a loud way that is described as preperations for protecting former USSR states from an undemocratic and unfree Russia under what appears to be a dictator.  Georgia's government isn't an acceptable 'partner' for Russia?  Well Putin isn't an acceptable partner for the world.

I hope Europe can finally muster up the resolve to do something about this.  It's their energy on the line, and it's their neighbor being murdered as we speak.

89 At this point, just about any solid response is a correct one. Send a plane into Tblisi and announce (after the fact) that it carries weapons. Just somehow, let Putin know that we aren't going to roll over here. I stand by my earlier post about taking out the tunnel. The thought that crosses my mind is a recollection of the fiasco at Bay of Pigs. American naval pilots on the carriers near Cuba were going bat-shit crazy when told they couldn't take off and attack. I wonder how the Grunts in Georgia feel right now. About the same, I should guess.

90 Aaron, S. Ossetia is legally part of Georgia.  They have the legal right to put troops there.  Whether it was smart to do so is another matter.

Russia doesn't want to get nuked.  They don't want to get into an economic fight with the US, either.  They would get hurt much more than we would, but neither the US nor Russia would benefit from that level of conflict.  Frankly, I think it's WAY over the top to suggest that Russia would nuke the US for putting forces in Georgia and fighting a limited, conventional war there against Russian forces.

I think putting air assets in, patrolling Georgian air space outside of S. Ossetia, and making it known we just want to keep Russian troops from advancing into Georgia any further than S. Ossetia, would be a workable plan.  It focuses on preventing conflict between Russian and US forces, and, if implemented with clear communication with the Russians, would probably result in a relatively quick ceasefire.

But then, I am not a Pentagon planner, so this is just my two cents.

91 Well fact is the Georgian military killed hundreds of people in South Ossetia with their invasion.

Village Idiot,

Please explain to me how Georgia or any country can be said to have 'invaded' it's own territory.  Even if one accepts your construction, how exactly does Georgia's decision to exert control over territory every country in the world recognizes as being Georgian gives Russia license to attack Georgia?

I'm not going to deny that Kosovo set a bad precedent but I'm unaware that hypocrisy was a trump card that prevented nations from pursuing their interests. 
So please explain why our actions in Kosovo mean we can't stand by an ally or must let Russia intimidate their former republics from getting to close to us.

Must we never confront Russian expanisionsim in order to be consistent?

92 Have you ever read anything so absurd from Gabriel Manor?  What about the years of KLA terrorist action against Serbia, was that not military action?  Or the NATO bombing of serbia to forcably wrest Kosovo from it?

The sins of the KLA can in no way be laid at the feet of the Assembly of Kosovo. The Assembly's democratic declaration of independence was achieved without military action. The same cannot be said of the South Ossetian separatists, who continued shelling Georgia right up until last week when Georgia decided it'd had enough.

You claim that Georgia violated the ceasefire and "provoked this conflict", but ignore the attacks from the separatists on Georgians for the past four years. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. Palestinians always get a pass too, it's always Israels fault that the poor Palis are compelled to lob missiles.

Get a clue.

93 From the Jawa, a blog on the Georgian view of things: http://georgiamfa.blogspot.com/

94 If any time was going to be good for Israel to bomb Iran, isn't now that time?

What in the hell is the UN going to do about it?  Or Russia? 

Israel might as well use cloudy times to delay Iran's program as many years as they can.

95

Just out of curiosity, for all those who want us to "just do something", leaving aside the question of precisely what or why you are not worrying about NATO responding as one of the core issues of dispute is the 2009 acceptance of Georgia into NATO, when do you all think we should start bombing China for the aggression they are demonstrating throughout Africa not just Sudan which has killed tens of thousands more than have been killed in Georgia so far?  Should we wait until after the closing ceremonies or unleash the dogs of war during the women's synchronized swimming when surely the Chinese will be distracted?  Oh and where the hell are those troops coming from?

As to arming the militants is Georgia as we did in Afghanistan, does anybody remember what the eventual outcome of that was?

We are not the world police.  This is far more a European problem and a NATO problem than a US only problem and it requires the Europeans to get up off their collective asses and get involved instead of relying on the US to carry their water on every issue.  We've got our plate full in Iraq and Afghanistan to say nothing of Iran (where the Russians are the primary problem behind the scenes) to even think about going unilaterally after Russia.  Nobody is happy with what the Russians are doing but the job of our president is to protect the interests of the US first and foremost and that does not include getting involved in every war around the world no matter how much it pisses anyone off.  How anyone can even think of a shooting war with Russia given how much trouble we are having in both Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that make Russia look like the old Soviet empire, is mind boggling.

Here's something to chew on.  Forget the enormous issues that a shooting war with Russia would cause on the battlefield, what do you think a war like that would do to the world's economy?  We would shoot right past recession and head directly to depression.  Sound good to anyone?

Yea, me neither.

96 Jack, I know you are at least somewhat correct.

We can't fix all these messes.  But Russia is not like China in many respects.  And Georgia is not like Darfur in that they have really helped us out (whether one wants to deny it or not), and are huge USA fans (they name major streets after W). 

We have to draw a line somewhere, don't we?  And if this keep escalating, which it's clear it will as Russia has been on a USSR path for a long time, then it's always easier to deal with it sooner.

If anything, we could send in our own peacekeepers.  Russia won't attack them.  This is not Russian territory, after all, and if Russia can jump in there, then why can't anybody?  Make it clear that we're here to stop the war as quickly as possible, and restore order.  Even such a meek action as that seems impossibly bold to some who have forgotten the lessons of history.

And frankly, we should do something about Africa and China.  In the long run, it would save us money and it would save lives.  We should disband the UN and come up with an organization with the explicit goal of stopping these tyrannies.  We could call it Team America.

97 It's as if the 1930's and 1970's made woopie and birthed the 2000's.

98 As to arming the militants is Georgia as we did in Afghanistan, does anybody remember what the eventual outcome of that was?

Jack,

If you've had the chance to read any of the thread I think you'll see we are pretty much in agreement about direct military intervention but I don't you can call the army of Georgia "militants". They are the duly constituted military force of a sovereign state and close regional ally. I don't think rearming them is on par with running guns to the Mujaheddin circa 1980.

99 Russia isn't a superpower, they're a mid level power on the scale of, say, Germany. Powerful, but nothing like the US. Superpowers change world history with decisions, Superpowers dominate. Russia is a powerful country with delusions of grandeur and lots of great PR from the media, but not a superpower.

100

Actually, Drew, I did read many of the posts up above and there are a good many advocating action be it direct military, flying support missions or arming the Georgian troops.  All of these, in the absence of a cohesive NATO alliance is madness.  Russia is not going to sit idly by while the US interferes with what in their minds is an internal issue.   We may not see it that way but we aren't Russians.  It doesn't mean shit what we think as regards a Russian response. 

Georgia has been under Russian domain since about 1800 with only a brief respite during the Russian Revolution until the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Even before full independence there were numerous uprsings and purges that killed far more than have died so far in this one.  You couple that with the fact that Russia blames Georgia for a lot of the shit that went down during the Chechnyan uprising (which Georgia probably did), centuries of armed conflict between the two countries, the fact that Georgia sits on the Silk Road and is both strategically and resource rich and it's no wonder that there has been an almost constant state of war between the two countries back at least to the 1500's.

Georgia is a hugely corrupt basket case of ethnic strife and has been forever.  There is always some separatist movement or ethnic uprising almost as often as a change of season.  There is no way to easily unravel this mess and it inserting ourselves into it in any military way, even in support, would be a nightmare.

As to Afghanistan, nobody foresaw how arming a bunch of cave dwellers who were fighting the Soviets could come back to bite us in the ass either.  But it did.

101

GEORGIAN MILITARY:

TOTAL PERSONNEL:                    26,9000
MAIN BATTLE TANKS:                  82
ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS:         139
COMBAT AIRCRAFT:                    ONLY 7 PLANES
HEAVY ARTILLERY PIECES:             95
NUCLEAR WARHEADS:                   2,027

RUSSIAN MILITARY:

TOTAL PERSONNEL:                    641,000
MAIN BATTLE TANKS:                  6,717
ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS:         6,388
COMBAT AIRCRAFT:                    1,206
HEAVY ARTILLERY PIECES:             7,550
NUCLEAR WARHEADS:                   2,207

NO IMAGE OF CONTROL OVER EITHER SIDE RIGHT NOW (08-11-200 .
RUSSIAN TROOPS ARE ADVANCING FURTHER NORTH INTO GEORGIA.
THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE KEEPERS ARE CALLING FOR A CEASE-
FIRE, AS RUSSIA IS CALLING THEIR ATTACK ON THE BREAK AWAY
PROVINCE OF GEORGIA, AN ALL-OUT WAR.  AS USUAL, THE U.S.
PENTAGON IS FAVORING THE WEAKER SIDE OF THIS MILITARY
BATTLE.  AS OF NOW (08-11-200 , THE RUSSIAN AIRFORCE IS
BOMBARDING GEORGIA.  GEORGIA'S MILITARY IS FIRERING
ARTILLERY SHELLS AT RUSSIA AFTER DARK SINCE THIS WAR
BEGAN ON 08-08-2008. RUSSIAN'S PRESEDENT GLADEMIRE PUTON
IS GETTING REALY PISSED OFF FOR THE REASON THAT THE U.S.
IS AIRLIFTING GEORGIAN TROOPS FROM IRAQ TO GEORGIA TO
HELP TO FIGHT THIS INCREASING LARGE SCALE WAR.  FOX NEWS
SAID THAT THE REAL DANGER HERE IS ABOUT HOW FAST THIS
WAR IS SPREADING.  ON 08-09-2008, THE RUSSIANS TOLD THE
GEORGIAS TO PUT DOWN THEIR WEAPONS OR BE ATTACKED EVEN
MORE.  THIS ATTACK IS NOT RELEVENT TO SHIELD INNOCENT
WOMEN AND CHILDREN MEANING THAT WHO EVER IS IN THE WAY
OF THIS WAR IS IN GRAVE DANGER OF BEING KILLED.
ATTACKS FROM RUSSIA HAS DISTROYED MANY BUILDINGS AND
APPARTMENTS COMPLEXES, LEAVING MANY WOMEN AND CHILDREN
DEAD IN THIS WAKE.  RUSSIA WANTS TO OWN GEORGIA, WHILE
GEORGIA WANTS TO KEEP ITS INDEPENDENTS SINCE THE SOVIET
BREAK UP IN 1988. . . . . . THAT IS WHAT THIS WAR IS
ABOUT - SO THEY SAY.  OR IS IT FOR ANY OTHER REASON SUCH
AS ONLY THE PENTAGON WILL NOT DISCLOSE.  TELL ME THAT
AREA 51 DOES'NT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY WARS THAT
HAPPEN AROUND THE WORLD.  THE U.S. GREATEST COMMODITY
IS OIL.  ITS AN ADDICTION.  WE DEPEND ON OT.  GEORGIA
IS A GREAT SUPPLIER OF THE BADLY NEEDED OIL THAT THE
U.S. NEEDS AND AS FAST AS THIS WAR IS ESCULATING, GEORGIA
NEEDS TO USE THEIR NUKES A.S.A.P.

                

102 We can take away Russia's MFN trading status and freeze their financial assets in the US, for starters.

103 Gabriel Manor says,

"The sins of the KLA can in no way be laid at the feet of the Assembly of Kosovo."

Gabriel, since you are so completely ignorant about Kosovo, maybe you should give up commenting on the subject for a while.

Did you seriously not know that the current president of Kosovo was a member of the KLA???? Same with many of the Assembly?   There is no distance between the government of breakaway Kosovo and terrorist KLA whatsoever.

104 Oh, I agree we should do everything we can - but putting in US troops against Russian troops is not a good idea. We're kinda busy at the moment, anyway. I'd say it's time for the vaunted EU military to step the fuck up. If they won't commit troops to help a neighbor under overwhelming attack from a well-known aggressive power, just when will they? When Armenia goes down? East Germany?

105 Umm. Georgia has nukes? News to me. And since Stratfor has made no mention of these nukes, I'm guessing it would be news to them. So am I really that out of touch, or is somebody digging into Grandpa's medicine?

106 You know, I've been thinking. Most of the points here are valid. For any country to help the Georgians would be extremely difficult. And yes, as several have pointed out, the Russians do have some claim to Georgia being "part" of their empire. But in the end, these arguments are weak. So what if, for most of the last millenium Georgia has been part of Russia. As of 2008, IT NO LONGER IS. It's an independent country, recognized by the World Community. The rest of the world has a moral and legal obligation to help. As to the problems, they are huge. However, should the world take the easy choice, or the correct one? Why did nobody help Poland in 1939? Because it was isolated- it was too hard to get support there. Sound familiar? Ditto for Czechoslovakia the year before. Too isolated, too hard to help, not important enough. Yeah, that argument holds water. And it always turns out well. Remember Santayana's words: Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

107 We keep talking about Russia's third world economy. This article speaks otherwise.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/moscow-overtakes-new-york-as-the-billionaires-capital-of-the-world-563284.html

108

Ok, I read a lot of the comments above, though some of them seem to be written by pretty educated people, most of them are a complete BS seems to be written by idiotic red necks.  “NEEDS TO USE THEIR NUKES A.S.A.P.”   WTF? Georgia never had nukes.  Like it was said above, it’s run by corrupt officials and a moron president, who by the way according to the latest reports seems to be also a psychologically unstable person with crazy ambitions. He is pro-western because he managed to get an education in Columbia University?  I’ll tell you what he learned during his years in the US- he learned catchy phrases about democracy and freedom. And he uses it wisely I will tell ya. Screaming on every corner how Russians want to crush democracy in Georgia. DEMOCRACY?  Oh, please.  There is no democracy there, never was and never will be. Corruption is engraved in Georgian mentality. It has been always run by families and clans for centuries.

 Now, why do we only hear how bad Russians are? I’m so sick and tired of it. Who started this war? Georgia!!!!!!  They wanted to crush “separatists’ movement” in South Ossetia, where 90% of population is RUSSIAN CITIZENs!!!!!!!!!!! And where Russian peace troops were stations since the beginning of 90-s to prevent Georgia from doing what they did last week. So Russian citizens and piece troops are attacked, what’s Russia to do? Just watch? They never showed it in the news in the US, but Georgian killed women and children in South Ossetia. Why? Because their president decided he needed to take care of this “problem” before the reelections in the US since its unknown whether a new president will support Georgia’s ambition to join NATO.  And let me tell ya one more thing. When Georgian troops moved to South Ossetia, their government new exactly what kind of consequences would follow. Bare no doubt Saakashvili absolutely knew what he was doing and what Russia’s response would be.  It was a trap, no doubt in my mind. The only thing that Saakashvili miscalculated is the response from the West. United States is in a deep shit with its economy in crises and two wars raging oversees.  Our debt is enormous. I can go on and on about it. But what’s the purpose. You all know that. And do we really need WORL WAR 3 on our hands?  Now, Russians are acting like they ought to be acting. Maybe not the liking of the west but they are trying to protect their interest. Imagine if Russia comes to Mexico and says “don’t worry, its not a threat to the United States, we just want to protect ourselves from Iran”. Last time it happened we had a Caribbean Crises on our hands. The fact is that we have been pushing and pushing Russia, and they bit back. Russia is not a “paper bare” let me tell ya. Their economy  has been betting stronger and stronger in the recent years, while we are in shit hole right now.

On the other hand I don’t defend actions of the Russians. As always they went too far with their brutal force. They want respect. And that’s the only way they know who to get it-by force. I wish they would just sit back and fix their own problems instead of being a plug in every hole, quit angering US and the West and instead cooperate. Wishful thinking on my part… anyway. I agree on one thing. This conflict should stop. Regular people are suffering. It’s a humanitarian crisis. My heart goes on to those people: Ossetians, Georgians, Russians…  People are all the same, we all suffer. Its those people in the presidents offices who make the decisions that should be held responsible…ok pheew I said enough.

109 need 5000 loan overnight
Paris Hilton Sex Tape All Kinds
High Risk Personal Loans Real
Short Skirt Gallery In Internet
No Credit Check Loans Now

110 Good afternoon. Keep cool and you command everybody. Help me! Please help find sites for: Preved pediki. I found only this - Febuxostat allopurinol. If your corvette needs it, we got it. Are you looking for wall clocks? Decor collection has the largest line of large and small clocks, even antique to modern. :-) Thanks in advance. Meir from Syria.

111 Hi everyone. A mother is not a person to lean on but a person to make leaning unnecessary. Help me! I can not find sites on the: Anti asthma. I found only this - pill zyrtec. This staple of east indian cuisine can reduce inflammation in some patients tumor, anti allergic, anti oxidant, antiseptic, anti spasmodic, astringent. Elestat is an anti allergic medication. Thank you very much :confused:. Osanna from Marshall.

112 Good Day. It is not much for its beauty that makes a claim upon men's hearts, as for that subtle something, that quality of air that emanates from old trees, that so wonderfully changes and renews a weary spirit. I am from Zealand and also now am reading in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "You need lighting that is flooding your face from the mirror to take away all shadows." Waiting for a reply , Huy.

113 Good morning. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. I am from Italy and know bad English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "I too love your sermons from the bathroom mirror!! You should make these a regular sunday post." Waiting for a reply , Audrey.

114 Give please. It is not enough to aim; you must hit. I am from Mongolia and also now'm speaking English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "internet pharmicie with rogain and provillus." Regards Ahmik.

115 Good Day. What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog. I am from Kosovo and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "before pics on provillus." With respect 8-), Olive.

116 Hi. Most of the basic truths of life sound absurd at first hearing. I am from Montenegro and , too, and now am writing in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Usually, when disappointment mr." With love , Rihana.

117 louis vuitton Sale                                 louis vuitton bags

118 Quest-Goblin's Club-DeFugel Quest-Afraid of Flower Bees-DeFugel Quest-It's Charles-DeFugel Quest-Asking for A Lot of Action!-Craxion Quest-Getting out of Danger-DeFugel