Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Georgia:Russia has invaded and we are under attack
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 17181920>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613 		  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Georgia:Russia has invaded and we are under attack
    Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:38
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

 
As far as Iran, the new reality in the region is that Russia intends to be, and evidently IS, the biggest bad ass on the block.  It is not only NATO, but Iran that must take notice.  Russia has nukes, air power and the balls to act.  Iran's bark is far louder than it's sound bite.
 
 
i was thinking about this. They are caspian rivals and that would always have that restriction in their ties. but at the same time who the biggest threat to either of them?

Those Russians SAMs are going to be sent over now. Iran just got harder to hit and the Russians have that card still left to play. That was one thing i couldnt understand from Washington's behavior, cut your losses on the BTC and focus on the middle east. Iran would be a much more important issue and something that needs to be isolated in order to be dealt with. Thats not going to happen when Bush is spitting the dummy and putting missiles into Poland. The Russians are just going to help Iran even more now, and worry about them in the future. Azerbijan also just lost a land link to NATO, so that northern foothold over tehran got much weaker
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:21
Originally posted by Leonidas

so is bombing passenger trains and embassies. there is no law for the strong
In this particular case you misunderstood the article -- shelling of the hospital was done by Georgians, who could hardly be called strong.
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:22
Originally posted by Leonidas

  Azerbijan also just lost a land link to NATO, so that northern foothold over tehran got much weaker
 
I didn't understand. Why do you think Azerbijan does not support NATO anymore?
.
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 313 		  Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 19:52
Azerbaijan has never supported any of those, government is ok with oil money and does not want to get into more trouble, rather stealing the money
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 00:42
Originally posted by Leonidas

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

 
As far as Iran, the new reality in the region is that Russia intends to be, and evidently IS, the biggest bad ass on the block.  It is not only NATO, but Iran that must take notice.  Russia has nukes, air power and the balls to act.  Iran's bark is far louder than it's sound bite.
 
 
i was thinking about this. They are caspian rivals and that would always have that restriction in their ties. but at the same time who the biggest threat to either of them?

Those Russians SAMs are going to be sent over now. Iran just got harder to hit and the Russians have that card still left to play. That was one thing i couldnt understand from Washington's behavior, cut your losses on the BTC and focus on the middle east. Iran would be a much more important issue and something that needs to be isolated in order to be dealt with. Thats not going to happen when Bush is spitting the dummy and putting missiles into Poland. The Russians are just going to help Iran even more now, and worry about them in the future. Azerbijan also just lost a land link to NATO, so that northern foothold over tehran got much weaker
 
Longer term, the US should focus on the rivalry between Iran and Russia in the Caspian region.  As discussed in other threads, the US can contain Iran in the Persian Gulf, and there is no reason to escalate anything further than where it is now.  With Iran unable to extend influence south into the Gulf, the only other direction she can go is north....where Russian interests lie.
 
Azerbaijan, by herself, is nothing to speak of, and if they throw their lot in with Iran, so much the worse for them.  Obviously, NATO is as meaningless for Azerbaijan as it is for Georgia.
 
The "northern foothold" over Iran is going to be Russia.  There is no way these two vastly different states and cultures cannot eventually get into it.  Wait and watch, and see where this goes.
 
 
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511 		  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 03:44

CRISIS IN THE CAUCASUS. WHAT WERE THEY SMOKING IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2008/08/cris
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511 		  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 04:03
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Longer term, the US should focus on the rivalry between Iran and Russia in the Caspian region.  As discussed in other threads, the US can contain Iran in the Persian Gulf, and there is no reason to escalate anything further than where it is now.  With Iran unable to extend influence south into the Gulf, the only other direction she can go is north....where Russian interests lie.


pikeshot, do you think it is a good strategy for USA to make peace with Iran and then push it north against Russia?

Iran is unsecured in the gulf, but if USA makes peace with Iran there, Iran can concentrate its attention elsewhere.

USA can turn Iran north against Russia.


Edited by Bankotsu - 19-Aug-2008 at 04:08
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 06:44
Saakashili's behavoir bertrays his state of mind...
 
Is this tie really so delicious?
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810 		  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 09:13
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Numerous news sources with reporters present have shown that the Russians continue (which they have apparently admitted now). The looting has also been shown by various sources, including the Human Rights Watch which is present in Georgia.
 
Looting has been shown but it was not shown to be done by Russian forces. It was as a result of all Georgian military and police forces withdrown from those cities.
 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/kim-sengupta-first-war-now-anarchy-as-russian-militias-run-riot-894525.html
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 10:25
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Main conclusion from the article that some irregular forces (Ossetians, Chechens mystic Cossacs from Georgian point of view) loot and kill and no actions of Russian army to stop this. This is bad indeed. On the other hand, Ossetins accused regular Georgian army in rapings, killings, hospital shelling and all that sort of staff. What would you expect they will do? I do not try to excuse them but if you are looking for responsible people in wrong direction.
.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810 		  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 10:30
Originally posted by Anton

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Main conclusion from the article that some irregular forces (Ossetians, Chechens mystic Cossacs from Georgian point of view) loot and kill and no actions of Russian army to stop this. This is bad indeed. On the other hand, Ossetins accused regular Georgian army in rapings, killings, hospital shelling and all that sort of staff. What would you expect they will do? I do not try to excuse them but if you are looking for responsible people in wrong direction.

It's understandable indeed, still it shows how one-sided the Russian "peacekeeping" is.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 10:30
Look what "the best democracy in the post Soviet region" does to its own citizens:
 
"This is the fault of the Russians," said Georgi Mendiashvili, 66. "They were the ones that started this. But the Georgians were also at fault – they mined the road before we could get out; the whole village left in a convoy and three or four cars exploded. Innocent Georgians were killed by Georgian mines."
 
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 10:38
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


It's understandable indeed, still it shows how one-sided the Russian "peacekeeping" is.
 
This was not a peace-keeping. It was a military action on Georgian territory. I agree with you that Russians were always pro-ossetian, however you must admit that there were Georgian peace-keepers to protect interests of inhabitants of Georgian villages. How did they do this you remember.
.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 10:59

It's understandable indeed, still it shows how one-sided the Russian "peacekeeping" is.

It's only as one sided as anyone else's peacekeeping.

If anyone thinks that Russia replacing 'combat troops' with 'peacekeepers' meant any significant change they're intentionally kidding themselves, that's just an acknowledgement that they presently don't have plans to conquer Tbilisi - which should be obvious because otherwise they would've done it by now.
European peacekeepers are exactly the same, they are nothing but occupational forces designed to support the interests of their country/organisation. They have no more moral high ground than the Russians. (In fact, considering the Russians actually manage to keep a peace - albeit a russian one - while so many other peacekeepers only observe a conflict. The russians at least have the linguistic high ground)

The russians have, in my opinion, behaved pretty well in comparison to other recent conflicts.
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138 		  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 11:15
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


It's understandable indeed, still it shows how one-sided the Russian "peacekeeping" is.

It's only as one sided as anyone else's peacekeeping.

If anyone thinks that Russia replacing 'combat troops' with 'peacekeepers' meant any significant change they're intentionally kidding themselves, that's just an acknowledgement that they presently don't have plans to conquer Tbilisi - which should be obvious because otherwise they would've done it by now.
European peacekeepers are exactly the same, they are nothing but occupational forces designed to support the interests of their country/organisation. They have no more moral high ground than the Russians. (In fact, considering the Russians actually manage to keep a peace - albeit a russian one - while so many other peacekeepers only observe a conflict. The russians at least have the linguistic high ground)

The russians have, in my opinion, behaved pretty well in comparison to other recent conflicts.



Do European peacekeepers openly display the flags of rebels on their Armored units (be it Kosovo, Bosnia or Lebanon)?
Do European peacekeepers rearm rebels with tanks, planes, apcs, artillery in Kosovo, Lebannon, Bosnia?

Kinda awkward that Russian peacekeeping is I would say. Basically Abhazia and S. Osetia was part of Russian Federation since 1992, so why did they need to call them "peacekeepers".


Edited by Roberts - 19-Aug-2008 at 11:16
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138 		  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 11:16
double post


Edited by Roberts - 19-Aug-2008 at 11:16
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 11:23
Originally posted by Roberts


Do European peacekeepers openly display the flags of rebels on their Armored units (be it Kosovo, Bosnia or Lebanon)?

Don't know. Are the Russians? Irrelevent point. Everyone knows who they support.
Do European peacekeepers rearm rebels with tanks, planes, apcs, artillery in Kosovo, Lebannon, Bosnia?

Yes.
Kinda awkward that Russian peacekeeping is I would say. Basically Abhazia and S. Osetia was part of Russian Federation since 1992, so why did they need to call them "peacekeepers".

Just to appease the political correctness and make it sound a little less like an occupation/annexation. Why do the French send troops to Chad and call them peacekeepers?
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810 		  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 11:31
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


It's only as one sided as anyone else's peacekeeping.

If anyone thinks that Russia replacing 'combat troops' with 'peacekeepers' meant any significant change they're intentionally kidding themselves, that's just an acknowledgement that they presently don't have plans to conquer Tbilisi - which should be obvious because otherwise they would've done it by now.
European peacekeepers are exactly the same, they are nothing but occupational forces designed to support the interests of their country/organisation. They have no more moral high ground than the Russians. (In fact, considering the Russians actually manage to keep a peace - albeit a russian one - while so many other peacekeepers only observe a conflict. The russians at least have the linguistic high ground)

The russians have, in my opinion, behaved pretty well in comparison to other recent conflicts.

The Russian forces are peacekeeping in name only, which is the point I'm trying to make. They have an agenda, and it isn't to restore peace in the region. I doubt this is over, whatever they have signed.


European peacekeepers may have their faults, but they are at least trying to do what they have UN mandate for. I've yet to see European forces actually arming and encouraging the rebels, rather than the other way around. Sure, they are often toothless, and some of the more succesful missions at least the Swedish peacekeeping forces have made, did involve liberal interpretations of the UN mandates. Never did they cross the line as much as the Russians have though. But this discussion is pretty pointless. The Russians aren't there as peace keepers, so I find this pretty futile to discuss. I'm just trying to point this out to  people who actually buy the talk about peacekeepers.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 11:45
Originally posted by Roberts

Do European peacekeepers rearm rebels with tanks, planes, apcs, artillery in Kosovo, Lebannon, Bosnia?
I do not know about tanks but no planes were supplied to Abhazia by Russians. The planes that they use are refurbished all traning planes from soviet union time. Again artillery maybe is supplied but nothing in comparison with Grad type that was used by Georgian troops who were also called peace-keepers.
 
 
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2008 at 11:54
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

The Russian forces are peacekeeping in name only, which is the point I'm trying to make. They have an agenda, and it isn't to restore peace in the region. I doubt this is over, whatever they have signed.
Actually Russian presence calmed down the atmosphere for some 15 years, don't you find?


European peacekeepers may have their faults, but they are at least trying to do what they have UN mandate for. I've yet to see European forces actually arming and encouraging the rebels, rather than the other way around. Sure, they are often toothless, and some of the more succesful missions at least the Swedish peacekeeping forces have made, did involve liberal interpretations of the UN mandates.
Good example is actions of peace-keepres in Srebrenica. There were no action at all. Did you expect Russians to behave in a similar manner? Or you suggest they shoud have peacefully disarm Georgian troops? How would you expect this to be done? They were well trained and armed by some NATO countries and their disarming wouldn't be bloodless anyway.
 
Never did they cross the line as much as the Russians have though. But this discussion is pretty pointless. The Russians aren't there as peace keepers, so I find this pretty futile to discuss. I'm just trying to point this out to  people who actually buy the talk about peacekeepers.
Actually very few buy the talks about peacekeepers. It is obvious that Russia keep her interests in the region. At least their presence kept peace. And then happened elegant "constitutional low restoration" by Saakashvili et al. Smile
.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 17181920>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.