Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
King Kang of Mu
Chieftain
(Foot)Balling DJ from da Eastside
Joined: 23-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1023
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Georgia's future? Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:22 |
Originally posted by rider
Russian equipment is old though... |
In comparison to what? The Georgian forces? or U.S.?
|
http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:27 |
The modern standards. Georgia is slightly better equipped but neither can be compared to the US or Turkey...
|
|
King Kang of Mu
Chieftain
(Foot)Balling DJ from da Eastside
Joined: 23-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1023
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:44 |
Wow, really? I had no idea. I thought they just had a big pair of you know what. Turkey having a better euitped military makes sense though, with U.S. support and all. So what's the Turkish reaction to all this? Do you think they want to play a role here whether in military or diplomacy? I doubt that Turkey can do anything major militarily without the U.S. support.
|
http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:48 |
Turks will likely stay out, that's my take on it. However, I can't imagine Russia and Turkish being very friendly neighbours - the Russian mentality is not supportive of a foreign religion, as much as I've seen it. So, if Russia does occupy Georgia again and push it's borders to the Turkish, there might be some troubles arising between them. About technology: I don't think the US supply that many Turkish weapons. It's again a part of Turkish own concept of freedom - they are powerful (and cool) and they keep their military up to date so no one can go against them. The Russians have lacked the funds until very recently to do so. Georgia has gotten support from the States. Turkish military however can be very independent. Currently, they should be sized third after China and the US if I remember correctly (might be wrong though)... So, they are one of the few who don't need the States support in everything they do.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:51 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
However, your comment has some validity. Big powers coexist with small powers better when the latter understand the realities involved. This is especially true when those powers are next door to one another.
|
This is exactly what I mean. And I think it is very much related to the topic. If ones want to make a careful analysis of the situation in SO he should get rid of Georgian, Russian and Western rhetorics and pay attention on real geopolitical interests.
|
.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:55 |
Originally posted by rider
So, if Russia does occupy Georgia again and push it's borders to the Turkish, there might be some troubles arising between them. |
I doubt it will happen but now Russia has all possibilities to recognize indepedece of SO and Abhazia and stay there for longer.
|
.
|
|
Philhellene
Pretorian
Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 22:52 |
Originally posted by Sparten
The airstrikes on Gori have killed a lot of civilians and gotten a lot of bad PR. Now way they would risk that unless they thought they would get more out of the whole operation. |
As for bad
PR. Maybe you’ve seen Reuters photos from Gori? They are false as well as BBC reports. First of
all I want tell you the truth about photos. Here they
are.
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/articleslideshow?articleId=USL768040420080809&channelName=newsOne#a=1
Look at
them carefully.
http://community.livejournal.com/georgia_war/45708.html
All
comments are in Russian but I can translate them for you.
1) In both
photos we see the same dead guy but in different places and in different
positions.
2) Crying
guy from the first photo appears on the second one in different clothes. First he wear
jeans, then he’s in black. http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20080809&t=2&i=5508259&w=&r=2008-08-09T135819Z_01_L7680404_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE7
And finally
he’s in shirt.
In the last photo we see little boy with injured knees. They look terrible. But this boy is absolutely calm. I
think he smiles. But he should have suffered lot of pain. His wounds are
awfull. Real war is not happening in Georgia or Ossetia but in Internet and TV channels.
|
|
Philhellene
Pretorian
Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 23:09 |
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=VDKVgG78VnI&eurl=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550965.stm
BBC and Georgian TV channels tell that Russian air forces bombed Gori and killed lot of citizens. And they show their video
reports. But they are false too. First of all we see the actors from Reuters
photos. Moreover we hear gunshots. But according to BBC, Georgian TV and Georgian officials only Russians airplanes bombed Gori. There were no
Russian tanks or infantry. How could we hear gunshots? We hear them because these videos were shot not
in Gori but in South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali. Now you know why Georgian authorities shut down Russian TV channels and Internet.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 23:59 |
Originally posted by Anton
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
However, your comment has some validity. Big powers coexist with small powers better when the latter understand the realities involved. This is especially true when those powers are next door to one another.
|
This is exactly what I mean. And I think it is very much related to the topic. If ones want to make a careful analysis of the situation in SO he should get rid of Georgian, Russian and Western rhetorics and pay attention on real geopolitical interests. |
I can agree....so, what ARE the real geopolitical interests? I have mentioned a couple, and there have been some others mentioned.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:02 |
If we continue to get news articles and videos, we should move the topic to Current Affairs.
Please keep the discussion to aspects of geopolitics rather than outrage and propaganda.
Thanks.
|
|
Philhellene
Pretorian
Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:17 |
"
If we continue to get news articles and videos, we should move the topic to Current Affairs."
I agree. I don't think this topic concerns any historical issues.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:25 |
It is I think it is mostly controls over transport of caspian oil and Georgia-NATO issue. Same is related to American interests.
|
.
|
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:31 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
I can agree....so, what ARE the real geopolitical interests? I have mentioned a couple, and there have been some others mentioned.
|
The last thing we need in here is an echo chamber! Your geopolitical views usally reflect mine too such an great extent, that if i were too add anything, it would be this one post in support of your postions!
|
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:34 |
Originally posted by Anton
It is I think it is mostly controls over transport of caspian oil and Georgia-NATO issue. Same is related to American interests. |
Maybe i am not following you here, but i think Russia wouldn't even be bothering with this war at all, if she didn't have much more higher interest in the flow of oil through the area, which coincidentally... happens to be in her old stomping grounds?
Edited by Panther - 10-Aug-2008 at 00:35
|
|
Philhellene
Pretorian
Joined: 14-Jul-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:36 |
Kevin started this thread. Do you know what he asked? He asked: "What is Georgia's future now that Russia has decided to take action?" Of course the US and NATO support Georgia because of its role as oil transit country, but conflict between Russia and Ossetia on one side and Georgia on the other is much more difficult.
|
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 01:06 |
Originally posted by Philhellene
Kevin started this thread. Do you know what he asked? He asked: "What is Georgia's future now that Russia has decided to take action?" Of course the US and NATO support Georgia because of its role as oil transit country, but conflict between Russia and Ossetia on one side and Georgia on the other is much more difficult. |
I'm sure it is. But seeing that before the pipeline ran through Georgia, it meant it had to run either through Russia or Iran, which means that if Russia wins the conflict... Georgia will be put in it's place and much more easily influenced from Moscow again, as well as a percentage of the world's oil supply. I'm not claiming the Russians want too rule Georgia again like it had in the past, just reminding them physically whose boss in the region?
If they hold them off, they retain their independence in their foreign affairs, which means it chooses too align itself with the west rather than Russia's, that is... depending on who is elected to their presidential office, while at the same time, a percentage of the world's oil supply as well as the EU and US's will remain open.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 01:51 |
The entire intent of this operation is two-fold:
1) To demonstrate to NATO that Russia will not tolerate strategic encroachment on her southern flank.
2) To encourage the Caucasus states to see that their independence is at the pleasure and convenience of Russia.
Independence in foreign affairs is a function of power, not principle.
|
|
Leonidas
Tsar
Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 04:15 |
Originally posted by Al Jassas
It will create a georgeo-turkic axis that will further isolate Armenia, strengthen american presence in the region and will reignite some of the struggles mainly the qarabagh strugle and the minor Armenian region of Smatskhe (hope I got it right). russia will most likely force Abkhazia and Ossetia's independence, the former is more likely for geographical reasons.
Al-Jassas |
That axis already exists, the BTC pipeline is its love child. You will have to add Anglo-isreali to that axis of (sp)oil. BTW Armenians and Greeks have been mistreated in south Georgia since Georgian independence, hence why the little bully is getting a taste of its own and a few of us are quite pleased. Everyone has the right to self determination not a select few that have western blessing.
|
|
Aussiedude
Janissary
Joined: 16-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 05:23 |
I think what people are failing to realise is that Georgia, not Russia, started this war by invading South Ossetia....
South Ossetians should have a right to self determination.
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 05:34 |
Not much discussion on why Georgia launched the invasion against South Ossetia and risk a Georgian-Russian war. More discussion on the Russian respond to Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. I am curious as to why Georgia wanted to risk a military conflict with Russia. USA and NATO did not come out and openly support Georgia's military operations.
South Ossetians should have a right to self determination. |
Georgia(Serbia), South Ossetia(Kosovo), Russia(NATO), USA/NATO(Russia) anyone? Western media is using double standards as usual.
Edited by Bankotsu - 10-Aug-2008 at 05:37
|
|