Georgia's future?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25103
Printed Date: 23-May-2024 at 09:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Georgia's future?
Posted By: Kevin
Subject: Georgia's future?
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 13:33
|
What is Georgia's future now that Russia has decided to take action?
I'm thinking that ether the Georgian Government will be replaced with a more pro-Russian one or Georgia maybe completely held hostage by Russia geopolitically from now on. So what does everyone think?  http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=960199 -
|
Replies:
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 13:41
|
It is hard to tell for now. One important factor is whether USA/NATO will continue to support Georgia. So far USA has not made a strong statement about its intentions towards the current war. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 14:02
|
Essentially the Russian are saying to their neighbours "bend over, we are back comrade"! ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 14:51
As stated elsewhere, this is the historical approach Russia has taken toward contiguous geographies where her vital interests are seen to be impacted. It may be that the approach has worked well enough as the ruthlessness in Chechnya showed.
"Comrade" may not be back with hammer and sickle, but the Russian Bear also wore a crown before 1917.
 |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 15:03
The only real US interest here is the integrity of the oil pipeline. Better if an independent Georgia and other small, independent states control it directly, but keeping it open is paramount. The current affair is likely to reduce Georgia's annoying independence and put her in her place vis a vis Russia.
The Russians can be expected to exert leverage over the pipeline and Georgia's future policies. They will also ensure that the pipeline remains available as it affects a large number of other states' interests too. However, NATO interference in the Caucasus will be shortstopped after this low-intensity, low-cost operation, and the ongoing perception of a return of Russian power will be very useful, both in the Caucasus and in central Asia.
The more influence Russia can have over the pipeline (and associated economics) the better her position on her southern strategic flank...as well as her political bargaining position.
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 15:12
This historical approach is not unique for Russia but was used by any other Empire. Look for instance GB some 200 years ago or USA now. ------------- . |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 15:37
|
I really doubt the Russian are sending whole corps to the theater just to dispatch Georgians. I mean a reinforced division would be enough. I would not be surprised if the Russian are going to go into Georgia in a big way. Get rid of Shaakivalli (sp?) and put a puppet government incharge. 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 15:38
|
Shaakivalli is an idiot incidentally. He has ruined his country.
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 15:44
|
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
|
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 15:48
|
Georgia is foolish to go against Russia. They think that with western backing or by joining NATO, they can act like the baltic states. But they don't even have total control over their own territory. |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 16:01
What does it mean? How do we act according to you? |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 16:05
|
More assertive towards Russia? More anti-Russian? |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 16:14
Anti-Russian is a wide conception. Now I would describe at least Latvian relationships with Russia as only business. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:35
|
And we don't act against Russia; Russia acts against us, in propagandistic ways. Unfortunately, I must say, the world fails. If no one helps Georgia, Georgia will lose (btw, how have they got such a small military.. they can mobilize nearly 140,000 men... and their population is far higher. I think even our general mobilization would bring in up to 200,000 men...). If Georgia loses, then Russia knows that there is no one to stop them from doing anything (US care about some random nations having nuclear power and refining but not independent states being attacked and stomped... at least on a grand scale). ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:52
|
Yes. I checked. Estonia can mobilize up to 210k men. Georgia can mobilize 100k by what I read on Wiki. Don't know if I can trust that though. CIA tells me that Georgia can mobilize around 900k though. Don't know what to trust (CIA obviously). Sorry for confusing the population... :P Russian equipment is old though... ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 18:25
|
Related to how much Georgians resist.
I dont think, Russia will risk to occupy all georgia. This will just create another cold war..
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 18:32
| i really fear for the current situation georgia are not going to back down (quite rightly) an even the combined power of UN NATO and US my not convience Putin and his puppet president to call off the war, conversly the rest of the word cannot afford to sit back and allow russia to do do this as they may take other liberties a la the Nazis and a word war could be in the offing that said i do bleive that no one wants that and so it should just stop short but the rest of the world needs to back georgia if it doesnt want the new USSR or Cold war and by back i mean unaquivaclly not just a watery stament of intent they need to say to russia we weill go to war over this back off even if they have actually no intent of going to war as statments or UN reselution will not scare Russia, action from most of europe or at least threats of it might |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:52
The thread is about Russia and Georgia. Please keep it on point. Thanks.
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.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:54
Gee Whiz! Regime change in Georgia for desired geopolitical ends? Who would have thought?
 |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:13
|
Everyone? :P ------------- |
Posted By: King Kang of Mu
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:22
In comparison to what? The Georgian forces? or U.S.? ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html |
Posted By: rider
Date 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...
------------- |
Posted By: King Kang of Mu
Date 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 |
Posted By: rider
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:51
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. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 21:55
I doubt it will happen but now Russia has all possibilities to recognize indepedece of SO and Abhazia and stay there for longer. ------------- . |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 22:52
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 - http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/articleslideshow?articleId=USL768040420080809&channelName=newsOne#a=1 All
comments are in Russian but I can translate them for you. 2) Crying guy from the first photo appears on the second one in different clothes. First he wear jeans, then he’s in black. 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. |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 23:09
|
http://vkontakte.ru/away.php?to=http%3A%2F%2Fru.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVDKVgG78VnI%26eurl%3Dhttp - http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=VDKVgG78VnI&eurl= 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. |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 23:59
I can agree....so, what ARE the real geopolitical interests? I have mentioned a couple, and there have been some others mentioned.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Philhellene
Date 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. |
Posted By: Anton
Date 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. ------------- . |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:31
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!  ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:34
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? ------------- |
Posted By: Philhellene
Date 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. |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 01:06
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. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 04:15
 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. |
Posted By: Aussiedude
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date 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.
Georgia(Serbia), South Ossetia(Kosovo), Russia(NATO), USA/NATO(Russia) anyone? Western media is using double standards as usual. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 06:44
|
I hope that Georgian people will be able to build their future without the idiot who brought their country to the useless war.
------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 06:47
Very weird information since most of the Georgian "equipment" are old weapons left from the Soviet army of the 1980th.
There are elite troops though trained and equiped by Americans but they didn't reach even 10% of the Georgian armed forces. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 06:53
It is foolish of Georgia to enter this war without clear western or NATO backing. USA, NATO, EU did not openly or strongly support Georgia at this point. So Georgia is facing Russia alone. It is very odd that Georgia entered this war with South Ossetia with no clear outside support. Their opponent is Russia. There must be more research on this strange point. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 07:00
|
Why Saakashili's idiotism can't be the explanation? ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 07:06
If true, he is really a poor tactician. Dangerous for a state to be ruled by someone that reckless. I think everyone in this forum can agree that it was suicidal for Georgia to go against Russia alone, with no support whatsoever. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 07:16
|
I honestly think he has serious mental problems. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: King Kang of Mu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 07:37
You know, that was my assumption too. But I also assumed that rider would know more it than I did...... But maybe the conflict would be limited to the elite troops level or is it too late for that already? I somehow don't think it would be a full on war. I don't think either side wants the total destruction of the region for many reasons. Even then, wouldn't Russia have least as good or better elite forces? I think it will depend on how long the Georgian government can hold off the Russians and what kind of support they can generate from the West. I can see it going either way but most likely the West will just bark in the media but not confront Russia. And maybe how long the Georgian government can hold off the Russians will be depending on how much support they can generate from the people of Georgia themselves. If there is a great support for the government or anti-Russia sentiment the West can still support the guerrilla warfare without confronting Russia directly, kinda like Afghanistan in the 80's. Hey, Samart, how would you compare this to Afghanistan in the 80's from the Russian point of view? ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 07:59
|
As long as Russia doesn't occupy Georgian territory, I don't think there will be guerrilla warfare. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 08:34
The Georgian equipment is inferior to the Russian. The Russian army actually underwent modernization after the bitter lessons of the first Chechen war. Also current Government is pumping huge money into the modernization of the army.
Georgian elite forces are trained by Americans, I think they have a so-called anti-terrorist batallion or something like that, are also inferior to the Russian special forces. Which have both a better experience (2 Chechen wars) and better equipment. Some pieces of American and other Western weapons that Georgian elite troops have actually make their life much harder since the overwhelming majority of the Georgian army is equipped with the Russian made weapons which means that the elite troops might face the problem of the lack of ammunition if the fighting intensifies. In any case, only a tiny pieace of Georgian army consists of this "elite troops." My observation is that the Western "equipment" of Georgian army primary relates to the NATO style looking helmots and gear, but nothing more. All the weapons including tanks, artillery, aircrafts and hand weapons all are made in the USSR.
Moreover, Russian airforce complitely dominates the air above Georgia, it simply makes Georgian victory impossible. However, Russia still hasn't unleashed its full power.
I don't think it wants to escalate the conflict beyond the borders of Southern Ossetia.
The Afghanistan and Ossetian situation are harldy comparable. That time the SU invaded Afghanistan, this time Georgia openly attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers.
This time the actions of the Russian army enjoy both complete support of the Russian people and also local Ossetian population.
Also this is a much lower scale operation compare to Afghanistan for the Russian/Soviet army. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 08:57
|
Here are some links on Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and CIA operations: General Valentin Varennikov interview:
...[The invasion] was supported first of all by Brezhnev ... [partly] because of Taraki's murder. ... According to [Nikolai] Ogarkov, who was head of the General Staff, more than once he saw Brezhnev speaking in a very agitated way about Amin having acted very badly, and saying that the cruel murder of the general secretary [Taraki] and his comrade couldn't be allowed... http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/20/interviews/varennikov/ - http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/coldThe CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan ...Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention... http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html - http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ A KGB perspective of Afghan War ...Well before Amin's murder, two divisions, specially made up of Farsi-speaking troops from neighboring Tadzhikistan and Uzbekistan had been assembled along the frontier. They all had Afghan uniforms.They were supposed to make our intervention go moresmoothly. In retrospect, it was an error... http://www.afghana.com/SocietyAndCulture/KGBAfghan.htm - http://www.afghana.com/SocietyAnd |
Posted By: King Kang of Mu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 09:00
Let's us hope so for everyone involved. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 12:51
Russian info? Georgian info? As I understand it, a large part of Georgian weaponry (especially artillery and tanks) have been provided by the Turkish and the States and their general mobilized infantry should be more modernly armed than the Russians. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 12:52
I hope that you don't bring Mr. President into every topic in AE. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 12:54
|
As far as I know, the Russian modernization hasn't yet completely begun - the artillery, navy and mobile infantry should still be equipped with USSR units up to 95%...
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 18:22
American info. They indeed bought some new weapons in Ukraine and Czech republic (very few from the US and other western countries) and Israel upgraded old Soviet fighter jets. But most of their weapons are still good old Soviet stuff. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 20:00
|
The American "modernisation" was based for the brigade that the sent to Iraq. It was equipped for counter in surgency. Light troops who are mincemeat when facing any mechanised force; like the Russians. The Russians also have abslolute air supremacy. Its a cakewalk.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 20:56
|
Russian MOD has confirmed that 2 batallions of experienced ethnic Chechen spetznaz units were sent to Ossetia. It looks like a complete disaster for the Georgian army. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 21:34
| Why is georgia still resisting. This is only harming their economy and They cannot gain this war.. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 21:58
|
Apparently they don't want to sign the afreement of nonivasion of SO and Abhazia. But they will sign it anyway. Saw BBC at 9 today. As usual, Georgian MP, "neofascist state Russia", "best democracy in postsoviet area", dead Georgian civilians, comments from Washington. And no interview with a Russian authorities representative. No surprise. This is definitely not a fair providing of an information.------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 22:14
|
English ITV1 news at 10 are apparently more fair. At least they show both points of view and demonstrate casualties from both sides. ------------- . |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 22:17
|
OK, this is becoming a Current Affairs thread, and I want to move it to that forum. Moment-to-moment news items are not discussions of geopolitics. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 22:48
|
That is probbaly my fault. But don't you find that what society actually think in EU may actually influence he situation. And obviously the opinion is influenced by the ifprmation this society is provided with? :) ------------- . |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 00:13
I think what is most alarming is that Saakashvili seems surprised that Russia has reacted almost at all to the conflict in south Ossetia. Like it was something you wouldn't of expected. You have to wonder what exactly Saakashvili expected, what did he think Russia was going to do? It seemed pretty obvious to me that conflict with Russia was likely the moment Georgia attempted to enter south Ossetia in force. It's no suprise to me that Russia reacted so swiftly and so decisively. Provoking a country as powerful as Russia is just insanity, to think Georgia was going to be allowed to just waltz into south Ossetia, crush resistance and take the place over without Russia so much as firing a shot in anger is crazy. Saakashvili must be either blind or insane. --- On a different issue, when it comes to media coverage on this conflict, the coverage is as you would expect heavily biased almost everywhere I've looked, against Russia. I find the condemnation of the USA staggering. It seems perfectly fine in the minds of the US government that their military can pummel and destroy weaker nations from the air with almost reckless abandon, causing far more civilian casualties, but at the same time see it as wrong for a foreign country to dare be winning a war against another. Just because Georgia is small and Russia is big, does not make Georgia the sole innocent victim automatically in this conflict, Georgia could do far worse than lose a man who has blundered his country recklessly into a war it has absolutely no prayer of winning or even coming out of with favourable terms. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 01:24
|
Good post Heraclius. The Russian reasoning seems to be "If USA went to Iraq why can't we do it in Georgia?". Also considering Georgia is right next to Russia but Iraq an Ocean away from USA then their respose comes out to be very logical. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 03:39
|
Georgia's fate? Like that of Yugoslavia's by the looks of things.
------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 05:56
You nailed it but in the West and especially here in the USA conflicts are forgotten easily, America has had so many of those... ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:28
|
Saakashvili (yes I spelled it correctly at last!), is a prine example of what bad leadership can do to a nation. He has destroyed his country. I can't understand why anyone would not see that. Talking about democracy, rights of small nations is all well and good, but you don't pick a fight with the bear. Hell even the US never did that. ------------- |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:45
|
I think the last time some state was able to deal a defeat to Russia and impose a treaty were the Japanese, Germans and Poles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Riga - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Riga |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:51
|
It is interesting to see what will Russia do with S. Osetia now. 1.) Just like West in the case of Kosovo - Russia will press to announce the independence of S. Osetia ( They will balk Serbia though and will be seen as hypocrites in West because of Chechnya) 2.) Annex S. Osetia into Russian Federation (Basically the only thing Russia gets is another failed Caucasian province, ruled by local clans, who doesn't pay taxes, with huge unemployment rate) Letting in stay with Georgia and keeping their "peacekeepers" there would be pointless. ------------- |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 07:09
|
I think Moscow will find a way to get rid of Saakashvili and then use South Ossetia as a bargaining chip with the next leader to get him to follow pro-Russian policies. What is interesting now is what France will do, they host the exiled Georgian Irakli Okruashvili, and Sarkozy is on his way to Moscow to sort things out. I smell secret deals. France's Sarkozy on Russia-Georgia ceasefire trip http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLB149172 - http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/ France unveils plan for Georgia at the UNhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/article4511639.ece - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/“Okruashvili and his party call for unity” http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1667_august_11_2008/1667_press_scanner.html - http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/ |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 07:25
Your proposal is interesting, but I don't see regime change in Georgia, not now at least. Sorry, but I have a feeling that sooner or later that Okruashvili (if he is put in place of Saakashvili) will be killed or removed by a coup. ------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 09:44
Indeed, that's the biggest mystery. I wonder what he was thinking. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 10:03
Unlikely, the Russians have never done that before.
Much more likely. Chechynia shows they have no problem with that sort of government I reckon 3) Georgia will become a puppet state - like Belarus. S. Ossetia will remain with its current status, but Georgia will theoretically keep its independence, but effectively loose it. ------------- |
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 10:29
|
I wonder whether the anti-russian bloc GUAM will be weakened as a result of this Georgian defeat at the hands of Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUAM_Organization_for_Democracy_and_Economic_Development - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUAM http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=2408 - http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 10:30
|
I think Russia will annex South Osetia and recognize independence of Abhazia. Georgia will not be a puppet state (not at least more than it is puppet state for Americans now). They will continue bringing a lot of silly surprises to Russia but they will not join NATO soon. Obviously all that will strengthen Russian positions in Caucassus -- opposite to what was a goal of this operatio, whoever designed it. ------------- . |
Posted By: Antioxos
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 10:31
I still cannot understand why did he invade to south Osetia?
Maybe USA , gave him some promises and he did it ?
Now Russia wants to solve the problem of south Osetia (like Kosovo) for permanent and not just go to the previous status quo.
Many dead people (from civilians ) and thousand of Osetians and Georgians are refugees . These are the results of this policy with no political profit (at last) for Georgia.
I think Saakashvili is dangerous for the interests of Georgia. ------------- 
By http://profile.imageshack.us/user/antioxos - antioxos at 2007-08-20 |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 10:35
|
Now the next "battlefield", the political situation in Ukraine has escalated due to this conflict. Some expect that the Russians will use the same strategy -- "protect the Russian citizens".
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:04
We did it in '20 also; but they haven't kept to their end of the bargain. ------------- |
Not likely they'd keep to any treaty they sign now. Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 20:07
Well said. As far as I can see Saakashvili seems to spend more time giving interviews to biased western journalists than doing anything constructive for his country. He seems utterly oblivious to the facts, that it was Georgia which started this crisis, Georgia which invaded the territory of another people first, Georgia which provoked the wrath of Russia. It staggers me, how much support Saakashvili is getting from the west, it's because of his blundering incompetance and short-sightedness that his country is now being put in it's place by Russia. Being a small country does not excuse his poor and recklessly suicidal leadership. From the second I first saw Saakashvili giving interviews to the international press, the way he spoke and acted, I couldn't believe this man was in charge of a nation, that he could be this blind. He seems almost more interested in presenting himself a champion of democracy to his friend in the white house and as somebody who is supposedly bravely resisting Russian aggression and it seems getting the limelight for himself is a priority. When infact he picked a fight, his country is now losing a war and now he's playing the victim.....like somehow this is somebody elses fault. I seem to recall Georgia a relatively small nation picking on south Ossetia, a much smaller and weaker part of the world, whom the Georgians presumably thought were easy prey. It's outrageous to pick on south Ossetia then cry foul just because they have an ally which is stronger than Georgia and retaliates. It isn't him who's paying for his incompetance unfortunately, he may have a dozen minders and guards jumping on him everytime they hear a Russian plane within a mile of him, it's a shame the civilian population don't and have to huddle in corners hoping they aren't caught in crossfire, because of his shocking leadership. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 20:32
|
Excellent post Heraclius
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 21:15
You basically nailed the reason why Saakashvili makes policy decisions that most people cannot understand.
Every policy decision he has made was done with 1 basic assumption: the west will bend over backwards to protect Georgia from Russia. He is an American-educated lawyer, and I guess he feels that his savvy arguments and excessive pandering are enough to get the west to give him unconditional support.
Ever since he took office, he has tried to go against Russia while pandering to the west, and their Turkish and Azeri allies. He tried to f*** with Gazprom by demanding lower prices, while critisizing Russia, and while letting the BTC pipeline be constructed on his soil, which was basically a slap in the face of Russia. The result was Russia now charges them more than double the rate they previously charged, and Georgia's only alternative is to have around 80% of their energy cut by Gazprom. Even Europe knows not to mess with Gazprom for precisely this reason.
If we keep in mind Saakashvili's 1 basic assumption, and add his bad leadership, its not as difficult to see why he does what he does.
Yes, and its important for us to realize that the Ossetians are hardly the only group to be oppressed by Georgian authorities. Another well-known example is Abkhazia, but also the Armenian and Greek communities on the southern end of the country. In the case of Armenians, not only are the majority-Armenian areas severely underfunded with most of the population unable to speak the Georgian langauge, but Armenian Christianity is not recognized as a religion by Georgia, and therefore recieves no protection, even though the religion has been active in Georgia for over 1600 years. Hundreds (literally) of ancient Armenian churches are in serious condition of collapsing, while a few of them have been confiscated by the state and called "Georgian churches". This is easy for them to do because Georgian church architecture is basically an offshoot of Armenian church architecture, which was developed before Georgia became a Christian nation. Besides what I just mentioned, and even though the Armenian areas are much more concentrated with Armenians than Ossetia is with Ossetians or Abkhazia is with Abkhazians, the Armenian calls for autonomy are completely ignored. The only likely conclusion we can reach is that Georgia is trying to systematically wipe out any traces of Armenians having been on their land, not unlike the policies enacted by their 2 closest allies, Turkey and Azerbaijan, and not unlike what they just tried in Ossetia. Part of the oppression has to do with Armenians being very pro-Russian, but I suspect most of it is just old blood feuds.
So Ossetia and Abkhazia, major obstacles for Georgia, are not even the last of Georgia's internal problems. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 21:27
|
I hope the Russians send peace-keepers for the Armenians too, it seems they might need them as badly as anyone in the face of such ruthless NATO backed Georgian tyranny and chauvinism.
------------- |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 21:54
|
:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) quite nice approach. Did u mean, "peacekeepers"? I'd remind, Migs bombing Gori took of from Gumri Airbase ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 22:12
|
There seems to be a sense that Russia is bringing "justice" and good things to Georgia, and should also send "peacekeepers" to Armenia and Azerbaijan(?) as well. Not sure where all this is coming from.
Russia interposing herself in those other countries, under whatever cover, will bring back the reality of Russian influence and/or control in the entirety of the Caucasus. That siuation would be exactly in Russia's interests for two important reasons:
1) More influence, if not direct control, over the hydrocarbon resources of the Caucasus and of their distribution routes, and
2) Political capital in the form of very obvious intent to impose her own realities of power on other states that impinge on Russian interests....Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and also Iran.
Others may disagree, but Russia will do whatever is necessary to deny the Caspian Basin and its resources to anyone's control other than themselves. Russia will determine who controls those resources, and who has access to them. It may not happen overnight, but others had better pay attention to the new realities in this region.
Russia has long been, and intends to continue to be, the arbiter of affairs in this political geography. Frankly, it makes sense that this be so.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 22:22
|
That's the case with any major power, without exception. Why cede to puny countries when you don't have to? Armenia and Azerbaijan? No I was talking about the Armenian region of Georgia. Russia has its limits too. The best solution for the world is one involving more than one superpower. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 22:41
|
No other power has the muscle and proximity to this geographical region that Russia has. The US attempting to interpose herself here, far from the sea, is ludicrous. The US navy can control the sea communications that are important to the US. Russia can exert substantial control over the land mass that is contiguous to its center.
Geopolitical logic should be more obvious than it appears to have been.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 22:50
|
Georgia is actually not that far from the Black see... ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 22:52
|
Hello to you all
I think georgia has now realized the grave error when it refused to return Meskheti Turks to their homelands and I won't be surprised if georgia will change the demographics of its border region particularly where Armenians are the majority. If a third of the turks return they will the majority in those regions, Samtskhe and Mestkheti.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 23:18
|
What is the grave error? They would have a problem with the Turks now and they would have much more problems because the Meschetians would be backed by Turkey.
Current Georgian government has problems with building balanced relations with Adjarians who are just Muslim Georgians, they would be in a much bigger trouble with the Turks.
All the problems that Georgia faces now are just the results of ultra-nationalism in the 1990th. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 00:07
Georgia is on the Black Sea. If the comment is referencing the post about the US navy, the Black Sea is not important to the US.
|
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 00:53
Relocating Meskheti Turks is a dangerous precedent for Georgia. Georgia would then have to make Tbilisi an Armenian-majority city, as it was when Georgia gained independence in 1918. That is, before Menshevik-Georgian authorities, with German support, kicked them out of the city and subsequently invaded the newly created Democratic Republic of Armenia, which was a country of refugees, with widespread famine, politically isolated and under the constant threat of extermination from Ottoman armies from both east and west. It was during this war that they captured the present-day Armenian-populated regions of southern Georgia, which were still mostly Armenian in 1918. It is also very ironic that a Georgian dictator named Stalin kicked Meskheti Turks out of Georgia to begin with. And since Georgia is busy reversing Stalinist policies, why don't they recognize Karabagh and Nakhichevan as part of Armenia, as they were before Stalin gave the regions to Azerbaijan? I highly doubt Georgia would do any of these things, but not surprisingly their Turkophile president has Meshkheti Turks on the top of his list, even though Georgia was not independent when their exile took place, but was fully independent when they kicked Armenians out of Tbilisi and later conquered part of their homeland. But he wants to secure his precious BTC pipeline, which runs slightly to the north of the Armenian areas. This is the main purpose of moving Turks into this area, to prevent disillusioned and oppressed Armenians from potentially seceding, which I believe they should do if they start carrying out this absurdity.
Georgia should first recognize that Armenians have their own national church, which ironically has existed in Georgia longer than their own national church, before they embark upon cleaning up the mess of Georgian Bolsheviks like Stalin. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 01:01
Iran and Turkey together could check Russia in that region as was the case during pre-80s cold war when the Caspian was split 50/50 USSR/Iran. In fact, Iran needs nukes for Russia more than anything else, if not Israel or America. And the demographics of the region favour Iran and Turkey more than Russia. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 02:18
You are taking it wrong side. As russia, Turkey(with agreements) had right to interfere adjarian problem but Turkey just ignored it. Turkey supported georgia at that thing too..
A united georgia is more beneficial for Turkey.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 03:01
I meant that the region is within the reach of American aircarriers and thus is vulnerable to American power. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 03:06
I'm not taking sides. It's one thing if something bad is happening to Adjarians it's another thing if Turks are descriminated. For the Turkish government even though still interested in relations with Georgia would be hard to convince the public opinion that such policy is the right one.
Besides, fortunately there was no bloodshed in Adjaria like in Ossetia. If Georgia seized Ossetia in the same peaceful manner as Adjaria Russia wouldn't be able to do anything. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 06:14
Seems like Saakashvili made the same classic error as Hitler. Georgia/Adjaria; Germany/Austria/Czechoslovakia; no intervention by outside powers. Georgia/South Ossetia; Germany/Poland; intervention by outside powers. ...This was nothing but the appeasement program of Chamberlain and Halifax—that concessions should be made to Germany to strengthen her on the Continent and in Eastern Europe, while Britain should remain strong enough on the sea and in the air to prevent Hitler from using war to obtain these concessions. The fear of Hitler’s using war was based not so much on a dislike of force (neither Lothian nor Halifax was a pacifist in that sense) but on the realization that if Hitler made war against Austria, Czechoslovakia, or Poland, public opinion in France and England might force their governments to declare war in spite of their desire to yield these areas to Germany. This, of course, is what finally happened... ...There they failed to see that if Germany made war, the British Government would be forced into the war against Germany by public opinion in England. The German diplomatic agents in London, especially the Ambassador, Dirksen, saw this clearly, but the Government in Berlin listened only to the blind and conceited ignorance of Ribbentrop. As dictators themselves, unfamiliar with the British social or constitutional systems, the German rulers assumed that the willingness of the British Government to accept the liquidation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland implied that the British Government would never go to war to prevent this liquidation. They did not see that the British Government might have to declare war to stay in office if public opinion in Britain were sufficiently aroused. The British Government saw this difficulty and as a last resort were prepared to declare war but not to wage war on Germany. This distinction was not clear to the Germans and was not accepted by the inner core of the Milner Group... ...In a long report of 10 July 1938, Ambassador Dirksen wrote to Ribbentrop as follows: In England the Chamberlain-Halifax Cabinet is at the helm and the first and most essential plank of its platform was and is agreement with the totalitarian States.... This government displays with regard to Germany the maximum understanding that could be displayed by any of the likely combinations of British politicians. It possesses the inner-political strength to carry out this task. It has come nearer to understanding the most essential points of the major demands advanced by Germany, with respect to excluding the Soviet Union from the decision of the destinies of Europe, the League of Nations likewise, and the advisability of bilateral negotiations and treaties. It is displaying increasing understanding of Germany’s demands in the Sudeten German question. It would be prepared to make great sacrifices to meet Germany’s other just demands—on the one condition that it is endeavoured to achieve these ends by peaceful means. If Germany should resort to military means to achieve these ends, England would without the slightest doubt go to war on the side of France... |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 09:47
|
By the Black Sea, Turkey and the US, if needed, and if they wanted to, could help Georgia. Sarmat, if you say you are not taking sides, I won't believe you. Cause you are. And it's obvious.
------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 10:58
|
If I am not wrong, Russia promised to not harm BTC and Turkey-Russia relation is a lot important. I think, volume of Turkey-Russia trade is bigger than Turkey-germany one. Turkey will indirectly support georgians but not directly go against Russia.(Specially, If she does not occupy all georgia.) |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 14:28
|
The Turkish-Russian trade in around $24 Billion with expectations to go to above $30 billion by the end of the year.
Bankotsu try not to bring in arguements form other threads into this one. Otherwise they will be removed. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2008 at 15:28
|