SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Bush Orders Military to Deliver Aid to Georgia

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Bush Orders Military to Deliver Aid to Georgia (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=140735)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoon 11th

Can't the US military just spread ebola over that area?

That's probably what they're trying to do, "delivering aid" to me sounds like an euphemism.

A sober view at the new world order - the new world order after Bush's new world order.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...572059,00.html

Quote:

The war in the Caucasus is a truly global crisis. Russia's action against the western-looking Georgia testifies to an extreme craving for recognition and is reminiscent of the Cold War. It reveals the reality of the chaotic new world order -- a result of the failures of President Bush's foreign policy.
When the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier describes the overall situation in the world, he likes to refer to what he calls a "new complexity" of circumstances. Yet things were already complex before the war in the Caucasus region, which has its roots in the 19th century more than in the 21st, but now we have been deprived of one small piece of ignorance. Who would have even bothered to try and pinpoint South Ossetia on the map or to carefully differentiate it from North Ossetia before the conflict? And this is supposed to be a world crisis?

But it is one indeed, because the crisis has given oil and gas producer Russia an alibi for cleaning up along its borders in places like Georgia, where the United States and NATO were beginning to exert their influence. It is a world crisis, because this wounded ex-superpower decided, some time ago, that it was going to put an end to a phase of humiliation and losses, of NATO and American expansion.
People took to the streets in the Baltic states, and the Polish president traveled to Georgia to participate in a show of solidarity among the weak, among countries with a long historical memory of what Russia can do to the weak. It is no coincidence that Eastern Europeans suspect that the West is hedging its bets, as it did in 1938, 1956, 1961 and 1968, in loud silence and inactive appeasement. Their illusions are suddenly dropping away like autumn leaves.
Part of the truth is that the United States had rather relished treating Russia and its then president, Vladimir Putin, as yesterday's superpower and leader. US President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and invented a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. The revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, reverberations of the revolutionary fall of 1989, were made possible by the gracious assistance and coaching of American foundations and think tanks. There was nothing wrong with this approach, but America, the overwhelmingly superior superpower, was petty enough to gloat over its achievements.
A Touch of the Old Cold War
John McCain, who hopes to become the 44th US president, has come up with the spectacular idea of establishing a league of democracies that would address the world's problems whenever the United Nations is gridlocked, in other words, whenever there is an important issue on the table. If this league existed today, would intervention forces already have been deployed to the Caucasus? And now McCain has come up with the no less original idea of excluding Russia from the golden circle of G8 nations. Does anyone have any other bright ideas on how to punish the miscreant?
The new complexity consists of the fact that a few opportunities were missed after 1989, such as the chance to develop a resilient relationship among the European Union, NATO and Russia. Before long, our only concern will be over whether we should in fact entrust the Russia, as uninterested in democracy as they are, with our energy security.
It is true that there is a touch of the old Cold War to August 2008. And yet it is also true that the month's events constitute only a subcategory of the larger complexity in which the world finds itself today. The United States is the common denominator. On the one hand, it had no qualms about tormenting Russia, and yet it is incapable of coming to Georgia's aid. It was also apparently unable to dissuade the Georgian president from embarking on his adventure. CNN is so enamored of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili that he is constantly asked to appear on the news network for interviews, so that he can instill his view of things -- of Georgia on the road to democracy, and of Russia succumbing to revanchism -- in the Americans, to the delight of the White House.
A Lopsided Multipolarity
The world ceased to be a unipolar place when the Iraq war began. When the neocons used the word unipolarity, they were referring to the idea that the world's sole superpower, thanks to its military superiority, could assume that it was entitled to the role of global cop, and that the world must bend to its will, whether it wanted to or not.
Now a new technical term has come into circulation: multipolarity. It means that a number of powers can do as they please, without punishment, and no one can do much about it. China can do as it pleases with Tibet, the Uyghurs and its dissidents, and it can buy its energy where it pleases. India can sign a nuclear treaty with the United States, and can then vacillate between choosing to ditch the agreement and keep it in place. Iran can decide to become a nuclear power and then wait to see what happens, to see whether Israel and the United States, for example, will issue empty threats of air strikes while Russia and China obstruct the superpower in the UN Security Council whenever it calls for effective resolutions.
But the new multipolarity is lopsided. America is still the power without which nothing works -- whether it be sensible or senseless. China is moving in its own orbit and is unlikely to move forward as quickly as it had hoped until recently. It's easier to win gold medals than establish a stable world power by combining capitalism with communism. India is drifting along behind China, struggling with its own domestic problems and unable to decide whether it should throw in its lot with China or the United States.
And Russia? It has a tremendous craving for recognition and a ludicrous amount of money. That money could be put to great use, to develop a nation, for example. That would be a goal that made sense. In the long run, Putin will have to stop playing the bare-chested macho man, the great loner who couldn't care less about alliances and world opinion.
And so the world finds itself in a state of new complexity. It's a nice, inoffensive term, one difficult to criticize. Things are already tremendously in flux. But aren't things always in flux, sometimes more, sometimes less? In 1957, the new British Prime Harold McMillan was asked what would determine the course of his government. "Events, my good man, events," he replied. Yesterday there was Iraq, today there is the Caucasus, and the Palestinian problem never seems to go away. What happens tomorrow?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Georgia really needs military assistance to build up force that can defend the whole country. Geography is on their side so a 500.000 strong well trained force would prevent this from hapening ever again.

A 500,000 person military would be 11% of the total population of Georgia. Their economy could not support such a large military.:nope:

Their GDP is only US$20 Billion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

A 500,000 person military would be 11% of the total population of Georgia. Their economy could not support such a large military.:nope:

Their GDP is only US$20 Billion.

They need to go forth and multiply big time. Build some baby making factories.

American military traffic will deepen the problem. The russians will now make sure no such aid has a route in aside from air traffic, the direct result being a more lengthy incurison including possible territorial annexation. The Russians clearly don't trust the Georgians, especially so with US involvment, and will press on with an 'Israeli' solution by pounding key select infrastructure to rubble. Much like that done to Lebanon.

On the other side, the Georgians also wil push for more confrontation. This they hope, will draw a direct military response from the US or maybe a 'coalition of the willing'.

It's clear that the Georgian government doesn't mind being the 'Arch-duke' in this scenario. They may take a bullet, but they will gamble on bringing everything down around them.

This is what happens when some countries happily use unilateral action as a constant, then think they can stop another power doing the same thing in their own backyard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

A 500,000 person military would be 11% of the total population of Georgia. Their economy could not support such a large military.:nope:

Their GDP is only US$20 Billion.

They need to go forth and multiply big time. Build some baby making factories.

There you go! That's where HT and Dowly can help! Go over there, find some nice ladies and help the Georgians expand their military :up: ;)

It seems the document Sakashvili signed on Monday was not a peace plan after all, but a clear-cut capitulation.
This document actually gives russia the right to do what it currently does.
Even while Sakashvili was clearly extremely fatigued, he must've known what he was signing, so despite US rhetoric, Georgia has de facto capitulated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/wo...hp&oref=slogin

Actually the georgians tried to limit the "additional security measures" to six months and had to sign a treaty without a date limit on those measure.
Sakashvili is really a clown. He let himself be celebrated as a hero before signing the surrender of his country.
Another lesson: If the french come, it is always something about surrendering
:rotfl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntEater

Hear, hear.

Saakashvilli more and more reminds me of this this funny Iraqi, who was it, comical Ali, you know the one clown who constantly told the cameras how victorious Iraq was advancing and how terribly the americans got a beating. Saakashvilli lies when he opens his mouth, always exaggerating, always trying to deceive people by spiking up emotions as high as possible (and especially the Washington Post and CNN seem to happily hang on his lips and let him says and print every nonsens he breathes out), and he reports a thiusand attacks (while hiding his own), and ambush here and desaster there and avances and columns and what and wowh and ohmygod. Ridiculing himself with every word he speaks and every decision he now takes, how could anyone believe this ruthless comedian anymore.

germa media report that even the americans start to win distance to him. Maybe they have not shown him the door already, but they handed him his coat already, for sure.

Trottel! Elected or not, the sooner he dissappears from the stage, the better for all, especially his own people. he hardly is the shining example of a democrat some people describe him as anyway. The opposition got a taste of his democratic understanding several times during demonstrations - by the sticks and fists of his riot police. Russia says the US now must choose between this "virtual project" of theirs, Geogia, and the importance of international relations with Russia. That'S where the US now is, yes indeed. In the end, it is a consequence of a failed global American policy of the past 10 years. It all now backfires. Blowbacks, such consequences are called in intel-language: consequences one has caused so long ago that one does not rememeber anymore and thus their manifestation give the impression of coming by surprise, out of the blue, unpredicted. In reality it just is about one's own forgetfulness, or one-sided bias.

and while Anteater pointed at specifics of that agreement the pro-Georgia camp will not be pleased to hear, I may remind you of this article in the WP that indicated that McCain security advisor also was (and is?) on the payrole of Georgia, lobbying for it. Reminds me of the never silencing accusations regarding the strong Israeli influence on internal american policy-forming.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202932_pf.html

Rumour is Obama aids sent a card saying thanks to the McCain campaigning camp. :D

Actually, as you mention them:
Israel is quite restrained on the whole thing, despite the fact that the georgian defense minister is an israeli citizen, a georgian jew with both passports.
First, Israel wants russia not to supply weapons to Hezbollah or Iran.
Second, Israel has done pretty much the same to Lebanon two years ago.

Funny was how different israeli war reporters covered that conflict.
While the whole western press spoke of "heavy bombardment" to Gori, Israeli reporters spoke of "some mortar fire".
Having military experience is quite useful for a reporter, it seems.

Btw, regarding all those soviet analogies, it is strange that always Russia is equated with the USSR.
Reminds me how Austria managed to escape all the blame for the Nazis, despite the fact that not only Hitler but scores of important Nazis were Austrians.
The other soviet republics managed to do the same in regards to the USSR.
Not only Stalin was Georgian, but Beria, Orzhonikidse and basically all of Beria's staff.
Mikoyan was Armenian, Melkhis (one of the greatest purgers in the 30s) was Latvian, Khrushev was Ukrainian....

Regarding Israel, foreign minister Livni recently (before the war) blocked a military package ordered by Georgia.
It included guns, APCs, helicopter gunships and Merkava tanks.
Second hand weapons, but still modern israeli hardware. Merkava tanks were never exported to anyone sofar. I suppose the gunships might've been Cobras.
Seems like a "Sakashvili gets no Merkavas and Achmadinejad gets no S-300s" deal here.
I suppose if Sakashvili's gamble had worked and he had retaken Ossetia, the israeli arms would've been used for the reconquest of Abkhazia.

Quote:

'No US forces needed in Georgia'

(translates into: "The mean Russians don't let us play with them". :D )

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7561586.stm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

german media report that even the americans start to win distance to him. Maybe they have not shown him the door already, but they handed him his coat already, for sure.

Gate'S statement is the official beginning of the end of Shaakashvilli.

Meanwhile, Sarkozy also gets only a cautious welcome at home:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7560279.stm

Quote:

Europe is "divided between old and new member states" with the first "being understanding towards Russia, the second not at all".

These divisions were perceived as having complicated Mr Sarkozy's task of representing the EU in Moscow this week.
Yves Theard in the centre-right Le Figaro said that "the Europe of 27 members states is not well placed to curb Russian confidence. "Too many countries, freed from the yoke of Moscow, are driven by a desire for revenge against Russia to allow for a calm, united and consensual European diplomacy. Poland and the Baltic states are not ready".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

A 500,000 person military would be 11% of the total population of Georgia. Their economy could not support such a large military.:nope:

Their GDP is only US$20 Billion.

That doesnt stop from training everyone, its the doctrine and trained command that counts the most. Assistance in giving them surplus material would be good though.
They can afford to arm everyone with basic individual material. The bulk of troops should be these local troops of territorial defence, they give the attrition element that is used to hamper and channel the enemy andvances. They are trained to work even behind enemy lines cutting its logistics.
The mobile best armed elements operate in the area of the whole country, and are to block and destroy the enemy in chosen locations. You can inflict massive casualties to the enemy with this system to the point it raises stresshold to start the conflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

A 500,000 person military would be 11% of the total population of Georgia. Their economy could not support such a large military.:nope:

Their GDP is only US$20 Billion.

While the enemy has an airforce and an artillery that could flatten any city there is in Georgia, multiple times. Is that what you are asking for?

Come to your senses, HT. You allow your emotions carrying you away and hijacking your fantasy.

Russian military, if challenged, is not known for it's subtleties, they don'T mind not being as concerned about collateral damage as some western forces are. If they do not have a scalpel to do a job, they use a morning star. It is absurd to expect a dwarf like Georgia learning to become able to seriously compete with a giant like Russia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

A 500,000 person military would be 11% of the total population of Georgia. Their economy could not support such a large military.:nope:

Their GDP is only US$20 Billion.

That the system we have here and i have have have no doubt it works, air defences are of priority of course. Russia isnt as powerful as you think if nukes arent counted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

That the system we have here and i have have have no doubt it works, air defences are of priority of course. Russia isnt as powerful as you think if nukes arent counted.

Georgia couldn't be as powerful as you think. there is no air defense against artillery, btw. Grosny was flattened less by airstrikes and more by artillery shelling. the russians are world champions in artillery, and no other nation's doctrine stresses artillery as much as theirs: lessons from WW2.

However.

Meanwhile this:

Quote:

'The US Has More Important Concerns Right Now'

Respected American Russia expert Clifford Gaddy warns in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview that sanctions against Russia for invading Georgia could backfire. Though Europe shouldn't antagonize Russia, he argues, it should deplore the violence and urge restraint.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Should NATO engage militarily in Georgia if the conflict escalates again?
Clifford G. Gaddy: No.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are sanctions the right answer?
Gaddy: Hardly. I cannot imagine what sort of sanctions there might be, even if one were persuaded that a sanctions policy would be desirable. Economic sanctions are unthinkable because the Russians have more leverage over us than vice-versa. Legal and political sanctions -- like kicking Russia out of the G-8, barring Russia from World Trade Organization membership, and so on -- would be ineffectual at best and counterproductive at worst. They are all of the "let's-shoot-ourselves-in-the-foot" variety.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What are you expecting from the Europeans in this situation?
Gaddy: Deplore the violence, urge restraint, plead for a peace settlement, avoid antagonizing the Russians too much. More productively, perhaps they will take the opportunity to engage one another in a serious but quiet discussion about where Russia is headed, what it really wants, and what the West can and should do in the long term.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: A few months back US President George W. Bush wanted to help pave the way for future Georgian membership in NATO. Was it a huge political mistake?
Gaddy: Yes.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think we are seeing the start of a new power struggle between Washington and Moscow that could continue for years to come?
Gaddy: No. The US has far too many other, more important concerns right now, and Russia is not interested in a struggle with the US. But the main reason there will not be a power struggle is that there is nothing to struggle over. The US has already lost its former role as world leader. Russia neither wants to, or is able to, to replace it. Russia's goal is rather a negative one: to ensure that no threat to it can emerge from the territory of the states closest to its borders. It will therefore continue to bully its neighbors in various ways. Russia's behavior will be morally unacceptable to the US, but it will not be generally perceived as threatening to the US. In the end, the rhetoric between Russia and the US. will become hotter, and relations will become cooler. But there will not be a power struggle.

Straight, and sober.

from: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...572052,00.html

ABOUT CLIFFORD G. GADDY
Economist Clifford G. Gaddy has served as a Russia expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, DC since 1991. Before his most recent trip to Moscow, US President George W. Bush invited Gaddy and other Russia experts to the White House to ask for their opinions. Gaddy is considered a skeptic of the current state of affairs in Russia and has warned of instability.