The western media's whitewashing of Saakashvili's war crimes and ethnic cleansing in S.Ossetia is astonishing given its moral posturing on global affairs.But for a few mainstream channels,only the Georgain picture is given.The BBC fortunately has interviewed a number of leading members of the Russian government to get their side of the picture,even thiough the questioning has been at times quite slanted.This concert in S.Ossetia by the conductor of the LSO has highlighted the key "first act" as it were in this Caucasian tragedy,the destruction of S.Ossetia by Saakashvili and his goons.Independent observers will not be fooled by the US's chicanery in the Caucasus and in the long run,it is Russia that will emerge stronger internationally and will see a number of nations around the globe using Russian friendship and military ties to counter the US's military adventurism,which is in deep trouble both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 05453.html
A concert for Ossetians – to Russia's tune
By Shaun Walker in Tskhinvali
Friday, 22 August 2008
Valery Gergiev conducting the Mariinsky Theatre Symphony Orchestra.
Many have lost relatives, some no longer have homes, but they all put on their best evening dress and flocked to Tskhinvali's central square to see one of the world's most famous conductors lead an emotional concert in support of his people – and Russian military action.
Valery Gergiev has given some extraordinary concerts in his time, but last night he conducted perhaps the most unusual and emotional concert of his career.
As dusk fell, the sounds of Dmitry Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony rang out, less than two weeks after the capital of Georgia's breakaway territory of South Ossetia saw fierce fighting between Russian and Georgian troops.
Gergiev was conducting the London Symphony Orchestra in Edinburgh last weekend. Last night's concert, with the orchestra of the Mariinsky Theatre, was rather different.
The open-air performance took place outside the ruined headquarters of the South Ossetian separatist government.
The Kremlin, realising the PR potential of the concert, bussed in foreign journalists to see the show. The event was a musical affirmation that South Ossetia is unlikely to be part of Georgia again in the near future.
A jubilant Eduard Kokoity, the South Ossetian de facto president, wearing the Ossetian and Russian flags on his lapel, joined the audience of local people, government officials and religious dignitaries. "This concert is support for the people of South Ossetia, and for the justified military actions of Russia," he said.
"It is also against the cynical position of the United States. Everywhere they go there is war."
Dozens of Russian troops stood on armoured personnel carriers nearby, waving Russian flags. A few Ossetian flags were also visible in the crowd, but it was the Russian tricolour that dominated. The concert was broadcast live on Russian TV.
A convoy of Kamaz trucks brought the musicians and their instruments to Tskhinvali from Vladikavkaz in North Ossetia, through the Roki Tunnel, the same route that Russian tanks took in the first days of the conflict with Georgia.
Gergiev made it clear in an exclusive interview with The Independent last week that he felt the international media coverage of Russia's conflict with Georgia had been one-sided and biased. "Georgians were killing Ossetians," he said. "It was brutal and criminal. I have talked to about 20 or 30 people on the phone who were there and everybody tells me this one story.
"There was a massacre in which more than 2,000 Ossetians died. There are villages that no longer exist."
In Tskhinvali yesterday, Gergiev reiterated that this was not a concert to remember both the Georgian and Ossetian victims of the war, this was an attempt to tell the world that the Russian invasion of Georgia was not a crime but in fact a courageous and humanitarian act.
"Intelligent people around the world should know the truth about what happened here, especially on the first night."
Gergiev is undoubtedly the world's most famous Ossetian – in fact he's the world's only famous Ossetian. He eagerly accepts the role as unofficial ambassador for the region. He has spoken many times about his admiration for the ancient roots of Ossetian culture and his version of Wagner's Ring Cycle uses imagery from Ossetian legends to suggest a link between Wagner's otherworldly visions and his own Caucasian heritage.
Gergiev, who is renowned across the world for starting late, appeared on the dot of 8pm as scheduled, to conduct the Mariinsky Orchestra in an emotional rendition of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony and Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony, which was written as the Nazis had the city of Leningrad under siege during the Second World War. The choice of music was clearly not accidental. Both Russia and Georgia have accused the other of "fascist" tactics.
Last night was the first since the conflict began when there was no curfew in Tskhinvali, and the well dressed locals almost gave the city a normal feel. It will be a long time before true normality returns to South Ossetia, and the mood in Tskhinvali yesterday makes it seem unlikely that the region will ever be part of Georgia again.
Caucasus Crisis
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Russian units who were involved fully or partially in the peace-keeping operation in S.Ossetia, Abhazia and Georgia:
58 Army units
19 Motor-Rifle Division MRD HQ ---
693 Motor-Rifle Regiment (MRR) - Vladikavkaz. 30 Т-72 MBTs; 126 IFVs (121 BMP-2, 5 BRM-1К), 2 APCs (BTR-80); 4 2S6 Tunguska Air Defense units; 12 2SЗ Akatsia self-propelled howitzers; 11 BMP-1КSh, 2 PRP-4; 3 PU-12: 2 RHM-2; 1 MTU-20; 2220 personnel.
135 MRR – Prohladny. 30 Т-72 MBTs; 151 IFVs (60 BMP-2, 87 BMP-K, 4 BRM-1К); 1 BTR-80; 4 2S6 Tunguska Air Defense units, 11 2S19 Msta-S self-propelled howitzers, 15 D-30 towed howitzers; 3 1V18, 1 1V19, 2 PRP-4, 7 R-145BM, 1 PU-12, 1 ZS-88 (BTR-80); 4 MT-LBT; 3 RHM-2; 1 МТU-20; 2111 personnel. –
292 Self-propelled Artillery Regiment – Vladikavkaz. 36 2S19 Msta-S, 12 BM-21 Grad salvo-fire, 3 D-30; 3 1V18, 1 1V19, 4 PRP-4; 2 R-145BM; 1 BTR-80; 911 personnel.
1415 Separate Salvo Fire Artillery Battalion – Prohladny. 4 9А52 Smerch, 4 9P140 Uragan; 3 1V18, 1 1V19; 1 PRP-4; 188 personnel.
239 Separate Rekon Battalion – Vladikavkaz. 12 BMP-2, 11 BRM-1К, 6 BTR-80; 3 BMP-1КSh; 3 R-145BM; 345 personnel.
1493 Separate Engineer-Sapper Battalion – Vladikavkaz. 1 MTU-20; 304 personnel.
1077 Separate ECM Battalion - Vladikavkaz 4 SPR-2; 171 personnel.
344-й Separate Repairing Battalion – Vladikavkaz 1 MTP-LB; 312 personnel.
1098 Separate Material Support Battalion
135 Separate Medical Battalion
Missile battery of 58 Army – 4 9К79 "Тоchka-U" relocated to Zaramag.
Artillery Battalion of 205 Separate Motor-Rifle Cossack Brigade – Budenovsk. 12 2SЗ Akatsia, 12 BМ-21 Grad.
Artillery Battalion of 429 MRR – Mozdok. 12 2SЗ Akatsia, 4 9P140 Uragan
Other units
114 Missile Brigade
- Battery of 9К79 Tochka-U – 4 units.
76 Guards Airborne Division HQ Pskov
104 Guards Airborne Regiment – Pskov. 31 BMD-3, 20 BMD-2, 51 BMD-1; 34 BTR-D; 14 2S9 Nona self-propelled gun; 13 BTR-3D, 6 BTR-RD-РД; 6 BMD-1KSh, 1 BMD-1R, 8 1V119; 1554 personnel.
98 Guards Airborne Division HQ Ivanovo:
1065 Guards Artillery Airborne Regiment – Kostroma. 18 2S9 Nona, 12 D-30; 3 BTR-3D, 15 BTR-RD; 2 BMD-1КSh, 7 1V119; 598 personnel.
45 Separate Rekon Airborne Regiment – Kubinka/Moscow. 690 personnel, 15 BTR-80, 1 BTR-D. 42 Motor-Rifle Division –
“Vostok” spetsnaz battalion
33 Separate MR Brigade
- two mountain-rifle battalions
22 Spetsnaz Brigade
- two battalions
Medical Detachment of North-Caucasus Military District
Air Force
2457 AEW Base - Ivanovo
1 А-50.
185 Combat Training and Doctrine Center – Ashuluk
2 MiG-31, relocated in Budenovsk
4 Combat Training and Conversion Center – Lipetzk;
968 Research Instructor Regiment
- flight of MiG-25RB and Su-24MR, relocated in Budenovsk
- flight of Su-27, relocated in Mozdok
flight of Su-24M plus element of Su-34 relocated in Budenovsk and Mozdok
4 Air Force and Air Defense Army
- Su-27 squadron of 51 Air Defence Corps – Budenovsk
- Provisional regiment with Su-24/24Ms of 559 and 959 Bomber Regiments – Mozdok and Morozovsk
- 368 Attack Regiment of 1 Attack Air Division, Su-25/25SM – Budenovsk and Mozdok
- Mi-24 squadron of 487 Separate Helicopter Regiment,– Mozdok, later relocated to Gizel airfield of Border Guard
- Mi-8 squadron of 487 Separate Helicopter Regiment, Mi-24 – Mozdok, later relocated to Gizel airfield of Border Guard
- Mi-8 squadron of 325 Separate Helicopter Regiment, Mi-24 – Mozdok, later relocated to Gizel airfield of Border Guard
16 Air Force and Air Defense Army
- Su-25 squadron of 899 Attack Air Regiment, 105 Composite Air Division – Budenovsk and Mozdok
- Su-24M squadron of 455 Bomber Regiment, 105 Composite Air Division – Morozovsk.
- Su-24MR and MiG-25R squadron – relocated to Marinovka AB
37 Air Army of Supreme Command (Strategic Aviation)
- Tu-160 squadron of 121 Heavy Bomber Regiment – Engels. Used to launch X-555 and X-101 cruise missiles against Georgian air defence installations
- Tu-22M3 squadron of 352 Heavy Bomber Regiment – Shaikovka. The downed plane was rekon version Tu-22M3-R
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Igorr,from the details you have provided,it appears that Smerch units were in action.Is there any information as to their performance and where they were in action considering their range,also the naval actions in Poti.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... html?imw=Y
What Israel Lost in the Georgia War
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2008 By TONY KARON
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is shown an Israeli Aircraft Industries pilotless drone during his visit to their factories in Lod, Israel
Israel Aircraft Industries / Getty
"It is important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order," Georgian Cabinet Minister Temur Yakobashvili said last weekend. "It's not just Georgia's business, but the entire world's business." Such sentiments would have been unremarkable but for the fact that Yakobashvili was expressing himself in fluent Hebrew, telling Israeli Army Radio that "Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers."
However, the impression that Israel had helped bolster the Georgian military was one the Israeli Foreign Ministry was anxious to avoid. Last Saturday it reportedly recommended a freeze on the further supply of equipment and expertise to Georgia by Israeli defense contractors. (Israel doesn't supply foreign militaries directly, but its private contractors must get Defense Ministry approval for such deals.) The Israelis decided to refrain from authorizing new defense contracts, although those currently in effect will be fulfilled. Israel stressed that the contracts are to provide equipment for defensive purposes. But if the Israelis were looking to downplay the significance of military ties, they weren't helped by comments like Yakobashvili's — or by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's enthusing at a press conference earlier this week that "the Israeli weapons have been very effective."
Nor did the Russians fail to notice. "Israel armed the Georgian army," grumbled General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of staff of the Russian military, at a press conference in Moscow earlier this week. An Israeli paper had, last weekend, quoted an unnamed official warning that Israel needed "to be very careful and sensitive these days. The Russians are selling many arms to Iran and Syria, and there is no need to offer them an excuse to sell even more advanced weapons." As if on cue, on Wednesday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad arrived in Moscow hoping to persuade Russia to sell him sophisticated air-defense systems — and reportedly offering the Russian navy the use of one of its Mediterranean ports. Late on Wednesday, the Israeli Foreign Ministry announced that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev had spoken on the phone to clear the air over the Georgia conflict and Russian arms sales to Syria.
The extent of involvement in Georgia by Israeli defense contractors may be overstated, and most of the equipment used by the Georgian military comes from the U.S. and other suppliers. Still, Israeli companies had been sufficiently involved in supplying specialized equipment and advanced tactical training to the Georgian military that the connection — and Russia's perception of it — created a ripple of anxiety in Israeli government circles. Israeli officials say that, in anticipation of a showdown between Georgia and Russia, Israel began to scale back the involvement of Israeli companies in Georgia as early as the end of 2007. Georgia's Yakobashvili charged this week that Israel, "at Russia's behest," had downgraded military ties with Georgia, a decision he branded a "disgrace."
Israel's weapons sales, just like Russia's, are driven by the commercial interests of domestic arms industries. Israeli military exports to Georgia are driven more by the logic of business than by a strategic choice to back Tbilisi against Moscow — indeed, the Israeli response since the outbreak of hostilities is a reminder that, on balance, even a relatively cool friendship with Russia may be more important to Israel than a close alliance with tiny Georgia. Despite Israel's pecuniary imperative, Georgia has used these commercial military ties to press closer ties on Israel.
President Saakashvili has noted that both his minister responsible for negotiations over South Ossetia (Yakobashvili) and his Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili, had lived in Israel before moving to post-Soviet Georgia. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the Georgian leader this week enthused that in Tbilisi, "both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews." Working through the Georgian Defense Ministry (and with the approval of its Israeli counterpart), Israeli companies are reported to have supplied the Georgians with pilotless drones, night-vision equipment, anti-aircraft equipment, shells, rockets and various electronic systems. Even more important than equipment may have been the advanced tactical training and consultancy provided, as private contractors, by retired top Israeli generals such as Yisrael Ziv and Gal Hirsch, the man who commanded Israeli ground forces during their disastrous foray into Lebanon in 2006. (Never one to resist an opportunity to mock his enemies, Hizballah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah quipped in a speech this week, "Gal Hirsch, who was defeated in Lebanon, went to Georgia, and they too lost because of him.") Not necessarily: Russia applied overwhelming force against the tiny Georgian military, which, according to Israeli assessments, still managed to punch above its weight.
The Russians were piqued by Israel's military trade with Georgia even before the latest outbreak of hostilities — Moscow expressed its annoyance over the pilotless drones supplied by an Israeli company to the Georgians, three of which were downed by Russian aircraft over South Ossetia in recent months. Obviously mindful of the need to avoid provoking Russia, Israel declared off-limits certain weapons systems the Georgians had asked for, such as Merkava tanks and advanced anti-aircraft systems. "We have turned down many requests involving arms sales to Georgia, and the ones that have been approved have been duly scrutinized," a Defense Ministry official told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahoronot amid concerns raised over a possible fallout from the Israeli ties to the Georgian military. The extent of damage to the Israeli-Russia relationship — if indeed there is any — remains to be seen. Despite General Nogovitsyn's comments, Israeli officials say they have received no formal complaints from Russia over ties with Georgia.
Israel's strategic priority now is countering the threat it sees in Iran's nuclear program, and on that front, Russian cooperation is essential. If the Israelis are to achieve their objective of forcing Iran to end uranium enrichment through diplomatic coercion, they will need Russian support for escalating U.N. sanctions — a course of action for which Russia has thus far shown little enthusiasm. And if Israel were to opt for trying to destroy Tehran's nuclear facilities through a series of air strikes, then the presence of the sophisticated Russian S-300 missile system in Iran would considerably raise the risk to Israeli pilots. Unfortunately for Israel, however, there may be little it can do to shape Moscow's Iran policy for the simple reason that Israel is not a major factor in Russia's strategic outlook. Moscow's actions on Iran are less likely to be determined by Israel supplying a few drones to Georgia than they are to be shaped, for example, by the deployment over extreme Russian objections of U.S. interceptor missiles on Polish soil.
—With reporting by Aaron J. Klein / Jerusalem
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... html?imw=Y
What Israel Lost in the Georgia War
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2008 By TONY KARON
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is shown an Israeli Aircraft Industries pilotless drone during his visit to their factories in Lod, Israel
Israel Aircraft Industries / Getty
"It is important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order," Georgian Cabinet Minister Temur Yakobashvili said last weekend. "It's not just Georgia's business, but the entire world's business." Such sentiments would have been unremarkable but for the fact that Yakobashvili was expressing himself in fluent Hebrew, telling Israeli Army Radio that "Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers."
However, the impression that Israel had helped bolster the Georgian military was one the Israeli Foreign Ministry was anxious to avoid. Last Saturday it reportedly recommended a freeze on the further supply of equipment and expertise to Georgia by Israeli defense contractors. (Israel doesn't supply foreign militaries directly, but its private contractors must get Defense Ministry approval for such deals.) The Israelis decided to refrain from authorizing new defense contracts, although those currently in effect will be fulfilled. Israel stressed that the contracts are to provide equipment for defensive purposes. But if the Israelis were looking to downplay the significance of military ties, they weren't helped by comments like Yakobashvili's — or by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's enthusing at a press conference earlier this week that "the Israeli weapons have been very effective."
Nor did the Russians fail to notice. "Israel armed the Georgian army," grumbled General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of staff of the Russian military, at a press conference in Moscow earlier this week. An Israeli paper had, last weekend, quoted an unnamed official warning that Israel needed "to be very careful and sensitive these days. The Russians are selling many arms to Iran and Syria, and there is no need to offer them an excuse to sell even more advanced weapons." As if on cue, on Wednesday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad arrived in Moscow hoping to persuade Russia to sell him sophisticated air-defense systems — and reportedly offering the Russian navy the use of one of its Mediterranean ports. Late on Wednesday, the Israeli Foreign Ministry announced that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev had spoken on the phone to clear the air over the Georgia conflict and Russian arms sales to Syria.
The extent of involvement in Georgia by Israeli defense contractors may be overstated, and most of the equipment used by the Georgian military comes from the U.S. and other suppliers. Still, Israeli companies had been sufficiently involved in supplying specialized equipment and advanced tactical training to the Georgian military that the connection — and Russia's perception of it — created a ripple of anxiety in Israeli government circles. Israeli officials say that, in anticipation of a showdown between Georgia and Russia, Israel began to scale back the involvement of Israeli companies in Georgia as early as the end of 2007. Georgia's Yakobashvili charged this week that Israel, "at Russia's behest," had downgraded military ties with Georgia, a decision he branded a "disgrace."
Israel's weapons sales, just like Russia's, are driven by the commercial interests of domestic arms industries. Israeli military exports to Georgia are driven more by the logic of business than by a strategic choice to back Tbilisi against Moscow — indeed, the Israeli response since the outbreak of hostilities is a reminder that, on balance, even a relatively cool friendship with Russia may be more important to Israel than a close alliance with tiny Georgia. Despite Israel's pecuniary imperative, Georgia has used these commercial military ties to press closer ties on Israel.
President Saakashvili has noted that both his minister responsible for negotiations over South Ossetia (Yakobashvili) and his Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili, had lived in Israel before moving to post-Soviet Georgia. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the Georgian leader this week enthused that in Tbilisi, "both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews." Working through the Georgian Defense Ministry (and with the approval of its Israeli counterpart), Israeli companies are reported to have supplied the Georgians with pilotless drones, night-vision equipment, anti-aircraft equipment, shells, rockets and various electronic systems. Even more important than equipment may have been the advanced tactical training and consultancy provided, as private contractors, by retired top Israeli generals such as Yisrael Ziv and Gal Hirsch, the man who commanded Israeli ground forces during their disastrous foray into Lebanon in 2006. (Never one to resist an opportunity to mock his enemies, Hizballah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah quipped in a speech this week, "Gal Hirsch, who was defeated in Lebanon, went to Georgia, and they too lost because of him.") Not necessarily: Russia applied overwhelming force against the tiny Georgian military, which, according to Israeli assessments, still managed to punch above its weight.
The Russians were piqued by Israel's military trade with Georgia even before the latest outbreak of hostilities — Moscow expressed its annoyance over the pilotless drones supplied by an Israeli company to the Georgians, three of which were downed by Russian aircraft over South Ossetia in recent months. Obviously mindful of the need to avoid provoking Russia, Israel declared off-limits certain weapons systems the Georgians had asked for, such as Merkava tanks and advanced anti-aircraft systems. "We have turned down many requests involving arms sales to Georgia, and the ones that have been approved have been duly scrutinized," a Defense Ministry official told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahoronot amid concerns raised over a possible fallout from the Israeli ties to the Georgian military. The extent of damage to the Israeli-Russia relationship — if indeed there is any — remains to be seen. Despite General Nogovitsyn's comments, Israeli officials say they have received no formal complaints from Russia over ties with Georgia.
Israel's strategic priority now is countering the threat it sees in Iran's nuclear program, and on that front, Russian cooperation is essential. If the Israelis are to achieve their objective of forcing Iran to end uranium enrichment through diplomatic coercion, they will need Russian support for escalating U.N. sanctions — a course of action for which Russia has thus far shown little enthusiasm. And if Israel were to opt for trying to destroy Tehran's nuclear facilities through a series of air strikes, then the presence of the sophisticated Russian S-300 missile system in Iran would considerably raise the risk to Israeli pilots. Unfortunately for Israel, however, there may be little it can do to shape Moscow's Iran policy for the simple reason that Israel is not a major factor in Russia's strategic outlook. Moscow's actions on Iran are less likely to be determined by Israel supplying a few drones to Georgia than they are to be shaped, for example, by the deployment over extreme Russian objections of U.S. interceptor missiles on Polish soil.
—With reporting by Aaron J. Klein / Jerusalem
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Interesting article on the lack of Russia's preparedness.
Also, CNN is reporting that the US ambassador to Russia has acknowledged that the Georgians started it, and were warned not to.Russian military officials, in writings there that are catching U.S. analysts' attention, are concluding that Russia's offensive into Georgia was morally justified but poorly organized and executed in the opening phases due to surprise.
U.S. government officials and analysts have been poring over open-source literature to gather operational and technological clues to events in the Georgia-Russia conflict. The opinions are coming from current and recently retired senior military commanders, and appear in Russia's Independent Military Review, other defense related publications, as well as in Russian news agency reports.
Someone forgot to send him the "official" memoIt was confirmed Friday that the U.S. urged Georgia "not to do this" before it sent troops into its breakaway region of South Ossetia.
The U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, told the Russian business daily Kommersant it had urged Georgia not to launch an attack and that Russia responded in a "legitimate" way, though he went on to say Russia went too far in its military incursion.
His comments represent a public acknowledgment from a senior U.S. official that Russia had some justification for its initial response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Philip,
no Smerch was in action, only Uragan. However, Smerch battery was remaining near the border and could enter the theater any hour if needed, or to fire even from Russian territory,
no Smerch was in action, only Uragan. However, Smerch battery was remaining near the border and could enter the theater any hour if needed, or to fire even from Russian territory,
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Exellent Anti-Olimpic news about S-Osetia's war (humor):
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=r3sjWpLCAsI
More humor about it:
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=4LTqft2FjNs
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=cQLpDekLxN4
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=r3sjWpLCAsI
More humor about it:
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=4LTqft2FjNs
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=cQLpDekLxN4
Re: Caucasus Crisis
This is a relatively small commitment of forces. The Georgian army comprises 28-30,000 troops on active duty with another 15-20,000 reserves. Not to mention a lot of heavily armed police.Igorr wrote:Russian units who were involved fully or partially in the peace-keeping operation in S.Ossetia, Abhazia and Georgia:58 Army units
19 Motor-Rifle Division MRD HQ ---
693 Motor-Rifle Regiment (MRR) - Vladikavkaz. 30 Т-72 MBTs; 126 IFVs (121 BMP-2, 5 BRM-1К), 2 APCs (BTR-80); 4 2S6 Tunguska Air Defense units; 12 2SЗ Akatsia self-propelled howitzers; 11 BMP-1КSh, 2 PRP-4; 3 PU-12: 2 RHM-2; 1 MTU-20; 2220 personnel.
135 MRR – Prohladny. 30 Т-72 MBTs; 151 IFVs (60 BMP-2, 87 BMP-K, 4 BRM-1К); 1 BTR-80; 4 2S6 Tunguska Air Defense units, 11 2S19 Msta-S self-propelled howitzers, 15 D-30 towed howitzers; 3 1V18, 1 1V19, 2 PRP-4, 7 R-145BM, 1 PU-12, 1 ZS-88 (BTR-80); 4 MT-LBT; 3 RHM-2; 1 МТU-20; 2111 personnel. –
292 Self-propelled Artillery Regiment – Vladikavkaz. 36 2S19 Msta-S, 12 BM-21 Grad salvo-fire, 3 D-30; 3 1V18, 1 1V19, 4 PRP-4; 2 R-145BM; 1 BTR-80; 911 personnel.
1415 Separate Salvo Fire Artillery Battalion – Prohladny. 4 9А52 Smerch, 4 9P140 Uragan; 3 1V18, 1 1V19; 1 PRP-4; 188 personnel.
239 Separate Rekon Battalion – Vladikavkaz. 12 BMP-2, 11 BRM-1К, 6 BTR-80; 3 BMP-1КSh; 3 R-145BM; 345 personnel.
1493 Separate Engineer-Sapper Battalion – Vladikavkaz. 1 MTU-20; 304 personnel.
1077 Separate ECM Battalion - Vladikavkaz 4 SPR-2; 171 personnel.
344-й Separate Repairing Battalion – Vladikavkaz 1 MTP-LB; 312 personnel.
1098 Separate Material Support Battalion
135 Separate Medical Battalion
Missile battery of 58 Army – 4 9К79 "Тоchka-U" relocated to Zaramag.
Artillery Battalion of 205 Separate Motor-Rifle Cossack Brigade – Budenovsk. 12 2SЗ Akatsia, 12 BМ-21 Grad.
Artillery Battalion of 429 MRR – Mozdok. 12 2SЗ Akatsia, 4 9P140 Uragan
Other units
114 Missile Brigade
- Battery of 9К79 Tochka-U – 4 units.
76 Guards Airborne Division HQ Pskov
104 Guards Airborne Regiment – Pskov. 31 BMD-3, 20 BMD-2, 51 BMD-1; 34 BTR-D; 14 2S9 Nona self-propelled gun; 13 BTR-3D, 6 BTR-RD-РД; 6 BMD-1KSh, 1 BMD-1R, 8 1V119; 1554 personnel.
98 Guards Airborne Division HQ Ivanovo:
1065 Guards Artillery Airborne Regiment – Kostroma. 18 2S9 Nona, 12 D-30; 3 BTR-3D, 15 BTR-RD; 2 BMD-1КSh, 7 1V119; 598 personnel.
45 Separate Rekon Airborne Regiment – Kubinka/Moscow. 690 personnel, 15 BTR-80, 1 BTR-D. 42 Motor-Rifle Division –
“Vostok” spetsnaz battalion
33 Separate MR Brigade
- two mountain-rifle battalions
22 Spetsnaz Brigade
- two battalions
Medical Detachment of North-Caucasus Military District
Air Force
2457 AEW Base - Ivanovo
1 А-50.
185 Combat Training and Doctrine Center – Ashuluk
2 MiG-31, relocated in Budenovsk
4 Combat Training and Conversion Center – Lipetzk;
968 Research Instructor Regiment
- flight of MiG-25RB and Su-24MR, relocated in Budenovsk
- flight of Su-27, relocated in Mozdok
flight of Su-24M plus element of Su-34 relocated in Budenovsk and Mozdok
4 Air Force and Air Defense Army
- Su-27 squadron of 51 Air Defence Corps – Budenovsk
- Provisional regiment with Su-24/24Ms of 559 and 959 Bomber Regiments – Mozdok and Morozovsk
- 368 Attack Regiment of 1 Attack Air Division, Su-25/25SM – Budenovsk and Mozdok
- Mi-24 squadron of 487 Separate Helicopter Regiment,– Mozdok, later relocated to Gizel airfield of Border Guard
- Mi-8 squadron of 487 Separate Helicopter Regiment, Mi-24 – Mozdok, later relocated to Gizel airfield of Border Guard
- Mi-8 squadron of 325 Separate Helicopter Regiment, Mi-24 – Mozdok, later relocated to Gizel airfield of Border Guard
16 Air Force and Air Defense Army
- Su-25 squadron of 899 Attack Air Regiment, 105 Composite Air Division – Budenovsk and Mozdok
- Su-24M squadron of 455 Bomber Regiment, 105 Composite Air Division – Morozovsk.
- Su-24MR and MiG-25R squadron – relocated to Marinovka AB
37 Air Army of Supreme Command (Strategic Aviation)
- Tu-160 squadron of 121 Heavy Bomber Regiment – Engels. Used to launch X-555 and X-101 cruise missiles against Georgian air defence installations
- Tu-22M3 squadron of 352 Heavy Bomber Regiment – Shaikovka. The downed plane was rekon version Tu-22M3-R
With this modest force, the Russians would not have had an overwhelming superiority in numbers, if at all. With the technological edge enjoyed by the Georgians in night-vision gear, US\Isreali anti-tank missiles & SAM's, recon drones, and other force multipliers, any small Russian numerical advantage was further eroded.
It looks like this was a far more even contest than Western media suggests. Which speaks pretty well of Russian tactics and combat discipline.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
I think that the key to the rapid success of the Russia counter offensive was its combined forces acting in unison.Poti was captured and Russia airpower along with helo gunships pounded Georgian positions and bases at will.Interesting to see a veteran Nanuchka-3 returning to its base in Sevastopol.Did it sink the Georgian craft?'
Meanwhile,the west's "Orange" puppet in Uklraine,Yushchenko,is behaving like Shaky-willy,spouting fire and brimstone against Russia in his diatribes.In fact he even flew to Tiblisi to stand next to his fellow marionette in solidarity.Such behaviour augurs an equally exciting future for him!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 592825.ece
We will not be the next on Russia's hitlist, vows defiant Ukraine
The invasion of Georgia means that Nato must quickly expand eastwards, the Ukrainian President tells The Times
Roger Boyes in Kiev
Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian President, was in a fierce and defiant mood yesterday as he urged Nato to respond to the Russian invasion of Georgia by moving quickly to expand the frontiers of the alliance eastwards.
In an exclusive interview with The Times Mr Yushchenko asserted that the fundamentals of international politics had changed. Ukraine had to do everything in its power to ensure it was not going to be next on the Kremlin hitlist.
“It is the first time in Europe since the Cold War that a foreign army has entered the territory of a sovereign state without any internationally accepted legal basis,” he said.
“If we were to be ambivalent about this it would give tacit approval to put our country and our citizens under threat.”
Sevastopol: at the centre of the storm
The President — one of the figureheads of the Orange Revolution that toppled Moscow's favoured candidate for the leadership of Ukraine — was careful not to criticise Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, directly.
Even when the 54-year-old economist flew to Tbilisi shortly after the outbreak of the Russian-Georgian war, his words were more carefully chosen than those of the other East European heads of state.
Russians form a strong minority in Ukraine — about 17 per cent of the population, in the east and to the south in the Crimea — and could become a flashpoint in any future confrontation with Moscow.
Yesterday was the eve of Ukrainian Independence Day and it was time for the President to break cover. Over the roofs of Kiev, a Ukrainian jet fighter howled through the sky. It was preparing for the celebrations, but its presence still induced a vague sense of menace.
This weekend the Independence Day festivities will have a martial edge. It is a good moment to display strength, although in truth the Ukrainian forces are a mere shadow of those of Russia, which is using oil money to modernise the army and boost military might. New aircraft carriers are planned, and new equipment across the board.
“Ukraine has to move towards the Nato alliance,” the President said, drumming up support before the Nato summit in December.
“It is the only way for our country to protect our national security and sovereignty. When the borders of Nato expand, so too does the region of peace and stability.”
The defence budget of Ukraine — as in other nervous Central European states — is to be raised immediately. “I want to remind all political forces in our country that shout about the possible neutral status of Ukraine that neutrality can come at a very high price,” he said, casting a nod at pro-Moscow politicians.
As a young man, the President had direct experience of Russia's fear of encirclement — after graduation he did national service as a KGB border guard on the Soviet-Turkish border.
“We need to increase the military budget so that there is no question about what happens tomorrow,” he added.
Russia argues that the West is posing a direct threat on its borders by expanding Nato, but its invasion on behalf of the South Ossetians has cancelled out its claim to have legitimate anxieties.
“The peace and security of Europe are under threat, thus a united Europe should give a robust and appropriate response,” the President said.
Instead, at the beginning of a new Russian presidency, Moscow is demonstrating its readiness to champion Russian minorities everywhere — disturbing for Estonia with 30 per cent of its population of Russian origin; Latvia with 33 per cent; Moldova with 13 per cent, and the Belarussians with 13 per cent. The Central Asian republics such as Kyrgyzstan (with 21.5 per cent Russians) could also become vulnerable.
No one seriously believes the Russians are set to march into the Baltic states — though Moscow has no problems about exploiting their dependency on Russian oil and gas — but that is President Yushchenko's point: as full members of Nato, along with Poland, they are more secure than Ukraine. It was now essential, he said, that Ukraine should be enlisted in the Nato Membership Action Plan.
Still pockmarked from a dioxin poisoning attack before the 2005 presidential election, the President has reason enough to be wary about Russian-inspired dirty tricks.
His face became bloated and disfigured after eating a meal with security chiefs — medical tests later showed that he had consumed several thousand times the safe dose for dioxin — and though the matter has still to be cleared up by the courts, many observers think that it was a typical KGB operation.
“This is my personal tragedy and that of my family,” he said. “Unfortunately it has become an integral part of the political debate in Ukraine.” Once seen as a revolutionary hero, then as a victim of mysterious poisoners, he is now viewed by many as a somewhat ineffective president, struggling to make a mark. Ahead of next year's presidential elections, his popularity ratings are at a record low.
Paradoxically, the perceived threat from Russia could boost his position and help him to brand himself as a doughty defender of Ukranian independence. The same goes for leaders across the region: they are all starting to play the nationalist card, playing on the deep suspicion of Vladimir Putin and the Russian generals.
Have your say
Andrew, get over it! The Russian aren't protecting "their" people. South Ossetia in Georgian territory! Those people are therefore Georgrian citizens. By your theory the Russians should be able to invade any country with a large Russian speaking population. Please get YOUR fundamentals right!
Javier W, San Diego, CA, USA
“It is the first time in Europe since the Cold War that a foreign army has entered the territory of a sovereign state without any internationally accepted legal basis”
What about NATO entering Serbia in 1999?
Petar, Belgrade,
I'm an ukrainian american. I was born in Lviv, and I still remember very well russian invasion. No freedom, no religion, no democracy. We are part of Europe, we live the true values and we refuse moscow autoriterian regime. I see many responses made by paid russian image makers. Be aware!
Seve, Florida, USA
Ukraine will NOT be part of Russia. Russia is losing its influence and power, and the only way they know how to get it back is by bullying and intimidation. It's unfortunate that Nato and EU disregard this. They are putting the security and stability of Europe in jeopardy by avoiding the issue
Bohdana, Lutsk, Ukraine
So the West has been provoking Russia by expanding NATO. Which is more provocative: inviting democracies to join an alliance; selling nuclear technology to Iran; or invading an independent democracy, wrecking its infrastructure, & lying about pulling out? Ukraine is right to be nervous.
Jill, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Dear US observers! Ukraine is an integral part of Russia, we will never let is go west whether you like it or not.
Alexander, Moscow, Russia
Scenario: Authoritarian Russia recaptures the Ukraine; Europe eventually succumbs to Russia; Russia sends in troops from recaptured states, Ukraine/Georgia etc., to occupy Western Europe, what do you think their attitude will be towards the newly conquered who so casually &cynically betrayed them?
Dr Andris Lielmanis, Brampton, Canada.
I think most of the current crisis is of our leaders making. The west (United States) has been actively provoking Russia for years by expanding NATO right up to Russian borders and the proposed missile defence shield. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the Russians will respond in some way.
Steve, Brisbane, Australia
Well, tha latest Ukrainian polls sugget Yushenko having just 7% of support among the Ukranian population. It is too naive to believe that his statements express either the veiws of the majority of the population, or the future developments in Ukraine.
Anna, Aarhus, Denmark
The Western media appear to have forgotten the fundamentals. Georgia persectued the South Ossetians and Russia moved to protect its people in that region. Please, please can we avoid the British/USA tendency to simplify everything, and invade everyone!
Andrew MacMillan, London, UK
To paraphrase John Milton "They also die who only sit and wait" ie by not defending the rights of Ukraina (still misspelled Ukraine since the days of Boplan) the weakened NATO and EU will also return to Rossian "influence" as it was during the Warshaw Pact. It needs Estonian courage, Lietuvian dare.
Anatolij Onishko Sen, Canberra ACT 2603, Australia
No, Not another bloody war.
Back off all of you please
Andrea, London,
Is NATO prepared to go to war with Russia over the
Ukraine. I think not.
Bruce Northwood, Silver Spring, USA
Yushchenko is not Ukraine, he is currently supported by 3% of the Ukrainian population. Ukrainians would be much happier to join Russia instead of NATO, and to suggest otherwise means to be completely deluded.
Ray, Toronto,
Yushchenko afraid of pro-Russian majority and want to sell Ukraine himself.
Alexey L.N., Novosibirsk, Russia
Yuschenko is a hero the world should not ignore. Tomorrow we march in New York City in support of Ukraine and Georgia's bid to become part of NATO. Those who would deny these European countries entry into this military alliance are ignorant of how quickly Russian can destroy a civil society.
Greg, Montreal, Canada
If Yushchenko thinks US & NATO would help him when the chips are really down, he is sadly mistaken. The US will never go to a shooting war with Russia if there is a possibility of a Russian nuclear warhead dropping on US soil. Before he gets too anti Russian, remember the price of gas will go up.
George, London, UK
I wish Your Words Our Dearest President were heard in the West. I'm afraid that oil and gas are more important for the western countries than their neighbors lives. May God Save Ukraine!
Andriy, Ternopil', Ukraine
Yushchenko, unlike jaded leftists in Western Europe, has enough existential experience to understand the reality of totalitarian and imperialistic tendencies in "New Russia" of Colonel Putin and that alignment with US/Nato will help preserve sovereignty of Ukraine.
John, Detroit, USA
Meanwhile,the west's "Orange" puppet in Uklraine,Yushchenko,is behaving like Shaky-willy,spouting fire and brimstone against Russia in his diatribes.In fact he even flew to Tiblisi to stand next to his fellow marionette in solidarity.Such behaviour augurs an equally exciting future for him!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 592825.ece
We will not be the next on Russia's hitlist, vows defiant Ukraine
The invasion of Georgia means that Nato must quickly expand eastwards, the Ukrainian President tells The Times
Roger Boyes in Kiev
Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian President, was in a fierce and defiant mood yesterday as he urged Nato to respond to the Russian invasion of Georgia by moving quickly to expand the frontiers of the alliance eastwards.
In an exclusive interview with The Times Mr Yushchenko asserted that the fundamentals of international politics had changed. Ukraine had to do everything in its power to ensure it was not going to be next on the Kremlin hitlist.
“It is the first time in Europe since the Cold War that a foreign army has entered the territory of a sovereign state without any internationally accepted legal basis,” he said.
“If we were to be ambivalent about this it would give tacit approval to put our country and our citizens under threat.”
Sevastopol: at the centre of the storm
The President — one of the figureheads of the Orange Revolution that toppled Moscow's favoured candidate for the leadership of Ukraine — was careful not to criticise Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, directly.
Even when the 54-year-old economist flew to Tbilisi shortly after the outbreak of the Russian-Georgian war, his words were more carefully chosen than those of the other East European heads of state.
Russians form a strong minority in Ukraine — about 17 per cent of the population, in the east and to the south in the Crimea — and could become a flashpoint in any future confrontation with Moscow.
Yesterday was the eve of Ukrainian Independence Day and it was time for the President to break cover. Over the roofs of Kiev, a Ukrainian jet fighter howled through the sky. It was preparing for the celebrations, but its presence still induced a vague sense of menace.
This weekend the Independence Day festivities will have a martial edge. It is a good moment to display strength, although in truth the Ukrainian forces are a mere shadow of those of Russia, which is using oil money to modernise the army and boost military might. New aircraft carriers are planned, and new equipment across the board.
“Ukraine has to move towards the Nato alliance,” the President said, drumming up support before the Nato summit in December.
“It is the only way for our country to protect our national security and sovereignty. When the borders of Nato expand, so too does the region of peace and stability.”
The defence budget of Ukraine — as in other nervous Central European states — is to be raised immediately. “I want to remind all political forces in our country that shout about the possible neutral status of Ukraine that neutrality can come at a very high price,” he said, casting a nod at pro-Moscow politicians.
As a young man, the President had direct experience of Russia's fear of encirclement — after graduation he did national service as a KGB border guard on the Soviet-Turkish border.
“We need to increase the military budget so that there is no question about what happens tomorrow,” he added.
Russia argues that the West is posing a direct threat on its borders by expanding Nato, but its invasion on behalf of the South Ossetians has cancelled out its claim to have legitimate anxieties.
“The peace and security of Europe are under threat, thus a united Europe should give a robust and appropriate response,” the President said.
Instead, at the beginning of a new Russian presidency, Moscow is demonstrating its readiness to champion Russian minorities everywhere — disturbing for Estonia with 30 per cent of its population of Russian origin; Latvia with 33 per cent; Moldova with 13 per cent, and the Belarussians with 13 per cent. The Central Asian republics such as Kyrgyzstan (with 21.5 per cent Russians) could also become vulnerable.
No one seriously believes the Russians are set to march into the Baltic states — though Moscow has no problems about exploiting their dependency on Russian oil and gas — but that is President Yushchenko's point: as full members of Nato, along with Poland, they are more secure than Ukraine. It was now essential, he said, that Ukraine should be enlisted in the Nato Membership Action Plan.
Still pockmarked from a dioxin poisoning attack before the 2005 presidential election, the President has reason enough to be wary about Russian-inspired dirty tricks.
His face became bloated and disfigured after eating a meal with security chiefs — medical tests later showed that he had consumed several thousand times the safe dose for dioxin — and though the matter has still to be cleared up by the courts, many observers think that it was a typical KGB operation.
“This is my personal tragedy and that of my family,” he said. “Unfortunately it has become an integral part of the political debate in Ukraine.” Once seen as a revolutionary hero, then as a victim of mysterious poisoners, he is now viewed by many as a somewhat ineffective president, struggling to make a mark. Ahead of next year's presidential elections, his popularity ratings are at a record low.
Paradoxically, the perceived threat from Russia could boost his position and help him to brand himself as a doughty defender of Ukranian independence. The same goes for leaders across the region: they are all starting to play the nationalist card, playing on the deep suspicion of Vladimir Putin and the Russian generals.
Have your say
Andrew, get over it! The Russian aren't protecting "their" people. South Ossetia in Georgian territory! Those people are therefore Georgrian citizens. By your theory the Russians should be able to invade any country with a large Russian speaking population. Please get YOUR fundamentals right!
Javier W, San Diego, CA, USA
“It is the first time in Europe since the Cold War that a foreign army has entered the territory of a sovereign state without any internationally accepted legal basis”
What about NATO entering Serbia in 1999?
Petar, Belgrade,
I'm an ukrainian american. I was born in Lviv, and I still remember very well russian invasion. No freedom, no religion, no democracy. We are part of Europe, we live the true values and we refuse moscow autoriterian regime. I see many responses made by paid russian image makers. Be aware!
Seve, Florida, USA
Ukraine will NOT be part of Russia. Russia is losing its influence and power, and the only way they know how to get it back is by bullying and intimidation. It's unfortunate that Nato and EU disregard this. They are putting the security and stability of Europe in jeopardy by avoiding the issue
Bohdana, Lutsk, Ukraine
So the West has been provoking Russia by expanding NATO. Which is more provocative: inviting democracies to join an alliance; selling nuclear technology to Iran; or invading an independent democracy, wrecking its infrastructure, & lying about pulling out? Ukraine is right to be nervous.
Jill, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Dear US observers! Ukraine is an integral part of Russia, we will never let is go west whether you like it or not.
Alexander, Moscow, Russia
Scenario: Authoritarian Russia recaptures the Ukraine; Europe eventually succumbs to Russia; Russia sends in troops from recaptured states, Ukraine/Georgia etc., to occupy Western Europe, what do you think their attitude will be towards the newly conquered who so casually &cynically betrayed them?
Dr Andris Lielmanis, Brampton, Canada.
I think most of the current crisis is of our leaders making. The west (United States) has been actively provoking Russia for years by expanding NATO right up to Russian borders and the proposed missile defence shield. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the Russians will respond in some way.
Steve, Brisbane, Australia
Well, tha latest Ukrainian polls sugget Yushenko having just 7% of support among the Ukranian population. It is too naive to believe that his statements express either the veiws of the majority of the population, or the future developments in Ukraine.
Anna, Aarhus, Denmark
The Western media appear to have forgotten the fundamentals. Georgia persectued the South Ossetians and Russia moved to protect its people in that region. Please, please can we avoid the British/USA tendency to simplify everything, and invade everyone!
Andrew MacMillan, London, UK
To paraphrase John Milton "They also die who only sit and wait" ie by not defending the rights of Ukraina (still misspelled Ukraine since the days of Boplan) the weakened NATO and EU will also return to Rossian "influence" as it was during the Warshaw Pact. It needs Estonian courage, Lietuvian dare.
Anatolij Onishko Sen, Canberra ACT 2603, Australia
No, Not another bloody war.
Back off all of you please
Andrea, London,
Is NATO prepared to go to war with Russia over the
Ukraine. I think not.
Bruce Northwood, Silver Spring, USA
Yushchenko is not Ukraine, he is currently supported by 3% of the Ukrainian population. Ukrainians would be much happier to join Russia instead of NATO, and to suggest otherwise means to be completely deluded.
Ray, Toronto,
Yushchenko afraid of pro-Russian majority and want to sell Ukraine himself.
Alexey L.N., Novosibirsk, Russia
Yuschenko is a hero the world should not ignore. Tomorrow we march in New York City in support of Ukraine and Georgia's bid to become part of NATO. Those who would deny these European countries entry into this military alliance are ignorant of how quickly Russian can destroy a civil society.
Greg, Montreal, Canada
If Yushchenko thinks US & NATO would help him when the chips are really down, he is sadly mistaken. The US will never go to a shooting war with Russia if there is a possibility of a Russian nuclear warhead dropping on US soil. Before he gets too anti Russian, remember the price of gas will go up.
George, London, UK
I wish Your Words Our Dearest President were heard in the West. I'm afraid that oil and gas are more important for the western countries than their neighbors lives. May God Save Ukraine!
Andriy, Ternopil', Ukraine
Yushchenko, unlike jaded leftists in Western Europe, has enough existential experience to understand the reality of totalitarian and imperialistic tendencies in "New Russia" of Colonel Putin and that alignment with US/Nato will help preserve sovereignty of Ukraine.
John, Detroit, USA
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Philip,
more then 80% of the population in Ukraine is practically speaking RUssian in family and day by day. No religeous differences too, so if not been politisation, 80% of the population are ethnic Russians in the linguo-cultural mean.
Now some opinion of the former Reagan's adviser:
more then 80% of the population in Ukraine is practically speaking RUssian in family and day by day. No religeous differences too, so if not been politisation, 80% of the population are ethnic Russians in the linguo-cultural mean.
Now some opinion of the former Reagan's adviser:
America will never recover from the shame and dishonor heaped upon her by the neoconned Bush Regime.
The success of the neocon propaganda has been so great that the opposition party has not lifted a finger to rein in the Bush Regime's criminal actions. Even Obama, who promises "change" is too intimidated by the neocon's success in brainwashing the American population to do what his supporters hoped he would do and lead us out of the shame in which the neoconned Bush Regime has imprisoned us.
This about sums up the pessimistic state in which I existed prior to the go-ahead given by the Bush Regime to its puppet in Georgia to ethnically cleanse South Ossetia of Russians in order to defuse the separatist movement. The American media, aka, the Ministry of Lies and Deceit, again accommodated the criminal Bush Regime and proclaimed "Russian invasion" to cover up the ethnic cleansing of Russians in South Ossetia by the Georgian military assault.
Last edited by Igorr on 23 Aug 2008 13:33, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
This Time, the World Is Not Buying It
by Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, August 22, 2008
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9909
Good article on US bovine excreta.
by Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, August 22, 2008
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9909
Good article on US bovine excreta.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Editorial in Washington Post
Who Needs Russia?
The United States should make a clear-eyed assessment of the fruits of strategic cooperation.
Saturday, August 23, 2008; Page A14
ON THURSDAY, while overseeing his country's continuing occupation of neighboring Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev found time to meet with visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Assad, who is under suspicion of ordering the murder of political opponents in Lebanon, lavishly praised Russia's invasion of Georgia and asked for more Russian weapons. Mr. Medvedev acceded to this request, according to his foreign minister.
This was a small and unsurprising event in the annals of Russian diplomatic history. But it's worth noting as the United States and its European allies consider how to reshape relations with Russia in the wake of its Aug. 7 invasion of Georgia. A common theme of commentary since the war began has been that the United States is constrained in its condemnation of -- or sanctions against -- Russia because it needs Russia too much in areas ranging from counterterrorism to checking the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. But you can't lose what you never had, and it's fair to question how much help Russia has been providing in any of those areas, even before Aug. 7.
Iran provides a useful example. Russia has participated, with Germany, France and Britain, in talks aimed at persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program and even has gone along with some sanctions enacted by the U.N. Security Council. But Russia's principal contribution has been to slow the process and resist meaningful sanctions, stringing the Bush administration along just enough to convince it that truly effective measures -- sometime, somewhere down the road -- might be possible. Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without inhibition. Meanwhile, Russian experts help develop Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, and Russia sells Iran air-defense weapons it can use to protect its nuclear sites and
anti-ship weapons it could use to menace Persian Gulf shipping traffic in the event of conflict. While the administration blames Iran and its proteges, including Hamas and Syria, for
destabilizing the Middle East, Russia sells arms to all of them, and to Venezuela and Sudan.
None of this means that the United States should seek or welcome a new cold war with Russia. Russia could make life far more difficult for many of America's friends if it chose to do so, just as it could, if it chose, help combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But President Bush's imagined partnership with president-turned-prime-minister Vladimir Putin has been pretty much an empty husk for a long time. We hope and believe that the West would not under any circumstance barter away the independence or territorial integrity of a small, free and helpless nation in exchange for a promise of big-power cooperation. But when that promise is an illusion, the calculation should become even easier.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02760.html
Who Needs Russia?
The United States should make a clear-eyed assessment of the fruits of strategic cooperation.
Saturday, August 23, 2008; Page A14
ON THURSDAY, while overseeing his country's continuing occupation of neighboring Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev found time to meet with visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Assad, who is under suspicion of ordering the murder of political opponents in Lebanon, lavishly praised Russia's invasion of Georgia and asked for more Russian weapons. Mr. Medvedev acceded to this request, according to his foreign minister.
This was a small and unsurprising event in the annals of Russian diplomatic history. But it's worth noting as the United States and its European allies consider how to reshape relations with Russia in the wake of its Aug. 7 invasion of Georgia. A common theme of commentary since the war began has been that the United States is constrained in its condemnation of -- or sanctions against -- Russia because it needs Russia too much in areas ranging from counterterrorism to checking the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. But you can't lose what you never had, and it's fair to question how much help Russia has been providing in any of those areas, even before Aug. 7.
Iran provides a useful example. Russia has participated, with Germany, France and Britain, in talks aimed at persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program and even has gone along with some sanctions enacted by the U.N. Security Council. But Russia's principal contribution has been to slow the process and resist meaningful sanctions, stringing the Bush administration along just enough to convince it that truly effective measures -- sometime, somewhere down the road -- might be possible. Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without inhibition. Meanwhile, Russian experts help develop Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, and Russia sells Iran air-defense weapons it can use to protect its nuclear sites and
anti-ship weapons it could use to menace Persian Gulf shipping traffic in the event of conflict. While the administration blames Iran and its proteges, including Hamas and Syria, for
destabilizing the Middle East, Russia sells arms to all of them, and to Venezuela and Sudan.
None of this means that the United States should seek or welcome a new cold war with Russia. Russia could make life far more difficult for many of America's friends if it chose to do so, just as it could, if it chose, help combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But President Bush's imagined partnership with president-turned-prime-minister Vladimir Putin has been pretty much an empty husk for a long time. We hope and believe that the West would not under any circumstance barter away the independence or territorial integrity of a small, free and helpless nation in exchange for a promise of big-power cooperation. But when that promise is an illusion, the calculation should become even easier.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02760.html
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Apparently the Americans egged on Saakashvili, as they egged on Iraq. Things have gone according to script thereafter.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
1)Paul Craig Roberts is essentially a garbage producer so his articles are usually only suitable to fertilize the soil.
2) Russian military performance -though produced more or less the intended end-result due to overwhelming use of fire power- has a lot of room for improvement. They have had a lot of real combat exposure in their long operations against the Chechens and should have learned some lessons especially in non-conventional warfare and in command and control. Still, their performance has a lot of room to get better. You cannot finish up you ammo store to flush out one bunker. All told, economics of use of force and equipments while obtaining the best result needs to be paramount.
3) Georgians were the aggressors for invading SO. Ofcourse they had been provoked but that is for another day. Come to think of it, the MUslim Albanians were provoking the Serbs since at least 1988 and Serb patience bottomed out. Nick Burns (yep...that same dude who had been selling the nuke deal to India) can say whatever he wants to but there is absolutely everything similar in Kosovo and SO and Abkz.
4) Russia had been invaded by the Mongols, Tartars, Golden Hordes, Arabs, Persians, Swedish, Germans, Teutonic Knights, French, Poles and the Turks in their 1000 year history. Not a century went by without an invasion of Russia being concoted somewhere. Oh...you wanna talk about paranoia now?
5) Russians and Eukranians have more in common (linguistic-cultural-religion) than Marathis and Punjabis.
6) Everyone talks about how Russia had always been imperialistic and expansionist. Hmm...I guess everyone forgot about "Manifest Destiny" which could succeed only via the decimation of another race, the colonization of Australia and New Zealand. Thing is, in Russian enterprise, Russification of the conquered natives was more attempted than decimation while in australia, New Zealand and in the Americas the Islamic solution was imposed- decimation. So if some western comentator tries to impose the imperial brand on Russia......hypocrit.
7) Romans (east and west) and Persians -the superpowers of their time- fought to their own demise. They depleted their manpower. To augment their loses both conscripted "others" to fill their ranks. As the loses mounted, the non romans and non persians in their respective forces soon became majority. Soon, the littlest of a mouse of the desert (Arab muslim barbarians) came against both and the rest is history.
Everyone talks about Russia's population decline. This is misleading. Russia's population is slowly increasing but the population of ethnic Russians is declining. In another words ethnic Russians will be minority if the trend is not rectified. What no one is talking about is that this trend is also taking place in the USA. The whites will be less than 50 percent in about 2048. So to all the comentators who have been belittling Russia for their ethnic decline......watch your back....payback is a biatch.
9) So, while Byzantians battled the Seljuks and later the Ottomans, Venice was happily selling weapons to the Muslims. While the French led crusade was being waged to liberate the holyland, assorted other Europeans were fighting for the Arabs. While Tzarist Russia was fighting for its survival against the Ottomans, Napolean was selling arms to the Turks while French freelancers were training the Muslim army. While Ottomans were raiding Ukranian and Russian villages to kidnap their females for the Middle Eastern sex-slave market, western Europe was busy trading trading with the Turks. When Tzarist Russia undertook a military campaign to kick out the Turks from Ukraine, English and French fleet bombarded Sevastapol and launched the Crimean War. When Barbary pirates invade Italian villages to capture females for their sex slave markets, French forces stood by. When these same pirates invade Irish coastal villages, the English forces stood by. That is Europe for you in a nut shell. They always tried to undermine their fellow Europeans which all along benefitted Islamic forces. Watch out. Islamic forces are still waiting on the fringes.
10) Western Europe had always appeased Islam at the expense of their Orthodox brethrens.
11) Col. Ralph Peters is an idiot. That he was a former military-intelligence officer is a joke. How could an idiot like him become one?
12) Shakashvilli is a democrat? Last I heard there is no such thing as an opposition news media in Georgia and Georgia is supposed to be a democratic state. Oh wait....despite Putins dictatorial tendencies.....there are opposition media outlets in Russia. Wow...I can't believe my eyes.
13) The west needs Russia just as the Russians need the west. They are both facing civilizational threat and both are in denial of it.
14) Historically Islam has been the biggest beneficiary of European/Western folly and Islam is going to be the biggest beneficiary if this folly continues.
15) Avram is the greatest. Have a good weekend.
2) Russian military performance -though produced more or less the intended end-result due to overwhelming use of fire power- has a lot of room for improvement. They have had a lot of real combat exposure in their long operations against the Chechens and should have learned some lessons especially in non-conventional warfare and in command and control. Still, their performance has a lot of room to get better. You cannot finish up you ammo store to flush out one bunker. All told, economics of use of force and equipments while obtaining the best result needs to be paramount.
3) Georgians were the aggressors for invading SO. Ofcourse they had been provoked but that is for another day. Come to think of it, the MUslim Albanians were provoking the Serbs since at least 1988 and Serb patience bottomed out. Nick Burns (yep...that same dude who had been selling the nuke deal to India) can say whatever he wants to but there is absolutely everything similar in Kosovo and SO and Abkz.
4) Russia had been invaded by the Mongols, Tartars, Golden Hordes, Arabs, Persians, Swedish, Germans, Teutonic Knights, French, Poles and the Turks in their 1000 year history. Not a century went by without an invasion of Russia being concoted somewhere. Oh...you wanna talk about paranoia now?
5) Russians and Eukranians have more in common (linguistic-cultural-religion) than Marathis and Punjabis.
6) Everyone talks about how Russia had always been imperialistic and expansionist. Hmm...I guess everyone forgot about "Manifest Destiny" which could succeed only via the decimation of another race, the colonization of Australia and New Zealand. Thing is, in Russian enterprise, Russification of the conquered natives was more attempted than decimation while in australia, New Zealand and in the Americas the Islamic solution was imposed- decimation. So if some western comentator tries to impose the imperial brand on Russia......hypocrit.
7) Romans (east and west) and Persians -the superpowers of their time- fought to their own demise. They depleted their manpower. To augment their loses both conscripted "others" to fill their ranks. As the loses mounted, the non romans and non persians in their respective forces soon became majority. Soon, the littlest of a mouse of the desert (Arab muslim barbarians) came against both and the rest is history.
Everyone talks about Russia's population decline. This is misleading. Russia's population is slowly increasing but the population of ethnic Russians is declining. In another words ethnic Russians will be minority if the trend is not rectified. What no one is talking about is that this trend is also taking place in the USA. The whites will be less than 50 percent in about 2048. So to all the comentators who have been belittling Russia for their ethnic decline......watch your back....payback is a biatch.9) So, while Byzantians battled the Seljuks and later the Ottomans, Venice was happily selling weapons to the Muslims. While the French led crusade was being waged to liberate the holyland, assorted other Europeans were fighting for the Arabs. While Tzarist Russia was fighting for its survival against the Ottomans, Napolean was selling arms to the Turks while French freelancers were training the Muslim army. While Ottomans were raiding Ukranian and Russian villages to kidnap their females for the Middle Eastern sex-slave market, western Europe was busy trading trading with the Turks. When Tzarist Russia undertook a military campaign to kick out the Turks from Ukraine, English and French fleet bombarded Sevastapol and launched the Crimean War. When Barbary pirates invade Italian villages to capture females for their sex slave markets, French forces stood by. When these same pirates invade Irish coastal villages, the English forces stood by. That is Europe for you in a nut shell. They always tried to undermine their fellow Europeans which all along benefitted Islamic forces. Watch out. Islamic forces are still waiting on the fringes.
10) Western Europe had always appeased Islam at the expense of their Orthodox brethrens.
11) Col. Ralph Peters is an idiot. That he was a former military-intelligence officer is a joke. How could an idiot like him become one?
12) Shakashvilli is a democrat? Last I heard there is no such thing as an opposition news media in Georgia and Georgia is supposed to be a democratic state. Oh wait....despite Putins dictatorial tendencies.....there are opposition media outlets in Russia. Wow...I can't believe my eyes.
13) The west needs Russia just as the Russians need the west. They are both facing civilizational threat and both are in denial of it.
14) Historically Islam has been the biggest beneficiary of European/Western folly and Islam is going to be the biggest beneficiary if this folly continues.
15) Avram is the greatest. Have a good weekend.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Yes Avaram is the greatest. Can we x-post in the Non Western World view?
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Avaram garu, I salute thee as you have spoken as it is not as some wish to see.
Bravo, and as usual your post are always instructive, educative and thought proviking.
Thanks for the knowledge sharing.
Shalom
Bravo, and as usual your post are always instructive, educative and thought proviking.
Thanks for the knowledge sharing.
Shalom
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Avram:
Viewed another way, maybe the Russians were minimizing Georgian casualties (and their own) by using "Shock & Awe" on the Georgian lines?
The Georgians clearly tried that in their genocidal bombardment of Tkshinvali. The Russians no doubt wanted to show some return fireworks. If their objective had been quick conquest of Georgia they may have done something else, but here they were obviously shooting for a demoralizing "lesson". The rest (enslavement of Georgia) is coming through much more sophisticated techniques, like tanks trashing police cars.
Remember that demonstration where the Russian commanders told the Georgians where they going to go (out of the Abkhazia region) and warned them to get out of the way. The move succeeded, which was the result of the earlier demonstrations using massive firepower. The Russians rubbed it in, saying that the "Georgian army is well trained by Americans to run away". Avoided needless casualties, and achieved several objectives with little media attention.
Think of Shaakashvili's regime cowering in Tbilisi, surrounded by the entire remains of the Georgian junta's US-trained, US-advised forces, while the rest of the country is protected only by policemen and laid open to visits from the Russian army and the Vostock Battalions. Putin must be
at the thought of that.
All told, economics of use of force and equipments while obtaining the best result needs to be paramount.
Viewed another way, maybe the Russians were minimizing Georgian casualties (and their own) by using "Shock & Awe" on the Georgian lines?
The Georgians clearly tried that in their genocidal bombardment of Tkshinvali. The Russians no doubt wanted to show some return fireworks. If their objective had been quick conquest of Georgia they may have done something else, but here they were obviously shooting for a demoralizing "lesson". The rest (enslavement of Georgia) is coming through much more sophisticated techniques, like tanks trashing police cars.
Remember that demonstration where the Russian commanders told the Georgians where they going to go (out of the Abkhazia region) and warned them to get out of the way. The move succeeded, which was the result of the earlier demonstrations using massive firepower. The Russians rubbed it in, saying that the "Georgian army is well trained by Americans to run away". Avoided needless casualties, and achieved several objectives with little media attention.
Think of Shaakashvili's regime cowering in Tbilisi, surrounded by the entire remains of the Georgian junta's US-trained, US-advised forces, while the rest of the country is protected only by policemen and laid open to visits from the Russian army and the Vostock Battalions. Putin must be
at the thought of that.Re: Caucasus Crisis
In the current world, everything counts for everyone. There has been a cultural and linguistic attack by the west on the east. A victory to West against Russia means a lot to many nations and especially to the East, as they will have no friends to counter the west and East can not counter the US and west on their own.raji wrote:Who cares about the Caucasus ? India has no leverage there............even if Russia re-emerges as a power, the man who is architecting that comeback (Putin) has nothing but contempt for India.........India has nothing to gain by it.......discussing Caucasus is nothin but intellectual masturbation as far as Indians are concerned.......
Talk of China being the next super power? I don't think China can be anywhere near where the US or Russia can influence the world politics as of now. And China is not going to help any nation just like USA. Strong China means nothing to India at least. But we can grow stronger even by keeping the US and the west afar by maintaining a good distance.
India has to stand on its own and IMO, defeat of Russia means a lot to India and even to China. In my opinion India has made mistake by engaging US to a degree they have gone until today. India should court the US only as long as we gain either economically or technologically. We must keep USA out of India in terms of our national security. I don't want India to be another Pakistan, by moving closer to USA. Every nation that the US has gone to bed with, has their individualyity lost, their culture gone and freedom is at the risk of antagonizing USA. USA has threatened every friend and enemy of theirs using one or the other means. US ally, in another words means being the US subordinate for the rest of their lifetime. The only exception is perhaps the French, but the French have everything they need to protect their identity and sovereiginity. They don't depend on USA strategically or technologically. I have always wished and hoped India to adopt French model, but sad to see we are falling trap to US interests. But I could be wrong. Let's wait and watch.
Another reason to ponder here is that as of now US controls EU to a great degree and China to a certain degree. Defeat of Russia by US and allies can almost mean another 1000 + years of slavery by the east serving US and the western interests. We never seem to learn by experiences. It is important to maintain the balance of power and power parity with US and the west, otherwise we will witness more and more Iraq's by the energy hungry US and the west. In the name of democracy, US and the west have destroyed nations and their culture.
East should co-operate and start building an economics that is independent of the west if possible. Russiana are a big influence on the east and in fact more than half of the Russian land is in the east.
Sadly, the current India govts are moving from 'Self reliance' to 'US reliance', not very good for India in the long run. Recently, I have never heard the 'Self reliance' slogan by the current generation of Indian Babu's. We need to engage the US and west only when our interests are served. In a way a strong Russia is in our interests. But I don't know what the Russia after 1991 or SU, thinks about courting India and to what distance they are willing to go with India. But for both India and Russia, helping each other is in their own interests.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
This is what I was expecting to happen, if Russia blinks and steps back and fails to stay back in Georgia. For the US and the west, IMO, they will not rest until they keep Russia and their Nooks rest in peace forever. I believe that Russians understand this very well. Russia was stupid to trust the US or the west. They have lost a decade in regrouping, and if they blink, they would be enslaved by the western interests.
Russia invasion speeds Georgia NATO membership: U.S
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... 9620080823
By Melissa Akin
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has hastened Georgia's march toward membership in NATO by going to war with it over its breakaway province of South Ossetia, a senior U.S. diplomat said on Saturday.
"I think what Russia has done now is the strongest catalyst it could have created to get Georgia in NATO," U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, American envoy to the Caucasus, told Russia's Ekho Moskvy radio.
"This is what is going to happen now. Georgia is going to accelerate its march toward NATO and, I hope, to an action plan in December."
The 26-member alliance, which already includes the three former Soviet Baltic states, will convene in December to decide whether to grant Georgia a road map to accession, known as a Membership Action Plan.
NATO has promised Georgia, which Russia's considers part of its traditional sphere of influence, that it will one day be admitted to the alliance. But opposition from some European member states has prevented it setting any timeframe.
Russia sent its troops into Georgia to defeat an attempt by the country's pro-Western leadership to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia.
Moscow says it acted in its role as a regional peacekeeper to protect South Ossetia, most of whose people have been given Russian passports. But Georgia and its Western allies accuse Russia of going beyond that aim by pushing deep into Georgian territory.
"Russia has shown exactly why Georgia needs to be in NATO ... Russia did not lift a finger against the Baltic states once they entered NATO. It would not lift a finger against Ukraine if Ukraine were in NATO. The same goes for Georgia," Bryza told Ekho Moskvy.
"We need Georgia and Ukraine in NATO to deter these kinds of tragic military adventures on the part of Russia when it feels it has some room to potentially block the accession of these countries to NATO."
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said there is no plan to accelerate NATO's debate on whether to bring Georgia into the alliance.
Bryza said Georgia was not ready to join yet, but an action plan would help it prepare.
He also said Russia's peacekeeping role in Georgia would have to change in the light of the war.
Russia agreed to a French-brokered ceasefire deal which allows it to maintain a longstanding peacekeeping force in South Ossetia, and take "additional security measures" until international security measures are worked out.
"I'll bet the Russian government will want to keep some troops in those areas. We are not in favor of that and I don't know how we can call them peacekeepers," Bryza said. "They are parties to the conflict now."
Russia has built checkpoints as much as 12 km (7 miles) from the administrative border with South Ossetia, inside Georgia proper, and says it plans to continue patrolling Georgia's main Black Sea port, Poti.
The deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said on Saturday that Russian peacekeepers were acting in line with the ceasefire agreement.
(Reporting by Melissa Akin)
Russia invasion speeds Georgia NATO membership: U.S
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... 9620080823
By Melissa Akin
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has hastened Georgia's march toward membership in NATO by going to war with it over its breakaway province of South Ossetia, a senior U.S. diplomat said on Saturday.
"I think what Russia has done now is the strongest catalyst it could have created to get Georgia in NATO," U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, American envoy to the Caucasus, told Russia's Ekho Moskvy radio.
"This is what is going to happen now. Georgia is going to accelerate its march toward NATO and, I hope, to an action plan in December."
The 26-member alliance, which already includes the three former Soviet Baltic states, will convene in December to decide whether to grant Georgia a road map to accession, known as a Membership Action Plan.
NATO has promised Georgia, which Russia's considers part of its traditional sphere of influence, that it will one day be admitted to the alliance. But opposition from some European member states has prevented it setting any timeframe.
Russia sent its troops into Georgia to defeat an attempt by the country's pro-Western leadership to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia.
Moscow says it acted in its role as a regional peacekeeper to protect South Ossetia, most of whose people have been given Russian passports. But Georgia and its Western allies accuse Russia of going beyond that aim by pushing deep into Georgian territory.
"Russia has shown exactly why Georgia needs to be in NATO ... Russia did not lift a finger against the Baltic states once they entered NATO. It would not lift a finger against Ukraine if Ukraine were in NATO. The same goes for Georgia," Bryza told Ekho Moskvy.
"We need Georgia and Ukraine in NATO to deter these kinds of tragic military adventures on the part of Russia when it feels it has some room to potentially block the accession of these countries to NATO."
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said there is no plan to accelerate NATO's debate on whether to bring Georgia into the alliance.
Bryza said Georgia was not ready to join yet, but an action plan would help it prepare.
He also said Russia's peacekeeping role in Georgia would have to change in the light of the war.
Russia agreed to a French-brokered ceasefire deal which allows it to maintain a longstanding peacekeeping force in South Ossetia, and take "additional security measures" until international security measures are worked out.
"I'll bet the Russian government will want to keep some troops in those areas. We are not in favor of that and I don't know how we can call them peacekeepers," Bryza said. "They are parties to the conflict now."
Russia has built checkpoints as much as 12 km (7 miles) from the administrative border with South Ossetia, inside Georgia proper, and says it plans to continue patrolling Georgia's main Black Sea port, Poti.
The deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said on Saturday that Russian peacekeepers were acting in line with the ceasefire agreement.
(Reporting by Melissa Akin)
Re: Caucasus Crisis
This is the clown who encouraged Saakashvili to invade South Ossetia.Matthew Bryza,
Idle talk and bluster. Let him convince Germany or other NATO countries first.
Saakashvili is depriving a village somewhere of its resident idiot....
Re: Caucasus Crisis
I hope it isn’t the first chapter of a new cold war. Very dangerous game, whoever is playing it. Could it be:Lalmohan wrote:the Bush administration continues to rush headlong towards humiliating and threatening the Russians, and its not clear that this has been thought through properly yet. is this the last chapter in the neocon playbook?
John Snow wrote: The most elated man is John Mcain.
(His other statments equally true - "The most puzzled man Barak Obama. The most satisfied at the turn of events CIA. The most opportunity knocks on PRC. The most pre occupied and not capitalizing are our babus with chai pani and samosa discussions").
I found lots of very perceptive BR posts speculating on Mc Cain and Georgia misadventure connection and also found this: “McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was until recently a paid lobbyist for Georgia's government” on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 32_pf.html
Judging by the spike in Mc Cain’s poll ratings, do these posts prove he egged on Saakashvili? Also, Kati had this post on Aug 13:
“John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.” Also: “Before that, Scheunemann was on board with the Project for the New American Century, whose letter to Bush nine days after the Sept. 11 attacks pointed to Iraq as a possible link to the terrorists”.
And this, i think by A. Gupta:
"Once again, the US enlargement lobby sprang into action. In February of last year, Dick Lugar (the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Joe Biden (the committee’s nominally Democratic chairman) introduced the "NATO Freedom Consolidation Act". Like its predecessors, the bill authorized the President to immediately begin treating the Ukraine and Georgia as full-fledged NATO allies in all but name – with weapons sales, military advisors, etc. Senate cosponsors included Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and, naturally, John McCain (R-POW).
As Krish.pf said, very dangerous game. If it has been planned cynically, then the neocon-military machine, intoxicated by its own prowess and space-age technological capabilities, has taken over US foreign policy, braindead media and therefore effectively neutralised US democracy. Let us look forward to a century of more and more senseless wars, reminds me of GWB campaign slogan in 2004 - 4 More Wars!
And to think the capacity for good this nation had under JFK. The space frontiers reached, the sense of idealism and feeling of ownership of America's achievements in the past...
Last edited by kshirin on 24 Aug 2008 00:44, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Russia rolls into Georgia, rolls back the clock
The Associated Press
Published: August 23, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/ ... -Pride.php
MOSCOW: This spring, Russian tanks and missiles rolled across the cobblestones of Red Square as soldiers in olive green uniforms goose-stepped and a military band played the revived Soviet anthem. It was the first full-scale military display at the annual Victory Day parade in almost two decades.
On Aug. 8, the tanks rolled again, but this time it wasn't just a parade. As hundreds of Russian armored vehicles rumbled toward the cavernous Roki tunnel into Georgia, the show ended and the shooting started.
The move stunned many in the U.S. and Europe. But it was the result, at least in part, of factors the West has never really understood: Russia's wounded pride over its loss of the Soviet empire, its fear of NATO expansion along its borders and its anger over being treated as a backwater in Europe rather than a global power.
Russia says it was forced to respond to Georgia's ferocious assault on the capital of separatist South Ossetia, which likely killed scores of civilians and a number of Russian peacekeepers. But Russia's role in the Caucasus is much more than that of a neutral peacekeeping force, and its intervention goes much deeper than the latest clashes.
Georgia, meanwhile, blames Russia for provoking the crisis by supporting separatist territories on its soil. The sight of Russian tanks rolling down its highways was also a searing reminder that Moscow dominated Georgia for almost two centuries, and that Soviet tanks entered the capital of Tbilisi in 1989 and soldiers beat 20 protesters to death with shovels.
Today on IHT.com
With partial pullout, Russia envisions long-term shift
Bhutto's widower will be party's candidate for Pakistan presidency
Among the Madrid crash survivors, courage and sheer luck
For much of the world, the motives behind the conflict seem murky; after all, the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is dead. Russia, it seemed, was becoming a modern nation, part of the international community.
What is hard for the world to see, though, is that there are two Russias. The first is a rapidly developing modern country, a major energy exporter with expanding ties to the global economy, a nation with a sense of pride and purpose after years of struggle.
Symbols of this new Russia are everywhere, from the gleaming skyscrapers springing up along the Moscow River, to shopping centers being built in Siberia, to Russian tourists crowding beaches in Turkey and shops in Manhattan, to the reed-thin women in designer dresses who saunter down the capital's Tverskaya Street, a coiffed miniature dog tucked under one arm.
But behind this growing European facade is an older and less familiar Russia, one that is much harder for foreigners to grasp. This Russia is a 1,000-year-old civilization that is distrustful of political change, wary of the West and jealous of its historic role as master of its corner of the world.
This is a country that throughout its history has felt threatened by independent nations on its borders, and now feels under siege.
The feeling of being surrounded is an uncomfortably familiar one for Russia, which has no natural borders and has been invaded by everyone from the Mongols to the Swedes and the French. To protect itself physically, Russia continually sought to extend its borders and prop up neutral buffer states at the periphery of its sphere of influence. To protect its unique culture, which is neither European nor Asian but both, it adopted a kind of psychological isolation from the rest of the world.
Russia's intervention in Georgia draws on a long history of empire that goes back not just to the Communist era, but much further, to its Czarist past. The symbols of this past survive in the names of many Russian provincial cities — Vladivostok, which means "Conqueror of the East," and Vladikavkaz, "Conqueror of the Caucasus" — in the canals and mansions of St. Petersburg, dredged from a swamp on orders of Peter the Great; and of course in the red-brick walls of the Kremlin itself.
Unlike many Western powers, Russia seems unable or unwilling to turn its back on its cruel but glorious legacy of empire. As Vladimir Sorokin, the Russian writer, told a German magazine last year: "We still live in the country that was built by Ivan the Terrible."
Andre Mironov, one of the last of the Gulag prisoners and a longtime human rights advocate, said Russia's decision to send troops into Georgian-controlled areas showed that the habits of empire survive under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer.
"People like Putin, they have no other idea of how to rule," Mironov said. "What Russia does now, it cannot be analyzed with modern political logic. It is obsolete. If modern countries like the U.S. declare war, they have more or less rational reasons, even if they are mistaken."
Re: Caucasus Crisis
The US still has its Monroe doctrine. It would go ballistic if any hostile great power (a future China for example) would have air and naval bases in the Americas, far less in a bordering country like Mexico.
Does this mean we have to examine the US using non-modern political thinking?
Does this mean we have to examine the US using non-modern political thinking?
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Ukraine's Yushchenko said: “It is the first time in Europe since the Cold War that a foreign army has entered the territory of a sovereign state without any internationally accepted legal basis,” he said.
Ever hear of Kosovo, Mr. Yushchenko?
Ever hear of Kosovo, Mr. Yushchenko?
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Avram,asprinzl wrote: 5) Russians and Eukranians have more in common (linguistic-cultural-religion) than Marathis and Punjabis.
add to that that Ossetians are 1500 years old fraternal people with Russians since the East Slavic tribes came to Dnepr-Don region and settled Alans (Oironistan) land and indeed two peoples were assimilated in one people, like Engles and Saxons or Francs and Galls or Volga turkish BUlgars with slavs now Bulgarians. The first known name for Russian is Rossolans - i/e Ros-Alan (Like Anglo-Saxons). Alans BTW also were the allies of Goths (Goth-Alans). All the RIver in South Russia still have still Iranian language names: Dnepr, Don, Donets, Ros', Vorskla - are not slavic origin but Iranian (Alanian). Mongols divided the remnants of Alans tribes in the north Caucasian steppe with the Russians, but Ossetians were the first who re-united with Russians when rized such a possibility. It was well before Georgian king asked unification with Russia. For Georgia defence Russia twice had wars with Iran and Turkey. But further Unlike Georgians, Ossetians NEVER asked independence.
Together with Armenians Ossetians are only indogenious Indo-European people in Caucasus region. Nor Georgian nor othe North-Caucasians, Azerbaijans are Indo-Europeans. Indeed the self-name of the Ossetians is Oiron and the name of South Ossetia is Oironistan - it's typical may be the most archaic self-nomination of Indo-Europeans - 'arians' = nobless. The name Alania - is probably due to 'r'-'l' rotation in the Indo-European languages, compare 'Ellin-Ellas' (Greece) with old name 'Alan-Alania' and after alternation "Arian-Iran', 'Arman-Armenia'.
It's not by accident that Russia remaines the traditional ally of both christian and Indo-European Ossetians and Armenians in Caucasus.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Often new people come to BR and we have to start again.
For sake of everyone:
Andre Gunder Frank's Essays
Scroll to middle of page and see his views on Central Asia.
For sake of everyone:
Andre Gunder Frank's Essays
Scroll to middle of page and see his views on Central Asia.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
There's quite a chorus being sung here. Seems there's no shortage of people eager to restart the Cold War. I wonder, are all these chickenhawks really thinking it through?Rupesh wrote:Editorial in Washington Post
Who Needs Russia?
The United States should make a clear-eyed assessment of the fruits of strategic cooperation.
....A common theme of commentary since the war began has been that the United States is constrained in its condemnation of -- or sanctions against -- Russia because it needs Russia too much in areas ranging from counterterrorism to checking the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. But you can't lose what you never had, and it's fair to question how much help Russia has been providing in any of those areas, even before Aug. 7.
It seems to me, if they want to start arming every Russian enemy and punish Russia with every diplomatic and economic lever they have, the west stands to lose more.
Sure, they can annoy the hell out of Russia by putting their missile shield in Eastern Europe. They can bring Georgia & Ukraine into NATO. But the missile shield is going to cost the US tens of billions, and for what? To annoy Moscow? Similiarly, they could sell high-tech weapons to all the ex-Soviet states, but again, someone's got to pay for all this - either the (relatively) poor ex-Sovs or the US taxpayer. And again, what harm does this really do the Russians - it's not like Russia really wants to reconquer its old territories, so these untold billions in US weaponry are never going to get used. Indeed, thanks to their potent nuke arsenal the Russians need not even match a conventional arms buildup on their border. I don't see the Russians getting trapped in another Cold-War style arms race and spent into oblivion - because if they can't afford it the Russians can easily just rely on their nuclear detterent.
On the flip side, Russia can make the US and it's allies pay far more dearly. They could arm Iran and Syria, the Iraqi resistance, even the Taliban if things got really nasty. And America's enemies pay hard cash - while Russia's lukewarm foes have to be placated with expensive freebies courtesy the US taxpayer.
The Russians would be selling weapons to people actively fighting US troops or likely to be very soon. The US and it's allies would be feeling the pain in a much more direct and dramatic way. Think about it: besides the Chechens, who could the US arm to hurt Russia? Funny thing is, Russia really doesn't have that many real enemies. They've got lots of enemies on paper, like Ukraine, Georgia, etc - but who's willing to actually fight Russia? Contrast that to the US, who thanks to 20 years of non-stop global aggression, has no shortage of hard-core foes.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Russians outsmart west on ground and on paper. It seems Sarkozy forgot to add clause about Georgian Territorial Integrity 
. So much for French Diplomacy 
. Russian are in control of OIL-Port Poti. Cries of Russia not pulling out have subsided and Russian are in control of buffer zones and main port. Georgian Musharraf was ****** both way. Gone are the days of drunk KOEZRZV who would sign anything. Kudos to Russian diplomates.
. So much for French Diplomacy . Russian are in control of OIL-Port Poti. Cries of Russia not pulling out have subsided and Russian are in control of buffer zones and main port. Georgian Musharraf was ****** both way. Gone are the days of drunk KOEZRZV who would sign anything. Kudos to Russian diplomates.Re: Caucasus Crisis
Georgia was tricked, but by Russia or US?
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinio ... _or_us.php
LET'S RUN through this again. Vladimir Putin is not a nice man. The KGB, with whom the young Vlad earned his reputation as a people person, was not Russia's answer to the Rotary Club. As a direct consequence, Russian traditions of democracy remain wafer thin, a cracked veneer that fails utterly to conceal thuggery, rigged votes, oligarchic mafias, corruption, and the corpses of journalists. Are we clear?
Russia's current identity is composed, meanwhile, of a volatile mixture of intense nationalism and paranoia. Its rulers, whatever their labels, take it as read that their country exists under permanent threat of encirclement by its enemies. Now, here's the tricky part: there is nothing currently to suggest that they are mistaken. Intense nationalists of a different stripe, feed the paranoia of the intense nationalists in Moscow.
This is not, of course, the story we have been hearing. When the United States − having shredded the anti-ballistic missile treaty that gave nuclear deterrence its single justification − bribes Poland into housing rockets pointed at the Russians, we hear only of a "shield". When Georgia launches smaller rockets at a South Ossetian town, in defiance of all the humanitarian rules, we hear only that a freedom-loving but "provoked" Georgian leader has stepped into a cunning Russian trap.
....................
....................
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinio ... _or_us.php
LET'S RUN through this again. Vladimir Putin is not a nice man. The KGB, with whom the young Vlad earned his reputation as a people person, was not Russia's answer to the Rotary Club. As a direct consequence, Russian traditions of democracy remain wafer thin, a cracked veneer that fails utterly to conceal thuggery, rigged votes, oligarchic mafias, corruption, and the corpses of journalists. Are we clear?
Russia's current identity is composed, meanwhile, of a volatile mixture of intense nationalism and paranoia. Its rulers, whatever their labels, take it as read that their country exists under permanent threat of encirclement by its enemies. Now, here's the tricky part: there is nothing currently to suggest that they are mistaken. Intense nationalists of a different stripe, feed the paranoia of the intense nationalists in Moscow.
This is not, of course, the story we have been hearing. When the United States − having shredded the anti-ballistic missile treaty that gave nuclear deterrence its single justification − bribes Poland into housing rockets pointed at the Russians, we hear only of a "shield". When Georgia launches smaller rockets at a South Ossetian town, in defiance of all the humanitarian rules, we hear only that a freedom-loving but "provoked" Georgian leader has stepped into a cunning Russian trap.
....................
....................
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Hints of what might come in future...?
America Should Pick Georgia Over Russia
By MOHAMMED FADHIL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219449 ... lenews_wsj
America Should Pick Georgia Over Russia
By MOHAMMED FADHIL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219449 ... lenews_wsj
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Kanan wrote:
Seems there's no shortage of people eager to restart the Cold War. I wonder, are all these chickenhawks really thinking it through?
Sure, they can annoy the hell out of Russia by putting their missile shield in Eastern Europe. They can bring Georgia & Ukraine into NATO. But the missile shield is going to cost the US tens of billions, and for what? To annoy Moscow? Similiarly, they could sell high-tech weapons to all the ex-Soviet states, but again, someone's got to pay for all this - either the (relatively) poor ex-Sovs or the US taxpayer. And again, what harm does this really do the Russians - it's not like Russia really wants to reconquer its old territories, so these untold billions in US weaponry are never going to get used.
For the Neocons riding on the military-industrial complex (MIC), it may be enough to keep creating crises and a sense of insecurity so they can continue feeding paranoia and at taxpayers expense increase defence allocations, also incidentally at the cost of investments in health and education. That is why I said we can look forward to lots of lovely wars this century. This new cold war was unnecessary and the conflict with Russia, a lose-lose situation for everyone but China and the Neo-con+MIC. I hope you are right that the Russians will not fall into the trap but there are signs they already are. Plus Scandinavian/Polish/Ukr/ Baltic realignment etc. etc.
Seems there's no shortage of people eager to restart the Cold War. I wonder, are all these chickenhawks really thinking it through?
Sure, they can annoy the hell out of Russia by putting their missile shield in Eastern Europe. They can bring Georgia & Ukraine into NATO. But the missile shield is going to cost the US tens of billions, and for what? To annoy Moscow? Similiarly, they could sell high-tech weapons to all the ex-Soviet states, but again, someone's got to pay for all this - either the (relatively) poor ex-Sovs or the US taxpayer. And again, what harm does this really do the Russians - it's not like Russia really wants to reconquer its old territories, so these untold billions in US weaponry are never going to get used.
For the Neocons riding on the military-industrial complex (MIC), it may be enough to keep creating crises and a sense of insecurity so they can continue feeding paranoia and at taxpayers expense increase defence allocations, also incidentally at the cost of investments in health and education. That is why I said we can look forward to lots of lovely wars this century. This new cold war was unnecessary and the conflict with Russia, a lose-lose situation for everyone but China and the Neo-con+MIC. I hope you are right that the Russians will not fall into the trap but there are signs they already are. Plus Scandinavian/Polish/Ukr/ Baltic realignment etc. etc.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Russia warns NATO against re-equipping Georgia's military
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- ... 562501.htm
BRUSSELS, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) -- Russia's ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned Wednesday NATO against filling the gap of losses of the Georgian military incurred in its conflict with Russia.
"Any attempt of NATO to fill the gap of losses of the Georgian army contradicts the conventions of the OSCE (Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe)," Rogozin told reporters.
All NATO countries, Russia and Georgia are members of the OSCE
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- ... 562501.htm
BRUSSELS, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) -- Russia's ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned Wednesday NATO against filling the gap of losses of the Georgian military incurred in its conflict with Russia.
"Any attempt of NATO to fill the gap of losses of the Georgian army contradicts the conventions of the OSCE (Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe)," Rogozin told reporters.
All NATO countries, Russia and Georgia are members of the OSCE
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Why the U.S. isn't being taken seriously in Georgia conflict
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/08 ... a_conflict
By Steve Berg | Friday, Aug. 22, 2008
It's pretty darn shocking that one nation would attack another without being attacked first, which goes a long way toward explaining why the United States appears to have so little credibility in dealing with the Russia-Georgia conflict.
Having attacked and occupied Iraq, the Bush administration looks silly in the eyes of most of the world when it demands that Russian troops leave Georgian soil immediately and when it breaks out the frosty rhetoric as if a new Cold War has arrived.
With a cleaner slate, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would have sounded eloquent when she told CBS recently: "President Medvedev at one point, just a few weeks ago, laid out a very hopeful vision for Russia's interaction with the rest of the world, one in which Russia would be respected and accepted for its commerce and its technology and its scientific prowess and its culture. And to instead have activities that hearken back to another time, when all that the Soviet Union had was its military power, it’s really a sad state of affairs for Russia."
But, as it stands, her fine words ring a bit hollow. It fell to France to negotiate a withdrawal agreement — the same France that warned against the U.S. plunge into Iraq, a warning so vilified at the time that some Americans took to renaming a certain potato dish "freedom fries."
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, did call President Bush after his trip to Moscow with a firsthand interpretation of who is running the Kremlin, and — surprise, surprise — it's the No. 2 man with the KGB resume who’s pulling No. 1's strings. Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev seem to have a good cop-bad cop thing going on, with the bad cop running the show.
Dealing with two-headed rule in Russia
The French report led the Americans to wonder if Medvedev’s signing of the withdrawal agreement, as protocol requires, wasn't later vetoed by Putin — which explains why Russian troops show no signs of departure. According to the French report, Medvedev was calm and sanguine about a possible solution while Putin flew into a rage over Georgia's supposed provocations, making the invasion seem like a personal vendetta against Georgia' s U.S.-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
Indeed, Russia announced Thursday that today it would establish eight military posts with 500 troops inside the undisputed territory of Georgia and well outside the breakaway region of South Ossetia. Any move against those troops would likely bring a return of Russian tanks, perhaps to the Georgian capital itself.
"Of course, the conflict in Georgia is primarily rooted in borders and ethnicity, wounded Russian pride and global power politics. But the challenges of dealing with Russia's two-headed rule have certainly added an odd new element to the crisis," wrote New York Times diplomatic correspondents Steven Lee Myers and Thom Shanker.
Another Times reporter, Steven Erlanger, said many Europeans, unlike Americans, feel a degree of sympathy with Russia. The belief, he wrote, is that Saakashvili "acted rashly when he sent troops to take over the autonomous ethnic enclave of South Ossetia, bringing down much of the destruction upon his own head."
Who has credibility issues?
This week's signing of a U.S.-Poland missile treaty was another irritant in the U.S.-Russia cool-down. Rice, again ignoring America's own credibility problems, including its inability to defend its friend Georgia, said in Warsaw: "The Russians are losing their credibility.”
In a pointed analysis, the Moscow Times suggested that, under George W. Bush, the U.S. has badly overplayed its hand as the world's lone superpower.
"A period when Washington could act without taking the interests of others into account is over," the paper said, adding that the Bush administration's foreign policy failures — Iraq among them — has led to "a new level of global fragmentation" and has "demonstrated the limitations of the United States' ability to influence global affairs unilaterally."
The main reason for worsening U.S.-Russia relations is America's unwillingness to loosen its ambitions anywhere in the world, even in places where it has no strategic interest — and especially in former Soviet-dominated countries.
The U.S. fell into a dangerous trap in Georgia, the paper continued, because it couldn't keep implied promises that it had made. The U.S. has supported pro-U.S. regimes all along Russia's borders, hoping to export its influence. But, as the paper noted, the U.S. "did not seriously consider the consequences of defending these new allies."
At a crucial moment, the U.S. could neither defend Georgia nor prevent it from making fatal mistakes. Singular global leadership is dangerous, the article concluded, because it won't allow for even minor defeats. Losing face in Georgia isn’t a catastrophe for U.S. foreign policy, but emerging democracies on the Russian border will now be skeptical about the dependability and credibility of U.S. promises of support.
A new 'Age of Authoritarianism'?
Perhaps the best big-picture look at America's shakier hold on world affairs came when Chrystia Freeland, writing in the Financial Times, proclaimed "An Age of Authoritarianism."
Bill Keller followed in last Sunday's New York Times, offering a piece with a more poetic title: "Cold Friends, Wrapped in Mink and Medals: Moscow and Beijing forgot to close the history books."
Contrary to Francis Fukuyama's famous 1989 assertion on "The End of History," Keller paints a new and troubling picture. Perhaps liberal democracy has not triumphed once and for all against the Soviet Evil Empire and Red China. Perhaps authoritarian governments in Beijing and Moscow have discovered how to use market economies in ways that build middle-class prosperity while stoking nationalist ambitions.
The Chinese, Keller wrote, "have made their Olympics an exultant display of athletic prowess and global prestige without having to temper their impulse to suppress and control."
He continued, "The striking thing about Russia's subjugation of uppity Georgia was not the ease or audacity but the swagger of it. This was not just about a couple of obscure border enclaves, nor even, really, about Georgia. This was existential payback."
The fall of the Soviet empire "gave birth to a bitter resentment in the humiliated soul of Russia," Keller wrote, "and no one nursed the grudge so fiercely as Vladimir V. Putin. He watched the empire he had spied for disbanded. He endured the belittling lectures of a rich and self-righteous West. He watched the U.S. charm away his neighbors, invade his allies in Iraq and, in his view, play God with the political map of Europe."
Steve Berg reports on a variety of topics for MinnPost including urban design, transportation, national politics and world affairs. He can be reached at sberg [at] minnpost [dot] com.
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/08 ... a_conflict
By Steve Berg | Friday, Aug. 22, 2008
It's pretty darn shocking that one nation would attack another without being attacked first, which goes a long way toward explaining why the United States appears to have so little credibility in dealing with the Russia-Georgia conflict.
Having attacked and occupied Iraq, the Bush administration looks silly in the eyes of most of the world when it demands that Russian troops leave Georgian soil immediately and when it breaks out the frosty rhetoric as if a new Cold War has arrived.
With a cleaner slate, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would have sounded eloquent when she told CBS recently: "President Medvedev at one point, just a few weeks ago, laid out a very hopeful vision for Russia's interaction with the rest of the world, one in which Russia would be respected and accepted for its commerce and its technology and its scientific prowess and its culture. And to instead have activities that hearken back to another time, when all that the Soviet Union had was its military power, it’s really a sad state of affairs for Russia."
But, as it stands, her fine words ring a bit hollow. It fell to France to negotiate a withdrawal agreement — the same France that warned against the U.S. plunge into Iraq, a warning so vilified at the time that some Americans took to renaming a certain potato dish "freedom fries."
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, did call President Bush after his trip to Moscow with a firsthand interpretation of who is running the Kremlin, and — surprise, surprise — it's the No. 2 man with the KGB resume who’s pulling No. 1's strings. Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev seem to have a good cop-bad cop thing going on, with the bad cop running the show.
Dealing with two-headed rule in Russia
The French report led the Americans to wonder if Medvedev’s signing of the withdrawal agreement, as protocol requires, wasn't later vetoed by Putin — which explains why Russian troops show no signs of departure. According to the French report, Medvedev was calm and sanguine about a possible solution while Putin flew into a rage over Georgia's supposed provocations, making the invasion seem like a personal vendetta against Georgia' s U.S.-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
Indeed, Russia announced Thursday that today it would establish eight military posts with 500 troops inside the undisputed territory of Georgia and well outside the breakaway region of South Ossetia. Any move against those troops would likely bring a return of Russian tanks, perhaps to the Georgian capital itself.
"Of course, the conflict in Georgia is primarily rooted in borders and ethnicity, wounded Russian pride and global power politics. But the challenges of dealing with Russia's two-headed rule have certainly added an odd new element to the crisis," wrote New York Times diplomatic correspondents Steven Lee Myers and Thom Shanker.
Another Times reporter, Steven Erlanger, said many Europeans, unlike Americans, feel a degree of sympathy with Russia. The belief, he wrote, is that Saakashvili "acted rashly when he sent troops to take over the autonomous ethnic enclave of South Ossetia, bringing down much of the destruction upon his own head."
Who has credibility issues?
This week's signing of a U.S.-Poland missile treaty was another irritant in the U.S.-Russia cool-down. Rice, again ignoring America's own credibility problems, including its inability to defend its friend Georgia, said in Warsaw: "The Russians are losing their credibility.”
In a pointed analysis, the Moscow Times suggested that, under George W. Bush, the U.S. has badly overplayed its hand as the world's lone superpower.
"A period when Washington could act without taking the interests of others into account is over," the paper said, adding that the Bush administration's foreign policy failures — Iraq among them — has led to "a new level of global fragmentation" and has "demonstrated the limitations of the United States' ability to influence global affairs unilaterally."
The main reason for worsening U.S.-Russia relations is America's unwillingness to loosen its ambitions anywhere in the world, even in places where it has no strategic interest — and especially in former Soviet-dominated countries.
The U.S. fell into a dangerous trap in Georgia, the paper continued, because it couldn't keep implied promises that it had made. The U.S. has supported pro-U.S. regimes all along Russia's borders, hoping to export its influence. But, as the paper noted, the U.S. "did not seriously consider the consequences of defending these new allies."
At a crucial moment, the U.S. could neither defend Georgia nor prevent it from making fatal mistakes. Singular global leadership is dangerous, the article concluded, because it won't allow for even minor defeats. Losing face in Georgia isn’t a catastrophe for U.S. foreign policy, but emerging democracies on the Russian border will now be skeptical about the dependability and credibility of U.S. promises of support.
A new 'Age of Authoritarianism'?
Perhaps the best big-picture look at America's shakier hold on world affairs came when Chrystia Freeland, writing in the Financial Times, proclaimed "An Age of Authoritarianism."
Bill Keller followed in last Sunday's New York Times, offering a piece with a more poetic title: "Cold Friends, Wrapped in Mink and Medals: Moscow and Beijing forgot to close the history books."
Contrary to Francis Fukuyama's famous 1989 assertion on "The End of History," Keller paints a new and troubling picture. Perhaps liberal democracy has not triumphed once and for all against the Soviet Evil Empire and Red China. Perhaps authoritarian governments in Beijing and Moscow have discovered how to use market economies in ways that build middle-class prosperity while stoking nationalist ambitions.
The Chinese, Keller wrote, "have made their Olympics an exultant display of athletic prowess and global prestige without having to temper their impulse to suppress and control."
He continued, "The striking thing about Russia's subjugation of uppity Georgia was not the ease or audacity but the swagger of it. This was not just about a couple of obscure border enclaves, nor even, really, about Georgia. This was existential payback."
The fall of the Soviet empire "gave birth to a bitter resentment in the humiliated soul of Russia," Keller wrote, "and no one nursed the grudge so fiercely as Vladimir V. Putin. He watched the empire he had spied for disbanded. He endured the belittling lectures of a rich and self-righteous West. He watched the U.S. charm away his neighbors, invade his allies in Iraq and, in his view, play God with the political map of Europe."
Steve Berg reports on a variety of topics for MinnPost including urban design, transportation, national politics and world affairs. He can be reached at sberg [at] minnpost [dot] com.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Russia's 'victory' may prove costly
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/484077
Russia says Europe in new arms race
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/n ... 5c164f7a47
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that Russia has nothing to fear from the shield and also denied that the world was entering a new Cold War.
But the Russian statement said: "Such actions create mistrust and spur an arms race on the continent and beyond its borders."
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/484077
Russia says Europe in new arms race
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/n ... 5c164f7a47
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that Russia has nothing to fear from the shield and also denied that the world was entering a new Cold War.
But the Russian statement said: "Such actions create mistrust and spur an arms race on the continent and beyond its borders."
Re: Caucasus Crisis
SA backs Russia at UN
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1 ... 742C727154
South Africa is leaning towards the Russian side in Moscow's acrimonious stand-off with the West in the United Nations Security Council sparked by the war in Georgia.
As the Security Council met five days in a row sparks flew between the American and Russian representatives.
South Africa is concerned about Russia's violation of Georgia's territorial integrity in its military support for Georgia's breakaway territory of South Ossetia. Pretoria cherishes the principle of territorial integrity, fearing that violating the principle might set a dangerous precedent for Africa's many separatist movements.
For this reason it opposed an earlier Western-sponsored Security Council resolution supporting the independence of Kosovo from Serbia.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1 ... 742C727154
South Africa is leaning towards the Russian side in Moscow's acrimonious stand-off with the West in the United Nations Security Council sparked by the war in Georgia.
As the Security Council met five days in a row sparks flew between the American and Russian representatives.
South Africa is concerned about Russia's violation of Georgia's territorial integrity in its military support for Georgia's breakaway territory of South Ossetia. Pretoria cherishes the principle of territorial integrity, fearing that violating the principle might set a dangerous precedent for Africa's many separatist movements.
For this reason it opposed an earlier Western-sponsored Security Council resolution supporting the independence of Kosovo from Serbia.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Putin in the Shadow of the Red Czar
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24sebag.html
The problem is Putin, not the missiles
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1014517.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24sebag.html
The problem is Putin, not the missiles
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1014517.html
Re: Caucasus Crisis
So the Russian Double headed eagle finally has two heads!
Check out the emblem of the Czars.
With Medvedev and Putin it has come to life. In Sindbad the two headed bird fights with itself. Looks like M&P have brought synergy to the double headed eagle.
Check out the emblem of the Czars.
With Medvedev and Putin it has come to life. In Sindbad the two headed bird fights with itself. Looks like M&P have brought synergy to the double headed eagle.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
just found this article -while I donot really agree to all the comments and analysis still feel it describes the ground reality some what well
The world is slowly coming to terms with a new world order where the chaos of 90s is slowly getting replaced with a steely determination to act when the national interest demands it
The world is slowly coming to terms with a new world order where the chaos of 90s is slowly getting replaced with a steely determination to act when the national interest demands it
www.stratfor.comBy George Friedman
On Sept. 11, 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush addressed Congress. He spoke in the wake of the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, the weakening of the Soviet Union, and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. He argued that a New World Order was emerging: “A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”
After every major, systemic war, there is the hope that this will be the war to end all wars. The idea driving it is simple. Wars are usually won by grand coalitions. The idea is that the coalition that won the war by working together will continue to work together to make the peace. Indeed, the idea is that the defeated will join the coalition and work with them to ensure the peace. This was the dream behind the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, the United Nations and, after the Cold War, NATO. The idea was that there would be no major issues that couldn’t be handled by the victors, now joined with the defeated. That was the idea that drove George H. W. Bush as the Cold War was coming to its end.
Those with the dream are always disappointed. The victorious coalition breaks apart. The defeated refuse to play the role assigned to them. New powers emerge that were not part of the coalition. Anyone may have ideals and visions. The reality of the world order is that there are profound divergences of interest in a world where distrust is a natural and reasonable response to reality. In the end, ideals and visions vanish in a new round of geopolitical conflict.
The post-Cold War world, the New World Order, ended with authority on Aug. 8, 2008, when Russia and Georgia went to war. Certainly, this war was not in itself of major significance, and a very good case can be made that the New World Order actually started coming apart on Sept. 11, 2001. But it was on Aug. 8 that a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out of fear of the intentions of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking about the Real World Order.
The global system is suffering from two imbalances. First, one nation-state, the United States, remains overwhelmingly powerful, and no combination of powers are in a position to control its behavior. We are aware of all the economic problems besetting the United States, but the reality is that the American economy is larger than the next three economies combined (Japan, Germany and China). The U.S. military controls all the world’s oceans and effectively dominates space. Because of these factors, the United States remains politically powerful — not liked and perhaps not admired, but enormously powerful.
The second imbalance is within the United States itself. Its ground forces and the bulk of its logistical capability are committed to the Middle East, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States also is threatening on occasion to go to war with Iran, which would tie down most of its air power, and it is facing a destabilizing Pakistan. Therefore, there is this paradox: The United States is so powerful that, in the long run, it has created an imbalance in the global system. In the short run, however, it is so off balance that it has few, if any, military resources to deal with challenges elsewhere. That means that the United States remains the dominant power in the long run but it cannot exercise that power in the short run. This creates a window of opportunity for other countries to act.
The outcome of the Iraq war can be seen emerging. The United States has succeeded in creating the foundations for a political settlement among the main Iraqi factions that will create a relatively stable government. In that sense, U.S. policy has succeeded. But the problem the United States has is the length of time it took to achieve this success. Had it occurred in 2003, the United States would not suffer its current imbalance. But this is 2008, more than five years after the invasion. The United States never expected a war of this duration, nor did it plan for it. In order to fight the war, it had to inject a major portion of its ground fighting capability into it. The length of the war was the problem. U.S. ground forces are either in Iraq, recovering from a tour or preparing for a deployment. What strategic reserves are available are tasked into Afghanistan. Little is left over.
As Iraq pulled in the bulk of available forces, the United States did not shift its foreign policy elsewhere. For example, it remained committed to the expansion of democracy in the former Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO, to include Ukraine and Georgia. From the fall of the former Soviet Union, the United States saw itself as having a dominant role in reshaping post-Soviet social and political orders, including influencing the emergence of democratic institutions and free markets. The United States saw this almost in the same light as it saw the democratization of Germany and Japan after World War II. Having defeated the Soviet Union, it now fell to the United States to reshape the societies of the successor states.
Through the 1990s, the successor states, particularly Russia, were inert. Undergoing painful internal upheaval — which foreigners saw as reform but which many Russians viewed as a foreign-inspired national catastrophe — Russia could not resist American and European involvement in regional and internal affairs. From the American point of view, the reshaping of the region — from the Kosovo war to the expansion of NATO to the deployment of U.S. Air Force bases to Central Asia — was simply a logical expansion of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a benign attempt to stabilize the region, enhance its prosperity and security and integrate it into the global system.
As Russia regained its balance from the chaos of the 1990s, it began to see the American and European presence in a less benign light. It was not clear to the Russians that the United States was trying to stabilize the region. Rather, it appeared to the Russians that the United States was trying to take advantage of Russian weakness to impose a new politico-military reality in which Russia was to be surrounded with nations controlled by the United States and its military system, NATO. In spite of the promise made by Bill Clinton that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union, the three Baltic states were admitted. The promise was not addressed. NATO was expanded because it could and Russia could do nothing about it.
From the Russian point of view, the strategic break point was Ukraine. When the Orange Revolution came to Ukraine, the American and European impression was that this was a spontaneous democratic rising. The Russian perception was that it was a well-financed CIA operation to foment an anti-Russian and pro-American uprising in Ukraine. When the United States quickly began discussing the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, the Russians came to the conclusion that the United States intended to surround and crush the Russian Federation. In their view, if NATO expanded into Ukraine, the Western military alliance would place Russia in a strategically untenable position. Russia would be indefensible. The American response was that it had no intention of threatening Russia. The Russian question was returned: Then why are you trying to take control of Ukraine? What other purpose would you have? The United States dismissed these Russian concerns as absurd. The Russians, not regarding them as absurd at all, began planning on the assumption of a hostile United States.
If the United States had intended to break the Russian Federation once and for all, the time for that was in the 1990s, before Yeltsin was replaced by Putin and before 9/11. There was, however, no clear policy on this, because the United States felt it had all the time in the world. Superficially this was true, but only superficially. First, the United States did not understand that the Yeltsin years were a temporary aberration and that a new government intending to stabilize Russia was inevitable. If not Putin, it would have been someone else. Second, the United States did not appreciate that it did not control the international agenda. Sept. 11, 2001, took away American options in the former Soviet Union. No only did it need Russian help in Afghanistan, but it was going to spend the next decade tied up in the Middle East. The United States had lost its room for maneuver and therefore had run out of time.
And now we come to the key point. In spite of diminishing military options outside of the Middle East, the United States did not modify its policy in the former Soviet Union. It continued to aggressively attempt to influence countries in the region, and it became particularly committed to integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, in spite of the fact that both were of overwhelming strategic interest to the Russians. Ukraine dominated Russia’s southwestern flank, without any natural boundaries protecting them. Georgia was seen as a constant irritant in Chechnya as well as a barrier to Russian interests in the Caucasus.
Moving rapidly to consolidate U.S. control over these and other countries in the former Soviet Union made strategic sense. Russia was weak, divided and poorly governed. It could make no response. Continuing this policy in the 2000s, when the Russians were getting stronger, more united and better governed and while U.S. forces were no longer available, made much less sense. The United States continued to irritate the Russians without having, in the short run, the forces needed to act decisively.
The American calculation was that the Russian government would not confront American interests in the region. The Russian calculation was that it could not wait to confront these interests because the United States was concluding the Iraq war and would return to its pre-eminent position in a few short years. Therefore, it made no sense for Russia to wait and it made every sense for Russia to act as quickly as possible.
The Russians were partly influenced in their timing by the success of the American surge in Iraq. If the United States continued its policy and had force to back it up, the Russians would lose their window of opportunity. Moreover, the Russians had an additional lever for use on the Americans: Iran.
The United States had been playing a complex game with Iran for years, threatening to attack while trying to negotiate. The Americans needed the Russians. Sanctions against Iran would have no meaning if the Russians did not participate, and the United States did not want Russia selling advance air defense systems to Iran. (Such systems, which American analysts had warned were quite capable, were not present in Syria on Sept. 6, 2007, when the Israelis struck a nuclear facility there.) As the United States re-evaluates the Russian military, it does not want to be surprised by Russian technology. Therefore, the more aggressive the United States becomes toward Russia, the greater the difficulties it will have in Iran. This further encouraged the Russians to act sooner rather than later.
The Russians have now proven two things. First, contrary to the reality of the 1990s, they can execute a competent military operation. Second, contrary to regional perception, the United States cannot intervene. The Russian message was directed against Ukraine most of all, but the Baltics, Central Asia and Belarus are all listening. The Russians will not act precipitously. They expect all of these countries to adjust their foreign policies away from the United States and toward Russia. They are looking to see if the lesson is absorbed. At first, there will be mighty speeches and resistance. But the reality on the ground is the reality on the ground.
We would expect the Russians to get traction. But if they don’t, the Russians are aware that they are, in the long run, much weaker than the Americans, and that they will retain their regional position of strength only while the United States is off balance in Iraq. If the lesson isn’t absorbed, the Russians are capable of more direct action, and they will not let this chance slip away. This is their chance to redefine their sphere of influence. They will not get another.
The other country that is watching and thinking is Iran. Iran had accepted the idea that it had lost the chance to dominate Iraq. It had also accepted the idea that it would have to bargain away its nuclear capability or lose it. The Iranians are now wondering if this is still true and are undoubtedly pinging the Russians about the situation. Meanwhile, the Russians are waiting for the Americans to calm down and get serious. If the Americans plan to take meaningful action against them, they will respond in Iran. But the Americans have no meaningful actions they can take; they need to get out of Iraq and they need help against Iran. The quid pro quo here is obvious. The United States acquiesces to Russian actions (which it can’t do anything about), while the Russians cooperate with the Unit ed States against Iran getting nuclear weapons (something Russia does not want to see).
One of the interesting concepts of the New World Order was that all serious countries would want to participate in it and that the only threat would come from rogue states and nonstate actors such as North Korea and al Qaeda. Serious analysts argued that conflict between nation-states would not be important in the 21st century. There will certainly be rogue states and nonstate actors, but the 21st century will be no different than any other century. On Aug. 8, the Russians invited us all to the Real World Order.
T
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Good analysis of ground reality. If the purpose of the current game is to settle the future of Russian interests, it will make less sense for India to go ga ga over Georgia crisis. Supporting Russia will have its own dynamics on JK situation with PRC and ISI/CIA moving in the shadows with the tacit help of Nato combine in world bodies.From the American point of view, the reshaping of the region — from the Kosovo war to the expansion of NATO to the deployment of U.S. Air Force bases to Central Asia — was simply a logical expansion of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a benign attempt to stabilize the region, enhance its prosperity and security and integrate it into the global system.
From the Russian point of view, the strategic break point was Ukraine. The Russian message was directed against Ukraine most of all, but the Baltics, Central Asia and Belarus are all listening. The Russians will not act precipitously. They expect all of these countries to adjust their foreign policies away from the United States and toward Russia. They are looking to see if the lesson is absorbed. At first, there will be mighty speeches and resistance. But the reality on the ground is the reality on the ground.
The other country that is watching and thinking is Iran. Iran had accepted the idea that it had lost the chance to dominate Iraq. It had also accepted the idea that it would have to bargain away its nuclear capability or lose it.
http://www.stratfor.com
If this article represnets ground reality, it also underlines another ground reality. That is the dominence of US economic and military prowess. And sooner than later, US will come out of Iraq as a winner and with a negotiated settlement on Iran. That would allow unkil to focus on Afghan situation in next 3-4 years as part of its strategy to reshape middle east.
If this line of thought is logical, it would be wise for India to sit tight in Unkil camp from strategic point of view, while strengthening its military complex with the help of India+Russia+Israel R&D support. Use unkil's strategic influence to get more investment in its infrastructure, industry and economy besides getting entry into world bodies.
Re: Caucasus Crisis
So non alignment redux? How do you think those countries will allow India to develop while sitting in another's tent? And don't forget Stratfor main purpose is US interests only.
The problem with Indian mind is it think all scholars are neutral and state the facts. Just because they say a few facts for fair and balanced outlook doesn't mean they are fair and balanced. Learn from Caroe to suspect everything unless confirmed and treat everything as data to be processed. Nothing is a given.
The problem with Indian mind is it think all scholars are neutral and state the facts. Just because they say a few facts for fair and balanced outlook doesn't mean they are fair and balanced. Learn from Caroe to suspect everything unless confirmed and treat everything as data to be processed. Nothing is a given.
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Caucasus Crisis
Not at all ramana-saar...
I am betting on unkil's camp for the first half of 21st century as far as India is concerned.
The recommendation for India is to bet on unkil's camp while strengthening its defence R&D sector with the help of Russia/Israel, because unkil wouldn't share this without strategic whoreship. At the same time using unkil's support to gain entry into world bodies.
Russia/China are not capable of helping India in its strategic interests, be it domestic economy, or world bodies, or POK/Pakistan/Nepal/Burma. At most they can cause further irritation.
I am betting on unkil's camp for the first half of 21st century as far as India is concerned.
The recommendation for India is to bet on unkil's camp while strengthening its defence R&D sector with the help of Russia/Israel, because unkil wouldn't share this without strategic whoreship. At the same time using unkil's support to gain entry into world bodies.
Russia/China are not capable of helping India in its strategic interests, be it domestic economy, or world bodies, or POK/Pakistan/Nepal/Burma. At most they can cause further irritation.