Newsflash: Fighting in South Ossetia/Georgia

[4Tran]

Update: Russian President Medvedev orders the cessation of military operations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm.

It looks like this one is over, and that Russia ended it on their own terms. It also looks like Russia really had no desire to occupy the rest of Georgia, but it'll be a while before we know what the outcome of this mess is going to be. On an interesting note, it's Medvedev who told the Russians to stop while Putin was the one calling the shots in the combat zone. I wonder if they orchestrated this together, or if there's a bit of powerplaying going on.

Originally Posted by Zoned87

I know Russia used to be a powerful nation, but is no longer really a threat since its economic collapse and the USSR being dissolved in 1991.

Germany was once a powerful nation, but no one fears them now. So was Rome, Spain and even England at one time.

Please quit this internet tough-guy act. It only betrays your own ignorance: Russia has largely recovered from their collapse (and has been recovering since Putin first came to power), and they have the second strongest military in the entire world. Only a fool would try to belittle them on that score.

Originally Posted by Lathdrinor

The issue of who really "won" World War II in Europe is controversial, but it is true that the USSR held down a far larger contingent of the Wehrmacht than the Allies. Whether they could've won without the Allied invasion is difficult to assess - some might argue that had Hitler been able to commit the entirety of the Wehrmacht he would've overrun Stalingrad, taken the Caucasus, and devastated Stalin's military capability, while others say that it was only a matter of time before the Siberian winter grinded the German forces down to a halt and then a full retreat.

It'd be better if we tackled this topic in a different thread. Anyone interest in reading up on it would be well advised to read the works of David Glantz.

Originally Posted by Ronin Aquila

Russia has enough warheads to vaporize the world a hundred times over. And that was all the way back in the Cold War.

This was hyperbole during the Cold War, and neither side has as many nuclear weapons anymore. However, Russia's arsenal is more than sufficient in destroying most American cities and making the rest of the country the worst place in the world to live.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Ellaya_dw

Actually it was mostly USSR. USA shown up at the wery end. But half of the world think that USA is the only heroes.

Hitler was stupid for attacking the USSR at that time. He made the same mistake Napoleon did. However, he could have won the fight, in theory. The US intervening right before Hitler crushed England was the overall linchpin moment that led to victory. Had the US not intervened at that moment, Hitler could have dug in and redirected more effort toward the Soviets. He pretty much controlled Europe and North Africa with a few pockets of rebellion.

There's some who don't know enough history that think the US were the only heroes but educated people know that's not true. But they played a very significant part, and were part of a whole chain of events that turned the tides in favor of the Allies. It was a team effort that ended the fighting in Europe.

The reason why people "respect" the US these days is not respect for past good deeds, it's fear of retribution from the deadliest military and most influential economy in the world. Even in Recession and fighting two large war fronts we're strong enough to dish out a world of hurt to anyone stupid enough to start something.

The country needs better leadership and a more aware populace but in regards to foreign affairs the world still listens very carefully to the things we do and say. Just like any other Super Power, Russia included. And they are a Super Power, even if people are afraid to believe it.

People really should be fearful of the storm that's coming. Things like Georgia and Iraq are the tip of the iceberg. Pawns in a game of global chess, essentially.

[Jazzrat]

While it's easy to flex about who has the most nuclear warheads, it's hardly something any politician would brag about in today's popular anti-WMD sentiment. You ll be looked upon with disgust in the international politics if you ever brought up the fact of your nuclear warhead stockpile :P

Kinda surprising that people still thought of Russia as the old failing USSR. The new leadership (putin) and the rising oil price have rejuvenated the bears for quite a few years now under Putin's leadership. The current Russia is sort of like modern China now, catching up with the rest of the world.

I doubt NATO or US could afford to provide military aid to Georgia against the current Russia. The real question is what's next for Georgia and it's people? It's quite clear that Russia was the clear winner in this confrontation but just how far Putin and Medvedev will go to secure their border and expand their sphere of control at the risk of alienating their western investors? I think it will take quite awhile before Georgia recovers after this event.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Solace

The reason why people "respect" the US these days is not respect for past good deeds, it's fear of retribution from the deadliest military and most influential economy in the world. Even in Recession and fighting two large war fronts we're strong enough to dish out a world of hurt to anyone stupid enough to start something.

If you're writing this with having the US of 1940 in mind, I'll be very interested to see what shall unfold.

First of all, Iraq and Afghanistan seemed like "large war fronts" only because the US is the one having the vast majority of troops in the field. Still, the only thing large about Iraq is its monetary costs. Human costs are still relatively low.

A proper state will fear US military might. Non-state entities will just say, "Screw you." and continue their attacks. I'm actually surprised that no one has managed to smuggle a nuke into the US or detonate one in the port of San Francisco.

As for foreign policy, well, no country can afford to ignore the US. But, if the US gets into a war over this issue, I can safely presume that no one will be shouting "Remember XXX!"

As for the WWII outlook, Hitler was again taking a gamble on the Soviet Union. Germany did not defeat the UK, and Hitler decided to look east. 4Tran's recommendation of David Glantz should be considered. I found some of his books at my university's library

[Ellaya_dw]

Originally Posted by Lathdrinor

The issue of who really "won" World War II in Europe is controversial, but it is true that the USSR held down a far larger contingent of the Wehrmacht than the Allies. Whether they could've won without the Allied invasion is difficult to assess - some might argue that had Hitler been able to commit the entirety of the Wehrmacht he would've overrun Stalingrad, taken the Caucasus, and devastated Stalin's military capability, while others say that it was only a matter of time before the Siberian winter grinded the German forces down to a halt and then a full retreat.

The US was a far more decisive player on the Pacific front against Japan - there the USSR did not contribute as much (though they still won some significant victories).

It's not about who "won". Allies is. But in the textbooks from half of the world written that it was only US. *Millions of soviet people died for their freedom, doesn't matter, US has nukes.* It's just so sad, poor children who belive it this...

Originally Posted by Lathdrinor

while others say that it was only a matter of time before the Siberian winter grinded the German forces down to a halt and then a full retreat.

You're not exactly right Siberia is on the asian part of Russia. That winter (min -35C) wasn't REAL siberian winter (min -40 and once in year -50, but it's not that cold how it looks or maybe I'm just got used to it)). So they was the lucky ones.

Originally Posted by Lathdrinor

Whatever the case, though, World War II was such a horrific war in terms of its scale and apathy to human suffering that you all had better pray we never get into such a conflict again (against Russia or whoever). Seriously, the wounds of that conflict have yet to even heal; we should not so casually stride into the next world war.

Totally agree. If there will be a war between Russia and US, we all see end of the world. Don't care about Bush (after his "communism=fascism" I've lost my faith in his sanity, no offence), but I hope your future president understand that.

Hitler was stupid for attacking the USSR at that time. He made the same mistake Napoleon did.

And don't forget about crusaders. They did the same mistake. Seriosly, if you want to invade Russia, wait till summer for your own sake. If you'll survive in encounters with russian partizans, our weather will kill you )

[ApostleOfGod]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

This was hyperbole during the Cold War, and neither side has as many nuclear weapons anymore. However, Russia's arsenal is more than sufficient in destroying most American cities and making the rest of the country the worst place in the world to live.

In this case, maybe 100 times during the Cold War is an over-exaggeration. However, their nuclear arsenals are still at large. None of the nuclear superpowers have decreased their N.A.'s capacity. Heck, it's unclear whether they're still doing things or not right now. Because there's no more atmospheric nuclear testing among the nuclear powers (except China who decides to ignore this policy/agreement), I doubt even top intelligence in the states can count exactly how much Nuclear weapons Russia has stored, and visa versa.

Don't forget. The reason Russia had concentrated on Nuclear warheads more-so than the U.S. was because of one reason = accuracy. The U.S. have the technology and ability to strike a dime with a nuclear warhead at any point in the world. Of course, this is going to require time and calculations and so on, but who fires nukes at random anyway? However, Russian nukes were undependable in accuracy, and I mean they would Most Likely hit the target or miss by a bit kind of thing. I guess their natural theory was that rather than firing one and pray it hits, guarentee your success by firing ten.

Cold War was basically, "The best Defense is Offense". It was like a stillmate (for the lack of better terms which I can't remember right now). Neither had the intention of firing the first shot, but they let each other know that when one's hit, the other is going to get it bad too. As I said earlier, the U.S. and Russia alone have enough nukes to blow up the face of Planet Earth more than 5 times. Considering how much stronger the current Nuclear Fusion / Hydrogen or other different bombs are in comparison to the first Atomic Bombs (the difference is multipliers of tens, but probably more), and considering their numbers which exceed 5000 for both Russia and the U.S., repeatedly blowing up Planet Earth 5 times doesn't seem like much.

Nothing good comes out of being able to annihilate the planet you live in multiple times anyway. -_-

[Lathdrinor]

You'd think differently if you were outside the US nuclear umbrella. Consider the case of Georgia - do you really think the US would be willing to nuke Russia had Russia decided to, say, turn the country into slush by way of MRLS? Or if Russia invaded Ukraine? More likely, US policymakers will weigh the costs with the consequences and decide that it's better to sacrifice their erstwhile "allies" than to drag the world into a nuclear exchange.

The NPT is a joke so long as only a handful of countries hold the weapons. You're never going to convince the Iranians, for example, that they can't have nukes but the US, Russia, and China can. Even if you stop them now by diplomatic measures they'll go after it again later. Same with the N. Koreans. Countries, and the people who live in them, simply won't feel secure until they've got sufficient deterrent against attacks by much stronger powers. This is especially true in an age of US decline, when the new political wisdom is that the US can no longer afford to take care of other people's problems. As the US defense umbrella recedes, a new shuffle for arms will start across the world. Countries without nukes will seek them, NPT or no NPT.

[WanderingKnight]

It looks like this one is over, and that Russia ended it on their own terms. It also looks like Russia really had no desire to occupy the rest of Georgia, but it'll be a while before we know what the outcome of this mess is going to be. On an interesting note, it's Medvedev who told the Russians to stop while Putin was the one calling the shots in the combat zone. I wonder if they orchestrated this together, or if there's a bit of powerplaying going on.

I thought this was obvious enough, but Medvedev is merely Putin's figurehead. I've read quite a few things from Russian and very respectable Argentine journalists (just to let clear that there's no "US bias" here) that stated, quite succinctly, that the Russian "powerplay" was nothing but a farce. I wish I still had that brilliant newspaper article I had a chance to read back when Medvedev was elected, but I've misplaced it--it explained quite brilliantly the falsity of the whole charade that were the last Russian elections.

Also, my mother, as a former Soviet citizen, still follows closely the Russian politics' comings and goings, and she sort of corroborates that impression.

[Zoned87]

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-1035-0-3-3--.html

It seems soldiers wearing black uniforms have been seen in Georgia (U.S. Blackwater mercinarys) as well as "Georgian" soldiers wearing American uniform insignias.

Proxy war anyone?

[tenken627]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I thought this was obvious enough, but Medvedev is merely Putin's figurehead. I've read quite a few things from Russian and very respectable Argentine journalists (just to let clear that there's no "US bias" here) that stated, quite succinctly, that the Russian "powerplay" was nothing but a farce. I wish I still had that brilliant newspaper article I had a chance to read back when Medvedev was elected, but I've misplaced it--it explained quite brilliantly the falsity of the whole charade that were the last Russian elections.

Also, my mother, as a former Soviet citizen, still follows closely the Russian politics' comings and goings, and she sort of corroborates that impression.

It is pretty much common knowledge to everyone that Medvedev is Putin's puppet. The only Russian "powerplay" evident was if Putin could get his chosen successor into the office of President, and thereby regain the seat of Prime Minister (which he held under Boris Yeltsin) for himself.

What 4Tran meant was if Medvedev is starting to currently bristle under Putin's shadow. Medvedev may be a figurehead, but he is still the President of Russia. And he may start to have ideas that do not specifically follow in line with Putin's thoughts.

That is why this discrepancy between Medvedev and Putin during the South Ossetia incident is being closely watched by geo-political observers all over the world.

[gabbytay]

I'd laugh if Georgia attacks South Ossetia again after the Cease fire. I wonder how those people are going to recover from this war.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by tenken627

That is why this discrepancy between Medvedev and Putin during the South Ossetia incident is being closely watched by geo-political observers all over the world.

I was a bit suprised about that myself. It could mean that Medvedev disagreed with Putin's position and ordered a halt. However, it could also be that Putin simply didn't want to be seen ordering a ceasefire himself to maintain his reputation, but pulled the strings. As much as I'd like to see Putin's grasp on power in Russia loosen, I'm thinking the latter is more likely. I'll still hope for the former though.

Originally Posted by Zoned87

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-1035-0-3-3--.html

It seems soldiers wearing black uniforms have been seen in Georgia (U.S. Blackwater mercinarys) as well as "Georgian" soldiers wearing American uniform insignias.

Proxy war anyone?

That site's rather biased, and seems to be attempting to directly blame the US for this. However, it overlooks something. Russia was preparing this for a long time. Given the amount forces they deployed that wasn't just a quick reaction to reenforce their peacekeeping mission in response to Georgia's offensive.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

In this case, maybe 100 times during the Cold War is an over-exaggeration. However, their nuclear arsenals are still at large. None of the nuclear superpowers have decreased their N.A.'s capacity. Heck, it's unclear whether they're still doing things or not right now. Because there's no more atmospheric nuclear testing among the nuclear powers (except China who decides to ignore this policy/agreement), I doubt even top intelligence in the states can count exactly how much Nuclear weapons Russia has stored, and visa versa.

The world's current nuclear arsenal is around 25,000 warheads. In the mid-80s, this figure was around 70,000. If each warhead had an average yield of 50 kilotons, this would be a grand total of 3500 megatons. While this figure is large, and can inflict incredible damage, it's nowhere near enough to even cover the surface area of a country the size of the US, much less the rest of the world as well. To put things in perspective, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami-causing earthquake released the equivalent of 9,560,000 megatons of energy. The K-T event that presumably killed off the dinosaurs would have been in the area of 80,000,000 megatons.

Originally Posted by Zoned87

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-1035-0-3-3--.html

It seems soldiers wearing black uniforms have been seen in Georgia (U.S. Blackwater mercinarys) as well as "Georgian" soldiers wearing American uniform insignias.

Proxy war anyone?

For me, this doesn't have the ring of truth. It's an extremely tenuous connection to draw any conclusions from. Besides, a complex conspiracy is largely fiction, and it's not otherwise in the interests of the US to rile up Russia. This is especially true given that very few countries seem to be interested in following the American lead in condemning Russian actions.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Given the amount forces they deployed that wasn't just a quick reaction to reenforce their peacekeeping mission in response to Georgia's offensive.

Tensions had been building up for several months before Georgia's attack, so we don't have to postulate any unusual motive in this. We've known that the 58th Army had been deployed just opposite the South Ossetian border for quite a while now. As it was, the Georgian attack caught the Russians by surprise, and they managed to capture Tskhinvali and most of the territory south of the Toki tunnel before the counterattack. It seemed as if Russian intelligence mistook the attack for a more normal tit-for-tat round of artillery exchange and delayed their response for about six hours.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I thought this was obvious enough, but Medvedev is merely Putin's figurehead. I've read quite a few things from Russian and very respectable Argentine journalists (just to let clear that there's no "US bias" here) that stated, quite succinctly, that the Russian "powerplay" was nothing but a farce. I wish I still had that brilliant newspaper article I had a chance to read back when Medvedev was elected, but I've misplaced it--it explained quite brilliantly the falsity of the whole charade that were the last Russian elections.

Originally Posted by tenken627

What 4Tran meant was if Medvedev is starting to currently bristle under Putin's shadow. Medvedev may be a figurehead, but he is still the President of Russia. And he may start to have ideas that do not specifically follow in line with Putin's thoughts.

That is why this discrepancy between Medvedev and Putin during the South Ossetia incident is being closely watched by geo-political observers all over the world.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I was a bit suprised about that myself. It could mean that Medvedev disagreed with Putin's position and ordered a halt. However, it could also be that Putin simply didn't want to be seen ordering a ceasefire himself to maintain his reputation, but pulled the strings. As much as I'd like to see Putin's grasp on power in Russia loosen, I'm thinking the latter is more likely. I'll still hope for the former though.

While I've always known that Putin was the real power behind the throne in Russia, my point was very much that it seemed wierd that Medvedev would be the one who talked about the cessation of military operations. However, that was before I watched the attached video. After seeing it, it's pretty obvious that Medvedev's statement was orchestrated between himself and Putin. Moreover, it appears that Putin was present when Sarkozy met with Medvedev. There's no powerplay going on here, and it remains Putin's show.

Originally Posted by gabbytay

I'd laugh if Georgia attacks South Ossetia again after the Cease fire.

If Saakashvili were idiotic enough to do that, Russia would probably flatten Tblisi.


On a different note, this is what McCain had to say today about this mess: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/...rhD1VHDwGw_IE:

McCain told more than 2,000 voters in York, Pa., that he spoke Tuesday morning with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to make sure he knows "that the thoughts, prayers and support of the American people are with that great little nation as it struggles today" for independence.

"I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," McCain said to loud applause. He said Saakashvili asked him to express his thanks to Americans.

McCain said Moscow is using "violence against Georgia to send a signal" to "any country that chooses to associate with the West." Russian leaders, he said, must realize they risk "the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world."

I have a hard time believing that this guy is actually running for President of the most powerful country in the world, and promoting his foreign policy credentials as a major strength at that. Either he genuinely believes that Georgia and Saakashvili are somehow the victims in this or he's deliberately lying. Furthermore, McCain's also delivering a veiled threat to Russia - as if they can't hear what he's saying. Just about any foreign policy expert would agree that Russia isn't the US' enemy yet, but this kind of rhetoric will only make that status more likely. How can anyone do this and claim to have any idea of how diplomacy works?

And it really doesn't help that his speech was partially cribbed from Wikipedia: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258483

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Ellaya_dw

It's not about who "won". Allies is. But in the textbooks from half of the world written that it was only US. *Millions of soviet people died for their freedom, doesn't matter, US has nukes.* It's just so sad, poor children who belive it this...

Well, you can blame this on the USSR for being on the "wrong" end of the Cold War. Also, it's kinda sad to know that many of the sacrifices the Russian people made in resisting Hitler could have been avoided if Stalin didn't wreck the building in the 20s and 30s.

Anyway, this current case may or may not be over. I think the ball's in Georgia's court. Do they suck it up, or do they want to fight?

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Anyway, this current case may or may not be over. I think the ball's in Georgia's court. Do they suck it up, or do they want to fight?

Georgia's military is no longer in any shape to fight anyone, much less the second most powerful military in the world. Their command and control has been destroyed to the point that it no longer knew what was happening by August 11, and the troops themselves were so demoralized that they fled Gori without a fight, abandoning much of their equipment in the process (this event was commonly reported as "Russian forces capture Gori" even though there's no sign that any Russian troops even entered the town).

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Georgia's military is no longer in any shape to fight anyone, much less the second most powerful military in the world. Their command and control has been destroyed to the point that it no longer knew what was happening by August 11, and the troops themselves were so demoralized that they fled Gori without a fight, abandoning much of their equipment in the process (this event was commonly reported as "Russian forces capture Gori" even though there's no sign that any Russian troops even entered the town).

That was what I expected as much. Seems that the way for Gerogia to go is to "admit defeat".

Then again, if they had someone like Tojo Hideaki around, anything can happen. (They just found Tojo's diary on the last days of WWII, and he insisted that the war goes on, even after the nukes.)

[Seditary]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The world's current nuclear arsenal is around 25,000 warheads. In the mid-80s, this figure was around 70,000. If each warhead had an average yield of 50 kilotons, this would be a grand total of 3500 megatons. While this figure is large, and can inflict incredible damage, it's nowhere near enough to even cover the surface area of a country the size of the US, much less the rest of the world as well. To put things in perspective, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami-causing earthquake released the equivalent of 9,560,000 megatons of energy. The K-T event that presumably killed off the dinosaurs would have been in the area of 80,000,000 megatons.

Been a while since I even thought about nuclear weapons, but isn't the biggest danger from them the aftermath (radiation and all that) and not the actual destructive blast?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

On a different note, this is what McCain had to say today about this mess: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/...rhD1VHDwGw_IE:

I have a hard time believing that this guy is actually running for President of the most powerful country in the world, and promoting his foreign policy credentials as a major strength at that. Either he genuinely believes that Georgia and Saakashvili are somehow the victims in this or he's deliberately lying. Furthermore, McCain's also delivering a veiled threat to Russia - as if they can't hear what he's saying. Just about any foreign policy expert would agree that Russia isn't the US' enemy yet, but this kind of rhetoric will only make that status more likely. How can anyone do this and claim to have any idea of how diplomacy works?

And it really doesn't help that his speech was partially cribbed from Wikipedia: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258483

That is rather frightening.

[WanderingKnight]

"I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," McCain said to loud applause. He said Saakashvili asked him to express his thanks to Americans.

lol

Just lol

I think he's right at our little US nationalist friend's alley.

[karasuma]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

lol

Just lol

I think he's right at our little US nationalist friend's alley.

McCain is getting senile. If Georgia said, in that case, send in your troop and give us some F-22s. What is McCain going to say? Afterall, we are all Georgian brothers and sisters, right?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

lol

Just lol

I think he's right at our little US nationalist friend's alley.

I think McCain is working under the assumption that Georgia refers to one of the 50 United States. Or at least this is the only explanation I can come up with that even comes close to making sense of McCain's attitude, and only lets him look like a fool. Otherwise, not only is he a fool, but his is a potentially dangerous fool.

I will wait and see if he makes any refference to Sherman and his destructive ways, before I fully commit on McCain's insanity...wait, either way he is screwed then.