Heavy fighting in South Ossetia.

[SiberianTiger]

UK ITV News reporter in Georgia has identified the 42nd Motorised Infintary Division outside Gori. I assume these are Russian regular troops?

N.

Yep, it's a part of the 58th Army

 

[ar81]

A stable democracy with many flaws and follies, but generally a better ally as many other countries in the world?

The path of USA... USA invaded Iraq, and that helped Iran to gain influence, since now Iran is keeping peace in Iraq. If that's a victory, I am Elvis. If Russia follows that path...

If you attack someone, you can't expect him to help you.
Russia needs a buffer zone if they want some protection. But fighting against neighbors is a big mistake. Imagine USA making war on Mexico... that would be pathetic...

 

[SiberianTiger]

But aren't they build in Russia and not in the Ukraine? So, when Russia does not want to, both Ukraine and Georgia run out of ammo?

I think they will just get a supply of Patriots instead.

 

[Notebook]

That's interesting

On 4 August 2008, five battalions of the Russian 58th Army were moved to the vicinity of Roki Tunnel that links South Ossetia with North Ossetia.[6]. On 8 August 2008 [7][8] [9] the Army moved to South Ossetia and engaged in combat with Georgian forces.[10][11]

Looks like someone knew what was coming?

The ITV reporter Julian Manyon, is a well known (UK)war reporter, and is usually reliable, he also quotes the column as moving toward Tiblisi. Of course they could be setting up defensive positions.

N.

 

[Ghostrider]

Whoever planned and executed this is all but a brilliant mind.

Actually, he is a brilliant mind because Russia has attained the results they expected. They have all but defeated Georgia - an ally of the West - without the West being able to do anything.

The peace plan they graciously "accepted" allows them to leave a military contingent exactly where they want, and the EU "interposition force" will impede any future Georgian reaction while being no match for the Russian forces should they decide to grab more land.

The Russians had their tanks just outside Tbilisi, which essentially sends the Georgian authorities the message: "We can get you whenever we want and there's nothing you can do about it". They checkmated without needing to get in and risk an urban battle.

Let's not kid ourselves: Russia has won, big time. They graciously threw Europe a bone so that they won't feel too humiliated, but the message is clear: we're back.

 

[GregBurch]

since now Iran is keeping peace in Iraq.

... amazing ...

 

[SiberianTiger]

Ossetia is the worst show of political incompetence I have ever seen from Russia.
If you need a buffer zone around the country, the worst thing you can do is to attack those who should be your ears and eyes.
Now Georgian population have reasons to be the eyes and ears of enemies.
Whoever planned and executed this is all but a brilliant mind.

It's not this simple. You seem to forget about existence of Ossetian and Abkhaz populations who have been opposed to Tbilisi since Georgia gained independence. It's a long history of mutual hostility and violence and Russia just was unfortunate enough to subscribe for protection of one side from another back in 1992. What happens today is an awkward outcome of that.


-----Posted Added-----

That's interesting

Looks like someone knew what was coming?

A mass exodus of the Ossetian non-combatants through the same tunnel to the North happened days before.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think they will just get a supply of Patriots instead.

Yeah, these are also great, but lack the mobility and nastiness of the Tor-M.

Russia has the means to take out a Patriot site pretty simple, with the Smerch rocket artillery system, while a mobile SAM system like the TOR-M is now badly missing inside the NATO.

I think the most important thing which now has to happen is, that we can't underestimate Russia much longer - Putin send a pretty remarkable "I'll be back" to the NATO.

 

[Notebook]

That I didn't know, media coverage here just started last Friday, when the fighting started.

N.

 

[GregBurch]

I think the most important thing which now has to happen is, that we can't underestimate Russia much longer - Putin send a pretty remarkable "I'll be back" to the NATO.

If the West feels threatened by Russia, there's a remarkably simple way to dramatically increase their security -- make energy independence the number one policy priority.

 

[Urwumpe]

The path of USA... USA invaded Iraq, and that helped Iran to gain influence, since now Iran is keeping peace in Iraq. If that's a victory, I am Elvis. If Russia follows that path...

You should never celebrate the flight before the landing. While the USA are currently not looking too good, and GWB sure can be blamed for weakening the USA, by deploying it's army in places far away from the real critical points today, you should not make the error to underestimate the USA. One day, both Iraq and Afghanistan will be solved (and so far, the ISAF has a far better record as the Soviet Army, thanks to only a regional power fueling the rebellion), and what will be then? The USA will be subject to the good old rule, which today also applies to Russia: What does not kill us, only makes us stronger.

This rule can also apply to Georgia... if the responsible people learn from their mistakes.

And you can be sure, those regions in Georgia, which did not have something to learn this year, will not become stronger. South Ossetia has now become even more dependent on Russia, as it currently maneuvers itself in a position which allows only Russia as potential ally. That is not independence, that is stupidity - and they will notice it soon. They will have no other economic growth, except tending soldiers... so, you can be sure, fast food, alcohole, prostitution and organized crime will become the pillars of the South Ossetian economy. Well, not really a change to the years before.


-----Posted Added-----

If the West feels threatened by Russia, there's a remarkably simple way to dramatically increase their security -- make energy independence the number one policy priority.

Exactly. But we also need to get a free of the cold war results.

 

[SiberianTiger]

If the West feels threatened by Russia, there's a remarkably simple way to dramatically increase their security -- make energy independence the number one policy priority.

Are you still regarding the West a whole? What you describe is Europe's problem. The biggest America's concern is China. What do you think will happen once they decide to reclaim Taiwan?

 

[simonpro]

Basically, we are short of recon drones, so it was sent on a reconnaisance mission in the first day of the conflict. The air division staff did not expect the Georgian side to be armed with Tor-M SAM's (which could only come there from Ukraine, which is a current point of quarrel).

Recon drones: Something Georgia seems to have quite a few of.:dry:

Ossetia is the worst show of political incompetence I have ever seen from Russia.

I disagree, it's probably one of Russia's cleverest moves, it's certainally the cleverest move I can remember from them. They managed to secure an area of another country, secure their own citizens, send a message to the West and make on of their less friendly neighbours look foolish. Not bad for a long weekend's work, I'd say.

The Russians had their tanks just outside Tbilisi, which essentially sends the Georgian authorities the message: "We can get you whenever we want and there's nothing you can do about it". They checkmated without needing to get in and risk an urban battle.

Exactly. Now Georgia is just bleating about the ceasefire, but as far as I can tell none of the Russian tanks near Tbilisi have fired a shot, they're there to send a message, not capture a city.

I just did a check of three of the leading anti-war groups in the West -- MoveOn,org, International A.N.S.W.E.R and United for Peace and Justice -- and at least on the front pages of their websites, I didn't see any mention of the military action between Russia and Georgia.

I don't follow. I'd not even heard of MoveOn, but judging from their webpage they appear to be a US political pressure group, so why would you expect them to have an opinion on something that has nothing to do with the USA? If anything they appear to be anti-Iraw war, they certainally aren't anti-war in general.
A.N.S.W.E.R is also not well known in the west, it's a US only group too. It's also a socialist organisation rather than anti-war, and indeed it doesn't have many ties with anti-war movements.
United for Peace and Justice has the aim of protesting against the "American" occupation of Iraq, it is not meant to be protesting about other countries.
UPJ does, however, contain a lot of actual anti-war groups in it's membership, and a large number of those have issues statements criticising what's happening in Georgia and Ossetia.

(edit)

If the West feels threatened by Russia, there's a remarkably simple way to dramatically increase their security -- make energy independence the number one policy priority.

Can't say I'm particularly concerned about what Russia is doing at the moment, most European governments knew they'd do something like this at some point. I think a few may be surprised at how soon they have demonstrated their strength, but that's not a major issue. Most of Europe has generally good relations with Russia, andI see no reason whyt hat will change.
Just remember where most of Russia's income comes from, after all.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, how would you regard the situation, if the black sea countries except Russia form an economic and political partnership? They have quite a few common goals, so cooperation would not be a bad idea for them.

But what would that mean for Russia - good, bad or neutral? I think it is neutral with a slight annoyance as it reduces influence on former GUS countries.

 

[GregBurch]

I don't follow. I'd not even heard of MoveOn, but judging from their webpage they appear to be a US political pressure group, so why would you expect them to have an opinion on something that has nothing to do with the USA? If anything they appear to be anti-Iraw war, they certainally aren't anti-war in general.
A.N.S.W.E.R is also not well known in the west, it's a US only group too. It's also a socialist organisation rather than anti-war, and indeed it doesn't have many ties with anti-war movements.
United for Peace and Justice has the aim of protesting against the "American" occupation of Iraq, it is not meant to be protesting about other countries.
UPJ does, however, contain a lot of actual anti-war groups in it's membership, and a large number of those have issues statements criticising what's happening in Georgia and Ossetia.

Go to San Francisco or Madison or Seattle or Eugene or Boulder or Boston -- you'll see these three groups working together all the time. Yes, my comment was basically snark aimed at only an American audience. But you hear them couching their criticism of US policy in terms of "anti-militarism" and "anti-imperialism." Apparently their righteousness can only be summoned to condemn America, though.

At any rate:

Can't say I'm particularly concerned about what Russia is doing at the moment, most European governments knew they'd do something like this at some point. I think a few may be surprised at how soon they have demonstrated their strength, but that's not a major issue. Most of Europe has generally good relations with Russia, andI see no reason whyt hat will change.
Just remember where most of Russia's income comes from, after all.

If you're happy to have your lifeblood in someone else's hands, that's OK by me; and I don't doubt that perhaps a majority of Europeans feel the same way. For myself, I am working more and more toward trying to influence American political action toward adopting energy independence as the number one policy goal. It's achievable, it can be done in twenty years, and the benefits both domestically and internationally will be enornmous across a broad range of social and economic issues. To me, it has become the lynchpin of all policy judgments. As I put it in my "elevator speech," "When your house is on fire, it's easy to define your priorities."

 

[Urwumpe]

GregBurch: I think, you also remember one other thing: Without people using oil to produce and transport, it is just a stinking, sticky liquid.

Even if Russia would only use the oil for themselves to produce and to transport, it is not as appreciated, as when you can exchange goods from other countries for it.

And no Russian oligarch will want to drive even the best and most luxurious GAZ, as long as a Mercedes-Benz has a better trademark and reputation around it.

 

[GregBurch]

GregBurch: I think, you also remember one other thing: Without people using oil to produce and transport, it is just a stinking, sticky liquid.

Even if Russia would only use the oil for themselves to produce and to transport, it is not as appreciated, as when you can exchange goods from other countries for it.

And no Russian oligarch will want to drive even the best and most luxurious GAZ, as long as a Mercedes-Benz has a better trademark and reputation around it.

Believe me, I'm the ultimate capitalist free-trader, so the kind of mercantilism I'm advocating represents a significant change in view for me.

The change results from coming to the realization that economics is not the end-all and be-all for understanding human behavior. People can and often do end up doing things that are contrary to their rational self-interest defined by purely economic values.

If the people who run the countries upon which we have become dependent for our hydrocarbon energy acted solely in their economic self-interest, I wouldn't think of advocating energy self-sufficiency. But they don't, so I do.

 

[Urwumpe]

Believe me, I'm the ultimate capitalist free-trader, so the kind of mercantilism I'm advocating represents a significant change in view for me.

The change results from coming to the realization that economics is not the end-all and be-all for understanding human behavior. People can and often do end up doing things that are contrary to their rational self-interest defined by purely economic values.

If the people who run the countries upon which we have become dependent for our hydrocarbon energy acted solely in their economic self-interest, I wouldn't think of advocating energy self-sufficiency. But they don't, so I do.

Of course. If we would always act economic on a individual scale, economics could maybe explain all our behavior. But we sure don't. But finally, economics always cause a pressure on our behavior, which means we will always be near the economic behavior and can only leave the economic path for a short moment before they demand their price.

I think, this is also the reason why economics have a stabilizing effect on most oil producing countries. Even if these countries have the power to badly damage us and even did that in history, the economics forced their tribute.

So, you can't use economics for short term prediction of human behavior, and can't make long term predictions of economics, but in the middle, there is always a good chance, that understanding economic reasons behind the behavior of another nation can enable you to find more ways to trade with him for the common good... and for the deviations, you can always rely on political and psychological experts.

 

[simonpro]

Go to San Francisco or Madison or Seattle or Eugene or Boulder or Boston -- you'll see these three groups working together all the time. Yes, my comment was basically snark aimed at only an American audience. But you hear them couching their criticism of US policy in terms of "anti-militarism" and "anti-imperialism." Apparently their righteousness can only be summoned to condemn America, though.

I saw the latter two whilst I lived in Boston, never saw the former though. I'd say the reason they're condemning the USA is because they're, fundamentally, political pressure groups. They know that they can only pressure the US government, not the governments of other countries, they never even try to criticise the UK government, which also plays a major role in Iraq.
There's plenty of other movements that do criticise the policies of other countries, though. The problem is that the political stage in the USA is so big that all of the other organisations who deal with foreign politics tend to get little of the limelight.
That's just my view based on a few months there though, and Boston is probably not wholly representative of the rest of the country

If you're happy to have your lifeblood in someone else's hands, that's OK by me; and I don't doubt that perhaps a majority of Europeans feel the same way.

Well it's not really my lifeblood. 80% of my power/heat comes from either nuclear or renewable sources, most of the food I eat (with the exception of exotic vegetables and some of the beer) is grown in-country, and the only time I use a car is for fun, it's easier not to when I'm in the city.
To be perfectly honest not having gasoline probably wouldn't have much of an impact on my life.

That can't be said for a lot of other European countries though, the UK would be screwed. As would most of southern Europe, and possibly France too (although it's power is mainly nuclear).

 

[Eagle]

Well, how would you regard the situation, if the black sea countries except Russia form an economic and political partnership? They have quite a few common goals, so cooperation would not be a bad idea for them.

But what would that mean for Russia - good, bad or neutral? I think it is neutral with a slight annoyance as it reduces influence on former GUS countries.

It does look like Russia has proven a point to its neighbors(Not just Georgia): You are alone, no one else will help you. Especially not the West, their promises are empty.

I feel like my country has betrayed a friend through inaction.:dry: