Georgia. A change in the balance of world relations.

by Sean Crudden - impero Thu Aug 14, 2008 22:01 sean at impero dot iol dot ie Jenkinstown, Dundalk, Co Louth. 087 9739945

Thanks for your article, John. It seems to me to make sense of the news about the war which - watching tv sporadically - seemed to me to be incoherent.

by Sean Crudden - impero Thu Aug 14, 2008 22:28 sean at impero dot iol dot ie Jenkinstown, Dundalk, Co Louth. 087 9739945

The military and diplomatic positions on the eastern borders of the EU are apparently in lively ferment rather than in a state of stable equilibrium. Perhaps this is so much meaningless posturing in a world still dominated by tanks?

by Joe Byrne Thu Aug 14, 2008 22:41

Thanks for the interesting article John. I have been a "rank and file" "non aligned" working class activist all of my adult life. I do not like using the labels above in quotation marks but enter them here for the sake of clarity. One query I have about your project or envisaged programme is this : If a socialist government was elected this year or whenever and big money and capital brought it's multi faceted influence to bear to scupper a host of pro people projects and the outcome was the government collapsing, another election and the return of business parties and right wing policies, in the name of the national interest or whatever, what would be the position of the socialist parties ? I supose I am wondering would the coercive forces of the state be used by the left to keep big money out by refusing an election or not accecpting a plebiscite or vote which went against the left.

Joe Byrne

by Hugh Briss Fri Aug 15, 2008 00:26

We are at a place in history where the problems we face, economic, environmental, military, can only be resolved on a world scale, through a democratic socialist worldwide federation.

Really, you should just come right out and say you support the idea of a one world government, rather than pussyfooting around and disguising your intentions by wrapping them in a concern for 'the workers'

Under a one world gov't where would 'dissidents' run to when the gov't launches a crackdown.?

by i-bawl Fri Aug 15, 2008 00:36

Although I agree with some of your conclusions, you are either woefully ill informed or just plain biased as to the Russian motives.
I have no interest in supporting NATO, and I condem the western invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but that does not make me lose my sense of judgement when it comes to Russia. One need only take a hard cold look at events in Ingushetia and Chechnya to see how humanitarian the Russia state is.

In no way was this a case of a dormant, benevolent Russia being stirred up by upstart Nato wannabe Georgia.

Russia wanted this confrontation, and had planned and manouvered for it.
This was not some spontaneous action starting just last week with a 'surprise' Georgian assault.
Russia spent time earlier this year laying new railways in Abhkazia (humanitarian infrastructure) which were used to great effect to bring in Russian re-inforcements, already in place at their 'jump off points' before last Friday.

It is very easy for Russia to stir up tensions in South Ossetia or Abhkazia, seeing as it sends aid to both places, has installed many of the leaders in there, and has a military and covert intelligence presence there. South Ossetia has little going for it economically, and with Russian aid, ethnic alliances and everything else, the Russian's clever offer of Russian passports for all who applied, were taken up. Thus, Russia had another clever bit of leverage, 'Russian citizens' inside Georgia.

South Ossetia was not a uniform separatist province, it contained villages and towns loyal to and controlled by Georgia, and likewise those controlled by Russia and it's separatist allies.

The same was true of Abkhazia, until other events forced out a lot of Georgian refugees, once the largest ethic group in Abkhazia. Russia encouraged this and embraced Abkhazia in the traditional manner, re-inforcing its military presence.

Tensions have been ratcheting up all summer, with Georgian UAVs trying to sneak a peak, and being shot out of the air by MiGs ( the footage of the incoming MiG and the missile came out very well on the video - now available on YouTube. ) Georgia accused the Russians of using the Roki tunnel for smuggling and brining illegal reinforcements into South Ossetia.

and of course the exchanges of gunfire and artillery inside South Ossetia between pro-Tblisi and pro-Kremlin forces became almost routine, until it started increasing in intensity (but still didn't register on Western News, but it has been on Russia Today with such leading graphics and banners as 'genocide' and 'Saakashvili, the thief in the night'. If you're not familiar with "Russia Today", imagine FOX news, but run for the benefit of Kremlin warmongers rather than Washington warmongers. (You can also check them out on YouTube). As recently as August 5th, the US state Department was urging Moscow to show restraint in the area. (Yes, the US Government are warmongers also, but they are not braindead warmongers)

The Russians were only waiting to goad the Georgians into an over-reaction, and Tblisi, of course obliged eventually, and foolishly, and with the inevitable loss of life.
The Russians military, suddenly overcome with compassion for oppressed people in foreign lands, launched an invasion, which did a hell of a lot more than 'secure the safety' of the people there.
(in fairness, simply ROLLING that many tanks into South Ossetia would have resulted in Georgia staying the hell out of the place).

A few days before the Russians rolled in, the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline was sabotaged (in Turkey)
There are unconfirmed reports that the BTC pipeline was also damaged inside Georgia during the invasion. That should become clear soon enough.
At any rate, that pipeline (carrying between 800,000 and 1,000,000 barrels per day) and the Baku-Supsa pipeline, and the various ports exporting Azeri & Kazakh crude all shut down. Some of the ports were bombed (obviously necessary in the defence of a landlocked province.) That took over 1.3% of world supply of oil offline instantly.
The Russia navy (already hanging around the area) sank Georgia coast guard ships, and the Russians drove way past the borders of Ossetia and Abhkazia.
The Cyber attacks went into effect immediately, taking down government and commercial servers, including banks. (these were very similar in nature to the cyber attacks on NATO member Estonia last year. )
At one stage the government of Poland was helping to keep Georgian servers online, and Turkey was exporting electricity into the country to keep the lights on.

Georgia's military, as you correctly pointed out received training and equipment from the US and Israel. What it did NOT receive however, was fifty armoured brigades or some other effective deterrent against the massive Russian forces. Russia rolled over them in no time, as expected.
There was no strategic gain from shelling Tskhinvali, and a lot of risk, however, if you look at the gains of the Russians, and the preparations that they made for invasion, you will see that it would certainly fit Putin's strategy to provoke Georgia into providing an excuse to send in the tanks and migs.

I wonder, did you not bother to look into that at all, or did you just interpret the results, through an ideological looking glass?

The assertion of Russian regional power was not a by-product of this action, but the main motivation for it.

The change in powers had already happened, this was just a very grandiose and bloody way of getting that message across. It is a much

Russia has achieved the following :
A humiliation of an ex-Soviet republic that looked West
A humiliation of the US and NATO, only made more clear by the difference between the huge amount of hot air from western leaders and the complete lack of action from same leaders.
A reminder to other former Soviet republics that NATO guarantees are not worth much if your on Russia's doorstep and the NATOs strategic forces are tied up in Iraq, Afghanistan, and positioning themselves to threaten Iran.
By shutting down the export of oil through Georgia, the Russians signalled that NATO plans to stake a claim to the vast hydrocarbon prizes of the Caspian basin, are not as easy as the west had hoped.
Reminding the world, that while no longer a superpower, the Kremlin as not as weak as it was during the Yeltsin years.
Putting an interesting complication in US plans towards Iran.
Also, a bit of payback for the political smack in the face when the West decided to recognise Kosovo against the express wishes and requests of the Kremlin.

and yes, watch out for Russian power plays (or subterfuge) against the Ukraine. Obvious factors include the 17% of the population are ethnic Russian, and that Russia itself provides 35% of the Ukraine's gas, and controls the routes for another 40% of Ukraine's gas imports from Central Asia.
Between manipulating those, and a host of other dirty tricks, we could very well end up with that country split in two, and the pro-Russian side would come complete with the Black Sea naval base of Sebastopol. Mr. Yushchenko has a lot to think about.
Certainly the Ukraine's bold threat to bar the Russian navy from Sebastopol if they blockaded Georgia will not be without consequences.

You also mentioned the plan to establish the US missile shield in Poland and the Czech republic What will happen there is not too clear, but no doubt, if the Kremlin decided to turn off the gas for a few days this coming Winter, quite a few Eastern Europeans would start to question the wisdom of antagonising Russia with a shield that mainly benefits the US.

As for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, don't expect a working class utopia there any time soon. The Kremlin supports their independence from Tblisi, but not their independence from Russia.

by Hugh Briss Fri Aug 15, 2008 01:46

Why did Georgia launch a war they were bound to lose?

Has it occurred to you that the Russians were ready and waiting because they knew that the Georgians were gonna try this shit?

No one seriously thinks the Russians are acting out of humanitarian reason. Only fools use that to silence those that refuse to accept the Spin. And now we're expected to swallow that the US only wants to send some Military over there in a 'humanitarian' role - yeah, RIGHT

In fact the US and NATO now have openly acknowledged military presence in Georgia under the guise of humanitarianism. I'd call that a score in favour of the Globalists. No Westerner would have found US troops in Georgia to be justifiable without the Media efforts to portray Russia as the aggressor.

Why were Israeli mercenaries, US mercenaries and US 'Military Advisors' training the Georgians over the last few years?

What were they training them for?

Why did Saakashvilli not even attempt to close the only viable route for the Russians to enter S. Ossetia?

It is very easy for Russia to stir up tensions in South Ossetia or Abhkazia, seeing as it sends aid to both places, has installed many of the leaders in there, and has a military and covert intelligence presence there.,

Isn't the same also true of the US in relation to the leader of Georgia? Using the methods of Gene Sharp and the Orwellianly titled 'Albert Einstein Institute' Saakashvilli was installed by the Globalists. As soon as Georgians worked out that he was a mere Neo-Lib/Globalist tool they held protests. Saakashvilli, noble democrat that he is, crushed them ruthlessly.

Now that the US has an overt military presence in Georgia, It is very easy for the US to stir up tensions in Georgia , seeing as it sends aid there, has installed the leader in there, and has a military and covert intelligence presence there. (And don't gimme any o' that 'Rose Revolution' guff - I at least am well enough informed to rip that argument to shreds if you are foolish enough try and make it. )

Tensions have been ratcheting up all summer, with Georgian UAVs trying to sneak a peak, and being shot out of the air by MiGs

Dude, that surely is an indictment of the Georgians NOT the Russians. You statement proves it was Saakashvili that was racheting up the tension. You don't even appear to understand the implications of your own words.

As I said elsewhere: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88626&comment_limit=0&c...34240

It's about the Russia, Stupid!

In (insert random year from the 70's or 80's here) a guy called Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard

here's a link to something I found using the intarwebs : http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
I haven't read it so I have no idea what it says. but luckily, due to the aforementioned intarwebs all here can google it to and discover lots of amusing family fun and find out more. The reason i didn't bother to read it is because as I said earlier even a child could see it's All about the Russia, Stupid!™.

Zbiggy is now acting as an foreign policy adviser to none other than Mr Celebrity himself, the next JFK ........ Barack Hussein Obama. So we can expect 'hope'™ and 'change'™ 'cos BarryO's all about 'the change'™ and 'the hope'™

by I-bawl Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:17

Has it occurred to you that the Russians were ready and waiting because they knew that the Georgians were gonna try this shit?

It had crossed my mind, but I don't think the balance of evidence points towards that conclusion.
Unlike the authors of the orginal article, I didn't decide who the aggressor based on sketchy information and political bias. I don't trust either side in this conflict, nor their loyal media mouthpieces such as FOX news and it's mirror image Russia Today (screaming 'GENOCIDE' all over the place, but not dwelling on the fact that pro-Russian forces had been attacking Georgian villages in S. Ossetia having already driven ethnic Georgians out of the other pro-Russian enclave- what would otherwise be called ethnic cleansing)

I'd like to hear your argument that the Russians knew the Georgians would, with a relatively lightly armed force, assault Tshkinvali, - out of the blue, as they would have us believe.

And now we're expected to swallow that the US only wants to send some Military over there in a 'humanitarian' role - yeah, RIGHT

That's not an argument that I've made or would accept from someone else making it to me. You're right to reject it.

In fact the US and NATO now have openly acknowledged military presence in Georgia under the guise of humanitarianism. I'd call that a score in favour of the Globalists. No Westerner would have found US troops in Georgia to be justifiable without the Media efforts to portray Russia as the aggressor.

Why were Israeli mercenaries, US mercenaries and US 'Military Advisors' training the Georgians over the last few years?
What were they training them for?

To be an ally in future conflicts over Caspian resources. i.e. to be prepared to engage in a war, that would lay waste to people and property as competing power blocs vie for control of large amounts of hydrocarbons and the ability to control the export of these. Same reason the Russians put their allies in power in Abhkazia and South Ossetia. Neither NATO nor the Kremlin would spend money and risk prestige simply to secure the rights of people in a foreign land. Can you name any case where either one of them has done so in a country without their being some strategic interest in it for them? I can't.

Why did Saakashvilli not even attempt to close the only viable route for the Russians to enter S. Ossetia?

Do you mean prior to August 7th or after the huge Russian column advanced south?
By what means do you propose this would have happened, given effective military control of the area by Russians?
Using explosives to shut the tunnel would have have been seen as terrorism, thus justifying Russian intervention, and even without extra re-inforcements on the ground the Russian assets already on the ground, and the Russian airforce could have pummelled Georgian forces.
Shutting the tunnel after the Russians had started their main advance is hardly easy to pull off.
If one was to pull it off, one would have had to pre-position special forces and troops near the Roki tunnel, to shut it down, with the potential to collapse the entrance used as a deterrent to Russian tanks entering the other end. Why do you think this was not done?

In fact, that is an argument against the Georgians having planned this. That would be the equivalent of you threatening the 50 martial arts experts next door to you, but taking no steps to lock your front door so they don't come in and flatten you.

And that still leaves the back door open. Abhkazia, where Russian forces came in for a pincer movement.

As soon as Georgians worked out that he was a mere Neo-Lib/Globalist tool they held protests. Saakashvilli, noble democrat that he is, crushed them ruthlessly.

I am not here to present a glowing picture of Saakashvili. In any country caught between NATO and the Kremlin the chances that the ordinary public will get a noble democrat as a leader, (rather than someone who is approved by one or other of the larger powers) are rather slim.
That's a different argument, however, to who started this war.

I am arguing that looking logically at the available evidence, it is far more likely that the invasion was a pre-planned Russian action awaiting a trigger, than a foolish bloodthirsty action (with no back up or chance of success), from Georgia.
NATO may have no qualms about killing innocent people, and stealing their assests and installing puppets, but the argument that they would risk directly engaging Russia military forces right on Russia's doorsteps without taking any steps to prevent Russian access, and no chance of drawing in allies to help out , is, in my opinion ludicrous. NATO plans its wars.
I think Russia wanted to assert itself against NATO expansion, and Western advances towards controlling Caspian oil. They already have a NATO neighbour right on their doorstep, but that would be too provocative to attack. Of the recently snubbed NATO wannabes, little Georgia with only 4.6 million people, strategic gas and oil pipelines and ports, and two pro-russian armed enclaves, was the ideal choice to stage this demonstration of power.

Now that the US has an overt military presence in Georgia, It is very easy for the US to stir up tensions in Georgia , seeing as it sends aid there, has installed the leader in there, and has a military and covert intelligence presence there. (And don't gimme any o' that 'Rose Revolution' guff - I at least am well enough informed to rip that argument to shreds if you are foolish enough try and make it. )

I am aware of the background events of the Rose Revolution. Don't look for straw man arguments, I haven't presented Saakashvili as some latter day messiah, (neither was his predecessor for that matter)

[ quoting me]
Tensions have been ratcheting up all summer, with Georgian UAVs trying to sneak a peak, and being shot out of the air by MiGs

Dude, that surely is an indictment of the Georgians NOT the Russians. You statement proves it was Saakashvili that was racheting up the tension. You don't even appear to understand the implications of your own words.

[ Dude??: ) ]
Sure, the Georgians, trying to sneak a peak at a Russian military build up within their own borders, the creeping re-inforcement through the Roki tunnel, and the military rail road being laid in Ahbkazia. That was provocative? How about the effective Russian control of those territories. Ahbkazia's largest ethnic group was comprised of ethnic Georgians. They were driven from their homes, and Georgia cannot use force to return them to their homes, thus pro-Kremlin factions are a de-facto majority.

I don't take NATO's side here, and I don't think their motives are humanitarian, but geopolitical. Of course they willl take any advantage they can to further their own agenda, but so will the Kremlin.

the US will advance this incident as an example of why NATO is needed, and why countries like Georgia and the Ukraine should (rather than the honest answer that NATO wants to position itself in these countries for it's own reasons)
I actually believe that Russia there's a high probability would not have singled out Georgia if it were NOT allying itself to NATO.
Russia has thrown down a marker to its neighbours that joining NATO and antagonising mother Russia has serious downsides, and is especially hoping to put paid to the idea of the missile 'shield' in Poland and Czech republic.
Of course NATO will use this example to say that now, more than ever the Poles and Czechs need a shield. (and we got back to the days of cold war fear, arms races and 'good times' for arms manufacturers)

There is no good guy in this situation. Plenty of refugees, and corpses, but no good guy.
That's why I criticised the orginal piece for being ill-informed and one sided. I stand by that assessment.

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp Out Intarweb Stupidity Fri Aug 15, 2008 20:02

I'd like to hear your argument that the Russians knew the Georgians would, with a relatively lightly armed force, assault Tshkinvali, - out of the blue, as they would have us believe.

Ehhh . .. . cos they're not stupid despite what years of Hollywood propaganda would have some believe, and they have good Signals Intelligence as well as observers on the ground, mayhap? Because after 50yrs of Cold War they learned how to gather info clandestinely?


To be an ally in future conflicts over Caspian resources. i.e. to be prepared to engage in a war, that would lay waste to people and property as competing power blocs vie for control of large amounts of hydrocarbons and the ability to control the export of these. Same reason the Russians put their allies in power in Abhkazia and South Ossetia.

You are purposely ignoring the fact that all of this is occurring on Russia's borders and they'd be fools not to act. Would you let a pissed off neighbour with which you have a property dispute invite assassins, bombers an snipers into his property without taking preventative/defensive measures?

Comparing the motivation of the US to the motivations of the Russians is disingenuous. The US are fucking about on Russia's borders Russia didn't travel all the way to the Americas to fuck about on the US's borders. There's a massive difference in motivations here. It is intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.

The US wants to create turmoil on Russia's borders. The Russians seek to prevent it.

Do you mean prior to August 7th or after the huge Russian column advanced south?
By what means do you propose this would have happened, given effective military control of the area by Russians?
Using explosives to shut the tunnel would have have been seen as terrorism, thus justifying Russian intervention, and even without extra re-inforcements on the ground the Russian assets already on the ground, and the Russian airforce could have pummelled Georgian forces.

More dishonesty from you. Blowing up the tunnel would have been no more or no less justifying of Russian intervention than the actual and very REAL attempted ethnic cleansing by the Georgians actually was.

In others word since the Georgians were about to launch an all out attack on unsuspecting S. Ossetians, in P.R. terms what had they to lose by blowing up the tunnel? They had however lots to gain from such an action. And yet curiously they didn't even bother to try.

According to your logic they probably sat their and said to themselves:

Oh no, we better not blow up the only tunnel that the Russki's can use to invade us, otherwise they'll get REAL mad at us!

Dudette [?] that's just stupid reasoning. Really. How long have you been doing this?

If one was to pull it off, one would have had to pre-position special forces and troops near the Roki tunnel, to shut it down, with the potential to collapse the entrance used as a deterrent to Russian tanks entering the other end. Why do you think this was not done?

because, like the Bosnians in the ex-Yugoslavia, the Georgians needed to portray themselves as the victims so they needed to be quickly overwhelmed so that the Spin machine could kick in and the US could justify sending troops "for HUMANITARIAN reasons!!"

let's have a little looksee what happened elsewhere in sim ilar circumstance, so as to establish precedent

From Srebrenica Revisited

By DIANA JOHNSTONE http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone10122005.html

From the the U.N. Secretary General's 1999 Report on Srebrenica, it emerges that the idea of a "Srebrenica massacre" was already in the air at a September 1993 meeting in Sarajevo between Bosnian Muslim president Alija Izetbegovic and members of his Muslim party from Srebrenica. On the agenda was a Serb proposal to exchange Srebrenica and Zepa for some territories around Sarajevo as part of a peace settlement.

"The delegation opposed the idea, and the subject was not discussed further. Some surviving members of the Srebrenica delegation have stated that President Izetbegovic also told them he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was possible, but could only occur if the Serbs were to break into Srebrenica, killing at least 5,000 of its people." (1)

Is any of this now looking a bit more familiar?

That's a different argument, however, to who started this war.

Well I totally disagree with YOUR timeline so lets find another shall we?

Will this one do? http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/08/war-nerdism.html

On the evening of August 7 the Georgian President Saakashvili went on TV and announced a cease-fire. This came after some small tit for tat fire exchanges on the border between Georgia and South Ossetia. A few hours later Georgia launched a massive artillery barrage against the South Ossetian city of Tskhinvali. It used Grad multiple-launch rocket systems. Such weapons are effective against area targets, like large infantry clusters, not against pinpoint aims. To use such weapons against civilian areas leads to mass casualties and is in itself a war crime.

The attack hit people at sleep in their homes. It was followed by bombings from SU-25 ground attack airplanes in and around Tskhinvali.

The Russian peacekeepers in South Osssetia had less than a battalion of mechanized infantry between the border and Tskhinvali. This batallion was attacked by a multi battalion Georgian tank and armored infantry forces. The Russians retreated through and around Tskhinvali but held the line within the city limits.

According to Russian sources the Georgian assault killed some 1,500 to 2,000 civilians.

South Ossetia is connected with North Ossetia in Russia by only one road which leads up to the Caucasus mountain range and through the Roki tunnel. It was obvious that any Russian reinforcements would have to come through that tunnel. Georgia seems to have made no attempt to close the road and the tunnel.

Why was this attack done this way and why was the tunnel not closed down?

The only explanation I can come up with is planed ethnic cleansing.

The Georgian attack was planed and prepared for some time and followed a bigger strategic plan. Hitting the civilians in their sleep guaranteed panic and would obviously push them to look for refuge. The only place these Ossetians had to go was north to their compatriots. If the tunnel would have been closed, Georgia would have been stuck with these people after taking their land. That would have led to a messy guerrilla war. It was better, so the plan, to let them flee and therefore leave the outlet open. Indeed some 30,000 of 70,000 Ossetians fled through the tunnel.

Maybe the Georgian plan was to close the tunnel later, like after some 24 or 48 hours after the initial assault. That then was a gamble that Russia would not intervene or would need too long to reinforce. The gamble was lost.

Russia reacted quite fast and only six hours after the initial attack a combined arms force of tanks, artillery and armored personal carriers in the size of one battalion (some 600 soldiers) was on its way through the Roki tunnel. By late noon these forces had reached Tskhinvali and immediately began to push the Georgian forces back.

At the same time the Russian air force started to bomb Georgian air fields. At least four Georgian planes were destroyed on the ground. Two Russian planes were shot down by SA-5 anti air missiles which Georgia was not known to have. These weapons were possibly manned by Ukrainian mercenaries.

While the Russian troops were still on their march, Russia asked the UN security council to condemn the Georgian attack and to call for a cease-fire. The 'western' powers at the security council declined to do so.

Only after that did Russia start to get really serious. It activated paratrooper and special forces to reinforce in South Ossetia. A marine battalion was send from the Crimea and on the 11th landed in Abkhasia. Further reinforcements there came by rail. The Russian Air force launched a classic 'effect based operation' and took out military airports, radars, barracks and communication points.

A few of these attacks hit, as is inevitable, civilian places but Georgian civilian casualties seem to have been light. Russia did not attack economic or civilian installations like electricity plants, pipelines, or major traffic points. A Russian reconnaissance force only briefly moved to Senaki and the only place outside of South Ossetia and Abkhasia Russian forces now hold is a central highway crossing north of Gori.

The last Georgian attack attempt yesterday (after Saak signed Kouchner's cease-fire paper) was by six helicopters that again hit Tskhinvali. They were later destroyed by Russian air power. Yesterday night Georgian troops in Gori panicked and headed for the capital Tiblisi.

The Russian president Medvedev has stopped ground operations but the Russian forces will continue air operations against any Georgian troop concentrations until a cease-fire is signed that fits Russian demands.

The Georgian forces have lost quite a bunch of their tanks and other equipment. The Georgian air force does not exist any more. The Georgian navy lost the only two missile boats it had. Military infrastructure was hit badly. The military budget that Saak had increased from $30 million to $1 billion over a few years was wasted. The training Georgian forces received by U.S. troops and Israeli mercenaries seems to have been completely useless. Well, they learned how to bike quads.

There are now in total still only some 10,000+ Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazi. Georgia has 27,000 men under arms. These did not even achieve their first objective and folded against a smaller force.

From a military standpoint the Georgian forces deserve an F. The Russian ground force deserves an A for the early holding of the ground, a B for the quick first reaction unit and a C for the reinforcement thereafter which seems to have not been very effective. The Russian air force for losing two planes only gets a D.

From a strategic political point Saak gambled badly and lost. It was obvious that he would lose this one from the beginning. Four days ago when Saak started his splendid little war I headlined Saakashvili Wants War - He Will Get It and wrote:

Saakashvili may hope for physical help from 'the west', but neither NATO nor the EU has any appetite to support his escapades. What has led him to this miscalculation?

That question is still unanswered. Saakashvili should answer it when he gets his deserved process at The Hague.

I think that quite sucessfully answers the question of who started this shit

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp Out Intarweb Stupidity Fri Aug 15, 2008 20:09

Consider this Reuters wire report published on August 8, the day the conflict over South Ossetia went hot:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-s....html

At the request of Russia, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday on a Russian-drafted statement.

The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the US, Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides "to renounce the use of force," council diplomats said.

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp Out Intarweb Stupidity Fri Aug 15, 2008 20:27

"The Israeli weapons have proved very effective," he said at a press conference at his office. When asked whether the Israeli arms played a role in the military successes he claimed the Georgian army had achieved, he joked: "Are you asking me as a representative of Elbit or of Israel Aerospace Industries?"

To a reporter's question about Jews who have fled the fighting and come to Israel, he said: "We have two Israeli cabinet ministers, one deals with war [Defense Minister David Kezerashvili], and the other with negotiations [State Minister for Territorial Integration Temur Yakobashvili], and that is the Israeli involvement here: Both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews."

Yakobashvili is actually not an Israeli citizen. Saakashvili's statements are part of his government's attempt to bring other countries into its war against Russia. During the briefing, Saakashvili noted that he is in constant contact with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He promised that U.S. warships would be docking in Georgian ports within a few days to make sure they remain open.

Source: Israeli Newspaper Haaretz.com
http://tinyurl.com/6nkkju

by jeff Fri Aug 15, 2008 22:55

A pompous, tie chewing idiot. A bloated sycophant, who gives official addresses from his office, flanked not only by his own flag but also the E.U's, despite the fact Georgia isn't even in the E.U. !His blah blah poor us speech today even had Condi Rice, who was stading next to him, seething with embarrassed rage, he looks that much of a twat.

He went on and on with nosense, at one point lamenting how, in the pre war Georgian controlled enclave inside South OssetIa, the Georgian government had built "dolby surround sound" cinemas and bowling alleys. These had been "destroyed by these barbarians" because they hate this stuff. They hate progress, such as dolby surround system cinema. They'd rather have "barbarism", such as an independent Ossetian state, and a capital that doesn't get bombed and flattened by Georgian troops, liberating it no doubt, so that Ossetes can enjoy some "dolby surround sound systems".

What an arse.

Medvedev is the President of Russia.

Vlad Putin is the dog's bollocks!

by Larussa Sun Aug 17, 2008 01:32

Wow, interesting comments. I did not think people were that well-informed.
Here is my one-sided Russian view. Georgian president, at the expense of his country and people, wanted to have a quick victorious war to please the US and all those democracy-imposing states. Now, he knew Russia would respond. He was right on one thing, all right-wing US supporters would be blaming Russia for all the imaginable and unimaginable crimes and what I have been reading and hearing is the proof that in this he at least succeeded.
So, Russia is not the aggressor in these events and I am genuinely upset at those anti-war movement people outside the Russian embassy in Dublin who have not checked their facts before protesting.

by Larussa Sun Aug 17, 2008 01:58

You just have to see the video footage on this site:

http://war.georgia.su/

by lefty Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:47

It is interesteing that Georgia has applied for both EU and NATO membership. According to the BBC Germany blocked Bush's move to let them join! I suppose we may have to fight for Georgia in future against russia if Lisbon 2 gets pushed through? A bit like the mutual defence pacts that lead to the first world war? The russians are also saying that the western powers set a precident in Kosovo by breaking up yugoslavia! I dont normally agree with the russians being a former 'Trot' but they may have a point, I never really bought the 'civil war' theory of war in the balkans.

by pat c Sun Aug 17, 2008 17:45

The collapse of the Georgian offensive represents not only a disaster for that country and its US-backed leaders, but another blow to the myth of Israel's military prestige and prowess. Worse, Israel fears that Russia could retaliate by stepping up its military assistance to Israel's adversaries including Iran .

by redjade Sun Aug 17, 2008 23:34

Thanks Pat C for adding some perspective usually lacking on indy.ie - The Israelis are not always in control of all things on this earth. And, the NeoCons don't always win.

''A former Zionist leader who speaks fluent Hebrew, Yakobashvili credited Israeli defense companies with "enabling us to train our army and giving us the possibility to withstand the Russians," but termed the Israeli government's decision to stop arms exports to his country "a disgrace."

He said the West should have responded by "deploying NATO troops to defend Georgia's vital infrastructure," and that "Israel is betraying us, along with the European countries and the United States."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1011396.html

by I-bawl Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:14

Here is my one-sided Russian view. Georgian president, at the expense of his country and people, wanted to have a quick victorious war to please the US and all those democracy-imposing states. Now, he knew Russia would respond. He was right on one thing, all right-wing US supporters would be blaming Russia for all the imaginable and unimaginable crimes and what I have been reading and hearing is the proof that in this he at least succeeded.

You're right, that is a one sided Russian view. Even if we accept, that the plan was to provoke a Russian response, there is NO way Saakashvili was stupid enough to think he would win a quick victorious war.
He was well aware that Russia had moved a very large military force into place, that smuggling of heavy weapons into both Abhkazia and South Ossetia had been going on for ages, and that his military would be defeated, and that NATO would not intervene, for fear of sparking a wider conflict dragging in the full Russian forces.

If you want to assume a successful plan for Saakashvili, you would have to assume, that the political elite in Georgia had lost all appetite for joining NATO, and become so entrenchedly opposed to the idea of placing US troops long term in Georgia, that nothing short of a Russian invasion would change their minds. That's a pretty big presumption, and one hell of a gamble. Especially as if the public ever got that idea in their head, they would want to hang the guy on George Bush avenue in Tblisi.
I believe all leaders are corrupt, but I would have assumed that they use bribery and blackmail, propaganda, etc to influence their own country, rather than engineer an invasion. That would be an insanely treacherous and treasonous policy. Whereas, to assume he would win a quick war with Russia, would not be treason, but would be insanely delusional (and he would escape any guilt for war crimes by virtue of clinical insanity.) I don't like Saakashvili, but he's not that delusional. He's a conniving western educated puppet, not a fool.

"So, Russia is not the aggressor in these events and I am genuinely upset at those anti-war movement people outside the Russian embassy in Dublin who have not checked their facts before protesting."

You should commend them, and join them, and also have protest outside the embassies of NATO members. If anyone however, wanted to protest outside a Georgia embassy, the nearest one is in London.
It's a pity that people haven't been complaining about the Russian's engineering the ethnic cleansing of Ahbkazia, where the pro-Russian separatists managed to replace the ethnic Georgians as the majority.
Even if Russia isn't the aggressor, their actions were not designed simply to help the S.Ossetians. They, along with NATO played their part in creating a very volatile situation, and the Russian response was designed to assert Russian dominance, and deter NATO. It wasn't in any way done out of concern for the unfortunate people of Tskhinvali. That just happened to be the flashpoint that Russia used as a trigger for its response.

The people of Georgia, Abhkazia and South Ossetia included, would be much better off without Russian interference, Russian military in their land, and without NATO membership, and NATO interference, and Western puppet leaders.
People who hold up either Putin & Medvedev or Saakashvili & G.W.Bush as the good guys are blind to reality and are falling into a trap, which causes many people to support the local strong man, forgetting that the local strong man usually controls the discourse which presents him in a good light.

P.S. to Hugh Briss
I meant to get back to your comments, but with the 30 minute delay, and better things to do, I didn't find the time.
You accused me of intellectual dishonesty, (and also assumed I am rather young). You are wrong on both counts.
I did word one of my questions to you rather poorly.

"I'd like to hear your argument that the Russians knew the Georgians would, with a relatively lightly armed force, assault Tshkinvali, - out of the blue, as they would have us believe."

What I meant to communicate there, was that this attack did not come out of the blue, and that tensions had been riveted up, and that both sides were deliberately escalating rather than solving the problems of the local population, as a tool to advance the plans of others. I apologise for the lack of clarity.

The article by "Moon of Alabama", to me is not a credible analysis, especially as it ascribes humanitarian motives to the Russians, and downplays the unfortunate loss of civilian life as a result of Russian action. It mentions ethnic cleansing of South Ossetia, but not Russian engineered ethnic cleansing which has been conducted to great effect over a long period.
It omits the fact that the damage of a war is not just the direct casualties, the dead, the disabled, but the problems caused by shutting ports, the disruption in the food supply, oil, gas and electricity supplies to the population, and the displacement of people, loss of property, employment, and the long lasting psychological effects. (again both sides are guilty of inflicting such non-fatal suffering on civilians)
I wouldn't give that type of slack to Saakashvili, even if I did like the guy.
I'm not the one practicing intellectual dishonesty here. You repeatedly make remarks implying that I support this guy, and am ignoring his complete lack of democratic tendencies.
I am not, I don't defend him, but I consider such things to be tangential to bigger questions about the conflict. There is a big difference there. Plus, my comments were originally posted to criticise what was missing from the original article, which is one sided. One thing I did not write was that the original poster was wrong to criticise the Georgians for the loss of life in South Ossetia. If I was writing the article I would have criticised both sides . rather than just one, as many people here seem quick to do.

The US wants to create turmoil on Russia's borders. The Russians seek to prevent it.

That's the type of comment I mean. Russia has no qualms about creating turmoil on its borders, displacing ethnic minorities who are not pro-Kremlin being just one example. They just don't like other people creating turmoil on their borders.

The Russians, could have EASILY driven the Georgian military out of South Ossetia, and ensured the safety of the people there without doing a lot of the things that they did. Their response was massively disproportionate, and motivated by geo-political motives rather than humanitarian ones. It created more turmoil, and was designed to inflict suffering as a political tool. Again nobody should ever assume morality even being considered in the actions of the Kremlin, White House etc, other for PR purposes.

As for the Yugoslavia comparison, I am actually open to that possibility but not convinced, and the difference is that neither side in the local conflict had a powerful ally with forces already in the country, with a large military land force massed nearby ready to roll on in and settle it decisively in a few days. As I recall, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia took considerably longer than a week, and also, with NATO forces being bogged down at the moment, there's also a big difference in the lay of the land.

You also arrogantly misrepresent my logic on the question of shutting off the tunnel, and call me dishonest.
I at least argued your points and asked you questions rather than call you dishonest. If not for your rudeness, I would have enjoyed debating you, as it brought out interesting points, which many people may not be aware of.
Blowing up the tunnel would have been no more or no less justifying of Russian intervention than the actual and very REAL attempted ethnic cleansing by the Georgians actually was.

No, ethnic cleansing is not anathema to the Kremlin, so long as they do it, and they don't care about the South Ossetians anyway, other than for their usefulness. Whereas, if the Georgian special forces had blown up the tunnel, in advance of the assault on Tskhinvali, they would have killed Russian troops that have been coming through for ages, in a creeping buildup, and that would have been considered an act of war, whereas, acting against separatist in your own borders, is not considered an act of war. That's the reality, and you don't have to lecture me on the morality of that thinking, I am only too well aware that the rules of sovereignty have been used to allow despots to wipe out whole groups inside their borders, and then we will get all' humanitarian' and invade the minute they step across a border in a way that affects our strategic interests.

I take your point about leaving it open, so they could lose the war, but, you deliberately miss my points as to the logic of doing it or not doing it, if they did not intend to be rolled over by Russian tanks. Plus, I contrasted blowing up the tunnel, with a lesser action that closed it, rather than blew up it. You either deliberately ignore that contrast, or it didn't click with you. And you have the gall to ask me how long I have been commenting on world affairs?

As for Saakashvili, it would be great if he was replaced by his own people rather than toppled by the Russians, perhaps they would rally around Levan Gachechiladze. But, in times of war and crisis, there is always that risk that they will instead rally around their 'strong leader', no matter how far removed he is from being democratic or sensible.
That just highlights another reason to damn the policy of warmongers, they create a panic that usually drowns out the moderate reasonable voices, and leaves the stage to extremists.
This is why we need to get rid of the likes of Saakashvili, Putin, Bush, Blair, Medvedev, and all the other 'great leader's who are f*cking up our world for their own narrow goals.

The sooner people get it into their heads that these people weigh our lives and deaths only in terms of whether it advances their agendas or not, the better our chances for survival will be.

by Bazooka Joe Mon Aug 18, 2008 18:15

Bottom line: They are on a major oil route. Bad for them!

by redjade Mon Aug 18, 2008 20:29

When others speak out against Russian agression, Sweden acts...

''Sweden said on Monday it was cancelling a series of military visits and meetings with Russia after Moscow's war with Georgia.

"The Russian troops must cease destabilising activity in Georgia, including the destruction of infrastructure or blocking of important roads," Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said in a statement.

Sweden and Russia had planned more than a dozen visits between troops and high-ranking officials in both countries, starting next month.''

more at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LI142627.htm

/not snark
(russia is a threat to its neighbors
in spite of western european navel gazing)

by redjade Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:03

As Russian troops pounded through Georgia last week, the Kremlin and its allies repeatedly pointed to one justification above all others: The Georgian military had destroyed the city of Tskhinvali.

{....}

Russian-backed leaders in South Ossetia have said that 2,100 people died in fighting in Tskhinvali and nearby villages. But a doctor at the city’s main hospital, the only one open during the battles that began late on Aug. 7, said the facility recorded just 40 deaths.''

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/18/11053/
August 18, 2008 by McClatchy Newspapers

Did the Russians lie and trump up the charges aganst the Georgians to 'equalize' the atrocities to cover for their own?

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp out Intarweb Stupidity Tue Aug 19, 2008 22:09

RedJade asks:

Did the Russians lie and trump up the charges aganst the Georgians to 'equalize' the atrocities to cover for their own?

The most likely answer is NO. The russians probably lied because the Georgians were spreading so many lies about Russian 'killings' in Gori.

Looks to me like both sides are trumping up 'genocide charges'
Unfortunately i-Bawl and Redjade seem only to see the Russian transgressions and NOT the Georgians transgressions.

RedJade could easily have decided to try and confirm the Georgian's charges of 'ethnic cleansing' and the targeting of Civilians by the Russians in the town of GORI, but she/he chose not to.

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp Out Intarweb Stupidity Tue Aug 19, 2008 22:16

i-Bawl said:

The article by "Moon of Alabama", to me is not a credible analysis, especially as it ascribes humanitarian motives to the Russians, and downplays the unfortunate loss of civilian life as a result of Russian action.

Is there something specificly wrong with the 'Facts' contained within that piece?

I agree that there is plenty of speculation in the article BUT there are also many FACTS contained within the report.

I'm not sure how well you are able to determine FACT from OPINION when the two are mixed within a report.

I presumed you were able to separate the two but it seems you may lack that most basic requirement

I specifically mentioned TIMELINE when I linked that Moon Of Alabama Report.

Was there something specific in the TIMELINE given within the report that you know to be FALSE??

OR are you just rejecting the TIMELINE because you disagree with some of the OPINION contained elsewhere within the report?

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp Out Intarweb Stupidity Tue Aug 19, 2008 22:25

Redjade (again!):
The Myth of the Omnipotent Israel Behind Everything

Thanks Pat C for adding some perspective usually lacking on indy.ie - The Israelis are not always in control of all things on this earth. And, the NeoCons don't always win.

Emm RJ, when I linked earlier to a report in Haaretz (http://tinyurl.com/6nkkju) that quoted Saakashvili saying:

"The Israeli weapons have proved very effective," he said at a press conference at his office. When asked whether the Israeli arms played a role in the military successes he claimed the Georgian army had achieved, he joked: "Are you asking me as a representative of Elbit or of Israel Aerospace Industries?"

To a reporter's question about Jews who have fled the fighting and come to Israel, he said: "We have two Israeli cabinet ministers, one deals with war [Defense Minister David Kezerashvili], and the other with negotiations [State Minister for Territorial Integration Temur Yakobashvili], and that is the Israeli involvement here: Both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews."

That was not me linking to a 'myth'

That was a link to a FACTUAL report from Haaretz.com

Are you alleging that the report I linked to was incorrect in anyway?

Are you maintaing that Prezident Saakashvili was NEVER SAID :

Both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews

because if not ,I fail to see how you could describe Israeli involvement as a 'Myth'

That seems to be inaccurate at best, indeed some might say you were being TOTALLY DISHONEST when you attempted to describe Israeli involvement in the Training and Arming of the Georgian Forces as a 'myth'

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp Out Intarweb Stupidity Tue Aug 19, 2008 22:41

RedJade (again!)
Sweden Takes a Stand (at least someone will)

I'll have a lot more respect for the Swedish stance when I see them making statements about boyotting Israel (suppliers of Arms and Training and Mercenairies) and it's 2 Israeli Cabinet Ministers

Until they do that then their statements are just more propaganda.

Like the statements of Human RIghts Watch were when they claimed that Hezbollah were as culpable as the Israeli's when it came to deliberate targeting of civilians during Israel's unexpected and unwarranted attack on Lebanon in 2006.

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp Out Intarweb Stupidity Tue Aug 19, 2008 22:59

Well since we're on the subject:

IMHO this Georgian debacle really should be viewed as an attack on the Europeans by the Neo-Lib/Globalists.

Russia and the Caucasus regions as well as the 'Stans supply much of the energy requirements of major European nations. Many of these nations are competitors to the U.S.

Possibly this little Faux pas by the Israeli and US trained and financed Georgian Forces was a warning to the Europeans 'Get with the programme or freeze this winter'

I suspect Gas prices for a few or the more eastern Euro nations might rise dramatically this winter.

by Hugh Briss - Society to Stamp Out Intarweb Stupidity Wed Aug 20, 2008 00:30

According to this now deleted API report by RAWSTORY (http://tinyurl.com/6fnqvh)

On July 14, 2008, 14 countries rehearsed war in the Ukraine.

Sea Breeze-2008 NATO exercise was held off Ukraine's Black Sea coast against anti-NATO protests and a hostile reaction from officials in Russia.

Sea Breeze-2008...includes forces from:

Armenia,
Azerbaijan,
Belgium,
Britain,
Canada,
Denmark,
France,
Georgia,
Germany,
Greece,
Latvia,
Macedonia and
Turkey...'

The US-Georgia joint exercises will be held at the Vaziani military base' less than 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the Russian border with a total of 1,650 servicemen taking part."

by Mark C Wed Aug 20, 2008 09:42

Rushing to Judgement

ZSpace: http://www.zcommunications.org/blog/view/1881

Antarchia: http://antarchia.org/drupal/en/content/rushing-judgement

Mark.

by redjade Wed Aug 20, 2008 23:10

''Russia has informed Norway that it plans
to suspend all military ties with NATO,
Norway's Defense Ministry said Wednesday.''
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/20/norway-russia-....html