Understanding the battle for South Ossetia and how it matters to the West

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
The president of Georgia is a moron. I bet the US told him to invade and said we have your back. Little did they know the US pulls these kinds of stunts all the time. Bush told Saddam that he could have Kuwait and then pulled the rug underneath his feet. Same thing is happening with Georgia. When will these people learn? These fools thought they would get on the good side by providing troops little did they know you never do business with the US unless you want to get burned. Georgia not only got burned but now Russia is giving them a bitch slap. Sucks to be them but you don't poke a bear with a stick.

Lie much?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, GWB, Cheney, and Rice have no moral standing to use against Putin. And Russia is going big enough to crush all opposition. We can only wait to see how this will play out in the UN.
Georgia is likely going to have to play for for some time to rally support.
Kinda shows that no countries have any real moral standing, doesn't it? It's why using moral relativism as an argument is always lame.
 

Buck Armstrong

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,015
1
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, GWB, Cheney, and Rice have no moral standing to use against Putin. And Russia is going big enough to crush all opposition.

I don't usually agree with your posts, but you are absolutely correct that these shameless hypocrites have no ground whatsoever to preach at other countries about who they can and cannot invade.

As for going big, I am not making a moral judgement here...but at least the Russians still know how to fight a war, a job we have forgotten how to do properly. You either go big and win ASAP, or you stay the fuck home and spare both your own and the other country all the blood, lives, expense, and half-century of PTSD that results from a half-ass Saigon-still-falls-after-50,000-American-dead "victory".
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, GWB, Cheney, and Rice have no moral standing to use against Putin. And Russia is going big enough to crush all opposition.

I don't usually agree with your posts, but you are absolutely correct that these shameless hypocrites have no ground whatsoever to preach at other countries about who they can and cannot invade.

As for going big, I am not making a moral judgement here...but at least the Russians still know how to fight a war, a job we have forgotten how to do properly. You either go big and win ASAP, or you stay the fuck home and spare both your own and the other country all the blood, lives, expense, and half-century of PTSD that results from a half-ass Saigon-still-falls-after-50,000-American-dead "victory".
It could be semantics, but I disagree that the u.s. doesn't know how to fight a war. The semantics could be the definition of a war. Mine is to capture or destroy a target. I think the u.s. military did a fine job of this in iraq (both times). It's - whatever you call what you do with the target once you've got it - that the u.s. sucks at.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,941
264
126
Originally posted by: seemingly random
It could be semantics, but I disagree that the u.s. doesn't know how to fight a war. The semantics could be the definition of a war. Mine is to capture or destroy a target. I think the u.s. military did a fine job of this in iraq (both times). It's - whatever you call what you do with the target once you've got it - that the u.s. sucks at.

Occupation is not their mission.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, GWB, Cheney, and Rice have no moral standing to use against Putin. And Russia is going big enough to crush all opposition.

I don't usually agree with your posts, but you are absolutely correct that these shameless hypocrites have no ground whatsoever to preach at other countries about who they can and cannot invade.

As for going big, I am not making a moral judgement here...but at least the Russians still know how to fight a war, a job we have forgotten how to do properly. You either go big and win ASAP, or you stay the fuck home and spare both your own and the other country all the blood, lives, expense, and half-century of PTSD that results from a half-ass Saigon-still-falls-after-50,000-American-dead "victory".
If by fight a war you mean throw ordance at everything including lots of apartment buildings and homes, I agree. However, the US can do this too and it would do it if it had to. The idea that civilians are not fair game during war is a philosophy that previous generations in the world have not really considered, including the US in WWII and if the sh*t hit the fan it always remains an option. It's easy to do and it works well.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
The president of Georgia is a moron. I bet the US told him to invade and said we have your back. Little did they know the US pulls these kinds of stunts all the time. Bush told Saddam that he could have Kuwait and then pulled the rug underneath his feet. Same thing is happening with Georgia. When will these people learn? These fools thought they would get on the good side by providing troops little did they know you never do business with the US unless you want to get burned. Georgia not only got burned but now Russia is giving them a bitch slap. Sucks to be them but you don't poke a bear with a stick.

Lie much?

The world people paint themselves must be scary, to them.

Yes we tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait. Just so we could go over there and kick him out of Kuwait, disrupt oil flow, have him set hundreds of wells ablaze, and cause an ecological disaster.

Just like we tricked a break away republic into attacking a city when their army is small compared to the people protecting that city.

All of that he surely has solid proof on.
 

Danwar

Senior member
May 30, 2008
240
1
71
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
The president of Georgia is a moron. I bet the US told him to invade and said we have your back. Little did they know the US pulls these kinds of stunts all the time. Bush told Saddam that he could have Kuwait and then pulled the rug underneath his feet. Same thing is happening with Georgia. When will these people learn? These fools thought they would get on the good side by providing troops little did they know you never do business with the US unless you want to get burned. Georgia not only got burned but now Russia is giving them a bitch slap. Sucks to be them but you don't poke a bear with a stick.

Lie much?

The world people paint themselves must be scary, to them.

Yes we tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait. Just so we could go over there and kick him out of Kuwait, disrupt oil flow, have him set hundreds of wells ablaze, and cause an ecological disaster.

Just like we tricked a break away republic into attacking a city when their army is small compared to the people protecting that city.

All of that he surely has solid proof on.

The USA did not trick saddam into invading kuwait, but the USA DID arm and support Saddam to go into war with Iran in the 80s (this aid from the usa also helped saddam solidify his standing as ruler of iraq btw). theres pictures of rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam around that time.

Seems proper, those who made him also unmade him.

but anyway thats another issue and i dont wanna hijack this thread, so going back to the whole RUSSIA IS THE DEVIL trend that we can see in the mass media and the US leadership is really hypocritical and morally insulting to anyone with half a brain.

I mean a couple years ago that same media and US leadership supported israel blasting lebanon to shreds just because hezbollah had captured 2 Israeli soldiers.

So...
Israel atacking lebanon to save 2 captured soldiers = Acceptable , killing arabs is ok
Russia atacking georgia to protect thousands of SO civilians after being bombed by the georgian army (which btw also killed russian soldiers) = NOT Acceptable , Russia is the devil.

I mean why the double standard? we live in an age where you would think that the media would at least have the decency to tell the story as it is. but no, log into cnn, reuters or whatever american media you fancy and 85% of the pictures you will see on this conflict are from georgian civilians crying or dead, but they wont show you any of the SO civilians who died or lost their homes due to the initial bombings by Georgia...


 

filetitan

Senior member
Jul 9, 2005
693
0
0
Guys, I am Armenian (connected to Georgia, and let me tell you for years we have watched the news, heard from civilians towards the atrocities that took place by the Georgian military against South Osettian and other such regions. It was about time Russia stepping in and stopped their Georgian criminal president.

Please watch European news, and hear what the civilians report to the media as the crimes that have been committed by the Georgian government.
 

filetitan

Senior member
Jul 9, 2005
693
0
0
Guys, I am Armenian (connected to Georgia, and let me tell you for years we have watched the news, heard from civilians towards the atrocities that took place by the Georgian military against South Osettian and other such regions. It was about time Russia stepping in and stopped their Georgian criminal president.

Please watch European news, and hear what the civilians report to the media as the crimes that have been committed by the Georgian government.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,555
9,907
146
Originally posted by: Perry404
LONDON (Reuters) - Georgia made a strategic miscalculation in trying to rapidly overrun South Ossetia, and as a result has probably lost the region for good, regional analysts say.

While Russian-backed separatists in the breakaway Georgian region helped provoke Georgia into action, it was the belief that its troops could secure a lightning victory that underpinned Georgia's decision to attack.

"The Georgians rolled the dice and they lost," said Michael Denison, an expert in Russian and Eurasian affairs at Chatham House, a London-based security think tank.

"It was not an unreasonable calculation to go for a rapid win, but in the end it was a miscalculation."

Georgia, which has several restless regions within its territory, has managed to quell low-level insurgencies on its turf in recent years -- notably in the Kodori Gorge and the Adjara region -- without provoking Russian reaction.

It calculated that, with the recent change of leadership in Moscow and by timing the attack to coincide with the opening of the Olympics, it could secure a quick and relatively trouble-free victory.

"The capital Tskhinvali is relatively small, no more than around 25,000 people, and they probably thought they could just take it and be done," said Denison.

"They may have calculated that some people would leave the region and flee north to North Ossetia, but the rest would stay and the problem would basically be resolved." In hindsight, he said, the Georgians should have thought about blocking or blowing up the Roki Tunnel that links South Ossetia to Russia and gave Russian forces access to the region. But the Georgians needed to keep the tunnel open so that South Ossetians could escape north.

Denison and others note that South Ossetia's separatists had been provoking Georgia for some time, probably counting on Russia to come to their aid if needed.

"The Russians have been provoking for a long time and I don't doubt that they stoked up the separatists to start attacking," said Bruce George, a British member of parliament with a long-term association with Georgia.

"At the same time if you embark on a war, as the Georgians did, you have to work out what the consequences will be. It was inevitable that the Russians would react very heavily... and at this stage it seems uncertain that they will stop."

Denison, who was last in South Ossetia a few months ago, said Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's assertion that it was now very unlikely South Ossetia would ever be integrated into Georgia had all but sealed the region's fate.

"If the Russians hadn't intervened and Georgia had taken over, some South Ossetians would have fled, but most probably would have been okay, and South Ossetia probably would have been better off economically and culturally.

"As it is, now they are looking at being a small outpost on the southern reaches of Russia."

(Reporting by Luke Baker; editing by Kate Kelland, Tim Pearce)

http://www.reuters.com/article...e/idUSLB68218920080811

The above is an excellent "take" on the whole conflict, imho.

 

Buck Armstrong

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,015
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, GWB, Cheney, and Rice have no moral standing to use against Putin. And Russia is going big enough to crush all opposition.

I don't usually agree with your posts, but you are absolutely correct that these shameless hypocrites have no ground whatsoever to preach at other countries about who they can and cannot invade.

As for going big, I am not making a moral judgement here...but at least the Russians still know how to fight a war, a job we have forgotten how to do properly. You either go big and win ASAP, or you stay the fuck home and spare both your own and the other country all the blood, lives, expense, and half-century of PTSD that results from a half-ass Saigon-still-falls-after-50,000-American-dead "victory".
If by fight a war you mean throw ordance at everything including lots of apartment buildings and homes, I agree. However, the US can do this too and it would do it if it had to. The idea that civilians are not fair game during war is a philosophy that previous generations in the world have not really considered, including the US in WWII and if the sh*t hit the fan it always remains an option. It's easy to do and it works well.

I didn't mean causing indiscriminate civilian casualties or targeting of residential areas. I mean the Army asks for 300,000 and Bush sends 140,000 (Iraq, 2003), which in my opinion was the primary factor in the post-invasion descent into chaos, and the fact that "the Surge" had some effect proves me right IMO. I also mean when al-Sadr starts a revolt and then hides his forces in a mosque from which they fire on us, we back down and leave instead of blowing the shit out of the mosque. That's not the same as just randomly targeting mosques and hospitals, that's finding the enemy and killing him. I mean quickly and decisively destroying the enemy army, rather than disarming it and letting them all go home to fight us later. I mean pursuing AQ wherever it runs rather than pretending Pakistan is an ally who gives a shit about the people (including other Muslims, women, and children) these animals indiscriminately slaughter.

Go big or stay home. That doesn't mean you have to firebomb Dresden or annihilate everything that moves. It means you send overwhelming force, locate the enemy, and destroy him wherever he hides ASAP.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

I didn't mean causing indiscriminate civilian casualties or targeting of residential areas. I mean the Army asks for 300,000 and Bush sends 140,000 (Iraq, 2003), which in my opinion was the primary factor in the post-invasion descent into chaos, and the fact that "the Surge" had some effect proves me right IMO. I also mean when al-Sadr starts a revolt and then hides his forces in a mosque from which they fire on us, we back down and leave instead of blowing the shit out of the mosque. That's not the same as just randomly targeting mosques and hospitals, that's finding the enemy and killing him. I mean quickly and decisively destroying the enemy army, rather than disarming it and letting them all go home to fight us later. I mean pursuing AQ wherever it runs rather than pretending Pakistan is an ally who gives a shit about the people (including other Muslims, women, and children) these animals indiscriminately slaughter.

Go big or stay home. That doesn't mean you have to firebomb Dresden or annihilate everything that moves. It means you send overwhelming force, locate the enemy, and destroy him wherever he hides ASAP.

Well there are a lot of good reasons not to do what you said. Like Al Sadr's militia hiding in some of the holiest mosques in all of Islam. You don't destroy those just because some troops are holed up in them, if you're going to blow them up you better have a damn good reason because counterinsurgency 101 is to win the hearts and minds of those you are occupying. Destroying their religious landmarks isn't a good way to do this. I'm not saying it should never be done, but Russia style scorched earth policy is not a good idea. (see Afghanistan)

As far as Pakistan goes, not invading Pakistan is probably a very smart move on our part. In my humble opinion our primary interest in that region is not the destruction of Al-Qaeda. It is the stability and continued existence of a secular government there. This means prevention of an overthrow by Islamic radicals, or even worse any possible coup by radicals, and some ensuing chaos. Pakistan is a nuclear state, and the #1 way for any terrorist group to get nuclear weapons will be from the overthrow of an unstable nuclear state or the collapse of the same state. I think a sustained US presence in Pakistan would likely cause the government to fall, and not in a legal way, but quite likely in a violent/chaotic way. That's too dangerous for us to try I think.

So.. long story short, I think there are extremely smart reasons as to why we show restraint. Maybe sometimes we go to far, but considering the consequences if we're wrong I think caution is warranted.
 

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, GWB, Cheney, and Rice have no moral standing to use against Putin. And Russia is going big enough to crush all opposition.

As for going big, I am not making a moral judgement here...but at least the Russians still know how to fight a war, a job we have forgotten how to do properly. You either go big and win ASAP, or you stay the fuck home and spare both your own and the other country all the blood, lives, expense, and half-century of PTSD that results from a half-ass Saigon-still-falls-after-50,000-American-dead "victory".

You must be kidding - 500 tanks and 12,000 troups against a 3rd world military is "going big"? Georgia has something like 30 total military aircraft and their total armoured forces number several hundred outdated tanks.

No country can match the US in a straight up fight. If Russia was foolish enough to attack a NATO country, they would find their armed forces decimated and their airspace completely dominated.

The occupation is the problem - whether it be Iraq, Afganastan (Soviet and US editions), Chechnya (Russia), etc.
 

Buck Armstrong

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,015
1
0
Originally posted by: dawheat
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly, GWB, Cheney, and Rice have no moral standing to use against Putin. And Russia is going big enough to crush all opposition.

As for going big, I am not making a moral judgement here...but at least the Russians still know how to fight a war, a job we have forgotten how to do properly. You either go big and win ASAP, or you stay the fuck home and spare both your own and the other country all the blood, lives, expense, and half-century of PTSD that results from a half-ass Saigon-still-falls-after-50,000-American-dead "victory".

You must be kidding - 500 tanks and 12,000 troups against a 3rd world military is "going big"? Georgia has something like 30 total military aircraft and their total armoured forces number several hundred outdated tanks.

No country can match the US in a straight up fight. If Russia was foolish enough to attack a NATO country, they would find their armed forces decimated and their airspace completely dominated.

The occupation is the problem - whether it be Iraq, Afganastan (Soviet and US editions), Chechnya (Russia), etc.

Yeah, I'm not talking about the usual forum pissing match about why nobody can possibly fight the almighty US, blah blah blah. We've heard all that armchair crap before...so why haven't we "won" in Iraq? Hint: its absolutely NOT because we are incapable of conquering that country.

And you answered your own question about "going big". Check your numbers again; its all relative, Einstein...and Russia does not intend to occupy Georgia...so you do the math.

As for occupations, contrary to popular internet opinion, history does not prove that occupations can't work. It only proves that half-ass occupations don't work. So compare our occupations of Germany and Japan to our current gigs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you tell me...what's the difference?
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
In a nutshell here is what has happened in Ossetia as far as I understand it.

In June 1992, South Ossetia broke away from Georgia.
Most Ossetians hold Russian citizenship.
Since that time Georgia and Ossetia have been in an intermittent state of war.

It appears that Georgia had planned this military offensive to take back Ossetia to coincide with the Olympic games while Putin is in China.

How this is important to the west,

Georgia has been attempting to join NATO.
Ossetia is a crucial energy transit route.
President Bush has pledged support for Georgia's territorial integrity.

Conclusion: on paper Russia should have the ability to smash the Georgians.
If however the West decides to funnel funds to Georgia this could be another drawn out war. The cherry on the cake is that Russia is in no mood for another Vietnam/Chechnya. I believe at the first signs of this Russia will be calling out the U.S.A.
Things could get very interesting here.

why is everything painting the Russians as the bad guys in this conflict? The Georgians started it!
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: JEDI
Originally posted by: Perry404
In a nutshell here is what has happened in Ossetia as far as I understand it.

In June 1992, South Ossetia broke away from Georgia.
Most Ossetians hold Russian citizenship.
Since that time Georgia and Ossetia have been in an intermittent state of war.

It appears that Georgia had planned this military offensive to take back Ossetia to coincide with the Olympic games while Putin is in China.

How this is important to the west,

Georgia has been attempting to join NATO.
Ossetia is a crucial energy transit route.
President Bush has pledged support for Georgia's territorial integrity.

Conclusion: on paper Russia should have the ability to smash the Georgians.
If however the West decides to funnel funds to Georgia this could be another drawn out war. The cherry on the cake is that Russia is in no mood for another Vietnam/Chechnya. I believe at the first signs of this Russia will be calling out the U.S.A.
Things could get very interesting here.

why is everything painting the Russians as the bad guys in this conflict? The Georgians started it!

My fear from the get go was that this would be the viewpoint the mainstream media would attempt to push. Thankfully I don't think the majority of the West was fooled. It's really sad for Georgia as they just set the clock back a decade on their democracy.
 

thepd7

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2005
9,423
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I would suggest that while everyone needs allies, you need the right allies. Loyalty to alliances has destroyed empires and caused unnecessary wars. I'm a firm believer in NATO as it was, but it's funny and appropriate NATO is expanding too fast because this is precisely the situation that speaks against expanding NATO too fast.

If you want to claim someone is your "ally" - either vaguely, or as with NATO, formally - you really have no choice but to back that up or else your promises are just dust in the wind. And if you're going to commit to an alliance in the face of a nuclear-armed military power you'd best be sure you're certain of who you're willing to die for.

Imagine if Georgia had been admitted into NATO this past New Year's Day; what the hell do we do if Russia decided to test NATO's strength and invade Georgia anyway? At that point, we're boned. Either we go to war with Russia, possibly starting a nuclear war, or we leave them to their own devices, which would hopelessly kill the NATO brand. In the former case all hell breaks loose, and in the latter case you're now encouraging Russia to maybe try something with a country we DO want to defend. For all we know, Russia did this when they did it in part because Georgia is on the road to NATO membership, and figured they'd strike while they had the chance.

I'm not defending Russia by any means. Especially since they took the conflict far into Georgia, rather than just defending S. Ossettia. But tough talk from Cheney : "Russian aggression should not go unpunished", or McCain ; "Russia broke international law, something has to be done", is just that, tough talk.. it's bullshit, unless you've got a specific plan for how you're going to back it up and what you're going to be tough about. The nice thing about NATO was that it was an alliance of Western-style democracies, and there was a comfort level in democracies guaranteeing the security of other democracies. Georgia as a democracy is on flimsy ground at best, and the fact is, that there aren't many options for defending it even if you think it's worth it.

If we're going to be serious about the defense of the West, we need to get serious about what it is we're trying to defend. I think that should be a reasonably exclusive list. I'm not denying that the Georgians are getting fucked in this brouhaha or that we should get serious about it - Bush has embarassed himself here, by "pimping" a not-so-established democracy like Georgia, going there for photo-ops and dancing, and pushing for NATO membership to quickly - but this problem was started years ago, not last week, by the ridiculous overexpansion of NATO from what it was supposed to defend to trying to defend who the hell knows what. I'd much rather drop the "North Atlantic" part and get countries like Japan, Australia et al. to join than bring in quasi-democracies like Georgia.

Everyone should ask themselves this question ; "Who'd you rather die for"?

This is exactly why Georgia DIDN'T get in to NATO and why NATO doesn't let in countries with territorial disputes. It's not like Georgia was on the brink of getting in, they were still far away.

Great post but you seem a little too worried. Russia will reabsorb the territories and possibly Georgia in it's entirity, and nothing changes.

Simple fact of the matter is, no one is going to war for Georgia. We'll see how things go from here though.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Fuck CHhcken Heart Cheney and the rest of the archaic Cold Warriors that inundate the current Administration, they were played and punked by Putin and the Russians big time.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fuck CHhcken Heart Cheney and the rest of the archaic Cold Warriors that inundate the current Administration, they were played and punked by Putin and the Russians big time.

I liked the vid of Bush and Putin at the Olympics.

Putin had this look on his face of "Fvck you, you little twerp. I could have you killed in your sleep and not lose a wink of sleep myself. Who are you to tell me how to run a military engagement?"

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Yeah, I'm not talking about the usual forum pissing match about why nobody can possibly fight the almighty US, blah blah blah. We've heard all that armchair crap before...so why haven't we "won" in Iraq? Hint: its absolutely NOT because we are incapable of conquering that country.

And you answered your own question about "going big". Check your numbers again; its all relative, Einstein...and Russia does not intend to occupy Georgia...so you do the math.

As for occupations, contrary to popular internet opinion, history does not prove that occupations can't work. It only proves that half-ass occupations don't work. So compare our occupations of Germany and Japan to our current gigs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you tell me...what's the difference?

The differences between the occupations of Iraq and Germany/Japan have very little to do with the levels of troops used in the occupation.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
I am not a fan of killing civilians. Few are. However, I really just want the US to sit this one out for the most part. We are spread far too thin as it is right now. At the very least, I do not want our military getting involved.
 

filetitan

Senior member
Jul 9, 2005
693
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am not a fan of killing civilians. Few are. However, I really just want the US to sit this one out for the most part. We are spread far too thin as it is right now. At the very least, I do not want our military getting involved.

you have nothing to worry about our military will NOT be involved in this one, nor can they be involved.