Russia is at it again!

[Shadow]

Makes sense. What bothers me is that one country violated another's border and sovereignty. The other thing that bothered me was noticing some posters tried to compare this to Iraq when Russia didn't hold one meeting at the UN or with anyone before invading far beyond what the seperatists deem as their territory.

Double mistake here. If you want to compare it, then compare it to the situation in Yugoslavia where a number of republics wanted to break away and were helped by the NATO and UN forces.
Russia did have a meeting at the UN before replying. the UN did not make a decision and Russia decided that Georgia would do too much damage if they would wait.

The way I'm seeing this is at least a serious Russian overreaction at best and at worst it was the Russians trying to send a clear message to former FSU countries to try and keep them in line a stay away from NATO. Either way it doesn't look good.

The difference I see between any preemptive strike the USA has committed (even if I disagree with it) is that we go in to irradicate the evil dictator/ shell government and attempt to hand over power and control of the country to the people. The issue I had with it that a former oil man was the guy that made this decision and that leads to a lot of questions about his integrity and motives. In the same way those around the world must now be questioning Russia who was trying to defend some seperatists. The former Soviet Union trying to fight for the freedom of a South Ossetia? More like they want to absorb them.

And with past history why not question Russia's motives just as I would question our President. We entered WWII to stop the genocide and stop a dictator from taking over the World. We beached France met the Russians in Germany. The only difference is we didn't take over all the countries we saved from the Nazi's. So when Russia jumps an international border without talking with anyone. I think we all have the right to be pissed off.

Russia was already present in the area. They did not suddenly enter, just gave support to the troops present that were under attack.
Also they did not change the government of Georgia, in that they have not acted like the USA.
Russia has made it clear from the start that they want to prevent a repetition of this situation, which is why they will retreat their troops but at the same time make clear that a next attack will cause serious problems in Tbilisi.

[Shadow]

At least we would be well ahead of China! Based on their population of 1.3 billion they would need 88 golds to match our 22. They don't even have that many medals!

Becky Hammons is from the state I live in (South Dakota). Many people here can't understand why she did that. She was upset that she didn't get a tryout to the US Olympic team, so she got an invite from Russia. Amazingly she became a Russian citizen in less than a week's time. There's a reason why she didn't get invited. Just watch her play.

Another sidenote, when Phelps won his last gold medal, it was the 1000th medal the US has recieved since they have be in the Olympics. What are the odds of that occurring? 

And if we add all medals from the FSU, the Soviet Union would lead. 

[BC]

Will be interesting to see how or if NATO reacts after the meetings today.

There will likely be an old/new member split..  I don't think it will be a slam dunk for Rice.

[BC]

Developments in Pakistan are also quite interesting (and dangerous considering they do have nukes).

The US supported dictator has resigned.. I wonder if this will eventually lead to US intervention..

Politics does create strange bedfellows..

[wxman]

Developments in Pakistan are also quite interesting (and dangerous considering they do have nukes).

The US supported dictator has resigned.. I wonder if this will eventually lead to US intervention..

Politics does create strange bedfellows..

The US was getting tired of Musharraf as he was no longer reliable. I think the US is glad to see him go. The US has a new ally there General Ashfaq Kayani, who replaced Musharraf as head of the army last year.

Kayani's has had good relations with the US since 1988, when he attended the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., which has a program for future military leaders.

This has been planned well in advance. The US knew Musharraf would someday, die or be replaced. The hand pick successor has been in wait for 20 years. In pakistan, the military controls the government. Get in good with the military, and you can go a long way.

[Lit_1nce]

Will be interesting to see how or if NATO reacts after the meetings today.

There will likely be an old/new member split..  I don't think it will be a slam dunk for Rice.

This whole meeting with NATO thing.. I don't see the point of it, other than raising eyebrows.. They are not going to do anything militarily.. I supposed they could raise the question of granting immediate membership of Georgia, but I doubt that will happen, or even be tried. The countries of NATO as governments could do some things, but NATO itself ?? Maybe some "exercises" that would be worrisome ??  Really the only "punishment" card that NATO has is new memberships, and that's not going to be decided based upon trying to punish Russia.. at least not quickly.

I also notice that the withdrawal doesn't seem to be going at a very fast pace. I suppose that is because we set the precedent by refusing to set withdrawal timetables ourselves.

[BC]

other interesting tidbits..
Seems since the beginning of this crisis all efforts by Moscow to bring the issue to the table have been blocked.  I knew about them asking the UN, but didn't know they had also approached NATO.

The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, warned on Sunday against "knee-jerk reactions" on Russia. "Talks in the Nato-Russia council are essential," he said. "We need open lines of communication."

Russia has been seeking a session of the [Nato-Russia]council since the conflict flared up 10 days ago, but the Americans have blocked it. The US ambassador to Nato, Kurt Volker, has not met his Russian counterpart in Brussels, Dmitry Rogozin.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/19/georgia.nato?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

But several Europeans feel that although Russia used disproportionate force against Russia, the United States is being too soft on Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili and believe he bears some responsibility for the crisis.

"Obviously the Russians acted disproportionately, but what Saakashvili did was not right and we can't talk about him being the only victim here, " one senior European diplomat said. "If all Condi wants to do at NATO is talk about being hard on Russia, she is going to have a bad day."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/19/georgia.russia.war/index.html

[groovlstk]

The NY Times published an excellent analysis of the events leading up to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/washington/18diplo.html

[Misha]

Doesn't the use of modern, high tech weapons change the battlefield somewhat?

Here is a great example of what happens when you have inexperienced soldiers lacking in technology. A Russian news source reports that Russian troops that were not equipped with the Russian version of GPS (GLONASS) ended up shooting at each other because they had no way of knowing precisely where they were and reporting this to each other   :noidea: So you end up  with Russian soldiers shooting at each other, each side thinking they are Georgians. The article notes that even when soldiers do have the Russian equivalent of GPS, it is not very reliable: 18 satellites are required according to the article to reliably cover Russia (24 for the entire globe) and Russia has 13 in orbit.

[OlgaH]

Here is a great example of what happens when you have inexperienced soldiers lacking in technology. A Russian news source reports

Interesting article.

Georgian and Russian armies used the same American GPS, but for Georgian army the GPS gave accurate calculation, and for Russian army only with errors 

[diverboy70]

Here is a great example of what happens when you have inexperienced soldiers lacking in technology. A Russian news source reports that Russian troops that were not equipped with the Russian version of GPS (GLONASS) ended up shooting at each other because they had no way of knowing precisely where they were and reporting this to each other   :noidea: So you end up  with Russian soldiers shooting at each other, each side thinking they are Georgians. The article notes that even when soldiers do have the Russian equivalent of GPS, it is not very reliable: 18 satellites are required according to the article to reliably cover Russia (24 for the entire globe) and Russia has 13 in orbit.

I don't really think that the GPS is the problem here. Even with an ordinary comersial GPS you get about 30 meters of the real position. And they should really have known about this margin of error. maybe they just didn't know how the GPS worked Or just lousy communication?

[Misha]

Interesting article.

Georgian and Russian armies used the same American GPS, but for Georgian army the GPS gave accurate calculation, and for Russian army only with errors 

Well, it is sad when your technology is so unreliable (the Russian equivalent of GPS) that you have to rely on the "enemy's" (i.e. American) technology.

[Misha]

I don't really think that the GPS is the problem here. Even with an ordinary comersial GPS you get about 30 meters of the real position. And they should really have known about this margin of error. maybe they just didn't know how the GPS worked Or just lousy communication?

They weren't given any equipment. The fact of the matter is that withstanding the huffing and puffing of the big bad Russian wolf, it's army is not fully equipped to wage a modern war. It lacks both in training and equipment.

[OlgaH]

Well, it is sad when your technology is so unreliable (the Russian equivalent of GPS)

Yes Misha it is sad.

But even with "lacks both in training and equipment" Russians drove the well supported by West Georgian army  into a corner and Saakashvili started his "cry for help because of Russian invasion of Georgia" after short time 

[youtube=425,350]26Hfh72CGbc[/youtube]

[Misha]

And this is what the Russian Information Agency reports about the existing GLONASS satellites:

"Unfortunately, the GLONASS project still faces major problems. The Russian mission control center said only 12 out of the 19 GLONASS satellites now in orbit are currently operating. Four more satellites now orbiting the Earth may be commissioned in the future, enlarging the GLONASS cluster to 16 spacecraft.

However, only seven of these are revamped Uragan-M satellites, whereas the rest are obsolete spacecraft, whose service life has either expired or will expire soon.

Quite possibly, all old spacecraft may stop functioning by late 2008. In this case Russia will have to launch 17 new satellites by the end of 2009. And working out the required launch schedule would be a mind-boggling task. "

[Misha]

Yes Misha it is sad.

But even with "lacks both in training and equipment" Russians drove the well supported by West Georgian army  into a corner and Saakashvili started his "cry for help because of Russian invasion of Georgia" after short time 

Well supported? The Americans did not even supply them with stinger missiles. No, in spite of all the talk, Washington did not give the Georgians decent technology and the Georgian army was comparable to the Russian in terms of armaments. However, Russia is a good bully: it knows that it has to pick on a small, weakly defended country, if its army is going to have a chance at success.

[Shadow]

Well supported? The Americans did not even supply them with stinger missiles. No, in spite of all the talk, Washington did not give the Georgians decent technology and the Georgian army was comparable to the Russian in terms of armaments. However, Russia is a good bully: it knows that it has to pick on a small, weakly defended country, if its army is going to have a chance at success.

What exactly do you hate in Russia ?

[Misha]

What exactly do you hate in Russia ?

Ah, to be critical of Russia's policies is to hate Russia?

[Shadow]

Ah, to be critical of Russia's policies is to hate Russia?

If to be critical of America's policies is called to hate America then to be critical of Russia's policies is called to hate Russia.

[Misha]

If to be critical of America's policies is called to hate America then to be critical of Russia's policies is called to hate Russia.

And, where exactly did I accuse anybody of hating America is they were critical of American policies?

[Shadow]

And, where exactly did I accuse anybody of hating America is they were critical of American policies?

Too tired of the discussions to look that up.
Whay are you avoiding the question ?

[OlgaH]

Russia is a good bully

and good bully defender of small unrecognized countries and also a good chess player 

Vladimir Putin's mastery checkmates the West

The cartoon images have shown Russia as an angry bear, stretching out a claw to maul Georgia. Russia is certainly angry, and, like a beast provoked, has bared its teeth. But it is the wrong stereotype. What the world has seen last week is a brilliant and brutal display of Russia's national game, chess. And Moscow has just declared checkmate.

Chess is a slow game. One has to be ready to ignore provocations, lose a few pawns and turn the hubris of others into their own entrapment. For years there has been rising resentment within Russia. Some of this is inevitable: the loss of empire, a burning sense of grievance and the fear that in the 1990s, amid domestic chaos and economic collapse, Russia's views no longer mattered.

A generalised resentment, similar to the sour undercurrents of Weimar Germany, began to focus on specific issues: the nonchalance of the Clinton Administration about Russian sensitivities, especially over the Balkans and in opening Nato's door to former Warsaw Pact members; the neo-conservative agenda of the early Bush years that saw no role for Russia in its global agenda; and Washington's ingratitude after 9/11 for vital Kremlin support over terrorism, Afghanistan and intelligence on extremism.

More infuriating was Western encouragement of “freedom” in the former Soviet satellite states that gave carte blanche to forces long hostile to Russia. In the Baltic states, Soviet occupation could be portrayed as worse than the Nazis. EU commissioners from new member states could target Russian policies. Populists in Eastern Europe could ride to power on anti-Russian rhetoric emboldened by Western applause for their fluency in English.

Nowhere was such taunting more wounding than in Ukraine and Georgia, two countries long part of the Russian Empire, whose history, religion and culture were so intertwined with Russia's. Moscow tried, disastrously, to check Western, and particularly American, influence in Ukraine. The clumsy meddling led to the Orange Revolution.

Georgia was a different matter. Relations were always mercurial, but Eduard Shevardnadze, the wily former Soviet Foreign Minister, knew how to keep atavistic animosities in check. Not so his brash successor, Mikheil Saakashvili. From then on, hubris was Tbilisi's undoing.

It was not simply the dismissive rhetoric, the open door to US advisers or the economic illiteracy in forgetting dependence on Russian energy and remittance from across the border; it was the determined attempt to make Georgia a US regional ally and outpost of US influence.

Big powers do not like other big powers poaching. This may not be moral or fair but it is reality, and one that underpins the Security Council veto. The Monroe Doctrine - “hands off the Americas” - has been policy in Washington for 200 years. The US is ready to risk war to keep out not only other powers but hostile ideologies - in Cuba and Nicaragua.

Vladimir Putin lost several pawns on the chessboard - Kosovo, Iraq, Nato membership for the Baltic states, US renunciation of the ABM treaty, US missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. But he waited.

The trap was set in Georgia. When President Saakashvili blundered into South Ossetia, sending in an army to shell, kill and maim on a vicious scale (against US advice and his promised word), Russia was waiting.

It was not only Mr Saakashvili who thought that he had the distraction of the Olympics to cover him; the Kremlin also knew that Mr Bush was watching basketball, and, in the longer term, that the US army was fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the day that the Russian tank brigade raced through the tunnel into South Ossetia, Russia has not made one wrong move. Mr Bush's remarks yesterday notwithstanding, In five days it turned an overreaching blunder by a Western-backed opponent into a devastating exposure of Western impotence, dithering and double standards on respecting national sovereignty (viz Iraq).

The attack was short, sharp and deadly - enough to send the Georgians fleeing in humiliating panic, their rout captured by global television. The destruction was enough to hurt, but not so much that the world would be roused in fury. The timing of the ceasefire was precise: just hours before President Sarkozy could voice Western anger. Moscow made clear that it retained the initiative. And despite sporadic breaches - on both sides - Russia has blunted Georgian charges that this is a war of annihilation.

Moscow can also counter Georgian PR, the last weapon left to Tbilisi. Human rights? Look at what Georgia has done in South Ossetia (and also in Abkhazia). National sovereignty? Look at the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. False pretexts? Look at Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada to “rescue” US medical students. Western outrage? Look at the confused cacophony.

There are lessons everywhere. To the former Soviet republics - remember your geography. To Nato - do you still want to incorporate Caucasian vendettas into your alliance? To Tbilisi - do you want to keep a President who brought this on you? To Washington - does Russia's voice still count for nothing? Like it or not, it counts for a lot.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4525885.ece

[Misha]

Too tired of the discussions to look that up.
Whay are you avoiding the question ?

Quite simply, I do not hate Russia, but I do disapprove of this heavy handed military intervention and its actions in the months and years that preceded it that led up to the war. I find it troubling that Russia is holding on to an imperial mindset and wasting money on military adventures that enrich a handful of corrupt siloviki while leaving less money for the well-being of Russians. If that is "hating" Russia, then so be it. It does answer your question as to what I hate in Russia.

As for being "too tired to look it up," I will save you the time. I never stated that be critical of American policy was to hate the United States. I am Canadian, eh! I am more than happy to criticize American follies.

[Misha]

and good bully defender of small unrecognized countries and also a good chess player 

Depends on whether or not you take the short or the long term perspective. Russia may have won its war with Georgia, but in the long run, I believe, it risks losing more. It will lose in investments, it will lose in trading opportunities, it will lose by pushing neighboring countries to seek other alliances....

[Shadow]

Misha, while I agree with a lot of your standpoints, I currently disagree with the 'Imperial mindset' that people accuse Russia of.
If we look since the end of the Cold War, and see which countries have decreased their influence and which have increased, I can not help but see Russia on the decreasing side by a long way.

Still any move from Russia not to decrease further is labeled 'imperialistic', and Russia seems to be often depicted as the bad guy.
Personally I am against any war, however sadly people seem to be unable to solve conflicts without it.