Trouble in South Ossetia escalates

[CJvR]

According to WDA the Georgian OOB is:

Army 16,570 men (active manpower) in...
4 Inf-brig
Art-brig
Light inf-bat
Tank-bat
AA-bat

With...
86 MBT
180 AFV
110 artillery pieces

Navy 531
1 FAC
4 PB
1 Missile hydrofoil
4 MCMV
2 LC

Airforce 1389
7 Su-25
9 L-59 trainers
4 An-12 transports
3 Mil-24
11 various transport HKP

[Ender]

The RBN is up to its eyebrows in this conflict, going after the Georgia networks like gangbusters. I get the feeling that this is to the future of war what the Union Army Balloon Corps was to strategic bombing.

[Axis Kast]

We antagonized Russia to no discernible end on a number of issues, hung Georgia out to dry when they overstepped themselves, and now can't do anything but whine about it.

Is it your opinion that, absent, say, the relatively recent expansion of NATO, Russia would not have chosen to respond militarily to the Georgian gambit?

As far as I can tell, Russo-American relations have jack all to do with current Russian maneuvers. Bush made no promises to the Georgian people or their government with respect to support if they tried to change the situation the ground in South Ossetia.

[Pablo Sanchez]

YES, because I'm sure that all the Eastern European countries want to be in the Russian sphere of influence!

It's naive to say that, just because some people want out from under Russia, the USA ought to help them out. Let's ask ourselves a simple question. The USA attempted to pull Georgia out of the Russian sphere of influence. How is that working out for Georgia right now? How is working out for the USA?

I wasn't arguing that the US should stay out of Russia's way and give Putin a free hand. I was pointing out that the apparent Bush policy of antagonizing Russia every way we can and promising others more than we can give is no good for anybody--not the US, not Russia, and certainly not poor chumps like Saakashvili. It's probably time for a new strategy.

Is it your opinion that, absent, say, the relatively recent expansion of NATO, Russia would not have chosen to respond militarily to the Georgian gambit?

No, but it is my opinion that Saakashvili would not have made such a ridiculously stupid gamble, absent the illusion of US support. The only explanation for his suicidal decision to attack people who Russia claims as citizens is that he either expected Putin to lose his nerve in the face of potential western intervention, or if Putin went ahead, for the west to actively come to his rescue. Otherwise we probably would have seen nothing more than the casual continuation of the status quo antebellum, much to the benefit of Georgians and South Ossetians both.

[Axis Kast]

It's naive to say that, just because some people want out from under Russia, the USA ought to help them out.

I concur.

The USA attempted to pull Georgia out of the Russian sphere of influence. How is that working out for Georgia right now? How is working out for the USA?

I don't think that Georgian adventurism reflects much more than Saakashvili's individual neurosies. It's easy to imagine that the idea of American backing could encourage a nation to stand taller during its disputes with Russia. Difficult to believe that this won't be a signal lesson to anyone contemplating using Washington's goodwill as a back pocket ace.

Furthermore, Russia is going to devastate Georgia. It may exact regime change. What it will not do, however, is produce a pro-Russian populace. Georgians are now likely to be extremely anti-Russian for some time, although it seems probable that the Russians have essentially won all the games that matter, so it may be a moot point.

I was pointing out that the apparent Bush policy of antagonizing Russia every way we can and promising others more than we can give is no good for anybody--not the US, not Russia, and certainly not poor chumps like Saakashvili.

We didn't need to grant Kosovo independence. Not that it mattered here.

We didn't need to expand NATO. Not that it mattered here.

ABM is really something irrelevant. It isn't a threat to the Russian arsenal -- it is merely an issue on which Putin and others can make political hay and perhaps extract concessions from the U.S. even though we aren't actually altering their sense of security.

[Axis Kast]

No, but it is my opinion that Saakashvili would not have made such a ridiculously stupid gamble, absent the illusion of US support. The only explanation for his suicidal decision to attack people who Russia claims as citizens is that he either expected Putin to lose his nerve in the face of potential western intervention, or if Putin went ahead, for the west to actively come to his rescue. Otherwise we probably would have seen nothing more than the casual continuation of the status quo antebellum, much to the benefit of Georgians and South Ossetians both.

Who provided that illusion? Did Bush make statements to that effect? One really cannot blame the White House for the political miscalculations of the Georgian leadership when there isn't even anything to point to as evidence that we sent the wrong kinds of signals. This wasn't Haig giving the "green light" to the Israelis.

[Kane Starkiller]

So "useless" is not "bad" now?

Well not bad as in evil but bad for business of bringing Georgia into Western sphere of influence.

Unless America brazenly ignores its treaty stipulations, it would have to get involved in any action mandated by the NATO treaty. That doesn't mean it has to get involved in anything that any other NATO member stirs up, but it does provide a measure of protection to NATO members. That's the whole concept of a treaty, moron. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with helping America in Iraq.

Did I say other NATO members had a duty to help America in Iraq? I said that Georgia helped them and from their perspective got nothing. Taking South Ossetia and Abkhazia was their primary goal, it failed and US did nothing. Thus NATO and US turned out to be useless to them. You keep talking about treaties as if they matter in practicality, all that matters is whether they can expect any tangible help from US and thus NATO. As it seems they can't. Therefore they will be reluctant to pursue NATO membership in the future and more likely to seek accommodation with Russia. You don't honestly think that NATO saying "That wasn't in our treaty!" will somehow influence their decision?

Korea: American troops versus NK troops.


Vietnam: American troops versus NVA

Afgan: Soviet vs afgan.

If the US sends troops into Georgia, it will be American troops versus Russian troops. NOT AT ALL THE SAME AS THE 3 OTHER WARS ABOVE.

That's the point: they won't send troops into Georgia. They know how the game is played and the first rule is not to allow their troops to meet on the ground where it can lead to escalation.

Sierra Leone. Ivory Coast. Lebanon.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't all those peacekeeping missions inside countries torn by civil wars with opposing side consisting of lightly armed rabble? This doesn't seem like something Georgia (or any other candidate for NATO) had in mind.

Yes, you retard - the US is flying 2,000 Georgian combat troops home to Georgia and there have been multiple reports of the Russians bombing Georgian airports. That implies US and Russian aircraft in the same area, with the Russians at least being armed and using those arms.

So you are saying that US planes will be landing directly into the combat zone? Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Somehow I have sneaking suspicion not a single bullet will be fired between US and Russian forces.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Who provided that illusion? Did Bush make statements to that effect?

Since the Rose Revolution Bush has pursued close ties with Georgia and even attempted to sponsor their induction into NATO, which as a tight defensive alliance is a clear communication of strong support. I wouldn't rule out private assurances of US sympathy for Georgia's issues with Russia as well, but that's pure speculation. Saakashvili probably just overestimated Georgia's importance to the USA, just as he overestimated their capacity to resist the Russian military.

Saakashvili simply could not have believed that Georgia acting alone could survive this conflict, he must have anticipated a western bailout. Whether he simply imagined this support is a matter of conjecture, I would say that at most he simply overestimated American support, because the support was definitely there, just not to the extent he wanted or needed. Even accounting for the Georgian president's alleged personality defects, it still would have been stopped by a clearer communication from the USA about how far it was willing to go.

[Sea Skimmer]

The full Georgian OOB lists 243 tanks but I've heard of only 165 in theatre, I would guess that means the other 78 were in Iraq?

Georgian troops in Iraq have only light wheeled armored vehicles, and not even many of those because they’ve mainly served as static security in the Green Zone, a role previously handled only by US forces. As far as I can tell Georgia now only uses the T-72 tank, with older vehicles having all been placed in reserve if not scrapped. This isn’t surprising, the Soviet divisions based in the country at the time of breakup were all category B and C divisions (except for one category A artillery division) which means most of those tanks are probably T-62s at best,.

[Sea Skimmer]

Saakashvili simply could not have believed that Georgia acting alone could survive this conflict, he must have anticipated a western bailout. Whether he simply imagined this support is a matter of conjecture, I would say that at most he simply overestimated American support, because the support was definitely there, just not to the extent he wanted or needed. Even accounting for the Georgian president's alleged personality defects, it still would have been stopped by a clearer communication from the USA about how far it was willing to go.

I agree he must have expected western intervention to end the war, but he may not have assumed that a military victory was impossible. It is just 30 miles from the line of control just south of Tskhinvali to the Roki tunnel, the only route by which major Russian forces could directly enter south Ossetia. The Georgians probably planned for the classic short victorious war in which south Ossetia forces would be almost immediate destroyed around Tskhinvali, which is almost within machine gun range of the line of control, followed by a dash towards the tunnel.

If the Georgians could advance even half the distance, they’d be in the Cacauses Mountains, and could bog the Russians armor down in the narrow valleys with nothing more then a handful of anti tank missile teams and mortars. An advance of just 1/3rd the distance would place the tunnel entrance within 203mm artillery range.

The crux of such a plan being of course that Russian armor didn’t intervene in the first couple days, which it did. The Georgians were absurdly stupid to have launched this operation after a period of heightened tension which ensured that Moscow was paying attention and had forces prepared for a quick entry into the fray.

I really have to wonder how this war would be going if Georgia had laser guided bombs for its Su-25s and had sent them all against the tunnel on the first night of the war. No doubt several would have been lost to Russian air defenses’, but causing even a partial collapse that could be cleared in a few days would have been an enormous advantage.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Couldn't the Russians have landed Naval Infantry on the coast and paratroopers and supported them with a thrust via Abkhazia? They would have met the Georgians in open flat terrain where their massed armour would have the decisive advantage and their air support would be very effective, overrunning most of the country and thereby encircling the Georgian forces in Ossetia in a more theatre-level operational maneouvre and directly threatening Tblisi and, indeed, to overrun the entire country.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Couldn't the Russians have landed Naval Infantry on the coast and paratroopers and supported them with a thrust via Abkhazia? They would have met the Georgians in open flat terrain where their massed armour would have the decisive advantage and their air support would be very effective, overrunning most of the country and thereby encircling the Georgian forces in Ossetia in a more theatre-level operational maneouvre and directly threatening Tblisi and, indeed, to overrun the entire country.

Simple. Russia, at least at first, limited its ground movements to South Ossetia to prevent the impression that it was out-and-out trying to conquer Georgia. Unfortunately, this proved irrelevant as Georgia has coasted to a clear victory in the propaganda war thanks to Russophobia and Saakashvilli's skillful pleas on Western networks.

Also, considering the state of the Russian navy today, I wouldn't trust it to land its Naval Infantry in Sevastopol, let alone the Georgian coast.

[Loner]

Has anyone mentioned that Ukraine has stated they might not permit the Russian Navy to return to port? What are the ramifications if this does occur?

[Flagg]

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Russia is going to try and annex or at least "regime change" Georgia?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Simple. Russia, at least at first, limited its ground movements to South Ossetia to prevent the impression that it was out-and-out trying to conquer Georgia. Unfortunately, this proved irrelevant as Georgia has coasted to a clear victory in the propaganda war thanks to Russophobia and Saakashvilli's skillful pleas on Western networks.

Also, considering the state of the Russian navy today, I wouldn't trust it to land its Naval Infantry in Sevastopol, let alone the Georgian coast.

The Russian fleet off the coast of Georgia includes landing ships, which were used to seize the port of Poti. So we actually know that they CAN use them, since they already have in this conflict.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Has anyone mentioned that Ukraine has stated they might not permit the Russian Navy to return to port? What are the ramifications if this does occur?

Novorossiysk on the coast of Krasnodar province has long been used as an alternate anchorage by the Black Sea Fleet, but that would ratchet up tensions between Russia and the Ukraine enormously, and the autonomous government of the Crimean, which is a Russian language area which is very pro-Russian, might refuse central government orders and let the fleet back anyway, which could prompt another secessionist crisis. I can't believe the Ukrainians would be that dumb when the Russian use of Sebastopol is guaranteed by treaty.

[Shroom Man 777]

I know pic spamming isn't really cool here, but I find this to be highly amusing:


Just another walk in the park.

"The more I get to know President Putin the more I get to see his heart and soul ...the more I know we can work together in a positive way"



(I hope Obama can milk stuff like this for all it's worth.)

[Gil Hamilton]

Why does Putin always look like he's five second away from snapping someones neck when he's in a photo with Bush?

[Axis Kast]

Even accounting for the Georgian president's alleged personality defects, it still would have been stopped by a clearer communication from the USA about how far it was willing to go.

The U.S. is not always aware of impending strategic blunders, even by close allies.

Consider that Carter was utterly unable to give the Shah of Iran key indications of American support – even though Washington would not have abandoned him had he chosen to utilize his military more aggressively during the final days of his rule.

Sure, we blew a lot of hot air up Saakashvili’s ass about membership in NATO, but I disagree that most new membership really believes the alliance is likely to be invoked on their behalf. Probably, the Georgians anticipated an outcome like the one outlined by Sea Skimmer, with Russian reaction stymied by strong diplomatic notes from the NATO community.

At the end of the day, I have trouble blaming anything Bush said for Georgian behavior. Or Russian.

Couldn't the Russians have landed Naval Infantry on the coast and paratroopers and supported them with a thrust via Abkhazia?

As I understand it, the Russian Navy delivered thousands of troops to Abkhazia. This might not be confirmed, however.

[Lonestar]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't all those peacekeeping missions inside countries torn by civil wars with opposing side consisting of lightly armed rabble? This doesn't seem like something Georgia (or any other candidate for NATO) had in mind.

Yeah, I'm sure it seemed like that to the British and French in Africa, and to the NATO forces pulling the people out of Beirut underfire from Hezboullah and IDF forces.

Those lightly armed rabble! It's simplicity in itself!

Your

[Kane Starkiller]

I didn't say it was simple or easy. But as I understand it none of the forces faced there had significant ground mechanisation or air forces and navy. And I doubt the rebels in africa had significant military training certainly not the tens of thousands of children serving for the Revolutionary front in Sierra Leone.
In the end this is not comparable to taking on a country with any kind of decent military.

[Sea Skimmer]

Couldn't the Russians have landed Naval Infantry on the coast and paratroopers and supported them with a thrust via Abkhazia? They would have met the Georgians in open flat terrain where their massed armour would have the decisive advantage and their air support would be very effective, overrunning most of the country and thereby encircling the Georgian forces in Ossetia in a more theatre-level operational maneouvre and directly threatening Tblisi and, indeed, to overrun the entire country.

I wouldn’t think very highly of Russian amphibious capability, even at the height of the Soviet era they couldn’t lift more then about a regiment in any one fleet. Today the Black Sea Fleet doesn’t even have very many destroyers active (actually it may only have 1); mounting a large amphibious operation would be too risky. Overrunning and occupying all of Georgia meanwhile would require committing as many as 200,000 men, which is beyond the capabilities of the Russian military to deploy quickly. It would mean expecting a major conventional war to last months, and committing to fight for well…. ever, against Georgian partisans. The economic and political repercussions would be massive to say the least, and the modernization of the Russian military would drop into the toilet. Not a very good strategy all and all, I cant think that even Putin would be in favor of it. More likely they’d just occupy the Gerogian sea coast with a purely overland attack, and then trade it back for south Ossetia at the peace table.

In any case, I expect this war will end shortly, and without brewing into an all out conventional war. The occupation of Gori will cut most east-west communications in Georgia and I figure after a short occupation this combined with all the random terror bombings will be judged as punishment enough.

[Saxtonite]

Russia Today has a lot of videos on this now
http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday

[Edi]

The Estonian president made a statement yesterday saying that he thinks the Russian operation in South Ossetia was planned far in advance for precisely a situation like this so that they could move instantly when they got an excuse. I am not as familiar with the disposition of Russian military forces in the region as some others here, but from where I'm standing, he does have a point. A coordinated combined air, sea and land offensive such as we are seeing doesn't happen spontaneously without preparatory activity, unless those preparations were gradually put in place in advance so that everything can get moving as soon as they get a green light.

[His Divine Shadow]

I wonder how all this will affect the NATO movement in Finland, strenghten or weaken?