Trouble in South Ossetia escalates

[CaptainChewbacca]

Some reporter on my morning radio was telling folks that its GEORGIAN irregulars that are shooting at American reporters. He was remarkably coherent as he was dodging bullets.

[Darth Hoth]

The Georgian president is on live; he's a piss-poor actor. His part of the press conference is just him bitching that NATO didn't help him.

On CNN, if there was any doubt. I agree his English could be better if he was educated in the US.

Among other things, he accused the West of not caring about Russian crimes of the past few years, such as poisoning Yushchenko (sp?) in the Ukraine. He also compared blaming the Russian invasion of his country on the Georgians to blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts.

[Adrian Laguna]

I think the Russians are pushing it now. I was expecting them to go into Georgia, fuck shit up, then pull back immediately and recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Maybe at a later date they can organize a popular referendum on whether the two provinces want in on the Federation or not. They could even have put it in terms of, "We're not going to occupy Georgia, combat operations are done, we're pulling out, but we are going to recognize two independent States." This occupation thing accomplishes nothing save bad press.

It gets better: he's accusing Russia of using both cluster bombs and weapons of mass destruction. Must've been really, really small ones.

The United States redefined "weapons of mass destruction" to include military grade high explosives. Maybe he's using the American definition?

Some reporter on my morning radio was telling folks that its GEORGIAN irregulars that are shooting at American reporters. He was remarkably coherent as he was dodging bullets.

I must say one thing about American reporters, if nothing else they've got guts. In many other places instead of a reporter and his cameraman in the thick of things dodging bullets you get, "You see those smoke columns and bright flashes waaaay over there?"

[Vympel]

What a fucking tool. The poisoning of Yuschenko? Guess he hasn't heard the news of one of that prick's own inner circle ratting out who really did it - hint: it wasn't the Russians. That's why the investigation into that never went anywhere.

[Phillip Hone]

Is it true that he was claiming that it was actually Russia that was shelling South Ossetia to begin with? Is there any possibility that there's any truth to that, or is it just conspiracy theory nonsense?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What a fucking tool. The poisoning of Yuschenko? Guess he hasn't heard the news of one of that prick's own inner circle ratting out who really did it - hint: it wasn't the Russians. That's why the investigation into that never went anywhere.

Is there a news article to read on that?

[Vympel]

Link

For four years, not a single shred of evidence or arrest has come up in relation to this bullshit poisoning. And now his former campaign manager calls it all a ploy to score political points, and it wasn't dioxin poisoning at all - it's more complicated than that, but clearly this "democracy idol poisoned by evil Russians" was always bunk.

[Vympel]

Batshit crazy warmonger proposes arming Georgia, no prizes for guessing which publication

Are these guys fucking retarded? Arming Georgia with advanced US weaponry is a "practical military response"? That's virtually an act of war, and Russia does have means of reply.

"Hey, Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq? Enjoy your Igla-S MANPADS, RPGs, Kornets, Metis-M1s, and shitloads of other hardcore Russian shit".

Idiots.

The Pain Game
A military response to Russia's aggression?
by Stuart Koehl
08/14/2008 8:15:00 PM


Conventional wisdom has rapidly hardened around the proposition that there is no practical military response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. In fact, if the Georgians were inclined to fight, there is quite a lot they could do militarily, and in a way that would not directly involve U.S. or NATO forces. To understand how this military option would work, some background is required.

Most people have been grossly exaggerating Russian military strength and prowess in this exercise, obviously one long in the planning, and actually involving relatively small forces. By all accounts, the Russian "58th Army" has invaded Georgian territory with about 500 tanks and an equal number of infantry fighting vehicles--the equivalent of roughly two armored divisions. That's pretty small beer, really, but adequate to handle a smaller Georgian army largely dispersed to deal with counter-guerrilla operations.

A close examination of video and photos of the Russian force also reveals top of the line equipment--late model T-80 and T-90 main battle tanks, and BMP-2 IFVs.

"A close examination"? By who, Mr Magoo? The only tanks observed are T-72Bs and T-62s. And the BMP-2 is hardly top of the line anymore. Idiots.

Now, the Caucasus Military District is something of a backwater, home of Category II and Category III divisions, most of which are kept below strength and equipped with older systems, such as the T-72 MBT. On the other hand, the Category I divisions are kept close to Moscow and the western military districts, because that is where the main threat is perceived, and also because that's much better terrain for tank warfare. Obviously, the Russian army carefully transferred the forces for this operation from central Russia all the way to the Caucasus--in secret--and also accompanied the move with a comprehensive maskirovka intended to put us at our ease (e.g., Putin did go to the Olympic opening ceremonies, after all).

From this we can infer what most experts already know--that the Russian army, though still numerically large, has relatively few competent, deployable formations--there are the airborne divisions and the air assault brigades, and a few tank and motor-rifle divisions, but not much else. Similarly, the Russian air force doesn't have very many fully operational aircraft or deep reserves of fuel, spare parts and munitions. This invasion has probably eaten deeply into Russian operations and maintenance funding, to say nothing of its war reserve stockpiles of ordnance and equipment. Russia must have bet on a short and fairly bloodless war, because it cannot afford--militarily or politically--a protracted slog. Not only doesn't it have the equipment to do so, but it doesn't have enough highly trained troops to sustain heavy casualties. The Russian military consists of a small, diamond-hard point on the end of a wooden stick. If the point shatters or wears down, you are left fighting the stick. (It should be noted that Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, has been scathing in his assessment of the Russian army's performance in Georgia, so by Western standards even the best of the Russian army would be considered rather mediocre).

The question is how to wear it down. Georgia is a mountainous country, with few good roads and many choke points. A dismounted guerrilla or light infantry force can hold up a road-bound armored force and inflict disproportionate casualties, if properly equipped and led. Unfortunately, the Georgian Army was neither, in this particular instance. Rather, it was trained and equipped the fight the war it had--an insurgency by separatist guerrillas, requiring mostly infantry and small arms. Confronted by tanks and close support aircraft and helicopters, the Georgian forces had little choice but to run.

Having pulled back from Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Georgians can now regroup and re-equip. They are in desperate need of two things: weapons to kill tanks, and weapons to kill or deter aircraft and helicopters. We can supply both. The Stinger missile, the bane of Russian Frontal Aviation in Afghanistan, is still the most potent shoulder-fired weapon around. It will cause Russian close support aircraft to keep their distance, or to attack from higher altitude. Providing Georgia with medium-range surface-to-air missiles which can be deployed from Georgian territory proper will further push back their high-altitude aircraft (e.g., Tu-22M Backfires).

Freed from aerial observation and the threat of air attack, Georgian forces could move dismounted over the mountains more readily than Russian mechanized forces can move along the roads. Which means that the Georgians would be free to set up ambushes to block further Russian advances and to interdict their lines of communication. We can provide the wherewithal for them to do this. First, we need to give the Georgians anti-tank mines, and not just any kind, but our latest "smart" off-route mines like the XM93 Wide Area Mine (WAM). These don't have to be placed directly on the roads, but can be put off to the side, where built-in sensors can detect armored vehicles and launch explosive formed penetrator (RFP) warheads at them.

Second, we need to give them our best anti-tank guided missile, the FGM-148 Javelin. This is a "fire and forget" weapon: once the operator lines up the target in his sights and locks on, he can fire the missile and get away, while the missile will fly autonomously to the target. With a range of about two kilometers, the Javelin also uses a "top attack" profile, diving down onto the roof of the tank where the armor is thinnest. In action in Operation Iraqi Freedom, javelins were devastating against Russian-designed tanks. Knocking out a few tanks or other armored vehicles on a narrow mountain road creates a barrier to movement behind which all traffic piles up, immobile and vulnerable to attack.

Most of that traffic will consist of trucks and other "soft" vehicles. It's a waste to go after them with expensive missiles, but cheap mortars work pretty well. Even better would be long-range, highly accurate heavy sniper rifles, such as the 12.7mm (.50-caliber) Barrett, much favored by U.S. special forces. Georgian special forces are reputed to be well trained and highly motivated. They would probably be even more motivated fighting Russians on their own soil than they were fighting al Qaeda back in Iraq.

Pretty soon, Russian forces will be taking serious casualties. They will have to inject more troops to protect their lines of communication. They will have to get out of their troop carriers and climb up into the mountains, where they will take more casualties from an agile and elusive enemy. They can't even resort to the time honored tactic of butchering the local population of Ossetia and Abkhazia, since these are now "Russian citizens," having been granted passports by the Russian government (thereby doing Hitler one better: there actually were Germans in the Sudetenland, but Putin had to invent his downtrodden "Russian" minority in Georgia).

As Russian forces start to bleed, it will be impossible, even in the controlled media of Putin's Russia, to hide the casualties from the Russian people. They will probably respond to this as they did to the bloodletting in both Afghanistan and Chechnya. Worse, for the Russian government, a prolonged and bloody war will require a massive increase in the Russian military budget, which has been run on a shoestring for most of the Putin era. That would mean making painful choices between the military and other priorities, precisely at the same time that oil prices have begun to come down, cutting into Russian revenues. In addition, the Russian military will begin to worry about the derailing of its abortive transformation plan: as the U.S. military recently discovered, you can fight a war, or you can transform yourself, but it's almost impossible to do both at once. Warfighting will eat into the already thin training, procurement, and research & development budgets, and soon the Russian staff will be howling, too.

So what will Russia do, in such a circumstance? They could escalate, but they might find more palatable a face-saving withdrawal, turning over Ossetia and Abkhazia to an international peacekeeping force, and leaving Georgian territory free of Russian troops. Georgia would then have to make its own peace with the separatists, but with a buffer between itself and the Russian army, the Georgians may have more leverage over its intransigent minorities.

Two things are needed to make this happen: political will on the part of the U.S. to provide the Georgian army with the necessary equipment and training (our Special Forces already have a close relationship with the Georgian army), and more important, political will on the part of the Georgian government to continue fighting until the Russians are off their soil. Whether the Georgians would want to fight what would certainly prove a long and difficult war is hard to say; it would surely depend in large measure on whether they believe we would stand with them to the end. Guerrilla wars are always messy, and without a sponsor, the guerrillas usually lose. But it is premature and more than a little defeatist to write off the Georgians' chances of bloodying the nose of the resurgent Russian bear.

Stuart Koehl is a frequent contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.

[Anguirus]

no prizes for guessing which publication

Is it bad that I guessed the Wall Street Journal?

[Knife]

You forget, they want the glory days of the cold war, the US and Russia fighting wars of proxy. I don't, I think it is a horrible idea. The last twenty years might have been interesting but it's a sure bit better than the forty before that.

[CaptainChewbacca]

You forget, they want the glory days of the cold war, the US and Russia fighting wars of proxy. I don't, I think it is a horrible idea. The last twenty years might have been interesting but it's a sure bit better than the forty before that.

Yeah, Sean Hannity was talking about smuggling stinger missiles and other goodies to the Georgian military. I wanted to punch him in the neck.

[[R_H]]

You forget, they want the glory days of the cold war, the US and Russia fighting wars of proxy. I don't, I think it is a horrible idea. The last twenty years might have been interesting but it's a sure bit better than the forty before that.

Yeah, Sean Hannity was talking about smuggling stinger missiles and other goodies to the Georgian military. I wanted to punch him in the neck.

What good are Stinger missiles going to do? The Georgians already have MANPADs. All this "OMG send them Stingers and Javelins" just sounds like a bunch of (American) weapons systems wank to me. It's not like the Georgians don't have MANPADs or AT weapons.

[Darth Wong]

Now, the Caucasus Military District is something of a backwater, home of Category II and Category III divisions, most of which are kept below strength and equipped with older systems, such as the T-72 MBT. On the other hand, the Category I divisions are kept close to Moscow and the western military districts, because that is where the main threat is perceived, and also because that's much better terrain for tank warfare. Obviously, the Russian army carefully transferred the forces for this operation from central Russia all the way to the Caucasus--in secret--and also accompanied the move with a comprehensive maskirovka intended to put us at our ease (e.g., Putin did go to the Olympic opening ceremonies, after all).

From this we can infer what most experts already know--that the Russian army, though still numerically large, has relatively few competent, deployable formations--there are the airborne divisions and the air assault brigades, and a few tank and motor-rifle divisions, but not much else. Similarly, the Russian air force doesn't have very many fully operational aircraft or deep reserves of fuel, spare parts and munitions. This invasion has probably eaten deeply into Russian operations and maintenance funding, to say nothing of its war reserve stockpiles of ordnance and equipment. Russia must have bet on a short and fairly bloodless war, because it cannot afford--militarily or politically--a protracted slog. Not only doesn't it have the equipment to do so, but it doesn't have enough highly trained troops to sustain heavy casualties. The Russian military consists of a small, diamond-hard point on the end of a wooden stick. If the point shatters or wears down, you are left fighting the stick. (It should be noted that Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, has been scathing in his assessment of the Russian army's performance in Georgia, so by Western standards even the best of the Russian army would be considered rather mediocre).

I love the way they construct such an elaborate series of conclusions from snippets of video taken by journalists on the ground, in a situation where the US military had almost no good intel. But of course, drawing sweeping grand conclusions from wisps of information is par for the course in warmonger world; it's how they talked themselves into Iraq, after all.

The question is how to wear it down. Georgia is a mountainous country, with few good roads and many choke points. A dismounted guerrilla or light infantry force can hold up a road-bound armored force and inflict disproportionate casualties, if properly equipped and led. Unfortunately, the Georgian Army was neither, in this particular instance. Rather, it was trained and equipped the fight the war it had--an insurgency by separatist guerrillas, requiring mostly infantry and small arms. Confronted by tanks and close support aircraft and helicopters, the Georgian forces had little choice but to run.

Having pulled back from Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Georgians can now regroup and re-equip. They are in desperate need of two things: weapons to kill tanks, and weapons to kill or deter aircraft and helicopters. We can supply both. The Stinger missile, the bane of Russian Frontal Aviation in Afghanistan, is still the most potent shoulder-fired weapon around. It will cause Russian close support aircraft to keep their distance, or to attack from higher altitude. Providing Georgia with medium-range surface-to-air missiles which can be deployed from Georgian territory proper will further push back their high-altitude aircraft (e.g., Tu-22M Backfires).

Does this imbecile not understand that Georgia is not Afghanistan? Its leaders have cities and ports and infrastructural assets to defend, and they already had weapons far superior to those of the Afghan rebels the Americans once supplied. They're trying to defend a nation rather than running a desperate guerilla campaign after losing their nation. They can't just leave their cities to hide in caves and shoot rockets at Russian troops, and a few SAMs are not going to change the strategic balance of power.

Freed from aerial observation and the threat of air attack, Georgian forces could move dismounted over the mountains more readily than Russian mechanized forces can move along the roads. Which means that the Georgians would be free to set up ambushes to block further Russian advances and to interdict their lines of communication. We can provide the wherewithal for them to do this. First, we need to give the Georgians anti-tank mines, and not just any kind, but our latest "smart" off-route mines like the XM93 Wide Area Mine (WAM). These don't have to be placed directly on the roads, but can be put off to the side, where built-in sensors can detect armored vehicles and launch explosive formed penetrator (RFP) warheads at them.

Second, we need to give them our best anti-tank guided missile, the FGM-148 Javelin. This is a "fire and forget" weapon: once the operator lines up the target in his sights and locks on, he can fire the missile and get away, while the missile will fly autonomously to the target. With a range of about two kilometers, the Javelin also uses a "top attack" profile, diving down onto the roof of the tank where the armor is thinnest. In action in Operation Iraqi Freedom, javelins were devastating against Russian-designed tanks. Knocking out a few tanks or other armored vehicles on a narrow mountain road creates a barrier to movement behind which all traffic piles up, immobile and vulnerable to attack.

He really does seem to think it's Afghanistan Redux.

Most of that traffic will consist of trucks and other "soft" vehicles. It's a waste to go after them with expensive missiles, but cheap mortars work pretty well. Even better would be long-range, highly accurate heavy sniper rifles, such as the 12.7mm (.50-caliber) Barrett, much favored by U.S. special forces. Georgian special forces are reputed to be well trained and highly motivated. They would probably be even more motivated fighting Russians on their own soil than they were fighting al Qaeda back in Iraq.

Does he honestly think that the Georgians do not even have mortar technology, never mind artillery? We can make them more powerful by giving them mortars and sniper rifles? He got his ideas from watching Red Dawn, didn't he? What were they shelling the Ossetian capital with? Confetti cannons?

Pretty soon, Russian forces will be taking serious casualties. They will have to inject more troops to protect their lines of communication. They will have to get out of their troop carriers and climb up into the mountains, where they will take more casualties from an agile and elusive enemy. They can't even resort to the time honored tactic of butchering the local population of Ossetia and Abkhazia, since these are now "Russian citizens," having been granted passports by the Russian government (thereby doing Hitler one better: there actually were Germans in the Sudetenland, but Putin had to invent his downtrodden "Russian" minority in Georgia).

As Russian forces start to bleed, it will be impossible, even in the controlled media of Putin's Russia, to hide the casualties from the Russian people. They will probably respond to this as they did to the bloodletting in both Afghanistan and Chechnya. Worse, for the Russian government, a prolonged and bloody war will require a massive increase in the Russian military budget, which has been run on a shoestring for most of the Putin era. That would mean making painful choices between the military and other priorities, precisely at the same time that oil prices have begun to come down, cutting into Russian revenues. In addition, the Russian military will begin to worry about the derailing of its abortive transformation plan: as the U.S. military recently discovered, you can fight a war, or you can transform yourself, but it's almost impossible to do both at once. Warfighting will eat into the already thin training, procurement, and research & development budgets, and soon the Russian staff will be howling, too.

Wait, does this guy think that the conflict is a guerilla campaign against Russia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Does he not understand that the people in South Ossetia want to be Russian, and that the Russians' opposition is actually Georgia, which is a real nation with territory and infrastructure to worry about?

So what will Russia do, in such a circumstance? They could escalate, but they might find more palatable a face-saving withdrawal, turning over Ossetia and Abkhazia to an international peacekeeping force, and leaving Georgian territory free of Russian troops. Georgia would then have to make its own peace with the separatists, but with a buffer between itself and the Russian army, the Georgians may have more leverage over its intransigent minorities.

So he figures that, given an Ossetian population which wants to be Russian, things will go more smoothly if a hostile nation which wants to forcibly assimilate them against their will is allowed to run things? What an idiot.

Two things are needed to make this happen: political will on the part of the U.S. to provide the Georgian army with the necessary equipment and training (our Special Forces already have a close relationship with the Georgian army), and more important, political will on the part of the Georgian government to continue fighting until the Russians are off their soil. Whether the Georgians would want to fight what would certainly prove a long and difficult war is hard to say; it would surely depend in large measure on whether they believe we would stand with them to the end. Guerrilla wars are always messy, and without a sponsor, the guerrillas usually lose. But it is premature and more than a little defeatist to write off the Georgians' chances of bloodying the nose of the resurgent Russian bear.

It's amazing how unimaginative these guys are. He couldn't even bother trying to make it look like he was doing anything other than writing a hindsight article about Afghanistan but replacing “Afghan” with “Georgian”.

Stuart Koehl is a frequent contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.

It's sad that people can write such tripe and be taken seriously by anyone but their own mothers.

[Omeros]

I thought you might all enjoy Honest Misha’s take on the start of the war and the actions of the Evil Russkies. I’ve highlighted his wishful thinking and foolishness for easy reference.

Read it here

Russia's invasion of Georgia strikes at the heart of western values and our 21st-century system of security. If the international community allows Russia to crush our democratic, independent state, it will be giving carte blanche to authoritarian governments everywhere. Russia intends to destroy not just a country, but an idea.

For too long we underestimated the ruthlessness of the regime in Moscow. Within 24 hours of agreeing to a ceasefire, Russia's forces were rampaging through Gori; blocking the port of Poti; sinking Georgian vessels; and - worst of all - brutally purging Georgian villages in South Ossetia. The Russian leadership cannot be trusted - and this hard reality should guide the west's response. Only western peacekeepers can end the war.

Russia also seeks to destroy our economy and is bombing factories, ports and other vital sites. Accordingly, we need to establish a modern version of the Berlin airlift. The United Nations, the US, Canada and others are moving in this direction, for which we are deeply grateful.
As we consider what to do next, understanding Moscow's goals is critical. It aims to satisfy its imperialist ambitions, to erase one of the few democratic, law-governed states in its vicinity - and, above all, to demolish the post-cold war system of international relations in Europe. It is showing that it can do as it pleases.

The historical parallels are stark: Russia's war on Georgia echoes events in Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Perhaps this is why so many eastern European countries, which suffered under Soviet occupation, have voiced their support for us. Russia's leaders see us as a threat because Georgia is a free country whose people have elected to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic community. But Russia's rulers do not want their nation or its borders contaminated by democratic ideas.

Since our democratic government came to power after the 2003 Rose revolution, Russia has used economic embargoes and closed borders to isolate us, and has illegally deported thousands of Georgians. It has tried to destabilise us politically with the help of criminal oligarchs. It has tried to freeze us into submission by blowing up vital gas pipelines in midwinter. When all that failed to shake the Georgian people's resolve, Russia invaded.

Last week Russia, using its separatist proxies, attacked several peaceful, Georgian-controlled villages in South Ossetia. On August 6, just hours after a senior Georgian official travelled to South Ossetia to attempt negotiations, a massive assault was launched on Georgian settlements. Even as we came under attack, I declared a unilateral ceasefire in the hope of avoiding escalation, and announced our willingness to talk to the separatists by any means.

But we then learned that columns of Russian tanks and troops had crossed Georgia's sovereign borders. The thousands of troops, tanks and artillery massed on our border are evidence of how long Russia had been planning this aggression. Our government had no choice but to protect the country from invasion, secure our citizens and stop the bloodshed.

For years Georgia has been proposing 21st-century, European solutions for South Ossetia, including full autonomy guaranteed by the international community. Russia has responded with crude, 19th-century methods.
It is true that Russian power could overwhelm our small country – though even we did not anticipate the ferocity and scale of Moscow's response. However, we had to try to protect our people: any democratic country would have done the same.

Facing this brutal invading army, our government decided to withdraw from South Ossetia, declare a ceasefire and seek negotiations. However repeated attempts to contact senior Russian leaders were rebuffed. Russia's foreign ministry even denied receiving our notice of ceasefire hours after it was officially - and very publicly - delivered. This was just one of many cynical ploys to deceive the world and justify further attacks.

This war threatens not only Georgia but security and liberty around the world. If the international community fails to take a resolute stand, it will sound the death knell for the spread of freedom and democracy everywhere. Georgia's only fault in this crisis is its wish to be an independent, free and democratic country. What would western nations do if they were punished for the same aspiration?

I have staked my country's fate on the west's rhetoric about democracy and liberty. As Georgians come under attack, we must ask: if the west is not with us, who is it with? If the line is not drawn now, when will it be drawn? We cannot allow Georgia to become the first victim of a new world order as imagined by Moscow.

[Darth Wong]

Glenn Beck is now acting as Saakashvilli's mouthpiece. Pathetic.

Commentary: Russian bombs' message is 'this is for America'
By Glenn Beck
CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."

These were the phrases that the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvilli, told me were on Russian bombs falling before, during and after the numerous cease-fires that have come and gone since the Georgian-Russian conflict began.

He went on to say that he believed the Russians were not fighting a war with Georgia; in reality, they were fighting a war against the idea of Georgia, the governing principles behind it.

To have a flourishing democracy in a neighboring country is seen as a threat. It is a stark contrast from Russia's brand of state-controlled pseudo-capitalism. The Russians, he said, "want to kill the idea of freedom, and by proxy they imagine they fight a war with the United States."

Although the name Georgia is familiar to the United States, the country isn't. Most Americans don't know its remarkable story. The first time I spoke to Saakashvilli a few months earlier, it was under much more pleasant circumstances. I found him to be a young, energetic and well-spoken reformer who in many ways understands our founding fathers better than most Americans.

He spoke to me about his vision for Georgia, the vision that transformed it from a failed state to a burgeoning democracy with a quickly growing economy.

He said, "the government is going to help you in the best way possible, by doing nothing for you, by getting out of your way. Well, I exaggerate, but you understand. Of course we will provide you with infrastructure and help by getting rid of corruption, but you have all succeeded by your own initiative and enterprise, so you should congratulate yourselves."

Saakashvilli turned one of the most crooked nations on the planet into a place where people want to do business. His way of dealing with Georgia's incredibly corrupt police was amazing. No talk, just action.

"The first thing we did a few years ago when I became president: We fired the entire police force of the country." That's right, about 40,000 officers were fired, by his count. New recruits were brought in, and he told me that the public confidence in the police skyrocketed from 5 percent to 70 percent.

The notion that Saakashvilli believes in the ideas that formed our country isn't a surprise. He attended Columbia University Law School and studied our founding fathers, becoming determined to give the people of Georgia the same opportunities and freedoms that we take for granted here.

Imagine a nation with ideals forged in the traditions of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Monroe, sitting in what once was the Soviet Union. Now imagine how much that might be appreciated by ex-KGB agents like Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister.

When I spent a half an hour with Saakashvilli on my show this week, his mood was much different than in our earlier conversation. I told him that if Americans knew the story of Georgia, they would realize how important it was. I asked him to speak directly to America, tell us what is really happening and why we should care.

He said, "when the Soviet Union collapsed, when the Cold War was over, when I went to study in the U.S. and finally I realized my dream, I never thought that this evil would come back again. I never thought the KGB people would again try to run the world. And that's exactly what's happening now. What`s at stake here is America's -- America's ideals. If it will collapse in Georgia, it will collapse in other countries and in other places as well."

Luckily for Georgia, the world has generally aligned against Russia's aggression. Whether there are any teeth behind the talk is still unknown. Saakashvilli expressed gratitude for the supportive comments made by President Bush and both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

Even the United Nations issued a statement to express "serious concerns at the escalation of violence." Incredibly, that didn't seem to stop Russia. Who would have thought? If things get worse, I'll expect the U.N. to issue a harshly worded letter, a disapproving glare and maybe even a mildly annoyed "tsk tsk."

It's hard to know for sure what is really behind this conflict. Analysts have theories; citizens have sides. But even if you look past the 'he said, she said," in the end, it still goes back to a war being fought over ideals.

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan led the effort to bring down the Soviet Union, partly by spending them into oblivion. We had the resources, we unleashed our economy, and we won (at least temporarily). We won by using the same principles that Saakashvilli talked to me about.

But he wasn't the only one watching and learning. Russia learned as well, and they now appear to be doing the same things that we did to them back in the '80's. Unless we wise up, we risk seeing the same result. We taught them this game. We can't allow it to be used against us.

The long-term solution is to make ourselves stronger and more self-sufficient so that when these problems arise, we can't be held hostage. We need to become energy independent and financially solvent. But in the short term? I'm just glad I'm not president so I don't have to make these decisions. (Yes, I know you are, too.)

For now, we have to do what we can to strongly support Georgia, start to get our own ship in order, and take seriously the messages sent by the bombings.

"This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."

He doesn't even pretend to be even-handed here, but that's nothing new for Beck.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Wait, isn't RUSSIA a democratic country, too?

[Glocksman]

My local paper has a slightly more 'balanced' editorial.

Linky

Russia was ready
The Issue: It was spoiling for a fight. Our View: Invasion is dragging Europe in wrong direction.

The bullying and wholly disproportionate Russian response against Georgia seems aimed as much at the United States and Western Europe as protecting the rights of ethnic Russians in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

And Moscow is clearly counting on the Baltic republics and Ukraine to pay attention to the fate of Georgia.

Whatever Georgia's provocation — and these territorial and ethnic disputes are both complicated and ancient — Russia was clearly spoiling for a fight, and the size and speed of the incursions by air, armor and naval power indicate that this brutal attempt to humble and cow a small, pro-Western, democratic nation had been in the planning for some time.

Russian assertiveness has become increasingly unsettling. It was needlessly belligerent over Kosovo and a proposed NATO missile defense system. Critics of the Kremlin, including journalists, have been assassinated both in and out of Russia. The increasingly rapacious regime has made investment risky for Westerners and their Russian partners.

Former Russian President and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has nurtured a national nostalgia for the less savory aspects of the old Soviet system.

The ideal situation would be for the ceasefire to hold, a pull-back by the Russians, talks between Tbilisi and Moscow on a long-term settlement, and perhaps international peacekeepers similar to what worked in the Balkans.

But Putin's Russia may be like the Red Army of old in Eastern Europe: Once they're in, they're in, and they're not inclined to get out.

Militarily, there's not much the West could do about it, but it doesn't mean the European Union and the United States have to accept it.

Out of undue sensitivity to Moscow's sense of being aggrieved, Russia has been given positions in organizations such as the G-8 disproportionate to its actual place in the world economy.

This deference should be an early casualty of Georgia. The threat of detaching Russia from the world banking system would certainly give Russians pause, because they don't trust their own banks and government with their money. Long-term, Europe should make it a priority to reduce its exposure to Russian energy blackmail.

Russia's invasion — for that is surely what it is — of Georgia is dragging Europe and Russia in a direction they really don't want to go.

Notice how the author handwaves away the reason why the Russians attacked?
The unnamed author sounds like a neocon pining away for the days when the USSR was the enemy.

My response in the comments was 'Who wrote this tripe?'.

[Darth Wong]

Wait, isn't RUSSIA a democratic country, too?

Technically yes, although there are questions about how legitimate this democracy is. But "democracy" is not necessarily a synonym for "righteous". And in Beck's article, it's so badly one-sided that he doesn't even mention the existence of a place called Ossetia. To him, it's just part of Georgia, and Russia was unlawfully invading sovereign Georgian territory and oppressing its freedom-loving America wannabe citizens the moment they put a single soldier into South Ossetia.

In fact, I see that a lot. The really one-sided discussions of this subject never even mention South Ossetia at all. And frankly, while I like Jon Stewart, I must say that The Daily Show has been just as bad as everyone else in the media for largely parroting Georgia's claims, even though its president has repeatedly proven himself to be an inveterate liar. It's too bad, because they're usually the only ones in the American media who are willing to cry "bullshit".

[Keevan_Colton]

Of particular interest is that there's also a North Ossetia that's part of Russia already...might be that the two have more in common than South Ossetia and Georgia.

[[R_H]]

Of particular interest is that there's also a North Ossetia that's part of Russia already...might be that the two have more in common than South Ossetia and Georgia.

Didn't someone mention a few pages back that one/the reason South Ossetians could obtain Russian citizenship was to make it easier for them to visit relatives in North Ossetia?

[Admiral Valdemar]

The White House is calling for the Russians to pull out. Where's the "or else" and what would that be? I very much doubt Putin and Medvedev like threats, especially toothless ones.

[Darth Wong]

The White House is calling for the Russians to pull out. Where's the "or else" and what would that be? I very much doubt Putin and Medvedev like threats, especially toothless ones.

Where are all of the USA-wankers who keep saying that the UN is useless and should be disbanded because it makes empty declarations when someone does something they don't like? I guess that by their logic, the USA is now useless and should be disbanded

[CaptainChewbacca]

Honestly, I think the American media is far more upset about this than the american government.

[Adrian Laguna]

Honestly, I think the American media is far more upset about this than the american government.

I strongly suspect it sells papers.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Reporter gets shot while broadcasting

Its only a graze, and surprisingly little blood.