Russia/Georgia back to war...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by chris lindberg

Report: Russia moved missiles into Georgia



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26248480

Well thats a bit of a hammer, they moved a theatre tactical missile in the SS-21 which carries a 120 kg high explosive warhead with a range of 120 km's that can effectively carry a nuclear warhead.

Russia can threaten pretty much all of Georgia with this baby.

[Caged Great]

If Russia doesn't knock this off soon, this could really escalate into an all out war with the the west, which I don't see Russia winning.....

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

If Russia doesn't knock this off soon, this could really escalate into an all out war with the the west, which I don't see Russia winning.....

The west would enter a war with Russia because of some little country in some godforgotten corner of the Earth? Please. I'd bet that even if Russia attacked American anti-missile system thats being built in Poland (a NATO country), no other country than the US will help Poland to fight off the Russians.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

If Russia doesn't knock this off soon, this could really escalate into an all out war with the the west, which I don't see Russia winning.....

Don't really see this happening, however the American's with major forces in Iraq and Afghanistan really wouldn't be able to open a third theatre without pulling out of one of the others. In terms of naval, an American battle group built around a carrier probably wouldn't have a great deal of trouble with the black sea fleet which is nowhere near as robust as it used to be, and a carrier battle group has a sphere of influence of a thousand miles while a frigate navy (which is a term used around the black sea fleet) has a sphere of influence of 100's of miles. The American's also have a pretty significant advantage in terms of submarine platforms.

But in terms of putting troops on the ground, the American's don't really have the required sea or airlift capability right now to hot shot in armoured and infantry formations into a hot invasion point as the Russians would have lots of warning of this happening and the Georgian's wouldn't be able to delay the Russian's long enough for the American's to establish a beach head.

I can't see the major European military powers (French, Brits) etc wanting to get involved because their logistics train would have to cut right across Russia to be effective.

The only battle that you would see would focus around air strikes and missile strikes, and I doubt Putin would let that stand without a major response against NATO.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The west would enter a war with Russia because of some little country in some godforgotten corner of the Earth? Please. I'd bet that even if Russia attacked American anti-missile system thats being built in Poland (a NATO country), no other country than the US will help Poland to fight off the Russians.

Except under the NATO provinsions, an attack on any NATO allies soil is an attack on all NATO allies soil so they're obligated to come to Poland's defense, or face expulsion from NATO.

Which in the face of a resurgant Russia, you wouldn't want to stand alone.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except under the NATO provinsions, an attack on any NATO allies soil is an attack on all NATO allies soil so they're obligated to come to Poland's defense, or face expulsion from NATO.

Which in the face of a resurgant Russia, you wouldn't want to stand alone.

But who decides how many you send?

Looking at the Afghanistan figures there's no clear correlation between military size and no. of troops sent.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanist...-factsheet.htm (2005 figures)

Also I remember reading that Spain was there on the condition that they didn't have to go to the South.

Spain, though, is mulling an increase to its contribution in Afghanistan -- but still refuses to fight in the dangerous south.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...544189,00.html

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except under the NATO provinsions, an attack on any NATO allies soil is an attack on all NATO allies soil so they're obligated to come to Poland's defense, or face expulsion from NATO.

Which in the face of a resurgant Russia, you wouldn't want to stand alone.

Yes I know that, thank you very much.

The point is, that there is no government in any NATO country (other than the US) that could politically survive a war with Russia. There is so little support in sending troops to fight anywhere in the world, no matter the cause. Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, the sentiment in the west is that "our troops should not be dying to protect fellers on the other side of the planet" and/or "we are not going to fight american wars"

Which would be the case here - fingers will be pointed at Poland - "look you got yourself into this trouble with Russia because you have american anti-missile system built in your country eventhough Russia was against it, so c'est la vie."

Czechoslovakia was left on its own in 1968 against Russia, Hungary was left on its own in 1956 against Russia, Georgia is being left on its own again Russia. NATO or no NATO, the French or Spaniards are not going to die protecting Georgians or Poles.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Bagor

But who decides how many you send?

Looking at the Afghanistan figures there's no clear correlation between military size and no. of troops sent.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanist...-factsheet.htm (2005 figures)

Also I remember reading that Spain was there on the condition that they didn't have to go to the South.



http://www.spiegel.de/international/...544189,00.html

No kidding.

Georgia has had 2000 troops helping out allied forces in Iraq, which is 3rd most I believe (after the US and the UK).

Who's helping them when their country is under attack?

[Calgaryborn]

Now the Ukraine is asking to be part of America's strategic missile defence system. The long term cost for Russia invading Georgia has just gone up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...pe-and-US.html

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Georgia has had 2000 troops helping out allied forces in Iraq, which is 3rd most I believe (after the US and the UK).

Who's helping them when their country is under attack?

That was their gamble. That other countries would pile in. Anyways they're getting well compensated by the US to fight in Iraq.

Which begs the question: Why aren't they in Afghanistan?

Pat Buchanan nails it in this article IMO.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight -- Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.

Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28053

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yes I know that, thank you very much.

The point is, that there is no government in any NATO country (other than the US) that could politically survive a war with Russia. There is so little support in sending troops to fight anywhere in the world, no matter the cause. Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, the sentiment in the west is that "our troops should not be dying to protect fellers on the other side of the planet" and/or "we are not going to fight american wars"

Under the NATO standards thats irrelevant, an attack on a NATO allies soil is an attack on yours, now I don't have the tables of required response, however unless a NATO ally is willing to pull out of NATO and stand alone, then things like support for sending troops over seas are irrelevant. As a nation if a NATO country was attacked, then there are certain units that are expected and pre committed to the Order or battle that NATO expects to field.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Which would be the case here - fingers will be pointed at Poland - "look you got yourself into this trouble with Russia because you have american anti-missile system built in your country eventhough Russia was against it, so c'est la vie."

Thats not relevant unless you as a nation are willing to break the terms of the NATO alliance, which basically amounts to, if your the next on the Russian chopping block then don't expect any help from NATO because you didn't live up to your end of the bargin. In NATO, you can't pick and choose your alliances within NATO, you are there to mutally support all of your allies.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Czechoslovakia was left on its own in 1968 against Russia, Hungary was left on its own in 1956 against Russia, Georgia is being left on its own again Russia. NATO or no NATO, the French or Spaniards are not going to die protecting Georgians or Poles.

What does this have to do with anything, the Czech's and the Hangarians were not NATO allies, they were basically Eastern Block Soviet client states, so it was unlikely that NATO was going to do anything to help them. However look at the amount of firepower that was based in West Germany at the time. If Germany had been attacked then you could bet that the French, Spaniards, Canadians would be expected to show up and support Germany, or any other NATO ally.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The point is, that there is no government in any NATO country (other than the US) that could politically survive a war with Russia.

On Georgia I agree with you. Nobody really cares that much. (Okay, lots of people care about the Georgians, but there's not a lot of love for the Georgian government).

But the theoretical idea of Russia invading Poland would be a completely different matter. It would essentially mean an open declaration of war against EU and NATO, not that much different from attacking say Germany. Poland is one of the biggest and most central countries in Europe. If Russia would attack it, you would HAVE to suspect that they're not going to stop unless stopped by force.

But really, that's so hypothetical that theres not much sense in discussing it. We would have to live in a very different world to see that happen.

I think a better point of conversation could be for example a case of Russia invading Estonia, which isn't that far fetched given the recent heat between those two and the not-so-smart ways that the Estonian government has been handling it. What would NATO do?

Personally I think "NATO standards" are mostly words without substance. The big Russian cyberattack on Estonia didn't even make NATO flinch or say a bad word about Russia, although on paper it was clearly an attack against a NATO country. If Russia invaded Estonia, the political reaction would be huge and propably EU would come up with some sort of economical punishments, but I don't think NATO really would have much to say about that. Nobody wants to fight the Russians unless forced to.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bagor

That was their gamble. That other countries would pile in. Anyways they're getting well compensated by the US to fight in Iraq.

Which begs the question: Why aren't they in Afghanistan?

Pat Buchanan nails it in this article IMO.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28053

Pat is a isolationist. Thats where is coming from here.

While I understand the point he is making, what he misses is IMO Georgia intentionally started this war to force Russia to invade, hoping for a NATO/US response. They didn't get it.

From all accounts, Israel hasn't been doing enough against Hezbollah, including during the Lebanon War. Hezbollah is 3 times as strong now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Itse

Nobody wants to fight the Russians unless forced to.

Especially the EU. I think the US would, if they weren't tied up in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Either way, its all just hearsay. Russia isn't going to invade Poland knowing that there is a good chance that the best combat trained military in the world could possibly fight back.

I think a lot of people aren't realizing that with the way things are going in Iraq right now, there won't be 100,000+ troops there for long.

[chris lindberg]

Russians seize Georgia soldiers

NATO demands Moscow withdraw as Russian troops block port access

Russian forces blocked access to the city's naval and commercial ports on Tuesday morning and towed the missile boat Dioskuria, one of the navy's most sophisticated vessels, out of sight of observers. A loud explosion was heard minutes later.
Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shote Utiashvili said the Russian military blew up the Dioskuria.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26284851

[CaptainCrunch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Navy

There's a nasty comfrontation coming, not in terms of fire power, but in terms of a major diplomatic freeze between Washington and Russia. Could we be seeing the start of a new cold war?

[Bagor]

BBC journalists will do anything for a good story.

BBC's Helen Fawkes at Russian checkpoint where prisoner swap took place

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7570949.stm

[Gugstanley]

I have a bad feeling about this. The west has been pushing Russia's buttons and Russia made their point. Doesn't look like Russia is ready to stop and I doubt the United States is going to laugh about their equipment being stolen.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gugstanley

I have a bad feeling about this. The west has been pushing Russia's buttons and Russia made their point. Doesn't look like Russia is ready to stop and I doubt the United States is going to laugh about their equipment being stolen.

Okay, seriously, what is going to happen?

All out war with Russia? Nuclear war? Proxy war? There won't be Cold War Part 2. Russia isn't even 'close' the economic superpower that the United States is.

Might have worked back in the 50s-60s, but its not going to fly now.

[CaptainCrunch]

But you have to admit that the prospect of a Russia with a better handle on their resources, a much improved economy not under a bumbling command economy, and with aspirations to ascend to world power status is much scarier then.

A Soviet Union with the inability to harness their resources, a economic system that didn't function in the real world or global community, and a army that was built around sheer numbers instead of professional training.

If the Russian's decide to rattle the sabre and test the resolve of the West, and they're not slapped across the face, they will become much bolder down the road.