Yakko77 on August 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM –

Have seen a few reports (nothing in the way of confirmation) that the Georgian Air Force has downed a number of Russian aircraft. That cumbersome Soviet-era doctrinal military is indeed a blunt, though very lethal armed force, but they still rely, for example, heavily on such things as GCI, rather than allow pilots to free roam and select targets from the cockpit, not from a ground station miles and miles away. That GCI link, can make the difference between fixing and downing an engaged target or becoming a successfully engaged target. I say again, I hope that the training afforded the new Georgian armed forces will serve as a force multiplier for them.

Have also seen reports of indiscriminate Russian bombing and artillery barrages as well. Seems to validate your comments and concerns about the Soviets, er, the current Russian military to not take into account precision when it comes to facing down swarthy Caucausians.

Would that one knew which cooler heads were available on both sides at this point in time.

coldwarrior on August 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Soviets = Russians.

Oh well, old dog, new tricks…old habits die hard. CW

coldwarrior on August 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Here we are with a war going on, and the Edwards thread gets 180 posts in an hour. Priorities, people, priorities.

coldwarrior on August 8, 2008 at 4:09 PM

freevillage on August 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM –

I agree. There is a basis for Russian angst vis-a-vis the United States. The Nationalists have been very effective over the years since 1991 in applying this, and with evidence many times to “prove” it. Had we taken the German route, and applied our best resources after 1991 to put more American experienced businessmen and economic and financial wizards at the disposal of Russia, and encouraged investment as well, the current situation in Russia may well have been avoided. The transition from comnmunism to capitalism has not gone well at all, save for a handful of oligarchs, many close to Putin or dependent on the good graces of Putin and the former KGB types who sit in posititions of power all across Russia.

We have effectively turned our backs on the people of Russia, and a natural resources world power house, strengthening Russia’s concerns and “paranoia” that we were never against Communism, but were always against Russia.

So, how best to remedy this? Georgia notwithstanding.

coldwarrior on August 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM

The credibility of the United States, NATO, and the now independent former regions of the former Soviet Union are on the line in the wake of this Russian invasion of Ossetia and Georgia.

Just a short while ago at the Romanian NATO meeting, Georgia’s request to join NATO was approved in principle. No date was set for the formal joining of NATO. While not yet a member of NATO, ignoring Georgia’s present plight by NATO once again demonstrates the overall weakness of the current alliance. This is not the NATO I thought I knew, to play on an Obamaesque phrase. NATO sends forces into Afghanistan, yet precludes most NATO forces from being involved in combat operations, setting a strignent set of rules of engagement, and a few NATO member states in Afghanistan have stood idly by, in the manner of the UN in Srebernica, as Taliban and pro-Taliban elements in Afghanistan carried out attacks at will with no response from NATO troops within range of Taliban attacks. So, why send NATO troops to Afghanistan at all, is a very good question.

As far as the United States is concerned, we have maintained military trainers in Georgia for a few years, and most recently had a contingent of US forces (numbering between 1000 to 1500 in Georgia providing hands on training and exercising to allow for close interoperability between Georgian forces and US forces. We still have about 150 military trainers in Georgia, most military, the rest civilian contactors. The bombings carried out by the Russians seem to have been targetted in part to those military bases in Georgia where US military trainers are stationed. All of our overseas military training missions, from Georgia to Mali and beyond, have been dutifully approved by Congress. They are legal. They are necessary.

The movement of the size of Russian forces sent into Georgia by Russia demonstrate the assault by Russian forces was not an ad hoc response to a flare up, but rather something that has been in the works for a significant period prior to the 7 August movement of Russian forces into Georgia. Thus, one can derive that the Russian movement into Georgia was pre-meditated. From the logisitcs aspect alone, this can be the only conclusion drawn.

As for the other now independent countries that broke away from the former Soviet Union, in their standing idly by, biding their time, demonstrates that they do so at their own peril. The Medvedev/Putin government (ruling oligarchy) are bent on keeping the newly independent nations, the near abroad, firmly in the Russian sphere. Rather than concentrtate on the development of Russia, they intend to maintain the Russian empire. Rathher than consolidate the vast though mostly broken infrastructure within Russia to the benefit of all Russians, Moscow has chosen to look to the common “overseas threat” as being more vital. Insofar as Russia, vis-a-vis those now independent former parts of the Soviet Union, economic inducements will not work, ideologicial inducements are moot, thus, military force, the taking down of an upstart independent nation, Georgia, by force, is apparently enough, in the eyes of the Medvedev/Putin government to show the other states (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, et al) that if they do not tow the line, get in line, stay in line, Russia will make sure, by force, that they do.

Prior to the Helsinki Accords, the Soviet Union maintained that they could define borders and loyalties of subject nations on their terms. They accepted Helsinki. They declared that national borders were inviolate. Now, today, though there is no such Helsinki agreement regarding borders of newly independent states, the Russian government ignores international law, and custom, and has made it clear that borders are mere trifles and they can do whatever they wish, for what ever reasons they come up with, regarding their occupation, invasion, or strong-arm influence over any country that they still consider part of the Russian Empire…their near abroad is their territory in the eyes of the Medvedev/Putin government. The nationlaists in Russia are using this concept of the near abroad being a part of a greater Russia as a means to rally nationalistic Russians, claiming that any “foreign” influence on “their” territories, the near abroad, is an assault on Russia proper. Thus, independence, recognition by the United Nations, recognition by other countries and the world community, of a nation’s independence is meaningless to Russia. The only country that recognizes Ossetian independence is Russia. But, at the same time, Russia handed out Russian passports and identity documents to any and all Ossetians, and have voiced their claim that they are in Georgia to “protect” Russian citizens as well as “protect” Russian peacekeepers. So, are Ossetians independent? Russia recognized their independence. Or are they Russians? You cannoit have it both ways.

Do we let this Russian invasion of Georgia, on a pretext of protecting “independent” Ossetia, an independence not recognized by any other nation other than Russia, stand? If we allow it to stand, if we allow Russia to piecemeal reclaim their former territories under the gun, what does this say about the entire concept of independent free states across the globe? Is independence just a throw-away bumper sticker or is there any real meaning to independence?

Further, if the Russians were merely trying to “protect” their peacekeepers, peacekeepers who were arming and training Ossetian rebels, why then did the Russians carry out bombing raids on Poti, a Georgian port city and oil facility far far removed from the ground conflict in Ossetia? If the Russians are merely trying to “protect” their peacekeepers in Ossetia, why have they armed Ossetians, Ossetians who are operating in the manner of Radivic Karadzic’s “popular” forces in the former Yugoslavia. This goes well beyond “protecting” Russian peacekeepers. Well beyond.

coldwarrior on August 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM