A Shot Across Nato's Bows - Russian tanks enter Georgia - Georgians enter South Ossetia - all out war?

riadach wrote:

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1651.cfm

This article is a few years old, but it seems Mother Russia has a lot to fear from unilateral secessionism in the near future. Perhaps she shouldn't be setting standards that will to be her detriment in 30 years time.

That's interesting Riadach. Russian population levels and life expectancy took a dive after the end of the USSR and the introduction of the free market. The question is I suppose will they overrely on their primary resources for revenue, or will they rejuvenate their industry?

That edge between China and Russia has been twitchy for a very long time.

Indeed, as the article says, China teaches its children that the far east of Russia was stolen from them.

If I remember rightly, war games were played between Russia and China recently, which may signify a thawing in relations. And of course, as the article says, Russia provides China with military hardware, though nothing top of the range.

The Admin in Russia are a clever enough bunch these days. It must be plain to them that they are not the power they were 30 years ago and although they have land and resources they have many problems. For Russia to increase its influence in the future and for it to become a powerful modern country it desperately needs to reassess its position and allegiances. Though it can block the USA here and there ultimately it is decidedly less powerful than either China or the USA. (Apart from its nuclear stockpile)

https://i.servimg.com/u/f41/12/11/69/12/percen12.jpg

This is a very interesting graph from the Ard Taoiseach's graph thread.
It would suggest that China and India have immense potential for growth.

Unless Putin can perform a ceaucescuesque (or ceaucesque?) program to promote having children, or a maoist cultural revolution, things are only going to get worse. The birthrate in Russia is appauling, and will undermine any delusions of Russia superpowerdom.

youngdan wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4509692.ece

This should end the disagreement on whether the Russians nabbed the town or whether the Georgians still held it

*Sigh* That says the Georgians abandoned the town, which no one disputes. It doesn't say the Russians captured the town.

It seems that they're there now, dismantling Georgian military bases.

This gives a bit an idea of the differential.

In what way is Russia not the most powerfull nation on Earth. It has the biggest and most powerfull nuclear force by far. It has tons of money and tons of gold. It has Europe over a barrell.

Conventional forces mean nothing because a 50000 dollar missile can knock out a 5 million dollar tank. The entire US Navy is not worth a rats-ass against the Sunburn Missile.

905 wrote:

To carry on our 'Russia's trying to take over the World' theme, here's an interesting report from Al Jazeera. I go to to them for a little colour on occassion and because I like their site. Russian 'annexation' angers Georgia

Those pesky Russians have been supporting de facto authorites in Georgia's breakaway regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia, prompting allegations of de facto annexation of the troublesome provinces.
(Map from BBC's report here)

Both regions broke away from Georgia in the nineties but are still claimed by Tbilisi. What has changed since then? Well, Russia claimed that if Kosovo was recognised internationally it would respond in like manner (but setting a dangerous precedent for Chechnya). Also Nato has recently agreed to allow Georgia to join up at some point, furthering the encroachment of Nato on Russia's old stoping ground.

In Russia's defence, the precedence was set in Kossovo. De facto situations always have to be taken into account, even by Georgia. Unlike Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not recognised de jure anywhere (yet). Nato and Europe's response (Solana is 'concerned') seem a bit hypocritical.

This is interesting (to me anyway) because it's one of these 'flash-points', along which World War Three is always expected to break out. Nato borders Russia along the Baltic countries too, but her grip there was always weaker than in deep Caucasia, where the bear still jealously guards her (former) domain.

Btw 905 - very well spotted.

Jesus Christ the Russian GDP is tiny. Is that graph Kosher?

riadach wrote:

Unless Putin can perform a ceaucescuesque (or ceaucesque?) program to promote having children, or a maoist cultural revolution, things are only going to get worse. The birthrate in Russia is appauling, and will undermine any delusions of Russia superpowerdom.

The birth rate in Russia will only increase when the economic conditions improve. It is a hard life if you are poor in Russia.

youngdan wrote:

In what way is Russia not the most powerfull nation on Earth. It has the biggest and most powerfull nuclear force by far. It has tons of money and tons of gold. It has Europe over a barrell.

Conventional forces mean nothing because a 50000 dollar missile can knock out a 5 million dollar tank. The entire US Navy is not worth a rats-ass against the Sunburn Missile.

But its manpower/economy/production capability is very much reduced by its dwindling population. You can only maintain as much territory as you can physically hold. This could mean erosion at the edges.

Squire wrote:

riadach wrote:

Unless Putin can perform a ceaucescuesque (or ceaucesque?) program to promote having children, or a maoist cultural revolution, things are only going to get worse. The birthrate in Russia is appauling, and will undermine any delusions of Russia superpowerdom.

The birth rate in Russia will only increase when the economic conditions improve. It is a hard life if you are poor in Russia.

That depends. I'm not sure of the sociological understanding of Russia's situation since it is a deteriorating economic powerhouse, or an economic powerhouse that has deteriorated, but most countries birthrates decrease with economic success, not the other way around.

Grow up 905. Everyone and their mother knew days ago that the Russians had the town and you are still waffling childish gibberish. No matter what the reality is you can not admit that you were in a dreamworld of your own.

That's enough dan.

Naughty step for you!

youngdan wrote:

Grow up 905. Everyone and their mother knew days ago that the Russians had the town and you are still waffling childish gibberish. No matter what the reality is you can not admit that you were in a dreamworld of your own.

Back that up with a single report. No report says the Russians entered the town.

cactus flower wrote:

This gives a bit an idea of the differential.

Things have changed a heck of a lot since 2005 -

Oil cost 70 dollars a barrell

We were the 2nd richest country on earth - growing at 6%+ a year building 90000 houses a year

Things have changed utterly

The Wests asset value has collapsed - Oil has been wholesaling for 120+ a barrel - China and the Petrol economies have been on meteoric rise with all the cash flowing one way.

Talk about out of date

cactus flower wrote:

905 wrote:

To carry on our 'Russia's trying to take over the World' theme, here's an interesting report from Al Jazeera. I go to to them for a little colour on occassion and because I like their site. Russian 'annexation' angers Georgia

Those pesky Russians have been supporting de facto authorites in Georgia's breakaway regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia, prompting allegations of de facto annexation of the troublesome provinces.
(Map from BBC's report here)

Both regions broke away from Georgia in the nineties but are still claimed by Tbilisi. What has changed since then? Well, Russia claimed that if Kosovo was recognised internationally it would respond in like manner (but setting a dangerous precedent for Chechnya). Also Nato has recently agreed to allow Georgia to join up at some point, furthering the encroachment of Nato on Russia's old stoping ground.

In Russia's defence, the precedence was set in Kossovo. De facto situations always have to be taken into account, even by Georgia. Unlike Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not recognised de jure anywhere (yet). Nato and Europe's response (Solana is 'concerned') seem a bit hypocritical.

This is interesting (to me anyway) because it's one of these 'flash-points', along which World War Three is always expected to break out. Nato borders Russia along the Baltic countries too, but her grip there was always weaker than in deep Caucasia, where the bear still jealously guards her (former) domain.

Btw 905 - very well spotted.

It was just an interesting report, a little off track I thought. I had no idea it would break out so violently and so soon. And my money was on Abkhazia.

youngdan wrote:

In what way is Russia not the most powerfull nation on Earth. It has the biggest and most powerfull nuclear force by far. It has tons of money and tons of gold. It has Europe over a barrell.

Conventional forces mean nothing because a 50000 dollar missile can knock out a 5 million dollar tank. The entire US Navy is not worth a rats-ass against the Sunburn Missile.

It's not what you've got, it's your willingness to use it.

Russia whacked Georgia, not giving a sh1te what the US or NATO thought or did about it. On the other hand nobody would come to Georgia's assistance because they feared pissing off the Russians.

The world got a lot more dangerous this week.

Even so, unless Russian GDP has increased ten fold since, comparing populations and former superpower status, they are no where near where they should be in relation to U.S. GDP.

I can only take so much. 905 is obviously trolling. To suggest that the Georgians were just nice guys and gave the town to the Russians has destroyed watever credibility 905 ever had when it comes to discussing serious matters.

I was looking for a nuclear weapons graph and I found this one. Although the question was a bit of a no brainer.

It's getting harder for the US to intervene.

riadach wrote:

That depends. I'm not sure of the sociological understanding of Russia's situation since it is a deteriorating economic powerhouse, or an economic powerhouse that has deteriorated, but most countries birthrates decrease with economic success, not the other way around.

IMO Russia is the exception. In India etc. a large family helps do the work in Russia they are hard to feed and cloth and freeze to death in winter. Also I think there is a fatalistic streak that runs through Russian culture. Young Russians just want to leave the country and who can blame them. There is no work, no real opportunities and the Russian Mafia are a very real problem if you are considering doing business there.

The country needs a vast injection of investment, rural and small town Russia is bleak in the extreme. This is a country that you can definitely get lost in. Where would you start!! Just repairing the roads and tracks is a vast undertaking.

The country lacks purpose and self esteme. Boris Yeltsin was a disaster, but Putin has stopped the root and from a Russian perspective has been a good leader. I think they are turning the corner.

youngdan wrote:

I can only take so much. 905 is obviously trolling. To suggest that the Georgians were just nice guys and gave the town to the Russians has destroyed watever credibility 905 ever had when it comes to discussing serious matters.

They abandoned the town. The Russians decided not to go into the town. The Georgians then said the Russians captured the town, something they later admitted was wrong. Point out whwere I'm wrong instead of making allegations.

youngdan wrote:

I can only take so much. 905 is obviously trolling. To suggest that the Georgians were just nice guys and gave the town to the Russians has destroyed watever credibility 905 ever had when it comes to discussing serious matters.

Sorry youngdan, 905 is very likely right on that. Gori seems to be a very small town with a large military base close to South Ossetia. The Georgians did a runner as they expected the Russians to arrive. This happened after the Georgians had flattened the South Ossetian capital.