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

Europe in 1912


There you go - shrunk - Audi

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/ward_1912/europe_1910.jpg

Maps like that remind me of school and history lessons. Tales of Empires and neutral Turkey and Belgium.

If you add 'the sick man of Europe' it provides an interesting view of what is Europe. For myself I tend to consider the natural sphere of influence as the Roman world plus northern and eastern Europe.

If anyone knows how to shrink that map I would appreciate it.

Russia had its empire and the Bolsheviks reluctantly ceded a large eastern part of it after Brest Litovsk. They were invaded by about 12 different forces east and west. They then re-established influence and control in Eastern Europe and were invaded again in WWII with the loss of millions of lives. Of the 72 million who died in WWII, 27 million were Russian, mainly civilian, and 20 million Chinese people died. This compares with the US and UK with less than half a million deaths each. Germany and Poland each lost about 5 million people.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:TlY-mslc08IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties+World+War+II+Russians+millions+died&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie

In my view Russia has primarily got a defensive position; its nuclear weapons were developed as a response to US development and deployment of nuclear weapons.
It resists encroachment around its borders. It does not have a world wide presence of military bases like the US and is not fighting multi-theatre wars to protect its interests like the US.

Historically, it has been thrashed, but not beaten.

The biggest threat to it is the proposed anti-ballistic missile shield - both China and the US are developing one. It can't be done secretly as these things have to be tested. The reason for the Treaty to stop development of ABM shields was that they again open up the prospect of leaders thinking they can hide behind a shield whilst carrying out a nuclear first strike.

The other threats are fomentation of Islamic insurgency by the US and the economic hobbling of the region by the WTO/IMF.

cactus flower wrote:

In my view Russia has primarily got a defensive position; its nuclear weapons were developed as a response to US development and deployment of nuclear weapons.

The development of the Cold War was mutually defensive in nature. Issues have changed since the collapse of the USSR but the development of the arsenal which exists today was mutually defensive both for NATO and for the USSR.

My edit crossed with your post, johnfás.

Hmmm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/georgia.russia1
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm

I could believe that, 2,000 in 5 days did seem rather steep given the extent of the fighting which was not huge in comparison to other such conflicts.

johnfás wrote:

I could believe that, 2,000 in 5 days did seem rather steep given the extent of the fighting which was not huge in comparison to other such conflicts.

Indeed, the entire war between Israel and the Lebanon only produced 1200 civilian casualties, despite being an equally if not more vigourous conflict than the Georgian intrusion into Ossetia, and lasting four weeks.

Not to mention that the figures were produced by the Ossetian president overnight. I'm not sure that 2000 people can be counted in one night.

Well you could estimate and it is certainly feesible to have such large casualties in a short period. Obviously it occurred in the fire bombing and atomic bombs in WW2 as well as trenches in WW1 as well as hundred of other examples.

However, I find it difficult to believe that the casualties were so high in this particular situation and type of conflict. They of course killed 8,000 in srebrenica in two weeks but that was far more systematic than this situation.

johnfás wrote:

Well you could estimate and it is certainly feesible to have such large casualties in a short period. Obviously it occurred in the fire bombing and atomic bombs in WW2 as well as trenches in WW1 as well as hundred of other examples.

However, I find it difficult to believe that the casualties were so high in this particular situation and type of conflict. They of course killed 8,000 in srebrenica in two weeks but that was far more systematic than this situation.

I agree. It would be difficult to round up the entire male population in one night, especially when one is also fighting for control of the town. As you have said, the other conflicts are not comparable, as it did not involve, for the most part, involve direct hand to hand conflict in an open plain, but intensive grad rocket-based aerial bombardment.

Does it matter if it were 2000 or 200? It is slaughter of the innocent and undefended.

I can certainly envisage circumstances where large numbers of civilians are killed. It depends where the shells fell and if the purpose was indeed ethnic cleansing and shoot everything that moves. A lot of people died in Rhonda in a relatively short period of time and the weapons were not sophisticated.

Squire wrote:

Does it matter if it were 2000 or 200? It is slaughter of the innocent and undefended.

I can certainly envisage circumstances where large numbers of civilians are killed. It depends where the shells fell and if the purpose was indeed ethnic cleansing and shoot everything that moves. A lot of people died in Rhonda in a relatively short period of time and the weapons were not sophisticated.

Unfortunately there is no evidence to suggest that that was the case. The main reason why it matters if it was 200 or 2000 is the reason you mentioned above. A high casuality rate implies it was done in purpose and this was indeed ethnic cleansing, providing Russia with a solid casus belli. The Russian case for war, judging by this evidence, had been gravely undermined, and their propaganda based figure of 2000 is enough to indicate they were warmongering.

Be it 200 or 2000 Russia has a responsibility in that territory.

After the initial anti Russian spiel it now seems clear that the Georgian forces launched an attack. What we need to ascertain is why Georgia attacked and who ordered it. On face value it seems utterly stupid though Cactus Flower did suggest several plausible motives. Once we have that a bit more clearly we can start to unravel this.

I dare say we will soon have some more accurate totals for the causalities.

riadach wrote:

Squire wrote:

Does it matter if it were 2000 or 200? It is slaughter of the innocent and undefended.

I can certainly envisage circumstances where large numbers of civilians are killed. It depends where the shells fell and if the purpose was indeed ethnic cleansing and shoot everything that moves. A lot of people died in Rhonda in a relatively short period of time and the weapons were not sophisticated.

Unfortunately there is no evidence to suggest that that was the case. The main reason why it matters if it was 200 or 2000 is the reason you mentioned above. A high casuality rate implies it was done in purpose and this was indeed ethnic cleansing, providing Russia with a solid casus belli. The Russian case for war, judging by this evidence, had been gravely undermined, and their propaganda based figure of 2000 is enough to indicate they were warmongering.

Your links were very good Riadach. I'm not sure who Human Rights Watch are, but what they are saying about Tskhinvali is completely consistent with footage shown at the time on "Russia Today". On 6th of August without warning there was a massive Georgian rocket and shell attack on the South Ossetian capital which has left it virtually demolished. People took refuge in basements and there were certainly some civilian casualties and more military casualties. There was film of women's bodies with their heads and legs blown off. There was a state of panic, understandably and stories of grenades being thrown into cellars by the Georgians and also of flooding of cellars where people were taking refuge. This was all before the Russians sent their additional troops in. Until then the Russian troops there were the normal peacekeeping force by agreement under the 1992 Treaty with Georgia. The Russians were showing these photographs with the word GENOCIDE on top, and put out a figures of hundreds and then 1,600 for the numbers dead. It could well be that this turns out to be far too high I figure (I hope it is), but it seems premature on the basis of the scanty information available.

The main Georgian military base from which the attack on South Ossetia was launched was at Gori. The Russian force bombed the base and also hit civilian areas in Gori. I read a number of reputable western sources that confirmed that the Russian attack on Gori was aimed at the base not the town itself.

The report on your link about civilians killed in Gori on 12 August does not confirm who fired the rocket. The report says that the Georgians and the Russians have the same munitions. The Georgians had withdrawn from the town - I'm not sure if the Russians had moved in by the 12th - 905 might be able to confirm.

I am not a supporter of Putin and the Russian government, but I think that trying to keep some kind of grip on the reality of what is happening is kept. As you point out, propoganda, whether from Russia or Georgia, is used to whip people up and to provide justification for cruel, cynical and self serving geopolitical moves.

Far from being good at propoganda, I think the Russians have been completely outflanked by the Georgians in the word war. They have released very few photographs of the capital, which all observers say is devastated. They seem far more worried about selling the story to their own population than winning a propoganda war with Georgia and the west.

Quote :

Attacks in Tskhinvali

When Human Rights Watch entered Tskhinvali on August 13, the city was largely deserted. Human Rights Watch researchers saw numerous apartment buildings and houses damaged by shelling. Some of them had been hit by rockets most likely fired from Grad launchers, weapons that should not be used in areas populated by civilians, as they cannot be directed at only military targets and are therefore inherently indiscriminate. Also, Human Rights Watch saw several buildings that bore traces of heavy ammunition as if fired from tanks at close range. There was some evidence of firing being directed into basements, locations where civilians frequently choose as a place of shelter.

Since Georgian and Russian forces use identical Soviet-era weapons systems including main battle tanks, Grad multiple-launch rockets, BMP infantry fighting vehicles and tube artillery, Human Rights Watch cannot definitely attribute specific battle damage to a particular belligerent, but witness accounts and the timing of the damage would point to Georgian fire accounting for much of the damage described below.

Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed about 30 individuals, including civilians who had remained in the city during the entire period of the fighting, a few civilians who had just returned to check on the state of their homes, and several members of South Ossetian forces.

One man identified only as Giorgi took Human Rights Watch researchers to his apartment building at 50 Luzhkov Street, which he explained suffered severe damage during fighting that took place between Georgian and South Ossetian forces from August 7 to10. He told them:

“They had no pity for civilians. When the fighting started, everyone who remained in the building rushed to the basement. We stayed there for the next two days, unable to step outside because the shelling was so heavy. On August 9, a BMP [infantry fighting vehicle] fired right into the basement, leaving a gaping hole in the wall. The noise was deafening and debris was flying all over the place. My neighbor’s elderly father-in-law was so scared that he started running away, slipped and broke his legs. No one was killed because everyone was in the adjacent room.”

Human Rights Watch saw the hole in the wall, and learned that those in the basement survived only because they were in an adjacent room.

Giorgi also showed Human Rights Watch a completely destroyed building nearby and explained that when the building was hit by a Grad rocket, six of the tenants, four women and two men, (all ethnic Azeris) were thrown from the window by the blast wave and fell to the ground. They suffered severe concussions and multiple bruises, but managed to crawl into the basement and hide there. They were hiding in the basement until August 10, with the neighbors taking care of them.

Squire wrote:

Be it 200 or 2000 Russia has a responsibility in that territory.

After the initial anti Russian spiel it now seems clear that the Georgian forces launched an attack. What we need to ascertain is why Georgia attacked and who ordered it. On face value it seems utterly stupid though Cactus Flower did suggest several plausible motives. Once we have that a bit more clearly we can start to unravel this.

I dare say we will soon have some more accurate totals for the causalities.

We will hopefully. Do remember though, the Russians were as well placed as anyone, being peacekeepers in South Ossetia, to know the exact number of the South Ossetian dead. If it is true that the number was less than a hundred and not two thousand, and this was a lie, then they were equally complicit. Conveniently, this lie gave them the casus belli they needed.

The Russian cited the response to 9/11 this morning. The US bombed and we sent troops in to Afghanistan.

cactus flower wrote:

The Russian cited the response to 9/11 this morning. The US bombed and we sent troops in to Afghanistan.

Yes indeed. However, at least the dust and tempers had settled enough to give a more adequate account of the casualties, a more likely list of perpetrators, as well as a more measured response. Such was not done in Russia's case. You could argue that slowness to action would have resulted in more casualties, but they had troops on the ground. They knew exactly how much danger the Ossetians were in in regards to ethnic cleansing, but they fired off anyway, filled their soldiers with bile and hatred, sent them into the battlefield before the Georgian rocket launchers had even cooled.

cactus flower wrote:

The Russian cited the response to 9/11 this morning. The US bombed and we sent troops in to Afghanistan.

But the Georgians did not attack Russia.

Lestat wrote:

But the Georgians did not attack Russia.

Come on you know fine well what they did and you know also Russia's obligations.

cactus flower wrote:

The Russian cited the response to 9/11 this morning. The US bombed and we sent troops in to Afghanistan.

The Russians are steadily losing every bit of understanding that they had from Europe and the world community 5 days ago - The Russians have used 9/11 as an excuse for a bit of warfare more othen than the Yanks have by now - the incineration and annilation of Chechnya being the prime example.

The Russians are thinking with their balls not with their heads at the moment - bad bad sign and this is going to poison their relationship with the EU and the USA - who are at the end of the day - their truest friends - not friends of convenience like the Chinese and others.

Don't know if its Russian paranoia or Putins insecurity and need to be the big man that is driving this on - a better man would have seen that the battle was won and called it a day - this bit of afters stinks of bullying and has the whole of Eastern Europe going "See - well we told yis"

Stupid.

Imo what was done after 9/11 was inexcusable.

Reuters has just said that the Polish government has signed the agreement on the ABM shield. Russia crashing around in Georgia may well have pushed them on. Russia was between a rock and a hard place.

The Russian army looks fairly shambolic, although not so much as the Georgians. The Georgian police force put up more of a fight than the army, once the Russians arrived. Lara Marlowe (one of your favourites I think Edo) said there were stories in Gori of a Russian General there who was falling around drunk.

All the talk about how the EU has made Europe peaceful relies on drawing the boundaries of Europe pretty tightly. A lot of the fault lines are still in the same place as they always were, in Europe but outside the EU. The EU was set up largely to prevent introduction of communism in western europe. The world is a very different place now. The USSR is gone, and the US is digging itself in to Eastern Europe. A fresh look at the whole thing might be good.

cactus flower wrote:

there were stories in Gori of a Russian General there who was falling around drunk.

This is not surprising - aloholism is endemic in Russia. It is cited in Political Science textbooks on the Communist transition as one of the contributing factors to the party's collapse and the fall of the regime. Alcoholism statistics were absolutely astronomical in 1980s Russia. A prime public example of this was the Constitutional Crisis of 1993 in Russia when several of the leaders of the Russian Communist Party who were against Yeltsin appeared on the TV pissed drunk. We watched the video in UCD when I was there, was very funny.

Quote :

All the talk about how the EU has made Europe peaceful relies on drawing the boundaries of Europe pretty tightly. A lot of the fault lines are still in the same place as they always were, in Europe but outside the EU. The EU was set up largely to prevent introduction of communism in western europe. The world is a very different place now. The USSR is gone, and the US is digging itself in to Eastern Europe. A fresh look at the whole thing might be good.

Whilst the EU, and the USA lay claim to the peaceful transition of most Eastern and Central European Countries the overarching claim of the EU has always historically been that it delivered peace in Western Europe - which it and other factors did.

What is the Bulgarian for, Duck you fool.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23532788-details/Video%3A+Georgian+TV+reporter+shot+by+Russian+sniper+during+live+broadcast+carries+on+with+her+report+with+bleeding+arm/article.do

youngdan wrote:

What is the Bulgarian for, Duck you fool.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23532788-details/Video%3A+Georgian+TV+reporter+shot+by+Russian+sniper+during+live+broadcast+carries+on+with+her+report+with+bleeding+arm/article.do

I think I've read that journalists now have a higher percentage chance of being killed in a war than soldiers. http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3

Fairly high in this one anyway. A belgium for sure yesterday and maybe more.