Posted on 08/23/2008 8:44:45 AM PDT by BGHater
Georgia did not believe Russia would respond to its offensive in South Ossetia and was completely unprepared for the counter-attack, the deputy defence minister has admitted.
Batu Kutelia told the Financial Times that Georgia had made the decision to seize the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali despite the fact that its forces did not have enough anti-tank and air defences to protect themselves against the possibility of serious resistance.
“Unfortunately, we attached a low priority to this,” he said, sitting at a desk with the flags of Georgia and Nato (to which Georgia does not belong) crossed behind him. “We did not prepare for this kind of eventuality.”
The Georgian military felt there was only a low probability of a massive Russian counter-attack, despite the bloody way in which Russia destroyed Chechnya, on the other side of the Caucasus mountains, in two wars during the 1990s and the fact that separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia had Russian backing.
Georgian forces were unprepared when the Russian counter-strike came, Mr Kutelia said. “I didn’t think it likely that a member of the UN Security Council and the OSCE would react like this,” Mr Kutelia said.
His amazement that Russia would use force against a smaller neighbour was echoed by David Darchiashvili, head of the parliamentary European integration committee. “No one expected Russia would mobilise and invade,” he said
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
Sorry, the nation (US) responsible for the near-total ethnic cleansing of Kosovo of it's Christian population, as well as the ethnic cleansing of the majority of the Christian population of Iraq does not have any moral or ethical authority to make judgments on this matter.
Russia doesn't own their neighborhood. As a libertarian, you should know that.
I agree with the president.
How/why is Georgia 'their neighborhood'? Georgia is a different country from Russia. Whether NATO expands to include Georgia is not Russia's business. It is not 'encroachment' for NATO to expand to include a country that is different from Russia. Russia does not own Georgia. And finally, NATO is a (not even very effective) defensive alliance; Russia does not and would not have anything to fear from NATO including Georgia as long as she didn't attack Georgia. All of these statements are obvious facts.
By sympathizing with the Russian contrary viewpoint you are conceding that Russia views Georgia as her property and that she has paranoid views about NATO 'encroachment'. In other words, you are conceding my point.
Finally, it is either terribly naive or disingenuous of you not to mention the role the pipeline that goes through Georgia may play in Russia's motives here.
Additionally, I think that the Russians have a legitimate concern that this encroachment poses a direct military threat to their nation.
I think that is a paranoid (albeit typically Russian) view. Pray tell, who in NATO wishes to use Georgia to attack Russia? And for what purpose? Russia is a backwater ("Mexico with nukes" as the saying goes).
For the same reason that I would oppose a hostile military power putting forces on the mexican or Canadian borders,
Neither NATO nor the US is a 'hostile military power' to Russia as long as Russia doesn't attack other countries. Why do you/they think it is? This Russian paranoia is the crux of the matter. Either that or Russia (as often seems) believes it is her God-given right to attack neighbors at will, and considers any impediment to this right to be 'hostile'.
For the same reason that I would oppose a hostile military power putting forces on the mexican or Canadian borders, I agree and support the Russian efforts, up to and including military response, to keep both the Russian border and the "near abroad" free of foreign military forces.
In other words you agree with Russia's imperial designs on the region. Clearly you don't have an actual disagreement with the critics of Russia's behavior. You just think it's ok for Russia to be imperial. Glad we cleared that up,
Sure we do. Even if we were wrong then, that does not mean Russia is right now.
You’re right. It wasn’t the Russians or the Georgians that started this. It was the South Ossetian militias/separatists that attacked repeatedly until Georgia felt it necessary to do something.
Unless you were actually at the interview and know for a fact that the quote in question is false, my (last) response to you is... read much?
Sorry, the nation (US) responsible for the near-total ethnic cleansing of Kosovo of it's Christian population, as well as the ethnic cleansing of the majority of the Christian population of Iraq does not have any moral or ethical authority to make judgments on this matter.
Sorry, the individual rights of ethnic Georgians in Georgia's South Ossetia are not forfeited by the actions of anybody but those individual ethnic Georgians. Those ethnic Georgians -- of course -- had nothing to do with Kosovo.
Again, as a libertarian, you SHOULD know that basic principle.
Not sure I follow your connection in those two sentences.
I agree that Russia and the Ossetians were itching to provoke Georgia. And it even sounds like Georgia and the US knew that.
So why did the Georgians take the bait without any kind of preparation for the snapping trap? They didn't have to ignore it, but the Ossetians have been cut off by Georgia and "self governing" for how long now?
The Russians were offered a piece of the BTC pipeline and turned it down. They don’t want a minority interest, they want to control the flow of oil and gas from N Africa, Iran, the Caspian and of course Gazprom’s vast holdings into Europe. They’re courting the Germans in this respect with Schroeder on the board of Gazprom and the proposed joint Germ/Rus Nord Stream natgas pipeline beneath the Baltic.
Those former Soviet satellites have shown to a great degree they’d rather die then end back under Russian occupation. They know what it’s like to have that Russian boot on your throat and apparently don’t much care to go back. They’ve been great allies and Russia is attempting to do the very same thing in our backyard via Cuba, Chavez and others although it’s questionable how successful they’ll be. When it comes to projecting power they’re not in the same league.
I would think we would all be able to agree that the Georgians were unwise to take the bait from a position of weakness without simultaneously approving of or excusing the Russian behavior that set the trap in the first place.
My point is that, right or wrong, we have neither the moral authority or the legitimate national interest to be interfering in a conflict taking place on Russia's border, in a region that was, for most of the last century, part of Russia.
3 current wars, one of them global, and all three apparently never-ending, is three too many for me. If you have to have another one, how about all you keyboard warriors making this one a private one - as in get on a plane, fly over there and take on the Russians yourselves.
Leave me and my wallet out of it.
FreeReign: The Georgian deputy defense minister DIDN'T say that Georgia started the war. Read much?
Batu Kutelia (Georgian deputy defense minister) told the Financial Times that Georgia had made the decision to seize the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali... Unless you were actually at the interview and know for a fact that the quote in question is false, my (last) response to you is... read much?
There is NO direct quote from the Georgian deputy defense minister saying that the Georgians started the war. The reporter of this article seems to have left that out.
Even more importantly the reporter never claims that the Georgian defense minister said that the Georgians started the war. The reporter did say that the Georgians attacked Tskhinvali.
The Georgians have claimed over and over again that their seizing of Tskhinvali was a defensive action to the Russian backed South Ossetian rebel shelling attacks on ethnic Georgian villages in both South Ossetia and in border villages outside of South Ossetia.
Read the plain English.
1. "right or wrong"? So rightness/wrongness has nothing to do with moral authority? Bizarre. What does 'morality' mean then?
2. This region was never "part of Russia". It was part of the USSR which was an empire controlled by Russia (and of course part of prior Russian empires led by czars). What relevance that has to whether it's ok for modern-day Russia to meddle and take over pieces of this region now is beyond me. One would think if anything it would go even more against Russia that she used to helm an empire which possessed this region - especially to a self-proclaimed libertarian.
3 current wars, one of them global, and all three apparently never-ending, is three too many for me.
What 3 "wars" are you talking about? Which one is "global"? And why is it "too many" for you - because of how much it's affecting you? How is that, precisely?
Also, what does that have to do with anything, with whether Russia is right or wrong here? Whether Russia is right or wrong is a separate matter from whether the U.S. should participate in warfare on the matter (if that's what you're fearing).
If you have to have another one [war],
Nobody even said this. What are you talking about?
Besides, whether there's a war re: Russia/Georgia isn't even open to debate. There is, whether we like it or not. Right? We can't make there not be a war there by nobly refusing to pass judgment on the participants. That's not how it works.
how about all you keyboard warriors making this one a private one - as in get on a plane, fly over there and take on the Russians yourselves.
What 'keyboard warriors'? I haven't seen anyone in this thread propose military action against Russia. Again, what are you talking about?
How about you 'keyboard complainers' consider whether you have standing to do your complaining in the first place.
Leave me and my wallet out of it.
Nobody was proposing otherwise. You're almost as paranoid as Russia.
My understanding of the situation is that, after the dissolution of the USSR, both South Ossetia and the other autonomous region were never under control of the Georgian gov't, despite constant attempts to bring them under Georgian rule.
The people of both autonomous regions have made it very clear since 1991 that they want self-rule and Russian protection to back it up, and that's fine with me.
Well, I think they win the ‘moron overplaying its hand’ award.
That’s essentially my take on it.
Putin was wrong.
Saakashvilli was dumb.
Putting us in a tough spot.
ROFL. Just because someone (even the president of the US) says so it doesn’t make it true. As long as there’s those who believe in such things (spheres of influence) they will exist.
Here’s a question. If we believe those days are over, would WE allow, say, Chinese military presence in Cuba ? Or in Mexico ? For that matter would we allow Russian military presence in Mexico ?
ROFL. Just because someone (even the president of the US) says so it doesn’t make it true. As long as there’s those who believe in such things (spheres of influence) they will exist.
Obviously the President was saying that he doesn't recognize the principle of "spheres of influence".
Here’s a question. If we believe those days are over, would WE allow, say, Chinese military presence in Cuba ? Or in Mexico ? For that matter would we allow Russian military presence in Mexico ?
Apparently you do recognize the principle of spheres of influence.
Looking at your above questions you apparently equate the democratically elected governments of Georgia and the United States with the totalitarian governments of Cuba, Russia and China.
BTW, the Soviets (the military included) were propping up the Cubans for years. Our military presence in Georgia was several hundred forces, and most of them were helping Russian by clearing out Chechnyan terrorists in the Pakisi(Sp.) Gorge.
That is something often overlooked in discussions of this situation - Georgia attacked Russian troops in Georgia, not in Russia or elsewhere but in Georgia.
It means something different than "moral authority", which is the term I used.
This region was never "part of Russia"
OK - part of the Russian Empire, part of the Persian Empire and part of the Soviet Union... happy? Also, for very brief periods over the last thousand years or so, it's actually been an independent country.
What 3 "wars" are you talking about? Which one is "global"? And why is it "too many" for you - because of how much it's affecting you? How is that, precisely?
GWOT, Iraq, Afghanistan (duh)... because any war, even when it's necessary, is too many (duh)... because each one makes me poorer and less safe (duh)
Also, what does that have to do with anything, with whether Russia is right or wrong here? Whether Russia is right or wrong is a separate matter from whether the U.S. should participate in warfare on the matter (if that's what you're fearing).
The US is militarily involved in Georgia, that's what. Advisors, military aid and the idiotic notion of admitting Georgia into NATO. The three current wars might slightly impact a fourth one, if we get involved in one there.
Nobody even said this. What are you talking about?
You're right... having our military forces in an area (on Russia's border) where active fighting is taking place could never draw us into conflict, could it? I mean, wars never start accidentally, do they?
We can't make there not be a war there by nobly refusing to pass judgment on the participants. That's not how it works.
Must have really been putting in extra-credit hours at school (what grade?) to have missed the news, but yes - there's a war on and yes - the good old USofA has taken sides (wrong one) on a matter that's none of it's business and in an area outside our traditional sphere of interest.
What 'keyboard warriors'? I haven't seen anyone in this thread propose military action against Russia. Again, what are you talking about
Anyone advocating any US interference in this conflict is advocating potential conflict with Russia.
How about you 'keyboard complainers' consider whether you have standing to do your complaining in the first place
I've served in the armed forces of this nation, I'm a citizen of this nation, and I pay a very large amount of taxes... I say I have as much right to express my opinion on this matter as anyone else does.
You're almost as paranoid as Russia
Yep, just as I was paranoid about backing the wrong side in Kosovo, paranoid about Iraq not being a cakewalk that pays for itself, paranoid about the dangers of occupying Afghanistan instead of just going after terrorists there, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.