Thread: The war in Georgia

Well, since the other thread deteriorated rather quickly but it is still a current event I thought I'd start a new thread and hopefully it will remain civil. I am interested to know what people think about this conflict anyways.

I believe had it not been for the war of the last few days, most people wouldn't have had any idea of what the actual situation is. So making up one's mind based on whatever information one has gotten from the media over the last few days seems a bit hasty.

I'm from the neighborhood so I was kind of aware, but I haven't followed closely and was surprised at the events. Most media coverage in US has been pro-Georgian, no surprise as the country became 'democratic' few years ago with the backing of US. Russia, of course, accused US and the west in meddling in sovereign country's business, but their interests are in South Oetia and Ankhasia regions, not in Georgia itself, so they didn't go into conflict back then. Nevertheless Russia expelled a lot of georgians who were working there and kept 'peacekeeping' forces in the autonomous provinces that are predominantly of russian etnicity.

Of course, by itself Georgia stands no chance against Russia, which has now become obvious and they have embraced the idea of joining NATO and even EU. Joining in Iraq and accepting US soldiers is just part of the price to pay.
In any case after US and EU backed the independence of Kosovo it seems a bit dishonest to consider the South Osetia and Abkhasia integral part of Georgia. It is now evident that Russia was prepared to take over, and Georgia has miscalculated their chances. It would seem that they expected once they push out the russian 'peacekeeping' forces US and EU will back them before Russia has time to react.

As I said I was surprised that Georgia started the offensive, but that's just because I haven't been following the events there. In fact they recently purchased the stockpile of soviet-type of munitions/weaponry of Bulgaria (which joined nato and transitioned to the new standards). Most certainly that didn't escape the Russians who with their strong energy positions most certainly can afford to confront the rest of the world.

What I think - bummer for the georgians, at least they supposedly got a democracy out of the deal. If they use it wisely they'll still come ahead in few generations. I can't help but wonder if the georgian government decided to just get over this conflict one way or another.
Now that this separatist problem is done, there are still few others, the most notable of which is the Kurds. And then there's Armenia/Azerbeidjan....

It's HOW Russia has gone about this war that makes me angry!! They're using methods of warfare far outdated and, in my opinion, are hell bent on the anhialation of Georgia!

There have been claims that hundreds and hundreds of innocent South Ossetian civilians have died due to the Russian's bombing campaign. I'm sorry, but humans have now the technology of guided bombs etc and the loss of civilian life should be very minimal. I understand that in war innocent people will die but one begs to question... hundreds in a week or so???

If these claims are true, then surely the Russians (being the most secretive and sneaky bloody country in this day and age) have used the carpet bombing technique last seen in WW2!?

Rick

This is a very difficult problem. I felt the same way about Kosovo. I haven't done a lot of reading about the situation, but I can kind of understand both sides. People should have self determination, but at the same time, you can't have every little state leave a country every time they disagree with the majority (like in the US civil war).

From a larger strategic perspective, to some extent I do think the West needs to allow Russia to have its "sphere" of influence. They have to have some comfort level that they can control things to some extent in their "backyard". I think we would expect the same consideration.

Jordan

Originally Posted by Stagga100

It's HOW Russia has gone about this war that makes me angry!! They're using methods of warfare far outdated and, in my opinion, are hell bent on the anhialation of Georgia!

There have been claims that hundreds and hundreds of innocent South Ossetian civilians have died due to the Russian's bombing campaign. I'm sorry, but humans have now the technology of guided bombs etc and the loss of civilian life should be very minimal. I understand that in war innocent people will die but one begs to question... hundreds in a week or so???

If these claims are true, then surely the Russians (being the most secretive and sneaky bloody country in this day and age) have used the carpet bombing technique last seen in WW2!?

Rick

I think the Russians simply don't possess the precision munitions we in the West do...

Jordan

Totally agree with Jordan.

It's non of my business.

But as an observer, I feel that trying to latch onto Western apron strings whilst spitting fire and blood at Mother Russia doesn't sound to me to be an intelligent way to go.

I just wish my government would have the balls to deal with Dictators like Mugabe in a similar fashion.

I feel for the citizens of both Georgia and Zimbabwe. Nobody likes war but I think Russia by it's actions will actually improve the life of the average Georgian by quickly removing the fear of war. Britains lack of action in Zimbabwe however has already ruined the lives of many more people than some quick decisive action could have prevented many years ago. We are not talking hindsight, just procrastination. Something Mother Russia is not famous for.

Originally Posted by jnich67

I think the Russians simply don't possess the precision munitions we in the West do...

Jordan

I'd be surprised if they didn't have the technology, but willingness to spend the extra money to use it is another question.

As for involving other nations, I'm against it. Seems like something that should have been worked out beforehand if they are looking for aid. But then again, I won't pretend to be an authority in the slightest, just an observer.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I'd be surprised if they didn't have the technology, but willingness to spend the extra money to use it is another question.

As for involving other nations, I'm against it. Seems like something that should have been worked out beforehand if they are looking for aid. But then again, I won't pretend to be an authority in the slightest, just an observer.

Agreed, they certainly have some of the technology, but they don't have the systems as fully deployed/integrated as the western nations. And you're right, they're probably not willing to pay the extra $$ to save civilian lives...like some other countries do

Jordan

How much oberving can one do before this whole thing gets out of hand??

I'm not saying in the slightest that nations need to get involved, but the UN / NATO need to act quickly because this is a very bullying stance that the Russians have employed!!

Rick

Originally Posted by Stagga100

...I'm not saying in the slightest that nations need to get involved, but the UN / NATO need to act quickly...

Is there a difference between nations getting involved and the UN / NATO getting involved?

I also wonder how long this conflict has been festering.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Is there a difference between nations getting involved and the UN / NATO getting involved?

I also wonder how long this conflict has been festering.

For NATO getting involved I would say no there isn't a difference. NATO is a military alliance and its involvement really means something.

The UN on the other hand will involve a lot of talking, lip-service and no action.

Jordan