Cold War Reignited?

[kato13]

Raellus 08-15-2008, 05:48 PM So, we've got the Russia vs. Georgia fracas going on.


Now the Soviet- er, I mean Russian- high command is implying that it may attack Poland- with nukes no less- if they allow the U.S. to install a "missile shield" system on her (Polish) soil. (Reported today by the AP)


What has gotten into them? I guess that's what happens when a former KGB officer runs the country. Combine a Cold War chip on his shoulder with their current oil and natural gas wealth, and the $$$ are finding their way back into the Russian military.


Yikes! The Russians have really been flexing their muscles the past couple of years. Seems like every other week one of their long-range recon/ELINT or bombers is straying into a NATO nation's airspace. Their military exercises are getting bigger and more elaborate. The "Red Army" is once again a fiscal and political priority.


And it seems that they are growing less averse to using it.


Where do you think this will go?

********************

Snake Eyes 08-15-2008, 06:33 PM Where do you think this will go?


Nowhere good. However the conspiracy theorist in me suspects the folks behind the curtains may be trying to influence the November US elections.

********************

pmulcahy 08-15-2008, 09:34 PM Nowhere good. However the conspiracy theorist in me suspects the folks behind the curtains may be trying to influence the November US elections.


Why not? Wal-Mart is...

********************

Raellus 08-15-2008, 10:26 PM Maybe, maybe...


I heard on NPR today that a Russian media outlet- and we all know how free and impartial the Russian media is under Putin and his yes-man- reported that the current U.S. admin pushed Georgia to attack South Ossetia as a ploy to steal the election from Obama. WTF?


What worries me most is the implied threat to use nuclear weapons in a first strike on former ally Poland. That's some serious saber rattling. Maybe it was just some hot-headed general shooting off at the mouth but as far as I know, the Russian government hasn't recanted or revised the statement. How long has it been since the Russians/Soviets have threatened to use their nukes?


It's all a little bit unsettling.

********************

copeab 08-15-2008, 10:52 PM I wonder how Turkey feels, now that Georgia has conclusively been proven to be a mere speed bump to the Red Army?


Brandon

********************

Targan 08-15-2008, 11:46 PM I wonder how Turkey feels, now that Georgia has conclusively been proven to be a mere speed bump to the Red Army?Feeling a bit like the Armenians felt when the Ottomans told them that they'd be going for a bit of a stroll in the mountains and not to bother bringing a packed lunch? Or maybe feeling grateful that the Kurds aren't fond of the Russians either.

********************

Mohoender 08-16-2008, 12:58 AM Just a few points


First it's Georgia which attacked first. They were the first also to fire on civilian. However, I'm sure russian troops also did so now (a war is a war, and it's ugly anyway).


Second, The first troops to be killed where UN troops, by the way where is UN in that conflict? didn't even put a resolution when it has everything in hands to do it.


Third, Russia has been the first country to ask for an international security force. In the meantime, it took advantage of the situation and crushed the georgian army.


Fourth, Russia never said that it will attack Poland with nukes, it only said that having the shield on its soil makes it a primary targets (I'll be Russian I would say the same).


Fifth, someone has been saying that this all thing has been made in order to force the implantation of that anti-missile shield into eastern europe. Quite possible in fact. Moreover, this shield might be useless anyway as there is a possibility that the new russian missiles couldn't be intercepted by those used in the system. Useless spending and getting everyone to look away from the true problem (the world economical crisis of course; don't tell me that your current oil bill doesn't concern you), may be.


By the way I don't want to sound anti american but everyone has been impressed by patriot missiles intercepting SCUDs. Boarf ! this has only been high tech missiles intercepting improved V2. However, people should be more impressed by american troops. The guys are often doing a great job with insufficient equipment (If I recall, american's officers have been screaming for armored humvees). I disagree with the american policy today but the troops have all my support. As I said to an american friend of mine, you should all have two stickers on your cars: "Support our troops" and "Bring them home".


Anyway, in the georgian matter I'm sure everyone (world leaders) is pursuing its own little tiny egocentric goal but I think that we should not get into the old anti russian habbit. However, when playing twilight 2000, this little crisis open a all lot of possibilities and that's nice. I'll be posting a time line inspired by it soon and truly hope that this remain fiction :cells: .


Have a nice day all

********************

Mohoender 08-16-2008, 01:10 AM Maybe, maybe...


I heard on NPR today that a Russian media outlet- and we all know how free and impartial the Russian media is under Putin and his yes-man- reported that the current U.S. admin pushed Georgia to attack South Ossetia as a ploy to steal the election from Obama. WTF?


What worries me most is the implied threat to use nuclear weapons in a first strike on former ally Poland. That's some serious saber rattling. Maybe it was just some hot-headed general shooting off at the mouth but as far as I know, the Russian government hasn't recanted or revised the statement. How long has it been since the Russians/Soviets have threatened to use their nukes?


It's all a little bit unsettling.


Just one point that I forgot. I'm not sure that our media are much more free than the russians. Of course our media won't get killed and that is a plus. However, if they disagree with the general point of view, they might get fired: losing houses, brand new car, wife or husband, kids and reputation... Don't you think that might be another way to kill someone? just a cleaner way.

********************

Targan 08-16-2008, 12:51 PM First it's Georgia which attacked first. They were the first also to fire on civilian. However, I'm sure russian troops also did so now (a war is a war, and it's ugly anyway).Yes Georgia attacked first but it was Georgia attacking... Georgia. Internal security/internal ethnic minority repression (whichever way you want to look at it). Yes Georgia attacked civilians, ARMED CIVILIANS, other wise known as insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists (again whichever way you want to look at it). Different situation with the Russian actions, Russia has INVADED a sovereign state (generally considered "not ok").


Second, The first troops to be killed where UN troops, by the way where is UN in that conflict? didn't even put a resolution when it has everything in hands to do it.The UN usually doesn't send peacekeeping forces to conflict zones where the combatants include forces from a permanent member of the security council. There would be no point in the UN trying to put a resolution, Russia would veto it.


Third, Russia has been the first country to ask for an international security force. In the meantime, it took advantage of the situation and crushed the georgian army.Sure Russia has invited an international security force, why not? They've already completed their main objectives, any further bitch slapping of the Georgian military and destruction of civilian infrastructure outside the disputed provinces is a bonus from here on in. In any case the Russians broke both the spirit and the letter of the cease fire almost as soon as it was signed, they continued roaming the countryside outside the declared conflict zone, smashing any remnant Georgian military units they found, supporting Ossetian militiamen as they embarked on a looting/arson/ethnic cleanising spree and advancing mech inf forces towards Tblisi (a LOOONG way from either of the declared conflict zones) and generally causing maximum disruption and panic among the shell shocked Georgian populace.


Fourth, Russia never said that it will attack Poland with nukes, it only said that having the shield on its soil makes it a primary targets (I'll be Russian I would say the same).Maybe its just me, but that doesn't sound all that much less troubling than "the implied threat to use nuclear weapons in a first strike on former ally Poland".


Fifth, someone has been saying that this all thing has been made in order to force the implantation of that anti-missile shield into eastern europe. Quite possible in fact. Moreover, this shield might be useless anyway as there is a possibility that the new russian missiles couldn't be intercepted by those used in the system. Useless spending and getting everyone to look away from the true problem (the world economical crisis of course; don't tell me that your current oil bill doesn't concern you), may be.In the event of a large scale nuclear exchange the anti missile shield in its current proposed form would have a snowflakes chance in hell of stopping enough Russian nukes to make much difference in the larger scheme of things. That's no secret, everybody knows it. But it could protect against strikes from smaller aggressors and it is a useful testbed for future, more comprehensive systems. Russia was prepared for this invasion, they were just waiting for Georgia to give them an excuse. Russia REALLY wanted to be given that excuse before October which is when NATO was next due to consider Georgia's application for membership.


However, people should be more impressed by american troops. The guys are often doing a great job with insufficient equipment (If I recall, american's officers have been screaming for armored humvees). I disagree with the american policy today but the troops have all my support. As I said to an american friend of mine, you should all have two stickers on your cars: "Support our troops" and "Bring them home".Now here is something we can agree on. Soldiers don't set national policy, they follow orders and do their jobs. US forces have my respect and it is reassuring to know that US and Aussie forces will always "have each other's backs" and enjoy a relationship forged from a long history as close allies and reliable coalition partners. And of course the US provides us with a plethora of very efficient tools of woe.


Anyway, in the georgian matter I'm sure everyone (world leaders) is pursuing its own little tiny egocentric goal but I think that we should not get into the old anti russian habbit.Erm, I never got out of that habit. Oops. I'm such an anachronism.

********************

Mohoender 08-16-2008, 02:05 PM Hi Targan, happy to see some answer and get some debate.


Yes Georgia attacked first but it was Georgia attacking... Georgia. Internal security/internal ethnic minority repression (whichever way you want to look at it). Yes Georgia attacked civilians, ARMED CIVILIANS, other wise known as insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists (again whichever way you want to look at it). Different situation with the Russian actions, Russia has INVADED a sovereign state (generally considered "not ok").


I agree to that point of view but we could have said the same about Kosovo or Chechnya. Actually US did consider it that way in Irak (1992) when it let Saddam's helicopters crushed the chiite and kurdish uprising. It often seems to work on the one way side and it's a bit convenient.


The UN usually doesn't send peacekeeping forces to conflict zones where the combatants include forces from a permanent member of the security council. There would be no point in the UN trying to put a resolution, Russia would veto it.


Apparently Russian forces there had a mandate by the UN but that's only press reporting so I'm not sure about it. Be glad to know more about that.


Sure Russia has invited an international security force, why not? They've already completed their main objectives, any further bitch slapping of the Georgian military and destruction of civilian infrastructure outside the disputed provinces is a bonus from here on in. In any case the Russians broke both the spirit and the letter of the cease fire almost as soon as it was signed, they continued roaming the countryside outside the declared conflict zone, smashing any remnant Georgian military units they found, supporting Ossetian militiamen as they embarked on a looting/arson/ethnic cleanising spree and advancing mech inf forces towards Tblisi (a LOOONG way from either of the declared conflict zones) and generally causing maximum disruption and panic among the shell shocked Georgian populace.


Actually Russia called for it before the cease fire was even in shape. They couldn't have brake it so far as it has been signed only today. For the past couple of days they were still "playing games". However I totally agree with what you said about their objectives that's what I meant when I was saying that the Russian took advantage of the situation. Therfore, I think we pretty much agree on that.


Maybe its just me, but that doesn't sound all that much less troubling than "the implied threat to use nuclear weapons in a first strike on former ally Poland".


Actually it's certainly not just you but that is quite different anyway. The first statement implied that we were going strait to a global nuclear conflict and we are far from it. Or so I hope. Moreover, as you said Poland is a former ally and actually I don't even think they ever were an ally to Russia. In history it has always been better to have the poles with the ennemy (I think of that as a strong point to the poles).


In the event of a large scale nuclear exchange the anti missile shield in its current proposed form would have a snowflakes chance in hell of stopping enough Russian nukes to make much difference in the larger scheme of things. That's no secret, everybody knows it. But it could protect against strikes from smaller aggressors and it is a useful testbed for future, more comprehensive systems. Russia was prepared for this invasion, they were just waiting for Georgia to give them an excuse. Russia REALLY wanted to be given that excuse before October which is when NATO was next due to consider Georgia's application for membership.


Agree with that but I really don't believe in a threat from a smaller agressor as it would be eradicated a few minutes later (the shield remain useless). The only true threat would be from terrorism (By the way, in Perth you have no threat at all except for that terrorist one). About NATO membership the point works for Russia but it works also for US.


Now here is something we can agree on. Soldiers don't set national policy, they follow orders and do their jobs. US forces have my respect and it is reassuring to know that US and Aussie forces will always "have each other's backs" and enjoy a relationship forged from a long history as close allies and reliable coalition partners. And of course the US provides us with a plethora of very efficient tools of woe.


Definitely agree on that and no question about US but US isn't the current administration. I distrust it while I have full respect and confidence in US citizens as a people.


Erm, I never got out of that habit. Oops. I'm such an anachronism.


Sorry for that one, I get the feeling that you took it personnaly and I didn't want to be rude. For my part, I'll prefer to see things moving a little bit away from these little distrust. I think that if we don't this little planet we are on might reboot the system (could be interesting so).


By the way, how is life in Perth? I'm thinking of moving that way If I get tired of all the crap around someday.

********************

Mohoender 08-16-2008, 02:07 PM Yes Georgia attacked first but it was Georgia attacking... Georgia. Internal security/internal ethnic minority repression (whichever way you want to look at it). Yes Georgia attacked civilians, ARMED CIVILIANS, other wise known as insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists (again whichever way you want to look at it). Different situation with the Russian actions, Russia has INVADED a sovereign state (generally considered "not ok").


The UN usually doesn't send peacekeeping forces to conflict zones where the combatants include forces from a permanent member of the security council. There would be no point in the UN trying to put a resolution, Russia would veto it.


Sure Russia has invited an international security force, why not? They've already completed their main objectives, any further bitch slapping of the Georgian military and destruction of civilian infrastructure outside the disputed provinces is a bonus from here on in. In any case the Russians broke both the spirit and the letter of the cease fire almost as soon as it was signed, they continued roaming the countryside outside the declared conflict zone, smashing any remnant Georgian military units they found, supporting Ossetian militiamen as they embarked on a looting/arson/ethnic cleanising spree and advancing mech inf forces towards Tblisi (a LOOONG way from either of the declared conflict zones) and generally causing maximum disruption and panic among the shell shocked Georgian populace.


Maybe its just me, but that doesn't sound all that much less troubling than "the implied threat to use nuclear weapons in a first strike on former ally Poland".


In the event of a large scale nuclear exchange the anti missile shield in its current proposed form would have a snowflakes chance in hell of stopping enough Russian nukes to make much difference in the larger scheme of things. That's no secret, everybody knows it. But it could protect against strikes from smaller aggressors and it is a useful testbed for future, more comprehensive systems. Russia was prepared for this invasion, they were just waiting for Georgia to give them an excuse. Russia REALLY wanted to be given that excuse before October which is when NATO was next due to consider Georgia's application for membership.


Now here is something we can agree on. Soldiers don't set national policy, they follow orders and do their jobs. US forces have my respect and it is reassuring to know that US and Aussie forces will always "have each other's backs" and enjoy a relationship forged from a long history as close allies and reliable coalition partners. And of course the US provides us with a plethora of very efficient tools of woe.


Erm, I never got out of that habit. Oops. I'm such an anachronism.


Oups can you explain how you did to answer every point one after another, didn't succeded but I'm quite new to this. Thanks

********************

Raellus 08-16-2008, 02:23 PM The "Peacekeepers" present in S. Ossetia when Georgia attacked were Russian troops, not United Nations'. Russian "Peacekeepers" in a Russian contested region are not exactly impartial. It's a complete conflict of interests and really cheapens the the term "Peacekeeper". I suppose that the Russians have a right to protect their ethnic brethren from aggression but turning around and allowing the ethnic Russian Ossetians to loot, rape, pillage, and kill their Georgian neighbors is the height of hypochrisy.


Russia's obviously been planning this for a while now and were just looking for any excuse to bitch-slap Georgia. It's really odd that Georgia cooperated by providing them with a reason to do so.


Read the Russian general's quotes. He's clearly implying that Poland will make itself a potential target of Russian military forces, including their nuclear assets, if they allow the U.S. to plant their MDS on Polish soil.


Russia still clearly views NATO as a major threat to its security.

********************

Headquarters 08-16-2008, 03:54 PM The "Peacekeepers" present in S. Ossetia when Georgia attacked were Russian troops, not United Nations'. Russian "Peacekeepers" in a Russian contested region are not exactly impartial. It's a complete conflict of interests and really cheapens the the term "Peacekeeper". I suppose that the Russians have a right to protect their ethnic brethren from aggression but turning around and allowing the ethnic Russian Ossetians to loot, rape, pillage, and kill their Georgian neighbors is the height of hypochrisy.


Russia's obviously been planning this for a while now and were just looking for any excuse to bitch-slap Georgia. It's really odd that Georgia cooperated by providing them with a reason to do so.


Read the Russian general's quotes. He's clearly implying that Poland will make itself a potential target of Russian military forces, including their nuclear assets, if they allow the U.S. to plant their MDS on Polish soil.


Russia still clearly views NATO as a major threat to its security.


Well,of course Russia looks on NATO as a potential enemy -after all the organization was formed specifically to combat the Red Army in the event of a war .


Anyways-moving complex weapons systems like the missile shield etc directly on the border will provoke a harsh reaction -at least verbally - like the White House did in the Cuban Missile Crisis ?Or in the hypothetical event of a Russian weapon system in central America ? Dont forget that from a Russian point of view the Motherland is surrounded by US bases and belingerent forces .In this way no major power differs from another .They all constantly try to manouver for the upper hand -or they seize being a major power.US bases or military advisors or even supplies on former Soviet territory must be a real thorn in the Bears paw.No doubt the Kremlin sees every move we make to add new members to Nato from the former Warzaw pact or even CCCCP itself as a provocation. The cold war ended as we can agree - but it ended on terms.And the Russians are now in a position to start enforcing or even renegotiating these terms.


The Soviets always had Poland as a nuclear target btw-in the event of a successful nato push through Poland they would be stopped by a barrage of nukes that would lay waste to Poland -and the Nato forces.When the plans leaked a while back it created quite the uproar in Poland.

********************

Mohoender 08-16-2008, 04:04 PM The "Peacekeepers" present in S. Ossetia when Georgia attacked were Russian troops, not United Nations'. Russian "Peacekeepers" in a Russian contested region are not exactly impartial. It's a complete conflict of interests and really cheapens the the term "Peacekeeper". I suppose that the Russians have a right to protect their ethnic brethren from aggression but turning around and allowing the ethnic Russian Ossetians to loot, rape, pillage, and kill their Georgian neighbors is the height of hypochrisy.


Russia's obviously been planning this for a while now and were just looking for any excuse to bitch-slap Georgia. It's really odd that Georgia cooperated by providing them with a reason to do so.


Read the Russian general's quotes. He's clearly implying that Poland will make itself a potential target of Russian military forces, including their nuclear assets, if they allow the U.S. to plant their MDS on Polish soil.


Russia still clearly views NATO as a major threat to its security.


Right, my mistake but UN were also present and this CIS (russian) peacekeeping force was there under UN mandate (go and check the UNOMIG's website if you want to be sure) and was colaborating with UN. Moreover, the Georgian broke the cease fire (look at the mandate). However, I agree when you said that the situation cheapened the term "peacekeepers".


For the civilian population, I would say that everyone might have been lying so far. The last official number seems to be 182 dead (accounted from Tbilissi). Both were claiming that the other was conducting genocide, so much for this.


However, I'm not sayng that Russia is inocent, I'll really be surprised if they were. But it might be quite early to really know what happened. Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if some other major players had their dirty hands into this. We still don't know many things about what happened in the past.


Another point NATO is a major threat! As is China, Russia, US, France, England, Pakistan, India... Any country or organisation with a sizeable nuclear arsenal is a major threat.


One last point, I find interesting how different is the information that we get from one place to another. We don't even hear from the NATO issue around here and it seems to be the main analysis overthere in the US.

********************

Mohoender 08-16-2008, 04:07 PM Well,of course Russia looks on NATO as a potential enemy -after all the organization was formed specifically to combat the Red Army in the event of a war .


Anyways-moving complex weapons systems like the missile shield etc directly on the border will provoke a harsh reaction -at least verbally - like the White House did in the Cuban Missile Crisis ?Or in the hypothetical event of a Russian weapon system in central America ? Dont forget that from a Russian point of view the Motherland is surrounded by US bases and belingerent forces .In this way no major power differs from another .They all constantly try to manouver for the upper hand -or they seize being a major power.US bases or military advisors or even supplies on former Soviet territory must be a real thorn in the Bears paw.No doubt the Kremlin sees every move we make to add new members to Nato from the former Warzaw pact or even CCCCP itself as a provocation. The cold war ended as we can agree - but it ended on terms.And the Russians are now in a position to start enforcing or even renegotiating these terms.


The Soviets always had Poland as a nuclear target btw-in the event of a successful nato push through Poland they would be stopped by a barrage of nukes that would lay waste to Poland -and the Nato forces.When the plans leaked a while back it created quite the uproar in Poland.


I agree entirely.

********************

Mohoender 08-16-2008, 04:19 PM One last update. According to the Georgians themselves, the total number of georgians killed is 182 (including 67 civilians). Someone was talking about bloodshed and mass assassination?

********************

Targan 08-16-2008, 04:37 PM Sorry for that one, I get the feeling that you took it personnaly and I didn't want to be rude. For my part, I'll prefer to see things moving a little bit away from these little distrust. I think that if we don't this little planet we are on might reboot the system (could be interesting so).


By the way, how is life in Perth? I'm thinking of moving that way If I get tired of all the crap around someday.No apology necessary, I didn't take it personally or think you were being rude. The last line of my previous post was just my attempt at humour.


Life in Perth is good. Great climate, lots of job opportunities, no huge social problems worth unduly worrying about. I really can't complain about the city where I live.

********************

Twilight2000V3 08-16-2008, 06:17 PM Hey guys let me pose somethign here......


Lets say country A has a significant (30 to 40%) immigrants living (legally and illegally) in country Bs border region (within say 200 miles). The immigrants from country A are a major drain on medical and legal resources/system.Some are overtly trying to get that region to be annexed into country A.


Country A, who doesn't like country Bs policies against its citizens, all of the sudden says "Hey we dont like the way you are treating our immigrants in your country and since those living in that region are a large part of your population, were gonna go ahead and military take that region and annex it into our country."



Now here's something interesting..... hmmm...


Exchange country A for Russia and country B for Georgia. In a nutshell thats whats going on in Georgia correct?


Now follow along....


Exchange country A for Mexico and country B for USA...........

********************

Webstral 08-16-2008, 06:30 PM The anti-missile defenses in Poland won't stop cruise missiles, although standard air defenses may. Nor will any ABM defenses on the board stop an attack of multiple missiles. The big drawback, from the Russian standpoint, is that the ability of NATO to stop single-missile attacks denies the Russians the opportunity to escalate gradually. While Soviet doctrine did not officially acknowledge a "firebreak" between conventional and nuclear weapons, it can't have escaped the attention of the Russians that the Americans do recognize a firebreak. More importantly, anyone with common sense can see that there is a world of difference between the use of a single device and a large-scale attack. If NATO can knock out the single-device option, a key link in the escalation chain has been denied use by the Russians. This means that the Russians either must forego the use of nukes in a tight situation or resort to a saturation attack in which an unknown number of warheads will strike an unknown number of targets. Such a situation is very messy and would lead to an unknown level of NATO retaliation. The Russians don't like question marks any more than anyone else; nor do they appreciate having their options limited in the high-stakes game of nuclear weapons.


Webstral

********************

Raellus 08-16-2008, 08:06 PM Interesting analogy, TWV3. The Mexican government complains, from time to time, about how illegal immigrants are treated. It's a bit ironic since most of those same immigrants have been pushed across the border by that same government's corruption and incompetence. It's easier to let their citizens come over here than it is to fix the problems that drive them to leave their homeland. There's also a small movement of Mexican American citizens and immigrant for the return of Aztlan (the region of the U.S. formerly part of Mexico and either annexed after the Texas War of Independence and the Mexican-American War or bought as part of the Gadsen Purchase) to Mexico. Neither party, however, is equiped to do anything about it.


If you reverse the analogy so that country A is the U.S., that's more like what's going on in Ossetia. In both the Texas War and the Mexican-American War, the U.S. was the more powerful country, invading (and eventually annexing) sovereign Mexican territory ostensibly in order to protect its immigrants who in both cases outnumbered the Mexicans in the disputed territories. In both cases, the U.S. provoked the Mexicans until they acted, then used the response as a pretext to invade and conquer Mexican territory. The U.S. has and does play just as dirty as anybody else.


As for Webstral's point, I can't understand how emplacing a system that basically dicates and automatic end-run nuclear strategy makes any sense at all. It sounds like the thinking is that deterring tactical or single warhead type strikes is meant to discourage a larger scale strike when it fact it makes escalation the automatic next option. Skip the foreplay. What the heck kind of strategy is that? Maybe armageddon is inevitable. Its hard to defend humanitys right to exist when we come up with crap like this.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-17-2008, 09:15 AM In the event of a large scale nuclear exchange the anti missile shield in its current proposed form would have a snowflakes chance in hell of stopping enough Russian nukes to make much difference in the larger scheme of things. That's no secret, everybody knows it. But it could protect against strikes from smaller aggressors and it is a useful testbed for future, more comprehensive systems. Russia was prepared for this invasion, they were just waiting for Georgia to give them an excuse. Russia REALLY wanted to be given that excuse before October which is when NATO was next due to consider Georgia's application for membership.


Now here is something we can agree on. Soldiers don't set national policy, they follow orders and do their jobs. US forces have my respect and it is reassuring to know that US and Aussie forces will always "have each other's backs" and enjoy a relationship forged from a long history as close allies and reliable coalition partners. And of course the US provides us with a plethora of very efficient tools of woe.


Erm, I never got out of that habit. Oops. I'm such an anachronism.


Yeah, the missile shield now is to stop either a missile launch from a rogue state like Iran or an accidental one from the USSR/Russia. I think we could have have such a shield even in the 1960's had we implemented the Sprint and Spartan missiles here in the U.S., I have an article about in a 1968 Popular Science magazine. I know you can't stop everything but at least you can stop some of the damage.


Russia, I did have my hopes in the 1990's, maybe we lost a lot of opportunities to engage her and we could be paying for it. We backed the wrong dog in Kosovo, either we should have joined Russia and backed Serbia or stay out of it. I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back but it took a long time for the injury to really appear. I think back then the U.S. and Western world made a lot of wrong moves and Russia was right.


Today with Georgia, I think the U.S. and the West are right and Russia wrong and we have to deal with the world the way it is now. I think other things to remember is that Russia is in decline populationwise, she knows it, but still wants to influence things and let us know it. Georgia could be that. In the 1990's, she had 150 million people, now 140 million. Also, you have Putin, a former KGB Colonial, who tends to wish for the old USSR days. Russia has always been autocratic/authoritarian, be it the Tsars or Politburo. Democracy is new to them and it was used to vote in a KGB Colonial who ran on law and order to break the Russian Mafia. He did that well, but you end up trading one group of thugs for another. I guess if I was a Russian and wanted order, I could have voted for Putin. If I was a Russian really down on my luck and worried about job security and so on, being 42 and remembering the Communist era growing up under it, I would probably vote for the Communists to come back. We do need to understand the thinking of the Russians but we still need to stand up to them. Still I think Putin and many Russians do wish for the days of the USSR, albeit with somewhat freer markets.


Chuck M.

********************

Raellus 08-17-2008, 03:10 PM I agree with your assessment of the Russian psyche, Chuck. Just out of curiosity, though, why should the U.S. have backed the Serbs in the Kosovo crisis?


Yeah, the missile shield now is to stop either a missile launch from a rogue state like Iran or an accidental one from the USSR/Russia.


The U.S. always says this missile shield is intended to protect Europe from a missile attack by a rogue state like Iran but if this is really the case, then why don't they place the system somewhere in southern Europe like Italy or Greece- both long-time NATO members. Why eastern Europe? Is there a legit, scientific explanation for why such a system has to be based in Poland and/or the Czech Republic? It does seem a little provocative.


The media here often calls Bush and Putin "friends" but when it comes to U.S. - Russian relations, neither really acts like it at all. They don't seem to agree on much of anything. I just wish people the world over would stop electing numbskulls and thugs to lead them.

********************

Webstral 08-17-2008, 10:08 PM I just wish people the world over would stop electing numbskulls and thugs to lead them.


Amen. Step One for Americans: know more about our elected officials and what they are doing than our favorite sports franchises.



Webstral

********************

Hangfire7 08-18-2008, 12:32 AM First off;


Tonight, even the Georgian president compared IVAN and what they have done under Putin to Hitler and his actions in Post War <WWI> Germany, as well as doing it to protect its ethnic population living in the neighboring country. Something I picked up upon a week prior. It does make one wonder.


Next, they sent in how many tanks and apcs, through a friggin mountain range? So tell me they have not been in position for some time waiting, prepping and planing. Please MO tell me how did that happen? Also for the the insurgency in the two provinces, I wonder who is supporting them? Do they constantly run across the boarded to a safe zone in mother russsia where they can plan their attacks and consider safe from retaliation? I do wonder?


Just some things to think about.


Mr. Mo, who are you? I really don't remember you, can it be that ou little group has garnered the attention of an ivan symp?



As for Russia and Georgia, it was merely a lesson to the other former republics, a show of force with minor risk, that their turning to the west would be dealt with in a similiar method, the old method as they used with success in Hungary and Cechoslovachi and Poland in the year past.


Realius, you asked about Poland, also remember good ol Leck Luensa, the strikes and how ivan sent in tanks, that is the russian solutuon, send in the tanks. But they do not understand that people do remember. I pray the poles and the Urkrainans show their mettle and do everything they can to thumb their noses at their former opressors.

********************

Mohoender 08-18-2008, 03:10 AM First off;


Tonight, even the Georgian president compared IVAN and what they have done under Putin to Hitler and his actions in Post War <WWI> Germany, as well as doing it to protect its ethnic population living in the neighboring country. Something I picked up upon a week prior. It does make one wonder.


Next, they sent in how many tanks and apcs, through a friggin mountain range? So tell me they have not been in position for some time waiting, prepping and planing. Please MO tell me how did that happen? Also for the the insurgency in the two provinces, I wonder who is supporting them? Do they constantly run across the boarded to a safe zone in mother russsia where they can plan their attacks and consider safe from retaliation? I do wonder?


Just some things to think about.


Mr. Mo, who are you? I really don't remember you, can it be that ou little group has garnered the attention of an ivan symp?



As for Russia and Georgia, it was merely a lesson to the other former republics, a show of force with minor risk, that their turning to the west would be dealt with in a similiar method, the old method as they used with success in Hungary and Cechoslovachi and Poland in the year past.


Realius, you asked about Poland, also remember good ol Leck Luensa, the strikes and how ivan sent in tanks, that is the russian solutuon, send in the tanks. But they do not understand that people do remember. I pray the poles and the Urkrainans show their mettle and do everything they can to thumb their noses at their former opressors.


First of all, Hi


I'm pretty new and my only sympathy goes to my little daughters. However, I only intended to open the debate as I'm neither anti-russian nor anti-west.


I only count points so far and don't like what happen on all sides, name it :

- Irak (first war): no point, we had to do it, but it's outrageous how we let the people down over there.

- Somalia: US had to get out because no one supported its action. Could have been wise to do it so.

- Bosnia: no reactions (Ponce Pilate syndrom) and large scale killing. Our soldiers had been screaming in favor of an intervention but, after all, why listen to them, they are only on the field, they don't know about reality.

- Kosovo: lies on every side and the most stupid move since WWII (Serbia starting it and we putting the final point to it in 2007).

- Chechnya: Russia internal problem but strangely we don't recognize it as such, The russians are simply brutal (no doubt) but the Chechen are still terrorist (all terrorist attack on Europe has been coming out of these litttle friendly Chechens of us: Madrid and London).

- Afghanistan: Gee why didn't we go there before the 11 of september? Talibans had been killing people and destroying world wonders since 199... We are right on that one but we still might loose it as nobody truly gives a shit.

- Of course, everyone focuses on Irak, a war that was started for no reason at all. The only justification would have been to get rid of Saddam but there was no reason to start a war for it, we could have blow his head of from space. Moreover, US lets turkey bomb kurdish land in Irak itself despite the fact that the Kurds have supported US since the beginning (the last bombing occured two days ago only).

- I'm also surprised about one thing, Ossama Bin Laden is a Saudi but, of course, Saudi Arabia is our friend (not even talking about Pakistan).

etc..., etc...


Then I have the feeling that nobody ever care about people and soldiers (among political leaders of course). The only concern is for little obnoxious country leaders (ours included). Sorry, but I'm really tired of everyone changing facts as they please and the only way that we have to guess a tiny bit of the truth is to discuss things. I find that important as I'm sure that you could find more intelligence in any of us than in these same leaders. So, no sympathy in this except for human kind. As you call them IVAN, I guess you are a YANK, for my part I'm a FROGGY.


Amusing, I found that the little animals representing our respective countries are quite good after all. US is an eagle, flying over things and looking at it from long distance. Russia is a bear, using brute force and thinking only later. France is a rooster singing and shining its feathers while standing in shit. :troutslap


One last thing Russia was prepared no doubt but why US remained silent until things were almost over (Phelps effect may be)? Also, Don't you find strange that the Georgian launched an attack on the opening games at Beijing?


Bye, I'm done with that subject

********************

GOF 08-18-2008, 04:43 AM Mr. Mo, who are you? I really don't remember you, can it be that ou little group has garnered the attention of an ivan symp? that was a bit rough, you dont remember me either because like Moh, I only got on this site recent although Ive been reading it for some time.

And so what if someone was a Russian sympathizer, it aint healthy to have just one side to a debate an it makes it damned boring

That's what I've liked about most you guys here, you could ask any sorta question and not be hammered for it

Its good having more Europeans here because youre getting more views on the world instead of just UK/Aus/US views

********************

Mohoender 08-18-2008, 04:55 AM that was a bit rough, you dont remember me either because like Moh, I only got on this site recent although Ive been reading it for some time.

And so what if someone was a Russian sympathizer, it aint healthy to have just one side to a debate an it makes it damned boring

That's what I've liked about most you guys here, you could ask any sorta question and not be hammered for it

Its good having more Europeans here because youre getting more views on the world instead of just UK/Aus/US views


Thanks for saying it, that's exactly why i joined. I truly found interesting discussions around here and like the place for the reasons you gave.

********************

MajorPo 08-18-2008, 07:14 AM GOF, Moh good to have you here. Always nice to see new faces on the board, particularly if you can stir up a good discussion and ruffle a few feathers :smile:


As for the situation in Georgia, well it strikes me as a very Russian way of dealing with things. They have generally tended towards the firm hand rather than kind word approach to foreign relations. The US has a similar tendency though it is a little more concerned with it's 'image' than Russia has been. I think this makes the US a little more cautious (or sneaky) in the way it throws it's weight around.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-18-2008, 10:10 AM I agree with your assessment of the Russian psyche, Chuck. Just out of curiosity, though, why should the U.S. have backed the Serbs in the Kosovo crisis?




The U.S. always says this missile shield is intended to protect Europe from a missile attack by a rogue state like Iran but if this is really the case, then why don't they place the system somewhere in southern Europe like Italy or Greece- both long-time NATO members. Why eastern Europe? Is there a legit, scientific explanation for why such a system has to be based in Poland and/or the Czech Republic? It does seem a little provocative.


The media here often calls Bush and Putin "friends" but when it comes to U.S. - Russian relations, neither really acts like it at all. They don't seem to agree on much of anything. I just wish people the world over would stop electing numbskulls and thugs to lead them.


Well, I'm not sure why Poland and not Italy unless you take a "Great Circle" Map of the Earth, maybe the answer will be clearer. I'll have to take a look and see what I think myself. That's the only answer I can give.


As to the election of Putin (I know they have another guy, Mendelev or something like that, but I'd bet my last $10 that Putin still runs things), he did run a law and order campaign and he pretty much delivered, trouble is, you have one gang of thugs that replaced the other.


Back to missile defense, I think a good idea there would be to have ship based systems as well, IIRC, I think we do have a few ships that can do that already.


Chuck M.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-18-2008, 10:22 AM I agree with your assessment of the Russian psyche, Chuck. Just out of curiosity, though, why should the U.S. have backed the Serbs in the Kosovo crisis?




Well, I think it would have made us closer to Russia and hopefully build more trust between the two with the aims of avoiding the problems we have now. Also, I see it differently too where I do believe Kosovo was rightfully part of Serbia but now is more of a base for the Albanian mafia and drug lords as well as a possibly haven for Islamo-fascism. The Kosovo War wasn't very popular here in Pittsburgh, we have a good sized population here with Serbian ancestry, I'm one of them (my last name is a corruption of the original Serbian one), although I'm made up of many others too. There was a battle in 1389 in what is now Serbia that stopped the Islamists in Eastern Europe, much like how El Cid and Charles Martel did the same in Western Europe, I'd like to think that some of my ancestors were part of that history. I can go deeper, but if this would start a flame war (well, you did ask my opinion and I gave my honest one), we should discuss this in another topic or privately. I hope my answer will suffice.


Charles M.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-18-2008, 10:28 AM Realius, you asked about Poland, also remember good ol Leck Luensa, the strikes and how ivan sent in tanks, that is the russian solutuon, send in the tanks. But they do not understand that people do remember. I pray the poles and the Urkrainans show their mettle and do everything they can to thumb their noses at their former opressors.


Well, I think that both or even one of those nations will tear up the Russians really bad, the Ukraine has 40 million, not 4.5 million like Georgia, so I think they'd stand a better chance of surviving. Same with Poland, I think they have 50 million maybe? God help us if they go into the Baltics, IIRC, they are in NATO plus they do remember the past history. Come to think of it, I think there were film makers from Latvia or Lithuania that came over to film the 1939 New York World's Fair in color, they ended up staying here since their country was taken over by the USSR while they were filming over here.


Chuck M.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-18-2008, 10:46 AM First of all, Hi



Amusing, I found that the little animals representing our respective countries are quite good after all. US is an eagle, flying over things and looking at it from long distance. Russia is a bear, using brute force and thinking only later. France is a rooster singing and shining its feathers while standing in shit. :troutslap




Hey welcome aboard! BTW, where would the UK fit in with the Lion and Canada with the Beaver?


A side note, I've seen my share of roosters, some of them are very beautiful to look at with all the colors and a variations. There is also a theory that today's chicken is the closest living relative to the Tyranasaurus Rex we have today, heck they can be quite vicious and strong when they need to be. Also, in their genetic code, there is a provision for them to grow teeth but it has been "turned off." Actually when you look at birds, you do see some reptilian instincts in them, as one of my friend who is into pet snakes says, "at one time, one set of reptiles took to the sky and became birds, the other one stayed on the ground."


Sorry for the OT, but there is a lot more to chickens than we give them credit for.


Chuck M.

********************

Mohoender 08-18-2008, 11:35 AM Well, I think that both or even one of those nations will tear up the Russians really bad, the Ukraine has 40 million, not 4.5 million like Georgia, so I think they'd stand a better chance of surviving. Same with Poland, I think they have 50 million maybe? God help us if they go into the Baltics, IIRC, they are in NATO plus they do remember the past history. Come to think of it, I think there were film makers from Latvia or Lithuania that came over to film the 1939 New York World's Fair in color, they ended up staying here since their country was taken over by the USSR while they were filming over here.


Chuck M.


Don't forget also that Poland is already a NATO member. Russia would have to fight the all of it.

********************

Mohoender 08-18-2008, 11:39 AM Hey welcome aboard! BTW, where would the UK fit in with the Lion and Canada with the Beaver?


A side note, I've seen my share of roosters, some of them are very beautiful to look at with all the colors and a variations. There is also a theory that today's chicken is the closest living relative to the Tyranasaurus Rex we have today, heck they can be quite vicious and strong when they need to be. Also, in their genetic code, there is a provision for them to grow teeth but it has been "turned off." Actually when you look at birds, you do see some reptilian instincts in them, as one of my friend who is into pet snakes says, "at one time, one set of reptiles took to the sky and became birds, the other one stayed on the ground."


Sorry for the OT, but there is a lot more to chickens than we give them credit for.


Chuck M.


agree to the beaver, Canadians are pretty much building their country all the time and they seem to be doing a great job, not being aggressive in any way (people even voted against new tanks). Right for UK but don't forget about the unicorn: somewhere between roaring and fantasy from the past.

********************

dude_uk 08-18-2008, 02:02 PM agree to the beaver, Canadians are pretty much building their country all the time and they seem to be doing a great job, not being aggressive in any way (people even voted against new tanks). Right for UK but don't forget about the unicorn: somewhere between roaring and fantasy from the past.



The UK lion stands next the US eagle. With a permanant expression saying


'here we go again...'

********************

Hangfire7 08-18-2008, 04:01 PM Here is my question,


Could Ivan just be testing the wire as to what they can get away with and in typical Russian style send a message to the region not to get to freindly with the West? And Georgia is so small it is not worth the world getting up in arms over?


As for Poland and Ukraine, a message to them but then Ukraine has nukes, Poland is part of Nato. and yes they will be a bigger nut to crack, as well they have greated sway over the world than a small country that is what, the size of many counties or states/provinces of most nations, it is easy for the tiny republics to be swallowed up and sacrificed in the name of peace.


Ah but what sacrifces is the world willing to make to acheive,


"PEACE IN OUR TIME."



I also have to wonder, what does Europe take of the Russian Bear comming to power and reverting to its typical means of influence bullying with the use of a few tank divisions. Will those in Western Europe apease like they did in 1939 or stand up for once?


So for those in Europe and even down under what is your take on Ivan comming back and reverting to its old ways or intimidation, invasion and gobbling up small republics much in the same way HITLER did in the 1930s.



Well, I think that both or even one of those nations will tear up the Russians really bad, the Ukraine has 40 million, not 4.5 million like Georgia, so I think they'd stand a better chance of surviving. Same with Poland, I think they have 50 million maybe? God help us if they go into the Baltics, IIRC, they are in NATO plus they do remember the past history. Come to think of it, I think there were film makers from Latvia or Lithuania that came over to film the 1939 New York World's Fair in color, they ended up staying here since their country was taken over by the USSR while they were filming over here.


Chuck M.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-18-2008, 04:11 PM Don't forget also that Poland is already a NATO member. Russia would have to fight the all of it.


True, I admit I omitted that part, but that 50 million Poles number will have more backing as well as the Baltic States, IIRC, they are part of NATO too. One interesting side note, an old piece of Germany is still part of Russia, Kalingrad, used to be Koenigsberg, wonder if that could be a hot spot?


Chuck M.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-18-2008, 04:14 PM agree to the beaver, Canadians are pretty much building their country all the time and they seem to be doing a great job, not being aggressive in any way (people even voted against new tanks). Right for UK but don't forget about the unicorn: somewhere between roaring and fantasy from the past.


Yeah, the Beaver is seen as passive although like any other animal, I'm sure it would put up a good fight if provoked. Here in Pennsylvania, don't know what the State animal is, but I think the groundhog would make a good choice. Almost hit one today, I had to brake for one, they just cross the road really slow, lazy like. I hear they can be nasty to fight with under the right circumstances.


Unicorns, maybe the British used it as well, but didn't the French also use them too?


Chuck M.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-18-2008, 04:16 PM The UK lion stands next the US eagle. With a permanant expression saying


'here we go again...'


I could see them in a bar right now, talking that way while sharing a beer. Another bar type saying is that it seems things stay the same in a way, or, as it goes, "same song, different jukebox."


Chuck M.

********************

Nowhere Man 1966 08-18-2008, 04:25 PM Here is my question,


Could Ivan just be testing the wire as to what they can get away with and in typical Russian style send a message to the region not to get to freindly with the West? And Georgia is so small it is not worth the world getting up in arms over?


As for Poland and Ukraine, a message to them but then Ukraine has nukes, Poland is part of Nato. and yes they will be a bigger nut to crack, as well they have greated sway over the world than a small country that is what, the size of many counties or states/provinces of most nations, it is easy for the tiny republics to be swallowed up and sacrificed in the name of peace.


Ah but what sacrifces is the world willing to make to acheive,


"PEACE IN OUR TIME."



I also have to wonder, what does Europe take of the Russian Bear comming to power and reverting to its typical means of influence bullying with the use of a few tank divisions. Will those in Western Europe apease like they did in 1939 or stand up for once?


So for those in Europe and even down under what is your take on Ivan comming back and reverting to its old ways or intimidation, invasion and gobbling up small republics much in the same way HITLER did in the 1930s.


Good question. As you know, history repeats itself. I do hope the lessons from World War II will apply here. The sad thing is that the people who remember, their generation is fading away. My still living grandmother worked during World War II making candy at the Clark Bar factory here in Pittsburgh but she is 93 now. My mother remembers World War II proper (1941 - 45, well it started in 1939 but the U.S. wasn't involved officially until 1941 of course), she will turn 70 two days from now. Her generation was way too young to remember what lead up t