PDA

View Full Version : Georgia 'overrun' by Russian troops - Ground invasion begins



Molon Labe
08-12-2008, 07:28 AM
-Gordon Brown urges Moscow to order a ceasefire
-Putin lashes out at the U.S. for 'helping Georgia'
-Georgia 'restarts shelling' after ceasefire call ignore
-Refugee crisis as 40,000 flee

Georgian officials tonight claimed the country had been 'overrun' by Russian troops after a full-scale ground invasion.
Amid reports that Moscow forces had taken the town of Gori - and were marching on the capital Tsblisi - Georgian soldiers appeared to be in full retreat.
Troops were apparently in complete chaos as a full-scale rout pushed them back through the countryside.

Meanwhile, the civilian crisis intensified with thousands of refugees fleeing the seemingly unstoppable advance of the Russian army.

An unidentified Georgian woman cries after finding out that her child was killed in a neighbouring village, in the town of Gori

Around 9,000 soldiers and 350 tanks had been massing at a base in the border region of Abkhazia throughout the day.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043236/Georgia-overrun-Russian-troops-scale-ground-invasion-begins.html

Lanie
08-12-2008, 11:32 AM
And Bush told Russia to back the heck off. It's rare that I say this, but good for him.

Molon Labe
08-12-2008, 12:15 PM
And Bush told Russia to back the heck off. It's rare that I say this, but good for him.

Yeah..whatever...

except there is evidence that Georgia may be as much the aggressor....

http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/arms_build_up_as_georgia_prepares_war_on_abkhazia_ south_ossetia.html

and this..

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=7378


Don't be one duped by the MSM...you won't get even a fraction of the truth.

Goldwater
08-12-2008, 12:35 PM
No, both sides are at fault, and Russia reacts in generally the only way it ever does.

biccat
08-12-2008, 12:45 PM
Yeah..whatever...

except there is evidence that Georgia may be as much the aggressor....

http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/arms_build_up_as_georgia_prepares_war_on_abkhazia_ south_ossetia.html

and this..

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=7378


Don't be one duped by the MSM...you won't get even a fraction of the truth.

Georgia may be the aggressor towards South Ossetia, but those are Georgian areas, not Russian. This wasn't a Russian problem until they got involved.

I will give Russia credit for taking a stand without first going on hands & knees to get permission from the United Nations.

Molon Labe
08-12-2008, 02:32 PM
No, both sides are at fault, and Russia reacts in generally the only way it ever does.

True.. I feel that they are as much the aggressor...
I'm just tired of Bushy condemning that which is convenient.

ReaganForRus
08-12-2008, 04:02 PM
And so it begins................Germany occupies the Rhineland, and Europe does nothing.

Russia invades Georgia and Europe and the UN do nothing..........Putin is on the march.:mad:

Molon Labe
08-12-2008, 04:28 PM
And so it begins................Germany occupies the Rhineland, and Europe does nothing.

Russia invades Georgia and Europe and the UN do nothing..........Putin is on the march.:mad:

Of course the UN would do nothing. Did you expect something different. They are impotent.

Did you know the Georgian troops were American trained? Reminds me of some Chalmer's Johnson material.

Would you believe that pisses some people off like ....the Russians? And Clinton and Bushy, two dumbass administrations , have some responsibility.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3453


Russia, Georgia, and the Western Alliance

From the desk of Joshua Trevino

The Russian war aim in Georgia, inasmuch as it may be discerned after a bare 48 hours of full combat, appears to be what I said it likely is: “the Russians [will] fully occupy South Ossetia, along with the other secessionist region of Georgia, Abkhazia; declare them both independent or somehow annexed; and thoroughly punish the Georgians with a countrywide air campaign targeting what meager infrastructure there is.” As if to swiftly confirm the hypothesis, we see today that the Abkhazians have joined the war, thus opening a second front against the Georgians. Quite nearly everything that can go wrong for the Caucasian republic has: Georgian forces have been fully ejected from South Ossetia; Russian troops are landing on the Abkhaz coast (it’s unclear whether at Sukhumi or Ochamchira); Russian air power is hitting strategic targets throughout Georgia; and at this writing — just after dawn in the Caucasus — a general Russian offensive may be underway.

Mikheil Saakashvili’s government may have declared war and sued for peace in the space of a day, but events are in motion that render its wishes, contradictory as they are, wholly irrelevant.

Georgia’s American-trained armed forces may make it a fight, but there are only two things that will save the little republic now: it’s enemies’ forbearance, or America (and by extention, NATO) itself. It’s the latter that Saakashvili and the Georgians are appealing to now: the latter march in the Tbilisi streets to demand Western intervention; and the Georgian president somewhat histrionically declares, “If the whole world does not stop Russia today, then Russian tanks will be able to reach any other European capital.” Herein lies the tragedy of this war, not just for Georgia, but for the United States and the West in general. Help for Georgia is not on the way, and it will not be. The NATO countries are bound to inaction by their existing commitments and the logic of their own actions — in Serbia.

The Russian assault upon Georgia is justified — inasmuch as it is justifiable — on the same grounds as the 1999 NATO assault upon Serbia. A national minority desired secession, pursued that end with violent means, and called in a foreign protector when its struggle went bad. That foreign protector had its own agenda, of course: naivete, ignorance and self-regard fueled the Western intervention in Kosovo; and Machiavellian revisionism fuels the Russian intervention in Georgia. It must be remembered that the former led directly to the latter. In this space several months back, I warned that Kosovar independence would provide “a pretext for Russian action against American allies,” specifically in the Caucasus. And so it did, with Vladimir Putin retaliating for Kosovar independence by setting in motion the events that led to the present war. The Clinton Administration architects of the original Kosovo policy in 1999, and the Bush Administration architects who acquiesced to its logical end in 2008, bear a heavy responsibility for the blood shed in Georgia now.
Still, the ultimate responsibility is Russia’s, which is now a plainly and violently revisionist power. No amount of Western naivete, ignorance and self-regard, nor Georgian blundering, could create this war without Russia’s will to strife. That will springs from multiple causes, some rooted in the nature of autocracy, and some rooted in the nature of the Russian national character; and it is directed toward the overturning of what is, for Russia, the central strategic outcome of the Cold War’s end. The late Alexander Solzhenitsyn, quoted in Wayne Allensworth’s The Russian Question, expresses the Russian sense of that outcome clearly:


The trouble is not that the USSR broke up — that was inevitable. The real trouble, and a tangle for a long time to come, is that the breakup occurred mechanically along false Leninist borders, usurping from us entire Russian provinces. In several days, we lost 25 million ethnic Russians — 18 percent of our entire nation — and the government could not scrape up the courage even to take note of this dreadful event, a colossal historic defeat for Russia, and to declare its political disagreement with it.

Here, then, the source of the popular resonance of Moscow’s claims that it attacks Georgia to protect its own, with the concurrent surge of Cossack and faux-Cossack volunteers into Ossetia.

As Russian revisionism’s armed expression slowly crushes Georgia, the states with the most historical reason to fear Russia look on with mounting alarm. This extraordinary communique from the Presidents of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, prompted by the Georgian war, denounces Russia’s “imperialist and revisionist policy in the East of Europe” with startlingly undiplomatic language. These nations are members of NATO and the European Union, and they look to their putative allies now to provide them with the protection and assurance that they expect. Thus we see the war in the Caucasus evolve into a litmus test for the basic institutions of the West itself. If those institutions fail, especially in the eyes of its most vulnerable members, then the suffering in Georgia will, in the long run, be mere prelude.

Molon Labe
08-13-2008, 10:31 AM
No, both sides are at fault, and Russia reacts in generally the only way it ever does.

I read something that changes my opinion on this..... Were you aware that a proposal that would allow autonomy to both Georgia and Abkhazia through a federation was offered? Georgia balked at it because they believe the seperatists don't like any territorial integrity of a place like S. Ossetia.
That makes Georgia the aggressor in my opinion.

Now couple that with a worthless UN security.....and then our recent claims that the Caucus region is a "vital interest to U.S. security" (how often do we hear that these days..is there a place on the map that isn't a "vital security issue" to us.)

There are so many misconceptions of how real a threat NATO is viewed by Russia and their international security.

Eyelids
08-13-2008, 10:36 PM
And so it begins................Germany occupies the Rhineland, and Europe does nothing.

Russia invades Georgia and Europe and the UN do nothing..........Putin is on the march.:mad:

HAHAHA I dont think so.

Lanie
08-14-2008, 01:10 AM
Yeah..whatever...

except there is evidence that Georgia may be as much the aggressor....

http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/arms_build_up_as_georgia_prepares_war_on_abkhazia_ south_ossetia.html

and this..

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=7378


Don't be one duped by the MSM...you won't get even a fraction of the truth.

I guess my thing is that I've been watching Russia from a distance ever since they started selling nukes and since Putin took over. I don't see an innocent country there. I've actually gotten upset to see how friendly we often are with Russia. I'll try to open my mind some though in light of this post.

gator
08-14-2008, 06:59 AM
I guess my thing is that I've been watching Russia from a distance ever since they started selling nukes and since Putin took over. I don't see an innocent country there. I've actually gotten upset to see how friendly we often are with Russia. I'll try to open my mind some though in light of this post.

There is a lesson here that will be lost to the NeoCons.

After the fall of the Soviet Union we got involved in all kinds of stupid nation building all over the world. We have found out in Georgia that the world is really no safer.

We should just do what our Founding Fathers suggested and stay out of the business of foreign entainglements.

ReaganForRus
08-14-2008, 07:24 AM
I dont think .

Fixed...........Learn some actual history and you'll come to the same conclusion. Putin and the Russians cannot be trusted.

p://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5942816.html

John
08-14-2008, 07:34 AM
All I'm going to say for now is to not believe the spin. I know it's hard to think of Russia as a good guy, but they actually have a strong case once you dissolve all the American spin on this conflict.

I'm not an anti-American, I just know the score.

Molon Labe
08-14-2008, 09:20 AM
All I'm going to say for now is to not believe the spin. I know it's hard to think of Russia as a good guy, but they actually have a strong case once you dissolve all the American spin on this conflict.

I'm not an anti-American, I just know the score.

Keep reading some of the posts on this subject. The Neocon bullshit is thick lately. Somehow Bush has the moral clarity to tell Russia, and Georgia what they should and shouldn't do in foreign policy when it comes to a sovreign state, and now it's in the U.S. "vital security interest" yet again to get involved.

biccat
08-14-2008, 09:44 AM
Keep reading some of the posts on this subject. The Neocon bullshit is thick lately. Somehow Bush has the moral clarity to tell Russia, and Georgia what they should and shouldn't do in foreign policy when it comes to a sovreign state, and now it's in the U.S. "vital security interest" yet again to get involved.

So you wholly supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq 'against' the UN's wishes? Because you're saying that no one, especially the United States, has the right to tell one country not to invade another.

BTW, is it still Georgia's fault when Osstian "volunteers" are raping and burning their way through Georgia while being protected by Russian tanks? Is this part of the Russian Peacekeeping mission?

NonConformist
08-14-2008, 09:51 AM
AFA Im concerned, Russians will always be the enemy short of a clear attack on them by China. Hell, they deserve it!

They are no different than they were as the USSR, just smaller but still just as evil and still supplying arms to the worlds commies and other badguys

Our biggest mistake was not kicking their asses after WWII, id rather have let the Nazis have Europe than the fucking Russians

Full-Auto
08-14-2008, 11:43 AM
We need to dissolve NATO and find new allies. Georgia would be a good one, as would the Ukraine.

I would trade Georgia and Ukraine as allies over France and Germany.

M21
08-14-2008, 11:56 AM
All I'm going to say for now is to not believe the spin. I know it's hard to think of Russia as a good guy, but they actually have a strong case once you dissolve all the American spin on this conflict.

I'm not an anti-American, I just know the score.I agree with what you are saying John. Both sides are pumping the media. We all know that Georgia is in an uber strategic location just like Turkey is. One of the major reasons we were in Turkey to the degree we were during the Cold War was location, location, location.

M21
08-14-2008, 11:57 AM
We need to dissolve NATO and find new allies. Georgia would be a good one, as would the Ukraine.

I would trade Georgia and Ukraine as allies over France and Germany.

And Romania for Italy. +1

Molon Labe
08-14-2008, 12:16 PM
I agree with what you are saying John. Both sides are pumping the media. We all know that Georgia is in an uber strategic location just like Turkey is. One of the major reasons we were in Turkey to the degree we were during the Cold War was location, location, location.

I just read a blog about this and one of the points was well taken:
Does anyone here think that the quick mobilization and deployment of the Russian military was kind of suspicious? Was it pre planned and well thought out?

Eyelids
08-14-2008, 02:41 PM
Id rather have let the Nazis have Europe than the fucking Russians

Are you sure about that?

Eyelids
08-14-2008, 02:42 PM
Was it pre planned and well thought out?
Well I dont think one night a bunch of them got drunk and decided to invade Georgia.

NonConformist
08-14-2008, 04:24 PM
They were after the ports and its proximity to iran and used the 'peacekeeper' and 'Russians being attacked' as an excuse.

Thats why we agreed to take control of the ports IMO, to stop the Russians under the guise(and for) humanitarian aid

Molon Labe
08-14-2008, 05:14 PM
Well I dont think one night a bunch of them got drunk and decided to invade Georgia.

They saw what we were doing in 2001 and 2002 when we were getting ready to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and they saw that it's not about the U.N. it's about hegemony. They've been wanting to go into Georgia for a long time. It's looking more and more like all they needed was a reason. What a mess.

LogansPapa
08-14-2008, 06:18 PM
John McCain: "Today we’re all Georgians"

By Associated Press | Tuesday, August 12, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | 2008 Pres. Campaign

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate John McCain continued hammering Russia on Tuesday for its invasion of U.S.-allied Georgia, telling a cheering audience that he had spoken again with the tiny Caucasus country’s president to assure him of America’s moral support.

The longtime Arizona senator, who had adopted an increasingly tough line against Moscow well before the crisis in Georgia, told a town meeting in Pennsylvania that he had spoken with Mikhail Saakashvili, president of the former Soviet republic, to assure him that "Today we are all Georgians."

McCain said Moscow is using "violence against Georgia to send a signal" to "any country that chooses to associate with the West." Russian leaders, he said, must realize they risk "the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world."

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1112616&format=text

LogansPapa
08-14-2008, 06:46 PM
In Split Role, McCain Adviser Is Sometimes a Lobbyist

By MICHAEL COOPER / Published: August 13, 2008

When Senator John McCain led a Senate investigation three years ago of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist who later pleaded guilty to fraud charges, Mr. Abramoff’s old firm turned to a former McCain campaign adviser for help.

The firm, Greenberg Traurig, which had quickly cut its ties to Mr. Abramoff, hired Randy Scheunemann, who had been the McCain campaign’s foreign policy adviser in 2000 — and is again this year — for advice on handling the Senate investigation.

"After Greenberg Traurig severed ties to Mr. Abramoff, Mr. Scheunemann advised the law firm on how best to cooperate with the Senate investigation," said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the McCain campaign. "The record reflects that the law firm cooperated."

Mr. Rogers said he believed that Mr. Scheunemann was hired because he had worked in Congress for more than a decade and had experience with investigations, and not because of any ties he had to Mr. McCain. He added that Mr. Scheunemann had served the firm in an advisory role, and had never spoken with Mr. McCain about the issue.

Since the Russian invasion of Georgia, Mr. Scheunemann has drawn attention for his lobbying efforts on behalf of the Georgian government, for which he lobbied until March. Mr. McCain has been outspoken in his support of Georgia. During a flight on Tuesday on the McCain campaign plane, Mr. Scheunemann told reporters that Mr. McCain has known the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, for more than a decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/politics/14mccain.html?ref=politics

AmPat
08-14-2008, 07:39 PM
Russia manufactured the "crises" that REQUIRED their military invasion. I don't see us getting militarily involved and this looks like Russia's evil USSR personality revealed. Like Patton, "I never trusted those Russian Bastards."

Our response will be limited to empty rhetoric and worthless economic isolation. Russia has money and oil. We are powerless to intervene.:cool:

Lanie
08-14-2008, 09:21 PM
There is a lesson here that will be lost to the NeoCons.

After the fall of the Soviet Union we got involved in all kinds of stupid nation building all over the world. We have found out in Georgia that the world is really no safer.

We should just do what our Founding Fathers suggested and stay out of the business of foreign entainglements.

To a point I want to agree with that, especially since I'm one of those people who often fear that the US will step over the line (to put it lightly). But what you do when you're the superpower, have all this money, and the world looks to you for help? I'm not sure our Founding Fathers considered this. All the more reason not to appreciate the concept of superpowers. :( People think we have to have one, but I hope the day comes when we don't.

Lanie
08-14-2008, 09:25 PM
All I'm going to say for now is to not believe the spin. I know it's hard to think of Russia as a good guy, but they actually have a strong case once you dissolve all the American spin on this conflict.

I'm not an anti-American, I just know the score.

The main case I think Russia has is that South Ossetia has separationists who really want to be part of Russia with North Ossetia. If those separationists are the majority, then Georgia really should cut them loose and not kill people for land.

But this doesn't give Russia the right to go fight for land that is technically Georgia's. Keep in mind that Russia (whether ran by a PM, Communist leaders, or a Czar) has a nasty history of seeing land, deciding they want it, and pushing themselves onto others. Ask Chechnya about that. People think they're the bad guys. Yes, terrorist acts are wrong, but Russia is actually the bad guy there. Chechnya has NEVER wanted to be part of that country and Russia forces themselves on them just because they can. Russia needs to take the hint and get their hands off already.

M21
08-14-2008, 11:51 PM
They saw what we were doing in 2001 and 2002 when we were getting ready to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and they saw that it's not about the U.N. it's about hegemony. They've been wanting to go into Georgia for a long time. It's looking more and more like all they needed was a reason. What a mess.

What do Liberals and Russians have in common? The both want to recreate 1968.

They should take note of the statement made yesterday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She said, in part, “This is not 1968.”

biccat
08-15-2008, 08:38 AM
All the more reason not to appreciate the concept of superpowers. :( People think we have to have one, but I hope the day comes when we don't.
So why don't liberals work to lift up other countries, rather than tear down this one?

Molon Labe
08-15-2008, 08:49 AM
. If those separationists are the majority, then Georgia really should cut them loose and not kill people for land.

But that's entirely the point of interstate war. It's about resources. It always has been. Whenever someone tells you war is for this or that reason (slavery, security, WMD's) Most often that's the surface and a child's view of war.

Molon Labe
08-15-2008, 11:49 AM
More B.S. from the statist bastards at AEI. And notice the little sniveling Fred Kagan was leading the panel. Whenever I hear him talk, it's always clear he wishes for wider war in the region.


http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1769/event_detail.asp


On Friday, August 8, the longstanding tensions between Georgia and Russia over the separatist region of South Ossetia escalated dramatically. Reports indicate that late last week, Georgia’s staunchly pro-Western government launched an offensive to reclaim the territory, shelling secessionist militias and sending forces into the city of Tskhinvali. Russia, which maintains a peacekeeping detachment in South Ossetia, responded in short order with what President Bush has called “disproportionate” force, striking civilian and military targets deep within Georgia and deploying a naval flotilla off the country’s Black Sea coast. Following three days of intense hostilities and repeated appeals for Western intervention, Georgia took steps to deescalate the conflict, calling for a cease-fire and withdrawing its troops from South Ossetia. Although Russia declared an end to its military operations on August 12, Russian troops remain deployed on Georgia territory and a resolution has yet to be achieved.

Praised by American policymakers as a bastion of democracy, Georgia has proven to be an enthusiastic ally of the United States in recent years, deploying a brigade to Diyala province in Iraq, lobbying for NATO membership, and seeking increased European integration. How, then, will the United States and its European allies respond to the current conflict? What are the implications of the war for other aspiring pro-Western governments? What does Russia’s conduct in the conflict tell us about Moscow’s longer-term domestic and foreign policy objectives? At an AEI event on Wednesday, August 13, AEI resident scholars Leon Aron and Frederick W. Kagan will provide an initial analysis of the conflict, with commentary from retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and from Lt. Col. Bob Hamilton, an Army foreign area officer and fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who recently returned from a two-year tour as chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation in Tbilisi, Georgia. AEI’s Thomas Donnelly will moderate the discussion.

Lager
08-15-2008, 03:19 PM
Victor Davis Hanson had a great point in one of his essays. He said,

"The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state."

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081208.html

Europe's credibility and power are on the wane and the Russians know it.

Molon Labe
08-15-2008, 04:06 PM
Victor Davis Hanson had a great point in one of his essays. He said,

"The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state."

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081208.html

Europe's credibility and power are on the wane and the Russians know it.

I have read Hanson for years. He is a great historian, but he has become a Neo-con stooge who pushes their agenda with clever platitudes like "democracy" and uses his study of history to justify the precedent of preemptive war. "Democracy" is now the flavor of the month phrase for the justification for just about all interventionism. It's a relatively new concept to institute democracy by arms and not by example.

It's also simplistic and a quaint talking point to view Georgia as a Russian response to western "liberals". As if every response rational state actors make is against left wing politics only.
The Russian response in Georgia is more likely that the game is worth the candle. The world community is impotent and it's realism. It's not a left wing bullshit to know that Russia views their predicament as a zero sum game.
And Georgia is a liberal democracy my arse.

Lager
08-15-2008, 04:25 PM
I must not have read the same article as you. I saw no part where Hanson was advocating any intervention on our behalf, neoCon or not --which seems to be a term being thrown about to cover just about any thing that those who lean left of center disagree with.

Of course Russia's actions are not a response to Western liberalism, although their boldness might in some way be related.

Molon Labe
08-15-2008, 04:30 PM
I must not have read the same article as you. I saw no part where Hanson was advocating any intervention on our behalf, neoCon or not --which seems to be a term being thrown about to cover just about any thing that those who lean left of center disagree with.

Of course Russia's actions are not a response to Western liberalism, although their boldness might in some way be related.

In all fairness...I've avoided his writings of late and I did not read further than your quote. Kind of a involontary gag reflex when reading Neo con bunk. I am a recovering one....so I know the drill.
Being that neoconservatism is a left wing ideology ...I doubt that above.


To be fair to you I'll read it in it's entirety. This is probably my penintence for sending his articles to all my liberal friends over the years. ;)