Will Georgia turn into a Moscow satellite?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
They are on the table as relates to the humanitarian mission. If the US wants to do something (say, place humanitarian aid in Poti to break a Russian blockade), there's nothing stopping it from doing so. The US has those resources readily available.

The whole point of the McClatchky article is simple:

THE US DOESN'T.

The US has no warship in the Black Sea, and the only access that any US warship has to the Black sea is through the Bosporous, and anything over 10,000 tons Turkey can veto. It would take many days for any vessel of any significance to get there, and the Pentagon has already stated out loud that the US will take no steps to secure Poti by force, and will not seek military confrontation with Russia. It said so unequivicaly.

Man, what are you smoking, cause it is very good defense against REALITY.

[Lancer]

US Order of Battle, Iraq

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm

[DanS]

Put simply, it doesn't matter whether we have major naval forces delivering humanitarian supplies.

[Lancer]

GePap is correct. We cannot sail ships into the Black Sea, our 'friends' in Turkey won't let us. We can however send relief supplies by air, but we can't move sufficient forces by air to effect the outcome of the conflict.

We need to move what force we can to Poland and use that as the nucleus of the rebuilding of 7th Army. One thing I've been wondering is does the US still maintian pre-positioned arms in europe to supply Reforger units deployed from the US? If so, these divisions, 3 or 4 iirc, could be in Poland pretty quickly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Put simply, it doesn't matter whether we have major naval forces delivering humanitarian supplies.

Put more simply, the Russians know they remain unchallenged in Georgia (militarily speaking).

[DanS]

Originally posted by Lancer
We cannot sail ships into the Black Sea, our 'friends' in Turkey won't let us. We can however send relief supplies by air, but we can't move sufficient forces by air to effect the outcome of the conflict.

Who was talking about moving forces to do the bulk of the fighting? We're strictly on a humanitarian mission.

[Lancer]

Right, but Turkey still has to permit the passage of those ships. This they have been unwilling to do.

Turkey gets 70% of its natural gas from Russia.

[DanS]

Originally posted by GePap
Put more simply, the Russians know they remain unchallenged in Georgia (militarily speaking).

And they will remain so. But that's not the game going on.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Lancer
Right, but Turkey still has to permit the passage of those ships. This they have been unwilling to do.

Again, we don't need the ships. It might be expensive -- equivalent to a large Berlin Air Lift -- but we can supply Georgia by air.

[Lancer]

Sure, we can do that DanS.

[Lancer]

10,000 ton limit GePap? Interesting. I can just see a swarm of 9900 ton ships loaded with food heading through the straights.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lancer
10,000 ton limit GePap? Interesting. I can just see a swarm of 9900 ton ships loaded with food heading through the straights.

Well, then you need to readjust your vision.

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/aux_seal.htm

The US Navy has no transport ships in its fleet under 10,000 tons except a couple of classes of coastal gasoline tankers.

[Lancer]

Well sure, but I bet there's loads of small ships in the Med for hire.

[Kirnwaffen]

I don't see a lot of sense in dramatically increasing our forces in Europe in the short term. I think Russia is fairly preoccupied with Georgia right now, and I doubt they have any real desire to provoke a wider conflict in Europe at this time. Over the long term, however, I think it makes a lot of sense to redeploy forces into Europe as a sort of bulwark against future Russian military strength.

What's more important, I think, is that we take steps to reestablish some form of cooperation with Russia on European security. For starters, the missile shield needs to go. Strategically, it really doesn't provide us with a lot of security, while it has cost us increased tensions with Russia, which culminated in their withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

I also think this underscores the need for us to break our oil and fossil fuel dependence. That, more than anything else, is constraining Western freedom of action right now.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, the Pentagon was clear. ALL OPTIONS ARE NOT ON THE TABLE.

This is true -- and truely amazing.

We sui sponte take this option off the table and get nothing for it. Meanwhile Condi is on her way to Georgia with a cease-fire "agreement" which will permit Russia to keep its military in the two disputed regions, does not permit any independant observers in, but does permit Russia for six months to conduct "security operations" inside Georgia proper.

The Georgian President compares this "agreement" the the Munich Accords, wherein Britain agreed to give up parts of Czechoslavacia to Hitler. He's wrong. Neville Chamberlain then showed much more backbone than George Bush is now.