It's war. Part III

[Lancer]

Twelve NATO divisions, jumping off from Poland and blitzing across the Caucasus could be in Georgia in days and expell those robbin Rooskies post haste.

[Saras]

Marines landing in Poti is faster. Fastest is via Turkey, a NATO ally fearing Russia becoming too close and too friendly with Armenia.

[Lancer]

Yes but with the Turks getting 70% of their nat gas from Russia and moslem fundies resurgent you can count them out.

Marines can't get into the Black Sea, again because of our 'friends' the Turks.

[Dr Strangelove]

I confess that until this last week I didn't even know where South Ossetia and Abkhazia were. I doubt that I'm alone. This region has been left in limbo for 16 years now, and it seems to me that it's time to settle the status of these two regions.
South Ossetia has been effectively independent for 16 years. It's pre-conflict population was more than 66% South Ossetian and a huge majority of that population supports independence form Georgia. Even if the former non-Ossetian population were taken in to account the portion supporting independence would be a majority, so as far as I'm concerned South Ossetia ought to be awarded indepndence. If it is possible to return to the pre-August 7 boundary then the non-Ossetians have at least some compensation, since at that time about 1/3 of South Ossetia was under Georgian occupation.
Abkhazia is a different matter. Prior to 1991 Abkahzians made less than 1/5th the population, the rest being Georgian, 45%, Russian, 14%, and Armenian, 14%. The savagery of the Confederation of the Peoples of the Caucasus militia, who fought on behalf of the Abkhazians from 1992 to 1994 killed or drove out most of the Georgians, Russians, and Armenians, so even if most Abkhazains have voted for independence, they don't represent more than a tiny minority of Abkhazia's original population. I'm not sure that dividing the country up and giving half to the Abkhazians and half to the Georgians would help matters. Historically partitioning countries between ethnic groups hasn't been very peaceful. Examples would be India - Pakistan, Israel - Paelstine, Eire - North Ireland.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Saras
Marines landing in Poti is faster. Fastest is via Turkey, a NATO ally fearing Russia becoming too close and too friendly with Armenia.

The Ruskies occupy Poti. I don't think they'll let NATO ships dock. Also, service will be terrible.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lancer
Twelve NATO divisions, jumping off from Poland and blitzing across the Caucasus could be in Georgia in days and expell those robbin Rooskies post haste.

You do realise that Poland isn't quite next to the Caucasus don't you? Going by land from Poland they'd have to cross Byelorus or Hungary to get to Ukraine, then they'd have to cross Southern Russia. The problem with going by air is that right now the Ruskies are so close to the Georgian airports they could use shotguns to bring down military transports.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I confess that until this last week I didn't even know where South Ossetia and Abkhazia were. I doubt that I'm alone. This region has been left in limbo for 16 years now, and it seems to me that it's time to settle the status of these two regions.
South Ossetia has been effectively independent for 16 years. It's pre-conflict population was more than 66% South Ossetian and a huge majority of that population supports independence form Georgia. Even if the former non-Ossetian population were taken in to account the portion supporting independence would be a majority, so as far as I'm concerned South Ossetia ought to be awarded indepndence. If it is possible to return to the pre-August 7 boundary then the non-Ossetians have at least some compensation, since at that time about 1/3 of South Ossetia was under Georgian occupation.
Abkhazia is a different matter. Prior to 1991 Abkahzians made less than 1/5th the population, the rest being Georgian, 45%, Russian, 14%, and Armenian, 14%. The savagery of the Confederation of the Peoples of the Caucasus militia, who fought on behalf of the Abkhazians from 1992 to 1994 killed or drove out most of the Georgians, Russians, and Armenians, so even if most Abkhazains have voted for independence, they don't represent more than a tiny minority of Abkhazia's original population. I'm not sure that dividing the country up and giving half to the Abkhazians and half to the Georgians would help matters. Historically partitioning countries between ethnic groups hasn't been very peaceful. Examples would be India - Pakistan, Israel - Paelstine, Eire - North Ireland.

The problem is tactical. If South Ossetia is allowed to break away then Georgia looses the montain shield vs Russia. I understand both sides in this one. Perhaps if the rebel people of South Ossetia were offered, say, a US passport and $10,000 each to get started here, it might put Georgians back in the majority fairly cheaply compared to war. However you still have to get the Russians out first and I think that's going to be a trick.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer

... Perhaps if the rebel people of South Ossetia were offered, say, a US passport and $10,000 each to get started here, ...

A U.S. Passport?! Bah! Let them start off in Mexico, like everyone else had to.

[PLATO]

I don't think that a military solution is very practical for a whole host of reasons. The West has many options to help the Russians decide to leave Georgia. If they don't have the guts for those, then I sure can't see them getting the guts for a military operation anyway.

As far as the independence of South Ossetia is concerned, I think they actually have a good case. The South Ossetians should have been working hard to get support from more than just the Russians however. The fact that they put all their eggs in the Russian basket may speak volumes about their actual ability to survive as an independent country and calls into question weather or not they would actually be a viable state.

While it is a bit unusual for the UN to get involved in internal matters of a soverign county, there is some precedent for them to work with Georgia and South Ossetia on some type of deal. This function is severly hampered by the presence of Russian troops and the actions that the Russian foriegn ministry took leading up to this war.

The good news for the South Ossetians is that their issue is now on the world stage...the bad news is that the territorial integrity of Georgia is also on the world stage. I don't think the Russians have done them any favors in the long run. It is quite likely that the West will not stand for a partition of Georgia now and it is equally likely that the Georgian military will get the support that they need to make any further "punishment sessions" by the Russians a bit more costly than Russia will probably want to deal with.

With NATO agreeing to help train the Georgian military, the likely presence of numerous western military "trainers", and a probable influx of Western military hardware into Georgia, then the Russians may be facing a series of disagreeable choices. The flip side is that the Russians may put the West in a position where they will also have some diagreeable choices.

Very sad as all of this could have been avoided if people had been willing to act in good faith for the benefit of both the Georgians and the South Ossetians.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lancer


The problem is tactical. If South Ossetia is allowed to break away then Georgia looses the montain shield vs Russia. I understand both sides in this one. Perhaps if the rebel people of South Ossetia were offered, say, a US passport and $10,000 each to get started here, it might put Georgians back in the majority fairly cheaply compared to war. However you still have to get the Russians out first and I think that's going to be a trick.

I don't think the mountain shield is worth that much these days. If you give the Ossetians US passports though they may sell them to the Chechens, who will in turn sell them to their Al Qaeda buddies.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by PLATO
I don't think that a military solution is very practical for a whole host of reasons. The West has many options to help the Russians decide to leave Georgia. If they don't have the guts for those, then I sure can't see them getting the guts for a military operation anyway.

You mean like kicking them out of the WTO as Bush suggested, to which Putin pointed out that Russia doesn't belong and has never been invited? Oh I know, Europe can forgo 40% of it's energy imports. Hey, and the Ruskies can forget about providing transport to and from the International Space Station, 'cause we can always hitch a ride with ........uh.......

As far as the independence of South Ossetia is concerned, I think they actually have a good case. The South Ossetians should have been working hard to get support from more than just the Russians however. The fact that they put all their eggs in the Russian basket may speak volumes about their actual ability to survive as an independent country and calls into question weather or not they would actually be a viable state.

Whose basket were they going to put their eggs in? There have been proposals in the past to replace Russians with EU troops and Europe flatly refused. They're an ethnic breakaway province. Probably every nation in Europe has one or more group just like them, and the Europeans don't want to encourage trouble at home. The US won't touch them because they're tied with the Soviets ..... uh..... well you know. What ever they're called now. What choice did they have? I think that most people don't realise that in the 1990s Russians came in to Abkhazia and South Ossetia more for the purposes of bringing the rebels unbder control than to protect the rebels from Georgia. Both regions were once associated with the "Confederation of the Peoples of the Caucasus" a rogue group which attempted to form an independent nation from the autonomous oblasts of Georgia and Southern Russia. On several occassions they rounded up Georgian, Russian and Armenian civilians, seperated the adults for the children - then executred the children.

While it is a bit unusual for the UN to get involved in internal matters of a soverign county, there is some precedent for them to work with Georgia and South Ossetia on some type of deal. This function is severly hampered by the presence of Russian troops and the actions that the Russian foriegn ministry took leading up to this war.

Is it made any easier by Bush and McCain encouraging the Georgians to cling on to the hopes of winning a war of secession they lost 16 years ago?

The good news for the South Ossetians is that their issue is now on the world stage...the bad news is that the territorial integrity of Georgia is also on the world stage.

Ultimately it's going to have to be one way or the other.

I don't think the Russians have done them any favors in the long run.

The are said to be 100,000 South Ossetian refugees in South Russia now thanks to Georgian ethnic cleansing in the early 1990s. Without the Russians troops there would now be 170,000 South Ossetian refugees. Would that be better? Consider also that without Russian intervention the CPC might have achieved their goals, in which case Georgia and the rest of the world would definitely worse off.

It is quite likely that the West will not stand for a partition of Georgia now and it is equally likely that the Georgian military will get the support that they need to make any further "punishment sessions" by the Russians a bit more costly than Russia will probably want to deal with.

A decent sized contingent of neutral observers would be nice.

With NATO agreeing to help train the Georgian military, the likely presence of numerous western military "trainers", and a probable influx of Western military hardware into Georgia, then the Russians may be facing a series of disagreeable choices. The flip side is that the Russians may put the West in a position where they will also have some diagreeable choices.

Quite true.

Very sad as all of this could have been avoided if people had been willing to act in good faith for the benefit of both the Georgians and the South Ossetians.

Yes, but I think that relations between the two have deteriorated to the point that either party will see a benefit to the other as a detriment to itself.

[Lancer]

As the men go marching out into the fray, conquering the enemy and carrying the daaayyy...

Oh our hearts are pounding in our ears, jubilation we can hear our grateful nations' cheers!

[binTravkin]

he difference is that we are defending our country from foreign criticism. Leave the criticism to us.

You have to hear a Russian criticizing Russia to believe it.

I think that most people don't realise that in the 1990s Russians came in to Abkhazia and South Ossetia more for the purposes of bringing the rebels unbder control than to protect the rebels from Georgia.

Dr. Strangelowe, I couldn't disagree more.
The Georgian civil war was and continues to be sponsored by Russia. Rebels only existed because of Russian military supplies.

The are said to be 100,000 South Ossetian refugees in South Russia now thanks to Georgian ethnic cleansing in the early 1990s.

To my knowledge here was no independently reported ethnic cleansing during those times and those numbers might as well be as accurate as the official death toll from Georgian attacks as provided by Russia.

Very sad as all of this could have been avoided if people had been willing to act in good faith for the benefit of both the Georgians and the South Ossetians.

You mean the Sov.. err Russia and Georgia?
Have you guys looked up who's leading the so called South Ossetia "government"?
All those guys are former soviet officials, generals and KGB agents.
Those people are taugh to act in the interests of themselves or mother Russia, not a few thousand "rebels".

[binTravkin]

I don't think the mountain shield is worth that much these days.

Sure it is. Georgians (unsuccessfully) bombed Roki tunnel for a reason.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Dr. Strangelove, I couldn't disagree more.
The Georgian civil war was and continues to be sponsored by Russia. Rebels only existed because of Russian military supplies.

The conflict between South Ossetia and Georgia actually began in 1989, two years before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I find it difficult to believe that the Soviets planned to rip apart one of their own republics in advasnce. As far as military supplies, I'd point out that the CPC, which was involved in the rebellion in Chechnya and a couple other Russian autonomous oblasts were well supplied. Would you say that Russia supported Chechen independence as well as the atttempted rebellions of Circassians and Cossacks? This was the only region which directly abutted on a NATO member. I'm sure that military depots abounded in the area.

To my knowledge here was no independently reported ethnic cleansing during those times and those numbers might as well be as accurate as the official death toll from Georgian attacks as provided by Russia.

At the time there were at least 3 groups fighting for control of Georgia itself. Georgia was in utter turmoil. There wasn't much independent reporting of much in Georgia at all then.

You mean the Sov.. err Russia and Georgia?
Have you guys looked up who's leading the so called South Ossetia "government"?
All those guys are former soviet officials, generals and KGB agents.
Those people are taugh to act in the interests of themselves or mother Russia, not a few thousand "rebels".

You have their CVs? In any case 90% of the South Ossetian population voted for independence. Even if it's assumed that the majority of displaced Georgians would vote against there would still be a majority for independence. You may contest the vote, but do you here anyone from a NATO country calling for an internationally monitotred re-vote?