Yes, but most of them are either pushing up daisies or hunting rats by candlelight
georgia/russia: war?
- Thread starter swears
- Start date
Yes, but most of them are either pushing up daisies or hunting rats by candlelight
swears
preppy-kei
Ergghh... what a tit.
crackerjack
Well-known member
crackerjack
Well-known member
Should stress there is no equivalence between the two, however unnecessary Georgian actions in Ossetia. For starters, Saaskashvili hasn't started 4 wars in 10 years that I know of.
vimothy
yurp
Wub? "Asymmetric warfare cuts both ways"?
Yes, Russia: that well known economic powerhouse. Er...
Anyway, one very imporant factor in all this is transit:
Perhaps the biggest success at the NATO summit in Bucharest was an under-the-radar development, in which Uzbekistan consented to giving NATO forces an overland re-supply route to Afghanistan. But Tashkent’s acceptance comes with a potentially problematic catch for the United States.
The United States worked painstakingly in recent months to repair bilateral relations with Uzbekistan, and to obtain Tashkent’s approval for a transit corridor. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. NATO planners feel that an overland rail supply route would greatly ease the logistical hassles connected with reconstruction and counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Capping a period of intensive diplomacy, Pamela Spratlen, the acting US deputy secretary of state for Central and South Asian affairs, spent five days in Uzbekistan, from March 27-April 1, meeting with top Uzbek leaders. The mission was shrouded in secrecy -- a fact underscored by a statement issued April 1 by the US embassy in Tashkent that described Spratlen’s extended tour in Uzbekistan only as "a useful visit."
Prior to the NATO conclave in Bucharest on April 2-4, Russia signaled that it would facilitate a transit corridor. Attending the discussions on April 4, Uzbek President Islam Karimov also formally endorsed the plan. An overland route may prove a particular boost to reconstruction assistance bound for Afghanistan.
"We in Uzbekistan are acutely aware that the decisive factor for security is the attainment of peace and stability in Afghanistan," Karimov said in an address to the assembled heads of state. Karimov added that Afghanistan’s stabilization would create "big opportunities for the resolution of vitally important problems of the stable socio-economic development of the entire Central Asian region."
Karimov indicated that Tashkent was agreeing to a transit corridor -- in which the Uzbek border city of Termez would serve as the hub -- mainly out of a desire to keep NATO engaged in Afghanistan. During the run-up to the Bucharest summit, some NATO member states indicated that they might consider pulling their troop contingents out of Afghanistan if no steps were taken to reinforce the war effort.
The United States worked painstakingly in recent months to repair bilateral relations with Uzbekistan, and to obtain Tashkent’s approval for a transit corridor. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. NATO planners feel that an overland rail supply route would greatly ease the logistical hassles connected with reconstruction and counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Capping a period of intensive diplomacy, Pamela Spratlen, the acting US deputy secretary of state for Central and South Asian affairs, spent five days in Uzbekistan, from March 27-April 1, meeting with top Uzbek leaders. The mission was shrouded in secrecy -- a fact underscored by a statement issued April 1 by the US embassy in Tashkent that described Spratlen’s extended tour in Uzbekistan only as "a useful visit."
Prior to the NATO conclave in Bucharest on April 2-4, Russia signaled that it would facilitate a transit corridor. Attending the discussions on April 4, Uzbek President Islam Karimov also formally endorsed the plan. An overland route may prove a particular boost to reconstruction assistance bound for Afghanistan.
"We in Uzbekistan are acutely aware that the decisive factor for security is the attainment of peace and stability in Afghanistan," Karimov said in an address to the assembled heads of state. Karimov added that Afghanistan’s stabilization would create "big opportunities for the resolution of vitally important problems of the stable socio-economic development of the entire Central Asian region."
Karimov indicated that Tashkent was agreeing to a transit corridor -- in which the Uzbek border city of Termez would serve as the hub -- mainly out of a desire to keep NATO engaged in Afghanistan. During the run-up to the Bucharest summit, some NATO member states indicated that they might consider pulling their troop contingents out of Afghanistan if no steps were taken to reinforce the war effort.
Because shit like this will fuck you up,
I'm quoting The Australian over the latest attack on ISAF's supply lines in Pakistan:
They were waiting to get inside, you see, so one has to presume these tankers were all fully loaded. So one can't not guess the impact of the attack, described below.
If one counts with 44,000 liters as a possible standard payload of fuel for each tanker (I'm taking that figure from a news report about a previous attack), that's 1,760,000 to 2,200,000 liters of fuel lost in the attack. Big fireball, big loss.
"... 100 tankers, all owned by private contractors and loaded with fuel destined for Afghanistan, were parked on a dry river bed close to the Torkham border processing point.
The tankers had gathered there because the border post was closed as a result of a long weekend marking the Eid Milad-un-Nabi holiday that commemorates Mohammed's birthday.
The drivers were awaiting clearance to cross into Afghanistan..."
The tankers had gathered there because the border post was closed as a result of a long weekend marking the Eid Milad-un-Nabi holiday that commemorates Mohammed's birthday.
The drivers were awaiting clearance to cross into Afghanistan..."
They were waiting to get inside, you see, so one has to presume these tankers were all fully loaded. So one can't not guess the impact of the attack, described below.
"The attack caused an inferno destroying between 40 and 50 of the tankers. Several people were killed and more than 60 were left with serious burns."
If one counts with 44,000 liters as a possible standard payload of fuel for each tanker (I'm taking that figure from a news report about a previous attack), that's 1,760,000 to 2,200,000 liters of fuel lost in the attack. Big fireball, big loss.
vimothy
yurp
And this,
There are a lot of ways to cripple a tunnel. Hell, do it low-tech: drive a fuel truck in there, with a car following, jackknife the truck halfway through with a remote control or timing fuse—truck driver gets out and strolls to the car, one fast U-turn and you’re out and back in Georgia, just in time to see a ball of flame erupt from the tunnel exit. And rebuilding a tunnel way up in the mountains is not an easy or a fast job. Sure, the Russians could resupply by air, but that’s a much, much tougher job and would at least slow down the inevitable. Weird, then, that as far as I know the Georgians didn’t even try to blast that tunnel. I don’t go in for this kind of long-distance micromanaging of warfare, because there’s usually a good reason on the ground for tactical decisions; it’s the strategic decisions that are really crazy most of the time. But this one I just don’t get.
vimothy
yurp
Agreed.
Georgia is not perfect, but it is not a dictatorship. Its leadership does not peddle a phoney ideology, such as the Kremlin's mishmash of Soviet nostalgia and tsarist-era chauvinism. It has a thriving civil society, vocal opposition and ardently wants to be in the EU and Nato. Moral grounds alone would be enough reason for supporting it against Russian aggression.
But on top of that is a vital Western interest. The biggest threat Russia poses to Europe is the Kremlin's monopoly on energy export routes to the West from the former Soviet Union. The one breach in that is the oil and gas pipeline that leads from energy-rich Azerbaijan to Turkey, across Georgia. If Georgia falls, Europe's hopes of energy independence from Russia fall too.
Yet the West is both divided and distracted. America will be furious if reports turn out to be true that Russian warplanes bombed an airfield where Pentagon military advisers are based. But a lame-duck president is not going to risk World War Three for Georgia. In Europe, Georgia's allies are mostly small ex-communist states such as Lithuania; heavily outnumbered by those such as Germany that prize their relations with Russia, seemingly, above all else. It seems Russia is ready to hit back hard, in the hope of squashing the West's pestilential protégé.
In short, it looks more and more as though Georgia has fallen in to its enemies' trap. The script went like this: first mount unbearable provocations, then wait for a response, and finally reply with overwhelming military force and diplomatic humiliation. The idea that Georgia sought this war is nonsense. Recovering control of South Ossetia from its Russian-backed rulers has been a top priority for the Georgian authorities for years. But nobody thought it would come by military means. The Georgian strategy had been to use soft power, underlining its prosperity and the corruption-busting successes of Mr Saakashvili's rule. That contrasted sharply with the isolation and cronyism of South Ossetia, which survives only on smuggling and Russian subsidies.
But on top of that is a vital Western interest. The biggest threat Russia poses to Europe is the Kremlin's monopoly on energy export routes to the West from the former Soviet Union. The one breach in that is the oil and gas pipeline that leads from energy-rich Azerbaijan to Turkey, across Georgia. If Georgia falls, Europe's hopes of energy independence from Russia fall too.
Yet the West is both divided and distracted. America will be furious if reports turn out to be true that Russian warplanes bombed an airfield where Pentagon military advisers are based. But a lame-duck president is not going to risk World War Three for Georgia. In Europe, Georgia's allies are mostly small ex-communist states such as Lithuania; heavily outnumbered by those such as Germany that prize their relations with Russia, seemingly, above all else. It seems Russia is ready to hit back hard, in the hope of squashing the West's pestilential protégé.
In short, it looks more and more as though Georgia has fallen in to its enemies' trap. The script went like this: first mount unbearable provocations, then wait for a response, and finally reply with overwhelming military force and diplomatic humiliation. The idea that Georgia sought this war is nonsense. Recovering control of South Ossetia from its Russian-backed rulers has been a top priority for the Georgian authorities for years. But nobody thought it would come by military means. The Georgian strategy had been to use soft power, underlining its prosperity and the corruption-busting successes of Mr Saakashvili's rule. That contrasted sharply with the isolation and cronyism of South Ossetia, which survives only on smuggling and Russian subsidies.
vimothy
yurp
This all probably for former Soviet bloc countries, of course. Bet they're shitting it right now. Esp Ukraine. 
EDIT: Russia is worried about the Taliban, though -- although it clearly holds most of the cards at present...
EDIT EDIT: Ukraine being blamed for supplying Georgia with arms (inc some of the Georgian patrol ships supposedly destoyed by the Russian Black Sea Fleet) and military advisors...
EDIT: Russia is worried about the Taliban, though -- although it clearly holds most of the cards at present...
EDIT EDIT: Ukraine being blamed for supplying Georgia with arms (inc some of the Georgian patrol ships supposedly destoyed by the Russian Black Sea Fleet) and military advisors...
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
Historical perspective from the Young Stalin author.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4509624.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4509624.ece
vimothy
yurp
Sounds about right. Statfor have been going on about this for months. Gotta watch the ground troops and how the former Soviet states react. America must be pretty worried about the possibility that Russia will flood Iran with weapons, plus the Transit issue (which does benefits Russia, however), plus the energy issue. "The end of dreams, the return of history..."
[Russian losses are reportedly high, BTW. And War Nerd might disparage it (of course!), but the Georgian military is pretty decent. The addition of 2,000 Iraq War veterans can't hurt either.]
[Russian losses are reportedly high, BTW. And War Nerd might disparage it (of course!), but the Georgian military is pretty decent. The addition of 2,000 Iraq War veterans can't hurt either.]
vimothy
yurp
Manoeuvre warfare:
On July 30, it was announced that Russian Railroad Troops have completed their mission in breakaway Abkhazia and are withdrawing. A battalion of some 400 men of reportedly unarmed Railroad Troops was sent to Abkhazia to repair the railroad on May 31 without warning or the consent of the Georgian government....
The troops have repaired 54 km of Soviet-built tracks with 20 tunnels and bridges south of the Abkhaz capital Sukhumi to the coastal town of Ochamchire.... At a colorful official ceremony in Dranda... the commander of the Railroad Troops General Sergei Klimets told journalists that the railroad operation was “purely humanitarian”... but Abkhaz officials said there is much more work left to do before this one-track railroad will have any commercial usage (RIA-Novosti, Interfax, July 30).
The Russian military uses railroads to deploy heavy weapons and armor to the battlefield. The acute military, strategic and tactical importance of the railroad system in Russia explains the existence of special Railroad Troops whose task is to keep the tracks in order during and in preparation for war and to organize makeshift armor battlefield disembarkment points.
The troops have repaired 54 km of Soviet-built tracks with 20 tunnels and bridges south of the Abkhaz capital Sukhumi to the coastal town of Ochamchire.... At a colorful official ceremony in Dranda... the commander of the Railroad Troops General Sergei Klimets told journalists that the railroad operation was “purely humanitarian”... but Abkhaz officials said there is much more work left to do before this one-track railroad will have any commercial usage (RIA-Novosti, Interfax, July 30).
The Russian military uses railroads to deploy heavy weapons and armor to the battlefield. The acute military, strategic and tactical importance of the railroad system in Russia explains the existence of special Railroad Troops whose task is to keep the tracks in order during and in preparation for war and to organize makeshift armor battlefield disembarkment points.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Berman reads the runes.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9bc4033e-c412-426c-9907-78d4e5d72abf
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9bc4033e-c412-426c-9907-78d4e5d72abf
crackerjack
Well-known member
Some of this seems far-fetched (though the notion that he was ridding himself of the Ossetia/Abkhazia problems is machiavellian but plausible, more plausible than the idea he thought GBW would send the cavalry into protect him).
So to get more military aid (and Saakashvili was already on a fair whack), he's prepared to let the Russians destroy his armed forces? Hmm. And possibly the biggest loser (politically) in all of this is NATO. It seems unlikely the Americans will risk a full scale war with Russia over Gerogia (even with McCain i/c), so without the guarantee of mutual assistance, what does NATO actually stand for? Distribution of free arms for the endangered, perhaps.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
It's a thought experiment, no? Not all outcomes are sought after directly.
The important thing to remember is that tactical victories =/ strategic success. Putin might have won a military war, but it's not necessarily the case that Russia's situation is improved. Hard power is not always the best option -- witness America's attempts at the same. Haven't exactly been unproblematic. Russia is no different.
Well, that's not exactly true, but given that it relies heavily on energy exports, don't assume it's in some sort of Dune/Freeman position ("he who can destroy a thing...") with regards to the west. Britian had a similar thing with sea power many years ago. Found out that we're all interconnected. And that was way back then. Beating Georgia's military, that's acheivable. However, there might be other consequences. There usually is...
The important thing to remember is that tactical victories =/ strategic success. Putin might have won a military war, but it's not necessarily the case that Russia's situation is improved. Hard power is not always the best option -- witness America's attempts at the same. Haven't exactly been unproblematic. Russia is no different.
Well, that's not exactly true, but given that it relies heavily on energy exports, don't assume it's in some sort of Dune/Freeman position ("he who can destroy a thing...") with regards to the west. Britian had a similar thing with sea power many years ago. Found out that we're all interconnected. And that was way back then. Beating Georgia's military, that's acheivable. However, there might be other consequences. There usually is...
crackerjack
Well-known member