Where the biggest trouble after the clash of the major armies will be is in the actions of the militia and irregular soldiers of both sides.
These people will be armed locals with grudges one way or the other and as we have seen in other places like Rwanda, Croatia, Sudan and Iraq it perpetuates the cycle of hatred. It is local... It sometimes is your neighbour or your friend. If it is next door, you have to act. Hard, fast and uncompromising.
To deal with this would be unimaginable to most of us.
Long may it be so.
Originally posted by SeitseSeitse considering you are quite good at most of the comments you make on this forum. Seems to me you are a bit emotional on this one. Maybe too many pints of Lapin Kulta.... Or is the next attack going to be against a Swede for occupying Finland for too many years?
What are we discussing here, people, come on!?!? This debate is useless! The facts are on the table and the history is against Russia.
Russia is an imperialistic, cold blooded nation historically led by violent bastards who already masscred its own people, then jews, then Eastern Europeans, and will keep exercizing its muscle everytime it gets the chance t ...[text shortened]... ll the Russian prostitutes across the brothels of Europe, so they drown in their own AIDS! lol
Originally posted by infomasta good synopsis of the articles
Hi there,
I will, probably, disappoint you, but there is nothing earth-shattering in these two articles. They are taken from two Russian internet sites which are generally supportive of the government position. As you can imagine the Russian internet is overloaded with all kinds of info about the war but there is nothing special in these links.
The fi ...[text shortened]... t that the amateurs played any role in this war where the regular armies were employed.
Originally posted by PalynkaA good question for infomast is: Why did the Russians violate the cease-fire agreement ?
And let's not forget the recent incursions into Georgian territory to collect Georgian weapons from unguarded depots. There is definitely the risk of these weapons turning up in the hands of separatists, making it virtually impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy who killed whom.
Georgia and NATO
"Georgia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) signed the agreement on the appointment of Partnership for Peace (PfP) on February 14, 2005. The liaison officer between them came into force then and was assigned to Georgia. On March 2, 2005, the agreement was signed on the provision of the host nation supporting and aiding transit of NATO forces and NATO personnel. On March 6-9, 2006, the IPAP implementation interim assessment team arrived in Tbilisi. On April 13, 2006, the discussion of the assessment report on implementation of the Individual Partnership Action Plan was held at NATO Headquarters, within 26+1 format.[1] In 2006, the Georgian parliament voted unanimously for the bill which calls for the integration of Georgia into NATO. A majority of Georgians and politicians in Georgia support the movement for NATO membership. Georgia hopes to gain NATO membership in 2009.[2] On January 5, 2008 Georgia held a non-binding referendum on NATO membership with 77% voting in favor of joining the organization.[3]
On April 11, 2008, the head of the Russian military, general Yuri Baluyevsky stated that if Georgia joins the alliance, "Russia will take steps aimed at ensuring its interests along its borders and these will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different nature"[9]. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia released a statement that said that it was "a demonstration of open aggression against Georgia" and called on the international community to react adequately to this "serious threat". .... "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_and_NATO
******************************************************
The Russian threat followed by an enigmatic appendix:
"Russia will take steps aimed at ensuring its interests along its borders and these will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different nature"[9].
Well, we've witnessed the militairy steps Russia "promised" and now I'm curious to see what these "steps of a different nature" turn out to be.
Anybody any ideas ? Maybe Infomast ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeFrom your cut and paste:
Georgia and NATO
"Georgia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) signed the agreement on the appointment of Partnership for Peace (PfP) on February 14, 2005. The liaison officer between them came into force then and was assigned to Georgia. On March 2, 2005, the agreement was signed on the provision of the host nation supporting and aiding tr of a different nature" turn out to be.
Anybody any ideas ? Maybe Infomast ?
general Yuri Baluyevsky stated that if Georgia joins the alliance
That hasn't happened yet, has it?
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, they apparently have speeded up their policies ... don't you think so ? ... and since Georgia is in the Membership Action Plan .... they probably thought: "Let's roll."
From your cut and paste:
general Yuri Baluyevsky stated that [b]if Georgia joins the alliance[/b]
Do you have any idea what these "steps of a different nature" will be ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think that if Georgia hadn't escalated the situation, we wouldn't be talking about this now.
Well, they apparently have speeded up their policies ... don't you think so ? ... and since Georgia is in the Membership Action Plan .... they probably thought: "Let's roll."
Not that I think the Russian response was justified, but if you supported the war against Serbia because of Kosovo in 1999 (I didn't) it's hypocritical to criticize the Russians for doing the same thing as regards South Ossetia in 2008.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou blame Georgia don't you ? ...
I think that if Georgia hadn't escalated the situation, we wouldn't be talking about this now.
Not that I think the Russian response was justified, but if you supported the war against Serbia because of Kosovo in 1999 (I didn't) it's hypocritical to criticize the Russians for doing the same thing as regards South Ossetia in 2008.
Originally posted by ivanhoe1) The exchange of fire between Ossetians and Georgians have been going on for years with various intensity. You can pick the guilty party according to your political beliefs. The real escalation appears to occur a week before the war. Russian papers reported it and sounded concerned. The West didn't pay any attention at least in its mass media. The Ossetians don't consider themselves as separatists, they have their own citizens army and police and they were able to defeat the Georgians in 92-94. However, the Georgian army was reorganized, modernized and resupplied with the help of US instructors and huge military aid. After hearing of Georgian build up in Russian press, some people from nearby Russian regions organized themselves and decided to help on their own. You can find such individuals in most conflicts. During the war in Chechnya, there were scores of Arab volunteers helping there (although these were professional mercenaries, not amateurs). I can't, honestly, answer who started "the provocations" before the war since I don't have a first hand knowledge. But, I doubt that you have it either. Trust in the eyes of the beholder.
Thanks for your elaborate answer.
Two facts are important. First of all the coming of the "volunteers" to South Ossetia and secondly the attacks on Georgian villages by South Ossetion separatists before the 8th of August.
What roll do these "volunteers" play, whose orders do they follow and why do the Russian authorities let them get away with everythi ...[text shortened]... the Russian army, bombing Georgian cities, harbours, residential areas, etc, etc ? ...
2) The response is disproportinate only if you believe Saakashvili and Western sources. To me situation is somewhat similar to the first coalition war against Saddam Hussein. Russians view Saakashvili as an American pet project of building "colored" democracies around Russian periphery. They all have overt anti-Russian goals. But Saakashvili is especially provocative and inadequate. He began this offensive with total abandon, disregard for human life and without thinking thru the consequences. He was militarily defeated and, in view of many, should not be allowed to continue. Just like there were many in the US who demanded the coalition forces to march on to Baghdad and remove Hussein, there are some in Russia who believe that march on Tbilisi with removal of Saakashvili is warranted. At the very least, his military should be destroyed enough so that he won't repeat it. For Russia, there is absolutely no need to bomb cities, harbors, etc. But there is a need to destroy military depots, military installations and all other military hardware.