Russian military in Georgia (4 Viewers)

Georgia has also committed to the War in Iraq and currently has the most troops in country after the US and UK. Wonder why we didn't know that months ago? Ah, censorship in the form of subjective medis coverage:cool::mad: Mike
I've also heard they recalled there forces in Iraq immediatly to help in the fight.
Ray
 
In reading about the conflict I ran across this photo.

Any idea what's on the tank - looks like bricks to me (I admit, I don't know a lot about modern tanks). The photo is of a Georgean tank.

art.georgian.tank.ap.jpg
 
Georgia has also committed to the War in Iraq and currently has the most troops in country after the US and UK. Wonder why we didn't know that months ago? Ah, censorship in the form of subjective medis coverage:cool::mad: Mike
I knew that, it was generally available and noted more than once on NPR reports. It is not censorship, just poor focus from the commercial media. Actually, there is more real time information about the world available today than at any previous time, you just have to know where to look.
 
Any idea what's on the tank - looks like bricks to me (I admit, I don't know a lot about modern tanks). The photo is of a Georgean tank.

Peter

Without getting into all the technicalities, those brick like boxes are called reactive armor ... explosive charges to counter shaped charged warheads from anti-tank rockets/missiles.

You find the same kind of reactive armor used on US bradleys too.

OD
 
Let us all hope and pray that this conflict doesn't evolve to include the middle east region nor see the escalation of NATO and Russia.

I like reading and talking about history not leaving through it's world wars!

Carlos
 
When you start to connect the dots one can see how something like pre-WWI alliances led to war. The US media leave so much to be desired. It's amazing what one can learn listening to global shortwave radio. We Americans are so poorly informed about what is happening around the world. The media provides a very selective filter of what we know not only abroad but domestically as well. It's incredible how much time is devoted to the likes of Hannah Montana, Britney, Paris, and Anna Nicole. This is basically a wasted use of media time, leading to a poorly informed population and electorate.

Domestic media is hopeless,,,BBC or CNN intl plus some europeon feeds have a lot of detail,,depending on your system. see the item I posted about the coverage of the nuke sub HOUSTON.
 
Putin has let the Russian bear loose. anyone remember Munich?
 
I knew that, it was generally available and noted more than once on NPR reports. It is not censorship, just poor focus from the commercial media. Actually, there is more real time information about the world available today than at any previous time, you just have to know where to look.

I'm not referring to you , but the general public. What's the definition of censorship? Does it refer to governments only? Does the general public know (or care) where to look for current news, or does it stop on the front page of the newspaper and browser? Who determines what is news? You and I? :rolleyes: Mike
 
I got a kick when Bush stated that Russia was wrong by invading a soverign nation (Georgia). What was Iraq?
Gary
 
The noticable thing about this war and recent wars is the complete lack of coverage , think it started in iraq when journalists were being felled by the dozen. What we're left with now is press conferences by either side...who knows what is happening anymore??????????????
James Nachtwey was a prolific war photographer and made a great documentary 'War Photographer". Today Journalists are targets.
 
This is one of those regional conflicts that flares up like a volcano from time-to-time. Some places are just doomed by history, religion or geography to this cycle. When all is said and done a lot of people will be dead, oil prices will increase, the US will pay to reconstruct the damage and be blamed for not providing enough support to Georgia - and nothing will be resolved.
 
I'm not referring to you , but the general public. What's the definition of censorship? Does it refer to governments only? Does the general public know (or care) where to look for current news, or does it stop on the front page of the newspaper and browser? Who determines what is news? You and I? :rolleyes: Mike
Finding your local NPR station is not hard;) Today's journalism is nothing more than sensationalism marketed well but it sells so I guess the "public" is getting what it wants.:rolleyes:
 
Finding your local NPR station is not hard;) Today's journalism is nothing more than sensationalism marketed well but it sells so I guess the "public" is getting what it wants.:rolleyes:

Well living in the country, that gave the world Rupert Murdoch, the only decent consistently reliable source of news is a radio station in Australia that plays a mixture of the Australian ABC, BBC world news service and NPR:rolleyes::rolleyes: But even the BBC world service didn't have a clear idea of what was going on in Georgia. I guess its safer for the brave crack journalists to don camoflage gear and stake out Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie...
 
From the Irish Times 8/12/08

"The Pentagon admits to maintaining 125 military advisers in Georgia. Israeli advisers are also reported to be present."

Now that's interesting!
 
Some historical context: (2006)

Tuesday, Oct. 03, 2006 Time Magazine
Why the Russia-Georgia Spat Could Become a U.S. Headache
By YURI ZARAKHOVICH/MOSCOW
Russia has escalated its showdown with its small, NATO-inclined neighbor of Georgia by closing all transport and postal communications. No trains, no flights, no ships, no vehicles, no mail money orders — nothing can cross the border. This time, it's much worse than just another Russian spat with a former satellite state. The Georgia standoff may soon create a major headache for the Bush Administration, because of U.S. support for Georgia's right to align itself with the West.

Tuesday's announcement of the new measures came even after Georgia had handed over four Russian military intelligence officers accused of spying, and months of insults against Russia, threats to restore Georgia's sovereignty over its breakaway pro-Moscow provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and also assaults on Russian personnel serving in Georgia. Moscow insists that Russia is the injured party, forced to retaliate.

But the crisis, spurred by some emotional and erratic outbursts from Georgia, may actually suit Moscow's agenda, since the deeper issue driving the conflict is Georgia's geopolitical orientation: Georgia has joined the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline that skirts Russia and ends its monopoly on transporting Caspian Sea oil to world markets; it has defied Moscow on a range of regional issues; and it is attempting to join NATO, presenting the Russian military brass with the prospect of a strategic rival strengthening its position along Russia's southern underbelly. In short, the crisis is an expression of Russia's failure to accept Georgia's independence.

To tighten the financial blockade, Russia's legislature on Wednesday will consider a bill banning all financial transfers to Georgia. Remittances sent home by some 1.2 million Georgians working in Russia currently amount to around $2 billion annually, around 20% of Georgia's GDP.

The Georgians certainly appeared intent on provoking the neighborhood hegemon last week when they made an ostentatious show of arresting the four Russian officers, threatening them with 20-year prison sentences and cordoning off Russian military headquarters in Tbilisi to demand the surrender of another Russian officer. Two groups of Russian servicemen were disarmed and beaten.

But Russia appeared more than ready for an escalation. Moscow recalled its ambassador, closed down its embassy and evacuated its personnel, and put its approximately 4,000 troops still in Georgia on high alert, ordering them to shoot to kill if they needed to defend themselves. "These people [Georgians] think that under the protection of their foreign sponsors they can feel comfortable and secure," intoned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday in televised remarks. "Is it really so?"

Putin's jibe at the U.S. was transparent. And he stepped up his open support of the secessionist agenda of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which had broken away from Georgia with Russian encouragement in the early 1990s and are treated by Russia as if they had been annexed: he had their leaders formally invited to a major Russian economic conference held close to the Georgian border on Sunday.

Sensing the danger in provoking Russian ire, the Georgians quickly backpedaled: The four arrested Russian officers were handed over to European diplomats, and they arrived in Moscow on Monday night. But instead of reciprocating with calming measures, the Kremlin appears to have seized on the opening offered by Georgia to press home a point.

Relations between Russia and Georgia grew strained even in the Soviet Union's last years when the then-Soviet Republic elected an ardent nationalist as president. The rift intensified during the breakup of the Soviet Union, when the Russian military helped Ossetian and Abkhaz separatists. And relations have deteriorated to a breaking point since the current government of Mikheil Saakashvili came to power in a popular uprising two years ago.

Georgia will be unlikely ever to tempt the breakaway regions back into the fold unless Tbilisi make that choice look more attractive to the Ossetians and Abkhaz than alignment with Russia. Saakashvili's heavy hints that he might force the issue has allowed Moscow to accuse the Georgian leadership of threatening aggression. And it has certainly helped President Vladimir Putin rally the Russian public behind a nationalist cause. A poll taken by the Moscow-based Echo Moskvy radio station late last month found that 40% of its typically liberal audience believe that Russia's national interests justify any hard line on Georgia. Such jingoism could work as smartly for Putin's as yet unnamed heir-designate as the Chechen war worked for Putin back in 1999 — that's if Putin feels sufficiently emboldened to risk reiterating Moscow's neighborhood supremacy by challenging what he sees as a U.S. proxy on his own turf.

Given the U.S. commitment to Georgia, the standoff raises a dilemma for the Bush Administration: Unless both Putin and Saakashvili are restrained, the spat that began with the arrest of four Russian officers could degenerate quickly into a real disaster.
 
From the Irish Times 8/12/08

"The Pentagon admits to maintaining 125 military advisers in Georgia. Israeli advisers are also reported to be present."

Now that's interesting!

From the Israeli media:

Israel backs Georgia in Caspian Oil Pipeline Battle with Russia
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
August 8, 2008, 4:26 PM (GMT+02:00)

Georgian tanks and infantry, aided by Israeli military advisers, captured the capital of breakaway South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, early Friday, Aug. 8, bringing the Georgian-Russian conflict over the province to a military climax.
Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin threatened a “military response.”
Former Soviet Georgia called up its military reserves after Russian warplanes bombed its new positions in the renegade province.
In Moscow’s first response to the fall of Tskhinvali, president Dimitry Medvedev ordered the Russian army to prepare for a national emergency after calling the UN Security Council into emergency session early Friday.
Reinforcements were rushed to the Russian “peacekeeping force” present in the region to support the separatists.
Georgian tanks entered the capital after heavy overnight heavy aerial strikes, in which dozens of people were killed.
Lado Gurgenidze, Georgia's prime minister, said on Friday that Georgia will continue its military operation in South Ossetia until a "durable peace" is reached. "As soon as a durable peace takes hold we need to move forward with dialogue and peaceful negotiations."
DEBKAfile’s geopolitical experts note that on the surface level, the Russians are backing the separatists of S. Ossetia and neighboring Abkhazia as payback for the strengthening of American influence in tiny Georgia and its 4.5 million inhabitants. However, more immediately, the conflict has been sparked by the race for control over the pipelines carrying oil and gas out of the Caspian region.
The Russians may just bear with the pro-US Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili’s ambition to bring his country into NATO. But they draw a heavy line against his plans and those of Western oil companies, including Israeli firms, to route the oil routes from Azerbaijan and the gas lines from Turkmenistan, which transit Georgia, through Turkey instead of hooking them up to Russian pipelines.
Saakashvili need only back away from this plan for Moscow to ditch the two provinces’ revolt against Tbilisi. As long as he sticks to his guns, South Ossetia and Abkhazia will wage separatist wars.
DEBKAfile discloses Israel’s interest in the conflict from its exclusive military sources:
Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel’s oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean.
Aware of Moscow’s sensitivity on the oil question, Israel offered Russia a stake in the project but was rejected.
Last year, the Georgian president commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.
These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday.
In recent weeks, Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was “defensive.”
This has not gone down well in the Kremlin. Therefore, as the military crisis intensifies in South Ossetia, Moscow may be expected to punish Israel for its intervention.
 
Randy,

It seems the further We dig, the more knowledge we have of the whole issue, not just via one source of media. The Israeli factor in the equation changes every thing, as far as I'm concerned. You don't muck with the Israelis. Most other nations will huff and puff and then cower to the UN community. This is most certainly about energy, not a break-away province in Georgia. Standing by for further... Mike
 
Randy,

It seems the further We dig, the more knowledge we have of the whole issue, not just via one source of media. The Israeli factor in the equation changes every thing, as far as I'm concerned. You don't muck with the Israelis. Most other nations will huff and puff and then cower to the UN community. This is most certainly about energy, not a break-away province in Georgia. Standing by for further... Mike

All this reminds me of the Great Game

"The Great Game is a British term for what the British saw as a strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia. The classic Great Game period is generally regarded as running approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 a second, less intensive phase followed.
The term "The Great Game" is usually attributed to Arthur Conolly, an intelligence officer of the British East India Company's Sixth Bengal Light Cavalry. It was introduced into mainstream consciousness by British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim (1901)."
 
All this reminds me of the Great Game

"The Great Game is a British term for what the British saw as a strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia. The classic Great Game period is generally regarded as running approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 a second, less intensive phase followed.
The term "The Great Game" is usually attributed to Arthur Conolly, an intelligence officer of the British East India Company's Sixth Bengal Light Cavalry. It was introduced into mainstream consciousness by British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim (1901)."


Have been thinking the very same thing. The Great Game continues it would seem. I would highly recommend reading Peter Hopkirk's book on this subject for a fairly detailed background on the subject. An interesting wrinkle that Ukraine is declining access to Sevastapol for Russia's Black Sea fleet now. I will be watching this one very closely.

MD
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top