Bloodless Coup in Georgia? 11/22/03--Following Georgia.

Did the U.S. Prep Georgia for War with Russia?
Did the U.S. Prep Georgia for War with Russia?
By Nathan Hodge
August 08, 2008

Georgia and Russia are careening towards war. And the U.S. isn't exactly a detached observer in the fight. The American military has been training and equipping Georgian troops for years.

The news thus far: Georgia, which has been locked in a drone war over the separatist enclave of Abkhazia, has launched an offensive to reclaim another breakaway territory, South Ossetia. Latest reports indicate that Georgian forces are laying siege to Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital. And Russia, which has backed the separatists, is sending in the tanks.

So why should we care? Oh, just the prospect of a larger regional war that could drag in Russia - and involve the United States as well. Since early 2002, the U.S. government has given a healthy amount of military aid to Georgia. When I last visited South Ossetia, Georgian troops manned a checkpoint outside Tskhinvali -- decked out in surplus U.S. Army uniforms and new body armor.

The first U.S. aid came under the rubric of the Georgia Train and Equip Program (ostensibly to counter alleged Al Qaeda influence in the Pankisi Gorge); then, under the Sustainment and Stability Operations Program. Georgia returned the favor, committing thousands of troops to the multi-national coalition in Iraq. Last fall, the Georgians doubled their contingent, making them the third-largest contributor to the coalition. Not bad for a nation of 4.6 million people.

Leaving aside the question of Russian interference (see below), the larger concern has been that Georgia might be tempted to use its newfound military prowess to resolve domestic conflicts by force.

As Sergei Shamba, the foreign affairs minister of Abkhazia, told me in 2006: "The Georgians are euphoric because they have been equipped, trained, that they have gained military experience in Iraq. It feeds this revanchist mood How can South Ossetia be demilitarized, when all of Georgia is bristling with weaponry, and it's only an hour's ride by tank from Tbilisi to Tskhinvali?"

One of the U.S. military trainers put it to me a bit more bluntly. "We're giving them the knife," he said. "Will they use it?"

ALSO:

Russia Claims Georgia in Arms Build Up
Drone Wars, Part II: Abkhaz Claim Another Shootdown
Video: Russian MiG Shoots Georgian Drone
Drone Shoot-Down Sparks Worldwide Spat
Israel Freezes Out Georgia on Arms
Georgia Police Turns Sonic Blaster on Demonstrators

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lash wrote:
Rabel-- How would you formulate the opinion that Bush doesn't seem to be concerned?

Maybe, it's the whole sitting on his ass at the olympics part.

Cycloptichorn

Dubya has his cell phone. Dick will call him and let him know when to be concerned...

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

old europe wrote:
Lash wrote:
Supplying arms, we've done many times to quite unsympathetic, vocal criticism---the Saddam experiment which eventually became the Persian Gulf/Iraq War... Advisors became troops in Vietnam... Peacekeepers become US service personnel, dragged through Mogadishu...

sounds of war barely heard above the anti-American criticism (Anti-American meaning what it says, not with all the attachments).

What about the UN?

Russia has veto power in the Security Council. Like in Bosnia and the Kosovo, NATO would likely have a better shot at achieving something. In my opinion.

They can at least be called on the carpet there, so to speak...and be forced into dialogue.

Agree. Seems to be the best option. That, and a more coordinated diplomatic effort. Not limited to the EU and the OSCE. More involvement from other NATO partners.

I'll echo the criticism of Bush, though - even if it's mostly appearance. Sometimes a president has to actively put across a public perception of acting decidedly. The invasion of a sovereign nation by a country like Russia would probably be that time.

0 Replies

War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA
Reasons - by the other side ---BBB

War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA
09.08.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/106046-russia_georgia-0

The US administration urged for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict between Russia and Georgia over the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia.

In the meantime, Russian officials believe that it was the USA that orchestrated the current conflict. The chairman of the State Duma Committee for Security, Vladimir Vasilyev, believes that the current conflict is South Ossetia is very reminiscent to the wars in Iraq and Kosovo.

"The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq - we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America. South Ossetian defense officials used to make statements about imminent aggression from Georgia, but the latter denied everything, whereas the US Department of State released no comments on the matter. In essence, they have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals. They are responsible for this. The world community will learn about it," the official said.

In the meantime, it became known that the Georgian troops conducted volley-fire cleansings of several South Ossetian settlements, where people's houses were simply leveled.

"The number of victims with women, children and elderly people among them, can be counted in hundreds and even thousands," a source from South Ossetian government in the capital of Tskhinvali said.

The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov, told reporters that Georgia's actions in South Ossetia question its consistency as a state and as a responsible member of the international community, Interfax reports.

"Civilians, including women, children and elderly people, are dying in South Ossetia. In addition to that, Georgia conducts ethnic scouring in South Ossetian villages. The situation in South Ossetia continues to worsen every hour. Georgia uses military hardware and heavy arms against people. They shell residential quarters of Tskhinvali [the capital] and other settlements. They bomb the humanitarian convoys. The number of refugees continues to rise - the people try to save their lives, the lives of their children and relatives. A humanitarian catastrophe is gathering pace," Russia's Foreign Minister said.

The minister added that the Georgian administration ignored the appeal from the UN General Assembly to observe the Olympic truce during the Beijing Olympics.

"The Georgian administration has found the use to its arms, which they have been purchasing during the recent several years," Lavrov said. "The fact that Georgian peacemakers in the structure of joint peacemaking forces opened fire on their Russian comrades from one and the same contingent speaks for itself, I think," the minister added.

"Now it is clear to us why Georgia never accepted Russia's offer to sign a legally binding document not to use force for the regulation of the South Ossetian conflict," Lavrov said. "Not so long ago, before the military actions in South Ossetia, Georgia's President Saakashvili said that there was no point in such a document because Georgia would not use force against its people, as he said. It just so happens that it is using it," Sergei Lavrov said.

Sergei Lavrov believes that the international community should stop turning a blind eye on Georgia's active deals to purchase arms.

"We have repeatedly warned that the international community should not turn a blind eye on massive purchases of offensive arms, in which the Georgian administration has been involved during the recent two years," Lavrov said.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Lash wrote:
old europe wrote:
Lash wrote:
Supplying arms, we've done many times to quite unsympathetic, vocal criticism---the Saddam experiment which eventually became the Persian Gulf/Iraq War... Advisors became troops in Vietnam... Peacekeepers become US service personnel, dragged through Mogadishu...

sounds of war barely heard above the anti-American criticism (Anti-American meaning what it says, not with all the attachments).

What about the UN?

Russia has veto power in the Security Council. Like in Bosnia and the Kosovo, NATO would likely have a better shot at achieving something. In my opinion.

They can at least be called on the carpet there, so to speak...and be forced into dialogue.

Agree. Seems to be the best option. That, and a more coordinated diplomatic effort. Not limited to the EU and the OSCE. More involvement from other NATO partners.

I'll echo the criticism of Bush, though - even if it's mostly appearance. Sometimes a president has to actively put across a public perception of acting decidedly. The invasion of a sovereign nation by a country like Russia would probably be that time.

Outrageously shortsighted, here, OE. Do you actually want to see the two titans collide? This is what the world dreaded for decades. Thanks, but no thanks. This is NO time for hasty action. This should be thought through from every possible angle. What is happening in georgia would PALE in comparison to what could happen globally if we respond too quickly.

0 Replies

What Cyclo said. All this crap can be laid at the feet of bush and his government and the feet of a republican congress that didn't control an out of control as-hole in the Whitehouse. I hope every republican in congress is defeated in the next election. Not that I think it will change washington that much but at least it will spread out the graft and crookedness so more people have a chance at the wealth.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lash wrote:
Rabel-- How would you formulate the opinion that Bush doesn't seem to be concerned?

Maybe, it's the whole sitting on his ass at the olympics part.

Cycloptichorn

You guys slay me. Many times, a president will actively put across a public perception of holiday or some such while working intensely on an urgent matter in private.

Do you honestly think this is the case?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

What Cyclo said. All this crap can be laid at the feet of bush and his government and the feet of a republican congress that didn't control an out of control as-hole in the Whitehouse. I hope every republican in congress is defeated in the next election. Not that I think it will change washington that much but at least it will spread out the graft and crookedness so more people have a chance at the wealth.

The world would be all hearts and flowers if you could just get those evil Republicans out of office. No more problems. Yeah, the history of the world and Russia's aspirations: All the fault of George W Bush. What a powerful guy!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lash wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lash wrote:
Rabel-- How would you formulate the opinion that Bush doesn't seem to be concerned?

Maybe, it's the whole sitting on his ass at the olympics part.

Cycloptichorn

You guys slay me. Many times, a president will actively put across a public perception of holiday or some such while working intensely on an urgent matter in private.

Do you honestly think this is the case?

Cycloptichorn

Of course it is. He's probably briefed hourly on what's going on...lookinig at contingencies, possible responses....I can't believe you don't know this.

0 Replies

Re: Dick Cheney Thinks He Has a Dog in the Russia-Georgia Fi

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Sunday, August 10, 2008 -Pottersville
One Possible Reason Why Dick Cheney Thinks He Has a Dog in the Russia-Georgia Fight

I dont even know where to begin...

Yes, there's a strategic oil pipeline in Georgia. Kudos to the author for discovering this, it's only been reported in every single newspaper article about the country for the last ten years. It's a pipeline that will allow countries around here, where I live, to not be completely dependent on Russia's whims anymore when it comes to their oil.

And? Then what? So because Western concern about the situation might involve the strategic resources involved, we should... do what? Let Russia do whatever it wants in its backyard, because anything else would be hypocritical?

Georgia is an allied country, and for all of Saakashvili's flaws and fallbacks into authoritarianism and corruption, is still the single most democratic country between the Ukraine and India. And we encouraged it and supported it to get there. Not just Bush and Cheney; the pretense that this is about some sort of neocon plot is ridiculous. The EU, other European organisations (CoE, OSCE) and international non-governmental organisations like George Soros' Open Society Institute have supported Georgia's development.

Sorry, but I hate this knee-jerk thinking among American liberals who apparently know next to nothing about the region and care even less, and who can only think of one way to look at this: if Cheney is for something, we are against it. If Bush propones something, it must be deviously suspect and resisted at all times.

Never mind that outside your polarised world of domestic politics, American conservatives and European liberals are often on the same side, pulling for the same side. For example in Georgia.

The Saakashvili government was actually derided by opponents as a "Soros government", because so many of its members and advisers had had ties with Soros organisations before. Yeah, thats the same Soros who funds Democratic candidates and rails against Bush in US elections. Now try to tell us that supporting Georgia against Russia must just be some neocon thing that's all about oil.

Georgia is an independent country which, for all its flaws, is now the most democratic country in the former Soviet world east of Ukraine. Russia has long slid back into authoritarianism, and has never shied away from any means, legal or illegal, to reassert its post-imperial control over its "near abroad". Over countries like Georgia, which was subjugated first by the Russian emperors, then in the 1920s again by the Soviets, and is trying to stay alive in the shadow of the bear by appealing to our help.

Now f*ck the oil thing, and imagine that when a country is being bombed, there is something more important than what ulterior motives Cheney might all have for picking sides. What side in such a conflict should a self-respecting liberal take? Just for one moment forget about your domestic political feud and think about the situation by itself. Which side does liberalism belong on? The side of realpolitik, in which the regional superpower is granted its "zone of influence"? Or the side of an internationalist system where the West is on the side of the more democratic country; where you cant just go and invade another country no matter whose backyard it is in?

And stop - before launching into a tirade over that last sentence about the hypocrisy of Bush for condemning Russia's invasion when he had America invading too, think about your own. If you condemned America's violent meddling in Latin America in the 70s and 80s, why would you promote passivity when Russia's doing it now? Just because you dont want to be on the same side as Cheney, you pivot this way when he pivots that way?

Just pretend you're not an American for one moment, but a Georgian or an Estonian or someone who will actually suffer the consequences, and ask yourself, which side should liberals be on in this case? The small, troubled but relatively democratic Western ally that's being overpowered by an increasingly totalitarian superpower imposing its will on its zone of influence? Or that superpower, which should be left to act as it wishes because opposing it would be hypocritical?

0 Replies

Bull ****. He may be told what is going on but he isn't exhibiting an ounce of leadership.

Don't you realize that this has been Bush's problem all along, Lash? He has zero leadership ability. Sometimes he blathers on about issues but he puts little to no work into actually getting things accomplished.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Shows of force in the water...reminds me of the Bay of Pigs...and the time we nearly all got nuked...

OK, fair enough, I did say realists would consider it reckless... but I still think it would be worth it...

What would you propose, concretely, that we do? I mean, yes, raise the issue at the UN... that's already being done. What else?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Outrageously shortsighted, here, OE. Do you actually want to see the two titans collide? This is what the world dreaded for decades. Thanks, but no thanks. This is NO time for hasty action. This should be thought through from every possible angle. What is happening in georgia would PALE in comparison to what could happen globally if we respond too quickly.

Okay, I don't want to make this into another "blame Bush" thing. I also agree that, in terms of control over the situation etc., it doesn't really matter whether Bush is in Texas or Beijing or DC.

It is, however, a matter of public perception (I think I've already said that), and if there's a situation where this would be important, than in a situation where Russia, virtually unopposed, invades a sovereign country.

I wouldn't see this as escalating the situation. Rather the opposite.

As I said earlier, you can't blame Cheney for Russia invading Georgia. The same, obviously, goes for Bush.

However, if you want to find a diplomatic solution, it might make sense to put on a public appearance of being in control.

0 Replies

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Reasons - by the other side ---BBB

War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA
09.08.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/106046-russia_georgia-0

Oh for crying out loud. You're now passing on the reports from Pravda?

The official newspaper of the Russian communists? A virulently nationalist paper (because yes, in Russia the communists are nationalists)?

Do your domestic politics have to override everything? People who oppose things Bush does = good. People who are supported by Bush = bad. All one needs to know?

And talking of this overbearing American sense that whatever happens in the world is just a derivative from their politics:

rabel22 wrote:

What Cyclo said. All this crap can be laid at the feet of bush and his government and the feet of a republican congress that didn't control an out of control as-hole in the Whitehouse.

Are you kidding me? The Russian-Georgian war "can be laid at the feet of bush and his government"?

Let's take a look back here. Georgians rose up against Soviet rule in 1988, and Gorbachev had the military go in and violently clamp it down. When the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, Georgia became independent. Partly because its hypernationalist (Gamsachurdia) government, and partly because the Russians under Yeltsin were sending arms and advisers into Georgia's autonomous minority provinces to convert them into Russian-controlled enclaves, civil war broke out in South-Ossetia and then Abkhazia. Those provinces became independent statelets themselves, recognized only by Russia, and then ethnically cleansed of Georgians. Under Saakashvili, Georgia has been recruiting Western support so as to feel safer in Russia's shadow, and eventually became, now, overconfident and tried to take back South-Ossetia. In response, Russia sent in its army, took over Ossetia, and invaded Georgia proper, bombing targets across the country.

And this can "be laid at the feet of bush and his government" how?

Pardon my rant, but the arrogance with which some Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, seem to assume that everything revolves around them and is only ever about their domestic feuds ... arrgh.

A) You've been a bit player in this conflict.
B) But believe it or not, you've been on the right side this time.
C) And they need your help.

So set aside your squabbles for a moment OK?

0 Replies

Re: Dick Cheney Thinks He Has a Dog in the Russia-Georgia Fi

nimh wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Sunday, August 10, 2008 -Pottersville
One Possible Reason Why Dick Cheney Thinks He Has a Dog in the Russia-Georgia Fight

I dont even know where to begin...

Yes, there's a strategic oil pipeline in Georgia. Kudos to the author for discovering this, it's only been reported in every single newspaper article about the country for the last ten years. It's a pipeline that will allow countries around here, where I live, to not be completely dependent on Russia's whims anymore when it comes to their oil.

And? Then what? So because Western concern about the situation might involve the strategic resources involved, we should... do what? Let Russia do whatever it wants in its backyard, because anything else would be hypocritical?

Georgia is an allied country, and for all of Saakashvili's flaws and fallbacks into authoritarianism and corruption, is still the single most democratic country between the Ukraine and India. And we encouraged it and supported it to get there. Not just Bush and Cheney; the pretense that this is about some sort of neocon plot is ridiculous. The EU, other European organisations (CoE, OSCE) and international non-governmental organisations like George Soros' Open Society Institute have supported Georgia's development.

Sorry, but I hate this knee-jerk thinking among American liberals who apparently know next to nothing about the region and care even less, and who can only think of one way to look at this: if Cheney is for something, we are against it. If Bush propones something, it must be deviously suspect and resisted at all times.

Never mind that outside your polarised world of domestic politics, American conservatives and European liberals are often on the same side, pulling for the same side. For example in Georgia.

The Saakashvili government was actually derided by opponents as a "Soros government", because so many of its members and advisers had had ties with Soros organisations before. Yeah, thats the same Soros who funds Democratic candidates and rails against Bush in US elections. Now try to tell us that supporting Georgia against Russia must just be some neocon thing that's all about oil.

Georgia is an independent country which, for all its flaws, is now the most democratic country in the former Soviet world east of Ukraine. Russia has long slid back into authoritarianism, and has never shied away from any means, legal or illegal, to reassert its post-imperial control over its "near abroad". Over countries like Georgia, which was subjugated first by the Russian emperors, then in the 1920s again by the Soviets, and is trying to stay alive in the shadow of the bear by appealing to our help.

Now f*ck the oil thing, and imagine that when a country is being bombed, there is something more important than what ulterior motives Cheney might all have for picking sides. What side in such a conflict should a self-respecting liberal take? Just for one moment forget about your domestic political feud and think about the situation by itself. Which side does liberalism belong on? The side of realpolitik, in which the regional superpower is granted its "zone of influence"? Or the side of an internationalist system where the West is on the side of the more democratic country; where you cant just go and invade another country no matter whose backyard it is in?

And stop - before launching into a tirade over that last sentence about the hypocrisy of Bush for condemning Russia's invasion when he had America invading too, think about your own. If you condemned America's violent meddling in Latin America in the 70s and 80s, why would you promote passivity when Russia's doing it now? Just because you dont want to be on the same side as Cheney, you pivot this way when he pivots that way?

Just pretend you're not an American for one moment, but a Georgian or an Estonian or someone who will actually suffer the consequences, and ask yourself, which side should liberals be on in this case? The small, troubled but relatively democratic Western ally that's being overpowered by an increasingly totalitarian superpower imposing its will on its zone of influence? Or that superpower, which should be left to act as it wishes because opposing it would be hypocritical?

Boy, does THIS bear repeating. Passionate and balanced, nimh....and respected.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bull ****. He may be told what is going on but he isn't exhibiting an ounce of leadership.

Don't you realize that this has been Bush's problem all along, Lash? He has zero leadership ability. Sometimes he blathers on about issues but he puts little to no work into actually getting things accomplished.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo--

You have no idea what is happening within Bush's circle--and neither do I--but imagining that this HUGE issue isn't on the front burner is really more like wishful thinking for a bush-hater than anything else.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bull ****. He may be told what is going on but he isn't exhibiting an ounce of leadership.

Don't you realize that this has been Bush's problem all along, Lash? He has zero leadership ability. Sometimes he blathers on about issues but he puts little to no work into actually getting things accomplished.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo--

You have no idea what is happening within Bush's circle--and neither do I--but imagining that this HUGE issue isn't on the front burner is really more like wishful thinking for a bush-hater than anything else.

I'm only going on two things: one, observation, and two, past evidence.

Bush could be doing a lot more then just sitting on his bum at the olympics and not talking about the situation. If he wanted to show that he was serious, he would leave the olympics and return to Washington to deal with it. There's no real reason for him to stay in China, he's already abandoned all pretense of speaking out against any injustices there.

As for past evidence, what major event has Bush shown leadership on? What has he put deep thought and effort into accomplishing? Nothing. He doesn't even attempt to do so in the last 4 years, his failures have been so spectacular that he doesn't even try any longer.

It's pretty pathetic, if you think about it. Bush cannot be described as a leader by any stretch of the imagination.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Lash wrote:
Outrageously shortsighted, here, OE. Do you actually want to see the two titans collide? This is what the world dreaded for decades. Thanks, but no thanks. This is NO time for hasty action. This should be thought through from every possible angle. What is happening in georgia would PALE in comparison to what could happen globally if we respond too quickly.

Okay, I don't want to make this into another "blame Bush" thing. I also agree that, in terms of control over the situation etc., it doesn't really matter whether Bush is in Texas or Beijing or DC.

It is, however, a matter of public perception (I think I've already said that), and if there's a situation where this would be important, than in a situation where Russia, virtually unopposed, invades a sovereign country.

I wouldn't see this as escalating the situation. Rather the opposite.

As I said earlier, you can't blame Cheney for Russia invading Georgia. The same, obviously, goes for Bush.

However, if you want to find a diplomatic solution, it might make sense to put on a public appearance of being in control.

OE-- Enjoying the dialogue with you. I don't value the "appearance of control," I guess. I just value the seamless execution of a well-thought out response. ...hope I get to revel in one...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Are you kidding me? The Russian-Georgian war "can be laid at the feet of bush and his government"?

Let's take a look back here. Georgians rose up against Soviet rule in 1988, and Gorbachev had the military go in and violently clamp it down. When the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, Georgia became independent. Partly because its hypernationalist (Gamsachurdia) government, and partly because the Russians under Yeltsin were sending arms and advisers into Georgia's autonomous minority provinces to convert them into Russian-controlled enclaves, civil war broke out in South-Ossetia and then Abkhazia. Those provinces became independent statelets themselves, recognized only by Russia, and then ethnically cleansed of Georgians. Under Saakashvili, Georgia has been recruiting Western support so as to feel safer in Russia's shadow, and eventually became, now, overconfident and tried to take back South-Ossetia. In response, Russia sent in its army, took over Ossetia, and invaded Georgia proper, bombing targets across the country.

And this can "be laid at the feet of bush and his government" how?

Pardon my rant, but the arrogance with which some Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, seem to assume that everything revolves around them and is only ever about their domestic feuds ... arrgh.

A) You've been a bit player in this conflict.
B) But believe it or not, you've been on the right side this time.
C) And they need your help.

So set aside your squabbles for a moment OK?

Yup.

It's annoying to see how this black-and-white view of the world seems to completely permeate American society. If you've ever come down on an issue on one side, it must mean that this side will always be right on all issues.

Oh, and the world revolves around America. Sure.

0 Replies

I think he handled Afghanistan quite well. When I was under the perception that Saddam Hussein possessed globally threatening weapons, I thought Bush moved well there. As I was as wrong as he was (and most everyone else on the planet at the time), speaking further about it seems a waste.

The poor planning of the aftermath of the Iraq war coupled with the fact that there were no WMDs have made his critics and political foes quite self-righteously critical of his every breath and bowel movement.

0 Replies

Bloodless Coup in Georgia? 11/22/03--Following Georgia.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know