The Lurker Lounge Forums
So, about Georgia... - Printable Version

+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: So, about Georgia... (/thread-1711.html)

So, about Georgia... - Swiss Mercenary - 08-14-2008

I'm looking for our NATO expert, here.

After taking a good look at the propaganda from both sides, it seems to me that it's one of those situations where we'll never know who started shooting first... With the uncertainty granting the Red Bear good justification to use it's traditional strong-arm approach.

The Georgians seem to have been mistakenly expecting support in this endeavour (Or have seriously misexpected Russia's response) - otherwise, they wouldn't have invaded (Not going to say they attacked first).

Not overly convinced by accusations of ethnic cleansing made by both sides... Quite convinced that they are more then happy to use cluster rockets in civilian areas.

What's your take, Occhi?

As for motivation, Russia's interest in the area's obvious, as are Georgia's. Not too much I could think of, besides the oil pipeline, showing off Russian strength, and Georgia wanting to reclaim South Ossetia, there.

So, about Georgia... - kandrathe - 08-14-2008

I'm no Occhi, but I think it's about the oil. I think I'm going to go back and re-read "Red Storm Rising". ;)

So, about Georgia... - Occhidiangela - 08-14-2008

Quote:I'm looking for our NATO expert, here.

The Georgians seem to have been mistakenly expecting support in this endeavour (Or have seriously misexpected Russia's response) - otherwise, they wouldn't have invaded (Not going to say they attacked first).

Not overly convinced by accusations of ethnic cleansing made by both sides... Quite convinced that they are more then happy to use cluster rockets in civilian areas.

What's your take, Occhi?
My take is the Georgian leadership took a risk, and the Russians called their bluff. So, people died. NATO membership for Georgia is, IMO, now a bit further away. Seems Bush and his team have wanted to get Georgia into NATO, as part of eastward expansion, and Russia has taken an opportunity to say "Guys, we are back, we are big, and we are no longer your doormat. Pay attention." Vlad Putin will be around for a long time, president or no. He's got power, he's got charm, he's got popular support, and he knows how to use it.

The oil pipeline plays into the Bush team's interest in Georgia as an ally, of course, but what interests me more is how the Turks play into this. So far, not so much. Getting Transcaucasus oil to market requires deals and multilateral participation, and each of the nations in the area has one reason or another not to trust the others.

Looking at a map, Georgia is neither Northern, nor Atlantic, and not part the general European land area, contiguous to "europe" proper, and as such is an odd fit for NATO in the First place.

Estonia? Makes sense. Georgia? Not so much, save the oil.

There was a good article in New York times recently on how Condi Rice sent some mixed signals, or so the authors state, and that Georgia's president felt that meant he had top cover.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/washington/13diplo.html?em
Quote: WASHINGTON — One month ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Tbilisi, Georgia, for a high-profile visit that was planned to accomplish two very different goals.
-snip-
Ms. Rice’s aides say, she warned President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia not to get into a military conflict with Russia that Georgia could not win. “She told him, in no uncertain terms,
Trouble is, other public rhetoric from the Bush team was openly supportive of Georgia and anti Russian. Bush administration, for its part, tries to have it both ways. No surprise.

Back in May the Russians shot down a Georgian UAV that they said was in Russian airspace. Might have been, might not. The South Ossetians are most definitely more sympathetic to Russia than Georgia, so one has to wonder who in the hell drew the lines on the map when the USSR broke down.

Dumb lines on the map is part of the problem, which is not unique to the old Soviet republics. The leadership in Europe are not going to expend blood and treasure on Georgia, no, they are not, so making it part of NATO, with article V protection, makes zero political sense.

Occhi

So, about Georgia... - Swiss Mercenary - 08-14-2008

Quote:Back in May the Russians shot down a Georgian UAV that they said was in Russian airspace. Might have been, might not. The South Ossetians are most definitely more sympathetic to Russia than Georgia, so one has to wonder who in the hell drew the lines on the map when the USSR broke down.

When the USSR conquered the whole area, the commies pretty much drew an arbitrary line in the sand.

When the USSR was falling apart, the Ossetians and the Georgians started knocking heads, as the former wanted to form a seperate country with North Ossetia - they boycotted Georgian elections, and were holding their own. I'd assume that the dividing line was based more on where the Soviet equivalent of a county was, and somewhat less on where Soviet troops were. (As I doubt they made a nice, long, curvy blockade all along the border, rather then the roads).

South Ossetia seemed to have been pretty happy about that situation (If we assume the 2006 (!) referrendum that ended up as "Yes for seperation" to be legitimate.) Georgia wasn't - hence the first war in the region. South Ossetia's been a problem for them for a while.

Quote:Dumb lines on the map is part of the problem, which is not unique to the old Soviet republics. The leadership in Europe are not going to expend blood and treasure on Georgia, no, they are not, so making it part of NATO, with article V protection, makes zero political sense.

Occhi

When in doubt, you can blame the commies. I'm still not too sure why the Georgians expected the West to start WWIII over them.

So, about Georgia... - Colonel_here - 08-14-2008

Quote:When the USSR conquered the whole area, the commies pretty much drew an arbitrary line in the sand.
Georgia was never conquered by USSR. It was part of the Imperial Russia for a long time since 1801. Number of parts of the Georgia never belonged to it but rather were annexed by Imperial Russia during its wars against Turks and added to it.


So, about Georgia... - Swiss Mercenary - 08-15-2008

Quote:Georgia was never conquered by USSR. It was part of the Imperial Russia for a long time since 1801. Number of parts of the Georgia never belonged to it but rather were annexed by Imperial Russia during its wars against Turks and added to it.
During the chaos of the Bolshevik Revolution, Georgia quickly and quietly seperated. Five years later, the Red Army stopped by.

So, about Georgia... - Colonel_here - 08-15-2008

Quote:During the chaos of the Bolshevik Revolution, Georgia quickly and quietly seperated. Five years later, the Red Army stopped by.
So they created their own faction during the civil war. There was not much recognition of independence of Georgia by other countries. There were also other parts of Russia that can claim the same conquest when the local government declared independence. In the end the border of Georgian SSR were based on the old Imperial province borders, which originally were based on the borders of original Georgian kingdoms.