I believe, if the facts are checked, the US advised Georgian officials not to proceed with the attack. The move into Georgia by Russian forces had been planned months in advance. The Georgian military foray was simply a convenient opening for Russia to deploy its troops. To blame Bush for the fighting is an untenable position. It diverts one from the real questions that should be asked. The Georgians attacked to quench attacks by seperatists on their own people. The Russians attacked for several reasons. 1- to gain territory. The breakaway provinces will no doubt be absorbed into Russia within the next few month or years for the "protection" of the people. 2-This attack sends a clear message to other countries in the region. 3- It demonstrates the inability of the US and NATO to respond to such an intervention. 4- to raise the morale and test the capability of the Russian Army. By most accounts the Russian army did rather poorly; especially considering the overwhelming force used and the relative size of the Georgian military. One must certainly realize that the Russians have begun to rearm with the inflow of oil money. They have sent a clear message to the rest of the world and that message must be taken very seriously.
It Now Turns Out that President Bush Orchestrated the War In Georgia
- Thread starter LanceOregon
- Start date
I agree. But, where are our troops? In the sands of Iraq where we are spending "billions" of dollars.
I am a Conservative. I voted for Bush. I supported every republican president since Reagan-- especially Reagan. Somehow, every president until GW Bush knew it would be a bad thing to occupy a mid east country (mostly because of the costs involved). Yet, there we are.
Now, when a European ally needs us (whether you agree or disagree that we should respond with help), we can do nothing but send our politicians to chastise Russia with our words.
Bush has shown to our enemies that we are weak. Maybe the Chinese are correct when they refer to us as a "paper tiger". It doesn't have to be so. With good leadership, it would not have been this way. Bush's foreign policies have hurt this country more than it has helped, IMO.
You have to realize that, in reality, there was no appropriate response we could apply to the military situation. The Russians knew this. Even if there were troops available, logistically it would have impossible to deploy troops with the necessary means to effectively counter the armored and air units available to the Russian invasion in so short a time. Do you know how long it would take to deploy one fully equipped armored division thousands of miles and provide adequate air cover? You are talking tanks, personnel, armored vehicles, artillery, food, ammunition, fuel, etc. into a hostile environment, possibly under fire with no real knowledge of the terrain in which you would be fighting. There is the possibility that you encounter the enemy the moment your feet hit the ground and you must never forget that the enemy lives next door; his supply lines are very short. Ours woould have been tenuous at best. We knew the Russians were holding military exercises close to the border and we urged the Georgians not to attack, yet they did. There is no way US troops would be committed in such a situation. You also have to understand the use of US forces would have escalated the situation and would have been considered an act of war by the Russians. Now it is up to the diplomats to salvage what they can out of this. I only hope this wakeup call does not go unheeded by NATO and the US.
Ronl
you bring up a good point, is and will NATO respond? There are more than a handful of former Soviet forced allies that wishes to join NATO and the EU.
Maybe since the EU standardized their currency that might be a threat to the Soviet Unio.....er i mean Russia as well as the missile defense system we are giving to Poland. Didnt we also invite the Russians to have the same exact system and they refused it?
wait a min...
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Rejects_US_Offer_On_Missile_Shield_999.html
you bring up a good point, is and will NATO respond? There are more than a handful of former Soviet forced allies that wishes to join NATO and the EU.
Maybe since the EU standardized their currency that might be a threat to the Soviet Unio.....er i mean Russia as well as the missile defense system we are giving to Poland. Didnt we also invite the Russians to have the same exact system and they refused it?
wait a min...
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Rejects_US_Offer_On_Missile_Shield_999.html
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
FWIW I think Putin's remarks achieve 4 goals:
1) They play well to Russian citizens who like strong leaders who will stand up to anyone.
2) The accusations are not backed up by facts, which makes Putin seem irrational. This strengthens his position because it is hard to negotiate with an irrational man, prompting his opponents to proceed slowly and catiously. (This tactic has worked swimmingly for North Korea.
) He knows that the more time passes after the invasion, the stronger his position becomes, because he can present Russian control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as fait accompli. Therefore, a slow-moving opponent is an ineffective one.
3) They give him a ready-made excuse to snub U.S. efforts at diplomacy. He does not want to negotiate with the U.S. because it will just make him look bad, and the more time passes before negotiations start, the stronger his position becomes. (See above.)
4) They splinter potential Western European opposition by appealing to political factions who dislike Bush and/or American hegemony in general.
Gee, I wonder if Bush can still "see into his soul".
Just my $0.02
1) They play well to Russian citizens who like strong leaders who will stand up to anyone.
2) The accusations are not backed up by facts, which makes Putin seem irrational. This strengthens his position because it is hard to negotiate with an irrational man, prompting his opponents to proceed slowly and catiously. (This tactic has worked swimmingly for North Korea.
) He knows that the more time passes after the invasion, the stronger his position becomes, because he can present Russian control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as fait accompli. Therefore, a slow-moving opponent is an ineffective one.3) They give him a ready-made excuse to snub U.S. efforts at diplomacy. He does not want to negotiate with the U.S. because it will just make him look bad, and the more time passes before negotiations start, the stronger his position becomes. (See above.)
4) They splinter potential Western European opposition by appealing to political factions who dislike Bush and/or American hegemony in general.
Gee, I wonder if Bush can still "see into his soul".
Just my $0.02
globemaster3
New member
Our strategy center is having fun with this one, but what they say rings pretty true. I borrowed a lot of this from the stuff I've been reading and my involvement in some of the recent conflicts, but here is what I think.
To understand why Russia invaded Georgia, you've got to go back and look at events from the breakup of the USSR until now. Originally, we assured the Russians that we would not seek NATO members among the fractured states that split.
Whoops, we did that. For the right reasons, but we still did it.
While Russia became mired down in Perestroika, their economy faltered and their once proud military might began crumbling due to the lack of income to pay their soldiers and modernize their equipment. This increased their uneasiness since it emphasized a weakness. Meanwhile, we were doing all kinds of exercises with global partners (think COBRA GOLD, IRON COBRA, RED FLAG, etc)
Then, if you look at the Bosnian/Kosovo campaigns, you have Russia disproving the claims made by NATO members of the actual events, resulting in both China and Russia blocking any UN involvement. So, instead of the UN coming to the rescue, it was NATO despite the Kremlin's objection and their allegiance with Serbia. It was only after the conflict was settled that the Russians were allowed to play a minor role in the peacekeeping force. Then the final divisions of land were contrary to what the Russians wanted.
All of this begins to paint the picture of a Russia in decline with decreased influence over world matters.
Then throw in our significant advances in ballistic missile defense, and now we are really taking away the last trump card the Russians had.
Georgia is a significant ally in that sphere and their generous gift of overfly rights to DoD aircraft supporting OEF and OIF from European bases enabled a large amount of our ops. If I remember correctly, Georgia was petitioning for NATO member status. The 2 sections, S. Ossetia and I forget how to spell the other, are both sympathetic to Russian ideals and consider themselves Russian and not Georgian, much the same setup as the Serbian/Kosovo ethnic concerns.
Russia, in an attempt to regain some importance in world affairs needed to get some recognition. After a decade of quiet, Russian Bear bombers and recon aircraft began trolling the western seaboard again much like Cold War days. This was no small blip to the US, as we responded with alert fighters escorting them.
The US, meanwhile, is tied up in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the majority of our forces tied up or in reconstitution, the US would be hard pressed to respond to anything outside the narrow confines of our present conflicts. Russia had the perfect opportunity to deliver a black eye to the US. By asserting themselves to rescue "ethnic Russians", what you see is Russia playing on the Bosnian/Kosovo theme in Georgia. This time, we cannot respond and NATO is tied up with operations in Afghanistan. Wonder why we haven't responded in massive form? There it is.
By taking advantage of this opportunity, Russia was able to post a major coup and show other potential NATO as well as new NATO members that US promises of assistance and protection are largely hollow.
It will be interesting to see how Medvedev spins all of this.
To understand why Russia invaded Georgia, you've got to go back and look at events from the breakup of the USSR until now. Originally, we assured the Russians that we would not seek NATO members among the fractured states that split.
Whoops, we did that. For the right reasons, but we still did it.
While Russia became mired down in Perestroika, their economy faltered and their once proud military might began crumbling due to the lack of income to pay their soldiers and modernize their equipment. This increased their uneasiness since it emphasized a weakness. Meanwhile, we were doing all kinds of exercises with global partners (think COBRA GOLD, IRON COBRA, RED FLAG, etc)
Then, if you look at the Bosnian/Kosovo campaigns, you have Russia disproving the claims made by NATO members of the actual events, resulting in both China and Russia blocking any UN involvement. So, instead of the UN coming to the rescue, it was NATO despite the Kremlin's objection and their allegiance with Serbia. It was only after the conflict was settled that the Russians were allowed to play a minor role in the peacekeeping force. Then the final divisions of land were contrary to what the Russians wanted.
All of this begins to paint the picture of a Russia in decline with decreased influence over world matters.
Then throw in our significant advances in ballistic missile defense, and now we are really taking away the last trump card the Russians had.
Georgia is a significant ally in that sphere and their generous gift of overfly rights to DoD aircraft supporting OEF and OIF from European bases enabled a large amount of our ops. If I remember correctly, Georgia was petitioning for NATO member status. The 2 sections, S. Ossetia and I forget how to spell the other, are both sympathetic to Russian ideals and consider themselves Russian and not Georgian, much the same setup as the Serbian/Kosovo ethnic concerns.
Russia, in an attempt to regain some importance in world affairs needed to get some recognition. After a decade of quiet, Russian Bear bombers and recon aircraft began trolling the western seaboard again much like Cold War days. This was no small blip to the US, as we responded with alert fighters escorting them.
The US, meanwhile, is tied up in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the majority of our forces tied up or in reconstitution, the US would be hard pressed to respond to anything outside the narrow confines of our present conflicts. Russia had the perfect opportunity to deliver a black eye to the US. By asserting themselves to rescue "ethnic Russians", what you see is Russia playing on the Bosnian/Kosovo theme in Georgia. This time, we cannot respond and NATO is tied up with operations in Afghanistan. Wonder why we haven't responded in massive form? There it is.
By taking advantage of this opportunity, Russia was able to post a major coup and show other potential NATO as well as new NATO members that US promises of assistance and protection are largely hollow.
It will be interesting to see how Medvedev spins all of this.
+1. But IMHO we're in the middle east simply because Gorby took down the wall and we needed a new enemy to justify our defense budget. That may be a simplistic explanation, but essentially that's what has happened.
Now, of course, if/when we withdraw, we're going to need another enemy to point our finger at as the media begins spinning the news to make us all paranoid of the NEXT enemy -- whoever that's going to be. Perhaps it'll be the Bear again... perhaps the Dragon. Who knows?
But Putin and the old USSR has NEVER been our friends, although they've been feigning "we're broke, we're busted, we're not a threat". But they still have lots of ICBMs aimed down our throat, and I've never considered a neighbor aiming a shotgun at me to be my friend.
globemaster3
New member
Oh, and that whole Saddam invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with it? Or the 10 years which produced 17 UN Sanctions that Saddam decided to ignore? And what about the bastion of Islamic fundamentalism that supported the 9-11 attacks? What about the calm from 1989-2001? Who were we hating then?
Enough conspriacy theory...
globemaster3
New member
Absolutely! I am not denying your right to have an opinion. (in fact, I make a living defending it for you) Just have one that is based on some truth. You have to ignore a lot of events to boil it down to your statement of opinion.
I'm always willing to challenge my own opinions on stuff and I think political debate is what makes our country great: everyone brings in their own view and sometimes you need to see things from other people's shoes to understand a slant you cannot fathom from your position.
Give some factual basis on why you see the world that way and lets discuss. That's what this is all about...
It's hard to find 2 people with exactly the same opinion on anything, much less everything. In my post I said it was a simplistic (spelled "b-r-e-v-i-t-y) view, but essentially we have new enemies to justify our defense budget. We can spend (waste?) time on the Internet trying to sway others to our opinions by eloquent writing techniques and intelligent debate... OR, there are those that will argue that no matter how witty and smart the endeavor is, an opinion is rarely swayed.
I was in Leningrad, Moscow and East Berlin in 1970 for some time, and since we all become a sum of our life's experiences, I have little desire to debate you online, or attempt to justify my opinions simply because we're coming from entirely different perspectives. It would be a waste of time on both our parts. I'll advance a guess and say we'll agree on that. My brief statement had little to do with conspiracy theory, and that's why I responded to your degrading comment.
I applaud your position of defending peoples' opinions for a living... after over 30 years in the business world, I write for mine. With humble mode fully engaged, I believe my time can be better spent in MS Word than debating political opinions and positions here. I also have to make a living.
Peace.
I was in Leningrad, Moscow and East Berlin in 1970 for some time, and since we all become a sum of our life's experiences, I have little desire to debate you online, or attempt to justify my opinions simply because we're coming from entirely different perspectives. It would be a waste of time on both our parts. I'll advance a guess and say we'll agree on that.
My brief statement had little to do with conspiracy theory, and that's why I responded to your degrading comment.I applaud your position of defending peoples' opinions for a living... after over 30 years in the business world, I write for mine. With humble mode fully engaged, I believe my time can be better spent in MS Word than debating political opinions and positions here. I also have to make a living.
Peace.
a Russian perspective...
I believe Russians are a bit amazed at the hypocrisy of the American position on Iran and Eastern Europe. For example, the Russians have had relations with Iran/Persia longer than there has been a U.S.A. Iran is at the border of Russia.Russia feels it has certainly more justification to be concerned about Iran and its stability than does the U.S.A.
Russia hears wild accusations from the U.S.A. that it is wrong for Russia to assist Iran, but Russia scratches its head and notes that the U.S.A. actually overthrew a democratic government in Iran and imposed the Shah dictatorship on the Iranian people. Russians wonder why the U.S.A. thinks its okay fot the U.S.A. to go halfway round the world, overthrow a govt. on Russia' border, install a dictatorship there and point weapons into Russia - and that it's somehow okay and morally justified whereas the U.S.A. regards any Russian move to secure its own borders as somehow being unjustified and evil? The hypocrisy is glaring - and it only deepens Russian suspicions.
So did Bush 'orchestrate' anything? Russians see the wild orchestrations regarding U.S. intrigues in Iran, Iraq, and Georgia and Afghanistan - and cannot help but see the U.S.A. as a kind wolf at its border. For example Moldova has been a part of Russia since the 1700's...and has been an independent nation...for quite a few times in the last 300 years... The problem there is not simply an old Cold War problem but predates the Cold War by centuries. Moldova is not failing because it is somehow being oppressed by Russia. Russia provides pensions and most of Moldova's energy resources. The culture there is heavily Russian ie. 20% of the population there is Russian. The U.S.A.,however. goes into these places and takes sides with the remaing 80% of the population and attacks Russia as the bad guy...but there are 'other' bad guys ie. Romanian NATIONALISTS/FASCISTS, MOLDOVAN NATIONALISTS...<the people who sided with HITLER during WW2.>and the problems that affect Moldovan independence are problems older than the Cold War ie. Moldova is a tiny landlocked country with diverse ethnic tensions.
Russia wants secure borders. When the U.S.A. goes into border areas and coerces ethnic tensions and points weapons at Russia, the situation is inflamed and Russia has no choice but to respond. The reponse is often portrayed by the U.S. media as 'aggression' - but from the Russian perspective the U.S.A. is clearly the aggressor and the orchestrator of these conflicts. For example, do Americans really believe that the U.S. military NEEDS MISSLES IN POLAND? If Americans were on Poland's border and had a history of being invaded through Poland - wouldn't Americans be reasonably concerned if some superpower wanted to plant a 'few missles' there? Gee, maybe Russia should send a few 100 military advisors to Mexico, build up the Mexican Army, and build a missle base there to protect Mexico from a possible attack from Iran - and just see how the U.S.A. welcomes such actions.
One question that is looming - is Ukraine's potential of becoming an actual member of the E.U. Russia? In some sense Russia is more European than is Ukraine. Ukraine has not backed Georgia against Russia. In fact, Ukraine has become more and more sympathetic to Russia, and yet Ukraine is also slated to seek membership in the E.U. Russia's relationship with the E.U. is extremely important. In fact, the day might come when the E.U. and Russia become allied on the basis of an agreement that protects Russia from U.S. military interference and aggression as has been orchestrated in Georgia.
I believe Russians are a bit amazed at the hypocrisy of the American position on Iran and Eastern Europe. For example, the Russians have had relations with Iran/Persia longer than there has been a U.S.A. Iran is at the border of Russia.Russia feels it has certainly more justification to be concerned about Iran and its stability than does the U.S.A.
Russia hears wild accusations from the U.S.A. that it is wrong for Russia to assist Iran, but Russia scratches its head and notes that the U.S.A. actually overthrew a democratic government in Iran and imposed the Shah dictatorship on the Iranian people. Russians wonder why the U.S.A. thinks its okay fot the U.S.A. to go halfway round the world, overthrow a govt. on Russia' border, install a dictatorship there and point weapons into Russia - and that it's somehow okay and morally justified whereas the U.S.A. regards any Russian move to secure its own borders as somehow being unjustified and evil? The hypocrisy is glaring - and it only deepens Russian suspicions.
So did Bush 'orchestrate' anything? Russians see the wild orchestrations regarding U.S. intrigues in Iran, Iraq, and Georgia and Afghanistan - and cannot help but see the U.S.A. as a kind wolf at its border. For example Moldova has been a part of Russia since the 1700's...and has been an independent nation...for quite a few times in the last 300 years... The problem there is not simply an old Cold War problem but predates the Cold War by centuries. Moldova is not failing because it is somehow being oppressed by Russia. Russia provides pensions and most of Moldova's energy resources. The culture there is heavily Russian ie. 20% of the population there is Russian. The U.S.A.,however. goes into these places and takes sides with the remaing 80% of the population and attacks Russia as the bad guy...but there are 'other' bad guys ie. Romanian NATIONALISTS/FASCISTS, MOLDOVAN NATIONALISTS...<the people who sided with HITLER during WW2.>and the problems that affect Moldovan independence are problems older than the Cold War ie. Moldova is a tiny landlocked country with diverse ethnic tensions.
Russia wants secure borders. When the U.S.A. goes into border areas and coerces ethnic tensions and points weapons at Russia, the situation is inflamed and Russia has no choice but to respond. The reponse is often portrayed by the U.S. media as 'aggression' - but from the Russian perspective the U.S.A. is clearly the aggressor and the orchestrator of these conflicts. For example, do Americans really believe that the U.S. military NEEDS MISSLES IN POLAND? If Americans were on Poland's border and had a history of being invaded through Poland - wouldn't Americans be reasonably concerned if some superpower wanted to plant a 'few missles' there? Gee, maybe Russia should send a few 100 military advisors to Mexico, build up the Mexican Army, and build a missle base there to protect Mexico from a possible attack from Iran - and just see how the U.S.A. welcomes such actions.
One question that is looming - is Ukraine's potential of becoming an actual member of the E.U. Russia? In some sense Russia is more European than is Ukraine. Ukraine has not backed Georgia against Russia. In fact, Ukraine has become more and more sympathetic to Russia, and yet Ukraine is also slated to seek membership in the E.U. Russia's relationship with the E.U. is extremely important. In fact, the day might come when the E.U. and Russia become allied on the basis of an agreement that protects Russia from U.S. military interference and aggression as has been orchestrated in Georgia.
good points .300
.300 I see the Russian point of view, but I am not a Russian so I cannot agree. but those are some very valid points to think about.
I seem to remember a certain missile crisis involving the US and Russia. Russia was backed down when we agreed to the removal of US Nike Missile System (anti ballistic missile) from Turkey. Now Poland with the Anti Ballistic Missile System. History coming full circle? hmmm
.300 I see the Russian point of view, but I am not a Russian so I cannot agree.
but those are some very valid points to think about.I seem to remember a certain missile crisis involving the US and Russia. Russia was backed down when we agreed to the removal of US Nike Missile System (anti ballistic missile) from Turkey. Now Poland with the Anti Ballistic Missile System. History coming full circle? hmmm