Ukraine joins Poland

[Texas]

Ukraine to join Poland in Missile Defense system. It appears that Russia's attempts to intimidate the former Soviet states are backfiring.

Ukraine to join in US-led missile shield in Europe
Published: Saturday 16 August 2008 12:20 UTC
Last updated: Saturday 16 August 2008 12:23 UTC
Ukraine has agreed to take part in a missile defence system designed by the United States to protect Western countries. The government in Kiev defended its decision for military co-operation with the West, saying Russia cancelled a bilateral treaty with Ukraine earlier this year.

A few days ago, Poland and the United States reached agreement on the siting of missiles on Polish territory. These, together with radar installations in the Czech republic, make up the missile shield. Russia is fiercely opposed to the defence system and has threatened retaliatory measures.

The Ukrainian offer to co-operate with the US on the shield comes as the situation surrounding Russia's military operations in Georgia is increasingly tense. Ukraine's pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko has strongly criticised Russia and is threatening to impose restrictions on Russian navy vessels' use of the port of Sebastopol in Ukraine.

[leonAzul]

Russian Bombers Could Be Deployed to Cuba
Move Would Be Response to U.S. Missile Defense System, Newspaper Izvestia Says

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/22/ST2008072200062.html)

The airstrips are already there, no silos nor complex infrastructure to organize, construct, and maintain. Although if they have any sense, they'll hold off until after hurricane season--which coincidentally would be just after the US presidential election in November.

[Matteo Martini]

Russian Bombers Could Be Deployed to Cuba
Move Would Be Response to U.S. Missile Defense System, Newspaper Izvestia Says

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/22/ST2008072200062.html)

The airstrips are already there, no silos nor complex infrastructure to organize, construct, and maintain. Although if they have any sense, they'll hold off until after hurricane season--which coincidentally would be just after the US presidential election in November.

Also, they may sell some nuke and ICBM to Venezuela, ease off the sanctions to Iran and sell them some equipment for nuclear power and who knows what else..

Let`s hope that the Russians have more common sense than the US..

[moon1969]

Josef Stalin didn"t fail in WW2 thanks to Roosevelt. And Medvedev will not fail today thanks to George W. Bush.

[Darth Rotor]

Also, they may sell some nuke and ICBM to Venezuela, ease off the sanctions to Iran and sell them some equipment for nuclear power and who knows what else.
I am not sure where you get the idea that the Russians are in favor of nuclear proliferation. Their sales to Iran for their electric power generation capability, nuclear power, have struck me as above board.

Do you have a reason to believe the Russians are in favor of nuclear weapons proliferation? I don't think their actions have reflected that. They are a signatory of the NPF treaty, and as far as I can tell are supportive of it.
Let`s hope that the Russians have more common sense than the US..
Who have the US been selling nukes to lately, Matteo? They way you put those two facts together ends up as a veiled insinuation that US is supportive of nuclear proliferation. That is not the case. Indeed, it was a great disappointment to the US when Pakistan's nuclear weapons program became public knowledge.

The US/India relationship on security, and nuclear power, is at the moment unclear. I am not sure where it will turn, but I don't get the sense that Washington is encouraging India to develop and maintain nuclear weapons. India already has them, so it's a bit of fait accompli at this point.

DR

[CapelDodger]

Josef Stalin didn"t fail in WW2 thanks to Roosevelt. And Medvedev will not fail today thanks to George W. Bush.

The Russians won the Battle of Moscow without US assistance, and with that battle they won the war. After that it was just a matter of time.

[Wire]

The Russians won the Battle of Moscow without US assistance, and with that battle they won the war. After that it was just a matter of time.

Heh.. you said Soviet Union = Russia. Which is actually the way they consider SU nowadays -- as an era of the Russian Empire.

US assisted with a considerable amount of war materials, it probably didn't necessarily change the outcome but certainly the time scale and the fate of Eastern Europe.

[geni]

Ukraine to join Poland in Missile Defense system. It appears that Russia's attempts to intimidate the former Soviet states are backfiring.

Um how much gas do you think the US can supply to Ukraine? Winter is comeing up and Putin has his hand on the off tap.

[Darth Rotor]

This one is for anyone who would like a neutral, objective analysis of what the Georgia/Russia skirmish lately has to do with Poland and Ukraine, and the power calculus in Europe.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

Friedman does a good job of covering the political, and a few of the economic, realities of what's been going on of late.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

This one is for anyone who would like a neutral, objective analysis of what the Georgia/Russia skirmish lately has to do with Poland and Ukraine, and the power calculus in Europe.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

Friedman does a good job of covering the political, and a few of the economic, realities of what's been going on of late.

DR

The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes

[Texas]

Um how much gas do you think the US can supply to Ukraine? Winter is comeing up and Putin has his hand on the off tap.

Looks like Russia is the one that needs to be worrying:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDNLWfQWKrQc48pITBUg9KT_6oVwD92K2SE80

Germany offers support for Georgia's NATO bid
By MICHAEL FISCHER – 9 hours ago

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) — German Chancellor Angela Merkel is offering strong support for Georgia, saying the country is on track to become a member of NATO.

Merkel flew to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi on Sunday, two days after she met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

In a speech Sunday, Merkel also suggested that NATO could help rebuild the tattered Georgian military.

Merkel supports the EU cease-fire, saying it needs to be followed "immediately" and that Russian troops need to pull out of neighboring Georgia.

[Darth Rotor]

The United States is Georgia’s closest ally.
Closest?

Only?

Most powerful?

Look at a map.

Also note, Matteo, that Georgia is not the closest ally of the US. The relationship is not equal. Our closest allies are the UK, and Canada.
It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia.
Yes, and the US maintains a hell of a lot more than that in Italy. And Japan.

Do you have a point?
It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier.
Then you agree with the author, and you almost used that word correctly.
U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions.
If you presume that is where they were looking, perhaps. Satellites can't look inside of caves, for example, but I generally agree that a mobilization of that sort would be visible, if it happened all at once. The Russians have been, or so Mr Friedman contends, working up to this for some time.
The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians?
Uh, are you demanding mind reading here, Matteo?

Did you bother reading what Mr Friedman wrote? Rather than make assertions, he makes some observations. He does not presume, as you do, to have all the answers.

Also, I will point out to you: being aware of, and being able to do anything about, the Russians response to the Georgians are two different things.

Look At A Map, Matteo.
Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?
You ask this in hindsight. Gee, what a brilliant strategic mind you have. The intel either did or didn't assess the move afoot, but this returns us both to the standard problem.

Being aware of and being able to act in that locale are two different things. Terrain. See, again, the map.
It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes
Why? What is your mental block, here? It is difficult for me to be sure either way. I am sure some folks in Washington were warning the White House that things were close, and that Georgia might try this or that, but I want you to do me a favor:

Explain to me why Pres Bush wants Georgia to act in an area where he can't help them substantively if the Russians respond as they are capable of responding?

It is a good question. Let's listen to a possible conversation.

GW Bush: Hey, Shaali man, could you make me look even less competent next week? Go postal in SO, and piss the Russians off. Let's see if they care.

Shaali: Sure thing, W.

A week later.

Shalli: Oh, sheet, the Russians care.

*phone call*

Shaali: Hey, W, I need help.

W: Huh? All I can hear is the screaming here at the swimming pool, Tara won a silver medal in the 50m freestyle. Call me back later.

*click*

Shaali: Well eff me! :mad:
==========================================
I suppose it's possible. Georgia the cat's paw, or a feint, to see what Putin will or won't stand for.

You will note that in 1983, USSR/Russia did nothing about Reagan/US in Grenada. Look at a map.

DR

[CapelDodger]

Heh.. you said Soviet Union = Russia. Which is actually the way they consider SU nowadays -- as an era of the Russian Empire.

Which it was. The Bolsheviks didn't intend to break up the Tsarist Empire, they intended to take it over. It took a while to mop up the breakaways, and they had to surrender a lot in the West where the reborn Poles turned them back very emphatically.

US assisted with a considerable amount of war materials, it probably didn't necessarily change the outcome but certainly the time scale and the fate of Eastern Europe.

The timescale yes - in particular the trucks and tinned-meat that spurred on the frontline effort. That took a year or two out of the war, no doubt about it.

[CapelDodger]

Looks like Russia is the one that needs to be worrying:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDNLWfQWKrQc48pITBUg9KT_6oVwD92K2SE80

If Condie Rice didn't worry them (even when making demands to camera) a brief AP report about what Angela Merkel might have said won't either.

This is an unfolding situation; jumping the gun is inadvisable. The whole "what Angela Merkel actually said" thing could take on a life of its own. None of it will have any impression on the Caucasus.

[geni]

Looks like Russia is the one that needs to be worrying:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDNLWfQWKrQc48pITBUg9KT_6oVwD92K2SE80

Why? NATO will not persue all out nuclear war over Georgia and has no militry responce below that level. A Georgia with NATO membership would simply give russia a way to humilate NATO.

[mr rosewater]

Why? NATO will not persue all out nuclear war over Georgia and has no militry responce below that level. A Georgia with NATO membership would simply give russia a way to humilate NATO.

Why does it have to go nuclear? The U.S. has fought many times and not gone nuclear. I know Russia is held to a different standard but even they would not dare a nuclear war, the world would surely condemn them wouldn't they?

[Texas]

Why does it have to go nuclear? The U.S. has fought many times and not gone nuclear. I know Russia is held to a different standard but even they would not dare a nuclear war, the world would surely condemn them wouldn't they?
There are some that are so excited that the Bear is back that they forget that the Russian arsenal is so damned old that Putin wouldn't know for sure that he wouldn't be shooting blanks while the US and NATO have both kept their nukes up to date. There is also the fact that his army is a less than half the size it was during the cold war. Russia and Georgia is the same as the US and Grenada it shows nothing other than a small country cannot fight a war with a much larger country.

NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine changes that equation. Poland and Ukraine have a combined population of almost 100 million while Russia has 140 million. The combined populations of former Soviet states far exceeds Russia and are in no mood to allow Russia to intimidate them. Russia can threaten to cut energy supplies to Europe but doing so would cripple its economy a lot more than to Europe's economies.

[geni]

Why does it have to go nuclear? The U.S. has fought many times and not gone nuclear. I know Russia is held to a different standard but even they would not dare a nuclear war, the world would surely condemn them wouldn't they?

They don't start one. They invade then NATO's only option to counter that is nuclear war we do not realisticaly have the capacity to defend Georgia with conventional forces at this time.

[geni]

There are some that are so excited that the Bear is back that they forget that the Russian arsenal is so damned old that Putin wouldn't know for sure that he wouldn't be shooting blanks while the US and NATO have both kept their nukes up to date.

Best we can tell not true. Asside from the new powers it appears that no one has updated their weapon design since the end of testing. This is somewhat sinsible since you know the designs work and trying an untested design is risky.

The US has a program to develop new weapons but it looks rather like a makework program. The UK program is more classified but looks like an attempt at fine tuneing. What the french are up to is always hard to say.

So the actual bombs are about level. Old designs that will work (where work is defined as produce a yield in the megatone range).

Delivery systems are more interesting again neither side has done much of late but we know that Russia continues to launch balistic missles with a fair degree of reliability and regularity. I think the most recent launch was May 14. Thats ignoreing the other deployment options russia has. UK hasn't launched in some years and US launches are limited but there is no reason to distrust the tech at this time. No expecting Russia's nuclear threat to be non active is suicidal.


There is also the fact that his army is a less than half the size it was during the cold war.

True but it isn't looking at a large scale invasion of western Europe any more. In adition the raw numbers don't mean much since I doubt a large part of it is actualy capable of reasonable combat operations. But then it doesn't need to be and the percentage that is appears to be growing.


Russia and Georgia is the same as the US and Grenada it shows nothing other than a small country cannot fight a war with a much larger country.


Over simplified since it completely ignore the logicstics aspect (understanbale given the nic mind the confederates lost due to logistic issues).


NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine changes that equation. Poland and Ukraine have a combined population of almost 100 million while Russia has 140 million. The combined populations of former Soviet states far exceeds Russia and are in no mood to allow Russia to intimidate them. Russia can threaten to cut energy supplies to Europe but doing so would cripple its economy a lot more than to Europe's economies.

Oh dear. You think the only pipe to Europe is through Ukraine? Russia doesn't need Ukraine to sell gas to europe. NATO membership of Georgia doesn't help since Russia could invade and occupy anyway. Then NATO loses a large chunk of credibility. Russia doesn't need militry force to threaten Ukraine (indeed other than a stupidly minor boarder dispute of an island there has never been a suggestion it would do so) it just needs to keep it's hands on the gas tap.

[Texas]

Best we can tell not true. Asside from the new powers it appears that no one has updated their weapon design since the end of testing. This is somewhat sinsible since you know the designs work and trying an untested design is risky.

The US has a program to develop new weapons but it looks rather like a makework program. The UK program is more classified but looks like an attempt at fine tuneing. What the french are up to is always hard to say.

So the actual bombs are about level. Old designs that will work (where work is defined as produce a yield in the megatone range).

Delivery systems are more interesting again neither side has done much of late but we know that Russia continues to launch balistic missles with a fair degree of reliability and regularity. I think the most recent launch was May 14. Thats ignoreing the other deployment options russia has. UK hasn't launched in some years and US launches are limited but there is no reason to distrust the tech at this time. No expecting Russia's nuclear threat to be non active is suicidal.

You are wrong;


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p10/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html
IMBALANCE OF TERROR

Even as the United States' nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War, Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. Russia has 39 percent fewer long-range bombers, 58 percent fewer ICBMs, and 80 percent fewer SSBNs than the Soviet Union fielded during its last days. The true extent of the Russian arsenal's decay, however, is much greater than these cuts suggest. What nuclear forces Russia retains are hardly ready for use. Russia's strategic bombers, now located at only two bases and thus vulnerable to a surprise attack, rarely conduct training exercises, and their warheads are stored off-base. Over 80 percent of Russia's silo-based ICBMs have exceeded their original service lives, and plans to replace them with new missiles have been stymied by failed tests and low rates of production. Russia's mobile ICBMs rarely patrol, and although they could fire their missiles from inside their bases if given sufficient warning of an attack, it appears unlikely that they would have the time to do so.




True but it isn't looking at a large scale invasion of western Europe any more. In adition the raw numbers don't mean much since I doubt a large part of it is actualy capable of reasonable combat operations. But then it doesn't need to be and the percentage that is appears to be growing.

It is also facing a world in which it has no allies. Russia had its hands full in Chechnya and if you think the Russian military in its present state can act with immunity against the former Warsaw pact countries you are mistaken.

Over simplified since it completely ignore the logicstics aspect (understanbale given the nic mind the confederates lost due to logistic issues).
Logistics is not the determining factor it is the effectiveness of the opposition.


Oh dear. You think the only pipe to Europe is through Ukraine? Russia doesn't need Ukraine to sell gas to europe. NATO membership of Georgia doesn't help since Russia could invade and occupy anyway. Then NATO loses a large chunk of credibility. Russia doesn't need militry force to threaten Ukraine (indeed other than a stupidly minor boarder dispute of an island there has never been a suggestion it would do so) it just needs to keep it's hands on the gas tap.

Try reading what I wrote, Russia can threaten the west with its energy exports but doing so would wreck its economy that is just barely viable as it is. As for NATO losing credibility if it admitted Georgia then it has no credibility anyway. You may think that Russia is back to being a military Juggernaut but even Putin isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO nation.

[Texas]

Oh dear. You think the only pipe to Europe is through Ukraine? Russia doesn't need Ukraine to sell gas to europe. NATO membership of Georgia doesn't help since Russia could invade and occupy anyway. Then NATO loses a large chunk of credibility. Russia doesn't need militry force to threaten Ukraine (indeed other than a stupidly minor boarder dispute of an island there has never been a suggestion it would do so) it just needs to keep it's hands on the gas tap.

You do know that 85% of Europe's Natural gas goes through Ukraine don't you?

[geni]

You are wrong;


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p10/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html



From 2006. Things have been changeing somewhat fast.





It is also facing a world in which it has no allies.


Did it have any before recent events? (Transnistria doesn't count we don't talk about Transnistria)


Russia had its hands full in Chechnya



Not so much these days. A population of only a little of a million combiened with a relaxed atitude to useing large amounts of force has resulted in the area becomeing somewhat pacified (turns out you can pacify islamic extreamists if you drop enough hyperbaric weapons on them).


and if you think the Russian military in its present state can act with immunity against the former Warsaw pact countries you are mistaken.


I never suggested it could.


Logistics is not the determining factor it is the effectiveness of the opposition.

If that was the case the nazis would have won WW2. Their kit was better and the soldiers were at least as good. US logistics and production capacity made that meaningless.



Try reading what I wrote, Russia can threaten the west with its energy exports but doing so would wreck its economy that is just barely viable as it is.

I didn't say the west I said Ukraine. Russia can cut off suppy to Ukraine without cutting off supply to the west.


As for NATO losing credibility if it admitted Georgia then it has no credibility anyway.

Why? As it is it has a fair bit credibility. At the present time it can defend with conventional force any NATO member from an invasion by a third party. It could not do that in the case of Georgia.


You may think that Russia is back to being a military Juggernaut

Never said that.


but even Putin isn't stupid enough to attack a NATO nation.

Why? If Georgia was a NATO memeber what on the ground difference would it make?

[skepticalbeliever]

I don't know why the US is going to risk a nuclear war over these states. I say it is enough to enjoy freedom at home. Let the former soviet states defend them selves. I really could care less about weather or not Russia invades her neighbors. I am tired of people my age being sent off to die to give other people freedom. I really don't want to see another war involving american soldiers in my life time.

The situation with Georgia scares me because it remindes me of world war 1. I do not believe it is worth it for me to give my life to defend the freedom of people thousands of miles a way. I think America should only go to war do protect her boarders.

[geni]

You do know that 85% of Europe's Natural gas goes through Ukraine don't you?

Doesn't have to. Russia has switched off the pipeline in the past they can do it again. There is also that one they are working on in the baltic. Ukraine is playing with a very weak hand. Something of a problem for europe. Ukraine is something of a problem for both russia and europe at the moment post Orange Revolution it's politics have been somewhat erratic.

[geni]

I don't know why the US is going to risk a nuclear war over these states. I say it is enough to enjoy freedom at home. Let the former soviet states defend them selves. I really could care less about weather or not Russia invades her neighbors. I am tired of people my age being sent off to die to give other people freedom. I really don't want to see another war involving american soldiers in my life time.


Depends on which neighbors. the effects on the world ecomomy and geoplotical situation of russia being allowed to invade EU memeber states are unlikely to be acceptable in the west. However such an invasion is unlikely to be practicle.

[Texas]

From 2006. Things have been changeing somewhat fast.
It is less that 2 years ago and you don't change an outdated Nuclear arsenal that fast. You are just moving goal posts.






Did it have any before recent events? (Transnistria doesn't count we don't talk about Transnistria)

It was on track to at least becoming a respectable nation. It has now shown itself not to want that. It is so steeped in its historic inferiority complex it can't accept the fact that it lost its empire.




Not so much these days. A population of only a little of a million combiened with a relaxed atitude to useing large amounts of force has resulted in the area becomeing somewhat pacified (turns out you can pacify islamic extreamists if you drop enough hyperbaric weapons on them).

So you agree with the Iraq war?






If that was the case the nazis would have won WW2. Their kit was better and the soldiers were at least as good. US logistics and production capacity made that meaningless.

Ukraine has a large standing army and is well equipped. Poland has a well trained and equipped military not to mention NATO membership and a very large military arms production capacity. Russia has the same military doctrine it had in Afghanistan and your vaunted logistics advantage is not one that Russia enjoys.


I didn't say the west I said Ukraine. Russia can cut off suppy to Ukraine without cutting off supply to the west.

Nope since 85% of Russian gas is piped through Ukraine all Ukraine would have to do is tap into the European pipelines exactly as they did when Russia tried to increase the prices they charged Ukraine. The Ukrainians have control over Russia's exports unless Russia is willing to cut off all of Europe and they are not going to do that.

Why? As it is it has a fair bit credibility. At the present time it can defend with conventional force any NATO member from an invasion by a third party. It could not do that in the case of Georgia.

NATO has yet to defend a member nation from invasion so that is a moot point.



Why? If Georgia was a NATO memeber what on the ground difference would it make?

Because it would invoke article 5 and NATO would be bound by treaty to act. BTW Did you see this today?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDNLWfQWKrQc48pITBUg9KT_6oVwD92K2SE80

Germany offers support for Georgia's NATO bid
By MICHAEL FISCHER – 14 hours ago

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) — German Chancellor Angela Merkel is offering strong support for Georgia, saying the country is on track to become a member of NATO.

Merkel flew to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi on Sunday, two days after she met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

In a speech Sunday, Merkel also suggested that NATO could help rebuild the tattered Georgian military.

Merkel supports the EU cease-fire, saying it needs to be followed "immediately" and that Russian troops need to pull out of neighboring Georgia.


As I said before Russia overplayed a very weak hand and it is now becoming quickly encircled.

[geni]

It is less that 2 years ago and you don't change an outdated Nuclear arsenal that fast. You are just moving goal posts.

No you don't change it. You don't need to other than some of the early warning systems the system is fundimentaly sound. Just a matter of employing people to actualy do routine maintenance and provide them with materials and equipement.


It was on track to at least becoming a respectable nation. It has now shown itself not to want that.

Did you see the last elections? Thats like calling china respectable. It was on track to being taken for granted.


It is so steeped in its historic inferiority complex it can't accept the fact that it lost its empire.


More that after being invaded by just about everyone over the centrues it is somewhat paranoid over it's boarders.


So you agree with the Iraq war?


Saddam wasn't as islamic extreamist. Indeed Saddam was of the class of leaders that bin lardern's brand of islamic extreamists were looking to overthrow. Much like Mubarak still is.




Ukraine has a large standing army and is well equipped.


So was the Russian army in the mid 90s


Poland has a well trained and equipped military not to mention NATO membership and a very large military arms production capacity.

Short of Poland invadeing Kaliningrad I really can't see Russia trying to use militry force against Poland even than only maybe. Poland is safe enough as are the other EU states.


Russia has the same military doctrine it had in Afghanistan and your vaunted logistics advantage is not one that Russia enjoys.


Russia has a logistics advantage in Georgia although it helps that someone failed to block the Roki Tunnel. Afghanistan isn't comparible to any of the uses of militry force that Russia is likely to consider.



Nope since 85% of Russian gas is piped through Ukraine all Ukraine would have to do is tap into the European pipelines exactly as they did when Russia tried to increase the prices they charged Ukraine. The Ukrainians have control over Russia's exports unless Russia is willing to cut off all of Europe and they are not going to do that.

See that new undersea pipline being built in the north?



NATO has yet to defend a member nation from invasion so that is a moot point.

The general assumption is that that is the fundimental reason for it's existance.


Because it would invoke article 5 and NATO would be bound by treaty to act.


And how exactly should it act? NATO is not in a position to carry out a war in georgia at this time. Heck Russia could have occupied the entire place before last weekend if they had wanted to.


BTW Did you see this today?

Merkel wants to talk tough. Fair enough how much is she planning to increase german militry spending by this year? We are haveing a hard enough time getting them to accept their complete eurofighter order as it is.


As I said before Russia overplayed a very weak hand and it is now becoming quickly encircled.

Russia has been encircled since about 1991. Its actualy fractionaly less so than it was at the start of current events.

[Texas]

No you don't change it. You don't need to other than some of the early warning systems the system is fundimentaly sound. Just a matter of employing people to actualy do routine maintenance and provide them with materials and equipement.

Do you know what routine maintenance means in regards to Nuclear weapons? If 85% of their ICBMS are inoperable then you have no effective nuclear deterrent against the United States. More from the same paper:


The third leg of Russia's nuclear triad has weakened the most. Since 2000, Russia's SSBNs have conducted approximately two patrols per year, down from 60 in 1990. (By contrast, the U.S. SSBN patrol rate today is about 40 per year.) Most of the time, all nine of Russia's ballistic missile submarines are sitting in port, where they make easy targets. Moreover, submarines require well-trained crews to be effective. Operating a ballistic missile submarine -- and silently coordinating its operations with surface ships and attack submarines to evade an enemy's forces -- is not simple. Without frequent patrols, the skills of Russian submariners, like the submarines themselves, are decaying. Revealingly, a 2004 test (attended by President Vladimir Putin) of several submarine-launched ballistic missiles was a total fiasco: all either failed to launch or veered off course. The fact that there were similar failures in the summer and fall of 2005 completes this unflattering picture of Russia's nuclear forces.






More that after being invaded by just about everyone over the centrues it is somewhat paranoid over it's boarders.
LOL, poor picked on Russia.


Saddam wasn't as islamic extreamist. Indeed Saddam was of the class of leaders that bin lardern's brand of islamic extreamists were looking to overthrow. Much like Mubarak still is.

From the 1991 indictment of Bin Laden:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development




See that new undersea pipline being built in the north?

Scheduled for completion when?


And how exactly should it act? NATO is not in a position to carry out a war in georgia at this time. Heck Russia could have occupied the entire place before last weekend if they had wanted to.

NATO, as a whole, has NEVER been in the position to wage war except for two of its members. It is a total failure so far in Afghanistan. Putin well knows who would he would be facing in any NATO action.



Merkel wants to talk tough. Fair enough how much is she planning to increase german militry spending by this year? We are having a hard enough time getting them to accept their complete eurofighter order as it is.

Or maybe being from East Berlin she knows a bit about what Russia is all about.

[leonAzul]

It would seem that Russia is back in the game.

Russia launches another ballistic missile, prepares to create sea-based carrier systems Link (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/01-08-2008/105970-ballistic_missile-0)

Russia to set new record with 8-billion-dollar arms sales in 2008 Link (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/17-07-2008/105807-arms-sales-0)

Russia test launches sea-based ballistic missile in Pacific Link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2007/russia-070807-rianovosti02.htm)

OTOH, there is this:

The need to be open-minded about Russia's approaches Link (http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/20392)

Texas, I'm not adding these links to refute you--AAMOF, I agree with you on a number of points you have made--but rather to provide a little more context for the discussion. These reports and opinion pieces need to be read just as critically as the material you have linked to.

One of several things about recent reports of events in the area of South Ossetia that keep me from drawing anything like firm conclusions is their fragmentary nature. Each source seems to have its own bias and suffers from enormous gaps, yet they manage not to be contradictory. Claims of wrong-doing are not being answered by refutation, but rather by counter-claims.

A very interesting game of chess is unfolding, as we watch.

[Magtor]

See that new undersea pipline being built in the north?


No, I don't see anything more than plans if I look.

[WildCat]

Russia has a logistics advantage in Georgia although it helps that someone failed to block the Roki Tunnel.
Last time I checked there was a large NATO member country on Georgia's southern border. This same country has ports on the Mediteranean Sea.

If Georgia had been a NATO member the logistics wouldn't be a great problem.

[GreyICE]

Texas, how many successful nuclear weapon detonations are acceptable in a nuclear war?

[Thunder]

Russia needs to learn that its old "satellites" will not succumb to its bullying any longer.

[Darth Rotor]

Last time I checked there was a large NATO member country on Georgia's southern border. This same country has ports on the Mediteranean Sea. If Georgia had been a NATO member the logistics wouldn't be a great problem.
Not so fast.

First, the political problem we saw with the 4th ID not being allowed into Turkey on the way to Iraq. Screwed the campaign plan a bit.

The Turks will look out for Turkey first, and having to live close to the Bear, will be cautious is enabling armed forces to traipse across their railways and highways to staging areas in Northeastern Turkey.

I worked on reinforcement planning and infrastructure projects, Turkey and elsewhere, on a NATO staff about a decade ago. I'll posit that they've improved since, but I'd still not call those Lines of COmmunication, from the Med to Northeastern Turkey, robust. No, logistic support for a significant formation is very much a problem, and one easily degraded by Spec Ops, SPEZNAZ, or terrorist style operations.

Gumboot, elsewhere, posited the US dropping the XVIIIth Airborne Corps into Georgia. He's not being mindful of the logistics issues, for a sustained operation. There is also the strategic element. US tends to use XVIIIth Airborne Corps as first in, to be replaced rather rapidly with follow on forces. If XVIIIth is in Georgia, and follow on are all in Iraq, US has no 9-11 force of the sort XVIII was designed to be to handle a contingency Anywhere On The Globe. (Ever hear of a place called Korea? )

No, no, and no. I am seeing handwaves rather than nuts and bolts thinking. Being buried in the tarbaby of Iraq at the moment significantly curtails the sort of force projection you guys have been talking about.

And Putin knows it.

DR

[WildCat]

Not so fast.

First, the political problem we saw with the 4th ID not being allowed into Turkey on the way to Iraq. Screwed the campaign plan a bit.

The Turks will look out for Turkey first, and having to live close to the Bear, will be cautious is enabling armed forces to traipse across their railways and highways to staging areas in Northeastern Turkey.
Iraq was not a NATO operation. If Article 5 was invoked (remember I'm using a hypothetical that Georgia was a member of NATO) Turkey would be obligated to help.

Not that I think there's a chance in hell that Putin would be so reckless as to attack a NATO member.

[CapelDodger]

They don't start one. They invade then NATO's only option to counter that is nuclear war we do not realisticaly have the capacity to defend Georgia with conventional forces at this time.

The NATO commitment wouldn't just apply on the ground in Georgia. It implies general war on Russia to force its withdrawal. That war can be fought far from Georgia and in much more favourable circumstances. But nobody remotely wants to. Which is why Georgia will never become a NATO member in either of their lifetimes.

[CapelDodger]

Russia needs to learn that its old "satellites" will not succumb to its bullying any longer.

That's not what they've learnt from their march through Georgia. I guess the lesson will have to come another day, and in a different place.

[CapelDodger]

First, the political problem we saw with the 4th ID not being allowed into Turkey on the way to Iraq. Screwed the campaign plan a bit.

The campaign wasn't the problem. The staff-work (with this thrown in at a late stage) was exemplary; the execution was more than professional; bish, bosh, job done.

The problems came in the aftermath.

[Policenaut]

That's not what they've learnt from their march through Georgia. I guess the lesson will have to come another day, and in a different place.

Maybe they picked the right one. I don't know much about the military prowess of the former Soviet territories but Georgia seemed very weak and totally unorganized militarily. If they went into a different country with a better fighting force and were inflicted with many casualties Russia might be thinking differently.

[Ziggurat]

Maybe they picked the right one. I don't know much about the military prowess of the former Soviet territories but Georgia seemed very weak and totally unorganized militarily.

Georgia's problem, militarily, is primarily one of relative size compared to Russia, and there's not much they could have done about that. Its soldiers are decent enough (Russian troops not being exactly stellar themselves), but they've largely been equiped to fight counter-insurgency, since that's the security problem they had up until the Russian tanks came rolling in.

[Thunder]

That's not what they've learnt from their march through Georgia. I guess the lesson will have to come another day, and in a different place.

Georgia was not a Soviet satellite..it was part of the USSR.

=)

[WildCat]

Georgia was not a Soviet satellite..it was part of the USSR.

=)
Oh yeah? (http://www.thegeorgiasatellites.com/) ;)

[geni]

Georgia's problem, militarily, is primarily one of relative size compared to Russia, and there's not much they could have done about that. Its soldiers are decent enough (Russian troops not being exactly stellar themselves), but they've largely been equiped to fight counter-insurgency, since that's the security problem they had up until the Russian tanks came rolling in.

Yes and no. On paper the destruction of the Roki Tunnel and some reasonable costal defences would have made russian operations somewhat harder.

The Russian troops involved were some of their better ones veterans of chenya and the like.

[Matteo Martini]

Closest?

Only?

Most powerful?

Look at a map.

Also note, Matteo, that Georgia is not the closest ally of the US. The relationship is not equal. Our closest allies are the UK, and Canada.


You are stupid.
I wrote "The United States is Georgia’s closest ally."
Not the other way around.
You do not understand a heck.
No time to lose with you

[CapelDodger]

Maybe they picked the right one. I don't know much about the military prowess of the former Soviet territories but Georgia seemed very weak and totally unorganized militarily. If they went into a different country with a better fighting force and were inflicted with many casualties Russia might be thinking differently.

Naturally they would. They chose Georgia because they could roll over Georgia like the US rolled over Iraq (both times), but on a much smaller scale.

The Georgian military was organised, trained, and armed by the US and Israel (paid for by the US). And of course it never stood a chance.

[CapelDodger]

Yes and no. On paper the destruction of the Roki Tunnel and some reasonable costal defences would have made russian operations somewhat harder.

Slightly less easy, at best.

The Russian troops involved were some of their better ones veterans of chenya and the like.

Chechnya is just up the road and Abkhazia and South Ossetia were "frozen conflicts", so naturally there was a rapid deployment big fist nearby, and a plan for every eventualty.

[CapelDodger]

Georgia was not a Soviet satellite..it was part of the USSR.

=)

I doubt that's any comfort to Ukraine.

[Darth Rotor]

You are stupid.
I wrote "The United States is Georgia’s closest ally."
Not the other way around.
You do not understand a heck.
No time to lose with you
When you are in a hole, the first thing you ought to do is stop digging.

Take a break, have an espresso. Then read the sentence I wrote about the relationship not being equal.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

When you are in a hole, the first thing you ought to do is stop digging.

Take a break, have an espresso. Then read the sentence I wrote about the relationship not being equal.

DR

Sorry for having called you "stupid"
I regret it

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry for having called you "stupid"
I regret it
Grazie Mille. Molto gentile. :)

I in turn apologize to you for being a bit nastier than I should be. I can disagree without being quite so nasty, so I'll try to do that better in the future. I also just remembered that you live in Japan, which means the chance of your having a back yard are pretty small. :boggled:

DR