2008 Russo-Georgian War: Info

Russia was internationally mandated to have peacekeepers in the area, and Georgia deliberately fired and killed those peacekeepers.

Any legality regarding the territories went out the window when that happened.

I don't think at this point China has any backing in attacking Taiwan from anyone, and rightfully so.
It has been independent for too long, and has a right to self-determination.

Ossetia and Abkhazia never got that chance when the USSR fell apart....

But if here was a Greogian, he may say : "Our army were trying to reunite our country by force." Because at the time that the conflicts begins, Russia has not recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent country. So legally speaking, at that time, they're Greogian territory....... Greogian army were taking action at their home.

But if Taiwan is Chinese territory (and I am not saying whether it is or it isn't) then would you start an effort to retake Taiwan by shelling its capital city?

The Reality is that Stalin made South Ossetia and Abkhazia part of Georgia because his parents came from south ossetia and georgia.

In other words it was a dictator that decided rather than the people in the actual regions, so no, I don't consider those regions to be part of Georgia and neither it seems do they.

Another term for white person is Caucasian, so as a white man do I have the right to go to the Caucasus and demand a piece of land?

Russian peacekeepers were in South Ossetia and Abkhazia on a UN mission to keep the peace and they were attacked without warning by Georgian forces.

Russia had rather more right to intervene than the west in Kosovo.

It is glossed over a lot but it was Russias recognition and opening trade ties with South Ossetia and Abkhazia that created the conflict because before that response that was triggered by Kosovos declaration of independence both regions were totally dependent on Georgia so Georgia had some control. After Russia opened its borders both regions could become completely autonomous and that is why Georgia attacked without warning during the opening ceremony of the olympics... a traditional period of peace where many wars stop with truces.

I think that's the reason why China hesitate to blame Greogian and recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Because at this issue, China's position is very similar to Greogia. If one day China deceide to attack Taiwan,we hope we may argue that we're taking millitary action at our own territory...

There are many regions in the world that want autonomy or even independence... places like the Falkland Islands, Northern Ireland, Kurdistan, places in France etc etc.

Of course you have to ask yourself why two regions that are close together... one called North Ossetia and one called South Ossetia should not simply join and become one region called Ossetia. Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have already said they don't want to be part of Georgia... Georgia just needs to man up and accept that.

Anyway, In 2008 Shanghai Coopreation Organization (SCO) member state header's summit, China agreed to sign an announcement saying:

The member states of the SCO express their deep concern in connection with the recent tension around the issue of South Ossetia, and call on the relevant parties to resolve existing problems in a peaceful way through dialogue, to make efforts for reconciliation and facilitation of negotiations.

The member states of the SCO welcome the signing on 13 August 2008 in Moscow of the six principles of settling the conflict in South Ossetia, and support the active role of Russia in promoting peace and cooperation in the region.

Which can be explained as a indirect support stance to Russsia.

Perhaps - but China's unwillingness to support Russia even when the instigator was clearly Georgia, does not bode well for the SCO's credibility as a defense pact.

Perhaps - but China's unwillingness to support Russia even when the instigator was clearly Georgia, does not bode well for the SCO's credibility as a defense pact.

Yes. I hope new Chinese leaders who will take their office at spring 2013, could take remedial measures to this problem, for example: recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia .

Sorry for necroposting
But if You look at new Georgian government You'll see that Saakashvilli days are numbered. US is doing "great" job in protecting their asset. Hope he will get prosecuted, but I bet he will go back to US sooner or later.

TR1 wrote:Perhaps - but China's unwillingness to support Russia even when the instigator was clearly Georgia, does not bode well for the SCO's credibility as a defense pact.

On the other hand, i think its good that the SCO isn't such an organization, i mean the last thing we need is to give NATO a reason to exist.

TR1 wrote:Also, another thing I am very interested in, is the amount of control and communication Saaka had with ground forces in South Ossetia. I can't believe he would order them to attack the Russian peacekeeper base (not to give credit to the man, but no one who got elected is THAT dumb), and just the same , I wonder how much he was aware that the Georgian armed response consisted of shooting up Tskinval in a chaotic and ineffective manner.

The man organized filmed provocations against Russian peacekeepers and even participated in them himself; there was film footage of altercations, pushing, shoving, etc... certainly neither Saakashvilli nor his propaganda team ever felt shy about messing with the Russian military.
It's not proof in any way but with such a boisterous, aggressive, carefree attitude I can imagine that it would be certainly within him to order a direct attack on a Russian base and then dare to imagine that he would get away with it without retaliation.

And ordering an artillery barrage on a city, at night time, with tens of thousands of civilians living in it and no attempt to forewarn them about an attack. What exactly could Saakashvilli have been expecting, other than massive collateral damage and hundreds of civilian deaths?

He just simply thought that he could get away with it all. Like a bank-robber or common criminal. "Seemed like a good idea at the time", as they say.
Truth be told - I didn't think that Russia would directly intervene with their own army either.
Until they did of course.

So it is confirmed. Georgians are still in denial, and look to blame anyone but themselves .

Enjoy the laugh:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?157891-Georgian-Army-Navy-and-Air-Force/page307

Last two pages.

TR1 wrote:So it is confirmed. Georgians are still in denial, and look to blame anyone but themselves .

Enjoy the laugh:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?157891-Georgian-Army-Navy-and-Air-Force/page307

Last two pages.

Till this very day, i've never seen any Georgian who was not denying that Georgian site under Sackarschwilli has started an unprovocated attack on russian peacekeeping troops and total deny of intended killing of civilians in South Ossetia which is denied even after you post videos made by Sackarschwilis ordered depopulation forces.

TR1 wrote:So it is confirmed. Georgians are still in denial, and look to blame anyone but themselves .

Enjoy the laugh:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?157891-Georgian-Army-Navy-and-Air-Force/page307

Last two pages.

Dude, it's just few stupid Georgians. Not all of them are in denial, just speak with Georgians living in Moscow. Even on mp.net most Georgians hate Saaka and 080808 war.
Giorgi Margvelashvili, the new President and new government is like totally different than it was with Saaka. There is a lot of cleaning up to do to oust his clan as much possible. 
Anyway Georgians never been warlike material, be it Imperial Russia, Soviet army or today's Georgian army. They are French of Caucasus

Anyway Georgians never been warlike material, be it Imperial Russia, Soviet army or today's Georgian army. They are French of Caucasus

And there is no shame in that... wars are terrible wastes of lives and resources and are never totally effective solutions.

Of course the French have not always backed down from a fight either... if the Germans had treated the French the way they treated the Soviets in WWII I have no doubt the French would have fought to the bitter end... there was no real alternative.

The French have an epic military history.

Regular wrote:They are French of Caucasus

You should not base French military history solely on 1871 and 1940 and mistakes of their generals , average French soldier was no inferior to German counterpart. Remnants of French 1st army kept entire Blitzkrieg for four days at Lille enabling Dunkirk evacuation that pretty much kept British in the war , it was a pure a sacrifice on their part since they knew battle was lost and is example of selfless courage.

That four days may seem meaningless but it crushed Hitler`s hopes for peace treaty with Britain and in that sense sealed the fate of WW2.

Well I know French had glorious days when they triumphed culturally and military, I rather picked up British custom to undermine them. What I meant to say that even Russian poets have written about Georgians fleeing the battles hundreds years ago. They don't have clan society and are less hot-headed than their Caucasian brothers and along with Armenians are well integrated in Russian cultural life as showmen. Russian ambassador in my country is Georgian too.

Regular wrote:Well I know French had glorious days when they triumphed culturally and military, I rather picked up British custom to undermine them. What I meant to say that even Russian poets have written about Georgians fleeing the battles hundreds years ago. They don't have clan society and are less hot-headed than their Caucasian brothers and along with Armenians are well integrated in Russian cultural life as showmen. Russian ambassador in my country is Georgian too.

You're wrong, brother   
Azeris are French of Caucasus.

If you want you can read about one of the latest border incidents.
There, at least two Azeri SF units got their a** handed to them by Armenian conscripts  



To TR1:
"The French have an epic military history."

Are you sure about that?   
Coz there were only two instances, when French were winning wars:
In one case they were led by an Italian, and in another- by a woman suffering from hallucinations  

But yeah, those are pure coincidences, right?  

TR1 wrote:So it is confirmed. Georgians are still in denial, and look to blame anyone but themselves .

Enjoy the laugh:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?157891-Georgian-Army-Navy-and-Air-Force/page307

Last two pages.

Well to be fair, one of them called his previous government as full of criminals and another put forward the theory that Georgia was used as a pawn by the US against Russia.. which is perfectly plausible.

No pawn, they completely screwed things up themselves.

Like I said, it is denial of anything that leads to an admission of one's own incompetence.

This analysis is way too deep.

Put Georgians in a modern trained army environment, they will do fine. Same for anyone.

There is no genetic predisposition to being better fighters.

Georgia fucked up because their political handlers messed up terribly, their military command did as well, and the ground forces were inadequately trained and employed. Simple.

TR1 wrote:This analysis is way too deep.

Put Georgians in a modern trained army environment, they will do fine. Same for anyone.

There is no genetic predisposition to being better fighters.

Georgia fucked up because their political handlers messed up terribly, their military command did as well, and the ground forces were inadequately trained and employed. Simple.

Indeed. Besides, I think people are somehow exaggerating the pre-war military build-up of Georgia. Would you say that they were quantitatively and qualitatively adequately equipped? Hardly IMHO.

The main heavy equipment was little improved, the air defence was inadequate (yet still described as the only "functioning" branch of Georgian army during august war), and almost zero air support.

Put Georgians in a modern trained army environment, they will do fine. Same for anyone. Georgia fucked up because their political handlers messed up terribly, their military command did as well, and the ground forces were inadequately trained and employed. Simple. wrote:

That is a contradiction.

Equipment won't change the situation when tactics and training are insuffecient deployed.

Saakashvili is nothing but a cowardly scumbag he told the citizens of S Ossetia that he was aiming for peace then bombarded them when they were sleeping ... I hope he gets dragged through the streets of Tskhinvali

AttilaA wrote:So how would you describe the first Chechen war, which was not even comparable to the balance which existed between Azerbaijan and Armenia during first Karabakh war? There really wasn't all that difference between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and certainly not in technological terms, but more importantly there was barely anyone to man those equipment in a professional way, mostly because of the Soviet policy with regards to military service of Muslims. Also, an actual army in real sense didn't exist, but this would be also more or less true for Armenians, however, they were indeed better organized. In the midst of war, a general rebelled and marched towards Baku with his soldiers and equipment, thats how messed up the situation was in country, and with regards to individuals at top.

And if we are supposed to talk about "warrior" definition as in traditional sense, not only is it very stupid in our modern world, but also only a really ignorant person can keep on making such claims. Largely nomadic Azerbaijanis (lets keep in mind that this was a term that Stalin gave to us, and we are better known as Tatars or Turkmens in history), whos life revolved around pillaging innhabitants of Caucasia and Iran (not something that I'm proud of, but thats how it was), meant that our traditional culture was much more based on being a "warrior" than sedentary, merchant Armenians.

One of the factors also to take into account is that the Armenian gangs were financed and supported by both the CIA and the diaspora.

I read a while ago that there was some discrimination in the Soviet military; ethnic Armenians were permitted to serve in front-line combat units, even elite ones like the VDV, whereas ethnic Azeris and members of the other Turkic nationalities were confined to only support units. This resulted in the ethnic Armenians getting much better combat training and experience.

That discrimination dates back to Czarist times; during the Armenian-Tatar/Azeri War at the beginning of the 20th century, ethnic Armenians were often wealthy merchants who could afford guns, while the Tatars/Azeris usually had only bow and arrows as their only shooting weapons system.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:

AttilaA wrote:So how would you describe the first Chechen war, which was not even comparable to the balance which existed between Azerbaijan and Armenia during first Karabakh war? There really wasn't all that difference between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and certainly not in technological terms, but more importantly there was barely anyone to man those equipment in a professional way, mostly because of the Soviet policy with regards to military service of Muslims. Also, an actual army in real sense didn't exist, but this would be also more or less true for Armenians, however, they were indeed better organized. In the midst of war, a general rebelled and marched towards Baku with his soldiers and equipment, thats how messed up the situation was in country, and with regards to individuals at top.

And if we are supposed to talk about "warrior" definition as in traditional sense, not only is it very stupid in our modern world, but also only a really ignorant person can keep on making such claims. Largely nomadic Azerbaijanis (lets keep in mind that this was a term that Stalin gave to us, and we are better known as Tatars or Turkmens in history), whos life revolved around pillaging innhabitants of Caucasia and Iran (not something that I'm proud of, but thats how it was), meant that our traditional culture was much more based on being a "warrior" than sedentary, merchant Armenians.

One of the factors also to take into account is that the Armenian gangs were financed and supported by both the CIA and the diaspora.

I read a while ago that there was some discrimination in the Soviet military; ethnic Armenians were permitted to serve in front-line combat units, even elite ones like the VDV, whereas ethnic Azeris and members of the other Turkic nationalities were confined to only support units. This resulted in the ethnic Armenians getting much better combat training and experience.  

That discrimination dates back to Czarist times; during the Armenian-Tatar/Azeri War at the beginning of the 20th century, ethnic Armenians were often wealthy merchants who could afford guns, while the Tatars/Azeris usually had only bow and arrows as their only shooting weapons system.

Logistics is half the battle; Azerbaijan should have been able to leverage its enormous pool of experience in stroibats and driver-mechanics

Ru army capture spider sam. 2008