2008 Russo-Georgian War: Info

I know this is pretty late and but a lot of hose figures mentioned above, not provided in the sources outside the CAST analysis of Vyacheslav Tseluyko from October 2008 - and seriously - it's not just too early assessment ( October 2008 ) but it's also from CAST. It's not as bad as Moscow Defense Brief though .... but it's still CAST. I consider both worse than the other.

What amuses me most is that Tseluyko states "The Georgian Army also had a large quantity of 9K111 Fagot and 9K111M Faktoria (AT-4), and 9K113 Konkurs (AT-5) anti-tank guided-missile systems" .... now that's utter nonsense, almost laughable. What does he base that grandiose statement on ?

If that was actualy the case, then why did the Georgians not make use of that tacticaly highly significant capability .... ? just one unit equipped with one of those weapons managed to stall the entire Russian advance untill Vostok troops cleared them out. There was only one or two occasions that indicated Georgia posessed a number of modern anti-tank capabilities. One was the shelling of the Russian convoy near Zemo Nikosi where the Russians lost a few vehicles to artillery and ATGM fire ( mostly artillery though ), and afaik only one Fagot launcher was found in the forest during the counterattack and one Georgian artillery observer who got killed. Then I remember that the Russian army captured some other launcher or two when seizing weapon bunkers - if that's even true. Georgians deployed D-44s to fight a potential Russian attack on Tbilisi .... D-44s .... The Georgian army didn't receive notable quantities of anti-tank weapons, namely Fagot and Konkurs untill mid-late 2009 when they were for the first time used in manouvers - "Shield 2009" and a few Metis not very long ago. That was the first time designated anti-tank battallions were consequently equipped with ATGM launchers. 2008 is the reason why Georgia desperately started to search for ways to acquire ATGMs and up untill just recently Ukraine was the only supplier of such weapons. The casualty figures are as allways bloated and if you trust some other Russian claims from that time, than virtualy the Georgian army ceased to exist in 2008 as it practicaly suffered millions of losses. Though it is true, the "Navy" got sunk and a few dozen tanks and IFV's lost and captured ( wouldn't have been so painfull if it weren't all 15 modernised BMPs ), as well as prob a few hundred or thousand firearms seized from the various weapon bunkers in SO. But we did neither lose almost all of the air defence, neither all of the airforce ( in fact, none of the bombers were even damaged ) and most other stuff remained intact, especialy the rotor wing. We did however lose a number of fixed-and rotor aircraft on ground. Artillery suffered a little too especialy during the Borjom bombing. We lost all Pions except one afaik and some Danas and a number of mortars and howitzers, still not even close to heavy but still notable. Most of the radars were in fact destroyed and the air defense suffered quite some losses, but not even close to total. The only realy sensitive losses were those 1 or 2 Spyders and 1 or 2 Buks that fell into enemy hands and got later destroyed. But on the other hand manpads proved to be more valuable than any of the close-mid range AA's, which the Georgians still had difficulties to operate.  
But I don't blame Russia, the Georgian goverment back then also claimed to have practicaly dismantled the Russian 58th army destroying at least 100 tanks and god knows how many aircraft ^^

TheGeorgian wrote:I know this is pretty late and but a lot of hose figures mentioned above, not provided in the sources outside the CAST analysis of Vyacheslav Tseluyko from October 2008 - and seriously - it's not just too early assessment ( October 2008 ) but it's also from CAST. It's not as bad as Moscow Defense Brief though .... but it's still CAST. I consider both worse than the other.

What amuses me most is that Tseluyko states "The Georgian Army also had a large quantity of 9K111 Fagot and 9K111M Faktoria (AT-4), and 9K113 Konkurs (AT-5) anti-tank guided-missile systems" .... now that's utter nonsense, almost laughable. What does he base that grandiose statement on ?

If that was actualy the case, then why did the Georgians not make use of that tacticaly highly significant capability .... ? just one unit equipped with one of those weapons managed to stall the entire Russian advance untill Vostok troops cleared them out. There was only one or two occasions that indicated Georgia posessed a number of modern anti-tank capabilities. One was the shelling of the Russian convoy near Zemo Nikosi where the Russians lost a few vehicles to artillery and ATGM fire ( mostly artillery though ), and afaik only one Fagot launcher was found in the forest during the counterattack and one Georgian artillery observer who got killed. Then I remember that the Russian army captured some other launcher or two when seizing weapon bunkers - if that's even true. Georgians deployed D-44s to fight a potential Russian attack on Tbilisi .... D-44s .... The Georgian army didn't receive notable quantities of anti-tank weapons, namely Fagot and Konkurs untill mid-late 2009 when they were for the first time used in manouvers - "Shield 2009" and a few Metis not very long ago. That was the first time designated anti-tank battallions were consequently equipped with ATGM launchers. 2008 is the reason why Georgia desperately started to search for ways to acquire ATGMs and up untill just recently Ukraine was the only supplier of such weapons. The casualty figures are as allways bloated and if you trust some other Russian claims from that time, than virtualy the Georgian army ceased to exist in 2008 as it practicaly suffered millions of losses. Though it is true, the "Navy" got sunk and a few dozen tanks and IFV's lost and captured ( wouldn't have been so painfull if it weren't all 15 modernised BMPs ), as well as prob a few hundred or thousand firearms seized from the various weapon bunkers in SO. But we did neither lose almost all of the air defence, neither all of the airforce ( in fact, none of the bombers were even damaged ) and most other stuff remained intact, especialy the rotor wing. We did however lose a number of fixed-and rotor aircraft on ground. Artillery suffered a little too especialy during the Borjom bombing. We lost all Pions except one afaik and some Danas and a number of mortars and howitzers, still not even close to heavy but still notable. Most of the radars were in fact destroyed and the air defense suffered quite some losses, but not even close to total. The only realy sensitive losses were those 1 or 2 Spyders and 1 or 2 Buks that fell into enemy hands and got later destroyed. But on the other hand manpads proved to be more valuable than any of the close-mid range AA's, which the Georgians still had difficulties to operate.  
But I don't blame Russia, the Georgian goverment back then also claimed to have practicaly dismantled the Russian 58th army destroying at least 100 tanks and god knows how many aircraft ^^

Because you had three breakdowns.

Tactical, lost most of the motor pool from air attacks and city warfare.
C2, your C2 nodes were history by 9th of August.
Will power, once the Russians were through, things got messy.

Ukrainains had also those assets, didn't stopped them from being curbed and dare I say far faster than the Georgians over a far deeper corridor.

I understand that you don't like to get belitted but as clear as it looks, ATGM's in the configuration of late 9th August would have done you no good, it would simply pushed Russians to steamroll you like they did to Ukraine.

it would simply pushed Russians to steamroll you like they did to Ukraine.

Sorry... what?

Are you reporting for CNN or the BBC?

You are now repeating western bullshit?

If the Russians were in the Ukraine then they would have done the job and finished in Kiev...

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Because you had three breakdowns.

Tactical, lost most of the motor pool from air attacks and city warfare.
C2, your C2 nodes were history by 9th of August.
Will power, once the Russians were through, things got messy.

Ukrainains had also those assets, didn't stopped them from being curbed and dare I say far faster than the Georgians over a far deeper corridor.

I understand that you don't like to get belitted but as clear as it looks, ATGM's in the configuration of late 9th August would have done you no good, it would simply pushed Russians to steamroll you like they did to Ukraine.

Georgian combat losses are just slightly over 30% of the total casualties. Most of the stuff got abandoned, captured and then destroyed. See here: https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/getanklosses
and here: https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/gesalvage

and it certainly isn't "most of the motor pool" even though the tank fleet gave up almost a third of it's force. But according to the GAF those ( at that time acknowledging only 18 tank captured ) were tanks that had malfunctions and could not be moved anyway. Would explain why only 80 tanks were deployed when the rest of the army deployed. The fact that the Russian side destroyed half of the captured Georgian equipment speaks for itself.

C2 was a joke I agree. In fact it wasn't even layed out for large scale military operations and as soon as it broke down, friggin cell phones were used - and got easily intercepted.

Well will power, the troops certainly did not expect large scale Russian military intervention and as soon as things started breaking down, moral went downhill as well. With all due respect, totaly understandable from their POV - as they were basicaly swarmed in one spot to be picked off by Russian aircraft and bombs + what are you supposed to do with a poorly armed and trained military force of division strenght in that situation. Either sacrifice it or declare a one sided ceasefire and retreat, while being constantly bombed - and hope for the best.

Still those figures are overbloated af.

TheGeorgian wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Because you had three breakdowns.

Tactical, lost most of the motor pool from air attacks and city warfare.
C2, your C2 nodes were history by 9th of August.
Will power, once the Russians were through, things got messy.

Ukrainains had also those assets, didn't stopped them from being curbed and dare I say far faster than the Georgians over a far deeper corridor.

I understand that you don't like to get belitted but as clear as it looks, ATGM's in the configuration of late 9th August would have done you no good, it would simply pushed Russians to steamroll you like they did to Ukraine.

Georgian combat losses are just slightly over 30% of the total casualties. Most of the stuff got abandoned, captured and then destroyed. See here: https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/getanklosses
and here: https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/gesalvage

and it certainly isn't "most of the motor pool" even though the tank fleet gave up almost a third of it's force. But according to the GAF those ( at that time acknowledging only 18 tank captured ) were tanks that had malfunctions and could not be moved anyway. Would explain why only 80 tanks were deployed when the rest of the army deployed. The fact that the Russian side destroyed half of the captured Georgian equipment speaks for itself.

C2 was a joke I agree. In fact it wasn't even layed out for large scale military operations and as soon as it broke down, friggin cell phones were used - and got easily intercepted.

Well will power, the troops certainly did not expect large scale Russian military intervention and as soon as things started breaking down, moral went downhill as well. With all due respect, totaly understandable from their POV - as they were basicaly swarmed in one spot to be picked off by Russian aircraft and bombs + what are you supposed to do with a poorly armed and trained military force of division strenght in that situation. Either sacrifice it or declare a one sided ceasefire and retreat, while being constantly bombed - and hope for the best.

Still those figures are overbloated af.

Georgians were forced to self-motorize themselves when getting out of Ossetia. I do not include MBT's on the motor pool, I only regard APC's and Mechanized means. It was evident that the mechanized part of the plan was not thought out AT ALL. As a matter of fact that SAVED Georgians from getting Ukrainian numbers on the KIA/WIA spreadsheet.

So one pulls the other. Had you "resisted" more, you'd have gotten more coffins to bury. Lines broke down, people thought on their feet, some was smart, some not. Cellphones were a no no, breaking ranks in a hurry while several positions broke down, that was a good idea. Maybe not glorious, but far more sensible.

Now allow me something more political. It's in good part tongue in cheek, so bear with me.

We're hearing non stop that the "Russian Invasion of Georgia" was pre-planned and without provocation, so how come you guys were un-prepared for a possible Russian push, while your ally and friend US of A is claiming the Russians had prepared this?

How come this folly could happen?

GarryB wrote:

it would simply pushed Russians to steamroll you like they did to Ukraine.

Sorry... what?

Are you reporting for CNN or the BBC?

You are now repeating western bullshit?

If the Russians were in the Ukraine then they would have done the job and finished in Kiev...  

Nope because Russians weren't interested into igniting a real civil war with a brotherly nation of 40 million people.

I like that it has to be hush-hush, but as simple as it is, select group of Russians in August (again) steam rolled the Ukrainians on three directions. Not one like in Ossetia, three.

There's enough evidence of Northern Wind by now. So this game about Russian/No Russian is tiresome.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Now allow me something more political. It's in good part tongue in cheek, so bear with me.

We're hearing non stop that the "Russian Invasion of Georgia" was pre-planned and without provocation, so how come you guys were un-prepared for a possible Russian push, while your ally and friend US of A is claiming the Russians had prepared this?

How come this folly could happen?

So what you're question is implying is that based on the knowledge or rather fear and suspicion that Russia might be preparing for a possible conflict due to military built-up in both regions, the Georgians on their side should have been prepped all along to face such an opponent, or at least expect intervention if they moved into that region right ?

Well there is an easy explenation and it's mainly political. Without going into deep political debate and this may sound blunt - but that is what you get when you have people like Saakashvili and his party running the country and trying to run the military when they need it to save their own asses. When supposedly investing billions of USD and evidently don't see any result in the military infrastructure, armament and general quality, then something isn't going the way it's supposed to. Huge summs magicaly vanishing while you don't see any effect just some pretty facades. Fact on hand, you see how poorly organised and lead the Georgian operation was. Were the Georgian troops totaly unsuspecting regarding a Russian attack ? well maybe you can work with the following: from a soldier's direct account ( I won't mention his role and rank for his sake - I can only tell he's taken part in several engagements and also lost friends ) when the situation was still hot, his words suggest that the military got betrayed, as in they were promised Allied support in case the Russians would intervene. But who made that promise ? the Georgian government right. But did it bear any meaning ? well needless to say it didn't because nobody in the West was planning or even considering something like that. It was simply a lie to keep the moral high. Then they got the order to cease all action, get the hell out of there and leave all their dead behind and even single isolated units. I can see why the talk of betrayal went around at that point.

TheGeorgian wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Now allow me something more political. It's in good part tongue in cheek, so bear with me.

We're hearing non stop that the "Russian Invasion of Georgia" was pre-planned and without provocation, so how come you guys were un-prepared for a possible Russian push, while your ally and friend US of A is claiming the Russians had prepared this?

How come this folly could happen?

So what you're question is implying is that based on the knowledge or rather fear and suspicion that Russia might be preparing for a possible conflict due to military built-up in both regions, the Georgians on their side should have been prepped all along to face such an opponent, or at least expect intervention if they moved into that region right ?

Well there is an easy explenation and it's mainly political. Without going into deep political debate and this may sound blunt - but that is what you get when you have people like Saakashvili and his party running the country and trying to run the military when they need it to save their own asses. When supposedly investing billions of USD and evidently don't see any result in the military infrastructure, armament and general quality, then something isn't going the way it's supposed to. Huge summs magicaly vanishing while you don't see any effect just some pretty facades. Fact on hand, you see how poorly organised and lead the Georgian operation was. Were the Georgian troops totaly unsuspecting regarding a Russian attack ? well maybe you can work with the following: from a soldier's direct account ( I won't mention his role and rank for his sake - I can only tell he's taken part in several engagements and also lost friends ) when the situation was still hot, his words suggest that the military got betrayed, as in they were promised Allied support in case the Russians would intervene. But who made that promise ? the Georgian government right. But did it bear any meaning ? well needless to say it didn't because nobody in the West was planning or even considering something like that. It was simply a lie to keep the moral high. Then they got the order to cease all action, get the hell out of there and leave all their dead behind and even single isolated units. I can see why the talk of betrayal went around at that point.

You were concise and clear. This was my point exactly. I hope you didn't took it as taunting. It's sobering to have to talk with people who actually are aware of the realities. Doesn't male them less bitter or harsh.

I will add furthermore, that even with a qualitative step in the military, the whole operation was doomed bearing in mind that it would have required a bloody defense for Georgia to actually drag this thing long enough for an eventual/hypothetical US/NATO response.

So it was bleed for hope part 2. Anyway, I'm sorry for turning this into a political discussion.

Cheers.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
You were concise and clear. This was my point exactly. I hope you didn't took it as taunting. It's sobering to have to talk with people who actually are aware of the realities. Doesn't male them less bitter or harsh.

I will add furthermore, that even with a qualitative step in the military, the whole operation was doomed bearing in mind that it would have required a bloody defense for Georgia to actually drag this thing long enough for an eventual/hypothetical US/NATO response.

So it was bleed for hope part 2. Anyway, I'm sorry for turning this into a political discussion.

Cheers.

I have to absolutly agree on that. It wouldn't have mattered and as much as I hate Saakashvili in that moment he made the right decision to cease everything, call everyone off and leave everything where it stood, basicaly opening the doors and inviting Russian troops to salvage in order to saturate and satisfy Kremlin's intervention. Otherwise the country would have suffered. It does not matter how powerful the Georgian army will ever become. It is simply no considerable threat to Russia, especialy without just as powerful foreign support backing it up. Everyone is and allways was aware of that except that one over-confident guy who believed he was David IV and thought he might be able to pull a Didgori on the Russians and all that to stay in office. For Saakashvili's reckless behaviour we suffer now and back then people on both sides suffered the immediate consequences. Yet still he's bantering around in the Ukraine enjoying US protection like he was some people. It just hurts.

Cheers mate.

August 8, 2018 marks 10 years since the start of the Five-Day Russian-Georgian War. What conclusions were drawn by the Russian military leadership after those events, and how they affected the appearance of our Armed Forces, MK was told by the military expert - deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Konstantin Makienko.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3296644.html

I have watched a couple of docos that have been on recently because of the 10 year aniversary, and it is interesting to see that in Abkhazia, before the war there was a large population of georgians in the area, and that they left rapidly during the conflict to avoid retributions from the locals.

The irony is that while they were there they had the numbers to stop the locals having a real say on their future because they could stop a majority vote like the one they had in the Crimea. After they left of course they had no right of return, so are now stuck in Georgia.

Certainly the South Ossetians that were spoken to were adamant that they would not allow Georgians back, which is pretty understandable after being heavily shelled by them...

It will be interesting with Georgian ambitions to join NATO... I suspect they will have to renounce the two areas to get in... though I would not put it past NATO if they make exceptions for Georgia and the Ukraine regarding contested boundaries...

If they let them in anyway I would suspect one reaction by Russia would be to allow referendums for SO and Abkhazia and the effected areas of the Ukraine to join the Russian federation.

Of course if they do it will be Russian aggression and not a choice made by the Ukraine and Georgia.

It's not over yet:
War 08.08.08 & 10 years of struggle for the sovereignty of Russia
https://jpgazeta.ru/aleksandr-rodzhers-voyna-08-08-08-i-desyat-let-borbyi-za-suverenitet-rossii/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=infox.sg&utm_campaign=exchange

Russian PM hopes NATO will have enough sense not to admit Georgia
http://tass.com/politics/1016262

PM Medvedev Warns Of 'Horrible' Conflict If Georgia Joins NATO
http://www.eurasiareview.com/08082018-russia-pm-medvedev-warns-of-horrible-conflict-if-georgia-joins-nato/

Now that Armenia is leaving the RF orbit, Georgia may feel that her rear is secure:
https://eurasianet.org/s/armenian-investigators-charge-head-of-russia-led-security-bloc-with-subverting-public-order

https://www.rferl.org/a/lavrov-russia-concerned-armenian-arrest-former-pro-moscow-leaders-kocharian-khachaturov-pashinian/29402249.html

https://eurasianet.org/s/russian-press-portrays-pashinyan-as-carbon-copy-of-poroshenko

If a 2nd war breaks out, Georgia may be cut in half for direct land access to Armenia from the N. & S. Ossetia.



RF may also use the Azeris to put military pressure on Armenia.
Clearly, too many things r at stake there for Russia!

Armenians think that everyone's butt is as popular as Kardashian's, but ain't gonna get any customers apart from the Turks  

Its funny but Armenia is a drain on Russia. Even though Russia is pumping money in Armenia in terms of economic development and cooperation, as well as keeping its army up. But it was Azerbaijan who has been purchasing weapons and Russian goods, so in turn, effectively pumping money into Russian economy.

If Armenia becomes an issue, Azerbaijan will most likely profit out of it. They will get more deals and business prospects through the Russians. Which makes sense since its also a Caspian sea based nation with a lot of resources.

If Armenia follows the Georgian & Ukrainian way, it'll shoot itself in the foot. The West will only use it against Russia. W/o Russian protection, Armenia will lose more lands & people to Turkic speaking Azeris with Turkey's help, & has a lot more other things to lose. But Russia & Iran with its S. Azerbaijan have their own interests to defend in Transcaucasia; hence the Medvedev's warning. Should Turkey & Iran confrontation develop there, the West & Israel will exploit it & the RF policy in the ME will fail: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2463023.html