You left out the two Russian planes that the Georgians shot down.

The lady who sits next to me at work is Russian. She says that North Ossetia is Russian, South Ossetia is half-and-half and has been mostly independant from Georgia since the early '90s. Recently Georgia moved to take more administrative control, re-escalating the conflict. Back in the early '90s Russia had problems of their own so they didn't take action when Georgia was fighting the rebels, but now they seem to think they've got a plurality of the provincial natives who want to rejoin.

Irony of ironies: the Olympic opening ceremonies are going on at this moment.

Well, shit. I hope they can get their reserves in order.

Debbie: I can't decide whether to watch or not. On the one hand, spectacle. On the other hand, principle.

Georgia can hardly be surprised, they've been shelling and rocketing South Ossetia (which has Russian troops on its territory under a previous agreement) since yesterday (after several days of Ossetian attacks on Georgian forces, I should add).

A shooting war with Russian troops on one side and US troops on the other in one of the real flashpoint areas of geopolitics (i.e. oil politics) makes me a little nervous.

Nina Katarina #1: Your friend has got it mostly right. South Ossetia was set up in the Soviet period as an autonomous republic within Georgia (North Ossetia was an autonomous republic within Russia). Most South Ossetians, apparently, have taken out Russian citizenship -- how they did that while being citizens of Georgia is an interesting matter -- and Russia is claiming to be acting in support of its nationals.

I was going to write something like "well, Ken, the chance of the US getting directly involved is quite small, after all it's only a few trainers" and then I saw this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1556589920080715?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Three weeks ago, the US put 1000 troops into Georgia for exercise Immediate Response 2008, due to finish last week. Don't know if they left on schedule or not.

AFAIK the Ossetians have always been pro-Russian, and were the Russians' chosen instruments against the Ingush in the early 1990s - and earlier, during the deportations of the Chechens and the Ingush in the late 1940s.

It looks like the UN has got the situation under control:

"NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer issued a statement Friday saying he was seriously concerned about the recent events in the region, and he called on all sides to end armed clashes and begin direct talks."

5: ah, yes, acting in support of their citizens. Russia uses that line a lot with regard to the Russian population of the Baltic states as well. It's a good one to use. (coughsudetendeutschcough)

Debbie @2: Irony? Really? To me it seems more like "Coincidence? I think not!" If you want to distract people from that little war you've started there, the day the Olympic Games open sounds like a good opportunity to me.

After reading through everything, I am confused as to how the Georgians can be surprised. I am even more confused as to how this is Russia's fault. The Georgians shell the place while it is full of Russian peace keepers, and then act surprised when some die and Russia invades.

Guess what, YOU signed the agreement to let these peacekeepers in a long time ago. The agreement was clear. And the Russian peacekeepers were acting in good faith. You can't bomb them.

Which brings me to the ridiculous story that Russia started everything by bombing Georgia. If the Russian air force had planes in the area, they were where they were supposed to be. People like to think the Russian and American military are bullies, but this is not the case. These are VERY well trained professionals. Russian pilots don't unilaterally start dropping bombs on hospitals in foreign countries. That just doesn't happen. The US has satellites and radar trained on Russian bombers 24/7, if they had engaged in anything untoward the US military would be raising STRENUOUS objections right now. We would know they had done it. We would not need Georgia to tell us. I have to say, the Georgian story sounds suspect.

Speaking of the US military, I can tell you unequivocally that if Iran was launching shells into Iraq and killing our peacekeepers, they had better expect some bombs to fall on Tehran at least. A column of American tanks crossing the border seems reasonable to me.

You don't want to be invaded? Obey international law.

ajay #8: I can think of another analogy closer to home (home being the UK of GB and NI). Howevah, I think it's best to avoid these as far as possible because they can't help but be a little bit inflammatory. The situation of Russian nationals and other ex-Soviet minorities in the 'near abroad' is a case in itself (or rather, lots of different cases).

Gee, I'm so glad we escaped having a head on fight with the Russians with the fall of the Wall and the end of the Soviet Era, oh, wait. Damn.

What scares me is the potential US reaction to this, what with an election coming up and the Republicans needing a distraction and all.

Hey! Look, George! Russia has oil too!

Sigh.

Hmm, now I'm starting to wonder what effect this will have on the US election. I guess the obvious answer is that it'll help the wrinkly white-haired guy, as president Hilton puts it.

11: good point.

10: first of all, I wouldn't be 100% confident that anyone's planes, even US ones, are "where they are supposed to be" at all times. Everyone makes mistakes.

Second, although the situation has greatly improved since the 1990s, the Russian air force is still severely undertrained compared to Western forces; tac air pilots get 20-25 flying hours a year, compared with USAF pilots who get that number every month.

Third, I am touched by your confidence that the Russian army is acting in good faith as a neutral peacekeeper. I would describe its role more as "supporting South Ossetia with the goal of using it as a lever against Georgia".

Fourth, to my knowledge, the US does not have "satellites and radars trained on Russian bombers 24/7"; it doesn't have the Awacs.

Daniel Klein @9 -- that occurred to me, too. It's both. And a tragedy, and a damned mess, and very worrying.

According to the BBC news I was watching yesterday, the Georgians were merrily (Stalin) organising the S Ossetian capital - so the fighting began before the Olympics.

Just had the 'pleasure' of hearing Richard Holbrook discussing this. Why am I not surprised? US, this isn't about you. Get over it. On the other hand, if you want to get involved in a shooting war in Mother Russia while you're over extended in Iraq and threatening Iran, go ahead. It will be a salutary experience.

On the other hand, we can all sit on our hands, watch the Olympics and pray it gets sorted with the minimum of deaths.

#15:

As to your first point, we're not talking about a knuckle head Russian pilot straying off course. We're talking about a knuckle head Russian pilot straying off course, and then pushing the 'FIRE' button rather than the button to activate the navigation system. AND pushing that 'FIRE' button at just the right time for the bomb to slam into a city in a country that Russia has escalated tensions with. If you believe that Russian pilots are that inept, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Regarding your point number 2. It doesn't matter how many flight hours they get. They get enough hours in the sims to know the difference between the targeting computer, the throttle and say . . . the eject lever. These are the things that would need to be confused to let a bomb loose on a civilian populace.

As touching your point number three, NO ONE, not even the Georgians, have claimed that the Russian peace keepers have been anything but professional. Georgian commanders were in the command center WITH the commanders of the Russian peacekeepers at all times, AS PER THE AGREEMENT. They may be acting to give Russia leverage, but they are acting WITHIN the constructs of an agreement outlined by Russia, Georgia and the West. They did NOT break the agreement, the Georgians did. Guess what, you can't break treaties and NOT be invaded.

And lastly, the US early warning system is the best in the world. Literally a movable feast. Appetizers comprised of Radar stations from Norway to Turkey and beyond. Including unofficial agreements with nations that would prefer that no one know we are there, or at least what we are doing. These are both active and passive by the way. A main course of top of the line early warning satellites, the bulk of which get Russian duty. And for desert, recon satellites that can catch Russian bomber pilots taking leaks behind sheds during breaks in their exercises. AWACS is for when we feel gluttonous and we want seconds. There are no meaningful gaps. Over a place like Georgia, THERE ARE NO GAPS AT ALL. We have generals FAR more intelligent than you or I who do nothing but make sure of that. These Generals are supported by an array of Colonels and promising Majors whose creativity and brilliance have crossed the border into genius. Your assertion that Russian bombers can come an go in a place like Georgia without us knowing is patently ludicrous.

You and I will agree to disagree sir.

We have generals FAR more intelligent than you or I who do nothing but make sure of that. These Generals are supported by an array of Colonels and promising Majors whose creativity and brilliance have crossed the border into genius.

Or even - dare I say it? (yes! dare!) - into godhood!

Anthony, the US warning system may be the best in the world, but it isn't perfect, and it's part of a system currently being run by people who really want to start a war with Iran and probably wouldn't mind a sidebar involving Russia either, especially if they can use some of their strategic bombers, possibly with strategic nukes.

I wish I had your trust in our government, but what was left of that disappeared several years ago.

the US early warning system is the best in the world. Literally a movable feast. Appetizers comprised of Radar stations from Norway to Turkey and beyond... There are no meaningful gaps.

I should point out that there is one hell of a meaningful gap right now in the Lower Manhattan skyline that would suggest your confidence is misplaced.

It's better to have this right now so that US troops don't get seriously involved (as they are operatively crippled by the various "islamic" quagmires) and things can't escalate too much.
If everything goes well, this will be similar to what NATO did in Kossovo; this time the Russians are more or less right to flex a bit of old-school military muscle.

This said, the timing of the "exercises" mentioned by ajay @6 is very curious.

Has anyone considered the fact that there's a strategic oil corridor through the Balkans -- and Georgia?

This is a side note to the conflict, but ... I daresay Russia would rather that pipeline not happen. I expect that US oil interests are ... interested. And would not like to see Russia win.

Minor factor? Major factor? Something to worry about?

Dunno, mostly because I'm not entirely sure just how stupid Chimpy is, and how much of his soul he's sold to the oil companies.

Maybe you smarter people here could tell me if I'm way off base or not.

ajay @21: Anthony is way too idealistic ("genius" Colonels and Majors? Looking at the failure in Afghanistan, and the current bunch of "office warriors" like Petraeus, I really don't think so), however thanks to the Cold War I'd understand if Russian borders were much more monitored than US mainland.

It looks like most western media sources have retreated to the passive voice "fighting breaks out".

There's a Wikipedia page, but this Stratfor timeline (newest events at the top) seems to be the most detailed for recent events.

I'm not seeing a lot of good faith on either side, but there are airstrike allegations on both sides.

What I didn't see is any statement by the US on what Russian planes were doing, so I can't figure out why the US early warning system is a topic of discussion here.

#21
Wrong. The Early warning system detected EXACTLY where all the planes were. the PEOPLE at NEADS didn't know which one to shoot. AND . . . BECAUSE THEY WERE PROFESSIONALS . . . didn't want to shoot. Put yourself at NEADS, and imagine the first plane just crashed, you SUSPECT there are others, you have a pretty good idea where they are, and now you have 2 or 3 minutes to tell a pilot whether or not to bring down a civilian airliner. That's right . . . only on your suspicion, at that time you aren't POSITIVE that it is a terrorist attack. Not so easy is it.

NOTE! Someone actually has to TELL the pilot to bring down the plane, he or she does not do it unilaterally.

Correction: the stratfor site is monitoring the referrer field. If you want to see the timeline I mentioned, go to google and search on "stratfor Georgia: A Timeline of Events Aug. 7-8", then follow the top link.

Oh, shit.

I used to know rather oo much for comfort about the NATO view of potential Soviet Operations.

This isn't 3rd Shock Army coming out of the barrack gates and turning West. The assumption was that lots of troops could roll with no warning, because they were in place.

Georgia maybe doesn't have the technical advantage that NATO had, but I doubt they have the numeric disadvantage. Even so, the sound of tanks coming up the street adds a whole new dimension to shock and awe.

If this has been planned in detail, with forces in place for a major attack, there's fuck all the USA can do. If it's less deliberate, with no significant numeric advantage to either side, you have the wonderful option of shooting at Russia.

Where did I put my copy of The War Game.

re Russia and the Ossetians:

Mr. Storheim: You are being a rude guest, with the tone of patronising condescension. Jim (who posted this) spent no small number of years with an active commission in the US Navy. I have spent the last 16 in the US Army Military Intelligence, as a Russian Linguist, Interrogator, Interrogation/Counter Intelligence INSTRUCTOR.

Our attitude is not anti-military, not anti-US, and most certainly not anti-international law.

It is, however, more than a little anti-stupid.

1: There is no such animal as a radar coverage which is 100 percent, 24/7. 2: (on this topic) given the nature of the beast (and the cost of atttempting; in time, troops and equipment: there is no way on God's green earth; given the present disctractions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US can afford to even make the attempt to maintain such a coverage.

Most important (to the question of Russia's blameworthiness). Peacekeepers get shot at. It's part and parcel of being a peacekeeper. The response isn't to invade (nor even yet to engage in infrastructure attacks [and if the Russians have attacked a hospital they have done that]).

It's to deal with the specific aggressions (insofar as can be done; in the terms of the peacekeeping models in place) and deny the aggressor the ability to further disturb the peace.

So they overreacted to the provocation.

So to did you overeact when you arrived here.

I'm not even going into the propogandistic jingoism of your charactarizing the US troops in Iraq as peacekeepers, which is precious. Going on to say that one who doesn't want to be invaded ought to obey international law is silly, because the simple fact of the matter is that most interpretations of international law would define the US invasion as an act of agressive war; esp. in light of the present understandings of the Bush Administration's misuse, and misrepresentation of the intelligence they were using to justify the invasion (and the bad faith claims about things such as inspections and yellowcake from Niger).

So by your lights Iran would be more than jusified in attack the US troops in Iraq; because our country has admitted; albeit obliquely, to engaging in cross border incursions, in the interest of furthering that illegal war.

In short (ignoring the trollish turns of phrase) your analysis of the situation, and characterisation of events is, at best, all wet.

Not to mention the idea that the well-trained American and Russian military forces "aren't bullies" and don't drop bombs on hospitals.

This is all about Putin punishing Georgia for the crime of being pro-Western and wanting to join NATO. The Russians aided an abetted the seccession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as means of pressuring the Georgians back into being a puppet and they've been keeping up the pressure ever since.

Try reading up on the human rights violations committed by Russian peacekeepers in Chechnya to find out just how non-professional they are. And those are supposed to be troops on contracts, rather than conscripts.

Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) never signed the Geneva Conventions, and in the past have had no hesitation about bombing schools, hospitals, etc, and they have never really cared about civilians getting in the way, including their own.

It is, however, more than a little anti-stupid.

He shoots; he scores!

Leva Cygnet at 23, good point. I wonder if the price of oil is going to start climbing again. And the cynic inside me wonders if this might indeed be one of the purposes of the exercise.

Turkey just agreed to send electricity to Georgia. Georgia was a net exporter of electricity until the fighting started; I expect they've lost some production capacity.

If Russia has a reasonable, restrained response to this, they'll shoot the power lines on the Georgian side.

If they shoot the power plants on the Turkish side things might get kinda interesting in a hurry.

Pity someone had to go and shoot the troll down; I'm sure he was ABOUT to mention his precious bodily fluids.

Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) never signed the Geneva Conventions

Though as the U.S. repeatedly demonstrates, signing it doesn't have to affect your behavior very much anyway.

I wouldn't have thought sneakers would be appropriate footwear for infantry.

Anthony @ # 18 - Guess what, you can't break treaties and NOT be invaded.

Oh sure you can. What utter hogwash. Treaties are violated all the time without invasion.

People here are forgetting that the old Soviet Union had quite a habit of staging border incidents to justify their acquisitive habits. Russian special forces (spetznaz) are well trained in that particular line of work. They've based out of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for years, staging incidents, raiding across the borders, killing civilians and hoping to provoke a response. Everytime the Georgians would try to clear out the Kodori Gorge, a disputed area between Abkhazia and Georgia, and a well-known staging area for bad guys. the Russians would prevent it.

(I don't think people are forgetting that.)

Re: many South Ossetians having Russian citizenship:
#5: "how they did that while being citizens of Georgia is an interesting matter"

Why? Russia gave them citizenship because both they and Russia evidently think of them as Russian.

There's nothing particularly unusual about that sort of thing. And Georgia can't legitimately forbid its citizens from adopting citizenship in another country - it might be able to strip them of Georgian citizenship, but doing so would hardly bolster their argument that South Ossetia is rightfully part of Georgia.

Note that I have no opinion on the merits of either set of claims. I generally think that people should be able to belong to whichever country they want if it wants them (and sometimes if it doesn't), even if that means territorial loss for another country, but the apparent ethnic cleansing that created the majority support for incorporation into Russia isn't something to be rewarded either.

Oh, let's go ahead and crank up the Scary to 11, why don't we?

According to this blogger, the conflict between Georgia and Russia is a US-backed diversion intended to tie up any significant Russian response to the US attack against Iran, for which US Naval forces are moving into place right now.

I hope this is an extremist conspiracy theory.

(I think I've heard of "Lord Stirling", the blog's author, a few times, with the impression that he was considered a whackjob by reasonable people. Still... if his facts about the composition and destination of the US Naval forces are accurate... bigtime scary.)

#41: Oh, please. Not every damn conflict in the world is about us and Iran. And it's not like the whole Russian military is bogged down. Or that they could do much to help Iran anyway.

OT-OT-OT

Breaking News: John Edwards confirms that he was having an affair.

Why would anyone in their right mind do this, and then still campaign to be President?

Sigh.

The US Navy moves all the time, it's in the nature of ships that they actually move :)

I'm pretty sure somebody said last November that "USS this-and-this is moving to prepare an Iran invasion in February"... and it didn't happen. I don't think even Cheney would be so reckless to start a full-scale conflict with Iran (of all countries) just before leaving the White House (what GHB did leaving Somalia to Clinton was just a sick joke). Seriously, I think this is just Putin teaching a lesson to Sahakashvili, who is a pain in the neck much more than his predecessor ever was.

I hope the Ossetians don't have to suffer too much; the losers, in every war, are always the civilians. Lost in our little wargames and conspiracies, we tend to forget that.

I don't have to get any farther than "both sides have nukes" to crank the scary up to 11, kthxbai.

(Err -- I just checked my assumptions. Georgia doesn't have nukes. Officially, anyway.)

Wow, the commenters on the blog Bruce linked to are like an international conspiracy theorist cocktail, with a dash of biblical apocalyptics and an it's-all-about-the-bank-of-Israel chaser.

I just did a bunch of reading on the Web, and I want to take back the stupid comment I made upthread about oil being a motivating factor here. It doesn't seem to have any damn thing to do with this conflict.

I hope that the US has the sense to stay out of this. I note that the Georgians are using words like "multi-ethnic democracy" and "freedom" in discussing their position, language surely designed to appeal to simple-minded US Presidents.

Lori at 43: because he's a narcissistic assh*le?

Lori Coulson #43: John Edwards confirms that he was having an affair.

Why should I care about a TV psychic's off-camera hijinks?

[someone mutters an aside]

Oh, Edward(s). Never mind. Lemme start over.

Why should I care about a politician's off-camera hijinks if it doesn't involve something substantial like not giving equitable favors to corporate overlords for value received?

Proxy wars are much, much more interesting than that.

#43: That pisses me off so much. Stupid arsehole . . . what was he thinking?

McCain had the good sense to get his affair / wife and kid ditching / heiress marrying several decades ago, so it doesn't count, right?

Lizzy -- weapons of mass destruction were the official motivating factor for the Iraq war.

With Georgia, we know the oil pipeline exists in the region. I mean, we can prove it and stuff. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. It really is there. And we need it. Because we couldn't possibly do without the 1% of world oil that it moves. The fact we're doing without it right now because the Kurds bombed it is totally irrelevant. We NEED it, y'know?

The fact that we can't even manage to defend oil pipelines in Iraq where we have the advantage of bigger guns, well-trained troops, and lots of cool gizmos doesn't mean we couldn't stop the Russians from dropping bombs on the pipeline from the air.

And hey! Defending the pipeline would make Halliburton all sorts of happy. And it'd get McCain elected. And it'd be SO SATISFYING to get the Russians a big fat black eye and watch them crawl off with their tails between their legs like you know they would if US troops showed up.

There really is no down side here.

(Do I think we'll go to war with Russia over this? Not really. But if you'd asked me if we'd be in Iraq eight years ago, I'd have said no, too, because it was just too ... dumb.)

Leva Cygnet, I'm not going to claim that the presence of an oil pipeline won't become an excuse for the US government to do something. I suppose it could, given who's running things at the moment.

However, I think the conflict between Georgia and Russia has to do with conditions other than the presence of the pipeline, though of course the fact that it's there affects everyone's calculations.

Jacob Davies #40: It does look as if Russia considers Georgian independence, ahem, reversible given the obvious desire of Putin and Medvedev to lever Abkhazia and South Ossetia away from Kartvelian control. Not to mention their obvious hostility to Georgia's budding relationship with the West.

I wonder if the Russians see this war as a step towards reasserting great power status not only regionally (in the 'Near Abroad') but globally?

On the one hand, it would be a very bad idea for any outside power to try to do anything about it.

On the other hand, it would probably be a rather bad idea to let Russia get away with more and more attacks on other countries, too.

Damn. Damn, damn, damn.

Lance Weber @#7, err, you do know the difference between NATO and the UN, right?

This isn't a particularly "communist" or "quasi-communist" situation. Russia has a long history of grabbing territory in central Asia and the Caucasus.

Lori, #43, why in heck would he do it while his wife was having cancer treatment? What a jerk.

Hmmm, I think my Risk game board needs to be updated a bit....

(sitting in green room at masq.)

I saw Bush called Putin on a CNN trailer. I'm imagining he said "Look, I don't know what you think y'all are doin but if your guys get anywhere near Florida, we're gonna have a problem..."

#57
At least Edwards didn't replace her with a younger wife, like Gingrich and McCain did.

Marilee #57: Apparently the indiscretion happened in 2006. Elizabeth Edwards has made a statement in a recommended diary on Daily Kos. People wanting to discuss the matter probably should read that first.

I saw Bush called Putin on a CNN trailer.

Considering how frequently CNN gets things wrong, my initial misreading of that becomes somewhat more plausible.

OT-OT-OT

How John Edwards chooses to conduct his personal affairs should be his business. His sexual habits should not be a matter for public discussion. Except they are, of course; that's the world we live in. "I did not have sex with that woman -- Miss Lewinsky." I called Edwards a narcissist; my other choice would be simply to call him a fool. Only a fool or a stunningly self-absorbed man would believe, post-Clinton, post-impeachment, that he would be able to keep adultery secret, or that such a secret, once revealed, would not be used against him and his party by vicious, clever people. That he had the affair is not what disturbs me -- it's not my business. I'm furious that he ran for President ignoring the fact that when (not if) this came out it would be used against him and against his party. Imagine for a moment that Edwards, not Obama, had won the primaries. Imagine Edwards in the position Obama is in now, heading toward the convention, the nomination, the election. Now imagine what Karl Rove and the right would do with yet another Democratic politician trapped in a lie about adultery. Eight more years of Republican folly. Now explain to me why, if you and I can see this so clearly, that John Edwards didn't. If he didn't see it, he's a fool. I think he did see it, and decided to ignore it because he wanted to be President so damn much.

Russians train ground and air forces as hard or harder than any other country. The peacekeepers are veterans chock full of killing experience. The USA has peacekeepers as well. We also didn't recruit icecream truck drivers for that responsiblilty. As for the rest of the comments about suprises, there have never been any suprises prior to any mass invasion. Soldiers sit on both sides of the border waiting for the order to die. (Note: taking potshots prior to invasion time is allowable on both sides."Aint war hell?")

On a brighter note, the USA can equip and deploy teenagers faster than any other country in the world. Russia, Iran, and any other militant country would be very hard pressed just to survive the first day of strategic bombing. This country rocks where war-making is concerned and we're stronger today in war-tech than we were yesterday. That's a fact. I'm sincerely proud of the USA.

The world very much needs peace and love for its children to grow and flourish. But those children grow up and create conflicts of their very own.

News Flash: "Parenting starts at home... wherever that may be." Hows your cute little prejudicial gangster coming along?

God bless all the olympians. They're all winners to me.

Ex-soldier.

The pointless drive-by can be treated as a piñata, turned into verse, or ignored. It is not recommended that anyone spend time seriously replying.

Icecream truck driver
armed with unmatchable speed
keeps a vanilla peace

#65 deserves a comment.

You'd have us believe that your pointless drive-by should be ignored. All criminals say that...

Seriously and unversed,

Ex-Soldier

P.S. Since when do "abi" types beat on piñata's anyway?

(Palm Bay, Florida)

USA Dave @ 64/67:

I post infrequently on Making Light, but I lurk often, and since this is apparently your first set of comments, I would like to offer you a small helping of enlightenment--abi isn't a drive-by, she's a moderator.

Thought you should know before you pop off with another "criminal" comment.

And I'm going to stop feeding piñatas now.

Earl Cooley @ 50

Proxy wars are much, much more interesting than that.

Luckily, it's not a proxy war yet. But if the Shrub is as stupid as he's been acting, and as deaf to military advice as he was 5 years ago, it might be one soon, and then we should all put on our lead overcoats.

Fragano @ 54

I wonder if the Russians see this war as a step towards reasserting great power status not only regionally (in the 'Near Abroad') but globally?

I'd bet a case of vodka on it.

USA-Dave:

We get a lot of people who come by, post one comment, and never return. This is particularly the case for political and current events threads. We call them drive-bys, because they're about as engaged and interesting as a drive-by shooting.

The fact that you've never posted before, and the fact that the way you constructed your comment means that you're probably not a lurker just popping up to chat, made it very likely that you were just such a one. If you want to stay and be interesting, great.

So tell me, in slightly less gnomic terms: what are your views on the current conflict? Do you think that it will spread to a wider arena? Who is in the wrong, and why?

New sekrit weapon:
Trebuchet-flung ice cream trucks!
Cold War dreams return.

Chock-full of icecream
Beats killing experience
When keeping the peace

We can all speculate as much as we want, the truth is that more information needs to be gleaned before any suppositions of substance can be put forth.

Hello Abi,

I'll offer my opinion again. The world is filled with sorry people. From presidents and dictators to parents with children, all become sorry at one point or another about their levels of participation (or the lack thereof) in shaping the events that transpire in our world.

Theactrical performances require a stage, props, actors, and and a dialog.
War props: 150 Soviet Tanks, A couple jets
Actors: a small ground force with supplies/support items. (The polititions/politburo)
Dialogue: who fired first.. who's to blame? The border should be here, it should be there...blah, blah, blah...

This is a short term conflict, preprogrammed and derisive. The point of a short term conflict is to force a short term objective which has longer repercussions. Look into your own soul and tell me how hateful the children of this conflict will become as their families are slain. Over time more conflicts will occur because it was ordained or sanctioned if you prefer.

Within the next day or so, the entire world will ensue both sides for peace successfully. Georgia will be united in the end but not today. The outcome will be democracy despite what the hatemongers propogate. As a bottom line, once you've experienced freedom you'll never relinquish it, or so they tell me.

Incidentally, all of the above remarks require enlightenment. Good luck with that...

Really,

Ex-Soldier

Dave,

Your "enlightenment" is our assumed knowledge, apart from the nonsensical elements.

Having dispensed of this explanation of Realpolitik crossbred with original sin, can we move from the theatrical metaphor to how to deal with this particular consequence of the nature of humanity? Because for all your stage metaphors, real people are dying in this conflict.

I am beginning to think that my first impression of you was correct.

USA_Dave: Incidentally, all of the above remarks require enlightenment. Good luck with that...

Care to share the wealth, Oh, Mahatama of of the drill pad?

As for the facile comments about what is, and isn't; generally, allowed, when waiting for the orders to invade... it seems you served in a different version of the US Army than it has been my pleasure to take part.

The fluff about how quickly we can train and equip teenagers, well... no. Ignoring the supply line problems of equipping, clothing, feeding and housing all those new troops, we don't have the cadre of drill sergeants to pull it off.

Countries like Russia, which have both an extant draft, and huge stockpiles of "obsolete" and out of service weapons; many of which don't have the technical requirements of the US equipment.

What we do well is high tech, for which we gave up the ability to field large numbers of plain vanilla troops.

But realizing all that takes a small amount of actual reflection on an army's TTP, the warplanning implementation of METT-T and the social constructs of the society in which that army fuctions.

In short some realistic understanding of how things really work, good luck with that.

Teryy, if all I had available were small arms, even including current infantry-portable anti-tank weapons, I'd worry about a battalion of Russian conscripts in T-34s.

Georgia has apparently declared a state of war exists with Russia, and has recalled its troops from Iraq.

Oh wonderful.
Just what that part of the world needs. [/something or other, not intended for serious consumption]

What kind of mutual aid treaties, if any, does the United States have with Georgia?

Terry Karney @ 76

Let me point out that while your reasons for the combat preparation being a problem with deploying US troops, especially now, that's not all that stands in the way.

Because of the concentration on Central Asia as a (couple of) theater(s), the US has no cadre at all trained in the particular circumstances of combat in the Caucausus: terrain, population, culture, local technology level (if you roll through hostile territory, what will they make IEDs and other booby traps out of?), etc, etc. There is almost certainly a set of documents somewhere that represent potential military doctrine for US troops in that region on a variety of missions, but turning those documents into training for large numbers of troops is not a quick or simple exercise.

And we're assuming US intelligence on the strategic situation, and on the tactical situations in critical areas where we'd want to insert troops and equipment is both reasonably complete and accurate. As our intelligence agencies have been focusing almost totally on Iraq, Afghanistan, and (sort-of) Iran, I doubt very much we have good uptodate human intelligence on the ground.

Oh, and where would the US stage deployment of a "peacekeeper" force from? I would bet gold jewelry to rusty steel washers that Turkey is actively hostile to the idea, that Kazakhstan and the rest of former Central Asian SSRs would be at least uneasy to the point of getting hives at the thought, and Iraq is right out.

Hmmm ... that deployment question makes me wonder if preparations to deploy peacekeepers in Georgia / Ossetia could be used as a cover for preparation of a small force for hit-and-run operations into Iran. Of course that's a truly bad idea, but on form, the Bush administration doesn't seem to see these little subtleties.

USA_Dave @ 74: "Incidentally, all of the above remarks require enlightenment. Good luck with that..."

And here I was, thinking that you weren't making any sense because you were babbling like an incoherent lunatic. But it's really because you're enlightened, and I am but a padawan. Boy do I sure feel silly now!

Bruce Cohen at 81, we're already there. Nathan Hodge at Wired has a post about the presence of US trainers in Georgia, clearly in exchange for Georgian troops in Iraq. (I attempted to link to it but my link-fu is not strong.)

USA Flag Waving Homecoming Parade Dave - P.S. Since when do "abi" types beat on piñata's anyway?

Define "abi" types, oh Bhodisatva of Blowing Shit Up.

How come I didn't see this on the Google news page?

Nina Katerina @ 1 and Fragano Ledgister @ 5:

From what I can tell, the background is something like this:

North and South Ossetia are what's left of a medieval kingdom (Alania) created by a branch of Iranian nomads known as the Alans (some of whom, earlier on, ended up in Western Europe and North Africa during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire). "North Ossetia" was absorbed by the Russian empire in the late 1700s; "South Ossetia" had become part of Georgia, and was taken over, along with the rest of Georgia, in the early 1800s.

Under the Soviet Union, North Ossetia was set up as an "autonomous province" ("oblast"), later elevated to an "autonomous republic", within the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. When the Soviet Union broke up, it became an autonomous republic within Russia; the historical name "Alania" was added in 1994 (apparently in deference to rising Ossetian nationalism), so it's official name is now North Ossetia-Alania. The population is about two-thirds Ossetian, one quarter Russian, and a mix of other minorities.

In Soviet times, South Ossetia was made an autonomous province within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, but never elevated to the status of autonomous republic. (Georgia subsequently abolished its "autonomous province" status.) The population just prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union was apparently about two-thirds Ossetian and slightly over one quarter Georgian. As both Ossetians and Georgians have fled the region since fighting started in the early 1990s, it's not clear what the current makeup is, though I'd imagine it's still majority Ossetian.

Bruce Cohen (Speaker to Managers) #69: I suspect you are correct (besides which, I can't afford to buy a case of vodka).

Peter Erwin #86: Thanks. It looks as if the current brannigan will make things even messier.

The outcome I expect is that nobody from the west will get involved other than making harsh comments and Russia will take South Ossetia as its own, feeling even more empowered than they already do. Russia has been being aggressive for a while now, and nobody has done a thing. There's no reason people would suddenly decide to keep guard right now.

In specific, the USA is too busy obsessing over Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Obama/McCain/Britney/KidnappedChild-7B/LatestAffair/ScandalGate to actually notice a new problem, and the rest of the world is too busy watching the largest and most belligerent power in the world (USA) to pay sufficient heed to the previously-competitive-for-powerfulness-status-and-eyeing-world-domination-again country.

Maybe its just my own pessimism, but I don't see any progress being made on this front by the spectacular diplomatic geniuses that put an end to the Iranian nuclear program peacefully, and I find the idea of a war involving Russia highly frightworthy.

Stratfor confirms an impression I picked up from the media that the significant parts of South Ossetia are the capital city and the two-lane tunnel that connects it to North Ossetia. The value of chokepoints is limited when someone's bombing the spit out of you, of course. The BBC has a good map of the area, and includes a mention that the Abkhazian separatists claim they're using this opportunity to attack Georgian forces there.

It looks like Georgia may want to pull half its 2,000 Iraq contingent back, but the only way to bring them back quickly is through US air transport assets. That could be awkward.

The fortune cookie I picked up from the remains of the pinata says: "More people are surprised after invasions than before."

Execuse me for my English, first!
I'll try to be polite, not to hurt anybody patriotic feelings.
All said by Georgia- is a compromat.
Osetia (south) was not a part of Georgia, as it used to be, since the USSR was created. In 1990-s the Georgia set fire on Osetia- like to make place for georgians- it was a real genocid
We (people of the world) shougeorld not think about our narrow individual interest but think globally and support decline in escalating any war conflicts.

Now georgia said that russians bombed their territory- that is not true- I have returned from Georgia today- people are nervous- that is all. but was is true- is that georgian soldgiers set fire on ionnocent citizens and prevent medical staff to assist injured ossetians.

I REALLY WANT AMERICAN AND EUROPIANS TO KNOW THE TRUTH!!!

Thank you very much for your attention.

Its terrible, that close nations, like georgians, ukrainians and russians are now struggle due to the unfair efforts of our governments!!

People? Does oil decide on everithing?

Lizzy L @ 83

The problem with that is that the missions and tactical doctrine of a training force and a peacekeeping (or invasion suppression, for that matter) force are very different. Rules of engagement are obviously different, but more to the point, trainers don't roll in company or battalion strength through hostile areas, nor do they have to maintain supply lines, intelligence gathering units, air reconnaissance and fire support, or a lot of other kinds of support. The way those things get done depends on the characteristics of the region. So you can't just take a training unit and make it a peacekeeping force by giving it a few Stryker or Bradley fighting vehicles and a heavy-weapons team, and you can't just take a combat team from Iraq and put it in Georgia.

Maria - Добро пожаловать! (I hope that's right.)

Thank you for your perspective from the area. However, even if the part of Georgia you were in was not under attack, the BBC reports seeing airstrikes against military targets in Gori, and there are other reports of attacks on Georgian port cities.

I think that almost all of us we would prefer that this situation be resolved by peaceful means, and that it is unfair that innocent people are dying because of governmental power struggles.

As an aside to the crowd, "compromat" seems to mean "blackmail materials", in this context I'm guessing propaganda with the intent of blackmailing Russia.

Lizzy L #83: Nathan Hodge at Wired has a post about the presence of US trainers in Georgia, clearly in exchange for Georgian troops in Iraq.

Here

Earl Cooley III at 94, thank you. Bruce Cohen (Speaker to Managers) at 92, I didn't mean to imply that the training forces from the US would suddenly turn into combat troops. However, the presence of US peacekeepers in Georgia creates further grounds for the US to support Georgia both diplomatically, which we are already doing, and (ugh) militarily. Bush in China has already made a statement suggesting that Russia should back off and implying that Russia is the aggressor here -- which seems in fact to be the case. But I have no knowledge of the politics of this region so I am happy to defer to others who do.

At http://exiledonline.com/georgia-gets-its-war-onmccain-gets-his-brain-plaque/ you can find a pretty detailed and angry picture of the situation by Mark Ames. He's very frank about calling Georgia the aggressor; he calls it "Saakashvili's invasion."

Ames is no fan of the Russian government. They did, after all, shut down his newspaper. And I'd like to know more about Georgia's connections to John McCain's campaign, yes I would.

Peter Erwin wrote @ #86:

North and South Ossetia are what's left of a medieval kingdom (Alania) created by a branch of Iranian nomads known as the Alans...

Iranian nomads? For heaven's sake, don't tell Shrub & Co!

#96
My understanding is that one of his campaign management people was (and maybe still is) a lobbyist for Georgia.

This is a really good reason not to have lobbyists working on one's campaign, but McCain is, shall we say, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

There are reports that the Russians have begun bombing the oil pipelines in Georgia. That's not a target in a limited incursion or anything designed to gain a limited objective. That's a longterm strategic target with long term impacts.

Sylvia, #61, I saw that on the news last night. The earlier news, suggesting that the child is his, made it seem much more recent.

Bruce, #81, and there's a good chance we have Tomahawk missiles already aimed at Russian targets, should we choose to take sides.

John L. @ 99

That's a longterm strategic target with long term impacts.

Or the actual objective of the exercise for which South Ossetia is the excuse.

Marilee @ 100

and there's a good chance we have Tomahawk missiles already aimed at Russian targets, should we choose to take sides.

Don't we always? And that's a really scary thought; Russia will not take well to having missles rain down on their troops. Tomahawks can fly "nape of the earth" and not be spotted until they're near the target; troop deployments take a lot longer and are a lot easier to see.

Marilee,

Just what would targeting Tomahawks on Russian targets accomplish, other than to get us involved with a country no sane person anywhere wants to fight? We could launch every cruise missile we could get within range and do nothing but piss them off.

I'd like to think that our leadership is not so stupid as to even consider for a moment to actively intervene in this fight; this wouldn't be something that could "shock and awe" the Russians or "make a statement" that would get them to reconsider what they're doing.

Tomahawk strikes in Russian territory is the fastest way I can think of to get a much larger war started inadvertently that I can think of.

Coverage at the Guardian

I think I'd summarize the Russian strategy here as "shock and awe"--they are hoping either to disable the Georgian military, or so intimidate Georgia that it will never again oppose Russia. I suppose they will succeed in whatever immediate military objectives they have and I hope those objectives do not include mass murder. However the likely result of this is a long-running conflict in the region. Unfortunately, in our unified world, all wars, now, are civil wars. Which means, connections on both sides, divided loyalties, non-governmental resources coming in from outside (according to the Guardian, Russian paramilitaries are already joining the fray), and all the suffering and bitterness of the battle between brothers.

Treat as questionable.

Regional blogging from a British journalist.

Commentary at Global Voices Online; note especially the translated blog posts.

The level of violence appears to be far beyond a reasonable response to the Georgian military action. Cautiously, based on the reporting I have seen, I would say that Russia believes it is necessary to destroy South Ossetia in order to save it.

Maria: Я знаю гисторию, в резуплтатем Я знаю ты не сказала правда.

"The level of violence appears to be far beyond a reasonable response to the Georgian military action."

People prefer to be slaughtered reasonably.

Randolph at #104: 'The level of violence appears to be far beyond a reasonable response to the Georgian military action.'

Randolph, I haven't waded through all the posts, but as far as I can see the first post quoted on these sites describes the massive artillery and rocket bombardment of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali by the Georgians on Thursday night.

If anyone is 'destroying South Ossetia in order to save it' it's Georgia.

105 ::: Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: August 10, 2008, 02:31 AM:

Maria: Я знаю гисторию, в резуплтатем Я знаю ты не сказала правда.

To the nice guy how is great at Russian and knows the history.

In the early days of Soviet union we had many Caucasus nations, united under communists. Among the were Osetia and Georgia as well. At that time these nations had very tolerant feeling with each other and ok, no problem that they became Georgia as one state.
Here we have the same story as with Cosovo. So why NATO feel free for the independence of Cosovo and have so much against th Osetian independence, cause most of the citizens want to separate from Georgia.

Believe me, there's no direct evidence, but to be honest, there's no surprise for Russians, that NATOwant to set influense over the regions, surronding Russia, and this is their right, ok.

But in reaching this influense they provide support (even financing) for those govenrmental leaders, that are rather inadequate. Saakashvilly is not strong in politics and will only reach the escalation of conflict.

I shoul said agan, that Georgia have never cared of Osetian citizens, since 1990-s when Shwvrdnadze gave rize to a slogan "Georgia for Georgians".

To those, who do not know georgraphical details- South Osetia consist of a city and some small villages. The aim of Georgia was just to boost all the civil people to preserve the territory.

For a few years now, the accepted wisdom has been that the USA is the World's Only Superpower. Now we'll have to get our minds round the fact that there are two other nations that are powerful enough to commit acts of war against any other country they choose (except perhaps the USA and each other), and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it, because both those nations are nuclear-armed and -capable, have vetos on the UN Security Council and have their fingers round the economic necks* of the West. For the latter reason, even if Georgia had become a member of NATO as it wanted (but some European countries prevented) earlier this year, NATO would have done precisely nothing to support Georgia in the present crisis.

* or other more private anatomy.

Well, I see Jhon Stanning is a very sensible man with some profound knowledge, I think, and talk without any unnecessary fobias of Russia.

Trouthly speaking, some people in Russia have some USA-fobia.

So I just wany to ask the question, if USA wants to proteckt itself from Russian potential agreession, why it chose the way to support govenrments of former USSR region (e.g. Ukraine) in such a way to break down any good relationships between nations that used to be friends. It is so obvious and clear, looking at the actions of Ushenko. Most of people in that country do not approve the actions of Ukraine government.
For what sake NATO think they have the right to act in such way))? This will lead sooner or later to civil conflicts inside former USSR countries.

John, execuse me, do you, personnaly believe this is good of NATO.

May be I expressed some unnecessary emotions(

Maria, the USA doesn't need to protect itself from Russian potential aggression, nor does Russia need to protect itself from the USA; while the relationship between USA and Russia is not exactly friendly (and neither Bush nor Putin is trying to make it better), both sides know that direct aggression would be disastrous for both.

Many former republics of the USSR, and satellites of the USSR, became independent after the USSR collapsed in 1991. Most of those newly independent countries want to become part of 'the West' rather than to remain in the 'sphere of influence' of Russia, which may tell you something about their view of Russia. They see membership of the EU and/or NATO as a way of confirming their independence of Russia. Several of those countries are already members of the EU and of NATO.

In the case of Ukraine, the 'orange revolution' was generally seen in the West as democratic and positive, so to be supported. Ushenko wanted to join NATO and the EU, and there was no reason to say no to him (although Ukraine has a way to go before it would be accepted as a candidate for EU membership). As it turns out, Ushenko (and prime minister Tymoshenko) don't seem to have been quite such good democrats as the West hoped. But still, I think that the West's support for Ushenko was in the hope of a good result for Ukraine. Maybe most Ukrainians don't approve of their current government, but I think what they want is a better government, not to be back in the Russian empire - except perhaps for the Russian minority in the east and in Crimea.

Georgia announced they give up; they really didn't put up much of a fight, did they? They seem surprised that their NATO friends didn't give a toss.

If it was a gamble from Sahakashvili, from outside this might look like a complete failure, but I suspect he managed to coalesce internal support (which he desperately needed just a few weeks ago).
Russia got a bit of its pride back, Chechnya is forgotten a bit further, and NATO will twice curse GWB for getting embroiled in a useless quagmire right when the Age of the Capitalist Superpowers is dawning.

(And I guess we can expect the next "Queen & Country" to happen somewhere in Tiblisi...)

The creeping re-emergence of Russia as a "Great Power" continues. For all Maria's attempts to paint this as some general piece of Russian altruism, untainted by realpolitik; divorced of hegemonic interest, the fact is they've been supporting the S. Ossetian autonomy since the inception of Georgia as independent.

Just as they've been monkeying in Ukranian politics (the dioxin poisoning of Ushenko, the very questionable vote returns which led to the Orange Revolution, the attempts to coerce a sort of Finlandization with the availbility of heating oils in the winter, threats to NATO, and Ukraine because of Partnership for Peace exercises, etc.) they have wanted Georgia (along with Belorus and Ukraine) back in the fold.

It is, appallingly, reminiscent of the Sudetenland in the late '30s, an excuse to extend the reach of Russia. They aren't above other bits of monkeying in regional politcs either. The sympathy for the Serbs had something to do with just how bad the situation got in the former Yugoslavia.

I've liked all the Russian soldiers I've gotten to serve with, but that doesn't change a thing about the wrongness of this, nor the questionable direction in which Putin/Medveev is taking the country.

Giacamo: Of course Georgia didn't put up much of a fight. They don't have the means, and they got no support. Not even so much lip service as they might have. The cruel fact of the matter is there is no one, at present, in the position to come to their aid, not even in an untimely fashion (a la the Austrian response to the death of Ferdinand, which might have been forgiveable, if they'd not waited so long to actually invade in 1914), so as soon as Russia decided to initiate hostilities; in the "interest" of protecting the cultural Russians in S. Ossetia, Georgia was doomed to lose the fight.

What will happen now, is anybody's guess, but I suspect a much less independent Georgia, and new pressures on Ukraine. Belorus has already been Finlandized, and is not likely to do much straying now.

So Russia gets all it wants, and probably more; with great help from this administration.

Terry, my sympathies are with the Georgians, and particularly with the bombed and the refugees forced from their homes, but was there really anything the US could have done to change the situation? Even if it were possible to do it, logistically, providing military assistance to Georgia would be insane. I suppose more Stern Diplomatic Words might have been said, though it's pretty clear they would have made not a damn bit of difference. Your post suggests that the Bush administration could have done something here to change the outcome -- I'm wondering what you think it is.

My sympathies lie entirely with the Georgian civilian population. I don't need any kind of complicated analysis (though that is necessary for other reasons) to know that the Russian and Georgian leaderships, just like ours, are a bunch of sociopathic assholes.

(Firefox, do you really not know the word "sociopathic"? Did I just make it up?)

Ack--when I said "just like ours", I meant the USA. Yes, I know not everyone in the world is from the states. Yes, I'm an ass.

(Yes, I'm sure other people's leaderships are also sociopathic assholes.)

Lizzy L @ 114

There are several things I can think of that either NATO collectively, or the US by itself could do to support Georgia militarily; every single one of them would be insane from any diplomatic or long-term political viewpoint, and probably not very effective from a military viewpoint unless