The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Leonid Korogodski:

Maria #319:

Yes, there are two Iberias, one in Spain, the other in Georgia. Two different things, not to be confused. Some speculate that the Georgian language may have a distant relationship to Basque.

Not that it much matters in the context.

Maria #306:

So Georgia state is much more young than Ossetians.

Are you kidding me? The united Georgian kingdom existed since 1008 AD uninterrupted until 1812 AD when it was incorporated into Russia. Before that, the eastern Georgian kingdom (Kartli-Iberia) existed since around 300 BC. And the western Georgian kingdom (Colchis) existed since the 13th century BC. Kartli-Iberia was one of the first states in the world to convert to Christianity in 327 AD and possibly even in 317 AD.

On the matter of Crimea:

Note, however, that attempts to organize a separatist movement in Crimea have failed. Whatever the history and the demographics, the Crimean population doesn't want to leave Ukraine and join Russia.

Ken #255:

On stopping the local militia from running amok: Russia didn't do anything about it before and is unlikely to do it now. Russia has been granting Russian citizenship both in Abkhazia and South Ossetia left and right just to claim their non-Georgian population as Russian citizens. It's interested in Georgians fleeing the area.

heresiarch #245:

The problem with Georgia's NATO membership may--and I'm guessing here--have to do with the fact that it has two ongoing conflicts already. Do you think that would have involved NATO in them automatically? Isn't NATO supposed to ensure the territorial integrity of any member country?

Bruce #244:

As I said, the US military is not good at dealing with protracted guerrilla warfare.

Constance #240:

Why Chevron, of all things? I thought BP owned most of the pipelines going through Georgia.

There is control and there is control.

The problem is further aggravated when politicians begin to think they can be good generals and started ordering professionals around.

Evans #232:

Actually, the US military doctrine includes the ability to sustain two large-scale military conflicts in any part of the world. The problem is that the same doctrine is woefully inadequate in dealing with protracted guerrilla warfare. Some years ago, a certain group in the US Army was active in formulating a new, more mobile doctrine, specifically with asymmetric warfare in mind. But apparently it was too radical, involving a nearly complete redesign of units, including a completely different size and nature of Army divisions, etc. So the top brass didn't like it and it went nowhere. Ironically, the decision not to go on with it was taken shortly before the war in Afghanistan, followed by the war in Iraq.

A curious aside: Just now, Georgia beat Russia in women's beach volleyball at the Olympics. On the positive note, there didn't seem to be any bad feelings shown between the teams. On the contrary, it was all very polite and civilized. Now, if only this was the case in politics.

Xopher #226:

I highly doubt that US would enter the conflict directly. Simply stopping Russia and keeping Saakashvili in power would already be a win for US. That's why Russia doesn't seem to be willing to keep by the agreements.

However, if you do want to consider a highly unlikely scenario of limited direct confrontation, then I would disagree with your prognosis. Russia does have a logistical advantage, the conflict being much closer to home. But Russia would still be fighting on the enemy's ground, so the perspectives of guerrilla warfare are bad. Knowing the Russian army (I served in it, after all, although not in an elite unit), I would say that in a set-piece campaign, provided it is not too long, the US army would beat them easily. But, once again, this is purely theoretic, just for the purposes of intellectual amusement. It won't happen.

Leo

Xopher #222:

It all depends on how you define a win and a loss, which is far from being obvious in these particular circumstances.

Lizzy #215: Why would a furor have erupted?

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the separatist movements in places like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the so-called Dniester republic, and the like--are not only supported by were actually created by Russia.

Leo

More here.

Randolph #72:

As to Russian actions in Georgia, it is worth comparing them with NATO actions in Bosnia; once the genocide was stopped, NATO took no further action against Serbia and handed the matter over to an international tribunal. This is not the case in Georgia; the Russian government is expanding the war and shows no interest in any justice that it does not itself deal out.

There is another important difference. Although this doesn't directly apply to the South Ossetian situation--the history of the conflicts in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia are very different--it nevertheless shows something of the policy of Russia toward Georgia in particular and other neighboring countries in general, which is to support any separatist movement that may weaken the said neighbor.

NATO in Kosovo was stopping a genocide. In Abkhazia in 1993, it was quite a different story.

Leo

Speaking of spelling, there is Saphire Inn not far from where I live.

Don't forget such words as "grammar" (ironically) and "altar." An astonishing number of people tend to spell them as "grammer" and "alter."

Oh, so the VP meeting will be on Saturday instead of Sunday? Or is it a different VP meeting? :)

Comment statistics for Leonid Korogodski on the Making Light blog

Total: 24 comments. View all these comments on a single page.