WTF is Russia Doing?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The same statistics but not as a percentage but in dollar figures... the US outspends its nearest rival (China) by close to 5x

When you compare the numbers, please do not forget that U.S. Army is paid (both in terms of salary and future benefits). In a lot of other countries (like China and Russia) there is a mandatory draft, and the soldiers are paid close to nothing in terms of salary, and there are no future benefits for those who served their term in the draft.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

As for the Litvinenko case, the Russian Duma, during the Putin years actually passed a law that sanctions the killing of Russian citizens anywhere in the world if the interests of the Russian state are deemed to be at stake.

Do you happen to have the link to the alleged law? I don't remember the law like that. There was a similar one, but the difference with what you quote was significant enough.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[NickDG 23]

With apologies to Country Joe . . .

~~~Well come on all of you freefly boys,
Uncle Sam needs your help again,
he got himself in a terrible jam,
way down yonder in Balticland,
put down your Ipods and pick up a gun,
we're gunna have a whole lotta fun ~~~

Putin has already said their biggest mistake of the 1990s was allowing parts of Russia to cutaway. And Russia isn't going to stop with Georgia. The Ukraine is next. And there's no telling how far the Russians may go. And who's to stop them? Putin knows we have an impotent President and a divided country so his timing makes sense. But all it would take is one U.S. military "humanitarian" mission getting smoked by the Russians and we could be in it. And the U.S. Air Force is beginning those missions right now.

A ground war with Russia, never minding the two little skirmishes we're in now, will make the 58,000 Americans we lost in Vietnam look like a clambake. I think the good times are over.

We may very well be on the brink of World War III . . .

NickD

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>Because we all know Germany was ultimately behind the attack on
>Pearl Harbor.

If you say so, Mr. Blutarsky!

I must say... Outstanding job in turning sarcasm into an ignorant comment by taking it out of context. And you're a moderator???

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[billvon 2,426]

>Outstanding job in turning sarcasm into an ignorant comment by taking
>it out of context.

Joke, son, it's a joke. Reference Animal House:

Blutarsky: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Blutarsky: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out]

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>Outstanding job in turning sarcasm into an ignorant comment by taking
>it out of context.

Joke, son, it's a joke. Reference Animal House:

Blutarsky: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Blutarsky: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out]

My bad... never saw the movie.

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[kelpdiver 2]

you will enjoy SC much more if you approach these discussions with a certain amount of levity. It's not about winning, as that is generally impossible, but about having a little fun.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

>Let me relate this a little better for you. If you're watching me in a bar
>fight, I've got no cause to hit you. You hit me, it's on between you and I
>as well. Innocents don't fight. It's that simple.

Let's use a more apt example.

Someone comes into your house and points a gun at your wife. You pull out your gun, shoot at him and miss. He runs off. What are you guilty of? How much time should you spend in jail?

And us walking down the street and being shot at is relative to that how? A large majority of the innocents in question are shooting at us in the streets, not their homes. This is long after the initial invasion and we're still being shot at by what shropshire is referring to as "innocents." Pay no mind to the fact that many of those citizens of Iraq that you think despised us cheered us with our removal of a dictator that was willing to kill off thousands of his own countrymen and women. Ignore the fact that those same "innocents" shoot at their own Iraqi military forces. The same forces we trained to assist them in getting them more skilled and able to maintain their own country.

I just entered a job field that's sole purpose is to protect life and property, not destroy it. However, we're among the most targeted out there.

More info on what I do here... C L I C K Y

And the USAs business in Iraq IS? We the fuckin world police? MYOB comes to mind. Something my mother taught me many moons ago. Guard the UDSAs borders if you need something to defend.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We the fuckin world police?

That's exactly what we've become. Something goes down the crapper? Call the Amis to fix it. In point of fact, I saw a crawler on CNN a couple days ago about "Georgia asks US to intervene" - QED.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,426]

>In point of fact, I saw a crawler on CNN a couple days ago
>about "Georgia asks US to intervene."

Yep. What's even sadder is what our leaders are saying about it:

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state.... Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.... We have no doubts about it. This is a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire country and change the regime."

"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."

I imagine a worldwide double take.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

>Because we all know Germany was ultimately behind the attack on Pearl Harbor.

No, Japan was; Germany was just attacking us for other reasons, and their status as allies made Pearl Harbor the catalyzing event for the declaration of war against both. Sorta akin to how we went to war with Afghanistan due to their support of Al Qaeda.

Except that we went to war alongside their government and never had any combat with their military because our target was Al Qaeda, not Afghanistan.

If the Taliban was on our side, why did we remove them from power?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Iraq was not a sovereign nation after surrendering in 1991, so the double take is more like one and one half.

[billvon 2,426]

> Iraq was not a sovereign nation after surrendering in 1991 . . .

Ah! No problem then. No one ever officially gave Georgia its sovereignty, so Russia is in the clear.

[kelpdiver 2]

are you saying that Russia view Georgia the way China view Taiwan?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

... It's not about winning, as that is generally impossible, ....

Bah! I always win!

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Let me relate this a little better for you. If you're watching me in a bar
>fight, I've got no cause to hit you. You hit me, it's on between you and I
>as well. Innocents don't fight. It's that simple.

Let's use a more apt example.

Someone comes into your house and points a gun at your wife. You pull out your gun, shoot at him and miss. He runs off. What are you guilty of? How much time should you spend in jail?

And us walking down the street and being shot at is relative to that how? A large majority of the innocents in question are shooting at us in the streets, not their homes. This is long after the initial invasion and we're still being shot at by what shropshire is referring to as "innocents." Pay no mind to the fact that many of those citizens of Iraq that you think despised us cheered us with our removal of a dictator that was willing to kill off thousands of his own countrymen and women. Ignore the fact that those same "innocents" shoot at their own Iraqi military forces. The same forces we trained to assist them in getting them more skilled and able to maintain their own country.

I just entered a job field that's sole purpose is to protect life and property, not destroy it. However, we're among the most targeted out there.

More info on what I do here... C L I C K Y

And the USAs business in Iraq IS? We the fuckin world police? MYOB comes to mind. Something my mother taught me many moons ago. Guard the UDSAs borders if you need something to defend.

Actually, in a way, yes, and it started with Theodore Roosevelt.

Quote

"Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilised society, may ultimately require intervention by some civilised nation, and in the western hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power."

-Theodore Roosevelt

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

you will enjoy SC much more if you approach these discussions with a certain amount of levity. It's not about winning, as that is generally impossible, but about having a little fun.

Spot on

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Quote

>In point of fact, I saw a crawler on CNN a couple days ago
>about "Georgia asks US to intervene."

Yep. What's even sadder is what our leaders are saying about it:

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state.... Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.... We have no doubts about it. This is a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire country and change the regime."

"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."

I imagine a worldwide double take.

But it was O.K in the 20th century

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Froggy 0]

Quote

You are describing the situation like you have seen it yourself. While, in fact, you're just quoting Russian news web sites (yeah, I read them too).

It's funny that you consider "ABCBBSCNN" news (from the countries who are not directly involved in conflict) biased, but consider news from the country which IS involved into conflict as "the only true". Even though you definitely know that there is no more independent news agencies in Russia.

BTW, have you ever checked Georgian news?

You are right on the fact that I wasn't there. Believe me, I know full well that there is no such thing as truly independent media -- neither in Russia, nor elsewhere, and i do NOT consider any of them as "the only true" source. I did check multiple sources -- official, so called "independent", personal blogs, political and non-political forums, YouTube, whatever... Yes, I did check Georgian news, too. Everybody arguing here is expressing their opinions, and obviously everybody thinks that their opinion is the "right" one -- otherwise, there would be no argument. Nobody here can claim at this point that they have only objective, factual, unbiased information. That's the truth. However, I do see some clear indications in favour of my POV, like western news agencies changing their descriptions of events, because it's so obvious that they have no choice. I already mentioned that about BBC. There also appear to be pretty strong messages from German sources condemning Georgia, NOT Russia, and acknowledging the possibility of Saakashvili being charged with war crimes. Have you heard Churkin's speech at the UN? IMO, that's the example of how the situation should be handled -- I was so proud of that guy! Too bad nobody wanted to hear what he was saying... It's a shame Russia didn't go into Tbilisi, and capture that f@cking a$$hole Sukashvili to bring him to court. Well, that didn't happen, and it remains to be seen what comes next...

Am I biased? Yes, I am! Do I believe I am right in my opinion? Make your guess.

--------------
We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall...

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

>Outstanding job in turning sarcasm into an ignorant comment by taking
>it out of context.

Joke, son, it's a joke. Reference Animal House:

Blutarsky: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Blutarsky: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out]

My bad... never saw the movie.

Visual aid.

But this one always makes me laugh

[gemini 0]

Foreign Policy Research Institute Over 50 Years of Ideas in Service to Our Nation
www.fpri.org

RUSSIA RESURGENT: AN INITIAL LOOK AT RUSSIAN MILITARY PERFORMANCE IN GEORGIA
by Felix K. Chang

August 13, 2008

Felix K. Chang was a senior planner and an intelligence officer in the U.S. Department of Defense. He is currently a partner at CVP Ventures and a senior fellow at FPRI. His publications and ongoing research concentrate on military, economic, and energy security issues in Asia as well as financial industry trends around the world.

RUSSIA RESURGENT: AN INITIAL LOOK AT RUSSIAN MILITARY PERFORMANCE IN GEORGIA

by Felix K. Chang

It is no surprise that tensions between Russia and Georgia have mounted. On August 3 Moscow warned of the growing danger of a "large-scale military conflict" between Georgia and its separatist province of South Ossetia ; that warning drew a reply from Washington two days later urging Moscow to refrain from provocative actions in the region.[1]

As the conflict unfolded during the night of August 7 with a Georgian military offensive into South Ossetia, it soon appeared that Tbilisi miscalculated the Russian response. By the morning of August 8, Russian forces were streaming into Georgia . While news reports from the frontlines remain preliminary and incomplete, the scale and speed of Russia 's military operations between August 8 and 12 do shed some light on Russian military capabilities and operational readiness and raise new questions regarding the events leading to the conflict.

RUSSIAN GROUND FORCES Within hours of the overnight Georgian offensive beginning August 7, an estimated 6,000 to 10,000 Russian troops were on the main highway leading into Georgia . By 1:00 pm on August 8, witnesses reported roads filled with hundreds of tanks, armored personnel carriers, towed artillery, and truck-mounted rocket launchers already travelling into the Roki Tunnel, which passes through the mountainous area that separates Russia and Georgia.[2]

From the number of troops and types of equipment, and given the units of the 58th Army based nearby, it is clear that Russia deployed the equivalent of a motor rifle division. For such a force to move from bivouac into the field, Russian army commanders would have needed time to coordinate the mobilization--distributing ammunition and supplies, establishing the right of way on the only highway to Georgia , and sorting out the proper ordering of the advancing column so that it could combat any resistance it may encounter.

In addition, Russian media reported on Saturday that elements of the 76th Air Assault Division based in the Leningrad Military District had already been airlifted into the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. Elements of the 96th Airborne Division and 45th Intelligence Regiment based in the Moscow Military District were slated to follow soon thereafter. These may have constituted the "battalion task forces" that General Vladimir Boldyrev, commander of Russian Ground Forces, said captured the capital city early on that same day. These elite formations, which represent part of Russia 's strategic reserve, are likely to have units on constant alert for rapid deployments. Still, to fully equip, embark, transport, and coordinate the arrival and integration of these troops into combat operations alongside the 58th Army units moving overland is a notable demonstration of not only long-range airlift capability involving over 100 airlift sorties, but also improved command and staff arrangements, which proved so difficult for the Russia's army in the 1990s.[3]

Surely with rising tensions, Russian army commanders likely had contingency plans in place for such an operation. Even so, it remains remarkable that such sizable forces could have been orchestrated and arrayed in under half a day, even if decision-making in Moscow was instantaneous, especially if the actual timing of the Georgian offensive was unknown to Russian leaders. For by the early afternoon on August 8, Russian mechanized infantry responding to the Georgian provocation were already battling in Tskhinvali, about 40 km from Russia but less than 5 km from where Georgia's offensive began.[4] Certainly, most of the Russian ground units that participated in the incursion into Georgia must have been placed on a higher state of readiness and their commands coordinated earlier last week to achieve such a fast and smoothly executed response.

RUSSIAN AIR FORCES Russia operates a number of air bases near Georgia . Many of these supported military operations in Chechnya between 1994-2000, when separatists in that province sought autonomy from Russia . Clearly, the Russian military has also improved its air-ground coordination since its poorly managed Chechen campaigns. In Georgia , the Russian air force appeared to have provided effective close air support to the army units advancing into South Ossetia . News reports indicated that Georgian defenses blocking the Russian advance were struck from the air.[5] Given the fast tempo of the action, only good coordination between air and ground units would have ensured such support.

With over 300 combat aircraft--including Su-24, Su-25, and Su-27 fighters and Tu-22 bombers--reportedly participating in the operation, Russia clearly had little problem achieving air superiority over Georgia , which could field only eight Su-25 fighters. Given that many of its jets were probably on alert, the Russian air force could quickly take to the sky. Just as important, it likely possessed excellent intelligence on key Georgian military sites, which is unsurprising since Russian troops had been stationed in Georgia until 2007 and its peacekeepers have been present in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway Georgian province.

So far, four Russian and one Georgian aircraft are confirmed to have been destroyed, though each side has claimed higher numbers. It appears that all the losses have been due to ground-based air defenses, mainly surface-to-air missiles. While the Su-25 losses on both sides are readily understandable given their role in close air support, the Russian loss of a Tu-22M3 bomber, which normally operates at high altitude, remains unexplained.[6]

As a whole, the intensity of Russia 's air operations should also be noted. From a cold start, the Russian air force activated a broad array of combat units and maintained a high operational tempo for over four days. It would have required foresight to stock the needed bases with sufficient stores of fuel and ammunition. In July 2007, Russia may have had the chance to prepare for such an action during a large- scale training maneuver simulating the defense of Russia's southern border called Exercise Caucasian Border 2007 that featured more than 400 air sorties. If nothing else, Russian air units demonstrated that they were well prepared for this sort of contingency and performed their duties with greater skill and coordination than had been seen in the 1990s.

RUSSIAN NAVAL FORCES Possibly the most striking performance may have been that of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, whose capabilities have not been highly regarded. On Saturday, Georgian sources announced that Russian warships had begun to blockade its coast. The presence of the ships was seemingly confirmed by Russian-backed Abkhaz authorities, who claimed that the ships had deflected a Georgian attempt to close off the coastline of Abkhazia. In the meantime, Russian media reported that the Moskva, a Slava-class cruiser, and the Smetlivy, a Kashin-class destroyer, as well as a small number of supply and logistics ships had sailed from Sevastopol and arrived in the region on Sunday to "provide aid to refugees" and not to "blockade the Georgian coast." The reports concluded that after "several maneuvers" as part of an anti-terror exercise, the ships sailed onto Novorossiysk.[7]

Though not confirmed by Georgian sources, the Russian Navy informed media outlets that four Georgian fast-attack craft had crossed the border of the established security zone and threatened the Russian flotilla. In response, after firing warning shots, the Russian warships sank one of the craft with gunfire. Another unconfirmed claim was made by Georgia that the Russian navy landed troops into Abkhazia over the weekend. If true, these troops probably sailed aboard the three "large landing craft," which Russian news reported had sailed from Novorossiysk , where ground troops are known to be based nearby. The "large landing craft" were either the three Alligator-class or three Ropucha-class LSTs based with the Black Sea Fleet. But even if accurate, these ships could not have lifted more than 900 troops at one time, far fewer than the Georgian claim.[8]

While the claims of a naval clash and a troop landing remains unclear, the speed with which the Russian vessels based at Sevastopol must have put to sea is not. Since the Moskva and Smetlivy were accompanying much slower supply and logistics ships, whose maximum speed range between 12 and 16 knots, the flotilla would have taken 25 hours to transit the 400 nm between Sevastopol and the Georgian coast. For the ships to have arrived on Saturday, they would have to have sailed on Friday, just hours after Georgian troops crossed into South Ossetia .

Thus, the Russian vessels must have been on alert with their crews aboard and the supply ships already loaded with whatever humanitarian aid they were intended to transport. Otherwise, the Black Sea Fleet would have required at least a full day, if not longer, to get its ships underway, so that naval commanders could plan the mission, crews could be recalled, and appropriate supplies could be found and loaded onto the ships. In addition, the ease with which those supplies were offloaded at their destination implies further coordination as to who would receive them and how they would be distributed. For the Black Sea Fleet, its ability to respond as quickly as it did shows that it had not only been held at a high state of operational readiness, but also made substantial preparations for the action.

OPERATIONAL AXES Russian forces eventually advanced across two fronts. In South Ossetia , Russian troops took Tskhinvali and then crossed into undisputed Georgian territory to cut the main highway and rail line west of Gori. A second front was opened when Russian mechanized infantry passed through the UN security zone and entered undisputed Georgian territory from Abkhazia. At least 2,000 troops occupied Zugdidi, a Georgian town 10 km from the border and a sector headquarters of the UN peacekeeping force. The Russian column continued another 30 km to Senaki, where it captured a Georgian military base and airfield, severing the main highway and rail line at a second location and effectively controlling all heavy traffic movement across Georgia . It is reasonable to assume that at least some of the 9,000 troops and 350 armored vehicles the Russian military had stationed in Abkhazia as peacekeepers participated in the advance. Meanwhile, Abkhaz separatists subdued Georgian positions in the Kodori Valley and Russian air power destroyed key military facilities in Tbilisi and port of Poti. [9]

No doubt Russia 's military action in Georgia will prompt many countries to view Moscow in a sharper light, from the capitals of Europe to Beijing and Tokyo . However the world eventually interprets Russia 's intervention in Georgia 's civil conflict--whether as a "humanitarian effort" as Moscow portrays or as a "full scale invasion" as Tbilisi portrays-- it does demonstrate the Russian military's renewed ability to prosecute a relatively complex, high-intensity combined arms operation. Still, the evidently high state of readiness of such a broad array of Russian military units across all three services raises more questions about Moscow 's intentions and planning prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

---------------------------------------------------------- Notes

[1] Jim Mannion, "US military surprised by speed, timing of Russia military action," Agence France-Presse, August 11, 2008; Gonzalo R. Gallegos, U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, August 5, 2008, at www.state.gov.

[2] " Russia 's Troops to Liberate Tskhinvali," Kommersant, August 8, 2008.

[3] "Russian Paratroopers in Abkhazia," InfoRos, August 11, 2008; "Paratroopers from Pskov , Ivanovo Brought in to Tskhinvali," Kommersant, August 9, 2008; " Russia : Paratroopers in breakaway capital," CNN, August 9, 2008.

[4] "Russian armored vehicles approaching Tskhinvali," Interfax, August 8, 2008; " Russia 's Armored Vehicles Entered Tskhinvali," Kommersant, August 8, 2008.

[5] " Russia 's Warplanes Bombed Out Georgia's Artillery near Gori," Kommersant, August 9, 2008; "Aircraft striking Georgian positions in S. Ossetia ," Interfax, August 8, 2008.

[6] "Georgian strike fighter shot down in S. Ossetia ," Interfax, August 11, 2008; David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie, "Georgia Strikes Back with Air Defenses," Aviation Week, August 11, 2008.

[7] "Russian Navy carries out Black Sea anti-terror exercise," RIA Novosti, August 11, 2008; "Russian Navy ships approach Georgia's sea border," RIA Novosti, August 10, 2008; "Georgians to Leave South Ossetia as Focus Shifts to Black Sea," Deutsche Welle, August 10, 2008.

[8] "Georgian Military Boats Attacked Russian Warships," InfoRos, August 11, 2008; Marc Champion, Andrew Osborn, John D. McKinnon, "Russia Widens Attacks on Georgia ," Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2008; Ron Popeski, "Russian navy sinks Georgian boat: Defence ministry," Reuters, August 10, 2008.

[9] "Forcing Georgians Out of Kodori Valley," InfoRos, August 12, 2008; Christopher Torchia and David Nowak, " Russia opens new front, drives deeper into Georgia ," Associated Press, August 10, 2008.

---------------------------------------------------------- Copyright Foreign Policy Research Institute (http://www.fpri.org/). You may forward this essay as you like provided that it is sent in its entirety and attributed to FPRI. , provided that you send it in its entirety. Contact FPRI for permission to repost it at another website.

If you receive this as a forward and would like to be added to our mailing list, send an email to [email protected], including your name, address, and any affiliation.

For further information or to inquire about membership in FPRI, please contact Alan Luxenberg, [email protected] or (215) 732-3774 x105.

If you would like to be removed from our distribution list, please type "Remove" in the subject line of an email to [email protected]. ----------------------------------------------------------

FPRI, 1528 Walnut Street, Suite 610 , Philadelphia , PA 19102 . For information, contact Alan Luxenberg at 215-732-3774, ext. 105 or email [email protected] or visit us at www.fpri.org

Blue skies,

Jim

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I did check multiple sources -- official, so called "independent", personal blogs, political and non-political forums, YouTube, whatever... Yes, I did check Georgian news, too.

So did you just check them and disregard everything they said in favor of Russian news when there is conflict?

Quote

However, I do see some clear indications in favour of my POV, like western news agencies changing their descriptions of events, because it's so obvious that they have no choice.

This is called cherry-picking. It is easy to gather facts to support your opinion when you already made it. You just need to disregard everything which does not follow your opinion. You could find even stronger messages if you listen to clowns like Zhyrinovsky or "idiot news" like oper.ru.

Quote

Have you heard Churkin's speech at the UN? IMO, that's the example of how the situation should be handled -- I was so proud of that guy!

Why? He somehow avoided the comparison with Chechnya just less than ten years ago. I wonder how would Churkin and Co react if China started giving their citizenship to Chechnya population, and then when Russia "invaded" Chechnya in 1999 they would "protect their citizens" the way Russia did. At least I hope the Russian peacekeeping forces will be now thrown out of Pridnestrovye (or will not be considered a peacekeepers) at least.

Quote

Am I biased? Yes, I am!

This is important.

Quote

Do I believe I am right in my opinion?

And this is completely not important.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Froggy 0]

Quote

So did you just check them and disregard everything they said in favor of Russian news when there is conflict?

That's your take. My take is that I made my conclusions based on the information I got, discarding things that didn't make sense, and acknowledging and taking notes of things that seemed reasonable. Remember, we are talking about opinions here -- there is simply no such thing as 100% objective and unbiased information, or the "ultimate truth".

Quote

This is called cherry-picking. It is easy to gather facts to support your opinion when you already made it. You just need to disregard everything which does not follow your opinion. You could find even stronger messages if you listen to clowns like Zhyrinovsky or "idiot news" like oper.ru.

No. I didn't say that this is the only response there is from Western media, and I definitely see the opposing views. I only said that I see some indications to support my point of view, especially when those messages are coming from sources that originally took a totally different stance. Is that not a fair statement? BTW, Zhirik sometimes says surprisingly interesting things that at least make you think -- he sure is a clown, but most definitely not an idiot. Doesn't matter, though, as in this particular case I don't even know what he was/is saying. As for oper.ru, it's quite an interesting site, of course, if you don't consider comments themselves as "news". The good thing is that you can find references and links to all sorts of different information there, from sources all over the place, in which sense it's no different from many, many other sites on the Net. The rest is up to you using your brain. BTW, by slapping an "idiot" label on it, you are simply discarding something that doesn't match you POV -- isn't that what you are accusing me of doing? :)

Quote

Why? He somehow avoided the comparison with Chechnya just less than ten years ago. I wonder how would Churkin and Co react if China started giving their citizenship to Chechnya population, and then when Russia "invaded" Chechnya in 1999 they would "protect their citizens" the way Russia did.

I somehow think you know yourself that this is a BS; therefore, no comment. Just wondering why you picked China for this argument, and not New Zealand or Argentina, for example -- it would be just about as relevant...

Quote

At least I hope the Russian peacekeeping forces will be now thrown out of Pridnestrovye (or will not be considered a peacekeepers) at least.

You have your right to hope all you want. Mechtat' ne vredno ("keep dreaming" in Russian).

Quote

This is important.

Everybody is biased -- more or less. Me, you, everybody else. That's the way it is, can't help it.

Quote

And this is completely not important.

I am not saying it is, even though I personally think so -- there is a difference between somebody saying or doing something while being aware that they are wrong, and saying or doing so believing that they are right. However, you decide what's important to you -- discard it or acknowledge (and now we are back to the beginning)...

--------------
We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall...

[Andy9o8 0]

I think this is Russia's way of telling the world: "This is for everyone fucking with us and calling us pussies for the past 10 years. Did you have fun poking the bear? Well, now you can all stick it up your asses."
And that's my geopolitical analysis.

Edit: I've got NPR on in the background. Just heard that in response to a new US-Poland missile-basing treaty, a Russian general is quoted as saying that won't go unpunished. Not "unanswered", mind you - unpunished.

Looks like the Sheriff's back in town.

Now let's sit back and see whether this is but another round of Russia reasserting itself militarily beyond its borders. (Google: "Sudetenland" - an historical analogy? We'll see.)

[Andy9o8 0]

Here's an excellent historical analysis of the current Russia-Georgia situation. Seriously, it really is. Have the patience to watch it; takes about 4 minutes.

P.S. - Not only is it educational - it's nutritious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_p3hLtr5Ok