Russia 'goes to war' with Georgia (5 Viewers)

[Admiral Nelson]

I am seriously unable to understand the nature of your argument on this topic, Admiral Nelson. You agree that Georgia was largely at fault in initiating this conflict, yet you also believe that the South Ossetians were infact "Georgians".

No, I believe they and were Ossetians in Georgia, and are Ossetians. But the fact of the matter is that they're just as much Georgian as they are Russian. They're a distinct cultural and racial group, and in this instance they're leaning towards the Russians because it suites their politcal aspirations. It's not out of comradery with their Russian brothers, it's because Russia is helping the Ossetians.

In order to agree that Georgia is at fault for it's aggression, you have to accept that the South Ossetian 'province' if you will, was independant from Georgia, and accept the validity of the peace treaty which was signed by the involved parties.

When you take that into account, Russia enforcing the treaty, protecting it's stationed peace keepers and it's citizens can only be accepted as a rational response.

South Ossetia was quasi-independent. It was a breakaway internal province of Georgia, and as a result, still technically part of Georgia. Russia, by not recognising it, agreed with the fact that Georgia still had sovereignty over South Ossetia, even if it didn't have direct rule. Yes, the Russian intervention into South Ossetia itself was definitely warranted, but the invasion of Georgia on the larger scale isn't something that's quite in line with protecting the South Ossetians and Russians therein. All I'm saying, is that if Russia was just protecting the "Russians" in South Ossetia, it only needed to be a local conflict, pushing the Georgians back to the ceasefire line and then demanding concessions.

Look, again, I support Russia and it's actions in this instance. But I'm the first to say that Russia certainly has helped precipitate this conflict, and could have easily won the war without an invasion of Georgia proper. I understand why they did what they did, and think it was very intelligent, but that doesn't stop me from play devil's advocate. Part of intelligent debating and discussion is being able to see things from different perspectives and being able to acknowledge a wider array of opinions than just that of your own. And it's clear that Russia was far from the just liberator of the oppressed Ossetian peoples who intervened in an un-expected, unprovoked and unprepared for conflict, which is almost what some are making them out to be.

So what exactly of the major contentions in this argument do you disagree with?

1) Do you accept the treaty signed by the involved parties?
2) Do you accept that as per the agreement Russia had stationed peace keepers, which were very lightly armed (an automatic weapon)?
3) Do you accept that the South Ossetians which agreed, and infact wanted Russian passports, had a right to obtain them, and as such have a right to be protected by Russia?
4) Do you accept that as per the agreement, Georgia has no right to dictate what the South Ossetians do with themselves?
5) Do you accept Russia reacted exactly as Georgia expected they would?

What are you on about? I'm not disagreeing with any of this stuff. All I'm doing is saying that Russia has a lot to answer for in the long term lead up to this conflict. It wasn't an accidental war, it's the result of long term tnesions, in part fanned by Russian actions, and it was a war that Russia had been planning for for years. They'd trained to intervene in just such an instance, and the giving of passports to the South Ossetians was done to provide a more internationally recognised legitimate reason to enter the war.

I mean, honestly, you two are making it out as though I think the Russians were the big bad Commies running amok, when in reality, I think that the Russians were in the right to do what they did and stand by them in that regard. I'm just saying, that this wa in many ways a war that was precipitated by Russia, even if it didn't fire the opening shots. I honestly thought that was a pretty obvious fact, that Russia had been pushing the Georgians to act in some way or form, whilst at the same time making it possible for them to enter any kind of physical intervention done by the Georgians.

The passports are legal and perfectly legitimate, as I said before, but that still doesn't mean that they weren't done with an eye towards a cassus belli. And contrary to what some of you seem to be thinking, giving passports to breakaway regions of foreign nations on your border en masse is an overtly hostile action.

Though, in regards to five, I don't think we'll ever be quite sure what the Georgians expected the Russians to do. Or rather, more closely, what they expected to West would do. Either way, I think it's fairly clear they didn't mean for it to turn out like this.

 

[Omnidragon]

US GDP $ 13.8 trillion > Russia,China,India GDP $ 5.5 Trillion LMFAO!

Hah well China or India population > USA so if they all spat at the country, it'd probably drown

 

[sam04u]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0U0msKMErs&NR=1
Fair... AND... Balanced.

 

[sam04u]

Middle East is not going to switch allegiance to Russia from USA not now, not tomorrow, Never! And no they are not going to switch to Euro, keep those wishful thinking to yourself.

Well lets keep this on a factual basis. Gradually over a long period of time many Middle Eastern countries have begun aligning themselves with Russia, that's a known fact. Most importantly ofcourse is Syria and Iran, which if armed with the latest Russian technologies could nullify the Israeli threat, and also work to realign the Middle East, or control the rest of the Middle East. Just look at how easily Iran has been able to influence occupied Iraq, irrespective of the fact that close to 100,000 U.S troops have been deployed or prepared to be deployed at any given time. So to assume that they could not expand and control the Middle Eastern oil, and barricade the transit of Middle Eastern oil is hardly wishful thinking.

EU is mulling trade sanction against Russia as we speak, and the only FRIENDS of Russia are Venezuela, Syria,Iran and North Korea LOL!

Aryanbeauty, please stop speaking of what you obviously do not know. I can't believe you were ignorant enough to mention "North Korea", and not even make a reference to "China". Any fucking half wit knows that North Korea's foreign policy is controlled by China. Secondly, you've obviously not been listening to what the the European leaders have been saying. Germany knows that since some 40% of it's oil reserves are from Russia, that it could not feasibly oppose it, moreso it's more inclined to support it, as was evident in it's joint vocal opposition to Georgia's admission into NATO. Next you have French, Sarkozy who has long been associated with the United States as a lapdog has very vocally opposed U.S aggression, threats of aggression, or it's encroachment onto the Russian mainland with missile defence systems in Poland and the Ukraine. So clearly you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Practically the only European support from the Western European super states has been from Great Britain. And my god, do you really even want that support? They're more likely to blow up your airforce in friendly fire, whilst trooping over their underfunded boot laces, than being a reliable ally in a global conflict.

Where as the whole world is basically on America's side. Even China and Central Asian countries rebuffed Russian plea to support in Georgia.

China on America's side? You're delusional. China and Russia (and various other countries) are in a mutual-defence organization or a bloc. They would work together in the event of a confrontation with the United States, and might I add, they would be a force to be reckoned with.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an intergovernmental mutual-security organization which was founded in 2001 by the leaders of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Except for Uzbekistan, the other countries had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members renamed the organization.

China and Russia are rivals in central asia

Read what was posted above. You obviously lack basic fundamental knowledge on this topic.

India and China

India, China and Russia have been working together for quite some time now.
Russia and India are currently working on developing fourth generation fighters which will not only be a rival to the U.S raptor, but rather better the U.S fighter. Google fourth generation figthers, thrust vectoring, and all that good stuff.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

Practically the only European support from the Western European super states has been from Great Britain. And my god, do you really even want that support? They're more likely to blow up your airforce in friendly fire, whilst trooping over their underfunded boot laces, than being a reliable ally in a global conflict.

It's the Americans who keep shooting down the Brits. Honestly, as a British soldier, I'd be more happy to see a Taliban fighter than an American plane, as during the actual fighting period more were lost to Americans than Iraqis. And I don't know where you're getting this underfunded crap, it's got an armed forces roughly equivalent to it's needs and has the third highest funding rate in the world. It spends just less than the French and 50% more than the Germans, the two best militaries in continental Europe, but at the same time has a smaller army. It's army is the same size as the Germans, and half the size of the French.

Frankly, the British are one of the best funded and trained militaries in the world, and with their new carriers in the future, will be far more able to carry out small conflicts around the world by themselves, or take part in regional scale wars with US assistance.

 

[sam04u]

It's the Americans who keep shooting down the Brits. Honestly, as a British soldier, I'd be more happy to see a Taliban fighter than an American plane, as during the actual fighting period more were lost to Americans than Iraqis. And I don't know where you're getting this underfunded crap, it's got an armed forces roughly equivalent to it's needs and has the third highest funding rate in the world. It spends just less than the French and 50% more than the Germans, the two best militaries in continental Europe, but at the same time has a smaller army. It's army is the same size as the Germans, and half the size of the French.

Frankly, the British are one of the best funded and trained militaries in the world, and with their new carriers in the future, will be far more able to carry out small conflicts around the world by themselves, or take part in regional scale wars with US assistance.

Then why do we keep hearing reports of families of British troops having to buy equipment for them? Why aren't they being properly looked after upon arrival home?

It's like saying that because the U.S spends the most per capita on their health care system, that they have the best healthcare. That's an equally ridiculous claim. For what is it? The fourth or fifth richest country in the world? They could do better.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

There hasn't been a nation yet that has "properly" looked after it's war veterans, and that's a fact.

And such claims of buying equipment for soldiers is almost always an idividual and unusual case. That being said, many nations have long histories of soldiers using their own personal equipment over standardised army stuff, especially as combat testing can prove some military equipment less than effective, and the large scale nature of it means that replacement can take a long time, just in the pure logistics, meaning that soldiers may choose to procure their own stop-gap measure.

The fact of the matter is, that the British Armed Forces is funded better than any other European armed forces, and it one of the best in the world. And I say that being a complete Germanophile.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

US GDP $ 13.8 trillion > Russia,China,India GDP $ 5.5 Trillion LMFAO!

US Debt $53 Trillion > (Russia + China + India + Rest of the World) * 10 LMFAO


Seriously, you're not even funny, you're just a complete retard.

 

[Bendent]

btw china gdp is 3.3 india 900 something, russia 1.2 in 2007

but purchasing power parity china is near 8 trillion in 2008