Russia 'goes to war' with Georgia (1 Viewer)

Admiral Nelson

Generalfeldmarschall
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
132
Location
The Shire
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Slidey said:
Compared to now. Meanwhile give America 10 years and...

Anyway, give Russia 10 years and they'll likely be fully embracing democracy and free market economies and war will be the last thing on their mind.
The American army is roughly fully equipped, whereas at the moment only a few Russian formations are fully upgraded. The Cacasus Front is probably the second most backwards are of the Russian military, and it's performed excellently, creating enough confusion that even the Americans didn't have a clue what was going on, and that's not done through superior numbers, but rather, tactics.

And Russia won't be embracing proper democracy anytime soon. The Russian mindset just isn't conducive to it, probably can blame seventy years of Communism and the Russian Empire before it for that one. We'll have to wait and see until the last of the Cold War hangovers leave, in about twenty years time when the politicians weren't high up memebers of the Soviet system.
 

MissSarajevo

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
251
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Admiral Nelson said:
You're an absolute idiot. The Moment NATO got any sort of upper hand in a conventional conflict in Russia you'd have nukes flying. No one is stupid enough to attack Russia in an actual proper invasion. You do it via proxies, like the Americans in Afghanistan in the 80's. And discussion won't lead to action. It's rattled enough NATO members to keep Georgia and the Ukraine out.
no one said NATO will attack Russia to take russian territory , NATO will defend its member countries, from weak ass countries like Russia. NATO can send in nukes too, if russia is stupid enough to use one. in fact NATO has more nukes than poor trash Russia. This Russian attack on Georgia made the west more determined and speed up NATO expansion.

And Russia demanded that the US stop the missile shield, not begged. The Americans said no, and the Russians didn't do anything about it because they're not about to launch bomber raids on four Eastern European countries to prove themselves. The West is terrified of military action against Russia just because they don't know how far Russia needs to be pushed to prompt it to consider using nuclear weapons or other means, like their massive FAB with the power of a small nuke. Russia won this conflict and ended it on it's own terms, and no one elses.
Russia is terrified of NATO and thats why it is vehemently opposed to Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, because Russia knew it can no longer interfere nor invade Georgia like it just did. No one questioned Russian victory against Georgian non existent military, and ended the war falling short of achieving its aims of controlling Georgia and overthrowing its leaders, thanks to george Bush's timely word of warning. By the way Russia accepted french peace terms, NOT one of its own.

As to the BP comment, that's amazingly stupid. I don't even know what you're logic behind that is.
it shows Russia is weak and nothing to NATO when it comes to military capability.

EDIT:
The Su-27 and MiG 29's are the equals of the F-16 and F-18, and their new MiG will be the rough equal of the F-22. The T-90 is probably the par of a Challenger or Leopard 2, though a tad shy of the M1A1. The Ak 94 does exactly what it needs, the BMP and BMD series are all of rough equality with the West. Their old stuff is being replaced at a very fast rate. And also, Israel's military industry is one of the most capable in the world, as is it's army.
LOL SU and MIG are called flying coffin, thanks to extremely high rate of accidents, they are nowhere close to American made weapons.

Firstly, all of the Eastern block used Russian weapons. The reason why Third and Second World nations used the Soviet equipment was because it was cheaper, easier to use and maintain, and adequate for their needs. Every other first world nation had their own military industry or agreement with a nation that did, as they weren't part of the Soviet sphere of influence. A choice of armaments twenty years a go was as much about politics as it was about the actual quality of the stuff, and it still is very much like it today.
Russian weapons are cheap and nasty, and only good enough to kill unarmed innocents who cannot fight back thats why Arabs countries using soviet russian weapons lost all wars against Israel and most 3rd world dictators use russians made weapons as well, to oppress their own people! Other countries who used Russian weapons are moving towards American weapons cause they are far better, superior and more efficient.
 

zstar

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
748
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
"Russian weapons are cheap and nasty, and only good enough to killunarmed innocents who cannot fight back thats why Arabs countries usingsoviet russian weapons lost all wars against Israel and most 3rd worlddictators use russians made weapons as well, to oppress their ownpeople! Other countries who used Russian weapons are moving towardsAmerican weapons cause they are far better, superior and more efficient."

The Arabs lost because they had inferior pilots, If you knew something about aerial combat you'd know that training is far more important than the plane itself.
 

MissSarajevo

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
251
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
zstar said:
"Russian weapons are cheap and nasty, and only good enough to killunarmed innocents who cannot fight back thats why Arabs countries usingsoviet russian weapons lost all wars against Israel and most 3rd worlddictators use russians made weapons as well, to oppress their ownpeople! Other countries who used Russian weapons are moving towardsAmerican weapons cause they are far better, superior and more efficient."

The Arabs lost because they had inferior pilots, If you knew something about aerial combat you'd know that training is far more important than the plane itself.
Many arabs jets were piloted by Russian (Soviet) pilots. either way they were and are substandard to American weapons.
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Admiral Nelson said:
The American army is roughly fully equipped, whereas at the moment only a few Russian formations are fully upgraded.
It's not about how well equipped the forces are, though that's obviously an integral part. What's also very important is the technological sophistication of the equipment, which places like America and Israel continue to ensure are state-of-the-art.

Current advances for America involve nanotechnology, materials science, electronics and particle physics. Obviously Russia is researching all these things as well, but is a few steps behind America.
 

zstar

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
748
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Georgia only had a few SU-25's with upgraded Israeli avionics.

No way could the Georgian airforce go up against the likes of SU-27's.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Admiral Nelson said:
If Russia had wanted to annex Georgia, America would have made a stink about it and that's it. Nuclear war wouldn't be risked over Georgia. It's as simple as that. .
Oh dont be so sure, Mr President

Cuba?
What was Poland? Belgium? Tinpot little bloody..

We should all be dead! We lucked out IT WAS LUCK

On a personal note, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Nelson. NCAP salutes your vigour
 

Admiral Nelson

Generalfeldmarschall
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
132
Location
The Shire
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Iron said:
Oh dont be so sure, Mr President

Cuba?
What was Poland? Belgium? Tinpot little bloody..

We should all be dead! We lucked out IT WAS LUCK

On a personal note, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Nelson. NCAP salutes your vigour
All these things should be taken in context. Had this conflict happened in 1963 then I'm sure you could potentially have seen something far worse... Though luckily for us, this isn't the Cold War.

And thanks, I guess. It's good to discuss things with young people from my general area in the world.

also, it's a pretty vindicating feeling when political analysts come up with the same conclusions that you do.
 

1947

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Notice how all those houses hit were on the edges of military bases and airports? The Russians aren't wasting million dollar smart bombs on Georgia when a couple thousand dollar conventional bomb will work. Georgia, on the other hand, rather indiscriminatly shelled Tishkinvalli, but you don't feel like commenting on that? Much easier to pick on the "commies".

aren't wasting millions of dollars you say is that because they are still reeling from the break up of the USSR in 1990 or that they can't afford to compete with the americans as they did before. as for spending millions please feel free to inspect the coffers of the oligarchs that rule russia
oh of course i forgot why care about the collateral damage after all given russia's appaling human rights record a few thousands dead here and there won't make a difference. i suppose a hospital or a school or a home if its georgian can be considered a military base


And your next comment shows you as a buffoon. Russia has won this war. The Georgians were regrouping outside of their capital for the inevitable final attack when the Russians decided they'd gained enough.

russia didn't win the war it was a diplomatic stunt. medvedev the kremlins and putin's puppet announced end of hostilities before it could look like that ruusia was bowing down to western pressure. ain't that so special the russians attack chechnya when they threaten to break away but support south ossetians when they want to breakaway from geogia care to comment on your defence of russia's brilliant double standards.

on the other hand russia couldn't afford to be dragged into an afghanistan style proxy as it did in 1980 funded by america and supported by the ex-soviet states and im sure handing out russian passports to people in an area under the control of peace keepers is repecting that nations sovereignty. for georgia is only one of many places embroiled in conflict and crisis created by the kremlin moldova transnistreia chechnya ukhraine baltic states just to name a few.
 
Last edited:

1947

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Admiral Nelson said:
Give the Russians about ten years to complete their re-armament project and basically everything they'll have will be near par with the west, twice as affordable and four times easier to maintain. The amount of petro-dollars they're spending is amazing, and their stealth fighter is due into production around 2010, marking the last real gap between the US and Russia.
hmm yes with suspiscion and hidden tensions between russia and china im sure russia is more than willing to dig their own grave and supply the chinese with top of the range weapons russian will never be on par with americans neither in the near nor the the forseeable future. as for maintainability of russian weapons ill give you a classic example of india which ordered a third aircraft carrier from russia a couple of year ago the deal has gone over the budget and the arrival of the vessel admiral gorshkov has delayed by years.
as for the PAK FA fighter jet only time will tell if it will match the F22 given russia's history of cutting corners and chronic shortages in funding since the 1990's
 

Admiral Nelson

Generalfeldmarschall
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
132
Location
The Shire
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
1947 said:
aren't wasting millions of dollars you say is that because they are still reeling from the break up of the USSR in 1990 or that they can't afford to compete with the americans as they did before. as for spending millions please feel free to inspect the coffers of the oligarchs that rule russia
oh of course i forgot why care about the collateral damage after all given russia's appaling human rights record a few thousands dead here and there won't make a difference. im suppose a hospital or a school or a home can be considered a military base
I meant that the Russians have always been a people who get the job done as easy and simply as possible. In this circumstance, there's no point exhausting their stockpile of expensive and high quality guided munitions when the thousands of tonnes of mostly ex-Soviet dumb weaponry is sittying in storerooms across Russia just waiting to be thrown out when they reach their expiration date. Georgian civillian deaths are reportedly less than one hundred, and no schools or hospitals have been hit to my knowledge. Considering that there are apparently 2,000 South Ossetian deaths, I'd say that the Russians have been very good with collateral damage. The Georgians actually shelled the city proper, where as atleast Russia aimed for military targets, even if it didn't get a perfect hit rate.


russia didn't win the war it was a diplomatic stunt. medvedev the kremlins and putin's puppet announced end of hostilities before it could look like that ruusia was bowing down to western pressure. ain't that so special the russians attack chechnya when they threaten to break away but support south ossetians when they want to breakaway from geogia care to comment on your defence of russia's brilliant double standards.
Western pressure? What pressure is that? Bush's "stop or our relations will be badly damaged" threat? That's not pressure. It's a convenient time to call the peace, as they've already gotten what they wanted, and make it still look like they were part of the international community. If you honestly think the West stopped the Russians, you're deluded.

And Russia's double standard? How about America's. The West bought this down on Georgia by recognising Kosovo. And let me tell you this, and write this down, double standards are a fact of international diplomacy. Every nation has them. It's just when you're a superpower, you can make your double standards far bigger and more noticeable, ala America and Russia. Similarly, respecting the sovereignty of other nations is a guideline for such nations, and they will readily forgo such a stance whenever it suits them. Soveriegnty means nil when it's not in their best interests.

hmm yes with suspiscion and hidden tensions between russia and china im sure russia is more than willing to dig their own grave and supply the chinese with top of the range weapons russian will never be on par with americans neither in the near nor the the forseeable future. as for maintainability of russian weapons ill give you a classic example of india which ordered a third aircraft carrier from russia a couple of year ago the deal has gone over the budget and the arrival of the vessel admiral gorshkov has delayed by years.
as for the PAK FA fighter jet only time will tell if it will match the F22 given russia's history of cutting corners and chronic shortages in funding since the 1990's
Russia is supplying top of the range weapons to China. They've conducted large scale military manoeuvres in the past year, actually. The Sino-Soviet rift is well and truly gone, and if anything, China and Russia are actually closer to allying each other than fighting. It should be noted that this is a temporary thing, as China is finally getting a military complex that matches the size of its military, though Russian assistance is proving vital. Russian weapons are very much as dangerous as American military hardware when given equal training, the difference is that the Americans usually have far more. Again, the increased military budget of the Russians is allowing this gap to close. Though you're right, Russian equipment and training will never be quite as good as the Americans, but that's because one in two dollars spent on the military in the entire world is spent by the United States.

And the aircraft carrier is a different story. The Admiral Goshkov had been mothballed for many years and not maintained simply because the Russians had no use for it, not at all dissimilar from what the Americans do with their ships. When they finally got a buyer the ship wasn't in the best of conditions purely because there was no point in maintaining an expensive ship with no use for it. And you don't mention that the Indians are heavily modifying it, which is where the majority of the contstruction and refurbishment time is going. Plus, the Russian's aren't reknowned for their ships for a reason, that mostly being they were never of the highest quality. Most of the budget of the USSR's navy went into the submarine force.

Also, Russia's military budget has increased by 25% in the last three years. Shortages of funding are becoming less and less each day. Also note that many US programs claim "a shortage of funding" too, so it's all relative.
 
Last edited:

1947

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I meant that the Russians have always been a people who get the job done as easy and simply as possible. In this circumstance, there's no point exhausting their stockpile of expensive and high quality guided munitions when the thousands of tonnes of mostly ex-Soviet dumb weaponry is sittying in storerooms across Russia just waiting to be thrown out when they reach their expiration date. Georgian civillian deaths are reportedly less than one hundred, and no schools or hospitals have been hit to my knowledge. Considering that there are apparently 2,000 South Ossetian deaths, I'd say that the Russians have been very good with collateral damage. The Georgians actually shelled the city proper, where as atleast Russia aimed for military targets, even if it didn't get a perfect hit rate.

of course just one thing where exactly do u get your news from?
russia has been continually shelling georgia civilian and military targets. and what a way to dispos eof faulty weaponary than in a war well this won't be the last time we will hear of children or adults being blown to bits by faulty bombs lying around. the 2000 south ossetians dead is more around 3000 and not all of them have been killed by georgian forces thanks to the sheer brilliance of russian strategry of blindly bombing anything and everything the causalties had increased.



Western pressure? What pressure is that? Bush's "stop or our relations will be badly damaged" threat? That's not pressure. It's a convenient time to call the peace, as they've already gotten what they wanted, and make it still look like they were part of the international community. If you honestly think the West stopped the Russians, you're deluded.

And Russia's double standard? How about America's. The West bought this down on Georgia by recognising Kosovo. And let me tell you this, and write this down, double standards are a fact of international diplomacy. Every nation has them. It's just when you're a superpower, you can make your double standards far bigger and more noticeable, ala America and Russia. Similarly, respecting the sovereignty of other nations is a guideline for such nations, and they will readily forgo such a stance whenever it suits them. Soveriegnty means nil when it's not in their best interests.[/quote]

russia can't afford to be in the bad books of america or any other western nations for that matter. look how quickly russia called off the offensive when nicolas sarkosy flew into moscow. kosovo deserved independence after the atrocities of the wars which saw thousands systematically murdered. soveriegnity and double standards even when used by america is used by the international community to rein america back in line to acceptable behaviour.
russia couldn't afford to be dragged into an american funded proxy cold war for all the chest beating bravado of putin, the kremlin and the russian army the truth is russia has too much lose of engaging the west in covert wars
 

1947

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Russia is supplying top of the range weapons to China. They've conducted large scale military manoeuvres in the past year, actually. The Sino-Soviet rift is well and truly gone, and if anything, China and Russia are actually closer to allying each other than fighting. It should be noted that this is a temporary thing, as China is finally getting a military complex that matches the size of its military, though Russian assistance is proving vital. Russian weapons are very much as dangerous as American military hardware when given equal training, the difference is that the Americans usually have far more. Again, the increased military budget of the Russians is allowing this gap to close. Though you're right, Russian equipment and training will never be quite as good as the Americans, but that's because one in two dollars spent on the military in the entire world is spent by the United States.

your dreaming china is grown too big a nation and superpower for russia to handle the PLA may not yet be able to match the russian nuclear capability of advanced technology but it has more than enough economic resouce to shake russia up. russian weapons were at a time in the past close to american technology the mig is a testament to that but russian supremacy is long gone. russia can increase its budget as much as it wants but with a dwarfed economy and growing military industrial complexs in china and india and various other specialist nations like israel and germany russia is loseing its enormous grip on the defence industry.

And the aircraft carrier is a different story. The Admiral Goshkov had been mothballed for many years and not maintained simply because the Russians had no use for it, not at all dissimilar from what the Americans do with their ships. When they finally got a buyer the ship wasn't in the best of conditions purely because there was no point in maintaining an expensive ship with no use for it. And you don't mention that the Indians are heavily modifying it, which is where the majority of the contstruction and refurbishment time is going. Plus, the Russian's aren't reknowned for their ships for a reason, that mostly being they were never of the highest quality. Most of the budget of the USSR's navy went into the submarine force.

well there's your answer to the alleged superiority and reliability of russian weaponary modern warfare isn't just about numbers and an army, the air force and especially the navy play a crucial role you also have logistics and electronic warfare. russia has been falling back since the 80's in almost all of these fields. the indian haven't heavily modified the ship they have just order more mordern weaponary (which if i guessed right is SU 27's or SU 30's) which i must say again like the rest of the IAF is 80% soviet weponary is under a massive mordernisation campaign that has see a whole host of american and europen weaponary enetr into service such is the reliability of russian weaponary that they had to turn to american and europeans to mordernise their forces



Also, Russia's military budget has increased by 25% in the last three years. Shortages of funding are becoming less and less each day. Also note that many US programs claim "a shortage of funding" too, so it's all relative.

an increase of 25% is a lot for an economy still recovering from the break up of the soviet union while america with an annual income of 17 billion a shortage in funding is due to war in iraq which like al wars is a drain on the economy with no return whatsoever.
 

Admiral Nelson

Generalfeldmarschall
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
132
Location
The Shire
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
1947 said:
russia can't afford to be in the bad books of america or any other western nations for that matter. look how quickly russia called off the offensive when nicolas sarkosy flew into moscow. kosovo deserved independence after the atrocities of the wars which saw thousands systematically murdered. soveriegnity and double standards even when used by america is used by the international community to rein america back in line to acceptable behaviour.
russia couldn't afford to be dragged into an american funded proxy cold war for all the chest beating bravado of putin, the kremlin and the russian army the truth is russia has too much lose of engaging the west in covert wars
Russia. Won. This. War. I've said it ten times, this is the last. Russia has nothing to lose from the Western war of words. It ended the war because it won, and the international attempts at peace were the perfect way to look like they were playing the world's game. It's as simple as that. It's the way it is.

your dreaming china is grown too big a nation and superpower for russia to handle the PLA may not yet be able to match the russian nuclear capability of advanced technology but it has more than enough economic resouce to shake russia up. russian weapons were at a time in the past close to american technology the mig is a testament to that but russian supremacy is long gone. russia can increase its budget as much as it wants but with a dwarfed economy and growing military industrial complexs in china and india and various other specialist nations like israel and germany russia is loseing its enormous grip on the defence industry.[/q]

Yes, and I'm sure New Guinea would lose a war to Australia. It counts for nil because it's not going to happen. Russian weapons sales accounts for 30% of the world's total, and has been the same roughly for the last decade. It is the single largest supplier of arms.

[q]well there's your answer to the alleged superiority and reliability of russian weaponary modern warfare isn't just about numbers and an army, the air force and especially the navy play a crucial role you also have logistics and electronic warfare. russia has been falling back since the 80's in almost all of these fields. the indian haven't heavily modified the ship they have just order more mordern weaponary (which if i guessed right is SU 27's or SU 30's) which i must say again like the rest of the IAF is 80% soviet weponary is under a massive mordernisation campaign that has see a whole host of american and europen weaponary enetr into service such is the reliability of russian weaponary that they had to turn to american and europeans to mordernise their forces[/q]

The navy plays a jack shit role in Russian tactics. It's main concern is it's submarine force, which it is a technology leader in alongside the US and has produced and is producing some of the world's best submarines. Russia's surface fleet has and will always play a secondary role. Add on to this the age of a surface fleet is passing, and you've a reason. I won't debate that though, you're not seeming to grasp some simple ideas so I won't add on complex theoritical military strategy.

Russian reliability isn't an opinion on my behalf, it's a fact. It's widely acknowledged by the Americans at that. The Indians have asked the Russians to completely overhaul all the electronics and mechanics on the ship, as well as modify the runway. It takes a lot of time. India sees that in certain roles Western combat aircraft are more relevent to it's needs, and in others, the Russian jets are what they need. The fact they're ordering a Russian carrier and jets when there are more than a few ex-American ones mothballed says something.
 

HNAKXR

Wooooooo...OOOoOOOOoOOoP!
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
296
Location
safe
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
YAY thread wars

sadly i'm one of those cant be f..ed individuals
 

Mumma

Member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
586
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
http://news.smh.com.au/world/russia-trying-to-take-georgian-capital-20080813-3u9w.html

Russia 'trying to take Georgian capital'

August 13, 2008 - 10:57PM

Russian forces are moving towards the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, and trying to encircle the city, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told CNN.

"The Russians are encroaching upon the capital. They are making a circle," Saakashvili said, adding: "We will protect our capital until the last drop of our blood.

"We will never surrender to the Russians," the Georgian leader said, adding that Georgian forces were stationed in and around Tbilisi and vowing an "all-out resistance" to the Russian forces.

His comments came just hours after French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Russia and Georgia had agreed a fragile ceasefire after five days of bitter conflict.

Russia however has accused Georgia of failing to pursue an "active withdrawal" from South Ossetia.

"Georgian forces have begun their pull-back toward Tbilisi but no active withdrawal has yet been observed," General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the staff of the armed forces, told reporters.

Russia sent its military forces into Georgia's rebel region of South Ossetia on Friday, after Tbilisi launched an operation to regain control of the pro-Moscow separatist area.

Saakashvili on Wednesday denied that Georgia had triggered the fighting by its actions, saying Georgian forces had only retaliated after first being fired on by Russian troops.

He also lashed out at his ally, the United States, saying that early comments on the Russian attacks had not been tough enough.

"Well, frankly, some of the first statements from Washington were perceived by the Russians almost as a green light for doing this because they were too soft. Russians don't understand that kind of soft language," Saakashvili said.
 

MissSarajevo

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
251
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Admiral Nelson said:
Goes to show you how "terrified" Russia is of the West.
President George W Bush has said the US will use military aircraft and naval forces to deliver aid to Georgia following its conflict with Russia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7559252.stm

Show's America can take on Russia right in its home turf.


And the aircraft carrier is a different story. The Admiral Goshkov had been mothballed for many years and not maintained simply because the Russians had no use for it
More like POOR trash russia cannot afford to build an Aircraft carrier, its a build or starve decision for russia where most of the population are living below poverty.

Russia won a war a gainst Georgia, thats how GREAT Russian military is LOL!:lol:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top