Russia-Georgia Conflict: News From the War zone
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Status
Grand Danois
Entertainer
And some don't have nukes, some don't have fighters, some don't have tanks...
Curiously, when discussion BMD I'm reminded by this rhyme by Belloc:
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
He was referring to the use of the machine gun in colonial wars, of course.
Anyhow, I fail to see the problem. Doesn't Moscow have S-400 (and S-300 with nuke warheads)? - That has the look and taste of BMD.
Of course. Russia just doesn't have the economy to compete in development of modern BMD systems. Hence the valid security concern. And the fact that the U.S. is refusing to acknowledge this security concern is certainly not helping. Anyways we'll have to wait for the S-400M/S-500 Samoderzhets which is meant to be a full purpose BMD component.
Here's an interesting article on the politics behind the Georgian conflict.
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/09/west-distances-itself-from-saakashvili.html
Here's an interesting article on the politics behind the Georgian conflict.
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/09/west-distances-itself-from-saakashvili.html
GD has a valid point here.
Why should anybody care about if Russia is not able to develop and build an own BMD system?
There are dozens of nations out there, alot of 1st world included, which don't have nukes.
Does Russia cares about them not having nukes?
No.
So why should the west think about Russia while building a BMD capability against rouge countries?
Why should anybody care about if Russia is not able to develop and build an own BMD system?
There are dozens of nations out there, alot of 1st world included, which don't have nukes.
Does Russia cares about them not having nukes?
No.
So why should the west think about Russia while building a BMD capability against rouge countries?
Because countries that have good relations and want to have good relations should take each others security concerns into account. For example Russia took Israeli security concerns into account and at the last minute refused to sell S-300 systems to Syria. It could have upset the regional balance. Israel took Russian security concerns into account and cut most military cooperation with Georgia last year. When you don't take the security concerns of other nations into account, don't be surprised that those nations are slightly upset and in return refuse to cooperate on your security concerns (ex. Iranian nuclear issue).
Feanor, I couldn't say it better myself!
They offered to use/upgrade radars in Southern Russia as well- that offer was rejected.
Russia may eventually deploy her BMD around most valuable assets, not just Moscow, but given her huge size it will be very costly to cover the whole territory.
The Russian military doctrine states that non-nuclear states may be attacked if they are allied to nuclear weapon states. This implies that if they are neutral, they won't be nuked by Russia. Of course, no normal leader of a non-nuclear state would provoke/attack nuclear armed Russia, unless its a rogue little country that hopes to be backed by NATO and/or the US.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/ames
As for "Iran threat", that nation will most likely retaliate not by sending BMs to Europe, but by sending suicide bombers and S/IRBMs on American/Israeli interests in the ME. Hell, even Israel buys Iranian oil trough intermidiaries!
They offered to use/upgrade radars in Southern Russia as well- that offer was rejected.
Russia may eventually deploy her BMD around most valuable assets, not just Moscow, but given her huge size it will be very costly to cover the whole territory.
The Russian military doctrine states that non-nuclear states may be attacked if they are allied to nuclear weapon states. This implies that if they are neutral, they won't be nuked by Russia. Of course, no normal leader of a non-nuclear state would provoke/attack nuclear armed Russia, unless its a rogue little country that hopes to be backed by NATO and/or the US.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/ames
As for "Iran threat", that nation will most likely retaliate not by sending BMs to Europe, but by sending suicide bombers and S/IRBMs on American/Israeli interests in the ME. Hell, even Israel buys Iranian oil trough intermidiaries!
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Russia only need conventional forces to attack non-nuclear states.
Btw, see my reply to the radar in Azerbaijan in an earlier post.
I've seen it. If they were serious, and cared to take Russian concerns into consideration, that offer would have been accepted, or the US could have counteroffered to build its own BMD system in Russia, but aimed at Iran only.
Also, Russia suggested to base interceptors at sea- some USN SSBNs (not to mention CGs that can now shoot down sattelites) could be modified for that purpose and deployed to the N.Atlantic, Black & Med. Seas.
http://antiwar.printthis.clickabili...war.com/prather/?articleid=13453&partnerID=16
Saakashvili "planned S. Ossetia invasion" -ex-minister
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LD123780.htm
Also, Russia suggested to base interceptors at sea- some USN SSBNs (not to mention CGs that can now shoot down sattelites) could be modified for that purpose and deployed to the N.Atlantic, Black & Med. Seas.
http://antiwar.printthis.clickabili...war.com/prather/?articleid=13453&partnerID=16
Saakashvili "planned S. Ossetia invasion" -ex-minister
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LD123780.htm
Last edited:
Russia underestimated Georgian air defenses
Just found this new article about how Russia underestimated Georgian air defenses. It claims I quote:
Can anybody confirm this never heard of Russian helicopters being shot down before in this conflict.
thanks
Link to article
Russia underestimated Georgian air defenses
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/airforce_georgia_uav_091608/
Just found this new article about how Russia underestimated Georgian air defenses. It claims I quote:
Can anybody confirm this never heard of Russian helicopters being shot down before in this conflict.
thanks
Link to article
Russia underestimated Georgian air defenses
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/airforce_georgia_uav_091608/
Sampanviking
Banned Member
That may be the case for Western European cities, but what about major Russian ones? If the test was to see if the US was in any way of assisting the security of its Russian "partners" I would say that it demonstrated a very clear result.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The radar is useless to protect W and C Europe. To cover the arc from Pakistan to Libya you need the current layout.
Iran is a metaphor to make a complex argument comprehensible.
I'm not aware of the Russian proposal - your link leads to some semi-nuttish antiwar page.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
There where discussions about creating a joint BMD in the Clinton years. The Russian position was that the Russian BMD should be extended into Europe; built by the Russians, funded by NATO. This idea was still-born, of course. The confidence hadn't been built up and even if it had, no one was going to pour double or triple digits of billions of dollars into the Russian arms industry, especially not when it can be poured into your own. Also the interest in a BMD in the West wasn't that great at the time - it was the time of the peace dividend.
I'm not sure, but I actually think radar pictures are being shared as a result of those talks.
Later suggestions and proposals have not been genuine, being used as spoilers and polluters.
Huh? Putin wasn't serious, so there was no test - only a PR stunt. He knew he would get a no - the radar was unsuited, and even if it accepted as an adjunct system, it wouldn't have cancelled the need for the radar in Europe.
It was a win-win for Putin - either he would succesfully sabotage a BMD for Europe or he would win domestic pr points and pollute the politics around BMD.
And by the way, the concept of making such a "test" when there isn't decades of trust and confidence between the partners is a complete strawman.
OK, what is so special about Poland's location? Interceptors placed in Norway, Iceland, Scotland or Greenland could be just as effective, but farther away from Russia's borders.
http://www.myoops.org/twocw/mit/NR/...F3B-405A-A56C-E873D16326C2/0/chp_w_europe.jpg
Yes, I remember Putin mentioned seabased BMD as an alternative. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/09/europe/EU-GEN-Germany-G-8-Russia.php
I hope you'll enjoy this expose-
Georgian “democracy” owes more to Josef Stalin than Thomas Jefferson
http://www.amconmag.com/print.html?Id=AmConservative-2008sep22-00008
Georgia in NATO?
http://www.counterpunch.org/breyman09122008.html
There will be many other shoes dropping!-
Recognise Georgian regions says Ukraine's Crimea
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=355278
flanx
New Member
Wow first time to post here... after a month of lurking around here..
From the beginning of the conflict.. I'm thinking that the Georgian Leader is just twisting the fact and lying to the world through western media..
Its like a boomerang to him now..
Grand Danois
Entertainer
No they wouldn't - the alternatives would have been N Germany (not politically possible), Denmark, Lithuania. Poland - best choice. Sorry.
Ah, thanks. I thought you were talking about converted SSBN. No. You can't use missiles stationed in Turkey for protecting European cities. Response times are simply to short and the BMs will fly overhead. Stationing AEGIS/SM-3 in the Black Sea and Aegean Sea is an option, though.
I was and is not a fan of Saakashvilii. So you can't bait me to go for his defence. Only fact that remains is that NATO has made it clear that Russia has no veto on Georgian and Ukrainian membership; it is up to the people and govt of those countries. And this is not a bad thing for Russia - perhaps they will be next. They'll need it.
Here's a little appetizer that'll make you read it.
Russia’s armed forces
Advancing, blindly
“Russian forces are not modern. Some of their weapons date back to the 1960s and 1970s. But that does not mean they cannot kill you,” says Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian defence writer for Novaya Gazeta, a newspaper. The Russians may not be a match for even a medium-sized Western army, say experts, but they are good enough to scare the poor, post-Soviet states in the “near abroad”.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12262231
Cheers
The information is unofficial, but seems to be true. It was also reported by newsru.com and a few other sites, and generally MDB is fairly reliable.
Grand Danois I think this argument is running into a dead end. Firehorse is rather pro-Putin (as far as I can tell) and refuses to recognize that Mr. Putin is essentially a corrupt authoritarian figure intent on consolidating the power of the energy structures (primarily the gas sectory) that he represents.
Despite this, it's quite obvious what the problem with BMD proliferation is, and why practically any Russian leader (except for one bending over backwards to please America) would object to it's development. You can justify it's existence easily, but that's not the point. It's not a matter of justifying this BMD. It's a matter of justifying exiting out of the BMD treaty, and beginning unchecked development of the systems. If a limited size system is needed against rogue states, why not sign a new treaty limiting number of missile defense radars, and number of interceptors. You only need 10-100 interceptors against Iran, at most. You'd need many more against Russia. So if interceptors were capped at say 250 units, then if 10-20 (give some for future growth) are pointed at Iran, and maybe another 30-50 at North Korea, that leaves a maximum of 200 to point at Russia. Less then the number of Russian ICBMs and practically never to be increased. Russia's happy. Europe's happy. America's happy. Assuming that America really does only want BMD against rogue states. Or do we all understand that the USA may only be building BMD against Iran now, but certainly plans to point them at Russia, China, and other countries?
EDIT: Grand Danois the article you linked to is a dead link.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I think you're right. I'll let it go.
First a technical injection. The GBI has a mid-term spiral development allowing for intercept of multiple incoming warheads - sort of a "MIRV'ed" interceptor. Second, I believe Russia is capable of building a credible, not a perfect, BMD. The problem is less about Russian technical capability but more about geography.
For such deals to work, you need several things. Principally opportunity and trust. That comes before technical and political relevance. Opportunity went down OIF, IMV. Not Serbia, not BMD, but Iraq. It takes decades to build trust when talking about a former foe and it is questionable if the required trust was ever there.
I don't think we over time will see the US continue to go it alone, though they are currently on a "We can do it - alone" powerdrive. There will be windows of opportunity which is why confidence building measures are a most important, not much recognised tool. And this tool has now been emasculated by:
Russia withdrawing from cooperation with NATO
EU deferring that trade deal
US shelving a nuclear deal
<<etc.>>
If just Russia had slapped Georgia over the wrist instead exploiting the situation - only made their stay in Georgia proper a short stay, not recognised SO & ABK - Russia could have gone away with a military and prestige victory.
Instead everybody is growing anxieties about what the Russians are up to.
Let me give you an example: Russia signed UNCLOS a couple of years ago and this year they reaffirmed by signing a declaration at Illulisat. Now, yesterday Medvedev starts talking about a new security strategy for the arctic; it might be that this will defined inside the UNCLOS framework (seeking solution) and it's just rethorics, or it might be that we'll see another zero-sum spoiling strategy (seeking advantage). We'll have to wait untill December, then we'll know.
Anyhow, Georgia is seen as an example of Russia seeking advantage, not solution, for many reasons, and does not exactly build confidence and the necessary trust.
There are many failures along the way. One of them are "Old Europes" failure to take "New Europes" real or percieved security concerns seriously. They had better opportunity to cater this concern without feeding the real or percieved Russian concerns about being encircled by the US. They didn't and logically the US moved into the "vacuum" as those states turned for partners.
In brief: I don't think a technical agreement like SALT is the solution here - cooperation on trust and confidence building - e.g. informal coordination and shared data on BMD.
It works for me, but here it is again.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12262231
Yes, I thought about Denmark too. But Norway is also directly North/NW of Poland. AEGIS/SM-3 SGs could be stationed in the Norwegian/North Sea/GIUKG (Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap) as well, as could SSBNs (Scotland already has a base for them) loaded with interceptors instead of BMs. Having 14 boomers now, I'm sure that about 10 of them would be more than enough for deterrance, and convert the rest for BMD role. Seabased BMD is limited to the number of interceptors, and the destroyed BM debries won't be falling on populated areas. For this reason, Bolgaria and Romania are also better alternatives- debries will fall into the Black Sea. But basing interceptors in Poland will potentially allow to engage most of the BMs launched from European part of Russia. To counter that, they'll have to build their fixed ICBM silos farther N/NE, which is costly.
Culturally Russia is very different from the rest of Europe, so they don't see any need/benefit in joining NATO in its current form, by any stretch, sorry.
I'm not pro-anything, but objectively speaking, I see the bigger picture.
So what, Russian military isn't the best. Afghanistan and Joan Paul II helped to bury the Soviet empire, but the France/US/NATO basically lost in Vietnam, didn't win in Korea, and now in the process of loosing in Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan.
It's not a question of developing a joint system. It was just a matter of signing an updated version of the previous BMD treaty. Or for that matter, there was no need to exit out of the previous treaty. The previous treaty allowed for one major BMD defense zone for both Russia and the USA. Russia used ours around Moscow. The USA could have used up it's one on Europe.
The conflict in Georgia certainly didn't help. I still think it's a game of who gets it first. The ex-USSR that is. If Russia continues to rise, then it may well outpace NATO plans in the region, and reclaim at least some influence. If NATO membership is pushed through at maximum pace, then Russia may not be able to re-assert itself fast enough. In such a situation there is no win-win. Only a win-lose.
Probably. But on the other hand, the Orange coalition in Ukraine might've not collapsed to willingly. And Saakashvili might not be as much below as he is right now. Though to be honest I agree with you. Crossing the S. Ossetian border was a mistake.
Russia is once again trying to reclaim it's ex-Soviet sphere, this time just in the Arctic. Nothing strange, nothing surprising. Whether it will happen within an existing framework or not depends on how willing other members in the region are to carve up the territory, and let Russia have our share.
Old Europe isn't interested in protecting/babysitting new europe. They showed that rather clearly.
It's not about shared data, it's about balance of power. The BMD disrupts, or has the potential, to disrupt this balance. That's the main problem with it.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Russia wouldn't use ICBM to target Europe. GBI is really for ICBM, You'd use SM-3 or THAADs for IRBM.
AEGIS/SM-3/GBI won't have the range or time to intercept from the North Sea if the targets come from the south. However, they will be better positioned to target Russian BMs.
You're disgressing but I'll respond with my opinion - no reason to respond on your part. Iraq looks to be a partial success, though still up. Afghanistan can go both ways. Pakistan? Huh, doesn't belong in this category. NATO never was in Vietnam. I don't know why things always have to be relativised with the West.
NATO? Russia will reconsider when wedged in between giants, with a population of 70 mn and no more oil... all 40 years from now.
Remember what brought the USSR down: Centralised command economy, burden of empire, competition with the West (and a run-away MIC, as ex-Warpac generals acknowledge).
The big picture.
Last edited:
- Status