Russia-Georgia Conflict: News From the War zone

[Grand Danois]

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.

You won't get balance, because Russia is not that big a player.

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.

I think the reverse - the more time passes the more it is favour of the West. If Russia doesn't get pretext, it is just a matter of waiting it out. Of course, Russia will have to create a pretext - that is after all what a pretext is.

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.

If settled by arbitration, is that not Russias share? Or is it solely defined in Kremlin?

Old Europe isn't interested in protecting/babysitting new europe. They showed that rather clearly.

To be precise, when I say "Old Europe" I'm thinking about "Core Europe", not Atlanticist Europe. But yes, and that is why they should not be whinge that the US gained influence - their own inactivity led to it.

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.

Balance of power? Russia will have to spend more than 75% of GDP to match NATO! Not much to hang such demands up on.

 

[Firehorse]

Take a look at this map, it's self explanatory -
http://bp3.blogger.com/_1ymr9DLlsXw...Y/L_SGTAZpJRs/s1600-h/anti-missile-map-sl.jpg
Only ICBMs near Mongolia & lake Baikal aren't in range of the radars.

I meant USA/France in Vietnam, and BTW both are in NATO. Iraq won't be under US control (and never really was) anymore, if you been following the news, the same goes for the other areas. They may all fall apart and reshuffle their colonial era borders pretty soon.
Russia may have oil for 100s of years- the "fossil origin of oil" theory isn't correct- they were drilling in areas not likely to have oil and finding plenty of it.

 

[Grand Danois]

Take a look at this map, it's self explanatory -
http://bp3.blogger.com/_1ymr9DLlsXw...Y/L_SGTAZpJRs/s1600-h/anti-missile-map-sl.jpg
Only ICBMs near Mongolia & lake Baikal aren't in range of the radars.

I know. It was I who suggested that you looked at a map when you said that a radar in Poland threatened Russian deterrence.

I meant USA/France in Vietnam, and BTW both are in NATO. Iraq won't be under US control (and never really was) anymore, if you been following the news, the same goes for the other areas. They may all fall apart and reshuffle their colonial era borders pretty soon.

It is because I've been following the news that I said what I said.

The objective was to create a democratic Iraq in the model of Turkey. And it will be for the best if the US dosn't get any bases.

But let us not divert on topic anymore.

 

[kato]

What should be notable is that the way it's going, the EU alone will soon have (or already has by some accounts) more active deployed nuclear weapon systems than Russia - even with the announced moderate French cuts in that regard. And actually has a declared first-strike policy.

Btw: The US gaining influence in New Europe? I don't really "feel" that at the moment.
Perhaps in Poland and Ukraine, but the first has clashed with Old Europe before already, and the second isn't even in most West European political sights. And Ukraine is slowly shaking back towards a pro-Russian government even. Slovakia and the Czech Republic? One is a backwards agrarian country with hefty internal problems by Old Europe standards, and in the other the conflict has actually managed to gain a more defined anti-US stance in the opposition, while initiating a near-philosophical debate of the relations with Russia in the past... 100 years or so.
Also, look at how for example Romania and Bulgaria have actually used the Georgia conflict somewhat to align themselves with Old Europe while not diminishing their rapport with Russia.

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.

Errr... no.

The ABMT strictly limited the defense zones by defended target, and allowed exactly two zones for each side: one centered on the capital, deployed within a 150 km diameter, and one centered on a ICBM silo complex, also within a 150 km diameter. With both zones limited to 100 interceptors each.

The only ICBM silo complex in NATO Europe was dismantled in 1998.

 

[Firehorse]

Radar isn't in Poland, interceptors are. And as stated before, not only Iran is in range of both- all of N.Africa (including Sudan), the ME, Pakistan, and even small parts of N.India & W.China! And as anyone can clearly see, N. Atlantic W/NW of Scotland, around Iceland & Greenland (it and Norway already host EW radars) isn't any less well situated for BMD purposes.
Edit: Here is even a better map-
http://web.stratfor.com/images/northamerica/art/nkorea-iran-range_209.jpg

Poland's location is no better than Scotland, Shetland Islands, Iceland, or the sea in between. IMO, it was choosen for political reasons, and will be more costly as the Poles demanded help with their military modernization in exchange.
So, Georgia situation must be viewed in the context of the new great game in Eurasia. Russia will defend her interests as she understands them.

 

[Grand Danois]

Radar isn't in Poland, interceptors are.

Got me there.

 

[Grand Danois]

What should be notable is that the way it's going, the EU alone will soon have (or already has by some accounts) more active deployed nuclear weapon systems than Russia - even with the announced moderate French cuts in that regard.

And Russian stockpiles are going down with a 1,000 a year.

Btw: The US gaining influence in New Europe? I don't really "feel" that at the moment.
Perhaps in Poland and Ukraine, but the first has clashed with Old Europe before already, and the second isn't even in most West European political sights. And Ukraine is slowly shaking back towards a pro-Russian government even. Slovakia and the Czech Republic? One is a backwards agrarian country with hefty internal problems by Old Europe standards, and in the other the conflict has actually managed to gain a more defined anti-US stance in the opposition, while initiating a near-philosophical debate of the relations with Russia in the past... 100 years or so.
Also, look at how for example Romania and Bulgaria have actually used the Georgia conflict somewhat to align themselves with Old Europe while not diminishing their rapport with Russia.

I'm not including Ukraine in my prev. I'm not really adressing current events but the window of opportunity. The Czechs joined the BMD today* and it will be interesting to see what the Romanians will acquire with their fighter/SAM contract out. European or US... If they buy anything at all.

*http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/19/europe/EU-Britain-Czech-Defense.php

(if this is actually a full signing-up)

 

[swerve]

... Slovakia and the Czech Republic? One is a backwards agrarian country with hefty internal problems by Old Europe standards...

I don't think that a country with the highest per capita production of motor vehicles in the world can be considered a "backwards agrarian country". If agriculture accounts for less than 4% of GDP, & 5% of the workforce, can a country be considered agrarian?

 

[kato]

Have you ever seen Slovakia?

It essentially only consists of a single city with the usual 10% of the entire country's population, then its wider metro area... and otherwise a long highway leading east to Ukraine and eastern Hungary.
Next to that highway, the farmers are still pulling their plows with oxen, and as many horsecarts as cars in the streets of little, run-down villages. Even the transit highways through the GDR to Berlin in the 80s weren't as... crass.

The four eastern district take up somewhere around 70% of Slovakias territory, and, with mostly under 100 inhabitants per km², can be considered uninhabited by European standards - for comparison, the most sparse district in Germany has 109 people/km². And by density, the western regions aren't far ahead, but that's where the industry is located - in what would be considered the metro area of Bratislava by some Western standards (but isn't as it's not dense enough).

And for comparison... in Germany (which does have a huge agricultural industry), agriculture accounts for 0.8% of GDP and 2.8% of workforce. Slovakia's numbers put it on a level with Ireland, still one of the EU's relative agrarian countries.

 

[Feanor]

You won't get balance, because Russia is not that big a player.

Unfortunately for all involved, that's what Russia is after. If not parity, at least sufficient deterrent.

I think the reverse - the more time passes the more it is favour of the West. If Russia doesn't get pretext, it is just a matter of waiting it out. Of course, Russia will have to create a pretext - that is after all what a pretext is.

Time will tell.

If settled by arbitration, is that not Russias share? Or is it solely defined in Kremlin?

Of course arbitration is the preferred method of settlement. The main point is that Russia wants control of the northern sea path in the arctic, and associated energy resources. If arbitration will get us there, then arbitration it is.

To be precise, when I say "Old Europe" I'm thinking about "Core Europe", not Atlanticist Europe. But yes, and that is why they should not be whinge that the US gained influence - their own inactivity led to it.

So we agree.

Balance of power? Russia will have to spend more than 75% of GDP to match NATO! Not much to hang such demands up on.

Again, hence why the importance of nuclear deterrent and huge concern over the BMD. Russia will not give up effective nuclear deterrence without a huge fight. The USA seems to think that it's worth it. I doubt it.

 

[Firehorse]

And me too! Every time America tried to get military/strategic advantage over Russia during the Cold War, it failed. With this BMD scheme, the same thing will happen, and both will be back to square #1. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/jul-aug/wilson.html

BTW, the Russian doctrine was: in the event of a 1st US nuclear strike is to launch her ICBMs 5 min. (as I remember) before the impact/detonation- assuming the warning system worked. Now, their EWS is not as good, hence increased fear that the 1st strike will be a disarming one. In the meantime, US radars grow up like mushrooms after a rain everywhere around Russia.
Diplomats: Russian pull-out from Georgia not enough to resume talks
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/n...-out_from_Georgia_not_enough_to_resume_talks_

And they won't pull out of those new "independent" republics. They are now very much dependent on Russia for their security.

Russia envoy warns NATO on air space to Afghanistan
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=358113

I'm starting to watch the Afghan situation more closely- it may get worse before it gets better!

 

[gf0012-aust]

And me too! Every time America tried to get military/strategic advantage over Russia during the Cold War, it failed.

For goodness sake. Time and time again we have to suffer the nonsense that you dish out as statements of empirical fact when history shows otherwise.

The Soviet Union failed the end game - no "ifs", no "buts" and no maybe's

and for crying out loud, how ridiculous do you think you look when you cite 1969 articles to back up your ridiculous assertions.

You're a troll. I'm done with you.

Take another holiday - and preferably find another forum to pollute.

You're gone. (1 month). If you come back and do it again and it will be permanent.

IF you come back learn a few things:

• Don't troll for bait - you get banned
  Don't post inane unsupportable comments - you get banned
  Don't abuse and misuse citations - you look stupid and then get banned
  Don't ignore prev warnings about behaviour - you get banned
  Listen to what you were advised before - if you don't you get banned
  Do proper research - in context and not from some looney tune fringe site that fits your view of the world.
  
  

 

[Feanor]

Admin: Text deleted. As detailed in PM per below.

Feanor. It's not a public debate. I will PM you. This is not an item for discussion in here.

 

[swerve]

Have you ever seen Slovakia?

It essentially only consists of a single city with the usual 10% of the entire country's population, then its wider metro area... and otherwise a long highway leading east to Ukraine and eastern Hungary.
Next to that highway, the farmers are still pulling their plows with oxen, and as many horsecarts as cars in the streets of little, run-down villages. Even the transit highways through the GDR to Berlin in the 80s weren't as... crass.

The four eastern district take up somewhere around 70% of Slovakias territory, and, with mostly under 100 inhabitants per km², can be considered uninhabited by European standards - for comparison, the most sparse district in Germany has 109 people/km². And by density, the western regions aren't far ahead, but that's where the industry is located - in what would be considered the metro area of Bratislava by some Western standards (but isn't as it's not dense enough).

And for comparison... in Germany (which does have a huge agricultural industry), agriculture accounts for 0.8% of GDP and 2.8% of workforce. Slovakia's numbers put it on a level with Ireland, still one of the EU's relative agrarian countries.

What has population density got to do with anything? Are the USA, Australia, Canada, or Sweden "backward" because of their low population density?

Slovakia is poor - compared to the worlds richest countries. It's far above the world average. It has a higher proportion of its workforce in manufacturing than the EU average - more than France, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium . . . . As I said, the highest motor vehicle production in the world, in proportion to population. Less agrarian (in terms of agricultural employment) than Austria or Ireland, both of which are richer per head than Germany. Full-time employment in farming in Slovakia is about the same as employment in gas, electricity & water supply, less than half as many as in construction, about 25% of the total in wholesale & retail trade. Agrarian? Health indicators, e.g. infant mortality, lag behind the richest EU countries - it was the same last year as in the UK in 1996, or Germany in 1992, or Austria in 1994. Not soooo backward, eh? Rather better than the USA, in fact. (all figures Eurostat online database except US infant mortality).

BTW, in proportion to GDP, Germany is one of the least agricultural countries in the EU, & therefore the world, & with low agricultural productivity compared to countries at similar income levels (all those part-time farmers). You cannot say a country is "agrarian" because it is more so than Germany, one of the least agrarian countries in the world. That's like saying someone's short because he's only 1.8 metres tall, & you're 2 metres tall.

I think that perhaps you've never seen a truly poor country, or even Europes poorest corners, if you really think that Slovakia, an industrialised country, though a lower-rank one, is a "backward agrarian country".

 

[kato]

Although this is going vastly off-topic...

I think that perhaps you've never seen a truly poor country, or even Europes poorest corners, if you really think that Slovakia, an industrialised country, though a lower-rank one, is a "backward agrarian country".

The "truly poor" countries in Europe don't even pop on the radar when it comes to "relativity". Sure, Albania is poorer - Romania and Bulgaria are more agrarian - Ukraine is only a powerhouse in the primary sector - Belarus isn't even worth mentioning.
However, as you mentioned "Core Europe", i'm seeing it in comparison to that. Sure, it has its own more poor corners - Southern Italy, Portugal in particular. But most eastern European nations barely even approach those.

Sure, Skoda is concentrated there obviously (in the Western regions). Do those four Western regions combined (as the "stronger" part of Slovakia) compare in any way remotely to extremely-similar-sized, -populated and -structured regions such as the Metropolitan Region Hannover in Germany, the Toulouse metro in France, or the Greater Glasgow Area?

As you're quoting Eurostat, in 2004, Slovakia ranked at 56% of average EU GDP per inhabitant, not really high for the new eastern EU member states - roughly level with Estonia (55.7%) or, for a wider comparison, French Guyana (54.4%); considerably lower than the Czechs though (75.2%).

However, Bratislava by itself is at 129% (roughly level with the average for the UK), while the rest of the country ranks between 42.3% and 52.7%.

The lowest in "Western Europe" is Portugal Norte at 58.8%. In "Core Europe" (Germany, Benelux, France, Italy) the lowest is Sicilia at 67.3% - and that's already considered piss-poor.

I consider myself short at 1.83m btw. :

 

[swerve]

Skoda? That's in the Czech Republic. Slovakia has Peugeot-Citroen, Kia, Ford (transmissions) & Volkswagen that I know of. VW started there from scratch, independently of its takeover of Skoda, to build Golfs. It's only made Skodas since February this year. Only Volkswagen is in Bratislava.

GDP per capita, PPS, 2007 -

EU 100
Ireland 145.8
Germany 113.1
UK 115.8
Italy 101.4
Slovenia 88.7
Czech Republic 81.5
Portugal 74.8
Estonia 70.8
Slovakia 68.5 (ahead of 4 Portuguese, 5 Italian, 1 Spanish regions)
Hungary 63.5
Lithuania 60.3
Latvia 58.0
Croatia 55.9
Poland 53.8
Romania 40.7
Bulgaria 38.1
Makedonia 29.4

I'm puzzled as to why you have this thing about the backwardness & agrarian nature (that part is really puzzling) of Slovakia. It's an industrial country, & has been for decades. A relatively poor, & recently (post-WW2) industrialised one, but to class it as "agrarian" is comical.

The Bratislava regions GDP per head is artificially inflated by commuters from W. Slovakia (Západné Slovensko), so really they should be considered as a whole. Between them, they have about 45% of the population of Slovakia, & a GDP per capita in 2007 of roughly 90% of the EU average. That's a lot more than the east, which might qualify for your description, & if you'd said Slovakia has "backward regions", meaning the east, it would be harder to dispute. But you didn't.

 

[Tudor]

Also, look at how for example Romania and Bulgaria have actually used the Georgia conflict somewhat to align themselves with Old Europe while not diminishing their rapport with Russia.

I will speak only from Romanian perspective.
Romania, at least officially, is very pro-USA and more aligned with what Rumsfeld called New Europe.
Also don’t forget that the so called Romanian Revolution was carried out mainly by former USRR with agreements and help from others, including USA.

 

[nevidimka]

Btw, can the radar look that far into Russia like in the diagram? If it does, it certainly serves its dual purpose.
And I think stating Putin is doing this n that because he knows nothing will come out of it is mere speculation. Just like ppl can say US is saying Iran is the target of the radar but actually the primary target is Russia.

Also why would Russia want to station troops in the Radar facility? Didnt they actually wanted to station observers in the station which was rejected?

And the radar station in Azerbaijan may be old, but certainly it doesnt mean it cant be upgraded. And upgrading would be more cheaper than building a facility from scratch in Czech rep.

 

[Grand Danois]

Btw, can the radar look that far into Russia like in the diagram? If it does, it certainly serves its dual purpose.
And I think stating Putin is doing this n that because he knows nothing will come out of it is mere speculation. Just like ppl can say US is saying Iran is the target of the radar but actually the primary target is Russia.

Also why would Russia want to station troops in the Radar facility? Didnt they actually wanted to station observers in the station which was rejected?

The Poles and the Czechs don't want Russian troops permantly stationed on their soil. Period. Putin knew that.

And the radar station in Azerbaijan may be old, but certainly it doesnt mean it cant be upgraded. And upgrading would be more cheaper than building a facility from scratch in Czech rep.

It's not only old - it's in the wrong place.

 

[Feanor]

A friendship agreement between Russia and S. Ossetia will essentialy eliminate any real border between the two countries.

http://newsru.com/russia/25sep2008/bez_graniz.html