Russia-Georgia Conflict: News From the War zone

[Feanor]

I seriously doubt Georgians would have been able to mount an effective defense for anything more then a day or two. When every single vehicle and artillery position becomes a bombing strike target, and when Russia can funnel huge amounts of additional forces into the theater (including aerial assets from high-readyness formations and the strategic airforce for cruise missile strikes) being able to match the Russian army in small level tactical engagements will simply turn the conflict into an attitirion based one. Except that Russia will have strategic means at it's disposal (air force, artillery, heavy armor, etc.) while Georgia won't. Granted the operational tempo of the VVS was bad, but when you have 3 regiments of Su-25s, 2 more of Su-24's, 2 MiG-29's, and 1 Su-27's, even with a horrible operational tempo you can still hit every target there is to hit when opposing you are no more then 2-3 brigades.

Now if Georgia would have had better equipment (Merkavas for example) and was expecting the Russian attack they could have dealt some serious damage over a couple of days of intense fighting. However in the long run (over 3 days ) Georgia could not have hoped to keep up the conflict, especially given that parallel Russian units was deployed to Abkhazia and from there advanced down the Black Sea Coast with naval support.

 

[eaf-f16]

I seriously doubt Georgians would have been able to mount an effective defense for anything more then a day or two. When every single vehicle and artillery position becomes a bombing strike target, and when Russia can funnel huge amounts of additional forces into the theater (including aerial assets from high-readyness formations and the strategic airforce for cruise missile strikes) being able to match the Russian army in small level tactical engagements will simply turn the conflict into an attitirion based one. Except that Russia will have strategic means at it's disposal (air force, artillery, heavy armor, etc.) while Georgia won't. Granted the operational tempo of the VVS was bad, but when you have 3 regiments of Su-25s, 2 more of Su-24's, 2 MiG-29's, and 1 Su-27's, even with a horrible operational tempo you can still hit every target there is to hit when opposing you are no more then 2-3 brigades.

Now if Georgia would have had better equipment (Merkavas for example) and was expecting the Russian attack they could have dealt some serious damage over a couple of days of intense fighting. However in the long run (over 3 days ) Georgia could not have hoped to keep up the conflict, especially given that parallel Russian units was deployed to Abkhazia and from there advanced down the Black Sea Coast with naval support.

I pretty much agree with you.

A Hezbollah-style insurgency wouldn't have stopped a massive and devastating Russian aerial and artillery bombardment. Didn't work for Southern Lebanon and surely isn't going to work for Georgia.

No one should take seriously Georgia's proposition that they could have formed an effective "guerrilla army". I think Saakashvili has this very false and overly optimistic image in his head of what this type of warfare means for a country. And Georgians just aren't brave enough for it. They will give up in matter of days.

The insinuation that Georgia could have mounted a guerrilla campaign any where near as effective as or even similar to Hezbollah's on a whim is ridiculous.

Hezbollah fighters didn't just walk out of their houses, pull out RPG-29's and Kornets and start firing ATGM's at advancing Israeli amour. Hezbollah constructed hardened, very hard to find and identify bunkers, an extensive network of tunnels, cultivated massive support from the population over years, had very well-trained fighters capable of independent action, very good command and control communications network, had very good planning, had spies in the IDF, etc. I'm grossly over-simplifying here.

It took them the better half of a decade planning and preparing for this specific type of campaign and had a massive amount of knowledge about the army they were fighting.

They also had the advantage of a particularly ineffective IDF leader who was so inept that he couldn't even understand the very doctrine he approved and signed (this problem was present all the way down the IDF's chain of command but no one said anything).

Georgia could not have possibly hoped to have done anything like what Hezbollah did in 2006. Even if they had planned in advance for a guerrilla campaign like this I seriously doubt that their soldiers would have been brave enough to carry it out.

 

[Grand Danois]

Just a short comment: this was essentially a meeting engagement.

The guerilla style warfare idea that Sakaashvili came up with later was ridiculous.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just a short comment: this was essentially a meeting engagement.

The guerilla style warfare idea that Sakaashvili came up with later was ridiculous.

Exactly, neither of the major combatants effectively held the ground previously. Therefore comparisons with Hezbollah or Chechnya are way, way off the mark.

That being said if the Georgians were more committed, had planned for Russian intervention, were better lead and didn't get knobbly knees at the sight of a Russian flag the this whole thing would have gone very differently IMHO. Even with the overwhelming superiority of the VVS, the logistics and terrain were in the Georgians favor. The Russians could have re deployed other formations from other sectors, but the geographical and logistical constraints mean that it would have been very difficult to effectively bring this aggregate superiority to bear.

With significant Georgian formations still in SO (& significant arty capability) try deploying and supplying large formations with one lousy, 2 lane (?) MSR that runs through a tunnel. Tactically (although maybe not strategically) an early/pre-emptive air strike on that infamous tunnel would have limited the Russians immediate options to an air insertion, which AFAIK would be far beyond the capability of the CBG. Realistically only Russian air power would have been the only area where they could really punish the Georgians, but that alone would not have won them the ground.

Ok i'll stop harping on now.

 

[eckherl]

I seriously doubt Georgians would have been able to mount an effective defense for anything more then a day or two. When every single vehicle and artillery position becomes a bombing strike target, and when Russia can funnel huge amounts of additional forces into the theater (including aerial assets from high-readyness formations and the strategic airforce for cruise missile strikes) being able to match the Russian army in small level tactical engagements will simply turn the conflict into an attitirion based one. Except that Russia will have strategic means at it's disposal (air force, artillery, heavy armor, etc.) while Georgia won't. Granted the operational tempo of the VVS was bad, but when you have 3 regiments of Su-25s, 2 more of Su-24's, 2 MiG-29's, and 1 Su-27's, even with a horrible operational tempo you can still hit every target there is to hit when opposing you are no more then 2-3 brigades.

Now if Georgia would have had better equipment (Merkavas for example) and was expecting the Russian attack they could have dealt some serious damage over a couple of days of intense fighting. However in the long run (over 3 days ) Georgia could not have hoped to keep up the conflict, especially given that parallel Russian units was deployed to Abkhazia and from there advanced down the Black Sea Coast with naval support.

I really doubt that Georgia would of lasted even two days facing Russia, they suffered from a major flaw, unit cohesion in the face of the enemy. Merkavas are like other tanks, they can be the best on the battlefield but if you do not know how to properly use them in the overall scheme of movement then they are worthless on the battlefield. Training soldiers to fight and pull security in a urbanized environment (Iraq rotations) and expecting them to go up against one of the old teachers (Russia) in air land battle tactics was purely crazy and a bad gamble to say the least.

 

[kato]

Quite seriously, in an all-out attack, all Georgian defense positions would have been flattened with a cluster bomb airstrike on each of them (and that would have included that dozen or so ships the Georgian Navy has), followed by four or five brigade-strength airborne landings in strategic positions supported by a attack helicopter regiment each, and six to eight tank divisions crossing the border behind what would amount to a rolling artillery barrage, and four or five regiments landing along the coast simultaneously after a heavy barrage from the Black Sea fleet. The rest would be merely mopping up routed troops.

 

[eckherl]

Quite seriously, in an all-out attack, all Georgian defense positions would have been flattened with a cluster bomb airstrike on each of them (and that would have included that dozen or so ships the Georgian Navy has), followed by four or five brigade-strength airborne landings in strategic positions supported by a attack helicopter regiment each, and six to eight tank divisions crossing the border behind what would amount to a rolling artillery barrage, and four or five regiments landing along the coast simultaneously after a heavy barrage from the Black Sea fleet. The rest would be merely mopping up routed troops.

Thats about a 24 hour scenario if that. On a more major note, I have always admired how much Russia has when it comes to Airborne assets.

 

[Stryker001]

Darth Vader does not mess around when he sees an issue that is going to impact on the United States he takes action. Now the issues that are occurring in Europe, is because there are those in the US that believe war with the PRC is inevitable. It is going to take everything the US has to contain the PRC in the predicted conflict timeline.

The US does not want Russia to be free to roam with a modernized military while things of US strategic interest are vulnerable. US, NATO and coalition forces will be divide and parts of the US Empire will be conquered, that is other sovereign nations to those who do not understand how US foreign policy works.So Russia will be operating with the PRC to divide enemy forces.

By slow encroaching on former soviet satellites and into Russia to gain control of oil and gas via independent states, limits the ability of the revenue to be used of rearmament.

Others wait to see if costing in regards to procurements can be met, the neo-cons just take action, obviously while others laugh at the prospect of increased Russian carrier groups and foreign bases. The project outcomes that the US has on Russia believe that it is true and an achievable objective.

If Donald Rumsfled was still the Secretary of Defense it would be war against Russia and it still may well be.

This goes way beyond pre-emptive strike policy, and it is still unadvised.

If the other matters can be rapped up with in the next 4 years. The US can restart the procurements and programs that have suffered from 7 years of war, of course that means the removal of troops for Iraq and a major offensive similar to operation Anaconda, basically not a surge a re invasion of Afghanistan, the war is lost so it is time to start fresh.

 

[Todjaeger]

I knew someone would come up with that pipeline.

It would be cheaper to build an alternative one, instead of having troops guarding it. much much cheaper. And there plenty of ways to do it.

Conspiracy theory territory.

Also, the first "article" referenced is from the Feb. 15th 2001 Guardian, nearly seven and a half years ago. The next "article" referenced is stating that the AMBO pipeline will pass through Kosovo. Looking at this link, it appears that the pipeline will actually pass through central Macedonia, due south of Kosovo. In effect, Kosovo does not appear to have any correlation to the AMBO pipeline. I strongly suggest when using articles to support or make a point, to make sure that they are current and accurate. If a pipeline where to cross from Bulgaria to Albania, it would cross through either Kosovo or Macedonia, not both, unless the proposed route was designed to be convoluted.

-Cheers

 

[Vivendi]

The situation in Georgia seems still quite tense.


In my opinion the EU should become much more active. EU should try to keep not just the US but also NATO out of this mess. EU should talk to Russia and suggest EU troops in Georgia, possibly together with Russian. This would hopefully take Bush and Cheney out of the equation.

It seems impossible however three EU countries are not part of NATO. EU should suggest to Russia that Swedish, Finnish (and possibly Austrian?) troops should move in as an EU peace keeping force. Let things calm down, and start negotiations.


V

 

[Stryker001]

Just like 1983 Hizbullah use to be reliant on Russian. The KGB were big players in the Mid East. That would mean that the Islamic Resistance of Iraq would not be willing to give up the UK hostages. The english hostages are in Tehran

From:
Sent: Friday, 15 August 2008 8:02 PM
To:
Subject: Trouble!!!!

The CIA will use their contacts in the Middle East to try to influence foreign Jihadists to restart the conflict in Chechnya. In response, the Russian via Iran restart the insurgency in Iraq and extend it to Afghanistan.

Bombs kill at least 2 Russian soldiers in Chechnya

August 30, 2008 - 4:30PM
Source: ABC

At least two Russian soldiers have died in bombings in Chechnya, including a suicide attack on an Interior Ministry battalion base, Russian news agencies has reported.
One soldier died and 11 were wounded when two suicide bombers rammed a jeep packed with explosives through the fence of the base in Vedeno, south of the region's capital Grozny, a spokeman for the battalion was quoted as saying by RIA.
Another soldier died in a radio-controlled bomb attack in the village of Serzhen-Yurt, which lies between Vedeno and Grozny.
It was the second round of fatal attacks on Russian troops in the past week in Chechnya, a north Caucasus territory where Russia has fought two wars against separatist rebels since the breakup of the Soviet Union.
On Sunday, two senior Russian officers died after a gun and bomb attack on their convoy.
Russian security officials have predicted a rise in rebel attacks in Chechnya after Russia's military incursion into neighboring Georgia, to crush Tbilisi's attempt to retake its breakaway province of South Ossetia.
Analysts say Moscow's decision to recognize rebel Georgian regions as independent states will encourage separatist sentiments in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Russian north Caucasus.

 

[Stryker001]

Russian analyst points to link between Georgian attack and Iran

27/08/2008 15:49 MOSCOW, August 27 (RIA Novosti) - A senior Russian military analyst said on Wednesday that the U.S. and NATO by arming Tbilisi used the conflict in Georgia as a dress rehearsal for a future military operation in Iran.
Col. Gen Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies, told a news conference at RIA Novosti, "We are close to a serious conflict - U.S. and NATO preparations on a strategic scale are ongoing.
In the operation the West conducted on Georgian soil against Russia - South Ossetians were the victims or hostages of it - we can see a rehearsal for an attack on Iran.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080827/116318584.html

 

[Chrom]

T

It seems impossible however three EU countries are not part of NATO. EU should suggest to Russia that Swedish, Finnish (and possibly Austrian?) troops should move in as an EU peace keeping force. Let things calm down, and start negotiations.


V

This is very possible and have nothing to do with being in NATO. I'm pretty sure Russia will try to unofficially promote the idea of EU peacekeeping force - Germany, France, Sweden, etc... just not under NATO command.

 

[Feanor]

Exactly, neither of the major combatants effectively held the ground previously. Therefore comparisons with Hezbollah or Chechnya are way, way off the mark.

That being said if the Georgians were more committed, had planned for Russian intervention, were better lead and didn't get knobbly knees at the sight of a Russian flag the this whole thing would have gone very differently IMHO. Even with the overwhelming superiority of the VVS, the logistics and terrain were in the Georgians favor. The Russians could have re deployed other formations from other sectors, but the geographical and logistical constraints mean that it would have been very difficult to effectively bring this aggregate superiority to bear.

Abkhazia. Second front.

Kato Russia doesn't have those tank divisions. The entire Russian Army has 3 normal time tank divisions, and a number of storage bases that could theoretically mobilize into tank divisions. However they would be of extremely inferior quality.

 

[outsider]

Abkhazia. Second front.

Kato Russia doesn't have those tank divisions. The entire Russian Army has 3 normal time tank divisions, and a number of storage bases that could theoretically mobilize into tank divisions. However they would be of extremely inferior quality.

I can see that the Russian Army has considerably more Motor Rifle divisions than tank divisions - just out of interest, how many tanks does a typical motor rifle division have? If there is such a thing as a typical motor rifle division.

 

[kato]

just out of interest, how many tanks does a typical motor rifle division have?

150-200.

Similar to a US division with 3-4 HBCTs, or a modern German mechanised division.

a number of storage bases that could theoretically mobilize into tank divisions. However they would be of extremely inferior quality.

Would it matter if they'd just be there to mop up a handful remaining infantry forces, and lend support to Ossetian and Abkhazian militia?

 

[Feanor]

They wouldn't even be necessary. Anyways a typical motor-rifles div. has one tank regiment and 3 motor-rifles regiments each of which has a tank battallion. That gives us 6 tank battallions of 31 tanks a piece. Total of ~186 tanks. There may be small divergence due to occasional over strength or understrength units.

 

[Firehorse]

Also, the first "article" referenced is from the Feb. 15th 2001 Guardian, nearly seven and a half years ago. The next "article" referenced is stating that the AMBO pipeline will pass through Kosovo. Looking at this link, it appears that the pipeline will actually pass through central Macedonia, due south of Kosovo. In effect, Kosovo does not appear to have any correlation to the AMBO pipeline. I strongly suggest when using articles to support or make a point, to make sure that they are current and accurate. If a pipeline where to cross from Bulgaria to Albania, it would cross through either Kosovo or Macedonia, not both, unless the proposed route was designed to be convoluted.
-Cheers

Those articles were current at that time, and reflected accurate overview of geopolitical context around Kosovo. After several years it's easy to look back and notice the false assumptions. But in any case, the US was happy to use bases in Eastern Europe formerly belonging to the Warsaw pact, and one big new base in the Balkans would fit nicely in this pattern, reagardless of the original reason it was built for.
Revenge of the Balkans
http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=19706

South Ossetia meanwhile announced a deal to allowing Russia to set up military bases in the Georgian breakaway region. ..After recognising South Ossetia, Russia will sign an agreement “on inter-state cooperation and the setting up of Russian military bases on the territory of South Ossetia,” said the region’s deputy speaker, Tarzan Kokoity, quoted by Interfax news agency. ..The United States said it was sending another warship to Georgia with humanitarian aid and was reconsidering an agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia. ..Washington confirmed it was sending the USS Mount Whitney, the flagship of the Sixth Fleet, to Georgia next week, joining two others that have unloaded aid, drawing fierce criticism from Moscow. Russia has criticised the use of US warships to deliver aid and ordered its Black Sea fleet to take “precautionary measures” in response to what it has called a build-up of Nato navy vessels in the Black Sea near Georgia.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=132762

Now he's very brave!-Saakashvili visits Russian-held Georgian port
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=320457

More news, most of it was expected to happen:

UN: Georgians effectively blocked from homes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080830/ap_on_re_eu/georgia

Transcript: CNN interview with Vladimir Putin
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/29/putin.transcript/

Russia faces more fallout over Georgia
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5me3Eey0dFUyqJCQrt-O3R4gp2g

Corps wants its Humvees back
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/08/marine_humvees_082908w/

Russia calls for more observers in Georgia
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDS006qphG7RFnFkufGCrK1Ihirg

"Crimean-Caucasus line" cruise- "USCG Dallas will visit Sevastopol on the 1 st of September"
http://gzt.ru/world/2008/08/30/153631.html

This action will demonstrate support for Ukraine and a snub to the Russian BSF!
"Explosions stopped/aren't heard in the ammunition storage"
http://www.rian.ru/incidents/20080830/150812268.html

 

[Stryker001]

Russia links its help on Iran to Georgia row

Thursday, 28 August 2008
By Conor Sweeney
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Western nations will have to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions without Russia's help if they refuse to cooperate with Moscow, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.

Russia's invasion of Georgia has raised tension with the West, which like Moscow does not want Iran to use its nuclear programme to build an atomic bomb. Tehran says its atomic work is only to make electricity.
Asked in an interview with CNN if the Georgia row could hurt U.S.-Russian cooperation on Iran, Putin said: "If nobody wants to talk with us on these issues and cooperation with Russia is not needed, then for God's sake, do it yourself."

A transcript of the interview was posted on Putin's official Internet site www.government.ru.
http://translate.google.com.au/tran...=http://www.government.ru/content/&hl=en&sa=G
Putin, who served two terms as president before stepping down in May, made clear that ending cooperation was not his preferred option, saying Russia and the United States had a common interest in resolving the Iran issue.

Russia, one of five veto-holding nations on the United Nations Security Council, has backed three previous sanctions measures against Iran to try to curb Tehran's nuclear drive.

CONSCIENTIOUS WORK

According to the transcript, Putin said in the interview Russia had been working "consistently and conscientiously" with its partners on Iran.
"Not because anyone is asking us and not because we want to look good in someone's eyes."

"We are doing it because it corresponds to our national interests, because in this field our interests coincide with those of many European countries and those of the United States," he was quoted as saying.
Relations between Russia and the West are at their most tense for years after the Kremlin sent in troops to defeat an attempt by Georgia to retake its Moscow-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia.
Western states said Russia went too far by pushing its troops into undisputed Georgian territory, and they condemned the Kremlin for recognising South Ossetia, and the second rebel region of Abkhazia, as independent states.

Russia signalled that despite the row it was still engaged with international partners on the Iran issue on Thursday when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a regional summit.

At Medvedev's initiative, the two leaders discussed the Iranian nuclear programme in Tajikistan's capital, Dushanbe, where they were attending a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a regional grouping.
"The Russian president raised the possibility of continuing the dialogue and the discussion," Medvedev's spokeswoman, Natalia Timakova, told reporters without giving further details.

Washington has been pressing for tighter sanctions against Tehran at the U.N. Security Council and needs Moscow's support.
Russia says it does not want Iran to have atomic weapons, but that the Islamic republic is entitled to a peaceful nuclear programme.
(Reporting by Denis Dyomkin in Dushanbe and Conor Sweeney in Moscow; Writing by Conor Sweeney; Editing by Charles Dick)

www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/russia-links-its-help-on-iran-to-georgia-row.html

It takes some months I believe 8 to 12 for implementing the S-300 and training that effectively means that these batteries will be operated by Russians. Thoughts how long until the S-300 can be operational with Iranian forces, defencetalkers.

www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/russia-threatens-to-supply-iran-with-top-new-missile-system-as-cold-war-escalates.html

If the Caucus powder keg goes off, it is highly the US will remove the brakes on Israel or launch a strike on Iran themselves. Something Israel have been wanting to do before the S-300 are operational. Something that would have been perhaps in the back of the minds of the Israeli planners who constructed the failed operation to retake the enclaves for the Georgian President.

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/iran-warns-any-attack-would-start-world-war.html

www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/irans-ahmadinejad-blames-foreign-powers-for-georgia-crisis.html

It does appear that the French fear of war, is valid.

 

[eaf-f16]

Asked in an interview with CNN if the Georgia row could hurt U.S.-Russian cooperation on Iran, Putin said: "If nobody wants to talk with us on these issues and cooperation with Russia is not needed, then for God's sake, do it yourself."

That's not what he said. According to the CNN transcript, he said something more along the lines of "If nobody wants to talk with us on these issues and cooperation with Russia is unnecessary then God Bless do this work yourself".

This is what he said according to CNN. He makes clear in the interview that Russia was still willing to cooperate with the US when it come to issues like Iran. He also said the EU was being pressured by the US into putting sanctions on Moscow.