I appreciate your posting this. The fact is, unless I read it here, I wouldn't know anything about it and I'm not proud to say that either. The media chooses what we should know, and unless I know someone directly affected by events overseas (I am in the U.S.) or I specifically look for news in that part of the world then it flies right by me.

Thank you for doing your part to keep us informed.

Just a simple idea:

1. Georgia backed by USA
2. Iran backed by Russia

-> USA get green light from Russia to attack Iran, if they are allowed to intervene in South Ossetia without risking US engagement in the caucasus.

Ok, might be just too simple (even for diplomatic background talks) also: what about China? Perhaps a terrorist attack at the Olympic Games to let them focus on their own inner-country issues (Xinjiang or whatever the part with the muslim minority is named)?

Damn, I think I'm already quite paranoid ^^

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Just a simple idea:

1. Georgia backed by USA
2. Iran backed by Russia

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with Iran. Georgia's affair with South Ossetia and Abkhazia predates the U.S. interest in the area, and has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in Iraq or Iran.

This conflict is isolated to Caucasus.

But you are correct that Georgia and the Caspian geo-political region is part of a larger U.S. foreign policy strategy. That strategy is not necessarily to attack Iran however, but to create a militarized buffer zone around Russia. No doubt is U.S.-Russia relations worsen because of this, Russia may play a larger role in helping Iran. But right now that is just speculating.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
-> USA get green light from Russia to attack Iran, if they are allowed to intervene in South Ossetia without risking US engagement in the caucasus.

Russia does not need U.S. permission to intervene in South Ossetia. Causus is still outside of U.S. geo-political sphere of influence, and U.S. has absolutely no business in what is going on. South Ossetia is largely populated by Russians, and U.S. will not dare get directly involved there.

And even if the U.S. does, it is guaranteed to bleed heavily. If you think Iraq is tough, wait untill you take a bite of the Caucasus. The region is very notorious for unrelenting dirty guerilla warfare untill the very last rebel is killed. Iraq will seem like drama compared to the horrors U.S. soldiers could encounter in the Caucasus. Russia has learned this the hard way.


And U.S. is not attacking Iran not because of Russia, but because it is not capable of doing so given the stretched military resources and the political consequences that would have around the world, which is already less than thrilled with U.S. and its pursuit of democracy (read oil) through war.

Sorry b ut you have no idea how geo-politics is played if you dont take this scenario into consideration. yes Iran and the Georgian issue are separate, but this is how the big boys make deals. You let me do this and you dont interfere, and we will let you do that and we wont interfere. Thats how it works my friend. Not saying it will in this case, or in every case, but it does happen. A LOT.

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Just a simple idea:

1. Georgia backed by USA
2. Iran backed by Russia

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with Iran. Georgia's affair with South Ossetia and Abkhazia predates the U.S. interest in the area, and has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in Iraq or Iran.

This conflict is isolated to Caucasus.

But you are correct that Georgia and the Caspian geo-political region is part of a larger U.S. foreign policy strategy. That strategy is not necessarily to attack Iran however, but to create a militarized buffer zone around Russia. No doubt is U.S.-Russia relations worsen because of this, Russia may play a larger role in helping Iran. But right now that is just speculating.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
-> USA get green light from Russia to attack Iran, if they are allowed to intervene in South Ossetia without risking US engagement in the caucasus.

Russia does not need U.S. permission to intervene in South Ossetia. Causus is still outside of U.S. geo-political sphere of influence, and U.S. has absolutely no business in what is going on. South Ossetia is largely populated by Russians, and U.S. will not dare get directly involved there.

And even if the U.S. does, it is guaranteed to bleed heavily. If you think Iraq is tough, wait untill you take a bite of the Caucasus. The region is very notorious for unrelenting dirty guerilla warfare untill the very last rebel is killed. Iraq will seem like drama compared to the horrors U.S. soldiers could encounter in the Caucasus. Russia has learned this the hard way.


And U.S. is not attacking Iran not because of Russia, but because it is not capable of doing so given the stretched military resources and the political consequences that would have around the world, which is already less than thrilled with U.S. and its pursuit of democracy (read oil) through war.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Sorry b ut you have no idea how geo-politics is played if you dont take this scenario into consideration.

I understand where you are coming from, but this scenario will not happen - I can wage on that.

1. Russia will not make any agreement "you attack this and I attack this" with the U.S. at this point. Russia does not need to "allow" U.S. to attack Iran, because if Russia chooses to intervene in South Ossetia there will be no consequences for it. U.S. will not militarily intervene in Georgia at this point - that is certain. In some far-off future date maybe, but it will not come in to support Georgia if Russia counterattacks Georgian advances.

2. Russia not agree to let U.S. to attack Iran under any condition. Iranian sovereignty at this point is more important to Russian than a small miserly Georgia or South Ossetia. Russia is firmly against any U.S. attack against Iran, and has no interest or incentive to give a go ahead for this attack.

3. U.S. is incapable of occupying Iran, and cannot afford to bomb Iran - thereby provoking an unrelenting stream of insurgents from Iran into Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. attack on Iran will be a strategic and tactical suicide for any plans U.S. has for Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's power lies not in Russia's support or its new ballistic missiles, but in its enormous population. It has overwhelmed Iraq despite being considerably weaker militarily. It will overwhelm U.S. efforts in the Middle East.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
how the big boys make deals

So far the big boys (U.S. and Russia) haven't been making any deals but only further straining their relations. U.S. appears incapable of negotiating deals with anyone these days, given that it feels like a sole superpower capable of doing anything it wants without anyone's approval. U.S. feels far to superior to make deals with Russia, and it will come back to haunt in the future. U.S. stubborness has gotten worser and worser in recent years.

It is common opinion in Russia these days that days when Russia could negotiate with U.S. on common terms are long over.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
You let me do this and you dont interfere, and we will let you do that and we wont interfere.

U.S. didn't need this sort of agreement when it attacked Iraq, when it decided to place ABM system in Eastern Europe, when it sponsored coups in Georgia and Ukraine, and when it gave Kosovo independence despite considerable opposition from Russia.

Why would U.S. need to negotiate with anyone now? What has changed?

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Thats how it works my friend.

Thats how it worked back when U.S. wasn't a sole hyperpower. Sadly the world appears to work differently now - U.S. continues to do whatever it wants, and everyone else (Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela) starts to slowly unite and build up their military to counter the potential threat from the U.S.




Anyway lets not derail the topic. It seems that the only up-to-date news are coming from Russian sources, due to absense of foreign journalists in the conflict region.

Russian sources report that South Ossetia has practically declared a state of war with full tactical troop mobilization. South Ossetia's leader is planning to evacuate to Russia, and there is large stream of evacuating civilians entering Russia from South Ossetia. There are unconfirmed reports that Georgian troops have crossed the border and are advancing towards the South Ossetian capital. Hundreds of wounded people are now being admitted at Ossetian hospitals, and Georgia is still contunuously shelling the city.

Georgia for its part continues to deny that any large scale attack is taking place, despite news footage from Ossetia proving otherwise.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by maloy]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by maloy]

Thank you Maloy for bringing this to people's attention. It is doubtful that US TV News will give this more than a slight blurb or bottom scroll. International Herald Tribune (New York Times's name outside the US) has picked up the story. They wrote it from a pro-Georgia viewpoint naturally.

If Georgia is accepted into NATO then there is strong potential of direct US involvement due to the "attack on one is an attack on all" policy of NATO.

Myself, ever since the EU formed I have felt NATO needs to be disolved and let the EU handle European Affairs and the US can go back to the old Monroe Doctorine of taking care of things on this side. Personally I think it is high time the US goes isolationist and take care of our own domestic issues before "solving" the rest of the world's problems and only enter when specifically pettioned by a recognised country's request like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did during the first Gulf War.

Before that touches off an arguement let me be clear that I thought "The line in the sand" was at Kuwait border until a ground force vet informed me that it was at Saudi at their request. I trust his version more than what was on CNN at the time because he was a Sgt in the 82nd and his further deployment was painting targets in Bagdad with the laser. Also I have seen the scars of the blisters on his feet from all the chemical fallout destoying such targets.

But I agree with you Maloy, this was some pretty sneaky timing with the Olympics starting. But ultimately I feel the most fair solution is for Georgia to allow both regions to leave and for Moscow to allow Georgia to join NATO if that is what will make them happy. Unfortunately I don't think any of the four parties will agree to such a peaceful solution due to their egos getting in the way.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
If Georgia is accepted into NATO then there is strong potential of direct US involvement due to the "attack on one is an attack on all" policy of NATO.

No doubt the unresolved Abkhazian and Ossetian conflicts are the reasons why NATO is treading cautiously when it comes to accepting Georgia. As large and powerful as NATO is, it had its hands full keeping peace (or rather keeping their own asses safe) in Kosovo. Georgia is more violent and complicated, and borders Russia.

If NATO ultimately gets involved in this, you can bet there will be alot of raised eyebrows from world leaders. Georgia never was NATO territory and NATO has no business there. NATO intervention in this goes against NATO's own reasons for existance. NATO was not created to help some small countries ruled by dictators settle their geographical and ethnical disputes.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Personally I think it is high time the US goes isolationist and take care of our own domestic issues before "solving" the rest of the world's problems

Unfotunately it seems like it is too late for that. It's status as world's sole superpower has enabled the U.S. military and foreign policy to become an entity of its own - not necessarily under control of the majority of Americans.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
But I agree with you Maloy, this was some pretty sneaky timing with the Olympics starting.

Moreover Georgia's President Saakashvilli has declared that he wants to start negotiations and ceasefire in a TV broadcast seen in Ossetia, less than 24 hours prior to the start of Georgia's artillery shelling.

Furthermore Putin (not sure about Medvedev) is schedules to fly to Beijing for the opening of the Olympic games. Georgia might have been hoping that Russia's distraction will allow it a window for attack of a few day. I wouldn't be surprised if he cancels the visit.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
But ultimately I feel the most fair solution is for Georgia to allow both regions to leave and for Moscow to allow Georgia to join NATO if that is what will make them happy. Unfortunately I don't think any of the four parties will agree to such a peaceful solution due to their egos getting in the way.

For Georgia and Abkhazia/South Ossetia it's not just ego. Its about revenge and anger at what happened during the wars there in mid 1990's. Emotions still run high, and both sides remember ethnical cleansing committed by the other side very well. Those were very dirty wars, with far more civilians dieing than military personell. Many locals have been displaced and lost their relatives. Add to that the notorious vengeful culture of the Caucasus peoples. Georgia refuses to let the separatists go if only because it wants to revenge its previous defeat. The separatists on the other hand want nothing to do with Georgia and nothing less than independence, and are ready to defend themselves to the last man if Georgia attacks.

The stalemate worked for 10 years, thanks in large part to Russia's peacekeepers. U.S. changed the balance, by supplying weapons to Georgians and holding military exercises with them, and now Georgians are eager to use their new toys. U.S. actions in doing this are very irresponsible, and this conflict is the direct cause of U.S. helping Georgia.

The fragile peace is now broken, and both sides appear to have left the negotiation table for good. Sadly it seems like the only way out now that Georgia attacked is war. Once the shooting starts there is no going back.

NATO membership will be even more unlikely for Georgia now, given that no European NATO member country is willing to send its people to fight somewhere in the backyard of Europe.

Just what we need; war!

More war! War forever! Never ending war!

In my opinion; Earth's historie is nothing but one great big gigatic WAR.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
-> USA get green light from Russia to attack Iran

I wish it were Russia. Being allies with them would be glorious... But the US got the green light from "Isreal" to attack Iran. Russia is fed up with us as it is.

Its not that this isnt newsworthy, its just that the MSM will take the wait and see approach until something big happens. Stuff (skirmishes) happen everyday and the news cant just throw it all up on the top headlines every time something like this happens. If this whole thing dies down in a few days, then folks will realize why it didnt make the MSM news. If it doesnt die down, then you will see it on CNN, or whatever.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Its not that this isnt newsworthy, its just that the MSM will take the wait and see approach until something big happens. Stuff (skirmishes) happen everyday and the news cant just throw it all up on the top headlines every time something like this happens. If this whole thing dies down in a few days, then folks will realize why it didnt make the MSM news. If it doesnt die down, then you will see it on CNN, or whatever.

The decade-long ceasefire was very fragile. Both sides knew very well that if fighting erupted, there would be no way to end it and it would escalate into war. There is simply no way to end it now without war.

If Georgia backs off, which is highly unlikely (why would they plan out an attack only to call it off), then South Ossetia will declare independence and start firing on Georgian troops and will start fighting for the still disputed towns.

If Georgia occupies South Ossetia, Abkhazia will declare war.

South Ossetia will refuse to negotiate now unless they are guaranteed independence, and Georgia refuses to negotiate under these circumstances. There is no way out.

Plus BBC has been all over this for a week, and this is the headline news on BBC website now. Artillery shelling and numerous civilian deaths and full-scale evacuation is hardly a "skirmish". UN has an emergency meeting scheduled for the morning. If this is not newsworthy for CNN and Fox News, then maybe they are not worthy of being called news agencies.


There is a saying that a gunshot in the Caucasus echoes for a century


[edit on 7-8-2008 by maloy]

That is fine and good but it still doesnt make my statement above irrelavent. You will only see this in the news if it continues to get worse. Thats just how it is.

I hate to be flippant about this, i really do. But i think that in a week from now this thread will be a few pages down and a distant memory.

Seriously, the US foreign policy is disgusting and all the ``establishment`` medias are portraying Georgia as good, as killing ``terrorists``, as killing bad guys when we know that they are killing civilians and that they started the whole thing.

NATO is seriously behind that, they gave their approval for sure. Georgia will probably become a NATO member... after all NATO is formed against Russia.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I hate to be flippant about this, i really do. But i think that in a week from now this thread will be a few pages down and a distant memory.

I hope you are right,,no disrespect to the OP, but God i hope you are right.
I will be watching this situation.