It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia warns Georgia as Biden visits

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Russia warns Georgia as Biden visits


www.reuters.com

Russia vowed on Thursday to prevent its pro-Western neighbor Georgia from rearming and threatened nations who helped it, in a harsh warning timed to coincide with U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden's visit to Tbilisi.

Moscow issued its broadside as Biden sat down to closed-door talks with Russia's arch-foe President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi. Tensions between Russia and its former Soviet vassal are rising ahead of the first anniversary next month of their war.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I just had to post it here too, it's too important.

There is a link to make here...

First this...
Georgia to Ask U.S. for Advanced Weaponry


Georgia's president was expected to ask Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday for advanced weaponry and U.S. observers to monitor a cease-fire.

My god...will this ever stop? I wonder what kind of advanced weaponry will he ask for... probably anti-air defense, anti-tank weapons...IMO that's the best case scenario for him... which will probably never happen anyway. But if they decide to give him something it will be that and that's it.

And that...
Reuters: Russia will take "concrete measures" to prevent Georgia from re-arming after its war with Moscow last year.
CONCRETE MEASURES? What happens if the US agrees to re-arm Georgia? Will Russia send Mig to intercept air supply or warships to stop US convoys of material? Or do a blockade of Georgia?

And look at this lie...

Moscow is angry because it believes Georgian aggression started the war and says the West fails to understand that Saakashvili is a dangerous leader bent on fresh conflict.

Because it believes... HAHAHAHA... it's established fact that Georgia started the war... Disgusting.

Let's hope that NOBODY wants to give arms to Georgia, especially not the US...

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Now this would be interesting to watch, if the situtation played out, Russian Warships intercept, american warships. Now that would be a good flashpoint for both sides.

Just to see who would come out on top
.

Obama might have made deals with russia when he last visted though, we never know what actually went on behind doors in those discussions.

I will watch this one with interest.

Starred and Flagged!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
In regard to Russia's warning not to arm Georgia:

No Russia will not try to intercept US arms shipments or to block off Georgia from the sea. Treat this announcement kind of like US warning other countries not to arm Iran and North Korea. Russia's response to such action will be limited to enacting its own sanctions against Georgia, and possible minor political consequences for whoever sells arms to it. So as far as US is concerned the worst it would do, it worsen the already deteriorated relations with Russia.

This is simply Russia sending a message to the US, that if US chooses to continue military cooperation with Georgia then it might as well give up on easing tension with Russia. It's us or them kind of thing. It will be interesting to watch how exactly the US will respond to Saakashvili's desperate pleas for weapons.



I highly doubt that US or anyone else (besides maybe Ukraine, Poland or the Baltics) will see much benefit in providing arms to Georgia. It is not like Georgia can even buy military equipment, as the coutry is next to broke. And if the US is to provide weapons for free, it would expect some sort of benefit from the deal.

As for providing advanced weapons - what a joke. Most of the weaponry and equipment Georgia received before the August War, ended up in Russia's hands after Georgians abandoned everything and ran away from the fighting. Russians didn't even have to loot - they just helped themselves to abandoned property since Georgians didn't care to take it with them. Among other things, Russians have gotten themselves some nice HUMVEES, Dana artillery systems, possibly some Israeli SAM installations, and a #load of Americans assault rifles and infantry equipment, not to mention nearly half of Georgia's pre-war Soviet-era armor and vehicles.

So whoever gets the bright idea to supply some advances state-of-the-art military equipment to Georgia, might as well ship it straight to Russia, since that is where it will end up in case of another war. Russia sure wouldn't ming to get its hands on the new Patriot systems, or a couple of
M1A2 Abrams. Or better yet US can ship some F-22's and F-35's to Georgia, and Russia will really have something worth bringing home.



So the very best Saakashvili can realistically hope for, is some assault rifles and basic infantry gear. Maybe if the US is really desperate to help its beleaguered puppet, it can send some outdated SAM equipment, possible surplus from Eastern European countries like Poland who don't need it anymore. This surely won't help Saakashvili any if he embarks on another military adventure.

No matter how well Georgia arms itself, it will be no match for the Russian 58th army, especially given the low moral and "abandon all hope and run away from the Russians" tactics of the Georgian army.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


Maloy, I honestly don't mean to be an ass here, but the conflict between Goergia and Russia really showed how inept Russia was. Quite a few Russians lost their lives and a couple of Russia's top fighters were shot out of the sky. Russia is still using some seriously out dated hardware.

If this conflict was matched in regards to the amount of men and weapons used, I think Georgia would have taken it. It was the sheer numbers that over whelmed the Georgians.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Georgia will never be able to match Russia if it comes to a conflict. The only winner in this situation would be the people selling the weapons. Oh and when I say the ones selling the weapons I mean the people who own the arms industries in Russia and the US, not the average citizens of these countries of course. Just thought I would clarify that.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Jacob08]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack
Maloy, I honestly don't mean to be an ass here, but the conflict between Goergia and Russia really showed how inept Russia was. Quite a few Russians lost their lives


About 70 Russians soldiers lost their lives in the whole conflict - which includes about 15 who died in the surprise artillery attack by Georgia on the night of August 8. Considering that for most of the war Russian troops had a more difficult task of rooting out Georgians, the loses were not that bad. Also keep in mind that Russians had fewer troops in Georgia for much of the conflict, than Georgians had. So Russians were actually outnumbered. For comparison, Georgia lost about 150 to 200 soldiers.

So please explain how you perceive these results as Russia's ineptness.



Originally posted by Bearack
and a couple of Russia's top fighters were shot out of the sky.


What do you mean "top fighters". Most of the planes shot down were Su-25 - which are nowhere close to been "top fighters" or any kind of fighters by any count. They are sub-sonic heavy ground attack aircraft that are over 30 years old (kind of like American A-10). They have little in the way of missile avoidance technology. A single Tu-22M was shot down, and that happened because Russia was likely unaware that Georgia had somewhat advanced Ukrainian Buk SAM system active.

Sorry, but again I don't see your "inept" arguement holding up.



Originally posted by Bearack
Russia is still using some seriously out dated hardware.


It was the 58th army that took part in the fighting in Georgia that was using older equipment. Other Russian military districts, which are closer to Moscow for example, are much better armed. There is no need for the 58th army to have the most modern expensive equipment and armor, and there was no need for the newest and best stuff in the August War. Russia did well enough with what they had.



Originally posted by Bearack
If this conflict was matched in regards to the amount of men and weapons used, I think Georgia would have taken it.


Actually Georgians outnumbered Russians during the conflict. Please provide sources where you got the information that there were more Russians fighting than Georgians. Georgians were also better armed with more modern infantry equipment. What exactly would have Georgia taken? Georgia got defeated quickly and efficiently, which virtually nobody is disputing.



Originally posted by Bearack
It was the sheer numbers that over whelmed the Georgians.


If you know so much about the "numbers", then please go ahead and share those numbers with us. How many Russians crossed the border into Georgia and how many Georgians troops were there in the conflict area. I don't mean to be an ass, but I don't think you know the details of the war.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


Maloy, it took and matter of hours for Russia to dispatch 150 T-90's while all of Georgia's tank battalion has a mere 30 tanks which consist of a hosh posh of T-82 and T-74's. Also, Russia dispatched their air force which Georgia has nothing.

Having the mechanized advantage and air superiority and they still lost nearly 70 soldiers in a two day incursion. This might be acceptable to Russian standards, but would have not been acceptable for US leadership.

BTW, Russia still doesn't have a main battle tank capable of competing against the Abrams. Also, the SU-25 was introduced in 1981. The F-15 which has been in service since 1976 has not had a single loss in either gulf wars which fought against the second largest army in the world.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack
 

BTW, Russia still doesn't have a main battle tank capable of competing against the Abrams.


T-90 has ARENA active defense system and top of the line ERA, and don't forget their ability to fire Refleks ATGMs from their 125mm cannon. It was built to be a quick and offensive weapon. Sure, it's not as quick as a jet-powered Abrams, but it's cheaper and it doesn't have that giant infrared signature on its ass.


The F-15 which has been in service since 1976 has not had a single loss in either gulf wars which fought against the second largest army in the world.


The Russian equivalent to the F-15 is the Su-27, not the Su-25. And how is it relevant to compare when US and Russia have different military conflicts in their history? Since when has the US ever fought an enemy with the SAM/AA capability that Georgia had against the Russians?

edit* my bad, I meant Sukhoi 27, not "su-29". Been awhile since I studied fighters
[edit on 23-7-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack
Maloy, it took and matter of hours for Russia to dispatch 150 T-90's


There were no T90's present in the South Ossetia war at all. Virtually all of the tanks on the Russian side were T-72s of different modifications. Also there were nowhere near 150 tanks, perhaps at the most 150 was the number for all Russian armor combined. Most of Russian armor consisted of BMP's, which in no way can be compared to tanks.


Originally posted by Bearack
while all of Georgia's tank battalion has a mere 30 tanks which consist of a hosh posh of T-82 and T-74's.


Where are you getting all of these random numbers, and what the heck is a T-74? According to Georgian Armed Forces sources, Georgia has over 200 T-72's and over 100 BMP's. Much of this equipment along with much of Georgian army was deployed in or near South Ossetia during the war. And I am more than certain that Georgia has more than a single tank battalion.

So again, I don't know where you are getting the information, but it is incorrect.



Originally posted by Bearack
Also, Russia dispatched their air force which Georgia has nothing.


Russian airforce operations were limited to Su-25 slow ground attack aircraft which I described earlier, and a Tu-22M equiped for recon and not attack. Georgia also fields a number of Su-25 in its airforce, and those planes took part in the fighting.



Originally posted by Bearack
Having the mechanized advantage and air superiority and they still lost nearly 70 soldiers in a two day incursion.


As I explained, there was no mechanized superiority, and airsuperiority was also very limited since no fighter aircraft were used by Russia. The fighting lasted for almost a week for your information, not 2 days. I double checked the number of Russian soldiers dead, and it is 64.


Originally posted by Bearack
This might be acceptable to Russian standards, but would have not been acceptable for US leadership.


In that case one must wonder where the said US acceptability standards are, as US lost thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and the deaths continue to mount. And it is not like the US is fighting against any organized professional military - the insurgents and Taliban have no armor, airforce, or artillery to speak of.


Originally posted by Bearack
BTW, Russia still doesn't have a main battle tank capable of competing against the Abrams.


And you base that assumption on what facts? T-90 has never gone against an Abrams in symmetrical warfare, so no conclusions as to superiority can be reached. To argue otherwise would be rather ignorant from a military standpoint.



Originally posted by Bearack
Also, the SU-25 was introduced in 1981. The F-15 which has been in service since 1976


SU-25 and F-15 are completely different aircraft made for different purposes, and nobody who knows what they are talking about would ever compare the two. If you want to compare F-15 - then take the Russian Su-27.



Originally posted by Bearack
has not had a single loss in either gulf wars which fought against the second largest army in the world.


This takes the cake. When was the Iraq army the second largest in the world?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I don't think he knows what he is talking about.

I never saw anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of military technology ever compare Su-25 to F-15, mistake T-90 and T-72 tanks for BMP's, and call the Iraqi armed forces the "second largest in the world".



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Bearack
 


Either way, Georgia launched the attack under some kind of delusional idea( probabley given to them by the U.S administration) that the U.S would come to their aid.

Georgia made a mistake and paid for it, the U.S should keep out of other major powers spheres of influence like they demand others do in Central and Southern America...Hypocrisy at its worst.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join