Russo-Georgian War: Day 4--Ceasefire


Earlier today, the Georgian national assembly overwhelmingly voted to declare war against Russia and to impose martial law. 15 days of martial law, for those of you who believe that Georgia's President Saakashvili is using this as a pretext to make himself dictator. This seems to indicate that the Georgians view this situation, win or lose, as a two week-long affair. But to me, the oddest aspect of all to this situation is the calmness and near-unanimity with which the Georgians have taken this momentous step. How on earth can they expect to fight, much less win, a war with their huge and well-armed neighbor? What do they know that we don't? Or is this is just a case of hysterical mass-delusion?

One of the boring and irritating things about being a geezer is that you remember other times and other places. I well remember the nationalistic hysteria that swept through Pristina, the little-known capital of Serbia's Kossovo province in the late '80s, when a group of school-girls claimed they were being posioned by the authorities. Serbian friends of mine laughed over this, dismissing it as nonsense. "The Serbian authorities would never do such a thing," they told me. "The Albanians in Kossovo are crazy if they think they can make their own country." Now Kossovo is a country, and Serbs are on trial for mass-murder in three separate wars.

My mind drifts back further, to the fall of Allende in '73, widely seen in the USSR as a payback engineered by the CIA out of revenge for Soviet sponsorship of the Vietnamese. Within a few short years, the Soviets had crafted their own domino, the invasion of Afghanistan. When they were booted out of Chechnya decades later, many saw that as a rerun of the Afghan experience; yet the bedrock of Putin's popularity with the Russian people is that he re-invaded the breakaway state and reduced it to compliant rubble. But Georgia is not a breakaway state--it is in fact a separate nation. Even when its most famous son, Djugashvili, ruled the USSR with an iron hand, he made no attempt to legally incorporate Georgia or the other former republics into Russia itself. So what is to be Georgia's fate over the next 15 days? That of the first Chechnya? The second? Afghanistan? Or Poland, perhaps, half its territory permanently peeled off, the other half a compliant vassal state? There are no Islamic Wahhabist oil millions to bankroll prolonged resistance, so the latter option seems the likeliest. Yet thousands of Georgians still live in the Russian capital--will the war be taken into the Russian heartland over the next few days, as the Chechens did, with acts of terror? Can a modern war be fought without terrorist reprisals? We are about to find out. This war seems to have been unplanned, almost casual, and caught both sides by surprise. But the Russians, at least, have appeared well prepared for such a surprise.

Whatever the outcome, it will have a ripple effect. Already this is pushing the nuclear-armed Ukraine firmly into NATO's camp. Look for them to quietly strengthen their ties with the West and beef up their military over the next year. Look for Poland and the Czechs to become serious about missile defense. Look for the Turks, frustrated by this obvious assault on their Caspian oil pipeline ambitions, to woo Turkic republics like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan with renewed ardor. And most obviously of all, look for the Israelis to bomb Iran during this window of opportunity, before the scheduled delivery in a few months of Russian S-300 SAM air defense missiles to Tehran. When the dogs of war are loosed, many uncontrollable and unexpected dogfights ensue; what most people fail to realize is that, viewed with the icy detachment of the historian, the past few years, while they have appeared bloody to the American public with small wars ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan, have by the standards of the convulsive holocausts of the 20th century, been a period of relative peace and calm. That may be about to change. The next 15 days will provide us all with some clues.

UPDATE: DAY 2

Never has the fog of war been so instantly pierced by a million candles of rumor as by the internet. Rumors are flying everywhere today--that the Georgians have almost completely leveled the capital town of South Ossetia which is why they've 'redeployed' rather than retreated, that the Georgians have butchered the first Russian brigade into South Ossetia, critically wounding the commanding general, that they have mined and partially closed down the tunnel from Russia into South Ossetia. Or conversely that the tunnel has been cleared, and that the Russian columns are massing to attack Gori (which would sever all communications, including the oil pipeline, if captured), and that Georgian forces have pulled back to fight a desperate defensive battle there. In the west, the sole pass held by the Georgians in Abkazhia is under intense shelling, and if the Russians break through they will be able to smash through all the way down the Georgian seacoast. Russian forces have already been landed just north of the coastal city of Poti, which has been attacked by air, and Russian ships have blockaded the entire coastline. The Ukraine has supposedly threatened to close its naval bases against them, and there are accusations that the Ukraine has supplied the georgians with the SAMs that have brought down either 2 or 10 Russian aircraft, depending on who you believe. There is growing fear that the Ukraine will be next. Poland and the Baltic republics have issued strong statements of support for georgia, and there are rumors that Turkish ships are on their way to break the Russian blockade. There is also a rumor that the Turks and the US are resupplying the Georgians by air.

The Russian bombing is accused of being both bloody and inefficient. The two apartment houses destroyed in Gori were apparently mistaken for an air control center, and the pipeline bombings were also aimed at C&C centers, since the pipeline itself is underground. Generally, military experts are scoffing at the antiquated tactics and equipment of the Russians. The general feeling seems to be that they will win any real war, but their initial attempt at 'shock and awe' has been a failure. Some or all of the 2,000 Georgian troops in Iraq appear to already have been flown home by the US, possibly by military charter. Rather than the 18,000 troop total widely quoted here and elsewhere, the Georgians have in fact 28,000 full-time soldiers and up to 250,000 reservists, though these are poorly armed and trained and few have been called up, though many are in uniform. There are anywhere from 130 to 1,000 US military advisers still in Georgia and between 100 and 1,000 Israeli "GAL" subcontractors in the country, further complicating matters.

There is a great deal of geopolitical speculation online. Despite the strong evidence that the Georgians were ill-prepared for this event--they hadn't even called up their reservists or recalled 2,000 troops from Iraq, and the fact that Russia instantly mobilized a massive tank force nearby to invade, many claim that the timing was prompted by 'neo-cons' in Washington to coincide with Olympics coverage. Others accuse the Russians of instigating it, pointing out that Georgia invaded after being fired upon repeatedly by South Ossetian militia. This last detail does indeed appear to be a fact. Most opinion regards the Russian attack as 'payback' for Kossovo and an attempt to smash the Caspian-to-Black Sea BTC oil pipeline that bypasses Russian control. The main beneficiary of this pipeline is Turkey. Several people point out that Russia waited until oil prices were beginning to plunge before launching a series of actions that were sure to raise them dramatically again. Many feel that the US will continue to clandestinely arm and aid the Georgians, perhaps even with satellite intelligence and JDAMs, and will retaliate geopolitically by blockading Iran in the Straits of Hormuz and allowing the Israelis to bomb its nuclear installations. Several sites carry long lists of the US battle fleets on their way to the Persian Gulf now.

UPDATE: DAY 3

The news today is that there is no new news. The Russians seem to have to have stopped at the limits of South Ossetia for now. Whether this is for resupply or whether it comes as a result of VP Cheney's hotline phone call to PM Putin is anyone's guess. Whether it's actually the case at all is also anyone's guess. I've read one rumor that Putin and Bush were seen exchanging angry words in Beijing before Putin flew back to Russia. British newspapers are full of the 'it's all about the oil pipeline' meme, while the New York Times has an eyewitness account of Georgian forces on the retreat, bitterly blaming the US for failing to come to their aid. The rest of the news, including the capture of a Georgian base in western Abkhazia (isn't that a Harry Potter location?) and details of bombings in and around Gori and Tbilisi, are rehashes of yesterday's events.

The Russia Blog has a pro-Russian opinion piece detailing how the Georgians started the war. La Russophobe, the blogosphere's most anti-Russian site, points out that as a curious result of this year's military enlistment, 50% of all Russian soldiers will soon be non-Russians. 30% will be Chechens. La Russophobe believes, though they present no evidence for it, that the Georgians will fight a long-term guerilla war and become a second Chechnya.

Meanwhile, the notoriously (yet unreliably) unreliable Debkafile features a full list of the 5 warship groups on their way to the Persian Gulf. Will the US sacrifice Georgia in order to attack Iran? Or will the price of a free Georgia be a nuclear Iran down the road? Now is an excellent time to invest in all those arms manufacturer stocks you've been holding off on. If it's about oil, oil prices have risen only very slightly in response to the crisis, and the Russian stock market is down.

Reading the various websites covering this event, I am forcibly reminded of the old O. Henry short story about the New York fire department that was following the Russo-Japanese War through the newspapers. The fire chief had put up a huge map of the region into which he stuck little colored pins showing the progress of the war. For some reason, the firemen all favored the Japanese, but then one day a small child was about to be run down by a trolley outside, when a bearded Cossack leapt onto one of the fire-wagon horses and rode off to save him. After that, the fire department changed sides. My feeling is that the Georgians are waiting for a similar event.

BREAKING: The Washington Post and Yahoo both have huge updates now. Gori, claims the AP, has now fallen, and the 'country is cut in two', according to Georgian sources. Both the Post and AP report eyewitnesses seeing large numbers of Georgian dead in South Ossetia. Georgian casualties are described as 'massive'. Medvedev has reportedly said the mission is 'all but complete', while a senior Russian general is quoted as saying that there are no Russians in Gori. Communications to the city, however, have been cut off. If all of this is true, it represents a massive defeat for Georgia. Other reports claim that this is a hoax, based entirely on wild statements by Saakashvili. By claiming the Russians had cut his country in half and were about to attack Tbilisi, he was, they say, attempting to force the US into some act of overt support. Gori, has been evacuated, but the Russians have pulled back from it, as well as returning to their lines in Abkhazia. This is contrary to Fox News' latest report, but I suppose we'll all know more tomorrow.

UPDATE: Day 4

While the major media seem to believe that the Russians have inflicted a crushing defeat on Georgia, having taken Gori, and are on the road to Tbilisi, President Medvedev has issued an order freezing Russian troops at their Abkhazian and South Ossetian borders, though the tanks attacking the now-empty Gori, are demonstrably on Georgian soil. The Russians are repeating that Saakashvili 'must go', and in the strangest part of the statement, Medvedev said the Georgian military must be 'partially demilitarized'. What to make of this? Conspiracists are having a field day. Some are insisting that it means the Russians will continue their advance, others that it means that Israeli or US anti-tank weapons have been so effective that they have in fact halted the Russian advance. There are uncomfirmed claims that Russia has lost nearly 50 tanks and armored vehicles to them and suffered 'massive casualties'. Other reports say that the opposite is true, that it's Georgia which has suffered heavy casualties. Some laud the Georgians' skill at withdrawing to fortified positions around Tbilisi, others decry it as a rout. Two strange anomalies: during a Putin interview in Ossetia on TV, a Georgian plane could clearly be seen flying overhead--and Tskhinvali, which supposedly had been cleared of fleeing Georgian forces, was reported as having ongoing 'artillery duels'. Between whom? There seems little doubt Russia flattened parts of Gori in revenge for Tskhinvali, though the atrocities Russia is now highlighting on TV appear to be staged like Qana, since most of the city's residents had already fled to North Ossetia before the firing started. Agence France-Presse reports that US military experts are stunned at the speed and ruthless precision of the Russian advance. Other military analysts suggest instead that the Russian colmuns have ground to a halt because of lack of re-supply.

Others point out that Russian stock market sank to a 22-month low, and the ruble crashed against the euro and the dollar; the military halt, they say, was mandated by the 'oligarchs'. Some sites claim that Bush's ultimatum called the halt--others attack his weakness and ineffectuality savagely. In the absence of facts or new military activity, geopolitical speculation has now taken over. Some commentators believe that the Republicans instigated the whole war as a favor to the McCain campaign. The retaliatory Iran-attack angle is gaining wide play. Even more space is devoted to talk of the West's weakness, the Georgians' stupidity, and Bush's stupidity and/or perfidy. Did Bush encourage the Georgians to go to war just to make Putin look like Hitler? Putin's genius is lauded, and Spengler in the New Asia Times goes so far as to cynically suggest he run for US president. Meanwhile, an academic movement led by Dr Charles King and swiftly adopted by Glenn Greenwald suggests that Russia is genuinely the aggrieved party in this and has behaved with restraint and moral rectitude.

Oceans of speculation about the Ukraine. Will the Ukraine be next? several blogs scream. The president of the Ukraine, along with those of two other neighboring states, is reportedly in Georgia right now. Did the Ukraine instigate the attack? Has the Ukraine been the main supplier of arms all along? Did they encourage the Georgians to attack S. Ossetia? Will this drive NATO into accepting their membership application? My personal feeling is that the Ukraine could probably defeat with ease any Russian forces sent against them--their armed forces are exactly 300x those of Georgia, they have thousands of tanks, their airforce is in slightly better shape than Russia's, and they have (or had in 1991) 7500 tactical nuclear warheads.

--

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ukraine has no nuclear weapons (#109745)
by BlaiseP

They're all gone as of 1996 and the silos are all dismantled.

I have a friend (#109750)
by Kierkegaard

who worked on that project. She says the silos were mostly inoperable anyway, but the Ukraine inherited nearly 1/3 of the USSR's tactical nukes. With their strong air force--which at one point in the 90s was actually superior to Russia's--they can easily deliver them.

I Have Been in Ukraine and though I am a Russiaphile.... (#109752)
by Traveller

...I do wish Ukraine well, (when they arrested me for accidentally being in their country, they were very cool with me).

I am currently reading Stalin's Ghost by Martin Cruz Smith...when Mr. Smith is on his game, Gorky Park, Havana Bay, he can't be beat...he has misses in his writing also, but I am tremendously enjoying another Arkady Renko novel.

Here:

http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Ghost-Arkady-Renko-Novel/dp/0743276736/ref...

Traveller

I Proudly Keep Flip-Floping On This.... (#109748)
by Traveller

...as I understand more, as more data is accumulated...sure I'm changing my views...mighty proud of it too...as the Music Man might say.

It is still entirely possible for Russia to be the big loser in this mess...it is hard to believe that this would have been the outcome, but it is becoming a distinct possibility.

Or Georgia...I just don't know yet how this will shake out.

Nice to see you Blaise!

Best Wishes, Traveller

K, I Appreciate Your Erudite & Thoughtful Updates....But.... (#109744)
by Traveller

...it should be noted that matters are growing even more dicey with American Troops set to deliver aide, and Russian Troops holding 12 miles out of Tbilisi...C17's are flying in to the Tbilisi Airport.

Mistakes happen...God knows.

I just saw Condi Rice's Press Conference and I was fairly positively impressed by her handing of the issues presented.

What does the Bear do now?

Traveller

Well, I ceased updating (#109746)
by Kierkegaard

because I feel the war is over. The Russians are obviously leveling Gori and looting the countryside as pay-back for the Georgian treatment of S. Ossetia, but my feeling is they'll return to their lines. They may make a grab for a port near the Turkish border, but they are under pressure from the Ukraine, whose president was in Tbilisi yesterday and who just signed a decree banning the Russian fleet from using Black Sea ports as long as they are at war. More measures are threatened--and the Ukraine's military muscle is the key. So I don't believe there will be any direct confrontation with the US 'humanitarian aid' inflights.

However, I could be wrong, and the Russians may intend to occupy the whole country long enough to destroy the BTC pipeline. But the Turks won't like that. And the Georgians would definitely fight a Chechen-like guerrilla war, supplied from Turkey.

Ecch, Russia wouldn't dare bust up those pipelines. (#109749)
by BlaiseP

The last thing the Russians need is another repetition of the Turkey-Russian wars.

Why is McCain dissing Conservapedia? (#109372)
by Spartacvs
Precedent for Crimea (#109364)
by Bill White

77% of Crimea speaks Russian, not Ukrainian and local anti-NATO sentiment runs high.

There are a great many similar unexploded situations across the former Soviet Union.

--

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

FOX News angle . . . . (#109354)
by Bill White

Maybe the reports that Georgia is "cut in two" is some sort of psy-ops to induce Western action, although what action we might take is hard to discern.

--

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

Russia Continues the Assault... (#109185)
by Traveller

my sense is that the war started over S. Ossetia because it is easy....the real prize is the Black Sea section known as Abkhazia, that also wishes to separate....I predicted the war over 12 hours ago when Georgia agreed to leave S. Ossetia, but I was wrong.

Russia is pushing on in punishing Georgia....a nasty business, but the real prize has always been Abkhazia.

Will there be any Georgia left when Russia is through?

Yes, but minus S. Ossetia and Abkhazia.

I think...damned if I can read the mind of the Bear.

I do know that the 58th Russian Division was prepositioned and entirely ready for this action...like a German Blitzkrieg, they were ready.

Traveller

This is more important that the M Scott meta war (#109189)
by Bill White

IMHO

It does appear Putin was the larger aggressor here and yet either baited Georgia or had intelligence that permitted initial appearances to suggest Georgia was first to upset the status quo from several days ago.

Vladimir simply is a skillful predator (IMHO) and yet we seem to think our Machiavellian wannabes (such as Randy Schuenemann) have a snowball's chance against the guy. And that we can wage an existential war against some obscure Islamicists and have enough resources and attention span to handle non-Islamic threats as well.

--

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

Saakashvili is angling for a cause célèbre (#108958)
by Spartacvs

by exacerbating the situation in S. Ossetia, hoping the West will rally around the Georgia cause.

But he's going to be sorely disappointed by the West's reaction and justifiably painted as the aggressor and the one most likely to end up paying the price. I just hope that the minimum of Georgia and S. Ossetia's citizens will end up paying the ultimate price for his perilous adventurism.

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5911562/Georgia-declar...

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Not quite the cause célèbre (#108967)
by Jay C

I think Georgian Pres. Saakashvili may well end up as a cause célèbre: but not in the way he thinks. "Disappointed by the West's reaction"? Certainly - although it would seem to be something like insane folly if he were expecting anything more than verbal support.

"Justifiably painted as the aggressor"? Eh - not so much. You, me, and probably most of the Forvmians can, I think, understand that the Russian/Georgian/South Ossetian tangle isn't a black-and-white case of absolute "right" and "wrong": but that view isn't necessarily what will play, or need to be played, on the world stage.

And speaking of "playing" the Russian/Georgian conflict (just on the general principle of injecting domestic politics into everything): a Politico post on the US candidates' views . (H/T John Cole )

You're right, the underlying conflict (#108974)
by Spartacvs

over S. Ossetia isn't a simple issue but neither was it a conflict that Georgia needed to escalate into a direct confrontation between Georgian and Russian military forces. It's hard to paint Russia as the villain or the major instigator here, given that Georgia's military assault on the S. Ossetia capital is what triggered the escalation.

This is the equivalent of Turkey invading and seeking to occupy N. Iraq to prevent an independent Kurdistan on its S. border.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

A Sudden Thought (#108956)
by M Scott Eiland

A glance through a brief Google search suggests that Georgia didn't end up with any of the old Soviet nuclear arsenal--but one has to wonder what the confidence level is for that.

--

I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground (#108976)
by Spartacvs

here in saying that no one else shares the apparent glee indicated by your comment at the prospect however remote, of this conflict escalating to the use of nuclear weapons.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Interesting (#109014)
by M Scott Eiland

I'd say "posting rules" again--given this is yet another violation of "comment, not the commenter" on your part--except that having a comment with your name on it that represents such a hysterical misreading of my reason for posting that comment is punishment enough for this infraction, really. However, my earlier warning stands. Keep this up, and I'm betting that you'll be looking at a suspension in the near future.

--

Apparent glee? (#108991)
by Soothsayer

If you say so, Carnac. Those of us without your abilities must content ourselves with taking hypothetical musings at face value, without accusing fellow commenters of taking joy in the thought of the death of thousands or millions of people.

I don't think that's ground you're standing on.

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

What Hank said (#108995)
by Spartacvs

This is not the 1st, nor do I expect it to be the last occasion that Scott's comments have wandered into musing about the possibility of nuclear weapons being used to resolve a conflict. And I don't remember any occasion wherein Scott's comments were qualified by expressing horror or revulsion at the prospect. YEMV.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

How well do you think you know M Scott? (#108999)
by Soothsayer

Because I'm guessing that you don't know him as well as you think you do.

Except for the occasional gatherings of a few Forvm members, all that there is to go on is the comments posted here. That really isn't a whole hell of a lot. Writing isn't a perfect medium of expression. And usually when there is a small amount of writing, like a comment, there is a large amount of room for misinterpretation. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe M Scott never expressed horror or revulsion at the prospect of nuclear weapons being used to resolve a conflict because he just assumed that was obvious? Did you consider any other possible interpretations other than that M Scott must be gleeful about the possibility?

A little food for thought: it seems like most of the Forvmites who have actually met each other in person, actually like each other. Perhaps you might want to think about that before you make assumptions about the underlying psychology of commenters you have never met.

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

All I have to go on (#109003)
by Spartacvs

and all that should concern me are his comments here at the forvm. This isn't personal and I have no interest in making it so, nor in practicing amateur psychology on the personality behind the comments.

This is not the 1st time Scott and I have clashed on what I would characterize as a cavalier attitude to the use of nuclear weapons in resolving conflict, contained within some of his comments. I seem to remember one flippant remark on topic referencing masturbation fantasies, almost got me banned at Scott's insistence. Not that I bear a grudge, like I said it's nothing personal. But it is disturbing that this theme seems to crop up regularly in Scott's comments.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

That's not all you have to go on (#109008)
by Macallan

Since he's been elected a moderator… twice… perhaps everyone else sees something you're missing. IOW, a majority seems comfortable enough to give him the 'nuclear' blog trigger without worrying about that cavalier attitude you mention.

Something to think about.

--

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Well since I was one of those (#109020)
by Spartacvs

who voted for Scott this go around in response to the general call for affirmative action for conservatives at the forvm and while fully aware of his blogging history here, I guess your suggestion is moot.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Not really (#109009)
by HankP

people often take much more care in the decisions they make themselves compared to the advice or recommendations they give others or in their beliefs about various policies.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Nuclear weapons are the F bombs of war, they're only an option. (#109006)
by BlaiseP

They are a pistol with two barrels, one aimed directly at the eye of the shooter. Many horrible dictators have them, none dare use them. It's always a fashionable statement in certain camps to advocate their use, mostly to stir the pot, but nobody with any power to actually deploy one thinks this way.

Nuclear weapons ensure the possessor state a degree of impunity. Nobody dares invade them.

Which no doubt (#109007)
by Spartacvs

tops the list of reasons why states like Iran and N. Korea would seem to want them, rather than the self serving claims that such weapons are wanted for primarily offensive use put forward as reasons to justify military action to prevent them. Stateless organizations like AQ and the risk of proliferation by states to such non-state actors is a different matter entirely.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Well (#108992)
by HankP

in other diaries Scott does seem to hope for the possibility of an escalation in armed conflict. A couple of other commenters, like Bernard Guererro and Kierkegaard have made similar points (Bernard especially seems to want to nuke anyone who looks at the US funny). It's a different mind set, and one that's alien to me since it doesn't seem to make any sense. YMMV.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

In This Case. . . (#109015)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .I was expressing concern that Georgia might have unaccounted for nukes and that Russia might--not realizing this due to lousy post-Cold War accounting for such things--push too hard and wind up with an out of control situation. Glad to clear up my intent--if only to avoid any more thoroughly embarrassing comments like the one I replied to just before this one.

As for hoping for conflict, as I explained before, I'm just not unwilling to engage in it upon provocation. If we backed down every time Moscow puffed itself up from 1945 on, we'd all be standing in line for crappy food and booze right now.

--

Well what exactly do you mean (#109021)
by Spartacvs

by wind up with an out of control situation?

Would it be unreasonable for anyone reading your original comment and this clarification, to understand you to be referencing the potential for actual use of nuclear weapons? Or at the very least, the threat of their use?

I retract the glee characterization, in the interests of comity.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Yes (#109023)
by M Scott Eiland

I find it unbelievable that you interpreted that question as evidence of a desire to see a nuclear war between Russia and Georgia. As a hint that my reaction is not unreasonable, note that Blaise--who has never hesitated to challenge me when he thought I was somehow out of line--managed to reply to my comment almost immediately in a non-hysterical manner with a comment led by the header "Can't prove a negative, but there's something to that thought."

If Georgia does have nuclear weapons, and Russia believes they do not, that fact would be a dangerous information deficit that could lead to bad things happening if Russia keeps pushing and Georgia keeps resisting. That much should be obvious to anyone considering the question seriously.

--

Again (#109026)
by Spartacvs

what do you mean exactly by bad things happening?

Are you suggesting that should Georgia posses a nuclear weapon(s) and doesn't make that fact known to Moscow, there might come a point in the conflict were Georgia felt compelled to use the weapon(s) against Russia?

It still seems to me that your comments are implying Russia might yet be tripped up in Georgia by its own bad accounting for nuclear weaponry during the break up of the old Soviet Union. Is his what you are implying? and should Georgia prove to have a nuclear weapon(s), do you not think it would be incumbent on them to let Moscow know about that by diplomatic mission in preference to detonating the weapon?

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

What Point Are You Trying To Make? (#109027)
by M Scott Eiland

I haven't said anything at all about what I think Georgia *should* do, nor did I "blame" the Russians. I pointed out that "official" records indicate that Georgia didn't inherit any of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, and wondered if that might not be correct, and if it wasn't it might lead to problems. For some reason, that led to you making an insulting, hysterical comment that you're now reduced to conducting a lot of meaningless handwaving to avoid fully retracting. You might want to reconsider that strategy.

--

In summary then (#109030)
by Spartacvs

musing about 'confidence levels' on further explanation becomes talk of the possibility of 'an out of control situation' and of the potential for 'bad things happening'.

All euphemisms for what exactly?

And let's not pretend this is the 1st time that you or several of our other conservative commenter's have put themselves on the record in comments as advocating the first strike use of nuclear weapons as an acceptable method of resolving conflict between nations.

I retracted my gleeful characterization of your comment because I recognize it was gratuitous, but it wasn't a personal attack on the commenter that would require a retraction.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

For It To Be The First Time. . . (#109033)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .it would have to be an actual example of it. The lack of support you are receiving for your interpretation (except from Hank, who hasn't commented on the matter again since I posted an explanation) should be serving as a free clue for you.

Given that two former parts of the Soviet Union are involved, concern that nuclear weapons might cause problems in the situation--particularly if not everyone is aware of who has them--should be a cause for concern for everyone. Apparently, it is also an occasion for incoherent comments about those evil, evil conservatives and how they want to nuke everything.

--

My arguments stand or fall by themselves (#109043)
by Spartacvs

and don't require support from others to validate them.

Notwithstanding, I think this intervention has been useful in clarifying your position on the first use of nuclear weapons and I look forward to consistency in the matter on your part in future comments.

concern that nuclear weapons might cause problems in the situation--particularly if not everyone is aware of who has them--should be a cause for concern for everyone

Yes it would be. In which case what course of action ought the Georgian government take in your opinion, since their confidence level would presumably be better informed than the Russians or your Google search? In other words your original comment appeared to speculate that the Russians might get tripped up by their own past negligence with policing up the old Soviet Union's nuclear weaponry. Either you meant the Georgians possessed such a device and might detonate it in a first strike. Or that they would be in a position to threaten Russia with a detonation, which they don't appear to have done even though they would be the one's to know if they indeed had one. Nuclear weapons are best used as a deterrent, but they don't provide any deterrence or much practical benefit if nobody knows you have them.

Or are we talking about one side or the other accidentally triggering the detonation of some forgotten nuke buried in a field somewhere? (not technically possible)or the Georgians coming across one hidden away in an old barn in the combat area? (ludicrous)

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Fall -nt- (#109056)
by M Scott Eiland

--

What that's it? (#109060)
by Spartacvs

You don't want to respond to the implications of your confidence levels comment?

A glance through a brief Google search suggests that Georgia didn't end up with any of the old Soviet nuclear arsenal--but one has to wonder what the confidence level is for that.

and the prospect raised by your speculation that Georgia might be lying in wait to surprise the Russians with a nuclear device?

Such a tease.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Not Really (#109063)
by M Scott Eiland

You've already admitted that your original comment was out of line--regardless of how you rationalize it--and I'm not inclined to indulge the followup sophistry.

--

Not trying to trick you Scott (#109068)
by Spartacvs

I retracted "apparent glee" because it was a gratuitous characterization though not in conflict with the rules, and detracted from the greater point I wanted to make. That point being that your comments often appear disturbingly at ease with the prospect of the first use of nuclear weapons whenever a conflict arises involving a favorite enemy, and you are not alone in that respect. I just find it all a bit too Curtis LeMay for my tastes [edit] and I suspect I am not alone in that thought either.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Link(s) please (#109032)
by Soothsayer

Spartacvs wrote:
...And let's not pretend this is the 1st time that you or several of our other conservative commenter's have put themselves on the record in comments as advocating the first strike use of nuclear weapons as an acceptable method of resolving conflict between nations...

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

So many links, so far off the mark... (#109074)
by Soothsayer

108327, 108349, and 108368 were obviously facetious replies to Brooks' hypothetical, which M Scott considered unrealistic. None of them qualify as seriously advocating a nuclear first strike.

103955 is M Scott stating that it is not paranoid of the Israelis to believe that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, they will use them against Israel, especially since that is exactly what its leaders have said they will do. M Scott also stated that if Iran causes Israel to fear for its survival, and launch a preemptive strike, then it's Iran's fault. This is not the same as M Scott seriously advocating a nuclear first strike.

103981 is Tomsyl assuming that the response to a nuclear first strike by Iran would be disproportional. He goes on to state that there is something to be said for an object lesson to others, which I assume means that if Iran were to nuke one of the nations that he mentions, he believes it would be in the best interest of that nation to do something so horrific to Iran that the next nation that entertained ideas of nuclear terrorism would think twice about the consequences. This is not the same as a conservative commenter advocating a nuclear first strike.

61508 is M Scott responding sarcastically to Mickey Love downplaying America's role in freeing Europe during WWII. 61510 is Bernard Guerrero chiming in with a smiley face and a witty comment. Neither is seriously advocating a nuclear first strike.

43816 is M Scott's response to your firebombing hypothetical, and deserves to be read if full:

M Scott Eiland wrote:
You mean after they start a war, kill millions of civilians themselves, have their invading armies destroyed, and they hole up in their cities waiting to turn them into a killing ground for hundreds of thousands of US troops while refusing calls for unconditional surrender?

Without hesitation.

Clearly, M Scott is not advocating a nuclear first strike.

43579: I don't know why you even included this one. Sulla is making fun of the Left trumpeting polls that it agrees with and disregarding polls that it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

98788 is M Scott stating that he is glad that FDR and Truman were in charge from 1936-1945, and not Herbert Hoover, because Hoover wouldn't have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not the same as M Scott advocating a nuclear first strike.

And finally we get to the money quote...

M Scott Eiland wrote:
The bottom line is that if a situation arises where the US needs to use nukes first--say, ironclad intelligence that North Korea was about to start a massive artillery barrage of Seoul and the area just south of the DMZ (where tens of thousands of US troops are currently stationed) as cover for a massive invasion--any man or woman worthy of the title of President of the United States will give that order and--when confronted by the inevitable sniveling moron from the media who shrieks about first usage--will reply, "It was the right thing to do, as horrible as it was. I'd do it again in an instant if the situation called for it."

I can't see Iran calling for it, though. We can turn Iran into a gibbering economic wreck without denting a single oil well or splitting a single atom: cruise missiles and laser guided bombs (both using conventional explosives) do very nasty things to a modern infrastructure. A manila envelope full of satellite photos of the one hundred most valuable non-oil related economic assets in Iran should get the mullahs' attention, if needed.

Of course, if their mouthpiece keeps hinting about wanting to wipe Israel off the map, it may not matter what we do--Israel will take care of business like they did in 1981.

Oh Dear Lord, M Scott came up with a hypothetical situation in which, in his opinion, the President of the United States best option would be to use a nuclear first strike. How evil. Really. He should know that its better for tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of civilians and U.S. troops to die in an artillery barrage, rather than to strike first with the only weapons that could get the job done in such a situation.

Of course, all M Scott is doing is giving his solution to a hypothetical problem. He never advocated launching a nuclear first strike against North Korea without cause, and he specifically stated that there were other, better options in dealing with Iran, if and when the time comes.

Not a single one of your links showed a conservative commenter seriously advocating a nuclear first strike. It's one thing to disagree with a position, it is quite another to deliberately mischaracterize it, or to create it out of whole cloth. Liberals and Conservatives have enough to argue over as it is.

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

By the way, on this very thread, (#109115)
by Jordan

add Eiland's rather ambiguous endorsement (or at any rate certainly not a condemnation) of an Israeli nuclear strike on Iranian installations. Again, I'd describe the tone as jocular or gleeful, perhaps schadenfreudlich. Making it hard to gauge just how serious he is about endangering Iranian civilians living nearby. Perhaps that's the point?

http://theforvm.org/node/2845/109065#comment-109065

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

I do not think that word means what you think it means... (#109169)
by Soothsayer

Let's parse this:

M Scott Eiland wrote:
I wouldn't presume to give advice to the Israelis. They'll do what they see fit to protect themselves. If I was running the Iranian nuclear program, I'd consider making the nuclear bunkers a tad shallow just to remove the temptation for the Israelis to "make sure." That, or make sure to live at least twenty miles from the site.

1. M Scott does not claim that the Israelis will, or should, listen to his advice.

2. M Scott believes that the Israelis will do what they see fit to protect themselves, regardless of what M Scott or anyone else's advice may be.

3a. In the hypothetical situation in which M Scott was in charge of the Iranian nuclear program, he would consider making the nuclear bunkers a tad shallow to ensure that the Israelis use conventional bunker busting weapons, and not nuclear ones.

3b. He would consider making the nuclear bunkers a tad shallow to ensure that the Israelis used low-yield nuclear bunker busters, and not high-yield nuclear weapons in order to ensure that the bunkers were destroyed.

Either way you choose to interpret #3 (OT: why don't you just ask M Scott what he meant?), it is clear that in the hypothetical situation that he proposes, he would take action that would possibly reduce civilian casualties. How is that jocular or gleeful or schadenfreudlich?

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

Is flippant the word I'm looking for? (#109180)
by Jordan

Gallows humor? Anyhow I'll admit that quote's even more ambiguous than the previous ones, and the best we can do is draw the most general conclusions about what Eiland has in mind.

Here's how I read it: the Israelis might make a nuclear first strike if they think the Iranian nuclear program is a threat. In that case, Iranians might want to stand out of the way. Aside from the breezy tone, that's about it.

I'm looking for any kind of warning that such a move might be a bad idea, an encouragement to dozens of other nations to pursue nuclear deterrent, a policy disaster for Israel, etc. Don't see anything of the kind. Do you?

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

I can't see what isn't there. (#109277)
by Soothsayer

Jordan wrote:
I'm looking for any kind of warning that such a move might be a bad idea, an encouragement to dozens of other nations to pursue nuclear deterrent, a policy disaster for Israel, etc. Don't see anything of the kind. Do you?

No, but I rarely expect a commenter to put the entirety of their position on any subject into a single comment. Like I've said before, writing is an imperfect medium of expression. And it is almost a certainty that the less writing there is, the less perfectly someone is expressing themselves. "When in doubt, ask for clarification" is the policy I try to stick to.

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

Off what mark? (#109110)
by Jordan

You ask for links to conservatives calling for nuclear first strikes. I roll up my sleeves and provide a couple dozen examples (43579, by the way, begins an entire thread on the topic), mostly from this summer alone. And this is the thanks I get.

Not a single one of your links showed a conservative commenter seriously advocating a nuclear first strike.

Since when did the bar become "seriously" advocating a first strike? As I recall, this discussion began with Spartacvs describing the mood of advocating nuclear attacks as "apparent glee"; HankP characterizes the mood as "hopeful"; Spartacvs notes again he can't recall expressions of "horror or revulsion."

Now you want to dismiss half of my examples as "not serious." Of course, I don't have the mindreading skills to know whether some of the comments were "obviously facetious" as you insist, but I can characterize some of the more jocular calls for the incineration of foreigners as being "gleeful" in tone. I'm glad you think the commenters were "just joking," but I feel compelled to note those comments get made all the time, never retracted, and are shored up with spirited defenses of the atomic bombings and serious calls for attacks on Iran, North Korea, and other usual suspects.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran. Etc.

So when you say that many of these examples don't show commenters seriously advocating a first strike, I have to agree. They show commenters gleefully advocating a first strike.

For the record, Hiroshima & Nagasaki were nuclear first strikes, in both the historic & strategic senses (though not in the MAD sense of a disabling first countermove).

And as for "the money quote", I actually made a mistake in copying the links (now corrected above). For me, the "money quote" is Bernard Guerrero's "vitrification" policy on John's Iran policy diary (comment link below). Note the lack of smileys. Still, even in their absence I would characterize the remark as jocular or "gleeful."

http://theforvm.org/node/2536/98466#comment-98466

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

Thanks Jordan (#109164)
by Soothsayer

Thanks for the links, and thanks for clarifying your use of "nuclear first strike" in a sense other than the MAD definition, which I prefer.

That being said, I'm sure it will not surprise you when I say that we still disagree. =)

BG's vitrification comment, and lack of clarification, has too many possible meanings for me to form an opinion. He could be serious, he could be joking, he could be troll-baiting... it's impossible to tell. Gramsky seems to give him some benefit of the doubt:

Gramsky wrote:
Which basically means you are given to an extreme position outside of any recognisable moral framework and not actually open to discussion.

It will of course be taken as joke, and everyone on the
board will assume that you mean it as a quick one liner
and thats what passes for wit in your neck of the woods.

Better than coming to the conculsion you actual mean to
advocate the murder of millions of ordinary Iranians.

And as for Spartacvs' and your characterization of the gleeful advocacy of a nuclear first strike, let me make sure I understand you.

Do you mean:

A) The commenter is jokingly advocating the use of a nuclear first strike, which is inappropriate because the subject involves the death of millions of people, or...

B) The commenter is seriously advocating the use of a nuclear first strike, in a tone that suggests they enjoy the thought immensely.

If it's A), then I can understand if you don't like certain commenters' sense of humor. If it's B), then besides BG's ambiguous "vitrification" comment, I don't think that any of the linked comments, including the ones in the lengthy 43579 thread, support your position.

Oh, and as for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I wouldn't characterize those as nuclear first strikes, and I'm sure that you and I would disagree as to whether or not it was the best course of action, but I'd like to think that if I was in Truman's position, you wouldn't think that I gleefully made the decision to drop those bombs. Truman certainly did not.

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

Unfortunately the ambiguity lies (#109178)
by Jordan

in the original comments, so I can't clear up your questions either. I tend to lean toward A) myself as an interpretation, but then we see a lot of bloodthirsty jokes around here and they don't lend themselves to clarity. All I can say for sure is that there are many examples of commenters advocating nuclear airstrikes in a gleeful tone. FWIW.

Truman, by the way, judging by his 1945 speeches and diaries was convinced Hiroshima was "a military base." Rather than, you know, a dense population center with an army headquarters to the north and supply depot to the south ("Little Boy" was set to airburst over the city between them). He doesn't seem to have left any acknowledgment that the purpose of the bombings was to target civilians directly.

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

Ecch, I read BD's vitrification comment as just stir-the-pot (#109167)
by BlaiseP

such as we often see hereabouts. He couldn't possibly be serious, but in all seriousness, the USA has never refrained from a first-strike stance.

There's a wonderful bit at the end of the Book of Jonah. Brief synopsis: Jonah is called on to preach to Nineveh, (modern Ninewah in Iraq). He rebels, runs off, of his seagoing adventures every child is well-acquainted. But thereafter the story gets more interesting. He goes to Nineveh, the city repents and Jonah is left somewhat bitter, for he really did want Nineveh to be toasted to a cinder by the Almighty. This is how the book ends:

So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.

And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made [it] to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.

But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, [It is] better for me to die than to live.

And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, [even] unto death.

Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and [also] much cattle?

That business about right hand and left means children. How many innocent people have to die to destroy a certain number of guilty persons? Do you want to create that fraction? I don't.

Mathematics informs decisions; it should never make them. (#109176)
by Soothsayer

No, I don't want to create a fraction or algorithm that basically says: if guilty:innocent is > X:Y, then drop the bomb.

That being said, there are situations in which the best course of action does lead to innocent deaths. Tragic, but necessary.

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

The flip, jovial attitude (#109112)
by Pranky

towards escalating war and nuclear holocaust somehow never gets the horrified indignation of the conservatives here who wish to honor one dead guy... like Tony Snow, or the sadly still-oxygen-wasting Robert Novak.

But, ha, nukes are fun in fantasy land!

A Couple Of Quibbles (#109054)
by M Scott Eiland

You posted the "vitrification"* link twice;

As reading the last link reveals, I did not call for the assassination of Fidel Jr.--I just said I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

And you're still wrong about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. :-P

Oh, and I don't know how you're constructing those links, but taking comments out of the threads that spawned them makes it hard for the reader to determine context (for example, the comments of yours that I was replying to in the Hiroshima diary).

*--sub-quibble: I never used the word "vitrification" in that link--that's BG's schtick, IIRC. I never asked: you *wouldn't* nuke NK if you were President and got word they were about to invade SK and level Seoul and our troops in the DMZ with artillery? Just wondering.

--

My first post in this diary. "Vitrification" is a good example. (#109055)
by Jordan

Being posted twice doesn't make it less so.

Publicly saying you "wouldn't mind" if someone were assassinated is an endorsement.

And Hiroshima & Nagasaki discussion are relevant here because we have you & others advocating nuclear first strike...I admit I don't see much of what I'd call glee in that particular discussion.

Sorry about the links...I'm not sure how to link to the thread vs. the specific comment. But wait a minute! You guys were just complaining about the lack of links, now you're complaining about the link format.... Hey, this rope is new and itchy! :)

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

Interestingly Enough. . . (#109059)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .you might want to note that in that "vitrification" link, I was specifically advocating *against* using nuclear weapons against Iran because I believed it was unnecessary and excessive--I only advocated their use in response to a specific well-known hypothetical.*

*--See, Brooks! I *can* use hypotheticals.

--

Didn't you just do that? :) (#109062)
by Jordan

And were you suggesting the Israelis should have the nuclear option on or off the table in an Osirak 2 scenario?

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

I Wouldn't Presume To Give Advice To The Israelis (#109065)
by M Scott Eiland

They'll do what they see fit to protect themselves. If I was running the Iranian nuclear program, I'd consider making the nuclear bunkers a tad shallow just to remove the temptation for the Israelis to "make sure." That, or make sure to live at least twenty miles from the site.

--

Im sure you would not presume. (#109149)
by Gramsky

And I am sure that the Israelis will do what is in their
interests be they security, political, financial or regards
drinking water.

And while youre not presuming best not to advise the Iranians
either. If the Israelis with their estimated 100-150 nukes
decide to launch any at Iran, the depth of bunkers is not
going to be an issue.

The comedy of using nukes to 'make sure' that blowing up
a hole in the ground was 'successful' would be great if
it was such a tragically stupid idea.

No. . . (#109151)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .I'm quite willing to advise, make demands of, or otherwise denigrate the Iranian government. They're a bunch of crazies who fund terrorism and who are threatening to obtain nuclear weapons as their head clown brags about wanting to wipe Israel off the map. If they get their own act together, fine; otherwise, I really don't care what happens to them in the course of other countries protecting themselves from Iranian hostility. Clearly, we'll all be better off if the process of neutralizing whatever threat Iran poses doesn't involve the splitting of plutonium atoms.

--

Try the forvm's search function (#109040)
by Spartacvs

I don't have much luck with it myself, so I'm relying on memory. I'm sure others could chip in with their own recollections too.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Telling your opponents to do (#109042)
by Steve Peterson

Telling your opponents to do research in support of your position doesn't really work for me.

That said, Scott did exhibit a remarkable skill at Nuclear War, beating a friend and me even though we were cheating extensively (but not extensively enough!)

--

Steven Palmer Peterson

Blame the search function (#109047)
by Spartacvs

not me, or blame my inept use of the search function. I don't care which.

I assure you if I could figure out how to access the links under Drupal, then I would provide them since I would be as keen to examine previous comments on the subject as anyone.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

*sigh* (#109044)
by M Scott Eiland

The worst part of it was that I didn't believe you were cheating until you showed me how you were doing it.

--

Perhaps if we had cheated (#109045)
by Steve Peterson

Perhaps if we had cheated more competently you would have believed more quickly!

--

Steven Palmer Peterson

Well. . . (#109046)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .it is always easier to believe that you're being cheated when you're actually losing.

--

Don't Interrupt The Narrative (#109034)
by M Scott Eiland

Someone to the right of Lenin mentioned nuclear weapons; therefore, it must be a symptom of wanting to see Russia and Georgia nuke each other until one could read a newspaper by the green glow at midnight in Moscow--it's the law!

--

Tempting as it is... (#109037)
by Soothsayer

...to sit this one out, I have no intention of letting that particular drip of venom poison the discussion.

If ever there was an example of how NOT to engage in a polite political discussion, Spartacvs' comment would be it. That is, of course, if it is as baseless an accusation as I think it is. Which is why I asked for a link.

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

You don't comment here much do you. (#109053)
by Spartacvs

Vitrification is a regular refrain from a certain section of the commentariat.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

For the record (#109075)
by Soothsayer

You're right. I don't comment here much. However, I lurk a lot.

I seem to recall lurking not too long ago when several members of a certain section of the commentariat stated their belief that another section of the commentariat was making them feel unwelcome with statements and accusations that just barely skirted, and sometimes crossed, both the letter and spirit of the posting rules.

Kind of like the statement you just made.

--

"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche

Like the Now Ending War In S. Ossetia, May This One End Also? (#109076)
by Traveller

...Mercifully quick?

The Georgian's are pulling back from S. Ossetia. It's over. Russia won.

Duh...

I'm not sure it is a good thing to be able to say that the wars on The Forvm last longer than the War between Georgia and Russia.

Clears throat...yes.

May people pull back and end this one now also?

Best Wishes,

Traveller

Russia maybe won and maybe not. (#109152)
by Gramsky

The slow unofficial take over may no longer be possible
and Russia may be forced to present an international
arguement as regards its view of the legal status of
South Ossetia and other 'break away' regions.

This may force it to demand they be independant - looks
like hypocrisy given its stance on Kosovo, or that they
are part of Russia - stoking the evil empire expansion
fears, or actually accept they are part of Georgia but
demand a federal system. But the slow substitution of
Russian passports may no longer an available policy.

Must disagree, Trav (#109099)
by Kierkegaard

It doesn't seem to be over--the Russians now are moving on Gori. Some anaylists believe they'll proceed to occupy the whole country and install a new pro-Russian government.

Like it or not, the next phase of the Cold War has begun, apparently.

Abkhazia is also going down the tubes. (#109102)
by BlaiseP

This is just getting started. Chechnya is just next door: Russia is only digging itself a deeper hole.