Russia invades Georgia - WW3 on it's way?

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by galraen

What baffles me is why the political Neanderthals like Putin decided to reopen the cold war and why the Russian people voted for them.

Should I point out it was the U.S. who decided to put a missile shield in Russia's backyard and in doing so made a step towards hostile relations? How exactly did Putin reopen it?

Originally Posted by Xandax

Of more interesting development, then Abkhazia is requesting of Russia to acknowledge them as an independent nation. What is interesting will be what Russia's reply to that will be, seeing as Russia went into Georgia because they consider especially South Ottesia to be populated with Russian citizen.
I think Abkhazia was just there for convience of adding more pressure on Georgia, but it is the interesting after match of what happens to the regions now.

Eh? Abkhazia has Russian citizens as well, was involved in the 1992 war as well and was stuck in exactly the same situation. It wasn't there for "convenience" or to add pressure on Georgia. You make it sound as if their status as a breakaway province or their militia's decision to strike while Georgia was weak was somehow Russia's call.

And Russia has absolutely no benefit in Abkhazia or South-Ossetia being independent states completely dependent on Russia's support economically and militarily. Russia might feel forced to pull for it in reply to all this Western foolhardy chest-bashing, but from an internal politics viewpoint they just want the status quo ante.

[galraen]

Originally Posted by Brother None

Should I point out it was the U.S. who decided to put a missile shield in Russia's backyard and in doing so made a step towards hostile relations? How exactly did Putin reopen it?

Exactly, a missile SHIELD, a defensive tool, so why the paranoid responce? How the hell is agreeing to put anti-missile defences in an allies territory a hostile act. The hostility is originating from Russia, and for what purpose and why? I've not got any respect or trust in Dubya, but even he isn't insane enough to launch an attack on Russia. Their rhetoric is completely unbalanced and paranoid, it's as if Brezhnev was still in charge, why?

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by galraen

Exactly, a missile SHIELD, a defensive tool, so why the paranoid responce?

Well, on the one hand the US is giving Poland Patriot missiles in return for permission to put up this shield, on the other hand having a missile shield is pretty handy in an offensive war.

Just because it's a shield doesn't mean it can't be used as either a point of military intimidation or eventually used in a war.

Originally Posted by galraen

How the hell is agreeing to put anti-missile defences in an allies territory a hostile act.

Well, how do you think the US would respond if Russia put anti-missile defences on Cuba?

And this is hardly the first time the US is pushing their boundaries. As I mentioned above, they armed Georgia with offensive means, including attack helicopters, and trained Georgian troops. Those are pretty hostile acts to be performing on a country's border.

Last time Russia tried a trick like this in the American sphere of influence, Bay of Pigs happened, not to mention the main Cuba crisis.

Originally Posted by galraen

The hostility is originating from Russia, and for what purpose and why? I've not got any respect or trust in Dubya, but even he isn't insane enough to launch an attack on Russia. Their rhetoric is completely unbalanced and paranoid, it's as if Brezhnev was still in charge, why?

Just because the rhetoric is coming from Russia doesn't mean Russia is on the offensive. Russia has the most bravado, they have to because on the one hand they're the weaker party and on the other because it's expected by the people, who want this kind of rhetoric coming from the president, it makes them feel good about their country.

But despite all the rhetoric, it's constantly been the US making the provocative moves. Me? I'm surprised Russia has only responded so far by humiliating Georgia and stealing a lot of their American-issued weaponry. They could've done a lot worse, to be honest.

[galraen]

OK Brothernone, your messxage is clear, Russia is wonderful, NATO is evil.

NATO countries certainly have done a lot of bad things over the decades, but Russia has done just as bad. For every Iraq there's a Georgia, for every Suez there's a Hungary. Both are as bad as each other. Many of the people that criticise Russia for it's rhetoric and actions have already critisised the US/UK in equal measure. At least we're being consistent!

[Tricky]

Dear god, you're all still discussing this? Oh the irony.

I kind of childishly expected this thread to have come to some resolution by now. I suppose this symbolizes the truth that no direct action is ever taken. All people know how to do is discuss and defend their own viewpoints while real people die.

Man, I hate how this reminds me of the Phantom Menace. Stupid movie.

[Moonbiter]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Dear god, you're all still discussing this? Oh the irony.

I kind of childishly expected this thread to have come to some resolution by now. I suppose this symbolizes the truth that no direct action is ever taken. All people know how to do is discuss and defend their own viewpoints while real people die.

Man, I hate how this reminds me of the Phantom Menace. Stupid movie.

Man, as adult as you obviously are, please give us a hint as to the next Tricky-sanctioned topic on SYM. Your last one was a gripe about mail order. I guess you went out and changed the world with that one.

[Maharlika]

May I just remind everyone to just stick to the issues and refrain from making ad hominems and character assassinations.

Don't expect agreement in conflicts.

But we certainly expect respect and civility.

Thank you.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Brother None

Well, on the one hand the US is giving Poland Patriot missiles in return for permission to put up this shield, on the other hand having a missile shield is pretty handy in an offensive war.
<snip>

For what we know the shield can't be used offensively. The missiles used in the shield doesn't as far as I've read, carry an explosive charge but use impact to explode incoming missiles. As for patriot missiles, those are also mainly a defensive weaponry due to the nature of how they work (surface to air missiles basically)
The only way the shield could be used is in connection with offence is to preventing/reducing the effect of a retaliating strike after a first strike. But the weapon on its own is purely defensive.

You can't compare that in situation to placement of offensive nuclear-capable missiles on Cuba, as the situations are vastly different in all aspects, except perhaps a type of missiles where used in both.

And @Tricky - nobody is forcing you to read the discussion. If you want to change the world, by all means go out and do it.

[GawainBS]

Originally Posted by Xandax

For what we know the shield can't be used offensively. The missiles used in the shield doesn't as far as I've read, carry an explosive charge but use impact to explode incoming missiles. As for patriot missiles, those are also mainly a defensive weaponry due to the nature of how they work (surface to air missiles basically)
The only way the shield could be used is in connection with offence is to preventing/reducing the effect of a retaliating strike after a first strike. But the weapon on its own is purely defensive.

Think of it as a castle: Tactically defensive, but strategically offensive. Cutting down on your opponents options is quite an offensive tactic.

I never understood why the US were so keen on that shield anyway, unless, you've got no intrest in letting the Cold War die.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Maharlika

May I just remind everyone to just stick to the issues and refrain from making ad hominems and character assassinations.

Okay. But I just wanted to be part their world.. in the face of blistering irony.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by GawainBS

Think of it as a castle: Tactically defensive, but strategically offensive. Cutting down on your opponents options is quite an offensive tactic.

I never understood why the US were so keen on that shield anyway, unless, you've got no intrest in letting the Cold War die.

The two aren't comparable in that manner.
A "castle" would also be a stronghold to launch offensively forces from as well, and as such it isn't a defensive tool.

The "shield" is defensive in the nature that it can only be used reactionary. Without incoming missiles, the shield is worthless.
The missile shield is there because of power balance and all that yes, but militarily it can never be used offensive, lest they change the layout of the weaponry, in which case it is no longer the missile shield but simply "ordinary" offensive missile silos.

[GawainBS]

But getting your defenses in place is the first step in a succesful offense. To quote Sun-Tzu (He is said to know a thing or two about war): "Make yourself invincible before your start to torn down that of your enemy."

I do not really want to use it as an argument, just use to show that this train of thought is quite a valid one, in military matters.
You don't fortify yourself unless you're expecting to need it. I understand that the Russians feel threatened by it. It basicly eliminates or lessens the only defense you have against a nuclear strike: the knowledge that if your opponent is so crazy that he launches an assault, you have the means to obliterate him as well. That was one of the chief balancing factors that kept the Cold War cold.

Then again, I'm not nearly suggesting that the US is on the verge of invading Russia, just that such a shield disrupts the balance.

[galraen]

Why do Russia feel threatened by it? Why are they portraying themselves as 'the enemy'? The cold war was over before Putin & Co reignited it, the only reason the makes any sense for their reaction is that they see it as thwarting their own military ambitions.

No way in hell that NATO is going to launch an attack at Russia, unless Russia starts the shooting themselves. Just consider the number of countries who would have to agree to participate. Does anyone with an IQ above 30 really think Poland is going to agree to an attack being launched at Russia from its soil? There is no threat to Russia except in the minds of delusional paranoids and frustrated empire builders.

[penguin_king]

if Russia do attempt their own Blitzkreig i think there are very few european nations (if any) that would be able to stop them.

i think it would need a combination of UK and US to bring the bear to its knees.

[GawainBS]

Frankly, the US is quite overstretched. The UK to a lesser extent. Having troops in two major theatres of war is a major drain.
Besides, why would Russia even consider doing that?