Georgia, the Olympics, the US armada and Iran

[smithy]

Of course, they must have been confident in US backing or they were just crazy if they thought Russia would stay out since the Russians have been holding big visible exercises nearby just to let everyone know how they felt.

To suggest that Georgia got a good 'start' as if this was a surprise attack is wrong. Russia didn't mobilize these thousands of troops, tanks and aircraft over the weekend - the 'joint' peacekeeping force has seen Russia massing troops and equipment all year.

That's what I said. The Russians already had their troops their and were parading them about to discourage exactly this sort of thing. The Georgians had just a week ago completed their own exercises which included US and Israeli advisers and US troops. It's quite likely that NATO had a hand in planning this.

It is also quite likely that the US expected this sort of response. The question is why would they want it? Perhaps they just wanted to weaken Russia diplomatically. I can't imagine that they want to go head to head, but to muddy the image of Russia to weaken her influence with Europe, to drive a wedge might be reason enough to sacrifice a few Georgians. They probably also didn't want Russia running down into Georgia itself but they have a strong legitimate claim to hot pursuit. They'll probably try to smash up as much US equipment and NATO bases as possible before falling back with a magnanimous "Okay, let's talk".

You keep making accusations towards NATO and the US, but there is no motive. The best motive you have is to weaken Russian influence and image in Europe?

With the exception of Germany, Europe's relations with Russia are extremely sour. Half of Europe has suffered first-hand under Russian occupation. Two recent causes of tension with the UK are the frequent Russian bomber flights towards the edges of UK and Norweign airspace. They assasinated a Russian exile on UK soil.

There is extreme unease in Europe about dependence on Russian gas, after Russia demonstrated how easily it could turn the taps off to Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia has also already demonstrated how it can happily seize profitable oil/gas assets from foreign companies. Not 2 weeks ago, the BP executive who ran a joint Russian project was forced to flee the country. Shell is also getting out of Russia.

Anybody wanting to engineer a decline in European public opinion of Russia needs absolutely no help at all by doing anything in Georgia! The only motive you've mentioned does not hold water.


[quote:3744h60r]

[quote:3744h60r]
[quote:3744h60r]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think you should go look at a map.

Not sure what you mean?[/quote:3744h60r]

I just mean that you should get a map and look at it. Here's one with the extra added advantage that it has some squiggly lines on it.

You see the green line? That's Russia's pipeline from the Caspian. You see the blue line? That's the US sponsored competitive oil pipeline. Cutting across the little sliver of land that separates Russia from Iran. This is an extremely strategic route and it is one reason that Russia does NOT want to see Iran destabilized and why the US does. Ukraine would be an annoying and dangerous distraction right now. I'm not saying that doesn't mean that there won't be action there, but if there is it isn't in Russia's immediate interest so they won't be starting it. It would help the US though.[/quote:3744h60r][/quote:3744h60r]

Again, you've just disproven the only motive you've come up with. The little sliver of land you mention is the only western friendly corridor that can host pipelines (there is a third pipeline as well, btw) avoiding Russia. Why would NATO or the US want to lose this asset? How would any war strengthen this asset?

 

[smithy]

Of course, they must have been confident in US backing or they were just crazy if they thought Russia would stay out since the Russians have been holding big visible exercises nearby just to let everyone know how they felt.

To suggest that Georgia got a good 'start' as if this was a surprise attack is wrong. Russia didn't mobilize these thousands of troops, tanks and aircraft over the weekend - the 'joint' peacekeeping force has seen Russia massing troops and equipment all year.

That's what I said. The Russians already had their troops their and were parading them about to discourage exactly this sort of thing. The Georgians had just a week ago completed their own exercises which included US and Israeli advisers and US troops. It's quite likely that NATO had a hand in planning this.

It is also quite likely that the US expected this sort of response. The question is why would they want it? Perhaps they just wanted to weaken Russia diplomatically. I can't imagine that they want to go head to head, but to muddy the image of Russia to weaken her influence with Europe, to drive a wedge might be reason enough to sacrifice a few Georgians. They probably also didn't want Russia running down into Georgia itself but they have a strong legitimate claim to hot pursuit. They'll probably try to smash up as much US equipment and NATO bases as possible before falling back with a magnanimous "Okay, let's talk".

You keep making accusations towards NATO and the US, but there is no motive. The best motive you have is to weaken Russian influence and image in Europe?

With the exception of Germany, Europe's relations with Russia are extremely sour. Half of Europe has suffered first-hand under Russian occupation. Two recent causes of tension with the UK are the frequent Russian bomber flights towards the edges of UK and Norweign airspace. They assasinated a Russian exile on UK soil.

There is extreme unease in Europe about dependence on Russian gas, after Russia demonstrated how easily it could turn the taps off to Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia has also already demonstrated how it can happily seize profitable oil/gas assets from foreign companies. Not 2 weeks ago, the BP executive who ran a joint Russian project was forced to flee the country. Shell is also getting out of Russia.

Anybody wanting to engineer a decline in European public opinion of Russia needs absolutely no help at all by doing anything in Georgia! The only motive you've mentioned does not hold water.


[quote:3744h60r]

[quote:3744h60r]
[quote:3744h60r]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think you should go look at a map.

Not sure what you mean?[/quote:3744h60r]

I just mean that you should get a map and look at it. Here's one with the extra added advantage that it has some squiggly lines on it.

You see the green line? That's Russia's pipeline from the Caspian. You see the blue line? That's the US sponsored competitive oil pipeline. Cutting across the little sliver of land that separates Russia from Iran. This is an extremely strategic route and it is one reason that Russia does NOT want to see Iran destabilized and why the US does. Ukraine would be an annoying and dangerous distraction right now. I'm not saying that doesn't mean that there won't be action there, but if there is it isn't in Russia's immediate interest so they won't be starting it. It would help the US though.[/quote:3744h60r][/quote:3744h60r]

Again, you've just disproven the only motive you've come up with. The little sliver of land you mention is the only western friendly corridor that can host pipelines (there is a third pipeline as well, btw) avoiding Russia. Why would NATO or the US want to lose this asset? How would any war strengthen this asset?

 

[smithy]

Of course, they must have been confident in US backing or they were just crazy if they thought Russia would stay out since the Russians have been holding big visible exercises nearby just to let everyone know how they felt.

To suggest that Georgia got a good 'start' as if this was a surprise attack is wrong. Russia didn't mobilize these thousands of troops, tanks and aircraft over the weekend - the 'joint' peacekeeping force has seen Russia massing troops and equipment all year.

That's what I said. The Russians already had their troops their and were parading them about to discourage exactly this sort of thing. The Georgians had just a week ago completed their own exercises which included US and Israeli advisers and US troops. It's quite likely that NATO had a hand in planning this.

It is also quite likely that the US expected this sort of response. The question is why would they want it? Perhaps they just wanted to weaken Russia diplomatically. I can't imagine that they want to go head to head, but to muddy the image of Russia to weaken her influence with Europe, to drive a wedge might be reason enough to sacrifice a few Georgians. They probably also didn't want Russia running down into Georgia itself but they have a strong legitimate claim to hot pursuit. They'll probably try to smash up as much US equipment and NATO bases as possible before falling back with a magnanimous "Okay, let's talk".

You keep making accusations towards NATO and the US, but there is no motive. The best motive you have is to weaken Russian influence and image in Europe?

With the exception of Germany, Europe's relations with Russia are extremely sour. Half of Europe has suffered first-hand under Russian occupation. Two recent causes of tension with the UK are the frequent Russian bomber flights towards the edges of UK and Norweign airspace. They assasinated a Russian exile on UK soil.

There is extreme unease in Europe about dependence on Russian gas, after Russia demonstrated how easily it could turn the taps off to Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia has also already demonstrated how it can happily seize profitable oil/gas assets from foreign companies. Not 2 weeks ago, the BP executive who ran a joint Russian project was forced to flee the country. Shell is also getting out of Russia.

Anybody wanting to engineer a decline in European public opinion of Russia needs absolutely no help at all by doing anything in Georgia! The only motive you've mentioned does not hold water.


[quote:3744h60r]

[quote:3744h60r]
[quote:3744h60r]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think you should go look at a map.

Not sure what you mean?[/quote:3744h60r]

I just mean that you should get a map and look at it. Here's one with the extra added advantage that it has some squiggly lines on it.

You see the green line? That's Russia's pipeline from the Caspian. You see the blue line? That's the US sponsored competitive oil pipeline. Cutting across the little sliver of land that separates Russia from Iran. This is an extremely strategic route and it is one reason that Russia does NOT want to see Iran destabilized and why the US does. Ukraine would be an annoying and dangerous distraction right now. I'm not saying that doesn't mean that there won't be action there, but if there is it isn't in Russia's immediate interest so they won't be starting it. It would help the US though.[/quote:3744h60r][/quote:3744h60r]

Again, you've just disproven the only motive you've come up with. The little sliver of land you mention is the only western friendly corridor that can host pipelines (there is a third pipeline as well, btw) avoiding Russia. Why would NATO or the US want to lose this asset? How would any war strengthen this asset?

 

[smithy]

Of course, they must have been confident in US backing or they were just crazy if they thought Russia would stay out since the Russians have been holding big visible exercises nearby just to let everyone know how they felt.

To suggest that Georgia got a good 'start' as if this was a surprise attack is wrong. Russia didn't mobilize these thousands of troops, tanks and aircraft over the weekend - the 'joint' peacekeeping force has seen Russia massing troops and equipment all year.

That's what I said. The Russians already had their troops their and were parading them about to discourage exactly this sort of thing. The Georgians had just a week ago completed their own exercises which included US and Israeli advisers and US troops. It's quite likely that NATO had a hand in planning this.

It is also quite likely that the US expected this sort of response. The question is why would they want it? Perhaps they just wanted to weaken Russia diplomatically. I can't imagine that they want to go head to head, but to muddy the image of Russia to weaken her influence with Europe, to drive a wedge might be reason enough to sacrifice a few Georgians. They probably also didn't want Russia running down into Georgia itself but they have a strong legitimate claim to hot pursuit. They'll probably try to smash up as much US equipment and NATO bases as possible before falling back with a magnanimous "Okay, let's talk".

You keep making accusations towards NATO and the US, but there is no motive. The best motive you have is to weaken Russian influence and image in Europe?

With the exception of Germany, Europe's relations with Russia are extremely sour. Half of Europe has suffered first-hand under Russian occupation. Two recent causes of tension with the UK are the frequent Russian bomber flights towards the edges of UK and Norweign airspace. They assasinated a Russian exile on UK soil.

There is extreme unease in Europe about dependence on Russian gas, after Russia demonstrated how easily it could turn the taps off to Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia has also already demonstrated how it can happily seize profitable oil/gas assets from foreign companies. Not 2 weeks ago, the BP executive who ran a joint Russian project was forced to flee the country. Shell is also getting out of Russia.

Anybody wanting to engineer a decline in European public opinion of Russia needs absolutely no help at all by doing anything in Georgia! The only motive you've mentioned does not hold water.


[quote:3744h60r]

[quote:3744h60r]
[quote:3744h60r]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think you should go look at a map.

Not sure what you mean?[/quote:3744h60r]

I just mean that you should get a map and look at it. Here's one with the extra added advantage that it has some squiggly lines on it.

You see the green line? That's Russia's pipeline from the Caspian. You see the blue line? That's the US sponsored competitive oil pipeline. Cutting across the little sliver of land that separates Russia from Iran. This is an extremely strategic route and it is one reason that Russia does NOT want to see Iran destabilized and why the US does. Ukraine would be an annoying and dangerous distraction right now. I'm not saying that doesn't mean that there won't be action there, but if there is it isn't in Russia's immediate interest so they won't be starting it. It would help the US though.[/quote:3744h60r][/quote:3744h60r]

Again, you've just disproven the only motive you've come up with. The little sliver of land you mention is the only western friendly corridor that can host pipelines (there is a third pipeline as well, btw) avoiding Russia. Why would NATO or the US want to lose this asset? How would any war strengthen this asset?

 

[smithy]

Of course, they must have been confident in US backing or they were just crazy if they thought Russia would stay out since the Russians have been holding big visible exercises nearby just to let everyone know how they felt.

To suggest that Georgia got a good 'start' as if this was a surprise attack is wrong. Russia didn't mobilize these thousands of troops, tanks and aircraft over the weekend - the 'joint' peacekeeping force has seen Russia massing troops and equipment all year.

That's what I said. The Russians already had their troops their and were parading them about to discourage exactly this sort of thing. The Georgians had just a week ago completed their own exercises which included US and Israeli advisers and US troops. It's quite likely that NATO had a hand in planning this.

It is also quite likely that the US expected this sort of response. The question is why would they want it? Perhaps they just wanted to weaken Russia diplomatically. I can't imagine that they want to go head to head, but to muddy the image of Russia to weaken her influence with Europe, to drive a wedge might be reason enough to sacrifice a few Georgians. They probably also didn't want Russia running down into Georgia itself but they have a strong legitimate claim to hot pursuit. They'll probably try to smash up as much US equipment and NATO bases as possible before falling back with a magnanimous "Okay, let's talk".

You keep making accusations towards NATO and the US, but there is no motive. The best motive you have is to weaken Russian influence and image in Europe?

With the exception of Germany, Europe's relations with Russia are extremely sour. Half of Europe has suffered first-hand under Russian occupation. Two recent causes of tension with the UK are the frequent Russian bomber flights towards the edges of UK and Norweign airspace. They assasinated a Russian exile on UK soil.

There is extreme unease in Europe about dependence on Russian gas, after Russia demonstrated how easily it could turn the taps off to Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia has also already demonstrated how it can happily seize profitable oil/gas assets from foreign companies. Not 2 weeks ago, the BP executive who ran a joint Russian project was forced to flee the country. Shell is also getting out of Russia.

Anybody wanting to engineer a decline in European public opinion of Russia needs absolutely no help at all by doing anything in Georgia! The only motive you've mentioned does not hold water.


[quote:3744h60r]

[quote:3744h60r]
[quote:3744h60r]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think you should go look at a map.

Not sure what you mean?[/quote:3744h60r]

I just mean that you should get a map and look at it. Here's one with the extra added advantage that it has some squiggly lines on it.

You see the green line? That's Russia's pipeline from the Caspian. You see the blue line? That's the US sponsored competitive oil pipeline. Cutting across the little sliver of land that separates Russia from Iran. This is an extremely strategic route and it is one reason that Russia does NOT want to see Iran destabilized and why the US does. Ukraine would be an annoying and dangerous distraction right now. I'm not saying that doesn't mean that there won't be action there, but if there is it isn't in Russia's immediate interest so they won't be starting it. It would help the US though.[/quote:3744h60r][/quote:3744h60r]

Again, you've just disproven the only motive you've come up with. The little sliver of land you mention is the only western friendly corridor that can host pipelines (there is a third pipeline as well, btw) avoiding Russia. Why would NATO or the US want to lose this asset? How would any war strengthen this asset?

 

[smithy]

Of course, they must have been confident in US backing or they were just crazy if they thought Russia would stay out since the Russians have been holding big visible exercises nearby just to let everyone know how they felt.

To suggest that Georgia got a good 'start' as if this was a surprise attack is wrong. Russia didn't mobilize these thousands of troops, tanks and aircraft over the weekend - the 'joint' peacekeeping force has seen Russia massing troops and equipment all year.

That's what I said. The Russians already had their troops their and were parading them about to discourage exactly this sort of thing. The Georgians had just a week ago completed their own exercises which included US and Israeli advisers and US troops. It's quite likely that NATO had a hand in planning this.

It is also quite likely that the US expected this sort of response. The question is why would they want it? Perhaps they just wanted to weaken Russia diplomatically. I can't imagine that they want to go head to head, but to muddy the image of Russia to weaken her influence with Europe, to drive a wedge might be reason enough to sacrifice a few Georgians. They probably also didn't want Russia running down into Georgia itself but they have a strong legitimate claim to hot pursuit. They'll probably try to smash up as much US equipment and NATO bases as possible before falling back with a magnanimous "Okay, let's talk".

You keep making accusations towards NATO and the US, but there is no motive. The best motive you have is to weaken Russian influence and image in Europe?

With the exception of Germany, Europe's relations with Russia are extremely sour. Half of Europe has suffered first-hand under Russian occupation. Two recent causes of tension with the UK are the frequent Russian bomber flights towards the edges of UK and Norweign airspace. They assasinated a Russian exile on UK soil.

There is extreme unease in Europe about dependence on Russian gas, after Russia demonstrated how easily it could turn the taps off to Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia has also already demonstrated how it can happily seize profitable oil/gas assets from foreign companies. Not 2 weeks ago, the BP executive who ran a joint Russian project was forced to flee the country. Shell is also getting out of Russia.

Anybody wanting to engineer a decline in European public opinion of Russia needs absolutely no help at all by doing anything in Georgia! The only motive you've mentioned does not hold water.


[quote:3744h60r]

[quote:3744h60r]
[quote:3744h60r]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think you should go look at a map.

Not sure what you mean?[/quote:3744h60r]

I just mean that you should get a map and look at it. Here's one with the extra added advantage that it has some squiggly lines on it.

You see the green line? That's Russia's pipeline from the Caspian. You see the blue line? That's the US sponsored competitive oil pipeline. Cutting across the little sliver of land that separates Russia from Iran. This is an extremely strategic route and it is one reason that Russia does NOT want to see Iran destabilized and why the US does. Ukraine would be an annoying and dangerous distraction right now. I'm not saying that doesn't mean that there won't be action there, but if there is it isn't in Russia's immediate interest so they won't be starting it. It would help the US though.[/quote:3744h60r][/quote:3744h60r]

Again, you've just disproven the only motive you've come up with. The little sliver of land you mention is the only western friendly corridor that can host pipelines (there is a third pipeline as well, btw) avoiding Russia. Why would NATO or the US want to lose this asset? How would any war strengthen this asset?

 

[smithy]

The end result here is that Russia looks like the good guy to the international audience and the strong guy to it's domestic audience, while the US and Georgia both look dumb and weak. I think we can agree that for Russia this is payback for Kosovo. The US got it up the ass here, and I see no reason to believe that's a good thing.

- Mike

You're right, Georgia (or at least its president) looks extremely dumb. The US, less so, as it couldn't have got less involved it if tried. I can see a few consequences out of this, not all of them bad:

Georgia's breakaway regions problem, which has been on ice for a decade, is now a priority for the world. It was this exact problem that was the reason they were denied NATO membership. Should it be sorted out any time soon, Georgia has one less obsticle for membership.

Georgia's people might be more hostile towards Europe and the US because of the lack of support. But probably not as hostile as they are towards Russia.

We've all had a good look at the Russian military, equipment and aircraft. So have other wary parts of the former Soviet Union: Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, who can probably use the info to better their defenses.

Georgia's president will have to go. Lots of people in America and Europe have suspected he was a bit of a loose cannon. But I don't imagine a pro-Russian would be voted in after this war.

 

[smithy]

The end result here is that Russia looks like the good guy to the international audience and the strong guy to it's domestic audience, while the US and Georgia both look dumb and weak. I think we can agree that for Russia this is payback for Kosovo. The US got it up the ass here, and I see no reason to believe that's a good thing.

- Mike

You're right, Georgia (or at least its president) looks extremely dumb. The US, less so, as it couldn't have got less involved it if tried. I can see a few consequences out of this, not all of them bad:

Georgia's breakaway regions problem, which has been on ice for a decade, is now a priority for the world. It was this exact problem that was the reason they were denied NATO membership. Should it be sorted out any time soon, Georgia has one less obsticle for membership.

Georgia's people might be more hostile towards Europe and the US because of the lack of support. But probably not as hostile as they are towards Russia.

We've all had a good look at the Russian military, equipment and aircraft. So have other wary parts of the former Soviet Union: Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, who can probably use the info to better their defenses.

Georgia's president will have to go. Lots of people in America and Europe have suspected he was a bit of a loose cannon. But I don't imagine a pro-Russian would be voted in after this war.

 

[smithy]

The end result here is that Russia looks like the good guy to the international audience and the strong guy to it's domestic audience, while the US and Georgia both look dumb and weak. I think we can agree that for Russia this is payback for Kosovo. The US got it up the ass here, and I see no reason to believe that's a good thing.

- Mike

You're right, Georgia (or at least its president) looks extremely dumb. The US, less so, as it couldn't have got less involved it if tried. I can see a few consequences out of this, not all of them bad:

Georgia's breakaway regions problem, which has been on ice for a decade, is now a priority for the world. It was this exact problem that was the reason they were denied NATO membership. Should it be sorted out any time soon, Georgia has one less obsticle for membership.

Georgia's people might be more hostile towards Europe and the US because of the lack of support. But probably not as hostile as they are towards Russia.

We've all had a good look at the Russian military, equipment and aircraft. So have other wary parts of the former Soviet Union: Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, who can probably use the info to better their defenses.

Georgia's president will have to go. Lots of people in America and Europe have suspected he was a bit of a loose cannon. But I don't imagine a pro-Russian would be voted in after this war.

 

[smithy]

The end result here is that Russia looks like the good guy to the international audience and the strong guy to it's domestic audience, while the US and Georgia both look dumb and weak. I think we can agree that for Russia this is payback for Kosovo. The US got it up the ass here, and I see no reason to believe that's a good thing.

- Mike

You're right, Georgia (or at least its president) looks extremely dumb. The US, less so, as it couldn't have got less involved it if tried. I can see a few consequences out of this, not all of them bad:

Georgia's breakaway regions problem, which has been on ice for a decade, is now a priority for the world. It was this exact problem that was the reason they were denied NATO membership. Should it be sorted out any time soon, Georgia has one less obsticle for membership.

Georgia's people might be more hostile towards Europe and the US because of the lack of support. But probably not as hostile as they are towards Russia.

We've all had a good look at the Russian military, equipment and aircraft. So have other wary parts of the former Soviet Union: Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, who can probably use the info to better their defenses.

Georgia's president will have to go. Lots of people in America and Europe have suspected he was a bit of a loose cannon. But I don't imagine a pro-Russian would be voted in after this war.

 

[smithy]

The end result here is that Russia looks like the good guy to the international audience and the strong guy to it's domestic audience, while the US and Georgia both look dumb and weak. I think we can agree that for Russia this is payback for Kosovo. The US got it up the ass here, and I see no reason to believe that's a good thing.

- Mike

You're right, Georgia (or at least its president) looks extremely dumb. The US, less so, as it couldn't have got less involved it if tried. I can see a few consequences out of this, not all of them bad:

Georgia's breakaway regions problem, which has been on ice for a decade, is now a priority for the world. It was this exact problem that was the reason they were denied NATO membership. Should it be sorted out any time soon, Georgia has one less obsticle for membership.

Georgia's people might be more hostile towards Europe and the US because of the lack of support. But probably not as hostile as they are towards Russia.

We've all had a good look at the Russian military, equipment and aircraft. So have other wary parts of the former Soviet Union: Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, who can probably use the info to better their defenses.

Georgia's president will have to go. Lots of people in America and Europe have suspected he was a bit of a loose cannon. But I don't imagine a pro-Russian would be voted in after this war.

 

[smithy]

The end result here is that Russia looks like the good guy to the international audience and the strong guy to it's domestic audience, while the US and Georgia both look dumb and weak. I think we can agree that for Russia this is payback for Kosovo. The US got it up the ass here, and I see no reason to believe that's a good thing.

- Mike

You're right, Georgia (or at least its president) looks extremely dumb. The US, less so, as it couldn't have got less involved it if tried. I can see a few consequences out of this, not all of them bad:

Georgia's breakaway regions problem, which has been on ice for a decade, is now a priority for the world. It was this exact problem that was the reason they were denied NATO membership. Should it be sorted out any time soon, Georgia has one less obsticle for membership.

Georgia's people might be more hostile towards Europe and the US because of the lack of support. But probably not as hostile as they are towards Russia.

We've all had a good look at the Russian military, equipment and aircraft. So have other wary parts of the former Soviet Union: Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, who can probably use the info to better their defenses.

Georgia's president will have to go. Lots of people in America and Europe have suspected he was a bit of a loose cannon. But I don't imagine a pro-Russian would be voted in after this war.

 

[smithy]

I just look at who has gained and who has lost, and try to make sense of that. To me it seems Russia is the winner while Georgia and it's allies are the losers.

The other loser is 'President' Medvedev, who, from seeing this all unfold, is clearly not in charge of Russia.

 

[smithy]

I just look at who has gained and who has lost, and try to make sense of that. To me it seems Russia is the winner while Georgia and it's allies are the losers.

The other loser is 'President' Medvedev, who, from seeing this all unfold, is clearly not in charge of Russia.

 

[smithy]

I just look at who has gained and who has lost, and try to make sense of that. To me it seems Russia is the winner while Georgia and it's allies are the losers.

The other loser is 'President' Medvedev, who, from seeing this all unfold, is clearly not in charge of Russia.

 

[smithy]

I just look at who has gained and who has lost, and try to make sense of that. To me it seems Russia is the winner while Georgia and it's allies are the losers.

The other loser is 'President' Medvedev, who, from seeing this all unfold, is clearly not in charge of Russia.

 

[smithy]

I just look at who has gained and who has lost, and try to make sense of that. To me it seems Russia is the winner while Georgia and it's allies are the losers.

The other loser is 'President' Medvedev, who, from seeing this all unfold, is clearly not in charge of Russia.

 

[smithy]

I just look at who has gained and who has lost, and try to make sense of that. To me it seems Russia is the winner while Georgia and it's allies are the losers.

The other loser is 'President' Medvedev, who, from seeing this all unfold, is clearly not in charge of Russia.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Again, you've just disproven the only motive you've come up with. The little sliver of land you mention is the only western friendly corridor that can host pipelines (there is a third pipeline as well, btw) avoiding Russia. Why would NATO or the US want to lose this asset? How would any war strengthen this asset?

It would help if it resulted in more NATO equipment ending up getting posted there to "keep the peace".

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Again, you've just disproven the only motive you've come up with. The little sliver of land you mention is the only western friendly corridor that can host pipelines (there is a third pipeline as well, btw) avoiding Russia. Why would NATO or the US want to lose this asset? How would any war strengthen this asset?

It would help if it resulted in more NATO equipment ending up getting posted there to "keep the peace".