TinWingNo they did not. They’re actually quite “upset” about this (and demonstrated their goodwill re stability in the region by sending helos to the UN/EU forces in Tchad) and using this to bolster their claim that Ukraine is selling arms to whoever wants wherever there is some bucks to get (which is in some way true, just remember the sale of cruise missiles to Iran). The tanks come from old sov surplus, which Ukraine has loads of. Russia has till now abided by all UN resolutions regarding offensive arms sales in conflict regions (pre-empting possible objections, Iran and Syria are not considered “conflict zones” by the UN).
What about Russian arms sales to the Sudanese government during the Darfur genocide?
At this point, there are so many levels of conflict and contradiction that it is hard to interpret any Russian action.
It would seem that the Neustrashimy was sent on this unprecedented deployment long before the pirate crisis involving the Ukrainian ship, which begs the question whether the objective was interdicting Somali pirates or a less altruistic intervention?
In short, was the Ukrainian ship the original object of the Russian frigate deployment?
TinWingThe Neustrashimy was due there since weeks, if not months, and it nothing to do with the recent incident, because, again, the ship is Ukrainian, the tanks are Ukrainian (ex-Sov.), and the deal (probably with South Soudan) is Ukrainian.
Did the Russian bid on the deal?
After recent events, and all of the rumblings over Crimean, you have to wonder about Russian intentions?
TinWingRussia was doing this first time with Tu-160 and with support of single An-124
http://www.royfc.com/acft_news.html
Today’s NewsFlight Experience to Venezuela Will Be Considered in Creation of New Aircraft Equipment
The flight experience of the Russian Tu-160 missile carriers to Venezuela will be considered in the improvement of existing and the creation of new aircraft equipment, the Russian air force deputy commander-in-chief, Aleksandr Anfinogentov, declared to journalists Friday after the airplanes had landed at the airbase in Ehngel’s.
“We made extended flights in locations without reference points over the ocean: more than 10 hours of boundless sea, where there are not any radio aide; therefore, all hope was in the crew’s professionalism and the reliability of the equipment. We evaluated the quality and reliability of its operation in this flight. Most of all, for our part, proposals for its improvement will follow in the future taking into consideration the experience obtained,” the deputy CinC said.
He indicated that strategic airplanes had never previously approached so close to the equator, to which not more than 400 kilometers remained.
“Carrying out flights in this latitudes have their own specific characteristics. This experience also will be summarized and young airmen will be trained in it,” Anfinogentov noted.
What total nonsense!
In the era of GPS, there can’t be any navigational difficulties. You can be sure that the Russians were using commercial GPS units for navigation.
TinWingThere once were photos of a Freedom Fighter during maintenance on the FAV club forum. The worst pictures were removed only a day or so after they were posted. Apparently revealing their condition is a threat to national security..
Can anyone post the pics here?
TinWingCan someone explain the justification as to why Russian forces need to still be be in Poti?
It is far from the front lines to the disputed areas and as I see it the only value to Russia in being there is that it is the terminus to the pipeline from Central Asia and it is also the only deep water port that the other “Stan’s” have access to.
Asked and answered.
TinWingWTF. What is with all these idiots doing things purely to antagonize the Russians? The Ukraine is an S-300P and S-300V user, they don’t need to be worrying too much about Russian SS-21 and SS-26 strikes. They’re going to be covered by the ABM network split between Poland and the Czech Republic. Why would they want to make this kind of announcement right now? Do they want to see if Putin’s Army has enough gas in the tanks to make a left hook and ford the crossing between Russia and the Crimean?
After what happened to Viktor Yushchenko, it is remarkable that he has been so entirely benevolent and retrained towards the current Russian regime and their supporters. It is clear that recent developments have given rise to a spirit of democratic solidarity in the the former Soviet-dominated countries, and it should be clear to the Kremlin that the actions taken in Georgia are not beneficial to Russian minority rights in these countries, or to the broader interests of Russia itself.
In the face of aggression, free peoples are more likely to show defiance than submission.
TinWingWe know the oil pipeline….stories were totally false, what else has been fabricated or at least confused with artillery or missile strikes?
No, that is no the case.
It is still the case that “51 missile strikes that left craters less than 100 yards,” an obvious sign that the Russians unsuccessfully targeted the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
This link is from your own blog:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/08/11/cnbp111.xml
TinWingHow ’bout this one?
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11921110&source=features_box1
(As you can tell I don’t know squat about what’s REALLY going on there. Just trying to sift through all the BS spewed by both sides.)
The Economist is probably one of the most reputable publications in the entire world. I would say that this article gives a fair synopsis.
TinWing(sorry for having “disappeared” guys, have been quite busy during these “hot” days).
As for the opinion above: now that we’ve got (hard) facts on the ground we can judge about US “involvement”:
– Secy. Gates rebuffs Georgian announcements that US is planning to secure Georgian airfields and seaports. Gates also announced that the Russians were informed well in advance of the Globemaster(s) flight(s), that the 30 or so US military personnel on the ground reside in a compound whose coords have been passed to the Russians beforehand in order to avoid incidental firings, and that the humanitarian aid will be mostly delivered by air. No military ships are bound to Georgia or planned to sail there, USN announced. A US hospital ship may be dispatched to Georgia in a week or so. So much for the current “robust” response. For now, of course.
So for the moment, it is hardly possible to talk about “US troops on the ground”.
The humanitarian relief mission is the most “robust” non-violent response imaginable. Basically, the US is seeking to secure the ports and airports to distribute aid. Without distribution, the airlifted supplies from the C-17s will not reach the victims of the current crisis.
– Meanwhile, the “pressured” Russians (i.e. the Dept. Chief of Staff) has said that they were unsure whether the US is effectively sending humanitarian aid and not something else. Strange announcement if anything from someone who is supposed to “submit”.
The Russian aren’t about to stop American C-17 humanitarian flights or the docking of a hospital ship. How can they block humanitarian aid, after all? This is why the strategy is brilliant.
Basically, Russia has not opened humanitarian aid corridors, or provided for the safety and welfare of Georgian civilians. If Russia wants to trump America’s humanitarian commitment, Russia should make its own humanitarian commitment to the Georgian people.
Is there any offer from Russia to provide for the rebuilding of Gori, or Russian offers of full compensation for lives and property lost in Georgia?
The truth is that the humanitarian aid mission is just that – a humanitarian aid mission. Russia has been caught off guard by this response, much as Stalin was caught off guard by the Berlin Airlift.
TinWingYou are skirting the issue. Where’s the proof of prior hostile action, either direct, instigated or mitigated, by Russia towards Georgia. Even if the Russian military was near the scene, that does not prove that they threw the first stone.
No, the issue is the lack of objective proof.
Independent journalists like the late Anna Politskaya were not on the scene to report the unfolding events. The loss of a free press has hurt the interests of all Russian – including the Russian military. Without a free, non-state press, there is nobody to report the news, regardless of viewpoint.
Now, it will be hard to reconstruct the immediate sequence of events leading to the conflict. What came first, the first Russian sortie or the first Georgian troop movement? Will we ever know the truth?
TinWingGreat post, TinWing, although I think the bit about restraint can be discussed widely.
There were many lost opportunities for restraint in the current conflict. Russia had a choice when it came the use of air power. Sorties could have been limited to well defined military targets in South Ossetia, employing strict Rule-of-engagement. Russia could have chosen not have made any combat sorties at all, limited the use of air power to reconnaissance and humanitarian roles. Russia could have referred the entire matter to international arbitration. Objective third-party observers could have assessed the incident without any military escalation on the part of Russia.
TinWingI never said they were totally blameless, but come on, they were attacked.
I’m not really sure who attacked first? The sequence of events at the start of the conflict are far from clear.
Keep in mind that there were no international journalists present in South Ossettia, or in the Russian regions immediately north or Georgia, at the start of the current conflict.
All of the uproar over a response to an attack is really asinine and is only this out of proportion because it involves RUSSIA.
I think that much of the uproar stems from previous events which have served to isolate Russia and shape the coverage of the Western media. Keep in mind that at the end of July, there was a supposed Russian leak to a Russian newspaper concerning plans to deploy Russian strategic bombers to Cuba. Looking back two years, the controversial deaths of Litvinenko and Politkovskaya increased tensions with the with international and non-state affiliated journalists.
The Western response to events in Georgia is occurring within the context of recent events. I don’t think that any incident involving the use of air power against civilians and infrastructure will be viewed entirely favorably, and it is equally hard for any such event to be viewed in total isolation from the human rights abuses that occurred in Chechnya.
Again, where is the hard evidence of these “provocations” to get Georgia to do anything?
There was a clear pattern of escalation on both sides. Russia had conduced major exercises and a sustained and massive troop build up to the immediate North of Georgia. In the past, there was the August 7, 2007 missile incident and the March 11, 2007 helicopter incident. It was clear that the level of tensions were increasing. The precarious balance that had existed for 15 years was upset by developments on both sides, but it is equally clear that there was a palpable shift towards confrontation in the last few months and years.
The stage was set for conflict.
TinWing…or an attempt to save face after not coming to the defense of a supposed ally.
I’m not sure that “attempting to save face” should even be an objective of military air power, or is ever the right diplomatic policy. Real and lasting settlements are the result of compromise, and ofter in a fair compromise both parties “lose face.”
Sure, flying military aircraft into an area where the Russians are trying to stomp on an aggressor is nonconfrontational.
Delivering humanitarian relief by means of military airlift is nonconfrontational in an objective sense, although an act can be given a subjective meaning. Symbolism can be attached to any gesture, but in this case, it would seem to be of a positive nature.
Like what? Watching as they get beaten down by the Russians and then offering to help pick up the pieces?
Well, have the Russians offered to pick up the pieces? Russia has the means to offer compensation to the Georgians for all losses of life and property stemming from the conflict. Russia can take the lead in rebuilding Georgia, matching and exceeding the contributions of the West.
I think that the delivery of humanitarian aid is a friendly overture and a moral, not military, challenge.
A far better show of resolve and support would have been aiding in the defense of a supposed ally.
Greating force with force only serves to escalate any conflict. If Russia had greated the Georgian action in South Ossetia with restraint, and had referred the entire matter to arbitration, there would have been less loss of life and no escalation of the crisis.
Restraint is often a sign of strength and perseverance.
What context would that be? The context most supportive of the Western opinion of Russia? The proper context is that they responded when attacked. Overkill maybe, but Georgia could’ve prevented this by not deciding on such a retarded ocurse of action.
I think that using military airpower in a punitive context is in stark contrast to the humanitarian use of military airpower.
I’m not seeking to make any broad judgments as to the initial source of the conflict, though. Issues of blame are inflammatory and best left to impartial examination after the conflict has ended.
…and overkill when a much cheaper aircraft like the Il-76 is just as capable of performing the exact same function.
Yes, but the C-17 is a viable option for countries that potentially might loose access to Russian support infrastructure for the Il-76. Military airlift assets are also more readily available in the event of a emergent crisis.
More like aid civillians AFTER violence and coercion.
Yes, but the same was true of West Berlin in 1948-1949. Many of the recipients of aid during the airlift were the same people who had suffered horribly during the conquest of Berlin in 1945. The city had been flattened and Soviet forces had committed many abuses against German civilians. Even without the Berlin Blockade, West Berliners were still very much in the process of rebuilding in 1948. The airlift allowed the former victims of Soviet violence and coercion to resist further Soviet coercion.
Humanitarian aid tends to be a reactive response to a disaster, especially when military airlift is involved, but it can still be worthwhile.
TinWingRight now it seems to me that Georgia has acted in a foolish way, apparently having assumed a number of things. But just how “clean” are the hands of the Russians?
I realise that it may take some time to sort out the line of events and their causes in an objective manner with regards to this conflict. Let’s be clear: I know far too little at this time to assign final responsibility.
I’d like to ask some questions, though, and I’ll appreciate it if someone can answer them with as much fact and as little speculation as possible:
1. What happened before August 8? I’ve read an unconfirmed report claiming that South Ossetian separatists might have done something to provoke a military response from Georgia.
2. The Russians say they intervened in order to protect “Russian citizens.” With the passport issue as well as international law in mind, are the Russians right or wrong?
The events leading to the conflict are far from clearcut. There was a massive Russian troop buildup immediately to the north of Georgia, as well as a series of escalating events. All of the Russian ground forces were already in place for an invasion, so it is less a matter of who precisely initiated the hostilities as to who had the overwhelming force present.
The Russian use, or misuse, of air power is more puzzling. There isn’t any sign of effective close air support, or even battlefield interdiction on the part of the Russian. Air superiority wasn’t even a priority. Basically, the Russians were hitting fixed infrastructure targets, civilian targets included, deep in Georgia from day one. There is even some question in press reports over when the first Russian sorties occurred, before or after the Georgians were on the move.
Maybe the picture will be clearer in the coming weeks, but nothing is certain at the moment.
The ambiguity of the current crisis is one of the most troubling aspects. There are very few Western journalists on the ground in Georgia, and apparently no substantial reporting from non-State affiliated Russian journalists, which is understandable since all broadcast outlets are State controlled. If Russian forces allowed full Western media access, and made the Russian press entirely independent of the state, there would be far more clarity and less potential controversy. Freedom of information is valuable to all sides.
TinWingRight now it seems to me that Georgia has acted in a foolish way, apparently having assumed a number of things. But just how “clean” are the hands of the Russians?
I realise that it may take some time to sort out the line of events and their causes in an objective manner with regards to this conflict. Let’s be clear: I know far too little at this time to assign final responsibility.
I’d like to ask some questions, though, and I’ll appreciate it if someone can answer them with as much fact and as little speculation as possible:
1. What happened before August 8? I’ve read an unconfirmed report claiming that South Ossetian separatists might have done something to provoke a military response from Georgia.
2. The Russians say they intervened in order to protect “Russian citizens.” With the passport issue as well as international law in mind, are the Russians right or wrong?
The events leading to the conflict are far from clearcut. There was a massive Russian troop buildup immediately to the north of Georgia, as well as a series of escalating events. All of the Russian ground forces were already in place for an invasion, so it is less a matter of who precisely initiated the hostilities as to who had the overwhelming force present.
The Russian use, or misuse, of air power is more puzzling. There isn’t any sign of effective close air support, or even battlefield interdiction on the part of the Russian. Air superiority wasn’t even a priority. Basically, the Russians were hitting fixed infrastructure targets, civilian targets included, deep in Georgia from day one. There is even some question in press reports over when the first Russian sorties occurred, before or after the Georgians were on the move.
Maybe the picture will be clearer in the coming weeks, but nothing is certain at the moment.
The ambiguity of the current crisis is one of the most troubling aspects. There are very few Western journalists on the ground in Georgia, and apparently no substantial reporting from non-State affiliated Russian journalists, which is understandable since all broadcast outlets are State controlled. If Russian forces allowed full Western media access, and made the Russian press entirely independent of the state, there would be far more clarity and less potential controversy. Freedom of information is valuable to all sides.
Sign In
