US military to take aid to Georgia

[rn79870]

Somehow, I think this is a very bad idea. Not the aid part, but using the military to deliver it. What's wrong with the Red Cross? What happens if one of the military assets gets fired upon? They will defend themselves, and next thing you know...

George Bush, the United States president, has said he is sending US military aircraft and naval forces with humanitarian supplies to Georgia.

Speaking at the White House in Washington on Wednesday, Bush said: "Russia must keep its word and act to end this crisis."

He said: "The United States of America stands with the democratically-elected government of Georgia, [and] insists that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected."

He also said he was sending Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, to show his support for the Georgian government.

Standing alongside Rice and Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, Bush warned Moscow against breaking its pledge to halt its military action and announced that a US humanitarian aid flight was already on its way to Georgia.

However the Pentagon later denied a suggestion by Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, that the US military would take control of the country's seaports and airports. It also strikes me as a little hypocritical to stand there and criticize another nation for doing what we may have been guilty of. Any other thoughts on this?

[Jager]

why? we didn't invade a democratically elected government. human rights violations flying on both sides don't help, but Saddam was a monster. whether we should have gone in or not, or just had him assassinated, or left him alone is a whole other thread; but at this point I think we as the US have to show some balls and some teeth, by making sure no body starts crap with aid for refugees. they are an ally and while we shouldn't choose a side atm, as Russia may have been acting in defense of Russian sympathetic people, we damn well better make i known that in the 21st century you dont invade a democratic nation with no prior history of human rights violations.

Thats like if we invaded canada because we heard they were killing native americans off. Its ok when we did it in the past of course... but we are gonna send in a crushing military force now to prove a point?

Russia screwed up, as to how far they have or Georgia has screwed up, Idk, but Im surprised we havent arrived in force and made a demilitarized zone at the border and dared either side to try us.

it speaks volumes about restraint and our government tryign to be diplomatic at first rather then just going off half cocked as so many people believed we would. but aid is aid, and I think this is a display of two kids having a fight, both sides showed muscle and dirt got kicked around and the neighborhood kids got hurt, now daddy is here and your little tantrum is over.

[Marenta]

How about we duck tail, run the fcsk away and chase the fcsking spicks back into Mexico? They are coming onto our soil, being hostile, holding up our men with guns, and then going back across the border.

Why the hell shouldn't we go pwn their fcsking face and leave Russia to go pwn Georgia?

[rn79870]

I'm getting confused about the Ossetia / Odessa comments here. If I understand this correctly. Osettia is trying to leave Georgia rule and return to Russian rule. That is the will of the people. Georgia doesn't want Osettia to succeed. Odessa is something else all together.

Now Putin flew off to the Olympics and waited until the worlds attention was on the Olympic games before his troops invaded Georgia. He's set on reestablishing Russia as one of the big three powers in the world. This action is a slap in his face.I'm afraid that we're getting ourselves into another problem by sending our military on a mission that could better be served by a civilian entity like the Red Cross. Do we really want to sail US Navy ships into the Black Sea? Kind of like Russia sailing around in the Gulf of Mexico if you asked me, provocative.

[Jager]

I have issue with that because georgia much like canada is a non corrupt democracy with decent GDP and standard of living, its people are working hard to become a true 1st world country, and are doing so in the shadow of some of the worst atrocities in their 90+ year history with russia as their master.

Now Mexico is about as corrupt as they come probably as bad as Russia was in the early 90s under total mob control basically. so idk if we even really stand a chance doing anything with Mexico. IDK whether we should start a war with Russia(id tend to advise against it), but leaving Georgia to defend itself against a country with capabilities similar to ours seems ... stupid. especially considering their an ally, and in a fairly critical area of the world

unfortunately for Russia i bet this speeds Georgia becoming a member of nato, which would drive Russia insane.

[Jager]

I'm getting confused about the Ossetia / Odessa comments here. If I understand this correctly. Osettia is trying to leave Georgia rule and return to Russian rule. That is the will of the people. Georgia doesn't want Osettia to succeed. Odessa is something else all together.

Now Putin flew off to the Olympics and waited until the worlds attention was on the Olympic games before his troops invaded Georgia. He's set on reestablishing Russia as one of the big three powers in the world. This action is a slap in his face.I'm afraid that we're getting ourselves into another problem by sending our military on a mission that could better be served by a civilian entity like the Red Cross. Do we really want to sail US Navy ships into the Black Sea? Kind of like Russia sailing around in the Gulf of Mexico if you asked me, provocative.

see this is why i think getting impartial people down there and putting a few guns pointed in the right direction is really helpful to getting "real" diplomacy started. no one is gonna take any threat the USA makes seriously until the guns start moving. As for what the region wants versus Georgia, If they want Russia, then do it democratically, a referendum with impartial electoral judges maybe other nations or the UN idk.

but letting Georgia and Russia go toe to toe is just gonna make a really big mess, letting them go further might drag the region into another intense civil war.

The planes im sure are to keep Russian commanders "honest" about whats really happening on the ground and to make sure the "truce" stays a truce.

[Cold_Zero]

Somehow, I think this is a very bad idea. Not the aid part, but using the military to deliver it. What's wrong with the Red Cross? What happens if one of the military assets gets fired upon? They will defend themselves, and next thing you know...

It also strikes me as a little hypocritical to stand there and criticize another nation for doing what we may have been guilty of. Any other thoughts on this?

Bob,The use of the United States Military has been SOP for delivering aid to disaster areas, specifically the United States Navy since the 2004 Tsunami and the United States Air Force since Kosovo. Also, you mention the Red Cross, now I know where David (my cousin) will probably be headed if the Red Cross deploys to the region. When a natural or man made (as in Bosnia) disaster breaks out, that is where David goes.

why? we didn't invade a democratically elected government.

Have you guys not been reading the information I have been compiling about this region?zerothread/358095

I'm getting confused about the Ossetia / Odessa comments here. If I understand this correctly. Osettia is trying to leave Georgia rule and return to Russian rule. That is the will of the people. Georgia doesn't want Osettia to succeed. Odessa is something else all together.

In pretty much a generic sense, you are correct.

I have issue with that because georgia much like canada is a non corrupt democracy with decent GDP and standard of living, its people are working hard to become a true 1st world country, and are doing so in the shadow of some of the worst atrocities in their 90+ year history with russia as their master.

Georgia is not corrupt? News to me. Hard working people? This is why people in the region look down their noses on Georgians in the country. They call them lazy and irrational people. I believe we have backed the wrong person. Georgia President Saakashvili has done nothing but lie to the news media and attempted to incite the world to come to his aid after he started this mess. He only got elected by invoking Nationalistism, there is suspicion that he rigged the votes and claimed when he came to power that he would make South Ossetia and Abkhazia a part of Russia.

Personally, I think this is all a distraction in order to push Ukraine into NATO. See, there is really no strategic reason why Georgia needs to be in NATO. It doesnt have a large population and we have bases in Turkey that are pretty successful. But Ukraine? They have 46.7 million people, they are the bread basket of eastern Europe and they are bordered by Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria (all NATO members) which makes it easily to defend if its ever attacked as a member.

[smockers83]

I have no comment on the issue until more is known. Both sides accusing each other with Russia well known to lie, its a tough call. I shall watch and learn.

[96Qowner]

Nice analysis, CZ.

Here's a map of Georgia:



You can see that the geographic northern boundary of Georgia are the Caucasus Mountains, which looks like part of the problem. There are enclaves of Russians living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, not Georgians per se, from what I understand. So .. tensions. They want to be ruled by Russia and are presently separate from Georgia.

It's hard to figure out what's in it for Russia. Taking Abkhazia takes over half of Georgia's Black Sea coastline, but that can't mean much to Russia - big deal. And South Ossetia looks useless, strategically. So, it must have to do with some other issue. Either Russia wants to occupy Georgia, and therefore the Caucasus, or as you say, it has to do with other issues like Ukraine.

In any case, it serves warning to all countries in the region that Russia is reasserting its ambitions and interests in the South.

[rn79870]

Is there any strategic value to the Black Sea? Can a large ship even navigate into it?

[Jager]

Sorry CZ, The comment you used i was using as a difference between a "democracy" versus saddam hussiens "dictatorship" . georgia could be corrupt, hell no one really knows for sure, but they arent a dictatorship as we know it at the current moment. also it is unlikely they are as corrupt as mexico or russia at their worst times. I am not going to go further then that as I have no further info on their issues then news media sources. my military/DC friends are all waiting before talking about it until we know if atrocities happened, and who really pulled the trigger.

Quote »He only got elected by invoking Nationalistism, there is suspicion that he rigged the votes and claimed when he came to power that he would make South Ossetia and Abkhazia a part of Russia.[/quote](i think you meant georgia there at the end yes? it makes more sense that way)

RN the black sea is second to the Mediterranean sea as to its value for shipping/moving oil and goods for that entire region.

whomever controls the black seas ports can literally print money in that area in the form of tariffs and taxes on oil ships etc.

so russia may be piecemeal trying to take its former ports back, or they could just be trying to defend their people. getting access and aid to areas means we can get a better picture.

Im just happy we arent sitting on our *** (the US) and are actually doing something since diplomacy was only semi effective. but instead of grabbing one side and looking foolish later we are just making our presence known.

[Cold_Zero]

Nice analysis, CZ.

Here's a map of Georgia:



You can see that the geographic northern boundary of Georgia are the Caucasus Mountains, which looks like part of the problem. There are enclaves of Russians living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, not Georgians per se, from what I understand. So .. tensions. They want to be ruled by Russia and are presently separate from Georgia.

Good summation.

Quote »It's hard to figure out what's in it for Russia. Taking Abkhazia takes over half of Georgia's Black Sea coastline, but that can't mean much to Russia - big deal. And South Ossetia looks useless, strategically. So, it must have to do with some other issue. Either Russia wants to occupy Georgia, and therefore the Caucasus, or as you say, it has to do with other issues like Ukraine.[/quote]I have to think that this has to be about Ukraine or sending a message to the West or its Satellite States about the Russia sphere of influence and not about controlling the Baku Pipelines or controlling Georgia. Being that:1. Russia has a pretty extensive (bigger than Georgia's) coast line on the Black Sea. It has Russian naval ports in Novorossiysk and is building a massive new naval port there to house the Black Sea fleet. 2. The oil pipelines that run through Georgia do not transverse South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 3. Russia already has pipelines from the Caspian Sea that transverse its portion of the Caucasus, whether they it comes from Baku Azerbaijan or Makhachkala Russia. 4. If Russia wanted Georgia, the whole country would have been overrun by now and Saakashvili would be deposed. Instead Russian forces occupy certain portions of Georgia as a buffer zone with South Ossetia and Abkhazia.5. But if "Getting the Band back together" and re-instituting the former Soviet Union is the real motive why hasn't Russia invaded Azerbaijan (who holds all the oil?) Why hasnt it invaded places like Kyrgyzstan, which is allied more with the west and which houses an Air Force base that we use or Turkmenistan which is allied closely with Iran?

Quote »In any case, it serves warning to all countries in the region that Russia is reasserting its ambitions and interests in the South.[/quote]There is a lot of merit to this statement.

[smockers83]

Is there any strategic value to the Black Sea? Can a large ship even navigate into it?

You can get there from the Mediterranean Sea.

[96Qowner]

Fully navigable. Here's a good article on the Black Sea:

In addition to the great geographic restrictions on transit, there are legal restrictions as well. Under the 1936 Montreux Convention, Turkey must be notified eight days before a transit through the straits. Aircraft carriers are not allowed to transit and submarines must transit the straits on the surface. Such a restriction, however, did not prevent illegal transit of the first Kiev carrier in 1976.

Once through the straits, ships must pass through the Aegean Sea. It is dotted with approximately 2500 small islands and is controlled/patrolled by the Greek and Turkish Navies, which are equipped with specially designed ships and boats to operate in such areas at great speeds. Sovereignty over the islands is one of the causes of on-going tensions between the Greeks and Turks. Further, one should note that both states are members of NATO.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...k.htm

Also ran across this article from The Economist:

When the Soviet Union fell apart, various ethnic time-bombs planted by Stalin across the Caucasus began to go off. In August 1992 Georgia, itself in near anarchy, began a war in Abkhazia. Nominally under the rule of Eduard Shevardnadze, the country was run by nationalist warlords who recruited criminals to their armies. These troops pillaged Abkhazia, defeating the ill-armed Abkhaz. When the tide of the war turned and the Abkhaz, helped by Chechens and Russian mercenaries, stormed back, they massacred ethnic Georgians. Atrocities were committed on both sides, and some 250,000 of the pre-war Georgian inhabitants (who accounted for 45% of the total population) were forced out through ethnic cleansing. But the Abkhaz look back on the conflict as a war of independence and show little sympathy for Georgian refugees. Their mistrust of Georgia is boosted by Russia’s anti-Georgian propaganda.

http://www.economist.com/world...70692

[rn79870]

What I'm thinking is that the neck of the straight is so narrow as to not allow easy access to the Black Sea. IE could a strategic base in the right area could control that sea? I guess Russia is so hurting for year around naval bases (don't freeze up) that it's worth the challenge. I might be missing something there though.

[Cold_Zero]

Is there any strategic value to the Black Sea? Can a large ship even navigate into it?

It is so big in fact that the Russians built its Admiral Kuznetsov class of aircraft carriers in Soviet Shipyard No. 444 Ukraine. When the breakup of the Soviet Union occurred, they Russians even left the Varyag (half built and never commissioned) in the yards and turned ownership over to the Ukrainians. So to answer your question, large ships can operate and navigate in the Black Sea. The Russians have a pretty extensive Black Sea fleet with Missile Cruisers and 7 Landing Ships compared to some of the other countries that have smaller frigates and coastal patrol vessels. But because of the choke points, specifically the Kerch Straits (leading into the Sea of Azov) and the Straits of Bosporus, no one except for the Russians operates a big fleet there.

Strategically though, there is a lot of oil that is piped to the shores of the Black Sea from the Caspian Sea. There is also a lot of shipping that goes on in the Sea with some major sea ports located there.

[rn79870]

From al Jazeera

The US has had stern words for Russia over its military intervention in Georgia to back South Ossietian separatists, but many analysts say that the Bush administration must share the blame for the crisis.

Washington has formed a close bond with the government of Mikheil Saakashvili since he came to power in the 2003 'Rose Revolution,' offering military and economic aid and encouraging Georgia to join Nato.

Jon Sawyer, the director for the Pulitzer Centre for Crisis Reporting, said US politicians had encouraged their Georgian counterparts to think they had the backing of the US when Tbilisi decided to launch its attack on South Ossetia last week.

"The US has for several years now mishandled the situation in Georgia," he told Al Jazeera.

"The way that Mikheil Saakashvili has approached this [has been by] thinking that he could be an extension of the west, a partner of the United States."

"In many ways we have given him cause for thinking that, with the many visits to the United States, the talk of Georgia as a beacon for democracy."

Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, agrees that US encouragement may have made Saakashvili "miscalculate" and send Georgian troops into South Ossetia.

"I think in many respects Saakashvili got too close to the United States and the United States got too close to Saakashvili," Kupchan told the Reuters news agency.

"It made him overreach, it made him feel at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble."

US backing

The statistics seem to back the view that Tbilisi felt itself under the protective wing of the Bush administration.

As well as diplomatic encouragement, Saakashvili's government was offered both economic and military aid by Washington.

US special forces trained Georgian troops in 2002 to combat Chechen fighters in the Pankisi Gorge, which borders Chechnya, as part of the US "war on terror".

And Georgian forces continued to recieve training from the US as they prepared to send troops to Iraq, following the US-led invasion in 2003.

Washington gave $151 million to the Georgian government in security aid between 2004 and 2006.

Another example of the US overstepping it's rightful place, or a good move on our part?

[Cold_Zero]

(i think you meant georgia there at the end yes? it makes more sense that way)

Justin,Who knows what I was thinking last night. I was tired after a long day at work and mowing the lawn.

I think that I was trying to point out about Saakashvili was that he ran on an Ultra Nationalist ticket for the Presidency of Georgia. He has been accused of rigging the vote. And his campaign promise was to return South Ossetia and Abkhazia back to Georgia control.

[96Qowner]

Another example of the US overstepping it's rightful place, or a good move on our part?

Geopolitics.

NATO against Russia, part of the Great Game of opposing national interests - like a chess game - the struggle for political and economic influence in the region.

I tend to think we should be playing, yes. We're too big to stand aside.

[Cold_Zero]

Fully navigable. Here's a good article on the Black Sea:

In addition to the great geographic restrictions on transit, there are legal restrictions as well. Under the 1936 Montreux Convention, Turkey must be notified eight days before a transit through the straits. Aircraft carriers are not allowed to transit and submarines must transit the straits on the surface. Such a restriction, however, did not prevent illegal transit of the first Kiev carrier in 1976.

Once through the straits, ships must pass through the Aegean Sea. It is dotted with approximately 2500 small islands and is controlled/patrolled by the Greek and Turkish Navies, which are equipped with specially designed ships and boats to operate in such areas at great speeds. Sovereignty over the islands is one of the causes of on-going tensions between the Greeks and Turks. Further, one should note that both states are members of NATO.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...k.htm

Also ran across this article from The Economist:

When the Soviet Union fell apart, various ethnic time-bombs planted by Stalin across the Caucasus began to go off. In August 1992 Georgia, itself in near anarchy, began a war in Abkhazia. Nominally under the rule of Eduard Shevardnadze, the country was run by nationalist warlords who recruited criminals to their armies. These troops pillaged Abkhazia, defeating the ill-armed Abkhaz. When the tide of the war turned and the Abkhaz, helped by Chechens and Russian mercenaries, stormed back, they massacred ethnic Georgians. Atrocities were committed on both sides, and some 250,000 of the pre-war Georgian inhabitants (who accounted for 45% of the total population) were forced out through ethnic cleansing. But the Abkhaz look back on the conflict as a war of independence and show little sympathy for Georgian refugees. Their mistrust of Georgia is boosted by Russia’s anti-Georgian propaganda.

http://www.economist.com/world...70692

It should be pointed out that the battles that Russia's Black Sea fleet has had in the Black Sea have all be disasterious to the fleet. Typically ending the Russian fleet being bottled up in the Taganrog Bay and destroyed.

[Cold_Zero]

Bob,Apparently the USS Yorktown (CG-48) and the USS Caron (DD-970) played chicken in the Black Sea with the Russian fleet back in 88.

[Jager]

Justin,Who knows what I was thinking last night. I was tired after a long day at work and mowing the lawn.

I think that I was trying to point out about Saakashvili was that he ran on an Ultra Nationalist ticket for the Presidency of Georgia. He has been accused of rigging the vote. And his campaign promise was to return South Ossetia and Abkhazia back to Georgia control.

bud i am on enough meds to sink a carrier atm, so I was genuinely asking of thats what you meant no offense intended if any was taken?

(methadone and percocet tend to make me be unable to pick up emotions well so I apologize if i am misreading you. Its been a very long 48hours for em as well so i know how you feel being tired)

Thanks for the very good info though, By nationalistic you mean ultra right wing possibly national socialism esc? I can see how that could really raise issues in that area. I wonder why we are backing them.... could this be another panama, cuba, iran/contra thing were we are backing the wrog horse hoping its for the "right" reasons?

the more i dig on this the less I like our past support(non refugee aid), as its more a "your not russian so you must be ok" sorta closed mind view.

[AZhitman]

I have nothing to contribute but this:

As someone who knows little to nothing about this issue, the breadth and depth of education one can receive on such topics from simply reading this thread is astounding... And none can claim "bias", as we're getting all manner of sources contributing.

Just wanted to say, THANKS to all participating in this thread... Brilliantly-done, friends.

[Cold_Zero]

Justin,No offense taken, bro.I went back and re-read what I posted and wondered what the heck I was really trying to say.

I really feel that on the American side people are 'hearing' those old Cold War mantras being thrown out there and that puts them into the old frame of mind. Russia bad and must be stopped. I must admit that I use to be emboldened to the old Cold War way of thinking, until NATO invaded Kosovo and bombed the **** out of Belgrade. Then I began to think, why did we just unseat a portion of Serbia and turn it over to a terrorlst organization (KLA)? We are still trying to chip away at Serbia’s sphere of influence with Macedonia trying to get them to join NATO.

[Cold_Zero]

Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Now that Russia has humiliated Georgia with a punishing military offensive, it may shift its attention to reining in pro-Western Ukraine, another American ally in the former Soviet Union.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's first order of business likely will be to try to thwart Ukraine's bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

``The Moscow authorities will use this opportunity to remind Ukraine of the damages of allying itself with NATO,'' said Geoffrey Smith at Renaissance Capital investment bank in Kiev.

The U.S. has long seen Georgia and Ukraine as counterweights to Russia's influence in the region. Opposition leaders in the two countries came to power after U.S.-backed popular protests in 2003 and 2004. Their ascension advanced an American strategy of expanding NATO to include both countries and securing energy routes from the Caspian Sea that bypass Russia. The BP Plc-led Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline to Turkey runs through Georgia.

The future effectiveness of that policy is now in doubt, with Georgia's U.S.-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili, 40, weakened by a five-day blitz that his American patrons were powerless to halt.

Medvedev, 42, and Putin, 56, say Russia began the offensive in response to a drive by Georgia to restore control over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. Now Russia has ousted Georgian forces from there and from Abkhazia, another separatist region, and destroyed much of the central government's military.

Less Confident

``Georgia will be enormously more careful in its actions in the future, and much less confident of its relationship with the United States,'' U.S.-based geopolitical advisory group Stratfor said in a research note.

NATO is scheduled in December to review the two countries' bids to join the Western military alliance. NATO leaders in April promised Ukraine and Georgia eventual membership while declining them fast-track status. Russia, which has also denounced U.S. plans to station missile defense sites in former Soviet satellites Poland and the Czech Republic, says the expansion of the Cold War-era alliance to its borders is a security threat.

NATO should affirm the potential of Georgia and Ukraine to become alliance members in the face of Russia's incursion into Georgia, senior U.S. officials said yesterday in Washington.

`Similar Fate'

``Russia may find it convenient to raise the level of tension with Ukraine in the run-up to the December NATO review,'' Citigroup Inc.'s London-based David Lubin and Ali Al- Eyd wrote in a note to clients. ``If the conflict with Russia decelerates or reverses Georgia's integration with the West, a similar fate could also affect Ukraine.''

Ukraine, a country of 46 million people that's almost as big as France, has a large Russian-speaking population in the south and east that opposes NATO entry and looks to Moscow. Russian officials warn that if President Viktor Yushchenko pushes Ukraine into NATO, the nation may split in two. Russia has made its displeasure with Ukraine clear, cutting off gas supplies to the country 2 1/2 years ago and reducing deliveries last March.

Show of Solidarity

Yushchenko, 54, yesterday flew to the Georgian capital Tbilisi to show solidarity with Saakashvili along with the leaders of four ex-Communist eastern European nations that joined NATO as a bulwark against Russia. Ukraine today imposed restrictions on Russia's Black Sea Fleet, based in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol, demanding that Russia coordinate all naval ship movements with it. Russian ships deployed off Georgia's coast from Sevastopol took part in hostilities.

``Freedom is worth fighting for,'' Yushchenko said in a transcript of his speech in Tbilisi posted on the Ukrainian presidential Web site. ``You are not alone. We have arrived to confirm your independence, your territorial integrity. Georgia is independent and will be independent always.''

The military operation in Georgia will serve ``as a warning'' to Ukraine that it should desist from petitioning for NATO entry, said Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``Otherwise, Moscow may intervene to protect the allegedly threatened interests of the Russian population.''

Russian Criticism

Russian Emergency Minister Sergei Shoigu today rounded on Ukraine for its public support of Georgia in the conflict.

``One week before these events, we send a column of humanitarian aid to Ukraine to help flood victims and the next we find they're offering military aid, arms for the destruction of civilians,'' Shoigu told reporters in Moscow.

Germany and France opposed NATO entry for Georgia, a country of 4.6 million people that is almost as big as the U.S. state of South Carolina, and Ukraine because of the Georgian separatist disputes and opposition to membership among some Ukrainians. They now will feel their concerns have been justified, said Cliff Kupchan of New-York based Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm.

``Considering both European reticence and possible fears about Ukraine, I think it is very much on the slow track,'' he said, referring to NATO membership for both states.

The assault by Russian artillery, tanks and bombers inflicted significant damage on Georgia's armed forces, which last month increased their size to 37,000 soldiers. Russia's military has 1.13 million personnel. The U.S. trained and equipped Georgia's military and in 2006 approved almost $300 million in aid over five years.

Destroyed

Ukraine has about 214,000 soldiers, which include 84,000 paramilitary troops, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

``A substantial part of our military power has been destroyed,'' said Georgian National Security Council chief Kakha Lomaia. ``However, we did preserve the core of our army, and have managed to regroup it close to the capital.''

An airbase in Senaki was destroyed and three Georgian ships were blown up in the Black Sea port of Poti, he said.

A month ago, about 1,000 U.S. soldiers joined 600 Georgians and 100 from Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Armenia in joint exercises at the Vaziani military base near Tbilisi. Russia repeatedly bombed the base during this month's war.

``The American role in the region has been weakened,'' Jan Techau, a European and security affairs analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin, said in a telephone interview. ``It's a reassertion of Russia's dominant role in the region.''

Ian Hague, a Bank of Georgia board member and fund manager with $1.8 billion in the former Soviet Union, said the attack on Georgia discouraged Western investments in energy infrastructure by raising the risk premium.

``It's somewhat reminiscent, in 1939, when Stalin attacked Finland,'' former U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Bloomberg Television. ``I think this kind of confrontation is the best kind of answer as to why they are seeking to be members of NATO.''

Interesting read.

One question that bears merit is, how did Russia mobilize so fast and deploy massive amounts of troops to the region? I think this is one point where the US Media is lacking.

[rn79870]

Also, an interesting look at the events through international eyes...

Whether or not Western leaders like it, the increasingly autocratic political leadership in Moscow is reacting to what it sees as a gradual encirclement by Nato.

The military alliance is moving steadily eastwards, and a new generation of long- range missiles are being prepared for deployment in what were Warsaw Pact member states.

Moscow is not of course going to send the tanks into Prague or Budapest again.

But recent history in the Caucasus suggests that on the inner fringes of the old Soviet bloc, where there are substantial Russian minorities, Moscow is not going to surrender them, and may use them to weaken what it sees as pro-Western governments.

To which should be added something else; in those disputed areas with Russian minorities, those who stand in the way may be forced to leave.

The untold story of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia is how those breakaway provinces have been emptied of their pro-Georgian populations, and how Russia has distributed passports for those who remain.

Olympic blunder

In retrospect, the move by Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian leader, to reign in South Ossetia when he thought that the rest of the world would be distracted by the opening of the Olympics in Beijing, was one of the least smart moves he could have made - particularly as it had clearly been anticipated by Moscow.

A sensible policy of co-existence may not have assuaged nationalists in both Georgia and Russia, but it has to be a better way ahead than the vicious conflict that has now probably led to the informal, but permanent annexation of Georgian territory by Russia.

Perhaps it really was planned and orchestrated in this manner. Maybe Russia is a little worried about the ring of Nato surrounding them.