Third World War is getting started???

gomito#10 said:
and i really dont think the US or nato want to put ground forces there to actually do real peacekeeping, it seems netiher the georgians or russians can be trusted..... its FUBAR at this point, now it seems the russians "said" they have put at end to the hostilities but continue to pound away with bombds on gori, a town well within georgian border and as far as i can tell nothing to do with south ossentia..
Click to expand...

I agree - there is no way NATO troops will go in. NATO troops are too tied down in other areas (Iraq, Afghanistan & former Yugoslavia). But Gori is about 20-30kms for Tskhanvalli, the capital of South Ossetia. The Georgian Army is / was using Gori barracks as the mobilization point for entry into South Ossetia, on Friday and Saturday they were massing troops and armour there.

I suspect that the Georgian President will resign and Russia will then withdraw back to Ossetia. To be honest I think 90% of the blame for this is down to Georgian president, he threw his country into war in South Ossetia, right after agreeing the talks on 6th August. He should resign because his errors have cost his country thousands of lives. Georgian people will elect a more stable president, one who is less volatile.
 
cfdh_edmundo said:
I agree - there is no way NATO troops will go in. NATO troops are too tied down in other areas (Iraq, Afghanistan & former Yugoslavia). But Gori is about 20-30kms for Tskhanvalli, the capital of South Ossetia. The Georgian Army is / was using Gori barracks as the mobilization point for entry into South Ossetia, on Friday and Saturday they were massing troops and armour there.

I suspect that the Georgian President will resign and Russia will then withdraw back to Ossetia. To be honest I think 90% of the blame for this is down to Georgian president, he threw his country into war in South Ossetia, right after agreeing the talks on 6th August. He should resign because his errors have cost his country thousands of lives. Georgian people will elect a more stable president, one who is less volatile.
Click to expand...

i agree with some of your sentiments, but its not so easy, for one russia invaded another country, georgia did not. Russia has allies in south ossentia they wanted to protect, from my point of view, seems very noble, if the truth is that infact gerogian troops were targeting civilians(we need proof of this) and that russia sent in tanks to protect these people from the georgian army or worse from genocide. But of note, georgia also claims sepratisits were shelling georgian civilians and these were backed by russian support. However the continuing bombing deep into georgia seems suspect very suspect. Seems like tick for tack, both sides seem to be a fault. Now in fact if the georigan president is trutfull about the separatist attacks, isnt he within his right to protect his country? Is russian within there right to invade another country to protect separatist loyal to russia in another country? The statements made by russian officials regarding the president of gerogia also lead me to believe the russians wanted this to happen. Its all down to a few policitans playing chess with there civilians. Both presidents are to blame IMO.
 
I like Georgia. Their flag is similair to ours :D

In all honesty, I don't see how anyone can claim the Georgians are the aggressors. Why would you deliberately provocate the Russians like that, it is suicide. The Georgian army is tiny and still utilises older Russian kit that the Russians know all about. I'd only do it if I knew I had a firm offer of help from the West (Millitary). And Again, I'd only do that if I went mental and wanted to start WW3.

I just hope Russia won't take this advantage to crush georgia and topple the government before Georgia can join NATO.

Lets face it, if Georgia were in NATO none of this would have happened, because fellow members would be obliged by the treaty to get involved millitarily. Which again would be suicide for the Russians.
 
Peter Eyres said:
I like Georgia. Their flag is similair to ours :D

In all honesty, I don't see how anyone can claim the Georgians are the aggressors. Why would you deliberately provocate the Russians like that, it is suicide. The Georgian army is tiny and still utilises older Russian kit that the Russians know all about. I'd only do it if I knew I had a firm offer of help from the West (Millitary). And Again, I'd only do that if I went mental and wanted to start WW3.

I just hope Russia won't take this advantage to crush georgia and topple the government before Georgia can join NATO.

Lets face it, if Georgia were in NATO none of this would have happened, because fellow members would be obliged by the treaty to get involved millitarily. Which again would be suicide for the Russians.
Click to expand...

Suicide for the human race.

The world superpowers cannot go against each other in open war.
 
Revan said:
well, Russia's "peacekeeping" is going towards the Georgian capital. It looks like an old fashioned invasion to me.
Click to expand...

its even worse, there are now reports of the south ossetia paramilitary forces killing georgian civilians indiscriminately,.. in full view of the so called peacekeepers... how will the russians spin this? also the university in gori has been deystroyed... rep sure sounds like some good peacekeeping..
 
Peter Eyres said:
In all honesty, I don't see how anyone can claim the Georgians are the aggressors.
Click to expand...

I think the reports are that Georgian Tanks and Artillery attacked South Ossetia on the Friday. I think Georgian shelling pretty much flattened Tshkanvalli (it seems to imply that here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7557915.stm). In my opinion the Georgian Goverment started this. They ordered their troops to take out positions in South Ossetia and attack Russian bases in the region.

Why would you deliberately provocate the Russians like that, it is suicide. The Georgian army is tiny and still utilises older Russian kit that the Russians know all about.
Click to expand...

That is the key question, Sakashvilli has been shown to be totally out of his depth. He took a reckless gamble (I guess he hoped the Russian's would just leave the region) and broke agreements and a general detente that stood for over 10 years. Now the conflict has widened Abkhazia and Adjara will probably breakaway from Georgia. He has a teflon reputation in the West, particularly in the USA where he is feted as some sort of hero. If you look at his policies in the region, particularly the border dispute with Azerbaijan in the Daivit region, you can see he has a history of hot-headedness. He made a huge error and it's mainly conscripts in the Georgian Army who have had to pay for it. He has to resign, he's lost all credability. And there is no way NATO will admit Georgia if a nutter like him is in charge. The last thing an overstretched NATO wants is to get involved in a war with Russia (a war that NATO could never win) over some big gamble by a guy like Sakashvilli.
 
cfdh_edmundo said:
I think the reports are that Georgian Tanks and Artillery attacked South Ossetia on the Friday. I think Georgian shelling pretty much flattened Tshkanvalli (it seems to imply that here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7557915.stm). In my opinion the Georgian Goverment started this. They ordered their troops to take out positions in South Ossetia and attack Russian bases in the region.



That is the key question, Sakashvilli has been shown to be totally out of his depth. He took a reckless gamble (I guess he hoped the Russian's would just leave the region) and broke agreements and a general detente that stood for over 10 years. Now the conflict has widened Abkhazia and Adjara will probably breakaway from Georgia. He has a teflon reputation in the West, particularly in the USA where he is feted as some sort of hero. If you look at his policies in the region, particularly the border dispute with Azerbaijan in the Daivit region, you can see he has a history of hot-headedness. He made a huge error and it's mainly conscripts in the Georgian Army who have had to pay for it. He has to resign, he's lost all credability. And there is no way NATO will admit Georgia if a nutter like him is in charge. The last thing an overstretched NATO wants is to get involved in a war with Russia (a war that NATO could never win) over some big gamble by a guy like Sakashvilli.
Click to expand...

there are reports that the georgian sepratists in south ossentia which is part of georgia shelled civilians first... and then then georgia responded, regardless russia now seems to be doing stupid things now as well. 90% of americans have no idea who the president of georgia is, most people were joking that oh shit were so stretcehd in the mid east that russia is about to overtake atlanta! So the only people who hail him as a hero is the bush administration, and im sure thats because georgia had alot of troops in Iraq. honestly if there was a war between russia and nato, i dont think its accurate to say nato could never win... its something american and german forces adn other nato allies have been training for, for over 50 years... and russia has only gotten smaller in that time, with nato getting larger... but hey who wants that? not i... there is no way the united states would get invovled and if they do, it would be another idiotic move by the administration
 
at least where NATO is concerned the French and The Germans are currently doing fuck all so could put their decently sized armed forces to use.

Russia I'm afraid would be crushed even by a weakened Nato (US and UK overstretch)
 
Peter Eyres, do you know what MAD is? Do you actually think anyone can win in a huge war like this?

This text is to help you understand:

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome—nuclear annihilation.
The doctrine assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction. It is now generally assumed that the nuclear fallout or nuclear winter resulting from a large scale nuclear war would bring about worldwide devastation, though this was not a critical assumption to the theory of MAD.

The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (second strike) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace.

The primary application of this doctrine started during the Cold War (1950s to 1990s) in which MAD was seen as helping to prevent any direct full-scale conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world. It was also responsible for the arms race, as both nations struggled to keep nuclear parity, or at least retain second-strike capability. Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction certainly continues to be in force although it has receded from public discourse.

Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full scale nuclear exchange (as a functioning state). Since the credibility of the threat is critical to such assurance, each side had to invest substantial capital in their nuclear arsenals even if they were not intended for use. In addition, neither side could be expected or allowed to adequately defend itself against the other's nuclear missiles. This led both to the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems (such as nuclear missile silos, ballistic missile submarines and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points) and to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

This MAD scenario is often referred to as nuclear deterrence. The term deterrence was first used in this context after World War II; prior to that time, its use was limited to legal terminology.

P.S. I'm happy that we to responвув to Georgia's attack of Russian peace keepers. I don't care about who started this conflict Osetians or Georgians. The fact that Saakashvilli attacked Russian citizens (this means not only soldiers but also support personel and other civilians who happen to live or work in Tshinvali) is enough for me to counter-attack Georgia and destroy every single military unit that threatens their lives. Unfortanatelly civilian casualties are inavitable in this case. :( But that's what every country that has some self-respect should do - protect it's own people.
 
Last edited:
Re-arranged said:
Peter Eyres, do you know what MAD is? Do you actually think anyone can win in a huge war like this?

This text is to help you understand:

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome—nuclear annihilation.
The doctrine assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction. It is now generally assumed that the nuclear fallout or nuclear winter resulting from a large scale nuclear war would bring about worldwide devastation, though this was not a critical assumption to the theory of MAD.

The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (second strike) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace.

The primary application of this doctrine started during the Cold War (1950s to 1990s) in which MAD was seen as helping to prevent any direct full-scale conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world. It was also responsible for the arms race, as both nations struggled to keep nuclear parity, or at least retain second-strike capability. Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction certainly continues to be in force although it has receded from public discourse.

Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full scale nuclear exchange (as a functioning state). Since the credibility of the threat is critical to such assurance, each side had to invest substantial capital in their nuclear arsenals even if they were not intended for use. In addition, neither side could be expected or allowed to adequately defend itself against the other's nuclear missiles. This led both to the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems (such as nuclear missile silos, ballistic missile submarines and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points) and to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

This MAD scenario is often referred to as nuclear deterrence. The term deterrence was first used in this context after World War II; prior to that time, its use was limited to legal terminology.

P.S. I'm happy that we to responвув to Georgia's attack of Russian peace keepers. I don't care about who started this conflict Osetians or Georgians. The fact that Saakashvilli attacked Russian citizens (this means not only soldiers but also support personel and other civilians who happen to live or work in Tshinvali) is enough for me to counter-attack Georgia and destroy every single military unit that threatens their lives. Unfortanatelly civilian casualties are inavitable in this case. :( But that's what every country that has some self-respect should do - protect it's own people.
Click to expand...

If that's true then Russia should have simply removed it's citizens from the region. Alot of countries have done it in the past.
 
Well it's not that simple, many of those were working in peacekeeping mission. They had responsibilities of protecting the region, plus, we have mutual protection pact with both South Osetia and Abkhazia. So I guess military response was inavitable and Saakashvilli was aware of that fact. And by the way, if Georgian politicians say that they were being bombarded from osetian positions, why didn't they just destroy those mortars or whatever? Instead they simply razed the city of Tskhinvali to the ground. Can't see any adequacy in responce like that.
 
Please stop being a sarcy so and so Red.

MAD isn't neccasarily a guarantee in a world where anyone who even dares used Nuclear weapons will be vilified and demonised for the rest of history.

I honestly think any conflict like this that brings in the US and Russia wouldn't result in Nuclear weapons being used.

If war between Super-Powers is never going to happen then why is there still an arms race, why are spies from all the major powers spying on each other and why are certain countries being encircled. If MAD was guaranteed, then why bother?

Afghanistan will become a US Millitary base which offers access to Russia and Iran and China.
 
Last edited:
Peter Eyres said:
Russia I'm afraid would be crushed even by a weakened Nato (US and UK overstretch)
Click to expand...

In the recent history of human conflict many countries have tried to defeat Russia and they have all failed. Napoleon tried and got to Moscow but his army was destroyed afterwards. In the second world war the Axis invaded and got far into Russia but Russia (Soviet Union) defeated them and won the war. The same is true now.
 
Peter Eyres said:
Please stop being a sarcy so and so Red.

MAD isn't neccasarily a guarantee in a world where anyone who even dares used Nuclear weapons will be vilified and demonised for the rest of history.

I honestly think any conflict like this that brings in the US and Russia wouldn't result in Nuclear weapons being used.

If war between Super-Powers is never going to happen then why is there still an arms race, why are spies from all the major powers spying on each other and why are certain countries being encircled. If MAD was guaranteed, then why bother?

Afghanistan will become a US Millitary base which offers access to Russia and Iran and China.
Click to expand...

Who the hell is Red? lol

I think you're wrong, why won't anyone dare to use nuclear weaponry? I guess if one of the countries is loosing in conflict and have no other choice they'll use it.

And I really doubt that NATO can crush anyone easily because:

- They've got too many antagonisms and problems inside it, which showed up during anti-Afghanistan and -Iraq campaign.
- How can you say NATO will easily crush Russia when they can't even control Afghanistan and Iraq, which are by far smaller and worse equipped countries. They are loosing soldiers every day.

Is this what you call crushed, man?

P.S. I guess this argument is pointless. We'll never know what the outcome would be until it actually happens (I really hope not).
 
Last edited:
Re-arranged said:
Well it's not that simple, many of those were working in peacekeeping mission. They had responsibilities of protecting the region, plus, we have mutual protection pact with both South Osetia and Abkhazia. So I guess military response was inavitable and Saakashvilli was aware of that fact. And by the way, if Georgian politicians say that they were being bombarded from osetian positions, why didn't they just destroy those mortars or whatever? Instead they simply razed the city of Tskhinvali to the ground. Can't see any adequacy in responce like that.
Click to expand...
They don't have the laser or satellite guided missiles the US have, they have to bomb things the old fashioned way. And even the US missiles are know to fail sometimes.
Just know that I don't know If that really happened that way, and I'm not defending the Georgian president, but Russia clearly went too far.
cfdh_edmundo said:
In the recent history of human conflict many countries have tried to defeat Russia and they have all failed. Napoleon tried and got to Moscow but his army was destroyed afterwards. In the second world war the Axis invaded and got far into Russia but Russia (Soviet Union) defeated them and won the war. The same is true now.
Click to expand...
Unknown.
The Winter War at the start of the WW2, the soviets attacked Finland, and got their asses kicked even though they were vastly superior.



BTW, Russian president hinted that the US shield missile may have been part of the reason to go for Georgia.

That was my first reaction to Russian invasion of Georgia.
 
Last edited:
Yep it all boils down to the missile shield.

Makes you wonder why the Russian are so concerned about a defense mechanism being put up.

NATO wouldn't have to occupy Russia, the reason why it is struggling in the Middle East is because its facing guerilla warfare.
 
Peter Eyres said:
NATO wouldn't have to occupy Russia, the reason why it is struggling in the Middle East is because its facing guerilla warfare.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Russia having so much oil and other resourses wouldn't be occupied? Why else would someone want to attack Russia, just for sake of destruction? :lol: One of the main reasons why Russia was able to win every single war on it's territory was exactly the same - strong guerilla warfare helping regular army.
 
Let's be honest in a war anything is permited. do you think the US or Putin will stumble to press the red button if a direct war would brake out?
It's hard to control countries wich you brought to choas and when you win so much by just bombardin rocks.
But nodobody want's a war with Russia. And Russia can't really be constrained, specially after what happened at NATO Summit in Bucuresti. Putin made everyone wait until the last day of the summit to discuss the energy issues and when he came he just showed whos boss and who pulls the strings, Bushes, the US couldn't obtain nothing.
France, Germany and Europe in general depend on the gases supplied by Russia. So, even though it's an open war it's like a cold war, and now Russia seems to have all the aces. And the US are still too greedy to develope alternative energy sources.

About Abhazia and Osetia: Putin won't retreate it's population no way, it's a former empire where talking about. The fact that the georgians bombarded civilians is, whatever false or true, just a pretext to invade.
Putin said when Kosovo's indepence was recognized by many countries that there could be problems in Abhazia & Osetia!, in Transilvania and other regions i think. Well problems have just happend in A & O.

Russia showed they're the boss and profite after this, saing: Back off US and NATO. Frankly, US's persistence with it's fucking shield is nothing but bad news for the countries who accept it.

The allies need to break free from this dependency from Russia, otherwise Russia will always have the upper-hand.
IMO, a big war won't happen in the near future for just small countries regions, though in the far future war will most likely break and then a small countrie, probably from the Balkans like always, will be used as a pretence...like it's happened in the past.
Few things happen randomly.
 
Last edited:
;) Mate, Putin isn't a president no more, he doesn't have access to "red button". It's Dmitri Medvedev now. And his relationships with Putin are becoming worse and worse every day, in spite of being in one team sometime ago.

Russian politicians are still concerned about this so called "shield", cause we won't be able to finish our new missile system named "Bulava" (mace), which can be launched from submarines, until year 2010-2012. And I guess if this missile shield is finished before that we'll just find some way to put our nuclear rocket bases somewhere near US for instance in Venezuela and say it's not against you guys, it's to protect Venezuelans from Iran! :lol:

Thou this won't be any good, but another arms race.
 
Last edited:
Oh. I knew Medvedev was just Putin's puppet.
Didn't Putin move quite a few atributes from the presidency to the prim-minister.
I don't like USA and it's strategies at all, not to mention how our leaders made Romania a USA ultras. But i'm not a fan of Russia either, not by a long shot.
 
I hate politics to be honest, it's all about lying, cheating, backstabbing and making conspiracies. But at least there shouuld be someone in the world to oppose USA. I hope European countries finally realize that we should all be together, cause that's the only way to prevent US from world domination. As someone said: "The only thing that makes me happy about this situation with US being world dominant - there is no Empire that can last forever."
P.S. got nothing against people living in US, just hate how their politicians act as if they are world's best and have the right to do whatever they won't without having to pay for consequences.
 
Last edited:
i understand that. though i'm a student at political science. :)
you're right bout USA. it's fucked up how they pose as the world's savior and in fact they have greedy obscure interests.
to stay on subject: the Georgia invasion has no real support IMO, but Russia had to prove they're point abt Kosovo.
 
n4p4st4 said:
i understand that. though i'm a student at political science. :)
you're right bout USA. it's fucked up how they pose as the world's savior and in fact they have greedy obscure interests.
to stay on subject: the Georgia invasion has no real support IMO, but Russia had to prove they're point abt Kosovo.
Click to expand...

all countries have greedy interests, however our interests effect everyone, note how the euro is sinking... i agree we need to stop trying to dwelve in other countries politics, but that would be useless if every other country on the planet continues to do the same. All countries in the world regardless of there stature or size look after there self interests, and 98% of them is usually down to greed by the people in power. The USA does do some stupid fucked up shit, but on other end of the spectrum we also do some very humanitarian things. We are not as evil as your professors are probably portraying us.
 
yes, that's true, in general every country does about anything for it's interests. but only USA wants to seen as the one who wants to save the world.
actually Romania and the vast majority of people here are very pro-american.
i have nothing withe the people but with the politicians, but don't get me wrong i'd prefer any time to be alongside USA rather than Russia (they did so much bad to us).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom