Russia Vs Georgia..a widening crisis!
- Thread starter Finn McCool
- Start date
Forgive people on here to be a little skeptical of your info, you havent exactly been all correct throughout this past week...saying stuff like how Georgia was about to have 100,000 troops ready to fight Russia and how theyre going to push them back etc etc
Plus youve offered no references or sources as to where your info came from.
--------------------
Medvedev recently called a Saakashvili a "lunatic", does anyone here agree?
Now its clear that Condi and US State Department explicitly told Saakashvili not to get in a fire fight in July but he did it anyway.
After the cease fire agreement in a rally in Tbilisi he was saying stuff like "We'll fight to the end - until the last Russian soldier leaves Georgian soil" and "We're not surrendering …" etc. Was he unaware that Russia directly or indirectly controls almost two thirds of Georgia and his military has been smashed?
He also wrote an editorial to Washington Post calling on US to send troops, after Gates had earlier said "I don't see any prospect for the use of military force by the United States in this situation".
After Pentagon announced they were sending humanitarian aid, he ranted how that the US military would take control of "Georgian ports and airports"...which was swiftly denied by Pentagon.
What we are skeptical about is that you post this information without sources. Any person can babble on but without proof it is simply that, babble.
Of course, most sources nowadays are biased or just pulling stuff out of their rear at the moment since no one knows what is going on which just increases the reasoning that your statements are inaccurate.
Guys, I have got a question. The US keep urging Russia to pull out of Gerogia. Does she mean pull out of Gerogia including the disputed districts or just to return to the pre-conflict area?
In addition, the "peace plan" presented by Rice is it the same one the French mediated before?
I am confused with all the different info from too many sources.
In addition, the "peace plan" presented by Rice is it the same one the French mediated before?
I am confused with all the different info from too many sources.
This is the first SVD I have seen in any news coverage of the conflict.
Are they that rare or do Russia still deploy them with designated marksman?
I think it is the same one Sarkozy brokered, now Condi is there to get both sides to formally sign it. One of the points on that cease fire agreement is that Russia is allowed to make/take "additional security measures" where it sees fit; a loophole that virtually gives Russia a freehand in Georgia, and allow them to demand a set up of buffer zones surrounding SO and Abkhazia.
So according to the agreement, literally, Gerogia has surrendered to Russia right? It's just a face saving way for Gerogia to surrender to Russia right? IF Russia can set up buffer zone anywhere in Georgia, then that means that Georgia will lose its control over its soil right? Militarily of course.
By the way, will Georgia able to set up a buffer zone as well? or station in the disputed areas alongside with Russian troops?
And US is not going to protect Georgia after what Georgian had done for the US? Shame on them!!
Not wishing to detour to far off topic, but the key area of "disagreement" is the US saying that Russia "must respect the territorial integrity of Georgia" and Russia saying that "the will of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians now makes this impossible".
This is fundamental disagreement and difference of interpretation of the Sarkozy Cease Fire plan and so I would not expect Russia to sign or implement it until such differences are resolved.
I do not expect this anytime soon.
This is fundamental disagreement and difference of interpretation of the Sarkozy Cease Fire plan and so I would not expect Russia to sign or implement it until such differences are resolved.
I do not expect this anytime soon.
am just a little puzzled as to why people in the forum are claiming the chechen forces are a force to be reckoned with... they don't look professional in the pic though.. perhaps through the years of experience fighting urban and guerilla warfare toughened them up?
any idea guys? share with me will ya
When you have had experience on the field, you will realize what is dangerous and what is necessary to keep you alive.
Like in the vietnam war, many GIs threw their standard weapon, M-16, away and picked up AK-47. Many of the veterans do not wear unnecessary equipments on battlefield. Standard uniforms and equipments are for parade not for battlefield.