Discussion Thread: 2008 Russo-Georgian war

[QingLong]

Hello guys, I know I am a bit late into this discussion.

I do not have new images to add, but I would like to take a moment to reflect on the exchange that happened at the beginning of this thread.
Gordus & DTA had a heated exchange about the veracity of the timeline and information provided by both sides.

I personally, find this debate absurd and highly irrational. This especially when it comes to sources both sides have pitted.

I will propose the examination of 3 points, that would both be Anachronic (yes hindsight is a b°°°) but also evident given the source material I have seen.

The first point is that both sides are lying as hell when it comes to both the start of the hostilities but also to the results achieved both before the actual confrontation, during and finally after.

To discuss these points I will forego totally Russian sources. I will only use one of the references many times tossed to my face to explain Total Disaster when it comes to the August War.

This source was proposed even here and is the infamously reductive Cohen & Hamilton Russian performance analysis during the August war.

I will not delay my barrage much more, and will start.

1. Cohen & Hamilton are mainly authors of a political piece with certain military overtones. This is painfully clear in a couple of initial takes. As such the double standard is exhausting:

"U.S. intelligence-gathering and analysis of the Russian threat to and invasion of Georgia was found lacking. So was U.S. military assistance to Georgia, worth around $2 billion over the last 15 years, since a Russian invasion was not seriously considered to be a strategic threat to the U.S.-friendly country."

This is not true. To the extent that most intelligence operatives in Georgia were only trying to leave Tbilissi by late 9th August. Fact notably verified by the Exiled correspondent Mark Ames.
The invasion was either self evident, or not evident at all. It's a bit of Schrödinger's cat here.

This leads to something else. If the US was not seriously considering a fight in Georgia, so would the Georgian State. The US/NATO Pin on its chest, Georgia would have felt pretty secure to advance in South Ossetia. This take means that unlike what Cohen & Hamilton opine, the action couldn't have been spontaneous to the tune of 4/6 thousand troops committed for this operation. The planning is too large to be hastily prepared and hidden from a country like Russia, even in 2008.

Then we are afflicted by something like this:

"Bringing down President Saakashvili and installing a more pro-Russian leadership in Tbilisi."

It's mind boggling, and probably already a tell tale of the goal of this "study". I will add that this study was published in June 2011, when it became painfully obvious that Russia had no interest of deposing Saakashvili and while the US was busy deposing Khadaffi. The irony of the situation is maybe the cherry on top here. But let's continue with the rest.

So, so far the couple here have already committed a couple of elementary mistakes in the Hypothesis, because it is a Hypothesis.

They have already prepared the audience for a zero-sum game. Russians weren't expected to attack, but they actually were. That attack was premeditated and aimed at nothing less but a regime change. But they didn't do that.

I also left a little nugget for the rest of you, so you can read the obviously partisan tone of this.

"The war also demonstrated the weaknesses of NATO and the EU security system, because they provided no efficient response to Russia’s forced changing of the borders and occupation of an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) member state. "

Earlier in 2008, a OSCE member had lost a quarter of its territory despite that territory being legally theirs and declared so by a UN resolution. Guess which State.

This projection, because that's what it is, a US projection of their own operational planning MO, is however even worse when it comes to the description of the actual combat.

2. Cohen & Hamilton are hardly credible to this point. It's about to get worse.

a. "Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer". This is in page 23....The very actual beginning of the monograph.
b. We are to believe that the most dramatic front, the Axis Tskinvali-Gori-Tbilissi were only assaulted by 12 thousand troops, but the coast from Abkhazia which wasn't playing any role in the Georgian offensive was attacked by 15 thousand troops?
c. We have not a single clear source, with most of the time tossing a number and then doubling it.
d. Then our two analysts put the Georgian forces at...12/15 thousand and all three CBR's engaged.

Now My question is this, do you guys agree with this or are we back to 4/6 thousand Georgians. I Personally thing that the forces in presence were 15 vs 5 in the TGT axis. With about 5 more From the Coast.

3. Cohen & Hamilton seem to ignore every point they want to make sub-sequentially.

a. They first speak about a "Spontaneous Planning", then Complain that the Civil Administration would try to have a leash on the military matters. This is a typical constraint in representative systems. The military is subordinated to the Civil Authority.
b. They portray Russia as a clunky system that...relied on Systemic strengths to win, but Georgia was heaps better in Flexibility and tactical level. However, this vision doesn't account for its own issues. A strategically inferior side SELDOM takes the initiative in symmetrical warfare. This is the thinking of an asymmetric unit, not unlike the Finish armed forces during the Winter War.
c. Once we read this we cannot analyse this conflict the way most of you keep analyzing it. I am looking to the pro-Georgian guys. Unless the undertone is that Georgia initiated the confrontation with the thought someone was going to intervene to keep Russia in check.

With this in mind, we can imagine that some insurances were provided to the Georgian Authority. If they weren't then the Georgians were set for failure since the beginning. This is basically suicide from the Georgian side.

Now that we have had this small preparatory discussion. We can see that the Goals of the Georgian Army were at best self-destructive and at worst treasonous. Never mind the tactical quality, we have to keep in check that the Georgians committed crimes against Peace in sofar that they started the military action and they attacked a PK base.

While most of your will disregard that and will claim that the Russians were part in the conflict, this doesn't matter as much as it gave clearly the Russian a mandate in this war.

In a sense, even Cohen & Hamilton recognize this, even though they try and newspeak it:

"In examining the Russian strategy for the war, it is instructive to begin with an overview of the road to war, since the actions Russia took in the months leading up to August 2008 say much about whether and when Russia expected war and how it hoped to achieve its objectives if war came."

 

[QingLong]

Part 2 tomorrow.

 

[Talvisota]

Now that we have had this small preparatory discussion. We can see that the Goals of the Georgian Army were at best self-destructive and at worst treasonous. Never mind the tactical quality, we have to keep in check that the Georgians committed crimes against Peace in sofar that they started the military action and they attacked a PK base.

PK base
This was the place Georgian forces were targeted from, everyday since 2007-2006, thats why it was attacked.
Ok, just to make it clear
imagine that you are goverment, your military forces get attacked on daily basis, civilians are dying, including woman and children, hostile forces are illegaly crossing border every day and rob and kill your civilians
What would you do?

 

[Gordus]

Hello guys

Hey

The first point is that both sides are lying as hell when it comes to both the start of the hostilities but also to the results achieved both before the actual confrontation, during and finally after.

Depends what we are referring to. When it comes to simple military facts neither side really disagrees when you put the pieces togheter, it is just that there is always a clear tendency to either exaggerate or understate certain events and outcomes. The results are still evident and obvious.

To discuss these points I will forego totally Russian sources.

Why ? if there are detailed and mostly fact based analysis that don't seem to be as biased as other Russian sources, they should not be simply discarded just because they were written by one of the conflict parties. The GAF made a similar analysis or rather briefing on the situation which got later removed, but a lot of information they shared overlapped with those given by Russian military analysis.

This is not true. To the extent that most intelligence operatives in Georgia were only trying to leave Tbilissi by late 9th August. Fact notably verified by the Exiled correspondent Mark Ames.
The invasion was either self evident, or not evident at all. It's a bit of Schrödinger's cat here.

Agree. They've done so in 1992 as well.

This leads to something else. If the US was not seriously considering a fight in Georgia, so would the Georgian State. The US/NATO Pin on its chest, Georgia would have felt pretty secure to advance in South Ossetia. This take means that unlike what Cohen & Hamilton opine, the action couldn't have been spontaneous to the tune of 4/6 thousand troops committed for this operation. The planning is too large to be hastily prepared and hidden from a country like Russia, even in 2008.

Then we are afflicted by something like this:

"Bringing down President Saakashvili and installing a more pro-Russian leadership in Tbilisi."

It's mind boggling, and probably already a tell tale of the goal of this "study". I will add that this study was published in June 2011, when it became painfully obvious that Russia had no interest of deposing Saakashvili and while the US was busy deposing Khadaffi. The irony of the situation is maybe the cherry on top here. But let's continue with the rest.

So, so far the couple here have already committed a couple of elementary mistakes in the Hypothesis, because it is a Hypothesis.

They have already prepared the audience for a zero-sum game. Russians weren't expected to attack, but they actually were. That attack was premeditated and aimed at nothing less but a regime change. But they didn't do that.

I also left a little nugget for the rest of you, so you can read the obviously partisan tone of this.

Why would they ? Saakashvili literaly played into their hands. He did Russia a great favour and us a great deal of harm.
There never was any realistic chance of US/NATO ever be directly involved in such a conflict and very very few believed in that as far as I'm aware, having met the relevant ppl. There are many factors to take into considation when discussing this. The most important one is the fact that the inner political environment was unstable at that time. Saakashvili cracked down one huge protest demanding him to step down in 2007 and he was further losing popularity the following year. Provocations started to also heat up precicely in that period in 2008. Wheter it was Russia taking advantige of the political turmoil in Georgia to escalate the situation by provoking or rather baiting Saakashvili, as a (successful) war would have recovered his political image and elevated his persona, or it was his personal decision, or a US' scheme to weaken Russia economicaly ( all the primary claims & theories I picked up so far ), fact remains, that the Georgian side was not physicaly nor mentaly prepared, but the Russian was. At least in regards to a potential scenario. It is also painfully obvious that the Russian government prefers and always preferred to have or have installed a pro-Russian Georgian government, to ultimately subjugate the country in whatever shape or form. That is a real physical threat. But the damage done as a result of the 2008 war was very satisfactory for Russia even if more could have been achieved. Deposing the president of a foreign country in good relations with the US and EU would have been incredibly stupid, especialy with all the intarnational backing and outcry, and sanctions. That is why the Russian army halted 60km away from the Georgian capital. Not because they didn't want to. They already had several Georgian towns and many villages occupied not only near the war zone but also the coast. If nobody really cared and turned their backs, it would have come that far.

Now My question is this, do you guys agree with this or are we back to 4/6 thousand Georgians. I Personally thing that the forces in presence were 15 vs 5 in the TGT axis. With about 5 more From the Coast.

I honestly don't understand where 'analysts' get those numbers from. The Georgian military in 2008 consisted of 5 inf brigades ( the 5th was never even fully implemented and due to that disbanded some years ago ) and supporting forces ( 2 arty, 1 engineer brigade - considerably less manpower ) Each infantry brigade, the largest units of the GAF, had around 2k combat troops. Let's do some math: 5x2.000 equals 10.000. The 1st Infantry Brigade was in Iraq at that time. Some 2.000 men. They were airlifted back, but too late to have any impact and didn't participate in that fight. The 5th Infantry Brigade was not involved in that theatre at all and kept out of the fighting. They were deployed in Abkhazia and also withdrawn after a brief exchange of fire when the Abkhazian front opened.

So overall, 3 inf brigades were deployed into South Ossetia. That makes ~6,000 infantry + logistics, artillery and vehicles. Add to that a special operations group, lets be generous and say it were around 200. Add to that another 700-800 men of the Georgian police armed response units ( Special Task Departments ) that took part in the combat operations. There was a very detailed article on their involvment with precice numbers that seems to have been removed.

Those guys, the special forces and a mixed force from 3rd and 4rth Brigades marched into Tskhinvali. That force couldn't have been stronger than 1,5-2000 men. The rest of the two brigades secured the heights and villages flanking the town. The 2nd Inf Brigade stayed back and acted as reserve and supply force and was kept out of the fighting until 10th-11th August.

The Russian side claims to have mobilized around 10k troops as reinforcements for the South Ossetian theatre and around 9k troops for the Abkhazian front, so overall 19k troops. Obv not all of them were involved either. In Abkhazia there was no real fighting. In SO, 10k seems realistic because the Russian side didn't need more as it had the total advantige in air power, artillery, ballistic missiles and defence. What is rather mind boggling is how the Russian side tries to underplay the role of the 4th Air Army. Over 200 air missions were flown all over Georgia. Most if not nearly all Georgian communication assetts and radars, including civilian, were destroyed by the Russian airforce, virtualy blinding our air defence. Most losses received were due to air and artillery strikes. Not only during the withdrawal, but rally points and armor were also hit by Russian CAS during the the first few days despite losing a number of aircraft.

but Georgia was heaps better in Flexibility and tactical level.

No it wasn't. I've spoken to several officers now who participated in that war. The GAF can be given credit for some success in single areas and incidents, but mostly because they were lucky that the initial Russian deployment was even worse than the Georgian. But it gradualy and quickly improved while the Georgian structure gradualy and quickly disintigrated. Communication on Georgian side was horrendous and many messages were intercepted.

With this in mind, we can imagine that some insurances were provided to the Georgian Authority. If they weren't then the Georgians were set for failure since the beginning. This is basically suicide from the Georgian side.

The question is by whom. The US ? unlikely. Russia ? more likely. The Georgian MC forces warned their Russian counterparts beforehand to either clear out or keep out of fights when the Georgian army was advancing into the region. Now wheter we want to believe claims such as Russian authorities promising no involvment etc, fact is the Georgian military had absolutly no interest in attacking Russian forces, until they were targeted by artillery fire that was coordinated by one of their officers on the roof of the garrison. Only when the GAF intercepted those messages, did they target that position. Russians responded and the Georgians responded too. Russia then used that incident as pretext to attack.

Now that we have had this small preparatory discussion. We can see that the Goals of the Georgian Army were at best self-destructive and at worst treasonous. Never mind the tactical quality, we have to keep in check that the Georgians committed crimes against Peace in sofar that they started the military action and they attacked a PK base.

It is not that simple.

The Georgian military action was preceeded by many subversive actions and provocations that lead to that response and we are not talking about verbal disbutes but firefights, ambushes and artillery strikes. Talking about any state of "peace" is a little stretch ....

Treasonous in what way ? the GAF acted as ordered by the highest authority. The goal of a military force is to defend the nation's borders and decide wars in favour of the respctive country. From the Georgian perspective - which is internationaly recognized, just not tolerated due to Russia being involved, it is not treason to restore gov control over rebelious regions if military force is required, especialy when said separatist enclaves proceed provocations that were most likely all green lit if not carried out by at least the local Russian authorities - which are the ones who were/are in charge.

In any way, thing is, just the hypocricy alone, turns that whole notion of "treason" into a joke. Remember how Russia deals with separatism in its own country ? only there ain't a bully 30 times the size of Russia keeping them pinned down by their head. Russia does this only out of pure geopolitical interests and we can't do anything about it because we are weak and they are times stronger.

 

[QingLong]

PK base
This was the place Georgian forces were targeted from, everyday since 2007-2006, thats why it was attacked.
Ok, just to make it clear
imagine that you are goverment, your military forces get attacked on daily basis, civilians are dying, including woman and children, hostile forces are illegaly crossing border every day and rob and kill your civilians
What would you do?

No that is a lie, the actual stage for the Ossetian attacks wasn't the Tskinval base but allegedly the Java base, which was out of OSCE's LoC. Please refrain from this non-sense.

The attacks or "hunting season" was a common occurrence from both sides. It was upped up with Saakashvili because of what he felt possible. That backfired horribly.

 

[QingLong]

Hey


I think both sides disagree, with the Georgians and Americans turning some facts on their heads, this 2011 study is a staple of that case.

Because, this regards one very specific prejudice to most military analysis today. US made papers tend to be more truthful. This is, unfortunately, a lie. And I am doing this to mostly underline that the Georgian was is known mostly by over-exageration and lies. This is no hypothesis though. The common features of "both sides" were mostly the places and dates of the clashes, the rest is vastly and wildly different.


Why would they ? Saakashvili literaly played into their hands. He did Russia a great favour and us a great deal of harm.

Again that's a hindsight issue. If I was to read into your opinion, then OIF/OEF were not great US miscalculations bu great plans from the Iranians to get Iraq under their influence...Actually, that's not what the two experts think and that's where I come back again, in 2008, nobody knew exactly how this would pan, or everybody knew. This is not something you can push under the carpet like that.

And then you commit the dreaded mistake of taking liberty in what the experts say. These experts clearly state that Russia had prepared to the minutae an invasion, maybe later (that's even worse from an expert POV) that year. Actually the political turmoil part is the less convincing, when you know how Saakashvili worked out the political system for while in Georgia. In that sense it was pure unadulterated populism. Some of the escalations that took part in Georgia were counter balanced by some pretty extreme apeasement acts from Russia, including the Batumi base being removed in 2007.

That's why the idea that Russia would upper the ante isn't all that credible, if we stick to the very partial narrative from Cohen & Hamilton.

See the part when there is a great scheme on both sides doesn't match. If Russia would have prepared a textbook invasion, then It would have done so in a very different manner, notably by transferring troops little by little, including PK troops. As a matter of fact, the PK force lacked even a modicum of ATGM's. From a prepared side that would launch its invasion from Ossetia, that's highly improbable. Fact even the parties than broke through from Java lacked that basic item, and they knew most of the GAF thrust was armored.

Now would Russia have a friendly government in Tbilissi? Depends, Georgia, like Armenia is already a lost cause. It is a border to one of Russia's most turmoiled areas, has served as a pass for Chechen insurgents and US trained Georgian "Chechens" have been occupying leadership positions in ISIS itself, let alone in the other salafist militias. Georgia being a belligerent neighbor is a blessing, not problem. A flashpoint offers the current Russian government a very palatable foe, with drama to boot. If Russia wanted to make a stand it would have kept Batumi and Ajara, but they didn't. And frankly if you want to talk about political symbolism, well "returning" Ajara was basically the biggest "betrayal" that Russia could commit. Especially when you know how it happened.

Why was it satisfactory? Actually the war forced Russia into a legal intricacy and took out the veil of legality the PK force represented. Now Russia is forced to swallow the secessionist factions, is blanked by a narrative that is at least disingenuous without a way back. And this being done in the middle of China's triumph at the Olympics? Furthermore, if the US didn't intervene to stop them, and basically let the GAF "git it gud", why would they intervene and from where? Turkey? Azerbaijan? In a direct war with Russia for a country that still had Russian bases in it? Those Russian bases were the cause that the MAP didn't pass in April. So why would Russia stop from pummeling Georgia? Because it wasn't its plan to overthrow Saakashvili. As himself proved in Ukraine, the guy is a liability he managed to become a problem within 3 years of his own election by some of the most pitiful schemes and power plays one could think about.

Are we talking about the same event? The issue once again, is that you are projecting from an US point of view that can do as it pleases with the international order. Russia would like to do so, but it simply has no means to enforce its own vision.

Now about that ORBAT, I am asking you, because you posted that "NATO" analysis, and it was in there...

200 sorties were flown where about 3/4th were strikes with LOS weapons.

As for the claim again, this is Cohen & Hamilton's claim, not mine. And it is also the official narrative of NATO's PfP's resource when you actually try to get your hands on it.
So again a part describing a decisive movement inside Tskinval to relieve the PK base in there, I don't see how this was a prepared attack on Georgia when the Russians would have had by that time at least given their maneuver troops enough of an edge, especially both in PPE and night vision capabilities. Yet from the very images the Russians and Foreign press reveal, the Russians were hardly better prepared than Ossetian auxiliaries they had.

Furthermore the stalling that the GAF received in Tskinval cannot be a good sign.


The Georgians warned the Russians that they were going to move on? That's a first. And The Russians could hardly stand down, because that's what a PK force is about, keeping the belligerents from open warfare. It's like a self-defeating argument you throw there. Now set up by the Russians? Again what we see on an operational basis, is a completely rushed offense from the Russians in what they thought was basically an attempt to create the conditions of a fait accompli in Ossetia.

Ossetia and Georgia had a hunting season almost each and every year from 1998 to 2008 where both sides were firing onto each other. Israel has attacked Lebanon and Syria in the face of UNOFIL and UNSPP and both Syria and Hisballah have attacked Israel. Israel has fired into UN troops before and those were Blue helmets and from third parties. It was nonetheless been considered as crimes agains peace, it's just how it is. While the situation in Georgia isn't sane or fair, the fact is that Georgia has been the effective instigator of the violence flareup.



It is treasonous because they attacked a base that they had recognized, politically that's a no go. Georgia unfortunately, attacked the PK base, instead of the Java base, which would have been the actual logical thing to do. By doing everything wrong, the GAF in a single stone killed two doves. It gave Russia a casus belli and it didn't achieve a proper head start when it came to the actual "operation".

Hypocrisy? Why? Who ever hid the fact Russia was there for its own geopolitical gains, same with Georgia, it received both areas during the Soviet Union and at the end of USSR it unilaterally tried to retain these territories by force. It's geopolitical inception 101. Calling Russia a Gorilla while Georgia did a U turn and started to go after NATO membership, for this exact issue is also ironical.

Bottom line of this is that one party for bad or worse prepared an operation in the middle of huge world manifestation, carried it out with limited effect and faced the backlash of a bigger foe.

This foe attempted to fight with its own strengths on a tactical level in order to gain time and set the motions for its systemic advantages. This however doesn't mean Russia fought worse than Georgia, it simply did it with the means it had.

If you think that flying 200 sorties in 5 days is a huge number, France in the first week of the Libyan operation flew about 350 strike sorties, alone.

I am finishing a full analysis of Cohen & Hamilton's "study" and really I am appalled that you proposed it as a "better" analysis. It's mind boggling in its bias.

 

[Bombardier]

I know little about this conflict and I am finding the discussion interesting however....

No that is a lie, the actual stage for the Ossetian attacks wasn't the Tskinval base but allegedly the Java base, which was out of OSCE's LoC. Please refrain from this non-sense.

You say that is a lie and follow with 'Allegedly the java base', if you are going to suggest somebody is lying and then asking them to 'refrain from this non-sense' you should use a more positive argument. For example, where is it alleged, why do you believe the allegation and not the honestly held belief of @Talvisota

If I were to be so very to the point, your comment quoted above appears , to me, well nonsense so please refrain

 

[QingLong]

I know little about this conflict and I am finding the discussion interesting however....


You say that is a lie and follow with 'Allegedly the java base', if you are going to suggest somebody is lying and then asking them to 'refrain from this non-sense' you should use a more positive argument. For example, where is it alleged, why do you believe the allegation and not the honestly held belief of @Talvisota

If I were to be so very to the point, your comment quoted above appears , to me, well nonsense so please refrain

I believe that most harassing attacks were being staged from Java. Especially the 2005 rampage from the Alanya squadron. I say believe because I do not have a specific proof of that. However the lie regards the fact that the PK base was used as a staging point for "harassing attacks". It is a lie because of where the base is located and because it lacked encrypted coms until November 2006. This I have proof of.

Furthermore the accusation about the PK base isn't even new, but was shot down by many when it came to its actual veracity.

1. The OSCE mission time and again had visited the base and assessed it couldn't HARBOR a training camp for "Russian Agents".
2. Russia had another base in Java out of the demilitarized area where it has among others a polygon/firing ground and a whole logistical hub to aid any attempt to overthrow Georgia, let alone train people to stick bombs into cars.


The main body of evidence about the base being used as a stage point, is due to the 2005 February attack in Gori and were also the alleged ties of Aruntunyan (the inert grenade launcher) with THE SAME "IGOR" that was behind the car bombing in Gori.

So to wrap this up.

1. The accusation towards the JPKF base is a proven lie.
2. The Java base is far better for these activities, although even Valiev said he was actually trained in the vicinity of the Vladikavkaz (Russia) base not in the Tbilissi base itself.
3. The insistance of Tbilissi to get rid of the JPKF wasn't new or even puzzling, Saakashvili insisted that it would be the first step to "return" peace to South Ossetia. One of the main problems that blocked a solution was the Baden draft request by Georgia (although this was done by Shevarnadze first) to actually add a further guarantor to the JPKF or simply remove the Tskinval base and leave JCC office in Tbilissi. So basically it was removing the only obstacle to a military enforcement of the Georgian plan. The fact that the Georgians would insist on such an obvious connection (although the base had been eavesdropped, remember when I said it had no crypted coms for a while on the direct demands of the OSCE and Georgia) for an obvious purpose.

If it passed for an uncalled attack, then rest assured, it wasn't. But reality isn't about "black & white". It's about facts and lack of them.

 

[Gordus]

I think both sides disagree, with the Georgians and Americans turning some facts on their heads, this 2011 study is a staple of that case.

Depends on what we are talking about. Truth is always the first victim in war but simple facts are not disputet for the most part, at least anymore. So are you calling out the "Georgians and Americans" for being the only side that "turned facts on their heads" ? so did especialy the Russian side and partialy still does.

Because, this regards one very specific prejudice to most military analysis today. US made papers tend to be more truthful.

What do you base your opinion on ? because I highly doubt that. I personaly have used mostly Russian and Georgian sources so far mainly on tactical level, with keeping just an eye on the rather sparse and all over the place Western narrative.

This is no hypothesis though. The common features of "both sides" were mostly the places and dates of the clashes, the rest is vastly and wildly different.

Not really vastly different when you compare Georgian and Russian claims on operative and tactical level. Most of it overlaps. Some of it is exaggerated or understated by either side or not mentioned at all. The POV on the results however, yes, partialy go opposite poles. But that's really the only issue that would be "wildly different".

Again that's a hindsight issue.

If I was to read into your opinion, then OIF/OEF were not great US miscalculations bu great plans from the Iranians to get Iraq under their influence...Actually, that's not what the two experts think and that's where I come back again, in 2008, nobody knew exactly how this would pan, or everybody knew. This is not something you can push under the carpet like that.

The Russian side had over a decade to follow and assess the situation on ground. Just the eventuality / chance of a military escalation as a corridor to string future events in their favour is completly enough. You have to understand the broader geopolitical game here, which is fairly simple for the long run.
It is highly doubtful that no further steps were taken, given the fact that some military bases that were not supposed to be in the region in the first place, were unveiled during the war and military manouvers that were regularily conducted before the hostilities and the gradual increase of military personnel and illegal distribution of Russian passports to the SO population. Of course nobody knew exactly where and when it would escalate, but the situation was being steadily built up to escalate at some point and that is undeniable. That is exactly where the West failed again with Ukraine. Nothing in the Russian doctrine has changed since the 1990s.

And then you commit the dreaded mistake of taking liberty in what the experts say. These experts clearly state that Russia had prepared to the minutae an invasion, maybe later (that's even worse from an expert POV) that year. Actually the political turmoil part is the less convincing, when you know how Saakashvili worked out the political system for while in Georgia. In that sense it was pure unadulterated populism. Some of the escalations that took part in Georgia were counter balanced by some pretty extreme apeasement acts from Russia, including the Batumi base being removed in 2007.

That's why the idea that Russia would upper the ante isn't all that credible, if we stick to the very partial narrative from Cohen & Hamilton.

That is why you shouldn't stick to one narrative dictated by one side but put the pieces togheter and also study the history.

Saakashvili gained popularity with false promises and hopes but just as quickly lost popularity due to high level corruption, illegal appropriation of industrial and agricultural assetts, as well as businesses and turning the country into a violent police state.

You make it sound like a sudden act of good will. The closing of Russian bases on Georgian soil for which hard negotiations took place, even years before Saakashvili and the 2005 agreement, was long overdue and is realy not a valid argument to claim that Russia had no interest in escalating the situation. Russia was bound to an agreement it signed, which was also closely watched by the intarnational community. Russia also promised to have closed both their garrison in Tbilisi and Gudauta, Abkhazia before 2000, but they never did the latter.

See the part when there is a great scheme on both sides doesn't match. If Russia would have prepared a textbook invasion, then It would have done so in a very different manner, notably by transferring troops little by little, including PK troops. As a matter of fact, the PK force lacked even a modicum of ATGM's. From a prepared side that would launch its invasion from Ossetia, that's highly improbable. Fact even the parties than broke through from Java lacked that basic item, and they knew most of the GAF thrust was armored.

This is where people need to understand the situation. Russia doesn't need to fully invade Georgia to achieve any of its greater goals for Georgia. All it needs is to keep the country destabilized or further destabilize, hope for eventual political turmoil and turn, in benefit of Russian politics and have a military force in the area, in this case it is also literaly inside the country, to act or respond to a developing situations. Russia had a very clear picture of the Georgian military. The GAF was little to no tactical threat on paper, and the greater picture considering the Russian military assetts not just in the two rebel regions, but the North Caucasus and Sevastopol. Perhaps it was underestimated. It was enough to overwhelm the rebel forces in SO and maybe also Abkhazia on its own - if we completly removed the Russian factor out of the equation - but that is obviously unrealistic and noone in Georgia ever considered that an option.

That's funny. The GAF lacked advanced anti armor capabilities in general. But iirc the handfull launchers that were used were enough to briefly stall the Russian advance. Yet you still make no valid point. The joint PK force in SO wasn't supposed to be heavily armed to commence warfare in the first place .... but to act as a joint PK force, yet constantly violated its mandate, with years of alleged involvment as instructors for the separatists and perpetrators of various incidents and also as mentioned before illegal distribution of passports. The Russian forces in Java were also decently equipped to stall the Georgian advance until reinforcements arrived. The Russian forces didn't lack AT weapons. ATGMS aren't the only weapons capable of destroying armor. Georgian armor in Tskhinvali was destroyed primarily by RPGs and the Georgians primarily used RPGs as well. Its the most common AT weapon still.

Now would Russia have a friendly government in Tbilissi? Depends, Georgia, like Armenia is already a lost cause. It is a border to one of Russia's most turmoiled areas, has served as a pass for Chechen insurgents and US trained Georgian "Chechens" have been occupying leadership positions in ISIS itself, let alone in the other salafist militias. Georgia being a belligerent neighbor is a blessing, not problem. A flashpoint offers the current Russian government a very palatable foe, with drama to boot. If Russia wanted to make a stand it would have kept Batumi and Ajara, but they didn't. And frankly if you want to talk about political symbolism, well "returning" Ajara was basically the biggest "betrayal" that Russia could commit. Especially when you know how it happened.

Definitly.

You make it too simple. Yes ultimately that's the entire premise. Otherwise they wouldn't have invaded the country ( foothold in Abkhazia and SO ). Russia definitly does not want a stable Georgia with the prospect of improving relations with the EU and NATO ( even if membership is out of question ) to the point that several NATO bases, training facilities and general presense is increased with further prospect to broaden the influence region wide. But a belligrent Georgia ( in regards to its currently ever progressive relation with NATO instead of with Russia ) is also not a blessing, which is why Russia is trying to achieve its goal on political level now by cultivating increasingly pro-Russian sentiment in Georgia. That is because the chances of a military escalation, especialy from the Georgian side, are absolutly minimal to nonexistant. Meanwhile, the Russian side is continuously trying to provoke one with their fence and kidnapping policy, all of which is being closely observed and documented by the international community. Russia has virtualy no realistic foe with Georgia right now.

Russia was not in a position to "keep" Adjara because there was no strong political base and realistic chance to escalate the situation the same way as with Abkhazia especialy with the weak political and military presence. It would have been an open attack on Georgia and also perceived as such by the international community.

Why was it satisfactory? Actually the war forced Russia into a legal intricacy and took out the veil of legality the PK force represented. Now Russia is forced to swallow the secessionist factions, is blanked by a narrative that is at least disingenuous without a way back. And this being done in the middle of China's triumph at the Olympics? Furthermore, if the US didn't intervene to stop them, and basically let the GAF "git it gud", why would they intervene and from where? Turkey? Azerbaijan? In a direct war with Russia for a country that still had Russian bases in it? Those Russian bases were the cause that the MAP didn't pass in April. So why would Russia stop from pummeling Georgia? Because it wasn't its plan to overthrow Saakashvili. As himself proved in Ukraine, the guy is a liability he managed to become a problem within 3 years of his own election by some of the most pitiful schemes and power plays one could think about.

Because now more than 20% of the country is physicaly occupied and Russia is not restricted to a PK mandate anymore in order to turn those two regions into massive military sub-districts, which they were anyway as evident with the slow but ever increasing military builtup over the years. Practicaly instantanously following the 2008 SO has seen a massive influx of Russian troops and base building to accomodate a division. The ruined Georgian villages were flattened for that very purpose and we are speaking of a period, years, where NATO was not all over the place symbolicaly and physicaly as it is now. "Forced" is really not the applicable word there ....

The MAP didn't pass later as well, that is not really an argument. Neither that Saakashvili wasn't "hanged by his balls" as a result. That would have been a step too far and Putin is a little too smart to commit such a decicive mistake, also as mentioned already it was not necessary in that case, preferable, but not necessary. Impo from their POV, the damage done to Georgia was tacticaly good enough but strategicaly almost a blunder.

Are we talking about the same event? The issue once again, is that you are projecting from an US point of view that can do as it pleases with the international order. Russia would like to do so, but it simply has no means to enforce its own vision.

Idk. Your last claim for instance doesn't reflect reality. Russia very well does and makes use of such capabilities. the US are not the world.
The early Russian narrative is still being shared and supported to this date by a lot of people in many countries despite the fact that a lot of false claims like "genocide" and lies such as the overblown civilian casaulty figures were dismissed even by Russian authorities. Yet Russian and pro-Russian media outlets still mention those terms.

I am projecting from a POV that encases a general narrative based mainly on fact and believable pieces from my perspective, put togheter from both narratives. I think the issue is rather that you are making too many assumptions about others without much substantiation.

200 sorties were flown where about 3/4th were strikes with LOS weapons.

The Russian air missions were evidently more than enough to cause most of the relevant damage. Disrupt communications which caused a lot of misunderstandaing and panic, limit early AA capabilities to manpads and deal a heavy blow to morale by targeting rally points, artillery positions and convoys killing a lot of people. Keep in mind that air attacks continued all the way to the final withdrawal. From your perspective that may not seem much, but for a small and poorly drilled military force such as the GAF it was absolutly enough, and caused a lot of damage. First of all tacticaly / psychologicaly and also physicaly.

As for the claim again, this is Cohen & Hamilton's claim, not mine. And it is also the official narrative of NATO's PfP's resource when you actually try to get your hands on it.
So again a part describing a decisive movement inside Tskinval to relieve the PK base in there, I don't see how this was a prepared attack on Georgia when the Russians would have had by that time at least given their maneuver troops enough of an edge, especially both in PPE and night vision capabilities. Yet from the very images the Russians and Foreign press reveal, the Russians were hardly better prepared than Ossetian auxiliaries they had.

I don't know what knowledge you have about the state of pre-2008 reforms Russian military or Russian military in general, but there seems to be the general misconception that the Russian army was either in a perfectly good or completly miserable shape, but nothing in between .... why ? the former NCMD ( now SMD ) always slightly lags behind in general when it comes to equipment compared to the WMD which is strategicaly more important. However that is completly irrelevant. The general idea of the NCMD "lacking" anything in that or any other period is absurd beyond measure, especialy compared to the tiny Georgian military. The GAF operated a handfull upgraded KMs that were grounded after the very first day of the war. Georgian infantry lacked night vision equipment. Only special purpose units were equiped with those and not always individualy. The GAF still lacks night vision equipment to this very date. Everything you see on photos is donated and re-used for PK forces. How did any of that put the GAF in an advantige, at all ? that's the most easily dismissable claim about that conflict.

But yet still, according to non-analytical Russian narratives and even "experts", the Russian army had to fight and defeat a "NATO army". That is silly and frankly disqualifies ppl who make such claims.

Furthermore the stalling that the GAF received in Tskinval cannot be a good sign.

In the sense of ?

The Georgians warned the Russians that they were going to move on? That's a first. And The Russians could hardly stand down, because that's what a PK force is about, keeping the belligerents from open warfare. It's like a self-defeating argument you throw there. Now set up by the Russians? Again what we see on an operational basis, is a completely rushed offense from the Russians in what they thought was basically an attempt to create the conditions of a fait accompli in Ossetia.

The GAF cos mentioned that in an after action report. The officer responsible for the Georgian PK contingent, general Kurashvili as well, though latter made a number of controversial claims. But those are not the only military sources I've heard this from. A PK force is primarily there to prevent tension and keep it in check in the first place .... not committ subversice activities, train and arm one of the parties and then actively participate in the fighting .... aiding said party. Just to mention a number of mandate violations. The Russians could hardly stand down, yes .... to lose their military foothold in SO, and take advantige to further push their control over hitherto uncontested Georgian land. Ever considered that ? or has that and the fact they continously keep pushing their imaginary border much deeper into uncontested territory years after the war completly gone over your head ?

Ossetia and Georgia had a hunting season almost each and every year from 1998 to 2008 where both sides were firing onto each other. Israel has attacked Lebanon and Syria in the face of UNOFIL and UNSPP and both Syria and Hisballah have attacked Israel. Israel has fired into UN troops before and those were Blue helmets and from third parties. It was nonetheless been considered as crimes agains peace, it's just how it is.

Skirmishes were in both regions and each and every time Russian ivolvment was suspected and partialy also proven, with the elimination of two instructors in the Kodori Gorge for instance, in 2007. Not only did they constantly violate their PK mandate but also instructed the rebels to commence sabotage, which is a crime . Except the Georgians weren't killing PK forces but responding in kind to separatist provocations. If they did, there would have been a massive outcry from Russian side. There wasn't an outcry about those two killed operatives as well. Such incidents were usualy either dismissed or put under the carpet because guess why .... Its just how it is as you said. Criminal.

While the situation in Georgia isn't sane or fair, the fact is that Georgia has been the effective instigator of the violence flareup.

The instigator of the violance flareup is Russia, not Georgia, and has been so since the 1990s. Georgia or rather Saakashvili was baited in committing the full force of its military, when there were still Russian troops in the area. However you want to twist it, wheter you are right or not, acted out of self defence or not, the very fact that Russian soldiers died, was exactly what the Russian leadership was hoping for and got delivered practicaly on a silver plate.

It is treasonous because they attacked a base that they had recognized, politically that's a no go. Georgia unfortunately, attacked the PK base, instead of the Java base, which would have been the actual logical thing to do. By doing everything wrong, the GAF in a single stone killed two doves. It gave Russia a casus belli and it didn't achieve a proper head start when it came to the actual "operation".

You confuse recognition with forced tolerance as in having no choice but to momentarily accept the conditions of an intruder. From the Georgian perspective, politicaly and publicly, Russian troops back then and today never had any business in Georgia. They are considered invaders and it especialy sparks that sentiment as they have historicaly shown that face numerous times over the last couple centuries. So statements like that especialy considering the Russian involvement in the 1990s conflicts, their political misbehaviour of Russia and their "PK" contingent from the early 2000s leading up to 2008, is honestly, silly. Especialy when single incidents like those in the August war are still disputed to this date.

If we trust their claims, the GAF tried to prevent getting entangled in a fight with the Russian garrison to prevent precicely an escalation with Russian forces. But the PK incident gave them no choice.

An unprovoked strike on Java would have equaled Pearl Harbour and given Russia practicaly a blanco check to do whatever they want. Assaulting separatists in response to attacks is something entirely different than attacking Russian troops directly and unprovoked.

Hypocrisy? Why? Who ever hid the fact Russia was there for its own geopolitical gains, same with Georgia, it received both areas during the Soviet Union and at the end of USSR it unilaterally tried to retain these territories by force. It's geopolitical inception 101. Calling Russia a Gorilla while Georgia did a U turn and started to go after NATO membership, for this exact issue is also ironical.

"Received" ? at least refrain from those wild Russian "historical" narratives and fairy tales.

Especialy SO never existed - it was Kartli. SO and NO are a Bolshevik-Russian inventions. Originaly it was Alania .... and Alania lied in the North Caucasus, nowadays Russia, not Georgia. The actual "Ossetia". The Ossetians aka Alans first fled from the Mongols over the Caucasus mountains into Georgia in the 13th century and captured some lands but were repelled and then began migrating enmasse into Georgia in the 17th century but were accepted as part of the Georgian society. Then after the Russian annexation of Georgia in the 19th century they kept migrating but were still the ethnic minority in the region. Right after WWI, as part of a greater scheme to take control of the South Cacuasus, the bolsheviks agitated the "Ossetians" to revolt against the local Georgian feudal lords, they killed them, took the lands and the town Tskhinvali and started to cleanse the area of Georgians. The Georgians restored control but after the 1921 invasion of Georgia by the Red Army, the Russians forced the Georgian gov to grant full autonomy and the region was officialy renamed to "South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast", which is completly illegitimate. But sure, let's keep the Soviet-Russian narrative rolling ....

Bottom line of this is that one party for bad or worse prepared an operation in the middle of huge world manifestation, carried it out with limited effect and faced the backlash of a bigger foe.

But you base this on which facts ?

that a military operation was carried out ? that is not enough. You see the contradiction here ?

The GAF was neither physicaly, nor in any other way, shape or form prepared for military confrontation, and yet it was rushed into action. This is not something, that can be debated. Talking about any form of preparation is a massive stretch.

This foe attempted to fight with its own strengths on a tactical level in order to gain time and set the motions for its systemic advantages. This however doesn't mean Russia fought worse than Georgia, it simply did it with the means it had.

Sorry, what systemic advantiges are you talking about ? the way the GAF moved into the town, was not meant for a greater military clash, but a police clean up operation against an inferior foe that still possessed some military capabilities. Two of five brigades and not even half of the equipment were actively committed in that operation. The way the Georgians slowly advanced into town and took the surroundings, they didn't expect any counter attack from a superior force. Either that, or there was a lack of combat / environmental awareness from lowest to highest level. I not only suspect it was both, but I know that.

If you think that flying 200 sorties in 5 days is a huge number, France in the first week of the Libyan operation flew about 350 strike sorties, alone.

We are talking about Georgia, not Lybia .... Lybia had 10 times the amount of equipment and twice the manpower if not more, even a somewhat proper navy compared to ours ... and its vessels were armed.

I am finishing a full analysis of Cohen & Hamilton's "study" and really I am appalled that you proposed it as a "better" analysis. It's mind boggling in its bias.

Dude, I brought that article up as reference to a single incident .... to have more than one source. You are making wild assumption about people here and basing your entire theory on that. Just .... no ....

 

[Gordus]

I believe that most harassing attacks were being staged from Java. Especially the 2005 rampage from the Alanya squadron. I say believe because I do not have a specific proof of that. However the lie regards the fact that the PK base was used as a staging point for "harassing attacks". It is a lie because of where the base is located and because it lacked encrypted coms until November 2006. This I have proof of.

Wheter it was Java or the Tkhinvali garrison from where subversive actions were prepared and carried out honestly doesn't matter in the slightest. Its criminal either way.

The PK base however was attacked for completely different reasons. It wasn't considered a target at all until the Georgian army found their direct involvment in the initial fighting, in whatever scale it was, reason enough to retaliate.

The Russian side claims to have done that in self defence. Now how probable is that when the guy who called in the artillery strikes was an Ossetian officer of the JPKF. Why did nobody prevent that ? "PK" right ? seemingly nothing about them was ever "PK" in hindsight.

1. The OSCE mission time and again had visited the base and assessed it couldn't HARBOR a training camp for "Russian Agents".
2. Russia had another base in Java out of the demilitarized area where it has among others a polygon/firing ground and a whole logistical hub to aid any attempt to overthrow Georgia, let alone train people to stick bombs into cars.

But yeah, I agree with the notion that Java was probably the primary operational center, even if not necessarily perceived as such initialy.

1. The accusation towards the JPKF base is a proven lie.

Calling it a lie though is incredibly far fetched.

2. The Java base is far better for these activities, although even Valiev said he was actually trained in the vicinity of the Vladikavkaz (Russia) base not in the Tbilissi base itself.

Tbilisi - Java. Not the same. But Vladikavkaz in general is the greater staging area of the region naturaly, it's a MD .... ppl are kind of aware of that, don't worry.

3. The insistance of Tbilissi to get rid of the JPKF wasn't new or even puzzling, Saakashvili insisted that it would be the first step to "return" peace to South Ossetia. One of the main problems that blocked a solution was the Baden draft request by Georgia (although this was done by Shevarnadze first) to actually add a further guarantor to the JPKF or simply remove the Tskinval base and leave JCC office in Tbilissi. So basically it was removing the only obstacle to a military enforcement of the Georgian plan. The fact that the Georgians would insist on such an obvious connection (although the base had been eavesdropped, remember when I said it had no crypted coms for a while on the direct demands of the OSCE and Georgia) for an obvious purpose.

Well yeah, its logical when provocations are suspected and alleged to originate from there .... wheter or not its the full truth.

"So basically it was removing the only obstacle to a military enforcement of the Georgian plan."

That is what you claim. Here's a thought: maybe Tskhinvali was harbouring agents and saboteurs and was also a hub, but nobody ever told you ....
Communication doesn't happen only via comms, and I also doubt the Russians wouldn't of been aware if they were listened to. Just the notion, smh.

It's about facts and lack of them.

Well, you seem pretty sure about the Georgian narrative lacking everything, but the Russian none.

 

[QingLong]

Wheter it was Java or the Tkhinvali garrison from where subversive actions were prepared and carried out honestly doesn't matter in the slightest. Its criminal either way.

It actually does, because that's what the previous member alleged, while, I don't make allegations, I know for a fact.

The PK base however was attacked for completely different reasons. It wasn't considered a target at all until the Georgian army found their direct involvment in the initial fighting, in whatever scale it was, reason enough to retaliate.

Again it is pretty depressing that we are in a military themed forum and the contributors ignore the basics of a casus belli, and legal right to open conflict.

The Russian side claims to have done that in self defence. Now how probable is that when the guy who called in the artillery strikes was an Ossetian officer of the JPKF. Why did nobody prevent that ? "PK" right ? seemingly nothing about them was ever "PK" in hindsight.

Aaand there we go. Thank you for confirming exactly what I knew. There is a simple rule in this game. When you agree to have a PK force, chances are it will not always go your way. The latest case of criminal negligence and dereliction of duty from Austrian UNOFIL soldiers and officers, that interpreted their own way their task at the Golan area, caused 9 KIA. However as a matter of fact, Syria couldn't have attacked them in return, because they are considered a PK force.

Now I do not belive that Georgians attacked the PK because the PK started the hostilities. It was the other way around and the PK responded to their basic task. Which could very well have been motivated by other reasons than a honest peace.



But yeah, I agree with the notion that Java was probably the primary operational center, even if not necessarily perceived as such initialy.

Well the issue is that this is not a matter of perception. But of facts. Facts like Georgians used force 25 years ago to deny other ethnic groups the same liberty they were getting from the USSR. That's a fact. And that fact doesn't suffer from the comparative Russian treatment of separatism on its own.


Calling it a lie though is incredibly far fetched.

It IS a lie. You can't have your cake and eat it. If we were to look at how the Tskinval JPKF base ended up being a hot topic, many of our western audience will shake their heads in disbelief. Some in Georgia, like Ukraine knew perfectly that playing their victim card right meant triple A backing, especially when it concerns Russia. This kind of double talk and "sweet lies", same difference non-sense is the very cause of a deep misunderstanding that Westerners have about Eastern countries when it comes to strongmen regimes. Case in point Montenegro's "Kingdom" getting green lighted into NATO, while its internal politics look like a cross-over between the Sopranos and Gomorra.

So it is not because a lie isn't that much of a deal in the big picture, that it should get under the carpet. This biased vision allows people like Saakashvili to oportunistically play the Russia/China card, while in reality, they couldn't care less as long as they get the power. I told you facts.

No, no, no. See this is the issue, playing with the Truth opens a more dire perspective. In this case, this bickering about who shot first, who went rogue etc. Playing political games with the facts vs a military behemoth makes one end up eating silk on TV.

So you are saying that the Baden draft is a product of my imagination? Or that the OSCE's Reeves assessment on what Saakashvili wanted from the Baden draft is product of Russian propaganda? Or the fact Saakashvili pretty much went from IPAP to MAP in less than 2 years with full US blessing was also something that wasn't self-evident?

The Big Bang members that joined the alliance in 2004 spent roughly 10 years being loosely compatible with NATO's historic members. Hell a country like Croatia that was by FAR more integrated than what ever Georgia could dream of and it would be offered MAP ONLY in 2007. So what are you talking about?


I told you, my criticism isn't taking Russian account into scrutiny because it wouldn't matter. I simply pretend that most of it is untrustworthy. The issue is that when i turn around and read some stuff, it doesn't become more defendable or trustworthy either.

 

[Gordus]

btw: please take your time to properly quote and make it easier for others. Thank you.

Wheter it was Java or the Tkhinvali garrison from where subversive actions were prepared and carried out honestly doesn't matter in the slightest. Its criminal either way.

It actually does, because that's what the previous member alleged, while, I don't make allegations, I know for a fact.

You know as much as everyone else, not for a fact. At least don't pretend.

Again it is pretty depressing that we are in a military themed forum and the contributors ignore the basics of a casus belli, and legal right to open conflict.

We are all expressing our opinions and views based on what we know. Everyone can make claims. Nobody has to agree with them. Pretending to know better about the casus belli with honestly dubious claims are equaly depressing for other contributors. Then, let's just agree to disagree, ok ?

Aaand there we go. Thank you for confirming exactly what I knew. There is a simple rule in this game. When you agree to have a PK force, chances are it will not always go your way. The latest case of criminal negligence and dereliction of duty from Austrian UNOFIL soldiers and officers, that interpreted their own way their task at the Golan area, caused 9 KIA. However as a matter of fact, Syria couldn't have attacked them in return, because they are considered a PK force.

Agree ? more like we had not that much say in it and had to agree wheter we liked it or not. Guess we were stupid, should have disagreed and the Russians totaly be like "aww, well dam, looks like we have to leave .... :/" Really, most of the "negotiations" back then were pretty one sided.

Now I do not belive that Georgians attacked the PK because the PK started the hostilities. It was the other way around and the PK responded to their basic task. Which could very well have been motivated by other reasons than a honest peace.

I respect your opinion, but it's just your opinion. From the GAF perspective its a fact and they were the ones who got shot at and supposedly intercepted the comms. Its not just that I'm more biased towards the Georgian narrative, but it doesn't make sense imo to just open up on the Russians after warning them and without any provocation, especialy when the strikes were primarily aimed at rebel forces and positions.

Well the issue is that this is not a matter of perception. But of facts. Facts like Georgians used force 25 years ago to deny other ethnic groups the same liberty they were getting from the USSR. That's a fact. And that fact doesn't suffer from the comparative Russian treatment of separatism on its own.

Way to simplify the most apparent 3rd party instigated conflict of all the wars since the 1990s. GG. The most and primary relevant fact is that Russia created and armed an insurgency which attacked the local administration to which Tbilisi responded by force and sealed the border near Gagra. The situation was quickly pacified, much to the dismay of Kremlin. Russia then resorted to playing the innocent mediator, just to take advantige of the talks to covertly deploy instructors who trained the separatists, then supplied them with weapons and equipment, let Chechen fighters over the border and months later what was just a small cell of a few hundred, suddenly popped out of the woods as a large combatant force numbering in the several thousand, and equipped with tanks and what not. Not to mention the Russian naval blockades near Gagra, naval landings in Ochamchire and bombing runs on Georgian positions in Sukhumi. One Russian Su-27 was even shot down by Georgian AA in 1993. Let's stick to those facts rather .... and the one negligable fact of subsequent massacres and mass expulsion of the Georgian population which was the majority. None of which the Russian side as "mediator for peace" even tried to keep in check. There you got facts.

It IS a lie. ... like Ukraine knew perfectly that playing their victim card right meant triple A backing, especially when it concerns Russia. This kind of double talk and "sweet lies", same difference non-sense is the very cause of a deep misunderstanding that Westerners have about Eastern countries when it comes to strongmen regimes. Case in point Montenegro's "Kingdom" getting green lighted into NATO, while its internal politics look like a cross-over between the Sopranos and Gomorra.

Again, your opinon. Nobody has to play any "victim" card when they are factualy victims. Stop trying to twist as if it wasn't the case, and also pretending as if those countries are the evil wrong doers, and their bullies the ones who get bullied. That is really nonsensical.

So it is not because a lie isn't that much of a deal in the big picture, that it should get under the carpet. This biased vision allows people like Saakashvili to oportunistically play the Russia/China card, while in reality, they couldn't care less as long as they get the power. I told you facts.

While I definitly agree that to people like Saakashvili, Putin etc, a greater deal of it is about maintaining power, you are once again approaching the subject with rather one sided views and claims, opposite to facts, trying to take Russia as an aggressor, perpetrator and its co-responsibility in events completly out of the equation, which is the most biased narrative of them all.

No, no, no. See this is the issue, playing with the Truth opens a more dire perspective. In this case, this bickering about who shot first, who went rogue etc. Playing political games with the facts vs a military behemoth makes one end up eating silk on TV.

So the only fact for you is the Russian narrative ? yet you claim to ignore what the Russians have to say. That doesn't really add up now, does it. But thanks for clarifying.

So you are saying that the Baden draft is a product of my imagination? Or that the OSCE's Reeves assessment on what Saakashvili wanted from the Baden draft is product of Russian propaganda? Or the fact Saakashvili pretty much went from IPAP to MAP in less than 2 years with full US blessing was also something that wasn't self-evident?

What you are trying to construct out of that draft is a product of your imagination, not a fact. There is a cosmic difference. You assume much from a non ratified proposal to demilitarize and grant full autonomy among other proposals, which is titled draft for a reason, because it was ultimately rejected despite many agreements, one can suspect because it would have never been tolerated by their puppet masters. What are you talking about .... ? Georgia never got the MAP. It was proposed in 2008 pushed by the US and Poland and expected in 2014, but both times rejected. Going from IPAP to MAP proposal is completly irrelevant. Why are you even assuming that a MAP status would boost Georgia's confidence to solve its territorial issues by military force ? that makes absolutly zero sense. MAP means nothing in that regard, but that Georgia would have lost any prospects. A subsequent NATO membership would have further restricted Saakashvili's freedom of action to a minimum especialy regarding military action. So what are you on about .... ? srsly.

I told you, my criticism isn't taking Russian account into scrutiny because it wouldn't matter. I simply pretend that most of it is untrustworthy. The issue is that when i turn around and read some stuff, it doesn't become more defendable or trustworthy either.

Yeah sorry, not really buying that anymore at this point. But I agree with the last part.

 

[QingLong]

Ahaha, now you are being a bit more truthful to your goal. No I said, I don't trust Russian sources and their narrative, because they have two variants. We won, we can make you swallow Moby Dick. We lost, we had to swallow Moby Dick. The only sources that I am interested in Russian, are their KIA lists according to disability benfits and next of kin pensions. The rest is just a filler. The problem with Russian sources is that while they are to be taken with a nuclear icebreaker worth of salt, the Western narrative often just doesn't get that scrutiny. I read 20 pages into your submitted report and it had Pavel freaking Felgenauer in it.

A far more serious report issued by the Swedish war college upon the use of armor in the August war, was way more rational, but it simply refused to go beyond its focus. Military matters.

I haven't seen any of these trustworthy sources, the two you put forth are political narratives. Hell even the Cast repost the Russians issued is a political narrative. But, so to speak, the troops that entered Grozny, were more equipped than the two columns that forced their way into Tskinval...Just. Process. That.


They are wildly different in that Georgians pretend that the Russians were a disaster for their own troops, which is the deal when you are trying to force your way in a besieged area and you rely on light IVF's/APC's with a modicum of armored support. This contrasts, again with NATO's own PfP's ressource about this conflict. The NATO wording for the war is a pre-meditated Invasion, finely prepared. Is that NATO propaganda, sure it is. Is that also the foreign policy line for NATO's head honchos? As sure as Hell is a terrifying place.


The Russian side had over a decade to follow and assess the situation on ground. Just the eventuality / chance of a military escalation as a corridor to string future events in their favour is completly enough. You have to understand the broader geopolitical game here, which is fairly simple for the long run.
It is highly doubtful that no further steps were taken, given the fact that some military bases that were not supposed to be in the region in the first place, were unveiled during the war and military manouvers that were regularily conducted before the hostilities and the gradual increase of military personnel and illegal distribution of Russian passports to the SO population. Of course nobody knew exactly where and when it would escalate, but the situation was being steadily built up to escalate at some point and that is undeniable. That is exactly where the West failed again with Ukraine. Nothing in the Russian doctrine has changed since the 1990s.

Are we really going to talk about Passports and SO to justify the errements of Nationalist Georgia? I understand that game a tad better than you, because I don't have a horse in this race. Which military bases weren't supposed to be in Georgia after the Separation Act? It's the same deal every time.




I am just criticizing the fact that one side gets to make the narrative while glaring errors, lies and miscues are legion in said narrative.

Saakashvili was heralded as the next best thing to electricity, how do you think Georgia's endorsement by international institution was so fast? While he was a populist and manipulator (welcome into the Post-Soviet space) he was the poster boy for the other side of that geopolitical tango.


This is where people need to understand the situation. Russia doesn't need to fully invade Georgia to achieve any of its greater goals for Georgia. All it needs is to keep the country destabilized or further destabilize, hope for eventual political turmoil and turn, in benefit of Russian politics and have a military force in the area, in this case it is also literaly inside the country, to act or respond to a developing situations. Russia had a very clear picture of the Georgian military. The GAF was little to no tactical threat on paper, and the greater picture considering the Russian military assetts not just in the two rebel regions, but the North Caucasus and Sevastopol. Perhaps it was underestimated. It was enough to overwhelm the rebel forces in SO and maybe also Abkhazia on its own - if we completly removed the Russian factor out of the equation - but that is obviously unrealistic and noone in Georgia ever considered that an option.

But why would Russia need to have a goal in Georgia that would be only a notch down from it did in Crimea? Why would Russia need to intervene and basically enter a "break it own it deal"? Why would the International reaction, except from the US, be so meek and out right appeasing to Russia? Don't you remember, Sarkozy's intervention was a long con with a couple of deals made from military sub-components to outright selling BPC's to Russia.

Now did Russia have a clear view of Georgia as a tactical force? I'd say absolutely not. Did it had a clear view of the structural shortcomings of the GAF? Probably a good one. The issue of this is that your view of the events, simply doesn't fit. Why would Georgia initiate hostilities, while it narrowly lost a MAP vote in April 2008. Why would it initiate an attack over Tskinval while it would probably have to deal with more than Just Ossetia. And why would this plan involve trying to cut the Roki tunel, but not attack Java?



Again, I was pointing out the exact point. How would Russia prepare an attack on Georgia and not reinforce the main target for the Georgian onslaught. Ok maybe not to be as "obvious" (see the point I made about PK base NOT being used for sabotage) but why then the two columns that went on didn't have much of an anti armor capability except for the MBT's. Again, The PK base had visits for years by OSCE and UNOMIG. It had no range, no real space for combat training and as said before, the actual base that would fit that description wasn't even touched by Georgia.

The issue with your statement about ATGM's not being the only AT weapon, is that while ATGM's aren't indeed alone, they are a class of their own and close the gap between a rather lightly armored force and a defending force that can muster half a battalion worth of tanks in a city of roughly 80 thousand people. RPG's did the job? Sure they did, but at what price?

Wait, what? So in August they didn't attack "openly"? You should make up your mind. The facts, as I see in their globality is that two pathes joined in GWB and MS, and this led to a typically ideological and hollow discourse from the US, misconstrued as a warranty from Georgia. The rest is history.
Mhh that's a problem you see, because it is a bit more complicated. Russia didn't want to go all the way with the Georgian break-away regions. Quite the contrary. Ukraine forced it to rub more dirt in its face and smile.

The MAP couldn't pass once that Georgia prove an "unstable partner" (Alain Juppé's words), and it had already failed in the eyes of the German Delegation. So what is it again, Russian grand plan to make Georgia fail?

Where has Russia gone through with an agression and has suffered no sanctions and/or backlash? Tell me? I can just recall that the US took on Iraq under false pretenses and has plunged that country into a quarter of misery. Did you saw someone go to jail for a breach of peace? Or Sued about it? Sanctioned? Its assets frozen?

Yet I am not talking about those, I am asking you how do you piece together that Georgia played the victim, while it initiated the action? What mental gymnastics does it require to ask your military to "enforce the territorial sovereignty of Georgia" while you know that sooner or later you will have to brawl with the Bear? I mean it seems to me that you like to pretend you see the whole picture, but you don't see the Bear in the room (pun intended).

I am making zero assumptions, Occam's razor is supported by how the Georgian state created the circumstances of its own defeat.

Russian air missions were actually part CAS, part strategic bombing but with none of those missions being actually filled properly. To the point when Russians abandoned the "strategic" part and reverted to SRBM's. In comparison again The CAS proved to be more tricky, with both losses (including FF) and close calls.



Huh, the people that went into Georgia had PPE shortcomings to the tune of seizing actual PASGT's and taking out the helmet caps because they didn't have proper helmets issued. The troops in Georgia had all the trouble in the world to actually fight in low-light or complete darkness. This has been confirmed mutiple times, including by Vk posts by cadres. One thing that the Russians seized at Poti apart from the M1115's were alse the 5 or so crates of AN-PV's and Harris compacts that were with the vehicles.

The advantage lied in the fact that the Russians were attacking in a straight forward mode, not exactly trying to maneuver and take the Georgians out. It is one thing that time and again makes me really wonder about the Russians. They were simply trying to push Gerogians out of Tskinval. By the end of the 9th february, the game was over.

This is why i discard Russian narratives. Unfortunately that makes me scrutinize Western narrative more, only to find they do the same as Russia.

Again, let's start this. While Russia might have played a double game, which is reasonable to think, the base on itself, was a tripwire. The base in Tskinval was not such a staging point. The Actual issue with that view, is that while it would have stood, IF the GAF had attacked Java or the informal camp in Abkhazia, that would have fallen in a normal defend the territory type of gig. But instead of that, and we have unfortunately, some token images of that, the GAF gave the impression to actually take back Tskinval against the will of the people who lived there...and by going through a couple of dead Russian PK's. Even dubious ones. You might try and mix it all together, but, it doesn't fly.

Are we going to talk about the Kodori Gorge now? Are we really going to throw names like Omar Shishani in there? Are we going to listen to Russian tapes with GAF security guys asking for insertions to be delayed circa anno 2004? Are we going to talk about the Odizhev saga or Astemirov's fake passport with Georgian stamps on it?

Really and so when in the 1990's Georgia had its mini Brown-shirt revolution thingie that had to be abated through two more factions of the same Georgian state, this was also Russia's fault?

The problem of this 'invasion' feeling is that many people do not see it differently from Georgians, with the exception that they are not feeling Georgian.

PK incident? Jesus So Georgia never fired Grads IN the city?

Really so trying to attack "separatism" in a regime of peace would have been different to actually trying to make that attack work by crippling the true relay of Russian strength in Georgia? Are you serious now?

Those are not fairy tales, that's the international boundaries the Independent state of Georgia was built on. And those boundaries were Soviet constructs.

Have you served? Do you know how much time it takes to roll in a battalion and coordinate it? We know that Georgia over the AFV's it had prepared for the take over of Tskinval, had also allocated a number of other tanks and armored vehicles in Gori as a reserve. Now scratch that only battalion and add four more as a primary force. How could that be "Rushed in" if you were first in Tskinval? I really got this feeling that you are entangled in this trap of a story in which you defend your country but still you don't initiate the hostilities, then you kinda do, but it's your country so there is no casus belli if you attack a PK force, because the country behind the PK force is low key fomenting dissent and rebellion, but you need to still keep it quiet and not overdo your move, because you never know. This is not spontaneous, not prepared, not what actually happened. Or then you had a psychopath as president.


Systemic advantages? Russia? Well everything. Air assets, ground assets, SRBM, the capability to open a second and third front. But Russia didn't actually start that until way later in the short conflict? Why is that?


Libya's civil war caused 10 to 15 thousand dead, with a great deal being pro-Khadaffi people. It lasted 7 months. That's about 50/70 KIA per day, with a lot of them being simply laser guided out of their lives. Compared to the actual death tolls on both sides in Georgia, which are sub 200 KIA on both sides total in 4/5 days, we have a similar ratio and see that the RuAF while cutting short the Georgian adventure did so by CAS and small Strategic bombing.

Oh but we can check other sources stamped NATO.

Three axis would remain.

a. Russia premeditated the Invasion.
b. Russia Invaded, drawing first blood.
c. Russia was stopped on its tracks by NATO threats.

I challenge you to find a Western Publication, except EU's fact finding mission that doesn't abide by those three points.

 

[QingLong]

btw: please take your time to properly quote and make it easier for others. Thank you.

I am still new to this format, I am used to direct quotes.

You know as much as everyone else, not for a fact. At least don't pretend.

Pretending what?

We are all expressing our opinions and views based on what we know. Everyone can make claims. Nobody has to agree with them. Pretending to know better about the casus belli with honestly dubious claims are equaly depressing for other contributors. Then, let's just agree to disagree, ok ?

No, no, no. This is the issue, a peacekeeping force, that hasn't been reneged in a proper fashion keeps that purpose. A peace keeping Force will have to intervene in case of breach of peace. Is it completely lopsided. Probably. Is it to you taste, Probably not. The case though, stays the same. Until all sides renounce that PK agreement, unilateral action in that form, becomes a casus belli.

Agree ? more like we had not that much say in it and had to agree wheter we liked it or not. Guess we were stupid, should have disagreed and the Russians totaly be like "aww, well dam, looks like we have to leave .... :/" Really, most of the "negotiations" back then were pretty one sided.

Aww please tell me who was adamant to nullify the autonomy of both Abkhaz region and Ajaran region? Was it Russia? Just say son because then I would have to show you that Georgian nationalists were planning on a "pan-Georgian" agenda before even they had left the USSR. Or would that also be Soviet/Russian propaganda?

I respect your opinion, but it's just your opinion. From the GAF perspective its a fact and they were the ones who got shot at and supposedly intercepted the comms. Its not just that I'm more biased towards the Georgian narrative, but it doesn't make sense imo to just open up on the Russians after warning them and without any provocation, especialy when the strikes were primarily aimed at rebel forces and positions.

What was the actual size of Tskinval? Back in 2008 it was more or less 2x4km, nowadays its about 2.5x5,5km. Where was the PK base situated? How would it be possible if the base was

Way to simplify the most apparent 3rd party instigated conflict of all the wars since the 1990s. GG. The most and primary relevant fact is that Russia created and armed an insurgency which attacked the local administration to which Tbilisi responded by force and sealed the border near Gagra. The situation was quickly pacified, much to the dismay of Kremlin. Russia then resorted to playing the innocent mediator, just to take advantige of the talks to covertly deploy instructors who trained the separatists, then supplied them with weapons and equipment, let Chechen fighters over the border and months later what was just a small cell of a few hundred, suddenly popped out of the woods as a large combatant force numbering in the several thousand, and equipped with tanks and what not. Not to mention the Russian naval blockades near Gagra, naval landings in Ochamchire and bombing runs on Georgian positions in Sukhumi. One Russian Su-27 was even shot down by Georgian AA in 1993. Let's stick to those facts rather .... and the one negligable fact of subsequent massacres and mass expulsion of the Georgian population which was the majority. None of which the Russian side as "mediator for peace" even tried to keep in check. There you got facts.

Awww really, so Russia set in motion this mess, not the fact for instance that Ajara had never been Georgian as such, as part of its population was Sunni and that Georgia got back a piece of land it never owned, thanks to the USSR. Kars treaty, read about it. But listen to this though, you remember that passport thingie you were talking about? Please recall me who "helped" re-convert Ajara into a majority Orthodox area while, it was quite a bit Muslim?

Now Ossetia, I don't really think that both the way you describe the Ossetian situation and the way it actually is and was would sit well in the light of the Kosovar reality (NB: the Kosovar declaration of Independence was also a small fraction of what made Russia react).

Again, your opinon. Nobody has to play any "victim" card when they are factualy victims. Stop trying to twist as if it wasn't the case, and also pretending as if those countries are the evil wrong doers, and their bullies the ones who get bullied. That is really nonsensical.

Yet Georgia played the victim in more than one occasion, while it would have taken a better leadership to keep the Soviet construct sticking just enough to avoid deeper Russian involvement.



While I definitly agree that to people like Saakashvili, Putin etc, a greater deal of it is about maintaining power, you are once again approaching the subject with rather one sided views and claims, opposite to facts, trying to take Russia as an aggressor, perpetrator and its co-responsibility in events completly out of the equation, which is the most biased narrative of them all.



So the only fact for you is the Russian narrative ? yet you claim to ignore what the Russians have to say. That doesn't really add up now, does it. But thanks for clarifying.

What you are trying to construct out of that draft is a product of your imagination, not a fact. There is a cosmic difference. You assume much from a non ratified proposal to demilitarize and grant full autonomy among other proposals, which is titled draft for a reason, because it was ultimately rejected despite many agreements, one can suspect because it would have never been tolerated by their puppet masters. What are you talking about .... ? Georgia never got the MAP. It was proposed in 2008 pushed by the US and Poland and expected in 2014, but both times rejected. Going from IPAP to MAP proposal is completly irrelevant. Why are you even assuming that a MAP status would boost Georgia's confidence to solve its territorial issues by military force ? that makes absolutly zero sense. MAP means nothing in that regard, but that Georgia would have lost any prospects. A subsequent NATO membership would have further restricted Saakashvili's freedom of action to a minimum especialy regarding military action. So what are you on about .... ? srsly.

Why Do I assume that that NATO membership would help Georgia solve its issues though a third party? Because that's what 99% of the Nato members got from the club. It's the raison d'être of NATO.

A product of my imagination? Are we even trying here?

So We have a draft that points out that a base in Tskinval is obsolete, that all it needs is bureau in Tbilissi. We have a new government that takes the same stance, then goes on to point out that many conspiracies come from a 250 men garrison that was quickly surrounded when push came to shove. We have many promises, to the red line of territorial integrity, while in the mean time, the new poster boy goes from Joe Blow to the hottest commodity in Nato realm? Also MAP was bounced mainly because the Germans, sticked to the letter of adhesion which meant, no active conflict on future members' soil.

The level of expenditure Georgia had committed was perfectly timed, with a exponential growth, from 50 million USD in 2003 to 900 million in 2007 and 2008.

Yeah sorry, not really buying that anymore at this point. But I agree with the last part.

You don't need to buy it, I am not selling anything.

 

[BravoZulu]

All discussion about the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, it's best if photo only contributions are continued to be made in the "photo" thread of the same name

 

[Gordus]

I am still new to this format, I am used to direct quotes.

No harm done. It's no work to do it myself, but it saves time for others if you do it beforehand.

Pretending what?

to know more than the rest.

No, no, no. This is the issue, a peacekeeping force, that hasn't been reneged in a proper fashion keeps that purpose. A peace keeping Force will have to intervene in case of breach of peace. Is it completely lopsided. Probably. Is it to you taste, Probably not. The case though, stays the same. Until all sides renounce that PK agreement, unilateral action in that form, becomes a casus belli.

A peace keeping force is not, and that particular PKF was never, mandated to take part in any activities in support of the separatists before or during the war and commit subversive acts. Can we at least agree to that fact yes ? .... neither was it ever allowed to train, arm or distribute passports among other alleged activities. The PK / JPKF had a certain mandate that dictated their role and involvment. Violating those constantly kind of nullifies the purpose. Unless it's all just a bad joke, which it imho was from start anyway.

Aww please tell me who was adamant to nullify the autonomy of both Abkhaz region and Ajaran region? Was it Russia? Just say son because then I would have to show you that Georgian nationalists were planning on a "pan-Georgian" agenda before even they had left the USSR. Or would that also be Soviet/Russian propaganda?

You don't seem to be taking this very seriously, and also please let us not resort to childish terms. Noone. That is fairy tale material. The Abkhaz enjoyed defacto autonomy but feared that it would be revoked if the USSR fell despite the fact that besides some ultra nationalist outcries, that option was never officialy brought up. You will ofc mention Gamsakhurdia .... Gamsakhurdia was not Georgia, and his ultra-nationalist views lead to removal only 1 year into office and his subsequent death. But tensions and violance came mainly from the agitated and Russian funded Abkhaz separatist groups which is a fact, and that ultimately lead the gov to partialy re-consider that status and ultimatley send troops under granted, a weak pretext, but it was primarily a move to prevent anticipated Russian meddling and Shevardnadze feared exactly that, he knew Russian politics 1 o 1 which is why the Kremlin regarded him a big threat. The first thing that was done was the closing of the border followed by quick pacification. Then Russia took care of all preparations to escalate everything during the period of peace.

Awww really, so Russia set in motion this mess, not the fact for instance that Ajara had never been Georgian as such, as part of its population was Sunni and that Georgia got back a piece of land it never owned, thanks to the USSR. Kars treaty, read about it. But listen to this though, you remember that passport thingie you were talking about? Please recall me who "helped" re-convert Ajara into a majority Orthodox area while, it was quite a bit Muslim?

Never been part ? I'm sorry, at least don't pretend to know what you don't .... and the Kars treaty seceeded what has been parts of Georgia for many centuries to be annexed and incorporated into the Ottoman Empire .... not the other way around. At least get yourself a brief overview of the topics you mention please .... Do you you know anything about the Laz ? it should be kind of obvious that there are muslim communities in areas where many incursions took place over the centuries, and at the same those former intruders and occupants such as Turkey have a large Laz population for the very same reason. Going by the same logic, it would be completly legitimate for Georgia to demand all those historicaly Georgian territories and people back.

But to stick to the topic. How does any of that have to do or justify the illegal distribution of passports which is a serious violation .... ?

Now Ossetia, I don't really think that both the way you describe the Ossetian situation and the way it actually is and was would sit well in the light of the Kosovar reality (NB: the Kosovar declaration of Independence was also a small fraction of what made Russia react).

I didn't just describe any situation, but a historical fact and it is the way it actualy is. So frankly your opinion or what you think about it comes only second.

Yet Georgia played the victim in more than one occasion, while it would have taken a better leadership to keep the Soviet construct sticking just enough to avoid deeper Russian involvement.

Georgia doesn't have to play the victim or be victimized, it is a victim. "Soviet construct" is the primary cause for that mess in the first place for exactly that very reason, of being a Bolshevik construct that got further messed up by the Soviet Union and that mess was aggravated until the very last moment of its desintigration. It would have made little difference.

Why Do I assume that that NATO membership would help Georgia solve its issues though a third party? Because that's what 99% of the Nato members got from the club. It's the raison d'être of NATO.

That assumption is rather dull and incredibly unrealistic.

A product of my imagination? Are we even trying here?

So We have a draft that points out that a base in Tskinval is obsolete, that all it needs is bureau in Tbilissi. We have a new government that takes the same stance, then goes on to point out that many conspiracies come from a 250 men garrison that was quickly surrounded when push came to shove.

The level of expenditure Georgia had committed was perfectly timed, with a exponential growth, from 50 million USD in 2003 to 900 million in 2007 and 2008.

Well sorry, but so far ....

Or you know, those allegations have ground wheter you like it, accept it or not and were perceived as threats, due to agents operating on ground - and however you twist it, the threat was there and Russian military presence in Georgia, however you clad it, or put "MC" signs or whatever, were always a source for trouble.
You know I'm especialy a sucker for numbers so why would you reduce the PK strenght in Tskhinvali from a combined 984 men strong garrison in August 7 to just 250 ? even if you take just the Russian battalion, it were still 496 men ....
They were also not "quickly surrounded" but as mentioned before, and this is also a fact, the first targets were separatist positions and the PK garrison was not surrounded at all, especialy the first 2 days. After the PK incident, the Georgians tried to storm the northern part of the garrison when the southern part burned down. That attack got repelled and they ceased further attempts. The Georgian troops then decided to avoid the base completly, get around to take the center and northern entrance to the town, reach Gupta to destroy the bridge and eventualy Java. The Russian garrison suffered 15 dead and many wounded, but the losses were considerably minimal as to claim any plan to completly destroy them. They decided to be part of it and stood in the way. Yet they were not regarded a threat great enough to persue their destruction. So that entire theory is complete nonsense.

Except none of those massive "expenditures" were in any way, shape or form evident or visible in either infrastructure, armament or training. Instead those billions of USD dissapeared without a trace and were most likely distributed among Saakashvili and his gang and secured on off shore accounts, which would explain their luxurious spendings, dachas all over the Black Sea and US, yachts and what not.

You don't need to buy it, I am not selling anything.

Well, you claim the opposite but have been projecting the Russian narrative so far.

 

[Gordus]

Sorry, kind of looked over this post

Ahaha, now you are being a bit more truthful to your goal. No I said, I don't trust Russian sources and their narrative, because they have two variants. We won, we can make you swallow Moby Dick. We lost, we had to swallow Moby Dick. The only sources that I am interested in Russian, are their KIA lists according to disability benfits and next of kin pensions. The rest is just a filler. The problem with Russian sources is that while they are to be taken with a nuclear icebreaker worth of salt, the Western narrative often just doesn't get that scrutiny. I read 20 pages into your submitted report and it had Pavel freaking Felgenauer in it.

I don't need to be more truthful than I already am and what "goal" ? I'm taking both versions and views into consideration when fact gathering. Obviously I will dismiss the nonsensical and less realistic ones. What do you expect ?

My submitted report .... what are you even talking about ? still on about that ref I used for that one instance of the war, namely the clash on August 9 ? or ToA ?

I haven't seen any of these trustworthy sources, the two you put forth are political narratives. Hell even the Cast repost the Russians issued is a political narrative. But, so to speak, the troops that entered Grozny, were more equipped than the two columns that forced their way into Tskinval...Just. Process. That.

You claim to dismiss political narratives yet .... your entire argument is a political narrative and you ask for one in the purely military assessment from the Swedes - Right.

Even exaggerated, that is complete nonsense and I have no idea why you'd ever do that. Such claims are amusing but irritating to hear from a sentient intelligent being.

They are wildly different in that Georgians pretend that the Russians were a disaster for their own troops, which is the deal when you are trying to force your way in a besieged area and you rely on light IVF's/APC's with a modicum of armored support. This contrasts, again with NATO's own PfP's ressource about this conflict. The NATO wording for the war is a pre-meditated Invasion, finely prepared. Is that NATO propaganda, sure it is. Is that also the foreign policy line for NATO's head honchos? As sure as Hell is a terrifying place.

You mean like the Georgians ? yeah, sounds more like the Georgians, the ones who were heading into a meat grinder with open Landrovers, half their tanks broken and barely over a 100 operational IFV / APCs of which only a number were deployed. What was the Russian army complaining about again .... ?

Are we really going to talk about Passports and SO to justify the errements of Nationalist Georgia? I understand that game a tad better than you, because I don't have a horse in this race. Which military bases weren't supposed to be in Georgia after the Separation Act? It's the same deal every time.

You can keep riding on the false pretext of "nationalist Georgia" all day if you want but none of those sweet tales will dismiss historical facts and justify 3rd parties instigating sessessionism and committing other illegitimate acts going way back than 1992.

"I understand that game a tad better than you" - not an arrogant and pretentious statement at all, but okay.

I am just criticizing the fact that one side gets to make the narrative while glaring errors, lies and miscues are legion in said narrative.

Does that reflect the truth ? because you are also seemingly, to me at least, giving preference to the Russian narrative. You seem rather just disatisfied that the one you side with is not widely prefered over the other.

But why would Russia need to have a goal in Georgia that would be only a notch down from it did in Crimea? Why would Russia need to intervene and basically enter a "break it own it deal"? Why would the International reaction, except from the US, be so meek and out right appeasing to Russia? Don't you remember, Sarkozy's intervention was a long con with a couple of deals made from military sub-components to outright selling BPC's to Russia.

Because frankly and sorry to the Ukrainian collegues here, the Ukraine was in a much more miserable state, was much heavier undermined by corruption and agents and the Russians had far more to lose in Crimea. Eventualy giving up Sevastopol, their most significant and only naval hold in the region and removing the Black Sea Fleet, are you kidding ? also abandoning the oil in that area ?

Too easy. Because it is completly enough to prevent Georgia from ever joining the EU and NATO. Latter especialy does not accept any country which' gov has no total control over its territories.

Now did Russia have a clear view of Georgia as a tactical force? I'd say absolutely not. Did it had a clear view of the structural shortcomings of the GAF? Probably a good one. The issue of this is that your view of the events, simply doesn't fit. Why would Georgia initiate hostilities, while it narrowly lost a MAP vote in April 2008. Why would it initiate an attack over Tskinval while it would probably have to deal with more than Just Ossetia. And why would this plan involve trying to cut the Roki tunel, but not attack Java?

More than enough eyes and ears on ground and in the relevant structures which is an issue still to this date. It definitly had. On tactical level, what puzzle would Russia lack ? the GAF was trained or rather in the process of being properly trained for primarily PK missions in foreign countries. Need I to remind that the first ever initiation of actual territorial defence exercises by the US started not earlier than 2017 .... ? both US and Israeli instructors acknowledged that the GAF was anything but ready for conventional warfare, let alone a large scale conflict.

Again, I was pointing out the exact point. How would Russia prepare an attack on Georgia and not reinforce the main target for the Georgian onslaught. Ok maybe not to be as "obvious" (see the point I made about PK base NOT being used for sabotage) but why then the two columns that went on didn't have much of an anti armor capability except for the MBT's. Again, The PK base had visits for years by OSCE and UNOMIG. It had no range, no real space for combat training and as said before, the actual base that would fit that description wasn't even touched by Georgia.

Same nonsense claim .... it wasn't remotely even the "main target" of the Georgian forces. Secondly, just because there is no huge designated polygon like in other areas doesn't mean operations can't be launched from there or people not trained. Thirdly you don't send untrained rookies into a conflict zone to plan and organise complex operations, you send professionals who know their s and the PK forces had to train somewhere if not at the base itself. Do I have to hold your hand any further here or will you manage .... ?

The issue with your statement about ATGM's not being the only AT weapon, is that while ATGM's aren't indeed alone, they are a class of their own and close the gap between a rather lightly armored force and a defending force that can muster half a battalion worth of tanks in a city of roughly 80 thousand people. RPG's did the job? Sure they did, but at what price?

Of course they are, but their availability is significantly low in comparison and light AT weapons are the most common and primary AT capabilities and there was absolutly no shortage of those in that war.

Like what price ? the highest price payed by any at teams were the two Georgian atgm teams halting the Russian column with their missiles until they got obliterated by return fire. Most armor kills by RPG from either side didn't cause much return losses because ambushes were carried out correctly for the most part.

Yet I am not talking about those, I am asking you how do you piece together that Georgia played the victim, while it initiated the action? What mental gymnastics does it require to ask your military to "enforce the territorial sovereignty of Georgia" while you know that sooner or later you will have to brawl with the Bear? I mean it seems to me that you like to pretend you see the whole picture, but you don't see the Bear in the room (pun intended).

Georgia didn't "play" the victim, it was constantly attacked and provoked via separatists and when finaly decided to put an end to it, Russian forces intervened on behalf of their puppets, and went deeper and occupied previously uncontested areas. Said intervention was most likely already green lit as soon as the GAF rolled in, by then the town was already almost completly evaced and according to the GAF the Russian or Ossetian PK battalion stationed in Tskhinvali at that time opened up on them to which they responded. I'm not pretending anything, I just like to follow the more logical narrative.

Russian air missions were actually part CAS, part strategic bombing but with none of those missions being actually filled properly. To the point when Russians abandoned the "strategic" part and reverted to SRBM's. In comparison again The CAS proved to be more tricky, with both losses (including FF) and close calls.

The damage done was major. Just because the Georgians didn't lose thousands, doesn't mean it had little impact. Victory, preferably a quick one, is important, not how many soldiers you've killed.

Huh, the people that went into Georgia had PPE shortcomings to the tune of seizing actual PASGT's and taking out the helmet caps because they didn't have proper helmets issued. The troops in Georgia had all the trouble in the world to actually fight in low-light or complete darkness. This has been confirmed mutiple times, including by Vk posts by cadres. One thing that the Russians seized at Poti apart from the M1115's were alse the 5 or so crates of AN-PV's and Harris compacts that were with the vehicles.

You do realize all of that was US property right ..... ?

The Georgian infantry didn't lack clothing, but much of everything else. The fabriques of the uniforms were and partialy still are of poor quality. The greatest issues however were with the poorly made vests and shortage of medical supplies. None of the AR-15 Bushmasters bought a year before were used by the army, only some police elements. The only thing nobody could really complain about, was the availability of ammunition for a brief military operation, which it was supposed to be, and factualy was, obv not as intended.

The advantage lied in the fact that the Russians were attacking in a straight forward mode, not exactly trying to maneuver and take the Georgians out. It is one thing that time and again makes me really wonder about the Russians. They were simply trying to push Gerogians out of Tskinval. By the end of the 9th february, the game was over.

No disagreement there. Heavy Russian negligance of the overall situation and basic tactical threats lead to some surprising incidents and unnecessary losses for the Russians. The Georgians did have some advantige in that area the first couple days despite all the shortcomings especialy with communication and intelligence.

Again, let's start this. While Russia might have played a double game, which is reasonable to think, the base on itself, was a tripwire.

I'm not disagreeing there either. In fact that's my entire point.

The base in Tskinval was not such a staging point. The Actual issue with that view, is that while it would have stood, IF the GAF had attacked Java or the informal camp in Abkhazia, that would have fallen in a normal defend the territory type of gig.

But how .... ?

Any such action would have been a direct and unprovoked attack on Russia. That could have seen a really ugly result ....

With the attack on primarily separatist targets you at least have a better pretext because you respond to attacks / provocations which did happen. I'm not trying to justify Saakashvili's reckless and stupid decision, but at least that would make more sense imo .... no ?

But instead of that, and we have unfortunately, some token images of that, the GAF gave the impression to actually take back Tskinval against the will of the people who lived there...and by going through a couple of dead Russian PK's. Even dubious ones. You might try and mix it all together, but, it doesn't fly.

It all depends what picture you prefer. Are we talking about the same population that was being evaced already days before the outbreak of hostilities leaving virtualy a ghost town ? I wonder what the 15k Georgians think who lived there, when their appartment were burnt down by the separatist militia before the Georgian army entered the town, so they would never return. I bet that was against their will too, same with all the villages that were relentlessly leveled.

Are we going to talk about the Kodori Gorge now? Are we really going to throw names like Omar Shishani in there? Are we going to listen to Russian tapes with GAF security guys asking for insertions to be delayed circa anno 2004? Are we going to talk about the Odizhev saga or Astemirov's fake passport with Georgian stamps on it?

Yes right, "tapes". Georgia also has tapes of how Russian troops invaded Georgia on 7 August and many more regarding Russian activities. How about that ? ....

Idk, what about them ? fake passports isn't realy a rare occurance. Why did so many Chechens flee to Georgia ? I wonder what ever tempted such an influx of refugees and fighters. Maybe a bloody massacre or something idk.

Really and so when in the 1990's Georgia had its mini Brown-shirt revolution thingie that had to be abated through two more factions of the same Georgian state, this was also Russia's fault?

Hmm, can't ever be 100% ruled out, but yeah it was mostly Georgian doing and thankfully Gamsakhurdia didn't last longer than 8 months.

PK incident? Jesus So Georgia never fired Grads IN the city?

To my understanding, on 7 and in the morning of 8 August, those two days in particular, the Georgian airforce deployed UAVs to scan the area so that separatist positions could be marked and later engaged by artillery. The town was first bombarded with smoke shells, which was mistaken for actual shelling - there was even a video recorded, and you clearly saw it was just white smoke. Then, the relevant military objects were targeted by both LAR-160 missiles and howitzers mostly around the town against trenches and fortifications. Single strikes in intervalls were heard by the people who stayed in town, which excludes a massed GRAD barrage, at least directly against the town. Fact is, appartments got damaged, partialy destroyed, including several administrative buildings, that were probably considered targets. The fact that a hospital got hit can be taken as proof that the artillery fire was partialy def inprecise. However several other facts need to be taken into account as well. While several narratives claim that "large parts were destroyed" or speak of "patches of destruction", we need to take into consideration:
a ) the appartments that were purposefully destroyed to prevent the return of the Georgian population
b ) the already miserable and damaged state of the town's infrastructure and housing.
c ) The Russian side also used heavy artillery and missiles to attack Georgian troops in Tskhinvali, causing further damage, partialy flattening entire areas.

Really so trying to attack "separatism" in a regime of peace would have been different to actually trying to make that attack work by crippling the true relay of Russian strength in Georgia? Are you serious now?

What are you on about ?

Those are not fairy tales, that's the international boundaries the Independent state of Georgia was built on. And those boundaries were Soviet constructs.

That all of it was a Soviet construct in the sense that SO for instance shouldn't have ever existed as such, as it is illegitimate and territories given to the Ottomans and the lands up to Sochi taken away, then yes. Obviously. What you proposed earlier though. Not even theoreticaly, let alone historicaly.

Have you served? Do you know how much time it takes to roll in a battalion and coordinate it? We know that Georgia over the AFV's it had prepared for the take over of Tskinval, had also allocated a number of other tanks and armored vehicles in Gori as a reserve. Now scratch that only battalion and add four more as a primary force. How could that be "Rushed in" if you were first in Tskinval? I really got this feeling that you are entangled in this trap of a story in which you defend your country but still you don't initiate the hostilities, then you kinda do, but it's your country so there is no casus belli if you attack a PK force, because the country behind the PK force is low key fomenting dissent and rebellion, but you need to still keep it quiet and not overdo your move, because you never know. This is not spontaneous, not prepared, not what actually happened. Or then you had a psychopath as president.

Apparently you don't, or did the fact that Russia was able to quickly mobilize an entire division to get through the tunnel into SO within just 1.5 days also go completly over your head .... ? the first battalions arrived already in 8 August mate .... the Georgian military had pushed into Tskhinvali by 10:00 with regiment strenght, and the first Russian reinforcements arrived in SO already 4-6 hours later depending on source... several tank and infantry battalions. The Georgian military force operating in and around Tskhinvali was matched by noon and outnumbered by 9 August.

That is literaly physicaly impossible for a force that was "not prepared". Good luck with trying to further denie that .... this case is closed.

My point is that the Russians were also prepared, not who moved in first. The fact the Georgians made the massive mistake to move in first and with full force isn't even debatable.