First Serious Crisis Since Cold War?

[ClydeR]

McCain says Russia's invasion of Georgia is the first serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War. That means it's more serious than the first Iraq war, more serious than 9/11, more serious than the current war in Afghanistan, more serious than the current war in Iraq.

I repeat that McCain is a big (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=769516&postcount=20) phony (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=777624&postcount=35). He has no idea what he's talking about.


My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.

This is an act of aggression. And historians and time will tell us how provoked it was, what actions the Georgian government took, et cetera. But the fact is that this aggression has far exceeded any -- any provocation that might have been inflicted on South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

So, it's a reassertion of the age-old Russian ambitions and desires for the Russian empire and the so-called near abroad.

More... (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/14/sitroom.03.html)

[Gan]

Actually, McCain has been warning us about Putin and Russia for quite a while.

[ClydeR]

Actually, McCain has been warning us about Putin and Russia for quite a while.

Does that make him correct that this is the first serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War?

[Gan]

Does that make him correct that this is the first serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War?

McCain is correct if you take in the whole quote of his in context, instead of just cherrry picking what you would have support your position.



SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.

This is an act of aggression. And historians and time will tell us how provoked it was, what actions the Georgian government took, et cetera. But the fact is that this aggression has far exceeded any -- any provocation that might have been inflicted on South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

So, it's a reassertion of the age-old Russian ambitions and desires for the Russian empire and the so-called near abroad.


The bolded part is what you conveniently left out of your post.

Thanks for playing.

[ClydeR]

The bolded part is what you conveniently left out of your post.

No, I included it all.

[Gan]

I stand corrected. You did include the whole post.

You just failed at comprehending the context.

+1 for you.

[Kembal]

Uh, McCain is not correct. I contend the first Gulf War and 9/11 were a bit more important than this.

Fact is, the Georgian president tried to make a power play in trying to seize South Ossetia back. Russia saw a casus belli (since they keep peacekeepers in South Ossetia) and invaded, obviously to show the former Soviet republics that they shouldn't cross Russia. Now he's amping up the rhetoric in hopes the U.S. will bail him out, and McCain looks ready to oblige him.

[Gan]

Russia's move did help Poland come to the table for the missle shield. ;)

And I dont think McCain would even contemplate getting pulled into a war with Russia over Georgia's power play at South Ossetia.

There are way too many diplomatic tools to exhaust before entering into the conflict directly with force.

[crb]

Ummm... I would agree with McCain I think.

History will tell or not, one would certainly call 9/11 pivotal, but the first major aggressive expansion of Russia since the end of the cold war does have higher stakes than everything else. Lets not forget that we've not had an enemy with a few thousand nuclear warheads in awhile now. Iraq didn't have a few thousands nuclear warheads, Al-Qaeda doesn't, Serbia didn't.



Fact is, the Georgian president tried to make a power play in trying to seize South Ossetia back. Russia saw a casus belli (since they keep peacekeepers in South Ossetia) and invaded, obviously to show the former Soviet republics that they shouldn't cross Russia. Now he's amping up the rhetoric in hopes the U.S. will bail him out, and McCain looks ready to oblige him.

I wonder if it was not McCain saying this if you'd not take the partisan position of being Anti everything McCain says.

But don't be fooled by the dog and pony show. Ossetia was an excuse, but not the reason:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121858636836735065.html?mod=todays_columnists

[Back]

McCain says Russia's invasion of Georgia is the first serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War. That means it's more serious than the first Iraq war, more serious than 9/11, more serious than the current war in Afghanistan, more serious than the current war in Iraq.

I repeat that McCain is a big (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=769516&postcount=20) phony (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=777624&postcount=35). He has no idea what he's talking about.

Why are you such a fucking buzzkill? Regean broke the wall, man.

People like you will never win because all you want is destruction. I’ve got news for you... there are more people in the world who want to live, and enjoy it.

[ClydeR]

As was the case at least once before, Kembal is right. :)

McCain has shown himself lacking on the Georgia issue in three ways. First, has an exaggerated sense of its importance. It is not more important than the two Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan. Automatically considering Russia to be an enemy is at least 20 years out of date. Second, he has unwisely put his faith in Saakashvili, who was reckless and is partly responsible for the current mess. Finally, like Obama, he unthinkingly joined Bush's call for Georgia to become part of NATO.


Now he's amping up the rhetoric in hopes the U.S. will bail him out, and McCain looks ready to oblige him.


That would be consistent with McCain's philosophy (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=776743&postcount=2) that, if the goal appears just, then it is worth the fighting for, even when there is no possibility of winning. That's not what we need in a Commander in Chief. The Commander in Chief has to make choices based on practicality, not lofty ideals.

[Back]

As was the case at least once before, Kembal is right. :)

McCain has shown himself lacking on the Georgia issue in three ways. First, has an exaggerated sense of its importance. It is not more important than the two Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan. Automatically considering Russia to be an enemy is at least 20 years out of date. Second, he has unwisely put his faith in Saakashvili, who was reckless and is partly responsible for the current mess. Finally, like Obama, he unthinkingly joined Bush's call for Georgia to become part of NATO.




That would be consistent with McCain's philosophy (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=776743&postcount=2) that, if the goal appears just, then it is worth the fighting for, even when there is no possibility of winning. That's not what we need in a Commander in Chief. The Commander in Chief has to make choices based on practicality, not lofty ideals.

So what is your final solution, ClydeR? What would you do?

[crb]

Kembal, when ClydeR starts praising you it is time to check yourself.

All that evil requires to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Dear ClydeR, not considering Russia a frenemy is about 5 or 6 years out of date. Putin is effectively a dictator. They are not our allies, they have not helped us on any single one major issue in recent years. Russia has been acting nationalistic and expansionist, they've been bullying Europe with threats of an energy embargo and have taken every possible chance to hinder us at the UN. They're also, you know, selling arms to Iran.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

I suggest you research the German buildup prior to WWII (http://everything2.com/node/1476863) and how the European powers at the time, through a mixture of appeasement and doing nothing, helped to bring about their own destruction.

McCain, being a student of history, it was his favorite subject in school, and of course being alive at the time (hardy har har). Knows this, which is why he sees this as the possible threat that it is.

[ClydeR]

So what is your final solution, ClydeR? What would you do?

Final solution? Please.

What I would do is about what Bush is doing right now. I would ask Russia to draw back its troops within six months, just like Condi Rice is doing. If it were possible and needed, then I would also offer to send humanitarian aid to Georgia. End of story.

I would continue to build economic relationships with Russia.

[sst]

McCain has shown himself lacking on the Georgia issue in three ways. First, has an exaggerated sense of its importance. It is not more important than the two Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan.
I disagree, Russia making power plays and attempting to expand under a corrupt government bent on bringing it back under previous style government is a very very big issue.


Automatically considering Russia to be an enemy is at least 20 years out of date. Second, he has unwisely put his faith in Saakashvili, who was reckless and is partly responsible for the current mess. Finally, like Obama, he unthinkingly joined Bush's call for Georgia to become part of NATO.
Russia has always been our enemy and that has not truly changed. Especially with Putin in power.

[ClydeR]

I suggest you research the German buildup prior to WWII (http://everything2.com/node/1476863) and how the European powers at the time, through a mixture of appeasement and doing nothing, helped to bring about their own destruction.

You and McCain look at the Georgia incident and see 1938. I look at it and see 1990.

In 1990 in the First Gulf War, Iraq invaded our ally Kuwait and committed atrocities in Kuwait. We responded by forcing Iraq out of Kuwait. But we didn't stop at the Iraq/Kuwait border. Our ground forces went a considerable way into Iraq itself, and we bombed military targets in most of Iraq. Our purpose was twofold. We wanted to get Iraq out of Kuwait (with all its luscious oil), and we wanted to diminish Iraq's military power to the point that it could not readily attack Kuwait again.

What could make the current Georgia incident like 1938 would be if McCain gets his way and Georgia is admitted to NATO. If that happens and there is another incident between Georgia and Russia, then we can only hope that NATO will not honor its treaty, leaving Georgia in the same situation as Czechoslovakia when the Europeans did not honor their treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia. Like the Europeans of the last century, McCain wants us to make promises that he knows we will not and cannot keep.

[crb]

What could make Georgia like 1938 is us not doing anything Russia pushing further, maybe next time it'll be Ukraine, then Poland, maybe Finland. Then maybe Europe.

Appeasement doesn't work, they just ask for more.

[Kembal]

Russia's move did help Poland come to the table for the missle shield. ;)

And I dont think McCain would even contemplate getting pulled into a war with Russia over Georgia's power play at South Ossetia.

There are way too many diplomatic tools to exhaust before entering into the conflict directly with force.

Actually, that's not the case on the deal. The U.S. had been resisting giving a security guarantee to Poland as part of the missile deal. The fighting in Georgia gave Poland the upper hand in the negotiations and forced the U.S. to give the security guarantee. We're now committed to defend Poland in case of attack. Quoting from the AP:


In an interview on Poland's news channel TVN24, Tusk said the United States agreed to help augment Poland's defenses with Patriot missiles in exchange for placing 10 missile defense interceptors in the Eastern European country.

He said the deal also includes a "mutual commitment" between the two nations to come to each other's assistance "in case of trouble."

That clause appeared to be a direct reference to Russia.

[sst]

You and McCain look at the Georgia incident and see 1938. I look at it and see 1990.

In 1990 in the First Gulf War, Iraq invaded our ally Kuwait and committed atrocities in Kuwait. We responded by forcing Iraq out of Kuwait. But we didn't stop at the Iraq/Kuwait border. Our ground forces went a considerable way into Iraq itself, and we bombed military targets in most of Iraq. Our purpose was twofold. We wanted to get Iraq out of Kuwait (with all its luscious oil), and we wanted to diminish Iraq's military power to the point that it could not readily attack Kuwait again.

What could make the current Georgia incident like 1938 would be if McCain gets his way and Georgia is admitted to NATO. If that happens and there is another incident between Georgia and Russia, then we can only hope that NATO will not honor its treaty, leaving Georgia in the same situation as Czechoslovakia when the Europeans did not honor their treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia. Like the Europeans of the last century, McCain wants us to make promises that he knows we will not and cannot keep.

How would we not keep our promises? Poland is a perfect example due to the missile defense shield being put in there we are offering instantaneous military power behind any attack on Poland, outside of the channels of NATO, as one of the stipulations from Poland on it being located there.

American Military power is unmatched in a conventional conflict. Hopefully they will continue to improve the missile defense shield to give us a great edge in a nuclear war as well, which will give Russia and counties like it second thoughts before attaching those we are in a treaty with.

[Kembal]

Kembal, when ClydeR starts praising you it is time to check yourself.

All that evil requires to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Dear ClydeR, not considering Russia a frenemy is about 5 or 6 years out of date. Putin is effectively a dictator. They are not our allies, they have not helped us on any single one major issue in recent years. Russia has been acting nationalistic and expansionist, they've been bullying Europe with threats of an energy embargo and have taken every possible chance to hinder us at the UN. They're also, you know, selling arms to Iran.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

I suggest you research the German buildup prior to WWII (http://everything2.com/node/1476863) and how the European powers at the time, through a mixture of appeasement and doing nothing, helped to bring about their own destruction.

McCain, being a student of history, it was his favorite subject in school, and of course being alive at the time (hardy har har). Knows this, which is why he sees this as the possible threat that it is.

LOL. Actually, ClydeR's analysis is spot on. I'd say he's not posting as his persona currently.

Russia's trying to flex its muscle in order to regain some of the prestige it lost during the 1990s. It's not going to attempt any expansionist effort, mainly because they know they do not have the ability to actually do that. (the state of the Russian military is not good compared to European militiaries)

By letting the issue of Georgia inflame passions, we're deflected from our real goal, which is nuclear disarmament. The less nukes Russia has, given their relative lack of nuclear security, the better off we'll be.

[Kembal]

How would we not keep our promises? Poland is a perfect example due to the missile defense shield being put in there we are offering instantaneous military power behind any attack on Poland, outside of the channels of NATO, as one of the stipulations from Poland on it being located there.

American Military power is unmatched in a conventional conflict. Hopefully they will continue to improve the missile defense shield to give us a great edge in a nuclear war as well, which will give Russia and counties like it second thoughts before attaching those we are in a treaty with.

Keeping our promises will require a nuclear exchange. Sorry, I'd rather not do that. (if you believe any missile shield will stop 1000 nuclear missiles coming from Russia, you're an idiot.)

[sst]

No, keeping our promises will not require a nuclear exchange. A ground and air campaign does not mean nukes go a flying.

Mutually assured destruction is a great deterrent to other people shooting nukes at us. Russia may have more of them to shoot, but we have bigger nastier ones.

Putin is a evil maniacal genius, hes not dumb. He will only do what he knows he can get away with.

[Kembal]

Are you really trying to argue that we can have a conventional war break out between the U.S. and Russia and somehow everyone will show restraint to not use nukes? (and by everyone, I mean every single person in both militaries who has the capability to launch)

Do you know how crazy you sound?

[sst]

I'm saying we wont get into a conventional war for two reasons
One, Russia could not win one with the military technology they currently posses, they are about 20 years behind the US. at a minimum.

Two, we have moved to a point where we can shoot nukes out of the sky, as well of our ability to ensure destruction Russia in response before the first nuke has a chance to hit the ground in the US.

The MDA is doing a great job at protecting our country and advancing our technological superiority over other countries.

[Nieninque]

Uh, McCain is not correct. I contend the first Gulf War and 9/11 were a bit more important than this.

Not to mention the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Kembal]

Not to mention the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'd quibble as to whether the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was actually a crisis, and not something just manufactured to be one. :)

[ClydeR]

How would we not keep our promises? Poland is a perfect example due to the missile defense shield being put in there we are offering instantaneous military power behind any attack on Poland, outside of the channels of NATO, as one of the stipulations from Poland on it being located there.

How would we keep our promises if NATO admits Georgia? The only way would be by attacking Russia. I hope neither of the two presidential candidates would allow the United States to keep such a promise.

[sst]

How would we keep our promises if NATO admits Georgia? The only way would be by attacking Russia. I hope neither of the two presidential candidates would allow the United States to keep such a promise.

Moving troops into the area would halt Russia's advancement.

i don't think we should admit them at the moment, no, but once things are calmed down, without a doubt.

[crb]

How would we keep our promises if NATO admits Georgia? The only way would be by attacking Russia. I hope neither of the two presidential candidates would allow the United States to keep such a promise.
We'd attack Russian troops in Georgia, not actually Russia.

See Korean war and Vietnam war. Both were proxies for a US vs. Russia war in the guise of smaller territorial conflicts.

[crb]

I'm saying we wont get into a conventional war for two reasons
One, Russia could not win one with the military technology they currently posses, they are about 20 years behind the US. at a minimum.

Two, we have moved to a point where we can shoot nukes out of the sky, as well of our ability to ensure destruction Russia in response before the first nuke has a chance to hit the ground in the US.

The MDA is doing a great job at protecting our country and advancing our technological superiority over other countries.
Its the truth.... not that movies are always factual, but watch "A Sum of All Fears" the Russian have a coniption fit when our B2's take off because they know that once they're airborn they won't know where they are until one is over moscow dropping a bomb.

You can react and retaliate to a nuke if you see it launched from the other side of the world, when it is merely launched from 30,000 feet above it's target... you have no time. You won't know you've been bombed until you see a mushroom cloud.

[Gelston]

Are you really trying to argue that we can have a conventional war break out between the U.S. and Russia and somehow everyone will show restraint to not use nukes? (and by everyone, I mean every single person in both militaries who has the capability to launch)

Do you know how crazy you sound?

I do believe we could if it was a limited scale Conventional war fought to reach a certain diplomatic accord(which large nations are more prone to do), vice a war to destroy the other nation.

[Parkbandit]

I'd quibble as to whether the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was actually a crisis, and not something just manufactured to be one. :)


Translation: BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!

I suppose you are also part of the 11% of the retarded American public that really believes we orchestrated the 9-11 attacks.

I heard Bigfoot was found today.

[Hulkein]

Are you really trying to argue that we can have a conventional war break out between the U.S. and Russia and somehow everyone will show restraint to not use nukes? (and by everyone, I mean every single person in both militaries who has the capability to launch)

Do you know how crazy you sound?

I don't think it's crazy to believe a conventional war could break out between two nuclear powers without nuclear weapons actually being used.

Russia would use their nukes if we were heavily invading their country, but a conventional battle in another country (Poland) could go on without nukes being used, imo.

[Back]

I don't think it's crazy to believe a conventional war could break out between two nuclear powers without nuclear weapons actually being used.

Russia would use their nukes if we were heavily invading their country, but a conventional battle in another country (Poland) could go on without nukes being used, imo.

Agreed. Only Americans are crazy enough to use them.

[Gelston]

I'm saying we wont get into a conventional war for two reasons
One, Russia could not win one with the military technology they currently posses, they are about 20 years behind the US. at a minimum.

Two, we have moved to a point where we can shoot nukes out of the sky, as well of our ability to ensure destruction Russia in response before the first nuke has a chance to hit the ground in the US.

The MDA is doing a great job at protecting our country and advancing our technological superiority over other countries.

Russia is considered, even by us, the number 2 military power in the world. Some say they are back at/surpassing where they were at the height of the Soviet days. Others say they'll be back in 2020,either way they aren't a bunch of chumps that can be easily pushed around. Although we may have better technology, that alone doesn't win a war. The toughest thing would be actually being able to maintain a large force around Russia(The part that matters anyways), whereas they'll be right by where they live.

It wouldn't be like fighting Iraqi Army under Saddam or an insurgency. Heck, we've largely dropped our focus on fighting conventional wars and switched it to counter-insurgency. We are slowly pushing back to it as Iraq winds down, but look at how long it took for us to change all our training SOPs to an insurgency.

I admit, we already have some very good knowledge on conventional wars(a lot of it), but the last time we've widely and heavily emphasized it was in 2004 or so. Four years creates a lot of changes.

A good thing we would have though, is fairly good knowledge of their weapons systems.

[Stanley Burrell]

Sort of off-topic, but do you think Russia's nuclear arsenal has the same immediate blast radius as the fissal payload we shat over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Make no mistake that they can hit us just as easily as we can hit them. There's a point when being able to blow up the world X amount of times becomes... Moot.

[Gan]

Sort of off-topic, but do you think Russia's nuclear arsenal has the same immediate blast radius as the fissal payload we shat over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Make no mistake that they can hit us just as easily as we can hit them. There's a point when being able to blow up the world X amount of times becomes... Moot.

Both the US and Russia have advanced their nuclear arsenal to contain thermonuclear payloads. Considerably greater than the payload we dropped on Japan.

Hiroshima - approx 14 to 16 kilotons of TNT equivalent.
Nagasaki - approx 21 kilotons of TNT equivalent.
Yield on these types is finite before bomb destroys fuel/material within.

Largest thermonuclear device (Hbomb) Russia has detonated was 50 megatons of TNT equivalent (million tons).
Yield on these types is arbitrary - can be as much as you can stage the reactions of each fuel/material in the bomb.

[Stanley Burrell]

Both the US and Russia have advanced their nuclear arsenal to contain thermonuclear payloads. Considerably greater than the payload we dropped on Japan.

Yeeeep.

I just think there's an illusion that Earth is the size of Jupiter in a couple people's minds.

[Gelston]

http://www.exitmundi.nl/nukes.htm

Interesting theory on how it would be after surviving a nuclear apocalypse.

[Kembal]

I do believe we could if it was a limited scale Conventional war fought to reach a certain diplomatic accord(which large nations are more prone to do), vice a war to destroy the other nation.

In all the limited conflicts the U.S. and the Soviet Union fought, I don't think they directly fought each other.

But let's explore that a bit...if U.S. and Russia are fighting in Poland, would the U.S. would bomb air bases in Russia?

I'd assume so....would Russia bomb our bases in Germany?

I mean, to effectively win, you have to destroy the infrastructure supporting the offensive and defensive capabilities of the enemy in that limited conflict. But then that means hitting targets outside of the limited conflict area (Poland for our example). And when that happens, things start spiraling out of control.

[crb]

I'd assume so....would Russia bomb our bases in Germany?


They'd try.

Warfare is now more or less top down, he who controls the air, controls everything, and we wipe the floor with everyone in the world in air superiority. We do war games with like 2 f22's vs 12 of what everyone else has equivalent and the f22s decimate.

Russia has been trying to bring up a strike fighter, but they've had delays and delays for decades, and they don't have many, its been a big joke... but regardless.. its a strike fighter, so even assuming their much delayed concept designed during the 80s is the best strike fighter ever, it is still just a $30ish million strike fighter, and they don't have many of them. Whereas the f-22 is a $300 million air superiority fighter.

in terms of military expenditures Russia is on par with like Germany now, they still got a lot of shit, a lot o fshit they paid for in the 70s and 80s during the cold war, a lot of old shit, and it is shitty. for new shit they aren't putting much resources into it... but if oil stays up true, they might.

[Joxar]

ruskies are angry. their men are drunk and don't live past 60. their women are being whored to American porn companies. rusians want revenge and rightfully so.

[Gelston]

Yes, but those are limited strikes on military targets. I am of the firm belief that as long as ground troops don't make in offensive movement into either nation's home territory, then nukes wouln't be brought into play.

[Daniel]

We'd attack Russian troops in Georgia, not actually Russia.

See Korean war and Vietnam war. Both were proxies for a US vs. Russia war in the guise of smaller territorial conflicts.

Yea. That's exactly what this country needs, another korea of Vietnam.

You dumb fuck.

[Audriana]

Well neither are communist contries anymore, are they. We totally won both of those, right?... didn't we?... what? What's that? What's that you say? You say today is. . .Saturday? G'bye, I'm going out to play!

[Back]

FOX News. Fair and Balanced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ&feature=related

[Back]

McCain’s ties to Georgia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSIteh7uvc

[Khariz]

FOX News. Fair and Balanced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ&feature=related

I don't see anything wrong with this clip. If you think he was cutting them off because of what they were saying, you are stupid. A commercial break, and then the end of show is the kind of shit that happens on TV. At the end he even said that there are obviously grey areas in this conflict. They let them say their point of view of the situation.

Have you heard more of this side of the story from other media outlets? If so, show me, please, because I genuinely wanna see it.

[Back]

I don't see anything wrong with this clip. If you think he was cutting them off because of what they were saying, you are stupid. A commercial break, and then the end of show is the kind of shit that happens on TV. At the end he even said that there are obviously grey areas in this conflict. They let them say their point of view of the situation.

Have you heard more of this side of the story from other media outlets? If so, show me, please, because I genuinely wanna see it.

I don’t have enough information to form a genuine opinion on the subject. That FOX News aired this is commendable. I have not seen much of anything in the press that might counter what our government is telling us.

There was an op-ed a few days back written by a Georgian that made the same claims. If I can find it I’ll post it.

If I recall correctly, the time-line goes like this. Georgia invades south Ossetia. Russia responds. Georgia signs peace treaty. Russia signs.

Check out this BBC time-line...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7549736.stm

Noteably...


What triggered the latest crisis?

Tension has risen since the election of President Saakashvili in 2004. He offered South Ossetia dialogue and autonomy within a single Georgian state - but in 2006 South Ossetians voted in an unofficial referendum to press their demands for complete independence.

In April 2008 Nato said Georgia would be allowed to join the alliance at some point - angering Russia, which opposes the eastward expansion of Nato. Weeks later, Russia stepped up ties with the separatists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

In July Russia admitted its fighter jets entered Georgian airspace over South Ossetia to "cool hot heads in Tbilisi". Occasional clashes escalated, until six people were reportedly killed by Georgian shelling. Attempts to reach a ceasefire stuttered.

How did it escalate?

After further exchanges of fire, Georgia launched an aerial bombardment and ground attack on South Ossetia on Thursday 7 August, only hours after the sides agreed a ceasefire. By Friday, Georgian forces were reportedly in control of Tskhinvali.

Russia responded by pouring thousands of troops into South Ossetia, and launching bombing raids both over the province and on targets in the rest of Georgia. Within days, Russia had seized control of Tskhinvali.

[Khariz]

If this is really what's going on...our media needs their asses kicked, and our administration needs to kill themselves.

Is this Russian spin, or is Georgia really starting this shit?

[sst]

how can a country invade its own country?

[Back]

If this is really what's going on...our media needs their asses kicked, and our administration needs to kill themselves.

Is this Russian spin, or is Georgia really starting this shit?

I feel your frustration. It’s a great thing we have the internet these days.

We did not grow up there. We have not lived the history of the region. We have not lived there these past couple of weeks. All we have is what people tell us. And frankly... I’m not real confident that anything our government tells us is the real story after the past 8-10 years.

I’m posting this clip again because I think it’s really odd for the president of Georgia, half a world away, is pointedly criticizing John McCain. A presidential nominee. Plus the fact that McCain has a foreign policy “advisor” on his staff who has been paid $800k to lobby on behalf of Georgia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSIteh7uvc

[Khariz]

This whole thing is very confusing now.