You are claiming that I am supporting the Russians when all I see from you is complete Georgian empathy. I support nobody in this conflict. Both sides do have blood on their hands throught the long history of Russian-Georgian conflict and in this one too. I am a retired intel analyst (retired from UK forces). I see the conflict from that perspective and nothing else - a completely impartial view.
I can see that everything you say is purely from a Georgian perpective. The conflict isn’t black and white. It isn’t a simple case of good verses evil and both sides have a part to play in the causes.
Check back my posting history. My view is impartial. I call it as I see it. Check out the Kosovo threads. All the hot heads on those threads were claiming that Russia was going to help Serbia invade Kosovo. They were adamant that the Russian were not going to sit back and not take any action. I correctly informed them that the Russians were not going to lift a finger to assist the Serbs and neither was Serbia going to invade. They were still adamant that their version was going to take place.
I see conflicts for exactly what they are. That is how I was trained. The Russians are simply in their eyes solving the South Ossetian problem once and for all. Rightly or wrongly. They also took the opportunity to punish and humiliate the Georgian President and his armed forces. Again rightly or wrongly. I am not condoning their actions, but simply seeing it from my perspective as an intel analyst. The Russians were not out to occupy or stay in Georgia, but simply teaching the Georgians a lesson. They used their air power to further humiliate the Georgian President by taking out economic and strategic targets at will. Such actions hurt.
The forces involved were insufficient to control and occupy the whole of Georgia. The estimate is that they used only 15,000 troops from the North Caucasus Military Disrict. That district alone can muster 100,000. The air power that they used was also from the NCMD. It would have taken hundreds of thousands of troops years to subdue and quell Georgian unrest. The push into Georgia beyond the disputed territories was simply, in Russian eyes, teaching the Georgians a lesson. Total force control.
I can see that lots of people on Freepers thought that the sky was falling when the Russians entered Georgia. I have spoken to still serving colleagues both US and UK in the intel business and none of them saw the course of events which many on Freepers believe is the case. The intel hitting the desks of President Bush and Prime Minister Brown was not the worse case scenario that many people on here seem to believe. Bad yes, but simply that the Russians were settling the South Ossetian position and humiliating the Georgian forces.
It is the first thing that President Bush would be asking of his intel. What are the Russian plans here? Is this a complete invasion and occupation of Georgia? What are the force dispositions? Are they mobilising strategic reserves for a continued and prolonged conflict? What are their intentions?
The disposition of forces used was insufficient to control or occupy the whole of Georgia for long term. It would be an absolute nightmare for Russia to fund and maintain such an occupation. The level headed intel professionals called it 100% allowing no rash decisions from the politicians.
The last thing that President Bush wants to do is to make that decision of engaging Russian forces, which could rise to all out conflict, simply by misreading what they were up to. You may have saw President Bush visiting the DIA on TV?. It would have been the DIA providing him with all the collated intelligence required to base his decisions on. Cool heads prevailed and thank goodness they did thanks to the intel community.
Are you kidding? I don't believe that for one minute!
That's because you are supporting the Russians. You were even trying to legitimize Russian bank robbers by claiming that these people with Russian citizenship are somehow different just because they live in South Ossetia. The fact is that these thieves and looters are being enabled and protected by Russian troops actively assisting them.
I support nobody in this conflict.
You do realize that Free Republic allows people to see your past posts so that you can't get away with statements like this, don't you?
I am a retired intel analyst (retired from UK forces)
Somehow I doubt that. British people aren't generally known as Russian sycophants.
I can see that everything you say is purely from a Georgian perpective. The conflict isn’t black and white.
You keep saying that as if repeating it enough can make it true. The facts say that this immediate conflict IS black and white. One of these countries has invaded and is occupying the territory of the other without any legitimate justification. One of these countries has trained terrorists specifically to attack the people and assets of the other country (if you were really an Intel officer like you claim, you would almost certainly be aware of the history here). Perhaps the reason that you can't tell which side is right and which side is wrong is that you lack any moral sense.
Check back my posting history. My view is impartial.
You were supporting bank robbers. That isn't impartial; that is just amoral. It isn't surprising that you can't see this in terms of black and white; you don't seem to have a basic sense of human morality.
Check out the Kosovo threads.
This isn't Kosovo. In that conflict, I asserted that the Serbians were in the right (which they were in that situation, despite any previous misdeeds they might have committed). Vile actions on the part of the Clinton administration does not legitimize Russian atrocities.
The rest of your comments are irrelevant. This invasion isn't an exercise in international political craft, it is nothing more than a criminal exercise by thugs who seem to have enough firepower to get away with their misdeeds. But despite the words of those of you completely lacking a moral compass, just because they can get away with it doesn't make it legitimate.