Georgian Su-25
Posted on 08/08/2008 5:37:41 AM PDT by SueRae
Russian source on some combat losses:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L8187260.htm
“MOSCOW, August 8 (Reuters) - More than 10 Russian peacekeepers have been killed during fighting in Tskhinvali, the capital of Georgia’s breakaway region of South Ossetia, news agencies quoted a top Russian military commander as saying on Friday.
“As a result of Georgian shelling more than 10 of our peacekeepers were killed and nearly 30 were wounded,” deputy commander of ground forces Igor Konashenkov said. (Writing by Oleg Shchedrov)”
Or by the B-1B/B-52 out of Diego Garcia or Guam. B-2s are grounded until they solve why that one crashed last month, remember?
I really doubt anyone has anything high-altitude capable in theatre at the moment.
The problem with that is that there’d be problems with strike scheduling and flexibility - awful long way back to base to rearm and refuel.
You are exactly right re the range for our air jocks on our carriers.
The US Navy hasn’t had one way missions since DoLittle’s raid on Japan after Pearl Harbor.
I wonder if some rouge general turned up the heat without permission.
“I wonder if some rouge general turned up the heat without permission.”
-
Red Army?
It's the new tabloid media. Yet they can't even give the National Enquirer a run for the money. That's because they are too focused on their own opinions.
From another site:
“Russian MOD: Georgians are finishing off wounded Russian peacekeepers.”
Is that the Russian equivalent of a perfumed prince of the Pentagon? ;)
Fox news on the half hour said that 4 Rusky planes had been shot down.
The night pictures of the rocket fire showed very heavy rocket fire.
The Russians aren’t going to like what they get if they try that. The Turks have 14 modern superquiet diesel-electric subs that they’ve been itching to use for years - all equipped with modern wire-guided torpedoes.
“Georgia is not yet member of NATO. They were going to join soon with the Ukraine.”
Got it. I heard the audio on the CNN story wrong. They said “Georgia has been involved in NATO for years and a member of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council” I guess “involved” does not mean member. You can see how I made the mistake.
I may have read one too many Clancy novels but I think this could be rouge element of Russian army.
Where the heck is George Patton when you need him?
Atlanta Georgia is safe.. Think far away.. Like in Black sea area west of Turkey.. OK?
If Russia can sell anti-air defenses to Iran ... perhaps we can sell planes to Georgia.
Work out the billing later.
Translation: The Georgians do not feel like accepting surrenders today. And technically, they don’t have to, not with the numbers facing them.
Georgian Su-25
Sorry I was just messing with you ... “Rouge” reminded me of Khmer Rouge - if I’m not mistaken it’s French for “Red”?
I do hope the Georgians spank the russkies.
GEORGIA IS NOT A MEMBER OF NATO. I wish people would stop saying that. The most that NATO has said is that Georgia is expected to join someday, but that is intentionally vague and ambiguous.
There is no obligation for NATO to get involved in the current situation. Whether any individual NATO members will lend support to Georgia, who knows? This conflict could push NATO further away from Georgia as more European members realize that they could be committed to defending Georgia and South Ossetia against Russia. Really, why would NATO want to be committed to fighting Russia over a tiny province in the Caucusus?
NATO’s Georgia, Ukraine deal built on ambiguity
Fri Apr 4, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0424622720080404
By Paul Taylor, European Affairs Editor - Analysis
BUCHAREST (Reuters) - The Americans are delighted, the Georgians and Ukrainians elated, the French and Germans happy, and the Russians not too angry.
NATO’s hard-fought compromise — declaring that the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine will one day join the alliance without setting them on an immediate path to membership — was a masterpiece of creative ambiguity.
To the question “Will there be a buffer zone between Russia and the West?”, NATO has answered “No” in the long term, but “Yes” in the short term. And the short term may last a while.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.