Comments on: Assault on Georgia! Exclusive Military Analysis on South Ossetia Conflict

By: Brian Peters

Brian Peters — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:00:13 +0000

During the initial assault by Russian forces that was captured on various news outlets, I too noticed the ’slovenly’ appearance of the Russian soldiers. They appeared to be more of a well armed corporate-mercenary militia than a professional military. Watching the lines of Russian armor and trucks being backed up along many winding roads, I was amazed that Georgians didn’t take the chance for ambushes. Prior planning on the Georgian’s part could’ve set up the Russian’s for a deadly ambush on many of those winding mountainous roads. I’m sure the PRC’s-PLA watched and learned and are adapting for their future battles with Russia on this part. LTC. Peters did a great job at analyzing the whole Russian gambit that was played out on Georgia.

By: Randall C. Reed

Randall C. Reed — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:24:28 +0000

Several points are worth reiterating, in hindsight:

1. Two terms of Bush and the neo-cons mean we respond to Russian actions with an empty moral reservoir: Kosovo and Iraq have seriously eroded our ability to shape the ethical argument on the world stage, and that stage should still count for something.

2. Even if the Georgians were provoked into action, it is clear that they acted without consulting their US benefactors. Had they done so, they would have surely been advised that they were playing right into Russian hands.

3. The Georgian leadership is quickly establishing a track record of “shoot-from-the-hip” cowboy politics, much akin to Bush and his cronies. We would be foolish to engage in political “brinksmanship” on Russia’s doorstep with a Georgian partner who apparently acts first and then consults with allies.

4. If this article was, as asserted, a “hot wash” of unfolding military current affairs, perfect accuracy should not have been expected. Actually, it was fairly well on target. It might have created less of a reaction from third party observers, however, if many of the references had been couched in more neutral language, as has been pointed out by many responders.

By: Funny Pictures

Funny Pictures — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:25:37 +0000

Thanks for your article, Now there is more reason to comment than ever before! This is a great fir for our project!

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:34:45 +0000

What a joke of an article. Thanks for wasting my time.

By: Nelson Cook

Nelson Cook — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:41:15 +0000

Mr Peters seems to be so firmly locked into cold war thinking that there is no point in trying to debate things. Shame.

By: Job

Job — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:43:40 +0000

This article is hogwash, of course the Russians had a plan here, that by no means excuses the Georgians for responding to minor provocations with extreme brutality - using Grad multiple missile launch systems on a densely populated civilian target. That’s simply criminal.

@Barton

2) The Georgians were using modern Ukrainian air defence systems. Anybody taking on a country with them should be pretty worried. US arrogance about military superiority will cost them one day, maybe when they come up against a real enemy that can’t be bombed into oblivion before they set foot in the country.

There was also a comment about how the hardware is all 20 years old. The most modern equipment wasn’t used in this conflict. It’s not really a demonstration of what the Russians are capable of. Any half-decent analyst would see that, but then again as others have already pointed out, this writer is no analyst, he’s an inept propagandist.

By: Barton

Barton — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:18:14 +0000

Everyone please note THREE interesting facts.
1) Russia’s cyberwar on Georgia, just like Estonia was well planned and crippling to Georgia’s internet assets. We in the West (I live in Chicago, IL USA) should be very worried about this threat.
2) Russia’s air force dismal showing. The Georgians had old Soviet built radars and jets and the the Russians lost 2 to 10 aircraft (http://www.strategypage.com says four). The Russians knew exactly the capability of the opposing equipment and still lost aircraft. This does not bode well for them fighting a foe with modern Western made hardware.
3) Motive. Russia wanted to increase its “nationalism” at home, and to stir up trouble to increase oil prices. If the West responds well to this (kick Russia out of G8, suspend stock trading in Russian state owned companies, reduce oil drilling technology sales, limit diplomatic contacts, and MOST importantly allow more countries in to NATO) this “adventure” may prove to be expensive.

By: Rick Johnson

Rick Johnson — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:59:41 +0000

The bias in these comments is shocking.
The critics in these comments should note Mr. Peters track record. His analysis of other conflicts have proven dead on. For example, his articles on the situation in East Africa, and predictions of what would happen. On scene witnesses have verified what Peters said would happen has indeed occurred.
Also note that having contingency plans and strategies in place is a far cry from having specific materiale pre-positioned for an attack. To see where conflict is coming, measure the movement of ammunition and boby bags. The insight from an intel pro like Peters on the Russian preparations for this political and military conflict is invaluable.
Those looking for a detailed military report should have read the introduction, which stated the article would specifically address the question of “who started” the conflict.
Moral comparisons to Kosovo, etc. are interesting, but irrelevant. We need to know what is happening in Georgia now. If you want to critique previous US (and other) administrations for being involved in other conflicts, please do so. However, if indeed there were immoral conflicts, that in no way justifies further immorality.
What is clear is that the Russian government is playing hardball. They have an energy stranglehold on Western Europe. They are using military force to impose their will. They have also demonstrated a willingness to violate trade agreements and let people freeze in order to have their way.
Friends in the Ukraine are watching this conflict very closely. They do worry that they are next.
It is vital that we have an understanding of what is actually going on. Or, as Soviet diplomacy was once defined, “Who is doing what to whom?”

By: Frank Chadwick

Frank Chadwick — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:23:53 +0000

I suppose it is possible to see this as nothing more than a very elaborate Russian plot to sucker in the Georgians and which went exactly according to plan, but if your paranoia level is high enough, all acts can be made to support almost any thesis.

For example, this was presumably nothing but an attempt to get Georgia to use force against South Ossetia so that Russia could respond with overwhelming force. Now if Russia was intent on using overwhelming force from the start, I’m not sure why they needed to invent a pretext, or trap Georgia into acting first — it’s not as if anyone is exactly applauding their invasion, and it’s not as if the Russians seem to give a damn what anyone thinks about it. But leave that aside for now. The real interesting question is this: why did Russia ask for a security council resolution shortly before the Georgian attack calling on all parties to the conflict to solve the problem through diplomacy and renounce the use of force?

How does that fit into their elaborate plot use force? If we had gone for it, it seems as if it would have stopped their diabolial master plan right at the starting gate. Unless this was an elaborate form of maskirovka because they knew we wouldn’t go for it and so it would provide cover for them and so on. That starts to look less like a diabolical plot, however, and more like a Rube Goldberg machine. And as I said, if your paranoia is high enough, any possible action, no matter how aparently contrary it is to the theorized plot, can be made to seem to fit the plot, can’t it? If they say they want war, it proves they want war. If they say they want peace, it REALLY proves they want war.

So why did they propose the resolution? I don’t pretend to have the answer, but I suspect that the situation is more complicated than it appears to some.

Another question, of course, is why in the world the USA, Britain, and Georgia opposed the resolution, and thus stopped it dead in its tracks. Georgia objected to the language requiring them to renouce the use of force, and we supported them. But why?

The answer to that is, I think, much easier to find, and we don’t need to postulate a western equivalent of a mad genius sitting behind the throne and spinning his evil web of plot and counter-plot. Mind-numbing stupidity is a far more convincing explanation.

By: Ghost-in-the-Machine » The Real Story Behind Russia’s Invasion of Georgi

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:25:48 +0000

[...] http://www.armchairgeneral.com/assault-on-georgia-exclusive-military-analysis-on-south-ossetia-confl... Permalink|Comments RSS Feed - Post a comment|Trackback URL. [...]