Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"NYT: Georgia, not Russia, attacked"

22 Comments -

1 – 22 of 22
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure if the Hezbollah strategy is workable for Georgia. Moscow isn't within easy reach of cheap rocketry.

9/3/08, 2:42 AM

Blogger Steve Sailer said...

Cheap ballistic rocketry didn't do Hezbollah any good defensively, it just helped goad the Israelis into pounding on them more. Cheap anti-tank rockets, however, did help Hezbollah extract a price from the Israeli invaders.

9/3/08, 2:55 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would that really stop the Russians? I would say that Georgian rockets falling on Moscow would be far more effective, politically, than blowing up a few old Russian tanks (of which they presumably have a lot, or at least comparatively more than the Israelis).

9/3/08, 3:23 AM

Anonymous neil craig said...

It is clear, even from western rweports, that the Georgians are really pissed off with Shaask. Of course he did get elected, after a western supported & financed de facto coup, by 96% of the people, in an election western "N"GOs said was free & fair.

The best thing for the locals & for us too would be if the country that gave birth to Stalin, voted for a government that wanted to be friendly with Russia. In certain circumstances I think 96% of people would vote for that but I don't think they will get the option. Democracy is not alwys the glorious free choice of the people we like to think. Quite often it is merely the coronation of their masters.

9/3/08, 3:25 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Saakashvili was a democrat, you'd think he'd have offered the people of South Osetia and Abhazia referendums to decide their future affiliation. I'm sure that Russia would have agreed to such a referendum. It could have been conducted by the EU, the UN, whomever. Saakashvili did not choose this democratic route for the same reason for which Russia would have welcomed it - the majority of the people of those regions do not want to have anything to do with Georgia. The referendums would have turned into contests between the independence and joining-Russia options.

The whole idea of the Saakashvili regime being democratic is hilarious. This regime was brought to power by a coup. This coup was orchestrated by a long-time practitioner of the art of the Third World coup George Soros. Soros is apparently proud enough of this to babble to newspapers about it. After that coup they had an "election". Saakashvili won it with 96% of the vote. It really is a joke. Anyone who knows anything about the Caucasus will tell you that 96% of the locals of that region will never agree with each other on anything at all. Because of its mountainouns geography (every valley has its own nationalism, and usually its own language), it's a legendarily fractious place. When I try to imagine honest elections in the Caucasus, my mind comes up with visions of a parliamentary system with a 100 or so (mostly ethnically-based) parties, none of which ever gets more than 5% of the overall vote. Rigging an election in the Caucasus to show a 96% victory for your candidate is in some ways an interesting thing to do. You wouldn't be fooling any of the locals. Or any of Georgia's neighbors. So whom would you be fooling? Probably the people who live oceans away and know next to nothing about Georgia. I think Soros and Co. has been largely successful in this task.

9/3/08, 4:54 AM

Blogger M. Simon said...

Michael Totten is the antidote to the NYTs.

Georgia On My Mind

9/3/08, 5:37 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheap anti-tank rockets, however, did help Hezbollah extract a price from the Israeli invaders.

John Mearsheimer predicted that cheap anti-tank weapons would favor the defense way back in 1983, in his book Conventional Deterrence. His comments on this will be interesting to see, assuming he makes any. They won't appear in the the New York Times, Foreign Affairs, or the New Republic, since he's been banned from those publications after he wrote things that are true but drew the ire of the Israel Lobby, but he might write something on it in International Security.

The Maginot Line gets way too much criticism. The big problem with it was that the French didn't cover their whole border with it. They threw up a hasty extension to it after 1934, but it was nowhere near as impressive as the main thing. It wasn't impossible to take it-the Germans used it, and US forces ended up digging them out from parts that couldn't be bypassed at a high cost.

With very rare exceptions (usually involving new technology, and not lasting very long) defense has always had the advantage over offense. For those of you familiar with Robert Jervis' Cooperation under the Security Dilemma, this has major implications for defense policy and strategy.

Planetary Archon Mouse

9/3/08, 6:21 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is really scary is that the NATO leadership jumped on the Georgian propaganda bandwagon and declared that Russia attacked first. If Georgia had been a member of NATO we could be at war with Russia today just because the Georgian leadership were fools and idiots. We would have turned over our war making decision to a third rate country with delusions of grandeur

DJ

9/3/08, 6:56 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Georgian President was giving military orders from his cell phone? What are the chances those weren't intercepted by the Russians?

- Fred

9/3/08, 7:36 AM

Anonymous rightsaidfred said...

>>>>giving orders over a cellphone

What a yuppie fantasy.

9/3/08, 8:12 AM

Anonymous MQ said...

Democratic Georgia? Georgia is not democratic, don't spread this false meme.

Saakashvilli got 96% of the vote in the last election...

9/3/08, 8:15 AM

Anonymous testing99 said...

Steve --

Hezbollah won over Israel because Israel was constrained by the press and domestic considerations (tiny population not able to withstand extensive war).

Looking at Lebanon is a wrong model, may I suggest Iraq and Afghanistan?

Anon is right Steve, in that Hezbollah which could have loaded chemical weapons on it's rockets, held a trump card on Israel. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were hostages, constraining Israeli actions.

Hezbollah could have killed tens to hundreds of thousands of Israelis, THAT was a huge trump card.

Moscow is not constrained by the press, they kill critics in elevators or with poisoned radioactive tea. They have a massive manpower advantage.

But, it did not go all their way. Russia's air cover was defeated by their own designed anti-air missiles, they had pilots in their 50's!!! and the cruiser Moscow was heavily damaged by Georgian patrol craft "invisible" to radar by shore clutter at night.

However, Iraq shows that decisive armor/air/artillery can smash opponents, particularly when terrain allows maneuver and you have control of the air. Even in Afghanistan, the Taliban were quickly routed by decisive precision bombings aided by GPS, day and night. Stuff the Soviets never had.

9/3/08, 12:23 PM

Blogger Tscottme said...

Here's a link to Michael Totten's interview with an expert on Georgia/Osettia which disagrees with the NYT (Georgians started it) idea.

http://xrl.us/op4ke

9/3/08, 12:43 PM

Blogger C. Van Carter said...

"After the Russian columns arrived through the Roki Tunnel"

Roki Tunnel made me remember my post about Georgia/South Ossetia from 2006.

9/3/08, 1:49 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Russia's air cover was defeated by their own designed anti-air missiles, they had pilots in their 50's!!!"

For the love of God, testing99, please enough with the "pilots(s) in their 50s" garbage. And why is it now "pilots" (plural)? I thought it was just one guy, now I suppose we find it is multiple aged and doddering, nearly blind "pilots" who make up the pathetic and decaying Russian Air Force that was shot from the skies by heroic, plucky and inexperienced yet determined Georgians who stood up to the horrid Russians?
Listen, a bit of advice. When you are going to lie/make shit up, keep it simple and keep it consistent. Otherwise, you look like a fool.
Please, just stop with that whole line.

9/3/08, 2:30 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last article I read described the famed 50 year old Russian pilot (singular!) as a 'flying officer'. I dont know if flying officer is a specific rank (eg in WW2 the RAF had a rank of Pilot Officer, which no longer exists) or whether he is just an officer, of unknown rank, who flys.

9/3/08, 6:49 PM

Anonymous Martin said...

"MQ said...

Democratic Georgia? Georgia is not democratic, don't spread this false meme.

Saakashvilli got 96% of the vote in the last election..."

Yes, 96% is the kind of share that Breshnev and Castro used to get (Castro still does, for that matter). Turnout for any one side of that order is usually indicative of tyranny or fraud, not good government.

"testing99 said...

However, Iraq shows that decisive armor/air/artillery can smash opponents, particularly when terrain allows maneuver and you have control of the air."

What it shows is that the worlds most powerful military can crush a tin-pot Arab dictatorship, that has been under international embargo for 12 years.

Remember Moshe Dyan's prescription for success as a general (another interesting historical anecdote made popular by Steve): fight Arabs.

9/3/08, 8:28 PM

Anonymous headache said...

"“Our mission is to protect our country from Russian aggression,” Davit Kezerashvili, Georgia’s 29-year-old defense minister, said in an interview last week when asked what missions the military would be organized to perform. “..."

Well he did a fine job!!

9/4/08, 1:20 AM

Anonymous headache said...

Planetary Archon Mouse sed:

"the Germans used it, and US forces ended up digging them out from parts that couldn't be bypassed at a high cost."

I think this highlights the essential issue. The Germans inarguably were the best soldiers of WWII, but hopelessly outnumbered. Their fighting was tactically brilliant and bitter. That's why the price the US and Russia had to pay was so high. Reading the NYT piece left me wondering why the Israeli's, who also have a good military reputation, were willing to even waste their time with the Georgians. I could not see how one can ever turn that lot into a useful army, defensive or offensive, regardless of the sophistication of the gear. The human material is just not there. At least nobody will be repeating that stupid question again why they did not hit the tunnel to Russia. Well they could not!

I'm also not impressed with the assessment of the Russian force's equipment. Nobody has criticized the Russian forces themselves, only the equipment. But Russia has tons of Cold War equipment in addition to some pretty modern stuff. Obviously the smart thing was to use the old stuff. They could scare the Georgians off using old gear, so everybody must be wondering what the Russians would be like with their modern armour (T90's with anti-tank rocket protection etc.). I guess the Russians knew the Georgians were no good so just sent in their soldiers on rusted junk. I'm not even sure these were their finest soldiers.

9/4/08, 1:38 AM

Anonymous big bill said...

Steve:
"Hezbollah showed in 2006 that, by spending the $100 million per year it gets from Iran, plus whatever it extorts out of the Lebanese economy, you can dig in and withstand a modern army with airplanes and tanks even when you have none. At least, you can withstand a modern army for about as long as a modern country will put up with waging offensive war."

Yeah, a "modern country", OK, but what about Russia?

I can't imagine how long Hezbollah would have lasted if the Russians advanced on them with flamethrowers a la Iwo Jima.

Sadly, the luftjuden now dominate in Israel and the sabra has become extinct. As a result they were unable to fight the latest war the way their terrorist ancestors did in the 1930's and 40's. They have lost their Begin balls. The Woody Allenification of Israel. How sad!

The Russians do not suffer the same post-modern mental disability.

9/4/08, 10:03 PM

Anonymous Quercus said...

As for the Russians' supposed ruthlessness, in Strategy, Luttwak argues there was an unwillingness to take casualties by the Soviet leadership in the Afghanistan occupation of the '80s. This despite Soviet control of the press and Russians' historical tendency to fatalism when their young men are turned into cannon fodder.

9/5/08, 1:23 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The last article I read described the famed 50 year old Russian pilot (singular!) as a 'flying officer'. I dont know if flying officer is a specific rank (eg in WW2 the RAF had a rank of Pilot Officer, which no longer exists) or whether he is just an officer, of unknown rank, who flys."

Off topic, but someone is wrong on the internet...

The rank of pilot officer, Pilot Officer Smith, is the still the lower commissioned rank in the Royal Air Force. Pilot Officer is an OF1 rank on the NATO scale and is the equivalent of a second lieutenant in the Army. The RAF equivalent of a lieutenant (army) is Flying Officer, also OF1.

Strangely Pilot Officer Smith is may not be a pilot, in fact most P/O Smiths are actually penguins, while Flying Officer Jones may actually be an engineer or a pen pusher.

9/6/08, 8:57 PM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL