View Full Version : NATO plans May military exercises in Georgia
NATO plans May military exercises in Georgia (http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUKTRE53E5JR20090415)
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO said on Wednesday it would hold military exercises next month in Georgia, a former Soviet republic promised eventual alliance membership but whose territory was invaded by Russia last August.
No immediate comment was available from Russia, which considers Georgia part of its traditional sphere of influence. Russia invaded Georgia to defeat an attempt by its pro-Western leadership to retake the breakaway South Ossetia region.
NATO's announcement of the exercises, which will involve 1,300 troops from 19 countries, comes at a time when it is seeking to rebuild ties with Russia damaged as a result of Moscow's intervention in Georgia.
An alliance statement said planning for the May 6-June 1 exercises began early last year, months before the war in Georgia.
Holding the exercises in Georgia will emphasize NATO solidarity with the country, which was promised eventual membership of the alliance last year -- a move which greatly angered Moscow.
NATO has since made clear membership for Georgia and another former Soviet republic, Ukraine, is a long way off given concerns among some European countries, including France and Germany, about the effect on relations with Moscow.
The alliance has stopped short of offering either country formal routes to membership but has launched long-term programs to encourage necessary reforms.
NATO said the exercises would be held 20 km (12 miles) east of the Georgian capital Tbilisi and were aimed at improving coordination between NATO members and their partner countries.
"The scenario is based on a fictitious United Nations mandated, NATO-led crisis response operation," it said.
Psychonaut
04-16-2009, 03:39 AM
Oh, it's just that Georgia. For a minute there I was worried. :D
Oh, it's just that Georgia. For a minute there I was worried. :D
http://thedecliner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/y_answers.jpg
Treffie
04-16-2009, 09:01 AM
I bet Russia will be happy with that.:coffee:
In fact, it were NATO/US officers who commanded and coordinated the Georgian invasion in South Ossetia. Together with their Georgian subordinates they were surrounded by the Russian Spetznaz forces and their annihilation and/or captivity was inevitable. Condolezza Rice have been imploring Lavrov for hours and hours to let them go, and finally our soft-hearted leadership conceded...
Looks like they're staring it all again.
The Lawspeaker
04-16-2009, 06:45 PM
Take your propaganda somewhere else, Hors. Russia is no victim- it is the eternal aggressor.
This is definitely a provocative action by NATO, and it shows that NATO is not interested in peace and friendship with Russia really. Even from my vantage point in the West this is evident.
Take your propaganda somewhere else, Hors. Russia is no victim- it is the eternal aggressor.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are victims of Georgian imperialism boosted and backed by the US and NATO.
Russia is no victim at all. It'll take less than a half capacity of SS-24 or a quater of that of SS-18 to make a really deep black smoking hole out of your entire country. One cannot be a victim being able to do so... even in theory.
The Lawspeaker
04-16-2009, 06:55 PM
Russia is no victim at all. It'll take less than a half capacity of SS-24 or a quater of that of SS-18 to make a really deep black smoking hole out of your entire country. One cannot be a victim being able to do so... even in theory.Yes but Russia will hopefully be smart enough never to attack NATO as less then a minute after the attack ICBM's will be fired that would turn most, if not all, of Russia's important cities into smoldering craters.
And no.. how can Georgia be the aggressor when dealing with some people on their own soil. BTW South Ossetia and Abkhazia are still officially Georgia territory as perhaps only 2 countries in the world: Russia and some backwards banana republic recognized the invasion of Russian troops ?
And another point: if Georgia and NATO hold a joint exercise that's too bad for Russia: since Georgia has the right to decide with whom it teams up.
Yes but Russia will hopefully be smart enough never to attack NATO as less then a minute after the attack ICBM's will be fired that would turn most, if not all, of Russia's important cities into smoldering craters.
NATO is approaching Russia's borders, NATO is threatening to create the anti-ICBM shield.
And, no, there will be no war if the Russian army re-taked the Baltic States or the Ukraine. As any conventional forces of NATO attacking Russia will be destroyed by tactical nuclear warhead, turning Poland or Denmark into radioactive shitpile, and any ICBMs' launch by the US will lead to equally devastating counter strike.
And Yanks aren't stupid enough to die for the Baltics... or Poles... or even the Dutch.
And no.. how can Georgia be the aggressor when dealing with some people on their own soil.
According to international treaties and law.
BTW South Ossetia and Abkhazia are still officially Georgia terriroty as perhaps only 2 countries in the world: Russia and some backwards banana republic recognised the invasion of Russian troops ?
First of all, there was no invasion of Russian troops.
Second, I'm glad that nobody recognize them as sovereign nations. It will inevitably lead to their incorporation into Russia, and after that... :)
Beorn
04-16-2009, 07:11 PM
NATO's announcement of the exercises, which will involve 1,300 troops from 19 countries, comes at a time when it is seeking to rebuild ties with Russia damaged as a result of Moscow's intervention in Georgia.
How can you "rebuild ties" with a country you are slapping in the face?
NATO needs to butt out of the Russian sphere of influence and pay more attention to its own.
The Lawspeaker
04-16-2009, 07:15 PM
NATO is approaching Russia's borders, NATO is threatening to create the anti-ICBM shield.
And, no, there will be no war if the Russian army re-taked the Baltic States or the Ukraine. As any conventional forces of NATO attacking Russia will be destroyed by tactical nuclear warhead, turning Poland or Denmark into radioactive shitpile, and any ICBMs' launch by the US will lead to equally devastating counter strike.
And Yanks aren't stupid enough to die for the Baltics... or Poles... or even the Dutch.You're wrong. You are dead wrong.
If any member state would call in article 5 Russia is doomed. And I don't think a war with Russia would be conventional. Why ? It's 2008... not 1950.
And I am afraid that Russia's nuclear capabilities are overestimated. How can a country that cannot even properly maintain a nuclear power station (like your ticking time bomb at Mayak or the one that has gone off in 1986 at Chernobyl) safely stockpile a large amount of nuclear weapons ?
First of all, there was no invasion of Russian troops.
Second, I'm glad that nobody recognize them as sovereign nations. It will inevitably lead to their incorporation into Russia, and after that... :)Well let me look up the meaning of the word "invasion" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion) for you. Because that is what it was:
1: an act of invading ; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
Yes- we know that Russia is imperialistic. In essence no different from the Third Reich and it will end that way too.
If any member state would call in article 5 Russia is doomed.
They were talking more or less the same about Georgia. And? :D :D :D
And I don't think a war with Russia would be conventional. Why ? It's 2008... not 1950.
Russia will not be fighting a conventional war, for sure. It will simply use its vast nuclear arsenals.
And I am afraid that Russia's nuclear capabilities are overestimated.
Don't be :D
How can a country that cannot even properly maintain a nuclear power station (like your ticking time bomb at Mayak or the one that has gone off in 1986 at Chernobyl) safely stockpile a large amount of nuclear weapons ?
Safely or not, they're there, together with HUGE amount of biological, bacteriological anbd chemical weaponry which alone can leave the Earth without ANY advanced life forms.
Well let me look up the meaning of the word "invasion" for you. Because that is what it was:
No, it wasn't. I've explained it several times already in the Russian section. What's the matter with you? Do you have the Alzheimer decease?
Lenny
04-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Georgian imperialism:rolleyes:
Holding the mountain passes in S.O. and Abkhazia makes defense of the Georgian state pretty easy; whereas having scores of enemy combat brigades there is a defensive nightmare. There is absolutely no way to defend the country in the latter case. Holding that small area is thus vital to Georgian national security.
Neither side are ethnolinguistically Ossetian (an Iranian language), so the question is: Does one support Georgia's right to defend itself, or does one support Russia being able to have Georgia in a West-Berlin-type stranglehold, able to easily conquer it at any time?
Russia is in positon to conquer Georgia anytime, mountain passes or not.
The real question is, however, does one support internation law and rights and obligations of Russia to support its international peacekeeping forces in Georgia within limits of the international treaty, signed by both Russia and Georgia, or does one support Georgian genocide of Georgian ethnic minorities and NATO hysterical bullshitting about Russia?
Thorum
05-07-2009, 12:45 PM
How can you "rebuild ties" with a country you are slapping in the face?
NATO needs to butt out of the Russian sphere of influence and pay more attention to its own.
Wat and Loki, I think you hit the nail on the head. NATO is deliberately being provocative and projecting power in a region it has no business being in!!
Today's latest from Novosti (http://en.rian.ru/world/20090507/121475151.html):
"Georgian opposition say 23 hospitalized after clashes with police"
Georgian citizens are still pissed that their government started a war with Russia and wants President Saakashvili to resign.
Manifest Destiny
05-07-2009, 01:11 PM
Safely or not, they're there, together with HUGE amount of biological, bacteriological anbd chemical weaponry which alone can leave the Earth without ANY advanced life forms.
So the rest of the world would end up the way Russia is now?
Manifest Destiny
05-07-2009, 01:25 PM
How can you "rebuild ties" with a country you are slapping in the face?
NATO needs to butt out of the Russian sphere of influence and pay more attention to its own.
I would agree were it not for the fact that Russia thinks it's sphere of influence is actually a sphere of ownership.
So the rest of the world would end up the way Russia is now?
Of course, no. The rest of the world is clever enough to cry loudly but do nothing when the Russian army is on the move.
Manifest Destiny
05-07-2009, 03:14 PM
Of course, no. The rest of the world is clever enough to cry loudly but do nothing when the Russian army is on the move.
No, I meant be the way Russia is now; without advanced life forms.
And the last time the Russian army was truly on the move was when they were being chased out of Afghanistan. I'm sure plenty of people were crying...tears of laughter.
Thorum
05-07-2009, 03:16 PM
No, I meant be the way Russia is now; without advanced life forms.
And the last time the Russian army was truly on the move was when they were being chased out of Afghanistan. I'm sure plenty of people were crying...tears of laughter.
Hej Dresden, can I ask, are your posts adding something constructive or am I just stupid and missing the points?
No, I meant be the way Russia is now; without advanced life forms.
You're not a bright individual, right? :D
And the last time the Russian army was truly on the move was when they were being chased out of Afghanistan. I'm sure plenty of people were crying...tears of laughter.
Including the 4 million dead Afghanis?
anonymaus
05-07-2009, 03:24 PM
Hej Dresden, can I ask, are your posts adding something constructive or am I just stupid and missing the points?
He's providing an amusing response to Hors' masturbatory military fantasies, and at least one post which isn't anti-American--a disappointing ratio given the number of Americans at this forum.
What person with a properly functioning brain thinks Russia should be let off its leash?
Thorum
05-07-2009, 03:28 PM
I can not answer as I do not have a properly functioning brain. Thanks anyway. Have a nice day....
Manifest Destiny
05-07-2009, 03:28 PM
Including the 4 million dead Afghanis?
Who defeated the second most powerful nation on earth? Probably. Keep in mind that nutty Muslims don't consider death while fighting infidels to be a bad thing.
Manifest Destiny
05-07-2009, 03:29 PM
He's providing an amusing response to Hors' masturbatory military fantasies, and at least one post which isn't anti-American--a disappointing ratio given the number of Americans at this forum.
What person with a properly functioning brain thinks Russia should be let off its leash?
This.
Hors' posts are a lot like the fake DiabloBlanco14's posts. Except he's serious, which makes it more funny and more disturbing at the same time.
Who defeated the second most powerful nation on earth?
It's good you admit the fact that the Afghan Muslims defeated the US, but it took way less than 4 millions to limit the presence of the US military to several zoos where the US controlled democratic Afghanistan flourish on the US taxpayers' money.
Keep in mind that nutty Muslims don't consider death while fighting infidels to be a bad thing
Why should I keep it in mind?
Manifest Destiny
05-08-2009, 02:23 PM
It's good you admit the fact that the Afghan Muslims defeated the US, but it took way less than 4 millions to limit the presence of the US military to several zoos where the US controlled democratic Afghanistan flourish on the US taxpayers' money.
Like I said before: The fact that you actually believe this nonsense is both funny and disturbing. Did you draw a hammer and sickle on your tinfoil hat?
Why should I keep it in mind?
Because the only "positive" for the USSR in this failed attempt at imperialism was the deaths of people who aren't afraid to die. :thumb001:
Like I said before: The fact that you actually believe this nonsense is both funny and disturbing. Did you draw a hammer and sickle on your tinfoil hat?
Who cares for the rubbish you say?
Because the only "positive" for the USSR in this failed attempt at imperialism was the deaths of people who aren't afraid to die. :thumb001:
It was shown on this forum earlier that the responsibility for the Afghan war lies on the criminal government of the US.
And what makes you think the attempt was failed? Yanks like to equate their fuck-up in Vietnam with the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, but there is nothing in common. While the US army was actually defeated and routed from Vietnam by the USSR backed forces, and US puppet regime evaporated with fleeing Yank soldiers, the Soviet Union achieved its purposes and left a stable regime in Afghanistan, which lasted for a long time and fell only when the fuel supplies from Russia stopped.
Atlas
05-08-2009, 03:00 PM
http://thedecliner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/y_answers.jpg
:lol00002::lol00002::lol00002:
Manifest Destiny
05-08-2009, 03:10 PM
It was shown on this forum earlier that the responsibility for the Afghan war lies on the criminal government of the US.
And what makes you think the attempt was failed? Yanks like to equate their fuck-up in Vietnam with the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, but there is nothing in common. While the US army was actually defeated and routed from Vietnam by the USSR backed forces, and US puppet regime evaporated with fleeing Yank soldiers, the Soviet Union achieved its purposes and left a stable regime in Afghanistan, which lasted for a long time and fell only when the fuel supplies from Russia stopped.
A stable regime? The country was in a civil war for years after the Soviets left. And when the "stable regime" finally collapsed, it was in part because the Russians themselves refused to support their own puppet government. :thumbs up
By the way; the death toll for Afghans was closer to one million than four million.
A stable regime? The country was in a civil war for years after the Soviets left.
It's the fault of the US and its Muslim accomplices.
And when the "stable regime" finally collapsed, it was in part because the Russians themselves refused to support their own puppet government.
Yes.
But the difference between the Soviet backed Afghan government and the US backed Afghan and Iraq government is that the latter is not viable because the US Army is unable to inflict enought damage to guerillas, while the Soviet Army succeeded in destroying most of local opposition.
Manifest Destiny
05-08-2009, 03:24 PM
It's the fault of the US and its Muslim accomplices.
And no fault is placed on the USSR, who propped up a wildly unpopular government? And the USSR became involved in Afghanistan before the US did, so America's meddling was a response to Russian meddling.
Yes.
But the difference between the Soviet backed Afghan government and the US backed Afghan and Iraq government is that the latter is not viable because the US Army is unable to inflict enought damage to guerillas, while the Soviet Army succeeded in destroying most of local opposition.
I'd question your claim that the USSR destroyed most of the "local opposition", considering that the "local opposition" was strong enough to continue fighting for years after the USSR left and, eventually, took power in Afghanistan.
And no fault is placed on the USSR, who propped up a wildly unpopular government?
Unpopular in comparison with the Taliban "government"? :D
And the USSR became involved in Afghanistan before the US did, so America's meddling was a response to Russian meddling.
Search the fora. The topic of America's involvement was discussed in length.
I'd question your claim that the USSR destroyed most of the "local opposition", considering that the "local opposition" was strong enough to continue fighting for years after the USSR left and, eventually, took power in Afghanistan.
Question or don't, but the point is that the military operation of the USSR in Afghanistan in no way could be equated with the defeat of the US Army in Vietnam or even contemporary "occupation" of Afghanistan.
Manifest Destiny
05-08-2009, 03:40 PM
Unpopular in comparison with the Taliban "government"? :D
Neither of those two dictatorships seemed particularly popular.
Search the fora. The topic of America's involvement was discussed in length.
I'm familiar with America's involvement in that war.
Question or don't, but the point is that the military operation of the USSR in Afghanistan in no way could be equated with the defeat of the US Army in Vietnam or even contemporary "occupation" of Afghanistan.
Sure it could. Both Vietnam and the USSR invasion of Afghanistan involved a global "super power" trying to prop up an unpopular government that eventually collapsed.
Neither of those two dictatorships seemed particularly popular.
But the Soviet backed regime didn't promote the Sharia law, destruction of historical monuments and heroine production.
Sure it could. Both Vietnam and the USSR invasion of Afghanistan involved a global "super power" trying to prop up an unpopular government that eventually collapsed.
We were talking about the military side.
Manifest Destiny
05-10-2009, 07:54 PM
But the Soviet backed regime didn't promote the Sharia law, destruction of historical monuments and heroine production.
No, it promoted Soviet-style socialism which has killed far more people than the Taliban or Al Queda. :thumbs up
We were talking about the military side.
Meaning what? There were far more Vietnamese casualties than American in that war. You can "win" the casaulty count and still lose a war. Both America and the USSR have done it in the last few decades.
SwordoftheVistula
05-11-2009, 08:30 AM
While the US army was actually defeated and routed from Vietnam by the USSR backed forces
Militarily, the US never lost in Vietnam, and whenever the VietCong emerged to fight a military battle such as the Tet Offensive they lost badly. The US had to leave Vietnam because of strong domestic opposition from the left, which was boosted by opposition to conscription/mandatory military service (the Draft) which the US had in place at the time
Lenny
05-17-2009, 09:41 AM
Militarily, the US never lost in Vietnam, and whenever the VietCong emerged to fight a military battle such as the Tet Offensive they lost badly. The US had to leave Vietnam because of strong domestic opposition from the left, which was boosted by opposition to conscription/mandatory military service (the Draft) which the US had in place at the time
It was a money-sink with no endgame. There would never be tactical defeat, but there would just as sure never be strategic victory.
The old axiom: "The soldiers loses by not winning. The guerrilla wins by not losing."
It is the exact same way Washington's rebels won in the 1775-1781 war. They too lost something like 90% of battles to the far-superior British forces, but eventually the British simply got tired of the war and the cost, and the pesky American militias were showing no signs of giving up.
Militarily, the US never lost in Vietnam
If the goal of the US was just to murder zillions of gook civilians, loose several tens of thousands GIs, spend billions of US taxpayers dollars, it's true.
If the goal was not to allow the Soviet backed Northern Vietnam to seize the US backed Southern Vietnam, it isn't true.
The Lawspeaker
05-17-2009, 01:30 PM
Hors, do me a favor. Take the beam out of your own eye first !
SwordoftheVistula
05-19-2009, 10:54 AM
If the goal was not to allow the Soviet backed Northern Vietnam to seize the US backed Southern Vietnam, it isn't true.
That happened a few years after US forces were withdrawn.
Militarily, the plan was to kill large numbers of enemy combatants and achieve a high ratio of Viet Cong/NVA military dead to American, which did happen, in the hopes that eventually the Viet Cong/NVA would run out of soldiers, which did not happen. Once it was realized that the Viet Cong/NVA would not run out of soldiers or give up any time soon, the government (LBJ/Democrats) were replaced with a new one (Nixon) who scaled down the fighting and eventually withdrew the troops.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.