grylliade.org Free minds. Free markets. Free beer.

What do you suggest we do, Ken? And how far are you willing to take it: if the war moves beyond Georgia and we have Russian ordnance going off in American cities, is Georgia still worth fighting over?

Perhaps they have studied the past several years and conclude that we'd respond to an attack from Russia by invading China. :)

Yes, but when we uncover final proof of a tie between Chavez and FARC we'd go after Drew Curtis.

As a Canadian looking at the Russia/Georgia conflict, I would just like to say:

JESUS H. MURPHY FUCKING CHRIST I'M GLAD THAT THE U.S.A. IS OUR NEIGHBOR!

That is all. Resume normal snarking.

This was neither. There was no uprising at the time for them to put down. And the status of S.O. was very much in question. There were Russian peacekeepers there, for Chrissake. It was an "autonomous region" that governed itself and was part of Georgia like Taiwan's part of China, in name only. Georgia had only been independent for a handful of years in the last several hundred and its new borders had yet to be fully settled, and the fact that Ossettians hate Georgians with a passion (though it seems stupid to me, whatever historical grievances they may have) didn't bode well for coexistence within the same borders.

Nobody's happy about what Russia is doing, to understate the matter. But the fact that it was not unprovoked complicates the idea of sticking our necks out for Georgia.

Um, wasn't that putting down their own separatists?

It's a complicated and fucked situation, Ken, I'll grant you that. If you can figure out how to get Russia to act better without risking nuclear war, I'm all ears. Though I really don't see how your plan to use Georgian membership in NATO as a bargaining chip can work in the current situation, unfortunately. It would be great if it were really that simple.

I've already made some suggestions, all of them having to do with diplomacy and our allies. We'll have plenty of opportunities, on both sides, to make decisions about how far we're willing to go along the way.

In the meantime, sitting on our hands and breathing through our noses while Russia invades and occupies any ally we're not willing to suffer Russian ICBMs over is an unworkable foreign policy. Really.

Might I add, we've dealt with Russia before? Really. ...quite effectively, actually. The strategy option where we moaned a lot and boycotted the Olympics? That wasn't very effective. The option where we armed the local radicals, that one was pretty effective, but there were downsides too. What I suggested we try first would seem to avoid all that.

They're going to bomb the Baldwins for us?

And the downside for anyone in this is...

Actually, Kosovo is a much better analogy. Possibly overblown stories of possible ethnic cleansing from the past being used by foreign powers as a reason to get involved and, eventually, stand up a small province as independent. Which is one of the reasons why they're doing it; to demonstrate that we can't enrich our allies at the expense of theirs.

Submarine launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) is almost a certanty. You can figure Prudhoe Bay a likely first target. Boeing facilities, shipyards, energy infrastructure next. Land based bombers depends on how many losses the Russians would be willing to take in order to get some Bears over CONUS. The Russian surface navy would probably be sunk in the opening week of the war (with significant U.S. losses, those damned subs again).

Yeah, you could bet on a lot of ordnance hitting CONUS strategic targets. Hell, if we went to a conventional war with France,* we'd get hit. Not as hard of course, but they too have SLCMs.

*The French have a deservedly respected armament industry. They make some real good stuff.

I don't see where you explained why what I was proposing couldn't be implemented right now, fyodor.

Is this the part where you and Jennifer start claiming I said I wanted a nuclear war over Georgia?

I propose that under the auspices of NATO, we tell the Russians we're going to offer Georgia an accelerated track to NATO membership--unless Russia withdraws from Georgia. Why can't that be implemented now?

And we Yanks are over-fucking-joyed that
WE HAVE A 3000 MILE BORDER WITH THE BEST GODDAM NEIGHBOR ON THE PLANET!
This North American Mutual Admiration Society meeting is now adjourned.

Edit to mask typing dyslexia.

By Allah, J sub D, don't you know of the secret code that all Canadians keep and, if uttered by their Prime Minister in a public speech, it means that that they'll attack? You see, I know all about them Canadians. Don't let their politeness fool you.

Facts about the current status of Georgia and NATO, FWIW...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_and_NATO

It seems likely to me that Russia did this, in no small part, to thwart Georgia's integration into NATO.

If you look at the link, take a look at the Membership Action Plan--that's what I'm talkin' about! That's the kind of thing I think we should extend to them. We were going to review the decision to offer Georgia the MAP in December anyway--let's review it now. Maybe Germany and France have changed their minds--maybe they can be persuaded now.

JsubD:

I think you are underappreciating how little anyone of major military prowess wants to fight on their own turf. Capital ships are expensive, but I think there is a good sized gap between losing a carrier and launching missiles against the opponent's mainland. I think everyone involved knows what cruise missiles against civilian infrastructure would mean.

Also, Russia would back down, as you indicated. They can't win any exchange where it comes to Navy and Airforce conventional arms being deployed against static targets on the mainland.

Agreed, agreed and agreed. A scenario where we were funneling arms through Poland to Ukrainian terrorists freedom fighters is a much more realistic scenario. That too would suck royally. All the more reason to get somebody sane and competent into the White House.

What I said, and I guessed you missed it, was that under the current situation, that would seem to merely be a provocation for Russia to fully occupy Georgia and install its own puppet government, rendering its spanking new NATO membership moot. I don't see why Russia would care about such symbolic but ultimately meaningless NATO membership.

Unless this membership becomes complete and we get a request for NATO troops before Russia fully deposes the Georgian government (or maybe we honor some Georgian underground government or government in exile after Russian deposes the current one?), in which case, sure, we can send troops to Georgia while the Russians are there and risk nuclear war. No, I never said you want nuclear war, Ken. But obviously you're willing to greatly increase its risk in order to punish Russia over its actions in Georgia.

If I've got you wrong, please tell me how, and please address what I've actually said rather than make up things I didn't.

And BTW, maybe I'm wrong. If the US decides on such brinkmanship and the Russians turn tail and run rather than daring us to step into their den and see what happens, well sheesh, that would sure be nice. I suppose minds with greater expertise than either of us have in international relations are debating this right now, and maybe the ones taking your position are right, for all I know. But from where I sit, seems like the chances for success are slim and the risks very high. All for a situation that poses us no direct threat and which the nation we'd be sticking up for likely played a key role in bringing on. So as a citizen, I'd vote against your plan until you gave me some viable responses to the objections I've (repeatedly now) raised.

The more broad questions of whether we should draw a line somewhere outside our borders to defend with the "credible threat of force" and where that would be versus reserving the military option for defending our borders only, I don't know. But if we're going to choose a battlefield outside our borders to risk nuclear war over, I'd need a better battlefield than Georgia. And accelerated NATO membership seems like it'll either be A) uselessly provocative and ultimately meaningless, or B) meaningfully provocative and therefore highly dangerous. Or C) maybe it'll really scare the Russians away and teach them not to do this again. C) just doesn't seem very likely to me, and not worth the risks.

Have I made myself clear, Ken? Anyone else? Have I merely accused Ken of wanting nuclear war?

Interesting:

Now, Ames might have some bias, having lived in Russia for a while (although he is no big fan of the Russian government which shut his paper down) but this is food for thought.

The wording of the quoted paragraph is somewhat misleading. The UN resolution that Russia tried to pass mostly concerned the war between the Russians and the Georgians. It called for a cease fire in the Russian-Georgian conflict, not for an end to Georgian attacks on Ossetians. The US and British response was "well, if you want a cease fire then you should start respecting Georgia's territorial integrity and get out of their borders. Until then, we're not going to legitimize your occupation by calling for a cease-fire now." Very different animal than demanding an end to the murder of civilians.

To clarify, I don't think Russia would back down in the sense that they would go home if we engage in Georgia. I think they would back down by not escalating to our mainland if we sank a battleship or carrier. They can grind out a win in a proxy war, but we have a decisive advantage once homeland targets are green lighted.

I firmly believe that even if we all use our real uniforms and vessels, we'd agree to keep it localized and nobody's borders would be threatened.

It's a little hard to tell, that is certain, although Professor Google seems to be giving the impression that they were in South Ossetia, but nowhere else.

Again, NATO membership was already on the table. We were already going to reconsider Georgia's membership in December.

I'm glad to see us pushing Russia on other fronts too...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ie3N_5xk8Z20qcSJG0MilftDpsLwD92ISLK00

Isn't this always the way it goes? If you want to make a deal with Moscow, you gotta push. Push something they don't want, and after all the histrionics, suddenly they want to hold talks and make a deal.

Not to go all Tom Clancy on y'all, but what if the Russians already have nukes in the US, hidden in KGB safehouses in major cities/near US nuclear assets? That'd certainly change the nuclear war parameters, wouldn't it? It'd make them feel a lot more secure about playing brinksmanship games, I reckon. Like going into a poker game with a few aces hidden about your person.

On one hand, I recall someone writing that JFK told him the Soviets had nukes hidden in D.C.

On the other, the secrecy would kinda defeat its deterrence value. As Dr. Strangelove pointed out. Though on the other hand (how many??), maybe it's not a secret -- to a select few in our government!

You mean the way the Soviets actually were. But anyway ...

If we're speaking of nuclear weapons, then I concede the point. But if we're talking insidious takeover from the inside, I still say that the threat was nonexistent.

1) The Soviets were never a threat to our way of life, since they had self-interested leaders who wanted to avoid nuclear war. That said, every self-interested leader has his limits, so direct confrontations with Russian troops would be a really, really, REALLY bad idea. No matter how calculating they are, miscalculations are always possible, and that's why we fought their proxies and they fought our proxies.

In fact, the very fact that they knew better than to fight us directly is one more sign that they were never a threat to our way of life.

2) Good point, Shem. The CIA would never find those nukes. But if the KGB is anything like the CIA, it's entirely possible that a crime boss would find their concealed nukes. At that point, the list of nuclear powers would expand to include either Colombia, Sicily, New Jersey, Tijuana, perhaps an expensive Moscow neighborhood (i.e. Russian Mafia, not Kremlin), or some other stronghold of organized crime.

That would make the UN Security Council rather interesting: For a long time, permanent membership was a club for declared nuclear powers. I am trying to picture the Corleone family wielding a Vito (hah!) on the UN Security Council. Hey, couldn't be any worse than letting W and Putin issue vetoes.

I'd give this an extremely low probability. Such an operation would be far too risky.

First of all, the number of people who would need to be in on the secret (or at least a critical portion of it) is in the 500+ range. That is way too many to keep a secret over decades.

Second, the nukes would require periodic inspection and maintenance - requiring a lot of to-and-fro-ing over the years. This would be noticable. [Yes, the CIA and the FBI have had critical intellence failures, but as one Mossad operative once put it "In the intelligence business, everybody knows about your failures, nobody knows about your successes." The CIA and the FBI are NOT total incompetents.]

Third, how would the Russians secure them? We're talking about an extremely valuable and dangerous piece of ordinance, the Russians could not risk them falling into the hands of third parties. They know that the US knows the isotope profile of the fallout from their weapons. It would be extremely hard for them to explain how one of their weapons went off in, say, Galveston. So they would have to protect them, even Detroit City Police might notice if a certain building was surrounded 24/7 by heavily armed goons speaking a foreign language.

Finally, there is the risk that, if the US ever did find out about such an operation, the blow-back would be immense. The US would be at DEFCON4 about 3 seconds after the President was informed. The Russian President would be advised that every Russian ship at sea immediately either report to a neutral port and permit itself to be boarded by US personel or be blown out of the water.

The Russians carry a permanent sense of grievance at the West and a huge inferiority complex. Moscow is 'the Third Rome' in their minds and the fact that the West has considered them barbaric (to some degree) has rankled all the way back to the reign of Ivan the Terrible. They are prone to take offense at anything which runs counter to the respect to which they feel entitled.

Yes, the missile defense thing bugged them, but more because it did not accord with their wishes than the reality of the missiles. [GWB, bless his pointy little head, even offered to install some in South Russia, but the Russians dismissed the idea. I suspect that it was because they felt that the West was showing off it's technical superiority.]

The Russians were looking for an excuse to show that they were to be feared. If it had not been Georgia, some other nation would have felt their fists. I think they carefully calculated that the West would not consider Georgia worth any sort of confrontation. In that, they were right - few think it is.

As for the ceasefire, I predict that the Russians will give it lip service, but continue to do as they bloody well please in Georgia.

In what sense? That they were unable to carry off some sort of silly movie plot to get a sleeper agent elected president?

Or are you saying there were no attempts at political infiltration or propaganda?

On what planet? You certainly remember that the Cuban Missile Crisis (triggered by the Soviets) almost implemented MAD? Sorry, thoreau, but your contrarianism WRT American defense has gone too far.

And they backed down when they saw the limits.

I don't maintain that rational actors will never, ever, ever screw up, or that irrational actors