Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: How defensible is Georgia against Russian invasion relative to the Baltics?

  1. #16
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,869
    considering control of two large footholds in South Osetia which is post mountains (between Russia and Georgia), and in Abhazia, it wouldn't take long for Russian Army to defeat Georgian forces. Last time they stopped just 60km from Tbilisi (capital of Georgia). So blitzcreig in for Russia in Georgia is possible.... but then Russia will have to retreat and will only have bigger problem

    Another issue is - I doubt Russia has capability or willingness to occupy and control Georgia.... it would require lots of resources and will give no benefit.

    ps. The Black Sea fleet is sufficient to take control and deploy troops to coastal Georgia, unless Turkey's air force step in. But Turkey's airbases are not covered properly with SAM defence... which make them a solvable problem

  2. #17
    Regular
    Join Date
    02 Nov 10
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Josh View Post
    But why should NATO care about Ukraine or Georgia? I'm not at all for Russian expansionism into this region but I for one am not willing to pay any blood or treasure to stop them that close to their border. It is a logistical nightmare. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets it's border states.
    Russian annexation means they end up right on NATO's border again. We could obviously scrap NATO and let the Euros deal with the Russians by themselves. The problem is this - when one large state fights a coalition of small states, the big state usually wins, by augmenting its strength with the resources and population of each small state it defeats in detail.
    Last edited by Mithridates; 12 Sep 18, at 01:42.

  3. #18
    Regular
    Join Date
    23 Oct 13
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithridates View Post
    Russian annexation means they end up right on NATO's border again. We could obviously scrap NATO and let the Euros deal with the Russians by themselves. The problem is this - when one large state fights a coalition of small states, the big state usually wins, by augmenting its strength with the resources and population of each small state it defeats in detail.
    As far as I'm concerned, Russia is allowed to be next NATO's border (and is in several places). The problem is when they cross that border. Trying to fight them in Georgia is a lost cause; the Russians already control any defensible territory. I don't condone the Russians' invasions of neighboring non NATO countries, but I'm not willing to supply NATO troops for a logistical lost cause and a political nightmare. In my opinion allowing the Baltics to join already was a bridge too far: they are all but impossible to defend against a determined Russian attack and losing them would destroy NATOs credibility, requiring a costly drawn out conflict.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,935
    So liberty is only for those whom it is possible for those the 'west' have logistical access to? The Polish routes for reinforcement are not to good via Germany as Gen Hodges drew attention to when calling for a "military Schenghen" in Europe so should Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states be given up - regardless of the will of their population to be free of the Muscovite tyranny - simply because of logistical problems that in time could be overcome? This my friend I regard as a short sighted view and bending to the Muscovite "might is right" propaganda.

    In Ukraine - where we fight every day against them and shall defeat them - what was it Churchill said? "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job" we protect Europe against a criminal mafia regime and think it is our duty. If you do not understand that all the 'west' is currently being attacked by this Checkist mafiosi regime in Moscow but that only Ukraine is fighting in the field then you have either selective blindness or have not been keeping up.

    Freedom is the right given by God to Man - particularly Eve who ate the apple. It is not a state given 'right' but a natural birthright. Likewise it is not your to say that those of who families have lived in central Europe for generations accept another Muscovite tyranny and the atrocities that would follow.

    Liberty is not free - when you realise that you may perhaps not be so giving toward your true enemies at the expense of your true friends.

  5. #20
    Regular
    Join Date
    23 Oct 13
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    So liberty is only for those whom it is possible for those the 'west' have logistical access to? The Polish routes for reinforcement are not to good via Germany as Gen Hodges drew attention to when calling for a "military Schenghen" in Europe so should Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states be given up - regardless of the will of their population to be free of the Muscovite tyranny - simply because of logistical problems that in time could be overcome? This my friend I regard as a short sighted view and bending to the Muscovite "might is right" propaganda.

    In Ukraine - where we fight every day against them and shall defeat them - what was it Churchill said? "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job" we protect Europe against a criminal mafia regime and think it is our duty. If you do not understand that all the 'west' is currently being attacked by this Checkist mafiosi regime in Moscow but that only Ukraine is fighting in the field then you have either selective blindness or have not been keeping up.

    Freedom is the right given by God to Man - particularly Eve who ate the apple. It is not a state given 'right' but a natural birthright. Likewise it is not your to say that those of who families have lived in central Europe for generations accept another Muscovite tyranny and the atrocities that would follow.

    Liberty is not free - when you realise that you may perhaps not be so giving toward your true enemies at the expense of your true friends.
    From a practical point of view I'm not willing to fight Russia in certain territories where it has an obvious advantage. That said, the Baltics are NATO countries and any attack on them requires a decisive NATO response. As for the Ukraine, I'm all for supplying the country with weapons, but my country has no treaty obligation with the Ukraine and we have a number of other conflicts we are already engaged in. Georgia, same-same. Any direct conflict between the US and Russia is a conflict between major nuclear powers so the gains must justify the risks.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 226
    Last Post: 19 Feb 15,, 13:04
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17 Sep 14,, 20:25
  3. US anger at Russian Georgia vote
    By xrough in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 30 Aug 08,, 09:44
  4. Russian's in Georgia
    By VarSity in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12 Aug 08,, 07:42
  5. Georgia Says It Fired on Russian Plane
    By Kansas Bear in forum International Politics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 26 Aug 07,, 05:13

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •