Let's begin:
In the summer of 2008, Russia's army intervened militarily in an independent state for the first time since the Soviet Union's disastrous campaign in Afghanistan. ...
Russia launched armed action against Georgia to come to the rescue of South Ossetia, a small pro-Russian separatist region where Tbilisi had begun a military operation.
Russia already controlled South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which were breakaway regions of Georgia. Normally, you'd think that Georgia was fully justified in beginning military operations on their own territory to bring separatists to heel.
Russia didn't intervene in an intra-Georgian conflict. Russia, I judge, lured Georgia into striking the separatists and then sucker-punched Georgia:
The ramshackle Russian military, rusting away for two decades now, miraculously put together an invasion of Georgia, flying in paratroopers even from distant bases, within hours of being attacked by Georgia? You seriously believe that version of events?
Russia got their South Ossetian goon allies to shoot at the Georgians and the Gerogians obliged by shooting back--which triggered the overt Russian invasion of Georgia. That is the reality of the situation.
Georgia fell for the provocation and gave Russia the excuse to invade. Although to be fair to Georgia, the Russians may have invaded anyway even if Georgia had held fire initially. Russia just would have needed to lie just a little more in that case to make up the Georgian provocation.
And really?
The Russian army rapidly outnumbered the Georgian forces and threatened to take the country's capital.
That just happened? In a war Georgia "started" Russia managed to rapidly outnumber the Georgians at the edge of Russia's rump empire with forces ready to fight?
The war was clearly a rehearsed act of aggression (quoting RFE/RL):
Less than one month before Russia's armed forces entered Georgia on August 8, they held massive military training exercises in the North Caucasus involving 8,000 servicemen and 700 pieces of military hardware.
At center stage in those maneuvers -- which took place in the second half of July, not far from Georgia's border -- was Russia's 58th Army, the very unit that would later play a key role in the incursion.
Those exercises are just one link in a chain of incidents suggesting that Russia's military action in Georgia was planned months in advance, awaiting only an appropriate pretext to act.
And what am I to make of this?
A peace treaty was finally hammered out by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy that led to the withdrawal of Russian forces. But Moscow recognised as independent the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where it has stationed a large military presence ever since. ...
Russia opted not to annex the two Georgian separatist regions, but only to recognise their independence, although they found themselves under Moscow's de facto patronage after the war.
So Russia pulled their spearheads out of Georgia which had made a thrust toward the Georgian capital, Tblisi. And Russia recognized as "independent" the two breakaway regions? Which Russia then garrisoned? Because the regions "found themselves under Moscow's de facto patronage?" It almost sounds like it just kind of happened out of nowhere in this war between Russia and Georgia.
Russia (and a couple others) recognize the independence of those two breakaway regions. Russia in fact owns the territory fully and only technically has not annexed them.
And this packs a lot of BS into one paragraph:
Russia demonstrated its military might over the five days and showed its readiness to defend -- by force, if necessary -- its interests in the region it considers its sphere of influence.
The war demonstrated Russia's military might? Good grief, the Russians won but not through the glorious skills of their armed forces.
And who on Earth granted Russia the right to define their "sphere of influence" over independent, recognized countries which are members of the UN--which in theory grants them protection from having territory seized by an aggressor?!
And now we are getting into the heart of greater stupidity and fantasy:
While the Russian army has not openly invaded [the Donbas region of Ukraine], Kiev and Western countries accuse Moscow of giving military and financial assistance to the rebels who set up two separatist republics in the east. Moscow has consistently denied this.
Russia has in fact invaded Ukraine. First in Crimea and then in the Donbas. Russia has armed rebels in the Donbas, but more importantly has sent in men--mercenaries and temporarily detached army troops--to become "the rebels" and has sent in the regular Russian army in battalion-sized units in sometimes substantial numbers, and supported by logistics and artillery support based inside Russia.
But Russia denies it. So who's to say, eh? To Hell with that game, as I've written:
Over-analyzing Russia's deception causes the West to miss the point that "hybrid warfare" is very simple: Russia invades a country; Russia denies it has invaded a country; and the West goes along with Russian denials.
That's it. The West could have reacted very differently by simply refusing to go along with the Russian denials and acting on what we knew was going on--Russia had invaded a free (if corrupt) country.
Instead we act is if we need CSI: Donbas to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russians are fighting inside Ukraine on the orders of Putin.
And good grief:
Both in Georgia and Ukraine, Moscow's aim was to stop its neighbours shifting towards NATO by any means. This is an unthinkable prospect for Russia, which since the fall of the Soviet Union has increasingly condemned NATO's willingness to expand its borders.
Look, NATO didn't rip the Soviet empire apart--components of the Soviet Union and the entire Warsaw Pact vassals fled Russian control just as freaking fast and permanently as they could when Soviet control faltered! Hell, the Russians wanted out of the USSR as eagerly as the rest of the empire!
And NATO didn't conquer those former vassal states--those states asked NATO to let those states to join NATO for their protection. And NATO set conditions of governance and behavior to let them in the club.
Can you blame those state for wanting to get out of Russia's orbit while they could given that outcome is "unthinkable" but possible only because Russia was too weak to stop them? What would happen when Russia recovered strength and those states found themselves out of NATO protection? Well, what happened to Georgia would happen. Or to Ukraine. Or to Moldova for that matter.
And back to Russia's "right" to order neighbors to behave:
"In South Ossetia, Russia taught the ex-Soviet countries a lesson. It showed them that there was no way they could adopt a different model of development," said analyst Konstantin Kalachev.
The assumption that Russia has the right to teach that "lesson" is amazing! And the lesson is actually that the only protection from having Russia impose its will on you is to get closer to NATO as much as possible--entering NATO if possible.
But the painful journey through this article at last arrives at some truth:
While Moscow intended through the wars with Ukraine and Georgia to gain recognition for its interests and sphere of influence, the wars have chiefly contributed to a deep rift with Western countries, experts said.
Russians--and too many Westerners--will argue that Russia needs buffer states to keep the West from invading them. But instead the two wars Russia waged against Georgia and Ukraine (and Moldova is still pretty much ignored) turned a West that was happy not to think about Russia into one that is rearming to resist Russia.
What a brilliant job, Russia. Bravo. Well done. For God's sake, the Russians even turned American Democrats against them.
Remember, those SOBs are still making threats over who Georgia can align with:
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday that any future NATO decision to admit Georgia to its ranks could trigger "a terrible conflict" and he questioned why the alliance was even considering such a move.
As an aside, bravo to Putin for not being able to see his lips move as Medvedev "spoke."
Russia can try to whitewash their aggression in 2008. Don't let them.
