Textbook invasion of Georgia. Tactical pause. Cease fire allegedly brokered. Russia insists on doing "recon" and defending against any attacks. Some firing continues. Reports of 30,000 refugees, mostly women and children, fleeing north to Russia (the men, apparently, are remaining behind as irregular militia fighting with the Russians). Other reports indicate at least 60,000 fled south east to Tbilisi from parts of Ossetia and the town of Gori.
Time for a map to see how the situation is shaping up (Library, University of Texas, CIA maps)

Just for comparison, therather unsettling idea that we may know as much as the US government knows about the situation:
Hopefully, that is improving with the advent of military humanitarian aid, some judicious satellite manouvering and piecing together the few open source reports, we probably have a better idea today.it's "ludicrous" to assert that satellite capabilities are to blame for the administration's lack of information about the situation in Georgia. Cohen, who said he alerted the Bush administration to Russia's preparations for war in Georgia more than two years ago, said "glaring gaps" in research and analysis by the nation's national security team are to blame.
"I think this is a significant lack of policy and analysis" about events in the region, he said.
A quick overview of how the situation currently stands in Georgia (from open sources). "0" represents the jumping off point for the Russians' two divisions of heavy and light armor (appx 150 vehicles and 10,000 men). As a reminder, the numbering of these locations is simply based on an east to west accounting, not the order of battle. The exact location of the Georgians at the time of the beginning of hostilities is not 100% clear. Somewhere slightly southeast of Ts'khinvili(4) with other troops stationed around the west of Ossetia to control the territory that the Georgians have owned for about eight years. I'll refrain from trying to figure out who moved first and why since the accepted wisdom already has the Georgians allegedly deciding they were going to over run the Ossetians on a whim, without bothering to cut off the Roki Tunnel or otherwise prepare the battle space with so few forces my nephew's junior varsity football team could have taken them, but I digress.
Red squares are known Russian positions (supplemented by Abkhazian and Ossetian militia). White and red squares are Georgian positions. White and red circles are either Georgian light infantry or Georgian militia where reports of skirmishes have taken place and been confirmed. Red solid line is known route of Russian troops. Red broken line is possible route of Russian troops.
Somewhere to the north of Ts'khinvili (4), a few hours after hostilities started and the Russian army began to roll (hours later?!), the Georgians finally attempted to take out the bridge over the river at Ts'khinvili (Didi Luhkuri?). By most reports it seems that they were either forced by circumstances (such as being ill prepared, being surprised by the invasion or by Russian superior air power) to attempt to take the bridge out with artillery and land to land missilesinstead of an air raid. This was unsuccessful (though they appeared to shell it for upwards of three hours) and the Russians were able to cross from the west side to the east side of the river, driving down past Ts'khinvili (4).
In short order, the Georgians in South Ossetia were rolled back to Gori (3) where they joined possibly two or three brigades more of Georigan Army that were drawn up to defend Gori (3). We should keep in mind that the entire Georgian army is just a little over 20,000 (four divisions, 18 to 20 brigades) that were spread over the entire Georgian country including holding the pass at Zugdidi (7) against the Abkhazians, an army base at Senaki (6), another at Gori(3), southeast of Tbilisi (1) and a smaller enclave somewhere east of T'elavi (not numbered). There were possibly 2 brigades (2,000) stationed throughout parts of South Ossetia (4) to hold the territories that the Georgians controlled there for the last eight to ten years. The numbers of Georgian troops at any of these bases or within South Ossetia is purely speculative as there is little good information about their locations and activities prior to beginning of hostilities except vague outlines of troop movements and numbers from the media.
The Russians began to push south from Ts'khinvili (4) towards Gori (3) with the intention of cutting off the east-west transportation node. They may have hoped to catch the 3 to 5 brigades of Georgian army above Gori (3) with their backs against the river or possibly hoping the Georgians were foolish enough to stand and fight there, but someone on the Georgian side had come to their senses. After several hours of tactical pause and re-establishing order, the Georgians made a tactical retreat to Meshkheta (1), six miles northwest of Tbilisi, where the terrain created natural defenses and a greater portion of the eastern Georgian army were drawn up to defend Tbilisi. At most, this may be less than two divisions or 10,000 men as there are reports that the Georgian Army still exists somewhere east of Gori (3). The ranks around Tbilisi may be swelled by a few thousand volunteer militia, though, unlinked report indicated the Georgian army was first sending voluteers home. Total numbers are speculative at best. As noted here, the Georgians traded space to buy time.
Russians were reported leaving Gori (3) as if in relation to the cease fire agreement backed by Sakorzey from France, but they simply ended up going east and stopping about 12 miles northwest (2) of Tbilisi (1). That leaves only six short miles between both armies. Likely reports of continuing exchanges of SAF (small arms fire) are recon patrols or militia from either side coming into contact.
The Russians bombed Poti (8) and then blockaded the western Black Sea ports (10). Current reports have between 6 and 10 Russian navy vessals stationed off the coast. They destroyed the Georgian Coast Guard facilities. A small skirmish took place between four Georgian Coast Guard ships and several Russian vessals during the landing of Russian marines in Abkhazia. One Georgian ship was sunk, one damaged and at least one Russian ship was damaged. Galrahn from information dissemination makes an interesting point about the speed of the Russian naval advance:
While the speed of the Russian Army's response grabbed the attention of western observers, the fast response by the Russian Navy has been quite remarkable, too. The war started on Friday August 8th; the Black Sea Fleet was reported to arrive off the coast of Georgia on Saturday August 9th. That's pretty impressive, considering it is about 400 nautical miles from Sevastopol to Ochamchire. While the Moskva, Smetlivy, Muromets, and Aleksandrovets can make good speed and make the trip quickly, those ships sailed from Sevastopol with an assortment of support vessels that could only make 12-16 knots, at best. Simple math reveals that would make it a 25 hour trip, meaning the ships would have had to put to sea almost immediately after the fighting began. For any fleet to deploy that quickly is extraordinary readiness.
Additional marines (up to 4,000; reports are still questionable) landed in Poti(8) and the port at Supsa (10) was bombed along with the oil terminal and several ships at berth. Russian troops, either from Poti(8) or from Abkhazia (7) descended on Senaki (6) and destroyed a Georgian army base there along with large amounts of munitions and arms.

Where the western part of the Georgian army is at this time is anyone's guess.[guessing over: .And Georgian troops in the western city of Kutaisi(5), some 50 miles from the Black Sea coast, said they were bracing as a Russian armored patrol advanced from the west. The patrol traveled inland to a town called Abasha, which is some 23 miles from the Black Sea Coast, then later returned to a temporary base at Senaki]. There are no reports of prisoners being taken, but other reports that there are still some small, open engagements particularly around Kutaisi (5). The Georgians fear that the Russians are moving on Kutaisi(5) as reports of small engagements have been made about the area. Possibly reconnaisance or prepatory skirmishing for taking control of the city. That would finalize Russian control of the entire east to west transportation routes for Georgia. As a strategy to insure their demands are met for Saakashvili to step down and Georgia to roll over, its a very strong position for the Russians.
That is only countered by some high profile "human shields" such as the Latvian, Polish and Lithuanian presidents along with Secretary Rice, two US Senators and the French representatives flying back and forth to the city for negotiations. Still, Georgia only exists as small, free enclaves at thist time. The Russians agreed to the cease fire, but insisted that they would perform "security operations" which, at this time, seem to include moving troops wherever they want and taking control of Georgia with little resistance. The Russians are likely drawing out the negotiation for the ceasefire as long as possible to consolidate their positions. They are probably even hoping to stretch it out through the weekend, expecting any western demands to be weakened by the weekened and giving them until Monday before international public opinion stops seeing them as somewhat honest brokers and turns them into occupiers with a totally different intent.
One of which is to possibly take Saakashvili, try him in a kangaroo court and have him executed for "war crimes". As I write, somewhere in Moscow, a tribunal is preparing "evidence" of Georgian "ethnic cleansing".
Right now the Russians have upwards of 20,000 troops inside Georgia and unknown numbers staged to rotate in. Remaining Georgian army numbers, unknown.
"Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72405
The 'Wests' promises to Georgia and the other former Eastern Bloc nations are as hollow as Chamberlins promises to the Poles.
Lets hope we don't repeat those mistakes.
-5 points for "no time hack"
-10 points for "no closing French joke"
other than that, well done.
If and hopefully not, then what does that say about our foreign policy?
Entangling alliances and all that sort of discarded and disregarded advice by men far, far wiser than those who now occupy positions of power in our government.
Well, if you really insist on the French joke...
anyone noticed how fast the French showed up with a surrender document..er..ceasefire?
do they just have those things laying around in a drawer somewhere? Pre-printed with "fill in the blanks" for hostile nations to be surrendered to and territory that will be given up?
tied it in well with the current battlefield situation.
The Founders were indeed far wiser than many of us are today, especially the politicans who now lead us.
While this advice is assuredly wise and we should take heed, the world of the Founders was a much different place than today - geographically speaking, anyway. I'm not sure that even they, as learned and sage as they were, foresaw a day when our ocean barrier(s) separating us from Europe (and Asia) would not protect us as they did then, or how interconnected, interdependent, and dependent we would become with other nation-states. Alas, it would be nice to be able to withdraw into Fortress America, totally isolate ourselves from the problems of the world, and go about our own business without worrying about the rot happening elsewhere.
But didn't we find that this didn't work in 1917? Didn't we find that this didn't work in 1941?
And in 1949 when NATO was created because we were worried about Soviet/Russian expansionism the FIRST time?
I strongly suspect that, if they didn't actually leave before the shooting started, they were at least sitting waiting for it to happen.
And I'd love to let the AF prove their relevance in the power projection game, as well as the supremacy of their shiny new F-22s. I wing of A-10s, with a couple squadrons of F-22s, all controlled by AWACs, flying out of Incirlik or maybe Balad, could ruin the Russians' day right quick.
I'm sure Dusty got started drooling at the TV footage of columns of Russian armor just parked on the road, not even bothering to herringbone.
I do wonder why the hell Georgia didn't destroy the tunnel and all bridges with Russia if they were going to fight – one reason I believe they got totally suckered into it.
The Russian position isn’t that strong, their supply lines are long and vulnerable. Georgia obviously had their cream deployed in Iraq. They are back now, and I’m guessing they have a whole pile of AT4’s, RPGs, and maybe some Javelins with them. If the Russians push too far with those big clumsy convoys, there will be a roadside ambush / slaughter eventually.
It also sounds like the Russians sent in their best units drawn from other areas of the country. The idea of them being able to attack Poland right now is laughable.
A couple hundred Javelins could put a real damper on those recon in force missions the Russkies seem to be doing. Having a tank or two just blow up with little or no warning tends to make the rest right jumpy.
What if Putin has decided to move now, after 8 years of testing the waters here, to determine just how far he can push the West, and based on this, he'll know just how much he can probably get away with when everyone else's attention is diverted to the conflict with Iran when it comes ... soon?
Now, back to military aspects - Kat's analysis of S.O. importance for Georgia is excellent. The main remaining question is - why Saakashvili attacked first, without any hope to win against Russia.
Simple explanation is his stupidity, such as - he thought Putin is in Olympics and won't react, or he thought he can get to the Roki tunnel before Russians (they were waiting on the other side), or he could seal the tunnel by bombing it (you really need high precision munitions to do that), or he hoped that US will commit troops right away. Also, I do not believe in all this conspiracy theories that he was tricked into it by CIA - so that McCain can win, or FSB=KGB that tricked him into thinking that Russia will not respond.
Yet another explanation would be impulsiveness and pride and honor that makes him fight an un-winnable battle, but that borders stupidity.
The timing of the attack was also actually bad for Goergia - now only half of the news are about Georgia, and the other half is about Olympics. If they waited just two weeks, he would have gotten a 100% of media coverage.
All of the above explanations are possible, but let's assume that the parties are not stupid and have some clear goals in mind, and think a few moves ahead.
So, here is my hypothesis.
Let's start with the Putin's main goal - it's to occupy Georgia, depose Saakashvili and install a puppet governemnt so they can control the only independent corridor for oil/gas pipelines from Central Asia to Europe. Putin does not care about "fellow citizens", his thugs killed ~100,000 of real Russian citizens in Chechnya without any remorse.
The Russian invasion was being prepared for a few months.
Now my main speculation: I think Putin was waiting for US or Israel to start operation against Iran, which, I suspect was planned for right after the Olympics. There were news about air carriers converging in the Indian Ocean, and Olympics news clutter is good to cover war preparations. Once the Iran war (or may be sea blockade) started, and the world's attention were focused there, Putin would march his troops to Tbilisi without any regard to US/EU opinion - he would say, you are doing the same to Iran.
So, Georgians had no choice but to attack first. They drew Russia into the conflict, but then essentially dissolved their army, a brilliant move. Now all the world's attention is on Russia, as is most of the blame. His hope is that after Russian troops withdraw from Georgia proper, US (or maybe even EU, if it finally finds some balls) will send troops in and re-build Georgia. It was a gamble, since Putin can still try to depose him, and until Russian troops withdraw, there will be no military help. It's also a gambit, since he had to sacrifice both territories - but he did not have a chance to recover them anyway while KGB rules Russia.
IF some of the information I've read is credible (and I admit, that's a big IF given all the propaganda and misinformation flowing right now, and I don't have friends in high places to confirm diddly squat), my take on this whole mess is about what you've posited.
Whether or not the Bush admin was as clueless as some believe because of their focus on Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., I don't know. Could be. I'd hope not, though. And I'd hope that Bush was using some of his vaunted poker skills to suckering Putin into something, thereby taking advantage of Putin's well-known aggressiveness and delusions of grandeur to our benefit. Perhaps Bush really did get a peek into Putin's soul in 2001, and has been putting pieces into play ever since.
But I'm convinced this is about more than just Georgia.
I've been going through issues of an online publication styled Civil Georgia, and came across something on that tunnel, dated Aug. 13 08 / 23.5:
Saakashvili told a group of foreign journalists...on August 13, that the plan was to stop the Russian forces at the Roki Tunnel....
"...we were too late, and there were too many of them," Saakashvili said....
Then questions become:
1) When was this plan developed?
One would think that if the plan was developed in advance, before Georgia attacked, then Geogia would have had troops already in place to neutralize the tunnel. Or did the Russians just move too fast, and overwhelm Georgia despite Georgia's pre-planning?
2) Why were they too late?
See above.
I wish you were right about Bush... but I am afraid Putin fooled him again. I've read some reports that Putin told Bush that Russia will stop in S.O., and Bush believed him and agreed to that. That would explain the meek American reaction in the first few days. And now we have a bigger problem than Iran...
I have read Saakashvili interview to a semi-free Russian newspaper where he says they tried to bomb the tunnel. I am sure they had some sort of a plan, but was it realistic at all? You probably need to get a bomb inside the tunnel to collapse it, and you need a guided munitions for that. I am pretty sure that Russians had a plan to, so they probably had some special forces on the Georgian side of the tunnel.
Republicans here in America have a saying, made famous by Reagan, about Russia: "Trust, but verify."
I'm not so sure that Bush or anyone in his administration (except perhaps Powell and Rice, after being corrupted by the Foggy Bottom mentality at the State Dept) would just believe anything that Putin says at this point, after having seen his aggressive posture over the last few years, his repression of the Russian press, his poisonings of Yuscehnko and Litvinenko, and his continued support to Iran.
Counting on Russian neutrality, Saakashvili intends to seal the Roki Pass Tunnel...by airlifting Georgian troops to the South Ossetian side via helicopter,, sources in the Georgian military say.
Another quote:
Georgia is determined to bring the breakaway region of South Ossetia under its control....Although military pressure--not firepower--will be Geogia's first tactic, war appears almost inevitable.
I wasn't able to retrieve this note from the free Stratfor archives, but you can get it by searching "Stratfor Ossetia" on Google Groups.
.
It would appear the Georgians are refusing combat at this time. Whether that is because they are husbanding their strength or they are still disarrayed is unknown (at least by me). Even with their prewar strength, they would be in a poor position to defend most of the country, and would have to save their strength to defend Tiblisi. I haven't seen any pics of Georgian armor for two or three days.
A note on the strength of the Georgian army. I was under the impression that the GA consisted of 5 brigades total. Perhaps Kat is mislabelling battalions as brigades. Or these are the smallest brigades in the world. A typical US brigade is about 5000 people. Russian's use regiments instead of brigades and they tend to be much smaller, 2500-3000 per regiment.
...now the Georgia government troops are in full control of the South Ossetian capital attempting to advance further into north, the Interior Ministry has claimed.
....With Tskhinvali and surrounded areas under the Georgian control, he said, the troops were advancing further having "next target" the town of Java and the Roki Tunnel....
Civil Georgia claims to be "run by" the UN Association of Georgia and funded by the USAID.
Except us.
Russia'll go to war over Georgia. In a fight between a man who has a gun and a man barehanded, the man who wants to kill the other guy wins. The man who doesn't, loses.
People sometimes like to lose, thinking that it'll be better that way.
<B>Except us.</b>
The people at the front are usually much more interested in things happening there than bureaucrats sitting thousands of miles away.
P.S. I also postulate that Kat will be very scary if she ever got access to classified government intel sources.
I think its foul, cause neither obama nor mccain has a real historical or geopolitical grasp on whats up with <a href='http://rawdawgb.blogspot.com/2008/08/maybe-i-am-victor-von-doom.html'>Georgia & russia</a>
At a conference in...Dubrovnik over the July 4 weekend, Bruce Jackson and Daniel Fried, the State Department's top European hand, pleaded with the Georgian president to abandon hopes of defeating Russian troops. "You're not in NATO...If you get into this, you're in it yourself," Jackson recalled Fried telling Saakashvili. "Nobody's coming. There's no cavalry."
Jackson said he was less diplomatic. "I went further than Fried could go, and I pointed out that Georgia hasn't won a war against anyone for 2000 years."
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77"
"But didn't we find that this didn't work in 1917? Didn't we find that this didn't work in 1941?"
WE had no entangling alliances in WW1, it was the entangling alliances of the Central Powers and the Allies that led to that horrible, senseless, slaughter. The US had no dog in that hunt, it was just another European squabble (albeit on a larger scale) that we had no national security interest rationale for involving ourselves in.
The resulting debacle of the entangling alliances of both those combatants should prove the validity of the Founders, in this case, Jeffersons advice.
WW2 was a critter of a different color, but was a direct result of our military involvement into the European war of WW1.
Commonality in both conflicts regarding our involvement were the actions of our Presidents who, despite repeated promises of neutrality and impartialty, were in actuallity, engaged in behind the scenes actions that were anything but, impartial or neutral.
Non-intervention is NOT the same as Isolationism. We can be very involved on the diplomatic, commercial and multiple other fronts without having to interject military force into the equation.
"Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168
"Fortress America", with armed to the teeth neutrality works for me, and worked, as long as we retain(ed) our ideals of Republic. I advocate a return to our founding principles of non-interventionism, a rejection of our overbearing Federal government and an end to the days of destructive, unsustainable, unafforadable interventionism and empire.
Like it or not, the nation cannot afford our 'empire'. Thems the facts folks.
It is long past time to return to what once made our nation, our Republic, the brightest shining beacon of freedom and liberty the world had ever known. We have forgotten and/or disregarded the principles we were founded upon. The results are sadly evident to all but the deliberately blind.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. " John Adams.
For the complete version of Adams speech; http://www.fff.org/freedom/1001e.asp
The question before you, where goes America? A Republic or an Empire? Your choices will determine the future of generations to come.
Your "kindness" to be willing to allow other countries to trade and have limited relationships, but with absolutely no commitments. I wonder if Adams would have been so arrogant to make that speech, if other Nations followed your concepts. During the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, other Nations helped us in some very tough spots. We had the Prussian and French in the Revolutionary War. Prior to the War of 1812, we had shut our Navy completely down. There were pirate attacks on our commercial shipping just North of South America. The FRENCH were the ones who provided security, until we could rebuild a Navy.
The important thing to remember about this whole crisis, every time we enter a situation without true alliances, it has been a fiasco. In many ways, European Union and NATO are taking the lead.
Every member of the US Military always remembers one thing, they made a COMMITMENT.
Grumpy