Democracy Now! interview with Col. Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force Colonel. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. His recent posts on Georgia have appeared on the blog NewsDissector.org.
Amy Goodman
Can you talk about significance of this, in terms of nuclear warfare in Russia? Do we have anything to fear along those lines?
Col. Sam Gardiner
Absolutely. Let me just say that if you were to rate how serious the strategic situations have been in the past few years, this would be above Iraq, this would be above Afghanistan, and this would be above Iran.On little notice to Americans, the Russians learned at the end of the first Gulf War that they couldn’t—they didn’t think they could deal with the United States, given the value and the quality of American precision conventional weapons. The Russians put into their doctrine a statement, and have broadcast it very loudly, that if the United States were to use precision conventional weapons against Russian troops, the Russians would be forced to respond with tactical nuclear weapons. They continue to state this. They practice this in their exercise. They’ve even had exercises that very closely paralleled what went on in Ossetia, where there was an independence movement, they intervene conventionally to put down the independence movement, the United States and NATO responds with conventional air strikes, they then respond with tactical nuclear weapons.
It appears to me as if the Russians were preparing themselves to do that in this case. First of all, I think they believe the United States was going to intervene. At a news conference on Sunday, the deputy national security adviser said we have noted that the Russians have introduced two SS-21 medium-range ballistic missile launchers into South Ossetia. Now, let me say a little footnote about those. They’re both conventional and nuclear. They have a relatively small conventional warhead, however. So, the military significance, if they were to be conventional, was almost trivial compared to what the Russians could deliver with the aircraft that they were using to strike the Georgians.
I think this was a signal. I think this was an implementation on their part of their doctrine. It clearly appears as if they expected the United States to do what they had practiced in their exercises. In fact, this morning, the Russians had an air defense exercise in the southern part of Russia that borders Georgia in which they—it was practicing shooting down incursion aircraft that were incursion into Russia. They were prepared for the United States to intervene, and I think they were prepared—or at least they were wanting to show the United States that their doctrine of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if the US attacks, was serious, and they needed to take—the United States needs to take Russia very seriously.
Obviously, beware DN's socialist bias
Full transcript: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/11/up_to_2_000_killed_as
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Wouldn't them being promised NATO membership, sort of class them as a major non-NATO ally?
I bet thats what they thought too 🙂
no, I get your point, and its not really that strange to think that the Americans would have aided their military, nor should it be that contensious.
I'm just worried about how Amreican or NATO troops in the conflict might be used by media sources to draw America more directly into the conflict.
Originally posted by Jovan
logic dictates that yes, but then they'll fight Russia... reason enough to slightly adjust their views on it and not get involved.
Yeah, I think it's very unlikely that they ever would. I was just trying to think from the Georgian perspective, as to how they've rationalised this nutcase move.
Originally posted by Mandos
I think this is a conflict we should avoid going into, unless human rights are threatened.
1) Killing civilians is a direct threat to civil rights so that's a moot point.
2) The U.S. ran into TWO countries in an undemocratic fashion so it would just add to the hypocrisy. Saying you are "freeing the people" doesn't mean shit.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Wouldn't them being promised NATO membership, sort of class them as a major non-NATO ally?
The reports about mercenaries shouldn't be taken as credible. Unless photos come forward and can be substantiated as true, then it will become an issue.
Originally posted by inimalistI'm just worried about how Amreican or NATO troops in the conflict might be used by media sources to draw America more directly into the conflict.
American military transport planes were used to ship Georgian troops straight from Iraq to Tiblisi to fight so apart from american troops on the frontline...they cant get more directly involved...
Originally posted by jaden101
American military transport planes were used to ship Georgian troops straight from Iraq to Tiblisi to fight so apart from american troops on the frontline...they cant get more directly involved...
lol, I think they could be more involved than that, but ya, essentially, this is what scares me.
and that the momentum of the conflict may just sweep everyone up before they have a chance to stop it
Georgia were not promised NATO membership. The US told them that it was very possible- but it was a blank check, a check they found they couldn't cash in when the took it to the bank. (In the words of an American Political Analyst on the BBC)
Fact is, does anyone want a war?
No, the United States and Britain wouldn't be able to fight one, they are tied down in the Middle East- besides they don't want to fight one anyway.
Originally posted by Mandos
Not the same thing. Goergia is a peanut on the map.
A peanut where the world's powers seem to want influence.
Like I'm saying, I don't think there is anyone who wants conflict, but couldn't russian aggression force NATO's hand much like Georgia's did Russia?
Its totally possible nothing would happen, but pretend Russia attacks Tbilisi to remove the President and decides that Georgia is once again Russia. My fear is that American and NATO commitments may occur before any rational response, or imagine that American troops who are in Tbilisi (no real indications that they are) die in a Russian bombardment. That almost requires American military response.
Originally posted by inimalist
A peanut where the world's powers seem to want influence.Like I'm saying, I don't think there is anyone who wants conflict, but couldn't russian aggression force NATO's hand much like Georgia's did Russia?
Its totally possible nothing would happen, but pretend Russia attacks Tbilisi to remove the President and decides that Georgia is once again Russia. My fear is that American and NATO commitments may occur before any rational response, or imagine that American troops who are in Tbilisi (no real indications that they are) die in a Russian bombardment. That almost requires American military response.
If they're american tropps there and they die, it will pass under silence. USA cannot afford another war. The only reason they would defend this territory is because it gives them a strategic emplacement in Eastern Europe. But I don't think that's a priority for Bush right now, nor in the couple of years coming. So the government will most likely quiet this situation down.
Originally posted by Mandos
Not the same thing. Goergia is a peanut on the map.
Originally posted by inimalist
did people want to fight ww1?(really, did they? I've always been taught it was a geopolitical situation like this that just escalated before anyone could stop it)