Talk:Russo-Georgian War

new addition to airforce evaluation

The recent addition has several points that need to be revised:

1. The citation is not directly pointing to the source used
2. 2 citations for the same source
3. Much to long, no need to go into detail and name individual pilots, nor individual bombing runs
4. losses need to be moved to the losses section
5. Calling destruction of a bomber "tragic" shows POV and should be avoided (I am sure that the downing of a Russian bomber was far from tragic for those who had otherwise been bombed). We need to not take sides, apart from stating that all deaths in war are tragic in general.

If you correct point 1, I can do the rest myself, but I want to give you a chance to revise it yourself first. --Xeeron (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I will try and fix it, but should I miss it, I am sure someone can manage that daunting task, as it linked to the only clickable book.

I cite my paragraphs, and the source is 144 pages long, so instead of of cluttering up the citations, by saying source X p.1 and source X p.51, in an already long article, I just cited the article, twice. I can site the same article, several times with page numbers, if you want.

The only bombing run named as the Tu-22M bombing run. Considering that the loss of a strategic bomber shocked pretty much everyone, I felt I need to go into detail, solely about that bombing run. I did not go into details on any other bombings runs. The names are mentioned to show credibility, that I didn't just make it up. If you want, we can create another sub-article, about air warfare, and I'll place the names there instead, but they should be placed somewhere.

I thought a summary would be nice, but whatever. Additionally, it is crucial to point out that, aside from the T-22M, the Russians only lost 2 skilled pilots. Russia doesn't care about the planes they lose; Lt. Col. Kolybash was back in action on another Su-25. The loss of a skilled pilot hurts, but the loss of a plane - not really. That goes for Russia, US, Italy, any country with first World military units.

Tragic death referred to the manner in which the bomber was shot down, i.e. instead of being at 16,000 meters, it descended to 4,000 meters, and was killed, because it was not doing what it was assigned to do. In military terms, that's called a tragic death, irrespective of who shot it down. If it was shot down at 16,000 meters, I would not call it a tragic death. My apologies for trying to use military terminology in a military article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting No1, I'll deal with the other points then. If you think a subarticle with the long version is needed, feel free to create it. --Xeeron (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing was sloppy, and you turned facts into opinions. First to the sloppiness part. 2 Su-24s were shot down, not 4, and no one claimed that. And a Tu-22M has 4 pilots, not 3. You completely ignored the important part about the pilots being lost as the meat of the additions, and instead turned it into a disagreement between Lavrov and the MDB, which is very difficult, because they both work with CAST, and Lavrov was simply updating MDB's data. It's not Lavrov's opinion that Georgians didn't get any Su-25s, that's a fact. As for adequate and admirable, that's an opinion, the part that you kept, and the part that mattered least. Readers care about facts, not opinions. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Very funny that you would accuse me of sloppy editing, when you introduced those numbers into the article. I merely copy and pasted them to a different section. Of course, I admit that it was a mistake by me to trust your addition without looking the numbers up myself. --Xeeron (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Georgians shot down 2 Su-24s, one on August 9th, another on August 11th. I went into detail about every plane lost. This is why we actually post facts, detailed facts. The 4 was a typo on my part. Deleting the correct facts, and copying the typo was sloppy editing. And it's funny how you quickly upped the Russian casualties, Russia claimed 3 Su-25s and 1 Tu-22M, you upped it to 6 Su-25s, 2 Su-24s and 1 Tu-22M, as per Lavrov's facts, but when it came to explaining the losses, you went ahead and claimed: back to short version. As long as there are different claims (notably from the Russian government), this is Lavrov's opinion and not a fact. If you love Russia's Government claims so much, why did you try to reinsert Svante Cornell's claims earlier. Or Pavel Felgenhauer's 1,200 tanks theory, whereas US satellites captured only 150 tanks. Seems like you are just picking and choosing, and not really applying the same standard everywhere. And just so you know, Lavrov's claims were shown to Russia's Gov't, and acknowledged by Russia's Gov't. In fact, Russia's Gov't. withheld the publishing date of Lavrov's article, until all the problems were remedied. Lavrov's sources are in the Russian Air Force, which has the best factual information about the Russian Air Force. Is it ok if I trust the Russian Air Force's facts about the Russian Air Force? Or are you claiming that the Russian Air Force isn't part of Russia's Gov't? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go "detail about every plane lost", do it at Evaluation of the Russian forces performance during the 2008 South Ossetia war or whatever subarticle you prefer. The main article here has no place for such details. --Xeeron (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Lavrov, Russia lost 9 planes. According to Barabanov, Russia lost 6 planes. Here Lavrov's data, that Russia lost 9 planes, would be more detrimental to Russia, than Barabanov's claim that Russia lost 6 planes. The more planes Russia lost, the worst it is for Russia. Thus, in the losses column, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#Equipment_losses_and_cost, Lavrov's fact is more detrimental to Russia.

However in the analysis column, Barabanov's analysis is more detrimental to Russia, than Lavrov's. A consistent, NPOV editor would go with either Barabanov, or Lavrov. An editor wanting to update the article, would go with Lavrov, as that is the update on Barabanov. Xeeron just takes the most detrimental information about Russia that he can get, and posts it, irrespective of consistency. Xeeron was quick to update Barabanov's numbers with Lavrov's, but when it came down to analysis, Xeeron went with Barabanov's. So he's using Lavrov's numbers, and Barabanov's analysis. Aside from anti-Russian POV, there is simply no explanation for his edits, thus I undid them.

And before you claim "Article too Long" or "we do not have space for this" - keep in mind that the MBD analysis, parts of which I removed, can be used to make space, and I already deleted the names, as a compromise, meanwhile you offered no compromise on the matter. And I've corrected the citations as well! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice lies once more, since I kept both Lavrov's and Barabanov's analysis in the article. Just as I kept both MDB's old and Lavrov's new numbers in the article. So the readers would see both and can decide for themselves.

Oh and do you think Barabanov is going to say "Oh, Russia lost more planes than I initially knew of, so surely they must have done better than I thought"?? If anything, his analysis is reinforced by the new numbers. --Xeeron (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You trimmed Lavrov's analysis to mere opinion. You had previously worked your ass off to take away an NPOV quote, this one:

External observers frequently miss the point that Russia’s stake in the conflict over the unrecognised republics is much higher that that of Georgia’s entry into NATO or the destabilisation of energy transit routes that bypass Russia. Russia simply could not afford to lose: in view of the harsh nature of the conflict in Abkhazia and Georgia in the early 1990s, Georgia’s seizure of these territories would mean ethnic cleansing, and the flight to Russian territory of many tens of thousands of embittered and armed refugees. The loyalty of the North Caucasus republics of North Ossetia and Adygeya, tied by blood relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, would be undermined. North Ossetia, moreover, is the largest and most loyal autonomous republic in the region. Russia would have been shown to be weak before the entire North Caucasus, and this would have marked a return to the situation of the 1990s. The reaction of the international community to Russia’s war with Georgia, no matter how harsh, could not compare in significance to the implications of a new war in the North Caucasus. Georgia’s attempt to export the ethnic conflict that it created in the early 1990s to Russian territory had to be intercepted at any cost

because the quote was too pro-Russian for you. You then went ahead and claimed, along with Biophys, that a source quoted by both sides, isn't NPOV. And now you are accusing me of lying? Barabanov didn't know the real reason that the Tu-22 was shot down. Lavrov did. It's a big difference if a plane is shot down due to a poor command, or if there is a mechanical defect, or pilot error. None of this matter to you, and thus you want to hide details from the reader as well. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, weren't you the guy arguing about how Russians outnumbered Georgians 2 to 1, because Svante Cornell said so? Someone should write a parody on his book. Anyways, you, or the source you are defending, seems to be having trouble again: if you go by planes, 9 were lost, but only 4 were damaged beyond repair by friendly fire. 4/9 isn't half, which makes Barabanov's analysis outdated. If you go by pilots, then once again, only 1 out of 5 died due to friendly fire, and 1 out of 5 isn't 50%. No matter how you spin it, when it comes to Aviation, Barabanov's initial analysis is incorrect, and Barabanov acknowledged this, it's too bad you cannot read Russian, otherwise you'd actually know that the update was done by Barabanov, Tseluiko and Lavrov, all three of whom edited it. It's called an update Xeeron, not a counter-argument, as you try to present it. At the time of the writing, Barabanov knew only about 6 Russian planes; when he found out about 3 more, he let Lavrov correct his analysis. And if you dare to accuse me of lying again, I will call you out on it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You said that I was "using Lavrov's numbers, and Barabanov's analysis", when in fact my edit left both number and analysis by both (and Lavrov's analysis even a good bit longer than Barabanov's) in the article. So your statement was a lie, plain and simple. And you are not saying the truth once more in your next statement: "because the quote was too pro-Russian for you." is wrong. My reasons are stated clearly in the talk page archive. As are those by the other 6 people who all disagreed with you including that part.

Regarding the analysis, you still have not explained how losing more aircraft amounts to a better evaluation. Or how losing units to friendly fire is inherently better than losing them to enemy fire. I see you didn't take up the link offered above either. If you want to get your every detail for each plane down, do it there, but stop blowing up the main article by unneeded detail. --Xeeron (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If Russia loses 6 Su-25s, but only one pilot, that would be better for Russia than losing 3 Su-25s and all 3 pilots; it really is not hard to get for anyone who views human life above money. The US Air Force works in the same manner, and has been working in the same manner during and after World War II. Additionally, it is important to know exactly how and airplane was shot down. Was it engine failure? Was it pilot error? Was it portable launcher? Was it set launcher? My edits did not expand the article. I replaced outdated material (written by Barabanov,) with new material, edited by Barabanov. It's called an update.

Are you aware of what an update is? The material that you continue to reinsert is outdated and incorrect. Just like Svante Cornell's was, and yet you fought tooth and nail to keep it in. Unlike Svante Cornell and Pavel Felgenhauer, Barabanov actually admitted his mistake, and hired an avionics expert, Anton Lavrov, to update Barabanov's article. I have repeatedly pointed out to you that it is an update, and you, knowing full well that it is an update, keep on edit warring, just like you did with Svante Cornell's claim saying that "Russian troops outnumber Georgians 2 to 1". If read page 2 of the source, you will notice that Barabanov is the editor of the entire book, meaning that he is responsible for every article within it. An update is where Barabanov's article with old material, is updated with Lavrov's article with new material, updated by Barabanov. But none of it matters to you, you just blindly revert and hope that someday FutPerf bans me for edit-warring.

And stop accusing me of something I did not do. about individual bombing runs has no place in the main article - I'm not talking about individual runs. I am talking about a single bombing run, (you do know that using the "s" in the English language means it's plural, right Xeeron?) a single bombing run, only because in it, I explain that the Tu-22 was shot down due to an order given by either a moron or a traitor, to descend from 16,000 meters to 4,000 meters, which is something that the Tu-22s never do. Additionally, Su-25s were used for scouting, so Tu-22 scouting would have been unnecessary.

You should also stop attacking new users that you do not like. What you did to NC1701 was just plain wrong, and you're doing it again: Could you please leave an explanation for this edit at the talk page? As discussed there, the version you reverted to is not backed up by the sources given. Additionally, you reverted to a version with double citations Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.157.98.136#Edits_at_2008_South_Ossetia_war - Xeeron, I am sure that you can explain how a version that is not backed up, is double cited. His edit was correct, he undid your version, which restored the old update. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop your baseless accusations. If you check the diff provided on that talk page, you will easily see that changes were made at 2 different parts of the article. The upper change is the one with the double citation, while the lower change is the one not backed up by sources given.

You also fail to mention what actually happened to User:Nc1701, namely that he was blocked as a sock puppet. If you think it is "plain wrong" to inform admins about suspected sockpuppets at the noticeboard created for that purpose, you should change your attitude towards our policies here. --Xeeron (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

NC1701 was blocked because you managed to successfully convince the Administrator that banned him, that his edits were the same as that of Billy Mays. Brilliant argument Xeeron, I can never pull off saying that edits arising out of a copy-paste of the archives of the discussion page, are the same as edits based on common sense, the first paragraph of the article, the map and the talkpage, were the edits that, to quote you "demonstrated a deep knowledge of the previous discussion ('which is mainly buried in the lengthy archives') and cited wikipedia rules". So please Xeeron, do tell, which edits of Billy Mays demostrated a deep knowledge of the previous discussion and are buried in lenghty archives? Name just one. After all, you used that argument to get both blocked, as sockpuppets, let's see you back it up. The truth will come out eventually, and the sooner, the better. And if an edit is double cited, you fix the citation, instead of just undoing the entire edit, on a technicality. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, once again - it's an update

Both were edited by Barabanov. Article A was published earlier than Article B. Article B was published later, and has better data. Since they were both edited by the same editor, Article B is an update of Article A. I really don't know how much clearer I can make it for you. And my edits in other articles doesn't give you the right to prevent me from updating this article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Update all you want as long as you are consise and short. Instead you insert again and again your lengthy text. And when I try to shorten it myself, you revert. The detailed version, the information about single planes, whether they flew at 4000 or 16000m, the text about changed introduced after the war, all that has its place elsewhere, but not in a section of this article that tries to evaluate the performance of the whole Russian effort in about half a page. You should extent some effort to writing a readable article, and not just "winning" your talk page battles. --Xeeron (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, you really disgust me. Do you go around attacking other editors all the time? I'm surprised that the administrators have not been notified of this. HistoricWarrior007, you must not let this lout push you around. I laud you for your defense of 99.157.98.136 here. Keep up the good work. I think we are nearing our success in banishing Xeeron from Wikipedia. Thanks for your assistance. The Reformed Editor (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@HistoricWarrior: For you benefit, I'll assume that you have no connection to that person and no idea about "our success in banishing Xeeron from Wikipedia". --Xeeron (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, I've pretty much been focusing on modern military articles. I haven't seen The Reformed Editor, or at least don't recall seeing him in any of them. For once, we agree, I don't seek to "banish" anyone from Wikipedia. It'd be interesting to check "The Reformed Editor" against the people who edited this article, to see if any of them are puppets of the "Reformed Editor". Nor have do I recall "The Reformed Editor" trying to banish you from Wikipedia; it just looks like someone trying to make me look bad. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I am certain that it's a set up, to make me look bad, because "The Reformed Editor", or his alternative sockpuppet, had no interactions with either one of us. Looks like someone wants us (Xeeron and me) to declare war on each other or something, and took tried used this cheapshot, as a provocation. My defense of the IP was based on his talkpage's discussion, and his edits, not on his bullying or banishing of other editors, which he hasn't done as far as I am aware, and if he did, I wouldn't be defending him. I just like the IP's edits at Felgenhauer's article, where the IP pointed out that Felgenhauer, initially claimed that Russians were going to lose the war, and after the Russians won a major victory, without apologizing or correcting his majestic self, Felgenhauer blamed the Russians for provoking the war. This was missed by most editors, and the IP pointed it out, something I've immediately commended the IP on (as soon as I noticed it). I also like the IPs edits in this article, hence I defended the IP, User talk:99.157.98.136. Of course users who see conspiracies everywhere will think differently. Since "the Reformed Editor" is justly banned as a sockpuppet, I consider this issue dropped. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edit

Can someone take a look at this, where Xeeron reverted FeelSunny? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=next&oldid=347286206 FeelSunny's valid point was that it was a counterattack, not an invasion, and thus the word invasion should be in quotes, since a counterattack isn't the same as an invasion, i.e. US counterattacked the Taliban, US didn't invade the Taliban. I think FeelSunny's version is better, as it makes more sense, and is more NPOV, as counterattack is a much better description, than an invasion. 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that your POV pushes you towards labeling it a counterattack, but that does not stop the source which we quote for that part from using the word invasion. So counterattack is a misquotation. --Xeeron (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed the above edit. Xeeron had quoted directly from the source, there was nothing amiss about this edit. Regardless of what is a better descriptor, direct quoting of the source took place. Outback the koala (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Makienko's Incorrect Analysis

Opposition affiliated Russian analyst Konstantin Makienko pointed out the poor performance of the Russian Air Force: "It is totally unbelievable that the Russian Air Force was unable to establish air superiority almost to the end of the five-day war, despite the fact that the enemy had no fighter aviation."[349]

However we know that to be untrue. The MiG-29s established superiority in the air, and Georgia's air force was unable to do any serious damage to the Russians - it just slowed them down. Throughout the war the Russians flew over 100 sorties, the Georgians managed just under 10 after August 8th. If that's not air superiority, I don't know what is. I'm all for different opinions, but if something is incorrect, shouldn't it be removed? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of out of context and comes down to whose interpretation of the term "air superiority" you want to use. Russia obviously controlled the skies, but this author's idea of air superiority seems to mean being virtually unopposed with no losses. Further in the article he talks about Russian air losses, and says: "One possible explanation for the Russian Air Force's failure to suppress Georgian air defense is that its pilots most likely had not been practicing such missions — as this kind of training had proved irrelevant in both Chechen campaigns. On the other hand, the Russian Air Force found itself pitted against much more advanced air defense systems in Georgia (mostly Buk-M1 s) than NATO pilots had in Iraq and Yugoslavia (obsolete Kub/Kvadrat (SA-6) and even S-125 (SA-3) SAM systems)." - perhaps that last part should be added? The "it's unbelievable" comment doesn't exactly match up with his further analysis. LokiiT (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Russia and US have the two best air forces, (arguably,) in the World. Russians know they had air superiority, so let's take a look at the US' definition: (DOD, NATO) That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. (DOD means Department of Defense.) Notice that the USAF's manual points out that there is an air battle, so this author's definition of "air superiority" actually contradicts that of the USAF, and the RAF (Russian Air Force), and NATO's definitions. That being said, I completely agree with the rest of your comment. Thus, I think the guy should be removed, but please do as you feel is right. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevant question is: What is "prohibitive interference"? Namely, do you count the Georgian air defenses as such. --Xeeron (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the Georgian Air Defense only shot down the Russian bombers when they went beyond the capacity of performing their duties, nope. MiG-29s established Air Dominance. Tu-22M shouldn't have been used in this war at all, and definetely not at 4,000 meters. Su-24s should not have been out there that long. They're supposed to make the bombing run, and fly back to base, not attempt to make several bombing runs. However all bombers were hit after completing their primary mission, dropping the bombs. The Russian Air Force prevented the Georgian National Guard from mobilizing by bombing its centers of gathering. And the Georgian Air Defense failed to shoot down a single Su-25 (Russia's primary bomber in this war) and scratch a single MiG-29 (Russia's primary fighter in this war). Thus I don't think that Georgian Air Defense "prohibitively interfered" with Russia's Air Force. I should also point out that the Serbs shot down NATO's plane, and NATO still stated that they established air superiority from the beginning, and proved it by bombing Serbia into submission. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2010 (UT==C)

Well, you are certainly entitled to that view, but I am asking about sources. After all, we can't quote your opinion in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the Russian Air Force wasn't prohibited from preventing the Georgian National Guard from mobilizing, which is stated in the "Tanks" source, and numerous other sources, there was no prohibitive interference. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgia's Poor Performance

I don't understand, Georgia bought all this expensive cutting edge military technology from the United States, and then they launched an attack without even bothering to learn how to use it first. The Russians on the other-hand using dusty old cold-war era equipment (much of which is in barely operable condition) still somehow easily manage to come out on top. I guess this proves that the training of militaries is still an crucially important factor, even in 21st-century conflicts. The Russians were far better trained so they won, despite inferior equipment 64.222.123.55 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting commentary. Please consider joining Wikipedia to improve articles. Outback the koala (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

64.222.123.55, sounds like you are really disappointed about the results of the war or you just trolling us, bad mood to write something into Wiki. I think, that Russia is not poor country to make some modern tanks, jets, etc for most dangerous region in it's territory (I mean Caucasus). 80.90.120.7 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is also an interesting comment. Please consider joining Wikipedia to improve articles. Outback the koala (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Russia had T-90s, but chose not to use them. Russia's equipment is far from ancient, the MiG-29s patrolled the skies, and that's a new fighter. The problem when going against Russia, is that Russians are one of the best counterattacking armies. They are also quite good city fighters. Fancy equipment never wins wars on its own, you need experienced officers, but more importantly, you need to fight Just Wars, not wars of agression, as those will never win the people's hearts and minds. When will people realize that bombing other people (or in this case shelling them with rocket launchers,) will never win their hearts and minds? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

NYT successfully made another error

In the Order of Battle, (ORBAT) NYT claims that 3 infantry battalions of the 135th infantry regiment were used. However, Russian regiments used only 2/3rds of their infantry battalions, meaning that out of the 3 infantry battalions, only 2 were used. The reason here is that unlike SPRI-trained Saakashvili units, the Russians actually like to keep a reserve, to prevent a retreat from turning into a rout. So from each of the 5 Russian Regiments that fought, (135th separate, 503rd and 693rd from the 19th and 70th with 71st from the 42nd,) two battalions were used, totalling ten Russian mechanized infantry battalions, of 500 each, or 5,000 men, amounting for half of Russia's forces in Georgia, as would be logical. (SpetzNaz, VDV, Recon Bats, Arty Bats, Tank Bats and Support Bats made up the other half.) One of the infantry battalions of the 135th was already stationed near Tskhinvali as peacekeepers. 2 - 1 = 1, so that means logically only one more battalion of the 135th infantry regiment could enter. Not according to the New York Times, who boldly claimed that two battalions entered, and 2 + 1 is not the equivalent of 2. 10 battalions from 5 regiments fought, and 10 / 5 is 2. According to the "Tanks" reference, 1,500 men were ready to go, which is the equivalent of 3 battalions in numbers, but part of the 1,500 also included a tank battalion, and 2 arty battalions, two recon companies and support units, which makes it possible for only two battalions to be part of the 1,500 men force. I should remedy this situation in the article's ORBAT, any objections?

I have no idea where you are taking that information from, but you kept MDB as the source for the army setup. Yet MDB contradicts your edit, so I reverted. If you want to use information that is not in MDB, you have to add the source you are taking that information from as well. If "tanks" has a list of units, use the tanks list, if they don't leave MDB, but don't come up with unsourced numbers by yourself. --Xeeron (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How does MDB contradict my edit? MDB said ten mech inf battalions, that's what I have. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

MDB says: "Russia had six regimental tactical groups (135th, 503rd and 693rd Motorized Rifle Regiments of the 19th Motorized Rifle Division from North Ossetia (...)"

You put into the article: "Two Mech Inf Battalions of the 503rd Motorised Rifle Regiment of the 19th Motorised Rifle Division", "Two Mech Inf Battalions of the 693rd Motorised Rifle Regiment of the 19th Motorised Rifle Division"

That is not in the source given and as such a wrong attribution. --Xeeron (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What an update is, and McDermott

An update is when the same editor, uses better information, to update his sources. An update is not replacing RIA Novosti's material with McDermott, who with all due respect has no idea what he is talking about. Russian Intelligence was stellar during the war, accomplishing all of its tasks, and losing very few men. Yet according to McDermott, they performed poorly. Then what does it take to perform well? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Russian Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C³I) performed poorly during the conflict. The communication systems used were obsolete, resulting in one case where the commander of the 58th army was reported to have communicated with his forces in the midst of combat via a satellite phone borrowed from a journalist. Due to the absence of satellite-targetting, precision-guided munitions could not be used (US controlled GPS was unavailable since the war zone was blacked out). Furthermore, the Russian defense minister had failed to authorize the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, which lead to the use of a Tupolev Tu-22M3 long-range bomber on a reconnaissance mission, where it was subsequently shot down. Nevertheless, most of the reconnaisance was performed by the 3 Russian reconnaisance battalions, so the need to use a strategic bomber for it was questionable. American researchers working for the Heritage foundation praised the comprehensive and systematic planning of the Russian general staff, stating that, the operations "were well prepared and well executed" and that the Russian offensive achieved a strategic surprise.

Absense of GLONASS? Then how were the Iskanders launched? How were the Tochkas launched? Russia couldn't authorize use of unamanned aerial vehicles, because none were active in the Caucasus Military District. The TU-22M is not designed for a reconnaisance mission, anymore than the B-52 was, . This is why, you DISCUSS new sources before placing them into the article, as is required, as has been required for as long as this article existed. You don't claim an update of RIA Novosti (Russian) with McDermott, (American), this is just plain silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger McDermott speculated that the (compared to earlier Russian conflicts) high level of criticism in the media after the conflict is part of "an orchestrated effort by the government to “sell” reform to the military and garner support among the populace.

There was 90% for military reforms after the war, without any criticism. Clearly according to McDermott, more was needed! Come on! United Russia has 315 out of 450 seats. Next party, the Commies, have 57. Military reforms were supported by all of Russia's major parties. United Russia also controls the upper house. The above four parties, enjoy the support of over 90% of the Russian voters. They were all pro-reform. Just look at the election table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_legislative_election,_2007#Official_results. There were no real critics of the reform. The parties may have had different ideas and emphasis on what should be reformed, but you didn't need any scandals to reform the military. You don't need to garner more than 90%. Here's CNN's poll on the war: http://digg.com/politics/92_of_CNN_readers_Russia_s_actions_in_Georgia_justified Here is a Gallup Poll on the war, by Georgians: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110602/georgians-look-toward-russia-respect-admiration.aspx HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Critique of McDermott with citations that show he gets his facts wrong

The war did not "jeopardize" Russia's relationship with the EU. There was an initial scuffle, but by 2009, the article's publication date, Russia and EU were getting along rather well. They still are.

McDermott states that, and I quote from http://www.usamhi.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/09spring/mcdermott.pdf: "within a few hours of the commencement of the operation the 76th (Pskov) Airborne Division's 104th Regiment was already in action in the Tskhinvali suburbs with 1,550 soldiers and more than 100 vehicles". Ahhh, panic, the Russians, they are coming! Help! Get some vodka! So let's see here, according to McDermott, who would never make stuff up, within a few hours of operation the 104th moved in, so they have to be in South Ossetia before nightfall on August 8th. According to the Russian Commander of the 104th Pskov Regiment http://artofwar.ru/k/krjukow_w_n/text_0150.shtml at 1 AM on August 9th, (that's the one that comes after August 8th,) they were still crossing the Roki Tunnel and instead of a whole regiment, it was a single battalion.

McDermott boldly continues: "A key factor in the speed of the Russian military victory was the opening of a second front in Abkhazia". Yup, that's definite Bush-like thinking - want to speed up the war, open up a second front, that'll speed things up! Works so well with Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean right after the US invaded Iraq, the Afghanistan victory was sped up! Oh wait, it had the exact opposite effect. For this war, the Abkhaz Theater of War had little to do with the Ossetian Theater of War, and it was opened up by Abkhazia, not by Russia. Georgia had a maximum of 3,300 men in Abkhazia, if you think that these men could have turned the tide of war, you are mistaken, just read the Battle of Tskhinvali. Oh wait, the Jamestown Foundation also argued about Iraq having WMDs.

According to McDermott, capturing the military base at Senaki enabled Russia to control all heavy traffic movement accross Georgia. According to reality, Google Maps, any maps, here's one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_South_Ossetia_war_en.svg whether one controls Senaki or not, one still does not control the Gori-Tbilisi road. Nor the Batumi-Tbilisi road. And that's just the first two pages, I don't want to waste my time. The entire VDV Regiment in on August 8th, that's just hilarious. Unfortunately this is an encyclopedia, not a comedy club.

This guy reminds me of someone. Oh wait, it's the Jamestown Foundation, a notable part of the anti-Russian lobby. From Pavel Felgenhauer, who boldly claimed that Russia was going to lose this war, and after Russia won, claimed that Russia provoked Georgia, to Svante Cornell who spoke of Russia outnumbering Georgia's army two to one and wrote a book about Russia using 1,200 tanks, (150 according to US Satellite Data, Russian Satellite Data, European Satellite Data, and any sane military analysis.) Xeeron, stop trying to insert Jamestown Foundation into this article. They are completely clueless, be it Felgenhauer's claim that Russia will lose this war, Svante Cornell's with 1,200 tanks, or McDermott's claim that the entire 104th fought on August 8th, despite the 104th's commander repudiation of that "fact". Xeeron, this article is about facts, not Jamestown Foundation's Fiction. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest nor any need to discuss your rant/OR above. Of course, you would prefer to only have Russian state owned RIA and Moscow based CAST as sources in the article, but it does not work that way. And aggressively attacking any author who's position you dislike wont help either. A further note: Stuff like "has no idea what he is talking about" is close to slander. You should be careful with that. --Xeeron (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I will point it out again: McDermott made up something, and dubbed this a "fact". According to McDermott, the 104th of the 76th VDV, was fighting in Tskhinvali on August 8th. According to the commander of the 104th of the 76th VDV, in an official report, his regiment's avanteguard battalion, (that's the one that enters first) did not enter South Ossetia until August 9th. This is not a "Russian owned source" - that is an actual report. And if you want, I can find anti-Russian articles on the website that published the report. Russian VDV commanders do not lie in their reports about battles when they win and everything goes according to plan. That is a fact. Do you understand the difference between propaganda and an actual report written by the commander?

Also, McDermott claimed that by controlling Senaki and overseeing the road, Russia divided Georgia in half. However I used a map, you do realize that Google Maps are not a pro-Russian source, right Xeeron? According to maps, any map, Russians had no control over the Batumi - Tbilisi Road, and thus Georgia was never divided in two, contrary to what McDermott said.

Every single source that I have provided was dead on accurate. Every pro-Jamestown source you provided was contradicted by reality. Be it Svante Cornell's "2 to 1 ratio in favor of Russia", the "Russia is attacking with 1,200 tanks" article, or Felgenhauer's claim that "it will be tough for Russia to fight this war". I don't care where the sources come from. I do care that you are putting sources into the article, parts of which contradict reality. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)