Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Sign in to follow this  
atto

The Russia-Georgia War, and You!

Recommended Posts

As a full disclosure, I generally lean on the side of pacifism and non-interventionalism. It is my opinion that in the majority of time, messing around militarily causes many more problems than good. I've taken a good amount of interest in the conflict/war between Russia and Georgia. Media sources originally called it the "South Ossetia War", but it looks like it's a full on conflict between Russia and Georgia now.

 

For those of you who haven't followed the conflict, it started (subject to opinion) when Georgia militarily entered South Ossetia, an area on the north side of recognized Georgia, in response to alleged bombings in Georgian villages. South Ossetia seceded from Georgia in the 90's, and has been in a cease fire since. However, no members of the UN have recognized South Ossetia as a sovereign state.

 

Russia entered Georgia on Aug 8, playing "big brother". Since then, the two countries have waged military, propaganda, and cyber war. The city of Gori has fallen into Russian control, and Georgian troops have withdrawn towards the capital. Some reports are saying Russia does not intend to take the capital.

 

This is potentially a big deal since the US has historically helped Georgia. Additionally, some reports today indicate that US helped transport Georgian troops from Iraq along with supplies. This could get messy if peace talks don't go well. Russia has maintained that they are only helping South Ossetia, while Georgia has claimed this is an invasion. The death counts vary wildly, and are probably largely inaccurate.

 

Russia's interest may be oil, since there is a large pipeline running through the area. However, this is pure speculation from Georgian sources.

 

Has anyone else been following this? What's your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Largely, the international community has been against Russia's actions, as they have gone quite far past "peace keeping" operations.

 

Dick Cheney, quoted from yesterday: "Russian aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community." (Source)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this appears to be a planned misadventure by Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, to fulfill his election promise of taking back the seceded regions. He was counting on a lack of reponse by Russia during the Olympics - he was wrong.

This is not to say that Georgia has no claims to the seceded regions, but this was a miscalculated way of trying to get them back. US and NATO should not get involve in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be off-topic but I find it interesting how this happened smack at the start of the Olympics. The world is so focused on the Olympics that this war receives minimal exposure especially in Japan. I doubt many people here are aware of what is going on in Georgie at the moment. Also, funny how Bush is attending the China-US basketball game during this conflict.

 

A friend of mine had an interesting idea. He mentioned that this could be a politically and economically staged war. Georgie would only benefit from Russia's economy if Russia took over. Hence the leaders are all involved and perhaps US is aware of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Soultrader said:
A friend of mine had an interesting idea. He mentioned that this could be a politically and economically staged war. Georgie would only benefit from Russia's economy if Russia took over. Hence the leaders are all involved and perhaps US is aware of it?

Not sure. I've heard some second hand sources (which is better than you can get on the news) who have said this is very real. Georgia doesn't really benefit from being invaded, imho. Georgia is a soverign country with a slightly different ally base. The speculation I've heard is that the Georgia president used the Olympics to try to make this as small issue as possible. Whoops.

 

Now, why Russia cares so much is another issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest forsearch
  atto said:
Not sure. I've heard some second hand sources (which is better than you can get on the news) who have said this is very real. Georgia doesn't really benefit from being invaded, imho. Georgia is a soverign country with a slightly different ally base. The speculation I've heard is that the Georgia president used the Olympics to try to make this as small issue as possible. Whoops.

 

Now, why Russia cares so much is another issue...

Unifying the ethnic Russians of South Ossetia with the Russian province of North Ossetia, I suppose.

 

And gaining control of the oil pipeline that runs thru Georgia too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  atto said:
Since then.......and cyber war.

 

Out of interest what do you mean here - that it's all over the internet? or that they're trying to hack each other / send viruses to tank commanders' laptops, that kinda thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  GammaJammer said:
Out of interest what do you mean here - that it's all over the internet? or that they're trying to hack each other / send viruses to tank commanders' laptops, that kinda thing?

Ah, welcome to 21st century war. Russia's biggest news source has been on and offline for the past couple of days (it's slooooowly loading for me now). Georgia's central government web site has been on and offline as well (didn't load). Both sites are presumably being DDoSed by the other side.

 

Interestingly enough, Russia Today says: "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered an end to the military operation in Georgia. He said the objective - “to compel Georgia to peace” - has been achieved. Medvedev also ordered the Russian military to “eliminate the aggressor” in the event of Georgian forces resuming hostilities. "

 

For some reason, I find "resuming hostilities" to be subjective enough for pretty much anything to cause them to "eliminate the aggressor". Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  forsearch said:
Unifying the ethnic Russians of South Ossetia with the Russian province of North Ossetia, I suppose.

 

And gaining control of the oil pipeline that runs thru Georgia too.

Bingo. As I understand this, this pipeline is the only thing keeping Russia from an oil monopoly in the region.

 

It's almost funny how both sides are using propaganda to their advantage: "law enforcement agencies" vs "aggression forces", "aggression forces" (from the other side) vs "peacekeeping operations". I know this always happens in war, but it's fairly clear here. I don't think either side is "right". Georgia should have held the cease fire, and Russia shouldn't have entered. We can only hope peace talks can make some progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems that it was miss-calculated move on part of Georgia. They have used heavy artillery and air force against South Ossetia killing more then 2000 people and dislocating 30000 or more people form the area ( which is almost 50% of the population) and killing 15 or so peacekeeper ( moistly Russians) BEFORE the Russia responded. The area of south Ossetia was pretty independent since 92 . They signed piece agreement with Georgia week ago before they were attacked. The main city is completely in ruin . Russian response was swift to stop civilian population onslaught. Georgia immediately started crying uncle and perhaps expected NATO or US support.

 

Was the oil important in this? maybe indirectly, but one cannot change the facts who started it where the casualties are. South Ossetia had 2000+ killed... Georgia had 100-200... Most of the damage in Georgia was to military and infrastructure.

 

If there is any humanitarian disaster it was created by Georgia. The way they handled it, most likely prohibits any future integration of 2 provinces back into the same country.

It is hard to imagine that US did not know about pending attack, especially that Georgian and US military had joint exercise 1-2 weeks before the attack.

 

Note: in the old times wars stopped before the Olympics, out of respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.