The Great Game Thread

[SampanViking]

The Great Game is back and with a vengeance!
Trouble is brewing in pretty much ever frontier zone between East and West.
The hottest place is currently Syria, but Russia appears to opening a new front of its own in Georgia.
Moscow appears to be setting up its Casus Belli through a Georgian Chechen Khizri Aldamov, who for years has acted as an Envoy for Chechen separatists in Georgia and who has returned to Chechneya with allegations that Georgian President Saakashvilli has; with US Assistance, been behind most recent terrorist attacks in Russia

Saakashvili Accused of Terror Attacks in Russia | News | The Moscow Times

A full Russian occupation on Georgia would of course bring Russia back to land border with Eastern Turkey and enable more pressure to be brought to bear in regard to the Syria crisis and remove a potential strike point for Ariel attacks against Nuclear sites of ally Iran.

Incidentally checked the BBC website for any coverage of what is a major story in Russia and the Caucuses, they may have:



Guess it just can't compete with something as major as the Pussy Riot trial!

[SampanViking]

On another front, Russia marks a major success against US influence in Central Asia:

Asia Times Online :: A thoroughbred on the Kyrgyz steppes

A very interesting key point of Bhadrakumar's article is that while democracy opened the doors to US influence, it has proved a double edged sword, incapable of restoring political stability sufficiently to ensure consolidation of the gains, while its ultimate weakness has collapse has wiped those gains out altogether and left the "democrats" looking like paid placemen.

I think we can look forward to seeing this patten repeat itself multiple times over the coming years, with critical ramifications for Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

It is also another major policy reversal for Turkey in a part of the world it regards as its back yard.

It also reinforces the view that the Geopolitical gloves are coming well and truly off.

[Kurt]

It's my gut feeling that many times you don't declare war or invade a country any more, but give more or less support to internal insecurity groups in your opponent's land. It's more cost efficient in causing havoc that diminishes enemy economic capabilities and cohesion until you get your will, that in extreme power imbalance cases can mean rule of the "conquered" land with quislings.
This makes real external conflicts cause of increasingly artificial internal security problems. Military is mostly used to finally smash down in places where this has escalated and sufficiently destroyed any external defensive capability (humanitarian intervention) or in last ditch attempts to bolster internal security before things get that bad (bad military shooting freedom fighters).
It's only temporary possible to pose a deterrence against such a foreign smashing attack. No military can deter forever if the internal problem can't be quelled and because of asymmetric cost efficiency and availability of mercenary insurgents on the market, I see little chances for the defender expect if the population itself rebels against the rebels. That leads to psy-ops about means to controll the behaviour of groups of humans, including selective eliminations with major mind impact factor.
The costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could be seen as major research expenditure into the components of future armed hostility with lots of boots on the ground for acclimatization to the Brave New World we will enter.

[no_name]

Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence;

to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence.

Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city.

From Sun Tzu.