Tweet
Rezonansi, Georgia
May 26 2011
Obama intends to supply Georgia with weaponry
By Ia Abulashvili
As the Washington Post observer Jennifer Rubin writes in her blog, at
the forthcoming meeting of the presidents of the United States and
Russia, Barack Obama is going to threaten Dmitriy Medvedev with
blocking Russia from WTO membership and to inform him about supplying
Georgia with defensive military equipment.
This is the conclusion the observer comes to as a result of the
analysis of the human rights in Russia and the discussion of a new
draft law at the [US] Congress. According to Jennifer Rubin, the
inactiveness of the White House concerning the verdict of the [Russian
businessman] Khodorkovskiy made the US Congress take active steps.
The draft initiated by Senator Ben Cardin envisages a number of
sanctions for the Russian high-ranking officials including those on
entering the country and freezing the accounts in the US [banks] if
any. However, the observer also says that the White House is not
concerned seriously enough to impose sanctions on the Russian
officials on its part.
Georgia trying to buy weapons from United States
Before this, the Atlantic magazine wrote that Georgia was trying to
buy weaponry from the United States and [the country] was said to have
paid 500,000 dollars to four leading lobbyist companies for this
purpose.
"The money spent by Georgia last year alone by far exceeds the money
spent by similar countries. [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili's
explanation of the fact is "the Russian threat". Senator John McCain
is participating in the campaign, but the US State Department is
secretly blocking the attempts of supplying Georgia with weaponry. The
Georgian officials keep off the following question: Is Georgia going
to buy weaponry from the United Sates or receive it as aid? Some
American pundits think that American weaponry will indicate direct
support from the West, which Saakashvili "is longing for", the edition
says.
What are Georgia's chances of getting UN consent on buying military
equipment and what type of weaponry does it need? These are the
questions Rezonansi asked Georgian experts, who think that Obama's
current vector - the reset policy - rules this out.
Georgia not able to "afford" up-to-date weaponry
Expert in security issues Irakli Sesiashvili says that the
ultra-modern equipment we need as well as the antiaircraft systems
cost a colossal sum of money, which our country cannot afford.
"Maintaining equipment as well as purchasing ammunition cost a lot.
Probably we should think of being presented. Will the United States
take this step? I do not think so. However, I have expectations that
the United States will help us stage by stage in the form of training
programmes. As for buying or selling weaponry, or presuming that we
will be able to make Russia leave, I doubt it. I am afraid we might
end up in a more disadvantageous situation. We might cause Russia's
anger and, by introducing additional forces, end in the escalation of
tensions. The militarization of the region will add to tensions given
the closeness of the Armenian and Azerbaijani borders. This cannot be
in the interests of Georgia, the United States or Russia.
"I cannot agree with the idea that the United States will threaten
Russia to block it from the WTO membership. As far as I am concerned,
this issue has already been decided. The United States understands
that selling weapons to Georgia is not a strong argument to threaten
Russia. I think we should consider balancing our relations with
Russia. As for the short-term prospects, the defence issue components
should be considered in the context of the development of the state."
Georgia unlikely to get weaponry
Expert in military issues Giorgi Melitauri thinks that Georgia badly
needs up-to-date defensive military equipment.
"What we have today is of Soviet origin and obsolete at the least.
Modern conditions require completely different weapons and renewal,
which is a permanent process. Since the 2008 August war, there has
been no supply of weapons by the United States. Before then, the
United Sates used to supply us with M4-type rifles, high-quality means
of communications and Hammer-type transport. Unfortunately, this
weaponry ended in Russia's possession and the image of the United
States was disgraced, as due to its own partner, the weapons produced
by the United States ended up in Russia's hands.
"We need anti-aircraft and anti-tank defensive means and it is
desirable to get them. We can have expectations with this regard.
However, what we need is a political decision. Our potential will also
be estimated and specialists will be trained, which is a long-term
process.
"It should also be noted that at the first stage of the conflict, in
terms of weaponry, we had a great advantage, but we failed to use it.
It was not a war of rifles alone. Neither the state not the army was
ready for war, and the General Staff, too, had wrong expectations. I
do not understand the need of weaponry, when we fail to use it. In the
conflict, we lost 110 tanks. Over 70 armed vehicles were driven away
by the Russians. All this was in full trim. Whatever they left was out
of order or blown up. No need to speak about the ammunition.
Unfortunately, I think that no-one is going to give us weaponry under
this government or with this kind of army", Melitauri told Rezonansi.
May 26 2011
Obama intends to supply Georgia with weaponry
By Ia Abulashvili
As the Washington Post observer Jennifer Rubin writes in her blog, at
the forthcoming meeting of the presidents of the United States and
Russia, Barack Obama is going to threaten Dmitriy Medvedev with
blocking Russia from WTO membership and to inform him about supplying
Georgia with defensive military equipment.
This is the conclusion the observer comes to as a result of the
analysis of the human rights in Russia and the discussion of a new
draft law at the [US] Congress. According to Jennifer Rubin, the
inactiveness of the White House concerning the verdict of the [Russian
businessman] Khodorkovskiy made the US Congress take active steps.
The draft initiated by Senator Ben Cardin envisages a number of
sanctions for the Russian high-ranking officials including those on
entering the country and freezing the accounts in the US [banks] if
any. However, the observer also says that the White House is not
concerned seriously enough to impose sanctions on the Russian
officials on its part.
Georgia trying to buy weapons from United States
Before this, the Atlantic magazine wrote that Georgia was trying to
buy weaponry from the United States and [the country] was said to have
paid 500,000 dollars to four leading lobbyist companies for this
purpose.
"The money spent by Georgia last year alone by far exceeds the money
spent by similar countries. [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili's
explanation of the fact is "the Russian threat". Senator John McCain
is participating in the campaign, but the US State Department is
secretly blocking the attempts of supplying Georgia with weaponry. The
Georgian officials keep off the following question: Is Georgia going
to buy weaponry from the United Sates or receive it as aid? Some
American pundits think that American weaponry will indicate direct
support from the West, which Saakashvili "is longing for", the edition
says.
What are Georgia's chances of getting UN consent on buying military
equipment and what type of weaponry does it need? These are the
questions Rezonansi asked Georgian experts, who think that Obama's
current vector - the reset policy - rules this out.
Georgia not able to "afford" up-to-date weaponry
Expert in security issues Irakli Sesiashvili says that the
ultra-modern equipment we need as well as the antiaircraft systems
cost a colossal sum of money, which our country cannot afford.
"Maintaining equipment as well as purchasing ammunition cost a lot.
Probably we should think of being presented. Will the United States
take this step? I do not think so. However, I have expectations that
the United States will help us stage by stage in the form of training
programmes. As for buying or selling weaponry, or presuming that we
will be able to make Russia leave, I doubt it. I am afraid we might
end up in a more disadvantageous situation. We might cause Russia's
anger and, by introducing additional forces, end in the escalation of
tensions. The militarization of the region will add to tensions given
the closeness of the Armenian and Azerbaijani borders. This cannot be
in the interests of Georgia, the United States or Russia.
"I cannot agree with the idea that the United States will threaten
Russia to block it from the WTO membership. As far as I am concerned,
this issue has already been decided. The United States understands
that selling weapons to Georgia is not a strong argument to threaten
Russia. I think we should consider balancing our relations with
Russia. As for the short-term prospects, the defence issue components
should be considered in the context of the development of the state."
Georgia unlikely to get weaponry
Expert in military issues Giorgi Melitauri thinks that Georgia badly
needs up-to-date defensive military equipment.
"What we have today is of Soviet origin and obsolete at the least.
Modern conditions require completely different weapons and renewal,
which is a permanent process. Since the 2008 August war, there has
been no supply of weapons by the United States. Before then, the
United Sates used to supply us with M4-type rifles, high-quality means
of communications and Hammer-type transport. Unfortunately, this
weaponry ended in Russia's possession and the image of the United
States was disgraced, as due to its own partner, the weapons produced
by the United States ended up in Russia's hands.
"We need anti-aircraft and anti-tank defensive means and it is
desirable to get them. We can have expectations with this regard.
However, what we need is a political decision. Our potential will also
be estimated and specialists will be trained, which is a long-term
process.
"It should also be noted that at the first stage of the conflict, in
terms of weaponry, we had a great advantage, but we failed to use it.
It was not a war of rifles alone. Neither the state not the army was
ready for war, and the General Staff, too, had wrong expectations. I
do not understand the need of weaponry, when we fail to use it. In the
conflict, we lost 110 tanks. Over 70 armed vehicles were driven away
by the Russians. All this was in full trim. Whatever they left was out
of order or blown up. No need to speak about the ammunition.
Unfortunately, I think that no-one is going to give us weaponry under
this government or with this kind of army", Melitauri told Rezonansi.