A war of titans seems to be starting, but luckily not a bloody one this time. Die Hard 2 director Renny Harlin to make film about 2008 Georgian war, but another star, Emir Kusturica, seems ready to fire back with a hit.
It’s probably the first time Georgia has hosted such big Hollywood stars, and not only hosts, but enjoys taking center stage in a new movie by a renowned director. Renny Harlin, who made blockbuster Die Hard 2, has begun working on a movie about the 2008 August war between Georgia and South Ossetia. It is reported the film hasn’t got a name yet and, for the moment, is simply called “Georgia”.
And the star of “Godfather 3” and “The Untouchables”, Cuban-born Andy Garcia, will be playing Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. He came to stay in Tbilisi for only two days. First, several of the scenes are to be shot at the president’s residence, and on the second day the film crew will move to Rustaveli Avenue, where Saakashvili was holding a military parade during the five-day war, Svobodnaya Pressa reports.
The drama focuses on an American journalist who comes under fire, with his cameraman, in Georgia. There are only two questions on the agenda for both journalists: to stay alive and be objective.
The film is to be released in English and will last about two hours. It’s planned that it will be finished by November and the premiere will take place next year in May. As the main roles will be played by Hollywood actors, their Georgian colleagues will only get supporting roles.
For or against?
The Finnish filmmaker made a name for himself as the director of such action adventures as “The Long Kiss Goodnight”, “Deep Blue Sea” as well as “A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master”.
The director insists he’s not going to take sides in the 2008 conflict. According to him, however, the movie is going to make a strong anti-war statement.
Harlin said that when he got the script he realized it was what he had been looking for:
“A great human story with tragic, serious overtones. I saw it as my opportunity to use my experience in action films to tell the story of a complex conflict that is impartial, but makes a strong antiwar statement,” he told Variety back in August of this year.
However, Georgia hasn’t acknowledged that it actually started the war and continues to blame Russia, while the international community and the world media now state this fact openly.
So, it’s not yet known whether Georgian authorities are planning to use the screenplay as yet another instrument to blacken the Russian side and again complain upon hearing a threat from Russia – not from a rostrum but from the cinema screen this time – which, obviously, seems to exist only in their imagination.
Will Kusturica strike back?
There has been speculation that the renowned Serb filmmaker Emir Kusturica is going to present his version of what happened in South Ossetia last year. Svobodnaya Pressa writes that for that, he had already visited the Republic to see the ruined Tskhinval with his own eyes and to talk to eyewitnesses.
According to the news site, the Cannes Award-winning director has called the August actions by the Georgian side “a dirty staging”, saying that the fact the aggression in South Ossetia was meant to be masked by the Olympics when all eyes were on the games is “clearly showing the world we live in” and demonstrated that Saakashvili’s actions are not as “democratic” as he claimed.
But Svobodnaya Pressa also reports that the Georgian film directors, led by Keti Dolodze, addressed their famous Serb colleague, asking him “not to go on a leash of the Kremlin propagandists and their Tskhinval marionettes”. They are said to have recommended Kusturica come to Tbilisi to get an idea of the Georgian view on the tragic events of 2008. However, there’ve been no reports whether Harlin had ever been advised to visit Tshinval for the same purpose, to get an objective picture of what had happened.
Meanwhile, Reuters reported on Monday that Kusturica will not be making the film because of his having “a binding contract for the next four years”.
——-
Commentary: this is so lame…. Now that even the EU has – reluctantly – admitted that it was Georgia which started the 4 day long “08.08.08” war there are really very few options left for the USraelian Empire to help its puppet in the Caucasus. Just like a faithful dog would, Hollywood comes to serve it’s master as soon as it hears its whistle and, voila, we are going to have a movie about the proxy war which NATO unleashed against Russia in the summer of 2008. I think that the main goal of this production will not even be to make Saakashvili look good – the guys is a crackpot and the Empire seems to want to replace him by another, more obedient, puppet (possibly Nino Burjanadze). I bet you the main goal will be to conceal the magnitude of the US financed, equipped and trained Georgian Army. Do you remember that when the conflict began Western “experts” confidently predicted that the Georgian military would be a “tough nut to crack” for Russia? After all, if the Georgians were trained by AMERICANS (the “best in the world!”), and supplied with AMERICAN hardware (the “best in the world!”) they should easily overcome the “poorly equipped”, “poorly commanded” and “poorly trained” Russian military. Well, in fact, of course, Russia cracked the presumed “tough nut” in 4 days and that is a very bad sign for all the new NATO allies in Central Europe and NATO wannabes like the Ukraine. So having NATO support is not nearly as good as, well, Hollywood movies would make you believe!
I have always said that the US military and NATO are not nearly as “good” as some naively believe it to me. The absolutely dismal performance of the US and NATO in Afghanistan, in particular when contrasted with the performance of the Soviet 40th Army, is an excellent indicator of what kind of military the Empire really has: one which is good at “winning” against more or less defenseless enemies. But does it have the brains, the spine and, most importantly, the balls to take on a real fighting force like, say, the Taliban?! Of course not.
The Russian 58th Army – the one who obliterated the Georgian military – is the Army which succeeded in crushing the Chechen insurgents – an enemy far more formidable, I would say, than any force in Afghanistan (with the possible exception of the Panshir Tadjiks). No wonder it took it only 4 days to absolutely and comprehensively crush the Georgian military even though the Georgian attack was a total surprise for the Russia (here, a clear failure of the GRU to adequately warn the Kremlin).
So this is the real purpose of this movie, I believe: to hide as best can be the magnitude of the military defeat of Georgia in this war. So will Andy Garcia eat his tie like Saakashvili did? That does not really matter as long as the public does not imagine the NATO generals in Brussels eating out their ties!
The Saker
Also, will the movie show Saakashvili running with his bodyguards from a non-existent Russian attack? This was also another “comedy classic” provided by the Georgian president.
Anyway, I fully agree with you. When I read some days ago that Andy Garcia was in Georgia to make this movie, and meeting with Saakashvili, I knew what to expect from this production. It will surely be a piece of rubbish.
The Russians have already made a fiction movie about the war, Олимпиус инферно, but so far I couldn’t watch it.
@Carlo: Hola compadre!
I have seen Олимпиус инферно (downloaded from a Russian torrent site) and it is so-so at best. There are, however, plenty of excellent documentaries out there about the war, with interviews of the Russian peacekeepers who were attacked first. Good stuff. Try out these:
http://rutor.org/
http://www.megashara.com/
(both are free, and don’t annoy you with up/download ratios).
and look for documentaries or TV shows.
BTW – can you recommend a good source for “no hassle” torrents, in particular for Latin American movies (I love Brazilian movies).
Kind regards,
VS
And how about the documentary War 080808, made by Russia TV? I haven’t seen this either, but some say it is good.
One question: are you sure that Russia didn’t know that Georgia was going to attack? It seems they were prepared, as Russian troops moved very fast from North to South Ossetia. I think it is possible they knew and were prepared, but of course couldn’t move troops to the region (other than peacekeepers), as this would be a provocation. By the way, Saakashvili still claims, against all evidence, that this is what happened: Russian troops moved to South Ossetia, forcing him to attack.
About torrents, to tell you the truth, I don’t know much. I mostly download Russian movies from a Russian torrent, but it is a “hassle” one (anyway, I know the guys, and they usually get films for me at request). I also use Mininova.org, there are a lot of things there. And to use this one you don’t even have to register.
That old analysis you posted, published by the Deutsche Welle, is so trashy that it is funny. It overestimates so much the capabilities of the Georgian army, equipped with “NATO uniforms, kevlar helmets and body armour matching US issue, and carry the US-manufactured M-16 automatic rifle” – all of these made very fancy souvenirs for the Russian soldiers who looted the abandoned Georgian bases.
And the precious gem is when the author states: “the Kremlin’s potential ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops and conquer Georgia” – now we know that 10,000 Russian soldiers were more than enough to annihilate the Georgian army.
The Russian armed forces were far from having an excellent performance in that war, specially the air force. But the Georgian army was completely crushed in a matter of days, in the end it was just a bunch of scared guys running away and abandoning all their weapons and equipment.
@Carlo: 080808 is pretty good, that is true. another is called “the history of a betrayal”. Several good ones are out there.
The best proof that Russia was not prepared can be found that the first recon missions over the combat area had to be flown form the flight training center in Lipetsk. So the Air Force was totally caught with its pants down.
The high readiness (and mobility) of the elements of the 58th Army are not surprizing since that is the force which is based in the North Caucasus military district including Chechnya. Keep in mind that the Russians really did not send that many forces into Ossetia. With time the force ratios were brought to about 1:1 but a the beginning there was only one tank batallion taking on several tens of thousands of Georgian armored and mechanized troops inside Tskhinval. Keep in mind that initially they had to pass the Kodor tunnel batallion by batallion – something really not fun to do when you are shot at. Then some VDV elements were also send, but these are *always* ready. so that is generic. The most surprising part was the extremely fast reaction of the Black Sea Fleet and the Naval Infantry which was sent to Abhazia. All in all, the Russian military performed extremely well, but while they might have had a general sense that things were getting worse (Russia had been warning for *weeks* about a possible attack at the UN!), in a tactical sense the Georgians did achieve a surprise attack.
Cheers!
Saker do you think Georgia had access to first rate NATO kit the way Israel does?
According to Michael Stuermer’s book Putin and the rise of Russia in the 1982 Lebanon war One summer morning no fewer than seventy Syrian piloted MIGs were shot out of a sunny sky by the Israelis in their F16Is – the I standing for the Israeli version, equipped with Sidewinder air to air missiles. This news must have been a tremendous shock to the defence ministry in Moscow.
It appeared even worse because the Russian analysts assumed, in a mirror image, that the Americans, like the Russians with their satellite armies, would never give their allies first rate equipment, but only second or third rate. Little did the Russian analysts understand that the Pentagon gave the Israelis cutting edge technology to prevent them from thinking nuclear in time of crisis. This had been the lesson from the Yom Kippur war, when the Israelis, closely watched by US satellite intelligence, had displayed a willingness to go nuclear.
It may have been the Israelis supplying the Georgians as much or more than the US but presumably they wouldn’t want to risk their first grade kit on a clown like Sakashvili either.
@Robert:Saker do you think Georgia had access to first rate NATO kit the way Israel does?
No, not even close. But what they did get was in many cases very good gear. For instance, the upgraded Buk air defense systems were truly excellent, the person gear given to the troops was up to NATO standards, and command, control, communications was also excellent. As for intelligence, it was certainly supported by Western “partners”.
As for the MiGs, not only were the Syrian MiGs not on par with the WTO equivalents (much less so Soviet equivalents), but the Syrian pilots and C3I was also much weaker. Still, many, if not most, Syrian planes were destroyed *on the ground*.
But to come back to your question, the fact that the Georgains were caliming to be up to NATO standards does not really mean that they were, say, a Bundeswehr equivalent. Sure, the USA gave them tons of money and trainers, the Ukies and the Israelis gladly pitched in, but Georgia did not have anything near the absolute and all-encompassing support that Israel has.
But to come back to your point, it is true that the Soviet Union never gave its allies or proxies first rate equipment.
As far as I know, Georgia didn’t get many weapons from the US, NATO or Israel. These mostly sold/gave communication equipment, body armor, night vision goggles, etc. These were much better than anything the Russian military has, and became popular items among the Russian soldiers who looted abandoned Georgian military bases.
On the other hand, the tanks, airplanes and helicopters used by the Georgian military were all of Soviet origin (mostly T-72, Su-25 and Mi-24) modernized by Ukraine and Czech Republic.
@Carlo: not quite. The USA gave a lot of money for the Georgians to purchase equipment wherever they wanted. They also supplied them with gear directly. Georgian T-72 were upgraded with various electronics and a lot of the formerly Soviet equipment had received major upgades. So it is not like Georgia got Kfirs or Leopard tanks from Israel or NATO, but that ressources from these actors were put, optimally I would say, into upgrading the existing inventory. The result of all this was that the Georgian Armed Forces were qualitatively much better equipped than it appeared.
I know for a fact that Turkey not only provided Georgia with NATO hardware but also training. Russia was quite practical in delivering them a message.
Mouse
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carlo: “The Russian armed forces were far from having an excellent performance in that war, specially the air force”
Funny how easily the world got used to the US victories. Sure it’s far from excellent, when 10000 troops within a few hours were mobilised and sent abroad to immediately engage the opponents who were thoroughly prepared, were in the positions they could choose and fortify, and were in fact in the process of a major military assault which would have already deployed high level of logistics, command, control and communications. Sure during the war the Russians have lost 6 air craft and under 100 soldiers. That’s truly pathetic performance. Against some advanced SAMs.
Sure the Russians need to learn a lot. If they were looking for an excellent performance they would have firstly imposed embargo on all military equipment supplies to Georgia for at least a decade. Secondly – they would have gathered around at least a dozen other nations each of them would be way more militarily advanced and richer than Georgia. Thirdly the Russians would have bombed Georgia for a month or two to the Stone Age level just to make sure that there is no will to resist left on the ground…
Have to agree with Carlo on that one – far from excellent performance.
BTW according to various independent sources http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html NATO lost over 60 aircraft in Serbia and that happened after 9 years of a ban on all military export to Milosevic so the Serbs managed to inflict damage to the most advanced military machine with 70s era soviet SA125 SAM. And still the media cries about how pathetic and retarded is Russian military equipment and performance.
Alibi, don’t get me wrong here, don’t take me for a Russian basher and a NATO praiser, I am exactly the opposite. The Russian armed forces surprised the whole world with their fast victory against Georgia. And yes, I fully agree with you, the Russians inflicted very small damages against civilians, compared to what the US and NATO did in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq – it is absurd the Europeans statement that the Russian response against Georgia was “excessive”, because if we compare to what NATO did against Serbia, the Russians were extremely mild.
But the Russian armed forces could have made it better, specially the air force. Georgia, for example, has no fighters and no long range SAMs (like S-300), but the Russians even lost a long-range bomber (Tu-22M3, which was being used in a recce mission), and they took days to destroy the main radar in Georgia.
Anyway, like I said: many people expected that Georgia could make a strong resistance to Russia, and that this country would have much bigger losses and take much longer to win. For armed forces that still use mainly equipment coming from the late 80’s at best (as modernization is still going slow, and Russia didn’t use their newest weapons in that war, available in small numbers, like Su-34 attack planes or T-90 tanks), they did very well and surprised the whole world. And it seems that the Russians learned from their flaws, and are investing more on communications and reconnaissance.
@Alibi: I completely agree with all your points. However, I have “known” Carlo for a while now and I am sure that while he is mis-informed, he is definitely not pro-NATO or anti-Russian. Heck, at times he is even more pro-Russian than I am :-)
@Carlo: sorry, but you have your facts wrong. The Georgians had Buk air-defence missiles which are long range missiles. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system. Furthermore, these missiles were modified and improved. In fact, and this is important, THIS WAS THE FIRST CASE OF AN AIRFORCE CONFRONTED WITH A MODERN AIR-DEFENSE SYSTEM EVER. Let me repeat, every single war the Americans fought (Iraq, Kosovo, Lybia) they were opposed by antiquated 1970 air defense systems. What the Russian Air Force faced was an integrated 21st century air defense systems.
Then, as I mentioned before, the Russian Air Force did not begin this war. It was caught totally unprepared. This is why the Tu-22M3 you mention had to be flown in from Lipetsk, for example. Normally, a recon mission is supported by ECM aircraft, and escorts. These guys flew in along knowing FULL WELL that they were taking a big risk. And they got shot down. Frankly, this was predictable.
Now, I agree that the Russians should have flattened all of the Georgian Air Force and Air Defenses in the first night. I wrote that in 2008. But I have to admit that this would only have been possible if they had had the time to prepare such a mission. Bottom line: it is good to be the agressor, its sucks to be the “agressee” (is that English?!).
There is alot written about the lack of good C3I on the Russian side. Even the Russian military has complained about that, and it is probably true. But consider this then. Even without that the Russians crushed the Georgians. Says something about the quality of the 58th Army as a fighting force, does it not?
I think that the 08.08.08 4 day war is one of the most brilliant and gutsy military victories in modern history. Sure, nobody wants to admit that. The West is (as always) trying to belittle anythying Russian, and the Russians themselves want to over-emphasize their shortcoming to get more money to modernize the armed forces which were totally neglected during the 1980-1990. That is TWENTY YEARS of neglect.
But consider the bottom line:
a) The Georgians had had years to prepare their attack
b) The Georgians achieved a tactical surprize attack
c) The Georgians had better equipment
d) The Georgians began the war from prepared position surrounded their objective while the Russians had to bring in forces through ONE TUNNEL.
f) The Georgians had a numerical superiority while the Russians only had some (very courageous) Ossetian volunteers and ONE tank battalion to hold Tshinval.
g) the Georgians had an advanced, modern, air defense system while it took the Russians 48 hours to get the first (agining) SU-25s in the theater.
Considering all this, I say that the Russians achieved a PHENOMENAL victory. In 4 days they reached a position from which they could have taken Tbilissi and the rest of the country in 24 hours.
In my opinion. this victory is, by its magnitude, without equivalent in modern warfare.
Saker, thanks for showing me these facts. I didn’t know that Georgian air defenses were so good, I thought it consisted mostly of theater SAMs and MANPADs. To tell you the truth, in this case I will happily change my mind.
To Saker and Carlo.
Dear fellows.
I’ve been following this blog for quite a while and I’m pretty familiar with most of the regulars, so I “know” Carlo fairly well and pretty often share his point of view on many different issues. I didn’t mean to sound offensive and I’m sorry if I did. My English fails me now and then so I guess it’s the damn foreign language’s fault…
I’m not a big fan of the Russian military machine to be honest and I’m always the first one to lash out at the military system in Russia, but in this particular case I agree with Saker – it was a great performance. I’d like to see how it would have been executed had it been done by the US on a such a short notice.
@Saker: “the Russians should have flattened all of the Georgian Air Force and Air Defenses in the first night…”
You have to realise that the Russians had a very questionable excuse for the invasion. They just couldn’t afford to start pounding Georgian territory with air strikes just like that. Georgian air defence which included also passive radars “Kolchuga” with the range 200-400kms were located outside of the war zone. Putin was in China and Medvedev was on holydays so it was politically very challenging to give an order to strike at the foreign territory. The Russians will bear the guilt for all the Soviet wrongdoings for long time.
Seems to me that the Empire’s military strength lies in air power. The bottom line is that we still don’t know who would come off best in aerial combat between one side with first rate NATO kit and the other first grade Russian/SCO equipment.
We also don’t know how the US Air Force or its Israeli squadrons would fare flying over terrain equipped with first class Russian ground air defense systems.
Suppose Russia were to sell Iran or Syria the very best they have in ground based air defense how would the USraelians cope? Could they take out Hizbollah missile launch sites without suffering a prohibitively expense loss of pilots and aircraft?
I’m quite sure there is no question of the Russians doing this for geopolitical reasons but it’s an interesting hypothesis which the IDF must have wargamed.
Alibi, I didn’t felt offended at all. But perhaps you didn’t remember me and thought I was bashing the Russian military, that is why I wanted to make clear I am not like this.
Robert, it seems that Israel is trying to get prepared to fight against Russia’s latest air defense systems. Didn’t they make an air exercise over the Mediterranean some months ago, coming close to Crete, where the Greeks have S-300 SAM systems? I am pretty sure they did this in order to get precise information about this system (electromagnetic signature, range, possible ways to jam it), in case the Iranians one day get the S-300 they paid for.
@Robert: “Seems to me that the Empire’s military strength lies in air power. The bottom line is that we still don’t know who would come off best in aerial combat between one side with first rate NATO kit and the other first grade Russian/SCO equipment.”
I wouldn’t rely too much on just an air power if we were to fight a state with fairly large territory equipped with integrated air defence. According to Wikipedia the air strikes at Serbia managed to destroy 14/yes fourteen/ armoured vehicles and artillery pieces the Serbs lost just over 400 soldiers due to the air strikes. And we are talking about 79 days of permanent strikes about 30000 flights and something like 75% of all cruise missiles used. And all this after 9 years of embargo on military equipment export to Serbia.
Here goes a quote from here: http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html
NATO has sustained significant losses. An even greater number of aircraft were damaged not only by ground fire but also by the intensity of operations and skipping on the required maintenance hours. After talking to several USAF aircraft mechanics, who participated in the “Allied Force”, I can conclude that NATO aircraft were pushed to the limit and way beyond it. This is especially true for the USAF aircraft. One USAF aircraft mechanic who served at Aviano told me: “Two weeks – three weeks tops – and the “Allied Force” would have been over ’cause NATO would have run out of working planes.”
@Everybody: I think that we are all on the same side :-)
I have to run and I cannot comment much now, but I just want to support what Alibi wrote. The NATO air operation over Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro is something of a military disaster. The Serbian Army Corps deployed in Kosovo was essentially unscathed while the NATO air forces were in a panic. Had it not been for the betrayal of the SOB Milosevic, NATO would have had to stop. I fully agree with the Aviano mechanic here.
“Winning wars from the air” is a mistaken US/NATO/Israeli concept. When attacking a weak enemy, and when choosing the moment of attack (achieving tactical suprise) it does were very well and it open the door for fairly painless mopping operations on the ground. But against a prepared enemy? Nope – it never worked. Not in Vietnam, not in Lebanon, not in Kosovo. And if any of these three had had a really modern air defense capability it would have turned into a disaster much faster.
Great thread, by the way, but I need to run now. Sorry!
Kind regards and see you back later tonight ;-)
VS
Coming late to the thread, but there is one test of military power that no one wants to ever face. That is, can an infantry or armor force continue fighting after absorbing substantial casualties is a short period of time?
American forces have gotten so used to total air dominance and vastly superior weapons, that I’m curious how they would fair in pure slug-fest. If for example, a battalion sized unit suffered 10% casualties in 24 hours, would it keep on fighting? I ask this first about elite units and also against ‘ordinary’ units.
The U.S. military did not go through such a test since Korea. And even then they had vast air power advantage.
@Lysander: as always, you make very interesting points. I remember during my years of training as a military analyst one of our instructors told us that “all armies behave the same way when they win; the real difference between armies is only revealed when the get initially beat up, and then the regroup and couter-attack; only when a military force takes losses and then can mount a counter-attack can you truly measure its quality”. I completely concur with this. I would add that the only kind of circustance when a military force engages the enemy and comes up almost unscathed is a suprise attack in a highly lopsided conflict.
My wet dream? Imagining a US Marine force trying to take Grozny from the Chechens. Probably never gonna happen, but what a wonderful sight that would be. LOL!
This comment has been removed by the author.
When we’re talking about a clash between the US and Russia/god forbid/ we need to understand that there will be no advanced technological weapons in use. All hi tech gizmos will become useless immediately after just first strikes. There will be no satellites left /they will be downed first thing/for the GPS, JDAMs or communication, no AWACS, no Raptors, no UAVs. Cruise missiles will have no working electronics, all comms will be over land lines or via couriers. All sorts of electronic warfare will be involved including nukes. So – it will be pretty much your good old WWII technology back on track.
Saker,
Regarding Kosovo and the ineffectiveness of NATO bombing on military targets….
The serb ground forces losses seem to be on the order of a battalion …. really not much to show for that amount of sorties.
But : was not the real reason the Serbs asked for peace the destruction of their industry and industrial infrastructure?
(all military targets of course …)
“…was not the real reason the Serbs asked for peace the destruction of their industry and industrial infrastructure?”
What was the point to wait for 79 days watching your country get ruined and give up when there was nothing left anyway. If you wanted to save the infrastructure then you should’ve asked for peace after a couple of weeks when it was obviously that Russia was not gonna interfere, and the country was already getting destroyed. Milosevic had waited up to the very end hoping to buy his way out and he did by selling his army which was practically intact, and was yet to get engaged in a real combat, and his country which he personally had dragged into this shit and which was practically devastated by the strikes. True the Russians were pushing him to sign the peace agreement but look – we are talking about your country, your land and your people. Fuck the Russians with their drunken whore in the Kremlin. It’s your war, and you have army. And a very good army. And if you put up a decent fight for your own land you would most definitely have better position to negotiate. Instead – the Serbs waited until they country become flattened and then just gave up. Saving infrastructure.
Good points Alibi.
I’ve also realized that I would like to read the “true story” of the Kosovo war. I do recall the daily press briefings by a good looking British office, pointing out what targets had been destroyed… yak yak yak…
Some questions I wonder about:
– So how depleted were the NATO air forces at the end of the war?
– And what were the losses actually?
– Did the Serbs actually bomb the Apache base in Albania?
– Did the Serbs have any way to strike at NATO bases such as Aviano, or at naval shipping in the Adriatic? (I think all the RBS-15 belonged to the Kroats)
Finally:
How can a country defend against the Wests information operations?