PDA

View Full Version : Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary



Pages : 1 [2]

Ron Humphrey
08-19-2008, 03:11 PM
I was going to post thios yesterda but we had comms issues so here tis. It gives a broader view of the issues.

And brings up more questions.

Were the Georgian forces that did this in 1991 the same as those now, or have there been some major changes?

Are Kosovo and SO/Abkhazia the same thing? If so why, if not why not?

Although SO has been autonomous they were firing rockets into Georgia proper, Russian "peace keepers" were there yet this continued. It is still for all intensive and from what I can see so far internationally considered part of Georgia not Russia. So they have to eventually respond somehow to the continuing rocket attacks. What were they supposed to do, go driving in on golf carts with zip-ties and tasers and ask the rebels to pretty please stop shooting rockets at them?

As to vital interests why are these countries of vital interest to Russia other than to

1- Get their resources
2- Control their resources(enable international blackmail)
3- Reestablish a semblance of their authoritarian control over the various polities
4- ????

Still not getting IT?

BTW why is it everybody is always so touchy about armchair generals. You'd think they actually think armchair generals actually think their in charge of something rather than just trying to get to a better understanding of whats going on.

AmericanPride
08-19-2008, 03:33 PM
Are Kosovo and SO/Abkhazia the same thing? If so why, if not why not?

An article from RFE/RL addressing your question: http://www.rferl.org/Content/No_Comparison_Between_Kosovo_And_South_Ossetia/1191723.html


Although analogies may be drawn and arguments may be made for the existence of a precedent, they won't resolve the conflict in South Ossetia. In fact, such analogies actually underscore the differences between Kosovo and South Ossetia, rather than build a compelling case for precedent.

Stan
08-19-2008, 03:37 PM
An Initial Look at Russian Military Performance in Georgia

A great summation and quick read without all the glitter from FPRI (http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200808.chang.russiaresurgentgeorgia.html), by Felix K. Chang


It is no surprise that tensions between Russia and Georgia have mounted. On August 3 Moscow warned of the growing danger of a “large-scale military conflict” between Georgia and its separatist province of South Ossetia; that warning drew a reply from Washington two days later urging Moscow to refrain from provocative actions in the region.[1]

As the conflict unfolded during the night of August 7 with a Georgian military offensive into South Ossetia, it soon appeared that Tbilisi miscalculated the Russian response. By the morning of August 8, Russian forces were streaming into Georgia. While news reports from the frontlines remain preliminary and incomplete, the scale and speed of Russia’s military operations between August 8 and 12 do shed some light on Russian military capabilities and operational readiness and raise new questions regarding the events leading to the conflict.

Russian Ground Forces
Russian Air Forces
Russian Naval Forces
Operational Axes


Much more at the link...

jmm99
08-19-2008, 03:43 PM
re: AmericanPride

Thanx for the explanation - energy output and requirements = special relationship. The Gazprom links seem to run from south (Turkey, another thread here) to north (Baltic pipeline) and in between (where I am dumb).

So, recent flap in Helsinki (noted by Stan above - one step ahead of me :)) ties in as well


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - BUSINESS & FINANCE
18.8.2008
....
Politicians take mainly positive view of Lipponen pipeline lobbying effort
The announcement that former Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament Paavo Lipponen (SDP) is taking on a job as a lobbyist for the Russian-German company Nord Sream, which is planning to set up an undersea gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, brought both approval and critical comments from Parliamentary party group leaders and other politicians.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Politicians+take+mainly+positive+view+of+Lipponen+ pipeline+lobbying+effort/1135238727769

Seems like a conflict of interest to me; but Gazprom seems to make many pretty packages for people and nations.

PS: One wonders if Putin didn't start to shape this plan (in his head) when he was in East Germany, since economic warfare seems to have been his bent. If so, will + foresight.

jmm99
08-19-2008, 04:03 PM
to Georgia may be quicker than I thought - three scared Finns in a room come up with uni-solution more quickly - sometimes.

So, perhaps relevant to NATO in the long run - note reference to Sweden in body of article (and poll results in #26 above).


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - HOME
19.8.2008
Vanhanen: South Ossetia crisis will affect next national defence report
Finland not offered any “special role” in resolving crisis

Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) believes that the crisis between Russia and Georgia over the territory of South Ossetia is having an effect on the upcoming government report on security and defence policy, which is now being finalised.

“It would be crazy to say that it does not have an impact, because of course it does. The real world always affects how things are dealt with”, Vanhanen said.

He voiced his views on Monday at a press conference held at his Kesäranta residence, marking the end of the summer period.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Vanhanen+South+Ossetia+crisis+will+affect+next+nat ional+defence+report/1135238759827

PS: Suomi shuts down during "summer period" - good time for someone to attack them; "winter period" bad time. ;)

Tom Odom
08-19-2008, 04:11 PM
And brings up more questions.

Were the Georgian forces that did this in 1991 the same as those now, or have there been some major changes?

Are Kosovo and SO/Abkhazia the same thing? If so why, if not why not?

Although SO has been autonomous they were firing rockets into Georgia proper, Russian "peace keepers" were there yet this continued. It is still for all intensive and from what I can see so far internationally considered part of Georgia not Russia. So they have to eventually respond somehow to the continuing rocket attacks. What were they supposed to do, go driving in on golf carts with zip-ties and tasers and ask the rebels to pretty please stop shooting rockets at them?

As to vital interests why are these countries of vital interest to Russia other than to

1- Get their resources
2- Control their resources(enable international blackmail)
3- Reestablish a semblance of their authoritarian control over the various polities
4- ????

Still not getting IT?

BTW why is it everybody is always so touchy about armchair generals. You'd think they actually think armchair generals actually think their in charge of something rather than just trying to get to a better understanding of whats going on.


OK other than a list of 20 questions, what exactly is your point?

I offered the article as a broader look at the issue. one that specifically says it is not as simple as it seems.

Try answering your own questions and leave off the sarcasm.

Tom

Ron Humphrey
08-19-2008, 04:59 PM
OK other than a list of 20 questions, what exactly is your point?

I offered the article as a broader look at the issue. one that specifically says it is not as simple as it seems.

Try answering your own questions and leave off the sarcasm.

Tom

so much as trying to really understand why it always seems like efforts to explain whats happening consistantly seem to focus on surrounding implications of one action or another rather than than pointedly answering the basic's.

What- was done
Why-it was done
Who- it was done for
When it started
How it came about

Then Why was what was done the right thing or wrong, and why each party would see it as such.
Why is each sides perspective right or wrong
Why is or isn't it of vital interest
Etc

The article you posted was excellent in that it showed a little more of the overall picture and placed it in a different perspective, thus allowing me to more definitively break down the questions in such a manner as to be given feedback directly related to that question (as American Pride was able to do with his follow-on posting).

The main point I have had is still the same Why was it OK for Russia to do what it did aside from the fact that supposedly noone else can do anything about it.

Truly searching for greater understanding not necessarily direction as is so often the case.

Please don't be mad at me:(

Ron Humphrey
08-19-2008, 05:25 PM
http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-104e.html

Statement from NATO

Ken White
08-19-2008, 05:25 PM
It's 'cause the average Journalist, Pundit or Academic doesn't know any more about the essentials of the action than you do -- and quite possibly, they know even less -- ergo, they concentrate on the non-essentials and esoteric items to justify their pay and just say something.

The neat thing is I can also pontificate and I don't even expect to be paid... :D

Tom Odom
08-19-2008, 05:40 PM
so much as trying to really understand why it always seems like efforts to explain whats happening consistantly seem to focus on surrounding implications of one action or another rather than than pointedly answering the basic's.

What- was done
Why-it was done
Who- it was done for
When it started
How it came about

Then Why was what was done the right thing or wrong, and why each party would see it as such.
Why is each sides perspective right or wrong
Why is or isn't it of vital interest
Etc

The article you posted was excellent in that it showed a little more of the overall picture and placed it in a different perspective, thus allowing me to more definitively break down the questions in such a manner as to be given feedback directly related to that question (as American Pride was able to do with his follow-on posting).

The main point I have had is still the same Why was it OK for Russia to do what it did aside from the fact that supposedly noone else can do anything about it.

Truly searching for greater understanding not necessarily direction as is so often the case.

Please don't be mad at me:(

Not mad at all. Seeking a greater clarity for what you are asking.

I would say that attaching "right or wrong" values to this situation simply adds false moral clarity to a long standing issue that is anything but clear.

Russia is being Russia--not the USSR but Russia in that she is seeking to preserve her buffers and in this case using an ethnic conflict or two to do so.

I am not a specialist on this area; my knowledge is generalist at best. But aside from not staying at Holiday Inn Express last night (or last year for that matter), I do know that Russia has maintained along standing tradition/policy of controlling buffer states. Putin could give a rat's behind about the SO's or the Abkhazians. He gives a very large rat's behind about Georgia joining NATO or missiles in Poland.

In my estimation, much of what we have pushed in the past decade with regards to expanding NATO was done because we could do so without penalty or push back. If I tried to guess what was going through the Georigians' minds, it would be a similar thought. They could do some push back without penalty. I think Putin read that one correctly. Using the situation Putin pushed back hard.

If you want a parallel issue, I would have to say Cuba in 1960 is a closer match than Czechoslavakia, 1968. But not just the Cuban side of the Cuban crisis but also the intermediate range missiles we had in turkey at the time that we pulled when all was said and done.

It's not right and it's not wrong. It is what it is and that is power applied.

Tom

jmm99
08-19-2008, 06:20 PM
from Ron Humphrey
Why was it OK for Russia to do what it did ...

Here is Russia's answer from Sergei Ivanov, my favorite Kremlin saatana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoXuHl6V1Kg

5 minutes of worthwhile viewing - knowing the adversary.

jmm99
08-19-2008, 07:31 PM
"the temporary security zone".


Russia says to pull back Georgia force by Aug 22
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Aug 19, 2008 11:50 EST

MOSCOW, Aug 19 (Reuters) - President Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday that by Aug. 22 Russia will pull its troops in Georgia back to the positions set out in a French-brokered ceasefire agreement.

Medvedev told French leader Nicolas Sarkozy by telephone that "by 22 August... a part of the peacekeepers will be pulled back to the temporary security zone," the Kremlin said in a statement.

"The remaining contingent that was used to reinforce the peacekeepers will be pulled back to the territory of South Ossetia and to Russia," the Kremlin said.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=304671

Norfolk
08-19-2008, 11:46 PM
Nordstream not only has Gerhard Schroeder at the helm, they've gone and found yet another former PM to force the Sierra through Scandinavia and the Baltic Seabed -- ex-Finnish PM Paavo Lipponen. Lipponen was quoted:

Now that is interesting; I had read that Lipponen had turned the offer down a little while ago. Well, that has reversed pretty quickly. Hmmm...

carl
08-20-2008, 10:49 AM
These are the things I have learned from watching and reading about all this. They of course are only my opinion.

- Georgia acted very foolishly and did not fight effectively. That is of
secondary consideration.

The main points are:

- Russia wants its empire back, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof.

- Russia's military is rather more effective than it was 10 years ago.

- The outcome of this conflict will increase greatly the confidence of the
Russian gov in the power of its armed forces and will make them that
much more likely to use them in the future.

- In addition to the military side the Russians are proving fairly adept at
the pr game, "nothing but peacekeepers in those tanks", and therefore
the diplomatic side.

- All this is especially worrying because Russia does a pretty good imitation
of a criminal state.

- Georgia did its best to align itself with the US, to the extent of dispatching
soldiers to help us in a war that had nothing to do with Georgia, and
now it is facing ruination.

The west had better start thinking how far they will let the Russians go and once this is decided (I don't really expect this to happen, but it would be the honorable thing) communicate this clearly to the Russians and to the nations that comprise the "near abroad".

The most important thing the nations in the "near abroad" have to think about is how much the west is willing to help them; really willing to help, not just what they say, and how much they can help themselves.

jmm99
08-20-2008, 03:45 PM
not too long ago (yesterday), equaled "the temporary security zone", which now equals "the security corridor" (permanent ?)


NY Times
Russia Sends Mixed Signs on Pullout From Georgia
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ and ELLEN BARRY
Published: August 19, 2008
POTI, Georgia — Russia showed small signs of moving a few troops away from Georgia on Tuesday. But Russia retained its grip on the country, and Russian forces bound and blindfolded 21 Georgian soldiers at the Black Sea port of Poti, parading them with five seized Humvees belonging to Georgia’s backers — the United States......

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/europe/20georgia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Now for the international military law aspects of the NYT article.


from same source
A 1999 document written by the Joint Control Commission, an international body that monitored tensions in South Ossetia, the breakaway enclave over which hostilities between Russia and Georgia flared this month, gives peacekeepers access to a “security corridor” that extends about five miles in each direction from the enclave’s perimeter.

Under that document, the corridor reaches into Georgian-held territory, including portions of the country’s main east-west highway, and right through Karaleti.

Mr. Medvedev has said Russian peacekeepers will pull back from other Georgian territory but remain inside the security corridor.

These prior legal documents and agreements will keep coming out of the woodwork as the Russian FSB legal machine continues to fine tune its presentation.


from same source
At the United Nations on Tuesday the Security Council considered a new, abbreviated resolution demanding that Russia withdraw all of its troops from Georgia.

But during the acrimonious session, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, declared that his nation could not support a resolution that did not endorse all six points of the cease-fire agreement, which he said should be included “verbatim.”

As well he should argue “verbatim”, since the cease-fire agreement favors his country.

kaur
08-20-2008, 04:31 PM
carl said:


The most important thing the nations in the "near abroad" have to think about is how much the west is willing to help them; really willing to help, not just what they say, and how much they can help themselves.

President Bush said:


"Georgia is a beacon of liberty for this region and the world," Mr Bush said. "The path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone ... the American people will stand with you."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/10/georgia.usa

This statement sounds almost like "Ich bin ein Berlinier"

carl said:


- Russia's military is rather more effective than it was 10 years ago.

I'd like to ask why you say so? Do you compare Georgian-Russian war with Chechen-Russia war? If yes, then I think that for example in the 1st phase of Russians did the same things and even better. To my knowledge they were much better prepared. They had of course more time. Artillery conquered and infantry (mechanized) occupied. Georgians stopped after 1st round, but Chechens continued after conventional phase with unconventional warfare. And the war goes on. It depends ...

Ratzel
08-20-2008, 05:52 PM
(and I am fairly sick of telling ethnic Russian here I have no need to learn Russian, as we are living in Estonia),

Racist! Nazi! Xenophobe!

I just thought I'd introduce you to the political rhetoric of immigration politics in America. :D

Stan
08-20-2008, 07:15 PM
Racist! Nazi! Xenophobe!

I just thought I'd introduce you to the political rhetoric of immigration politics in America. :D

Hmmm, let's go back to my childhood days in NE DC for just a second :eek:
I joined the Army to get outta there :D

To be frank, 13 years ago, having taken all the required exams in order to legally work and live here, I have little to say to folks that have spent 50 years here thinking they live in Russia, and yet, can't muster a "thank you" in Estonian. I have even less sympathy for the current youth that align themselves with whatever is in fashion. Such fashion statements include bomb threats to schools and shopping centers (250 or more a year, all false).

I've said it a hundred times this year: If you're so Russian, the border to Russia is that way, 240 clicks or so...Should I now offer you a ride ?

How's my political rhetoric :)

Regards, Stan

jmm99
08-20-2008, 07:24 PM
Hei K,


from kaur
This statement sounds almost like "Ich bin ein Berlinier"

Agreed; but Pres. Kennedy was willing and able to stand behind that statement with military force. I give Pres. Bush the benefit of the doubt that he is willing, but I do not see the "able" is presently available (leaving aside the wisdom of the policy if it were).

Hence, a policy based on "I am a Georgian" sounds good; but lacks a credible base in real terms.

Sorry to be so gloomy about this situation, but I still am seeing Hungary 1956.

carl
08-20-2008, 07:35 PM
kaur:

By "the west", I meant the entire west, especially western Europe. I would be shocked speechless if any country west of Poland was prepared to do anything substantive to help the "near abroad".

For all our stated good intentions, the US is fully occupied elsewhere. US forces are strained severely right now and we haven't show much inclination to make our forces bigger in order to ease that strain.

I remember a Republic of South Vietnam that we abandoned. If I remember correctly we encouraged the Kurds once and then changed our minds. More recently we cheered on the Shiites and sat on our hands while Saddam crushed them.

My opinion about the Russian military is based mostly on results. It is also based on all that I've read, things like the the FPRI article mentioned above by Stan. My opinion though is that of someone with zero practical experience.

jmm99
08-20-2008, 07:50 PM
Short history and timeline

http://www.freedomfighter56.com/en_history.html


The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Created and maintained by the European Division Collections and Services Directorate
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. This page provides links to sites commemorating the event or providing resources for research.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/european/hungary/resources/hu-1956.html

Collections of the 1956 Digital Archive - In Depth


Donald and Vera Blinken Collection - Hungarian Refugee Interviews from 1957 to 1958More than 30,000 pages of several hundred in-depth interviews, together with 3,000 pages of subject files.

Zwack CollectionSpecial collection of newspaper clippings on 1956.

National Security Archive Collection - declassified intelligence documents on 1956
CIA daily briefings and weekly analyses, October-December 1956.
This collection comprises the daily briefings and weekly summaries prepared by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the 1956 revolution. These top secret documents were made accessible between 2001 and 2005 as a result of the repeated efforts of the civil organization called National Security Archive

RFE/RL Collection - Media CoverageNewspaper clippings and press releases relating to Refugee issues from 1956 to 1967.

RFE/RL Collection - Background ReportsBackground Reports written on Hungary by the Research Institute of RFE/RL from 1954 to 1989.

RFE/RL Collection - Evaluation Information ItemsSelected documents from the Evaluation Information. Items written by RFE field bureaus on Hungarian Refugee issues from 1952 to 1971.

1956 OSA Audiovisual Collection - 69 films and film excerptsDocumentaries, fiction and propaganda films, reports and newsreels.

Hoover Institution Archives - Audience Opinion Surveys by RFE/RLFrom the Archives of the Hoover Institution.

OSA Reference Information Paper on 1956A thematic guide prepared by archivists at OSA.

Selected Online Collections

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/digitalarchive/#nsa

Ron Humphrey
08-20-2008, 08:20 PM
Short history and timeline

http://www.freedomfighter56.com/en_history.html



http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/european/hungary/resources/hu-1956.html

Collections of the 1956 Digital Archive - In Depth



http://www.osa.ceu.hu/digitalarchive/#nsa


One would hope that the Russians see Hungary 1956 as well



Hungarian university students gathered and marched to the statue of József Bem, a Polish General who led Hungarian freedom fighters during the 1848 Revolution, to express solidarity for the Polish workers fighting against communism. The protest soon swelled to 200,000 Hungarians demanding independence in front of the Parliament.


And Hungary/ the many many other countries with similar experiences as they have been after the 80's

Is it truly realistic for any one nation/country/man to think that they can acheive much more than temporary results in controlling those around them through these historically horrific practices. One would think that they know better. Especially with the information environment today.

badtux
08-20-2008, 08:24 PM
The Hungarians lost in 1848 too. It was not until 1918 that Hungary was stripped out of the Hapsburg Empire as an independent nation.

You'd think that Georgians would study history insofar as the response of Western nations when Russian tanks invade (i.e., crickets), but that, apparently, just doesn't happen anymore. Doing a Finland and being very, very careful not to prod the bear is pretty much the only way to deal with the situation if you're in Russia's "near abroad", but some nations just don't seem to get the hint...

jmm99
08-20-2008, 08:32 PM
30 years plus, where the US accepted that there would be no rollback of SovCom & ChiCom borders as they then existed. The policy became definitely one of containment - which in the end worked through Reagan.

The SovCom & ChiCom response (after Hungary) was then to institute the proxy wars - of which, Vietnam was one. Perhaps, Vlad & Co. want to see another go-around; perhaps, thinking they will do better this time. I dunno.

I see this situation as even more unstable, but then I am a skeptic and pessimist, whose crystal ball has been often proved wrong.

carl
08-20-2008, 09:53 PM
I think it important to note that because Russia defeated an inept and so far not very determined Georgia, it does not mean it is the Soviet Union of 1975. It is a country with a lot of weaknesses, the most glaring of which is demographic. Their population is falling.

They outnumber the countries of the west "near abroad" but not overwhelmingly so. The combined population of Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia, Finland, Ukraine and the Baltic countries is around 111 million. Russia's is 141 million (numbers based on a quick internet search).

People need to be serious about the threat they pose and the effort required to oppose it but that does not mean it would be hopeless to try. Russia has to be stressed in order for those weaknesses to come into play.

If Vlad got them into a really serious situation, I don't think it is certain the population would go along with it.

Ken White
08-20-2008, 11:12 PM
what I've read about the Russian army -- all their services -- in this operation are pretty far from awe inspiring. Lot of tactical errors on view, foot deployment and weapons handling sloppy as all get out, obviously not the greatest morale in the world, lot of mechanical and maintenance problems and a lot of older equipment -- with few antennae.

I didn't worry much about them 30-40 years ago when I was supposed to, I worry less now than I did then.

kaur
08-21-2008, 12:10 PM
Russian journal "Vlast" writes:


A 6,000-word article in the current issue of “Kommersant-Vlast” attempts to answer the most basic questions about the war between Moscow and Tbilisi, including “why did the war begin?” “Why hasn’t it ended?” “What were the losses on the Russian and Georgian sides? And “What did each side learn from the other?” (www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1011909).

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/08/window-on-eurasia-moscow-tried-but.html

wm
08-21-2008, 02:27 PM
I think it important to note that because Russia defeated an inept and so far not very determined Georgia, it does not mean it is the Soviet Union of 1975.
Concur.

From my admittedly limited open source views, I find the operation to be on about a par with the US mission to Grenada, coupled with the ability to have done the kind of extended train up that the US had prior to DS. I do not find the outcome to be too impressive. I do note that they did a real good job of knowing what the key nodes were and how to set themselves up to be able to respond to counter measures AKA Terrain IPB). IOW the OPPLAN seemed well done and the execution was what one might expect of a unit that was basicaly doing an end of training cycle FTX. To draw the conclusion that the Russian military is really a world class power is a little beyond the premises' strength I think.

bourbon
08-21-2008, 04:06 PM
Since the start of the recent hostilities I have been scanning the news in vein looking for something by Thomas Goltz, the author of several books I've read on the Caucasus. Goltz is a great, he's a mad man, what a foreign correspondent should be. He writes with a great historical depth. Apparently he was in Istanbul at the outbreak of hostilities and headed off to Georgia, he is reporting over at The Overseas Press Club. Enjoy:

Vintage Russia Makes Its Comeback, 12 August 2008 (http://www.opcofamerica.org/200808124480/news-features/vintage-russian-politics-makes-its-comeback.html)
Georgia: A Five-Hour Lunch, 18 August 2008 (http://www.opcofamerica.org/200808184494/news-features/a-five-hour-lunch.html)
Georgia's Western Ambitions, 18 August 2008 (http://www.opcofamerica.org/200808184495/news-features/georgia-s-western-ambitions.html)
South Ossetia as Bait, 19 August 2008 (http://www.opcofamerica.org/200808194501/news-features/south-ossetia-as-bait.html)

Stevely
08-21-2008, 04:37 PM
Since the start of the recent hostilities I have been scanning the news in vein looking for something by Thomas Goltz, the author of several books I've read on the Caucasus. Goltz is a great, he's a mad man, what a foreign correspondent should be. He writes with a great historical depth. Apparently he was in Istanbul at the outbreak of hostilities and headed off to Georgia, he is reporting over at The Overseas Press Club. Enjoy:

Vintage Russia Makes Its Comeback, 12 August 2008 (http://www.opcofamerica.org/200808124480/news-features/vintage-russian-politics-makes-its-comeback.html)
Georgia: A Five-Hour Lunch, 18 August 2008 (http://www.opcofamerica.org/200808184494/news-features/a-five-hour-lunch.html)
Georgia's Western Ambitions, 18 August 2008 (http://www.opcofamerica.org/200808184495/news-features/georgia-s-western-ambitions.html)
South Ossetia as Bait, 19 August 2008 (http://www.opcofamerica.org/200808194501/news-features/south-ossetia-as-bait.html)

Bourbon, thanks for posting that - that was some entertaining reading. I will stay tuned in to the fella's dispatches.

jmm99
08-21-2008, 04:38 PM
Not my usual media outlet, but some more in-depth coverage of the continued Russian legal offensive.


Thursday, August 21, 2008
01:34 Mecca time, 22:34 GMT
Russia builds Ossetia 'buffer zone'
Russian troops are fortifying a "buffer zone" around the disputed South Ossetia region with eight military posts and a ban on Georgian aircraft, a senior Russian commander has said. Russia will also maintain a military presence around Abkhazia, another separatist region in the west of Georgia, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy head of Russia's general staff said in a televised news conference in Moscow on Wednesday.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/2008820143346769471.html


Wednesday, August 20, 2008
03:31 Mecca time, 00:31 GMT
Russia rejects UN draft resolution
Russia has rejected a UN Security Council draft resolution demanding full compliance with the Georgia ceasefire, saying the text did not fully reflect a peace plan agreed to on Sunday.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/20088200733542234.html

The full text of the Russian draft UN resolution seems simply to incorporate the text of the cease-fire agreement reported a while ago by the NY Times. So, there seems to have been some "interpretative" spin of the as-signed agreement by our side. Unfortunately, word games do not work well against a prepared adversary.


TEXT-Russian draft Security Council resolution on Georgia
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Aug 20, 2008 14:42 EST
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Following is the full text of a draft U.N. Security Council resolution on Georgia circulated by Russia to council members Wednesday.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=307562

davidbfpo
08-21-2008, 09:48 PM
It is the 40th anniversary of the Warsaw Pact USSR led invasion of Czechoslovakia, which ended the Prague Spring, a human face to socialism. BBC Radio 4 is broadcasting some repeats of the news reporting, although I've yet to see any commentary in the main press / TV.

Note the similarities: small nation decides on a course of action and big neighbour disagrees. Uses force to end small nation's actions.

The 1968 invasion is one of my first political / history events that I followed and flew back from a holiday listening to live radio reports (when not in the air).

davidbfpo

Norfolk
08-21-2008, 10:37 PM
Concur.

From my admittedly limited open source views, I find the operation to be on about a par with the US mission to Grenada, coupled with the ability to have done the kind of extended train up that the US had prior to DS. I do not find the outcome to be too impressive. I do note that they did a real good job of knowing what the key nodes were and how to set themselves up to be able to respond to counter measures AKA Terrain IPB). IOW the OPPLAN seemed well done and the execution was what one might expect of a unit that was basicaly doing an end of training cycle FTX. To draw the conclusion that the Russian military is really a world class power is a little beyond the premises' strength I think.

The Georgia-Grenada comparison has been put out in quite a few places lately, and it seems to be an accurate enough one. Still, it seems strange to compare the Mexican standoff between Cuban construction workers and the Rangers and the 82nd at Point Salines airfield to the Russian occupation of much of Georgia. At least the US disposed of the matter in only 3 days; the Russians are, for the moment at least, still stuck outside Tblisi. Though certainly no one is laughing.

One of the things that has really struck me when viewing pictures and videos of Russian troops has been the great preponderance of Motorised Infantry; not surprisingly given that it was elements of a MRD that hit the Georgians in South Ossetia. But Georgian claims that they took out 40 Russian tanks (out of a reported total of some 90, with 150 APCs/IFVs) mostly north of T-town don't seem implausible, even if the Georgians still cracked in the end. Now, whether that count is more or less accurate, and whether or not the "tanks" really were tanks and not a combination of all manner of AFVs, it still seems likely that the Russians took a bit of a beating themselves in the early stages.

Even if the Russians do mostly withdraw, it seems unlikely that they'll settle for anything less than seeking to install a client-government, at least, in the long run in Georgia. It seems difficult to imagine Georgia being able to successfully resist such pressure over the long haul.

wm
08-22-2008, 12:09 PM
The Georgia-Grenada comparison has been put out in quite a few places lately, and it seems to be an accurate enough one. Still, it seems strange to compare the Mexican standoff between Cuban construction workers and the Rangers and the 82nd at Point Salines airfield to the Russian occupation of much of Georgia. At least the US disposed of the matter in only 3 days; the Russians are, for the moment at least, still stuck outside Tblisi. Though certainly no one is laughing.
I'd like to see some links to the other sources making the Grenada comparison if possible.

You've sort of made my point in your next few sentences. It took the the 82d's DRB and the 22d MAU/MEU about 3 days to disarm a bunch of Cuban construction workers on a 132 Sq. mi. island. It took less than a division-sized force of the Russian Army about the same time to slash through a breakaway province of 1500 sq. mi.
I recognize differences in the force composition (light infantry/airborne vs mech infantry/armor) and the terrain of the two AO(an island versus versus a single mountain road through a tunnel) but I see the point of the two ops as being rather similar--a need to squirt a little testosterone after some period of feeling emasculated by other events in the world (Beirut Marine Barracks bombing for the US and Bosnia, among other recent events, for Russia.)

BTW, some folks have commented on the proximity of the event to the Olympics. Anyone happen to note how many medals Russians are taking home from China? As of this AM, they have 53 (16 gold) to the US's 100 (30 gold)and China's 83 (46 gold). Is diversion of the world's attention from this poor showing part of the determinant for the operation's timimg?

Ron Humphrey
08-22-2008, 01:53 PM
BTW, some folks have commented on the proximity of the event to the Olympics. Anyone happen to note how many medals Russians are taking home from China? As of this AM, they have 53 (16 gold) to the US's 100 (30 gold)and China's 83 (46 gold). Is diversion of the world's attention from this poor showing part of the determinant for the operation's timimg?

If we're back to going to war to decide disagreements / avoid embarrassment I guess The Romans Empire is already back.:wry:

jmm99
08-22-2008, 04:56 PM
Russia to keep 500 troops in Georgia buffer zone
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Aug 21, 2008 07:29 EST

SOCHI, Russia, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Russia intends to keep 500 troops in a security zone surrounding Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.

"Tomorrow, 8 checkpoints will be established in the security zone in which 500 peacekeepers will be deployed, no more than that," Lavrov told reporters. "Other peacekeepers will be moved to South Ossetia, while other troops will be moved to Russia."

Lavrov did not specify how many troops Russia planned to keep in South Ossetia.

"I want to state this clearly and unequivocally that Russia is carrying out in full the six principles agreed between Medvedev and Sarkozy," he said. .....

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=308583

And, from the other side of the issue.


Saakashvili says West must make Russia quit Georgia
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Aug 21, 2008 15:37 EST

PARIS, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The European Union and the United States should act to make Russian forces leave Georgia and stop further expansionism, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told a French newspaper on Thursday.
....
Saakashvili criticised the French-brokered ceasefire as "ambiguous and unclear" and said it left the Russians the room to do as they wanted on the ground.

"The result is that we now have to depend on the goodwill of Russia. The only forces on the ground are Russian. All we can do is make declarations," he said.....

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=309399

Hope is not a strategy. S's bottom line assessment is realistic given the totality of circumstances.

PS: "Hope" comment is not directed vs. Ron's discussion above. It is generally a comment on S's request to West, etc.

Norfolk
08-22-2008, 09:13 PM
I'd like to see some links to the other sources making the Grenada comparison if possible.

You've sort of made my point in your next few sentences. It took the the 82d's DRB and the 22d MAU/MEU about 3 days to disarm a bunch of Cuban construction workers on a 132 Sq. mi. island. It took less than a division-sized force of the Russian Army about the same time to slash through a breakaway province of 1500 sq. mi.
I recognize differences in the force composition (light infantry/airborne vs mech infantry/armor) and the terrain of the two AO(an island versus versus a single mountain road through a tunnel) but I see the point of the two ops as being rather similar--a need to squirt a little testosterone after some period of feeling emasculated by other events in the world (Beirut Marine Barracks bombing for the US and Bosnia, among other recent events, for Russia.)

Here be, wm (I'll just add my disclaimer here that I don't recommend some of them, for obvious reasons):

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1144-Russias-Next-Move-in-Georgia.html

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/forum/story.html?id=fb560f5f-38b9-4b82-a427-46d900ce3973

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1160856&auth=PETER%20WORTHINGTON

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/georgia-5/

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-08-13.asp

http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/08/10/georgia-on-our-minds/

Edited to Add:

No disagreement on your take, Wayne, especially in the Grenada-Georgia comparison.

Besides the traditional Russian penchant for brute force at the tactical level, the thing that stands out most about the Russian invasion is the also traditional Russian emphasis on the Operational level of war; wielding a sledgehammer at the tactical level, while playing a cello (or at least a respectable violin) at the operational level. The Russians still know how to wire and channel all that brute force into an effective campaign - even if the Georgian Government remains in place, at least for the time being.

jmm99
08-23-2008, 05:59 PM
Russia Stages a Substantial Withdrawal
Georgian, Foreign Officials Dispute Assertion of Compliance With Cease-Fire
By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, August 23, 2008; A01
GORI, Georgia, Aug. 22 -- Russia pulled troops and armored vehicles out of vast swaths of seized territory and ended its 10-day occupation of this Georgian city Friday, but Georgian and foreign officials disputed Russia's claim that it had complied with the terms of a recent cease-fire agreement. .....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/22/AR2008082200580_pf.html


Georgia buffer checkpoints "permanent" - Russia
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Aug 22, 2008 04:58 EST
MOSCOW, Aug 22 (Reuters) - Russian military checkpoints being built in the area adjacent to Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia will be permanent, a senior Russian military official said on Friday. .....

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=310168


US: Russia has not complied with Georgia ceasefire
Jeremy Pelofsky
Reuters North American News Service
Aug 22, 2008 15:21 EST
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Russia has not pulled its troops out of Georgia, the United States said Friday, rejecting Moscow's declaration that it has fulfilled a pledge to withdraw under a French-brokered ceasefire agreement. ...

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=311017


Russia's first Georgia move legitimate: U.S. envoy
Reuters
August 22, 2008 at 6:33 AM EDT
MOSCOW — The U.S. ambassador to Moscow, in a rare U.S. comment endorsing Russia's initial moves in Georgia, described the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack. .....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080822.wambassador0822/BNStory/International

----------------------------------------
Some decent Turkish coverage


Zaman
Aug 23, 2008
US warship sails through straits, Russia suspicious
The guided missile destroyer USS McFaul passed through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus on Friday.
In a move likely to heat up tensions between the United States and Russia over a conflict in the troubled Caucasus, a US Navy warship sailed through the Turkish Straits yesterday to take relief supplies to Georgia. .....

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=151006&bolum=102


Turkish Daily News
Turkey insists US did not seek authorization
Friday, August 22, 2008
ANKARA – Turkish Daily News
Turkey insists that the United States had not sought authorization for the passage of two U.S. military hospital ships “Mercy” and “Comfort” through the straits to dispatch humanitarian aid to war-hit Georgia. ...

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=113355

-----------------------------------------
Still would like a graphic (or full text) of the as-signed Russian-Georgian agreement, but here is the AP update....


Provisions of the Georgia-Russia truce agreement
By The Associated Press
Fri Aug 22, 3:46 PM ET
Provisions of the agreement reached between Georgia and Russia to end fighting in Georgia. Text is according to the Kremlin following the Aug. 13 announcement of the agreement. Below the text is explanation of Russian plans for a withdrawal and "additional security measures" allowed under point 5. .....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080822/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia_truce_glance

Stan
08-24-2008, 10:04 AM
Remember the 3 fat pigs -- Russian gas, electricity and rail ? Estonia's rail connections were also mysteriously "turned off" following a bout with the Motherland, but thankfully not mined with UXO :rolleyes:


... a train carrying fuel has exploded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7579506.stm) after hitting a mine near Gori, Georgia's interior ministry said.

Interior ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said there had been several explosions near an abandoned Georgian military base where the Russian troops, on leaving Gori, had left a stockpile of munitions taken from the Georgian army.

wm
08-24-2008, 01:55 PM
Remember the 3 fat pigs -- Russian gas, electricity and rail ? Estonia's rail connections were also mysteriously "turned off" following a bout with the Motherland, but thankfully not mined with UXO :rolleyes:

Given that the USS McFaul had just made port at Poti, the western terminus for this rail line and the port for oil transshipment from that rail line, should we conclude that someone is trying to make a statement that merely gaining access to the port is not enough to guarantee the flow of oil?

Stan
08-24-2008, 05:37 PM
Given that the USS McFaul had just made port at Poti, the western terminus for this rail line and the port for oil transshipment from that rail line, should we conclude that someone is trying to make a statement that merely gaining access to the port is not enough to guarantee the flow of oil?

Hey Wayne !
Oh Yeah, intrigue and espionage at sea... glad I joined the Army :D


From Mcfaul's site - Mission: To conduct prompt and sustained combat operations at sea in support of national interests

Is the the whole kit and caboodle just about oil and pipelines ? Could someone - theoretically speaking - turn off the pipes at the harbor :eek:

Jeez, talk about sand paperin' a tiger's Alpha :)

jmm99
08-24-2008, 06:07 PM
in the evolving story. Poti has a long history, which included the presence of significant Russian Black Sea Fleet elements until late 1998.


On October 9, 1993, a war-torn Georgia had to legalize the Russian military presence in the country, and lease, among other military facilities, the Poti base to the Russian navy. However, Georgia continued, though fruitlessly, to claim the vessels formerly stationed at Poti as a part of a tripartite Russo-Ukrainian-Georgian dispute over the Soviet Black Sea Fleet shares.[14] By September 1998, the Russian military personnel had been withdrawn from Poti to then-Russian base at Batumi under a Russo-Georgian agreement signed earlier that year.[15]
[14] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Newsline. Vol. 1, No. 42, Part I, 30 May 1997.
[15] Georgian Border Guards pressure Russian counterparts to leave. RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 2, No. 172 Part I, 7 (September 1998).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poti

While Poti became a depressed area post-1991, cracking an UAE invesrtment deal in May 2008 (hmm....) gave some future promise.


Arab Times, Kuwait
Georgia lures Arab investors to build 'Black Sea Dubai'
POTI, Georgia, May 18, 2008 (AFP) - The port city of Poti has long symbolised Georgia's collapse, but President Mikheil Saakashvili sees potential for a Black Sea Dubai in its crumbling buildings and pot-holed streets -- and Arab investors are listening. ....

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/client/pagesdetails.asp?nid=17042&ccid=18

Re: Poti, Abkhazia's proximity makes that area more important to Russia's Black Sea policy than South Ossetia (whose major import is as a salient to cut Georgia in two).

One might also keep in mind that Batumi to the south also has an autonomous history with Russian military links.


Batumi was also host to the Russian 12th Military Base. Following the Rose Revolution, the central government pushed for the removal of these forces, and in 2005 an agreement with Moscow was reached. According to the agreement, the process of withdrawal was planned to be completed in a course of 2008, but the Batumi base was officially handed over to Georgia on November 13, 2007, ahead of planned schedule.[2]
[2] Russia Hands Over Batumi Military Base to Georgia. Civil Georgia, Tbilisi. 2007-11-13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batumi

Finally, despite its limited lead, the following article from Bloomberg updates a number of different facets in the on-going Georgian political story.


Protesters Chant `Russians Go Home' at Georgian Port (Update5)
By Helena Bedwell and Maria Levitov
Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Hundreds of Georgians chanted ``Russians go home'' at the Black Sea port of Poti today to protest checkpoints set up by Russian troops manning armored personnel carriers. ....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aXQbjnyB_yFo&refer=europe

PS: Had problems with Arab Times link from this page (works fine from Google). Same story at

http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/search_index.php?page=detail_news&news_id=33994

kaur
08-25-2008, 09:47 AM
The day before Georgia introduced forces into its breakaway region of South Ossetia, there were 48 Russian journalists there, one of the clearest indications yet that Moscow not only knew Tbilisi was planning to introduce forces into that breakaway region but also was planning its own military response and wanted to ensure both were extensively covered.
Said Tsarnayev, a Chechen freelance photographer with Reuters, told RFE/RL’s North Caucasus Service that he had gone to South Ossetia to take nature pictures and that he was surprised to find what RFE/RL’s Brian Whitmore yesterday said was “a virtual army of Russian journalists at his hotel”

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/08/window-on-eurasia-moscow-pre-positioned.html

jmm99
08-25-2008, 05:11 PM
Hei K,

Seems the Russians were well prepared on the civil front (withdrawal of non-combatants, agitprop in place, etc.). Leaving aside the military aspect (which others have discussed), I've never discounted their capabilities for deception, disinformation and political infiltration.

Tying into Goble's before picture at Tskhinvali, is an after picture in one of today's CSM's leads:


Behind checkpoints, a look at Russian actions in Georgia
Our correspondent describes a tour led by Kremlin press attaché SashaMechevsky through Russian-controlled villages and the South Ossetian capitalof Tskhinvali.
By Paul Rimple
from the August 25, 2008 edition
Since agreeing to a cease-fire deal with Georgia Aug. 15, Russia has been under close scrutiny. Is it pulling troops out or not? Is it protecting smoldering villages or pillaging them?

Moscow has frequently said one thing while eyewitnesses have reported another during the conflict. Even after Friday's withdrawal, US officials said Russia – which left troops at military checkpoints ringing South Ossetia – had not gone far enough. Georgia blamed the weekend explosion of a train carrying crude oil on a Russian-planted land mine.

As someone who has lived in and reported from Georgia for six years, I knew how rumors could fly around here. I wanted to see for myself what Russia was doing. ....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0825/p07s02-woeu.html

This article links to three other CSM articles which might be of interest.

Another view of the same guided tour from McClatchy:


Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2008
Russians give tour of Georgia, but try not to show too much
By Tom Lasseter | McClatchy Newspapers

KARALETI, Georgia — Russian Col. Igor Konoshenko looked at the building that had been burned by looters — who'd entered the town earlier this month after Russian troops drove through — and quickly tried to shift the reporters' attention elsewhere.

"The other buildings are fine, look at them," he said, waving his hand assertively.

That sort of redirection was typical of a seven-and-a-half-hour tour that the Russians conducted Sunday for reporters in the occupied countryside of Georgia. ....

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/50479.html

Some of the comments to the McClatchy article are real pieces of work - LOL !

badtux
08-25-2008, 05:41 PM
http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/08/window-on-eurasia-moscow-pre-positioned.html

Uhm, only problem there is that fighting started on August 1 (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/06/georgia.ossetia.ap/index.html). So Russian journalists being there on August 7 would not be unusual, it would be a case of journalists rushing to the nearest hot-spot in hopes of scooping each other (and Russian journalists because, well, nobody outside of Russia and Georgia really cared if Ossetian and Georgian forces were sniping and shelling each other, and certainly you would not see Georgian journalists in Tskhinvali!). If the Russian journalists were there *before* August 1, that would be unusual... but thus far we have no indication of that.

In other words, if you want to prove a conspiracy theory whereby Russia chose the time that Georgia invaded, this won't do it. Not to mention that it greatly mis-states the role of the Russian government in the Russian press. Russia is not the former Soviet Union, and the Russian press isn't a branch of the government. The Russian press is not a free press by any means -- media outlets that report things not beloved by the government find themselves charged with "extremism" and shut down, so they tend to self-censor very well, and as with the U.S. many major media outlets are owned by government supporters -- but a government official can't just say "Report on this or you go to the gulag" like back during Soviet days. All they can do is issue press releases and hold press conferences, just like here in the USA. If the U.S. government held a press conference and said that Mexican Army snipers were shooting across the border at El Paso and killing Americans, and that Mexican artillery had fired on a few houses near the border, you'd see the same stampede of American reporters to El Paso. But this doesn't mean the U.S. government controls the U.S. press. It just means that reporters stampede to where there's a story.

kaur
08-25-2008, 06:48 PM
badtux wrote:


In other words, if you want to prove a conspiracy theory whereby Russia chose the time that Georgia invaded, this won't do it. Not to mention that it greatly mis-states the role of the Russian government in the Russian press. Russia is not the former Soviet Union, and the Russian press isn't a branch of the government. The Russian press is not a free press by any means -- media outlets that report things not beloved by the government find themselves charged with "extremism" and shut down, so they tend to self-censor very well, and as with the U.S. many major media outlets are owned by government supporters -- but a government official can't just say "Report on this or you go to the gulag" like back during Soviet days.

What firm is the owner of biggest TV companies? Gazprom media. Who is the owner of the firm? Bank Rossija. Who are the owners of the bank? 2 brothers, who are friends of Putin from the middle of 90s. How the state bacame owner of Gazprom? Too long story. Who is the owner of English language Russia Today? Russian state structures. How does Presidential administration give direct orders to TV? Just read Russian free newspapers. This show is really manipulated. Belive me. Plus there is intensive narrative building. You can't underestimate this. To fight terrorists or states, in the end this is all the same. It is all about belief and narratives.

To illustrate little bit this thinking I suggest you to look at this table that is originally from Russian business daily "Vedomosti".

http://www.compromat.ru/main/putin/image/kovalchuki.gif

If you can read Russian, then in the beginning of August this article was published by Russian "Newsweek."

http://www.compromat.ru/main/prismi/tvcenz.htm

Conspiracy theories started already couple months ago. For example. During 10 days in may Jamestown reported.

ANNEXATION AND MILITARIZATION OF ABKHAZIA CONTINUE APACE
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373020

RUSSIA REINFORCES FORCES IN ABKHAZIA AS A POSSIBILITY OF ARMED CONFLICT LOOMS
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373024

RUSSIA DOUBLING ITS TROOPS IN GEORGIA’S ABKHAZIA REGION
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373028

RUSSIA’S STRANGE “PEACEKEEPING” OPERATION IN ABKHAZIA
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373029

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS PASSIVE AS RUSSIA MOVES TROOPS INTO ABKHAZIA
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373032

THE WEST RESPONDS WEAKLY TO RUSSIAN CHALLENGES IN GEORGIA: PART I
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373036

THE WEST CAN RESPOND MORE EFFECTIVELY TO RUSSIA'S ASSAULT ON GEORGIA: PART II
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373040

THE WEST CAN RESPOND MORE EFFECTIVELY TO RUSSIA'S ASSAULT ON GEORGIA: PART III
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373044

WILL PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV’S FIRST CRISIS BE GEORGIA?
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373050

Stan
08-25-2008, 07:02 PM
Uhm, only problem there is that fighting started on August 1 (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/06/georgia.ossetia.ap/index.html). So Russian journalists being there on August 7 would not be unusual, it would be a case of journalists rushing to the nearest hot-spot in hopes of scooping each other (and Russian journalists because, well, nobody outside of Russia and Georgia really cared if Ossetian and Georgian forces were sniping and shelling each other, and certainly you would not see Georgian journalists in Tskhinvali!). If the Russian journalists were there *before* August 1, that would be unusual... but thus far we have no indication of that.

In other words, if you want to prove a conspiracy theory whereby Russia chose the time that Georgia invaded, this won't do it.

I'll just say that Russian antics are certainly not limited to prepositioning journalists in this region. Kaur has mucho time there and here, and, I have at least 13 years of proof to back that statement.

Additionally, I previously asked you to introduce yourself here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441&page=35), and I think sufficient time has passed. Please do take the time to do said.

EDIT:
RUSSIAN JOURNALISTS USED AS CHANNEL FOR TBILISI-MOSCOW CONTACTS (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373061)

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Last week Georgia and its breakaway province of Abkhazia were close to a war that would surely have involved Russia.

Regards, Stan

badtux
08-25-2008, 08:04 PM
What firm is the owner of biggest TV companies? Gazprom media. Who is


What firms are the owner of the biggest TV news companies in the USA? GE (NBC/MSNBC), the nation's largest defense contractor. News Corporation(Fox News), run by a media mogul with immense political clout and widely credited with being the voice of the current administration. Time-Warner (CNN), which has a long history of conservative pro-government reporting dating back to the days of the oligarch Henry Luce.

The biggest difference between the two occur with smaller media outlets. Here in the United States, smaller outlets such as McClatchy feel comfortable, within limits, of doing reporting that the government doesn't like (I say "within limits" because they also face the problem of losing major advertisers if they go beyond what the oligarchs who own those advertisers are comfortable supporting). In Russia, there are a variety of mechanisms in place to make sure that reporters and editors self-censor. Go too far and the Putin Youth invade your offices and trash the place, someone kills you, or the State jails you for "extremism". So the State can and does punish you in Russia if you cover stories in a way the government disagrees with. But once again, there is no direct way for the government to order smaller outlets to cover any particular story.

And indeed, no such direct way is necessary. As I pointed out, if you had someone shooting U.S. citizens in the streets you would see a rush of U.S. reporters there just as if you had someone shooting Russian citizens in the streets you'd see a rush of Russian reporters there. No "orders" on the part of the government are needed to see to that, just self-interest on the part of reporters who want to rush to get the next scoop for their newspapers. The difference between Russia and the former Soviet Union is that today's Russian government (as with the U.S. government) understands that self-interest is a better way to control the press as compared to direct state control, as vs. the Soviet Union, where direct state control was imposed upon all press. The difference between Russia and the USA is that Russia will impose indirect or direct state sanction if something is reported that the Russian government does not want reported, while the US government does not have that ability at present. That is why the US has a free press while Russia does not.

In any event, this is a big divergence from the original point, which was that if shooting started on August 1 you would naturally expect reporters to be on the scene by August 7. It's just that I have friends in Russia (one of whom is a personal friend of Mark Ames of Exile.ru fame) who are familiar with the system there, and I have more than a little experience with the system here, so it frustrates me when people make statements that clearly are at odds with the facts, such as implying that there's no difference between the Russian media today and the Soviet media during Brezhnev's time. That simply is not true. As with the USA, in today's Russia direct government control "ordering" reporters to a region is not necessary to insure coverage of stories that the government wants covered. Simple self-interest -- editors not wanting to get "scooped" by other publications -- is enough.

badtux
08-25-2008, 08:39 PM
I'll just say that Russian antics are certainly not limited to prepositioning journalists in this region.


Indeed. That is a given.



Additionally, I previously asked you to introduce yourself here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441&page=35), and I think sufficient time has passed. Please do take the time to do said.


I started to do so. Unfortunately there are limits on what I can say that came into play when I started to do so, and the results were... unsatisfying. A non-disclosure disclosure is somewhat less than useful. I will continue to think of a way that I can give an idea of what I am doing without divulging information that is not to be divulged for reasons I can't say.

Steve Blair
08-25-2008, 08:46 PM
Indeed. That is a given.



I started to do so. Unfortunately there are limits on what I can say that came into play when I started to do so, and the results were... unsatisfying. A non-disclosure disclosure is somewhat less than useful. I will continue to think of a way that I can give an idea of what I am doing without divulging information that is not to be divulged for reasons I can't say.

Perhaps, but it's still helpful for those you're conversing with to have at least a basic idea of your interests and (when possible) a bit of background. Otherwise it's all too easy to come off as a troll or agitator (which isn't to say that's what you're doing...but to point out the reasoning behind such introductions). You'll notice that even some of our more prolific posters have pretty brief intros.

jmm99
08-25-2008, 08:49 PM
Stan's link to EDM turned up a couple of items (when I looked at the most recent archive) which relate to the subject matter of some of my prior posts.

The first is more background on how the Russians outfoxed Zarkozy.


RUSSIAN TROOPS IN GEORGIA: PULLOUT, PULL-BACK, OR STAY PUT?
By Vladimir Socor
Friday, August 22, 2008
....
On August 19 Medvedev assured Sarkozy that “Russian troops would withdraw from Georgia’s interior to South Ossetia and to Russia by August 22, with the exception of 500 troops needed for additional security measures,” according to the Kremlin’s communiqué (Interfax, August 19). Withdrawal “to South Ossetia and to Russia ” blurs the distinction between the two destinations, hinting at Moscow’s intention to relocate some Russia-based forces to South Ossetia in violation of the armistice. The 500 “excepted” troops are almost certainly earmarked to garrison a buffer zone (“security zone”) beyond South Ossetia, in Georgia’s interior. The buffer zone scheme does not figure in the Sarkozy-brokered armistice, but was added by him on August 14-16 at Russian insistence.

The Russians also misled Sarkozy linguistically. Medvedev used the Russian word “otvod,” meaning pull-back, rather than “vyvod” for “pullout.” The French should have been alert to this deception. It had already been used by Col.-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn in his daily briefing on August 18, when Nogovitsyn announced that at least some Russian forces would do an otvod, not a vyvod, and explained the Russian linguistic nuance for the world media (Interfax, August 18). This means that Russian troops would be pulled back within Georgia, rather than out of Georgia. Oblivious or perhaps undaunted, the Elysee Palace declared, “President Medvedev announced to President Sarkozy that the withdrawal would be concluded on August 21-22, with the exception of 500 personnel charged with implementing additional security measures under article five of the August 12 agreement” (Agence France Presse, August 19). .....

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373326

--------------------------
The second is the Turkish proposal for what could amount to a Caucasian "buffer zone" (previously slammed by some observers of the region).


RESPONDING TO GEORGIA CRISIS, TURKEY SEEKS NEW CAUCASUS SECURITY INITIATIVE
By Alman Mir - Ismail
Friday, August 22, 2008

The Georgian-Russian military conflict has created new security dilemmas in the South Caucasus. ....
.....
Partly because of the desire to refute these rumors and partly to achieve Turkey’s long-awaited goals in the Caucasus, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan came up with the “Platform for security and cooperation in the South Caucasus” initiative. The initiative, which Erdogan plans to discuss with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, is intended to create a regional security framework. It intends to accomplish this by encouraging greater integration between Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia and empowering Russia and Turkey to play the leads roles of regional security guarantors. Erdogan’s vision is to solve the frozen conflicts in the region on a sustainable and long-lasting basis and to satisfy the national interests of Russia, which regards the West’s influence in the region as a “zero-sum game.” Under this initiative, NATO would be limited to an outside role in providing security for the region -- a clear effort to minimize Russian distrust and anger. .....

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373327

---------------------------
As a brief comment on K's links, I find it interesting how many of them point to Abkhazia - re:, perhaps, the discussion above re: Poti and Black Sea control, etc.

Stan
08-25-2008, 08:56 PM
I started to do so. Unfortunately there are limits on what I can say that came into play when I started to do so, and the results were... unsatisfying. A non-disclosure disclosure is somewhat less than useful. I will continue to think of a way that I can give an idea of what I am doing without divulging information that is not to be divulged for reasons I can't say.

Fair enough. But as Steve opined, not real easy to gauge where you're coming from based on 2.5 kids at home and a dog on the way.

Stan
08-25-2008, 09:02 PM
Stan's link to EDM turned up a couple of items (when I looked at the most recent archive) which relate to the subject matter of some of my prior posts.

The first is more background on how the Russians outfoxed Zarkozy.

Now that's rich...Great catch JMM :D


The Russians also misled Sarkozy linguistically. Medvedev used the Russian word “otvod,” meaning pull-back, rather than “vyvod” for “pullout.” The French should have been alert to this deception.

Watcher In The Middle
08-26-2008, 04:15 AM
Investors Looking To Leave Russia?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The Georgia Invasion: In contrast with the West's otherwise tepid response to Moscow's new nationalism, one group has taken a tough stance — investors, who are leading the march out of Russia's markets.

Link to Editorial (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304298011180002)

Now, normally, IBD editorials aren't heavy hitters (at least to me). But IMO, they are reading the investment pulse really tight on this one. Money is indeed moving, and the only questions are (1) Is this "investment re-allocation/re-direction" short term or just the start, and (2) What are capital managers seeing, and how are they currently measuring capital risk in terms of Russian investment?

Just as an aside, very recently heard a story from an investment guy who has oversight responsibility over a few dollars at risk in a project in the Russian business environment. He asked his onsite contacts about current risk updates taking into account Georgia, etc. Answer was that as long as they weren't "political", should be just fine. Which lead to the obvious question along the lines of: "Would we fall into the Political category?" Answer being "All Western investments in Russian infrastructure are somewhat political". He's not sleeping too well after that one.

Subprime CDO's may start to look good again compared to Russian investments.:eek:

kaur
08-26-2008, 05:23 AM
badtux said:


So the State can and does punish you in Russia if you cover stories in a way the government disagrees with. But once again, there is no direct way for the government to order smaller outlets to cover any particular story.

You are right. There are small newspapers, radio stations and websites. They admit that they can say really nasty things about politics, ... but they are too small to influence masses. They are like mental first aid package for thinking people.

In Russia the methods are much more rough if power groups intend to force their will. This is cultural question and this defines the habits of actors. Pain level is relativele high.

I think we can compare Russian and Soviet systems propaganda mechanisms. During Soviet time there was powerful department in party's central commitee, that directed propaganda. This time the same unit works in Administration. They do the same things.

The other question is the building of enemy figure in Russia. The drums are beating so loud that it feels to live in Russia like in castle undre siege. US is the biggest enemy. Later come Georgia, Baltic states etc. This is not any more self-sensor, this is attitude towards outside world.

I personally don't dare to compare the freedom level of press in Russia and USA.


In any event, this is a big divergence from the original point, which was that if shooting started on August 1 you would naturally expect reporters to be on the scene by August 7.

Reporters tend to swarm like bees or wolves. This is good analysis material for swarming tactics researchers :)

badtux
08-26-2008, 06:00 AM
Link to Editorial (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304298011180002)

Now, normally, IBD editorials aren't heavy hitters (at least to me). But IMO, they are reading the investment pulse really tight on this one. Money is indeed moving, and the only questions are (1) Is this "investment re-allocation/re-direction" short term or just the start, and (2) What are capital managers seeing, and how are they currently measuring capital risk in terms of Russian investment?


Those are good questions. I think I would be nervous if I were a Western investor in Russia also. The actions of the Russian government have not been reassuring over the past eight years. Thus far their actions have largely been directed at Russian companies in order to consolidate ownership away from oligarchs opposing Putin and into the hands of Putin cronies, but if they start using those same tactics (bogus lawsuits, rubber-stamping judges, tossing oligarchs into jail and so forth) against Western-owned companies...

So I think Western investors in Russia were already nervous. Georgia is just giving them an opportunity to raise their level of nervousness one notch more, perhaps enough to make many of them decide to cease investing in Russia or pull out their existing investments if possible. In short, I think Georgia is merely the tip of the iceberg insofar as why Russia may not be positively viewed as an investment destination at the moment. The question is whether President Medvedev is going to do anything to reassure investors that their investments are safe -- and whether any such assurances are worth anything, given popular perception (and perhaps reality) of Putin pulling the strings behind the scenes.

kaur
08-26-2008, 07:08 AM
This morning Russian business daily writes (again) about Russian stock market dive. Artikle is in Russian, but on the right hand there is table you can zoom in and take a look at numbers.

http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article.shtml?2008/08/26/159069

Another interesting reading about Russian economy.

Russian tycoons are Russia’s largest foreign investors


Skyrocketing foreign direct investment to Russia does not necessarily mean that the country has received much more foreign capital. This paradox stems from the fact that round-tripping represents an enormous part of Russia’s FDI stock. The extremely large share of Cyprus and the Netherlands of Russian FDI stock (two-thirds) is a clear indication of this round-tripping. To put it differently, Russian business tycoons are most probably the largest foreign investors in Russia.

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/89405.php

Stan
08-26-2008, 10:09 AM
Just as an aside, very recently heard a story from an investment guy who has oversight responsibility over a few dollars at risk in a project in the Russian business environment. He asked his onsite contacts about current risk updates taking into account Georgia, etc. Answer was that as long as they weren't "political", should be just fine. Which lead to the obvious question along the lines of: "Would we fall into the Political category?" Answer being "All Western investments in Russian infrastructure are somewhat political". He's not sleeping too well after that one.

Subprime CDO's may start to look good again compared to Russian investments.:eek:

Intriguing considering the USA has been the leading source of foreign investment in Georgia, to the sum of 22%. Probably explains what our ships are doing in the harbor. Sure hope retired Navy Captain McCain feels the same way come January :rolleyes:

Kaur, Jõudu !
What do think about Chancellor Merkel's visit to Estonia today ? EU relations with Russia you dare say ?

Why do I have this sinking feeling Nordstream (http://www.nord-stream.com/en/) (plumbing) will be addressed. Gotta love the press, can't even distinguish the difference between an oil and gas pipeline !

kaur
08-26-2008, 12:30 PM
Stan, just came back from Rogozin's press conference. After political consultations (with Medvedjev) it was decided that Russia will not block the NATO transit to Afganistan. He added that poor NATO, after Pakistan regime change it is so hard to bring stuff from that direction, but Russia will not let NATO down in that hard moment. In the end NATO will undestand that they supported wrong man.

About EU-Russia.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11986010

kaur
08-26-2008, 07:21 PM
Investors quit Russia after Georgia war


The moves come as President Dmitry Medvedev faces pressure from business leaders concerned that the impact of the global credit crisis is starting to be felt in Russia.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60abb0d4-6fb1-11dd-986f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

kaur
08-27-2008, 11:12 AM
Kosovo and South Ossetia More Different Than Similar


But perhaps the biggest difference between Kosovo and South Ossetia is this: the Kosovo campaign was, fundamentally, about Kosovo. Then, many countries, including Russia, were united in seeking a solution. Russia was, in fact, instrumental in convincing Milosevic to settle. Kosovo was a key moment in the evolution of the post-Cold War era, its resolution a product of years of Balkan conflict and international efforts to respond.

The conflict between Georgia and Russia is not about South Ossetia. The breakaway province, and Georgia's ill-advised action there, is the pretext Russia has used to demonstrate its power to its neighbors and to the world.

http://www.rand.org/commentary/2008/08/25/RFERL.html

kaur
08-27-2008, 01:59 PM
Russia-Georgia Conflict in South Ossetia: Context
and Implications for U.S. Interests

August 13, 2008



http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34618.pdf

jmm99
08-27-2008, 05:35 PM
Hei K,

Good links - esp. the CRS report as a backgrounder thru 13 Aug.

Yesterday, from EDM:


RUSSIAN FORCES SETTING UP OCCUPATION ZONES IN GEORGIA
By Vladimir Socor
Monday, August 25, 2008

Russian forces remaining in Georgia have switched from the role of invasion troops to that of occupation troops, seizing chunks of territory in Georgia’s interior as well as key logistical nodes and arteries. The quick and smooth switch from the invasion to the occupation mode, as well as its ready-to-use diplomatic cover, bespeaks advance planning at the military and political level in Moscow. The land grabs extend southward from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, deep inside Georgia, as military buffer zones.
.....
The new occupation zones and demarcation lines were shown on detailed maps by Col.-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Deputy Chief of Staff of Russia’s Armed Forces, briefing the Russian and international media in Moscow on August 22 and 23. The Russians refer to the new occupation zones as “vnutrigruzinskie,” meaning “in Georgia’s interior.” Sarkozy may now realize that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev deceived him by promising, most recently on August 19, that Russian troops would withdraw from all vnutrigruzinskie territories (Interfax, August 19).

The Russians are rapidly building up a system of military posts for the long term in Georgia’s interior. These posts number 37 in all, including 18 in the buffer zone near Ossetia and 19 in the buffer zone near Abkhazia. Labeled as “blokposty,” they involve more than checkpoints. Russian troops are already constructing fortifications at some of these points. According to Nogovitsyn, “because blokposty on the main roads and in populated localities are going to be permanent, they are being endowed with the necessary living quarters and technical facilities.” This plan reflects Russian intentions to occupy these territories on a long-term basis.

The lesson learned is - make sure the written document squares with what you understood to have been negotiated.

jmm99
08-27-2008, 08:44 PM
The following do not add much of anything to discussions here, but one might use them as checklists to organize one's own views on the subject matter:


Q&A: What could happen next in Caucasus conflict
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Aug 26, 2008 09:54 EST
MOSCOW, Aug 26 (Reuters) - Russian announced on Wednesday it recognised the rebel Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries. Here are some questions and answers about what might happen next. ....

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=314910


Key events in Georgia crisis
Some key events in crisis over Georgia's separatist regions
The Associated Press
AP News
Aug 26, 2008 14:07 EST
Key developments in conflict over Georgia's South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions: .....

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=315362

UrsaMaior
08-28-2008, 03:07 AM
I happen to know someone who is involved since years in the reconstruction of the sewage/water system of a big russian city. They are hungarian engineers working together with polish constructors and bulgarian quality controllers. It is a rather odd selection of medium and small sized eastern european companies.

After years of cooperation and a couple of vodkas they asked why they were chosen over western companies with much bigger capacities and experience. The answer was: We want to avoid being colonized economically the way your countries were. If you let a western company with capital in, it will find a way to privatize everything it can lay his hands on. And that was years ago!

jmm99
08-28-2008, 04:52 AM
From the NY Times


NATO Ships in Black Sea Raise Alarms in Russia
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: August 27, 2008
MOSCOW — Russian commanders said Wednesday that they were growing alarmed at the number of NATO warships sailing into the Black Sea, saying that NATO vessels now outnumbered the ships in their fleet anchored off the western coast of Georgia.

As attention turned to the balance of naval power in the sea, the leader of the separatist region of Abkhazia said he would invite Russia to establish a naval base at Sukhumi, a deep-water port in the territory.

But in a move certain to anger Russia, Ukraine’s president, Viktor A. Yushchenko, said he would open negotiations with Moscow on raising the rent on the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, which is in Crimea, a predominantly Russian province of Ukraine. ....
...
In Moscow, the naval maneuvering was clearly raising alarms. Russian commanders said the buildup of NATO vessels in the Black Sea violated a 1936 treaty, the Montreux Convention, which they maintain limits to three weeks the time noncoastal countries can sail military vessels on the sea.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, said at a briefing in Moscow that under the agreement, Turkey, which controls the straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, must be notified 15 days before military ships sail into the sea, and that warships could not remain longer than 21 days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/world/europe/28russia.html?_r=2&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The legal squabble here involves the 1936 Montreux Convention.


The Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits was a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates military activity in the region. Signed on 20 July 1936, it permitted Turkey to remilitarise the Straits and imposed new restrictions on the passage of combatant vessels. It is still in force today, with some amendments.

The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It severely restricts the passage of non-Turkish military vessels and prohibits some types of warships, such as aircraft carriers, from passing through the Straits. The terms of the convention have been the source of controversy over the years, most notably concerning the Soviet Union's military access to the Mediterranean Sea. ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Tu rkish_Straits

This rather archaic convention has more holes in it than Ankara cheese. So, it is something that both sides can squawk about. The US is not a signatory; but, in the view of the USN, is indirectly bound:


Turkey is a NATO partner, and the United States is obligated to take no action that would undermine Turkey's authority to control transit through or over the Straits, as provided for in the Montreux Convention.

http://www.ntip.navy.mil/montreux_convention.shtml

And, from the same source:


Warships of non-Black Sea powers may not remain in the Black Sea longer than 21 days.

So, Nogovitsyn seems to be correct on the 21 day limit - not much time to mount an offensive operation - which seems the point of the convention.

jmm99
08-28-2008, 05:20 AM
that Russian at NATO.

From the NY Times:


Russia Adopts Blustery Tone Set by Envoy
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: August 27, 2008
MOSCOW — Here is one measure of the aggressive shift in Russian foreign policy in recent weeks: Dmitri O. Rogozin, Russia’s representative to NATO, a finger-wagging nationalist who hung a poster of Stalin in his new ambassadorial office, is not sounding so extreme any more.

“There are two dates that have changed the world in recent years: Sept. 11, 2001, and Aug. 8, 2008,” Mr. Rogozin said in an interview, explaining that the West has not fully grasped how the Georgia conflict has heightened Russians’ fears about being surrounded by NATO. “They are basically identical in terms of significance.”

“Sept. 11 motivated the United States to behave really differently in the world,” he said. “That is to say, Americans realized that even in their homes, they could not feel safe. They had to protect their interests, outside the boundaries of the U.S. For Russia, it is the same thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/world/europe/28moscow.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

That comparison should raise some bristles and hackles among the readers of this post.

Reuters backgrounder on Gospodin Rogozin:


Putin appoints firebrand as Russia's NATO envoy
Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:27am EST
By Guy Faulconbridge
MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin has appointed a firebrand nationalist as Russia's permanent representative to NATO as the Kremlin takes a more assertive stance towards its Cold War foe. Putin signed a decree appointing Dmitry Rogozin, the former head of a nationalist party in parliament, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a Kremlin spokeswoman said on Thursday.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1013337420080110?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&sp=true

jmm99
08-28-2008, 06:21 AM
First some words from the President.


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
27.8.2008
President Halonen told in advance of Russian decision to recognise breakaway areas
Vanhanen: No impact on Finland's "direction"
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev informed Finnish President Tarja Halonen in advance of Russia's decision to grant recognition to the Georgian breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Helsingin Sanomat has learned that Medvedev informed Halonen by letter in good time before the information was made public. Russia is believed to have sent similar letters to other countries - at least to France, the holder of the EU Presidency. ....
....
According to the President, a war in Europe, in which Finland’s neighbour Russia is taking part, is an unsettling phenomenon, and a cause for serious consideration.

“The war in South Ossetia clearly showed that so-called frozen conflicts are very volatile. Their causes are historically complicated, and resolving them is very important, but difficult.

Halonen praised Finnish activities as the holder of the chairmanship of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and said that Finland has been successful in its mission.

With respect to Finnish foreign policy, Halonen emphasised the importance of perseverance and the maintenance of a credible national defence.

“We are one of the few European countries with a capability of defending ourselves. We will not give this up, and we will develop our defence further.”

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/President+Halonen+told+in+advance+of+Russian+decis ion+to+recognise+breakaway+areas/1135238989222

Brave words from cousin Tarja. Hopefully, she knows more about defense than milking a cow.

----------------------------------------
And from the ministers:


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
26.8.2008
Vanhanen and Stubb criticise Russian military action in Georgia
PM “disappointed” at use of military force, FM sees impact on ties with NATO
Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) says that the European Union must remain calm and united when dealing with the crisis in Georgia. ....
.....
Vanhanen also said that there is no need for Finland to worry, or to reconsider the country's foreign and security policy line, with its regional defence system and conscription.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb (Nat. Coalition Party) discussed the conflict between Georgia and Russia at a meeting of Finnish Ambassadors in Helsinki. In his speech, he said that the date with three eights (August eighth, 2008, or 080808, when the fighting began) has become a dark turning point in world politics.

Stubb says that the crisis affects the agenda of Finnish foreign and security policy, as well as relations between Finland and NATO.

“Now there is reason to consider membership. The time for a decision is not yet at hand. However, flexibility and frequency in the assessment of security policy should be increased. It cannot be like a slow-motion black-and-white film.”

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Vanhanen+and+Stubb+criticise+Russian+military+acti on+in+Georgia/1135238960449

Tarja & opponent Sauli Niinistö in last election - "country folk"

Ron Humphrey
08-28-2008, 01:22 PM
So, Nogovitsyn seems to be correct on the 21 day limit - not much time to mount an offensive operation - which seems the point of the convention.

That you can keep your ship there 21 days then leave for a day then come back for 21 more?:rolleyes:

jmm99
08-28-2008, 03:46 PM
from Ron
That you can keep your ship there 21 days then leave for a day then come back for 21 more?

that's what it means to me - assuming the Turkish government agrees to the 2nd passage.

Also there are some other limitations on number and types of ships - again, more or less in the discretion of the Turks. E.g., aircraft carriers are banned, but the Russians got around that by declaring the Kiev a special kind of cruiser. :mad:

There is also a limit to 8" and below naval guns. However, a 12" dia. missile qualifies since, to the Turks, a missile is not a gun - and missiles weren't contemplated in 1936. US took advantage of that. :)

Zaman has begun (28 Aug) a multi-part series on the history involved:


Montreux Convention after the South Ossetia war (1)
Historical situation of the Turkish Straits
by
HASAN KANBOLAT

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=150870

jmm99
08-28-2008, 04:06 PM
Permission of the Turkish government should not be assumed. A timely article in EDM (as I work through brown bag reading):


TURKEY’S DELICATE ACT OF BALANCING IN THE BLACK SEA
By Saban Kardas
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The aftershocks of the conflict in Georgia continue to dominate regional politics, highlighting the difficulties Turkey encounters in conducting its foreign policy in dangerous neighborhoods. The latest U.S. move to utilize military vessels to provide humanitarian aid to the war-torn areas of Georgia demonstrated starkly how Turkey has been forced to engage in a delicate act of balancing to preserve its interests. By maintaining strict adherence to the 1936 Montreux Convention regulating the rules of transit through Turkish straits, Turkey had a powerful legal backing for its cautious policy of balancing the demands of its long-term ally, the United States, and its increasingly assertive neighbor, Russia. Turkish policy experts, however, believe that an escalation of tensions, forcing Turkey to choose sides, is quite likely. Moreover, Turkey should be prepared to discuss the revision of Montreux, which it has jealously guarded......

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373331

jmm99
08-28-2008, 04:24 PM
I am too ignorant of Ukraine's politics and ethnic divisions to comment on this story from EDM, but Ukraine seems a somewhat unstable quantity here. Too bad. In college, a close friend was a Uke-American with close ties to the then emigré Uke community (his uncle was a bishop, archbishop or whatever they called it then - very anti-Soviet).


UKRAINE DIVIDED ON RUSSIAN RECOGNITION OF SOUTH OSSETIA
By Roman Kupchinsky
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The official Ukrainian response to Russia’s recognition of the independence of Georgia’s two breakaway provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on August 25, 2008, was not unexpected. The Ukrainian foreign ministry issued a statement on August 26 which noted: “The declaration by the Russian parliament is viewed by Ukraine as a particularly dangerous precedent which will sharply destabilize the security situation in the Caucasus region and throughout the entire post-Soviet space and will have a negative impact on the peaceful solution to inter-ethnic conflicts throughout the world” (Ukrayinska Pravda, August 26, 2008). ...
....
Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the opposition Party of the Regions, remained loyal to Moscow and urged the Ukrainian government to follow Moscow’s lead: “We must act without any double standards -- we must do what the West did when Kosovo declared independence. I believe that Ukraine should accept the expressed will of the nations of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and recognize their independence” (Ukrayinska Pravda, August 26, 2008).

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373330

Some comment by someone with Uke credentials might be helpful here.

jmm99
08-28-2008, 04:44 PM
from the Independent.


By Askold Krushelnycky in Sevastopol, Ukraine
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, could be the next flashpoint in the new Cold War. And any violent disturbance in Crimea could provide the political seismic shock to split Ukraine itself along its existing fault lines of ethnicity, language and religion.

The Crimean peninsula is the only part of Ukraine where ethnic Russians are in a majority. Many of them are deeply resentful about being part of Ukraine and openly call for annexation by Russia. Moscow has fostered pro-annexation groups for years. ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/crimean-peninsula-could-be-the-next-south-ossetia-910769.html

Ron Humphrey
08-28-2008, 06:01 PM
Permission of the Turkish government should not be assumed. A timely article in EDM (as I work through brown bag reading):



http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373331




However, they question the authenticity of U.S. claims for providing humanitarian aid, and believe that it will increase tensions and undermine the stability. If the intention was genuine, the U.S. should not have insisted on carrying aid by military ships; civilian vessels or other transportation means would have served the same purpose (Radikal, August 23). The same argument is shared by many Turkish analysts who increasingly view American policy as a mere show of strength in the Black Sea as part of a growing confrontation, or a new ‘Cold War’ of sorts (for instance: Fikret Bila, Milliyet, August 24; also see reference to Onur Oymen).

Doesn't it seem somewhat disingenuious that the Russian's would find it bad form for us to send in Humanitarian aid on warships considering that they and theirs are supposedly there on a humanitarian/peacekeeping mission.

badtux
08-28-2008, 06:14 PM
Doesn't it seem somewhat disingenuious that the Russian's would find it bad form for us to send in Humanitarian aid on warships considering that they and theirs are supposedly there on a humanitarian/peacekeeping mission.

If Russian warships were parading up and down the Florida Straits just outside U.S. national waters I suspect the United States would get a bit ruffled too. After all, we all know that when the Soviets stationed a few missiles in Cuba, the U.S. went ballistic and almost started WWIII over it despite the fact that Cuba was a sovereign country with every right under international law to have those missiles.

Point being, that major powers become nervous when people they perceive as enemies are parading military force near their borders. And believe me, the U.S. is perceived as an enemy right now. According to my source in Moscow (a former co-worker whose mother was a famous Sovietologist and who is married to a Russian wife), right now the U.S. is being portrayed in the Russian media as an out-of-control lawless thug state that randomly bombs and invades countries regardless of rule of law. The depiction of Georgia is pretty evil too, there's lots of the "those Georgians were being mean to those poor innocent Ossetians so of COURSE we had to step in to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide". The other nation being demonized in the Russian media right now is the Ukraine, which is blamed for arming Georgia. Is the Crimea the next hot spot in the Black Sea? Based on what the Russian media (largely controlled by Putin cronies) is portraying in order to rattle up popular support for the notion, my suspicion is "yes".

Stan
08-28-2008, 08:17 PM
And indeed nothing remotely new. This 23 JAN 08 article sums up most of what Badtux wrote. It's a mere matter of perceived threat, and the size of the country has very little to do with anything.


Russia concerned over NATO military buildup around its borders (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080123/97602111.html)

MOSCOW, January 23 (RIA Novosti)...which is aimed at building up its military potential around Russian borders rather than strengthening European security, the foreign minister said on Wednesday.

Russia has been unnerved by NATO's eastward expansion and recent U.S. plans to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"We are certain that the geographical expansion of NATO cannot be justified by security concerns," Sergei Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow.

NATO has signaled its backing for the recent bids by Russia's former Soviet allies, Georgia and Ukraine, to join the alliance, a move that has infuriated Moscow.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that the country would have to take "appropriate measures" if Ukraine were to join NATO.

Yesterday's O&A from the same news source brings out Russian perceptions best.


How Russia Clobbered Georgia and Lost the War (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080827/116321765.html)

... Nor did the Americans simply lose control of the hot-headed and impulsive President Saakashvili. The pundits on the ground in Tblisi have a saying: "Saakashvili doesn't go to the bathroom without calling the U.S. Embassy." The Georgian president was played masterfully by the U.S.

What country bombs its own citizens while they sleep? Would Ottawa bomb Quebec if it voted to separate? Would Belgium bomb Antwerp? Would Spain bomb its Basque regions? Even China, arguably the most repressive regime on the planet, does not bomb Tibet. The fact that Saakashvili bombed and rocketed civilian buildings in the middle of the night is a pretty good indication that he doesn't consider them citizens.

The result of Russia's counter-strike has been exactly what the U.S. wanted. Russia's political influence in the world is now diminished. With the international community almost unanimous in its condemnation of Russia, it no longer has the credibility to criticize the U.S. for its military adventures. And the powerhouse Russian economy also sustained serious damage. Foreign investors are now delaying or cancelling projects and the Russian stock market is paying the price. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its tiny partner get to express their moral outrage while painting the Russian bear as irascible and expansionist.

This was a carefully developed and magnificently executed strategy. But it fails to recognize how important it is to have Russia inside the community of nations rather than cast a pariah state.

And, perhaps a way out with a good reason that Yanks like to currently hear:


Likewise Russia's help is essential in the global war on terror. The U.S. simply cannot go it alone and hope to have any meaningful success over the long term. But now Washington says Russian Navy ships are no longer welcome to take part in the Active Endeavour counterterrorism and nonproliferation operation in the Mediterranean. That helps no one.

The world needs a cooperative and productive relationship between Russia and the U.S. - a relationship built on reciprocity. Rather than undermining and vilifying Russia, a more productive strategy for the U.S. would be to engage with Russia as much as possible as a partner on the world stage. Both Russia and the United States have legitimate national and international interests. Both can realize their interests. It is not a zero sum game. Russia does not need to be made to lose in order for the U.S. to win.

kaur
08-29-2008, 05:26 AM
badtux said:


According to my source in Moscow (a former co-worker whose mother was a famous Sovietologist and who is married to a Russian wife), right now the U.S. is being portrayed in the Russian media as an out-of-control lawless thug state that randomly bombs and invades countries regardless of rule of law. The depiction of Georgia is pretty evil too, there's lots of the "those Georgians were being mean to those poor innocent Ossetians so of COURSE we had to step in to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide". The other nation being demonized in the Russian media right now is the Ukraine, which is blamed for arming Georgia. Is the Crimea the next hot spot in the Black Sea? Based on what the Russian media (largely controlled by Putin cronies) is portraying in order to rattle up popular support for the notion, my suspicion is "yes".

Last night the show continued.


Putin said his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush -- although he presented no evidence to back it up.

Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html

Why they are doing this?

Lev Gudkov
Russia's systemic crisis
Negative mobilization and collective cynicism

http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-09-13-gudkov-en.html

Construction of ‘Reality’ in Russian Mass Media
News on Television and on the Internet

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/russ-cyb/library/texts/en/control_shift/Kratasjuk.pdf


Couple articles from Economist.

South Ossetia is not Kosovo
http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=12009678

The cost for Russia
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12010136&source=features_box_main

What Russia will do next
http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11999551

Put out even more flags
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009856

PS did you know that in Tshinvali there is street called Stalin?

badtux
08-29-2008, 06:55 AM
This is a fascinating discussion. What it reveals is the difference between realpolitik and idealism.

On the realpolitik side, to misquote Lord Palmerston, nations do not have friends. Nations have interests. For example, nations will uphold mutual defense treaties only if it is in their best interests to do so. France, West Germany, Austria, etc. joined NATO because if the Soviet Army came smashing through the Fulda Gap, the Soviets wouldn't quit until they got to the boot of Spain, so it was in the interests of all members of NATO to stop the Soviets at the Fulda Gap. The U.S. was a member of NATO because Western Europe was an important economic partner and loss of Western Europe would result in significant loss of economic power to the Communist world. So it was in the best interests of all of the original signers of the NATO treaty to abide by its mutual defense obligation.

On the idealism side, when you give your word, your word is your word, and you can't go back on it ever, for any reason. For the idealist, a treaty is not a piece of paper expressing the mutual shared interests of the two (or more) parties to the treaty. For the idealist, a treaty is writ in stone, something permanently binding with the force of law, rather than a temporary expression of the mutual shared interests of two nations subject to revision or rescission if the shared interests which led to the signing of the treaty ever go away.

When it comes to NATO expansion, the problem is that there are few mutual shared interests between potential and current new entrants to NATO and the longstanding NATO members. None of the new entrants provide significant military or economic power to NATO. Without mutual shared interests, a treaty is just a piece of paper with little worth. Realpolitik is about to run into idealism here, and generally when that happens, idealism loses. Small weak nations joining NATO in hopes of being protected by larger more powerful nations need to look at the reality of the situation and decide whether they can really trust the larger more powerful nations to come to their defense. Lacking any significant value to the larger more powerful nations they've signed a treaty with, they may find themselves disappointed in the end. Because in the end, nations have interests, not friends. And starting WWIII over a small nation that provides little value to the alliance may not be something that the remainder of the alliance is willing to do, even if it means the end of NATO...

All of which is just to point out that from a realpolitik perspective, it may not be in the best interests of a small powerless nation right next to a major regional power to do things that irritate said major regional power, no matter how much they believe they are supported by larger powers and no matter how many treaties they have with said larger powers. If they have nothing of their own that makes it vital for the larger powers to come to their assistance... well. That rarely goes the way that the small powerless nation hoped.:eek:

davidbfpo
08-29-2008, 08:44 AM
France, West Germany, Austria, etc. joined NATO...

No, Austria never joined NATO and still has not. She is involved in PfP and is a full member of the EU. During the Cold War her defences were against all-comers, in particular a flanking attack on West Germany. A point well made on a recent visit to some Cold War fixed defences by an Austrian Army officer.

davidbfpo

kaur
08-29-2008, 12:07 PM
Post-Mortem on Europe’s First War of the 21st Century


The small war between Georgia and Russia from 8 to 22 August 2008 has shattered any remaining illusions over the frontiers of the normative map of Europe. All the primary parties have to be criticised: Russia for setting a trap for Saakashvili to fall into, the Georgian leadership for its astounding military and political blunder in falling into it, and the United States for having failed to restrain its protégé. The first consequence is that Georgia has paid the price of Saakashvili’s folly, with the definitive loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The second consequence is triggered by Russia’s continued occupation of strategic points in Georgia-proper, which means not peacekeeping but threatened strangulation of the Georgian economy and its role in the transit of oil and gas from the Caspian to the West. It also means that business as usual has become impossible, as already announced between NATO and Russia, and with more important decisions pending in both the EU and US. The third consequence is that the EU should immediately step up its policies to integrate Ukraine, with real perspectives of membership subject to the standard criteria. The fourth unknown consequence is how far this deteriorating process between Russia and the West will go. Russia may pretend, with its petro-power and wealth, to be immune from any actions by the West, but beyond the short-term it is vulnerable. Whatever these unknowns, already Russia has crossed a red line with its strategic occupation of Georgia-proper, rather than the option just to push Georgia out of South Ossetia. This latter option would have met with widespread understanding internationally. But with its chosen option Russia has placed itself in another category, which is a throwback to earlier times, and totally incompatible with the political and moral principles of modern Europe.

http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1697

UrsaMaior
08-29-2008, 01:19 PM
I am a bit worried about Russia's reliance on western investors. With oil prices skyhigh the Gulf states have more money than they can spend. Besides we are in the middle of GWOT more or less obviously against ALL muslim radicals (such as saudi wahhabites).

The mutual reliance (between Russia and Europe) is IMHO another myth of the Cold War. The EU can hardly offer anything the chinese do not have. Chinese funds can also replace western investors who -like I decribed in the above story- are not really desired in Mother Russia.

I even risk saying the Russians are trying how much economical ties are limiting them.

Steve Blair
08-29-2008, 01:28 PM
No, Austria never joined NATO and still has not. She is involved in PfP and is a full member of the EU. During the Cold War her defences were against all-comers, in particular a flanking attack on West Germany. A point well made on a recent visit to some Cold War fixed defences by an Austrian Army officer.

davidbfpo

Quite so. They were supposed to be neutral throughout....making them a great playground for spies and such.

Ron Humphrey
08-29-2008, 02:31 PM
This is a fascinating discussion. What it reveals is the difference between realpolitik and idealism.

On the realpolitik side, to misquote Lord Palmerston, nations do not have friends. Nations have interests. For example, nations will uphold mutual defense treaties only if it is in their best interests to do so. France, West Germany, Austria, etc. joined NATO because if the Soviet Army came smashing through the Fulda Gap, the Soviets wouldn't quit until they got to the boot of Spain, so it was in the interests of all members of NATO to stop the Soviets at the Fulda Gap. The U.S. was a member of NATO because Western Europe was an important economic partner and loss of Western Europe would result in significant loss of economic power to the Communist world. So it was in the best interests of all of the original signers of the NATO treaty to abide by its mutual defense obligation.

On the idealism side, when you give your word, your word is your word, and you can't go back on it ever, for any reason. For the idealist, a treaty is not a piece of paper expressing the mutual shared interests of the two (or more) parties to the treaty. For the idealist, a treaty is writ in stone, something permanently binding with the force of law, rather than a temporary expression of the mutual shared interests of two nations subject to revision or rescission if the shared interests which led to the signing of the treaty ever go away.

When it comes to NATO expansion, the problem is that there are few mutual shared interests between potential and current new entrants to NATO and the longstanding NATO members. None of the new entrants provide significant military or economic power to NATO. Without mutual shared interests, a treaty is just a piece of paper with little worth. Realpolitik is about to run into idealism here, and generally when that happens, idealism loses. Small weak nations joining NATO in hopes of being protected by larger more powerful nations need to look at the reality of the situation and decide whether they can really trust the larger more powerful nations to come to their defense. Lacking any significant value to the larger more powerful nations they've signed a treaty with, they may find themselves disappointed in the end. Because in the end, nations have interests, not friends. And starting WWIII over a small nation that provides little value to the alliance may not be something that the remainder of the alliance is willing to do, even if it means the end of NATO...

All of which is just to point out that from a realpolitik perspective, it may not be in the best interests of a small powerless nation right next to a major regional power to do things that irritate said major regional power, no matter how much they believe they are supported by larger powers and no matter how many treaties they have with said larger powers. If they have nothing of their own that makes it vital for the larger powers to come to their assistance... well. That rarely goes the way that the small powerless nation hoped.:eek:

One thing, Realpolitik vs Idealism vs Realism
Give em an inch they'll take a mile.
The interaction between international entities is all about lines and trying to redraw them for one reason or another. That's never changed and IMHO never will. Thus we are left with who's redrawing and why and what if anything others are going to do about it. That I propose is the real question and little or not, any soveriegn state and its condition are and should be of great concern to all. Interests are not always as clearly defined as we might like.

kaur
08-29-2008, 04:02 PM
badtux said:


All of which is just to point out that from a realpolitik perspective, it may not be in the best interests of a small powerless nation right next to a major regional power to do things that irritate said major regional power, no matter how much they believe they are supported by larger powers and no matter how many treaties they have with said larger powers. If they have nothing of their own that makes it vital for the larger powers to come to their assistance... well. That rarely goes the way that the small powerless nation hoped

... or you have to find sponsor, that gives you financial, moral, military etc support. Like Israel.

realism vs liberalism, it seems that there is middle way.

Conservative Internationalism

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/26105009.html

jmm99
08-29-2008, 04:33 PM
a treaty is a contract. As such, it is afflicted with all of the clarities and vagaries of contract law and contract practicalities - including (1) changes in the totality of circumstances (beyond the control of one or more parties to the contract); and (2) realization by one or more of the parties to the effect that - "why on earth did I agree to this ?"

One could also cite basic contract principles such as "meeting of the minds" (which do not always meet initially, and later can diverge even if they did initially meet); and "quid pro quo" (mutual consideration), which may or may not be "paid" - and which in hindsight may seem inadequate to one or more of the parties.

For a small nation dealing with a more powerful neighbor, a treaty (contract) is a slim reed on which to hang ten - since it is too easy to get hung. True, the small nation may seek a bigger brother - and that may be successful, if the big brother is in a position to provide realistic assistance or deterrence.

If it is able, the small nation (even if allied) would seem best advised to develop a self-contained defense capability - not to defeat the powerful neughbor, but to make an invasion non-cost-effective for that bear-like creature - and not to engage in bear-baiting.

bourbon
08-29-2008, 04:38 PM
I even risk saying the Russians are trying how much economical ties are limiting them.
It seems that is kind of the aim, I’ve read this, but I don’t know this. The Siloviki, nationalist, goal: consolidate as much power internally with your group, and cut-off with the world. And this kind of thinking goes back to the Tsar.

I think a U.S. goal is going to be to drive a wedge into Sino-Russian relations. Try to bring China over to our camp. Particularly to try to send central asian gas and other resources toward China and away from Russia, since U.S. moves in this latest incarnation of The Great Game may have been chequed.
So I welcome any Russian rejection of China.

kaur
08-29-2008, 04:43 PM
Allies Let Him down


Russia didn’t manage to enlist the support for its policy in the Caucasus of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) members. According to the information of Kommersant, the SCO leaders orally expressed their approval of Moscow’s line, but in its final declaration, the SCO supported the principle of territorial integrity and condemned using force when addressing international issues. It means that Russia is left alone in its possible confrontation with the West.


Dmitry Medvedev’s negotiations with China’s Hu Jintao best demonstrated the attitude of the SCO members to the matter. According to the information of Kommersant, the Chinese leader understood the Russian position, but he explained that we’ll be unable to officially side with Moscow. “All SCO members have they own problematic regions. If one of the countries recognizes the independence of the Caucasian republics, claims regarding its own territories will follow,” complained the interlocutor of Kommersant. “In particular, the People’s Republlic of China will face the Tibet problem.” Another high-ranking diplomat told Kommersant that all other SCO heads-of-state told Dmitry Medvedev that they understood him but then they made excuses saying that they will be unable to officially make their positions the point.

http://www.kommersant.com/p1017558/SCO_refused_to_support_Russia/

jmm99
08-29-2008, 05:14 PM
other times, not so silly:


Putin:19 US poultry producers will be barred from exporting to Russia, says move not political
Staff
AP News
Aug 28, 2008 15:10 EST
Vladimir Putin says 19 U.S. poultry producers will be barred from exporting their products to Russia. ...

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=319204

-------------------------------------------
Russia and China have been working out oil-gas agreements for several years, not from mutual affection but from mutual self-interest. See generally, archives at

http://www.assaluyeh.com/page.php?archive-en

and, as examples,


Pragmatism, not love, draws Russia and China closer
Author : M.H.Hadavi-News From turkishdailynews.com.tr :: Date:: 2006-03-27

http://www.assaluyeh.com/news.php?show=archive&id=3796-en


Russia Plays China Energy Card
Author : M.H.Hadavi-News From countercurrents.org :: Date:: 2006-03-26
Russia has made a new move to assert itself as a global energy broker and make other countries play by its rules. On a visit to China this week, President Vladimir Putin pledged to build two natural gas pipelines to China, as well as jointly develop Russian offshore gas fields. The two proposed gas pipelines would deliver 60 billion to 80 billion cubic metres of Russian gas to China a year, Mr. Putin said in Beijing. He also confirmed Russia's promise to build a diversion to China from a proposed oil pipeline from eastern Siberia to the Pacific coast. ....

http://www.assaluyeh.com/news.php?show=archive&id=3780-en

Of more current interest, I found this a bit interesting:


Iran Becomes China"s 2nd Biggest Crude Supplier
Author : nazia kabri(re:shana) :: Date:: 2008-08-29
TEHRAN (PIN) – Iran became China"s second biggest crude oil supplier in July, exporting 2.4 million tons, the latest data from the Chinese General Administration of Customs showed. According to Kuwaiti news agency reported, Saudi Arabia was China"s top oil supplier in July, with shipments from the kingdom reached 2.6 million tons, followed by Iran with 2.4 million tons. Angola ranked third with 1.8 million tons. ...

http://www.assaluyeh.com/news.php?show=archive&id=7565-en

As K's last reference illustrates, national self-interests drive policies - but lack of co-operation in one area does not equate to lack of co-operation in other areas.

Ron Humphrey
08-29-2008, 05:53 PM
a treaty is a contract. As such, it is afflicted with all of the clarities and vagaries of contract law and contract practicalities - including (1) changes in the totality of circumstances (beyond the control of one or more parties to the contract); and (2) realization by one or more of the parties to the effect that - "why on earth did I agree to this ?"

One could also cite basic contract principles such as "meeting of the minds" (which do not always meet initially, and later can diverge even if they did initially meet); and "quid pro quo" (mutual consideration), which may or may not be "paid" - and which in hindsight may seem inadequate to one or more of the parties.

For a small nation dealing with a more powerful neighbor, a treaty (contract) is a slim reed on which to hang ten - since it is too easy to get hung. True, the small nation may seek a bigger brother - and that may be successful, if the big brother is in a position to provide realistic assistance or deterrence.

If it is able, the small nation (even if allied) would seem best advised to develop a self-contained defense capability - not to defeat the powerful neughbor, but to make an invasion non-cost-effective for that bear-like creature - and not to engage in bear-baiting.

with ALL of that

jmm99
08-29-2008, 06:20 PM
to probably put on an index card (as a maybe) - and to consider the opinions stated with caution.


A Step At A Time
Reflections on the world post-9/11, by a British writer, translator and musician who engaged for many years in the debates of the Cold War, and who tends to see the world's present troubles as a continuation of the old common struggle with tyranny and oppression. The blog can also be accessed here

Thursday, August 28, 2008
Finnish Islamists back Russia

The possibility that Islamist movements in Europe and probably also further afield to some extent work in harmony with the Putin/Medvdev schemes in the field of military and foreign policy is evidenced by an interesting statement by the Finnish Islamic Party (Suomenislamilainenpuolue), which aims to represent the interests of Finland's small Muslim minority. The statement condemns the "aggressive acts of the Georgian leadership" and gives the party's full support to Russia. It also makes a savage attack on the president and government of Estonia, and demands that President Saakashvili be put on trial for war crimes. Although Finland's Muslims are mostly Tatars, and have little time for fundamentalist ideology, the document is a curious and revealing indicator of the sort of sources where the Kremlin may really be deriving support in today's world. The fact that the Hamas organization was the first to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia may not be a coincidence.

That some voices in Finland may be helping to foment a movement which they call a "Russian Intifada" among Estonia's Russian-speaking minority is shown by this blog, which is dedicated to the subject.

There has long been a noted connection between the Kremlin and Islamist groupings, and it is no secret that, as Alexander Litvinenko pointed out before he was brutally murdered in London, Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri trained at a Federal Security Service (the former Russian KGB) base in Dagestan in 1998.

http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2008/08/finnish-islamists-back-russia.html

Besides not liking Estonia, the SIP statement also hits NATO (see below).

-----------------------------------
The Suomen Islamilainen Puolue webpage (in Finn, but with some English pages) is at

http://suomenislamilainenpuolue.fi/tiedotteet.html

Besides text summarized above, SIP statement (Helsingissä 14.8.2008) also hit on NATO:


Suomen Islamilainen Puolue vaatii Suomen Tasavaltaa pidättäytymään Naton jäsenyydestä ja yhteistyöstä Naton eri operaatioista luoden näin ollen jännitteistä vapaan alueen ehdottoman puolueettomuuspolitiikan mukaisesti, sekä hyvien suhteiden ylläpitäminen Venäjän kanssa.

Boils down to a demand by SIP on the Finnish government to pull back from NATO membership consideration and from participation in NATO operations - and to return to accommodation policies and fellowship with Russia (in effect, "Finlandization" - I hate that term). Good luck on that one to SIP (which probably could meet in the average sauna room).

Lest I get hit by Crabtree's Bludgeon, not everything has to be explained by conspiracy - conscious parallelism (mutual self interests) are often a better explanation.

PS - Ron. Thank you for the kind words.

jmm99
08-29-2008, 06:38 PM
The leader of SIP is one Abdullah Tammi aka Risto Tammi (family name means "oak:"), with an varied past.

It supposedly (per Tammi) has a few hundred supporters (registered members).

See (in Finn)

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomen_islamilainen_puolue

I expect the Finnish CT boys are watching - at least, I hope so.

UrsaMaior
08-29-2008, 06:45 PM
How tight are the ties within the SCO? Is it comparable to the NATO? Based on the above quotes its members do not want to settle their own territorial disputes (with each other or with other countries) -at least for now-.
Russia might easily get away with it (like the West has with Kosovo). If there is a vote in the UN sec council it surely can enlist an abstain from China.

A bit off topic but will the israelis risk their special connections to China (J-10 Lavi anyone?) by bombing her second biggest crude supplier (ie Iran?)?

Ron Humphrey
08-29-2008, 06:54 PM
How tight are the ties within the SCO? Is it comparable to the NATO? Based on the above quotes its members do not want to settle their own territorial disputes (with each other or with other countries) -at least for now-.
Russia might easily get away with it (like the West has with Kosovo). If there is a vote in the UN sec council it surely can enlist an abstain from China.

A bit off topic but will the israelis risk their special connections to China (J-10 Lavi anyone?) by bombing her second biggest crude supplier (ie Iran?)?

How likely is it that Iran might be slightly more inclined to entertain suggestions from its newly found big bro in regards to its aspirations:eek:

badtux
08-29-2008, 07:07 PM
I am a bit worried about Russia's reliance on western investors.

I don't worry about that. I hope that it gives Russia pause when considering doing more sabre-rattling for domestic political benefit.



The mutual reliance (between Russia and Europe) is IMHO another myth of the Cold War. The EU can hardly offer anything the chinese do not have

Well, except high technology. The Chinese do not have 1st-world technology, other than what they import or what is built in factories owned by Western investors for export. They have a lot of very, very bright engineers, I work with them on a regular basis and they're as good as any new college grad from elite U.S. universities such as UCB or Cal Tech, but they're green as grass and are not yet capable of the full product cycle. There are very, very few Chinese engineers with more than a few years experience, there is such a shortage of higher-level managers that Chinese engineers get promoted out of engineering swiftly, without ever having the opportunity to grow in the profession. I expect a lot from the Chinese in the future -- they are not idiots by any means -- but they're not there yet.

The EU, on the other hand, has an advanced technology already and the Russians are already increasingly dependent upon it. The SU30MKI, for example, has pieces sourced from France and Israel that Russia cannot make for themselves anymore with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of the factories that were in the former Soviet bloc. The T-90 tank's Essa thermal sights are reliant upon technology imported from France. And so forth. Over the long term, integrating Russia economically into Europe proper is a strategy that will result in a Russia that panics at the very thought of a war affecting Western Europe, for fear of destroying its access to the technology upon which it has become dependent. And given Russia's demographic situation, it is not practicable for Russia to re-develop all of this technology independently. Russia has the geographic space and natural resources, but not the people.

In short, while domestic political considerations tend to encourage Russia's government to ramp up the paranoia level and engage in occasional small wars on its periphery, we are not dealing with an expansive philosophy such as Communism or Nazism here, and engagement is more likely to keep the situation as such than isolation. Choosing a strategy for dealing with Russia that ends up with Russia being isolated is thus, in my opinion, less likely to have favorable outcomes than a strategy which furthers their integration into the world economy and thus gives them more to lose by engaging in more than the occasional skirmish in their "near beyond". This of course only applies to nations ruled by pragmatic rulers, rather than nations ruled by ideologues or zealots. But nobody has ever accused Russia's current rulers of being anything other than pragmatic...

jmm99
08-29-2008, 07:13 PM
Suojelupoliisi (SUPO), the Finnish Security Police, is self-described here:


The main tasks of the Security Police are
- counterespionage
- counterterrorism
- preventing threats to internal security
- preventive security work
- protection
- participation in fighting international organised crime.

http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/supo/home.nsf/pages/indexeng

It does not mince words on "radical Islamic terrorism":


In Europe, radical Islamic terrorism still constituted the most significant form of terrorism in 2007. This type of terrorism, which aims to claim as many victims as possible and cause very significant damage to the target country, affected an increasing number of European states. During the year, several terrorist plans were foiled in different countries. Had these plans succeeded, they would have claimed a great number of victims

http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/supo/home.nsf/pages/2EF2F56EFD9739A3C225715D0044B638?opendocument

SUPO and its predecessors gained experience during the Cold War when Helsinki was a station for us and them (e.g., Sergei Ivanov was an officer at their residence there).

The immediate post-WWII VALPO was a real piece of work - almost managed a SovCom coup. That is a long story; but it cured most all Finns from trust in the bear - not that many had that trust, anyway.

Ron Humphrey
08-29-2008, 07:28 PM
In short, while domestic political considerations tend to encourage Russia's government to ramp up the paranoia level and engage in occasional small wars on its periphery, we are not dealing with an expansive philosophy such as Communism or Nazism here, and engagement is more likely to keep the situation as such than isolation. Choosing a strategy for dealing with Russia that ends up with Russia being isolated is thus, in my opinion, less likely to have favorable outcomes than a strategy which furthers their integration into the world economy and thus gives them more to lose by engaging in more than the occasional skirmish in their "near beyond". This of course only applies to nations ruled by pragmatic rulers, rather than nations ruled by ideologues or zealots. But nobody has ever accused Russia's current rulers of being anything other than pragmatic...

I think most could probably agree with that in part, except apparently Russia as they seem to be spending their time trying to further isolate themselves rather than figure out how to get out of the mess they've gotten themselves in through some sort of political maneuvering which would allow for a less painful extrication of head from backside.

They're in position to be able to get integrated throughout the international stage and really be a major player, the problem seems to be that it has to be their way(which so far is still stuck in the bully and bash context) rather than ways that have been working for so many others who couldn't do it in such a manner and wouldn't even if they had been able to.

kaur
08-29-2008, 08:01 PM
To continue badtux list. If I remeber correctly Catepillar engines were used for BMP export versions, a lot of details of GLONASS navigation system are from South Korea and Ukraine, etc

About SCO.

State Security Without Borders


Russia opens the doors for special services from China, Uzbekistan and other Asian countries and allows them carrying out special operations on her territory

http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/61/00.html

badtux
08-29-2008, 09:47 PM
I think most could probably agree with that in part, except apparently Russia as they seem to be spending their time trying to further isolate themselves rather than figure out how to get out of the mess they've gotten themselves in through some sort of political maneuvering which would allow for a less painful extrication of head from backside.


I think what is perhaps confusing you is external politics of Russia vs. internal politics. The primary goal of the ruling regime in Russia, as with most other authoritarian regimes that have ever existed, is to preserve its rule over Russia. Its secondary goal is to improve the strength of Russia's economy and military so that Russia is better able to maintain the style of life that these oligarchs have become accustomed to, but that is a secondary goal. Now, unlike traditional authoritarian regimes that rule via terror, Russia has a very "new wave" authoritarian regime that rules, for better or for worse, via the support of a significant portion of the population. It is not a democracy by any means, but the way Russia's current political system works would not suffice to maintain control of the nation if the majority of Russians did not approve of Putin and the system that he has put in place.

The problem that this dependence upon popular support puts into play, from the perspective of Russia's rulers, is that they then have to come up from time to time with some way to appear heroic to their internal population. There has to be an external enemy which threatens the nation which only Russia's rulers can save the grateful population from. Thus South Ossetia, which gave Russia's rulers an opportunity to play hero insofar as the internal population of Russia is concerned. Wars always inspire national pride and a rally-behind-the-ruler effect, at least until the costs of wars become severe. Successfully concluded wars have even better outcomes from an internal politics point of view. Russia's rulers appear to have chosen their war carefully as one which would have minimal costs insofar as body bags go but have the maximum internal political effect.



They're in position to be able to get integrated throughout the international stage and really be a major player, the problem seems to be that it has to be their way(which so far is still stuck in the bully and bash context) rather than ways that have been working for so many others who couldn't do it in such a manner and wouldn't even if they had been able to.

But again, you are talking about external politics and disregarding the internal politics. It is much like how Saddam Hussein pretended to have a WMD program in order to maintain control over his population. From our perspective from a viewpoint of international politics it looks insane -- all it resulted in was the invasion of Iraq, his overthrow, and his eventual execution. From Saddam's perspective internal to that political system it made all the sense in the world. From his perspective, America might overthrow him, or might not, but if he appeared weak to his local population he *knew* they would overthrow him and hang him sooner rather than later. When you are talking about authoritarian regimes, local politics always takes precedent over international politics. From the perspective of Russia's rulers in Moscow, the invasion of Georgia was a stunning success, giving them not only new enemies to use to scare the populace into needing Putin and his cronies, but also making the leadership of Russia appear heroic in the eyes of the local population. This may all seem counterproductive if you look at it from an external political point of view and consider the effects upon Russia's relations with its neighbors, but if you look at the internal politics of Russia it all makes sense.

What does this mean regarding Russia's future behavior? First, I suspect we will not see any new adventures from Russia over the next couple of years. The Putin gang got their victory, and will be basking in its reflected glory for some time. There will continue to be rough talk for purposes of internal political consumption, but no external adventures. But at some point after that, we will see some other small nation in Russia's "near beyond" picked up, slammed against the wall, and given a mega-wedgie. I suspect it will be near the next Presidential election, when Putin undoubtedly will run for President again.

And one thing I can guarantee you: It will not take place against any nation which has the wherewithal to resist hard and strike hard. The whole point of these small wars is internal politics and the process of ginning up support for the ruling regime in Moscow. That point would quickly get buried under a tidal wave of body bags unless the nation in question had been engaged in significant rhetoric and action against Russian interests. Thus the strategy mentioned prior -- speak softly ("don't poke the bear") and accumulate significant defensive resources to make it expensive to attack you -- is decidedly recommended if you are one of the neighbors that Russia might decide to slam against the wall next.

Ron Humphrey
08-29-2008, 10:22 PM
such terms as someone like myself :o can absorb it well.

It would seem though if I follow that line of thinking it would be very easy for things to get drawn out of control by such circumstances as those "likely candidates" for example doing what they must internally in order to justify " hardening" themselves against said threat (villifying) Russia.

It only makes political sense there as well. How long exactly do Putin and others expect to be able to balance that with what their working at before it ends up causing more trouble than it helps their cause.

LOT's of leaders have tried that throughout history and it almost never works for long. Things get out of control either inside or outside, often both.

Also I thought your example with Sadam was quite enlightening, Either way he's no longer in charge (and hes not breathing anymore either) It would seem no more advisable that they worry less about external politics than that the rest of us recognize the internals.

jmm99
08-30-2008, 01:27 AM
Ron made a point - what about the non-bear leader who has to follow internal politics that are contrary to a more rational external policy ? Georgia would suggest that he and his country would be in trouble. If we are talking about that situation being bi-lateral pathological between two ICBM powers, then we would MIRV each other to MAD.

Ran into two different views of a small country meeting the bear - one from now and one then. Both are successive weekly commentaries from Sanomat. The first is dead serious; the second has its comic moments.


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
19.8.2008 - THIS WEEK
COMMENTARY: The international emergency number is 56-68-79-08
By Unto Hämäläinen

When the current EU Englargement Commissioner Olli Rehn was a fresh-faced Finnish student politician-in-embryo in the 1980s, a Soviet politician asked him during some bilateral discussions if he happened to know what the international emergency number was.

Rehn confessed he did not.

“It’s 56-68-79", said the Soviet politician with a broad grin.
.....
The atmosphere in Finland, too, is changing.

Just under a year ago, when Defence Minister Jyri Häkämies announced in Washington that Finland's geographical location brings three main security policy challenges: "Russia, Russia, and Russia", he was practically lynched in the market square back home.

Were Häkämies to deliver the same speech today, it would not provoke such strong reactions.

In historical terms, Finland is now faced with a new and challenging situation.

In 1956, 1968, and 1979, the nation's leaders really did not have much alternative than to hunker down and remain as quiet as a mouse in their own foxholes.

Now Finland's position is rather different. Parliament, the president, and the government can choose between two alternatives: either to join NATO or continue along the old path. And this is also well understood in Moscow.

Russia's most important objective "in the Finland file" is that Finland should remain outside NATO. If Moscow were now to start exerting pressure on Finland, it would also be pushing an EU-member around.

The fear in Moscow is also that then the Finns would rapidly exercise their option of joining NATO.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/COMMENTARY+The+international+emergency+number+is+5 6-68-79-08/1135238763197

So, the lack of restraint by the Russians (because of their internal politics) could lead to Finland being pushed to do something (NATO) that would be adverse to Russia's external policy (for Finland). Here, the risk seems to be Russia's, unless it wants to engage in a costly war for little gain.

The situation was far different in 1968, when the Finns believed they were a candidate for invasion. Then it was Prague Spring, which became KGB Autumn. Here's the Finnish story and the merits of restraint.


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - HOME
26.8.2008 - THIS WEEK
COMMENTARY: Fears of Soviet invasion in August and September 1968
By Ilkka Malmberg

In the stands at the Olympic Stadium, during the annual Finnkampen athletics meet between Finland and Sweden, the rumour started to go around: hundreds of Soviet tanks had appeared behind the border, ready to attack.

The Kymi Jaegers were in position to the east of Hamina ready to repulse an assault.

In Lappeenranta, Finland’s own tanks had been moved up to the border zone.

It was the last week of August in 1968. Czechoslovakia had been invaded and occupied just over a week earlier.

The news from Prague unsettled the Finns mightily.

The eternal fear raised its head once more.
......
Back in Helsinki, the ship of state tried to hold its course. The government expressed its sadness at the occupation of Czechoslovakia and hoped for a peaceful outcome. It promised to monitor developments carefully. There was no overt criticism of the Soviet moves.

Deep depression had overtaken President Urho Kekkonen.

”Why the hell did I have to go and agree to stand for re-election? Now I’d be a free man to say what I think”, Kekkonen wrote in his diary.
.....
In any event, the rumour-mill had to be stopped somehow.

The then Prime Minister Mauno Koivisto and his Foreign Minister Ahti Karjalainen called in the editors-in-chief of the largest daily newspapers and warned them against jumping to overly hasty conclusions.

Karjalainen stressed that the occupation in Czechoslovakia was not having an effect on bilateral relations with the eastern neighbour, and he warned against stirring things up on the foreign policy front.
....
Another who learnt at the time that one did not go antagonising a superpower just like that was a 21-year-old summer reporter with YLE named Paavo Väyrynen (yes, that Väyrynen, later the chairman of the Centre Party and long-serving Foreign Minister).

Väyrynen had been making a radio report of the demonstrations outside the Soviet Embassy on Tehtaankatu, and had interviewed people taking part in the protest.

But the piece was never aired.

“There was talk that the Ministry of the Interior had phoned the newsdesk”, recalls Väyrynen with some ironic amusement.

“They probably didn’t want to have it told just how large the demonstration was. Or what the mood on the street was like.” .....

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Fears+of+Soviet+invasion+in+August+and+September+1 968/1135238966894

The various military "incidents" and "rumors of war" are quite humorous - today.

Prime Minister Mauno Koivisto, a Continuation War member of the famous Detachment Törni and a fierce anti-SovCom, must have pulled his hair at the un-readiness of the Finnish Defense Forces in 1968.

davidbfpo
08-30-2008, 10:47 AM
The situation was far different in 1968, when the Finns believed they were a candidate for invasion.

Why would the USSR consider an invasion of Finland necessary in the autumn of 1968? I too have read the recent Finnish articles on the "invasion scare". Put them alongside the massive demo os the USSR Embassy against the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the Finnish Communist party condemning the invasion.

I could be wrong, forty years on, wasn't the USSR reluctant to invade Czechoslovakia? Let alone it's Warsaw Pact allies.

One invasion under the Brezhnev Doctrine of a Warsaw Pact member was bad enough, to then invade a friendly, neutral neighbour who posed no threat, crazy IMHO.

davidbfpo

jmm99
08-30-2008, 09:38 PM
Why would the USSR consider an invasion of Finland necessary in the autumn of 1968?

that we can see from the viewpoint of 2008.

The Finns of 1968, having lived in fear of the bear for 20+ years, overreacted to rumors which multiplied. The point of the 2008 Sanomat article was that the government exercised restraint and quashed the "rumors of war".

The Finnish people's reaction against the Russian operations in Czech was quite real - and rational. By that time, the Finnish far left was well on the way to EuroCom, and away from SovCom.

The primary component in the Russian Czech effort was the KGB - a classic political infiltration operation - it brought Andropov some standing in the Politburo. Re-read that story Friday (Mitrokhin Archive, p.247 et seq - then that book's binding fell apart :().

Just finished a 7-part book review post on another discussion board, involving the Mauno Pekkala government of the late 40's. So, my mind is in the wrong decade - and a bit swimmy.

Your 40-year recall is pretty good - want to lend me some ?

Regards to our UK friends.

Mike

bourbon
08-31-2008, 12:33 AM
More from Thomas Goltz:

Of Georgia, Jamtland and the Texas Solution (http://pulitzercenter.typepad.com/untold_stories/2008/08/of-georgia-jamt.html#more). Tbilisi/Baku, August 28, 2008. Pulitzer Center

bourbon
09-01-2008, 08:04 PM
Georgia and the Balance of Power (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21772), By George Friedman. The New York Review of Books, Volume 55, Number 14 · September 25, 2008.

The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It has simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This has opened an opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that on August 8.

From Mark Galeotti's new blog In Moscow's Shadow:

August 26: Initial Thoughts on Russia’s Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia
(http://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/initial-thoughts-on-russia%E2%80%99s-recognition-of-abkhazia-and-south-ossetia/#more-17)
August 28: The Intelligence War over South Ossetia (http://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/the-intelligence-war-over-south-ossetia/#more-21)

I don't know the rule about linking to a thread on another forum, if it's ok, I would like to link to a thread on Robert Young Pelton's Black Flag Cafe. RYP has been posting Thomas Goltz's dispatches a few days before they are published elsewhere, the latest:

Talking Turkey, or Oil Is Money But Gas Is Power (http://cafe.comebackalive.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38594&start=60#p381527), Istanbul, September 1st, 2008.

Stan
09-03-2008, 08:54 AM
The US called on NATO (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f8e6866-792f-11dd-9d0c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) to be better prepared to defend the three Baltic states from military attack, after Russia’s recent incursion into Georgia.

This should make for some interesting neighbors ;) Hmmm, looks like the Nordstream pipeline may be little more than a pipe dream :D


In Brussels, Mr Volker said NATO was firmly committed to defending the Baltic states from attack because, unlike Georgia, they were signatories to the alliance’s Article 5, which guarantees defence of one ally by all the rest.

NATO must, therefore, send signals in the area of military “planning and exercising” that it intends to help shore up the Baltic states.

“Those countries are members of NATO; so if there is any attack on those countries we will all respond”

“We will have to make sure . . . that the Article 5 commitment is realisable not just as a political matter but as a military matter too.”

jmm99
09-03-2008, 07:37 PM
Some differences of opinion have been developing between PM Vanhanen and FM Stubb over NATO, and perhaps as to the Finnish response in Georgia.


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
1.9.2008 - TODAY
Vanhanen: Strong support for Georgia but no sanctions against Russia
.....
Finland is ready for a rapid increase in the role of the European Union in Georgia and in other areas of the Caucasus that have been hit by instability, said Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) on Friday. .... On the other hand, Finland is not in favour of sanctions against Russia in response to the war in Georgia and to Russia’s recognition of the independence of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhasia. ......

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Vanhanen+Strong+support+for+Georgia+but+no+sanctio ns+against+Russia/1135239093739

Specifically, on NATO, party politics enter the arena, with the SDP not chiming in officially.


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - HOME
2.9.2008 - TODAY
Stubb NATO comments raise questions
Vanhanen: Stubb spoke as party member, not Foreign Minister
.....
Recent comments by Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb (Nat. Coalition Party) in favour of Finnish membership in NATO have raised questions in Finnish public debate. .... Last week Stubb said in a speech to Finnish ambassadors gathered in Helsinki that he takes a positive view of possible NATO membership for Finland. .... In a radio interview programme on Sunday, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) wrote off the comments, saying that they were “more statements of the National Coalition Party than the Foreign Minister”. .... The Finnish government does not currently plan to apply for NATO membership. .....

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Stubb+NATO+comments+raise+questions/1135239120512

This week's Sanomat commentary addresses the question of NATO as a defensive alliance - the point made by Stan's post above.


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - COLUMN
2.9.2008 - THIS WEEK
Would Georgian NATO membership have prevented Russian military action?
By Raimo Väyrynen

The war between Georgia and Russia will inevitably lead to a re-evaluation of the nature and mission of NATO. NATO has defined itself as being in a state of change. In recent years the emphasis has been on the alliance being more of a crisis management organisation, and possibly only secondarily a traditional defence alliance. This way of thinking was also seen in the NATO report published by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs last December. .....

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Would+Georgian+NATO+membership+have+prevented+Russ ian+military+action/1135239124432

It also warns of limitations faced by minor members of the alliance, where a full-scale war would not be in the national interests of the major members; or if that were so, would not be in the interests of the minor member:


(same source)
Each of the minor members of the alliance need to take into account that the leader of the alliance is not necessarily willing to provide assistance in a war that is of secondary importance from its own point of view, especially if the war was started by the alliance partner. This is the strength of a military alliance: it prevents member states from engaging in policies that are unwise. On the other hand, it could draw countries into attacks that they do not want to embark on.

My two cents worth at end.

The FIIA report on Nato (in English), cited in the Sanomat column, is here, with a link to its .pdf file.


From Protecting Some to Securing Many - NATO's Journey from a Military Alliance to a Security Manager
Published 11.12.2007
Charly Salonius-Pasternak (toim.)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War. .... Finland’s relationship with NATO will also continue to change, whether or not it ever joins the Alliance. Finland must independently evaluate and make its defence and security policy related decisions. ....

http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/publication/10/

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs publication archives (many in English) are here.

http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/publications/

I ponder whether Finnish reluctance on NATO is due to:

1. A fear that the major partners would not come to Finland's assistance - in that case, a Baltic-Finnish-Swedish alliance (re-creating the 1640 picture, without Ingria) would serve as well; or

2. A fear that Finland would have to send substantial forces overseas - thus, reviving the issues raised by Swedish Crown adventures from Gussy Dullfish to Charles XII, which involved Finnish troops as near a majority of the Swedish forces; and reviving the opposition to forced participation by Finns in Russian adventures (ca. 1810-WWI), which led to the Independence Movement.

I suspect that 2 is more important than 1.

kaur
09-05-2008, 06:50 AM
Policy Paper Svante E. Cornell, Johanna Popjanevski, Niklas Nilsson
"Russia’s War in Georgia: Causes and Implications for Georgia and the World",
August 2008


http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/pp/08/0808Georgia-PP2.pdf

ANALYSIS Niklas Swanström
"Georgia: The Split that Split the SCO" CACI Analyst,
September 3, 2008

http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/4930

Couple more articles.

http://www.cacianalyst.org/

kaur
09-05-2008, 11:31 AM
Europe stands up to Russia
Sep 4th 2008
From The Economist print edition


In fact the most useful cure for the Eurowobbles over Russia lies not in diplomacy but in Europe’s internal market: liberalising the EU’s energy markets and where possible connecting up its internal supply lines. It makes economic sense and does not involve picking a needless fight with Russia. As long as governments like Germany’s prefer to cut separate deals with Russia, Europe’s inevitable dependence on Russian oil and gas will always offer a tempting way for an opportunistic Kremlin to exert pressure on this country or that, by turning off the taps for “pipeline repairs”. Recent promises that Russia will remain a reliable energy supplier should be viewed warily.


But what Russia may come to regret losing most is something Mr Putin longs for: the opportunity to become an accepted European power. He likes to skip over communism’s mistakes and dwell on Russia’s tsarist grandeur. But what did for both was imperial overstretch, a rotten economy and, like Russia’s today, a mostly unaccountable ruling caste that led a proud country to disaster.

The last point is what educated Russians stress. They want to be treated in Europe as normal people, but now this is harder to gain again. This is the problem that even huge PR firms find hard to solve.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12060201

kaur
09-05-2008, 11:50 AM
No. 45: Russia and the Conflict in Georgia
4 Sep 2008


This issue of the Russian Analytical Digest features articles about the August fighting in the Caucasus from a variety of perspectives. Specifically, the authors discuss the stages of the conflict, the role of Russia, Georgia and Chechens and international consequences of the conflict. The issue also provides several interviews on the chronicle of military events and Russian public opinion on the conflict.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/rad/index.cfm

Jedburgh
09-05-2008, 08:42 PM
RAD, 4 Sep 08: Russia and the Conflict in Georgia (http://se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=PublishingHouse&fileid=A2298EF9-72E2-631F-A7E3-D75F096F2CA2&lng=en)

Dear Readers,

Th is issue of the Russian Analytical Digest presents articles about the August fighting in the Caucasus from a variety of different perspectives. Each article represents the views of its author, but not necessarily the views of the RAD editors. We have tried to be as comprehensive as possible in our selection of texts.

RAD Editors
■ ANALYSIS: Caucasus Conflict Breaks Old Rules of the Game

■ ANALYSIS: Eyes Wide Open

■ QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Interview with Dr. Viacheslav Chirikba, Adviser on Foreign Policy to the President of Abkhazia

■ QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Interview with Archil Gegeshidze, Senior Fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (GFSIS (http://www.gfsis.org/pub/eng/)) in Tbilisi

■ DOCUMENTATION: The Russian-Georgian Conflict Chronicle of Military Events, August 2008

■ OPINION POLLS: Russian Public Opinion on the Conflict

■ ANALYSIS: The Role of Chechens in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict

jmm99
09-08-2008, 05:42 PM
the kingdoms were lost - to the Georgians. At least, that now seems the French position on the "language difficulties" of the Georgian cease fire agreement.


Washington Times
Cease-fire has 'translation problem'
Russia uses miscue to keep troop 'buffer zones'
Sunday, September 7, 2008
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AVIGNON, France
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on Saturday admitted that "a translation problem" had contributed to differences in interpreting a Russia-Georgia peace plan.
.....
The main linguistic glitch was in a passage in the Russian version that spoke of security "for South Ossetia and Abkhazia," whereas the English version spoke of security "in" the two areas.......

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/cease-fire-has-translation-problem/

kaur
09-09-2008, 08:03 AM
RUSSIANS DOUBT OBJECTIVITY OF OFFICIAL MEDIA WHILE SHARING THEIR SENTIMENTS


A national poll conducted by the independent Levada Center over August 15-22 – that is, in the immediate wake of the five-day Russo-Georgian war – found a high degree of anti-Western and particularly anti-American sentiment. A total of 75 percent of the respondents stated that Russian-American relations were to one degree or another not good, with 39 percent saying relations were “chilly,” 28 percent saying relations were “strained,” and eight percent saying relations were “hostile.”

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373349


There were very tense moments,” Reuters reported as saying one of the senior officials in Sarkozy’s office. Once, when President Medvedev wasn’t in the room, the parties clashed about the pre-conflict positions to the extent that Sarkozy got up and said: “We’re going. This is not negotiable.” Medvedev was called back and eased the tension without interrupting the session and calling Vladimir Putin, the source specified.

http://www.kommersant.com/p-13171/Georgia_Sarkozy_Medvedev/

This episode reminds me negotiations tactics that was used in 1939 by Soviet Union against Estonian delegation. Molotov and Stalin were playing similar good cop - bad cop game. In the end they enforced military bases to Estonia. Finns didn't give up and headed to Winter war.

jmm99
09-09-2008, 06:29 PM
on Georgia, NATO, the Baltic States, Finland and Sweden.

Ran into this article by Lind:


September 9, 2008
Defending the Baltics
by William S. Lind

I recently returned from Estonia and the Baltic Defense College, where the Russian counterattack on Georgia had left a residual case of nerves. ...
....
... There could be benefit for all concerned in a union of the Baltic states and Finland under the Swedish crown, all retaining complete domestic autonomy but united for defense and foreign policy, but it is probably only historians who can see the potential. ....
....
There is a model that would work for the Baltic states and other small countries: the Iraqi model. Instead of creating a toy army, they should plan an Iraq-style insurgency against any occupier. This requires a universal militia like Switzerland's, where every male citizen knows how to shoot and how to build and emplace IEDs and where weapons and explosives are cached all over the country. In the Baltics, this would be a rural rather than an urban defense: Russia could take the cities but not the countryside. The "Forest Brothers" kept up just such a resistance to the Soviet presence well into the 1950s. ....

http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=13432

Comments by Stan, K and anyone else would be appreciated.

reed11b
09-09-2008, 06:37 PM
My immediate response is; this would deter Russian aggression how exactly?
Reed

jmm99
09-09-2008, 07:02 PM
from reed
this would deter Russian aggression how exactly?

it would involve adoption of the "Paasikivi Defense Doctrine" - shoot from behind every tree, across every frozen swamp, etc. - untill all of us are dead. And communication of that resolve to the Main Adversary. The other side of the coin is adoption of the "Paasikivi Foreign Policy" - don't bearbait.

It worked with Stalin - so, one historic example. Valid now or in the future - my crystal ball is not that educated.

As to the rest of the equation (policy <> strategy <> operations <> tactics), that is why I thought comments by people with military experience would be helpful.

Regards,

Mike

Stan
09-09-2008, 07:53 PM
Hey Mike !


on Georgia, NATO, the Baltic States, Finland and Sweden.

Ran into this article by Lind:

http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=13432

Comments by Stan, K and anyone else would be appreciated.

Overall, I enjoyed the article and even have some dealings with the author and can at the very least, appreciate where he's coming from.

Personally, I think the Swiss model fits best considering Estonia's current military strength, past successes with Russian forces, and Estonia's favorable terrain (or, the pathetic inability of Russian soldiers to engage sneaky snipers in the forest :cool:).

I totally disagree that an Iraqi model fits herein. The Balts are not Barbarians nor are they suicidal. Not the right cookie cutter this time.

Estonia does not have the so called toy army albeit relatively small. Our current President is no fool and plays his hand well. Strike at the "3 fat pigs", but carefully. Nordstream is an easy target, but this game won't last much longer.

I agree with Mr. Lind. PFP, MAP and NATO games make not a Nation prepared for war with 10:1 odds. I like what we're doing now with air surveillance jets, war games, and the political rhetoric (in unison with our neighbors).


I realize this advice is unpalatable to the Baltic peoples. Half a century of Soviet occupation has left a residue of hatred for all things Russian. But grand strategy must be based on facts and reason, not emotion. The most important fact is geography. Geography dictates that the Baltic states must accommodate Russian interests, whether they want to or not. If they refuse, then the recent example of Georgia may have more relevance than anyone would wish.

I disagree. The very reason patriotic Balts continue to fight is because the outcome is unpalatable and no one wants these folks back on our land, ever. Economically speaking, yes, it would be wise to consider our Eastern trading partner. But, to accommodate their interests before our own is pure BS and the heck with the Swedish Crown and Finnish models of yesteryear. I remain skeptical about their overall intentions and this Bravo Sierra surrounding gas and oil pipelines.


My immediate response is; this would deter Russian aggression how exactly?
Reed

It will not for one single second. It will however slow them down and make them think (which, may not be a good thing)

Regards, Stan

Ron Humphrey
09-10-2008, 03:18 AM
It will not for one single second. It will however slow them down and make them think (which, may not be a good thing)

Regards, Stan

It's often beneficial to have the larger opponents momentum high for a variety of reasons;)

Elevation
09-10-2008, 06:15 PM
I found this interesting article in the Boston Herald:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/na...nc#articleFull

Its starting to look like the US policy of boosting countries right on Russia's border is starting to look like a bad move. The idea of openly aiding nations like Georgia and the Baltic states seems like it may have been more trouble then its worth. All it does is piss off Russia and is of very little benefit to the US economically or militarily.

It also looks like US influence in this situation is diminished because we really don't have much of a moral plane to hang on complaining about other states invading for economic needs.

Finally, I don't think a huge clandestine aid campaign to help the Georgians would work like it did back in the 80s in Afghanistan, due to the enormous growth of the 24 hour media. What could have been done in secret before would be documented by about 50 bloggers the second a single box of US weapons gets opened.

Stan
09-15-2008, 07:59 AM
Better late than never with current news releases from this side of the Black Sea. I hope to get some real releases and imagery smokin' today and will post as they become available. The Russian press on the other hand was quick to point out that Estonia sent in a special forces team :D


6 September - Five Estonian explosive ordnance disposal (http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_137/10122.html)(EOD) specialists departed for Georgia on a humanitarian mission to help locate and disarm unexploded explosive devices in the conflict areas.
The team, which is being led by Margus Kurvits, chief of the EOD Centre at the Estonian Rescue Board, is flying to Georgia via Prague. The exact area where the Estonians will work will become known once they've arrived in Georgia.
"Essentially they will be doing the same thing they do in Estonia, that is, searching for and rendering harmless explosive devices left behind from the war," spokesperson Beata Perens said.
Under current plans the team will stay in Georgia for three weeks.

kaur
09-16-2008, 06:17 AM
The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives held hearings on the recent war in Georgia. During the debates high-ranking State Department and Pentagon officials actually admitted that it was Tbilisi that started the hostilities attacking South Ossetia. This said, Washington virtually acknowledged the chronology Russia regards real. However, it would be untimely for Moscow to triumph. American military and diplomats still consider Russia’s reaction “disproportionate” calling on to counter the Kremlin’s “imperial reach”.

http://www.kommersant.com/p1024013/r_527/South_Ossetia_hearings_in_Congress/

There is little scandal in Russia. Russian official MOD newspaper "Red Star" published 1 article 11.09. There is interview with 1 Russian officer, who says that his company from 58th army was in South Ossetia already 07.08. This week this article has disappeared form "Red Star" site, ... but Google has it :) Both links have articles in Russian.

http://newsru.com/russia/15sep2008/udaleno.html

http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:http://www.redstar.ru/2008/09/03_09/2_03.html

kaur
09-16-2008, 06:27 AM
In Wake of Georgian War, Russian Media Feel Heat

By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, September 15, 2008;


At the height of the crisis over Russia's invasion of Georgia last month, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin summoned the top executives of his nation's most influential newspapers and broadcasters to a private meeting in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

The Kremlin controls much of the Russian media, and Putin occasionally meets with friendly groups of senior journalists to answer questions and guide news coverage. On Aug. 29, though, for the first time in five years, he also invited the editor in chief of Echo Moskvy, the only national radio station that routinely broadcasts opposition voices.

For several minutes, according to people who attended the session or were briefed about it, Putin berated the editor in front of his peers, criticizing Echo's coverage of the war with Georgia and reading from a dossier of transcripts to point out what he considered errors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402249.html

Stan
09-16-2008, 03:21 PM
I hope to get some real releases and imagery smokin' today and will post as they become available.

Estonian Deminers have cleared 3 Georgian villages (http://www.delfi.ee/archive/article.php?id=19889131)

Translation follows

The Rescue Board's EOD Center 5-man team on a humanitarian mission to Georgia, have completed clearing the Marneuli air base and two local villages of UXO. According to the Rescue Board's press representative, Estonian deminers destoryed 11 UXO (large aerial delivery ordnance).

Their first base camp was in the town of Marneuli with their initial assignment to clear and destroy UXO at the air base and surrounding villages of Tsereteli and Ahali Dioknisi. By the end of last week they had also cleared and destroyed UXO in the village of Vasiani.

The destroyed UXO were primarily aerial delivery ordnance between 250 and 1,500 kg.

The EOD Center's 5-man team departed on their humanitarian mission on the 6th of September with an assignment to clear civilian areas and to assist Georgia Engineers with demining.

In addition, Estonian EOD will assist the Georgians with creating a demining system and database. The mission is planned to last 3 weeks.

Enjoy the pics... To Russia with love :D

jmm99
09-16-2008, 05:03 PM
from above
The destroyed UXO were primarily aerial delivery ordnance between 250 and 1,500 kg.

Good job, Stan and poiat. :)

Beelzebubalicious
09-16-2008, 05:30 PM
I read an interesting article in the IHT the other day by a former British foreign secretary, Malcolm Rifkind titled, "A Hot War is no way to Prevent a Cold One (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/05/opinion/edrifkind.php)".

I do think that pushing NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine now is problematic given what he states in this article - that the US and Western Europe are not likely to defend either one under Article 5. Might have thought about extending NATO membership to these countries before provoking Russia in Kosovo. Now, it looks a bit desperate.

Pouring money in to Georgia to rebuild it and support the democratic government is not a strong card. Hard to say whether Russia would be bold enough to do something overt in Ukraine, but I don't think they have to. Ukraine's government is falling apart and they'll do whatever it takes to get Pro-Russian politicians into power. It'll be another "democratic" election with an unfavorable result.

Stan
09-16-2008, 05:41 PM
Good job, Stan and poiat. :)

Mike, at the rate the Russian ordnance is going as of today, more than 60 percent is UXO (or FORD for us Chevy drivers...Found on road dead) :)

Stan
09-16-2008, 05:52 PM
I do think that pushing NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine now is problematic given what he states in this article - that the US and Western Europe are not likely to defend either one under Article 5. Might have thought about extending NATO membership to these countries before provoking Russia in Kosovo. Now, it looks a bit desperate.

Pouring money in to Georgia to rebuild it and support the democratic government is not a strong card. Hard to say whether Russia would be bold enough to do something overt in Ukraine, but I don't think they have to. Ukraine's government is falling apart and they'll do whatever it takes to get Pro-Russian politicians into power. It'll be another "democratic" election with an unfavorable result.

Hey Eric !
Gotta agree with you. But, even if we started the pathetic MAP process this evening, neither could become a NATO member in under 5 years. Then there's that pesky Russian naval port agreement to 2015 or so.

Hmmm, will Putin clean up all that ordnance at the park behind your former residence :rolleyes:

Regards, Stan

jmm99
09-16-2008, 06:12 PM
(from article above cited)

As a result [of non-intervention], the guarantee of Article Five which Western European countries have relied on since the dawn of the Cold War would have been shattered, together with NATO's credibility.

The issue at hand, at least for political leaders in Western Europe, is not just whether it is in the interests of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. It is whether it is in the interests of existing members to admit them.

.... Extending Article Five to cover countries far more likely to invoke it than most current members would require major increases in defense expenditure.

but the question is what Europe wants to do with Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

As I pointed out in the Ukraine thread, the "as it deems necessary" clause is an escape hatch for any government that does not want to engage in armed conflict. If the participants do not want to engage in armed conflict on behalf of the "least of their brothers", the Treaty becomes a dead letter.

In view of US worldwide commitments, deployment of substantial US ground forces is not in the cards. Will Europe develop an integrated armed force (not a composite plethora of separate forces, resembling the army of Xerses). ? Rifkind, in effect, says "nay".

The political problems of the EU, in moving toward a more federated system, also seem to reflect the underlying separatisms within Europe.

jmm99
09-18-2008, 06:53 PM
Here's the first.


NY Times
By REUTERS
Published: September 17, 2008
Filed at 11:28 a.m. ET
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed treaties with Georgia's South Ossetia and Abkhazia on Wednesday that commit Moscow to defend the breakaway regions from any Georgian attack. .....

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-georgia-ossetia-russia-agreement.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

and the second.


Recognise Georgian regions says Ukraine's Crimea
REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Sep 17, 2008 05:43 EST
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine, Sept 17 (Reuters) - Parliament in Ukraine's Crimea peninsula, defying the country's pro-Western leaders, called on the national parliament to follow Russia's example and recognise Georgia's two separatist regions. ...
....
The local assembly voted 79 to 8 to urge Ukraine's national parliament to recognise the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. ....

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=355278

Neither event is particularly earth-shaking - and few will be surprised. The second may be more evidence of the disconnect between politicians in the Ukraine and the poll results (reported elsewhere in the thread on the Ukraine).

Stan
09-19-2008, 01:03 PM
The biggest threat to the Baltic states right now is not military, but psychological, as questions that should be ludicrous are treated seriously.

Keep calm and carry on... (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12252790)


THE Baltic states are full members of NATO. In theory, that means they need worry about external threats no more than any other NATO member. If they come under threat from, say, Russia, they are entitled to exactly the same protection under Article IV (political support) and Article V (military support) as any other country in the alliance.

But viewed from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania it doesn’t quite feel that way. Baltic officials have been privately and semi-publicly urging NATO to increase its visible presence in the Baltic states, both in terms of planes, ships and soldiers, and through high-profile visits. If the response is cool, they question the alliance’s resolve.

All that is going to change, slowly. NATO’s “Military Committee 161,” which deals with threat assessment, will shortly consider how to rejig the bureaucratic basis for military planning. Other work is already under way.

But there is little to be gained, and much to be lost, by panicky talk in the Baltics about the need for more NATO support. It creates the potentially dangerous impression that the Baltic states are “lite” members of NATO.

The alliance’s secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said rightly last week in Riga ... every Latvian military base was a NATO base, he noted.

jmm99
09-20-2008, 03:01 AM
(from Stan's source)
The book, by a Finnish author called Johan Bäckman, says that as a result of this, Estonia will be part of the Russian Federation within ten years.

Some Finnish comments (only the rational ones) on Dr. Bäckman:


He has an 'Institute' of his own in St. Petersburg and he is publishing there books and newspaper articles about the evil deeds of Finland. There is a couple of other similar cases, too. Possibly they are bitter to Finland because their genius has not been acknowledged. At least Bäckman seems to be getting some support from Russia.
.....
Johan Bäckman is a member of the young generation of Finnish revisionist historians. He is a specialist on organized crime in Russia and Estonia.
.....
This fellow has quite the little propaganda mill....
.....
I just wonder what Russia is gaining from his books. They are mostly published in Finnish, and only a handfull of people here is interested in them.
....
The book is being released in Estonia at the Tallinn military cemetery (!) on September 22nd at 12.00, and there seem to be plans to publish it in Estonian, Russian and English as well. As to what Russia gains -- the delightful thing about Kremlin prop has always been how *bad* it is. Even when they pull out all stops and coach their best English-speakers, as they did for the "genocide" show in Ossetia, no reasonable person not already in their camp could swallow the stuff.

All found here

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/browse_thread/thread/7ca4271141d63ba1/f49c03138c575830?lnk=raot

Dr. Bäckman's Wiki bio (in Finnish) at

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_B%C3%A4ckman

But, the best seems here, which has a back and forth with Dr. Bäckman,

in the original:

http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/

and in the Google translation here:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&u=http%3a%2f%2fpronssisoturi%2eblogspot%2ecom%2f

And, have to love the bear cartoon - which takes us back to the days of Otto Wille Kuusinen, who often wrote and acted as the "Finnish hand" of the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kuusinen

Stan
09-23-2008, 08:32 PM
In the event you folks are considering real Estate ventures, and you discover that you have a 500 kg Russian UXO in the basement...Don't call the bomb squad :rolleyes:

Enjoy the pics !

sullygoarmy
09-23-2008, 08:38 PM
Awesome pics! Stay safe!

Stan
09-23-2008, 08:49 PM
And, this is what your neighbor's roof looks like after (cough) an EOD visit :o

Beelzebubalicious
09-23-2008, 10:54 PM
And what do you say to that, "thank you" or "f*$k you!"? Loses a bit on the curb appeal, I have to admit.

slapout9
09-23-2008, 11:36 PM
Cool Pictures Stan...hope you did those with a telephoto lens:D

Stan
09-24-2008, 10:07 AM
And what do you say to that, "thank you" or "f*$k you!"? Loses a bit on the curb appeal, I have to admit.

Hey Eric,
As you can see from the pictures, these were strategic sites the Russians bombed 7.5 clicks off target... thereabouts :wry:

Actually, word from the field was the entire neighborhood was for the destruction and have already cleaned up the site for a new foundation. I also have information that the Georgian government will finance the rebuild. Til then, it's a sleep over at the neighbor's house (without a roof) ;)


Cool Pictures Stan...hope you did those with a telephoto lens:D

Hey Slap !
According to the IBF's safe distance tables, the team would have been in Estonia for the remote blast initiation :D

Yep, it's a pretty cool camera and has a good zoom lens to boot !

Off to southern and sunny parts. See ya later next week !

Regards, Stan

Jedburgh
09-30-2008, 02:17 PM
Six briefing notes from Chatham House, 30 Sep 08:

Russia and Georgia: Culpabilities and Consequences (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/659/file/12223_0908rep_sherr.pdf)

Culpability matters. We cannot be ‘forward-looking’ unless we know who we are dealing with, what is driving them and what they are capable of. We also need to know ourselves, particularly when we share culpabilities with others. Culpabilities are shared in this conflict, but they are different in scale and in nature.....
After the Battle: What the August War will mean for Russia's Domestic Politics (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/660/file/12224_0908rep_shevtsova.pdf)

Within the past 15 years the Russian Federation has crossed three significant thresholds. When Boris Yeltsin shelled his own parliament in 1993 he launched a new era of personalized power in Russia. The arrest of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and destruction of his company, Yukos, in 2003 propelled Russia down the road to bureaucratic capitalism. The August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia — a proxy war between Russia and the West, with Georgia serving the role of whipping-boy — crosses the third threshold. It ends the Perestroika experiment begun by Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s. In so doing, it marks the end of Russia’s latest attempt to secure a firm place for itself within Western civilization.....
The Paradoxical Regional Implications of Russian Actions in Georgia (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/661/file/12220_0908rep_macfarlane.pdf)

Several issues arise from Russia’s actions in Georgia that are relevant in the larger Caucasus region. Taking the North Caucasus first, arguably one Russian motivation for military action in South Ossetia was to address its security concerns in the North Caucasus. This has at least two dimensions. First, substantial flows of refugees from South Ossetia into North Ossetia risked the destabilization of the delicate relationship between North Ossetia and Ingushetia (specifically the Prigorodnyi Raion). The near-war between North Ossetia and Ingushetia in 1992 was in part a product of refugee movements from South Ossetia into areas populated by Ingush in this region. The dispute has never been fully settled. A similar movement of people risks generating a return to violence at a time when the situation in the North Caucasus region as a whole remains parlous.....
Russia and Europe in the Aftermath of the Georgian Conflict: New Challenges, Old Paradigms (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/662/file/12221_0908rep_moshes.pdf)

....In the immediate future, Moscow will try to pursue a path of accommodation with the EU in order to help overcome the effects of August 2008. Russia’s leaders have already confirmed that Russia will continue to recognize that Crimea is part of Ukraine and that the 1997 interstate treaty with Ukraine remains valid. The authorities in Tiraspol, capital of Moldova’s breakaway region, Transdnistria, have demonstratively agreed to resume negotiations with Chisinau. Taking into account the reluctance of Russia’s closest CIS partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to express their full solidarity with Russia’s actions in South Ossetia, it behoves Russia to treat them as a special case, rather than the start of a new trend.

In the longer run, however, it would be in Europe’s interests to find the courage to face the new realities. After Georgia, Russia will feel emboldened to raise its geopolitical game in the region, and this promises to create new tensions not only with Ukraine, but also with Belarus, which seems to have started exploring the possibilities of moving closer to Europe. A Cold War response is neither feasible nor appropriate. But substituting new rhetoric for serious policy revision will not help the EU.
US-Russian Relations After the Events of August 2008 (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/663/file/12222_0908rep_nixey.pdf)

The US relationship with Russia – in steady decline since Russian ‘disillusionment’ over lack of reciprocal cooperation after 11 September 2001 – is now in a state of flux, following the Georgia crisis of August 2008. There are three reasons:

· a lame-duck US administration, with a focus elsewhere: the November presidential election and US entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
· irritation at Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s unpredictability and rashness.
· genuine concern over the intentions of the current Russian regime, mixed with uncertainty over the most effective counter-policy.

This commentary will examine the last two reasons and then offer a brief analysis of Russian views of US policy.
The August 2008 Conflict: Economic Consequences for Russia (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/664/file/12219_0908rep_hanson.pdf)

Russia’s intervention in Georgia in August 2008 has economic consequences. Some are short-term only; some are likely to be perceptible only in the longer term. In both cases, some effects are beneficial to Russia, and some are harmful.

The likely consequences are easy to list but impossible to measure. There are more negative effects than favourable ones for Russia. That is no guarantee that, in total, the damaging effects will outweigh the positive effects. All the listing can do is provide an agenda for future monitoring, and perhaps some guidance for policy.

One final caveat: several Russian economic indicators – growth, the stock market index and net international capital flows, for example – were already deteriorating before the conflict. Evidence about any negative economic development for Russia after mid-August needs to be interrogated with this in mind. Was that development already visible before 7 August? If it was, do we really have any indication that it was exacerbated by the conflict?

jmm99
10-11-2008, 09:24 PM
According to the following articles, Russia has withdrawn its forces from the so-called "buffer zones", after roughly a 2-month occupation.


BBC
updated at 14:17 GMT, Friday, 10 October 2008 15:17 UK
EU verifies Russia's withdrawal
Russia has dismantled its checkpoints in the buffer zones

Russian forces have fully withdrawn from buffer zones adjoining Georgia's breakaway regions, the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana says.

He said he was "happy to announce" that EU monitors had confirmed the withdrawal from the zones outside Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Friday was the deadline for the pull-out under a ceasefire plan.

Earlier, however, France's foreign minister noted that Russian forces remained in some disputed pockets.

Asked if Russia had honoured the ceasefire deal, Bernard Kouchner said: "I think so, but partly."

"They had to leave the buffer zone before October 10 and they did it," he said, after touring the area with EU monitors.

But he said he was aware of three disputed pockets of land, and that these would be discussed at an international conference in Geneva next week.

Georgia has complained that Russian forces still occupy Akhalgori and Perevi in South Ossetia, and the Kodori Gorge in Abkhazia - areas that were under Georgian control before conflict erupted on 7 August. ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7663145.stm

I doubt whether Russia will give up any of the three pockets.


Yahoo News
France: Russia only partly met Georgia obligations
By MATT SIEGEL, Associated Press Writer
Fri Oct 10, 1:03 PM ET

TKVIAVI, Georgia - Russia has only partially met its obligations in Georgia under an EU-negotiated ceasefire, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner declared Friday as he toured damaged villages and spoke to displaced people in Georgia.

He confirmed that Russia had met the Friday deadline to withdraw hundreds of troops from strips of land in Georgia outside the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But Kouchner suggested Moscow has not met all its obligations under the cease-fire, which also stipulated that Russia must withdraw to positions held before the five-day war broke out Aug. 7.

"The withdrawal is complete on the first part of the agreement. Of course, the agreement is not complete at all, and it is not a perfect agreement," Kouchner said at a refugee camp in the central city of Gori, which was heavily bombed in war. ....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_eu/eu_georgia_russia

bourbon
10-18-2008, 05:48 PM
Our Man in Tbilisi: Fifteen Years Ago, a Bullet Felled CIA Agent Freddie Woodruff (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428609504746507.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Was It the First Shot in a New Cold War With Russia?, By ANDREW HIGGINS. The Wall Street Journal, OCTOBER 18, 2008.

The bullet that killed Mr. Woodruff, 15 years to the day before Russia's recent military thrust into Georgia, was never found. Evidence casting doubt on the official story wasn't presented at Mr. Sharmaidze's trial. Key witnesses have now retracted their testimony, saying they were beaten and forced to finger Mr. Sharmaidze.

If Mr. Sharmaidze didn't do it, though, who did? Those who don't buy the official explanation suspect that the answer lies in the spy games that played out on Russia's frontier following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Mr. Woodruff was an early actor in a dangerous drama. American spies were moving into newborn nations previously dominated by Soviet intelligence. Russia's security apparatus, resentful and demoralized, was in turmoil, its nominal loyalty to a pro-Western course set by President Boris Yeltsin shredded by hard-line spooks and generals who viewed the Americans as a menace.

Stan
10-20-2008, 02:42 PM
From Estonia's President (http://www.president.ee/en/duties/interviews.php?gid=118724)


What changed in the world after 8 August when Russia attacked Georgia? Should we worry about our security? After all, we are not in the same situation as Georgia.

After the attack on Georgia, people in Estonia started saying that NATO has no plan for the Baltic States. What does it mean?

NATO has not thought for 17 or 18 years that there could be military aggression in Europe. However, the alliance does have general plans.
It is also irrelevant to say that everything will be over by the time NATO gets here to help us.

No country can gather its forces quickly by the border of another country and go unnoticed. It is a very long process and should it happen, then NATO will be ready and waiting.



Are you in favor of establishing NATO bases in Estonia?

Every military unit of Estonia is a NATO base, which makes the discussion of bases irrelevant.

The condition of our airports and ports is important at present. The question is whether we are able to receive our allies and not whether there will be bases.

Rob Thornton
10-20-2008, 04:42 PM
And, this is what your neighbor's roof looks like after (cough) an EOD visit

oh yea... "P" for plenty:D

Stan, I certainly admire both the technical expertise required and the stones the EOD folks exhibit. They are mong the best we have.

Best, Rob

Stan
10-20-2008, 04:57 PM
oh yea... "P" for plenty:D

Stan, I certainly admire both the technical expertise required and the stones the EOD folks exhibit. They are mong the best we have.

Best, Rob

Hey Rob, it's in fact a secret recipe... add just about as much as will fit snugly into the entrance hole ;)

We in fact began training these folks in the early and mid 90s, and they are now providers vs recipients of security. Not bad me thinks :)

jmm99
10-20-2008, 05:29 PM
We in fact began training these folks in the early and mid 90s, and they are now providers vs recipients of security.

and you are entitled to say so.

jmm99
10-22-2008, 06:16 AM
This announcement is no great surprise.


Russian bases to stay in separatist regions
Article from: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Moscow
October 22, 2008 06:04am
.....
RUSSIA will establish permanent military bases in the Georgian separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abhazia next year, the chief of the Russian general staff said today.

"I think it will take us at least a year to set up these bases so that they fully meet our aims," General Nikolai Makarov told the Interfax news agency.

He was speaking on his return from Helsinki where he had met his US counterpart Admiral Michael Mullen. ....
....
Under the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements with South Ossetia and Abkhazia Russia has undertaken to defend their borders with the rest of Georgia.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24534505-5005961,00.html

There is NO evidence from US sources that any sort of "deal" was struck between the US and Russia at Helsinki.

Makarov's comment reported by Reuters (below) is a bit ambiguous: "We found an understanding on those reasons that have led to a cooling in relations between Russia and the United States." I believe this means that they agreed as what their disagreements were.

The Mullen-Makarov meeting was reported yesterday by Helsingin Sanomat, the New York Times and Reuters, among others.


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - TRAVEL
21.10.2008
Leaders of US and Russian armed forces hold meeting in Finland
Military chiefs discuss Georgia and US missile defence
.....
Leaders of the military forces of the United States and Russia met in Finland for talks on Tuesday. According to US officials, the aim of the meeting, which had been kept a secret until Tuesday, was to improve bilateral relations between the great powers.

According to the New York Times newspaper, the two sides wanted to meet on neutral soil. Taking part in the meeting was Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his Russian colleague, General Nikolai Makarov.
.....
Hosting the meeting was Finland’s Chief of Defence Juhani Kaskeala, who met the two guests for lunch. The meeting was held at the Königstedt Manor in Vantaa. .... “Finland has been given a butler’s role in this”, said an anonymous source to Helsingin Sanomat. ... The meeting concluded at 2:00 PM on Tuesday.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Leaders+of+US+and+Russian+armed+forces+hold+meetin g+in+Finland/1135240416668


NY Times
Top Military Officers Talk in U.S.-Russia Conference
By THOM SHANKER
Published: October 21, 2008
.....
HELSINKI, Finland — The United States and Russia sent their top military officers to this neutral capital, with its resonant legacy of cold-war-era talks, for a secretly arranged meeting on Tuesday to try to push their strained relations back on track, American officials said.
....
The admiral said he and General Makarov had discussed American disquiet over the war in Georgia — Russia’s first post-Soviet offensive outside its soil — as well as Russian unhappiness with the arrival of American warships in the Black Sea with humanitarian aid for Georgia.

Other topics included NATO’s relations with Russia and how to improve cooperation on countering terrorism, halting the proliferation of unconventional weapons and stemming narcotics trafficking.

Admiral Mullen offered no details of those discussions but said that he and his counterpart had pledged to continue talking. .....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/europe/22mullen.html


U.S., Russian military chiefs meet in Helsinki
Tue Oct 21, 6:18 pm ET
....
HELSINKI (Reuters) – U.S. and Russian military chiefs met on Tuesday for the first time since Russian troops crushed the forces of America's ally Georgia in a war that has strained relations between the two countries.

The U.S. Embassy in Helsinki said Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, met Russian General Nikolai Makarov, head of the Russian general staff.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the talks did not mean the Pentagon, which put all aspects of its ties with Russia under review after the Georgia conflict in August, had resumed normal relations with Moscow. ...
....
Makarov told Russian news agencies that he had spoken to Mullen for about two hours and that a range of issues, including Georgia, had been discussed.

"During the meetings, we agreed that on key questions of a military character we shall periodically hold dialogue by telephone and, when needed, personal meetings, which I think will acquire a regular and structured character," RIA news agency quoted Makarov saying.

"We found an understanding on those reasons that have led to a cooling in relations between Russia and the United States," he said. Discussions had been "open and honest." .....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081021/pl_nm/us_russia_usa_meeting

Stan
10-22-2008, 07:17 PM
... most of Russia is an impoverished country (http://www.balticbusinessnews.com/Default2.aspx?ArticleID=ab7138d6-b674-403d-af3e-617eead13f9f&open=four) with crumbling infrastructure and a declining population.


Georgia presents a grave threat to the ruling class in Russia. They fear Georgia and are determined to undermine its growing success.

Putin’s Russia is good at killing journalists, poisoning political enemies and growing corruption. The lack of political debate and freedom of the press gives Russians few alternatives to ponder.

The new Georgia threatens those falsehoods. Georgia is fast becoming an example Russia’s leaders fear. That’s why Russia is doing all it can to stifle Georgia’s growth away from the old Soviet mentality.

In a recent trip to Ukraine, many young professionals I met in Kyiv could not imagine driving a few kilometers without being stopped by police panhandling for bribes. They said Ukraine would never change. They were amazed when I told them about Georgia, where policemen are helpful and not corrupt. It opened their eyes to what their country can someday achieve as well.

Having said that there's a little cash involved to boot !

Western donors have pledged $4.55bn to help rebuild Georgia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7683413.stm)


The announcement followed a meeting of some 70 organisations and countries in Brussels, hosted by the European Commission and the World Bank.

EU officials said the amount was far more than had been expected.

kaur
10-24-2008, 05:25 AM
Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia on Wednesday approved a former Russian tax official as its prime minister, prompting Georgian charges that Moscow has annexed the region after a war in August.

Aslanbek Bulatsev, a former tax chief in neighboring North Ossetia, was approved by the rebel region's parliament. South Ossetia has a long-term aim of uniting with North Ossetia.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1010/42/371881.htm

Stan
11-05-2008, 08:31 PM
In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Ilves said that “some EU countries will certainly soon start behaving as if the Russian aggression against Georgia in August never happened.”



In his words, he sees that Russia can do anything it pleases within its borders, such as bombing Chechnya, but outside Russia, the fact that people are free to decide their own future no longer holds since the Russian invasion of Georgia in August.

Ilves said one should not believe that Russia will calm down if NATO closed its door to Ukraine and Georgia.

"Europe must call a spade a spade (http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/21681/) and put in place firm rules in interaction with Russia," Ilves said.

Beelzebubalicious
11-05-2008, 10:03 PM
What Russian invasion? We've got a full-scale financial crisis....

Perhaps the best thing for Ukraine is a small-scale invasion by Russia. I suggest they "accidentally" sink one of those black sea ships and entice Russia to attack. It would spur Ukrainian nationalism, polarize the population against Russia, spur defense spending, solicit the sympathy of the international community and ultimately result in massive foreign aid. Only problem is that the emporer has no clothes and Russia might just march all the way to Kyiv while EU countries wring their hands...

Rex Brynen
11-07-2008, 04:15 AM
Georgia Claims on Russia War Called Into Question (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp)

By C. J. CHIVERS and ELLEN BARRY
New York Times
Published: November 6, 2008


TBILISI, Georgia — Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.

Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.

kaur
11-07-2008, 12:59 PM
I'd like to add to Rex's quote this one.


With a paucity of reliable and unbiased information available, the O.S.C.E. observations put the United States in a potentially difficult position. The United States, Mr. Saakashvili’s principal source of international support, has for years accepted the organization’s conclusions and praised its professionalism. Mr. Bryza refrained from passing judgment on the conflicting accounts.

plus other Georgian supporters.

Beelzebubalicious
11-13-2008, 08:13 PM
Ukraine ‘censored’ arms sales documentary

A Russian film-maker claims the Ukrainian authorities prevented him from screening a documentary revealing the extent of Ukraine's arms sales to Georgia. Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko has already admitted her country’s behaviour during the war in South Ossetia was suspicious.

http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33200

Ken White
11-13-2008, 09:48 PM
to who? or should that be whom...

Beelzebubalicious
11-13-2008, 10:28 PM
It's internal politics. Tymoshenko and others are trying to pin the sales of arms to Georgia on Yuschenko, the President (and her rival for that position in the next election). It's conceivable that she's in cahoots with this Russian film-maker or Russian authorities to get the "Pro-Western" Yuschenko out of power.

Ken White
11-13-2008, 10:33 PM
You were there, I have not been but my perception is that the truth is inside several eggs...

Given that Yulia seems to lean a little pro Ros, I suspected that what you said might be the case.

Dunno -- but my guess is still that whole thing was a really well set up and long term FSB operation that the Army did an okay job of executing. To include any involvement of the Ukraine and others...

Beelzebubalicious
11-14-2008, 02:51 PM
truth is inside several eggs...


more like a Russian doll (Matrioshka). Yulia is playing a lot of cards. She's practical and opportunistic. But I'm not sure she can get away with it.

Stan
11-21-2008, 03:42 PM
By Charles King (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4559)
"It’s time for the West to realize that Mikheil Saakashvili is no saint and that Georgia is not quite an innocent victim."


Last August’s brief war between Russia and Georgia was fought not only on the rolling hills of South Ossetia, but also on a second front in the international print and broadcast media. If Georgia’s military didn’t exactly distinguish itself on the first front, its government, particularly its president, thoroughly dominated the second.

The Russian military response was precipitous and brazen, and has rightly been condemned by outside powers, but the next U.S. administration must learn that brinkmanship is a game that countries can play with friends as well as adversaries.

Western governments would do well to heed the voices of Georgians themselves. They should realize that support for President Saakashvili, support for Georgia’s de jure borders, and support for Georgian democracy are no longer synonymous positions and might even be mutually exclusive. Georgia’s friends should take heed of how Georgian citizens have come to define their national interests—in ways that are more sophisticated, varied, and pragmatic than their leader would prefer.

Mikheil Saakashvili has overseen important reforms and has inched his country closer toward becoming a genuine European democracy, but the United States is now badly in need of a Georgia policy based on both countries’ real interests, not one man’s savvy marketing campaign.

Jedburgh
11-28-2008, 12:34 PM
ICG, 26 Nov 08: Georgia: The Risks of Winter (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/europe/caucasus/b51_georgia___the_risks_of_winter.pdf)

The situation in and around Georgia’s conflict areas remains unstable. Violent incidents are continuing. Shots were fired (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34178&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=27&cHash=ba585b62b1) near a convoy carrying the Georgian and Polish presidents on 23 November. European Union (EU) monitors are being denied access (http://georgiaupdate.gov.ge/doc/10006866/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20GEORGIA%20UPDATE%20EU%20Monitors%20Demand%20Acc ess%20Nov%206%202008_2_.pdf) to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Unambitious multi-party negotiations focusing on security and internally displaced person (IDP) return have gotten off to a slow start in Geneva. For the moment, however, domestic politics (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34125&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=166&no_cache=1) are the capital’s main preoccupation. President Mikheil Saakashvili’s position is at least temporarily secure, but his administration is likely to be severely tested politically and economically in the winter and spring months ahead. The August 2008 war with Russia and the global financial crisis have seriously undermined Georgia’s economy and the foreign investment climate. Social discontent could rise as economic conditions worsen unless the government pushes forward with economic and political change.

The medium to longer term is in any event highly unpredictable. This briefing provides a snapshot of the current situation with regard to ceasefire implementation, but also and particularly to internal developments, because attention is shifting from the conflict zones to Tbilisi. Russia’s recognition on 26 August of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (condemned by Western countries) temporarily strengthened Saakashvili’s position, because it kept public attention and anger directed at Moscow. However, Georgia’s myriad opposition groups are ratcheting up their criticism of the president and his administration, beginning to pose pointed questions about whether the war could have been avoided and in some cases calling for Saakashvili’s resignation......

Stan
12-01-2008, 05:56 PM
BBC's Diplomatic Correspondent Jonathan Marcus examines the underlying tensions within NATO (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/analysis.shtml) about its essential role and purpose.


NATO Foreign Ministers will be trying to decide this week how to bring Georgia and Ukraine closer to the Alliance. The fate of these two aspiring members is dividing NATO as never before.

Approx. 9 minute audio at the link

Jedburgh
12-24-2008, 04:49 PM
Caucasus Analytical Digest, 17 Dec 08: Perspectives on the Georgian-Russian War (http://se1.isn.ch:80/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=ISN&fileid=34648310-7758-778C-54E1-3C3203385034&lng=en)

■ Analysis
European Policy towards the South Caucasus after the Georgia Crisis

■ Opinion
On Razor’s Edge: An Armenian Perspective on the Georgian-Russian War

The Georgia-Russian Conflict: A Perspective from Azerbaijan and Implications for the Region

■ Opinion Poll
Georgian Attitudes Towards Foreign Aid

kaur
01-22-2009, 01:51 PM
Georgian leader may come under Obama scrutiny


The Bush administration has been "unthinking and unblinking" in its support for Saakashvili, and was sorely let down in August when Georgia moved against pro-Russian separatists in breakaway South Ossetia, said James Nixey, a research fellow on the Russia and Eurasia Program at London's Chatham House.

Critics suggest Bush might have failed to make clear the limits of his indulgence, with disastrous consequences. Georgia's former envoy to Russia told a parliamentary inquiry Saakashvili believed he had U.S. backing for the strike on South Ossetia.


"I can see the departure of the Bush administration changing Georgians' view of Saakashvili," Mankoff said. "With the new administration coming in, his ability to turn to the U.S. administration for support diminishes."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE50J3QE20090120?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Stan
01-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Georgian leader may come under Obama scrutiny
http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE50J3QE20090120?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

This along with the recent arrest of Georgian Engineers (officers) makes the current picture look a tad bleak. But the enormous amount of money already being used for procurements and training doesn't jive with this article. This time around NATO began funding before the US started asking :wry:

Beelzebubalicious
01-22-2009, 05:27 PM
Given this info, I'm curious to hear perspectives on how things will go forward in Georgia, especially in regards to USG assistance. I assume that the USG will continue to support the current government, but with greater emphasis on reforms and some strings attached. I imagine the priority will be on humanitarian relief, IDPs, strengthening civil society and promoting economic growth.

What happens if the current Georgian govt doesn't play along? What if they do, like they did in Ukraine, but don't really reform in any substantive way? Will the US and EU partners follow through on their AID pledges ($4.5 billion)?

Beelzebubalicious
01-22-2009, 05:36 PM
By the way, here's a summary of USG pledges as of December 10, 2008 (http://merln.ndu.edu/archivepdf/EUR/State/113077.pdf).


"Georgia: $1 Billion Assistance Commitment (Taken Question)

Question:How much of the $1 billion U.S. assistance package for Georgia has been received? How much has been used? On what has the money been spent so far?

Answer: To date, approximately $310 million has been provided as part of the $1 billion U.S. assistance package to Georgia. Another $447 million has either been allocated for specific projects and activities or is in the process of being allocated. The $243 million balance of the U.S. commitment will need to be requested by the next Administration and appropriated by the next U.S. Congress. All of the assistance is subject to standard U.S. Government monitoring and oversight......

Stan
01-22-2009, 07:41 PM
Hey Eric,
Pie Charts, et al :rolleyes:

Foreign Operations Appropriated Assistance: Georgia (http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/108293.htm)

This minuscule sum has nothing to do with the Bongo Bucks at NATO :D

Surferbeetle
01-22-2009, 07:46 PM
Stan,

Thanks for the link.

Best,

Steve

Stan
01-22-2009, 09:08 PM
Hey Steve,
Did you happen to bite your tongue on this one :D


Assistance to Conflict Areas:

* Promote confidence building in the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to promote the peaceful settlement and reintegration of these areas into a unified Georgia.


We used to do that with Field Artillery too (when Ken was a Corporal) :eek:

Regards, Stan


Stan,

Thanks for the link.

Best,

Steve

Ken White
01-22-2009, 09:25 PM
the other Georgia...:D

Surferbeetle
01-24-2009, 03:49 AM
Natural Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas) from wikipedia


Natural gas is a gaseous fossil fuel consisting primarily of methane but including significant quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and pentane—heavier hydrocarbons removed prior to use as a consumer fuel —as well as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium and hydrogen sulfide.[1]

Fossil natural gas is found in oil fields (associated) either dissolved or isolated in natural gas fields (non-associated), and in coal beds (as coalbed methane).
When methane-rich gases are produced by the anaerobic decay of non-fossil organic matter (biomass), these are referred to as biogas (or natural biogas). Sources of biogas include swamps, marshes, and landfills (see landfill gas), as well as sewage sludge and manure by way of anaerobic digesters, in addition to enteric fermentation particularly in cattle.

The price of natural gas varies greatly depending on location and type of consumer. In 2007, a price of $7 per 1,000 cubic feet (28 m3) was typical in the United States. The typical caloric value of natural gas is roughly 1,000 BTU per cubic foot, depending on gas composition. This corresponds to around $7 per million BTU, or around $7 per gigajoule. In April 2008, the wholesale price was $10 per 1,000 cubic feet (28 m3) ($10/MMBTU).[2] The residential price varies from 50% to 300% more than the wholesale price. At the end of 2007, this was $12-$16 per 1,000 cu ft (28 m3).[3] Natural gas in the United States is traded as a futures contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Each contract is for 10,000 MMBTU (gigajoules), or 10 billion BTU. Thus, if the price of gas is $10 per million BTUs on the NYMEX, the contract is worth $100,000.

The world's largest gas proven reserves by far are located in Russia, with 47.57 x 10×1012 m³ (1.6×1015 cu ft). Russia is also the world's largest natural gas producer, through the Gazprom company. Major proven resources (with year of estimate) (in billion cubic metres) are World 175,400 (2006), Russia 47,570 (2006), Iran 26,370(2006), Qatar 25,790 (2007), Saudi Arabia 6,568 (2006) and United Arab Emirates 5,823 (2006).

The world's largest gas field by far is Qatar's offshore North Field, estimated to have 25 trillion cubic metres[20] (9.0×1014 cu ft) of gas in place—enough to last more than 200 years at optimum production levels. The second largest natural gas field is the South Pars Gas Field in Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. Connected to Qatar's North Field, it has estimated reserves of 8 to 14 trillion cubic metres[21] (2.8×1014 to 5.0×1014 cu ft) of gas.

The Nabucco Pipeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco_Pipeline) from wikipedia


The Nabucco pipeline is a planned natural gas pipeline that will transport natural gas from Turkey to Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. It will run from Erzurum in Turkey to Baumgarten an der March, a major natural gas hub in Austria. This pipeline is a diversion from the current methods of importing natural gas solely from Russia. The project is backed by some of the European Union states and the United States.[1][2]

The preparations of this project started in February 2002 when first talks took place between Austrian OMV and Turkish BOTAŞ. In June 2002, five companies (OMV of Austria, MOL of Hungary, RWE of Germany, Bulgargaz of Bulgaria, Transgaz of Romania and BOTAŞ of Turkey) signed a protocol of intention to construct the Nabucco pipeline, followed by the Cooperation Agreement in October 2002. In December 2003, the European Commission awarded a grant in the amount of 50% of the estimated total eligible costs of the feasibility study including market analysis, technical, economic and financial studies. On 28 June 2005, the Joint Venture Agreement was signed by five Nabucco Partners. In February 2008, German RWE became a shareholder of the consortium. On 11 June 2008, the first contract to supply gas from Azerbaijan through the Nabucco pipeline to Bulgaria was signed.[3]

On January 19, 2009, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey stated that Turkey may withdraw from the Nabucco project if the country's talks of EU accession "remains blocked". "If we are faced with a situation where the energy chapter is blocked, we would of course review our position," he said, claiming that Turkey will block the Nabucco project unless the energy talks with the EU were "not opened". [4]

The South Caucasus Pipeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline) from wikipedia


South Caucasus Pipeline (also: Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum Pipeline, BTE pipeline or Shah-Deniz Pipeline) is a natural gas pipeline to transport natural gas from the Shah Deniz gas field in the Azerbaijan sector of the Caspian Sea to Turkey.

The pipeline is commissioned by a consortium led by BP and Statoil. The shareholders of the consortium are:
· BP (UK) 25.5 %
· StatoilHydro (Norway) 25.5 %
· State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) (Azerbaijan) 10 %
· LukAgip,a joint company of Lukoil and Eni (Russia/Italy) 10 %
· TotalFinaElf (France) 10 %
· Oil Industries Engineering and Construction (OIEC) (Iran) 10 %
· Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklığı (TPAO) (Turkey) 9 %
The technical operator of pipeline is BP and commercial operator is Statoil.

The other other :) Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)), from wikipedia


Georgia ( /ˈdʒɔrdʒə/ (help·info); Georgian: საქართველო, Sakartvelo) is a transcontinental country in the Caucasus region, situated at the dividing line between Europe and Asia.[2] Georgia is bordered by the Russian Federation to the north, Azerbaijan to the east, Armenia to the south, and Turkey to the southwest.[2] Georgia covers a territory of 69,700 km²; its population, excluding Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is 4.4 million, of whom nearly 84% are ethnic Georgians.[4]

Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey), from wikipedia


Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye), known officially as the Republic of Turkey ( Türkiye Cumhuriyeti (help·info)), is a Eurasian country that stretches across the Anatolian peninsula in western Asia and Thrace (Rumelia) in the Balkan region of southeastern Europe. Turkey is bordered by eight countries: Bulgaria to the northwest; Greece to the west; Georgia to the northeast; Armenia, Azerbaijan (the exclave of Nakhichevan) and Iran to the east; and Iraq and Syria to the southeast. The Mediterranean Sea and Cyprus are to the south; the Aegean Sea and Archipelago are to the west; and the Black Sea is to the north. Separating Anatolia and Thrace are the Sea of Marmara and the Turkish Straits (the Bosporus and the Dardanelles), which are commonly reckoned to delineate the border between Asia and Europe, thereby making Turkey transcontinental.[4]

Due to its strategic location astride two continents, Turkey's culture has a unique blend of Eastern and Western tradition. A powerful regional presence in the Eurasian landmass with strong historic, cultural and economic influence in the area between Europe in the west and Central Asia in the east, Russia in the north and the Middle East in the south, Turkey has come to acquire increasing strategic significance.[5][6]

The Turkish Armed Forces is the second largest standing armed force in NATO, after the U.S. Armed Forces, with a combined strength of 1,043,550 uniformed personnel serving in its five branches.[48] Every fit male Turkish citizen otherwise not barred is required to serve in the military for a time period ranging from three weeks to fifteen months, dependent on education and job location.[49] Turkey does not recognise conscientious objection and does not offer a civilian alternative to military service.[50]

And for those of you who are kicking back this evening and enjoyed Robert E. Howard’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard) incarnation Conan, wikipedia has an entry on the Cimmerian’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians). One of my English teachers was completely appalled that I bothered to write about ‘that trash’ but here you go…


The Cimmerians (Greek: Κιμμέριοι, Kimmerioi) were ancient equestrian nomads who, according to Herodotus, originally inhabited the region north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea, in what is now Ukraine and Russia, in the 8th and 7th centuries BC.

kaur
01-26-2009, 06:59 AM
January 23, 2009

This 200-page report details indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by both Georgian and Russian forces, and the South Ossetian forces' campaign of deliberate and systematic destruction of certain ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia. It also describes Russia's failure to ensure public order and safety in areas of Georgia that were under its effective control. The report is based on more than 460 interviews done over several months of field research.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/01/22/flames-0

kaur
02-11-2009, 11:08 AM
CACI, Feb 09 The Russian-Georgian War: Political and Military Implications for US Policy (http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/0902Chicky.pdf)

The purpose of this Policy Paper is to examine some of the strategic implications resulting from the war between Russia and Georgia from a military and security perspective and in so doing provide some policy recommendations as one looks beyond the crisis and its immediate aftermath.

Since there has been and will be written much on operational-tactical details of the conflict, this Policy Paper rather lays out some of the key aspects that the U.S. and NATO face with regard to Georgia, the South Caucasus, and the Euro-Atlantic security community. This is done from a defense policy and military strategy perspective with focus on Eurasian political military affairs.

kaur
02-11-2009, 11:10 AM
Svante E. Cornell, "Pipeline Power: The War in Georgia and the Future of the Caucasian Energy Corridor", Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, vol. 10 no. 1, Winter 2009

http://www.isdp.eu/files/publications/scornell/GJIA-2009.pdf

kaur
02-13-2009, 10:50 AM
18.06.2008

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL FRIED, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE



A good start would be the peace plan proposed by President Saakashvili that Prime Minister Putin has publicly supported. Georgia, meanwhile, must consider to resist the temptation of any military reaction or unwise political demand, even in the face of provocations.

Page 10.

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/43066.pdf

Jedburgh
03-09-2009, 12:39 PM
JF, 3 Mar 09: The Impact of the Russia-Georgia War on the South Caucasus Transportation Corridor (http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Full_Mamuka_RussiaGeorgia.pdf)

....the paper argues that the initial damage that the war inflicted upon the political reliability of the transit corridor is gradually diminishing and that new opportunities are emerging. The complete reversal of this damage can be possible but will depend on U.S. and EU policy, the role of Turkey, internal stability in the Caucasus region, and Russian policy in Central Asia and the Caucasus. It is important to remember that when the initial decision to revitalize the energy corridor through Georgia and Azerbaijan was made in the mid 1990s, the security environment was extremely difficult and there was no infrastructure to support shipment of oil through the corridor, yet leadership of the United States and Turkey supported that decision and helped to implement it. Today’s environment is much more favorable considering the functioning infrastructure and greater demand for Caspian energy. New natural gas discoveries in Turkmenistan and the next stage in oil and gas developments in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan will require additional export capacity and a tough battle is ahead between the different export options, each supported by state sponsors with competing interests. It is significant in this context that Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan signed an agreement on November 14, 2008, to develop a Trans-Caspian oil transportation that will include onshore oil pipeline in Kazakhstan and a tanker fleet in the Caspian Sea to ship Kazakh oil to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline and on to the world markets. As it was indicated at the Budapest summit devoted to the Nabucco pipeline project on January 27, significant progress has been made on the development of a natural gas link between the Caspian and Europe, and Georgia has an important role to play.....

kaur
04-05-2009, 09:10 AM
Former Russian minister published in his blog list of South Ossetia officials. Most of them have KGB/FSB/military backround.
This is in Russian. Would you use Google Translate.

http://aillarionov.livejournal.com/75970.html

Russians have made movie about the war.

http://rutube.ru/tracks/1673082.html?v=b6c94afa52f8920ebe8dbbdcaa7dafbf

wm
05-05-2009, 11:20 AM
Hurriyet has this (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/11580966.asp?scr=1) online today

Georgia says Russian-planned coup underway at military base

TBILISI - Georgia said on Tuesday a Russian-planned coup plot had been uncovered within the military of the former Soviet republic and a rebellion was under way at a military base near the capital.

The Interior Ministry said those involved in the plot had received money from Russia which has criticized NATO military exercises in Georgia due to begin on Wednesday.

Jedburgh
06-24-2009, 02:59 PM
ICG, 22 Jun 09: Georgia-Russia: Still Insecure and Dangerous (http://se1.isn.ch:80/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=ISN&fileid=EEBDE8EE-A6EE-4008-3796-6A16E895C215&lng=en)

....The Georgia-Russia war ended with ceasefire agreements that ordered an end to military action, a pullback to pre-war positions and access for humanitarian and monitoring missions to conflict areas, but the security situation on the ground remains tense. Russia has not complied with the main points of the truce, and the sides have not engaged in meaningful negotiations to stabilise the situation. These factors create a potentially explosive situation in which even small incidents could spark a new conflict. Russia’s veto on 15 June in the Security Council of the extension of the sixteen-year-old UN military observer mission in Georgia, combined with its apparent determination also to force out the OSCE mission at the end of the month is an unfortunate, potentially grave development that could further destabilise the situation and lead to a new outbreak of full-blown hostilities....
CSIS, 19 Jun 09: Georgia: Why We Should Be Watching (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090619_hamilton_georgia.pdf)

Buried on page A8 of the June 16 Washington Post was a short article entitled “Russia Vetoes Georgia Monitors.” The article briefly outlined Russia’s veto of an extension of the 15-year-old mission of United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), which had been monitoring the situation in the breakaway region of Abkhazia. Coming close on the heels of Russia’s rejection of an extension of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) observer mission in Georgia’s other breakaway region of South Ossetia, Russia’s veto of UNOMIG’s presence in Georgia must be seen for what it is: an attempt to legitimize its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but more ominously, an attempt to eject all foreign presence—and therefore foreign eyes—from Georgia’s conflict regions. True, there is still a European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Georgia, but it has been denied access to the conflict regions and must be content with monitoring the Georgian side of the conflict line. It would be a relatively simple matter for Russia to manufacture enough instability along the conflict line to chase the EUMM back to Tbilisi. This would leave the borders of the contested zones completely unobserved by members of the international community, making it all too simple for Russia to manufacture a “provocation by the Georgian side” to which it is “compelled” to respond, the same way it was “compelled” to “force Georgia to peace” last August. A resumption of Russia’s war in Georgia, which would be a disaster for the United States and Europe, is not out of the question.....

Jedburgh
08-04-2009, 02:24 PM
IFRI, 23 Jul 09: Russia and the "Eastern Partnership" After the War in Georgia (http://www.ifri.org/files/Russie/ifri_tardieu_eastern_partnershp_after_georgia_war_ ENG_july2009.pdf)

Russia’s military intervention in Georgia in August 2008 sent a shock wave across the post-Soviet space, particularly the republics to the west and south of Russia. In December 2008, the European Union formalized the Eastern Partnership initiative, directed at Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. In order to understand the impact of this war both on Russia’s bilateral relations with these countries and on the Eastern Partnership area as a whole, this article analyzes the reactions of these former Soviet republics to the Russian offensive. Three types of response are observed: keeping distance from Russia; maintaining a balance between Moscow and the West; and, finally, changing course (from rapprochement to keeping a distance and vice-versa) vis-à-vis the former center of the Soviet Empire.

kaur
10-06-2009, 09:56 AM
IF JUSTICE were the ultimate goal, Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, and Mikheil Saakashvili, his Georgian counterpart, should appear together in court in The Hague. As their countries’ commanders-in-chief, both violated international law during the war in Georgia. So suggests this week’s European Union report on the war. Behind them should sit Vladimir Putin, the mastermind of Georgia’s dismemberment, and the leaders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia who also acted illegally.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14560958

EU report.

http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html

Jedburgh
11-01-2010, 05:28 PM
CSIS, 1 Nov 10: Georgian Lessons: Conflicting Russian and Western Interests in the Wider Europe (http://csis.org/files/publication/102110_Bugajski_GeorgianLessons.WEB.pdf)

Russia’s invasion, occupation, and partition of Georgia in August 2008 initially sent shock waves throughout Europe and NATO and appeared to signal a new confrontational phase in Moscow’s relations with the West. This volume places the conflict in the context of Russia’s broader objectives, its internal weaknesses, the limitations of EU and NATO policies, and America’s security priorities.

First, the Georgian conflict underscored Moscow’s determination to reclaim an extensive zone of dominance corresponding with the former Soviet territories. Second, it displayed a shrewd calculation by the Kremlin about the fractured and ineffective Western response, and Moscow continues to test the Obama administration’s rapprochement in pursuing its expansionist ambitions. Third, the 2008 conflict had a lasting impact on the Central-East European and post-Soviet states most exposed to pressures from Moscow. While the former demanded more tangible security guarantees from NATO, the latter either sought accommodation with Russia or intensified their protective strategies. Additionally, beneath the veneer of success, the conduct of the war, the economic recession, escalating separatist sentiments, and faltering attempts by Moscow to make the country more globally competitive revealed Russia’s long-term weaknesses in the midst of its attempted neo-imperial restoration. The study concludes with succinct recommendations on how the transatlantic alliance can more effectively handle Russian ambitions and prepare itself to deter or manage future crises......

kaur
02-03-2012, 07:58 AM
BBC: «Putin, Russia & the West: The War»

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLc_b5xgb6Y

davidbfpo
08-10-2012, 05:30 PM
Found by accident a fascinating article and link to a Russian documentary of unclear origin (which is on YouTube) and just in time for the fourth anniversary too:http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39746&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=27&cHash=1d45ecdb58db9803b9b5dc88c4bee68c


The fourth anniversary of the August 2008 Russo-Georgian war has been marked by a seemingly open spat between the supporters of President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. In a 47-minute documentary film of unclear origin, “Lost Day,” posted on YouTube, retired and active service top Russian generals, including Army General, former First Deputy Defense Minister and Chief of the General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky, accuse Medvedev of indecisiveness and cowardice during the conflict with Georgia and praise Putin. According to Baluyevsky, a decision to invade Georgia was made by Putin before Medvedev was inaugurated President and Commander-in-Chief in May 2008. A detailed plan of military action was arranged and unit commanders were given specific orders in advance. In August 2008, according to Baluyevsky, Medvedev needed to issue a simple order: “Go” – and commanders would open sealed envelopes with combat orders that were given to them beforehand to commence the invasion.

Curiously a retired CIA analyst at a UK conference referred to there only being 48 hours notice of the crisis.

Jedburgh
03-25-2015, 01:47 AM
FIIA, 24 March 2015: The New Alliance and Integration Treaty Between Russia and South Ossetia: When Does Integration Turn into Annexation? (www.fiia.fi/assets/publications/comment9.pdf)

....does the new Alliance and Integration Treaty (http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23724) really change anything on the ground? True, the new treaty partly codifies – and thus cements – the already existing reality. However, the biggest change involves the border between South Ossetia and Russia – which is officially still the border of Georgia and Russia. In practice, this border has now been abolished: border formalities and customs barriers are vanishing and Russia and South Ossetia form a “single space” (Articles 3 and 5). This is also a clever way to get around the fact that South Ossetia cannot formally join the Eurasian Economic Union (http://www.eurasiancommission.org/en/Pages/default.aspx) as other members Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia have not recognized its independence....
This did not make much of a noise here in the US, although all of Western officialdom has registered their formal displeasure with Russia's "violation of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in blatant contradiction to the principles of international law, OSCE principles and Russia’s international commitments."

Ray
05-03-2015, 01:32 PM
Bye-Bye, Abkhazia, Crimea, South Ossetia!

On March 18, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, and Leonid Tibilov, the separatist leader of South Ossetia...... signed a Russian–South Ossetian treaty of alliance and integration.

....accord is similar to the one Russia signed with Abkhazia....November 2014. That deal meant that in practice, Moscow would be responsible for the customs, defense, and security of the self-declared republic.......

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=59550 MARCH 30, 2015

And of course, Crimea.

East Ukraine hanging in between.

OUTLAW 09
01-18-2017, 10:54 AM
Documentary about the Russia's war against Georgia, which became a rehearsal aggression against Ukraine (Eng Text)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biLOFqJTYQE#