PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

Jedburgh
06-08-2007, 08:58 PM
ICG, 7 Jun 07: Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict: Make Haste Slowly (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/europe/caucasus/183_georgia_s_south_ossetia_conflict_make_haste_sl owly.pdf)

...The Georgian-Ossetian conflict has entered a new phase. Tbilisi has made strong moves to change the status quo, succeeding in sensitising the international community to its conflict with Russia and the need to change the negotiation and peacekeeping formats. It has increased the players in the zone of conflict, establishing a new temporary administrative unit in the areas of South Ossetia it controls, with an ethnic Ossetian, Dmitri Sanakoev, at its head. It is focusing on containing Russia and promoting Sanakeov, while delegitimising the de facto Ossetian leader, Eduard Kokoity. Because Tskhinvali appears ever more dependent on Moscow, however, Tbilisi says meaningful dialogue with it is impossible. But Tbilisi is making a mistake in failing to engage with Tskhinvali and with the Ossetian constituency in the areas it controls. The Georgian government’s steps are non-violent and development-oriented but their implementation is unilateral and so assertive that they are contributing to a perceptible and dangerous rise in tensions....

Jedburgh
10-16-2007, 12:37 PM
CACI, 15 Oct 07: The August 2007 Bombing Incident in Georgia: Implications for the Euro-Atlantic Region (http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/0710Georgia.pdf)

On August 6, 2007, an unidentified aircraft dropped a large air-to-surface missile near a newly upgraded Georgian military radar station, in the vicinity of the South Ossetian conflict zone. The bomb failed to detonate.

Subsequently, two groups of independent experts commissioned by European and American governments confirmed the Georgian government’s allegation that the military aircraft and explosive device, both of types not possessed by Georgia, entered Georgian airspace from the Russian Federation, fired rather than jettisoned the device, and then returned back to Russian airspace. A separate group of experts, convened by the Russian government and consisting only of Russians, nevertheless disputed these conclusions, finding no evidence of Russian involvement.

Why does this incident merit the publication of a Silk Road Paper (http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/silk_road.htm)? Several reasons make this relevant. First, the incident was not an isolated event, but rather part and parcel of an increasingly aggressive effort by Russia’s foreign policy establishment to undermine Georgia’s western orientation (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB757.pdf). Second, the broader context of the incident has important implications for Euro-Atlantic security interests. Third, the international reaction to the incident – particularly on the part of multilateral organizations such as the OSCE and EU – remained grossly inadequate. Fourth, it is imperative that the Euro-Atlantic community draw the right conclusions from this incident, for at least two reasons: to be better prepared for similar incidents in the future; and to avoid the adoption of policies that may inadvertently encourage this type of actions.

The incident constitutes a flagrant violation of Georgia’s sovereignty and is difficult to interpret as anything other than an act of war. In spite of this, European policy-makers, and particularly multilateral institutions, refrained from identifying, let alone condemning the aggressor. In so doing, they implicitly gave credence to Moscow’s seemingly outrageous assertion that for the second time in six months, Georgia bombed itself with aircraft and weaponry it does not possess, and for the sole purpose of blaming Russia for it. That assertion is eerily reminiscent of an incident that took place in 1993, during the war in Georgia’s breakaway republic of Abkhazia, when unmarked aircraft regularly pounded Georgian positions. Russia’s thendefense minister asserted that Georgia attacked its own positions in order to put the blame for its military weakness and territorial losses on Russia. When Georgian forces succeeded in downing a plane, they dragged out of its cockpit a Russian air force pilot in full uniform, with detailed instructions in his uniform pocket that unequivocally indicated his point of departure – an air base in southern Russia – and mission, to pound Georgian forces along the frontline......
Complete 83 page paper at the link.

Stan
11-08-2007, 03:55 PM
"MOSCOW, November 8 (RIA Novosti) (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071108/87127842.html) - The speaker of Russia's lower house of parliament said on Thursday that Georgia's claim that the Kremlin orchestrated mass unrest in Tbilisi was prompted by the United States."

Although no surprises in the article dumping blame, an interesting correlation that backs the Estonian claims (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/estonia+accuses+russia+over+riots/935387) of 'Russian-funded' unrest and violence.


Before declaring a 15-day state of emergency in Georgia, Saakashvili said on national television that Russia's special services (http://en.rian.ru/world/20071107/87045149.html) were behind events in Tbilisi, where thousands of protesters had rallied for six days, calling for the president's resignation.

Saakashvili also said that according to Georgian special services, "an alternative government" has been formed in Russia, which "sent money and instructions."

Gryzlov expressed concern over clashes between protesters and riot police, who used tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets to disperse the rally on Wednesday. A total of 589 people were injured in the clashes, and 29 protesters remain in hospital, the country's Health Ministry said on Thursday. Police in Tbilisi detained 32 protesters.

The speaker stressed that Russia and its citizens are "not indifferent" to developments in the neighboring countries, and warned that the crisis in Georgia was "the beginning of bloodshed."

Stan
11-08-2007, 04:02 PM
MOSCOW, November 7 (RIA Novosti) (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071107/86979875.html) - American interference is aggravating relations between Georgia and its two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the chief of the Russian General Staff said on Wednesday.


Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who is pushing his country for NATO membership, enjoyed until recently Western backing in his ongoing disputes with Russia, in particular over two breakaway regions that have strong ties with Moscow.

"Events in Georgia are occurring with the interference of the United States," Gen. Yury Baluyevsky said. "Who finances Georgia's $820 million military budget? Who is creating this force, which tomorrow might be used against its own people? I am not ruling this out."

Baluyevsky also said that an incident involving Russian peacekeepers in Georgia's breakaway region of Abkhazia in late October was incited by Tbilisi.

Jedburgh
11-17-2007, 02:09 PM
Russia Profile Weekly Experts Panel, 16 Nov 07: Is Russia Behind an Orange Revolution in Georgia? (http://www.russiaprofile.org:80/page.php?pageid=Experts%27+Panel&articleid=a1195225625)

....It is clear that Saakashvili has upstaged the opposition by scheduling an early presidential election, for which the latter is unprepared. And it is likely that he will retain his post as the country’s president.

But the question remains – was Russia in any way involved in fermenting the unrest in Georgia and mobilizing the opposition that almost succeeded in brining down the pro-American president that Moscow so much disliked? Has Russia the capability and the resources to help stage its own version of an orange revolution in a post-Soviet state? Or is Moscow simply benefiting from a swell of genuine popular discontent against a leader who has clearly overstepped his boundaries? How will the West react to the opposition’s victory in Georgia? Will the new political regime be pro-Russian or continue the pro-Western and pro-NATO policies that Saakashvili introduced in 2004? How would Russia benefit from such a change in regime?

Jedburgh
06-07-2008, 01:57 AM
ICG, 5 Jun 08: Georgia and Russia: Clashing Over Abhazia (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/getfile.cfm?id=3451&tid=5469&type=pdf&l=1)

....Moscow deployed additional troops (http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav050108b.shtml) and military hardware, allegedly in furtherance of its peacekeeping mandate, to Georgia’s breakaway territory of Abkhazia in April 2008, thus continuing a pattern of escalating tensions. This includes former President Vladimir Putin’s announcement that Russia would formalise ties with Abkhazia and statements by Kremlin officials that Moscow was prepared to use military force to protect its citizens in Abkhazia and South Ossetia if hostilities resumed. How close to that kind of conflict the region may be is suggested by a series of incidents in which unmanned Georgian aircraft have been shot down over Abkhazia, at least once by a Russian jet.

Tbilisi has responded with a diplomatic offensive, enlisting high-level Western political support, while repeating that it wants to resolve the frozen conflicts peacefully. It shares blame for the escalation, however. It has quietly been making military preparations, particularly in western Georgia and Upper Kodori. A number of powerful advisers and structures around President Mikheil Saakashvili appear increasingly convinced a military operation in Abkhazia is feasible and necessary. The option they seem to favour would aim at regaining control of the southern part of the territory so as to establish at least a temporary partition. The Georgians have been warned by their Western partners (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373114) against attempting a military solution. But there are strong feelings in Tbilisi that something must be done to change a status quo in which Russia challenges the country’s sovereignty with virtual impunity. The risk of miscalculation by either side leading to unintended fighting is also serious....

Jedburgh
06-27-2008, 02:47 PM
Eurasia Daily Monitor, 26 Jun 08: The West is Confused About What to Do in Abhazia (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373178)

......There do not seem to be any points of agreement between the sides on how to avoid future escalation of the conflict. What is worse, the sides are hardly speaking to each other, let alone listening. Vashadze said that Moscow had indicated that it might allow Georgia to retain nominal sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia but only if it repudiated its bid to join NATO. Last January in a national referendum, however, over 70 percent of Georgians voted to join the alliance, and the government in Tbilisi is in no position to ignore their expressed will.

The West is at present annoyed by the growing tension but not ready to intervene seriously. The Georgians want to replace or supplement Russian peacekeepers with a multinational force, but EU nations do not have extra troops to send and also believe that Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran are more serious problems. Meanwhile, according to OSCE observers in South Ossetia, there are shooting incidents virtually every day.

In Moscow generals and diplomats do not issue threatening statements without explicit authorization from the top leaders. The language of General Burutin's statement may indicate that Moscow has already made a tentative political decision to commence serious military action in Abkhazia and/or Ossetia in the coming months. Western indifference may be ill-timed.
23 Jun 08: Gazprom's Move on Abhazia: More Reasons for Georgia to Block Russia's WTO Accession (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373168)

Russia’s Gazprom has announced its intention to launch exploration for oil and gas in Abkhazia on July 1, apparently offshore in the Black Sea. According to a notice just circulated by Gazprom’s board, the June 27 shareholders’ meeting will discuss plans by Gazprom, its subsidiary Promgaz, and the Abkhaz authorities to conduct a “technical and economic assessment of the resource base in hydrocarbons of the Republic of Abkhazia and the development of proposals regarding the forms of cooperation between OAO Gazprom and the Republic of Abkhazia in the areas of geological exploration work, production of hydrocarbons, supply of gas and gasification.” Promgaz will undertake this work from July 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009, “in accordance with instructions from OAO Gazprom”....

AmericanPride
07-01-2008, 08:18 PM
Georgia claims Russian de facto control of Abkhazia:

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080701/112744626.html

Jedburgh
07-15-2008, 03:16 PM
Russia Profile, 14 Jul 08: A Conflict of Interests (http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1216052497)

South Ossetia, which is essentially a patchwork of ethnic Ossetian and Georgian villages with a total population estimated at 70,000, has been trying to break away from Georgia since the early 1990s. The recent assassination attempt against the pro-Georgian head of the Provisional Administration of South Ossetia, Dmitry Sanakoyev, shows that the conflict is heating up. Meanwhile, Russia’s support of the separatist authorities is unlikely to decrease, as Moscow wants to maintain its leverage in the region....

Jedburgh
07-22-2008, 02:18 PM
Network World, 21 Jul 08: Georgia President's Website Falls Under DDOS Attack (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072108-georgia-presidents-web-site-falls.html)

The Web site for the president of Georgia was knocked offline by a distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attack over the weekend, yet another (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2935) in a series of cyberattacks attacks against countries experiencing political friction with Russia.

Georgia's presidential Web site was down for about a day starting early Saturday until Sunday, according to the Shadowserver Foundation, which tracks malicious Internet activity.

Network experts said the attack was executed by a botnet, or a network of computers that can be commanded to overwhelm a Web site with too much traffic.....

Jedburgh
07-22-2008, 11:16 PM
ARAG, 14 Jul 08: Georgia and Russia: A Further Deterioration in Relations (http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/caucasus/08%2822%29CWB.pdf)

Key Points

* Moscow’s attempts to destabilise Georgia have not declined since the accession of President Medvedev.

* Two recent incidents: the introduction of Russian railway troops without informing or seeking permission from Tbilisi, and the arrest of Russian peacekeepers carrying unauthorised anti-tank missiles have further exacerbated the situation.

* With the Russian Gazprom planning to prospect for oil and gas off the coast of the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia, the stage is set for a further escalation.

Jedburgh
08-05-2008, 02:40 PM
EDM, 4 Aug 08: Moscow Orchestrates War Scare in South Ossetia (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373282)

Since July 31, Russian state television channels have been airing inflammatory stories about Georgian forces firing on South Ossetia’s administrative center Tskhinvali, inflicting civilian casualties and causing a refugee exodus to North Ossetia. The allegations are not verified by any independent source nor can they be, given Russia’s exclusion of any meaningful international monitoring in South Ossetia, disabling the OSCE and precluding Georgian air surveillance.

Moscow’s propaganda wave closely resembles previous ones in the continuing political warfare against Georgia. For their part, leaders in Tskhinvali threaten to escalate the hostilities deeper inside Georgian territory, using “their own forces,” that is, a proxy war. “We will force [the Georgians] out from the conflict zone ourselves. I state once again that we have the necessary troops and equipment [sil i sredstv] to do this,” the South Ossetian “president” Eduard Kokoity warned.....

Distiller
08-08-2008, 03:36 AM
Most of you will find this an obscure piece of news, but for Russia and the Caucasus this could be momentous: Last night open fighting broke out between the "separatist" forces of South Ossetia and the armed forces of Georgia.

This morning Russian TV showed Katyusha attacks during the night (by whom? on what? can't say -- do not trust propaganda! Russia says Georgia started). At the brake of daylight South Ossetian Su-25 attacked targets in Georgia. The U.N, security council is meeting just now they say (0430h GMT). Developing.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12933105&PageNum=0

Jedburgh
08-08-2008, 03:49 AM
BBC, 8 Aug 08: Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7546639.stm)

Georgian forces and South Ossetian separatists have been exchanging heavy fire just hours after agreeing to a ceasefire and Russian-mediated talks.

Russian media reports said Georgia had launched a tank-led attack on the separatist stronghold of Tskhinvali, with at least 15 killed in shelling.

Georgia says its aim is to finish "a criminal regime" and restore order.

Moscow has called on the international community to jointly work "to avert massive bloodshed and new victims".

At Russia's request, members of the UN Security Council are to hold a rare emergency session shortly to discuss a response to the escalating violence.....

kaur
08-08-2008, 05:53 AM
Let's wait what will say Lavrov, Medvedev and Putin.

When someone starts war, then he must vision the peace after war ... Which side started the war?

Felgenhauer writes:


Kokoity and other Ossetian officials seem to be bent on provoking a major Russian intervention, but apparently not everyone in Moscow is ready to plunge headlong into war.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373294

If this is the truth, how will other participants save the face?


Dan Fried, the US assistant secretary of state, said Washington and Moscow would jointly work to end the fighting. “It appears that the South Ossetians have instigated this uptick in violence,” he said. “We have urged the Russians to urge their South Ossetian friends to pull back and show greater restraint. And we believe that the Russians are trying to do just that.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e29e178-6498-11dd-af61-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

kaur
08-08-2008, 08:50 AM
How to win international support?

Georigian site in English.
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18957

Russian site in English.
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28640

Rank amateur
08-08-2008, 12:28 PM
It's interesting that this is happening when the world's media is focused on the opening of the Olympic games.

Rex Brynen
08-08-2008, 02:56 PM
If the Georgians are calculating that the Russian response will be muted because of the Olympics, I think they're badly miscalculating.

Nice footage of a Georgian BM-21 (?) battery fire at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7546639.stm (the BBC also have raw footage of Georgian CAS and Russian armor reinforcements).

Rank amateur
08-08-2008, 04:24 PM
If the Georgians are calculating that the Russian response will be muted because of the Olympics, I think they're badly miscalculating.

More likely Georgia decided that the best time to establish population control is when the media isn't watching. I suspect that's because they're not planning to emphasize winning hearts and minds.

Norfolk
08-08-2008, 10:03 PM
Eurasia Daily Monitor reported last week that battalion of Russian Railroad Troops had finished a two month's reconstruction of a railroad that had been out of service since fighting back in 1992. With the 58th Army on the frontier, once that railroad was finished, the Georgians knew it was on. The Olympics of course are convenient to deflect international public opinion from Russian activities.

Apparently, the Russian reconnaissance battalion leading Russian troops into the South Ossetian capital today has been caught in a bit of a snare laid by the Georgians. Things are getting real interesting. I wonder if news from Abkhazia may not be far off.

Now I'm waiting to see what happens in Eritrea, too, with the imminent departure of the UN force there.

Cougfootballfan
08-08-2008, 10:59 PM
been a while since theres been a good european war. I saw on the news that georgia was pulling its 1,000 troops out of iraq to help deal with this newest problem

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUKL812704620080808

Stevely
08-09-2008, 12:16 AM
I hope the Georgians have learned well asymmetrical methods from its time in Iraq.

Fuchs
08-09-2008, 01:13 AM
I'm almost sure that this won't become a full-scale war, but end in a few days with a cease-fire.

Reason:
A full war would be detrimental to Putin's interests.
He wants the Georgian government weakened, and eventually replaced by an at the very least neutral government.

I'm convinced that this isn't about South Ossetia, Abchasia or oil.
It's about the definition of the zone of influence of NATO/USA and Russia.
Ukraine and Georgia are the two prizes that are left in this East-West struggle, and Russia needs to destabilize their governments to pull them out of the Western influence zone into theirs.
Most importantly, it needs to prevent that they become NATO members. Warfare almost guarantees that they won't become members for a while.

The Georgian government has probably done a lethal mistake already with the apparently excessive violence against civilians.
The Russians can use this "multiple rocket launchers shot into villages/city full of civilians" thing to portrait the Georgian government as bad guys.
That would have two phenomenal advantages for Putin; disrupting the Georgian government for a higher chance of a new government and keeping Western support small.
We don't (officially) support civilians-massacring baddies, after all.

Putin has already won. His troops only need to capture some square kilometres in South Ossetia to keep the status quo ante (plus quasi-permanent presence of Russian troops in South Ossetia).
He would be stupid if he allowed an escalation or long duration of the war.

I told others that there's some major conventional war potential in Eastern Europe; especially one bloc against the other bloc's proxy was a viable scenario. I cared more about Ukraine because that country is much more relevant, though.
I encountered deaf ears mostly, and very few people seem to see the dangers of the struggles and alliance growth in Eastern Europe.

We tend to discuss celebrities' haircuts much more than vital alliance policy.

Stevely
08-09-2008, 01:22 AM
That is a good analysis Fuchs.

kaur
08-09-2008, 08:42 AM
Fuchs said:


I told others that there's some major conventional war potential in Eastern Europe; especially one bloc against the other bloc's proxy was a viable scenario. I cared more about Ukraine because that country is much more relevant, though.

I suggest to read Russia's last foreign policy concept.

http://www.mid.ru/ns-osndoc.nsf/0e9272befa34209743256c630042d1aa/cef95560654d4ca5c32574960036cddb?OpenDocument

Here Rogozin comments it.

http://www.kommersant.com/p917043/r_527/Dmitry_Rogozin_outlined_a_new_foreign_policy_conce pt_of_Russia/

If someone reads Russian official statements by MFA and President, it is wierd to read about that there are only two sides in conflict - bad Georgian armed forces and Russian peacekeepers plus Russian civilian citizens. There are no words about South Ossetian paramilitaries, volunteers from other parts of Russia etc. I would like you suggest to read the commentary I posted earlier 1more time.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373294

Uboat509
08-09-2008, 10:39 AM
So am I wrong in thinking that this is at least partialy the decision to recognize Kosovo coming back to bite everyone in the butt?

SFC W

Stevely
08-09-2008, 01:00 PM
So am I wrong in thinking that this is at least partialy the decision to recognize Kosovo coming back to bite everyone in the butt?

SFC W

I am sure there is an element of payback here, but I think the Russians would have been up to something like this, anyway. Absent Kosovo, this or something like this would have happened regardless, Russia has wanted to bring its "near abroad" to heel for a long time now. I guess they've started to eat their Wheaties.

Van
08-09-2008, 01:24 PM
In the Aug '08 Jane's Navy magazine, Ukraine is drafting legislation to remove the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol by 2017.

Maritime access is a sensitive issue for Russia, especially year round ports.

Interesting that Russia attacks into another Black Sea nation on the heels of the Ukraine announcement (and the heated Russian counter-statements).

Distiller
08-09-2008, 03:23 PM
In the Aug '08 Jane's Navy magazine, Ukraine is drafting legislation to remove the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol by 2017.

Maritime access is a sensitive issue for Russia, especially year round ports.

Interesting that Russia attacks into another Black Sea nation on the heels of the Ukraine announcement (and the heated Russian counter-statements).

The Russians have access to the Black Sea all along east of Kertsch.

Currently Novorisiysk is being expanded into a major navy port. But it has poor connection with the hinterland, no airport and very strong and unfavourable winds at times. Anyways, the Sevastopol thing is far more political than operational.

bourbon
08-09-2008, 05:54 PM
August 5 there was an explosion on the BTC pipeline in eastern Turkey, still hasn't been extinguished, PKK is claiming responsibility. Is there any possibility that the Russian's, who have long supported the PKK, coordinated with them to tie-up any potential Turkish response? (Not sure on the depth of Georgian-Turkish defense relations, but know they are cordial terms)

kaur
08-09-2008, 06:42 PM
MOSCOW MOVES TO DE FACTO ANNEXATION OF GEORGIAN BREAKAWAY REGIONS

By Svante E. Cornell and David J. Smith (04/16/2008 issue of the CACI Analyst)

Moscow’s promised response to the Kosovo settlement in the Caucasus appears to be materializing. For several weeks, Russian leaders from President Vladimir Putin down have taken new bold steps that encroach even further and more directly on Georgia’s territorial integrity than is already the case. On April 16, Russia’s outgoing president Vladimir Putin signed a decree moving toward the de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, removing the tiny fig leaf still present regarding Moscow’s ambitions of direct control over Georgia’s breakaway regions. These moves could to trigger a spiral of instability in the wider region, unless a forceful western response is found.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?fecvnodeid=110622&fecvid=33&v21=118358&lng=en&v33=110622&id=54679


Marietta König
The Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict

http://www.core-hamburg.de/documents/yearbook/english/04/K%F6nig.pdf





TBILISI WITHDRAWS FROM THE JOINT CONTROL COMMISSION; PROPOSES NEW FORMAT FOR SOUTH OSSETIA
By Niklas Nilsson (03/19/2008 issue of the CACI Analyst)

Russia has in the aftermath of Kosovo's declaration of independence further reinforced its support for South Ossetia, as well as Abkhazia, stressing the importance of Kosovo as a precedent for other ethnic conflicts. On March 6, Russia withdrew from the 1996 CIS treaty imposing economic sanctions on Abkhazia and has subsequently held discussions in the State Duma on the prospects for recognizing the independence of the two regions. Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has also sought to connect these decisions to the outcomes of the Bucharest NATO summit in April, where a verdict will likely be cast on Georgia's prospects for obtaining a Membership Action Plan within NATO. Several NATO members oppose a MAP for Georgia due to the implications Georgia's unresolved conflicts and its troubled relations with Russia may have for the alliance.

http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/4816

Darksaga
08-09-2008, 07:45 PM
According to news reports the Russians have committed 500 armored vehicles, 150 tanks, deployed the Black Sea fleet and is planning a 100 plane airborne insertion.

Stevely
08-09-2008, 10:03 PM
According to news reports the Russians have committed 500 armored vehicles, 150 tanks, deployed the Black Sea fleet and is planning a 100 plane airborne insertion.

In other words, it seems likely the Russians are going to attempt to conquer the whole of Georgia, and either re-absorb it or install a puppet government.

Fuchs
08-09-2008, 10:38 PM
The price would be too high and a Russia-friendly puppet government would not last long after a rise of nationalistic feelings as it always happens during an invasion.

The Georgian government will fall most likely anyway because of this apparent disaster. That's what Putin hopes for imho.

Wildcat
08-09-2008, 11:09 PM
In other words, it seems likely the Russians are going to attempt to conquer the whole of Georgia, and either re-absorb it or install a puppet government.

If that happens, say hello to the world's newest small war. The Georgians are well equipped and well trained (by us, coincidentally... anyone else happen to notice that they wear woodland MARPAT uniforms?). They won't just sit back and let themselves be absorbed by the Russians. They'll retaliate, and the Chechans may get involved as well. This will get very bloody, and I don't expect it to last just a few days. This could go on for months.

walrus
08-10-2008, 01:26 AM
The danger here is that someoen has miscalculated.

Putin calculates that the West can't and won't intervene militarily.

We are calculating that Russia will pull back.

What if all of us are wrong????

Ken White
08-10-2008, 01:36 AM
No cut to the defense budget? We'll just have to wait and see. BTW, I'm not calculating that Russia will pull back or that the 'west' won't intervene. Everytime I think someone has done the dumbest thing in the world, someone comes along and tops it...

Don't you hate it when people don't play right? National interests can be such a drag.

Jedburgh
08-10-2008, 02:26 AM
According to news reports the Russians have committed 500 armored vehicles, 150 tanks, deployed the Black Sea fleet and is planning a 100 plane airborne insertion.
In future posts, when making comments of this nature, provide a source. If you cannot provide a direct link, at a minimum clearly state the source of your information.

bourbon
08-10-2008, 04:27 AM
In other words, it seems likely the Russians are going to attempt to conquer the whole of Georgia, and either re-absorb it or install a puppet government.
Maybe, or just keep the conflict hot enough to put the kibosh on Georgia (and the other candidate Ukraine) being voted into NATO membership come December.

Granite_State
08-10-2008, 06:04 AM
So am I wrong in thinking that this is at least partialy the decision to recognize Kosovo coming back to bite everyone in the butt?

SFC W

Completely agree.

Stan
08-10-2008, 06:43 AM
Hey Carl !
Sorry, I think your email to me got zapped by our server.


I think much depends upon the proficiency of the Russian armed forces as of this moment. If they are as inept as they were when they first went into Chechnya, things could get very complicated for Vlad.

I agree with you and would add that although mathematically Russia outnumbers Georgia in both manpower and equipment, Georgia has been receiving training and equipment from NATO for the last 10 years. And, nobody better than Russia can related to fighting a small unit mired in the mountains.

The Russian press is content to report that Georgia's military capabilities and training have changed little, while Baltic/NATO (http://www.bdcol.ee/fileadmin/docs/bdreview/bdr-2003-special-08.pdf) studies and this Deutsche Welle article (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3550183,00.html) would indicate otherwise.


Today, roughly one-quarter of Georgia's functional land forces are US-trained. The backbone of the Georgian army is seven infantry battalions raised from scratch and brought by the US Green Berets from boot camp to something quite close to NATO-standard combat readiness over the years, a mass of some 5,000 men.
This Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2531026/Georgia-US-training-gives-Georgia-military-advantage.html) sums up Russia's Peacekeeping proficiency nicely:


The Russians lack of enough force to deploy decisively from the outset has forced them to over-rely on artillery...

The problem the Russians face in South Ossetia is that their peacekeepers have had to make the transition overnight to what is, in effect, a war-fighting force.

Regards, Stan

kaur
08-10-2008, 07:13 AM
Georgian troops have pulled back to positions at or south of those held on 6 August, when the current hostilities began, said Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7552012.stm

If someone is interested in Soviet military maps of Georgian territory you can find those there.

http://www.topomaps.ru/caucasus/georgia.shtml

reed11b
08-10-2008, 05:28 PM
It appears by following the mainstream press, that Georgia intiated the conflict with a heavy bombardment of a civilian city and the Russians responded. It is hard to be sympathetic to the Georgians based on this, but there seems to be some sympathy for them within the community. What am I missing?
Reed

kaur
08-10-2008, 06:04 PM
reed11b asked:


What am I missing?

The covering of conflict by Western and Russian media has been very poor. Biased. If we talk about the beginning of attack, I have seen only 1 scene that shows Grad shooting in the middle of darkness. Russian TV says that this is Georgian one. Maybe this is Russian one or Ossetian one? Should we call NSA?

Due to the cyber attack Georgian MFA is sprading their info via blog and not their official site.

http://georgiamfa.blogspot.com/

jmm99
08-10-2008, 06:16 PM
here is the Times' crystal ball


From The Sunday Times
August 10, 2008

‘Bodies are lying everywhere. It’s hell’

Mark Franchetti, Moscow
.......
Why does South Ossetia want to break away?

Most of its people speak their own language and feel closer to the Russians than the Georgians. They say they were absorbed into Georgia after the fall of the old Soviet Union. The 70,000 South Ossetians want independence – just like Kosovo, the breakaway Serbian province.

Why are the Georgians so upset about South Ossetia?

Because they see it as a Russian outpost funded largely from Moscow, and where most people carry Russian passports.

Why has Georgia’s president chosen to raise the issue now?

Because he thought everyone was focused on the Olympics and the Russians would hesitate to respond with force.

Why has Russia been willing to go to war?

The Kremlin is angry about western, particularly American military support for Georgia, its desire to join Nato and US plans for a missile defence shield in Europe.

Will anyone else intervene?

Unlikely, western armies are busy and the prospect of taking on Russia is not enticing.

What happens next?

The Georgians will back down looking like the bad guys. Both sides will go back to hating each other. Result: Russia 1, Georgia 0.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4493620.ece

Based on the CNN interview of Georgia's president (about an hour ago), the Times' end result may have some validity. He mentioned Czech 1968; I was thinking Hungary 1956 (when VOA & RFE made very sad listening).

PS:


from Wildcat
I knew I should have studied Russian in college...

I did (2 yrs), but 45 years ago. The month before 2nd year ended, our prof handed out a little Russian book (2nd grade reader), saying: "Now, for the rest of the course, you will learn how little Russian you know."

Helps to transliterate the Cyrillic and read Fuch's useful map - beyond that, I'm hopeless.

Stevely
08-10-2008, 06:36 PM
It appears by following the mainstream press, that Georgia intiated the conflict with a heavy bombardment of a civilian city and the Russians responded. It is hard to be sympathetic to the Georgians based on this, but there seems to be some sympathy for them within the community. What am I missing?
Reed

Because this has been going on for some time, the Russians have been stirring the pot and IMO goading the Georgians into an action like this. The South Ossetians are armed, trained and sometime lead by Russian military (same as the Abkhazians) and lately, there have been cross-border incidents into Georgia. I think the Georgians had enough, but then badly miscalculated and thought they could settle things on the ground faster than the Russians could sort them out?

I am certain the Russians had plans for this months, if not years, in advance. There have been a steady stream of provocations over the last several months, that of course do not make the front page.

That's my take, and why I don't think it is a simple case of the Georgians being the bad guys.

120mm
08-10-2008, 06:46 PM
Note to self: There are still American training advisors trapped in Georgia. I talked to a friend, yesterday, and he says they are receiving sporadic artillery at the training base where they're living.

No casualties for us, yet....

kaur
08-10-2008, 07:10 PM
Main news from Russian "Pervy kanal" tonight showed 1 wounded US journalist in Tshinvali hospital (under control of Russians). He had entered the town with Georgian troops. Wiht him were 2 other journalists. 1 of them was from Russian Newsweek. Both are missing.

Week ago was published 1 interesting article in Russian Newsweek "The Kremlin controls the television "in manual mode" Copy-paste following headline to Google search window and use "translate this page" of firsti link.

Кремль управляет телеканалами "в ручном режиме"

Rex Brynen
08-10-2008, 08:01 PM
... is how the Georgians thought that a military escalation would work to their favour. I don't doubt their sense of grievance... just their common sense.

Ron Humphrey
08-10-2008, 08:08 PM
... is how the Georgians thought that a military escalation would work to their favour. I don't doubt their sense of grievance... just their common sense.

Which makes me question that the Georgians would have been the ones to fire first. I'm quite certain their not in ignorance of the largess of the russian military.

That said did anyone not expect to see something like this happen in the region considering Russia's stances recently?

Fuchs
08-10-2008, 08:53 PM
I'm almost sure that this won't become a full-scale war, but end in a few days with a cease-fire.

Reason:
A full war would be detrimental to Putin's interests.
He wants the Georgian government weakened, and eventually replaced by an at the very least neutral government.

I admit that I was a bit puzzled when the Russians didn't accept Georgian cease-fire offers after the Russians had taken control over SO.
Well, I assumed that the Russians wanted to test how much they could gain at the table on top of control over SO.
I did NOT expect them to be so blatant as they apparently are. Well, strong man's negotiation style, I guess.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEb2_xjZ46kQ&refer=worldwide :

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a telephone conversation today that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ``must go,'' meaning he should be ousted from office, Khalilzad said.

SO is an interesting region in the mid-term. The Georgians will want it back, and whatever government they get, it would be strengthened if it gets SO back.
The Russians hold a nice piece of sugar in their hand.

------

The worst nightmare of Putin regarding Georgia might be a Georgian-U.S. bilateral alliance (even if that meant that Georgia had to recognize Abchasia and SO).


Just another way of looking at it

True.
And it shows how disastrous political national security decisions of politicians can be.
I wonder whether this head of government Saakash...something had a thorough briefing by his officers.
I cannot find an explanation for the still open tunnel, though.

This conflict reminds me a bit of the Falklands War.

Uboat509
08-10-2008, 09:45 PM
I am sure there is an element of payback here, but I think the Russians would have been up to something like this, anyway. Absent Kosovo, this or something like this would have happened regardless, Russia has wanted to bring its "near abroad" to heel for a long time now. I guess they've started to eat their Wheaties.

I didn't mean it as a payback thing. Several people on this board predicted that recognizing Kososvo would give every "break away republic" the idea that they all have a right to be freed from whatever country they currently fall under. That, of course, includes SO. I doubt anyone here seriously believes that Russia cares about poor oppressed South Ossetia but it does make nice pretext for Russia to pee in Georgia's Wheaties. I'm going to make a prediction that no matter who wins the South Ossetians lose.

SFC W

Rex Brynen
08-10-2008, 10:11 PM
Georgia's regular troops may be, they've definitely got their work cut out for them.

Not to mention Russia's ability to impose a complete air and naval blockade on Georgia (it has already partly done this).

For a variety of reasons--in order to respond to perceived NATO and US encroachment in their sphere of influence, to highlights the limits of US power in the area, in order to signal "don't mess with us" to the rest of the CIS states, to assert that they are a superpower not to be be trifled with, to show they still have real military power, and for domestic political reasons--the Russians have every incentive to make the Georgians very miserable indeed.

Again, perfectly predictable. Why it wasn't foreseen in Tbilisi will, I am sure, be a quite interesting story.

carl
08-11-2008, 12:13 AM
Please forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know how the Turks are going to view all this?

Rank amateur
08-11-2008, 12:39 AM
The Georgians have displayed a good deal of operational incompetence as it seems. There's only one road (actually partially a tunnel!) between Russia and SO - they should have taken that in an air assault and blocked it (if not blown up altogether).
The mountain passes are impassable in winter - the Georgian attack in summer.


Good analysis: even if the rest of your post was controversial.



Based on the CNN interview of Georgia's president (about an hour ago), the Times' end result may have some validity. He mentioned Czech 1968; I was thinking Hungary 1956 (when VOA & RFE made very sad listening).


Their crystal ball looks pretty accurate to me.


... is how the Georgians thought that a military escalation would work to their favour. I don't doubt their sense of grievance... just their common sense.

If more people had "common sense" in regards to how wars function, we wouldn't have so many of them.


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a telephone conversation today that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ``must go,'' meaning he should be ousted from office, Khalilzad said.

I wonder where they got the idea that they could invade a country just becasue they didn't like it's leader.;)




Some US advisers and contractors may really get to earn their pay soon (if not already); I'm sure they'll really looking forward to that.:wry:

IMHO, if they haven't trained and armed the Georgians to destroy armor without air superiority - ala Hezbollah - it's far too late to do anything.


Several people on this board predicted that recognizing Kososvo would give every "break away republic" the idea that they all have a right to be freed from whatever country they currently fall under.

I know Lincoln is supposed to be the greatest president etc., but I don't know why anyone would want want to force people to stay in your country when they don't want to. Both Czechs and Slovaks are far better off than Georgians, S. Ossetians, Serbs or Albanians.

Fuchs
08-11-2008, 01:08 AM
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373298

Another article on the actions before the war and intentions (the latter being obviously an expression of the author's opinion).

---------

Btw, I'd like to add that I happily agree with the idea that Germany should stop doing nation-building like training foreign policemen.
I do actually not care whether my people are good at it or not.

Ron Humphrey
08-11-2008, 01:26 AM
I wonder where they got the idea that they could invade a country just becasue they didn't like it's leader.;)

I know this is an opportunity you've been looking forward to to be able to say just this, but

The UN with all its problems still plays a big part in representing when or how exactly that could or should take place.

I don't exactly remember any resolutions related to Georgians
getting out of SO.




I know Lincoln is supposed to be the greatest president etc., but I don't know why anyone would want want to force people to stay in your country when they don't want to. Both Czechs and Slovaks are far better off than Georgians, S. Ossetians, Serbs or Albanians.

Wow did you really say that? I wonder how many of the Czechs or Slovak people would view that.

jmm99
08-11-2008, 01:27 AM
Or, can one find truth in Pravda ?

Just the headlines, without leads - full articles linked at link


Georgian troops burn South Ossetian refugees alive
[10.08.2008; today's lead]
....
Putin: Georgia’s actions are criminal, whereas Russia’s actions are absolutely legitimate
09.08.2008
....
War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA
09.08.2008
...
Russian tanks enter South Ossetia to oust Georgian troops
08.08.2008

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/

And whose news in Izvestia ?


Russia's Gazprom sells stake in Izvestia newspaper
Wed May 21, 2008 12:02pm EDT
MOSCOW, May 21 (Reuters) - Russian gas monopoly Gazprom ... has sold its majority stake in the Izvestia newspaper to a firm linked to a businessman reported to be a close ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSL2189780820080521

Finally, the third member of the deja vu triangle


ITAR-TASS
[10.08.2008; today's lead]
Tskhinvali totally cleared of Georgia troops - peacekeepers HQ.

Tskhinvali has been totally cleared of Georgian troops that are being forced towards the administrative border of South Ossetia with Georgia, aide to the commander of the Joint Peacekeeping Force (JPKF) Vladimir Ivanov told Itar-Tass...

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?GroupID=146

-------------------------
Sorry to interrupt the White-Fuchs debate. Nothing to add to that (despite tongue biting on BoP).

South Ossetia is about the size of my Copper Country (4 county area, 50K+ pop.) - just to provide some perspective of the real estate involved. We do have people in Georgia - and that does mean something.

Hey Ken, based on Fuchs' map, it looks like the Georgians north of Tskhinvali didn't occupy the high ground - no Puller in command there.

Ron Humphrey
08-11-2008, 01:34 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the cold wars back and getting warmer by the minute.

Ken White
08-11-2008, 01:40 AM
Or, can one find truth in Pravda ?
. . .
Sorry to interrupt the White-Fuchs debate. Nothing to add to that (despite tongue biting on BoP).That's no debate, that's my juvenile response to his juvenile and totally unnecessary non sequitur:

""I've observed discussions about this where people refrained about an oh-so-good U.S.-trained Georgian brigade. Well, maybe we should create a thread to identify the armies that were trained by the U.S. military and didn't afterward suck asap?I've got difficulties to remember any.""

I figure if he's dumb enough to keep posting such petty and unhelpful displays of bias and nose thumbing, the least I can do is nit pick him every time. :D
Hey Ken, based on Fuchs' map, it looks like the Georgians north of Tskhinvali didn't occupy the high ground - no Puller in command there.Saw that; strange dispositions -- if they're accurate...

Norfolk
08-11-2008, 02:10 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the cold wars back and getting warmer by the minute.

Yeah. For some time I was almost missing the good old days...until they came back. Now I'm starting to recall a little about why we were somewhat on edge back then.:wry: Funny, the last few weeks I've been thinking forget China/Taiwan/South China Sea as the likeliest theatre for the next potential big conventional war, it's Eastern Europe - Ukraine above all - that we should be worrying about. Guess Georgia may form a prelude.

Ron Humphrey
08-11-2008, 02:17 AM
Yeah. For some time I was almost missing the good old days...until they came back. Now I'm starting to recall a little about why we were somewhat on edge back then.:wry: Funny, the last few weeks I've been thinking forget China/Taiwan/South China Sea as the likeliest theatre for the next potential big conventional war, it's Eastern Europe - Ukraine above all - that we should be worrying about. Guess Georgia may form a prelude.

But I wouldn't necessarily look to others not counting their chickens before they've hatched. Noone has ever gotten everything they wanted and it those details within which the devils reside:confused:

I just hope the planners on the various sides have considered how this type of thing generally tends to leave the planned path quickly.

Norfolk
08-11-2008, 02:44 AM
I just hope the planners on the various sides have considered how this type of thing generally tends to leave the planned path quickly.

But Ron, making a sober assessment of what you would like (and may actually be capable of) to do, what the enemy may (and might be capable of doing) also do, and how it may all turn to liquid state anyway takes all the fun out of planning and starting wars.:rolleyes: After all, no one likes a party-pooper.:wry:;) (But maybe we should listen to them anyway, perhaps....)

Ron Humphrey
08-11-2008, 02:47 AM
But Ron, making a sober assessment of what you would like (and may actually be capable of) to do, what the enemy may (and might be capable of doing) also do, and how it may all turn to liquid state anyway takes all the fun out of planning and starting wars.:rolleyes: After all, no one likes a party-pooper.:wry:;)

But these days I've just about reached my RK stage,


Can't we all just get along! - Rodney King

selil
08-11-2008, 03:08 AM
I'm no expert but isn't it likely that this is as much a cold war tactic of proxy statism? The United States sits in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan with first strike capability against every middle eastern well head. The Russians can look at that with a fairly malevolent eye. I don't believe for a minute that moving into Ossetia is about patriotism. With the Move into South Ossetia and the ability to now role right over Armenia and Azerbejizian (sp?) that puts the soviets into a stronger position to forestall US adventurism into Iran. It looks like simple barrier and balance diplomacy. The continuing assault only strengthens my supposition. I know go hide under my rock. I won't even mention that RBN used cyber war in this conflict EXACTLY like I said it could be used years ago.

jmm99
08-11-2008, 03:40 AM
occupied by Georgian ethnic populations (1/5 to 1/3 of So. Ossetia pop., depending on source).

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/08/news/Georgia-South-Ossetia-Glance.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_War
http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo001/fmo001.pdf

Insert to Fuchs' map showing (orange) areas controlled by Georgia 7 Aug looks more like an patchwork, possibly following river valleys (seems so, from SO2 map below).

That insert has some resemblence to the agency's ethnic map for Caucasian region, but the latter is at too small a scale to match exact areas in the insert.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Caucasus-ethnic.jpg

Here is a blowup of the Georgian-controlled areas (ultimate source ?)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/SO2.jpg

The map (post by kaur #40) has the villages identified (Geo vs Oss). Looks like a GA march north to the Roki Tunnel would have been an uphill climb through unfriendly (Oss) mountain country. Remind you of another war a long time ago ?

So, perhaps the GA deployed in an effort to protect their own by being there - a noble political thought, but maybe not the best plan to repel an invasion. Wasn't ARVN strung out something like that at the end ?

Which goes to prove that, if one (JMM) has no experience in an area; and has incomplete maps re: troops, population, etc. - one be a-guessin big time in reaching any military or political conclusion.

PS1: Rus Maps (link by kaur # 38) has topo maps (slow dl) + a cute little Velo Gal for you youngsters. Also has an English page linked, with same Velo Gal.

http://www.topomaps.eu/

PS2: For anyone out there who might be a cold war lover, multi-beaked birds can still fly on both sides.

kaur
08-11-2008, 06:00 AM
I found one nice radio broadcast in Russian. Lady is famous Russian journalist and she explains the situation in the whole North Caucasus very well. You have to use google translator again. Would you paste to Google window

Эхо Москвы / Передачи / Код доступа / Суббота, 09.08.2008

and use 1 link's "translate this page"

Stan
08-11-2008, 06:45 AM
Some intriguing articles this morning herein. Kinda makes me wonder how long these staff writers will be around :rolleyes:

Moscow Flexes Muscles but Little Will Change (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/369686.htm)


But it would be counterproductive for Russian troops to move into Georgia beyond the border of South Ossetia, analysts said. "It would be most unpleasant for [President Dmitry] Medvedev at the beginning of his presidential term to be viewed around the world as the aggressor," Malashenko said.

Still, when Russia seeks a return to the status quo of continued separatism in South Ossetia, there will not be as many people with Russian passports living there, Khramchikhin said. "Many refugees who fled to Russia will fear to come back, despite Putin's promise to restore Tskhinvali with Russian money," he said.

Also, Russia's military victory over Georgia could be short-lived because other former Soviet republics will now seek protection from the West after seeing what happened in South Ossetia, fearing that their differences with Moscow might one day lead to an armed invasion, analysts said.

Conflict Opens Front in the Media (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/369695.htm)


Russian television is flush with footage of misery left by the Georgian assault in the separatist district of South Ossetia, but few, if any, reports mention Russia's bombing of Georgia.

William Dunbar, a correspondent in Georgia for English-language state channel Russia Today, mentioned the bombing in a report Saturday, and he has not gone on air for the station since. "The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it.

Fuchs
08-11-2008, 11:43 AM
Generally, the understanding of what they're criticizing is superficial or ill-informed (as was your comment I quoted here and a few others over the past weeks) and -- this is important -- we don't really care what you think but are willing to mention some things you might not have thought of.

Yeah, right. You don't know whom or what arguments I'm talking about, but you know they're wrong. Looks like a holy cow rests on the road ahead.


@Wilf;
I see some possible excuses for the Georgians that would not imply operational incompetence. Instead, they imply political incompetence.
I've seen lots of info right now that hint at successful provocations by Russia (via its proxy SO) prior to this hot war phase (even including artillery attacks on Georgian settlements).
It looks like Saakashvili took the bait, and he did it in a way that gave the Russians an easy opportunity for intervention.

It reminds me a lot of mid-19th century to pre-WWI politics.

-----

About the map; it looks pretty similar to Bosnian war maps and also a bit reminiscent of Sino-Japanese War maps.
The Russian advance guard smashed right through the main Georgian enclave early on - that was probably already the decision of the war.
The last info that I got is that the Russians advanced beyond SO to the next Georgian city. It looks like they want to increase pressure on the Georgian government till it resigns.

William F. Owen
08-11-2008, 12:05 PM
@Wilf;
I see some possible excuses for the Georgia that would not imply operational incompetence. Instead, they imply political incompetence.
I've seen lots of info right now that hint at successful provocations by Russia (via its proxy SO) prior to this hot war phase (even including artillery attacks on Georgian settlements).
It looks like Saakashvili took the bait, and he did it in a way that gave the Russians an easy opportunity for intervention.

It reminds me a lot of mid-19th century to pre-WWI politics.


I'm not sure the Gruzynim are as stupid as some may think. If Georgia ends up in NATO, with US bases on it's soil, it may make things look a bit different.

Fuchs
08-11-2008, 12:46 PM
Well, that won't happen without losing SO and Abchasia.
The European governments said pretty clearly that they don't want a new ally who has territorial disputes involving Russia. Especially not one who doesn't add any relevant advantages to NATO.

The best the Georgians can hope for without losing SO and Abchasia officially is probably a bilateral alliance with the USA.
I wonder why the USA didn't offer such an alliance after it tried (unsuccessfully) to get Georgia into NATO. GWB looked committed to offer Georgia an alliance, but didn't go the whole distance after NATO partners declined.

BTW, I don't think they are necessarily stupid - politicians have to re-learn alliance building politics and serious national security politics nowadays.
It's not 19th century anymore when the whole world was so volatile and full of great power games that foreign policy was a lot about these things.

Jedburgh
08-11-2008, 01:02 PM
For those interested, the RFE/RL Crisis in South Ossetia (http://www.rferl.org/section/South+Ossetia+Crisis/454.html) page has a slew of analytic articles, backgrounders, a timeline, and a multimedia reporting......

wm
08-11-2008, 01:26 PM
Not to mention Russia's ability to impose a complete air and naval blockade on Georgia (it has already partly done this).

For a variety of reasons--in order to respond to perceived NATO and US encroachment in their sphere of influence, to highlights the limits of US power in the area, in order to signal "don't mess with us" to the rest of the CIS states, to assert that they are a superpower not to be be trifled with, to show they still have real military power, and for domestic political reasons--the Russians have every incentive to make the Georgians very miserable indeed.

Again, perfectly predictable. Why it wasn't foreseen in Tbilisi will, I am sure, be a quite interesting story.

Let's not forget that the US seems to be closer to freeing up a lot of troops in Iraq, troops that could be used as a deterrent to a future (say after next winter's thaws provide the next real opportunity to cross the Caucasus). Waiting to project power definitely did not seem to be in the Russians' best interest.

I would not be surprised that the Georgians took the first step to try to protect ethnic Georgians in the region, sort of a preemptive move because they knew/feared that, to borrow a movie title, "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming". BTW, one ought not to expect the Georgians to conduct mil ops to block a counter-invasion. Since they do not recognize SO independence, they do not view their moves as an invasion . Instead, they may well see what they were doing as what any really good government does--protect its citizens from outlaws and banditry, with the SO separatists (supported by who knows what Russians and and other assorted Cossacks may decide to cross the border) being the outlaws and bandits in this case.

Of course, this may just be a case of Georgia playing "chicken," daring the Russians to match their rhetoric about supporting independence movements with action. I still am waiting to see who makes the final swerve because IMHO what has happened to date is not the final head-on collision that results when neither "driver" backs off.

Rank amateur
08-11-2008, 01:31 PM
Wow did you really say that? I wonder how many of the Czechs or Slovak people would view that.

Virtually all of them.

After a transition period of roughly four years, during which the relations between the states could be characterised as a "post-divorce trauma", the present relations between Czechs and Slovaks, as many people point out, are probably better than they have ever been.

No movement to re-unite Czechoslovakia has appeared and no political party advocates it in its programme. Political influences between the countries are minimal. Trade relationships were re-established and stabilized. After a short interruption, Slovakia's mountains are again the target of a growing number of Czech tourists.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Divorce)


I know this is an opportunity you've been looking forward to to be able to say just this,


When you're outnumbered, patiently waiting in an ambush is often the best tactical response.;) If you understand the situation, sometimes you don't need to wait very long, but since no one charged it, I have to assume that it wasn't a near ambush.

Stan
08-11-2008, 02:48 PM
Pop in and take a gander at President Medvedev's working meetings and conferences :rolleyes:

Beginning of Working Meeting with Minister of Internal Affairs (http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/11/1751_type82913type82914_205133.shtml) Rashid Nurgaliev
August 11, 2008
The Kremlin, Moscow


DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Rashid Gumarovich, I have received information, and you have probably also heard this, that the Georgian authorities are forcibly detaining Russian citizens on Georgian territory. This is, of course, in complete violation of international law. I do not know why they are doing this. Maybe they think they can use these people as a human shield. This is a completely unacceptable situation.

I also want to say - and I want you to take this under your personal control – that all citizens of foreign states, who are legally in Russia, must not be subjected to any kind of discrimination and can remain in Russia in accordance with the agreements that our country has with the countries from which these people have come. Supervision of these matters is the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ responsibility and I ask you to ensure it is carried out.

RASHID NURGALIEV: Dmitry Anatolyevich, we issued just such instructions three days ago, when Georgia launched its aggression against South Ossetia. We immediately sent out precisely these instructions throughout the Southern Federal District, given that this is the part of the country where the biggest numbers of people from Georgia reside, and we also gave specific instructions to the Federal Migration Service to monitor these matters throughout the Russian Federation.

We understand that the people are not to blame for this aggression and we will therefore do everything we can to uphold the law and protect the rights and interests of citizens living in Russia or present on our territory.

We have ensured public order in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania over these last three days. Registered crimes have dropped two-fold and there has been a four-fold drop in the number of serious crimes.

All the necessary conditions are now in place for providing humanitarian assistance to the Republic of South Ossetia. In particular, a column set out directly for Tskhinvali at 5 a.m. this morning, and an extra 37 KAMAZ vehicles have been made available for transporting humanitarian aid - food, medicines and medical equipment – that will be used on the ground to help people.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Good, keep working, keep it under your control and report to me periodically on the public order situation in North Ossetia, in the North Caucasus in general and in the country overall, of course.

RASHID NURGALIEV: I will. :eek:

Much more at this link... (http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/events/details/2008/08/08_205064.shtml)

wm
08-11-2008, 03:53 PM
Pop in and take a gander at President Medvedev's working meetings and conferences :rolleyes:

Beginning of Working Meeting with Minister of Internal Affairs (http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/11/1751_type82913type82914_205133.shtml) Rashid Nurgaliev
August 11, 2008
The Kremlin, Moscow

:eek:

Much more at this link... (http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/events/details/2008/08/08_205064.shtml)

Great political theatrics--each speaker reads his script well. I am amazed that the Russians still play at these "Potemkin village" sham displays.

Ken White
08-11-2008, 03:56 PM
Great political theatrics--each speaker reads his script well.be an Oscar contender...
...I am amazed that the Russians still play at these "Potemkin village" sham displays.Old habits die hard...

wm
08-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Some folks have pointed to this as a quid pro qou for Kosovo and as a direct lesson to Georgia wrt to joining NATO.

One might wonder how much of this activity on the part of the Russians (particularly the new reports of incursions from Abkhazia) is pointed at the Ukraine--both wrt to its NATO membership aspirations and to the lease on port facilities in Sevastapol that expires 9 years hence in 2017. Russia's warmwater port issue is a long standing sore point.

Also the purported use of Cossacks is an interesting twist, given that sizeable remnants of Cossack "hordes" exist in both the Ukraine and Kazakhstan. The Russians have used an appeal to Cossack "nationalism" in times past to help them in their foreign affairs.

Has the Great Game moved from the "roof of the world" to the mountains on the other side of the Caspian Sea?

Uboat509
08-11-2008, 05:27 PM
Just saw that the Russians have captured a city in Georgia, one that happens to be only about 50-60 miles outside of Tiblisi. I'm still thinking that the Russians will stop short of that while they still maintain a small amount of plausible deniability about their intentions but I am not sure. So what does everyone think, will they move on Tiblisi? What does it mean if they do? They can hardly say they were just trying to free poor oppressed South Ossetia if they attack Georgia's capital especially if they capture and occupy it. Georgia sounds desperate. I don't see Europe getting directly involved. The UN is... well... the UN. We're kind of busy. On the other hand, Russia has to be aware that there will be some diplomatic and economic penalties if they push this too far (which granted is hard to define).

SFC W

selil
08-11-2008, 06:01 PM
Who will oppose them?

Wildcat
08-11-2008, 06:12 PM
The only action that any third party is in any position to make is to impose swift sanctions against Russia. These will be about as effective as they were against Iran, Iraq, Cuba, et al. In other words, it won't accomplish squat. And with Russia potentially controlling that oil pipeline, it's dangerous for us to be playing that card. As the world's #2 petroleum exporter, they could really put us in the hurt locker considering how fragile our economy is vis a vis the price of oil.

The only other action I could see us taking is to boost our aid to Georgia and hope that they're able to mount one hell of a guerrilla campaign.

wm
08-11-2008, 06:34 PM
The only action that any third party is in any position to make is to impose swift sanctions against Russia. These will be about as effective as they were against Iran, Iraq, Cuba, et al. In other words, it won't accomplish squat. And with Russia potentially controlling that oil pipeline, it's dangerous for us to be playing that card. As the world's #2 petroleum exporter, they could really put us in the hurt locker considering how fragile our economy is vis a vis the price of oil.

Not sure how this follows as the beginning of the 2 oil pipelines that traverse Georgia are in Azerbaijan. If they want to control the flow to the West, the easier answer would be a walk over the Azeri--I think they have a caus belli as I believe the Azeri cut off shipments through the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline last winter. This one seems to have little to do with oil.

Wildcat
08-11-2008, 06:52 PM
Not sure how this follows as the beginning of the 2 oil pipelines that traverse Georgia are in Azerbaijan. If they want to control the flow to the West, the easier answer would be a walk over the Azeri--I think they have a caus belli as I believe the Azeri cut off shipments through the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline last winter. This one seems to have little to do with oil.

I'm merely saying that any effort by outside parties to intervene economically will do little to deter Russia. Of course oil is not a driver of this conflict, but it can be used to inflict damage.

Stan
08-11-2008, 07:37 PM
I'm merely saying that any effort by outside parties to intervene economically will do little to deter Russia. Of course oil is not a driver of this conflict, but it can be used to inflict damage.

It's a gas pipeline BTW, not oil. Gazprom (http://www.gazprom.ru/eng/) wants Nordstream (http://www.nord-stream.com/en/) to Germany and Southstream (http://www.bridge-mag.com/magazine/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=31) to the ME to flourish, but can't do said (the Baltic States won't have them) without Georgia and the Ukraine. what's left is Turkey, and Turkey could give a Sierra about Putin (you get the rest).

Was Kosovo a big deal to Puti Puu ? You bet, and only Georgia and the Ukraine now stand in his way.

The 3 fat pigs we call them here. Russian Gas, Electric and Rail.

Stan
08-11-2008, 07:52 PM
Just saw that the Russians have captured a city in Georgia, one that happens to be only about 50-60 miles outside of Tiblisi. I'm still thinking that the Russians will stop short of that while they still maintain a small amount of plausible deniability about their intentions but I am not sure. So what does everyone think, will they move on Tiblisi? What does it mean if they do? They can hardly say they were just trying to free poor oppressed South Ossetia if they attack Georgia's capital especially if they capture and occupy it. Georgia sounds desperate. I don't see Europe getting directly involved. The UN is... well... the UN. We're kind of busy. On the other hand, Russia has to be aware that there will be some diplomatic and economic penalties if they push this too far (which granted is hard to define).

SFC W

The info we have is much like you've heard. The Russians poked and prodded til the Georgians acted. Georgia probably felt that their bilateral partner USA wouldn't mind a quick and dirty war, and neglected to bounce the theory by the POTUS. The Russians are not likely to leave without defacing the Georgian government. They know the Georgian president will not step down, so the hope (much like in Estonia last year) is to deface the democratic government and let the people riot and pillage.

I doubt Tblisi is Russia's goal, but I'm sure they are ready to advance a smiggin more before finally agreeing to a ceasefire. The French-led delegation will be in Moscow today, so it won't be long before Russia will be forced to decide.

Regards, Stan

kaur
08-11-2008, 07:56 PM
Lie in Russian official news broadcast. Just one of those many ones (tonight they started to talk about Baltic/Ukrainian mercenarys like during Chechen wars fightin in Georgian side). But this one is really BIG lie.
Mikhail Leontyev is Kremlin's loudspeaker and he is citing to Statfor think tank. Maybe someone understands the text that starts 4.50 in this clip. ... or show it to Russian-speaking colleagues. Clip ends with direct threathening of neighbours.

http://rutube.ru/tracks/917658.html?v=571ef474e06465e9b05f977bb5a09f46

kaur
08-11-2008, 08:21 PM
The catch is that Russia cannot maintain its ambivalent stance of supporting the secessionist quasi-states and acknowledging that they remain parts of Georgia; nor can it keep pretending that it is not a party to the conflict but merely the guarantor of a non-existent peace process. Prior to the war, Moscow had been very irritated by Eduard Kokoity’s corrupt regime, but now to all intents and purposes it owns South Ossetia and has not only to provide aid but to resolve the status issue (Ezhednevny zhurnal, August 8). Medvedev is forced to make decisions that he is very uncomfortable with and to place them in a new strategic line for the Caucasus that he is not really qualified to draw, while Putin takes charge over practical matters like distributing money and resources. Spoils from this “victory” would hasten Russia’s drift from democracy, worsen its investment climate, and add more tension to relations with the West and with Ukraine. Diplomats may contemplate a return to the status quo ante, but Russia has changed in the course of this entirely unnecessary war, and the damage cannot be undone.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373302


Several other observers predicted that the Russian-Georgian war would give Russia’s siloviki hardliners the upper hand in the country’s domestic politics. “Even a short ‘peace-keeping’ war will not only provoke a growth in enmity toward Russia on the part of Western countries, but also--and this is more important for us--will confirm [Russian] society in the opinion that over there, in the West, there are not only arrogant, rather stupid pindosy [a derogatory term for Americans], but an enemy who will not yield,” wrote Dmitry Volkov. “There are no real doubts about how Western countries will view the Russian attack. This will allow President Medvedev to be put in the unambiguous position of a ‘strong national leader’ completely dependent on the power structures” (www.gazeta.ru, August 9).

If Russia “gets involved in a war” with Georgia, this will solidify “what the Russian siloviki have achieved [over] the last several months,” wrote the commentator Yulia Latynina. “At the same time, it is completely unimportant who wins this war and who will be its victims. The very fact of such a war means that control over Russia will be retained by the siloviki, the special services, and Putin. The siloviki [would] even profit from the disgrace of Russia; in that case, there will be a bigger outcry, hysteria and money” (www.ej.ru, August 8).

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373303

Ron Humphrey
08-11-2008, 09:18 PM
How the Chinese may percieve this major distraction from their coming out party?

Also consider that should this end badly in the long run for Russia and they once again be sidelined to pariah status they may have to look towards becoming almost a client state to China in really being able to continue selling those exports upon which they have built their resurging economy.

Probably way out in left field but what the hay, worth looking at


AND RA: Thanks for the link its interesting reading and I am looking at it. The one problem I have with WIKI is that it is completely user created and when a large section of the posting is without sourcing and other parts are based on information from sources which may or may not carry a bias it really has to be taken for face value and with a ton of salt

walrus
08-11-2008, 09:27 PM
I note with interest that the hate site "Blackfive.net" is already blaming "spineless politicians" - meaning Democrats, as is Mr. Kristol repeating the lie that it was the German politicians who were responsible for the treaty of Versailles and making comparisons.

Just for the record, we have had Seven years of a "Unitary Executive", presided over by a "Commander In Chief", and the buck stops with him.

Now let's get back to Georgia. What are Putin's intentions? Regime change? Control of the BTC pipeline? What else?

Ken White
08-11-2008, 09:34 PM
...What are Putin's intentions? ... What else?Replacement of Kevin Rudd with Peter Costello.(Gratutitous and pointless political comment with no pertinence to the issue - no charge, no applause necessary)

Now let's get back to Georgia. ;)

walrus
08-11-2008, 09:55 PM
It's not gratuitous political comment if we allow the same processes and personalities and agendas that got us into Iraq to inform our stance on Georgia.

...And the same mouthpieces are already hard at work, and should not be listened to if a sensible decision is to be made.

What are Putin's intentions and what are the available American and European options?

Rank amateur
08-11-2008, 10:04 PM
AND RA: Thanks for the link its interesting reading and I am looking at it. The one problem I have with WIKI is that it is completely user created and when a large section of the posting is without sourcing and other parts are based on information from sources which may or may not carry a bias it really has to be taken for face value and with a ton of salt

True. Google "velvet divorce" for some different sources. Here's one from a Czech radio station's web site

"After 12 years of living apart the prevalent opinion in both countries is that the divorce was the right thing to do. At the time more people were against the break-up than in favour, but today people have accepted it and most of them say that, with hindsight, it was the right decision."
(http://www.radio.cz/en/article/63031)

Ken White
08-11-2008, 10:12 PM
both fringes are blathering. Saying little to nothing of import as usual but just trying to stir up hate and discontent. I keep swearing I'll ignore them like most but alas, I fear that I'm addicted to pointing out how silly they are. It's a terrible burden... :(

As to your germane questions, I have answers:

We don't know but there's a lot of guessing going on mostly based on fragmentary information, misinformation and disinformation.

Few.

Ron Humphrey
08-11-2008, 10:21 PM
both

We don't know but there's a lot of guessing going on mostly based on fragmentary information, misinformation and disinformation.

Few.

No matter how I look at it, so far whats going on seems to be focused on first order effects and the possible or at least more likely second or third order effects don't seem to pass the "what in it for me" test:confused:

Unless they actually think the rest of the "world" is too busy to be able to effectively deal with it.

Fuchs
08-11-2008, 10:26 PM
German news on Georgia are very mixed.
I just saw TV news that focused on human suffering and fear in Rogi (?), simply because their reporter was apparently not able to get anywhere else.
He did also complain bitterly about too much propaganda being directed at them and about the challenge to filter truth out of it.

Yesterday, when they had no reporter in Georgia at all, they invited a foreign politician and pressed hard on the question whether this war might be a backlash of NATO expansion.

Newspaper reports are different. They're very political, newspaper comments often attempt to look into the future - consequences for natural gas supply, NATO expansion, Ukraine, Georgia's future...

Overall I'd say the German reporters haven't found anything like a common line yet, but they don't stress failures of the Georgian government, aren't very aggressive against Russia and don't use much sources from the Russian side.
One exception was one TV reporter; he was apparently at a Russian HQ in T city (sounded like brigade or divisional HQ) and asked about what the Russians were doing about that Georgian city nearby. The Russian explanation was that they want to establish a 12 km security zone around T city and nothing else, no intent to invade the other city.
He mentioned that he was convinced by this face-to-face explanation and believed in the honesty.



Btw, some report that although the Georgians evacuated that city close to SO that's along the east-west highway, they did also report that there are no troops at all in the city, also no Russians.

walrus
08-12-2008, 06:39 AM
What concerns me is a miscalculation by either party that could result in further escalation.

I am however surprised at the speed of Russia's action, which suggest to me that it had to have been premeditated. Those troops must have been on twelve hours notice to move or less, and my recollection is that you don't keep people standing around like that for very long. I'm also not sure that the reactive armor is left in place during training, those tanks look "" dressed", to me, although I was Inf.

Stan
08-12-2008, 10:25 AM
The presidents of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, together with Poland, issued a joint statement at the weekend warning that the Georgian conflict would be a credibility “litmus test” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92679ed2-67bc-11dd-8d3b-0000779fd18c,dwp_uuid=66e078d0-66ca-11dd-808f-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1) for Nato and the EU.


The Baltic states, past victims of Kremlin attacks, have called on the European Union to suspend its drive for closer relations with Russia after its invasion of Georgia.

“We have to review our policy. Can we consider a partner a country who behaves like this?” President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia said in an interview. He added: “It’s time to stop sticking our head in the sand.”

The presidents also criticise Nato’s failure to give Georgia a timetable for membership earlier this year: “We regret that the not granting of Nato’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia was seen as a green light for aggression in the region,” their statement said.


Hat tips to Meatball One !

Steve Blair
08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
Full story can be found here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm).

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered an end to military operations against Georgia, the Kremlin says.

He told officials he had decided to end the campaign after restoring security for Russian citizens and peacekeepers in South Ossetia.

Before Mr Medvedev's statement, there were fresh reports of Russian warplanes bombing the Georgian town of Gori.

Culpeper
08-12-2008, 01:52 PM
Looks like Russia was totally prepared for this. Georgia made a big mistake. These people really hate each other. No different than the conflicts during the 90s. Looks like it is winding down. For an army that has split the enemy forces in two I think their ultimatum was more than generous. Nevertheless, leadership on both sides makes me wonder where is the World Court when we need it.

walrus
08-12-2008, 06:43 PM
Thank you for your excellent post Badtux, my knowledge of the Russians and their deployments is weak.

Next question: Has it crossed anyone's mind that this might be construed as a spoiling attack by the Russians vis a vis our ongoing confrontation with Iran?

Or is that not the right question?

kaur
08-12-2008, 07:01 PM
Wilf said:


What all this tells me, is that there is now even less reason to suppose that the future wars will be small wars.

French general Andre Beaufre wrote in his book "Introduction to Strategy" in chapter "Sub-divisions of strategy" in the middle of 60s.


Within each main field each branch of activity wiil have its own distinct category of strategy. This level at which concept and implementation meet, when the optimum must be adjusted to the possible in the light of technical limitations. In the military fileld this vital process of articulation has been termed by the Germans operational strategy (operativ). Whether it is realized or not, each branch of activity does in fact have an operational strategy. Its purpose is notonly to harmonize theobjectives laid down by overall strategy with the capabilities of the tactics and techniques in use in the branch concerned, but also to ensure that those tactics and techniques are developed in the directions which will best fit them to meet future strategic requirements. Operational strategy therefore has a vital part to paly; it is one about which there have been often misconceptions. Take for instance the classic strategy of land warfare; it is at this level that the tactical and logistic factore' must be taken into account (eg the size of force in relation to the area of operations, strategic and tactical mobility, offensive and defensive capacity). It is impact of these factors which will dictate the form the war will take (static warfare or war of movement, a rapid military decision or a battle of attrition, etc); it is therefore these factors which determine what the strategic possibilites are. Because neither the importance nor the mechanics of this aspect of strategy were understood, we were taken by surprise by the static warfare of 1914 and by our defeat in 1940; it shourl have been possible to foresee and so avoit both.

Beaufre writes in his book about different patterns of stratey and condition of use. Maybe i had to start with those, but fingers are already tired of typing for this time :)

kaur
08-12-2008, 07:21 PM
Here is Stratfors article, that I mentioned couple pages back. Moderator deleted it due to rules.

Georgia, Russia: Checkmate?
Stratfor Today » August 11, 2008 | 1534 GMT

http://one-village.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!BC643D0EE3B38628!12991.entry

It seems that information falsification lives already independent life. Nobody mentions Vremya, people are talking about Americans.

Copy-paste this sentence to Google and the amount of replies is big.

США признали, что в Южной Осетии была разбита американская армия

This is called information war. Message to Russia's neighbors is that even US intelligence analysts see the Russias power and it's better to surrender volunterely.

Beelzebubalicious
08-12-2008, 08:30 PM
I read that the Russians supposedly targeted the BTC pipeline but there didn't seem to be any clear info on whether it was damaged or not. It seems that this was a target of Russia - was it to damage (send a message) or control the pipeline?

Van
08-12-2008, 08:47 PM
The ability to destroy even a critical element of the pipeline is a measure of control. They can shut it off.

Given much of the (most of the?) affluence that exists in Russia is based on oil, the ability to kineticly manage a major pipeline is an edge in the futures market. Interesting approach to insider trading.

Culpeper
08-12-2008, 08:54 PM
I read that the Russians supposedly targeted the BTC pipeline but there didn't seem to be any clear info on whether it was damaged or not. It seems that this was a target of Russia - was it to damage (send a message) or control the pipeline?

It was shut down by the operator. Latest reports I have read through the media is that the pipeline is intact. Bombing of the pipeline wasn't needed.

Stan
08-12-2008, 09:01 PM
Hey Eric !

I read that the Russians supposedly targeted the BTC pipeline but there didn't seem to be any clear info on whether it was damaged or not. It seems that this was a target of Russia - was it to damage (send a message) or control the pipeline?

Statoil folks here claim the pipelines were shut down on both ends well before the offensive. Odd that, as if Mother Russia was prepared (go figure).

Then there's this from BP:
BP still waiting for damaged Turkish pipeline to cool (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/5938500.html)


... fire broke out on Aug. 5 after a blast in the Erzincan province for which the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, has claimed responsibility. The 1,768-kilometer (1,100-mile) link contains 10 million barrels of oil at any one time and cost $3.9 billion.

BP and partners stopped pumping crude into the Baku-Supsa pipeline from Azerbaijan to the Georgian Black Sea coast because of "precautionary measures," ...

The Baku-Supsa pipeline was restarted last week after 19 months of repairs.

BP and StatoilHydro ASA also halted natural gas exports from Azerbaijan through the South Caucasus pipeline because of security concerns,

Oil is only being transported through the Baku-Novorossiysk link to the Russian Black Sea coast and in rail cars across Georgia to the Black Sea ports

Russian warplanes attacked a section of the BTC pipeline in Georgia today, according to Kakha Lomaia, head of Georgia's National Security Council.

Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, told reporters in Moscow that it hadn't been targeted.

"We can't verify" the bombing of the BTC pipeline, Hugh McDowell, BP's general manager for Georgia, said by phone today. "It's being investigated, but there are many different reports and we take each one seriously."

bourbon
08-12-2008, 09:07 PM
I read that the Russians supposedly targeted the BTC pipeline but there didn't seem to be any clear info on whether it was damaged or not. It seems that this was a target of Russia - was it to damage (send a message) or control the pipeline?
Not the BTC, reportedly it was the Baku-Supsa line, Steve Levine wrote on his blog Oil & Glory (http://oilandglory.com/2008/08/georgia-russia-and-rethinking-china.html):

(I just received reliable confirmation that, contrary to a statement by Georgia, Russia did not bomb near the Baku-Ceyhan line. Bombs were dropped near the smaller Baku-Supsa line, which leads to Georgia's Black Sea, but caused no damage. The Supsa line passes near South Ossetia so it's possible that this was a fog of war situation.)
BTC was declared force majeure on Aug 5 from an explosion in Eastern Turkey the PKK is taking credit for, they just put the fire out monday. The Azeri BTC exports were rerouted to Baku-Supsa, the pipeline the Russians tried to bomb, and was then temporarily shut down.

Culpeper
08-12-2008, 11:09 PM
What would have been the value of bombing the pipeline?

wm
08-12-2008, 11:23 PM
It was shut down by the operator. Latest reports I have read through the media is that the pipeline is intact. Bombing of the pipeline wasn't needed.


Folks need to get their oil pipelines straight--there are two crossing Georgia--both start in Baku and run near Tbilisi--one, the BTC (planned to reach 1M BBl/Day throughput terminates on the Mediterrenean in Ceyhan, TU. The other terminates in the Black Sea at Supsa (155K BBL/day). The BTC has been shut down due to a bombing, allegedly by the PKK and is slated to stay closed for another month or so. The Baku-Supsa was apparently shut down by the operator. However, neither is really at issue here. The Russians have another pipeline from Baku to Novorossiysk (165K BBl/day) and the CPC pipeline (.5M BBL/day, planned upgraded to over a million) from the Kazkh Tengiz fields to Novorossiysk. A natural gas pipeline is under construction from Baku through Tbilisi into Turkey (done to Erzerum now, I think).

BTW, it ain't about oil IMHO. Russia makes its money on natural gas with pipelines running through the Ukraine. It might be about a message to the Ukrainians regarding NATO and Sevastapol (Russian Black Sea Fleet lease expires in 2017), and probably is really about other stuff (like a payback for blowing off their wishes vis-a-vis Kosovo).

bourbon
08-13-2008, 02:29 AM
What would have been the value of bombing the pipeline?
Bombing the pipelines, or almost hitting them, on top of this skirmish is going to kill the investment climate in Georgia. This is important because it will likely kill plans for the Nabucco gas line to Europe, and its competitor Gazprom’s South Stream will be built. Nabucco threatens to break the Russian monopoly of transporting Caspian gas to Europe. Again this is natural gas not oil, no use of spot markets, long term fixed contracts, with great power given to who controls the transportation.

While Nabucco’s plans have some hang ups, South Stream makes little sense economically. It will be the most expensive pipeline ever made, and cost likely 2X more than Nabucco. However, market principles do not matter for South Stream with Russia using Gazprom and its pipelines as a geopolitical tool. Market principles do apply to Nabucco. Investors will be hard pressed to put up the billions needed for Nabucco, when its feeder the South Caucasus Pipeline (gas line that runs in the BTC corridor) is exposed to so much risk.

For more on Nabucco v. South Stream & Balboa v. Drago, I recomend:

OIL, OLIGARCHS, AND OPPORTUNITY: ENERGY FROM CENTRAL ASIA TO EUROPE, HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE. Thursday, June 12, 2008.
Ms. Zeyno Baran (http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2008/BaranTestimony080612p.pdf) (PDF)
Director, Center for Eurasian Policy
Hudson Institute, Washington, DC

Norwiscutter
08-13-2008, 04:18 AM
I use the term stopped lightly as reports coming out through today about the actual cessation of hostilities are mixed, but if in fact Medvedev has called off the dogs, why stop now if one of the desired goals at the onset of all this was the attainment of a Georgian regime change? The Russians seam to have pushed this past the point of making a viable case to the west about the legitimacy of their actions, so why not put the proverbial nail in the coffin and finish the job?
I believe one of two possible options is currently in play:
The current Russian assessment of the geopolitical environment has determined that a show of restraint at this point will garner sufficient political capital and credibility. This possibly is viable if predictions for friendly and enemy casualties upon the invasion of Tbilisi are deemed too costly to sustain.
Or:
The Russians have determined that the potential defense of Tbilisi would prove to be too costly and therefore have instead decided to simply wait the Georgians out. Call it an extension of their assigned peacekeeping duties in S.O. if you will, but rather than face head on a motivated nationalistic force in an urban combat scenario, simply starve out the Georgians in Tbilisi until they are more ready to consider the prospect of a new regime.

badtux
08-13-2008, 04:59 AM
I use the term stopped lightly as reports coming out through today about the actual cessation of hostilities are mixed, but if in fact Medvedev has called off the dogs, why stop now


Two words: "Operational pause". The Russians had to pause anyhow to rest and resupply after multiple days of combat. Why not score a few diplomatic points (and maybe even resolve the whole thing diplomatically) while your troops are consolidating their positions, catching a few winks, and getting a fresh load of diesel in their T-72's?



if one of the desired goals at the onset of all this was the attainment of a Georgian regime change?


Regime change is happening anyhow after a screwup of this magnitude by Saakashvili. The last thing that the Russians want to do is create a martyr out of him. The Russians are going to dictate the terms of the peace to Georgia, they will be terms the Georgians don't like, and Saakashvilli will either accept them or not accept them but either way he will be the goat and out of office shortly.



The Russians seam to have pushed this past the point of making a viable case to the west about the legitimacy of their actions


"the west" is not of interest to them other than as customers for their oil and gas. Their immediate neighbors are of more pressing interest to them. I believe there are people in the government ministries of multiple Trashcanistans that as we speak are recomputing the assurances that they have received from the United States... thus insuring that they will remember the prime rule if you are living next to Russia, "don't poke the bear." Because even a shabby and decrepit old bear likely still has enough teeth in that grizzled muzzle to make you regret it.



The current Russian assessment of the geopolitical environment has determined that a show of restraint at this point will garner sufficient political capital and credibility. This possibly is viable if predictions for


Or, they have to pause anyhow, so they might as well try the diplomatic route for a day to let the fuel trucks catch up with getting their T-72's and BMP's topped up. That's a long skinny supply route back to Russia, y'know.



The Russians have determined that the potential defense of Tbilisi would prove to be too costly and therefore have instead decided to simply wait the Georgians out.


Or they simply have no desire to go into cities and towns. For example, according to Reuters the Russians are on the outskirts of Gori, but have not gone into the city. Apparently Grozny re-taught them that cities are a bad place for tanks. Or they have decided that where they are gives them sufficient leverage to get what they want -- formal recognition of the full autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Or they have decided that Saakashvili is a loose cannon and will do something else to give them a pretext to go farther, so they might as well wait to see what stupid thing he does next. Or a Martian invasion fleet has materialized over the Kremlin and scooped out the brains of Putin and Medvedev and replaced them with alien grey matter. Point being speculation is interesting, but the only speculation we have that we know is true is that if the Russians have been fighting for five days straight, they're tired and in need of resupply and thus an operational pause is in order. What they intend to do during this pause, or after... well, we shall see, shall we not?

Stan
08-13-2008, 06:47 AM
If I was a Baltic State or Ukraine military planner, I would make note of this. It seems like these countries (and Georgia) have developed their militaries to take on NATO/American missions, while not thinking about their own territorial defense?

It wasn't too long ago when the Balts wanted things like Abrams tanks. We finally got them into your line of thinking. No way to destroy all that armor with just a few Abrams (read limited funds as well). Better to take them out from a distance one at a time with HEAT rounds.

The entire and painful process of PFP to MAP, to NATO should also be addressing territorial defense. All I can recall from this process was tons of paper to justify boondoggles and huge peacekeeping exercises.

zenpundit
08-13-2008, 06:50 AM
"but the only speculation we have that we know is true is that if the Russians have been fighting for five days straight, they're tired and in need of resupply and thus an operational pause is in order"True enough. On the diplo side, Sarkozy was in town to, in effect, negotiate surrender terms for the Georgians. Sure, the Russians could have stiff-armed him and pushed on pounding Georgia but Sarkozy is going to be president of France for a long time. France holds a veto in the UNSC. There will times in the future where Moscow would like France to entertain their diplomatic concerns vis-a-vis America.

Gratuitously insulting Sarkozy, who also represents the EU in his first high profile mission, during talks by shellacking Georgian cities wouldn't be particularly smart. Especially, if you need an operational pause anyway.

It also gave Medvedev and Putin a chance to muddy the analytical waters by playing good cop-bad cop.

Ratzel
08-13-2008, 09:02 AM
It wasn't too long ago when the Balts wanted things like Abrams tanks. We finally got them into your line of thinking. No way to destroy all that armor with just a few Abrams (read limited funds as well). Better to take them out from a distance one at a time with HEAT rounds.

The entire and painful process of PFP to MAP, to NATO should also be addressing territorial defense. All I can recall from this process was tons of paper to justify boondoggles and huge peacekeeping exercises.

I've been to Latvia and have thought about the best way to defend it against Russia. I'm not sure of the terrain in Estonia, but Latvia is very flat. There are some forests, but Russia would probably try to head right down the highway to Riga. The Latvians should have hundreds of local National Guards men or militia's armed with Javelins, Stingers, sniper rifles, and mortars ready to defend these main roads to Riga. They should also have a "Riga" brigade that's only task is to defend Riga. It could concentrate all its efforts on this task. Latvia also needs to consider possible drop-zones outside of Riga suitable for Russian airborne invasion. The Baltic States should also always come to the aid of other Baltic States. But all three of the Balt's should fight the same way: small 6 man teams out in the country-side, along with special trained units that prepare the defenses and fight in the major cities.

Stan
08-13-2008, 10:19 AM
I've been to Latvia and have thought about the best way to defend it against Russia. I'm not sure of the terrain in Estonia, but Latvia is very flat. There are some forests, but Russia would probably try to head right down the highway to Riga. The Latvians should have hundreds of local National Guards men or militia's armed with Javelins, Stingers, sniper rifles, and mortars ready to defend these main roads to Riga. They should also have a "Riga" brigade that's only task is to defend Riga. It could concentrate all its efforts on this task. Latvia also needs to consider possible drop-zones outside of Riga suitable for Russian airborne invasion. The Baltic States should also always come to the aid of other Baltic States. But all three of the Balt's should fight the same way: small 6 man teams out in the country-side, along with special trained units that prepare the defenses and fight in the major cities.

Estonia is also blessed with large forests and generally flat terrain. We do however have Lake Peipsi (more than 3,500 square kilometers) covering nearly our entire eastern flank. With but one bridge to cross over (in order to access a main road, a Russian armor spearhead to the capital is extremely unlikely, or, at best take a long, long time.

With NATO fighters performing air space control and surveillance, a surprise attack is also unlikely to take place.

The Baltic States thus far are politically speaking very supportive of each other, and we have fortunately no had the opportunity to test the waters defending against a Kremlin invasion. The Paldiski peninsula has been offered up as a potential NATO base, and that has not gone over well with Russia. Massive air fields, two deep harbors and a former Russian nuke sub base :cool:

kaur
08-13-2008, 10:45 AM
Stan, foreign bases are politically sensitive question. Why are bases needed? Just to keep forces in the theatre and this is question of force projection. If you think abut human shield, then you are right of course. At present day the best force projection method is air force. Sometimes the best way is Tomohawk missile. It depends a lot of nature of enemy and georgaphy. I'm waiting the day when US can cover it's allies via this technology.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003671.html

You just need to make decision and push the button. No diplomatic discussions about bases (Turkey, Russia, Pakistan etc). You just enforce your will. 1st you just have to wait that enemy will settle in permanent location. Like Russians in Georgia today, this moment.

Stan
08-13-2008, 02:20 PM
Stan, foreign bases are politically sensitive question. Why are bases needed? Just to keep forces in the theatre and this is question of force projection. If you think abut human shield, then you are right of course. At present day the best force projection method is air force. Sometimes the best way is Tomohawk missile. It depends a lot of nature of enemy and georgaphy. I'm waiting the day when US can cover it's allies via this technology.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003671.html

You just need to make decision and push the button. No diplomatic discussions about bases (Turkey, Russia, Pakistan etc). You just enforce your will. 1st you just have to wait that enemy will settle in permanent location. Like Russians in Georgia today, this moment.

Tsau Kaur !
I agree, more politics that I need in my life. But then, Toomas H.I. offered up Paldiski to NATO, not me ;)

I prefer heavy armor and some good old snipers, but must admit that a few tomahawk batteries would be cool with the obvious prime mover in the harbor, the USS Wisconsin :).

kaur
08-13-2008, 02:29 PM
Stan said

I
prefer heavy armor and some good old snipers, but must admit that a few tomahawk batteries would be cool with the obvious prime mover in the harbor, the USS Wisconsin .

This is maybe overkill, but 1 Aegis would be good compromise :)

Sometimes Stratfor says painful things. Like this time.


The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
Wednesday, 13 August 2008, 5:51 pm
Column: STRATFOR.COM

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

By Stratfor's founder and CEO, Dr. George Friedman


The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It 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, as we have argued, has opened a window of 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 invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00170.htm

I don't know what has happened to Russian media. 1 article describes Georgian village cleansing by paramilitaries. Crack in the wall? Use the Google translator. Paste this sentence to the window.

Югоосетинский спецназ и ополченцы зачистили грузинское село

kaur
08-13-2008, 02:50 PM
Russian media during war time and future.

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/08/window-on-eurasia-russian-tvs-distorted.html

Wildcat
08-13-2008, 04:00 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7559252.stm


President George W Bush has said the US will use military aircraft and naval forces to deliver aid to Georgia following its conflict with Russia.

He also urged Russia to respect a ceasefire agreement with Georgia.

President Bush said the US was concerned about reports of continuing Russian military action in Georgia.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to fly to France for talks with Nicolas Sarkozy before travelling to Tbilisi to express US support, he said.

He said he would direct US Defence Secretary Robert Gates to begin a "vigorous and ongoing" humanitarian mission to Georgia, headed by the US military.

"We expect Russia to honour its commitment to allow in all forms of humanitarian assistance," Mr Bush added.

Mr Bush's address in Washington came amid reports that violence has flared in Georgia, where Russian tanks have been seen patrolling the town of Gori, near the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

The US president said Russia's ongoing actions had "raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region".

Ken White
08-13-2008, 04:32 PM
Many forget our support of Georgia goes back to pre-Bush (43) days. LINK (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200107/ai_n8956762)

Long article but good and as I recall, accurate background. Quote:
The Freedom Support Act adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1992, while recognizing developments in the former Soviet Union as a "historical opportunity for a transition to a peaceful and stable international order," indicated that the success of the transition was in the interest of the entire international community and emphasized the role of the United States in contributing to the transition.

AmericanPride
08-13-2008, 06:07 PM
US citizen in Georgia speaks of Georgian war-crimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6AWvqHqPQ8

He's not exactly pulling the party line. Then again, he is on Russia Today, so maybe that's his party -- though I will note that I haven't read much about accusations of Russian war-crimes, only Georgian and overwhelmingly from Russian sources. Is this an ethnic conflict? Great power conflict? Economic conflict? Or is it a trifecta of casus belli? I'm inclined to think that Georgia is more or less lost, and that the best the US can do (and on behalf of NATO) is to salvage what credibility we can in anticipation of Russia's focus on settling its score with Ukraine.

jmm99
08-14-2008, 12:42 AM
HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
13.8.2008
....
Politicians: Finnish policy unaffected by Caucasus crisis
Russian-EU relations could suffer
Finnish politicians interviewed by Helsingin Sanomat do not believe that the crisis between Russia and Georgia gives any reason for Finland to re-examine its security policy line.
.....
Social Democratic MP Eero Heinäluoma feels that the crisis has reinforced the justification for, and sustainability of Finland’s security policy line. Heinäluoma also emphasises the importance of military defence capability and international cooperation.

“Georgia got plenty of verbal sympathy and encouragement, but the willingness of outside countries to do something appears to be limited. It is good to make note of this in Finland as well. We ultimately have to have the ability to take care of our own affairs.”

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Politicians+Finnish+policy+unaffected+by+Caucasus+ crisis/1135238580861


HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
13.8.2008
....
COMMENT: Finland’s OSCE role requires circumspection
By Miska Rantanen
.....
On the official level Finland has taken a very cautious line on the matter.
.....
On an unofficial level, the thinking is different.

Many military experts see Russia’s new kind of use of military strength as a clear change in the security environment. The country is rapidly taking back the credibility that belongs to a great power, which also affects Finland’s position.

Furthermore, the government’s next report on security policy, which currently is under preparation, is considered to be excessively optimistic. It does not take into consideration the fact that our neighbour is a great power at war, whose threshold to resort to taking up arms is low.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/COMMENT+Finland%E2%80%99s+OSCE+role+requires+circu mspection/1135238580910

selil
08-14-2008, 04:44 PM
A Ukraine blogger (on Twitter) says they are ramping up for war and posting the following article.

NATO Now! (http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/editorial/29402/)


Russia’s successful blitz through South Ossetia, Abkhazia and other parts of Georgia was a rude wake-up call. Other than Tbilisi, the capital most in shock is Kyiv. Just over a week ago, the thought of Russia invading Ukraine to solve territorial or political disputes -- such as the simmering one in Sevastopol over the Russian Black Sea Fleet -- was ludicrous. After the events in Georgia, it is not so laughable.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs must be disconcerted by the ineffectual European, American and world response to the crisis. While Russians bombed and paratroopers rolled into Georgia, the West bombarded the Kremlin with diplomatic dispatches.

Ukraine finds itself in a precarious geopolitical situation. Russia truly represents a threat to an independent Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine - like Georgia - is facing this threat on its own. The nation’s leaders must finally realize their isolation and vulnerability.

After wasting 17 years on political squabbles fueled by the redistribution of Soviet-era wealth, the nation is not secure. Ukraine, stuck between Hitler and Stalin in World War II, doesn’t have a favorable geographic position or friendly neighbors. Instead, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is reported to have openly sneered at the idea of Ukraine being a sovereign nation.

Russia’s adventurism in Georgia was meant to send the bluntest of signals to its neighbors: “Don’t get too cozy with the West, because we rule this region.” The fossilized communists and other Kremlin toadies all too willingly obey. But such a subservient response will only take Ukraine backwards.

More at the LINK (http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/editorial/29402/)



I am thinking that the rhetoric is ramping up, but I'm not sure that combat is ramping up. The death toll is going to be pretty high, the stability of the region is going to be difficult, and I'm concerned that the relief columns are going to be to juicy for the Russians to leave alone. I'm betting we've seen the opening to a larger regional conflagration. Then again I'm one of the crazy crack pots that said gasoline in America would eclipse $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008. Ooops that did happen.

AmericanPride
08-14-2008, 05:25 PM
Any opinions about the future credibility of NATO? Has Russia's action in Georgia revealed a deep fault between the security interests of the United States, W. Europe, and E. Europe vis-a-vis Russia?

jmm99
08-14-2008, 05:30 PM
Sergei Ivanov, who, in his CNN interview of a couple of days past, knew the correct lines well. One might guess he wrote them. Was he "in town", while V was in Beijing and D was off on a Volga cruise ?

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

Ron Humphrey
08-14-2008, 05:40 PM
Any opinions about the future credibility of NATO? Has Russia's action in Georgia revealed a deep fault between the security interests of the United States, W. Europe, and E. Europe vis-a-vis Russia?

would be dependant on whether the many countries for whom this action carried a message decide to cower as requested or if on the other hand we see a whole lot of militaries start doing exercises along their borders, more invites for air defense, and/or possible new additions to the alliance.

For Georgia to be let in now would send a huge message of solidarity to certain parties on the other hand if everything goes away quietly then it will be pretty much the same thing as giving in to the bullying.

Will be interesting to see what Chinas overall output about it ends up being.
One would hope they would remember that the capital they have brought in through interactions with the west is one of the larger factors in maintaining their ability to provide services and thus keeping their party intact.

Stan
08-14-2008, 06:17 PM
An excellent article from the Chatham House by James Nixey (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/media/comment/russia_georgia/), Manager, Russia and Eurasia Programme


So, ceasefire or continued fighting (reports are contradictory), with the Georgians humiliated and forcibly removed from South Ossetia and Abkhazia and themselves installed, Russia wins hands down. Except, perhaps, for one thing. Russia may have won the battle yet end up losing the war.

...Russia often acts against its own interests and a 'rational actor' model cannot be applied when guessing its next step, nor its interpretation of anyone else's.

The West must bear some blame for this too. The fudge at the Bucharest NATO summit in April - to give Georgia (and Ukraine) the guarantee of eventual membership, but not to grant it the Membership Action Plan (MAP) looked clever at the time, trying to please everyone, but it now appears to have backfired. Georgia has not been given clear enough signals as to what it must do to join and no less important, what it must not do. Had it received them, this may have prevented Mr Saakashvili from taking the reckless action he did on 8 August.

Now the hard and admirable work that Georgia has put into meeting the criteria for NATO entry seems to be in vain. Russia will not (because it cannot) be directly punished for these events, at least in the short term. Not so Georgia: its NATO ambitions now look more distant than ever, in spite of good progress on corruption and defence reform.

But more distant prospects may also be firmer prospects, especially if the map of Georgia has changed. If a more stable Georgia one day emerges from this crisis, it will be more attractive to NATO.

Ken White
08-14-2008, 06:31 PM
will become Russian, Georgia will be smaller and that NATO is unlikely to ever include Georgia as a member (barring a major implosion of Russia, not likely at this time). I suspect the old line Social Democracies that constitute western and central Europe will outvote the US and the eastern European NATO members on that issue.

In this, I think the European consensus has it right, militarily, strategically and operationally. Supporting Georgia is well and good, idealistic and to be admired -- it also is fraught with reality problems. Maybe even common sense problems.

Going to be interesting to see what Afghanistan does to NATO in survival terms over the long haul. Georgia and the current flap won't help...

kaur
08-14-2008, 06:35 PM
Stan, i like this opinion more.


That left me with little choice but to become philosophical regarding my question of who was the first to attack Tskhinvali? It occurred to me that we buried one of Josef Stalin's greatest opponents, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, last week, but the tensions that Stalin stirred up were continuing to exert their influence. It was Stalin who laid down the illogical borders between the Soviet republics. He did so based on the belief that they were so unnatural that nobody would ever dream of trying to tamper with them, understanding what terrible consequences would result.

History has shown that Stalin was overly optimistic. Having lost their fear of Mikhail Gorbachev's democratic Kremlin, nationalist democrats in Soviet republics like Russia, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia began behaving as if the borders that Stalin drew between peoples were actually "historical borders" between states, leading to much bloodshed.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1016/42/369737.htm

Ron Humphrey
08-14-2008, 06:46 PM
will become Russian, Georgia will be smaller and that NATO is unlikely to ever include Georgia as a member (barring a major implosion of Russia, not likely at this time). I suspect the old line Social Democracies that constitute western and central Europe will outvote the US and the eastern European NATO members on that issue.

In this, I think the European consensus has it right, militarily, strategically and operationally. Supporting Georgia is well and good, idealistic and to be admired -- it also is fraught with reality problems. Maybe even common sense problems.

Going to be interesting to see what Afghanistan does to NATO in survival terms over the long haul. Georgia and the current flap won't help...

The question that comes to mind is if one looks at the situation the one country that provided more troops than anyone besides UK to help us and yet?

NATO didn't let em in?

NATO is in what seems to be widely percieved as a do or die in Afghanistan in so far as proving it's worth?

The danger of allowing this current incident to stand without some major changes in a variety of areas would seem to far outway what would be somewhat more predictably the follow-on with things as they stand right now?

And thats not even getting into what message this may have sent Iran regarding support against international pressures.

Norwiscutter
08-14-2008, 07:39 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/08/14/vo.gerogia.journalist.shot.gerogiastatetv

kaur
08-14-2008, 07:42 PM
THE RUSSIAN-GEORGIAN WAR WAS PREPLANNED IN MOSCOW

By Pavel Felgenhauer

Thursday, August 14, 2008

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373314

This British publication forecasted events already month ago.


In view of the uneasy, apprehensive and stressful relationship which the smaller state has with its much larger and more powerful neighbour to the north, it is not surprising that suspicion, speculation and conjecture remain high in Georgia about Russia’s future intentions with regard to the unrecognised Abkhaz republic and to Georgian aspirations to join NATO. There can be little doubt that the bullying of Georgia will continue. Harassment and manipulation with a view to provoking a hasty, hot-tempered overreaction would of course be a well-tried stratagem.

http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/caucasus/08%2822%29CWB.pdf

Fuchs
08-14-2008, 07:45 PM
The question that comes to mind is if one looks at the situation the one country that provided more troops than anyone besides UK to help us and yet?

NATO didn't let em in?

NATO is in what seems to be widely percieved as a do or die in Afghanistan in so far as proving it's worth?

OK, that's an understandable U.S.American point of view, but imho quite superficial.

NATO is first and foremost a collective security organization/treaty/alliance.
It serves its members' interests in national security affairs.
It is not a payment method of U.S. foreign policy.
It is not the United Nations, has no real reason to care for distant countries' national security.
Maybe you can provide me any hint how a membership of Georgia could improve the national security of European NATO members.
It would be a buffer zone for Turkey, but at the same time a buffer that Turkey doesn't need as long as Georgia isn't a member.
Its military strength is negligible.

About the Iraq thing; that's not NATO business, but US/UK business. There's no reason for countries like Germany or Italy to thank Georgians for playing auxiliary troops for GWB in Iraq.
The USA is free to agree on a bilateral alliance with Georgia if it desires to do so. That's something that the Europeans couldn't veto against (afaik).

Afghanistan is highly exaggerated in regards to NATO politics. Americans might believe that it's a litmus test for NATO, but Europeans do (usually) consider NATO as a collective national security alliance, not as a club for joint overseas expeditions.
The connection between 9/11 and fighting Taleban in 2008 in an Afghan civil war is extremely weak. The initial declaration that NATO collective defense was being activated due to 9/11 was already questionable an considered as a symbolic gesture by many Europeans.

NATO is the stabilizing (multi)national security institution in Europe (WEU/EU being the backups) and highly successful as such (even keeping peace between greece and Turkey). It is easily justified.

The USA can leave it if it desires, of course.
(But that would end the US's status as superpower because it depends more on its allies than Americans imagine - remember UN security council veto rights of UK/France & the lack of U.S. bases in Europe, Africa, South America and Western/Northern Indian Ocean without European support?)

Jedburgh
08-14-2008, 07:48 PM
Yet more competing analysis; contrast this one with the EDM article (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373314) Kaur posted above....

Window on Eurasia, 13 Aug 08: Was There a Russian Intelligence Failure in Georgia? (http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/08/window-on-eurasia-was-there-russian.html)

Russia’s intelligence services failed to detect and warn Moscow’s top leaders about Georgian plans to send forces into South Ossetia, a shortcoming that cannot be covered up by Vladimir Putin’s decision to hand out awards to more than 50 FSB, SVR, and GRU officers, according to a Russian analyst who tracks that country’s security community.
Indeed, Vladimir Yermolin writes in an article posted on the Grani.ru portal (http://grani.ru/Politics/Russia/p.139995.html) today, these awards are the height of hypocrisy because they have being given “for the timely and precise supply by the intelligence services of various levels of the General Staff of the Armed Forces and consequently of the country’s leadership”.

The course of events suggests that no such information was provided, at least in a timely fashion......

Stan
08-14-2008, 07:57 PM
Stan, i like this opinion more.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1016/42/369737.htm

Kaur, a great find indeed. I rather enjoyed Alexei Pankin's overall opinion at the end best.


I am not a Russian patriot, although I try to force myself to love the country of which I am a citizen. I was, and still am, a citizen of the Soviet Union...

... But I strongly dislike all those little Napoleons -- whether they are named Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, former Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia or Saakashvili -- who instead of freeing their citizens from the Stalinist Soviet Union have created mini-empires within illogically imposed borders and played out their delusions of grandeur using the blood of their own people.

With that statement, let's make a bet on Alexei's "terminal" age for say... hmmm, the next time you visit Estonia :eek:

I'll go out on the limb just this one time and say he won't make Christmas. I have a crisp 100 note with my favorite Aunt Lydia ;)

Ken White
08-14-2008, 07:58 PM
The question that comes to mind is if one looks at the situation the one country that provided more troops than anyone besides UK to help us and yet?No question that they did that and that it was of some help to us.
NATO didn't let em in?Why should they; the big shakers and movers in NATO, other than the UK, didn't agree at all with our attack on Iraq. They in fact suffered some losses in several areas because of that attack, not least that we bulldozed them into forgiving a lot of Iraqi debt -- so how much of NATO, en masse, saying 'no' was on the purely logical grounds that admitting Georgia would not be strategically smart and how much was NATO (-) payback to the US for earlier ignoring them? Georgia helped the US in Iraq, not NATO.
NATO is in what seems to be widely percieved as a do or die in Afghanistan in so far as proving it's worth?I guess some see it that way. I don't, I think NATO is too important to the members for various reasons to go away. However, I do think the disconnect over roles and missions in the 'Stan will have a lasting impact on the alliance. As will Iraq. Like they say about adultery in marriage; "Things may be better or they may be worse but they'll never be the same."
The danger of allowing this current incident to stand without some major changes in a variety of areas would seem to far outway what would be somewhat more predictably the follow-on with things as they stand right now?Perhaps. My personal belief is that our policies toward Russia post 1991 have been extremely short sighted and while freedom is great, one needs to be a little careful about what one wishes for or they may get it...

I'd also suggest our options are rather limited. Russia, after all, is operating on interior lines -- and not just in the military sense.
And thats not even getting into what message this may have sent Iran regarding support against international pressures.Irrelevant IMO. Iran is aware and has been for almost 30 years of the fine print involved in resisting international pressure; they're masters at it -- almost as good as the North Koreans. The Iraniha know that Russia and China will continue to support them and they know the west (including the US) is highly unlikely to resort to overt violence unless they make a bad mistake. The Mullahs are not stupid, they'll work hard at verbiage and mild provocation but will pull back before going to far. I don't think this changes anything with respect to Iran, to include dealings with the Iraqis (who were and are totally unlikely to allow Iranian hegemony).

Fuchs
08-14-2008, 08:03 PM
Damn!
The Russians are playing well!

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm
The initial reports about Georgians massacring South Ossetian civilians (a much-repeated story, especially by Russians/exile Russians) was apparently vastly exaggerated.

It looks to me like a very well thought-out plan, executed with formidable patience by Putin and/or his foreign politics experts.
It seems as if they did everything reight in this conflict (according to their interests), except that they apparently forgot to use Georgia as testing ground for new military equipment.
- establishment of separatist movements/territories as early as 1992
- Georgia kept out of NATO by these luring territorial conflicts
- Georgia tempted by provcations to accept the role of aggressor
- Georgian massacre story being used to deter full Western support to Georgian government during the fighting
- use of nearby rapid reaction division to drive the Georgians back to indefensible terrain south of 'T' city quickly
- acceptance of international efforts for cease-fire once the mission was accomplished

The only thing missing were really battlefield-testing of new equipment and demission of Georgian government (might happen soon).

Honestly; I believe that our politicians (impatient Sarkozy, opportunist Berlusconi, weakened Brown, uninterested Merkel, neutralized Bush) are no match at this level of well-planned Great Power contests.
Thy wasted their energies at completely different, unnecessary affairs and neglected real national security and foregn policy.

AmericanPride
08-14-2008, 08:08 PM
Fuchs,

Do you think simultaneous membership in the EU and NATO for France and Germany contribute to the creation of internally conflictive interests for them? Do the priorities of the EU and NATO conflict?


Maybe you can provide me any hint how a membership of Georgia could improve the national security of European NATO members.

If NATO is "first and foremost a collective security organization/treaty/alliance", then how Georgian membership improves the national security of European members is not as relevant as to how said membership would improve the national security of the most powerful state(s) which make up NATO (i.e. the United States first, then the UK or France, followed by Germany). The national security of the other states is only as important as maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of the organization for the most powerful members. So this will obviously influence how threats are identified and perceived, and which ones will be given the most weight. The PKK is not a significant NATO threat, nor is Libya or the Basques, or other categories of threats that challenge lesser members. Russia is a primary threat -- and not because it threatens every single NATO member (what threat is Russia to, say, Portugal or Iceland?), but because it's a threat defined by the US and UK. With that said, the US and UK, being the prominent NATO members, have the right to push forward Georgian membership for their own interests, and the right to chastize France and Germany for opposing it. If France and Germany are not particularly fond of that development, then like France did during the Cold War, they have the right to withdraw from the organization.

Stan
08-14-2008, 08:16 PM
Yet more competing analysis; contrast this one with the EDM article (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373314) Kaur posted above....

Window on Eurasia, 13 Aug 08: Was There a Russian Intelligence Failure in Georgia? (http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/08/window-on-eurasia-was-there-russian.html)

Ted, an intriguing spin. After that read I still wonder about the convenient absence of both Medvedev and Putin. Recent history with conflicts puts both the Russian President and PM firmly at the helm. Estonian news had a fantastic clip of Putin explaining to a very red-faced Medvedev, "I was there in the middle of all of it!" with Medvedev just shaking his head to the affirmative.


What might have happened in the Russian intelligence services had worked more effectively? Moscow could have raised an alarm diplomatically and reinforced its position on the ground in Ossetia militarily. Tbilisi would certainly have denied that it planned to do anything and complained yet again about what Moscow was doing.

There is of course one possible justification for Putin to hand out these awards to his colleagues in the intelligence business: Some of them may have been involved in “convincing the Georgian leader and his generals that Moscow would not risk introducing forces on the territory of Georgia.” For such an effort, Yermolin says, it is of course “possible to give awards.”

The latter seems to be the correct version.

Ken White
08-14-2008, 08:28 PM
...The Russians are playing well!Innate paranoia, concern for the 'near abroad' and an extremely strong central directive ability that need not consider domestic politics contribute immeasurably to that.
...I believe that our politicians (impatient Sarkozy, opportunist Berlusconi, weakened Brown, uninterested Merkel, neutralized Bush) are no match at this level of well-planned Great Power contests.
Thy wasted their energies at completely different, unnecessary affairs and neglected real national security and foregn policy.Possibly. It is also possible that, unlike Vladimir and due to the turnover factor in democracies, they lack the continuity of hanging around for years and years and getting smarter and more powerful. Even worse, they have voters and legislatures to whom they must answer every day. Vlad has some significant advantages...

Not least his will. And being unencumbered with a western sense of what's right. And interior lines. And the FSB... :wry:

Fuchs
08-14-2008, 08:37 PM
I do still not see how a Russian threat to UK or US might be reduced by Georgian membership in NATO. And I don't believe that you described it.


If France and Germany are not particularly fond of that development, then like France did during the Cold War, they have the right to withdraw from the organization.

It's actually different.
1st: France did not withdraw (completely), but it did not accept its troops to be under NATO command.
2nd: There's actually no reason why members that can veto proposals should leave. They have the right to do so, but why should they do so?
It would make slightly more sense to expect that the member that fails with its ideas would leave.


the US and UK, being the prominent NATO members, have the right to push forward Georgian membership for their own interests, and the right to chastize France and Germany for opposing it.

The have the right, but no point in doing so. They're obviously simply failing on both accounts. The treaty apparently does not give them the right to accept new members on their own, so who cares about what new members they want as long as they fail to get the agreement of the allies? It's just hot air.
The legal situation is obviously such that countries like Germany have a right to say "no". That's completely natural, as a new member state wold mean a new assistance obligation for Germany. There's no way how a state could invent obligations for another, sovereign state.


What you write is correct, but misleading.
The outcome of the last NATO conference clearly shows that US/UK do NOT have the right to accept new NATO members on their own, and to insist otherwise is close to hubris imho.



Do the priorities of the EU and NATO conflict?

It's pretty much the same story as it was in Korea
(or Turkey/Iran - ever wondered why the Turks have so little problems with the Iranians despite being neighbours?).
The USA as a distant country that never really suffered much in war and has only dispensable interests at stake behaves much more aggressive in foreign policy than the regional powers who prefer co-operation over aggressive, pressureful foreign policy.
That's not so much a EU/NATO issue than it is a recurring USA/foreign regional allies issue.

Ron Humphrey
08-14-2008, 08:39 PM
Of course that could be because I'm an American:D


OK, that's an understandable U.S.American point of view, but imho quite superficial.

NATO is first and foremost a collective security organization/treaty/alliance.
It serves its members' interests in national security affairs.
It is not a payment method of U.S. foreign policy.
It is not the United Nations, has no real reason to care for distant countries' national security.




NATO has an open door policy on enlargement. Any European country in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance, when invited to do so by the existing member countries. For more information on NATO enlargement: http://www.nato.int/issues/enlargement/ Directly from the NATO website



Maybe you can provide me any hint how a membership of Georgia could improve the national security of European NATO members.


The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, formerly the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, allows Allies and Partners to consult jointly on questions of common interest, increasing mutual confidence and reducing the risk of conflict. For more information on the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council: http://www.nato.int/issues/eapc/ Also from NATO site Nato Partnerships

If Georgia had been a part of NATO already would it have reduced the risk of Russia barging in to whip the snot out of them?



It would be a buffer zone for Turkey, but at the same time a buffer that Turkey doesn't need as long as Georgia isn't a member.
Its military strength is negligible.

And I'm sure thats fine unless Russia just happened to decide it didn't want to stop with just the two little areas.



About the Iraq thing; that's not NATO business, but US/UK business. There's no reason for countries like Germany or Italy to thank Georgians for playing auxiliary troops for GWB in Iraq.
The USA is free to agree on a bilateral alliance with Georgia if it desires to do so. That's something that the Europeans couldn't veto against (afaik).

Not sure I hinted there was, that question was directed towards us.
Although I'm quite sure the endgame in regional trade might tend to benefit at least one or two of the NATO countries;)



Afghanistan is highly exaggerated in regards to NATO politics. Americans might believe that it's a litmus test for NATO, but Europeans do (usually) consider NATO as a collective national security alliance, not as a club for joint overseas expeditions.
The connection between 9/11 and fighting Taleban in 2008 in an Afghan civil war is extremely weak. The initial declaration that NATO collective defense was being activated due to 9/11 was already questionable an considered as a symbolic gesture by many Europeans.

Only question I have here is how exactly does a security alliance that only feels its necessary to exist but not actually physically secure something work. Maybe I mis-understood your premise:wry:
I might also guess that perhaps not all members of NATO view it that way.



NATO is the stabilizing (multi)national security institution in Europe (WEU/EU being the backups) and highly successful as such (even keeping peace between greece and Turkey). It is easily justified.

And yet the idea right now is for its backup(EU) as you put it to work out the Russia/Georgia thing.



The USA can leave it if it desires, of course.
(But that would end the US's status as superpower because it depends more on its allies than Americans imagine - remember UN security council veto rights of UK/France & the lack of U.S. bases in Europe, Africa, South America and Western/Northern Indian Ocean without European support?)

Not exactly sure how totally likely that all is but definately food for thought.

Fuchs
08-14-2008, 09:07 PM
Your NATO quotes don't seem to be conflicting or be related to me.


Only question I have here is how exactly does a security alliance that only feels its necessary to exist but not actually physically secure something work. Maybe I mis-understood your premise

It secures its members from being attacked since decades. The only imaginable failures were
- 9/11; not covered by initial intentions at all, no real failure
- Falklands: no European UK territory, therefore not covered by NATO treaty; no failure
- Colonial insurgencies liek Algeria: not European territory, therefore nto covered by NATO treaty; no failure
- U.S. embassy in Iran; again, terrain not covered by NATO treaty

A defensive alliance works fine as long as there are no news about it.
NATO does not have the job to secure non-members. That's the UN's job.


And yet the idea right now is for its backup(EU) as you put it to work out the Russia/Georgia thing.
The EU is slightly less threatening, not the least because it lacks the USA as member.

Actually, I don't hink that the EU really influences the Georgia problem. The ceasefire happened when both Georgia and Russia wanted it to happen, and no-one influenced when that happened. It was completely Russia's choice.
And I don't think that the EU will do very much about it in the future.
The EU countries don't have much at stake in this conflict. Georgia could become Russian, and that still wouldn't hurt the EU much. It could become EU member and that wouldn't help the classic EU members much.
It's prety unimportant. There are two oil/gas pipelines and we might need to actually move our asses and build some LNG port facilities to replace Caucasian natural gas, but that might even be benefitial in the long run.

Any involvement in such distant conflicts is really a kind of luxury for NATO members, whereas it's a matter of national price, self-esteem and power for the Russians.
Luxury foreign policy entertainment vs. vital interest foreign policy; the outcome is almost predictable.

Maybe this helps;
Russia has been a distant player in European history. It's been quite irrelevant till about early 18th century, and influential only since the Napoleonic wars. It's been a kind of semi-Europpean people, not really connected to Central or Western Europe because of few waterways till the railroads finally shrunk Europe and created better connections.
The Soviet Union had been detached from European affairs till WW2, and was opposing power in Cold War. Russia is barely 'European'.
The Caucasus is even behind Russia, so distant that it rarely if ever had any impact on Central/Western/Southern Europe.
This kind of cultural/historical/psychological distance is probably greater for Europeans than for U.S.Americans (some of which emigrated from the Caucasus).
Maybe this explains why I consider Georgia as pretty non-vital in EU foreign policy (once the excitement about the current war has settled down).
Georgia isn't much more Europe-connected than Iran or Turkey.

Ron Humphrey
08-14-2008, 10:48 PM
Your NATO quotes don't seem to be conflicting or be related to me.

Sorry, I kind of left it to an assumption that it would trace back to why and How NATO got started and where and how it has progressed

http://www.nato.int/issues/enlargement/index.html

which led me to google where I find-

http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/aboutdefence/organisation/keyfactsaboutdefence/northatlantictreatyorganisationnato.htm

First line just the initial understanding I had of NATO

NATO was created as a counterpoint to the expansionist policies and methods of the USSR.

Consider the Georgians own requests for membership and why they were or were not valid:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:pusicjdnm6AJ:www.gipa.ge/public_relations/data/l_tsutskiridze_01.pdf+principles+North+Atlantic+Al liance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us



It secures its members from being attacked since decades. The only imaginable failures were
- 9/11; not covered by initial intentions at all, no real failure
- Falklands: no European UK territory, therefore not covered by NATO treaty; no failure
- Colonial insurgencies liek Algeria: not European territory, therefore nto covered by NATO treaty; no failure
- U.S. embassy in Iran; again, terrain not covered by NATO treaty

A defensive alliance works fine as long as there are no news about it.
NATO does not have the job to secure non-members. That's the UN's job.


Sorry., my bad I was under the apparently mistaken impression that NATO has actually been moving towards doing more of the latter, due partially to the fact that the UN has had so much on its plate lately.



The EU is slightly less threatening, not the least because it lacks the USA as member.

Actually, I don't hink that the EU really influences the Georgia problem. The ceasefire happened when both Georgia and Russia wanted it to happen, and no-one influenced when that happened. It was completely Russia's choice.
And I don't think that the EU will do very much about it in the future.
The EU countries don't have much at stake in this conflict. Georgia could become Russian, and that still wouldn't hurt the EU much. It could become EU member and that wouldn't help the classic EU members much.
It's prety unimportant. There are two oil/gas pipelines and we might need to actually move our asses and build some LNG port facilities to replace Caucasian natural gas, but that might even be benefitial in the long run.


I'm confused you make it sound like Having the EU negotiate it is about the same as having Russia self mediate. If that really were the case(which I'm not quite sure it is) wouldn't it be even more important that the UN or NATO or all of the above be working it?



Any involvement in such distant conflicts is really a kind of luxury for NATO members, whereas it's a matter of national price, self-esteem and power for the Russians.
Luxury foreign policy entertainment vs. vital interest foreign policy; the outcome is almost predictable.

It's easy to see how much it means to Russia but the first part about Luxury is somewhat baffling to me considering that what happens there does impact many of the Countries around




Maybe this helps;
Russia has been a distant player in European history. It's been quite irrelevant till about early 18th century, and influential only since the Napoleonic wars. It's been a kind of semi-Europpean people, not really connected to Central or Western Europe because of few waterways till the railroads finally shrunk Europe and created better connections.
The Soviet Union had been detached from European affairs till WW2, and was opposing power in Cold War. Russia is barely 'European'.
The Caucasus is even behind Russia, so distant that it rarely if ever had any impact on Central/Western/Southern Europe.
This kind of cultural/historical/psychological distance is probably greater for Europeans than for U.S.Americans (some of which emigrated from the Caucasus).
Maybe this explains why I consider Georgia as pretty non-vital in EU foreign policy (once the excitement about the current war has settled down).
Georgia isn't much more Europe-connected than Iran or Turkey.

Thank you for the education I am hate to go through a day without learning something I didn't know the day before.:D

davidbfpo
08-14-2008, 10:49 PM
The Georgia crisis / war has highlighted the dangers posed to NATO member's security by expansion. Expanding NATO is commendable, largely for it's political impact, very different from national security, even national interest; take for example the impact on Spain's development post-Franco.

I question extending NATO membership further. Some of the recent members could safely remain outside.

NATO as a collective defensive alliance is spread thin already and watching the fringes can be an absorbing factor, e.g. Greece -v- Turkey over Cyprus.

Elsewhere I have read comments that Germany has more national interest(s) at stake in Georgia than most. Yes, smell that oil and gas.

If anyone in NATO wants to accept the liability of proving security to a country like Georgia, have a bilateral alliance and leave the others out.

davidbfpo

selil
08-14-2008, 11:04 PM
In some ways it seems as if NATO has run it's course and the EU has subsumed the original intent. Perhaps NATO as an idea makes sense, but as an active participant in the Eurasian sphere has not part. I don't really know. But, the evidence is not looking good.

AmericanPride
08-15-2008, 12:03 AM
There's no way how a state could invent obligations for another, sovereign state.

Sovereignty is just a way of saying "don't screw with me while I'm down" because states generally have zero problems screwing with each other. It's also a license to say "I have no obligation to help you". Your statements would be more accurate if sovereignty were an invioable principle but the consistent actions of states demonstrate otherwise. There are many reasons why state's willingly and knowingly violate the sovereignty of others -- from the incredulous to the ridiculous. Now if the United States manages to maneuver its "friends" into a position in which they're obligated to help - great. And if that position happens to tug a little at their moral center, even better. If not, it's no big deal. So as far as France and Germany refusing to tag along with US/UK intentions, they're welcome to disagree to the extent they are capable, but the governance of the NATO alliance is no different than any other political relationship in history. Guarding oneself with principles reveals that one has no power -- it's an inverse relationship taught very cruelly by the Athenians to the Melians. So I very much doubt that France and Germany are at all concerned with issues of sovereignty. Their central position in the continent's power structure is the main issue -- which means unfortunately for NATO evading its security priorities in favor of national economic priorities.


The outcome of the last NATO conference clearly shows that US/UK do NOT have the right to accept new NATO members on their own, and to insist otherwise is close to hubris imho.

I did not suggest as much. States have rights as far as their power extends them.


The USA as a distant country that never really suffered much in war and has only dispensable interests at stake behaves much more aggressive in foreign policy than the regional powers who prefer co-operation over aggressive, pressureful foreign policy.

I doubt the accuracy of your claim about the relationship between proximity and war tolerance as the overwhelming majority of wars take place between neighbors -- and, just a guess and my personal opinion, your idea is probably a W. European explanation originating from its World War and colonial experiences (it's also a nice way to absolve Europe of any of its responsibilities and laying them at the feet of the US, since you know, all of Europe is a collection of "regional powers"; see again my statement about principles and power). States are aggressive when domestic and international pressures compel them, or capabilities enable them, to be; it's not a function of proximity. If it were, Hitler would have been like a pet rock and Saddam a teddy bear. Historically, the up and coming "regional powers" have offered the most difficulty as far as maintaining the peace is concerned. Nobody wants to be dethroned.

Fuchs
08-15-2008, 12:22 AM
Your essay about sovereignty is pretty much unrelated to what I wrote.
One country cannot create alliance obligations of a 2nd country.
That's why an alliance member cannot accept new members into an alliance unless the original treaty offered this possibility (and the 2nd country obviously agreed to the treaty).


And you misunderstood the thing about distance a lot.

The USA can play politics and accept risks overseas because most of the time it risks very little.

Koreans whose relatives would be killed in a Korean conflict are much more eager to co-operate with NK than to exert pressure.

Europeans who had their continent devastated by two World Wars and lived decades with the prospect of annihilation in the 3rd edition are much more eager to create an environment of co-operation than to exert pressure on Russia for very minor issues.

The USA is behaving like a broker at a stock exchange who trades with other people's money - with little regard to and understanding of risk. That happens to crash sometimes.

U.S. foreign secretarties can meddle in Central Asian and Causcasian affairs at will - the money spent is taxpayer's money and foreign countries will be devastated by war if the game is lost. There's not really something important that they could lose - that allows for a very risky policy.

Europeans are closer, have more at stake and tend to behave differently.

----

The simple fact that most countries are between neighbours is explained by the fact that most countries have their very real conflicts with their neighbours and don't go around half the world to play war where they don't belong to. That habit is - thank God - limited to only about four countries.

jmm99
08-15-2008, 01:36 AM
Good work, Sergei & Co.....


[Russian-Georgian Accords from NY Times]
....
4. Georgian military forces must withdraw to their normal bases of encampment.

5. Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines prior to the start of hostilities. While awaiting an international mechanism, Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures (six months).

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/2008/08/20080813_GEORGIA_ACCORD.pdf

Nice to have Russian peacekeepers in charge of "additional security measures"; and Georgians under "house arrest".

Perhaps, the ICJ will come to Georgia's rescue - and gum Ivan to death.


NY Times
Georgia Files Suit Against Russia, Charging Racial Discrimination
By MARLISE SIMONS
Published: August 13, 2008

PARIS — Georgia has filed a lawsuit against Russia at the International Court of Justice in The Hague for its actions in and around the territory of Georgia from 1991 to 2008, the court said in a statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/europe/14hague.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

SWJED
08-15-2008, 01:47 AM
Russia-Georgia: Early Take (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/08/russiageorgia-the-impact-first/)
By Bob Killebrew, SWJ Blog


The impact of the Russian attack on Georgia is still being assessed around the world, in that slow-motion way that global events have on governments. Getting the full picture of what's going on will take a few weeks yet. But this much seems to be clear.

First, there's no illusion about who's running Russia. Vladimir Putin is clearly the effective head of state, flying from the Beijing Olympics to southern Russia to oversee military operations and to dominate Russian TV. The return of strongman rule to Russia, and particularly one who regards the demise of the Soviet Union as a historic catastrophe, is now a fact of international life to which we will all have to adjust to.

Second, Putin and his government are attempting to establish the legitimacy of a Russian sphere of influence that looks very much like a reestablishment of the old Soviet empire. This is the core of an enormously sophisticated information campaign that is having some success -- at least around Washington -- in appealing to the realpolitik crowd who look for excuses for inaction in the case of a Russian invasion of their democratic neighbor. The invasion of Georgia was accompanied by an information campaign based on the idea that Russia has a right to intervene anywhere that the "dignity" of Russian minorities is threatened. Since there are Russian minorities in every former Soviet state of the old empire, this is an attempt to establish a "sphere of influence" precedent that must chill newly independent states still struggling with democracy.

From a military perspective, the first impression is that the Russians laid an effective "strategic ambush" for Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvilli, inciting anti-government attacks in South Ossetia by local militias and then responding to the Georgian offensive with a well-planned and rehearsed offensive of their own. Even when viewed through the imperfect lens of news media scrambling to catch up to events, military experts understand that the joint and combined-arms attacks Russia staged in the opening hours of the war were anything but spontaneous. For historians, a retrospective on Nazi Germany's offensive to "protect" the Sudaten Czechs shows a striking similarity of purpose and method...

Much more at the link.

Ron Humphrey
08-15-2008, 01:52 AM
Russia-Georgia: Early Take (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/08/russiageorgia-the-impact-first/)
By Bob Killebrew, SWJ Blog



Much more at the link.

I just hope the main message there is heeded where it needs to be

Fuchs
08-15-2008, 02:46 AM
It's "Sudeten", not "Sudaten", and the comparison is nonsense anyway.
Even Bosnia would make more sense as comparison.


The article is clearly a U.S.-only article, with no different point of view included.

Two assumptions are questionable:

1) To cofront Russia is a good idea. Actually, it doesn't even question whether Russia should be confronted. It simply assumes that it needs to be done, for whatever reason.

As scholar Fred Kagan said recently, there is a "new axis" of anti-Russian democracies around the edge of the old Soviet empire. Supporting those states and securing their future must be a top priority for the U.S. and NATO
This would require an article-long explanation. Instead, he assumes it as true.
It may sound cynically, but what's the damage to USA/NATO if all of Caucasus and Ukraine even became Russian?

2) The author assumes that the USA is in a position to confront Russia through proxies in Russia's periphery and pretty much ignores Europe.

--------------------------------

The Georgia/SouthOssetia/Russia War (however that will be called by historians) tells us a bit about Russia and its periphery, and about a half-hearted commitment of the USA in the region.

But there's more.
Even though the arrangement of a cease-fire most likely (tempted to write "certainly") only happened at the time set by Russia, it was done by EU council president/French president Sarkozy, not by Olympia spectator Bush.
The U.S. government fell awfully short of the typical American asumption of relevance to foreign conflict several times in the past years; remember Kenya crisis and Zimbabwe crisis?
A Georgian government felt backed by the Western world because it gave GWB some auxiliary troops and got some U.S. advisors and equipment.
That was an awful mistake.

The red line that Russia won't step over is called "NATO", not "friend of USA".

That will have implications in Central Asia (where the USA cannot establish any meaningful military presence without Russian persmission simply due to logistics). Uzbekistan, Kasachstan, Kirgizistan... - that are and will be firm CIS countries, and cannot be very Western-friendly without Russian permission at all.

The U.S.'s ability to influence the Caucasus depends on Turkey. As long as the Turks are occupied by domestic politics and not eager to wage a Caucasian Cold War, there's no real power base for the USA in the Caucasus region. Romania could be discussed as possible substitute, but it's clearly inferior to Turkey as a base.

The Western ability to influence the situation of Ukraine is very open to discussion. Significant (and wealthy) parts of Ukraine have a strong Russian majority. A Western (NATO) Ukraine would be a mortal threat to Russia (check the distance to Moscow - Russians demonstrated the inability to accept foreign powers being close to Moscow repeatedly).
Ukraine's ties to Western Europe are very thin - culturally, economically, politically.

AmericanPride
08-15-2008, 03:02 AM
One country cannot create alliance obligations of a 2nd country.

"The strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must." It's a basic principle of power politics. What the on-going drama in NATO demonstrates is not that "one country cannot create alliance obligations of a 2nd country" -- it's that the United States has lost significant influence to France and Germany in regards to NATO governance, and for a variety of reasons. But let's consider this scenario in creating security obligations of a 2nd country: the US enters a bilateral agreement with Georgia to provide for its defense. Knowing this, and motivated by whatever imperial intent, Russia strikes Georgia and preemptively strikes US assets in the region to cripple an American response. Since the NATO agreement requires members to come to the aid of any other member under external attack in the greater European region, all NATO members are now indirectly obligated to respond to Russia's assault on Georgia via America. So -- yes -- one country can create obligations for another country through political maneuvering. Here's another: China strikes Taiwan, and hoping to cripple possible US intervention, aims its missiles at US naval and air forces in South Korea and Japan. By defending Taiwan, and placing its forces in those two countries, the US has created de facto security obligations for the RoK and Japan to Taiwan's advantage. A real example: French withdrawal from the NATO integrated command and removal of NATO headquarters from Paris. The French understood that a Russian attack on France, for whatever reason, would necessarily involve West Germany. There was no reason for France to commit to the alliance in any meaningful way. Thus, France created de facto alliance obligations for Germany, the UK, the US, and ultimately NATO through political maneuvering. So your assumption that a country cannot be manipulated into new obligations is wrong. Georgia's (and Ukraine's) membership bids failed in NATO because Germany and France, to the detriment of the alliance, can no longer maintain the collective security obligations vis-a-vis managing the Russian threat. It's not because they are weak-willed, or are somehow more prone to peace because of their history, or some other ideological non-sense. It's because they presently have a greater pay-off at home continuing to cooperate with Russia than to jump on board with the general opinion of their NATO counterparts. Intentional or not, Russia has taken advantage of the divisions within NATO enabled by France and Germany's great power ambitions. Germany is more interested in Nord Stream than reigning in Russia's own ambitions.

EDIT: Ask yourself this: if Russia had "intentionally" (it's quoted because intentions and accidents are interchangeable in politics based on need) killed US advisers in Georgia, would the US have the right to activate the NATO treaty in its own defense and consequently obligate NATO to challenging Russia?


Europeans who had their continent devastated by two World Wars and lived decades with the prospect of annihilation in the 3rd edition are much more eager to create an environment of co-operation than to exert pressure on Russia for very minor issues.

I would accept your assertion if it weren't clearly rejected by the actions of East European countries which not only suffered more than W. Europe in the World Wars, but also experienced the plight of Soviet so-called government. The Baltic States, Poland, and Ukraine have taken a very confrontational and firm stance against Russia -- and I would bet that Poland's recent decision to accept the US missile defense was in part pushed by Russia's invasion. They are not eager to cooperate with Russia, having now seen what happens when you try. So there's another reason why France and Germany are reluctant to engage Russia, and it has very little to do with historical experience.

selil
08-15-2008, 03:18 AM
It's "Sudeten", not "Sudaten", and the comparison is nonsense anyway.
Even Bosnia would make more sense as comparison.

Is there any particular reason why you have taken to being so rude to other people? Is there a particular reason why you can't make an intellectual case without resorting to being arrogant and disrespectful. I enjoy your posting and point of view but recently you've been fairly inconsiderate and it reflects poorly on your message and information.

Fuchs
08-15-2008, 03:19 AM
I feel this deserves a separate reply.


My conclusions based on the recent War in Georgia:

1)
Great Power games are back, publicly.
2)
Russia under Putin is willing to re-establish its regional dominance with military means.
Russia re-established itself overtly as Great Power and regionally dominant power. It's willing and capable to compete with Western influences in its periphery.
3)
Turkey is the key geo-strategic nation. It's at the crossroads between the Arab world, Iran, Europe and the Russian influence zone.
It's the premier place for forward deployment of military power in peacetime.
4)
Russia/Putin has played brilliantly. The state of Georgia seems to be politically defeated in the struggle for its separatist regions.
The best (but still realistic) scenario for Georgia is a neutralization. It could become a 2nd Finland - sitting as a neutral power between NATO and CIS.
A mediocre scenario is a Georgia as a firm CIS member in exchange for at least formal sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abchasia.
The worst scenario would be an ongoing struggle.
5)
Ukraine is the real prize, but the ethnic struggles and its geo-strategic position close to Russia's core regions make a NATO membership almost unthinkable.
Again, neutralization with guarantees by NATO AND CIS/Russia (and at the very least some autonomy for the three Russian-dominated Ukrainian regions) seems to be most promising for Ukraine's future.
6)
Moldavia might become the limit for EU expansion due to now overt Russian hostility to Western expansion into its periphery.
7)
NATO membership appears to be a a much more reliable national security asset than mere friendship with the distant USA.
8)
Plenty opportunities to waste resources on a Great Power games in Eastern European conflicts became visible.
9)
Conventional war is back, looking even more conventionally than the ex-Yugoslavian Civil Wars.
10)
The UN is useless in Eastern European conflicts due to the involvement of at least one UN Security Council veto power.
11)
Western European diplomatic attempts to tame Russia were only successful during Russia's weakness phase (and had great success in flanking NATO & EU expansion into Eastern Europe).

--------------

I personally favour a neutralization of Ukraine and Georgia.
The same applies for Byelorussia if it becomes democratic sometime.
Central Asia is irrelevant for us and will be firmly in CIS in the future.
The other Caucasian states are at this time CIS members and will likely part of CIS/Russian zone of influence.

That would avoid a 2nd Cold War / costly Great Power games.
Russia could then attempt to gain influence over these states by cultural, economic and political means instead of by costly & risky military & political confrontation.

Ken White
08-15-2008, 03:26 AM
It's "Sudeten", not "Sudaten", and the comparison is nonsense anyway. Even Bosnia would make more sense as comparison.I suspect that he meant to compare it only on the grounds that it was a pre-planned and the Ossetians were acting as had the Sudeten Germans in that instance.
The article is clearly a U.S.-only article, with no different point of view included.Yes.
...It may sound cynically, but what's the damage to USA/NATO if all of Caucasus and Ukraine even became Russian?Cynical? Or Selfish? I suspect that there would br little or no damage to the US or NATO. How the Caucasus states and the Ukraine -- the non-Russian inhabitants -- feel is possibly a different matter.
...The author assumes that the USA is in a position to confront Russia through proxies in Russia's periphery and pretty much ignores Europe.Er, no; I suspect he's aware that the Baltic States, Poland, Slovenia and Romania are in Europe...
The Georgia/SouthOssetia/Russia War (however that will be called by historians) tells us a bit about Russia and its periphery, and about a half-hearted commitment of the USA in the region.True.
But there's more...The U.S. government fell awfully short of the typical American asumption of relevance to foreign conflict several times in the past years; remember Kenya crisis and Zimbabwe crisis?We don't intervene in Africa believing all the former Colonial powers ought to clean up their own problems. :D
A Georgian government felt backed by the Western world because it gave GWB some auxiliary troops and got some U.S. advisors and equipment. That was an awful mistake.Agreed.
The red line that Russia won't step over is called "NATO", not "friend of USA".I'm not sure I'd bet the farm on that "won't" but I agree that's generally correct.
The Western ability to influence the situation of Ukraine is very open to discussion. Significant (and wealthy) parts of Ukraine have a strong Russian majority. A Western (NATO) Ukraine would be a mortal threat to Russia (check the distance to Moscow - Russians demonstrated the inability to accept foreign powers being close to Moscow repeatedly). Ukraine's ties to Western Europe are very thin - culturally, economically, politically.True on the former; the latter is also true but that is as much due to Western Europe -- the Austro Hungarian Empire in particular -- and the aftermath of WW I as anything; it certainly isn't due to Ukrainian wishes...

Fuchs
08-15-2008, 03:36 AM
Is there any particular reason why you have taken to being so rude to other users? Is there a particular reason why you can't make an intellectual case without resorting to being arrogant and disrespectful. I enjoy your posting and point of view but recently you've been fairly inconsiderate and it reflects poorly on your message and information.

I consider "nonsense" as a quite neutral word here. It's no description of a person anyway.
It is a very accurate description of the association between Georgia 2008 and Czechoslovakia 1938.

There is no similarity between the Russia-Georgia and the Germany-Czechoslovakia case that justifies such an association:

Neither South Ossetians nor Abchazians are a Russian minority in a foreign country.
Czechoslovakia wasn't part of a common, disintegrated empire with Germany for about 130, in practice 300 years in 1938. Georgia was part of Russian-dominated Soviet Union less than 20 years ago.
There were no significant (para)military actions in Sudetenland prior to its annexation.
Putin is no a Nazi.
Czechoslovakia had no foreign military advisors on its territory in 1938.
South Ossetia was still not annexed by Russia.
Nor did Western powers agree to such a move yet.
There's no danger of a major European war because of the conflict in Georgia.
Germany and Czechoslovakia had no history of 16 years ongoing violent conflicts about minorities by 1938.
Czechoslovakia did not invade Sudetenland with its military, violating an 16 y.o. cease-fire agreement. Its manned border fortifications were all the time in the Sudetenland.
Germany did not achieve the annexation of Sudetenland with a previous military action/victory.
Germany threatened with air attacks in 1938, Russia FLEW air attacks against Georgia in 2008.


OK, I could have written "wrong" or used other weaker descriptions.
The appropriate description is in my opinion "nonsense", though.

Maybe it's just a translation issue. I can't imagine a German being offended by someone calling his statement "Unsinn" (=nonsense).
That would happen if "Schwachsinn" (=moronic) was used.

Ken White
08-15-2008, 03:37 AM
Russia-Georgia: Early Take (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/08/russiageorgia-the-impact-first/)
By Bob Killebrew, SWJ Blog
Cross posted from the blog:

Aggressive proposal. I could quibble around the edges. Georgia's very decentralized Air Defenses worked fairly well, for example and PGM require sophisticated ISTR or aircraft. Agility and competence beat computers -- and mass. Particularly marginally trained mass...

However, I suspect the biggest problem is that the likelihood of Congress supporting the ideas is beyond slim. Not to mention the EU reaction...

Fuchs
08-15-2008, 03:49 AM
But let's consider this scenario in creating security obligations of a 2nd country: the US enters a bilateral agreement with Georgia to provide for its defense. Knowing this, and motivated by whatever imperial intent, Russia strikes Georgia and preemptively strikes US assets in the region to cripple an American response. Since the NATO agreement requires members to come to the aid of any other member under external attack in the greater European region, all NATO members are now indirectly obligated to respond to Russia's assault on Georgia via America. So -- yes -- one country can create obligations for another country through political maneuvering.


I disagree completely.

1st
There are marginal "U.S. assets" in the region.
2nd
There's no need for Russia to do anything pre-emptively in this scenario.
3rd
There's no significant U.S. involvement possible without permission by Turkey (a NATO ally) anyway.
4th
I don't think that forward-deployed U.S. military forces like warships or USAF personnel in Turkey would be covered by the NATO treaty. Those troops would not be the USA itself.
5th
Russia could simply wait with its military actions against U.S. forces till the first U.S. trops shot back based on the bilateral treaty. Any Russian strikes afterwards could be considered as part of an ongoing war, insted of as an aggression. That might actually alredy work by waiting till one minute after a declaration of war on Georgia.

What you described was the potential for unintented alliance consequences. But you didn't describe how the USA could add obligations to countries like Germany, but instead you described a foolish Russian aggression that might activate the old, existing obligations.
Try to design a scenario that would oblige Germany to help Georgia because of US' political acts without any Russian aggression to targets outside of Georgia to prove your point.

Ken White
08-15-2008, 03:52 AM
I consider "nonsense" as a quite neutral word here. It's no description of a person anyway.No but it was used refering to a statement by a person in an electronic forum where the nuances of body language, tone, inflection and other things aren't transmitted. Quite simply, the things one can say to another in person can be offensive on an electronic message board. I know that I and at least two others have suggested earlier that you be more careful, now another has suggested it. :confused:
OK, I could have written "wrong" or used other weaker descriptions.
The appropriate description is in my opinion "nonsense", though.

Maybe it's just a translation issue. I can't imagine a German being offended by someone calling his statement "Unsinn" (=nonsense).
That would happen if "Schwachsinn" (=moronic) was used.Well, aside from the obvious fact that we aren't Germans (even though many of us left there to come here), here in the US, depending on the tone of voice used and the expression on your face when you use either of those words in person, if the recipient decides he or she is upset by it, you'd be subject to being hit at worst or descending into a bitter argument -- or having no one to talk to because the recipient just walked off.

OTOH, if you were joking or mildly dismissive, you'd probably get a joke or equally dismissive response -- and as long as the tone stayed light, all would be well. If, however, one person got a little irritated; well, that would likely also lead to an argument...

The problem is the printed word doesn't convey those discriminators.

Fuchs
08-15-2008, 04:06 AM
I'm not sure I'd bet the farm on that "won't" but I agree that's generally correct.

An underground nuclear test quickly followed by a surprise coup against the Baltic states would be the maximum that I can imagine.

Pre-deployment of troops is no real option because of its many negative effects.
Some military assistance to enable the Baltic states to have some definately over-sized but defensive armies and some quick deployment NATO exercises (necessary anyway) might be a good idea.


About the offensiveness problem:
About 6,000 posts on a German internet forum during seven years without problems tell me it's not about missing facial expression and sound only.
It might actually in part be a problem of languages.
Did you know that there's no such thing like cuzzword filters in German online software? I was quite puzzled when I encountered the first one I ever saw in an English online software. Tolerance and sensitivity towards such things seem to be quite different.
I can actually not remember many cases of German forum members feeling offended. The few cases that I remember were seriously drastic, such like accusation of being a Nazi or a liar.

Anyway, I can simply reduce my activity, that helps to calm down.

AmericanPride
08-15-2008, 04:11 AM
There are marginal "U.S. assets" in the region.

Article Six of the NATO treaty says an "armed attack" includes an attack "on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe". It says nothing about marginality and so the US could theoretically activate NATO if Russia had intentionally/accidentally killed American soldiers in Georgia, shot down US humanitarian flights in Georgian airspace, or engaged in US naval vessels in the Black Sea.


There's no need for Russia to do anything pre-emptively in this scenario.

It doesn't matter if Russia intends to kill Americans or not. It matters how America perceives said killings and how it responds to it. The UK "understood" Germany's accidental bombing of London as a green-light to pursue the strategic air campaign aimed at Germany's cities. So it's not beyond possible for the US to do something similar if it so desires and construe an accidental Russian strike as intentional.


There's no significant U.S. involvement possible without permission by Turkey (a NATO ally) anyway.

Would Turkey decline if the US activated the NATO defense clause? It certainly might take some political bargaining on the part of the US, but would Turkey be willing to abandon its security obligations and discredit itself for future engagements?


I don't think that forward-deployed U.S. military forces like warships or USAF personnel in Turkey would be covered by the NATO treaty. Those troops would not be the USA itself.

See point one.


What you described was the potential for unintented alliance consequences.

It would not be "unintended" if the US deliberately entered a bilateral agreement with Georgia with that knowledge in mind. And that was my point: states can, and do, create and impose obligations on other states. Even their so-called "friends". It doesn't have to be legal, formal, or even recognized by the other country to be real.

Culpeper
08-15-2008, 04:16 AM
Is there any particular reason why you have taken to being so rude to other people? Is there a particular reason why you can't make an intellectual case without resorting to being arrogant and disrespectful. I enjoy your posting and point of view but recently you've been fairly inconsiderate and it reflects poorly on your message and information.

I can tell you way he is what you say he is. He's upset. Armed conflict makes people very emotional. There should be some elbow room with this in mind. Unlike you, I don't enjoy reading comments about armed conflict in the middle of battle from the comfort of my room. Personally, participation comes from different perspectives. We aren't calling a ball game here. People personally involved in this particular conflict are suffering. We should excuse emotional posts to a certain extent. In fact, I find the over abundance of academia and back seat political essay a nuisance and something I have to swim through to get some facts about what is going down day-to-day. But back on topic it seems to me somebody is going to be in a lot of trouble when the smokes clears. Neither side fights fair and can care less about human life overall. Now, Georgia has a bully in its backyard and they only have themselves to blame. They blew it big time. So, they are our ally. Russia apparently was just waiting for this chance. If this came to complete surprise to the allies of Georgia than Georgia has some explaining to do. I'm sick of Russia and I'm pissed off at Georgia. Let Russia have those enclaves. If Russia doesn't leave than Georgia's immediate allies should counterattack unless they want a taste of the same medicine in the near future. Russia is no mood for anyone to so much as intimate they aren't what they used to be. Right now they are the biggest gang in the region. Nothing like they used to be but still the biggest bunch of rogues.

AndrewH
08-15-2008, 04:16 AM
Russia’s recent actions in Georgia are troubling to say the least. According to Clausewitz, war is politics by other means. Putin is now flexing his military muscle instead of pursuing a peaceful resolution to the perceived threats around him. What is it about Georgia that troubles Russia?

Perhaps it is the BCT (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline. The U.S. has consistently supported the BTC pipeline because we believe in the project’s ability to bolster global energy security, enhance regional stability, and expand international investments. It is also of interest to us because it carries 1% of the world’s oil supply, which may not sound like much, but it is the only pipeline to the West through the Black Sea and 30% of it is owned by BP and American investors. It is important now more than ever to diversify our sources of oil/natural gas.

Perhaps it is the pro-western views of Georgia. Out of all the states in the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia), Georgia is the most pro-western and perhaps a logical place for Russia to seek a strategic decisive victory against perceived threats. Russia’s military appears to be organized for Napoleonic warfare which is built around strategically decisive battles. Clausewitz argued that operational success does not lead to strategic success. Russia has won the battle in Georgia, but it may well lose the war. Russia’s strong-arming Georgia into a cease-fire after violating its sovereignty is likely to spark 2nd and 3rd order effects that will cost Russia not only diplomatically, but economically and militarily as well.

What do you think will happen to Russia and its relationship with other regional players?

Major Andrew Hagemaster, U.S. Army; the views expressed are my own and do not reflect official policy.

Ken White
08-15-2008, 04:54 AM
You are a valuable contributor. Most of us don't object to a Euro-centric view but most of us do have a US-centric view. Exposure to contrary opinions is good and is needed. To my mind the key is simply to avoid being dismissive of or overly abrupt with those who have different opinions. Like they say, we ought to be able to disagree without being disagreeable...
An underground nuclear test quickly followed by a surprise coup against the Baltic states would be the maximum that I can imagine.Heh. That would probably do it...
Pre-deployment of troops is no real option because of its many negative effects. Some military assistance to enable the Baltic states to have some definately over-sized but defensive armies and some quick deployment NATO exercises (necessary anyway) might be a good idea.Agreed.
About the offensiveness problem:
About 6,000 posts on a German internet forum during seven years without problems tell me it's not about missing facial expression and sound only.
It might actually in part be a problem of languages.I'm sure it's definitely both. Europeans in general are IMO more forward and blunt than most Americans -- that darn Puritan effect. So it's part writing, part language and part culture I suspect.
Did you know that there's no such thing like cuzzword filters in German online software? I was quite puzzled when I encountered the first one I ever saw in an English online software. Tolerance and sensitivity towards such things seem to be quite different.Didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me; I don't agree with them here but they're about in many places. Yes, the sensitivity is different. We shouldn't be so closed minded as far as I'm concerned but, unfortunately, we are.
I can actually not remember many cases of German forum members feeling offended. The few cases that I remember were seriously drastic, such like accusation of being a Nazi or a liar.[That''ll get people here as well. Boards here also differ; some are pretty free wheeling and almost anything goes but this one is run pretty tightly in order to keep it reasonably professional as opposed to an 'anything goes' sort of place -- we have a lot of those, this one just isn't.

I'm probably more arrogant by nature than you are so I have to be careful with what I say. Sometimes I mess up but I try to be calm, not dismissive of others and to be reasonable (even if it hurts on occasion :D).
Anyway, I can simply reduce my activity, that helps to calm down.As I said, I hope you won't; you're an asset. Just take the criticism on tone at face value; no one is faulting your positions (though we may disagree on some of them, that should be okay), just, sometimes, the delivery.

kaur
08-15-2008, 05:36 AM
Fuch, after reading your mails I really feel sad, that Baltic states will possibly ruin happy life of Germans when Russian verhuchka (limited elite) will play their empire games with neighbours. What is the solution? Should Europeans go back to cordon sanitaire policy of after revolutionary (1917) years? If I remember correctly (Fuch, please correct me) this ended with pact, which was part of II WW prelude.

Conventional war is back. Of course it is back. Why wonder. People wondered about insurgencys revival after 9/11. I imagine why. This topic is covered by Beafre very well under name patterns of strategy. If anyone is interested PM me.

1 video with nice show :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tll6yMNSNNE

Steve Blair
08-15-2008, 01:01 PM
Conventional war never "went away." Conflict is not an "either/or" proposition...you will always see one sort going on in one region with another variety (higher or lower intensity) going on someplace else. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand.

Neutralization almost never works in the long term, because it simply buys breathing space for the larger power(s) that want to smash the object of the neutralization. This is accelerated when one (or more) of the powers involved has a history of disposing of agreements when they no longer need them or feel them to be of value. In the cases it's worked, there have usually been geographic or other reasons that mitigate against occupation or other activities.

Stevely
08-15-2008, 01:25 PM
Walking by a TV in the cafeteria to refill my coffee cup this morning, I see the crawl "Russia: Poland risks attack over US missile defense plan."

So while Georgia is sad and regrettable, it is periphery, but Poland is a NATO member and not periphery. An attack would call out article 5, and thus war (which I think the Russians would lose, if it remained purely conventional). Are the Russians bluffing and hoping for a little intimidation effect coming out of the Georgia debacle, or do they mean business?

kaur
08-15-2008, 01:31 PM
Kremlin dusts off Cold War lexicon to make US villain in Georgia


Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama being elected president of the United States.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece

Stan
08-15-2008, 01:35 PM
Walking by a TV in the cafeteria to refill my coffee cup this morning, I see the crawl "Russia: Poland risks attack over US missile defense plan."

So while Georgia is sad and regrettable, it is periphery, but Poland is a NATO member and not periphery. An attack would call out article 5, and thus war (which I think the Russians would lose, if it remained purely conventional). Are the Russians bluffing and hoping for a little intimidation effect coming out of the Georgia debacle, or do they mean business?

Rhetoric, and more rhetoric. The last time they had a disagreement with Poland, all polish meat products were banned (by the Ministry of Health of course).


Moscow has long argued the project will upset the military balance in Europe and has warned it will be forced to redirect its missiles at Poland.

It was just 3 months ago when Russia warned all of us about redirecting her missiles. Honestly, I think they'd overshoot Estonia and land say in Germany :eek:.

Stevely
08-15-2008, 02:15 PM
This is completely off topic, but all this talk of spreading forest in Estonia makes me remember my first and only visit there, in 1988. What a beautiful land - we were shocked to see how nice Tallinn was and it being in the USSR at the time, having come from Moscow, which was a total dump. Would love to go back again some time.

Ron Humphrey
08-15-2008, 02:39 PM
From Schopenhaur's " The World as Will and Idea-


History follows the thread of events; it is pragmatic so far as it deduces them in accordance with the law of motivation, a law that determines the self-manifesting will wherever it is enlightened by knowledge


All willing arises from want, therefore deficiency, and therefore from suffering


The satisfaction of a wish ends it; yet for one wish that is satisfied there remain at least ten which are denied.


But when some external cause or inward disposition lifts us suddenly out of the endless stream of willing, delivers knowledge from the slavery of the will, the attention is no longer directed to the motives of the willing, but comprehends things free from their relation to the will, and thus observes them without personal interest, without subjectivity, purely objectively, gives itself entirely up to them so far as they are ideas, but not in so far as they are motives.

Then all at once the peace which we were always seeking, but which always fled from us on the former path of the desires, comes to us of it's own accord, and it is well with us.


The endgame is never quite as simple as those who originally set the path might assume, plan, or hope for.


From John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding-
(Sectional subtitles as presented in Critical Theory since Plato)


Sec 1- Words are sensible signs necessary for communication

Sec 2- Words and sensible signs of his ideas who uses them:
...A man cannot make his words the the signs of either qualities in
things, or of conception's in the mind of another, whereof he has
none of his own. Until he has ideas of his own, he cannot suppose
them to correspond with the conceptions of another man; nor can
he use any signs for them; for thus they would be the signs of he
knows not what, which is, in truth, to be the signs of nothing. But
when he represents to himself other men's ideas by some of his own,
if he consent to give them the same names that other men do, it is
still to his own ideas; to ideas that he has, and not to ideas he has
not.

Sec 4- Words often secretly referred, first, to the ideas in other men's minds

Sec 6- Words by use readily excite ideas

Etc, Etc

Fuch's please do continue to provide your input as it only serves to help strengthen the overall communities ability to communicate and hopefully brings a wider breadth of understanding to us all.

Actions do speak louder than word's, but it often requires words to illuminate just what those action's are or mean.

Steve Blair
08-15-2008, 02:54 PM
I'm probably more arrogant by nature than you are so I have to be careful with what I say. Sometimes I mess up but I try to be calm, not dismissive of others and to be reasonable (even if it hurts on occasion :D).As I said, I hope you won't; you're an asset. Just take the criticism on tone at face value; no one is faulting your positions (though we may disagree on some of them, that should be okay), just, sometimes, the delivery.

Another important thing to remember here is the concept of understanding. It's a two way street. If one person is trying to accept a person's point of view, only to have their own point dismissed as irrelevant or stupid without any supporting reasons, it tends to come across as a one-way discussion. Or, to put it simply, "My way or the highway, dumb@$$." If two people can disagree about a position, and both can put forward solid reasons for their positions, there tend to be fewer misunderstandings and hurt feelings. But when one side thunders out like they have the "one true WORD" and anyone else is a moron....you no longer have conversation or a discussion.

Rex Brynen
08-15-2008, 03:10 PM
A few quick thoughts:

1) Fuchs, I must admit that I often think you have some interesting and valuable insights, yet somehow wrapped in a needlessly antagonistic presentation. And, as a Canadian, I say that as a professional anti-American (well, excepting Vermont and Texas, and possibly the New York Rangers— plus, of course, any television show created by Joss Whedon).

2) I would agree with Bob Killebrew that the Russians have been prodding and poking and nibbling at the Georgians for years, and their "peacekeepers" are anything but. However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the widespread reports that Georgian troops assaulted Tskhinvali with scant regard for the safety of the local population (see, for example, the HRW report from the scene here (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm)). Of course, the Russians and Ossetian irregulars have acted with equal disregard for civilians, and indeed the latter have deliberately targeted them (as HRW also makes clear). However, one implication of Georgian military operations in South Ossetia is that the overwhelming majority of the local population (about 2/3rds Ossetian before the recent fighting, and probably well over 3/4 Ossetian now) are vehemently opposed to returning to Georgian rule, ever. I'm not sure that genie can be put back in the bottle.

3) A major issue in all of this, which remains unanswered, is what the hell were the Georgians thinking? No matter how much they might have been in the "right," it was a foolish move doomed to failure from the start. To what extent did US security assistance, and (rather foolish, in my view) efforts by Washington to promote Georgian membership in NATO play a role in fostering unrealistic expectations of Western support? Should the US have picked up on Georgian preparations for this offensive?

4) Policy responses need to think about the long term, and also recognize the need to factor in how things look from Moscow (even if we think Moscow is mistaken).

Stevely
08-15-2008, 03:29 PM
A few quick thoughts:
3) A major issue in all of this, which remains unanswered, is what the hell were the Georgians thinking? No matter how much they might have been in the "right," it was a foolish move doomed to failure from the start. To what extent did US security assistance, and (rather foolish, in my view) efforts by Washington to promote Georgian membership in NATO play a role in fostering unrealistic expectations of Western support? Should the US have picked up on Georgian preparations for this offensive?


I have a nagging suspicion that some pinhead or another in Washington might have encouraged them. I dearly hope this isn't the case.

Ron Humphrey
08-15-2008, 03:35 PM
3) A major issue in all of this, which remains unanswered, is what the hell were the Georgians thinking? No matter how much they might have been in the "right," it was a foolish move doomed to failure from the start. To what extent did US security assistance, and (rather foolish, in my view) efforts by Washington to promote Georgian membership in NATO play a role in fostering unrealistic expectations of Western support? Should the US have picked up on Georgian preparations for this offensive?

In attempting to review the situation-
Is or is not SO a part of Georgia, if it is then why would anything they are doing not require at the least Russia to notify the international community of what is happening and what it intends to do about it.
1- this would be indicative of actually giving a darn about the Ossetians
2- It wouldn't necessitate an IO compaign, propaganda blitz, and large scale cyber attacks

4) Policy responses need to think about the long term, and also recognize the need to factor in how things look from Moscow (even if we think Moscow is mistaken). [/QUOTE]

If policy is to become that any country who has a certain amount of former citizens within a population in a different sovereign country feels that it is unhappy with the ways it expats are being treated it is ok to just bulldoze your way in and light up the place.

The implications for this worldwide I sure anyone could readily see wouldn't be good for anyone.

As far as how they look from Moscow-

As of a short while ago:
They were a major part of several international organized leadership groups with a lot of sway in how things should be handled around the world.

They are making money like crazy with their exports.

They were given an opportunity to be the peace broker and big brother figure to Iran in their quest for nuclear energy vs nuclear weapons

They have been able to take part in major military and academic exercises with nations from around the world

They have had the opportunity to bring in many economic projects which could have helped to continue revitalizing their nation

Noone has violated their territorial borders

Etc

Long and short One would hope they might be revisiting exactly how they look at it :confused:

Armchairguy
08-15-2008, 03:36 PM
Saakashvilli is an idiot and he's trying to drag the rest of us into being idiots with him. Didn't he know about the Russian forces ready to strike? And if so, why on earth did he continue? Was he so naive that he thought the world would respond with more than "strong statements" and "stern reprimands"?

wm
08-15-2008, 03:53 PM
3) A major issue in all of this, which remains unanswered, is what the hell were the Georgians thinking? No matter how much they might have been in the "right," it was a foolish move doomed to failure from the start. To what extent did US security assistance, and (rather foolish, in my view) efforts by Washington to promote Georgian membership in NATO play a role in fostering unrealistic expectations of Western support? Should the US have picked up on Georgian preparations for this offensive?


In other venues, I have heard/read it suggested that US allowed the Georgians to push the envelop in order to get other Russian neigbors (like Poland) "off the dime" about supporting US defense plans in Eastern Europe (missile defense)--sort of the foreign policy version of "scared straight." Interesting theory but I have a tough time believing that the US is capable of that level of Byzantine foreign policy.

I really like the Russian explanation: it's all a plot by the Veep to keep Obama out of the Oval Office. Why not just take Obama hunting with him?:eek::D

AmericanPride
08-15-2008, 04:28 PM
In other venues, I have heard/read it suggested that US allowed the Georgians to push the envelop in order to get other Russian neigbors (like Poland) "off the dime" about supporting US defense plans in Eastern Europe (missile defense)--sort of the foreign policy version of "scared straight." Interesting theory but I have a tough time believing that the US is capable of that level of Byzantine foreign policy.

It's not that I don't think America is capable of taking advantage of those kinds of situations (which we clearly did), but I do not think we have that kind of institutional foresight in regards to policy to actually instigate it. My experiences with government work so far tell me that we kind of just make up things along the way. :wry: But that at least gives us the flexibility to see a good opportunity when it knocks on our door. :rolleyes:

Stevely
08-15-2008, 04:46 PM
It's not that I don't think America is capable of taking advantage of those kinds of situations (which we clearly did), but I do not think we have that kind of institutional foresight in regards to policy to actually instigate it. My experiences with government work so far tell me that we kind of just make up things along the way. :wry: But that at least gives us the flexibility to see a good opportunity when it knocks on our door. :rolleyes:

Well, if we don't know what we're doing, the enemy sure as hell won't either.

wm
08-15-2008, 04:57 PM
Well, if we don't know what we're doing, the enemy sure as hell won't either.
Sounds like good OPSEC to me :rolleyes:

Old Eagle
08-15-2008, 05:09 PM
Never attribute to conspiracy what may be adequately explained by
stupidity or incompetence.

h2harris
08-15-2008, 05:22 PM
Interesting analysis of implications: Caroline Glick - Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710365631&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

jmm99
08-15-2008, 05:26 PM
from Ron Humphrey
In attempting to review the situation-
Is or is not SO a part of Georgia,.....

Unfortunately (fortunately), I don't have a brief on this; but have looked at it - in a semi-objective mode.

Statement of facts requires going back to 1800's when the Russians took over the Georgian area - generally, from then till now, Ossetia & Abkhazia were autonomous (not necessarily independent) regions.

Many legal documents would enter into the picture. So, I expect plausible I Law arguments could be made on each side of the issues.

Lots of spin on all this - so, the legal status is less important than the power politics.

Ken White
08-15-2008, 05:38 PM
A few quick thoughts:
. . .
3) A major issue in all of this, which remains unanswered, is what the hell were the Georgians thinking? No matter how much they might have been in the "right," it was a foolish move doomed to failure from the start. To what extent did US security assistance, and (rather foolish, in my view) efforts by Washington to promote Georgian membership in NATO play a role in fostering unrealistic expectations of Western support? Should the US have picked up on Georgian preparations for this offensive? I'd say; Weren't thinking, foolish indeed and bound to have had an effect, yes (and they may have reported it and been ignored and we may even have tried to deter 'em to no avail. We'll see...)
4) Policy responses need to think about the long term, and also recognize the need to factor in how things look from Moscow (even if we think Moscow is mistaken).True BUT; "We're American, no long termism, please."

Ken White
08-15-2008, 05:46 PM
Never attribute to conspiracy what may be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence.and diplomacy.

The really cool thing is that after we stupidly blunder into something due to ego and lack of forethought, we somehow mange to cobble something together, make it work out and land on our feet. The bad news is that people think we're super devious and evil when that isn't the case at all... :wry:

As Winston said: "You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing -- after they have tried every conceivable alternative."

jmm99
08-15-2008, 05:48 PM
in light of current events.

Ted, your crystal ball was working well. :)

Rex Brynen
08-15-2008, 06:35 PM
If you haven't seen this video yet, these Turkish reporters are darned lucky to still be alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7563706.stm)...

Rank amateur
08-15-2008, 06:55 PM
"Talk softly and carry a big stick" seems to work much better than "talk tough even if you don't have a stick, or your stick is elsewhere deployed." Hopefully, we'll start relying more on diplomacy soon.

Rank amateur
08-15-2008, 07:04 PM
If policy is to become that any country who has a certain amount of former citizens within a population in a different sovereign country feels that it is unhappy with the ways it expats are being treated it is ok to just bulldoze your way in and light up the place.

The implications for this worldwide I sure anyone could readily see wouldn't be good for anyone.


Never thought I'd see you agreeing with Jimmy Carter.;) (Just kidding. I know that was different.) :D

On a serious note, when countries want to start a war they never seem to have a problem coming up with a rationale. Other than the fact that the world needs to say a few things are always unacceptable - genocide, ethnic cleansing - I don't worry too much about precedent. If the Russians didn't think it up, the next country that wanted to launch a similar attack would.

reed11b
08-15-2008, 07:27 PM
On a serious note, when countries want to start a war they never seem to have a problem coming up with a rationale. Other than the fact that the world needs to say a few things are always unacceptable - genocide, ethnic cleansing - I don't worry too much about precedent.
These seem to be the times that the world is SLOWEST to act. Rawanda, Bosnia, Sudan etc. etc.
Reed

Ken White
08-15-2008, 09:28 PM
"Talk softly and carry a big stick" seems to work much better than "talk tough even if you don't have a stick, or your stick is elsewhere deployed." Hopefully, we'll start relying more on diplomacy soon.though -- or people forget you have it. That's why we're in Iraq. Four Presidents from both parties over 22 years tried diplomacy and either did not use or misused the stick. We have the stick and everyone knows it; they also know we use it reluctantly and take advantage of that, to be expected and not a big thing.

We will have achieved more from elsewhere deploying that stick than from 22 years of your diplomacy...

There is no panacea.

badtux
08-15-2008, 10:22 PM
Russia’s recent actions in Georgia are troubling to say the least. According to Clausewitz, war is politics by other means. Putin is now flexing his military muscle instead of pursuing a peaceful resolution to the perceived threats around him. What is it about Georgia that troubles Russia?.

Perhaps the Russians told the truth (gasp!) and simply disliked the fact that the Georgians embarked upon a spot of ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia that included firing artillery at the Russian peacekeepers stationed there? If any nation fired artillery at U.S. troops, somehow I doubt the U.S. would just sit there and take it. Well, maybe back when Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter was President, but Putin is not a Clinton or Carter.

Combine with the Ledeen Doctrine of International Relationships -- the salutary effect of occasionally picking up some dipstick little country, throw it up against the wall, and slap it around a bit just to give other former Soviet republics an example of what will happen to them if they peeve off the Russian bear -- and you have all the motivation you need. No conspiracy theories required.

Ron Humphrey
08-15-2008, 10:31 PM
Perhaps the Russians told the truth (gasp!) and simply disliked the fact that the Georgians embarked upon a spot of ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia that included firing artillery at the Russian peacekeepers stationed there? If any nation fired artillery at U.S. troops, somehow I doubt the U.S. would just sit there and take it. Well, maybe back when Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter was President, but Putin is not a Clinton or Carter.

Combine with the Ledeen Doctrine of International Relationships -- the salutary effect of occasionally picking up some dipstick little country, throw it up against the wall, and slap it around a bit just to give other former Soviet republics an example of what will happen to them if they peeve off the Russian bear -- and you have all the motivation you need. No conspiracy theories required.

One more thing which is a fact now is that it may be almost impossible to determine what exactly Georgia did or didn't do considering that Russia immediately came in guns a blazing and almost certainly blew as much up if not more than had already been done.

One thing taking a moment to breath before reacting or acting against someone provides is the opportunity to accurately depict what has or is taking place.

Then again that might not have met the overall objectives, but at this point it seems everyone is left with whatever their own perspectives choose with little to no chance of truly knowing what reality was.:(

badtux
08-15-2008, 11:06 PM
One thing taking a moment to breath before reacting or acting against someone provides is the opportunity to accurately depict what has or is taking place.

Indeed. And there is much we do not yet know. We do know, however, that Georgia mounted a major offensive that included an artillery barrage upon Tskhinvali at a time when Russian "peacekeepers" (who had been there since 1993) were there. Georgia itself admits this, having admitted that they launched an offensive against "rebels and outlaws" (their term for the South Ossetians). Given the small size of Tskhinvali, it seems unlikely that any artillery barrage would not include the area where the Russians were. Georgia says "too bad, the Russians were there illegally."

We can speculate about who did the most damage to Tskhinvali -- the Russians or the Georgians. We can speculate about whether Russia goaded the Georgians into mounting a major offensive. We can argue about whether Georgia was engaged in ethnic cleansing, though past actions on the part of the Georgians and Ossetians show that neither have any problem with the notion of ethnic cleansing. We can speculate as to whether Russia baited Georgia into acting, and can argue that the Russian "peacekeepers" were not there legally, and we can argue about whether Russia deliberately put those soldiers in a place where they knew Georgian artillery shells would land if Georgia attacked i.e. as a tripwire. But I do not think we can argue that Georgia dropped artillery shells onto the heads of Russian soldiers. And when you drop artillery shells onto the soldiers of *any* major power, you're going to get a response you don't like -- e.g., when the Druze in Lebanon dropped a few artillery shells on the U.S. Marines there in 1983, the U.S.S. New Jersey gave them some 16 inch reasons to reconsider. Never get into an artillery duel with a battleship armed with 16 inch guns when all you've got is mobile howitzer artillery and 88mm anti-tank guns -- it's as stupid as dropping artillery shells onto the heads of Russian soldiers when the 58th Army is less than 150 miles away :rolleyes:.

Ron Humphrey
08-15-2008, 11:19 PM
One thing curious about this is if they have been being trained in counter-guerilla type efforts vs large scale ops as many have said they should have been then why would they be firing artillery unless they had good intel on a specific location in which the guerrillas or opposition forces are grouped and thus an excellent target. The only other consideration would be where civilians were in relation to it.

Not necessarily anybody else who just might be spending a lot of time with the opposition forces:confused:

Norfolk
08-15-2008, 11:56 PM
I fear that that in the wake of the Russian invasion of Georgia, not only former Soviet republics but NATO as well will find itself increasingly reduced to having to wave - very judiciously - a very big stick, with clear,
unmistakeable, and unwavering conviction, and for many years to come. "Benign" diplomacy isn't going to cut it anymore, as if it ever did, with the Russians (never mind others) who live in the world of the zero-sum game. Maybe we won't have a cold war per se, but almost certainly something at least the gravity of the Great Game between Britain and Russia in the 19th Century. And (along with France) there was a Crimea to add to that. Like it or not, we're in for a long, hard slog in Eastern Europe now, if we decide not to abandon former Soviet states to fall into client-state status, or worse, vis-a-vis Russia. Unfortunately the Russians hold most of the cards that really matter these days, and they don't much mind waving a big stick.

Fuchs
08-16-2008, 12:11 AM
Please forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know how the Turks are going to view all this?

That's actually the best question.

I was searching this thread with the search function backwards for "turk" and only found references to Turkey as location for pipelines and once in the context of bases. Finally, I found this question.

Sarkozy represented the EU in this conflict, but Turkey isn't in the EU.

Seriously; Turkey is the relevant "Western" power in all discussions about the Caucasus.
Germany, France, Uk and also the USA are this time pretty irrelevant in comparison to Turkey.

It's got more than a million men in its armed forces, has probably more conventional warfare power than Russia, controls the Bosporus, is the closest and most-concerned NATO member, has all the relevant bases...

Why don't I get to know the Turkish government's opinion on the conflict? A whole week, but I only got statements from other countries and discussions seem to ignore Turke completely.

-------------

Turkey is closest, has a common border - NATO members should consider that Turkey's national security interests are at stake in this region. It is absolutely necessary to consider that (all else would be a very poor behaviour as ally).


Turkey is the power base for any strategy whatsoever if it's about exerting influence in the Caucasus. It's an all-or-nothing affair. There's nothing else than hot air and failures possible if Turkey doesn't support a Western Caucasus strategy.


As far as I know is Turkey itself much less threatening to Russia than the USA. It's probably in a much better position to achieve diplomatic successes in that region.

Give Turkey the diplomatic leadership, let Turkey "lead" the Western world in this struggle.
They have about 90% of the relevant NATO power concerning the Caucasus*. The USA might deploy two brigades permanently (risking disasters in other conflicts by doing so) and the UK one if "the West" decided to protect/guarantee Georgia's remnants. Turkey could deploy an entire army - the thing that has 2-3 corps which have 2-3 divisions each which have 3-4 brigades each.

Turkey is the decisive regional power, it dwarfes whatever Germany, France, UK and USA could invest in this region. Combined.



*: My guess.

Rex Brynen
08-16-2008, 12:28 AM
That's actually the best question.

I was searching this thread with the search function backwards for "turk" and only found references to Turkey as location for pipelines and once in the context of bases. Finally, I found this question.

Turkey hasn't taken a clear position yet, in part because its torn between the two sides fora variety of strategic, diplomatic, and economic reasons, and in part because the cabinet has been on break/holiday.

I suspect Moscow cares far more about the French, UK, and German reaction than the Turks--its not an issue that the Turks would apply leverage over, given their broader interests.

jmm99
08-16-2008, 01:57 AM
Before citing some refs to Turkey, this is a map showing the pre-1992 autonomous regions in the Caucasus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caucasiamapussr.gif

---------------------------------
Articles from EDM (1st 3 are background)


LUKOIL AND TURKEY
By John C. K. Daly
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
As Europe frets over the political implications of Gazprom’s increasing presence in the EU market, another Russian energy company has quietly made an inroad into hydrocarbon-starved Turkey.
.....
For Ankara, however, the sale merits careful consideration. Turkey already receives 65 percent of its natural gas exports from Russia, and as recently as last winter Gazprom cut supplies, forcing Ankara to dip into its stored reserves (EDM, January 23). In the event of rising tension between Moscow and Ankara, whether political or something as simple as a pricing dispute, LUKoil’s new acquisitions, if they became political pawns, could affect everything from heating to “trains, planes and automobiles.” All Ankara can do at the moment is wonder whether the allure of the free market will trump the siren song emanating from the Kremlin. As Russia’s new president was formerly chairman of Gazprom’s board of directors, it seems likely that the Kremlin will follow Alekperov’s acquisition with more than passing interest. .....

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373293


TURKEY COOPERATES WITH KOREA TO DEVELOP A NATIONAL MAIN BATTLE TANK
By Saban Kardas
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Turkey continues to announce new armament programs that involve the development and production of a “Turkish brand” of major weapons systems. .... Eventually, Turkey plans to replace all its MBTs, as many 1,000, which will become obsolete in the next few decades (Hurriyet, Sabah and Radikal, July 30). .....

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373297


EXPLOSION RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE BTC PIPELINE
By Gareth Jenkins
Friday, August 8, 2008
On August 5 there was an explosion and subsequent fire on a section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline running through eastern Turkey, resulting in the flow of oil through the pipeline being halted. .... On August 8 officials from Turkey’s state-owned Turkish Pipeline Company (BOTAS) predicted that it would take another 10-14 days for the pipeline to be repaired, with some forecasting that it could be as much as three months before the pipeline was once again operating normally (Today’s Zaman, August 8). ......

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373301


TURKEY CAUGHT IN A DILEMMA OVER SOUTH OSSETIA
By Gareth Jenkins
Monday, August 11, 2008
The outbreak of fighting between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia has demonstrated the cost of Ankara’s often confused attempt at achieving a balance between becoming a regional player in the Caucasus and the need to maintain a working relationship with Moscow.
.....
The outbreak of fighting on August 7 caught Turkey completely unprepared. ...
[what follows is a 3 paragraph description of various inconsistent actions by Erdogan and Putin’s refusal to speak with him] ....
Turkish commentators have been unanimous in attributing Putin’s refusal to speak with Erdogan to Russian fury over Turkish military aid to Georgia, noting that Russia’s stranglehold over Turkey’s supplies of natural gas mean that it can afford simply to ignore any Turkish protests over Russian policy in the Caucasus (Hurriyet, Radikal, Yeni Safak, Zaman, August 11).....

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373305


TURKEY AND THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BTC
By John C. K. Daly
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
With Western eyes fixed on the clash between Russia and Georgia over the disputed enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the conflict is affecting neighboring countries’ oil shipments, particularly Azerbaijan and transit nation Turkey.
.....
Quite aside from concerns about restoring tranquility in the Caucasus, Turkey has deep fiscal concerns impelling it to seek a quick end to the conflict. On August 11 Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili telephoned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seeking his assistance in ending the clash (Hurriyet, August 12). The same day Erdogan spoke with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to discuss the armed confrontation, urging the UN to take initiatives to end the clash and restore peace and stability to the Caucasus (Sabah, August 12). Erdogan also proposed establishing a Caucasus alliance to ensure peace and stability in the region. It would include Caucasian nations along with the United States, the EU and Russia. "Turkey is ready to play a key role in making this alliance a reality. But this idea needs to be discussed under UN auspices to become practicable," he said.
.....
Quite aside from diplomatic concerns, for Turkey, which imports 90 percent of its energy needs and 65 percent of its natural gas from Gazprom, the sooner the dispute is resolved the better, so it can begin again to collect transit revenues to pay Moscow’s ever-rising energy bills.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373313


DEVILS AND DETAILS: AHMADINEJAD VISITS TURKEY
By Gareth Jenkins
Thursday, August 14, 2008
......
A similar naivety can be seen in Erdogan’s recent peace initiative in the Caucasus. ...
[what follows is a paragraph description of Erdogan's efforts at a Caucasian Pact - see prec. ref.] ....
Neither the newspaper nor Erdogan appeared to realize that while all efforts to end the bloodshed were welcome, the whole point of Moscow’s fierce military response to Georgia’s attempt to regain control of South Ossetia was to demonstrate Russia’s hegemony in its “near abroad.” Moscow is unlikely to have any desire to dilute its authority through a pact, particularly one that brings the United States and the EU into the region.

Nor did Erdogan appear to be aware that if the AKP were serious about Turkey acceding to the EU, he needed to try to ensure that Turkey’s foreign policies were coordinated with, or at least complementary to, those of the EU. ....

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373317

Seems that, so far, Turkish diplomacy has not reached 1st base.

Fuchs
08-16-2008, 02:11 AM
Sorry, but that "90% energy needs" is not realistic. It casts a strong shadow on the whole source.
According to CIA world factbook, Turkey produces already about 6% of its crude oil consumption itself.

That would leave about 4% for the complete coal consumption and iol/gas imports from other countries.

It looks to me as if the author forgot to substract the exports; Turkey is a transit country for oil & gas, after all.

Ken White
08-16-2008, 03:03 AM
form over function?

"..which imports 90 percent of its energy needs and 65 percent of its natural gas from Gazprom..."

correct English as written but if you add a comma or a semi colon where it shouldn't be technically and perhaps should be practically speaking...

"which imports 90 percent of its energy needs; and 65 percent of its natural gas from Gazprom..."

then he's saying Turkey imports 90% of it's total energy needs of which 65% (other sources say 67%) of it's natural gas imports come from Gazprom.

Dunno

jmm99
08-16-2008, 04:03 AM
evidence doesn't work that way.

Even if you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Turkey does not import 90% of its energy needs (that figured in BTUs or equivalent, not bcm), that disproves only that statement.

That proof does not affect any of the other statements made in that article, or in the other articles. You have to go after them one by one.

Would think you'd want to go after Gazprom supplying 65% of natural gas consumption; or prove that Putin did eagerly talk to Erdogan; or that Ivan readily agreed to the Caucasian Alliance; etc., etc. ...

Hmm ...


Gazprom Permits Shell to Supply Gas to Turkish Market
Cagri OCAL
Sunday , 04 March 2007
This commentary is from USAK's Energy Review Newsletter
......
“Under the contract, Gazprom will supply 250 mcm of gas annually to Shell Enerji A.Þ. in the period up to 2021”, the news release said. Total natural gas sale to Turkey will be 3.75 bcm and present value of this sale is approximately $1 billion. (Cumhuriyet) Russia and Turkey established a gas partnership in 1984. Since 1984, Russia supplied a total of 138.7 bcm of natural gas to Turkey. Supplies from Russia followed an increasing trend in the past 22 years period and reached all-time high level of 20 bcm in 2006. Russian natural gas currently accounts for 65% of Turkey's gas imports. (The New Anatolian)

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2516
http://www.turkishweekly.net/energyreview/TurkishWeekly-EnergyReview9.pdf'

-----------------------------------
For anyone interested in this boring topic, here are the CIA stats as of tonite's viewing. I should think that the stats are quite different as of 2007-2008.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html

Natural gas - production:
860.3 million cu m (2005 est.)
Natural gas - consumption:
26.25 billion cu m (2005 est.)
Natural gas - exports:
0 cu m (2005 est.)
Natural gas - imports:
25.48 billion cu m (2005)

Oil - production:
45,460 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - consumption:
660,800 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - exports:
112,600 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports:
724,400 bbl/day (2004)

Interesting. No nat gas exports; and is Turkey-produced oil used in Turkey or exported or both. Strange.

---------------------------------
BTW: Don't care if you do disprove every sentence in the articles, since they ain't written by me. In that case, we would have advanced the search for truth - as well as for mom and apple pie.

Whole bunch of Russian Turkish nat gas stuff; e.g., an index at

http://www.rpi-inc.ru/pdf/SEE_Gas_TOC.pdf

and more files at

http://www.rpi-inc.ru/pdf/

looks borinnnggg......

AmericanPride
08-16-2008, 05:47 AM
Just FYI, the EIA agrees with White. Sorry Fuchs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Turkey/Background.html

There's also some wonderfully colored graphs.

Fuchs
08-16-2008, 07:23 AM
conversions: http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrgycnvrsntbl/nrgycnvrsntbl-eng.html#a_s_04

eia:

2004: 769 bcf natural gas net import, 24 bcf own production
769 bcf = 808 PJ (petajoule iirc)

2004: 19 Million short tons of coal net import, 51 Mst own production
about 473 PJ and 1271 PJ respectively


I don't have the time to do this for electricity (lots of water energy) or oil right now, but the short story is that

Quite aside from diplomatic concerns, for Turkey, which imports 90 percent of its energy needs and 65 percent of its natural gas from Gazprom
cannot be right at all.
Gazprom does not supply all that coal to Turkey. "90%" is wrong.

I was a bit too tired when I miscalculated the natural gas thing yesterday, though.

kaur
08-16-2008, 08:06 AM
This is the guy whose opinion I trust. He has been dealing with this region for a bretty long time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/08/georgia.nato

His nest is here. Tons of material.

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/

kaur
08-16-2008, 08:54 AM
British "Economist."


The war in Georgia

Russia resurgent
Aug 14th 2008
From The Economist print edition

The war in Georgia is a victory for Russia. The West’s options are limited, but it needs to pursue them firmly

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=11920701

kaur
08-16-2008, 01:14 PM
The same Economist article says


Yet the hard truth, for Georgians and others, is that pleas for military backing from the West in any confrontation with Russia are unlikely to be heeded. The Americans gave Mr Saakashvili token help when they transported Georgian troops home from Iraq (where 2,000 of them made up the third-largest allied contingent). And they have now sent in humanitarian aid in military aircraft and ships. But nobody is willing to risk a wider war with Russia over its claimed near-abroad. Among Russia’s immediate neighbours, only the Baltic states, which slipped into NATO when Russia was weak, can claim such protection.


Most importantly, although Mr Saakashvili’s foolishness makes admitting Georgia harder, Russia’s incursion should not delay plans to let Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Russia’s aggression will make these countries, and others, keener than ever on joining. The worst outcome of this war would be for the West to allow Russia a veto over any sovereign country’s membership of either NATO or the EU.

Longer article from the same issue.


The war in Georgia has demonstrated convincingly who is in charge in Russia. Just as the war in Chechnya helped Mr Putin’s rise to power in 1999, the war in Georgia may now keep him in power for years to come. As Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Centre argues, if Mr Medvedev still had a chance to preside over a period of liberalisation of Russia, this opportunity is now gone. The war in Georgia will make Russia more isolated. Worst of all, it will further corrode the already weak moral fabric of Russian society, making it more aggressive and nationalistic. The country has been heading in the direction of an authoritarian, nationalistic, corporatist state for some time. The war with Georgia could tip it over the edge.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11920992

Fuchs
08-16-2008, 03:39 PM
This is the guy whose opinion I trust. He has been dealing with this region for a bretty long time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/08/georgia.nato


"The Kremlin's blatant aggression puts at stake not only the future of the most progressive state in the former Soviet Union, (...)"

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine?

AmericanPride
08-16-2008, 05:04 PM
I hope no one seriously thought that Little Dimitry really had a chance to reform Russia. He's not from the shoulder-stripe inner circle of Putin's power base, and his entire career has been dependent upon Vlad. Any kind of power struggle within the Kremlin would probably result in D's premature departure from the living. Also consider that in a political culture in which strength is the only symbol of power, the military's continued offensives despite D's agreement to a cease-fire speaks to the powerlessness of his position.

Putin is not going to be drawn out through confrontation and Cold War rhetoric. That simply plays into his hands and the state-nationalist ideology of his fellow power brokers. Maybe an "invitation" to Russia for NATO membership can dislodge them long enough to slip in Ukraine? :eek:

jmm99
08-16-2008, 05:46 PM
from AmericanPride
There's also some wonderfully colored graphs

Very good site - separate articles on Oil, Natural Gas, Coal & Electricity are worth reading.

Found coal stats elsewhere last nite (since they weren't on CIA page). Obvious from inspection of coal stats (without doing BTU calcs) that "90% of total energy usage imported" was not correct. So, I implicitly conceded the point. I suppose the author was thinking 90% of petro (oil & gas) usage is imported - which is ball park (again by inspection, not calcs).

All of this trivia moves away from the main issue of what Turkey's future role will be. Ir certainly is a player - and perhaps the most important player (IMO) - not so much Caucasus, but in northern SW Asia.


from AmericanPride
Maybe an "invitation" to Russia for NATO membership can dislodge them long enough to slip in Ukraine?

Interesting contrarian theory - that is, contrary to the Russian policy favored by Bush I, Clinton & Bush II. One possible result of that policy (other factors also present) could be to re-create the Russian-Chinese alliance of my youth. Uncle Joe & Mao would like that.

AmericanPride
08-16-2008, 05:56 PM
One possible result of that policy (other factors also present) could be to re-create the Russian-Chinese alliance

That would be a disaster. But I do not think that Russia and China will be loving partners any time soon. China is like the red-headed step child that's coming of age and Russia is the alcoholic father that's powerless to stop his step daughter's promiscuity with the neighborhood jock (who could that be.....?) that she hopes to use to get out of their podunk hamlet. The alcoholic father hates the jock because he has an opportunity for that professional career that the father lost when he was drafted for Vietnam. :rolleyes:

jmm99
08-16-2008, 06:03 PM
from AmericanPride
That would be a disaster.

Agreed.

I got lost in the analogy; but if it works for you - 5x5.

Ratzel
08-17-2008, 04:19 AM
After reading some of the Baltic State's defense plans, I've come to the conclusion that they have a military to support the US and NATO, and generally hope the Russians will not destroy too much during an invasion. None of these States (and Georgia) had/have anything ready for a serious territorial defense. This might be the right thing to do? If you know you'll be destroyed, it may not be worth it?

If this is the case, they need some sort of strategy once they're occupied? They could:

1) Lay in the street and have huge protests so military equipment won't be able to move?

2) Everyone can refuse to go to work or do anything the Russians say?

3) Socialize all citizens to fight to the death regardless of potential destruction?

kaur
08-17-2008, 08:44 AM
In an interview published in today’s “Kommersant,” South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity said that his people and Russian forces behind them had driven the ethnic Georgians who had been living there out and would not allow them to return, although he said his government would investigate and punish cases of burning and looting.
Kokoity’s words are a rare public acknowledgement by an official that he and the forces under his command or with whom he is working are engaging in what can only be called ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide (www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?fromsearch=ef093ba1-b275-41da-8576-5d73596075da&docsid=1011783).
Arguing that in most of what had been “Russian enclaves” in South Ossetia, there were no ethnic Georgians left by the time of the conflict, Kokoity said that “where they still remained, we, unlike the forces of Georgia offered them a corridor and gave the peaceful population the chance to leave.”
But however that might be, he added, “we do not intend to allow” them back because there are “more than 18,000 Ossetian refugees from Georgia” in North Ossetia. We need them to return to South Ossetia,” and apparently, to the places left vacant by the more than 23,000 ethnic Georgians who have been driven out of that region.

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/08/window-on-eurasia-south-ossetias.html


Aside from the avoidable loss of innocent life, one the most depressing things about the past few days is the lack of intellectual honesty on display. Rather than examine motive and facts on the ground, both Russians and Georgians have chosen to extract what they wish from the overall picture and used it to fit their pre-existing nationalist ideologies. Russia apologists and Russophobes everywhere have all weighed in over the last few days, conveniently ignoring atrocities committed by the 'other side'. Hypocrisy is prevalent on both sides too and worse still, the outrageous use of the word 'genocide' - not even remotely applicable to this dirty little war.


But whatever happens now in the Caucasus, relations between Russia and the West (and Russia's westward-inclined neighbours) must surely, from this moment on, be re-evaluated by all.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/media/comment/russia_georgia/

jmm99
08-17-2008, 12:38 PM
from kaur
3. About NATO/US military plans by RAND.

Chap 5 interested me on 2 points: posited 30-day warning period of Russian attack; and the military capabilities in the Leningrad military district.

Have you run into any gaming scenario for a 1 on 1 Russian attack on Finland ?

I haven't, but I may well be looking in the wrong places.

Thanx ahead if you can help.

Stan
08-17-2008, 01:00 PM
Chap 5 interested me on 2 points: posited 30-day warning period of Russian attack; and the military capabilities in the Leningrad military district.

Have you run into any gaming scenario for a 1 on 1 Russian attack on Finland ?

I haven't, but I may well be looking in the wrong places.

Thanx ahead if you can help.

Here's one of many scenarios going around as Finland joins the former soviet Republics -- joining NATO -- a possibility which could not be viewed impassively. As well as being perceived as an affront and potential threat, it would also present the opportunities of being able to teach others lessons and to set default positions.

Future active measures could include (once again) obstruction of ports, shipping lanes and off-shore facilities; over flights, airspace denial and harassment of civil aviation; disruption of freight and transportation; freezing foreign investments and business in Russia; economic, energy and cyber campaigns; symbolic incursions onto islands or across borders; and political and diplomatic threats against individual countries.

Hat tips to Bruce Jones.

jmm99
08-17-2008, 06:18 PM
from Stan
as Finland joins the former soviet Republics -- joining NATO -- a possibility which could not be viewed impassively

NATO and other alliances have been pushed by more than one leading politician - mutta, the leading political parties have not adopted that as a formal plarform item + about 2/3 of Finns are adverse.

Or, have I missed something since Mar 2008 - which is quite possible.


Finnish security policy: No Joy, but Finland Joins Nato Force
By Kyösti Karvonen
.....
Finland is ready to contribute to Nato Response Force (NRF), but only in a supplementary role. The painful compromise was reached after a long vacillation, just in time before Nato's Bucharest Summit, writes Kyösti Karvonen, Managing Editor of newspaper Kaleva.

http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=68818&intIGID=&intCatID=607&CatTypeNumber=3&LAN=EN&contlan=&Thread=&intThreadPosition=4

also

http://formin.finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=106548&nodeid=15146&contentlan=2&culture=en-US
http://www.mil.fi/perustietoa/julkaisut/finland_and_nato/chapter_9.dsp
http://www.mil.fi/perustietoa/julkaisut/finland_and_nato/chapter_0.dsp

Georgia may change that - mutta, which way will that cut is another question. We shall see.

Finland has helped Estonia - good to help cousins.

Choke off Gulf of Finland sounds good in theory. Last time we were able to do that was before Charlie the Great screwed everything up in the Great Northern War - and we still remember the consequent Great Wrath.

Sorry to be a little gloomy here.

Kiitos paljon.

Stan
08-18-2008, 06:24 AM
NATO and other alliances have been pushed by more than one leading politician - mutta, the leading political parties have not adopted that as a formal plarform item + about 2/3 of Finns are adverse.

Or, have I missed something since Mar 2008 - which is quite possible.

Georgia may change that - mutta, which way will that cut is another question. We shall see.

Finland has helped Estonia - good to help cousins.

Choke off Gulf of Finland sounds good in theory. Last time we were able to do that was before Charlie the Great screwed everything up in the Great Northern War - and we still remember the consequent Great Wrath.

Sorry to be a little gloomy here.

Kiitos paljon.

JMM, Pole tänu väärt !
I'll just say that more than a year following the Bronze Dude in Estonia, Finland got a good taste of Russian diplomacy along with her Baltic neighbors. Transit traffic came to an abrupt halt across all of Russia's western border. Finland may not depend on revenues from transit traffic as much as the Baltic States, but tractor trailers stacked up on the border for nearly 20 kilometers certainly sent a message.

Finland's decision (and the timing of that decision ahead of Sweden) to contribute to the NATO Response Force is, in and of itself a strong signal. The Finns that I deal with (military and law enforcement) are openly very pro-NATO, and view(ed) Estonia's membership as a wise decision. Check out the smooth-tongued FM Lavrov's recent comments in Helsingin Sanomat regarding Finland and NATO. Not worried, Aye ? Heh :D

I think Georgia will open the eyes of the Finnish public, and has served only to increase Finnish ties with the Baltic States.

BTW, wasn't it Estonia's "Finnish Boys" who came to the aid of Finland :cool:

Terv, Stan

Stan
08-18-2008, 07:06 AM
‘don’t mess with us in our own backyard’. This is enough. (http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=DAVID+McWilliams-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=35180-qqqx=1.asp)


The problem for the West is the hundreds of thousands of Russians who found themselves, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, trapped in countries that couldn’t stand them.

Nadia the green-eyed Russian waitress whispered conspiratorially, ‘‘They don’t like us, you know. The Estonians, they think we are occupiers.’’ She glanced over at the other bar staff and continued, ‘‘but we are not. We were born here, this is our land, can’t you see the great Orthodox cathedral - if we came here with Stalin, who do they think built that?” :rolleyes:

In Georgia the issue is Ossetia and Abkhazia, but here in the Baltic the issue is the 40 per cent of the Estonian population who consider themselves Russian.

There is a similar but not quite so large minority in Latvia, Lithuania and, of course, the big one - Ukraine. There are also significant numbers of Russians in the Muslim republics of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

These are all potential powder kegs, if Moscow chooses to light the flame.

Whether the Kremlin wants to do this is anyone’s guess. However, here in Tallinn it is easy to see how a more expansive Kremlin might go about its business. Among the Estonians there is a tremendous amount of insecurity at the moment.

The prospect of any aggressive Russian action is remote because at the moment our interests and Russia’s coincide in trade and a mutual financial conundrum in the face of Asian global competition.

Furthermore, the people in power in Moscow, despite the naive caricatures peddled by the western press, are not idiots.

It does not mean the Red Army will not roll again, but it implies that from now on, Europe and America have to deal with Russia as an equal. In the past 18 years, we have dismissed the Russians. This was not healthy. Today, after Georgia, the situation has changed.

The Russians have spoken; the West has listened. The status quo is strengthened and Nadia can feel confident again without being threatening.

www.davidmcwilliams.ie

kaur
08-18-2008, 07:35 AM
Stan mentioned.


In Georgia the issue is Ossetia and Abkhazia, but here in the Baltic the issue is the 40 per cent of the Estonian population who consider themselves Russian.

Estonian population is 1,4 million. Fact is that there are approx 93 000 Russian citizens, 110 000 persons wihtout citizenship. Rougly there are 25 percent Russian speaking persons. They are not all Russians. There are Ukrainians, Belorussians, Georgians, Chechens etc. Most of them don't share Russian official opinion.

Oeh, I'm already tired to explain this question. Every kind of waitresses and hotel servants share such spam :(

Stan
08-18-2008, 09:14 AM
Stan mentioned.

Estonian population is 1,4 million. Fact is that there are approx 93 000 Russian citizens, 110 000 persons wihtout citizenship. Rougly there are 25 percent Russian speaking persons. They are not all Russians. There are Ukrainians, Belorussians, Georgians, Chechens etc. Most of them don't share Russian official opinion.

Oeh, I'm already tired to explain this question. Every kind of waitresses and hotel servants share such spam :(

jõudu !
While I wholeheartedly agree with you (and I am fairly sick of telling ethnic Russian here I have no need to learn Russian, as we are living in Estonia), as the author points out, it's definitely one of several sore points with the Kremlin and viewed by many as a potential powder keg.

We should also point out to the uninitiated that these "stateless" people are not running across the border to obtain Russian citizenship, and Russia is not handing out passports either. Perhaps one of the singular reasons we had far less than the typical Russian 5 to 21-day incursions.

Terv, Stan

kaur
08-18-2008, 03:09 PM
Georgians Doing Forced Labor in South Ossetia
18 August 2008


In a sign that Georgians are being abused in the Russian-controlled province, a Russian officer and armed Ossetians escorted forced laborers Saturday through the city.

"They are cleaning up after themselves," said Mikhail Mindzayev, South Ossetia's interior minister.



"Labor even turns monkeys into humans," the Russian officer said. He threatened to arrest an AP photographer if he took pictures and would not give his name.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1010/42/369851.htm

Stevely
08-18-2008, 03:19 PM
"Labor even turns monkeys into humans," the Russian officer said. He threatened to arrest an AP photographer if he took pictures and would not give his name.

And Russians into swine, it seems. The old thuggish Russia was really a whole lot closer to the surface than I thought.

Ron Humphrey
08-18-2008, 03:30 PM
And Russians into swine, it seems. The old thuggish Russia was really a whole lot closer to the surface than I thought.

The mentality of a countries populace really is very much maintained by that which they and not those on the outside percieve as possible, doable, exceptable, and probable. With the way things have been being run there ever since Vlad really started back to the old games, is it really any surprise that many within the ranks would still carry the same "old days" mentality.

People can change but generally only do if they think its gonna do them some good. Not much in current circumstances to make them feel like they should

Especially considering the current fate of many of the more reformitory high profile individuals as of late.

Of Note Though- Still think the old boy may not have gotten quite what he expected outta this. Yet to be seen

jmm99
08-18-2008, 05:21 PM
from Stan
BTW, wasn't it Estonia's "Finnish Boys" who came to the aid of Finland

the Estonians learned how to swim ? Will wonders never cease. :D

(Semi-)seriously, would not it be nice if Ingria were a province of Estonia, or of Finland, or an independent state - and that Ivan was land-locked from the Baltic ? Fairy tale, unfortunately.

We'll just have to be patient on the NATO thing. Finns take a while to make up their minds. It's the mutta thing - put three Finns in a room and out comes 6 very different political parties.

Jedburgh
08-18-2008, 05:47 PM
IMINT & Analysis, 17 Aug 08: Russia, Georgia, & Disinformation (http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/08/russia-georgia-disinformation.html)

......misreporting and deliberate distortion of the facts by the worldwide media has led to a convoluted picture of the events that have taken place. The fact that so many of the most commonly reported news items can be disassembled piece by piece with a few minutes of research places doubts on the credibility and objectivity of these establishments. When dealing with Russia after the cessation of hostilities, it would be wise to remember that there is no evidence to suggest a preplanned and orchestrated campaign to allow Russia to invade South Ossetia and Georgia. Painting Russia as a resurgent Evil Empire is a sign of unsubstantiated bias and nothing more. After all, Russia did warn Georgia that escalation was possible, and Saakashvili chose to give them the excuse needed to ensure the integrity of South Ossetia, perhaps permanently. Arguing that Russia's methods were overkill is one thing, accusing them of trying to take over the Caucasus is another thing entirely.

Ron Humphrey
08-18-2008, 06:03 PM
IMINT & Analysis, 17 Aug 08: Russia, Georgia, & Disinformation (http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/08/russia-georgia-disinformation.html)

OK, Let's see if I got this right.

Ralph Peter's baaad
Information war (Liar,Liar,everybody)
Georgia basically set Russia up by starting it then rolling over quickly and retreating so fast that the front Russian units ended up farther in then they were supposed to. And we know this because they didn't need to prep because they were already there and Georgia knew it so thats why
Ralph Peter's baaad

:confused:

Ken White
08-18-2008, 06:23 PM
Obviously he missed this gem; LINK (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/mystery-of-moscows-genocide-claim/2008/08/18/1218911567296.html). Seems to me about the only thing he got totally right was this; "Neither Georgia nor Russia are entirely without fault in the current conflict..."

I'd further say that if he believes this;"...When dealing with Russia after the cessation of hostilities, it would be wise to remember that there is no evidence to suggest a preplanned and orchestrated campaign to allow Russia to invade South Ossetia and Georgia."

I have a bridge for sale...

"...Arguing that Russia's methods were overkill is one thing, accusing them of trying to take over the Caucasus is another thing entirely."

Two bridges... :D

Jedburgh
08-18-2008, 06:35 PM
.....Georgia basically set Russia up by starting it then rolling over quickly and retreating so fast that the front Russian units ended up farther in then they were supposed to. And we know this because they didn't need to prep because they were already there and Georgia knew it so thats why.....
I fail to see what part of that blog piece drove that conclusion.

The author stated pretty clearly that The South Ossetian separatists do appear to have been the primary instigators of the conflict...., and simply states that Georgia escalated the conflict in response. The author of this blog post apparently agrees with the premise put out immediately prior to the conflict in an EDM article (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373294) that drawing the Russians in was the intent of the Ossetian separatists. At no point does the author state or imply that it was a Georgian "set-up". Although he also discusses several tangetial military issues, the focus of the author is attempting to debunk the belief that the Russian counter-invasion was extensively pre-planned prior to the outbreak of hostilities. In building that case, the author does not resort to creating a counter-conspiracy of Georgian manipulation of events.


As regards Ralph Peters, he long ago compromised integrity and credibility for by-lines and profit.

Ron Humphrey
08-18-2008, 07:08 PM
I fail to see what part of that blog piece drove that conclusion.

The author stated pretty clearly that The South Ossetian separatists do appear to have been the primary instigators of the conflict...., and simply states that Georgia escalated the conflict in response. The author of this blog post apparently agrees with the premise put out immediately prior to the conflict in an EDM article (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373294) that drawing the Russians in was the intent of the Ossetian separatists. At no point does the author state or imply that it was a Georgian "set-up". Although he also discusses several tangetial military issues, the focus of the author is attempting to debunk the belief that the Russian counter-invasion was extensively pre-planned prior to the outbreak of hostilities. In building that case, the author does not resort to creating a counter-conspiracy of Georgian manipulation of events.


As regards Ralph Peters, he long ago compromised integrity and credibility for by-lines and profit.

Wasn't anything near what he said, just sort of the type of mental gymnastics I had in trying to accept his points about the lack of Russian overall planning in this thing. It is certain that there is plenty of blame to go around but just out of curiousity what other excuse for continuing all the way into Georgia would Russia have had if as the premise is provided there was no plan to do so up front.

I leave the real analysis to those with much more info than I. Just trying to get the gist of it all for now:wry:

Ron Humphrey
08-18-2008, 07:16 PM
After reading that I now am even more concerned about Russia's diplomacy.

If you know whats happening, you see it coming, you are supposed to be helping to settle it down, Then BLAM you have to send a major force with all associated air, land, sea, and cyber support not only to that little area but just happen to continue on into Georgia, etc???????

Ken White
08-18-2008, 07:35 PM
...the focus of the author is attempting to debunk the belief that the Russian counter-invasion was extensively pre-planned prior to the outbreak of hostilities. In building that case, the author does not resort to creating a counter-conspiracy of Georgian manipulation of events.I agree with the latter statement but with regard to the first one, I'm inclined to say not proven. All things are possible but given the time sequence and the conduct that can be ascertained from open sources plus known Russian TTP, I'd be pretty hard put to not say what I said earlier -- A FSB operation long planned and using a rehearsed and prepared military force as the instrument...

Still, too early to tell, really. We'll see.

Uboat509
08-18-2008, 07:51 PM
And Russians into swine, it seems. The old thuggish Russia was really a whole lot closer to the surface than I thought.

Anybody know how to say Arbeit Macht Frei in Russian?

SFC W

Stan
08-18-2008, 07:53 PM
the Estonians learned how to swim ? Will wonders never cease. :D

(Semi-)seriously, would not it be nice if Ingria were a province of Estonia, or of Finland, or an independent state - and that Ivan was land-locked from the Baltic ? Fairy tale, unfortunately.

We'll just have to be patient on the NATO thing. Finns take a while to make up their minds. It's the mutta thing - put three Finns in a room and out comes 6 very different political parties.

JMM, touché. Permit me to elaborate regarding your drunk sailors from the Frozen north.

Although the Finns helped out Estonia to about 1919, Estonian participation in the Winter War (39 to 40) started by crossing the frozen Gulf of Finland braving cracks in the ice and Russian patrols (no, they did not swim :) ), more than 3,000 men fought to the autumn of 1943, and on 08 FEB 44 Marshal Mannerheim activated the 200th Infantry Regiment, JR 200 (nicknamed the Finnish Boys).

All told, 3,352 Estonian men fought in the Finnish armed forces. 410 in the Navy, forming 10 percent of the Finnish Navy (but they couldn't swim) HEH !

BTW, Santa does not come from Lapimaa, he originates, to this day in Alaska, and he's an Amurican :D

Terv, Stan

Render
08-18-2008, 07:58 PM
The Kashin class destroyer Smetlivy (edit for correction: shipspotting dot com has the Smetlivy in Sevestopol in May) and the Grisha class frigates Murumets and Aleksandrovets were in the Red Banner Northern fleet in May. In June those same three ships were in the Mediterranean. In August those same three ships joined the Slava class cruiser Moskva for naval operations off the Georgian coast.

Am I to believe that those three ships were on an apparently aimless world tour?

Am I expected to believe that the better part of two (Cossack) regiments of the 19th Motor Rifle Division were not in fact, the South Ossetian separatists themselves?

PUH
LEESE,
R

jmm99
08-18-2008, 08:38 PM
Stan, please feel free to educate me more on things Finnish & Estonian. I learnt something new.

For those interested in the Finnish-Estonian co-operation in the Winter-Continuation War, check this page:

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21967-estonian-volunteers-finland-during-ww-ii-1939-1944-a.html

Looks like we owe you a regiment or two (maybe more depending on the Estonian interest rate - 6 for 5 would be brutal - Estonia would own Suomi).

----------------------------------------
There has been a slight poll shift from Dec 2007 to Mar 2008. Interesting shift if Sweden also joins NATO - somewhat surprising since the Swedes are sometimes called "lemmings". Didn't spy anything after Mar, but could have missed it.


20.12.2007
About one in four Finns feel that Finland should seek membership in NATO. Over two thirds remain opposed to joining the alliance.

12.3.2008
Only 21 per cent of Finns are in favour of joining NATO, whereas 54 per cent are opposed and 23 per cent would not give an opinion.
.....
A bigger difference emerged when respondents were asked if Finland should join NATO if Sweden does the same. In that hypothetical situation, 41 per cent would be in favour of NATO membership, significantly outnumbering opponents.

http://www.hs.fi/english/archive/

BTW: No Saami Santa in our family. Mom was born here (actually, Swedish was her first language; Finnish secondary) - so, standard North Pole (not Alaska) Santa. I was found under a log in Alaska as my dad was checking his trap lines - his alternative to the stork story. :)

AmericanPride
08-18-2008, 09:49 PM
German Chancellor says Georgia will join NATO:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Georgia_will_join_NATO_Merkel_999.html


German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday assured Georgia would join NATO as she strongly backed the ex-Soviet republic's President Mikheil Saakashvili in his conflict with Russia.

"Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to," she told reporters before talks with Saakashvili in Tbilisi.

It was one of the strongest statements yet of support for Georgia's NATO membership bid, which is fiercely opposed by Russia.

I think that's an interesting statement coming from the W. European country most closely aligned with Russia.

jmm99
08-19-2008, 01:59 AM
from AmericanPride
...the W. European country most closely aligned with Russia

This statement strikes me as a bit strange, but I claim no particular knowledge. Enlighten me about your reasoning and some facts in support. Not looking for an argument - just some knowledge.

-----------------------
After watching a few newscasts today, I wonder how much of Georgia will be joining anything; but that is a separate thread.

jmm99
08-19-2008, 02:49 AM
The political issues surrounding the Georgian cease fire merge into continuing Russian military operations, which will be justified by the Kremlin's international military law experts as "additional security measures".

So, we find decided discomfort by M. Sarkozy with the language he accepted:


Last update - 02:40 17/08/2008
Russia signs cease fire agreement with Georgia
By News Agencies
.....
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a cease-fire agreement with Georgia on Saturday, a day after Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili reluctantly signed the plan that calls for Russian troops to pull back, but that also grants them limited patrols inside Georgia.
.....
French President Nicolas Sarkozy also called on Russia to withdraw from all Georgian territory, in a letter sent to Saakashvili. In the letter, Sarkozy said the withdrawal must come, in spite of conditions authorizing "additional security measures" for Russian forces.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012079.html

The Russian concept of "additional security measures", one suspects, will go well beyond "limited patrols" (which was not in the NY Times graphic, but may be in the final version ???).

Relevant terms of the agreement linked by the NY Times are quoted at post #123 above.

If someone has a url of the text of the final as-signed agreement, it would be appreciated. I can't find one.

AmericanPride
08-19-2008, 03:50 AM
Germany and Russia have a special relationship which is mutually beneficial to both, but not necessarily for the EU or NATO. Germany is the 5th largest energy consuming country in the world. Nearly half of its natural gas, a third of its oil, and a fifth of its coal imports come from Russia (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Germany/Background.html). This has led to the development of the Nord Stream project, which can potentially save 1 billion USD annually for Germany by avoiding the fees on transit through Eastern Europe. 40% of the consortium responsible project is owned by Germany companies, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is the leading member of the shareholder's committee.

I think energy is the primary issue, but there are other secondary trade relations; such as German economic technical expertise to assist Russian development. Germany is the heavy-hitter on the continent and key for Russia's strategy in prevening an EU concensus to form against its resurgency.

AmericanPride
08-19-2008, 04:07 AM
Rumors abound of Russian decision to deploy missiles to Baltic, Kaliningrad, Belarus, and Syria.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/9691338.asp?scr=1

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3583460,00.html

I'm sure (for now) that this decision is more measured by its political implications than introducing any new or significant capabilities.

Ken White
08-19-2008, 04:59 AM
The fine hand of the FSB...


“An armed group consisting of Georgian and Ukrainian nationalists and Georgia-based Chechen terrorists is being urgently formed on the outskirts of Gori. They plan to make their way to Gori and wear Russian military informs to pillage and torment the local population,” an official of the Russian Defense Ministry said. He added that the information had been received through intelligence and radio intercept."(LINK) (http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/18-08-2008/106135-provocation-0). Midway down the page.

Thus the "We're leaving" while columns go in the other direction. Gotta love it; everything old is new again.

Three bridges! :D

kaur
08-19-2008, 05:45 AM
More than seven billion U.S. dollars left Russia during Moscow’s military campaign in Georgia, a rate more than ten times higher than earlier in the year and the product at least in part of fears that “certain political risks” are making the Russian Federation a less attractive place for investment, according to Russian Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin.


At the same time, however, Nadorshin said that “it is early to speak about a serious blow to the economy of Russia.” The Russian government has reserves in its state funds that can be used to soften the blow. But investors are nonetheless likely to remain cautious about Russia for “another three to six months and perhaps further.”
Other experts, however, dismissed the impact of the war in Georgia on these flows. Yevgeny Yasin, a specialist at the Higher School of Economics, said that it was not the war in South Ossetia but rather actions by the Russian authorities, as in the Mechel case, and the weakening of the international economy that are to blame.
But both Kudrin’s remarks and the “Novyye izvestiya” article strongly suggest that Moscow’s war in Georgia will have an impact on the Russian economy and consequently on Russia’s behavior, especially if Western governments make it clear that they no longer view Moscow as a reliable member of the international community.

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2008/08/window-on-eurasia-war-in-georgia-helped.html


In sum, Russia threatens to cut up Georgia, informally but methodically, on several levels: 1) in Abkhazia and South Ossetia; 2) through additional buffer zones (glacis) beyond the secessionist areas; 3) by isolating some remote chunks of territory (Svaneti); 4) by cutting off the country’s east and west from each other and isolating Tbilisi; and 5) by controlling the seaboard.

Cumulatively, these moves enable Moscow to threaten to dismember Georgia as a means to force a change of government in Tbilisi. In the next stage, Moscow may try to install local authorities in various parts of the country. Those authorities may then be forced to act without Tbilisi’s approval or even to declare insubordination to Tbilisi. Pro-Moscow groups are a very small fringe in Georgia. The Russians, however, can create supply problems and law enforcement difficulties in order to force local authorities to work with Russian occupation authorities, even if the latter refuse to work with the Georgian government.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373322

Stan
08-19-2008, 08:02 AM
IMO Merkel's recent statement is barely anything new. I recall her statements at the April summit being "Georgia will become a NATO member if it wants to, and it does." She did however say that NATO entry was an issue of timing (provision of a Membership Action Plan), but not outright apposed to Georgia's membership. However, to now say "we are firmly moving toward Georgia's membership" has an empty ring to it.

Georgia will not be able to join the bloc say, any sooner than 5 years from now, if then. AND, Russia knows this better than most with its Sevastopol Naval Base Treaty (expiring in 2017 or something). That is, a non-NATO military base in Georgia translates into non-admittance to NATO.

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:


My salary will be moderate. I will be paid at a normal international level. :rolleyes:

kaur
08-19-2008, 08:07 AM
Russia’s Market Prepares for Sovereignty


But it isn’t the very bottom yet and the recommendation to buy at large will be given no sooner than the situation becomes the most pessimistic, which may happen in November, when the U.S. elects a new president, or in December, when NATO is due to deliberate whether to grant the MAP to Ukraine and Georgia. Another danger is the slump in oil prices to below $80/bbl.

http://www.kommersant.com/p1013198/r_528/Troika_Dialog_outlook/

Tom Odom
08-19-2008, 02:31 PM
I was going to post thios yesterda but we had comms issues so here tis. It gives a broader view of the issues.


MISFIRE
'We Are All Georgians'? Not So Fast.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401360.html)
By Michael Dobbs
Sunday, August 17, 2008; Page B01

It didn't take long for the "Putin is Hitler" analogies to start following the eruption of the ugly little war between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia. Neoconservative commentator Robert Kagan compared the Russian attack on Georgia with the Nazi grab of the Sudetenland in 1938. President Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said that the Russian leader was following a course "horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s."

kaur
08-19-2008, 02:44 PM
The last sentence.


The events of the past few days serve as a reminder that our ideological ambitions have greatly exceeded our military reach, particularly in areas such as the Caucasus, which is of only peripheral importance to the United States but of vital interest to Russia.

What next?