Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Energy Issues
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?
Monopoly control over caspian gas exports to europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Culpeper
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:
Quote:
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 (PDF)
Director, Center for Eurasian Policy
Hudson Institute, Washington, DC
So why have the Russians "stopped"
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.
US forces to deliver aid to Georgia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7559252.stm
Quote:
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".
Interesting, good find, wildcat.
Many forget our support of Georgia goes back to pre-Bush (43) days. LINK
Long article but good and as I recall, accurate background. Quote:
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.
Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict and NATO
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?
Intellectual Dishonesty and the Culpability of All
An excellent article from the Chatham House by James Nixey, Manager, Russia and Eurasia Programme
Quote:
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.
My guess is that Abkhazia and South Ossetia
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...
While I think I get where your coming from
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
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.
Random bad luck, Georgian propaganda, or wind drift?
Moscow and the Mullahs are different...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
I can accept that I may have a somewhat US perspective
Of course that could be because I'm an American:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Maybe you can provide me any hint how a membership of Georgia could improve the national security of European NATO members.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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.