Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[Fuchs]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/new...cle4535173.ece

[Stan]

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 .

[Stevely]

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]

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]

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 ).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]

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). 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]

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]

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

[Armchairguy]

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]

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?