Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[Ken White]

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]

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]

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]

Who will oppose them?

[Wildcat]

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]

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]

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]

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