Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[jmm99]

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

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

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

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

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

[UrsaMaior]

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

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

[jmm99]

From the NY Times

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

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

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

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/wo...in&oref=slogin

The legal squabble here involves the 1936 Montreux Convention.

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreu...urkish_Straits

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

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

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

And, from the same source:

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

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

[Ron Humphrey]

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

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

[jmm99]

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/de...ay&link=150870

[jmm99]

Permission of the Turkish government should not be assumed. A timely article in EDM (as I work through brown bag reading):

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

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373331

[jmm99]

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

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

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373330

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

[Ron Humphrey]

Permission of the Turkish government should not be assumed. A timely article in EDM (as I work through brown bag reading):



http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373331

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

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