Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[AmericanPride]

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. But that at least gives us the flexibility to see a good opportunity when it knocks on our door.

[Stevely]

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. But that at least gives us the flexibility to see a good opportunity when it knocks on our door.

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

[wm]

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

Sounds like good OPSEC to me

[Old Eagle]

Never attribute to conspiracy what may be adequately explained by
stupidity or incompetence.

[h2harris]

Interesting analysis of implications: Caroline Glick - Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[jmm99]

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]

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]

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...

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

[jmm99]

in light of current events.

Ted, your crystal ball was working well.

[Rex Brynen]

If you haven't seen this video yet, these Turkish reporters are darned lucky to still be alive...

[Rank amateur]

"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]

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.)

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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 .

[Ron Humphrey]

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

[Norfolk]

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]

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.