Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[jmm99]

from AmericanPride
...the W. European country most closely aligned with Russia

This statement strikes me as a bit strange, but I claim no particular knowledge. Enlighten me about your reasoning and some facts in support. Not looking for an argument - just some knowledge.

-----------------------
After watching a few newscasts today, I wonder how much of Georgia will be joining anything; but that is a separate thread.

[jmm99]

The political issues surrounding the Georgian cease fire merge into continuing Russian military operations, which will be justified by the Kremlin's international military law experts as "additional security measures".

So, we find decided discomfort by M. Sarkozy with the language he accepted:

Last update - 02:40 17/08/2008
Russia signs cease fire agreement with Georgia
By News Agencies
.....
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a cease-fire agreement with Georgia on Saturday, a day after Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili reluctantly signed the plan that calls for Russian troops to pull back, but that also grants them limited patrols inside Georgia.
.....
French President Nicolas Sarkozy also called on Russia to withdraw from all Georgian territory, in a letter sent to Saakashvili. In the letter, Sarkozy said the withdrawal must come, in spite of conditions authorizing "additional security measures" for Russian forces.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012079.html

The Russian concept of "additional security measures", one suspects, will go well beyond "limited patrols" (which was not in the NY Times graphic, but may be in the final version ???).

Relevant terms of the agreement linked by the NY Times are quoted at post #123 above.

If someone has a url of the text of the final as-signed agreement, it would be appreciated. I can't find one.

[AmericanPride]

Germany and Russia have a special relationship which is mutually beneficial to both, but not necessarily for the EU or NATO. Germany is the 5th largest energy consuming country in the world. Nearly half of its natural gas, a third of its oil, and a fifth of its coal imports come from Russia (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Ger...ackground.html). This has led to the development of the Nord Stream project, which can potentially save 1 billion USD annually for Germany by avoiding the fees on transit through Eastern Europe. 40% of the consortium responsible project is owned by Germany companies, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is the leading member of the shareholder's committee.

I think energy is the primary issue, but there are other secondary trade relations; such as German economic technical expertise to assist Russian development. Germany is the heavy-hitter on the continent and key for Russia's strategy in prevening an EU concensus to form against its resurgency.

[AmericanPride]

Rumors abound of Russian decision to deploy missiles to Baltic, Kaliningrad, Belarus, and Syria.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/w...1338.asp?scr=1

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...583460,00.html

I'm sure (for now) that this decision is more measured by its political implications than introducing any new or significant capabilities.

[Ken White]

The fine hand of the FSB...

“An armed group consisting of Georgian and Ukrainian nationalists and Georgia-based Chechen terrorists is being urgently formed on the outskirts of Gori. They plan to make their way to Gori and wear Russian military informs to pillage and torment the local population,” an official of the Russian Defense Ministry said. He added that the information had been received through intelligence and radio intercept."

(LINK). Midway down the page.

Thus the "We're leaving" while columns go in the other direction. Gotta love it; everything old is new again.

Three bridges!

[kaur]

More than seven billion U.S. dollars left Russia during Moscow’s military campaign in Georgia, a rate more than ten times higher than earlier in the year and the product at least in part of fears that “certain political risks” are making the Russian Federation a less attractive place for investment, according to Russian Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin.

At the same time, however, Nadorshin said that “it is early to speak about a serious blow to the economy of Russia.” The Russian government has reserves in its state funds that can be used to soften the blow. But investors are nonetheless likely to remain cautious about Russia for “another three to six months and perhaps further.”
Other experts, however, dismissed the impact of the war in Georgia on these flows. Yevgeny Yasin, a specialist at the Higher School of Economics, said that it was not the war in South Ossetia but rather actions by the Russian authorities, as in the Mechel case, and the weakening of the international economy that are to blame.
But both Kudrin’s remarks and the “Novyye izvestiya” article strongly suggest that Moscow’s war in Georgia will have an impact on the Russian economy and consequently on Russia’s behavior, especially if Western governments make it clear that they no longer view Moscow as a reliable member of the international community.

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/...ia-helped.html

In sum, Russia threatens to cut up Georgia, informally but methodically, on several levels: 1) in Abkhazia and South Ossetia; 2) through additional buffer zones (glacis) beyond the secessionist areas; 3) by isolating some remote chunks of territory (Svaneti); 4) by cutting off the country’s east and west from each other and isolating Tbilisi; and 5) by controlling the seaboard.

Cumulatively, these moves enable Moscow to threaten to dismember Georgia as a means to force a change of government in Tbilisi. In the next stage, Moscow may try to install local authorities in various parts of the country. Those authorities may then be forced to act without Tbilisi’s approval or even to declare insubordination to Tbilisi. Pro-Moscow groups are a very small fringe in Georgia. The Russians, however, can create supply problems and law enforcement difficulties in order to force local authorities to work with Russian occupation authorities, even if the latter refuse to work with the Georgian government.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373322

[Stan]

IMO Merkel's recent statement is barely anything new. I recall her statements at the April summit being "Georgia will become a NATO member if it wants to, and it does." She did however say that NATO entry was an issue of timing (provision of a Membership Action Plan), but not outright apposed to Georgia's membership. However, to now say "we are firmly moving toward Georgia's membership" has an empty ring to it.

Georgia will not be able to join the bloc say, any sooner than 5 years from now, if then. AND, Russia knows this better than most with its Sevastopol Naval Base Treaty (expiring in 2017 or something). That is, a non-NATO military base in Georgia translates into non-admittance to NATO.

Nordstream not only has Gerhard Schroeder at the helm, they've gone and found yet another former PM to force the Sierra through Scandinavia and the Baltic Seabed -- ex-Finnish PM Paavo Lipponen. Lipponen was quoted:

My salary will be moderate. I will be paid at a normal international level.

[kaur]

Russia’s Market Prepares for Sovereignty

But it isn’t the very bottom yet and the recommendation to buy at large will be given no sooner than the situation becomes the most pessimistic, which may happen in November, when the U.S. elects a new president, or in December, when NATO is due to deliberate whether to grant the MAP to Ukraine and Georgia. Another danger is the slump in oil prices to below $80/bbl.

http://www.kommersant.com/p1013198/r...ialog_outlook/

[Tom Odom]

I was going to post thios yesterda but we had comms issues so here tis. It gives a broader view of the issues.

MISFIRE
'We Are All Georgians'? Not So Fast.

By Michael Dobbs
Sunday, August 17, 2008; Page B01

It didn't take long for the "Putin is Hitler" analogies to start following the eruption of the ugly little war between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia. Neoconservative commentator Robert Kagan compared the Russian attack on Georgia with the Nazi grab of the Sudetenland in 1938. President Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said that the Russian leader was following a course "horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s."

[kaur]

The last sentence.

The events of the past few days serve as a reminder that our ideological ambitions have greatly exceeded our military reach, particularly in areas such as the Caucasus, which is of only peripheral importance to the United States but of vital interest to Russia.

What next?

[Ron Humphrey]

I was going to post thios yesterda but we had comms issues so here tis. It gives a broader view of the issues.

And brings up more questions.

Were the Georgian forces that did this in 1991 the same as those now, or have there been some major changes?

Are Kosovo and SO/Abkhazia the same thing? If so why, if not why not?

Although SO has been autonomous they were firing rockets into Georgia proper, Russian "peace keepers" were there yet this continued. It is still for all intensive and from what I can see so far internationally considered part of Georgia not Russia. So they have to eventually respond somehow to the continuing rocket attacks. What were they supposed to do, go driving in on golf carts with zip-ties and tasers and ask the rebels to pretty please stop shooting rockets at them?

As to vital interests why are these countries of vital interest to Russia other than to

1- Get their resources
2- Control their resources(enable international blackmail)
3- Reestablish a semblance of their authoritarian control over the various polities
4- ????

Still not getting IT?

BTW why is it everybody is always so touchy about armchair generals. You'd think they actually think armchair generals actually think their in charge of something rather than just trying to get to a better understanding of whats going on.

[AmericanPride]

Are Kosovo and SO/Abkhazia the same thing? If so why, if not why not?

An article from RFE/RL addressing your question: http://www.rferl.org/Content/No_Comp...a/1191723.html

Although analogies may be drawn and arguments may be made for the existence of a precedent, they won't resolve the conflict in South Ossetia. In fact, such analogies actually underscore the differences between Kosovo and South Ossetia, rather than build a compelling case for precedent.

[Stan]

An Initial Look at Russian Military Performance in Georgia

A great summation and quick read without all the glitter from FPRI, by Felix K. Chang

It is no surprise that tensions between Russia and Georgia have mounted. On August 3 Moscow warned of the growing danger of a “large-scale military conflict” between Georgia and its separatist province of South Ossetia; that warning drew a reply from Washington two days later urging Moscow to refrain from provocative actions in the region.[1]

As the conflict unfolded during the night of August 7 with a Georgian military offensive into South Ossetia, it soon appeared that Tbilisi miscalculated the Russian response. By the morning of August 8, Russian forces were streaming into Georgia. While news reports from the frontlines remain preliminary and incomplete, the scale and speed of Russia’s military operations between August 8 and 12 do shed some light on Russian military capabilities and operational readiness and raise new questions regarding the events leading to the conflict.

Russian Ground Forces
Russian Air Forces
Russian Naval Forces
Operational Axes

Much more at the link...

[jmm99]

re: AmericanPride

Thanx for the explanation - energy output and requirements = special relationship. The Gazprom links seem to run from south (Turkey, another thread here) to north (Baltic pipeline) and in between (where I am dumb).

So, recent flap in Helsinki (noted by Stan above - one step ahead of me ) ties in as well

HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - BUSINESS & FINANCE
18.8.2008
....
Politicians take mainly positive view of Lipponen pipeline lobbying effort
The announcement that former Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament Paavo Lipponen (SDP) is taking on a job as a lobbyist for the Russian-German company Nord Sream, which is planning to set up an undersea gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, brought both approval and critical comments from Parliamentary party group leaders and other politicians.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Pol.../1135238727769

Seems like a conflict of interest to me; but Gazprom seems to make many pretty packages for people and nations.

PS: One wonders if Putin didn't start to shape this plan (in his head) when he was in East Germany, since economic warfare seems to have been his bent. If so, will + foresight.

[jmm99]

to Georgia may be quicker than I thought - three scared Finns in a room come up with uni-solution more quickly - sometimes.

So, perhaps relevant to NATO in the long run - note reference to Sweden in body of article (and poll results in #26 above).

HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - HOME
19.8.2008
Vanhanen: South Ossetia crisis will affect next national defence report
Finland not offered any “special role” in resolving crisis

Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) believes that the crisis between Russia and Georgia over the territory of South Ossetia is having an effect on the upcoming government report on security and defence policy, which is now being finalised.

“It would be crazy to say that it does not have an impact, because of course it does. The real world always affects how things are dealt with”, Vanhanen said.

He voiced his views on Monday at a press conference held at his Kesäranta residence, marking the end of the summer period.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Van.../1135238759827

PS: Suomi shuts down during "summer period" - good time for someone to attack them; "winter period" bad time.

[Tom Odom]

And brings up more questions.

Were the Georgian forces that did this in 1991 the same as those now, or have there been some major changes?

Are Kosovo and SO/Abkhazia the same thing? If so why, if not why not?

Although SO has been autonomous they were firing rockets into Georgia proper, Russian "peace keepers" were there yet this continued. It is still for all intensive and from what I can see so far internationally considered part of Georgia not Russia. So they have to eventually respond somehow to the continuing rocket attacks. What were they supposed to do, go driving in on golf carts with zip-ties and tasers and ask the rebels to pretty please stop shooting rockets at them?

As to vital interests why are these countries of vital interest to Russia other than to

1- Get their resources
2- Control their resources(enable international blackmail)
3- Reestablish a semblance of their authoritarian control over the various polities
4- ????

Still not getting IT?

BTW why is it everybody is always so touchy about armchair generals. You'd think they actually think armchair generals actually think their in charge of something rather than just trying to get to a better understanding of whats going on.

OK other than a list of 20 questions, what exactly is your point?

I offered the article as a broader look at the issue. one that specifically says it is not as simple as it seems.

Try answering your own questions and leave off the sarcasm.

Tom

[Ron Humphrey]

OK other than a list of 20 questions, what exactly is your point?

I offered the article as a broader look at the issue. one that specifically says it is not as simple as it seems.

Try answering your own questions and leave off the sarcasm.

Tom

so much as trying to really understand why it always seems like efforts to explain whats happening consistantly seem to focus on surrounding implications of one action or another rather than than pointedly answering the basic's.

What- was done
Why-it was done
Who- it was done for
When it started
How it came about

Then Why was what was done the right thing or wrong, and why each party would see it as such.
Why is each sides perspective right or wrong
Why is or isn't it of vital interest
Etc

The article you posted was excellent in that it showed a little more of the overall picture and placed it in a different perspective, thus allowing me to more definitively break down the questions in such a manner as to be given feedback directly related to that question (as American Pride was able to do with his follow-on posting).

The main point I have had is still the same Why was it OK for Russia to do what it did aside from the fact that supposedly noone else can do anything about it.

Truly searching for greater understanding not necessarily direction as is so often the case.

Please don't be mad at me

[Ron Humphrey]

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-104e.html

Statement from NATO

[Ken White]

It's 'cause the average Journalist, Pundit or Academic doesn't know any more about the essentials of the action than you do -- and quite possibly, they know even less -- ergo, they concentrate on the non-essentials and esoteric items to justify their pay and just say something.

The neat thing is I can also pontificate and I don't even expect to be paid...

[Tom Odom]

so much as trying to really understand why it always seems like efforts to explain whats happening consistantly seem to focus on surrounding implications of one action or another rather than than pointedly answering the basic's.

What- was done
Why-it was done
Who- it was done for
When it started
How it came about

Then Why was what was done the right thing or wrong, and why each party would see it as such.
Why is each sides perspective right or wrong
Why is or isn't it of vital interest
Etc

The article you posted was excellent in that it showed a little more of the overall picture and placed it in a different perspective, thus allowing me to more definitively break down the questions in such a manner as to be given feedback directly related to that question (as American Pride was able to do with his follow-on posting).

The main point I have had is still the same Why was it OK for Russia to do what it did aside from the fact that supposedly noone else can do anything about it.

Truly searching for greater understanding not necessarily direction as is so often the case.

Please don't be mad at me

Not mad at all. Seeking a greater clarity for what you are asking.

I would say that attaching "right or wrong" values to this situation simply adds false moral clarity to a long standing issue that is anything but clear.

Russia is being Russia--not the USSR but Russia in that she is seeking to preserve her buffers and in this case using an ethnic conflict or two to do so.

I am not a specialist on this area; my knowledge is generalist at best. But aside from not staying at Holiday Inn Express last night (or last year for that matter), I do know that Russia has maintained along standing tradition/policy of controlling buffer states. Putin could give a rat's behind about the SO's or the Abkhazians. He gives a very large rat's behind about Georgia joining NATO or missiles in Poland.

In my estimation, much of what we have pushed in the past decade with regards to expanding NATO was done because we could do so without penalty or push back. If I tried to guess what was going through the Georigians' minds, it would be a similar thought. They could do some push back without penalty. I think Putin read that one correctly. Using the situation Putin pushed back hard.

If you want a parallel issue, I would have to say Cuba in 1960 is a closer match than Czechoslavakia, 1968. But not just the Cuban side of the Cuban crisis but also the intermediate range missiles we had in turkey at the time that we pulled when all was said and done.

It's not right and it's not wrong. It is what it is and that is power applied.

Tom