Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[jmm99]

from Stan
as Finland joins the former soviet Republics -- joining NATO -- a possibility which could not be viewed impassively

NATO and other alliances have been pushed by more than one leading politician - mutta, the leading political parties have not adopted that as a formal plarform item + about 2/3 of Finns are adverse.

Or, have I missed something since Mar 2008 - which is quite possible.

Finnish security policy: No Joy, but Finland Joins Nato Force
By Kyösti Karvonen
.....
Finland is ready to contribute to Nato Response Force (NRF), but only in a supplementary role. The painful compromise was reached after a long vacillation, just in time before Nato's Bucharest Summit, writes Kyösti Karvonen, Managing Editor of newspaper Kaleva.

http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/ne...readPosition=4

also

http://formin.finland.fi/Public/defa...&culture=en-US
http://www.mil.fi/perustietoa/julkai.../chapter_9.dsp
http://www.mil.fi/perustietoa/julkai.../chapter_0.dsp

Georgia may change that - mutta, which way will that cut is another question. We shall see.

Finland has helped Estonia - good to help cousins.

Choke off Gulf of Finland sounds good in theory. Last time we were able to do that was before Charlie the Great screwed everything up in the Great Northern War - and we still remember the consequent Great Wrath.

Sorry to be a little gloomy here.

Kiitos paljon.

[SWJED]

Russia-Georgia: Early Take
By Bob Killebrew, SWJ Blog

The impact of the Russian attack on Georgia is still being assessed around the world, in that slow-motion way that global events have on governments. Getting the full picture of what's going on will take a few weeks yet. But this much seems to be clear.

First, there's no illusion about who's running Russia. Vladimir Putin is clearly the effective head of state, flying from the Beijing Olympics to southern Russia to oversee military operations and to dominate Russian TV. The return of strongman rule to Russia, and particularly one who regards the demise of the Soviet Union as a historic catastrophe, is now a fact of international life to which we will all have to adjust to.

Second, Putin and his government are attempting to establish the legitimacy of a Russian sphere of influence that looks very much like a reestablishment of the old Soviet empire. This is the core of an enormously sophisticated information campaign that is having some success -- at least around Washington -- in appealing to the realpolitik crowd who look for excuses for inaction in the case of a Russian invasion of their democratic neighbor. The invasion of Georgia was accompanied by an information campaign based on the idea that Russia has a right to intervene anywhere that the "dignity" of Russian minorities is threatened. Since there are Russian minorities in every former Soviet state of the old empire, this is an attempt to establish a "sphere of influence" precedent that must chill newly independent states still struggling with democracy.

From a military perspective, the first impression is that the Russians laid an effective "strategic ambush" for Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvilli, inciting anti-government attacks in South Ossetia by local militias and then responding to the Georgian offensive with a well-planned and rehearsed offensive of their own. Even when viewed through the imperfect lens of news media scrambling to catch up to events, military experts understand that the joint and combined-arms attacks Russia staged in the opening hours of the war were anything but spontaneous. For historians, a retrospective on Nazi Germany's offensive to "protect" the Sudaten Czechs shows a striking similarity of purpose and method...

Much more at the link.

[Ron Humphrey]

Russia-Georgia: Early Take
By Bob Killebrew, SWJ Blog



Much more at the link.

I just hope the main message there is heeded where it needs to be

[Fuchs]

It's "Sudeten", not "Sudaten", and the comparison is nonsense anyway.
Even Bosnia would make more sense as comparison.


The article is clearly a U.S.-only article, with no different point of view included.

Two assumptions are questionable:

1) To cofront Russia is a good idea. Actually, it doesn't even question whether Russia should be confronted. It simply assumes that it needs to be done, for whatever reason.

As scholar Fred Kagan said recently, there is a "new axis" of anti-Russian democracies around the edge of the old Soviet empire. Supporting those states and securing their future must be a top priority for the U.S. and NATO

This would require an article-long explanation. Instead, he assumes it as true.
It may sound cynically, but what's the damage to USA/NATO if all of Caucasus and Ukraine even became Russian?

2) The author assumes that the USA is in a position to confront Russia through proxies in Russia's periphery and pretty much ignores Europe.

--------------------------------

The Georgia/SouthOssetia/Russia War (however that will be called by historians) tells us a bit about Russia and its periphery, and about a half-hearted commitment of the USA in the region.

But there's more.
Even though the arrangement of a cease-fire most likely (tempted to write "certainly") only happened at the time set by Russia, it was done by EU council president/French president Sarkozy, not by Olympia spectator Bush.
The U.S. government fell awfully short of the typical American asumption of relevance to foreign conflict several times in the past years; remember Kenya crisis and Zimbabwe crisis?
A Georgian government felt backed by the Western world because it gave GWB some auxiliary troops and got some U.S. advisors and equipment.
That was an awful mistake.

The red line that Russia won't step over is called "NATO", not "friend of USA".

That will have implications in Central Asia (where the USA cannot establish any meaningful military presence without Russian persmission simply due to logistics). Uzbekistan, Kasachstan, Kirgizistan... - that are and will be firm CIS countries, and cannot be very Western-friendly without Russian permission at all.

The U.S.'s ability to influence the Caucasus depends on Turkey. As long as the Turks are occupied by domestic politics and not eager to wage a Caucasian Cold War, there's no real power base for the USA in the Caucasus region. Romania could be discussed as possible substitute, but it's clearly inferior to Turkey as a base.

The Western ability to influence the situation of Ukraine is very open to discussion. Significant (and wealthy) parts of Ukraine have a strong Russian majority. A Western (NATO) Ukraine would be a mortal threat to Russia (check the distance to Moscow - Russians demonstrated the inability to accept foreign powers being close to Moscow repeatedly).
Ukraine's ties to Western Europe are very thin - culturally, economically, politically.

[selil]

It's "Sudeten", not "Sudaten", and the comparison is nonsense anyway.
Even Bosnia would make more sense as comparison.

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.

[Fuchs]

Is there any particular reason why you have taken to being so rude to other users? 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 consider "nonsense" as a quite neutral word here. It's no description of a person anyway.
It is a very accurate description of the association between Georgia 2008 and Czechoslovakia 1938.

There is no similarity between the Russia-Georgia and the Germany-Czechoslovakia case that justifies such an association:

Neither South Ossetians nor Abchazians are a Russian minority in a foreign country.
Czechoslovakia wasn't part of a common, disintegrated empire with Germany for about 130, in practice 300 years in 1938. Georgia was part of Russian-dominated Soviet Union less than 20 years ago.
There were no significant (para)military actions in Sudetenland prior to its annexation.
Putin is no a Nazi.
Czechoslovakia had no foreign military advisors on its territory in 1938.
South Ossetia was still not annexed by Russia.
Nor did Western powers agree to such a move yet.
There's no danger of a major European war because of the conflict in Georgia.
Germany and Czechoslovakia had no history of 16 years ongoing violent conflicts about minorities by 1938.
Czechoslovakia did not invade Sudetenland with its military, violating an 16 y.o. cease-fire agreement. Its manned border fortifications were all the time in the Sudetenland.
Germany did not achieve the annexation of Sudetenland with a previous military action/victory.
Germany threatened with air attacks in 1938, Russia FLEW air attacks against Georgia in 2008.


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.

[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.

[Fuchs]

I feel this deserves a separate reply.


My conclusions based on the recent War in Georgia:

1)
Great Power games are back, publicly.
2)
Russia under Putin is willing to re-establish its regional dominance with military means.
Russia re-established itself overtly as Great Power and regionally dominant power. It's willing and capable to compete with Western influences in its periphery.
3)
Turkey is the key geo-strategic nation. It's at the crossroads between the Arab world, Iran, Europe and the Russian influence zone.
It's the premier place for forward deployment of military power in peacetime.
4)
Russia/Putin has played brilliantly. The state of Georgia seems to be politically defeated in the struggle for its separatist regions.
The best (but still realistic) scenario for Georgia is a neutralization. It could become a 2nd Finland - sitting as a neutral power between NATO and CIS.
A mediocre scenario is a Georgia as a firm CIS member in exchange for at least formal sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abchasia.
The worst scenario would be an ongoing struggle.
5)
Ukraine is the real prize, but the ethnic struggles and its geo-strategic position close to Russia's core regions make a NATO membership almost unthinkable.
Again, neutralization with guarantees by NATO AND CIS/Russia (and at the very least some autonomy for the three Russian-dominated Ukrainian regions) seems to be most promising for Ukraine's future.
6)
Moldavia might become the limit for EU expansion due to now overt Russian hostility to Western expansion into its periphery.
7)
NATO membership appears to be a a much more reliable national security asset than mere friendship with the distant USA.
8)
Plenty opportunities to waste resources on a Great Power games in Eastern European conflicts became visible.
9)
Conventional war is back, looking even more conventionally than the ex-Yugoslavian Civil Wars.
10)
The UN is useless in Eastern European conflicts due to the involvement of at least one UN Security Council veto power.
11)
Western European diplomatic attempts to tame Russia were only successful during Russia's weakness phase (and had great success in flanking NATO & EU expansion into Eastern Europe).

--------------

I personally favour a neutralization of Ukraine and Georgia.
The same applies for Byelorussia if it becomes democratic sometime.
Central Asia is irrelevant for us and will be firmly in CIS in the future.
The other Caucasian states are at this time CIS members and will likely part of CIS/Russian zone of influence.

That would avoid a 2nd Cold War / costly Great Power games.
Russia could then attempt to gain influence over these states by cultural, economic and political means instead of by costly & risky military & political confrontation.

[Ken White]

It's "Sudeten", not "Sudaten", and the comparison is nonsense anyway. Even Bosnia would make more sense as comparison.

I suspect that he meant to compare it only on the grounds that it was a pre-planned and the Ossetians were acting as had the Sudeten Germans in that instance.

The article is clearly a U.S.-only article, with no different point of view included.

Yes.

...It may sound cynically, but what's the damage to USA/NATO if all of Caucasus and Ukraine even became Russian?

Cynical? Or Selfish? I suspect that there would br little or no damage to the US or NATO. How the Caucasus states and the Ukraine -- the non-Russian inhabitants -- feel is possibly a different matter.

...The author assumes that the USA is in a position to confront Russia through proxies in Russia's periphery and pretty much ignores Europe.

Er, no; I suspect he's aware that the Baltic States, Poland, Slovenia and Romania are in Europe...

The Georgia/SouthOssetia/Russia War (however that will be called by historians) tells us a bit about Russia and its periphery, and about a half-hearted commitment of the USA in the region.

True.

But there's more...The U.S. government fell awfully short of the typical American asumption of relevance to foreign conflict several times in the past years; remember Kenya crisis and Zimbabwe crisis?

We don't intervene in Africa believing all the former Colonial powers ought to clean up their own problems.

A Georgian government felt backed by the Western world because it gave GWB some auxiliary troops and got some U.S. advisors and equipment. That was an awful mistake.

Agreed.

The red line that Russia won't step over is called "NATO", not "friend of USA".

I'm not sure I'd bet the farm on that "won't" but I agree that's generally correct.

The Western ability to influence the situation of Ukraine is very open to discussion. Significant (and wealthy) parts of Ukraine have a strong Russian majority. A Western (NATO) Ukraine would be a mortal threat to Russia (check the distance to Moscow - Russians demonstrated the inability to accept foreign powers being close to Moscow repeatedly). Ukraine's ties to Western Europe are very thin - culturally, economically, politically.

True on the former; the latter is also true but that is as much due to Western Europe -- the Austro Hungarian Empire in particular -- and the aftermath of WW I as anything; it certainly isn't due to Ukrainian wishes...

[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.

[Ken White]

Russia-Georgia: Early Take
By Bob Killebrew, SWJ Blog

Cross posted from the blog:

Aggressive proposal. I could quibble around the edges. Georgia's very decentralized Air Defenses worked fairly well, for example and PGM require sophisticated ISTR or aircraft. Agility and competence beat computers -- and mass. Particularly marginally trained mass...

However, I suspect the biggest problem is that the likelihood of Congress supporting the ideas is beyond slim. Not to mention the EU reaction...

[Jedburgh]

IMINT & Analysis, 17 Aug 08: Russia, Georgia, & Disinformation

......misreporting and deliberate distortion of the facts by the worldwide media has led to a convoluted picture of the events that have taken place. The fact that so many of the most commonly reported news items can be disassembled piece by piece with a few minutes of research places doubts on the credibility and objectivity of these establishments. When dealing with Russia after the cessation of hostilities, it would be wise to remember that there is no evidence to suggest a preplanned and orchestrated campaign to allow Russia to invade South Ossetia and Georgia. Painting Russia as a resurgent Evil Empire is a sign of unsubstantiated bias and nothing more. After all, Russia did warn Georgia that escalation was possible, and Saakashvili chose to give them the excuse needed to ensure the integrity of South Ossetia, perhaps permanently. Arguing that Russia's methods were overkill is one thing, accusing them of trying to take over the Caucasus is another thing entirely.

[Ron Humphrey]

IMINT & Analysis, 17 Aug 08: Russia, Georgia, & Disinformation

OK, Let's see if I got this right.

Ralph Peter's baaad
Information war (Liar,Liar,everybody)
Georgia basically set Russia up by starting it then rolling over quickly and retreating so fast that the front Russian units ended up farther in then they were supposed to. And we know this because they didn't need to prep because they were already there and Georgia knew it so thats why
Ralph Peter's baaad

[Ken White]

Obviously he missed this gem; LINK. Seems to me about the only thing he got totally right was this; "Neither Georgia nor Russia are entirely without fault in the current conflict..."

I'd further say that if he believes this;"...When dealing with Russia after the cessation of hostilities, it would be wise to remember that there is no evidence to suggest a preplanned and orchestrated campaign to allow Russia to invade South Ossetia and Georgia."

I have a bridge for sale...

"...Arguing that Russia's methods were overkill is one thing, accusing them of trying to take over the Caucasus is another thing entirely."

Two bridges...

[Jedburgh]

.....Georgia basically set Russia up by starting it then rolling over quickly and retreating so fast that the front Russian units ended up farther in then they were supposed to. And we know this because they didn't need to prep because they were already there and Georgia knew it so thats why.....

I fail to see what part of that blog piece drove that conclusion.

The author stated pretty clearly that The South Ossetian separatists do appear to have been the primary instigators of the conflict...., and simply states that Georgia escalated the conflict in response. The author of this blog post apparently agrees with the premise put out immediately prior to the conflict in an EDM article that drawing the Russians in was the intent of the Ossetian separatists. At no point does the author state or imply that it was a Georgian "set-up". Although he also discusses several tangetial military issues, the focus of the author is attempting to debunk the belief that the Russian counter-invasion was extensively pre-planned prior to the outbreak of hostilities. In building that case, the author does not resort to creating a counter-conspiracy of Georgian manipulation of events.


As regards Ralph Peters, he long ago compromised integrity and credibility for by-lines and profit.

[Ron Humphrey]

I fail to see what part of that blog piece drove that conclusion.

The author stated pretty clearly that The South Ossetian separatists do appear to have been the primary instigators of the conflict...., and simply states that Georgia escalated the conflict in response. The author of this blog post apparently agrees with the premise put out immediately prior to the conflict in an EDM article that drawing the Russians in was the intent of the Ossetian separatists. At no point does the author state or imply that it was a Georgian "set-up". Although he also discusses several tangetial military issues, the focus of the author is attempting to debunk the belief that the Russian counter-invasion was extensively pre-planned prior to the outbreak of hostilities. In building that case, the author does not resort to creating a counter-conspiracy of Georgian manipulation of events.


As regards Ralph Peters, he long ago compromised integrity and credibility for by-lines and profit.

Wasn't anything near what he said, just sort of the type of mental gymnastics I had in trying to accept his points about the lack of Russian overall planning in this thing. It is certain that there is plenty of blame to go around but just out of curiousity what other excuse for continuing all the way into Georgia would Russia have had if as the premise is provided there was no plan to do so up front.

I leave the real analysis to those with much more info than I. Just trying to get the gist of it all for now

[Ron Humphrey]

After reading that I now am even more concerned about Russia's diplomacy.

If you know whats happening, you see it coming, you are supposed to be helping to settle it down, Then BLAM you have to send a major force with all associated air, land, sea, and cyber support not only to that little area but just happen to continue on into Georgia, etc???????

[Ken White]

...the focus of the author is attempting to debunk the belief that the Russian counter-invasion was extensively pre-planned prior to the outbreak of hostilities. In building that case, the author does not resort to creating a counter-conspiracy of Georgian manipulation of events.

I agree with the latter statement but with regard to the first one, I'm inclined to say not proven. All things are possible but given the time sequence and the conduct that can be ascertained from open sources plus known Russian TTP, I'd be pretty hard put to not say what I said earlier -- A FSB operation long planned and using a rehearsed and prepared military force as the instrument...

Still, too early to tell, really. We'll see.

[Render]

The Kashin class destroyer Smetlivy (edit for correction: shipspotting dot com has the Smetlivy in Sevestopol in May) and the Grisha class frigates Murumets and Aleksandrovets were in the Red Banner Northern fleet in May. In June those same three ships were in the Mediterranean. In August those same three ships joined the Slava class cruiser Moskva for naval operations off the Georgian coast.

Am I to believe that those three ships were on an apparently aimless world tour?

Am I expected to believe that the better part of two (Cossack) regiments of the 19th Motor Rifle Division were not in fact, the South Ossetian separatists themselves?

PUH
LEESE,
R

[OUTLAW 09]

Documentary about the Russia's war against Georgia, which became a rehearsal aggression against Ukraine (Eng Text)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biLOFqJTYQE#