Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[Wildcat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7559252.stm

President George W Bush has said the US will use military aircraft and naval forces to deliver aid to Georgia following its conflict with Russia.

He also urged Russia to respect a ceasefire agreement with Georgia.

President Bush said the US was concerned about reports of continuing Russian military action in Georgia.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to fly to France for talks with Nicolas Sarkozy before travelling to Tbilisi to express US support, he said.

He said he would direct US Defence Secretary Robert Gates to begin a "vigorous and ongoing" humanitarian mission to Georgia, headed by the US military.

"We expect Russia to honour its commitment to allow in all forms of humanitarian assistance," Mr Bush added.

Mr Bush's address in Washington came amid reports that violence has flared in Georgia, where Russian tanks have been seen patrolling the town of Gori, near the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

The US president said Russia's ongoing actions had "raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region".

[Ken White]

Many forget our support of Georgia goes back to pre-Bush (43) days. LINK

Long article but good and as I recall, accurate background. Quote:

The Freedom Support Act adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1992, while recognizing developments in the former Soviet Union as a "historical opportunity for a transition to a peaceful and stable international order," indicated that the success of the transition was in the interest of the entire international community and emphasized the role of the United States in contributing to the transition.

[AmericanPride]

US citizen in Georgia speaks of Georgian war-crimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6AWvqHqPQ8

He's not exactly pulling the party line. Then again, he is on Russia Today, so maybe that's his party -- though I will note that I haven't read much about accusations of Russian war-crimes, only Georgian and overwhelmingly from Russian sources. Is this an ethnic conflict? Great power conflict? Economic conflict? Or is it a trifecta of casus belli? I'm inclined to think that Georgia is more or less lost, and that the best the US can do (and on behalf of NATO) is to salvage what credibility we can in anticipation of Russia's focus on settling its score with Ukraine.

[jmm99]

HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
13.8.2008
....
Politicians: Finnish policy unaffected by Caucasus crisis
Russian-EU relations could suffer
Finnish politicians interviewed by Helsingin Sanomat do not believe that the crisis between Russia and Georgia gives any reason for Finland to re-examine its security policy line.
.....
Social Democratic MP Eero Heinäluoma feels that the crisis has reinforced the justification for, and sustainability of Finland’s security policy line. Heinäluoma also emphasises the importance of military defence capability and international cooperation.

“Georgia got plenty of verbal sympathy and encouragement, but the willingness of outside countries to do something appears to be limited. It is good to make note of this in Finland as well. We ultimately have to have the ability to take care of our own affairs.”

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Pol.../1135238580861

HELSINGIN SANOMAT
INTERNATIONAL EDITION - FOREIGN
13.8.2008
....
COMMENT: Finland’s OSCE role requires circumspection
By Miska Rantanen
.....
On the official level Finland has taken a very cautious line on the matter.
.....
On an unofficial level, the thinking is different.

Many military experts see Russia’s new kind of use of military strength as a clear change in the security environment. The country is rapidly taking back the credibility that belongs to a great power, which also affects Finland’s position.

Furthermore, the government’s next report on security policy, which currently is under preparation, is considered to be excessively optimistic. It does not take into consideration the fact that our neighbour is a great power at war, whose threshold to resort to taking up arms is low.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/COM.../1135238580910

[selil]

A Ukraine blogger (on Twitter) says they are ramping up for war and posting the following article.

NATO Now!

Russia’s successful blitz through South Ossetia, Abkhazia and other parts of Georgia was a rude wake-up call. Other than Tbilisi, the capital most in shock is Kyiv. Just over a week ago, the thought of Russia invading Ukraine to solve territorial or political disputes -- such as the simmering one in Sevastopol over the Russian Black Sea Fleet -- was ludicrous. After the events in Georgia, it is not so laughable.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs must be disconcerted by the ineffectual European, American and world response to the crisis. While Russians bombed and paratroopers rolled into Georgia, the West bombarded the Kremlin with diplomatic dispatches.

Ukraine finds itself in a precarious geopolitical situation. Russia truly represents a threat to an independent Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine - like Georgia - is facing this threat on its own. The nation’s leaders must finally realize their isolation and vulnerability.

After wasting 17 years on political squabbles fueled by the redistribution of Soviet-era wealth, the nation is not secure. Ukraine, stuck between Hitler and Stalin in World War II, doesn’t have a favorable geographic position or friendly neighbors. Instead, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is reported to have openly sneered at the idea of Ukraine being a sovereign nation.

Russia’s adventurism in Georgia was meant to send the bluntest of signals to its neighbors: “Don’t get too cozy with the West, because we rule this region.” The fossilized communists and other Kremlin toadies all too willingly obey. But such a subservient response will only take Ukraine backwards.

More at the LINK

I am thinking that the rhetoric is ramping up, but I'm not sure that combat is ramping up. The death toll is going to be pretty high, the stability of the region is going to be difficult, and I'm concerned that the relief columns are going to be to juicy for the Russians to leave alone. I'm betting we've seen the opening to a larger regional conflagration. Then again I'm one of the crazy crack pots that said gasoline in America would eclipse $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008. Ooops that did happen.

[AmericanPride]

Any opinions about the future credibility of NATO? Has Russia's action in Georgia revealed a deep fault between the security interests of the United States, W. Europe, and E. Europe vis-a-vis Russia?

[jmm99]

Sergei Ivanov, who, in his CNN interview of a couple of days past, knew the correct lines well. One might guess he wrote them. Was he "in town", while V was in Beijing and D was off on a Volga cruise ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Ivanov

[Ron Humphrey]

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Any opinions about the future credibility of NATO? Has Russia's action in Georgia revealed a deep fault between the security interests of the United States, W. Europe, and E. Europe vis-a-vis Russia?

would be dependant on whether the many countries for whom this action carried a message decide to cower as requested or if on the other hand we see a whole lot of militaries start doing exercises along their borders, more invites for air defense, and/or possible new additions to the alliance.

For Georgia to be let in now would send a huge message of solidarity to certain parties on the other hand if everything goes away quietly then it will be pretty much the same thing as giving in to the bullying.

Will be interesting to see what Chinas overall output about it ends up being.
One would hope they would remember that the capital they have brought in through interactions with the west is one of the larger factors in maintaining their ability to provide services and thus keeping their party intact.

[Stan]

An excellent article from the Chatham House by James Nixey, Manager, Russia and Eurasia Programme

So, ceasefire or continued fighting (reports are contradictory), with the Georgians humiliated and forcibly removed from South Ossetia and Abkhazia and themselves installed, Russia wins hands down. Except, perhaps, for one thing. Russia may have won the battle yet end up losing the war.

...Russia often acts against its own interests and a 'rational actor' model cannot be applied when guessing its next step, nor its interpretation of anyone else's.

The West must bear some blame for this too. The fudge at the Bucharest NATO summit in April - to give Georgia (and Ukraine) the guarantee of eventual membership, but not to grant it the Membership Action Plan (MAP) looked clever at the time, trying to please everyone, but it now appears to have backfired. Georgia has not been given clear enough signals as to what it must do to join and no less important, what it must not do. Had it received them, this may have prevented Mr Saakashvili from taking the reckless action he did on 8 August.

Now the hard and admirable work that Georgia has put into meeting the criteria for NATO entry seems to be in vain. Russia will not (because it cannot) be directly punished for these events, at least in the short term. Not so Georgia: its NATO ambitions now look more distant than ever, in spite of good progress on corruption and defence reform.

But more distant prospects may also be firmer prospects, especially if the map of Georgia has changed. If a more stable Georgia one day emerges from this crisis, it will be more attractive to NATO.

[Ken White]

will become Russian, Georgia will be smaller and that NATO is unlikely to ever include Georgia as a member (barring a major implosion of Russia, not likely at this time). I suspect the old line Social Democracies that constitute western and central Europe will outvote the US and the eastern European NATO members on that issue.

In this, I think the European consensus has it right, militarily, strategically and operationally. Supporting Georgia is well and good, idealistic and to be admired -- it also is fraught with reality problems. Maybe even common sense problems.

Going to be interesting to see what Afghanistan does to NATO in survival terms over the long haul. Georgia and the current flap won't help...

[kaur]

Stan, i like this opinion more.

That left me with little choice but to become philosophical regarding my question of who was the first to attack Tskhinvali? It occurred to me that we buried one of Josef Stalin's greatest opponents, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, last week, but the tensions that Stalin stirred up were continuing to exert their influence. It was Stalin who laid down the illogical borders between the Soviet republics. He did so based on the belief that they were so unnatural that nobody would ever dream of trying to tamper with them, understanding what terrible consequences would result.

History has shown that Stalin was overly optimistic. Having lost their fear of Mikhail Gorbachev's democratic Kremlin, nationalist democrats in Soviet republics like Russia, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia began behaving as if the borders that Stalin drew between peoples were actually "historical borders" between states, leading to much bloodshed.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/articl.../42/369737.htm

[Ron Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Ken White

will become Russian, Georgia will be smaller and that NATO is unlikely to ever include Georgia as a member (barring a major implosion of Russia, not likely at this time). I suspect the old line Social Democracies that constitute western and central Europe will outvote the US and the eastern European NATO members on that issue.

In this, I think the European consensus has it right, militarily, strategically and operationally. Supporting Georgia is well and good, idealistic and to be admired -- it also is fraught with reality problems. Maybe even common sense problems.

Going to be interesting to see what Afghanistan does to NATO in survival terms over the long haul. Georgia and the current flap won't help...

The question that comes to mind is if one looks at the situation the one country that provided more troops than anyone besides UK to help us and yet?

NATO didn't let em in?

NATO is in what seems to be widely percieved as a do or die in Afghanistan in so far as proving it's worth?

The danger of allowing this current incident to stand without some major changes in a variety of areas would seem to far outway what would be somewhat more predictably the follow-on with things as they stand right now?

And thats not even getting into what message this may have sent Iran regarding support against international pressures.

[Norwiscutter]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...gerogiastatetv

[kaur]

THE RUSSIAN-GEORGIAN WAR WAS PREPLANNED IN MOSCOW

By Pavel Felgenhauer

Thursday, August 14, 2008

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373314

This British publication forecasted events already month ago.

In view of the uneasy, apprehensive and stressful relationship which the smaller state has with its much larger and more powerful neighbour to the north, it is not surprising that suspicion, speculation and conjecture remain high in Georgia about Russia’s future intentions with regard to the unrecognised Abkhaz republic and to Georgian aspirations to join NATO. There can be little doubt that the bullying of Georgia will continue. Harassment and manipulation with a view to provoking a hasty, hot-tempered overreaction would of course be a well-tried stratagem.

http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/d...2822%29CWB.pdf

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

The question that comes to mind is if one looks at the situation the one country that provided more troops than anyone besides UK to help us and yet?

NATO didn't let em in?

NATO is in what seems to be widely percieved as a do or die in Afghanistan in so far as proving it's worth?

OK, that's an understandable U.S.American point of view, but imho quite superficial.

NATO is first and foremost a collective security organization/treaty/alliance.
It serves its members' interests in national security affairs.
It is not a payment method of U.S. foreign policy.
It is not the United Nations, has no real reason to care for distant countries' national security.
Maybe you can provide me any hint how a membership of Georgia could improve the national security of European NATO members.
It would be a buffer zone for Turkey, but at the same time a buffer that Turkey doesn't need as long as Georgia isn't a member.
Its military strength is negligible.

About the Iraq thing; that's not NATO business, but US/UK business. There's no reason for countries like Germany or Italy to thank Georgians for playing auxiliary troops for GWB in Iraq.
The USA is free to agree on a bilateral alliance with Georgia if it desires to do so. That's something that the Europeans couldn't veto against (afaik).

Afghanistan is highly exaggerated in regards to NATO politics. Americans might believe that it's a litmus test for NATO, but Europeans do (usually) consider NATO as a collective national security alliance, not as a club for joint overseas expeditions.
The connection between 9/11 and fighting Taleban in 2008 in an Afghan civil war is extremely weak. The initial declaration that NATO collective defense was being activated due to 9/11 was already questionable an considered as a symbolic gesture by many Europeans.

NATO is the stabilizing (multi)national security institution in Europe (WEU/EU being the backups) and highly successful as such (even keeping peace between greece and Turkey). It is easily justified.

The USA can leave it if it desires, of course.
(But that would end the US's status as superpower because it depends more on its allies than Americans imagine - remember UN security council veto rights of UK/France & the lack of U.S. bases in Europe, Africa, South America and Western/Northern Indian Ocean without European support?)

[Jedburgh]

Yet more competing analysis; contrast this one with the EDM article Kaur posted above....

Window on Eurasia, 13 Aug 08: Was There a Russian Intelligence Failure in Georgia?

Russia’s intelligence services failed to detect and warn Moscow’s top leaders about Georgian plans to send forces into South Ossetia, a shortcoming that cannot be covered up by Vladimir Putin’s decision to hand out awards to more than 50 FSB, SVR, and GRU officers, according to a Russian analyst who tracks that country’s security community.
Indeed, Vladimir Yermolin writes in an article posted on the Grani.ru portal today, these awards are the height of hypocrisy because they have being given “for the timely and precise supply by the intelligence services of various levels of the General Staff of the Armed Forces and consequently of the country’s leadership”.

The course of events suggests that no such information was provided, at least in a timely fashion......

[Stan]

Originally Posted by kaur

Stan, i like this opinion more.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/articl.../42/369737.htm

Kaur, a great find indeed. I rather enjoyed Alexei Pankin's overall opinion at the end best.

I am not a Russian patriot, although I try to force myself to love the country of which I am a citizen. I was, and still am, a citizen of the Soviet Union...

... But I strongly dislike all those little Napoleons -- whether they are named Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, former Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia or Saakashvili -- who instead of freeing their citizens from the Stalinist Soviet Union have created mini-empires within illogically imposed borders and played out their delusions of grandeur using the blood of their own people.

With that statement, let's make a bet on Alexei's "terminal" age for say... hmmm, the next time you visit Estonia

I'll go out on the limb just this one time and say he won't make Christmas. I have a crisp 100 note with my favorite Aunt Lydia

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

The question that comes to mind is if one looks at the situation the one country that provided more troops than anyone besides UK to help us and yet?

No question that they did that and that it was of some help to us.

NATO didn't let em in?

Why should they; the big shakers and movers in NATO, other than the UK, didn't agree at all with our attack on Iraq. They in fact suffered some losses in several areas because of that attack, not least that we bulldozed them into forgiving a lot of Iraqi debt -- so how much of NATO, en masse, saying 'no' was on the purely logical grounds that admitting Georgia would not be strategically smart and how much was NATO (-) payback to the US for earlier ignoring them? Georgia helped the US in Iraq, not NATO.

NATO is in what seems to be widely percieved as a do or die in Afghanistan in so far as proving it's worth?

I guess some see it that way. I don't, I think NATO is too important to the members for various reasons to go away. However, I do think the disconnect over roles and missions in the 'Stan will have a lasting impact on the alliance. As will Iraq. Like they say about adultery in marriage; "Things may be better or they may be worse but they'll never be the same."

The danger of allowing this current incident to stand without some major changes in a variety of areas would seem to far outway what would be somewhat more predictably the follow-on with things as they stand right now?

Perhaps. My personal belief is that our policies toward Russia post 1991 have been extremely short sighted and while freedom is great, one needs to be a little careful about what one wishes for or they may get it...

I'd also suggest our options are rather limited. Russia, after all, is operating on interior lines -- and not just in the military sense.

And thats not even getting into what message this may have sent Iran regarding support against international pressures.

Irrelevant IMO. Iran is aware and has been for almost 30 years of the fine print involved in resisting international pressure; they're masters at it -- almost as good as the North Koreans. The Iraniha know that Russia and China will continue to support them and they know the west (including the US) is highly unlikely to resort to overt violence unless they make a bad mistake. The Mullahs are not stupid, they'll work hard at verbiage and mild provocation but will pull back before going to far. I don't think this changes anything with respect to Iran, to include dealings with the Iraqis (who were and are totally unlikely to allow Iranian hegemony).

[Fuchs]

Damn!
The Russians are playing well!

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008...ussia19620.htm
The initial reports about Georgians massacring South Ossetian civilians (a much-repeated story, especially by Russians/exile Russians) was apparently vastly exaggerated.

It looks to me like a very well thought-out plan, executed with formidable patience by Putin and/or his foreign politics experts.
It seems as if they did everything reight in this conflict (according to their interests), except that they apparently forgot to use Georgia as testing ground for new military equipment.
- establishment of separatist movements/territories as early as 1992
- Georgia kept out of NATO by these luring territorial conflicts
- Georgia tempted by provcations to accept the role of aggressor
- Georgian massacre story being used to deter full Western support to Georgian government during the fighting
- use of nearby rapid reaction division to drive the Georgians back to indefensible terrain south of 'T' city quickly
- acceptance of international efforts for cease-fire once the mission was accomplished

The only thing missing were really battlefield-testing of new equipment and demission of Georgian government (might happen soon).

Honestly; I believe that our politicians (impatient Sarkozy, opportunist Berlusconi, weakened Brown, uninterested Merkel, neutralized Bush) are no match at this level of well-planned Great Power contests.
Thy wasted their energies at completely different, unnecessary affairs and neglected real national security and foregn policy.

[AmericanPride]

Fuchs,

Do you think simultaneous membership in the EU and NATO for France and Germany contribute to the creation of internally conflictive interests for them? Do the priorities of the EU and NATO conflict?

Maybe you can provide me any hint how a membership of Georgia could improve the national security of European NATO members.

If NATO is "first and foremost a collective security organization/treaty/alliance", then how Georgian membership improves the national security of European members is not as relevant as to how said membership would improve the national security of the most powerful state(s) which make up NATO (i.e. the United States first, then the UK or France, followed by Germany). The national security of the other states is only as important as maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of the organization for the most powerful members. So this will obviously influence how threats are identified and perceived, and which ones will be given the most weight. The PKK is not a significant NATO threat, nor is Libya or the Basques, or other categories of threats that challenge lesser members. Russia is a primary threat -- and not because it threatens every single NATO member (what threat is Russia to, say, Portugal or Iceland?), but because it's a threat defined by the US and UK. With that said, the US and UK, being the prominent NATO members, have the right to push forward Georgian membership for their own interests, and the right to chastize France and Germany for opposing it. If France and Germany are not particularly fond of that development, then like France did during the Cold War, they have the right to withdraw from the organization.