Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[kaur]

Wilf said:

What all this tells me, is that there is now even less reason to suppose that the future wars will be small wars.

French general Andre Beaufre wrote in his book "Introduction to Strategy" in chapter "Sub-divisions of strategy" in the middle of 60s.

Within each main field each branch of activity wiil have its own distinct category of strategy. This level at which concept and implementation meet, when the optimum must be adjusted to the possible in the light of technical limitations. In the military fileld this vital process of articulation has been termed by the Germans operational strategy (operativ). Whether it is realized or not, each branch of activity does in fact have an operational strategy. Its purpose is notonly to harmonize theobjectives laid down by overall strategy with the capabilities of the tactics and techniques in use in the branch concerned, but also to ensure that those tactics and techniques are developed in the directions which will best fit them to meet future strategic requirements. Operational strategy therefore has a vital part to paly; it is one about which there have been often misconceptions. Take for instance the classic strategy of land warfare; it is at this level that the tactical and logistic factore' must be taken into account (eg the size of force in relation to the area of operations, strategic and tactical mobility, offensive and defensive capacity). It is impact of these factors which will dictate the form the war will take (static warfare or war of movement, a rapid military decision or a battle of attrition, etc); it is therefore these factors which determine what the strategic possibilites are. Because neither the importance nor the mechanics of this aspect of strategy were understood, we were taken by surprise by the static warfare of 1914 and by our defeat in 1940; it shourl have been possible to foresee and so avoit both.

Beaufre writes in his book about different patterns of stratey and condition of use. Maybe i had to start with those, but fingers are already tired of typing for this time

[kaur]

Here is Stratfors article, that I mentioned couple pages back. Moderator deleted it due to rules.

Georgia, Russia: Checkmate?
Stratfor Today » August 11, 2008 | 1534 GMT

http://one-village.spaces.live.com/b...28!12991.entry

It seems that information falsification lives already independent life. Nobody mentions Vremya, people are talking about Americans.

Copy-paste this sentence to Google and the amount of replies is big.

США признали, что в Южной Осетии была разбита американская армия

This is called information war. Message to Russia's neighbors is that even US intelligence analysts see the Russias power and it's better to surrender volunterely.

[Beelzebubalicious]

I read that the Russians supposedly targeted the BTC pipeline but there didn't seem to be any clear info on whether it was damaged or not. It seems that this was a target of Russia - was it to damage (send a message) or control the pipeline?

[Van]

The ability to destroy even a critical element of the pipeline is a measure of control. They can shut it off.

Given much of the (most of the?) affluence that exists in Russia is based on oil, the ability to kineticly manage a major pipeline is an edge in the futures market. Interesting approach to insider trading.

[Culpeper]

I read that the Russians supposedly targeted the BTC pipeline but there didn't seem to be any clear info on whether it was damaged or not. It seems that this was a target of Russia - was it to damage (send a message) or control the pipeline?

It was shut down by the operator. Latest reports I have read through the media is that the pipeline is intact. Bombing of the pipeline wasn't needed.

[Stan]

Hey Eric !

I read that the Russians supposedly targeted the BTC pipeline but there didn't seem to be any clear info on whether it was damaged or not. It seems that this was a target of Russia - was it to damage (send a message) or control the pipeline?

Statoil folks here claim the pipelines were shut down on both ends well before the offensive. Odd that, as if Mother Russia was prepared (go figure).

Then there's this from BP:
BP still waiting for damaged Turkish pipeline to cool

... fire broke out on Aug. 5 after a blast in the Erzincan province for which the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, has claimed responsibility. The 1,768-kilometer (1,100-mile) link contains 10 million barrels of oil at any one time and cost $3.9 billion.

BP and partners stopped pumping crude into the Baku-Supsa pipeline from Azerbaijan to the Georgian Black Sea coast because of "precautionary measures," ...

The Baku-Supsa pipeline was restarted last week after 19 months of repairs.

BP and StatoilHydro ASA also halted natural gas exports from Azerbaijan through the South Caucasus pipeline because of security concerns,

Oil is only being transported through the Baku-Novorossiysk link to the Russian Black Sea coast and in rail cars across Georgia to the Black Sea ports

Russian warplanes attacked a section of the BTC pipeline in Georgia today, according to Kakha Lomaia, head of Georgia's National Security Council.

Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, told reporters in Moscow that it hadn't been targeted.

"We can't verify" the bombing of the BTC pipeline, Hugh McDowell, BP's general manager for Georgia, said by phone today. "It's being investigated, but there are many different reports and we take each one seriously."

[bourbon]

I read that the Russians supposedly targeted the BTC pipeline but there didn't seem to be any clear info on whether it was damaged or not. It seems that this was a target of Russia - was it to damage (send a message) or control the pipeline?

Not the BTC, reportedly it was the Baku-Supsa line, Steve Levine wrote on his blog Oil & Glory:

(I just received reliable confirmation that, contrary to a statement by Georgia, Russia did not bomb near the Baku-Ceyhan line. Bombs were dropped near the smaller Baku-Supsa line, which leads to Georgia's Black Sea, but caused no damage. The Supsa line passes near South Ossetia so it's possible that this was a fog of war situation.)

BTC was declared force majeure on Aug 5 from an explosion in Eastern Turkey the PKK is taking credit for, they just put the fire out monday. The Azeri BTC exports were rerouted to Baku-Supsa, the pipeline the Russians tried to bomb, and was then temporarily shut down.

[Culpeper]

What would have been the value of bombing the pipeline?

[wm]

It was shut down by the operator. Latest reports I have read through the media is that the pipeline is intact. Bombing of the pipeline wasn't needed.

Folks need to get their oil pipelines straight--there are two crossing Georgia--both start in Baku and run near Tbilisi--one, the BTC (planned to reach 1M BBl/Day throughput terminates on the Mediterrenean in Ceyhan, TU. The other terminates in the Black Sea at Supsa (155K BBL/day). The BTC has been shut down due to a bombing, allegedly by the PKK and is slated to stay closed for another month or so. The Baku-Supsa was apparently shut down by the operator. However, neither is really at issue here. The Russians have another pipeline from Baku to Novorossiysk (165K BBl/day) and the CPC pipeline (.5M BBL/day, planned upgraded to over a million) from the Kazkh Tengiz fields to Novorossiysk. A natural gas pipeline is under construction from Baku through Tbilisi into Turkey (done to Erzerum now, I think).

BTW, it ain't about oil IMHO. Russia makes its money on natural gas with pipelines running through the Ukraine. It might be about a message to the Ukrainians regarding NATO and Sevastapol (Russian Black Sea Fleet lease expires in 2017), and probably is really about other stuff (like a payback for blowing off their wishes vis-a-vis Kosovo).

[bourbon]

What would have been the value of bombing the pipeline?

Bombing the pipelines, or almost hitting them, on top of this skirmish is going to kill the investment climate in Georgia. This is important because it will likely kill plans for the Nabucco gas line to Europe, and its competitor Gazprom’s South Stream will be built. Nabucco threatens to break the Russian monopoly of transporting Caspian gas to Europe. Again this is natural gas not oil, no use of spot markets, long term fixed contracts, with great power given to who controls the transportation.

While Nabucco’s plans have some hang ups, South Stream makes little sense economically. It will be the most expensive pipeline ever made, and cost likely 2X more than Nabucco. However, market principles do not matter for South Stream with Russia using Gazprom and its pipelines as a geopolitical tool. Market principles do apply to Nabucco. Investors will be hard pressed to put up the billions needed for Nabucco, when its feeder the South Caucasus Pipeline (gas line that runs in the BTC corridor) is exposed to so much risk.

For more on Nabucco v. South Stream & Balboa v. Drago, I recomend:

OIL, OLIGARCHS, AND OPPORTUNITY: ENERGY FROM CENTRAL ASIA TO EUROPE, HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE. Thursday, June 12, 2008.
Ms. Zeyno Baran (PDF)
Director, Center for Eurasian Policy
Hudson Institute, Washington, DC

[Norwiscutter]

I use the term stopped lightly as reports coming out through today about the actual cessation of hostilities are mixed, but if in fact Medvedev has called off the dogs, why stop now if one of the desired goals at the onset of all this was the attainment of a Georgian regime change? The Russians seam to have pushed this past the point of making a viable case to the west about the legitimacy of their actions, so why not put the proverbial nail in the coffin and finish the job?
I believe one of two possible options is currently in play:
The current Russian assessment of the geopolitical environment has determined that a show of restraint at this point will garner sufficient political capital and credibility. This possibly is viable if predictions for friendly and enemy casualties upon the invasion of Tbilisi are deemed too costly to sustain.
Or:
The Russians have determined that the potential defense of Tbilisi would prove to be too costly and therefore have instead decided to simply wait the Georgians out. Call it an extension of their assigned peacekeeping duties in S.O. if you will, but rather than face head on a motivated nationalistic force in an urban combat scenario, simply starve out the Georgians in Tbilisi until they are more ready to consider the prospect of a new regime.

[badtux]

I use the term stopped lightly as reports coming out through today about the actual cessation of hostilities are mixed, but if in fact Medvedev has called off the dogs, why stop now

Two words: "Operational pause". The Russians had to pause anyhow to rest and resupply after multiple days of combat. Why not score a few diplomatic points (and maybe even resolve the whole thing diplomatically) while your troops are consolidating their positions, catching a few winks, and getting a fresh load of diesel in their T-72's?

if one of the desired goals at the onset of all this was the attainment of a Georgian regime change?

Regime change is happening anyhow after a screwup of this magnitude by Saakashvili. The last thing that the Russians want to do is create a martyr out of him. The Russians are going to dictate the terms of the peace to Georgia, they will be terms the Georgians don't like, and Saakashvilli will either accept them or not accept them but either way he will be the goat and out of office shortly.

The Russians seam to have pushed this past the point of making a viable case to the west about the legitimacy of their actions

"the west" is not of interest to them other than as customers for their oil and gas. Their immediate neighbors are of more pressing interest to them. I believe there are people in the government ministries of multiple Trashcanistans that as we speak are recomputing the assurances that they have received from the United States... thus insuring that they will remember the prime rule if you are living next to Russia, "don't poke the bear." Because even a shabby and decrepit old bear likely still has enough teeth in that grizzled muzzle to make you regret it.

The current Russian assessment of the geopolitical environment has determined that a show of restraint at this point will garner sufficient political capital and credibility. This possibly is viable if predictions for

Or, they have to pause anyhow, so they might as well try the diplomatic route for a day to let the fuel trucks catch up with getting their T-72's and BMP's topped up. That's a long skinny supply route back to Russia, y'know.

The Russians have determined that the potential defense of Tbilisi would prove to be too costly and therefore have instead decided to simply wait the Georgians out.

Or they simply have no desire to go into cities and towns. For example, according to Reuters the Russians are on the outskirts of Gori, but have not gone into the city. Apparently Grozny re-taught them that cities are a bad place for tanks. Or they have decided that where they are gives them sufficient leverage to get what they want -- formal recognition of the full autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Or they have decided that Saakashvili is a loose cannon and will do something else to give them a pretext to go farther, so they might as well wait to see what stupid thing he does next. Or a Martian invasion fleet has materialized over the Kremlin and scooped out the brains of Putin and Medvedev and replaced them with alien grey matter. Point being speculation is interesting, but the only speculation we have that we know is true is that if the Russians have been fighting for five days straight, they're tired and in need of resupply and thus an operational pause is in order. What they intend to do during this pause, or after... well, we shall see, shall we not?

[Stan]

If I was a Baltic State or Ukraine military planner, I would make note of this. It seems like these countries (and Georgia) have developed their militaries to take on NATO/American missions, while not thinking about their own territorial defense?

It wasn't too long ago when the Balts wanted things like Abrams tanks. We finally got them into your line of thinking. No way to destroy all that armor with just a few Abrams (read limited funds as well). Better to take them out from a distance one at a time with HEAT rounds.

The entire and painful process of PFP to MAP, to NATO should also be addressing territorial defense. All I can recall from this process was tons of paper to justify boondoggles and huge peacekeeping exercises.

[zenpundit]

"but the only speculation we have that we know is true is that if the Russians have been fighting for five days straight, they're tired and in need of resupply and thus an operational pause is in order"True enough. On the diplo side, Sarkozy was in town to, in effect, negotiate surrender terms for the Georgians. Sure, the Russians could have stiff-armed him and pushed on pounding Georgia but Sarkozy is going to be president of France for a long time. France holds a veto in the UNSC. There will times in the future where Moscow would like France to entertain their diplomatic concerns vis-a-vis America.

Gratuitously insulting Sarkozy, who also represents the EU in his first high profile mission, during talks by shellacking Georgian cities wouldn't be particularly smart. Especially, if you need an operational pause anyway.

It also gave Medvedev and Putin a chance to muddy the analytical waters by playing good cop-bad cop.

[Ratzel]

It wasn't too long ago when the Balts wanted things like Abrams tanks. We finally got them into your line of thinking. No way to destroy all that armor with just a few Abrams (read limited funds as well). Better to take them out from a distance one at a time with HEAT rounds.

The entire and painful process of PFP to MAP, to NATO should also be addressing territorial defense. All I can recall from this process was tons of paper to justify boondoggles and huge peacekeeping exercises.

I've been to Latvia and have thought about the best way to defend it against Russia. I'm not sure of the terrain in Estonia, but Latvia is very flat. There are some forests, but Russia would probably try to head right down the highway to Riga. The Latvians should have hundreds of local National Guards men or militia's armed with Javelins, Stingers, sniper rifles, and mortars ready to defend these main roads to Riga. They should also have a "Riga" brigade that's only task is to defend Riga. It could concentrate all its efforts on this task. Latvia also needs to consider possible drop-zones outside of Riga suitable for Russian airborne invasion. The Baltic States should also always come to the aid of other Baltic States. But all three of the Balt's should fight the same way: small 6 man teams out in the country-side, along with special trained units that prepare the defenses and fight in the major cities.

[Stan]

I've been to Latvia and have thought about the best way to defend it against Russia. I'm not sure of the terrain in Estonia, but Latvia is very flat. There are some forests, but Russia would probably try to head right down the highway to Riga. The Latvians should have hundreds of local National Guards men or militia's armed with Javelins, Stingers, sniper rifles, and mortars ready to defend these main roads to Riga. They should also have a "Riga" brigade that's only task is to defend Riga. It could concentrate all its efforts on this task. Latvia also needs to consider possible drop-zones outside of Riga suitable for Russian airborne invasion. The Baltic States should also always come to the aid of other Baltic States. But all three of the Balt's should fight the same way: small 6 man teams out in the country-side, along with special trained units that prepare the defenses and fight in the major cities.

Estonia is also blessed with large forests and generally flat terrain. We do however have Lake Peipsi (more than 3,500 square kilometers) covering nearly our entire eastern flank. With but one bridge to cross over (in order to access a main road, a Russian armor spearhead to the capital is extremely unlikely, or, at best take a long, long time.

With NATO fighters performing air space control and surveillance, a surprise attack is also unlikely to take place.

The Baltic States thus far are politically speaking very supportive of each other, and we have fortunately no had the opportunity to test the waters defending against a Kremlin invasion. The Paldiski peninsula has been offered up as a potential NATO base, and that has not gone over well with Russia. Massive air fields, two deep harbors and a former Russian nuke sub base

[kaur]

Stan, foreign bases are politically sensitive question. Why are bases needed? Just to keep forces in the theatre and this is question of force projection. If you think abut human shield, then you are right of course. At present day the best force projection method is air force. Sometimes the best way is Tomohawk missile. It depends a lot of nature of enemy and georgaphy. I'm waiting the day when US can cover it's allies via this technology.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003671.html

You just need to make decision and push the button. No diplomatic discussions about bases (Turkey, Russia, Pakistan etc). You just enforce your will. 1st you just have to wait that enemy will settle in permanent location. Like Russians in Georgia today, this moment.

[Stan]

Stan, foreign bases are politically sensitive question. Why are bases needed? Just to keep forces in the theatre and this is question of force projection. If you think abut human shield, then you are right of course. At present day the best force projection method is air force. Sometimes the best way is Tomohawk missile. It depends a lot of nature of enemy and georgaphy. I'm waiting the day when US can cover it's allies via this technology.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003671.html

You just need to make decision and push the button. No diplomatic discussions about bases (Turkey, Russia, Pakistan etc). You just enforce your will. 1st you just have to wait that enemy will settle in permanent location. Like Russians in Georgia today, this moment.

Tsau Kaur !
I agree, more politics that I need in my life. But then, Toomas H.I. offered up Paldiski to NATO, not me

I prefer heavy armor and some good old snipers, but must admit that a few tomahawk batteries would be cool with the obvious prime mover in the harbor, the USS Wisconsin .

[kaur]

Stan said

I

prefer heavy armor and some good old snipers, but must admit that a few tomahawk batteries would be cool with the obvious prime mover in the harbor, the USS Wisconsin .

This is maybe overkill, but 1 Aegis would be good compromise

Sometimes Stratfor says painful things. Like this time.

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
Wednesday, 13 August 2008, 5:51 pm
Column: STRATFOR.COM

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

By Stratfor's founder and CEO, Dr. George Friedman


The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00170.htm

I don't know what has happened to Russian media. 1 article describes Georgian village cleansing by paramilitaries. Crack in the wall? Use the Google translator. Paste this sentence to the window.

Югоосетинский спецназ и ополченцы зачистили грузинское село

[kaur]

Russian media during war time and future.

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/...distorted.html