Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[walrus]

What concerns me is a miscalculation by either party that could result in further escalation.

I am however surprised at the speed of Russia's action, which suggest to me that it had to have been premeditated. Those troops must have been on twelve hours notice to move or less, and my recollection is that you don't keep people standing around like that for very long. I'm also not sure that the reactive armor is left in place during training, those tanks look "" dressed", to me, although I was Inf.

[Stan]

The presidents of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, together with Poland, issued a joint statement at the weekend warning that the Georgian conflict would be a credibility “litmus test” for Nato and the EU.

The Baltic states, past victims of Kremlin attacks, have called on the European Union to suspend its drive for closer relations with Russia after its invasion of Georgia.

“We have to review our policy. Can we consider a partner a country who behaves like this?” President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia said in an interview. He added: “It’s time to stop sticking our head in the sand.”

The presidents also criticise Nato’s failure to give Georgia a timetable for membership earlier this year: “We regret that the not granting of Nato’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia was seen as a green light for aggression in the region,” their statement said.

Hat tips to Meatball One !

[Steve Blair]

Full story can be found here.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered an end to military operations against Georgia, the Kremlin says.

He told officials he had decided to end the campaign after restoring security for Russian citizens and peacekeepers in South Ossetia.

Before Mr Medvedev's statement, there were fresh reports of Russian warplanes bombing the Georgian town of Gori.

[walrus]

Thank you for your excellent post Badtux, my knowledge of the Russians and their deployments is weak.

Next question: Has it crossed anyone's mind that this might be construed as a spoiling attack by the Russians vis a vis our ongoing confrontation with Iran?

Or is that not the right question?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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