War Between Russia and Georgia?

[JPhillips]

This could get very messy. From McClatchy:

MOSCOW — Georgian government forces launched an effort to seize Russian-backed South Ossetia on Friday in a military assault that threatens to involve neighboring Russia into all-out war.

After a day of skirmishes, Georgian forces launched missile and artillery strikes late Thursday and early Friday, followed by a combined push of infantry and tank units aimed at capturing the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali.

By Friday afternoon, the parliament, a university building and the main hospital in Tskhinvali were partly destroyed or ablaze, according to South Ossetian officials and Russian state media. Various reports put the number of people killed at 15 or more, and the commander of Russian peacekeepers in the area told state media that he had lost men.

A South Ossetian official said in an interview with McClatchy that allies from North Ossetia, which is just over the border in Russia, were streaming down by the truckload to join them in the fight against the Georgian military.

While the places involved are obscure to most Americans — the South Ossetians are joined by the Abkhazians in wanting independence from Georgia — there are grave geopolitical considerations.

Georgia is a key transit point for oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to Europe. It is also a focus of Russian officials' anger about the encroachment of western powers on Russia's borders; Georgia is supported by the United States and is aggressively pursuing membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"There are a lot of agendas, and they all lead to war," said Pavel Felgengauer, a military analyst in Moscow.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin threatened from Beijing that "there will be a response" for Georgia's overnight operation to seize South Ossetia, which declared independence in the early 1990s.

Georgian media and officials claimed that there already had been one: a sortie of planes reportedly came across the Russian border and bombed towns, presumably targeting the positions of Georgian troops or their supplies.

The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that it would "not leave our peacekeepers and Russian citizens unprotected" referring to the large number of Russian passport holders in South Ossetia.

"The Georgian leadership has launched a dirty adventure," the statement said. "The blood spilled in South Ossetia will remain on the conscience of these people and their entourage."

On Friday, NATO's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said in a statement that he was "seriously concerned about the events that are taking place in the Georgian region of South Ossetia" and called for an immediate end to the fighting.

Just last month, Georgia hosted two frigates from the NATO maritime force.

For Russia, Georgia joining NATO would be another step in what its officials see as a U.S.-led strategy to diminish its power in former Soviet-controlled nations, including a proposed missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, and Kosovo this year declaring its independence from Serbia, a Russia ally, with the blessings of the United States.

The deputy speaker of the Russian duma, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, on Friday called for Russia to formally recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and to send troops there "to defend Russian citizens," according to Interfax, a state news service.

"It is possible to stop [Georgian President Mikhail] Saakashvili only by bombing Tbilisi," Zhirinovsky said.

Both Abkhazia, near Russia's border on the Black Sea, and South Ossetia have substantial populations of Russian citizens and small units of Russian peacekeeper forces.

It's not clear what triggered such a large-scale military action by Georgia. On Thursday night, Saakashvili accused the South Ossetians of attacking Georgian police, military patrols and civilians. But, in the same address, Saakashvili also said that he had ordered Georgian units to not return fire and that he was declaring "an immediate, unilateral ceasefire." Emergency peace talks were scheduled for Friday.

"He (Saakashvili) was not sincere, it was just a smokescreen … to carry out an ethnic purge" Dmitry Medoyev, the South Ossetian representative to Russia, said in a phone interview. Medoyev added that volunteer fighter from the caucus regions in Russia had been arriving all day to help South Ossetia.

Tensions have heightened between Georgia and Russia during the past few years, but both sides had stopped short of direct confrontation, and Georgia, until now, had not mounted a direct attack against Russia's allies in the rebel areas.

Last August, Georgia accused Russia of sending a jet into its airspace and dropping a missile, which did not detonate. Russia denied involvement. This April, the Georgian government said that a Russian fighter jet shot down one of its unmanned reconnaissance planes, a charge which Russia again denied. Georgia recalled its ambassador from Moscow last month after the Russian foreign ministry confirmed that its air force had flown jets over South Ossetia "in order to clarify the situation" and "to cool heads in Tbilisi."

[SteveMax58]

I think Bulldogs win this one.

[lungs]

Interesting, I remember Vladimir Zhirinovsky as the guy that looked forward to the day that the Russian soldiers could wash their boots in the Indian Ocean. He also once talked about retaking Alaska forcefully and that it would be a good place to put the Ukrainians.

Anybody know is South Ossetia is demographically more Russian? Or is this a minority separatist group?

Any way I look at it, I don't see Georgia coming out too well in this.

[lungs]

dola,

They are about 66% Ossetian, 29% Georgian and minimal Russians, Armenians and Jews.

[Warhammer]

I blame Russia for much of this. South Ossetia is part of Georgia, but Russia has been funding the rebel government for some time. The Georgians go to move in, and now the Russians are getting ready to send in troops? That is crap.

[Abe Sargent]

Frankly, the fact we haven't supported independance for Abkhazia is crazy for years. We don;t want to piss off the Georgians, so we support hte continued subjection of the Abkhazians by them. Now South Ossetia is engangered as well. At some point in time we have to allow the principle of self-governance to be more than lip service, or we will continue to see these flare ups.

[Warhammer]

The problem that we have though is do we let every little area that wants self government to have it? This is akin to Huntsville, AL, saying that they want to be independent of the rest of the US. Where does it stop?

[ISiddiqui]

We aren't really into self-governance. Look at Chechnya, Tibet, or Quebec.

[Warhammer]

We are into self-governance, when it benefits us.

[lungs]

The problem that we have though is do we let every little area that wants self government to have it? This is akin to Huntsville, AL, saying that they want to be independent of the rest of the US. Where does it stop?

I'd let every little area that wants self government to have it.

[ISiddiqui]

That view scares me.

[lungs]

Why should a group of people or region be forced to remain as part of a country that they do not wish to be a part of?

[path12]

I'd let every little area that wants self government to have it.

Isn't that just feudalism?

[molson]

The problem that we have though is do we let every little area that wants self government to have it? This is akin to Huntsville, AL, saying that they want to be independent of the rest of the US. Where does it stop?

I have no idea if and when seperation is in anyone's best interest, but you can't compare Huntsville, AL to peoples in that region of the world that have their own languages, economic systems, culture, and seperate racial identity. They clearly are different in a way that Huntsville isn't different from Mobile or even Atlanta.

[lungs]

Isn't that just feudalism?

Not quite that extreme I guess. But a people like the Ossetians that are a clear majority that do not wish to be a part of Georgia ought to be able to separate.

[molson]

Things have gone a little further, Georgia says that it's "under attack".

Georgia 'under attack' as Russian tanks roll in - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/08/georgia.ossetia/index.html)

-Georgian forces have shot down to Russian aircraft
-About 150 armored Russian vehicles have entered South Ossetia
-Georgia attacked a Russian military barracks and there were some Russians killed.
-

[lungs]

I have no idea if and when seperation is in anyone's best interest, but you can't compare Huntsville, AL to peoples in that region of the world that have their own languages, economic systems, culture, and seperate racial identity. They clearly are different in a way that Huntsville isn't different from Mobile or even Atlanta.

What about mobile compared to any northeastern city or midwestern city?

[Warhammer]

I have no idea if and when seperation is in anyone's best interest, but you can't compare Huntsville, AL to peoples in that region of the world that have their own languages, economic systems, culture, and seperate racial identity. They clearly are different in a way that Huntsville isn't different from Mobile or even Atlanta.

OK, let's say Laredo then. What is to stop say Mexico from sending a bunch of people over the border. Then, have them vote to join Mexico, or secede from the US?

[lungs]

OK, let's say Laredo then. What is to stop say Mexico from sending a bunch of people over the border. Then, have them vote to join Mexico, or secede from the US?

Taking back what was once theirs?

[molson]

What about mobile compared to any northeastern city or midwestern city?

Same economy, same currency, same lanugage, zero distinctive racial identity, same culture (some minor differences, but people can move freely between both, they all watch the same things on TV, etc), they're treated roughly the same by the government.

[lungs]

Same economy, same currency, same lanugage, zero distinctive racial identity, same culture (some minor differences, but people can move freely between both, they all watch the same things on TV, etc).

Agreed, the differences are much more drastic in most situations but like the previous post said, some of those 'sames' you list might not be 'sames' for too long in the southwestern US.

[molson]

Agreed, the differences are much more drastic in most situations but like the previous post said, some of those 'sames' you list might not be 'sames' for too long in the southwestern US.

Very true, but the US is much more stable than either Russia or Georgia.

And Mexicans want to live in the Southwestern US because it's the US, not because of the Mexican culture

[Warhammer]

Taking back what was once theirs?

How far back do you go with this? Should Italy own the entire Med. basin and W. Europe?

[molson]

More than "when does it end" and "how far back you go", the only relevent question is really how people see themselves and what they're willing to do.

People in Indianapolis aren't willing to take up arms and disrupt their lives for self-governance. People in El Paso aren't willing to take on the United States and declare El Paso a part of Mexico. Both have pretty good deals where they are.

[lighthousekeeper]

Don't you people play Civilization? When a region's Culture color is mixed between two neighboring nations, it's fair game to squabble over.

The Russians we're just hoping that things would stay the same for a few more turns to let the culture slowly get more Russian, but Georgia wasn't going to let that happen.

[bulletsponge]

Don't you people play Civilization? When a region's Culture color is mixed between two neighboring nations, it's fair game to squabble over.

The Russians we're just hoping that things would stay the same for a few more turns to let the culture slowly get more Russian, but Georgia wasn't going to let that happen.

and if theres the only source of oil on the continent inbetween, ITS ON!!!!!!!

[stevew]

Does Georgia have 5 of its top soldiers suspended for the first battle

[Dr. Sak]

If I was Russia I'd go after the Ukraine. The Ukraine is weak.

[MikeVic]

you no call Ukraine weak! I smash your board!

[JediKooter]

If the Russians had Sherman, this thing would be over in a week.

[Warhammer]

If the Russians had Sherman, this thing would be over in a week.

Or Timoshenko, Zhukov, or Koniev.

[Dr. Sak]

Or Timoshenko.

I am flipping through his book on Elasticity right now!

[Shkspr]

If I was Russia I'd go after the Ukraine. The Ukraine is weak.

Yeah, but going after the Ukraine isn't a viable strategy since you don't get the production bonus without taking the rest of Europe. At the very least you need to be able to set up a choke point at Iceland and fortify it enough to forstall attacks from North America while placing enough strength in both the Ukraine and Scandinavia to deter anyone moving from the south. Even after that, it's likely to be at least two turns until you can drive to the Mediterranean.

Even then, the real problem is Siam. Fucking Siam.

[Passacaglia]

Yeah, but going after the Ukraine isn't a viable strategy since you don't get the production bonus without taking the rest of Europe. At the very least you need to be able to set up a choke point at Iceland and fortify it enough to forstall attacks from North America while placing enough strength in both the Ukraine and Scandinavia to deter anyone moving from the south. Even after that, it's likely to be at least two turns until you can drive to the Mediterranean.

Even then, the real problem is Siam. Fucking Siam.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders.

[sabotai]

If I was Russia I'd go after the Ukraine. The Ukraine is weak.

No! We'd lose Yulia if they did that!

[Vince]

I feel bad that I'm very entertained by this thread.

[CamEdwards]

What's this about Mexico declaring war on Huntsville?

[Autumn]

No, I heard Russia's invading Georgia. Confederate sons ride again! This is like Red Dawn II.

[duckman]

What's the point spread?

[tarcone]

:D

Red Dawn II. Awesome.
The South rises again. Defeats Russia, Leaves the Yankees and sets up the Confederate States of America, with David Duke as President.

[DaddyTorgo]

sad -- very sad, but this was pretty much inevitable given that the situation was never addressed in a peaceful manner.

Classic russia

[SackAttack]

No, I heard Russia's invading Georgia. Confederate sons ride again! This is like Red Dawn II.

That's what I heard.

Russia had invaded, Georgia had pulled their troops out of Iraq (wtfseriously? Georgia had troops there?) to 'defend South Ossetia against the Russian invasion.'

And all this on the threshold of the Olympics.

Who wants to bet China gets pissed and nukes both of their asses for distracting from their shining moment on the world stage?

[Chief Rum]

The problem that we have though is do we let every little area that wants self government to have it? This is akin to Huntsville, AL, saying that they want to be independent of the rest of the US. Where does it stop?

They tried that. Didn't work out.

[Chief Rum]

This thread is disturbing. And yet I am humored by it. I must be a sick individual.

[ISiddiqui]

Why should a group of people or region be forced to remain as part of a country that they do not wish to be a part of?

Because those group of people may not be even a majority of people in that region. And, of course, they are consigning future generations to that decision.

[JPhillips]

The Russians are bombing throughout Georgia. Now the question is whether they'll fully invade.

TBLISI, Georgia (CNN) -- Bombs rocked Tbilisi early Saturday morning as the fight between Georgia and Russia over a breakaway region intensified and moved into the Georgian capital.

Government buildings, including the Parliament, were evacuated when the bombs fell.

Heavy casualties have reported on both sides since Russian forces moved Friday into South Ossetia, a pro-Russian autonomous region of Georgia.

Russian bombers were targeting Georgia's economic infrastructure, National Security Council secretary Alexander Lomaia said, including the country's largest Black Sea port, Poti, and the main road connecting the southern part of Georgia with the east and the airport.

Georgian television reported that the port had been destroyed.

Georgia, a former Soviet state, sent troops into South Ossetia on Thursday, aiming to crack down on the separatists, who want independence or unification with North Ossetia, which is in Russia. Russia responded Friday, sending troops into the Georgian province where it had peacekeepers stationed.

"I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars," Lyudmila Ostayeva, a resident of the South Ossetia capital, Tskhinvali, told The Associated Press on Friday.

"It's impossible to count them now. There is hardly a single building left undamaged," she said after fleeing to a village near the Russian border, AP reported.

"They are killing civilians, women and children, with heavy artillery and rockets," Sarmat Laliyev, 28, told AP.

One U.S. State Department official called the conflict a "very dangerous situation" and said diplomatic moves are afoot around the globe to stop it.

Georgia -- on the Black Sea coast between Russia and Turkey -- appealed for diplomatic intervention. VideoWatch Georgian minister describe fighting in South Ossetia »

Georgia asked the United States for planes to bring back its 2,000 troops serving as part of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, a U.S. official said.

"All day today, they've been bombing Georgia from numerous warplanes and specifically targeting [the] civilian population, and we have scores of wounded and dead among [the] civilian population all around the country," Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili, said Friday. "This is the worst nightmare one can encounter." VideoWatch the interview with Saakashvili »

Russia's ambassador to United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, put the blame on the Tblisi government.

"What is going on is a massive bombardment of residential quarters in Tshkinvali and other towns, too," Churkin said.

Eduard Kokoity, head of the rebel government in South Ossetia, said that 1,400 people were killed in the province, according to Russia's Interfax news agency.

Hundreds of people, possibly thousands, are fleeing South Ossetia to the Russian region of North Ossetia-Alania, the United Nations reported Friday, citing Russian officials.

About 150 Russian armored vehicles have entered South Ossetia, Saakashvili said, and Georgian forces had shot down two Russian aircraft. VideoWatch the Russian tanks moving into the area »

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, quoted by Interfax, said Russians had died because of Georgian military operations in South Ossetia.

Russia "will not allow the deaths of our compatriots to go unpunished," and "those guilty will receive due punishment," he said. "My duty as Russian president is to safeguard the lives and dignity of Russian citizens, wherever they are. This is what is behind the logic of the steps we are undertaking now."

South Ossetia, with a population of about 70,000, declared independence from Georgia in the early 1990s, but it was not internationally recognized. Many ethnic Ossetians feel close to Russia and have Russian passports and use its currency. iReport.com: Are you there? Share your photos, videos

Interfax quoted the Georgian Foreign Ministry as saying that strikes by Russian aircraft killed and wounded personnel at a Georgian air base and that Russian planes have been bombing Georgian territory throughout the day. Georgian officials also report four Russian aircraft shot down.

The U.S., NATO and the European Union have all called for an end to the fighting. President Bush and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin discussed the conflict Friday, the White House confirmed.

By early evening Friday, a Georgian Cabinet minister said the country's forces have taken control of Tskhinvali, Interfax reported.

The Novosti news agency, citing the South Ossetian government, said Georgian tanks and infantry attacked Tskhinvali, and "a large part of the city has been destroyed. Over 15 civilians have been killed, several buildings are on fire in the city center, and the local parliament building has burned down."

But Russian and South Ossetian officials said Russia was making inroads in fighting Georgian forces.

"Street fighting in Tskhinvali has lasted for many hours. Ossetian home guards are using grenade-launchers to destroy Georgian tanks. Eyewitnesses say tanks are burning throughout the city. The turning point is approaching in the battle for the capital city," said the Web site of the South Ossetian Information and Press Committee.

The committee also said Russian armored vehicles have entered the northern suburb of the city.

Violence has been mounting in the region in recent days, with sporadic clashes between Georgian forces and South Ossetian separatists.

Georgian troops launched attacks in South Ossetia late Thursday after a top government official said a unilateral cease-fire offer was met with separatist artillery fire.

Lomaia said Georgian troops responded proportionately to separatist mortar and artillery attacks on two villages, attacks he said followed the cease-fire and Saakashvili's call for negotiations.

Russian peacekeepers are in South Ossetia under a 1992 agreement by Russian, Georgian and South Ossetian authorities to maintain what has been a fragile peace. The mixed peacekeeping force also includes Georgian and South Ossetian troops.

[Chief Rum]

I'm trying to understand this from Georgia's perspective.

Okay, you're right next to a former superpower, and still one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world. That superpower has been supportive of the rebel government in your own borders (South Ossetia), which you have allowed to stay autonomous for 15 years or more. The autonomous region is on the Georgian-Russian border, and a matching Russian-controlled region is right on the other side of the border (North Ossetia), that has ethnic and cultural ties to the autonomous region, and is exactly the sort of excuse Russia can use to take an active part in the interests of South Ossetia.

There is no other major power in any real position to help you, and a couple semi-close powers (or regional powers) in China and Iran who would not only be disinclined to help you, but might actually work against you. The United States supports you from afar, but that doesn't mean they have your back here, and you may have noticed, they're busy with their own stuff.

So, now is the time to take back control of South Ossetia, and virtually ensure that Russia will not only come in to rescue South Ossetia, but also likely make your country a wasteland?

I am trying to understand the incentive of taking such an extreme action that will almost certainly result in severe consequences in your own country, with almost no possibility of being saved by anyone.

[JPhillips]

From what I've read at other places the Georgian government made a serious blunder in giving Russia an opening to do what they have wanted to do for years. The Ossetia issue shouldn't be enough to launch an all out attack on Georgia, but Russia is pissed that NATO didn't completely cut off the possibility of Georgia joining.

At a different place they were arguing that Russia has been threatening to aggressively support ethnic Russian breakaways as a consequence of Kosovo gaining independence. It certainly appears that this is about a lot more than Ossetia.

(see, we can converse civilly)

[Chief Rum]

From what I've read at other places the Georgian government made a serious blunder in giving Russia an opening to do what they have wanted to do for years. The Ossetia issue shouldn't be enough to launch an all out attack on Georgia, but Russia is pissed that NATO didn't completely cut off the possibility of Georgia joining.

At a different place they were arguing that Russia has been threatening to aggressively support ethnic Russian breakaways as a consequence of Kosovo gaining independence. It certainly appears that this is about a lot more than Ossetia.

(see, we can converse civilly)

I wouldn't say the other thread isn't civil, at least not from my end. I do talk straight and don't pull punches, so that no doubt comes across far more harshly on the Internet than it would in person, where I believe I would appear to be more challenging but reasonable through tone. But in any case, let's leave that issue for that thread (if that's okay).

As to this issue then, I think what I question is how Georgia could have thought this was going to work out in this political climate. Russia can destroy them without using a weapon other countries would ding Russia for. Now, if Russia were to actively follow through and invade Georgia and took any steps that were beyond the scope of ensuring South Ossetia's autonomy, I think that would bring a much stronger response from the world. But Russia's smart enough not to do that. Their ground tropps will only ever protect Ossetia, while their long range capabilities destroy the rest of the country.

This calculation by Georgia appears to be phenomenally stupid and careless, coming timed as it is. This will end catastrophically for them, I think, with countless Georgian lives lost and millions of others affected by the aftermath of the war and the resulting hits to the economy and infrastructure. With this move, they take three steps back from where they were after the fall of the Soviet Union.

[JPhillips]

This is a good primer on the situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

[JonInMiddleGA]

Their ground tropps will only ever protect Ossetia,


Interesting choice of words there. Definitely not the one I would have used.
"Occupy" seems more apt best I can tell at this point.

[Chief Rum]

Interesting choice of words there. Definitely not the one I would have used.
"Occupy" seems more apt best I can tell at this point.

Heh...I guess I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. ;)

[Galaxy]

I wonder if the region of Chechnya will gear up now.

Does this mean that SouthOssetia wants to join Russia, or break away and from it's own country?

[Groundhog]

This is a good primer on the situation.

Battle Cry - Taunting the Bear - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)


Thanks for the link, very interesting read.

[Autumn]

I'm not sure why exactly now, but Georgia was perhaps thinking Russia had time on their side. While they're definitely in a bad situation, the only thing that could really help them out of it was goading Russia into doing something that the rest of hte world would feel they have to step into. I'm not sure this is enough to do that, but it does seem Georgia's only chance of getting any international backing serious enough to influence the sitaution.

[BishopMVP]

I'm trying to understand this from Georgia's perspective.

Okay, you're right next to a former superpower, and still one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world. That superpower has been supportive of the rebel government in your own borders (South Ossetia), which you have allowed to stay autonomous for 15 years or more. The autonomous region is on the Georgian-Russian border, and a matching Russian-controlled region is right on the other side of the border (North Ossetia), that has ethnic and cultural ties to the autonomous region, and is exactly the sort of excuse Russia can use to take an active part in the interests of South Ossetia.

There is no other major power in any real position to help you, and a couple semi-close powers (or regional powers) in China and Iran who would not only be disinclined to help you, but might actually work against you. The United States supports you from afar, but that doesn't mean they have your back here, and you may have noticed, they're busy with their own stuff.

So, now is the time to take back control of South Ossetia, and virtually ensure that Russia will not only come in to rescue South Ossetia, but also likely make your country a wasteland?

I am trying to understand the incentive of taking such an extreme action that will almost certainly result in severe consequences in your own country, with almost no possibility of being saved by anyone.I'm guessing they thought the US (and Bush) would be a much bigger supporter than we have been so far. Hence why they have troops in Iraq, why Saakashvili has been desperately cozying up to NATO members and trying to join or at least get/keep American bases in his country. From JPhillips NYT article "In recent conversations there, President Saakashvili compared Georgia to Czechoslovakia in 1938, trusting the West to save it from a ravenous neighbor. “If Georgia fails,” he said to me darkly two months ago, “it will send a message to everyone that this path doesn’t work.”"

EDIT - wow I can't believe I confused Saakashvili and Shevardnadze.I wonder if the region of Chechnya will gear up now.

Does this mean that SouthOssetia wants to join Russia, or break away and from it's own country?It's the Caucasus - along with the Bekaa Valley and maybe some of the 'stans, about the only place in the world that makes the Balkans look sane. There are Ossetians paid off by the Russians are minority Russians that want to be part of Russia, fewer Ossetians paid off by Georgia and ethnic Georgians that want to be part of Georgia and a borderline plurality of Ossetians that want to become independent. South Ossetia's best option is autonomy, probably under Russian control (depending on if they get a share of the oil/natural gas revenues) and prefereably with little attention paid to them, but there are too many extremists to let that be an option and thus they'll look somewhat like Chechnya before the terrorists took over the rebel government and it got really bad.

[tarcone]

This is how World Wars get started. We live in very scary times.

[lighthousekeeper]

This is how World Wars get started. We live in very scary times.

Yeah but 99.9% of the time it doesn't escalate beyond Local Border Conflict.

[molson]

RE: Georgia's motives.

My friend spent a year in Georgia in sort of a "peace corps for lawyers" kind of thing and she's pretty traumatized by all this and has a lot of friends there.

She says that whatever went on in South Ossetia last week has been going on pretty much since 1990, but that The Russians have pretty arbitarily chosen this moment to get involved. She describes a real war of culture between Georgia and Russia over Ossetia, Russia gives citizens of Ossetia benefits, Russian passports, free travel to Russia (something Georgians don't have). Ossetia meanwhile, won't let Georgians into its territory (even though it's within Georgia's borders). This has torn apart a lot of familes. So from Ossetia's point of view, the Russians treat them better then the Georgians, though that's simply a caculated stategy of the Russians.

[JPhillips]

It appears the invasion has begun.

Russian tanks and troops moved through the separatist enclave of South Ossetia and advanced on the city of Gori in central Georgia on Sunday night, for the first time directly assaulting a Georgian city with ground forces after three days of heavy fighting, Georgian officials said.

Georgian tanks were dug into positions outside Gori and planning to defend the city, said Shota Utiashvili, an official in Georgia’s interior ministry. He said the city of Gori was coming under artillery and tank fire. There was no immediate comment from Russia.

[Groundhog]

The USSR is back, baby!

(cue zombie Lenin rising from the mausoleum)<CUE grave the from rising Lenin zombie>

[molson]

The USSR is back, baby!

(cue zombie Lenin rising from the mausoleum)<CUE grave the from rising Lenin zombie>

Yup.

Russia knows nobody's going to do anything. And they're on the verge of annexing a sovereign nation of people who have no ethnic connection to Russians.

Or maybe their endgame is just to blow shit up for a while, kill enough civilians so everybody knows they mean business.

[molson]

Georgia currently has the 3rd-largest contingent in Iraq, after the US and the UK, which is remarkable considering the size of their country. They have to be feeling a little screwed on that deal right now.

[Groundhog]

I'll be very, very interested to hear what Russia's official comment is, considering that Georgia pulled out of South Ossetia to starve off Russia's dogs of war, yet Russia is pushing on anyway.

Interesting that Ukraine may block Russian ships.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this whole situation. I can see why the Georgians aren't happy with the Ossetians and so on, but to me it really looks like this has a lot more to do with Georgia and Russia and those that are backing each nation than it does the Ossetians. It's just unfortunate that the civilians in these countries are the ones that lose the most while their governments roll the dice on global politics.

[Groundhog]

Georgia currently has the 3rd-largest contingent in Iraq, after the US and the UK, which is remarkable considering the size of their country. They have to be feeling a little screwed on that deal right now.

Yeah, that surprised the heck out of me when someone told me that on the weekend. Some of those troops would probably come in handy back home right now...

[molson]

Yeah, that surprised the heck out of me when someone told me that on the weekend. Some of those troops would probably come in handy back home right now...

They also won a bronze medal in shooting of all things....That's some misallocation of resources.

I think you're absolutely right that this all very little, if anything to do with South Ossetia

[Chief Rum]

Russia is pulling forward from South Ossetia and actually going depeer into Georgia?

IMO, this should now draw a much stronger reaction from the world (including the United States).

[molson]

IMO, this should now draw a much stronger reaction from the world (including the United States).

They have to do something, though I don't know what, or if they will.

[Galaxy]

Looks like another Georgia region, Abkhazia, is trying to take advantage by ordering the Georgian forces to leave by the separatist leader.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Georgia move fails to halt raids (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7552908.stm)

[Groundhog]

Looks like another Georgia region, Abkhazia, is trying to take advantage by ordering the Georgian forces to leave by the separatist leader.


Really, the more I'm reading about this situation, the worse Russia looks. These "seperatist" regions just happen to be very strategically important places that, from what I'm reading, seem to be pretty clearly "encouraged" by Russia to break free of Georgia. I don't know, maybe this is a product of biased reporting, but right now my sympathies lie with Georgia.

[BishopMVP]

My last game in EU I played with Russia and I swear I had to send troops into Abkhazia every 2 years to quell a new rebellion. Eventually I decided it just wasn't worth trying to get a Black Sea port and control the Caspian so I gave up trying to re-annex them. I wish the real Russia would follow that lead (but not follow up with part two and start a war with China instead.)

From watching Costas' incredibly awkward interview with Bush during Olympic coverage it seems pretty likely this thing will go UN and be bogged down in negotiations, agreements that aren't followed and no resolving of the underlying issues within a week. If I was Russia I'd be trying to hurt Georgia's military enough and destroy a lot of infrastructure in the next couple days that Georgia has to focus their attention on cleaning up those messes and dealing with the internal refugees for the next few years and can't concentrate on helping the ethnic-Georgian Ossetian refugees.

[Groundhog]

Funnily enough I was thinking about EU3 earlier when thinking about this situation. Georgia is one of those little countries that always wants to ally with you, but if you accept they then go and get themselves in a war with a big power, so you break the alliance rather than go to their aid, because it's really not worth the trouble.

[molson]

Really, the more I'm reading about this situation, the worse Russia looks. These "seperatist" regions just happen to be very strategically important places that, from what I'm reading, seem to be pretty clearly "encouraged" by Russia to break free of Georgia. I don't know, maybe this is a product of biased reporting, but right now my sympathies lie with Georgia.

Wherever the blame lay regarding the governments, the citizens of Georgia are suffering immensely right now.

[Chief Rum]

So now I am wondering WTF Russia is thinking.

They could have taken South Ossetia, even annexed it, I would guess, and destroyed Georgia without ever actually fully invading Georgia. They could have done this without drawing any more than "concern" from the rest of the world (and most importantly, the United States). Why on Earth are they pushing an offensive toward central Georgia, a move that only be calculated as a full-blown invasion?

Much like wondering why Georgia would make such an odd move toward South Ossetia with Russia around, why would Russia do this, knowing the powers of the world are watching and knowing that this move will surely bring a strong reaction? The administration invaded one country looking for a terrorist and another one as a pre-emptive attack in the past eight years. The leader, whatever his critics say, is not afraid to do what he pleases. Heck, he's standing on the soil of the most totalitarian major nation int he world and sharply criticizing them on their human rights record. What makes Russia think there won't be consequences for this move? This strikes me as careless at least and extremely dangerous more likely. And the U.S. "probably" would have some support from NATO and perhaps even the UN, although that latter would get mired in political mischief for a long time before doing anything.

This just strikes me as stupid. Not that Russia has as much to fear militarily, and certainly no foreign armed force will enter Russian soil. But Georgian? That wouldn't shock me at all.

[Chief Rum]

From watching Costas' incredibly awkward interview with Bush during Olympic coverage it seems pretty likely this thing will go UN and be bogged down in negotiations, agreements that aren't followed and no resolving of the underlying issues within a week. If I was Russia I'd be trying to hurt Georgia's military enough and destroy a lot of infrastructure in the next couple days that Georgia has to focus their attention on cleaning up those messes and dealing with the internal refugees for the next few years and can't concentrate on helping the ethnic-Georgian Ossetian refugees.

The more I look at this, I have to think things bogging down in the UN is the thing Russia is counting on to get out of this. Which makes me despise the uselessness of that organization even more. If Chamberlain were still around, he would be the unswerving symbol of the UN.

[Galaxy]

The freaky part is the storyline of Tom Claney's Ghost Recon game (2001) is coming real (same time frame as well).

[Groundhog]

The more I look at this, I have to think things bogging down in the UN is the thing Russia is counting on to get out of this. Which makes me despise the uselessness of that organization even more. If Chamberlain were still around, he would be the unswerving symbol of the UN.

I agree. I think Russia will, for all intents and purposes, get out of this just fine. For all the grumbling and moaning from the US/UN/etc., I think Russia is well aware that neither the US nor anyone else not directly involved is going to launch any kind of military response to this.

I don't think Russia are dumb enough to do something like this unless they are 99.9% sure they can get away with it. Georgia on the other hand, according to reports, had their forces attacked within South Ossetia. Their hand was effectively forced, though it also looks like their aggressive response to that attack (no doubt exactly what the Russians were hoping to see), did them few favours.

Worst case scenario for Russia probably sees them withdrawing after toppling the Georgia government, but also after effectively annexing the regions they are after anyway.

[EagleFan]

Why don't we just give them Georgia? It's just a few peach trees and the Falcons. ;)

Seriously though, this kind of stuff is not what I like seeing when I am half way around the world. Wasn't there a push to get Georgia into NATO at one point? How different could things be now if that happened?

[Dutch]

Why don't we just give them Georgia? It's just a few peach trees and the Falcons. ;)

Seriously though, this kind of stuff is not what I like seeing when I am half way around the world. Wasn't there a push to get Georgia into NATO at one point? How different could things be now if that happened?

I think Russia has a very strong perception of how strong NATO is perceived these days. Think League of Nations.

[JPhillips]

I've read part of the issue may be control of the Baku pipeline that goes to the Black Sea. It would certainly fit the pattern of the Russians trying to control as much of the oil and gas as possible. I'm sure it's also a bit of the Untouchables idea of bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Really, what can we do? They control enough petro products that we won't go too far in condemning them and a military response is out of the question. A number of our Euro allies are absolutely beholden to them for natural gas, so don't expect anything more than some public grumbles. This getting tied up in the UN is likely the hope of everyone except the Georgians.

[samifan24]

Op-ed from Georgia's President in today's WSJ. It's outstanding and worth a read.

The War in Georgia Is a War for the West
By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI
August 11, 2008; Page A15

As I write, Russia is waging war on my country.

On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system.
[The War in Georgia Is a War for the West]
AP
An apartment building, damaged by a Russian air strike, in the northern Georgian town of Gori, Saturday, Aug. 9.

Why this war? This is the question my people are asking. This war is not of Georgia's making, nor is it Georgia's choice.

The Kremlin designed this war. Earlier this year, Russia tried to provoke Georgia by effectively annexing another of our separatist territories, Abkhazia. When we responded with restraint, Moscow brought the fight to South Ossetia.

Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

When my government was swept into power by a peaceful revolution in 2004, we inherited a dysfunctional state plagued by two unresolved conflicts dating to the early 1990s. I pledged to reunify my country -- not by the force of arms, but by making Georgia a pole of attraction. I wanted the people living in the conflict zones to share in the prosperous, democratic country that Georgia could -- and has -- become.

In a similar spirit, we sought friendly relations with Russia, which is and always will be Georgia's neighbor. We sought deep ties built on mutual respect for each other's independence and interests. While we heeded Russia's interests, we also made it clear that our independence and sovereignty were not negotiable. As such, we felt we could freely pursue the sovereign choice of the Georgian nation -- to seek deeper integration into European economic and security institutions.

We have worked hard to peacefully bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia back into the Georgian fold, on terms that would fully protect the rights and interests of the residents of these territories. For years, we have offered direct talks with the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so that we could discuss our plan to grant them the broadest possible autonomy within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia.

But Russia, which effectively controls the separatists, responded to our efforts with a policy of outright annexation. While we appealed to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with our vision of a common future, Moscow increasingly took control of the separatist regimes. The Kremlin even appointed Russian security officers to arm and administer the self-styled separatist governments.

Under any circumstances, Russia's meddling in our domestic affairs would have constituted a gross violation of international norms. But its actions were made more egregious by the fact that Russia, since the 1990s, has been entrusted with the responsibility of peacekeeping and mediating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Rather than serve as honest broker, Russia became a direct party to the conflicts, and now an open aggressor.

As Europe expanded its security institutions to the Black Sea, my government appealed to the Western community of nations -- particularly European governments and institutions -- to play a leading role in resolving our separatist conflicts. The key to any resolution was to replace the outdated peacekeeping and negotiating structures created almost two decades ago, and dominated by Russia, with a genuine international effort.

But Europe kept its distance and, predictably, Russia escalated its provocations. Our friends in Europe counseled restraint, arguing that diplomacy would take its course. We followed their advice and took it one step further, by constantly proposing new ideas to resolve the conflicts. Just this past spring, we offered the separatist leaders sweeping autonomy, international guarantees and broad representation in our government.

Our offers of peace were rejected. Moscow sought war. In April, Russia began treating the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian provinces. Again, our friends in the West asked us to show restraint, and we did. But under the guise of peacekeeping, Russia sent paratroopers and heavy artillery into Abkhazia. Repeated provocations were designed to bring Georgia to the brink of war.

When this failed, the Kremlin turned its attention to South Ossetia, ordering its proxies there to escalate attacks on Georgian positions. My government answered with a unilateral cease-fire; the separatists began attacking civilians and Russian tanks pierced the Georgian border. We had no choice but to protect our civilians and restore our constitutional order. Moscow then used this as pretext for a full-scale military invasion of Georgia.

Over the past days, Russia has waged an all-out attack on Georgia. Its tanks have been pouring into South Ossetia. Its jets have bombed not only Georgian military bases, but also civilian and economic infrastructure, including demolishing the port of Poti on the Black Sea coast. Its Black Sea fleet is now massing on our shores and an attack is under way in Abkhazia.

What is at stake in this war?

Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

Second, Russia's future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states -- whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia -- will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.

Mr. Saakashvili is president of Georgia.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Really well written letter. He brings out a great point that restraint and diplomacy can only go so far. I hate to go to a video game reference, but this reads like a lot of my games on Civ IV. I generally like to take a less military route and increase culture and science. As a result, I occasionally end up being caught off-guard when I don't adequately defend my cities and suddenly have a huge foreign military knocking at my door. Unfortunately, this Georgian conflict is a real-life situation.

[Klinglerware]

So now I am wondering WTF Russia is thinking.

They could have taken South Ossetia, even annexed it, I would guess, and destroyed Georgia without ever actually fully invading Georgia. They could have done this without drawing any more than "concern" from the rest of the world (and most importantly, the United States). Why on Earth are they pushing an offensive toward central Georgia, a move that only be calculated as a full-blown invasion?

Much like wondering why Georgia would make such an odd move toward South Ossetia with Russia around, why would Russia do this, knowing the powers of the world are watching and knowing that this move will surely bring a strong reaction? The administration invaded one country looking for a terrorist and another one as a pre-emptive attack in the past eight years. The leader, whatever his critics say, is not afraid to do what he pleases. Heck, he's standing on the soil of the most totalitarian major nation int he world and sharply criticizing them on their human rights record. What makes Russia think there won't be consequences for this move? This strikes me as careless at least and extremely dangerous more likely. And the U.S. "probably" would have some support from NATO and perhaps even the UN, although that latter would get mired in political mischief for a long time before doing anything.

This just strikes me as stupid. Not that Russia has as much to fear militarily, and certainly no foreign armed force will enter Russian soil. But Georgian? That wouldn't shock me at all.

Russia is alarmed by the expansion of NATO and other Euro/American regimes into the former Warsaw Pact. The plan to base elements of the proposed US missile defense in Eastern Europe is probably perceived as a giant middle finger to the leadership in Moscow.

It seems to me that Russia is sending a message to all states in its former sphere of influence. The Russians are probably making the calculation (probably the correct one) that the west will be either unable or unwilling to come to the rescue of the Georgia's of the world, once the shit goes down. So, in effect, this sends the message that these countries should think twice about embracing the west too closely--close ties with the US or NATO membership may not be enough to protect you if you piss Russia off.

As for Georgia, what were they thinking? Whether or not you think that they have the moral upper hand, the Georgian military incursion into South Ossetia that preceded the Russian invasion seems incredibly ill-advised. It's not often that a weak country decides to challenge a neighbor with such a huge military advantage.

[molson]

As for Georgia, what were they thinking? Whether or not you think that they have the moral upper hand, the Georgian military incursion into South Ossetia that preceded the Russian invasion seems incredibly ill-advised. It's not often that a weak country decides to challenge a neighbor with such a huge military advantage.

Georgia's side is that South Ossetia started the fighting of last week, that it was responding to South Ossetia's shelling of Georgian villages. And is it really a "military incursion" if it's your territory and you already have a military presence there?

[Klinglerware]

Georgia's side is that South Ossetia started the fighting of last week, that it was responding to South Ossetia's shelling of Georgian villages. And is it really a "military incursion" if it's your territory and you already have a military presence there?

To me, it seems that even if the Georgian decision-making was morally correct, from a strategic perspective, it was pretty foolish.

[molson]

To me, it seems that even if the Georgian decision-making was morally correct, from a strategic perspective, it was pretty foolish.

Probably. It's tough to stand by though and do nothing when your villages are being attacked. And again, this kind of back and forth has been going on between them for years.

If you're so scared of Russia that you can't intervene when separatists attack you, why even exist?

[Autumn]

I think that Georgia realized that nobody was going to say boo about what Russia was doing. They were losing a war of attrition basically. This got the world's attention, which is really their only hope with this giant on their border. I don't think it will work for them, but I think Russia was slowly nibbling away and would have won silently if they didn't act.

[BishopMVP]

It seems to me that Russia is sending a message to all states in its former sphere of influence. The Russians are probably making the calculation (probably the correct one) that the west will be either unable or unwilling to come to the rescue of the Georgia's of the world, once the shit goes down. So, in effect, this sends the message that these countries should think twice about embracing the west too closely--close ties with the US or NATO membership may not be enough to protect you if you piss Russia off.Everybody knew Russia's position. The only thing this is revealing is the European/American position - when the chips are down and it's not on their border they'll do nothing. The Baltic countries might still have a chance because Russian takeover would put Russia on Poland's border, but Georgia and the Ukraine are fucked.

On a slightly lighter note for those who like dark humor, I loved during the interview where it centered on Bush discussing Georgia with Putin, and Bush made sure to throw in the line "I also talked to their President, Medvedyev." just as Costas was switching subjects. Couldn't tell whether that was Bush just giving lip service to the guy, or being annoyed that Costas wasn't bringing him up, but you could tell Costas had no idea who that was, and I think Bush mispronounced the name to boot (unless there really is that big an emphasis on the y in Med-ved-eeeeeeeeee-ev.)

[Autumn]

dola

I don't think blaming the UN makes sense here. Russia acted because they knew the UN couldn't act. Obviously they can veto anything that the UN decides. But more importantly, Russia is acting as part of a long-growing gepolitical move. They have been working on this for years, as a result of the U.S. getting bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as their natural gas wealth. They now have the leverage to act knowing the U.S. can only bluster (we have no military option here), and that without the U.S., NATO isn't going to be able to act (particularly given Europe's dependence on their energy). This is the sort of consequence that comes from changes in geopolitics, and like it or not our involvement in Iraq has produced a shift in power dynamics that allows Russia to get away with this.

[NoMyths]

dola

I don't think blaming the UN makes sense here. Russia acted because they knew the UN couldn't act. Obviously they can veto anything that the UN decides. But more importantly, Russia is acting as part of a long-growing gepolitical move. They have been working on this for years, as a result of the U.S. getting bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as their natural gas wealth. They now have the leverage to act knowing the U.S. can only bluster (we have no military option here), and that without the U.S., NATO isn't going to be able to act (particularly given Europe's dependence on their energy). This is the sort of consequence that comes from changes in geopolitics, and like it or not our involvement in Iraq has produced a shift in power dynamics that allows Russia to get away with this.

Well said.

[Klinglerware]

If you're so scared of Russia that you can't intervene when separatists attack you, why even exist?

Yeah, but unfortunately (well, from the perspective of the weak countries, anyway) most countries with giant neighbors don't have too much choice in these matters...

[Klinglerware]

dola

I don't think blaming the UN makes sense here. Russia acted because they knew the UN couldn't act. Obviously they can veto anything that the UN decides. But more importantly, Russia is acting as part of a long-growing gepolitical move. They have been working on this for years, as a result of the U.S. getting bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as their natural gas wealth. They now have the leverage to act knowing the U.S. can only bluster (we have no military option here), and that without the U.S., NATO isn't going to be able to act (particularly given Europe's dependence on their energy). This is the sort of consequence that comes from changes in geopolitics, and like it or not our involvement in Iraq has produced a shift in power dynamics that allows Russia to get away with this.

These are very good points. As an energy-exporter, Russia has tremendous leverage over Western Europe right now.

I think that it is doubtful that the US would have directly intervened in Georgia even if it weren't involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. There really isn't a strategic interest there to defend that would have been worth going to war with the Russians over.

[molson]

Yeah, but unfortunately (well, from the perspective of the weak countries, anyway) most countries with giant neighbors don't have too much choice in these matters...

You have to draw the line somewhere - should they wait until the separtists gather strength and march on Gori or Tbilisi, and ignore any other killings of civilians until they get to that point (from a strategic point of view)?

[Galaxy]

Is Georgia actually in NATO yet?

Russia's veto is once again, a reason why the UN is a joke. I wish the US would pull out of it completely.

[lungs]

I'm failing to understand this from Georgia's perspective myself. Effectively, they have not ruled South Ossetia since the early 1990's. South Ossetia and Abkhazia, though not internationally recognized, have been running their own affairs for a decent amount of time.

President Saakashvili of Georgia's side is that he wanted to bring South Ossetia back into the fold with Georgia and made what he felt what were fair concessions but the South Ossetians roundly rejected.

As for the latest round of violence, you never know who really started it. Georgia did break a cease fire when they sent troops in to take the capital of South Ossetia while Georgia would say they were responding to violence and restoring constitutional order. I'm not sure who can answer that truthfully.

Here is my main question on the answer to the conflict, better stated by BBC:

8. Are borders in Europe to be sacrosanct for ever?

It has been one of the rules of post-war Europe - borders cannot be changed except by agreement, as say in Czechoslovakia. Perhaps this rule has been applied too inflexibly. Yet governments like that of Georgia are reluctant to give up any territory, even when the local population is so clearly hostile and might be in that state simply as a result of some past arbitrary decision. It was the Soviet Union that created a semi-autonomous region of South Ossetia in Georgia in 1922. Nikita Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Will this lead to trouble one day?

[lungs]

You have to draw the line somewhere - should they wait until the separtists gather strength and march on Gori or Tbilisi, and ignore any other killings of civilians until they get to that point (from a strategic point of view)?

Why would the Ossetians march on Gori or Tbilisi?

[molson]

Why would the Ossetians march on Gori or Tbilisi?

Just a hypothetical. But if they know/believe Georgia's too afraid to do anything, why not hit them hard until they give you what you want in terms of autonomy, even independence?

But I guess my broader point is, there's a line somewhere where Georgia has to do something, even if it comes with risk.

[Young Drachma]

I'm curious, from a non-partisan not voting for either major party candidate point of view what an Obama administration would do with this. McCain too, but since the former is the guy that's "inexperienced" I think there are some legitimate unknowns about what to think about it.

[lungs]

Just a hypothetical. But if they know/believe Georgia's too afraid to do anything, why not hit them hard until they give you what you want in terms of autonomy, even independence?

But I guess my broader point is, there's a line somewhere where Georgia has to do something, even if it comes with risk.

If Georgia was going to be too afraid to do anything they would've simply recognized South Ossetia's independence. I'm not an expert on what's going on, but I'm guessing South Ossetia's ambitions don't go much beyond the part of the province that Georgia still controlled prior the outbreak of fighting. And Georgia showed they could clobber the South Ossetians pretty well, hence the Russian intervention.

I guess my main question is why a country like Georgia wishes to maintain control of a population that is not Georgian that clearly does not wish to be part of the Georgian nation. Resources, I'm guessing. But still. When does it become too much of a pain? We are well past that point and Georgia is pretty well screwed now.

They will lose South Ossetia and Abkhazia both.

[BishopMVP]

These are very good points. As an energy-exporter, Russia has tremendous leverage over Western Europe right now.

I think that it is doubtful that the US would have directly intervened in Georgia even if it weren't involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. There really isn't a strategic interest there to defend that would have been worth going to war with the Russians over.Agreed, unfortunately, on the first part. Strongly disagree on the second part. Countries either feel safe allying themselves with you or they don't. And promises given by the US mean something or they don't. The US is clearly an arbitrary fairweather ally and I don't see why any country would lean toward our sphere of influence. xI mean, why even support Kosovo and its independence if you're going to allow Russia to crush Georgia in return? We've got more strategic ties to Georgia than to Kosovo too if that's the concern. And Europe is even worse.8. Are borders in Europe to be sacrosanct for ever?

It has been one of the rules of post-war Europe - borders cannot be changed except by agreement, as say in Czechoslovakia. Perhaps this rule has been applied too inflexibly. Yet governments like that of Georgia are reluctant to give up any territory, even when the local population is so clearly hostile and might be in that state simply as a result of some past arbitrary decision. It was the Soviet Union that created a semi-autonomous region of South Ossetia in Georgia in 1922. Nikita Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Will this lead to trouble one day?Yes, because Russia has been such a bastion of encouragement for independence in that region. And the Crimean region already has been a problem and it will only get worse - either near 2017 when the Russian leave on their naval base runs out - or before if the Ukraine is willing to channel their anger over the Russians using their territory to launch a blockade of their ally. Remember the Ukraine is split about 55/45 between an ethnically Ukrainian west and an ethnically-Russian east centered on Donetsk.I think Russia has a very strong perception of how strong NATO is perceived these days. Think League of Nations.I kind of agree that they don't care about NATO stepping up to fight them, but yet they're absolutely terrified and think there is a western plot to encircle them with NATO countries. Clearly they think all these little countries should be in their sphere of influence, but they're willing to go against NATO and basically annex regions of them anyway. I guess they think that if the countries actually achieve NATO membership, the charter might actually mean something. Personally I doubt Europe would do anything even then.Yeah, that surprised the heck out of me when someone told me that on the weekend. Some of those troops would probably come in handy back home right now...To continue the EU analogy, Georgia sent their troops there to cement an alliance with the US/UK and NATO by extension. They got in a conflict and everyone broke the alliance rather than coming to their aid. It wasn't a misallocation of resources (a 35k army would have only done so much better and held out a little longer against Russia than their 25k one has) they just picked the wrong horse to ally with.

[JPhillips]

Personally, as much as I find the Russians actions deplorable, I don't think Georgia is worth getting in a war. It's tough realpolitik, but why would we or NATO want to get in a fight over such a strategically unimportant country?

[JPhillips]

"Mr Saakashvilli may also have banked on support from his closest ally, US president George W Bush, whose administration is said to have given tacit support for a Georgian assault on South Ossetia in the believe that the territory could be recaptured within 48 hours."

I hope this isn't true. I can't believe we'd actually encourage this shit.

[Warhammer]

There are several reasons why we should get into a fight over Georgia:

1) It would force Russia's hand. If we roll over for Georgia, which is the shining beacon of democracy there, when will Russia stop?

2) There are plans for some gas and oil pipelines in the area. That alone makes it an important area.

3) We should support democracies where they exist.

4) If Bush gave Saakashvilli guarantees of support, we damn well better have been prepared to do so.

[JPhillips]

Even if we weren't committed to two other wars currently I think it's simply insane for us to escalate a war that would likely mean tens of thousands of deaths or more over Georgia.

It sucks for them, but Georgia isn't important for us.

[Buccaneer]

I wonder who is feeding Obama on this? God, I hope it's not Albright. Ugh. It took Bush2 four days to come up with something close to this as well.

(CNN) – Barack Obama moved closer to John McCain’s tough position regarding the military conflict in Georgia on Monday, issuing a statement from Hawaii scolding Russia for the intensifying violence in the conflict.

“No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country,” Obama said in a statement distributed by his campaign. “Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.”

The comments marked a departure from Obama’s initial statement on the conflict, released Friday, which avoided chiding Russia directly and urged restraint from both nations. He released a sterner statement the following day condemning Russian aggression.

Today, he focused his criticism squarely on the Kremlin, a posture first taken by McCain four days ago, as the conflict began.

[Groundhog]

I wonder who is feeding Obama on this? God, I hope it's not Albright. Ugh. It took Bush2 four days to come up with something close to this as well.

*shrug* I don't see anything wrong with Obama's statement. The events of the past few days have certainly changed my personal stance on this crisis.

[Galaxy]

Doesn't Georgia have a very critical oil/gas pipeline that supplies most of Europe? Didn't Russia want that pipeline from the start (run it through Russia instead of Georgia)?

[Groundhog]

Doesn't Georgia have a very critical oil/gas pipeline that supplies most of Europe? Didn't Russia want that pipeline from the start (run it through Russia instead of Georgia)?

Yes, the second longest in the world, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Russia felt that the pipeline and its route was a direct attempt to weaken Russian influence from the beginning. So basically, they've never been fans, and Russian jets have targetted the pipeline apparently (edit: according to Georgian reports, I should add).

Iit's worth adding that South Ossetia is, not surprisingly, close to the route of the pipeline.

[stevew]

Bush better not keep meddling in this kind of stuff. I don't know who is at fault here, but let this shit play out and don't get us involved. It already looks bad enough that Condelezza was in Georgia merely a few days before this crap started.

Its also unsettling that we shipped 2000 georgian troops back to their homeland on our military aircraft.

[fantom1979]

Bush better not keep meddling in this kind of stuff. I don't know who is at fault here, but let this shit play out and don't get us involved. It already looks bad enough that Condelezza was in Georgia merely a few days before this crap started.

Its also unsettling that we shipped 2000 georgian troops back to their homeland on our military aircraft.

I really think it would have been pretty crappy of us not to fly the Georgian troops back. The only reason they are in Iraq is to suck up to our government. They are the third largest alliance we have in Iraq. Giving them transport back to their country (no matter how it looks to Russia) is the least we can do for their support over the last few years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Bush better not keep meddling in this kind of stuff. I don't know who is at fault here, but let this shit play out and don't get us involved. It already looks bad enough that Condelezza was in Georgia merely a few days before this crap started.

We need to be involved. We are allies with a lot of eastern bloc nations in this area that are now democracies. While they weren't directly threatened in this conflict, any sign of agression by Russia should cause the U.S. great concern. We're in a NATO agreement with many of these countries and Ukraine and Georgia are currently being considered for admission into NATO. This isn't a Bush thing. These kinds of moves threaten the stability of Eastern Europe and we are required by NATO to go to war for many of these countries. If Georgia were to fall, which former Soviet republic/country could be next?

[lungs]

I still see Georgia as the aggressor here. The Russians may have overstepped, by moving operations into Georgia proper, but that may have been necessary to prevent further Georgian aggression against its subjects.

[stevew]

I still see Georgia as the aggressor here. The Russians may have overstepped, by moving operations into Georgia proper, but that may have been necessary to prevent further Georgian aggression against its subjects.

Yeah, if they want to play with the bull, they better be ready for the fucking horns.

The rhetoric coming out of Cheney and Bush right now sounds downright alarming. We can't let those two fuckheads escalate this into WW3.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I still see Georgia as the aggressor here. The Russians may have overstepped, by moving operations into Georgia proper, but that may have been necessary to prevent further Georgian aggression against its subjects.

Agreed. Had Russia stayed within the borders of those two areas, it wouldn't have been nearly as big of a deal.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Oof. The last time we started thinking like that our boys spent years fighting shadows in the rice paddies.

There's a big difference between that conflict and a possible attack by Russia on a NATO member. The two situations aren't comparable.

With that said, I don't believe Russia is dumb enough to attack a NATO member. They're not happy with the decrease in their sphere of influence, but they likely have no interest in opening up that can of worms. This is a situation where Russian and NATO are using Georgia as a monumental pissing contest.

[lungs]

Agreed. Had Russia stayed within the borders of those two areas, it wouldn't have been nearly as big of a deal.

From Russia's view, I'm guessing their operations into Georgian Georgia were an attempt to stop the ability of Georgia to strike back.

Given that Russian President whatever his name is (Putin's puppet) has ordered operations to cease, I believe that to be the case. Knowing Russians and usual Russian restraint, I'm surprised they didn't go after Tbilisi.

Maybe in a few years when we all forget about this. Not that many Americans even know or give a shit about what's going on over there. When this stuff first started, I was flipping through the news channels and could only find people talking about how large of a dump Barack Obama took and John McCain's response to said dump and the latest celebrity news.

[gstelmack]

I still see Georgia as the aggressor here. The Russians may have overstepped, by moving operations into Georgia proper, but that may have been necessary to prevent further Georgian aggression against its subjects.

Georgia's been goaded into this by the Russian-supported separatists.

[molson]

It's pretty alarming that people think that the Soviets, I mean, Russians are in the right here.

[molson]

I don't know why this point is being ignored by the media and analysis of this but there was nothing that happened last week between Georgia and South Ossetia that hasn't been going on for 20 YEARS. There's been times of peace, but also times of much a much more extesnsive conflict than what we saw Thursday.

[lungs]

Georgia's been goaded into this by the Russian-supported separatists.
Sure, the separatists are supported by Russia. But in the case of South Ossetia, they're common brothers are an autonomous region in the Russian Federation. They merely wish to be united with who they are ethnically connected to instead of being ruled by Georgians.

Do the South Ossetians have no right to self determination? They've overwhelmingly voted to secede from Georgia on a couple of different occasions. I'm talking like >90% of the vote.

[molson]

Sure, the separatists are supported by Russia. But in the case of South Ossetia, they're common brothers are an autonomous region in the Russian Federation. They merely wish to be united with who they are ethnically connected to instead of being ruled by Georgians.

Do the South Ossetians have no right to self determination? They've overwhelmingly voted to secede from Georgia on a couple of different occasions. I'm talking like >90% of the vote.

Do you seriously believe the Russians invaded because they want to "liberate" the South Ossetians?

[lungs]

Do you seriously believe the Russians invaded because they want to save the South Ossetians?

Of course not. This is just a land grab by Russia, but a land grab with the consent of the people on the land being grabbed.

[molson]

Of course not. This is just a land grab by Russia, but a land grab with the consent of the people on the land being grabbed.

Really? Didn't South Ossetia declare their independence? They have their own flag and everything. Wouldn't they rather be united with Russian North Ossetia?

It's way more complicated than a land grab. It's a statement of boldness and power, a message to their neighbors. If you try to join NATO, or if you have too strong of ties to the west, Russia will find a pretense to destroy you.

I don't think this will end with an independent South Ossetia (Russia certainly doesn't want that), or South Ossetia annexed into Russia (I don't think Russia really wants that either - they're happy for Georgia to have that headache). All they wanted to do here is spill some blood.

There'll be some agreement with the Ossetians granted some kind of meaningless autonomy (that they had anyway), and the Russians will spin it like they did a good thing.

[JPhillips]

I think it's a mistake to put this in good guy, bad guy, terms. Both sides have their own selfish reasons for this conflict. Georgia, IMO, isn't much cleaner than Russia, but they don't have the strength to back their intentions. It's hard for me to side with a President who's own wife has compared him flatteringly to those great Georgians, Stalin and Beria.

I also think the Russians have been laying in wait ever since the Kosovo decision and the foolish Georgian attack gave them just enough legitimacy to begin an overwhelming assault. They're playing old-school great power politics, but the reality is that they can get away with it.

[samifan24]

I still see Georgia as the aggressor here.

No.

[Galaxy]

Yes, the second longest in the world, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Russia felt that the pipeline and its route was a direct attempt to weaken Russian influence from the beginning. So basically, they've never been fans, and Russian jets have targetted the pipeline apparently (edit: according to Georgian reports, I should add).

Iit's worth adding that South Ossetia is, not surprisingly, close to the route of the pipeline.

How much do you think Russia would like to grab that? If they did capture it, what would happen in terms of the control?

[lungs]

Really? Didn't South Ossetia declare their independence? They have their own flag and everything. Wouldn't they rather be united with Russian North Ossetia?

From what I understand they'd like to be united with North Ossetia within the Russian Federation (where North Ossetia is granted autonomy).

It's way more complicated than a land grab. It's a statement of boldness and power, a message to their neighbors. If you try to join NATO, or if you have too strong of ties to the west, Russia will find a pretense to destroy you.

Agreed, my previous post was a simplistic breakdown I made in two minutes before I had to do actual work.

I don't think this will end with an independent South Ossetia (Russia certainly doesn't want that), or South Ossetia annexed into Russia (I don't think Russia really wants that either - they're happy for Georgia to have that headache). All they wanted to do here is spill some blood.

There'll be some agreement with the Ossetians granted some kind of meaningless autonomy (that they had anyway), and the Russians will spin it like they did a good thing.

Agreed that there will be no independent South Ossetia. I'm speculating that South Ossetia hoped to break away from Georgia to eventually reunite with North Ossetia within the Russian Federation. I may be wrong, but I don't understand the logic of having the Ossetian people divided between Russia and Georgia. The North Ossetians are seemingly happy as an autonomous republic within Russia while the Southern Ossetians would prefer to have the benefits of being part of the stronger nation. I'm also guessing that due to Russia's size and power, they could offer South Ossetia much more autonomy than a smaller, weaker, Georgia could or want to. All I know is that Georgia's offer to solve their South Ossetian problem was not sufficient according to the South Ossetians.

Keep in mind, that before last Thursday, I'd never even heard of the Ossetians so I'm trying to learn as I go along here.

[lungs]

No.
Yes.

[molson]

Keep in mind, that before last Thursday, I'd never even heard of the Ossetians so I'm trying to learn as I go along here.

And just that effort you've made since Thursday has made you more knowledgeable about the conflict and region than 99% of Americans.

I'm definitely somewhat biased towards the Georgians because of a personal connection, and since I've subsequently learned a lot about them over the last year or so.

[lungs]

And just that effort you've made since Thursday has made you more knowledgeable about the conflict and region than 99% of Americans.

I'm definitely somewhat biased towards the Georgians because of a personal connection, and since I've subsequently learned a lot about them over the last year or so.

You should've seen the dumb looks I got when I told people a war has broken out between Russia and Georgia. Most people don't even know there is a country called Georgia.

I guess anytime a conflict arises I try to learn more about it. The background is always important to me. How did we get there? In this case, we can probably trace it back to the Soviets arbitrarily giving South Ossetia to Georgia in 1922 figuring it wouldn't make any difference since Communism would sweep the globe.

Like JPhillips said, I don't think it's fair to label good guys and bad guys here. You can make arguments for either case. I just sensed some anti-Russian sentiment in this thread. Like you have Georgian connections, I have personal Russian connections that were made immediately after the Cold War ended. While our cultures are vastly different, we learned a lot from each other. Due to the Cold War mentality of some, anything the Russians do has to be bad. We take kind of a cold view of Vladimir Putin here in America but I definitely see why he is beloved by the Russian people simply by knowing and working with many Russian people.

[Klinglerware]

n this case, we can probably trace it back to the Soviets arbitrarily giving South Ossetia to Georgia in 1922 figuring it wouldn't make any difference since Communism would sweep the globe.



For what it's worth, I think it was a deliberate policy of divide, conquer, and pacify so that ethnic nationalism would be less of a problem for the Soviets. In this case, they split Ossetia in two to divide the population. They put South Ossetia in Georgia, to make the Georgian SSR less homogeneous.

It worked for the Soviets (at least for awhile), though it is obviously a headache now, not just in the Caucusus...

[Tigercat]

The CYBERWARS have begun!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/technology/13cyber.html?em

Anticipate all future conflicts to have an internet attack to coincide with any conventional warfare. Personally, I am ready for the robot warfare to solve all of our conflicts. Its 2008 already, come on!

[molson]

The CYBERWARS have begun!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/technology/13cyber.html?em

Anticipate all future conflicts to have an internet attack to coincide with any conventional warfare. Personally, I am ready for the robot warfare to solve all of our conflicts. Its 2008 already, come on!

Yet more proof that the Russians planned the invasion well before any Georgian action of last week.

[Galaxy]

U.S., allies weigh punishment for Russia - Europe - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26159742/?GT1=43001)

[molson]

U.S., allies weigh punishment for Russia - Europe - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26159742/?GT1=43001)

Makes you wonder what would happen if they actually took Tbilisi. Maybe they would have to go right to bed without dinner?

[fantom1979]

I could think of several ways to "punish" Russia for this.

1. Immediately accept Georgia into Nato
2. Create a massive infrastructure and defense grant to Georgia from the EU
3. Kick Russia from the G-8.

[Klinglerware]

I could think of several ways to "punish" Russia for this.

1. Immediately accept Georgia into Nato
2. Create a massive infrastructure and defense grant to Georgia from the EU
3. Kick Russia from the G-8.

Unfortunately, that response could end up hurting the Europeans more than it would hurt the Russians. In response, the Russians could then cut off their energy deliveries to Europe (presumably, they would have ready alternate buyers from India, China, and the developing world). That could result in further destabilization and competition among buyers in the global energy market, as the Europeans will have to look elsewhere for their oil and natural gas.

[JPhillips]

Do you really want to guarantee the independence of Georgia? NATO membership would mean war if this happens again and certainly edge us closer to a new Cold War. In the end we won't do anything because we don't have much leverage and that we do have we won't waste on Georgia. The fact remains that Georgia just isn't strategically important regardless of how much any of us may sympathize with them.

[Galaxy]

Looks like Georgia has agreed to the Russian-French agreement:

Georgia agrees to Russian-French plan to settle conflict - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/12/georgia.russia.war/index.html)

[molson]

Do you really want to guarantee the independence of Georgia? NATO membership would mean war if this happens again and certainly edge us closer to a new Cold War. In the end we won't do anything because we don't have much leverage and that we do have we won't waste on Georgia. The fact remains that Georgia just isn't strategically important regardless of how much any of us may sympathize with them.

But that's where it gets tricky. Georgia in NATO has been on the table for a while. Now should that be shelved forever because of Russia's actions?

American has already provided military training and assistance to Georgia. Should we stop that now in fear of angering the Russians?

Russia's already the fringe member of the G8. Do their actions guarantee a permanent spot regardless of future misdeeds?

Russia's boldness and shows of military force are only going to increase if they always get what they want.

[BishopMVP]

Sure, the separatists are supported by Russia. But in the case of South Ossetia, they're common brothers are an autonomous region in the Russian Federation. They merely wish to be united with who they are ethnically connected to instead of being ruled by Georgians.

Do the South Ossetians have no right to self determination? They've overwhelmingly voted to secede from Georgia on a couple of different occasions. I'm talking like >90% of the vote.Agreed that there will be no independent South Ossetia. I'm speculating that South Ossetia hoped to break away from Georgia to eventually reunite with North Ossetia within the Russian Federation. I may be wrong, but I don't understand the logic of having the Ossetian people divided between Russia and Georgia. The North Ossetians are seemingly happy as an autonomous republic within Russia while the Southern Ossetians would prefer to have the benefits of being part of the stronger nation. I'm also guessing that due to Russia's size and power, they could offer South Ossetia much more autonomy than a smaller, weaker, Georgia could or want to. All I know is that Georgia's offer to solve their South Ossetian problem was not sufficient according to the South Ossetians.No, the Ossetians want to be independent under the banner of Ossetia-Alania. They don't fight Russia only because they're fighting the Ingushetians, Georgians and occasionally the Chechnyans get involved (remember the Beslan school incident?) and the Russians garrison their tropps there for the rest of the Caucasus. There have been rumors of Ossetian involvement in some of the Moscow terrorist incidents that were blamed on the Chechnyans, but it's impossible to know for sure.

The reason South Ossetian leaders keep turning down any Georgian offer for autonomy is because they are backed by the Russians and Russia had the troops there as "peacekeepers". These leaders are getting a better deal as Russian pawns than they would leading an autonomous Georgia in either country.

[JPhillips]

Georgia isn't in NATO precisely because enough Euro nations didn't want to pledge to defend them. I'm sure the U.S. will still push to put Georgia in, especially if McCain wins, but there will never be enough Euro nations willing to start a war with Russia over Georgia.

As for other punishments, there may be a good case to be made over the G8, I just think that at the end of the day we won't do anything but bluster. We've clearly shown that regardless of our talk when it comes down to it we aren't going to stand in the way of Russia exerting power in it's sphere of influence.

We shouldn't have encouraged Georgia's recklessness, but that water's under the bridge. Now that thousands of innocents are the victims of our hamhanded diplomacy, I hope we don't compound the mistake by defaulting to a position of antagonism with Russia. What they did was way out of line, but I don't see any reason to antagonize them further when the benefits for the U.S. are so minimal.

I'm a foreign policy realist, so as much as I sympathize with the Georgian people, I don't see any upside in pushing the tension between the U.S. and Russia to greater lengths. I think we should privately tell them that they went too far, but that we'll stop pushing for NATO membership for former Soviet Republics. This may blow up again and then it will be a bigger problem, but we shouldn't encourage that level of confrontation.

[fantom1979]

The upside I see in pushing the tension is just to keep Russia in check. If they get away with this without a strong statement from us, what will stop them from having a problem with Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, or the Baltics next month.

[JPhillips]

I'd bet that Russia has made it's point. I'd tell them they get this one, but if they invade another former republic we'll kick them out of the G8 and ditch their ambassador to NATO. At this point I don't see how we benefit from more confrontation.

Really, as much as it would piss us off, are we willing to go to war over any of the former republics? Especially a war that takes place 2000 miles away but on Russia's doorstep? A war we'd almost certainly lose or suffer such catastrophic losses to make a victory worthless?

[ISiddiqui]

The upside I see in pushing the tension is just to keep Russia in check. If they get away with this without a strong statement from us, what will stop them from having a problem with Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, or the Baltics next month.

Well the Russians have already been meddling in the Ukraine (the Orange Revolution was in response to that). Their attempting to screw in Georgian affairs is only natural if they wish to reassert their dominance over former Soviet states (which they do). I think that taking our talking points based on what Russia is going to do gives them more power than they should have.

[Autumn]

Here's a lengthy description of the situation by Stratfor, whose intelligence I really like, and who basically have predicted this for a long time. I'll put it under a spoiler button just because it's so long:

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
August 12, 2008


Graphic for Geopolitical Intelligence Report

By George Friedman
Related Special Topic Pages

* Crisis in South Ossetia
* U.S. Weakness and Russia’s Window of Opportunity
* The Russian Resurgence
* Kosovo, Russia and the West

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.

Let’s begin simply by reviewing the last few days.

On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.

On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.


The Conflict in Georgia
(click image to enlarge)

On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.
The Mystery Behind the Georgian Invasion

In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.

The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.
The Western Encirclement of Russia

To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.

That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.
The Russian Periphery

The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.

The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.

Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn’t mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.
Resurrecting the Russian Sphere

Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.

By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.

The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.

The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.

Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).

In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.

The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.

Tell Stratfor What You Think

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to Stratfor - Geopolitical intelligence, economic, political, and military strategic forecasting | Stratfor (www.stratfor.com)

[Groundhog]

Here's a lengthy description of the situation by Stratfor, whose intelligence I really like, and who basically have predicted this for a long time. I'll put it under a spoiler button just because it's so long:


Thanks very much for posting that. A very interesting and eye-opening read.

[molson]

I'd bet that Russia has made it's point. I'd tell them they get this one, but if they invade another former republic we'll kick them out of the G8 and ditch their ambassador to NATO. At this point I don't see how we benefit from more confrontation.

Really, as much as it would piss us off, are we willing to go to war over any of the former republics? Especially a war that takes place 2000 miles away but on Russia's doorstep? A war we'd almost certainly lose or suffer such catastrophic losses to make a victory worthless?

I don't think anyone's advocating the United States go to war over this. And I think its a leap to assume that allowing Georgia to join NATO will cause Russia to declare war on the US.. What it would do is deter Russia from declaring war on Georgia.

Georgia may not be strategically important, but neither are NATO members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, or Bulgaria.

[molson]

Thanks very much for posting that. A very interesting and eye-opening read.

The only thing missing is the alleged shelling of Georgian villages by the South Ossetians (which, if it happened, may very well have been encouraged by the Russians).

[Groundhog]

The only thing missing is the alleged shelling of Georgian villages by the South Ossetians (which, if it happened, may very well have been encouraged by the Russians).

That's in there:


In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine.

[molson]

That's in there:

Oops, my skimming skills are not up to par.

I certainly understand why Russia doesn't want to be encircled by NATO states, but as a US citizen, I really could care less about Russia's sense of security.

"The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status"

That's not a good thing from an American perspective. The US could drop them back down a notch, or allow them to continue to rise back up to a superpower. They're going to choose the latter, which I think will be a mistake in the long run. Russia has succeeded in stopping any further NATO expansion. They has benefited hugely on the world stage from the invasion of a another country. Only a superpower could pull off something like that.

[Chief Rum]

Georgia isn't in NATO precisely because enough Euro nations didn't want to pledge to defend them. I'm sure the U.S. will still push to put Georgia in, especially if McCain wins, but there will never be enough Euro nations willing to start a war with Russia over Georgia.

As for other punishments, there may be a good case to be made over the G8, I just think that at the end of the day we won't do anything but bluster. We've clearly shown that regardless of our talk when it comes down to it we aren't going to stand in the way of Russia exerting power in it's sphere of influence.

We shouldn't have encouraged Georgia's recklessness, but that water's under the bridge. Now that thousands of innocents are the victims of our hamhanded diplomacy, I hope we don't compound the mistake by defaulting to a position of antagonism with Russia. What they did was way out of line, but I don't see any reason to antagonize them further when the benefits for the U.S. are so minimal.

I'm a foreign policy realist, so as much as I sympathize with the Georgian people, I don't see any upside in pushing the tension between the U.S. and Russia to greater lengths. I think we should privately tell them that they went too far, but that we'll stop pushing for NATO membership for former Soviet Republics. This may blow up again and then it will be a bigger problem, but we shouldn't encourage that level of confrontation.

I generally agree with this, but I wanted to qualify one thing. While there is no major foreign action in the world that is not influenced by American foreign policy, I don't think we should be laying the "thousands of innocents" at the feet of the U.S. This is a complicated mishmash with many contributors, and I don't think we're even the top cause (although certainly a facilitator).

[Groundhog]

I don't think anyone's advocating the United States go to war over this.

I think maybe the Georgians were. ;)

The most surprising thing about the Stratfor article to me (outside of maybe exactly how big a presence the US had in Georgia of all places prior to the conflict) was that my view of Russia has been that of the post-Cold War/U.S.S.R. Russia - poor and relatively weak. Looks like I was wrong.

Perhaps the main reason the US achieved the level of power it did during the 20th Century was a forward thinking post-World Wars policy concentrated on securing natural resources. It's interesting to me that Russia now has somewhat of a stranglehold over Europe with regards to its supply of natural resources.

If Russia's display of military might against Georgia in the face of US verbal gesturing has the ripple effect of intimidating the other former Soviets to look to Russia instead of Europe and the United States, well, that could be scary.

Then of course there's the Sino-Russian "Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and Russian Federation", signed in 2001.

Are Russia already more powerful than it seems? I don't expect them to go all Germany on us and try and take on the world, but they seem likely to become very big players on the international scene again, at the expense of perhaps some of the current powers in Europe and maybe beyond.

Perhaps just as alarming (although well realised before even all this) is the thought that the US are really stretched thin right now with the amount of money and troops being poured in to the Middle East. Probably not a big deal at the moment given that's where their interests are, but the inability to be a major military factor elsewhere might have a big impact on the foreign policy of the US. Suddenly being allied with the US doesn't neccessarily provide you with the comfort it might have not so long ago.

[fantom1979]

From what I can gather, we have two aircraft carriers in the Atlantic (Roosevelt and Truman). I am not silly enough to think we will have to use them, but it is amazing what an attitude changer a US aircraft carrier within striking distance is.

[sachmo71]

Oops, my skimming skills are not up to par.

I certainly understand why Russia doesn't want to be encircled by NATO states, but as a US citizen, I really could care less about Russia's sense of security.

"The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status"

That's not a good thing from an American perspective. The US could drop them back down a notch, or allow them to continue to rise back up to a superpower. They're going to choose the latter, which I think will be a mistake in the long run. Russia has succeeded in stopping any further NATO expansion. They has benefited hugely on the world stage from the invasion of a another country. Only a superpower could pull off something like that.


we don't have the manpower for a war, especially one with a modern army on their home turf.

[NoMyths]

Oops, my skimming skills are not up to par.

I certainly understand why Russia doesn't want to be encircled by NATO states, but as a US citizen, I really could care less about Russia's sense of security.

"The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status"

That's not a good thing from an American perspective. The US could drop them back down a notch, or allow them to continue to rise back up to a superpower. They're going to choose the latter, which I think will be a mistake in the long run. Russia has succeeded in stopping any further NATO expansion. They has benefited hugely on the world stage from the invasion of a another country. Only a superpower could pull off something like that.

How would you propose the U.S. "drop them back down a notch" when, based on that article, there are few strategic options available to us to do so? Based on a close reading of the article, that was exactly the U.S.'s strategy, and it has backfired.

[molson]

we don't have the manpower for a war, especially one with a modern army on their home turf.

Again, I'm not saying war, just diplomacy.

[molson]

How would you propose the U.S. "drop them back down a notch" when, based on that article, there are few strategic options available to us to do so? Based on a close reading of the article, that was exactly the U.S.'s strategy, and it has backfired.

As weak as the "punishments" sounded in that article, Russia won't be subject to any of them.

At this point I'd be happy with any of them.

Putting Georgia on the fast track to NATO, dropping Russia from G8, and the lesser "statements" of disapproval mentioned in the article.

Instead, nobody will do anything, and then we'll all be surprised when Russia takes it to another level next time.

[molson]

Are Russia already more powerful than it seems?

In today's world, Russia is learning that boldness is more important than power.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Someone phone Tim Kaine. Evidently the Russians didn't listen to Obama after all. They are now moving further into Georgia despite the French-brokered cease-fire agreement (can the French do anything right?).

[molson]

Someone phone Tim Kaine. Evidently the Russians didn't listen to Obama after all. They are now moving further into Georgia despite the French-brokered cease-fire agreement (can the French do anything right?).

I think maybe they just read this thread about how Georgia wasn't worth us getting involved. :)

[Qwikshot]

Does this set the stage for a new Cold War?

My view point may be flawed here, but wasn't it the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union that led to many flaws in U.S. foreign policy?

Because the lack of Russia to be a check and balance to U.S. policy allowed for American to run roughshod on other areas and do spectacularly bad.

We all may (or may not) gripe that the U.S. had no exit strategy or any strategy with the fall of Iraq, I believe the same could be said for Communisit Russia. Instead of inviting and aiding, the U.S. lent help in many ways to the bits and pieces of the fallen U.S.S.R. but didn't do anything to resolve the internal failings inside the Kremlin. Rather than expidite a policy to /help/ the U.S. foreign policy let it evolve on it's own which resulted in corruption and inflation and crime of course, with poverty, fundamentalism arose, this time not religious but Nationalistic.

How many of us have read about a country down in the depths after taking loses in a war, and dealing with the ensueing crime and poverty, decides to rise from the ashes on a Nationalistic bent and take on all those that have "wronged" them. Sounds like WW2 Germany.

Now I'm not saying that will happen, but Russia has adapted, and it has resources. But I'm sure Russian foreign policy is a lot more based on survival instinct than U.S. policy which hasn't seemed focused since dealing with Communist Russia.

Of course, this can work for the U.S., the fear of Russia rising again, could lead to a stronger European sphere, and if Bush could soothe relations with China, I'm thinking that Russia could be kept in check. A stronger influence in the Middle East by the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan plus tighter influence in Pakistan and India, really reduces Russia's sphere of influence.

Of course, I could be way off base...I usually am.

[NoMyths]

As weak as the "punishments" sounded in that article, Russia won't be subject to any of them.

At this point I'd be happy with any of them.

Putting Georgia on the fast track to NATO, dropping Russia from G8, and the lesser "statements" of disapproval mentioned in the article.

Instead, nobody will do anything, and then we'll all be surprised when Russia takes it to another level next time.

You need to read the article, not skim it. The author convincingly points out that Russia's counter could far outstrip the toothless disapproval we've seen from Western governments. Europe is beholden to them for energy -- that is a vastly more significant issue than you appear to be taking into account. By all apparent measures, Russia just pulled off a checkmate in regards to Georgia.

Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).

In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

***phone rings***

Putin: Hello?

Dubya: Hey Vlad. You and I both know that this whole Georgia thing is something you've wanted to do for some time.

Putin: I agree.

Dubya: How about this? You withdraw for at least the rest of my term. After that, you and I both know you can run amok while Obama negotiates from Washington. Sound like a deal?

Putin: It is done.

Dubya: Thanks, Vlad. Hey, did you see Michael Phelps kicking that Russian swimmer's a$$ the other night?

***click***

[Flasch186]

Or McCain can choose to just run roughshod over the American people, go to war with Russia and institute a draft. Opinions are like assholes.

[JPhillips]

Mizzou: So Bush is a secret agent for Russia?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Or McCain can choose to just run roughshod over the American people, go to war with Russia and institute a draft. Opinions are like assholes.

For 100 years, I presume? My comments were cracking on Bush for his lazy diplomacy, but feel free to make up your own fight to turn this into a partisan discussion.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Mizzou: So Bush is a secret agent for Russia?

Your guess is as good as mine.

[molson]

You need to read the article, not skim it. The author convincingly points out that Russia's counter could far outstrip the toothless disapproval we've seen from Western governments. Europe is beholden to them for energy -- that is a vastly more significant issue than you appear to be taking into account. By all apparent measures, Russia just pulled off a checkmate in regards to Georgia.

If that's true, what's to stop Russia from demanding that all of its bordering states be removed from NATO?

"The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk."

Is a superpower makes only empty talk are they really a superpower?

Imagine if the Russians were as pensive as the US: "We better not get involved in Georgia, the US will declare war"..."We better not oppose NATO membership for our neighbors, the US will declare war"...."We better not sell weapons to Iran, the US will declare war". In global politics, when one side thinks like that, and the other doesn't, which side will ultamitely win and call the shots?

The idea here IS to avoid war, which you don't do by hiding and cowering and cornering yourself into a situation where you have no choice. Here, at least we still have choices.

[CamEdwards]

Pffft. You guys aren't seeing the big picture here. Escalation of the Cold War, thin number of troops available... OMG!!!111!!!! Bush is going to create draft and suspend the elections to remain in power indefinitely!!!11!!!!

I'm actually surprised we haven't seen more of that from the lunatic fringe. Haven't they been saying he'll use some sort of incident as pretext for suspending the elections?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Imagine if the Russians were as pensive as the US: "We better not get involved in Georgia, the US will declare war"..."We better not oppose NATO membership for our neighbors, the US will declare war"...."We better not sell weapons to Iran, the US will declare war". In global politics, when one side thinks like that, and the other doesn't, which side will ultamitely win and call the shots?

The idea here IS to avoid war, which you don't do by hiding and cowering and cornering yourself into a situation where you have no choice. Here, at least we still have choices.

Much like in poker, an unchecked agressor will always win in the end.

[Autumn]

I really recommend Stratfor overall. They've done some articles recently on relations between Russia and China, which make the picture a little bit rosier for the U.S. in geopolitical terms, basically because they both have to worry about each other.

But I think several things have happened over the years which cumulatively have allowed Russia back into this position. Not so long ago they looked very weak with U.S. influence in their sphere in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. They've deftly turned that around. As the article says, part of that is because we're much more concerned about strategy in Iran and Iraq. No country can maintain strategic interests everywhere, and they're pushing in the areas we're weakest on right now.

I think the U.S. has continued treating Russia as that weak post-Cold War power and it backfired, especially over Kosovo. Perhaps if we had shifted gears earlier.

A new Russia makes the situation more complicated but in some ways I'm not sure it's worse for us. I would be more worried about a desperate, humbled Russia like the one we saw a decade ago. A confident, secure Russia is going to throw its weight around some more, but in some ways will be safer to deal with. Unfortunately the people in their buffer zone deal with the costs of that.

[JPhillips]

The big difference is Georgia is on their border. We won't/can't declare war because we'd lose. If this were Poland we'd likely go to war, but given the logistical realities of trying to defend Georgia while we're already involved in two wars, we can't defend them.

Where we really fucked up is in giving the Georgians the impression that we'd support them against Russia. We can't and we won't, so we shouldn't lead them down that path. As for NATO membership, I think it's insane to commit to defend Georgia. The reality is that countries act like this within their sphere of influence all the time. This isn't that big of a deal. Russia isn't going to dominate the globe because of Georgia. Are we going to be the world's policeman? How many wars are you willing to commit us to?

[molson]

The big difference is Georgia is on their border. We won't/can't declare war because we'd lose. If this were Poland we'd likely go to war, but given the logistical realities of trying to defend Georgia while we're already involved in two wars, we can't defend them.

Where we really fucked up is in giving the Georgians the impression that we'd support them against Russia. We can't and we won't, so we shouldn't lead them down that path. As for NATO membership, I think it's insane to commit to defend Georgia. The reality is that countries act like this within their sphere of influence all the time. This isn't that big of a deal. Russia isn't going to dominate the globe because of Georgia. Are we going to be the world's policeman? How many wars are you willing to commit us to?

Russia opposed the 2004 NATO expansion of 7 countries. Are any of those worth going to war over? Did you/would you have opposed that expansion at the time?

Expanding NATO is a strong statement to the Russians, but maybe not as strong as you're suggesting. It's not like CIV IV, you're not automatically involved in warfare if the Russians invade again. You're not bound to intervene militarily (really at all), but especially if Georgia are truly the agressors.

Georgia did not expect the US to intervene on their behalf militarily. That goes against their culture for one, and the Georgian president made clear he wasn't asking for that. I'm sure he was (with good reason) expecting SOME diplomatic reaction.

[molson]

Europe is beholden to them for energy -- that is a vastly more significant issue than you appear to be taking into account. .

That absolutely plays into Russia's bullying, in this way (NY Times Q&A)

Q. How likely is it that Russia completely occupies Georgia? And if so, would they do so permanently? This situation does not seem to bode well for other former Soviet-bloc countries. Which one is going to be invaded next?

A. Richard: One apparent difference between Putin's Russia and Khruschev's, or that of Catharine the Great, is that it does not feel a need to actually annex territory in order to exert control. Vladimir V. Putin (and now Dmitri A. Medvedev) use economic threats more often than military action. Here, of course, the Russians used tanks and bombers; but they have stopped short of actual conquest. The goal, apparently, was to terrify Georgia into compliance. And the more Russia is seen to have succeeded, the likelier it is to continue with its aggressive and bullying tactics elsewhere — again, not with bullets and bombs, but with oil and natural gas, or cyber-attacks, or diplomatic provocations. So yes, it bodes badly for Russia's other neighbors — above all, Ukraine.

[Galaxy]

That absolutely plays into Russia's bullying, in this way (NY Times Q&A)

Q. How likely is it that Russia completely occupies Georgia? And if so, would they do so permanently? This situation does not seem to bode well for other former Soviet-bloc countries. Which one is going to be invaded next?

A. Richard: One apparent difference between Putin's Russia and Khruschev's, or that of Catharine the Great, is that it does not feel a need to actually annex territory in order to exert control. Vladimir V. Putin (and now Dmitri A. Medvedev) use economic threats more often than military action. Here, of course, the Russians used tanks and bombers; but they have stopped short of actual conquest. The goal, apparently, was to terrify Georgia into compliance. And the more Russia is seen to have succeeded, the likelier it is to continue with its aggressive and bullying tactics elsewhere — again, not with bullets and bombs, but with oil and natural gas, or cyber-attacks, or diplomatic provocations. So yes, it bodes badly for Russia's other neighbors — above all, Ukraine.

If Russia takes over Georgia, wouldn't this put a whole lot more pressure on Europe due to the pipeline? I'm just surprised that Europe wouldn't do anything on that asset alone.

[BishopMVP]

Then of course there's the Sino-Russian "Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and Russian Federation", signed in 2001.

Are Russia already more powerful than it seems? I don't expect them to go all Germany on us and try and take on the world, but they seem likely to become very big players on the international scene again, at the expense of perhaps some of the current powers in Europe and maybe beyond.

Perhaps just as alarming (although well realised before even all this) is the thought that the US are really stretched thin right now with the amount of money and troops being poured in to the Middle East. Probably not a big deal at the moment given that's where their interests are, but the inability to be a major military factor elsewhere might have a big impact on the foreign policy of the US. Suddenly being allied with the US doesn't neccessarily provide you with the comfort it might have not so long ago.The China-Russian alliance, as Autumn/Stratfor point out, is a tenous, delicate truce where both are terrified of the other pulling a Molotov-Ribbentrop and invading overnight. There are a lot of reasons why it shouldn't happen, but there is the unalterable demographic fact that China has too many people and Russia has a sparsely populated, resource-rich Siberia along the border where ethnically Chinese (or at least not-Russian - ie Mongolian, other ethnic groups that are under the Chinese empire) are already the majority in the Russian-owned border regions.

Russia doesn't have the strength or any real desire to exert influence in regions like Southeast Asia or Africa. They just want to be the dominant power in what they view as their sphere/region, and since the US was leading the opposition recently their foreign policy has been designed to bring the US down in other areas and free up their hand in places like Georgia - and it's worked. (30 years ago it was Islamic fundamentalism that was threatening their sphere of influence, and they launched the invasion of Afghanistan.) The big question is just how far into Eastern Europe they consider their sphere, and whether they'll pull the same stunts. I mean, Poland/Czech Republic are probably out of their reach now, but they clearly consider the Baltic states theirs and it looks unlikely NATO would invoke the charter for them. Ukraine's basically a foregone conclusion in my mind, and the only questions are when and whether is will be a military invasion or if the Ukrainians acquiesce.

The military factor is overblown imo. Yes, we clearly don't have the ground forces, but we were never going to fight the Russians in a ground war (unless we put Wesley Clark in charge again). We still have aircraft groups in the Indian Ocean, hardened bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Poland/Germany. We could easily be flying air sorties and bombing their supply lines/other targets if we wanted to "punish" the Russians for their encroachment into Georgia proper like they "punished" the Georgians for their encroachment into South Ossetia.We all may (or may not) gripe that the U.S. had no exit strategy or any strategy with the fall of Iraq, I believe the same could be said for Communisit Russia. Instead of inviting and aiding, the U.S. lent help in many ways to the bits and pieces of the fallen U.S.S.R. but didn't do anything to resolve the internal failings inside the Kremlin. Rather than expidite a policy to /help/ the U.S. foreign policy let it evolve on it's own which resulted in corruption and inflation and crime of course, with poverty, fundamentalism arose, this time not religious but Nationalistic.If anything the American influence wrecked their economic transition and led to most of the problems rather than helping it. All those Harvard economists went over there, leading the IMF/US Treasury Dept and completely fucked up the privatization of Soviet state industries (with help from the corrupt Yeltsin and his oligarch friends). I think Klebnikov wrote some good books on it before he was assasinated by the oligarchs/kremlin.

[Autumn]

The military factor is overblown imo. Yes, we clearly don't have the ground forces, but we were never going to fight the Russians in a ground war (unless we put Wesley Clark in charge again). We still have aircraft groups in the Indian Ocean, hardened bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Poland/Germany. We could easily be flying air sorties and bombing their supply lines/other targets if we wanted to "punish" the Russians for their encroachment into Georgia proper like they "punished" the Georgians for their encroachment into South Ossetia.

I agree that we're not going to be facing Russia in the battlefield either way. But I think that there are still severe consequences to not having the military readiness to do so. Diplomatically and geopolitically there is still a lot of weight to being able to make a move militarily, even if everyone knows it wouldn't really happen. I mean, that's much of the power of nuclear weapons. There's a lot of deterrent that is really diplomatic more than military, but comes from military capability.

I also think the vulnerability of our military is more than just the number of ground troops we already have committed. There are huge strains on our military equipment, infrastructure, command, etc. Even an air campaign I think would prove very difficult for us due to key logistical problems. If we have strained things like our intelligence, medical, command, refueling, special forces, it means there are things we can't do even if we have the planes or people.

[gstelmack]

But the world is a safe place! We don't NEED a large military any more! That's why we were dismantling it back in the '90s!

( sigh )

[BishopMVP]

I agree that we're not going to be facing Russia in the battlefield either way. But I think that there are still severe consequences to not having the military readiness to do so. Diplomatically and geopolitically there is still a lot of weight to being able to make a move militarily, even if everyone knows it wouldn't really happen. I mean, that's much of the power of nuclear weapons. There's a lot of deterrent that is really diplomatic more than military, but comes from military capability.

I also think the vulnerability of our military is more than just the number of ground troops we already have committed. There are huge strains on our military equipment, infrastructure, command, etc. Even an air campaign I think would prove very difficult for us due to key logistical problems. If we have strained things like our intelligence, medical, command, refueling, special forces, it means there are things we can't do even if we have the planes or people.I don't really think it makes that big a difference here. Short of having troops along the border with Ossetia (or I suppose taking over peacekeeping in South Ossetia before, but that would require Europeans and they're useless even in Kosovo) next to the Georgians similar to the Korean DMZ I don't really see what would have prevented Russia from launching this attack, and once they launched it it would be on us to escalate it by attacking their troops, which we wouldn't do. Keep in mind we already have military advisors in country and possibly SF units in the Pankisi Gorge region (I know we've had them there in the past but it wouldn't surprise me if they were called off to Iranian ops).

The nuclear weapon analogy I think fits well, but not in the way you'd like it. Nuclear weapons are supposed to be a huge deterrent, but if Russia starting pushing west through Europe they wouldn't even be an option until Russia reached at least Germany if not France, so they really aren't a deterrent at all. Anything else - a promise to use them if Russia invades the Baltics or the Ukraine - would be regarded as exactly what it is - a meaningless, hollow threat. Same with having a bigger military since we're unwilling to use what we do have anyways. As JPhillips points out, we're not going to get in a war with Russia over Georgia so it doesn't matter if we had a draft in place and 5 million more troops available.

There's two tipping points here - one where the US is willing to take on Russia's military head to head and one where the European governments wake up and start spending more on defense/NATO. I have no idea exactly where those lines are, but they appear a looooong ways away, and as it is now, Russia can walk into the Ukraine in the next few years and nothing will be done. Unless we immediately bring them into NATO and establish US bases there, which won't happen.

[Autumn]

I don't agree. I think even through the Cold War it was clear that there were nearly no cases where our two militaries were going to clash. Yet the positioning of our troops and ability to threaten areas made a large strategic and diplomatic difference.

In this case, there would still be no clash of U.S. and Russian forces. However, we might have chosen to deploy forces in a position to meet the Russian forces in Georgia, and Russia would therefore remove to a neutral position. I think in modern superpower conflicts it is the theoretical possibility of conflict that decides issues. The fact that we can't legitimately even threaten to fight means that they get to do what they want.

[BishopMVP]

I don't agree. I think even through the Cold War it was clear that there were nearly no cases where our two militaries were going to clash. Yet the positioning of our troops and ability to threaten areas made a large strategic and diplomatic difference.

In this case, there would still be no clash of U.S. and Russian forces. However, we might have chosen to deploy forces in a position to meet the Russian forces in Georgia, and Russia would therefore remove to a neutral position. I think in modern superpower conflicts it is the theoretical possibility of conflict that decides issues.I think in the Cold War there was the perception of a will to start a war if necessary, at least under administrations like Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. When Jimmy Carter was in there, the perception of US will was gone and our military might didn't stop the Russians from invading Afghanistan.

Even removing the question of where exactly, other than the Ukraine or Georgia itself, we'd "position forces" - Kurdistan is pretty close to there and we seem to have a few troopsThe fact that we can't legitimately even threaten to fight means that they get to do what they want.Precisely, but it's not the overstretched military causing this. For domestic reasons, we can't legitimately threaten to fight Russia. It's not the Cold War where everyone feared the Soviets - Russia could take over half of Europe and most of the US would still be opposed to fighting a war against them.

If we didn't draw the line at Georgia, we won't draw it at the Ukraine, we won't draw it at the Belarus or Estonia or Azerbaijan. We might draw it at Poland/Romania/Bulgaria.

[JPhillips]

If we didn't draw the line at Georgia, we won't draw it at the Ukraine, we won't draw it at the Belarus or Estonia or Azerbaijan. We might draw it at Poland/Romania/Bulgaria.

Honestly I think that's where the line should be. Maybe we should defend the Baltic states as that's at least logistically feasible, but most the former Soviet republics just aren't worth starting a war with Russia. We lived with a much more powerful Soviet Union and we can live with Russia as a dominant regional power.

[ISiddiqui]

Well we kinda have to defend the Baltic states, as they are in NATO now. And the Baltics have always agitated against Russian rule. It'd be nightmare if we sat by and let them pull a Georgia with either Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania.

[JPhillips]

Have to and will aren't the same thing. It would likely mean the end of NATO, but I'm not convinced that many members would be willing to go to war with the Russians over the Baltic states. Let's hope Russia never forces that decision as either way it will be a catastrophe.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, I think the US would view it like a Kuwait situation. If the US doesn't go in, its reputation amongst its non-European allies falls to an incredible low. And then, of course, countries like Taiwan get REALLY, REALLY scared.

[JPhillips]

Except that there's a hell of a difference between Saddam's army and the Red Army.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course (I'm not thinking they are called the "Red Army" anymore, btw), but are we going to let countries take over our allies because we are scared of their might? That isn't the tact we take with Taiwan. And it really would undermine a lot of what countries believe they are getting when they get into bed with us. And what, do we let Russia take over or bully most of the Eastern Bloc because we are frightened?

[JPhillips]

We've never had to fight over Taiwan. I don't expect us to back down, but if a shooting war started I'm not sure NATO would be there in the Baltic. We'd probably do our best to get a NATO force in, but I don't think we could reasonably expect victory if it's us and little else. Anyway, I don't think it's an issue as I expect Russia to try to change leadership in the Baltic states and then have them ask to come back if they really want them.

[JPhillips]

I should add that this is the big problem with expanding NATO and it certainly applies to Georgia. How many countries are we willing to go to war over? We've made security guarantees to a lot of countries that aren't strategically important except in the circular fashion that they're important because we've made them important.

It's a little chilling to think that the somewhat reckless actions of the Georgian president could have led us to all out war with Russia.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, if its like a Georgia thing (and I imagine it could be), then we could easily do a proxy war.

Though, Russia trying to change the leadership in the Baltic states wouldn't work so well because the Baltic states LOATH the Russians. They are usually the first ones out or against Russia when they can be. They still remember massacres by Russians against Baltic states, and suppression of their local customs and languages. There is a reason they quickly joined NATO.

If its a full invasion, I think NATO will have to defend the Baltics... or else collapse as being a useless organization.

Let us not forget, as well, that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are members of the European Union.

[molson]

.

It's a little chilling to think that the somewhat reckless actions of the Georgian president could have led us to all out war with Russia.

We certainly wouldn't go to war over a "reckless" Georgian action, whether or not they were in NATO.

I think you at least have to balance the other side of it. Does Russia invade Georgia if they're in NATO? Who has more to fear from Russia right now, the Baltic states or the Ukraine?

[JPhillips]

Molson: You're arguing from the point of view of former republics. I agree that the Ukraine is more vulnerable, but either way I don't think it matters much to us. The only reason the Baltic states are important is because we've made them important. If they rejoined Russia it wouldn't change our global position much at all.

As for reckless actions, that's how I view the Georgian president's actions. He may well be morally right, but his decision to escalate things was disastrous. I don't know if he thought we'd come to the rescue as he's been greasing the skids in Washington for years now, but his incredible misjudgment would have put us in a situation of war or the possible dissolution of NATO if Georgia's membership had gone through. He's certainly not the man I want to give the kind of power that NATO membership provides.

[ISiddiqui]

Molson: You're arguing from the point of view of former republics. I agree that the Ukraine is more vulnerable, but either way I don't think it matters much to us. The only reason the Baltic states are important is because we've made them important. If they rejoined Russia it wouldn't change our global position much at all.

The Baltic states are all functioning Democracies with great economic growth. All are members of the EU as well. One can easily say that the only reason Poland and Finland are important is because we've made them important, etc. That's not an argument that sways me.

As for reckless actions, that's how I view the Georgian president's actions. He may well be morally right, but his decision to escalate things was disastrous. I don't know if he thought we'd come to the rescue as he's been greasing the skids in Washington for years now, but his incredible misjudgment would have put us in a situation of war or the possible dissolution of NATO if Georgia's membership had gone through. He's certainly not the man I want to give the kind of power that NATO membership provides.

His point was that if it was found that Georgia started it, they couldn't invoke Article 7 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

[Groundhog]

As for reckless actions, that's how I view the Georgian president's actions. He may well be morally right, but his decision to escalate things was disastrous. I don't know if he thought we'd come to the rescue as he's been greasing the skids in Washington for years now, but his incredible misjudgment would have put us in a situation of war or the possible dissolution of NATO if Georgia's membership had gone through. He's certainly not the man I want to give the kind of power that NATO membership provides.

That's the strange thing. As laid out in the article on page 3, the US had military advisors within Georgia. The only explanation for it, IMO, is that the US and Georgia didn't think Russia would actually do what they've done.

[molson]

That's the strange thing. As laid out in the article on page 3, the US had military advisors within Georgia. The only explanation for it, IMO, is that the US and Georgia didn't think Russia would actually do what they've done.

The other explanation is they didn't do anything that they haven't done routinely for 20 years. They've always had a military presence there - it's their own country.

[molson]

His point was that if it was found that Georgia started it, they couldn't invoke Article 7 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Right. And beyond Article 7, nobody's getting into a war they don't really want to get into, NATO or no NATO.

[JPhillips]

I still think in this situation things are hazy enough that the current situation would either result in a NATO authorized war or a serious membership crisis, neither of which we would want. NATO may not be much more than a paper tiger now, but we don't want to publicize that.

[Autumn]

I think the will for a war with Russia has been absent in the U.S. public for a *long* time. I don't think this has much to do with that. I think you'd find very little will in Russia to go to war with the U.S. either. It's not going to happen. But ability to go to war still has a strong part in strategy.

I also think the other elements, such as Russia's strong involvement in Iran, have much more to do with it than America's willingness to fight. We're not going to fight them because we need them, and that wasn't true five years ago.

[Axxon]

Pffft. You guys aren't seeing the big picture here. Escalation of the Cold War, thin number of troops available... OMG!!!111!!!! Bush is going to create draft and suspend the elections to remain in power indefinitely!!!11!!!!

I'm actually surprised we haven't seen more of that from the lunatic fringe. Haven't they been saying he'll use some sort of incident as pretext for suspending the elections?

I remember people saying Nixon would declare martial law to stay in power and we weren't even at war at that time. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it about W.

[Anthony]

The Baltic states are all functioning Democracies with great economic growth. All are members of the EU as well. One can easily say that the only reason Poland and Finland are important is because we've made them important, etc. That's not an argument that sways me.



His point was that if it was found that Georgia started it, they couldn't invoke Article 7 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

i think you mean Articles 5-6 of the Treaty:

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

[BishopMVP]

NATO may not be much more than a paper tiger now, but we don't want to publicize that.I feel it's a necessary thing to happen at some point. Streamline NATO down to where it can/will be effective at what it claims to be. France doesn't want to defend the Baltics? Fine, get one or the other out of there. NATO isn't even our most significant defense organization anymore - the Asian one we have with Japan, Singapore, Australia etc is more important geostrategically.

[JPhillips]

I agree, but I think that's easier said than done. I'm afraid a splitting of NATO would end up being the end of any worthwhile alliance with Europe.

[Flasch186]

things have seemed to heat up a bit more tonight and the word cold war is being throw around by fairly respectable people....that would not be a good thing while we continue to fight Islamic radicalism. not good.

[JPhillips]

I know McCain is really charged up over this, but I think he's forgetting a few things here.

My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.

[molson]

things have seemed to heat up a bit more tonight and the word cold war is being throw around by fairly respectable people....that would not be a good thing while we continue to fight Islamic radicalism. not good.

A growing perception of a "cold war" isn't good for Obama. The Russians would see his presidency as an opportunity to gain power and influence.

[NoMyths]

<embed FlashVars='videoId=179234' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

Laugh? Cry?

[NoMyths]

dola...

In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations.

Sigh.

[Groundhog]

Oh those wacky Russians!

Russia threatens nuclear attack | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24193291-401,00.html)


Russia threatens nuclear attack

By Matthew Lee and Anne Gearan in Tbilisi
August 17, 2008 02:37am

RUSSIA warned Poland yesterday it faced a nuclear attack if it accepts a US missile interceptor base on its soil.

The ominous rhetoric came as Moscow signed a treaty to stop the fighting in neighbouring Georgia, another US ally which is seeking to join NATO like Poland.
US and Polish officials signed a deal on Thursday for Poland to host a system the US says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations, such as Iran.
But Moscow is convinced the base is aimed at Russia's missile force.
"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike; 100 per cent," General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff of Russia's armed forces, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.
He added that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons, if they in some way help them". General Nogovitsyn also said that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems.
President Dmitry Medvedev said the deal "absolutely, clearly demonstrates what we had said earlier: the deployment has the Russian Federation as its target".
But last night, Mr Medvedev signed the plan for a ceasefire in Georgia that his Georgian counterpart reluctantly agreed to a day earlier, setting the stage for a Russian troop withdrawal after more than a week of warfare.
The Russian leader signed the order in the resort city of Sochi, where the president has a summer residence, Mr Medvedev's spokesman Alexei Pavlov said.
The ceasefire plan calls for Russian forces to withdraw to the positions they held before the fighting broke out in Georgia's Russian-backed separatist province of South Ossetia. That appears to mean that hundreds of Russian soldiers who had been in South Ossetia previously as peacekeepers will be allowed to return.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the US agreed to help augment Poland's defences with Patriot missiles in exchange for placing 10 missile defence interceptors in the country.

[Groundhog]

Russia not afraid of starting new Cold War | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24253038-38200,00.html)


Russia not afraid of starting new Cold War

By James Hider in Akhalgori, Georgia
August 28, 2008 12:01am
Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_theaustralian.gif</IMG> (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/)
<!-- END Story Header Block -->Font size: + (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24253038-38200,00.html#) - (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24253038-38200,00.html#)
Send this article: Print (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24253038-38200,00.html#) Email (http://www.news.com.au/email/popup/0,23605,24253038-38200,00.html)

<!-- END Story Toolbar --><!-- Lead Content Panel -->

Russia recognises breakaways' independence
President Medvedev says Russia not afraid of Cold War
East-West dispute canes Russian currency

RUSSIA has put the West on alert for a new Cold War that Moscow says it is ready to fight.
President Dmitry Medvedev set tensions soaring yesterday when he recognised the independence of two breakaway republics of Georgia, The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24251878-26040,00.html) reports.
"We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War," he said.
Mr Medvedev ordered the Russian Foreign Ministry to start establishing diplomatic ties with the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Champagne corks were popping and there was dancing in the streets of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
But the move brought condemnation from the West. US President George W. Bush pressed Moscow to "reconsider this irresponsible decision", and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was "unjustifiable and unacceptable".
German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the move "absolutely unacceptable".
France said it was "contrary to the principles of the independence, the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Georgia" and warned of "consequences".
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said: "We fear a war, and we don't want one."
The East-West dispute has pushed Russian share prices to the lowest level in almost two years, and the rouble has fallen.
But Moscow appears confident the West needs Russia too much - for energy supplies, and co-operation on international issues - to risk a serious rift over Georgia.
It has shrugged off warnings of growing international isolation.
Mr Medvedev, whose troops still occupy positions in Georgia, including in the vital Black Sea port of Poti, said he did not want a return to the Cold War, but "everything depends on the position of our partners".

Anyone else alarmed at all that Russia seems to realise full well that it can say and do pretty much whatever it wants, knowing that the worst that can happen is them having to listen to Rice babble on with her usual empty, harmless rhetoric?

Hell, they even mentioned the *N* word in the article I posted above this one.

[molson]

Russia not afraid of starting new Cold War | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24253038-38200,00.html)

Anyone else alarmed at all that Russia seems to realise full well that it can say and do pretty much whatever it wants, knowing that the worst that can happen is them having to listen to Rice babble on with her usual empty, harmless rhetoric?

Hell, they even mentioned the *N* word in the article I posted above this one.

I think I'm more concerned about the sentiment of American people about all this, as expressed in this thread.

[Groundhog]

Russian bombers in Venezuela amid tension with U.S. - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/11/russia.venezuela/index.html)


Russian bombers in Venezuela amid tension with U.S.


(CNN) -- Two Russian bombers have landed at a Venezuelan airfield where they will carry out training flights for several days, the Russian defense ministry said Wednesday.

The Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bombers landed at Venezuela's Libertador military airfield and "will spend several days carrying out training flights over neutral waters, after which they will return to the base," the ministry added.
NATO fighters followed the bombers on their 13-hour flight over the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic, the defense ministry said.
It said the Russian flights were carried out in strict accordance with international rules governing airspace above neutral waters, and that the aircraft did not violate the borders of other states.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said such joint exercises between nations are not unusual. "We exercise all around the globe and have joint exercises with countries all over the world. So do many other nations."
The U.S. will monitor the Russian-Venezuelan training, said Pentagon officials who asked not to be identified as they are not authorized to speak on the information.
On Monday, Russia (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Russia) announced it might hold joint naval maneuvers with Venezuela in the Caribbean.
The declaration came amid increased tension between Russia and the United States over Russia's invasion last month of the former Soviet republic of Georgia, a U.S. ally that aspires to join NATO.
On Monday Russia denied any link between that announcement and the conflict in Georgia, although Russia has criticized U.S. support for Georgia.
Russia has also objected to the missile defense system agreement, signed between the United States and Poland and the Czech Republic in August, that places a ground-based ballistic defense facility in the two eastern European nations.
Russia has said the deal threatens its security, while the United States has said that the system is to guard against rogue states such as Iran.
Earlier this month, Venezuelan (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Venezuela) President Hugo Chavez (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Hugo_Chavez), whose comments have frequently antagonized Washington, said it would welcome the Russian air force, according to Russian news agency Novosti.
"If Russian long-range bombers should need to land in Venezuela, we would not object to that either. We will also welcome them," Chavez said on September 1, according to Novosti.


Venezuela also gave the US ambassador 72 hours to leave the country, and is recalling their own from Washington.

Venezuela is also taking control of it's own fuel distribution:

Venezuela to control fuel distribution - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/04/venezuela.fuel.ap/index.html)<!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--startclickprintexclude--><!-- google_ad_section_end --><!--endclickprintinclude-->

[Izulde]

I'd love to see us return to the Cold War. It was a hell of a lot more stable world system back then.

[Groundhog]

Sure, apart from that whole fear of being nuked. :D

[stevew]

The whole end of the cold war was orchestrated by Paul Allen so that Arvydas Sabonis could come to play for the Blazers.

[Izulde]

Sure, apart from that whole fear of being nuked. :D

Was never going to happen. MAD guaranteed that the whole nuke thing was empty rhetoric.

[Chief Rum]

Was never going to happen. MAD guaranteed that the whole nuke thing was empty rhetoric.

It's true. I didn't believe it at first, but then Izulde showed me I was folding the page wrong.

[DaddyTorgo]

Was never going to happen. MAD guaranteed that the whole nuke thing was empty rhetoric.

agree in theory, disagree in practice.

[Izulde]

agree in theory, disagree in practice.

Pretty hard to disagree in practice when we're all still here. :p

[BishopMVP]

I'd love to see us return to the Cold War. It was a hell of a lot more stable world system back then.Actually not. All the available literature shows a drop in the amount of wars being fought between/within states, and in the number of deaths from said wars since the Soviet Union broke up.

[BishopMVP]

The Human Security Report (http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=66)


The number of genocides and politicides (http://www.humansecurityreport.info/figures/Figure1.11.pdf) plummeted by 80% between 1988 and 2001.
The number of armed conflicts around the world (http://www.humansecurityreport.info/figures/Figure1.1.pdf) has declined by more than 40% since the early 1990s.
International crises (http://www.humansecurityreport.info/figures/Figure1.5.pdf), often harbingers of war, declined by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001.
The number of refugees dropped by some 45% between 1992 and 2003, as more and more wars came toan end.
The period since the end of World War II is the longest interval of uninterrupted peace between the major
powers in hundreds of years. The number of actual and attempted military coups (http://www.humansecurityreport.info/figures/Figure3.1.pdf) has been declining for more than 40 years. In 1963 there were 25 coups and attempted coups around the world, the highest number in the post?World War II period. In 2004 there were only 10 coup attempts–a 60% decline. All of them failed.

[Izulde]

...That's terribly ironic, considering I used a Drezner essay for the first paper assignment in my Comp I classes.

I'll take a look at that once I get my computers functioning fully again.

[Groundhog]

It's just not possible today to get away with what you could even 15 years ago anymore. Too hard to keep things quiet and out of the media's hands.

[BishopMVP]

It's just not possible today to get away with what you could even 15 years ago anymore. Too hard to keep things quiet and out of the media's hands.Certainly if you're the US, the outrage will be there, and the coverage certainly increases regardless the conflict, but I think the ability to get away with things hasn't actually lessened that much over the last 20 years. Take the inspiration for this thread, or more notably The Sudan/Darfur. It's dark humor, but I have to laugh everytime I see someone campaigning for "awareness" on Darfur. We're all very aware, collectively we simply don't care to do anything. Even the US certainly didn't care about world opinion when it came to it on Iraq.

So in that context, I don't think it's increased pressure brought about by media attention that explains the drop in violence, but I'm not versed enough to state reasons confidently (Russian aid for groups probably cut down for a while, there was a sharp decrease in available small arms after an initial spike following the collapse of the USSR, without a bipolar world UN peacekeeping efforts/troops - as questionable as they can be - were allowed to focus on strategically unimportant places where previously it was a competition between west/soviet, etc would be my starting guesses.)

[Autumn]

It's true. I didn't believe it at first, but then Izulde showed me I was folding the page wrong.

Nice, lol

[DaddyTorgo]

Bishop - we don't care about Sudan/Darfur because they're black people without oil. Much the same was as Rwanda didn't matter because they had nothing of value to us. It's really pretty fucking sickening as a human being.

[lungs]

Since we're building alliances and missile shields on Russia's doorstep, I sure hope we wouldn't object that they would do the same on on ours.

[molson]

Since we're building alliances and missile shields on Russia's doorstep, I sure hope we wouldn't object that they would do the same on on ours.

Who's side are you on?

It's not about making things fair for everyone, it's about gaining a strategic advantage - that's what security is all about.

Thank god JFK didn't think like you. "Sure boys, it's only fair, load up Cuba with them missles, whatever makes you feel better. You're probably just looking out for the Cubans anyway"

[lungs]

Who's side are you on?

It's not about making things fair for everyone, it's about gaining a strategic advantage - that's what security is all about.

Thank god JFK didn't think like you. "Sure boys, it's only fair, load up Cuba with them missles, whatever makes you feel better. You're probably just looking out for the Cubans anyway"

I'm not on any side.

It's not about being fair, either. Every action has a reaction. We start playing in Russia's backyard, it only makes sense that they will start doing the same in ours. And I applaud them for doing so. I'm sick and tired of the United States prancing around the globe thinking they can do whatever the hell they want.

[BishopMVP]

Bishop - we don't care about Sudan/Darfur because they're black people without oil. Much the same was as Rwanda didn't matter because they had nothing of value to us. It's really pretty fucking sickening as a human being.This is a tired argument. Not simply because Darfur, and The Sudan as a whole, has huge deposits of oil. But also because the US military has military operations going on with a slew of ethnicities and races in relatively strategically unimportant countries (Muslims in Kosovo, SE Asians in the Phillipines or Singapore, Central Asians like Georgia and Uzbekistan, Latin Americans in Colombia and the Pantanal, Sub-Saharan Africans in Djibouti just off the top of my head*.) If you're referring to the American public, they clearly don't care whether it's Caucasians in Georgia, Muslim Europeans in Kosovo, SE Asians in Burma or black africans in Darfur. Plus there was a huge outcry in the Christian churches during the North/South conflict in the Sudan (which ironically may be holding back some of the peace efforts because of a fear peace in Darfur would lead to a renewal of violence by Khartoum against the South.) So yes, it is abhorrent and any record of my posts will show I'm as pro-intervention as anyone, but get your facts straight before running this canard out there.

*I'd add our support of Egypt here too, but there have been consistent rumors that Egypt is supporting many of the rebel groups and prolonging conflicts in The Sudan, Uganda and Ethiopia/Eritrea to keep these countries fractured, weak, and unable to fight Egypt's absurdly dominant position on Nile water rights.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is a tired argument. Not simply because Darfur, and The Sudan as a whole, has huge deposits of oil. But also because the US military has military operations going on with a slew of ethnicities and races in relatively strategically unimportant countries (Muslims in Kosovo, SE Asians in the Phillipines or Singapore, Central Asians like Georgia and Uzbekistan, Latin Americans in Colombia and the Pantanal, Sub-Saharan Africans in Djibouti just off the top of my head*.) If you're referring to the American public, they clearly don't care whether it's Caucasians in Georgia, Muslim Europeans in Kosovo, SE Asians in Burma or black africans in Darfur. Plus there was a huge outcry in the Christian churches during the North/South conflict in the Sudan (which ironically may be holding back some of the peace efforts because of a fear peace in Darfur would lead to a renewal of violence by Khartoum against the South.) So yes, it is abhorrent and any record of my posts will show I'm as pro-intervention as anyone, but get your facts straight before running this canard out there.

*I'd add our support of Egypt here too, but there have been consistent rumors that Egypt is supporting many of the rebel groups and prolonging conflicts in The Sudan, Uganda and Ethiopia/Eritrea to keep these countries fractured, weak, and unable to fight Egypt's absurdly dominant position on Nile water rights.

oh but it's such a fun flag to run out there.

particularly in response to Rwanda, as i will agree it may not necessarily hold as true in Sudan/Darfur. But it's still fun to run it out there.

[Chief Rum]

Bishop - we don't care about Sudan/Darfur because they're black people without oil. Much the same was as Rwanda didn't matter because they had nothing of value to us. It's really pretty fucking sickening as a human being.

Actually, Sudan/Darfur does have oil. Not enough, though, apparently (but oil was a big reason for the civil war between the Muslim north and the tribal south that tore the country apart for most of the last 25 years or so).

Oh, I see Bishop already adressed this.

[Chief Rum]

I'm not on any side.

It's not about being fair, either. Every action has a reaction. We start playing in Russia's backyard, it only makes sense that they will start doing the same in ours. And I applaud them for doing so. I'm sick and tired of the United States prancing around the globe thinking they can do whatever the hell they want.

You applaud them? You should be concerned, unless I miss my guess and you don't live in the continental United States. Russian aggression in our direct sphere of influence is a considerably security concern to every resident of the U.S.

Whether Russia is justified or not in doing so, you're just as dead if they wind up bombing your house to heck. Resting on your personal satisfaction at their success isn't really going to be much of a make up.

As for your last, the U.S. has done that because it can afford to. Great Britain was like this for a time. Soon, China may be the one who can afford to. Point is, don't make out the U.S. like they're somehow worse than all the other past powers in human history. With power, them's that has it, abuses it, to rephrase the idiom.

And Russia was no better with this in their Soviet superpower days, nor will they be if and when they return to some semblance of their previous level of influence.

[lungs]

Don't get me wrong, I understand everything you say. I'm just a bit of an idealist. The reality is much different from ideality.

Ideally for me, the world would be devoid of superpowers. Of course I know that goes against power hungry nature of humans.

[BishopMVP]

Blowback in Russia - Commentary » Blog Archive » Blowback in Russia (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/30591)

FWIW, I highly recommend Michael J. Totten (http://www.michaeltotten.com/) and his website. He's an independent photojournalist who is posting on his trip through the Caucasus now. In the past he's done Lebanon (somewhat his area of expertise as he lived there for several years) Iraq (particularly Kurdistan), and the Balkans. He clearly doesn't try to provide a full overview, or easy narrative as someone from the NYT would, but his photography adds so much more immersion its invaluable.

[BishopMVP]

The military factor is overblown imo. Yes, we clearly don't have the ground forces, but we were never going to fight the Russians in a ground war (unless we put Wesley Clark in charge again).Same story I heard about Pristina Airfield, although from an American SF point of view - James Blunt 'stopped World War 3' after refusing to destroy Russian forces | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1329822/James-Blunt-stopped-World-War-3-refusing-destroy-Russian-forces.html)
Blunt, a former cavalry officer in the British Army, was leading a NATO column under order to seize the Pristina airfield in Kosovo in 1999.
Facing a 200-strong Russian advance, the then- 25-year-old was given orders to 'destroy' the Russian troops by the Supreme Allied Commander of the NATO Forces in Europe.

...
'The direct command came in from General Wesley Clark was to overpower them. Various words were used that seemed unusual to us. Words such as "destroy" came down the radio.'Thank god he never ended up near the Oval Office.

[Greyroofoo]

If that story is typical of the trash published by the Mail, then the story is overly sensationalized.