Georgia Conflict - Open Thread #4
Posted by Gail the Actuary on August 16, 2008 - 10:53am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: georgia, pipelines, russia [list all tags]
Update
Medvedev Signs Georgia Peace Plan After Saakashvili (Update4)
The Georgian interior minister, Shota Upiashvili, said at a Tbilisi news conference that the Russians today carried out an attack on a railway bridge near the Georgian village of Grakali paralyzing the whole Georgian railway system.
Rail bridge destroyed west of Tbilisi - Reuters witness
KASPI, Georgia, Aug 16 (Reuters) - A Reuters television crew verified on Saturday that a railway bridge on the main line west of the Georgian capital Tbilisi has been destroyed. . .
Villagers said an explosive device had been detonated remotely on Saturday by men in military uniforms.
Prior Summary
Russia has won in the conflict in Georgia, and we are in the process of sorting out what happens next. Various ones have written what they see happening.
GEORGIA-RUSSIA CONFLICT SHOWS EU'S ENERGY VULNERABILITY
But this week's offensive, during which British Petroleum shut down an oil pipeline and temporarily stopped pumping gas through Georgia, has called into question plans for a Eurasian corridor free from Russian interference.
"The Caspian region is wondering what this means for the future," says Giorgi Vashakmadze, an energy executive in Georgia. "Russia is showing it controls this corridor."
War Casts Cloud Over Pipeline Route
Now, Georgia's vulnerability may have dealt a lethal blow to Nabucco and plans for a trans-Caspian pipeline.
"A trans-Caspian gas pipeline can be considered a forever buried chimera," said Pavel Baev, an energy expert at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo. "It became clear for all the participants of these energy games that nothing will go through the Caspian Sea."
Europe was "shocked" by the instability and realized that "hardly anyone would invest money in new projects" associated with Georgia, said Konstantin Simonov, director of the Fund for National Energy Security.
Georgia: A Blow to US Energy by Steve LeVine
What about the White House's plans for a pipeline to ship natural gas to Europe? The proposed pipeline's success depends on Turkmenistan, which has the fourth-largest natural gas reserves on the planet, an estimated 3 trillion cubic meters. The Turkmen are cautious: Under former President Saparmurat Niyazov, they refused to defy the Russians and support the construction of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. "[Niyazov] thought about it and probably decided he didn't want to wake up dead," says former U.S. diplomat Wolf.
The assault on Georgia may make the Turkmen even more wary of the new pipeline. Instead, they may end up cutting a deal with the Russians, who are vigorously pursuing new gas pipelines of their own in a bid to dominate energy in the region. "A new Iron Curtain," says analyst Ruppel, "is descending around the periphery of Russia."
After war in Georgia, what does Russia want?
"This is not about oil," said Kimberly Marten, an expert on Russian defense and foreign policy at Barnard College. "The only oil at stake is what's flowing through the BTC pipeline to Turkey, something that involves many big Western oil companies; and if Russia were to do anything to disrupt that, it would become a pariah in Europe." . . .
The war may have weakened Ukraine's bid to enter NATO, some experts predicted, because of European concerns about antagonizing Russia. The defeat of Georgia, an ally of Washington, also could reduce the influence of the United States in the former Soviet Union — particularly among the rulers of Central Asia.
Rice says draft truce protects Georgia
TBILISI, Georgia (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says a proposed cease-fire she wants Georgia to sign with Russia protects Georgia's interests despite concessions to Moscow.
Russian soldiers continue to occupy Georgian towns
Russian soldiers are still occupying three towns in Georgia today as international efforts continue to resolve the crisis in the country.
Russia is vowing to remain in control of the towns until it is satisfied that the Georgian military is no longer capable of attacking the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Russia and Georgia have both accepted a French-brokered peace plan that requires them to return to the positions they held before Georgia launched an asault on South Ossetia last week.
Dmitry Orlov gives his view of what is happening in his blog:
It may be difficult for some people to grasp why it is that the Abkhaz or the Ossetians do not much fancy suddenly becoming Georgian, so let me offer you a precise analogy. Suppose Los Angeles, California, were to collapse as the USSR once did, and East L.A. quickly moved to declare its independence. Suppose, further, that the 88% of its population that is Hispanic/Latino voted that the other 12% were free to stay on as "guests," provided they only spoke Spanish. The teaching of English were to be forbidden. After some bloody skirmishes, East L.A. split up into ethnic enclaves. Then some foreign government (say, Russian, or Chinese) stepped in and started shipping in weapons and providing training to the Latino faction, in support of their efforts to restore East L.A.'s "territorial integrity." As a non-Hispanic resident of East L.A., would you then (1) run and hide, (2) stay and fight, or (3) pick up a copy of "Spanish for Dummies" and start cramming?
Can somebody explain to me why Georgians decided to attacked south Ossetia? what the hell were they thinking? they should stay quiet with the mighty Russian army at their doorstep!
the georgian-russian conflict shows that US promises, guarantees and mutual commitment are meaningless.
As such, allies such as poland, czech, turkey, baltic states, ukraine all have mutual committment from the US.....all are meaningless when Russia attacks them.
Uh completely false, First off Georgia is NOT a NATO country and the US never guarenteed or even said they would protect them militarily. Now Ukraine is one thing, I can't say one way or another if the US would defend her, but the other countries are members of NATO, and I can guarantee you any attack on them would lead to a full scale NATO Vs. Russia War and Russia knows this.
Maybe, but I bet Georgia is feeling pretty ****ing stupid right now for sending 2000 of their soldiers to help W out on his adventure...
Antidoomer,
Half of Ukraine is waiting for Russia to claim it. The crimea and Donbass want to unite with Russia but Russia is lukewarm to this because of the cost of rebuilding their economies. They have been struggling to rebuild their economy and are finally over the hump.They don't have the money to invest in this project. However I could see the crimea joining Russia soon as it is very strategic for harboring the Black sea fleet.
Why would Russia ever militarily attack a NATO member when it could just withhold or raise the price of natural gas?
Are ya nuts?
It's true the US never explicitly provided a security guarantee to Georgia. All it did was hold up Georgia as a model for the rest of New Europe (to use Cheney's notorious phrase) to emulate, provide military advisors, and talk extensively (if vaguely) about the benefits that New Europe could realize by cozying up to the US. Do you think it's an accident that Georgia had the 2nd largest contingent in the Coalition of the Willing? Personally I'm pretty sure they expected some kind of quid pro quo for that.
And the quid pro quo was that the US would insulate them from Russian pressure. Instead what they got was TV images of the president of the United States covorting at the Olympics while Gori burned. Fact is the whole episode has sent an unmistakeable message not only to Georgia but the other former Soviet republics about what American support is really worth when push comes to shove.
Bottom line: not a hell of a lot.
You could almost wonder what the prize here is. Clearly the BTC is undamaged and is likely to continue that way. And what do the US corporations and banks really care about whether Georgia is unified or not? However this appears to have been the catalyst that brought about the signing of the missile shield agreement with Poland. In a short time, with missiles in place, the US will have "nuclear primacy", and Russia will have no choice but to follow US corporate and banking dictates delivered by whichever president has been installed in the oval office to cater to their needs.
Most US corporations are very weak; many are going bankrupt or are seeking additional capital which dilutes equity, while others having ofshored their operations aren't really US corporations any more. The Doha trade round failed, which means the uS corporate agenda failed. The banks are in even dire straits; many financial corporations are bankrupt, trillions of dollars in caital valuation no longer exisis, and the whole of the US financial system hangs by a very thin thread of foreign investment.
In other words, the powers you say are going to dictate orders to Russia are very close to not having a pot to piss in.
Exactly right.
The events of the past 10 days have provided ample proof, if any was needed, that Russia is an ascendant power.
And the US? After 5 years of war and occupation?
Would it not seem to be prudent to Russian generals to now probe and test US force projection capabilities?
A proxy war would useful- if only both sides had reliable clients.
Absent that, the tension builds.
I thought history was over and the world was flat and now that Russia has McDonalds we needn't concern ourselves with them...remember that?
Maybe Georgia didn't have a McDonalds.
while some businesses are failing and will fail, there seems to be no real threat to the central bank, yet. Nor have the oil majors seen a decline in profits, yet. And while I agree with you that it is coming, it could be a few years off still. And yes these are the guys that are calling the shots. Cheney brought them all into a room for secret meetings in 2000, and I imagine the recent follies are the outcome of their meetings: WTC 1,2, and 7, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and of course the continual boxing in of Russia. Anyway who do you think guides foreign policy and for what ends? It ain't you or me, except in some bazaare trickle down rational. If the world were fair Russia with all its energy would be a rising star. I think the missile shield has less to do with Iran and more to do with Russia. Do you think otherwise? If the Internaltional corporations and banks aren't calling the shots, do you think Bush and Cheney have acted independantly for the common good?
Lexington:
You are correct in your astute analysis. However Gori did not fair as badly as MSM would have you believe:
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29033 (Link with video)
Gori was the staging grounds for the attack on South Ossetia therefore it recieved an inordinate amount of attention in the ensuing counter-attack.
Dan
Lexington,
another disturbing aspect is the pre-text under which the USA began militarizing Georgia:
There is, however, one small kernel of truth in what is otherwise a rather self-serving argument: In 2002, when the U.S. began providing military assistance and training to Georgia, both the Washington and Tblisi claimed there was evidence of Al Qaeda hiding out in Georgia's Pankisi region (similarly, there were articles, like this one in Time, titled "Inside Al-Qaeda's Georgia Refuge"). Those early claims appear to have evaporated, however. In 2006, the Dallas Morning News ran an article repeating what many have come to believe in the years since: there never really was credible evidence of Al Qaeda in Georgia. The article quote a Tbilisi-based analyst saying: "I personally would not link al-Qaeda with Pankisi in any way whatsoever."
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/russia-tallies.html
Dan
Antidoomer, you're joking right? A full scale NATO vs. Russia war?
Do you really think NATO countries would risk a war with Russia over those ex-Russian satelite countries? I don't think so. They're just not worth it.
Hello Cslater8,
See my [N]itrogen posting at the bottom of this thread. I would hope that NATO & the US would gladly sit in the dark, if required, to avert full-on war with Russia. TSHTF when you can't get sufficient NPK to grow minimal food...
This would be quite saddening to me since I have many friends in Lithuania and know the struggle they went through to become independent in the 1990's. Of course the former satellite countries with natural resources or strategic energy infrastructure should be the ones that Russia pays the most attention to first. Lithuania's main asset (correct me anyone if I'm wrong) is their easy access to the Baltic Sea and some nuclear power plants.
Dragonfly,
Ignalina is the Lithuanian muclear plant. It's shutdown is scheduled to be completed next year. Latvia,Lithuania and Poland signed a memorandum of agreement to build a new plant. However due to lack of financing and bitter disagreements among the states it is not progressing well:
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL0189399920080207?pageNum...
Lithuania is acting on such recommendations. With Poland, Latvia and Estonia it has discussed a new nuclear plant with capacity of between 3,200 and 3,400 megawatts at a cost of 22 billion Lithuanian litas ($9.24 billion).
But talks have got bogged down as Poland wants a third of the output and made agreement conditional upon connecting the plant to its grid. Shevaldin said the planned launch date of 2015 could be delayed at least two years, but Latvian government officials have said 2020 might be more realistic.
Russia has decided to build a Nuclear power plant in Kaliningrad and plans to sell the excess capacity to Lat,Lith and PL.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080421/105520282.html
From wiki:
Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant is a two-unit RBMK-1500 nuclear power station in Visaginas, Lithuania. It is named after a larger nearby town Ignalina. Unit #1 was closed in December 2004, as a condition of Lithuania's entry into the European Union; the plant is similar to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in its lack of a robust containment structure. The remaining unit, as of 2006, supplied about 70% of Lithuania's electrical demand.[1] Unit #2 is tentatively scheduled for closure in 2009. Proposals have been made to construct another nuclear power plant in Lithuania
Information on the port of Klaipeda:
http://www.portofklaipeda.lt/en.php
Dan
Antidoomer,
here is some polling information regarding the situation.
"If a referendum on unification of the former Soviet republics into a new alliance would be held today, would you vote in favour of the alliance or against it?"
Rus UKR BEL
In favour 51 45 36
Against 22 25 32
other/not sure 27 30 32
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14064
My own Note: 45% percent of Ukrainian people want Unification with Russia. However this encompasses all Ukraine. The percent among the Eastern part would problably approach 80-90%. Firther more this poll was taken in wake of gas pricing disputes with both Ukraine and Belarus.
"However in spite of most citizens regretting the Soviet Union dissolution the quantity of those who is ready today to vote for a unification of former union republics into a new union during a hypothetical referendum are less than those who “regret”. At that if in Russia almost a half of population (51%) voted for a new union, in Ukraine a little bit less (45%), in Belarus unification spirit is significantly weaker, here only a third of population (36%) would support unification. In Armenia 49% would vote for unification, 41% would vote against it (more than in other countries)."
Dan
Antidoomer:
Some info On Ukraine's NATO "aspirations" as the MSM likes to call it:
In regards to Ukraine joining NATO:
The poll revealed that 54.9% of respondents would vote against joining the military alliance if a referendum were to be held tomorrow, and that 22.3% would back joining NATO.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080506/106712138.html
Why our are the leaders of Ukraine and the USA trying to drag Ukraine into NATO against the will of their people? Is this how democratic countries behave.
Dan
The Georgians had donated 2,000 troops to the Iraq effort. In return, they received training for their troops. I don't know if this influenced their belief that their troops were more competent then they were, or that the US would come and back them up.
My understanding is that the training the Georgian troops received was counter-insurgency, war-on-terrorism training. Not the sort of training that makes you competent against tanks. But evidently enough to make you think you can take them on...
I think Saakashvily miscalculated how much support he will get from his western allies. I think his plan was to take positions in the province by surprise and hold the lines against the Russian counter-offensive until the US and the west gather in support of the Georgian "territorial integrity" and against the "Russian aggression into Georgian territory".
However he did not foresee that Russians were carefully planning for exactly the same scenario. The mighty Georgian army (partially US-trained and armed) was pushed away too quickly before anyone could react. Another miscalculation - apparently he did not get prior approval by his US mentors, he just assumed they will come to aid in order to save their reputation. I don't think US would ever openly or even covertly support all of this, they need Russia too much to take that risk (to deal with Iran, for the energy projects etc.).
Interesting to speculate how much of the miscalculation on his part may have been deliberately induced by foreign diplomats?
I wouldn't speculate too much in that direction.
It could have very well been a provocation to push Russia into this war, which could be used as a wildcard against it at later stage. But the reaction of the West made me think it's not that, not this time... they were cautious in their reactions at first, and tried to exploit the alleged Russian overreaction at much later stage.
Personally I am attributing this simply to the opportunistic craziness of Saakashvily. That guy is a psycho, you can not just offer cease fire during the day and shell a city full of civilians in the night. I have nothing against Georgians, they are people as everyone else, but they are simply out of luck with their leaders - and they have a long history of that.
According to a Georgian timeline, Georgia declared and implemented an unilateral cease fire on Aug. 7, but South Ossetian militiamen resumed shelling the Georgian village of Avnevi about an hour later. Since it likely required several days for Georgia to assemble their troops to invade South Ossetia, they were probably ready on Aug. 7, and Saakashvili offered one last chance for South Ossetia to stop their attacks. Because the South Ossetian militiamen ignored it, he made his fateful move.
The timeline indicates the first Russian troops entered South Ossetia through the Roki Tunnel at 05:30 on Aug. 8. At 08:00 Georgian airplanes successfully bombed the Gufta Bridge and killed some Russian troops forcing the advancing column to take the alternate Geri-Dmenisi road. Although the time line makes no mention, the Russian air force may have prevented Georgia from bombing the Roki Tunnel which, if it had been destroyed, would have halted the advancing Russian armor gaining Georgia more time. The failure of Georgia to destroy the Roki Tunnel may have been pivotal in their rapid demise.
Even the Georgian version of the story seems to confirm that the attack on Osetia was well prepared and planned for act, not some kind of incidental decision to invade.
I also don't put much trust in the part of the story when Osetinians separatist continued to launch rockets towards Georgian villages 1 hour after the announced "unilateral" cease fire. Besides unconfirmed information, it's hard to imagine that immediate peace could have been establish before meeting with militant leaders and signing a bilateral cease fire. What exactly did Saakashvily expect - just stop firing and the others all at once to say thank you, we're stopping too? And it's hard to justify the destruction of a whole city and a full scale invasion on the basis of a few rockets. Overall it's very hard to find who's right and wrong in such messy situations, but one thing is certain - Georgian leaders did a huge a mistake by doing what they did.
What we do know is that Georgia has wanted to reassert its sovereignty over South Ossetia for many years. We also know that the US and its allies have been training and equipping the Georgians. Also, the US went to a great deal of trouble to bring Georgia into its circle of influence via the rose revolution. We also know that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Georgia in early July as tensions grew in the area and was Russia warning of a escalation due to Georgia's actions.
I do not for one minute believe that the US were not in the loop concerning Georgia's plan to attack South Ossetia. At best the US gave it a green light, at worst the US instigated the attack for strategic reasons. The US also had military on the ground training the Georgian troops at the time and its unlikely they weren't aware of what was happening. The US could have stopped it with a phone call if they so wanted.
It is also likely that the Georgian solution to the South Ossetian problem was to ethnically cleanse the area, hence their incredible onslaught on the civilian population of Tskhinvali. An onslaught that left the city in ruins and has prompted the Russians to open an investigation into attempted genocide by the Georgians.
So whatever madness possessed the Georgians to attack South Ossetia, it was madness fully endorsed by the regime in Washington. Either because they wanted the current outcome or because they thought the Georgians would get away with it. As the Russians are now dismembering practically everything the US has worked to achieve in Georgia over the last 4 years and perhaps longer, I'm assuming it was the latter.
My feeling is that even Bush would have balked it he thought large scale ethnic cleansing was planned. Perhaps Saakashvili somehow, thought he could move into S Ossetia with little opposition, presenting the world with a fait accompli. Then when the combination of Russian "peacekeepers", S Ossetia irregulars, and S Ossetian citizens violently resisted, the occupation force was likely presented with a situation they had not gamed (i.e. anticipated and practiced for ahead of time). In such a situation poorly trained and led forces could easily forget decent rules of engagement. So whether by incompetence/ failure for be ready for the worst case, or willfull intent, apparently the Georgian forces were participating in serious atrocities. We still don't know for sure if this is even the case, i.e. how much of the civilian casualties, and property destruction was the work of the Georgians, versus the Russians. In any case it was a serious miscalculation on the part of the Georgians.
Of more concern to me, is how this is playing out with respect to American presidential politics. It looks like all parties, Bush, McCain, and Obama, are acting as if testosterone sells well to the voters. We are upping the energy of the US/Russian conflict, at precisely the time when we should be damping it down. My guess is that blame is roughly 80/20 here, with the 80 being on the Georgian side, but domestic political considerations mean we are acting as if it was all Russia's fault. This does not bode well for future US Russian relations.
It looks like the Russians baited the Georgians into a trap. And I don't think the timing, right at the onset of the Olympics, was a coincidence either.
The first line of this post suggests Russia won this conflict. I don't think so. This was really a pointless display of force, which, when combined with the business issues there (Yukos, BP, Exxon, Shell, Mechel) will likely make potential investors in Russia shy away even further than they already have.
There was a message for other former Soviet allies in this, and they too got the message. But as Poland has demonstrated, it may we'll drive them away from Russia further.
"Russians baited the Georgians into a trap"?!?
So you organize a the shelling and destruction of a whole city, because you were "baited" by some claimed border incidents? Just like Israel destroyed Lebanon, because they were "challenged"? OK, you believe what you wish.
A very key point everyone here and in the Propaganda System is missing/avoiding is that Saakashvili on the eve of his invasion offered a ceasefire and negotiations dealing with the Ossetians independent status:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080813/116006455.html
Thus the well deserved cries of war crimes. The "infamy" of Georgia is no different from that of Japan in 1941--pretending to negotiate in good faith while planning a sneak attack.
Overall, the end result is that very little has changed. Russia still holds all the energy cards; and as I said before, Russia doesn't need Europe or the USA, whereas they both need Russia's energy and other mineral resources. The importers are perhaps more clearly in the inferior position, and signing treaties to install technologies that are proven to NOT work isn't going to change that fundamental one bit.
Reading this info sheet about Russia's natgas exports and other related data helps one appreciate the strength of the Russain energy position and the weakness of its adversaries.
So, I post a link to an EIA infosheet and get a minus rec? It does contain a great table displaying country's % of domestic gas use comes from Russia. Or maybe it's just that I used an EIA source? Whatever. Some folks are just realityaverse.
OTOH the current Russian leadership is more or less propped up by export revenues; it's not like they can "punish" the EU/USA by reducing exports and not suffer themselves from that.
True but never forget that money is merely a psychological concept. Whereas the oil under their land is a real thing.
"... Russia still holds all the energy cards". More than true.
One-tenth of America’s electricity comes from fuel made from Russian nuclear warheads. The Megatons to Megawatts program converts highly-enriched uranium in Russian weapons into low-enriched uranium that is used in US civilian nuclear power reactors.
Russia has shown reluctance to part with it and if a worldwide energy crisis is triggered expect the worst from them regarding honoring and extending uranium supply contracts.
Ahh!! but the chain you mention has even more links,
many of them. The nuclear fuel America uses comes from
Russian sources and when depleted,(depleted Urainium)
its turned into weapons to kill and maim to further
take control of "Americas Intrests" (READ OIL) thats
under other peoples sand.
This is the only site Ive seen where people accept the
truth that Georgia instigated the aggression.
All other places have fallen victim to the MSM
propaganda that its all the former USSR's fault.
Hi Neph,
The nuclear fuel America uses comes from Russian sources and when depleted,(depleted Urainium (sic)) its turned into weapons to kill and maim to further take control of "Americas Int(e)rests" (READ OIL) thats under other peoples sand.
I take it this is just your little joke? DU and spent nuclear fuel are very different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
Of course, I certainly wouldn't want to be hit by a DU shell, whether fired by an American or a Russian aircraft. There's a lot of spent DU lying around in both Iraq and Afghanistan.