Georgia

[theexorcist]

What's the least worst way this ends?

[vcjack]

on my mind?

or as this shmuck predicts
Its not the least worst but its probable

www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html

[The Stig]

I think the only question now is whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be independent states or Russian provinces.

Those regions may be welcoming Russia with open arms right now, but as soon as the threat of a Georgian return is gone, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they turn around and tell Russia to get off their territory. With South Ossetia the situation is even tougher, since North Ossetia might want to join them if they become independent.

There's also the potential for serious ethnic cleansing or genocide. When Georgia got pushed out of Abkhazia in the early 90's, Abkhazia slaughtered all the ethnic Georgians on their territory. I think the international community's focus should be to prevent something like that from happening again, regardless of who wins.

Either way, the Caucuses are an ethnic mess. It's like the Balkans, but closer to the Russian border and with oil pipelines.

[EasyEd]

What should the United States do about the Georgian situation? And, what should Obama and McCain say we should do? And, I don't mean we should condemn the action; rather, what should we actually do? Here's the chance for McCain and Obama to demonstate their ability to lead the country in a very difficult situation.

[RusskyHoya]

Aug 11, 2008 16:23:43 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think the only question now is whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia will be independent states or Russian provinces.

Those regions may be welcoming Russia with open arms right now, but as soon as the threat of a Georgian return is gone, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they turn around and tell Russia to get off their territory. With South Ossetia the situation is even tougher, since North Ossetia might want to join them if they become independent.

These provinces wouldn't really be viable independent states, and they would remain on the border with a hostile (to them) nation in Georgia. I think they'd likely set up a relatively cushy deal with Moscow a la Tatarstan and continue to receive the benefits of Russian citizenship, which they've enjoyed for awhile now.

Well, that and they're not stupid enough to try to tell VVP that he's no longer welcome.

[The Stig]

Aug 11, 2008 19:14:37 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

These provinces wouldn't really be viable independent states

Since when did that matter?

I think Abkhazia might me viable if given the chance, since they've got a tourism industry and access to the sea. I don't expect them to get that chance though.

As far as the Presidential candidates, I don't think there's much leading to do here. There's really not much we can do about this conflict except talk to people who aren't listening to us.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Aug 11, 2008 18:29:37 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

What should the United States do about the Georgian situation? And, what should Obama and McCain say we should do? And, I don't mean we should condemn the action; rather, what should we actually do? Here's the chance for McCain and Obama to demonstate their ability to lead the country in a very difficult situation.

To answer your first question, Ed. What can we do?

Vote on the security council that they hold a veto on - largely symbolic, doomed to failure. The same is true of any Chapter VII peace-keeping, economic sanctions, or the imposition of a no-fly zone.

Talk tough - means nothing, might get some votes.

Commit to standing by Georgia through military aid - could really hurt relations with a country that provides a lot of the natural resources we use (not just oil) and has nuclear weapons.

Send the United States Mediterranean Fleet to the Black Sea - see above description of how it would hurt US-Russian relations and trade.

Any type of NATO action - could spark a broader war.

Kicking Russia out of the G8 - largely symbolic as the G8 doesn't really do a great deal, just upsets a country with lots of oil, a rearming military, and nuclear weapons.

Other symbolic actions - re-open Russian-American WTO talks, boycott the Sochi Olympic games, dismantling the NATO Partnership for Peace - no real political return on these moves, don't do anything substantive.

Backing Sarkozy peace efforts - these peace efforts will only work when the Russians want them to work, if the EU upsets Russia, Russia can just close the pipelines.


There are larger ethnic problems here - Russians don't really like Georgians (they are seen as slightly better than Chechens, but still inferior people). Georgians and Abkhazians have engaged in ethnic conflict previously.

The bad news for the United States and EU in this situation is that Russia has vertically integrated its government and natural resources wealth. The President of Russia is the former head of Gazprom. The Putin-Medvedev government is simply a merger between the favored resource producers in an undemocratic economy and an undemocratic government. In a market where gas is above $3.75, this integrated government is uniquely placed to play geopolitics. Simply put, when you are playing poker against a player with pocket aces, its not a good idea to bluff at the pot, you aren't going to win and even though you have options you are essentially drawing dead.

[TBird41]

Only six posters so far in this thread? And not one mention of some obscure theory of international relations? I guess they just don't make SFSers like they used to.

[theexorcist]

Aug 11, 2008 21:03:48 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

Aug 11, 2008 18:29:37 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

What should the United States do about the Georgian situation? And, what should Obama and McCain say we should do? And, I don't mean we should condemn the action; rather, what should we actually do? Here's the chance for McCain and Obama to demonstate their ability to lead the country in a very difficult situation.

To answer your first question, Ed. What can we do?

Vote on the security council that they hold a veto on - largely symbolic, doomed to failure. The same is true of any Chapter VII peace-keeping, economic sanctions, or the imposition of a no-fly zone.

Talk tough - means nothing, might get some votes.

Commit to standing by Georgia through military aid - could really hurt relations with a country that provides a lot of the natural resources we use (not just oil) and has nuclear weapons.

Send the United States Mediterranean Fleet to the Black Sea - see above description of how it would hurt US-Russian relations and trade.

Any type of NATO action - could spark a broader war.

Kicking Russia out of the G8 - largely symbolic as the G8 doesn't really do a great deal, just upsets a country with lots of oil, a rearming military, and nuclear weapons.

Other symbolic actions - re-open Russian-American WTO talks, boycott the Sochi Olympic games, dismantling the NATO Partnership for Peace - no real political return on these moves, don't do anything substantive.

Backing Sarkozy peace efforts - these peace efforts will only work when the Russians want them to work, if the EU upsets Russia, Russia can just close the pipelines.


There are larger ethnic problems here - Russians don't really like Georgians (they are seen as slightly better than Chechens, but still inferior people). Georgians and Abkhazians have engaged in ethnic conflict previously.

The bad news for the United States and EU in this situation is that Russia has vertically integrated its government and natural resources wealth. The President of Russia is the former head of Gazprom. The Putin-Medvedev government is simply a merger between the favored resource producers in an undemocratic economy and an undemocratic government. In a market where gas is above $3.75, this integrated government is uniquely placed to play geopolitics. Simply put, when you are playing poker against a player with pocket aces, its not a good idea to bluff at the pot, you aren't going to win and even though you have options you are essentially drawing dead.

This just really depresses me because you're right.

If you want the theories, neorealism and realism probably accept that it's a Russian sphere of influence. Liberal internationalism wants the UN or the EU to do something substantive, which they obviously won't. Neocons would like to do something, but we're tied down in Iraq. Constructivists would say that the Russian perception of the world is just as valid as the US one, so there's no necessary reason for action.

There's no way to keep a petrostate run by thugs and spooks from bombing the bejeezus out of a state that's trying to democratize. It's just sad.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Hopefully the conflict was short-lived: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2545002/Russian-president-Dimitry-Medvedev-orders-end-to-conflict-in-Georgia.html

[EasyEd]

Aug 11, 2008 21:03:48 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

Aug 11, 2008 18:29:37 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

What should the United States do about the Georgian situation? And, what should Obama and McCain say we should do? And, I don't mean we should condemn the action; rather, what should we actually do? Here's the chance for McCain and Obama to demonstate their ability to lead the country in a very difficult situation.

To answer your first question, Ed. What can we do?

Vote on the security council that they hold a veto on - largely symbolic, doomed to failure. The same is true of any Chapter VII peace-keeping, economic sanctions, or the imposition of a no-fly zone.

Talk tough - means nothing, might get some votes.

Commit to standing by Georgia through military aid - could really hurt relations with a country that provides a lot of the natural resources we use (not just oil) and has nuclear weapons.

Send the United States Mediterranean Fleet to the Black Sea - see above description of how it would hurt US-Russian relations and trade.

Any type of NATO action - could spark a broader war.

Kicking Russia out of the G8 - largely symbolic as the G8 doesn't really do a great deal, just upsets a country with lots of oil, a rearming military, and nuclear weapons.

Other symbolic actions - re-open Russian-American WTO talks, boycott the Sochi Olympic games, dismantling the NATO Partnership for Peace - no real political return on these moves, don't do anything substantive.

Backing Sarkozy peace efforts - these peace efforts will only work when the Russians want them to work, if the EU upsets Russia, Russia can just close the pipelines.


There are larger ethnic problems here - Russians don't really like Georgians (they are seen as slightly better than Chechens, but still inferior people). Georgians and Abkhazians have engaged in ethnic conflict previously.

The bad news for the United States and EU in this situation is that Russia has vertically integrated its government and natural resources wealth. The President of Russia is the former head of Gazprom. The Putin-Medvedev government is simply a merger between the favored resource producers in an undemocratic economy and an undemocratic government. In a market where gas is above $3.75, this integrated government is uniquely placed to play geopolitics. Simply put, when you are playing poker against a player with pocket aces, its not a good idea to bluff at the pot, you aren't going to win and even though you have options you are essentially drawing dead.

Good post St. Pete. The bigger question is whether or not history will look back on the world's response and call it our Neville Chamberlain moment. Not likely, but possible.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 11, 2008 21:03:48 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

The bad news for the United States and EU in this situation is that Russia has vertically integrated its government and natural resources wealth. The President of Russia is the former head of Gazprom. The Putin-Medvedev government is simply a merger between the favored resource producers in an undemocratic economy and an undemocratic government. In a market where gas is above $3.75, this integrated government is uniquely placed to play geopolitics. Simply put, when you are playing poker against a player with pocket aces, its not a good idea to bluff at the pot, you aren't going to win and even though you have options you are essentially drawing dead.

That is exactly right and one more HUGE reason why the US should be pursuing alternative energy development as our #1 priority.

As stated before, there are three, equally compelling reasons for doing so.
1. Climate Change
2. Economics
3. National and Global Security.

Russia supplies a great deal of natural gas and oil to Europe, and therefore has enormous clout. The only way to mitigate that is ..... no, not drilling in US coastal waters. It is to pusj full speed ahead on alternative energy technologies. This would not "wreck" the US economy as George Bush claims, it would foster a new era of US technological leadership around the globe. And it would make everyone safer. It would also be a huge boon to the US economy. And it would help mitigate the impact of energy on Global Climate change.

[SirSaxa]

Probably many recall George Bush telling us he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul and knew he could trust him.

Then Bush went out and unilaterally ended the US-Russia anti-missile treaty. And he is pushing for new anti-ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe. And he is pushing for more and more eastern block countries to join NATO. These kinds of unilateral actions and insensitivity to a major power are bound to backfire. Now that the price of oil and gas has risen so high, Russia has vastly more income and economic clout, and they are using it.

Point is, had we pursued a more cooperative posture with Russia all along...well, we can't say it would have solved all the problems, but it is quite easy to see how we have at least missed a major opportunity, if not (more than likely) exacerbated a serious problem.

[The Stig]

I think this specific incident would have happened regardless of our relationship with Russia. They're always going to see the Caucuses as their backyard, and this quarrel predates both Putin and Bush by quite a bit. Maybe the Georgians moved on South Ossetia thinking that we would back them in case of a Russian attack, but that was a pretty stupid assumption if they really expected that.

That said, I don't think most Americans understand just how provocative the missile defense system and the eastern expansion of NATO were to Russia. Russia's biggest fear since the days of Napoleon has been invasion from their west, by way of Eastern Europe. It's happened three times since then (Napoleon, WWI, and WWII), and every time it's been destructive on a level that far exceeds anything in American history. That's why so few Americans can grasp Russia's immense fear of anything that could be remotely hostile coming close to their western border.

NATO was formed as an anti-Russian alliance, and most Russians still see it that way. Putting the missile defense system in Eastern Europe, where it could only be aimed at Russia, just reinforces that view. During the Soviet days, the Russians had Eastern Europe as a buffer zone. Now, with NATO moving eastwards, there's nothing left between Russia and the westerners that Russia assumes are hostile.

[FewFAC]

Fast track Star Wars missile defense shield. Implement in Eastern Europe NATO-allies. Call it the Maginot Line.

[FewFAC]

I also like this method: wag the dog, trump up foreign affairs credentials, mock opponent for being dug by hot chicks, lose election.

Some money shots:

“We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation,” McCain said.

Calling on NATO to “stabilize this dangerous situation” is not going down well with Russia, where images of dead Russian peacekeepers and of frightened Ossetian refugees streaming across its borders have put the country in a very vengeful mood.

But McCain’s brain remains undeterred by reality, a fact that became painfully clear today in Des Moines when he also demanded, “The US should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course.”

The problem with McCain’s bold demand about going to the UN is that Russia already tried doing exactly what McCain called for–and got rejected by McCain’s neocon pals in the Bush Administration. Early this morning, Russia convened an emergency session of the UN Security Council, calling on both sides to immediately cease hostilities, return to the negotiating table and renounce the use of force–but the last part about renouncing the use of force is exactly what Georgia’s president Mikhail Saakashvili refuses to do.

The Bush Administration showed that it too has no patience with crunchy “renounce the use of force” resolutions. According to a Reuters report from earlier in the day:

At the request of Russia, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday on a Russian-drafted statement.

The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the United States, Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides “to renounce the use of force,” council diplomats said.

As has been reported, McCain’s top foreign policy advisor, neocon Randy Scheunemann, has a long financial relationship with Saakashvili to lobby his interests in the United States.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

In 2005, Mr. Scheunemann asked Sen. McCain to introduce a Senate resolution expressing support for peace in the Russian-influenced region of South Ossetia that wants to break away from Georgia, the records show.

Such resolutions of Senate support are symbolic but helpful to countries in their diplomatic relations. The Senate approved Sen. McCain’s resolution in December 2005, and the Georgian Embassy posted the text on its Web site.

Sen. McCain has endorsed Georgia’s goal of entering NATO, a matter for which the country hired Mr. Scheunemann to lobby. In 2006, Senator McCain gave a speech at the Munich Conference on Security in Germany in which he said “Georgia has implemented far-reaching political, economic, and military reforms” and should enter NATO, a text of his speech on the conference Web site shows.

D'oh!

[TBird41]

Aug 12, 2008 19:56:53 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think this specific incident would have happened regardless of our relationship with Russia. They're always going to see the Caucuses as their backyard, and this quarrel predates both Putin and Bush by quite a bit. Maybe the Georgians moved on South Ossetia thinking that we would back them in case of a Russian attack, but that was a pretty stupid assumption if they really expected that.

That said, I don't think most Americans understand just how provocative the missile defense system and the eastern expansion of NATO were to Russia. Russia's biggest fear since the days of Napoleon has been invasion from their west, by way of Eastern Europe. It's happened three times since then (Napoleon, WWI, and WWII), and every time it's been destructive on a level that far exceeds anything in American history. That's why so few Americans can grasp Russia's immense fear of anything that could be remotely hostile coming close to their western border.

NATO was formed as an anti-Russian alliance, and most Russians still see it that way. Putting the missile defense system in Eastern Europe, where it could only be aimed at Russia, just reinforces that view. During the Soviet days, the Russians had Eastern Europe as a buffer zone. Now, with NATO moving eastwards, there's nothing left between Russia and the westerners that Russia assumes are hostile.

You don't know anything about the missile defense system if you think they would be aimed at Russia or in any way effective at stopping Russia from successfully executing a nuclear attack on Europe, the U.S. or, really, anywhere.

Those interceptors are meant to knock down a missile in the middle of its flight, something they cannot do if they are in Eastern Europe and the missiles are fired out of Russia. And that doesn't take into account the sophisticated defense mechanisms Russian (and Chinese) nukes have that would likely prevent the interceptors from hitting the missile (measures North Korea and Iran aren't close to having). The interceptors can, however, knock down a missile fired by Iran at Europe.

Secondly, Russia has hundreds of nuclear missiles. Even if the interceptors are put into Europe, there aren't going to be anywhere near enough of them in Europe, Alaska and California to knock down even 1/3 of Russia's nukes. And Russia knows this, because the U.S. has been very open about how many interceptors there are and the basic physics behind them (there are no explosives in the interceptors except the jet fuel--the thing knocks down the missile it's targeted at by running into it. Seriously--they have no offensive capability) and there have been a few members of the Russian media that have visited the Alaska site (anyone want to bet that those members of the media weren't members of the KGB/whatever the KGB is now?). The same is true of China's nuclear arsenal. We can't knock them all down and China knows this. Russia would find a reason to be aggressive and agitated with the U.S. whether or not there were interceptors put into Europe that are completely useless against Russia.

That being said, the interceptors in Alaska can knock down every single missile North Korea has or will have in the foreseeable future and still have a few left over. The interceptors that President Bush wants to place in Europe would have the ability to stop any attack Iran could muster for a long time as well. Do I think that's worth "creating" some issues with Russia that would have been created anyway by a regime looking for excuses to be aggressive? Yes, I do.

Also, I think there's something to be said about the fact that we've developed the ability to knock down a limited nuclear missile attack in just a few years, something that a lot of people thought was impossible when President Bush announced the program. That's almost as impressive as getting to the moon in under a decade.

[EasyEd]

Aug 13, 2008 2:06:05 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Aug 12, 2008 19:56:53 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think this specific incident would have happened regardless of our relationship with Russia. They're always going to see the Caucuses as their backyard, and this quarrel predates both Putin and Bush by quite a bit. Maybe the Georgians moved on South Ossetia thinking that we would back them in case of a Russian attack, but that was a pretty stupid assumption if they really expected that.

That said, I don't think most Americans understand just how provocative the missile defense system and the eastern expansion of NATO were to Russia. Russia's biggest fear since the days of Napoleon has been invasion from their west, by way of Eastern Europe. It's happened three times since then (Napoleon, WWI, and WWII), and every time it's been destructive on a level that far exceeds anything in American history. That's why so few Americans can grasp Russia's immense fear of anything that could be remotely hostile coming close to their western border.

NATO was formed as an anti-Russian alliance, and most Russians still see it that way. Putting the missile defense system in Eastern Europe, where it could only be aimed at Russia, just reinforces that view. During the Soviet days, the Russians had Eastern Europe as a buffer zone. Now, with NATO moving eastwards, there's nothing left between Russia and the westerners that Russia assumes are hostile.

You don't know anything about the missile defense system if you think they would be aimed at Russia or in any way effective at stopping Russia from successfully executing a nuclear attack on Europe, the U.S. or, really, anywhere.

Those interceptors are meant to knock down a missile in the middle of its flight, something they cannot do if they are in Eastern Europe and the missiles are fired out of Russia. And that doesn't take into account the sophisticated defense mechanisms Russian (and Chinese) nukes have that would likely prevent the interceptors from hitting the missile (measures North Korea and Iran aren't close to having). The interceptors can, however, knock down a missile fired by Iran at Europe.

Secondly, Russia has hundreds of nuclear missiles. Even if the interceptors are put into Europe, there aren't going to be anywhere near enough of them in Europe, Alaska and California to knock down even 1/3 of Russia's nukes. And Russia knows this, because the U.S. has been very open about how many interceptors there are and the basic physics behind them (there are no explosives in the interceptors except the jet fuel--the thing knocks down the missile it's targeted at by running into it. Seriously--they have no offensive capability) and there have been a few members of the Russian media that have visited the Alaska site (anyone want to bet that those members of the media weren't members of the KGB/whatever the KGB is now?). The same is true of China's nuclear arsenal. We can't knock them all down and China knows this. Russia would find a reason to be aggressive and agitated with the U.S. whether or not there were interceptors put into Europe that are completely useless against Russia.

That being said, the interceptors in Alaska can knock down every single missile North Korea has or will have in the foreseeable future and still have a few left over. The interceptors that President Bush wants to place in Europe would have the ability to stop any attack Iran could muster for a long time as well. Do I think that's worth "creating" some issues with Russia that would have been created anyway by a regime looking for excuses to be aggressive? Yes, I do.

Also, I think there's something to be said about the fact that we've developed the ability to knock down a limited nuclear missile attack in just a few years, something that a lot of people thought was impossible when President Bush announced the program. That's almost as impressive as getting to the moon in under a decade.

At last, someone who understands what the missile defense system can and cannot do.

[The Stig]

I never said the system would be effective against the Russians. It's obvious that no ABM system on earth could shut down a full-scale retaliatory strike by the Russians, but this quarrel is more about perceptions than truth. If the Russians think it's aimed at them, then you have the same breakdown in trust that you'd get if it's actually aimed at them. The Russians made their views on the system very clear, and it's contributed to their sense of encirclement, especially when they offered to help with the program and got rebuffed.

That said, the ABM system is only a very small part of this big picture. The expansion of NATO is a much bigger worry for Russia.

If you limit your focus to just the Georgia issue, I think Bush did a decent job. He didn't try to do anything extreme, but at the same time he made it clear that any Russian move on Georgia proper would likely cause some sort of US reaction. MedvePutin may have already been planning on limiting the conflict to South Ossetia and Abhkazia, but I don't think Bush's actions hurt the effort to limit the conflict.

The BBC's take on the winners and losers in this conflict: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557915.stm

[RusskyHoya]

The point isn't what the anti-missile system can or can't do - most experts recognize that the thing is a boondoggle and poses 0 threat to Russia's second strike capability. The U.S. knows that too. The greater logic of the system is to integrate Eastern European NATO states further into NATO, which is something that Russia does indeed perceive as threatening, as Stig pointed out.

Russia is run by a gas mafia, so resource considerations play a big part in all of this, but it's also worth remembering that Putin, like most Russians, has retained a strong dose of Cold War mentality. Only now it's changed from us vs. them to us vs. the world. Such a mindset, coupled with perceived humiliation and nostalgia for superpower status, makes for a potentially dangerous combination.

I can't really fault our government's handling of this situation (some past moves in the region, sure, but not so much now). Any kind of harsh rebuke could simply be countered by Moscow with something like this: "You call our response disproportionate? How many Afghan civilians did you kill in response to 9/11? How many Iraqis did you kill without provocation?" And much of the world would nod their heads. Russia's going to end the conflict on their terms anyway - better for us to lay low now and try to mitigate the situation in the aftermath.