Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia

[Mailman653]

I don't doubt that if this is a sign of things to come in regards to Russian foreign policy, I think the US and the next president will be more than happy to pull out of Iraq, plant some more troops in Afganistan, and then spread the rest around Europe.

[Brenus]

So Candy Rice was right… Kosovo won’t be a precedent…
Answer form the sheep keeper to the farmer (well, the French saying is réponse du berger à la bergère…)…

“Saakashvili has behaved in a cretinous manner, but that still doesn't give the Russians the right to violate international borders.” Oooops, Iraq, Serbia…

“Protecting its own interests...by defending South Ossetia...” Concept of preventive attack, somebody remember…?

“the rebels-without-a-holiday accepted. after all, how are all the russian controlled criminal gangs supposed to go about their 'business' if they can't do dodgy dealings in foreign parts?” LOL, I heard the Serbs saying this about the Albanians from Kosovo…

“However, just because an area of sovereign country wants to become part of another country, doesn't them the right too. That would be like America absorbing half of Mexico but saying "Hey they wanted it so it's fine".” You mean, like Kosovo did? Or like the Bosnian Serbs wanted to do and the Serbs in Croatia were obliged to give up?

“There are also accounts that the rebels attacked Georgian forces first.” Some could argue that the KLA started to shoot the Serbian Police Force (and put a bomb in a Refugee Camp).

“Last but not least keep in mind that after suffering a long line of humiliations from disasters like the Kursk, the terrorist bombings and hostage incidents of the Moscow theater and Beslan as well as the utter mauling Russia received in Chechnya you can understand how they might be looking for a little glory to dull the pain.”
Let’s analyse (well, discuss) shortly yours points:
Terrorist attack: Not very impressive in the US/NATO side: see Iraq, or even 9/11.
Chechnya: NATO refusal to engage Serbian forces on the ground, and Iraq and Afghanistan where the light equipped rebels give them a lot a trouble…
The glory given by these two operation theatres is?
In fact you can see powers struggling to provide logistic and support to the troops, adequate equipment and strategy.

And you really think that NATO and Allies countries will even risk engaging a conflict to protect Georgia? Against Russia? A major conflict?
In a situation where the aerial support won’t be complete and where the others are probably well equipped?

Well, it didn’t take too much time to see the result of US/NATO and Allies policy. Pandora’s Box was opened and we now start to see the result.
Unfortunately two wrong don’t do one good. But in politic some could have expected the return of the stick… Russian are good chest player, I was told… US are better in poker.
We will see you will win…

[JR-]

“the rebels-without-a-holiday accepted. after all, how are all the russian controlled criminal gangs supposed to go about their 'business' if they can't do dodgy dealings in foreign parts?” LOL, I heard the Serbs saying this about the Albanians from Kosovo…

my comment was only about one small reason the russians offered passports, and then only in reference to why why so many ossettians accepted them, do you disagree with any of this?

it should also be noted that i think recognising Kosovo, and falling for the media circus of serbian 'atrocities' so that the KLA could get NATO to do their work for them, were both foolish moves by the west that we were warned against and did anyway.

so don't try and lump me in with others who might be somewhat inconsistent with their application of armed force.

[Oleander Ardens]

Great post by Spino.

There have been firefights going on for years, heating up and cooling down. Basically both sides exchanged shots and shells. I don't think it was an all-out Georgian offensive, given that they didn't destroy the Roki tunnel with air and artillery before shelling Southossetia. Or they were incredibly stupid, lacking every military sense or it was a hot-headed assault after violent skirmishes, in which both sides get their fair share of blame. And who tells me that the Russian "peacekeepers" didn't gave a helping help to ossetians beforehand?

Basically we know that both sides try to paint things their way, but we also know that de jure the Georgians are right and that the Russians are attacking a independent state with brute force after meddling for years in their affairs. This is no Kosovo where there was clear proof of Serbian crimes, this is Southossetia where the Russians have been provocating politically and with more or less hidden military force for years.

[Sarmatian]

This is no Kosovo where there was clear proof of Serbian crimes, this is Southossetia where the Russians have been provocating politically and with more or less hidden military force for years.

You see, I'm a little touchy when it comes to this issue and this is the second time you mentioned this. What are you considering as a "clear proof"? Would you mind sharing it with me?

[Brenus]

I would as well see the "clear proof" that even The Hague wasn't able to show... Operation Horse shoes, Pristina Staduim used as Concentratin Camp, the thousand bodies in the old coal mines, etc...

Not denying crimes, by the way from "Special" Serbian Forces.

"do you disagree with any of this": Not at all. Even today, Kosovars Albanian apply for Serbian Passport...

"so don't try and lump me in with others who might be somewhat inconsistent with their application of armed force" I do not. Yo are indeed consistent.

[Adrian II]

Spino is right that in the end it doesn't matter who recently provoked whom; there is a list of older antecedents and precedents to Russia's actions, as there is to Georgia's. Western power politics is one of them, and I would even say that the western imposition of neoliberal 'shock-therapy' on Russia in the 1990's helped create this newly authoritarian, expansionist Russia.

But the crux of the matter is that we have to deal with it. Even of Russia calls a halt to the fighting, which it appears to have done this morning, this thing isn't over and done with. There are several severe consequences.

1. The U.S., Georgia's biggest ally, was nowhere to be seen in this war. Condoleezza should have been on the plane to Moscow last week. Nothing happened. There is a message in there. The U.S. is too tied up diplomatically and militarily in other issues and areas of the world, as well as too involved in its own election cycle and in its own economic crisis and budget deficit. The Russians know this. They knew Washington would not commit or make a stand with regard to Georgia. They probably won't even make a stand with regard to Ukraine.

2. Britain, the U.S. 's biggest ally in Europe, was nowhere to be seen either. Too tied up in following the American lead elsewhere in the world, too euroskeptic to be able to operate outside the American box and within the EU.

3. Other European nations such as France have been trying to mediate and Sarkozy is in Moscow as i wrote. But any sort of common approach is impossible given the dependence of EU member states on Russian energy, plus the fact that the EU was never enamored of Georgia in the first place.

4. This bodes ill for Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, in that order. They are rightly worried about our lack of commitment to former Soviet satellite states that have become independent and democratic. I just hope that the EU will find the strength to unify over this issue, that the euroskeptics will pull their heads out of their lower bodily apertures and face the reality of post-cold war politics. The world has not turned out to be the neoliberal paradise we were promised by the free marketeers. It's power politics as usual, the U.S. is severely weakened and we will have to fend for ourselves, find a common security policy, change our energy policies, and last but not least build a proper European army. I have said this many times and sad as it is, this Georgian episode only confirms me in my view.

[JR-]

EUskeptics have nothing to do with the poor response to georgia, nor the future insecurity of the baltic states and ukraine.

political integration [EUSSR] adds nothing to the pot that firmly supported collective defence [NATO] has not already provided.

there are two potential solutions to europes lack of coherency:
1. EUskeptic nations suddenly become all in favour of political integration and gradual federalism, which is what it will take to speak with one authoritative voice on foreign policy (requires on firm fist behind the the voice).
2. Get serious about standing behind NATO rather than mucking about with EU duplication which dissolves apparent commitment to NATO, and offer membership to the Ukraine and Georgia (when it sorts itself out with every assistance offered).

personally i think the latter is much more likely, and much more desirable.

[Adrian II]

2. Get serious about standing behind NATO

Nato is all but dead after Iraq and now this episode. It is toothless without the U.S. and the U.S. is not committed to it. The U.S. is committed only to occasional coalitions based on its national interest, narrowly defined as economic interest. In other words, if Georgia were a source for U.S. oil we would have been at war by now. Since it doesn't, we're bystanders.

[Sarmatian]

1. The U.S., Georgia's biggest ally, was nowhere to be seen in this war. Condoleezza should have been on the plane to Moscow last week. Nothing happened. There is a message in there. The U.S. is too tied up diplomatically and militarily in other issues and areas of the world, as well as too involved in its own election cycle and in its own economic crisis and budget deficit. The Russians know this. They knew Washington would not commit or make a stand with regard to Georgia. They probably won't even make a stand with regard to Ukraine.

2. Britain, the U.S. 's biggest ally in Europe, was nowhere to be seen either. Too tied up in following the American lead elsewhere in the world, too euroskeptic to be able to operate outside the American box and within the EU.

3. Other European nations such as France have been trying to mediate and Sarkozy is in Moscow as i wrote. But any sort of common approach is impossible given the dependence of EU member states on Russian energy, plus the fact that the EU was never enamored of Georgia in the first place.

4. This bodes ill for Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, in that order. They are rightly worried about our lack of commitment to former Soviet satellite states that have become independent and democratic. I just hope that the EU will find the strength to unify over this issue, that the euroskeptics will pull their heads out of their lower bodily apertures and face the reality of post-cold war politics. The world has not turned out to be the neoliberal paradise we were promised by the free marketeers. It's power politics as usual, the U.S. is severely weakened and we will have to fend for ourselves, find a common security policy, change our energy policies, and last but not least build a proper European army. I have said this many times and sad as it is, this Georgian episode only confirms me in my view.

1. Even if Condoleezza had visited Moscow, nothing would have changed.

2. I pretty much agree with this one.

3. Nothing much to add here either.

4. I don't think this bodes ill for Poland and Baltic states. NATO was already coming from that side and although admission of these states into NATO complicated things for Russian defense, it wasn't really that big of a deal. Ukraine and Georgia, on the other hand, are. Cutting of Russia from the Black Sea and Caucasus is something Russia won't allow. Don't forget that Crimea have always been a part of Russia and was ceded to Ukraine during Soviet times. Soviet times are over and even though Russia didn't make a fuss about Crimea because it has a deal about using ports there. But if someone tries to close those ports to them, or even worse, position NATO ships there, they're gonna make a fuss, and there shouldn't be any doubt about it.

It is natural that Russia feels threatened when NATO is trying to cut off it's access to Black Sea and surround it with military bases and unfriendly regimes from all sides. Russia is not going to allow it and hell is gonna break loose if that happens.

The only long term solution to this problem is that US and other western European countries start thinking outside Cold War framework which is still dominant within the minds of western politicians. They have issues because Russia refuses to act like a defeated nation. And there is no reason why it should. Russia has rapidly growing economy, it's richest country in the world in terms of natural resources (not just oil and gas, you name it they've got it), big population, very good military, top technology, huge territory and unparalleled nuclear arsenal among other things...

When western (mostly US) politicians realize that the only way to make friends with Russia is to allow it to have say in the world affairs equal to its strength, issues like this one are going to disappear. All other solutions, like even more idiotic trying to get Ukraine in the NATO that will somehow frighten Russia is not going to work and will only serve to mess things up more. And the only country that is going to profit from that will be China. The more West pressures Russia, the more will Russia have to cooperate with China, and that means even stronger political, military and economic ties with Russia for China, and even more Russian resources and energy in China....

[rory_20_uk]

China still has territorial designs on a large swathe of Eastern Russia. I don't imagine Russia is any more thrilled about China than the West is - and they are bordering them after all.

The Ukraine is a soverign nation. Should it have to cede parts of itself to ensure that Russia is happy? Apart from occupation and genocide they don't share that much mutual history. I don't imagine that the Ukraine wants to have only relations with Russia. Since any treaty is going to annoy Russia, the sooner Russia gets used to the idea the better; they still have enough ICBMs to destroy the world several times over.

I agree that stationing ships in Odessa isn't a great idea, but nor do I see any tactical advantage to doing so. Bulgaria is less contentious if one really needs a fleet that close.

I was unaware that Russia had a great military. I know that they are having an overhaul, but most equipment in't that great, and moral is improving, but poor.