Russia and Georgia have apparently reached a ceasefire agreement mediated by French president Nicolas Sarkozy. According to CNN, the deal provides for:
Russian agreements to conclude all military operations, return Russian armed forces to the line preceding the beginning of operations and not use force again in Georgia.
In return, Georgia would return its armed forces to their normal and permanent locations.
Both sides would provide free access for humanitarian assistance; and international consideration of the issues of South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be undertaken.
If this agreement holds (a big if), it's a better outcome than I would have expected. Georgia's democratic government will remain in place, despite Russia's previous determination to overthrow it. The Russians will not have destroyed Georgia's oil pipeline to Europe (the most important pipeline in the region that doesn't pass through Russian or Iranian territory). And Russia will renounce future use of force against Georgia and reduce its forces in the secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to their prewar levels. I am skeptical that the Russians will fully respect the last two commitments. Nonetheless, the outcome could have been far worse.
Why did Russia accept an arrangement that falls so far short of their maximum objectives? There is no way to know for sure. I suspect that part of the reason is the strong resistance put up by the Georgian armed forces, which although much smaller than Russia's are of fairly high quality thanks in part to US training. The quality of the Russian military remains iffy at best, and Vladimir Putin may have reasoned that complete subjugation of Georgia would be a long and costly process. After all, this is the same Russian army that took years to subdue Chechnya (a task still not quite complete), a much weaker and more isolated adversary than Georgia.
Putin may also have been influenced by the apparent unity of the West in opposing the Russian invasion. France and Germany - key European states that opposed the US over the Iraq War - were largely on the same page with us here. This newfound unity might help cub Russian aggression in the future.
Another potentially positive outcome of the war is the strong solidarity among the Eastern European states in opposing Russia. It is striking that the presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine took the unusual step of appearing together with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili at a rally in Tbilisi just after the ceasefire. Ukraine's support is particularly important, since it is the largest and most powerful of Russia's western neighbors. The Eastern European states are too small to oppose the Russians individually. But, with Western support, they can put up a stronger front by sticking together.
None of the above justifies Saakashvili's foolish gamble in providing a pretext for Russian intervention by trying to retake South Ossetia last week. Nor does it somehow make up for the tragic loss of life and destruction of property that has occurred. Nonetheless, if this ceasefire holds and its terms are even roughly obeyed by both sides, we will end up with a better result than might have been expected a few days ago.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Was the Declaration of Independence an Example of Secession, Revolution, or Both?
- Tentative Thoughts on The Russia-Georgia Ceasefire Agreement:
- Southern States' Official 1861 Statements of Reasons for Secession Emphasized Slavery:...
- CNN Website Gives Edwards Affair Higher Billing than the Russia-Georgia Fighting:
- Fighting Between Russia and Georgia:
- Secession, Ignorance, and Stupidity:
Russia withou
This was a demonstration project, to increase the potential costs of Western actions within Russia's sphere of influence. I suspect that Mr. Putin is quite satisfied that his point has been demonstrated, and has further demonstrations in the works if it becomes clear that it has not been.
Russia without its former possessions, especially Ukraine, is even weaker than in Soviet days. The question now is whether the Europeans will stick together and confront Putin as necessary to thwart any imperial ambitions he may have. The US can contribute, but this is the place to draw a line and make it clear to France and Germany especially, maybe Turkey, that they are the powerful democracies closest to the action, and Russia will threaten them long before it threatens us.
Militarily, one wonders whether Putin would have been so bold if the US hadn't shot its wad in Iraq.
Uh, 'cause the Russians' real objectives weren't really as far-reaching as the Russophobes have been assuming?
Sure, the ceasefire may not last. But I feel optimistic about international politics again.
Interestingly enough, the Sarkozy was at the cease fire announcement with Medevedev (sp?) so I'm wondering how much of this agreement was the product of some Sarkozy flavored French charm.
The russians seemed to be fielding all of their new infantry toys. It seems like every squad there has a VSS Vintorez and at least a couple of disposable tube rockets. I wouldn't have thought such a specialized piece of equipment would have such widespread application. I wonder if this means there will be 9x39 ammo on the market anytime soon. But I digress.
I realize that the Georgians were faring badly because they were vastly outnumbered, but the overall result indicates that they somehow beat the point spread. Did the Russians outrun their supply train and experience reliability problems? Did they lose too many infantry? Too many IFVs? From what causes? Mines? Rockets? IEDs?
Any links would be welcome.
Can we conclude that the above that Brzezinski (and others) were wrong and overstated Russia's intentions?
Make no mistake, Vladimir Putin isn't much more than a bully. But he's a strong bully, and at the moment there isn't anyone around capable of putting him in his place.
I don't know why they would agree to these terms and that bothers me. I don't think the Bear has gone back to sleep.
Doc W
"The US can contribute, but this is the place to draw a line and make it clear to France and Germany especially, maybe Turkey, that they are the powerful democracies closest to the action, and Russia will threaten them long before it threatens us. "
Europe doesn't have much of a military force and their social spending is too high to let them build one. Watch them start begging us to put troops back in Europe.
I doubt that charm had much to do with it -- more likely that Sarkozy told Medvedev to remind his boss that any hope Russia has for its present and future membership in the big-boys economic club would depend on his behaving himself...
Actually, they control much of Western Europe's energy supplies and have thousands of nuclear weapons. We're the ones who are weak, with our military tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Signing additional countries up into NATO is a huge gamble. NATO is a security guarantee, which means we are promising to go to war with Russia in the event of a confrontation. But we are in no position to go to war with Russia, which means it is a bluff. And if we get called on it, it could weaken our influence in Europe even more than it has already been weakened.
I blame Bush.
Russians were taken aback by the Georgian collapse just as much as everyone else. They only fielded some 6,000 in Osetia, and about that much in Abkhasia. The disgraceful performance of Georgian army would allow them to drive into Tbilisi by Thursday, if they only wanted... But then what? They are just not ready for the task of occupying the country.
BTW, the Georgian performance was not much better in 1921 when they faced 11th Army. Wikipedia quotes "fighting", but in reality it took just a week or so.
I'm not by any means an expert. These are random thoughts. I fully expected such a result, though. The prestige of NATO and American military power was simply too much on the line for President Bush and NATO to allow Russia to overrun Georgia.
Maybe some F-22s in the area and other signs that we were considering joining in. The Russian military was in awe to what we did to the Russian trained and equipped Iraqi military. They certainly don't want to mess with us.
The first article is from the Times of London quoted the Russian Foreign Minister as saying Georgian President Saakashvili has to go. The second article, from the British Guardian newspaper, mentions that Georgia must promise not to enter South Ossetia even as peacekeepers, which they done in the past. Additionally the Guardian is reporting that the Russians are demanding elections on secession in the two breakaway Georgia provinces.
In other words, total victory without the bother of occupation.
IMO Russia's objective is a puppet Georgian government. There are lots and lots of things they can still do do get that, and doubtless they have plans for those which the U.S. is (a) clueless about (because of our wonderful intelligence agencies), and (b) will remain clueless about (ditto).
I also don't think Russia's real goal was to depose the Georgian government. Teaching them a lesson was sufficient and it would be more costly to go further. I don't know how Georgian troops actually performed against Russia though, could so more information would be better than assertions.
By many accounts, the Georgian forces have been getting their ass handed to them. Moreover, the unity of the West and of Eastern Europe did not stop Russia from strategically dominating the opposition forces and the terrain for five days, nor would it have likely stopped the Russians from going farther had they wanted to. Isn't the simplest explanation that the maximal revisionist aims being attributed to Russia are false, and it is not the demonic actor it is being made out to be?
A better interpretation of Russian intentions would run like this: Russia opportunistically took advantage of Georgian stupidity to achieve several foreign policy aims. It has underscored the costs of being its neighbor but not in its orbit; it has driven a stake through the heart of NATO expansion into Georgia, and perhaps even eliminating the push for another round of expansion all together; it has
disrupted an in-your-face American policy in the region, and underscored the non-viability of that policy to the American elite; and it has punished Georgia for disrupting the status quo, and possibly undermined Saakashvili domestically. It never had any intention of pushing hard to dislodge Saakashvili, and certainly not to assert control over Georgia as it does in Chechnya, both of which are tasks whose costs obviously exceed the benefits. In short, it is a normal great power acting how normal great powers behave.
Hearing the Russian ambassador to the UN saying that brings to mind the classic definition of chutzpah - when someone murders both of their parents, then throws themselves on the mercy of the court because they are now an orphan. Except chutzpah is inadequate to characterize the outrageousness of it all.
"...it is a normal great power acting how normal great powers behave."
Heaven help us.
The problem with that reasoning is that this invasion had to have been planned months ago. You just don't move that size armor force into position overnight.
If many accounts said you would give me all your money, would you? Both sides are spinning this like mad right now, and lots of outsiders are inventing stuff about the fighting in the hope that people will pay attention to them.
I know you meant curb, but I kind of like the wordplay in reducing the Russian bear to a cub.
Wasn't the unresolved secessionist disputes the main French and German objection to giving Georgia a MAP for entering NATO last April?
If the provinces elect to secede and Georgia accepts the results it would remove that roadblock.
I don't think Russia was ever really interested in overthrowing Saakashvili or destroying the BTC. They would rather control the latter and destroying it would probably bring more negative consequences than benefits. Its flow is not significant enough to really put any dent into Russia's energy importance to Europe, but actually destroying it would really piss off a lot of people (unlike killing people and bombing buildings, which are irritating, but ultimately, of course, peripheral matters). Russia's petropolitical objectives are achieved by the invasion itself--it is not so much the pipelines already there that Russia is bugged by, but the prospect of even more pipelines bypassing it, whether in Georgia or elsewhere. After this, peace deal or not, investors and countries are going to be really leery about deciding to build a pipe around Russia.
As for overthrowing Saakashvili, I don't think they were ever really after that either. If they can cow him into changing, that is good enough. While they wouldn't mind forcing him out, it didn't seem to be a major objective. It was more of a high bid, thrown out there to spook so the West, so that Russia could look more reasonable when they agreed to not depose Misha, even though that was never really in the works anyway.
It wasn't opportunism, really, unless by opportunism you mean they weren't really sure exactly when they would get the chance they had preparing for and setting up for a long time. Russia has been engaging in a large number of activities, such as moving equipment and supplies, rebuilding railroads, moving around troops, etc., in anticipation of just this moment for some time now. They have also been working to goad Georgia into doing something stupid. They were pretty sure Saakashvili was hotheaded enough to eventually rise to the bait, they just weren't sure exactly when that would be. But they were definitely counting on it happening and were well prepared for it.
Raise your hand if you really want to go to war with a nuclear armed power for nations that don't pose real strategic assets to the U.S. And how do you deal with the moral hazard of smaller nations relying on the promise of their bigger allies and thus acting in irresponsible manners?
While an aggressive Russia is annoying, especially if you take the Administration's Jacobin notion that we're to be running around in a worldwide democratic revolution (except in those nations hosting the Olympics and offering super cheap labor for U.S. corporations) if this Russia has no worldwide ambitions over the USSR, why should we waste precious American blood and treasure?/
I think Russia chose to accept a deal now because it is currently at a cost-benefit maximum. My guess is that the relative lack of sophistication in Russian logistics means that combat units can only retain maximum effectiveness for little more than five days. Troops need water, food, and ammunition. Combat vehicles need fuel. After the invasion forces deplete their initial stocks they carried themselves, they require resupply from convoys. These convoys are far more vulnerable to asymmetric attack by the more lightly-armed Georgian forces, fighting on their own ground. Russian forces have pushed into Georgia, without destroying the Georgian army, and as they push deeper into Georgia, the supply lines become longer and thinner.
Instead of committing more Russian forces into a costly long-term operation, the Russian have opted to mount a blitzkrieg without the occupation. Their invasion forces disrupted and routed Georgian forces, then drove hard to key strategic sites. However, with limited logistical endurance, it was in Russia's interest to strike a deal. Russia could have pressed further, but the marginal strategic gains would have small compared to the marginal costs. The Georgian president had promised no surrender, and Russia was simply unwilling to pay that price.
There are probably other reasons - a hardening of world opinion, particularly that of the former Soviet Bloc countries in solidarity with Georgia. But regardless, Russia wins. They have sent a powerful message to their neighbors that the Russian national interest takes precedent over the West, and that the West is powerless to stop them. The West has not contested this message. Russia has earned the fear and respect of Europe and Central Asia at minimal cost, and provided a "splendid little war" for domestic consumption.
I agree with Altoids about the Russian government's motive for the current ceasefire. How long that will last is another matter, and the Russians seem to be positioned to inflict a great deal of economic harm just by refusing transit to and from Georgia. That gives them enormous leverage in arranging a new Georgian government to their liking.
The Russians assembled the forces for the attack in secret, but evidently it was so much riskier to assemble the logistics for sustained operations in secret that it wasn't worth trying. And note how the Russians did not stop until they were in a position to blockade Georgia economically.
According to what I can gather, Russia's intention is regime change in Georgia. They don't need to invade the capital to achieve this. The psychological blow to the government from this deal will probably be fatal. Russia will have ample means to assure that a more friendly government is installed once the present one falls.
What truly puzzles me is that I don't see what the NATO countries get out of the deal except being able to avoid a deepening crisis. Surely they have some cards to play against Russia, not all of them military. Did they in fact play them and get something out of Putin? The only thing important enough to bargain with, as far as I can see, is Iran. Did Putin agree to abandon Iran in return for a free reign in its "near abroad"? Since these things will be necessarily secret, the only way to find out is to observe the situation in the coming weeks and months. But I suspect that if my fevered speculations are correct, then we'll see some "breakthrough" in the negotiations with Iran and a corresponding lowering of the level of threat in Iraq as well.
Because Russia got its ass handed to it. A few more days of combat and the Russian Army would have been destroyed.
I expect the facts will come out over the coming days and weeks.
Some One Got Taught A Lesson
In fact, the whole eastward push of NATO is misguided, in my opinion, and insures a resurgent militarism in Russia.
Me! Me! Call on me!
I don't want the Soviet union to be reassembled. Every piece Russia managed to reattach makes them more dangerous, and I really hate the idea of my son growing up during a new cold war.
We cut up this snake, but forgot to burn the head.
Not so much. Today's international edition of the Helsingin Sanomat includes a discussion of Finnish reaction, including this remark from Social Democratic MP Eero Heinäluoma:
"Georgia got plenty of verbal sympathy and encouragement, but the willingness of outside countries to do something appears to be limited. It is good to make note of this in Finland as well. We ultimately have to have the ability to take care of our own affairs."
Remember, it was during the Winter War that the Finns named, perfected, and even mass-produced the Molotov cocktail.
Not to mention having the right sort of aircraft available and having fleet units aid in the attack.
Do you think that Russia, like the Soviet Union will have world domination on its mind a la the old Soviet Union? Do you really think Putin will launch a Comintern-esque Bureau to start up subversive groups to undermine Western governments with fellow travelers?
I'll grant you that a resurgent bear would be a shitty neighbor for surrounding small countries. But absent an ideology in the Soviet sense, why would we need a new Cold War?
But let's look at the problem from here, from Russia. I'm not a Putin's fan or fan of government politics with high level of corruption etc. By the way, if you want to destroy Russia - let us, Russians, make it for you guys - because we here "love" our country and our citizens even more than any russophobes. Russia will be broken in parts in next 10-15 years due to corruption and indifference to it.
And coming back to Georgia-South Ossetia-Russia Problem. Saakashvili's troops killed damn many people in Ossetia. And you know why? Because even in Soviet times there were national conflicts in Georgia, due to Georgian's hate to Abkhazians and Ossetians, and vice versa. It's like Israel and Palestine. But there is one difference - there are no terrorist attacks in Georgia, and as far as I remember there were none. On the other side, there were plenty of terrorist attacks in Ossetia and Abkhazia with a lot of victims. After such Georgian politic Abkhazia &Ossetia will never be Georgia's regions. Full stop.
And about the strength of Georgian army. That's really funny. They only had a better uniform, which was American. And that's all, other way there were more victims from Russian military forces.
From my point of view - Putin and Saakashvili are very similar, and they both must be in Haag.
About Russian reputation. There is none already. Nobody loves Russia, nobody cares. Russian oligarhs have bought a lot of property in Western World, and Europe is mainly on our oil needle. What sanctions can US make? To forbid our citizens to cross Russian border? Yeah, funny. Russia will be more friendly with China, in which by the way we go without visas. And vice versa.
Does anyone think the West wants to go nuclear against the Russians? They still have a lot of missiles left they can fire back at the West.
That leaves conventional forces. As someone said earlier, don't count on the Germans and the French to volunteer to send in any. We are too stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan to do it by ourselves. Don't think Russia doesn't know this.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the harder it is going to be to check Russia in any meaningful way. Sooner or later we are going to have to decide where our priorities are if we want to be able to deter a more aggressive Russia.
Sound like a familiar story?
We'll all see eventually, but for now, I think it's prudent to view accounts of events from interested sources -- governments of Georgia, Russia, US, France; Russian and Georgian press; US presidential campaigns -- as utterly unreliable.
All of them sound good to me...who do we need to write to?
Couldn't the IOC just vote to move the 2014 Olympics to either Salzburg, Austria or Pyeongchang, S. Korea (the other two finalists for the 1014 games)? They would each still have 8 years to get ready for the games.
The IOC can offer Russia the carrot of getting the Olympics back in Sochi in 2018 if Russia gets out of Georgia and behaves themselves before the IOC chooses the location of the 2018 games.
Actually, more like 5.5 years.
That may be another reason why the Russians didn't want to escalate this too much - they want Sochi to remain calm and pretty for the Olympics.
"IF"? You should check out what's happened during the modern Olympics. Maybe read Herr Hitler's comments in 1936.
And don't forget about the African boycott of 1976, the US boycott of 1980 and the USSR boycott of 1984.
If I remember correctly, the Ancient Olympics required all competitors to be naked so that no national emblems would affect the scoring. Maybe the Modern Olympics should bring that back.
Admirable restraint, admirable composure, admirable tolerance; the self-admiring political class applying due diligence, once again, in world affairs.
In fact, DiLorenzo's "new look" shows us nothing new. From the time of Jefferson Davis's The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and Alexander Stephens's A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, the anti-Lincoln columns have marched over and over the same tired ground. Edgar Lee Masters's Lincoln the Man, which DiLorenzo quotes approvingly, was a breathless compilation of every slander ever made against Lincoln. But if DiLorenzo's message is old hat, the incompetence of the messenger is surely unprecedented. The book is a compendium of misquotations, out-of-context quotations, and wrongly attributed quotations — one howler after another, yet none of it funny."
It appears the US has forced Saakashvili to accept these terms. The next step is up to Putin.
"Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch — all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing."
[...]
"... it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don’t enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.
"Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans’ carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.
"It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur."
h/t Solomonia