Saturday, February 04, 2012


Features

Signs Could Point To New War Despite Russian, Georgian Step Toward Stability

Temporary respite? A Russian armored vehicle during the pullout from Gori in central Georgia in mid-August
TEXT SIZE - +
By Ahto Lobjakas
Talks this week in Geneva between Russia, Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia reached a minor milestone with an agreement on "incident prevention" mechanisms intended to give international monitors access to the entire zone of conflict following last year's Russia-Georgia war.

But EU sources say it remains unclear whether Moscow and the Russian-backed authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have a genuine desire to see the deal work.

The scheme commits both sides to cooperate on preventing security incidents in and around the breakaway regions of South Ossetia -- where Moscow and Tbilisi fought a war in August -- and Abkhazia.

Any accord is seemingly fragile, with the two sides still deeply mistrustful of each other. It is also far from certain that cooperation will be forthcoming from officials in either South Ossetia or Abkhazia, both of which have declared independence with Moscow's backing.

Speaking with RFE/RL's Georgian Service ahead of the Geneva talks, Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said the situation along the cease-fire line in Georgia remained extremely volatile and warned another war was "very likely."

"[As long as] the cease-fire regime stays as it is, provocations, or what both sides understand as provocations -- clashes, exchanges of fire, in other words an undependable cease-fire arrangement -- it means there is a very high likelihood that all this could spill over into an armed conflict," Felgenhauer said.

Trip Wires

Armed clashes are reported frequently within the Georgian-Ossetian cease-fire zone. Felgenhauer speculated that any clash resulting in Russian fatalities would constitute an immediate casus belli for Moscow.

Privately, some Western diplomats in Tbilisi say they fear the same applies to Georgia. Tbilisi, they say, remains as highly strung as it was in August, when repeated provocations by South Ossetia prompted President Mikheil Saakashvili to authorize military operations -- with devastating results for Georgia.

Georgian officials deny such fears. Defense Minister Vasil Sikharulidze told RFE/RL's Georgian Service he does not think a conflict is imminent. But he did say Georgia is ready to respond to any Russian attack. "The Russian aggression and subsequent occupation of our territories, obviously affects our security situation in a very negative way," Sikharulidze said. "At the same time, we have to be ready to respond to and repel any possible Russian aggression."

Georgian opposition members sign a call for President Mikheil Saakashvili's resignation in late January.
Georgia's military was left in a parlous state by last year's war, and Tbilisi knows it presently has nothing to gain from a contest of strength with Russia. But some Western observers say Moscow would not find Saakashvili's hand difficult to force, and that even a skirmish along the Ossetian or Abkhaz border involving even a relatively small number of Georgian fatalities could be enough to spark new fighting. Such a provocation could prove even more effective, they add, if it were timed to coincide with possible opposition protests in Tbilisi in the spring.

Meanwhile, the Geneva deal holds out the promise of at least some insurance against provocations from either side. But despite their public optimism, EU officials privately admit the mechanisms are flawed.

Technically, they give EU, UN, and OSCE monitors access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, it is understood international observers will only be allowed to conduct supervised trips jointly with Russian monitors -- something one EU diplomat described as "Potemkin visits."

In another sign of the depth of distrust among the parties, Russia and South Ossetia refused outright to grant international humanitarian aid agencies access to South Ossetia.

Representatives of both delegations argued in Geneva that no aid is needed. In his interview, however, Felgenhauer spoke of food shortages and other deprivations which are seriously affecting both the local population and Russian troops in the region. He added that traffic through the Roki Tunnel in the north is badly disrupted by avalanches, hampering the main supply route into South Ossetia from Russia.

Moscow's Strategy?

What appears to disturb the EU most is what one diplomat described as Russia's "mixed messages" at the Geneva talks. Moscow did reportedly force recalcitrant Abkhazia and South Ossetia into concessions during the talks.

But such steps may prove of little consequence if Moscow pursues a "divide-and-conquer" strategy -- wanting the United Nations to take charge of Abkhazia, the OSCE to deal with South Ossetia, and the EU to take responsibility for Georgia -- that could severely limit the West's effectiveness in the region.

Cynics might argue that Moscow is playing for time. Felgenhauer certainly takes that view, predicting that another Russia-Georgia war is merely a question of time.

The first war -- which Felgenhauer predicted long before its onset -- was seen as recompense for Russia's antipathy toward Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and his determined pursuit of NATO membership. But Felgenhauer says there is more to Moscow's long-term strategy: "[Russia] may not like Saakashvili, we may not like NATO, but there is also another thing: Armenia is cut off; [Russian] troops in Armenia are cut off. There's no transit by land. That means technology cannot be taken out of there for repairs or modernization, and technology cannot be taken in, other than by air. Such a situation cannot last long."

The Armenian bases are important to Moscow, Felgenhauer argues, as a symbol of Russian ambitions in the South Caucasus. Armenia is a close Russian ally, but its isolation could cause Yerevan to "start looking the other way," Felgenhauer says. Russia's subjugation of Georgia would remove that threat, and would in turn isolate Azerbaijan, which is currently resisting Russia and putting out feelers to the EU and the United States.

Felgenhauer predicts that the next Russian assault on Georgia will be a "war to a victorious end." He predicts its main theater could be the road between Gori and Mtshketa just outside Tbilisi. But, Felgenhauer says, Tbilisi itself would not be the Russian army's top strategic objective: "What is important is not so much Tbilisi. But west of Tbilisi there is the Tbilisi international airport [and] many airfields." This is important, Felgenhauer said, "because right now in South Ossetia we do not have a single permanent airstrip, as the terrain is highly uneven."

The closest Russian air base is currently in Beslan, in North Ossetia.

The best time for war, according to Felgenhauer, would be between June and August, when high mountain passes are free of snow. He said Russian forces would also need at least two months in hand to wind down operations before winter returns in October.

Felgenhauer discounts the eventuality of an intervention on the part of the United States. He notes President Barack Obama's main goal is victory in Afghanistan, to effect which he will need to transit supplies and men through Russia and countries in its sphere of influence. In exchange, the thinking in Moscow goes, the United States will be willing to trade its interest in Georgia.

Thus, to Felgenhauer's mind, a war is all but inevitable. "The only way you could avoid it," he says, "is if there's regime change in Tbilisi -- or regime change in Moscow."

Eka Tsamalashvili and Koba Liklikadze of RFE/RL's Georgian Service contributed to this story
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments page of 2
    Next 
by: Johnny from: New York, NY
February 20, 2009 21:25
"The only way you could avoid it, is if there's regime change in Tbilisi -- or regime change in Moscow."

Regime change?! As far as obviousness of the situation goes, there is no regime in Tbilisi, or anything that can resemble it at the slightest bit.

Somehow this article, sounds more and more like Kremlin sponsored PR propaganda, and aimed towards perhaps scaring population of Georgia into committing yet another coup, which eventually would benefit only Kremlin.

There were few key elements left out though: most importantly - tensions that growing amongst Moscow's politicians due to financial crisis and it's severe effect on Russia's economy. Second - the western interests that lie in Georgia, including Oil & Gas transit lines. Honestly, i'd doubt it's in mr. Obama's interest to "trade" Georgia for Afghanistan - especially when USA has invested so much into Georgia. Oh and that would directly contradict the Partnership Agreement Georgia and USA had signed in January. What message would that send to rest of the world? Definitely not the message of USA being trustworthy partner. Third, Russia is in no shape to conduct any types of military activity - at least not when majority of its population is unhappy with current economic and political situation there. And lastly, any sort of open aggression from Russia would mean resumption of Cold War - at its worst form.

by: CJP from: Saskatoon, Canada
February 22, 2009 00:44
I agree with comments made by Johnny; and with that the media has really jumped on the down with Saakashvili band wagon. Georgia faces the same problem Ukraine does with their current leaders. When they where elected, the mass populations assumed all troubles in the respctive countries would be solved. This is not the case (take note USA). These are only human men, and they can only do so much in the framework of their historical environment.

by: George from: Tbilisi
February 22, 2009 07:12
I would be happy to agree to Johnny's arguments, but when it comes to explaining/forecasting Russia's actions, rationality might be a poor counselor. This is not because of "unfatomable Russian soul", but because of the type of political set-up, whereby the authoritarian leaders become hostagesof their thuggishness. Now, Russia is "savoring" the ravages of the global financial crisis and the people can turn to the ruling "tandem" with questions and doubts. Is not this the right time to divert their attention to the "wicked Georgian aggressors", all the more that the society is well "manured" with anti-Georgian propaganda? Yes, in the longer term, if the crisis persists, people might question more seriously why the leadership keeps investing in the corrupt Ossetian regime instead of modernizing Russia itself. But this is a "tomorrow's question", and besides the crisis might start to bottom out by the end of the year.

by: Robert from: Vilnius
February 22, 2009 18:39
It is more than clear that Moscow's goal was not South Ossetia, important for Georgia but microscopic for Russia--but Georgia itself. As long as Saakashvili is in power this goal remains unachieved, however pity is blindness of European politicians who prefer to seek fault with Georgia despite the mounting evidence that the advancing Russian convoy was already inside Georgia 20 hours before the war.

by: Giorgi from: New York
February 23, 2009 20:11
''when it comes to explaining/forecasting Russia's actions, rationality might be a poor counselor'' truer words were never said.

by: Johann Gray from: Minneapolis
February 23, 2009 20:20
We should go by the will of people in Kosovo, Transnistra, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If they want Russian passports and want to be Russians let them be so.
South Ossetians are brothers of North Ossetians and Abkhazians have different language and religion from people of Georgia so they have nothing in common with them in Tbilisi. I am proud of my Jewish roots and understands why Jewish people want to leave Russia or Germany and live in Isreal. If I want i should be able to live with the people that I choose to live with, but not let somebody in Georgia or somewhere else decide so.
I think Johnny from New York is correct in many aspects. I also think Saakashvili is a corrupt guy that will soon be overthrown by its won countrymen.

by: MarkJ from: Lafayette, IN
February 24, 2009 04:01
A few ideas that might throw a monkey wrench in Putin's plans:

1. Ship large numbers of late model AT, AA, as well as Iraq- and Afghanistan-captured RPG's and small arms to the Georgians. Then issue a friendly warning to Putin: "If you're hell-bent on invading Georgia, then you should be prepared to a) suffer at least 30,000 casualties, b) take 50% losses in your armor and air assets, and c) have to deal with a Vietnam-like quagmire."

2. Train the Georgians in guerrilla tactics. I'll bet this is already being done. Putin knows that he has to secure a quick victory because, if he gets bogged down in yet another interminable guerrilla war, he's otherwise f***ed. Putin seems to have utterly forgotten the experience of the Germans after they invaded Russia in 1941.

3. Put a single U.S. Army or Marine battalion between the Russians and Georgians. Putin will instantly know if he tangles with them, they'll be only too happy to kick Russki ass. Indeed, it will also mean not just war between Georgia and Russian but also war between Russia and the United States.

by: kenny komodo from: northern nevada
February 24, 2009 05:14
Can we please keep in mind who we are dealing with here. These are the Russians, you know, the very same folks who cut a deal with Adolph Hitler to split Poland in half and eliminate the Poles. The same people who sent equipment and personnel to N. Vietnam to kill American soldiers. The same Russians who brutally put down resistance in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. The very same Russians who invaded Afghanistan and killed villagers by the thousands. What we should do is give the Russian bear a good swift kick in the ass and send him packing, but our new touchy feely administration is going to try and make nice. Hillary is going to be so far out of her league it should be considered a crime, trying to deal with Russians who have decades of practice at double dealing, knocking off potential adversaries and undermining U.S. interests. Oh and don't forget spying. The Russians may fool Obambi and his administration but I'm not fooled.

by: Karl from: Germany
February 24, 2009 13:10
Kenny, why don't nuke them all then? Those evil creatures....

by: Johann Gray from: Minneapolis
February 24, 2009 15:00
More about Georgia
We are in trouble in Irak. We are in more trouble in Afghanistan. We have trouble with Hamas in Gaza. I am unemployed sailor. We can not secure our sailors of the coast of Somalia. We have to let Russians and other nations send their warships there, because the American Navy is to much stretched out. Our enemies want us to get in trouble everywhere so they can hurt us more. Why did Rome fail? Because the military of Rome was stretched out over all Europe. Soviet Union broke down because of their military could not handle Afghanistan
What happened in New Orleans. Our military (National Guard) was not there to help, because it was somewhere else. Shouldn't we let Georgians handle their own problems?
Comments page of 2
    Next 

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Saakashvili Regrets 'Compromises'

Latest Comment (6 total)

Alex: Mariam jan, what church did Georgians belong to when they became Christians? More

The Truth-Teller: Natasa Kandic, Urging Serbs To Face The Past

Latest Comment (15 total)

Abdulmajid: Yeah, yeah... of course, Natasa Kandic, like me, does not subscribe to the ... More

Umarov Calls End To Attacks On Civilians

Latest Comment (3 total)

anonymous: whoever you are, you aren't an american, and you don't know anything about ... More