Russian attacks over Georgia

[arkiv]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10ossetia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, wounded fighters and civilians began to arrive in hospitals, most with shrapnel or mortar wounds. Several dozen names had been posted outside the hospital.

Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia accused Russia of a “well-planned invasion” and mobilized Georgia’s military reserves. There were signs as well of a cyberwarfare campaign, as Georgian government Web sites were crashing intermittently during the day.

[ezodisy]

Apparently the bloody Russians have tried to take out a major oil pipeline -- but have so far failed. I don't wish to say too many bad things about them, as I don't quite believe that such an elected government represents its people so it wouldn't be fair to dismiss a whole country based on the decisions of a few hundred or a few thousand. I'll only say that precedent indicates that they will disable or destroy as many strategic dependency points as they possibly can, effectively crippling the country while initially minimising non-military casualties. It is as ever typically cunning and ruthless as it effectively diverts immediate blame for innocent losses while in the medium term causes even greater disturbance and deprivation. I will watch with interest and a certain amount of one-sided disgust as this continues over the next few days.

On a separate note I have been following a particular US-based (Houston, Texas) oil and gas company which operates bang in the middle of Georgia in a particular region called the Kura basin. The recent Russian attack on the centrally located town of Gori should suffice to put Frontera Resources on a stretcher back home to the good old US of A.

[Sarastro]

This is crazy. There is an outburst in Russian networks.

I don't wish to say too many bad things about them, as I don't quite believe that such an elected government represents its people so it wouldn't be fair to dismiss a whole country based on the decisions of a few hundred or a few thousand.

Right, the major Russian problem is government. It is still absolute monarchy, and no one is going to take care of settling it.

[knight66]

My own opinion is that this is a test to see what the West will do and it will also be a trial of strength about oil and gas. I think we are in for bumpy weather caused by a ruthless and power hungry government. If we sit on our hands, and effectively we will, expect more of the same.

Mike

[Mark]

Then again, with the US claiming there's 90bn barrels of oil beneath the Arctic and three times as much natural gas (more than Russia's estimated reserves), if they get the go-ahead to start exploration, will the West eventually care what the Russian government does?

[knight66]

I think it will, since I cannot see Arctic gas being pumped into Europe. Also, I don't see this as primarily about oil or gas, it is about global power and dominating, blackmailing and browbeating your old buffer states. Today's independent countries become tomorrow's buffer states. Once economic dependency is established then political and economic influence comes to bare. At the same time there is the implicit threat to all of us here who seemingly need the gas and then the confiscatory prices they will ultimately impose.

Seeing Russia as allies and friends was a short lived period.

Mike

[ezodisy]

My own opinion is that this is a test to see what the West will do and it will also be a trial of strength about oil and gas. I think we are in for bumpy weather caused by a ruthless and power hungry government. If we sit on our hands, and effectively we will, expect more of the same.

Mike

Well I suppose you can take 3 things for certain: 1) local media of any country cannot accurately portray, describe or interpret such a conflict as its information, excluding several firsthand videos of combat, is mostly secondhand and/or piecemeal, 2) the complex history of North and South Ossetia, (Soviet) Russia and Georgia is too complicated to understand for anyone outside of direct political/acdemic involvement or not living in the immediate history or area of any such place, 3) that there is, as ever, some manner of behind-the-scenes political agreement in place, perhaps between Russia and the US, regarding what is and is not permissible to take out, destroy or arrest in this ongoing conflict.

In the third instance there could well be acknowledgements on either side that certain economic interests, such as pipelines, foundries and what have you, would be off-limit targets in exchange for a change of sentiment towards Georgia's possible participation in NATO, a change that appeared likely enough in any case and fairly certain now. This would satisfy Russia and they would not lose anything by leaving Georgian interests undamaged. I would guess that a full invasion would be unlikely or agreed beforehand not to take place. If it's true that the Georgian president had pledged to get back what he believes is Georgian land, then, however briefly, through this conflict he could be said to have done so and kept his promise. However the obvious discrepancy between his stated intentions to NATO and his current actions is enough to have any participation cancelled.

In Russia's favour here is the recent recognition of Kosovo's independence, which in broad outlines at least could be said to mirror that of Southern Ossetia which obviously has not been recognised as independent yet. I'm aware of the Russian nationality/passport matter with Ossetians but beyond that I don't know much about any possible tie-up between North and South, especially given the North's current position with Russia, and whether in years ahead it would be possible for Ossetia as a whole to become independent if tacitly and economically under the control of Russia. I imagine Russia might be willing to forge such a unity, though who knows. This, at least superficially, goes back to the early '90s and with all the upheaval it is way too complicated for me.

Regarding the matter of oil, the BTC pipeline (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) runs through Georgia. It is the second longest oil pipeline in the world and is of major importance to Georgia's economy, obviously. Would the Russsians take it out? Surely they could, but in spite of what I said above I really don't think so. They would incur the wrath of many different countries, and not just the ones whose name is in the title of the pipeline (BP have the largest stake in it). I would guess that this is the sort of thing that might be agreed upon beforehand. The plan is to disable and punish Georgia, not to shit on your own doorstep.

90 billion barrels sounds like a lot but, um, that's beneath the Arctic, if there at all. Off the coast of Nigeria there's an estimated 70 billion recoverable, with oil prospecting licenses granted or farmed-out to Addax, BP, Shell, KNOC, Chevron among other large and quite a few small players. In fact most of these oil prospecting areas (I am talking about the separate plots, not cumulatively) around Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe put the talk of oil off the coast of Florida to absolute shame. The latter is really just a joke, something to appease those disgruntled Americans who will cast their vote for whoever gives them a lower price at the pump. Little more.

[Josquin des Prez]

Russian attacks over Georgia

Huh? Georgia started it. Not to say the Russians weren't itching for a fight, but get your facts straight.

[knight66]

Tony, Thanks for that, interesting read. I am perhaps being over simplistic; I am going for what I think is an end game for the Russians. Whatever, I hope it calms down and quickly.

Mike

[M forever]

NY Times article

From the article:

The United States and other Western nations, joined by NATO, condemned the violence and demanded a cease-fire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went a step further, calling on Russia to withdraw its forces. According to the Associated Press, President George W. Bush in Beijing for the Summer Olympics, said that the Georgia crisis endangered regional peace and urged an end to escalation.

I am confused now. What are Rice and Bush talking about? Georgia or Iraq?

[Sarastro]

Mike

Mike, how does the British media present the conflict? 

[knight66]

I have only seen TV and listened to the radio. Both BBC and one independent channel have characterised the Russian moves as...

A landgrab
That they will do exactly what they want, then seemingly bow to outside pressures once they have achieved all they want.
That they don't seem to care about collateral damage to civilians who are near to strategic targets. I don't recall seeing such explicit footage of bodies.

Little is explained about the origins of what has been happening. They do say, but are clearly cynical about it, that Russia sees itself as maintaining the status quo and intervening to achieve that.

Mike

[ezodisy]

I am going for what I think is an end game for the Russians.

Overall I agree and generally am as pessimistic about them as you are (and you know how much I love Russian art culture). I think they have some form of the Kosovo precedent in mind as they "intervene" on behalf of S.O. Just listen to the Russian take on this: "It no longer exists" (speaking of the SO capital), and Putin throws out the word "genocide" which, combined with the earlier presidential stance of defending Russian people and (human) interests, can be interpreted as a direct attack on Russia, I suppose. At the same time it is not just the Russians who are trying to exploit the media: the Georgians themselves claimed that the Russians tried to destroy a major oil pipline, presumably BTC, which most likely is bullshit and a more subtle way of calling for western intervention. The Georgians are also claiming "humanitarian catastrophe", which I hope not and frankly speaking expect not, and at the same time are now pulling out of SO though trying to save face by claiming that it's for the sake of saving human life which sadly and ironically they had forced to this point in any case. In spite of a lot of western media focus and media pressure on Russia to cease and withdraw, I would guess that more pressure by the west is being put on Georgia as they are the ones harbouring important oil prospects and also are something of the "loose cannon" in terms of regional stability with their dogged determination to snatch their land back. I guess hearing about and seeing Russian "peacekeepers" in SO every day wouldn't sit well with them over the past dozen years.

Personally I expect the media to carry on about Russia while in fact any actual international punishment would go to Georgia, even if kept relatively quiet. It's a fascinating situation, at least partly because it's so complex and I'm sorry to say tragic. I agree about the explicit footage of bodies. Along with this there's now more talk about Abkhazia which I guess will be the new SO...

[ezodisy]

Predictably enough the BBC have now published a piece on Putin's response to the conflict and have inferred, perhaps correctly, that he is still calling the shots over there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552323.stm

[71 dB]

What are Rice and Bush talking about? Georgia or Iraq?

My thoughts exactly. 

[Sarastro]

(and you know how much I love Russian art culture)

Fortunately, there is no link between Russian Art Culture and current Russian government. So there!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

There are two dogs - the West (led by the US) and Russia. The bone is dominance in Central Asia and access to oil and gas reserves.

South Ossetia broke away from Georgia (there is a Russian majority there), which Georgia never liked. George aligns itself with the West, which Russia doesn't like (fear of encirclement, no hegemony in Central Asia). Georgia attacks SO, Russia hits back, undoubtedly very grateful to be able to do so.

This is a dirty 'Grand Chess Game'. And I sympathise with none of the players.

We are in the grip of the new Black Death - oil.

High time humanity grew up and realised it is one one planet, sharing one fate. Possibly death, if it 's not careful.

My take.

[Sarastro]

Is "The Guardian" British press?  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/10/georgia.russia
Here is what they say:

Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili seems to care less about these people than about asserting that they live in Georgian territory. Otherwise he would not on the night of 7-8 August have launched a massive artillery assault on the town of Tskhinvali, which has no purely military targets and whose residents, the Georgians say, lest we forget, are their own citizens. This is a blatant breach of international humanitarian law.

San-Francisco Chronicle:

A sharp escalation began Friday when Georgia launched a large-scale predawn military operation intended to seize control of the rebel region, whose de facto autonomy and ties to Russia have long been an irritant to Georgian leaders. Backed by airplanes, Georgian troops plunged into South Ossetia and waged a hard battle throughout the day for control of the province capital, Tskhinvali.

I am not a pro-war activist, but it's utterly unfair to refer to "the bloody Russians" and accuse of the Georgian attack as aggressors. As it is presented, the Georgians (not, not Georgians, Georgian government ) started first. I would say they both are severely wrong. Not just because innocent civilians die, but why should soldiers die, too? But as long as we do not know the real reason of the conflict, we can't say anything, who knows, if it is just a political game, and all was planned beforehand, and Russia, the USA, and Georgia negotiated how to make this spectacle.

[arkiv]

who knows, if it is just a political game, and all was planned beforehand, and Russia, the USA, and Georgia negotiated how to make this spectacle.

I agree. All this was planned, unfortunately for civilians and soldiers of all factions.

[ezodisy]

There are two dogs - the West (led by the US) and Russia. The bone is dominance in Central Asia and access to oil and gas reserves.

The situation in Central Asia is extremely, mindbogglingly complex, and any such media-inspired reduction as above turns it straight into a self-fulfilling warmongering disaster. I don't even know where to begin with this monster. First of all the matter of the preponderance of Central Asian countries which constitute the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) needs to be looked at. These are former Soviet Republics, currently numbering 11 + 1 associate (including Russia), which have something of their own free trade agreement dating back to 2005. Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union this commonwealth has, quite obviously, given a local and economic advantage to Russia, if not outright hegemony of the area surrounding the oil-rich Caspian Sea. The one associate I mentioned is Turkmenistan who for reasons I don't know has largely cut its links here. Ukraine in some respects appears not far away from doing so too with its increasing pro-western stance, and--surprise surprise--Georgia is also severing links as it does its best to suck up to NATO. This is all one matter which could have and I'm sure has had books written on it and is part of the underlying geopolitics of the region.

A second matter is oil pipelines or perhaps lack thereof. With the Druzhba dominating Europe the media appears happy to fuel fear of Russian dominance everywhere. It becomes more interesting, as ever, in the details and specifically in certain origins in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. These are oil rich countries which traditionally have had their exporting points through Russian pipelines and/or over Russian territory. However the past decade has seen a significant shift in strategy and control, partly through further US coordination and partly through these countries talking to each other to maximise returns on their own resources, and this last point is still undergoing and gaining momentum in several ways including a proposed Trans-Caspian pipeline between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan (this would be a gas pipeline though nonetheless highlights my point as it is being strongly opposed by Russia, and Iran, as it would break free from both). Of the three countries, Azerbaijan appears to have gained the most freedom so far and has most likely caused Russia the biggest headache, at least until Kazakhstan breaks free further. Largely it has been through this thread's favourite pipeline, the lovely BTC, that Azerbaijan has managed to assert greater self-determination than it otherwise could have. The B(aku)TC, whose construction was encouraged by the US and undoubtedly funded to some extent, has pretty much screwed Russia over, because as of this year Azerbaijan no longer uses the Baku-Novorossiysk (Russia) pipeline to transport oil and instead pretty much everything goes through the BTC out to the relatively safe and I suppose western-looking land of Turkey. Kazakhstan, like Azerbaijan previously, principally uses an overland Russian line -- CPC pipeline (Caspian Pipeline Consortium -- which Chevron and ExxonMobil have large stakes in) which runs over Russia to the increasingly popular destination of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. Apparently four-fifths of Kazakhstan's oil moves this way. However there are plans, predictably opposed to by Russia and Iran, for Kazakhstan to build a pipeline between two of its own cities, from northwest to southwest, which would start a Kazakhstan Caspian Transportation System (KCTS), leading to Azerbaijan and out through our almost-overused pipeline, the BTC. Apparently the building of KCTS would cost upwards of US$4billion, and you can guess where some of that funding will come from. Add to this that China apparently wants to quadruple the current oil it receives from Kazakhstan and you are looking at a rather sour and grumpy mother Russia with a deepening furrow in her brow. More choice, less control you could say, though it's more likely just a matter of control changing hands. Having said that, I shouldn't forget that these countries are starting to wield the resource power that they have underneath them, and as such it is more difficult for them to be controlled, more likely cajoled, and that best price will often be best man.

All that is not to say that power is changing hands from Russian control to US, or from east to west (if anything China will win a tug-of-war). There are too many countries and too many factors involved for such a simplification. I've been reading of links between Israel and Georgia, military ones where Israel sells certain "defence" systems to them, and it's interesting to note that Israel are currently proposing oil from the BTC flow through their channels onwards to Asia. I suspect none of those goes down well with Russia, but then who really knows what sort of links exist there and how much of this is true or not?

Referring strictly to Georgia, I've since learned that the BTC pipeline was actually closed a few days ago, on 7 August I think. The apparent reason for this was an explosion in Turkey, though the timing--apparently 15 days down--appears a little too perfect and adds fuel to the fire of a pre-arranged agreement over the whole war/target/pipeline thing I mentioned yesterday, or something else entirely of course. Notice also that oil prices were not unduly affected by the news (no sudden upsurge). When this same thing happened a year ago, they shot up (it was going up anwyay, but still...).

Anyway it's all bloody complex. You are right that that area of the world has a huge struggle going on, but it is not simply a black-and-white us vs them type of thing. Humanity will not be growing up any time soon so long as there is oil at stake (I don't know anything about the gas over there but presumably there's a lot of it). And after oil, something else, so don't hold your breath 

I am not a pro-war activist, but it's utterly unfair to refer to "the bloody Russians" and accuse of the Georgian attack as aggressors.

Извините если я оскорбил вас .По английски слого "bloody" необязательно имеет плохое значение и я неимел в виду ничего плохого. Неодин тупой англичанин неинтересуется русской культурой больше чем я. Пожалуйста забудь что я сказал и я знаю что вы правы насчет того как это началось

Давайте начнем сначала.

Здравствуйте, я ваша тётя!