Russia/Georgia truth

Hi All,

Sorry if I have posted this in the wrong place but I think the Russian invasion of Georgia is still a current event.

Anyway, I was stumbling and thought of this forum when this article popped up.
(For some the article may be obvious news but for many it will sum up an interesting and clever situation).

www.nybooks.com...

A less tired person would probably sum up the important points. Sorry.

Thanks for that. I really enjoyed reading this article, nice to see things from a different point of view. I hadn't looked at it from that angle before, kind of makes more sense now...hard to make sense with all of the propaganda going around.

Originally posted by and14263
A less tired person would probably sum up the important points. Sorry.

I'll give it a shot...

Here's what I believe the 'kicker' in the story is;

Putin's invasion revealed an open secret. While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts, and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well.
www.nybooks.com...

The fact that this comes from George Friedman, Founder and CEO of Stratfor makes this a most credible source.

A good read, highly recommended. Thanks for bringing it

Great article, thanks for finding.

The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when its military was in a shambles and its government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s and 1980s.

They (the Russians) welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia, and the United States and Europe could not meaningfully respond.

To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events.

The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the US and European points of view, the Orange Revolution repre-sented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. US Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet empire.

The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo's separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: the principle accepted in Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed.

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia.

I question this one, but my initial is derived from the negative "IF this is true, then WHY HASN'T or WHY DIDN'T this happen?"

IF the United States is trying to strangle Russia, WHY DIDN'T they do it during the 90's when - as he states - the Russian military was in a shambles and the government paralysed?

From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs.

The Russians insist the issues in Kosovo/Serbia are parallel with South Ossetia/Georgia.

Depends who does the comparison, I suppose.

Putin's invasion revealed an open secret. While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts, and the Central Asians need to digest.

Very good article. Here is a short analysis of some key issues it addresses:

The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next forty-eight hours the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and compelling a retreat. By Sunday, August 10, they had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.

While this Russian victory in 2 days is a common belief now, relying on some Russian military sources I would say that the public does not know the whole story. Based on information I gather, the Russians were not able to uproot the the Georgians from Tskhinvalli for over 3 days, and they were beat back several times. This indicates that there were many more Georgians troops there than innitially thought (as much as 15,000). The fighting around Tskhinvali actually continued untill August 12, not 10.

How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the deployments of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that Russia had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

The common answer by Russian analysts to this question, is that the U.S. and Saakashvili made a bet that Russians would not intervene as fast as they did, and that by the time Russians woke up, Georgian troops would have occupied all of S. Ossetia - possibly as soon as August 9th. Right after that they would have fortified their defensive positions, destroyed the Roki tunnel (only road from Russia to S. Ossetia), and received military help from the U.S.

The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s and 1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that they would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

I don't necessarily agree with this. While U.S./Saakashvili may have bet that Russians would not intervene, they must have had a plan B in case Russia did intervene. You just don't go to war without first recognizing all possible risks and outcomes, and certainly Georgia/U.S. had to keep Russia in mind. My belief is that Georgia hoped to blitzkrieg the area with the surprise factor. The lapse in planning was that U.S. and Georgia didn't realize how quick Russia was able to mobilize. This war is all about speed.

US Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet empire.

...

The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo's separation from Serbia.

There are a key issue here. Many people fail to realize that U.S. betrayed Russia's trust during the Bush administration, and that most of Russia's moves are reactionary rather than organic. You can't simply view Russia's invasion of Georgia as an event all by itself. You have to view it in a wider context, which will provide an understanding of Russia's actions and responses.

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point.

This is also the key to understanding the whole conflict. The article summarizes it very clearly and to the point. Again the point is - that Russia is reacting to actions of the U.S. U.S. is the leading problem in all of these events, and U.S. has created the conflicts we are seeing today in Georgia and Ukraine.

People must realize that Russia is not the problem. Certainly it is not the solution, but virtually all of Russia's actions until now were responses to U.S.-backed provocations.

Putin did not want to reestablish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re- establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet region.

No matter how often this statement is repeated, there will always be the ignorant hordes that bark about Putin being communist and resurecting the Soviet Union. It is sad that rather than taking time to understand what is happening, people's first instinct is to revert to their prejudicial judgement.

While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value.

I don't really think this has to do with U.S.' wars in the ME. U.S. still has plenty of military resources at its disposal around the world. That is why we saw NATO ships in the Black Sea. The thing is - even will all of its military capability freed up, U.S. would still be rightly hesitant about any engagement with Russia. There are some things that are simply beyond the realm of U.S. foreign policy - and Russia is one of them.

The more vocal senior US leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.

I did notice this. Bush has made a ton of threats directed at Russia since the war started, and so far has not done anything meanful as far as punishing Russia. The lesson is - that U.S. can't really hurt Russia all that much at this point. Russia on the other hand can hurt U.S. interests to a far greater extent. The further U.S. wishes to take this idiocy, the more Russia will push back.

Americans must seriously reevaluate their foreign policy, or they will face a rapidly changing world where they may find themselves outmatched and outvoiced. If U.S. wants to encircle Russia further then be it - but when Russia starts to push back hard, don't expect the majority of the world to stand behind your actions. Europe is already questioning U.S. motives, while the rest of the world has been questioning them for years now. Where the U.S. takes this from here is up to Americans.

The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.

Yes but the problem is the U.S. wants its have its cake and eat it too. U.S. has been on a power/influence-grab campaign through much of the Bush administration. It has grabbed way more than it can hold (Iraq, Ukraine, Georgia, Afganistan, Azerbaijan). This is the time to set priorities if U.S. wants any of its tasks accomplished. The alternative is that none of the tasks will see completion.

Whether the US and its allies can mount a coherent response has now become a central question of Western foreign policy.

U.S. foreign policy is what caused this. What coherent response would be appropriate? The only one I can think of - is to back off from encircling Russia. U.S. cannot afford any other response - especially not a military one. The U.S. has all of Middle East to play in - let it play there. But treading around Russia and continuing to do so cannot possibly yield any positive net effect. U.S. may succeed in insuring access to some resources or have control over some puppets in the short term, but in the long term it cannot possibly prevail.


This has been the problem of the U.S. foreign policy since WWII (and even before it to an extent) - U.S. is concerned primarily with short term goals in its foreign policy, while ignoring the long term issues (which the active leaders will likely not have to face). Look at how much antagonism the U.S. has created in Latin America because of its actions there in the 60's-80's. There is a new neo-socialist alliance there composed of many nations. Look at the antagonism America's actions have created in the Middle East (with 9/11 being the climax of it). Look at Afganistan - U.S. stepped in during the 80's, and then left the work unfinished - and Taliban is the result. Look at the trouble brewing in Pakistan.

Americans must realize that every actions they undertake around the world will lead to some reaction (maybe decades later). Think of how many future terrorists will be created as a direct result of U.S. actions in Iraq. Think of how mad Georgians will be when they find out that U.S. used them.

The U.S. simply has the wrong outlook on the world and on its actions around the world. The current approach will eventually result in only one thing - a throng of new enemies.

Originally posted by undermind
I question this one, but my initial is derived from the negative "IF this is true, then WHY HASN'T or WHY DIDN'T this happen?"

Simple - because Russian government decided to push back, and had the means to sustain its effort (renationalized energy industry). U.S. did not predict how different Putin would be compared to Yeltsin, and did not predict this response. When U.S. embarked on this encirclement campaign, it has made a bet that Putin will be a push-over, and that pro-Western oligarchs would continue to run Russia. As we all know - the reality was exactly the opposite.

Originally posted by undermind
IF the United States is trying to strangle Russia, WHY DIDN'T they do it during the 90's when - as he states - the Russian military was in a shambles and the government paralysed?

Easy answer - different U.S. President, different administration, different goals. Still - even Clinton made the crucial first steps in late 90's - expanding NATO to Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltics, Czech Republic), and attacking Serbia. These last actions of the Clinton administration signaled a change in U.S. foreign policy. Why did it happen under Clinton - I don't know.

Originally posted by undermind
The Russians insist the issues in Kosovo/Serbia are parallel with South Ossetia/Georgia.

Depends who does the comparison, I suppose.

They do parallel anyway you look at it - at least for Russia. Russia views the issue in Kosovo in a slightly different light than the U.S. and Europe. But the "precedent" factor has been underscored throughout this conflict, and there is no denying that Kosovo independence "opened the Pandora's Box".

Originally posted by maloy
When U.S. embarked on this encirclement campaign, it has made a bet that Putin will be a push-over, and that pro-Western oligarchs would continue to run Russia. As we all know - the reality was exactly the opposite.

Who exactly are these pro-Western oligarchs you say run Russia at the present time? Who runs Russia?

Please don't confuse countries in the former Soviet Union with Russia.

reply to post by undermind


I assume he's talking about people like Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

Originally posted by undermind
Who exactly are these pro-Western oligarchs you say run Russia at the present time?

Did you notice I said that this is what U.S. expected to continue back when Bush administration came to power (2000)? I didn't say that pro-Western oligarchs continue to run Russia. I am talking about the oligarchs who ran Russia in the 90's and into early 2000's, the most well known of whom are Berezovsky, Abramovich, and Khadarkovsky. And then I said that completely the opposite happened - and now these oligatchs are no longer in control.

I could go into more detail on these and other oligarchs if you want me to, but I am not sure that it will be on topic.

Originally posted by undermind
Who runs Russia?

I think you know the answer, but misinterpreted what I said.

Originally posted by undermind
Please don't confuse countries in the former Soviet Union with Russia.

Oh believe me I am not confusing anything.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by maloy]

A beautiful next move for the Russians or Chinese would be to solidify their relationship with Paraguay, which would then leave G.W. Bush and Family with no place to run to after he is out of office.

the Hague anyone?

Thanks to those who took the time to sum up the article.
Next time I find something I'll do the hard work!

That is a great idea...lol.

Is there anyway we can let them know that they should be working on this.

lol

reply to post by maloy

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point.



This is also the key to understanding the whole conflict. The article summarizes it very clearly and to the point. Again the point is - that Russia is reacting to actions of the U.S. U.S. is the leading problem in all of these events, and U.S. has created the conflicts we are seeing today in Georgia and Ukraine.

People must realize that Russia is not the problem. Certainly it is not the solution, but virtually all of Russia's actions until now were responses to U.S.-backed provocations.

Agreed 1000%

People in the States are brain washed.........PERIOD. I do believe, and openly state the Mainstream media is perpetrating a psychological warfare campaign against the US People.

It is necessary as the need is ever growing to maintain ownership of the hearts, and minds of the US American People. They must maintain that ownership through subversive means in order for the People to continually support wars of aggression only designed to manage corporate interests.

Where You, and I do disagree is that I believe the Middle East is key to the struggle; as it was during The Great Game; so it is now.

*******************************************************************
To the OP S&F Great article for Your first thread.

Originally posted by masqua
The fact that this comes from George Friedman, Founder and CEO of Stratfor makes this a most credible source.

Im not disagreeing about the information in the article but I have been reading a lot of Stratfor briefs recently and have noticed that Friedman is in hindsight regularly quite a bit off the mark with Geopolitics. He seems to be stuck in a Cold War mindset that revolves quite a bit around Russia's position as an aggressor and US as an infallible shining light in Global affairs.

Also while he doesn't go as far as to blame Russia outright for the conflict, he does imply with the article that they were itching for the fight. Also today, an official independent EU investigation into the war has come to the conclusion that the war was instigated by Georgia... which was the conclusion by many on ATS during the conflict.

Anyway, his views usually push the idea that any growing powers are threats to the US without ever admitting that the US has and is regularly involved in destabilization and illegal activities in other countries.

I suppose the fact that he is American to begin with makes it obvious why he has this outlook but its still a viewpoint and not always fact.