Russia/Georgia Situation News & Updates

reply to post by maloy


If The USA/EU wants Georgia under the protection of NATO, they will not attempt to block it ,It could build-up it's military,it apparently lost allot,(destroyed and stolen), even though it's previous build-up is suspicious,it wasn't nearly a threat to Russia '' arming them to the teeth
now would just prolong a Russian threat and "peacekeeping" occupation, Yet I agree with your previous post, prospective NATO members cannot have territorial disputes,so Georgia,at this point, may lose it's De-Facto regions( i can't see Saakasvili surviving after this)
I understand Saakasvili is a loser and the wrong man for risk taking,and USA threats and aid timing was off, but to to completely, ignore Russia's involvement in this conflict is just delusional.


[edit on 8-9-2008 by all2human]

So what's the long-term strategy here?

Get Georgia into NATO, arm it to the teeth, continue NATO expansion (Eastward), preserve a uni-polar world by undermining Russia (turning neighbouring countries and the world against it), and secure energy interests in the region and elsewhere?


Recipe for disaster.

Originally posted by chips
So what's the long-term strategy here?

Looks like a typical head fake to keep the Russians busy and is part of a broader conflict as in bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Roosevelt strike group will deploy next week



Coming soon in 2009...

US to establish naval base in Georgia
Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:26:05 GMT


The US is negotiating with Georgia and Turkey to establish a naval base at one of the two key Georgian ports of Batumi or Poti, reports say.

Turkey, in an attempt to avoid political tension with Russia, has not officially revealed its position regarding the plan, said Gruzya Online, a Russian-language internet site.

Russia had previously announced its intention to station its own special forces at the Georgian ports.

One of the responsibilities of US Special Forces in the region is to ensure the security of an oil pipeline passing through Georgia.

HSH/RA

source

reply to post by chips


My guess is that he's talking about a diplomatic solution to get the 2 breakway republics back.

There's no way that he would even try to regain them by means of military force. If he did that, he would surely loose all support he had sofar.

My guess is that Georgia will talk to a large number of countries regarding the breakaway republics to gain support from them. They will try to put the pressure on Russia to pull out of Georgia proper and restict them to the negotiated securityzones.

A little while back someone also asked why warships were used to deliver humantary aid. The answer is that the West condems Russia's actions and to show that they use warships. Merchant vessels don't really make an impression of condemnation. Besides, logistic-wise it could be easier to use warships rather than merchantvessels. Merchant vessels need to be chartered etc. You don't have them at your disposal 24/7.
And military-wise it makes sence that you also would like to have some eyes and ears in that region.

Maloy asked about that alledged Russian convoy that headed through the Roki tunnel on the 7th of Aug.

I found the following:

Matthew Bryza, a State department official who is considered the US point man on Georgia, corroborates Mr Saakashvili’s version of events. He says he was told the same information, as events were unfolding, in a series of phone discussions with Georgian leadership on August 7 and 8. “I was in fact told that Russian armour was indeed already moving toward the Georgian village of Kurta from the Roki tunnel before the Georgians attacked Tskhinvali,” he says in an email.

Financial Times

Before Mr Yakobashvili left the South Ossetian capital, Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili was preparing to make a ceasefire declaration on national television.

But as he came off air, he was handed a folder containing what the Georgians claim were US-provided satellite photos of a column of Russian armour advancing towards the Roki tunnel, the passageway that links South Ossetia to Russia.

Telegraph

Monday, September 8, 2008

US-Russian naval rivalries heat up over Black, Caspian, Persian Gulf seas

DEBKAfile’s military sources report Washington is testing the Turkish government’s response to the permanent anchoring of US warships at either of the two Georgian ports of Poti or Batumi. This would be quid pro quo for Moscow’s interest in bases in Iranian Azerbaijan and the Persian Gulf.

Monday, Sept. 8, a NATO delegation was due in Georgia to evaluate damage to military structure following the five-day war with Russia last month. This is a further irritant for Moscow after the highly sophisticated American command vessel USS Mount Whitney docked in Poti Saturday.

Our sources report that the US anticipates a protracted period of tension with Russia for the following reasons:

1. US and NATO vessels will need safe coastal berths when the approaching winter storms strike the Black Sea. As time goes by, Turkey, which under international conventions controls the passage of naval vessels through the Dardanelles, will be under increasing pressure from Russia to block the waterway to NATO.

Already, Turkey fears it may lose its top trading partner, Russia. Since the outbreak of the Georgian crisis a month ago, Moscow has introduced new customs regulations which have backed up at checkpoints dozens of Turkish trucks carrying export goods. The predicted loss to Turkish firms is some $1 billion so far, a figure that would treble if Moscow continued its unacknowledged sanction up to the end of the year.

2. A permanent base in a Georgian port is seen by US strategists as the quickest way to show the flag for Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili without a frontal clash with Russia.

Washington sources argue that if Russia can maintain a large fleet base at the Crimean port of Sevastopol and a second at Abkhazia, there is no reason why America cannot maintain a permanent presence on the Black Sea too.

3. Washington is well aware of the talk in Moscow and Tehran in recent days about establishing Russian naval bases in Iran: Iranian Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea and an Iranian-held island in the Persian Gulf.

The latter, if Moscow and Tehran reached agreement, would terminate US naval control of the Persian Gulf waters opposite Iran forces and drastically upset the balance of strength in the region. Washington’s response to this talk is its bid for a permanent Black Sea base.

(DEBKA)

Sarkozy flies to Russia to seek new Georgia deal

French President Nicolas Sarkozy flies to Moscow on Monday seeking to thrash out a lasting peace deal for Georgia that will persuade Russia to pull its troops out of positions deep inside the ex-Soviet state.

Russia drew Western condemnation when it fought a brief war with Georgia last month, sending tanks and troops deep into its neighbour's territory to defeat a Georgian attempt to retake its breakaway South Ossetia region by force.

Reuters

Originally posted by Gun Totin Gerbil
Doubt we will be seeing Russia withdraw anytime soon :

Saakashvili Vows to Reclaim 2 Provinces
Sept 08 2008

Mikhail Saakashvili, President of Georgia, vowed to take back the two provinces taken from Georgia by Russia, on Sunday. Saakashvili said he would reclaim Abkhazia and South Ossetia with the help “of the rest of the world” minus Russia.

poligazette.com...

What's he planning? Some desperate act to have the west involved militarily? If his gamble backlashes, it's game over for him and Tbilisi. But it will trigger atleast something.

Thoughts of a madman: "If i go down, i'll drag Russia down with me!"

Something funny from the US...

US mocks Russian naval plans in Caribbean

WASHINGTON: The United States is mocking Russia's plans to send a naval squadron and long-range patrol planes to the Caribbean for joint military exercises with Venezuela.

Russia's foreign ministry confirmed Monday that it intends to conduct the exercises.

In response, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack poked fun at Russia's navy. He said that if Russia really intends to send ships to the Caribbean, "then they found a few ships that can make it that far."

reply to post by Vitchilo


Yeah, that'll ease the tension.

I see now Medvedev is saying that Russia has agreed in principle to pull out of Georgia once the observers are in place to secure the area from October 1 (though Tbilisi must sign a 'non-aggression' type of agreement).

Let me make a prediction: Something will happen between now and then. Guaranteed.

An interesting read:

Sarkozy threatened to leave stormy Russian talks

TBILISI, Sept 9 (Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy threatened to walk out of stormy talks with Russian officials before securing a deal with President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday on withdrawing troops from Georgia, a French official said.

The four-hour talks at a castle near Moscow yielded an agreement by Russia to completely withdraw its forces from Georgia's heartland in a month but it did not commit to scale back its military presence in two Georgian separatist regions.

Sarkozy, whose country holds the rotating six-month presidency of the European Union, hailed the deal as a victory for European diplomacy and said that if the agreement is implemented, much death and suffering will have been avoided.

But his and Medvedev's smiles at a joint news conference hid a more fraught atmosphere in their closed-door meeting, which was also attended by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

"There were very tense moments," a senior official in Sarkozy's office told reporters after the deal was announced.

The agreement was a follow-up to a six-point peace plan Sarkozy brokered between Moscow and Tbilisi a month ago, but which the West says Russia had only implemented about half of.

The original deal said both sides should withdraw to the positions they held before a brief war last month in which Russia's forces overran Georgia's smaller army after Tbilisi tried to retake control of the rebel region of South Ossetia.

Moscow said a provision in the deal allowing it to conduct 'additional security measures' permitted the stationing of troops in a buffer zone around the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- an interpretation Tbilisi, and the West, deny.

BEWARE OF CHECHNYA

At one point in Monday's talks, while Medvedev was not in the room, Russian officials tried to remove a reference to the Aug. 7 pre-conflict positions, the French official said.

"At that moment, Sarkozy got up and said 'We're going. This is not negotiable," he said while travelling to Tbilisi after the Moscow leg of Sarkozy's trip.

The Russian officials, who included Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, had Medvedev called back into the room, and the row soon faded, the senior official said.

"When Medvedev came back, he said 'Let's calm down'. He didn't even suspend the session and he didn't even call (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin," he added.

At their last talks a month earlier, which also dragged on for hours, a deal was clinched after former president Putin joined the talks, prompting speculation that he still wields great influence after anointing Medvedev as his successor.

The second agreement reached on Monday retained a reference to the Aug. 7 deployment.

Sarkozy also warned Medvedev against the dangers of Russia's decision last month to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, a move matched only by Nicaragua and condemned by Western powers.

"Sarkozy told Medvedev: 'Beware of the principle of self-determination. If the Russians demand it for Abkhazia and Ossetia, the Chechens could also demand it,'" the source said

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia has fought two wars against separatist rebels in Chechnya, a North Caucasus territory not far from South Ossetia.

(AlertNet)

reply to post by chips


Sarko is great. Russia will not live up to the deal again. They will not give in for anything.

reply to post by Sky watcher


There's precisely 0% probability that Russia will remove itself from Poti right now — and not just because Saaka threatened to take back the two provinces yesterday.

Why?

[...]Washington is testing the Turkish government’s response to the permanent anchoring of US warships at either of the two Georgian ports of Poti or Batumi. This would be quid pro quo for Moscow’s interest in bases in Iranian Azerbaijan and the Persian Gulf.

(DEBKA)

Somebody else posted another source about this.

I don't think there's a chance in hell the Russians are going to vacate the Georgian port (or any port) and leave the U.S. (arming Georgia) there to control it.

Saaka is getting some new toys.

Georgia linked to Nato early warning system

Nato's early-warning surveillance system has been plugged into Georgia's air-defence network in the first evidence that the US-led alliance is shoring up the country's shattered military.

Alliance officials said that the arrangement enabled Nato radar specialists to be linked up to the Georgian radar systems. “It means Nato can now see what the Georgians are seeing through their radars, effectively allowing the alliance to monitor what is going on over Georgian airspace without having military assets in place,” one official said.

(Times Online)

reply to post by chips


Says NATO was "plugged in" in 2007

daily.iflove.com...
NATO, Georgia to share radars in 2007: Tbilisi

www.reuters.com...
NATO, Georgia to share radars in 2007: Tbilisi | International ...



[edit on 8-9-2008 by all2human]

Updates from RIA Novosti:

Russia to cement ties with S.Ossetia, Abkhazia on Sept.9
Gorbachev says NATO growth aimed at isolating Russia
Russia ready to cut NATO ties if Georgia joins membership plan
Lukashenko says Minsk, Moscow should respond to U.S. challenge
Russia confirms sending warships to the Atlantic, Caribbean

reply to post by all2human


NATO wasn't 'plugged in' in 2007; the plans were in place but it's only just been switched on.

A Nato official said that the combined air surveillance arrangement had been negotiated before the crisis in Georgia. The technical switch-on, linking radars in Georgia to Nato, happened this week however.

NATO creeps another step closer to Saakashvili's layer. U.S. is about to embark on a new geopolitical project there (seeing how the previous project failed when Aliyev send Cheney packing). Saakashvili is becoming America's chief flag bearer in the Caucasus/Central Asia.


Saakashvili is turning out to be a major investment (or alternatively a sizeable liability) for the U.S.; one that they'll definitely want to keep for some time. That's all fine and great - but I am wondering how long the marriage will last. Theoretically speaking Georgia is still a democracy - meaning that it needs to go through what is made to look like an election every now and then, and all that fun stuff. What happens when Saakashvili's second term expires? At this point I am sure he will run for third (yes that is technically legal in Georgia).

And then what? Unless U.S. makes him dictator for life - there is no way of insuring the Georgia doesn't swing back the other way - to become pro-Russian or neutral again. This happened in Ukraine just in the recent weeks, and surely U.S. doesn't want their Georgian investment going up in flames like Yuschenko. So what will become of Georgian "democracy"? There is a silenced but very active opposition to Saakashvili from within. He hardly has the support of the majority of the people. The only way Georgia can remain pro-West, is by turning what little is left of its democracy into a dictatorship.




This is what originally troubled me about the U.S. involvement in Eastern Europe, and is becoming an issue again. U.S. funded these marvelous puppets - Yuschenko and Saakashvili, who couldn't be anymore loyal. U.S. made heavy investments into their regimes, in order to facilitate its foreign policy. And now what? Look at Ukraine - it is swinging back the opposite way, and everything U.S. invested there has virtually disappeared in one week, thank to one political realliance. What will U.S. do to prevent the same from happening in Georgia, and will the U.S. step in in Ukraine? If U.S. becomes actively involved in local politics - how would it justify this to its people and Europeans? It accused Russia of doing it - and now it is itself a puppet master.

The tough choices for both sides still lay ahead. We will see what happens in Ukraine - if U.S. comes in to back up Yuschenko, we will see an all out political sparring with Russia actively backing the opposition. And we will see to what lengths the U.S. and Saaka will go to silence all opposition in Georgia. The deeper U.S. gets involved in these country's domestic affairs, the more it will draw in Russia. This can't go on much longer - before it boils over.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by maloy]

reply to post by maloy



I agree,it could boil-over,i pray it doesn't,we do not need a nuclear version of the Rusi/Georgia conflict and we all know the current US administration has shown it cannot be trusted,esp now with their term expiring, and nothing to lose mentality
let us hope Ukraine stabilizes,if it means a losing territory,or a presidential shake-up,so be it,i can only hope the same for Georgia,we must find a peaceful
solution,too long have we lived in fear,all of these countries need to give there head a shake, we cannot afford another great war!


[edit on 8-9-2008 by all2human]

Originally posted by all2human
the current US administration has shown it cannot be trusted,esp now with their term expiring, and nothing to lose mentality

Nothing to lose? I think living out their remaining days rich as hell, with hookers on yachts paid for by all the money they and their buddies jacked us for the last 8 years is something to lose, no?

The rich bastard leaders on both sides most likely do not want to live underground the next 20 years, they're not that young. They have families believe it or not and are actually human (although some of the very lowest forms), give or take a reptilian here and there. They want to see their grandchildren playing in the sun, so I highly doubt either side is going to allow this to escalate to any open war. Just business as usual, both sides needing justification for increased military spending to bomb and take over smaller countries and fight proxy wars. It's almost like two bullies form a plan to make friends with weaker kids, and convince them to talk crap and stand up to the other bully thinking they have protection. Of course they get knocked out and have their lunch money taken.