Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

[crusader1492]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

Azeris are becoming more demoralized:

AZERI PAPERS COMMENT ON RUSSIA-GEORGIA CONFLICT'S IMPACT ON KARABAKH PROBLEM

BBC Monitoring International Reports
August 21, 2008 Thursday

An Azerbaijani independent daily has expressed its concern about the
consequences of "the US-Russian fight to put the South Caucasus in
the sphere of their influence".

On 20 August, in a comment on the latest developments in the South
Caucasus region after the Russian-Georgian conflict, Ekspress said: "It
is obscure where the US-Russian standoff is leading the region. One of
them want to take control over our wealth, the other wants to control
our territories as well. Europe comes up as another geopolitical actor
in the region in the person of the third co-chairing country - France."

The paper added that "the resolution of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
by means of such mediating countries conflicting is impossible as
each of them promises us only nasty surprises".

"When Georgia entered South Ossetia, it saw the US support at least
although it was late. If we want to enter Karabakh, all the three
co-chairing countries will stand by Armenia," Ekspress said.

The opposition daily Azadliq quoted independent expert Rasim Musabayov
as saying that everything can be expected from Russia now.

Asked about the possibility of Russia's military incursion into
Azerbaijan, Musabayov said that there was still no reason and need
for that.

"First, we have an opportunity to head off this provocation. Second,
it is impossible to create this artificially," Musabayov said.

The political analyst thinks that as Russia has faced a threat of
losing several partners, it prefers cooperation with Azerbaijan,
the paper said.

In an interview with another opposition daily Yeni Musavat, Musabayov
said that "the reality is that Russia is seeking for a pretext to
destroy Georgia. The world, including the USA, understands that Russia
does not enjoy great power. From this standpoint, the West considers
achieving success as a result of diplomatic pressure. Russia does
not have much room for manoeuvres".

He added that the Russian president and premier did not want to be
isolated from the world and wanted to be represented in G8.

The analyst said that Russia would be expelled from Georgia by force
and added that "the blow of any serious step that the USA takes in
any case will hit Turkey".

However, he added that Turkey is trying to regulate ties with Moscow
so that to avoid risks against itself and Azerbaijan.

Asked if Azerbaijan is Russia's next target in the South Caucasus,
political expert Vafa Quluzada told Azadliq that "if Russia wants
to really take control over the South Caucasus, then the capture
of Azerbaijan will be put on agenda whether you like it or not. But
nobody can say precisely if Russia will attack Azerbaijan or not".

In a comment on the latest developments, the Yeni Azarbaycan newspaper
of the ruling New Azerbaijan Party said that "although it is logical
to think that the Georgian developments will speed up its NATO
membership, one should take into account that a political decision
is also of great importance here... In any case, the resolution of
the conflict or Georgia's NATO membership demands political will. If
this will is not displayed [by the West], Tbilisi will suffer from
its pro-Western policy".

[crusader1492]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

Azeris are upset with their big brother:

AZERI DAILY CRITICIZES TURKEY'S HANDLING OF GEORGIAN-RUSSIAN CONFLICT

BBC Monitoring International Reports
August 21, 2008 Thursday

An Azerbaijani independent daily has described as "insincere" Turkey's
handling of the conflict between Georgia and Russia.

Russian-language Zerkalo said on 21 August that Turkey, which is a
NATO member, is openly aiding Russia. While Turkey backed the NATO
declaration on Georgia, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
failed to condemn Russia's invasion of Georgia during his visit to
Baku on 20 August, Zerkalo said.

The paper also criticized Ankara for its failure to discuss the idea
of a Caucasus stability pact with its NATO allies, including the
USA. The Caucasus Home, suggested by Turkey, is to include Turkey,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and Russia.

"Apparently, the Turkish leadership has an illusion that the
Kremlin will be reckoning with its opinion in geopolitical issues
in the region," Zerkalo said. "In fact, Erdogan is suggesting that
Azerbaijan toe Russia's line. This is a dangerous path which will
sooner or later make Azerbaijan a vassal of Russia."

The daily said that the reason for Turkey's behaviour could be its
attempt to delay the regional countries' Euroatlantic integration.

"Up until today, Turkey was the 'last barrier' on NATO's southeastern
flank. However, after the regional countries integrate into the
Euroatlantic space, Turkey will lose this significance for the
West. This is where its interests coincide with those of Russia,"
Zerkalo said.

[crusader1492]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

...another article about Javakhk's autonomy:

ARMENIANS OF SOUTHERN GEORGIAN REGION SEEK AUTONOMY

Azg
Aug 20 2008
Armenia

"Georgia's only way is federative country"

The board of non-governmental organizations of Armenians in [Georgia's]
Samtskhe-Javakhk [Samtskhe-Javakhketi] and Kvemo Kartveli has issued a
statement, which says in particular: "It is apparent that the civilian
population suffers most from the attempts to settle inter-ethnic
issues by military methods. We, the public representatives of the
Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakhk and Kvemo Kartveli regions, being
concerned about peace and stability and the future of our country,
believe that in order to restore Georgia's territorial integrity
and sovereignty in a stable and democratic way, in order to settle
the current ethnic problems fairly, Georgia should be a federation
consisting of regional units and central government."

The statement also says that "Samtskhe-Javakhk, with its current
borders, and those neighboring villages of Kvemo Kartveli that are
predominantly populated by Armenians should be reorganized as an
autonomous region within the federative Georgian state, granting it
substantial self-governing rights." The statement then concludes:
"We realize that this statement will not be accepted in the same way
by everybody: there will be attempts to misinterpret and exploit
it. But we, being citizens who are concerned about the fate of
Georgia, had to repeat this truth we have been voicing for years. We
will be led exclusively by the interests of Georgia and its part of
Samtskhe-Javakhk. The memory of those killed in the recent clashes
calls for this, this is what Georgia's future calls for."

[freakyfreaky]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

US State Dept. remarks from Warsaw, Poland 8/20/08. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/08/108754.htm



---------------------------------------------------------------

Neocon replay? Either way, they are likely pleased.

[Armenian]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

First, he is stating the obvious. I guess one can give him credit for that.
Second, he is probably hitting back at his western "supporters" because abandoned him (like they abandoned Saakashvili) when he needed them the most.
Third, he is smart enough to give the regional superpower some lip service.

Interesting.
-------------------------------------------

Ter-Petrosian Blames Georgia For Conflict With Russia

Opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian has issued a blanket endorsement of Russia’s military campaign in neighboring Georgia, saying that it saved the population of South Ossetia from “genocide.”

[Armenian]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

I don't think the west's agenda has been smashed. It suffered a setback. It would have been smashed if Russia pulled an Iraq style invasion -- but they restrained themselves.

The western agenda in the Caucasus is nothing less than - smashed! It was suffering various setbacks going back several years, ever since Putin started to make some political waves. Now, it's all but history. The BTC pipeline may again operate but it will do so only with the Kremlin's direct blessing. Take note that the "security zone" Russia is planing to setup around the break away republic of Ossetia (according to reports, five miles around the parameter of the territory) essentially intersects the Baku-Batumi railway and the BTC pipeline. Also, Moscow seems to be digging in around the strategically significant port of Poti as well. Of course, Moscow can play some additional geopolitical cards in the region as well, such as Javakhq and Nagorno Karabakh.

Also, the news development above about Kazakhstan stating that it will divert its oil supplies from the BTC route to a Russian route is one of the other predictable repercussions of Moscow's actions for the pipeline in question desperately requires peace and stability to operate effectively.

Moscow would have been utterly foolish to attempt a "Iraq style" invasion of Georgia. Such types of invasions, as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the American invasion of Iraq have proved, actually hurt the invader. Moscow would not have succeeded had it invaded Georgia in full. Russia's campaign in Georgia was flawless, militarily and politically. But Russia can't openly flaunt its prowess nor can it become reckless in its actions on the ground. Don't forget that the major international news agencies such as Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, Agence Francaise and BBC are essentially western controlled propaganda outlets. Thus, the West controls global public perception. Also, international organizations such as the United Nations, OSCE, WTO, IMF and various other international organizations are also western controlled, specifically American controlled. Thus, the West also controls the very mechanisms of international politics and the global economy. Since the Second World War, the West (America in particular) has been the master of the planet. So, bearing this in mind, the Kremlin has to closely watch and measure its rhetoric. That is in essence why we are seeing a complex diplomatic game of good guy/bad guy (Medvedev/Putin) being played by the Kremlin. And that is also why we are seeing contradictory and often times confusing statements coming out of the Kremlin. Have no doubt, this is a high stakes chess game - and Russia is the master of the game in the region.

Nonetheless, the West, as well as Tel Aviv, Ankara and Tbilisi fell right into the Russian trap. This war was what the Kremlin was hoping and praying for and it all worked out exactly the way they planned it - thus far.

Stop being too pessimistic, this is not Yeltsin's Russia anymore.

[Federate]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

Interesting.
-------------------------------------------

Ter-Petrosian Blames Georgia For Conflict With Russia

Opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian has issued a blanket endorsement of Russia’s military campaign in neighboring Georgia, saying that it saved the population of South Ossetia from “genocide.”

He also said that Armenia’s government is right to maintain a “positive neutrality” in the conflict which is threatening to trigger a new “cold war” between Russia and the West.

“Nobody can dispute the fact that Georgia provoked the war in order to eliminate the [breakaway] republic of South Ossetia,” Ter-Petrosian said in an interview with the A1Plus.am news service posted late Wednesday. “Nobody can also dispute the fact that with its resolute intervention Russia saved the South Ossetian people from genocide. Had the Russian assistance arrived even six hours late, South Ossetia would not have existed today.”

Ter-Petrosian claimed at the same time that the Georgian government planned to “deport,” rather than “annihilate,” the region’s mostly Ossetian population. “[Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili could not fail to realize that an annihilation would not be forgiven by the international community, whereas a deportation could be tolerated in one way or another,” he said.

Thousands of Russian troops backed up by many tanks and armored vehicles dashed into South Ossetia through a mountain tunnel on August 8 just hours after the Georgian army attempted to restore Tbilisi’s control over the region. They went on to occupy large swathes of territory in Georgia proper, forcing tens of thousands of Georgians to flee their homes and effectively paralyzing the country’s economic life. Russia’s counteroffensive has been condemned as disproportionate by the United States and the European Union.

Ter-Petrosian, who served as Armenia’s first president from 1991-1998, dismissed the Western criticism. “I don’t know of a single case in world history where a big power’s riposte to a challenge against it was proportionate,” he said.

Echoing Moscow’s highly negative attitude towards the pro-Western government in Tbilisi, Ter-Petrosian went on to blame Saakashvili for the “national catastrophe” facing Georgia and predicted that Georgians could soon revolt against their president. “I have no doubts that none other the Georgian people will hold their government answerable for all this in the near future,” he said.

The remarks are extraordinary for a man who was known for his pro-Western leanings throughout his presidency and whose political allies repeatedly accused his successor Robert Kocharian of turning Armenia into a Russian “outpost” in the South Caucasus. Ter-Petrosian also won acclaim in the West for his conciliatory views on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Armenia’s relations with Turkey.

The 63-year-old ex-president has consistently asserted his pro-Russian credentials ever since staging a dramatic political comeback a year ago. He has rejected any parallels between his bid to return to power on the back of a popular movement and the Western-backed “color revolutions” in Georgia and other ex-Soviet states that were opposed by Russia. Ter-Petrosian reportedly met Russian leaders during a confidential visit to Moscow in the run-up to Armenia’s February 19 presidential election.

Ter-Petrosian lambasted Western powers and commended the Kremlin during his massive post-election demonstrations in Yerevan. He reiterated the harsh criticism at a July news conference, alleging that “the West is not interested in having a legitimate and strong government in Armenia.”

While unequivocally backing the Russian military intervention in Georgia, the opposition leader made clear that he essentially agrees with the Armenian government’s neutral stance in the Georgian-Russian war. “In this sense, there is no reason to be unhappy with the position of Armenia’s authorities,” he said.

Still, Ter-Petrosian added that the administration of President Serzh Sarkisian should “draw lessons” from a conflict that has seriously complicated Armenia’s transport communication with the outside world. The most important lesson, according to him, is that Armenia must not be heavily dependent on Georgia in carrying out its foreign trade. “That must force [the authorities] to take positive steps to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and settle Turkish-Armenian relations,” he said.

From http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...EEA67283F7.ASP

[RSNATION]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

Further proof that BTC is unfeasible

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/finance/9714319.asp?scr=1

Kazakhstan considers to divert oil export route from BTC to Russia

Kazakhstan is considering pumping its oil through Russia as an alternative to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline due to increased security concerns over the clashes in the Caucasus, a Turkish daily reported on Thursday.


A high level Kazakh official told Turkish business daily Referans that question marks now hang over the security of the BTC pipeline. "We could reconsider our decisions on sending Kazak oil to the world market. Changing the (export) route is in our agenda now," the official was quoted as saying by Referans.

The export of Kazakh oil through BTC had started in May and efforts are underway to supply the line from the larger Kashagan fields. Kazakh oil is seen as the key in plans to expand the BTC.

An official with the Turkish Energy Ministry said the expansion of the BTC line would only be possible with the supply of Kazakh oil. "There is some 50 million tons of oil there and it is unknown how this will be transported to world markets," the official told Referans.

When it reaches peak production in around 2019, Kashagan will produce up to 1.5 million barrels per day, enabling Kazakhstan to roughly double oil export volume to 120 million tons annually.

The BTC, led by BP, opened in 2006 and can pump up to one million barrels a day of Azeri crude to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, and is the first pipeline to carry large volumes of Caspian oil by-passing Russia.

A new 730-kilometer pipeline running from Kazakhstan's Eskene region to Kuruk is planned to be constructed, and oil will be transported from the Kuruk port to Baku via tanker. Once Kashagan oil is pumped into the BTC through Baku, the amount of oil arriving in Ceyhan is expected to rise to 75 million tons a year, up 50 percent from the current 50 million.

[skhara]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

percentage will rise further now that the West's agenda in the Caucasus has been smashed.

I don't think the west's agenda has been smashed. It suffered a setback. It would have been smashed if Russia pulled an Iraq style invasion -- but they restrained themselves.

[Armenian]

Re: Georgian-South Ossetian conflict

Armenian, by "capability" do you mean strictly militarily Armenia can't defeat georgia one on one, or because of the politcal factors that would realistically be involved, such as azerbaijan and possibly even turkey coming to georgia's aid? If it is the latter than I agree, it would be a very serious risk for Armenia to take, even with Russian backing.

I was speaking economically and politically, not militarily.

One thing I disagree with though is that this current conflict being close to a possible ww3. I think it would have to be a big miscalculation on the u.s. to fight Russia, especially over georgia, more likely the recent news that poland would host the interceptor missles and Russia's talk of nuking poland and setting up bases in cuba are more likely to trigger a major conflict. At the end of the day the u.s. has more important spheres of influence to manage and really can't afford militarily or economically to fight another war, especially with a nuclear armed country.

I don't use the term, World War Three, lightly. However, look closely at what is transpiring around the world, we are already in the preliminary stages of a world war. There are current and potential hot spots in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Asia, Northern Africa and South America. Gradually, these crisis areas will get aligned with one geopolitical side or another. We are already seeing this occurring with nations like Belarus, Serbia, Armenia, Syria, Iran and Venezuela that are in the Russian camp; and nations such as Britain, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Israel and Gulf States that are in the American camp. A Third World War does not necessarily mean a nuclear exchange between America and Russia. However, the risks for such a thing would definitely exist. Nonetheless, I think we are living in perhaps the most dangerous time period in human history.

Regarding whether or not the US will risk fighting another major war: Sometimes when the geopolitical cards are set in a certain way nations have no choice but to fight for their political and economic survival. For example. The West is increasingly finding itself held hostage to Russia's control over Central Asian and Caspian Sea region gas and oil supplies. Russia currently control about 40 percent of Europe's gas supplies, and this percentage will rise further now that the West's agenda in the Caucasus has been smashed. This is why the West has been trying everything in its power to find alternatives to this Russian control (and this is why the West tried its best to contain Russia throughout the 90s). This is why we are seeing anti-Russian stances in Poland, Ukraine, Balkans, Baltics, Caucasus and Central Asia. Simply put, the West, with its vast wealth and power and high living standards, can not afford giving a nationalist Russia sole control over its economy via energy resources. Thus, the West will eventually attempt everything in its power, including armed confrontation, to attempt to weaken Russia and its regional allies; not doing so means the eventual destruction of the western world as we know it. These geopolitical mechanisms (shifts in geopolitical epicenters) leading towards a major world war are already in place today and they are evolving quite fast.