The Mazeika Report
August 22, 2008
go to "blog" link to http://mazeikabloginternationalnews.blogspot.com/ for archival reports for the months of July and June, 2008Pass this link on to other readers! Breaking stories.....your comments are welcome.... Place this "blog link" into your computer favorites for easy access. =======================================================
Visit our interactive website and new featured listings....at http://www.ocrelocate.com/ Ocean to Mountains Real Estate for all Orange County Tony & Danute Mazeika...... 949 721-3445 pager.... 949 929-9051 cell
Celebrating 21 years and more than 500 successful real estate transactions... Don't miss incredible market opportunities....... Prices are at Year 2002 level... May home sales up significantly ...Positive signs of market recovery are here. Inventory is decreasing. You may qualify for a credit on closing costs and savings on escrow fees...Ask us how...... Don't delay..call us today! 949 721-3445 ================================================================ Please support this unique blog.....Buy your ....Books, Dvds, and CDs on our special link access to Amazon.Com ===================================================================== Breaking news & commentary ....click on active links for multiple photos
=========================================================
August 21, 2008
Despite Yielding Ground, Russia Takes Critical Spots
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
TBILISI, Georgia — Despite a pledge by the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, to withdraw his forces to the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Friday, Russian troops on Wednesday showed no signs of relaxing their grip on critical Georgian roads and ports.
Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, said Russia was thinning out its presence in some of the towns it occupies but seizing other strategic spots.
“What we’re seeing now is a clear regrouping and also, again, some kind of deception campaign, saying, ‘Look, we’re moving out,’ ” Mr. Saakashvili told The Associated Press.
In a busy diplomatic day, the United States and Poland signed a formal agreement to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, eliciting an angry Russian response that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said “borders on the bizarre.”
“Missile defense, of course, is aimed at no one,” said Ms. Rice, who signed the agreement in Warsaw with her Polish counterpart, Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. “It is in our defense that we do this.”
In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry issued a cryptic and vaguely threatening statement saying of the missile plan, “Russia in this case will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic moves.” Later, the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow received a telephone call from a “well placed” official in the Russian Ministry of Defense who said that the Kremlin planned “to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and allied countries,” Espen Barth Eide, state secretary with the Norwegian Defense Ministry, told The A.P.
At the United Nations, Russia submitted a Security Council draft resolution to compete with one circulated on Tuesday by the French. The Russian version includes a clause calling for Russian peacekeeping forces to “take additional security measures” pending “the establishment of international mechanisms.”
That clause, which had been part of a cease-fire agreed to last week, had been dropped from the French resolution on Tuesday.
In the Georgian village of Shindisi on Wednesday, three journalists from The New York Times were present when a researcher from Human Rights Watch found two unexploded cluster munitions on the ground. The question of whether in the conflict Russia used cluster munitions, which are weapons that release hundreds of bomblets when they explode, has been a source of intense dispute. Russia has vehemently denied using them and called allegations that it used those munitions “lies” that were prepared before the war. But there have been many indications that cluster munitions were in fact used.
Reporters and photographers for The Times have found debris from SS-21 and BM-21 rockets, both of which can carry cluster munitions, on the ground in areas attacked by Russia, including the port of Poti, the village of Variani and the city of Gori.
Witnesses have described the bomblets detonating around them, and three impact craters in Stalin Square in Gori appear to have been made by the cluster bombs that detonated simultaneously early in the war, killing several civilians and a Dutch journalist.
Zaur Tatrishvili, a farmer in Shindisi, said the bombs had fallen in his garden shortly after Russian forces entered Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. The weapons were apparently directed at retreating Georgian tanks, which had moved through the woods near his fields. Human Rights Watch said it had counted one person who was killed during the initial attack and two who died while picking up unexploded bombs later.
In a speech on Wednesday, President Bush declared that Georgia’s “young democracy” had “come under siege” by Russia, and he connected the conflict in the Caucasus with the battle against terrorists and the United States’ efforts to aid the rise of free societies.
“The United States of America will continue to support Georgia’s democracy,” Mr. Bush told about 4,000 people in Orlando, Fla., attending the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary.
Mr. Bush said the disputed border regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia “are part of Georgia, and the United States will work with our allies to ensure Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity.”
While the Bush administration has repeatedly condemned the Russian military action as a “disproportionate” response to the Georgian attack and called for a speedy withdrawal, Mr. Bush’s language on Wednesday was an effort to position the conflict within a broader ideological call to arms.
Invoking his catchphrase that liberty is “on the march,” Mr. Bush placed the 2003 so-called Rose Revolution in Georgia, which brought a reformist government to power in the former Soviet republic, within the context of pro-democracy protests in Lebanon as well as the American-led military actions that ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
All these events over the past seven years, Mr. Bush said, have been part of “the great ideological struggle of our time, between forces of freedom and forces of tyranny.” And, noting that Georgia had since sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq “to help others realize the blessings of liberty,” Mr. Bush said that others must now come to Georgia’s aid.
“Georgia has stood for freedom around the world, and now the world must stand for freedom in Georgia,” he said.
Nicholas Kulish contributed reporting from Warsaw, C. J. Chivers from Shindisi, Georgia, and Charlie Savage from Orlando, Fla.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/world/europe/21georgia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
==================================================
Investors pulling out of Russia
Russia has seen foreign reserves decline, a sign that the market is more nervous about investing in the region since the recent conflict in Georgia.
Central Bank figures show reserves were sharply down in the week ending 15 August, marking a fall of $16.4bn (£8.8bn) from $597.5bn a week earlier.
Tensions with the west have also been strained by Russia's objection to the US placing a missile defence in Poland.
Georgia has urged the west to invest in the region as it seeks to rebuild.
According to the Financial Times, the latest drop in capital reserves is the largest "since comparable figures began" in 1998, though similar funds were taken out during the currency crisis.
Reconstruction
Finance ministers from the group of seven richest nations have said they are "ready to support" Georgia's economic reconstruction in the wake of conflict with Russia.
The US Treasury issued a statement on the G7 countries' behalf saying they would be ready to help Georgia "to maintain confidence in Georgia's financial system and support economic reconstruction."
He also called on Georgian authorities, the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Asian Development Bank, European Investment Bank, and European Commission to "identify and support reconstruction needs and the restoration of services that will build a base for future economic growth".
Officials from the World Bank are visiting Georgia on Friday to assess the extent of damage to its economy and how the process of reconstruction can begin.
The development body has pledged to help Georgia access funding to rebuild crucial infrastructure, such as roads and railway lines.
It has also promised to assist people displaced by the fighting in South Ossetia and in Georgia itself.
The US and Poland signed a deal earlier this week to locate part of the US missile defence system on Polish soil, but Russia has warned the base could become a target for a nuclear strike.
Such geopolitical concerns have been a factor pushing up oil prices, amid fears that supplies might be hampered.
"Investors are realising that the bear has put its paw on the pipeline, and geopolitical risk is likely to remain a theme for the next month or so," said Justin Urquhart Stewart, investment director at Seven Investment Management.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7576333.stm
============================================================
Geopolitical Diary: The Implications of a Russo-Syrian Partnership
Stratfor Today »-->August 21, 2008
Syrian President Bashar al Assad arrived in Moscow on Wednesday for a two-day visit during which he will meet with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Al Assad’s invitation to Moscow was announced shortly after Russia began its military offensive against Georgia. The timing was no coincidence, and Damascus fully intends to ride Russia’s wave of resurgence into regional prominence.
Russia and Syria had a close defense relationship during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union maintained a naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea off the Syrian coast and facilities at Syrian ports. In those days, Syria used its relationship with Russia to protect itself from the threat of Israel. But that patronage dried up even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Syrian defense structures — its air defense network, for example — began falling into disrepair.
Syria’s relationship to Russia under former President Vladimir Putin was not nearly as accommodating as it was during the Cold War, and the Syrians have spent a great deal of energy chasing armament deals with Russia, with no luck. For years — but especially after the September 2007 Israeli air raid that essentially sidestepped the entire Syrian air defense network — Damascus has grown more desperate for a comprehensive upgrade to its air defense network. But talks with Russia have failed to gain traction, and the Syrians have grown weary of being strung along. With Russia’s assertion of power in the Caucasus, however, Syria sees a chance to break out of its diplomatic isolation.
Given U.S. sensitivity to developments in the Middle East, Syria is well positioned to give Russia ways to meddle in Washington’s affairs. The threat of increased Russian weapons sales to Iran and Syria, coupled with Wednesday’s hints of a Russian carrier returning to the Mediterranean, are all useful tactics in sending Washington a very clear message: Russia is a great power capable of influencing matters well beyond its own borders.
For Damascus, Russia’s resurgence is a great opportunity to strengthen its security relationship with Moscow. Primarily, by reviving its ties with Russia, Syria could compel Israel, the United States and Turkey to accelerate efforts to pull Damascus out of the diplomatic cold. This would give Syria the political recognition and influence that it has long craved; more importantly, Syria would gain physical security.
Thus far, there have been no concrete reports of any major deals struck during al Assad’s trip to Moscow. However, Newsru.com, a subsidiary of Russia’s NTV news group, reported that al Assad has said he is ready to host a Russian base off the Syrian coast again. Though the establishment of such a base of operations so far beyond Russia’s periphery would certainly be dramatic, there are limits to how far Russia can go in the Middle East. Tactically speaking, a Russian fleet based in the Mediterranean would essentially be surrounded by NATO allies, and hemmed in by Turkish territory. The sheer superiority of U.S., Turkish, NATO and Israeli naval assets in the region puts any small deployment at a severe disadvantage.
Furthermore, any extension of Russian influence in the Middle East must balance the needs of several actors — all of whom are in delicate negotiations with one another. For instance, the Russians and the Israelis have their own ongoing negotiations in which Israel has reportedly appealed to Moscow to continue restricting weapons sales to Syria and Iran in exchange for Israel’s restraint in providing military assistance to Georgia. This is a significant barrier to a real Damascus-Moscow security deal, as Russia is heavily invested in maintaining control in Georgia.
But Syria’s hopes for a real alignment with Russia are only part of the cascade of reactions as nations internalize Russia’s renewed assertiveness. First and foremost, of course, are the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran over the future of Iraq. Iran is currently calculating its options; obviously, it must carefully balance its relations with Russia and its talks with the United States. And Iran would like to expand its arms deals with Russia dramatically, but fears Russia’s resurgence in the Caucasus. Turkey is also in play. As a NATO member and neighbor of Georgia, Turkey finds itself right in the middle of the U.S.-Russian rivalry and must seek a balance.
More than anything else, Syria’s ability to exploit the Russian comeback in the Caucasus will depend on just how drastically Russia plans to upset U.S. foreign policy at this stage in the game. Syria certainly has assets to offer Moscow, but Russia will be considering much more than just Syria as it moves forward from this point.
http://www.stratfor.com/
===========================================================
What Russia wants in Georgia
Nearly two weeks ago, Russian forces crossed into Georgia, a staunch American ally in the Caucasus. While fighting has largely stopped, Russian forces remain on Georgian soil despite Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s promises the troops would withdraw.
Heritage Foundation expert Ariel Cohen explains that Russia has five goals in its campaign against Georgia.
Expulsion of Georgian troops and termination of Georgian sovereignty in South Ossetia and Abkhazia;
“Regime change” by bringing down President Mikheil Saakashvili and installing a more pro-Russian leadership in Tbilisi;
Preventing Georgia from joining NATO and sending a strong message to Ukraine that its insistence on NATO membership may lead to war and/or its dismemberment;
Shifting control of the Caucasus, and especially over strategic energy pipelines, by controlling Georgia; and
Recreating a 19th-century-style sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union, by the use of force if necessary.
This campaign could serve as a prelude to subsequent actions elsewhere in Eastern Europe, Cohen warns. In particular, Russia could turn its sights on Ukraine, which controls the strategic Crimean peninsula and has a substantial ethnic Russian minority.
Russia’s latest adventurism demonstrates that it wants to reestablish itself as a great power, Heritage’s Peter Brookes argues in his New York Post column. “Today’s Kremlin is cocky, nationalistic, rich and bent on asserting Russia as a great power with distinct interests - not only in its neighborhood or ‘near abroad’ - but across the globe.”
At the bottom of his article, Brookes provides a useful summary of Russia’s interests, alliances and recent troublemaking.
Cohen urges the United States and its allies to continue their opposition to the Russian incursion. They “need to send a strong signal to Moscow that creating 19th-century-style spheres of influence and redrawing the borders of the former Soviet Union is a danger to world peace.”
http://www.myheritage.org/Features/EmailArchive/2008/081908.asp
==================================================================
Russia threatens to suspend NATO cooperation
Moscow believes the US-Poland deal for a missile defense system makes it more vulnerable to a nuclear attack.
By Liam Stack
from the August 22, 2008 edition
The United States and Poland signed a deal in Warsaw on Wednesday to place 10 interceptor missiles on Polish territory as part of a wide-ranging missile defense system. The deal has angered Moscow, which believes that the missile-defense system increases its vulnerability to nuclear attack. In retaliation, Russia has threatened to withdraw its participation in joint military activities with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
American and Polish officials say the agreement, combined with a similar one signed with the Czech Republic last month, will protect against the threat of attack by rogue states such as Iran. Domestic critics of the deal say it is unworkable or too expensive, but Russia has emerged as the missile system's fiercest opponent.
Moscow has reacted angrily to the deal amid fears that the missile shield could one day grow powerful enough to neutralize its own weapons, making it more vulnerable to a nuclear attack, reports the Los Angeles Times.
After the deal was signed in Warsaw, Russian officials aired their concerns once more, emphasizing that the West's fears of Iran were unfounded, reports the BBC.
The Russian foreign ministry said the planned missile shield was aimed at weakening Moscow, describing it as part of "US efforts to change the strategic balance of power in its favour."
It said the shield was "one of the instruments in an extremely dangerous bundle of US military projects involving the one-sided development of a global anti-missile system."
The statement also dismissed US claims of a missile threat from Iran as "imaginary."
In response to the deal, Russia has threatened to target Poland with nuclear weapons. Speaking to Reuters in Warsaw, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denounced Russia's remarks about military action against Poland as "pathetic rhetoric," saying they "border on the bizarre."
"I hope that there are not people in Russia who are hankering for the days of U.S.-Soviet confrontation because they are over," Rice told journalists in Warsaw after signing an agreement to base 10 U.S. interceptor rockets in Poland. "The Cold War is over."
The night before the deal was signed, the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow received a tip from a "a well-placed official in the Russian Ministry of Defense" who wishes to remain anonymous, adds the Associated Press. The official said that Russia would imminently announce plans to suspend military cooperation with the NATO alliance. Word of the tip spread fast, taking Western governments by surprise and evoking images of the cloak-and-dagger days of cold war intrigue.
The Nordic country's embassy in Moscow received a telephone call from "a well-placed official in the Russian Ministry of Defense," who said Moscow plans "to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and allied countries," Espen Barth Eide, state secretary with the Norwegian ministry said.
Mr. Eide told The Associated Press that the Russian official notified Norway it will receive a written note about this soon. He said Norwegian diplomats in Moscow would meet Russian officials on Thursday morning to clarify the implications of the freeze.
"It is our understanding that other NATO countries will receive similar notes," Eide said. The ministry said the Russian official is known to the embassy, but Norway declined to provide a name or any further identifying information.
Russia began military cooperation with NATO in 2002 and its activities have mostly focused on joint efforts to patrol the Mediterranean for terrorists, combat heroin trafficking, and develop battlefield antimissile technology.
US and NATO officials say they were unaware of Russia's plan to suspend military cooperation. Reuters reports that the Russian ambassador to NATO has played down the move, saying it is "of temporary character, of regional character, not global character."
Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin said curtailing contacts was "in nobody's interest". "Temporary decisions are being taken on current cooperation and not about cooperation in general," he told Reuters in English.
Asked which areas these involved, he said: "Military naval exercises in the far east, the Mediterranean, in the Baltic."
In Washington, State Department spokesman Robert Wood described the move as "unfortunate," saying, "We need to work with Russia on a range of security issues, but we are obviously very concerned about Russian behavior in Georgia," reports the Associated Press.
Find this article at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0821/p99s01-duts.html
===============================================
Germany: Merkel's Choice and the Future of Europe
Stratfor Today » August 20, 2008 2216 GMT
VLADIMIR RODIONOV/AFP/Getty Images
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (R) and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev
Summary
As countries the world over begin reassessing their relationships with a resurging Russia and a bogged-down United States, Germany in particular has some tough choices to make. While Germany has a place in the European Union and NATO, Stratfor sources have said that Russia has offered Germany a security agreement — and German Chancellor Angela Merkel knows how vulnerable her country is to Russia.
Analysis
As countries around the world rethink their positions and ties with the resurgent Russia and the bogged-down United States, one of the countries with the largest dilemma is Germany. Unlike many former Warsaw Pact or Soviet states that were forced to adjust dramatically and quickly to a Russia on the move, Germany’s geographic location, ties to Moscow and history as a leader and divider of Europe make it the next state to have to make a tough decision. Berlin will have to decide whether it wants to continue acting like an occupied state and relying on the NATO-Washington security guarantee, or act on its own and make its own security pacts with Moscow. In the past, Germany and Russia traditionally have cooperated when they were not at war with each other — something that makes geopolitical sense but terrifies the rest of Europe.
The world changed Aug. 8 as Russia proved its strength when it launched a military campaign in Georgia and the West did not come to Tbilisi’s aid. Moscow’s muscle-flexing in its former Soviet state forced many countries to reassess their positions immediately by either solidifying their ties to Russia — like Armenia and Belarus — or turning to Washington to guarantee its security — like Poland. Naturally, former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries were the first ones to react; not only are they closer to Russia, they also have the most to gain or lose in the short term.
But during the Cold War, one country — Germany — was divided between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This put it in a very different position from most of Europe. During that time, a defeated Germany not only was split and occupied, but also was not allowed to field a meaningful independent foreign or military policy. Instead, all of its energies were harnessed into the European Union and NATO. During the decade following its reunification, Germany has slowly crawled its way back to being a normal state allowed to have an opinion.
Related Special Topic Pages
Russian Energy and Foreign Policy
The Russian Resurgence
Today’s Germany closely resembles pre-World War II Germany; it is economically and politically strong, unified and unoccupied, which means it can actually decide whether to align with Russia or the West instead of having the choice made for it, as it was in 1949. Moreover, the awakening Germany is one of three major powers left in Europe today (the other two being France and the United Kingdom), and it has been looking to reprise its role as Europe’s natural leader. It makes sense for Berlin to claim this title by dint of population, location and economic heft.
Of the major European powers, Germany is the one with the difficult decision to make between Russia and NATO. It is a member of the latter, and it makes sense to stick to its current alliances. But Germany never really made the decision to join NATO. Only half of Germany was part of the alliance during the Cold War (as decreed by the United States); after German reunification, East Germany joined NATO when Russia was weak and chaotic. Germany had no choice but to continue its Western alliances after the Cold War.
But with Russia regaining strength, Germany stands on the front lines of whatever Moscow has planned. Germany is vulnerable to Russia on many fronts. It has a very deep memory of what it feels like to have the Russians easily march across the northern European plain to German territory, which led to the Soviet occupation of half the country for four decades. Germany and Russia are also currently each other’s largest trading partners, and Russia provides more than 60 percent of Germany’s natural gas.
So Berlin is now reassessing its allegiances to Washington and NATO, which would keep the country locked into the policies it made as an occupied state. Or Germany could act like its own state and create its own security guarantee with Russia — something that would rip NATO apart. Berlin does not have to make a decision right now, but it does need to start mulling its options and the consequences.
Rumors are floating around Moscow that a discussion between the Kremlin and Berlin on such a topic is occurring — not that a deadline has been presented, just that a dialogue on the issue is under way. Of course, such a discussion would be tightly guarded until Berlin actually made a decision. On Aug. 15, as the war between Georgia and Russia wound down, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Sochi, but the meeting was highly tense (as shown during their press conference).
Germany acted peculiar during the entire Georgian-Russian conflict. When the war began, Berlin issued a fluff statement on “needing to find a solution” between the two states; however, as the war escalated, Merkel fell silent on the issue. Many within the German government released statements in favor of either Russia or Georgia, but it is Merkel who calls the shots in the country — and she was waiting for her meeting with Medvedev before speaking. Merkel is an interesting leader to have in Germany at this stage because she is the first German chancellor born in East Germany. This leads her to be more critical and firm against the Russians, but nonetheless she understands how vulnerable her country is right now. Germany may be an economic powerhouse, but it is still militarily weak, so its security is in the forefront of its mind.
Stratfor sources in Moscow have said that Medvedev has offered Merkel a security pact for their two countries. This offer is completely unconfirmed, and the details are unknown. However, it would make sense for Russia to propose such a pact since Moscow knows that, of all the European countries, Germany is the one to pursue — not only because of the country’s vulnerabilities and strong economic ties with Russia but because the two have a history of cozying up to each other.
While such an alliance might sound like a stretch in today’s U.S.-dominated world, there are two things to consider. First, like Russia, Germany is wary of Washington’s strengthening presence in Europe. The United States already has the United Kingdom as its closest ally, France has returned to the NATO fold, and Washington is gaining the allegiance of many Central European states — all of which undercuts Germany’s dominance on the continent. This is not to say that Germany is ready to ditch NATO just yet, especially since Berlin has no military heft. However, Berlin must at least be considering how to balance the U.S. presence in Europe.
Second, most of the world thought it impossible for Germany and Russia to ally in the 1930s, but the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the treaty of nonaggression between Germany and the Soviet Union) confirmed the two countries’ tradition of turning to each other when both are not at war or occupied. This was not the first Russo-German treaty, but actually the third, after the League of the Three Emperors in 1872 and the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.
These two considerations together should cause concern in most of Europe. Since Germany and Russia are the two big powers on the block and want to keep any other power (like the United States) from their region, it would make sense for Berlin and Moscow to want to forge an agreement to divide up the neighborhood — such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which had secret protocol dividing the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania into either the Nazi or Soviet spheres of influence. Most of those countries have since sided with Washington, but if Germany and Russia make some sort of deal, it will be open season on American influence in Europe.
All of this is not to say that Berlin is about to flip on the West. It has time to mull its decision. The point is that Germany is not the solid rock of NATO and the European Union that the West assumes it is. Russia’s recent actions mean that history is catching up with the Germans and that a choice will eventually come. Everything depends on Berlin’s choice between maintaining its dependence on the United States or flipping the entire balance structure in Europe by striking a deal with Russia. Berlin has been itching to reassert itself as a real and unbound power on the continent once again. However, though it has new economic and political strength, Germany is in many ways more vulnerable than it has been in more than 60 years. Berlin’s choice will shape the future of Europe and possibly the world.
http://www.stratfor.com/
============================================================
NATO's 'Empty Words'
August 20, 2008; Page A18
"Empty words." That's how Moscow glibly dismissed NATO's criticism yesterday of Russia's continued occupation of Georgia. The Russians may be bullies, but like all bullies they know weakness when they see it.
The most NATO ministers could muster at their meeting in Brussels was a statement that they "cannot continue with business as usual" with Russia. There was no move to fast-track Georgia's bid to join NATO, nor a pledge to help the battered democracy rebuild its defenses.
Asked about NATO reconstruction aid, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer pointedly said, twice, that it would go for "civilian infrastructure." So here we have a military alliance going out of its way to stress that it will not be providing any military aid. The alliance didn't even cancel any cooperative programs with Russia, though Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said "one can presume" that "this issue will have to be taken into view." That must have the Kremlin shaking.
NATO leaders also failed to mention Ukraine, another applicant for NATO membership that has angered Moscow in recent years and could become its next target. Also missing was any indication that the alliance would begin making long-delayed plans for defending the Baltic member states and other countries on its eastern flank in case of attack. The only good news of the day was that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will eventually send up to 100 monitors, albeit unarmed, to Georgia.
Meanwhile, Russia found new ways to ignore the West and punish the Georgians who are actually abiding by a cease-fire. After exchanging prisoners with Georgia, Russian troops took about 20 Georgians prisoner after briefly retaking the oil port of Poti, blindfolded them and held them at gunpoint. Russia also sank another Georgian navy vessel and stole four U.S. Humvees that had been used in U.S.-Georgian training exercises and were waiting to be shipped out of the country.
All of this continues the Russian pattern of the past week, in which it agrees to a cease-fire and promises to withdraw, only to leave its forces in place while continuing to damage Georgia's military and even its civilian centers. Russian commanders had the cheek to suggest that a return to the troop placements before war broke out on August 8 means that 2,000 Georgian soldiers would have to return to Iraq, from which they had been airlifted home.
One of Moscow's goals is clearly to humiliate Georgia enough to topple President Mikheil Saakashvili, so he can be replaced with a pliable leader who will "Finlandize" the country, to borrow the old Cold War term for acquiescing to Kremlin wishes. In the bargain, it is also betting it can humiliate the West, which will give the people of Ukraine real doubts about whether joining NATO is worth the risk of angering Moscow. Judging by NATO's demoralizing response on Tuesday, the Kremlin is right.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121918982921755027.html
=============================================
Geopolitical Diary: The NATO Membership Dilemma
NATO foreign ministers will meet Aug. 19 to discuss responses to the Russian invasion of Georgia. The United States is pressing for immediate action — although what that really means is movement toward admitting Georgia to NATO, rather than actual action. The Germans have expressed support for Georgia’s membership in the alliance, but the French and Italians appear to be hesitating, not wanting to trigger the confrontation with the Russians that would likely result from such a move. The newer members of NATO, those who formally belonged to the Warsaw Pact, tend to want aggressive movement to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. They want to see NATO assert itself, in order to be assured that the alliance will do that.
The problem is not that NATO is incapable of moving rapidly to include Ukraine and Georgia; it is a matter of what it means to be part of NATO. NATO was originally an anti-Soviet military alliance. It consisted of well-armed and well-trained armies — British, West German, Dutch and others — all backed by massive U.S. power and nuclear weapons. An attack on Europe would have meant an attack on NATO, and the Soviets never tried that. Had they done so, they would have faced a very dangerous military situation. The risks were much higher than the gains.
Most of today’s NATO members have minimal military forces that are poorly armed and trained. As important, the geography has shifted. From a compact western European alliance, NATO has become a sprawling entity, ranging from an exposed and barely defended flank in the Baltics to — if they were included — totally undefended Ukraine and Georgia. The forces necessary to defend those two countries would take years and hundreds of billions of dollars to recruit, arm and train. NATO was once able to defend Europe in the event of war. At this point, and for a very long time, the best NATO could do is to make a gesture of defense, particularly in the case of the vast Ukraine.
It is very doubtful that Western Europe has the will to develop a force capable of defending Georgia and Ukraine. Eastern Europe might have the will but not the resources, from manpower to technology. Thus, membership in NATO for Ukraine and Georgia would be a gesture without content. We are reminded of French and British guarantees to Poland in 1939. The French and British knew they could not protect Poland. The Germans knew it. Even the Poles knew it. The hope was that Germany, fearing a war with Britain and France, would not risk attacking Poland. But the Germans knew they could defeat Poland and, more to the point, were pretty confident that the British and French were all talk, and that a declaration of war wouldn’t mean all that much.
The NATO principle is that an attack on one would be an attack on all. The assumption is that the Russians wouldn’t risk a general war in Europe to threaten Georgia or the Ukraine. Alternatively, however, the Russians might view the threat of a general war as minimal, since the rest of Europe would not attack Russia from the West to defend Georgia. In other words, the Russians’ hesitation to attack Georgia would depend on their estimate of the likelihood of an attack on Russia by the Germans and Poles in response.
It is a risk Moscow might take. First, the Russians know the German and Polish military capacity — and the limits of available American power. Second, the failure to defend a member would destroy NATO’s credibility and shred the alliance. Most of the foreign ministers meeting on Tuesday are fully aware that extending NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia not only would be merely a gesture, but also could set up a greater calamity for the alliance. The United States knows this as well, but is making the most aggressive gestures it can, knowing that NATO works by consensus and that a single dissent can block the move. Washington is sure that dissent will come from somewhere. In the meantime, it is making the most bellicose gestures possible, short of actually doing something.
http://www.stratfor.com/
===================================================
Russia rejects UN Georgia draft
Russia has rejected a draft UN Security Council resolution on Georgia, saying it contradicted the terms of last week's ceasefire deal.
Russia paraded captive Georgians on armoured vehicles
The draft text called on Russia to pull back its forces to the positions held before the current conflict.
But Russia says the truce allows its troops to stay in a buffer zone on the Georgia side of South Ossetia's border.
Moscow says it is withdrawing its forces from Georgia. An official in the port of Poti said Russians had left.
Russian forces seized the port on Tuesday. But Adam Middleton, the port director, told the BBC Russian troops blew up a naval vessel and took military equipment before withdrawing on Wednesday.
'Spying' arrest
The conflict broke out on 7 August when Georgia launched an assault to wrest back control of the Moscow-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia, triggering a counter-offensive by Russian troops who advanced beyond South Ossetia into Georgia's heartland.
Georgia says its action was in response to continuous provocation.
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is visiting the region, is to visit a camp for displaced people in Georgia on Wednesday. Tens of thousand of people have been made homeless by the recent conflict.
PEACE PLAN
No more use of force
Stop all military actions for good
Free access to humanitarian aid
Georgian troops return to their places of permanent deployment
Russian troops to return to pre-conflict positions
International talks about security in South Ossetia and Abkhazia
On Tuesday, Mr Miliband held talks with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, to update him on Nato's reaction at an emergency meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels which demanded that Russia pull its troops out of Georgia.
The foreign secretary criticised Russia's failure to keep to a promise to withdraw troops from Georgia.
Meanwhile, Russia's main security service, the FSB, says a Russian officer has been detained accused of spying for Georgia.
An ethnic Georgian, Mikhail Khachidze was arrested in the southern Russian region of Stavropol near Georgia, an FSB spokesman said.
"[He] was involved in collecting secret information on Russian armed forces, its combat readiness as well as data on other servicemen," he said.
Russian veto
At the UN, Russia's ambassador said the French-drafted UN resolution went against the terms of the ceasefire brokered by France's President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Vitaly Churkin said the resolution should incorporate all elements of the six-point peace plan agreed last week.
He also objected to language in the draft reaffirming Georgia's territorial integrity, saying South Ossetia and Abkhazia did not want to be part of Georgia.
Russia can veto UN resolutions and the ambassador told the BBC that putting the text to a vote would be pointless.
He said: "It's a waste of time because the process of the withdrawal of Russian forces will continue."
HAVE YOUR SAY As an American, I find Bush's and Rice's comments regarding the attacks on a sovereign nation in the 21st Century just too embarrassing to bear B Coyle, Maryland
Following a rebuke from Nato's 26 foreign ministers in Brussels, Moscow accused Nato of bias in favour of the "criminal regime" in Tbilisi.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Russia risked becoming the "outlaw" of the conflict, in an interview with CBS news on the sidelines of the Nato emergency meeting.
Russia says President Dmitry Medvedev told President Sarkozy that by Friday, Russian troops would either be sent home, be pulled back to South Ossetia or to a buffer zone along the border.
Russia said it had begun a pullback on Tuesday as it withdrew 11 military vehicles from the Georgian town of Gori.
A Russian officer told reporters invited to watch that the column was heading for South Ossetia and then home to Russia, but Georgia dismissed it all as a show.
BBC correspondents there say there are still several artillery positions and checkpoints in Gori.
In an apparent goodwill gesture on Tuesday, the two sides exchanged prisoners at a checkpoint near Tbilisi, but on the same day Russia paraded captive Georgians on armoured vehicles.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7571506.stm
====================================================
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-georgia22-2008aug22,0,3923121.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Russian pomp and dominance
Moscow presents a patriotic concert in South Ossetia as it continues to assert authority in Georgia.By Michael Robinson Chavez and Borzou DaragahiLos Angeles Times Staff WritersAugust 22, 2008TSKHINVALI, GEORGIA — Russian flags waved and Russian music was performed at a patriotic concert Thursday in this war-torn city, the capital of Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia, as Moscow and its loyalists tightened their grip on territory that was the focus of clashes this month.In front of a badly damaged government building, a Russian orchestra performed pieces by Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich as 1,000 or so residents held up candles and the flags of Russia and South Ossetia, the catalyst in this month's conflict between Russia and Georgia."We are here today to express our admiration for you, to tell the whole world that we want it to know the truth about the horrible events in Tskhinvali," Valery Gergiev, an ethnic Ossetian Russian and well-known conductor who led the orchestra, told those gathered. The concert was among the latest measures by Moscow to assert authority over territory that is technically part of Georgia, a small, staunchly pro-American Caucasus Mountains state that enraged Russia by pushing to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and attacking Russian positions in South Ossetia.Moscow's punishment of Georgia extends beyond South Ossetia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday that a contingent of 500 troops would remain at eight posts in Georgia proper, well outside South Ossetia, a pro-Moscow enclave that has been at odds with the central government in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital.If implemented, the plan would indefinitely place Russian soldiers where they could move against Georgian forces at a moment's notice. It would mean Russian troops would be deployed along Georgia's main east-west road, just outside the key transportation hub of Gori, near the country's railway line and the crucial U.S.-backed pipeline pumping Caspian Sea crude oil to tankers off the Turkish coast.At a contentious meeting Thursday of the United Nations Security Council, Western envoys pressed Russia to clarify the role of the soldiers it intends to keep on Georgian soil."We have a presence of so-called Russian peacekeepers in key Georgian choke points that will control economic life, that will control humanitarian activities," Alejandro Wolff, the deputy U.S. representative to the U.N., said after the closed session. "It raises the question whether this is an effort to strangle the Georgian state."The council is debating a Russian draft resolution that would endorse a cease-fire deal permitting a continued Russian military presence in a vaguely defined security zone in and around South Ossetia. Western diplomats are insisting that Russia accept limits on its troops and recognize the region as part of Georgia.Russian peacekeepers have long been stationed inside South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another enclave that seeks independence from Georgia and has been largely autonomous since the early 1990s. Both Georgian and Russian troops held sway over their checkerboard of ethnic areas.But since the current conflict broke out Aug. 7, Russian troops and allied militias have taken over all parts of South Ossetia, including the mostly ethnic Georgian areas.Russian troops and South Ossetian militiamen now guard the entrance to the town of Akhalgori, formally a part of South Ossetia but controlled by Georgia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ethnic Georgian families could be seen fleeing the area in rickety Lada automobiles. The patriarch of one family said they had not been threatened or forced to leave but felt compelled to anyway, because the town was under the control of the South Ossetian militia."We're making a peaceful protest to ask the Russians to leave," said Lamara Gulashvili, a high school teacher attending a rally Thursday outside the Akhalgori checkpoint.Demonstrators waved red-and-white Georgian flags, but Georgian police refused to allow them to approach, saying they were under orders not to allow a confrontation.Russians offered different and confusing predictions on when their forces would leave the parts of Georgia that are neither in dispute nor inside their claimed security zone, including Gori, in the center, and the port city of Poti, where Russians have set up a checkpoint leading to Georgia's main Black Sea access point.Russian army Gen. Vladimir Boldyrev, commander of ground forces, said it would take 10 days for soldiers "not involved in peacekeeping operations" to return to Russia. Meanwhile, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said Russian troops were to begin moving by 6 a.m. today and finish by the end of the day, according to the Interfax news agency.Lavrov, who spoke in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi, said that Russia's withdrawal began several days ago but that Western nations "seem to be reluctant to notice it."His assertion contradicted the accounts of most Georgian and independent observers. At a recently established Russian outpost near the town of Igoeti, about 25 miles west of Tbilisi, a Russian truck filled with military cots pulled up and soldiers started unloading equipment."Here in the city we have not seen signs of Russians leaving," Alexander Lomaia, Georgia's national security advisor, said in a phone conversation from Gori on Thursday. "They promised to pull out by the end of tomorrow."Russians have ruled out a return of the breakaway regions to Georgian control. "We have deserved to live in an independent republic," Eduard Kokoity, the pro-Moscow leader of South Ossetia, said at a rally, according to Interfax.michael.robinson-chavez @latimes.comdaragahi@latimes.comTimes staff writer Robinson Chavez reported from Tskhinvali and Daragahi from Akhalgori and Tbilisi. Staff writer Sergei L. Loiko in Moscow contributed to this report.=========================================================
Plenty of Pipeline Options. All Bad
Commentators have been quick to point out that Russia's defeat of Georgia has pretty much killed the chances that new oil and gas pipelines will be built to increase the security of supplies to Europe. It's clear that there is little to stop Russia from rolling its forces up to the existing pipeline or knocking it out of commission if it wanted to. The Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein even suggested that demonstrating the pipeline's vulnerability may have been one of the underlying motives for the Russian incursion.
The United States has been promoting the idea of pipeline routes skirting Russia as a way to promote European energy security, but the chances of making that work have always been slim. The reason: The United States has been simultaneously trying to keep Iran, the world's other major holder of natural gas reserves, out of world markets and out of alternate pipeline networks. Without the Iran card, it's very difficult to win a pipeline game against Russia.
The U.S. has long been pushing for oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Basin that would bypass Russia, especially via Georgia. The current Georgia pipeline began in the late 1990s as a project to carry the estimated 35 billion barrels of oil, and natural gas, from the Caspian Sea area to European markets. One current line, the Baku-Tblisis-Cyhan line, runs through Georgia and then on to Turkey's Mediterranean coast for shipment. Another oil line ends up at the Georgian port of Supsa, which the Russian navy blockaded. A proposed natural gas line, called Nabucco, would go through Georgia to Austria, reducing Europe's heavy dependence on Russian natural gas pipelines.
Was it ever possible for a non-Russian natural gas pipeline route from the Caspian basin to supply enough gas to free Europe from Russia's grip? Not likely given Europe's large needs. Moreover, Iran has perhaps the biggest natural gas reserves outside Russia, and the United States has been simultaneously trying to block any expansion of Iranian natural gas exports. It's hard to think realistically about supplying enough natural gas to the world without either of the countries with the biggest reserves.
One European oil company executive told me today that the Nabucco line, named after a Verdi opera, was simply "not a doable project because there is not enough gas to justify the investment" -- at least without Iranian gas coming into it. "The only thing that can make it viable is by using Iranian gas," he continued. Otherwise, he said, it is "pie in the sky." American policy makers, he said, "want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep Europe from using Russian gas and they want to keep Iran in a corner too."
Finally, if the United States is trying to marginalize Russia and Iran, that means a big role not only for the Caspian line but also for the capital-intensive liquefied natural gas projects in Qatar. Will Europe feel more secure by building a new natural gas dependency on the Persian Gulf?
Suddenly the pipelines that run through Georgia seem like just another facet of global energy insecurity rather than enhanced security. Oil and gas experts are fond of saying that energy security lies in diversity.But especially when it comes to natural gas, achieving enough diversity of supply to feel secure may be impossible.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/energywire/2008/08/plenty_of_pipeline_options_all.html
====================================================
Merkel's visit to Sweden and Baltic countries to focus on Georgian conflict: official
Berlin, Aug 22, IRNA Germany-Baltic-Sweden German Chancellor Angela Merkel will visit Sweden, Estonia and Lithuania next week for political talks on the Georgian conflict, an official said here Friday.
Speaking at a regular weekly press briefing, deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg said the Caucasus crisis will be on top of Merkel's agenda during her three-nation trip on Monday and Tuesday.
Sweden, Estonia and Lithuania have adopted a very critical stance against Russia in the Georgian conflict.
Stockholm broke off all military ties with Moscow on Monday, while the presidents of Estonia and Lithuania embarked on a visit to the Georgian capital Tbilisi earlier this month in a demonstrative show of support for the embattled Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.
Meanwhile, Steg denied reports of a growing rift within the European Union on the issue of Georgia, while voicing optimism that a unified stance within the European body could be reached soon.
Western and Eastern EU countries are deeply split over how to deal with Russian military actions inside Georgia.
Steg reiterated again Russia had to swiftly withdraw from Georgian core "territories during the day." He made clear that a lasting peace agreement could only be achieved on the basis of preserving Georgia's "territorial integrity and sovereignty." OT**1771
http://www2.irna.ir/index2.php?option=com_news&task=print&code=0808226510163915&Itemid=234&lang=en
=====================================================
Liive: Latvia’s electricity market is the most effective in Baltics
Juhan Tere, BC, Tallinn, 22.08.2008.
When characterising the situation on the Baltic States’ energy market, the CEO of Eesti Energia Sandor Liive noted that today the most effective electricity market is in Latvia, writes Äripäev.ee.
Sandor Liive.
Formally Lithuania’s market is also open, but it is not effective. Estonia has temporarily opted for a closed market, but this situation will not last.
Liive stated that in the future perspective, the best option for the Baltic States’ electricity market is full integration with the Nordic market.
“Experts estimate that Finland’s Nordpool is one of the best market systems world-wide,” said Liive, adding that today there is no such transparent market system in the Baltic States.
He noted that the most optimal choice would be to define the Baltic Sea region as one single energy security area, to create optimum links, harmonise regulations and create a fully integrated market. Liive stated that as the market opens up, the price surge cannot be avoided.
Unfortunately, he noted, current developments are rather moving in the opposite direction, with each Baltic State attempting to solve their own problems. As they are preparing for the Ignalina nuclear power plant closing down on January 1, 2010, Latvia and Lithuania are building new gas-fuelled plants which will increase dependence on Russian gas.
http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=4392&ins_print
=============================================================
The West launches Baltic defense plans
Aug 22, 2008In cooperation with BNS
RIGA- Western partners have launched preparation of the Baltic defense plan. The plan is not however a response to Russia's military aggression in Georgia.
Latvian Defense Minister Vinets Veldre confirmed in an interview with Latvian daily Diena that such a plan has been launched before the events in Georgia.
The minister declined to reveal whether this plan is being prepared together with NATO or any alliance's members, saying that it is a state secret.
The NATO press service reported that there had been no such discussions.
Defense Ministry's spokesman Edgars Rinkevics underscored that NATO at present has no such plans as during the cold war, therefore the new member states have been left without any defense plans.
He declined to name any principles which should be included in the new defense plans.
"Conclusions have been drawn in spring when we received information about large-scale military exercise in Northern Caucasus," said the minister.
Meanwhile, Rinkevics said that Latviahas to seriously consider possibilities of cyber-attacks.
Former Latvian ambassador to the UN Aivis Ronis noted that closer Baltic cooperation in air-defense and closer military cooperation with Nordic countries should be promoted. http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/21177/
=================================================
US presidential hopefuls support Baltic stance
Aug 22, 2008In cooperation with BNS
VILNIUS- Republican candidate for US president, John McCain, has expressed support the Lithuanian position with respect to Georgia.
In a telephone conversation with Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus, the US senator stressed the importance of the actions taken by the Baltic and Polish leaders to halt Russian aggression in Georgia, the presidential press service reported.
Adamkus, in his turn, underlined the significance of the US position and the principled opinion of McCain in the situation. In Adamkus' words, there are attempts to split the stance of Western democracies on the Georgian matter, and it is therefore vital to retain the solidarity and efficient activities of the trans-Atlantic community.
"We need a unified, active and principled NATO - the key organization of trans-Atlantic security in Europe," said the president.
The Lithuanian president stressed that a stop to the Russian aggression and withdrawal of armed forces should be among the key goals of the international community, as well as retention of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia.
In his opinion, as many as possible international observers should be delegated to the war-torn country without delay.
Last Saturday, Adamkus received a telephone call from another US presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
The Democratic candidate welcomed the Lithuanian role in the solution to the armed conflict in South Caucasus and expressed support to the stern position of Lithuania.
Obama also called the actions of Russia as unacceptable.
Visit our interactive website and new featured listings....at http://www.ocrelocate.com/ Ocean to Mountains Real Estate for all Orange County Tony & Danute Mazeika...... 949 721-3445 pager.... 949 929-9051 cell
Celebrating 21 years and more than 500 successful real estate transactions... Don't miss incredible market opportunities....... Prices are at Year 2002 level... May home sales up significantly ...Positive signs of market recovery are here. Inventory is decreasing. You may qualify for a credit on closing costs and savings on escrow fees...Ask us how...... Don't delay..call us today! 949 721-3445 ================================================================ Please support this unique blog.....Buy your ....Books, Dvds, and CDs on our special link access to Amazon.Com ===================================================================== Breaking news & commentary ....click on active links for multiple photos
=========================================================
August 21, 2008
Despite Yielding Ground, Russia Takes Critical Spots
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
TBILISI, Georgia — Despite a pledge by the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, to withdraw his forces to the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Friday, Russian troops on Wednesday showed no signs of relaxing their grip on critical Georgian roads and ports.
Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, said Russia was thinning out its presence in some of the towns it occupies but seizing other strategic spots.
“What we’re seeing now is a clear regrouping and also, again, some kind of deception campaign, saying, ‘Look, we’re moving out,’ ” Mr. Saakashvili told The Associated Press.
In a busy diplomatic day, the United States and Poland signed a formal agreement to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, eliciting an angry Russian response that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said “borders on the bizarre.”
“Missile defense, of course, is aimed at no one,” said Ms. Rice, who signed the agreement in Warsaw with her Polish counterpart, Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. “It is in our defense that we do this.”
In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry issued a cryptic and vaguely threatening statement saying of the missile plan, “Russia in this case will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic moves.” Later, the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow received a telephone call from a “well placed” official in the Russian Ministry of Defense who said that the Kremlin planned “to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and allied countries,” Espen Barth Eide, state secretary with the Norwegian Defense Ministry, told The A.P.
At the United Nations, Russia submitted a Security Council draft resolution to compete with one circulated on Tuesday by the French. The Russian version includes a clause calling for Russian peacekeeping forces to “take additional security measures” pending “the establishment of international mechanisms.”
That clause, which had been part of a cease-fire agreed to last week, had been dropped from the French resolution on Tuesday.
In the Georgian village of Shindisi on Wednesday, three journalists from The New York Times were present when a researcher from Human Rights Watch found two unexploded cluster munitions on the ground. The question of whether in the conflict Russia used cluster munitions, which are weapons that release hundreds of bomblets when they explode, has been a source of intense dispute. Russia has vehemently denied using them and called allegations that it used those munitions “lies” that were prepared before the war. But there have been many indications that cluster munitions were in fact used.
Reporters and photographers for The Times have found debris from SS-21 and BM-21 rockets, both of which can carry cluster munitions, on the ground in areas attacked by Russia, including the port of Poti, the village of Variani and the city of Gori.
Witnesses have described the bomblets detonating around them, and three impact craters in Stalin Square in Gori appear to have been made by the cluster bombs that detonated simultaneously early in the war, killing several civilians and a Dutch journalist.
Zaur Tatrishvili, a farmer in Shindisi, said the bombs had fallen in his garden shortly after Russian forces entered Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia. The weapons were apparently directed at retreating Georgian tanks, which had moved through the woods near his fields. Human Rights Watch said it had counted one person who was killed during the initial attack and two who died while picking up unexploded bombs later.
In a speech on Wednesday, President Bush declared that Georgia’s “young democracy” had “come under siege” by Russia, and he connected the conflict in the Caucasus with the battle against terrorists and the United States’ efforts to aid the rise of free societies.
“The United States of America will continue to support Georgia’s democracy,” Mr. Bush told about 4,000 people in Orlando, Fla., attending the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary.
Mr. Bush said the disputed border regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia “are part of Georgia, and the United States will work with our allies to ensure Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity.”
While the Bush administration has repeatedly condemned the Russian military action as a “disproportionate” response to the Georgian attack and called for a speedy withdrawal, Mr. Bush’s language on Wednesday was an effort to position the conflict within a broader ideological call to arms.
Invoking his catchphrase that liberty is “on the march,” Mr. Bush placed the 2003 so-called Rose Revolution in Georgia, which brought a reformist government to power in the former Soviet republic, within the context of pro-democracy protests in Lebanon as well as the American-led military actions that ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
All these events over the past seven years, Mr. Bush said, have been part of “the great ideological struggle of our time, between forces of freedom and forces of tyranny.” And, noting that Georgia had since sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq “to help others realize the blessings of liberty,” Mr. Bush said that others must now come to Georgia’s aid.
“Georgia has stood for freedom around the world, and now the world must stand for freedom in Georgia,” he said.
Nicholas Kulish contributed reporting from Warsaw, C. J. Chivers from Shindisi, Georgia, and Charlie Savage from Orlando, Fla.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/world/europe/21georgia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
==================================================
Investors pulling out of Russia
Russia has seen foreign reserves decline, a sign that the market is more nervous about investing in the region since the recent conflict in Georgia.
Central Bank figures show reserves were sharply down in the week ending 15 August, marking a fall of $16.4bn (£8.8bn) from $597.5bn a week earlier.
Tensions with the west have also been strained by Russia's objection to the US placing a missile defence in Poland.
Georgia has urged the west to invest in the region as it seeks to rebuild.
According to the Financial Times, the latest drop in capital reserves is the largest "since comparable figures began" in 1998, though similar funds were taken out during the currency crisis.
Reconstruction
Finance ministers from the group of seven richest nations have said they are "ready to support" Georgia's economic reconstruction in the wake of conflict with Russia.
The US Treasury issued a statement on the G7 countries' behalf saying they would be ready to help Georgia "to maintain confidence in Georgia's financial system and support economic reconstruction."
He also called on Georgian authorities, the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Asian Development Bank, European Investment Bank, and European Commission to "identify and support reconstruction needs and the restoration of services that will build a base for future economic growth".
Officials from the World Bank are visiting Georgia on Friday to assess the extent of damage to its economy and how the process of reconstruction can begin.
The development body has pledged to help Georgia access funding to rebuild crucial infrastructure, such as roads and railway lines.
It has also promised to assist people displaced by the fighting in South Ossetia and in Georgia itself.
The US and Poland signed a deal earlier this week to locate part of the US missile defence system on Polish soil, but Russia has warned the base could become a target for a nuclear strike.
Such geopolitical concerns have been a factor pushing up oil prices, amid fears that supplies might be hampered.
"Investors are realising that the bear has put its paw on the pipeline, and geopolitical risk is likely to remain a theme for the next month or so," said Justin Urquhart Stewart, investment director at Seven Investment Management.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7576333.stm
============================================================
Geopolitical Diary: The Implications of a Russo-Syrian Partnership
Stratfor Today »-->August 21, 2008
Syrian President Bashar al Assad arrived in Moscow on Wednesday for a two-day visit during which he will meet with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Al Assad’s invitation to Moscow was announced shortly after Russia began its military offensive against Georgia. The timing was no coincidence, and Damascus fully intends to ride Russia’s wave of resurgence into regional prominence.
Russia and Syria had a close defense relationship during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union maintained a naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea off the Syrian coast and facilities at Syrian ports. In those days, Syria used its relationship with Russia to protect itself from the threat of Israel. But that patronage dried up even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Syrian defense structures — its air defense network, for example — began falling into disrepair.
Syria’s relationship to Russia under former President Vladimir Putin was not nearly as accommodating as it was during the Cold War, and the Syrians have spent a great deal of energy chasing armament deals with Russia, with no luck. For years — but especially after the September 2007 Israeli air raid that essentially sidestepped the entire Syrian air defense network — Damascus has grown more desperate for a comprehensive upgrade to its air defense network. But talks with Russia have failed to gain traction, and the Syrians have grown weary of being strung along. With Russia’s assertion of power in the Caucasus, however, Syria sees a chance to break out of its diplomatic isolation.
Given U.S. sensitivity to developments in the Middle East, Syria is well positioned to give Russia ways to meddle in Washington’s affairs. The threat of increased Russian weapons sales to Iran and Syria, coupled with Wednesday’s hints of a Russian carrier returning to the Mediterranean, are all useful tactics in sending Washington a very clear message: Russia is a great power capable of influencing matters well beyond its own borders.
For Damascus, Russia’s resurgence is a great opportunity to strengthen its security relationship with Moscow. Primarily, by reviving its ties with Russia, Syria could compel Israel, the United States and Turkey to accelerate efforts to pull Damascus out of the diplomatic cold. This would give Syria the political recognition and influence that it has long craved; more importantly, Syria would gain physical security.
Thus far, there have been no concrete reports of any major deals struck during al Assad’s trip to Moscow. However, Newsru.com, a subsidiary of Russia’s NTV news group, reported that al Assad has said he is ready to host a Russian base off the Syrian coast again. Though the establishment of such a base of operations so far beyond Russia’s periphery would certainly be dramatic, there are limits to how far Russia can go in the Middle East. Tactically speaking, a Russian fleet based in the Mediterranean would essentially be surrounded by NATO allies, and hemmed in by Turkish territory. The sheer superiority of U.S., Turkish, NATO and Israeli naval assets in the region puts any small deployment at a severe disadvantage.
Furthermore, any extension of Russian influence in the Middle East must balance the needs of several actors — all of whom are in delicate negotiations with one another. For instance, the Russians and the Israelis have their own ongoing negotiations in which Israel has reportedly appealed to Moscow to continue restricting weapons sales to Syria and Iran in exchange for Israel’s restraint in providing military assistance to Georgia. This is a significant barrier to a real Damascus-Moscow security deal, as Russia is heavily invested in maintaining control in Georgia.
But Syria’s hopes for a real alignment with Russia are only part of the cascade of reactions as nations internalize Russia’s renewed assertiveness. First and foremost, of course, are the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran over the future of Iraq. Iran is currently calculating its options; obviously, it must carefully balance its relations with Russia and its talks with the United States. And Iran would like to expand its arms deals with Russia dramatically, but fears Russia’s resurgence in the Caucasus. Turkey is also in play. As a NATO member and neighbor of Georgia, Turkey finds itself right in the middle of the U.S.-Russian rivalry and must seek a balance.
More than anything else, Syria’s ability to exploit the Russian comeback in the Caucasus will depend on just how drastically Russia plans to upset U.S. foreign policy at this stage in the game. Syria certainly has assets to offer Moscow, but Russia will be considering much more than just Syria as it moves forward from this point.
http://www.stratfor.com/
===========================================================
What Russia wants in Georgia
Nearly two weeks ago, Russian forces crossed into Georgia, a staunch American ally in the Caucasus. While fighting has largely stopped, Russian forces remain on Georgian soil despite Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s promises the troops would withdraw.
Heritage Foundation expert Ariel Cohen explains that Russia has five goals in its campaign against Georgia.
Expulsion of Georgian troops and termination of Georgian sovereignty in South Ossetia and Abkhazia;
“Regime change” by bringing down President Mikheil Saakashvili and installing a more pro-Russian leadership in Tbilisi;
Preventing Georgia from joining NATO and sending a strong message to Ukraine that its insistence on NATO membership may lead to war and/or its dismemberment;
Shifting control of the Caucasus, and especially over strategic energy pipelines, by controlling Georgia; and
Recreating a 19th-century-style sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union, by the use of force if necessary.
This campaign could serve as a prelude to subsequent actions elsewhere in Eastern Europe, Cohen warns. In particular, Russia could turn its sights on Ukraine, which controls the strategic Crimean peninsula and has a substantial ethnic Russian minority.
Russia’s latest adventurism demonstrates that it wants to reestablish itself as a great power, Heritage’s Peter Brookes argues in his New York Post column. “Today’s Kremlin is cocky, nationalistic, rich and bent on asserting Russia as a great power with distinct interests - not only in its neighborhood or ‘near abroad’ - but across the globe.”
At the bottom of his article, Brookes provides a useful summary of Russia’s interests, alliances and recent troublemaking.
Cohen urges the United States and its allies to continue their opposition to the Russian incursion. They “need to send a strong signal to Moscow that creating 19th-century-style spheres of influence and redrawing the borders of the former Soviet Union is a danger to world peace.”
http://www.myheritage.org/Features/EmailArchive/2008/081908.asp
==================================================================
Russia threatens to suspend NATO cooperation
Moscow believes the US-Poland deal for a missile defense system makes it more vulnerable to a nuclear attack.
By Liam Stack
from the August 22, 2008 edition
The United States and Poland signed a deal in Warsaw on Wednesday to place 10 interceptor missiles on Polish territory as part of a wide-ranging missile defense system. The deal has angered Moscow, which believes that the missile-defense system increases its vulnerability to nuclear attack. In retaliation, Russia has threatened to withdraw its participation in joint military activities with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
American and Polish officials say the agreement, combined with a similar one signed with the Czech Republic last month, will protect against the threat of attack by rogue states such as Iran. Domestic critics of the deal say it is unworkable or too expensive, but Russia has emerged as the missile system's fiercest opponent.
Moscow has reacted angrily to the deal amid fears that the missile shield could one day grow powerful enough to neutralize its own weapons, making it more vulnerable to a nuclear attack, reports the Los Angeles Times.
After the deal was signed in Warsaw, Russian officials aired their concerns once more, emphasizing that the West's fears of Iran were unfounded, reports the BBC.
The Russian foreign ministry said the planned missile shield was aimed at weakening Moscow, describing it as part of "US efforts to change the strategic balance of power in its favour."
It said the shield was "one of the instruments in an extremely dangerous bundle of US military projects involving the one-sided development of a global anti-missile system."
The statement also dismissed US claims of a missile threat from Iran as "imaginary."
In response to the deal, Russia has threatened to target Poland with nuclear weapons. Speaking to Reuters in Warsaw, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denounced Russia's remarks about military action against Poland as "pathetic rhetoric," saying they "border on the bizarre."
"I hope that there are not people in Russia who are hankering for the days of U.S.-Soviet confrontation because they are over," Rice told journalists in Warsaw after signing an agreement to base 10 U.S. interceptor rockets in Poland. "The Cold War is over."
The night before the deal was signed, the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow received a tip from a "a well-placed official in the Russian Ministry of Defense" who wishes to remain anonymous, adds the Associated Press. The official said that Russia would imminently announce plans to suspend military cooperation with the NATO alliance. Word of the tip spread fast, taking Western governments by surprise and evoking images of the cloak-and-dagger days of cold war intrigue.
The Nordic country's embassy in Moscow received a telephone call from "a well-placed official in the Russian Ministry of Defense," who said Moscow plans "to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and allied countries," Espen Barth Eide, state secretary with the Norwegian ministry said.
Mr. Eide told The Associated Press that the Russian official notified Norway it will receive a written note about this soon. He said Norwegian diplomats in Moscow would meet Russian officials on Thursday morning to clarify the implications of the freeze.
"It is our understanding that other NATO countries will receive similar notes," Eide said. The ministry said the Russian official is known to the embassy, but Norway declined to provide a name or any further identifying information.
Russia began military cooperation with NATO in 2002 and its activities have mostly focused on joint efforts to patrol the Mediterranean for terrorists, combat heroin trafficking, and develop battlefield antimissile technology.
US and NATO officials say they were unaware of Russia's plan to suspend military cooperation. Reuters reports that the Russian ambassador to NATO has played down the move, saying it is "of temporary character, of regional character, not global character."
Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin said curtailing contacts was "in nobody's interest". "Temporary decisions are being taken on current cooperation and not about cooperation in general," he told Reuters in English.
Asked which areas these involved, he said: "Military naval exercises in the far east, the Mediterranean, in the Baltic."
In Washington, State Department spokesman Robert Wood described the move as "unfortunate," saying, "We need to work with Russia on a range of security issues, but we are obviously very concerned about Russian behavior in Georgia," reports the Associated Press.
Find this article at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0821/p99s01-duts.html
===============================================
Germany: Merkel's Choice and the Future of Europe
Stratfor Today » August 20, 2008 2216 GMT
VLADIMIR RODIONOV/AFP/Getty Images
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (R) and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev
Summary
As countries the world over begin reassessing their relationships with a resurging Russia and a bogged-down United States, Germany in particular has some tough choices to make. While Germany has a place in the European Union and NATO, Stratfor sources have said that Russia has offered Germany a security agreement — and German Chancellor Angela Merkel knows how vulnerable her country is to Russia.
Analysis
As countries around the world rethink their positions and ties with the resurgent Russia and the bogged-down United States, one of the countries with the largest dilemma is Germany. Unlike many former Warsaw Pact or Soviet states that were forced to adjust dramatically and quickly to a Russia on the move, Germany’s geographic location, ties to Moscow and history as a leader and divider of Europe make it the next state to have to make a tough decision. Berlin will have to decide whether it wants to continue acting like an occupied state and relying on the NATO-Washington security guarantee, or act on its own and make its own security pacts with Moscow. In the past, Germany and Russia traditionally have cooperated when they were not at war with each other — something that makes geopolitical sense but terrifies the rest of Europe.
The world changed Aug. 8 as Russia proved its strength when it launched a military campaign in Georgia and the West did not come to Tbilisi’s aid. Moscow’s muscle-flexing in its former Soviet state forced many countries to reassess their positions immediately by either solidifying their ties to Russia — like Armenia and Belarus — or turning to Washington to guarantee its security — like Poland. Naturally, former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries were the first ones to react; not only are they closer to Russia, they also have the most to gain or lose in the short term.
But during the Cold War, one country — Germany — was divided between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This put it in a very different position from most of Europe. During that time, a defeated Germany not only was split and occupied, but also was not allowed to field a meaningful independent foreign or military policy. Instead, all of its energies were harnessed into the European Union and NATO. During the decade following its reunification, Germany has slowly crawled its way back to being a normal state allowed to have an opinion.
Related Special Topic Pages
Russian Energy and Foreign Policy
The Russian Resurgence
Today’s Germany closely resembles pre-World War II Germany; it is economically and politically strong, unified and unoccupied, which means it can actually decide whether to align with Russia or the West instead of having the choice made for it, as it was in 1949. Moreover, the awakening Germany is one of three major powers left in Europe today (the other two being France and the United Kingdom), and it has been looking to reprise its role as Europe’s natural leader. It makes sense for Berlin to claim this title by dint of population, location and economic heft.
Of the major European powers, Germany is the one with the difficult decision to make between Russia and NATO. It is a member of the latter, and it makes sense to stick to its current alliances. But Germany never really made the decision to join NATO. Only half of Germany was part of the alliance during the Cold War (as decreed by the United States); after German reunification, East Germany joined NATO when Russia was weak and chaotic. Germany had no choice but to continue its Western alliances after the Cold War.
But with Russia regaining strength, Germany stands on the front lines of whatever Moscow has planned. Germany is vulnerable to Russia on many fronts. It has a very deep memory of what it feels like to have the Russians easily march across the northern European plain to German territory, which led to the Soviet occupation of half the country for four decades. Germany and Russia are also currently each other’s largest trading partners, and Russia provides more than 60 percent of Germany’s natural gas.
So Berlin is now reassessing its allegiances to Washington and NATO, which would keep the country locked into the policies it made as an occupied state. Or Germany could act like its own state and create its own security guarantee with Russia — something that would rip NATO apart. Berlin does not have to make a decision right now, but it does need to start mulling its options and the consequences.
Rumors are floating around Moscow that a discussion between the Kremlin and Berlin on such a topic is occurring — not that a deadline has been presented, just that a dialogue on the issue is under way. Of course, such a discussion would be tightly guarded until Berlin actually made a decision. On Aug. 15, as the war between Georgia and Russia wound down, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Sochi, but the meeting was highly tense (as shown during their press conference).
Germany acted peculiar during the entire Georgian-Russian conflict. When the war began, Berlin issued a fluff statement on “needing to find a solution” between the two states; however, as the war escalated, Merkel fell silent on the issue. Many within the German government released statements in favor of either Russia or Georgia, but it is Merkel who calls the shots in the country — and she was waiting for her meeting with Medvedev before speaking. Merkel is an interesting leader to have in Germany at this stage because she is the first German chancellor born in East Germany. This leads her to be more critical and firm against the Russians, but nonetheless she understands how vulnerable her country is right now. Germany may be an economic powerhouse, but it is still militarily weak, so its security is in the forefront of its mind.
Stratfor sources in Moscow have said that Medvedev has offered Merkel a security pact for their two countries. This offer is completely unconfirmed, and the details are unknown. However, it would make sense for Russia to propose such a pact since Moscow knows that, of all the European countries, Germany is the one to pursue — not only because of the country’s vulnerabilities and strong economic ties with Russia but because the two have a history of cozying up to each other.
While such an alliance might sound like a stretch in today’s U.S.-dominated world, there are two things to consider. First, like Russia, Germany is wary of Washington’s strengthening presence in Europe. The United States already has the United Kingdom as its closest ally, France has returned to the NATO fold, and Washington is gaining the allegiance of many Central European states — all of which undercuts Germany’s dominance on the continent. This is not to say that Germany is ready to ditch NATO just yet, especially since Berlin has no military heft. However, Berlin must at least be considering how to balance the U.S. presence in Europe.
Second, most of the world thought it impossible for Germany and Russia to ally in the 1930s, but the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the treaty of nonaggression between Germany and the Soviet Union) confirmed the two countries’ tradition of turning to each other when both are not at war or occupied. This was not the first Russo-German treaty, but actually the third, after the League of the Three Emperors in 1872 and the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.
These two considerations together should cause concern in most of Europe. Since Germany and Russia are the two big powers on the block and want to keep any other power (like the United States) from their region, it would make sense for Berlin and Moscow to want to forge an agreement to divide up the neighborhood — such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which had secret protocol dividing the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania into either the Nazi or Soviet spheres of influence. Most of those countries have since sided with Washington, but if Germany and Russia make some sort of deal, it will be open season on American influence in Europe.
All of this is not to say that Berlin is about to flip on the West. It has time to mull its decision. The point is that Germany is not the solid rock of NATO and the European Union that the West assumes it is. Russia’s recent actions mean that history is catching up with the Germans and that a choice will eventually come. Everything depends on Berlin’s choice between maintaining its dependence on the United States or flipping the entire balance structure in Europe by striking a deal with Russia. Berlin has been itching to reassert itself as a real and unbound power on the continent once again. However, though it has new economic and political strength, Germany is in many ways more vulnerable than it has been in more than 60 years. Berlin’s choice will shape the future of Europe and possibly the world.
http://www.stratfor.com/
============================================================
NATO's 'Empty Words'
August 20, 2008; Page A18
"Empty words." That's how Moscow glibly dismissed NATO's criticism yesterday of Russia's continued occupation of Georgia. The Russians may be bullies, but like all bullies they know weakness when they see it.
The most NATO ministers could muster at their meeting in Brussels was a statement that they "cannot continue with business as usual" with Russia. There was no move to fast-track Georgia's bid to join NATO, nor a pledge to help the battered democracy rebuild its defenses.
Asked about NATO reconstruction aid, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer pointedly said, twice, that it would go for "civilian infrastructure." So here we have a military alliance going out of its way to stress that it will not be providing any military aid. The alliance didn't even cancel any cooperative programs with Russia, though Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said "one can presume" that "this issue will have to be taken into view." That must have the Kremlin shaking.
NATO leaders also failed to mention Ukraine, another applicant for NATO membership that has angered Moscow in recent years and could become its next target. Also missing was any indication that the alliance would begin making long-delayed plans for defending the Baltic member states and other countries on its eastern flank in case of attack. The only good news of the day was that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will eventually send up to 100 monitors, albeit unarmed, to Georgia.
Meanwhile, Russia found new ways to ignore the West and punish the Georgians who are actually abiding by a cease-fire. After exchanging prisoners with Georgia, Russian troops took about 20 Georgians prisoner after briefly retaking the oil port of Poti, blindfolded them and held them at gunpoint. Russia also sank another Georgian navy vessel and stole four U.S. Humvees that had been used in U.S.-Georgian training exercises and were waiting to be shipped out of the country.
All of this continues the Russian pattern of the past week, in which it agrees to a cease-fire and promises to withdraw, only to leave its forces in place while continuing to damage Georgia's military and even its civilian centers. Russian commanders had the cheek to suggest that a return to the troop placements before war broke out on August 8 means that 2,000 Georgian soldiers would have to return to Iraq, from which they had been airlifted home.
One of Moscow's goals is clearly to humiliate Georgia enough to topple President Mikheil Saakashvili, so he can be replaced with a pliable leader who will "Finlandize" the country, to borrow the old Cold War term for acquiescing to Kremlin wishes. In the bargain, it is also betting it can humiliate the West, which will give the people of Ukraine real doubts about whether joining NATO is worth the risk of angering Moscow. Judging by NATO's demoralizing response on Tuesday, the Kremlin is right.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121918982921755027.html
=============================================
Geopolitical Diary: The NATO Membership Dilemma
NATO foreign ministers will meet Aug. 19 to discuss responses to the Russian invasion of Georgia. The United States is pressing for immediate action — although what that really means is movement toward admitting Georgia to NATO, rather than actual action. The Germans have expressed support for Georgia’s membership in the alliance, but the French and Italians appear to be hesitating, not wanting to trigger the confrontation with the Russians that would likely result from such a move. The newer members of NATO, those who formally belonged to the Warsaw Pact, tend to want aggressive movement to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. They want to see NATO assert itself, in order to be assured that the alliance will do that.
The problem is not that NATO is incapable of moving rapidly to include Ukraine and Georgia; it is a matter of what it means to be part of NATO. NATO was originally an anti-Soviet military alliance. It consisted of well-armed and well-trained armies — British, West German, Dutch and others — all backed by massive U.S. power and nuclear weapons. An attack on Europe would have meant an attack on NATO, and the Soviets never tried that. Had they done so, they would have faced a very dangerous military situation. The risks were much higher than the gains.
Most of today’s NATO members have minimal military forces that are poorly armed and trained. As important, the geography has shifted. From a compact western European alliance, NATO has become a sprawling entity, ranging from an exposed and barely defended flank in the Baltics to — if they were included — totally undefended Ukraine and Georgia. The forces necessary to defend those two countries would take years and hundreds of billions of dollars to recruit, arm and train. NATO was once able to defend Europe in the event of war. At this point, and for a very long time, the best NATO could do is to make a gesture of defense, particularly in the case of the vast Ukraine.
It is very doubtful that Western Europe has the will to develop a force capable of defending Georgia and Ukraine. Eastern Europe might have the will but not the resources, from manpower to technology. Thus, membership in NATO for Ukraine and Georgia would be a gesture without content. We are reminded of French and British guarantees to Poland in 1939. The French and British knew they could not protect Poland. The Germans knew it. Even the Poles knew it. The hope was that Germany, fearing a war with Britain and France, would not risk attacking Poland. But the Germans knew they could defeat Poland and, more to the point, were pretty confident that the British and French were all talk, and that a declaration of war wouldn’t mean all that much.
The NATO principle is that an attack on one would be an attack on all. The assumption is that the Russians wouldn’t risk a general war in Europe to threaten Georgia or the Ukraine. Alternatively, however, the Russians might view the threat of a general war as minimal, since the rest of Europe would not attack Russia from the West to defend Georgia. In other words, the Russians’ hesitation to attack Georgia would depend on their estimate of the likelihood of an attack on Russia by the Germans and Poles in response.
It is a risk Moscow might take. First, the Russians know the German and Polish military capacity — and the limits of available American power. Second, the failure to defend a member would destroy NATO’s credibility and shred the alliance. Most of the foreign ministers meeting on Tuesday are fully aware that extending NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia not only would be merely a gesture, but also could set up a greater calamity for the alliance. The United States knows this as well, but is making the most aggressive gestures it can, knowing that NATO works by consensus and that a single dissent can block the move. Washington is sure that dissent will come from somewhere. In the meantime, it is making the most bellicose gestures possible, short of actually doing something.
http://www.stratfor.com/
===================================================
Russia rejects UN Georgia draft
Russia has rejected a draft UN Security Council resolution on Georgia, saying it contradicted the terms of last week's ceasefire deal.
Russia paraded captive Georgians on armoured vehicles
The draft text called on Russia to pull back its forces to the positions held before the current conflict.
But Russia says the truce allows its troops to stay in a buffer zone on the Georgia side of South Ossetia's border.
Moscow says it is withdrawing its forces from Georgia. An official in the port of Poti said Russians had left.
Russian forces seized the port on Tuesday. But Adam Middleton, the port director, told the BBC Russian troops blew up a naval vessel and took military equipment before withdrawing on Wednesday.
'Spying' arrest
The conflict broke out on 7 August when Georgia launched an assault to wrest back control of the Moscow-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia, triggering a counter-offensive by Russian troops who advanced beyond South Ossetia into Georgia's heartland.
Georgia says its action was in response to continuous provocation.
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is visiting the region, is to visit a camp for displaced people in Georgia on Wednesday. Tens of thousand of people have been made homeless by the recent conflict.
PEACE PLAN
No more use of force
Stop all military actions for good
Free access to humanitarian aid
Georgian troops return to their places of permanent deployment
Russian troops to return to pre-conflict positions
International talks about security in South Ossetia and Abkhazia
On Tuesday, Mr Miliband held talks with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, to update him on Nato's reaction at an emergency meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels which demanded that Russia pull its troops out of Georgia.
The foreign secretary criticised Russia's failure to keep to a promise to withdraw troops from Georgia.
Meanwhile, Russia's main security service, the FSB, says a Russian officer has been detained accused of spying for Georgia.
An ethnic Georgian, Mikhail Khachidze was arrested in the southern Russian region of Stavropol near Georgia, an FSB spokesman said.
"[He] was involved in collecting secret information on Russian armed forces, its combat readiness as well as data on other servicemen," he said.
Russian veto
At the UN, Russia's ambassador said the French-drafted UN resolution went against the terms of the ceasefire brokered by France's President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Vitaly Churkin said the resolution should incorporate all elements of the six-point peace plan agreed last week.
He also objected to language in the draft reaffirming Georgia's territorial integrity, saying South Ossetia and Abkhazia did not want to be part of Georgia.
Russia can veto UN resolutions and the ambassador told the BBC that putting the text to a vote would be pointless.
He said: "It's a waste of time because the process of the withdrawal of Russian forces will continue."
HAVE YOUR SAY As an American, I find Bush's and Rice's comments regarding the attacks on a sovereign nation in the 21st Century just too embarrassing to bear B Coyle, Maryland
Following a rebuke from Nato's 26 foreign ministers in Brussels, Moscow accused Nato of bias in favour of the "criminal regime" in Tbilisi.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Russia risked becoming the "outlaw" of the conflict, in an interview with CBS news on the sidelines of the Nato emergency meeting.
Russia says President Dmitry Medvedev told President Sarkozy that by Friday, Russian troops would either be sent home, be pulled back to South Ossetia or to a buffer zone along the border.
Russia said it had begun a pullback on Tuesday as it withdrew 11 military vehicles from the Georgian town of Gori.
A Russian officer told reporters invited to watch that the column was heading for South Ossetia and then home to Russia, but Georgia dismissed it all as a show.
BBC correspondents there say there are still several artillery positions and checkpoints in Gori.
In an apparent goodwill gesture on Tuesday, the two sides exchanged prisoners at a checkpoint near Tbilisi, but on the same day Russia paraded captive Georgians on armoured vehicles.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7571506.stm
====================================================
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-georgia22-2008aug22,0,3923121.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Russian pomp and dominance
Moscow presents a patriotic concert in South Ossetia as it continues to assert authority in Georgia.By Michael Robinson Chavez and Borzou DaragahiLos Angeles Times Staff WritersAugust 22, 2008TSKHINVALI, GEORGIA — Russian flags waved and Russian music was performed at a patriotic concert Thursday in this war-torn city, the capital of Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia, as Moscow and its loyalists tightened their grip on territory that was the focus of clashes this month.In front of a badly damaged government building, a Russian orchestra performed pieces by Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich as 1,000 or so residents held up candles and the flags of Russia and South Ossetia, the catalyst in this month's conflict between Russia and Georgia."We are here today to express our admiration for you, to tell the whole world that we want it to know the truth about the horrible events in Tskhinvali," Valery Gergiev, an ethnic Ossetian Russian and well-known conductor who led the orchestra, told those gathered. The concert was among the latest measures by Moscow to assert authority over territory that is technically part of Georgia, a small, staunchly pro-American Caucasus Mountains state that enraged Russia by pushing to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and attacking Russian positions in South Ossetia.Moscow's punishment of Georgia extends beyond South Ossetia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday that a contingent of 500 troops would remain at eight posts in Georgia proper, well outside South Ossetia, a pro-Moscow enclave that has been at odds with the central government in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital.If implemented, the plan would indefinitely place Russian soldiers where they could move against Georgian forces at a moment's notice. It would mean Russian troops would be deployed along Georgia's main east-west road, just outside the key transportation hub of Gori, near the country's railway line and the crucial U.S.-backed pipeline pumping Caspian Sea crude oil to tankers off the Turkish coast.At a contentious meeting Thursday of the United Nations Security Council, Western envoys pressed Russia to clarify the role of the soldiers it intends to keep on Georgian soil."We have a presence of so-called Russian peacekeepers in key Georgian choke points that will control economic life, that will control humanitarian activities," Alejandro Wolff, the deputy U.S. representative to the U.N., said after the closed session. "It raises the question whether this is an effort to strangle the Georgian state."The council is debating a Russian draft resolution that would endorse a cease-fire deal permitting a continued Russian military presence in a vaguely defined security zone in and around South Ossetia. Western diplomats are insisting that Russia accept limits on its troops and recognize the region as part of Georgia.Russian peacekeepers have long been stationed inside South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another enclave that seeks independence from Georgia and has been largely autonomous since the early 1990s. Both Georgian and Russian troops held sway over their checkerboard of ethnic areas.But since the current conflict broke out Aug. 7, Russian troops and allied militias have taken over all parts of South Ossetia, including the mostly ethnic Georgian areas.Russian troops and South Ossetian militiamen now guard the entrance to the town of Akhalgori, formally a part of South Ossetia but controlled by Georgia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ethnic Georgian families could be seen fleeing the area in rickety Lada automobiles. The patriarch of one family said they had not been threatened or forced to leave but felt compelled to anyway, because the town was under the control of the South Ossetian militia."We're making a peaceful protest to ask the Russians to leave," said Lamara Gulashvili, a high school teacher attending a rally Thursday outside the Akhalgori checkpoint.Demonstrators waved red-and-white Georgian flags, but Georgian police refused to allow them to approach, saying they were under orders not to allow a confrontation.Russians offered different and confusing predictions on when their forces would leave the parts of Georgia that are neither in dispute nor inside their claimed security zone, including Gori, in the center, and the port city of Poti, where Russians have set up a checkpoint leading to Georgia's main Black Sea access point.Russian army Gen. Vladimir Boldyrev, commander of ground forces, said it would take 10 days for soldiers "not involved in peacekeeping operations" to return to Russia. Meanwhile, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said Russian troops were to begin moving by 6 a.m. today and finish by the end of the day, according to the Interfax news agency.Lavrov, who spoke in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi, said that Russia's withdrawal began several days ago but that Western nations "seem to be reluctant to notice it."His assertion contradicted the accounts of most Georgian and independent observers. At a recently established Russian outpost near the town of Igoeti, about 25 miles west of Tbilisi, a Russian truck filled with military cots pulled up and soldiers started unloading equipment."Here in the city we have not seen signs of Russians leaving," Alexander Lomaia, Georgia's national security advisor, said in a phone conversation from Gori on Thursday. "They promised to pull out by the end of tomorrow."Russians have ruled out a return of the breakaway regions to Georgian control. "We have deserved to live in an independent republic," Eduard Kokoity, the pro-Moscow leader of South Ossetia, said at a rally, according to Interfax.michael.robinson-chavez @latimes.comdaragahi@latimes.comTimes staff writer Robinson Chavez reported from Tskhinvali and Daragahi from Akhalgori and Tbilisi. Staff writer Sergei L. Loiko in Moscow contributed to this report.=========================================================
Plenty of Pipeline Options. All Bad
Commentators have been quick to point out that Russia's defeat of Georgia has pretty much killed the chances that new oil and gas pipelines will be built to increase the security of supplies to Europe. It's clear that there is little to stop Russia from rolling its forces up to the existing pipeline or knocking it out of commission if it wanted to. The Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein even suggested that demonstrating the pipeline's vulnerability may have been one of the underlying motives for the Russian incursion.
The United States has been promoting the idea of pipeline routes skirting Russia as a way to promote European energy security, but the chances of making that work have always been slim. The reason: The United States has been simultaneously trying to keep Iran, the world's other major holder of natural gas reserves, out of world markets and out of alternate pipeline networks. Without the Iran card, it's very difficult to win a pipeline game against Russia.
The U.S. has long been pushing for oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Basin that would bypass Russia, especially via Georgia. The current Georgia pipeline began in the late 1990s as a project to carry the estimated 35 billion barrels of oil, and natural gas, from the Caspian Sea area to European markets. One current line, the Baku-Tblisis-Cyhan line, runs through Georgia and then on to Turkey's Mediterranean coast for shipment. Another oil line ends up at the Georgian port of Supsa, which the Russian navy blockaded. A proposed natural gas line, called Nabucco, would go through Georgia to Austria, reducing Europe's heavy dependence on Russian natural gas pipelines.
Was it ever possible for a non-Russian natural gas pipeline route from the Caspian basin to supply enough gas to free Europe from Russia's grip? Not likely given Europe's large needs. Moreover, Iran has perhaps the biggest natural gas reserves outside Russia, and the United States has been simultaneously trying to block any expansion of Iranian natural gas exports. It's hard to think realistically about supplying enough natural gas to the world without either of the countries with the biggest reserves.
One European oil company executive told me today that the Nabucco line, named after a Verdi opera, was simply "not a doable project because there is not enough gas to justify the investment" -- at least without Iranian gas coming into it. "The only thing that can make it viable is by using Iranian gas," he continued. Otherwise, he said, it is "pie in the sky." American policy makers, he said, "want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep Europe from using Russian gas and they want to keep Iran in a corner too."
Finally, if the United States is trying to marginalize Russia and Iran, that means a big role not only for the Caspian line but also for the capital-intensive liquefied natural gas projects in Qatar. Will Europe feel more secure by building a new natural gas dependency on the Persian Gulf?
Suddenly the pipelines that run through Georgia seem like just another facet of global energy insecurity rather than enhanced security. Oil and gas experts are fond of saying that energy security lies in diversity.But especially when it comes to natural gas, achieving enough diversity of supply to feel secure may be impossible.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/energywire/2008/08/plenty_of_pipeline_options_all.html
====================================================
Merkel's visit to Sweden and Baltic countries to focus on Georgian conflict: official
Berlin, Aug 22, IRNA Germany-Baltic-Sweden German Chancellor Angela Merkel will visit Sweden, Estonia and Lithuania next week for political talks on the Georgian conflict, an official said here Friday.
Speaking at a regular weekly press briefing, deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg said the Caucasus crisis will be on top of Merkel's agenda during her three-nation trip on Monday and Tuesday.
Sweden, Estonia and Lithuania have adopted a very critical stance against Russia in the Georgian conflict.
Stockholm broke off all military ties with Moscow on Monday, while the presidents of Estonia and Lithuania embarked on a visit to the Georgian capital Tbilisi earlier this month in a demonstrative show of support for the embattled Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.
Meanwhile, Steg denied reports of a growing rift within the European Union on the issue of Georgia, while voicing optimism that a unified stance within the European body could be reached soon.
Western and Eastern EU countries are deeply split over how to deal with Russian military actions inside Georgia.
Steg reiterated again Russia had to swiftly withdraw from Georgian core "territories during the day." He made clear that a lasting peace agreement could only be achieved on the basis of preserving Georgia's "territorial integrity and sovereignty." OT**1771
http://www2.irna.ir/index2.php?option=com_news&task=print&code=0808226510163915&Itemid=234&lang=en
=====================================================
Liive: Latvia’s electricity market is the most effective in Baltics
Juhan Tere, BC, Tallinn, 22.08.2008.
When characterising the situation on the Baltic States’ energy market, the CEO of Eesti Energia Sandor Liive noted that today the most effective electricity market is in Latvia, writes Äripäev.ee.
Sandor Liive.
Formally Lithuania’s market is also open, but it is not effective. Estonia has temporarily opted for a closed market, but this situation will not last.
Liive stated that in the future perspective, the best option for the Baltic States’ electricity market is full integration with the Nordic market.
“Experts estimate that Finland’s Nordpool is one of the best market systems world-wide,” said Liive, adding that today there is no such transparent market system in the Baltic States.
He noted that the most optimal choice would be to define the Baltic Sea region as one single energy security area, to create optimum links, harmonise regulations and create a fully integrated market. Liive stated that as the market opens up, the price surge cannot be avoided.
Unfortunately, he noted, current developments are rather moving in the opposite direction, with each Baltic State attempting to solve their own problems. As they are preparing for the Ignalina nuclear power plant closing down on January 1, 2010, Latvia and Lithuania are building new gas-fuelled plants which will increase dependence on Russian gas.
http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=4392&ins_print
=============================================================
The West launches Baltic defense plans
Aug 22, 2008In cooperation with BNS
RIGA- Western partners have launched preparation of the Baltic defense plan. The plan is not however a response to Russia's military aggression in Georgia.
Latvian Defense Minister Vinets Veldre confirmed in an interview with Latvian daily Diena that such a plan has been launched before the events in Georgia.
The minister declined to reveal whether this plan is being prepared together with NATO or any alliance's members, saying that it is a state secret.
The NATO press service reported that there had been no such discussions.
Defense Ministry's spokesman Edgars Rinkevics underscored that NATO at present has no such plans as during the cold war, therefore the new member states have been left without any defense plans.
He declined to name any principles which should be included in the new defense plans.
"Conclusions have been drawn in spring when we received information about large-scale military exercise in Northern Caucasus," said the minister.
Meanwhile, Rinkevics said that Latviahas to seriously consider possibilities of cyber-attacks.
Former Latvian ambassador to the UN Aivis Ronis noted that closer Baltic cooperation in air-defense and closer military cooperation with Nordic countries should be promoted. http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/21177/
=================================================
US presidential hopefuls support Baltic stance
Aug 22, 2008In cooperation with BNS
VILNIUS- Republican candidate for US president, John McCain, has expressed support the Lithuanian position with respect to Georgia.
In a telephone conversation with Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus, the US senator stressed the importance of the actions taken by the Baltic and Polish leaders to halt Russian aggression in Georgia, the presidential press service reported.
Adamkus, in his turn, underlined the significance of the US position and the principled opinion of McCain in the situation. In Adamkus' words, there are attempts to split the stance of Western democracies on the Georgian matter, and it is therefore vital to retain the solidarity and efficient activities of the trans-Atlantic community.
"We need a unified, active and principled NATO - the key organization of trans-Atlantic security in Europe," said the president.
The Lithuanian president stressed that a stop to the Russian aggression and withdrawal of armed forces should be among the key goals of the international community, as well as retention of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia.
In his opinion, as many as possible international observers should be delegated to the war-torn country without delay.
Last Saturday, Adamkus received a telephone call from another US presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
The Democratic candidate welcomed the Lithuanian role in the solution to the armed conflict in South Caucasus and expressed support to the stern position of Lithuania.
Obama also called the actions of Russia as unacceptable.
