The Russo-Georgian war and the balance of power

The problem I have with this article is it leaves the impression that Russia was the cause of the latest outbreaks of fighting, that they somehow forced Georgia to attack at a time and place of their choosing.

Using terms like “invasion” while leaving out the fact that Russia already on troops on the ground in the role of peace keepers, adds to this impression and leaves out a very important factor. The troops on the ground. Russia had no choice but to respond because they had troops already there. Not to react to their troops being killed would seriously undermine their creditability as a world military power. Leaving this out is a major over sight on the part of the analyst.

The same factors explain exactly why Russia does not go into Kosovo and the US does not go into Georgia. Their troops would come into direct contact and combat.

In addition, by leaving out the massive humanitarian violations widely reported in the Eastern Media, they distort the view of what happened and how it happened. Regardless of whether such terrible events occurred, it has the same effect on the population as did the lies spread about 100,000 dead in Kosovo used as justification for the NATO bombing, or more recently WMD’s, Osama and Saddam having some sort of connection to them. To this day, close to half the American population believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

I do not believe this was a failure of intelligence nor in opposition to the interests of the current US government. I believe the current administration is very clever and they laid a trap for Georgia knowing full well what the Russia response would most certainly have to be.

Instability and the illusion of threat will help in the coming election for the Republican party, that much is obvious. It is also very possible that the administration has tired of the War on terrorism and long for the Good Old Days of the Cold War, which is much safer and less destructive, but still instills a desirable amount of fear in the populace. They need a threat, a bogeyman, something to bring the people to McCain, someone who would make an excellent war time leader, instead of an Obama type, who would make an excellent peace time/maker leader.

Not to mention global instability makes incredible profits for two industries (Defense and Oil) that have very close relationships to the Republican Party.

The reality is it serves the interests of both the US and Russia. It’s a win/win for everyone but the poor people of Georgia.

However, the question remains, will Russia occupy the North of Kosovo? Or will there be an under the table trade of Georgia for Kosovo?

Only time will tell. One thing is certain, the US can not afford any additional military adventures at this time.

Not a message that the West wishes to hear, but a very perceptive and excellent analysis.

so true, so realistic, excellent article

How can Stratfor say that Russia is not a global power?

Look at a map.

Look at the size of its military, especially its nuclear arsenal - second after (or even equal to) the US, and way ahead of all the nuclear weapons possessed by China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and Israel combined.

Look at its natural resources, and not just oil, plus the fact that it has a major manufacturing industry, too. This includes independence in arms manufacturing.

Look at its space programme, which is still operating. Don't forget who put satelites and men into space first.

Stratfor needs to be clearer about what is meant by 'global power', or even 'superpower'.

Quite a good article.

I don't think the Russian's "laid a trap" though, this indeed was a case of "failed intelligence"... I'm not talking about some spy satilites getting their cameras out of focus here, but just a complete lack of intelligence within the USA regime elite's brains.

Since they won the cold war, they really have believed they can do no wrong and nothing can stop their will being exercised over every square cm of the planet.

Sorry guys - the game is up.

The Russians can't believe they've been gifted this chance - they must be pinching themselves.

And didn't they grab it well.

Good job Vladimir... if this means the USA will think twice from now on before shooting... the world will thank you.

Unfortunately, I think it will take a few more wars before it really sinks in and America becomes a "normal" country... especially if McCain gets in (can you believe a nut case like that would be in control of 5000 nukes?).

Sad.

This Russian blitzkrieg is indeed a shift of balance of power. No doubt in the decades to come, a joint Serbo-Russian operation will once again project Russian power back into the Balkans--indeed it is inevitable. This will serve to show who is boss, to remind certain pretenders what belongs to whom, and to not act presumptuously. The Georgians are paying a painful price for miscalculating.

The western sponsored, NATO-ultra-capitalist adventure in Kosovo is a farce, and will be revealed to be a house of sand that will in Georgian fashion, crumble like a paper tiger.

Regardless of whether it is hypocritical to grant independence to one ethnic group and not another, Russia's Balkan interests require Serbia to be whole and undivided as Serbia is a Russian ally whereas Albania is not. It is simply easier for Russia to project power in the Balkans with a stronger ally—makes sense.

Putin is right that America opened a Pandora's box with its imperialism in Serbia and Iraq, but don't expect Russia or the USA to make just decisions any longer, only decisions which further their own objectives. For instance it would have been right for America to stop the genocide in Rawanda, but right has nothing to do with it. The fact is that the US has no interests in Rawanda—human lives have little value to certain states. Nation-states will also lie to achieve their interests, hence lies like Racak which was KLA orchestrated, Reuben's lies of soccer fields being used as mass burial sites, hundreds of thousands dead etc ad nauseum.

The US is now forced to give up its foolish adventure trying to influence the Caucasus, as it will the Balkans in years to come. The power vacuum will be enormous in the years to come. If 1244 is not lived up to (to date no Serbian presence has been allowed to return to secure Kosovo’s borders with Albania, and Macedonia), it is inevitable that Serbia will see to it that the agreement be lived up to, most likely with Russia’s backing.

well, I am missing those albanian comments about Russia being weak and having no say...

they are very silent at the moment, as it seems.

what is quite interesting: the article says that the russian operations in south Ossetia have shown that american guarantees have no value.

will our dear albanian friends probably understand what that means for them?

the other thing worth being highlighted is that the current situation in the southern serbian province is just like an autonomy, since there is no legal affirmation for their illusionary "republjik" factual autonomy is what they are left with. and that´s what it will be in the end, when the emotions cool down, finally.
those rambo-like comments about "we are a state, done deal" etc. are only the timid reflexes of some insecure bystanders...

time is working for Serbia, and that is good.

let´s just see what future brings.

Situation in Georgia would come up every ones in a while on this site too.
This was debate more then year ago.

http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/comments.php?nav_id=42048

My comment was No. 7. I noticed Walter's comment on No.2 . Regretably, he's not commenting lately.

Well, in June 1992 leaders of Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia signed Sochi Agreement, letting Russian peacekeepers into South Ossetia until status question is resolved. All sides agreed to seek a solution exclusivelly by peaceful means.
South Ossetia did not hide that they consider independence from Georgia to be the best solution. But, it wasn't going that easy. In January 2005 Georgia came up with the plan to grant wide autonomy for South Ossetia. Russia gave its approval. South Ossetians did not have any choice but to accept the proposal themselves. Their position changes with Kosovo declaring independence unilaterally. South Ossetia now demands independece too, as the only acceptable solution. Still going wasn't so smooth, and official position of Russia is to respect Georgian territorial integrity.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=02&dd=11&nav_id=47628

This time they sounded less convincing, especially after Duma voted in favour of recognizing both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and sent the recommendation to the government. Government did not act upon it, though.

If there is any implication of this to Serbia (and Kosovo), it's in the fact that increasing number of small nations around the globe are uneasy about violations of basic international laws. Truth is that we do need them. And if current laws are not satisfactory the new ones should be adopted, rather then resorting to the laws of the jungle.
It's also a fact that after Kosovo's declaration of independence, not only South Ossetia gave up on already agreed autonomy, but about dosen other "breakaway regions" in different countries now demand nothing short of independance. EU is not an exeption. Basqs dropped demands for greater autonomy within Spain, and now are going for independance. Basqian parliament have passed the motion to determine faith of Basqia on referendum in October this year.
Serbia will have an easy job (I think) at UN General Assambly, to convince more then half of the countries to ask for World Court to examine legality of Kosovo's independence.

As for Georgian-Russian conflict that we have witnessed.

Militarly it wasn't well executed operation. It started as merciless shelling of Tskhinvali. Reports of town being almost completelly destroyed, are now being confirmed. There is no independent confirmation of the claims that number of South Ossetian villages have been deliberatly burnt by Georgian forces. Russians, appearantly, compiled evidence that was sent to permament court for war crimes.
Other then that, Georgian forces were suprisingly ineffective.

"The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia."

It was surpising to see that Georgian troops, reportedly, including their special forces trained by Americans, had such trouble with rag-tag Ossetian irregulars, reinforced by small number of volunteers from North Ossetia (part of Russia) who were there helping their kin.
On the other hand, weather we like it or not, Russian conduct in this war was comendable.
In 1999 bombing of Serbia, infrastructure was destroyed, along with most of industry.
NATO explanation was that it is legitimate attempt to "undermine economic ability of the coutry to wage war".
Russians appearantly, opted for military targets only, restreing themselves from destroying factories, bridges, power grids, rafineries, etc. They even decided not to destroy major oil lines going through Georgia, bringing oil from Caspian to Mediteranian Sea, move that would ceirtainly, raise price of crude on the world market, bringing Russians a hafty profits from the whole things.

But, what can one say about those attempts to "bring its territory under control" by force. It serves only to increase human suffering, and its a poor substitute for negotiated settlement. Should Serbia decide to "bring its territory under control" by force in Kosovo, and start doing that by flattening Pristina? I fail to see how will that improve situation in the region.
Besides, such move is only possible in one case. If major powers that are able to do something about it, decide not to, and tacitly, or openly approve of it. This was a case in Croatia, with Krajina takeover.
Just like in Kosovo, this was not a case in South Ossetia.
We have seen number of Western official and journalist giving essentially the same statement. From Condy Rice's "respect Georgian territorial integrity", to David Blair's article in British The Daily Telegraph "Nothing can disguise the fact that Russia is now offending every canon of international behaviour by using overwhelming force against the sovereign territory of an independent state."
I doubt that David Blair would say anything simmilar, should Serbia attepmt to retake its territory by force and is bombed by NATO again.

And I agree completely that it's hard to believe that Georgians acted alone, without US knowledge, and approval. Russian would not be able to gather such a large military force without spy-satellites noticing either, so they must have noticed it. Why then?
There are only two possible explanations.
One is that they were convinced that Russians are bluffing. Georgians would take Ossetia by force, Russians would huff and puff, but stay away, and nobody's the wiser then Saakashvili.

The other one is offered by Matthew.

"Instability and the illusion of threat will help in the coming election for the Republican party, that much is obvious. It is also very possible that the administration has tired of the War on terrorism and long for the Good Old Days of the Cold War, which is much safer and less destructive, but still instills a desirable amount of fear in the populace. They need a threat, a bogeyman, something to bring the people to McCain, someone who would make an excellent war time leader, instead of an Obama type, who would make an excellent peace time/maker leader. "

Simmilar was the thinking of one young lady called Kara.

This thinking had made it into the media, too. This article is from Canadian Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/article/477292

"Republican presidential contender John McCain has already taken a hard line on Russia, much harder than that of the current U.S. leader, George W. Bush. The South Ossetian conflict gives McCain a chance to revive America's fears of the Russian bear."
Revival of that fear would ceirtanly, benefit Republican buddies in military industry. And oil too (major oil corporations reported record-breaking profits for the last year). But, would McCain, in case that is elected, do anything about it?
"The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery."
This could be nothing more then excuse. If US has not been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would they do? Send troops to South Ossetia? At this USA would be even more alone then in Iraq. Even if conflict with Russians would be kept limited to only South Ossetia, it would produce large number of casualties. Most NATO troops in Afghanistan are avoiding casualties, and demand to be in areas that are not Taliban-infested. How would they accept conflict with well-armed Russian troops?
Besides, take another look at that Toronto Star article. There are statements like
"Historically, the Ossetians are distinct from Georgians, speaking a language that is related to Afghanistan's Pashto."
and
"...legal recognition of South Ossetia's separation (and its almost certain absorption by Russia, which already contains North Ossetia) may be the least worst result."
"If the world is lucky, Russia, Georgia and the Ossetians will negotiate a deal that will allow the rest of us to forget about this tiny statelet. "
Same sentiment can be seen throughout the Europe. In Poland they established direct link between what is happening in Georgia with Kosovo.
"This is the Russian answer to the recognition of Kosovo. That recognition was in fact a gift to Russia," Polish People's Party European MP Janusz Wojciechowski
Warsaw's recognition of the Kosovo Albanians' secession was described as an irresponsible move by the legendary anti-communist leader and former Polish president, Lech Walesa.

"Recognizing Kosovo will bring nothing but trouble. No one can be denied the right to self-determination, but only within the bounds of common sense," he was quoted as saying at the time.

Now, he's back with "I told you so."
German journalist at "Zeitung" went one step further.
"Recently, Europe thwarted George W. Bush's attempt to give full NATO membership to Georgia. Had he succeeded, as per the NATO Charter, an attack on any member state would be construed as an attack on all. And Germany would be at war with Russia over South What?"
In other words, is it really wise that " during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. "
One thing is for sure, should McCain decide to charge towards Russia, he will find himself more isoleted then Bush.

This analysis makes a lot of sense.

Good job.

well, i think its quite the reverse in that the russians have fallen into a trap and a very bad marketing and publicity campaign (beware ….the Russians, there oil & gas, its not safe to do business with the russians)and is endangering its reputation of democratic reform and invitation to the most powerfull institutions, there was no rally of the stockmarket. the americans were and have been prepared. who can forget the russian marching into prishtina airport, fighter planes flying over UK air space planting a flag at the bottom of the north pole, the russians have been pushing taunting teasing the west, indirectly threating them. im fact trainig the west to be ready
The loser in this is the Serbians who is lamenting international law to everybody and falls silent when an ex soviet satalite state fights for territorial integrity and loses, the Serbian argument has been weekened dramatically as medvedev said its imposible to intergrate sth osettia back into the arms of Georgia when they don’t want to, does Russia intend to recognise Kosovo if the west recognis sth osettia? Or will Russia keep it status in limbo intentionally, perhaps that is the plan.
This portarayal of the Russians has not been a positive one in the west, perhaps it has instilled some fear in ex satalite state, and make the world perceive Russia as a threat ( the reds are coming ) definitely, if the Russians thought about what they had done im sure it would have been far better whilst obama was in office, but I guess Americans would have become wary of Russia thru the bbc and cnn and therefore it will deffinatley swing voters… in all western countries as they choose leaders and consolidate the western powers influence

Brilliant article.

Although I am glad that B92 posted the majority of my article I cannot understand why it edits seemingly innocent comments.

Is it not my right under free speech to say that I feel that Montgomery's Balkan analysis and conclusions are flawed and that his analysis on the Caucasus is much better? I did not insult Montgomery, only stated that he is viewing Serbian politics through a flawed (read western imperialist paradigm).

Are we not entitled to comment which articles are nonsense or are we expected to be spoon-fed our news in the old communist fashion with no descent possible?

How is it alright for the likes of Hugh Griffiths to mock Serbian Nationals on a Serbian website (read his current Pulitzer winning article on "Radovan's bad hair day on the front page!), meanwhile the Serbs who feel that this is in bad taste are muzzled?

B92 claims to promote peace and brotherhood but it seems that censorship is directed primarily towards Serbs who are proud of their nation and who are not ashamed to voice what kind of politics they prefer, or the extent of Serbia's borders (whether they extend to Republica Srpska or beyond). Why not allow Bosnian Serbs to voice their desire for union with the Fatherland - 99% wish that to be so.)

Ironically, many Albanians are free to voice a desire for an Greater Albanian/Kosovo state with veiled references such as dual citizenship, Kosovo's access to the Mediterranean, a common military etc etc.

Perhaps it is time for B92 to reassess its loyalties?

All true and well. Nothing wrong with what is said in the article, but I would still like to highlight 2 passages:

1) "That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO's expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union."

2) "The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China."

Hostile to Russian interests - yes, true. But perhaps, while mr. Putin is busy re-establishing the Russian influence, he should also reflect on WHY these states became hostile to Russia. Was it because of the milk and honey that flowed from Russia and the Soviet Union into those countries, or was it the presence of the Red Army tanks and a puppet government that made his former bosses with the populations?

Repeating the actions of the past is if nothing else, a sure way of ensuring that the future will be like the present: Surrounded by hostile countries.

--

America's failure and Russia's victory. Was it by chance that the Georgians attacked the enclaves during a quiet time and during the Olympics? Or was it flawed info from the American Generals and intelligence services that gave them the green light. Think about it. Anyways, Russia is back. The American's gotta wake up, as the Bear is back. A balance is needed...too much American dictat is not good.

Dear International Geopolitical Analyst,

The reason why we edited your references to Mr. Montgomery is because this article was not written by Mr. Montgomery.

Regards,


B92

Excellentanalysis.The American switch of thrust from Eastern Europe and the Caucases, where the local population is receptive, if not always entusiastic about Western style democratisation and untegration in Eu and NATO to the Middle East where the Americans face a widespread hostility was a disastrous blunder!
I would like to comment another aspect of the ongoing tragedy.
History shows that nobody learns from history!
Neither the Russions nor the Georgians learned from the most illustrative experience of the 20th century - the German experience.
After two attempts to becone a "world power", the Germans faced not only a total defeat and territorial dismemberment, but also an abysmal public standing. "German" became almost synonimous to "nazi". In this situation the Soviet leaders were certain they hold the "German card". As soon as West Germany stood on its feet, they believed they could prevent its NATO integration by offfering unification for neutrality! With a neutral Gernant in the center of Europe and a calculative and at times capricious France, the American influence could be pushed across the English Channal, while the Russian influence in Central Europe would be unchalinged. Even the traditionally hostile Poles would be clinging to the Soviet Union, weary of German claims over Silesia,Prussia and Pomerania! Yet it was not to be! The genius of Adenauer saw the trap! A Germany unanchored to the West was a recepy for disaster! So the unification had to be postponed, even with the Iron Curtain crossing the German Capital. Claims for the "lost" territories in Poland and Russia were to be abandoned. The fauls Hitrerist dilema: "World power or destruction" was to be superceded. Germany was to strive to becoma a medium sized European power. The gamble proved successful! Finaly unified Germany took its decent place in Europe. When the next big redrawing of the map took place in 1991, the German voice was heard!
Many people believed that Russia will follow the German example after the Cold War. It would abandon its ambitions to be a Supperpower, in order to become a mediumsized "Wester" power. After all China and the assertive Islam, not expanding NATO were to be seen as the main treat! Well, the hope that Russia, hat in hand could line on the queue for NATO after Ukraine and Georgia proved premature! But this lesson may one day be learned. As Condolezza Rice said, Russia should oppose Iran's nuclear program NOT as doing favour of the US but out of its VITAL interest.
Geprga too missed the German Experience. It wanted NATO integration, but was reckless to sacrifice it for "territorial" ambitions, no matter how "legitimate" they were. Adenauer accepted the reality of GDR. Willi Brandt even recognized it! Hopefully now the Georgian leaders may understand that Georgia should join NATO even if South Ossetia and Abkhazia go to hell!

well, i think its quite the reverse in that the russians have fallen into a trap and a very bad marketing and publicity campaign (beware ….the Russians, there oil & gas, its not safe to do business with the russians)and is endangering its reputation of democratic reform and invitation to the most powerfull institutions, there was no rally of the stockmarket. the americans were and have been prepared. who can forget the russian marching into prishtina airport, fighter planes flying over UK air space planting a flag at the bottom of the north pole, the russians have been pushing taunting teasing the west, indirectly threating them. im fact trainig the west to be ready
The loser in this is the Serbians who is lamenting international law to everybody and falls silent when an ex soviet satalite state fights for territorial integrity and loses, the Serbian argument has been weekened dramatically as medvedev said its imposible to intergrate sth osettia back into the arms of Georgia when they don’t want to, does Russia intend to recognise Kosovo if the west recognis sth osettia? Or will Russia keep it status in limbo intentionally, perhaps that is the plan.
This portarayal of the Russians has not been a positive one in the west, perhaps it has instilled some fear in ex satalite state, and make the world perceive Russia as a threat ( the reds are coming ) definitely, if the Russians thought about what they had done im sure it would have been far better whilst obama was in office, but I guess Americans would have become wary of Russia thru the bbc and cnn and therefore it will deffinatley swing voters… in all western countries as they choose leaders and consolidate the western powers influence

All true and well. Nothing wrong with what is said in the article, but I would still like to highlight 2 passages:

1) "That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO's expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union."

2) "The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China."

Hostile to Russian interests - yes, true. But perhaps, while mr. Putin is busy re-establishing the Russian influence, he should also reflect on WHY these states became hostile to Russia. Was it because of the milk and honey that flowed from Russia and the Soviet Union into those countries, or was it the presence of the Red Army tanks and a puppet government that made his former bosses with the populations?

Repeating the actions of the past is if nothing else, a sure way of ensuring that the future will be like the present: Surrounded by hostile countries.

--

Dear International Geopolitical Analyst,

The reason why we edited your references to Mr. Montgomery is because this article was not written by Mr. Montgomery.

Regards,


B92

Not a message that the West wishes to hear, but a very perceptive and excellent analysis.

Quite a good article.

I don't think the Russian's "laid a trap" though, this indeed was a case of "failed intelligence"... I'm not talking about some spy satilites getting their cameras out of focus here, but just a complete lack of intelligence within the USA regime elite's brains.

Since they won the cold war, they really have believed they can do no wrong and nothing can stop their will being exercised over every square cm of the planet.

Sorry guys - the game is up.

The Russians can't believe they've been gifted this chance - they must be pinching themselves.

And didn't they grab it well.

Good job Vladimir... if this means the USA will think twice from now on before shooting... the world will thank you.

Unfortunately, I think it will take a few more wars before it really sinks in and America becomes a "normal" country... especially if McCain gets in (can you believe a nut case like that would be in control of 5000 nukes?).

Sad.

so true, so realistic, excellent article

This analysis makes a lot of sense.

Good job.

The problem I have with this article is it leaves the impression that Russia was the cause of the latest outbreaks of fighting, that they somehow forced Georgia to attack at a time and place of their choosing.

Using terms like “invasion” while leaving out the fact that Russia already on troops on the ground in the role of peace keepers, adds to this impression and leaves out a very important factor. The troops on the ground. Russia had no choice but to respond because they had troops already there. Not to react to their troops being killed would seriously undermine their creditability as a world military power. Leaving this out is a major over sight on the part of the analyst.

The same factors explain exactly why Russia does not go into Kosovo and the US does not go into Georgia. Their troops would come into direct contact and combat.

In addition, by leaving out the massive humanitarian violations widely reported in the Eastern Media, they distort the view of what happened and how it happened. Regardless of whether such terrible events occurred, it has the same effect on the population as did the lies spread about 100,000 dead in Kosovo used as justification for the NATO bombing, or more recently WMD’s, Osama and Saddam having some sort of connection to them. To this day, close to half the American population believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

I do not believe this was a failure of intelligence nor in opposition to the interests of the current US government. I believe the current administration is very clever and they laid a trap for Georgia knowing full well what the Russia response would most certainly have to be.

Instability and the illusion of threat will help in the coming election for the Republican party, that much is obvious. It is also very possible that the administration has tired of the War on terrorism and long for the Good Old Days of the Cold War, which is much safer and less destructive, but still instills a desirable amount of fear in the populace. They need a threat, a bogeyman, something to bring the people to McCain, someone who would make an excellent war time leader, instead of an Obama type, who would make an excellent peace time/maker leader.

Not to mention global instability makes incredible profits for two industries (Defense and Oil) that have very close relationships to the Republican Party.

The reality is it serves the interests of both the US and Russia. It’s a win/win for everyone but the poor people of Georgia.

However, the question remains, will Russia occupy the North of Kosovo? Or will there be an under the table trade of Georgia for Kosovo?

Only time will tell. One thing is certain, the US can not afford any additional military adventures at this time.

This Russian blitzkrieg is indeed a shift of balance of power. No doubt in the decades to come, a joint Serbo-Russian operation will once again project Russian power back into the Balkans--indeed it is inevitable. This will serve to show who is boss, to remind certain pretenders what belongs to whom, and to not act presumptuously. The Georgians are paying a painful price for miscalculating.

The western sponsored, NATO-ultra-capitalist adventure in Kosovo is a farce, and will be revealed to be a house of sand that will in Georgian fashion, crumble like a paper tiger.

Regardless of whether it is hypocritical to grant independence to one ethnic group and not another, Russia's Balkan interests require Serbia to be whole and undivided as Serbia is a Russian ally whereas Albania is not. It is simply easier for Russia to project power in the Balkans with a stronger ally—makes sense.

Putin is right that America opened a Pandora's box with its imperialism in Serbia and Iraq, but don't expect Russia or the USA to make just decisions any longer, only decisions which further their own objectives. For instance it would have been right for America to stop the genocide in Rawanda, but right has nothing to do with it. The fact is that the US has no interests in Rawanda—human lives have little value to certain states. Nation-states will also lie to achieve their interests, hence lies like Racak which was KLA orchestrated, Reuben's lies of soccer fields being used as mass burial sites, hundreds of thousands dead etc ad nauseum.

The US is now forced to give up its foolish adventure trying to influence the Caucasus, as it will the Balkans in years to come. The power vacuum will be enormous in the years to come. If 1244 is not lived up to (to date no Serbian presence has been allowed to return to secure Kosovo’s borders with Albania, and Macedonia), it is inevitable that Serbia will see to it that the agreement be lived up to, most likely with Russia’s backing.

well, I am missing those albanian comments about Russia being weak and having no say...

they are very silent at the moment, as it seems.

what is quite interesting: the article says that the russian operations in south Ossetia have shown that american guarantees have no value.

will our dear albanian friends probably understand what that means for them?

the other thing worth being highlighted is that the current situation in the southern serbian province is just like an autonomy, since there is no legal affirmation for their illusionary "republjik" factual autonomy is what they are left with. and that´s what it will be in the end, when the emotions cool down, finally.
those rambo-like comments about "we are a state, done deal" etc. are only the timid reflexes of some insecure bystanders...

time is working for Serbia, and that is good.

let´s just see what future brings.

How can Stratfor say that Russia is not a global power?

Look at a map.

Look at the size of its military, especially its nuclear arsenal - second after (or even equal to) the US, and way ahead of all the nuclear weapons possessed by China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and Israel combined.

Look at its natural resources, and not just oil, plus the fact that it has a major manufacturing industry, too. This includes independence in arms manufacturing.

Look at its space programme, which is still operating. Don't forget who put satelites and men into space first.

Stratfor needs to be clearer about what is meant by 'global power', or even 'superpower'.

Situation in Georgia would come up every ones in a while on this site too.
This was debate more then year ago.

http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/comments.php?nav_id=42048

My comment was No. 7. I noticed Walter's comment on No.2 . Regretably, he's not commenting lately.

Well, in June 1992 leaders of Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia signed Sochi Agreement, letting Russian peacekeepers into South Ossetia until status question is resolved. All sides agreed to seek a solution exclusivelly by peaceful means.
South Ossetia did not hide that they consider independence from Georgia to be the best solution. But, it wasn't going that easy. In January 2005 Georgia came up with the plan to grant wide autonomy for South Ossetia. Russia gave its approval. South Ossetians did not have any choice but to accept the proposal themselves. Their position changes with Kosovo declaring independence unilaterally. South Ossetia now demands independece too, as the only acceptable solution. Still going wasn't so smooth, and official position of Russia is to respect Georgian territorial integrity.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=02&dd=11&nav_id=47628

This time they sounded less convincing, especially after Duma voted in favour of recognizing both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and sent the recommendation to the government. Government did not act upon it, though.

If there is any implication of this to Serbia (and Kosovo), it's in the fact that increasing number of small nations around the globe are uneasy about violations of basic international laws. Truth is that we do need them. And if current laws are not satisfactory the new ones should be adopted, rather then resorting to the laws of the jungle.
It's also a fact that after Kosovo's declaration of independence, not only South Ossetia gave up on already agreed autonomy, but about dosen other "breakaway regions" in different countries now demand nothing short of independance. EU is not an exeption. Basqs dropped demands for greater autonomy within Spain, and now are going for independance. Basqian parliament have passed the motion to determine faith of Basqia on referendum in October this year.
Serbia will have an easy job (I think) at UN General Assambly, to convince more then half of the countries to ask for World Court to examine legality of Kosovo's independence.

As for Georgian-Russian conflict that we have witnessed.

Militarly it wasn't well executed operation. It started as merciless shelling of Tskhinvali. Reports of town being almost completelly destroyed, are now being confirmed. There is no independent confirmation of the claims that number of South Ossetian villages have been deliberatly burnt by Georgian forces. Russians, appearantly, compiled evidence that was sent to permament court for war crimes.
Other then that, Georgian forces were suprisingly ineffective.

"The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia."

It was surpising to see that Georgian troops, reportedly, including their special forces trained by Americans, had such trouble with rag-tag Ossetian irregulars, reinforced by small number of volunteers from North Ossetia (part of Russia) who were there helping their kin.
On the other hand, weather we like it or not, Russian conduct in this war was comendable.
In 1999 bombing of Serbia, infrastructure was destroyed, along with most of industry.
NATO explanation was that it is legitimate attempt to "undermine economic ability of the coutry to wage war".
Russians appearantly, opted for military targets only, restreing themselves from destroying factories, bridges, power grids, rafineries, etc. They even decided not to destroy major oil lines going through Georgia, bringing oil from Caspian to Mediteranian Sea, move that would ceirtainly, raise price of crude on the world market, bringing Russians a hafty profits from the whole things.

But, what can one say about those attempts to "bring its territory under control" by force. It serves only to increase human suffering, and its a poor substitute for negotiated settlement. Should Serbia decide to "bring its territory under control" by force in Kosovo, and start doing that by flattening Pristina? I fail to see how will that improve situation in the region.
Besides, such move is only possible in one case. If major powers that are able to do something about it, decide not to, and tacitly, or openly approve of it. This was a case in Croatia, with Krajina takeover.
Just like in Kosovo, this was not a case in South Ossetia.
We have seen number of Western official and journalist giving essentially the same statement. From Condy Rice's "respect Georgian territorial integrity", to David Blair's article in British The Daily Telegraph "Nothing can disguise the fact that Russia is now offending every canon of international behaviour by using overwhelming force against the sovereign territory of an independent state."
I doubt that David Blair would say anything simmilar, should Serbia attepmt to retake its territory by force and is bombed by NATO again.

And I agree completely that it's hard to believe that Georgians acted alone, without US knowledge, and approval. Russian would not be able to gather such a large military force without spy-satellites noticing either, so they must have noticed it. Why then?
There are only two possible explanations.
One is that they were convinced that Russians are bluffing. Georgians would take Ossetia by force, Russians would huff and puff, but stay away, and nobody's the wiser then Saakashvili.

The other one is offered by Matthew.

"Instability and the illusion of threat will help in the coming election for the Republican party, that much is obvious. It is also very possible that the administration has tired of the War on terrorism and long for the Good Old Days of the Cold War, which is much safer and less destructive, but still instills a desirable amount of fear in the populace. They need a threat, a bogeyman, something to bring the people to McCain, someone who would make an excellent war time leader, instead of an Obama type, who would make an excellent peace time/maker leader. "

Simmilar was the thinking of one young lady called Kara.

This thinking had made it into the media, too. This article is from Canadian Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/article/477292

"Republican presidential contender John McCain has already taken a hard line on Russia, much harder than that of the current U.S. leader, George W. Bush. The South Ossetian conflict gives McCain a chance to revive America's fears of the Russian bear."
Revival of that fear would ceirtanly, benefit Republican buddies in military industry. And oil too (major oil corporations reported record-breaking profits for the last year). But, would McCain, in case that is elected, do anything about it?
"The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery."
This could be nothing more then excuse. If US has not been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would they do? Send troops to South Ossetia? At this USA would be even more alone then in Iraq. Even if conflict with Russians would be kept limited to only South Ossetia, it would produce large number of casualties. Most NATO troops in Afghanistan are avoiding casualties, and demand to be in areas that are not Taliban-infested. How would they accept conflict with well-armed Russian troops?
Besides, take another look at that Toronto Star article. There are statements like
"Historically, the Ossetians are distinct from Georgians, speaking a language that is related to Afghanistan's Pashto."
and
"...legal recognition of South Ossetia's separation (and its almost certain absorption by Russia, which already contains North Ossetia) may be the least worst result."
"If the world is lucky, Russia, Georgia and the Ossetians will negotiate a deal that will allow the rest of us to forget about this tiny statelet. "
Same sentiment can be seen throughout the Europe. In Poland they established direct link between what is happening in Georgia with Kosovo.
"This is the Russian answer to the recognition of Kosovo. That recognition was in fact a gift to Russia," Polish People's Party European MP Janusz Wojciechowski
Warsaw's recognition of the Kosovo Albanians' secession was described as an irresponsible move by the legendary anti-communist leader and former Polish president, Lech Walesa.

"Recognizing Kosovo will bring nothing but trouble. No one can be denied the right to self-determination, but only within the bounds of common sense," he was quoted as saying at the time.

Now, he's back with "I told you so."
German journalist at "Zeitung" went one step further.
"Recently, Europe thwarted George W. Bush's attempt to give full NATO membership to Georgia. Had he succeeded, as per the NATO Charter, an attack on any member state would be construed as an attack on all. And Germany would be at war with Russia over South What?"
In other words, is it really wise that " during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. "
One thing is for sure, should McCain decide to charge towards Russia, he will find himself more isoleted then Bush.

Brilliant article.

Although I am glad that B92 posted the majority of my article I cannot understand why it edits seemingly innocent comments.

Is it not my right under free speech to say that I feel that Montgomery's Balkan analysis and conclusions are flawed and that his analysis on the Caucasus is much better? I did not insult Montgomery, only stated that he is viewing Serbian politics through a flawed (read western imperialist paradigm).

Are we not entitled to comment which articles are nonsense or are we expected to be spoon-fed our news in the old communist fashion with no descent possible?

How is it alright for the likes of Hugh Griffiths to mock Serbian Nationals on a Serbian website (read his current Pulitzer winning article on "Radovan's bad hair day on the front page!), meanwhile the Serbs who feel that this is in bad taste are muzzled?

B92 claims to promote peace and brotherhood but it seems that censorship is directed primarily towards Serbs who are proud of their nation and who are not ashamed to voice what kind of politics they prefer, or the extent of Serbia's borders (whether they extend to Republica Srpska or beyond). Why not allow Bosnian Serbs to voice their desire for union with the Fatherland - 99% wish that to be so.)

Ironically, many Albanians are free to voice a desire for an Greater Albanian/Kosovo state with veiled references such as dual citizenship, Kosovo's access to the Mediterranean, a common military etc etc.

Perhaps it is time for B92 to reassess its loyalties?

America's failure and Russia's victory. Was it by chance that the Georgians attacked the enclaves during a quiet time and during the Olympics? Or was it flawed info from the American Generals and intelligence services that gave them the green light. Think about it. Anyways, Russia is back. The American's gotta wake up, as the Bear is back. A balance is needed...too much American dictat is not good.

Excellentanalysis.The American switch of thrust from Eastern Europe and the Caucases, where the local population is receptive, if not always entusiastic about Western style democratisation and untegration in Eu and NATO to the Middle East where the Americans face a widespread hostility was a disastrous blunder!
I would like to comment another aspect of the ongoing tragedy.
History shows that nobody learns from history!
Neither the Russions nor the Georgians learned from the most illustrative experience of the 20th century - the German experience.
After two attempts to becone a "world power", the Germans faced not only a total defeat and territorial dismemberment, but also an abysmal public standing. "German" became almost synonimous to "nazi". In this situation the Soviet leaders were certain they hold the "German card". As soon as West Germany stood on its feet, they believed they could prevent its NATO integration by offfering unification for neutrality! With a neutral Gernant in the center of Europe and a calculative and at times capricious France, the American influence could be pushed across the English Channal, while the Russian influence in Central Europe would be unchalinged. Even the traditionally hostile Poles would be clinging to the Soviet Union, weary of German claims over Silesia,Prussia and Pomerania! Yet it was not to be! The genius of Adenauer saw the trap! A Germany unanchored to the West was a recepy for disaster! So the unification had to be postponed, even with the Iron Curtain crossing the German Capital. Claims for the "lost" territories in Poland and Russia were to be abandoned. The fauls Hitrerist dilema: "World power or destruction" was to be superceded. Germany was to strive to becoma a medium sized European power. The gamble proved successful! Finaly unified Germany took its decent place in Europe. When the next big redrawing of the map took place in 1991, the German voice was heard!
Many people believed that Russia will follow the German example after the Cold War. It would abandon its ambitions to be a Supperpower, in order to become a mediumsized "Wester" power. After all China and the assertive Islam, not expanding NATO were to be seen as the main treat! Well, the hope that Russia, hat in hand could line on the queue for NATO after Ukraine and Georgia proved premature! But this lesson may one day be learned. As Condolezza Rice said, Russia should oppose Iran's nuclear program NOT as doing favour of the US but out of its VITAL interest.
Geprga too missed the German Experience. It wanted NATO integration, but was reckless to sacrifice it for "territorial" ambitions, no matter how "legitimate" they were. Adenauer accepted the reality of GDR. Willi Brandt even recognized it! Hopefully now the Georgian leaders may understand that Georgia should join NATO even if South Ossetia and Abkhazia go to hell!