Article

2008-08-13 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2008-08-13 08:08|| || Front Page|| [11138 views ] Top

#1 Russia is going to back Iran no matter what. They are already building them a goddamned heavy water reactor that will produce plutonium. What's a lousy S-300 defense system going the do to change the balance of power? There must be a counter move against russia or they will keep advancing.

Posted by Pancho Angomoger4770 2008-08-13 09:40|| 2008-08-13 09:40|| Front Page Top

#2 The counter move against Russia should be the U.S. pulling out of NATO.

As long as the Europeans look to the U.S. as the counterweight to Russia they will continue to neglect their own military capabilities. Furthermore, the U.S. will have forces tied down in Europe.

If the Europeans are forced to provide for their own defense then they will upgrade their continental forces. The U.S. can focus it's efforts in Central Asia.

Russia is not the Soviet Union and they do not have the eastern bloc. Poland, East Germany, Hungary, etc., have all switched sides. A Euro/Russian war would be no contest if the the Europeans were serious about their own defense.

Posted by DoDo 2008-08-13 12:28|| 2008-08-13 12:28|| Front Page Top

#3 Sorry, DoDo, that just doesn't fly.

If the US were to pull out of NATO and redeploy US troops in Europe elsewhere (like back home which is something I'd love to see happen) it would force a strategic realignment of NATO and the eastern European countries. Russia is right on their doorstep. If the US pulled out, they'd be faced with either cozying back up to Russia or trying to face off with it in a game of military buildup and brinksmanship that, without US backing with troops, NATO and eastern Europe could not hope to counter.

So, faced with the likely response of western Europe which would likely be to stand by and do nothing, the eastern European countries would have no choice IMO than to cozy back up to the Russian bear to keep it appeased. That means the dissolution of NATO and the re-emergence of the Warsaw Pact eventually and a strategic realignment of major proportions.

Russia eventually regains its allied buffer countries and, rich with its oil wealth and growing ever-richer, reasserts itself on the world stage as a counterweight to US strategic objectives, policy, and power.

All as a result of the US pulling out of NATO and redeploying its troops elsewhere.

The chances that wetern European countries would actually step up to the plate, increase defense spending and actually stand up to Russia in defense of eastern Europe is, IMO, virtually nil.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2008-08-13 16:28|| 2008-08-13 16:28|| Front Page Top

#4 Agreed. They have neither the will nor the means.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-13 16:31|| 2008-08-13 16:31|| Front Page Top

#5 As much as I hate to admit it, Russia sneaked through with an end-around on this one. The US simply isn't in a position to defend Georgia for its strategic foulup and it's just not worth the potential cost in American lives to attempt to do so no matter how badly that hurts.

I've seen other people around the web venting and saying that we ought to do stupid crap like threatening nuclear war against Russia for this. That's extraordinarily stupid IMO not to mention shortsighted. Georgia simply isn't worth a hundred million lives lost in the US alone or the complete and utter destruction of the US as a strategic power (and I believe that's what a full-on nuclear war between the US and Russia would result in - Russia a devastated wasteland and the US reduced to 3rd world status with our greatest cities, our industry, infrastructure, communications, and capabilities equally reduced).

I'm sorry, truly I am. Georgia and Saakashvili screwed the pooch and are going to be left holding the bag. We can help with humanitarian aid and reconstruction, but we've gotten hurt here strategically and have egg on our face. We need to hold Russia's feet to the fire and completely punish them for this, but it must be done in other ways - keeping them out of the G6/7/8 or whatever, making sure the value of the ruble is reduced somehow, reducing their markets for Russian investments, especially here in the US and in western Europe (if the western Europeans have the guts), and anywhere else (especially Cuba and Venezuela) they try to raise their heads. If a new Cold War is the result, well, we won the last one and there are a whole lot of other ways we can hrt Russia where it really counts - in their pockets.

I do hope that this does instill in people the fact that Russia is not, and never has been and probably never will be, our friend or a friend to freedom and democracy anywhere.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2008-08-13 16:54|| 2008-08-13 16:54|| Front Page Top

#6 I actually agree with your attitude on the state of European culture, which is why NATO has to end. Europeans have become like welfare queens, no longer assuming responsibiliy for their defense, but believing they are entitled to repect. The cycle of dependency must be broken.

Europe will cozy up to, and cave in to, Russia whether the U.S. is there or not. Moreover, they will seek to curtail U.S. actions as part of their appeasement (as they did with our missiles in the 80's and do with our missile defenses today) and they will resent us for being there.

If there were no U.S. presence in Europe, the Europeans will have no one to blame for their trouble other than those responsible (themselves). You may be right and withdrawing our troops will not fix their mental attitudes; however, it is the only hope they have, because remaining as their protectors surely will not.

I also don't believe Russia will be quite as rich and powerful as you think. It has a declining population and an economy based on commodities. As they try to re-grow their empire they will begin to remember why it fell last time: 1) empires are expensive and tend to bleed the imperials and 2) your new serfs hate your guts.

#2 already applies to eastern Europe and I believe it will also aplly to will also apply to western Europe if we give them the chance.

Posted by DoDo 2008-08-13 17:15|| 2008-08-13 17:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Perhaps NATO isn't the issue. Perhaps we should suggest to the Chinese that we are going to push for Japan to change their consitution to rearm if they don't help us contain the Russians.

If that doesn't work get the Japanese to change their constitution. I think the threat is better than the reality but the Russians don't want that crap going on in the East.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-08-13 21:11|| 2008-08-13 21:11|| Front Page Top

#8 A big OH PULEEEEZE to most of the analysis in this article.

Let's start and end with the basically undefined issues of eactly what is Russia/CCCP/Tsarist Empire's "national security"?

What is their "nation" and how or when has it ever been "secure"? I suppose Brazil would be the least of Russia's worries, but the US is a close second. Kissinger is only the most recent analyst to emphasize this point, but he's neither the first nor will he be the last.

"Russia has been an empire for centuires"! Correct, and empires have been going out of style since at least 1776, arguably since 1215 - you'd think Marxists, of all people, would recognize the dialectics at play, but I suppose they're stuck repeating history out of habit. That, and for all their scientific prowess they still are stuck in remedial economics class.

Posted by Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division 2008-08-13 21:34|| 2008-08-13 21:34|| Front Page Top

#9 F: I've seen other people around the web venting and saying that we ought to do stupid crap like threatening nuclear war against Russia for this.

I think we can stop well short of threatening a nuclear war and still punish Russia to the point that its presence in Georgia becomes too expensive to sustain. We could resupply the Georgians - the way the Russians resupplied the North Vietnamese and the North Koreans. We could supply American "volunteers" to help the Georgians fight the way the Russians had "volunteers" flying North Korean and North Vietnamese aircraft against our flyboys. We could take a whack at its economy by imposing unilateral economic sanctions on Russia. There's a lot of things we could do to remind the Russian public why it's a bad idea to elect someone like Putin to power, ranging from body bags without end to a ruble crash.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-08-13 21:52|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-08-13 21:52|| Front Page Top

#10 Ruble crash, and someday it will dawn on the EU to create a monopsony to buy Russian energy.

Posted by Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division 2008-08-13 22:18|| 2008-08-13 22:18|| Front Page Top

#11 Georgia simply isn't worth a hundred million lives lost in the US alone or the complete and utter destruction of the US as a strategic power (and I believe that's what a full-on nuclear war between the US and Russia would result in - Russia a devastated wasteland and the US reduced to 3rd world status with our greatest cities, our industry, infrastructure, communications, and capabilities equally reduced).

Is there a hidden assumption here? I would suggest that it is US which would be a "devastated wasteland", and Russia would merely suffer an infrastructure loss. For two reasons. First, Russia is 1.8 times larger than U.S. And second, it has more stockpiled nukes (you can check some websites for the numbers, including wiki)

Posted by Correction 2008-08-13 22:55|| 2008-08-13 22:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Nice analysis by George Friedman, and reads well.

Posted by Correction 2008-08-13 23:17|| 2008-08-13 23:17|| Front Page Top

#13 Correction. Welcome to Rantburg. Any relation to "General Comment" or "McZoid"?

Posted by Halliburton - Blogosphere Welcome Division 2008-08-13 23:23|| 2008-08-13 23:23|| Front Page Top

#14 Correction, the funny thing about Russia is you take out Moscow and the rest will fall apart.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-08-13 23:28|| 2008-08-13 23:28|| Front Page Top

#15 Same as General Comment.

Posted by Correction 2008-08-13 23:29|| 2008-08-13 23:29|| Front Page Top

#16 rjschwarz, in 1812 Napoleon took Moscow (and burned it to the ground) yet the rest somehow did not fall apart. Same is 1941, although Moscow was almost taken, most of the industry was already evacuated elsewhere. It stays "elsewhere" since then. Anyway, it's just silly to talk about the nukes (where it is all leading to?) that was my point.

Posted by Correction 2008-08-13 23:35|| 2008-08-13 23:35|| Front Page Top

#17 Correction, Read all of my comment then. I'm not assuming Russia does not have nukes (it has considerably less of them than it used to, as do we, but only about 1/3rd of Russia's ICBM silo's and missiles are capable of firing due to the deterioration of their infrastructure and disarmament since the end of the Cold War - that's not to say that the two countries would not destroy one another however. I did say that the talk was foolish and made the statement to point out that Georgia simply isn't worth 100 million dead in the US alone and that anyone who says something as foolish as we should threaten nuclear war is simply dumber than a stump).

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2008-08-13 23:43|| 2008-08-13 23:43|| Front Page Top

23:43 FOTSGreg
23:35 Correction
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:29 Correction
23:28 rjschwarz
23:23 Halliburton - Blogosphere Welcome Division
23:23 Jiggs Chiter5628
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:17 Correction
23:12 3dc
23:11 tipover
23:02 Steve White
22:56 Classical_Liberal
22:55 Correction
22:36 Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division
22:35 crosspatch
22:33 McZoid
22:30 Hupusong Hatfield aka Broadhead6
22:30 Besoeker
22:23 Hupusong Hatfield aka Broadhead6
22:22 McZoid
22:21 USN,Ret.
22:18 lotp
22:18 Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division