War in the former Soviet States - A Quick Glance

In my latest attempt at returning to semi-regularly updating the blog, I’m going to talk about the most important piece of political news in the last week, in my opinion. Not the opening of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, which was impressive – but the war in Georgia.

Late last week, Russia sent 150 tanks, and many troops across their border into a region of Georgia known as South Ossetia. South Ossetia has being trying to declare independence from Georgia since 1992, shortly after the fall of USSR, and 70% of the population in the region holds Russian citizenship, voluntarily given by Russia over the past 15 years (arguably as a way to destabilize Georgia). The entire area only has 99,000 people, according to the 1989 Census, the most current. Some estimates, according to Wikipedia, place the current population at 62,500. This little war is being fought in an area with population roughly the same as S, D and G. Think about that for a moment, 150 tanks is a little more than excessive for this type of operation.

What triggered this whole mess was Georgia launching a military operation on South Ossetia on August 7, shelling their claimed capital city. Their authority to do this is questionable, but quite possibly valid – Russia itself has been quite adamant in their authority to conduct military operations in Chechnya, which wants to break away from Russia. Russia has responded by sending troops and tanks across the border, and bringing in an air component involving fighters and bombers. It is unlikely that Georgia will be able to “win” this conflict, especially in light of the fact that they’ve had to ask the US to help them get their force in Iraq back home to help with the fight. Russia may have stepped into a conflict that could drag out for a while though, as Georgia is fiercely determined to keep the territory.

What is very compelling is the fact that this, like so many conflicts in the middle east and asia, has the potential to go south very fast. Georgia has been trying to get into NATO for some time now, and they are one of the few countries that had signed on to the US’ “coalition of the willing” in the Iraq War. In the last few days, many are wondering where US support for their forces is, as a quid pro quo for their help in Iraq. This is a very dangerous tightrope for the US and the West to walk. Russia is still a very formidable power, if not re-approaching the status of superpower, to confront. The Cold War buff in me thinks that this war is something NATO shouldn’t and couldn’t afford to touch.

Towards the end of the Cold War, contemporary thinking believed that World War III would probably start with the Soviets pushing west into Europe. This would lead to a short bout of conventional fighting, which would quickly escalate to nuclear, as NATO forces would be overwhelmed by Soviet conventional forces. Faced with a much longer supply line, the US policy was speculated to be the use of low-yield, kiloton range tactical nuclear weapons over the advancing Soviet conventional forces. No one knew for certain what would happen then, but people feared the possible response – that the Soviet leaders would retaliate with nuclear strikes on NATO targets in Western Europe. This would lead to full scale war with strategic nuclear weapons, with several gigatons of power being unloaded on civilian targets worldwide. Arguably, this threat of mutual annihilation kept the Cold War contained to smaller wars by proxy for decades.

We still can’t afford to go to war with the Russians, for the same reasons. The United States military has proved that they can’t control Iraq, and to an extent, Afghanistan, even by throwing years and trillions of dollars at the problem. Georgia is right in Russia’s backyard, it is highly doubtable that the US supply line is up to the task, especially after more than half a decade of fighting elsewhere. US involvement in Georgia wouldn’t be a “war by proxy” like Vietnam or Korea, it would be a direct confrontation, US troops facing Russian troops, for the first time in history. Georgia does not have the manpower to accept training and equipment, and Russia is already directly involved. Luckily, logic would dictate that this scenario is unlikely.

Aside from worries of global war, which are practically unjustified due to the unlikely nature of the situations that would bring it about, there is another reason that this war in Georgia is alarming – location. Georgia is just north of the hotbed of the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Also, a pipeline that runs through the country pipes 1 million barrels of oil per day into Western Europe. While a million bpd is just a drop in the bucket as far as oil transport goes, it will be a good excuse for oil companies to increase prices if this conflict goes on for any length of time.

In summary, war seems common in this area of the globe, and regardless as to who is at fault, we need to step back and look at things objectively. We cannot afford to get involved. The risk of escalation is too great, and it must be remembered that World War I was started with the assassination of a prince, and defense agreement pacts put the major powers in gear. The best we can do is hope that there is a quick resolution to the fighting. Georgia has already tried to declare a ceasefire, but it needs to be acknowledged by both sides, and something has to be done to diplomatically end this conflict. It is disheartening to think that in the 21st century, we are still a world that throws stones at its neighbours.

By the way, I promise to do something a little more light hearted and less politics/current events for my next post.