S-300s: Russia, Iran

While Russia says it has deployed the S-300 interceptor systems in Abkhazia “not only to cover the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia but also to avert violations of their state borders in the air and destroy any vehicle illegally penetrating their air space, whatever the goal of its mission," (Gen. Zelin, via Reuters, Aug. 11), some analysts believe that the S-300 interceptor batteries have been placed in Abkhazia to block a possible Israeli air route to Iran.

On August 21 Russia will begin loading fuel into Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Mistral: a cold French wind blows east

Originally published in Estonian as Mistral: külm Prantsuse tuul puhub itta

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/483208

David J. Smith*

The French Navy amphibious assault ship Mistral—named for a cold French wind—visits Saint Petersburg today. This is not just a port call; it is a sales call—with ominous geopolitical implications.

"We plan to buy one Mistral class ship in France and with technical support from the French to build four helicopter carriers of this class under license," said Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev, First Deputy Chief of the Russian Navy Staff. It would be the biggest ever NATO country military supply to Russia.

The Mistral class of ships is designed to attack the shore from the sea, an ideal weapon for Russia to intimidate its neighbors. Mistrals can carry 16 heavy or 35 light helicopters, 4 landing craft, 900 soldiers and up to 70 military vehicles, including up to 40 tanks.

At about $800 million apiece, France’s motivation to sell Mistrals is understandable. Besides, sale proponents argue, a few modern ships to Russia’s barnacle-ridden navy will hardly threaten American dominance at sea.

However, is Paris prepared to reward Russian aggression against Georgia, ignore shredding of the ceasefire agreement negotiated and signed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, accept the help of Georgian soldiers in Afghanistan but enforce an unacknowledged arms embargo on Georgia, and meanwhile sell advanced arms to Russia? Does France really want Russia to have this littoral combat capability?

Ignoring these questions may evoke pleasant noises in Moscow for a time, but Russia will not reciprocate in any concrete way. Indeed, it will demand ever more to be appeased. And eventually Russia will employ the Mistrals in another act of aggression, thereby making France complicit.

Regrettably, the potential sale of Mistral class ships to Russia appears to spring from worse than unprincipled economics. France’s partnership with Russia, Prime Minister Francois Fillon recently said, “can take several forms in the defense sphere, from military cooperation to close industrial partnership.” Recall that Fillon a day before the April 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, told France-Inter radio, "We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think it is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia.”

It is difficult to imagine what power Fillon imagines France will balance with the sale of Mistrals to Russia. However, one can readily discern Russia’s motivation for the purchase.
Moscow will not soon challenge US Navy dominance of the oceans. The Russian Navy for the foreseeable future will be a green water navy, operating close to home, largely as a complement to Russian land forces. And those forces undergird Russia’s intent to halt NATO’s eastward enlargement, particularly to Georgia and Ukraine; to retain its Black Sea Fleet headquarters in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol beyond the 2017 expiration of its leasehold; to discourage NATO from planning and exercising the defense of the post Cold War NATO allies; to challenge American cooperation with those allies; and eventually to roll back what it characterizes as encroachment from the west.

“All that we consider ours will remain ours,” said Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, toasting the 80th birthday of well known Soviet and Russian foreign policy specialist Yevgeny Primakov. The Baltic Sea, once a Soviet lake, is no doubt one of the places that Putin had in mind. When the Mistral navigated Skagerrak and Kattegat, the straits that lead from the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea into the Baltic Sea, it steamed by the shores of united Germany; by Gdansk, catalyst to the upheavals that toppled the communist world that Putin so reveres; by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, now NATO members, once occupied but never cowed by the Soviet Union.

On Baltic shores, apart from Saint Petersburg, only Kaliningrad—headquarters of the Baltic Fleet founded by Peter the Great—remains of the world for which Putin yearns. And it was no coincidence, therefore, that in Kaliningrad on September 28, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told Russian troops who had participated in the exercise Zapad 2009, “I am convinced that we will be able to reestablish our navy in the next decade…We need a strong navy.”

And the Mistrals are part of the plan. On inland seas such as the Baltic or the Black Sea, Mistral class ships would make a big difference—and the Russians know it. Referring to Russia’s August 2008 invasion of Georgia, Russian Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotskiy recently remarked, “A ship like that would have allowed the Black Sea Fleet to accomplish its mission in 40 minutes, not 26 hours, which is how long it took us.”

Consequently, the Mistral’s call in Saint Petersburg must capture the attention of every NATO ally. The French sale of Mistral class ships to Russia would be a major adverse geopolitical development and a potential alliance buster—it must be stopped.

*David J. Smith is Director, Georgian Security Analysis Center, Tbilisi, and Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Washington.

Vanhanen: Finland needs "deeper ties" with Russia

Via Bloomberg (October 9):

The conclusion in Finland was that we have to deepen our relations to Russia and that we have to try in all ways to bind Russia better and better to Europe,” [Finland's Prime Minister] Vanhanen said today in an interview at his office in Helsinki. “So, more cooperation with Russia; that was the conclusion we made after the Georgia war.”

Hat tip: Mari-Ann Kelam

Murder mystery

In the Moscow Times, Yulia Latynina discusses a murder with no killer:

Imagine Agatha Christie’s detective Hercule Poirot gathering the relatives of a murder victim together to reveal the identity of the killer and saying, “You know, all of you are such complex people, and you’ve all committed so many misdeeds, that the person simply died as a result of your collective wrongdoing.” If a murder has been committed, there must be a killer.

How can a commission come to the unbelievable conclusion that a person was murdered as a result of collective responsibility? Here is how:

According to the report, Georgia claimed that it gave notice of a large-scale concentration of Russian forces on Georgian territory prior to Aug. 7, when the five-day war began. Russia denies Georgia’s allegation, and the Kremlin asserts that Russian forces entered South Ossetia well after Georgia started military operations in the breakaway republic.

Who is correct? It might strike you as funny, but the commission doesn’t know. It couldn’t confirm that Georgia’s assertions “are well-founded,” despite the significant number of “witnesses, including Russian” witnesses who confirmed it.

Two options

Stratfor's George Friedman writes that

Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow’s actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians.

Hat tip: Mari-Ann Kelam

Calling a spade a spade

Svante E. Cornell, writing in the WSJ about "what would be necessary for a spade to be called a spade" in the IIFFMCG report on the 2008 August war:

...the report is far more devastating in its dismissal of Russia's justification for its invasion—in fact surprisingly so for an EU product. As will be recalled, Russia variously claimed it was protecting its citizens; engaging in a humanitarian intervention; responding to a Georgian "genocide" of Ossetians; or responding to an attack on its peacekeepers. The EU report finds that because Russia's distribution of passports to Abkhazians and Ossetians in the years prior to the war was illegal, its rationale of rescuing its "citizens" is invalid as they were not legally Russian. It also concludes that Moscow's claim of humanitarian intervention cannot be recognized "at all," in particular given the Kremlin's past opposition to the entire concept of humanitarian intervention.

The list goes on. The report finds Russian allegations of genocide founded in neither law nor evidence. In other words, they're not true. And whereas the report does acknowledge a Russian right to protect its peacekeepers, it finds that Moscow's response "cannot be regarded as even remotely commensurate with the threat to Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia." On the other hand, it faults Russia for failing to intervene against the ethnic cleansing of Georgians from South Ossetia and Abkhazia that took place during and after the war. Finally, it castigates Russia's recognition of the independence of the two breakaway territories as illegal, and as a dangerous erosion of the principles of international law.

Read it all.

Saakashvili: Russia's aggression has now been proved

Remarks from an address by Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili on October 2 [Civil Georgia, my stylistic editing]:

“I want to return to this topic again and again, because this is a very important issue.

This report has confirmed that everything we said about last year’s events was true.

We  said that Russia entered and was arming separatists and engaging in provocation– and it turned out to be true. We  said that the distribution of passports [by Russia to the residents of the breakaway regions] was ongoing and it has been confirmed. We said that [Russia] had no citizens in Georgia to protect and it has been confirmed. We said, and I have said – staking my reputation on it – that Russian regular forces entered Georgia before August 7 – hence a military aggression took place, and this has also been confirmed by the [EU-funded fact-finding] commission. The most difficult thing was to confirm it, because it [the introduction of Russian regular forces] was done covertly, but our teams and our friends did good work, and it was confirmed.

Of course, once these things were confirmed, the mission prepared an accusatory conclusion:  for the first time in history a permanent member of the UN Security Council has been directly accused of war crimes; it has been directly accused of ethnic cleansing – hence crimes against humanity – and of aggression.

It was a fact-finding mission; the commission’s task was not to make conclusions. But the mission made conclusions anyway and eventually said: yes,this is what happened, and although the Russian forces were already present in Georgia,  it was Georgia that fired the first shot, and that was a violation of certain norms.

I have law professors who may possibly be better versed in international law than some of the European experts who made this conclusion. But no professors are required, or even much knowledge – any first-grade student can tell you that when a foreign country’s army – the army of a country which has been openly threatening you with war for many years, and is in fact waging war – and the commission said that this conflict did not start yesterday, but when units of [Russian] paratroopers entered Georgia – it is called a direct military aggression by a foreign country.

But if that is so, it means that Europe ought to handcuff and arrest [the Russian leadership]; but they are unable to do that.

Some of our compatriots do not have the self-respect to acknowledge that this is so.

Our truth has been proved and we should be happy about it and struggle to rid our country of foreign occupation. The truth will find its road.
The aggression by Russia is now actually proved; ‘actually’ - because to give a full explanation of that would mean that the whole of Europe should stand up, but we are under no illusion that this will happen any day soon, because they have lot of bitter experience in this regard.
I want to say again with full responsibility – it was a sacred duty for myself and for all of us to respond with all possible resistance when a foreign country’s army entered our land.

We did it and I do not regret it a bit.

I am proud and it was proved that not a single woman and child were killed as a result of our operation - so much for the talk of "genocide".

Our peaceful struggle rid our country of foreign occupation will continue until this struggle is finally over.

I want to ask those people who do not want to face reality – how would France have acted in this situation? how would Germany have acted?
As we know from history, the Spanish Armada invaded the British coast and the British were the first to fire at the Armada; so was it Britain that started the war or was it Spain? Is what is permissible for Europe not permissible for Georgia?

I think that everything that is done by civilized nations is exactly applicable to our country as well. So what if we are a small country? We are a small country but we have a history and a civilization, as well as a bravery that is greater than that of many other countries.

The fate of all freedom-loving nations... is being decided in Georgia today. We have no illusions that they [Russia] will leave us alone, but we will not go back on our progress in creating a free and democratic state.”

On a separate occasion today, the President also said:

“We do not need to be taught by anyone. We are grateful to Europe for telling the truth… But we acted as England, Germany or France would have acted.”

“[In history] those who did not fire a shot have vanished from the map… Finland fired a shot and preserved its independence” [a reference to the Soviet attack on Finland in 1939]. “Our historic experience tells us that when an enemy invades your territory you should resist it, as Finland did.”

Chavez dictatorship recognizes Abkhazia, S. Ossetia

http://en.rian.ru/world/20090910/156084433.html

From civil.ge:

The Georgian Foreign Ministry condemned the decision by Venezuelan “dictator” Hugo Chavez to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as “an extremely unfriendly” move and said it hoped Venezuela would retract its decision after a “democratically elected” government comes into power in that country.

A few hours after Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, made announcement about the recognition at a meeting with his Russian counterpart in Moscow on September 10, the Georgian Foreign Ministry issued a statement which said that “such violation of norms and principles of international law will be counter-productive for Venezuela itself.”

The Foreign Ministry said Tbilisi was sure that the Venezuelan leader made such a decision in exchange for Moscow’s pledge to give Venezuela “hundreds of millions in credit and a great amount of armaments.”

“It is regrettable that Russia’s irresponsible authorities are wasting taxes paid by the population of the Russian Federation, which lives on the verge of poverty, on satisfying ephemeral foreign policy whims,” the statement reads.

Russia bans flags with crosses

Russia's Ministry of Justice has adopted a ruling by the Supreme Court that flags with crosses will be considered symbols of extremism, and their display will be banned. The ruling effectively outlaws the flags of Georgia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Dominican Republic and Jamaica, as well as those of 15 states within the Russian Federation.

Risk of Russian military intervention in Georgia? - 2

Jamestown analyst Pavel Felgenhauer is once again pointing to the possibility of a Russian intervention in Georgia this summer:

The most dangerous period within which a new full-scale war with Georgia might occur will be from July 10 until after President Barack Obama visits Moscow, while the invasion forces are already deployed and poised for action, under the cover of "Kavkaz-2009." If Russian forces go into action, their objectives will be decisive.

This is not quite clear, as according to most sources President Obama's Moscow visit is scheduled for July 6-8. Perhaps July 10 is a typo for July 1?

See also: Risk of Russian military intervention in Georgia?

Russian general admits Kremlin prepared for August invasion of Georgia

In an interview published on the website of Ekho Moskvy, Major-General Vyacheslav Borisov, the deputy head of Russia's paratroop forces who commanded the paratroopers during the conflict in South Ossetia and and the invasion of other parts of Georgia, has confirmed that Moscow was preparing to invade Georgian territory long before August 8 2008.

From The Messenger:

"...General Shamanov was in command of the troops being sent in the direction of Abkhazia and I commanded those sent to South Ossetian and Georgia. As you know, we had regularly conducted trainings in those regions, our troops had gained considerable experience of the terrain. We had conducted trainings on those territories, exactly there, one week before and had only just left the area, which is why we could conduct the march to Tskhinvali much better than the central and regional troops. For us, this did not entail any sort of difficulty. We also dealt with certain other matters in a much better way, and this was noted by the leadership of the armed forces, the Head of the General Staff and the Defence Minister..." said Borisov in part of his interview, as quoted by the Georgian Foreign Ministry.

“We are hopeful that this additional confession made by yet another Russian aggressor, will help the international commissions come to adequate conclusions when they seek the truth about the 18-year undeclared war conducted by Russia against Georgia, the last episode of which took place on August 7, 2008,” says a special statement made by the Foreign Ministry on its official webpage on June 6.

EU: S.Ossetia Polls ‘Illegitimate’ [civil.ge]

EU: S.Ossetia Polls ‘Illegitimate’

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 1 Jun.'09 / 13:52
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=21028

European Union said it “does not accept the legality of the ‘elections’,” held in breakaway South Ossetia on Sunday, and “nor its results.”

“The holding of such elections is illegitimate and represents a setback in the search for a peaceful and lasting settlement of the situation in Georgia. The EU reiterates its firm support for sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders,” the EU Czech Presidency said in a statement on June 1.

The breakaway region’s central election commission said that three parties – one officially backing the South Ossetian leader, Eduard Kokoity, and two others uncritical to him – cleared the 7% electoral threshold and secured seats in the 34-member parliament.

Party of Unity, according to the local election commission, received with over 46.3% and secured 17 seats; People’s Party – up to 22.6%, amounting to 9 seats and the Communist Party - 22.2% with 8 seats.

“Fidibasta” – Fatherland Party, which described itself as “a constructive, not radical opposition,” received 6,37%, failing to secure seats in the breakaway region’s parliament. The party has claimed widespread violations and intimidation of voters. The party has also questioned official voter turnout of over 80%.

Russia-backed military coup in Georgia averted

Georgia's President Saakashvili has given a televised address to the nation in which he announced that the mutinying servicemen at the Mukhrovani military base some 20 miles east of Tbilisi have been given a deadline to surrender. The coup plot was apparently aimed at disrupting month-long NATO military exercises that begin in Georgia tomorrow. The Georgian government has accused the organizers of the planned rebellion of receiving money and support from Russia.

New Jamestown blog

The Jamestown Foundation has started a new blog focusing on Russia and Eurasia. Recent posts include analyses of Russian reaction to forthcoming NATO exercises in Georgia, and the paradoxes and conflicts inherent in the recent Israel-Russia UAV deal.

Russia increasing troop levels in Abkhazia

The Georgian government says that Russia is increasing its military presence in Abkhazia in order to take advantage of the current unrest in Georgia, according to Newsru.com. On April 8, RFE/RL's Georgia Service reported that Russian troops began entering Abkhazia's Gali region on April 7, and the military buildup has been continuing ever since.

Russia evidently hopes to destabilize the situation in Georgia, which is being aggravated by opposition protests.

Obama on missile defence

"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defence system that is cost-effective and proven."

President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009

Defining moment

Could it be that the issue of Russia's illegal occupation of parts of Georgian territory is going to rest at the basis of the U.S. administration's new Russia policy?  As NATO heads meet in Strasbourg, on Civil Georgia today we read that

The U.S. and Russian Presidents said a joint statement that was released after their meeting in London on April 1 that “significant differences” remained between the two countries on the August war.

“Although we disagree about the causes and sequence of the military actions of last August, we agreed that we must continue efforts toward a peaceful and lasting solution to the unstable situation today,” the statement reads. “Bearing in mind that significant differences remain between us, we nonetheless stress the importance of last year’s six-point accord of August 12, the September 8 agreement, and other relevant agreements, and pursuing effective cooperation in the Geneva discussions to bring stability to the region.”

President Saakashvili welcomed the statement and said: “I am very pleased that one of the major issues on which Obama and Medvedev seriously disagreed yesterday during the meeting, and which is on the top of the list of priorities, is Georgia and the issue of occupation of Georgia.” He also said that after Obama-Medvedev meeting “any further Russian military adventures against Georgia” was ruled out.

Meanwhile, the Georgian Daily reports that

Placing all responsibility for last year’s Russian-Georgian war on his Georgian counterpart, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev declared on the sidelines of the G20 summit in London on April 2 that he will never talk to Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgian and Russian news sources said.

Biden: no "sphere of influence" for Russia

Speaking at the 45th Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden has rejected the notion of a "sphere of influence" for Russia. In addition, he announced no review of the European missile defence plan, stating that the U.S. will continue to pursue the defence system, provided it is not too costly and can be shown to be effective against the threat from Iran. Furthermore, the IHT reports Biden as saying that the U.S. will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent:

"...We will not recognize a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances."

The report notes that

...any chance for a rapprochement between Washington and Russia at this conference all but evaporated, foreign policy experts said, after officials of the Obama administration concluded that Russia had pressed Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet Republic, to close the U.S. military base in that country. The base is crucial to the U.S.-led fight in Afghanistan that Obama has identified as his central national security objective. Obama plans to deploy as many as 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan over the next two years; shaky overland supply routes through Pakistan would make it difficult for the United States to adjust to the loss of the base, in Manas, Kyrgyzstan.

Moscow plans to annexe part of Georgia

At Window on Eurasia, Paul Goble writes about Moscow's plans to take formal control of the tunnel that runs from Russian territory into South Ossetia, thus effectively annexing a part of Georgian territory:

Because of Russian power and its control of the situation on the ground, Moscow almost certainly will not only get away with this action but will be spared criticism by countries which in their desire to move forward in their relations with the Russian government want to put the Georgia affair behind them.

But Tbilisi has international law on its side. In 1931, in response to the Japanese invasion of China and Tokyo’s establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo in Manchuria, the United States articulated the Stimson Doctrine, which holds that the world must not recognize territorial changes achieved by force alone but insist that any change be by negotiations.

That principle, which was the basis for the US-led non-recognition policy with respect to the Soviet occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, is the legal foundation of the unwillingness of the entire international community -- except for the Russian Federation, Nicaragua and Hamas -- to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Russian soldier defects to Georgia

Via civil.ge:

The Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) said on January 27, that a Russian soldier, serving in the South Ossetia-based military unit, had defected from the Russian army and sought shelter in Georgia because of “unbearable conditions” in his military unit.

The Georgian television stations aired footage, disseminated by the Georgian Interior Ministry, showing a young man in the Russian military uniform named as Alexandr Glukhov and identified as a Russian soldier who served in the unit deployed in Akhalgori.

“There are bad conditions, no bath; lack of food,” he says in footage. “I request the President of Georgia to let me stay in Tbilisi.”

The Georgian Interior Ministry said in a statement that efforts were underway to arrange his stay in Georgia.