Pipeline Politics: The Russian/Ukrainian Gas Dispute (guest essay)

Editor’s note: While last summer’s Russia aggression against Georgia garnered international headlines, Russia’s consistent use of energy in recent years to bully other countries has also had serious ramifications. Earlier this week, Russia kicked it up a notch by slashing natural gas supplies to much of Europe due to a murky dispute with Ukraine. MOFYC's resident Eastern European Expert Mark offers his take on the situation.



Pipeline Politics: The Russian/Ukrainian Gas Dispute
by Mark


Most of us appreciate the sharp decline in gas prices in recent months. However, two major geopolitical crises are responsible for the recent spike in prices, and unless both are resolved rather quickly, the upward pressure on prices will continue. After dropping to a low of around $31 per barrel, as of mid-week they are creeping towards $50 once again. The Israeli assault in Gaza is one factor, and the one most of us are familiar with; the second is the dispute between Russia and Ukraine in regards to natural gas prices for the 2009 fiscal year. While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long-running and convoluted dispute in itself, the natural gas dispute is arguably just as complex, if not even murkier. Let me introduce you to the opaque world of energy politics in Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Russia has not only been blessed with among the largest natural gas reserves in the world, but plenty of energy-hungry neighbors on its borders and beyond to which to sell this resource. Currently, Russia, through its state-run energy monopoly Gazprom, provides the European Union with about one-quarter of its natural gas needs. If you break down that statistic into individual countries, things get even more impressive: according to Wikipedia, as of 2004, Gazprom is the *only* natural gas supplier to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Finland, Macedonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Slovakia, and provides 97 percent of Bulgaria's gas, 89 percent of Hungary's, 86 percent of Poland's, nearly three-quarters of the Czech Republic's, 67 percent of Turkey's, 65 percent of Austria's, about 40 percent of Romania's, 36 percent of Germany's, 27 percent of Italy's, and 25 percent of France's. If you think the US is too dependent on crude oil from the Middle East, re-read the aforementioned figures.

Natural gas is not that easy to transport. Due to its very low density, the most economical way of transporting it is through pipelines. However, to get to Europe, Russia must ship natural gas through several countries, particularly Ukraine. Let’s look at this map from the BBC:



80% of western and central Europe’s natural gas travels through Ukraine. That is a choke point in every sense of the word.

An independent, western-oriented Ukraine has been a thorn in Russia’s side for years. The most recent disputes between the two involve a whole list of issues, such as NATO membership for Ukraine, the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, the future of the Russian fleet base in Sevastopol, influence in Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, the Russo-Georgian War of August 2008, recognition of the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide (the Holodomor) as an act of genocide perpetrated by the Soviet regime, etc. In the 2004 Orange Revolution, the pro-Russian government and its preferred presidential candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, were defeated and discredited in street demonstrations and new elections by the pro-western democratic forces led by current president Viktor Yushchenko.

One method of putting pressure on Ukraine has been for Russia to raise natural gas prices. It has been done before, and that appears to be the situation currently. In the most recent dispute, Gazprom began making claims in November that Ukraine owed them some $2.4 billion, and they would stop supplying Ukraine with gas unless the debts were paid off in full by December 31, 2008. This is where it gets really confusing, but bear with me.

Ukraine countered that since they technically purchase natural gas through an intermediary called RosUkrEnergo (RUE, a murky enterprise half owned by Gazprom, half by two Ukrainian businessmen, and all accused of having ties to organized crime in Russia and lining the pockets of some Kremlin officials) it was impossible for Ukraine to owe Gazprom any money. Then Ukraine admitted it owed $1.2 billion. Then Ukraine said it had paid off the full debt to RUE.(“In full” by whose standards?) Then Gazprom said Ukraine still owed them $614 million in late fees. And get this: a month before the accusations began flying around, the prime ministers of both countries had apparently signed a deal where RUE would have been abolished and Ukraine would have purchased natural gas from Gazprom directly. An agreement was signed to nix RUE (we think?), and within a few weeks new accusations about unpaid debts are made.

And then, we come to the newest part of the dispute. What price should Ukraine pay for natural gas? And what price should Russia pay to transport natural gas to its customers beyond Ukraine? As of December 2008, Ukraine was paying $179.50 per 1,000 cubic meters, and charging Russia $1.70 to transport 1,000 cubic meters per 100 kilometers. Energy analyst Roman Kupchinsky writes:

“[Gazprom] CEO Alexei Miller said in December that Ukraine would pay $450 per 1,000 cubic meters in 2009. During the unsuccessful negotiations, Gazprom demanded $250, which the Ukrainians rejected, making a counteroffer of $208. Miller responded that since they had rejected $250, they would pay $418. On January 1 Oleh Dubyna, the head of [the state-run Ukrainian energy monopoly] Naftohaz Ukrainy, offered to buy Russian gas for $235 contingent on a price increase for transporting Russian gas to Europe from the current $1.70 per 1,000 cubic meters per 100 kilometers to $1.80. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rejected this increase and insisted that transit fees were locked into a contract that is due to expire in 2010. The next day Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and [Prime Minister Yulia] Tymoshenko made a joint public statement on the crisis in which they upped the proposed transit price to “not less than $2.00.” (full article here)

Ukraine denies the existence of a transit fee contract that supposedly expires in 2010, and also points out that the transit fees of Western European countries are regularly twice as much as what Ukraine charges Gazprom. If Russia wants to raise natural gas prices, why can’t Ukraine ask for higher transit fees as well?

Does your head hurt yet? The media has had just as much trouble as you and me in trying to keep track of all these threats, statements and deals. There were times at which, if you went on Google or Yahoo news for updates, you would literally see contradictory headlines on articles written merely a few hours apart. All of this is a symptom of the lack of transparency in the negotiating process.

Since Ukraine and Russia could not agree on the debt nor the 2009 gas price, Russia cut supplies to Ukraine… sort of. They simply deducted from the pipelines the amount of gas Ukraine regularly receives, and kept the rest flowing west. (A full cut would obviously cut all supplies to western and central Europe.) However, Russia now claims Ukraine is illegally siphoning large amount of gas from the pipes, some 65.3 million cubic meters between January 1-4. Ukraine counters that a much smaller amount than that is being siphoned by their state energy monopoly, but only enough to maintain pressure in the pipes for the Western consumers. It is also entirely plausible that some Ukrainian companies, particularly in heavy industry, are taking gas from the pipelines without permission from the Ukrainian government to keep their own factories on line.

In response, the Kremlin ordered an even greater cut in the amount of natural gas shipped west, and now nearly a dozen European consumer countries are reporting that the amount of natural gas reaching them has decreased or been completely halted. The EU, which has been calling this a commercial dispute between Ukraine and Russia, is finally being, ahem, motivated to do more. Fact-finding missions have been sent to both Kyiv and Moscow to figure out what the hell’s going on. Gazprom says it will re-supply the west through pipelines in Belarus and Turkey, but, logistically speaking, cannot make up the difference. Luckily for everyone, negotiations are supposed to resume tomorrow in Moscow. But will they succeed?

The Ukrainian economy is reeling from the global financial crisis. The currency has lost some 60% of its value, and steel production, a key component of its economy, is down over 40%. Ukraine qualified for over $16.4 billion in IMF loans, but it may not be enough to keep the country from falling into an economic depression and/or social instability. Ukraine has stated that it cannot afford to pay $250 for natural gas, never mind $450.

When a private individual is in debt, normally the creditor can suggest a deal where the debt is renegotiated or even lowered, because the creditor would prefer to retrieve some money than no money from the debtor. But when it comes to the situation between Ukraine and Russia, rather than Ukraine going bankrupt and not repaying Russia, the Kremlin probably hopes for a different outcome- the fall of the current government. If the Ukrainian public sentiment against the pro-western government rises high enough, it can mean a return to power of a more agreeable, pro-Russian government. Yanukovych lost the 2004 presidential election, but if the crises with Russia continue and Ukraine’s economy keeps faltering, he may take office in just over a year.

Russia also has many problems of its own: the collapse in energy prices has shaken the economy to the core. The stock market has lost 75% of its value in less than five months, and the currency is down some 25% to the dollar. The market and ruble would have fallen even further if the Kremlin had not sunk tens of billions of dollars from government coffers into subsidizing the market, the currency and many large companies (including Gazprom!) as a last resort. Russia needs oil prices of at least $70 a barrel to balance a budget, and the recent downturn has many Russians very worried about their economic prospects and yes, even questioning their own government’s competence.

According to Pavel Baev of the International Peace Research Institute of Oslo, “One direct consequence of this [Russian economic] downfall is the new Russian-Ukrainian “gas war,” which Moscow has launched this year out of desperation rather than arrogance as was the case in 2006. In autumn Gazprom was reaping record profits from exporting gas to Europe, because the price of gas follows that of oil with a lag of six to nine months. These increased prices are set to disappear in 2009, so Gazprom wants to fix the price for Ukraine at the current European level, which Kiev [sic] has every reason to consider too high.” (full article here) The collapse of oil prices has been hard enough on Russia; a collapse in natural gas prices would hurt Russia even more.

Ukraine needs to undergo two sets of reforms to get out of this predicament: energy use reform and energy politics reform. The country’s Soviet-era industries and factories are among the least energy efficient in the world, and Ukrainian consumers pay rates that are highly subsidized by the government. Industry must be modernized and made more energy efficient, and gas prices must be raised to reflect market rates; the Ukrainian government recognizes this and has proposed a transition over the next several years to higher prices, but a hike to $250 or more for natural gas in the short term could crush the economy. Ukraine, and the rest of Europe, should also strive for energy source diversification, so as to not rely almost entirely on the whims of an increasingly authoritarian and belligerent Kremlin for their energy needs. Secondly, the corruption and serious lack of transparency in the energy market of the former Soviet Union is a plague upon the entire region. Deals and contracts are made, money is transferred, but few really know what is going on. Until the industry’s accountability standards and local judicial system can be improved, future energy contracts between Ukraine and foreign entities such as Gazprom must be made open to oversight, preferably through a trusted third party such as the EU, OSCE or WTO. A neutral referee can make sure funds are correctly transferred and contracts are properly made and fully upheld.

Mark is a recovering blogger who quit cold turkey in the summer of 2007. Currently he is an irregular guest analyst of international affairs, particularly on Eastern European happenings, for Musings of a (Fairly) Young Contrarian Mark has led a full and productive life ever since he suspended full-time blogging: he has argued with Ukrainian election officials as an accredited international observer, seen the inside of an Eastern European maximum security prison, toured the Lower Ninth Ward after Hurricane Katrina and lent a hand in the city’s reconstruction, was nearly trampled by a pack of New Orleans police horses, completed an MA in history, sampled Germany’s finest beer, and climbed a 5,600-foot peak in Bavaria without provisions. For his next act, Mark is plotting a week long excursion to Slovenia at the end of this month. For pictures of these adventures and more, go to: http://community.webshots.com/user/shukhevych

Russia relentlessly provoked conflict with Georgia: former Putin deputy

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

The conventional wisdom among my friends on the left is that Georgia is primarily responsible for their conflict with Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If G. Walker Bush condemns the Russian intervention, then the Pavlovian response must be that Georgia deserves what they get for being friendly with Bush. Oddly, they do not apply such logic to the genocide in Darfur, which Bush has also deplored.

The left-wing conventional wisdom is that Georgia launched an unprovoked military action in what is internationally recognized as their sovereign territory and they did so just for shits and giggles. Conventional wisdom further states that Russia was a disinterested, neutral party until this point and launched Operation South Ossetian Freedom for the sole purpose of protecting South Ossetians.

No word on why Russia continues to occupy undisputed Georgian territory long after the truce. No word on Russia's fairly explicit desire for regime change in Tblisi, including comments by the Russia's head of state referring to Georgia's president as a living corpse. No word on Russia's fairly explicit militaristic desires, which resulted in Russia's head of state bragging that the Georgian invasion showed that Russia was a country to be reckoned with.

To many on the left, occupying a sovereign country is bad when the US does it but someone else's fault when Russia does it.

Trying to impose regime change on another country is bad when the US does it but someone else's fault when Russia does it.

Militarism is bad when the US does it but someone else's fault when Russia does it.

I've heard outrageous apologias for the Russian aggression, such as "When you mess with the bull, you get the horns."

I can imagine R. Bruce Cheney saying the exact same thing to Saddam. (Sure, Saddam never did anything to America. But neither did Georgia ever do anything to Russia)

I've heard ethnic cleansing trivialized. The only bad thing about burning villages and expelling people, apparently, is that it's a waste of perfectly good lodging.

I can imagine Slobodan Milosveic saying this to his militias.

These deplorable comments were not made by far right militarists but by members of the left.

One of the consistent lines is that while Russia might have overreacted just a tad (a remarkably restrained definition of 'just a tad'), Georgia threw the first stone. So if Russia wants to emasculate Georgia as punishment, then Tblisi deserves what it gets. They deserve whatever Russia unilaterally imposes, because Georgia started it. After all, Russia has the right to tell its former colonies who they can and can't be friends with and what political and military alliances they can and can't join.

But this premise, that Georgia launched this unprovoked action in South Ossetia just for the heck of it, even true?

Not according to the man who was once a close ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Russia's de facto leader and architect of its new imperialist foreign policy.

Mikhail Kasyanov was named Russian prime minister, shortly after the Putin became president in 2000.

Far from Georgia being the primary aggressor, Kasyanov claims that Putin and Russia "relentlessly provoked the conflict in every way."

And when the Georgian leadership 'gave in' and took Russia's bait, the Kremlin, '"instead of fulfilling its peacekeeping mandate, started a large-scale war against the independent sovereign state of Georgia. Not only the disproportionate use of force, but in fact a full-scale war."

Putin's former deputy added that "it was obvious that the Russian authorities were amazed by the reaction of the civilized world... That is why it's crucially important that countries of the civilized world act in unison."

He also pointed out how Putin's regime is relentless whipping up nationalist hysteria to support its militaristic policies. "The propaganda streaming today from television screens and newspaper pages is, in a simplified way, calling on the nation to rally together and to protect the motherland. Hinting that war is on the threshold, that the enemies are knocking on our gates and that Russia is surrounded by enemies who want to break Russia into pieces... They want to cover the problems they've created in the last few years . . . by alleging that evil forces surround Russia and dream of its destruction."

Remember, these aren't the opinions of Mikhail Sakashvilli or of some Georgian nationalist or of some Russophobe. It comes from the mouth of the man who used to be the number two to Russia's current strongman. Maybe he's saying something worth taking into consideration.


The interview with The Los Angeles Times is a very interesting perspective from someone who once worked closely with Putin. The full interview can be accessed here

South Ossetians party like it's 1099!

Following their liberation by the magnanimous Russian imperial armed forces, South Ossetians have chosen to celebrate their newfound 'freedom' by engaging a series of ethnic cleansing parties.

Human Rights Watch (obviously a huge fan of the Bush administration's great respect for the rule of law) has reported that its researchers have personally observed South Ossetians burning ethnic Georgian villages, 'massive looting' by Ossetian militias in Russian occupied territory, to say nothing of liberating 'Russian tanks systematically firing into the homes.'

Additionally: "Human Rights Watch researchers spoke with several members of the Ossetian militias who openly admitted that the houses were being burned by their associates, explaining that the objective was to ensure that ethnic Georgians would not have the houses to return to."

My initial reaction is to deplore this ethnic cleansing. But rest that if the Bush administration condemns these actions, I will retract my criticism and give these freedom parties my seal of approval!

'Koran abuse' worse than ethnic cleansing?

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

I read an interesting article in The Chicago Tribune about the spin coming from the Russian and Georgian governments recently. A few interesting tidbits:

Regarding hysterical Russian claims of genocide:

"Genocide is what's happened," said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a longtime member of Putin's inner circle. "Widespread physical destruction—with artillery shells, tanks and guns—of thousands of Russian citizens. Basically, an ethnic cleansing operation was carried out."

But when Human Rights Watch researchers talked to doctors at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital, they were told that most of those killed in the capital were brought to the hospital, and the toll was 44, a count that included combatants and civilians. Bodies were not taken to the city morgue because the fighting had knocked out the city's electricity.

"That's 44 too many, and clearly unacceptable," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "But the Russian propaganda machine is clearly working very hard right now."

And regarding allegations that Georgia arbitrarily launched an unprovoked assault of South Ossetia for no particular reason, the Tribune piece reports:

Much of the information war has focused on who instigated the conflict. Russia has repeatedly insisted that Georgia waged its assault on South Ossetia unprovoked. "Who, after all, started military action in South Ossetia?" [Russian de jure president] Medvedev said at a news conference Friday. "Was it Russian peacekeepers, Russian forces or the Georgian army?"

Medvedev did not mention the barrage of shelling from South Ossetian separatists directed at Georgian villages that preceded the Georgian assault. While [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili has been widely criticized both in Georgia and in the international community for overreacting to the South Ossetian shelling, the beginnings of the conflict were not as black and white as the Kremlin has portrayed.

But while Georgia's shelling of a town drew loud condemnation from the much of the North American left, 'massive'* Russian bombardement of Georgian civilian areas merits barely a mention.

(*-Human Rights Watch's description)

A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report weighed in on the situation.


It notes that both armies have used 'indiscriminate' force at various times in the conflict. It criticized the Georgians for "indiscriminate force during their assault on Tskhinvali [the South Ossetian capital] and neighboring villages."

HRW has "confirmed the Russian military’s use of cluster bombs in two towns in Georgia."

It also reported that the Russian military has 'targeted' civilian convoys fleeing the conflict for aerial bombing. It also accuses the Russian military of "Ongoing looting, arson attacks, and abductions by militia are terrorizing the civilian population, forcing them to flee their homes and preventing displaced people from returning home."

In other words, Georgia's crime was recklessness. Russia's crimes were conscious and planned. Both are unacceptable, but they are not equal, neither in intent, nor in scale.

Another HRW report accuses South Ossetian militas, armed by Moscow, of burning and looting Georgian villages. Essentially, the same ethnic cleansing that Russia attributed to Georgia... except far more fitting of such a high charged phrase.

The North American left's response to all this? Silence. Or some half-hearted apologia that tosses in a little token criticism of Russia while implying that Georgia got what it deserved for befriending Bush.

The progressive left shouldn't stick their finger in the wind, find out what the neo-cons argue and base their principles on the opposite. If the progressive left is going to claim to stand against imperialism and for human rights, it must unequivocally condemn all war crimes and all militarism, including Russia's.

Certainly, ethnic cleansing and targeting fleeing civilians for bombing are at least as worthy of outrage as 'Koran abuse.'

Satire is impossible with reality like this

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

Launching an unprovoked aggression against a foreign country under the fake pretexts of protecting security and human rights with the real objectives of seizing the country's resources and imposing regime change on a defiant government.

According to the Bush administration, such behavior 'has no place in the 21st century.'

President Bush himself called such behavior “bullying and intimidation" and demanded the invaded country's sovereignty and territorial integrity 'be respected.' He also said that such actions damaged the invading country's credibility and international standing.

By all accounts, this was said with a straight face.

My guess is that the Bush administration uses the Ethiopian calendar.

Under that system, March 2003 was in the 20th century.

Top 'diplomat' admits Russia's true expansionist intentions in Georgia

Russia's original position when it launched its aggression against Georgia was that it was merely bitchslapping an insolent little child as 'punishment.' It claimed that once the child cowered into proper obedience to its master, Russia would stop its 'defensive' action.

Perhaps realizing that its actions have revealed its words as lies, especially after basically ignoring the 'cease fire' they agreed, Russia has finally admitted what was its true desire from well before the invasion: annexing Georgian territory.

Russia's foreign minister told the press that the world "can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity" because it has unilaterally decided that South Ossetia and Abkhazia don't want to remain part of Georgia.

If this is really the case, then Russia would surely have no problem letting its occupation force be replaced by UN peacekeepers while the international body conducted a referendum so that South Ossetians and Abkhazians could decide their own futures rather than being dictated to by Moscow. (wink/nod)

Can you imagine the international outrage if under Saddam's rule, the US snapped its fingers and unilaterally declared that Iraqi Kurdistan would henceforth be an American commonwealth like Puerto Rico?

Some have asked why I'm giving Georgia's President Sakashvili a free pass. That's not true. I've stated several times that the military action in South Ossetia was reckless stupidity of monstrous proportions. I read yesterday that US Sec. of State Rice said she warned Sakashvili several months ago not to provoke Russia.

But it's true I've criticized him far less than Russia's de facto leader Prime Minister Putin. And the simple fact is that Sakashvili's sin of grotesque stupidity is far less grave both in moral terms and geopolitical implications than Putin's sin of aggressive imperialism. I view Russia's actions as a) far more dangerous to international stability and b) at best debatable in fact and totally out of control in scale. Both countries are wrong but I'm not going to pull a moral equivalency here. I'm far more critical of Russia because I believe they are far more wrong.

If there's compelling evidence from an objective source that Sakashvili is implicated in war crimes, then by all means he should be indicted. However, that 'objective' source can not be any Russian government official, especially Vladimir Putin crying 'genocide'... the same Putin who himself should've have been put up on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges years ago for Chechnya.

I understand Russia's fear of being 'surrounded' (at least on the west) by NATO countries. But on the other hand, I also understand the desire of most European former Soviet states to gain the protection of NATO membership.

It started with things like Russia meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics and poisoning the then-opposition leader; the man is now Ukraine's president and, not shockingly, isn't buddy-buddy with Putin. It continued with things like Russia's apparent cyberattack on Estonia. It's escalated with Russia cutting off energy supplies to former satellites for being pro-western, such as Poland and Ukraine. And it's reached its peak with Russia's aggression against Georgia. Well, let's hope it's the peak.

Let's not forget that places like Poland spent 45 years under Russian domination.

Let's also not forget that places like Georgia and Ukraine spent most of the 20th century as conquered lands under the formal subjugation of the Russian empire after being conquered.

So if these countries are mistrustful of Russia's true intentions, I'd say they have pretty darn good reason. The invasion of Georgia followed by Russia's now explicit desire to annex* parts of this small country only illustrates this wisdom of this mistrust.

(*-Excuse me, I mean re-annex)

Regime change is also widely believed to be a main objective of the invasion. Russia has declared it won't talk to the Georgian government until Sakashvili reigns. Reports suggest that Russian tanks continue to advance into Georgia, well beyond the zone of conflict, despite the cease fire Russia agreed to.

Russia has spent most of this decade destabilizing South Ossetia and enabling the criminal gangs there with close links to elements in the Kremlin. They'd fabricated an excuse to meddle in South Ossetia by giving passports to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the land. They'd whipped up anti-Georgian sentiment not only in South Ossetia but in Russia itself. All these factors were carefully planned pretexts to an invasion and annexation they obviously wanted for a long time... as evidenced by the statement of Russia's foreign minister.

What exactly was Georgia supposed to do in the face of all these years of provocation and destabilization of its territory?

Bear in mind, this is a country that twice in the last two centuries has been conquered and annexed by imperial Russia.

And it's a country that, we know now, Russia has designs on it yet again.

It seems Russia was always going to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia one way or another. They seemed content on doing it slowly but had obviously prepared to do it quickly. Sakashvili's decision gave them a chance to fast track the process. But it was something that looked like was going to happen either way, regardless of what Sakashvili did.

International opinion seems clear on what Georgia should NOT have done, but what exactly WERE they supposed to do?

When Libya sent arms to the IRA in the 1980s, Britain was furious. Arming secessionists is only one aspect of Russia's destabilization campaign in South Ossetia.

When French President de Gaulle went to Montreal in 1967 and stoked Quebec nationalism, Canada was livid. The mass outrage was provoked by three little words: 'Vive le Québec libre.' This is less than peanuts compared to what Russia was doing in South Ossetia even before the invasion.

But when Russia does far worse to destabilize South Ossetia (before the full scale invasion), Georgia is supposed to say nothing, do nothing and hope their behemoth neighbor with a repeated history of conquering it might decide to play nice?

Again, critics make it clear what Georgia should not have 'provoked' Russia by trying to re-assert control over its territory, but what exactly should they have done?

I hate to say it but some countries are going to look at this and conclude, "If Georgia had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have been invaded."

Then, some countries have looked at the invasion of Iraq and the non-invasion of North Korea and concluded the same thing.

Russia's Anschluss against Georgia

"I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul ..." George W. Bush on Vladimir Putin, 2001


Although Russia occupies a sixth of the world's land mass, apparently this is not enough for the new Russian imperialists.

While Americans are focused on their quadrennial obsession with fencing and competitive kayaking, a war has broken out half way around the world. The Russian military has invaded the Republic of Georgia, in the apparent hope of annexing at least part of the country.

A little history is order. Shortly after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the region of South Ossetia unilaterally declared independence from the new Republic of Georgia. This declaration was not recognized by anyone other than Moscow. The region has had de facto autonomy since then. Over the last few years, Russia has stoked secessionist sentiment in South Ossetia as part of its comprehensive campaign to intimidate and destabilize former Soviet states that dare flinch from Russian domination. Just ask the Ukranians. Russian imperialism in Georgia has included the arming of separatist groups and the arbitrary attribution of passports to South Ossetians. This was done in order to create Russian citizens to invent the excuse for Moscow that its intervention in South Ossetia was 'to protect Russian citizens.'

Last week, the Georgian army was sent in to try and retake control of the breakaway region. Russia says its military intervention is solely designed to protect the Russian citizens in South Ossetia from alleged abuses by the Georgian army.

Yet the Russians have advanced deep into Georgia territory, coming within 60 miles of the Georgian capital Tblisi. This is far away from the zone they are allegedly there to protect. They also invaded the western part of Georgia.

Georgia's government claims the invasion is an attempt at regime change. The country's American-educated president has cultivated close ties with the US and Europe and this has infuriated Vladimir Putin's government*, which doesn't take kindly to any country trying to leave its sphere of domination. The tension has been excaberated by the fact that Georgia's president came to power via elections that ousted the country's pro-Russian government.

(*-Belligerent Russian imperialism started under Putin's presidency and has continued during his recent transition to the prime ministership, where observers believe he remains the country's most powerful man)

This op-ed in The Christian Science Monitor claims that the conflict is not all Russia's fault. It accuses Georgia's president Mikhail Saakashvili of overestimating the value of his country's partnership with Washington. But it also claims that Russia's invasion is solely to 'protect' South Ossetia. Even if this were a legitimate reason to invade a neighboring sovereign state, then why have the Russians invaded huge chunks of Georgia far beyond South Ossetia itself?

The clear purpose of Russia's aggression is to punish what it sees as Georgia's insolence in acting like an actual independent country. The invasion is not just a message to Georgians but also a warning to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine (not that it needed any warning), Kazhakstan and any other former Soviet republic that defying Moscow's diktats will have severe consequences.

This is only the most serious and criminal example of Russia flexing its muscles. It meddled in Ukraine's domestic political situation, even trying to poison the pro-western opposition candidate who eventually became president. Russia has also used its energy supplies to punish regimes that dared show independence from Russia. It's cut off gas supplies not only to Ukraine and Georgia, but also to Poland and Belarus. These all occurred not long after disputes between those governments and Moscow.

The American aggression against Iraq has backfired against the US by encouraging, rather than discouraging, countries like Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As this piece from TIME magazine pointed out, Russia is playing a dangerous game that just might backfire in the same way.

Russia is incensed that many former Soviet republics, including Georgia, want to join NATO. Many former Soviet republics are fearful of expansionist desires in the goliath neighbor. Russia's apparent attempt to annex at least part of Georgia will remind those countries precisely why they so desperately want the western alliance's protection.

According to reports, Putin has stoked anti-Georgian sentiment in Russia itself for severals. According to a poll discussed on the BBC, more Russians view Georgia as national enemy number one than even the United States. Putin also expelled thousands of ethnic Georgians from Russia.

Russia's incessant fueling of separatist activity in South Ossetia and their sudden pious concern for human rights in that region is more than a bit disingenuous considering how brutally the Russian army crushed a separatist movement in their own breakaway region of Chechnya with precious little concern for human beings.

Washington has criticized the Russian invasion. But when it comes to condemning an illegal of aggression by a giant army against a smaller but sovereign nation designed to unilaterally impose regime change, install a pliant government and seize its resources, the Bush administration's credibility is somewhat less than zero.

What should be done is this. Georgia should accept for the UN run a referendum in South Ossetia where the people can vote on remaining part of Georgia, becoming independent or joining Russia. But it must only do so after Russian troops have completely left all of Georgia and been replaced by UN peacekeepers. No credible vote can occur while the Russian jackboots are in South Ossetia... let alone beyond.

In response to Russia's massive invasion, Georgia has recalled all of its troops home from Iraq, where it was the largest contributor of soldiers behind the US and UK. It's ironic that Georgian troops will go from participating in an imperial occupation to combating one. Maybe this will make them see the light.

I'm sure it's too much to expect the same of Vladimir Putin.


Update: In an interview with BBC World television, Pres. Sakashvili accused the Russians of expelling all ethnic Georgians from occupied South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Further update: In case there's any doubt about Russia's hardly benign intentions, the country's foreign minister has demanded that Georgia's president resign. And Russia's (de jure) president bragged about beating what it views as an insolent little child by proudly declaring that Georgia had been 'punished.'

Yet another update: As this snipet from Foreign Policy reminds us, this is hardly the first time the Georgian Republic has been threatened by the Russian hegemon. Also this BBC report explains how the noble, peace-loving Russians respect cease fires they agree to. You'll note, yet again, how Russian violence is occurring far from the zone of conflict they pretend their intervention was only designed to protect.