Posted on 09/19/2004 9:05:21 PM PDT by Axion
Summary
Georgia has deployed more than 10,000 troops to the Tskhinvali region of South Ossetia. With dim prospects of North Ossetian aid reaching South Ossetia in time and Russia's unwillingness to interfere in Georgia's territorial battle, it is probable that Georgia is preparing to launch an attack and take advantage of this profitable situation to re-establish Tbilisi's control in South Ossetia once and for all. Additional intelligence of Chechen militants already stationed in South Ossetia implies the chances of sparking an armed conflict in the region are up.
Analysis
Interfax news agency reported the amassing of more than 10,000 Georgian troops on South Ossetia's borders. The forces -- working under a newly created unified command which gives them first-strike capability -- consist of Defense Ministry servicemen, police and interior troops. Interfax quoted sources as saying an offensive against South Ossetia within the next few days is possible. Ten thousand soldiers -- all stationed along the front line, rather than scattered throughout Georgia -- is enough for Georgia to launch a major offensive against the martially inferior South Ossetians.
Though nothing is certain, an imminent attack is possible. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili couldn't have picked a more advantageous time to threaten South Ossetia -- North Ossetia is still reeling from a recent Chechen militant attack, so South Ossetia could not count on any help from there. Russia, besides being distracted by its own recent encounters with Chechen militants, is already reluctant to intervene in what Moscow sees as a Georgian domestic affair. Besides that, Chechen militants who are reportedly in the Caucasus could play both sides of the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict to precipitate a bloodier battle.
Georgian troops vastly outnumber the South Ossetian militia. Of those 10,000 Georgian troops on the frontline, roughly 6,000 are army servicemen while the rest are interior troops and police. It means that Georgia -- which has about 16,000 regular army soldiers total -- still has thousands of army soldiers deployed elsewhere, some of whom could be called in as reinforcements on the South Ossetian border. In addition, 3,000 to 4,000 armed militiamen from ethnic Georgian villages and 800 to 1,000 Georgian guerrillas on the Georgia-Abkhazia border are prepared to fight in the name of Saakashvili's nationalist military campaign.
Only 2,000 of Georgia's troops have been trained by the U.S. military, and significant weaknesses in Georgian fighting ability have repeatedly been demonstrated in past military episodes. Despite these drawbacks, the numbers -- and the use of a newly created unified command -- still give significant weight to the prospects of a Georgian victory in South Ossetia. We expect, however, that if a major war starts and Georgians capture Tskhinvali, Ossetians would disperse to the mountains and wage guerrilla war.
South Ossetia's much smaller armed force largely depends on assistance from foreign fighters who most likely could not reach South Ossetia in time to build up a sizeable defense against Georgia.
It is unlikely that Russia will come to South Ossetia's rescue and involve itself in a military battle against Georgia. With Western interests heavily invested in Georgia, Russia will not want to risk losing Western support and jeopardize Putin's initiative to grow the Russian economy with the help of Western backing.
South Ossetia is then left to depend on voluntary foreign assistance coming from North Ossetia and Georgia's third breakaway territory of Abkhazia. North Ossetians are too preoccupied with the aftermath of the Beslan hostage school crisis and will be unable -- and possibly unwilling -- to mobilize and reach South Ossetia in time to counter a Georgian attack.
Without timely armed assistance from North Ossetia, South Ossetia is left alone and with few resources to face an overwhelming Georgian military presence. Within the next couple of days, Saakashvili may get his wish for a decisive blitzkrieg to repossess South Ossetia. The simple act of amassing 10,000 troops along the border might scare South Ossetia into submission, but if not, Saakashvili could resort to a military solution. The conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia is already a low-intensity armed conflict; if Georgia is provoked, now could be the time for Saakashvili to intensify the fighting.
Recent intelligence from sources in the Russian military and the Georgian Interior Ministry reveals that a number of Chechen militants are already stationed in South Ossetia. This comes as no surprise, given a statement made by Chechen militant President Aslan Maskhadov in which he proclaimed that Chechen militants will support Georgia against Russia and pro-Russian forces in any war. The statement was interestingly made Aug. 24, the day when two Chechen female suicide bombers took down two Russian airliners, and was broadcast in late August, just prior to the Beslan school hostage crisis.
As trained and able fighters, the Chechen militants' plan is to provoke war in South Ossetia through the use of guerrilla tactics. On Sept. 17, several Georgian farmers in South Ossetia were kidnapped -- possibly by Chechen militants who hope Georgia will blame South Ossetia for the kidnapping and use it as an impetus to launch an attack against Tskhinvali. Another Islamist militant from Algeria who helped the Chechen rebels said Sept. 17 that Georgian security service officers helped him make his way into Chechnya.
By firing from all sides, while in hiding inside South Ossetia's mountains and forests, the Chechens could precipitate the conflict in the Caucasus.
Copyrights 2004 - Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Re: Only 2,000 of Georgia's troops have been trained by the U.S. military
I have to question the validitiy of that.
Excuse me if I am asking a politically incorrect question, but isn't South Ossetia a province of Georgia?
And if so, the how can Georgian troops be massing along the Gerogia-South Ossetia border? Yeah, I know that South Ossettia has been in a state of rebellion for several years, but so what? Doesn't Gerogia have the right to maintain its territorial integrity?
Intensify yes, but the great confrontation lays ahead with Russia and the US making the big plays.
Which right should prevail, territorial integrity or that legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed?
Borders mean nothing. Ethnicity and history is what drives those people.
So Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence was wrong?
The first priority of government is a cooperative means of self defense, but after that it would seem that consent of the governed is next priority.
It's a valid question, but one we settled a century ago in favor of territorial integrity.
I suppose I have to say that it is difficult for me to envision a world where local geographic, ethnic or other groups afilliate and de-afilliate at will.
Did # 9 somewhat anticipate your point?
Just disagreed with Keyes' explanation in a WND article.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18662
"Many countries -- indeed, most countries -- are not based upon this right principle of just government. They are not based on consent of the governed; they are based on other things. Many are based on fear and force, and some of them are based on other forms of manipulation. But it is not right for the United States to impose by force on other countries our understanding of legitimate government. Such imposition of that legitimate understanding by force would be a contradiction. We would be acting in a way that contradicts the understanding that you can only govern by consent. We would be governing by force in order to impose government by consent. We should not involve ourselves in building an imperialist foreign policy on this contradiction."
Paleo vs. neo-conservative?
I think the South had the right to leave the Union but if they had I do wonder if America would now be strong enough to lead the world so things may have worked out for the best.
Unless the good side wins, then everything is fine.
Hey, I find myself on a mean streak tonight, so I'm a bit over the top.
The South would have been swallowed by Spain, the North by England. Which was really the plan anyway.
I read the Keyes article. I don't think America has any obligation to remove illegitimate governments. An illegitimate government has no right to continue its illegitimate rule and so if it is in America's interest we are justified in removing an illegitimate government. When we remove a government then we have a limited obligation to try and create a better government to take its place. Imposing another illegitimate government could only be justified to protect America's security. Assisting to create and partially imposing some form of legitimate government is appropriate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.