Saakashvili saved Georgia from coup, former Putin aide says

euobserver.com ^ | 10/14/2008 | VALENTINA POP

[Tailgunner Joe]

EUOBSERVER / TBILISI – The Georgian president had no other option than to attack South Ossetia in order to save his country from a Russian coup, Andrei Illarionov, former advisor to Vladimir Putin has said in an interview with EUobserver on the margins of the "European Resource Bank" conference which took place in Tbilisi last weekend (9-12 October).

The official explanations of the Russian authorities, that they defended the "life," "health" and "dignity" of Russian citizens - regardless how these people were granted citizenship in the first place - "do not hold water," since there were many other conflicts like in Chechnya or Beslan where they did not care about the Russian citizens, Mr Illarionov said.

Currently a senior fellow with the Washington-based Cato Institute, Putin's former senior economic advisor in 2000-2005 said that contrary to how it is being portrayed, the conflict did not begin on 7 August 2008, but was carefully planned and built up since the spring of 2004, when the Russian authorities started supplying South Ossetia and Abkhazia with military equipment and training their military forces, building military bases and strategic highways and railroads.

"The build up culminated with the amassing of 80,000 regular troops and paramilitaries close to the Georgian border, at least 60,000 of which participated in the August war," he explained.

"On 7 August it is estimated that 20,000 to 25,000 Ossetian and Russian troops and 240 tanks were in South Ossetia," he said, adding that the Georgian army has altogether 29,000 troops and 200 tanks, with the main part being stationed to the west facing Abkhazia.

"In the proximity of South Ossetia there were perhaps only 4,000 to 5,000 troops and 42 Georgian tanks," Mr Illarionov said, reminding that president Mikhail Saakashvili declared unilateral ceasefire on 7 August, only to see unprecedented shelling of the Georgian villages in South Ossetia that night.

"All of a sudden they understood that if the Ossetian-Russian troops move, it could be a matter of hours for them to get to Tbilisi."

President Saakashvili's decision to move against Tskhinvali "was self-defense, though it was quite a risky self defence," Mr Illarionov said.

"Saakashvili had received a very clear signal from the West - that America and Europe would not help. Even if the US would have decided to help, it was completely unrealistic, because it would have taken at least two weeks to deploy the very first troops. And it was very clear that 2 weeks was too late to defend Georgia. That is why he took this decision, clearly understanding that he would be left alone in front of Russia," he explained.

While conceding that it must have been a "painful" decision that would damage the president's reputation and credibility in his own country, especially after making the public pledge of a ceasefire, "imaginatively replaying the events, it looks like this was the only possible decision that actually saved the independence and statehood of Georgia," Mr Illarionov said.

In regards to the Georgian opposition raising its voice against the war, Mr Illarionov said that "the very fact that this opposition continues to exist and express its views, is to high extent thanks to this decision to self-defense."

"If Saakashvili wouldn't have counter-attacked, there would be probably no much opposition here. There would be Igor Giorgadze [a Georgian politician who attempted to kill former Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze in 1995] sitting here in Tbilisi. It would be a different story."

Russian frustration over failed coup

The unilateral recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by the Russian authorities seems to be a "plan B" that Moscow is not genuinely happy with, Mr Illarionov says.

"It appears that plan A was to disorganize the Geogian government and society with some kind of civil war, coup d'etat or revolution, with the participation of Ossetians and Georgians within Georgia to change the regime."

"But since Georgian troops went into Tskhinvali and were able for a number of days to keep the Russian army from moving into Georgia, it was enough time to relocate the rest of the army from the West of the country to defend Tbilisi, to attract world-wide attention, to 'wake up' the public and politicians around the world and to mobilise international support."

"After a few days it became evident that plan A, to organize a revolution or civil war failed. The Russian authorities were forced to move to plan B. But it was a big frustration for the Russian authorities. When you hear bad words used by the Russian officials for Mr Saakashvili, it is just expression of their deep frustration that Mr Saakashvili was able to destroy their well-prepared plan A."

"Plan B was that Russia is trying to defend the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This was made public only a few days after the war and ultimately they have chosen to pretend that they are in favour of their independence. But it is in deep contradiction with the position the Russian authorities have kept for so long, on non-recognition of Chechnya, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Transdnistria."

"The last thing that Russia needs is these [Georgian] breakaway regions. It's a big problem for the Russian government. It's a serious financial drain, they're not quite sustainable and there's a big criminal problem as well ... All of a sudden you have tens of thousands armed people who can easily enter Russian territory. It's an incredible headache."

Georgia's democracy, a threat to Moscow

As for the reasons for Moscow to invest "billions of dollars" for these military operations and to be ready to face "such heavy diplomatic losses and isolation," Mr Illarionov said there is no other explanation "but the existential threat" that Georgian democracy poses to the Russian regime, because it shows that a culture with a very similar background can reform and integrate with the West.

"This model of integration with the world, of modernizing, opening society, with an accountable government - is quite different from the model that is been built in Moscow. Georgia and Ukraine as countries and societies play a special role in the internal Russian debate, because both countries share the same 'cultural background.' These are Orthodox Christian countries that have been long time part of the Russian empire, and the Soviet Union.

"On countries with different religious traditions like Poland or Estonia, some Russian commentators would be ready to say that there is something really different about them when they choose genuine democracy, accountable government and integration with the West."

EUMM a better security guarantee for Georgia than MAP

The EU monitoring mission (EUMM) in Georgia has a very positive impact on the country's security, Mr Illarionov said, to some extent even more than if the country had been granted offical NATO candidate status (MAP) at the Bucharest summit in April.

"At the moment EU observers appear as the first line of the the protection of Georgia's security, in some sense probably even slightly better compared to MAP. MAP without observers does not provide any guarantees for defence. But people on the ground are a very serious constraint from any aggression," he explained.

Putin's former advisor added that in some sense "it is even better than it was three months ago when there was neither serious international interest, no international observers on the ground."

"Only history will judge whether this is correct or not. If you compare the intensity of provocations in July on the internal Ossetian-Georgian border, with regular shelling, burning, and attacks - and today - with almost no provocations - you can make your own judgement which situation in reality is better," he concluded.

[ken21]

>...the conflict did not begin on 7 August 2008, but was carefully planned and built up since the spring of 2004, when the Russian authorities started supplying South Ossetia and Abkhazia with military equipment and training their military forces, building military bases and strategic highways and railroads.<

yes, comrade.

[marktwain]

Fascinating. It could be possible. Hmmm.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping

[1rudeboy]

It's plausible. If the Sov . . . , erm, Russian intention was to take Tbilisi in a lightning-stike . . . hmmm.

[tanuki]

This backs up the article posted.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php

[JulienBenda]

Ya ne znayoo totchno, no doomayoo, schto Rossiya imeyet pravdoo v etom slootchai.

[MarMema]

Bravo and thanks for posting.

[Freelance Warrior]

I wonder why Mr. Illarionov is presented as a Kremlin insider since

• he hasn't been working as Russian president's economic adviser since 2005.
• he was an ECONOMIC adviser! Why would he know more on the matters he comments than a regular Russian citizen?

[TigersEye]

Thanks for the ping.

"This model of integration with the world, of modernizing, opening society, with an accountable government - is quite different from the model that is been built in Moscow. ..."

Russia actually prefers to be a third-world rogue nation. May the price of oil go down to $25 bbl.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Here's his ECONOMIC opinion!

Russia to blame for Russian crisis - The Russian economic crisis unfolding over the last two months is rooted in Russian authorities’ attack on domestic and foreign businesses, as well as in the war in Georgia and subsequent recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhasia, an acknowledged Russian economist says. Since late May, the Russian stock market index has dropped with almost 60 percent.

Andrey Illarionov, president of the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis, believes Russian authorities are themselves to blame for the recent drastic drop in the Russian stock market.

In the period 19 May to 17 September, the index of the Russian stock exchanges has dropped with almost 58 percent. In that period, Russian authorities have twice stopped trading on the MICEX and RTS exchanges and poured massive state funding into the market.

Only the rouble crisis of 1998 is comparable with the 2008 events, Mr. Illarionov writes in an article in newspaper Gazeta.

Meanwhile, the Russian government says the complicated financial situation in the West is to blame for the crisis. Prime Minister Putin has himself said that the outflow of foreign capital from the country is triggered by “speculation from western companies”.

Mr. Illarionov writes that the negative situation on the Russian stock market following the international trend in the period until 17 July when the index dropped 13,1 percent. Then, everything changed on July 18, when Russian authorities gave TNK-BP manager Robert Dudley only a 10-day visa, thus openly intervening in the corporate conflict around the company. Foreign investors subsequently abandoned the country.

Then, over the next two months the fall in the Russian stock market dropped a remarkable 51,8 percent, far more than the international markets. In the same period, the U.S. marked dropped 8,5 percent and the global market – 12,4 percent, Illarionov writes.

The economist underlines that the Russian crisis is deeply rooted in institutional reasons – in the contradiction between [on the one hand] the open global markets, the process of integration of Russian society in the world system, the tolerance and respect as leading principles of international co-existence and [on the other hand] Russian authorities’ paranoid and aggressive foreign policy and cult of isolation and violence […]

[Tailgunner Joe]

"The Russian government pretended to be mitigating the effects of the crisis by pumping more than $100 billion of state funds into the stock market, but nearly all of these funds went to state-owned companies and to other businesses that have close ties to the government." - http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1016/42/371419.htm

[Lasha]

Thanks for posting this, Joe!

And to FW, have not you heard that Russia has been waging visa war with Georgia since 2002 and economic war since 2005? This is all part of the same scenario and the guy certainly knows well what he is talking about!

[Freelance Warrior]

"The Russian government pretended to be mitigating the effects of the crisis by pumping more than $100 billion of state funds into the stock market, but nearly all of these funds went to state-owned companies and to other businesses that have close ties to the government." -

While that piece is an off-topic here, I'll answer this. Almost every large enough for capitalisation Russian company has ties to government just because its infrastructure was privatised Soviet government's property. The private companies are just not large enough - if you don't believe - try developing a company to a nation-wide importance from a leased garage in 17 years :)

[Freelance Warrior]

Here's his ECONOMIC opinion!

While Illarionov is right that the USA market's drop alone can't be blamed for the Russian drop, and he rightly points to internal reasons, but he doesn't try to evaluate the pacifying Georgia's operation influence and other Russian authorities actions :) in figures.

Compare the Ukrainian PFTS index

PFTS 3 month

with the Russian RTS

RTS 3 month

Ukrainian END/START=1-(264/853)*100=69% drop

source

Russian 1-(713.9/2144)*100=67% drop

The same and no "foreign business abuse" reported in Ukraine. Who would think? So the Illarionov's article doesn't reveal the true superposition of the forces driving Russian stock market and basically useless. All Illarionov tries to do with the article is mere promotion of his political agenda.