Would Russia be smart to take the whole of Georgia?

brian00

New Member
I think that during the 90s, Russia would have been smarter to fight a war in azerbaijan than in chechnya, they could have used dagestan for launching and resupply, in order to have greater control over the caspain sea oil and gas fields.

As for the present, if russia takes over the rest of georgia and the BTC pipeline, they would have to choose a time when the west is preoccupied, lets say during a severe bout of economic crisis like the one which occured in sep 08. The US and nato allies would be anry, but what could they really do? The US is involved in 2 wars already, they cant really play the moral card, also the West is already dependant on Russia for resources such as oil, gas and Uranium, a boycott would be very painful for them

An invasion would give Russia a big influence over a large part of the remaining hydrocarbon reserves, the US and allies would have to pursue a pipeline in the east through turkmenistan, afghanistan and pakistan
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I think that during the 90s, Russia would have been smarter to fight a war in azerbaijan than in chechnya, they could have used dagestan for launching and resupply, in order to have greater control over the caspain sea oil and gas fields.

As for the present, if russia takes over the rest of georgia and the BTC pipeline, they would have to choose a time when the west is preoccupied, lets say during a severe bout of economic crisis like the one which occured in sep 08. The US and nato allies would be anry, but what could they really do? The US is involved in 2 wars already, they cant really play the moral card, also the West is already dependant on Russia for resources such as oil, gas and Uranium, a boycott would be very painful for them

An invasion would give Russia a big influence over a large part of the remaining hydrocarbon reserves, the US and allies would have to pursue a pipeline in the east through turkmenistan, afghanistan and pakistan
"Smarter" or not, Azerbaijan was not Russian territory. Chechnya was. That's a crucial difference. Russia recognised the independence of Azerbaijan, & to invade & conquer a sovereign state would have set a precedent Russia did not - and does not - want. Chechnya was a rebellious province, part of the RSFSR when the USSR existed. Azerbaijan had lawfully seceded according to the constitution of the USSR - as had Russia. Chechnya could not lawfully secede from Russia according to either the Soviet or the Russian constitution. The Russian re-conquest of Chechnya was therefore legally Russias business, & nobody elses. Azerbaijan, however . . .

In Georgia, the Russians have been careful to use legal cover for their actions. Abkhazia & S. Ossetia were autonomous regions within Georgia, with non-Georgian indigenous populations (as well as large numbers of Georgians). The Russians have used conflicts between those populations & Georgia as levers, claiming to be acting to protect them from Georgian mistreatment. There are no such levers or excuses for a conquest of Georgia. It would be an act of open, blatant & undeniable illegality.

I don't see it as being on the cards.
 
"Smarter" or not, Azerbaijan was not Russian territory. Chechnya was. That's a crucial difference. Russia recognised the independence of Azerbaijan, & to invade & conquer a sovereign state would have set a precedent Russia did not - and does not - want. Chechnya was a rebellious province, part of the RSFSR when the USSR existed. Azerbaijan had lawfully seceded according to the constitution of the USSR - as had Russia. Chechnya could not lawfully secede from Russia according to either the Soviet or the Russian constitution. The Russian re-conquest of Chechnya was therefore legally Russias business, & nobody elses. Azerbaijan, however . . .

In Georgia, the Russians have been careful to use legal cover for their actions. Abkhazia & S. Ossetia were autonomous regions within Georgia, with non-Georgian indigenous populations (as well as large numbers of Georgians). The Russians have used conflicts between those populations & Georgia as levers, claiming to be acting to protect them from Georgian mistreatment. There are no such levers or excuses for a conquest of Georgia. It would be an act of open, blatant & undeniable illegality.

I don't see it as being on the cards.
I realize that in light of the Iraq wars and the desire to control its oil supplies people might start thinking it's ok for big powers to just attack other countries to get access to resources, but we should still remember that this is not Dark Ages and that kind of stuff can't just happen all the time. The US got away with this fairly medieval behavior because they can't and won't be opposed and because they have an excellent "spread the democracy" PR campaign polished for these purposes.
This not a computer game (which is what this Russia-Georgia-Azerbaijan scenario sounds like), as Swerve pointed out this wouldn't be comparable to the Chechnya or Ossetia situation and sounds quite ridiculous IMO. Besides, most of the western media and even most analysts and politicians (as the British foreign minister showed rather clearly in his speeches and behavior during the last year's Georgia crisis) have no clue, when discussing relations between Russia and its former USSR member-neighbors, about what the history and actual relationships between them are. The notion that Russia is in the business of invading (or planning or wanting to invade) its neighbor countries is a figment of journalistic imagination for the most part, especially when talking about Ukraine, but that's a separate subject. Does Russia want to have influence over these regions? Yes. Does it want to occupy them? Ridiculous.
 
Top