Lugar calls on NATO to lead, not upset Russia-Georgia security balance

Posted By Josh Rogin Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 10:14 PM Share

Were you keeping a list of senior GOP lawmakers who are weighing in to oppose the potential French sale of the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship to Russia? If so, add Indiana Senator Richard Lugar to that list.

Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, released a report Tuesday that calls on NATO to take a lead role in coordinating security assistance to Georgia, the culmination of a staff project that included a trip to Tbilisi in late October. The report's conclusions are stark in terms of Lugar's view on how Georgia is faring one year after the Russian invasion.

"As a result of Russian diplomatic pressure and threats to restrict commercial ties with entities selling defense articles to Georgia, the Georgian military has been unable to replenish much of its military capacity that was eviscerated in the war," the report reads.

The last tranche of U.S. post-war assistance to Georgia, $242 million to round out the $1 billion commitment, was notified to Congress in December and went through without objection. The report highlights that the Obama administration decided not to use any of that money to shore up Georgia's lethal capabilities.

"The United States, under substantial Russian diplomatic pressure, has paused the transfer of lethal military articles to Georgia, and no U.S. assistance since the war has been directly provided to the Georgian Ministry of Defense. Consequently, Georgia lacks basic capacity for territorial defense."

Lugar argues that Georgian military weakness increases the risk of armed conflict by pinning the Georgians into a desperate position and raising the possibility of conflict-starting miscalculations.

Despite the unfortunate headline in this otherwise strong Associated Press article, Lugar is not calling on NATO to arm Georgia, exactly. His more nuanced view is that NATO must establish a leadership role in maintaining the security balance in the Caucasus, which is tipping more every day toward the Russian advantage.

That's where the French sale of the Mistral comes in. Several senior GOP lawmakers have come out strongly against the potential sale of the ship, introducing bills and writing letter focused on strategic or tactical concerns.

Lugar's concern is more of a diplomatic one, and it relates to the integrity of NATO as much as the security of Georgia. He references the possible sale of the Mistral specifically.

"Failing a coordinated, NATO-led strategy for security assistance in the region, allies run the risk of disturbing an already fragile political balance and engendering an excessive nationalization of Georgian defense policy."

It remains to be seen if NATO will embrace the role of coordinator for security for Georgia, especially since Georgia seems as far away from NATO membership as ever. But regardless of whether Georgia get in or stays out, NATO is going have stake in Georgian security issues from now on and Lugar's point is that should include ensuring NATO allies don't take unilateral measures to upset the military balance.

EXPLORE:CAUCASUS, EUROPE, FRANCE, MILITARY, RUSSIA, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CONGRESS

(4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BRUCE TALLEY

6:12 AM ET

December 24, 2009

Lugar and Georgia

It would be a very bad mistake to rearm Georgia. If Senator Lugar proposes that, it can only be a destabilizing force in the region. Russia is not the aggressive country with irresponsible leadership in the region, that would be Georgia. Bear in mind that Georgia's President Saakahsvili ordered the attack on South Ossetia in 2008. Also, Georgia has a long track record of aggression in the Caucasus: the war in 1992-93 in Abkhazia was started by an attack by Georgia.

If the United States did not fund Georgia's rapid military expansion in 2008, the country would not have had the capability to attack Tskhivali and kill hundreds of Ossetian civilians and at least 16 Russian peacekeepers.

Russia has done its best to promote stability in the region for over a decade and a half. Given that Georgia refuses to renounce violence against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia has offered military protection.

If the US rearms Georgia, who can doubt what Georgia will want to use its military for. The US should refuse to aid to Georgia until it renounces violence against its neighbors.

Please read my weblog on Abkhazia:

http://www.brucetalley.com/blog/2009/11/28/georgias-foreign-affairs-minister-in-le-monde-on-the-sale-of.html

Bruce Talley

CARDENAS697

7:47 PM ET

December 24, 2009

Russia has used force in the past and still does

Russia will always be and has always been a very aggressive country in all regions. I compare the First and Second Chechnya war to the 2008 South Ossetia war.

1.The First Chechen War occurred in a two year period lasting from 1994 to 1996, when Russian forces attempted to stop Chechnya from seceding. Despite overwhelming manpower, weaponry and air support, the Russian forces were unable to establish effective control over the mountainous area due to many successful Chechen guerrilla raids.

2.Second Chechen War. Much better organized and planned than the first Chechen War, the military actions by the Russian Federal forces enabled them to re-establish control over most regions. The Russian forces used brutal force, killing sixty Chechen civilians. After the re-capture of Grozny in February 2000, the Ichkerian regime fell apart. Russia has severely disabled the Chechen rebel movement, although violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus. Nonetheless, Russia was successful in installing a pro-Moscow Chechen regime, and the most prominent separatist leaders were killed, including former president Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev.

3.The 1991–1992 South Ossetia War between Georgians and Ossetians had left most of South Ossetia under de-facto control of a Russian-backed regime

4.The 2008 South Ossetia War, also known as the Russia–Georgia War, was an armed conflict in August 2008 between Georgia on one side, and the Russian Federation together with Ossetians and Abkhazians on the other.

The key point that I am trying to make is not that Chechnya or Ossetia should be not independent countries because they should. It is that Russia has the power to use force to intimidate countries in it’s sphere of control. It uses Oil and Natural Gas to strong arm Europe and uses military might to fight in Chechnya and against Georgia. Maybe we should better arm the Georgians and Eastern Europe to keep Russia in check.

BRUCE TALLEY

6:45 AM ET

December 25, 2009

Cardenas 697 comments

You are conflating completely different conflicts. Each should be viewed separately. And I doubt that anyone who has not spent a lot of time in the Caucasus Region can really understand what happened in Chechnya.

You don't seem to have your facts right on several issues and your point about Russia using power is not well-informed and it is naive. All governments use the leverage and power that they have to further the perceived interests of their nation. The United States uses military and economic power very frequently as a leverage in their negotiations with other states. Coming down on Russia for the same thing is hypocritical. The U.S has given massive aid to Georgia because of the zero sum game policies of the neo cons running foreign policy in the Bush Administration. Georgia sent troops to Iraq, the US sent aid to Georgia and then the Georgians spent millions of that money lobbying officials in Washington to keep the tap turned on.

You stated that the Russians and Ossetians and Abkhazians fought on one side in 2008. The Abkhazians did not fight in South Ossetia. The only action in involving Abkhaz forces was chasing Georgian military presence out of Russian occupied and puppets. Anyone who has been to Abkhazia knows this is not true. The only reason there are Russian troops in the country is to protect it from Georgian aggression.

Consider:

1) Georgia attacked Abkhazia in 1992, despite the fact that Abkhazia did not declare independence from the Republic of Georgia until years later.

2) Russia mediated the conflict and, with U.N. approval, was appointed peacekeeper in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, keeping about 1,500 peacekeeping troops in the region and assuring a demilitarized zone between the parties.

3) Russia agreed to help Georgia modernize its army and also attempted to get South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree to a federative structure within Georgia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia refused, fearing Georgian hostility and ethnic cleansing. Georgian nationalists threatened earlier to restrict the number of non-Georgians in the nation to 5%

4) Abkhazia did not declare its independence from the Republic of Georgia until 1999.

5) After years of threats, Georgia attacked South Ossetia in August 2008 as the Olympic Games in Beijing opened. An E. U. commission report in September of 2009 blamed Georgia for attacking without provocation.

6) Russian troops are protecting Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgian aggression. Go there and see.

http://www.brucetalley.com/

CARDENAS697

2:22 PM ET

December 28, 2009

Some Simple Facts BRUCE TALLEY

Regarding the Facts you say I have inaccurate.

Please review below.

You stated that the Russians and Ossetians and Abkhazians fought on one side in 2008. The Abkhazians did not fight in South Ossetia

1. Please review the Link below for facts that support my statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war.

E. U. commission report in September of 2009 blamed Georgia for attacking without provocation.
2. Vladimir Putin has warned Europe that Russia's energy reserves will flow to the Far East if the continent's leaders seek to punish his country for invading Georgia so you can sea that my confidence in the E.U. commission is shaken at best.

Russia agreed to help Georgia modernize its army.
3. Poland is willing to help Georgia modernize its armed forces. I could not find any documentation with Russia intent to help the Georgian military. Please read the link below.
4. www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/53766/

I think in part to say that I have a naïve understanding of this region based on facts that I pulled out of Google and Wikipedia is odd at best. Yes all countries use Force so let me ask you a simple question would you prefer a country like the U.S. or Russia to use force. If you can only choose one country which would your answer be?