Russia occupies and annexes all of Georgia 2008
- Thread starter Commissar
- Start date
Interesting question.
The UN can't do anything meaningful because of Russia's veto power.
NATO seems unlikely to conduct any coalition action.
The US and a few of the other NATO members might try to put some troops on the ground as roadblocks to further advances, but I'd expect that to happen only if Georgia requested such aid. Can't remember if they did or not?
I'd expect an increased push by the other former Soviet republics to get into NATO in order to make sure they're not next.
The UN can't do anything meaningful because of Russia's veto power.
NATO seems unlikely to conduct any coalition action.
The US and a few of the other NATO members might try to put some troops on the ground as roadblocks to further advances, but I'd expect that to happen only if Georgia requested such aid. Can't remember if they did or not?
I'd expect an increased push by the other former Soviet republics to get into NATO in order to make sure they're not next.
Lots of international hand-wringing and not much else.
A point to remember however, is that Georgia was never part of the Russian Federation. Georgia was a separate republic of the Soviet Union and on the collapse of the USSR, it became an internationally recognized independent nation, and UN-member state. Chechnya was and is a region of the Russian Federation . It was not a separate republic of the USSR and has never been recognized as an independent nation by the international community. The two situations are quite different from the perspective of international law.
However, I agree with Gridley. There is little that the UN could do to help Georgia given the Russian veto, and it is very unlikely that the US or NATO would intervene unilaterally.
Actually, this possible scenario is a reason I oppose adding any former Soviet republics to NATO, at least as long as the US remains a member of NATO. It is probably only a matter of time before Russia becomes even more assertive in reasserting authority over some former Soviet (and Imperial Russian) areas, and I don't think it is in the interest of the US to be entangled in an alliance that would force us automatically to fight Russia over the future of places like Georgia or Armenia.
A point to remember however, is that Georgia was never part of the Russian Federation. Georgia was a separate republic of the Soviet Union and on the collapse of the USSR, it became an internationally recognized independent nation, and UN-member state. Chechnya was and is a region of the Russian Federation . It was not a separate republic of the USSR and has never been recognized as an independent nation by the international community. The two situations are quite different from the perspective of international law.
However, I agree with Gridley. There is little that the UN could do to help Georgia given the Russian veto, and it is very unlikely that the US or NATO would intervene unilaterally.
Actually, this possible scenario is a reason I oppose adding any former Soviet republics to NATO, at least as long as the US remains a member of NATO. It is probably only a matter of time before Russia becomes even more assertive in reasserting authority over some former Soviet (and Imperial Russian) areas, and I don't think it is in the interest of the US to be entangled in an alliance that would force us automatically to fight Russia over the future of places like Georgia or Armenia.
I find NATO to be a very fragile organization that if confronted with the scenario for which it was created (war against Russia) then it would likely fall apart. If the situation ever came up where Russia was trying to expand militarily into a former soviet territory now in NATO, the western European nations would most likely either not support NATO action, or completely withdraw from the alliance. It seems that western Europe doesn't have the stomach for a war with Russia. Eastern European countries like Poland, the Baltics, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and possibly the Czech Republic and Slovakia would definitely stay in, having faced Russian control before and not wanting to return to it. So either NATO would fall apart, or western Europe would exit out of it.
Back to the Georgia question, I don't think Russia would be able to officially annex it. Russia could easily get away with a perpetual occupation of Georgia, but I doubt outright annexation is possible.
Back to the Georgia question, I don't think Russia would be able to officially annex it. Russia could easily get away with a perpetual occupation of Georgia, but I doubt outright annexation is possible.
Nothing is done to help Georgia, but Russian relations with the US and Europe plummet. A large amount of diplomatic and other support would likely be given to the Yuschenko government in Ukraine. While that is unlikely to save his popularity, it may mean Yulia Timoshenko wins the 2010 election in Ukraine since a vote for Yanukovych may mean the destruction of actual Ukrainian independence (at least that is how the fear would spread). Timoshenko only needs a 2% switch in the vote, or a more energized based.
The thing is, occupation is one thing, even putting a puppet caretaker government. But annexation? The early 21st century does not have a diplomatic climate where one country forcibly annexing another just happens. This would create a terrible diplomatic crisis and make Russia a pariah state, even to countries like China which otherwise wouldn't care how bad Russia thumps Georgia.
It would create great fear in the other non-NATO former Soviet states. While in the short term, Russia would likely see increased subservience, in the long term Central Asia enters deeper relations with China as a counterweight to Russia. The Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) becomes a dead letter and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) becomes more important.
The diplomatic crisis would also greatly complicate the ability of the US to use Central Asian countries to supply its forces in Afghanistan.
This would probably impact the 2008 Presidential election. I don't know if John McCain might win, but it becomes plausible.
Finally, the entire Russian Caucasus just went boom. Besides insurgencies in Dagestan and other areas north of the Caucasus, it now has them south of the Caucasus too.
None of the consequences are good for Russia in the long term.
The thing is, occupation is one thing, even putting a puppet caretaker government. But annexation? The early 21st century does not have a diplomatic climate where one country forcibly annexing another just happens. This would create a terrible diplomatic crisis and make Russia a pariah state, even to countries like China which otherwise wouldn't care how bad Russia thumps Georgia.
It would create great fear in the other non-NATO former Soviet states. While in the short term, Russia would likely see increased subservience, in the long term Central Asia enters deeper relations with China as a counterweight to Russia. The Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) becomes a dead letter and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) becomes more important.
The diplomatic crisis would also greatly complicate the ability of the US to use Central Asian countries to supply its forces in Afghanistan.
This would probably impact the 2008 Presidential election. I don't know if John McCain might win, but it becomes plausible.
Finally, the entire Russian Caucasus just went boom. Besides insurgencies in Dagestan and other areas north of the Caucasus, it now has them south of the Caucasus too.
None of the consequences are good for Russia in the long term.
It's probably going too far to say NATO would automatically fall apart if a war with Russia developed. I think it would stay together if this war started with adirect Russian attack on one of the original (ie pre-soviet collapse) western European members. But how likely is that? Otherwise I agree, NATO has overextended by forgetting what its original purpose and original enemy was. Also, given current European defense spending, it has forgotten what it takes to successfully fight wars anyway.
One thing NATO might pull off: a no-fly zone over Georgia. It has the balance of 'doing something' without actually putting many lives in harm's way or costing too much. I can see all the members agreeing to this, though only a few would actually put up aircraft to enact it.
Of course, it would also be almost totally useless, but that hasn't prevented NATO operations before, so...
Of course, it would also be almost totally useless, but that hasn't prevented NATO operations before, so...
John Farson
Banned
Too laaaate
:Estonia.
Latvia.
Lithuania.
And Estonia and Russia already had that little spat over the soldier's statue a few years ago...
As to the OP's question, this is what would've happened:
How do you say 'Wolverines' in Georgian?
Rambo 3.5
As others have pointed out Russia can do it and get away with it. However people place too much emphasis on foreign military intervention as the deterring factor.
Had Russia occupied Georgia it would have the usual occupation headaches. The local population will resist, and unless Russia can ethnically cleanse the Georgians, at some point in history Georgia may gain independence again. This might be worth it if Georgia have strategic or economic value, but it has neither.
Even more importantly, the invasion will sour relations Russia has with the EU, particularly with near abroad neighbors with a history of enmity, that is to say Poland and the Baltic states. This could even bolster the chances of Ukraine joining NATO which the war against Georgia successfully thwarted. The invasion sent the message that Russia was not going to tolerate further NATO expansion. Mission accomplished.
Had Russia occupied Georgia it would have the usual occupation headaches. The local population will resist, and unless Russia can ethnically cleanse the Georgians, at some point in history Georgia may gain independence again. This might be worth it if Georgia have strategic or economic value, but it has neither.
Even more importantly, the invasion will sour relations Russia has with the EU, particularly with near abroad neighbors with a history of enmity, that is to say Poland and the Baltic states. This could even bolster the chances of Ukraine joining NATO which the war against Georgia successfully thwarted. The invasion sent the message that Russia was not going to tolerate further NATO expansion. Mission accomplished.
If that happens, every single ex URSS republic will ask ( and probably be conceded ) to enter NATO ... they reason: If they can invade them, they can invade us ...
Hell expect even Belarus and Ukraine asking for membership.
This is ONE of the reasons why the Russians did not continued the war ( that and the small reason that their combined arms sucked big time )
Hell expect even Belarus and Ukraine asking for membership.
This is ONE of the reasons why the Russians did not continued the war ( that and the small reason that their combined arms sucked big time )
Commissar
Banned
"Raises eyebrow"
Considering they jumped in rather quickly with no prep time and utterly routed the American Trained Georgians within a day and lost only 7 aircraft, three to friendly fire (U.S. lost 22 aircraft in the Invasion of Iraq) and suffered far fewer causalities than the U.S. did invading Iraq in 2003 despite the age of their equipment, I say their combined arms was very effective and decisive.
Its even more astonishing when one realizes Russian pilots are lucky to get half the flight time as American Pilots and mostly fly circuits around their air fields...
Yet when the time came, they followed the lead of their spotter airplanes and ripped the Georgians a new one.
Likewise with the Russian Army, with no prep time, Russian Generals were able to rush conscript troops quickly through the Roki Tunnel despite lack of ammo for them and a successful Georgian SF Ambush of the advance column and once through, they utterly dominated the field allowing the cream of the Russian Military, the VDV, to deploy and finish the fight.
Sumeragi
Banned
You know.... I think you're giving the Russians too much credit. I see the situation as similar to Israel crushing the various fighters sent against them: The Georgians were too weak, in spite of the supposed training or high tech.
Commissar
Banned
No I'm not, the war showed the ability of Russia's military to react quickly and think on its feet and deliver a victory despite not actually establishing Air Supremacy or having any warning or chance to bring its full might to bear and they did it with conscripts, many of whom weren't ethnic Russians.
By the time the VDV entered the fray, the Conscripts had already destroyed the Georgian Commandos and routed the Georgian military who they matched in numbers, yet outmaneuvered and outfought them.
The Russian military, while still having many glaring deficiencies, certainly had the capability to utterly demolish the entirty of Georgia's conventional military force without too much trouble. However, I agree that outright annexation would provide too many costs and would be rather implausible.
What could be a bit more plausible is that the Russian troops marched into Tblisi and opted for 'regime change', replacing Sakashvilli with a more compliant Russian stooge. In exchange for their withdrawal, they could also force Georgia to sign a Versailles-style peace treaty, making them immediately hand over all of Georgia's sophisticated military equipment so that for the next several years, the Georgian army would be no better equipped than the Palestinians in the West Bank for the next several years, and making it pay huge reparations that will cripple its economy for decades.
Of course, that will probably freeze Russian relations with the West back to mid 1960s Cold War levels... China probably won't give a damn though, and continue doing business as usual.
IMO, NATO can be effective when dealing with proxy wars that can be won quickly with minimal costs, but it'll break down if they have to face the prospect of direct confrontation against the Superpowers (Russia and China) they are arrayed against.
What could be a bit more plausible is that the Russian troops marched into Tblisi and opted for 'regime change', replacing Sakashvilli with a more compliant Russian stooge. In exchange for their withdrawal, they could also force Georgia to sign a Versailles-style peace treaty, making them immediately hand over all of Georgia's sophisticated military equipment so that for the next several years, the Georgian army would be no better equipped than the Palestinians in the West Bank for the next several years, and making it pay huge reparations that will cripple its economy for decades.
Of course, that will probably freeze Russian relations with the West back to mid 1960s Cold War levels... China probably won't give a damn though, and continue doing business as usual.
IMO, NATO can be effective when dealing with proxy wars that can be won quickly with minimal costs, but it'll break down if they have to face the prospect of direct confrontation against the Superpowers (Russia and China) they are arrayed against.
Last edited:
whitecrow
Banned
As an aside, does anyone know who had better command & control during the 2008 conflict?
Some online articles claimed Georgian communication equipment was so bad, troops were given orders via their civilian cell phones. Other articles I saw made the exact same claim about Russians.
Some online articles claimed Georgian communication equipment was so bad, troops were given orders via their civilian cell phones. Other articles I saw made the exact same claim about Russians.
Nitpick: Russia is a member of the SCO.
And Estonia and Russia already had that little spat over the soldier's statue a few years ago...
As to the OP's question, this is what would've happened:
:snip 80's fantasy BS:
I think you need to do some learning, this article is a good start.
Sumeragi
Banned
Yet you seem to have forgotten that Russia currently is militarily involved in North Caucasus, fighting separatism and radical Islam. It was never a point about whether Russia was ready or not: It had always been ready because it's fighting a war within its own borders. Now, the intensity is low compared to other conflicts, but the Russians were not as unprepared as you make it out to be.
Battle-trained troops against relatively green ones would have similar results everywhere, unless there were major mistakes.
Orville_third
Banned
Of course, after it comes out (as it did OTL) that Saakashvili was the aggressor...most countries would likely welcome the new rulers of Georgia, with the sole exception of the US. (Maybe Israel too.)
It's also worth noting that Georgia and US troops were engaged in a major exercise beforehand...and some of the troops were still in country. This could result in Americans voluntarily fighting with the Georgians with little to no implications if it was known or US troops being ordered to fight...with MAJOR implications if it was known. In addition, USAF aircraft flew Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia. If Georgia was occupied...those planes could land...and become immediate PoWs.
Finally, of the US Presidential candidates, Obama called for both sides to show restraint, McCain (And Palin and Biden and Clinton) backed Georgia- but the third parties opposed supporting Georgia. Could this mean a greater third party vote?
Common misconception.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ufp/ufp.html
The Soviets did this all the time. As a result, the General Assembly now reserves the right to overrule the Security Council.
Finally, Tsibisi shall turn into Grozny. Russian tactics + local nationalism = hell.