You may ask why a small mountainous region in the Caucasus has such a bearing on world peace, with Georgia's pro western stance and being right on the border with the Russian Federation, but why might it destabilize the whole area and bring the conflict into the world arena?

One reason, could be that the Georgians first, by attacking South Ossetia and then Russia's response could be thought of. 'As a good day to bury bad news', the worlds preoccupation with the Olympics to make much headlines, only it has escalated to be so much more.

Russia is still politically quite weak and Georgia has some shiny new weaponry supplied by the U.S, so the outcome is not a foregone conclusion, but why the conflict anyway?

OIL

The pipeline is indicated on this map in a broken red line. See where Georgia is? Also worth noting is which part of Georgia the broken red line goes through?

See how the broken red line extends north out of Georgia into the unlabelled light green region. That region is Russia, that part of Russia is also known as Chechnya, a further conflict rages there.

The peline also extends down into northern Iraq?

But the Russians, not to be outdone, are building their own pipeline from Russia into South Ossetia. I suppose they think that the planned Nabucco pipeline might accidentally get broken a few dozen times, slowing its construction. But for the downstream countries like Turkey and through Eastern Europe to realize any return on their investment in Nabucco, they will have to pump something through their part of the line, so its a good thing they'll be a functioning Russian pipeline next to the perpetually broken Georgian one.

I have used as article from the IoS and a post from another Forum, postbagel being the actual poster for my references, I found it useful because I had no idea why a small nation like S. Osettia should cause such concern and the consequences, well, the stakes could be quite high.

Credability of the West also at stake. Georgia supports the West, upholds democracy, sends two thousand troops to Iraq, and now quite rightly is asking for similar support in return...........They obviously have never read their history books, we all wait for Gordon Brown to stand at the bottom of a set of aircraft steps...........

Further point to ponder for world peace. Undecided US voters have concerns over Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. Ongoing crisis in Europe may push them towards a further term for some pretty volotile US hands on the war button.

Another matter driving Russian anger is Georgia's stated desire to join NATO.

The Russians see this organisation as an alliance directed against them (with missile shields, etc) while NATO says that Iran is their main concern. The thought of NATO tanks in a former soviet territory is very inflamitory for them.

What I find most puzzling, is the fact pretty much nobody is mentioning that the reason Russia sent troops in, is that Georgia first sent it's military in to South Ossetia to "crush the seperatist movement".

I heard that just after the initial reports of the Russians attacking, and in another article this morning it got a brief mention.

"The western assault expanded the days-old war beyond the central breakaway region of South Ossetia, where a crackdown by Georgia last week drew a military response from Russia." MSNBC World News - 12 Aug 08

(exact same paragraph appears in a Faux News article, through the Associated Press).

"Georgia launched its military offensive on Friday to regain South Ossetia, which broke from Georgia in the early 1990s as the Soviet Union neared collapse and has been run by a Russian-backed separatist government." (CBC News)

"The five-day-old conflict began late on 7 August when Georgian forces bombarded the breakaway province of South Ossetia, where a majority of people hold Russian passports." (BBC News)

I don't recall hearing even a whisper of protest about Georgia launching a military offensive against a province that has apparently been running it's own affairs since the early 90's. In fact, Georgia appears to have used the Olympics as a cover to launch this offensive and had the Russians not reacted as forcefully as they did, we may not have heard much at all about Georgia's own actions.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait under similar pretences (to regain control of former province that became independent), they got their butts whipped by a coalition led by the US.

Yet when Georgia sends it's military in to regain control of a seperatist province that wants independence, and Russia intervenes, everyone dumps on Russia.

It (probably) boils down to oil of course. The west would rather deal with Georgia and appears willing to overlook Georgian transgressions, rather than have to deal with Russia.

Imagine what could have happened if the US had of got their way and Georgia had become a part of NATO. What would NATO's reaction have been to Georgia's armed offensive against South Ossetia ?

After all, NATO apparently had no problem bombing Serbia when Kosovo wanted to seperate. Why aren't they bombing Georgia along side the Russians ?

Seems a little hyprocritical to actively intervene when a province of one country wants to seperate, then sit back and do nothing in a similar situation in another country, and then criticize Russia for essentially doing the same thing they (NATO) themselves did in Kosovo.

Credability of the West also at stake. Georgia supports the West, upholds democracy, sends two thousand troops to Iraq, and now quite rightly is asking for similar support in return...........

They have been caught out by the West's reluctance to get involved in anything but bluster, apart from transporting those 2 thousand troops back from Iraq...........

Further point to ponder for world peace. Undecided US voters have concerns over Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. Ongoing crisis in Europe may push them towards a further term for some pretty volotile US hands on the war button.

Yup, another 50 years in Iraq? You might scoff, but they are still in Japan and Germany.

Another matter driving Russian anger is Georgia's stated desire to join NATO.

The Russians see this organisation as an alliance directed against them (with missile shields, etc) while NATO says that Iran is their main concern. The thought of NATO tanks in a former soviet territory is very inflamitory for them.

According to this Article it is a foregone conclusion, it is just a matter of time and yes very inflammatory, which is one of the reasons the Russians acted to aggressively.

What I find most puzzling, is the fact pretty much nobody is mentioning that the reason Russia sent troops in, is that Georgia first sent it's military in to South Ossetia to "crush the

[/color]I don't recall hearing even a whisper of protest about Georgia launching a military offensive against a province that has apparently been running it's own affairs since the early 90's. In fact, Georgia appears to have used the Olympics as a cover to launch this offensive and had the Russians not reacted as forcefully as they did, we may not have heard much at all about Georgia's own actions.

In this article from IoS there is clear reference to Georgia's initial aggression, against what was a semi-autonomous state, even in Soviet Union times and I agree Georgia hoped to bury it whilst the Olympics were in full swing.

It would be easy to interpret the conflict that erupted with bombs, tanks and warplanes yesterday as a case of big, bad Russia, resentful of Georgia's independence and growing closeness to the West, taking advantage of the world's preoccupation with the Beijing Olympics to inflict some punishment on its southern neighbour.

But the rights and wrongs are confused, not least because Russia officially recognises Georgia's statehood and its territorial integrity. Nor is there any doubt that yesterday's fighting was triggered by Georgia, whose forces crossed into South Ossetia with a view to reintegrating it into Georgia. The country's Prime Minister made this clear, saying that Tbilisi's patience had "run out".

When Iraq invaded Kuwait under similar pretences (to regain control of former province that became independent), they got their butts whipped by a coalition led by the US.

Yet when Georgia sends it's military in to regain control of a seperatist province that wants independence, and Russia intervenes, everyone dumps on Russia.

It (probably) boils down to oil of course.

Kuwait was more ostensibly about oil, it was also bank rolled by the Saudis and although this is obviously about oil, Russia are a different proposition than a crippled Iraq and a bunch of reasonably effective buddies at your side and also morality was firmly on the anti-Iraq brigade, all these equations are markedly different in the Ossetia situation.

The west would rather deal with Georgia and appears willing to overlook Georgian transgressions, rather than have to deal with Russia.

Yup

Imagine what could have happened if the US had of got their way and Georgia had become a part of NATO. What would NATO's reaction have been to Georgia's armed offensive against South Ossetia ?

This was my reasoning behind the headline, 'Caucasus in flames' it could escalate, but I think it will settle down, but will Russia withdraw from Ossetia?

After all, NATO apparently had no problem bombing Serbia when Kosovo wanted to seperate. Why aren't they bombing Georgia along side the Russians ?

Seems a little hyprocritical to actively intervene when a province of one country wants to seperate, then sit back and do nothing in a similar situation in another country, and then criticize Russia for essentially doing the same thing they (NATO) themselves did in Kosovo.

Now that is not so simple to answer, a little research is required, I believe.

An minor update to this story.

The Georgian President is defending his decision to attack South Ossetia, thinking he had the approval of the West.

TBILISI, Georgia — Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili on Friday defended the decisions made in the run-up to the August war with Russia, telling a parliamentary commission that Georgia had responded to Russian "intervention."

He also repeated assertions that his government had neither sought nor received advance approval of the Aug. 7 attack on the separatist region of South Ossetia, in particular from the United States.

He thought that he had a "green light" to attack after a visit from Condoleeza Rice:

Georgia's former ambassador to Russia said Wednesday that Georgian officials perceived a July visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as encouragement for the use of force against South Ossetia. Former ambassador Erosi Kitsmarishvili also said people in Saakashvili's circle told Kitsmarishvili that Rice "gave the green light" — something Rice herself has denied.

(Oddly enough, Saddam Hussein thought he had a "green light" to invade Kuwait as well. After a long period of aggressive rhetoric and claiming Kuwait was a province of Iraq, and no one, not the US, not the UN, not his neighbouring countries aside from Kuwait itself, confronting him, he invaded.)

Fully story: Georgian President Defends Russian War Decisions

What were the "provocations" that Russia was supposedly guilty of, that lead to the Georgian attack ?

Supplying aid to the 2 (autonomous) provinces, and giving their citizens (some of them at least) Russian passports.

(Remember that South Ossetia had been autonomous and basically independent ever since Georgia split away from Russia 18 (?) years earlier.

Still, I don't recall hearing any condemnation of his decision to use armed force to crush the "separatist" movement (in an autonomous country no less).

I guess any (oil) pipeline deals will have to wait a bit longer.

We may recall that Saddam swore he had a green light from the US to attack Kuwait.

Probably a good idea to get any green lights from the US in writing.