This is from a new interview with David Satter on the International Affairs Forum:
The other thing that I heard, and that I think is credible, is that they need time to prepare a kind of pretext. It's not a simple direct invasion of Georgia without any pretext like the one that Saakashvili so generously provided them for the first invasion. That would be difficult because not only would it cast doubt on the legitimacy of the second invasion, it would raise questions about the first one. Now, to prepare a real pretext for invading Georgia, you need to put some work in. For the first invasion, the preparations began months before the actual crossing of the border. It might be the same in this case. I think for the moment they don't have the pretext that they need and I think that, more than anything else, is what is restraining them.
But who knows? A trap has been set. Obama at the end of the day will probably not cancel the deployment in Eastern Europe. The Russians will claim that this is an aggressive action and that all of Obama's talk about a reset and his friendly gestures were just hot air and that it just shows the duplicity of the United States. And the population, which has limited access now to free information because of the control over TV and everything else, will buy it. So we could be setting the stage for an unpleasant confrontation. In that context, it would be much easier for them to invade Georgia. Much easier to say, 'we have to act in our own defense because the West is turning against us'. So it's too early to be sanguine about the direction in which they are going.
All of this poses a threat not so much to the rest of the world as to Russia itself. Russia has very deep problems, and to solve those problems it really needs decent values and democratic practices. What it has now is not going to do that. They have a leadership which comes from the KGB which is totally corrupt. So we can only hope that the Russian country, the Russian state, the Russian society will somehow find a way to act in its own interest.
Well, as long as Georgia doesn't give a pretext, I don't think Russia can justify invading it in a way that avoids losing face. Even if Obama does decide not to cancel the deployment in Eastern Europe, certainly this is not Georgia's fault -- Georgia isn't even a NATO member. No, they would need Saakashvili to do something -- vague claims about "rearming" aren't enough. If Saakashvili keeps himself under control, everything should be OK. Putin may get angrier and angrier, but I don't think there's anything he realistically could do.
I agree that Russia does need different values and different strategies if it is to address its deep and complex problems -- even the Chinese solution would still necessitate a lot of changes that I don't see the Russians willing to do. Yet Russia may bleed and bleed without actually changing -- hell, they went through the Great Patriotic War with a lunatic tyrant in charge killing millions of them with psychopathic abandon, and still they not only survived, they won the war! Certainly today's situation is much milder in comparison. Hm, my guess is nothing is going to change. The only hope is that whoever follows Putin will be more like Gorbachëv -- but I suppose Putin will try to make this impossible.
"Well, as long as Georgia doesn't give a pretext, I don't think Russia can justify invading it in a way that avoids losing face"
What "pretext" did the US have when it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?
7/11 + WMD.
Putin won't invade without a pretext either. I admit he's as bad as Saakashvili, but he looks like he's smarter. I dunno, you tell.
7/11 + WMD.
Anyway, Putin won't invade without a pretext -- why would they be talking about "Georgia rearming" if they didn't need one? I admit Putin is as bad as Saakashvili, but I had the impression he was smarter. I dunno, you tell.
Hilarious! Satter sez that the Russian Army being prepared to respond to Saak's lunatic bombardment of Russian soldiers by massed rocket artillery means that Putin, not loony Saak, caused the war. That's like saying if Poland had defeated Germany in 1939 it was because the Poles suckered innocent Adolpf into giving them pretext.
But then, Satter obviously can't stand the growing evidence that Saak was the one who got the August war going.
Name me one war in history which did not begin with a pretext? Wars are political endeavours (politics via violent means), they all have pretexts.
João, that's my point! :-) Still, how about Pearl Harbor as a cause rather than a pretext for the American-Japanese war?
Rkka, that's exactly right. Putin did a lot more than just reacting to Saakashvili -- just like Bush did a lot more than simply "checking for WMDs" and "toppling Saddam". Which shows both of them were lying when they said all they wanted was the best for the Iraqi/Abkhazian/Ossetian people. It's as simple as that.
Saakashvili and Putin deserve each other. As the Russians say, одна сатана.
The cause behind the American-Japanese war (looking beyond the Pearl Harbor pretext) goes deep into the provocations the US government took against Japan during and before the summer of 1941 (militarizing the Phillipines, embargoing strategic raw materials to Japan, arming Japan's adversaries, etc..., all of which amounted to a casus belli for Japan to act).
Let's not forget about Vietnam, Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell?
''7/11 + WMD.
Anyway, Putin won't invade without a pretext -- why would they be talking about "Georgia rearming" if they didn't need one? I admit Putin is as bad as Saakashvili, but I had the impression he was smarter. I dunno, you tell.''
You think it's hard to fabricate a pretext for anything Asehpe? All you really need are creative politicians (I'm even starting to doubt that in certain cases) and the inherently ignorant masses to follow them.
What is blocking Russian Tanks from meeting Turkisk border guards is not the lack of a pretext, or fear of drawing the same old classical rhetorical ire from Washington and Brussels; it's the question of who comes next after Saakashvili? Who get's installed and how competent will he, she or they be in running Georgia? I don't think Moscow has this sorted out. Regime-change is not as easy as it may sound, and even the world's sole superpower is still learning it the hard way in Iraq and Afghanistan.
João, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's difficult to find a pretext (and I'd still say Pearl Harbor was much more than a pretext: it surprised and shocked Americans, without it they simply wouldn't have gone to war). What I'm saying is that Putin would want to look as good as possible to the external world (internally, in Russia, the situation is under control, so he doesn't care). Invading without a (good) pretext would make him lose the PR battle in the very first day -- and the PR battle is becoming more and more important as time goes by.
I don't think that what is keeping Russia from marching through Georgia is simply the question of "who comes next" -- there are always guys willing to do the oppressor's biddings, I'm sure among the Georgians currently living in Russia there would be many good candidates (why bother using someone from the local opposition -- unless you're still trying to fight the external PR battle -- ? Just get a good trustworthy goon from your own country. It's OK if he speaks Georgian, but even that isn't terribly necessary.). In fact, I'll bet Putin already has a name or two. I think what's keeping him from doing it is (a) the need for a believable pretext (Saakashvili has to do something stupid first) because of the PR battle and (b) a certain amount of uncertainty about what America will do (perhaps Europe also a little, but certainly not as much as America).
Well, if you want a ''good pretext'' (mind you that last year's pretext didn't really make Putin look good in the eyes of the foreign media, so why waste time finding something good if the west won't buy it anyway), you have the FSB who is now controlling the South Ossetian and Abkhaz borders with Georgia; they can set up some apartment bombs in Tskhinval and Sukhum, blame Georgian agents and then send in the cavalry, full stop.
Sure, there are always guys willing to do the oppressor's biddings. However every regime, even oppressive and corrupt ones, need to have some form of legitimacy to be able to govern competently and effectively (like Kadyrov in Chechenya, who took some time to headhunt by the way). What Russia fears is overthrowing an inherently unstable regime and potentially opening a can of worms reminiscent of 1991 where Shevardnadze and Gamsakhurdia were at each other's necks, battling for control of Georgia and seeking Russia's backing for their respective warring factions.
Russia could adopt the 19th century model of when it took over the Caucasus; set up a few губернии and put generals in charge of running the show, arbitrating all the competing political factions. This would not only be economically and politically expensive, but also potentially bloody.
Regarding any American reaction, it would be nothing but loud rhetorical ire. In the end of the day, even the most conservative Russophobe in Washington will privately admit that risking a confrontation with Russia (which could potentially go nuclear) is simply not worth it when it comes to defending a small nation of 4 million which offers nothing but heavy political baggage.
Such a pretext as you suggest, João, probably would be sufficient. Yes, the West won't buy it; but it will always bite a little bit (see how much the Russophile blogosphere insists on all bits of evidence that Saakashvili actually started the August war? Now, even respectable newssources had to tone down their accusation of Russian "disproportionate reactions" and add at least a few paragraphs about how Saakashvili isn't a nice character -- which tends to dampen the passions against the Russian invasion, even if in principle they still "don't buy it"). Putin will not invade without something like that. Perhaps they'll do exactly what you're suggesting, perhaps something else; but they'll have to do something, and they won't start without it. I just hope Saakashvili won't make their work easy for them by actually throwing an anger tantrum and doing something foolish.
The kind of legitimacy you're talking about -- the Kadyrov type -- isn't hard to come by. When I said Putin probably already had names in his list, I meant this kind of names -- Kadyrov-style guys who can claim local ties but who are ready to do whatever Moscow wants in exchange for local power.
I agree Russia wants to prevent another local Duel of Titans like Gamsakhurdia vs. Shevardnadze, but there I frankly (a) don't see this being very likely (Russians not being really popular among Georgians of all political colors these days, there will be heavy conflicts no matter what -- Georgia will be at best like Chechnya, with Russian/Kadyrov troops dying in "accidents" all the time, and more probably much worse than that) and (b) don't think this will stop Russia (all the rheotics involved in the anti-Saakashvili movement -- see Rkka's messages here for an example -- cannot be simply stopped without losing face and looking weak).
As for the American reaction, you may very well be right -- given the current situation, I could very well see America reacting only with words, not with any kind of further support. I suppose the only possibility would be if the American government at the moment needed an external distraction -- which is not much of a hope to count on.
Still, there are other kinds of reactions that could hurt Russia -- from the PR battle to economic sanctions. Despite all the exaggerated claims about self-sufficiency, Russia doesn't really want to close the border and live alone -- where would the elite send their children to for an education? Where would they buy their plasma TVs? How could they put their money in Swiss bank accounts? (In fact, perhaps really closing the borders and severing the ties would be the one thing that might turn the people against the government -- by reinventing Russia The Big Prison.)
"Still, there are other kinds of reactions that could hurt Russia -- from the PR battle to economic sanctions."
This is the beauty of Russia's position. Due to the past success of US Russophobes preventing close US-Russian economic relations, the US imports little from Russia but low value-added energy and raw materials like aluminum. Russia on the other hand imports high value-added things like aircraft, cars, and other manufactured goods. In a US-Russia trade war, Russia would find ready buyers to replace lost commodity sales in the US, while the US might have trouble finding buyers for stuff the Russians no longer buy.
"Russia doesn't really want to close the border and live alone -- where would the elite send their children to for an education? Where would they buy their plasma TVs? How could they put their money in Swiss bank accounts? (In fact, perhaps really closing the borders and severing the ties would be the one thing that might turn the people against the government -- by reinventing Russia The Big Prison.)"
The US dosen't sell plasma TVs. The Far East does. And Russia has good relations with China, S. Korea, etc.
Swiss banks are very unlikely to refuse Russian deposits on US say-so. And even if they do, there's no shortage of banking havens in this world.
And as for the "big prison" thing, Russian tourists and their money have appeal from Stockholm to Istanbul. The Baltics especially are desperate for tourism as their economies collapse, far worse than Russia's. That will undermine any "wall" the US tries to build.