Russia has begun implementation of the agreements achieved in the course of Medvedev-Sarkosy talks. As usual, she did it her own way. Withdrawal of the troops did not lead to vacation of the territory of so called “core Georgia”, as the buffer zones were made being situated beyond the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. All that plus recognition by Russia the independence by those unrecognized republics has lead to the most serious crisis of Russia’s relations with the outer world since the cold war times. We had a talk with Professor Alexander Sharavin, director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, full member of the Academy of Military Sciences. The talk was about military aspects of the current situation, also about strategic price of recognition of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia.       

Q: Which Russian troops are staying today on the Georgia territory?

A: Practically, this is same forces that were present before the conflict on the both sides of the Georgia-Ossetia border, and slightly over 2,000 soldiers in Abkhazia. Which way are those troops arranged, having a formal status of peace-makers? In Ossetia, for example, these are two lines of stationary posts with trenches, dividing the territories of the South Ossetia and Georgia. The lines are situated interiorly and exteriorly. What logic has been used by our military leadership so that not to violate the peacemaking mandate? They said that as the Georgian side has compromised itself and cannot play peacemaking role anymore, that means we can occupy the place previously taken by the Georgian peacemakers. Thus, it turns out that the South Ossetia is totally controlled by the local authorities and Russian militaries, who are the only peacemakers in the area, at the absence of Georgian or Ossetian peacemakers.         

Similar is the situation in Abkhazia. The only difference from the previous period is that now the Kogori Gorge is completely controlled by Abkhazians and Russian militaries. Besides the forwarded into Georgian territory posts, Russia has also located her peacemakers in a point of dislocation in Poti, where a Georgian peacemaking unit used to be present. With an explanation that now their mission is impossible due to the reasons above, the streets and the port are going to be patrolled by the Russian militaries.      

Me personally, I have doubts that this is legal and well grounded. Referring to Sochi (Dagomys) agreements is not convincing, as the course of developments has made it null and void. Now new agreements are needed, which takes new talks. However, there are already international observers in the area. That’s Finnish militaries with whom Russian peacemakers are already cooperating.    

Q: Making so called “buffer zones” taking part of actually Georgian territories causes rather grounded reproof by the western states affirming that Russia is not executing the terms of Medvedev-Sarkosy agreement. And what is the military meaning of those zones?  

A: Actually, from a military and technical point of view, if we abstract ourselves from political aspect, that means a lot. Despite the fact that peacemaking posts are not numerous and are rather small, they play a role of an advanced defense, enabling prevention of any sudden attacks on the South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Georgia like that made on 8 August. So this is excluding the effect of surprise attack. This is also about the control over the port of Poti that was the base of the Georgian naval forces and through which it was planned to deliver the help, including the military one. It seems significant to me that the first American ship, sent to Georgia, entered not Poti but Batumi, as they were careful not to aggravate the situation and not to enter on an accidental conflict with Russian militaries.    

Q: What is the role by the American military personnel in Georgia? 

A: There are advisers of various categories. Some train the Georgian Army to act in terms of tactical aspect. Others teach the Staff art of operative and strategic planning. Incidentally, it’s not only American personnel; there are military advisors from other countries, Israel in particular. However, these are mainly militaries from the reserve for whom Israel bears no responsibility, as they are actually civil people. As for the US, it is represented with standing officers and sergeants.       

Q: Many consider that recognition of Abkhazia and the South Ossetia by Russia is done in order to legalize the Russian military presence in those regions without any peacemaking status directly through agreements on military cooperation and making military bases there. What would you say to that?

A: I think this is exactly so. The basic meaning of recognition of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia is an opportunity of concluding agreements on military cooperation in order to be able to place one’s troops and military bases on the territories of those republics. In case of admitting territorial integrity of Georgia such an opportunity would not present itself.  

I’ll make a little riff now. When Saakashvili had just come to power, I made several addresses on the Georgian radio and television saying there were good chances to establish normal Georgia-Russia relations, turning over a new leaf. I said then that from the point of view of the world history of the geopolitics the border between the two inimical states should not be set up along a mountain ridge; it must be shifted anyway. Along with that, I did not ask them a question where the border must be moved in their concrete case. In case of friendly and balanced policy by Georgia, Russia not only wouldn’t have shown any aggression, but would have given up all her weapons placed there then, as it was easier to leave it there and not have problems with transporting it away. At the beginning, the relations were quite normal, but then something wrong happened. There are many interpretations of why it happened. Probably that was due to personal quarrels or some psychological moments between the two presidents. The main thing is that personal disagreement turned into an international conflict that snowballed.  And now we have seen a transition from verbal skirmish to real war. No one knows when this war is going to be over. However, we see that my forecast has scored and the border line is practically moved from the Caucasian Ridge to the south.         

Q: And why do we need to have military base and troops in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia at the expense of catastrophic aggravation of relations with practically all the outer world? That includes China that is unlikely to support the independent status for separatists, having its own problems with Tibet and other national enclaves.  

A: If we put aside big politics, international law and international ethics, and look at all that with a cynical cold-blood eye from a military aspect, we shall see that we gain rather a lot. We have a springboard in Transcaucasia that is connected to the Northern Caucasus through the Rokskiy Tunnel. We have the Abkhazian coastline where it would be possible to deploy the new points of basing our fleet after 2017 in case we shall have to leave the Crimea. 

And now let’s see what we shall have to pay for that. Suffice it to look at the indexes of our exchanges to understand everything is ruining terribly: we have lost 30% of the value of our assets. It would take at least a year to get back to the level we were at in the beginning of the year. And the index is continuing falling down and no one knows what will happen next. That’s tens of billions of dollars, that’s a downfall of our economy. Besides, want it or not, we find ourselves to be in a serious international isolation. The Chinese position is an alerting sign. We are used to talking that this is our friend and ally. Some even suggested concluding military and political alliance with China so that to divide the zones of influence in the ocean. They said if we began to share out the world resources, then Americans would be left out of it. Well, it appears the situation might go the opposite way. I do not deny that China might use the current situation and conclude a certain alliance with the US. Then we would find ourselves in a disastrous situation without powerful partners, but with a big number of potential enemies. In case we came to such an outcome of the today’s crisis, then all the tactic advantages spoken about above would not compensate a big strategic failure.