Russia Makes Case for Attack in Georgia 0221 GMT, 000219 Link Russia is creating a justification for military action in neighboring Georgia. Director of Russias Federal Border Guard Service, Konstantin Totsky, said Feb. 18 that as many as 1,000 Chechen militants hiding in Georgias northeastern Akhmet region are preparing to break into Chechnya. This allegation implies that Russia would have to defend itself against a potential threat coming from Georgia. But it also gives Russia a justifiable reason to launch military attacks inside Georgia. Such an attack would have both political and military advantages for Russia, with almost no disadvantages. Russia has often accused Georgia of harboring the rebels in its northern region, allowing them to pass into and out of Chechnya and hindering Russias war effort. Georgian officials, including President Eduard Shevardnadze, have repeatedly denied Russias charges as groundless. Georgia has reported that it thoroughly checks all incoming Chechen refugees to make sure they are not militants. In the Akhmet area, there are 5,838 officially registered refugees being sheltered in five villages, according to the Georgian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and more than 1,000 of them are men of fighting age. The border area has been a bone of contention between Russia and Georgia throughout the Chechen war. Georgia refuses to become involved in the war and will not help Russia. In Moscows view, Georgias inactivity implies de facto support for the Chechens. Totsky told ITAR-Tass Feb. 18 that Russian troops are reinforcing the Chechen-Georgian border, and that they are aware Chechen rebels may try to escape into Georgia in the spring. Russia has trained mountaineers to deal with this eventuality, Totsky said. Russia is not only ignoring Georgian pleas to remain uninvolved, but seems about to attack Georgia in the name of its war on Chechen rebels. After Russian troops win control of the Argun and Vedeno gorges, Russia will likely initiate a limited air attack on Georgia. Russias ongoing insistence that Georgia is helping rebels, along with the new accusation that Chechen rebels in Georgia are ready to cross back into Chechnya, builds a case to support a Russian assault. But after the experience of a five-month campaign in Chechnya, a ground invasion of Georgia is not a likely scenario. Moscow is promising an imminent end to the battle in Chechnya. Politically, Russian support for that war could not be stretched to cover a war in Georgia. Militarily, Russian troops would have to fight their way through the mountains at the end of winter and the beginning of the spring thaw. They would still be in the heart of rebel territory and, instead of the snow and fog that currently slows them down, rain and mud would challenge progress. Engaging in an aerial assault on northern Georgia would cost Russia no lives or domestic political disfavor. In fact, it would achieve three significant Russian goals. First, an air assault would create a temporary buffer zone to the south of Chechnya, further protecting Russia from a future rebel threat. Simultaneously, it would send the message to other would-be separatists in Russia that Moscow will never let them escape, and even national borders will not protect them. Second, a Russian assault on Georgia could chip away at Shevardnadzes power base, destabilizing the U.S.-supported Georgian government. If the Georgian administration seems unable to protect Georgian territory from its neighbors, Shevardnadze could find that he has to struggle to be re-elected in the April presidential election. The potential of undermining Shevardnadze is in itself a tempting advantage of striking against Georgia. Third, Russian aggression against Georgia would convey a powerful message to the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the rest of the world, that the Caucasus is still in the Russian sphere of influence. Georgia, despite its U.S. backing, is ultimately Russias domain, and Russia will not allow its neighbors to support its enemies. If Russia begins air attacks on Georgia, it would bolster the image Moscow yearns to have of being a global power and regional hegemon. ) 2000 WNI, Inc. All rights reserved.

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000

Answers

At this rate we're going to have to fork over a whole lot more aid. It may be for food or dismantling nuclear weapons but I think it will find its way somewhere else.

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), February 21, 2000.

Guy .... It already HAS and it WILL ! Eagle

-- Hal Walker (e999eagle@FREEWWWEB.COM), February 21, 2000.

Possible, hi,

Think 'Oil Pipelines'. Recommended reading: www.anima.com, Articles section.

-- bz (beezee@statesville.net), February 21, 2000.

BZ - Don't suppose you have an English Language version??

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 21, 2000.

BZ,
Doublecheck the URL, that site is french language communications company.
Early Warning Report has some great background info on Oil and conflict in the region.

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

Possible, hi,

Yep, you're right. I got the 'm' and 'n' backwards. It should have been 'amina.org'. Sorry.

You're also right on the EWR site. There's some good stuff there. Chechnya should be on everyone's minds these days. There's some really nasty things going on there, and it looks like it will get worse: too much oil money and power plays in the region. [I continue to believe the long-term target is Iran.] Thanks.

-- bz (beezee@statesville.net), February 22, 2000.

Possible,

Man, I got it wrong again! I'm gonna have to fire myself! The URL should have been 'www.amina.com'.

-- bz (beezee@statesville.net), February 22, 2000.