Georgia, Russia and Rethinking China
Years after his humiliating knockout by Muhammad Ali, the boxer George Foreman returned to the ring to a string of triumphs and the world championship despite being in his 40s. It was more marketing than sport. When asked about his choice of opponents, Foreman famously remarked that he didn't fight anyone his mama couldn't whup.
That's one way of looking at Russia's effective annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia over the last 24 hours. With apologies to my Georgian friends, Georgia simply isn't a serious military actor; with the exception of the Chechens and Armenians, none of the Caucasus peoples is (which is why the Abkhazians and Ossetians are relying on Russia to fight their battles).
Where Foreman was smart is that he never got back in the ring with Ali. Fifteen years after its near dismemberment by Russian-backed forces, however, Georgia wasn't so wise. It doesn't mean a return to 1993, which ushered in a literally dark decade, when Georgia often lacked even electricity to light itself. But Russia's military demonstration does show that Georgia isn't an independent actor at the moment.
Vladimir Putin (for it's clear now who is truly in charge in Moscow) has also shown that Russia doesn't intend for Georgia to join NATO. And NATO has shown that it doesn't have the gumption or inclination to stand up to Russia.
The question for the U.S. and the West as a whole is fundamental, and goes back to the original objective of the Western energy corridor: As O and G readers know, Washington's rationale was not sending a million barrels of oil a day to the West, but turning the Russian-dominated Caucasus and Central Asia into a financially independent, pro-Western region.
Georgia is a key component of the strategy, as a crossover point for the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, its companion natural gas line, and the smaller Baku-Supsa Early Oil line.
Georgian absorption into NATO is effectively off the table. But does that mean an end to the West's challenge to Russia's regional energy power?
The short answer is no -- all these lines will continue to operate. Russia won't interfere with them. Why? Because its larger economic-political strategy in Europe depends on not spooking the Europeans, who could then be encouraged to back the construction of more non-Russian energy pipelines to Europe, and thus dilute Russian power there.
(I just received reliable confirmation that, contrary to a statement by Georgia, Russia did not bomb near the Baku-Ceyhan line. Bombs were dropped near the smaller Baku-Supsa line, which leads to Georgia's Black Sea, but caused no damage. The Supsa line passes near South Ossetia so it's possible that this was a fog of war situation.)
So Russia will let the Baku lines be. But it seems to me that an expansion -- the proposed trans-Caspian oil and natural gas lines, and the proposed Nabucco line to Europe -- are now effectively dead. No Caspian president would gamble his survival by embracing such a project, and that's precisely how they would calibrate such a decision.
The West simply has too few levers with Russia.
But there is one, and it's China. Since the goal of U.S. policy is energy independence for the Caucasus and Central Asian states, why does the oil and natural gas have to go West?
China is building oil and natural gas lines from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to Xinjiang and beyond. Washington has already quietly gotten behind these efforts, but it might be the wisest course to turn up the volume by offering actually to help to build such lines.
The next U.S. president would have make such a shift part of a larger, well-considered China strategy. Russia would hate such a U.S.-China energy tandem, but that is what leverage in this region is all about.
That's one way of looking at Russia's effective annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia over the last 24 hours. With apologies to my Georgian friends, Georgia simply isn't a serious military actor; with the exception of the Chechens and Armenians, none of the Caucasus peoples is (which is why the Abkhazians and Ossetians are relying on Russia to fight their battles).
Where Foreman was smart is that he never got back in the ring with Ali. Fifteen years after its near dismemberment by Russian-backed forces, however, Georgia wasn't so wise. It doesn't mean a return to 1993, which ushered in a literally dark decade, when Georgia often lacked even electricity to light itself. But Russia's military demonstration does show that Georgia isn't an independent actor at the moment.
Vladimir Putin (for it's clear now who is truly in charge in Moscow) has also shown that Russia doesn't intend for Georgia to join NATO. And NATO has shown that it doesn't have the gumption or inclination to stand up to Russia.
The question for the U.S. and the West as a whole is fundamental, and goes back to the original objective of the Western energy corridor: As O and G readers know, Washington's rationale was not sending a million barrels of oil a day to the West, but turning the Russian-dominated Caucasus and Central Asia into a financially independent, pro-Western region.
Georgia is a key component of the strategy, as a crossover point for the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, its companion natural gas line, and the smaller Baku-Supsa Early Oil line.
Georgian absorption into NATO is effectively off the table. But does that mean an end to the West's challenge to Russia's regional energy power?
The short answer is no -- all these lines will continue to operate. Russia won't interfere with them. Why? Because its larger economic-political strategy in Europe depends on not spooking the Europeans, who could then be encouraged to back the construction of more non-Russian energy pipelines to Europe, and thus dilute Russian power there.
(I just received reliable confirmation that, contrary to a statement by Georgia, Russia did not bomb near the Baku-Ceyhan line. Bombs were dropped near the smaller Baku-Supsa line, which leads to Georgia's Black Sea, but caused no damage. The Supsa line passes near South Ossetia so it's possible that this was a fog of war situation.)
So Russia will let the Baku lines be. But it seems to me that an expansion -- the proposed trans-Caspian oil and natural gas lines, and the proposed Nabucco line to Europe -- are now effectively dead. No Caspian president would gamble his survival by embracing such a project, and that's precisely how they would calibrate such a decision.
The West simply has too few levers with Russia.
But there is one, and it's China. Since the goal of U.S. policy is energy independence for the Caucasus and Central Asian states, why does the oil and natural gas have to go West?
China is building oil and natural gas lines from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to Xinjiang and beyond. Washington has already quietly gotten behind these efforts, but it might be the wisest course to turn up the volume by offering actually to help to build such lines.
The next U.S. president would have make such a shift part of a larger, well-considered China strategy. Russia would hate such a U.S.-China energy tandem, but that is what leverage in this region is all about.
Labels: baku-ceyhan, georgia, medvedev, oil pipelines, Putin, putin's labyrinth, Russia
16 Comments:
Steve,
People keep using the analogy of "hey, the west got kosovo...now russia has its turn".
Do you think that part of the reason why the US isnt sticking up more for Georgia is that perhaps we are building capital with the Russians re: Iran? In other words, "We stayed out of Georgia, you let us do X in Iran."
Hi Jay. Kosovo is definitely in Russia's mind. However misplaced that comparison is (and I think it is), Putin cited Abkhazia and South Ossetia routinely while wailing about the West's Kosovo policy.
As for Iran: that's on Washington's mind, but in a different way. The U.S. isn't going to war with Iran, regardless of how much Dick Cheney and David Addington are dying to do so. However, the U.S. and the West as a whole does need Russia on side to carry out Iran (i.e. anti-nuclear) policy.
Still, regardless of that, I just don't think that the U.S., and Nato for sure, have the guts to take on Russia in a meaningful way. What threat would move Putin? At this point, it would have to be one of force, and clearly that isn't an option.
cannot see any administration saying let georgia go to the russians and we will focus on moving oil and gas to china. the dominoes would really start falling in europe if we did that.
and why would we want to encourage the expansion of chinese efforts to lock up natural resource supplies world-wide? over the medium term, china may be as much of a strategic threat to us as russia. already our economic dependence on china puts them in the driver's seat in our bilateral relationship.
Hi Dentist. The administration isn't going to surrender Georgia. I do not mean to imply that. However, China is going to buy natural gas andoil anyway. China buying Central Asian oil and natural gas simply means it isn't out in the market competing with the west elsewhere. Meanwhile, the U.S. achieves its objectives regarding Russia.
The upside here is that China is an actual neighbor. Turkmenistan
and Kazakhstan aren't going to be as resistant tying up with a
U.S.-China pipeline as they are with a purely U.S. line.
What about prices, though? China doesn't pay nearly as much for the Caspian gas and oil as does the West. But, I guess, the question is moot if Nabucco and the Transcaspian pipeline are dead.
Ukraine has announced that it "reserves the right to deny Russian Naval ships re-entry into their Crimean bases". Would Russia (read Putin) even hesitate to invade and dismember Ukraine at that point? Would we then have a turning point like Poland, September 1939?
Okay, let's get a few things straight. This has little to do with Kosovo or Ossetia, but everything to do with re-seizing the strategic initiative in the Balkans and the south Caucasus, which Russia lost to the West in the 1990s.
China pays world prices for oil imports, just like everyone else. I think N is referring to the cost of transportation. The West has been playing a losing pipeline game against Russia of late because it makes empty promises on expensive projects. China is subsidizing the building of pipelines from Central Asia to China, which gives Caspian oil and gas a non-Russian option if Georgia is blocked. I think that is Steve's point.
A larger strategic vision would require a different and longer post. Want to kick it off, Steve?
Who am I to get in the way of a man on a roll. Please continue, ECC. Beyond forming a joint energy policy in Central Asia, what are we talking about?
I'm not sure about China's pipelines being the US' savior, mainly because even though Russia's pipeline to the pacific is being built solely on its territory, it announced a while ago that it will build a branch line to Daqing:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200507/21/eng20050721_197551.html
China needs all the energy it can get even if it does suck it up from unpleasant places like the Sudan (we instead have the unpleasant Saudis).
Add to that that the US is building up its forces (guam and diego garcia now have permanent B2 shelters, old polaris docks are being upgraded to take more modern nuclear submarines, a portion of the US marines based in south korea are to relocate to Diego (or guam) and allies (australia much increase military spending, very long range radar etc. and Japan dropping its military non-intervention from its constitution) in the Pacific to contain China...
The US-India civil nuclear deal is also designed into locking India on a pro-US path and hence a US counter-weight to China.
I think the Chinese might have noticed this.
ECC is spot on though. Russia has finally pushed back after almost two decades of provocation and creeping encirclement.
Sure, Russia can always be kicked, but this is not Russia under Yeltsin and the price will only escalate. With the upgrading of the Russian railway system, it will soon be much cheaper to transport goods to europe by rail from south korea to north korea and onwards for example. Russia's bargaining power will only increase.
This war will be marked by historians as a clear turning point in the resettling of relations that were upset by the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.
BTW, www.a-times.com has some good stuff on asia, even with its pro indian leanings.
I question this statement:
"it might be the wisest course to turn up the volume by offering actually to help to build such lines"
Any USA offer of help to build anything is a stretch. It is China that is financing almost everything that usa is doing these days, with a little help from our friends in the oil emirates.
As usual, the Europeans have shown themselves to be spineless cowards! France and Germany blocked Georgia's entry into NATO. Had Georgia been admitted, Russia would not have attacked Georgia.
That being said, Georgia's impetuous president fell in the trap. When one is a small country, one NEVER throws the first punch. If you do, you lose the moral high ground!.
This is a repeat of 1938. Hitler's annexation of the sudetenland while the western european powers did nothing.
Russia only understands brute force. Russia can be brought to its knees by a concerted economic boycott of its oil and gas. The Russian economy's main exports are weapons and oil.
Resources should be directed to Algeria and dare I say it: Lybia!!.
The USA is in deep trouble. It finds itself in a quagmire along two fronts and the neocons are insisting on a third Iranian front.
Comrade Putin has wrecked the neocon's planned attach on Iran. It has certainly made it extremely difficult. Though I would not be surprised if Georgia is sacrificed for the sake of Russian neutrality on Iran.
This is why medium sized countries are trying to obtain nuclear weapons. They are the only way to safeguard your sovereignty against predatory powers.
The reemergence of Russia on the world scene is a welcome development to those of us who believe that American foreign policy has been both flawed and dangerous.
Sure, Russia is taking its pound of flesh by hitting military installations and some infrastructure within Georgia proper. I don't blame them. They are sending Georgia and the US a message that they're back.
There are many of us Westerners out here who fully support Russia in this conflict and believe that Russia is acting responsibly.
Bottom-line, Georgia started this mess but Russia will clean it up its own way.... and if the US doesn't like it, too bad!
January 2009 can't come soon enough. Let's hope Barack Obama can bring some sense to Washington.
Fascinating that some of us think that a self-contained China, which threatens no one, needs to be contained. Others cheer on Russia attacking another country for acting on its own territory. No wonder U.S. has lost its way. I guess we get the leaders we deserve.
Anon 1:13-
I'm not sure I'm getting all of the 1938 parallels. In 1938, France and Britain didn't go to war for Czechoslovakia because of prevailing moods against war. In this case, Europe isn't doing more to help Georgia because Russia has them held hostage to oil and natural gas. Much of the oil and NG that the top European countries use comes either from Russia or through Russia. If they made too many noises over Georgia, Russia might start restricting supplies to Europe. A few little accidents here and there...and European cars stop running due to lack of gas. Yes, it's blackmail, but a great deal of diplomacy seems to me to be sophisticated blackmail.
Steve, I'd really hate to tread on such expert, well-informed toes as yours but what about the articles by Damien McElroy in Rustavi (Georgia, just a few miles south of the BTC pipeline) - did he get his geography wrong? It does rather read like a local account...
Daily Telegraph - Russia targets key oil pipeline
also reprinted in NY Sun - Russia Jets Bomb Georgia Oil Pipeline
Welcome Cloe: this is the first independent, eye-witness account that I've seen on the subject. Presumably Damien is describing Baku-Ceyhan, though it could be Baku-Supsa as well. One observation is that, given the way he describes the pattern of the shooting, it seems amazing that they missed.
This issue is of principal importance in the flareup, and I hope that others go on down and give us more reporting. We need to know for sure -- did the Russians target one or both of the pipelines?
Thanks for the links. Steve
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home