Cyber-Attack Strategy: Part of Russian Attack on Georgian Pipelines, Report Finds

John Bumgarner, a former cyber-security expert for the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies, is attracting much attention for his report concluding that Russia's military offensive in Georgia last year was coordinated with a pre-arranged civilian cyber-attack on the country. What appears to have gone unreported is Bumgarner's conclusion that the region's oil apparatus was a strategic target of the overall conventional-and-cyber offensive.

The 100-page report, conducted for the U.S. Cyber-Consequences Unit, where Bumgarner is director of research, was distributed to U.S. officials and security experts. Bumgarner and I chatted by phone, and he emailed me the nine-page executive summary (thanks to Josh Foust for agreeing to post it at Registan.net. Incidentally, Foust has a good piece on the media war between Russia and Georgia at CJR).

Bumgarner says the report is the result of an examination of hundreds of public Internet forums, sharing of data with sources at home and abroad, and his own reporting on the attack from almost the instant it began. Others have reported that much of the findings were already known; but Bumgarner's findings appear to be the difference between barstool talk and authentic data. Nor is the report the kid-stuff such as carried out last week against 45 million Twitter users along with Facebook members, apparently by a Georgian blogger calling himself Syxymu (the blogger's attempt to Latinize the name of the Abkhazian capital, Sukhumi.).

Its chief takeaway is that the Russian cyberattack -- which disabled 54 Georgian websites in banking, communications and media with the apparent aim of reducing Georgia's capability of responding to the Russian offensive -- was prepared well in advance. Bumgarner writes:

Many of the cyber attacks were so close in time to the corresponding military operations that there had to be close cooperation between people in the Russian military and the civilian cyber attackers. When the cyber attacks began, they did not involve any reconnaissance or mapping stage, but jumped directly to the sort of packets that were best suited to jamming the websites under attack. This indicates that the necessary reconnaissance and the writing of attack scripts had to have been done in advance. Many of the actions the attackers carried out, such as registering new domain names and putting up new Web sites, were accomplished so quickly that all of the steps had to be prepared earlier.

The Russian Embassy in Washington denies any official Russian or military role in the cyber attacks. And in fact Bumgarner writes that he found no sign of official Russian participation, and concluded that no military personnel, with their distinctive fingerprints, could have carried out the attack. But he adds that there had to be complicity. "The organizers of the cyber attacks had advance notice of Russian military intentions, and they were tipped off about the timing of the Russian military operations while these operations were being carried out," Bumgarner writes.

Yet, the cyber attackers did not go in for the kill, Bumgarner told me -- they didn't attempt to cripple sites that could have caused chaos or injury, such as those linked to power stations or oil-delivery facilities, but merely those that could trigger comparative "inconvenience." "There was a political decision not to attack those critical infrastructures directly. They made the point that they could launch these attacks. They showed they have the capability to do more," Bumgarner said.

This mirrors Russian action against Georgia's paramount strategic installation -- the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, by far the biggest reason why the U.S. and the West as a whole are interested in Georgia. We've discussed here how Russia bombed all around the pipeline without actually hitting it -- a clear message that it could do so if it wished, but would refrain for the moment.

Indeed the cyber attack fit into an overall Russian strategy centered on Georgia's oil infrastructure, Bumgarner concludes. It succeeded, in Bumgarner's view. "Unstable ground conditions, augmented by cyber attacks, soon made all of the Georgian pipelines seem unreliable," he writes.

Certainly that was the impact for the first weeks and months -- Russia demonstrated that the pipeline was vulnerable, not to mention dispelling the illusion that Georgia enjoyed special Western protection.

To a large degree, that remains the fact on the ground -- Georgia and the other former Soviet states of the Caucasus and Central Asia are far more deferential toward Russian wishes. Yet the oil and gas continues to flow.

As for the larger picture, most recently Russia has gotten push-back. This week, Georgia announced that it has officially withdrawn from the Commonwealth of Independent States, the grouping formed as a substitute for the Soviet Union at the same time as its 1991 collapse. (In the 1990s, Georgia's refusal to join the CIS infuriated Russia; in 1993, as Russian-backed Abkhaz troops closed in on Sukhumi, then-Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, standing alongside his troops, reportedly shouted, Okay, we will join the CIS! Suing for peace with Moscow, Shevardnadze did so soon after.)

And last week, it was reported that the Obama administration has decided to ignore strenuous Russian opinion and revive its training program for Georgian troops. Matthew Yglesias appears to be shocked that Washington would help Georgia through a ruse -- the U.S. claims the Georgian troops are being trained only for action in Afghanistan. Yglesias says this transparently false form of foreign policy -- obviously Georgia will use the training to rebuild its defense capability against Russia -- is "very, very, very silly."

As reasoning, Yglesias trots out the usual -- that the U.S. would blanch if China trained Mexican troops and formed a military alliance with America's southern neighbor. Therefore, Russia's furious opposition to the U.S. assistance -- and to Georgia's interest in joining NATO -- is understandable. The main weakness of this specious-but-much-used argument is that the U.S. and Mexico aren't military antagonists. More to the point, as benjamin81 comments over at The Plank, "A better analogy would be China or Russia training troops in Guatemala or Cuba. We wouldn't like it, but we probably wouldn't lose too much sleep over it either."

This summer, Russia and Georgia have resumed their usual bellicose relationship. Does this portend more war? After the drubbing he has taken since his adventurism last summer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is unlikely soon to fall for Russian bait. But Georgia will remain a flashpoint, with or without U.S. involvement.

What Biden in Ukraine and Georgia Shows: Making Up (With Russia) Is Hard to Do

In a two-day swoop, Vice President Joe Biden has single-handedly signaled something about the reset button: While the idea of rapprochement with Russia that he ostentatiously suggested five months ago is romantic, getting back together usually isn't a good idea for divorced couples. They tend to go back to the same old aggravating habits.

In this case, Biden first went to Ukraine, which he assured that Washington isn't recognizing Russia's claimed entitlement to influence over its neighbors. He said that if Ukraine decides to join NATO, the U.S. is behind it. (Thanks to RealClearPolitics for posting the transcript.)

Then today, Biden flew south to Georgia, where he said the same thing: "We understand that Georgia aspires to join NATO. We fully support that aspiration," Biden said.



Almost nothing is guaranteed to raise the hackles of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin more than the suggestion that Georgia should be permitted to join NATO; a close second would be the same formulation for Ukraine. Russia regards both nations as its own. Indeed, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin responded by saying that Georgia is "remilitarizing" after being pummeled by Russia in a five-day war last August, and saying that Moscow might move to stop it.

So why did the Obama administration choose to put irritating language into Biden's mouth? The answer is realpolitik. Washington truly does want calmer, more constructive relations with Russia. It knows that neither Ukraine nor Georgia are capable of meeting NATO requirements; it also knows that the two aren't welcome as members by much of Europe, which -- there is no delicate way of putting it -- allows Russia to call the shots on issues including further NATO enlargement and the direction of new natural gas pipelines.

Yet, putting aside for now the question of whether NATO in fact should expand further, for reasons of politics and appearances, Washington cannot be seen to be acceding to Russia's wishes. So you have speeches like Biden's in Ukraine and Georgia.

It's true that Biden tried to soften the sting by also suggesting that both Ukraine and Georgia could improve their political systems. Biden also refrained from agreeing to Saakashvili's request for a replenishment of armored weapons, which Georgia all-but exhausted in the August war.

Some of the blogosphere is alight with accusations that Washington threw "another ally under the bus," as Pamela Geller over at Atlas Shrugs put it. Others, such as Robert Antonio Hussain, go the other way. "Why must VP Joe Biden stir up the pot all over again about Georgia, Russia, NATO and Georgian Pres. Saakashvili?" wrote Hussain.

The answer to Geller: No he didn't.

The answer to Hussain: Because he must.

A Front-Row Seat to Momentous Events. The Oil and Glory Interview: Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha

Albania has had a prime view of some of the most dramatic events in Europe of the last decade and more. Most recently, they have included the West's showdown with Russia over Kosovo's independence, which led directly to Moscow's effective absorption of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In addition, while Russia has opposed further expansion of NATO, Albania along with Croatia became the alliance's newest members three weeks ago.

When I was last in Albania – during NATO’s 1999 bombing of Serbian troops in Kosovo – I had a great time, but the country was overrun with criminal gangs. There were Mercedeses everywhere – all of them absent license plates since Albania served as the way-station for stolen vehicles traversing Europe. It also was a smuggling route for people of all sorts seeking to migrate illegally to Europe; I watched a couple of boatloads of these migrants traveling fast late one evening on to Italy. Today, with the country a NATO member and seeking to join the EU, those old days seem largely gone.

Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha has traversed this entire period. A 65-year-old trained cardiologist, he was Albanian president for five years during the 1990s, before losing the post in a huge investment scandal. After ten years in the opposition, he returned to power in 2005. I called Berisha in his Tirana office. The edited interview:

O&G – The International Monetary Fund calls Albania “highly vulnerable.” Yet it is one of the few economies in the world expected not to shrink this year. How is the country withstanding the financial crisis? How are remittances from Albanians abroad holding up?

Berisha – I have high esteem for the IMF. But it should not [encourage] a panic. It’s not helpful, in my view. I told them, ‘Look, you’re a very, very crucial institution. I’m glad that the G20 provided you with a new role.’ But many governments are hesitant to work with them because their scheme at a time of social unrest could create more problems than it solves. I don’t consider the [Albanian] economy as highly vulnerable. It’s a real economy. Remittances are not coming [to the same degree] because of the loss of jobs in Greece and Italy. But we are encouraging tourism.

Q – Is NATO membership a right? Russia, while opposing Kosovo independence, for instance, has vigorously opposed NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, and made that a benchmark for good relations with the West.

A – For my country, NATO membership was the most important achievement since independence day. Albania suffered more than any country from security problems. It suffered from isolation and self-isolation. It was an orphan nation. Now it’s part of an alliance. We have all the potential to build freedom. It means high credibility for Albania in the world. It is high credibility for investors. Albania will never walk alone.

Q – Is NATO membership a right?

A – For a free nation, yes. NATO proved to be a shield of nations. NATO has faced no difficulty adapting to the new situation. It has brought freedom everywhere.

Q – Is it valid for Russia to make good relations with it contingent on opposing NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine?

A – I know no country that is afraid of Russia. I know only countries that are willing to work with Russia. Based on some imperial heritage, if you go into their history, expansion is in their psychology. What effect would Georgia or Ukraine have on Russia? What effect would NATO expansion have on Russia? [The assertion of a NATO threat to Russia] is nonsense. It will take time, but with realism [Georgian and Ukrainian membership] will happen.

Q – The decisive factor in deciding who should be a member of NATO is whether it would send troops to defend that country, Article V of the NATO charter. Would NATO defend Ukraine or Georgia if need be?

A – Is Russia intending to attack Ukraine or Georgia? If Russia intends to partake an aggression, NATO must firmly stand, because that would mean the new Russification of Europe.

Q – What is your view of the August war between Russia and Georgia?

A – Who attacked first is unclear. But a [Russian] scenario was there to invade Georgia. The Russians moved not only into Ossetia. They moved into Abkhazia, and toward Tbilisi. Russia probably wanted to occupy Georgia. The stand of the international community worked.

Q – How will Albania respond to President Obama’s call for more NATO troops in Afghanistan?

A – Albania is sending a new company, doubling our current number of troops. We also sent 20 nurses and doctors.

Q – Is Afghanistan a threat for NATO countries?

A – Afghanistan and Pakistan must both be helped. It is difficult terrain. Politics at home aren’t easy. But I think the strategy will be effective. The U.S. sent a man over there who is highly skilled in negotiations.

Q – [Richard] Holbrooke?

A – Yes. Holbrooke. It’s very important to promote peace there.

Q – Unlike elsewhere in Europe, President Bush seemed highly popular when he visited Albania in 2007. Can you explain why?

A – First, he was the first U.S. president to visit my country. Second, we suffered more than any country from dictatorship. So we definitely support toppling dictators, including Saddam Hussain and [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar. Third, he came with great messages here – support for Kosovo independence, and NATO membership for us.

Georgia: (Not Yet) All the Facts

Last week, Russia got a big p.r. boost when Chris Chivers and Ellen Barry wrote a detailed page-one piece in The New York Times backing up its version of how the five-day August war in Georgia began. In a nutshell, the piece concluded that the Georgians started it.

The war was momentous in a number of ways -- it all-but shut off the possibility that Georgia will get into NATO; it put a cloud of doubt over U.S. influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia; it may have accelerated the flight of western capital from Russia; and it turned the heaviest dose of western invective on Russia since the 2006 polonium murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

But now RFE-RL says it's more complicated than that. The Georgians may have fired before Russian troops arrived, according to a report today by Eka Tsamalashvili and Brian Whitmore, but their assault came days after South Ossetians began to shell local Georgian villages. The report says it's based on dozens of eye-witness accounts by RFE-RL reporters.

Both reports are worth reading. Together, they mean that, not surprisingly, there's much in the way of indignant showmanship to the claims by both sides. I haven't seen a definitive report as yet.

What To Do About Russia?

The West's biggest problem in the fallout from last month's fighting in Georgia is that it doesn't know what it wants (apart from that all parties should behave as though the events never happened at all). The U.S. and Europe seem only to know what they don't want (which is Russia breathing down their necks).

In this vein, the Economist has spent the last few days running a debate. My friend Lane Greene is moderating replies to the proposition: The West must be bolder in its response to a more assertive Russia.

As one might suspect, many of the replies revolve around indecision on whether Russia should be vilified or praised, and who hit whom first in South Ossetia. Yet it's worth taking a look.

Why Russia's Oligarchs Saved BP, But Georgia Will Not Join NATO

About a week and a half ago, four Russian oligarchs abruptly called off a months-long seige that had BP on the ropes, and gave the British company a settlement that it could have only dreamed of just a day earlier. The company was allowed to keep its 50% holding in the Russian oil company TNK-BP in exchange for concessions that were relatively minor compared with the worst-case scenario -- that, with a loss of much of its Russian holdings, BP might have to merge with Shell or some other Big Oil rival.

Why did take-no-prisoners oligarchs like Viktor Vekselberg and Mikhail Fridman throw BP the lifeline? And why should this not be seen as a case study into how vulnerable Russia is to market forces?

A glance at Russia's current straits is a fairly clear answer to the first question: Russia's stock markets are in free fall. Dollars are pulling out of the country -- some $35 billion since last month's fighting in Georgia. Russia's billionaire oligarchs are in a panic.

The parties claim that they had reached a tentative agreement in July. The Russians claimed that the Kremlin played no role. These strain credulity, particularly the latter. Not to put too fine a point on it, the oligarchs' public announcement of the deal included remarks by First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin and Kremlin economic aide Arkady Dvorkovich.

The likeliest scenario is that the oligarchs got spooked by their exposure to the already-plunging Russian market, that the Kremlin was blind-sided by the magnitude of Western dismay over Georgia, and that both groups decided that they could do with one less scandal on their hands.

But this does not mean that Russia is going to bend -- certainly any time soon -- on Georgia. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has effectively acknowledged that he overplayed his hand by seizing Georgian territory. But by pulling troops back from Georgia proper and occupying just the breakaway Georgian republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he is merely obtaining what he wanted in the first place.

What is that? When I visited Kazakhstan over the last couple of weeks, I was told that Western oilmen see Russia now holding "psychological control" over the oil-and-natural-gas pipeline corridor through Georgia. It doesn't mean that Russia will attack the lines -- the re-use of force is unlikely, I think, though that threat isn't dismissed by Azerbaijan or Georgia. But it does mean that Russia holds an effective veto over any expansion of them. And, given Russia's influence over Germany, France and Italy, Moscow also holds an effective veto over NATO accession for both Georgia and Ukraine.

And that is an immense Russian achievement -- an erosion in the corridor's previous western-protected status.

The Sweep of Georgia's Impact

I'm just back from two weeks in Kazakhstan, looking at the ripples from the events in Georgia. The short takeaway is that Russia's short, victorious war will be felt for years to come all the way from Central Asia to western Europe. Here is the piece in this week's Business Week.



What doesn't seem to be much appreciated is that the main problem isn't really Georgia. It's that Georgia is the thread hanging off the tattered sweater; you pull it, and the sweater falls apart. Not counting the suddenly transformed politics of the Eurasian continent, but just economics, will Azerbaijan and Georgia manage to widen the Caucasus energy corridor to accommodate another 1.5 million barrels a day of Kazakh oil over the coming years, as Kazakhstan would like? What of hopes to diversify Europe's natural gas supply? The answer to both is "perhaps," but that Russia will have to be accommodated.

What would Russia want in exchange for allowing the corridor expansion to go through? For starters, as it's made plain, it wants all of the Azerbaijan state's natural gas supply, the very same volumes that the State Department is pushing President Ilham Aliyev to ship to Europe. As for Kazakhstan, it's not clear what it will be asked -- President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the balancer of great powers, has already been so deferential to Vladimir Putin that one wonders what more there is to surrender. From Europe, Putin would like continued demand for Russian gas at current or greater volumes.

One thing that's sure is that Russia doesn't have to use its Army again. Having deployed it once, Putin has made his point. Besides, Russian energy pipelines provide it all the leverage it needs without its army.

Russia's Achilles Heel

Over the last couple of days, the post-mortems have begun to roll in from big-thinkers on Russia. The prescriptions advised in order to bring about status-quo ante in Georgia -- ejecting Russia from G-8, distancing Moscow further from global trade treaties -- add up to a consensus of "Oh Dear, Oh My." Non-membership in G-8 and WTO no doubt is provoking snickers in the Kremlin.

Contrary to these views, however, the West and the U.S. in particular do have one very real lever, one that Karl Rove might recognize -- Russia's very strength.

Russia's Achilles Heel is its petro-power. It's a message that both senators Barack Obama (and his running mate Joe Biden) and John McCain should keep in mind as they prepare to deal with Russia.

For more than a year, O and G has been describing progressive U.S. setbacks in what I've called the Pipeline War, the struggle with Russia for energy-driven political influence in Europe. We've also been writing here during that period about the growing tensions between Russia and Georgia.

In a nutshell, Russia understands that power in a large swath of the world -- Europe, the former Soviet Union and parts of the Middle East -- can be exerted from control of oil and natural gas pipelines. That's how the U.S. has inserted its power into Russia's backyard -- through the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline that crosses the country of today's conflict, Georgia. Now, Vladimir Putin intends to build on Russia's restored power by erecting two gigantic new natural gas pipelines into Europe, which already relies on Russia for almost a third of its gas.

Here's where the Achilles Heel comes in. One of these pipelines -- South Stream -- would pass through nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia and Austria. These are countries in which the U.S. has influence.

If the U.S. wants Russia's attention, persuade these countries and others -- for instance Germany, the main European partner on the second pipeline, called Nord Stream -- to freeze their support for the lines until it's satisfied that Georgia's sovereignty is no longer compromised.

Energy, and specifically Nord Stream and South Stream, are a Russian strength, and a genuine vulnerability.

While You Were Involved in War

In the midst of Vladimir Putin's land grab in Georgia, BP suffered another blow in its oilfield tussle in Russia. Last week, a Russian court barred Robert Dudley, the CEO of BP's joint venture in Russia, from running the company for two years. Now BP is trying to figure out how to secure its Russian assets, which account for a quarter of the company's global production.

BP and its partners at TNK-BP -- four Russian oligarchs who are mainly financiers and bankers -- have been in a dispute since spring. In a nutshell, the Russians value the company for the dividends it pays out; BP sees the company as more of a growth play, and wants to plow as much of the oil profit as possible back into the company. While that sounds like a balancing act managed at almost all companies around the world, it's turned ugly in this case.

As O and G readers know, I see this brawl ending badly for BP. Given the pressure the Russians have brought to bear, with the obvious collusion of the Kremlin (it's absurd to claim, as the Russian partners have, that an army of inspectors could have a free-for-all at the company unless the Kremlin were okay with it), I don't see how BP comes out with anywhere near its current 50% share of TNK-BP.

Indeed I think it's entirely possible that the British company is forced out entirely. In that case, BP itself -- meaning the global oil company -- is at risk; Wall Street will pummel its share price, and that would make it a vulnerable target for takeover. Some predict that Shell is the likeliest suitor, and I agree.

The partners are scheduled to meet to brawl again face to face on Sept. 25.

Dima's Moment

Dmitri Medvedev is trying desperately to recover from failing his first test as Russia's president: After suffering a severe case of deer-in-the-headlights 11 days ago, and leaving it to Vladimir Putin to blow the trumpet of war against Georgia from the Olympics in Beijing, Medvedev now is practicing a swagger, a sneer, and presidential gutter talk.

When Medvedev was with French President Nicolas Sarkozy a few days ago, he managed to form his lawyerly mouth into the words "bastards" and "hoodlums." In another setting, he threatened a "crushing response" to any future uprising such as the Georgians displayed. After all, the Georgians were people who got "idiotic ideas in their heads."

I have been predicting that Medvedev's performance will lead to his replacement on the 2012 presidential ticket. Putin surely won't tolerate a leader indecisive at the moment of truth, and will find someone else to run (I'm among those who believe that Putin wants to rule from the prime minister's seat so as not to have to keep leaving the seat of power every eight years, which under the constitution he would have to do as president).

But Medvedev has clearly seen the error of his ways. Perhaps he's still working himself into the role, and will yet emerge as the type of naturally tough leader that Russians have come to expect.

If his heart fails again, however, he clearly will be one-term Dima, another loser from the 2008 war in Georgia.

After Georgia, A Day of Reckoning For Washington

Russia says it will start withdrawing its troops from Georgia tomorrow. If that truly happens -- and there are contrary signs -- a new, probably far more important stage of the Georgian crisis will begin. That's the assessment of the affair by the arc of countries -- from Europe, swinging south and east to the edge of western China -- that are directly affected by what Russia does.

How these countries perceive the U.S. response to the war in Georgia will determine whether Russia has effectively crippled a hard-fought, 15-year-old American effort to inject itself as a power in Russia's backyard.

So far, much ink has been spilled over whether the U.S. and Russia are in a new Cold War. In Washington, we hear that the era of a post-Soviet U.S.-Russia alliance is over. The Kremlin counters that the West is intent on provoking it, and thwarting its natural rights as a great power.

The truth is that Moscow's presumptions are essentially correct -- the U.S. has conducted a definitively anti-Moscow policy on Russia's western and southern rims, one dressed up as reformist- and energy-minded, but nonetheless centrally designed to contain Russia within its borders.

But this policy well-suits American security aims, and those of the West as a whole. Conceived in the Clinton administration, it foresaw this very day, when then-forlorn Russia would regain its feet and possibly threaten the independence of its traditional colonial backyard.

One thing to keep in mind is that Russian disgruntlement with Georgia didn't originate with NATO expansion, Kosovo independence, Russia's resurgent petro-power, or Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's alleged jokes about Vladimir Putin's height.

Russia's first military attack on Georgia was not ten days ago but in 1993, when Moscow backed Abkhazia in its military separation from Georgia. In the subsequent years, then-Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze was twice nearly assassinated, attacks that, in interviews with me and others, he blamed on Russia and his insistence on Georgia becoming the strategic transit route for the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.

In other words, there's strong reason to believe that nothing Saakashvili did, short of capitulation to Russian domination of Georgia, would have satisfied Moscow. Friends tell me that Shevardnadze finally found an accommodation with Russia. If so, it was an accommodation that included the threat of assassination if he went too far.

Georgia wasn't the rationale behind American policy. But the Caspian Sea policy, conceived, as O and G readers know, by a today-forgotten National Security Council officer named Sheila Heslin, did attempt to get Russia accustomed to living within its own borders, and not threatening its neighbors.

The policy was dual. It involved a continuation of the expansion of NATO initiated by President George H.W. Bush, in order to prevent a future, resurgent Russia from gobbling up pieces of the former Soviet bloc in eastern and central Europe. And, on the Caspian, to the south of Russia, the U.S. promoted the construction of energy pipelines to link the Caucasus and Central Asia to the West, and provide them the financial wherewithal to withstand any Russian economic pressure. As a transit point for three of the new pipelines, otherwise-isolated Georgia, situated right on Russia's border, became a U.S. strategic partner.

After 9/11, the Bush administration -- carrying the policy further -- established military bases in Central Asia for the assault on Afghanistan, and then left them in place after the Taliban were dispersed.

The policy made sense considering U.S. interests. The West had a stake in making sure that Russia did not again become a threatening power; by encouraging Russia not to expand back into its former Soviet lands, it might express its nationhood in other ways, such as in business. (For those who see all policy as oil-generated, remember that there was no oil shortage in the 1990s; oil was much-discussed, but it was an instrument of policy -- how to give the Caucasus and Central Asia some breathing room from Russia -- rather than the rationale for it.)

Many of the eight presidents of the region embraced the U.S. agenda. At once, there was a lever against centuries-old Russian dominance.

But ten days ago, Russia put that declaration to the test. With its assault on Georgia, it seemed to expose the U.S. policy as a superpower vanity.

And it seemed true that Washington was caught off-guard. It seemed either to have forgotten the rationale behind its Caspian Sea policy, or, more probable, to have staked its policy on the hope that by now Russia had changed, and would not rotely use its military in the face of a perceived challenge.

Whichever the case, Russia's invasion of Georgia threatens the very real gains of these 15 years. If Russia is seen to have come out ahead, the U.S. may retain its influence in Europe, where Moscow could even suffer a backlash -- Europe could decide after all to build new pipelines to diversify away from Russian natural gas. But America's carefully built role as a great power in Russia's south would be in jeopardy.

The Central Asian and Caucasus leaders are watching.

I myself wonder now whether it matters if Russia in fact does withdraw all the way into Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which I doubt. I think Russia will maintain at least some troops outside the territories. It seems improbable that Russia will entirely give up the ground it gained within Georgia proper.).

Russia has demonstrated that it can and might cross borders of its former Soviet colonies when it sees fit. In Russia's view, these are not international borders; they are Georgia, they are Kazakhstan, they are Azerbaijan -- not real independent states, but former Russian territories.

Ultimately, Azerbaijan's Ilham Aliyev, Kazakhstan's Nursultan Nazarbayev and Turkmenistan's Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov -- the stewards of the region's great energy wealth -- understand the language of power.

They understood when a parade of American officials visited and argued that it was wise to cultivate a relationship with the most powerful nation on Earth.

The trouble is that, these days, it's not clear any longer that the U.S. is very powerful in its declared zones of strategic interest.

The Georgian Conflict on Podcast

I spoke with Chris Power, international editor of BusinessWeek. Listen to this recording, which is also downloadable as a podcast.

The Genocide in South Ossetia

The death toll is in for South Ossetia, where Russia accused Georgia of genocide, citing the murder of more than 1,500 civilians for a humanitarian invasion of Georgia.

The figure appears to be about four dozen. Quoting a hospital where virtually all the dead appear to have been taken, since the morgue was without electricity, The Wall Street Journal's Andrew Osborn puts the figure at 45; and Human Rights Watch says it was about 44. There may have been an additional few victims whose bodies did not reach the hospital.

O and G readers from the State Department and elsewhere have written me privately that they regard Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili as reckless, irrational, and megalomaniacal. They and others I trust regard Saakashvili with opprobrium for bringing on Russia's wrath.

That Russia would defend South Ossetia was certain. But increasing evidence makes the attack look well pre-planned, not spontaneous. And the authentic death toll makes the justification appear to be a pretext for that attack.

I had a Skype call from Tbilisi tonight from Lawrence Sheets, with whom I reported from the Caucasus from 1992 through 2003. He was then with Reuters; now he's the regional representative for the International Crisis Group.

Sheets says that he's pored over the events leading up to the fighting, and says that Saakashvili was left with a choice on August 7th -- allow a devastating South Ossetian attack on Georgian villages adjacent to the regional capital of Tskhinvali, or stop it. And Saakashvili decided to stop it. Sheets doesn't regard that as reckless.

The course of events make it appear that the West may countenance both effective Russian annexation of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, under the guise of a form of independence, and occupation of swaths of Georgia proper. The best scenario seems to be only temporary occupation before a permanent imposition of the former -- the annexation part.

We got a picture of what that occupation could look like, at least for now, in the Georgian city of Gori today. Under the watchful eyes of Russian soldiers sitting on tanks, a paramilitary soldier stole two new SUVs belonging to United Nations officials, then dispersed them and journalists by firing into the air. As described by Yaroslav Trofimov, my former Wall Street Journal colleague, three of the U.N. officials escaped by jumping into his car, which then sped away.

Targeting the Pipeline

Until now, the notion that the battle in Georgia had an oil component was an educated conclusion, in my case based on the 11 years I spent living in the region, including in Tbilisi during the 1990s. Now we have two independent reports, including one this morning by my former Wall Street Journal colleague Guy Chazan, confirming that Russia took advantage of its assault to tell the West that the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline isn't necessarily safe.

(Credit where credit is due: Damien McElroy of The Daily Telegraph actually had the story first. But the WSJ had the foresight to publish an actual photograph, so that there is no parsing the facts now.)

The WSJ report says that the attack, coming within 10 feet of the Baku-Ceyhan line, occurred last Saturday. Here is Chazan's description:

"The line of craters left by the alleged Russian attacks runs through the middle of a hilly, mostly uninhabited plain some 15 miles south of Tbilisi, near the town of Rustavi. The area lacks military or even human targets. The only sign of civilization is a small farm surrounded by haystacks and grazing herds of cows and sheep. The 45 craters -- each some 60 feet across -- scar the hillside like footprints left by a giant."

On Tuesday, a jet returned and appeared to bomb a nearby smaller oil pipeline that terminates at Supsa, a port on Georgia's Black Sea coast.

The goal? As Chazan states well: "Russia wasn't only aiming to humiliate its neighbor militarily but also to damage its reputation as an energy corridor."

Georgia has no appreciable oil or natural gas. But the U.S. got behind it under the Clinton administration as a corridor for 1 million barrels a day of oil, plus considerable volumes of natural gas.

The United States originally intended the corridor as a way to weaken Russia's hold on its traditional colonial south. The strategy has been to take away the countries into which it normally expands: Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. That explains the U.S. support for NATO expansion. And it explains the so-called East-West Energy Corridor, of which Georgia is part.

The bombings did not strike the actual lines. But they demonstrated that Russia can, and might, do so.

Photo: Guy Chazan, The Wall Street Journal

Not So Fast

George Bush, egged on by his own domestic politics, is attempting to recover his footing after Vladimir Putin pulled the rug out from under him.

Putin's surge into Georgia was intended to show Georgia and its western supporters who is in charge. It's the impulse with which O and G readers are familiar -- we won't be pushed around, and anything goes in terms of making that clear.

The assault has been a significant blow to American prestige and long-cultivated strategic interests. Most leaders in the 'Stans knew that all the American demonstrations of an ability and will to project its military might into Russia's back yard -- going back more than a decade, when the U.S. first parachuted men into Kyrgyzstan just to show that it could -- were basically theater. But Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili appears not to have. Now he does.

The region's leaders now know that they must rethink how to accommodate Russia in their economic and political plans. The same goes for the major oil companies.

Ed Chow, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told me that the companies must now reconsider the security of an oil route that until now seemed completely safe. And, whether they are operating in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan, they have to think about whether they are prepared to expand their oil shipments through the East-West Corridor. If they do decided to proceed, as Chow says, they'll have to consider whether they have to accommodate Russia somehow.

As for Bush, he's attempting to show that the U.S. is still a force to reckon with in the region. Putin's response bears watching.

Arranged Marriage

The next worse thing to a politician deciding for you that he's going to be your leader is your neighbor deciding who is going to be your leader.

That's the situation in Georgia, and why I think, unlike some other commentators, that Russia won't likely succeed -- now that the actual shooting has been halted -- in ousting President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Across the former Soviet Union, ordinary people don't decide who is president. Cabals of powerful people -- regional strongmen, spy agencies, billionaire businessmen, old Soviet apparachiks -- decide among themselves. They say, "Hey Dima, you be president. It's good for the gang." When the voters go to the polls, Dima magically receives 88%.

That method of selection would include Vladimir Putin, his successor Dmitri Medvedev, plus almost all the presidents of the Caucasus and Central Asia. The exception is Ukraine and the Baltics, which have reasonably authentic elections, and do kick out the rascals when so moved.

Lots of times the majority of voters actually favor the winner, but that's besides the point.

The leaders of the two breakaway regions of Georgia that are currently in the news are in power specifically because they are favored by Moscow. In other words, at home in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it's no shame to be a stooge of Moscow. It's the same in Chechnya, as we've
discussed previously on O and G -- President Ramzan Kadyrov is a delighted instrument of Russian power.

Putin tried to choose Ukraine's leader, but it backfired, which is how Viktor Yushchenko was elected. It's similar in Georgia. The contempt of the Kremlin toward Georgians is equalled by the Georgians toward the Kremlin.

So that, even if Saakashvili is despised by some other Georgian politicians, none would get anywhere near Russia. It would be the kiss of political death.

If Saakaskvili is removed prematurely, for whatever reason -- which as I say I do not expect -- look for the rise of an equally nationalist Georgian leader, perhaps quieter, less egotistical, but still anti-Russian.

Those are Georgian politics.

The Call of Past Regrets

Iraq is an interesting prism through which to look at Georgia. After the 1990 Gulf War, certain intellectual quarters in the U.S. regarded Iraq as undone business -- neo-cons and others wanted to go back and remove Saddam Hussain as a priority.

One wonders whether just this sort of thinking is at least partly a motivation for Vladimir Putin's relentless push on Georgia.

The antecedent in this case would be 1993, when Russian-backed separatists in Abkhazia seized power, and triggered a drive by other anti-government forces onto the capital of Tbilisi. I was reporting for Newsweek there when the drive was halted about an hour and a half west of Tbilisi, ironically by Russian forces sent to keep the country from outright disintegrating.

In Moscow, some may regret that moment, which saved then-President Eduard Shevardnadze. Perhaps they wish that the rebels had captured power, and installed a perhaps more pro-Russian leader.

The main thing I learned about Russia while researching Putin's Labyrinth is that, in pursuit of its aims, Russia practices a policy of bespredel, or anything goes. By way of example, one case I used was the 2006 murder of KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko with a nuclear isotope, which seemed about as stark as one might get.

But the current Russian assault is another dramatic case of bespredel. If Russia's aim were to secure the lives of repressed peoples, as Putin claims, that was accomplished early with the Georgian flight from South Ossetia.

But the Russian push out of Abkhazia and into the town of Senaki, and the reported occupation of police buildings next door in Zugdidi, demonstrates a broader objective.

The Georgians have announced that the country is effectively cut in half now; it previously had said that its troops had withdrawn to protect Tbilisi. I wonder whether all the soldiers made it since Georgian troops stationed in the West might be trapped on the other side of Gori, which is now in Russian hands.

If in fact Putin is seeking a return to unfinished business, he may be disappointed.

Georgia isn't Chechnya, where President Ramzan Kadyrov was installed by Putin and is happy to do his bidding. No Georgian politician would allow himself/herself to be injected into power; and if one did, he/she would last about five minutes. Any replacement for the reviled Mikheil Saakashvili might not be as ascerbic, but would be just as pro-Georgian and anti-Russian.

Georgian Update: A Different War

Russian envoys say that one of Russia's objectives in attacking Georgia is to remove its president, Mikheil Saakashvili.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the statement in a phone conversation with Condoleeza Rice, the American secretary of state, saying that Saakashvili "must go." And Russia's envoy to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, confirmed the gist of it publicly afterward in a conversation with Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. envoy to the U.N.

If they are representing Moscow's true intentions -- they could simply be floating a trial balloon, or engaging in traditional local bombast -- the West is facing an entirely different foreign policy crisis. That is, the forcible change of a Western-backed, democratically elected leader hosting highly strategic Western economic assets.

Other reports: The New York Times reports that Russian ground troops have left South Ossetia proper, and are marching on the Georgian-held town of Gori. Another (Russian language) report is that -- in the western part of the country near Abkhazia, Georgia has agreed to allow Russian peacekeepers to conduct joint patrols with the United Nations and Georgia of the town of Zugdidi. Both reports also suggest an important shift in this two-day old conflict.

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.

Huffing and Puffing in Georgia

With so much hyperbole flowing in the conflict in Georgia -- on numbers of casualties, on the aims of the opposing sides -- where should one focus one's attention?

I remain tuned to Georgia proper, and not South Ossetia itself, or even the town of Gori to the south that has been bombed by Russian jets.

Specifically, Georgia claims that Russian naval carriers are in position off Georgia's Black Sea coast, and are readying to offload troops. If accurate -- I've seen no confirmation -- and these troops do occupy ground in Georgia itself, and not simply within the pro-Moscow separatist enclave of Abkhazia, this will be a different war. This would be Russia declaring who is in charge, a message that would be intended not just for Georgia, but for the West, which has been considering absorbing Georgia into NATO.

It would be the same were the scores of Russian troop carriers reported to have poured into South Ossetia to cross into Georgia proper.

A far more remote possibility would be Russian bombing of the trans-Georgian oil or natural gas pipelines. Georgia claims that Russia has already targeted -- but missed hitting -- the 1,000-mile Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, but I doubt the account. Such an attack would be regarded in the West as a direct assault on Western interests.

As long as the conflict remains in and around South Ossetia, the fighting can be seen as a bloody uptick in the Caucasus version of huffing and puffing. But it is containable.

Georgia and Russia: Itching for a Fight, Now They Have One

At O and G, we usually ignore the crude language, or errantly fired shot, of the various hotheads in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The forecasts of possible calamity are almost always alarmist.

Today's flareup of direct combat between Russian and Georgian forces is not one of these cases. Remember the events and language that preceded Vladimir Putin's 1999 burn-the-fields, raze-the-cities offensive on Chechnya, and read this quote today from Russian President Dmitri Medvedev: “I am obligated to defend the lives and dignity of Russian citizens, wherever they are located. We will not allow the unpunished killing of our fellow citizens. Those who are guilty will suffer the punishment they deserve.”

Georgia and the South Ossetians had already been fighting for a year or more when I moved to Tbilisi in 1992, and the hostilities never really halted. The Ossetians rightly bristled at Georgia's misplaced nationalism, and broke away. Then, Moscow -- forever looking for a pretext to express its contempt for Georgia -- glommed onto the South Ossetian cause, granting them Russian passports and citizenship.

Times have changed. Current Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is not one with Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the early-1990s Georgian supremist whose rantings helped to trigger Georgia's loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Yet the fighting goes on. Recent back-and-forth shooting between the Georgians and the Ossetians escalated today in a Georgian offensive on the Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. Now Russian troops have crossed the border into South Ossetia.

In the past, Georgian troops have proven incapable of standing up to the Russians. In 1993, I watched as the Russians rolled over the Georgians in Abkhazia. The result was the near-dismemberment of Georgia itself.

That is the possible consequence of today's events. Only this time Georgia is far more important to the West -- in 1993, there were no trans-Georgian oil pipelines.

If the conflict escalates into Georgia itself, look for oil prices to escalate. And look for NATO to decide how to respond.

The Spy Plane Over Abkhazia

Was Russia justified in shooting down an unmanned Georgian spycraft flying over the separatist Georgian region of Abkhazia last month? Probably not. If it were, Moscow would be crowing about its action, not denying it, as it has been doing.

Yesterday, the results of a United Nations investigation into the April 20 downing were released. The report concludes that Moscow did shoot down the Georgian plane, which was doing reconnaissance over the Black Sea strip of land that broke away in a war 15 years ago. The news of the report, rejected by Russia as biased, was in most of the major papers, such as this article. The U.N. said that Georgia should not have been stoking tensions with such a flight, and that it violated the terms of a peace agreement between the sides. But it also said that Russia had no business shooting down the drone, and raised doubts about Russia's legitimacy as a neutral peacekeeper, the role it serves in the region.

As I saw time and again when I visited both sides of the conflict during the 1990s, the feelings of the Georgians and Abkhazians are one understood by ethnically rivalrous people the world over -- the Armenians and Azeris, the Kurds and Turks, the Serbs and Kosovars, the Palestinians and Israelis. There is very little rationality in their deeds and words. And, in the case of the Abkhaz and Georgians, it likely will take many, many years before they can figure out how to live together normally. Perhaps they will never figure it out.

Which is why the Russians should not be stirring the pot. Back when the drone went down, Georgia and Moscow-backed Abkhazia seemed at the brink of a return to war.

So why did Russia do it? Georgia in general serves as one of Russia's main punching bags. Russia has blockaded Georgia economically, and Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders frequently lash out at leader Mikheil Saakashvili. Most recently, Georgia has been the vehicle for Putin to demonstrate his ire over Western recognition of Kosovo independence. Putin responded to Kosovo by granting effective political recognition to Abkhazia and Georgia's other breakaway region, South Ossetia.

Dmitry Medvedev doesn't seem like a bully. On the other hand, neither did Putin in his very first days.

Photo: Chesi - Fotos CC

Rights: Creative Commons

Showdown in Bucharest

After the spectacle and fireworks of recent years, we're about to see the latest picture of the balance of power in Russia-West relations. The venue will be the NATO summit that begins tomorrow in Bucharest. The issue is whether to advance Georgia and Ukraine's applications to join the military alliance.

The two former Soviet countries want to push forward their status to what’s called MAP – a Membership Action Plan. True membership would come down the road, once they meet the various necessary qualifications. France and Germany oppose moving to a MAP for the two. "France will not give its green light to the entry of Ukraine and Georgia," French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told France-Inter radio. "We are opposed to Georgia and Ukraine's entry because we think that it is not the correct response to the balance of power in Europe, and between Europe and Russia."

Stephen Fidler and Stefan Wagstyl of the Financial Times rang up Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili, who has a reputation as a hothead, but sounds eminently sensible on this issue. "No matter what some Europeans might be thinking, it's basically giving [Russia] direct veto rights, because that's how they'll perceive it," Saakashvili told the FT.

Saakashvili has that right. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, suggests that Georgia will use NATO membership to force the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back into the Georgian fold. This is a red herring – it’s absurd to suggest that NATO would commit troops to crushing Abkhazian or South Ossetian politics. It can't even raise sufficient troops for Afghanistan.

Instead, the issue is simple -- Vladimir Putin wishing to demonstrate Russia’s influence now, and to retain its pressure points on its former colonies in the future.

Saakashvili has done smart political spadework. He has offered power-sharing to Abkhazia, and 500 Georgian troops to Afghanistan. The latter move at minimum could quiet France’s objections.

The ultimate decision will indicate whether Putin has at last succeeded in shifting the balance of power more toward Russia's direction.

Photo: neurmadic aesthetic
Rights: Creative Commons

Guest columnist: Lawrence Sheets on Uranium Smuggling

Apologies to O and G readers for the long absence. I've been trying to finish up the Russia book. That's no excuse, so here we go.

We have as a guest Lawrence Scott Sheets, who will be taking any questions on a piece he's got on uranium smuggling in next month's Atlantic magazine, called "A Smuggler's Story." The story isn't posted yet, but Atlantic has put up an interview with Sheets on its web site. The theme is the back story to a scoop that Sheets broke in The New York Times a few months back about a hair-raising scheme to sell weapons-grade uranium from former Soviet Georgia. This is a story of the highest order.

I've known Sheets for some fifteen years, since both of us were Tbilisi-based correspondents covering the Georgian-Abkhazian civil war, he for Reuters, and I for Newsweek and The Washington Post. At a time and place when there simply was no infrastructure -- everything in the Caucasus seemed to have fallen apart -- Sheets demonstrated a superlative ability to make his bureau work. He went on to become NPR's Moscow correspondent, and is now working on what appears likely to be a classic, book-length account of his couple of decades in the former Soviet Union.

Here is how The Atlantic leads into the interview with Sheets:

Uranium on the Loose

When the Soviet Union finally collapsed in December 1991, the United States could claim victory in the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama could declare the end of history, and some 280 million people could look forward to a liberated future. But in fact the Soviet Union left its 15 successor states to navigate their own way to democracy and a market economy. And with some 22,000 tactical nuclear weapons—along with perhaps 1,200 tons of bomb-grade uranium—scattered under uncertain ownership and questionable supervision, the securing of the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear materials became a matter of pressing concern.

Over the past decade and half, with extensive help from the United States, Russia has tried to lock down this atomic detritus, at great expense. But the task is a massive one, and as of 2008, the two nations face nuclear concerns that scarcely registered during the upheaval of the 1990s. Seven years after 9/11, Russia has become something of a terrorists’ nirvana—with 12,500 miles of borders, a military so corrupt its members have sold weapons to their battlefield enemies, and vast networks of poorly safeguarded nuclear facilities.

Russia is likely the only place in the world where a man like Oleg Khintsagov, an ordinary, destitute, and dimwitted hustler, can pick up weapons-grade uranium and try to hawk it from his pockets. Khintsagov, along with two other smugglers of similar means and aptitude—Garik Dadayan and Tamaz Dimitradze—are the subject of “A Smuggler’s Story,” Lawrence Scott Sheets’ piece in the April issue of The Atlantic. To a man, the couriers Sheets describes are poorly prepared for their missions, yet they have their hands on potentially catastrophic atomic ingredients. The story Sheets tells is of a society in collapse in the face of separatist anxieties, ethnic animosities, and ambiguous borders—and of impoverished people seeking to feed their families in a radioactive land.

Read interview

Putin: Still in Pursuit of Respect

How far will Vladimir Putin push his rejection of Kosovo independence? My own feeling is not very. And even if he does go through with his implicit threat -- to recognize breakaway regions of his favorite punching bag, Western ally Georgia -- Russia and perhaps Belarus will probably be the only nations to do so.

President Bush has announced U.S. recognition of Kosovo, which unilaterally declared independence yesterday. The largest European countries are likely to follow. Why? Because of Serbia's murderous rampage through Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Putin asserts that territorial integrity is supreme and that, in order to create a separate nation, the country from which it is separating must approve. As an example, he cites the two Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which pulled away during the early 1990s when nationalism was sweeping through the former Soviet Union.

There are only academic and polemical links between these Georgian regions and Kosovo.

I covered the Abkhaz fighting from both sides. While there was brutality, the scale nowhere approached Serbia's pathological violence against its neighbors. And in the end, in 1993, it was the Abkhaz -- backed by Moscow -- who applied ethnic cleansing after vowing not to. They simply put the Georgians in their midst on foot out of the seaside region, and occupied their homes.

One thing I learned from my time in the former Soviet Union is that pride is king when it comes to nationalities. No one wants to feel he or she are under anyone's thumb. In the case of the Abkhaz and the Ossets, the Georgians stirred the pot with their own nationalism. Then the Russians came in with military backing, which continues to this day.

What are Putin's and Russia's genuine beef? That their view isn't accepted in the West. Ultimately, that isn't very compelling. Putin will no doubt continue to protest. And, regarding Georgia as the West's soft underbelly because of the energy pipelines running through the republic and the West's backing for President Mikheil Saakashvili, he'll keep punching there.

Photo: C+H
Rights: Creative Commons

Guest Column: Wine and National Security

By Sasha Meyer

Wine is important. The drink can be a major source of revenue. For example, in Moldova winemaking accounts for 15% of the economy. It can even become a national security issue. Georgia, where wine is the third-largest export, has suffered a major blow since Vladimir Putin banned its wine imports.

Since then, Tbilisi has been trying to diversify its wine exports. Georgia has shown creativity, for instance by offering Jennifer Lopez half a million dollars to promote its wine (an offer the Hispanic celebrity declined). Overall, Georgia has been incrementally successful, getting its wines into some shops in Europe and North America. But a breakthrough has been elusive thus far.

Peculiarities of the wine market and emerging uses for grapes may offer Tbilisi a new opportunity. A study published in Wine Economics Journal found that getting on the radar of wine critics is a key. (The importance of gurus is corroborated by other sources, for instance in Robert M. Parker Jr.’s influence on patterns of wine consumption and the creation of new segments in the market.)

The study also concludes that continued critical coverage is useful, even if unfavorable at times. In other words, sending a bottle of Kindzmarauli for a review to Eric Azimov, Dorothy J. Gaiter and John Brecher and others could, in the long run, achieve as much as a pop star's expensive endorsement.

There’s also a new, emerging market for grapes. Resveratrol is a new health craze in the West. It’s extracted from grape seeds, skin and juice. Research shows that resveratrol can help delay many age-related diseases. Today, jars of resveratrol are in health stores in Europe, North America and online, where it retails for $20 each.

The market appears set only to grow: An American company is testing a resveratrol-based pill to fight diabetes. In Georgia, the loss of its biggest market combined with a bumper crop is forcing many to cut their vineyards, raising fears that the winemaking tradition could be lost. But resveratrol production could absorb some of the excess grape supply, make profitable use of residual byproducts of winemaking, and bring much-needed hard currency into Tbilisi's coffers.

Photo: ritingon
Rights: Creative Commons

A Precedent for Real Elections

Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili appears to have won his big gamble today. An exit poll shows him winning re-election as president and averting a runoff with 53% of the vote, according to Bloomberg's Seb Alison.

Saakashvili stepped down as president when opposition protesters poured into the streets, demanding his resignation. He had been roundly criticized by the West for sending forces into the street to thump heads.

But if the results are confirmed in the actual count, it will validate a strategy that we've seen in no other country in the twelve members of the Commonwealth of Independent States save Ukraine.

That is -- a president who has stepped down and put himself to the voters in a more or less contested election.

I won't hold my breath waiting for others to follow, but Saakashvili has made a gratifying precedent.

Photo: AudreyH
Rights: Creative Commons

The Caspian is Blissful, Too

I have a beef with Eric Weiner, my former classmate at Stanford University. Weiner has a new book out this week, called "The Geography of Bliss: One Grump's Search for the Happiest Places in the World."

Let me say right away that the title is spot on -- Weiner is definitively grumpy. But that's not my complaint.

Look at a sampling of the "exotic" countries that he chooses to focus on: Just one -- Bhutan. Meanwhile he shows an astonishing bias toward the boring northern Europeans. We get Switzerland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Britain.

If I may inform Weiner -- Georgia is a pretty darned happy place. You can hardly beat Kyrgyzstan for merry. And how about the Kazakhs -- now that's a gay bunch.

Weiner, whose book is deservingly doing extremely well right out of the gate, blogs here.

Hummer Humor and Russia in Serbia

Leanan over at The Oil Drum, who never sleeps, has some interesting posts. One is on a Russian Hummer owner with a sense of humor. A second provides insight into Russia's support for Serbia's position opposing Kosovo independence.

Hummer Humor: Reuters reports that a Russian owner of a $49,500 Hummer is inviting anti-consumerists to vent their anger on his vehicle, specifically by pelting it with rotten eggs and tomatoes. This unidentified Good Samaritan is said to live in the Russian city of St. Petersburg. The back story is that a local activist group calling itself "Peter Antiglobalist" has been in a naturally difficult search for a Hummer owner willing to undergo food abuse. The good-natured fellow who responded plans to sell the food-decorated vehicle, and donate the proceeds to an orphanage, according to the report. I have to say that this is a difficult story to believe. However, as post-Christmas Day entertainment, I shall list it in the category of, "If it isn't true, it ought to be."

Russia in Serbia: For some eight years, Russia has supported Serbia's position that Kosovo is an integral part of it, and opposed independence for the majority ethnic-Albanian region. Moscow says its position is rooted in the principle of territorial integrity: If Kosovo can unilaterally pull away absent Belgrade's agreement, Russia argues, then what about the separatist Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for instance? Mightn't they see Kosovo as a green light to declare independence too? I've argued that Russia is throwing up an empty rhetorical threat. Abkhazia and South Ossetia perfectly serve Russia's purposes as they are, as an instrument for needling neighboring Georgia, which Russia loves to hate.

Now the other shoe drops. UPI reports today that Russia wants to take control of Serbia's state oil company, called NIS. Russia is offering $1.5 billion in cash and other incentives, plus access to its planned South Stream natural gas pipeline. There's nothing wrong about mixing politics and economics -- that's how the world works. But it does make Russia's position clearer.

Photo: Morgan Tepsic
Rights: Creative Commons