Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

May 1st, 2008

Tags

, , , ,

Comments

4 Comments so far.
Add yours.

To Annex or Annoy?

A question to readers:

I recently predicted that hostilities between Georgia and Russia will increase through the end of the year. This is due primarily to Kosovar independence now being used as an ostensible reason to ramp up aggression against Tbilisi. However, although official annexation is a possibility, using the alleged Kosovo precent (more here), it is indeed more likely that Moscow will neither annex Abkhazia or South Ossetia nor recognize their independence. Why? Because indefinitely prolonging the crisis combined with the ability to instantly inflame it whenever geopolitically useful to Russia is far more valuable a tool.

What would be the short and long term benefits of actually recognizing the two regions? What would be the short/long term benefits of annexing them? Do they outweigh the benefits of the status quo? With the volatility of energy prices and Europe’s reluctance if not cowardice vis-a-vis Russia in mind, isn’t the status quo far more useful? Additionally, with Russia’s own separatist problems in the Caucasus, outright recognition is unlikely leaving annexation as the only remotely likely possibility.

Meanwhile, Abkhazia asks for a formal military alliance with Russia. I’m somehow reminded of a quote about a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.

Comments to this entry

IJ
May 1, 2008
5:15 pm
A list of some of the world's territorial disputes is here.

The case of Bakassi is interesting. It involves the International Court of Justice, Nigeria and Cameroon - the proceedings drag on despite the ICJ ruling in 2002 that the land belongs to Cameroon.

Purchase of property seems to settle ownership quickly (Louisiana Purchase). However Australia is now telling China that some things aren't for sale.
mihnea
May 1, 2008
9:38 pm
russia can't play this game forever, i think. there will come a time when the supply and demand game will byte them. until then it's a game of 'tie me up and call me natasha' for the europeans..

ps: tom clancy might indeed be right in 'the dragon and the bear'.
Michael
May 1, 2008
11:17 pm
I stand by my previous wisecrack. So long as Georgia tries to hold onto the Abkhaz and Ossetians, they hand the Russians a club to beat them with. Leaving it to democracy, though, turns that club on the Russians by giving them what they're asking for.
IJ
May 2, 2008
10:39 am
Washington Post:
Russia said on Thursday [1 May] an extra contingent of its troops had begun arriving in Georgia's breakaway region of Abkhazia, a move Tbilisi said was an illegal act of military aggression. . . Russia's defense ministry said the contingent would remain within the 3,000 limit allowed under a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement signed in 1994.

UN figures suggest Russia had no troops in Abkhazia a month ago. In March 2008, Russia committed 290 personnel to UN official peacekeeping missions. The Russian contribution comprised 71 police, 96 military observers and 123 troops.
All 123 Russian troops were in Sudan, none in Abkhazia. Are we seeing a big build-up of Russian forces in Abkhazia in a short time?