Five days of the war

From the height of the events that took place a year ago, it seems that the operation initiated by Saakashvili in South Ossetia was simply doomed to failure, and the President of Georgia himself committed political suicide at the time when he gave the invasion of Tskhinval. But in 2008, the Georgian leadership seemed to be different. As you know, after Saakashvili came to power, he initiated a number of reforms, including military reform. In the course of it, in 2002-2005, Georgia acquired 61 tank (T-72 and T-55), 52 BMP-2, 30 BTR-80, 36 howitzers (calibers 152 and 122-mm), six Su-25 slopes, eight combat helicopters Mi-24 and Mi-35, missile boat, two patrols, two guard boats, two. Small landing ship (now everyone knows that Georgia was supplied mainly to Ukraine).

In addition, in 2005, Georgia received the volume of Washington’s military assistance, equal to $ 74 million, which is just a “drop in the sea”, since the volume of assistance to the United States that was provided by Tbilisi was estimated at $ 1.3 billion. But even this, the volumes of assistance are not exhausted, more than $ 40 million were granted to Georgia to Turkey.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account the fact that Georgia since the arrival of Mikhail Saakashvili to power as a result of the "Revolution of Roses" has considered itself as one of the main links in the chain of democratic countries struggling with the rogue states of the "axis of evil". In 2006, information appeared that the Georgian territory could be used by the United States as a bridgehead in an operation against Iran, the possibility of which at that time was seriously considered the military and political leadership of the United States. Although the officials of Georgia and suspicious reacted to such plans, since they feared reactions from Iran (in the end, Iranian missiles, although they were not able to harm America, but they may well come to Tbilisi), at the same time admitted that they could hardly have seriously moved to their overseas patronists, since the United States is not only a strategic partner of Georgia, but also provide it Political and financial support.

Thus, the leadership of the Transcaucasian Republic hoped that their patrons abroad, firstly, could hardly want to abandon such a wonderful ally, a kind of “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, on the Black Sea, and secondly, they would not want to lose money invested in the modernization of the Georgian army, economics and political system. In the end, no one wants to lose the amount of $ 1.3 billion.

However, it is obvious that Mikhail Saakashvili could only hope for help from abroad only if his actions were legitimate or at least had legitimacy. It would seem that he acted within the boundaries of Georgia. But this is only at first glance.

Three scenarios of legitimacy

As you know, the result of the South Ossetian war (1991-1992), as a result of which from 2 to 4 thousand people died according to various estimates, became the so-called "Dagomsky agreements", which contained three important points. Firstly, a mixed control commission (SCC) was created as part of representatives of Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia and North Ossetia. This commission had to monitor the cessation of fire, the withdrawal of armed groups, the dissolution of self -defense forces and ensuring the security regime in the contact zone. Secondly, a mixed control commission was given groups of military observers and mixed forces to maintain peace (as expected in the amount of three battalions-Russian, Georgian and South Ossetian) . Finally, thirdly, the parties were supposed to withdraw heavy weapons and troops from the conflict zone. But most importantly, Georgia no longer controlled more than 60% of the territory of South Ossetia, which thus turned into a de facto independent, although a de jure not recognized state. And such actually independent states in Georgia were three units in the 1990s.

In addition to South Ossetia, this is Abkhazia and Adjara. And if, someone does not remember, then the establishment of the constitutional order in these territories, which declared their independence, was one of the most significant promises that only the occupied chair of the president Mikhail Saakashvili made. However, it is obvious that he could not simply introduce troops on the territory of any of these states. Firstly, Georgia was still well remembered, fierce resistance that the population of the territories of the Georgian military in the early 1990s exerted. Secondly, genocide or at least a humanitarian catastrophe, which, undoubtedly, should have been accompanied by a military scenario, would never approve the world community, in general, the United States, in particular. Thus, it was necessary to make the world community approve of the actions of the Georgian side against the separatists. Therefore, it was necessary to implement one of the possible scenarios that give the Fleur of legitimacy to any, even the most cruel action.

Scenario No. 1. Humanitarian intervention.

This scenario implies the conviction of the world community that the armed invasion of the sovereign state is carried out in order to prevent the humanitarian catastrophe or the local population genocide, which is carried out with the filing of local authorities. It is believed that the goal of humanitarian intervention is, first of all, the provision of humanitarian assistance to the local population and the overthrow of the government, which puts its own country on the brink of disaster. The goal, covered from the eyes of observers, is the outcome of the territory that has undergone ethnic purges from the borders of that state, part of which this territory was.

It was the scenario of humanitarian intervention that was implemented by the United States in Kosovo, as a result of which a historically important area was rejected from Serbia. Obviously, this scenario could hardly be used by the Georgian leadership to force independent territories to establish the Georgian order on its territory. And the main reason for this was that neither in Adjaria, nor in Abkhazia, nor in South Ossetia, despite the horrors of the wars of the early 1990s, the Georgian population remaining after the end of hostilities in the territories of these republics was undergoing ethnic purges or, even more so, genocide.

In addition, after the US invasion of Iraq as such, the theory of humanitarian intervention was discredited in the eyes of Western intellectuals. Well, among other things, the intake of humanitarian intervention is the exceptional know-how of the West, which he does not allow anyone to encroach. It is worth recalling at least a reaction in the countries of Western and Eastern Europe and the United States to the "five -day war", which on the Russian side was in the full sense of the word humanitarian intervention in order to prevent genocide, and the genocide of Russian citizens, of which 98% of the total population in South Ossetia. Therefore, it was necessary to implement a different scenario.

Scenario No. 2. The government is exile.

This is probably one of the oldest scenarios of the legitimization of aggressive actions. As you know, before the Second World War, the Soviet Union quite often used the reception of the creation of governments in exile to legitimize the Sovietization of the border territories (the most famous case is the 1939 Finnish war). The meaning of this scenario is as follows.

Of the renegades and defectors, an organized body is created, like a government with the Prime Minister or President at the head and with numerous ministers. Then, a certain number of military equipment and personnel are given at the disposal of this government, after which a “letter” or “delegation” is organized with a request to help oppressed compatriots. The governments in exile declare itself only legitimate, achieves with the help of the country of international recognition and, in case of success, that is, having come to power, it decides on the entry of the territory that this government heads in the state that previously provided for the "exile" patronage.

With minor deviations, this scenario was implemented in Adjara, but its implementation both in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia has already encountered significant difficulties.

Scenario No. 3. The answer to the attack.

Since this scenario is most common, it was it that decided to use the Georgian leadership, especially since it probably seemed to him that before his eyes it had a successful example of this kind of action - the second Chechen war that began in August 1999 (the tenth anniversary of its beginning is now celebrated).

Indeed, in August 1999, the Basayev militants gangs invaded the territory of Dagestan in order to establish Sharia rule in the Russian North Caucasus republics. Thanks to the fierce resistance of local residents who showed miracles of heroism, and the Russian army, the militants managed to knock out from the territory of Dagestan and transfer the fighting to the territory of Chechnya. The result was the establishment of a constitutional order in the Chechen Republic. Moreover, part of the positive image from the implementation of this scenario also made up from the fact that the world community was quite cool and even approvingly reacted to the actions of Russia (with the exception of certain exaltation public figures).

Of course, the Georgian leadership could not have thought about it, having behind the back of such a powerful patron as the United States, but, as they say, God protects. So this scenario was chosen. First of all, Georgia withdrew its battalion of peacekeepers, which was supposed to patrol the border territory as part of the implementation of the Dagomas agreements. Then, a propaganda campaign for numerous facts of violation of a truce from the South Ossetian side followed. Allegedly, Ossetians are constantly shelling Georgian villages. Finally, on the night of August 8, 2008, Georgia attacked South Ossetia. And as by notes, she motivated her actions by the fact that the separatists attacked the villages adjacent to Tskhinvali, doing this in response to a unilateral ceasefire by Georgia.

In addition, it was announced by massive bombing of the civilian population and peacekeepers, which occurred in the last hours on August 7, 2008, while also indicated that " hundreds of armed persons and military equipment crossed the Russian-Georgian border ."

Thus, the leadership of Georgia tried to kill the "two birds with one stone." Firstly, to force the population of South Ossetia to become part of Georgia, and secondly, to prevent Russia in conflict. After all, the invasion of the sovereign state for no sufficient reasons, in the end, probably reasoned the leadership of Georgia, in Chechnya the Russian authorities did the same, and even more so the grounds, which only the UN sanction could serve as an international crime. And what Russia could do something like that again believed the Georgian leadership, there could be no doubt in the world, because it was our country in the period that preceding the "five -day war" who repeatedly fired at the border territories of Georgia. As evidence of this, numerous fragments of missiles were proposed allegedly released from Russian attack aircraft, which violated the airspace of Georgia almost every day.

But here the leadership of Georgia miscalculated. Europe, although it responded warmly to the "coercion of Georgia to the world", accusing Russia of aggression, could not "force" Russia in its own way. The age of XXI is not the XIX century, and the war - this last argument of kings - is no longer the fundamental principle of world politics.

The current West was hardly ready to enter the war because of Georgia, as once in the 19th century, he entered the war on the side of Turkey. This, of course, does not mean that the social opinion of the West is now less configured against Russia, but probably 50 years of the Cold War, when the world balanced on the grain of a nuclear disaster, and the relative remoteness of Georgia, whose interests are not perceived by Europe as their own, have done their job. And the Russian Federation came out of the "Five Day War" by a moral winner.