• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Update: Conflict in Ossetia

    August 13, 2008 By Daniel Gleick
    The New York Times reports that Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev has “ordered a halt to his country’s military operation in Georgia”; however, “he did not say that troops were pulling out and he insisted that Russian forces were still authorized to fire on enemies in South Ossetia.” Despite the ceasefire, a New York Times reporter said bombing continued.

    As posted last week in the New Security Beat, the conflict in Ossetia has significant natural resources elements, as the region is rich in timber, manganese, iron ore, and copper and coal deposits. In a Foreign Affairs article last winter (which to a large extent predicted the current conflict), Nixon Center President Dimitri K. Simes pointed out that high energy prices have granted Russia newfound economic and political independence: “Energy exports finance about 30 percent of the Kremlin’s budget”—and this was at $61 per barrel.

    By positioning itself as the major energy supplier to Europe, Russia is attempting to regain much of its sphere of influence. However, Georgia maintains oil and gas pipelines to Europe that offer alternatives to the Russian supplies. Some of these, such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, were built at the strong urging of the United States.

    Reuters reports that Georgia “accused Russia of bombing its fuel lines on Tuesday.” However, while British Petroleum “has closed two oil and gas pipelines [including BTC] running from its Caspian Sea fields through Georgia,” according to inspections “neither has been damaged by recent fighting in the country.”

    The BTC pipeline is “the only major conduit for Central Asian resources not under Russian control,” notes The Telegraph, which quotes the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili on Russia’s motivation: “They need control of energy routes.”

    Topics: conflict, energy, foreign policy, security
    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/08186033047213683502 Global Zeitgeist

      There is little doubt that the oil and gas pipeline politics of the region is part of the backdrop to current events. The Clinton Administration pushed pipelines skirting Russian territory, at a time when Russia was weak and Yeltsin was rather compliant toward the West. Those days are over, and I think it was a mistake to so readily gloss over Russian interests and objections.

      But I also think that the policy of NATO enlargement, and de facto “encirclement” of Russia, have played a role. A recent analysis by Stratfor’s George Friedman (“The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power”, August 12) makes for rather interesting reading in this regard.

      And let’s not forget that Georgia went on a military purchasing spree in recent years (strongly supported by the United States), which may have made Georgian president Shaakashvili overestimate his punching power. The SIPRI Yearbook reports that Georgian military expenditures grew 15-fold between 2002 and 2007, with most of the increase in the last three years. By some accounts, Shaakashvili may have foolishly counted on U.S. backup for his short-lived adventure.

      It’s a sad prospect that the great power politics around energy will likely cause more victims in different parts of the world in coming years. As we head toward peak oil, the remaining resources will become ever more lucrative and strategically important. The key question is whether we can find navigate toward an alternative energy future while avoiding horrendous human costs.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • Ocean Fish Stocks on “Verge of Collapse,” Says IRIN Report Ocean Fish Stocks on “Verge of Collapse,” Says IRIN Report
    Kevin: I am an evangelical who disagrees with the Bible Thumpers/Literalists. The good news is that these...
  • Sophia Heat Pregnancy Photo High Temperatures Threaten Maternal and Newborn Health–Climate Change Policy Must Adjust
    Maya: Wow! Very informative!
  • A,Port,Las,Palmas,De,Gran,Canaria.,Canary,Islands,,Spain. China Leads the Race to the Bottom: Deep Sea Mining for Critical Minerals
    Jo-jo: Very Objective and I am surprised that circular economy is one of the factors to taking into account
  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000