Russia-Georgia Conflict: News From the War zone

[SABRE]

Once again, LOOK AT A MAP! Then explain 1) why it would make geographical sense, & 2) how routing a pipeline through an additional country would add anything to it except more political risk.

A pipeline from Azerbaijan through Armenia to Turkey is logical geographically, but politics prevent it. Once that option is ruled out, there is no reason for any pipeline to pass through Armenia. It neither reduces the cost, nor reduces the political risk.

Ok I am jumping in from the middle so forgive me ... You are right.That is unless you are discounting Nigorno Karabagh as part of Armenia - which it is not, based on the demarcation done by Stalin & approved by UN when Azerbijan got its independence.

If you accept it then on geographic basis the pipeline, if it has to pass to Nigorno Karabagh, will go through Azerbijan, Armenia, again Azerbijan & then into Turkey.

But even if you accept Nigorno Karabagh as Armenian territory it won't change the political reality. Azerbiajn will never have any such deal with Armenia, especially which is based on the lands Armenia occupied from Azerbijan. Turks sharing ethnic morality with Azaris support Azarbijan & don't accept the occupied territories as part of Armenia.

So all goes into the garbage bin.

The only geographically & politically feasible rout is Azerbijan-Georgia-Turkey then into Europe.


Now since I have re-read your post; I would say you are completely right.

 

[Todjaeger]

I wonder if it's true about Russian passports in Crimea?
There are indeed tangible benefits for all involved to bypass Georgia and get armenia into pipeline business!-
ANALYSIS-Georgia war boosts Turkey-Armenia thaw
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=334313

But are the net benefits of involving Armenia in a pipeline worthwhile? The consensus seems to be "no." Having taken a quick look at a map to refresh my memory, only four nations have a border with land-locked Armenia. These are Georgia, Turkey, Iran and Azerbaijan. As Armenia does not seem to be a significant source of petroleum or gas products, all it would be able to do would be to provide a route between countries.

Given the locations in the five nation area of significant known petroleum and gas reserves, namely in Iran near the Iraqi border and Persian Gulf, and in Azerbaijan, that cuts down on likely routes. AFAIK the Iranian petroleum is tranported to terminals in the Persian Gulf for shipment/export to the rest of the world. Therefore, no logical reason to build a pipeline through other countries like Armenia for further shipment to the rest of the world. Particularly when considering the difficulties and expense involved in constructing and maintaining such a pipeline in a mountainous and quake prone area. The much shorter, and entirely Iranian controlled route to the Gulf makes more sense. As for acting as a conduit for petroleum coming out of Azerbaijan, as others have mentioned there are socio-political considerations from the Azeri side which would bar such a pipeline at present. Consider it from this perspective, which country Azerbaijan would likely consider most threatening, if it had the ability to effect such an important export, Georgia, Russia or Armenia? Given the relatively recent history between Azerbaijan and Armenia, I would think Azerbaijan would be most concerned about providing Armenia with any additional leverage that could potentially be used against them.

BTW here is a map of the area.

-Cheers

Added comment. I tend to agree with Swerve. Short of drastic improvement in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, or a similar decline between Azerbaijan and Georgia, or an overall significant decline in security within Georgia, I do not see a Azerbaijan-Armenia-Turkey pipeline route as viable.

 

[Preceptor]

Moderators,
I know you don't want to discuss politics and energy in this thread, however both are critical to villify the Russian action. With those two issues off the table we are left with the military situation on the ground Georgia started a full scale military adventure into an area that does not want them.

Then the Russian military went in to save their own people at the same time crushed the army trained you the US and Israel and also captured tons of NATO, US, and Isreali equipement and carted it off to Moscow (thanks Georgia). Remember when the US begines a Military Adventure there is time for planning rehersal and pre-deployment, since this was a reaction and not a pre-planned invasion not every thing went well for them, you can bet they are a lessons learned and will be better next time.

Looks like the US got:nutkick by Putin he is going to come out of this smelling like a rose once the dust settles. Europe better get it's game face on or Putin the Chess player will clean their clocks.

My appologies for not catching this and responding sooner. Defence Talk is an International defence forum. As such, it caters to members from around the world and all countries. Therefore, it tries to be neutral on issues where different nations will have a differing opinion on some matters. This is why it is against the forum rules to engage in vs. threads, or make defamatory comments about different nations/races/ethnicities/etc as Defence Talk seeks to gather and share divergent information and viewpoints on defence matters, instead of espousing a particular viewpoint or line of thinking. As such, Defence Talk has no interest in trying to

...villify the Russian action.

as mentioned in the first line of the quoted post. To those members who join/post with the intent of using Defence Talk as a platform to engage in such behavior against any country, such actions will not be tolerated and the offending poster(s) will be dealt with. For those with questions on what is allowed, read the forum rules and/or ask a Mod or Admin.
-Preceptor

 

[swerve]

Given the locations in the five nation area of significant known petroleum and gas reserves, namely in Iran near the Iraqi border and Persian Gulf, and in Azerbaijan, that cuts down on likely routes. AFAIK the Iranian petroleum is tranported to terminals in the Persian Gulf for shipment/export to the rest of the world. Therefore, no logical reason to build a pipeline through other countries like Armenia for further shipment to the rest of the world. Particularly when considering the difficulties and expense involved in constructing and maintaining such a pipeline in a mountainous and quake prone area. The much shorter, and entirely Iranian controlled route to the Gulf makes more sense.

BTW here is a map of the area.

It is true that exporting Iranian oil via a pipeline to Turkey, whether direct to Turkey or through another country (but there is no reason to involve other countries) would appear unnecessary, due to the location of Iranian oilfields. But as soon as one looks at export routes for oil & gas from Turkmenistan, or Kazakhstan, the Iran-Turkey route becomes more reasonable. Their possible routes are
1) flat, via Russia
2) mountainous, via any other route. Note that the internal Iranian pipeline network crosses mountain ranges, & extends from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf.

If, for whatever reason, they or their customers wish to avoid transort through Russia, or Russia-influenced territories, Iran becomes a logical possibility. A pipeline through Iran to Turkey would be expensive (but note that an equally expensive pipeline has recently been built & is operating - Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan), but would enable Central Asian oil & gas to reach Turkey (a customer) & the Mediterranean (could end at Ceyhan) via a route not subject to Russian control, or any eruption in the Gulf.

As I've already said, some Central Asian oil is already effectively exported via Iran, being used within Iran to substitute for domestic production which is exported. Pipelines run from a terminal on the Caspian to Tehran & Tabriz (en route to Turkey), where there are refineries which have been modified to process it, rather than Iranian oil.

 

[Todjaeger]

It is true that exporting Iranian oil via a pipeline to Turkey, whether direct to Turkey or through another country (but there is no reason to involve other countries) would appear unnecessary, due to the location of Iranian oilfields. But as soon as one looks at export routes for oil & gas from Turkmenistan, or Kazakhstan, the Iran-Turkey route becomes more reasonable. Their possible routes are
1) flat, via Russia
2) mountainous, via any other route. Note that the internal Iranian pipeline network crosses mountain ranges, & extends from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf.

If, for whatever reason, they or their customers wish to avoid transort through Russia, or Russia-influenced territories, Iran becomes a logical possibility. A pipeline through Iran to Turkey would be expensive (but note that an equally expensive pipeline has recently been built & is operating - Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan), but would enable Central Asian oil & gas to reach Turkey (a customer) & the Mediterranean (could end at Ceyhan) via a route not subject to Russian control, or any eruption in the Gulf.

As I've already said, some Central Asian oil is already effectively exported via Iran, being used within Iran to substitute for domestic production which is exported. Pipelines run from a terminal on the Caspian to Tehran & Tabriz (en route to Turkey), where there are refineries which have been modified to process it, rather than Iranian oil.

Agreed. What I was posting was in regards to pipeline routes from gas/petroleum sources that would pass through Armenia to reach a shipping and/or usage point. In that context, a pipeline from Iran into or through another country does not make sense in order to ship Iranian product, given the proximity to already existing shipping points within Iran.

Countries neighboring Iran could very well find it valuable to ship product into and through parts of Iran, being potentially cheaper, easier and more reliable than other alternate routes.

At the same time, all things being equal, one would expect that the fewer different countries involved in such a scheme, the less points of failure due to international politics or government instability.

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

At the same time, all things being equal, one would expect that the fewer different countries involved in such a scheme, the less points of failure due to international politics or government instability.

-Cheers

Absolutely. Which is why the logical route for a hypothetical Iran-Turkey pipeline would only pass through those two countries.

 

[Feanor]

Russia has established official diplomatic ties with S. Ossetia and Akhazia, with 3800 troops to be located in each of the two republics. In S. Ossetia they will be based in Ts'hinvali and Dzhava. In Abkhazia they will simply take over the bases from the peacekeeping contingent.

Well pipelines aside, the military situation in the region seems to be definetly not in Georgia's favor. It doesn't seem likely that anyone will want to help rebuild their crippled military. However as for NATO candidacy things seem to be going ahead as planned. Do you guys think Georgia will be admitted into NATO?

 

[nevidimka]

Btw, Ukraine had a military parade last month. Just saw a video of it. Looked abit Russian style. Anyways, is this parade can be viewed as a show of force to Russia.

 

[Feanor]

More like a show of impotence. The Ukranian army is in worse condition right now then the Russian Army was in the 90's.

 

[Firehorse]

Russia to keep 7,600 troops in 2 Georgia regions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909...a&printer=1;_ylt=ApAh_1NmLMU97ZyEAh_.Ap9bbBAF

That was to be expected- "the border is under lock and key"!
At least some see their military's CiC for what he is!-

Georgians Question Wisdom of War With Russia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090802449_pf.html

 

[nevidimka]

More like a show of impotence. The Ukranian army is in worse condition right now then the Russian Army was in the 90's.

Yeah I read about that too. Its that most of their equipments are old soviet era equipments. But I did see S300 in the parade though! That would give hell of alot of punishing to Russian Air force if it decides to move into Ukraine.

Plus Ukraine is now beginning to increase military spending in light of this georgian incident.


Btw the Democratic government of Saakashvilli, which Bush labeled as the most Democratic gov in the region has just jailed the son of the former Georgian president in order to squash any opposition to his "legitimate" power in Georgia.

 

[Feanor]

They do have S-300's, but how many? And how many are opertional? And are they linked into an IADS? How much training time do the operators get? All of that brings into question the capabilites of the units. Finally a large chunk of Ukrainians are pro-Russian. How many would desert without firing a shot?

 

[S400]

They do have S-300's, but how many? And how many are opertional? And are they linked into an IADS? How much training time do the operators get? All of that brings into question the capabilites of the units. Finally a large chunk of Ukrainians are pro-Russian. How many would desert without firing a shot?

And have there been any 'back doors' built into that system by the Russians to ensure they would be less effective or ineffective against Russia's own aircraft?

 

[S400]

Well pipelines aside, the military situation in the region seems to be definetly not in Georgia's favor. It doesn't seem likely that anyone will want to help rebuild their crippled military.

The Pentagon said Tuesday it was sending a team to Georgia this week to assess needs for rebuilding its military, emphasizing that Tbilisi must be capable of deterring any new Russian attack.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Pentagon_set_on_mission_to_rebuild_Georgian_military_999.html

 

[Feanor]

Georgian generals have just accused Saakashvili of starting the war against their advice.

EDIT: arms-tass.su reports that Su-25SM (the modernized ones) were used in the conflict. The three frogfoots lost are alegedly SM ones.

http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=59795&cid=25

 

[Grand Danois]

Blackjacks have landed in Venezuela.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080910/116695660.html

 

[Feanor]

Ouch. All the talk about bombers in Cuba finaly substantiated, though in a different country.

 

[Waylander]

Ah, finally the US fighters in that area get the same kind of additional interception practice like their comrades in Norway andthe UK.

In the end, who gives a ...?

Two Blackjacks on a visiting tout to Chavez are not what I would call a substantial additional threat to CONUS.

 

[Firehorse]

Georgia’s opposition buries Saakashvili’s regime
http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/10-09-2008/106332-Georgia_opposition_Saakashvili-0

The pressure is mounting- will this be a replay of the past? I hope not! They should emulate Thailand this time!

 

[Feanor]

Ah, finally the US fighters in that area get the same kind of additional interception practice like their comrades in Norway andthe UK.

In the end, who gives a ...?

Two Blackjacks on a visiting tout to Chavez are not what I would call a substantial additional threat to CONUS.

It's not the bombers, it's the capability leap that they represent. 5 years ago the VVS wouldn't dream of sending a bomber to Venezuela for joint exercises with a VMF task force.