Russia Opens Up Hornet’s Nest

Reports coming in from Ukraine and Eastern Europe speculate that Russia is not withdrawing its forces but rather refreshing them with Russian troops stationed in other regions. Eyewitnesses in Abkhazia, a Russian occupied area of Georgia with a population of about 245,000, recorded the mass exodus of much of Putin’s army and military hardware this week. Soldiers also were seen departing via rail from the city of Gagra. Russia also has occupied South Ossetia, Georgia, a territory with a population of 53,000 since 2008. “Some of the first evidence of the redeployment of forces from the 4^th Military Base in South Ossetia to Ukraine came on March 16, causing local political unease,” according to Zaal Anjaparidze of the Jamestown Foundation.

Political analysts specializing in Georgian affairs in Washington now are suggesting that, given Putin’s hefty military losses in Ukraine, other former Soviet satellites may consider this an opportune time to rebel against Russian occupying forces. One senior military analyst in Washington said a Russian defeat in Ukraine could buttress a push for full rebellion against undue influence from Moscow in the internal affairs of other East European states and result in a “domino-like” effect in which former satellites move closer to the West.

“The temptation to exploit this momentum carries significant risks for militarily under-resourced Georgia that will need to be carefully considered to avoid the tragic mistakes made in the past,” noted Anjaparidze. Although Medvedev was president of Russia at the time of the Georgia invasion, Putin orchestrated the operation and completed it in five days. Due to constitutional restrictions on succession, Putin had stepped down for one term but was serving as prime minister before later reassuming the presidency.

Georgia gained its independence from the USSR in 1991. The following year it joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, a forum for dialogue that was succeeded by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1997. In 1994 Georgia joined Partnership for Peace and began working on more ambitious internal reforms aimed to make the state more democratic and create the institutions and systems needed for a successful application for full NATO membership. Although it has expressed a desire to join NATO it has yet to complete the reforms required for admission into the organization.

Georgia borders Russia and contributes to the NATO-led operation Sea Guardian. This NATO operation is active in the Mediterranean and tasked with maritime security capacity building, support for maritime situational awareness, and maritime counterterrorism. Putin has stated that Georgia’s relations with NATO operations, the EU, and other western democratic states poses a threat to the national security of Russia and uses it to justify his continued occupation of the “separatist regions” of Georgia.

In 2020, according to NATO, there was a joint review with the Georgian foreign affairs, defense, and interior ministries, as well as with the Georgian Defense Forces and the Coast Guard. It led to an upgraded NATO-Georgia Package, endorsed by foreign ministers in December 2020. It encompasses most fighting domains (air, land, sea, cyberspace) and includes support activities at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels, including conducting regular joint NATO-Georgia exercises.

In a CNN interview this week Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili again offered her continued support for the Ukrainian government in its bid to expel Russian forces from the country. She said “Russia does not seem to be changing. We are now in the 21^st century. Things should be different. We have global challenges that we should be looking to overcome together… The old Russian aims, and objectives, are still there…[but] I think this time things will be different because Russian objectives have not been met.”

Although the war in Ukraine is far from over, the question before military planners this week is, how far will Vladimir Putin go if he perceives he has lost the war and his country is less secure. Some argue the Russian leader still may be successful in redefining his message enough to veil his military’s defeat and open a window to shut down his offensive. Whether or not this happens, what is of a longer-term concern in the West is if Putin, who is prone toward paranoia, will so fear other former Soviet-bloc states leaving the Russian sphere of influence that only the immediate battle, not the war, is over. The former Warsaw bloc states, according to some analysts, may assume the Russian withdrawal is an exhibit of Moscow’s weakness and a carte blanche to move closer to the West. It could be enough to renew conflict in Eastern Europe in the future.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.