Being a parent is no easy task. Obedience is key. But when it comes to criticism from his political papa, 58-year-old billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, founder of Georgia's ruling Georgian Dream coalition, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili appears willing to try and be the dutiful political son.
Following nationally televised criticism from Ivanishvili of his recent description of ex-Defense Minister Irakli Alasania as “an adventurist, foolish and ambitious,” Gharibashvili conceded in comments on November 10, that his remark, coming amidst a dramatic government shake-up last week, was perhaps a little out of line. “I, too, did not like what I said about Alasania,” he said.
He tried to amend his words after Ivanishvili, his career mentor and former boss, commented that “[e]motions must be reined in… “
Ivanishvili, though supposedly no longer interested in politics, has not restrained himself from weighing in heavily on last week’s dismissal of Alasania and the resignations of ex-Foreign Minister Maia Panjikidze and State Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Aleksi Petriashvil over Alasania's claims that NATO-membership plans are at risk.
The crisis that kicked off when former Defense Minister Irakli Alasania charged the government with trying to derail Georgia’s NATO-membership plans is all about one “adventurist, foolish, ambitious” minister, Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili insisted to an early-morning cabinet-meeting on November 6.
He also accused former Foreign Minister Maia Panjikidze, who stepped down following the dismissal of Alasania (her brother-in-law), of sabotage.
Many Georgians, though, suspect that the crisis has more to do with political rivalry. Gharibashvili reinforced that impression when he fumed to the cabinet that Alasania’s accusations amounted to a “betrayal” of the 2012 parliamentary victory that brought his Georgian Dream coalition to power.
Alasania’s party, the Free Democrats, yesterday left the Georgian Dream, forcing it to lose its parliamentary majority.
The firing of Georgia's defense minister and ongoing shakeup of the Georgian government is the biggest political crisis the country has faced since the coalition led by former President Mikheil Saakashvili left office two years ago. But does it threaten the country's ties with the West?
Many of the headlines in the Western press referred to the "pro-Western" orientation of the departed officials, with the implication that there was a geopolitical significance to the move. "Georgia's premier sacks pro-Western defense minister," wrote Reuters. "Georgia's Pro-West Foreign Minister Quits," reported Voice of America. "Georgian Pro-Western Foreign Minister Announces Resignation," reported Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Although the sacked defense minister, Irakli Alasania, himself suggested that his firing was "an attack on Georgia's Euro-Atlantic choice," many other top Georgian officials took pains to ensure that that wasn't the case. "Our country's Euro-Atlantic integration is not only our government's, but our people's, choice and this process is and will be unchangeable," Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili said after firing Alasania.
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili has removed Defense Minister Irakli Alasania from office shortly after Alasania accused prosecutors of using investigations into the defense ministry to derail Georgia's plans for NATO integration.
In a brisk televised statement, Gharibashvili claimed that Alasania's comments about the investigations are "causing the politicization of the defense ministry" and "negatively" impacting "our country's security and the government's efficient work."
"Our country's Euro-Atlantic integration is not only our government's, but our people's, choice and this process is and will be unchangeable," he said.
Georgia’s NATO-membership plans have come under attack from within the the country's government itself, embattled Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Alasania claimed on November 4, as a crisis over investigations into his ministry deepens within the ruling coalition.
Alasania, rated as Georgia’s favorite political figure, declared in a televised briefing that prosecutors’ sudden spate of inquiries into the defense ministry’s work is politically motivated. After the arrest of five former and current ministry officials last week as part of a probe into a tender, prosecutors today filed criminal charges against three army medical officers in a food-poisoning case.
“This is an attack on Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic choice. This is an attack on the agency with an outstanding record in achieving our foreign policy goals,” Alasania asserted. “I will not be intimidated by the prosecutors or by mud-slinging by certain media groups,” he added.
He challenged the ruling Georgian Dream coalition to convene to discuss in which direction the country is headed. Next to him stood State Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Aleksi Petriashvili.
Twenty five years ago, he said, "We used to do big, complex NATO exercises in all environments, but the world has changed. We haven’t been doing as many of those in the last 10, 15 years. But I think Ukraine has told us we need to up our game and I think that’s the plan in the near future.”
Hudson was apparently at the Pentagon to discuss with U.S. Navy officials how to beef up NATO's naval forces. “Six or seven destroyers … isn’t going to defeat a complex enemy,” he said. “But it will sustain a theater, ... it will put all the connectivity into a region in place so that the follow-on forces can deliver.”
One wonders what sort of scenario would entail a NATO "defeat" of Russia. The U.S. has already stepped up its rotation of ships into the Black Sea and has promised to do more. Vice Adm. Hudson also said last month that NATO would increase its presence in the Baltic Sea, as well. (That plan has no doubt been given new currency as a result of Sweden's claims that a Russian submarine has been snooping around its waters.)
The Russian government has criticized a NATO plan to construct military training facilities in Georgia, while coming under fire itself for hosting a NATO facility on Russian soil.
When NATO announced last month that it would set up a range of expanded cooperation programs with Georgia, including joint training facilities, the reaction from Moscow was inevitable. On October 8, Russia's foreign ministry issued a statement expressing “concern in connection to the Georgian media reports about plans to deploy military infrastructure on the territory of Georgia in the interests of NATO.... Such actions would create threat to emerging stability in the Transcaucasus region."
Left unmentioned was the increasingly uncomfortable fact that Russia itself hosts a NATO cargo transit facility in Ulyanovsk. It was set up in 2012 to help NATO forces get equipment to and from Afghanistan, and even then it was somewhat contrary to Russia's consistent anti-NATO rhetoric. Then-Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin -- one of the leading producers of that anti-NATO rhetoric -- was put in the unlikely position of defending the facility, saying it would only involve harmless items like toilet paper and Mars bars.
The biggest headline to come out of the weekend's Caspian Sea summit in Astrakhan, Russia, was that the five countries along the sea agreed to prevent any outside military presence from the sea. This has been a longstanding goal of the sea's two biggest powers, Russia and Iran, the result of worries that the U.S. and/or NATO would somehow gain a military foothold on the sea via security cooperation programs with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, or Turkmenistan.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, summing up the summit's results and formal declaration, said:
The declaration sets out a fundamental principle for guaranteeing stability and security, namely, that only the Caspian littoral states have the right to have their armed forces present on the Caspian. This was the way the situation developed over history, and we do not seek to change it now. In general, only the five Caspian countries that have sovereign rights over the Caspian Sea and its resources will resolve all matters pertaining to the region.
Spanish troops exercise with their Patriot missile defense systems. (photo: Spanish Ministry of Defense)
The Netherlands is pulling out its air defense troops from Turkey but Spain will take its place, ensuring that the NATO deployment of Patriot systems will remain on the Turkey-Syria border.
Last month, the Netherlands announced that it would end its deployment in Turkey in January 2015. The Dutch were part of a NATO deployment, also including the United States and Germany, which has operated the Patriot missile defense systems since December 2012. There had been media reports that the entire NATO mission was in peril because the Patriot units of the contributing members were becoming overextended.
But on September 17, Spain announced that it will step in and deploy about 130 soldiers and two Patriot batteries, averting that threat. An unnamed senior Turkish diplomat said the decision "denoted critical help from an ally at a most critical time," wrote Defense News. “Our southern [Syrian] and southeastern [Iraqi] borders are under serious threat, and the deployment will help us better counter any attack from across these borders,” the diplomat said.
The move represents a bit of a departure from Spain, which Reuters notes "has not been an major participant in these types of international initiatives in recent years."
When outsiders look at the various new post-Soviet integration projects they often see an attempt by Russia to impose its will on its neighbors; in Hillary Clinton's formulation, a move to "re-Sovietize" the region. The U.S., by contrast, likes to say that its policy in the former Soviet space are directed at allowing those states to maintain their "sovereignty and independence."
But that has it backwards, Russia is increasingly arguing. In a piece published Wednesday in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argues that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and other post-Soviet security blocs allow members "a choice of their own pattern of development" while NATO demands strict "bloc discipline" of its members.
That Lavrov wrote an op-ed praising the SCO is already interesting enough: Russia has not always been so enthusiastic about the organization, which tends to carry more of a Chinese influence (the other members are the smaller Central Asian states in between the two powers: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). But since the crisis in Ukraine resulted in a huge rupture between Russia and the West, Moscow has sought to revive its ties to China and as a result has become noticeably more enthusiastic about the SCO.