Georgia, in the South Caucasus region, is a bridge connecting West and East. Apart from being an important pathway for energy routes, Georgia plays a significant role in terms of movement of goods and services between West and East, and North and South. The region faces a number of challenges coming from Russia, as it tries to exert its influence on the region using its military and economic power. Russia strives for a strong military presence in the region to limit the Western influence, and pursue more power in the area. How effectively Georgia deals with these challenges will shape the future of the country, making an impact on the South Caucasus region as a whole.
Terrain characteristics
Georgia boasts a diverse terrain, ranging from the subtropical Black Sea shore to the snowy peaks of the CaucasusMountains. The majority of the landscape is mountainous, featuring a range of great mountain cities extending from west to east. The highest point in the country, Shkhara, reaches about 5,200 meters above the sea level. In the western part, there is a lowland called “Kolkhida Lowland”, and in the East – an open, flat area known as “Alazani Valley”in the Kakheti region. Georgia is rich in rivers and lakes, with major rivers found in both the western and eastern parts of the country.
The picture below illustrates the varying elevations, noting the significance of certain areas, such as the red circle showing military activities, and the purple cycle – major military activities during the 2008 Russia-Georgia war.
Georgia terrain characteristics in context of 2008 war
Path to war
Between 1991 and 1993, Russia supported Abkhaz and Ossetian (from Tskhinvali region) separatists, leading to conflicts that resulted in Georgia losing control over its territories, ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population and their massive expulsion from their living areas. In 2007-2008, Russia built two military bases in the Tskhinvali region. After completion of the large-scale Russian military exercise “Caucasus 2008’’, rather than returning to their bases, the troops remained in the vicinity of Tskhinvali region. Incidents escalated in the period of 1-7 August 2008 leading to the evacuation of civilian population (ethnic Ossetians, mainly women and children) from the Tskhinvali region. The evacuation of ethnically Ossetian population indicated Russia’s preparations for a military intervention. The deployment of regiments to the Tskhinvali region culminated in the invasion by the Russian forces.
Controlled territory by Georgia (blue color) and by Russia (red color) before the war in 2008 (Credit: Nations Online Project)
Outburst
The military activities unfolded aggressively, with attacks originating from the north and the west, particularly from the occupied Abkhazia. The assaults were comprehensive, involving ground, air, and sea forces. The strikes, characterised by both ground and missile attacks, extended beyond the Tskhinvali region. Key infrastructure, encompassing military and civilian targets, endured the brunt of the aggression, with seaports, bridges, airfields, and other vital installations being targeted. Missile systems such as SS21 and SS26 were utilised in the course of the attacks.
Russian forces composition and axes ot attacks (Credit: Nations Online Project)
During the war, the Georgian forces faced a number of challenges as they were relatively small and young, with only five brigades, one of which was deployed in Iraq, while the fifth brigade was still under formation. The army, undergoing reorganisation since 2004, also focused on mountain warfare training due to the significant mountainous terrain across Georgia.
Key locations, marked as K1, K2, and K3, presented strategic points, with K1 as a rocky tunnel complex, K2 as a crossroad, and K3 connecting cities and regions. The difficult terrain with elevations ranging from 600 to 1400 meters, posed challenges for ground movement, limiting mobility and dividing larger operations. The Russian forces, using traditional Soviet tactics, pushed through rocky areas, while Georgian units, aware of enemy movements, used aviation and rocket artillery to fix them in narrow terrain.
Tskhinvali ambush
In this specific ambush scenario, a Russian motorised unit advancing from the north encountered resistance from the Georgian forces, which intended to disrupt their progress. The Russian unit was detected, leading to the artillery fire that effectively blocked their advancement, resulting in significant losses in both personnel and equipment.
To overcome this unexpected setback, the Russian forces decided to take a bypass road and approach the city from the northwest. The Georgian unit, maintaining a defensive posture, identified the enemy’s movement and forced them to withdraw temporarily. Upon their return, the Russian troops faced heavy losses again in personnel and equipment, prompting them to retreat and regroup to reassess their mission amidst the ambush.
Air defence
After a day one, the enemy established air superiority by neutralising Georgia’s aviation. The enemy’s aircraft operated from high altitudes, targeting Georgia’s positions. Passive protective measures utilised the existing infrastructure within the mountainous operational area and natural vegetation. Active protective measures involved addressing the Air Defence (AD) system vulnerabilities, focusing on the portability of defence systems. Despite challenges, the AD sections moved into the mountains, employing scanning, identification, and engagement tactics to minimise the distance between the AD and aircrafts. The plan effectively disrupted Russian air operations.
Summary
In August 2008, disregarding the fundamental norms and principles of the international law, the UN charter, as well as the Helsinki Final Act, the Russian Federation launched the full-scale military aggression against Georgia, violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and threatening the European Security Architecture[1].
[1] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgments on Georgia vs Russia interstate cases are available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/
The Russo-Georgian war highlighted the geopolitical significance of the Caucasus region, especially Georgia, as a crucial pathway for energy and transit routes connecting East and West and North and South. Moreover, it once again showcased that in line with its imperialist ambitions, Russia was ready and willing to use force against the sovereign nation and undermine its Euro-Atlantic aspirations representing the key foreign and security policy priority of the country. It was a part of Kremlin’s pursuit of establishing its zones of influence, even if it roots for undermining the fundamental norms and principles of international law and jeopardising the regional security.
Strategic Importance of Terrain:
The mountainous terrain of Georgia significantly impacted military operations, influencing strategies and tactics on both sides.
Military Tactics:
Russian forces employed traditional Soviet tactics. The Tskhinvali ambush demonstrated the significance of tactical manoeuvres and surprise attacks, showcasing how smaller forces could disrupt larger, more conventional military operations.
Air Dominance and Defence:
The establishment of air superiority by the Russian forces highlighted the critical role of air power in modern warfare. The successful disruption of the Russian air operations by the Georgian air defence demonstrated the importance of defensive strategies.
Post-War Adaptations:
The post-war period showcased the significance of lessons learned process, leading to the transformation of defence forces, modernisation and adaptation of military structures, command approaches, and further enhancement of international cooperation in order to boost defence capabilities.
Continuous Development and Preparedness:
The need for continuous development of NATO-interoperable defence capabilities, modern education and training systems, and increased participation in multinational exercises represent the main lessons learned for maintaining preparedness in a volatile geopolitical landscape.
Key takeaways
In the context of mountain operations, efficiency is often compromised due to specific features and challenging weather conditions. Proper planning and preparation are crucial to conserve forces, and ensure that units are able to reach their destination. After a few days of operations, Russians gained control over sea and environment lines of communication, achieved air superiority, and posed a threat to the Georgian forces deployed in the high mountain region. Despite the imminent danger, commanders decided to move forces with about 60 km in different altitudes, facing extreme conditions, but by doing so, they managed to preserve forces and continue defensive operations.
During the war, the need for training programme development, equipment revision, mounting capabilities enhancement, and the development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) was identified. Challenges that Georgia faced included missile systems of the Russian Federation (RF), misbalance of forces, coping EW of the enemy, air and maritime superiority of the RF, centralised command and control system (under one command) and the need for improved mobility and survivability in mountain operations.
Post-war adaptations included the gradual transition from the mid- to long-term defence planning, a new Defence Code, creation of separate operational commands (West and East), promotion of mission command approach, broadened international cooperation, increased participation in multinational military training and exercises, including hosting in Georgia, which supports further enhancement of interoperability with NATO. Moreover, the focus has been directed towards enhancing the capabilities of the Sachkhere Mountain Training School with active international support, which resulted in receiving the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Training and Education Centre (later PTEC-Partnership Training and Education Centre) status in 2010. The School has transformed into a unique training centre offering national and International Mountain training courses to military personnel from Georgia and partner nations in an exceptional environment including weather, terrain, altitude, and with maximum protection of safety measures. The focus remains on continuous streamlining and credibility through further developing modern, NATO-interoperable training and education system and ensuring increased participation in multinational exercises.
04. 2008 RUSSO-GEORGIA WAR – CASE STUDY
Georgia, in the South Caucasus region, is a bridge connecting West and East. Apart from being an important pathway for energy routes, Georgia plays a significant role in terms of movement of goods and services between West and East, and North and South. The region faces a number of challenges coming from Russia, as it tries to exert its influence on the region using its military and economic power. Russia strives for a strong military presence in the region to limit the Western influence, and pursue more power in the area. How effectively Georgia deals with these challenges will shape the future of the country, making an impact on the South Caucasus region as a whole.
Terrain characteristics
Georgia boasts a diverse terrain, ranging from the subtropical Black Sea shore to the snowy peaks of the Caucasus Mountains. The majority of the landscape is mountainous, featuring a range of great mountain cities extending from west to east. The highest point in the country, Shkhara, reaches about 5,200 meters above the sea level. In the western part, there is a lowland called “Kolkhida Lowland”, and in the East – an open, flat area known as “Alazani Valley” in the Kakheti region. Georgia is rich in rivers and lakes, with major rivers found in both the western and eastern parts of the country.
The picture below illustrates the varying elevations, noting the significance of certain areas, such as the red circle showing military activities, and the purple cycle – major military activities during the 2008 Russia-Georgia war.
Path to war
Between 1991 and 1993, Russia supported Abkhaz and Ossetian (from Tskhinvali region) separatists, leading to conflicts that resulted in Georgia losing control over its territories, ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population and their massive expulsion from their living areas. In 2007-2008, Russia built two military bases in the Tskhinvali region. After completion of the large-scale Russian military exercise “Caucasus 2008’’, rather than returning to their bases, the troops remained in the vicinity of Tskhinvali region. Incidents escalated in the period of 1-7 August 2008 leading to the evacuation of civilian population (ethnic Ossetians, mainly women and children) from the Tskhinvali region. The evacuation of ethnically Ossetian population indicated Russia’s preparations for a military intervention. The deployment of regiments to the Tskhinvali region culminated in the invasion by the Russian forces.
Outburst
The military activities unfolded aggressively, with attacks originating from the north and the west, particularly from the occupied Abkhazia. The assaults were comprehensive, involving ground, air, and sea forces. The strikes, characterised by both ground and missile attacks, extended beyond the Tskhinvali region. Key infrastructure, encompassing military and civilian targets, endured the brunt of the aggression, with seaports, bridges, airfields, and other vital installations being targeted. Missile systems such as SS21 and SS26 were utilised in the course of the attacks.
During the war, the Georgian forces faced a number of challenges as they were relatively small and young, with only five brigades, one of which was deployed in Iraq, while the fifth brigade was still under formation. The army, undergoing reorganisation since 2004, also focused on mountain warfare training due to the significant mountainous terrain across Georgia.
Key locations, marked as K1, K2, and K3, presented strategic points, with K1 as a rocky tunnel complex, K2 as a crossroad, and K3 connecting cities and regions. The difficult terrain with elevations ranging from 600 to 1400 meters, posed challenges for ground movement, limiting mobility and dividing larger operations. The Russian forces, using traditional Soviet tactics, pushed through rocky areas, while Georgian units, aware of enemy movements, used aviation and rocket artillery to fix them in narrow terrain.
Tskhinvali ambush
In this specific ambush scenario, a Russian motorised unit advancing from the north encountered resistance from the Georgian forces, which intended to disrupt their progress. The Russian unit was detected, leading to the artillery fire that effectively blocked their advancement, resulting in significant losses in both personnel and equipment.
To overcome this unexpected setback, the Russian forces decided to take a bypass road and approach the city from the northwest. The Georgian unit, maintaining a defensive posture, identified the enemy’s movement and forced them to withdraw temporarily. Upon their return, the Russian troops faced heavy losses again in personnel and equipment, prompting them to retreat and regroup to reassess their mission amidst the ambush.
Air defence
After a day one, the enemy established air superiority by neutralising Georgia’s aviation. The enemy’s aircraft operated from high altitudes, targeting Georgia’s positions. Passive protective measures utilised the existing infrastructure within the mountainous operational area and natural vegetation. Active protective measures involved addressing the Air Defence (AD) system vulnerabilities, focusing on the portability of defence systems. Despite challenges, the AD sections moved into the mountains, employing scanning, identification, and engagement tactics to minimise the distance between the AD and aircrafts. The plan effectively disrupted Russian air operations.
Summary
In August 2008, disregarding the fundamental norms and principles of the international law, the UN charter, as well as the Helsinki Final Act, the Russian Federation launched the full-scale military aggression against Georgia, violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and threatening the European Security Architecture[1].
[1] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgments on Georgia vs Russia interstate cases are available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/
The Russo-Georgian war highlighted the geopolitical significance of the Caucasus region, especially Georgia, as a crucial pathway for energy and transit routes connecting East and West and North and South. Moreover, it once again showcased that in line with its imperialist ambitions, Russia was ready and willing to use force against the sovereign nation and undermine its Euro-Atlantic aspirations representing the key foreign and security policy priority of the country. It was a part of Kremlin’s pursuit of establishing its zones of influence, even if it roots for undermining the fundamental norms and principles of international law and jeopardising the regional security.
The mountainous terrain of Georgia significantly impacted military operations, influencing strategies and tactics on both sides.
Russian forces employed traditional Soviet tactics. The Tskhinvali ambush demonstrated the significance of tactical manoeuvres and surprise attacks, showcasing how smaller forces could disrupt larger, more conventional military operations.
The establishment of air superiority by the Russian forces highlighted the critical role of air power in modern warfare. The successful disruption of the Russian air operations by the Georgian air defence demonstrated the importance of defensive strategies.
The post-war period showcased the significance of lessons learned process, leading to the transformation of defence forces, modernisation and adaptation of military structures, command approaches, and further enhancement of international cooperation in order to boost defence capabilities.
The need for continuous development of NATO-interoperable defence capabilities, modern education and training systems, and increased participation in multinational exercises represent the main lessons learned for maintaining preparedness in a volatile geopolitical landscape.
Key takeaways
In the context of mountain operations, efficiency is often compromised due to specific features and challenging weather conditions. Proper planning and preparation are crucial to conserve forces, and ensure that units are able to reach their destination. After a few days of operations, Russians gained control over sea and environment lines of communication, achieved air superiority, and posed a threat to the Georgian forces deployed in the high mountain region. Despite the imminent danger, commanders decided to move forces with about 60 km in different altitudes, facing extreme conditions, but by doing so, they managed to preserve forces and continue defensive operations.
During the war, the need for training programme development, equipment revision, mounting capabilities enhancement, and the development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) was identified. Challenges that Georgia faced included missile systems of the Russian Federation (RF), misbalance of forces, coping EW of the enemy, air and maritime superiority of the RF, centralised command and control system (under one command) and the need for improved mobility and survivability in mountain operations.
Post-war adaptations included the gradual transition from the mid- to long-term defence planning, a new Defence Code, creation of separate operational commands (West and East), promotion of mission command approach, broadened international cooperation, increased participation in multinational military training and exercises, including hosting in Georgia, which supports further enhancement of interoperability with NATO. Moreover, the focus has been directed towards enhancing the capabilities of the Sachkhere Mountain Training School with active international support, which resulted in receiving the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Training and Education Centre (later PTEC-Partnership Training and Education Centre) status in 2010. The School has transformed into a unique training centre offering national and International Mountain training courses to military personnel from Georgia and partner nations in an exceptional environment including weather, terrain, altitude, and with maximum protection of safety measures. The focus remains on continuous streamlining and credibility through further developing modern, NATO-interoperable training and education system and ensuring increased participation in multinational exercises.