Armchair General

Is Georgia is too far away for NATO or the USA to militarily help them?


...and for an even better map that shows the roads and ports, plus Russian bombing attacks, check out the Georgian Ministry of Defence website here...

TURKEY would be the key...with the huge caveat that they may not be interested in helping Georgia. But, assuming they are concerned about keeping a buffer state with Russia and protecting the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline, let's look at what they bring to the equation.

Turkey borders Georgia. Turkey is a NATO ally.

Logistically, Turkey has Mediterranean and Black Sea ports. Turkey has a US airbase at Incirlik. Turkey has roads leading to Batumi, a port in Georgia, and from there, road connections to Tbilisi, including one that does not go through Russian occupied Gori. But these roads, including a direct land route from Ardahan, look like they go through serious mountain terrain. Note also the Erzurum is a major air base for the Turkish air force and has runways that are the second longest in Turkey.

In terms of direct military aid, Turkey already has a frigate off the coast of the port of Batumi in Georgia, and as NATO's second largest army, its land forces, could deploy into Western Georgia along the coastal roads, and possibly into Eastern Georgia via Ardahan. The 9th Corps based at Erzurum, with its 9th infantry division in Sarikamis, would be the most likely forces to be used. Note that this information is completely speculative, and according to Wikipedia, many of the Turkish 3rd Army forces in the area, including an entire Corps in Trabazon have been moved after the Cold War ended (to Cyrprus and the Iraq border.) I wonder if any units are moving back?

ARMENIA almost certainly won't help.

As they have a Russian military base on their territory that supposedly was used to send air sorties against Georgia. But they do have a road into Georgia and a rail link from Turkey through their territory to Tbilisi. But they don't have a seaport or any US bases, so they would not be too useful in any event.

AZERBAIJAN is very slightly more likely to help.

They are already involved in NATO Partnership for Peace and have deployed peacekeepers to Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Earlier this year, there was an espionage scandal in Azerbaijan involving the Russians. Even so, taking on the Russian bear would be too much.

Then again, they might be worried enough by Georgia's fate to decide to help, logistically at least. The price for serious assistance might be a quid-pro-quo on Nagorno-Karabakh and I am not sure that would be forthcoming. In any case, they have road and rail links to Tbilisi, though their lack of an ocean port along with easy land access again limits to the usefulness of their territory as a logistics base.

CONCLUSION: Turkey will be the main decision maker as to whether Georgia could be defended by the West or not.

If Turkey is willing to help even as merely a logistics base it does not look impossible at all (ignoring the question of if we have enough troops to do so.) In fact, its probably a better supply line than we have in Afghanistan.

If they are interested in keeping their pipeline and buffer state in Georgia intact to the point of offering military assistance, defending Georgia looks extremely viable. If they supplied most of the land forces, NATO could focus on the air and naval forces which are not as committed to the counter-insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have to wonder if the Georgians shouldn't have been buttering up the Turks more than the Americans. (Maybe they have been?)

NOTE: I am not sure I would advocate defending Georgia, except diplomatically. This is just a thought exercise.