Russian Casualty Figures in Georgia

A Russian general announced yesterday that in the conflict with Georgia 64 Russian soldiers died and 323 were wounded, a revision from earlier Russian statements that 74 had been killed and 170 wounded. Georgia's President Saakashvili said last week that by the "most conservative estimates" his armed forces had killed 400 Russian soldiers.

Comparing casualty figures for score keeping is a meaningless act, and we will probably never know the true cost in lives for any of the parties, military or civilian. What is interesting, though, is that the recent figures given by Russia seem to be plausible, a break from earlier practice.

Here are some possible interpretations of the numbers:

1. THEY LIE. Russia is well known for hiding their casualty figures in the Chechnya conflict. Soldiers' Mothers of Russia estimated 11,000 dead and 30,000 wounded Russian soldiers in Chechnya from 1999 through 2002, compared to official Russian statements at the time of 4,705 killed (a figure 57% lower than what Mothers of Russia estimated). If the same ratio were applied to yesterday's official statements then there were really 150 Russian soldiers killed. (Obviously there is no reason to think the same ratio would be used, and for all we know the number could be much higher).

2. THEY TELL THE TRUTH. Unlike in Chechnya, Russia won a swift and decisive military victory in Georgia and is now experiencing intense diplomatic pressure from the West to withdraw. Russia is being portrayed as the bad guys, and therefore may have an incentive to truthfully or even over-report their casualty figures in order to argue that the fight was not so one-sided.

3. GEORGIA CAN'T COUNT. Enemy body counts by any army, especially one in retreat, are hardly reliable, and the Georgians certainly had incentive to overstate their effectiveness. Also, they may have counted South Ossetian militia and Russian military as the same enemy since they were fighting both, and included both in the Russian casualties.

US Military Offer Blanket Support to Georgia

In yesterday's speech President Bush promised Georgia a "vigorous and ongoing" humanitarian mission carried out by the American military using aircraft and naval forces. Today Defense Secretary Robert Gates said there was no need for a US military force in Georgia (other than the "vigorous and ongoing" humanitarian mission.)

So how does that translate into action on the ground?

The "Ongoing" part:

A. 130 US troops already assigned to train the Georgian military will remain in the country. These are most likely Special Forces troops. The US has had trainers there since 2002 to train four Georgian Battalions.

B. Since 1992 the US has reportedly given Georgia $1.5 billion worth in military equipment and training as part of an effort to modernize their military to face Al Qaeda and prepare them to join NATO (and to fight in Iraq). This past year they received $6.5 million worth. It's not clear if we gave them any heavy equipment though, or just uniforms, small arms, and six helicopters. We will probably continue to give them this support, or I'd guess increase it to make up for their losses.

The "Vigorous" part:

C. Medical supplies, shelters, and bedding. The first C-17 plane landed yesterday, and another is planned today. At this pace, one planeload a day. Each C-17 can bring in up to eighteen "463L pallets", each with usable dimensions of 84" x 104", so approximately 5500 cubic feet of blankets a day.

D. An additional 12 troops to "assess the Georgian government’s humanitarian needs."

Interpretation:
Compared to the US response to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US aid for Georgia is more vigorous in speech than in practice, which we should interpret two-fold:

1. A message to the Russians that the US will not militarily confront them and will recognize the de facto annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia. However, the US is drawing a red line around Georgia's internal lines of communications by sending its own troops on the pretext of delivering blankets, effectively saying to Russia, leave the rest of Georgia alone.

2. A message to the Georgians that while they're US allies, they fell into Russia's trap on their own and US troops won't start World War III over two remote break-away provinces with populations that prefer Russia.