It's Hard to Believe We Were That Stupid

Just as Europe undermined the EU so too did we undermine, potentially fatally, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  Both organizations foolishly indulged in a promiscuous bout of expansion that has left them unwieldy, incoherent and perhaps even dangerous.

This is EU Europe:

This is NATO:

Both began and operated quite well with a small, well integrated membership, capable of reliably cooperating to achieve clearly understood objectives.  And then they both got just a little whorish in the bacchanal that marked the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Oh my, look, there's one missing - the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

How they got left out I'll never know.  I guess Bush and Cheney forgot about them in their race to march NATO to Russia's doorstep.

When it comes to NATO it might be a good idea to cull the membership herd, especially if we see the E.U. beginning to come part at the seams.  There are a lot of scary people and movements waiting in the wings to exploit that chaos and we might not find their table manners exactly pleasing.

Don't forget that Article 5 business, the "mutual aid" clause that says an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.  There's no Article 5(b) that covers the situation where one NATO member attacks another.  Worse yet, there are some NATO aspirants that might like nothing better than to provoke a regional adversary (can you say Russia?) and then drag in the NATO muscle. Think Georgia. Think Ukraine.

NATO was built to face threats from without, namely the Soviet bloc.  It cobbled together nations of the Western European tradition on an implied assumption of shared values and principles. What a happy bunch of chaps - well, except for those uppity French.  DeGaulle, you know.

NATO picked up some dodgy characters in its rampage of expansion to the East. Take Hungary, which joined in 1999.  Sixty years earlier it joined another alliance, the Axis powers.  And today you wouldn't consider Hungary a particularly enthusiastic adherent to democracy.  Sort of like the little kid who's standing still in the corner of the pool.  You just know he's peeing.

It's like having more kids than you can possibly feed. When you get the urge to add a few more, don't.  And try to get the kids you do have educated and out the door as soon as you can.

Quick, put a call through to Grand Fenwick. I need to speak to the Duke.          

Hungary '56, Czechoslovakia '68, Ukraine '14?

Ukraine's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, has been sent packing.  The parliament has turned on him and proclaimed him constitutionally unable to carry out his duties.  It is being reported that jailed opposition leader and former president, Yulia Tymoshenko, has been sprung from prison and reunited with the anti-government faction. 

Yanukovych has gone into hiding but not without first making a television appearance in which he condemned his ouster as a coup d'état. 

Hovering in the wings is the Kremlin which views a pro-Russia Ukraine as almost indispensable.  Rumblings out of Moscow, while restrained, sound just a bit ominous and harken back to the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and the Czech revolution of 1968, both of which were crushed beneath the treads of Soviet tanks.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Saturday expressed his "most serious concern" over what he said was the failure of the Ukrainian opposition to deliver on its February 21 deal with President Viktor Yanukovich.

Yanukovich agreed to sweeping concessions under the peace deal - clinched with the mediation efforts of the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland - that include early elections as well as a reduction of presidential powers.

Lavrov spoke on the phone with the European Union trio on Saturday, according to a statement released by the Russian Foreign Ministry, and expressed to them his "most serious concern" about the latest developments in Ukraine.

"The opposition not only has failed to fulfill a single one of its obligations but is already presenting new demands all the time, following the lead of armed extremists and pogromists whose actions pose a direct threat to Ukraine's sovereignty and constitutional order," he told his counterparts.

Could Putin intervene in the Ukraine as the Kremlin did in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968?  It seems unthinkable today but Russia did invade Georgia in 2008 to force then president Saakashvili to drop Georgia's claims to South Ossetia.  Back then Putin claimed his forces were 'peacekeepers.' 

Bush Blamed for Russia-Georgia War

It was no surprise this week when an independent EU fact-finding commission reported that Georgia started its 5-day war with Russia in August, 2008. But a member of that commission, writing in The New York Times, says their report left out the role George w. Bush played in the outbreak of that conflict and in failing to bring Georgia's Saakashvili to heel:

...the report has a major flaw. It fails to thoroughly analyze the decisive role that the United States played before, during and after the conflict. Only a detailed assessment of President George W. Bush’s Georgia policy and its failures can fully explain the outbreak of the war and help the E.U. and President Obama shape new policies toward Russia and Georgia.

...After 9/11, ...President Bush changed the policy toward Georgia, introducing two elements that developed into serious strategic disadvantages. Mr. Bush not only made Georgia into a partner in the “war on terror,” but he promoted Mr. Saakashvili and Georgia into a centerpiece of his “promotion of democracy.” In Tbilisi in 2005, Mr. Bush proclaimed Mr. Saakashvili’s Georgia “a beacon of liberty.”

Even as President Bush became increasingly aware that he needed the Kremlin’s help in Iran and for other American interests, he was kept a prisoner by this exaggeration of Georgia’s importance for U.S. foreign policy.

Senior officials of the Bush administration claim they warned Mr. Saakashvili against using force against Russia. But having invested so much ideological importance in the Georgian president, Mr. Bush couldn’t warn him publicly — or, as it turned out, stop him. Having become so dependent on Mr. Saakashvili’s success, the United States lost the political influence to stop him.

Once the war broke out on the night of Aug. 7, President Bush decided against any U.S. military action, and instead to encourage President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, then holding the E.U. presidency, to seek a cease-fire. That was also a strategic mistake: Only the United States had the political clout to negotiate and enforce a serious peace agreement with Russia.

A foreign policy failure of the Bush administration? That'd be one for the record books, wouldn't it? Jörg Himmelreich's assessment does make sense. It explains why, when Russia snapped back and counterattacked into Georgia, Saakashvili appeared genuinely surprised that the United States didn't send forces to rally to his support. He really believed that, even if Western Europe didn't go to war with Russia in defence of Georgia, America would.

Georgia - Still Soviet in Some Ways

During the era of Soviet rule, making up history on the fly was pretty much standard fare. Truth was pretty much whatever those at the top said it was (hey wasn't that what Bush did too?).

The former Soviet republic of Georgia is still playing that game. It's been apparent from the outset that last summer's scrap between Russia and Georgia was sparked by Georgia's attempt to subdue the breakaway region of South Ossetia by invading and hammering the place with artillery barrages. Russia retaliated, driving Georgian forces out of South Ossetia and proceeding to invade and bomb the Georgians.

The Russians seem to have goaded Georgia into its rash attack but the fact remains that Georgia did initiate the military conflict by attacking South Ossetia.

But we're only talking about Georgia and South Ossetia and some place called Abkhazia, so who cares? Well it turns out that Washington cares and Moscow cares. The Russians care because letting Georgia into NATO brings the alliance right to Russia's borders. The Americans care because shoehorning Georgia into NATO works geopolitical magic for them. Say what?

Here's the deal. Georgia and Ukraine represent many things to Washington, including the western route for access to the considerable oil and gas reserves of the Caucasus and Caspian Basin. The whole NATO thing is to protect the fossil fuel pipelines from Russian domination and that, in a nutshell, is it. This has sweet Fanny Adam to do with spreading and defending democracy. That's merely the cover story.

Now, once Georgia is squeezed in to the NATO alliance, we all become obliged, under Article 5 of the charter, to come to its aid if it's attacked. Do we really want that obligation? The Italians and the Germans and the French certainly don't like it and neither should Canada.

Go back to the 60's at the height of the Cold War. I doubt NATO back then would have lasted a week if it was infected with a member state that thought it would be dandy to poke a stick in Moscow's eye. But, of course, back then no one would have considered doing precisely what Georgia has shown itself all too willing to resort to today. And that, kids, is why we should tell Georgia - and Washington - thanks but no thanks on NATO membership.

As if we needed a reminder of how unreliable Georgia is, take a look at what happened at their parliamentary commission hearing into this summer's war. Georgia's former envoy to Russia testified that his country, not Russia, started the August war. Erosi Kitsmarishvili caused an uproar on the committee because the Georgian government now wants to pretend that Russia opened the conflict. From BBC News:

Russia was ready for this war, but the Georgian leadership started the military action first," Mr Kitsmarishvili told the commission on Tuesday.

...the former envoy also claimed that Mr Saakashvili told him in March of plans to use force to retake Abkhazia - another Georgia's rebel region.

He said the president had also told him he would move the Georgian capital to Abkhazia's capital, Sukhumi, in August.

This is not a country that has any business belonging to NATO. Sarah Palin may have thought it was just peachy to go to war with Russia over Georgia but, then again, she is Sarah Palin. In fact, if someone like Palin endorses Georgian membership in NATO, that's probably reason enough to say no.

The NATO alliance is under considerably more strain than we're told in our mass media. The Wall Street meltdown has seriously undermined American credibility in Europe and has caused some European leaders, like France's Sarkozy to look for new deals both on global economics and European security. The Western European leaders realize that countries like Georgia are loose cannon, volatile states that they're not really willing to defend in a scrap with Russia.

World Court to Rule on Kosovo Independence

No matter which way the decision goes, it will be a legal ruling with enormous political consequences.

The World Court, formally the International Court of Justice, will hear Serbia's claim that Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence is illegal.

The decision will likely define the limits of self-determination, an issue that goes to the very heart of the Abkhazia and South Ossetia situation where they claim independence from Georgia. It may potentially hold an even greater significance in Ukraine where the pro-Russian population of Crimea, home to the Russian navy's Black Sea base of Sevastopol, wants no part of Ukranian efforts to join NATO.

CBC News reports that a decision isn't expected for two years.

West Playing Into Putin's Hands

Unlike all of our leaders, Vlad Putin is not a nice man. Unlike most of our leaders, Vlad Putin is a shrewd character adept at pulling the levers of power.

When Russia goaded that idiot Saakashvili into bombarding South Ossetia and then retaliated by invading Georgia and, later, recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, our leaders turned bright red and damn near blew up. Russia wasn't going to get away with that, no sir. Why, Russia would feel the sting of our sanctions and, better yet, we were going to boot it right out of the G8 too! That'd set Moscow a reeling.

Or not.

Putin, it seems, has the measure of Russia's vulnerability to Western retaliation - right down to the last kopek. He knows that the consequences, if they materialize at all, will be insignificant compared to the popularity he'll enjoy at home - where it matters.

This isn't just about Georgia or the autonomy of these two, small states. No, it's much bigger than that. It's about Western solidarity and how far that can be stretched.

Europe doesn't want to get caught in the middle of a BushChehney pissing match with the Kremlin. Winter isn't far off and the Euros know that their supply of Russian oil and gas could be the first casualty of American adventurism.

The European Union made the requisite threats of sanctions against Russia but The Guardian reports the EU is now backing away from any action.

Russia's foreign ministry spokesman, Andrey Nesterenko, ...lambasted Nato for "putting pressure" on Russia and said that there could be "irreversible consequences" for stability in Europe. Nato had no "moral right to lecture Russia," he added.

The Kremlin's defiant and unapologetic tone comes ahead of a special EU summit in Brussels on Monday, called by France, to discuss the EU's future relations with Russia. On Thursday, France's foreign minister, Bernard Coucher, intimated that sanctions against Moscow would be discussed.

Yesterday, though, the EU appeared to be rapidly retreating from this position.

Moscow has made clear it will respond to any punitive measures from Brussels, which could include the suspension of a new EU-Russia partnership agreement. "The time to pass sanctions has certainly not come," said a senior diplomat from France, which holds the EU presidency.

Analysts in Moscow today said that Russia's leadership was relatively relaxed about the threat of EU sanctions. "I don't think the contemporary west has any means to punish a state that is not quite a rogue state," Yulia Latynina, a commentator with the independent Echo of Moscow radio station told the Guardian.

She went on: "The Kremlin didn't take Tbilisi and didn't shoot (Mikheil) Saakashvili. What the west can really do — expelling Russia from the G8 or the World Trade Organisation — isn't important.'

Like it or not, the East-West game is only getting started. Yesterday Russia successfully test-fired its new, long-range "stealth" missile, the Topol RS-12M specifically designed to defeat the anti-missile batteries Bush intends to deploy in Poland.

China also stands to get dragged into this standoff via the SCO or Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Putin is seeking SCO support for his gambit on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Iran is also looking to take advantage of the tensions to strengthen its ties with Moscow and seek entry into the SCO. Iran would also like to get its hands on Russia's latest-generation S-400 surface to air missile batteries. The mere rumour of that has already given Washington and Israel fits.

There's a lot at stake in this brinksmanship including the fate of NATO. Without unity the Alliance makes little sense and yet the interests of Western and Central Europe are not in harmony with those of Eastern Europe. In a mutual-defence alliance you should never admit nations you really aren't willing to fight to defend if it comes right down to it.

I think NATO is hopelessly overextended and I think Vlad Putin thinks that too. If I'm right, this problem is bound to get worse before it gets any better.

The Temptation of Vlad Putin

Georgia attacks S. Ossetia. Russia repels invaders. Russia storms Georgia. Ceasefire deal is inked. Russia stays put in Georgia. Washington flies into a tizzy, summons NATO underlings to Brussels. NATO members threaten "sanctions" on Russia. Putin yawns.

What is Vlad Putin's game? I think it's just possible that NATO has presented him with a temptation he can't resist. It may have given Putin the opportunity to test NATO's resolve and explore the tensions that pervade the alliance. Putin may even sense a possible opportunity to fracture NATO's already wobbly solidarity.

Look at it from Vlad's perspective.

1. He knows that the major Western European powers are going along with Washington very reluctantly. They need Russia a lot more than they need or want Georgia. Russia is a main source of Europe's natural gas supply and it's become a vital market for Western European exports.

2. He knows that NATO's eastward expansion through the Balkans and Caucasus has been American-driven and that the US has pretty much ignored its traditional allies' reservations which, incidentally, included the very prospect of a Georgia-style conflict.

3. He knows that NATO has shown itself something of an alliance in name only in Afghanistan with some nations ducking the mission altogether and others placing such severe restrictions on the use of their deployed forces as to undermine their benefit to ISAF.

4. He knows that he can afford to test the waters. If the heat gets too much, all he needs to do is order his mechanized forces to drive back a few hundred kilometers and all will be forgiven.

5. He knows that the Europeans will ensure that NATO's response will be mild at worst. The Washington ideologues may have an appetite for reviving the Cold War but the Euros, who dealt with it in their backyard for half a century, want no part of that.

No, when Nick Sarkozy leveled his "or else" ultimatum, he might just have presented Putin an opportunity he can't refuse to test NATO's heart - and its spine.

Georgia On My Mind

Is NATO overplaying its hand? France's Nick Sarkozy is uttering ominous threats to Russia to get out of Georgia "or else." Condi Rice is convening a meeting of the whole scout troop in Brussels presumably to tell Russia to get out of Georgia "or else."

One ultimatum atop another. Vlad Putin may have a tidy stack of them on his desk before long. I suppose he'll read them. He's pretty shrewd so he'll probably give them some serious thought. After that, however, it's anybody's guess.

The trouble with an ultimatum is that, while they're easy to give, you do risk having to make good the "or else" part. Nick knows that which is why he's completely vague about the consequences France will inflict on Russia if the Kremlin doesn't fold.

The thing with threats is that the person on the receiving end first has to take the measure of the threat and then weigh the sincerity of the threatener. There's an enormous amount of guessing involved which is why these things sometimes go so very wrong.

So, what are we going to threaten Russia with? Is Stephen Harper going to raise an army, or even a division maybe, to send off to fight the Russians? Oh spare me, please. The people of Canada, like the people of Britain and the peoples of Europe have no stomach for clashing with Russia over something as piddling as Saakashvili's Georgia. The last thing America needs is another heavy-lifting job for its already beleaguered, "Stop Loss" hostage army.

What I fear most is that Putin has an accurate measure of the NATO alliance in its current bloated, hapless configuration. Even Afghanistan gives the NATO members the vapours. A shooting war with Russia versus NATO is a joke.

Maybe we'll reinstate the Cold War. We had enough trouble with that during the half century when we were still insanely wealthy and powerful. Actually, in a way, extending NATO to Russia's borders is a continuation of the Cold War the way we like to do things these days - on the cheap. Maybe we'll all go back to chipping in 4% of our GDP to contain Russia like we did in the bad old days. Won't that be fun (buy Lockheed-Martin fast).

The good news is that NATO has Condi Rice to advise them. She's an expert on the Soviet Union and should be on top of all things Russian. Of course her advice to the horde at Brussels won't be based on her academic assessment but in support of the policies devised by Bush and Cheney.

Condi has already had some tough words for Putin telling reporters that, "People are going to begin to wonder if Russia can be trusted." Coming from a key member of a government that no one needs to wonder if it can be trusted, Rice's admonition must be scary indeed to the Kremlin.

Keeping NATO intact was tough enough when we only had to contend with the interests of North Americans and Western Europeans. Tossing the Eastern European nations, with all their problems and baggage, into the mix was just plain dumb. Poland, the Czechs, the Balts and the Hungarians, sure. The rest? Whatever for?

What no one wants to acknowledge is that the extension of NATO to Russia's borders was an act of American neo-conservatism, plain and simple. It was always about poking the bear in the ribs with a sharp stick by extending America's sphere of interest into Russia's own backyard. It was a stupid power grab with predictable consequences.

It's curious that no one is mentioning what may be the greatest risk to our brinksmanship - driving Russia more squarely into a strategic (i.e. anti-West) alliance with China. Does anyone in his right mind think that Georgia is worth that price?

Bush Fiercely Upholding Joe Stalin's Legacy

George w. Bush is demanding that South Ossetia and Abkhazia remain Georgia territories, regardless of the wishes of the Ossetians and Abkhaz. George w. Bush wants to restore the same situation that was imposed on South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin. Yes, that's right, it was the ethnic-Georgian Stalin who pushed the Ossetians and Abkhaz against their will into the arms of Georgia.

From The Independent:

"...Hidden in the lush forest above the coast at Gagra in Abkhazia is a lime-green mansion; one of several dachas built for Joseph Stalin, an ethnic Georgian, along the Abkhaz coastline. He'd come for weeks in the summer, relaxing on the balcony or playing a game of pool with other leading Bolsheviks. It may have been here that Stalin made many of the decisions that scattered and divided nations, and led to many of the conflicts that have flared up since the Soviet Union collapsed. National and ethnic identities were shifted, encouraged or suppressed during different periods. Whole nations were deported to Siberia or the Kazakh steppe, scattered irrevocably like human dust. Borders between the different entities of the union were changed at will, often with the express intention of fomenting ethnic unrest.

In Abkhazia itself, huge numbers of Georgian settlers were moved in; the Abkhaz language was suppressed and the Georgian language was enforced in schools and universities. In fact, many ethnic Abkhaz talk about the Georgian rule over their territory in the same terms that the Georgians themselves talk about Soviet oppression.

While Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin undoubtedly ruthlessly exploit the tensions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it is a foolish mistake to think they created them. Ossetians and Abkhaz remember all too well the aggressive and unpleasant Georgian nationalism during the early 1990s, and have no desire to be part of a Georgian state. Meanwhile, after the wars in both regions at that time, many ethnic Georgians still live as refugees in grim conditions in Tbilisi and other Georgian cities.

The Abkhaz say that all the West's posturing over "territorial integrity" is meaningless – why on earth should arbitrary lines drawn up by Stalin be the basis for statehood in the 21st century? Now that Saakashvili has been humiliated over the South Ossetian conflict, the Abkhaz are more buoyant than ever, and it's hard to see the territory ever becoming part of Georgia again. The threat of conflict will always loom, though, and when the Georgians rebuild their army and country, we can expect to see renewed conflict."

Now, it seems, Canada and the US have announced they're "withdrawing" from a planned NORAD exercise with the Russians. Wait a second, it's a NORAD exercise. WE are NORAD. Isn't this a bit like refusing to attend your own, backyard birthday party?

Stephen Harper, never one to let facts get in his way, told reporters, ""In my judgment, this is a very worrisome development. It really indicates a Soviet-era mentality. "

The Ossetian and Abkhaz people have endured a century of intermittent fighting with neighbouring Georgia. Read the history and then ask yourself if we're really backing the Good Guys in this one or maybe just honouring the legacy of Joseph Stalin.

Fresh Out of Statesmen, Awash In Ideologues

Who will negotiate with Russian strongman Vlad Putin? It won't be Georgia's Saakashvili. He's finished. It will probably take some sort of intermediary, a stand-in for Georgia, and that would be?

The Russia-Georgia conflict cries out for statesmen but, sadly, all we've got right now are ideologues and it shows. Ideologues are at their very worst in situations like this. They have little credibility and less persuasiveness. They're often one-trick ponies. When they run up against a nation that's not vulnerable to their coercion, we usually find that ideologues revert to angry denunciation and hollow gestures - tantrums, foot-stamping.

Unfortunately for our side, Vlad Putin is a hard case. When it comes to negotiators that pretty much rules out the Bushies or the Brownies. The Guardian suggests our intermediary might be Sarkozy.

What's unclear is just what is to be negotiated. Here we may run into considerable asymmetry. What Russia is after may be a far more expansive than what Georgia wants or what Europe wants.

From Moscow's perspective, Georgia may be a metaphor for its greater struggle against a steadily encroaching NATO. If the Russians can't roll back recent NATO expansion into the Balkan and Caucasus regions, it may still serve Russian interests to sow doubts about the alliance and the security it truly offers among NATO's new, eastern members.

Would NATO truly defend Romania against Russia? What do you think? Of course what I think and what you think doesn't matter. What's important to Putin is the impression left in the minds of those in places like Sofia and Bucharest, Kiev and Riga.

Georgia's Saakashvili was playing a bluff when he attacked South Ossetia. He's not stupid. He must have expected a different outcome than what he's facing just a week later. What's not clear is why. It will be fascinating when, months from now, Saakashvili spills the beans about why he pulled the trigger without noticing the gun was pointed at his own head.

A disastrous military adventure leading to the permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will surely spell the end of Saakashvili's political future. It will also at least somewhat destabilize eastern Europe. America, after all, is in no position to reinstate Cold War-style militarization through this region.

What we probably won't see anytime soon are the ripples now being felt by the NATO alliance. Whether Washington or Brussels wish to acknowledge it, NATO has suffered strains and at least hairline fractures over Afghanistan. There were some members who were uncomfortable with Bush's stampede to expand the alliance into eastern Europe. The Georgia debacle will do nothing to ease those concerns and doubts.

Russia now says it will halt its blitz into Georgia short of Tbilisi. It's also said it won't recognize Saakashvili. Probably everybody agrees on that one. Imagine Saakashvili sitting at the table and signing off on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He'd be hanging from a light post within weeks.

So an outsider will do the negotiating for Georgia and, by implication, for the rest of Europe and (to some extent) NATO itself. Sarkozy? Perhaps but he too is an ideologue, not a statesman. The risk to that is that ideologues will probably see this as a simple question of Georgia and a couple of autonomous regions to be stripped from the loser. That's an approach that would thrill Putin if only because it leaves all of the greater issues and his future options unmentioned and wide open.

We'd do well not to let the ramifications of this fiasco escape us. This isn't an isolated matter. To Putin and the Kremlin it's a couple of moves that may have a telling effect later in this chess game.

Okay, Hit Him With Your Purse

Western nations are keen to find some tangible role in unwinding the conflict between Russia and Georgia. One right-winger writing in The Times advocated giving Georgia quick admission into NATO. Another pundit, writing in The Guardian, suggests threatening to pull Russia's seat at the G8 - a tactic already endorsed by John McCain.

What to do, what to do? Here's a suggestion (and you knew I'd have one). How about we start by realizing that we've overplayed our hand? We (that is to say our Leader of the Free World, George w. Bush) decided to ram NATO's borders right up to Russia's doorstep. The logic behind that was always pretty fuzzy as was the actual committment behind it. Putting anti-missile missiles and radar systems on Russia's doorstep while pretending they were intended to defend against rogue missiles from Iran was another silly, red-meat provocation.

You have to work extremely hard to ignore the history of warfare over the past two centuries enough not to realize that certain actions tend to have quite predictable and proven results. One of these actions is to encircle and contain a major power. By turns, this sort of thing has sparked wars in Europe and elsewhere. A major player, seeing itself being hemmed in, turns paranoid and lashes out. Call it human nature if you like.

And that's exactly what Bush has been attempting - the encirclement of both Russia and China. Driving the world's paramount military alliance headed by the world's sole superpower right up to Red Square is an act of provocation and nothing but. Enlisting India to flank and contain China and threaten her oil routes to the Middle East is another blatant act of provocation. Maybe if the United States was looking at another half-century as the dominant industrial economy on the planet these options might be somewhat more viable. But America is in decline while the BRIC nations are in ascendancy.

Then there's the rationale for NATO. Did we really need Slovakia or Romania in NATO? What on earth for? Are they rushing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us in Afghanistan? Of course not. They get let into NATO, NATO issues an urgent plea for help from its member states, and they say "forget it." Huh?

My guess is that the eastern European states will be as reliable as NATO members as they were as members of the Warsaw Pact. Worse yet, this Georgian stunt demonstrates that they can do some rash, even dangerously stupid things that could have serious repercussions for a mutual-defence alliance like NATO.

We've overplayed our hand and the Russians have seen our bet and called.

Sometimes there are no miracle solutions. This is one of those times.

Washington accuses Russia of trying to force regime change on Georgia. Memo to Washington - that's not such a bad idea. The increasingly authoritarian Saakashvili blew it. It's not just the Russians who can never trust him again. On the trust issue, we're in the same boat. We need to send a clear message to the Georgians and to the leaders of the newly-minted NATO membership that there's no room within the alliance for adventurism (except, of course, the American type).

As for Moscow, well there's not a lot we can do. Sending forces into Georgia is so stupid even Cheney won't go there. Forget about the Security Council. Sanctions? It turns out the West needs Russia more than they need us. The last thing we need to do is to drive Russia away from the West and more closely into economic, political and military co-operation with the Chinese.

No, the outcome of the Georgian-Russian conflict won't be of our making. Nor will it resolve our provocations of Moscow or Russia's suspicion of Western intentions. Worse yet, America still has the Frat Boy while Russia sends Putin to the chess table.

If there are any lessons to be learned from this debacle, any gain to be had, maybe it's to understand the urgent need to defuse tensions between Russia and the West, even if that means backing down a notch.

First Ossetia, Next Abkhazia? Georgia Reels.

Poor Mikheil Saakashvili. The Georgian president truly opened a can of worms when he launched a military attack on South Ossetia earlier this week.

What was he thinking? By firing an artillery and rocket barrage on the Ossetian capital, he brought Georgian forces into direct conflict with Russian forces monitoring a ceasefire between the Ossetians and Georgians.

It was a pretty blatant provocation of the Russians and was bound to inflame separatist fury among the Ossetians. It was also pretty obvious that Georgia's armed forces had no chance of holding their own against the Russian army.

Georgia has long had problems with two minority regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, problems that have seen periodic armed clashes. Now, with South Ossetia in open revolt and Georgian forces driven out by the Russians, Abkhazia is also ratcheting up its separatist demands. With Russian fighters and bombers in support, Abkhazia is moving to drive Georgian forces out of their territory and it appears to be succeeding.

When Milosovich sent Serbian forces against Kosovo, NATO responded with a bombing campaign against the Serbs. When Saakashvili sent his forces to seize Ossetia, Russia responded with a bombing campaign against Georgian targets.

Did Saakashvili gamble that his attack on Ossetia would bring NATO or American military backing? If so he showed himself to be naive and dangerously naive at that. It was a reckless stunt with far-reaching consequences.

To several European nations, Saakashvili's rash actions will be seen as clear justification of their objections to Georgia's admission into NATO. They've already had their fill of "shoot'em up" cowboys in the White House and have no appetite for a mini-Bush in Tbilisi who could trigger a NATO/Russia showdown. Bush's warm embrace of Saakashvili won't cut much ice with the Europeans.

Will America send the cavalry to Georgia's rescue? It's hard to imagine Washington doing that. With its forces bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan the last thing the Pentagon needs is any military action that could ratchet up tensions with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Iran, maybe. Russia and China? Over Ossetia or even Abkhazia? Forget it.

I expect the best Washington can do at this point is to extract Georgia from this silliness as intact as possible. That may mean yielding sovereignty to South Ossetia and perhaps even to Abkhazia.
As for Saakashvili, it may be over for him, both at home and abroad. He precipitated an armed conflict with a resurgent, regional superpower that no one wanted and, worse, he lost, crying "uncle" within two days. He acted without the knowledge or support of his Western backers. He has severely undermined Georgia's prospects with NATO. If he loses even South Ossetia, Georgian opposition politicians will serve him up for dinner.