Wait, don't we need to step once more into the breech and point out that having conservative ideologues run our foreign policy for 8 years has helped get the world in this position?

Responsible diplomacy could have been addressing the concerns of Russia, Georgia, S. Ossetia over the years. Or at least providing a forum.

And it is hard for US diplomats to counsel caution and reason to Saakashvili when US foreign policy has been almost completely lacking caution and reason. And now we have McCain bellowing and trying to kick Russia out of the G8 when we have no arrows in our quiver whatsoever.

The situation in Asia is a result of a neocon approach to foreign policy. McCain want more of that. I don't think we should have much trouble staying on that message.

Like the Great Unwashed Masses are keeping score anyway. Half of America probably was ready to go to war when they first heard, until they learned that there was a country called Georgia and that this wasn't some early 21st Century version of The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming (which at least half of the Great Unwashed Masses have never heard of either).

We got no dog in this fight. Georgia no more belongs in NATO than Turkey belongs in the EU.

But there wasn't a pipeline running through Czechoslovakia (or the Danzig Corridor), was there?

And I don't know that boundaries drawn up in the time of the Tsars are really inviolate.

How about a UN-adminstered plebicite? Might set a useful precedent.

To add to the confusion, both Foreman and Robbins appear to think that one way of showing solidarity with Georgia would be to fast-track their application to join NATO.

Right, because Foreman and Robbins think "joining NATO" only means "finger in the eye of Russia," because they've forgotten that if Georgia were a member of NATO RIGHT NOW, we'd be at war with Russia RIGHT NOW.

NATO isn't a sewing circle, guys.
.

Oh, Georgia isn't going away, Kevin, oh no, no, no.
No, Russia isn't seeking to wipe the existing state of Georgia out at all, not at all, oh no, that would be totally counter productive.
No, what Russia is doing is reigning in a recaltriant former Soviet Satellite, and bringing it back into the fold.
Welcome back to the USSR, baby!

Another George W. Bush legacy we all will have to deal with; watching the rebirth of the USSR.

His dad waved goodbye to it, and now the son welcomes it back home.
Good job there Georgie, now we're back to the Cold War...f'ing eh, WASF!

But doesn't this convert the guys over at the Corner into bunch of sissy, weenie, elitist, euro-tool Neville Chamberlains?

Speaking of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, it's worth noting that this route is uneconomic and needed a lot of concessionary financing from the World Bank, EBRD, etc. The route to Turkey was chosen because Azerbaijan needed an alternative to Russia's pipeline network, and was under tremendous Western pressure not to choose the cheaper option of exports via Iran. Supporting Georgia's autonomy from Russia was a consideration as well.

Now that autonomy is looking like a dead letter, and there's very little we can do about it -- again, mainly because of the nuclear question in Iran, which makes some degree of Western cooperation with Russia essential. Putin sees all this perfectly clearly.

(By the way, I think Kevin is looking a little too narrowly at the Corner for conservative reactions. If you check out Instapundit or Pajamas Media, you see the usual reflex: bashing Obama for being soft on tyranny. But I have to assume that won't last long. Eventually they'll see how difficult the Iranian angle makes this, regardless of who wins in November.)

You know, it would do well to remember that Russia is a country with thousands of nuclear weapons? Fusion wepons? On top of ICBMs capable of reaching and destroying in a matter of minutes every major city in the US?
It's been a source of amazement that the World War IV guys on the right just blanked out on Russia. Iran? Oo! Oo! Oo! Might have 1 bomb in a few years!
Well, now we have a REAL power letting slip the dogs of war, and suddenly, with REAL dangers--and they're gormless.

I think a lot of conservatives, not all, have a strange respect for Putin and his version of Russia. I think they secretly wish that Bush were a lot more like his Eurasian counterpart. They like the unbridled use of brute force, the disdain for democratic values, the unregulated market -- all that good stuff. These are the same people who loved the Serbians during the Clinton years.

Strangely, it's the far right, not the far left, that acts as an apologist for the evil empire.

Why worry? George W. McCain knows how to solve all these problems. He will have them sit down in Leningrad and emphatically ask them to stop this bullshit.

If this has anything to do with domestic US politics it's about our role in the war of roses. We helped Russia deal with Shevardnadze, boasted about our influence, and encouraged his successor to play west off east. Georgia would have been a restless place anyway but I think they could have ridden the line a little better if western diplomats were less keen on creating their own reality.

Otherwise this isn't about liberals or conservatives in the U S of A.

And when troops cross international borders feel free to consider as many historical analogs as you like. This isn't a discussion about private schools or infidelity where Godwin's law applies absolutely.

If this has anything to do with domestic US politics it's about our role in the war of roses. We helped Russia deal with Shevardnadze, boasted about our influence, and encouraged his successor to play west off east. Georgia would have been a restless place anyway but I think they could have ridden the line a little better if western diplomats were less keen on creating their own reality.

Otherwise this isn't about liberals or conservatives in the U S of A.

And when troops cross international borders feel free to consider as many historical analogs as you like. This isn't a discussion about private schools or infidelity where Godwin's law applies absolutely.

"The situation in Asia is a result of a neocon approach to foreign policy."
__________________

How so? Do you mean the US would not have encouraged any of the ex-Soviet states to seek democracy? How would we have done anything different?

We've been boxing them (Russia) in for years. With 99% of our people paying no attention, and simply dismissing Russian complaints as mere whining. Now we see that not paying attention to an issue, cedes policy to our foreign policy powers that be. And these guys recent track record is so awful, that we can't allow them to blunder on unchecked.

So the fault lies in three places, Washington, Moscow, and Tiblisi. We need to avoid the temptation to make propaganda based upon some short term considerations.

lol @ pbg

Name one conservative who has been an apologist for Putin's regime. Name one, or STFU forever.

The Caucusus are a powder keg waiting to blow and if the US gets involved it will be a no-win situation that makes our invasion of Iraq look brilliant.

S. Ossetia has only a token Muslim population, but neighboring autonomous and semi-autonomous republics such as Dagestan, Ingushetia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Chechnya, etc. have more significant Muslim populations and have been fighting Wahhabism for over a decade now. All of the Caucusus lead in to the Central Asian Republics, where support for the US is tenuous at best and where there is a lot of potential oil that Gazprom is trying to keep control over.

A few short years ago, Chechnya was a central battlefield for international Jihad movement and was the training ground for many who are fighting and organizing in Iraq today. If the US steps into S. Ossetia on the side of the Georgians, putting us at loggerheads with the Russians, it won't bring any of the Jihadis over to our side, they will gladly sit on the sidelines and watch the two great armies destroy each other just before they make their push for control in the neighboring republics. If we continue on to get involved in the Muslim areas, trying to help the moderate Muslims, we will find ourselves bogged down in a situation that will make Iraq look like a cake walk. The area around the Caspian Sea which has what promise to be some of the richest oil reserves in the world, will become destabilized and $250/barrel oil will be right around the bend, especially after we start fighting the Wahhabis who are largely supported by the Saudis.

And that is what might be in store if we side against the Russians. If we side with the Russians in any of this, our standing in the Muslim world will actually sink lower than it already is.

There just isn't a side we can take in this mess that doesn't have a downside that vastly outweighs any possible upside. That being the case, the best we can do is go back to the days of T. Roosevelt and speak softly and carry a big stick. The best we can contribute in the region is diplomacy...and the more of it the better.

The neocons sold Georgia a bill of goods. There's no way the US would risk WWIII with Russia over Georgia. And the Georgians are just starting to realize that.

Their sense of betrayal by the US is growing. All of their efforts to become a freedom-loving westernized Democracy cozying up to the west, even sending troops to Iraq, was for nothing. Because when it comes down to it, even the neocons don't want direct war with Russia.

Sure it was fun to encourage them to tease the bear, but when the bear attacks, they quietly turn their backs and walk away.

Here's a good article from 2005 predicting much of what has occurred: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3425&l=1

Right, because Foreman and Robbins think "joining NATO" only means "finger in the eye of Russia," because they've forgotten that if Georgia were a member of NATO RIGHT NOW, we'd be at war with Russia RIGHT NOW.

Not unless the North Atlanatic Treaty was amended, since none of the places where Russia has attacked Georgia are in Europe, North America, Turkey, the Algerian Departments of France, or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer, or the Mediterranean Sea.

The North Atlantic Treaty isn't exactly a normal, universal mutual defence pact.

Well, there was the current US President who "looked into his soul."

We don't really have the moral high ground in asking Russia not to invade and occupy a country that posed no threat, do we? We also have no money or political influence any more, thanks to Bush, to do anything meaningful, short of launching nukes.

In short, we are totally fucked, thanks to a reckless, short-sighted Republiican Administration.

freedom_lover, some mainstream conservatives respect Putin, I know them, they've told me. I'm talking average people, not pols (who knows what they really believe). As for the far right, the creationist Discovery Institute has been oddly supportive of Putin. Check out their Web site.

Why would S. Ossetia not be worthy of US protection from Georgia?

None of the places where Russia has attacked Georgia are in Europe...

Tell that to UEFA.

"The neocons sold Georgia a bill of goods."
_____________________

Again, what bill of goods? Are you saying that non-neocons would not have encouraged Georgia to seek democracy? That non-neocons would not have sought closer ties with Georgia? Or is this just one of those everybody-knows-neocons-are-bad kinda posts?

Name one conservative who has been an apologist for Putin's regime. Name one, or STFU forever.

George W Bush -- or have his multiple failures led to his being airbrushed out of the Conservative Pantheon?

Bush was supportive of Georgia's entry into NATO. That means he was willing to make it U.S. policy to come that nation's defense when it was attacked. That sent a strong signal that the U.S. would act if Georgia was threatened. Instead, when invaded, the president goofed it up in Beijing.

A serious leader would of let the Georgian leadership know that the U.S. was not in a position to offer much serious support. NATO membership should never of been publically entertained. That served only to encourage the Georgians, piss off the Russians, and humiliate the U.S.

I suspect Bush supporters secretly admire Russia's aggressive, "gloves off" approach to Georgian provacations.
For these folks, glory can only be found in raw, unchecked power. Anything less is appeasement.
So the Freedom's Defenders are left with two bad choices: either advocate war with Russia or advocate for some kind of international settlment.
I expect few pundits will support the first choice. To oppose Russia's actions, in a way, would be to stand against the more exciting, strength-affirming elements of the Bush Doctrine. And remember bullies never want to exchange blows with a worthy opponent. They want clean shots.
The second option is worse yet. One can only imagine the emasculation these warriors would suffer if they had to advocate on behalf of international meddling.
Best to let Russia roll on, otherwise the French, Chamberlain and Kerry win.
Could any fate be worse?

Do you mean the US would not have encouraged any of the ex-Soviet states to seek democracy?

Georgia is not seeking democracy in S. Ossetia. The US has not done anything to encourage democracy in any of the ex-Soviet states. The US supports dictators who torture their own people in order to install energy pipelines for Exxon and to establish US military bases in their countries with which to attack Afghanistan and Iran.

I woke up listening to the NPR report on the situation in Georgia, this included a report of the Russian media reports of the situation. Also NPR interviews with ordinary Russians about the situation. The reporting in Russia and the attitude of its citizens sounded eerily similar to the reporting of the American media and attitude of ordinary Americans in March 2003.

I agree with G. Powell, hard conservatives and especially the neocons loves themselves some Putin, as he wields Unitary Executive powers like they wish Dear Leader did. They all get woodies just thinking about it. And, he really knows how to take out terrorists (never mind the bystanders). Besides, nothing wrong with going from communism to oligarchy, haven't they been heading us that way from the opposite direction?

About Georgia, they're probably thinking, "Let this be a lesson, Mexico."

Again, what bill of goods? Are you saying that non-neocons would not have encouraged Georgia to seek democracy? That non-neocons would not have sought closer ties with Georgia? Or is this just one of those everybody-knows-neocons-are-bad kinda posts?

Nope, it means that the neocons enjoyed using Georgia as a means to antagonize Russia....knowing full well that when push came to shove the US would be unwilling to do anything about it.

And this is not about "encouraging ex-Soviet states to seek democracy", Georgia was already an independent Democratic state, and has been since the early 90's, and was not under threat of being invaded until they decided to risk their republic over a region that itself was seeking independence, was already autonomous with its own functioning government, and that doesn't want to be a part of Georgia.

Do you think Georgia would have taken such a risk if they didn't think the US had their back? Hell no...as Saakashvili said, they are not crazy. They were just misled as to the degree of US backing they had. Unfortunately for Georgia, Russia knew the score.

"Name one conservative who has been an apologist for Putin's regime. Name one, or STFU forever."

Okay,

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

"He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said."

So, yeah, there you go, and oh, btw, stfu.

"Nope, it means that the neocons enjoyed using Georgia as a means to antagonize Russia."
___________________

Well, I suppose you know this because you've spoken to them. Still, you haven't said what it was that neocons (however defined) did with respect to Georgia that non-neocons (likewise not defined) would not have done. I don't claim to know why the Georgians did what they did or even who started it. It's entirely possible they were suckered into action.

But nevermind. When the next Administration takes over, all will be just fine, presumably because nobody will call themselves neocons and that will make all the difference.

William Irvingson Kristol has a problem. The Russia-Georgia war didn't break out on the watch of the Bill Clinton or Barack Obama administrations; it broke out on his guys' watch. His guys have no f'ing idea what to do about it. Neither does he. So he makes mock-heroic noises without blaming anyone in particular, or his guys in general, for what has gone wrong and without suggesting what ought to be done.

This makes me sick. Based on the Bushco's on policies, doesn't their "post 911" mindset require us to take some action? Bush has not only weakened every aspect of American might, he's now watching Russia return to it's Soviet past. I think at this point he truly has repudiated everything Bush 41 did or stood for. It's also ironic that this administration filled with so many "Cold War" experts (C. Rice are you listening?) have completely dropped the ball on an ascendant Russia.

I find it amazing that Conservatives still unwaveringly support this man. He's failed in every aspect of foreign policy. He's weakened our military, our diplomacy and our global influence. He's abandoned our allies and allowed former adversaries to reassert themselves. This man has done more to destroy Conservatives own visions of American superiority than any delusions of screaming Islamic hordes could ever do.

AFAIC if Russia is allowed to continue with it's aggression in Georgia, there will almost certainly be another Russian military intervention in Eastern Europe. The Baltics, Ukraine, take your pick. At this point thanks to Bush I don't really know what our options are. I would bet though if faced with military retaliation Russia would stop in their tracks.

It's inexcusable that we look just as weak and phony as we did when Hungary fell in '56 and Czechoslovakia did in '68.

Kevin sounds very reasonable here, not jumping to conclusions. Is he joking when he calls Kristol a sensible moderate? What does he mean with the last sentence: "But if you don't think we should go to war, the implications of treachery are a little hard to take."

In any event, I think we generally exagerate our potential influence on Russia in a situation like this (or other countires in comparable situations). Countries act in their perceived self interest, which is another reason why Obama's argument about how he would significantly affect the conduct of foreign countries is pure pr and not realistic. Foreign countries help us when they perceive that their self interest aligns with helping us or we have some leverage over them.

In Georgia, absent direct military aid, in the short term Russia can and will do what it perceives to be in its own self interest. We can attempt to influence it only by threatening direct or indirect military support of Georgia or finding other threats that would concern Russia enough for it to take them into account.

Umm, "sensible moderate Bill Kristol" - I can assume you are being sarcastic, but maybe a wink or something for the non-regulars would clarify your perspective, Kevin.