With a full-scale war being fought right next to a pipeline that supposedly carries 1% of all the world's oil, why hasn't oil spiked?

What's wrong with saying, it's a bad situation?

The USA will use its influence to mitigate the human suffering, but it's unrealistic to think that application of U.S. military force will improve things for Georgian and Russian civilians on the ground. And intervention would create problems for the United States that don't exist now.

This isn't the same as saying Russia can do as it pleases in its sphere of influence. This is merely acknowledging the reality of the limitation of military force.

We're still proud to be the "reality-based community", right?

How about "spheres of influence beats war with Russia". Forget the fancy philosophy, that's what it boils down to.

So either you believe in the sphere of influence brand of realpolitik or you favor declaring war on Russia over Georgia? Is that the choice Farrell is giving us?

Or is it broader than this? Is he saying that any time two countries get into a military conflict that we must chose a side?

I really don't follow the logic. Every conflict is different. Sometimes we have vital interests at stake. Sometimes we don't. Is Farrell willing to die to keep South Osetia forever a part of the Republic of Georgia then by all means let him enlist in the Georgian army, but he can keep me and the United States out of it.

Our army is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just what can we do about Russian aggression in Georgia? Sanctions maybe? Really, we want oil prices to go higher? Frankly this development is frightening. We don't even have trustworthy foreign policy thinkers in either the Whitehouse or State Department. Putin has picked his time and mark well.

Ron Byers: Putin has picked his time and mark well.

In other words, their neocons are better than our neocons. I coulda told you that.

How exactly is what Russia demands different from the Monroe Doctrine? Last I checked, the US hadn't formally ended that (cf Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada).

It's an interesting post, but I had a few issues with it. The first is that it's not very prescriptive. The only real conclusion it seems to make is that full recognition of Kosovo's independence was a mistake. That may be true, but that's not a lot of help in the current situation, unless the fellows at Crooked Timber have figured out how to create a time machine. Also, while not formally recognizing Kosovo would have helped the US and Europe rhetorically, I'm not sure that would have made a very big difference. I think Russia most likely still would have done whatever it wanted, rhetorical high ground or not, and we still would have lacked leverage. (And, at the very least, Russia would have argued for the same non-formal quasi-autonomy for South Ossetia that was afforded Kosovo.)

The other problem is that while I'm not a proponent of "spheres of influence", a border/control dispute on the Russian border is clearly going to have more effect on Russia than it is us. I don't think we'd be any likelier to accept Russian or international intervention in Baja California, especially if it cut against our interests, than they would here. While their actions might be questionable, Russia does seem to have a pretty legitimate horse in this race. And none of that is changed because we don't like Russia's anti-democratic tendencies or expansionist goals. And when you get down to it, Russia's always going to be willing to do more and risk more to defend it's position with respect to Georgia than we are. That reality alone is going to pretty much define your spheres.

I'm not sure what Henry Farrell's trying to say. I would argue that many liberals believe in "sphere of influence" geopolitics, while also acknowledging that there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do right now.

As Ron Byers and others have pointed out, we're kind of tied down with wars of our own in the ME. That makes any threats we make completely empty. I'm assuming Henry Farrell supported the war in Iraq, to which we realists can honestly say, "We told you so."

Ron Byers: Putin has picked his time and mark well.

In other words, their neocons are better than our neocons. I coulda told you that. Posted by: alex

There is no equivalent to neo-conservatism in Russia. Sphere of influence/realpolitik has been Russian-Soviet-Russian policy for about four-hundred years now. Georgia was a part of Russia and the Soviet Union for longer than it had ever existed as an independent state of any kind.

>"Ron Byers: Putin has picked his time and mark well."

So did Bin Laden. "The American Colossus is now mired with one foot in Afghanistan and one foot in Iraq".

What Ron Byers said. We're in no position to do s*** about this, whether we believe in democratization, militarization, spheres of influence, or what.

But look: the implications of this Russian adventure aren't that great. Georgia has about 5 million citizens, and is about the size of West Virginia. Even if Russia decided to swallow Georgia entire, how well would that work if they tried to pull the same stunt on Ukraine, which is the size of Texas and has 45 million residents?

I'm missing the part of the logic that says we've got to stop the Russki's here, or else they'll reconquer a whole bunch of countries.

The Monroe Doctrine defined a sphere of influence for the US. I'm guessing that if anyone but the British invaded a South or Central American country the US would have something to say about it.

Boy, it sure looked like Bush got played on this one. While 43 was joking with Putin in the VIP section at the Olympics' opening ceremonies and getting photo ops with the beach volleyball girlz Vlad was on his cell phone asking Medvedev how the invasion of America's Iraq war ally was going.

I read there are 100 US military advisors in Georgia advising the Georgian army. Sounds like Georgia didn't get such good advice about invading Ossetia. Why didn't the Americans -- or someone -- say to Saakashvili, "What the fuck are you thinking?"

Maybe we should re-position the 100 American military advisers in Georgia to Iraq to compensate for the loss of Georgia's 2,000 soldiers.

Jeff II: There is no equivalent to neo-conservatism in Russia.

Think "figure of speech", in pursuit of making a point.

Georgia was a part of Russia and the Soviet Union for longer than it had ever existed as an independent state of any kind.

No, Georgia was independent for about 800 years, and a part of the Russian/Soviet empire for about 200.

The whole post is long but worth reading.

As are his knowledgeable readers, who are rightly taking him to task for a too abstract reading of both the situation and the texts he's criticizing.

We aren't establishing norms, here. The Russians just did that for us.

We are weaker than we were fifteen years ago. The Russians are stronger than they were fifteen years ago. So, the days of rolling back Russia's "near abroad" just to spite them are pretty much over, and Russia has decided to negotiate with violence.

Upshot: give them what they want or join a very nasty conversation.

I hope our giggling little neocons with their maps and conferences and rubber-chicken dinners are very pleased with themselves, because their game is fucking over.

But, I was totally wrong about NATO's collective defense arrangement earlier, so what the fuck do I know?
.

Russia sees the spread of democratization as a threat to its control of the 'Near Abroad.'

Then they shouldn't have any problem with our backing dictatorships in other former Soviet republics.

Boy, it sure looked like Bush got played on this one.

Nah. Remember, Bush has peered into Putin's eyes, managed to get a quick glimpse of his soul, and has taken the full measure of the little bastard (Putin, I mean). Bush has known for a long time that this would happen. You can read Putin's soul like a book.

Bush will sort things out.

Before everyone gets all excited about democratization: if anyone asked the people in those separatist provinces of Georgia what they want, and whether they wanted Georgia to try to forcibly end their autonomy, it wouldn't have been good news for the pro-Western government. That's not to say that Putin's a good guy, but given what we did in Kosovo, the argument for maintaining the border of Georgia just as Stalin set it up isn't very strong.

Best to try to get the fighting to stop, restore the status quo before August (when the separatists had de facto independence) and talk about what a settlement should look like. But we can't let the Russians impose their will by force! some will say. Tell that to Grenada, Panama, Chile, and others.

Why didn't the Americans -- or someone -- say to Saakashvili, "What the fuck are you thinking?"

One more reason to go for Obama in November.

Georgia was independent for about 800 years, and a part of the Russian/Soviet empire for about 200.
Posted by: alex

A unified Georgia dates from the 11th Century but after the 13th Century it had pretty much disintegrated into semi-autonomous principalities. From then on it was under the thumb of foreign empires until gained it's independence from the crumbling Soviet Union in 1991.

http://members.tripod.com/ggdavid/georgia/history.htm

Then they shouldn't have any problem with our backing dictatorships in other former Soviet republics.

If you hated the [COLOR] Revolution, you'll lllooovvveee Islam Karimov!
.

"Bush has known for a long time that this would happen. You can read Putin's soul like a book.

Bush will sort things out." -- JM

If Bush was aware that the Russians would invade Georgia what a way to treat an ally providing the third largest contingent of soldiers in Iraq. How utterly cynical and passive.

Bush could have prevented thousands of unnecessary deaths by more active diplomatic intervention before Georgia's incursion into Ossetia.

Then again, JM, you could be full of shit. Just how do you think Bush will "sort things out?" By paying lip service to peace and democracy while letting Georgia become a Russian satellite puppet?

"I'm missing the part of the logic that says we've got to stop the Russki's here, or else they'll reconquer a whole bunch of countries."

How about the fact that Russia, or any country for that matter, invading /any/ country and toppling a democratically-elected government is a bad thing?

Jeff II: A unified Georgia dates from the 11th Century but after the 13th Century it had pretty much disintegrated into semi-autonomous principalities. From then on it was under the thumb of foreign empires until gained it's independence from the crumbling Soviet Union in 1991.

Well, we could quibble about how many provinces it takes to make an independent Georgia, it's true status under the Mongols, the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921), yada, yada, yada.

Nevertheless the basic point still stands - Georgia is not some made-up country, and it has not been under the Russian thumb for most of its history. Nor does most of the place have any great desire to be under the Russian thumb again.

Just how do you think Bush will "sort things out?"

I think JM was being sarcastic.

"I'm missing the part of the logic that says we've got to stop the Russki's here, or else they'll reconquer a whole bunch of countries."

Exactly. Remember the domino theory? How well did that work out for the old US of A?
What is it about America that breeds such brain dead interpretations of what's happening in other countries?

Yeah, sorry pj, I was just joking around.

"Our army is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just what can we do about Russian aggression in Georgia?"
________________________

The same thing we'd do if we were not engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan - almost nothing.

That doesn't mean we've given up on our belief that democracy is for all peoples and it doesn't mean we won't condemn unjustified agression. It just acknowledges the limits of what we can do when the other side has already grabbed the initiative.

It just acknowledges the limits of what we can do when the other side has already grabbed the initiative.
Posted by: trashhauler

Yeah ... ever since WWII, I've noticed an aversion for America to tackle an actual opponent its own size. Much easier to destroy pissant third world countries like Vietnam and Iraq.

"That doesn't mean we've given up on our belief that democracy is for all peoples and it doesn't mean we won't condemn unjustified agression."

Really. I missed the announcement that the US government condemned the invasion of Iraq. If there ever was a fscking unjustified aggression in human history this is it, as evidenced by the on-going stream of evidence on the subject.

Nevertheless the basic point still stands - Georgia is not some made-up country,. . .

Never said it was. That would be Israel. But that's a topic for another thread.

. . . and it has not been under the Russian thumb for most of its history.

Over the course of it's history, Russia and the Soviet Union controlled Georgia for as long as any other foreign power and for a longer period of time than "greater" Georgia existed as a unified sovereign state. Georgia was a satellite/vassal/possession, whatever you'd like to call it, of Russia from 1783 until 1991, and had been otherwise under foreign control to one degree or another for the previous 400 year or so.

And as the region of Ossestia has been under Georgian rule even longer than Georgia has ever been subjugated (900 year or so), it seems that Ossestia and the Russians are the real problem.

Nor does most of the place have any great desire to be under the Russian thumb again.
Posted by: alex

Assuredly. But you're still wrong about its history.

JM -- Now I get your point. Sorry, I sometimes don't see sarcasm in print. I think we're actually in agreement.

I can't stop thinking what must have been on Putin's mind while he sat their in the Olympic Stadium next to President Bush while Russian troops were marching into Georgia.

Was he thinking, "Hey, we've got it under control with these Americans" or "This guy is dimmer than a 10 watt bulb" ? Either way it doesn't flatter President Bush.

"I've noticed an aversion for America to tackle an actual opponent its own size. Much easier to destroy pissant third world countries like Vietnam and Iraq."
_______________

You say that like it's a particular American fault. It isn't, of course. The Great Game has never been played by schoolboy rules, especially when there are nukes involved. For what it's worth, America has always been far more likely to use our own troops than most large powers.

"For what it's worth, America has always been far more likely to use our own troops than most large powers."

WTF are you talking about?
(And you are including the mercenary-driven adventure in Iraq in this claim?)

"...and it doesn't mean we won't condemn unjustified agression."

"Really. I missed the announcement that the US government condemned the invasion of Iraq."
____________________

That's because we didn't view the invasion of Iraq as unjustified. Simple, really, superficial contradiction notwithstanding.

Want to take odds on how long it will take South Ostetia and Abkhazia to be formally reabsorbed back into Russia? You can take a side bet on the rest of Georgia.

For what it's worth, America has always been far more likely to use our own troops than most large powers.
Posted by: trashhauler

That you are less of a pussy than other bullies is damning with faint praise, indeed.

eosten--
Do you all not understand how wars work? You don't get to attack a nation 40 times your size and the say 'just kidding'. That has never happened in the history of the world. Saakashvili is DOA. He'll be working at the Heritage foundation in 6 months. He knew what he was getting into and decided to do it anyway. That was the height of irresponsibility. It doesn't matter that Saakashvili is "democratically-elected". Don't you get it? He just started a war with Russia. He can't say "just kidding" now.Starting a war with Russia equals regime change. His regime.

Do you all understand how absolutely crazy Saakashvili's actions were? Do you really want this unstable man in charge of a strategically-placed nation? This man who obviously has inherited his national prediliction for a martyrdom complex? Why do you want to see this man continue in power?

"That you are less of a pussy than other bullies is damning with faint praise, indeed."
_________________

Geez, then maybe you shouldn't go into the military or become the leader of a world power. You're probably too macho for those guys.

trashhauler--
Russia does not want to rule Georgia directly. No one would want to. But I think you may be right that Ossetia and Abkhazia will be reabsorbed into the Russian Federation. Wars sometimes change official boundaries to match de facto boundaries. I imagine the Ossetians aren't too keen on the status quo arrangement after just being shelled by the Georgians.
My question is: why is everyone so alarmed? These enclaves were NEVER going to be ruled by Tblisi in any meaningful way anyway. They were already patrolled by Russian troops. Wouldn't it actually be better to just change the boundaries officially instead of keeping this festering sore open forever? This isn't exactly the partition of India in terms of its impact.

As for the domino theory, I don't see any other place where Russia would do anything similar, unless the president of Estonia is as dumb as Saakashvili and decides to march on St Petersburg or something. I doubt Moscow wants to take over Transdniestria. They didn't even want Belarus when Lukashenko offered it to them on a silver platter.

"...America has always been far more likely to use our own troops than most large powers."

"WTF are you talking about?"
_________________

Meaning that we always seem to rely on our own troops to do the really heavy lifting, even when in coalition. Or, at least, that's the impression we in the military have always had.

Geez, then maybe you shouldn't go into the military or become the leader of a world power. You're probably too macho for those guys.
Posted by: trashhauler

Probably.

Don't get me wrong ... you're not a pussy because you're military. You're a pussy because you're an apologist for American military interventions against smaller, third world, resource-rich or strategic countries with little concern for the cost. You're a pussy for your rationalization of why larger powers should not be engaged militarily, and yet can justify atrocities like Iraq.

But don't worry ... most of this is directed at your bosses, which, I suspect, you would agree with me are composed largely of cowards.

Russia does not want to rule Georgia directly. No one would want to. But I think you may be right that Ossetia and Abkhazia will be reabsorbed into the Russian Federation. Wars sometimes change official boundaries to match de facto boundaries. I imagine the Ossetians aren't too keen on the status quo arrangement after just being shelled by the Georgians.
_____________________

Yep, any virulent Ossetian and Abkhazian nationalists, if there are any, are almost certainly going to be disappointed. The dubious pleasure of having a Russian passport is likely to be somewhat offset once the Russian bureaucracies kick in.

If Georgia survives, it might turn even further towards the West, though NATO (which stands for "Needs Americans to Operate") membership is problematical. Or the Georgians might resign themselves to Finlandization. Time will tell.

Imagine if Saakashvili was successful in getting Georgia admitted to NATO. NATO would be obligated to defend a nation that was led by a certifiable looney. Saakashvili could have single handedly pulled the West to the brink of a nuclear war with Russia.

By the sound of McCain's ranting we could get there yet. So much for "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ahh, for the good old days of moderate Republicans. Za Vas!

Seems like everyone is basing their pontification on an assumption of American importance. Are the bloggers of Luxemburg forced to make these stark choices.

though NATO (which stands for "Needs Americans to Operate") membership is problematical.

Is this supposed to be some sort of back-handed slap at the non-American members of NATO? If so it's a little bizarre and stupid, because of course NATO needs Americans to operate since it was founded largely at the behest of America in order to create an alliance that would benefit America. It's not like the Europeans and Canadians decided to form NATO on their own.

...Now it may well be that Steve [Clemons] and those who take similar positions [] do believe that it is better to formally recognize spheres of influence... the US, Europe and Russia need to come to a tacit accommodation that reflects the balance of power or whatever.

That seems a bit contradictory (or at least quite a stretch), as Farrel appears to imply you can't be both a realist who tacitly recognizes balance of power and spheres of influence, and still have a formal position that opposes the abuse of such power and influence. That ambiguity is foreign policy in a nutshell, and it's unlikely to change anytime soon.

trashhauler: though NATO (which stands for "Needs Americans to Operate") membership...

Depends on what you mean by "operate". War fighting? Yes. Peacekeeping? Not much. Nation-building? Hardly. And although the US has committed significant funds, operationally the US has played a relatively small role in the military (and implicit political) reforms in NATO members admitted over the last 10 years. This isn't your father's NATO, nor should it be.

What a convenient little war for John McCain! Considering McCain’s chief foreign policy advisor has been consulting with Georgia for four years, the whole thing smells really fishy. I’m just sayin…

I don't buy this "we must acknowledge spheres of influence" argument. It's trying to take an extremely complex world and box it into a set of rules which everyone will abide by.

Each situation is different, and the United States should attempt to play a role where it can and push as hard as the circumstances allow, whether it's in Kosovo, Georgia, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, or Iran.

The problem we've been having is that our current administration (and neocons in general) have shown appalling ignorance, arrogance, and poor judgment in assessing how hard we should push in just about every situation.

They pushed hard in Lebanon encouraging Israel's war there, and that only strengthened Hezbollah's hand. They pushed hard against North Korea, only to watch it become a nuclear nation. They pushed hard (and are pushing hard) against Iran, only to watch it move farther away from the west and aggressively pursue its nuclear ambition. And then there's Iraq...I don't think it's necessary at this point to list the number of ways that has been a disaster.

These people are terrible at foreign policy and always have been. It's not about acknowledging Russia's "sphere of influence" and bowing our head as we back out the door allowing them to do what they please. It's about understanding and practicing a smart nuanced foreign policy.

"What [Russia] would like to see is tacit or active recognition by other great powers of its right to intervene in countries such as Georgia..."

This has never been disputed and the Russians are getting tacit recognition now - Bush won't even cut short his Olympic shenanigans. Not that that is a bad place for him - it's hard for him to get into trouble sitting in the Olympic stadium.

Neocons and other saber-rattlers get a chance for free blustering as they know the US will do nothing.

No, Jeff II, alex is right about Georgia's history, and you're not, at least according to the source you cited above.

1) Georgia was formally absorbed into the Russian Empire in the 19th century, and even if we use your earlier date (when Safavid influence was at least as strong as Russian), we're left with 200 years of Russian rule.

2) OTOH, the Kingdom of Georgia dates to the early 11th century, and while it suffered greatly under the Mongols, it most certainly did not disintegrate into separate states in the 13th century. Again, the source you cited makes this clear: in the 14th century, Giorgi V "centralized royal power, revived the economy, and established close international commercial ties, mainly with Byzantium, but also with Venice and Genoa."

3) Fragmentation began in the mid 15th century, which gives us 450-500 years for the medieval kingdom of Georgia. Compare this with the periods from 1810-1918 for Russia, and 1920-1991 for the USSR, which gives us a little less than two centuries of Russian rule (comparable to the two centuries of Safavid Turkish rule after the Georgian kingdom disintegrated).

4) Thus, Russia and the Soviet Union certaily did not control Georgia "for a longer period of time than 'greater' Georgia existed as a unified sovereign state."

I'm no expert on Georgian history, but I can read the source you cited. Does all this have anything to do with the present situation? Probably not. But it's kind of silly to say that Georgia existed as part of Russia longer than it existed on its own... better to say that most of its modern history was as a part of Russia.

A unified Georgia dates from the 11th Century but after the 13th Century it had pretty much disintegrated into semi-autonomous principalities. From then on it was under the thumb of foreign empires until gained it's independence from the crumbling Soviet Union in 1991.
Posted by: Jeff II on August 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Over the course of it's history, Russia and the Soviet Union controlled Georgia for as long as any other foreign power and for a longer period of time than "greater" Georgia existed as a unified sovereign state. Georgia was a satellite/vassal/possession, whatever you'd like to call it, of Russia from 1783 until 1991, and had been otherwise under foreign control to one degree or another for the previous 400 year or so.
Assuredly. But you're still wrong about its history.
Posted by: Jeff II on August 11, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Great column by George Will:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/european_war_enters_the_presid.html

NATO = Needs Americans To Operate

"Is this supposed to be some sort of back-handed slap at the non-American members of NATO?"
__________________

Not really, but it does reflect some realities that American working in NATO have faced for decades. I agree, though, that it was impolitic to mention it. I only recently heard the phrase from an officer returning from his NATO tour, but the sentiment was well known 25 years ago when I served my three year tour in Europe.

First, most NATO militaries are much smaller and less well equipped than the US military. This was true even during the Cold War and the difference has only gotten greater since. Regular cuts in military spending seem to be more common than not for our allies. There are few military competencies in which any of our allies holds a comparative advantage. This has made interoperability a problem for decades. While blessed with very professional personnel, most of them just haven't kept up.

Then, too, is the way that NATO headquarters have historically operated. Though every NATO member has fine professionals, the bulk of work at any NATO command has always been done by Americans and Brits, with the occasional Canadian. Action officers from other countries do their bit and then disappear. Part of the reason for this is that we generally provide the bulk of the striking force for any operation, as well as nearly all of the specialized capabilities. It is hard to stay engaged when your country's entire contribution is a lone frigate or a single chemical decon company.

But part of it has always seemed to be a difference in socialization. NATO headquarters routines have always seemed slack to Americans. Conferences start late each day and end early, with long, alcohol-lubricated lunches. It's not for nothing that for decades the American military has referred to taking two hours off in the middle of the day as "taking a NATO lunch."

Part of it might be caused by our "up or out" promotion policy, which few NATO allies share. An American officer is always in competition with no years of slack time. If someone is working overtime or on a weekend, the odds are long that it is an American or a Brit. That's not always true, but enough to be the general rule. Still, Americans generally get along very well with their allied counterparts and we all work hard to minimize the differences in capability.

Our newer allies tell us the Russians were far worse. Some years ago, I was sent to give a series of lectures on airlift to officers of a new NATO member. As a member of the Warsaw Pact, they had not been allowed to develop procedures and techniques for long distance logistics. They were eager to catch up. I found them to be very focused and professional.

The only off note was that each base commander seemed determined to push huge amounts of food and alcohol our way during every briefing. At one base the commander had a pretty female civilian assistant whose sole function, so far as I could tell, was to serve as distracting eye candy. At each base the fully stocked bar went untouched (by us) and we nibbled just enough to be polite. One night at dinner, we pressed our interpreter for an explanation. He told us that visiting Russian officers had always been treated thus - indeed, had expected it - and the cost of the food and drink came out of each commander's pocket. At least that practice has been stopped.

I'd try to refute Farrell's argument but our host has already done so in the post entitled "stategic ambiguity" just below. You (Kevin Drum) have shown that, if we follow a realistic spheres of influences in practice, we shouldn't say so.

trashhauler: I agree, though, that it was impolitic to mention it.

Your complaint about NATO seems to boil down to "why can't they be more like us?" Sorry, they're not, and never will be (or should be). NATO is as much a political as a military animal, and always has been (even before the French kicked us out of Fontainebleau ). That "socialization" is as much diplomatic as anything, and it is well worth the price.

Oh, it's not a complaint, has407. It's just acknowledgement that they are not, in fact, more like us.

The value of NATO used to be more clear. It was intended to "keep the Russians out, the French in, and the Germans down."

At least, the first part still seems to apply.

trashhauler--
"Finlandization"? Not so bad. Sheeit, I'd live in 1970s Helsinki anyday. Sure better than living in Georgia today.

As for Ossetians, you think they care about bureaucracy? This isn't a California tax revolt here. This is Caucasian ethnic politics. Moscow could impose a Pyongyang-style economic regime on those folks and they still ain't gonna want to go back to Georgia.
Being absorbed into North Ossetia might not be such a bad fate. Or at least better than any other fate likely to befall a Caucasian mini-nation.

"Any virulent Ossetian nationalists--if there are any.."

trashhauler, have you ever met an actual Ossetian? I have. They're ALL virulent nationalists, every man, woman, and child.

Have none of you guys ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine and the theory of American exceptionalism? In particular, the United States has been operating for the past seven years in very much the manner that Russia is now. Why all the squeals of outrage?

"They're ALL virulent nationalists, every man, woman, and child."
_________________

Then they are all going to be very disappointed under Russian rule, every man, woman, and child.

Then they are all going to be very disappointed under Russian rule, every man, woman, and child.

I think they have a pretty damned good idea of what is in store. They alliance between the Ossetians and the Russians is long-standing. When the Russian Empire was expanding in the first days of the nineteenth century, the Ossetians eagerly threw in their lot with the more powerful Russians and when the Soviet Union collapsed, that historic alliance was one of the first to be rekindled.

More here.

"The alliance between the Ossetians and the Russians is long-standing."
_________________

Is that alliance or dominion? Why weren't North and South Ossetia rejoined back in 1921 when the Soviets conquered Georgia? Because keeping them split up was in keeping with the standard Soviet method for dealing with ethnic minorities. Keeping them split up reduced the chance of ethnic solidarity giving rise to nationalistic tendencies. Smart thinking, from their perspective.

My point was that if, as kokblok asserted, every Ossetian is a nationalist, there isn't much chance that they'll be allowed to form their own country. They might be satisfied with the idea of Russian rule if they get some concessions, like limited autonomy and such, but if they are happy with that, then their nationalistic spirit certainly isn't all that virulent, now was it?.

Georgia failed in their handling of the South Ossetia situation and has been given a nsaty set of lumps. But let's not go all gooey about how the Russians are just helping the Ossetians and Abkhzians out of the goodness of Putin's heart.

if there are liberals who believe in realist "sphere of influence" geopolitics, they ought to say so forthrightly

The situations are entirely asymmetrical. The neocons are flirting with the argument that any action short of war is a moral disgrace. That's a crude calumny; to offer such a charge without a forthright acknowledgement of its consequences is disgraceful.

When liberal pragmatists decline to spell out exactly what actions fall outside the threshold of intervention, that's strategic ambiguity--a legitimate and useful tool of statecraft. When the threat of U.S. intervention less than 100% credible, ambiguity is the best policy. The U.S. has gotten itself involved in two major wars (Korea and Kuwait) by appearing to signal a clear line in the sand to a potential aggressor.

Yglesias is correct to point to the example of Taiwan, where U.S. policy has been to strengthen Taiwan in every way it can while insisting on restraint and pointedly refusing to spell out the conditions, if any, under which it would defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression.

I wasn't following the pre-war situation very closely, as most Americans have had our eyes focused on the gas pump and Iraq.

However, given the history of S. Ossetia being self-ruled and non-militarized, it seems Russia did a good job of restoring that with restraint.

One can only wonder what advice the president of Georgia was getting which led him to invade S.O.