No frickin idea.

My initial impression - gathered strictly from the Newshour with Jim Lehrer -- is that it's an enormous moral headache, because Russia's aims are pretty malevolent (less about Ossetia itself than about destabilizing Georgia's democratic, pro-Western turn), and there's not a whole hell of a lot we're able to do about it.

I'm sure there's some clever form of international pressure that can be applied to Russia -- or international support for Georgia's government -- but I'm too stupid to think of it, and instead should go back to sleep. This is one of those things that makes me glad I'm not actually responsible for making foreign policy.

I'm sure Samantha Power knows the right answer.

The NYT has two very informative reports of the situation up on its website.

Aug. 8 report

Aug. 9 report

My wife and I lived in Tbilisi, Georgia's capital, for a year before returning in November of last year. Among people we knew there, The International Crisis Group's reports on the ongoing conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were respected for their balance and accuracy.

ICG put up a media bulletin on the crisis yesterday. They issue periodic reports updating crisis situations, and offering recommendations on what might be done to ameliorate them, there and worldwide. Access to their stuff is free of charge when you sign up at their website, which is at http://www.crisisgroup.org

Also, a well plugged-in (to the situation there) woman my wife and I befriended in Tbilisi who worked in Georgia with an NGO for many years, and who we consider to be knowledgeable, even-handed and perceptive, sent us the following email with her take on the situation and links she considers worthwhile, especially the Holbrooke interview:

OK, here is the most interesting and informed of the interviews I have
seen. From Richard Holbrooke, former US ambassador to the UN...
Also the CNN interview with Saakashvili [current Georgian President]...

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/08/08/sots.holbrooke.cnn?iref=videosearch

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/08/08/intv.saakashvili.cnn

I find the major us news networks' coverage frustratingly biased toward
Russia, claiming that this is purely Georgian aggression.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/08/georgia.explainer/index.html

I find holbrooke's explanation most convincing, and also find it
interesting that he claims he predicted a year ago that exactly this
timeframe is when things would bust loose. The theory of 'getting it all
over" before a new us administration comes in rings true for me. Russia is
certainly that calculating, and would certainly have more to loose with a
new administration (either candidate) if this broke loose early in their
tenure.

Just now I see that cnn has posted a new story about Bush speaking with
Putin at Beijing. I will check that out, too.

At any rate, I think Saakashvili has turned this into an incredible
opportunity to FINALLY focus western attention on to the issues surrounding
Russia's meddling in neighboring states. Who would have thought it would
come through as the first news item of the day, topping even the opening of
the Beijing games! Misha [Saakashvili's nickname] is nothing if not a wiley PR guy...

(from our friend)

Offer to let Russsia keep Georgia provided they agree to take Alabama and Mississippi off our hands also.

Go to the "All Central Asia, All The Time" blog by an American who knows it better than his own country:
http://www.registan.net/

Steve Clemons also has a very informative post up on the subject.

Answers several of your questions:

http://joshuatrevino.com/?p=637

What Should We Do?

Er, I just ran across this which says we've already been doing plenty, a lot of inflammatory stuff. (The Clemons article cited above mentions the Rice visit, but not our joint military exercises in July following her visit):

Jul 18, '08, M K Bhadrakumar, Asia Times, Russia's energy drive leaves US reeling

....If Medvedev's core mission in Hokkaido was to underscore Russia's growing role in the world arena as a power with which the West has to contend, Bush acted as if he couldn't care. The US was also plainly dismissive of Medvedev's proposal at the G-8 for a pan-European security system that would include Russia. Medvedev expressed his "dismay" on hearing about the Prague deal. As if to rub in the snub, Rice proceeded from Prague to Bulgaria, where the US has for the first time established a military base, and then on to Georgia to discuss its plans of joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

While in Tbilisi, she called for international mediation to stop violence spilling over in Georgia's beakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abhkazia, which have been sources of rising tensions, with Georgia accusing Russia of trying to annex the regions. To carry matters further, the US began a joint military exercise with Georgia codenamed Immediate Response 2008, near Tbilisi, which will continue through the month of July.

The exercise, financed by the Pentagon and planned by the US Armed Forces Eastern Command, is intended as a warning to Russia that Georgia is America's project and Washington wouldn't hesitate to do some heavy lifting to safeguard the "Rose Revolution".

On the face of it, such hubris is illogical and unnecessary since the West should have every reason not to embarrass Medvedev. The West has been propagating in recent months that the youthful Russian president is a potential independent decision-maker in the Kremlin with whom it could do business - unlike his predecessor, Vladimir Putin.

Reflecting US thinking, Carnegie Moscow Center scholar Dmitri Trenin wrote recently that the West noted "Medvedev's quick-wittedness, his calm style of conducting talks, and his clear desire to show that he is the one who is the real master of Russian diplomacy ... There are much greater grounds for expecting that Dmitry Medvedev ... will slowly but steadily concentrate powers in his own hands."

Clearly, what has been going on for the past few months on the East-West stage is one of those pantomimes that the West and Russia are equally adept at playing. But the US seems to have concluded that all the Western flattery about him hasn't really gone to Medvedev's head and he has merely been demonstrating his own skill in dramatics....

Again, on Monday, Moscow announced that for the first time since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russian warships were resuming patrol of the Arctic waters. In effect, Medvedev signaled he was maintaining the course of expanded military patrols begun by Putin. Why such a sudden quickening of the tempo in US-Russian relations? The answer might be found on an entirely different plane - energy security.

What emerges is that if anything, Medvedev is pursuing Russia's energy diplomacy more robustly than Putin....

I didn't notice any of the posters shocked or surprised by Russia's actions. Before 1917, the Russians had spent over 500 years forcibly annexing every square mile - with all the inhabitants thereof - to the South and East of Muscovy. No imperial power in history has ever simply walked away from an empire like that.

Russia's new strength is almost entirely based on Europe's dependence on Russian energy. The attack on Georgia should wake us all up to the reality of what Russia has always been and may always be: incorrigibly and ruthlessly expansionist.

The only thing we CAN do is what we should have done as soon as Putinism became the new Russian system: establish a partnership with Europe to defuse Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas.

I have been thinking a lot about the Pickens Plan in this context. I don't like T. Boone Pickens, but his plan makes a lot of sense for the US, Canada, and Europe.

I haven't had a chance to check out these presumably fabulous links but in thinking about "where does this go?" the following are my thoughts at this time.

One of Russia's two major strategic interests in Georgia is that they don't want Georgia to wind up in NATO and there is now a window for them to do anything they might consider doing to try to stop that. They don't want them in the EU, either, but that would be many years down the road--NATO decision is first up.

The Russians have been stirring up anti-Georgian unrest in Abkhazia and South Ossetia for years, partly with the aim of making Georgia less attractive as a possible NATO and EU member to existing members.

The other major Russian strategic interest in Georgia concerns oil and gas access.

The Clinton Administration pushed hard to get the BTC pipeline built, and it was. It transports Caspian Sea oil and gas from Baku, Azerbaijan through Tbilisi and then southwest to Ceyhan, Turkey, which is a Mediterranean port city. (BTC stands for the initials of these 3 cities.)

While Caspian Sea oil and gas supplies at the moment are looking to be not nearly as plentiful as was once hoped--closer to the amount of reserves in the North Sea than, say, half of Saudi reserves--obviously any known supplies are extremely valuable. The Clinton Administration, in supporting the BTC pipeline project, wanted to eliminate dependence on either the Russians or the Iranians to obtain access to these supplies for the US and the West. (running a pipeline from the Caspian thru Iran would have been shorter and more economical.)

So what sorts of interventions might the Russians consider if they wished to diminish this aspect of Georgia's strategic attractiveness to the West?

They might consider taking the territory south of Abkhazia as far south as Adjara, an autonomous territory within the geographic boundaries of Georgia proper, located in the southwest corner of Georgia and bordering Turkey, or even all the way to the Turkish border. This would deprive Georgia of a valuable Black Sea port, leaving it landlocked and in a far worse economic position.

Even if the US wanted to provide military support of some sort we don't have troops because we are so over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO might possibly consider sending troops, under a purely defensive rationale, to just south of Abkhazia to try to deter any possible Russian designs on taking the territory south of Abkhazia along the Black Sea coast.

NATO might consider doing this if it has concern diminished economic access to the Caucasus region. However, if it were to do so, it would need to be prepared to engage militarily if Russia did proceed with troops south of Abkhazia along the Black Sea coast.

If Russia wanted to take the BTC pipeline completely out of play it would have to launch an incursion deeper into Georgia to cut off access (as opposed to the bombing they've done, which at most only temporarily disrupts the supply line). Were the Russians to do this it would get even more attention from Europe and the United States, neither of which wants to be left even more dependent on Russian oil and gas supplies than they are now.

First, take a good LOOK at a map of the world. We've been MESSING in Russia's backyard. Georgia is simply a pawn for us to encircle and checkmate Russia, and Russia's use of energy to launch itself as a new geopolitical power instead of the decimated giant plagued by breadlines that we left them. Georgia, Ukraine, and assorted "colored revolutions" have been US projects from the very start. Even Israel has a hand in this attack, and yes, do acknowledge the REALITY that Georgia FIRST launched an attack on Thursday that left hundreds of South Ossetians dead.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358

The Reality is that should Puerto Rico decide to confront the US by turning to Russia, hosting Russian military bases etc., it would be just as intolerable for the US.

Countries and nations watch very carefully their own backyard, that is the geopolitical reality.

If you want to throw your support behind Georgia and ache for a confrontation with Russia, fine, but don't be a low-information voter. The NGOs that instigated these colored revolutions are CIA fronts, as is their propaganda. This is a plain fact. There's a lot of money in this business as well, as Randy Scheumann would tell you. Take sides if you will, but first acquaint yourself with the geopolitical reality. Know your government's game plan wrt Russia, understand Russia's own counter strategy to propel its own interests (its integration with Europe), and then TRY to see the implications of a Cold-War resurgence for the elections this November. Which candidate would be favored by voters to confront the Russian bogeyman, when economic issues are put on the backburner?

Georgia got the green light from Bush to instigate the provocation of retaking South Ossetia. WHY??? It can't prevail against a militarily superior Russia. NATO will never get itself dragged into this potential war. From a domestic political perspective, what does this achieve?

I've decided to "retire" from the TPM forum because of personal attacks, I reckon more would be coming my way with this post, but seriously, read OUTSIDE of the NYTimes and all the news media that propagate a certain point of view and see the BIGGER picture.

AD.

I wasn't referring to you when I made my comment about good/guys/bad guys. But I can see why you might have thought so. Clumsy of me.

I have been very angry about how our fab media is presenting this whole thing. You'd think the Russians were bombing Tbilisi. Nothing about the disputed nature of the territories involved. People hear/read "pro American/Western" so-an-so vs the Russkies and that's all they need in order to start taking sides.

As far as the NATO business goes, I believe the rationale was/is that both Abkhasia and South Ossetia would have to be secured as far as their "officially" belonging to Georgia in order for them to be admitted officially. I believe that one of the prerequisites is that the aspiring member nation respect the sovereignity of neighbors' borders. Are those areas actually, legally considered a part of Georgia? It's confusing.

No one seems to understand Saakashvili's timing. There was speculation in a Jerusalem Post article that our election could be a factor in that Obama might change the diplomatic equation so strike while the lame ducks are still in charge. McCain and Saakashvili are buddies.

One thing tho, we have lots of European/Western company in telling the Russians to leave South Ossetia.

Or what? I wonder.

That region is so wild and ungovernable...more no-man's land than not.

This whole business makes me nervous given the current environment and great potential for instability. We don't need this complication and escalation.

One more comment to QWERTY:

If I was the leader of Georgia and knowing Putin and his actions towards Georgia over the last few years I would have paid for all the Israeli help I could get. I mean come on...we are selling F16's to Pakistan. What have we done for Georgia? Nothing.

Putin has staked his claim on Georgia. Ossetia is just an excuse.

And in one more comment about your lousy Puerto Rico analogy, I would just say: Cuban Missile Crisis

I'm heading to bed and hoping that tomorrow brings a Russian retreat. If not and we do not respond then we will once again be back into a full blown cold war.

I'm sorry I offended you by capitalizing your alias. I'm sure that can be very annoying.

Having been to the USSR and then Putin's Russia I can assure you that Georgia would much rather be our puppet.

Lots of disinfo aka psyops floating around....

This article from 3/2002 is an excellent overview of the conflict(s). Context is everything.:

"Editor’s Note: Six years ago, just six months after the 9/11 attacks as George W. Bush’s “war on terror” was still taking shape, we ran the following article about Bush’s decision to send U.S. troops into the nation of Georgia, supposedly to help hunt down Islamic terrorists hiding in the rugged Pankisi Gorge.

Much has changed since – Russian President Vladimir Putin and Georgian President Eduard Schevardnadze have been replaced and Bush refocused his attention on invading and occupying Iraq – but in light of the flare-up of border hostilities between Russia and Georgia, we are republishing the article with its valuable background."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/080808b.html

We currently OWN Georgia in the sense that we (our military) can come and go and operate at will in and above their country with no questions asked by the sovreign government of el Presidente Saakashvili.

I am in agreement on your examples of imperialist and/or corporate corruption of governments by the US. Comparing Georgia to our other "Freedom Bridge" endeavors is taking the Georgian government out of context.
Georgian history in separating themselves from Russia and their internally strong democratic values present a different argument. In addition, this is not a conflict of surrogates when Putin directly invades with troops.
Even though oil and gas may be driving our interests in Georgia; Putin has violated the "rules" by using direct military intervention. That means that NATO must stand him down and return the situation to status quo. After that, more intense diplomatic efforts should be promised to resolve the conflict.
I would venture that the average Russian feels as anti-Putin and anti-invasion as we feel about Iraq. If Putin's background were different and his aims for a new Russia (USSR) were not on the table then perhaps the necessity to confront this action would be slightly diminished.
Unfortunately, Putin's aims have been clearly stated and followed through by his actions both internally in Russia and by his renewal of Russian military activity throughout the world.
Putin has consolidated power within Russia on a scale not seen since Stalin. He is much more subtle and less willing to use brutal force than Stalin but his consolidation of power has been just as complete.
The argument that the timing of this incursion is a result of the lame duck status of the Bush administration does not hold water. Bush has nothing to lose at this point in acting to protect his corporate owners’ interests in this area. Any new administration would be much less willing to immediately move into a confrontation with Putin. Putin is instead counting on the weariness of the US public for foreign involvement as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite what we know of our history in supporting corrupt regimes for our corporate owners the rest of the western world population still holds up the US (other than Bush and Iraq) as the world leader for moral democratic leadership. It is in the best interests of our corporate masters to keep that image of moral US leadership.
So, no matter the intrigue and backroom chessboard moves that our leaders think they have mastered it is still in our and the world's interest to control Putin.
That is why we and preferably NATO must directly confront the situation in Georgia and intervene militarily to stop Putin's aggression.

Again, when I say taxi drivers think America is crap, it doesn't mean they don't think Russia is crap. I can't fathom how basic logical thought processing is beyond you.

I said, x said America is crap, you say, "are you saying x thinks Russia is great"???

Yeah, I wear black hat, you wear white hat, 4 legs good, 2 legs bad, ok?

And don't bother answering, too tiresome to come back here to check out your gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair that someone would DARE to think America isn't the shining beacon of FREEDOM that brings prosperity, liberty, dancing children in the streets all over the worshipful earth.

The situation is more complex than immediately meets the eye. If you listen to Brzezinski, McCain (no friends of each other), Kristol or George Will, you would think the only issue is Russian domination of the Caucusus. A closer examination reveals the Georgians are not well-liked by the South Ossetians and the Georgians engaged in the initial provoctive action. It does appear that the Russian response has been way out of whack probably to force Georgia in to full submission with a view to establishing control, rights over or interest in oil going through pipelines in the country. Instead of taking sides based on which American said what, I suggest studying the situation. I doubt this is the equivalent of the Nazi attack on the Sudetenland. By the same token, I don't think the Russians military response has been proportionate. Nobody's hands are clean in this instance.