I’ve been genuinely intrigued at how much fiction and reality have been intersecting recently.

See, there’s this film called MOON and it follows the story of a guy working on the far side of the moon who figures out that there’s a lot more to his mission than collecting the natural resource Helium-3. It’s a fantastic piece of science fiction cinema and if you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favor and catch it while it’s still in theatres.

But after seeing it I discovered that not only is the energy source they talked about in the movie real, but it’s clean, supposedly economically viable and extremely plentiful on the moon’s surface.

More at True/Slant.

Well, North Korea has the world’s attention. Exploding a nuclear bomb and launching missile tests will do that. All that’s left now is for the world to respond.

North Korea has long been a foreign policy conundrum, frustrating a long line of U.S. presidents who’ve attempted to stop the so-called hermit nation from threatening its neighbors. North Korea’s leadership has repeatedly placed raw pride over any other consideration, content to let their people suffer rather than enter normal relations with the world. To complicate matters more, both Russia and China have, at various times, backed North Korea, finding such alliances a convenient way to irritate the United States and our allies or, in China’s case, the easiest way to prevent massive numbers of refugees from streaming over their border.

Has this latest outburst from North Korea changed anything? Early indications are that, if nothing else, the world is generally united against Pyongyang.

Russia, which called the test a “serious blow” to the effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, suspended a Russia-North Korean intergovernmental trade and economic commission, apparently in response to the nuclear test. The slap on the wrist was a telling indication that Moscow, once a key backer of North Korea, was unhappy with Pyongyang.

And China, which has been the closest thing North Korea has to a friend, is reacting by holding high-level meetings with South Korea to discuss ways to respond.

At this point, I doubt China will want to do anything which might create the feared refugee crisis. And outside of military action – which really isn’t on the table for a large number of reasons – nothing will change in North Korea without Chinese intervention. That leaves President Obama in an unenviable position. He has to take a tough stand but knows he’s no more likely to directly affect North Korea than were his predecessors. As such, his best bet is to work behind the scenes with Chinese and Russian officials (because it’s always prudent to include the Russians in these matters) to develop a coordinated and meaningful response.

Unfortunately, that’s not the kind of resolute response presidents (and the American people) prefer. But I’m not exactly sure what other options we have.

Some good news already from G20:

After a meeting between the two men in London, on the eve of the G20 summit, President Obama also accepted an invitation to fly to Moscow in July, by which time both sides hope negotiators from both countries will have worked out an arms control deal to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) which expires on 5 December. The negotiators were told to begin work at once.

There were no specific figures in the statements issued after the meeting at Whitfield House, the US embassy residence, but the two leaders agreed that the new deal would go further than the Moscow treaty that their predecessors, George Bush and Vladimir Putin, agreed in 2002. The treaty stipulates operationally deployed (ready to fire) arsenals of 1,700-2,200 warheads, suggesting the goal of a new treaty would be to go below 1,700, and a target figure mentioned as a possibility by both sides is 1,500 warheads each.

No doubt these are just first steps, but I find it much more promising than hearing that Obama saw into Medvedev’s soul.

I’m just saying…

Yesterday they cut off their natural gas supply to the Ukraine. Completely.

That also means the supply to numerous European countries has been severely diminished.

From AP:

The Russia-Ukraine natural gas dispute hit Europe with the force of a winter storm Tuesday, cutting or limiting supplies to nearly a dozen nations. Tens of thousands of people were left without heat and governments scrambled to find alternate energy sources.

Shocked by how fast the shortages were spreading, the European Union demanded a quick end to the dispute — a sharp turnaround from their earlier stance, when officials had downplayed the conflict between Moscow and Kiev as primarily a business matter.

A business matter? Ha! That’s rich.

But hey, ya gotta love those free markets, eh? Free to do anything they damn well please…

But by Tuesday evening, gauges on delivery pipelines to six countries — including some depending totally on Russian gas — were pointing toward zero and an increasing number of other nations reported significant reductions. [...]

Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Croatia and Turkey all reported a halt in gas shipments, and even France, Germany, Austria and Poland reported substantial drops in supplies from Russia.

I’m so glad we ignored Russia the past 8 years and focused instead on detaining and torturing people who may or may not have boasted they knew how to build a shoe bomb for six year.

More as it develops…

For the second time since the Barack Obama won the U.S. Presidential election, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a none-too-subtle threat aimed at his soon-to-be American counterpart.

Medvedev — who is starting to make his patron, the former KGB apparatchik, Vladimir Putin, look soft — warned that Russia was prepared to use force to secure unspecified “interests” and appeared to link a contemplated Russian cutoff of natural gas supplies through Ukraine to Europe with fierce Russian opposition to further expansion of NATO.

As reported by Reuters:

In an end-of-year interview that signaled an uncompromising stance toward U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming administration, Medvedev said Russia’s war with Georgia in August showed that tough action was sometimes unavoidable. “Russia’s interests must be secured by all means available, this is my deep conviction. First of all, by international and legal tools … but, when necessary, by using an element of force,” Medvedev said in the interview, which was shown on Russia’s main television stations.

Further expansion of NATO membership is “inadmissible”:

In the interview, a transcript of which was posted on Medvedev’s official Internet site, he also attacked long-term plans by the NATO alliance to expand eastwards by allowing ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia to join.

“Today I do indeed feel an attempt to ‘put Russia in its place’. And if, sometime ago, when Russia was in a quite different situation, such attempts could still yield some results, in today’s situation….this is simply inadmissible.”

He threatened Ukraine with sanctions if it failed to pay some $2 billion Moscow says it owes for gas. Russia has said it may cut off supplies to its neighbor from January 1, potentially disrupting gas deliveries via Ukraine to European states.

The threatened gas cut off supposedly arises from a “contract dispute,” and Gazprom, the Russian gas supplier, claims that it will continue to deliver the “full volume” of gas destined for EU countries who receive the fuel from pipelines across Ukraine. However, the same assurance was given in January 2006 when Moscow cut off supplies to Ukraine using a similar business excuse. The result was, not surprisingly, that much of the gas never reached the EU, creating shortages of 20 to 50 percent in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria in the middle of a freezing winter.

Russia’s geopolitical aims were then and are now to intimidate Western-leaning people and leaders in Ukraine, reminding them who’s boss, and to warn the West to stay out of Russia’s self-declared “sphere of influence.”

Now, as a new administration prepares to take over in Washington, Medvedev is saying clearly if indirectly that Russia is prepared to fight — as it did in Georgia — to secure its “interests,” which unquestionably include an interest in binding Ukraine to Russia, whether or not it wishes to be bound.

As readers may recall, Medvedev first snarled at Obama the day after the American election when he ratcheted up Russia’s threat to station missiles near the Polish border, if the U.S. and Poland went ahead with plans to install components of an anti-missile system (designed to thwart Iranian intentions) on Polish territory.

To be sure, backed off his missile posturing the following week, and since has issued more diplomatic statements occasionally, expressing hopes for warm feelings between Russia and the new American President. Nonetheless, it’s impossible to view this Ukraine gambit, with the prospect of a January mini-crisis in central Europe over essential fuel, as anything but a deliberate effort to test Obama.

It’s not the only test the new White House team will face, but it’s not small potatoes. Russia may have its “interests” in reasserting control over what it calls its “near abroad,” but the U.S., the West, and not least, the Ukrainian people have an interest too — in moving Ukraine forward as the fully sovereign, prosperous and democratic nation it deserves to be.

Keep in mind that the following is coming from a critic of the Georgian administration, but he was an insider and he also went before his own government to give his assessment of the situation.

From BBC:

Erosi Kitsmarishvili, a former envoy to Russia, was testifying at a parliamentary commission hearing into the war the breakaway Georgian region.

One lawmaker threw his pen at Mr Kitsmarishvili and then had to be restrained as he charged towards him. [...]

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

He said he had this information “from high-ranking Georgian officials”. However, he said he believed Georgia had been provoked into war by Russia.

What it seems like we have here is somebody who thinks Georgia was coaxed into conflict with Russia, but they still started it. This is what many of us said when the conflict happened during the campaign season, including Obama, but we were dismissed by the hawks as being soft of Russian aggression.

What a difference a couple months make…

Now, no doubt one man’s account doesn’t make any of this true, but since there has been so much silence out of the region since this whole thing started, one can’t help but think that there’s some truth to this. After all, if Georgia was genuinely attacked without provocation, the entire world would rally to its side. But that hasn’t happened.

So why is this important in the long run? Why do I even bother talking about it?

Because the US is currently trying to get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO before the next administration gets into office…

The United States has started an unexpected diplomatic initiative in Europe, urging NATO allies to offer Georgia and Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements, NATO diplomats said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has had long telephone conversations with French, German and other senior European envoys, asking them to agree to bypass the formal application process, the diplomats said.

The proposal faces significant hurdles. At a NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania, in April, the United States failed to persuade NATO to offer the usual application process, known as a membership action plan, to Ukraine and Georgia. Instead, NATO leaders agreed that one day each country would join, without committing to a timetable.

Key question: why is the current administration doing this? Because late moves like this only seem they’re designed to create diplomatic problems for the next administration.

More as it develops…

Vladimir Putin continues to consolidate power…

From TNR:

If any proof were needed that the Russian political system operates in its own time-space continuum, it came this morning, when the parliament decided to deal with the country’s economic meltdown by amending its constitution.

The Duma fixed the 1993 text by decoupling presidential and parliamentary elections and approving term extensions for the president, from four to six years.

The amendment, which President Dmitry Medvedev announced on November 5, was discussed for a scant two weeks and passed overwhelmingly: 392 to 57. (Amazingly, those 57 votes came from the Communists.)

The Moscow Times offers dissent, as well as a prediction of decreased Putin favorability in the near future…

This looks as if Putin is carrying out a constitutional junta. The only difference between his junta and the one in Latin American is that Putin is taking pre-emptive steps now to avoid a military coup later. This way he can maintain a semblance of democracy by packaging the coup in constitutional trappings.

Putin loyalists control the Central Election Commission, the major television stations, the main political parties, the Duma, the Federation Council, the military, police and the secret services. And the president, of course, is also Putin’s man.

The only things in Russia that are not under Putin’s control are the dollar, the price of oil, Islamic extremists in the Caucasus and the financial crisis. These are all crucial factors that will determine the country’s political future. As the economy worsens, Putin will receive less support from the upper level of bureaucracy, which up until now has received a generous windfall from high oil prices. As this source of income dries up, so will the elite’s unconditional support for Putin. The elite may continue to support Putin on the surface, but at the same time they will be calculating their personal financial losses as the crisis unfolds. They will also be asking themselves the question, “Perhaps we need a change from the current Chekist leadership?”

Jeezus, let’s hope so.

But hey, you can’t say we didn’t warn Palin. I railed against that idiotic “Russia/Alaska” assertion from day one, but the McCain camp continued to push it. And so they have to deal with copious amounts of ridicule and scorn. Not just because the point itself was dumb, but also because Palin so badly fumbled the question to the point people are wondering if she’s even intelligent.

Oh well…

As I’ve said before, Colin Powell’s endorsement could be one of the most important to swing voters this season, so how he views each candidates’ approach to this situation could actually be very important.

Complete transcript after the jump…

AMANPOUR: Except for, General Powell, it basically hopes that Russia is not going to be the aggressor. And if Russia is and you have to, you know, keep your NATO allies’ security, aren’t you then committed?

POWELL: Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which is the NATO Treaty, when one member of the alliance is attacked from abroad — meaning outside the NATO geographic limits — then all members of NATO treat that as an attack.

AMANPOUR: And yet…

POWELL: Article 5 has only been invoked once in the history of the alliance, and that was on the 12th of September, 2001, when it was invoked in our favor, when the whole NATO alliance said we were attacked, the alliance was attacked on 9/11.

Now, in the current situation, the Russians acted brutally. I think they acted foolishly. But it was also absolutely predictable what the Russians would do. You could see them stacking up their troops.

And I think it was foolhardy on the part of President Saakashvili and the Georgian government to kick over this can, to light a match in a roomful of gas fumes.

SESNO: So you’re saying the Georgians provoked this?

POWELL: They did. I mean, there was a lot of reasons to have provocations in the area, but the match that started the conflagration was from the Georgian side.

AMANPOUR: And yet…

POWELL: And that’s a given.

AMANPOUR: And some debate in the presidential elections has basically been, “We are all Georgians now.” What does that mean? It’s the same as was said after 9/11.

POWELL: One candidate said that, and I’ll let the candidate explain it for himself.

(LAUGHTER)

SESNO: You can help a little, if you’d like.

POWELL: No, the fact of the matter is that you — you have to be very careful in a situation like this not just to leap to one side or the other until you’ve taken a good analysis of the whole situation.

This was something that might have been avoided if people had looked at the Russian troops that were stacked up, if people had realized that the Russians were serious about South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and if perhaps more guidance and suggestions had been given to President Saakashvili beyond those that he received, it might have been avoided.

But it wasn’t. It’s over. The Russians are the offenders right now. And we have to see that.

We cannot say to the Russians, “We are not going to allow the Georgians or Ukrainians or anyone else to start down the path toward NATO membership.” It’s not for the Russians to decide that.

But I think it is wise for us to look at the whole strategic situation and all of our equities before deciding how fast that should happen and whether it’s the time to do it right now.

The Russian Federation is not going to become the Soviet Union again. That movie failed at the box office. But they do have interests. And we have to think carefully about their interests.

So you have to treat Russia as a proud country that lost a lot of its pride some 15, 16 years ago, and it’s restored with a political leadership that is enormously popular in the country and with a level of wealth they’ve never had before, and with concerns about their near abroad, and treat them in a straightforward, business-like, objective way and not emotionally.

That’s right. Sarah Palin has foreign relations experience because Alaska is near Russia.

Wow.

I also love how the other guy on panel talks about how politics is all about exceeding expectations. And since expectations are extremely low for Palin, she’ll be able to impress people.

I’m sorry, but isn’t that exactly how we got into this mess with Bush?

(h/t: Doug’s house)

The end of the Cold War was an opportunity to create a new one. For some, we now realize, the Cold War was not about democratic values versus totalitarianism, in the Kirkpatrick formulation. It was about American hegemony against any rival power, totalitarian or not, globally expansionist or not. The end of Communism was, for some, a problem. It removed a key rationale for military power. China was the first object of demonization, in the first months of the Bush administration; then – defensibly – Islamism; then Iran, Iraq and NoKo; now, Russia. Islamism may well be seen as a rival to Communism in ideological terms, and worthy of a new Cold War of sorts. But we also learned fast enough that its asymmetrical dispersal across the world made traditional warfare, as in the Cold War, irrelevant, even counter-productive. But we still put a militarist template on it in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it remains an over-arching defense of more traditional hegemonic actions – largely centered on oil supplies – in the Middle East. You can absolutely understand and defend a military state-centered response to 9/11 at the time. But we have surely learned the limits of its potential – indeed the further damage it can do. [...]

Where does thus leave us? If the reaction to the last week is any indicator, Americans are still viscerally committed to the kind of Cold War dynamics we once had a chance to leave behind. The Republican party especially thrives on such conflict, enabling it to dominate domestic politics with appeals to bravado and patriotism and empire. Meanwhile, America’s fiscal standing continues to slide down and down; its military consumes more and more resources; dependence on foreign oil does not prompt us to find alternative energy resources as an urgent national security matter, but to face off against Petro-powers, demonize oil companies, offer gas tax gimmicks, and occupy dysfunctional regions in far away countries because our addiction to a substance that is wrecking the planet is too great to resist.

This is the way great powers fall. And this election presents us with a very rare chance to move in a different and more rational direction. Turning this around will be a monumental task because so many forces now conspire to push this country further and further along on this declinist, neo-imperial path. But it can be done over a generation.

This is just an excerpt. I urge you to read the whole thing.

“Obviously, America should encourage both countries to back down and resolve their differences peacefully,” explains Barr. But “the status of South Ossetia, as well as Abkhazia, another Russian-supported separatist zone within Georgia, matters a lot more to Russia, on which the two territories border, than to the U.S. Moreover, Washington itself set a precedent for Russia when it intervened in Kosovo a decade ago, attacking Serbia to win independence for the separatist ethnic-Albanian majority,” notes Barr.

“The purpose of alliances is to defend America,” says Barr. “We should not create or expand alliances where the U.S. does not have vital interests. If the Europeans want to defend distant countries like Georgia, they can do so—after all, the European Union has a larger population and bigger GDP than America, without any of Washington’s other global military commitments. It is time for Europe to accept responsibility for its own security.”

Obviously, I’m aligned with Barr on this issue. I don’t think getting involved in this conflict does us any good, especially when our recent past is checkered with pre-emptive conflicts that undermine our ability to speak with authority on this issue.

What do you think?

First off, McCain’s not the President. Obviously he knows this, but when he says something so broad it feels like he’s speaking for America. Perhaps this isn’t what he meant, but after 5 years in Iraq, I think it’s pretty presumptuous to align the entire US population with another country’s strategy of pre-emptive attack…even if it’s symbolic.

And yes, the Russians overreached in response and their march towards Georgia’s capital is troubling to say the very least. But to suggest, as he does in the editorial, that he knows that regime change is Russia’s goal is overreaching in its own right. This is not how you play this game. You don’t tell the “enemy” what they should do to piss you off because it’s more likely to incite increased aggression in exactly that direction. Well, unless you’re itching to be aggressive…

Case in point…look at how this latest conflict shook out. Russia said time and again they’d defend South Ossetia. Georgia didn’t listen. Look what happened. Sure, Russia was itching for a fight, and Georgia played right into their hands. It seems like McCain is attempting a similar strategy, but, reality check, who reading this wants to get into a war with Russia over Georgia?

Long story short, McCain would do well to back down from his increasingly hard line rhetoric. Because as we’ve seen in the past 7 years, we can talk tough all we want, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty, the consequences are insanely costly, not just in blood and treasure, but also in credibility. And we could have used a lot more of it in this situation.

Reports today that Russian forces have left South Ossetia and are moving toward Georgia’s capital of Tbilisi are troubling to say the very least. If Russia does indeed try to take the entire country by force and overthrow the government, we’re looking at a brand new geo-political ball game. Now, there’s no indication that permanently occupying Georgia is their aim, but there’s no indication that it isn’t either after this latest move.

Still, rhetoric like this doesn’t make me feel hopeful…

In a sharp response to Bush’s speech, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called Georgia’s leadership “a special project of the United States. And we understand that the United States is worried about its project.”

Russian news agencies quoted him saying the United States would have to choose “support for a virtual project” and or “real partnership” on issues such as U.S.-Russian cooperation on Iran and other world tension spots.

It’s kind of like, “You all go wherever you want because you say it threatens your security, and in this case Georgia actually struck first, so back off or we’ll start siding with Iran.”

However…Russia could overplay their hand here if they go to far with this latest march, and my guess is that this is yet another power play to make sure Europe and Georgia know they’re serious. Essentially, “You all know we could go there, but we didn’t and so reward us.”

So they may just want to humiliate Georgia enough so it looks like they have to kiss their ring and promise to never ever screw with them again. In fact, they may demand that South Ossetia and Abkhazia be granted their independence. That’s a long shot, but it could be in the cards. And of course this is a signal to all the other democratic nations in the area to never poke the bear, lest you invite a mauling.

On the flip side of this, doesn’t it seem like Russia needs the US just as much as we need them? A nuclear Iran isn’t a good thing for Russia either. Practically speaking, if a nuke somehow goes off in Europe, that could seriously upset Russia’s oil and natural gas business. Yes, it would hurt us and stunt our economy, but wouldn’t it devastate theirs too? Of course this is a country full of citizens accustomed to going decades without much of anything, so maybe they’re not as worried.

Until I hear more, it’s simply “wait and see.”

An honorable man who served his country well, it is clear his time has past and his grasp on the most basic foreign policy calls we’ll need to make in the coming years is very tentative indeed. He’ll be surrounded by second-tier ‘yes-man’ realists and residual neo-con swill, few with any ideas worth pursuing if we mean to take the national interest seriously with sobriety and freshness of perspective. So let us help him exit off-stage gracefully, as he served his country with dignity when called upon, but let us not sacrifice our children’s future to ignorants with deludely romantic notions of empire. Been there, done that.

Indeed, we have a President who has announced a pre-emptive doctrine which allows us to, willy-nilly, instigate regime change when and where we deem appropriate. Who are we to lecture Putin now? What standing do we have to do so? And what parochial and self-satisfied myopia has us indignantly thinking we are some unimpeachable arbitrer of right and wrong in the international system after the disastrous missteps of the past eight sordid years?

To back up Djerejian, I hope everybody knows that even before this situation McCain had suggested that Russia should be kicked out of the G8. That stance is so hardline that even with this latest overreaching, there’s no way Russia would get booted. That hasn’t stopped McCain from proposing it again. So why on earth would one push such an impotent plan? And not just once, but twice?

As mentioned here and virtually every other corner of the blogosphere, there are no good options when dealing with this situation. However, what I think is extremely easy to dismiss are the options presented by those who don’t realize or appreciate our diminished stature on the world stage and our need to regain credibility in a post Neo Con foreign policy era. McCain’s proposals offers us nothing but more talk tough Bush Doctrine nonsense, which Bush himself has all but abandoned at this point.

Russia outmaneuvered us on this one, plain and simple. Chalk it up to bad planning and laughable foreign policy naivete. But that’s just how it is, and we’re just going to have to grin and bear it.

At least that’s the latest report. We probably won’t have confirmation on this until sometime later today.

From NY Times:

MOSCOW — President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia announced Tuesday that he had ordered a halt to his country’s military operation in Georgia, although he did not say that troops were pulling out and he insisted that Russian forces were still authorized to fire on enemies in South Ossetia.

The president said Russia had achieved its military goals during five days of intense fighting, which has seen Russian troops advance into Georgian territory and which brought strong denunciations from President Bush and other Western leaders.

In a meeting with Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov shown on Russian television, Mr. Medvedev said: “The goal of the operation has been achieved. The security of our peacekeepers and civilians has been ensured.” But he also told Mr. Serdyukov to “eliminate” any enemy remaining in South Ossetia.

A tenuous peace? Perhaps. But something tells me that Russia won’t be starting this back up because they’ve proven their point. They’re powerful and they’ll defend their interests in the region. Done and done.

In another corner of the world, former President Mikhail Gorbachev offers a way forward…

The international community’s long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region’s countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too — but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.

He also chides the world community for taking such a one sided view on this conflict, and while I agree with him about South Ossetia’s right to work with their own allies to defend their territory, especially given the special historical circumstances that surround this area, I think it’s obvious that the Russians overreached.

Still, the US’s actions in the past 7 years haven’t helped our credibility to make the point that Russia overreached, as Andrew Sullivan points out…

Russia is not exporting a totalitarian ideology; it is flexing its military power in its backyard, as it has always done and always will. Since Cheney has exactly the same view about the use of American military power as Putin does about Russian power, I’m not sure what grounds he has to complain. Maybe we should start complaining when as many Georgians have perished as Iraqis – and when Putin throws thousands of innocent Georgians into torture chambers.

However, lost in all of this discussion about right and wrong is what Russia’s aim is here. They’re not claiming that Georgia is theirs. Nor are they claiming that South Ossetia is theirs. But South Ossetia has Russia’s backing, and if Georgia thought they could just roll right in there and take it over, regardless of whatever support they thought they had from us, it’s now abundantly clear they were mistaken.

More as it develops…

This little factoid comes from the Times Online, which provides a very good timeline of what has gone down in the past, and sums it up as such…

Russia’s policy is driven by a mixture of emotion and calculation. The Russian security establishment likes the Ossetes, who have been Russian allies for more than 250 years. They loathe the Georgians for their antiRussian nationalism and alliance with the US. For a long time they hoped to use South Ossetia initially to keep Georgia within the Soviet Union and later in a Russian sphere of influence.

That Russian ambition has been abandoned largely in the face of the Georgians’ determination to escape from this influence.

What remains is an absolute determination not to be defeated by Georgia and not to suffer the humiliation of having to abandon Russia’s South Ossete client state, with everything that this would mean for Russian prestige in other areas. Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin made it clear again and again that if Georgia attacked South Ossetia, Russia would fight. Georgian advocates in the West claimed that Moscow was only bluffing. It wasn’t.

And so it goes…

Mr Saakashvilli may also have banked on support from his closest ally, US president George W Bush, whose administration is said to have given tacit support for a Georgian assault on South Ossetia in the believe that the territory could be recaptured within 48 hours.

Obviously this is unconfirmed, but it would make a hell of a lot more sense that we did give them a go ahead or at least knew about it and didn’t say “Stop!”

And if that’s the case, this would be a massive screwup on our part.

More as it develops…