GEORGIA ON MY MIND

The ongoing Russian invasion of the former Soviet republic of Georgia has lit up neo-cons and
liberal hawks of the Democratic center. John McCain seeks to use the Russian attack to profile his leadership abilities. Barack Obama's advisors, such as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, suggest that Obama would never have let the relationship between the United States and Russian deteriorate to the extent that Russia would brazenly risk a break in relations by engaging in the disproportionate resort to violence that has wracked the Caucusus region since the ill-fated attempt by Georgian President Saakashvili to reimpose Georgian control in South Ossetia. Meanwhile, civilians are fleeing towards Tiblisi, the world's energy markets worry about the fate of the trans-Georgian oil pipeline if a ceasefire does not soon ensue, and everyone wonders what the West can and might do to prevent a war of re-conquest if the Russians press forward.

For all of George Bush's tough talk towards Russia, there seems little that the United States can do. Whether training the Georgian military and U.S. support for Georgian accession into NATO encouraged reckless disregard for the threat potential posed by Russian troops in and around Abkhazia and South Ossetia is beside the point. Whatever Georgia hoped to achieve by sending its forces into South Ossetia, nominally a part of Georgia, has long since been lost as the republic seeks to hang on to whatever independence it might still have.

Does Russia wish to retrieve back into the fold the newly independent countries on its periphery during the free-falling 90s when the Soviet Union became unglued, ceased to exist and Russia wallowed in economic misery. Buoyed by revenues generated from its exports of oil and gas, a newly invigorated Russia has not hesitated to employ its new economic power by withholding gas supplies to the Ukraine when Ukraine demonstrated its new found loyalty to the West. Past disputes with Georgia over South Osettia and Abkhazia have ended with the very strange result that Russian forces served as peacekeepers in the latter two breakaway regions while the Russian government issued passports to Georgian citizens opposed to rule from Tiblisi.

While the United States squandered moral prestige, soldiers and the public treasury on the foray into Iraq, Russia has openly pulled away from the West. The most obvious confrontation has been over the placement of missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic in order to deter Iran and prevent the development of nuclear weapons as Iran pursues nuclear energy. Diplomatically, Russia has not helped present a united Western in order to force Iran to renounce nuclear weapons. What once looked like a new era in Russian-American relations after the breakup of the Soviet Union, now seems to have entered a new, uncharted era as an assertive Russia seeks to restore order on its periphery. How will and how should the West respond?

The most pressing need is to bring about an end to the Russian invasion before Russian troops occupy Tiblisi and carry the action to - perhaps - its logical end. If that is the Russian goal - to occupy the Georgian seat of power and remove its democratically elected president from office - then a more vigorous Western response is required. NATO ought to quietly deliver an ultimatum to Putin and state in emphatic terms that an occupation of Tiblisi is a line that cannot be crossed. Should the Russian assault press forward, then NATO should threaten aerial bombardment of attacking Russian troops and raise the cost that Russia would have to pay in order to accomplish its goal. Clearly, Georgia can do little to slow down or prevent a Russian attack on Tiblisi if that's what Russia intends. Only a NATO show of force could give the Russians pause.

To accomplish a halt to the Russian invasion, it might very well require the abandonment of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the recognition of these regions as independent republics. Whether the Russians would accept such a limited outcome given the very real possibility that Russia could at least incorporate these areas into Russia proper based on the results so far is a crucial question. And, it may very well imply that the crisis in Georgia cannot be resolved without the participation of NATO air forces. At the moment, Russia has no incentive to stop its invasion. Nor is there any reason to see why Russia would allow a return to status quo ante. Its forces have already put an end to the basis for Russian-Georgian strife by occupying both rebel regions and driving out all Georgian troops.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the West will ignore Georgia's plight and concede that it can have no impact on Russian aims on in areas on the Russian periphery. That, however, should scare the Baltic countries, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan, along with Ukraine. To simply allow Russia to bully its will on a weak power and perhaps swallow it back into the fold is to kowtow to military and economic might. Europe cannot afford that since its energy dependence on Russia is painfully obvious. Nor does such tacit acceptance of Russian aggression, even if explained away by the lack of alternatives, does not bode well. We've been down this road before when the West abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazis.

Whatever the response to the Russian invasion, it cannot be simply an American response. This must be a European and American response under the guise of NATO. France is a key player as it presently heads the European community. That France has been active in dispatching Bernard Kouchner to Tiblisi is hopeful, but actions speak louder than words.