The congress of the USA recognised the Russian version of chronology of events, so also the fact of attack to Tshinval from outside Georgia, instead of окупацию as Russia the Georgian territories.

Georgians and other neighboring sovereign states that fear Russian aggression should be given NATO membership to avoid further deterioration in the region. Putin and Medevelov are determined to frighten the free world with more awful acts. They have supporters in Russia and Nicaragua

a good analogy is to Cyprus where the Turkish invasion set up a separate Turkish administration on part of the island, which has never been recognized by anyone else. Eventually both situations will probably be settled by negotiations. I agree that the Soviet Union has not made any friends with their overreaction to the reckless attack by Georgia.

you are ridiculously one-sided and nothing short of a washington stooge mr. Zakaria!!!

BTW, Zakariya's Neo Con pandering to his US and Israeli clients and bosses reveals his irrational thinking.

Russia's counterstrike put the major Georgian sea port of P`oti` in Russian hands, likely permanently. This secures Russian naval presence in the Mediterrenean and Black sea. As well, post conflict, Syria and Venezuala have both offered Russia port access and greater naval joint relations.

SCO nations have all supported Russia, including China.

Belarus, a CACTO nation agreed to a Russian missile defense system to be stationed there, Kazakhstan- the next NATO pawn on the Neo Con push- openly supported Russian action. The EU has declined major sanctions and has only postponed their trade agreement talks.

From the look of things, Russia is indeed the winner and the Neo Con Israeli American venture in Georgia looks like a bust.

No, the USA did not willingly hand Georgia to Russia.
More news of the Georgian mystery: UPI reported that Israel was using Georgian airbases for spying on Russia and as a critical point for an invasive air assault on Iran.
A Georgia based air assault on Iran could allow Israeli bombers to traverse the Caspian sea and reach Iran within 3.5 hours rather than require permission to enter foreign air space.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5559

As well, apparently back in June, Israel had staged practice air assault from Israel to Greece practice targets using 100s of planes. The full depth of Israeli and Neo Con US support for Georgia shows Georgia was ripe with warmongering thinking.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=157495

The USA actively spend attack to the financial markets of Russia, RTS index falls frightening rates, in effect пиндостан (contemptious прзвище the USA given by the Russian commandoes in Prishtina) has handed over a pawn in the name of Saakashvili to provoke outflow of the capital from Russia, further there will be a falling of the prices for oil, approximately to 65 dollars for barrel and other financial attacks. The economy of Russia will resist - anywhere will not get to. Bloody games of a mode of Bush younger will sometime end, only sobering up will be painful.

An erroneous judgment. In this poker game, Russia holds almost all the good cards. Russia considers the old Warsaw Pact area as its bailiwick: all others keep out! This is quite analogous to the US Monroe Doctrine which tells all other nations to keep out of the Americas. Were the sole bully here: Chile, Nigaragua, Haiti, Grenada, Panama...

The Cuban Missile crisis was the last test of our doctrine.

US support for a rash Georgia is based on its having the only oil pipeline not controlled by Russia moving product west from the Caucasus region.

Russia has already started to move on the Cheney visit: they will help Iran with its nuclear plans.
That makes it almost five aces in their hand.
Bush-Cheney can only wag a finger without any effect. This apart from their invasion of Iraq, which was not provoked by Saddam Hussein.

Its ridiculous of Americans to complain about Russia intervening in Georgia which is Russia's historical brother and neighbor, complaining about Russia leaving its borders, while America is the biggest interventionist, intrusive, supersovereign power in the world.

America used NATO as a political tool of American imperial interests, trying to push American/NATO military power to the Kazakhstan and block Russia from the Black Sea and thus easy access to the Mediterranean. This is lowgrade geo-strategic warfare America has been orchestrating for 18 years.

Quite frankly, the UN has always been considered a tool of American global interests. So UN recognized borders and laws are always open to discredit.
Zakariya and his ilk, even Obama, are subject to follow in the global imperialist pathway set by the Neo Con agenda for the postCold war Asian Continent.

Sum Ting Wong with you:

Hu Yu Hai Ding behind this mocking tone? A unhappy American/westerner?

Cum Hia Nao! I shall introduce a consullor to you.

Dum Gai you are, not knowing you Gais have no more credits in this world.

Tai Ni Po Ni are more welcome than American Big Tanks everywhere in the world!

Wai Yu So Tan with your thoughts? Has your mind been burnt by anger?

Ai Bang Mai Ni into your bashing mouth, and it still hurts...

Chin Tu Fat will be your issue if you eat too much "Free-dumb" fries

Wai So Dim is your view of others? Are you unhappy at home?

No Pah King for U.S. tanks everywhere in this world! Tai Ni Po Ni only, I repeat!

Wai Yu Kum Nao? Are you invited in Iraq?

Lei Ying Lo? Too late! Everybody now knows about Guan Ta Na Mo Bay!

Wa Shing Ka? You better! Runing gasoline is costing lives elsewhere you know!

Yu Stin Ki Pu is from your bashing mouth, remember to brush your teeth before you go to bed tonight...

Bai Bai.

The Chinese people are also a great people and very productive and industrious and will be more so once they get rid of their stupid Communist government and its toadies. And that shouldn't be too long in coming.
In the mean time, in this PostGlobal environment I would encourage everyone who is interested to learn to speak Chinese. Everyone says it's so hard and all, but really it is not. For example, here are some simple phrases to get you started:

"That's not right...
Sum Ting Wong

Are you harboring a fugitive?...
Hu Yu Hai Ding?

See me ASAP...
Kum Hia Nao

Stupid Man...
Dum Gai

Small Horse...
Tai Ni Po Ni

Did you go to the beach?...
Wai Yu So Tan?

I bumped into a coffee table...
Ai Bang Mai Ni

I think you need a face lift...
Chin Tu Fat

It's very dark in here...
Wai So Dim?

I thought you were on a diet...
Wai Yu Mun Ching?

This is a tow away zone...
No Pah King

Our meeting is scheduled for next week...
Wai Yu Kum Nao?

Staying out of sight...
Lei Ying Lo

He's cleaning his automobile...
Wa Shing Ka

Your body odor is offensive...
Yu Stin Ki Pu"
-----------------
You should really try it out.

Dedicated to Fareed Zakaria
To analise who was agressor below I made a digest from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600502_pf.html. And then follows my comment and conclusion - it is Saakashvili who is a s.o.b.
7 August. "Around 2 p.m. that day, Ossetian artillery fire resumed, targeting Georgian
positions in the village of Avnevi in South Ossetia. By evening, Kezerashvili said, the Georgian side had had enough. "At 6, I gave the order to prepare everything, to go out from the bases," he said in an interview Aug. 14. "From 18:00, Georgian troops from inner districts are relocated to the area" near the South Ossetian border, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, a colonel-general on the Russian General Staff, told reporters in Moscow at a retrospective briefing. At 7 p.m., with troops on the march, Saakashvili went on national television and declared a unilateral cease-fire. Saakashvili's televised call for a cease-fire, coinciding with the movement of so many troops and weapons, was perceived in Moscow as an attempt to buy time while Georgian forces positioned themselves for a major attack. Kezerashvili said that around the same time Georgians were receiving
intelligence reports suggesting that Russian troops were gearing up to move
south through the Roki Tunnel. In a series of phone calls, Saakashvili contacted Western and NATO leaders and diplomats. "I started to call frantically," he said in an interview with foreign journalists. But about three hours after Saakashvili's address, a new round of South Ossetian shells struck a Georgian peacekeeping position. At 11 p.m., Saakashvili said, he received the first reports that Russian units were passing through the tunnel and around 11:50, I got confirmation that Russian armor was coming in," Saakashvili said. He had no choice, he said."
Now my comment
Please pay attention to the fact that NOBODY - not russians or OBCE monitors not even Western and NATO leaders and diplomats whom so frantically called GEORGIAN president - ever confirmed his story. Washington says that he was misled - Bryza was told that by Saakashvili that "We are going to shell the road on which the Russians are approaching and try to keep them back." But he was not told that Georgian armor was already moving toward the South Ossetian line and continued to do so even after Saakashvili declared a cease-fire. It means that this Georgian armor was from beginning earmarked for shelling Tskhinvali, not nonexistent russian armor. (Even US intelligence couldn`t confirmed it existence).
2) Saakashvili made his televised statement (unilateral cease-fire for ossetians coupled with most unexpected concession to Moscow) when both russian leaders were on vacations. So I don`t believe in Kremlin`s immediate reaction. But even if russian armor begun to move out Tskhinvali - what it means Saakashvili had no choice but to bomb the capital? He had for example the choice to raise a hell in Security Council and point to Russia as agressor. But why then it was Moscow and not Tbilisi which reached that night to SC UN with complaint?
CONCLUSION
The fact that Saakashvily begins surreptitiously, behind the back even of his own american ally, to bomb the people whom he gave a few hours before his word not to attack means that he isn`t man of honour. So Moscow seems right - Saakashvili is the agressor and his televised call was just an attempt to lull both both Moscow and Tskhinvali and to buy time for Georgian forces to position themselves.

Come on ! Wake up everybody!
F.Zakaria is the grade zero of the international analyse...Whatever he does state, believe immediatly the contrary!

//I still have hopes for the Russian people. After 70 years of communist rule they don't need to entangle themselves in messes outside their own borders.

They are rich in resources, both human and material resources. Their people are great, they always have been...//

Typical empty, insincere, politically correctly humiliating talks by Americans/westerners.

I still have hopes for the Russian people. After 70 years of communist rule they don't need to entangle themselves in messes outside their own borders.

They are rich in resources, both human and material resources. Their people are great, they always have been, but it seems that they have had to put up with one type of despot or another.

This current situation is a tough nut to crack but I think that in the end it will work out in a positive way.

I won't put up my comment.

TO 'anonymous' who wrote this:

- The fact that USA has not disputed the Russian claims of US/Israel assistance on the aggression launched by Georgian.

Lev's answer: If the American military had been involved, it would have had access to satellite images of the Russian 53rd Army building up over the previous 8 months. It would also have had images of the Spetsnatz encampments on the Georgia border and of the various armor and air strike forces that were in place as early as March 2008. Americans would have been able to count the 112,000 Russia military poised on the border and would certainly not 'attack' them with a police force of 4000.

- The fact Georgia's president is puppet of the American Govt. since 2005 when the CIA helped him come to power in the disguise of revolutions

Lev's answer: And who was there before? Four Georgian ministers held Russian passports and may have been accepting gratuities from the Foreign Intelligence Service (SRA).

- The fact that the Aerican whose passport was founded admits he lost it...but does not no where and how....intersting huh that a Russian soldier finds it in Georgia of all places

Lev's answer: At least 70 American tourists including children were flown out of Georgia during the invasion. Besides, a directorate of the SRA can duplicate any international document and has been able to since the 1920s.

- The fact that the American Govt spokesperson would not look squarely into the eyes of the camera to deny the military assistance offered to Georgia....tell tale signs of liars...

Lev's answer: Why would any US government official deny it at all? It is the natural activity of two sovereign democracies. If the Georgians had been given biological weapons, the Georgian invasion might be an entirely different matter. Of course, only Russia is famous for its biological weapons. How are things at Omutninsk these days?

Since a puppet cannot animate itself without the puppeteer pulling the strings, I will let you chew on these "simplified" points so you can reach your own conclusion.

Lev's answer: The entire concept of a check and balance democracy is that if you are aiding another check and balance democracy, there is no need whatever to manipulate it because its minimum political evolution would already be too advanced over a totalitarian system that is completely dependent on its SRA style power 'strings'.

If you were looking for a link that says specifically that USA planned and executed the Georgian crisis, I have not been able to clear the Pentagon War Room access since it's above my pay grade, but if you are willing to wait for another 20 to 30 years, I am sure it will be available once the documents starts getting declassified under the Freedom of Information Act.

Lev's answer: It is actually call the NMCC, but is called the War Room in the neolib conspiracy lexicon. Odd that the world only recently saw NKVD records of where the totalitarianist Stalin buried the bones of his equally totalitarian contemporary, Adolf Hitler. Very little neolib conspiracy theory about that.

Unsettled American,

In response to your query on so called my "idea" that the US military planned and directed attacks by the Georgian Army specifically against its own civilians is based on my hypotheses that I have tested with the available information on the web, cable and print media.

- The fact that USA has not disputed the Russian claims of US/Israel assistance on the aggression launched by Georgian.
- The fact Georgia's president is puppet of the American Govt. since 2005 when the CIA helped him come to power in the disguise of revolutions

- The fact that the Aerican whose passport was founded admits he lost it...but does not no where and how....intersting huh that a Russian soldier finds it in Georgia of all places

- The fact that the American Govt spokesperson would not look squarely into the eyes of the camera to deny the military assitance offered to Georgia....tell tale signs of liars...

Since a puppet cannot animate itself without the puppeteer pulling the strings, I will let you chew on these "simplified" points so you can reach your own conclusion.

If you were looking for a link that says specifically that USA planned and executed the Georgian crisis, I have not been able to clear the Pentagon War Room access since it's above my pay grade, but if you are willing to wait for another 20 to 30 years, I am sure it will be available once the documents starts getting declassified under the Freedom of Information Act.

Until then , check out this website, its provides lots of interesting article from crediable people

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home

Posted on September 5, 2008 00:31

Unsettled American:

ROISM007:

I am curious where you get the idea that the US military planned and directed attacks by the Georgian Army specifically against its own civilians. The US had started training the Georgian Military in basic military matters, such as small unit tactics, but theories like the one you cite seem to strain credibility in my opinion. I watch US, Russian, and international news sources, and I have to say, for the quality of reporting and multiple perspectives, Russian news would come in dead last, and would not even be within site of the other two. Not to say that they are not without their problems, but Russian "news" is only broadcast after it has been at minimum approved, if not written, by the Kremlin. The US bungled the entire Georgia issue - but it didn't plan a genocide of S. Ossetian civilians just for a fun way to kick off the Olympics.

To Einar Bjorn Bjarnason, you commented:
“However, Russia is considerably dependent on access to oil/gas resources of the central Asian republics. I strongly suspect that Russia has in fact been purchasing it for less money than it costs Russia to pump up oil from their own Siberian oil and gas fields. This may explain why Russia has been for some time under-investing in those fields. I think one of the aims in Georgia was to close the oil corridor going through Georgia, thus limiting that line of competition for the oil/gas resources of central Asia. I reckon, it´s only matter of time till they will focus on the fact that China is in the process of increasing its own access to these very resources (among others by pipeline extensions from Synkiang) Russians are now limiting western access to.
In order to understand the above situation better, one needs to consider the Chinese overall strategic situation. The fact is that currently, there is no chance whatsoever that China will risk the wrath of the USA. Remember, Taiwan. The reason is US dominance of the world´s oceans combined with the share thirst of China for resources. For China, central Asia is just as much the near abroad as for Russia, and access to resources there does have the potential to reduce Chinese dependence on resources that can only be reached across the world´s oceans, which USA rules. Today, USA could simply collapse the Chinese economy at any time by denying the Chinese access to resources with its fleet. This means IMO, it´s only a matter of time till China effectively moves Central Asia over to its sphere of power, and denies it´s resources to Russia due to its strategic imperative.”
Please note the table below concerning world energy resources. It should be reasonably accurate even with the caveats removed. I am afraid the implications are not all that pleasant, especially in view of your comments about possible energy related conflicts. There is some evidence that there is a ‘bidding war’ over oil in the region that is backed up by troops. I have included a couple of very speculative scenarios based on inspection of the table for your amusement, although they are parts of a larger text.

Time Line:_____2010__ 2020___ 2030___ 2040___ 2050___ 2060___ 2070
Remaining oil:__ 870 bbl_ 640 bbl_ 430 bbl_ 250 bbl_ 150 bbl_ 80 bbl_ 10 bbl
Remaining gas:_ 7000tcf_ 5580tcf_ 4800tcf_ 2000tcf_ 1100tcf_ 900tcf_ 400tcf
Remaining nuc: 360gwh_380gwh_540gwh_760gwh_1000gwh_760gwh_420gwh

biofuels:_______ .38 bbl_ 1.29bbl_ 5.35bbl_ 9.76bbl_ 19.8bbl_ 27.4bbl_ 41.2bbl
wind power:____ 98gwh_ 160gw_ 190gwh_ 300gwh_ 400gwh_ 590gwh_ 520gwh
ITER tokamaks:________________ 18gwh_ 37gwh_ 330gwh_ 412gwh_ 654gwh
EGS thermal:____10gwh_25gwh_45gwh__90gwh__260gwh__390gwh_590gwh

Sources: MIT and Oxford energy studies, ITER is very speculative.

Coal, even after 2060, is also a very viable energy source but requires a ‘miraculous’ emissions filter. Solar also has potential but might total less than 6 percent of the world’s need. The old standby, hydroelectric power, could be increased considerably if a miracle called ‘super conductive generator’ came along. Alas, Iceland’s four geothermal installations would need to quadruple their outputs and be able to convert their energy into terawatt hydrogen PEM fuel cell ships (also miraculous) in order to distribute energy that would save the North Atlantic peoples after 2060.
A close inspection of matters around 2060 will indicate that as the oil and other consumables run out, the available fuels will be for electrical generation and all of them combined would not be enough to maintain future consumption levels. This might lead to some terrible scenarios involving state aggression over oil energy. Please note the highly speculative science fiction scenarios attached which are compressed from a work in progress:

Armageddon scenario I, Satan wins: 2010: Terrorist cults, mass destruction weapons all proliferate. Many overtures toward world cooperation., but totalitarianists continue domination ambitions. 2020: Totalitarianists increase control over energy movement, massive low level conflicts interfere with growth of food, material resources, health and well being. 2030: totalitarianists use terror cults, life threatening chemicals to imprison populations, democracies cannot maintain citizens lives with lowering energy levels. 2040: Energy in many regions begins to disappear, mechanized equipment, pharmaceuticals for diseases, protein foods no longer available. World politics stagnate. 2060: World War Z, remaining resources decimated by mass destruction weapons. Anarchy in many regions. 2070: remaining billion people live as slaves to robotized elites who control all wealth and DNA enhancement technologies that decide whether one will be born a human or as a mindless parts factory or energy generator. Evolution ends, except for machines.

Armageddon scenario II, Gabriel wins: 2010: Low intensity wars that eliminate a terror cult here, a genocider there, Crimes against Humanity everywhere. Food, health research, justice strengthened. 2020: Free societies allocate more resources to regional, renewable energies, cut decadent waste. Health care systems increasingly sophisticated. 2030: Fierce fighting worldwide on establishment of tribunals that try individuals for Crimes against Humanity, self conviction by biodevices allowed. 2040: Investments in ‘no waste’ technologies extend available energy resources thirty years. Genetic health becomes a human right; DNA therapies begin eliminating 270 hereditary diseases. Definition of hereditary DNA diseases begins to include totalitarian ambitions, other primitive impulses. 2060: World War Z, many regions decimated by mass destruction weapons, many others saved by anti-weapon defenses. International tribunals begin worldwide genetic extermination of totalitarianists. 2070: Smaller human race begins awareness enhancements not possible before gaining genetic freedom. The new perception of Creation allows endless energy osmosis from other universe strings.

Unsettled American: I as have understood you write from Russia because in the USA now night, but in the posts horrors of business dealing in Russia in which earlier have described have specified that it comes to an end with prison. You by the way have not commented on my message regarding concerning that a stop of Russian army and not taken place storm of Tbilisi has fine angered the western politicians, in particular the US president. Because all plan of operation just also has been created so that storm has taken place. Also you have not commented on my statement about presence at Saakashvili of the Georgian orientation because it has been brought up in the west, hence the Georgian on education is not.

РУССКИЙ:

I am sorry, I don't know if I know what "prison" comment you refer to? I do not mean to slander Russia, I just have the opinion that while Russia has many good sides, it also has many serious problems, at least from my experience there. Good and bad, just like everywhere else.

Middle Kingdom-er:

Maybe I am a "mad" American (I am American, says so on my passport), I don't know how you would consider me. What I meant was that on Western news (at least on the BBC, which I've been watching most of the time lately) there are often programs with people from all around the world, discussing the important news of the day, and giving a diverse group of perspectives that usually disagree with each other. I am not sure what the lies are that you refer to, but I am sure they happen, just as they happen everywhere else. I don't think the western press is alone in that. However, a lie is not the same thing as an opinion you happen to disagree with - that is a difference in opinion.

Unsettled American:
Welcoming me on this discussion I did not expect from you such quantity of unreasonable statements about Russia. What prison? If I write to you from work through a server of security service of the company? And about all they know. Please be accurater with expressions concerning for example to discussion of the concrete nation, differently your statements will lose legitimacy, having rolled down to ordinary slander. For example I - Russian, drink German coffee, I go on Japanese тойоте camry I print on the Korean computer and every day I see Americans HERE, and they are not frightened by a bloody mode on rest at an admiring of lake Baikal.

//I don't know if the Western press is hypocritical as much as it is nuanced, in demonstrating multiple points of view simultaneously in a way that can be confusing. //

Is lying a "point of view" too?

And where are the OTHER "points of view"?

This is precisely what I meant by hypocrisy. I didn't read your other comments so I can't say you are just another of those mad americans, but with respect, if you don't know, then you don't have to answer my post.

I should stop here as not to mislead the discussion to about China.

Einar: government corruption is very interesting thesis, the thesis about difficulties is even more interesting at opening of the business, it to put it mildly lie, I for example have opened the for 400 roubles (20 dollars on yours) and two weeks of term, have then received the certificate in tax inspection, have opened the bank account to Baikal Bank and have registered the measuring electrotechnical laboratory, and anybody did not demand bribes. Tenders for works are spent in an open mode on line and opening of envelopes with offers occurs on a public meeting to the publication of results of the auctions on the Internet a site.

Einar:

Well-written and interesting commentary. You have a point, certainly, conflict in possible in Central Asia between Russia and China. However, I just happen to think that the costs of such conflict would be much higher than the costs of reaching some kind of duopolic agreement to split up the resources of the region between the two of them. Considering that China has extensive economic pull in Africa to assist with its resource needs, as well as now a foothold in the Iraq oil industry, I don't see that China's need for Central Asian oil and gas will become sufficiently urgent to push it towards an out-and-out conflict with Russia. Also, Russia itself is on a ticking time bomb economically, as it has made no effort to improve or diversify its economy outside of natural resources. Education, for example, is of poor quality in Russia, and the government is so corrupt that it is very difficult to try and grow a business there, unless you happen to be currently in favor at the Kremlin (and even then, you will be killed/thrown in prison the minute someone more powerful than you decides they want what you have). History has not shown that one-dimensional economics that stay one-dimension have any staying power, and Russia's current high-flying ways seem bound to crash in the next couple of decades unless they get serious about dealing with their myriad internal problems.

Middle Kingdom-er:

I don't know if the Western press is hypocritical as much as it is nuanced, in demonstrating multiple points of view simultaneously in a way that can be confusing. It's true that it has a distinctly different perspective than Russian (government) press, or press in many other nations. It's up to you to decide whether you agree with that perspective. As for the issue of Westerners being much more vulgar than Russians, I would have to guess that you have not spent much time in Russia :)

ROISM007:

I am curious where you get the idea that the US military planned and directed attacks by the Georgian Army specifically against its own civilians. The US had started training the Georgian Military in basic military matters, such as small unit tactics, but theories like the one you cite seem to strain credibility in my opinion. I watch US, Russian, and international news sources, and I have to say, for the quality of reporting and multiple perspectives, Russian news would come in dead last, and would not even be within site of the other two. Not to say that they are not without their problems, but Russian "news" is only broadcast after it has been at minimum approved, if not written, by the Kremlin. The US bungled the entire Georgia issue - but it didn't plan a genocide of S. Ossetian civilians just for a fun way to kick off the Olympics.

Middle-Kingdom-er:
+1
Unsettled American:
In the light of reduction of offensive arms under contracts CНВ-1 and CНВ-2 against which any system of antimissile defence was powerless, the position of the USA on a withdrawal from a treaty on the ABM looks simply hypocritical. By a part "оборонительности" противоракет why you not to study history of sea fight of the ship of the Black Sea fleet of the Russian Federation "MIRAGE" against the Georgian Navies? After all have forced to turn the second wave of approach having struck on the Georgian ship in a board the ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILE? It to what the defensive weapon as a rule is very easily transformed in offensive and to equip a usual warhead with a nuclear ammunition of work will not make, and what then we will receive as a result?

Vanagunas:

I agree that engagement with Russia is an important thing to pursue, but it also should not be done without any kind of conditions. If Russia thinks that the US and EU will seek engagement with it regardless of its actions, then Russia will continue to exercise its authority outside of its borders in a way that is counterproductive towards global development. Should care be taken not to needlessly aggravate Russia? Yes, I think most rational people would agree with that without argument. Should Ukraine, Georgia, the Central Asians countries, plus say the entire Balkan peninsula and all of Europe east of Vienna be yielded to Russia to play with as it likes? I would argue that doing so is equally, if not more so, destructive as aggravating Russia needlessly. Russia's definition of "influence" is somewhat more, shall we say, direct than the current Western conception. Letting Russia have all the influence it wants would basically mean a return to the old Warsaw Pact days, because Russia would want to (not officially, but behind the scenes) pick and choose the leadership, foreign, and domestic policies of all the countries that used to fall within its empire. This is akin to the old days of CIA-backed coups in Latin America, just magnified to the Nth degree. The problem I see often in this discussion is that it tends to polarize around the "carrot vs. stick" approach, and very rarely is a "carrot and stick" approach discussed. Both approaches are needed to deal with Russia in a manner that will respect its legitimate needs but without effectively forfeiting the sovereignty of a good dozen or more countries.

Since the the CNN-BBC Tibetan reports this year, I have no respect for western media or opinions of western authorities any more, just a bunch of most shockingly shameless liars and useless, defeated hypocrites.

Both Russia and west are brutal. But Russia isn't hypocritical in contrast to U.S. and western European nations, and Russia still seems to have some pride, unlike the later have completely turned into street-bashing style vulgar nations.

I don't know enough to tell if what Russia is doing is rightful, but one should never trust western media's view on it.

Catfish:

For the first thing, the primary difference between the installation of missiles in Cuba by the USSR and the installation of missiles in Poland is one of offense vs. defense. The missiles in Cuba were offensive ICBMs capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The missiles that the US is stationing in Poland are defensive ICBM killers that don't carry any kind of warhead. The difference is the same as my showing up at your house carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, or showing up at your house wearing a Kevlar vest (and carrying no weapon). Which of those situations sounds more like it is an aggressive move to you?

Unsettled American:
About independence of the Chechen Republic and Ingushetia I ask to read Kadyrov's statements (the president of the Chechen Republic) on this theme. By the way the Chechen division having learnt about participation of the Georgian military men from Iraq and a transfer by their planes of the USA very much were delighted to this circumstance, having sounded it so: "at them very good NATO equipment, it very much is useful to us!". Once again I repeat, such policy and financing of the USA in such regions as the Chechen Republic, Ingushetia, Georgia, and earlier also were Tatarstan, Bashkortorstan and Kalmykia in what good will not result. The USA will sometime wait these games in democracy, only in own territory.
С уважением,

For LELA Mixed грузиноосетинские villages and now live both in territory of Georgia and in territory of South Ossetia. For this purpose it is enough to look the channel to Conduct Russian телевидиния and to communicate to eyewitnesses of events. Of inflating international break a set went and goes at financing of sources from abroad and whom as not author of article of it not to know? Having lost in the Chechen Republic some forces have directed the efforts in other direction, and any al Kaide here and. And if in the Chechen Republic financed it is reserved, it is now opened, through IMF and gifts at a rate of one billion dollars. Conditions destabilization on caucasus favourably only to one country - also is the USA, to be washed from blood this nation cannot never any more. Have begun in Horosime - continue now. Russia never and anybody did not attack for ALL history of the existence. Working Georgian operators of a cellular network in a conflict zone very much suggest that the western owners very much wanted, that 58th army was included into Tbilisi, and very much were disappointed and have become angry, when it has not occurred.

Kind time of days! Greetings to you from Russia. On points: 1. The difference between Iraq and Georgia consists that 25 % the Georgian from total number lives in Russia since Kaliningrad and finishing Vladivostok, they have both business there and families. Therefore no Georgian army will resist to the Russian. In the Russian suffices both the Georgian and the Ossetin on high posts. 2. Saakashvili is such Georgian as Dik Chejni the ballerina of troupe of the Moscow theatre, it has got university education гарварда, both its mentality and sights for a long time already not the Georgian. Якобашвили has the Israeli citizenship. Entertaining the picture at democracy of small brave democracy 3 turns out. Anybody to bomb any Poles a nuclear missile does not gather, learn the Lord history. These brothers Slavs always associated at us here with periodic mass treachery and unreliability. 4. Knowledge of Russia of the majority of local colleagues are probably limited to representations of some part of our (Russian) population about the USA - namely that it is crowd of descendants of the former criminals, выпнутых from kind old европы, misters primitively did not prevent - to live very much and very much! With greetings and respect from Russia, Siberia.

"Your geopolitical calculus makes a lot of sense, but I think it underestimates the historical Russian influence in Central Asia. Russia is not just now entering the region as a power player, as China is. China's political influence has never extended much farther west than it's current Xinjiang region, and its control of that province is not without challenge from Uighur separatists. Russia's, on the other hand, has been in Central Asia for centuries, and it's been a century since Russia took over complete control of the region back in the days of the old Tsarist Russian Empire. "

This is not entirelly correct. In its past, China has sometimes reigned considerably wider afield than it does today. To name an example, during the early Tang period. There was also a period during the Manzu reign, when Chinese territoryal influence was greater than today.

Most certainly, Russia has dominated the area for at something like century and a half, in earlier times the Chinese had sometimes temporarily reigned over it. When Russians were moving in towards the current borders of China, during the 19th. century, there were some clashes between the militaries of both countries. Russia, actually pushed China back a peg, as it had some fortresses and outposts with small populations in some of the regions which later came parts of the Russian empire. Even so, this influence of China has been drowned out during the subsequent passing of time, so today your statement that Russian cultural influence is very much more prevalent than the cultural influence of China is undoubtedly correct.

"I think Russia will be fine letting Central Asian countries sell energy resources to China (since Russia is doing the same), and letting China invest in them in return, and that status quo can remain relatively stable for decades. China is not looking to extend its direct political control any farther towards the Muslim world - it's already having enough problems with the province of Xinjiang."

There is one rather significant variable you neglect to consider, namely that if Russians tolerate Chinese extensions of oil/gas pipelines from Sinkiang, that means Russia will have to pay more, I think a lot more, for their oil/gas, then it has so far been doing. That means, Russian profits will from that trade, they so far have been monopolizing will shrink substantially or even be completely eliminated. I rather lean towards the latter, as Chinese economic strength grows, its appetite for oil/gas grows, the price it will be willing to pay I think will grow as well. I reckon, that over time Russia will not be able to compete with the share purchasing power of China.

Mind you, Russia has just been reminding the rest of the world that the Georgian oil/gas corridor is not safe. Due you really believe that Russia is going to allow their vital oil/gas profits, the backbone of their economy, to shrink substantially, without trying to do something about that?

China, precisely making economic inroads into Central Asia, is challenging Russian vital interests, or that´s how I think the current leaders of Russia are viewing it. This IMO is inherently unstable situation. Chinese leadership must be aware of the Russian paranoia, and it will be interesting to watch how they handle Russia for the coming months and years. But, IMO a clash of interests is clearly happening as we speak, and IMO with high probability will erupt within the next 10 years, even sooner.

Einar, Reykjavik, Iceland

Sir:

I agree with most of your assessment, particularly about the part regarding the need to keep Russia engaged. However, your proposed solution is easier said than done. Lowering the price of oil is not something one can order at a wish counter.

Another problem is that Europe is hopelessly divided on how to deal with Russia. Germans worry more about thier energy deals with Russia (Baltic gas pipeline, etc.) then security of their allies, which makes Poland and the Baltics very nervous. French proved completely ineffective in dealing with the crisis (see Sarkozy's mission). This is why the newcomers to NATO and EU are now looking to the US for security and stability (fewer and fewer people in Poland and Estonia now believe that NATO would go to war to protect them and history - WWII and Warsaw-Paris-London agrement, feeds this doubt). Poland also worries that the new president, likely Mr. Obama, will not stand up to the Russians and, being once sold down the river by another American president (FDR in Yalta) they had no choice but to take the missle shield deal as is.

Regards,

Interesting view. It is clear that there is no more bipolarity, but that doesn´t mean that there will not be forces against unalateralism and global hegemony. the Russian Federation is just telling the world "We have our space and our influence, as others have theirs". I think that such a great power evaluates possible threats in order to keep that influence zone.

It is also true that globalisation and integration are current ways to international action, but when it comes to see that a super power is having more influence close to your nose then its time to do something.

Z wrote - "But powerful new countervailing forces f globalization and integration are also working to mitigate nationalism and unilateralism."

I doubt that very much. Watching the GOP convention and seeing a "white folks" shouting USA, USA, USA is indication that nationalism and unilateralism is on the rise and not the opposite like you are thinking.

Russian action has caused the former countries of USSR to rethinking the geographical realities but the answer is not weather the Russian are driving them to the West but who designed this course of action for them to "choose" to move to the Western Influence? Given that USA was fully aware and planned the attacks by Georgian Army against its own civilians.

The world as I knew it growing up has in the past 7 years turned more dangerous under the Bush/Cheney Misinformation Age then at any other time in its history.

The 1 billion people in so called Western Countries are dictating the life of 5 billion other people in this world through their policies related to Finance, Economic and of course Energy. As the age of internet is coming to fruition in a global environment, people all over the world are awakening to the reality of deception and coercion the Western country have done in the past two centuries.

Be it the looting and raping of the African or South American Continent or playing of their so called Cold War Games in South East Asia, reality is that thanks to the internet people all over the world are getting historical prospective of events from non western point of views.

If "energy" can be simulated for "colonies" that the western powers in centuries before used to have in order to express their domination of the world then Russia is cementing its claim today. The two world wars that the planet has experienced were started under the same perception when Germany wanted to establish colonies similar to France, England, Spain and Portugal in order to review its economy in the African Continent and just like America today, back then England, Portugal and Spain were not willing to let go of the power they held to dominate the world. Russia, China other emerging powers today want to make sure they get their piece of the world pie.

Russia is just waking up from its 15 years of hibernation and the party as we know it is yet to start

"The single best strategy for bringing Russia in line with the civilized
world would be to dramatically lower oil prices, which would force the
country to integrate or stagnate. Pending that, we should shore up Georgia
and assist countries such as Poland and Ukraine."

Such a funny sentence, I mean the first choice! Full of wishful thinking like the drivel politicians are peddling around. Wouldn't lower oil prices be great for the west, anyway? If they could do it, wouldn't they do it regardless of Russia?

I wish I could hear some more about assisting Poland and Ukraine. What kind of assistance are you envisaging?

There is more of Europe in Russia than is implicit in your analysis and in American foreign policy which is short-sighted and geared to instant gratification. The likes of Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Tchaikovsky transcend Russian laggard political culture and link it firmly to Western Civilization. I believe that the French and the Germans understand this and have the patience to wait and help nurture Russia back into the European fold.

Why lecture on morality all of sudden Mr. Zakaria?? Where were you when we invaded Iraq inspite of rest of world community not agreeing with it. I am sure When Cheny got drunk after invading Iraq, expecting them to throw flowers at the army, you were there with him drunk as well. Let us talk reality and not promote the failed neocon crap. America is the only country in the world that has used atomic bomb, we are the only country who fought about 70 proxy wars in a democratic world, all just to promote our corporate and power lust. We alone have helped kill more people in world than natural diasters, sickness and hunger combined. We are the foremost firearms selling nation in the world. We have promoted and helped more dictators and power brokers in this wrold just for our convenience. We have toppled more democratically elected governments than any other country in the world. We are selfish, opinionated and megaegocentric people on this planet. Just because bombs dont fall in our backyards, we cant understands the woes of iraqis, africans and other nations we have invaded by choice. So Mr. Zakaria keep your moral lecture to yourself. You are simply displaying your arrogance and lack of compassion towards suffering human beings. You are no better than arrogant people at Blackwater who kill and shoot at whim becasue they are blinded by power. You better shut up.

Jeez! Great article as always!

This guy has no common sense.
Does it make sense to needle large countries like Russia by sorrounding it with missile systems ?
Does it make sense for Russia'a neigbours to have bad relations with Russia ?
NATO and the EU have failed to bring Russia onto their fold, primarily becuase of their condescending attitude towards the Russians.
How is it in the US National interest to make Russia into a enemy ?

Unsettled American

That is exactly the point that I am getting at. Who knows what the results of western provocation against Russia could be. I used the extreme case of Russia nuking Poland because, if Poland has a missile defense system that Russia believes will thwart its ability to defend itself, one of the first actions of Russia would be is to take out that defense. I believe they would use conventional weapons for this but who knows.

If NATO, as they have promised uses its full force to retaliate against Russia because of this action, Russia has a choice of being defeated or using every weapon at its disposal to defend itself. If it was America facing possible defeat would you do? My question is why should we take that chance by continuing to poke Russia in the eye?

I realize it was 46 years ago next month when the United States and the Soviet Union came to the absolute brink of nuclear war. That time the USSR was the transgressor, when they installed ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads in Cuba. Would you please tell me what is the difference between what they did in 1962, and what the US is doing today, by installing missiles along Russia's perimeter? George W. Bush's assurance that the missiles are not directed toward Russia is as laughable as his and the Secretary of State's hypocritical protests that it is unthinkable for a country in the 21st Century to launch an illegal and immoral attack on another country. Our thanks to President Bush, Secretary Rice, Senator McCain and Randy Scheunemann for restarting the Cold War. Why isn't Congress investigating McCain's and Scheunemann's involvement in egging Georgia into provoking Russia reaction?

Fareed, I'm officially out as a viewer of your show. This article is simply a follow-up to the absolutely disgusting and self-serving love-fest your viewers were slathered with on your show this past Sunday.

I didn't realize you had supported the invasion of Iraq but now it becomes crystal clear. Whether you are right or wrong - your bias and lack of a proven track record of getting anything right now removes any shred of integrity and need-for-redemption you may have retained.

You are quite the myopic war-mongerer aren't thou? Go away. Please. We don't need you - in fact, the world would be safer if folks like you would just shut the eff up.

Lela.
Sounds like the Israeli/Palestinian situation. A small minority with the help of superior friends, claimed land, expelled the majority and declared its sovereignty. Maybe the displaced Palestinians should be allowed to return to their homes first before peace talks can take place.

For every situation that fits your perfect scenario there is one with the same components but opposite results that do not fit your perfect scenario.

It seems Mr Fareed Zakaria know nothing about
Europe history. I think he should read
The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 by
A. J. P. Taylor before writing anything again.

Russia nuking Poland would be, I don't even know how to describe it - it would literally be the start of a WWIII, or whatever you would want to call it. It would be an insane provocation so far past the level of the Cuban Missile Crisis or any other escalation of Russia/Western confrontation/conflict that they would not even be in the same solar system. Poland isn't just a small, relatively powerless country on Russia's border (as you could honestly characterize Georgia, despite its strategic significance). It's a NATO and EU member, whose annihilation would demand and in-kind response by NATO - NATO being a mutual-defense pact, first and foremost. Nuking Poland is an option so beyond the pale of reality as to be almost laughable, if it weren't for the horrible pictures that it conjures.

The essence of this article explains why Russia reacted as it did. The strategic advantage gained by surrounding Russia as Fareed Zakaria puts it is firmly in the control of the west. This idiotic conclusion fails to explain the result of a war with Russia should the relentless effort of the west to surround Russia ignite one. We all, the entire world, will suffer the consequences.

Russia does not have to follow the do as I say not do as I do creed that Bush and the neo-cons that rule the world demand. Russia did to Georgia what America did to Iraq, nothing more and nothing less. There is an exception to what happened in Iraq and what happened in Georgia. It took Russia one week to humble Georgia. It has taken the west nearly six years to accomplish the same feat in Iraq. That alone should send a red (excuse the pun) flag up as to the obstacles faced by the west when it comes to Russia.

Instead of arming peanut states like Georgia and Poland with missiles, a real effort should be made at the negotiating table to disarm everyone including the west and Russia. Boys with toys will find a reason to use those toys. The problem is those toys are nuclear.

If I was Russia and felt compelled to set an example of what would happened should a war break out, I would two things immediately. First I would crush Georgia like a bug and second I would nuke Poland. Russia has acted on the first example, Georgia. Must the total destruction of Poland be the next example of pushing a giant like Russia into a corner?

All the fury of the west could not prevent Russia from retaliating against the west, including America. Russia with its 10,000 known nuclear warheads (they probably have 10 times that many) must be dealt with as an equal powerful partner.

As for McCain, Bush and Cheney, these old men should think about younger Americans before continuing their crusade to start yet another war.

Remember 80ies? US Armed Talibs and dramatically lowered the oil prices (Casey asked Saudis for help) to screw the Soviets. What do they got now? Talibs with the Saudi leader and high oil prices? Boomerang is going to get back to these neocons again. You watch it,,,,

To Calvin,

Ossetians and Abkhazs don't want to be part of Georgia? ok, fair enough: they have the right to be independent, nobody argues. But do you know that before they separated from Georgia de facto, they killed or expelled Georgian population form those regions who were absolute majority there?

Is it right for a minority to kill and throw out the majority (with the help of the great power called Russia of course) and then claim they want independence? Maybe some 500,000 Georgian refugees have to return to their homes first and only then any talks about the status of those regions can start!

Calvin:

So I take it that you also support Chechen and Ingushetian independence from Russia? And Georgian independence from Russia, aside from Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

The fact is that the South Ossetians and Abkhazians do not want to be part of Georgia. The demagogue Saakashvili was elected on a promise to deny S. Ossetia and Abkhazia their independence and to force them into Georgia. Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia, killing Russian peacekeepers and mostly destroyed the capitol city before the Russians responded and drove the Georgians out. Talk about 19th century politics! The time should be past when larger entities like Georgia should be permitted to force smaller entities to submit. Another example would be Kashmir which almost certainly does not want to remain part of India. The United States, with its Monroe Doctrine, and 50 years of embargo against Cuba, has absolutely no standing to speak about Russian relations with bordering Georgia.

Dear Fareed,

Things are not that simple. You just need to leave any ideology aside.

Here you are some other gains/losses:

You didn't mention Abkhazia which could provide Russia with an extension of the Black Sea shore.

Ukraine may shift towards NATO but this was given before the invasion of Georgia. What can happen now is that Ukraine will split into a Western part and an Eastern part, with Crimea joining Russia. Say hello to those countries who recognised Kosovo.

Western countries could diversify their sources of energy, thus bringing down the oil price, experts say. In reality most of the European countries stupidly refuse to consider nuclear power and oil will still be needed big time, e.g., in China.

I won't repeat the possibilities mentioned by other forumists - that Russia may establish new bases in dictatorial states like Syria, could expand arms sales to unsavoury regimes like the Iranian one or in general support enemy states of the West.

There's not much one can do against a nuclear power with thousands of nuclear warheads - unless you want to start a war, which nobody wants. Ukraine should be supported economically and then maybe one day the Russophone minority will understand the advantage of belonging to the EU and will support being part of the present Ukraine. This is how the West can preserve the territorial unity of the Ukraine.

Due to the stupidity of Saakashvili, who wasn't patient enough to wait for negotiations and started the war, Georgia is already a lost cause.

http://www.vesti.ru/videos?vid=148401
These are shootings of the Georgian soldiers during operation in Tshinvale "Open country" on August, 08th, 2008

My God, is this Zakaria's writing going to be on WaPo site till the end of the world???

The article is so bad that the discussion is going in lazy way. Like "you are wrong" - "no, that's you who is wrong".

The article doesn't provide enough ignition to go into the history of the conflict and nations involved. Or legal aspects.

Get it out of here!!!

It is possible to translate all branch through the machine translator, would like to know your opinion

Unsettled American:
Only through the machine translator
I can recommend you a branch of Russian forum on this theme, very interestingly, I there participate. Unfortunately the language barrier interferes with more dense dialogue)))
http://forums.drom.ru/garazh/t1151070515.html

ЭТО Неимоверный бред
I agree with the writer with what I know about the situation. It really does seem as if all Russia got out of this was a bunch of South Ossetian citizens. Russians don't even like these Caucaus people and derogatively refer to them as "blacks" beating them up in Moscow streets. Russia's black eye extends to Chechnya and Ingushetia where these citizens want independence from Russia. However instead of the breakaway status Russia is so quick to offer the Georgian breakaway Republics, when it comes to its own breakaways they are harsh, brutal and murderous in the extream.

Уважаемый Русский:

Помоему ваши выкладки тоже очен интересный. Можно спросить, вы умеете ли писать на английском? Если да, пожалуйста, пишите на английском для того, чтобы все можеть вас понимать.

Спасиво вам болшое!

William:

Not that it's a big deal, but the Great Game was actually a British term for the competition between the British and Russian empires in Central Asia - it practically outdates America itself, much less American neo-cons. The Russians have an equivalent term to refer to the same event - the Tournament of Shadows. So, that particular perception can't be blamed on American neo-cons - not that we really need to look hard for things to blame them for, though.

http://www.promt.ru/

Это в ответ на пост указанный ниже.
В принципе все абсолютно верно, ваши выкладки просто великолепны! Теперь остается выяснить причины такой бешеной активности USA и неадекватным освещением всех событий в Ю.Осетии в американских средствах массовой информации. Тогда в полной мере проявится вранье про "защиту демократии в Грузии" Белого Дома в Вашингтоне.

Funny? I nearly wet myself! . The funniest comment was "The single best strategy for bringing Russia in line with the civilized
world would be to dramatically lower oil prices, which would force the country to integrate or stagnate." This is how the Soviet Union was brought down by the Reagan administration in collusion with the Saudis, only trouble is this won't work now as Peak Oil guarantees Russia will have the last laugh.

Oh, and the other silly comments regarding what Russia had lost, with so many peripheral nations all now clamouring for NATO inclusion or protection - didn't Kazakhstan just decide to go with Russia along with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan thusly giving Russia a bigger control of Caspian Sea oil and gas? Add the fact that Russia now has the BTC pipeline within its sights from South Ossetia means that any threat from anywhere must factor in the real control Russia now has over world supply, and price, of oil and gas.

The other big losses from Georgia attacking South Ossetia would be Syria now likely to have a Russian Base on its territory and Iran likely to receive a high-tech Russian missile array. Counting the support from Venezuela and China I would say rather than Russia losing anything it has gained more from the pre-emptive attack from Georgia than any loss of respect from the so-called civilised nations. Washington can be as frustrated as it likes but it must be remembered that the term "The Great Game" was coined by the American neo-conservatives who are clearly and obviously losing.

Funny? I nearly wet myself! . The funniest comment was "The single best strategy for bringing Russia in line with the civilized
world would be to dramatically lower oil prices, which would force the country to integrate or stagnate." This is how the Soviet Union was brought down by the Reagan administration in collusion with the Saudis, only trouble is this won't work now as Peak Oil guarantees Russia will have the last laugh.

Oh, and the other silly comments regarding what Russia had lost, with so many peripheral nations all now clamouring for NATO inclusion or protection - didn't Kazakhstan just decide to go with Russia along with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan thusly giving Russia a bigger control of Caspian Sea oil and gas? Add the fact that Russia now has the BTC pipeline within its sights from South Ossetia means that any threat from anywhere must factor in the real control Russia now has over world supply, and price, of oil and gas.

The other big losses from Georgia attacking South Ossetia would be Syria now likely to have a Russian Base on its territory and Iran likely to receive a high-tech Russian missile array. Counting the support from Venezuela and China I would say rather than Russia losing anything it has gained more from the pre-emptive attack from Georgia than any loss of respect from the so-called civilised nations. Washington can be as frustrated as it likes but it must be remembered that the term "The Great Game" was coined by the American neo-conservatives who are clearly and obviously losing.

По секрету также можем сказать, что грузины очень гостеприимный и дружелюбный народ. Саакашвили очень полезен нам, потому как только ему удалось поссорить две страны, одна из которых защищала вторую от Турции порядка двухсот лет (догадаетесь кто кого защищал?) и злы на него по обе стороны Грузино-Российской границы. Его не сняли в августе только для того, чтобы дать вдоволь полюбоваться на него собственному народу, а заодно показать к чему все это приводит. Убивать для этого своих парней и тратить деньги совсем не обязательно.
Тут есть какой-нибудь форум на эту тему?

Спасибо, очень интересная точка зрения. После противоракет Польши ждите таких-же на Кубе, Искандерами зовут их ))))))

Minnie:

I'm glad I got a laugh out of you - I'm sure anyone reading that Russia is cruel and hypocritical because it has a "western culture" got a similarly good laugh as well :)

Very hilarious Unsettled American, so unsettled going around saying Watchitfella to everyone. So Russia is not Western, hey, it is West of Alaska if anyone cares and East of Berlin, ha.

Anyone noticed darling Angela has dialled back from being Kanlerin La confrontationelle to Kanlerin La Reconciliationelle?

I dont know.

All I can say is Russkis did a small strike in Georgia despite having a huge military machine, they saved their own peeps in S Ossetia and prepared to do so in Abhkazia.

Some folks claim that Ukraine is highly ambivalent on Nato, 3:1 against on one question and slightly positive 53% on some other question, I forget which.

Western EU countries don't wanna come out and say it, but they not exactly rushing to have ever more Eastern countries getting visa-less travel and EU citizen status to come and flood their own well functioning states.

Russia has been willing to welcome Easterners who are finding jobs and business oppos with them. Georgians not thrilled that Russia closing its embassy in Tblisi. Is USA or Germany gonna give them jobs or visas, that would be a good question to put to Kanzlerin and Bush.

Russia gonna stay put in Georgia till Saakashvili gets bounced.

Even though Cheshire Cat Cheney and his Cheshire Cat Lynne went grinning through Azerbaijan or wherever Easterly, it does not look like they have any new oily contracts. The oil there apparently all spoken for, nothing new.

They will have to do ole fashioned building and stuff in Georgia.

The little bitsy $1 billion they offered could all end up in pockets of looney Saakashvili and his weirdo Parliament leaders. Georgia could already be a well established kleptocracy.

I just finished seeing a few segments of the Palin rah rah Rambo barn rattling speech at the convention. Apparently she had Tom Brokaw's hormones racing. This is so hilarious.

I hope it all works out peeps.

Right now, we need some stolid plodding types, I hate to say, like Al Gore and our old State dept who can talk down people from the brink and make them work together, like they did in Kosovo, where Ifor and the Russian troops worked together.

That did not work out so well for Russia however, and this time they may not be amenable. They will safeguard their territorial imperative in Abhkazia, S Ossetia and on Crimea very robustly I think.

Zakeeria's Blunder!

I agree with the writer with what I know about the situation. It really does seem as if all Russia got out of this was a bunch of South Ossetian citizens. Russians don't even like these Caucaus people and derogatively refer to them as "blacks" beating them up in Moscow streets. Russia's black eye extends to Chechnya and Ingushetia where these citizens want independence from Russia. However instead of the breakaway status Russia is so quick to offer the Georgian breakaway Republics, when it comes to its own breakaways they are harsh, brutal and murderous in the extream.

Just a short commentary on why Russian power isn't as benign as some people seem to think - I don't think that most other authoritarian countries would enough gall to say that a journalist critical of the government, who was shot in the head while riding in a police car, died "accidentally." Say what you want about American power, but for the most part people critical of the government are allowed to go on criticizing, and in the rare occasions when something bad does happen to them, there's a healthy level of inquiry after the fact. Now, of course, if you want to live in a society where questioning the government means getting your gray matter explosively removed from your skull... I hear that there's a great job that just opened up in Ingushetia.

Anonymous:

Watch out there - you're going to have a hard time defending Russia as "western." :)

Einar Björn Bjarnason:

I agree with much you say, although I don't think my view on the dynamics between Russia and China are "illusions" - I've lived and worked in Central Asia for years, and I have very few illusions left about what Russia and China are doing in the region, certainly not vis-a-vis each other and the West. Your geopolitical calculus makes a lot of sense, but I think it underestimates the historical Russian influence in Central Asia. Russia is not just now entering the region as a power player, as China is. China's political influence has never extended much farther west than it's current Xinjiang region, and its control of that province is not without challenge from Uighur separatists. Russia's, on the other hand, has been in Central Asia for centuries, and it's been a century since Russia took over complete control of the region back in the days of the old Tsarist Russian Empire. While Central Asian governments might flirt with China, Iran, Turkey, India and the Western powers, it will take a long time for their influence to rise to the level of Russia's. China might like more control or influence over those areas, but as China's foreign policy has shown elsewhere in the world, China is not as concerned about political influence as it is about economic influence. I think Russia will be fine letting Central Asian countries sell energy resources to China (since Russia is doing the same), and letting China invest in them in return, and that status quo can remain relatively stable for decades. China is not looking to extend its direct political control any farther towards the Muslim world - it's already having enough problems with the province of Xinjiang.

Both U.S. and Russia are equally hypocritical and barbaric. It is in the nature of western culture.

Hat's off to the Russians for the money they saved by attacking a neighbor! But, woe unto those who live by the sword.

Bring peace. End energy dependence.

// JiaMing:
All the power play comes from control of oil. What if in some not so distant future, we are able to move away from oil completely. Are we still going to see Russia going into Georgia //

The Big Picture:

The wars never end. Have you ever seen two boxers fighting in a ring, spilling each others blood. For what?
Nature finds way to eliminate excess consumers of its resources. All species flora and fauna follow that way.

Humans are different from other species in one very important aspect - "Humans are aware of self".
This self awareness helps humanity to look for ways to preserve itself - inventions, philosophy, religion etc.
Even though segments of humanity will always be at war with each other, civilized humanity will always find ways to preserve itself, even in face of dire situations like nuclear holocaust, celestial collision etc.

// JiaMing:
All the power play comes from control of oil. What if in some not so distant future, we are able to move away from oil completely. Are we still going to see Russia going into Georgia //

The Big Picture:

The wars never end. Have you ever seen two boxers fighting in a ring, spilling each others blood. For what?
Nature finds way to eliminate excess consumers of its resources. All species flora and fauna follow that way.

Humans are a bit different that other species in one very important aspect - "Humans are aware of self".
This self awareness helps humanity to look for ways to preserve itself - inventions, philosophy, religion etc.
Even though segments of humanity will always be at war with each other, civilized humanity will always find ways to preserve itself, even in face of dire situations like nuclear holocaust, celestial collision etc.

China didn't recognize the independence of the breake away provinces of Georgia because they don't want others to recognize China's provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang independence.

El-Faroodo may be on the right track but, realistically, what does this lightweight propose? Is he going to suit up and jump in? I'm afraid his view of the matter will "inspire" unstable President McMaverick to "do something." Don't we have enough trouble already?

When I am reading the geopolitics and international games being played out by the great powers - US, Russia, EU, China and India, a question naturally pops up in my mind. All the power play comes from control of oil. What if in some not so distant future, we are able to move away from oil completely. Are we still going to see Russia going into Georgia, US invading the Middle East, China arming Sudan? I'd say the power will definitely shift to those countries with the greatest independence from oil. In the end, the smartest nations are those who can be energy independent. Immediately one country comes to my mind. Brazil.

"oil wealth everywhere ... breeds independence from and indifference to [US desired] norms, markets and rules"

And we call those independent agents "terrorists."

Hello, arjay1, and peace to you!!

"To Mr. Bjarnason: Say hello to the stone seats of Thingfeller for me; it is an unusually spiritual place of peace for me. Very much unlike other parts of the world we live in,"

Yes, 'Þingvellir or Thingvellir' as we call it, which could translate as ting-fields, is a place where one can view the fracture between the two main plates, i.e. the North-American one and the European one, as they move apart. There is much energy within the ground, there. The crust is thin.

A nice picture: http://www.icetourist.is/upload/files/Thingvellir.jpg

"The Russian SVR , Foreign Intelligence Service: Служба Внешней Разведки, has grown six fold since 1999 and three of its directorates are engaged in activities that are politically related, not security related, in nearly all of its neighbors and in the EU."

I didn´t know that, but sadly it´s probably not surprising. I wouldn´t be surprised that they have close connections with the waryed criminal organizations that are run around the world by Russian mobsters or mobsters of Russian origin.

"There is evidence that SVR operatives were all over Ossetia AND Georgia well before any activity by the Georgian military and were the originators of the ‘slaughter’ story by Georgia."

Yes, KGB was good as misinformation, in its time. Not perhaps a surprise that Russian intel hasen´t forgotten that skill.

"The oil money Zakaria discusses is more than sufficient to allow the SVR to buy elections in the Ukraine, Moldavia, Rumania, and the Czech Republic."

Money can certainly influence elections. During the days of the USSR, it did play that card on numerous occasions. Communist parties received funds through Committern to support their operations as well as the publishing of propaganda books and newspapers. Infamously they supported the peace movements in that fashion, during the intermediate ballistic missile controversy. That they failed to win, points to a limitation of such methods.

If Russia, copies these methods, at least in the more sophisticated countries, it will be noticed and reacted to. In countries, with large Russian minorities or countries with relatively fragile state or weak institutions, vulnerabilities to such methods will be greater. The Baltic Countries could prove very vulnerable. I expect though that Ukraine is the real target of the moment.

If Russia, supports the Russian speakers, and USA/NATO the Ukrainian speakers, we could come to observe coming into being a civil conflict. Personally, I think that a most likely outcome, unless some grand bargain between Russia and USA/NATO on the Ukrainian problem is struck.

"Question for the UN: is massive genocide by itself sufficient reason to attack a ‘sovereign state’ who has historically attacked other ‘sovereign states’?"

For some years, internationalists of various kinds have been trying to create genuine international norms. But the current situation demonstrates that such norms can only thrive, if they are supported by a) a dominant power, b) for some reason major powers come to agree on them, or c) a world government is formed.

Clearly, b and c are highly unlikely. It appears that international norms can only exist, when they don´t conflict with significant interests of the major powers.

"But you also mention China. How would the fourth and fifth doctrines apply when China’s Liberation Army moves to protect the seven million Chinese citizens in their Amur and Chinta provinces now occupied by Russia?"

I really do think that collision between Russia and China is night on inevitable. Another person, mentioned that their interests could coexist, sort of like two different species can live in the same area through using different lifestyles. I don´t believe that will work in the long run. I think, his observation stem from illusion as things have sort of been appearing to work that way, for some time. But IMO that has been due to the weakness of Russia during those very same years, but it has been unable to challenge the gradual but inexorably growing influence of China within the central Asian region for some years. Now, with awakening of their power, at least to some degree - as let´s remember that they are still much weaker than the USSR in its peak of power - I think doctrine 5 indicates among others that Russia will now challenge the growing influence of others in areas it prefers to view as it´s sphere of power, I mean all others.

At the moment, they are focusing on NATO, hence for some time they may do nothing against the growing influence of China. I suspect that according to their reading NATO and the situation in Georgia/Ukraine was priority one.

However, Russia is considerably dependent on access to oil/gas resources of the central Asian republics. I strongly suspect that Russia has in fact been purchasing it for less money than it costs Russia to pump up oil from their own Siberian oil and gas fields. This may explain why Russia has been for some time under-investing in those fields. I think one of the aims in Georgia was to close the oil corridor going through Georgia, thus limiting that line of competition for the oil/gas resources of central Asia. I reckon, it´s only matter of time till they will focus on the fact that China is in the process of increasing its own access to these very resources (among others by pipeline extensions from Synkiang) Russians are now limiting western access to.

In order to understand the above situation better, one needs to consider the Chinese overall strategic situation. The fact is that currently, there is no chance whatsoever that China will risk the wrath of the USA. Remember, Taiwan. The reason is US dominance of the world´s oceans combined with the share thirst of China for resources. For China, central Asia is just as much the near abroad as for Russia, and access to resources there does have the potential to reduce Chinese dependence on resources that can only be reached across the world´s oceans, which USA rules. Today, USA could simply collapse the Chinese economy at any time by denying the Chinese access to resources with its fleet. This means IMO, it´s only a matter of time till China effectively moves Central Asia over to its sphere of power, and denies it´s resources to Russia due to its strategic imperative.

In my opinion, it´s overall a share stupidity by Russians to be moving against NATO. It appears that current Russian leaders are blinded by their dream of great power restoration. IMO in fact over the long term, and really not such a far afield into the future, they will need alliance with the West, in order to balance the power of China. IMO, Russia is going to be the biggest looser of all, as China grows into its power.

A potential tripartite alliance, i.e. alliance with three pillars, between Europe, USA and Russia, could I think be powerful enough to ensure that somebody else remains even more powerful, one China has fully grown into its power.

India, IMO, has more options. It can afford to play as the third superpower, probably in the long term will be strong enough to be independent power-base.

"There has to be something better on this planet than 7000 years of taking territory to feed your own people’s needs. America’s 200 years started fresh and really has never fallen into that trap, but is that better?"

IMO an interesting analogy may be animal behaviour. But animals are territorial, and frequently battle for control of territory in order to rule the resources relevant to them. Humans are after all animals. As far as I am concerned, battling for territory between different tribes, different empires or countries, is essentially the same phenomena.

----
There is a potential alternate outcome vs. Russia, but if it goes into an alliance with China, IMO the relationship between alliance partners would over time come to resemble the alliance between Germany and Italy in WW2. Even though I find it unlikely that China will begin a war, Russia would find itself very much the junior partner, and it´s eastern Siberian regions would fully exist on Chinese sufferance, once China has fully grown into its power. The only chance for Russia to evade that fate, is alliance with the West IMO. An attempt at being an independent power-base, during Chinese growth to power, IMO will end in disaster for Russia. The later it dawns on the leaders of Russia that China is their true strategic threat, the worse the situation Russia will be in once they come to the West for help.

It´s even possible that we will observe a Russian economic collapse, if Chine does stop Russian access to the central Asian oil, before they have expanded their own production. In that scenario, I think the current regime would come apart, as the glue keeping them in power is the pact with the Russian people that they shall ensure them economic well-being. That, situation could grow very messy.

Einar Bjorn Bjarnason, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Sarah Palin has her pants down. Putin is quivering, you know!

Zakaria reveals his Neo Con imperialist mindset in this article.

Zakaria has stayed in US too long and if you ask me he needs to purge himself of the pro-American bias or he will not be taken seriously by any one in the third world.

Its all a game of chess. Who says this is not what the Russians wanted in the first place. They drew the US into a position where Georgia would be supported in its actions against South Ossetia and then the Russians respnded accordingly. Sorry for Sen McCain, the stunt did not work this time, but then theres always Gustav to thank.

Very biased article and omits US's intentions. I am very disappointed.

Many in this blog admire the rise of Russia, China and sometimes the European Union as a counter balance to American power. What power? The only power America has actually exercised in the last hundred years is the destruction of several murderous, totalitarian entities that represented the barbarism of Asian, South American and European histories. The only times it tolerated totalitarianists was when the region had a choice between that and total anarchy. Is it the people of these regions that are unhappy with American 'power' or is it members of totalitarian ruling elites that are unhappy because that 'power' questions THEIR legitimacy and right to exist as they have for the last seven thousand years?

Sorry, but Anonimus post 121 is me - just forgot to present myself.

Unsettled American
Well its a pity but after Soviet Union demise USA is the world's lone superpower. So now nobody (Russia including) could limit America's ability to cause problems internationally. Even by the right limits, if USA chooses to ignore it. Oh, yes Russia succeded to block (after Kosovo she dislikes humanitarian interventions) Zimbabwe resolution- its a pity, really, because Mugabe is a freak. But it also blocked a lot of your resolutions on Iran saving may be the world one more war. While Washington could have save us the georgian war if only SC UN had accepted our first resolution to stop the violence. Or if George Bush after the talk with Putin in Beijing made a phone call to Tbilisi. Any suggestions why he abstained?

Moscovite:

I've met all kinds of Russians - those that long for the old Soviet Empire back, and those that wish for more open relations with the West. Those that appreciate a good authoritarian, and those who wish there was more openness in their society. Just like the Mujaheddin, those that take extreme views one way or another are usually a minority, as the Mujaheddin are in the larger global population of Muslims.

Limits on American power certainly can be a good thing, but the point is that they have to be the right limits. Limits for limits sake don't do anyone any good. I don't see how Russia will limit America's ability to cause problems internationally, if it so chooses (and, recently, it has so chosen). All I see is that Russia's renewed ability to pursue it's self-titled "near abroad" is that there will be more conflicts between Russia and the Western powers, including the US. Certainly, I don't see how Russia's obstruction of UN Security Council proceedings against Zimbabwe after the recent one-man "election" counts as a constructive limit on American power. Rather, I think Russia will tend to limit American power when America is, on those rare occasions, attempting to do something good, but very rarely will it interfere when America is trying to do something that is bad. Partially, this is America's fault - we tend to do things that are bad no matter what other people say, and are much more easily deterred from doing pursuing things that are good. Но, как говорится, мы не такие, а жизнь такая

This piece by Postglobal is a bit too late. I remember two years ego at this time, there were protests by the staff of Tbilisi state university against the oppressive policies of Shakasvili in Georgia. A public letter of them was sent to postglobal to be published, but it was ignored. Shakasvilli was given a blank check by the US media to spin out of control and
reopen the pandora box of the cold war.

EU is reluctant to open this pandora box, but US
may see it as an opportunity to keep Russia out of EU union and keep its influence over Nato partners. EU made this mistake of not integrating Russia into the EU and reward it for its brave decision to dissolve the soviet union and end the cold war.

I hope the Georgians get rid of Shakesvilli soon and elect a new president who can realise that they are a small nation bordering a super power.

Unsettled American
You don't disagree on the difference in political interpretations between Russia and the West? But it is an obvious thing. Or may be you dont believe in our siloviki integrity and suppose that deep in their souls they believe in the idea of liberal democracy? And what about islamic mudjaheddin? Well must disapoint you - I have met both types and know for sure that they do not share your values. And that explains abovementioned difference. So you may be right that the re-ascendance of Russia to the status of a great power is not necessarily good thing. But I am sure that today new russian limit on american power would be welcome in the world. Why - reread Anju Chandel post about changing global geopolitical order and historical nessecity of US displacement from the role it abused for more than two decades.

So far as I can tell this was a pretty accurate piece of writing by Zakaria. I also thought Francis Fukuyama's piece a couple sundays ago in the post was pretty good. The problem with Russia is that it seems today to be comparing itself to its former glory as the Soviet union, but the Soviet union was an exceptional, rare and strange event--a union held together by an ideology difficult to resurrect or replicate by other means. And even more difficult for Russia is that if there is an ideology with power in the world today it is the western ideology of democracy, so...Read the Fukuyama piece. I could not have said it better. Question: what difference if any is there between Fukuyama today and Zakaria?

Anju:

I agree with you that the US is certainly a much more feeble country than it was just 8 years ago, but I still think the US rates the status of the world's lone superpower. I don't say this with any particular pride as an American - I just think it is the truth of the situation. While Russia can compete with the US in terms of nuclear weapons, it's ability to project force around the world is far smaller, and the Russian military is far more enfeebled from a human resources perspective than I think most people realize. China can compete with the US in terms of foreign investment, exports, etc., but it also has a far greater need for internal investment and development that saps its ability to act on an international stage. It's not a coincidence that most of the criticism of China's foreign policy is over what China is not doing, rather than over what it is doing (think Burma, Sudan, etc.). Similar arguments apply to every other country that aspires to great power status - while they can compete, and maybe even supersede, the US in one particular area of power, none can compete across the board the way the US can. The balance of power has definitely shifted away from America and towards other countries over the past decade, but America still stands alone for its combination of military, economic, and yes, even diplomatic power.

I, for one, do not consider the re-ascendance of Russia to the status of a great power a necessarily good thing for the world either - its a little too idealistic to think that anything that limits American power is inherently a good thing. I have yet to see any instance where Russia has intervened internationally in pursuit of some greater good, and if you look at the current internal situation of Russia (i.e. second most dangerous country in the world to be a journalist, after Iraq), it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that the current leadership in Moscow has only the world's best interests at heart.

It is not Moscow’s blunder alone. The still continuing conflict in the Caucasus is a culmination of myriad hypocritical political approaches adopted by the world – including Russia – in preceding years. It is a reflection of the changing global geopolitical order which needs to be understood and navigated through cautiously by all concerned countries – the US, the EU (NATO), Russia, (the Caucasians) and the rest of the nations for a peaceful and prosperous world.

This altered political landscape results – and proves - from the almost certain displacement of the US from its altar of the sole Superpower, a status it enjoyed – and abused - for more than two decades post USSR disintegration. However, America has been finding it almost impossible to hold on to its exalted position because of its current economic downslide coupled with its weakened political position post Iraq invasion that has left a huge vacuum at global power center.

Moreover, its transatlantic allies – NATO – consisting primarily of the EU countries have been reluctant to accept the present US president’s "natural" leadership role because of the latter’s loss of credibility, and, therefore, his ability to lead. The disunity is glaring enough and is the root cause of inaction – reaction – of the NATO – and the US - in the ongoing Georgian crisis.

The problem has got compounded by the need – and greed – for oil – energy security – especially amongst the economically developed part of the world, the US and the EU both in this case. And, this energy dependency is being exploited well by a fossil fuel rich Russia which is resurging, empowered by its ever increasing petro-dollars in its coffers, and, carving a much stronger position for itself on the global political canvas.

The present political development is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good thing because it will pave way for a real multi-polar world – a resurgent Russia as one of its power centers – taking abusive potential away from the realm of the US. It is also a bad thing because it has fractious potential to bring back the cold war era, a scenario which the world can ill afford in the current turbulent times of increasingly down-sliding economy all over the globe - the spiraling fuel and food prices adding to the woes. Most importantly, the highly integrated globalized world markets simply cannot absorb any further geopolitical alteration – and altercation thereof. All important nations need to understand and accept this hard realty and act accordingly – wisely - without jeopardizing peace and prosperity on this earth.

(Barack Obama is the best hope as the next US president because of his innate leadership qualities with the potential to engage and unite the world. The grand response of the Berliners – and others – to his momentous speech at the Victory Tower simply proved that he is indeed a transformational phenomenon!)

Einar Björn Bjarnason:

Russia is not going to "begin" to bully the Central Asian republics - it has been doing so, to greater and lesser degrees of effectiveness. China certainly has a growing economic role to play in the region, but the political establishment in Central Asia is still heavily populated by the old Soviet nomenklatura, some of which, in reality if not in name, owe their current position directly to Russia's subtle, SVR-managed control. I don't foresee any particular direct conflict with China over influence in the region - Russia's interest seems to be primarily political, while China's is primarily economic, so I think there is plenty of room for accommodation of both countries' interests without it coming down to a direct confrontation.

"Moreover, his 5th. doctrine appears to indicate Russia intends to strengthen their influence within the countries, they still like to think to be in their sphere of influence.

I do wonder though, as China ought to have something to say, if Russia begins to bully in increasing fashion the Central Asian republics. After all, China has been busy for some years investing in those countries, i.e. their infrastructure, economies as well as granting their respective government aid of various kinds. As a result of their growing power within that particular region, as Fareed hints at, perhaps the Central Asian republics will throw themselves at China speeding up the inevitable confrontation of China vs. Russia about influence within that region.
Regards, Einar Bjorn Bjarnason
Reykjavik, Iceland"

To Mr. Bjarnason: Say hello to the stone seats of Thingfeller for me; it is an unusually spiritual place of peace for me. Very much unlike other parts of the world we live in, note a part of a previous post:
This is a reasonably accurate statement by Zakeria, but possibly doesn’t show a true Russian event sequence that might be much more relevant than most people think. The Russian SVR , Foreign Intelligence Service: Служба Внешней Разведки, has grown six fold since 1999 and three of its directorates are engaged in activities that are politically related, not security related, in nearly all of its neighbors and in the EU. It is no accident that the SVR reports directly to the to the President and Prime Minister of Russia and may have more to do with Zakaria’s “dysfunctional, corrupt, dictatorial and assertive” description of the Kremlin than readers of this blog realize. There is evidence that SVR operatives were all over Ossetia AND Georgia well before any activity by the Georgian military and were the originators of the ‘slaughter’ story by Georgia. The oil money Zakaria discusses is more than sufficient to allow the SVR to buy elections in the Ukraine, Moldavia, Rumania, and the Czech Republic.
This very much says some things you brought out in the Russian translation, especially doctrine five, of Medvedev and Russian intentions. The problem for America is that its switching back and forth on the use of force has portrayed it in the last hundred years as an ‘empire’ builder when, in fact, it has fought in or maintained forces in many places without an attempt at territorial or resource gain. Very much unlike the Medvedev doctrine. Europeans and Asians managed to get the Americans into two major world wars and a dozen in which the territorial integrity of the region was very much in question ( Korea and Vietnam examples), AND was in the process of being absorbed by socialist one party state imperialism. Iraq is the first occasion in which a ‘sovereign’ state was attacked with no direct provocation toward America and the Americans have spent an enormous effort restoring the territorial integrity of a region that had been ruled by a sociopathic mass murderer. Question for the UN: is massive genocide by itself sufficient reason to attack a ‘sovereign state’ who has historically attacked other ‘sovereign states’?
But you also mention China. How would the fourth and fifth doctrines apply when China’s Liberation Army moves to protect the seven million Chinese citizens in their Amur and Chinta provinces now occupied by Russia? There has to be something better on this planet than 7000 years of taking territory to feed your own people’s needs. America’s 200 years started fresh and really has never fallen into that trap, but is that better?

Moscovite:

I certainly don't disagree with you on the difference in interpretations between Russia and the West. As for the notion of a "coup d'etat," it seems somewhat hypocritical to me for Russia to complain about the work of Western-financed NGOs (many supported by apolitical, nongovernmental organizations like the Soros Foundation) that support a process more so than a particular outcome. If democracy promotion counts as a coup d'etat, then what would the poisoning of the pro-Western presidential candidate by those same siloviki count as?

Russia is loosing 600,000 population a year. They are in decline with no solutions. Georgia was a last gasp at power before the long night comes. They will be hard pressed to hold on to their far eastern lands from China let alone invade other countries.

I wonder if you people are aware of the following:

"Russian President Dmitri Medvedev gave an extraordinary interview on Russian television’s Channel One over the weekend. In the course of the interview, Medvedev unveiled a five-point doctrine that would govern Russia’s foreign policy going forward. It came in the course of an interviewer’s questions, but the statement was obviously well thought out and planned. It is to be seen as a statement of Russian national policy and is worth presenting here verbatim in translation by the Kremlin:

“I will make five principles the foundation for my work in carrying out Russia’s foreign policy.

First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.

Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.

Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.

Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.

Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors. These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy.

As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”

The interviewer then asked for greater definition of the Russian areas of interest. Medvedev replied, “The countries on our borders are priorities, of course, but our priorities do not end there.”"

So, Russia intends to mind the interests of Russians abroad, which will be a concern for the Baltic states, to say the least. Naturally, Ukraine comes to mind as well.

Moreover, his 5th. doctrine appears to indicate Russia intends to strengthen their influence within the countries, they still like to think to be in their sphere of influence.

I do wonder though, as China ought to have something to say, if Russia begins to bully in increasing fashion the Central Asian republics. After all, China has been buisy for some years investing in those countries, i.e. their infrastructure, economies as well as granting their respective government aid of various kinds. As a result of their growing power within that particular region, as Fareed hints at, perhaps the Central Asian republics will throw them selves at China speeding up the inevitable confrontation of China vs. Russia about influence within that region.

Regards, Einar Bjorn Bjarnason
Reykjavik, Iceland

Actually Europe should be happy,because russian
finally restore to its tradition role as
one of the great power of europe. (The Role of russian before first world war)

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
In 1905, the Russian fleet was smashed by the Japonese fleet in Port-Arthur. So much for your "big power".

Saakashvili has a food and tea taster?

The Russians are quite fond of poison -- lets see, Yushchenko, Alexander Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya, before she was shot, for starters.

And the hits, they keep a coming...

I was in rural Italy when these events occurred and therefore lack some information. However, I was able to catch several reports from CNN International and the BBC. Those who have criticized the West have it right.

Despite the puffed up commentary and rhetoric, the US and European response to Russia's belligerance was tepid at best. Nor could it have been anything else.

How can we criticize them for doing EXACTLY what we have done--use military power to project our power and protect our perceived national security and strategic interests? When German Chancellor Merkel visited Medvedev it was a farce; the least she could have done was cancel the trip. Putin's invasion essentially left the West, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, cowering.

Who will make them pay, and how? The West is entering a recession and in no mood to sacrifice (even before recent events); Moscow is awash in petrodollars.

The saddest part about this is that NATO basically gave Russia a blank check to do this when they rejected Georgia for membership. Now, they are paying the price for their shortsightedness, their own militarism and their hypocrisy.

Russia will only change if we do.

This does not compare to the "Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968" at all.

What we observed via the media were lines of irregulars (fat-gutted, drunk, middle-aged men with mismatched uniforms) with ancient equipment, moving like Detroit rioters and house- and business-burners to loot, rape, and wantonly destroy.

This was a totally undisciplined action, not worthy of being categorized as an army. This is what especially bothers me about it. That Georgia was effectively defenseless even from such a poor attack says that Georgia was not geared for aggression. This gang-style conflict, representing state violence by proxy, is outside the rules of civilized use of force. But it's not just in Georgia; look also to Tibet.

The territory issue is one thing, and I will not judge that. The degradation of fighting into opportunistic theft, rape, and pillage is another; and that is not a real reversal in what we expected to emerge from the New Russia.

I tend to agree with Zakaria on this issue. On the one hand, Russia has moved to attack Georgia and make a small territory grab. I don't think it was really a well-planned offensive since, as Fareed pointed out and I have pointed out in posts on the issue, it does nothing to deter the behavior that its neighbors are practicing. In fact, it makes them stronger... potentially.

I say potentially because I doubt Bush has the policy nuance to massage the wounds himself. Hopefully, someone at NATO is paying attention, because this is the point where all of Russia's neighbors could be taken in a big sweep. If Russia will attack Georgia on a territorial pretext, then Ukraine, Poland, and Georgia will, obviously, not want to throw their trust to Russia at this point. In effect, it is a poor political choice that does not befit a superpower. This would be a bit like America invading Cuba as a former territory and using some pro-American sentimentalists as the justification. The rewards are small and the difficulties are monstrous.

So this could be precisely what Bush was looking for. This is a chance to bring Russia's borders into NATO proximity and give them a perfectly valid excuse for the missile defense systems. At that point, if the situation is worked correctly, Russia will either shun its neighbors and isolate itself (absolving the US of responsibility) or it will be forced to barter from the position of a motivated buyer.

Time will tell if NATO can take the opportunity.

arjay1 writes: "... a post-American world... most Americans would be perfectly happy to arrange if said world would leave them alone..."

That is an excellent pleasantry, arjay1; unfortunately, we have heard it much too often, especially here, on PG.

As you know, way back, most of us, Americans, could not even agree, let alone manage, to "reconstruct", for instance, a post-American Vietnam and a post-American Cuba.

These last few years, most of us never even agreed, let alone managed, to "reconstruct" a post-American Iraq, a post-American Afghanistan, even to "peacefully restore" a post-American Haiti... and go home.

With 1. thousands of U.S. military outposts all over the world, 2. that number of troops stationed in so many countries, 3. our total military arsenal, 4. our true (over and above our official) military and para-military budgets, and 5. the number of Americans directly or indirectly involved in all aspects of our military-industrial complex (all types of mercenaries and "contractors" included), "most Americans" are unlikely to soon be perceived as "perfectly happy to arrange if said world would leave them alone..."

Again, though, to claim we are still makes for an excellent pleasantry.

Come on Mr. Zakaria get a life, you make a subtle rationalization for US and NATO's expansionism at Russian expense, calling aggression a defensive play is the ultimate hypocrisy on your part.

Citizen of the post-American world:
"First, in the 21st century, I am not sure the best way to begin a conversation with anybody is to suggest “bringing (that party) in line with the civilized world”. That expression makes us regress many centuries, to a time when Western colonialism and imperialism were the norm in America, in Asia, in Africa, in fact throughout the world"

To the Citizen of the post-American world:
The colonialism and imperialism you speak of begin around the thirteenth century and included Persians, Ottomans, Russians and Europeans which was some 500 years before the American 'empire'.
Please note the Russian contributions to imperialism and colonialism:

The Moskva Council of Ministers doesn't seem to have changed much over the last 500 years. First, it needed 'security' zones that stretched from Moskva to Kazan in the east and Petersburg in the west, then to Volgograd in the South. In the 1700s, the Tsar's Council of Ministers needed 'security' zones to include Minsk, Odessa, Rostov, Anadyr (Pacific Ocean), and Kupreanof (North America. After World War II in 1940, Stalin's Council of Ministers decided that a buffer zone from Berlin, Germany to Tehran, Iran was necessary to protect Moskva. When it became apparent that these lands could no longer supply wealth to Moskva in the 1990s, they were abandoned. When the current Council discovered that control of energy wealth made Moskva more imperial, it once again begin expanding its influence, especially into other energy relevant countries like Venezuela, Iraq, Kazakhstan, the Arctic Sea, and now once again into absorbing the Georgia pipelines to the European Union.

By a post-American world (which most Americans would be perfectly happy to arrange if said world would leave them alone), do you mean a world that has regressed into the 1400s with its constant warfare, religious genocide, uncontrolled plagues, and totalitarian elites that ruled Europe and Asia as one tenth of one percent of the population? The American 'empire' certainly didn't create that.

I can assure you, guys, that Russia perfectly realizes its position in the world, whare we are strong enough and where weak. And if president Medvedev declares that poverty is the main problem of the country - it means a lot!

There is a common understanding in the society that any war races would drain resources of the country.
As I put it in several postings on WaPo forums Russia is the only country in the world (after Pentagon gave KC contract to Airbus) that produces every little thing for its army: from soldiers boots and belts - up to its own GPS system based on 27 satelites.
This fact doesn't make anybody happy here. But this the way it is.

Until Russia is not integrated into Western institutions (whatever large the entity of Russia is) - we will be forced to keep some kind of a balance between West and East - as it used to be for centuries.

Many "experts" in the West predicted Russia's end as result of direct conflict, internal conflicts -and now due to life expectancy.
It will not happen. The present unprecedented low life expectancy level is the result of 1989-1996.
The new generation of younger Russian males don't drink much and don't smoke much.

I don't go into details of the conflict - opinions here in this thread are as superficial as the article itself.

Just want to ask as Jack Nicholson in "Mars attacks" movie:
Why don't we just get along?

Mr. Zakaria

Having read with interest much of what you wrote on the need for the U.S. to lead toward developing a new, post-American world order, I am rather disappointed after reading the above.

First, in the 21st century, I am not sure the best way to begin a conversation with anybody is to suggest “bringing (that party) in line with the civilized world”. That expression makes us regress many centuries, to a time when Western colonialism and imperialism were the norm in America, in Asia, in Africa, in fact throughout the world.

Secondly, it is a bad sign that predominantly, and from the start, Western media have been engaging in a vicious anti-Russian campaign, without any decent presentation, first, of the facts as to: who was who on the ground, who was where, who was doing what, when (in proper sequence), and why, so everyone would understand what had been going on. Still remain on that crisis, in Western media, too many blind spots for one to feel comfortable with your criticism and suggestions. This may not be such a civilized exercise in propaganda after all, given the general unwillingness in the West to listen to, and take into proper account, what the other side has to say.

Thirdly, in international relations and in diplomacy, playing friend and foe in the same breath with one’s interlocutor, as the U.S. has been doing with Russia, is, to say the least, not conducive to mutual trust. Such an infantile game in duplicity is most dangerous, in that it only leads adversaries to be distrustful of each other, and to take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate to defend themselves and their own interests. That duplicity is at the very root of permanent conflict and of perpetual war in today’s world, in line with the old Western, world order.

Finally, to “engage” others with the sole avowed purpose of “having leverage with them” (or will it be, rather, against them?) is pretty disingenuous. Is it not conceivable that in a nation of chess players, people see through our strategy with some degree of amusement, more particularly among those who are not in the least inclined to sell their souls?

To conclude: insult, crude propaganda, playing both friend and foe, and engaging other parties so as to better move against them, may not be part of the best strategy ever for a sound U.S. foreign policy leading to the new, developing world order. Are they not more akin to reactionary measures, in a world becoming, painfully, and for excellent, obvious reasons, more and more post-American with every passing day?

Thanks WP for publications without censorship.
I went to famous breakaway regions and other in Caucasus. All regions thank Saakashvili for consolidation of Caucasus. After deaths of thousands of Ossetians each truth men in Caucasus desired to retaliate. In fighting with Georgians, for example, Chechens (former enemies of Russian) have taken active participation in war on side of Russian. Georgians dropped weapons and run away like hares. Now American military hammers and other expensive military tools, as a reword for winning, were taken by Chechens.
There is reason that I’d like to say. In Soviet period Georgia was really severed by Kremlin under Stalin and after him (he was Georgian too) on two kinds of people, then known as follow: Tbilisi’s inhabitants (of other significant cities) – first kind, and general people - second. Second of them was poor. But first had special material maintenance from Kremlin and deemed like Georgian elite with highest privileges. After collapse of USSA that elite required new free-of-charge maintenance. Fortunately to them new role of benefactor have been played by USA. Now Russia helped USA to open eyes – Saakashvili (as new leader of elite) got money from USA and spent it for creation of imaginary army. Having seen Russian army forced by Caucasian Georgian army dropped expensive weapons and hided for backs of general people – second kind of Georgians which remained poor and charged to suffer from “peacekeeping operation”.
I guess Zakaria knows real events but he tries to deceive US’ public not to worry for money.

“The problem is not that Russia has been integrated into a world order and that this has still failed to deter it but, rather, that the country remains largely unintegrated -- and thus feels it has little to lose by breaking the rules. Some of Moscow's isolation may have been caused by Western foreign policy -- certainly that is the Russian perception – but more has to do with oil. As the price of oil and other natural resources has risen over the past decade, Russia has become more dysfunctional, corrupt, dictatorial and assertive. And oil wealth everywhere – from Venezuela to Iran to Russia -- breeds independence from and indifference to international norms, markets and rules.”

This is a reasonably accurate statement, but possibly doesn’t show a true Russian event sequence that might be much more relevant than most people think. The Russian SVR , Foreign Intelligence Service: Служба Внешней Разведки, has grown six fold since 1999 and three of its directorates are engaged in activities that are politically related, not security related, in nearly all of its neighbors and in the EU. It is no accident that the SVR reports directly to the President and Prime Minister of Russia and may have more to do with Zakaria’s “dysfunctional, corrupt, dictatorial and assertive” description of the Kremlin than readers of this blog realize. There is evidence that SVR operatives were all over Ossetia AND Georgia well before any activity by the Georgian military and were the originators of the ‘slaughter’ story by Georgia. The oil money Zakaria discusses is more than sufficient to allow the SVR to buy elections in the Ukraine, Moldavia, Rumania, and the Czech Republic.

Perhaps it is time to cease indulging in fantasies about the American ‘empire’closing in on Russia. A 1600 man anti missle base in Poland with missiles that don’t have explosive warheads hardly qualifies as an American or NATO aggression against Russia but might be something the SVR fears; a base that can shoot down the ‘covert’ missiles they are building outside the control of the Russian missile forces. If some call that a fantasy, they need only look at the last hundred years of Kremlin (not Russians who are still unrepresented there) history concerning directorates.

BREAKiNG--NEWS: Russia is to deploy on Cuba & Venezuela a 'SHiELD"

Note: An Islamic PAKiSTAN is on "Stolen-Land" From INDiA since 1947. Not Israel ancient Israel since Pharoah Ramsis2 times! Note: Islam is only 1400 years old & ironically, Russia is over 1,000 yeaRS!

How about islamic KOSOVO being on [American Encouraged] STOLEN-LAND from Greater Yugoslavia? A Russkaya AllY!

PS: Russia , under Bolshovicism, Clothed Them (kosovians & Georgians in Particular ), Educated them, Housed Them, Proptected them etc.. NOt AMERiCA!

Note: Mr. Zakaria et al:

You People of WAPO , News Corp. (owned by English] are Trouble Makers! Remember It was Georgia (americas called new Ally) who attacked.

What if Cuba attacked Puerto Rico? What Would America do???

Therefore: Please, Russia Demands that America Return ALASKA back to Russia foe 1000 times the Original ALASKAN Purchase Price, since America has Violated the 'CZARiST' Russian Agreement, RE-god-less if Bolshoviks changed Russia!

Note: Mother/Father Russia also dem,ands that America, via FEDERAL REserve of 1914; ReTURN the Peoples GOLD [not Czarist/Monarchs] Bullion that America "Robber BARRONs" et al STOLE FROM sweet Sweet RUSSiA et al under some SELF-SERViNG [Vintriloquised] Pretext, as Usual!

AMERiCA Needs War! So Keep Pushing Buttons, and Ye Wishs will cometh TRue!

Ooopssa: Att: Mr. ZAKARIA: Once Ye Accused certain People as being "THE MOST DANGEROUS THiNKERS" in America. [Similarly advocated] .

Guess waht: You & WAPO & similarly situated are the MOST DANGEROUS PEOPL:E Omn EARTH; Not DEMOCRATS PARTY U.S.A!!

JDD Wrote:....boots and tanks occupying their (Baltic) countries, enslaving their people, curtailing their liberties, dictating their actions, imprisioning (and killing) dissidents, stomping over any attempts at independence

None argues otherwise. The Russian invasaion and occupation of finland and the baltics was an evil thing to do. But does that justify raking up a war again between Europe and Russia? The Baltics have a substantial russian speaking population and lately there is a lot of xenophobia - including curtailing the rights of the Russian minorities. Do you think history justifies such actions?

Any ways, the point is that a prosperous russia will benefit all people. Visa free travel between russia and europe and a strong strategic alliance between Russia, Israel, India, Europe and the US is needed to counter islamic fundamentalism. The more we alienate russia, the more we push it into the arms of Iran, Venezuela and China.

Remember that today's Russia is a democracy and people will have little tolerance for a government that wages war and squanders resources. The Russian people have started tasting a good life - steady income, middle class life, foreign vacations and will not give up the good life easily unless provoked to the extreme.Let us not pull Russia's tail for no reason.

For some strange reason, our journalists and so called international experts (Biden, Rice !!!!) seem hell bent on picking a side and then picking up a fight with the Bear all over again!!

Zakaria's usual americacentric patriotic analysis ignores Russia's small but available advantages and the sensitivities involved. The detante has been a bad investment for Russia; only the West has gained from it. Now that it has gained economic strength-thanks to our wars- Russia finds resuming cold-war tactics advantageous again, sufficient enough for its limited global role. This time however, Russia can emerge as a more difficult mischief-maker. Georgian attack on South Ossetia akin to Saddam's attack on Kuwait has similar tunes because Georgia could not or should not have attacked without US approval. It may not be too late to be sincere . The US because of its educational and technological downfall and warring activities may not be the power that can afford to open up confrontation with such an enemy as Russia at the present time.

ATTENTiON: Fareed Zakaria, WAPO, News Corp., et al:

{{{Warning To file a FEDERAl LAW Suit against Fareed Zakaria, Sally Quinn, News, Corp., Myspace, et al}}}

PROOF OF SERViCE To BOTH: "postglobal" (Mr. Zakaria et al] via "onfaith" [Ms. Sally Quinn et al]et al. TODAY. @ Post #1367

--------------------------------------------------
RE: Please visit Sally Quinn blogg for

CROSS SERVICE of “NOTICE TO SUE” Today @:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/08/sarah_polin.html AND

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/09/levers_on_moscow.html

PALiN’s PREGNANCY PROBLEMs:

Article Posted by SALLy Quin on August 29th around 4:03Pm

@ Comments 1367

NOTiCE:
--------------------------------------------------

Warning To file a FEDERAl LAW Suit against Fareed Zakaria, Sally Quinn, News, Corp., Myspace, et al.

--- Paid for by the 'JO{KTAN}'ian Party U.S.A. & the 'EC{LAT{ARiAN' Movement 2013+

Unsettled American:
There really is a large difference in geopolitical interpretations between Russia and the West. Russia for example has no objections about EU expansion but has a lot of fears about NATO encirclement. So for Kremlin siloviki ukranian "orange revolution" was just a CIA-funded coup d`etat. And NATO threat to russian fleet base in Sebastopol is just a nightmare for them. So the best way to stabilise russian-ukrainian relations is for Kiev to keep its neutrality. The more so as most of ukranians themselves don`t fear Russia - they fear to lose personal ties with it.

Georgia did start this particular aspect of the conflict with Russia (rather clumsily, as it turns out) - but it's misleading to play Russia as the hapless victim in this situation. Russia had been provoking Georgia for years, and it had been getting worse in the months leading up to the conflict. Certainly, considering the Russian troops in Georgia "peacemakers" strains the entire concept of "peacekeepers" - would, for example, Palestinians ever accept Israeli troops as neutral "peacekeepers"? The Ossetians just happen to be a small ethnic group which are ending up as pawns in a larger game.

Mmm...
Not Russia has attacked Georgia.
Georgia has attacked Ossetia has killed inhabitants of Tskhinvali and peacemakers - at night.
This propagation has bothered: "Russia's attack..."
Cheap stuff.
ps http://ossetians.com/eng/

Michael:

I would append a key footnote to that quote from Churchill - the key is Russia's perception of Russia's national interest - which is not always the same thing!

NOTiCE To file a FEDERAl LAW Suit against Fareed Zakaria , Sally Quinn, News, Corp., Myspace, WAPO et al

--

Personally, Electronically & Duly served via [IP# 68.237.101.94: TODAY]

Served By: Jacob J….Z , aka, ‘JO{KTAN-ian‘ Party International via ‘INTERFAiTH-NATiON‘ USA!

---

TO: ALL, EVERY & ANY Pre-Apocalyptic SHMUCKS , aka NiCOLAiTAN(s) , Interfaith Nation Enemy’s, from HARVARD & GEORGETOWN & BERKLEY Univs Religio Dept’s :

Please: Stop Satanically switcharooing between a Pure 'SECUALR'ist & a un-pure HUMAniSta!

Note: There is no Such thing as a SECULAR-HUMiNiST any more! Do not mix apple with orange pleaze! SCHAME SCHAME SCAEME!

VOTE For: innate "SiNGULARiTY" Of ReLiGiON() in U.S.A. & elsewhere Never via "PLURALiTY" of man-made imported RELiGiON(s) in America!

imagine: The O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.ransfinity [O.U.R.-B.O.T.]; aka The Religion of Everything Before the Science of Everything!

HALLALUYA! Praise the HOL{i}-NEVER-WO&MEN!

Goodbye ‘Synergetic less & SPLiT MiNDED PSYCHOTiC "Interfaith-Nation" Jealous pipe dreamers!

Goodbye jealous Evil "HUMAnIST's" [Zero SECULAR] like ye proud Judeo Mr. gods-chosen-people , G.M.Epstein & idiot(s)!

Originally Posted on Judeo-Ju boys Epsteins Blog August 29, 2008 12:05 PM

August 29, 2008 1:22 PM

--
NOTiCE TO SUE , in FEDERAL COURT: NEWS CORP., MYSPACE, Washington Post, NYP, NYT et al:

-
According to Federal LAW, "i" Jacob JO...Z, herein NOW, Electronically serve'd "NEWS CORP., Et Al" as per after many many Warnings.

By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

LiVE, FROM:CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK YA!

NOTiCE TO SUE , in FEDERAL COURT: NEWS CORP., Washington Post, NYP, NYT et al:

Note To Alot Of WAPO's socalled PRE-APOCALYPTiC 'Moderator(s)", YE All

Are SUPER-STUPiD-STiTiOUSLY Devilishly Jealous of O.U.R. “EC{CLATi}-ON” NEW RelIGiON from Old!

Wow! EC{LAT} 'Not Allowed!
Wow JOK{TAN} 'Not Allowed & Many Others!

Thank You 'onfaith' & 'postglobal' for allowing me to go Forward in U.S. FEDERAL COURT, after giving al ye Many many FAiR Warnings: For Religious Discrimination, Theft of iNTELLECTUASL Property, Plagiarism etc!

AS Sir Winston Churchill said in 1939, "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. But perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.

Actually Europe should be happy,because russian
finally restore to its tradition role as
one of the great power of europe. (The Role of russian before first world war)

MinnieB9:

Calling Russia cautious and judicious in its use of force seems a little over the top to me - I don't think either Georgia or Russia was particularly "cautious" or "judicious" in this whole affair. Also, Russia was only "protecting" its "citizens" since Russia gave South Ossetians and Abkhazians citizenship to Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union - a tactic they also did with Transdniestra, a breakaway part of Moldova that also has a Russian military presence propping up a wildly corrupt "government." Maybe they were "protecting Russian citizens" in the technical meaning of the phrase, but the granting of that citizenship in the first place reads as a clever political move to give Russia an excuse to use military force against Georgia in the future should it ever try and fight back against Russian meddling in its internal affairs.

Moscovite:

I think your comments illustrate the large difference in perspectives between Russia and the West (which, I think, includes more than just the US). Most western countries don't look at elections in Ukraine as a "conflict" that one side will "win" or "lose." Also, the fact that most Ukrainians in that survey don't want to pursue NATO membership because they, as you say, "fear that this would spoil relations with Russia" does not mean they are in favor of closer ties with Russia than with the EU and US. In fact, that key word, "fear" says a lot more about Ukrainian attitudes towards Moscow than anything else.

If it were not such a serious topic, Fareed's title and admonishing tone remind me of Church Lady on SNL.

Alas, his method of ensuring tenure in the halls of Media in USA and in the good graces of WaPo NWeek empire are seemingly to tell his superiors what they want to hear.

WaPo and NYT leadership seems to be almost sobs as they realize their huffing anti Russia hysteria and Bush's furtive arming and possible instigation of the wacko Saakashvili have driven the USA and EU into a corner and off the cliff from which they are finding it extremely hard to even inch back.

Provocative titles and pandering are what they seem to be, such as What Bush got right, I tried to read that particular article and found nothing and in this one, very little except for one wildly hilarious and exhilarating sentence.

Fareed says We should Lower the price of Oil, oh thanks, thanks, wonderful, such a joy to read.

This after several authors in this very newspaper assured us robustly high oil prices were all OPEC fault, others assured us in other papers that it was a) American over use and disregard and b) new Asian economy greed and over use and disregard and still other renowned commentators assured us we were a) Ignorant and b) Know Nothing when we insisted that the price of oil can and should come down, that speculation can and should be curbed and prolly the real price of oil, whatever that is, is prolly closer to $50 a barrel.

It is now $110 from last night with a few blips and bloops. Looking forward to a still further fall, from Fareeds mouth to the Oily Heavens, thanks so much.

But so far, Russia has been very cautious and judicious in its use of force.

Given Fareed's own sanctimonious pandering to the Free Iraq crowd, one wonders of his contemptuous dismissal of the 70K S Ossetians ***gained*** by Russia. Surely he's not suggesting that they are dispensable is he?

Besides which it is very clear that Abhkazia and S Ossetia are not just emotionally dear to Russia and Russia dear to them, reciprocally, their strategic location in the Caucases and on the Black Sea neighborhood is indispensable. So even there Fareed is hopelessly wrong.

While undoubtedly many monetary forces have tried to browbeat Russia by a few tanks on the market, recall that Russia held $100 billion of mortgage type USA debt of which it has already offloaded $40 billion. Although it made soothing noises about the remainder $60 billion, it is undoubtedly looking to offload it, if not for political purposes, becoz its value is so downgraded, any money manager would be remiss if they weren't looking to extricate themselves.

They have also blocked the chicken trade, no pun intended, a blow to USA trade.

German business leaders have strongly deterred their excitable political counterparts from backfiring political actions against Russia.

All in all, Russians have acted quickly, decisively and appropriately to safeguard their citizens and the neighborhood.

By warmongering, Bush drove himself off the cliff and unfortunately, Barack invoked the same warmongering rhetoric, showing his lack of self confidence and inexperience. Although Biden is prolly deeply in thrall of the Washington War lobby, he still chose the more judicious phrase of rebuilding Georgia, without any nasty remarks about Russia. Barack in the speech following, alas, did not use the same judiciousness and now will have to dial frantically to devise an appropriate policy and appropriate amity to accomplish it.

Maybe Bush and the WaPo war cheerleaders would like nothing better even now than sending waves of troop transporters flying into the sky from Iraq carrying the Blackwater contract troops and others, evacuated from Iraq, to cover up the fact that they have been asked to leave and the USA is turning over more and more ops to Iraqi counterparts.

They may yet accomplish a full attack troop transfer, with further devastation to our armed forces and to our finances, if our Asiatic and S American debtors agree to keep advancing us further funds.

Keep in mind though, the Russians will not fold. They are prepared to wait it out in Georgia till Saakashvili is bounced.

Much better than these bizarre and wrongheaded kinds of admonishments, if Fareed, WaPo and the usual defense bunch were to devise a policy that will amicably accomodate USA in the region, mainly Georgia, while acknowledging Russia huge presence and influence in not just Caucasus but Central Asia and Asia proper.

This does not mean that Russia will smile affably and say come on in. In fact, they will be highly suspicious and with very good reason, becoz Bushies have not shown good faith in practically any sphere we can name. But that is the only thing to try.

It may not even work as long as Bush is President, his record is too blemished and mendacious and Dick Cheney's too avaricious and practically malicious, that Russia might keep them at arm's length for the remainder of this administration.

McCain and Obama will have to individually decide how to craft their overtures to Russia and their plans for America in Georgia. I would suggest that repeatedly invoking Russian Aggression, may not be exactly the way to go, hmmmm, just a wee thought there.

Any time they get tempted, first call up Hank Paulson and ask him how much we already in debt and how close we are to default.

Bye bye

Why we ever accepted Russia in the G-8 is a mystery to me. You can't export a donut to Russia without getting shaken down by customs. What have they done for us in the G-8? Do you really think that the prospect of Russia being booted out of the G-8 would have prevented their wanton agression? Have you caught a case of Obama's naivety? You say that if we booted Russia out of the G-8 we would have only two alternatives: war or appeasement. Letting Russia into the G-8 was appeasement itself, and look where it has got us. Appeasement is simply feeding the bear until you are the last thing to eat. As Churchill said of Chamberlain's appeasement. We had two choices: dishonor or war; we chose dishonor and still got war.

Basil:

If you're wanting to talk about the American people being in favor of violent unilateralism, take a look at this Pew Global Attitudes Survey - support for George W. Bush has fallen dramatically since the invasion of Iraq, but support for Vladimir Putin has gone up (to 84 percent as of 2007) as Russia has pursued more and more unilateralist courses.

And if you want to talk about "in modern history" then Germany might give the U.S. some competition in terms of acting unilaterally. And certainly America's not the most popular country in the world - but this Pew Survey suggests that at least some people still harbor some love for the US - approval of America runs at almost 50 percent in China, and still a solid 30 percent in Indonesia and Egypt. America's not a saint, but it's not the devil either.

First of all Russian attack on Georgia is a CHALLENGE - challenge to Project for New American Century whose brainchild Mr Saakashvili is - and whether it is strategic blunder or not we will see in not too distant future. Because in a year or two there will be presidential elections in Ukraine and, I bet, Russia will try "to win" back this country from USA. And, contrary to Mr. Zakaria claim, it has a good chance to win this battle. Because only 21.4 percent of Ukrainians are inclined to support NATO membership and 74 percent of those polled fear that this would spoil relations with Russia (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373134). More than that - the largest Ukranian party, Party of Regions, has demanded from Kiev to recognise South Ossetia and Abhasia independence. While the second largest one, headed by ukranian prime minister, keeps neutralitet in this conflict. And proamerican ukranian President Victor Jutschenko is so unpopular that stands no chance to win new elections - that is the main reason why George Bush wants to drag Ukraine in NATO as fast as possible. RESUME: the victory in Georgia a just a beginning of russian strategic counteroffensive against NATO, the victory in Ukraine will be strategic breakthrough

No country in modern history has acted so unilaterally on issues of war as the USA. Its citizens seems comfortable to accept a lying President on WMD in Iraq and gladly send in thousands to kill and got many more thousands killed is baffling. This is a nation that pretend to preach the morals of democracy and has lost all moral ground by its unprovoked interference in so many countries. By its own actions, America is probably among the most denigrated nation by the rest of the world.

Carl:

I think you will find a plurality of Americans who will happily stand up and say that they don't agree with the Bush Doctrine on the issue of Iraq, or the fact that it has tarnished the moral leadership that they feel America should exhibit (certainly this seems to be the case given his historically high disapproval ratings). Pointing the finger at America and saying "he did it first" only serves to emphasize the fact that both countries were wrong - America to invade Iraq, and Russia to invade Georgia. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Vanitsky,

Proshu prosheniya, I should have expected that at least one Russian would write in to say that America didn't suit them. That's perfectly reasonable - changing countries and cultures is a huge challenge.

Racial violence is a large, and relatively persistent problem in many countries, but from where I sit, the situation in Russia is worse than that of most western democracies because the state apparatus is unresponsive to addressing violent nationalists who attack migrant workers. In most of the other countries you mentioned, it is ethnic minorities who have not been well integrated that are causing the violence; in Russia, it is extremist elements within the host state that are attacking ethnic minorities, often with the tacit or explicit agreement of the police - when it is not the police themselves committing the violence in the first place.

I am not trying to say that Russians are inherently evil, violent, cruel people - just that the widespread corruption and lack of accountability that rules the day in Russia lead to these kinds of problems, as they make it nearly impossible to control extremist elements.

" President Bush seemed to
understand this when he spoke of Russia's behavior being unacceptable "in
the 21st century." "

On the contrary.
In the 21st century "to protect itself" America has invaded Iraq;
In the 21st century America is considering to bomb Iran.
Why is it unacceptable then for Russia to attack another country?
Don't you think that American unilateral approach made
this type of behavior to be a part of 21st century policy?

Unsettled American:

"People go to Russia because they have to; they go to America because they want to".

I am crying... I recalled my teen-dream to go to America.
I got adult - and went to America hiving a good job and renting excellent apartment on Leisburg Pike with a great overview on Washington, D.C. from the balcony on the 25th floor.

Unfortunately 3 years were enough for turning the dream into reality. American way of life didn't fit me personally - and I happily came to Moscow.

But I keep loving Americans. There is no contradiction in my consience when I defend Americans, say, in Bali island or almost anywhere where I happen to spend my vacation. I defend even Vietnam war. Have arguments ready - owrked out by years of discussions with folks.

Sure we have been facing terrible racial and/or ethnic-based clashes here in Russia. We are a multi-national country - gross things do happen.
But I wouldn't present thes episodes as something exceeding disgusting - but unfortunately inevitable - reality. Same things we can see in Paris suburbs. Or, if one watches "Crash" movie he/she could think of racial war in the US.

Just one fact: about 1 million Azerbajanies have been living in Moscow only! Things happen - but generally we are getting along well enough.

As to Russian leaders I think we have the best leaders at the monment since the beginning of the 20th century (PM Stolypin). Communist leaders can not be counted IMHO - I am unabashed anti-communist.

Fareed, Watch out, boy. You are full of lies and propaganda. Russia has lost nothing except making Nato countries (US, UK, France, Germany) think twice before encroaching on Russia too far by making Georgia a potential Nato member. Imagine Russia was a weak country like Iran or Iraq, oh boy another deployment already--after all they have oil, too.

This time i am not seeing the independent opinion in voice of Mr Zakaria.let see what are these?
1Mr zakaria accusing russian adventure of Georgia against the norm of the 21Th century along with other countries leaders.Why this was not followed in term of Iraq and afghanistan.
2 Mr zakaria article remind all of us that we are living in a century of American and allies.Where rules and regulation is framed by these fellow.Why he not realising that what American and european is doing is caused by Russian collapse as a world power.And if Russia tried to assert his power of wolrd by Georgian adventure then what is wrong with this?American declared the unipolar world dominance by declaring the war on Iraq and bombarding the Balkan areas.
3 Russia not only get the sympathy of worlds people but also hinted for the ultering the course of action chalked by the european and American aalies for the world dominace by capturing the world energy sources and strenghtening the globalisation in term of multinational corporations development.
4 russia again established it lost glory by this Georgian adventurism.What you talk about the national pride and emerging threat to western block.If Russia is become very friendly with Muslim nations by sorting the chechen problem,the tide will be turn against American design.The policy of alienation to Muslim world by george bush will play a leading role.
5Mr Zakaria ,west is so furious not vcause of Georgian attack by Russia but the rebellion of Russian against the assingned position in world order.And russian revolt to refarme the world 0rder.If russia just put his foot in every matter of UNO,west will loose all designated course of action.the Legality on which America works around the world assigned by UNO will be illegal.And you know that what an illigality play a role in turning of tide when you have army in so many countries .
5 As far as china is concerned ,its playing the policy of wait and watch.Russia and china will not want an open relation in view of India rising position.The Nuclear deal will be crucial for the relationship between russia and china.Other hand china wants a neutral Indian policy.Let see what the future say.
In present time the America led west is in problem.The georgian attack by russia made the problem of America more complex and interest on more stake.The American design to see the responce of Russia in Georgian invoke was very tough which made moscow boiled.
in the Last the increasing presence of American in neighbouring made Moscow realised that in future Moscow will also recive the bombardment like serbian type.The recognition of former Russian supported Balkan area was also reminder of bad day for the leader of Moscow.

Dear Fareed

Sorry this is not your good day.

No doubt you are very genius and most of the time you have an independent opinion which reflects anti popular sentiments.

Who knows may be you are correct again. But with all indicators this time Russia played a very wise move. The whole west concentration suddenly diverted and I think that was the real motive of Russia.

@Some perspective:

your response to newsjunkie would be weightier if you rebutted both detail and substance of his charges with facts. without weighing in on the substance of the charges i suggest it would be more helpful to advance the discussion in this manner. my problem is that 'you lie!' is wholely inadequate as a response.

Also, I'd have to check the statistics, but I'm sure that America doesn't have "close to 800" military bases around the globe. Certainly, I'll admit it is possible that might be the number if you include all military installations inside the United States, but certainly the U.S. can't have almost 800 in foreign countries - that would make almost four bases per foreign country, assuming the U.S. had military installations in every other country in the world. I hear that they are really living it up at that U.S. Army base in Novosibirsk...

Flast,

First, you have one point - America has, both recently and historically, interfered internationally when it had self-interested reasons for getting involved. So has every other country in the world with the power to make itself felt on the international stage (and some, such as Georgia, which don't). However, America has also interfered along more humanitarian lines on some notable occasions (Somalia, despite being a disaster, was one of them). I can't remember any time when Russia has put any skin in the game in any situation where it was not obviously in Russia's self-interest to be involved. That doesn't make America a saint, but it certainly makes it at least a hair's breadth better than Russia.

Also, as an American living in a former Soviet in Central Asia, I can say that while most local citizens move to work in Russia (where they are harassed and murdered for sport by radical Russian nationalists without any significant reaction from Russian authorities), they do so out of economic necessity, not out of any love for Russia or its ideology and history. Ask almost any citizen from a former Soviet country where they would want to live, if they could choose anywhere in the world, and they will say America. People go to Russia because they have to; they go to America because they want to. All the difference in the world in my opinion.

What utter propaganda. What world have you been living in these last eight years? The U.S. and its coherts have no,absolutly no moral or any other ground to stand on. But then...I try to look at both sides of the story.

American Media's blunder in 2003 is still fresh as they made the case for war without proper due dilligence. Inspite of that, Washington Post and Newsweek shamelessly once again give folks like Mr. Zakaria a mouth piece. Mr Zakaria's father was a very well know Journalist in India, but I bet he would too disown these writings.

Mr. Zakaria writes that the trigger of Poland signing the deal having been scared of Russian act in Georgia, but I am sure the history would make it clear if Georgia was simply a proxy.

I think that if you consider the belligerency of Bush's foreign policy, what with the unprovoked and irrational attack and occupation of Iraq; with the missile deployment strategy in eastern Europe; and with Bush's public pronouncements, dividing the world into evil and moral camps, and bullying weak nations into compliance, you will see that Russia is only playing Bush's game.

This is a problem as much of Bush's doing, as it is of Russia's. Bush armed, trained and gave Georgia the confidence to attack these two dissident provinces. How could Russia fail to react to this kind of foreign meddling? It was a given she would respond, forcefully.

Yes, I agree that this is not a new era of Russian emergence into the world. This is a particular situation, played out the way it was bound to play out, given the arrogance of both Bush and Putin. But Bush is playing a dangerous game, and if we had another term of him, I think the cold war would surely have a new life.

You've written an insightful and thoughtful piece. I tend to agree with most of it. Russia is indeed riding high on oil prices. That's why it's important not to let them feel they can do anything they want. They need brakes put on. They're drunk on success & nationalism.

I think Putin & Medvedev were preparing to invade Georgia all along, they were just waiting for a reason.

But I can't help but believe we dropped the ball. After the Soviet Union government collapsed, we pushed them aside, didn't help them much. It's no wonder they were hurt. We could've done a lot more, forged more ties with them. This could've all been prevented. That's what long-term planning prevents. Bush/Cheney don't seem to have much success in that area. Clinton has to be faulted on that, too.

It makes me wonder what Bush & Cheney are thinking & doing about this right now.

Mr. Zakaria: You wholeheartedly supported the murder (not war) of Iraq.
You have no credibility now, but that's not stopping you and the Washington Post from presenting you to readers as if you didn't have a history of collaborating with the neocons and the GOP for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. You were on tv hundreds of times in 2003 fomenting for the invasion.

And then, in order to save your own hide, you then criticized the whole tragic operation afterwards,

You beat the drums of murder and invasion in 2003 but here you are in our faces as if nothing despicable by you, ever happened.

What a sick, sick joke, YOU criticizing Russia for what, excess and hubris??

The poor white trash in town (the Russians) hit the lottery (high oil prices) and now they are drunkenly staggering through town, demanding respect with a slurring voice while swigging from a Vodka bottle. The average russian male won't live past 60. That pretty much says it all about russia. It is last gasp of a dying country. It is amusing to see them try to assert themselves. This too shall pass.

Flast,

Ваша английская язык очень хороша.

You are a Russian shill. Your talking points are the ones you and many others are paid to post on Western web sites. While these talking points are fact-like, they are not the whole truth, merely highly spun opinion and propaganda. You may even believe some of it, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

Russia is already paying a price for its destabilization and conquest of South Ossetia, et al. The Russian stock market is down almost 10% and Western investors have redirected almost $20B in new investment away from Russia.

Most of the bloggers on here tend to focus upon the days leading up to the invasion, rather than the 16 years prior, when Russia systematically reduced the Georgian population of the two provinces through its political policies and the actions of its 'peacekeepers' in Georgia.

Russia will attempt to paint over this aggression by threatening higher gas and oil prices, but as your article correctly points out, its neighbors are already making political responses. Russia just pushed itself back twenty years. The Russian people deserve better leadership.

Almost every war that has been fought by the US since WWII has been an unmitigated disaster and guided by inconsistent self-serving ideologies, not altruism.

The notion that America is a ‘force for good in the world’ is long outdated and certainly not a view shared by the rest of the world. America protects “American interests” which are not necessarily synonymous with the interests of other people elsewhere in the world.

I totally agree with Putin’s words: “What is a bipolar world? It refers to one type of situation, one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereignty. This is pernicious, unacceptable and impossible.”

He is referring to the megalomaniacal, wheeling and dealing that the Bush administration has been doing behind the scenes to stir up trouble in countries like Georgia and Ukraine. To pretend that America supports Georgia because it is a democratic country is laughable. (Georgia is far from democratic in the sense we know it). The US supports dictatorships and theocrats all over the world, providing they are friendly to the US and not to anyone else.

The US is busy building and funding US military bases ALL OVER THE GLOBE (close to 800 now) and from its recent historical record, it could attack unilaterally anywhere it pleases (although it would have to be sure that it’s banker: China, would be a willing doner first).

To pretend that Iran or Russia are a threat to world peace is a joke. One lunatic in the White House will cause more global devastation than Iran, Russia and China put together. Surely we need to get some perspective here?

Just because the White House points the finger accusingly at Russia, doesn’t make Russia wrong. Those people in the US that haven’t the faintest idea about Russian history, shouldn’t be so quick to judge and definitely shouldn’t listen to Republican rhetoric, designed to divert attention from themselves.

Russian invasion? This is no more an invasion than when Margaret Thatcher went to war over the Falkland Islands. As has been repeatedly pointed out but fails to sink in to the minds of the western media, Georgia started this war, aided and abetted by the US. It was US bombs falling on South Ossetians before the Russian ones, and Georgian people massacring Ossetians ones first. Had Georgians won their battle, the world may well now be shaking their heads over Georgian aggression. The fact that Georgia is pro US, doesn’t make it a saint!!!!! In fact, many pro US government aren’t (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan)

China has ‘refused its support’, because it too is wary of criticism of its incursions into Tibet.

President Bush was completely right when he spoke of Russia's behavior being unacceptable "in the 21st century." However, typically, what Bush says and what Bush does, are poles apart. What a short memory he has? And you too, Zakaria. Er, wasn’t it Bush that invaded Iraq, not only dishonestly, but wholly incompetently?

America is the ultimate hypocrite here. Can you imagine if a US neighboring country was being armed and goaded by China? Russia? Iran? It wouldn’t think twice about despatching its WMDs. My father once told me that it was western arrogance after WWI, that gloated and jeered at Germany, deeply insulting its pride, and rubbing it’s nose in its wartime failures, that caused the rise of Hitler. America should stop swaggering across the globe as if it owns the planet and have some sensitivity to countries that have pride and history that existed long before America was even on a map.

I don’t agree that the US should do anything, other than butt out and leave the world alone. Maybe 60 years ago, US intervention was much appreciated, but now most ordinary people would rather the US stopped meddling in international affairs and perhaps studied some world history instead.

NEWS-JUNKIE:

Your "chances are" statement is wishful thinking. Russia's invasion/aggression/incursion was not based on whether NATO is a paper tiger. Russia knows that it is not. It was based on some pretty logical thinking. What was at stake for NATO in Georgia? All NATO lost was some pride. On the other hand, it still dared Russia to call its bluff. Now, had the Russians marched in to France or Germany, they surely would have met with the real tiger. THAT, is the line in the sand. This is what the Russians understood. I believe the NATO marketing department did a great job of selling itself to the old communist countries without adding this qualifier.

Oh, this is too easy.

The Israelis, quick before Bush leaves office, sent their Brig Gen from the Lebanon fiasco,

and lots of arms and other "helpers" and advisors" to start some trouble, plant some war seeds while American blood and treasure was still availe to them via the Bush neocons.

And they trooped
into South Ossetia to begin their
war...the beginning of what they think fo,enting revolution in Russia. Ya, right.

You see, the zionists think Russia is theirs.
To hell with America. And they'll keep yelling, just as they do for bombing Iran,before
the stinking blundering neocon captive Bush is finally gone.

But Europe won't stand for it.

I agree with most of what Dr. Zakaria writes except one thing: how was Moscow supposed to react when Georgian troops began their offensive (probably with Bush's blessing)? After all Russia is a big power and had to show the big stick or suffer the consequences.

Naive analysis and very short-sighted. By flexing muscle, Moscow has sent a strong signal to the leaders in Kiev, Baku, and so on that if they want to live in peace they better stay away from NATO, and no leader there is foolish enough to ignore this. So where is the blunder?!

Zakaria has done it again, proving without a shred of doubt that his loyalty rests with his American paidmasters. He does n't bother asking how we would react if Warsaw Pact was coming to Mexico or Canada and NATO had closed shops?

AmitInSF: If Georgia was in NATO, chances are Russia would not have invaded Georgia - what if NATO turns out to be an actual tiger? And Saakashvili might've been forced to be more restrained. But now Russia, by taking a relatively minor risk, has verified that NATO is a paper tiger. What's to prevent it from taking over Georgia? It will be another small step. If that doesn't work out, it can always move back. But chances are, it will. Basically it can expand its sphere of influence at will. Russia gained a lot more than 70,000 south Oossetians

Zakaria's solution of "dramatically lowering oil price" is laughable as we don't have control over that anymore

I think, Fareed, that this was written prematurely. I think you need to turn the issues over and look at them from all sides?

First, to think that we can just drammatically lower the price of oil to put an economic squeeze play on Russia is... I don't know what the word is. Unrealistic, I guess.

Second, to say that Russian actions drove Poland into the arms of the US is again, something that needs to be viewed from several angles.

We do not have a single missile in Poland yet, and I suspect the Poles are not going to allow one either. What's the payoff for them? Unless that missile shield includes a tank and artillery shield, then Poland is taking a huge gamble in a very high-stakes game.

The US too. What is the payoff for the US by risking the well-being of another country that we swore to defend 'as though their land were ours'? We can't even deliver on that promise without an exceptionally heavy cost.

The way to prevent their expansion is not to ring Russia with missiles, but rather drop reclining leather sofas, digital cable TV, Doritos, and reality TV shows on their heads and turn them into a bunch of fat, lazy, stupid consumers.

It beat us.

Dear Mr. Zakaria,

In your rush to sound tough on Russia, you seem to have missed asking yourself a basic question! Let us assume that Georgia was a member of NATO. Please hazard a guess on what proportion of US population would have supported military action against Russia to come to the aid of Georgia (please don't include arm-chair pundits). OK, that was too hypothetical, since Georgia was/is not a NATO member. How about Estonia, who are a member of NATO, and whose president flew to Georgia to show his solidarity with the Georgian president. How many would support going to war with Russia to protect Estonia? In my estimation, aside from the chicken-hawk neo-cons, arm-chair pundits like yourself, O'Reilly, Hannity etc, and people with no thinking abilities, there would be almost none. So, it is not Russia who have committed a colossal blunder. They have made their little neighbors understand that it doesn't pay to antagonize Russia if you live in its neighborhood. The colossal blunder I am afraid was committed by the Georgians (and I am afraid, it is being committed by the likes of Estonia, Poland and Ukraine). They drank too much of the neo-con cool-aid served up by Bush-Cheney.

And BTW, what makes you think that the Russians are not part of the "civilized" world. They invaded Georgia without regard to international norm, just like we, the civilized, invaded Iraq. You might remember, you yourself were a strong advocate of that civilizing invasion.

Fareed Zakaria is for himself a colossal blunder in order to analyse the geopolitical situation.
It's easy to read what he wrote in 2003 for pushing at war. The man is a total failure, but he look smart, so...

Lionel Roger:
Putin is bullying his neighbor countries and Europe is back in its 1939 appeasement mode-business as usual. Soon we,ll see the Chamberlain clones flying to Moscow with gifts and promises of
cooperation.

##################################################
When war will begin, I'm sure that we will see you, all warmongers,in the first line !

BIGGY3 wrote
"....I have keenly observed that since 9/11 most established foreign born/accented journalist types, with the exception of a few, very much follow the formula that you have aptly stated above possibly to avoid being viewed suspiciously and assigned all kinds of labels that can ruin their careers...."

I agree with your observation. But this says more about the country than the journalist. As a US citizen, Mr. Zakaria is supposedly accorded freedom of thought and speech. But his foreign accent immediately makes him suspect, no matter which way he is "blowing the wind". When, or does he ever, really become an American. I would wager that his kids, who might be born and raised here, and speak english with no accent, will not be above suspicion either because of their name and their skin color.

My vote in Fareed vs Afrasibi goes to Afrasibi, sorry Fareed you're too one sided for me.

to JFC1: loved this particular post. An, unfortunately, rare example of straight language statements which don't treat the reader as a moron, a complete ignoramus, or an ideologically blinded zealot. Unfortunately, cannot say the same about the esteemed author's article (but then it's F. Zakaria, isn't it). Btw, in that aspect the author would have made a stellar reporter or even editor material for the old Soviet-style Pravda or the like. Different angles, but the same approach: sell a bunch of lies to promote an ideology. And forget the truth. Unfortunately, most of us are proving to be an easy catch for such red-herring salesmen. Well, that's why we are in the mess we are (Iraq, Afganistan, subprime). You'd hope people start thinking and making their opinions for themselves. Believe me, it's not that hard. Just make a habit of it.

If Fareed is trying to be a journalist, he should read M K Bhadrakumar of the Asia Times, a journalist par excellence and his countryman. Of course Fareed dosen't know what it is to be a journalist. Just a hack who scrabbles for his regular paycheck.

Juno

+++++++++++++++
SANDER HEINSALU:
. Based on Russian history Russia will continue to attack its neighbours until it is stopped by outside force or internal conflict.
++++++++++++++++
Would you be so kind as to point out what neighbours Russia ever attacked and when ? I seem to be barred from Russian history…

++++++++++++++
Some have compared the attack on Georgia to the Soviet invasions of
Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. A more telling historical
parallel might be the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
+++++++++++++++++
YES, I THINK THE ATTACK ON GEORGIA CAN HARDLY BE COMPARED TO U.S.A. INVASION OF GRENADA IN 1981, VIETNAM IN 1966 AND IRAQ IN 2003.

+++++++++++++++
President Bush seemed to
understand this when he spoke of Russia's behavior being unacceptable "in
the 21st century."
+++++++++++++++
WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IN 21ST CENTURY HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE U.S.A. – BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA, TORTURES IN IRAQ AND GUANTANAMO, BACKING BORIS YELTSIN WHO SHELLED RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT IN OCTOBER 1993 KILLING 500 COMMUNISTS.

++++++++++++++
Then, when the Russians attacked Georgia, we would
have been faced with only two options -- appeasement or war.
++++++++++++++
NO, YOU SHOULD FOLLOW SOVIET EXAMPLE – WHEN U.S.A. ATTACKED VIETNAM IN 1966 SOVIET UNION STARTED SUPPLYING VIETNAM WITH AIR-DEFENCE MISSILES THUS CONTRIBUTING INTO SHOOTING DOWN FOUR THOUSAND U.S. AIRCRAFT. YOU SHOULD HAVE SUPPLIED GEORGIA WITH MORE AIR-DEFENCE MISSILES TO PRECIPETATE FULL-SCALE WAR. AFTER ALL RUSSIANS HAVE LITTLE TO LOOSE (WHICH IS NOT TRUE OF AMERICANS) AND WILL BE MORE WILLING TO STOP THE EXISTENCE OF THIS WORLD (I THINK ALL THE RUSSIANS PUT OVER THE EDGE BY YELTSIN’S AND PUTIN’S CAPITALIST “REFORMS” ARE EAGER TO SAY, “STOP THE WORLD I WANT TO GET OFF”)

I agree with the first poster that Russia was able to make several points with this engagement. Not the least of which was to remind the region that Russia's concerns need to be taken into account when deciding on policy. Also, the Russian military got to stretch its legs a bit in real combat.

It's difficult for me to see this a a huge Russian blunder. Unlike the 70's, energy prices will not be falling again - so that is not a worry. Russia may have indeed scared their neighbors witless, but their neighbors can only run so far West. We can't give them natural gas and oil. Russia now negotiates with these countries who fear them - hard to see that as bad from their perspective.

my opinion is that the Russians did pretty-much what we would have done plus some more being Russians of course.

They basically laid waste to half of Georgia just to make a point. Actually several points.

The most glaring being that this is a Russian interest, not a US interest.

they did nothing different than we have done in Iraq and the Chinese have done in Tibet. The rest of it is just caterwauling.

Leesson b) don't go to war unless you are ready to suffer some real losses. War is not a game.

Lesson c) if we have trouble handling Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time and that is keeping us out of Iran, how are we supposed to send an armored brigade or air-cav over to help the Georgians...50 miles over the Russian border? *That* calculation was outright stupid.

Sorry, I disagree with your analysis. I think you have to go back and study Hitler's 1941 attack on the USSR called Operation Barbarossa to fully comprehend current Russian thinking and give them the benefit of the doubt re Georgia, where they have acted, not inappropriately or excessively, but modestly and with great temperance and much tact. NATO now needs to be abandoned as it is now more a danger to peace than it was in 1991. You would be much better advised not to foment comments about war with Russia which would be a total nuclear disaster for the entire globe.

Russia gained far more than it lost. All the mighty U.S. could do was watch helplessly while little Georgia cried for help in the mistaken belief that George Bush would come to the rescue. Saakashvili was slapped down hard and won't have any more illusions about U.S. support when it counts most. Of course it would have been madness to take on the Russians over Georgia but Saakashvili learned a hard lesson. It's one thing to invade Iraq; quite another to face down the Russians. It showed Bush as the blustery little bully he is.

If Fareed is trying to be a journalist, he should read M K Bhadrakumar of the Asia Times, his countryman. Of course he dosen't know what it is to be a journalist. Just a hack who needs his regular paycheck.

Juno

To John White and John Mosbey

There is a far more sober and thoughtful discussion of this specific episode and the more significant (and broader) underlying issues in the Washington post by mark weisbrot. most important in his discussion is his observation that we mismanaged the post cold war situation and that as a result any goal of a lasting unipolar world order was bound to be fleeting, and is in fact over. its just a matter of coming to terms, which may take some time and may be painful and tumultous (i hope we dont pursue this with the misguided insistence we have applied to many other doomed policy objectives). it is utter foolishness to look at a nation with so many nuclear weapons and conclude that it is a toothless tiger. even if some of our citizens and policymakers here are reckless enough to chance the outcome of a nuclear war, the Europeans who will bear its brunt are much less willing. when we look at how Iraq played out, a modest nation (in landmass and population) with a primitive armed capability, we begin to realize the very real limitations of a military in which far too many are quick to place all their faith in. from all indications, the Russians are more than capable of stinking us at home. if you are willing to subject yourselves and your families to this risk for reasons I find difficult to comprehend (i.e. a presence or Russia’s border that is unlikely to serve any significant benefit) then i must say i and most people i know feel very differently. I will certainly not go looking unnecessarily for trouble in every nook and cranny, especially when I don’t even buy the argument that there is a tradeoff benefit.

The facts of the day belie Mr Zakaria's assertions: the EU just finished an "emergency summit" its members agreeing to slap Russia on the wrist with the proverbial wet noodle.

Russia has made the point that it is a player and it demands the respect other players take for granted; poaching in Russia's sphere of influence from now on carriers a price, US policy makers will have to keep that in mind.

Mr Zakaria also is quite selective about the use of his facts: it may be that Mr Yurchenko wants to join NATO, it is not quite all of the Ukraine; indeed, a professional poll taken today probably would yield very nearly the same results as those cited by Mr Zakaria (i.e. 60% pro-Russian).

Finally, where Mr Zakaria sees transatlantic unity, a more sober assessment reflects a growing distance, both between the US and the EU (Mr Gordon's efforts notwithstanding), and a split within the EU: between those countries that were historical opponents of Russia, and those who also see benefits in a benign relationship with that country. If I had to bet, I would say that the second group will prevail given that the consist of the wealthiest (Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc).

The main problem underlying the Georgia crisis of the last month is in Washington: there exists a small, unimaginative and rabid group that refuses to entertain the idea that the benefits may outweigh any liabilities in a reasonable relationship with Russia (as in US exports to a growing market, energy and commodity deals, alliance against extremist Islam, the cultivation of a geopolitical counterweight in Eurasia, and so on).

Commentaries such as Mr Zakaria's evoke the ideological pabulum produced by the Soviets during the last decade of their existence; they are rationalizations for intellectual sterility. Until reasonable and serious people prevail in the US policy making community we may well have additional "jolts" of the type we just experienced. Worse yet, they will add to the damage to America's stature, a melancholy prospect

//vanitsky wrote: Mr. Zakaria seemed not to go into the conflict too deeply. Even the term "agression against Georgia" reveals that he hardly thought of this conflict more than 15 minutes.//

I would say "incursion into Georgia" would be more appropriate term to use.

Yes, in the situation we have in Russia 70,000 South Ossetians were more important than G8, NATO-RUS, EU-RU comissions or WTO.

Same with Abkhazia.

Mr. Zakaria seemed not to go into the conflict too deeply. Even the term "agression against Georgia" reveals that he hardly thought of this conflict more than 15 minutes.

Russia have accepted reality that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. So what? What's the big deal?

Talking about Poland and Baltic republics is senseless. Those nations are full of internal comlexes and enslaved by its own past.

They need to be brave to live up with their own past without turning the past into the present.

Finnland also has history of dramatic relations with Russia - but the Finnish people proved smart enough not to get bogged down into the past.

Having this mind it doesn't make sense to discuss anything related to Mr. Zakaria writing.

Kevrobb wrote
” Zakaria's success is based on a simple formula, the Christopher Hitchens formula: Telling Americans how great they are, and repeating all their Washington conventional wisdom, but --- and this is key --- doing it with a foreign accent.”

You hit the nail on the head. I have keenly observed that since 9/11 most established foreign born/accented journalist types, with the exception of a few, very much follow the formula that you have aptly stated above possibly to avoid being viewed suspiciously and assigned all kinds of labels that can ruin their careers. They usually wait to see where the wind of neocon conversational wisdom flows then came out with an analysis that apes the same position about an issue at hand. . I usually imbibe their opinion with that in mind. I have noticed in recent years that many open-minded independent correspondents/journalists with foreign lineage often opt to pair up with Anglo-Saxons if they wish to given their honest opinion on a controversial subjec

Zakaria wrote: "Then, when the Russians attacked Georgia, we would have been faced with only two options -- appeasement or war."

Ok. So, if you rule out isolation now, then what do you do when the next crisis comes? What costs is Zakaria willing to impose, and for what actions? That's the thing about diplomatic, political, and economic leverage. You don't get any leverage if you're never willing to use it.

Anyone familiar with any studies on eonomic integration among the developed states of Europe prior to WWI? I seem to recall a few years back hearing about a study demonstrating that economic integration was extraodinarily high by 1913. Norman Angell, writing just a few years before the Great War, certainly thought economic integration had reached the point at which war was too costly. That didn't work out so well.

Mr Zakaria is dead on when he points out that Russia, along with Iran and Venezuela have become intoxicated with their new oil wealth, and, that the only way to 'sober them up' is to lower the price of oil dramatically.

Seems like FZ is trying to elbow his way into the inner circle of world's dumbest strategists- Douglas Feith sits alone as chief of this idiotic band. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has earned a secure place for his stupid attack into South Ossetia. Yes, the Russkies exaggerated the number of deaths and atrocities that the Georgians caused, but the Ossetians did not then and even less now want anything to do with the Georgians. Saakashvili threw the first punch. US and Israeli arms for Georgia will not solve this ethnic problem.

Yes, the Russians overdid it in their response, humiliating the Georgian Army and countryside. However, many US politicians also overshot in their knee jerk response, most of all the impulsive old John McCain. The last thing that the world needs is a new cold war with even greater US military spending.

The US now spends over 50% of the federal budget on military and military-related expenses and still neglects veterans' healthcare. Major improvements in education, healthcare and infrastructure can't come without shrinking the Pentagon budget. There simply isn't enough money. Also, what about Bush's recent declaration that we are in a state of permanent war with Al Qaeda, that all manner of spying and suspension of civil rights are justified? The FBI is now harassing "dangerous vegans" in Minnesota. The surveillance state is not hypothetical.

The American Empire, like the Roman Empire, will collapse from within. Empires, like fish, rot from the head, i.e. Washington. We can't keep spending more money on militarism than the rest of the world combined- obviously we are wasting money. The National Surveillance State is incompatible with trust and neighbors working together- we saw that in East Germany. George Orwell understood that. Will the next US President have the sense to refrain from cold war confrontations or will the two gigantic and clumsy Sumo wrestlers collapse because of their many internal contradictions while FZ cheers them on?

John White wrote:

and does Putin really control the military?--Or does it control him and keep him in power?
----------
I get the impression the Russians act within a mindset of illusion, complete illusion, overestimating their power and abilities, the same arrogance and lack of thought reflected in Washington, today.

The decisions are ignorant, shortsighted and reactionary, Russia will not sustain as a nation.

Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul; and it was good. Putin looked into Bushes eyes and saw check-mate. The game of Chess is fundamental. But then Bush is a checkers man.

For those with a historical bent, the Russian adventure in Georgia is almost the 2008 version of the 1960 "missle gap" issue in the election between Kennedy and Nixon. (Kennedy argued well his claim that Republicans had let the Soviets gain missile superiority over the US thus acknowledging as accurate Krushchev's boast of Soviet missle superiority. Many will recall Pres. Eisenhower's warning about allowing the military-industrial complex to achieve power in this country and understand immediately a national clamor building up over our own missile systems during the 1960 election.) After the Soviet beat-down of Poland and its killing of 40,000 to 50,000 Hungarians during the Hungarian uprising of 1956--all of which took place during Eisenhower's term--and the apparent inaction of Pres. Eisenhower's Administration, the American people were ready to believe the Soviet claims of missile superiority. However, at the same time, it was also very clear that Krushchev's ouster of the Stalinists had resulted in the Soviets losing control over their satellite states and so in an attempt to mollify the Stalinists and the military and prove that there was no loss of Stalinist military superiority, Krushchev was beating the old-school Stalinist drum which said, "Look at our military strength and missles and cringe from Soviet might you capitalist running dog lackies." Coupling this refrain with the typical big-lie claims about US interference in the Soviet sphere of influence, Krushchev was trying to stay one step ahead of a military purge and a return to Stalinism. In short Krushchev had a real problem in control over his military. And now, just as then, Russian's leader, Putin has real problems in Russia. For example, he has the few exploiting the wealth of his nation at the expense of the many with pictures of golden toilets in the multimillion dollar homes of the Russian wealthy gracing the Internet, while average Joe Russian is lucky to get a bowl of hot potato soup once a day, and old hardliners are exceedingly upset at that; and does Putin really control the military?--Or does it control him and keep him in power? Kennedy successfully exploited the "missle gap" against Nixon and narrowly won the election...and the military-industrial complex rejoiced! Or to put it in simple terms: if there had been no Soviet-provided missle gap crisis for Kennedy to exploit during the election against Nixon, he most likely would have lost the election. Interesting parallel. There of course was no "missle gap." The US then, as now, has absolute superiority over any combination of nuclear nations in the world--and they know it. While to many it is unclear why the CIA, together with the military-industrial complex, tacitly, if not overtly, supported the accuracy of there being a missile gap, what is clear is that Kennedy learned that there really was no missile gap, and that he should have heeded Pres. Eisenhower's warning, and upon learning that, prepared to pull US troops out of Viet Nam. But before he could do that, he was killed in Dallas.

Mr. Zakaria finally exhibits both his inaness and quasi/zionist sympathies.

Reports in the European press intimate that no one, except the PM of the Uk is calling for challenging Russia. German politicians will not go along, neither will the Italians or the French or the Spaniards.

But then to Mr. Zakaria the West must be the US, the UK and Israel. Mr. Zakaria must have in his possession incriminating photos of one or two big kahunas Or is paid big bucks by some lobby to brainwash his readers. Pathetic

pure appeasement!

Interesting if a bit short sighted. And if the rumblings about the OSCE report to be released (one in Russia's favor for the most part) are correct then the opinion abroad is very likely to change. In fact we're the ones who are likely to look like the over reactive, chest thumping region who arbitrarily backs our 'friends' whether right or wrong and regardless of whether or not we have any real business getting involved.

There is little doubt that Russia could have handled things better but we've not done ourselves any favors in all this either - big surprise given our history in the last 8 years. What few want to admit is that if we were in Russia's position we would have done the same thing. Furthering that, if Russia was making nuclear deals with Canada or Mexico our reaction would be miles past indignant fury.

"And what did Russia get for all this? Seventy thousand South Ossetians."

Again I find this interesting and a little abhorrent in the flippant way it comes across. If a region filled with our citizens wanted to be absolved into us and had tried to break away yet were being held, we'd go in and help them break anyway. They voted and have tried to make the break since 2006. For that matter, we'd probably go in and help them break regardless of whether or not the area was filled with US citizens.

Last but not least, the inclusion of the fact that China has refused support is at best laughable. Of course they have refused support. To do otherwise would present a contradiction in their own arguments vis a vis Tibet.

ACastle wrote"
"EU is one of the biggest consumers, unless USA sells gas and oil to EU (very possible)all they have to do is being very carefull what they do and say.
Mr. Z we need people to work in functions of peace you start to sound as a Republican neo-con eager for WW-III."
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Nice philosophy that can be summed up as "All you need to ensure peace is to shut up and not rock the boat." Europe should shut up, not ask for nations to be able to decide their own path, accept curtailment of other nations' liberties, and be happy that they get their gas.

Very nice.

ZACARIA BECAME ANOTHER BRAIN WASHED CORPORATE 'JOURNALIST'

1. "The single best strategy for bringing Russia in line with the civilized world would be....." - I didnt realize that Russia wasnt civilized.

2. What if the shoe was on the other foot? - What would US have done if Russia/China had military relationships with Mexico, Cuba, Latin America, Canada and had armed any of these for a possible invasion (using self defence as pretext). And then put in a missile defence system in the neighbourhood. Just a sneaking feeling that the Washington Post/Newsweek wouldnt be too thrilled.

3. I believe that Russia should have handled its PR (about the war) better. They should have at least hired an english speaking spokesperson - it is not easy to consider a poker-faced, Russian-speaking Putin friendly.

4. I guess what Bush said was "invasion of a sovereign state is not acceptable in the 21st Century". Just one question - IRAQ?

Definitily Republicans and neo-cons are living in a bubble, out of reality. It reminds me John McCain when is says George's policies were right 90% of the time. Mr Z and palls seem to forget that the biggest gas and oil reserves in the world are located in Russia, Middle East (Iran), South America and USA. EU is one of the biggest consumers, unless USA sells gas and oil to EU (very possible)all they have to do is being very carefull what they do and say.
Mr. Z we need people to work in functions of peace you start to sound as a Republican neo-con eager for WW-III.

Again an outrageouse Lie. Every discussion of Georgian events, that are not beginning from the fact, that Saakashvili killers during the day of Olimpic Games opening (8/8/8) exterminated about 1500 civilian Osetians in their homes by fierse shelling - every such a discussion, that skip oh hide this fact - IS A GREAT LIE.

True is: Russia defended its sitizens. Nothing more, all the extra speculations have nothing similar to reality.

Zakaria should read the apt analysis by Kaveh Afrasiabi also posted on this website. Unlike Zakaria's pro-American apologia, Afrasiabi presents a much more sober and even-handed analysis that puts a lion share of the blame on US and NATO.

It goes triple in this instance. Misery loves company -- good luck getting him out of your apartment.

Sam Frieder wrote that "... in the last decade, the US has been encourageing an attitude of russia baiting for no reason. leading this are the baltics, poland, ukraine and georgia."
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Leaving aside the memory of Soviet (Russian) boots and tanks occupying their countries, enslaving their people, curtailing their liberties, dictating their actions, imprisioning (and killing) dissidents, stomping over any attempts at independence, attempting to turn children against their parents, trying to brainwash a few generations, suppressing labor movements -- all in conformance with a rich history and tradition of attempts at conquest and control in the region that dates back a few centuries and several Tsars -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and Georgia really had no reason to believe that the local superpower would attempt to reassert itself and exert control that these independent nations would not welcome. I guess that taking actions like seeking NATO and western protecion are truly inconceivable and provoking!

Certainly, these nations know that they lie on the border of a mighty Russia and that their only option is to play ball with the local bully. Shame on them for trying to not be intimidated, seriously!

I think Russia did what was in its interest given the hostile neighbours. It is almost parallel to India. The US is setting up arms around it and it is a disgrace to world peace. I think you are wrong.

Oh, and you know that saying, "no good deed goes unpunished?"

KEVROB wrote:
"Zakaria's success is based on a simple formula, the Christopher Hitchens formula: Telling Americans how great they are, and repeating all their Washington conventional wisdom, but --- and this is key --- doing it with a foreign accent.

Because they want to know it's not just them who thinks that way. They find it reassuring to hear it from foreign-looking types."
/////////////////////////////////////

Well, here's a foreign type (born and raised abroad, American by choice), who has lived, traveled and worked extensively in foreign shores and believes based on that experience that America and Americans are, indeed, great.

This belief does not diminish the cultures and achievements of other people round the world. Yet, my foreign experience and my life since I arrived in the US demonstrate to me that there is something unique and special about the history, achievements, and promises of the American experiment -- warts and all. There is nothing wrong with asserting that and working from that premise.

What this "foreign type" does not understand is why so many who were born into the gift that is the US are so bent on denigrating their rich history, promises, and potential for good in the world. Instead of celebrating the fantastic achievements of the US that have helped multiple nations around the world elevate themselves politically, socially and economically, they appear happier when the US makes mistakes and looks humbled and beaten. They show unusual glee when bad things happen, relishing the sight of the US as "the bad guy," and imagining that bad policy choices are not "bumps in the road," but distressing signs of a dark and abhorrent nature inherent to the US.

There is, indeed, a different nature inherent to America when we compared it to other nations. But is is a difference born out of greatness, not darkness.

The European neighbors of Russia were already in the western camp. But the middle east likes a restored Russia to rival the US in the middle east. Zakaria is smoking ghat.

Empathy for a sad soul is one thing; holding an intimate pity party is quite another.

errr..this article has a flawed logic to it. it is almost sure that Saakasvili will lose the next election in Georgia and so is the case with Ukraine and Yuschenko/Timoshenko regime. in all these countries, the economy is slowing down and people will respond by voting out incumbent governments (whether they are pro or anti russia). Given that the present incumbents are all anti russian the next governments will be pro russian!!

Fact is that in the last decade, the US has been encourageing an attitude of russia baiting for no reason. leading this are the baltics, poland, ukraine and georgia. There is absolutely no need to provoke russia. A country with 14000 nuclear war heads should be encouraged to be our ally and not our enemy.

and by the way it was Georgia that attacked S.Ossetia. if Putin had not responded then, i dont know when he would!!!!!

most europeans, unlike here in the US have a fair understanding of world affairs and saakashvili is seen as the culprit on the streets of london, paris and berlin!!!

Russia's response to the Georgian government's attack on south ossetia was overdone. of course it had to react, and it had a real opportunity of making the georgian government look bad. instead putin blew it. that done, russia is now dangerous. as you say, it was not integrated enough, and it is now less so. since we need russia to deal with the nuclear situation it is we who must hold out an olive branch. after all bush had driven the russians crazy by moving in on Poland, working closely with turkey, but even more so by allowing the nuclearization of india and pakistan, american allies on the far side of moscow. it was a series of moves, all taken without consulting anyone, that undermined our political relationship with russia. it seems to me that we should stand up and recognize russia's importance vis a vis nuclear weapons and Iran, and it's bordering the northern side of Islamic populations and work on this strategic interest. lets see what they will ask in return. lets decide on what we are not willing to give. surely there will be some ground in the middle for man to man talking. no need to go toe to toe even if the VP happens to live side by side with russian bears.

Many commentators have said that the Caucasus is not worth going to war over. This immediately begs the question of what is worth going to war over – Ukraine? Moldova? All Eastern Europe? History should have taught European countries at least that appeasement does not work. Based on Russian history Russia will continue to attack its neighbours until it is stopped by outside force or internal conflict.

To anyone who has followed Russia’s rhetoric and actions in recent years it is no surprise that Russia is using its piecekeepers to keep pieces of Georgia for itself. The only questions the Russian invasion of Georgia posed were „Who is next?“ and „When?“ Historically Russia has never let go of territories its military has gained control over without internal armed conflict or the threat of war from strong neighbours. Since the West will help Georgia with nothing but words, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are lost until the next fall of the Russian empire.

Mr. Zakaria,
I rarely agree with you, but in this case I'll agree with everything you said except the last line. Russia is already paying a price for its destabilization and conquest of South Ossetia, et al. The Russian stock market is down almost 10% and Western investors have redirected almost $20B in new investment away from Russia.

I know the myriad of Russian bloggers will write bad things about you (and me) just because, but their writings will simply be name-calling and irrelevancies. They will also tend to focus on the one day leading to the invasion, rather than the 16 years prior, when Russia systematically reduced the Georgian population of the two provinces through its political policies and the actions of its 'peacekeepers' in Georgia.

Russia will attempt to paint over this aggression by threatening higher gas and oil prices, but as your article correctly points out, its neighbors are already making political responses. Russia just pushed itself back twenty years. The Russian people deserve better leadership.

Putin is bullying his neighbor countries and Europe is back in its 1939 appeasement mode-business as usual. Soon we,ll see the Chamberlain clones flying to Moscow with gifts and promises of
cooperation.

'President Bush seemed to understand this when he spoke of Russia's behavior being unacceptable "in
the 21st century."'

Really? I would have said that Bush and his fellow Iraq war supporter Fareed Zakaria both completely failed to understand the irony of their position.

"Almost all of this instant analysis will prove sensationalist and incorrect."

Not like Zakaria analysis, which has stood the test of time, right?

Zakaria's success is based on a simple formula, the Christopher Hitchens formula: Telling Americans how great they are, and repeating all their Washington conventional wisdom, but --- and this is key --- doing it with a foreign accent.

Because they want to know it's not just them who thinks that way. They find it reassuring to hear it from foreign-looking types.

Indeed, I think Zakaria has found quite a niche. I'll bet the Washington punditocracy could find room for a few more swarthy, accented analyists whose analysis rigorously avoids ever questioning America's role.

Christophe, do you work for Pravda?

What you are seeing in Russia is revenge politics ... getting back at the West as the perceived cause for the fall of the Soviet state. You saw it in Germany in the 1930s, and look where that led.

Yes, we need to ensnare Russia in a web of interests with the West,not a war. But please don't trivialize the Bear's actions as merely "protecting its people".

Fared is a warmonger bushist and torturer apologist

C. Fournier sounds like a bitter, confused individual. The article wasn't about whether there are journalists left at the W. Post. It was about Russia attacking Georgia, another country. Fournier, you wrote: we now all know that Russia just went to Georgia to protect its people. If Russians live in Russia, and Georgians live in Georgia, what people are you talking about? Sheesh, what a loser.

what makes you think the russians did not anticipate this? i think they are more concerned with reestablishing some of their geopolitical relevance and be taken seriously, which this flexing guarantees. if you doubt this we shall watch what happens from the middle east to south america. its "poke me and i will bite" from now on.

I am afraid you are ill informed...Are you reading the Washington Post? It sure looks like it. In case you didn't know, there are no journalists left at the Post: only paid cronies to the fascist government trampling our liberties. So, yes, you can lie your way around into making Russia into the mean Soviet era bear, but frankly, we now all know that Russia just went to Georgia to protect its people. So stop lying and if you want to complain about an illegal invasion and toppling of sovereign governments, why don't u talk about Iraq, Mr Zakaria...