In reading the posts, there is some simplistic thinking going on as far as what the appropriate response should be to Russia's intervention. I believe that the Russian incursion into Georgia is a historic break with the past, and that it is entirely possible that if the West does nothing, it may mean that Russia is encouraged to use the same salami tactics on the near abroad that it used in Eastern Europe after World War II.

Looking at a replay of the Cold War isn't pretty, particularly given the current state of the world economy. If vital resources both in the United States, Europe, and Russia are used for a military buildup instead of infrastructure and national economic development, the world will be a poorer place. So what are the alternatives?

First, I would think that the Russian move actually increases the chances of NATO expansion in the near abroad areas. Moldavia and the Ukraine in particular will become very interested in looking at the security umbrella NATO provides.

Second, the Russian move will further cement American and European relations with China, giving tactic encouragement to China's economic incursion into Siberia. Coupled with this will be the foreign policy moves made by the multinational corporations. The recent difficulties that Exxon and BP have had with Russian oil development will make them wary of future involvements in Russian energy projects, and we can expect that this will not only hasten the development of alternative energy sources but to drop barriers on things like Brazilian ethanol and liquified petroleum gases.

Also, if ever there was an argument for withdrawing from Iraq and healing our damaged military resources, this is a wake up call. The neocons should be leading the charge to accelerate withdrawal from Iraq so that we can focus our military forces on other parts of the world.

Lastly, it will be necessary for the United States to practice more realpolitik in its foreign policy instead of "faith based." The United States should be at least as intelligent in its pursuit of national and international interests as Russia is. The G-8 membership of Russia might be reviewed to see whether it's appropriate given Russia's recent aggression, and there should be a greater emphasis on the United States using and supporting the actions of the United Nations. Realism on our part means compartmentalization of our dealings with Russia, and this means taking real steps to enter into effective nuclear disarmament talks to the benefit of all countries.

Tough talk against the Russians might make us feel good temporarily, but it's important that the United States take a longer term, more realistic perspective towards Russia than what the Bush administration has done.

Russified eastern Ukraine was talking about secession in the last election. If the Ukranians insist on joining NATO, then they might wake up one day and find that their real estate holdings are considerably less than they are at present.

Recognizing Russia's legitimate security concerns is a better alternative than provoking them by encirclement with NATO missles.

Russia's move also increases the power of Iran. If the United States doesn't show greater flexability in its negotiations with Iran, it will be easy for that country to move closer towards Russia in a variety of ways. not only in the Middle East, but in the Stans.

Germany and France will not appreciate the idea of fighting the Russians because their 'NATO ally' decide to commit an act of suicidal stupidity.

Do NATO members pledged to fight for one another if they act as you say, and essentially are the catalyst for the fight?

old new lefty: There is much here with which I agree. There are aspects to Russia's adventure into Georgia which I feel will grow in significance in the short to medium term. Putin – and one thing this crisis has confirmed is his power is absolute still – may seem to have triumphed against a blabbermouth who was ill advised and impatient. But of Putin's character and the type of regime he leads there can be no illusions now. This will pay dividends for the US particularly in 'Old Europe'. (Just look at the body language between Rice and Sarkosy. Putin may by his actions in Georgia have rolled back the foreign policy legacy of Iraq and an incoming US President may find more eager and receptive ears in Berlin and Paris as a result. Also Russia can suffer the consequences of its intervention in other ways which time will show. On another point, I would like to see some expert assessment of the Russian forces performance in Georgia and what this says about current abilities and doctrine.

"Tough talk against the Russians might make us feel good temporarily, but it's important that the United States take a longer term, more realistic perspective towards Russia than what the Bush administration has done."

Well said. Here's another long-term thinker:

...But avoid the hysterics, as entertaining as they are.

I mean, I know it's August and all, but it's not strategic to always be in the reactive, going-all-wobbly mode. Geez, if we're going to be that easy to play all the time, then every jackass on the planet going to start firing off a round just to keep us frantic.

It's times like this when I fret most about America's inability to play the long game . . ..

Barnett

Sure, Russia has legitimate security concerns, which were not at all threatened by Georgia, and which are not protected by its invasion of Georgia.

Russia has put the world on notice that it will use violence to protect its ego and that it regards former Soviet territory as its own. How should Russia's neighbors react? They have to react defensively. If the West can't help, maybe China can.

Encirclement by NATO missiles isn't inevitable at this point, but estrangement from its neighbors seems to be a self-imposed result of this adventure.

Looking at a replay of the Cold War isn't pretty, particularly given the current state of the world economy.

This seems so self-evident. However, the right has noted time and time again the we are in a "new cold war". It seems the right wishes to return to the halcyon days of the old cold war and since the al Qaeda threat doesn't seem to be doing the trick, what better than the rise of our old nemesis, Russia, formerly known as the USSR?

I believe there is a whole group out there in American political land that believes the cold war days were rich, good, and desirable.