The boarder skirmish that has unfolded in the Caucasus since August 8th has as much to do with Georgian President Mikhiel Saakashvili as it does the sock-puppet Medvedev and his puppet master, Vladimir Putin, exasperated by the Bush Administration's continued lack of diplomatic competence which has failed to win over any friends in the Big Bear.
What is being overlooked, however, is that this is a trap. One that took months of preparation, maneuvering of troops, materials, assets, and calculated planning to put into play. While the U.S was busy sending assets and training personnel to the Georgian military, Russia was busy building up garrisons and fleets around the borders near and on the breakaway regions of Abkhazia, and South Ossetia back in April.
In a recent UN security council meeting (August 19th), Russian Federation Representative Vitaly Churkin placed the blame squarely on Saakashvili himself, as to why the current resolution offered by French Prime Minister Sarkozy could not be accepted in its current form, stating the 'propagandizing' contained in the resolution does not make it favorable for complete withdrawal of forces currently running amok in the port city of Poti, This particular occupation severs the eastern and western sections of Georgia supply lines, and creates a humanitarian crisis that could find Saakashvili himself being ejected from power.
That is exactly the Russian plan.
Moscow hates Saakashvili for his conciliatory relationship with the West, alongside his rather flamboyant overtones in leaning towards membership of NATO. The Georgian President has long been a fixture in black-tie affairs here in the U.S., courting support and allegiance for the independent state to be overseen by the mighty confluence of our military firepower and presence. In his short-sided attempt to keep the Pro-Russian region of South Ossetia from succeeding Georgian oversight, he overestimated the support he would be rendered. The 'cavalry' was, and is, NOT coming on this one.
And Putin knows it.
The former President turned 'Prime Minister' also is keenly aware of several other nuances involving the region as it relates to the current retardation of American foreign policy. Firstly, Georgia's lobbying for NATO inclusion is complicated by its geographical location within the Caucasus. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty makes inclusion exclusive to European states only. Virtually all-existing maps align Europe's southeastern border with the skyline of the Caucasus Mountains. A redrawing of the geopolitical map essentially would be needed to allow Georgia to qualify, as the country is considered part of Asia.
Secondly, he knows the cozy relationship with The Bush Administration would not yield any proactive defense of Georgia in the likelihood of a conflict with its northern neighbor. Mikhiel Saakashvili was warned of this by several U.S. envoys, and was advised to react cautiously when the border build up reached a peak in July. So when South Ossetian rebels along with Russian commandos in Tskhinvali began their revolt, Putin knew this would cause Saakashvili to react overconfidently, and with great haste. The former President understood that the U.S. couldn't realistically respond with force independent of the NATO alliance, as its military is overstretched with conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which leads to the third dynamic: an embarrassing and dangerous diplomatic faux paux on the part of the Bush Administration itself. In the eyes of the international community actions speak volumes. No sooner when Bush condemned the attack on August 11, the response internationally was a collective "oh really?" in particularly from the Middle East. Mohammed Sayed Said, the editor of Al Badeel, an independent daily paper based in Egypt put it succinctly: "Bush should be too ashamed to speak about the occupation of any country, he is already occupying one." Political analyst/columnist Sateh Noureddine of the Lebanese daily As Safir put it more grimly, and accurately, stating: "The U.S. Administration is stumbling in the Middle East without considering any horizons for the future..(having) done more harm to its allies in Georgia (et al)than to its enemies." (L.A. Times, August 17 'Bush Is A Hypocrite, Some Arab Observers Say')
With all three of these primary situations in play, Putin and his Sock-Puppet are in full-tilt control. The U.N. is reticent to apply any pressure beyond candid analysis, conciliatory debates and useless referendums largely due to Bush's history of irreconcilable and condescending muting and manipulation of the Security Council. Conversely, NATO legally can't interfere, and possibly won't place any forward consideration of Georgia's issuance of a 'Membership Action Plan' until December at the soonest. Condoleeza Rice recently returned to NATO in an attempt at speeding up Georgia's membership process, which looks unlikely because of the U.S. anti-missile situation in Poland that has long caught the ire of Moscow. To add to the malaise, Russian troops are not exactly exiting en masse from Georgia, as there are garrisons still occupying Gori, Tblisi, and other port areas in The Black Sea, claiming a concern for retaliation against its pro-Russian consortium in the breakaway regions by Georgia.
No one can really stop what is taking place, as there are so many diplomatic and bureaucratic conundrums that a peaceful and productive solution for all sides is virtually unachievable at the moment. Russia doesn't want Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, or any of the former Soviet states to gain entrance into NATO: It will impede their capacity to impose their will in the region should they need to. The independent status achieved by Kosovo recently is not really that intense a sticking point as many of the MSM outlets and newspapers in the U.S. so rigorously claim. The problem is the narrow foreign policy exertion, which has not taken Russia into consideration. The U.S. itself has been entrenched in a 5-year occupation of a region that was never a direct threat to American interests and was falsely claimed to possess technology it never had access to. Meanwhile, any meaningful talks with Moscow have denigrated to a solipsist of self-interest by the Bush Administration desire for the eastern European anti-missile system installation coupled with the anti-proliferation treaty Bush himself has refused to agree to sign. To put it more concisely from Moscow's standpoint: If the U.S. and NATO can carve the map up in the Baltics, why can't Russia?
So, why the hell am I acting as some quasi- political science major on this? Because the point is this: the '08 campaign currently in full swing in the U.S. has now become a 'Russian Election', pure and simple. McCain or Obama potentially not only inherit the legacy of a failing and corrupt economy, a massive and stratospheric national debt, an unjust conflict in Iraq that needs a draw down soon, and the legacy of potent incompetence bestowed to the international scene by the Toxic Texan and his Merry Band of Criminal Rubes. They now face a tangible threat of renewed hostility and conflict with a country that was to be our ally in the New Millennium.
A country sorely neglected by an American policy of random ethnic and religious intolerance and monotheistic elitism agitated by ignorance and demonizing for the sake of coercive democratization and global economic expansion. This legacy is now seeing its 'end horizon': the result of eight full years of this approach by proxy of an inane and immutable foreign policy. A country that now has no motive ethical or economical to withdraw its forces from Georgia, or to stop its neo-Soviet advance through the rest of Eastern Europe to establish its validity as a sovereign entity able to control and advance at will without meaningful consequence.
McCain, if elected, will do further damage due to his inability to see past 1965. He's a product of the Cold War and will be unable to adjudicate any of the complexity or harsh danger his mishandling will bring.
Obama is extremely under skilled in this endeavor, and if elected will have to catch up quickly. Alongside a strong durable nuance, he will have show an edginess that is more than superfluous, and that means business, not more charisma-charged rhetoric suitable for the occasion. He will also have to know when other negotiating parties are manipulating him, and have the intuition to move quickly on resolution. The restoration and resuscitation of diplomatic ties to Russia is something he could achieve.
Russia is back. And the trap they have laid has not only successfully ensnared the entire Caucasus region, but NATO, the U.N., and the U.S. all in one swift action. George W. Bush has destroyed several generations of diplomatic advances that allowed this type of circumstance not to exist, and the mechanisms of determent and containment are evaporated. Potential rogue nations and established autocratic monoliths could find it appealing to ally with Russia, and sever ties with the U.S. Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, and even China now have an 'option' should they elect no longer to diplomatically engage America any further. And Bush's incursion into Iraq was the acting catalyst that lead to Russia's newfound sense of international autonomy and elevation from impunity.
Both candidates should stop the usual posturing and start debating the need for change in the current foreign policy that has made it more dangerous for the U.S. to conduct its business overseas.
And allow a Russian delegate to monitor the debate, and help unlock the trap.