The speculation that Russia could bomb Georgia shortly after the visit of Barack Obama seems to suggest a whole new definition of what it means to hit the "reset button." I don't think it will happen. From Associated Press:
Former Kremlin adviser Andrei Illarionov predicted that if Russia were to take military action against Georgia, it would take place directly after Obama's visit and that Moscow would portray its decision as having been made with Washington's approval. He also said Russia doesn't want to occupy Georgia.
"The main goal is to turn Georgia into something like porridge, from a political, military and ethnic point of view," he said.
"Most important is the destruction of the political stability of Georgia," he told reporters.
I'm curious: If you'd been told in July 2008 that Russia would cross the Georgian border, use illegal cluster bombs to attack Georgian cities, seize a Georgian naval installation on the Black Sea and annex Abkhazia, even though no military confrontation of any kind was happening there, and then roll tanks towards Tbilisi, would you have thought THAT was going to happen?
How about if you'd been told just before he did it that Nikita Khruschev would take off his shoe and pound it on a table in front of the entire United Nations General Assembly? Would you have thought THAT was going to happen?
It might be useful if you suggested what the NATO countries should do if it DOES happen, just in case you're wrong. After all, surely you must make room for that possiblity . . . right?
I can speak only for myself--I hope the major stakeholders in this area also have their plans--but I certainly would like to see a swift condemnation of any Russian military action in Georgia, followed by pressure for the show to stop as quickly as possible.
Now, as for the other case -- i.e. if Russia doesn't invade -- that is both more probable and, in some senses (i.e. PR), worse for the West -- that is hard to say. If all Russia does is try to destabilize Georgia by meddling inconspicuously in local politics (more or less like in Ukraine) and slowly bringing Georgia to the point of political collapse -- well, Russia will reap the PR benefits ('we told you this country wasn't reliable!') and, if it ultimately succeeds in installing a pro-Russian government (ideally, someone like Moldova's President Voronin), then the game is over. Why would they need to actually invade and occupy Georgia? Having it as a vassal state would do royally.
Not that I exclude the possibility of military action. Only, from the Russian perspective, it would be bad PR: Russia can get everything it wants in other ways. But if military action does end up taking place -- some people are crazy -- then: swift condemnation from other countries plus immediate pressure for the show to stop. (Of course, it would be necessary to deal with the concomittant Russian claims that it was Georgia who started it by bombing them first, etc.)
Of course, nobody cares about another possible cause of renewed warfare... A lunatic attempt at chasing the Russians out and regaining Abhazia and S Ossetia by Saak the tie mumcher.
Typical.
Oh, I don't exclude that. Russia needs a pretext. Whether or not this "lunatic attempt" will happen, I'm sure it will be claimed to have happened. Why speculate about what is known? ;-)
Well, something very like it actually happened on 7 August 2008. So why not drop the blather about "pretexts" and deal with the possibility that war could occur at Saakashvili's initiative? After all, he was the one who got it on this past August.
War can occur on Saakashvili's initiative, of course, just as it can occur on the initiative of a third or fourth 'crazy' party. War can even also happen by accident, without either Saakashvili or Putin deliberately taking the initiative.
But then, you must also admit that war can also occur solely on Russia's initiative... And "pretexts" are not pretenses; such things do exist and are often used by governments to pursue their goals, especially (but not exclusively) authoritarian ones.