Any fast tracking of the Ukraine into NATO, at first glance seems like a worthy reward for Russia's recent moves. But I wonder how ready NATO's membership - much less the EU - would be for that given the growling that would commence from Moscow and the ethnic tensions which Russia could just as easily foment both in the Ukraine and in Moldova (a neighbor of current NATO member Romania) as it has in Georgia. Threatening to put NATO on a collision course with Russia seems like the antithesis of soft-power and might put member states at odds with one another.

While you're probably right that Russia doesn't wish to be seen as "conquering Georgia", since it can achieve it's ends - whatever they may be - short of that, they may not be fully in control of events, again, think Abkhazia. I believe there are other players in the region as well besides these two. The problem with playing the ethnonationist card is that others get the idea that they can play too. So, to stabilize Ossetia, and Abkhazia to come, may require effectively conquering Georgia.

The problem for EU member states is that short of economic reprisals down the road, I don't see much leverage that it can threaten use. This seems unlikely given that the pain would be felt as much, or more, by Europeans as by Russians. There's no happy ending here. But given the success of Russian arms in dismembering a sovereign state in the Caucasus, and the lack of effective European response, I wonder what the effect will be within Europe. Already there seems to be a more aggressive stance taken by Eastern European nations relative to their western partners. What tensions will this engender. Any effects on a common defense policy? I wonder. Bear in mind that these kinds of instabilities and inadequacies have historically been concerns held in Washington and are what has kept American arms in Europe for more than 60 years now.

So, we were supposed to have moved past all that?

Yes, I think the Russians understand the game of diplomatic chess. They're demonstrating that they don't need the EU, NATO or anyone else to take care of matters. However, I won't be surprised if they allow a show of EU participation in the end game - particularly if something can be extracted for the consideration.

In a televised interview this morning in Beijing, when asked what he had said to Putin, Bush responded saying that he had expressed his grave concern with Russia's disproportionate response outside of Ossetia. He said it carefully and was in his diplo-speak mode and manner.

In particular with respect to any suggestions that Russia played Georgia in this affair, I think it an understatement to suggest that Georgia's President and government have not enhanced their desirability in the eyes of the NATO membership through this escapade; particularly as it seems to have been undertaken without consulting any of their presumed future partners. Whether or how this effects a potential Ukrainian application remains to be seen. Circumspection by all aspirants may be very much appreciated the by EU, NATO and the most particularly the US, at this moment.

Nanne, why should Russia care? Has it paid any significant price for Chechnya? What price will it pay if chooses to take Tblisi under the pretext that it's just trying to prevent further Georgian aggression in S. Ossetia?

I know you're not a diplomat and carry no portfolio with responsibility for decisions or for having gamed these things out, but I was being polite in my response to your proposed actions to be taken if Russia expanded it's actions - as they now appear to be doing - for the following reasons: I doubt that you could point to anything which suggests that European governments are either willing, much less capable, of the actions you propose: Immediate admission of Ukraine to NATO; moving squadrons of aircraft to Turkey? Remember, I was suggesting actions to be taken by way of sacrifice by Europe, and by that I meant . . . alone. What meaningful response could EU nations mount alone in response to a Russian incursion into the Ukraine? What about a similar incursion into Latvia or Lithuania? Oh, that would be different because they are in NATO and . . . . Right.

We come back to lessons learned and effects in Europe. What will they be I wonder? Marie-Claude has suggested one course in her expressed admiration for Gorbachev's proposal of a united Europe around the Russian pole. I'm sure she's not alone in that hope: perhaps even more so in the aftermath of all this? How's it all looking now?

So, is this the change we can all believe in, folks?

The questions were rhetorical and simply point to things that bear watching in the future; well, at least ones I think will be interesting in the future.

Granted, the combination of NATO-EU forces are more than capable of taking care of matters if and when deployed. But you have to admit, the Russians aren't showing much in the way of care about that or much concern over political fallout.

By the way, any word yet on those additional demands of the Georgians deemed necessary by the Russians before any peace talks can commence? Not having heard or searched for them myself, I'm willing to hazard the following guess as to one of them: that Saakashvili resign as President.

Oops . . . just checked and it appears that Khalilzad claims that the demand was made. If that turns out to be the case, will the EU representatives advocate for or against? Saakashvili was democratically elected, you might recall.

Now reports in the NY Times are that Russian forces have moved beyond S. Ossetia

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/world/europe/12georgia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

and appear to have Gori in their sights. If you're out there reading Joerg, would this be unacceptably far enough beyond S. Ossetia to merit a few tsk, tsks here? And, Nanne, someone might want to quiz that Russian general as to his definition of "further" and Medvedev, if not Putin, as to what "completion" will look like.

I had to laugh when I read this in the article linked above:
"The Bush administration said it would seek a resolution from the United Nations Security Council condemning Russian military actions in Georgia." Well, this serves to show that our diplomats and governement have a sense of humor. And apparently the Russians too have one if the following is to be believed: "Russia dropped a bomb on Tbilisi’s international airport shortly before Mr. Kouchner, the French foreign minister, was due to land, Georgian officials said."

Not Bush: Rove's evil mind rays. Geez, Don. Everyone knows that. Don't you know? Bush isn't trusted with them: a fear that he might zap himself.

Zbig speaks and recommends doubling down:

"In view of what has happened, NATO ought to extend the membership action plan to Georgia, therefore reinforcing the commitment NATO made in Bucharest last March to the effect that NATO intends, at some future point, to include Georgia."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/brzezinski-russias-invasi_b_118029.html

Well, you won't find me defending Zbig. I posted this for two reasons: His is one voice among many who are already considering the fallout. But also, Zbig has been a foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama: Is this "the change you can believe in", Marie-Claude? :)

Nanne, I don't think you mean to go down the road of "blame America" for this mess in your post above. However, let me make this one small point: I think the admission of Poland and the Baltic countries to NATO was one hook with future accession to the EU another that was meant to tie all them into a larger western European community. Enlargement of this community, and most particularly its values, ought always to be seen as something positive not something to regret, even at times like this.