Many saw the SCO as an organization that may one day rival NATO. Regardless of whether that assessment was accurate, more evidence against it has come in the form of China and the SCO’s recent joint statement from Tajikistan in which it calls for Georgia’s territorial integrity to be respected. While the language was clearly not as critical and aggressive as that from America and Europe, the message was clear: we don’t support you. While some treat this development as an additional ‘blow’ against Russia, this blogger finds it unlikely Russia counted on any real support from China. Indeed China has Taiwan and its restive Muslim provinces to worry about. Beijing knows better than to take sides on an issue like that. While Medvedev had indeed been quoted as saying he expected the SCO to back Russia, the organization seems to not be as inherently anti-Western as they expected, hence their polite but clear statement as noted above.

Yet, for all the talk of Russia and Georgia, I’ve seen little discussing what America’s overall policy goals should be in dealing with Russian aggression. Is the primary concern defending Georgia itself, or our image which would suffer were we to appear weak in defending an ally? Are we more concerned with Georgia in the first place, or rather with Russian. And indeed, if Russia is our main concern, which I believe it is, does the United States wish to punish or ‘rehabilitate’ Moscow? To be sure, Georgia is not an important strategic interest of the United States, which this blogger says despite being an avid Georgia supporter. Both Zenpundit and Galrahn at Information Dissemination correctly point this out. With that in mind, and in the mind of Moscow, Georgia’s strategic value does not warrant escalation and the taking of high risks by the US and Europe. Thus, wading through the war mongering and Cold War rhetoric, we arrive at the aforementioned question: punish or rehabilitate?

The Europeans have, for example, voiced interest in sanctions against Russia while others have discussed ejecting Russia from international organizations like the G8. Thomas Barnett is in the rehabilitate crowd as he noted today

his fusion model of Russia’s is not that different from China’s—just coupled with Russian political paranoia. Both need to be housebroken by the global economy/Core in coming decades. China’s moving in that direction nicely, Russia’s system far more slowly. But now Georgia gives us a great “teachable moment” here, assuming we don’t go overboard or militarize the response unduly. All levers, my friends, all levers.,

Dan at tdaxp simiarly describes the situation, namely that Russia is a Gap state acting as such against new Core states. That being said, US and European policy must focus on punishing Russia and damaging its economic and political interests while at the same time, opening new and more acceptable routes for Russia to achieve its foreign policy goals. American and European politicians must make the most of this opportunity or “teachable moment” as Barnett calls it lest we leave Moscow with no other route than to remain a repeat offender.

A question to readers:

I recently predicted that hostilities between Georgia and Russia will increase through the end of the year. This is due primarily to Kosovar independence now being used as an ostensible reason to ramp up aggression against Tbilisi. However, although official annexation is a possibility, using the alleged Kosovo precent (more here), it is indeed more likely that Moscow will neither annex Abkhazia or South Ossetia nor recognize their independence. Why? Because indefinitely prolonging the crisis combined with the ability to instantly inflame it whenever geopolitically useful to Russia is far more valuable a tool.

What would be the short and long term benefits of actually recognizing the two regions? What would be the short/long term benefits of annexing them? Do they outweigh the benefits of the status quo? With the volatility of energy prices and Europe’s reluctance if not cowardice vis-a-vis Russia in mind, isn’t the status quo far more useful? Additionally, with Russia’s own separatist problems in the Caucasus, outright recognition is unlikely leaving annexation as the only remotely likely possibility.

Meanwhile, Abkhazia asks for a formal military alliance with Russia. I’m somehow reminded of a quote about a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.

Yesterday I mentioned the increasing belligerence of Russia and its aggression towards Georgia. Today, Moscow has threated force should Georgia attempt to retake its own territory militarily. The first assumption here, is that Georgia is somehow preparing for war, a charge which Moscow has almost certainly invented to buy a short term advantage. In doing so, it opens a short window of time in which it can move additional “peacekeepers” into Abkhazia and South Ossetia ostensibly for peaceful purposes. By the time there’s a consensus among the West about whether Georgia indeed took such provocative actions, it will be too late. Its first step was to formalize ties with each of the two regions and Russia’s current action should be seen clearly as a second step towards the same goal, annexation of Georgia’s sovereign territory.

By the time the OSCE, NATO or the EU ever formally meet to discuss the situation, which is as clear as daylight. However, the Russians are clever and have developed a “legitimate” reason to intercede: the safety of Russian citizens. As the BBC notes,

Mr Lavrov said that Russia had to protect Russian-passport holders in the regions and that if Georgia took military action, Russia would have to take “retaliatory measures”.

This tactic has been ongoing in both regions as Russia freely hands out passports to locals in order to put a legitimate face on its illegal occupation of both regions. The EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said “Even if the increase in peacekeepers is within limits, if we want to diminish the perception of tensions, I don’t think it is a wise measure to increase now”. But as I noted yesterday, these limp wristed and spineless comments will only convince Russia of Europe’s lack of will to do anything, should Russia go to war with Georgia. The US and what’s left of our NATO allies must take a clear stand and back Georgia with equally convincing threats of force.

With the independence of Kosovo, it seemed that Russia had backed down on its threats to recognize other separatist regions and indeed it did. But it was unlikely there would be no reaction which left analysts wondering when the second shoe would fall. It has:

The breakaway Abkhazia region in Georgia has called on the UN and other international bodies to recognise it as independent. The appeal was made by the separatist Abkhaz parliament on Friday, a day after Russia said it was lifting trade restrictions on the territory. [...]

On Wednesday, Georgia’s other breakaway region, South Ossetia, asked the UN and other international bodies to recognise its independence. [...]

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov said the situation regarding Abkhazia had completely changed. He denied the move had anything to do with recognition by some states of Kosovo’s independence. Russia says Kosovo remains part of Serbia.

In lifting trade restrictions and thus withdrawing from a 1996 treaty which bans trade, economic, financial, transport, and other links with Abkhazia, Russia opens the door to openly support the Abkhaz with weapons among other things. The treaty was signed by 12 CIS members and it remains to be seen whether any others can be cajoled into following Moscow’s lead. Indeed, as RFERL notes, the timing was meant to coincide with the recent NATO meeting and remind Europeans, wary of NATO expansion, that Russia will do whatever necessary to block its march eastward.

The move by Russia could be a first step towards annexation of the territory, a move that would essentially go unpunished unless Georgia were a member of NATO. After all, Moscow has already issued Russian passports to Abkazians and South Ossetians in a clever move to provide cover for future involvement to “protect its citizens.” In fact, both regions even voted in Russia’s recent elections. One thing is for sure, although Russia has nothing to offer the world, it can and will continue to play the spoiler.