If your interested in Russian expansionism, this is a short primer.

The Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force has just been used effectively — and not by the U.S., which tried to prevail on the cheap with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. This time around, it might as well be rechristened the Putin Doctrine, given what the Russian military has done to Georgia over the past two weeks.

Another point strategists have taken note of: the Russians’ apparent use of computer-generated attacks on Georgian servers and websites in the days before the invasion. While much of the hacking sounded like old-time Soviet agitprop — particularly reports of alleged Georgian genocide against ethnic minorities in South Ossetia — military schools will be studying the fact that such an electronic assault moved in tandem with the real invasion.

The other lessons: don’t tease the bear, because it may just be smarter than you. It appears the Georgians fell into the yawning trap set for them by the Russians. For years both sides had fired on the other, and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili decided that this summer was the time to root out the separatists — many with freshly issued Russian passports — in South Ossetia. When his forces moved into the province on Aug. 7, the Russian bear pounced.

Whether or not a renewed Cold War works in Moscow’s favor in the long term remains to be seen. Moscow may not be able to halt expanding NATO, as former members of the Warsaw Pact do not seem less eager to join the Western Alliance. While Putin and his troops have succeeded in lashing out at Georgia, such action against former Warsaw Pact allies like the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland — all now NATO members — would be suicidal. But for the near term, the Putin Doctrine is now in play.

They’re not.

I’m just trying to figure out what the situtation is, Brian, to the best of my ability with the infomration tht’s there..

At this point, the “shoulds” or “shouldn’t’ are over my head and out of my hands.

In recent years, the United States has been providing military aid and advice to an increasingly militaristic Georgia, whose military budget has increased 30 fold since 2003 (much to the chagrin, I am sure, of the Georgian taxpayer).

I’m assuming the parentheses are yours. Ask the Georgians, facing the Russian Bear, how they feel about military assistance from anyone. They might have a different take on it.

Found this on a blog. Can’t verify the accuracy of it, though the sentiment is what’s relevant:
“There has been a lot of talk about change lately. And after eight
years of Republican rule, it’s definitely time for some.
I will vote for Barack Obama and the Democrats because I know that
they are our only real chance to move this country back on the right
path.
But change doesn’t just mean kicking this dumb ass out of the white
house. if we change presidents without changing policies, our country
will keep slipping away from us. We have to hold the new people we
elect accountable, and make sure they move away from the failed
militaristic policies of the last eight years.
That’s why Joe Biden’s recent tough talk about the war in Georgia is
disturbing. It just doesn’t sound like the change I am hoping for.
But Mr. Biden has done more than just talk tough. He has offered
Georgia a billion of our tax dollars. With huge deficits here at home,
change should mean that we think very carefully about offering any far-
away nation our tax money. But the facts about Georgia’s current ruler
give us good reason to flatly reject giving aid to the country for as
long as he remains president.”

To understand why, Americans should consider how the US government would react if (say) Texas declared its independence and received massive amounts of military aid and advice from the Russians,

Not a good analogy. Georgia didn’t secede from the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union dissolved. Russia has no claim on Georgia. This is a naked power grab by Russia.
New report 8/25:

Russia’s parliament voted unanimously to recognise the independence of Georgia’s two breakaway regions today in a direct challenge to the West.

The Federation Council voted 130-0 to ask President Dmitri Medvedev to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. Russia’s lower house of parliament, the Duma, followed shortly after with a 447-0 vote in favour of recognition.

Independence means Russian control, since the residents of South Ossetia were granted Russian passports.

The better analogy would be Cuba, a Soviet satellite spreading the disease of Marxism to Latin and South America.

What is puzzling Ozzie is the attitude I read in your posts, and please correct me if I’m wrong. I sense you are saying we should just accept Russian control of Southwest Asia and the Warsaw pact countries and not worry about a potential Russian energy stranglehold on Europe.

As I said before, if you believe there’s no difference living in Russia or the US, then it’s no big deal.

No problem, Danny.

“The charge that somehow the U.S. was arming Georgia as a threat to Russia is ludicrous. – Danny

I dont think Russia views it as an existential threat, if that’s what you mean, but I do believe they see it as a financial and strategic threat.

I came across this article this morning, which is saying what I’ve been trying to say, only more concisely – and with more pizazz:

“But first, let us be clear about what has happened. In recent years, the United States has been providing military aid and advice to an increasingly militaristic Georgia, whose military budget has increased 30 fold since 2003 (much to the chagrin, I am sure, of the Georgian taxpayer). US intelligence services played a fundamental role in the 2004 election of its pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakashvili, who, in turn, has been aggressively courting Georgian membership in NATO.

None of these developments have been exactly welcomed by the Russians, who share a huge border with Georgia and run important natural-gas pipelines through the region. To understand why, Americans should consider how the US government would react if (say) Texas declared its independence and received massive amounts of military aid and advice from the Russians, all while the Texas president feted his Russian counterpart at state dinners in Austin and promoted Texan membership in a post–Cold War Warsaw Pact that had already expanded greatly in the previous 15 years.”

http://www.mises.org/story/3074

Point is, this isn’t about America’s “oil” – neither was Iraq. America has more-than enough sources from which to obtain oil, including continental North America. And, it isn’t about American oil companies, which collectively are relatively small players in the world oil market.

Fact is, the Baku pipeline is about the rest of the world’s oil supply, especially Europe, and it is the U.S. that (once again) is committing itself to the stability of world supplies and the world economy. The Euros, of course, are once again worse than useless in standing up for their own interests.

That being said, why is so-called “world opinion” not outraged that for Russia and unlike for the U.S. (including in Iraq), it really IS all about the oil? Russia’s move is economic imperialism at its most blatant and should have been recognized as such right away. Instead, the world MSM falls over itself trying to find justifications for Russia’s actions. The charge that somehow the U.S. was arming Georgia as a threat to Russia is ludicrous.

That was the point of my posting.

Cause America is the only nation that is accused of this. It’s called injustice and being prejudiced, Oz. Americans don’t like that and they do get mad about such things.

America doesn’t get to decide who will or will not get to use America’s military assets in NATO. That is the responsibility of France and Germany.

You could research this yourself. Have you truly never read anything about any of this?

From the Independent:
Battle for Oil: EU’s hope to bypass Russian energy may be a pipe dream
By Claire Soares
Tuesday, 12 August 2008

The pipeline which will draw oil for the Caspain basin, will bypass Russia and go through Georgia, diminshing Russia’s control.

Georgia may have no natural resources to speak of, yet it has become a key player for Europe, due to 155 miles of pipeline that snake across its territory.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is the only practical route for carrying Caspian oil to Western markets that avoids Russia – a treasured asset for the a European Union trying to reduce energy dependence on Moscow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/battle-for-oil-eursquos-hope-to-bypass-russian-energy-may-be-a-pipe-dream-891499.html

“Russia is NOT involved with Georgia because of oil.” – Danny

Um, I believe the links I provided explained that is about oil for Russia, too. Russia wants to retain control and is not happy with what they view as U.S. meddling.

In case you missed it:

“For Russia, control of Georgia and the pipeline would restore much of its influence over many of the former satellites of the U.S.S.R.,” he said. “It would have the clear benefit of increasing Russia’s energy chokehold on Europe.”

But honestly, Danny, it’s in the news just about every day.

“That’s why it’s OK for the Russians to invade Georgia, because it’s self defense. Russia good, U.S. bad”

Cant you get past black or white thinking? Russia and the U.S are involved in startegic manuevering. The U.S paints Russia while Russia paints the U.S. as bad. It’s always more complicated than that.

When Geogia attacked, Putin found the opening he needed. And yes, it’s about the oil for him, too.

“This isn’t something we should work to prevent?” – Brian

We are working on it. And have been for quite some time.

But, for some reason, Americans get mad when you say that oil is involved.