http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080901/D92TTNBO0.html

I was just reading Gordon Brown's sternly worded op-ed.

And, in the light of Russian actions, the EU should review - root and branch - our relationship with Russia. We should continue to strengthen the transatlantic relationship and may need to meet more regularly as the G7. We are also reflecting on the Nato response. We must re-evaluate the alliance's relationship with Russia, and intensify our support to Georgia and others who may face Russian aggression .

How does the US in particular push back? How does it make it clear that there are in fact limits to what it will tolerate in terms of Russia's desire to dominate the entire region?

My guess is that at least some of that pushback must require some brinkmanship -- some blustering (or is it blustering? should be the open question in the minds of Russia's leaders) to the effect that we aren't going to tolerate any bullying in the region.

This seems to me to be the sort of thinking that lies behind what I've read about Wesley Clark's approach.

Second, in related reporting this morning, there were articles indicating that places like Chechnya are stirring again against Russia, moving on the belief that Russian resources are tied up in Georgia and therefore there is again opportunity to push for their own indepencence or autonomy.  

I said some time ago in BTD's posts on this that Russia had its own political problems which were exacerbated by the Georgia situation, with groups inside or right next to its borders also seeking autonomy, who might be moved to new action if Russia let Georgia get away with this or itself misplayed the hand respecting small autonomous groups with territories. Here it now is, again. Hello!

What might be more useful to consider is splitting apart consideration of Georgia, which does not presently qualify for membership because it does not have real control of everything within its geographical borders, and never has, and Ukraine, which does. Ukraine signed a treaty with us all that in exchange for giving up all nukes left over from the Soviet bad old days, we would protect it against external threats. That's a long done deal from which everyone profits. It may be that a proper course is to find a way to honor that undertaking because of its singular and peculiar nature, and because Ukraine does in fact have regular elections, with one side being pro Russia and one side pro-West, and that may swing back and forth over time. The neutralization by both sides of Ukraine might be worth a good bit if it can be figured out, and honor Ukraine's own right to autonomy and to change its mind back and forth as democracies have a way of doing, without legitimating the lunatics running Georgia at this point. It would also not put nukes right on Russia's border and pointed toward them, which is what is making them not illegitimately crazy.