How far would Obama let Russia go with "liberating" parts of neighboring states?

[Jacobtm]

What has Obama indicated that he would do if Russia decided that after fully severing Georgian control over S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, it was time to go on to liberate Eastern Ukraine, and then keep liberating various regions of neighboring non-NATO countries?

[Sam Spade]

Probably nothing except for go to the UN - which amusingly is what our present guy will probably do too.

[Beet]

Tough to say what he would do, or could do. I doubt the US wants to become involved in a military conflict, even a proxy one, with Russia. And given their control of oil supplies, it would be hard for the US to exert any economic pressure over them either. In the short term, I suspect Sam Spade may be right, although what we need is a long term strategy to deal with Russia. What are McCain's proposals? This is one more area where simple use of 'hard power' will not work.

Btw, if Russia did try to go on to all of Georgia then other countries, surely international opinion must turn against them. So far they are not making those moves.

[Sam Spade]

Btw, if Russia did try to go on to all of Georgia then other countries, surely international opinion must turn against them. So far they are not making those moves.

Of course. 

But if that happened, the Russians would finally control the only non-Russian oil pipeline to Europe, which would greatly weaken the European ability pressure.  I suspect this is the long-term Russian goal anyway, but they're not going to do it all at once, just weaken Georgia piece by piece.

[Beet]

Btw, if Russia did try to go on to all of Georgia then other countries, surely international opinion must turn against them. So far they are not making those moves.

Of course. 

But if that happened, the Russians would finally control the only non-Russian oil pipeline to Europe, which would greatly weaken the European ability pressure.  I suspect this is the long-term Russian goal anyway, but they're not going to do it all at once, just weaken Georgia piece by piece.

I doubt the Russians will be able to control the pipeline without basically taking over Georgia. The costs are not worth the benefits to them. Not only do they lose all the investment they have made toward building relations with the West (Putin and Bush, G8, etc.) but their only way to actually exercise that power would be to cripple the European economies, in turn damaging their own economy.

Update:

Here's a critique of the candidates' positions posted at the Political Wire:

"While most of America is distracted with the Olympics and the Edwards scandal, the world is inching closer to a massive, destructive war between Russia and Georgia, one that could possibly draw in Ukraine as well.  So far, the domestic political implications of this conflict have been minimal, but the actions of both campaigns raise troubling questions about how either Senator would perform as Commander in Chief.

For Barack Obama, the problem is foreign policy incoherence.  Obama has become a willing pawn of foreign policy experts -- to the point that he's embraced Georgia's entry into NATO without understanding the full implications of that strategy.  As we now see, embracing Georgia in NATO means a willingness to defend that country in a war against Russia.  Yet Obama's response has been all over the map, matching consensus global opinion. At first, he blamed both Georgia and Russia, then called for Russia to withdraw, now he's demanding an immediate cease fire.  Events are in the saddle and Obama is going along for the ride -- this matches President Bush's approach to the crisis, and that's not a good thing.

Editorial: As one commenter noted, I fail to see how the three positions of blaming both sides, calling for Russia to withdraw, and calling for a cease-fire are 'all over the map', or indeed at all inconsistent.

For John McCain, the problem isn't coherence, it's bellicosity.  McCain has been the strongest global voice behind Georgia since the shooting began. The problem is, when does the McCain tough rhetoric end and World War III begin?  The McCain team will argue that the only way to deter Russia, Iran and other global aggressors from taking actions like this is to stand up to them forcefully, with credibility.  The problem is the second half of that equation -- with U.S. troops in Iraq and even Georgia unsure how to get their 2,000 Iraqi troops back home in time to make a difference, how exactly would the U.S. help Georgia in this conflict, short of starting an all-out war with the second biggest nuclear power?  At this moment, the U.S. has no credible way to threaten Russia.  So unless McCain is willing to get the U.S. in the middle of every armed conflict on earth -- giving new definition to his promise of "more wars" -- a McCain Presidency would mean that we're at least going to enter a new age of foreign policy brinkmanship that will demand a military sufficient to fight these battles.  That means either getting out of Iraq or reinstating a draft, because the military today is incapable of matching McCain's rhetoric.

One final point: yesterday, one Georgia official claimed that Russian jets targeted the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which carries roughly one percent of the world's oil to Turkey, bypassing Russian ports.  The strike, if it actually happened, was unsuccessful.  There has been no independent confirmation of the attack and considering how easy it's been for Iraqi insurgents to knock out pipelines over the last five years, one would assume that if Russia really wanted this pipeline out of service, it would be blown to bits by now.  Yet despite the dubious nature of these reports, the Drudge Report threw up a headline this morning entitled The Pipeline War and now every American news source has followed their lead.  All based on one man's unconfirmed report.  Such is the ridiculous state of American news coverage in 2008 and another reason why the oil futures markets have become completely insane this year."

[Jacobtm]

"International Opinon" is firmly against the U.S. right now, and has been for years, but that hasn't affected the behaviour of our government, why would anyone think it would affect Russia's bullying of weaker neighbors, especially when control of oil/gas distribution was the rewards and "international opinion" turning against them was the only repercussion?

[Beet]

"International Opinon" is firmly against the U.S. right now, and has been for years, but that hasn't affected the behaviour of our government, why would anyone think it would affect Russia's bullying of weaker neighbors?

The situations are not analogous at all. While the US suffers from a poor international image, it does not suffer as much as Russia would from a return of its international stature to Cold War standings, which is what would happen if it started invading all of its former republics as you are suggesting. So far there have been no moves toward even taking over Georgia, let alone that. And wise decision it is, because occupying places where the local population does not want you is not fun. The US has learned that in Iraq. The Iraqi reaction has been instrumental in our current government's willingness to consider a pull out of that country as part of a peace treaty. And strategically, Russia is hemmed in by Europe on one side, China on the other, and the US across the oceans, as it was even in Soviet days.

At the end of the day, neither Western force nor Russian force will solve the problems of those respective countries. Once countries stop being obsessed with their national greatness and learn to live in peace with their neighbors, these issues will stop becoming such ugly sores. In the meantime, the best the US can do is to urge all sides to come toward a reasonable solution, and undertake what measures we can to punish those sides that are unwilling to do so.

[Jacobtm]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you never seen those surveys, where the U.S. is viewed internationally as the biggest force for evil in the world? Even if Russia replaced the U.S. in those surveys, why do you think it would even matter to them? Would anyone but the U.S. even think of militarily confronting them? Would Europe do anything to stop them? Would China?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you never seen those surveys, where the U.S. is viewed internationally as the biggest force for evil in the world? Even if Russia replaced the U.S. in those surveys, why do you think it would even matter to them? Would anyone but the U.S. even think of militarily confronting them? Would Europe do anything to stop them? Would China?

Any intervention would be WWIII.  I don't think we should intervene.  We  shouldn't have gone into Iraq.  And we DEFINITELY shouldn't have a military conflict with Russia while we're already in 2 other countries (we shouldn't have a conflict with them period).

[CARLHAYDEN]

If the Russian's were to invade Alaska, Obama might do something more than pathetic handwringing, if the Secret Service explained to him that if he failed to take action, they would stop protecting him.

[The Mikado]

I fully expect to see Belarus reunited with Russia over the next few years.

[War on Want]

If the Russian's were to invade Alaska, Obama might do something more than pathetic handwringing, if the Secret Service explained to him that if he failed to take action, they would stop protecting him.

wtf are you talking about Carl?

[Jacobtm]

Any intervention would be WWIII. 

Yes.

The question is, is WWIII with Russia inevitable? Do we let them reclaim some old territory and hope that they're fine with just a little extra liebenstraum, or do we cut it off before it gets too bad?

[The Mikado]

Any intervention would be WWIII. 

Yes.

The question is, is WWIII with Russia inevitable?

1980 called.  They want their rhetoric back...they had it on loan from 1950, and 1950 called in the loan.

[Хahar 🤔]

If the Russian's were to invade Alaska, Obama might do something more than pathetic handwringing, if the Secret Service explained to him that if he failed to take action, they would stop protecting him.

wtf are you talking about Carl?

Invasion of Alaska? LOL.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Any intervention would be WWIII. 

Yes.

The question is, is WWIII with Russia inevitable?

1980 called.  They want their rhetoric back...they had it on loan from 1950, and 1950 called in the loan.

1990 called.  They want their joke back.  And they want royalties.

[Jacobtm]

Any intervention would be WWIII. 

Yes.

The question is, is WWIII with Russia inevitable?

1980 called.  They want their rhetoric back...they had it on loan from 1950, and 1950 called in the loan.

Because a country has once been a risk, I guess it can't ever be again?

[The Mikado]

Any intervention would be WWIII. 

Yes.

The question is, is WWIII with Russia inevitable?

1980 called.  They want their rhetoric back...they had it on loan from 1950, and 1950 called in the loan.

Because a country has once been a risk, I guess it can't ever be again?

I didn't say that and you know it.  I have never been a fan of Russia in any of its iterations, and just because the Bear's fur isn't red doesn't make him any less dangerous.  I was pointing out how insane talk of war with Russia is.  And insane is not too strong a word.

[Jacobtm]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So do you think that there will never be another large-scale war in the world? Unless you wanna actually argue that war between countries is dead, I don't see why looking at an autocratic country with clearly expansionist policies and a huge military and considering where their expansionist desires will halt, and if war may be necessary to stop them, would be anything less than sensible.

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So do you think that there will never be another large-scale war in the world? Unless you wanna actually argue that war between countries is dead, I don't see why looking at an autocratic country with clearly expansionist policies and a huge military and considering where their expansionist desires will halt, and if war may be necessary to stop them, would be anything less than sensible.

I do not think Great Power war is possible in the modern world, though proxy war certainly is.

[JSojourner]

If the Russian's were to invade Alaska, Obama might do something more than pathetic handwringing, if the Secret Service explained to him that if he failed to take action, they would stop protecting him.

wtf are you talking about Carl?

He is a sad, mentally-tortured little man.

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So do you think that there will never be another large-scale war in the world? Unless you wanna actually argue that war between countries is dead, I don't see why looking at an autocratic country with clearly expansionist policies and a huge military and considering where their expansionist desires will halt, and if war may be necessary to stop them, would be anything less than sensible.

I do not think Great Power war is possible in the modern world, though proxy war certainly is.

Very true. The nuclear age has ended war as we knew it.

[Jacobtm]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So do you think that there will never be another large-scale war in the world? Unless you wanna actually argue that war between countries is dead, I don't see why looking at an autocratic country with clearly expansionist policies and a huge military and considering where their expansionist desires will halt, and if war may be necessary to stop them, would be anything less than sensible.

I do not think Great Power war is possible in the modern world, though proxy war certainly is.

Very true. The nuclear age has ended war as we knew it.

Hopefully that is true. Unfortunately, hoping doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Hash]

The question is, is WWIII with Russia inevitable?

I love how every war these days will inevitably become World War III.

[Jacobtm]

The question is, is WWIII with Russia inevitable?

I love how every war these days will inevitably become World War III.

Well the U.S. v. Russia would sorta inevitably drag NATO and Japan and China and Israel and many middle-eastern countries in, so I feel like that'd pretty fairly be called WWIII.