Is Pat Buchanon Right on Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Anyone who has read my entries on this site knows that I disagree with Georgia's goals of reintegrating Soutn Ossetia and Abkhazia.  I also do not believe that it is a realistic goal or one that the United States should support Georgia on.

I am very often in disagreement also with Pat Buchanon, sometimes vehemently so. But as he writes on the situation in the Caucasus on the website antiwar.com :

"Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili – who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 – has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO.

We have here the makings of a naval clash that Georgia, given Russian air, naval, and land forces in the eastern Black Sea, will lose.

What is Saakashvili up to? He seems intent on provoking a new crisis to force NATO to stand with him and bring the United States in on his side – against Russia. Ultimate goal: Return the issue of his lost provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back onto the world’s front burner.

While such a crisis may be in the interests of Saakashvili and his Russophobic U.S neoconservative retainers, it is the furthest thing from U.S. national interests."

Mr. Buchanon clearly understands that President Saakshavili has been using lobbyists in the U.S. to shape American policy in the Caucasus and opinion about Russia.  He also sees that this is not in America's best interest.  I hope more commentators like Mr. Buchanon will take a closer look at the region.  It is clear already that the Obama Administration does not want to repeat the errors of the Bush Administration with regards to Russia.  Mr. Buchanon goes on to say:

"With his cancellation of the U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – a shield designed to defend against a nonexistent Iranian ICBM – Obama sent two messages to Moscow.

First, Obama believes entente with Russia is a surer guarantee of the peace and security of Eastern Europe than any U.S. weapons system. Second, Obama puts Washington-Moscow ties before any U.S. military ties to NATO allies in Eastern Europe."

This was a wise move on the part of the Administration.  It is much better to be working in tandem with Russia than against it.  While some American policy makers have accused the Russian government of a Cold War mentality, they have pursued policies that can only be interpreted in that light by the Russian government. The Bush Administration's proposed enlargement of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia had to be viewed as aimed at Russia and very threatening given that both were members of the Soviet Union.  Also, if Georgia were to be allowed into the Alliance, the U.S. could be forced due to treaty obligations to fight Russia over the Kodor Gorge in Abkhazia.  That is unimaginably bad.  So, hopefully the U.S. will see that 1) Georgia's loose cannon leadership and poor democratic record make it a bad partner and 2) NATO expansion to former integral parts of the Soviet Union will lead the Russian government to conclude that the goal of NATO is Russian encirclement.