This signals the dusk of American hegemony.

What I understand so far:
http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/9237/cartoon11080843676ajt4.jpg

As usual, Warren Olney does a terrible job. This discussion needed alot more Steve Clemons and alot less Walter Shaprio and Laura Meckler

Couldn't get sound here, may have to let the comp cool off. Will try to look it up on archives if you link them, steve.

Have you considered the Georgia thing to be more than regional or sectarian?

High level triangulation.

Iraq announces new oil deal w/China. Russia attacks nearby place helping us in Iraq. Likely leg of the rendition circuit as well.

Suddenly the west is much more compromised. All the oil flows east. Russia gains for that reason alone, heightening the value of its own reserves.

The west loses out, China increases its influence, dealing with Iran's future fossil fuels as well.

The Shi'ite majority, and its neighbor Iran, get direct work with China. Russia mitigates the west's new gains in the region in terms of their helping control oil spigots.

A new paradigm is shaped.

Professor Charles King and Glenn Greenwald on Georgia/Russia at

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/08/11/king/index1.html

Here

If I put a url in, this will never get posted. Here are excerpts from the Indian newspaper, The Hindu.

1. Editorial:

The ideological bent at the newspaper, The Hindu is probably best classified as a "China can do no wrong". Anyway, here is an excerpt from an editorial:

http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/11/stories/2008081165270800.htm

(or click on signature)

Georgia’s adventurism in attacking and attempting brutally to take military control of the breakaway region of South Ossetia had zero chance of success, given the geopolitical circumstances. Within three days, it announced it had pulled out to avoid a “humanitarian catastrophe,” although Russia has disputed this. Rarely in the modern history of conflict has there been military provocation of this kind against a great power in a context of such extreme mil itary imbalance. Georgia, a transcontinental nation that became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and declared independence as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, is estimated by Jane’s to have 26,900 military personnel against Russia’s 641,000; 82 main battle tanks against 6,717; 139 armoured personnel carriers against 6,388; and seven combat aircraft against 1,206. Its military achievement has been to devastate Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, kill more than 2,000 civilians (most of them Russian citizens), and create 34,000 refugees, according to Russian and South Ossetian estimates. Russia maintains a peace keeping force in South Ossetia under a 1992 agreement and the Georgian attack, which took place when the world’s attention was focussed on the Beijing Olympics, killed 13 Russian soldiers and injured more than 150. Unsurprisingly, Moscow’s military response has been swift and overwhelming, involving ground forces, combat aircraft, and warships on a scale that made the three-day ‘war’ a no-contest.

------

A Op-Ed from a former Indian ambassador is titled

U.S. sets bear trap in the Caucasus

and says at least two things that might interest Steve Clemons.

1....from Washington’s perspective, there is nothing like getting Russia bogged down in the Caucasus if it saps Russia’s capacity to play an effective role on the world stage. Moscow dreads a full-blown war erupting in the Caucasus and is averse to a confrontation with the West. That leaves scope for “bear-baiting.” Conceivably, at some point Moscow would lose patience. If Moscow accedes to the long-standing demand by South Ossetia to become part of Russian federation, it becomes fodder for Western criticism that a “revanchist” Kremlin annexes territories. But if Moscow remains passive, the Caucasus could become Russia’s “bleeding wound” and Russia’s prestige in the post-Soviet space diminishes.

2...Actually, a splendid case study offers itself for Indian strategic thinkers (and politicians) who cogitate over our capability to hold the long arm of American diplomacy and our own tryst with destiny as a “self-confident” great power. The irony is, Russia is also the U.S.’s “strategic partner.” It was only in April that Mr. Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush met in the Black Sea resort of Sochi and signed a “strategic framework” pact, reiterating the hopes of a dynamic forward movement in the relationship. Again, it is not even that there is an equivalent of the Hyde Act operating on the geopolitics of the Caucasus. It is also not as if post-Soviet Russians lack “self-confidence.” The issue boils down to the vagaries and uncertainties bordering on the futility that Russia or any country — including even a close ally — ultimately faces in pursuing an equitable and balanced relationship with the U.S.

Brzezinski's wet dream unfolds before the regime change in America can take place.

Say, didn't Brzez and Kissing have big staeks in those pipeline projects to and from the caucuses?

I am a regular "To the Point" listener, and did catch today's show. Steve Clemons, as always, impressed: knowledgeable, articulate, just fabulous. Agree that Warren should have given him much, much more air time. But at least Steve had the final word on his particular segment. Steve Clemons is perfect for "To the Point": Warren should definitely invite him back. Steve would also be terrific on the second hour of Friday's Diane Rehm Show, when they discuss international matters. Henry.