Much like we hoped in 1991 that pounding Saddam in Kuwait would lead to a cheap victory over Saddam by prompting a revolt inside Iraq, Moscow seems to have hoped that a limited battlefield victory over Georgia in South Ossetia and Gori would unseat President Saakashvili and lead to a pro-Russian regime.
As an aside, let me be clear that this is no moral comparison of Iraq under Saddam and Georgia under Saakashvili. This is merely a comparison of American and Russian hopes in wars of widely different moral and legal standing.
Instead of a cheap victory over Georgia, Russia finds their victim defiant, with Georgians rallying as they see Western support (including American warships in the Black Sea and in Batumi delivering supplies and the visit of Vice President Cheney):
"Georgia is united as never before, there are one million people on the streets," Saakashvili told a crowd on Freedom Square as simultaneous protests took place in several other towns and in European capitals.
"Georgia will never stop resisting, Georgia will never surrender!" he added.
The Russians are whining about our ships, accusing us of shipping weapons to Georgia (even as Russia promises to arm South Ossetia!):
Russia warned the West on Monday against supporting Georgia's leadership, suggesting that the United States carried weapons as well as aid to the ex-Soviet republic and calling for an arms embargo until the Georgian government falls.
Let me set the Russians at ease. When we start to ship weapons, Russia will know it because we won't hide it. We'll train the Georgians (or rather, we should) to withstand a Russian armored invasion much as we prepared to absorb and defeat a Soviet invasion at the Fulda Gap and Hof Corridor in West Germany in the 1980s.
I dare say the Russians know that we are fully capable of training and equipping the Georgians to defeat another Russian invasion.
When you start to take Tbilisi, take Tbilisi. The Russians lost this war and we'll make sure they lose the next one if they are dumb enough to try again.
