Thus it’s either the all-Russia occupation, or an international force with neither Russia or Georgia. They’re in a far lonelier and more precarious position out there than has been generally assumed (including by me).

Militarily I don’t think they can maintain their position if it’s restricted to South Ossetia. Particularly if they start facing guerrilla action, which is how I’d get them out there long-term. The place is ready-made for easy points of infiltration.

There may not be a whole lot Russia can do about NATO getting involved, if NATO is so inclined.  NATO already extends to Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, the former Soviet Baltic tigers.

The UN is, well, the UN.  That’s about all that needs to be said.

While Georgia predictably has the support of the west, the facts on the ground are more complicated.  South Ossetia likes the incursion, since they have been at odds with Georgia (who represent a different ethic make up than does Ossetia), and have long been pro-Russian.

It also very unlikely, very well impossible that we’ll see NATO or UN peacekeepers in the region because for the Russians, the region around their borders is inviolate and sacrosant–under the auspices of a Russian Monroe doctrine.  Only the U.S. could pull it off, but to what end?  The current geopolitical situation is like the gun fight at the end of the “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”.  Getting embroiled with Russia allows China to pick us both off.  U. S. foreign policy, no matter what administration, is going to elect for stability for the foreseeable future.

Frankly, I think the Ossetia adventure is only incidentally a bit of Russian regional adventurism.  The real foreign policy goals of the Russians are to signal their resurgence and the force of their national will.  Its a low risk means of telling the west, “we’re back, and we’re bad…”