“The stool they’re smugly perched on has four obvious legs: oil, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela. It’d be a shame if one of those legs broke, wouldn’t it now… – CPT. Charles”

You touch on an important point: We’re in a new cold war, and many things that we once saw and independent are actually interconnected.

One of the defining characteristics of the “cold war” was that both sides had well defined strategic goals and objectives. We are only now deciphering Russian’s new “world view”. It obviously (i.e. obvious to anyone except the US State Department and the CIA) includes linkages to Iran, Syria, Venezuela, an probably includes oil and a primary control mechanism. In fact, has anyone considered the response Russian has promised vis-a-vis Poland? How about presenting a nasty set of problems for the U.S. South of her border (i.e. Cuba and Venezuala)? Quid-pro-Que – in Putin’s mind, I’m certain.

So, what is missing is the U.S. response to Russia’s new cold war, i.e. defining the foe, understanding his goals, and devising an offensive strategy to combat our foe. I’ve heard some saying that Putin is perhaps out of his league, i.e. that Georgia will have consequences he has not considered. To the contrary: I think he’s playing Chess on the world map. He’s way ahead of the West when it comes to setting the strategic goals of the new cold war Russia has launched. And, in fact, that war effort is probably 3 or 4 years old now, it’s just that the West has been slow to comprehend Putin’s goals. Georgia has made some of them unmistakable. I think Russia has war-gamed every conceivable part of the Georgian invasion, and has probably predicted about 90% of what has occurred, including the response of Europe and the U.S.. The timing definitely was planned so that Putin could consolidate his gains during the 6-9 month period of the American Presidential election and turnover of power.

The U.S. now needs to rethink everything. Can we afford to be part of a toothless NATO, with 80% of the countries firmly committed to pacifism? Old Europe is willing to rely 100% upon the US for material and manpower, while obstructing any US action in the defense new-Europe. Would the US be better served with a second treaty organization of states directly facing the Bear, or separate alliances such as that just struck by Poland? I think we definitely need to link everything that happens in Latin and South America to Russian goals. Chavez can no more be considered simply an annoyance. If Venezuela in included in the Russian axis, we definitely need to be prepared to respond to, say, Russian air and sea bases in Venezuela, perhaps with a nuclear component. Or, perhaps we’ll see a huge influx of Russian armor and aircraft into South American states in the Russian axis.

In sum: everything is different now, and most everything needs to be viewed through the eye glass of “what benefits Russia?”. The U.S. needs a full-cold-war-court-press against Russia, if only to constrain Putin’s ambitions. I believe Russian ambition knows no bounds. Anything that benefits Russian, the US must work to deny. And of course, if energy is a primary Russian strategic weapon, the U.S. must reduce the value of that weapon by attaining genuine energy independence, the capability at least, even if not realized due to a free energy market (i.e. oil is a commodity, and the USA will always buy cheap oil when available).