U.S. Has Little to Back Up Tough Talk With Russia

Aug. 28, 2008— -- Washington is warning the Kremlin it could face consequences for a decision this week to recognize the independence of two breakaway regions in neighboring Georgia and for continuing to defy calls by the United States and its allies to remove Russian troops from Georgian territory.

What does Russia have to fear from the Bush administration?

The answer, according to experts, is not much.

"There are no steps, none," said Dimitri Simes, an expert in U.S.-Russian relations and president of The Nixon Center.

"Any steps might allow us to feel good that we have done something, but they don't amount to much and they certainly don't amount to something that will change Russian behavior," Simes said.

"There are no quick fixes to this," said James Collins, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "We are going to have to find a way to be very realistic about what we are and are not able to do."

"I think there is very little, frankly, that the U.S. can do to compel the Russians to change their behavior, especially in the short term," Collins said. "Let's face it, we aren't the biggest power in the region."

The administration's rhetoric hardened after Russia recognized the independence of breakaway Georgian provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

"Russia's action only exacerbates tensions and complicates diplomatic negotiations," President George W. Bush said in a statement.

"We're reviewing our relationship with Russia," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Wednesday.

So far, no concrete steps have been taken and the West's lack of leverage with Russia is apparent as Russian troops have remained in Georgia for almost three weeks despite calls by the international community for Moscow to withdraw its forces.

U.S. officials have suggested that, as punishment, Russia could be excluded from key international institutions, like the G8, and blocked from joining economic and trade organizations it wants to join, like the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

"This isn't 1968," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told ABC News' Charlie Gibson on Aug. 12, referring to the year the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia. "The Soviet Union, didn't care about its international reputation because it wasn't attempting to integrate into international organizations; it wasn't attempting to be a part of the prosperous and forward-looking Europe."

"Those aspirations for integration into the international community, for continued respect and viability in a lot of these international institutions, that's very much at stake," Rice said.

Experts argue, however, that such steps are either unlikely, in the case of the G8, or ineffective threats, in the case of the WTO and OECD.

"WTO membership is already de facto blocked," Simes said. "You cannot punish someone by depriving them of things they know they will not get anyway."

Any economic or trade sanctions placed on Moscow could result in a Russian retaliation, and experts argue Europe has more to fear from a Russian economic retaliation. It depends heavily on Russia for oil and gas imports and Moscow has shown in the past it is willing to turn off the spigot for political reasons.

"We aren't in a position to take economic or other measures to force the Kremlin to do something," Collins said.

"You can make a list of things you can take away from Russia," said Simes. "But you have to create a second list of what they will do in response."

What about going after Russian state-owned gas stations in the United States? Simes points out that Exxon-Mobil has invested more in Russia.

And what about freezing the foreign assets of the Russian elite? "Every American businessman in Moscow would become a target," Simes says.

One option, experts agree, is not an option: a direct U.S. military response.

"We aren't going to get into a military confrontation with Russia," Collins said.

After avoiding a fight with Russian troops for nearly half a century during the Cold War, Washington has been careful not to provoke Russia militarily during the conflict in Georgia.

When Georgia invoked a long-standing agreement with the United States whereby the U.S. military flew home all of Georgia's roughly 2,000 soldiers from Iraq at Georgia's request, the Bush administration was sure to inform Moscow of its actions and intentions.

Similarly, as U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia, they have been careful to avoid ports patrolled by Russian ships and troops.

Simes argued, however, that the U.S. should defend Georgia by rearming its military to force Russia off of undisputed Georgian territory.

"That is real leverage and we can use it," Simes said. But, he warned, "if they [Russia] interfere, there will be high confrontation."

Collins argues, however, that a diplomatic solution might still be reached.

"They have to talk about some kind of deal that takes into account the interests of the various parties involved," he said.

Collins cites one reason for optimism.

"Nobody is talking about bringing down the International Space Station," he said.