To many in the West, the Russian-Georgian conflict is a prime example of a powerful, authoritarian nation bullying a weak, neighboring democracy. But the situation is more complicated -- and the effects more far-reaching -- than this interpretation, said political science professor Miroslav Nincic.

"The recent turn of events re-establishes the boundaries of U.S. and NATO power," said Nincic, an international relations scholar who studies war, U.S. foreign policy, national security, the arms race and public attitudes toward war. "The United States was not in a position to take effective action to stop Russia, and this has placed limits on what some had viewed as a promising unipolar world."

Georgia leans West

On Aug. 7, the Georgian military began shelling South Ossetia -- a tiny territory overseen by Russia's security forces. Initially Russia sent in tanks, but its response escalated quickly to a full-scale invasion of Georgia, a Western-leaning country of 4.4 million people in the oil-rich Southwest Asian Caucasus region. Peace talks are now ongoing, and Russian troops have not left Georgia.

Nincic said Georgian President Saakashvili miscalculated that if Russia reacted militarily to his country's incursion into South Ossetia, then its U.S. ally would "mobilize a powerful Western resistance with unspecified retaliatory measures" that would force Russia "to retreat with its tail between its legs." Georgia's goal was to reestablish its control over South Ossetian and Abkhazia, areas where the Russians share a "considerable kinship" with the people.

NATO: 'Insurance'

Georgia has strived to place itself within the U.S. strategic orbit, Nincic said. They have troops helping the U.S. in Iraq and have won America's support for NATO membership. This all serves a purpose, said Nincic.

"The substantial Georgian military presence in Iraq (about 2,000 troops) should probably be viewed as an attempt by Saakashvili to create a U.S. obligation that would guarantee a powerful response in case of Russian military action," he said.

A possible NATO membership for Georgia, he added, could have served as "insurance against a Russian response."

It did not turn out that way. Russia unleashed a disproportionate attack on Gerorgia, according to many Western diplomats. And American and other Western powers offered little more than rhetorical support. One reason is that the U.S. military is focused on Iraq and stretched thin globally.

"Practically speaking, there was not much America could do short of direct military assistance to Georgia -- an unacceptably dangerous option," Nincic said.

The quick victory gave Russia's sense of national pride a "powerful psychological boost," he added.

He explained that Russia's approach has its roots in the Soviet Union's 1990s break-up and the consequent loss of international prestige, economic power and population. This was a "traumatizing" ordeal for the Russian people who were accustomed to decades of Soviet empire-building and expansionism. Now, the Georgia incursion showed the world once again that the Russian military could deliver a knock-out punch to disobedient neighbors like it did in Eastern Europe long ago.

Russia perceived the NATO issue as U.S. meddling it its sphere of influence. "Moscow has been very worried about NATO expansion into what used to be its geopolitical province."

Russia reckoned the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 weakened any American claims of "moral authority" in the eyes of the world if it tried to condemn Russia for a similar action, he added.

Baki Tezcan, an assistant professor of history and religious studies, agrees. "The U.S. does not have the moral standing to criticize other world powers to act responsibly toward minor powers when its own armed forces have been occupying a country for years now."

Tezcan, who specializes in Islam, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, said that if President Bush asked Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin "what he is doing in Georgia, Putin would be justified to respond 'Who are you to teach me about peace?'"

Ukraine next?

As for Georgia's NATO membership bid, Nincic said he believed Putin's move into Georgia has quashed any possibility of that country joining NATO. Meanwhile, Russia has increased its influence over the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, though Nincic points out the pipeline only provides for about 1 percent of the world's oil demand.

The West's dilemma, said Nincic, is the lack of clear choices about Georgia at a time when NATO is probably the only alliance worldwide capable of challenging an expansionist Russia.

"I suspect that agreements, some tacit, will be reached," said Nincic. "This may recognize the new realities, including limits to NATO expansion, while demanding that Russia do nothing to threaten the progressive democratization in this area."

Nincic said he foresees trouble ahead in Ukraine, which also has tilted west to Russia's consternation.

"Moscow has been very worried about NATO expansion into what used to be its geopolitical province," he said. "If a new crisis sparks up in the future, it will most likely involve the Ukraine."