As expected, opinions on who started the South Ossetian conflict a year ago and its meaning today divide the expert community and the commentariat. Everyone knows my positions on these issues, so I will not repeat them here. However, I will do what no one has attempted – a counterfactual analysis of the conflict under the assumption Russia did not intervene militarily. Put differently, what if Russia did not to react to the Georgian attack on Tskhinval?

First, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s operation “Clean Field” would have succeeded. And success would have been defined as the massive ethnic cleansing of South Ossetia. The Georgians did commit atrocities in South Ossetia last year, but if Russia had not intervened Tbilisi would have covered up all of this and spun a propaganda story that they were welcomed with open arms. Two crimes would have been committed – ethnic cleansing and then murdering the memories of the dead.

Second, Russian passport holders living on and beyond Russia’s borders would have come to the conclusion that their government would not provide military assistance to protect their own citizens. If Russia hadn’t intervened when Russian passport holders and Russian peacekeepers were attacked and killed, it would have meant that Russia does not adhere to the doctrine in international accepted concept known as “responsibility to protect” or “R2P.” This would have meant that millions of Russians living abroad would be at the mercy of governments that feel, to say the least, uncomfortable with some of their national minorities.

Third, much of the Western world, particularly the US and most of the EU, would have accepted and even applauded Saakashvili’s forced re-unification of his country if Russia hadn’t intervened. In Western capitals there would have been no talk of Tbilisi’s unilateral and disproportionate use of force against South Ossetia. In other words, the aggressor in this conflict probably would again have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. But because of Russia’s actions, more and more people now know - including the Georgian people - Saakashvili started a military conflict that should never have happened in the first place.

Fourth, if Russia had abstained from intervening, the geopolitical dynamics of the post-Soviet space would have dramatically altered for the worse. Russia entered a military conflict with Georgia that Tbilisi started. Importantly, Russia had international law on its side. If Russia had walked away from its legal obligations regarding South Ossetia, then its credibility with its neighbors would have suffered a severe blow. In my humble opinion, Washington and its NATO partners were probably licking their chops hoping Moscow would not intervene, and if it did, would perform poorly. In the end, Saakashvili ended up destroying his NATO ambitions and dividing NATO.

Fifth, Russian public opinion would have been outraged if the Kremlin allowed Saakashvili to act with impunity against their own countrymen. And Russia’s military would have experienced still another humiliating setback. Russia’s neighbors, including China, would have deemed Russia too weak to take seriously as a partner. Bush’s neocons would also have seen yet another opening to meddle in Russia’s backyard.

I suggest everyone step back and reconsider the meaning of the South Ossetian conflict. Instead of continuing the blame game, everyone should consider the seriousness of Saakashvili’s very cruel folly. Had Russia not intervened, the world today would be far less safe and secure than today’s less-than-desirable realities.