Anatol Lieven has an important (yet in my view flawed) take on the significance of Kosovo in the Financial Times (via Steve Clemons). I don’t feel particularly great right now so I won’t delve into it too deeply, but my disagreement with Lieven comes down to this:

Kosovo’s independence will inevitably have repercussions for the Georgian separatist regions and Nagorno- Karabakh and Trans Dnestr. For the west to say Kosovo is a unique case is empty, given the obvious parallels.

To resolve these issues and restore elementary consistency to its own position, the west does not need to recognise Abkhaz and South Ossetian independence - something for which Moscow is in any case not asking, given the obvious lessons for some of Russia’s own restive minorities.

Russia’s backing of Serbia’s claims to Kosovo doesn’t have anything to do with them feeling that the rules of the international system are being applied arbitrarily—Russians couldn’t care less about fairness or the international system. They are establishing spheres of influence in Serbia through the purchase of a majority stake in the Serbian oil monopoly (Naftna Industrija Srbije - NIS). There are also plans afoot for gas pipelines to Serbia which could end up serving most of Central Europe, thereby pre-empting the Western-backed Nabucco Pipeline project.

This is pure power politics, and should not be mistaken for anything else. It’s about regional influence and energy dependency. Restoring “elementary consistency” to our positions doesn’t matter one whit. Richard Holbrooke had the right idea back in November of last year—Russia needs to be confronted on this.