ANALYSTS' VIEW: Conflict in Georgia and its breakaway region

PRAGUE (Reuters) - Russian troops and armor pushed into two separatist regions of Georgia on Monday and Georgian forces shelled the Russian-held capital of South Ossetia as the Caucasus crisis worsened.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili accused Russia of seeking to overthrow his pro-western government, while Russia said it had no intention of invading.

Following are comments from security, political and economic analysts on the crisis:

MATTHEW CLEMENTS, EDITOR, JANE'S EURASIA

"The current conflict faces a real risk of escalation and expansion, most prominently in Abkhazia where the likelihood of an operation to clear Georgian forces from the Kodori Gorge appears increasingly likely."

"Air strikes are likely to continue for the immediate term as Russia seeks to further degrade Georgia's military capabilities. Moscow is now likely to seek the restoration of South Ossetia's de facto independence, albeit on much more favorable terms to the separatists and Russia itself."

"The European and U.S. criticism of Russia's response is likely to lead to a further downturn in Russo-Western relations, although any more serious diplomatic responses will likely be dependent upon Russian actions over the next few days."

"Overall, Georgia is facing reduced control over both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, a short- to medium-term reduction in its military capabilities and greatly reduced hopes of one day joining NATO, with the organization likely to view Tbilisi's actions in South Ossetia as being far too unpredictable for a potential alliance member."

STEPHEN LEWIS, ANALYST, MONUMENT SECURITIES

"The military action in Georgia is a reminder to financial markets that geopolitical risks remain significant, even if, in recent times, they have been overshadowed by economic and credit risks."

"The Russian invasion of Georgia is not the first sign that the Putin-dominated Kremlin has been gaining in confidence as its oil revenues swelled. Nevertheless, it probably does represent the crossing of a line that puts an end to the relatively pacific chapter of world history that began in 1991."

ROMAN KUZNIAR, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, WARSAW

UNIVERSITY

"This was unfortunately all provoked by Georgia. It light-heartedly started its military operation in South Ossetia and Saakashvili did not take into account such a reaction."

"Of course the sympathy is on the side of the weaker group, for Georgia, especially as it is fighting a country that has caused a lot of suffering to all of its neighbors."

"But realistic analysis show the Georgians made a big mistake. Now Georgia will have to take the toll, most probably disproportionally severe."

"Saying that Russia is coming back to its imperialistic phobias is absolutely wrong. Russia has understood years ago Europe is already outside of its jurisdiction."

BRUCE GEORGE, BRITISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT AND LONG-TIME

FOLLOWER OF GEORGIA

"If you embark on a war, as the Georgians did, you have to work out what the consequences will be. It was inevitable that the Russians would react very heavily... At this stage it seems uncertain that they will stop.

"I just hope, but I have no high expectations, that the international community will be able to stop the Russians. At this stage I don't think anyone can say with certainty what their objectives are. Will they stop with South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

"It's payback time by the Russians for what the West did in Kosovo. The Russians are in a very strong position. What we have to try to do as Western countries is impose some form of consequence on Russia.

"I believe the Georgians were suckered into this and paid a very heavy price."

MICHAEL DENISON, LECTURER IN SECURITY STUDIES AT LEEDS

UNIVERSITY AND FELLOW CHATHAM HOUSE, EXPERT IN EURASIA

"The Georgians rolled the dice and they lost.

"It was not an unreasonable calculation to go for a rapid win, but in the end it was a miscalculation.

"The capital Tskhinvali is relatively small, no more than around 25,000 people, and they probably thought they could just take it and be done.

"It's a region that's not a viable state. It's delusional for the South Ossetians to think they could be independent.

"If it hadn't been for the Russian intervention, then the separatists would have been rolled over very quickly, they wouldn't have had a prayer.

"Some South Ossetians would have fled, but most probably it would have been okay, and South Ossetia probably would have been better off economically and culturally.

"As it is, now they are looking at being a small outpost on the southern reaches of Russia."

SVANTE E. CORNELL, CO-DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY AND

DEVELOPMENT POLICY, STOCKHOLM

"This is not, and was never, about South Ossetia. South Ossetia is a place where Russia found a pretext for military aggression against Georgia."

"Georgia was made an example of concerning the cost of standing up to Russia and developing a country independently and thinking to join Euro-Atlantic institutions."

"It's basically the Putin doctrine, restoring Russian control over the former Soviet Union, irrespective of what those countries want, which is why this is so reminiscent of the episodes in Prague in 1968 and Budapest in 1956."

"It's a return to the spheres of influence and an attempt to undermine the entire building of the European zone of prosperity and security. This is the biggest thing to happen in Europe at least since the Balkan wars and it might have much larger implications."

"The only way to reduce tensions is to have an extremely strong response. To continue what you might call an appeasement policy during the past couple of years only inspired and stimulated the most imperialistic and undemocratic forces in Russia and undermined forces of moderation and restraint. "

LARS CHRISTENSEN, HEAD OF EMERGING MARKETS RESEARCH, DANSKE

BANK, COPENHAGEN

"Both Georgia and Russia have been much less cautious than the market had expected. This has developed in quite an unexpected way. It's very hard to make any calls right now on how the war situation will develop or how it will impact emerging markets.

"Obviously, there has been a significant impact on Russian assets. It is a reminder that geopolitical risk is there in these markets which are a lot of people had chosen to ignore.

"Obviously people will also be looking at the Baltics, Ukraine -- the former Soviet republics with borders with Russia.

"The big difference is that you do not have any particular disputed border regions -- except for a very small area of Estonia -- or areas of any particular areas with a large Russian population."

PAWEL SWIEBODA, HEAD OF THINK TANK DEMOSEUROPA, WARSAW

"I think Saakashvili knew from the very beginning that Russia would invade Ossetia after Georgian troops were sent there. Saakashvili did that on purpose and wanted to show the world what Russia is like today."

"Saakashvili is playing his media game for the conscience of the Western world. The price is high but he is very convincing."

"This will distance Georgia's NATO membership in the formal terms. But in practice, in the geopolitical sense, this is strengthening Georgia's NATO perspective."

"The Kremlin must understand that it is making a dramatic mistake by using force in Georgia, for the first time since 1991 in a post-Soviet neighborhood. And the international community must consistently explain that to Russia."

VIT STRITECKY, ANALYST, INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS, PRAGUE:

"I still believe the fighting will stop quite quickly, because the long-term interests remain the same. For Georgia, this is not to resolve the situation by force and for Russia, basically not to resolve it at all.

"I think the tempers will cool and the parties will sit down at the negotiating table and basically return the situation where it was before this conflict.

"The disproportion of the forces is so big that the war does not have much sense and basically it is not in either side's interest to continue.

"The pressure from the international community should strengthen in the coming days ... so far it is not sufficient."