Does anyone seriously believe that Iran is going to fire missiles at European countries?

Over the last fortnight, ever since Georgia decided to launch a military offensive to regain South Ossetia just as all eyes were turned on the fireworks in Beijing, I have been asking myself one simple question: Why were so many people willing to underestimate Vladimir Putin?

Those of us who don't keep up may be forgiven for thinking that Russia is no longer a force to be reckoned with. Not that long ago it seemed that the country was on its knees, fragmented and weakened, merely a shadow of its once mighty self. We all came to terms with a new world order where there was only one superpower, and hurray they cheered, for democracy was to travel across the world with the natural ease and flow of a Mexican wave.

Those of us who don't keep up may also be forgiven for thinking that since Russia elected a new president last May, Vladimir Putin is no longer the man in charge.

And those of us who don't keep up will most certainly not have heard of South Ossetia or Tishkali or Abkhazia, until now. Georgia, yes, and President Mikheil Saakashvili yes too, not just because he has been a regular of the Washington scene but because Georgia was put forward as a model of what Western democracy and economic development could do.

So when we all woke up to the bombardment of Tishkali, some of us could be forgiven for not having seen it coming. But those in the know, how could they possibly not have heeded the warnings?

Let us start with the plucky and energetic Saakashvili. Did he seriously think that he could take on the Russian Army? Did he think that because Putin was in Beijing schmoozing with other world leaders he would be distracted enough to let him get away with it? Or did he think that because he had sent a whopping 2,000 troops to Iraq, the third largest contingent, this would translate into American military support when the Russian tanks rolled in?

There is no doubting that Saakashvili was delusional in thinking he could take back South Ossetia, but someone somewhere must have encouraged him, or at least could have dissuaded him and his merry band of inexperienced ministers. It is also rather ironic that his actions played straight into Putin's hands giving him the pretext he had waited for in order to show the world who's boss.

It took Russia four days of bombardment. Four days when we looked in horror at the carnage, but said very little. Only after Russia had effectively succeeded in its military aims did we hear George Bush say that Russia's invasion of another sovereign state was "completely unacceptable." And now that a cease-fire has been signed but that Russia troops remain in Georgia, we are privy to one Western politician after the other decrying Russia's actions and telling us that such actions will not be tolerated.

But what could they actually do about it?

Possibly the most ludicrous suggestion came from David Cameron, the British leader of the opposition, who said that we must discourage the Russian elite from spending their money in London. Yes, he actually claimed that if they were stopped from shopping in London's Selfridges this would make them think twice about invading another country. Well hey, tell that to Putin, and bet he's shaking in his boots!

More serious commentators have suggested excluding Russia from international clubs such as the World Trade Organization or even the G-8 and generally showing Russia that the West will not tolerate its aggression. At an emergency session of NATO this week, Russia was warned that they could not continue to do business as usual. But all of it is largely talk. The reality on the ground is that no one wants a direct conflict between East and West, and moreover, the West needs Russia as much as Russia needs the West. Much of Europe in particular is reliant on Russia for its energy supplies, not to mention Russia's strategic geopolitical role in the conflicts that really matter.

But why provoke Russia in the first place? Russia has long let it be known that it will not accept further erosion of its sphere of influence. George Bush may now claim that we no longer live in a world with spheres of influence but who is he trying to kid? Or does he mean that there is only one sphere of influence, his?

Did George Bush really think that Russia would not be seething mad at seeing the US offer Georgia and Ukraine membership of NATO? NATO may have shown itself to be an utter failure in achieving any of its aims, be it in Afghanistan or in Serbia, but it remains a military grouping that excludes Russia. When at the last NATO summit, an invited Vladimir Putin warned that extending the presence of this military alliance to Russia's doorstep would be seen as a direct threat to Russian security, why did they not take him seriously?

Frankly, how could anybody not take Putin extremely seriously? He may no longer be president but that is simply semantics. Quite the contrary; recent events have not only shown him to be the man in charge but have shown that having someone else as president gives him more leverage. Witness how he could leave Medvedev to sign a cease-fire whilst he continued to maneuver Russian forces on the ground.

This conflict has been a win-win situation for Putin. Not only has he crushed Georgia and more or less paved the way for a de facto eventual annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but he has shown all concerned that countries in Russia's "near abroad" cannot expect to be bailed out by the US.

Ah, but what of this missile defense shield? What a coincidence that Poland has now signed up to host American anti-missile missiles on its soil - a deal which has not surprisingly infuriated Russia to the extent of its leaders stating that any country agreeing to host America's missile system made itself a legitimate target for nuclear attack by doing so. Apparently this missile defense shield is aimed at intercepting and destroying missiles from Iran or any other "rogue" state. The question is: Does anyone seriously believe that Iran is going to fire missiles at European countries? And even if it did, could these unproved and expensive anti-missile missiles really intercept and destroy something coming at them at 4 miles per second?