ARTICLE: "Kazakh Oil: A War of Nerves: Russian brinkmanship could imperil the flow of oil and money across the Caspian to Europe," Businessweek, 22 September 2008, p. 074.
A Chevron-heavy story, as it's the major that's put in the most time and effort in Central and South Asia in general.
Central Asian energy, if it goes West, has to go through Russia now, which likes that because it can charge transit and it gives Moscow the illusion--often successfully projected West--of controlling the tap--subtle but real in its own self-fulfilling sort of way.
In reality, the big East Asian demand-pull could suck all that energy up, and by all transit cost logic, should suck up all that energy eventually. So the more Moscow pressures the Caucasus, the more it turns Central Asia toward China's orbit, speeding up an inevitability.
In the big scheme of things, we want Asia's energy needs to be met as cheaply as possible, lest its economies export that inflation to us. In that equity-manic sense (I need to own that barrel in the ground, and all the transit infrastructure in between, because my risk is supply, not just price--untrue and fatally old-school, but there it is), the West wants that access built and preserved, working around Russia.
Is this worth restarting the Cold War over? If you're an economic ignoramus, then definitely! If you think long-term about energy networks, then it seems more a distraction to world evolutions. That's why we don't--in the end--really have strategic interests in the Caucasus, no matter how much we want to whip ourselves into a better-red-than-dead-and-we're-all-Georgians-now-and-someday-America-will-be-forced-to-choose-between-Georgia-and-Russia frenzy.
Point being: if you remain trapped in a binary mindset, the world will continue to look black and white.
I say, take off those designer Manicheans. They may fit nicely and make you look so cool--in a retro way. But they're not good for strategic vision.