With Russian and American top brass talking again, it looks like the two countries have kissed and made up following the whole Georgia thing.

Or, if you’re US ambassador Beylre, kissed and made out: not only did he recently deny any US intention to punish Russia, but also put a nice gloss on the affair: “There is always an inclination to look at the dark side of things during these periods of strain. I think that sometimes obscures some of the very positive aspects of the joint work that we are doing together in a very positive way”.

Even the New York Times, that pre-eminent peddler of the ‘Evil-Russia-Crushes-Tiny-Democratic-Georgia’ narrative at the time of the conflict, has pulled off a spectacular 180 with a recent article questioning Georgia's democratic credentials. (ESSENTIAL READING ALERT: Mark Ames wrote a typically thoughtful and spot on think piece on this in The Nation).

So, apart from a friendly / passive aggressive nuclear showdown in Europe and two new countries in the Caucasus, it's back to normal, right?

Nearly. The most important rejigging has been very subtle. As this article in the NYT points out, on the fence countries like Azerbaijan have begun to move closer to Russia to avoid Georgia's fate. Moreover, Georgia now maintains a somewhat toxic status, in that neighbouring countries are loath to get too close to it and incur Russian wrath.

So two months on, it seems Georgia is the only loser. America has moved on, Russia has increased its influence, and its neighbours have ostracised it.

This is the price, in the words of an Azeri commentator Rasim Musabayov, of having “a foreign policy that goes against your geography”.