The emergence of war in the Caucasus was not an unexpected event for political observers. Although such crisis has been interpreted as a new cold war in political literature by the media, it has resulted different questions and considerations for international relation analysis. Different characteristic of the actors and the content of the conflict and the players’ objectives, are among above mentioned differences. In spite of uncertain, and fragile ideological bordering  which may conclude political or military tensions in specific period of history, continuous structural contrasts, followed by tangible interests of nation-states are always expected. It is even to be claimed that in many periods of history, ideological crises have been narrated as the tangible interest clashes, projected in the form of ideologies. U.S.S.R. collapse and the end of Cold War, eliminated the incentives for ideological contrast between West and East, but the rational sources of those contrasts, based on the concrete national interests may still result in challenges. We suppose that the Georgia crisis indicates a conflict paradigm shift, from an ideological one to a rational confrontation, according to the cost-benefit model.
         Thus, Georgia crisis is somewhat supposed as a kind of a rational reproducing of Cold War without any ideology. This new Cold War has taken place upon a rational model and must be assessed in respect of a rationalistic point of view. Meanwhile, this analysis shows that a tangible national based challenge is much more realistic  to be pursued by pure ideological gaps, and  can be reproduced in different categories, so it will have different consequences and any interpretation on such a conflict, deeply relies on the rational content of this strife.