Georgia invades South Ossetia, a pro-Russia anti-Georgia state

which has refused Georgia's attempts to rule them since the 1990s.

And apparently Georgia's invasion of the pro-Russia state of South Ossetia is fine and good.

What's bad is Russia's defence of South Ossetia by invading Georgia in return for Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia.

Hmmmm.

Now were I a stupidest MFer on the planet rightwingnut, I'd agree with the above.

of applying common sense to issues.

Male or female!

Georgia invaded Ossetia first. But that's fine and dandy by the likes of McInsane and his propaganda machine, the corporate media.

Does that make Georgia's military crackdown there to bring a breakaway province back under the control of the national government justified? No. But was Russia military crackdown on Chechnya for the same reasons justified? No, but it happened anyway. Neither, perhaps, was the North right to militarily crackdown on the South when those states attempted to break away.

National governments cracking down on rebellious provinces and regions has happened throughout history. Georgia's big mistake was not to realize that a small country cannot do the same things that big countries can do. Particularly when the breakaway provinces have a big and powerful ally.

And no way Georgia did something that bold without US foreknowledge.

In "The Grand Chess Game" it was a sacrifice.

Their response was ready to go when they did. I agree that the US had to know what Georgia was up to.

I'm only surprised that Georgia misread Russia so badly. You would think that living next door to Russia they would have a better understanding of their neighbor's history of willingness to use its military as in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and Chechnya.

If "the brutality of the attack" was really "calculated to insure the Russian response we saw", I will admit that I don't see what Georgia thought it could gain. If they thought that the US or NATO was going to come to the rescue, they made another really stupid miscalculation. The US has nothing, except perhaps some air power, to send even if they wanted to and NATO would never help, both for fear of antagonizing Russia and because Georgia doesn't yet belong to the organization.

I don't see what Bush and the boys thought they would gain from sacrificing Georgia, even if they could convince their government to risk losing power and worse. Georgia is something of a pet project of Bush in the area and is home to the oil and gas pipeline that, one would think, they would like to keep as far as possible from Russian control.

On Wednesday, Saakashvili was on CNN complaining about the faulty US intelligence he received on Russian intentions. And Saakashvili built his career on the promise to regain the two disputed provinces.

As for what Bush & Co. thought they would gain, they now have a new Cold War and the hopes of further dividing Russia from Europe. They also hope to tie down Russia in yet another grinding guerrilla conflict in South Ossetia. And don't think that Bush and Co. have given up Georgia. The "humanitarian aid" we're sending is a signal to Russia to get out of Georgia - now. And, of course, all this will be used by the media to prop up the sagging McCain campaign.

Russia wants it, too, because it would increase their stranglehold of oil and gas over Europe.

They had to know the result.

Honestly.

Article from March.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1a47e1ac-f9b0-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F1a47e1ac-f9b0-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%3Faz%3Dshow_mesg%26forum%3D389%26topic_id%3D3798278%26mesg_id%3D3798278&nclick_check=1

Mr McCain suffers from more than the usual degree of US establishment hatred of Russia, coupled with a particular degree of sympathy for Georgia and the restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He advocates the expulsion of Russia from the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and, like Mr Scheunemann, is a strong supporter of early Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Mr Scheunemann has accused even Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, of “appeasement” of Russia. Nato expansion exemplifies the potential of a McCain presidency. Apart from the threat of Russian reprisals, if the Georgians thought that in a war they could rely on US support, they might be tempted to start one. A McCain presidency would give them good reason to have faith in US support.

:eyes:

The difference will be instead of Russian Army members dressed as police, they'll have real troops with heavy weaponry inside of these enclaves. Georgia never had sovereignty over these areas...losing control back in '92-'93. The Russians see the map of that region a lot differently than we do...and they have the power to influence.

The upshot is Georgia thought it could play "victim"...the new Hungary with Shikivilli as the new "Emre Nage"...he thought he bought off the booosh regime, and especially Gramps and actually believed that we'd come rushing to his aid...the poor little country fighting off the big Russian Bear. Fool! He got pwned by Shueremann and Gramps...nothing to show for his money and cost his country dearly. I'll be curious to see how long he remains in power. One doesn't lose a war so soundly and walk away.

This is not to defend Georgia's tactics. But it is largely an internal matter that is ultimately, not the place of the Russians to intervene.

And they intervened awfully fast, awfully effectively and seem to have a pretty good plan for ultimate annexation. I don't think they were caught flat-footed.

but Russia's opportunistic -- and likely imperialistic -- intervention hardly means that they're "the good guys" in this story.

As in so many cases when it comes to warfare (Say, for example, the United States going to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq), there's no good side.