I appreciate your thoughtful response.

You’ve a solid point in asking “Why are the pipelines still intact?” I’m interested in that answer myself. False reports come out all the time during war. Georgia had motive to lie about the pipelines being bombed. Conversely: could Russia have motive for bombing all around the pipelines as a kind of announcement: We can hit these pipelines anytime we wish? It would be interesting to know the truth.

You’ve another solid point that all aspects of the conflict need be covered in media. It’s my anecdotal observation that there has been far too much media hand-wringing and beard-stroking over the comparatively minor matter of Ossetia vs. Georgia - as compared to the more significant matter of an existing free Georgian nation being invaded. Why? Why has the media focused on the more minor story at the expense of the more major Russia vs. Georgia story? I suspect some media motivation is to not “irresponsibly” report facts which might make NATO or U.S. Military action more likely. There are other reasons. But I suspect that reason is a part of it.

Re your reply to Fred F: I disagree that U.S.-in-Iraq and Russia-in-Georgia are morally comparable situations. Even though you disagree with U.S. actions in Iraq, I think this is a comparison you should avoid. I don’t think it is legitimately defendable, and I think it makes you look … less rational and sensible than you deserve.

On Monday, he issued a statement from Hawaii calling for an end to the violence and again blaming Russia. “No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. There is no possible justification for these attacks.”

Gotta love Obama: He says nothing at first, then reads from the script his advisors feed him.

gcotharn: I still stand by my previous comments. I can’t make a fully educated opinion of the situation until more is known.

What more proof do you need of months of operational planning and positioning?

I never denied that the logistics of this operation would take months to put into place before there’s action, but what I asked was what kind of contingency preplannings does Russia have? Just like the US military has preplanned military operations against other countries, just in case. I expect Russia to also have the same types of plans. So was this military operation by Russia a contingency plan or something more devious? There is circumstantial evidence to support both sides of this argument, but what’s missing right now, in my view, are facts. Before an educated opinion of situations like this can be formed, a reasonable view of the polar opposites must be established. You have the right to believe that we do have a reasonable view of the Russian point of view, but I’m not yet convinced. So when you ask “What more proof do you need?”, I need concrete answers to some of the questions this post and my comments.

Third, it’s widely reported that Russia attempted to bomb the oil and gas pipelines which run through South Georgia. If those reports are accurate, they constitutes proof of bad intent. If those pipelines are bombed, the “Stans” will be forced to send all their oil and gas through Russia, and Russia will continue to exact a steep price for their doing so. Further, the “Stans” will not be able to conduct independent foreign policy, as they will be at the economic mercy of Russia.

I agree with your assessment of the diplomatic damage done if Russia bombed the pipelines, but must reply with a question: Why did they miss? If Russia took months to plan this operation and intended to take out the pipelines, why are the pipelines intact?

What part of the story are we missing here? That’s what I wonder about.

In light of this, it makes no sense that media would focus much attention at all on 55,000 ethnic Ossetians at the expense of 4.6M Georgians who were being invaded by a national army.

All sides of a story need to be covered — if only to find that some sides are just plain silly in the end. But without exploring the issue, we wouldn’t know.

Russia could not have made an on-the-shelf planned operation happen in just a few days. It takes weeks, at best, to move those types assets and personnel into position to respond to a “provocation”. Russia had ships ready to create a naval blockade! Russia attacked on a second front in Abkhazia in northwest Georgia!! What more proof do you need of months of operational planning and positioning?

Second, if Russia were concerned about ethnic South Ossetians, there were ways to address the problem short of rolling tanks across the Caucasus. That’s a freely elected government in a Georgian nation which needs many things. They could be bargained with, to the benefit of all sides.

In light of this, it makes no sense that media would focus much attention at all on 55,000 ethnic Ossetians at the expense of 4.6M Georgians who were being invaded by a national army. Every article which wrung hands about ethnic Ossetians thus turned a blind eye to greater numbers of Georgians who were being murdered by Russian weaponry. Every such article thus provided public relations cover for Putin’s murderous attacks and bombings.

Third, it’s widely reported that Russia attempted to bomb the oil and gas pipelines which run through South Georgia. If those reports are accurate, they constitutes proof of bad intent. If those pipelines are bombed, the “Stans” will be forced to send all their oil and gas through Russia, and Russia will continue to exact a steep price for their doing so. Further, the “Stans” will not be able to conduct independent foreign policy, as they will be at the economic mercy of Russia.

To the Russian government, world politics is all about gaining power. It makes no sense to believe they can be shamed into anything via moral argument. If Russia has stopped their attack in Georgia, it is out of self-interest. It is not out of the goodness of their hearts.

As B.J. Bjornson points out: the Russian assault across an internationally recognized border was planned ahead of time. I add emphasis: Russia’s assault was planned FAR ahead of time. Months and months ahead of time. Logistics dictate nothing less.

I agree that an operation like this must have been planned ahead of time because, logistically speaking, broad military operations don’t materialize out of thin air. But that doesn’t serve as an answer for any questions. One thing I haven’t seen the media focus on that much is the role Russia played, via their position in CIS, as “peacekeepers” in South Ossetia — in effect, the Russian military has been there for quite a while. Beyond that, different nations have scenarios for how to react to situations… The US has detailed plans for the nuclear annihilation of Russian cities. You know, just in case. I have no doubt that the Russian military also tries to plan things ahead of time.

So, thinking of that and getting into the “truth”…

U.S. and World Media have provided Russia with public relations cover, so as not to “provoke” NATO or the U.S. into military action, doncha know. That’s the media’s job: evade the truth if it might provoke military action. Evade truth. Promote peace. Taught at all the J-Schools.

I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever of your claims. If anything, US and UK outlets have been critical of Russia — no surprise there, since the US and UK were partners in the Cold War. They might not have been as critical of Russia as some would have liked them to have been — this is evident judging from McCain’s “Let’s send in the troops and kick Russki ass!” reaction and those who support him because of snap reactions like this. But what is the truth here? What did Russia see in the South Ossetia situation? Is it simply a power play; a first step to restore the glory of the former Russian empire? Was it to tell Georgia, the Caucasus, and the rest of its satellite states not to fuck with Russia when it comes to oil and the energy market? Does Russia want to force Georgians to put into place a government more friendly to Moscow? Did they instigate the situation by arming South Ossetian paramilitaries?

All of those situations are viably possible… Or did Russia fear that South Ossetia getting its independence would cause a surge of nationalism in the border Russia province of North Ossetia, forming a unifed Ossetian nation? And what would the reaction from Russian provinces like Chechnya be if the Ossetians got there or state? Indeed, how many more microethnic communities harboring nationalist ideals, like Ossetia or Chechnya, are festering in Russia — and do their pre-planned military scenarios take these potential crises into account? I don’t know the answer to this question, but I think I should before forming an opinion.

I don’t want to jump the gun here, I’m concerned with what’s actually going on. I don’t think anybody knows that yet.

As for Fred F in a previous comment…

Read today that Bush told Putin to stand down and, guess what, they did.
Terrifying thought this weekend:
What would Obama have done?
Gave me sleepless nights, I tell ya…

I dunno, why don’t you tell me what Obama would have done?

On second thought, don’t bother. I can already predict your answers.

Therefore, the question of who is at fault: Ossetia or Georgia, is a joke. The latest provocations coming out of Ossetia are extremely likely to have been Russian provocations designed to provoke some kind of response from Georgia - any kind of response: the slightest raising of any finger - which Russia could then use as an excuse to roll tanks across the Caucusus.

U.S. and World Media have provided Russia with public relations cover, so as not to “provoke” NATO or the U.S. into military action, doncha know. That’s the media’s job: evade the truth if it might provoke military action. Evade truth. Promote peace. Taught at all the J-Schools.

Ralph Peters:

the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there’s absolutely no way Moscow could’ve launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous “response” to alleged Georgian actions.

As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.

The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets.

Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, “Just to line up the airlift sorties would’ve taken weeks.”

Working through their mercenaries in South Ossetia, Russia staged brutal provocations against Georgia from late July onward. Last Thursday, Georgia’s president finally had to act to defend his own people.

But when the mouse stirred, the cat pounced.

The Russians know that we know this was a setup. But Moscow’s Big Lie propagandists still blame Georgia - even as Russian aircraft bomb Georgian homes and Russian troops seize the vital city of Gori in the country’s heart. And Russian troops also grabbed the Georgian city of Zugdidi to the west - invading from Abkhazia on a second axis.

Terrifying thought this weekend:

What would Obama have done?

Gave me sleepless nights, I tell ya…

For your first question, who actually fired the first shot is horribly muddled and pretty much a, “who’re you gonna believe?” mess.

That’s pretty much the jist I got from looking into this mess, too. Nobody knows which chicken came before what egg. Regardless, though, we know there’s three parties directly involved here — Georgians, Russians, and Ossetian paramilitaries.

As to the second question. What’s the population of Vatican City? San Marino? Liechtenstein? Monte Carlo? Some countries are pretty damned small.

I think the history of these countries and regions must come into play, too. San Marino and Monaco, for example, have been sovereign for centuries, for example. And when the USSR broke apart, different ethnicities formerly pat of the empire who were large enough to have their own states got one: the Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Georgians, etc. The Ossetians (who apparently couldn’t even coalesce tightly enough to be in one region, since North Ossetia is part of Russia) weren’t part of that club. Should they have been? I can’t find any history of them having ever formed an independent state; contrast that with Georgians who’ve had a state for about a millennium, the Ukraine has a history dating back to the 9th century, Uzbekistan is a remnant of the Mongol house of Jochi, etc. Ossetia has no history that compares to this.

Looking at statehood qualifications, we’re stuck with either microstates that have been around for centuries, of ethnic groups large enough that people don’t want to fuck with them. Or, in other words, you have grandfathered states and states that have earned it. Contrasting that with the Ossetians, I don’t see an argument… If we allow such miniscule ethnic minorities to claim statehood, we mine as well go back to the Middle Ages and fiefdoms. To me, the Ossetian example for statehood borders on the absurd.

As to the second question. What’s the population of Vatican City? San Marino? Liechtenstein? Monte Carlo? Some countries are pretty damned small. Greenland only has abut 50,000 people but has a huge land mass, is basically self-governing, and should it request it, probably would be granted independence. Generally since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 or so, the rule has been that a country’s boundaries are sacrosanct and they have full sovereignty over the area and no area can break free without mutual consent, though successful rebellions are usually recognized eventually. Kosovo muddied the waters, and there are probably hundreds of areas and peoples from the Basques in Spain and France to the Kurds to the Mindanao in the Philippines that will now be looking for similar treatment. Basically it’s an open can of worms with no good answer.