While my initial reaction to Hitchens' article was toward agreement, further reflection has made me more sceptical. For instance, Hitchens' first argument that Kosovo is not equivalent to South Ossetia is not really an argument, but merely a protest. He argues that since the USSR never had any interest in South Ossetia while Georgia was one of its republics, that now it simply using South Ossetia as a pawn to get back at Georgia's tilt to toward the West. Perhaps that is what is going on, but what is the West's interest in Kosovar independence, and how long has that mattered to us? Russia warned that acknowledging Kosovo would set a precedent for over 200 other regions that yearned for independence. That Russia itself may have started this crisis does not negate its argument.

Hitchens is also on shaky ground in his second argument by his characteristic bait and switch logic. He is correct that Georgia cannot be compared to Miloscevic's Serbia. However, the link between the acknowledgement of Kosovo 6 months ago and South Ossetia's independence is what we're talking about, and not about the justification for Russia's invasion of Georgia. Indeed, acknowledging seceding regions of nations is one of the thorniest political problems, and one that has plagued us since the rise of the nation state. Proving that this is a very complicated issue, Hitchens is correct that Russia's support of the integrity of Serbia makes it look hypocritical now, in the same way that our support of Kosovo's secession seems hypocritical. It really does seem to work both ways.

The real argument that I have with Hitchens is that he seems to simplify this situation to almost cartoonish dimensions by his decrying of moral equivalence. The Russians do seem to be handling Georgia in a thuggish manner. Maybe its Hitchens enthrallment with neo-conservatism that has him seemingly agog by Russia's activities in Georgia. However, Russia seems to be acting rationally, if not honorably, to protect its perceived interests. We should have seen this coming, and we should have taken steps to avert this, because it is a distraction from the all important combat of global terrorism, of which Russia is an integral part.

However, Russia seems to be acting rationally, if not honorably, to protect its perceived interests.

I could not agree more, The US frequently makes the case that it has forces on the other side of the world to protect it's interests, but Russia is a out of line when it protects it's interests across it's own borders.

Israel can bomb Southern Lebanon back to the stone age over 2 of it's soldiers being captured (on the basis of defending itself), yet Russia is being a thuggish when it responds to 7p of it's own peace keepers being killed by Georgian troops.

We go in to Iraq to supposedly get rid of Saddam and more than a year after he was executed, we are still in Iraq, killing Iraqis and building military bases.

"...He argues that since the USSR never had any interest in South Ossetia while Georgia was one of its republics, that now it simply using South Ossetia as a pawn to get back at Georgia's tilt to toward the West. Perhaps that is what is going on, but what is the West's interest in Kosovar independence, and how long has that mattered to us?..."

Kosovar (and Georgian, Armenian, Askhabian, etc.) independence has mattered to the West since the moment the Berlin Wall went up. The epic 50 year Cold War was not fought simply because two morally equal empires had different and legitimate preferences for government. It was fought because Western democracy and humanistic values were morally superior to the evils of Stalinism, and the West believed in fighting that evil on behalf of its victims and to defend other would be victims from it.

So it is perfectly consistent now for the West to be concerned with the liberty of Kosovo, Georgia, et al.

Regardless of any mistakes made by the West regarding Kosovo, Georgia, etc., never lose sight of the central fact of this current conflict: Russia is threatened by independence and burgeoning democracies because it is threatened by independence and democracy. It's only interest in these little states, as it has always been, has been to control them.

Put the pom poms down Earlybird.

Th cold war was a cynical exercise that befitted the US enormously, IN fact, it can be argued that the US power was at it's greatest during the Cold War and tht it has been in decline ever since. The invasion of Vietnam and Grenada benfitted who exactly?

Russia doesn't give a crap about who is democratic and who is not, especially the faux democracies in Georgia and the Ukraine. Of course, don't want NATO and missiles launchers perched on it's borders. We didn't like it when the Soviets tried to put them in Cuba.

If you can call Georgia a democracy, then Russia is certainly democratic.

It's only interest in these little states, as it has always been, has been to control them.

And what interest does the US have in Latin America? Do you think our interests are purely benevolent or do we not consider anything south of Texas to be our back garden?

Many things are said, by our government and theirs, but when troops move, that is something remarkable.

As to the reason the Georgians attacked as they did, I believe it was to ensnare the US in assisting. This was done because NATO did not act to assist Georgia. I believe US troops were present, for the sake of guarding the pipeline against possible disruptions, and to train the Georgians to do this work (and secondarily to provide them the means to check incursions from the detached territories). I'll bet that US troops beat a rapid retreat via air transport. This is all part of the US's military petroleum complex. Who knows, perhaps Blackwater is eyeing up the situation for later.

Because we are not directly physically threatening Russia, they probably will eventually withdraw after they feel that future attacks are unlikely.

Georgia is not a democracy; they just cut off access of Gerogians to Russian television, and presumably, Russian web sites.

Interesting, since the US always bashed the Soviet Union for trying to jam Radio Free America! Of course, the US bashes Google for accommodating the Chinese on the Internet, so how can you support this Saakashvilli, yet continue to protest such things as he does elsewhere?

<link>

P.S. Considering that Akhbasia and South Ossetia are Russian as to population, this is a stunning act by Saakashvilli...which I'm sure will make these folks even more opposed to living under him than they are now, which is 100%.

How cynical and sophisticated you are, Neo! We're all impressed.

If in 2008 you don't think there was anything at stake for humanity in regard to the Cold War, then there is simply not enough band width in the world to try to educate you here.

Georgia was only a democracy for about 4 years now, so of course they are not a real democracy. But comparing them to Russia is ludicrous.

Why? Simple. What direction are they moving in?

Russia, under Putin, has spent the last 8 years ensuring that any hope for a more lawful or democratic society will not emerge. Nor will they support other democratic nations - in fact, their primary rivals are democratic.

Georgia has taken as many steps towards free democratic government as any nation can be expected to within a handful of years. You have to be wilfully ignorant of change over time to think that both governments are equally respectable.

As for blocking Russian websites, no, that certainly isn't a good thing, but I would hardly call it undemocratic to block out communications from the neighboring country at which you are at war with. To say that it is a sign of georgia being un-free is, well, to forget that Russian troops are still occupying their territory despite their pledge to withdraw.

Again, you folks are picking up teensy-weensy details from this situation as claiming that they represent the larger truth, which they clearly don't.

If in 2008 you don't think there was anything at stake for humanity in regard to the Cold War, then there is simply not enough band width in the world to try to educate you here.

Look Earlybird, the the Cold War was bad news, but strangely enough, it could be argued that it was probably the most peaceful period we have experienced - certainly the most stable. In any case, it's has been over for 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but there are plenty of wingnuts in our government who mourned the day it ended and have been salivating at the thought of it's re emergence.

Russia, under Putin, has spent the last 8 years ensuring that any hope for a more lawful or democratic society will not emerge.

Explain how this differs from Georgia? And while you're at it, please list the names of the political opponents Putin has imprisoned and the number of demonstrations that he ordered Russian police to fire at?

Now, hyperbole aside, what has Putin done over the last 8 years to ensure "that any hope for a more lawful or democratic society will not emerge"?

To say that it is a sign of Georgia being un-free is, well, to forget that Russian troops are still occupying their territory despite their pledge to withdraw.

Russia probably don't want to have to repeat this episode, so it's predictable that they will only leave on their own terms. It's unfortunate, but as we see in Iraq, the bully gets to play by their own rules.