Russian hypocrisy is rationalizing a brutal supression of Chechnyan separatists on the grounds of territorial integrity and then discarding the territorial integrity of neighboring Georgia to aid Russian separatists there. Though the designs aren't as grand--South Ossetia is no prize on the scale of the Baltics, Poland, Finland, or any other coveted place unfortunate enough to share a border with the Soviet Union--Russia's aggrandizing ambitions remain intact. Too bad for them that they no longer have the world-saving ideology to clothe the naked imperialism.

And I'm so glad to see that China has also cleaned up its act and now that it's moving into the realm of the strong industrial nation of economic means, is dropping its centuries old model of aggressive behavior.

;-)~

Old habits are hard to break, aren't they?

Russian aircraft have been entering various nations' airspace for MONTHS, testing NATO response procedures, getting a glimpse of how NATO plans to use the Eurofighter, etc., etc. And in each instance, Russian "apologies" for these incursions have either been accepted with a smile (or deep bow) or with a meaningless "strong condemnation".

There was no "radio station attack" or anything else that could be used as a pretext for this attack. It was enought that Georgia is looking to join NATO, and they control a precious sea route that will allow Russia to control yet more oil and gas resources.

This is the beginning of the "real" oil wars, and as Ukraine was the subject of Russian threats recently, and is ALSO seeking NATO membership, they're next in line. NATO needs to get its head out of its ass and allow Ukraine to join NOW. Russia will at least think twice before it forces a clear treaty obligation to fight back, because Georgia is most certainly going to be left to swing in the breeze.

Why does NATO still exist? Why are we a part of it? Why has it expanded to the borders of Russia? And why do we want to be part of a guarantee to fight for places like Georgia if they are attacked (which is what NATO gives these little countries, a license to do whatever they want)?

It’s interesting how the Russians are passing this off as a border skirmish that has to be addressed, as if there is a threat from little old Georgia. But, the post Cold War Russian philosophy hasn’t changed much from the pre Cold War philosophy and ex-KGB agent Putin is the puppet master is pulling the strings.

The hard core Communists never did get over the break up of the old Soviet Union. And given there is also an economic threat and a chance to test the International waters and flex muscles, it will be serious business to see how we and NATO handle this crisis.

I’m learning more about his as it goes but Homer’s succinct summary seems to be about right.

NATO exists because Russia remains a tremendous threat to Eastern and Western Europe. If the current events are not enought to convince you, maybe Russia's solidifying its monopoly of the European energy market will.

Nothing good has ever come from under estimating the Russian threat, though this is exactly what the EU has been doing as Russia tested NATO's new toys for the last 6 months.

I don't think this an-alysis of the Russian-Georgian conflict is entirely accurate; or that it can be defined as simply an act of imperialism on the part of Russia. I've been trying to read news sources about Georgia that predate the conflict and it seems the issue is not so clear cut.

For instance in an article dated November 11, 2007:

"Despite not being at war with anyone, for the year 2007 the military budget of Georgia is showing the highest growth rate of any country in the world, with much of it being financed openly and directly by its key military partner, the United States."

"As a result, fears run high in Tskhinvali these days. The capital of the small Republic of South Ossetia is increasingly seen as the next target of Georgian military aggression, and many here worry that it is only a matter of time before enemy troops unleash an assault on the city."

k.

From August 7, 2008:

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/369631.htm

The Georgian government was trying to restore order to its country. (Note, I'm certainly not trying to defend any actions of the Georgian government. But I also don't believe in irredentism...)

And then this, "US military surprised by speed, timing of Russian Military Action" (Gee, it was almost like they had it planned!):

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080811222408.40e5p19r&show_article=1

Do ya think, just maybe, the Russians guaranteed the rebels support if they picked a fight with the Georgian government?

Finally, your article agrees with me, that the military spending and seeming US interference that you mention were part of Georgia's making ready to join NATO -- which in hindsight, they probably think was a pretty damn good idea -- but as been the thorn in Moscow's side for some time.

Homer,

Your ana-lysis can't be read one-way. If Georgia is pushing to become acceptable to Nato then it is trying to get itself a WAR guarantee from the rest of NATO and the USA. Russia seeing this could have acted to destabilize Georgia to forestall its acceptance into NATO, since as NATO proved in Serbia they will blow the shi-t out of countries that are involved in border disputes if they are so inclined. So your point works just as well to explain why teh Russians would act like this, provocations run both ways there.

But anyway as to NATO's existence even if I agreed with you that Russia was a threat (and I don't) why is my country still in it as they aren't a threat to us. And Russia's current increased wealth is premised on selling their energy resources to to Europe, they won't jeopardize that.

I think people underestimate the aggressive designs that former Communist countries like Russia and China have on the world.

These are not benign superpowers looking to maintain a stable and peaceful co-existence. Old habits die hard and these countries know not much more than war and territoriality. This will continue in the future in some capacity and we will have to deal with them both at points of time as either military or economic combatants.

The good news is that we are still a superior nation protected by geography. But we can’t just keep hoping for the best and need to continue to consider them dangerous.