The last few weeks have seen the latest of Russia's new international muscle moves, not seen since 1989 and begun again by the agressive foreign relations of Putin at the end of his term. This is the interventionist measures taken in Georgia as the Caucasus nation.
The story, in my own words, is this. Georgia has two semi-autonomous splinter Republics along its northern border, who have long had friendly relations with Georgia's old rulers in Moscow. They have had this autonomy since the last war in 1992. However, Georgia, with a strong unitary regieme, assaulted the province of South Ossetia with the aim of reclaiming it at the beginning of the month.
Russia, acting with the freedom of Kosovo as a template, struck back, preserving the freedom of the province and pushing Georgian troops back into Georgia and away from the borders of South Ossetia. As the days passed they took the cities of Gori and Poti near the borders of the breakaway provinces. The US, who's assurances of support may have lead Georgia to such action, blared cold-war rhetoric at Russia, into which the UK invested its support. Much of continental western Europe, however, has found it far more difficult to fault Russia's defesensive action.
However, in a propaganda war not seen since the 1930s Georgian and US media overwhelmed Russian common sense with nears of the Bear rising once more to strike down a neighbouring state, terrorizing and seizing it's territories. No mention was made of the Georgian beginnings of the conflict. Russia recently has begun withdrawals in its own time, paying no heed to western mutters and shrieks of outrage, much in the way of a spoiled woman at a taxi which drove past unheeding her shopping spree of bags.
I can only applaud Russia it's actions, showing the US that they are not alone as a state who can act in their own defense and violate "sovereignty" when it poses a threat to themselves and others. In a BBC interview, Condoleezza Rice was asked the question "wouldn't you be concerned if Russia was to form an alliance with and revamp the Cuban military". The answer being, of course it would, making the US' condemnation of Russia a complete hypocrisy. However, Rice avoided immediate denial, saying "we would not be concerned if Russia was to have good relations with Democratic states in Latin America." Essentially saying: "We would not be concerned if Russia gave a smile to the states we see as appropriate.
Urgent broadcast to America. You are not the only superpower of the Earth. You do not know what's best for the World. You, as the most interventionist and agressive state in the world, have no right to condemn similar reactions by others. Especially considering contrasts. For example, the US invaded Iraq under false, possible, assertions that it had WMDs. Russia occupied areas of Georgia to protect a separatist, autonomous province under assault. Please, under anyone's moral compass, who has the moral high ground here is absolutely clear.
