Whether or not there is a difference between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Georgia, it is still hypocritical of McCain, Rice, Bush, and Khalilzad (at least he added “in Europe”) to condemn other nations for invading another sovereign nation. Russia and the U.S. are both in the wrong and the first wrongdoer should keep their collective mouths shut and not lecture others.

And while such concerns certainly have merit, I can’t help but wonder about the pawns in Ossetia. If it’s true that the Ossetes generally feel no sense of conection to the entity now called Georgia, what does that suggest?

It strikes me as unsatisfactory to imply that we ought to require Ossetes to remain part of Georgia primarily because we can’t allow Russia to succeed with whatever neo-imperialist designs they are harboring.

So if it’s in fact true that Ossetia and Georgia represent no strategic interest for the United States beyond geography and cold-war political considerations (which, granted, may still make modern sense), I think I’d prefer the US’s position to be that we won’t allow Russia to take over Georgia, but the Ossetes can do what they want. And that if they do, then they are on their own.

What I don’t want to do is back Georgia to the extent that are supporting their desire to force Ossetia to remain part of Georgia. I don’t think we ought to be that involved. I’d prefer if we did our best to make Russia and Georgia as unhappy as we can without putting more of our own citizens directly in harm’s way. Like if we fast-tracked them into NATO.

This is not in any attributable to George Bush, but to the resilient economic force in this Era of Globalization. The faltering economy of the Soviet Union and pressure from the West brought the former superpower to its knees and they knew that changes had to occur economically for their survival. Many communist party leaders disagreed with these abrupt changes and of these men, stands the former head of the KGB, Vladimir Putin clinging to a dying and bankrupt ideology based more on fear, force and control than anything else. There can be no doubt that Dmitry Medvedev is just a puppet fulfilling Putin’s ideological agenda sending chills throughout the international arena and the Georgian conflict may just be the beginning in thwarting their neighboring, democratic, separatists regimes. The support of Iran, refusal of the European missile defense systems, hesitancy with North Korea dilemma, and more recently the claim of withdrawal from Georgia should all have be sufficient evidence and a clue that the Russians vehemently refuse to cooperate with Western ideas and change. It is a question of ideology and anti-Western sediment that has little if nothing to do with United States foreign relations or for that matter the particular Presidential Administrations?

The Bush Administration has dramatically improved relations with Russia, but the events transpiring today in Georgia signifies that Russia has finally asserted itself in regard to this separatist regime while the Ukraine and Belarus look on with fear with as the Russian army flexes its muscles. The United States has not experienced anything quite like this since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 when Jimmy Carter’s response was to place a trade embargo on the Soviet Union and a boycott of the Summer Olympics in Moscow. War is out of the question because there is no real recourse other than diplomacy with a nuclear-packing country. Ultimately, Russia is going to do what it wants to do fulfilling a long-awaited agenda as the Western countries watch, wait and hope that escalation of hostilities does not occur.

To me, not saying that Georgia had a part in this is a very hard line to draw in the sand. Especially when it’s so obvious that both parties played a role in this.

Also, basically stating outright that regime change is Russia’s aim is hardline. I’m not saying everything he’s suggesting is hardline, but in two very important ways, McCain’s immediate stances fall outside of where even the Bush administration has gone.

One note about Obama. His first response was to condemn both Russian and Georgian aggression, then his second response was to condemn the continued overreaching by Russia. Many are saying Obama got tougher. He didn’t. He merely made two statements in succession that dealt with the facts as they were coming in. It was McCain that immediately viewed the situation as all Russia’s fault.

Plus, Russia’s attempts to assert authority over a not-too-long-ago piece of their empire is different than our coalition-led invasion of Iraq. Like it our not, our actions had the backing of numerous world nations and was not a unilateral action. I’m not defending the Iraq invasion which I’ve always thought was unjustified, I’m just pointing out that it’s not an exact analogy and that it’s a MAJOR cop-out to say “well, we did it so I guess we just have to sit on our hands and let Russia do whatever the hell it pleases.” Besides, no one is saying we need to pressure Russia alone. In fact, without the EU, we can’t do much of anything.

As for McCain’s conflicts of interest — that worries me a lot and, as I said, the big weakness in his argument is his refusal to admit that Georgia has some culpability in all of this.

Second, anything McCain says or does in regards to Georgia has to be looked at through the prism of his conflict of interest, with his campaign advisor being on the Georgian government’s payroll.

Third, we have no way to take action, because we have no standing with Russian after our own war of aggression. You can say don’t mention Iraq, but that’s not being realistic, because McCain and his neocon cronies put us in this position, where we acted unilaterally against a sovereign nation, and now we are hypocritically calling out Russian for doing the same, despite Georgia initiating the conflict. Also, we have no cards to play in this game. Telling Russia that they are damaging their “standing in the world” as Bush is saying, is as easily rejected by Putin, as saying that to us after Iraq is to the neocons.