Well, BB, I don't know what you consider an objective source. But one I respect greatly, in addition to the reporting in the WSJ ( as opposed to the editorials) is the Economist.

Economist 10 Aug 2008, p 11., start of article "Russia resurgent": On the night of August 7th, Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's president, embarked on an ill-judged assault on South Ossetia, one of his country's two breakaway provinces."

Georgia "embarked".

What's more, anybody who could read would have seen many citations, including on this thread, that Saakashvili proclaimed that when elected president, he would bring South Ossetia back into Georgia, ending its de facto autonomy. Foolishly, he actually tried to do what he promised.


More from the same article: " Mr. Saakashvili is an impetuous nationalist who has lately tarnished his democratic credentials. His venture into South Ossetia was foolish and possibly criminal". Despite this, the Economist prefers him to Putin--as any reasonable person would do. But they do, as noted above, cite him as the instigator of the August 2008 crisis.

The argument over who started it is pointless anyway. As I've noted, as long as all sides operate on the rule: "We must respond to any provocation"--and all sides are willing to read provocation into just about anything, the problem will never be solved.

But anybody--GWB to pick a purely theoretical example--who blusters about how Georgia's "territorial integrity" --which includes South Ossetia and Abkhazia--must be "restored" is a pathetic creature. It's time to wake up and realize there is no force on earth which can compel this. And it's emphatically not worth going to war with Russia over. Or do you perhaps believe it is?