A bit of insight as to why Russian troops are now beyond what is now internationally accepted--outside Russia--as the borders of South Ossetia:

20 Aug 2008 WSJ: (from article on this phenomenon:)

"In Soviet times Akhalgori" ( town in Georgia outside current South Ossetia " belonged to what was then known as the South Ossetian Autonomous Province. South Ossetia's provincial leaders proclaimed a secession from Georgia as the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990's. After fighting their self-proclaimed republic established control over the province's capital city and roughly 2/3 of the countryside."

"The South Ossetian government's writ never reached Akhalgori, which is separated from the rest of South Ossetia by a mountain range".

So, since this town was formerly part of South Ossetia--under Russia--the South Ossetian view is that they are simply restoring South Ossetia to its former borders in the Soviet era."

They call this move "restoring the constitutional order". And from their perspective, they are correct.

More from the WSJ:   "... the Ossetian takeover in the Akhalgori area was peaceful. There were no instances of looting or torching civilian homes here, residents said. Some stores remain open, power supplies continue, and Georgian civilians wander around undisturbed".

This sort of thing is why the border question is so complex--and why absurd statements like "Georgia's territorial integrity must be restored" are worse than worthless. The South Ossetians say it is their territorial integrity which must be restored-- and is now being restored.

As to why nothing to compel the restoration of Georgia's July 2008 borders is likely, another article from the WSJ: The UK is still the second-biggest contributor of troops to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But as to its stance on the current crisis in "Georgia", the UK "has shown no willingness to help rebuild the Georgian military. Instead the UK supports bringing Russia closer into the international fold--echoing views of other EU peers--and showing Russia that it has more to gain by being a partner than an aggressor."

"I am not one that believes that isolating Russia is the right answer to its misdemeanors" said UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, in a statement before the NATO meeting Tuesday. "I believe that the right response is hard-headed engagement."

If GWB cannot even get the UK to support his harsh line against Russia, who, aside from the former USSR satellites, can he get?




And I think a good case can be made for the idea that the most important issue here is that unrest be stilled so that any nuclear material in the areas affected does not fall into the hands of terrorists.