That doesn’t mean the meta-war over Georgia and Russia has ended. It is to say that Georgia has a big advantage in the English-language press (in Russian, obviously, their fortunes are reversed). We still have right-wingers decrying heartless Russian aggression. There are scattered stories here and there that Russia is not, in fact, the genesis of all evil in the Caucasus, but they get buried by news about America’s wars. There are Russian news agencies trying to get the word out, but would any red-blooded American trust the pages of the Moscow News to give them the truth about the topic? Meanwhile, the op-ed pages are oddly silent about Georgia’s own role to play in the conflict, and the arrogance with which President Saakashvili assumed America would ride to the rescue when Russia inevitably pushed back against his strike into Tskhinvali.
All of which is another way of saying the war over the war in Georgia is far from over. Despite receiving a billion dollars in new aid after last year’s war, the Georgian government is still insecure about its American backing. And so, the cavalcade of pro-Georgian partisanship will continue, unabated, until Russia decides it’s finally time to push back.
Very disappointing coming from Columbia journalism review! Just makes you wander if the author is simply clueless, or has an agenda, the latter sims more likely. Saying that Russia has little voice is beyond ridiculous. I urge everybody interested in history of Russian aggression against Georgia (author conveniently has no recollection of numerous other agrressions committed by USSR, or read Russia, during the 20th century)to go to Amazon and purchase books by objective and professional people rather than reading this clown. Thanks for reading!
#1 Posted by thetruthteller, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 11:13 AM
The comment by "thetruthteller" gives very strong evidence in favor of the article: no arguements but strong emotions.
Hans Schumacher
#2 Posted by Hans Schumacher, CJR on Tue 6 Oct 2009 at 05:29 AM
There is a tendency to mix up nationalists with democrats. When two nationalists are fighting it does not make the weaker one somehow 'democratic'. This statement is de facto validated by Georgia's behavior in its relations with its own ethnic minorities where it is a stronger nationalist side.
#3 Posted by Ahad Abdurahmon, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 02:49 PM
There is a tendency to mix up nationalists with democrats. When two nationalists are fighting it does not make the weaker one somehow 'democratic'. This statement is de facto validated by Georgia's behavior in its relations with its own ethnic minorities where it is a stronger nationalist side.
#4 Posted by Ahad Abdurahmon, CJR on Thu 29 Oct 2009 at 02:50 PM