What the world is saying about Georgia

As Russia ends its campaign in Georgia, the world reflects on five days that shook the Caucasus

ANATOL LIEVAN, LONDON TIMES:
Russia's actions did not come without warning: "Vladimir Putin's Kremlin made it clear again and again that if Georgia attacked South Ossetia, Russia would fight. Georgian advocates in the West claimed that Moscow was only bluffing. It wasn't." We mustn't forget that "Russia has been an ally of the Ossetians for more than 250 years" and they "loathe the Georgians for their anti-Russian nationalism and alliance with the US". In light of all this, what did the West think would happen in the event of a Georgian assault on South Ossetia?

EDITORIAL, NEW YORK TIMES:
"There is no imaginable excuse for Russia's invasion of Georgia." The assault on Georgia serves one clear purpose: to "bully Ukraine into dropping its Nato bid and frighten any other neighbour or former satellite that might balk at following Moscow's line."

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV:
The relationship between Russia and Georgia was stable until "the Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against 'small, defenceless Georgia' is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity." Gorbachev also noted: "Russia has continued to recognise Georgia's territorial integrity." (Washington Post)

FRED KAPLAN, SLATE:
"What were the Bush people thinking when they egged on Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's young, Western-educated president, to apply for Nato membership?" Did they really think that Putin would allow another border state to fall under Western influence? As a result, writes Kaplan, it's tragic to hear "so many Georgians... officials, soldiers, and citizens, wondering when the United States is coming to their rescue. It's infuriating because it's clear that Bush did everything to encourage them to believe that he would."

DICK MORRIS, former Clinton advisor:
Vladimir Putin's actions directly correspond to another high-profile European leader's: "Hitler invaded Sudetenland, now Putin invades South Ossetia," says Morris. "The United States and the European Union must not turn away at this crucial moment in history... If the United States appeases Russia now, it will pay the same price British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain paid in the 1930s." (dickmorris.com)

CHARLES KUPCHAN, former director of European affairs at the National Security Council:
"The Bush administration didn't in any way encourage Saakashvili's move against the Russians, but it didn't do enough to rein him in... It encouraged the creation of a Georgian president who was too big for his britches."

BRUCE ACKERMAN, THE GUARDIAN:
Russia's invasion of Georgia marks "a decisive turning point in the history of the European Union". Suddenly the EU has to offer its members military security. Smaller European nations can no longer turn to America for protection - a country which is "now entirely unwilling to reassume its Cold War role as guarantor of Europe's military integrity". Instead, small European nations will be "clamouring for guarantees from their EU partners" to guard against the new Russian threat.

EDITORIAL, WALL STREET JOURNAL:
The readiness with which Putin deployed his troops revealed his "Napoleonic ambitions". An "oil-drunk Kremlin" offered the Georgian invasion as a "direct slap at the Western alliance". Putin, "flush with petrodollars", now has Ukraine in his sights "and even the Baltic states could be threatened" if he emerges from this week with nothing more than a slap on the wrist from the international community.

EDITORIAL, PRAVDA
Under the headline 'Russia: saviour of peace and life', the paper laments "the savage, brutal, criminal attack by Georgia on South Ossetia". Pravda also reaches for a Nazi allusion: "Georgian troops attempted to storm Tskhinvali much as Hitler's Panzer divisions blazed through Europe."

FIRST POSTED AUGUST 13, 2008