where is the line? the US supported the secession and quick recognition of Kosovo, and Russia has cited this as precedent for their defense of South Ossetia against Georgian intervention. Where is the line drawn? Did Russia legitimately defend a sovereign nation against the recapture by its former state or did they invade the territory of Georgia which was dealing with an internal dispute?

It's all based on which choice is more convenient for us at the time.

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin

Exactly ..

..or were they defending Russian peacekeepers and Russian citizens who were being killed by Georgian forces?

so there is an interesting point as well. Should states grant citizenship to persons outside of the state? Is that a way of manufacturing irredentist claims to another country? is it in the same vein as settling occupied land and then claiming it as your own? is there a reason that south ossetia can't claim sovereignty while kosovo can? what is the reason? but all of NATO seems to be pissed off. also, on CSPAN there was a conference talking about Georgia. One of the military advisors said that Russia had the strange policy that they would protect Russian citizens abroad--which i thought was a pretty consistent and normal policy for any state... he interpreted the actions as Russia stating that Putin was firmly in control (there never is any evidence of this offered, it is just assumed to be true as in the vein of something that Russia would do) and that it sought to return to its rightful position of power as an empire.
i thought that his analysis was rather ridiculous and superficial.
further, does anyone know more details about the agreements not to push NATO eastward to former eastern-bloc states that Reagan made with Gorbachev?

and further, i just wanted to lament the fact that nuanced news is never presented in this fashion. these are difficult questions seem to have arguments for and against on each side. ignoring them and presenting the news as such absolute stark terms such as aggression (Russia) and democratic freedom-David-style state (Georgia) seems very misleading. Further, there seems to be no harping on the assault by Georgia against S. Ossetia and the training by US and Israel that taught it. the CSPAN conference mentioned that military assistance by the US has more singlemindedly focused on counterterrorism to the detriment of basic territorial integrity focused defense. an oversight that the military man hoped would be remedied.
but it just seemed interesting to note that the military aid was so focused on counterterrorism that georgia was completely unprepared for a defensive operation... i wonder how other states will react to this test of the paradigm of US military aid...

Morally, all people have the absolute right to self-determination. If the majority wants independence, it should have it.

As for United States policy, it is hypocritical opportunism, just as Russia's tyranny towards Chechnya shows its hypocrisy. America should not intervene anywhere in any way, but so long as it is interventionist it should support self-determination for all peoples, as should Russia.

__________________
"On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."- Murray Rothbard

It all boils down to geopolitical interest. Kosovo serve the interest of the USA that is why the USA was not reluctant to recognize their independence. In fact Kosovo is an internal issue with Serbia.

But if we are to follow international law the USA have an obligation to consult the security council or at least consult with Serbia and Russia. At the UN which we know very well that Russia and China will reject Kosovo's declaration that is why Kosovo had to do it under the protection of the USA.

There is no line, the USA have set a precedent for other countries to follow, Russia using that precedent to intercede in behalf of South Ossetia and Akhbasia especially since both of those regions 90% have no interest to join Georgia Republic at all.

Remember that both of those regions declare their independence back in 1992 but the world refuse to recognize it even Russia did not recognize it. It was only after Georgia invaded South Ossetia ignoring the presence of Russian peace keepers they have indirectly declare war on Russia.

Russia's action IMO has more legitimacy because Georgia launch a full scale military attack that involves tanks, artillery and air bombings that targetted civilian and military including Russians.

In fact, Georgia's main allies the USA and UK should have step in and restrain Georgia either condeming their action or politically reprimanding them. Instead they chosed not to they chosed to encourage Georgia and to go on a disinformation campaign to the world making it appear that Russia initiated this war.

It is the refusal of the USA-Bush to restrain and reprimand Georgia's invasion that have raise serious concern of USA involvement in that war against Russia.

The USA as a super power have an obligation to act as mediator with nuetrality instead the USA seem to have adopted a policy of provoking and instigating conflict in that region?

The USA-Bush have refused to recognize South Ossetia and Akbhasia because the USA-Bush is a close ally of Georgia and that is again geopolitics.

The bottom line is, geopilitics and national integrity supercedes self determination.

With Kosovo, it was very deceitful because Kosovo was under the peace keeping forces of NATO that included the USA. NATO-USA is obligated as agreed upon that Kosovo situation will be settle politically with Serbia.

A few example that we have are Tibet, Taiwan, Kurds in Iraq, the creation of Bangladesh, Kasmir and many more out there.

I just like to mention one particular example is Tibet, back in the 1940s when Tibet sense that the KMT were about to loose the civil war they send delegation to UN and to other super powers such as UK to get their support to recognize Tibet as an independent nation. They failed, the UN and the super power refuse to recognize Tibet. So when the Red Army enter Tibet, Tibet accepted PROC rule under the Seventeen Point agreement with PROC.

The USA could have recognize Tibet or at least submit resolution at the UN declaring their protest of PROC occupation of TIbet and since at that time the USA did not recognize the PROC that could have made PROC occupation illigitimate. Instead the USA through the CIA decided to train, supply and send back thousands of Tibetan rebels to fight the Red ARmy without any air or artillery support. It was a no win situation it was as if the CIA was handing over the rebels to the Red ARmy.

The action of the USA-CIA and their policy has nothing to do with Tibet independence or free Tibet but it is all about USA interest. It is unfortunate that Tibetans have allow themselves to be exploited by the CIA.