Well, when the Olympic games began, Russia rolled tanks into Georgia, along with launching a bombing campaign. This, of course, prompted some questions in my mind.

Georgia is an ally of the United States, and is a candidate for being accepted into NATO. Scary thought.

Now, is it possible that we could see a NATO or US intervention in this war? Or will this mainly be a duke solely between Georgia and Russia?

Nato maybe, but U.S. intervention would be highly unlikely. Iraq and Afganistan have troop strenghs maxed and while its not impossible ,I find it more than improbable that American troops would be committed to georgia.

I doubt the US will do more that chasitze Putin. I also doubt that Nato will get involved for more than anything other than humanitarian aid...at least at this point. No large nation has gotten involved in this yet and since there is nothing the West wants from there chances of involvment are slim to none.

Sad but true.

Russia didn't just randomly attack Georgia. Georgia invaded a Russian territory that George claimed belonged to them, and Russia responded. Georgia really doesn't stand a chance though, unless they receive a lot of foreign help.

hmm..think you may be mistaken there, timi. From 'The Little That I know', i think that Oesetia, the place in question, was part of Georgia; had been flooded with Russian nationals during the Russian Soviet Empire era; Georgia , on the collapse of the Russian Soviet Empire took what had been 'her's' back;Georgia would like to join NATO; the Russian 'Government', the present one, doesnt like it; and are using the presence of so many Russian nationals there as an excuse to go in mob handed. Plus, there might be oil, or some other valuable resource involved. Now, who would have thought that!

Nato involvement. Uh Uh. The UK is the most militarily involved country in NATO. It can barely maintain its committments, now, and some would say, cannot. The other NATO countries just dont want to know. So... no NATO.

But...this is yet another facet of the unfortunate face of modern Russian Nationalism. And it seems to be a hungry Nationalism. This will definitely be one conflict that should be watched closely. Sorry to any of our Russian friends on here but, wtf, you have as bad a taste in leaders, as we do. But your leaders lack the restraint of even our worst, who are restrained by the democractic instittutions that ...restrain them. It would seem.

Always two sides to a coin. But what Chesto is saying makes perfect sense. And I agree with the notion that this incident should be closely watched.

I was reading up on Drudge report some of the places that Russia has hit in Georgia. Seems like Russia is using the same strategy that the US used on Iraq.

Southern Oesetia (which is what Georgia invaded) declared indepedence in 1990. The region that they attacked was primarily made up of Russians and Russian peace-keepers were killed in the act. S. Oesetia doesn't want to be a part of Georgia. Georgia killed Russian citizens. Like it or not, Russia is not the "bad guy" this time, if they ever have been.

Obviously they're trying to join NATO, do you think that this just happened overnight? They want to get the sympathy and aid from the West (Which they already have to some degree, the US has equipped and trained the Georgian military) so that they won't be completely squashed. I don't think you can overlook the fact that Georgia has one of the largest military presences in Iraq, and they've already said that they may have to withdrawl parts of their army from that region.

edit: I've found something that you might find interesting.

Taken from This article,

"At the request of Russia, the UN Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday on a Russian-drafted statement. The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the U.S., Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides "to renounce the use of force," council diplomats said. "

So basically, Russia tried to get a cease-fire together, but thanks to the US, England, and other Western countries, it didn't happen.

Hello, guys! I would like to say that Russia did not attack Georgia! 07 august 2008 at 22:00 Georgia has attacked South Ossetia. At 3:30 08 august 2008 tanks of the georgian army have entered into city Tskhinvali (the South Ossetian capital). All the day long artillery bombardment of a city proceeded, fights with use of tanks, multiple rocket launchers and fighter aircrafts, both against ossetian army, and against peace inhabitants. The government of South Ossetia says that more than two thousand civil people already were lost. The republican clinical hospital in Tskhinvali was destroyed by artillery fire as well as the city most part. The university building burns.

They have attacked civilians at night! People in Russia have been shocked! Both, georgian and russian peacekeepers should watch peace and order in South Ossetia. But 07 august 2008 georgian officers and military observers from Georgia leave their posts of peacekeeping forces, referring to the command order. And then all that has begun.

The russian forces have arrived to South Ossetia only in the evening 08 august 2008 to protect russian peacekeepers and civilians from georgian army. No one in Russia wants this war! This is a provocation!

Sorry for my english - this is machine translation.

I was hoping that western people did not blindly believe in what the news info says. It is just simply outrageus that you are saying that the Russia attacked.
President of Georgia at the night before the Olympic games declared that he wants to peacefully resolve the conflict. Yet at the night Georgia attacked. Just imagine the scale of such a lie. It used weapons that by all means should not be used against civilians (system of rapid rocket fire GRAD). They statred killing everyone and even attacked the Russian peacemakers which by all international treatys is a direct act of war (yet i must underline it Russia HAS NOT DECLARED ANY KIND OF WAR against Gergia). First they destroyed the hospital, then the schools and goverment buildings, then everything else. The town is a ruin now.
At the same night Russian has assembled a United Nations Security Council on this matter. And what do you think the resoults was? Nothing. As if they didn't belive that it is happening. Two more times it was assembled and then the lies from Georgia continued. They used the video footage which depicted bombardment of the town, and declared that it is Russia. They are showing the destroyed town and saying that it is Russia. Russia is that, Russia is this, comon people grow up!
Now more than 2000 people (most of them had a Russian passport) of osetia are dead, many are hiding under the ruble of the destroyed town. Georgia destroyed the water damb, to flood the towns basements so that they could smoke out the civilians. Only now, after 2 days they agreed to give a safe corridor for the wounded people. Before that the ware shooting at everything that moves. They even attacked the only Amercian journalist teem, killed the two people, now the only remaining one is in the destroyed hospital where in basements with limited resources they are trying to save whoever and however they can. 3 Russian journalists ware also killed. It's not a war, it's a genocide of osetian people. A genocide that the west supports it seems.
Not only that there is an anti-russia information war as well. Everyone is blaming Russia that is only defending it's citizens. While Russia is the only goverment that realy helps, while other are flaping they lips.
You should have seen how a woman cryes over her dead son that was teared into pieces by GRAD.
My freind was sent to the conflict zone.
....The modern "civilized" world simply disqusts me.


At the end here are some vids for you
how the town now looks
A good explanation of what is happening


P.S. For those who still don't know *sigh* Putin is a prime minister now, Russian president is Dmitriy Medvedev. See, people are thinking that Putin is like Stalin or something.

The UN is a farce, and Nato isn't much more.Unfortunately people will suffer and die and for what? To appease some ones hurt national pride...just another reason for women rulers.

Right..Because it's not like women rulers have a history of incompetence too...right?

Mary Tudor
Mary Stuart
Margret Thatcher
Kim Campbell
Wu Zetian

And so on, and so forth. I hope you don't actually think that women aren't incredibly prideful too. It's quite obvious that many women are as prideful, if not moreso, than their male counterparts.

It's also incorrect to say that ths happened because of a "hurt national pride"..I really don't know where you're getting that from.

Ironically, the most dreadful leader of Soviet Stalin is a georgian.

Honestly, I initially tried making a joke about the Georgia that was invaded and the US state to feign ignorance. Unfortunately I couldn't really come up with anything... So just pretend I did, and that it was funny or something.

Anyway, the only reason why the US might get involved is because there is a major oil pipeline that runs through that country, and that nobody needs more conflict in that part of the world. It would however be ironic if this became some sort of steppingstone for WWIII where it's Russia, China, and a few others VS everyone else. I doubt it'll come to something like that, but never know. It would however be a great way for Bush to go out with a bang instead of a wimper. Not saying it's a good thing, but this generation does seem to need some great conflict or some grand horror to make those with potential rise to the occasion. Afterall, the last two generations have been pretty spoiled, all things considdered.

The whole mess is complicated by Georgia's committment of troops to the Coalition in Iraq. After the US and UK, Georgia holds the #3 seat for troops-on-the-ground in Iraq (which would explain the US & UK's backing of Georgia's balk at the UN resolution). Less than three months ago, there were US Marines in residence on a military installation in Georgia.

Regardless of who attacked whom, and how the conflict is being conducted, the US is very likely to side with Georgia in this matter. The ethics or correctness of the position is irrelevant; US politics are very rarely about ethics or correctness... they tend to be more about expediency and money.

As in so many fields of endeavour , I have already proven my vast ignorance in this. So wont add anything... other than 'truth is the first casualty of war'...and i probably got that wrong too. ...and were'nt Rasputin, and Beria, Georgians, too?

The ethical thing for the US and the UK is to back Georgia up. Not necessarily with military force, but backing them up politically and through other means. Not doing so is like abandoning your best budy when he gets into a fight. It's not about money here; I don't see any dollar signs.



Right. Lets say your Georgia. Regardless of the reason, somebody starts shooting at you. Then that same person comes up to you with an olive branch after unloading several clips of ammo at you. Would you accept that olive branch? I wouldn't; I'd be shooting back at the fart.

Okay, I'm unfamiliar with how the actual shooting started, but if Georgia was the initial agressor, crossing over an established national border (regardless of any historical claims to the land), why would they resist signing a treaty that would require them to renounce the use of force?
Mind you, I'm not certain if Georgia drew first-blood or not.

While it is indeed ethical to honor one's treaties with other countries, is it safe or sane to honor such treaties when the peace is upset by foolishness? Consider the webwork of alliances and treaties that existed on June 28th, 1914, that pulled an entire continent into the maelstrom of war when Gavrilo Princip took a shot at Archduke Franz Ferdinand? All those nations chose to do the "honorable" thing, and abide by their treaty agreements, but where is the balance of Honor -vs- Sanity, when one dead Archduke results in nearly ten million dead, 21 million wounded, and over seven million missing?

As far as money goes, Georgia controls most of the Caucasus mountains and routes through them, and the eastern border of the Black Sea. Azerbaijan lies to the east, and Georgia holds the Baku-T'bilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Baku-T'bilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline, and the Kars-Akhalkalaki Railroad, all bringing energy supplies from central Asia into ports on the Black Sea, and across their southern border with Turkey.
Yep, there's oil involved in this alliance.
Big surprise, eh?

Ah, and great women they were too!
And my comment on hurt national pride was a generalisation about wars in general, please don't take my words out of context,make off hand comments and then assume because I'm a woman I'm stupid
Typical male behavior is what you've just shown and why the world is as it is!
Wars are started by men for the most part,for power and greed and yes!!!! Hurt national pride!
Women are more apt to work things out then to raise a weapon in anger!

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome back to the Battle of the Sexes!
(Relax, Dez... I'm pretty-much on your side, here.)

Within the past two centuries, wars have been started nearly-entirely for control of natural resources. Aside from WWI, I can't bring to mind a war that's begun over hurt national pride.
Wars are predominately started by men, due to demographic percentages of leadership, but let's consider female leaders during times of war (two examples that I can think of quickly).

Margaret Thatcher went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands without undue qualms (granted, Argentina started it by seizing those islands), proving that any national leader will pursue a casus bellum if the situation requires it. Eleanor Roosevelt made countless decisions on behalf of her husband during his extended illness during WWII, handling it quite capably.

I have seen that women, when dealing with difficulties on a person:person level, are indeed more apt to pursue diplomacy before force. When serving as heads of state, however, they can be just as ruthless as any male. This has nothing to do with personal characteristics of gender... this is all about the requirements of the job.
War is just diplomacy taken one step further; when national interests outweigh the prospective losses incurred from use of military force, the leader will hoist the flag for war... and it matters not what sex the leader is.

Sorry, but it just irks me when someone takes what I say out of context and then tries to make it seem like I'm a ditz.
I'm not the brightest star in the sky, but I'm nobodys fool either

Very well said by the way!

Exactly, it's a matter of the will of power instead of sex.

sadly in China the concept of feminism turned out to be a joke, actually I call it pseufeminism， cause more and more chinese women become prostitutes, in one form or another, in the name of feminism and freedom of sexuality. but never mistake that the chinese pseufeminist would ever fall in love with a chinese poorman, no way. you know how much time shoud a common chineseman take to earn sufficient money to marry a chinesewomen? Ten years at least. they chase every chance to marry the rich men and whitemen, they are victims of the rich and power as well as oppressors of the poor. equality can never be the goal they pursue. that's not feminism but egoism.

Its called wanting a better life,thats a common human trait,it belongs to people all over,not just one region of the earth!

I know that, I too have desire of improving my life, but by honest earning.
I don't give a damn about who trade their bodies for money, that's their right, I just can't tolerate they turn back to look down on other hard-working unwealthy people. as your fellow citizen said more than once, "USE" chinesewomen, it's the fact that no one can deny. I don't think there's true love between them, not at all. actually it's absolutely disgusting.
what I said is what I saw, I don't have to bootlick anybody.

If my memory serves they have hated each other for decades, or even longer so I find it hard to talk intelligently or take a side on the subject besides saying that collateral damage is never good & it's been reported that Russia has killed many civilians.

hoots7, I agree completely. However, what I find quite worrying about the Russians is that they are now expanding into Georgia proper, and have despatched a fleet to the Black Sea. Also, the lying and twisting by some officials in interviews has been quite incredible. My personal favourite is that of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov stating without question that Russian troops were not stationed in Georgia proper, and never would be, but then a moment later (after he had been told by the interviewer that his OWN MINISTER OF DEFENCE had earlier told the world press that troops were now assuming positions inside Georgia) claiming that Russian troops had been despatched as a 'peacekeeping' force to areas of Georgia. I just wish that both sides could be honest and upfront, with no exageration and with good clean reporting. The Georgians seem as guilty of this. It all seems so unneccesary when people who just want to live their lives are dying.

I personally think that theInternational Community should be doing far more to engage with both sides, rather than bickering in backrooms and sitting on the fence.

The great Philosopher "Confused" said once (or not, I'm the confused now)

The more someone don't knows about something the more he have to talk about it.

I have learned across my life to place my confidence in the news aways trying to see whom they serves better. Governments have perfected for ages now the marvelous art of propaganda, the no-information, the misinformation and the counter-information.

One must consult with his own bias. To be in the fairness and the justice side isn't aways according that bias, yet standing against it may seen treason to our own principles.

Somewhere I read: War isn't about what is right, war is about what is left.

That like any other struggle for something will be about interests the real victims aren't aways concerned. It will be about resources, it will be about beliefs, it will be about segregation or it will be about mere intolerance, often a mix of these.

There isn't a single answer to all cases, each one carries it's own load of circumstances.

Yet, our is the role to shun abuses the louder we can, we just need care not adding to it.

Georgia STARTED THE CONFLICT. They attacked a city where 90% OF IT'S POPULATION WERE RUSSIAN PASSPORT HOLDERS. If someone did this to the US, people would be saying "go to war! go to war!". Of course, because of anti-russian brainwashing and McCarther-ism, people always view Russia as the "bad guy".


I don't know what you are talking about. Russia called an emergency meeting of the UN safety council BEFORE this incident happened. The US, UK, and other Nato countries backed Georgia though, and it fell through.


Right, because murder, treason, pointless wars etc are all things to be considered "great".


I don't assume that you' stupid because you're a woman. if that's what you meant, you definitely did not clarify.


The only place a woman should rule is in the kitchen.

See? I can make sexist and ignorant comments too. You really have no source for your claim. The truth is, both genders are equally capable of rule.


She was also the one that pushed Bush Sr. to invade Iraq afer it invaded Kuwait, and also urged him to occupy Iraq. Fortunately, had the sense to not go that far. Unfortunately, his son didn't seem to pick up on that.


Wow, it's Confucius, buddy.

"The more someone don't knows about something the more he have to talk about it."

Confucius didn't say like this, though it's indeed a chinese proverb.

I ask you Timihendrix91, why were Russian Peacekeeping forces in Ossetia in the first place? Ossetia is a breakaway province of "Georgia," thus simply by having those peacekeeping forces there, Russia was displaying a sign of aggression against Georgia by supporting a breakaway province in that manor.

Number 2, the US and the UK orders their civilians to evacuate an area that is in conflict. For example, the UK ordered 200 British subjects to evacuate Georgia. The US ordered it's civilians to leave the Lebanon when that conflict started. Russia did not do this, instead they sent "peace keeping forces" In my opinion Russia's being a big hypocrite in this conflict.

BTW, the Ukraine is saying that they are going to block Russian Naval forces. Will Russia attack the Ukraine also? IF they do, then it will remove all doubt that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.

Recent update: The Georgian contingent of troops in Iraq (some 2,000 soldiers) are being returned to Georgia to help fight the Russians. The US is providing airlift assistance, and is currently scrambling to reposition forces to man the checkpoints that the Georgians had occupied.

Link to the Wall Street Journal article;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1218426610...=googlenews_wsj

Now, on the subject of the UK's track-record in Southwest Asia...
T.E. Lawrence (famously known as Lawrence of Arabia) persuaded the Arabs to fight against the Ottoman Empire forces during WWI with promises of assistance and independance. These promises were not backed up by the British government or the League of Nations, and the British Mandate of Mesopotamia (the division of the Ottoman Empire in 1920) installed a High Commisioner (Sir Percy Cox) to govern the territory now known as Iraq. While treaties eventually installed King Faisal II, beginning the brief period of the Hashemite Dynasty, the UK effectively dominated Iraq politically and economically, and the Iraq Petroleum Company (formerly the Turkish Petroleum Company) held a virtual monopoly on Iraqi oil exports from 1925 until 1961, when the new republic-style government (installed by a coup in 1958) nationalized the oil industry, taking most of that petroleum out of British hands.

Now, considering how much money had been lost to the UK when they lost control of Iraq's oil, does anyone wonder why the UK (which just happened to be led by Margaret Thatcher at the time) was so eager to take action against Iraq in 1990, following the invasion of Kuwait?

Like I've said countless times, it's all about natural resources (and money).

I feel that Putin wants to annex Georgia back into communist control. He won't be satisfied with only defeating them. This is Hungary all over again. And let's not forget what happened to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania so long ago. Russia annexed them when they wanted to be free.

Even if Georgia's government made a wrong move and is the root cause of this, Russia has no right to demand the Georgia president be removed and make a blatant attempt to take over the entire nation.

Defeat their soldiers, all well & good - but don't use this as a pretext for annexation.

And the U.S. is not wrong in ferrying the Georgian soldiers back to their homeland. We owe them transportation. They helped us in the War on Terror.

I never said the US was wrong in providing assistance in repatriating Georgian soldiers; I rather doubt that Georgia has airlift assets capable of moving a Battalion+ size element in quick fashion. My concern in that matter is the possibility of said craft being attacked, and possible reprisals for same. (Unlikely, since the route they'll take is coming in from the south, well-away from the range of Russian weapons, but still...)

Personal gripe: Calling the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq "The War on Terror" is pure propaganda and hype. If it looks like a spade, call it a spade. They'd be better titled "The Wars of Vengeance and Oil."

Bush has undoubtedly informed Putin to "back off" of U.S. aircraft anyway. Putin knows he'll have his backside handed to him if he dared to attack our planes.

A "breakaway" nation that contained a huge percentage of russian citizens and that also was in the process of joining russia, just as north ossetia had done.


the US would lose if we invaded Russia, so yeah..


+2

I really hoped the quotes would help...

What really amazes me is "Confused" was take by Confucius (although the similarity was intentional, indeed), worse, it would be take as a blatant error, and even "indeed" was intended to link the said to the name.

But the original intention was achieved. empowered everything that followed. Mainly that part that says about the eager to take positions second an insufficient/malformed base...

Sadly so many people prefers to contribute with first thought answers instead asking/demanding response to well pondered questions.

So I change the statement and make clear "I say" it: "Tis easy to blame/defend things when we think we don't need to answer for our answers" (or we don't perceive/concern what our words are doing).

Forgive me for asking, but just what are you talking about?

How much are you willing to bet on that? That statement right there is the very reason why we lost the Vietnam war.

President Abe Lincoln was told that he wouldn't win against the Confederacy, and guess what happened? FDR and Churchill were told that WWII was a losing battle, and guess what happened?



Personal rant: So 9/11 is propaganda? 3,000 dead in the streets of New York propaganda? I think that's the biggest.... I can't finish that sentence because of forum rules. The War of Terror is not propaganda. The conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan is not about oil. If so, then why did Bush lift the ban on offshore drilling here in the US. Why would we be so adamant about getting away from foreign oil?

And besides, this thread is about Russia and Georgia, not about Iraq, so it's off-topic.

I'm glad you labeled this as a personal gripe. It would actually be a thread hijack to cross over into a discussion of this issue. The thread is about Russia & Georgia.

It leads to two differing opinions as to the real motivations behind the current conflicts. Both sides feel they have the "moral high ground" and will not budge.

So my thought would be let's just agree to disagree, and put that debate to rest here, or else open a separate topic on that issue. I'd rather stay on topic of Russia & Georgia.

Humanbean, my original point was we owed the Georgian soldiers an airlift for helping the United States. They did not have to send soldiers to help, but they did.

I personally believe that Americans should give thanks for and highlight another nation's unselfish help in fighting terrorists. So I was saying this is a way for us to thank them for helping.

Uh, Russia>>>>>Vietnam. Let's not forget that we didn't have our army stretched thin in two wars (We don't even have the amount of soldiers that we need in Afghanistan), and our country didn't have a national debt of 9 trillion dollars. We can't even pay for our wars anymore, we've taken out massive (talking hundreds of billions) of dollars in loans from china.

When you couple all of that with the fact that they have a missile defense system and we don't, I think it's easy to tell who would win.


It is quite well known that saddam had nothing to do with al-quita. The offshore drilling matter is purely politics. Even Bush's own energy expert admitted that it won't make a difference in price until 2026, and that's if we started drilling a couple of weeks ago.

Uhm, reality check, we're the ones with the defense system. There is already speculation that NATO should put it in the Ukraine from recent events. Although I agree with the dept aspect.

Weren't those missiles? I'm pretty sure they were, because Putin said that he would retaliate if they were placed there. I'm talking about a missile shield, anyway.

edit: No, you're right, i remember now. It was a missile defense system. We don't actually have a sattelite defense system though.

响水不开，开水不响。---中国谚语
TXL:The more someone don't knows about something the more he have to talk about it.

you satisfied? I thought you knew something about Confucius, but I was disappointed.

知之为知之，不知为不知，是知也 --- 孔子

TXL： We know something we know, We don't know something we don't know, that's what we know.---confucius，

quoted by Bush president when Iraq war began.


anyway, war is always a bad thing, even worse than earthquake, that's all I know, I read a novel before named "the winner Lost", if there's war, there is no winner but survivor。

I still don't see how that pertains to this thread, at all.

just explain the indirect traslation from chinese above to english, both two sentences have the same meaning。

Well, Off-topic is my fault, you guys go on with R-G Crisis, I hold neutralisation.

Well, either way, the whole thing is a big mess over there. And I'm afraid it won't be resolved any time soon.

Having spent a great deal of time studying the politics and history of Southwest Asia, so-as-to clearly understand my enemies should I (as a US Soldier) be deployed to that theatre of operations, I must disagree with your first paragraph, though I agree with your second. A discussion of Southwest Asia, or of the politics of petroleum, is off-topic in this thread. If you care to discuss those subjects with me via PMs, that's cool.

Regarding the US giving the Georgian soldiers assistance via airlift, once again, I never said it was wrong for us to do so. I simply stated the fact that we were doing so. For all I know, the US Air Force was likely the vehicle that brought those soldiers to Iraq in the first place. At a minimum, we owe them a ride home.

"Mister" is how a Commissioned Officer addresses a Warrant Officer.
My title is "Corporal," if you please.
(Not being snarky; just trying to enlighten you on the vantage-point from which I view things.)

My apologies Corporal, I was unaware of your ranking. Plus I think my language was a little on the strong side, as I was going in a blind rant.

If you disagree, that's fine. I state my opinions, which are, I'll admit, very conservative. I support Bush and what he's doing. Others, such as you, do not. That's fine, but I will state my opinion; I'm an opinionated sob that can't keep his mouth shut.

I agree with the notion that we should give the Georgian soldiers a ride home; I never said I disagreed. In fact, I think it's right for the US to do so.

Back on topic, I personally believe, that with recent events, that the Ukraine should be accepted into NATO, and that the US and the UK need to meet Russia head on politically and back Georgia up. I'm not talking about starting WWIII here, but rather meeting Russia politically.

Also, I didn't say I don't support Bush or what we're doing (hell...he's the Commander-in-Chief... I'm directly supporting his decisions), but I'm very-much a realist when it comes to the rationales for why we take military action. To label those conflicts with a "spin-doctored" title does a disservice to the world.

The difficulty is in attempting to view the conflict through the eyes of one's opponent.
The Georgians, I imagine, see themselves as Freedom Fighters, attempting to reclaim lands that were historically theirs, after decades of distant control by a foreign government being run from Moscow, a government made up of people not from their region, unfamiliar with the demands of daily life in Georgia.
The Russians, I imagine, see themselves as betrayed benefactors, having sheltered Georgia for decades under their defensive plan, having helped develop Georgia's infrastructure, and having contributed much in the way of ideas and education into the region, they are now faced with a defiant-teenager of a southern neighbor who chooses to ally themselves with a former enemy, and who began attacking them for the purpose of gaining a larger allowance.

Important to remember that in any conflict, both sides see themselves as morally superior.
(Helpful when running an RPG also... the Villain is far more interesting when they see themselves as acting righteously.)

I assume Russia must feel threatened by US force bases scattered around her, so her toughness is not only against Georgia but also a signal of warning to US, "don't get any closer”， I guess that's what russians meant to say.

Sidebar comment: Earlier this year, Russia also resumed regular high-altitude long-range bomber practice flights over the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea... flexing their military muscle just to remind everybody that they're still a nuclear power.