I just find it funny that "Russia conquers tiny neighbor" is being treated like some shocking thing that never would have happened if not for US stupidity. Russia conquers tiny neighbor has been the natural state of affairs since before the Soviet Union. Maybe the reason why Clinton and Bush were expanding NATO while Russia was weak is BECAUSE Russia tends to do things like this.

Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner. It wasn't the West that wanted to expand NATO, it was the eastern European countries that wanted desperately to be allowed in. Since Russian independence from the Mongols, it has continually increased the size of its empire. Each tsar was expected to add to the empire. So yes, the loss of empire during the 90’s was very humiliating for the Russians.
The question one has to ask themselves is, if a small, democratic country begs you for protection from a larger, un-democratic neighbor, would you turn your back on them? If the answer is no, then you would be a supporter of NATO expansion and 20th century American foreign policy.

1. The Russia/Georgia situation is complex

2. and certainly not one I have any great understanding of.

3. I do not think my "sneer" is entirely unwarranted.

4. The dialog is being played out in this country casting the Russians as the bad guys, and the Georgians the good, just like in the movies when I was a kid. The cowboys were good, the Indians bad.

Re: #1, we agree.

Re: #3, I'd offer two possibilities. Likeliest is that you have postmodern sensibilities, where sneer quotes always attend concepts like "truth," "objectivity," and "morality;" see #4. (Except, of course, when they don't.)

Or, perhaps, you agree with Putin's and Lavrov's ideas. Judging from actions rather than words, a good outcome involves wrecking Georgia's economy, impoverishing its people, rendering its military impotent, and incapacitating its State.

Why? Pour encourager les autres. See here or here or here. Note that these analysts are very critical of US actions. Yet each manages to retain a moral (not "moral") perspective on events.

#2, possibly correct as well.

you managed to work Hitler into it.

Following you lead son, following your lead :)

and since my post in no way refers to Bush, what is your point?

Undoubtedly. Then again, Hitler almost certainly felt that way.

Hey, that's good Anjin..., you managed to work Hitler into it. You left out Dracula and Caligula, but its early in the day.

Not sure how.

Lemme put it this way;
What are you taking for your BDS?
It's obviously in it's advanced stages, now.

It was you who over-reacted.

Not sure how. Perhaps Clinton's Russia policy was a failure. I think we should have tried much harder to work effectively with Russia on areas of common interest from the moment the Soviet Union dissolved. Russia is a major player, and they are not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Clinton has been out of office a long time, and the Bush administration has has ample time for course corrections. The GOP needs to be willing to make honest appraisals of the failures of the Bush admin, and there have been more than a few. In my view, there has been a pretty consistent effort to pass the buck to Clinton, couched in language designed to create the appearance of even-handedness.

By definition, when a nation's leaders act a certain way, they believe they are doing the just and proper thing.

Undoubtedly. Then again, Hitler almost certainly felt that way.

My threshold, when I refer to "reigning in" would have the bar set to a situation such as The Iraqi conquest of Kuwait. Allowing Saddam to dominate the middle east militaraily was clearly not acceptable. (of course, if Kuwait had been a poor country in Africa, no one would have cared much)

In that case, Saddam's rebuff was met with force that he was not able to cope with, and a fairly good outcome was achieved. GHW Bush handled the situation well, in my view.

The Russia/Georgia situation is complex, and certainly not one I have any great understanding of. I do not think my "sneer" is entirely unwarranted. The dialog is being played out in this country casting the Russians as the bad guys, and the Georgians the good, just like in the movies when I was a kid. The cowboys were good, the Indians bad. The real life situation was vastly more complex.

If we want a more effective foreign policy we to have to move beyond one-dimensional interpretations of complex events, and we need to be more reflective about our own actions and the consequences of use/misuse of our great power. In any case, you post is food for though.

Do you suppose that your ideas on Right and Wrong matches Lavrov's and Putin's? Would they, if your country was sited in Russia's Near Abroad? Do Americans and Western Europeans have a right to advocate policies that don't meet with the new nomenklatura's approval?

"If a nation goes beyond the pale, the others can act to reign them in, via diplomacy, or failing that, force" is the sort of sentence that makes me shudder. By definition, when a nation's leaders act a certain way, they believe they are doing the just and proper thing. They'll bridle at being "reigned in." More than that, they'll rebuff the patronizing foreigners who utter such phrases.

Small and weak countries may find enemies, circumstances, and even allies shoving reign-in down their throats. Especially after atrocious miscalculations. Need any examples? Big, powerful countries, not so much.

As you note, the world isn't a cartoon, and other people act according to their views of their interests. What we (the US, Europe) say they ought to do is of only modest interest, barring reasons to the contrary. Russia will co-operate with the West on Iran, terrorism, Afghanistan, AGW, and nuclear stockpile security on this basis. Or not.

Every so ofter, I find myself in agreement with bit...

It was you who over-reacted.

Putin is Stalin in a well-tailored suit

I have no doubt that Putin can be tough to the point of ruthless. Can you show any evidence that he is another Stalin? I mean, that is a snappy line, but I do not see much behind it.