the summary of the mainstream media that I read (in SLATE) shows a deep confusion about what the Party Line is concerning Georgia, Russia, and South Ossetia.
first: >All the papers lead with the continuing crisis in the Caucasus, where Russia >yesterday stepped up its advance into Georgian territory, opening a second >front in the four-day-old war. The Washington Post reports that Russian tank >columns left separatist-controlled strongholds and crossed into undisputed >Georgian territory, seizing a town and a military base in the west of Georgia >and advancing on the central town of Gori. USA Today reports that the >country's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, called for immediate international >intervention "to prevent the fall of Georgia." >The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both focus on European and >American efforts to adjust to "a new geopolitical game," presenting Moscow's >aggression as a bid to turn back the clock to a time when Russia's regional >hegemony went unchallenged. In a conference call, a senior U.S. government >official explicitly compared the conflict to Soviet-era invasions of >Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia. The Los Angeles Times reports that President >Bush gave an unusually blunt address in the Rose Garden, demanding that Russia >halt its "dramatic and brutal" invasion; he did not, however, offer any >indication of what action he would take if Moscow did not comply. >Russia's first military forays into Georgia proper marked a major escalation >of the regional conflict, forcing Georgian troops to retreat toward the >country's capital, Tbilisi, and prompting thousands of residents to flee their >homes. According to Georgian sources, by late last night invading troops had >come within 40 miles of Tbilisi. Russian officials denied the reports, and it >remained unclear whether Moscow would withdraw or press on and seek to depose >Georgia's elected leaders. >Moscow's aggression highlighted splits in the international community: The WSJ >reports that the United Nations failed to agree on a draft resolution calling >for a cease-fire, while several European nations expressed only muted >criticism of Russia's actions. President Bush, by contrast, issued a robust >statement branding the invasion "unacceptable in the 21st century"; still, as >the LAT points out, the U.S. has ruled out direct military intervention and is >highly unlikely to push for economic sanctions...< but then: >It's true, of course, that Georgia is far from blameless. The NYT profiles the >country's "headstrong and reckless" president, while the LAT argues that the >war is in part the product of Saakashvili's failure to weigh the cost of >thumbing his nose at his northern neighbor. That reflects poorly on the Bush >administration, notes the WSJ: President Bush apparently gave Saakashvili >unrealistic expectations about the support he could expect from the West, and >State Department officials failed to convince the Georgian leader to show >restraint. < talking about Russian aggression (twice) but then the need for Georgia to show restraint? -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
