Wash Post Intern: Coverage of Russia vs. Georgia way way biased

Maybe no need to panic, yet.

From one hour ago: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5inampKzKNMiILi_CTY7Yn8bGsR2g

 

The truce means nothing. Russian forces are still there and more are coming in. Georgia said it will fight if it comes down to it.

 

Given what happened to the U.S. in Iraq, if Russia plans to stay in Georgia, then Vladimir Putin's evil genius has been considerably overestimated.

 

Like it fought when Russia first invaded. They don't have the manpower to do anything to stop the Bear. And the U.S. won't do anything if Russia tries to take Tblisi.

 

Seriously, what would you have the United States do?

Go to that inept organization known as the U.N. Security Council? Russia's also a permanent member. It and China are guaranteed veto votes against any kind of political move to bring the Russians in line.

Impose sanctions against the Russians? Sanctions are sure working great against Iran.

Launch air strikes? The U.S. is already fighting a two-front war and it has no business being in Iraq. You're asking for World War III and a re-instituted draft.

The only form of leverage I can see the United States even having is threatening to recognize Chechnya as an independent country unless Russia gets out of Georgia immediately. Even then, I'd only do it if I were willing to back it up with a formal announcement.

 

She lost me as soon as she typed these words:

 

Look, she's right about this: American journalists were far too quick to run with the "Good vs. Evil" storyline, pulled straight from the Cold War, egged on by John McCain and his "We're all Georgians" bullshit.

 

What do you mean she lost you? That's immature. I don't think the US is evil, and neither is Georgia or Russia. This is a territorial struggle. U.S. does have some culpability for this mess.

The U.S. only exacerbated the situation months ago when George Bush pushed for NATO membership for Georgia (which most of Europe soundly rebuffed). That is a bold move that directly looks to challenge Russia in that region. If Georgia was in NATO, we would be bound by the alliance to defend Georgia militarily against Russia.

Now, the writer leaves out the fact that Russia's giving out passports to South Ossetians is problematic (imagine us giving U.S. passports to mainland Cubans). They are not a part of the Russian Federation, why do they get passports?

I think the media coverage is slanted towards Georgia, but what does she expect? Georgia is an ally of the U.S. Russia is flexing its muscles, that is what this is about. No mention by the writer about the poisoning of Ukranian president (and Pro -West) Viktor Yuschenko that was aided by Russia intelligence. The truth of the matter is that Russia wants to reassert its dominance in Eastern Europe.

If we had a better leaders in Washington we perhaps could combat a resurgent Russia. But, our Secretary of State is over her head (no major accomplishments, and isn't she a Russian expert?) and the administration is distracted with Iraq and an election. Whatever your leanings politically, I think anyone who is honest realizes the George Bush administration has been an absolute disaster diplomatically.

I would just ask the writer of the article if she feels Russia has done anything wrong? I think we all see a problem with incursions into Georgia proper.

 

It's one thing to say the U.S. has "some culpability," but she suggested that Washington was completely to blame for the mess Moscow and T'bilisi got into. That's flat-out irresponsible.

Does the U.S. have some role in what happened in Georgia? Absolutely. Should the U.S. shoulder all the blame? Bullshit.

I've been saying for years that Bush is a disaster. You're preaching to the choir here, Ace.

 

Too many prominent repubs, too close to Georgian prez, and close to the timing of his decision to resort to a military response. I gotta go with the WaPo Russian intern, her unknown track record stacks up better than the record of neocon thugs....

 

I'm ashamed to admit that I knew very little about the Georgia-Russia relationship at the time of the attack, but I have been doing my best to catch up and figure out who was in the wrong.

I have to say that the coverage has been slanted toward the Georgia side and I didn't really understand why. Many of the articles I read were sympathetic to Georgia without giving much of an explanation.

The intern's article at least gives a clear explanation why Russia reacted the way it did. The U.S. coverage has not.