Russia has a point

The Russian invasion and bombardment of Georgia represents a dangerous escalation of Russia's years-long campaign of bullying and intimidation aimed at re-asserting influence over the former subject states which broke away from its control in 1989 and 1991. It's no surprise that others among those former subject states, such as Estonia, Ukraine, and Poland, have been among the most vocal in calling for support for Georgia. They know their giant neighbor very well, and fear that their own situation will become more dangerous if Russia gets away with its aggression in the Caucasus. Indeed, I have no doubt that the attack on Georgia is partly intended as a test of will similar to the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 -- a move to see how far Russia can assert itself against international norms without provoking a serious response from the democracies.

All this being said, the fact remains that Russia has a legitimate point in this case.

The people of South Ossetia (and of Abkhazia, another breakway province in Georgia) are not ethnically Georgian, and they have never wanted to be part of Georgia. Soon after Georgia became independent in 1991, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia established de facto independent splinter states. Georgia's effort to regain control over the two territories is consistent with the general principle of the territorial integrity of sovereign states, but if a referendum were to be held in those provinces to let their people decide whether to live under Georgian or Russian rule, Russia would win, probably in a landslide. Russia is violating Georgia's territorial integrity, but it is on the side of the popular will in the territories under dispute.

This principle of popular will trumping territorial integrity is one which the United States itself has endorsed before, in a case which still deeply rankles Russians: Kosovo. Kosovo is, or rather was, a province of Serbia, and remained part of Serbia when Yugoslavia broke up. However, its population is about 90% ethnic Albanian (and Muslim), not Serb, and it has sustained a serious popular drive for independence from Serbia since the late 1980s. Over time the West came to support Kosovo's independence based on the fact that this was the clear will of most of its people, while Russia has strongly backed Serbia, its long-time ally and fellow Slavic-speaking country (Russia is by far the largest Slavic nation, and its self-image as the "big brother" of smaller Slavic countries such as Serbia looms very large in Russian consciousness). Earlier this year, Kosovo formally declared independence, and has been recognized by most Western countries including the US.

If you were to ask the typical person in the street in Russia about the war in Georgia, I can almost guarantee that his response would be to bring up Kosovo and accuse the US of hypocrisy. If the US could support the independence of Kosovo based on the will of its people and their ethnic distinctness from the larger state of which they were part, why can't Russia do the same with South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

True, this would be a dangerous precedent. If Russia's gambit in Georgia succeeds, the regime might even be tempted to challenge Ukraine for control of the strategically-important province of Crimea; Crimea's population is 54% ethnic Russian (as distinct from Ukrainians who merely speak Russian), and pro-Russian sentiment is vocal there.

But the fact is that there are issues Russia can cite to justify its actions, and the accusation of hypocrisy is not without merit.