CNN: Georgia signs cease-fire with Russia. Picked this link up from TPM, which headlined it: "Rice Slams Russia, Announces Cease-Fire." Rice flew first to Paris, picked up the cease-fire papers Sarkozy had negotiated with Georgia and Russia, and delivered them to Georgia's president Saakashvili, who had no alternative but to sign them. Evidently not even Rice had the stomach to wait out the birth pangs of a new Caucusus. The consolation prize for their little war was to let Saakashvili and Rice sing a chorus denouncing Russia's vile act in attacking plucky little Georgia. Saakashvili also got in a dig at NATO for turning down Georgian membership in NATO, spoiling his chance to start WWIII. He also said, "Never, ever will Georgia reconcile with the occupation of even one square kilometer of its sovereign territory," to which Rice added, "We support Georgia's sovereignty; we support its independence; we support its territorial integrity; we support its democracy and its democratically elected government." The article includes similar quotes from Bush, including this gem: "bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century." (He should know.)

It should be clear by now that this whole line of posturing is based on a huge and monstrous lie. This war was started by Saakashvili with a nighttime artillery attack on civilian neighborhoods in the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali. It is not clear whether this was intended to panic Ossetes into fleeing the country, but can be viewed as an attempt at ethnic cleansing -- Georgia's ability to hold South Ossetia would certainly be helped by having fewer Ossetes living there. Russia responded to Georgia's aggression, quickly driving Georgia's troops out of South Ossetia. Russia also sent troops into Abkhazia, which Georgia still claims, and entered into Georgian territory to attack positions Georgia had used for launching the war, including occupying the nearby town of Gori. As far as I've been able to tell, Russia has not attacked the Georgian capital of Tbilisi or the US-built pipeline that runs across Georgia.

By continuing to characterize this war as Russia's initiative, Bush and Rice are making it harder for both sides to back down and reduce the tension level. In fact, Bush is still adding to the tension, not just by his rhetoric but by announcing agreement with Poland to stage his ridiculous anti-missile system there. That deal had been held up in face of Russia's vehement objections, so one is tempted to argue that provoking Russia has played into Bush's hands, even if it wasn't much help for Georgia.

Michael Dobbs: 'We Are All Georgians'? Not So Fast. The Washington Post finds someone who actually knows something about this subject. He points out the Ossetians' longstanding fear of Georgian rule, and how Russia is their only support for autonomy. However, he also notes: "Playing one ethnic group off against another in the Caucasus has been standard Russian policy ever since czarist times." And he notes that Putin's high regard for South Ossetian autonomy is at odds with his brutal suppression of Chechen autonomy. He also takes a rare critical look at the US:

The Bush administration has been sending mixed messages to its Georgian friends. U.S. officials insist that they did not give the green light to Saakashvili for his attack on South Ossetia. At the same time, however, the United States has championed NATO membership for Georgia, sent military advisers to bolster the Georgian army and demanded the restoration of Georgian territorial integrity. American support might well have emboldened Saakashvili as he was considering how to respond to the "provocations" from South Ossetia. [ . . . ]

In the meantime, American leaders have paid little attention to Russian diplomatic concerns, both inside the former borders of the Soviet Union and farther abroad. The Bush administration unilaterally abrogated the 1972 anti-missile defense treaty and ignored Putin when he objected to Kosovo independence on the grounds that it would set a dangerous precedent. It is difficult to explain why Kosovo should have the right to unilaterally declare its independence from Serbia, while the same right should be denied to places such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

He then points out that the US is virtually powerless in this matter, "overextended militarily, diplomatically and economically [ . . . ] the American policeman has been loudly lecturing the rest of the world while waving an inreasingly unimpressive baton." Actually, I don't think any amount of military power works here: South Ossetia and Abkhazia have revolted every time Georgia came after them, and no further aggression is going to change that. The only way Georgia wins is through genocide, and that's no victory. On the other hand, give them real independence, and see how long they stay in love with Russia. If forever, so be it. If not, Russia would then have no more claim than Georgia does now. What the US lacks here isn't military, diplomatic, or economic power. It's common sense, decency, and respect for others.

Moon of Alabama: War Sells. Bernhard notes that his hit count has more than doubled since the Georgia war started. He wonders, "Is there a human desire to read about inhuman self?" There's certainly nothing like a war to get your attention, especially one as senseless and stupid as this one -- I don't think I've read or written as much in such concentration since the last time Israel invaded Lebanon. Still, Bernhard has earned his hits. The piece includes links to 11 posts he wrote over the last week, and that skips the one attacking Juan Cole's Salon piece. (Pace Cole, before acting militarily, Russia did appeal to the UN, where evidently the US and UK refused to condemn Georgia or demand a cease fire.) His pieces have been refreshingly sharp and informative -- more pro-Russian than I would venture, but there's plenty of counterweight elsewhere (and sometimes, as with Cole's piece, appears to be gratuitous and wrong, something dropped in to provide a false sense of balance).

Mark Almond: Caucasus Conflict. An Oxford historian who evidently has spent a good deal of time in Georgia. He was asked by several UK publications for comments on the conflict, and noted that his views "usually differed from the 'experts' who had not been there." He publishes three such pieces in this post, providing three slightly different takes depending on how you post the question. For instance, on how this fits into the Cold War framework:

The clash between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia, which escalated dramatically yesterday, in truth has more in common with the Falklands war of 1982 than it does with a cold war crisis. When the Argentine junta was basking in public approval for its bloodless recovery of Las Malvinas, Henry Kissinger anticipated Britain's widely unexpected military response with the comment: "No great power retreats for ever." Maybe today Russia has stopped the long retreat to Moscow which started under Gorbachev.

On the question of how this could blow up into WWIII, he picks a different historical analogy: Sarajevo, 1914. Little countries can't do much damage, unless big countries let themselves get tangled up in their fights, which properly speaking they shouldn't. He quotes Kissinger again: "Great powers don't commit suicide for their allies." Still, the neocon's blind faith in good-vs-evil is something to worry about.

Worse still, western backing for "equip and train" programmes in Russia's backyard don't contribute to peace and stability if bombastic local leaders such as Saakashvili see them as a guarantee of support even in a crisis provoked by his own actions. He seems to have thought that the valuable oil pipeline passing through his territory, together with the Nato advisers intermingled with his troops, would prevent Russia reacting militarily to an incursion into South Ossetia. That calculation has proved disastrously wrong.

He also has some things to say about Georgia's vaunted democracy, which elected Saakashvili with a suspicious 97% of the vote:

Last November the opposition took a thrashing for demonstrating in the street. Dissidents get locked up in crowded jails rife with torture and tuberculosis. Political opponents are packed in the same cramped cells as hardened criminals -- a Soviet way of punishing dissent.

Almond has written about Georgia before. The following is from a November 2007 post, in a section called "The Ceausescu of the Caucasus?":

Rather like Ceausescu towards the fin-de-regime, Saakashvili's nationalist rhetoric has intensified. The Romanian dictator suddenly demanded Russia return Moldova to its rightful owners in 1989, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have become ever more frequent subjects of provocative statements and sudden visits by helicopter to the border zones.

Saakashvili has made increasingly bizarre statements. At the end of August, he assured the media that the Mother of God had personally intervened in Georgian affairs more than once! For instance, the Virgin had acted to thwart a grenade attack on the equally devout George W. Bush when he was in Tbilisi 2005, and again She had prevented a stray missile from exploding earlier in August.

He also has another post, Caucasian Bloody Circle, where he reprints a piece he wrote in 2004, titled "US Blinded by Love for Saakashvili." It's worth reading, especially for the US's long track record of promoting nationalist discord in Georgia -- and for how completely Democrats as well as Republicans have contributed to it. It's like a death wish -- which right now strikes me as a fair description of McCain's politicking on this issue.

Postscript: Didn't want to get started on yet another Georgia post (there have been 5 in the last week), but couldn't resist passing this one along, on the Charles Krauthammer column I mentioned a while back.

Matthew Yglesias: Krauthammer: Russia Must Leave Georgia by 2014 . . . Or Else!. Just read it. And note that he didn't even use the Charlie Wilson's War bit.