Recently I found myself being often asked "what do you think about South Ossetia conflict?"
(a side remark - so often many people don't have a clue some place exists until one day something happens and then everyone seems to be an expert)
I do not particularly support either side, but as always I am frustrated that the media choose to portrait a particular side of the story, not really covering all the facts (both, Russian and Western media)
Australian papers, for example, made no reference to the fact, that it was actually Georgia who launched an attack on South Ossetia, with Russia responding (fairly said, overreacting). And that many of the victims are victims of Georgian assault, and it's not only Russian forces that are the reason for all misplaced and killed...
I found, rather surprisingly, that in this case BBC was reasonably objective, and for those wondering, check out their Q&A on the conflict (they tell it better that I would :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7549736.stmJust a comment on double standards that Russia at least was consistent, in both Kosovo and South Ossetia situation, while West proclaimed support of Kosovo's independence and did not support South Ossetia's, because with this country, their friend is the mainland leader... How do we (and who can, if any?) decide, who is worth having independence, who is not?
As for the summary, here is some good overview, again from BBC, about lessons from South Ossetia conflict:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm(and by saying good, I do not mean pro-russian, no one was really the good, right side in this conflict...)
Labels: opinion, politics, russia and georgia conflict